NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Stuart Galbraith]

20 minutes ago, ink said:

Fair enough, really. System of government should come into it somewhere. Although, I'm not too sure how strongly the Eastern Romans were clinging on to the rule of law by the time Russians started being influenced by them.

As for democracy, I'm sceptical but willing to be swayed. Western Europe has an extremely patchy history when it comes to democracy. Britain less than most but it is more a kind of outlier in this regard, rather than being indicative of a broader trend.

Oh, not at all. But of course the 'tradition' of a senate and it was all there in the historic texts. It just required someone to go and read them and conceive they might work again.

Its not really about actual Democracy, as enjoying elements of it. The rule of law was perhaps more significant for Western Europe for most of the millenium, with Democracy only existing over what, the last 150 years?. And the growth of Europe required respect for property rights, as a precondition for inhereitence, financing, taxation and the like. its interesting to not that Englands Magna Carta is predominantly full of things, protections, but not necessarily promise of Democracy. For example, the Wiki definition has it,

'Although, as the historian David Carpenter has noted, the charter "wasted no time on political theory", it went beyond simply addressing individual baronial complaints, and formed a wider proposal for political reform.^[48][55] It promised the protection of church rights, protection from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and, most importantly, limitations on taxation and other feudal payments to the Crown, with certain forms of feudal taxation requiring baronial consent.^[32][56] It focused on the rights of free men—in particular, the barons.^[55] The rights of serfs were included in articles 16, 20 and 28.^[57][c] Its style and content reflected Henry I's Charter of Liberties, as well as a wider body of legal traditions, including the royal charters issued to towns, the operations of the Church and baronial courts and European charters such as the Statute of Pamiers.^[60][61]'

^{Which is, when you get down to it, primarily rights for people with property, and the respect for their ownership of property. I understand when Richard II started confiscating lands, Magna Carta was printed again, to illustrate he was breaking a long standing norm.}

^{If there is a cornerstone of Western Democracy, I think its law, not Democracy, not even Christianity. The latter certainly helped the former stick of course.}

 

^{Compare and contrast to Russia, whose respect for property rights (even then only for people whom werent serfs) was decisively abolished when the Bolsheviks took power. Hearing the stories I have of how the FSB shake down businesses, and how rights of ownership of various properties has been revoked without troubling the courts, then this is still a fundimental western tradition, that Russia still doesnt have. I dont know how much it was respected under the Tsar. Probably not so much.}

15 minutes ago, bojan said:

Historically looking democracy is an aberration in the western Europe (and everywhere else), not a norm.

^{I dont actually disagree. And yet the seeds of the Democracy we have, go right back to the Roman and Greek tradition. We would likely never have bothered with it, if they hadnt fastened on it first. Its not clear not a necessary predondition to pick up the other teachings they left us. Greco-Roman architecture, art, or history for example.}

^{Some years ago I had a stab at trying to read Machiavelli's 'The prince'. I confess I didnt get far, but enough to appreciate he was referencing the ancient Roman traditions of politics and statecraft. His inspiration was seemingly the Rome of the Caesers, not the ones where the Senators held sway. Well, kind of understandable, seeing as he was writing to assist Royal and not Democratic statecraft.}

Edited June 6 by Stuart Galbraith

[ink]

 

48 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh, not at all. But of course the 'tradition' of a senate and it was all there in the historic texts. It just required someone to go and read them and conceive they might work again.

Its not really about actual Democracy, as enjoying elements of it. The rule of law was perhaps more significant for Western Europe for most of the millenium, with Democracy only existing over what, the last 150 years?. And the growth of Europe required respect for property rights, as a precondition for inhereitence, financing, taxation and the like. its interesting to not that Englands Magna Carta is predominantly full of things, protections, but not necessarily promise of Democracy. For example, the Wiki definition has it,

'Although, as the historian David Carpenter has noted, the charter "wasted no time on political theory", it went beyond simply addressing individual baronial complaints, and formed a wider proposal for political reform.^[48][55] It promised the protection of church rights, protection from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and, most importantly, limitations on taxation and other feudal payments to the Crown, with certain forms of feudal taxation requiring baronial consent.^[32][56] It focused on the rights of free men—in particular, the barons.^[55] The rights of serfs were included in articles 16, 20 and 28.^[57][c] Its style and content reflected Henry I's Charter of Liberties, as well as a wider body of legal traditions, including the royal charters issued to towns, the operations of the Church and baronial courts and European charters such as the Statute of Pamiers.^[60][61]'

^{Which is, when you get down to it, primarily rights for people with property, and the respect for their ownership of property. I understand when Richard II started confiscating lands, Magna Carta was printed again, to illustrate he was breaking a long standing norm.}

^{If there is a cornerstone of Western Democracy, I think its law, not Democracy, not even Christianity. The latter certainly helped the former stick of course.}

 

^{Compare and contrast to Russia, whose respect for property rights (even then only for people whom werent serfs) was decisively abolished when the Bolsheviks took power. Hearing the stories I have of how the FSB shake down businesses, and how rights of ownership of various properties has been revoked without troubling the courts, then this is still a fundimental western tradition, that Russia still doesnt have. I dont know how much it was respected under the Tsar. Probably not so much.}

^{I dont actually disagree. And yet the seeds of the Democracy we have, go right back to the Roman and Greek tradition. We would likely never have bothered with it, if they hadnt fastened on it first. Its not clear not a necessary predondition to pick up the other teachings they left us. Greco-Roman architecture, art, or history for example.}

^{Some years ago I had a stab at trying to read Machiavelli's 'The prince'. I confess I didnt get far, but enough to appreciate he was referencing the ancient Roman traditions of politics and statecraft. His inspiration was seemingly the Rome of the Caesers, not the ones where the Senators held sway. Well, kind of understandable, seeing as he was writing to assist Royal and not Democratic statecraft.}

Yeah, you could be onto something re: the rule of law. Not everywhere all at the same time, of course, but here and there in little patches. 

But I can't help feeling that this is a sort of recent thing (when looking at links with the Roman world, anyway). The vikings didn't go in for any kind of rule of law really. Normans neither. I guess not until they both became Christian (and even then they were all about bending the rules).

Maybe the religious rule from Rome (i.e. having a far-off power telling you how to do stuff) is a key ingredient.

But these are very vague distinctions re: Russia. Feels almost as though the real key thing is that Western Europe is more interconnected (think all those courtly marriages) and that Russia is geographically far off. If that's the case, we're just clutching at straw with rules and Christianity and democracy, when the real difference is just distance.

[Perun]

 

[Laser Shark]

14 minutes ago, ink said:

But I can't help feeling that this is a sort of recent thing (when looking at links with the Roman world, anyway). The vikings didn't go in for any kind of rule of law really. Normans neither. I guess not until they both became Christian (and even then they were all about bending the rules).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_law

(The Normans were also (at least nominally) Christian from the start. It  was part of the deal they agreed to.)

[ink]

1 hour ago, Laser Shark said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_law

(The Normans were also (at least nominally) Christian from the start. It  was part of the deal they agreed to.)

Yes, of course, thanks.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, ink said:

 

Yeah, you could be onto something re: the rule of law. Not everywhere all at the same time, of course, but here and there in little patches. 

But I can't help feeling that this is a sort of recent thing (when looking at links with the Roman world, anyway). The vikings didn't go in for any kind of rule of law really. Normans neither. I guess not until they both became Christian (and even then they were all about bending the rules).

Maybe the religious rule from Rome (i.e. having a far-off power telling you how to do stuff) is a key ingredient.

But these are very vague distinctions re: Russia. Feels almost as though the real key thing is that Western Europe is more interconnected (think all those courtly marriages) and that Russia is geographically far off. If that's the case, we're just clutching at straw with rules and Christianity and democracy, when the real difference is just distance.

No, and I think perhaps this goes to the heart of what Clarke was saying. You cant have a civilisation worth a damn without at least some period of stability. You dont get stabiilty without property rights. You get the rule sorted out, and some means of enforcing it (Lawyers, functioning bureaucracy, latterly police) you are most of the way there.

 I think its more than interconnectedness. Canada, the US and Australia are  widely dispersed nations. Yet they seem to have more in common with Europe than they do Russia (well, Mad Max excepted obviously). The British Empire was the most widely dispersed nation on earth, but it still respected property rights. (Well, if you were white. Considerably less so if you were aborigine. Though they did tend to respect people of wealth in India strangely enough).

Anyway, just an idle thought. Maybe the difference between Russia and Europe is that in Europe you dont have to be a crook to be rich, but in Russia, its pretty much a rite of passage to getting there.

 

[bojan]

3 hours ago, ink said:

...The vikings didn't go in for any kind of rule of law really. Normans neither....

???

Every society at above basic family tribal level has "laws". They might not be written, and they may not be followed all the time, but they do exist, because society simply will not function without those.

 

Wish an ex could see this "culture/civilization discussion", she would have a really good laugh from a level of cluelessness exhibited by some posters.  

Edited June 6 by bojan

[ink]

4 minutes ago, bojan said:

???

Every society at above basic family tribal level has "laws". They might not be written, and they may not be followed all the time, but they do exist, because society simply will not function without those.

Can't disagree with that. I was actually thinking of a kind of higher level rule-abiding behaviour. The Vikings, obviously didn't fit into the European/Christian system, nor did they want to. But the Normans sort of did, but they took a long time to settle into it.

[Laser Shark]

13 minutes ago, ink said:

Can't disagree with that. I was actually thinking of a kind of higher level rule-abiding behaviour. The Vikings, obviously didn't fit into the European/Christian system, nor did they want to. But the Normans sort of did, but they took a long time to settle into it.

There were many Christian Vikings, including some very prominant figures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_Tryggvason

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_II_of_Norway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut

[Perun]

Russian warships sent to Caribbean for ‘surprise’ war games

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/06/russian-warships-caribbean-surprise-war-games-us-ukraine/

[ink]

30 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

There were many Christian Vikings, including some very prominant figures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_Tryggvason

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_II_of_Norway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut

Well, yeah, there were. But you are surely aware that at a certain point one of the things that defined their culture was their non-Christianity.

[txtree99]

This tread has taken the off ramp on the nato subject

 

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

???

Every society at above basic family tribal level has "laws". They might not be written, and they may not be followed all the time, but they do exist, because society simply will not function without those.

 

Wish an ex could see this "culture/civilization discussion", she would have a really good laugh from a level of cluelessness exhibited by some posters.  

Ask the good monks of Lindisfarne about their respect for rule of law.

Come to that, ask the Norman's. They were their inheritors.

[Perun]

 

[bojan]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ask the good monks of Lindisfarne about their respect for rule of law.

Ridiculous. Rome had "rule of law", and you can ask Gaul or Dacians or Illyrians, or Britons how that was applied.

 

[Perun]

 

[Martineleca]

23 hours ago, Perun said:

Russia didnt abandoned Armenia, Armenia turned to the west.

You're right they didn't abandon them, they actively armed their enemy to the teeth with loads of advanced weaponry then acted all surprised when it was used to great effect against Armenia in two seperate conflicts so far this decade. Massive arms transfers between Russia and Azerbaijan started a long time ago and they can't have gone unnoticed by the Armenians, so they can't really be blamed for considering their geopolitical options when it became obvious the "peacekeepers" weren't going to help in any way.

[Perun]

5 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

You're right they didn't abandon them, they actively armed their enemy to the teeth with loads of advanced weaponry then acted all surprised when it was used to great effect against Armenia in two seperate conflicts so far this decade. Massive arms transfers between Russia and Azerbaijan started a long time ago and they can't have gone unnoticed by the Armenians, so they can't really be blamed for considering their geopolitical options when it became obvious the "peacekeepers" weren't going to help in any way.

Israeli weapons quietly helped Azerbaijan retake Nagorno-Karabakh — sources, data

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-weapons-quietly-helped-azerbaijan-retake-nagorno-karabakh-sources-data/

[Laser Shark]

11 hours ago, ink said:

Well, yeah, there were. But you are surely aware that at a certain point one of the things that defined their culture was their non-Christianity.

I’m aware. I was merely questioning this notion that the Vikings didn’t want to become part of the Christian world, when clearly a lot of them did, whether it was for genuine reasons, or strictly practical ones.

11 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ask the good monks of Lindisfarne about their respect for rule of law.

Come to that, ask the Norman's. They were their inheritors.

You could ask a similar question to the thousands of French peasants who were murdered in the chevauchées.

As for the Normans, as brutal as they were, William the Conqueror has to be given some credit for being the first King of England to actually outlaw slavery.

[Martineleca]

28 minutes ago, Perun said:

Israeli weapons quietly helped Azerbaijan retake Nagorno-Karabakh — sources, data

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-weapons-quietly-helped-azerbaijan-retake-nagorno-karabakh-sources-data/

Of course, the difference is Israel has never claimed they will come to Armenia's aid in a conflict, unlike Russia that did so while hypocritically selling battalions worth of T-90s, long range rocket artillery and combat helicopters to the Azeris. Hope Armenia and Georgia will come to their senses and apply for NATO membership that will provide them long-term protection before both are swallowed up by either of their huge neighbors...

[ink]

37 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

As for the Normans, as brutal as they were, William the Conqueror has to be given some credit for being the first King of England to actually outlaw slavery.

Did William outlaw slavery? I didn't know that. I thought he just brought in serfdom and slavery slowly became less common.

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, bojan said:

Ridiculous. Rome had "rule of law", and you can ask Gaul or Dacians or Illyrians, or Britons how that was applied.

 

Because the colonised didnt OWN any property. What you are describing is the behaviour of ANY Imperial nation to the people it conquered, not just Romans.

When Romans started behaving that way towards their OWN people like that, it caused civil strife. Look at when Nero decided to take a large chunk of Rome that was burned down in a fire and build an imperial palace on it. People jumped to the conclusion (probably justifiably) he had burned the houses down so he could get his palace. It started the slow slide towards his outster.

Anyway, as usual, dont take my word for it.

https://wise-answer.com/how-does-roman-law-still-influence-legal-systems-today/

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 minutes ago, ink said:

Did William outlaw slavery? I didn't know that. I thought he just brought in serfdom and slavery slowly became less common.

I didnt know that either. Seems that he probably outlawed a trade that was already dying out due to the efforts of Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester.

https://medievalslavery.org/europe/source-william-of-malmesbury-the-life-of-wulfstan/

[Laser Shark]

You’re right. He only banned the sale of slaves to non-Christians, and slavery was only outright banned in 1102. Of course, they also brought feudalism and serfdom, which was only somewhat better than the previous arrangement.

[seahawk]

Could we please stop judging historic civilisations by modern standards?

Edited June 7 by seahawk