History questions not worth their own thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
JEELEN said:
Because the science of statistics was only developed in the 19th century. That doesn´t mean that data aren´t available, but these can hardly be called comparable. So at best one can give estimates.Such an exact date as GDP is impossible to attain for 1500, other than by extrapolation.

That's a strange point to make because I can't think of a single economic data series dating to the 1800s that can be compared to a modern data series. Even something as big as the National Accounts ceases to be comparable around the 1980s mark because of changes in SNA standards (assuming, of course, that the nation in question adhered to the SNA in the first place that far back). So statistical methods have nothing to do with the issue at all.
 
According to the late Angus Maddison's estimates - problematic, but widely accepted as the best we have - total Western and Eastern European GDP was lower than those of either China or India in 1500, but was within about twenty percent of either, which certainly qualifies as "about the same", especially when considering that that's probably smaller than the error involved in making such calculations. :p

That makes a lot more sense.
Thank you everyone who helped answer that.
 
Here's one for you guys: why were the Italian republics (i.e. Venice, San Marino) formally referred to as "The Most Serene Republic of X"? Why serene? Why was this common in Italy and not elsewhere? My limited googling only has come up with the wiki, which doesn't have any explanation as to how this appellation came to be.
 
Actually that wiki gives a hint of explanation, but I´ll let someone more expert on the matter take it up. ;)

That's a strange point to make because I can't think of a single economic data series dating to the 1800s that can be compared to a modern data series. Even something as big as the National Accounts ceases to be comparable around the 1980s mark because of changes in SNA standards (assuming, of course, that the nation in question adhered to the SNA in the first place that far back). So statistical methods have nothing to do with the issue at all.

Apart from this not quite relating to what I said, I think statistics researchers are well aware of such differences. Counting methods differed already centuries ago. ;)

What? No.

What? Yes. (Interesting form of argument there...)

But continuing on the previous point, prior to the 19th century statistics weren´t methodically assembled and even after statistics developed (slowly) as a science, comparable source gathering has always remained a problem. Earlier data differ widely in range, location and method, making comparisons problematic beyond the point of mere extrapolation. But let´s not repeat ourselves...
 
One thing I can't understand - how did the Holy Roman Empire's dynasties work?
I mean - Was it like this(?):
One archduke / king / prince from a local dynasty is elected by the pope to be the King of the Romans, and than he becomes a Holy Roman Emperor?
And what about the borders? If an Austrian duke becomes the Holy Roman Emperor, will he also control Burgundy, Germany and Saxony?
 
Actually that wiki gives a hint of explanation, but I´ll let someone more expert on the matter take it up. ;)

I checked the "Serene Highness" link and still wasn't satisfied with it. Turns out, it's more widespread than I first thought, but the etymology is still vague for Italy and why republics adopted this monarchical style (besides the obvious and trite "they didn't know anything else"). It also focused much more on the modern titles (19th and 20th century) without addressing the medieval titles.

Without knowing which statistical methods are being referred to (or what's being counted as a statistical method), I don't know where I could weigh in. Averages have been around a long time, but modern statistical tools like the t-test, confidence intervals, etc. have all been developed within the last century and change.



EDIT:
One thing I can't understand - how did the Holy Roman Empire's dynasties work?
I mean - Was it like this(?):
One archduke / king / prince from a local dynasty is elected by the pope to be the King of the Romans, and than he becomes a Holy Roman Emperor?
And what about the borders? If an Austrian duke becomes the Holy Roman Emperor, will he also control Burgundy, Germany and Saxony?

Depends on the era. In the later period, a select number of local princes and bishops (collectively referred to as Electors) would select the next Emperor. He would technically control all the lands within the Holy Roman Empire, but only in a very loose sense.
 
The Holy Roman Empire was technically an elective monarchy. A group of powerful feudal lords, known as electors - of which those of Brandenburg (Prussia) Bavaria and Saxony are likely the best known - would vote on the next Emperor during the reign of the current Emperor. The man who was elected would then become King of the Romans, which made him the heir apparent to the imperial throne in the same way that the Prince of Wales is the heir apparent to the British crown. In practice, however, the monarchy tended to become hereditary, even before the Hapsburgs seized permanent control of the throne.

The Holy Roman Emperor also technically possessed the right to deprive and grant feudal fiefs at will, a power that was exercised quite a bit in the early days of the Empire, with the emperors depriving too-powerful nobles - such as Albert "the Bear" of Saxony and Henry "the Lion" of Brandenburg - of their duchies and giving them to their allies, as well as the policy of some emperors of giving their own families fiefdoms, the idea being that they would retain those territories even if their family lost the next imperial election. Eventually, however, the fiefdoms, like the imperial crown, became hereditary. It was, in fact, repeatedly suggested that this hereditary succession be codified, but for some reason it was always defeated when it came to a vote.

There were also anomalies such as disputed elections, resulting in different factions supporting different "Kings of the Romans," papal interference in imperial elections - and vice-versa - which often resulted in more than one 'official' pope, Holy Roman Electors (and Emperors) who controlled more territory outside of the Empire's borders than within them - the Electors of Brandenburg were also the Kings of Prussia, the Hapsburgs obviously ruled Austria, Spain, Hungary, the Low Countries and swathes of the Balkans when most of those lands were outside of the Empire, the Kings of Saxony and Bohemia were periodically also Kings of Poland, etc. - and elections being won through huge bribes to the electors.

Then there's the Peace of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years' War, which basically made the imperial title an empty one, long before Napoleon's assumption of the imperial title and redistribution of German lands led to Francis II's (Francis I of Austria) official renunciation of the title and assumption of the title 'Emperor of Austria.' The Holy Roman Empire is one of the more complex states - if one can even think of it as a single state, which it certainly wasn't - in world history. Part of why no game, including Europa Universalis, has even done even a passable job of embodying it.
 
It's virtually impossible to measure the GDP of anywhere before roughly the 19th/20th Century.

Not only is it very hard, I'll say that it is irrelevant when applied to continent-sized regions. Because it doesn't tell us anything useful about those regions: there were extremely rich areas and extremely poor areas in medieval Europe, in India and in China.
 
Not only is it very hard, I'll say that it is irrelevant when applied to continent-sized regions. Because it doesn't tell us anything useful about those regions: there were extremely rich areas and extremely poor areas in medieval Europe, in India and in China.
GDP doesn't make much sense on a continental level today for the same reason.
 
Did William the Conqueror execute and/or replace all the Saxon vassals with Norman ones?

If not, was there much opposition to his rule among his Saxon vassals, especially immediately after the Battle of Hastings?

If so, how were the titles determined and allotted?
 
JEELEN said:
Apart from this not quite relating to what I said, I think statistics researchers are well aware of such differences. Counting methods differed already centuries ago.

It was related, the point being that statistical processes don't matter so long as the data is good. If the data is good, I can run whatever statistical processes I want on it no matter how old it is. Therefore, the question of whether or not X had access to statistical methodologies we now have doesn't matter a whit, so long as X was consistent with his/her data collection.
 
Which again not quite relates to what I said. There´s plenty of data available, but very few data are compiled in the same manner, and they weren´t compiled to serve as statistical data. That doesn´t change with the advent of statistics in the 19th century, or even with more modern statistical tools. Even modern statistical data are gathered diffferently per country, so trying to compare data prior to, say, 1800, will include a substantial ´margin of error´ - let alone if one wants to try and extrapolate regional or continental data. (For instance, an example of an estimated 50 million population for the Roman Empire at around 100 AD/CE, doesn´t really give much to go on when trying to compare with the Indian subcontinent or ancient China around that same time period.)
 
JEELEN said:
Which again not quite relates to what I said.

