# Education in ME



## Hisoka Morrow (May 7, 2021)

Education decides a nation's power always. JRRT mentioned Free People always had far better education than those non-Free People's, shown by all kinds of educational result such as military combat personnel quality, advanced military hardware and so on. However, JRRT never, or seldom mentioned educational stuff in details, apart from elves in Valinor. Are there anything from JRRT's or his authorized stuff mentioning ME's education?


----------



## 1stvermont (May 7, 2021)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> Education decides a nation's power always. JRRT mentioned Free People always had far better education than those non-Free People's, shown by all kinds of educational result such as military combat personnel quality, advanced military hardware and so on. However, JRRT never, or seldom mentioned educational stuff in details, apart from elves in Valinor. Are there anything from JRRT's or his authorized stuff mentioning ME's education?



Great question. I think "education" was more like it was in the early medieval period, certain individuals engaged in it mostly through reading former lore of earlier ages at places like a Rivendell where knowledge was kept and one could learn from lore masters like Elrond.

In the middle ages like I think in ME, there was not so much a push for education in the modern sense because democracies were few if at all. Generally, "education" is how that state teaches its people to think in order to tell them how to vote. Since voting was rare and usually done by nobels, there really was not as much a need. Further, most were soldiers or farmers or tradesmen learning their craft usually hereditarily.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (May 7, 2021)

1stvermont said:


> In the middle ages like I think in ME, there was not so much a push for education in the modern sense because democracies were few if at all.


How about Lake-Town republic?XD To speak further, Lake-Town wasn't the most advanced civilization in JRRT's lore, yet it's democratic, and it's education, at least, might reach your political demand for education. As an result, I wonder if JRRT's most advanced civilization like Numenor's exiles had much higher demand of education, it's another matter that if they got better genes and gifted intelligence.


----------



## Alcuin (May 7, 2021)

Tolkien says nothing about formal education that I can recall. Literacy seems reasonably widespread, though. Certainly Bilbo, Frodo, Merry, and Pippin were literate even in the backwater of the Shire; and Sam learned literacy from Bilbo. The Shire hobbits were literate enough that a list of Rules was posted in every Shirriff-house. (_RotK_, “Scouring of the Shire”) Barliman Butterbur “valued his reputation as a lettered man.” (_FotR_, “Strider”) The Dúnedain Rangers of Arnor were seemingly literate as well: they left one another notes and messages using runes, Strider told Frodo and Merry on Weathertop. The Dwarves were literate, at least the ones we meet are. Ori “could write well and speedily, and often used the Elvish characters,” according to Gimli. (_ibid._, “Bridge of Khazad-dûm”) 

I read recently that in the first several centuries following the Norman Conquest of England, most Anglo-Saxons were considered “illiterate,” but that definition might not have meant that they could neither read nor write _Anglo-Saxon_ (“Old English”, more like old German or Old Norse than the modern English bandied here), but rather that they were unable to read or write _Latin_, the language of law and the clerisy, nor could they at first speak or read or write Norman French: Apparently literacy in Anglo-Saxon was rather widespread, though not of course universal. I wonder if something similar might be true, for instance, in Gondor: When Aragorn asks Ioreth if _athelas_ is kept in the Houses of Healing, she replies that the herb-master “knows all the old names.” (_RotK_, “Houses of Healing”) Tolkien then proceeds to (rather scathingly!) satirize arrogant pedants by putting in the herb-master’s mouth a “doggerel … garbled in the memory of old wives,” earning him Gandalf’s sharp retort, “Then in the name of the king, go and find some old man of less lore and more wisdom who keeps some in his house!” (I like to imagine the herb-master standing agape at the words “in the name of the King,” staring first at Gandalf, then at Ioreth (who’s as clueless as he), then a grim-faced Éomer King, then a deadly serious Prince Imrahil, and finally at Aragorn – before bolting out of the room in dread earnest!) Ioreth was “illiterate”, “uneducated” – she didn’t speak Sindarin. Aragorn on the other hand the herb-master recognized as a “lore-master” because he spoke Quenya. (Obviously, the herb-master did, too.) But Sindarin was said to be used mostly in “nobler houses”, even in Númenor. Adûnaic, the parent-tongue of Westron Common, was the everyday language of Númenor and its Middle-earth colonies. I think it unlikely Ioreth was working in the Houses of Healing (apparently for some years: she was essentially a nurse) and yet illiterate in Common. 

But we’re told very little of the means of education. Formal education would be something reserved for the wealthy and such professionals (such as the herb-master and the Warden of the Houses of Healing – the chief pharmacist and chief physician, if you will) that required intensive education for their work. 

In the American frontier, many people learned literacy at home. Their parents taught them to read and write: as the son of a frontier farmer, Abraham Lincoln famously learned to read, write, and do at least simple arithmetic without formal education. As late as the beginning of World War I, US literacy was at a fourth-grade level, but that was a _much higher standard_ than modern fourth-grade education. A person who completed eighth grade was ready for working life at age 14 or 15; high schools required entrance exams (hence their designation as “secondary schools.”) If you’ve never seen it, you should take a look at this entrance exam for Jersey City (New Jersey) High School from June 1885. These folks weren’t messing around: participation trophies were seen for the fallacy they are, and _no one_ passed a grade to make them feel better about themselves! (One reason American education was _formerly_ considered excellent.) 

Wealthier families probably employed tutors, while poorer ones taught their children as best they could. *There were no printing presses,* so books were scarce (an advantage for early Americans like Abe Lincoln was the printed Bible, which was ubiquitous in homes). In medieval Europe, guilds provided additional education, and universities sprang up in the wake of the collapse of the West Roman Empire to educate people for law, medicine, and theology.


----------



## 1stvermont (May 8, 2021)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> How about Lake-Town republic?XD To speak further, Lake-Town wasn't the most advanced civilization in JRRT's lore, yet it's democratic, and it's education, at least, might reach your political demand for education. As an result, I wonder if JRRT's most advanced civilization like Numenor's exiles had much higher demand of education, it's another matter that if they got better genes and gifted intelligence.



