|
On June 28 2009 23:50 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Moltke you are disgusting. You want to talk about tall the jacqueries and the slaughters of peasans by the monarchy ?
You want to talk about the forced exile of thinkers during the 18th century ?
The king had way more power than any presidents ( at least in Western democracies ). You are obviously confused about the legal order of feudal society: the checks on monarchial power were implemented not by the peasantry, (who, in your terms, were often "brainwashed" by religious fanatics or political utopianists into revolt,) but by the aristocracy. Regarding the Jacquerie uprising in particular- it was an instance not of tyrannical monarchial power, but of the breakdown of monarchial power. The suppression was initiated not by the King of France, who was held in English captivity, but by the aristocracy (you seem to equate monarchy with aristocracy, which is a particularly fallacious attitude for the Middle Ages).
I'm not only talking about the "Grande Jacquerie" ( 14th century ).
The word "jacquerie" is also commonly used for all the peasants revolts during the monarchy era. There were several revolts during Louis XIV reign for example.
Anyway this:
Regarding the Jacquerie uprising in particular- it was an instance not of tyrannical monarchial power, but of the breakdown of monarchial power
is clearly playing with words. The whole aristocracy was linked with monarchy.
Without nobles there are no king and vice versa. The whole system was unfair.
On June 28 2009 23:50 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Concerning the enlightenment, of course, the monarchy was the prime source of intellectual patronage. But Voltaire was not exiled for his ideas (he had no original ones of his own) but for his propensity for making domestic enemies throgh his merciless teasing. Under Louis XV, censorship and more importantly, the selective policing of philosophes was the extension of court politics. On one side stood the clerical faction, on the other side, enlightened noblemen, and Mme. de Pompador, who often protected Voltaire from the King's justice. Of course, every Kingdom was different: exiled Philosophes often migrated to liberal England, with her powerful aristocracy, and the enlightened Prussia of Frederick II.
So you basicly agree with me when i say that there was no thing such as "freedom of expression".
On June 28 2009 23:50 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Your attribtion of every evil which occurs under a monarchy to the perils of monarchism in general is fraudulent and simple-minded.
Yea it is clearly because of those damn peasants.
On June 28 2009 23:50 MoltkeWarding wrote:The notion that Kings had more power than presidents can be challenged very simply and directly: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8112821.stmCould any monarch have initiated laws of this kind?
Oh my god. You are a terrible troll.
1- Jewish people and protestants were HIGHLY discriminated during the whole monarchy era. ( hihi révocation de l'édit de Nantes, massacre de la saint Barthélemy etc ... )
There were no muslims in France in the 18th century but they would have been way more discriminated than nowadays.
You must be kidding.
2- You have absolutly 0 knowledge about the political system here. Sarkozy can speak as much as he wants he won't make a law alone.
There are no law prohibiting the burqa here ( Only in State schools and administration but not universities ). Some MP ( some PC, PS, UMP members ) just wanted to start a "commission d'enquête parlementaire" which is some sort of study. Not a law.
Also i doubt that the Conseil constitutionnel would approve this kind of "laws".
Contradiction. Looks like his dear "sujets" didn't really care about his fate. Maybe he wasn't that popular ?
On June 28 2009 23:50 MoltkeWarding wrote:Louis XVI reigned for eighteen years from 1774 to 1792. Anyone who understands the least thing about the fickleness of French popular sentiment will understand that it is entirely possible for the public to love a figure one day and distain him the next, particularly in France.: From the Coronation of Louis XVI: Show nested quote +While traveling from Compiègne to Frismes—where His Majesty spent the night on 8 June–, the King received the most dazzling, the most sincere and already the most deserved proof of love from His Peoples...the King entered Reims escorted by the troops of the royal household and made his way through a People intoxicated with joy—which did not decrease but rather intensified as the procession moved along.
So basicly you agree that he was unpopular in 1792. Thanks.