You made the point that "because the science of statistics was only developed in the 19th century... [the data] can hardly be called comparable". I made the point that the development of the science of statistics has done nothing to change this. For reasons unknown you've now hijacked my position? I'm going to put that down to imitation born out of ignorance.
 
Now you're misquoting. I'm not sure what your point is exactly, because again this hardly relates to what I said. If you´d actually bother to read the posts you seem so keen on commenting on, you might have noticed that´s not my position at all. That statistical science was unknown prior to, say, 1800, has no bearing on (un)availability of data prior to that date.
 
JEELEN said:
Now you're misquoting. I'm not sure what your point is exactly, because again this hardly relates to what I said, and I don't consider attempt at insult a valid argument.

'Misquoting'? And it's related, it just takes a little bit of knowledge to understand. I suppose I should just learn to pitch things at the level of the audience.
 
The Holy Roman Empire was technically an elective monarchy. A group of powerful feudal lords, known as electors - of which those of Brandenburg (Prussia) Bavaria and Saxony are likely the best known - would vote on the next Emperor during the reign of the current Emperor. The man who was elected would then become King of the Romans, which made him the heir apparent to the imperial throne in the same way that the Prince of Wales is the heir apparent to the British crown. In practice, however, the monarchy tended to become hereditary, even before the Hapsburgs seized permanent control of the throne.

The Holy Roman Emperor also technically possessed the right to deprive and grant feudal fiefs at will, a power that was exercised quite a bit in the early days of the Empire, with the emperors depriving too-powerful nobles - such as Albert "the Bear" of Saxony and Henry "the Lion" of Brandenburg - of their duchies and giving them to their allies, as well as the policy of some emperors of giving their own families fiefdoms, the idea being that they would retain those territories even if their family lost the next imperial election. Eventually, however, the fiefdoms, like the imperial crown, became hereditary. It was, in fact, repeatedly suggested that this hereditary succession be codified, but for some reason it was always defeated when it came to a vote.

There were also anomalies such as disputed elections, resulting in different factions supporting different "Kings of the Romans," papal interference in imperial elections - and vice-versa - which often resulted in more than one 'official' pope, Holy Roman Electors (and Emperors) who controlled more territory outside of the Empire's borders than within them - the Electors of Brandenburg were also the Kings of Prussia, the Hapsburgs obviously ruled Austria, Spain, Hungary, the Low Countries and swathes of the Balkans when most of those lands were outside of the Empire, the Kings of Saxony and Bohemia were periodically also Kings of Poland, etc. - and elections being won through huge bribes to the electors.

Then there's the Peace of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years' War, which basically made the imperial title an empty one, long before Napoleon's assumption of the imperial title and redistribution of German lands led to Francis II's (Francis I of Austria) official renunciation of the title and assumption of the title 'Emperor of Austria.' The Holy Roman Empire is one of the more complex states - if one can even think of it as a single state, which it certainly wasn't - in world history. Part of why no game, including Europa Universalis, has even done even a passable job of embodying it.

If one duke was elected, will the others keep holding their former titles?
I mean, will they have the authority to administrate their own foreign policy?
And another question - in the Seven Years War, the Habsburg Monarchy of Austria fought against Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel. But they both were part of the Holy Roman Empire. How can it be?
 
Countries within the Holy Roman Empire constantly fought each other, Landfrieden or not. Most Habsburg lands were outside the Empire, anyway.
 
'Misquoting'? And it's related, it just takes a little bit of knowledge to understand. I suppose I should just learn to pitch things at the level of the audience.

I was being kind. Putting things together, then putting those things into someone else´s mouth and trying to insult the other party hardly constitutes an argument. If your ´arguments´ are meant to be personal, please take them elsewhere. Sir.
 
If one duke was elected, will the others keep holding their former titles?
I mean, will they have the authority to administrate their own foreign policy?
And another question - in the Seven Years War, the Habsburg Monarchy of Austria fought against Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel. But they both were part of the Holy Roman Empire. How can it be?

Read: Thirty Year's War.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom