I guess that is a legitimate point. But I wonder where the reduction of the power of the King John over his Barons constitutes a democratic breakout. The Magna Carta was signed in the early 13th century. Things thereafter remained in stasis until the European enlightenment and the English Revolution. Please correct me if I am mistaken. I am happy to learn from someone like you.
you're awesome, mr di salvo, please keep doing exactly what you're doing
edward the first, longshanks, the english justinian, rather codified the power of parliament to approve or not major national expenses, he felt his military excursions into scotland would be bolstered by baronial support, he felt he needed the muscle of the nation behind him...
longshanks is the guy in mel gibson's braveheart who throws his son edward 2's boyfriend out the castle window cuz he was gay and just so insufferably arrogant
edward 2 died in a barrel of malmsey in berkeley castle in 1327 on the eve of his son edward 3's initiation of the hundred years war, fought over edward 3's assertion of his great great great grandfather henry plantagenet's claims to anjou, aquitaine, normandy
henry 2, husband of eleanor, is of course killer of becket, as well as father of couer de lion, john and the usurper son henry 3
henry 2, one of the greatest figures of the hi middle ages, thus embodies so many of the characteristics in his story of shakespeare's tragic lear, betrayed by his offspring
we later have the short parliament of pym, the long parliament that became the protectorate of the pilgrim cromwell before the restoration in the form of the stuarts which the second james betrayed by having a son who was sure to be raised catholic, leading to the glorious revolution of 1688, the invitation by the tory parliament of william of orange to assume
in france we have similar if slower rises of parliamentary power at the expense of royalty, reversed of course by the sun king, louis 14, who died in 1715, followed by his successors grandson and great grandson, both political incompetents who ruled between em almost a century
in italy, venice is for a thousand years a "republic" (really more of an oligarchy), but control is divided amongst the hundred or so leading families of the rialto, and venice politics is probably most famous for its stability
the poles' great middle kingdom of the late middle ages was famously undone by the parliamentary privilege of any one junker to veto in the sejm any national resolve
of course there's periclean athens, there's republican rome which outgrew the ability of the patrician hills to control, too dependent on great men, individuals, to wield their work faraway, men like marius, sulla, pompey and naturally caesar
these generals grew far more powerful than the cicero's and cato's collectively, the traditions of republican forms tho were half a millenium old and honored, it took a great deal of machination on the part of the patricians to push the caesars to cross that ultimate divide
tacitus' germanica attempts in about 100 pages to describe the various tribes to the north which would ultimately undo the empire, their physical and military characteristics, their cultures and politics
and the german tribes on the other sides of the rhine and danube were remarkably democratic, according to the greatest of the source writers, rome's greatest historian/analyst, son in law of agricola the great governor of roman britain, about 117 ad
fyi
thanks for the opportunity to discuss my only intellectual love greater than politics
keep up the good work
I think Intelligence is one of the best MOSs for our efforts, since Counterinsurgency is won by having the best intelligence: on the enemy, civilians, social networks, corruption, etc, at least according to FM 3-24. The Marine Corps is known for the 3 block war, although now I hear it is the 4 block war: Clear-Hold-Build-Transition. I am very, very glad to hear from you that the Marines are having such a great impact to our ops.
