History questions not worth their own thread V

[Tee Kay]

It is not intrinsic (and I actually admitted and underlined this). But the fact is, that the present-day world still works like this.

Nationalism is a practical and realistic ideology, because it describes how countries and governments really work - they are all selfish and egoistic.

And countries which stop to be selfish and egoistic, always lose power and eventually collapse. So do nations which stop to be egoistic.

Dont' you think it's more so the other way around? That nationalist behaviour arise more out of nationalism, rather than nationalism arising out of nationalist behaviour?

 

[Domen]

This would mean that before the 18th century governments and countries were not selfish and not egoistic - which is not true.

Unless by "nationalist behaviour" you meant something different than selfish and egoistic behaviour of governments / countries.

Anyway, this issue is hard and seems to be a bit like "which came first - the chicken or the egg" question.

Nationalism was not an "artificial" ideology created out of nothing and without any correlation with reality.

Quite the contrary, IMO nationalism was - to some extent - based on reality, or at least inspired by it.

 

[Domen]

I have a question:

Is it justfied to call modern Slavic Macedonia FYROM just because Ancient Macedonia was originally related with Greek history?

In my opinion this is pure nonsense to deny them the right of calling themselves as they want.

Basing on the same logic, someone - for example Irish people or Breton people, who are descendants of Ancient Celts - could demand the abolishion of using the Ancient Celtic name of Britain by a modern country which was founded by English people (who are not Celtic - unlike Ancient Britons).

Similar example is Prussia - name originally related to history of the Baltic-speaking nation of ethnic Prussians (who were Balts, not Germans). This name - Prussians - was later "stolen" by Germans who settled there, just like name Macedonians was "stolen" by Slavic people who settled there.

Another example are Medieval Greeks - who called themselves "Romans" (in Greek: "Romaioi"), even though being Greeks.

The name of Romans was also stolen by Medieval Germans (Heiliges Römisches Reich aka Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicae) - and somehow nobody wanted to call them in a "FYROM-like" way: FPGTWCTR (Former Primitive Germanic Tribes Who Call Themselves Romans).

One more example are Poles who settled in Lithuania and called themselves Lithuanians (Adam Mickiewicz: "Oh Lithuania, my homeland" - written in Polish).

It seems that stealing names of others was something very popular throughout history !!!

When it comes to Ancient Macedonians, there are also strong disputes in historiography, whether they were Greeks or not. Most probably their relationship with Greeks was similar to that between modern Poles, Czechs and Slovaks - they were related peoples, but still different ones, speaking related, but different languages (Slovakian language is by no means a dialect of Czech or Polish, even though it is closely related to both Czech and Polish).

Another issue is, that the Ancient Kingdom of Macedon was inhabited not only by ethnic Macedonians, but also by ethnic Illyrians and ethnic Thracians.

IMO, everyone can call themselves as they want - and history proves that this is true (just check examples of stealing names of others posted above).

When it comes to Ancient Macedonians, there are also strong disputes in historiography, whether they were Greeks or not. Most probably their relationship with Greeks was similar to that between modern Poles, Czechs and Slovaks - they were related peoples, but still different ones, speaking related, but different languages (Slovakian language is by no means a dialect of Czech or Polish, even though it is closely related to both Czech and Polish).

And due to this fact, modern Greeks have about the same right for the name "Macedonia", as modern Poles have for the name "Great Moravia".

The state of Great Moravia was founded by ancestors of modern Slovaks and Moravians - who are related to Poles just like Ancient Macedonians were related to Ancient Greeks. Moreover, Great Moravia conquered some of Polish tribes - including Lechites and Vistulans (with their capital city in Cracow), just like Ancient Macedon under king Philip II conquered Ancient Greek city-states. BTW - nobody "patented" the name Macedonia, as far as I know...

I don't need to add, that modern Poles do not claim Great Moravia as "their" state, while modern Greeks DO claim Ancient Macedon as "their" state...

IMO, everyone can call themselves as they want

Except, of course, for names which are already in use. For example, they can't call their country "Greece" to avoid confusion.

But there is only one country named "Macedonia" - so this is not confusing.

Of course there is a region of "Macedonia" in Greece - but so is "Pomerania" both in Poland and Germany or "Silesia" both in Czech Republic and Poland, etc.

There is also "Lubusz Voivodeship" in Poland, even though the city of Lubusz (Lebus) is located in Germany.

===============================================

Waiting for your opinions and answers (you can also post more examples of "stealing" names of others, if you know any).

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

What can be considered the first civil war in recorded history?

 

[JohannaK]

When Cain murdered Abel.

 

[Domen]

Stalin claimed that he liberated "Western Ukraine" - including the city of Lviv - from Poland in September 1939.

His basis for that claim was a notion, that this land used to be part of Medieval Rus before it was conquered by Poland in 1340.

However, Medieval Rus was - allegedly - founded by Varangians who were from Sweden.

So maybe it was in fact liberation of "Southern Sweden", not of "Western Ukraine" ???

In fact, the city of Lviv never belonged to Ukraine before 1939, so how could it be "liberated" as part of "Western Ukraine" ???

I would say, that Stalin in fact "liberated Southern Sweden" (or "Northern Austria" - but surely not Ukraine) from Polish "occupation".

But why was later Southern Sweden / Eastern Poland / Northern Austria left within the borders of independent Ukraine in 1991 ???

============================================

Coming back to serious discussions:

So at first clans formed into tribes, and clan differences started to disappear. Then tribes formed into nations.

Here is, for example, something on how the Croatians and the Serbians formed:

And excerpt from Zofia Kurnatowska's book "Słowiańszczyzna Południowa" ("Lands of Southern Slavs") - translated to English:

"Ethnic and cultural environments

In discussed timeframe [9th - 10th centuries] initially quite homogenous culture of Southern Slavs undergoes some kind of differentiation. Centers of solidifcation appear, which are nucleuses of later Southern Slavic nationalities. Their coming into being was caused to a large degree by certain political-cultural conditions and to a lesser extent by processes of differentiation of Southern Slavic languages. (...)

Inhabitants of western part of the Balkan Peninsula, Serbian and Croatian tribes, were divided by quite negligible linguistic differences. What decided about their separate progress and about coming into being of different nationalities was the development of two distinct state organisms in those territories and their connection to two different Church centres (western in case of Croatia, eastern in case of Serbia). Croatia was initially limited only to territories located in the hinterland of the coasts of the Adriatic Sea. The expansion of the name Croatia into territory of Slavonia had, as has been underlined in historiography, a rather political than ethnic character. The issue of Serbia is more complicated. There is lack of exact information regarding the original territorial extent of Serbian tribes. Basing on tradition written down by Porphyrogennetos (but is it credible?) we classify as Serbians a number of tribes from southern Dalmatia (Trawunians, Zachlumians, Konawlans, Pagans-Nerentans), and first of all inhabitants of parts of Raška and Bosnia located "behind the mountains". Mysterious is the issue of the basins of Vardar and Morava rivers. Serbian ethnic center became more meaningful during further centuries, in period of heyday of the Medieval Serbian state. The unity of Serbian territory was strengthened by independent organization of its Church (at first an autocephalous bishopric, later a patriarchate).

Most of the Balkans were affected by Byzantine influences and belonged to the Orthodox Church, which however allowed for the development of native Slavic culture here. Only Croatia and part of coastal Serbia, as well as Slovenia, were tied with the Western Church and affected by influences of the Latin culture. (...)"

=============================================

So Serbian tribes and Croatian tribes were initially very similar peoples, who spoke similar languages.

They became two different nations - rather than one - because two different countries developed in territories inhabited by those tribes. Another factor which contributed to their differentiation were different cultural ties - Serbia was tied with Byzantine Orthodoxy, Croatia with Latin Western Christianity.

So within modern construct of a "nation-state", originally - in most cases at least - nation was the product of state, not state the product of nation.

Only in the 20th century people came up with an idea, that borders of states should be drawn along the borders of nations - not inversely.

In tribal reality - before nations were formed - the formation of nations was - in most cases - initiated by the formation of countries.

I know all of this may sound like "stating the obvious".

 

[Flying Pig]

This would mean that before the 18th century governments and countries were not selfish and not egoistic - which is not true.

Unless by "nationalist behaviour" you meant something different than selfish and egoistic behaviour of governments / countries.

Well, yes! Nationalism is not the same as pragmatism; a king can be as ruthless and selfish as he likes, because he's looking out for his own power or his own fortune. Nationalism is defined by the centrality of the nation, so nationalistic action is definitionally action which puts the nation first. English often uses 'nation' to mean 'state', but the two are distinct. A nation is the alleged homogeneous community which is the basis of the state' right to exist: to a nationalist, 'the French' exist whether or not 'France' does.

You're right that, in a nation-state (where nationality and citizenship overlap, so all Frenchmen live in France and all people who live in France are French), it's difficult to separate action in the interest of the state's population from nationalism per se. However, actions which move towards the assimilation of members of the nation living abroad, such as Germany's 1938 annexation of Austria, or which try to bring the nation within the country closer together are almost certainly nationalistic, especially if they are accompanied by marginalisation of those outside the 'nation'. So Bismarck's laws reducing the power of the Catholic Church can be seen as a nationalistic move, since they were designed to strengthen the power of the Protestant, north German nation, which he saw as the basis for the German nation-state, and assimilate other groups such as Catholic south Germans and Poles.

The choice of two German examples was not accidental; pre-1945 Germany is one of very few cases in which a nation-state has been consciously created over a territory occupied by a variety of national groups.

 

[H4run]

Well, yes! Nationalism is not the same as pragmatism; a king can be as ruthless and selfish as he likes, because he's looking out for his own power or his own fortune. Nationalism is defined by the centrality of the nation, so nationalistic action is definitionally action which puts the nation first.

Stalin and Soeharto also arguably Hitler are nation ruler that can be as ruthless and selfish as he likes and looking for their own power and fortune.

As you once wrote all system tend to decays to Oligarchy includes democracy, also maybe this is shown another typical notion, that most of system have its possibility to develop into tyranny.

Nationalism is just an abstraction, contrary to what Domen said as it is appear to be natural or real. It appearances to be base on history doesn't make it automatically to be real or natural, history just used as it legitimacy to give power in its very own abstract concept. If nationalism is real, it is as real as civilizationism, that is how far it can only get.

And I doubt the application of nationalism are base for the welfare of its nation. As feudalism also it mostly put minority groups like merchant (corporation), family (in the case of Indonesia or Philippine and many other corrupted third world nation), as it priority base.

 

[Masada]

I wouldn't put Suharto into that list.

 

[Domen]

'the French' exist whether or not 'France' does.

We don't really know this because France never lost its independence since it was created.

But historically many other nations existed - and still exist today - without having independent states. In most cases those nations at some point had an independent state (which is why they even exist - because, as I wrote above, nations in most cases develop as the result of existence of states at some point of history - for example Polish nation did not exist before Poland was founded, but it also did not disappear after Poland was dissolved in 1795).

However, it seems, that there are also some nations which exist despite the fact that they never ever had their own state - for example the Basques.

But even in this cases, the Basque people had some form of their own, proto-state level organization - perhaps some chiefdoms.

Similar case is the Sioux (Dakota) nation or the Iroquois - they developed common identities (respectively Dakota and Iroquoi identity), despite the fact that they consisted of many numerous tribes, which did not even speak exactly the same language, but included speakers of different dialects.

For example in case of Dakota (Sioux) nation, there were three main tribes - Santee, Yankton and Teton - which further divided themselves into countless of smaller tribes. For example the Santee branch of the Dakota included the tribes of Mdewakanton, Wahpeton, Wahpekute and Sisseton.

Yankton branch was - IIRC - divided into two main sub-branches - Yankton and Yanktonai - and Yanktonai were further divided into Upper Yanktonai (who then divided into Pah Baxah, Wahzecootai and Gens Perchez) and Lower Yanktonai (who included Hukpatina and Assiniboin).

Despite consisting of so many smaller and larger tribes, the Sioux at some point developed a common "national" identity.

The name of their nation - Dakota - literally means "Allies" in their language (which divided into 3 main dialects - Santee, Teton and Yankton).

They considered themselves as one nation (called "Allies"), even though they never had a state or country, and even though they did not even call their nation in exactly the same way (Santee tribes called their nation Dakotha, Teton called it Lakotha and Yankton called it Nakotha).

 

[Flying Pig]

We don't really know this because France never lost its independence since it was created.

But historically many other nations existed - and still exist today - without having independent states. In most cases those nations at some point had an independent state (which is why they even exist - because, as I wrote above, nations in most cases develop as the result of existence of states at some point of history - for example Polish nation did not exist before Poland was founded, but it also did not disappear after Poland was dissolved in 1795).

However, it seems, that there are also some nations which exist despite the fact that they never ever had their own state - for example the Basques.

But even in this cases, the Basque people had some form of their own, proto-state level organization - perhaps some chiefdoms.

Similar case is the Sioux (Dakota) nation or the Iroquois - they developed common identities (respectively Dakota and Iroquoi identity), despite the fact that they consisted of many numerous tribes, which did not even speak exactly the same language, but included speakers of different dialects.

For example in case of Dakota (Sioux) nation, there were three main tribes - Santee, Yankton and Teton - which further divided themselves into countless of smaller tribes. For example the Santee branch of the Dakota included the tribes of Mdewakanton, Wahpeton, Wahpekute and Sisseton).

Yankton branch was - IIRC - divided for two main sub-branches - Yankton and Yanktonai - and Yanktonai were further divided into Upper Yanktonai (who then divided into Pah Baxah, Wahzecootai and Gens Perchez) and Lower Yanktonai (who included Hukpatina and Assiniboin).

Despite consisting of so many countless smaller and larger tribes, the Sioux developed a common "national" identity.

The name of their nation - Dakota - literally means "Allies" in their language (which divided into 3 main dialects).

They considered themselves as one nation (called "Allies"), even though never had a state or country, and even though they did not even call their nation in exactly the same way (Santee tribes called their nation Dakotha, Teton called it Lakotha and Yankton called it Nakotha).

I would be instinctively wary of using the highly nuanced European term 'nation' to describe a native American society; the fact that it is commonly used for them is of no more consequence than the fact that the UK is routinely called a 'nation', when it is manifestly not one. There's no question that groups of people have a certain cultural and political affinity, but that is a long way from defining them as nations. Indeed, this is why I'm not a nationalist. You could observe that Muslim Arabs have a high degree of shared history, language and culture, or that Yorkshiremen do, but without declaring them a 'nation' which has a right to its own state. To me, where you draw the line between the French, who are a nation, and the Bretons, who are not, seems totally arbitrary.

 

[Domen]

BTW - I have seen also theories which say, that before the so called "invention of nationalism" in the 18th century, nations were formed by social and political elites, while peasants and commoners did not belong to any nation (didn't have a national consciousness), no matter what language they spoke.

The "revolution" which took place after the "invention of nationalism" consisted of the fact, that national identity - which already before that existed among social and political elites - was adopted by huge masses of peasants and commoners, who were the majority of any European society.

If we accept this theory, then nationalism did exist already before the 18th century, but was not a widespread concept, being only the belief of elites.

But in such case there is a problem how to classify nations which lost most of their elites due to assimilation with other nations, and new elites appeared only during the 19th century, trigerring their "national renaissance". This was the case for example with Slovenes, Lithuanians or Belarussians, whose elites became Germanized and Polonized respectively - all these three ethnic groups and / or nations were mostly limited to peasants by the end of the 18th century.

Of course here I am talking specifically about situation which existed in Europe.

I would be instinctively wary of using the highly nuanced European term 'nation' to describe a native American society;

But that's how they considered themselves - Sioux was not a tribe, Sioux was a "nation". A particular warrior was from tribe of Wahpekute, but belonged to the Sioux "nation" (I don't know what term they used to describe "nation" - but the meaning of that was also "something more than just a tribe").

the UK is routinely called a 'nation', when it is manifestly not one.

It is gradually becoming one nation. We have not heard any demands for Scottish or Welsh independence for quite a long time by now.

=============================
=============================

Edit:

This was the case for example with Slovenes, Lithuanians or Belarussians, whose elites became Germanized and Polonized respectively

And here is what professor Zofia Kurnatowska writes about Slovenes (aka Slovenians) - who were among first Slavic tribes / peoples to create their own country (known as Carantania), but also lost their independence very fast, conquered by the Holy Roman Empire (I find it quite surprising, that they were never fully assimilated with the German people, but continued to speak their language - in case of commoners and peasants at least):

"(...) Another centre of ethnic solidification in Southern Slavic Lands was Carantania, where development of an early statehood organization took place very early on, but equally early that state lost its independence for many long centuries. As the result of political and social processes, disappearance of Slavic higher social classes and Slavic elites took place (a huge number of them underwent Germanization and joined the ranks of German aristocracy). The Slovenian nationality was thus limited to the social stratum of peasants, and the Slovene language remained a common parlance. The boundaries of ethnic Slovenian territories were established by the boundaries of the German statehood (...)"

So Slovenes / Slovenians were - basically - Slavic-speaking Germans, rather than a nation on their own.

And here about the Slavic Principality of Carantania (where the Slovenian ethnos and the Slovene language started to shape themselves):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carantania

Despite gradual Germanization of their elites over the centuries, Slovenian language survived as language of peasants and commoners in that area, and in modern times a "national renaissance" and formation of new, Slovenan-speaking social elites, gave birth to the modern Slovenian nation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia

BTW:

My choice of Balkan examples is also not accidental - Balkans are a good area to understand "nations", due to Balkan nationalism which is very strong.

Let's just add that - unlike Slovenes - Serbians never "lost" their elites. So historical development of each of Balkan nations was different.

 

[Flying Pig]

We have not heard any demands for Scottish or Welsh independence for quite a long time by now

...you haven't been reading the news over here. Scottish independence is being put to a referendum next year, and both sides think they'll win.

 

[Domen]

Oh, I wasn't aware of this indeed. So good luck in the referendum (but I don't know to whom should I wish it).

What territory is going to be the referendum / plebiscite area ??? The same as modern boundaries of Scotland?

==========================

BTW:

Similar case as with Slovenes, was with Lithuanians and Belarussians - but in cases of Lithuanians and Belarussians their elites became Polonized. And in case of Belarussians - they managed to develop a literary language already before "losing" their elites - so their language perhaps did not remain a common parlance. That literary language (popular in the 16th century) is known as Old Belarussian (but I don't know how similar it is to modern Belarussian).

 

[H4run]

I wouldn't put Suharto into that list.

why is that Masada? that is surprising you don't agree with that! He is a leader that made Indonesia the country that she is today.

New Order (Orde baru) massive corruption, nepotist attitude, java centric policies, all of this only a result of Soeharto (or his sons and daughters) own desires.

 

[Masada]

I accept that Suharto was all those things but I don't think he was especially selfish or unique in being all those things. Ferdinand Marcos was all of those things and worse. There's an old joke that the difference between Suharto and Marcos was that the first would promise a road and deliver it three times over budget, while the latter would promise a road, spend an order of magnitude more and deliver... nothing. Really, if I was to group Suharto with anyone it'd be Ngo Dinh Diem. Both lived quite spartan personal lives and weren't know for being personally corrupt yet still presided over regimes that were endemically (and deliberately) corrupt as a means of placating competing interest groups.

EDIT: Another related point. The military's descent in corruption and business is usually dated to 1957 when the Army outmaneuvered the PKI and Sukarno to grab control of all the Dutch owned plantations and factories. A. H. Nasution IIRC dates the army's decline in professional competence to about that date.

 

[H4run]

I accept that Suharto was all those things but I don't think he was especially selfish or unique in being all those things. Ferdinand Marcos was all of those things and worse. There's an old joke that the difference between Suharto and Marcos was that the first would promise a road and deliver it three times over budget, while the latter would promise a road, spend an order of magnitude more and deliver... nothing. Really, if I was to group Suharto with anyone it'd be Ngo Dinh Diem. Both lived quite spartan personal lives and weren't know for being personally corrupt yet still presided over regimes that were endemically (and deliberately) corrupt as a means of placating competing interest groups.

EDIT: Another related point. The military's descent in corruption and business is usually dated to 1957 when the Army outmaneuvered the PKI and Sukarno to grab control of all the Dutch owned plantations and factories. A. H. Nasution IIRC dates the army's decline in professional competence to about that date.

I also agree with the description that you told me, and indeed nice joke and parallel between Soeharto and Marcos.

But I cannot see how you cannot call a person who declare himself as 5 star general, make all of his family rich and attain important position as he wish (even he want to elected his daughter Tutut as a minister) giving his son a big project (Tomy) building airport in his early teenagers, (edit) killing his political opponent as he wish, killing massive civilian count both the g30s PKI or in the incident of bukit Soeharto and many more, as someone selfish and Tyrannical. All of those things both of you and I mention are all aspects that one needs to be a tyrant. I thought both Soeharto and Marcos have many parallel also to some Chinese ruler in Ming Dynasty. (edit) No surprise though as characters like Soeharto are heavily effected by Javanese early King literature and idea, as a Java ruler ruling all over the 17.000 + Islands in Indonesia. I remember reading the biography of Mao written by his personal doctor, how Mao also effected, admired and inspired by early Chinese ruler as he took some of them as his set example to rule both his nation and subject. I thought nothing really much changes in the modern time if we talk about power and how its operate.

 

[Louis XXIV]

You are right here about Germany (similar situation was in France).

But feudal pyramid was not the same in every single Medieval country. Feudalism didn't really exist as something uniform. It was different in each region.

Does it occur to you that, if it's completely different in different places, then maybe both shouldn't be referred to as feudalism? Talk about a tyranny of a construct.

I'd like to respond to you about Feudalism, but I need to know what your definition of feudalism is. At least all Medieval historians who are still in favor of using the word (the number is diminishing) recognize that, absent a clear definition, it's just unhelpful and lazy. But first, you should read through this. I'd say you should read Susan Reynolds's Fiefs and Vassals, but I recognize that it can be a chore to read through.

However, I will respond to this:

Problems started when knights / landowners were vassals of several kings / rulers at the same time. For example on the eve of the battle of Grunwald in 1410, there were many knights which owned land both in Poland or in the Teutonic state. Those knights had to choose between allegiance to Polish king and allegiance to the grand master of the Teutonic Order, as they couldn't fight for both sides at the same time. Similar situation existed also after the "switch to nationalism", as you would call this - for example during the American Civil War, often members of same families fought for both the US Army and the CS Army.

I want to start with the word Vassal, which, interestingly enough, wasn't used all that often in the Middle Ages and was almost never used in Germany (I can't speak for Poland but given its Carolingian origins and Italian connection to "Feudalism" through the Libri Feodorum, I doubt it was used there either). "Vassal" comes from "vassali, vassi, etc.," which were servants of Frankish Kings. They were placed in administrative positions throughout the Empire after those areas were conquered. Sometimes they were given Benefices (land given in compensation for military service with the expectation that they could be called on to serve again). However, not all vassals were given Benefices and plenty of non-vassals were given them as well. In addition, even those who were not given Benefices were still expected to serve in the Frankish army, usually depending on wealth and status (those with fewer means were, at this point, just expected to have garrison duty, but this changed with the declining power of Kings when it reached the point that they were the most likely to serve in armies because they had the smallest ability to resist the commands of a King or Duke). Benefices were usually given in what English law would call "Fee Simple" (that is fully alienable and inheritable land that could be passed as a gift or to ones heirs without any theoretical opposition). The one exception were Benefices on church land because canon law forbade the alienation of their land. In those situations, they were usually given for three lives and, after three lives, the church would try to fight to get it back with usually limited success.

As the Middle Ages went on, the term Vassal declined in importance in France, but it remained in Italy (probably because, as a conquered territory, there were more vassals in prominent positions than there was in France where more traditional power structures remained). In Italy, they were probably more associated with Benefices as well because, when Charlemagne placed them in Italy, they needed places to live, so they were given Benefices. When Italian legal scholars wrote the Book of Fiefs (I'm skipping ahead a bit past Emperor Conrad II's charter in Milan because I want to doublecheck what terms he actually used), they had to explain these words and customs that had evolved significantly since the time of Charlemagne (it's important to know that they knew less about what happened 300 years earlier than we do). They decided that the property known as fiefs were the same as benefices (due to some similarities in how they were sometimes used, although much of their work is about distinguishing "true fiefs" from all the other kinds of property also called fiefs that weren't similar at all because "Fief" was essentially a vague catchall phrase that could mean anything you wanted it to mean). They also made up an entire history about how these properties were originally only for the life of the owner and done to explicitly create loyalty between the lord and "vassal." They decided that, over time, these rules broke down and they became fully inheritable property only sometimes connected to duties of loyalty. In reality, they were always fully inheritable property only sometimes connected to duties of loyalty and, through the work of Italian lawyers, they were used to increase first city and then royal authority throughout Italy and France by turning full property into this new legal category of Fief and turning subjects into vassals. Because of this movement and the Italian legal works that were first rediscovered in the 18th or 19th century that talk about it in theory, historians of the time assumed that the history of the Middle Ages was a history of Fiefs and have shaped the evidence to conform to this assumption ever since.

Sorry about this long post. It's a very complicated subject and far more could be said. The sad thing is, when you take away the construct and the word "feudalism" and embrace the Middle Ages for the complicated world it really was, it becomes a far more interesting and more nuanced place full of conflicting and ever-changing customs, a rule of customary law going up against the needs of the time where royal authority was rapidly diminishing, and a growing theoretical world of law and philosophy that began to have real measurable impact on governance starting in the 11th century and growing to great importance in the 12th and beyond.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

When Cain murdered Abel.

What criteria for "civil war" did you use?

 

[Masada]

But I cannot see how you cannot call a person who declare himself as 5 star general, make all of his family rich and attain important position as he wish (even he want to elected his daughter Tutut as a minister) giving his son a big project (Tomy) building airport in his early teenagers,

That's all stock-standard dictatorial stuff though.

killing his political opponent as he wish, killing massive civilian count both the g30s PKI or in the incident of bukit Soeharto and many more, as someone selfish and Tyrannical.

The events after 30 September were exceptional for the scale of its violence. But that was a function less of Suharto and rather more of the political climate in Indonesia. The Madiun Affair in 1948 was also met with extreme violence.