450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us .
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, May 22, 2009 14:59
VIEWED: 29463
PAGE 42 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Germans did not have an organized social structure before direct contact with the Roman.
I disagree with that. It did not have the scale of Roman society, because it Germans were a group of many different nations (or tribes, if you will) who shared a language family and certain culture, but they did have a social structure and law, and such. And they did have kings.
Quote:
The Germans had a primitive warrior society in which clans were led by prominent warriors. They didn’t divide society up into nobility or peasantry
They did have ruling families, though, which seems to be pretty much the same thing as a "nobility".
Quote:
and they did not have a concept of freedom based on inalienable rights
Obviously not. Who did, then? I never said they did. But they did have a concept of freedom in terms of free men vs. slaves.
Quote:
because they had no conception of law.
To say they had no concept of law is a little simplistic. They weren't fur-clad savages roaming the forest.
Quote:
For the Germans, freedom and rights were things that were earned by the strong.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. In a way, this sentence can apply to almost any society, even our Western democratic society. Might makes right, in practice more often than we want it to be true. But your sentence completely discounts the binding nature of tradition, culture and laws that were not preserved due to the fact that they may not have been written down.
Quote:
After significant contact with the Romans, Germans learned to establish a proto-feudal system based the Roman model of nobility and peasantry. This is a big part of why Germans in the 4th century were such a destabilizing factor for the Western Roman Empire, when before they had not been. The Germans learned to be a more effective society through the organization they gained from the Romans.
I disagree that this was mainly due to learning from the Romans, especially since the Roman system of patricians representing plebeians did not have the same structure as the later feudal system. Necessity dictated that they organise better, both to defend against Romans and to migrate, due to climate changes. So while Roman influence played a role, it was not primarily a learning influence to teach Germanic tribes the concept of hierarchic social structure. They took their existing social structures and developed those.
Quote:
So while it may be true that by the time the Roman Empire collapsed in the West, German societies had already begun developing a feudal economy which would later define the European model of aristocracy, it’s not true that that social order developed independent of the Romans.
I'm starting to think that perhaps our main disagreement lies in the definition of social order. Do you consider social order to be tied to a a large govermental authority, a system of written-down laws, stretching homogenously over a significant amount of territory, and a significantly heterogenic life for different tiers of society?
Because, as I said, obviously Germanic tribes did not have a society of the same scale or cultural development as the Roman empire, but they did have a social structure, a social hierarchy including "nobility" and slavery, and they did have an inter-tribal
judicial system.
I'm not saying that Germanic tribes did not pick up some things from Roman society. German princes served in the Roman army, for one. But neither was German culture so "primitive" that they did not have a social structure of their own, nor did Roman influence extend so far that they would have served as a social role model, as opposed to an incentive for an intensification of existing structures.
Quote:
I agree with that. A great deal of Medieval European thought and politics centered on recreating the mythic “glory” of the Roman Empire.
And not just me
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:You need to read posts more carefully.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, I totally get that, Cit - I was being a bit snarky to finn's claims, and trying to point out that maybe, just maybe, the whole world really isn't required to do as we say, not as we do.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
Or maybe you need to write posts more carefully.
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think what Hero is referring to change in thought that occurred during the late 16th and early 17th century concerning the idea of freedom. The so called inalienable rights didn’t always exist
A series of political and social changes swept Europe in the 1800s, many inspired by the French revolution.
Political ideas like liberty, equality, democracy and socio-economic ideas like abolishonism, worker rights, and a politically and economically powerful middle class.
It was an exciting time...unless you were a king.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Or maybe you need to write posts more carefully.
I think it's more a question of Finn needing to stop trolling.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And not just medieval. It would be hard to imagine Napoleon without the example of the Roman empire.
Or the current US Government. The Founding Fathers based their model on Rome.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:According to who? There were no ruling families that I know of.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
They did have ruling families, though, which seems to be pretty much the same thing as a "nobility".
Quote:That’s not far removed from the truth.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
To say they had no concept of law is a little simplistic. They weren't fur-clad savages roaming the forest.
Quote:They did not have rule of law. They did not have a written codex of law. There were no ruling families defined by law. The Germans prior to the first century were a very primitive culture. They had no written language. There is no evidence that they had any nobility or feudal system of economy that I’m aware of prior to contact with the Romans. But if you know of a source that says otherwise, I’d like to see it.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. In a way, this sentence can apply to almost any society, even our Western democratic society. Might makes right, in practice more often than we want it to be true. But your sentence completely discounts the binding nature of tradition, culture and laws that were not preserved due to the fact that they may not have been written down.
Quote:Nobility requires a certain degree of accepted legal authority. You can’t have nobility in a society were you cannot define a certain family and its lineage, and you cannot do that without a written law and an accepted government to back that law up. The Germanic nobility in the Pre-Roman Iron Age were defined by heroic qualities. You weren’t noble because of your birth, but rather because you were unchallenged.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'm starting to think that perhaps our main disagreement lies in the definition of social order. Do you consider social order to be tied to a a large govermental authority, a system of written-down laws, stretching homogenously over a significant amount of territory, and a significantly heterogenic life for different tiers of society?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Probably, but I think the desire to misunderstand me, goes much deeper then grammar or spelling.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Or maybe you need to write posts more carefully.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Probably, but I think the desire to misunderstand me, goes much deeper then grammar or spelling.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Or maybe you need to write posts more carefully.
Ah yes... And here's you, assigning opinions and beliefs to others. Aren't you the one who cries the most about others doing that to you?
Speaking of a desire to misunderstand...
Quote:
Yeah, okay. Let me know when the anti-abortions nuts run a jetliner into a skyscraper or blow a 60 foot hole in a US Destroyer.
Hey, be sure and let me know next time Al Qaeda blows up an abortion clinic, okay?
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If they could have they would have completely displaced every culture they encountered with a British one."
But, as colonial powers go, Britain was much better for the natives in South Africa than the Dutch - who called the natives kaffirs (which acquired the local meaning of 'cattle') and instituted apartheid.
"... South America were all conquered and became territorially part of the British Empire."
Not so far as I know.
Now, when it comes to NORTH America, the Spanish were here first. The British also had stiff competition from the French. And the British, (I hope I don't have to remind you) didn't actually conquer ALL of North America - in the US portion it was just a sliver along the coast. When it came to conquering the rest of what would eventually be the US - that was due to the conquering efforts of the US itself.
AgentRouka:
"To say they had no concept of law is a little simplistic. They weren't fur-clad savages roaming the forest."
Finn:
"That’s not far removed from the truth."
Even savages roaming the forest have governance.
"They did not have rule of law. They did not have a written codex of law. There were no ruling families defined by law. The Germans prior to the first century were a very primitive culture. They had no written language.
Nobility requires a certain degree of accepted legal authority. You can’t have nobility in a society were you cannot define a certain family and its lineage, and you cannot do that without a written law and an accepted government to back that law up."
I'm not sure why you think a written codex and a written family record are necessary for rules, hierarchies, rulers, or ruling families. Oral tradition works nicely.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I thought I was the only one having problems understanding Finn!
Finn: Is it possible that the problem is YOU? It seems like you don't understand your own points very well!
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME