Kenneth Gauck
01-17-1999, 09:41 PM
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE422F.D21F10E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
- -----Original Message-----
From: Craig Dalrymple
Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 1:5----- Original Message -----=20
>And now I say:
>
>I would have to agree more with Memnoch than Kenneth, In the Medieval =
form of government, the people had no
>political power at all. The nobility held it all. The problem I have =
with Kenneth's assertion that all government is
>based upon consent (which in theory is true) is that the rule he is =
appearing to measure this assertion with is
>held in the hands of a man of the 1990's. We cannot judge the medieval =
period under the moral truths and political
>belief's of the modern man to understand the plight of the peasants of =
that time, instead we must get into the
>flesh and ideals of a man of that day.
Judging events by the standards of the 1990's would be gross =
anachronism, but so would judging the Renaisance or middle ages by the =
standards of the 1790's, and that is what you have done Craig. Your =
notions of monarchy and the common people are vrey close to those =
writers who first gave feudalism its name, the men of the French =
Revolution who worked to destroy an older order. Allowing the men who =
destroyed feudalism in France to define our terms is not the best way to =
come to an understanding of the medieval mind. We must both know the =
origins of various theories of monarchy and rulership as well as being =
aquainted with the writings of medivals themselves. You mentioned the =
doctrines of Absolutism and Divine Right, which were first expressed in =
English by Sir Robert Filmer in his book The Necessity of the Absolute =
Power of all Kings in 1648. In the great contest between Charles I and =
Parliement (the English Civil War) Filmer was firmly devoted to the =
Royalist cause. In 1646 Charles I surrendered to Parliament. By 1649 =
he was executed for defying Parliament. It was in this context that =
Filmer made entirely new arguements advancing the rights and powers of =
kings, justifying Charles cause and painting Parliament as an =
institution in defiance of the law. Even the AD&D suppliment "A Mighty =
Fortress" ends about that time, and it is almost certainly set later =
than BR (though some overlap is expected). The look and feel of BR is =
Renaisance (1400-1550). While this in no way suggests any kind of =
politics cannot be practiced in Cerilia (why not Egyptian =
priest-statism?) there is certainly no obligation to force Absolutism =
and Divine Right, which are plainly Baroque concepts into Birthright. =
The ideas I have argued for are late medieval and early Renaisance, and =
IMC I introduce high Renaisance elements during the course of the =
campaign. While I would not object to someone using Fredrick the Great =
or Joseph II as models for government, let us not forget that Fredrick's =
own bureaucrats sometimes refused to carry out his commands, and that =
Joseph II's Hungarian subjects revolted when he abolished serfdom.
>You could replace a King with another one, but you could not change the =
form of government. A medieval
>man would have felt that as sure as there is a God in Heaven, there =
must be a King or Queen on the throne
>somewhere. It was just how things were done.
I thought my post on this subject was clear, but I can restate my thesis =
another way. I suspected my discussion of Henry IV's deposition of =
Richard II made it clear I never saw republicanism in any form as an =
option here. Further my repeated defence of aristocrats on this list =
and my criticism of how AD&D materials have portrayed them must have =
been missed in this case. Traditional riots over high prices, =
especially bread prices, were very common. Often, rioters would destroy =
the tax houses of the crown, kill or frighten off the royal officials =
the whole time declaring their devotion to the king. Vive la roi sans =
gabelle! Long live the king without the salt tax. Bad policies were =
the result of "evil ministers", the king does not know how bad things =
are. Let us riot and alert him.
Let us remember the remark of the monk of Arras who said the serfs of =
his abbey were very eager to advertise their bonds of dependence in =
times of trouble, as pressing danger prompted them to seek protection, =
and very eager to repudiate the bond when life was peaceful. Let us =
then further recall that BR probably has more yeoman and fewer serfs =
than historical France. That serfs are not slaves but free men in =
voluntary dependance, and yeoman are simply free men. They can and will =
oppose oppression. This was my thesis: rebellion will be frequent, and =
moreso under bad government. I never subscribe to the idea that any =
other than blooded nobility will ever rule, or that anyone of sound mind =
would suggest such a thing. Aristocracy means rule by the best, and IMC =
the blooded are assumed to be most fit to rule, even if the occasional =
scion proves himself unworthy. The vast majority are as fit as anyone =
else and further blessed with education and training, not to mention the =
blood powers which are the hallmark of nobility. A notable minority are =
truly heroic and are unmatched by the unblooded.
Let us look beyond how things worked in theory and observe how they =
worked in practice.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net
- ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE422F.D21F10E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
-----Original =
Message-----From:=20
Craig Dalrymple <craigd@mediaone.net>Dat=
e:=20
Sunday, January 17, 1999 1:5----- Original Message -----
>And now I say:
>
>I would have to agree more with Memnoch than Kenneth, In the =
Medieval=20
form of government, the people had no
>political power at all. The nobility held it all. The problem I =
have=20
with Kenneth's assertion that all government is
>based upon consent (which in theory is true) is that the rule =
he is=20
appearing to measure this assertion with is
>held in the hands of a man of the 1990's. We cannot judge the =
medieval=20
period under the moral truths and political
>belief's of the modern man to understand the plight of the =
peasants of=20
that time, instead we must get into the
>flesh and ideals of a man of that day.
Judging events by the standards of the 1990's would be gross =
anachronism,=20
but so would judging the Renaisance or middle ages by the standards of =
the=20
1790's, and that is what you have done Craig. Your notions of =
monarchy and=20
the common people are vrey close to those writers who first gave =
feudalism its=20
name, the men of the French Revolution who worked to destroy an older=20
order. Allowing the men who destroyed feudalism in France to =
define our=20
terms is not the best way to come to an understanding of the medieval=20
mind. We must both know the origins of various theories of =
monarchy and=20
rulership as well as being aquainted with the writings of medivals=20
themselves. You mentioned the doctrines of Absolutism and Divine =
Right,=20
which were first expressed in English by Sir Robert Filmer in his book =
The=20
Necessity of the Absolute Power of all Kings in 1648. In the =
great=20
contest between Charles I and Parliement (the English Civil War) Filmer =
was=20
firmly devoted to the Royalist cause. In 1646 Charles I =
surrendered to=20
Parliament. By 1649 he was executed for defying Parliament. =
It was=20
in this context that Filmer made entirely new arguements advancing the =
rights=20
and powers of kings, justifying Charles cause and painting Parliament as =
an=20
institution in defiance of the law. Even the AD&D suppliment =
"A=20
Mighty Fortress" ends about that time, and it is almost certainly =
set later=20
than BR (though some overlap is expected). The look and feel of BR =
is=20
Renaisance (1400-1550). While this in no way suggests any kind of =
politics=20
cannot be practiced in Cerilia (why not Egyptian priest-statism?) there =
is=20
certainly no obligation to force Absolutism and Divine Right, which are =
plainly=20
Baroque concepts into Birthright. The ideas I have argued for are =
late=20
medieval and early Renaisance, and IMC I introduce high Renaisance =
elements=20
during the course of the campaign. While I would not object to =
someone=20
using Fredrick the Great or Joseph II as models for government, let us =
not=20
forget that Fredrick's own bureaucrats sometimes refused to carry out =
his=20
commands, and that Joseph II's Hungarian subjects revolted when he =
abolished=20
serfdom.
>You could replace a King with another one, but you could not =
change the=20
form of government. A medieval
>man would have felt that as sure as there is a God in Heaven, =
there=20
must be a King or Queen on the throne
>somewhere. It was just how things were done.
I thought my post on this subject was clear, but I can restate my =
thesis=20
another way. I suspected my discussion of Henry IV's deposition of =
Richard=20
II made it clear I never saw republicanism in any form as an option =
here. =20
Further my repeated defence of aristocrats on this list and my criticism =
of how=20
AD&D materials have portrayed them must have been missed in this =
case. =20
Traditional riots over high prices, especially bread prices, were very=20
common. Often, rioters would destroy the tax houses of the crown, =
kill or=20
frighten off the royal officials the whole time declaring their devotion =
to the=20
king. Vive la roi sans gabelle! Long live the king without =
the salt=20
tax. Bad policies were the result of "evil ministers", =
the king=20
does not know how bad things are. Let us riot and alert him.
Let us remember the remark of the monk of Arras who said the serfs =
of his=20
abbey were very eager to advertise their bonds of dependence in times of =
trouble, as pressing danger prompted them to seek protection, and very =
eager to=20
repudiate the bond when life was peaceful. Let us then further =
recall that=20
BR probably has more yeoman and fewer serfs than historical =
France. That=20
serfs are not slaves but free men in voluntary dependance, and yeoman =
are simply=20
free men. They can and will oppose oppression. This was my =
thesis:=20
rebellion will be frequent, and moreso under bad government. I =
never=20
subscribe to the idea that any other than blooded nobility will ever =
rule, or=20
that anyone of sound mind would suggest such a thing. Aristocracy =
means=20
rule by the best, and IMC the blooded are assumed to be most fit to =
rule, even=20
if the occasional scion proves himself unworthy. The vast majority =
are as=20
fit as anyone else and further blessed with education and training, not =
to=20
mention the blood powers which are the hallmark of nobility. A =
notable=20
minority are truly heroic and are unmatched by the unblooded.
Let us look beyond how things worked in theory and observe how they =
worked=20
in practice.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net
- ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE422F.D21F10E0--
- ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE422F.D21F10E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
- -----Original Message-----
From: Craig Dalrymple
Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 1:5----- Original Message -----=20
>And now I say:
>
>I would have to agree more with Memnoch than Kenneth, In the Medieval =
form of government, the people had no
>political power at all. The nobility held it all. The problem I have =
with Kenneth's assertion that all government is
>based upon consent (which in theory is true) is that the rule he is =
appearing to measure this assertion with is
>held in the hands of a man of the 1990's. We cannot judge the medieval =
period under the moral truths and political
>belief's of the modern man to understand the plight of the peasants of =
that time, instead we must get into the
>flesh and ideals of a man of that day.
Judging events by the standards of the 1990's would be gross =
anachronism, but so would judging the Renaisance or middle ages by the =
standards of the 1790's, and that is what you have done Craig. Your =
notions of monarchy and the common people are vrey close to those =
writers who first gave feudalism its name, the men of the French =
Revolution who worked to destroy an older order. Allowing the men who =
destroyed feudalism in France to define our terms is not the best way to =
come to an understanding of the medieval mind. We must both know the =
origins of various theories of monarchy and rulership as well as being =
aquainted with the writings of medivals themselves. You mentioned the =
doctrines of Absolutism and Divine Right, which were first expressed in =
English by Sir Robert Filmer in his book The Necessity of the Absolute =
Power of all Kings in 1648. In the great contest between Charles I and =
Parliement (the English Civil War) Filmer was firmly devoted to the =
Royalist cause. In 1646 Charles I surrendered to Parliament. By 1649 =
he was executed for defying Parliament. It was in this context that =
Filmer made entirely new arguements advancing the rights and powers of =
kings, justifying Charles cause and painting Parliament as an =
institution in defiance of the law. Even the AD&D suppliment "A Mighty =
Fortress" ends about that time, and it is almost certainly set later =
than BR (though some overlap is expected). The look and feel of BR is =
Renaisance (1400-1550). While this in no way suggests any kind of =
politics cannot be practiced in Cerilia (why not Egyptian =
priest-statism?) there is certainly no obligation to force Absolutism =
and Divine Right, which are plainly Baroque concepts into Birthright. =
The ideas I have argued for are late medieval and early Renaisance, and =
IMC I introduce high Renaisance elements during the course of the =
campaign. While I would not object to someone using Fredrick the Great =
or Joseph II as models for government, let us not forget that Fredrick's =
own bureaucrats sometimes refused to carry out his commands, and that =
Joseph II's Hungarian subjects revolted when he abolished serfdom.
>You could replace a King with another one, but you could not change the =
form of government. A medieval
>man would have felt that as sure as there is a God in Heaven, there =
must be a King or Queen on the throne
>somewhere. It was just how things were done.
I thought my post on this subject was clear, but I can restate my thesis =
another way. I suspected my discussion of Henry IV's deposition of =
Richard II made it clear I never saw republicanism in any form as an =
option here. Further my repeated defence of aristocrats on this list =
and my criticism of how AD&D materials have portrayed them must have =
been missed in this case. Traditional riots over high prices, =
especially bread prices, were very common. Often, rioters would destroy =
the tax houses of the crown, kill or frighten off the royal officials =
the whole time declaring their devotion to the king. Vive la roi sans =
gabelle! Long live the king without the salt tax. Bad policies were =
the result of "evil ministers", the king does not know how bad things =
are. Let us riot and alert him.
Let us remember the remark of the monk of Arras who said the serfs of =
his abbey were very eager to advertise their bonds of dependence in =
times of trouble, as pressing danger prompted them to seek protection, =
and very eager to repudiate the bond when life was peaceful. Let us =
then further recall that BR probably has more yeoman and fewer serfs =
than historical France. That serfs are not slaves but free men in =
voluntary dependance, and yeoman are simply free men. They can and will =
oppose oppression. This was my thesis: rebellion will be frequent, and =
moreso under bad government. I never subscribe to the idea that any =
other than blooded nobility will ever rule, or that anyone of sound mind =
would suggest such a thing. Aristocracy means rule by the best, and IMC =
the blooded are assumed to be most fit to rule, even if the occasional =
scion proves himself unworthy. The vast majority are as fit as anyone =
else and further blessed with education and training, not to mention the =
blood powers which are the hallmark of nobility. A notable minority are =
truly heroic and are unmatched by the unblooded.
