Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I remember an article about that Mayan 2012 year, in fact it was a mistake and it's not 2012 but it something like 2201 instead … Well I shall tell you more if I live old enough ! 😛
War costs for French assistance in the American Revolution were simply the straw that broke the camel?s back. The French economy was in horrible shape debt-wise long before 1776. Lastly, the average Frenchmen knew almost next to nothing about the war in America, they certainly did not read it in the papers. 70% of Frenchmen were illiterate in 1789 and certainly had more important things to worry about than the state of the economy; such as if 1789 would be another poor harvest as so many had been since around 1770.
Let me remind you about how the French helped the American revolution: Lafayette.Spain and France were traditional enemies of Britain and looked for revenge. In early 1776, France set up a major program of aid to the Americans, and the Spanish secretly added funds. Each country spent 1 million "livres tournaises" to buy munitions. A dummy corporation run by Pierre Beaumarchais concealed their activities. Americans obtained some munitions through Holland as well as French and Spanish ports in the West Indies.In the American Revolution, Lafayette served in the Continental Army under George Washington as a general in the American Revolutionary War and a leader of the Garde Nationale during the French Revolution.The Franco-American alliance refers to the 1778 alliance between Louis XVI's France and the United States; the alliance was promoted in the United States by Thomas Jefferson, a Francophile. The combined strength of the Americans and the French virtually guaranteed victory against Great Britain. France successfully supported the American War of Independence, managing to expel the British and obtain recognition of American independence through the intervention of Rochambeau, La Fayette, de Grasse, or Suffren.The French Navy played a decisive role in supporting the American side, as American could hardly resist the British Navy. The French under de Grasse managed to defeat a British fleet at the Battle of the Chesapeake in 1781, thus ensuring that the Franco-American ground forces would win the ongoing Siege of Yorktown.Finally, the Treaty of Paris was signed on 3 September 1783, recognizing American independence and the end of hostilities.French people started the revolt because of famine and because of unequal representation in the Etats-G?n?raux: Tiers Estate requested a better balance of power as they were representing 98% of the population with 1 vote whilst First Estate, the clergy and Second Estate, the nobility, were allowed of 1 vote each. Furthermore, this assembly, the General Estate (Etats G?n?raux) wasn't called since 1614.France in 1789, although facing some economic ( especially taxation) difficulties and simplicities, was one of the richest and most powerful nations in Europe; further, the masses of most other European powers had less freedom and a higher chance of arbitrary punishment. At the time Louis XVI called the Estates-General of 1789, he himself was generally popular, even if the nobility and many of the king's ministers were not.Nevertheless, the Ancien R?gime was brought down, partly by its own rigidity in the face of a changing world, partly by the ambitions of a rising bourgeoisie, allied with aggrieved peasants and wage-earners and with individuals of all classes who were influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment. As the revolution proceeded and as power devolved from the monarchy to legislative bodies, the conflicting interests of these initially allied groups would become the source of conflict and bloodshed.
I really think the initial leaders of the Revolution were simple opportunists who saw an opportunity to seize power from a weak king and took it.
At the time of the Age of Enlightenment, people and ideas were extensively travelling, I fully disagree with your statement when you just consider leaders of the FR as simple opportunists ! It's a shortcut statement without any evidence to support it !! I would like to use a quote that I really agree with : "History is what happened, not what we wanted to have happened"
The church eventually lost in all these struggles but it is remarkable the degree to which it was successful in introducing a religious element in the secular lord-vassal relationship.
