Talk:Politics: Difference between revisions
From Cunnan
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
To save time and arguments I re-wrote the page and deleted the discussion here. It can start anew. Look in the archives if you're really interested, which you shouldn't be. |
|||
Anton here. |
|||
[[User:Del|Del]] 12:07, 17 Nov 2003 (EST) |
|||
I dont have time to revise this right now, but this article is so completely, totally and tragically wrong it's not funny. This is nineteenth century scholarship at it's absolute worst. |
|||
This sort of article is why written works need named authors, so readers can identify their future work, and apply appropriate weight to it. |
|||
Tobin, your work just made my 'Ignore as crap unless it's really well footnoted with authorities I trust' list. |
|||
To summarise ; |
|||
If there is one golden thread that runs through medieval political thought and practice, it is the idea of lawfullness. |
|||
It is not sufficent to merely conquer some province ; you have to have a lawful claim to it. For example - William of Normandy invaded England in defence of a lawful claim to the throne, and the English campaigns in France had a legal basis other than 'They wanted our land, and the took it'. |
|||
It could be a pretty crappy claim, but the claim needs to be there. |
|||
Now, in Quattracentro and later Italy, these rules did not apply, as by this point Italy was not a medieval society ; it was in the Modern, where States are soveriegn, amoral and co-equal. |
|||
Latest revision as of 12:07, 17 November 2003
To save time and arguments I re-wrote the page and deleted the discussion here. It can start anew. Look in the archives if you're really interested, which you shouldn't be.
Del 12:07, 17 Nov 2003 (EST)