Let us look beyond how things worked in theory and observe how they =
worked in practice.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net
- ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE422F.D21F10E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
-----Original =
Message-----From:=20
Craig Dalrymple <craigd@mediaone.net>Dat=
e:=20
Sunday, January 17, 1999 1:5----- Original Message -----
>And now I say:
>
>I would have to agree more with Memnoch than Kenneth, In the =
Medieval=20
form of government, the people had no
>political power at all. The nobility held it all. The problem I =
have=20
with Kenneth's assertion that all government is
>based upon consent (which in theory is true) is that the rule =
he is=20
appearing to measure this assertion with is
>held in the hands of a man of the 1990's. We cannot judge the =
medieval=20
period under the moral truths and political
>belief's of the modern man to understand the plight of the =
peasants of=20
that time, instead we must get into the
>flesh and ideals of a man of that day.
Judging events by the standards of the 1990's would be gross =
anachronism,=20
but so would judging the Renaisance or middle ages by the standards of =
the=20
1790's, and that is what you have done Craig. Your notions of =
monarchy and=20
the common people are vrey close to those writers who first gave =
feudalism its=20
name, the men of the French Revolution who worked to destroy an older=20
order. Allowing the men who destroyed feudalism in France to =
define our=20
terms is not the best way to come to an understanding of the medieval=20
mind. We must both know the origins of various theories of =
monarchy and=20
rulership as well as being aquainted with the writings of medivals=20
themselves. You mentioned the doctrines of Absolutism and Divine =
Right,=20
which were first expressed in English by Sir Robert Filmer in his book =
The=20
Necessity of the Absolute Power of all Kings in 1648. In the =
great=20
contest between Charles I and Parliement (the English Civil War) Filmer =
was=20
firmly devoted to the Royalist cause. In 1646 Charles I =
surrendered to=20
Parliament. By 1649 he was executed for defying Parliament. =
It was=20
in this context that Filmer made entirely new arguements advancing the =
rights=20
and powers of kings, justifying Charles cause and painting Parliament as =
an=20
institution in defiance of the law. Even the AD&D suppliment =
"A=20
Mighty Fortress" ends about that time, and it is almost certainly =
set later=20
than BR (though some overlap is expected). The look and feel of BR =
is=20
Renaisance (1400-1550). While this in no way suggests any kind of =
politics=20
cannot be practiced in Cerilia (why not Egyptian priest-statism?) there =
is=20
certainly no obligation to force Absolutism and Divine Right, which are =
plainly=20
Baroque concepts into Birthright. The ideas I have argued for are =
late=20
medieval and early Renaisance, and IMC I introduce high Renaisance =
elements=20
during the course of the campaign. While I would not object to =
someone=20
using Fredrick the Great or Joseph II as models for government, let us =
not=20
forget that Fredrick's own bureaucrats sometimes refused to carry out =
his=20
commands, and that Joseph II's Hungarian subjects revolted when he =
abolished=20
serfdom.
>You could replace a King with another one, but you could not =
change the=20
form of government. A medieval
>man would have felt that as sure as there is a God in Heaven, =
there=20
must be a King or Queen on the throne
>somewhere. It was just how things were done.
I thought my post on this subject was clear, but I can restate my =
thesis=20
another way. I suspected my discussion of Henry IV's deposition of =
Richard=20
II made it clear I never saw republicanism in any form as an option =
here. =20
Further my repeated defence of aristocrats on this list and my criticism =
of how=20
AD&D materials have portrayed them must have been missed in this =
case. =20
Traditional riots over high prices, especially bread prices, were very=20
common. Often, rioters would destroy the tax houses of the crown, =
kill or=20
frighten off the royal officials the whole time declaring their devotion =
to the=20
king. Vive la roi sans gabelle! Long live the king without =
the salt=20
tax. Bad policies were the result of "evil ministers", =
the king=20
does not know how bad things are. Let us riot and alert him.
Let us remember the remark of the monk of Arras who said the serfs =
of his=20
abbey were very eager to advertise their bonds of dependence in times of =
trouble, as pressing danger prompted them to seek protection, and very =
eager to=20
repudiate the bond when life was peaceful. Let us then further =
recall that=20
BR probably has more yeoman and fewer serfs than historical =
France. That=20
serfs are not slaves but free men in voluntary dependance, and yeoman =
are simply=20
free men. They can and will oppose oppression. This was my =
thesis:=20
rebellion will be frequent, and moreso under bad government. I =
never=20
subscribe to the idea that any other than blooded nobility will ever =
rule, or=20
that anyone of sound mind would suggest such a thing. Aristocracy =
means=20
rule by the best, and IMC the blooded are assumed to be most fit to =
rule, even=20
if the occasional scion proves himself unworthy. The vast majority =
are as=20
fit as anyone else and further blessed with education and training, not =
to=20
mention the blood powers which are the hallmark of nobility. A =
notable=20
minority are truly heroic and are unmatched by the unblooded.
Let us look beyond how things worked in theory and observe how they =
worked=20
in practice.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net
- ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE422F.D21F10E0--