I'd like to remind that the Church acted like any lords in the feudal system: the Church was granted lands by the king and were also using the fealty-oath with their own vassals. The power was not only spiritual but also secular, villeins had to produce on these lands and were taxed through the tithe and for the rich to buy their way to heaven by a special pardon. These pardons were known as Indulgences.The Church made a lot of money this way.Moreover, the Church controlled people?s beliefs. The Church told people that when they died, their souls lived on either in Heaven or in Hell, a place of great pain and suffering. The people were understandably frightened of going there. So, the Church gave them hope. It said that after you die your soul goes first to a place called Purgatory, where it would stay until any sins had been burnt away.The Church was Roman Catholic and therefore was lead by the Pope. This meant that the King could not tell anyone from the Church what to do. Even if a churchman committed a crime, they could not be tried by a normal court, but instead were tried by fellow churchmen, who were often very lenient.The organisation of the Church was a kind of a centralized administration through its network of bishops.Let's remember that the most popular English saint in the Middle Ages was Archbishop Thomas Becket. He became a saint after he was murdered in 1170 in Canterbury Cathedral. When you have a closer look at how Becket became Archbishop, you shall understand how tight was the relationship between the Church and the secular power, in this case Henry II of England .Finally, it's under Henri VIII and the French Revolution that the importance of the Church was significantly reduced to a spiritual field only. The XIXth and XXth centuries eventually established a more or less complete separation of power between the Church and the secular power.My first intention was only to remind you about the context of that time: you may admire such a system for its efficiency and the probably best response to a given situation but except if you belong to the nobility or the church, I don't think that your ancestors would share your feudal enthusiasm ... 😉
Feudalism is probably good for you if you are on top of the social pyramid. However I doubt that a serf would agree about this. I don't think that was the case for most of the people who had just to struggle for life …
Try these ones:- Ta?aut, ta?aut /ta.jo/(used for a final charge with heavy sword composed of point, estoc or English "tuck" and taille: sharpen side therefore high taille)- Car tel est notre plaisir /kaʁ tɛl ɛ 'nɔ.tʁə ple.'ziʁ/ (as is my pleasure)- Et toc ! (more or less: gotcha, from estoc ?, used when you got "point, set and match")
Stonehenge is only a big chess board from the epoch during when Jivaros (aka Shuar) didn't find what a scale model is ! :-[
The Celts certainly migrated. I think they originally came out of the limitless steppes of Russia like so many other peoples. There are many Celtic sites in southern Germany as well. They just eventually ended up in Ireland after being driven from the continent by subsequent waves of migration.
That may sound about right. I had read about them as being somewhere near the Scythians, which was actually western Asia. The Celts must therefore have been nomadic for many centuries.
I can think of about ten different ethnic groups that have come out of the Steppe only the settle elsewhere in Europe later. The Celts are one among many.
The Celts did certainly migrate but they didn't end up in Ireland as a consequence of different waves of migrations. When we talk about these migrations, it's about the Indo-European people who might have lived in an area located between the Black sea and the Caspian sea. Among the different hypothesis (because no primary sources can confirm it so far) concerning these Indo-Europeans, few things about their culture can be determined with confidence according the reconstruction of their language from current Indo-European languages (from Irish to Sanskrit):- Around 3000 BC some of the people who spoke Indo-European language began to travel away from their place. - Some of them went west toward the Atlantic ocean and these are now known as the Celts, and they speak the Celtic languages: Gaelic, Welsh, Breton and Cornish. - Another group went east toward China, and these are now known as the Tocharians, though they speak Chinese now. - A little later, others travelled over the Black Sea toward the Mediterranean or south to Western Asia. Some of them settled in Italy, where Indo-European became Latin. Others settled in Greece, where Indo-European became Greek. Some went north, where Indo-European turned into German, Danish, Swedish, and English. - The people who stayed more or less where they were in the Balkans and Russia began to speak the Slavic and Baltic languages: Russian, Polish, Lithuanian. - Some went to Western Asia, where they spoke Hittite and Persian, and some went all the way south to India, where they spoke Sanskrit In India, the Indo-Europeans are usually called the Aryans. Scythians are among these people.- About the Celts, the historical Celts were diverse groups of tribal societies in Iron Age Europe. Proto-Celtic culture formed in the Early Iron Age in Central Europe (Hallstatt period, named for the site in present-day Austria). By the later Iron Age (La T?ne period), Celts had expanded over wide range of lands: as far west as Ireland and the Iberian Peninsula, as far east as Galatia (central Anatolia), and as far north as Scotland.
One reason can be that Charlemagne saved the Pope ass from the Lombards conquering Italy, Charlemagne was a devout Catholic who maintained a close relationship with the papacy throughout his life. In 772, when Pope Hadrian I was threatened by invaders, Charlemagne rushed to Rome to provide assistance. In 799, the next Pope, Leo III, had been mistreated by the Romans. Leo escaped and fled to Charlemagne at Paderborn, asking him to intervene in Rome and restore him. Charlemagne agreed to travel to Rome and in November 800 and holding a council on December 1. On 23 December Leo III swore an oath of innocence. At Christmas Day Mass (25 December), when Charlemagne knelt at the altar to pray, the pope crowned him Imperator Romanorum ("Emperor of the Romans") in Saint Peter's Basilica. Doing so, the pope was effectively attempting to transfer the office from Constantinople to Charles. It seems it wasn't without arri?re-pens?e.Many modern scholars suggest that Charlemagne was indeed aware of the coronation; certainly he cannot have missed the bejeweled crown waiting on the altar when he came to pray.
Let's try to make it clear: This forum is about the birth of feudalismFirst Phiddipedes stated that feudalism ?began as an after-effect of the break up of the Carolingian Empire in the mid-9th century? , short after the death of Charlemagne through a weakening centralized power and the emergence of castellans.I stated that the origin of feudalism might be seen through ancient Roman social relationship where a client was sponsored by a patron benefactor where the patron assisted his client with his protection and regular gifts; the client dedicated his vote whenever the patron or his associate was up for election. Then Scout stated that ?I am fairly certain that the patrician-plebeian relationship had been for the part abandoned by the late imperial period and only scholars would have been aware of it. The garrison commander-local relationship would have been common and known to many however.?As I stated previously: ?by degrees, the custom extended itself beyond Rome; and not only families, but cities, and entire provinces.? Provinces where several Germanic tribes had settled and, therefore, were aware of that particular client-patron relationship. About the role of garrisons in the origin of feudalism, I expressed much reserves about this by citing the failure of the foederati system. And stated that the institution of feudalism could be seen with the agreement between Charles the Simple and Rollo when the latest had to swear fealty to the king of France in order to receive lands (Normandy) ?At the contrary, feudalism seems to have been instituted when Vikings raids were threatening the new Frankish kingdoms, already weakened by the partition following the Treaty of Verdun in 843 AD.?Scout stated that ?You brought up the treaty of Verdun and not Phid so I find it hard to see how you can agree with him when you are agreeing with your own statement.?Well if you have a closer look over that period, Louis the Pious was the son of Charlemagne and in 840 AD his three sons, Lothair, Charles the Bald and Louis the German, became kings of the Charlemagne's empire after its partition according to the Salic Law and the Oath of Strasbourg in 842 AD. Partition better known under the name Treaty of Verdun in 843 AD.In Conclusion, I reached the starting point of Phiddipides about ?the break up of the Carolingian Empire in the mid-9th century? (hope you still remember that the Treaty of Verdun happened in 843 AD)I don't see any contradiction with what I stated about the origin of feudalism (Rome) and the institution of feudalism (Early Middle Ages). Moreover I agree with Phiddipides first statement.PS. About my alias, I didn't want to choose Mr. KIA and it was already used
To Phidippides, I agree with your first statement about the weakness of Frankish kingdoms after the Treaty of Verdun as a cause of feudalism. 🙂
The client-patron system was a major institution in ancient Roman society and was used for centuries throughout Rome history.Even if the foederati system which identified one of the tribes bound by treaty (foedus), and were expected to provide a contingent of fighting men when trouble arose and thus were allies; the loyalty of these tribes and their leaders was not reliable (eg the Wisigoths). The foederati delivered the fatal blow to the dying Roman Empire in 476 when their commander Odoacer deposed the last Western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus. Therefore the importance of garrisons in the birth of feudalism seems to be doubtful !At the contrary, feudalism seems to have been instituted when Vikings raids were threatening the new Frankish kingdoms, already weakened by the partition following the Treaty of Verdun in 843 AD. A good example, I think, is when Charles the Simple allowed the viking chieftain Rollo to settle in what would be known as Normandy at the conditions to protect West Francia against further Vikings raids, to convert into Christianity and to swear fealty to the king.
