Talk:Politics

From Cunnan
Revision as of 09:11, 16 November 2003 by 210.9.138.6 (talk)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Anton here.

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.