History questions not worth their own thread IV

[Flying Pig]

Being aristocrat isn't the same as being of noble birth. Aristocracy implies a ruling group. Nobility only rules today in a number of (more or less absolute) monarchies.

Only as a system of government - 'Britain is an aristocracy' would mean that Britain was ruled by its noblemen, but 'Britain has an aristocracy' simply means that noble families exist in Britain.

Or for "democracy", by the way.

Indeed - after chewing this over, I'm convinced by Dachs' argument that 'absolute monarchy' as a term doesn't mean very much, but disagree that this makes it useless. Although we can't characterise a society by it alone, because it lumps together 1640s England, 1780s France and 1890s Russia, it is useful to get a feel for a society in conjunction with other descriptions, and as an opposite to 'constitutional monarchy', which is a phrase which lumps together 1790s France, 1910s Russia and 1990s Britain, and so is equally poor as an overall descriptor of a country. It's as useful as terms like 'large income inequality', 'highly stratified society' and 'militaristic society' - although neither of these are great in isolation, if we talk about 'an absolute monarchy with a highly stratified society, large inequality of income and a dominant military', we begin to get a feel for the society being described.

 

[LightSpectra]

Or for "democracy", by the way.

If we're talking about the whole of human history, then yes. Modern day political discussions have generally agreed upon "democracy" to refer to states whose executive and/or legislative branch are chosen by free, universal elections. That's largely a betrayal of the original word, but at least it refers to something that can be generalized while accurately retaining the substance of what is meant.

 

[Traitorfish]

Are you talking about 18th century France or about Medieval? I think you confused Medieval situation with that in 18th century France...

In Medieval there was no such thing like "Third Estate - commons". In Medieval there was distinction between Peasantry and Townsmen within what later became known as "Third Estate" or "commons". OTOH, in 18th century France both peasants and urban citizens became altogether known as "Third Estate".

What distinguished Townsmen from Peasants was having citizenship of a town or city. If you lived in a city or town but had no citizenship (for example some beggar or poor plebeian), you was still a peasant. But usually you could not enter the area within the city walls without having the citizenship.

They were still collectively identified as the "commons" or "Third Estate". Furthermore, even within these further divisions of estate, there were tremendous variations, with the "peasant" encompassing everything from the most oppressed to serf to a wealthy non-noble landholder, and the "townsman" everything from the scruffiest apprentice to the most opulent of merchant-princes. It's hard to believe that such individuals represent a coherent social class, simply because they happen to live near each other.

Because this is simply how it was - it was legal status or legal situation (not money) which made you peasant / priesthood / knighthood.

Everyone from a semi-literate village priest to an archbishop was subject to the jurisdiction of the Canon Law and the fact that they had some specific privileges. And this is what distinguished Priesthood from other classes (or estates if you prefer to use this word instead of classes).

There were many peasants who were richer than some of poor knights. It was not financial situation which decided what class you belonged to.

In what understanding does that imply that the priesthood constituted a distinct and coherent social class? The debate among most historians is, give or take, basically between a Marxian and Weberian definition of class, but this doesn't seem to have anything to do with either of them. To be frank, you seem to be arguing in circles: "estates were classes because estates were classes because estates were classes..."

 

[Yeekim]

Nothing, actually observing how a historical microcosm functioned is better than picking another word to generalize it to the point of either the word being useless, or it relaying factually inaccuracies.

Sounds like "look, my field of expertise is so complicated it cannot be described in mere words!"

 

[Flying Pig]

Not at all; you just need lots of different words rather than trying to group unrelated things. It's hard to find an analogy, but it's a bit like a chemist grouping 'red chemicals' together; there's not going to be much similarity between them other than their colour. The difficulty is that in this case, 'red' is an entirely invented concept which doesn't even reflect their colours!

It was not financial situation which decided what class you belonged to.

Your social class is a very tricky concept, but very few people would argue that it is dependant on your wealth.

 

[Agent327]

Only as a system of government - 'Britain is an aristocracy' would mean that Britain was ruled by its noblemen, but 'Britain has an aristocracy' simply means that noble families exist in Britain.

I don't think so. Replace aristocracy with democracy. The UK has nobility, but it no longer has an aristocracy.

 

[Flying Pig]

My point was that the statement 'Britain is an aristocracy' is incorrect, but 'Britain has an aristocracy' is correct.

Noun

aristocracy (plural aristocracies)

The nobility, or the hereditary ruling class
Government by such a class, or a state with such a government
A class of people considered (not normally universally) superior to others

The British nobility are 'the hereditary ruling class' in the same way that the Queen is 'the hereditary Head of State' - they are the traditional ruling class; it just happens that they don't actually rule any more.

 

[LightSpectra]

Sounds like "look, my field of expertise is so complicated it cannot be described in mere words!"

The level of intentional ignorance this purveys almost instantly makes you a joke poster.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Sounds like "look, my field of expertise is so complicated it cannot be described in mere words!"

What one word would you use to describe the political, economic, and social system of the modern world? Make sure you encompass the United States, Sweden, Zimbabwe, China, and North Korea. That should give you some idea of the scope of feudalism.

 

[Domen]

They were still collectively identified as the "commons" or "Third Estate". Furthermore, even within these further divisions of estate, there were tremendous variations, with the "peasant" encompassing everything from the most oppressed to serf to a wealthy non-noble landholder, and the "townsman" everything from the scruffiest apprentice to the most opulent of merchant-princes. It's hard to believe that such individuals represent a coherent social class, simply because they happen to live near each other.

No they were not. And they were not a coherent social class simply because they happened to live near each other, but because they happened to have urban citizenship and were subject to Civic Rights / Town Charter. I said that a peasant living in the suburbs of a town was still a peasant.

But I already wrote that, so why should I repeat myself. Just because you ignored what I wrote and started again your erroneus claims that Peasantry and Townsmen were known collectively as "Third Estate" already in Medieval Europe?

Just admit your mistake. There was no "Third Estate" in Medieval Europe...

Nobody in Medieval Europe was using this term to describe two different groups of people - Peasantry and Townsmen...

Your claim that "Nobility" was the only coherent estate because "all of them were very rich" - is also totally erroneus regarding Middle Ages.

In what understanding does that imply that the priesthood constituted a distinct and coherent social class? The debate among most historians is, give or take, basically between a Marxian and Weberian definition of class, but this doesn't seem to have anything to do with either of them. To be frank, you seem to be arguing in circles: "estates were classes because estates were classes because estates were classes..."

I also already wrote why - Priesthood was subject to Canon Law.

Those who were not priests, were subject to secular legal regulations.

It was not financial situation which decided what class you belonged to.

Your social class is a very tricky concept, but very few people would argue that it is dependant on your wealth.

I was talking about estates. And in Medieval Europe affiliation with particular estate was NOT dependant on your wealth.

There were some peasants who were much wealthier than some nobles. Etc., etc.

Here is some data on incomes (incomes in monetary units called grzywny = marks) in the Poznan Consistory in period 1471 - 1478.

As you can see, 7% of richest peasants had bigger income than 30% of poorest nobility and similar income to further 26% of nobility:

 

[Flying Pig]

No they were not. And they were not a coherent social class simply because they happened to live near each other, but because they happened to have urban citizenship and were subject to Civic Rights / Town Charter. I said that a peasant living in the suburbs of a town was still a peasant.

This is a tautology. What was it that made him a peasant?

I also already wrote why - Priesthood was subject to Canon Law.

A social class is not just a group of people with a similarity. Soldiers are not a social class, even though they are subject to military law - it is absurd to put Tommy Atkins and the Duke of Wellington in the same social class.

 

[Domen]

This is a tautology. What was it that made him a peasant?

Four things, basically:

- not being a noble
- not being a priest
- lack of urban citizenship (= not being a townsmen)
- being subject to either Public or Noble rights and courts - depending if he lived in Royal domains or in a land owned by some noble (instead of Canon Law and church courts like priesthood, Land Rights and land courts like nobility or Civic rights and urban courts like townsmen).

Plus, in fact - peasants were all people who were neither townsmen, nobility, nor priesthood. So peasants can be described with a negative definition ("everyone who is not a townsmen, a noble or a priest is a peasant") - I don't even need to give you a positive definition of a peasant (but I partially did it above anyway - when writing that peasants were those who were subjects to either Public or Noble rights and courts, at best to village courts).

A social class is not just a group of people with a similarity. Soldiers are not a social class, even though they are subject to military law - it is absurd to put Tommy Atkins and the Duke of Wellington in the same social class.

I was writing about what you call in English language "estates" (using "social classes" term was probably a mistake).

Nowadays everyone is subject to the same set of laws. Soldiers are subject to military penal law only for particular crimes and only when they commited those particular crimes while being in active service. Retired soldiers are subject to common criminal law. Soldiers in active service are subject to common criminal law for most of crimes, only for some crimes they are subject to military criminal law.

Also all soldiers are subject to the same civil law as all other citizens.

Nowadays, military criminal law is the only exception from the rule that "law is the same for everyone". Back then (in Medieval) it was inversely - it was exceptional situation that "law was the same for everyone". While the rule was that laws were different for each estate.

 

[Flying Pig]

In that case, 'peasant' becomes another one of those words of dubious utility - it describes a hell of a lot of different people, united by nothing other than their 'peasant' status! Sounds awfully like something else we're discussing here...

Incidentally, should this discussion be split off into its own thread?

 

[Domen]

In that case, 'peasant' becomes another one of those words of dubious utility - it describes a hell of a lot of different people, united by nothing other than their 'peasant' status! Sounds awfully like something else we're discussing here...

Incidentally, should this discussion be split off into its own thread?

Peasants were united by: not being townsmen, nobility or priesthood...

And that's why peasants were the vast majority of every Medieval society...

I agree that peasants is the word of most dubious utility out of words: "peasants, nobility, townsmen and priesthood".

Each of the remaining 3 estates probably had more in common than peasants.

Basically nobility, townsmen and priesthood had privileges. Peasants did not have privileges.

 

[Traitorfish]

No they were not. And they were not a coherent social class simply because they happened to live near each other, but because they happened to have urban citizenship and were subject to Civic Rights / Town Charter. I said that a peasant living in the suburbs of a town was still a peasant.

But I already wrote that, so why should I repeat myself. Just because you ignored what I wrote and started again your erroneus claims that Peasantry and Townsmen were known collectively as "Third Estate" already in Medieval Europe?

Just admit your mistake. There was no "Third Estate" in Medieval Europe...

Nobody in Medieval Europe was using this term to describe two different groups of people - Peasantry and Townsmen...

Eh? The Commons was formally represented in the English parliament since the 14th century, and the Third Estate in the French Estate-General since around the same time, and as far as I can tell it's generally accepted that they existed as a legal category (if only negatively, as "neither cleric or nobleman") long before.

Obligatory wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_General_(France)#Origin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England#The_emergence_of_parliament_as_an_institution

Your claim that "Nobility" was the only coherent estate because "all of them were very rich" - is also totally erroneus regarding Middle Ages.

I made explicitly reference to the existence of landless nobles, so this is just nonsense.

I also already wrote why - Priesthood was subject to Canon Law.

Those who were not priests, were subject to secular legal regulations.

So what? That has nothing to do with social class. Or, at least, not unless you arbitrarily assume the conclusion that legal status is wholly and unambiguously reflective of social class, which is what you appear to be doing.

As Flying Pig said, all soldiers are under military law, but they are not one class. All Irish Gaels (including clerics!) were under brehon law, but they didn't constitute a single pan-social class.

I was talking about estates. And in Medieval Europe affiliation with particular estate was NOT dependant on your wealth.

There were some peasants who were much wealthier than some nobles. Etc., etc.

Here is some data on incomes (incomes in monetary units called grzywny = marks) in the Poznan Consistory in period 1471 - 1478.

As you can see, 7% of richest peasants had bigger income than 30% of poorest nobility and similar income to further 26% of nobility:

*snipped dubious and irrelevant chart*

If you concede that estate-membership was totally isolated from social and economic status, than on what basis is the equation between estate-membership and social class being made? Again, you're not working with as far as I can tell any remotely established theory of class.

 

[Flying Pig]

Peasants were united by: not being townsmen, nobility or priesthood...

And that's why peasants were the vast majority of every Medieval society...

I agree that peasants is the word of most dubious utility out of words: "peasants, nobility, townsmen and priesthood".

Each of the remaining 3 estates probably had more in common than peasants.

Basically nobility, townsmen and priesthood had privileges. Peasants did not have privileges.

This is like creating a modern social class for all those who are not politicians (who are governed by the rules of their office), soldiers (who are governed by the Queen's Regulations) or policemen (who have their own rules to abide by) - it's nonsense.

 

[Traitorfish]

Here's a thing: in most forms of Early Medieval Gaelic and Norse law, nobles and commoners were not distinct legal categories (in theory, nobles simply represented a senior lineage within the kinship-group), while poets were, like clerics, a distinct and specially-protected legal category. How does that square with Domen's attempt to derive social class form legal status?

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Has anyone had any experience with learning a "dead" language (apart from Latin) and how hard is it. Does anyone know Ancient Egyptian or Sumerian cuneiform. Also what written languages remain undeciphered?

 

[LightSpectra]

Ecclesiastical Latin isn't really dead anyway, it's just not a conversational language (except in the very rare case of one taking some kind of university course in Latin, an optioned offered to me when I went to CUA).

I dabbled a bit in Koine Greek and Aramaic, as well as ancient Hebrew (which has some appreciable differences to the way it's used liturgically or socially by modern day Jews). It's... very very difficult to say the least. I really wouldn't even bother unless you're some kind of linguistic genius, or you're in a very specific field that requires it and you're willing to put in the effort to overcome the fact that there's not going to be easily-available resources as there would be for largely spoken languages.

Aside from me: Owen has shown some knowledge in ancient Saxon and Celtic languages, and I think Plotinus might have studied the same languages I have. Dachs seems to know some ancient Greek, and there's another poster here who is a professional linguist but doesn't post much anymore (I think it might have been Bill3000?).

 

[schlaufuchs]

Has anyone had any experience with learning a "dead" language (apart from Latin) and how hard is it. Does anyone know Ancient Egyptian or Sumerian cuneiform. Also what written languages remain undeciphered?

There are plenty of undeciphered written languages. Linear A remains the most notable in the Western hemisphere. As to learning dead languages, it is fairly common. In addition to Latin, Old Church Slavonic, Old English, and Koine/Hellenic/Homeric Greek are also extremely common. Hell I taught myself the basics of Law French just over the past 3 months. Really it depends on your profession, your interest, and your field of research.