Oh, thank you. My lazy ass tends to sometimes express arrogant hostility towards people for no good reason at all.
Actually, all I know is some medieval literature read for fun.
But frankly what you say doesn’t contradict what I say, even intersects with that. It’s just, eh, not as simplistic as my comment.
Essentially, people sought a centralization of power so they’d have an easier time dealing with the governing bodies–“one king and his court” vs. many nobles. Here’s a nice summary:
Frankly from what little I know it seems the other way around - kings succeeded in becoming sufficiently powerful to control their nobles, and then nobles and, yes, the people in general would want some well-defined mechanism of asserting their interests to the monarch without actual rebellion. The nice summary reinforces that too.
The democratic tradition, in its various flavors, tends to lend some leeway in enabling anyone to exert their opinion and shape the way the community thinks.
As compared to, say, Middle Eastern political traditions (as in “lynched for wrong words”), yes.
I meant that some kind of Late Medieval society would be more diverse due to more individual traditional relations between various entities\estates\whatever. Though inside every such entity one, eh, wouldn’t have lots of freedom of speech. But again, these were diverse in that too.
And that in centralist (this is important) democracies the “same rules for everyone” fallacy tends to exist, which misses that an abstractly defined rule still may give some groups advantage over others. One can see that in the way religious tolerance, secularism, gun rights etc are points of contention.
The point I was making, however, is that people seek some greater purpose or meaning to align their will with that of others.
Well, my direction of thought was that due to feudal relations being more personal and decentralized, honor as in personal and family reputation was very important, and there were a few criteria less abstract than modern people may imagine affecting those.
The greater purpose was the divine right of the king to rule his land.
Oh, thank you. My lazy ass tends to sometimes express arrogant hostility towards people for no good reason at all.
Actually, all I know is some medieval literature read for fun.
But frankly what you say doesn’t contradict what I say, even intersects with that. It’s just, eh, not as simplistic as my comment.
Frankly from what little I know it seems the other way around - kings succeeded in becoming sufficiently powerful to control their nobles, and then nobles and, yes, the people in general would want some well-defined mechanism of asserting their interests to the monarch without actual rebellion. The nice summary reinforces that too.
As compared to, say, Middle Eastern political traditions (as in “lynched for wrong words”), yes.
I meant that some kind of Late Medieval society would be more diverse due to more individual traditional relations between various entities\estates\whatever. Though inside every such entity one, eh, wouldn’t have lots of freedom of speech. But again, these were diverse in that too.
And that in centralist (this is important) democracies the “same rules for everyone” fallacy tends to exist, which misses that an abstractly defined rule still may give some groups advantage over others. One can see that in the way religious tolerance, secularism, gun rights etc are points of contention.
Well, my direction of thought was that due to feudal relations being more personal and decentralized, honor as in personal and family reputation was very important, and there were a few criteria less abstract than modern people may imagine affecting those.
The greater purpose was the divine right of the king to rule his land.