History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII

[Ajidica]

I think you are reading a bit too much into the legal role the Pope had and how Emperors were declared. Despite Roman law being the basis for much of our legal system, the Romans were terrible at legally defining how their leadership worked. As Septimus Severus and the Crisis of the Third Century made clear, the Emperor was by an large a military dictator whose legitimacy rested on bigger-army-diplomacy. The Tetrarchy and a series of splendid civil wars did nothing to dissuade that notion.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Yes, the pope is also (and originally only) the bishop of Rome. Really easy not to confuse, I'd imagine.

Don't have a clue what point you're trying to make here.

Well, you can't fill (or not fill) a 'legal limbo' that doesn't actually exist. As concerns papal state:

Yes, the problem is that the Roman legal system, and more importantly the normative picture of the cosmos, the vision of true political and social order (as expected in 8th century Italy and elsewhere) and indeed as ordained by God had an emperor in it who had various legal and religious roles. That's why its a limbo.

There was no 'two empire system'. That's in the bit you did not quote. Secondly, is not even an argument. (I was being polite in calling it an 'invented argument'.) As mentioned repeatedly already, the title the pope conferred, was not his to confer in the first place. Legally, it was a novum.

I've said twice that there is no two-empire system, why are you telling me this?

If there was no two emperor system, again there was no title for the pope to bestow. That conclusion was ignored both by you... and the pope.

The pope was not resurrecting the western empire, he was transferring the office of emperor to Charlemagne from Irene ... or, more correctly, filling the office that had been left vacant by the unholy deposition of Constantine VI.

The emperor is not a king. So it's really quite irrelevant. But, the divine right of kings refers to the divinity of kingship per se, not through any priestly mediation. Lastly, if it's poorly developed at this point, why even mention it at all?

Curiously enough, I didn't bring up the divine right of kings, that was you. But indeed, you are right, kings and emperors are distinct, which if you'd read my above posts you would see I already explained.

 

[Agent327]

I think you are reading a bit too much into the legal role the Pope had and how Emperors were declared.

Seeing as there was no legal role, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to argue.

Don't have a clue what point you're trying to make here.

That's hardly surprising:

Yes, the problem is that the Roman legal system, and more importantly the normative picture of the cosmos, the vision of true political and social order (as expected in 8th century Italy and elsewhere) and indeed as ordained by God had an emperor in it who had various legal and religious roles.

Oh dear. The Roman legal system has nothing to do with the "normative picture of the cosmos"; "the vision of true political and social order (as expected in 8th century Italy and elsewhere)"... a vision that was expected? That's quite far removed from the start of the sentence, when we were still with the Roman legal system. But now comes the conclusion: "That's why its a limbo." Right. Except we were discussing law.

I've said twice that there is no two-empire system, why are you telling me this?

Indeed. It's not the point. Why do you keep asking?

The pope was not resurrecting the western empire, he was transferring the office of emperor to Charlemagne from Irene ... or, more correctly, filling the office that had been left vacant by the unholy deposition of Constantine VI.

No, he really, really wasn't. You can't transfer a function (emperor) that's not in your power to give. What the pope, in fact, conferred was a fiction. Charlemagne's empire (which had no relation with either Rome or Constantinople) disintegrated in 814, illustrating that very fact.

Curiously enough, I didn't bring up the divine right of kings, that was you.

Yes indeed, as you seem completely oblivious to the subject. Nonetheless:

I wouldn't have raised the 'divine right of kings' here... the kind of thing you are thinking about is not a doctrine that's well developed in this era.

The principal of priestly ordination, of treating kings like an extension of the priesthood, had already emerged in western custom. You should read Michael Enright, Iona, Tara, and Soissons: The Origin of the Royal Anointing Ritual.

Priestly anointment (not priestly ordination) has, of course, biblical origins. "Treating kings like an extension of priesthood" is not something to be found in European history. Rather the reverse. Which is why I (not you) mentioned the divine right of kings. Kings received their kingship from God, not from any priest. In fact, the clerus was subject to kingly authority, or, in the absence thereof, noble authority. The only realm were this might not be true - the Papal States - actually confirms that rule. The pope, like all kings, claims his authority directly from God - even though he is the only elected monarch. And even though the pope originally only was the bishop of Rome, and as such subject to imperial approval. The position of the popes could only be enhanced after the disappearance of imperial authority from Rome. And even then it took several centuries for this to happen. And then it took centuries more for the papacy to develop the doctrine that it was their authority that made emperors and kings. After all, we are still several centuries removed from the investiture struggle.

You seem to bring up a lot of things. Sadly, very few show any relation with the pope crowning Charlemagne emperor in 800. Perhaps you should read up a bit on the subject. That might prevent others from having to correct you so often.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Seeing as there was no legal role, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to argue.

That's hardly surprising:

Oh dear. The Roman legal system has nothing to do with the "normative picture of the cosmos"; "the vision of true political and social order (as expected in 8th century Italy and elsewhere)"... a vision that was expected? That's quite far removed from the start of the sentence, when we were still with the Roman legal system. But now comes the conclusion: "That's why its a limbo." Right. Except we were discussing law.

Indeed. It's not the point. Why do you keep asking?

No, he really, really wasn't. You can't transfer a function (emperor) that's not in your power to give. What the pope, in fact, conferred was a fiction. Charlemagne's empire (which had no relation with either Rome or Constantinople) disintegrated in 814, illustrating that very fact.

No, Charlemagne's title was transferred from Constantinople, at least in the imagination of the Pope and the Franks.

Contrary to your own beliefs here, you haven't problematized anything I've said and you don't realise that because you don't understand early medieval society nor, seemingly, what 'law' is in the early middle ages. So you can make these assertions over and over again but you don't have any credibility on the subject, so you'll be wasting your time.

Priestly anointment (not priestly ordination) has, of course, biblical origins. "Treating kings like an extension of priesthood" is not something to be found in European history. Rather the

This is your lack of understanding of early medieval society coming out. Anointment is precisely treating kingship as a priestly office...that is the whole logic of it!

In fact, the clerus was subject to kingly authority, or, in the absence thereof, noble authority. The only realm were this might not be true - the Papal States - actually confirms that rule. The pope, like all kings, claims his authority directly from God - even though he is the only elected monarch. And even though the pope originally only was the bishop of Rome, and as such subject to imperial approval.

Your first sentence is very confused, but the rest is correct. And indeed now you're taking about law, agreeing with me, and contradicting your earlier assertions.

You seem to bring up a lot of things. Sadly, very few show any relation with the pope crowning Charlemagne emperor in 800. Perhaps you should read up a bit on the subject. That might prevent others from having to correct you so often.

Thanks. The subjects you are 'correct'ing me are pretty basic, and I actually have a PhD in medieval history and have been teaching it at university for nearly a decade. But I agree that reading up on stuff is important, and you never know enough.

 

[jackelgull]

while this debate on medieval history has been fascinating, I'd like to ask about another topic now - when the American Revolution occurred, why didn't the Iroquois unite behind the British? Why did some fight for the Americans? From what i understand, the Iroquois had a working relationship with the British, while the Americans from what I understand, were pushing into their territory in Western New York. It would make sense to fight against the guys who want your land. Or was this not apparent at the outset of the Revolution?

 

[Traitorfish]

Edit: Went kinda overboard with the original post below, so, long story short, there was disagreement within the Confederation over whether they should honour their alliance with the Crown or with the colonial governments, in part because they were genuinely unsure as to who would or could honour previous treaties. By 1775, Iroquois independence rested on a tenuous assemblage of formal and informal agreements with both royal and colonial officials, many of which had been agreed with one under the nose of the other, and couldn't be guaranteed that both or either would uphold the agreements after the war. As a result, most Iroquois favoured hedging their bets and treating the Revolutionary War as a purely internal affair, so while they remained nominally aligned with the Crown, they refused to fight for either side. However, because of the loose political structure of the Iroquois, individual war-leaders were free to take their followers off to war, whether in the hope of soliciting further guarantees from the whites or just for the sake of glory and loot. This had the effect of deepening divisions between pro-British and pro-colonial factions within the confederacy, but without really cementing ties to either power: royal officials became frustrated that the Iroquois were proving such unreliable allies while colonials tended to take the appearance of a few Mohawk warriors alongside the redcoats as a sign that the entire Confederacy was on the march. By the time the neutralists became sufficiently alienated from the Continental government to consider taking up arms on behalf of the British, the Confederacy had already collapsed and its members had been badly battered by displacement, rendering them dependent on British supplies to survive and mostly ineffective as a military power.


Long-winded original post:

Spoiler :

Well, the thing to consider is the distinction we make between "British" and "American" is a retrospective one. Before 1776, "British" described the white, English-speaking inhabitants of the British colonies in North America; most colonists saw "American" as being akin to "Welsh" or "Scottish", a particular regional identity within the British Empire. So in the context of North America, "strong ties to the British" means diplomatic ties to both the Crown and to colonial governments. At the same time, the Iroquois Nations were tied to settler communities, with whom they traded, exchanged news, and not infrequently intermarried. These relations weren't always amiable, but open warfare could hardly be expected to improve them, and the Iroquois were doubtlessly cautious about re-creating the sort of bloodbath that had overtaken the Pennsylvania and Virginia frontiers during the French & Indian War.

The purpose of Iroquois alliance with the British had always been maintaining their independence from any European power, so they were now presented with the question of who most able to guarantee that independence. The Mohawks had strong collective and personal ties to the Crown, so they mostly concluded that their best bet lay with the royal administration now based in Canada. They'd supported the British during the Seven Years' War and had played a role in the Proclamation of 1763, which placed formal legal limits on on the Westward movement of white settlers. They also profited hugely from the fur trade, even more so than the other nations due to their control of the territory around Albany, and were eager to see a loyalist invasion of New York to restore trade. The Oneida, the next-Easternmost nation after the Mohawks, lacked the Mohawk's connections to the Crown, but did have strong connections to the colonies and to white settler communities, and decided that siding with what they sincerely regarded as their friends and allies made more sense than throwing their weight behind a distant king. After all, it had been with the colonial governments of New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania that the Iroquois had concluded the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, which amended the legal limits of white settlement to divert pressure away from the Iroquois homelands in New York and towards the Ohio Valley, and had so far proven a more effective way of preventing white encroachment than half-heatedly-enforced royal proclamations ever had.

What's significant is that both the Mohawks and Oneida were both historically pro-British. The Oneida not as militantly so as the Mohawks, but neither exhibited the Francophilia of the Seneca, who themselves remained neutral. Both saw themselves as continuing their traditional pro-British alignment, they just disagreed about whether "British" meant the Crown or whether it meant the colonial governments, based upon the strength of their diplomatic ties to each. Meanwhile, the Seneca and Cayuga had traditionally expressed pro-French sympathies and lacked close ties to either the British crown or to the colonies, so they opted for neutrality: they didn't have a lot of faith in either to uphold treaties, so they preferred to let both factions among the "British" hash things out for themselves and take advantage of the aftermath to further buttress Iroquois independence. Their acceptance of a British alliance after the French departure had always been premised on a clear distinction between British and Iroquois affairs, continuing to treat with each other as sovereign nations rather than treating Iroquoia as another one of the king's domains. They were supported in this by the Onondaga, the traditional arch-neutralists, who had always sought to play European powers off against each, and expect to continue doing so. For these nations, maintaining their support for the British meant respecting the division between Iroquois and British affairs, as they expected the British to do in turn. They could hardly expect the colonists to maintain the treaty line if they casually strolled across it to raid colonial settlements.

So the upshot is that every nation in the Confederacy believed that it was maintaining the Confederacy's "pro-British" stance, and each sincerely believed that they were doing what was best for the confederacy, if only their brother-nations could see it. The tendency to identify the Mohawk position as "pro-British" is really an anachronism, based on later identification of the Crown as "Britain" and the Continental Congress as "America", where the Iroquois sawing themselves as facing multiple "British" factions. Initially, this meant formal neutrality, with individual Mohawk and Oneida war-chiefs going off with their supporters to do as they saw fit. But, as the war progressed, trade routes broke down and the Iroquois, more dependent on the colonial economy than they would ever have liked to admit, were left dependent on the benefaction of royal and colonial governments. This resulted in the movement of peoples away from their homelands towards British and American centers of power, transforming alliances from a diplomatic disposition to a material lifeline and cementing the divisions within the Confederacy. What little hope remained for reconciling the Confederacy collapsed when Continental forces systematically pillaged Iroquois, discrediting the neutralist faction in front of the pro-British, while also acting as a clear warning to the pro-Americans about what happened to Indians who failed to align themselves with the colonies. At that point, there was simply no chance of uniting the Confederacy behind the British, and even if the pro-British nations had attempted to consolidate themselves, their populations were too scattered, too badly hit by malnutrition and disease, to act as much more than an auxiliaries to the British regulars, which made turning military service into political clout difficult.

 

[Agent327]

No, Charlemagne's title was transferred from Constantinople, at least in the imagination of the Pope and the Franks.

Not really. You see, regardless of who the pope crowned what, the imperial title belonged to the empire. As mentioned repeatedly now. And we can't really speculate about 'the imagination of the Pope and the Franks', now can we.

Contrary to your own beliefs here, you haven't problematized anything I've said and you don't realise that because you don't understand early medieval society nor, seemingly, what 'law' is in the early middle ages. So you can make these assertions over and over again but you don't have any credibility on the subject, so you'll be wasting your time.

I didn't mention any 'beliefs' and I have no idea what I am supposed to have 'problematized'. Understanding medieval society comes from reading books and/or doing research on the topic. None of your assertions show any evidence of such.

This is your lack of understanding of early medieval society coming out. Anointment is precisely treating kingship as a priestly office...that is the whole logic of it!

Not quite. Kingship never was 'a priestly office', and anointment has nothing to do with trying to make it so. The only one here who has zero credibility so far is you. None of the statements you've made shed any light on the subject of Charlemagne's coronation. They only add confusion.

Your first sentence is very confused, but the rest is correct. And indeed now you're taking about law, agreeing with me, and contradicting your earlier assertions.

I haven't agreed to a single of your assertions. For the simple reason that they don't actually pertain to the topic.

Thanks. The subjects you are 'correct'ing me are pretty basic, and I actually have a PhD in medieval history and have been teaching it at university for nearly a decade. But I agree that reading up on stuff is important, and you never know enough.

Frankly, I'm quite surprised to hear that. Obviously relations between the pope and the Franks around 800 are not your specialty. Not really that surprising, as medieval history is a very wide subject. Teaching it doesn't make you an authority on every medieval topic. The fact that I (who do not have a Ph D in medieval history) need to correct you on basic issues is rather telling. Now, you may question my 'credibility', authority or what ever all you like, but until you point out some actual sources that contradict anything stated by me, your field of work or presumed expertise is neither here nor there. I note you haven't done so a single time since the topic of Charlemagne's coronation was raised. Resorting to your supposed 'authority' on the subject doesn't really achieve anything - apart from that being a very weak argument to begin with.

 

[Pangur Bán]

@Agent327, you are suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect, I believe. As it happens I'm not an expert on the 800 issue, but it doesn't matter as as far as you are concerned. You've put yourself way out of your depth, I did give you some time, but you aren't following the argument nor responding logically nor demonstrating any ability to bring anything to the discussion, so it's going nowhere except wasting my time and annoying people.

 

[Agent327]

So you acknowledge not actually having any relevant expertise and decide to go for character assassination. I'd not be wanting in any of your classes...

I suggest we consider the matter closed, for everyone's sake.

 

[jackelgull]

What happened to the debt the Confederate States of America accrued during the Civil War? Since most of it was domestic, did the Union government simply default on it?

 

[Cutlass]

Wasn't the Union government's responsibility.

 

[Merkava120]

Anybody happen to know how mine detectors like the SCR-625 were distributed to US troops in World War II? Were they given only to engineers, or to normal infantry too?

 

[Merkava120]

Edit: haha, didn't see traitorfish had already gotten to the Iroquois one

I stuck my original post in this nifty spoiler.

Spoiler :

while this debate on medieval history has been fascinating, I'd like to ask about another topic now - when the American Revolution occurred, why didn't the Iroquois unite behind the British? Why did some fight for the Americans? From what i understand, the Iroquois had a working relationship with the British, while the Americans from what I understand, were pushing into their territory in Western New York. It would make sense to fight against the guys who want your land. Or was this not apparent at the outset of the Revolution?

From a bunch of reading I just did, it seems that the vast majority of the Iroquois supported the British. The ones that did support the Americans were mostly Oneida or Tuscarora, the two smallest of the Iroquois nations (the tuscarora only had about 100 people in 1767, according to their Wikipedia page). For the Oneida, their reason was probably geography and their close relationship with the colonists - they were settled much closer to the Americans than any of the other Iroquois. Meanwhile, the Tuscarora had just recently settled with the Iroquois after being massacred, hunted down and driven northward by the British for the better part of a century - so they had a bit of a grudge.

Even those two tribes weren't really united against the British, though - a portion of the Tuscaroras supported the Mohawk-led attacks on the colonists.

 

[Traitorfish]

What happened to the debt the Confederate States of America accrued during the Civil War? Since most of it was domestic, did the Union government simply default on it?

Wasn't the Union government's responsibility.

In fact, wouldn't extending loans to the Confederate government, who were officially regarded as rebels, be an act of treason in and of itself?

 

[Dachs]

One of the Constantine's (don't remember which one) planned to permanently relocate the Imperial court to Sicily but I believe he died before anything came of that.

Konstas II. He was the first Emperor to visit Rome in two centuries, and used the opportunity primarily to loot several of the most heavily ornamented buildings in the city of their gold. He established a court at Syracuse while his son Konstantinos (IV) ruled the eastern part of the Empire from Constantinople as co-Emperor. From Syracuse, he attempted to mastermind a series of campaigns against the Lombards to retake Italy, which didn't result in significant gains. His absence from the East sparked at least one major rebellion, an attempted coup by the Armeniakon troops under Saborios that ended when Saborios died in an accident. Later that year, Konstas himself was assassinated in bizarre fashion as the prelude to a military coup by the Opsikion general Mizizios, which also failed.

Konstantinos did not repeat his father's visit to the West, and the project was apparently dropped.

After Justinian, reconquest was never a major theme for the Emperors as when they enjoyed unmatched military dominance in Europe, Europe was too poor to devote many resources to when Sassanid Persia was raiding the far wealthier eastern provinces and trying to keep a bunch of restless barbarians in what had been imperial backwaters long out of imperial control just wasn't worth it.

It's interesting that we talk about "reconquest" here when, going by the actual historians of the Empire, and what we have of the epigraphy, they rarely if ever seemed to actually frame it in those terms. The Emperors who overran most of Syria in the tenth and eleventh centuries, for example, didn't really talk about getting Syria "back" from the Muslims. Short-term losses might still be "re"conquered, but longer-term ones were not. The Rhine-Danube line that had been at least somewhat important in the fourth century was effectively gone from propagandistic memory within three hundred years. (Emphasis on "somewhat". The Empire was pretty much always a universal empire, at least in propaganda, and its exponents never defined territorial boundaries as anything more than shades of gray.)

Isn't there an old quip that the Holy Roman Empire was not holy, Roman, or an empire?

There is. It is neither a particularly witty one nor a particularly valid one. Voltaire was much funnier when he was joking about the English.

I was using the term in a much vaguer modern sense as a centrally-ruled area much of which was conquered, which Charlemagne's empire certainly was.

Is that what an empire - or Empire, or imperium, or Reich - is? Was it what it was back when the HRE existed, or when Voltaire made his joke in 1756?

In fact, wouldn't extending loans to the Confederate government, who were officially regarded as rebels, be an act of treason in and of itself?

Nobody was charged with treason for what happened during the war, as a measure of peace and reconciliation, for which approximately zero Southerners have ever expressed any gratitude or appreciation. The federal government only ever seriously considered trying Jefferson Davis, but the Johnson administration decided that it would be too difficult to argue the case.

The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) stated that the US government and states would not consider any debts contracted by the rebellious states as valid. So those who used Confederate currency, or the investors who backed the CSA's homegrown bonds and Dutch loans, were SOL. The Amendment also made pensions for Confederate soldiers illegal, but Southern states paid them out anyway after relabeling them.

 

[Cutlass]

In fact, wouldn't extending loans to the Confederate government, who were officially regarded as rebels, be an act of treason in and of itself?

If it took place during the rebellion, then yes. The question becomes what happens to the debt of a government once that government is defunct? It's really not the responsibility of the party that made that government defunct to honor its debts. Now a creditor could have tried to collect any debts from the state governments which made up the Confederacy. Good luck with that.

 

[Traitorfish]

Pity the Confederates kept all the old American prohibitions on titles of nobility, or they could have taken the Jacobite route of repaying debts by appointing creditors to spurious dukedoms.

 

[Ajidica]

It's interesting that we talk about "reconquest" here when, going by the actual historians of the Empire, and what we have of the epigraphy, they rarely if ever seemed to actually frame it in those terms. The Emperors who overran most of Syria in the tenth and eleventh centuries, for example, didn't really talk about getting Syria "back" from the Muslims. Short-term losses might still be "re"conquered, but longer-term ones were not. The Rhine-Danube line that had been at least somewhat important in the fourth century was effectively gone from propagandistic memory within three hundred years. (Emphasis on "somewhat". The Empire was pretty much always a universal empire, at least in propaganda, and its exponents never defined territorial boundaries as anything more than shades of gray.)

How were the wars against the Ostrogoths and Visigoths presented in the Empire then? I was under the impression that the Byzantines and Ostrogoths enjoyed relatively amicable relations and presumably the Imperial Court had to present a massive military expedition as having a reason besides "Justinian and his court feel like holding more Triumphal Parades".
From what I remember the Ostrogoths were using a bit of legal fiction saying they were ruling Italy in the name of the Emperor, so was it presented as a civil war then?

 

[Dachs]

How were the wars against the Ostrogoths and Visigoths presented in the Empire then? I was under the impression that the Byzantines and Ostrogoths enjoyed relatively amicable relations and presumably the Imperial Court had to present a massive military expedition as having a reason besides "Justinian and his court feel like holding more Triumphal Parades".
From what I remember the Ostrogoths were using a bit of legal fiction saying they were ruling Italy in the name of the Emperor, so was it presented as a civil war then?

From what I remember, the sixth century wars were explicitly reconquests.

You're right that initially Odovacar and then Thiudareiks employed the legal argument that they were effectively viceroys for the Emperor, although they called themselves kings, which didn't technically mean that they weren't viceroys but kind of made it seem like they weren't. Thiudareiks also apparently referred to himself as Augustus in limited contexts, especially after he organized a protectorate over Visigothic Gaul and Iberia following the Visigoths' defeat by Clovis in the Battle of Campus Vogladensis, making him more or less as powerful as the Western Emperors of the fifth century. This legal argument was not employed by the Vandals and Alans in Africa, as far as we know, which we don't really, because Victor of Vita is the main textual source for Vandal Africa and he was way too salty about their heresy to be all that reliable. You can tell that the heretics were getting at least some, uh, "converts" because of his shrill imprecations against heresy in the text.

I think it's better to say legal "argument" here instead of "fiction" because the Empire still remained, culturally, the center of the world. Things changed in the Ostrogothic lands, to be sure, but they didn't change that much. It's very easy to read Thiudareiks' reign, for example, as basically that of an Emperor - his squabbles with annoying aristocrats, military victories on the frontier, a passel of reform schemes for the military, and so on and so forth. The Goths were apparently mostly Arians but there had been Arian Emperors too. They were not that far in dress and armament and style from the late Roman military. Thiudareiks clearly ran Italy as a sovereign, even though officially he'd conquered it in Emperor Zenon's name. The imperials squabbled with the Goths a bit over ceremonial things, and over who was really supposed to rule Sirmion in the Balkans, but otherwise they had more or less normal relations until the early 530s and the crisis in the Italian monarchy. I can't say if Ioustinianos was secretly plotting to reconquer Italy before Amalasiuntha offered to flee with her treasury to Constantinople, but what little I know about their official relations was that up to that point they had been basically correct.

What changed that, on the argument of some late antiquarians, was the Byzantine conquest in the first place. Ioustinianos' propaganda differed from the fifth-century line; instead of the Ostrogoths, Gepids, Visigoths, Franks, and Burgundians being basically Roman military gentry sliding neatly into governing roles throughout a still-intact Roman Empire, he told a story of barbarian conquest from outside to justify a war to get it all under his control. The western rulers had always been somewhat distinct, but not in a way that was fundamentally irreconcilable with being "basically" Roman, too; Ioustinianos changed that, first with his propaganda, and then with his wars. Guy Halsall has written about transformations in the West around the year 600, and while some of these transformations are associated with economic and social forces, or with political developments having little to do with the Emperor, Ioustinianos' story is crucial to understanding a great deal of it.

 

[Cutlass]

Pity the Confederates kept all the old American prohibitions on titles of nobility, or they could have taken the Jacobite route of repaying debts by appointing creditors to spurious dukedoms.

A thought crossed my mind recently that part of the planter class social system was an attempt at recreating the rank and privilege of the peerage in the absence of the legal existence of actual rank. They got almost all the perks and prestige of being titled nobility. Absolute masters of all they surveyed.