History questions not worth their own thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
JEELEN said:
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.

I get it. You don't know enough about the subject to come up with tautological argument in defense of a position that makes no sense, so you've instead decided to think I'm being personal for having called you out over it! :lol:

Awwww, that's cute. Shame you don't sputter off into indignation more regularly.
 
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?
Yes.

Yes.

States in the Holy Roman Empire often fought one another. Think of the Empire as less like a modern state with an organised, centralised government, and more like a loose association of different states all with competing interests, recognising a single head. So, more like the United Nations than the Unites States.

Fiefs in a medieval kingdom routinely pursued their own foreign policies, independent of their sovereigns, sometimes even in direct conflict with their sovereigns. William the Conqueror didn't ask the King of France for permission before he invaded England and the French Kings fought a whole string of wars - grouped under the name of the Albigensian Crusade - against too-powerful nobles in Southern France. Popes and Holy Roman Emperors routinely led armies and confederations against one another. You mention the Seven Years' War, but fail to realise that Prussia itself was a member of the Holy Roman Empire, a far more important member - Brandenburg was an Electorate, not a mere Principality - than Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel.

The modern-day system of nation-states didn't even exist until the Peace of Westphalia, which ironically was the death-knell for the Holy Roman Empire as any sort of centralised state. As Bowsling says, read up on the Thirty Years' War. The Peace of Westphalia would also be good to read about, as would the War of the Austrian Succession, the Hohenstaufens and the Hapsburgs, among other things. Feudalism might also be helpful to research.
 
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?

Sorry to nag, but my question has gone unanswered. :)
 
I'm hardly an expert on Olde England, but the Saxon aristocracy generally was mixed into the "common" English populace/peasantry, and replaced with a new French-speaking Norman aristocracy. Also, I believe that there was still about 10-15 years of civil war after the Battle of Hastings.
 
I'm hardly an expert on Olde England, but the Saxon aristocracy generally was mixed into the "common" English populace/peasantry, and replaced with a new French-speaking Norman aristocracy. Also, I believe that there was still about 10-15 years of civil war after the Battle of Hastings.
This. There were also several Saxon lords who fled to Scotland, forming an ad hoc government-in-exile there. Most of them either reached an accommodation with the Normans, integrated into the Scottish system, or just flat-out faded into obscurity.

I meant to answer your question when I read it, madviking, but I guess I got distracted. I probable read it at work, then forgot about when I actually had the time to reply.
 
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.

Ah, Anti. Wish I could conjure a real answer for you. But I can't.

Best I can say, It's like the difference between a bishop and an archbishop in the Catholic hierarchy: one is a higher honorific, much like an Ipod is in the eye of the public better than a just-as-good Chinese copy.
(Although, in my own example, archbishops are distinguished because they once held temporal power/had supremacy over a 'simple' bishop. Just trying to clarify stuff I'm not than into but just tried to get reason and rhyme of).
 
Statistics as a field of Mathematics dates from the middle ages, at the very least from the 18th century.

I suppose you at the very last. That´s a 300 year gap, statististically speaking a very wide margin of error. Statistics as a field of mathematics isn´t at issue here, though. The question was related to the gathering of practical data from an era when the science of statistics was in non-existence. (As in ancient history.) As I mentioned before, the absence of comparable data makes any reasonable extrapolation equal to ´an educated guess´.

I get it. You don't know enough about the subject to come up with tautological argument in defense of a position that makes no sense, so you've instead decided to think I'm being personal for having called you out over it! :lol:

Awwww, that's cute. Shame you don't sputter off into indignation more regularly.

More off topic comment I see. Sir, kindly take your childish pranks to the Tavern. You obviously don´t have a point, question or issue that needs answering here. :nono:
 
@PCH, I think we've made our points and got nonsense back in response, no?

JEELEN said:
More off topic comment I see. Sir, kindly take your childish pranks to the Tavern. You obviously don´t have a point, question or issue that needs answering here.

Awww, that's cute. You can't come up with a riposte, or elaborate on the subject and have to pull the age card. Cute.
 
Awww, that's cute. You can't come up with a riposte, or elaborate on the subject and have to pull the age card. Cute.

Well, I´m glad you think I´m cute; and if there´s a historical question you need answering, I´ll be happy to try and oblige. ;)
 
Try being the operative word.
 
Was there a lot of black market activity in Nazi Germany and German occupied areas?
Oh yeah. Watch the film The Third Man. While set after the war, it's not much different to what was going on during it. Most of the big-time black marketers in post-war Europe had cut their teeth during the war - or, in the case of the Germans, during the pre-war years of Nazi rule. The Unione Corse, in France, in particular made a lot of headway during WWII, by smuggling goods into Vichy for sale. The German economy was so rotten that people had no choice but to get their goods from the black market, similar to what happened in the USSR and its satellites.
 
No, ´;)´ is the ´operative word´. As usual, you are misreading. Now, if you do have a question, I´d be happy to answer it. But since the last dozen or so of your posts don´t contain any actual question or even issue to respond to, I´m at a loss as to why you are continuing this happy bantering. Not that I mind, but an actual subject would be nice every once in a while...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom