I´m in Britain, wat do?

[Lord_of_War]

>there are people in the world who have no idea what the HRE he.
>kill me plz

No kill them!

HRE really?
Not even Kaiserreich Germany?

Well, if I got to choose.

I would be quite fine with the latter as well. It's just all that rampant nationalism and Napoleonic reconstruction. ^^

National Socialism is nothing alike to the moral foundations of Western Culture. This recent wave of Social-Liberalism has made Western morality a state of current decedance. National Socialism is in the same group of it.

For sure. I would argue this happened along with the fall of Christianity rather than with the rise of it, however.

You are aware of the downsides of the HRE correct? It wasn't all sunshine and roses. There wasn't hardly a government. Also ***** the Habsburgs.

[loftar]

You are aware of the downsides of the HRE correct? It wasn't all sunshine and roses.

I am under no illusion that man can institute Heaven on Earth, for sure. I'm not quite sure what made you think I might have thought that, however. ^^

On the other hand, I am no great fan of centralizing nationalism, and the Empire certainly displays a refreshing lack of such. :)

There wasn't hardly a government.

On a more serious note, I think the veracity of that statement will depend quite a lot on just where in the Empire you choose to look. I will readily admit that there wasn't a strong central government, which was also my whole point. :)

[Lord_of_War]

I forget when it was passed but it took a while to outlaw internal HRE wars. For a Empire even one comprised of different states a general rule is to disallow infighting, it tends to leave one open from external attack. This is where a pinch of at least bureaucratic and political nationalism might be beneficial. Furthermore when the term 'HRE' is used it generally detones the government of the whole. If you want to refer to individual states call them by name.

[Dallane]

I love it when the old gods talk about the glorious HRE. Plz continue pappa loftar.

[Lord_of_War]

(I'm **** at photoshop)

[loftar]

Furthermore when the term 'HRE' is used it generally detones [sic] the government of the whole.

I would argue that the Holy Roman Empire primarily denotes a set of common German traditions (with, of course, many and widely varying local differences), a culture of Kleinstaaterei and the therewith inextricably associated primacy of personally owned authority. The systems of central government instituted thereupon, while interesting and venerable, are of quite secondary importance to the matrix of traditions and law constituting the actual fabric of the Reich. :)

As for internal wars, of course you need to be able to have them. However else would sovereign states resolve their conflicts? ^^

It can be argued, of course, that the whole constellation of Europe was vulnerable to Napoleon (if that's what you mean by "outside aggression"), but I'd certainly argue that that was more because of their inability to mass-mobilize to match la Grande Armée, and I find it generally hard to argue against societies which have legal problems with mass-mobilization, however weak that may make them. ;)
Not to mention, of course, that the Coalitions of Europe eventually won against Napoleon anyway. I do have to say that I generally prefer such decentralized balance of power to the modern super-state structures where governance (over an effectively disenfranchised people) is "just another job" for a host of petty bureaucrats rather than a sacred duty coming from the institution of inheritance. Not least since it is a hindrance precisely to the kind of people in your fine image-macro.

[Lord_of_War]

Furthermore when the term 'HRE' is used it generally detones [sic] the government of the whole.

I would argue that the Holy Roman Empire primarily denotes a set of common German traditions (with, of course, many and varying local differences), a culture of Kleinstaaterei and the therewith inextricably associated primacy of personally owned authority. The systems of central government instituted thereupon, while interesting and venerable, are of quite secondary importance to the matrix of traditions and law constituting the actual fabric of the Reich.

As for internal wars, of course you need to be able to have them. However else would sovereign states resolve their conflicts? ^^

It can be argued, of course, that the whole constellation of Europe was vulnerable to Napoleon (if that's what you mean by "outside aggression"), but I'd certainly argue that that was more because of their inability to mass-mobilize to match la Grande Armée, and I find it generally hard to argue against societies which have legal problems with mass-mobilization, however weak that may make them.
Not to mention, of course, that the Coalitions of Europe eventually won against Napoleon anyway. I do have to say that I generally prefer such decentralized balance of power to the modern super-state structures where governance is "just another job" for a host of petty bureaucrats rather than a sacred duty coming from the institution of inheritance. Not least since it is a hindrance precisely to the kind of people in your fine image-macro.

The Coalition('s) only defeated napoleon by themselves mobilizing in a similar fashion. Whilst this is not as positive as a more mercenary system it is an eventuality I think the European states failed to deal with adequately. I don't see how disallowing internal wars would impact sovereignty of small states. On their own they were not capable of sustaining the large wars characteristic of the post Napoleonic period. As for the aristocracy it has its drawbacks as with any system. The aristocracy is much attributed as one of the causes of world war one. Every once in a while you get leaders that ignite the powder keg. Such as Kaiser Wilhelm. Certainly the idea of training nobility is a good one but one must and should preserve some amount of meritocracy to preserve the standing of the realm and avoid overly poor decisions. A meritocracy is not a democracy and can still be made up of nobles so long as they are imbued with the proper characteristics necessary for an effective leader. Laws limiting wars would be the appropriate compromise. Also a focus on defense would be a proper counter for Napoleon. I'm not a sufficient expert on how the aristocracy dealt with corruption historically.

***** Obama and McCain

[loftar]

I don't see how disallowing internal wars would impact sovereignty of small states.

Well now, whatever we may think of the merits and demerits of such things, I would think it is a matter of definition that external constraints of power is a diminution of a state's sovereignty. As you Americans yourselves put it in your declaration of independence: "[...] that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." ;)

Either way, I don't see that the possibility of internal wars could said to intrinsically weaken the Empire against external attack, just as how the possibility of wars internal to Europe did not seem to weaken her very much to external attack. In the face of greater adversity, people tend to see the necessity to ally themselves. While you can certainly argue that ongoing wars weaken countries economically and whatnot, it is usually possible to put an opposing argument to each such argument, such as constant military training keeping up the general skill level and encouraging people to build capital buffers against war and whatnot. The reality of the situation is likely to be in a balance of many factors and not easily reducible to a single or a few principles.

Such as Kaiser Wilhelm.

You mean that noble and benevolent monarch who did his best to keep his realm out of the war to the last moment, as against the pressure of international business interests and English aggression? Yes, I know how popular it is among the victors to blame him for it. ¦]

Certainly the idea of training nobility is a good one but one must and should preserve some amount of meritocracy to preserve the standing of the realm and avoid overly poor decisions.

I think you will find that most traditional European states exhibit some or another form of balance between the two, for sure. Extremism is seldom a good way to go, and I don't think anyone would argue that it is. :) In the meantime, I'll leave some quotes of Blackstone here in the exaltation of the specifically British doctrine on at least some aspects of the matter:

The executive power of the English nation being veiled in a single person, by the general consent of the people, the evidence of which general consent is long and immemorial usage, it became necessary to the freedom and peace of the state, that a rule should be laid down, uniform, universal, and permanent ; in order to mark out with precision, who is that single person, to whom are committed (in subservience to the law of the land) the care and protection of the community; and to whom, in return, the duty and allegiance of every individual are due. It is of the highest importance to the public tranquillity, and to the consciences of private men, that this rule should be clear and indisputable
[...]
But history and observation will inform us, that elections of every kind (in the present state of human nature) are too frequently brought about by influence, partiality, and artifice : and, even where the case is otherwise, these practices will be often suspected, and as constantly charged upon the successful, by a splenetic disappointed minority. This is an evil to which all societies are liable ; as well those of a private and domestic kind, as the great community of the public, which regulates and includes the rest. But in the former there is this advantage ; that such suspicions, if false, proceed no farther than jealousies and murmurs, which time will effectually suppress ; and, if true, the injustice may be remedied by legal means, by an appeal to those tribunals to which every member of society has (by becoming such) virtually engaged to submit. Whereas, in the great and independent society, which every nation composes, there is no superior to resort to but the law of nature ; no method to redress the infringements of that law, but the actual exertion of private force. As therefore between two nations, complaining of mutual injuries, the quarrel can only be decided by the law of arms ; so in one and the same nation, when the fundamental principles of their common union are supposed to be invaded, and more especially when the appointment of their chief magistrate is alleged to be unduly made, the only tribunal to which the complainants can appeal is that of the God of battels, the only process by which the appeal can be carried on is that of a civil and intestine war. An hereditary succession to the crown is therefore now established, in this and most other countries, in order to prevent that periodical bloodshed and misery, which the history of antient imperial Rome, and the more modern experience of Poland and Germany, may shew us are the consequences of elective kingdoms.

I'm not a sufficient expert on how the aristocracy dealt with corruption historically.

I think you will find that there is no single European (or even Holy Roman) aristocratic tradition that can be examined for its treatment of corruption. ;) If anything common can be said, I would find it to be that corruption within a certain political group was dealt with, quite simply, but the political power of the groups that were the victims of the corruption, and that many traditional societies appear to exhibit a greater internal balance of political powers than modern states do.

In an interesting observation on the heterogeneity of the nobility of Europe, I find that it has been common in Sweden for the King and the commoners to band together against a corrupt nobility (such as in the war of liberation from the Kalmar union of 1523, the great Reductions of the 17th century, or the coup d'état of 1772), while in England it seems to be more common for the nobility and commoners to band together against a corrupt Monarch (such as the rebellion of the Barons of 1215, and a couple of other examples I've observed from time to time but cannot seem to remember right now).

Whereas, in modern society, there is noone to stand against the de-facto ruling class of party apparatchiks, since they pretend to be "of us".

[Icon]

Quit derailing, this thread is here for the purpose of getting my name carved on stonehenge

[Lord_of_War]

I don't see how disallowing internal wars would impact sovereignty of small states.

Well now, whatever we may think of the merits and demerits of such things, I would think it is a matter of definition that external constraints of power is a diminution of a state's sovereignty. As you Americans yourselves put it in your declaration of independence: "[...] that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

Either way, I don't see that the possibility of internal wars could said to intrinsically weaken the Empire against external attack, just as how the possibility of wars internal to Europe did not seem to weaken her very much to external attack. In the face of greater adversity, people tend to see the necessity to ally themselves. While you can certainly argue that ongoing wars weaken countries economically and whatnot, it is usually possible to put an opposing argument to each such argument, such as constant military training keeping up the general skill level and encouraging people to build capital buffers against war and whatnot. The reality of the situation is likely to be in a balance of many factors and not easily reducible to a single or a few principles.

As for the HRE I still believe that any strife does weaken ones willingness to work together. I forget the battle but it was The Coalition vs Napoleon and their greater numbers failed because they lacked the proper cooperation and organization. Military training is best exercised on peasant rebellions. Furthermore when the ottomans attacked weren't they stopped so successfully that they never made it to Vienna?

As for the united states, our current government while technically remaining a republic made up of politically independent states has been perverted to the extreme that it is no longer the Republic the founders envisaged. The states are completely economically dependent on the federal government and states power is an absolute joke. You should come over here and see for yourself. You also misinterpret our constitution. One example, While the president may ask for a declaration of war it is Congress that must approve it, and Congress is theoretically beholden to the states. So your claim that Declaration of War is a federal power is questionable to say the least.

Such as Kaiser Wilhelm.

You mean that noble and benevolent monarch who did his best to keep his realm out of the war to the last moment, as against the pressure of international business interests and English aggression? Yes, I know how popular it is among the victors to blame him for it.

Afraid not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan Whether or not you can argue over his desire to go to war. I am not saying that he *wanted* it, merely that under the Schlieffen Plan that if war was presumed to be inevitable within say a year or two then it would be of the utmost importance to attack quickly before the enemy has time to prepare a defense. To the effect that if the keg is lit you better get a shorter fuse on yours. For that we can blame him. For the causes certainly not.

Certainly the idea of training nobility is a good one but one must and should preserve some amount of meritocracy to preserve the standing of the realm and avoid overly poor decisions.

I think you will find that most traditional European states exhibit some or another form of balance between the two, for sure. Extremism is seldom a good way to go, and I don't think anyone would argue that it is. In the meantime, I'll leave some quotes of Blackstone here in the exaltation of the specifically British doctrine on at least some aspects of the matter:

The executive power of the English nation being veiled in a single person, by the general consent of the people, the evidence of which general consent is long and immemorial usage, it became necessary to the freedom and peace of the state, that a rule should be laid down, uniform, universal, and permanent ; in order to mark out with precision, who is that single person, to whom are committed (in subservience to the law of the land) the care and protection of the community; and to whom, in return, the duty and allegiance of every individual are due. It is of the highest importance to the public tranquillity, and to the consciences of private men, that this rule should be clear and indisputable
[...]
But history and observation will inform us, that elections of every kind (in the present state of human nature) are too frequently brought about by influence, partiality, and artifice : and, even where the case is otherwise, these practices will be often suspected, and as constantly charged upon the successful, by a splenetic disappointed minority. This is an evil to which all societies are liable ; as well those of a private and domestic kind, as the great community of the public, which regulates and includes the rest. But in the former there is this advantage ; that such suspicions, if false, proceed no farther than jealousies and murmurs, which time will effectually suppress ; and, if true, the injustice may be remedied by legal means, by an appeal to those tribunals to which every member of society has (by becoming such) virtually engaged to submit. Whereas, in the great and independent society, which every nation composes, there is no superior to resort to but the law of nature ; no method to redress the infringements of that law, but the actual exertion of private force. As therefore between two nations, complaining of mutual injuries, the quarrel can only be decided by the law of arms ; so in one and the same nation, when the fundamental principles of their common union are supposed to be invaded, and more especially when the appointment of their chief magistrate is alleged to be unduly made, the only tribunal to which the complainants can appeal is that of the God of battels, the only process by which the appeal can be carried on is that of a civil and intestine war. An hereditary succession to the crown is therefore now established, in this and most other countries, in order to prevent that periodical bloodshed and misery, which the history of antient imperial Rome, and the more modern experience of Poland and Germany, may shew us are the consequences of elective kingdoms.

Whilst England and a few others are advanced in this regard it is not wholly representative of the whole of Europe or the whole of European history. A constitutional monarchy is far better than a despotic one. Example, Louis XIV. Poland doesn't count because it isn't a real European country. And Germany at the time still a little shaky. You always get either very strong leaders that may either work out or not or weak leaders. They system in its original form cant cope. A parliament seemed to work out well.

I'm not a sufficient expert on how the aristocracy dealt with corruption historically.

I think you will find that there is no single European (or even Holy Roman) aristocratic tradition that can be examined for its treatment of corruption. If anything common can be said, I would find it to be that it corruption within a certain political group was dealt with, quite simply, but the political power of the groups that were the victims of the corruption, and that many traditional societies appear to exhibit a greater internal balance of political powers than modern states do.

In an interesting observation on the heterogeneity of the nobility of Europe, I find that it has been common in Sweden for the King and the commoners to band together against a corrupt nobility (such as in the war of liberation from the Kalmar union of 1523, the great Reductions of the 17th century, or the coup d'état of 1772), while in England it seems to be more common for the nobility and commoners to band together against a corrupt Monarch (such as the rebellion of the Barons of 1215, and a couple of other examples I've observed from time to time but cannot seem to remember right now).

[/quote]
Isn't using Sweden as an example cheating? Do regale me with the history of the united states! Personally I refer to prospecting how these more archaic forms of government would deal with modern corruption.

Quit derailing, this thread is here for the purpose of getting my name carved on stonehenge

In that case please move these posts to a new topic.


Academic debate needs more **** talking.