- This topic has 11 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Over on Linkedin there was a poll about the most important event, the choices of which I put in the poll above. My response to the poll was this:
As has been noted by others, the context determines which event was "most important". Broadly speaking, I think the most important was the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. This was the final nail in the coffin of the once-mighty Roman Empire, and effectively signaled that the eastern Mediterranean was lost for the Western powers. The closure of the East forced other nations to modify their activities which modified the course of European history; we see Venice expanding on the Terraferma and eventually clashing with reigning powers, and we see the rise of Portuguese sailors who pushed around Africa now that access to the Far East could not be made through Muslim lands. All in all, the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 had ramifications well outside the former Byzantine territories.
I noticed recently that someone got a bit annoyed by the British-centric attitude which placed the Battle of Hastings among the other events on the list. Anyway, which do you think was most important?
The discoveries and colonization of Africa, India/Asia, and the Americas. All of the major European nations really flexed their power with this.
I voted for the Spanish Armada. The rise of Britain as a global power ushered in the Industrial Revolution. All of the events were very important and I can see why they were listed.
Lepanto as well, for the same reasons. It stopped the Turkish control of Mare Nostrum thanks to the Holy Fleet
Lepanto, as it kept the Med from becoming a Turkish lake.
I voted for the war which occurred in 1066. i believe this actually synced the Brittish as and empire. and we clearly see that the Brittish done more for colonization and forming of governments independently eventually over the world than any other nation. They founded the US through tyranism toward the very subjects who wrote the very first workable constitution and this tyranism lead to a tiny small group of mixed lead colonist with many diversified ideas, religions and cultures to band together and fight for one simple right which was the freedom to have a say in their own affairs. Most US citizens today don't even know why we stood against such odds and with a public opinion of the world that it could not be accomplished. So the great empire of the Brittish whom we were spawned actually gave us the very idea of freedom by establishing such a distant colony and allowing so many freedoms amongst its own people.
I voted for the war which occurred in 1066. i believe this actually synced the Brittish as and empire.
I do not agree. The British didn't have anything even close to an empire until about the 1600's.
They founded the US through tyranism toward the very subjects who wrote the very first workable constitution and this tyranism lead to a tiny small group of mixed lead colonist with many diversified ideas, religions and cultures to band together and fight for one simple right which was the freedom to have a say in their own affairs.
Again, disagree. The US was not founded by the British, it was founded by the colonists. And the reason for the mix in religion, ideas, and cultures was because the early Americans came from different European nations.Seems you're giving the British more credit than they deserve (when it comes to North America).
I voted for the war which occurred in 1066. i believe this actually synced the Brittish as and empire. and we clearly see that the Brittish done more for colonization and forming of governments independently eventually over the world than any other nation.
I can see in some ways how this is correct. For example, when William the Conqueror triumphed, he came into legal possession of all the land under his dominion. In other words, the king had all. He was then able to assign or give land to other dukes or nobles who were then able to assign it to others, who could assign it themselves, etc. etc. This system of property devising was used from then on (to my knowledge) and later formed the same system used in the United States (and is still in use today). I find it very interesting that there is a legal "ancestry" between our present time and that of William.
They founded the US through tyranism toward the very subjects who wrote the very first workable constitution and this tyranism lead to a tiny small group of mixed lead colonist with many diversified ideas, religions and cultures to band together and fight for one simple right which was the freedom to have a say in their own affairs.
I think it is still an open question as to wheher the Constitution will remain workable. It s a remarkably resilient document but only worht the effort people put into keeping it. I can't remember who said but one of the best quotes I have ever read is from one of the Founders who said (I paraphrase) "We have given you a democracy, if you can keep it."
I think it is still an open question as to wheher the Constitution will remain workable. It s a remarkably resilient document but only worht the effort people put into keeping it. I can't remember who said but one of the best quotes I have ever read is from one of the Founders who said (I paraphrase) "We have given you a democracy, if you can keep it."
That's a good observation. I think a big part of its undoing will/may be the system of interpretation that some have ascribed to. For example - even if we set aside the politics of the legality of issues related to sexuality/abortion, we can still see how one side's insertion of the "penumbra" of privacies has expanded the meaning of the words of the Constitution so that the law today most likely does not reflect the vision of the Founders. So long as this kind of thing can happen, the Constitution is not a "safe" document, since it is not secure. It is the ability of the courts to stray from the original meaning of the Constitution that may cause the downfall of this nation. If there is one fault of the Constitution, it's that it did not provide enough provisions to safeguard itself.
As time moves on I am getting more and more pessimistic that we can get past the current disharmony without some people tryig to refresh the Tree of Liberty. Heck, I am not so certain myself, that it is not time for a cleansing and refreshment of said tree.It seems to me that the intent of the founders has been lost or twisted so out of shape that the original intent and meaning of the Constitution has been forgotten or willfully ignored. This is not a rcent development either, this trend began with prgressivism itself in the early 1900's even before the rise of FDR.
If the Constitution has been forgotten or ignored, it’s because the interpretation of the Constitution has made it as such. In a system in which interpretation is allowed, then there is bound to be bad interpretation from time to time. A bad interpretation from a long time ago will lead to many “reasonable” interpretations today that are predicated upon that bad decision from before. Only by eliminating those bad interpretations from yesteryear will out present interpretations improve.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