However i highly doubt that the "récits" of coronations are accurate. Even the worst dictators have their admirers and panégyristes.
Moltke there is a reason why there are no more absolute monarchies in Western countries.
Because it is unfair, ineffective and because people enjoy freedom.
On June 28 2009 23:50 MoltkeWarding wrote:
This is not only wrong, but entirely unhistorical. As Tocqueville himself summarized in L'Ancien Regime: Revolutions against monarchies begin not when they are at their most oppressive, but when their grip on power has begun to relax.
The Fronde failed against Mazarin, while the French Revolution succeeded in deposing the far milder Louis XVI.
Nicholas I crushed the Decembrist rising with an iron fist, while Nicholas II pursued moderation, and was eventually murdered.
Henry VIII brutally suppressed all domestic opposition, while Charles I was chased from his throne after granting numerous concessions to Parliament.
Stalin defeated popular risings against collectivization with brutality, while Gorbachev inadvertently toppled the state he was trying to reform.
Yea so what ?
Does it make the USSR of Gorbachev a "fair" state ?
On June 28 2009 23:50 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Which is the better proposition?
Louis XVI or Robespierre and Napoleon?
Nicholas II or Lenin?
Charles I or Cromwell?
Fifth Republic ( although it has its own problems ).
But history is history and before the Fifth Republic there were the 4th, the third , the second , the Restauration, Napoleon etc...
 
|
I'm sorry for people who thought it could be a funny blog.
It isn't.
I'm just demonstrating why Moltke, although his prose might been impressive compared to my crude English is either a troll or an highly biased man ( Well i think that we all are but Moltke speaks like if he is the Truth ).
|
The latter and we all know that. He's still amusing whenever I feel I have enough time to waste to read through his posts and laugh about the eloquent English with flawed views.
|
well anybody who writes that way, can only be a dick
|
On June 29 2009 01:02 Wurzelbrumpft wrote:
well anybody who writes that way, can only be a dick
Anybody who writes the way you do can only be a dick as well, unfortunately.
|
It's so difficult to follow the discussion here since a.) I doubt this is a whole, coherent debate, and b.) Moltke makes so many damn assumptions about what his opponent is trying to say you can hardly recognize that it may be related to the same train of logic.
It's also amazing how many references he brings to the table without fielding actual persuasion.
Of course, I also thought your "So you basicly agree with me when i say that there was no thing such as "freedom of expression"." judgment of one of his paragraphs to be assumptive and unsubstantiated.
Can't blame you, though, when the paragraph itself accomplished little but give a brief rundown of his understanding of certain histories.
|
On June 29 2009 01:18 EchOne wrote:
It's so difficult to follow the discussion here since a.) I doubt this is a whole, coherent debate, and b.) Moltke makes so many damn assumptions about what his opponent is trying to say you can hardly recognize that it may be related to the same train of logic.
It's also amazing how many references he brings to the table without fielding actual persuasion.
Of course, I also thought your "So you basicly agree with me when i say that there was no thing such as "freedom of expression"." judgment of one of his paragraphs to be assumptive and unsubstantiated.
Can't blame you, though, when the paragraph itself accomplished little but give a brief rundown of his understanding of certain histories.
Yea i think i could make better answers ( with more content :/ ) using my main language but all this mess started when he made this comparison between the situation in Iran atm and the French revolution...
It was irrevelant but i guess he just wanted to troll me ( i guess that now he is successful :O ).
|
i stopped reading at "voltaire had no ideas of his own" please dont talk shit... please stop reading wikipedia and virtually copy/pasting what u read... Voltaire had the unique ability to write seemingly superficial stories that had very hidden meanings to them - which critisized the monarchy but doubly so in that, oftenly those who he critisized only realised their error long after declaring their love of his texts...
Personnally i find it dull reading but i like how he actually wrote for a purpose and not just so people could fantasize...
|
Not to nitpick, but how does Voltaire having "the unique ability to write seemingly superficial stories that had very hidden meanings to them" imply that he independently generated unique ideas?
|
Moltke is just the type of genius some people find hard to understand. He doesn't simplify his arguments for the common man.
|
On June 29 2009 01:36 Chef wrote:
Moltke is just the type of genius some people find hard to understand. He doesn't simplify his arguments for the common man.
Who are we, mere mortals to question the sayings and subtleties of the great Moltke?
|
moltke is known for his bombastic speech and pedantic online behaviour -_-;;
I wonder if he talks like that in RL (and gets punched in the face often)...?
|
The whole aristocracy was linked with monarchy.
Without nobles there are no king and vice versa. The whole system was unfair.
I am just curious- of which system are you speaking? The early nobles of France (Frankish chieftains endowed with land by the Merovengian kings) were certainly not politically independent, but between the 10th and 16th centuries, the French aristocracy were highly independent political actors with loose feudal bonds to the central monarchy. Feudalism was a decentralized political system.
While your statement is not wrong, it does not state anything but the obvious- society particularly in the aristocratic ages was composed of complex symbiotic relationships between the various classes, each of which performed a necessary function to society.
So you basicly agree with me when i say that there was no thing such as "freedom of expression".
I am saying that your black/white view of censorship and freedom of expression are simplistic, and frankly, ignorant. The great century of formalism, rigid etiquette and restricted taste in France was the 17th century, not the 18th. The Paris of Louis XV was relatively libertine in comparison to that of his great-grandfather. Voltaire was the greatest celebrity of the age and no one could keep him out of Paris for long. Public opinion during the reign of Louis XV was already nigh-supreme.
1- Jewish people and protestants were HIGHLY discriminated during the whole monarchy era. ( hihi révocation de l'édit de Nantes, massacre de la saint Barthélemy etc
You are pressing on two overlapping but unidentical issues- monarchism on one hand, and religious conflicts on the other. While not intending to whitewash Louis XIV's acquiescence in the revocation of Nantes, it is too simplistic to lay the entire blame on him. The King, a devoted catholic but essentially humane man, was never made personally aware of the extent of abuses against the Huguenots in his Kingdom. It's ironically selective that you lay the guilt of the revocation of Nantes at the door of Louis XIV, while giving no credit to Henry IV, whose original promogulation of the Edict brought an end to the wars of religion in France and ushered in a period of religious tolerance. The history of the reformation shows that religious conflict for most nations began at the grassroots level, and later became politicized. This is important; had a National Assembly pontificated at the end of the Wars of Religion, there was no way that an edict of tolerance would ever have been issued.
If you wish to see Republicanism in action during the era of Religious fervour, perhaps this shall be instructive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland
You have absolutly 0 knowledge about the political system here. Sarkozy can speak as much as he wants he won't make a law alone.
There are no law prohibiting the burqa here ( Only in State schools and administration but not universities ). Some MP ( some PC, PS, UMP members ) just wanted to start a "commission d'enquête parlementaire" which is some sort of study.
Kings rarely promogulated laws on arbitrary whim. Policies were pushed into the royal council by members of court factions, deliberated upon, and given royal assent. However, what this example highlights is not process but extent. In the middle ages, it may have been plausible for municiple councils to prescribe public dress codes, but Kings? Such a sweeping act would have been totally outside of his power to enforce. During the height of Napoleon's popularity, bread prices were higher than ever during the era of Louis XVI. Nor could Louis XVI have raised millions of Frenchmen for his armies via mass conscription. Nor could Louis XVI have raised extraordinary taxes without the consent of parliament (if Sarkozy and the National Assembly pushed their taxation on a 18th century public, they would be thrown out of office overnight.) Nor could he regulate healthcare, education, or even centralize the justice process within his Kingdom. A monarch could have at the worst exercised arbitrary and irresponsible power. He was institutionally incapable of exercising total power.
