Why have a Holy Roman Empire?
Tronscend
Browsing in the layman's shelf again ....
"Mankind - 150 000 years of human history" (Cyril Aydon).
(BTW, be forewarned, on p. 131 he does full frontal feudality ...
"... a hierarchy of mutual guarantees and obligations .... of service to his
superior, who could be the lord of the manor .../serving/ on land .... but
also fighting.... " etc.)
In chapter 14, "Europe after Rome", he writes (also on p. 131):
"While the system of feudalism was taking shape, a power struggle of a
different kind was being played out: A struggle for mastery between Church
and State. By the eighth century, many small kingdoms had formed larger
units. The largest of these was the Holy Roman Empire, so named from the
aspirations of its succesive rulers to recreate in their own persons the
glory of the defunct Western empire. The first and foremost of these was the
emperor Charlemagne ..... a series of conquests ..... The 'Holy' element
reflected his achievement in converting to Christianity the subjects of many
small kingdoms.
.... Charlemagne's conquests .... increased the Church's influence and
wealth, but also represented a rival power and a rival (p. 132) claimant
for the loyalty of the millions who now subscribed to the Christian faith.
The centuries that followed witnessed a continual jockeying for power
between emperors and popes. This ... was neatly symbolized by the scuffle at
Charlemagne 's coronation in Rome /800 AD/ when pope Leo III, catching him
unawares, produced a crown and placed it on his head .....
Charlemagne .... left instructions to his successor not to allow this to
happen to him. The symbolism of a pope supplying an emperor's legitimacy was
powerful in a superstitious and chaotic age. ..."
With full amateur alert and excuses in advance to any who might be offended:
- Was the Holy Roman Empire really so named from the aspirations of its
succesive rulers to recreate in their own persons the glory of the defunct
Western empire?
- Is the concept of having an empire really only "I want one, too"? Glory?
Or is there any ... hm, "rational" use for any such super-territorial
entity?
- Did the 'Holy' element reflect his achievement in converting to
Christianity the subjects of many small kingdoms?
- Was the Church's influence and wealth at the time such that the Chruch
represented a power, rival or therwise, to anyone at all? (I thought it was
pretty weak at the time, and that KdG actually went to Rome to help the
pope?)
- Did KdG claim the loyalty of the millions who now subscribed to the
Christian faith?
- In what form did the Church claim the loyalty of the millions who now
subscribed to the Christian faith? In a temporal sense?
- IOW; were KdG and the Church really rivals?
- Was the symbolism of a pope supplying an emperor's legitimacy powerful in
a superstitious and chaotic age?
AFAIK, the rivalry arose with Gregor VII's bid for world domination by the
pope, with the prehistory of Otto I using the church as an internal power
base (...'holy' ...) at the expense of the nobility, and securing this
instrument with the promise that no pope was to be elected without the
counsel of the ruling emperor (....'roman' ...) in order to strenghten the
imperial crown (....'empire' ...). Which sounds quite sensible, apart from
having to reconquer Italy once every generation ("Emperor School, Field
Trip").
So, what's what here?
T
erilar
HRE: it was none of the three, not holy for long if ever, not Roman
(Rome was not part of it), and not much of an empire for most if not all
of its purported existence, at least in terms of how much power the
emperor had over his supposed subjects.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Tronscend
"erilar" <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> skrev i melding
news:drache-00ED68....@news.eternal-september.org...
> Curt may have comments about Carolingian this or that, but I have one on
> HRE: it was none of the three, not holy for long if ever, not Roman
> (Rome was not part of it), and not much of an empire for most if not all
> of its purported existence, at least in terms of how much power the
> emperor had over his supposed subjects.
Isn't that Voltaire's quip from 1756?
Funny, but a bit meagre, innit?
T
erilar
"Tronscend" <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote:
As I said, I was only commenting on the title. As for the rest, it's
been one of my main areas of study for a long time, but my interest is
post-Carolingian and German-centered, even though that has led me into
Italy and even the Holy Land at times 8-)
John Briggs
It was really the Pope conjuring a Western Empire into existence to
counterbalance the influence of the Eastern Empire - at the same time
asserting the papacy's independence from the East and purporting to give
legitimacy to the West. So, it was the Pope's idea, not Charlemagne's -
who was rather embarrassed as he wished to retain good relations with
the Eastern Empire and had to assure the Emperor that he wasn't trying
to usurp his role.
--
John Briggs
Tronscend
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> skrev i melding
news:nMSIn.3117$ER....@newsfe07.ams2...
> On 19/05/2010 02:57, Tronscend wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
....
>
> It was really the Pope conjuring a Western Empire into existence to
> counterbalance the influence of the Eastern Empire - at the same time
> asserting the papacy's independence from the East and purporting to give
> legitimacy to the West. So, it was the Pope's idea, not Charlemagne's -
> who was rather embarrassed as he wished to retain good relations with the
> Eastern Empire and had to assure the Emperor that he wasn't trying to
> usurp his role.
> --
> John Briggs
Thx, fascinating, never heard that story before.
Please allow me to .... associate freely for a few lines.
- I take it this goes for KdG, but not for the Ottonians...?
- Was Clovis a forerunner.... or ...?
I'm not into the history of the Papacy, but what was the extent of the power
of the/a pope?
I have no problems seeing the pope devising political schemes like this,
chartering international unions and all that, detailing relations to
monarchs and emperors .... but what were his instruments for actually doing
anything? Granted that it was the pope's idea, still Charlemagne had to
actually do it - build the Frankian empire. What was in it for him?
MVH,
T
am...@hotmail.com
> Hi,
>
> "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> skrev i meldingnews:nMSIn.3117$ER....@newsfe07.ams2...
>
> > On 19/05/2010 02:57, Tronscend wrote:
> >> Hi,
>
> ....
>
>
>
> > It was really the Pope conjuring a Western Empire into existence to
> > counterbalance the influence of the Eastern Empire - at the same time
> > asserting the papacy's independence from the East and purporting to give
> > legitimacy to the West. So, it was the Pope's idea, not Charlemagne's -
> > who was rather embarrassed as he wished to retain good relations with the
> > Eastern Empire and had to assure the Emperor that he wasn't trying to
> > usurp his role.
> > --
> > John Briggs
>
> Thx, fascinating, never heard that story before.
>
At least one book on Charlemagne (can check author's name) puts a
little bit different spin on the whole episode of C. being surprised,
etc. In author's opinion, this could be a prearranged procedure with C
pretending to be taken by surprise to avoid grumbling from his
Frankish subjects who would not necessarily be happy with him taking a
Roman tittle (thus making non-Germans equal to the Franks).
Author pointed out that C. was NOT a person who liked to be
manipulated and, if he wished, could interrupt the whole ceremony at
any point. Careful selection of a title should not alienate the
Byzantions but, OTOH, could strenghten C's claims regarding
sovereignity over the Southern Italy and over his non-Germanic
subjects.
Can't tell which version is correct.
> Please allow me to .... associate freely for a few lines.
> - I take it this goes for KdG, but not for the Ottonians...?
The Ottonians were in a different position. Among other things, there
was (IIRC) still in existence a carolingian kingdom in the Western
Europe with which they had to co-exist. Their position vs. the Church
and strenght of the Church could be different (I would assume that C
had a stronger one).
Curt Emanuel
news:nZmdner4YYoY2G7W...@telenor.com...
I'm going to apologize in advance for giving the cliffnotes version here - I
can scrounge for more details later.
From an overall perspective, the Church wanted a secular power. There were a
lot of reasons for this but two that seem to be at the top.
First was for its own protection, particularly the Papacy. The Lombards were
a serious threat to the Pope and for decades he had been asking the
Carolingians for help. Finally, in 774 they (apparently) got tired of the
Lombards pushing the envelope and conquered them.
The second was so the Church could enhance its power. The Church seemed to
want a secular power it could control and that would act at the will of the
Church.
This never happened. The Church tried to make it happen but when push came
to shove secular rulers almost always chose their interests over the
Church's - at least in big matters. When their interests coincided rulers
were more than happy to do things with the church's blessing but
self-interest won out most of the time.
Your account has an oversimplification in it that borders on being flatly
wrong. Charlemagne was not the start of the HRE that existed in the 12th
century and later. The Church stuck with the Carolingians as long as it
could but by the 10th century it was clear that East Francia wasn't where
the power was. The Church bailed on the Carolingians and went East where the
HRE eventually formed. Also, Charlemagne never allowed himself to be called
Roman Emperor but "Emperor of the Romans" which is a very different thing.
There's a fair amount of debate over whether Charlemagne knew the crowning
was coming or not. I really haven't taken a firm stand on this myself..
Einhard says he didn't know it was coming and was angry but this was a
common literary topoi of the time - the ruler who tries to deny taking
command (same with vita where a saint tries to refuse an appointment,
usually to a bishopric). Einhard was to Charlemagne what Eusebius was to
Constantine - a "faux refusal" episode for Charlemagne's vita is pretty
consistent with other lives.
--
Curt Emanuel
ceman...@gmail.com
http://medievalhistorygeek.blogspot.com/
Peter Jason
Bloc.
But they were the good old days. Now we have the Muslim
Bloc, and we're all sure-as-hell doomed!
"Tronscend" <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote in message
news:nZmdner4YYoY2G7W...@telenor.com...
Curt Emanuel
news:ht1rsv$ib6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Bleh - make that WEST Francia.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(John Briggs) wrote:
> So, it was the Pope's idea, not Charlemagne's -
> who was rather embarrassed as he wished to retain good relations with
> the Eastern Empire and had to assure the Emperor that he wasn't
> trying to usurp his role.
The whole political situation can be described as confused. At the time
of Charlemagne's coronation there was no Easter Emperor. It was one of
the periods of female rule though I forget who the Empress was. This
meant that by western standards, especially the Pope's there was no
legitimate Emperor. There was also the problem of the Emperor claiming
to have jurisdiction over all the Patriarchs including Rome.
Relationships between the Eastern and Western churches were strained as
well.
Assertions of Papal supremacy were counter to the first among equals
that the Imperial Church had established and only became possible after
the fall of the Western Empire anyway. They were based on the claim that
the Bishop of Rome was in a direct line of Bishops from Peter. There was
also the Donation of Constantine to consider. Whoever came up with the
idea of crowning Charlemagne as Emperor the result was Charlemagne
confirmed the temporal possessions of the Pope in Italy and the Pope
established a claim to be superior to secular monarchs.
It also meant that for the next hundred years or so disputes between
claimants for Holy Roman Emperor involved Italian politics as to become
Emperor required getting the Pope to crown them. I am not going to try
to go into detail from memory but German civil strife got involved with
that of Italy.
Ken Young
am...@hotmail.com
> "Curt Emanuel" <cemanue...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ht1rsv$ib6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote in message
You preempted my question. :-)
Michael Kuettner
"Tronscend" schrieb :
> Hi,
>
Not much time, so I'll keep it short.
> Browsing in the layman's shelf again ....
> "Mankind - 150 000 years of human history" (Cyril Aydon).
> (BTW, be forewarned, on p. 131 he does full frontal feudality ...
> "... a hierarchy of mutual guarantees and obligations .... of service to
> his superior, who could be the lord of the manor .../serving/ on land ....
> but also fighting.... " etc.)
>
OK. Explain Ministeriales, then, Mr. Aydon ;-P
> In chapter 14, "Europe after Rome", he writes (also on p. 131):
> "While the system of feudalism was taking shape, a power struggle of a
> different kind was being played out: A struggle for mastery between Church
> and State. By the eighth century, many small kingdoms had formed larger
> units. The largest of these was the Holy Roman Empire, so named from the
> aspirations of its succesive rulers to recreate in their own persons the
> glory of the defunct Western empire. The first and foremost of these was
> the emperor Charlemagne ..... a series of conquests ..... The 'Holy'
> element reflected his achievement in converting to Christianity the
> subjects of many small kingdoms.
>
Bullshit; the whole paragraph.
> .... Charlemagne's conquests .... increased the Church's influence and
> wealth, but also represented a rival power and a rival (p. 132) claimant
> for the loyalty of the millions who now subscribed to the Christian faith.
Nonsense, again.
> The centuries that followed witnessed a continual jockeying for power
> between emperors and popes. This ... was neatly symbolized by the scuffle
> at Charlemagne 's coronation in Rome /800 AD/ when pope Leo III, catching
> him unawares, produced a crown and placed it on his head .....
> Charlemagne .... left instructions to his successor not to allow this to
> happen to him. The symbolism of a pope supplying an emperor's legitimacy
> was powerful in a superstitious and chaotic age. ..."
>
Total nonsense.
> With full amateur alert and excuses in advance to any who might be
> offended:
> - Was the Holy Roman Empire really so named from the aspirations of its
> succesive rulers to recreate in their own persons the glory of the defunct
> Western empire?
Nope; it was thusly named for several reasons.
a) The Carolingians had dispatched the legal sovereign - the last of
the Merovingians. So they needed some justification for their rule.
b) The Pope was rather glad to deliver this justification. It had 2 major
advantages for him. 1) The Merovingians were friendly with Byzanz;
this changed with the Carolingians
2) The Carolingians had the power to help him in Italy (Langobards, eg).
c) While the Pope needed the Carolingians, Carolus also needed the
church. Think of nearly the whole administration in the Frankia - clergy.
Need to develop new land ? You need monks.
d) Deep faith. The name "Holy Roman Empire" didn't rise from thin air.
"Holy" because it had to protect Christianity.
"Roman Empire" because of the bible. There's a passage in the OT
(Judges, I think) which states that the Antichrist will enter the world
after
3 world empires have come and gone. Those were believed to be the
Persian, the Greek and the Roman empire.
To prevent this, the "Translatio Regni" was needed. So that the Roman
empire remained and Satan doesn't appear.
> - Is the concept of having an empire really only "I want one, too"? Glory?
> Or is there any ... hm, "rational" use for any such super-territorial
> entity?
See d) above for later times.
> - Did the 'Holy' element reflect his achievement in converting to
> Christianity the subjects of many small kingdoms?
No. One of the most important parts of the intitulatio of the emperor
was "Protector Christianitatis".
> - Was the Church's influence and wealth at the time such that the Chruch
> represented a power, rival or therwise, to anyone at all? (I thought it
> was pretty weak at the time, and that KdG actually went to Rome to help
> the pope?)
Exactly. The power only grew after the Carolingians backed the Pope in
Italy.
> - Did KdG claim the loyalty of the millions who now subscribed to the
> Christian faith?
No. He didn't need millions; just the heads of the big clans.
If they were loyal, their followers were loyal, too.
> - In what form did the Church claim the loyalty of the millions who now
> subscribed to the Christian faith? In a temporal sense?
There weren't millions; at that time, only the cities and the old parts of
the
Roman empire were really Christian.
In the territories which never belonged to the Roman empire,
Christianization
was carried by the monasteries, while the cities were missionized before
by the high clergy (bishop).
> - IOW; were KdG and the Church really rivals?
No, see above. You don't do away with a monarch without some justification.
> - Was the symbolism of a pope supplying an emperor's legitimacy powerful
> in a superstitious and chaotic age?
>
Yes. Especially as the administration was clergy.
> AFAIK, the rivalry arose with Gregor VII's bid for world domination by the
> pope, with the prehistory of Otto I using the church as an internal power
Otto didn't use the church as a power base; he used clergy as fiefdom
holders because their children couldn't inherit.
Never forget that in the Frankia not all land belonged to the king;
that's an English anomaly after 1066.
Once his vassal died, the land fell back to the crown. So he used bishops.
> base (...'holy' ...) at the expense of the nobility, and securing this
> instrument with the promise that no pope was to be elected without the
> counsel of the ruling emperor (....'roman' ...) in order to strenghten the
> imperial crown (....'empire' ...). Which sounds quite sensible, apart from
> having to reconquer Italy once every generation ("Emperor School, Field
> Trip").
>
> So, what's what here?
>
That was a short answer.
I'll gladly expand upon specifics.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
erilar
"Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:
> Explain Ministeriales
8-) I read a whole book explaining how that worked in German territory
and I THINK I have a faint grasp of it. . .
Michael Kuettner
"erilar" schrieb :
> "Michael Kuettner" wrote:
>
>> Explain Ministeriales
>
> 8-) I read a whole book explaining how that worked in German territory
> and I THINK I have a faint grasp of it. . .
>
Literate serfs ? Ohmygod ...
The development from unfree clerks to unfree lower nobility takes a book
to describe, yes.
And the later emanciptation to Dienstadel ;-P
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Paul J Gans
Even "free" needs some discussion in all countries in western
Europe.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Tronscend
Danke, erstmals.
"Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> skrev i melding
news:ht4167$cro$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
...
> OK. Explain Ministeriales, then, Mr. Aydon ;-P
Direct line
zum preussischen Beamten ...?
>
>> In chapter 14, "Europe after Rome", he writes >>
> Bullshit; the whole paragraph.
>> .... Charlemagne's conquests .... ....>
> Nonsense, again.
>> The centuries that followed witnessed a continual ...........>>
> Total nonsense.
So ... why this amazing lack of scholarship in the Anglo world?
This guy must also be coming from somewhere (a lot of copying
going on .... in philosophy they usually get stuck with Hume ....).
Is this view a rehash of some older tradition?
>> With full amateur alert and excuses in advance to any who might be
.........>> Western empire?
>
> Nope; it was thusly named for several reasons.
>
> a) b) 2) The Carolingians had the power..
make sense
> c) While the Pope needed the Carolingians, Carolus also needed the
> church. Think of nearly the whole administration in the Frankia - clergy.
> Need to develop new land ? You need monks.
A few lines more on this ...? Is adm tied to literacy? Lists of butter
casks? I.e., what was the adm apparatus, and what did they in fact
administer?
Why monks for developing new land? Do you mean "roden" of new farmland? Or
expansion of adm over conquered new, already farmed land?
> d) Deep faith.
Lovely biblical trivia!
>> - Is the concept of having an empire really only "I want one, too"?
>> Glory?
>> Or is there any ... hm, "rational" use for any such super-territorial
>> entity?
>
> See d) above for later times.
But seriously.... The Roman one was something of a Ponzi scheme,
new conquests to finance the old ... a bit like "the Frontier" in the USA...
But why do heads of state from Sargon to G. Vissarionovitsch Bush expand
beyond national frontiers? "Synergy effects" are hardly to be expected when
infrastructure is so poorly developed and administration therefore of
necessity devours such a huge amount of resources for comparatively little
gain. What's with the hostile takeovers? How many clay hut villages would
one want to rule over; in, say, a marxist perspective?
.....
>> - In what form did the Church claim the loyalty ..../in / a temporal
>> sense?
>
> There weren't millions; at that time, only the cities and the old parts of
> the > Roman empire were really Christian.
.......
But did the Church extract any temporal loyalty? Tithe, yes; legitimacy of
rulers, yes (a somewhat temporal factor); service (like any agricultural
contribution..... tilling, reaping, bee-keeping, carp pond masonry.....);
.... anything military?
Anything?
..... Yes. Especially as the administration was clergy.
Also sense-making.
>> AFAIK, the rivalry arose with Gregor VII's bid for world domination by
>> the pope, with the prehistory of Otto I using the church as an internal
>> power
> Otto didn't use the church as a power base; he used clergy as fiefdom
> holders because their children couldn't inherit.
Allow me to quote .... it is only Wikipedia, OTOH it is a long one...
"Nach der Lechfeldschlacht unternahm Otto einen zweiten Versuch, das Reich
zu konsolidieren, indem er /..../ sich mit der Reichskirche eine weitere
Kraft nutzbar machte. Die immer bedeutender werdende Reichskirche wurde f�r
Otto eine Tr�gerin der K�nigsherrschaft. Sie erhielt zahlreiche Schenkungen,
die nicht mehr nur Grundbesitz, sondern auch k�nigliche Hoheitsrechte wie
Zoll-, M�nz- und Marktrechte umfassten. /.../ Diese Schenkungen blieben zwar
Obereigentum des Reiches, verpflichteten jedoch die Beschenkten zu erh�htem
Dienst f�r K�nig und Reich. Auch waren es die Reichskirchen, die bereits zur
Zeit seines Sohnes und Nachfolgers Ottos II. in Kriegszeiten zwei Drittel
des Reiterheeres stellten,[36] aber auch im Frieden zu Naturalabgaben
(servitium regis) verpflichtet waren. /.../
In den Regierungsgesch�ften vertraute Otto zunehmend seinem j�ngeren Bruder
Brun, der seit 940 Kanzler, seit 951 zugleich Erzkaplan des Reiches und seit
953 Erzbischof von K�ln war. /.../Brun /.../vertrat auch Ottos Interessen
im Westfrankenreich. Er war damit der Prototyp des Bischofs im
ottonisch-salischen Reichskirchensystem: vorbereitet auf die Bischofsw�rde
in der Hofkapelle und damit in den K�nigsdienst eingebunden.
Neben Brun wurde Ottos unehelicher Sohn Wilhelm, seit 954 Erzbischof von
Mainz, eine wichtige St�tze seiner Macht /.../ Weitere wichtige Helfer Ottos
waren der Erzbischof von Hamburg sowie Abt Hadamar von Fulda.
/.../ Ferner wertete Otto die rechtliche Stellung vieler Bisch�fe und �bte
auf. Sie erhielten in ihrem Gebiet die Rechte von Grafen, die Befugnisse der
von ihnen eingesetzten Gerichte wurden ausgedehnt, zudem erhielten sie
zahlreiche Regalien. /.../ Otto I. bef�rderte erstmals vermehrt Hofkapl�ne
auf Bischofssitze. Er sandte Bisch�fe in die Bist�mer, die durch
langj�hrigen Dienst am Hof mit den Reichsgesch�ften vertraut und
untereinander sowie mit dem K�nigshof vernetzt waren. Er beugte so einer
engen Bindung der Bisch�fe an den Adel der Region vor. Aus der Hofkapelle
ging ein neuer, einheitlicher Episkopat hervor, dessen Mitglieder als
ottonische Reichsbisch�fe einen neuen Bischofstyp verk�rperten, der seinen
Dienst in gleicher Weise dem Reich wie der Kirche widmete.
Die ottonische Reichskirche zeichnete sich besonders durch zwei Merkmale
aus: erstens durch eine viel st�rkere Konzentration auf den Herrscherhof und
zweitens durch eine engere Verzahnung von geistlichen und weltlichen
Aufgaben bei den Bisch�fen und Kapl�nen als noch in karolingischer
Zeit.[37]"
No need for apoint-by-point, but Wiki may at least reflect some lowest
common denominator in the appraisal if Otto's Church policy. Is Wiki 20
years (10 months .... 5 weeks...) years behind the newest developments
here?
.....
>
> That was a short answer.
> I'll gladly expand upon specifics.
I think I have more questions than you have time ...
MVH,
T
Tronscend
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> skrev i melding
news:ht4kmr$lo7$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Michael Kuettner <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:
> Even "free" needs some discussion in all countries in western
> Europe.
How so?
Not an is/isn't issue?
T
am...@hotmail.com
am...@hotmail.com
> But seriously.... The Roman one was something of a Ponzi scheme,
> new conquests to finance the old ... a bit like "the Frontier" in the USA...
> But why do heads of state from Sargon to G. Vissarionovitsch Bush expand
> beyond national frontiers?
I probably missed something but (to the best of my totally inadequate
knowledge) the borders of the US did not change under any of the
Bushes.
>"Synergy effects" are hardly to be expected when
> infrastructure is so poorly developed and administration therefore of
> necessity devours such a huge amount of resources for comparatively little
> gain. What's with the hostile takeovers? How many clay hut villages would
> one want to rule over; in, say, a marxist perspective?
Marxist perspective is totally irrelevant for the period from ... er..
Sargon (why start there?) till 1917 so we can look for something less
ideologically-driven. quite often it worked as following. Step 1, you
are feeling that your neighbor can represent a danger (real or
potential) to your state ("danger" may include a simple defiance which
endangers your authority among your subjects). Step 2, you conquered
this neighbor (or forced him to acknowledge your authority). Step 3,
now your border (direct or by proxy) extended and you have to take
into consideration neighbors of the neighbor, etc.
Not occasionally, theory and practice of the 'natural borders' (those
going along the rivers, mountains and other big natural obstacles) was
taken quite seriously even at the risk of getting a seriously mixed
population. Take, for example, repeated attempts of Louis XIV, French
Republic (and even Napoleon III) to get French border on Rhine.
Or look at the Great Game: repeated British attempts to subdue
Afghanistan to secure India from a potential Russian attack. Thousand
miles here, thousand miles there, couple really nasty deserts, major
mountain systems, who cares as long as you have to guard a valuable
piece of a real estate.
Tronscend
<am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:e90938aa-2559-4168...@f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 8:45 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> But seriously.... The Roman one was something of a Ponzi scheme,
> new conquests to finance the old ... a bit like "the Frontier" in the
> USA...
> But why do heads of state from Sargon to G. Vissarionovitsch Bush expand
> beyond national frontiers?
I probably missed something but (to the best of my totally inadequate
knowledge) the borders of the US did not change under any of the
Bushes.
- How true.
But then, things are done in a different way today.
E.g., instead of importing slaves, just keep them in Africa,
where living - and dying - is cheaper<, as is the policing of the fields.
One doesn't have to add Irak as the 50-somethingth state,
just lop of a little kuwait here and a little brunei there,
topple a few governments who don't like that,
and presto, up goes the GNP. (Yeah, yeah, I know.)
>"Synergy effects" are hardly to be expected when
> infrastructure is so poorly developed and administration therefore of
> necessity devours such a huge amount of resources for comparatively little
> gain. What's with the hostile takeovers? How many clay hut villages would
> one want to rule over; in, say, a marxist perspective?
Marxist perspective is totally irrelevant for the period from ... er..
Sargon (why start there?) till 1917 so we can look for something less
ideologically-driven.
- OK, the perspective of Marx, then; and even that as a pars pro toto:
"Follow the money", "Its the economy, stu..dent", etc.
If operations deplete liquidity, bankruptcy will follow soon.
So the trite mechanics of daily running must keep you within the
envelope of viability.
Were all empires about colonial plunder?
And did all empires "pay off" in that sense?
quite often it worked as following. Step 1, you
are feeling that your neighbor can represent a danger (real or
potential) to your state ("danger" may include a simple defiance which
endangers your authority among your subjects). ...
- And this goes for Chlodowech, Karl the Great, the Arab expansion, the
Magyars, the Turks, the Portugese in Zanzibar, the Dutch in the Spice
Islands, the Spanish in Mexico, the the French in Cameroon, the English in
America, the Danish in Trankebar, the Belgians in Congo .... and the Germans
in Italy?
Not occasionally, theory and practice of the 'natural borders' (those
going along the rivers, mountains and other big natural obstacles) was
taken quite seriously even at the risk of getting a seriously mixed
population. Take, for example, repeated attempts of Louis XIV, French
Republic (and even Napoleon III) to get French border on Rhine.
- OK. Is there a correlation between high population - established states as
neighbours .... som ekind of (hydraulics of history) "high pressure areas"?
France/Germany is obviously one. Perhaps Turkey/Russia, too?
Or look at the Great Game: repeated British attempts to subdue
Afghanistan to secure India from a potential Russian attack. Thousand
miles here, thousand miles there, couple really nasty deserts, major
mountain systems, who cares as long as you have to guard a valuable
piece of a real estate.
- Makes very good sense: as a means to another end.
A bit harder to envisage for Temujin, though.
MVH,
T
Tronscend
PS:
> Sargon (why start there?) ...
Because Tighlat-Pileser III is harder to type,
and has no alliterative bond to "Stalin".
Plus, " /..../ Sargon is the first individual in recorded history to create
a multiethnic, centrally ruled empire /.../", according to Wikipedia. FWIW.
T
Brian M. Scott
<tron...@frizurf.no> wrote in
<news:qfidndx2BvpGSmjW...@telenor.com> in
soc.history.medieval:
>> Michael Kuettner <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:
Precisely.
Brian
Tronscend
Thx.
"Curt Emanuel" <ceman...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:ht1rsv$ib6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Tronscend" <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote in message
> news:nZmdner4YYoY2G7W...@telenor.com...
>> Hi,
>>
...
> The second was so the Church could enhance its power. The Church seemed to
> > want a secular power it could control and that would act at the will of
> the Church.
What if ....
What would be the _secular_ goals of a Church so empowered?
Legislation? (Would the Vatican "sharia" look very different from the
legislation already in place in, say, England or France?) Foreing policy?
Domestic policy? A bit like the Spanich emperors.... Karl V?
> Your account has an oversimplification in it that borders on being flatly
> wrong.
Thought so (didn't know exactly why, though).
T
am...@hotmail.com
> <a...@hotmail.com> skrev i meldingnews:e90938aa-2559-4168...@f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On May 20, 8:45 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
> PS:
>
> > Sargon (why start there?) ...
>
> Because Tighlat-Pileser III is harder to type,
> and has no alliterative bond to "Stalin".
It looks like you have some kind of obsession with this specific
personage.
Paul J Gans
Because in most western European societies everybody had
restrictions on their behavior of one sort or another.
Even kings were supposed to follow the will of God as
enforced by the Pope and the Pope was subject to a
good talking to by God.
But leaving that, it is clearly true that the peasentry
was limited in their actions. The minor nobility had
to limit their behavior to actions thought suitable by
the major lords, and the major lords were subject to
the King.
And the king was not supposed to make major decisions on
his own, but was to seek the council of his peers, and
usually their agreement.
The closest one could come was the period after the Middle
Ages (enlightement, renaissance and all that) when kings
asserted their absolute rights. The reason why that's
talked about is that no medieval king would ever attempt
to assert his unfettered rights.
Of course, in practice, the upper nobility had a lot more
freedom than Peter Peasant. But that's always been true.
am...@hotmail.com
> On May 20, 8:45 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
> > But seriously.... The Roman one was something of a Ponzi scheme,
> > new conquests to finance the old ... a bit like "the Frontier" in the
> > USA...
> > But why do heads of state from Sargon to G. Vissarionovitsch Bush expand
> > beyond national frontiers?
>
> I probably missed something but (to the best of my totally inadequate
> knowledge) the borders of the US did not change under any of the
> Bushes.
>
> - How true.
> But then, things are done in a different way today.
> E.g., instead of importing slaves, just keep them in Africa,
> where living - and dying - is cheaper<, as is the policing of the fields.
> One doesn't have to add Irak as the 50-somethingth state,
> just lop of a little kuwait here and a little brunei there,
> topple a few governments who don't like that,
> and presto, up goes the GNP. (Yeah, yeah, I know.)
Sorry, can't help you with this: find yourself a professional shrink.
>
> >"Synergy effects" are hardly to be expected when
> > infrastructure is so poorly developed and administration therefore of
> > necessity devours such a huge amount of resources for comparatively little
> > gain. What's with the hostile takeovers? How many clay hut villages would
> > one want to rule over; in, say, a marxist perspective?
>
> Marxist perspective is totally irrelevant for the period from ... er..
> Sargon (why start there?) till 1917 so we can look for something less
> ideologically-driven.
>
> - OK, the perspective of Marx, then; and even that as a pars pro toto:
> "Follow the money",
IIRC, Engels wrote about French 'natural' borders by Rhein from a
strictly military perspective and there was some other drivel from the
same corner related to the 'national principle' (German or Italian).
What I remember about 'following the money' was from Freiederich II of
Prussia who (AFAIK) was not a marxist. Neither were Catherine the
Great, Maria-Theresia and numerous others.
To make it simpler for you, wars and territorial acquisitions made for
profit preceed Marxism for quite a while and Marx was not the 1st who
spelled it out.
>"Its the economy, stu..dent", etc.
> If operations deplete liquidity, bankruptcy will follow soon.
> So the trite mechanics of daily running must keep you within the
> envelope of viability.
> Were all empires about colonial plunder?
Define 'empire'. HRE, AFAIK, did not have colonies (neither did A-H
or, strictly speaking Russian Empire, definitely not the SU) so this
question simply does not make sense.
> And did all empires "pay off" in that sense?
No.
>
> quite often it worked as following. Step 1, you
> are feeling that your neighbor can represent a danger (real or
> potential) to your state ("danger" may include a simple defiance which
> endangers your authority among your subjects). ...
>
> - And this goes for Chlodowech, Karl the Great, the Arab expansion, the
> Magyars,
Never heard that the Magyars had an 'empire'.
>the Turks, the Portugese in Zanzibar, the Dutch in the Spice
> Islands,
And other places ...
>the Spanish in Mexico,
AFAIK, the Spanish Empire went far above and beyond Mexico.
> the the French in Cameroon,
Ditto for the French colonial empire...
>the English in
> America,
... India, Australia, Asia, Africa ...
> the Danish in Trankebar, the Belgians in Congo .... and the Germans
> in Italy?
Which 'Germans' exactly?
>
> Not occasionally, theory and practice of the 'natural borders' (those
> going along the rivers, mountains and other big natural obstacles) was
> taken quite seriously even at the risk of getting a seriously mixed
> population. Take, for example, repeated attempts of Louis XIV, French
> Republic (and even Napoleon III) to get French border on Rhine.
>
> - OK. Is there a correlation between high population - established states as
> neighbours .... som ekind of (hydraulics of history) "high pressure areas"?
> France/Germany is obviously one. Perhaps Turkey/Russia, too?
'HIgh population' in Russia of Ivan the Terrible - Peter I? I don't
think so. Not even 'high pressure areas' which could be applicable to
Mongolia if one accepts Gumilev's theory.
>
> Or look at the Great Game: repeated British attempts to subdue
> Afghanistan to secure India from a potential Russian attack. Thousand
> miles here, thousand miles there, couple really nasty deserts, major
> mountain systems, who cares as long as you have to guard a valuable
> piece of a real estate.
>
> - Makes very good sense: as a means to another end.
> A bit harder to envisage for Temujin, though.
Actually, very easy to 'envisage' this for Genghis Khan.
Tronscend
<am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:410b03f0-6d90-46d6...@a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
:-)
From mentioning him twice...?
Probably a late Lord Of The Rings-effect .... too similar to "Sauron".
I'll pick some other, then ...
T
am...@hotmail.com
> Tronscend <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> >"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> skrev i melding
> >news:ht4kmr$lo7$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> >> Even "free" needs some discussion in all countries in western
> >> Europe.
> >How so?
> >Not an is/isn't issue?
>
> Because in most western European societies everybody had
> restrictions on their behavior of one sort or another.
Ditto for the Eastern European societies.
> Even kings were supposed to follow the will of God as
> enforced by the Pope
And besides this, they had been restricted by the numerous local
'specifics' (one of the most common limitations was inability to
squeeze unlimited amounts of money from theungrateful subjects). Only
very few top honchos ended up as the truly 'absolute' monarchs while
managing to die from the natural causes. Even Imperial Russia was 'an
absolute monarchy restricted by a regicide'. Even Ivan the unPleasant
was somewhat restricted in his actions (could execute whoever he
wanted but never managed to put military and civilian appointments
under total control).
> and the Pope was subject to a
> good talking to by God.
And was restricted otherwise in his dealings with the secular powers.
When <whatever> Pope shown disrespect to Louis XIV (or rather Louis
decided that Pope was not respectful enough) he was forced to mend his
ways.
>
> But leaving that, it is clearly true that the peasentry
> was limited in their actions.
In many countries 'peasantry' was not uniform in the terms of its
social status and degree of (un)freedom.
> The minor nobility had
> to limit their behavior to actions thought suitable by
> the major lords, and the major lords were subject to
> the King.
At least in theory. :-)
>
> And the king was not supposed to make major decisions on
> his own, but was to seek the council of his peers, and
> usually their agreement.
>
> The closest one could come was the period after the Middle
> Ages (enlightement, renaissance and all that) when kings
> asserted their absolute rights.
Even then, very few succeeded in being totally free from any
restrictions. Probably Louis XIV, Peter I. Most of the rest were
subjects to at least some restriction.
>The reason why that's
> talked about is that no medieval king would ever attempt
> to assert his unfettered rights.
Some of them tried but usually with the noticeable absense of success.
Ivan the unPleasant and Henry VIII got reasonably close but Pedro the
Cruel and some other personalities had not been that lucky.
Tronscend
<am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:a2771db9-1b22-4951...@f13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 11:03 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> <a...@hotmail.com> skrev i
> meldingnews:e90938aa-2559-4168...@f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On May 20, 8:45 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
....
> Sorry, can't help you with this: find yourself a professional shrink.
Hey, it's not like it's my idea, I'm not that original.
.....
> - OK, the perspective of Marx, then; and even that as a pars pro toto:
> "Follow the money",
.....
>To make it simpler for you, wars and territorial acquisitions made for
>profit preceed Marxism for quite a while and Marx was not the 1st who
>spelled it out.
My, I seem to have a knack for annoying even the most accomodating.
Sorry.
I use the M*rx-Word as a shorthand for "economical analysis",
since introducing this as a systematic requirement for studying society
is often attributed to him.
(For the record, I'm not a m*rxist, and I don't think economy
is a psychological discipline describing direct motivation ...)
It's my opinion that the economy is the bottom line, and in a
statistically significant majority of cases, it influences history.
Somewhere, somehow ....
>"Its the economy, stu..dent", etc.
> If operations deplete liquidity, bankruptcy will follow soon.
> So the trite mechanics of daily running must keep you within the
> envelope of viability.
> Were all empires about colonial plunder?
> Define 'empire'.
I'm trying .... or, at least, speculating.
I have a) this image of "empire" being one order larger than "nation"
(kingdom, state, country...), which in turn is larger than.... hm .....
ending up with the family, somewhere. "Orders of magnitude", or "levels of
description" (as in atom, molecule, "thing", earth, solar system,
galaxy...). (This may be the false start, right there.)
So the question is, b), what constitutes an entity in political history?
What "forces" or phenomena (if any) bind a group together? Language?
Religion? Culture? Tradition? Borders (aka Geography)? Recent history ("We
just won a War, hooray...")? Economy...?
The next question is, given a and b, what forces inspire or create or
enhance or strengthen or expand or maintain an empire?
Of course, "empire" might not be a "natural kind", in case the above is a
category error, a false class, which leads to ....
>> ....so this question simply does not make sense.
>> And did all empires "pay off" in that sense?
>No.
OK. So .... then why, in the case of one non-paying-off one?
>
> quite often it worked as following. Step 1, you
> are feeling that your neighbor can represent a danger (real or
> potential) to your state ("danger" may include a simple defiance which
> endangers your authority among your subjects). ...
>
> - And this goes for Chlodowech, Karl the Great, the Arab expansion, the
> Magyars,
> Never heard that the Magyars had an 'empire'.
Me neither. But didn't they try? Or what was all that expansion politk
about? They did ride/raid around making a nuisance of themselves in Bavaria
and other places where they were not originally from. Just shopping?
......
>>the Spanish in Mexico,
>AFAIK, the Spanish Empire went far above and beyond Mexico.
Yes, but it did begin somewhere. Was that in Hispaniola, then?
When_did_ the Spanish get an overseas empire? Not as soon as Columbus
stepped onthe beach?
Am i confusing "a region ruled by an emperor" with "an 'international'
sphere of influence"? As in, as soon as a Spaniard beame emperor, his realm
became an empire?
........
> the Danish in Trankebar, the Belgians in Congo .... and the Germans
> in Italy?
> Which 'Germans' exactly?
Let's narrow it down to Otto I.
>
> - OK. Is there a correlation between high population - established states
> as
> neighbours .... som ekind of (hydraulics of history) "high pressure
> areas"?
> France/Germany is obviously one. Perhaps Turkey/Russia, too?
>'HIgh population' in Russia of Ivan the Terrible - Peter I? I don't
>think so. Not even 'high pressure areas' which could be applicable to
>Mongolia if one accepts Gumilev's theory.
OK, just asking, because IIRC there has been more powder and blood wasted
over comparatively small areas in and around the Rhine than most other
places. There has been strife in that (rather smallish) corner of Europe for
nigh on a thousand years.
> Or look at the Great Game: repeated British attempts to subdue
> Afghanistan to secure India from a potential Russian attack. Thousand
> miles here, thousand miles there, couple really nasty deserts, major
> mountain systems, who cares as long as you have to guard a valuable
> piece of a real estate.
>
> - Makes very good sense: as a means to another end.
> A bit harder to envisage for Temujin, though.
> Actually, very easy to 'envisage' this for Genghis Khan.
OK, p'bly my ignorance again, but I didn't get that UK model, that GK's
armies pushed west in order to guard Mongolia qua valuable real estate. Was
there some other manoeuvering going on between him and rival conquistadores
somewhere?
Just skimming that universal source, wiki, on GK, the mongol empire, and
daily life in the mongol empire .... what did they _do_ with it? What did
they want it for? More horses, camels, and goats? Bigger yurts? A nicer
view? It's hard to grasp the motivation.
T
Brian M. Scott
<tron...@frizurf.no> wrote in
<news:wcGdnQVO2akKSmjW...@telenor.com> in
soc.history.medieval:
> "Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> skrev i melding
> news:ht4167$cro$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[...]
>> c) While the Pope needed the Carolingians, Carolus also needed the
>> church. Think of nearly the whole administration in the Frankia - clergy.
>> Need to develop new land ? You need monks.
> A few lines more on this ...? Is adm tied to literacy?
Yes. Specifically, it's tied to record-keeping, which is
*enormously* facilitated by literacy.
[...]
Brian
am...@hotmail.com
> On May 20, 11:03 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:> Hi,
>
> > <a...@hotmail.com> skrev i
> > meldingnews:e90938aa-2559-4168...@f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 20, 8:45 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
> ....
>
> > Sorry, can't help you with this: find yourself a professional shrink.
>
> Hey, it's not like it's my idea, I'm not that original.
I understand that this is not your idea but it does not make that idea
any better.
>
> .....
>
> > - OK, the perspective of Marx, then; and even that as a pars pro toto:
> > "Follow the money",
>
> .....
>
> >To make it simpler for you, wars and territorial acquisitions made for
> >profit preceed Marxism for quite a while and Marx was not the 1st who
> >spelled it out.
>
> My, I seem to have a knack for annoying even the most accomodating.
> Sorry.
OK.
> I use the M*rx-Word as a shorthand for "economical analysis",
> since introducing this as a systematic requirement for studying society
> is often attributed to him.
Results of this 'systematic application' had been pathetic (to be on a
polite side) because he managed to be almost 100% wrong in his
predictions. In the area of analysis his only potential competitor was
his buddy Fritz Engels who predicted (among many other things) that
(a) after the invention of the breech loading rifles no further
significant development in the military technology are possible
(within few decades from introduction of the machine guns, airplanes,
etc.), (b) that armored ships will never pick up because guns are
always more powerful (race fo the ironclads started almost immediately
afterwards), (c) that Austria is going to beat Prussia because Moltke
is a complete idiot (within very few weeks Austro-Prussian War was
over with an opposite result). His numerous predictions about
configuration of the European alliances in the case of the major war
had been very close to those made by the Good Soldier Shweik.
> (For the record, I'm not a m*rxist, and I don't think economy
> is a psychological discipline describing direct motivation ...)
> It's my opinion that the economy is the bottom line, and in a
> statistically significant majority of cases, it influences history.
> Somewhere, somehow ....
Taking into an account that economy is a part of everyday's life,
almost everything is related to it one way or another but it is not
always a motivation. Quite a few wars look as a total insanity from
economy perspective.
>
> >"Its the economy, stu..dent", etc.
> > If operations deplete liquidity, bankruptcy will follow soon.
> > So the trite mechanics of daily running must keep you within the
> > envelope of viability.
> > Were all empires about colonial plunder?
> > Define 'empire'.
>
> I'm trying .... or, at least, speculating.
> I have a) this image of "empire" being one order larger than "nation"
> (kingdom, state, country...), which in turn is larger than.... hm .....
> ending up with the family, somewhere. "Orders of magnitude", or "levels of
> description" (as in atom, molecule, "thing", earth, solar system,
> galaxy...). (This may be the false start, right there.)
Yes, it is. Unless you want to end up with something vague, totally
useless and mostly inapplicable. Like Marx and Engels with their model
of history.
> So the question is, b), what constitutes an entity in political history?
> What "forces" or phenomena (if any) bind a group together? Language?
> Religion? Culture? Tradition? Borders (aka Geography)? Recent history ("We
> just won a War, hooray...")? Economy...?
Brute force? Series of the marriages of convenience?
> The next question is, given a and b, what forces inspire or create or
> enhance or strengthen or expand or maintain an empire?
A lot of things, starting from prestige and all the way down to
economy.
>
> Of course, "empire" might not be a "natural kind", in case the above is a
> category error, a false class, which leads to ....
>
You can safely say that there was a hope of some kind of a gain in any
expansion. Question is what kind of gain(s) we are talking about in
each specific case.
> >> ....so this question simply does not make sense.
> >> And did all empires "pay off" in that sense?
> >No.
>
> OK. So .... then why, in the case of one non-paying-off one?
>
AFAIK, all colonial (and most of other) empires ceased to exist which
may mean that sooner or later 'paying off'' ceased to happen.
>
>
> > quite often it worked as following. Step 1, you
> > are feeling that your neighbor can represent a danger (real or
> > potential) to your state ("danger" may include a simple defiance which
> > endangers your authority among your subjects). ...
>
> > - And this goes for Chlodowech, Karl the Great, the Arab expansion, the
> > Magyars,
> > Never heard that the Magyars had an 'empire'.
>
> Me neither. But didn't they try?
Not, AFAIK. Had been pretty happy with a big-scale banditism. Did not
have enough strenght to built an empire: at the 1st serious encounter
with the reasonably unified Germans had been crushed.
OTOH, it can be said that the Hungarians (before being consumed by the
Ottomans) managed to create a mini-empire (in the terms of
multinational state).
> Or what was all that expansion politk
> about? They did ride/raid around making a nuisance of themselves in Bavaria
> and other places where they were not originally from. Just shopping?
>
Yep. The same as the Avars, Pechenegs, Polovtsy, Tatars of the Crimea,
etc.
> ......
>
> >>the Spanish in Mexico,
> >AFAIK, the Spanish Empire went far above and beyond Mexico.
>
> Yes, but it did begin somewhere. Was that in Hispaniola, then?
> When_did_ the Spanish get an overseas empire? Not as soon as Columbus
> stepped onthe beach?
No. They had been sitting on these islands for quite a while more or
less boiling in their own juice.
BTW, big part of the Spanish Empire was not overseas. Netherlands
alledgedly were bringing more income than Mexico with its gold and
silver. Duchy of Milan, Sicily, Naples, French-Comte also were in
Europe.
> Am i confusing "a region ruled by an emperor" with "an 'international'
> sphere of influence"? As in, as soon as a Spaniard beame emperor, his realm
> became an empire?
Charles V was a questionable 'Spaniard' (his father was an Austrian
and he was born in Ghent) and he was an emperor of the HRE. His
posessions as Habsburg were not officially an empire.
>
> ........
>
> > the Danish in Trankebar, the Belgians in Congo .... and the Germans
> > in Italy?
> > Which 'Germans' exactly?
>
> Let's narrow it down to Otto I.
>
>
>
> > - OK. Is there a correlation between high population - established states
> > as
> > neighbours .... som ekind of (hydraulics of history) "high pressure
> > areas"?
> > France/Germany is obviously one. Perhaps Turkey/Russia, too?
> >'HIgh population' in Russia of Ivan the Terrible - Peter I? I don't
> >think so. Not even 'high pressure areas' which could be applicable to
> >Mongolia if one accepts Gumilev's theory.
>
> OK, just asking, because IIRC there has been more powder and blood wasted
> over comparatively small areas in and around the Rhine than most other
> places. There has been strife in that (rather smallish) corner of Europe for
> nigh on a thousand years.
Yes. Very important for allowing Spanish troops to march from Italy to
the Netherlands. Also important for the French not to let this happen
and (later) to be able to control a big chunk of Germany. Rather
convenient to have as French border (major natural obstacle and
increases distance from border to Paris).
>
> > Or look at the Great Game: repeated British attempts to subdue
> > Afghanistan to secure India from a potential Russian attack. Thousand
> > miles here, thousand miles there, couple really nasty deserts, major
> > mountain systems, who cares as long as you have to guard a valuable
> > piece of a real estate.
>
> > - Makes very good sense: as a means to another end.
> > A bit harder to envisage for Temujin, though.
> > Actually, very easy to 'envisage' this for Genghis Khan.
>
> OK, p'bly my ignorance again, but I didn't get that UK model,
UK (and the Company before it) was simple: <whoever> posessed/
controlled India. The only serious power anywhere within imaginable
reach was Russian Empire. Russian Empire was steadily expanding to the
Central Asia because (a) it needed markets for her goods (which nobody
else would buy) and (b) to defend its border areas against the raiding
Turkomans and other 'locals'. The Brits (some of them, many of them,
all of them) felt that this expansion may eventually bring Russia
close to the Indian borders and thus endanger their rule over India.
They also were of opinion that selling goods to the CAsians is
_British_ natural right. Due to the obvious fact that British
expansion had been steadily bringing Russian even closer to the
British posessions than one-sided Russian expansion would do,
temperature was steadily heating. Until British politicians eventually
started using the bigger maps and figured out that the distances
involved are huge and so are the natural obstacles. :-)
> that GK's
> armies pushed west in order to guard Mongolia qua valuable real estate. Was
> there some other manoeuvering going on between him and rival conquistadores
> somewhere?
G started with conquering the nomadic neighbours because if he did
not, they would conquer him (there was very little stability in the
area). Eventually, he came into the posession of a chunk of the Great
Silk Route. Quite logically, he decided to control the source of the
goodies (Northern China). When this was at least partially
accomplished, he found that all this control means very little because
his Western neighbour, Khwaresm Shah, is not going to cooperate in
keeping the route safely working. Even worse, he (or rather his
subordinate) looted caravan with the goods from China. Being a proto-
Marxist (in the terms of understanding importance of economy), G quite
logically decided that the only course of actions is to conquer
Khwaresmand and secure another important segment of the Route for a
free trade. Increase revenue base as well.
After this was accomplished, he found that, due to the fact that too
many Mongols were too busy fighting for too long, livestock in
Mongolia had been seriously depleted. Quite logically, he started
conquest of the Tankgut kingdom (a lot of animals) to get Mongolia out
of potential food (economic) crisis. At thsi point he died.
>
> Just skimming that universal source, wiki, on GK, the mongol empire, and
> daily life in the mongol empire .... what did they _do_ with it?
With what? With Empire? What everybody else did with their empires?
>What did
> they want it for?
What an average Spaniard, Russian or Brit wanted his empire for? In
most cases, there was very little of a personal profit involved as far
as we are talking about the simple guys. But the glory of having an
empire is a totally different thing! Perhaps later I'll explain this
in MMV. :-)
>More horses, camels, and goats?
Now you are talking! Also perhaps a silk khalat from Samarkand and a
beaver hat from Rus (if one gets REALLY lucky).
> Bigger yurts?
For some. Actually, some got REALLY big yurts.
> A nicer
> view?
Quite possibly. Which would be much more than an average Victorian
Brit could expect to get.
>It's hard to grasp the motivation.
You just listed more than one: bigger yurts, more horses, and the last
but not least, a better view from a bigger yurt.
Tronscend
More silly questions will be forthcoming,
but .... now I've been laughing a lot :-).
T
Curt Emanuel
> Hi,
>
> Thx.
>
> "Curt Emanuel" <ceman...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:ht1rsv$ib6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Tronscend" <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote in message
>> news:nZmdner4YYoY2G7W...@telenor.com...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>
> ...
>
>
>> The second was so the Church could enhance its power. The Church seemed
>> to > want a secular power it could control and that would act at the will
>> of the Church.
>
> What if ....
> What would be the _secular_ goals of a Church so empowered?
> Legislation? (Would the Vatican "sharia" look very different from the
> legislation already in place in, say, England or France?) Foreing policy?
> Domestic policy? A bit like the Spanich emperors.... Karl V?
>
>
>
Hard to say exactly since it didn't happen. I'll give the cop-out, obvious
answer and say the goal would have been to be able to project its power &
authority better. During the Medieval period the Church never had much luck
relying on secular powers to achieve its aims. The Cathar wars ended up as a
de Montfort land-grab and did little to expunge the heresy. The Crusades
were mildly successful at times but they sacked Constantinople despite
explicit instructions to the contrary. Post-medieval the Spanish government
engaged in widespread persecution using The Inquisition as a secular tool -
and during the medieval period you had incidents such as the suppression of
the Templars and Joan of Arc's trial where secular entities used the Church
for their own agendas.
And if the Church had its own secular authority you probably wouldn't have
had all the two-Pope-Periods, Popes having to live in France, etc.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
tron...@frizurf.no (Tronscend) wrote:
> OK. So .... then why, in the case of one non-paying-off one?
It depends on the period. The Achimaen <sp> Empire for example largely
left it's conquests to run themselves as long as taxes were paid on time
and there was no armed rebellion. The exceptions were Egypt and the
Greek colonies. Egypt had to be conquered because it presented a power
base big enough to be a serious threat. The Greek colonies were not
stable and wanted to continue their own rivalries instead of being
obedient subjects. In both cases the cost of subduing and keeping them
subdued was probably more than any tax raised. In both cases the
conquest was due to strategic issues not economic ones. Still the
Empire managed to accumulate a large cash surplus to the point where the
shortage of specie made collecting future taxes difficult. When one
Greek said he feared Persian Archers he was talking about coins not men.
The 19th century German colonial program was more a matter of prestige
than economics. The program was run at a net loss to the state. The UK
ended up in Egypt due to strategic reasons not economic ones. Strategy
was also the reason for colonising St Helena and seizing the Dutch Cape
Colony. Economy was a reason for annexing the Transvaal though. At the
time it seemed likely to fail and owed a lot of money to UK sources.
Both the UK and the Dutch ended up with empires more or less by
accident. The East India company much preferred trade to colonisation.
There was though the concept of mercantilism. That concept was largely
responsible for the Navigation Acts.
Ken Young
am...@hotmail.com
> "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote in message
>
> news:Ob6dnaXUFO2MKmvW...@telenor.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Thx.
>
> > "Curt Emanuel" <cemanue...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
> >news:ht1rsv$ib6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote in message
> >>news:nZmdner4YYoY2G7W...@telenor.com...
> >>> Hi,
>
> > ...
>
> >> The second was so the Church could enhance its power. The Church seemed
> >> to > want a secular power it could control and that would act at the will
> >> of the Church.
>
> > What if ....
> > What would be the _secular_ goals of a Church so empowered?
> > Legislation? (Would the Vatican "sharia" look very different from the
> > legislation already in place in, say, England or France?) Foreing policy?
> > Domestic policy? A bit like the Spanich emperors.... Karl V?
>
> Hard to say exactly since it didn't happen. I'll give the cop-out, obvious
> answer and say the goal would have been to be able to project its power &
> authority better. During the Medieval period the Church never had much luck
> relying on secular powers to achieve its aims. The Cathar wars ended up as a
> de Montfort land-grab and did little to expunge the heresy. The Crusades
> were mildly successful at times but they sacked Constantinople despite
> explicit instructions to the contrary.
And the rulers of Outremer had been doing pretty much what they
wanted.
>Post-medieval the Spanish government
> engaged in widespread persecution using The Inquisition as a secular tool
AFAIK, only one of the tools. Perhaps most advertised but not
necessarily the most effective: Spanish troops had been much more
effective in killing people.
>-
> and during the medieval period you had incidents such as the suppression of
> the Templars and Joan of Arc's trial where secular entities used the Church
> for their own agendas.
>
Well, it probably can be said that in the fighting against the
Imperial power (Stauffens and other) Papacy had been using secular
powers to its own gain. OTOH, these 'secular powers' (various Italian
states) had their own agenda and interests (mostly unwillingness to
acknowledge any _practical_ higher authority) which just happen to
coincide with those of the Papacy.
Only during the short periods (papacies of Alexander Bordgia, Julius
II, perhaps couple more) Papacy managed to build its own military
force capable of solving at least local tasks and even this only as
long as the big regional players (France and Spain/Empire) did not pay
attention.
> And if the Church had its own secular authority you probably wouldn't have
> had all the two-Pope-Periods, Popes having to live in France, etc.
>
> --
> Curt Emanuel
> cemanue...@gmail.comhttp://medievalhistorygeek.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brian M. Scott
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in
<news:coKdnfaX0oxSnWXW...@giganews.com> in
soc.history.medieval:
> In article <38KdnSGDpr8gTGvW...@telenor.com>,
> tron...@frizurf.no (Tronscend) wrote:
>> OK. So .... then why, in the case of one non-paying-off one?
> It depends on the period. The Achimaen <sp> Empire [...]
Achaemenid. Named after Achaemenes (Old Persian Haxāmaniš).
Brian
am...@hotmail.com
> In article <38KdnSGDpr8gTGvWnZ2dnUVZ876dn...@telenor.com>,
>
> tronf...@frizurf.no (Tronscend) wrote:
> > OK. So .... then why, in the case of one non-paying-off one?
>
> It depends on the period. The Achimaen <sp> Empire for example largely
> left it's conquests to run themselves as long as taxes were paid on time
> and there was no armed rebellion. The exceptions were Egypt and the
> Greek colonies. Egypt had to be conquered because it presented a power
> base big enough to be a serious threat. The Greek colonies were not
> stable and wanted to continue their own rivalries instead of being
> obedient subjects. In both cases the cost of subduing and keeping them
> subdued was probably more than any tax raised. In both cases the
> conquest was due to strategic issues not economic ones. Still the
> Empire managed to accumulate a large cash surplus to the point where the
> shortage of specie made collecting future taxes difficult. When one
> Greek said he feared Persian Archers he was talking about coins not men.
>
> The 19th century German colonial program was more a matter of prestige
> than economics. The program was run at a net loss to the state.
> The UK
> ended up in Egypt due to strategic reasons not economic ones. Strategy
> was also the reason for colonising St Helena and seizing the Dutch Cape
> Colony. Economy was a reason for annexing the Transvaal though. At the
> time it seemed likely to fail and owed a lot of money to UK sources.
>
> Both the UK and the Dutch ended up with empires more or less by
> accident. The East India company much preferred trade to colonisation.
Sometimes. AFAIK, there were at least 3 schools of thinking (and
administering) and 'forward' one was pretty much bent on a territorial
expansion even at the expense of bringing steady dividents to the
shareholders. Besides, one of the pre-requisites of a safe trade was
conquest of the territories because this was making trade independent
from the whims of unreliable local rulers: 2 (at least) British
offiers lost their heads at the attempt to make ...er... 'trade
arrangements' with the Emir of Bukhara and much more had beem killed
in Afghanistan.
Not to mention that sometimes interests of a free trade simply
required some forceful methods: it took 2 (or more?) wars to convince
the stubborn Chinese that they must allow import of opium from India
to balance trade deficit resulting from the massive import of Chinese
tea into the GB (when XIX century europeans saw a problem they were
looking for the practical ways to solve it, perhaps modern politicians
could benefit from this example :-) ).
am...@hotmail.com
> In article <coKdnfaX0oxSnWXWnZ2dnUVZ8rOdn...@giganews.com>,
>
> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > The Greek colonies were not
> > stable and wanted to continue their own rivalries instead of being
> > obedient subjects.
>
>
The problem in both cases was in the fact that <whatever> 'central
power' did not posess enough of a military force of its own.
erilar
<6ae545cc-2c2e-4b8d...@l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
am...@hotmail.com wrote:
Exactly why I quibble with the "empire" part of HRE 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Michael Kuettner
"Weland" schrieb :
> Tronscend wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Danke, erstmals.
>>
>> "Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> skrev i melding
>> news:ht4167$cro$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Direct line
>> zum preussischen Beamten ...?
>>
>>>> In chapter 14, "Europe after Rome", he writes >>
>>> Bullshit; the whole paragraph.
>>
>>>> .... Charlemagne's conquests .... ....>
>>> Nonsense, again.
>>
>>>> The centuries that followed witnessed a continual ...........>>
>>> Total nonsense.
>>
>> So ... why this amazing lack of scholarship in the Anglo world?
>
> There isn't. Michael has an anti-Anglo-Saxon (read British and American)
> bias: and it is a bias.
No, he hasn't.
In that case, the author spouts nonsense; nothing to do with AS scholarship.
My "bias" is just an observation that English - speaking scholars tended
to take Britain as pars pro tota[1] for the rest of Europe; a situation that
has become better in the last 2 decades.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
[1] eg. the "Dark Ages", serfs, feudalism
Michael Kuettner
"Weland" schrieb :
Hello,
> Michael Kuettner wrote:
>>
>> "Tronscend" schrieb :
>>> Hi,
<snip>
>> Nope; it was thusly named for several reasons.
>>
>> a) The Carolingians had dispatched the legal sovereign - the last of
>> the Merovingians. So they needed some justification for their rule.
>
> Well, dispatched to a monastery anyway.
Yes, and shorn (both against Frankish law).
>>
>> b) The Pope was rather glad to deliver this justification. It had 2 major
>> advantages for him. 1) The Merovingians were friendly with Byzanz;
>> this changed with the Carolingians
>
> Not so much...there were still good relations, including a considered
> union of houses by marriage in the 780s, broken off by Irene against her
> son's desires late in the decade. Overall, they were on pretty good
> terms, and the Byzantines even gave ol' Chuck a title.
>
Yes, but the Carolingians treated the Byzantines as equals, while the
Merovingians seem to obeyed Byzanz to a certain degree.
>> 2) The Carolingians had the power to help him in Italy (Langobinards,
>> eg).
>>
>> c) While the Pope needed the Carolingians, Carolus also needed the
>> church. Think of nearly the whole administration in the Frankia - clergy.
>> Need to develop new land ? You need monks.
>
> Except the HRE had nothing directly to do with Chuck and gang. The HRE
> was an Ottonian invention, and while they (being Saxons) tied themselves
> and their line to Charlemagne as closely as possible for all sorts of
> reasons and their publicity arm held up the crowning of Chuck in 800 in
> part to justify their own reign over many of Chuck's former domains, the
> HRE was Ottonian, not Carolingian, in origin. So in talking about why the
> HRE was so-named, talking about Chuck and the reasons for papal and
> Carolingian partnership is beside the point.
>
Not really. I mentioned the Translatio regni, which was Carolus' crowning.
So it had directly to do with Carolus.
As I've said, the name didn't materialize out of thin air.
>
> Further, there was no "the church" in the sense that would later develop
> in the 11th century.
Yes, that's true but beside the point.
> Chuck, like most kings of his age, was the head of his church:
No, he wasn't. While he could invest bishops, those bishops were
answerable to the Pope as _bishops_, but to Carolus as _nobles_.
When they committed crimes, they were tried by Canonical law,
not Frankish law.
Rather murky waters ;-)
> he appointed bishops, abbots etc, not Rome.
Not true. The bishops he appointed were nobles in high positions
or clergy from the court chapel (Hofkapelle).
Rome also appointed bishops; look at the Irish mission, for example.
Abbots were appointed by whoever founded the monastery; or in the
Western Frankia, the Pope appointed some, Carolus others.
Depended on the monastery.
> He didn't even need to get permission from Rome or their approval. Most
> of the time, the bishops went to Rome to receive their pallium and a
> blessing from the Bishop of Rome, first among bishops of the West, but the
> super power that the church was to become was not yet envisioned in
> Chuck's day.
Yes. And I didn't claim that.
But nearly all of the administration was clergy, i.e. : the Church.
> So yes, on one level Chuck needed monks for administration, churchmen.
> But they served him quite without the papal blessing he was to receive in
> 800: most of the great religious and educational reforms of Chuck's reign
> were already long in effect by 800.
>
Yes, but those reforms would have been impossible without the aid
of the church. The powerstruggle came much later.
> You also forgot to mention Leo III's political troubles in Rome and how
> Chuck came down on the pope's side, and essentially had Leo's enemies
> rounded up and arrested and restored the pope to his papal throne.
>
Read my first sentence. I gave a short answer.
But as I said, Franks and the pope needed each other.
> A final note: Chuck's title was King of Franks and Lombards and Emperor of
> the Romans....a title he only started using in the last five years of his
> reign. But the "Romans" doesn't refer to Byzantium or any of its lands,
> or Frankish lands, or Lombard lands, etc....it refers to Rome and the
> Italian peninsula. It's later meaning would be greatly expanded, and it is
> the title that is being passed down to the Ottonians who create the "holy
> Roman empire".
>
Yes, "Roman" never meant Byzanz in Europe.
>
>> d) Deep faith. The name "Holy Roman Empire" didn't rise from thin air.
>> "Holy" because it had to protect Christianity.
>
> No: Holy because it was sanctioned and blessed by the Church and ordained
> by God.
>
That's another way to put it.
>> "Roman Empire" because of the bible.
>
> Not really. "empire" because the borders included the lands of many
> different peoples speaking different languages. "Roman" because in the
> 10th century, just as in the fifth and the 19th, laying claim to being the
> inheritors of Rome had political and cultural cache.
>
Nope.
"Reich" never meant that; it's interesting that "empire" seems to
have that connotations. There you see the danger of translations.
> There's a passage in the OT
>> (Judges, I think) which states that the Antichrist will enter the world
>> after
>> 3 world empires have come and gone. Those were believed to be the
>> Persian, the Greek and the Roman empire.
>> To prevent this, the "Translatio Regni" was needed. So that the Roman
>> empire remained and Satan doesn't appear.
>
> This interpretation of that passage so far as I'm aware is 19th century.
Friedrich Prinz doesn't thinks so.
> I'd be interested in primary sources from the 9th or 10th centuries
> interpreting Daniel and Ezekiel in this fashion, and more importantly
> interpreting those passages in such a way as to justify the HRE.
I'll have to look that one up. Could take a little time.
>>
>>> - Is the concept of having an empire really only "I want one, too"?
>>> Glory?
>>> Or is there any ... hm, "rational" use for any such super-territorial
>>> entity?
>>
>> See d) above for later times.
>
> Except that it doesn't fit later times. "empire" as opposed to "kingdom"
> means that the ruler rules different tribes with different languages in
> different lands over an expanse of territory whereas a kingdom rules over
> a single land (or those immediately adjacent), a single tribe, and a
> single language....at least in conception.
No, it doesn't. See above.
"Reich" means a Kaiser who rules over kings.
Think of the later "Deutsches Reich" - a Prussian Kaiser ruling
over the Bavarian king. And no other languages in that reich ...
>>
>>> - Did the 'Holy' element reflect his achievement in converting to
>>> Christianity the subjects of many small kingdoms?
>>
>> No. One of the most important parts of the intitulatio of the emperor
>> was "Protector Christianitatis".
>
> More particularly, protector of Leo III. No one stopped to think that the
> pope, no matter how grateful, had no right to confer the title Imperator
> on Chuck or anyone else. Was Chuck ever called Protector Christianitatis
> during his lifetime or even the century after?
>
Yes, after the coronation the title became part of the intitulatio, AFAIR.
>>> - Was the Church's influence and wealth at the time such that the Chruch
>>> represented a power, rival or therwise, to anyone at all? (I thought it
>>> was pretty weak at the time, and that KdG actually went to Rome to help
>>> the pope?)
>>
>> Exactly. The power only grew after the Carolingians backed the Pope in
>> Italy.
>
> Yes, and even more in the 11th century when the full impact of the Reform
> movement had its effects and had installed a series of popes and church
> and state differed and the church gained even more power.
Yes. Never claimed anything else.
Don't forget that I gave a short version.
>>
>>> - Did KdG claim the loyalty of the millions who now subscribed to the
>>> Christian faith?
>>
>> No. He didn't need millions; just the heads of the big clans.
>> If they were loyal, their followers were loyal, too.
>>
>>> - In what form did the Church claim the loyalty of the millions who now
>>> subscribed to the Christian faith? In a temporal sense?
>>
>> There weren't millions; at that time, only the cities and the old parts
>> of the
>> Roman empire were really Christian.
>
> Depends on what you mean by Christian. But by 800, this claim is no
> longer true. Certainly there were "pagan" survivals, and as for long
> centuries already, fusion of pre-Christian beliefs and practices with
> Christianity, whatever that may mean, but all that syncretism is a far cry
> from claiming that "only the cities and the old parts of the Roman empire
> were really Christian."
>
Hm ? Saxons, Slavs, etc.
Not really Christians, those.
Conversion went that way : The chieftain converts to Christianity,
his "vassals" follow.
But the farmers kept the old ways. That changed only slowly.
And please don't set up straw-men; my sentence below qualifies
about which parts I was talking.
>> In the territories which never belonged to the Roman empire,
>> Christianization
>> was carried by the monasteries, while the cities were missionized before
>> by the high clergy (bishop).
>
> Depends on the area: the British provinces have a hugely different method
> and pattern of conversion. Gaul, Hispania, Italy are by Chuck's time
> Christianized, and even Arianism has for the most part been eradicated as
> the Germanic overlords find it easier to be Catholic like the majority of
> their subjects.
I didn't know Britain was part of the Frankia or the HRE ...
And note that Gaul, Hispania and Italy were all Romanized ...
>>
>>> - IOW; were KdG and the Church really rivals?
>>
>> No, see above. You don't do away with a monarch without some
>> justification.
>
> Wow....um, no, they worked in tandem to largely the same ends. Differences
> occurred, certainly Chuck didn't quite turn out to be the new David that
> his many churchmen tried to fashion him into; nonetheless they worked
> toward the same ends and results.
Justification means : he rules by God's grace.
That's the official version. That Carolus and the Pope scratched each
other's back is obvious.
They needed each other ...
>>
>>> - Was the symbolism of a pope supplying an emperor's legitimacy powerful
>>> in a superstitious and chaotic age?
>>>
>> Yes. Especially as the administration was clergy.
>
> No, not in Charlemagne's period.
Oh, but it was. While the nobles weren't clergy, their administration
was. But then the nobles weren't administration ...
> The clergy of Charlemagne's kingdom were certainly hard at work on
> symbolism Chuck as presiding over a regnum Christianitatis, and much
> else...but it had NOTHING to do with the symbolism of the pope, nor were
> the popes particularly involved.
Of course it had to do with the symbolism of the pope; otherwise,
why fight the Byzantine missionaries (Method was imprisoned in Salzburg,
eg).
If the mission had been to spread Christianity, it wouldn't have mattered
who baptized the haethens ;-)
Realpolitik with divine justification ...
<snip>
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
John Briggs
>
> "Reich" means a Kaiser who rules over kings.
> Think of the later "Deutsches Reich" - a Prussian Kaiser ruling
> over the Bavarian king. And no other languages in that reich ...
And even that is a later interpretation. The only king that the Holy
Roman Emperor had jurisdiction over was the King of the Romans. Not to
mention that "Kaiser" derives from "Caesar" rather than "Augustus"...
Just accept that "Empire" and "Kingdom" were (in some sense) different
types of polity - although how they differed was debated at the time. At
various times it was argued for both France and England that they
contituted empires in their own right.
--
John Briggs
Michael Kuettner
"John Briggs" schrieb :
> On 23/05/2010 14:03, Michael Kuettner wrote:
>>
>> "Reich" means a Kaiser who rules over kings.
>> Think of the later "Deutsches Reich" - a Prussian Kaiser ruling
>> over the Bavarian king. And no other languages in that reich ...
>
> And even that is a later interpretation. The only king that the Holy Roman
> Emperor had jurisdiction over was the King of the Romans. Not to mention
> that "Kaiser" derives from "Caesar" rather than "Augustus"...
>
The sentence should read "Kaiserreich" means a etc.
I'll add another sentence :
"K�nigreich" means a king who rules.
Reich just means realm. Nothing about different languages, etc.
> Just accept that "Empire" and "Kingdom" were (in some sense) different
> types of polity - although how they differed was debated at the time. At
> various times it was argued for both France and England that they
> contituted empires in their own right.
Oh, I accept that. I was just pointing out that "Reich" doesn't carry
the connotations of "empire".
And while "Reich" is translated with "empire", one shouldn't try to transfer
the meanings of the English word to the German one.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
PS : I learned something new. I didn't know that empire implies different
languages.
am...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> "John Briggs" schrieb :> On 23/05/2010 14:03, Michael Kuettner wrote:
>
> >> "Reich" means a Kaiser who rules over kings.
> >> Think of the later "Deutsches Reich" - a Prussian Kaiser ruling
> >> over the Bavarian king. And no other languages in that reich ...
>
> > And even that is a later interpretation. The only king that the Holy Roman
> > Emperor had jurisdiction over was the King of the Romans. Not to mention
> > that "Kaiser" derives from "Caesar" rather than "Augustus"...
>
> Thanks for pointing out my typo.
> The sentence should read "Kaiserreich" means a etc.
> I'll add another sentence :
> Reich just means realm. Nothing about different languages, etc.
>
> > Just accept that "Empire" and "Kingdom" were (in some sense) different
> > types of polity - although how they differed was debated at the time. At
> > various times it was argued for both France and England that they
> > contituted empires in their own right.
>
> Oh, I accept that. I was just pointing out that "Reich" doesn't carry
> the connotations of "empire".
> And while "Reich" is translated with "empire", one shouldn't try to transfer
> the meanings of the English word to the German one.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kuettner
>
> PS : I learned something new. I didn't know that empire implies different
> languages.
HRE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Roman_Empire_ca.1600.svg
or http://beowulfs-tomb.com/frames/images/empire_map.jpg) included
some non-German lands and how many languages had been spoken in
Kaisertum Österreich? The word may or may not imply multiple languages
but practice quite often did.
Michael Kuettner
"Weland" schrieb :
> Michael Kuettner wrote:
>>
>> No, he hasn't.
>> In that case, the author spouts nonsense; nothing to do with AS
>> scholarship.
>> My "bias" is just an observation that English - speaking scholars tended
>> to take Britain as pars pro tota[1] for the rest of Europe; a situation
>> that
>> has become better in the last 2 decades.
>>
<snip>
> Unless of course those scholars work in areas that don't center on
> England. Accusing those who work on matters centered on Britain as being
> Britian-centric is kind of silly.
Feel free to search for any message from me where I commented on
British history; you won't find any.
I just pointed out that British (medieval) historiography is a special case.
I don't know whether Susan Reynold has been translated into German;
but after translation it will be regarded as a good book but not as contro-
versial.
Same with "Dark Ages". It might be fine to use it for Britain (or not ;-P)),
but it's an Anglo-Saxon thing.
I hope I've managed to clarify my points.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
<am...@hotmail.com> schrieb :
On May 23, 10:31 am, "Michael Kuettner" wrote:
> "John Briggs" schrieb :> On 23/05/2010 14:03, Michael Kuettner wrote:
>
> >> "Reich" means a Kaiser who rules over kings.
> >> Think of the later "Deutsches Reich" - a Prussian Kaiser ruling
> >> over the Bavarian king. And no other languages in that reich ...
>
> > And even that is a later interpretation. The only king that the Holy
> > Roman
> > Emperor had jurisdiction over was the King of the Romans. Not to mention
> > that "Kaiser" derives from "Caesar" rather than "Augustus"...
>
> Thanks for pointing out my typo.
> The sentence should read "Kaiserreich" means a etc.
> I'll add another sentence :
> Reich just means realm. Nothing about different languages, etc.
>
> > Just accept that "Empire" and "Kingdom" were (in some sense) different
> > types of polity - although how they differed was debated at the time. At
> > various times it was argued for both France and England that they
> > contituted empires in their own right.
>
> Oh, I accept that. I was just pointing out that "Reich" doesn't carry
> the connotations of "empire".
> And while "Reich" is translated with "empire", one shouldn't try to
> transfer
> the meanings of the English word to the German one.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kuettner
>
> PS : I learned something new. I didn't know that empire implies different
> languages.
HRE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Roman_Empire_ca.1600.svg
or http://beowulfs-tomb.com/frames/images/empire_map.jpg) included
some non-German lands and how many languages had been spoken in
Kaisertum �sterreich? The word may or may not imply multiple languages
but practice quite often did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word does not _repeat, not_ imply multiple languages. Period.
Think along the lines Reich, Bereich, Reichweite.
What languages were spoken inside the realm was irrelevant.
As I've said elsewhere : Be wary of translations and _never_
project the connotations of the word "empire" back to the word
"Reich".
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Brian M. Scott
<Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in
<news:htb92r$124$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
soc.history.medieval:
> "Weland" schrieb :
[...]
>> Not really. "empire" because the borders included the
>> lands of many different peoples speaking different
>> languages. "Roman" because in the 10th century, just
>> as in the fifth and the 19th, laying claim to being the
>> inheritors of Rome had political and cultural cache[t].
> Nope.
> "Reich" never meant that; it's interesting that "empire"
> seems to have that connotations.
I think that Weland has exaggerated the connotations. It
does suggest an extensive territory, especially one that is
an aggregate of several subordinate states, but that's as
far as I'd be willing to go. That is, it typically entails
either rule of a very large territory or supreme rule over
lesser monarchs, or both; but while either of these is
likely to be accompanied by a diversity of peoples and
languages, that diversity itself is not implied by the
English word.
> There you see the danger of translations.
But I believe that the Latin name is <Imperium Romanum
Sacrum>, and the emperor was <Romanorum Imperator Augustus>,
so the real question is what was implied by <imperium> and
<imperator>.
Here is what the OED s.v. <emperor> has to say about
<imperator>:
In post-classical Latin it became the chief official
designation of the sovereign, being interpreted in
the sense of 'absolute ruler' (in Greek <autokr�t�r>).
In this sense it continued to be applied to the rulers
of the Western and Eastern Roman empires until
they severally came to an end. In A.D. 800 when
the Western empire was nominally revived, the
Frankish king Charles the Great (Charlemagne) was
crowned by the pope with the title of imperator,
implying that he was invested with the same
supremacy over European monarchs that the rulers
of the earlier Roman empire had possessed.
[...]
>>> There's a passage in the OT (Judges, I think) which
>>> states that the Antichrist will enter the world after
>>> 3 world empires have come and gone. Those were believed
>>> to be the Persian, the Greek and the Roman empire. To
>>> prevent this, the "Translatio Regni" was needed. So
>>> that the Roman empire remained and Satan doesn't
>>> appear.
>> This interpretation of that passage so far as I'm aware
>> is 19th century.
> Friedrich Prinz doesn't thinks so.
>> I'd be interested in primary sources from the 9th or 10th
>> centuries interpreting Daniel and Ezekiel in this
>> fashion, and more importantly interpreting those
>> passages in such a way as to justify the HRE.
The interpretation apparently goes back to Jerome's
Commentary on Daniel.
[...]
Brian
John Briggs
*Recent* connotations of the word "empire".
--
John Briggs
am...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> <a...@hotmail.com> schrieb :
> On May 23, 10:31 am, "Michael Kuettner" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Briggs" schrieb :> On 23/05/2010 14:03, Michael Kuettner wrote:
>
> > >> "Reich" means a Kaiser who rules over kings.
> > >> Think of the later "Deutsches Reich" - a Prussian Kaiser ruling
> > >> over the Bavarian king. And no other languages in that reich ...
>
> > > And even that is a later interpretation. The only king that the Holy
> > > Roman
> > > Emperor had jurisdiction over was the King of the Romans. Not to mention
> > > that "Kaiser" derives from "Caesar" rather than "Augustus"...
>
> > Thanks for pointing out my typo.
> > The sentence should read "Kaiserreich" means a etc.
> > I'll add another sentence :
> > Reich just means realm. Nothing about different languages, etc.
>
> > > Just accept that "Empire" and "Kingdom" were (in some sense) different
> > > types of polity - although how they differed was debated at the time. At
> > > various times it was argued for both France and England that they
> > > contituted empires in their own right.
>
> > Oh, I accept that. I was just pointing out that "Reich" doesn't carry
> > the connotations of "empire".
> > And while "Reich" is translated with "empire", one shouldn't try to
> > transfer
> > the meanings of the English word to the German one.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Michael Kuettner
>
> > PS : I learned something new. I didn't know that empire implies different
> > languages.
>
> HRE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Roman_Empire_ca.1600.svg
> some non-German lands and how many languages had been spoken in
> but practice quite often did.
>
> The word does not _repeat, not_ imply multiple languages. Period.
> Think along the lines Reich, Bereich, Reichweite.
> What languages were spoken inside the realm was irrelevant.
> As I've said elsewhere : Be wary of translations and _never_
> project the connotations of the word "empire" back to the word
> "Reich".
>
Michael, you obviously missed my point. As you may notice, I was
talking about PRACTICE, not implications or connotations (as in 'does
not have to be by definition but often is'). While the latest German
<whatever> was mostly (if not completely) German-speaking state, the
HRE/Austrian <whatever>/A-H were not and they all had that "reich"
thingy in their names. Based on what you keep saying (and I tend to
trust what you are saying about German lqanguage :-)), the term is
neither here nor there as far as multi-nationalism is involved.
As for 'empire' (as translated to Russian), one of the arguments for
Peter I adopting imperial title was the fact that Russia is a big and
(in modern terms) multinational state (and, military victorious one,
which was seemingly important). Actually, argument of a military glory
was, one way or another, a factor in declaring 1st and 2nd French
Empires and the last German Empire (or whatever it was).
John Briggs
>
> Similarly with Reynolds' Fifes and Vassals:
I keep thinking of the Pied Piper :-)
--
John Briggs
Michael Kuettner
"Weland" schrieb :
> Michael Kuettner wrote:
>>
>> "Weland" schrieb :
>>> Michael Kuettner wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>> No, he hasn't.
>>>> In that case, the author spouts nonsense; nothing to do with AS
>>>> scholarship.
>>>> My "bias" is just an observation that English - speaking scholars
>>>> tended
>>>> to take Britain as pars pro tota[1] for the rest of Europe; a situation
>>>> that
>>>> has become better in the last 2 decades.
>>>>
>> <snip>
>>> Unless of course those scholars work in areas that don't center on
>>> England. Accusing those who work on matters centered on Britain as
>>> being Britian-centric is kind of silly.
>>
>> Feel free to search for any message from me where I commented on
>> British history; you won't find any.
>
> said that you commented on British history. You do however comment on
> British historians. And it is those comments I am calling into question.
>
No, I comment on Anglo-Saxon historiography.
I don't even regard it as bad; just as a little behind the times sometimes.
But by no means bad.
That author, who was quoted at the start of the thread, wrote nonsense.
I point that out regardless of nationality.
>> I just pointed out that British (medieval) historiography is a special
>> case.
>> I don't know whether Susan Reynold has been translated into German;
>> but after translation it will be regarded as a good book but not as
>> contro-
>> versial.
>
> We had a similar discussion re: Patrick Geary's work which you criticized
> for not being original and that continental historians have been talking
> about what he talks about for 20 years, sort of not taking note that Geary
> wrote his ground breaking work 30 years ago--i. e. before continental
> historians really started talking about the things Geary talked about.
<snort> Complete nonsense.
Geary's book lies beside me right now. Along with a randomly picked
book by Eugen Ewig.
There's nothing in Geary's book which Ewig didn't cover (His book
appeared roughly at the same time, maybe some months earlier).
And Ewigs book just states the consensus of the books which were
written before 1988 (yes, for some points as early as the 60ies).
So, while the book might have been ground breaking and new for you, it was
old news over here.
Which doesn't mean that it's shoddy scholarship or badly written;
it's neither. It's a very good book.
I'm glad it was translated; and by a good translator, too.
It's a good book and one I would definitely recommend.
> Similarly with Reynolds' Fifes and Vassals: She wrote the work 16 years
> ago, in part based on an article written by Elizabeth Brown published 35
> years ago now. If after 35 years of intense discussion, Brown and
> Reynold's essential points are no longer controversial, it is because the
> reconsideration of the evidence that those two scholars presented has
> shifted our understanding of the terms and practice of "feudalism."
>
Yes, Anglo-Saxon understanding.
As I've said, it's a good book. But not ground breaking either outside
the English speaking realm. Because the construct of your fiefs and
vassals is a result of AS historiography.
>> Same with "Dark Ages". It might be fine to use it for Britain (or not
>> ;-P)), but it's an Anglo-Saxon thing.
>
> While I remain firmly on the "not" side, I'll note that for the last 50
> years or so, it has been used as a reference to Britain and British
> history, and not to European history as a whole, contrary to your claim.
>
Read the archives of shm.
It was (and sometimes still is) cited for all of Europe.
That's why I always chimed in with "in AS historiography" or "that was
how it was in Britain".
Apart from that, I'm in the "not" camp, too.
>> I hope I've managed to clarify my points.
>
> There was no clarification necessary. We've been through this before, and
> you continue to trot out the same tired old nonsense.
Larry, if you plan to do the Usenet-mode instead of listening,
I'd be sorry. You're one of the most valuable posters flocking to shm
nowadays.
I'd really like to have some discussions after our nemesis (DSH) has gone
on a civil level. I'd like to have some medieval content in here.
So I'll sum up my main points re AS historiography again :
Geary wasn't bad or shoddy. Just not news or ground breaking over here.
Good book, good scholarship.
I see nothing "inferior" in AS historiography; just a slightly different
perspective
and a tendency (which has almost faded away), to use Britain as an example
for all the Medieval times for all of Europe.
Lastly, my take on the events in the Frankia in this thread aren't gospel
truth. I don't believe that my point of view is the TRUTH. Feel free to
contest
any point you like to; just don't get into Usenet-mode.
Thank you.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
"Weland" schrieb :
> Michael Kuettner wrote:
>>
> in the 19th century. We are talking about a term used in early Medieval
> Latin and how that is applied. One would have thought that working in the
> original languages and not reading anachronistically from the 19th to the
> 9th century might have been taught in those fine European schools.
Another strawman. It really gets boring.
Explain "Ostarichi" to me, then. That's from 976.
Hint : You can't win that one. You're simply wrong.
Re your remark about the schools : See my other post.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Michael....@gmx.at (Michael Kuettner) wrote:
> But the farmers kept the old ways. That changed only slowly.
In fact "The Golden Bough" by Fraser has a dated but interesting survey
of pagan remnants in England and Europe. Unfortunately I have the
abridged one volume version without the source notes.
Ken Young
am...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 15:03:18 +0200, Michael Kuettner
> <news:htb92r$124$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
> soc.history.medieval:
>
> > "Weland" schrieb :
>
> [...]
>
> >> Not really. "empire" because the borders included the
> >> lands of many different peoples speaking different
> >> languages. "Roman" because in the 10th century, just
> >> as in the fifth and the 19th, laying claim to being the
> >> inheritors of Rome had political and cultural cache[t].
> > Nope.
> > "Reich" never meant that; it's interesting that "empire"
> > seems to have that connotations.
>
> I think that Weland has exaggerated the connotations. It
> does suggest an extensive territory, especially one that is
> an aggregate of several subordinate states, but that's as
> far as I'd be willing to go. That is, it typically entails
> either rule of a very large territory or supreme rule over
> lesser monarchs, or both; but while either of these is
> likely to be accompanied by a diversity of peoples and
> languages, that diversity itself is not implied by the
> English word.
Poor Nappy would be very surprised if somebody told him that that he
used "the English word" as his title. Probably the same would go for
Peter I. :-)
>
> > There you see the danger of translations.
>
> But I believe that the Latin name is <Imperium Romanum
> Sacrum>, and the emperor was <Romanorum Imperator Augustus>,
> so the real question is what was implied by <imperium> and
> <imperator>.
>
> Here is what the OED s.v. <emperor> has to say about
> <imperator>:
>
> In post-classical Latin it became the chief official
> designation of the sovereign, being interpreted in
> the sense of 'absolute ruler' (in Greek <autokrátôr>).
Brian M. Scott
<Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in
<news:htc8ii$pa4$2...@news.eternal-september.org> in
soc.history.medieval:
> "Weland" schrieb :
>> Michael Kuettner wrote:
[...]
>>> The word does not _repeat, not_ imply multiple
>>> languages. Period. Think along the lines Reich,
>>> Bereich, Reichweite. What languages were spoken inside
>>> the realm was irrelevant. As I've said elsewhere : Be
>>> wary of translations and _never_ project the
>>> connotations of the word "empire" back to the word
>>> "Reich".
>> Except we aren't talking about the word Reich nor about
>> its applications in the 19th century. We are talking
>> about a term used in early Medieval Latin and how that
>> is applied. One would have thought that working in the
>> original languages and not reading anachronistically
>> from the 19th to the 9th century might have been taught
>> in those fine European schools.
> Another strawman. It really gets boring.
> Explain "Ostarichi" to me, then. That's from 976.
996, actually, in the Ostarr�chi-Urkunde: 'in regione
vulgari vocabulo ostarrichi'.
In dieser Urkunde wird also der Name �sterreich bzw.
Ostarr�chi (das ist althochdeutsch �starr�hhi), zum ersten
Mal genannt, er bedeutet (w�rtlich �bersetzt) "Ostreich",
"Reich" allerdings nicht im Sinne von "K�nig- oder
Kaiserreich", sondern im Sinne von "Herrschaftsbereich", und
zwar den �stlich gelegenen Bereich einer Herrschaft oder
Landschaft.
...
Semantisch k�nnte man den Namen Ostarr�chi auch als "K�nigs-
(oder Reichs-) gut im Osten" sehen. Der bayerische
Historiker K. Bosl wies darauf hin, da� dem deutschen
<r�che> im Lateinischen <regnum> entspricht, mit der
Bedeutung "Gebiet unmittelbarer k�niglicher Herrschaft,
K�nigsland, ausschlie�licher K�nigsgut- und
K�nigsherrschaftsbezirk". Dieser Terminus scheint mit
Vorliebe f�r slawisch besiedelte L�nder gebraucht worden zu
sein, die als Gebiete der Eroberung dem K�nig zufielen.
Vielleicht ist dies der Grund, warum ein "Ostergau" im
bayerischen Stammesgebiet fehlt, obgleich es einen "Nordgau"
(n�rdlich von Regensburg), "Westgau" (an der Isar) und einen
"Sundergau" (= S�dgau im Seengebiet) gegeben hat; gerade der
Osten wird sonst bei der Namengebung bevorzugt. So gesehen
k�nnte unser <Ostarr�chi> oder <Osterriche> an Stelle des zu
erwartenden "Ostergaues" stehen. Eine Parallele zu
<Osterriche> ist <Charentariche> oder <Charintariche> =
<regnum Carentanum> (das sp�tere K�rnten), bei dem es sich
um "einen eigenen rechtlich organisierten Macht- und
Verwaltungsbezirk" innerhalb des Fr�nkischen bzw. Deutschen
Reiches handelte.
<http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at//spw/oenf/name2.htm>
[...]
Brian
Tronscend
thx.
"Curt Emanuel" <ceman...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:hut4nn$8f7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Tronscend" <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote in message
> news:RM-dna9m_fMvmY_R...@telenor.com...
>>
>> Ah, the game is afoot.
>> Not uncommon, i.e. sort of widespread (as opposed to valid).
>> So who started spreading it? We'll probably never know, but
>> since he probably at least tries to plagiarize authority in some form ...
>>
>> T
>>
>
>
> I'd guess 17th and 18th century authors. I've seen the idea thrown out
> there - that Medievals were somehow desperate to recreate the Roman
> Empire.
My guess is 19th and 20th century historians, too. One trait of parochials
is the inability to realize that they are. I sort of cheer along mr.
Kuettner in his quest for a realistic appraisal of historical scholarship.
On a general level, however, all this brings us back to "Uses of History",
which has been a subject raised by several posters here, like Renia, that
'merikan right winger who had a brief spate here, etc. To the chagrin of
historians - probably - others like their stories.
>
> This is false - but it's a falseness based on a kernel of truth - IF you
> distort the kernel.
The "How To" Uses of History, involving quite a bit of DIY....
>
> There's plenty of Medieval "good old days" literature out there and one of
> those themes (besides griping about the younger generation, how women
> these days are sluts, how nobody know how to make good beer any more,
> etc.) was yearning for "the glories of Rome."
>
> Problem is, while a few writers might use some flowery prose to talk about
> how great Rome was, when it came to doing anything to actually
> reconstitute the Empire, nobody did a single thing to make it happen. If
> the medievals - the folks in power - had wanted another Roman Empire badly
> enough, there were times when they could have made that happen. They never
> did.
It seems that returning to previous times is a rather difficult undertaking.
The arrow of time is irreversible.
T
Michael Kuettner
> address individuals...like where you mentioned Reynolds, but not her
> reassessment of the evidence for "feudalism".
>
Her reassessment of how "feudalism" was used in AS historiography.
Note the difference.
>> I don't even regard it as bad; just as a little behind the times
>> sometimes.
>> But by no means bad.
>
> That's a start, but to date, you have yet to acknowledge any American,
> British, Australian or Canadian as having broken any new ground. Any
> book or article by a historian of these nationalities is consistently
> stated by you to be behind some German historian. No evidence
> forthcoming, just flat statements that this is the case....and in the
> case of early medieval and "spatantike" to some who actually know
> something about their field.
>
You really have reading comprehension problems.
Contrary to you, with your typical USAn arrogance, I never made claims
about _any_ author being ground breaking.
>> That author, who was quoted at the start of the thread, wrote nonsense.
>> I point that out regardless of nationality.
>
> Good show, though one needed only point out that the author isn't a
> historian but a former businessman who likes to write books about all
> sorts of things.
That's why I just wrote "author", not "historian" or anything else.
Reading comprehension again.
> You might also have noted quite apart from the
> nonsense of the content that in a book supposedly covering 150,000 years
> of human history that the author is well into his account of the
> medieval period at page 131.
Why should I research nonsense ?
> That tells us all we really need to know
> about the author's treatment of the subject. Oh, and the lack of
> footnotes might also have told us something. But yes, whether he was
> English (most likely), German, Indian, or Japanese, what was quoted was
> crap.
Good, here we agree.
>>
>>>> I just pointed out that British (medieval) historiography is a special
>>>> case.
>>>> I don't know whether Susan Reynold has been translated into German;
>>>> but after translation it will be regarded as a good book but not as
>>>> contro-
>>>> versial.
>>>
>>> We had a similar discussion re: Patrick Geary's work which you
>>> criticized for not being original and that continental historians have
>>> been talking about what he talks about for 20 years, sort of not taking
>>> note that Geary wrote his ground breaking work 30 years ago--i. e.
>>> before continental historians really started talking about the things
>>> Geary talked about.
>>
>> <snort> Complete nonsense.
>
> A comment which shows a lot about the state of your knowledge...or
> rather the lack thereof since Ewig himself acknowledges Geary
> appreciatively.
>
Yes, but not as ground breaking.
>> Geary's book lies beside me right now.
>
> You should read it, carefully.
Speak for yourself.
> Along with a randomly picked > book by Eugen Ewig.
>> There's nothing in Geary's book which Ewig didn't cover (His book
>> appeared roughly at the same time, maybe some months earlier).
>
> Really now? Because if it appeared "roughly at the same time" then it
> has to be Die Merowinger und das Frankenreich, in which Ewig builds on
> some of his own previous work, and the works of others to provide a new
> synthesis. One that Geary reached too.
Exactly. That's why I picked the book.
> But your bias shows in that
> rather than leave it as "appeared roughly at the same time" or even
> "both appeared in the same year" you claim without any evidence
> whatsoever "maybe some months earlier." Geary may have appeared some
> months earlier, or they may have appeared on the same day.
Reading comprehension again. I have picked that book because their
publication in the same year makes it highly unlikely (or let's say nearly
impossible) that one used the other author's book for his own book.
>
>> And Ewigs book just states the consensus of the books which were
>> written before 1988
>
> Huh. Really now. That must be why reviews of it at the time by German
> scholars hail it as so ground breaking...because it just really reports
> previous consensus. Interesting way those German academics work,
> eh...to praise a book for being old hat.
>
The phrase I remember is "eröffnet neue Einsichten", "superbes Buch", etc
but no "bahnbrechend".
> (yes, for some points as early as the 60ies).
>
> But the same can be said for Geary. He didn't make up his book out of
> thin air. Some of his points and things on which he built his case had
> been made before. The same is true of any groundbreaking work. They
> don't occur in vacuums. Why are you not aware of this?
>
I'm well aware of your curious claim that Geary was ground breaking.
He wasn't.
If you want to state that Geary was ground breaking for _USAn_
historiography,
do so. No argument from me then.
Just in case you still don't get the point :
This is an _international_ forum. If you want to claim that something is
ground breaking, you'd better show that it's indeed ground breaking
_internationally_.
Now, what's ground breaking ?
-decipherment of the hieroglyphs
-decipherment of Linear-B
-discovery of Göbekli Tepe.
_That's_ ground breaking.
>
>> So, while the book might have been ground breaking and new for you, it
>> was
>> old news over here.
>
> LOL!!!!! So predictable!!! That's why German scholars including Ewig
> cite it favorably...because it was "old news". Really that desperate
> Michael?
>
Not really. Contrary to you, I didn't claim Ewig was ground breaking.
I might even say that he had a big impact on continental historiography.
But - contrary to you - I don't overhype an author just because he
speaks my language.
>> Which doesn't mean that it's shoddy scholarship or badly written;
>> it's neither. It's a very good book.
>
> So good of you to acknowledge that the backward bumpkin could write a
> good book.
>
Reading comprehension problems again, I see.
>> I'm glad it was translated; and by a good translator, too.
>> It's a good book and one I would definitely recommend.
>
> Gee, thanks, delighted to know that a bumpkin some 20 years behind you
> greats wrote something worthwhile.
Reading comprehension problems again.
>>
>>> Similarly with Reynolds' Fifes and Vassals: She wrote the work 16 years
>>> ago, in part based on an article written by Elizabeth Brown published 35
>>> years ago now. If after 35 years of intense discussion, Brown and
>>> Reynold's essential points are no longer controversial, it is because
>>> the reconsideration of the evidence that those two scholars presented
>>> has shifted our understanding of the terms and practice of "feudalism."
>>>
>> Yes, Anglo-Saxon understanding.
>
> Ok, I'll bite. Show me a continental scholar who said the same thing as
> Brown before she did. What book or article. Go ahead. Full credit if
> 20 years before. Scholars, ready to keep Michael honest?
>
Reading comprehension problems again.
She attacked the concept of "feudalism" as used in AS historiography.
And the 20 years - nonsense again. Maybe you should swallow some
tranquilisers before reading ?
>
>> As I've said, it's a good book. But not ground breaking either outside
>> the English speaking realm. Because the construct of your fiefs and
>> vassals is a result of AS historiography.
>
> From what I've seen, Michael, you wouldn't know since you have
> confessed that you don't read "Anglo-Saxon" scholarship and from what
> I've seen you're not up on French and Italian scholarship either.
>
Reading comprehension problems again.
Peter Heather's "Empires and Barbarians" is the next book I'll be reading.
I read French and Italian, btw. But contrary to you I don't claim to be a
specialist in everything.
> So show me a German scholar who reached the same conclusions based on a
> similar review of the breadth of primary evidence before Reynolds, full
> credit if 2 decades or more before.
Reading comprehension problems again.
Why should I defend a claim which I didn'i make ?
Full credit if you start reading what's written.
>>
>>>> Same with "Dark Ages". It might be fine to use it for Britain (or not
>>>> ;-P)), but it's an Anglo-Saxon thing.
>>>
>>> While I remain firmly on the "not" side, I'll note that for the last 50
>>> years or so, it has been used as a reference to Britain and British
>>> history, and not to European history as a whole, contrary to your claim.
>>>
>> Read the archives of shm.
>
> The archives of shm are not reflective of Anglo-Saxon scholarship. The
> person who uses it the most is Renia, whose degree isn't even in
> medieval history, much less specializing in "sub-Roman" Britain or Late
> Antiquity.
>
Well, over the years "Dark Ages" was cited a lot...
>> It was (and sometimes still is) cited for all of Europe.
>
> Evidence from current scholarship?
That's why I said that the situation has changed. Read in context, Larry.
> Let's say a qualified, publishing
> author writing in the last 20 years (1990 to the present) who talks
> about the "Dark Ages" as applying to all of Europe. We are talking
> about scholarship here, so television programs, popular reports,
> newspapers and non-academic magazines, and non-professional posters to
> usenet groups and email lists and bulletin boards are off limits.
>
>> That's why I always chimed in with "in AS historiography" or "that was
>> how it was in Britain".
>> Apart from that, I'm in the "not" camp, too.
>>
>>>> I hope I've managed to clarify my points.
>>>
>>> There was no clarification necessary. We've been through this before,
>>> and you continue to trot out the same tired old nonsense.
>>
>> Larry, if you plan to do the Usenet-mode instead of listening,
>> I'd be sorry.
>
> Me too. I've attempted to be as informative and helpful as I can be in
> your education. Regrettably, some will not learn. Claiming that German
> scholarship is 20 years ahead of Anglo-Saxon scholarship is just false.
Before you try tio educate somebody, learn how to read.
> Some scholars, regardless of nationality or first language, are
> cutting edge and have succeeded in pushing boundaries, others haven't.
> German scholars, Anglo-Saxon scholars, Finnish scholars, Korean
> scholars, South African scholars, French scholars, Italian scholars,
> scholars from Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Greece etc
> all get together at international conferences (some large, some targeted
> to specific topics or regions) and exchange views.
Exactly.
> Anyone who actually
> reads the secondary literature of the period can readily see in British
> and American monographs citations of German, French, and Italian
> scholars (at least by the good ones), and likewise opening a German
> monograph on a topic will cite British and American work.
>
Exactly.
> One can make characterizations: more German and French scholars are
> interested in Merovingian and Carolingian issues than British and
> American, so it stands to reason that there will more German and French
> scholars pushing boundaries and reconsidering current views than British
> and American.
Yes, but when those borders are pushed, noone will claim that they
are ground breaking; or, if they do, they'll specify the context.
Contrary to you.
> But the other is true too: more British and American
> scholars are interested in Britain in that period than German and French
> scholars, so therefore there are more British and Americans who do that
> sort of work, and more who also hold traditional lines. But to claim as
> you have that Anglo-Saxon (by which you mean largely British and
> American) is so compartmentalized and so out of it in comparison to
> German scholarship is simply to show an unfamiliarity with both that is
> shocking and disappointing.
>
Reading comprehension problems again.
I've chosen Ewig as a parallel to Geary because those two offered
a new perspective at the same time.
But I didn't claim that Ewig was ground breaking.
You did that with Geary and that's what I objected to.
Without further qualification, that claim is nonsens.
Get the point now ?
>
> You're one of the most valuable posters flocking to shm
>> nowadays.
>> I'd really like to have some discussions after our nemesis (DSH) has gone
>> on a civil level. I'd like to have some medieval content in here.
>
> Me too. But that doesn't mean I will let mischaracterizations, even on
> topic ones, go by without comment.
Then learn to read the whole of a post before taking sentences
out of context.
>>
>> So I'll sum up my main points re AS historiography again :
>> Geary wasn't bad or shoddy. Just not news or ground breaking over here.
>> Good book, good scholarship.
>
> Just outdated, according to you, because Germans were there first....see
> a pattern there? Have you encountered Agamemnon? Greeks were first in
> everything by millenia? Sound familiar?
>
Reading comprehension problems again. See above.
See my last sentence in this post ...
>> I see nothing "inferior" in AS historiography; just a slightly different
>> perspective
>> and a tendency (which has almost faded away), to use Britain as an
>> example
>> for all the Medieval times for all of Europe.
>
> So while on the one you claim that "AS historiography" is 2 decades
> behind, you don't consider that to be "inferior"? To be consistently
> outdated before even published is not inferior to you?
>
Reading comprehension problems again.
> If all you are really saying is that there is a different perspective,
> that's fine as far as it goes, and unarguable. But your statements
> don't lead me to think that that is all you're saying.
>
Then you should start to read what's written not what you think I mean.
I'll even offer another clue :
I'm no German and I have no reason to love the buggers.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
"Weland" schrieb :
<snip>
>>> Similarly with Reynolds' Fifes and Vassals: She wrote the work 16
>>> years ago, in part based on an article written by Elizabeth Brown
>>> published 35 years ago now. If after 35 years of intense discussion,
>>> Brown and Reynold's essential points are no longer controversial, it
>>> is because the reconsideration of the evidence that those two scholars
>>> presented has shifted our understanding of the terms and practice of
>>> "feudalism."
>>>
>> Yes, Anglo-Saxon understanding.
>
> Ok, I'll bite. Show me a continental scholar who said the same thing as
> Brown before she did. What book or article. Go ahead. Full credit if
> 20 years before. Scholars, ready to keep Michael honest?
>
As a little PS to my other post :
You wanted a book :
Rolf Sprandel : Verfassung und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter
(UTB, ISBN : 3-8252-0461-8), first published in 1975.
"Feudalismus" is shortly discussed in the context of British and Marxistic
historiography. Otherwise, the term isn't used.
The Translatio Imperii is also discussed on page 96.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Brian M. Scott
<Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in
<news:hvb7tv$fp5$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
soc.history.medieval:
> "Weland" schrieb :
>> Michael Kuettner wrote:
>>> "Weland" schrieb :
[...]
>>>> Similarly with Reynolds' Fifes and Vassals: She wrote
>>>> the work 16 years ago, in part based on an article
>>>> written by Elizabeth Brown published 35 years ago
>>>> now. If after 35 years of intense discussion, Brown
>>>> and Reynold's essential points are no longer
>>>> controversial, it is because the reconsideration of
>>>> the evidence that those two scholars presented has
>>>> shifted our understanding of the terms and practice of
>>>> "feudalism."
>>> Yes, Anglo-Saxon understanding.
>> Ok, I'll bite. Show me a continental scholar who said
>> the same thing as Brown before she did.
Reynolds mentions one who apparently said it simultaneously:
van de Kieft, 'De feodale maatschappij'.
>> What book or article. Go ahead. Full credit if 20 years
>> before. Scholars, ready to keep Michael honest?
> Reading comprehension problems again.
> She attacked the concept of "feudalism" as used in AS
> historiography.
And elsewhere: Reynolds specifically mentions Ganshof,
Brunner, Le Goff, van Caenegem, and Cammarosano in the
second footnote on p. 1.
[...]
Brian
erilar
"Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:
> I'm no German and I have no reason to love the buggers.
AND you have no kangaroos running around in the wild, right? 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
am...@hotmail.com
> In article <hvb7tv$fp...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Michael Kuettner" <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> > I'm no German and I have no reason to love the buggers.
>
> AND you have no kangaroos running around in the wild, right? 8-)
>
Balance:
AS World - wild kangaroos AND feudalism. In some places you simply
can't cross the road without a fear of being run over by an armored
feudal riding a wild kangaroo.... (plus a wide-spreaded notion that
every German-speaker is German, every Russian-speaker is Russian,
etc.)
OTOH,
<....Reich> (hopefully, I did not misspell this part of the name) - no
wild kangaroos, no feudalism PLUS very good food and coffee. AND, what
is even more important, all Yorkies are carrying proper red ribbons on
their heads.
:-)
erilar
<70dfcc81-f3ed-43dc...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
am...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 17, 8:19 am, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <hvb7tv$fp...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Michael Kuettner" <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm no German and I have no reason to love the buggers.
> >
> > AND you have no kangaroos running around in the wild, right? 8-)
> >
>
> Balance:
>
> AS World - wild kangaroos AND feudalism. In some places you simply
> can't cross the road without a fear of being run over by an armored
> feudal riding a wild kangaroo.... (plus a wide-spreaded notion that
> every German-speaker is German, every Russian-speaker is Russian,
> etc.)
Oh, well, there are parts of the world where they think half-naked
savages on horseback are doing the same over here.
>
> OTOH,
>
> <....Reich> (hopefully, I did not misspell this part of the name) - no
> wild kangaroos, no feudalism PLUS very good food and coffee. AND, what
> is even more important, all Yorkies are carrying proper red ribbons on
> their heads.
I've tested both food and wine there: outstanding! 8-)
>
> :-)
am...@hotmail.com
> In article
>
>
>
>
>
> a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 8:19 am, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article <hvb7tv$fp...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > "Michael Kuettner" <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm no German and I have no reason to love the buggers.
>
> > > AND you have no kangaroos running around in the wild, right? 8-)
>
> > Balance:
>
> > AS World - wild kangaroos AND feudalism. In some places you simply
> > can't cross the road without a fear of being run over by an armored
> > feudal riding a wild kangaroo.... (plus a wide-spreaded notion that
> > every German-speaker is German, every Russian-speaker is Russian,
> > etc.)
>
> Oh, well, there are parts of the world where they think half-naked
> savages on horseback are doing the same over here.
I did not know that Paul is THAT well-known :-)
[trying to find a really safe hiding place]
>
>
>
> > OTOH,
>
> > <....Reich> (hopefully, I did not misspell this part of the name) - no
> > wild kangaroos, no feudalism PLUS very good food and coffee. AND, what
> > is even more important, all Yorkies are carrying proper red ribbons on
> > their heads.
>
> I've tested both food and wine there: outstanding! 8-)
>
>
And lat time I was there (quite a few years ago), Tokaj was really
cheap...
>
> > :-)
>
> --
> Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
>
> http://www.mosaictelecom.com/~erilarlo- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Michael Kuettner
"Brian M. Scott" schrieb :
> Michael Kuettner wrote in
I have a book edited by Le Goff here - L'UOMO MEDIEVALE from
1987. I haven't noticed the f-word in there; but I'll look again.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
John Briggs
BT?
--
John Briggs
Michael Kuettner
"John Briggs" schrieb :
> On 18/06/2010 17:17, Michael Kuettner wrote:
>> Ah, thank you. Then I'll amend my statement to "BT historiography".
>> I have a book edited by Le Goff here - L'UOMO MEDIEVALE from
>> 1987. I haven't noticed the f-word in there; but I'll look again.
>
> BT?
Bermuda Triangle. The UK, France and Italy, roughly.
It's an old joke in shm; anything a little further to the East becomes
fuzzy over here. I think Alex coined the term.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Brian M. Scott
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
<news:p7NSn.78587$oi7.1683@hurricane> in
soc.history.medieval:
[...]
> BT?
Bermuda Triangle. From soc.history.medieval's
Question and Answer Pages at
<http://www.shm-qa.net/index.shtml>, Part III:
4. What is the Bermuda Triangle??
It was once noted that several posters tend to
concentrate on a relatively small part of the world -
namely England, France, the low countries and
occasionally the Holy Roman Empire - this area
became known as the Bermuda Triangle, because the
posters concerned seemed unable to escape from it.
---- CG Luxford (hi...@bris.ac.uk)
A term coined by Alex Milman to describe the
preoccupation of some folks with Western Europe.
---- Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com)
First mentioned August 28th 1998, and it was meant to
denote a geographic focus that is even too small to be
called "Western Europe".
---- Gerrit Bigalski (big...@uni-muenster.de) [edited by
Paul J. Gans]
Brian
John Briggs
OK, but as jokes go it seems remarkably feeble.
--
John Briggs
Curt Emanuel
news:hvg665$v0i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I have LeGoff's _Medieval Civilization_. This is a 1988 translation of _La
Civilisation de l'Occident medieval_ (sorry - not searching the character
code for accents or umlauts in this post). On pages 90-95 and again on pages
226-229 he writes at some length on feudalism and in very "traditional"
Ganshofian terms. "Since we are only aiming in this outline to set the
feudal system in the context of the development of western Europe between
the tenth and fourteenth centuries, let us content ourselves with
summarizing Francois Ganshof's description of how it installed itself,
Georges Duby's account of how it evolved in one particular region, the
Maconnais, and Marc Bloch's view of its periodization." p91
So let's look at Germany. Werner Rosener, in _Peasants in the Middle Ages_
extensively discusses the manorial system and opens this with a very
traditional view of feudalism and, "The structure and development of the
manorial system, then, are seen in close correspondence to the growth of
medieval feudal society in its various phases." p 17 This was first
published in German in 1985 and translated in 1992. Rosener is a professor
at the University of Giessen.
Then there's Hans-Werner Goetz' _Life in the Middle Ages_, first published
in German in 1986 and translated in 1993. The word "feuadlism" isn't
mentioned that I can see. Instead he discusses The Manorial System in,
again, very traditional terms including, for example, a subheading on page
108: "1. The Institution: The Medieval Manorial System." Over the next 14
pages he regularly systematizes Manorialism. For example, on page 108, "The
origins and the legal foundations of the manorial system . . .", page 110,
"Upholding the manorial system were the king, Church, and the nobility . .
." This continues to the end of this chapter on page 121. The chapter
happens to be titled, "Peasant Life and the Manorial System."
Considering Reynolds' entire book was devoted to debunking the "ism" or
"system" involved in the discussion of feudal structures, and in the
mid-1980's both of these prominent, still active German historians discuss
this as a system - in some detail - I don't see where your argument that
German historians had a different view of things comes from.
From what I can see, they were very much in the Ganshof/Bloch camp of
subscribing widespread, fairly uniform (or at least similar enough to
consider it a system) characteristics to feudal relationships.
--
Curt Emanuel
ceman...@gmail.com
http://medievalhistorygeek.blogspot.com/
Erilar
But it's so old it's become medieval.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
John Briggs
Mercifully, I have managed to avoid it until know. It's a trifle scary
looking at the (incomplete) FAQ to realise that the 'golden age' of the
newsgroup (probably all newsgroups) was circa 1998. The same applies to
e-mail lists - which raises the question as to where serious scholarly
communication *does* tke place - they are hardly likely to be using
forum or twitter.
Anyway, to address the substnce of the joke - if your interest is
centred on, say, the HRE, then you really don't need to take much notice
of other things outside England, France or Italy; with perhaps a
sidelong glance at Byzantium. Interests centred on France or England
don't need to cope with a larger area.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
*now* How an error like that can occur is a mystery (the brain is
supposed to work on sounds rather than spelling...)
--
John Briggs
erilar
John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Anyway, to address the substnce of the joke - if your interest is
> centred on, say, the HRE, then you really don't need to take much notice
> of other things outside England, France or Italy; with perhaps a
> sidelong glance at Byzantium. Interests centred on France or England
> don't need to cope with a larger area.
However, if your interest is focused on the HRE and Scandinavia with
excursions into pre-Norman Britain and Ireland, it is something you
really do notice 8-) And I was around in the Good Old Days of shm 8-)
Curt Emanuel
news:Tb5Tn.59978$Hs4.45689@hurricane...
> John Briggs
This group is lately just beginning to make a comeback. I don't expect it to
get back to where it was 10 years ago but there's been more discussions of
value over the last 8 months or so than had been the case - or maybe it's
just that the hundreds of OT posts aren't clogging things up.
John Briggs
> it to get back to where it was 10 years ago but there's been more
> discussions of value over the last 8 months or so than had been the case
> - or maybe it's just that the hundreds of OT posts aren't clogging
> things up.
I tend to the opposite opinion - that the hundreds of OT posts were
obscuring the fact that not much was happening. And it's not just
newsgroups, it's e-mail lists as well. Yes, it's much clearer here
without the noise, but there aren't many of us, so the conversations we
can have will be necessarily limited.
--
John Briggs
am...@hotmail.com
> On 18/06/2010 20:25, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:27:02 +0100, John Briggs
> > <news:p7NSn.78587$oi7.1683@hurricane> in
> > soc.history.medieval:
>
> > [...]
>
> >> BT?
>
> > Bermuda Triangle. From soc.history.medieval's
> > Question and Answer Pages at
> > <http://www.shm-qa.net/index.shtml>, Part III:
>
> > 4. What is the Bermuda Triangle??
>
> > It was once noted that several posters tend to
> > concentrate on a relatively small part of the world -
> > namely England, France, the low countries and
> > occasionally the Holy Roman Empire - this area
> > became known as the Bermuda Triangle, because the
> > posters concerned seemed unable to escape from it.
>
> > ---- CG Luxford (hi...@bris.ac.uk)
>
> > A term coined by Alex Milman to describe the
> > preoccupation of some folks with Western Europe.
>
>
> > First mentioned August 28th 1998, and it was meant to
> > denote a geographic focus that is even too small to be
> > called "Western Europe".
>
> > Paul J. Gans]
>
> OK, but as jokes go it seems remarkably feeble.
Who said that this was/is/will be a joke?
am...@hotmail.com
> On 19/06/2010 16:05, Erilar wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On 18/06/2010 20:25, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:27:02 +0100, John Briggs
> >>> <news:p7NSn.78587$oi7.1683@hurricane> in
> >>> soc.history.medieval:
>
> >>> [...]
>
> >>>> BT?
>
> >>> Bermuda Triangle. From soc.history.medieval's
> >>> Question and Answer Pages at
> >>> <http://www.shm-qa.net/index.shtml>, Part III:
>
> >>> 4. What is the Bermuda Triangle??
>
> >>> It was once noted that several posters tend to
> >>> concentrate on a relatively small part of the world -
> >>> namely England, France, the low countries and
> >>> occasionally the Holy Roman Empire - this area
> >>> became known as the Bermuda Triangle, because the
> >>> posters concerned seemed unable to escape from it.
>
> >>> ---- CG Luxford (hi...@bris.ac.uk)
>
> >>> A term coined by Alex Milman to describe the
> >>> preoccupation of some folks with Western Europe.
>
>
> >>> First mentioned August 28th 1998, and it was meant to
> >>> denote a geographic focus that is even too small to be
> >>> called "Western Europe".
>
> >>> Paul J. Gans]
>
> > OK, but as jokes go it seems remarkably feeble.
>
> > But it's so old it's become medieval.
>
> Mercifully, I have managed to avoid it until know. It's a trifle scary
> looking at the (incomplete) FAQ to realise that the 'golden age' of the
> newsgroup (probably all newsgroups) was circa 1998. The same applies to
> e-mail lists - which raises the question as to where serious scholarly
> communication *does* tke place - they are hardly likely to be using
> forum or twitter.
>
> Anyway, to address the substnce of the joke - if your interest is
> centred on, say, the HRE, then you really don't need to take much notice
> of other things outside England,
Actually, you may ignore England most of the time....
>France or Italy; with perhaps a
> sidelong glance at Byzantium.
Interesting notion. In the practical terms it probably means that HRE
did not have Eastern borders.
> Interests centred on France or England
> don't need to cope with a larger area.
No kidding.