So basicly you agree that he was unpopular in 1792. Thanks.
However i highly doubt that the "récits" of coronations are accurate. Even the worst dictators have their admirers and panégyristes.
Again, you alternatively lean on philosophy and history. If you admit that it's possible for a monarch to be popular, you would demand evidence. If you are shown evidence, you say that it's improbable. This is nothing more than ideological bias. Anyhow, mass jubilation at coronation were regular spectacles in modern monarchies. If millions could weep at Mao's death in 1976, why would you doubt that millions could rejoice at the coronation of Louis XVI, a man who was perhaps unduly preoccupied with pleasing the public?
Yea so what ?
Does it make the USSR of Gorbachev a "fair" state ?
I see what your problem (and the problem of French politics) is: you are led by your revolution to expect a utopian state, and overthrow regime after regime when they fail to procure it for you.
Gorbachev's USSR was no utopia, but the alternative was not the Kingdom of God, but a Brezhnev or a Yeltsen.
|
On June 29 2009 01:56 Trezeguet23 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 01:36 Chef wrote:
Moltke is just the type of genius some people find hard to understand. He doesn't simplify his arguments for the common man. Who are we, mere mortals to question the sayings and subtleties of the great Moltke?
Yes.
|
if you just turn your brain off and read through moltke's posts they're actually quite pleasing
You are pressing on two overlapping but unidentical issues- monachism on one hand, and religious conflicts on the other. While not intending to whitewash Louis XIV's acquiescence in the revocation of Nantes, it is too simplistic to lay the entire blame on him.
mmmmmmmm
|
I don't see anyone actually putting up a credible retort to his statements.
His logic is thusfar untrammeled, this position is nearly truistic and the possible objections to his thematic interpretations of the interaction between governance and power have not been raised, nor are likely to be raised. Why? Because the arguments are fundamental ones, and people rarely perform a recursive analysis of their, or their 'opponents' assumptions during an exchange.
|
What is the point of communicating arguments that wont be understood by the vast mayority of the community?
To be honest, to me it seems like nothing but an attempt to brag about his knowledge by arguing in a place where he knows 99% of the people wont be able to respond to him in an effective manner.
It seems to me that if he wanted true debate at his level of knowledge, he wouldn't search for it in an internet forum dedicated to a video game.
|
Netherlands18818 Posts
This blog is so gonna deliver.
*cheers for Moltke*
*bashes spear on shield*
|
On June 29 2009 03:19 Nyovne wrote:
This blog is so gonna deliver.
*cheers for Moltke*
*bashes spear on shield*
+1
If he is trolling, he's doing a pretty good job by the looks of it...
|
On June 29 2009 02:55 L wrote:
I don't see anyone actually putting up a credible retort to his statements.
His logic is thusfar untrammeled, this position is nearly truistic and the possible objections to his thematic interpretations of the interaction between governance and power have not been raised, nor are likely to be raised. Why? Because the arguments are fundamental ones, and people rarely perform a recursive analysis of their, or their 'opponents' assumptions during an exchange.
Nice try, but no  Being smart is not just about using big synonyms for short words.
On June 29 2009 03:04 CrimsonLotus wrote:
What is the point of communicating arguments that wont be understood by the vast mayority of the community?
To be honest, to me it seems like nothing but an attempt to brag about his knowledge by arguing in a place where he knows 99% of the people wont be able to respond to him in an effective manner.
It seems to me that if he wanted true debate at his level of knowledge, he wouldn't search for it in an internet forum dedicated to a video game.
It's even more pointless to argue in ways that don't effectively convey a point. He posts for the same reason any of us bother responding to topics. We were intrigued, we had a think, and we wanted to write it down. When we're questioned we want to test our own knowledge for our own benefit.
Anyone who argues on the internet for the purpose of 'converting' another person to their opinion/belief/whatever is a dunce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