I think you might be correct, Tolkien I think did put more emphasis on lerning in the "higher" cultures like numenor or the elves. But consider Laketwon's politics. , I think Tolkien could be using them as an example against elected politicians.

In The Hobbit, we learn the master of Laketown's position is the result of an election, but by whom? The master of Laketown said, "In Lake-town we have always elected masters among the old and wise." So we don't know who is doing the election, nor who is allowed to be elected besides the qualifier; they must be old and wise. Many medieval trade towns [such as Dale, Bree, and Laketown were in Middle-earth] were given near or complete autonomy by the King or local lord. They then acted much as Laketown did by electing a town ruler by the aristocratic leaders selecting from the old and wise among them. Many of the early monarchies, especially the Germanic sort, selected kings from the wise and aristocratic among them. Nothing we see in Laketown is inconsistent with such a medieval trade town. Further, there is only a master in his great hall, not an elected body passing legislature nor elections where the people chose a politician.


I think Tolkien is, in fact, showing why elections bring about leaders with undesirable traits. The master of Laketown has purchased and bribed his way into his position; he "did not care for old songs [prophecies] giving his mind to trade and tools, to cargoes and gold, to which habit he owed his position." He cared for money and power, not for the people. He only went along with the townsfolk who were welcoming the dwarves and Bilbo to maintain his popularity. Power and the desire to maintain it controlled his actions and words. When the people called for his removal, the Master was able to direct blame elsewhere, and his cunning speech swayed the general opinion. These would be typical trademarks of a democratic society and politicians; this is not an endorsement by Tolkien, but a condemnation. 

Tolkien contrasts the former elected officials with the later hereditary kingship under Bard. What the people of Laketown needed was a King rather than a leader who is after power. In former days Dale, which was now abandoned due to the dragon Smaug moving in nearby, was under Lordship. In contrast to the master of Laketown, we read that Bard of Dale was a descendant of Girion Lord of Dale, so came from a good household. In The Hobbit, Bard is portrayed as an example of a public servant who resides in Laketown and a template for how kingships should come about. In contrast to those who seek office like the master of Laketown.

The contrast and stereotypes are clearly presented by Tolkien. Much as Lords and kings led their men to battle while our modern democratic politicians sent their citizens to die for them, the master of Laketown ran away to save himself when Smaug attacked, and Bard was on the front lines helping fight off, and kill the dragon. After the battle, Bard served the people food and fire while the master of Laketown ordered men to serve him. After the battle of the five armies, Bard was not greedy but shared his gold with both the people and the master of Laketown. Greed got the better of the Master of Laketown, though as he fled with his gold and died alone in the wilderness. Bard was a faithful servant and thus a Biblical and kingly model of a leader. The Master of Laketown, a gentile ruler.

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
-Matthew 20 25-28 

Bard was eventually made King of Dale as the people called for him to be. They wanted Bard not "money counters." Bard did not seek to become king, the people recognized a natural leader and servant and adopted him to serve as king, and his kingship passed on hereditarily down his family line. Under this new line of kings, Laketown and Dale would prosper, and Bard would extend his people's domain, wealth, and happiness. Instead of an elected politician as before, Dale and Laketown got a dedicated servant, a King. Instead of the worst, they got the best, and they prospered. 
What else caused the area to prosper? The death of the dragon and the finding of gold of Erebor, of course. But the establishment of a dwarven king under the mountain in Erebor also contributed. Friendship and trade between the elven king Thranduil of the woods, the dwarven king under the mountain, and King Bard of Dale, led to prosperity and happiness. The politicians and elected officials were removed, the Monarchies were reinstituted. A common theme in Tolkien's writing is of a return of a king. Whether it's in The Hobbit of a "return of the king under the mountain." Or of a return of a king to the throne of Gondor, it seems Tolkien at least desires a return to the old order and believes much could be restored if we would.


----------



## Olorgando (May 8, 2021)

Yes, Green Mountain Boy, we know that JRRT and you were / are incorrigible monarchists ...


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (May 8, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> Yes, Green Mountain Boy, we know that JRRT and you were / are incorrigible monarchists ...


You forget Aldarion XD


----------



## Olorgando (May 8, 2021)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> You forget Aldarion XD


No, I definitely don't! 😄


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (May 9, 2021)

1stvermont said:


> The politicians and elected officials were removed, the Monarchies were reinstituted. A common theme in Tolkien's writing is of a return of a king. Whether it's in The Hobbit of a "return of the king under the mountain." Or of a return of a king to the throne of Gondor, it seems Tolkien at least desires a return to the old order and believes much could be restored if we would.





1stvermont said:


> Tolkien contrasts the former elected officials with the later hereditary kingship under Bard. What the people of Laketown needed was a King rather than a leader who is after power. In former days Dale, which was now abandoned due to the dragon Smaug moving in nearby, was under Lordship. In contrast to the master of Laketown, we read that Bard of Dale was a descendant of Girion Lord of Dale, so came from a good household. In The Hobbit, Bard is portrayed as an example of a public servant who resides in Laketown and a template for how kingships should come about. In contrast to those who seek office like the master of Laketown.
> 
> The contrast and stereotypes are clearly presented by Tolkien. Much as Lords and kings led their men to battle while our modern democratic politicians sent their citizens to die for them, the master of Laketown ran away to save himself when Smaug attacked, and Bard was on the front lines helping fight off, and kill the dragon. After the battle, Bard served the people food and fire while the master of Laketown ordered men to serve him. After the battle of the five armies, Bard was not greedy but shared his gold with both the people and the master of Laketown. Greed got the better of the Master of Laketown, though as he fled with his gold and died alone in the wilderness. Bard was a faithful servant and thus a Biblical and kingly model of a leader. The Master of Laketown, a gentile ruler.



Hmmm...=''=...does your "elected officials" include "congress-like" stuff such as Gondor's Council? Even though we know nothing about the Council-men's production, could we say JRRT's elected politicians were controversial instead of passive instead, for JRRT also applause the his only detailed introducing democratic politician-master of Lake-Town of his talent, in spite of his imperfect character?In addition, monarchs, at least, of the Free People were mostly active, yet got described as "evil kings" among the so-called "evil men".



1stvermont said:


> The contrast and stereotypes are clearly presented by Tolkien. Much as Lords and kings led their men to battle while our modern democratic politicians sent their citizens to die for them, the master of Laketown ran away to save himself when Smaug attacked, and Bard was on the front lines helping fight off, and kill the dragon. After the battle, Bard served the people food and fire while the master of Laketown ordered men to serve him. After the battle of the five armies, Bard was not greedy but shared his gold with both the people and the master of Laketown. Greed got the better of the Master of Laketown, though as he fled with his gold and died alone in the wilderness. Bard was a faithful servant and thus a Biblical and kingly model of a leader. The Master of Laketown, a gentile ruler.


Modern politicians always always sent their citizens to die, XD. In theory, when any organization become tremendous enough, the leaders must not expose themselves into danger in spite of other condition(it's another matter they must acknowledge these danger more than most of the members), otherwise not only partial members, but the whole organization will be in game over due to losing mechanism. In JRRT's lore, Free People's high command level, such as Denethor, Galagriel, Elrond or even maybe Fingofin(notice his only detailed show in frontal combat is his behead act VS Melkor), don't forget every time when JRRT's commanders died, the whole organization often obviously broke down, though the Free People's still performan much better than the Evil Side under such bloody hell(looking at the Dwarf in the Unnumered Tears). In the real world, large state's also couldn't join the frontal battles easily(such as China's first emperor), while small organization's democratic leaders also joined frontal military, such as Washington. XD


----------



## 1stvermont (May 9, 2021)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> Hmmm...=''=...does your "elected officials" include "congress-like" stuff such as Gondor's Council? Even though we know nothing about the Council-men's production, could we say JRRT's elected politicians were controversial instead of passive instead, for JRRT also applause the his only detailed introducing democratic politician-master of Lake-Town of his talent, in spite of his imperfect character?In addition, monarchs, at least, of the Free People were mostly active, yet got described as "evil kings" among the so-called "evil men".
> 
> 
> Modern politicians always always sent their citizens to die, XD. In theory, when any organization become tremendous enough, the leaders must not expose themselves into danger in spite of other condition(it's another matter they must acknowledge these danger more than most of the members), otherwise not only partial members, but the whole organization will be in game over due to losing mechanism. In JRRT's lore, Free People's high command level, such as Denethor, Galagriel, Elrond or even maybe Fingofin(notice his only detailed show in frontal combat is his behead act VS Melkor), don't forget every time when JRRT's commanders died, the whole organization often obviously broke down, though the Free People's still performan much better than the Evil Side under such bloody hell(looking at the Dwarf in the Unnumered Tears). In the real world, large state's also couldn't join the frontal battles easily(such as China's first emperor), while small organization's democratic leaders also joined frontal military, such as Washington. XD



I think you are mistaken in believing the council of Gondor was a body of elected politicians as it was not, it was made up of lords. It was in no way a body with any legislature ability, it only could advise the Steward. Gondor was, like Rohan, and feudal monarchy. Robert Foster observed, "Gondor was a feudal Kingdom." 

Gondor was decentralized and had many "townlands" and fiefs." Local lords controlled within their spheres, such as the Prince Imrahil in Dol Amroth and Forlong the Fat, Lord of Lossarnach. The Steward of Gondor [and lord of its capital Minas Tirith] depended on his vassals to supply him his army. When Minas Tirith called for help, the other Lords sent help willingly, but only what they could spare since they had to defend their own realms against attacks along the coast. The vassals had local authority, not the steward in Minas Tirith. Prince Faramir had command of the Dunedain in Ithilien separate from the stewards' authority that answered to him only. Each Gondorian Lord carried their own banners, such as Imrahil's banner of a ship and silver swan. So the steward of Gondor did not have ultimate authority could not pass laws over Gondor, and G_ondor's council referred back to tradition as far as the days of Numenor to decide if a law was just_. _Laws and tradition ruled Gondor_, not the steward, nor a council. In the middle ages, it was law and tradition that reigned. When leaders went against those two, the lawful resistance became a duty, this is a theme we see in Tolkien many times. 

Many today associate "monarchy" with the latter renaissance absolutist monarchies. In these later monarchies, kings ruled at the head of empires and created law as they willed. But the feudal order was fundamentally different. Misinformation and falsehoods aside, the Catholic monarchies of the feudal middle ages provided the longest-lasting, libertarian, decentralized, and self-governing societies ever known to man. The peasants and surf had far greater liberty than any modern citizen in a democracy. There was no regulatory state imposing taxes or regulations, and everything was done by consent and agreement, not by force.




I think Tolkien tells us large is bad, local decentralized is good. And no we have plenty of politicians who would love to step in and boss us around so there is no shortage of them that they need special protection from the wars they send us to die in for. In the middle ages, wars were smaller and less lethal because the Lord himself had to pay the expenses and lead men into battle. I am unsure of any better anti-war policy than to start having our politicians lead our armies at the front and have them pay out of pocket expenses for wars. Have their own voters make up the armies rather than drafting slaves [we call them conscripts] and it will not take long for diplomacy to start working as it should. It is only in monarchy when the leader does ride to battle, that he needs the most protection. That should tell you something. Those that need protection are the ones willing to risk their own necks, those that don't are only willing to risk their servent's necks such as the master of Laketown and modern politicians.


----------



## Alcuin (May 10, 2021)

Tolkien provides us this insight into Númenórean kingship. The indication, I think, is that it applied also to Arnor, Gondor, and perhaps even for a time to the rebels in Umbar following the Kin-Slaying (Civil War of Gondor). From _Letter_ 244:
​I did not … go into details about the way in which Aragorn, as King of Gondor, would govern the realm. … A Númenórean King was _monarch_, with the power of unquestioned decision in debate; but he governed the realm with the frame of ancient law, of which he was administrator (and interpreter) but not the maker. In all debatable matters of importance domestic or external, … even Denethor had a Council, and at least listened to what the Lords of the Fiefs and the Captains of the Forces had to say. Aragorn re-established the Great Council of Gondor, and in that Faramir, who remained by inheritance the _Steward_[,] ... would [be] the chief counsellor.​​I highlighted in red the potion I thought most important and most interesting in this passage regarding how Númenóreans – and Tolkien, I presume – envisioned a monarch should properly perform his duties. In this regard we might look to Denethor II as a reasonable model, though he was “only” a Steward, in this description from Appendix A of _Return of the King_, “Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion”,
​Denethor … proved a masterful lord, holding the rule of all things in his own hand. He said little. He listened to counsel, and then followed his own mind.​​Much the same might be said of Aragorn, who received the _palantír_ of Orthanc from Gandalf, who urgently advised him not to use it; but later, pondering the Great Darkness that had overwhelmed Minas Tirith, he mused in Pippin’s hearing (_ibid._, “Siege of Gondor”):
​[S]ome five days ago now [Sauron] would discover that we had thrown down Saruman and had taken the Stone [of Orthanc]. Still what of that? We could not use it … without his knowing. Ah! I wonder. Aragorn? His time draws near. And he is strong and stern underneath, Pippin; bold, determined, able to take his own counsel and dare great risks at need. That may be it. He may have used the Stone and shown himself to the Enemy, challenging him…​​Denethor’s appearance reminded Pippin of Aragorn, and “Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion” says that they were “as like to … one [another as] of nearest kin.” This, I think, was no accident: though he was not of patrilineal descent from Anárion, it is likely that Denethor was of matrilineal descent (as indeed were most of the Lords of Gondor likely to be). Like Aragorn he was far-sighted in the sense that he could mentally place himself in another’s position to guess his motives and actions, and though he lacked the royal dignity of Aragorn and the grace that accompanied the True King by virtue of his being “of the line of Lúthien,” he nevertheless governed in the manner of an able and capable king. (See also Tolkien’s description of Aragorn’s descendents in _Letter_ 244: “the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors – like Denethor or worse.”)

In researching this post, I also came across Tolkien’s description of Greek _democracy_ in _Letter_ 94.
​[Member of Parliament Anthony] Eden in the [House of Commons] the other day expressed pain at the occurrences in Greece, “the home of democracy”. Is he ignorant or insincere? _δημοχρατία_ [“demokratia”, the source of our word “democracy”] was not in Greek a word of approval but was nearly equivalent to “mob-rule”; and he neglected to note that Greek Philosophers … did _not_ approve of it. [T]he great Greek states, esp[ecially] Athens at the time of its high art and power, were rather Dictatorships, if they were not military monarchies like Sparta! [M]odern Greece has as little connexion with ancient Hellas as we have with Britain before Julius Agricola.​​*Julius Agricola* is a reference to _Farmer Giles of Ham_: Farmer Giles’ proper name in Latin was “Ægidius Ahenobarbus Julius Agricola de Hammo.”

Democracy was also distrusted by the Founders of the United States: *Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.* That is why, following the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a reliable eye-witness cites a Mrs. Eliza Powell approaching the elderly Benjamin Franklin,
​“Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?”​​“A republic,” replied the Doctor, “if you can keep it.”​​


----------



## Alcuin (May 10, 2021)

Just another thought.

The great medieval European monarchies, whether Catholic or Orthodox, were fine if you were of the nobility. They were tolerable if you were free, whether of the yeomanry (free peasants), artisans (craftsmen: experts, journeymen, and perhaps even apprentices, many of whom further enjoyed membership in a guild; besides such activities as bakers, cooks, and so on who were not enserfed), or professionals (lawyers, physicians).

For _serfs and slaves_, however, I think life was pretty difficult, if not outright miserable.

To make the distinction: a *serf* is a person _tied to the land_. He is not a _slave_ in that he does not _belong_ to someone else: He isn’t the property of another person. However, a serf is *not* free: He is not at liberty to move permanently to another location or to stop farming the land on which he lives. Part of his produce from farming or fishing must be given over to whomever owns the land on which he lives and works, and of course he is furthermore subject to taxation by the king. A serf might purchase the land on which he resided and on which he was required to stay and work, thus obtaining his freedom (and becoming a yeoman, a free peasant (commoner)), but of course the owner of that plot of land might find it more profitable to retain ownership and thus his allocation of the serf’s agricultural produce. Serfdom lasted in Russia until Tsar Alexander II abolished it in 1861.

*Slavery* is another matter altogether. Pope Eugene IV outlawed slavery in 1435 in the papal bull _Sicut Dudum_ and ordered the immediate release of all slaves. This was based upon his discovery that black Canary Islanders had been enslaved. _Until at least that time, slavery also existed in England._ This I know from my research into a book I published a few years ago: various census records from early fifteenth century England described people by their occupations and status, among which both “serf” and “slave” were listed. (I have recently seen assertions by accredited academics that no slavery existed in England at this time. In my opinion, these “accredited academics” are poorly accredited, deliberate liars, or both. If that seems strong language, so be it: there is no excuse for such an error by people presumed professionals: documents to contrary exist: even I, a knowledgeable amateur, stumbled across several.) (By the way, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 was inspired by and informed by Tsar Alexander’s emancipation of the Russian serfs.)

Serfs and slaves in England escaped to cities and market towns whenever they could. If they could live out their lives without being caught, they not only obtained their freedom, but that of their descendants, who would otherwise be condemned to the fate of unfreedom.

There were regular revolts of slaves, serfs, and peasants in England. The largest and most dangerous (from the point of view of the nobility) was the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, also known as the Great Rising or Wat Tyler’s Rebellion (for the man who became leader and spokesman of the peasants). The revolt was triggered by a poll tax or “head tax”, a flat tax levied on every adult (sometimes even on children) *regardless of their ability to pay.* (Article I Section 9 Paragraph 4 of the US Constitution originally outlawed “Capitation [i.e., head taxes] or other direct Tax” except against the States in proportion to their populations; in other words, the Federal government could not generally directly tax citizens, but could only assess taxes against the _States_ in proportion to their populations. This was superseded in 1909 by the XVI Amendment, which allowed the Federal government to directly tax the incomes of US citizens.) This was in addition to the Ordinance of Labourers decreed by King Edward III and the Statute of Labourers passed by Parliament in light of dramatic increases in wages and demands for better working conditions by commoners in the wake of the Black Death, which killed between 25% and 60% of the population of England, vitiating the working population. (It never pays to outlaw economics: those Laws come from a Source no mere mortals can successfully contest.) Richard II, then but fourteen years old, first seemed to accede to the complaints of his subjects, then viciously repressed the uprising. In the War of the Roses that followed Richard’s deposition from the throne, however, memories of the Peasants’ Revolt tempered over-taxation of peasants by the weakened Houses of Lancaster and York, and the poll tax was rescinded. In 1989, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher attempted to institute a poll tax in Britain, which _directly_ resulted in her fall from power. Poll taxes are immensely unpopular.

At any rate, _slavery_ and _serfdom_ ended in England sometime in the fifteenth century, to the great benefit of the people and the country: free people are happier and more productive than slaves or serfs. Note, however, that *individuals might still be condemned to slavery as punishment.* I have an ancestor who along with his father and elder brother served as an officer under Bonnie Prince Charlie in the 1745 Jacobite Rising in which Scotland invaded England, then ruled by George II, in an attempt to place Charles Stuart (“Bonnie Prince Charlie”), grandson of the deposed King James II, on the throne in London and restore the House of Stuart. (King George II, like his father, George I of Britain, was also Elector of Hanover: The rumor was that George I never learned to speak English, and while that might at first have been true, clearly he did later in life. This dual monarchy continued until Queen Victoria: Hanover did not allow ruling queens, so Ernest Augustus, youngest son of George III, became King of Hanover.) I don’t recall whether the father was killed in battle or the older brother, but the survivor was hanged, drawn, and quartered – a most gruesome way to die. (Hence the US Constitution’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments.”) My ancestor, due to his young age (he was twenty at the time) was sentenced to “lifetime servitude” and shipped in chains to Virginia, where the royal governor commuted the sentence to twelve years’ indenture. (Virginia was a long way from London: I doubt King George or his son the Duke of Cumberland, victorious commander of England’s army who apparently imposed the sentence, ever found out about it.)


----------



## 1stvermont (May 10, 2021)

Alcuin said:


> Tolkien provides us this insight into Númenórean kingship. The indication, I think, is that it applied also to Arnor, Gondor, and perhaps even for a time to the rebels in Umbar following the Kin-Slaying (Civil War of Gondor). From _Letter_ 244:
> ​I did not … go into details about the way in which Aragorn, as King of Gondor, would govern the realm. … A Númenórean King was _monarch_, with the power of unquestioned decision in debate; but he governed the realm with the frame of ancient law, of which he was administrator (and interpreter) but not the maker. In all debatable matters of importance domestic or external, … even Denethor had a Council, and at least listened to what the Lords of the Fiefs and the Captains of the Forces had to say. Aragorn re-established the Great Council of Gondor, and in that Faramir, who remained by inheritance the _Steward_[,] ... would [be] the chief counsellor.​​I highlighted in red the potion I thought most important and most interesting in this passage regarding how Númenóreans – and Tolkien, I presume – envisioned a monarch should properly perform his duties. In this regard we might look to Denethor II as a reasonable model, though he was “only” a Steward, in this description from Appendix A of _Return of the King_, “Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion”,
> ​Denethor … proved a masterful lord, holding the rule of all things in his own hand. He said little. He listened to counsel, and then followed his own mind.​​Much the same might be said of Aragorn, who received the _palantír_ of Orthanc from Gandalf, who urgently advised him not to use it; but later, pondering the Great Darkness that had overwhelmed Minas Tirith, he mused in Pippin’s hearing (_ibid._, “Siege of Gondor”):
> ​[S]ome five days ago now [Sauron] would discover that we had thrown down Saruman and had taken the Stone [of Orthanc]. Still what of that? We could not use it … without his knowing. Ah! I wonder. Aragorn? His time draws near. And he is strong and stern underneath, Pippin; bold, determined, able to take his own counsel and dare great risks at need. That may be it. He may have used the Stone and shown himself to the Enemy, challenging him…​​Denethor’s appearance reminded Pippin of Aragorn, and “Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion” says that they were “as like to … one [another as] of nearest kin.” This, I think, was no accident: though he was not of patrilineal descent from Anárion, it is likely that Denethor was of matrilineal descent (as indeed were most of the Lords of Gondor likely to be). Like Aragorn he was far-sighted in the sense that he could mentally place himself in another’s position to guess his motives and actions, and though he lacked the royal dignity of Aragorn and the grace that accompanied the True King by virtue of his being “of the line of Lúthien,” he nevertheless governed in the manner of an able and capable king. (See also Tolkien’s description of Aragorn’s descendents in _Letter_ 244: “the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors – like Denethor or worse.”)
> ...



Great post and sorry for the long response. But I believe it is In the very same letter [I don't have mine with me] that you quote on Númenóreans where Tolkien says it was not an earthy paradise and its form of government not perfect either. So I would not use it as his preferred idealistic form of government, I think the Shire comes closer as well as his anglo-Saxon [ish?] Rohan. And as you mention Aragorn's realm.


Aragorn judged his kingdom with wisdom and allowed diversity by allowing self-rule to various people groups. He maintained liberty for his people and did not force his will on them he motivated men, not forcing them to fight. When the men of Gondor and Rohan began to desert Aragorn's armies as he marched on the black gate of Mordor, they were not convicted as traitors; instead, Aragorn felt pity for them and gave them a more comfortable duty so they could keep their honor. This alone rallied some of the men to fight.

Aragorn likewise kept decentralization alive despite the vast territory under his authority. Gimli became Lord of the glittering caves, the Shire was given full autonomy and was given more land as a gift from Aragorn. Faramir was given Ithilien to rule as his "princedom." Aragorn gave the valley around Orthanc to the ents and some land west of the mountains to expand into. In a feudalistic agreement, the ents in payment were to keep a watch for him. Aragorn gave the forest of Druadan to Ghanbur-Ghan and his people and made it so none may enter their realm without their leave. Seemingly in payment for their help leading the Rohhirim to the rescue of Minas Tirith. Aragorn [unlike so many modern states that seek to colonize weaker nations] does not kick off "less civilized" societies, such as these wildmen, or exploit their resources; instead, he gave them self-governance. Bree was also given autonomy, Butterbur of the Prancing Pony was concerned hearing about a new king saying "so long as he lets Bree alone." Gandalf assures him, "he will, he knows and loves it." Rohan kept its autonomy under King Eomer. Others under Aragorn were given full autonomy.

_"Within the borders, [of Aragorn's reunited kingdom] of the realm were several peoples who were considered part of the kingdom, yet were allowed complete self-governance: the hobbits of the shire, the "wild men" of Drunadan forest, the ents at Isengard, Gimlie's dwarves of the glittering caves, and the elves from greenwood with Legolas and Ithilien. The Shire and the forest of Druadan have even forbidden entry by any folk other than their own. Nurn was given to the slaves of Mordor, and peace was made with the Haradrim and the Easterlings." North of the reunited kingdom Mirkwood had been freed...the middle portion was given to the Beorings and the woodmen."
-Karen Wynn Fonstad The Atlas of Middle-Earth Revised Edition Houghton Mifflin Company Boston NY 1991_

Aragorn did not seek an empire or take advantage of his defeated enemies. He took back only the lands that were rightly Gondors, and he made peace with his former enemies, the Easterlings, and Haradrim, who had allied with Sauron during the war of the ring. In our modern centralized states, we force our citizens to be alike and conform to the majority's will, and the only ruler then is the majority. Therefore all diversity and minority thoughts and suppressed. Not so with Tolkien, who allows for true diversity through decentralization among the free people's territory.


----------



## 1stvermont (May 10, 2021)

Is America a Democracy?
​
*Alcuin* is correct, the founding fathers hated democracy. Article 4 section 4 of the Constitution says we are a republic. But as I said before our "leaders" use state-controlled education to teach its servants how and what to think. It is beneficial to them for power and political reasons to teach we are a democracy and so 95% of the population actually thinks we were founded to be the modern democracy we have become. The form of government believed to be tyrannical and hated by the founders we think they instituted on purpose. 


_"[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
James Madison

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." John Adams

"A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way." The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty."
Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment

"We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt."
Gouverneur Morris, Signer and Penman of the Constitution

"[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
John Quincy Adams

"A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils."
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration

"In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth."
Noah Webster

"Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

"It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion." Zephaniah Swift, Author of America’s First Legal Text_


----------



## 1stvermont (May 10, 2021)

Alcuin said:


> Just another thought.
> 
> The great medieval European monarchies, whether Catholic or Orthodox, were fine if you were of the nobility. They were tolerable if you were free, whether of the yeomanry (free peasants), artisans (craftsmen: experts, journeymen, and perhaps even apprentices, many of whom further enjoyed membership in a guild; besides such activities as bakers, cooks, and so on who were not enserfed), or professionals (lawyers, physicians).
> 
> ...




I think this another great post but once more I do disagree on minor details. I think the typical serf is often misunderstood and freer than a citizen say in America today. I think we don't realize to extent of our serfdom today nor our inability to change things via voting. I am here referring to the early middle ages and feudal time period most notably the 6th-12th century. One question we have to ask is how did the serfs come to their position? and why were the peasant revolts all later 14th century on? why do we get the Magna Carta and such much later? it is because around the renaissance as roman law comes back into vogue and kings start to gain power and centralization occurs they start infringing on the liberty of people under them and so they revolt. Just as slavery was all but wiped out until its reemergence in the new world and during the renaissance that the Pope issued his bull in the 15th century. I am currently researching a book on these subjects and more and I would love to communicate with you as I begin to pull it all together and get it written in a coherent manner.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (May 10, 2021)

1stvermont said:


> ...Many today associate "monarchy" with the latter renaissance absolutist monarchies. In these later monarchies, kings ruled at the head of empires and created law as they willed. But the feudal order was fundamentally different. Misinformation and falsehoods aside, the Catholic monarchies of the feudal middle ages provided the longest-lasting, libertarian, decentralized, and self-governing societies ever known to man. The peasants and surf had far greater liberty than any modern citizen in a democracy. There was no regulatory state imposing taxes or regulations, and everything was done by consent and agreement, not by force....
> ...I think Tolkien tells us large is bad, local decentralized is good. And no we have plenty of politicians who would love to step in and boss us around so there is no shortage of them that they need special protection from the wars they send us to die in for. In the middle ages, wars were smaller and less lethal because the Lord himself had to pay the expenses and lead men into battle. I am unsure of any better anti-war policy than to start having our politicians lead our armies at the front and have them pay out of pocket expenses for wars....


Hmmm....so...policies in JRRT were enforced by agreement instead of forces, though political leaders were produced by forceful decadence, in general. And the best way to fit such idea political system is streamlined governments, prevented from "large scale" but kept as "large production". Yet the economic and military style(temporary call) of Free People went through "research prior", it took much more massive educational resources than the "mass production style"(that was, the Mordor industrial style). I wonder private education could such tremendous demand or not.


1stvermont said:


> it is because around the renaissance as roman law comes back into vogue and kings start to gain power and centralization occurs they start infringing on the liberty of people under them and so they revolt. Just as slavery was all but wiped out until its reemergence in the new world and during


My dear, Roman political leaders had to lead their minions in to battles, in particular during the republic period, for all military leaders were the "counselors" as well XD



Alcuin said:


> ...To make the distinction: a *serf* is a person _tied to the land_. He is not a _slave_ in that he does not _belong_ to someone else: He isn’t the property of another person. However, a serf is *not* free: He is not at liberty to move permanently to another location or to stop farming the land on which he lives. Part of his produce from farming or fishing must be given over to whomever owns the land on which he lives and works, and of course he is furthermore subject to taxation by the king. A serf might purchase the land on which he resided and on which he was required to stay and work, thus obtaining his freedom (and becoming a yeoman, a free peasant (commoner)), but of course the owner of that plot of land might find it more profitable to retain ownership and thus his allocation of the serf’s agricultural produce. Serfdom lasted in Russia until Tsar Alexander II abolished it in 1861.
> *Slavery* is another matter altogether. Pope Eugene IV outlawed slavery in 1435 in the papal bull _Sicut Dudum_ and ordered the immediate release of all slaves. This was based upon his discovery that black Canary Islanders had been enslaved. _Until at least that time, slavery also existed in England._ This I know from my research into a book I published a few years ago: various census records from early fifteenth century England described...


Land ownership annexation might be the main reason for real world serf's reason. However, JRRT's decentralization and "feudal-like" seem to be designed for policies's administration's efficiency, I wonder, though JRRT never or seemed to seldom mention the purposes for each nation's political system's design.


1stvermont said:


> and it will not take long for diplomacy to start working as it should. It is only in monarchy when the leader does ride to battle, that he needs the most protection. That should tell you something. Those that need protection are the ones willing to risk their own necks, those that don't are only willing to risk their servent's necks such as the master of Laketown and modern politicians.


Oh yes, Washington wasn't a "democratic" but "republic", like the Roman Republic such as Caesar.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (May 10, 2021)

1stvermont said:


> Aragorn did not seek an empire or take advantage of his defeated enemies. He took back only the lands that were rightly Gondors, and he made peace with his former enemies, the Easterlings, and Haradrim, who had allied with Sauron during the war of the ring. In our modern centralized states, we force our citizens to be alike and conform to the majority's will, and the only ruler then is the majority. Therefore all diversity and minority thoughts and suppressed. Not so with Tolkien, who allows for true diversity through decentralization among the free people's territory.


So...this means that "Gondor's conquest" during it's height of power was a bad move, was it?Or could this imply the racial and inhabitants diversity came up with the kingdom's conquest lead to the Kin-Strife, due to outraging racists like Castamir, forming the "Numernor Supremacy"? Or maybe those authority like the "Council" was an "Republic style", yet exclusive to social elites like Numenor (a bit like Junkers), however coming up with increasing diversity due to the territory expansion, more and more complicated members were allowed to join the authority like the Council, like Castamir, begun to corrupt the politics, controlled the national resources like the Royal Navy, and made all kinds of ministries more ineffective(Gondor seemed perform not well against the Great Plague while it seemingly was the only nation supposed to have the best medical resources)


----------



## Olorgando (May 10, 2021)

1stvermont said:


> Many today associate "monarchy" with the latter renaissance absolutist monarchies. In these later monarchies, kings ruled at the head of empires and created law as they willed. But the feudal order was fundamentally different.


So I take it that with the European Renaissance, in your opinion, the feudal monarchies you so idealize went into decline. This is my interpretation of your above statement, so if I'm wrong, correct me. _The_ Renaissance seems to be seen as having taken place in the 15th and 16th centuries by "orthodox" consensus, though some extend it forward into the 17th century, and backwards into the 14th. The latter had a massive paradigm shift in form of the Great Plague, peaking in Europe between 1347 and 1351.

To put it bluntly, whatever intrinsic positive values the Catholic feudal monarchies may have had for the population as a whole, which I'm willing to accept at least for the sake of argument, before history they were failures, ending up on history's garbage dump.
For European-internal reasons, too, the monarchs becoming - to steal the quote from Alcuin's above post:

"(See also Tolkien’s description of Aragorn’s descendants in _Letter_ 244: “the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors – like Denethor or worse.”)"

But "Southrons" and "Easterlings" certainly also played a role, and that JRRT cast them in his tales as he did is simply European experience with whatever appeared out of the blue out of these directions. At least for 1500 years if you take the Huns, or if you take the Roman view of Carthage, at least 2200 years.
(There was a "homegrown" European scourge that JRRT did not take up: The "Northrons" or Vikings. Perhaps to do with his liking for the Norse Sagas etc.)

But there is a huge gap between the demise of the feudal monarchies and anything I would call a democracy. Greece never was, nor the US for the longest time. These were plutocracies, with the vote given to a very small minority of the population. France's experiment ended with the military dictator Napoleon Bonaparte (as did the nominal Roman Republic with Julius Caesar).



1stvermont said:


> Is America a Democracy?



With all due respect for the US's founding fathers, and I have a lot (it's the bunch starting from the early 19th century that started messing things up), what "democracy" had any of them experienced, or even had any vague notion of?

None.

Because there had to that time only been one country that even vaguely qualifies, Switzerland, or the _Confoederatio Helvetica._ What we now call democracy stems, in its beginnings, from the post-WW I period. It didn't work out too well, falling to autocratic-to-totalitarian rulers at least in Germany, Italy and Spain (and in some form in other countries, too). We need to go to the post-WW II period - and all those on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain had to wait for another 45 years, being dictatorially suppressed by a semi-Easterling and his successors. Portugal, Spain and Greece also only managed to get rid of their military autocrats in the mid-1970's.

Is any country currently rightfully calling itself a democracy causing trouble in the world?

No.

100% of the troublemakers are autocrats of one form or another

As a last comment: Democracy demands more, hugely more of its citizens than any other form of government. That they should be educated, and informed, *and be able to think for themselves*. That may, I concede, be asking too much on average what Jared Diamond, in a book title, once called "The Third Chimpanzee".


----------



## 1stvermont (May 10, 2021)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> Hmmm....so...policies in JRRT were enforced by agreement instead of forces, though political leaders were produced by forceful decadence, in general. And the best way to fit such idea political system is streamlined governments, prevented from "large scale" but kept as "large production". Yet the economic and military style(temporary call) of Free People went through "research prior", it took much more massive educational resources than the "mass production style"(that was, the Mordor industrial style). I wonder private education could such tremendous demand or not.
> 
> My dear, Roman political leaders had to lead their minions in to battles, in particular during the republic period, for all military leaders were the "counselors" as well XD
> 
> ...



In all honesty, I am not 100% sure what you are arguing for or against in your first responce. Please clarify or simplify it for me if you would. 


I did not mean to say nothing good came out of Roman law. Only that the generally germanic nature of law of western europe was replaced by more centralized and expansive governments of the renaissance. 


I actually think Tolkien did go a bit more in-depth on the politics of ME and they follow his own personal beliefs very closeley. That is features he believed were evil are the features common to Mordor, Morgoth etc while those he deemed good, are practiced by the free peoples. I just so happen to be finishing up a book that focuses on this and other subjects in Tolkien's writings. 


Washington was a president in the American republic, not a roman emperor. Republics vary as monarchies did. This might sound odd but I have almost finished up another book on American history [focus on the civil war] and the transformation of the republic and what it had originally been and the ideas that created it. For example, Noah Webster said, "correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion." John Adams said, “The Bible is the most republican book in the world.” John Dickenson said, “The Bible is the most republican book that ever was written.” Just because we were a republic does not make us Rome. The American republic most followed the ancient Israelite republic of decentralized tribes. But here for sure, we are off topic.



Hisoka Morrow said:


> So...this means that "Gondor's conquest" during it's height of power was a bad move, was it?Or could this imply the racial and inhabitants diversity came up with the kingdom's conquest lead to the Kin-Strife, due to outraging racists like Castamir, forming the "Numernor Supremacy"? Or maybe those authority like the "Council" was an "Republic style", yet exclusive to social elites like Numenor (a bit like Junkers), however coming up with increasing diversity due to the territory expansion, more and more complicated members were allowed to join the authority like the Council, like Castamir, begun to corrupt the politics, controlled the national resources like the Royal Navy, and made all kinds of ministries more ineffective(Gondor seemed perform not well against the Great Plague while it seemingly was the only nation supposed to have the best medical resources)



There was no "conquest" as i said Aragorn restored his ansestors rightful kingdom while allowing self-government within. I was saying he did not conquer those defeated enemies like the Easterlings, haradrim or continue to expand. He even gave Mordor to the slaves.



Olorgando said:


> With all due respect for the US's founding fathers, and I have a lot (it's the bunch starting from the early 19th century that started messing things up), what "democracy" had any of them experienced, or even had any vague notion of?
> 
> None.
> 
> ...



People have been condemning democracy since before the middle ages. The ancient Greek writers condemned it. Forms of mass democracy and voting have been around at various scales [small scale like a village not is not so much an evil as our nation states] though human history though uncommon.

I would say WW1 is when democracy won, not its start. The French revolution IMO is when it really took off. And i would also argue that democracy after WW1 did work well as it was meant to and at a more expected speed. I think it was Karl Marx who said "democracy is the road to socialism." Everywhere democracy is instituted it leads to more government control, more centrlaization, more tyranny, more mass murder of minorities within its authroity, and will [always] lead to totlaitanism of one sort or another. Granted in the US it has been very slow due to roadblocks from the founders, but socialism and tyranny is know here as is in all of the west. Over time governments continue to control more power and influence over our lives. This is built into the system of democracy.






Democracy – The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order (Perspectives on Democratic Practice): Hans-Hermann Hoppe: 9780765808684: Amazon.com: Books


Democracy – The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order (Perspectives on Democratic Practice) [Hans-Hermann Hoppe] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Democracy – The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy...



www.amazon.com









The End of Democracy: Buffin de Chosal, Christophe, Plummer, Ryan P, Coulombe, Charles A: 9781944339081: Amazon.com: Books


The End of Democracy [Buffin de Chosal, Christophe, Plummer, Ryan P, Coulombe, Charles A] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The End of Democracy



www.amazon.com





The only reason you think no country calling itself a democracy is causing trouble is that you have been trained to agree with them and think like them. I use to as well. Since this is a Tolkien forum and we are discussing medieval feudal monarchies, if we can step out of our own culture, our own upringing, and look at the modern world through Tolkiens or a medieval person's eyes, we would have to conclude slavery has engulfed the west. We would see moral atrocities and moral decay everywhere we look. I told another poster I am writing a book that contrasts democracy and feudal monarchies from various perspectives and how they affect people, I would love to share it with you as i developed further and would love some feedback/criticism from you on it when it is ready.


I agree people should be able to think for themselves. But this can never happen while power remains with people's thoughts on how to vote. Thus in democracies everywhere we are brainwashed by media/politicians/education etc and democracy has directly led to our modern propaganda machines. It is not like this was a secret by those instituting democracy/totlainism, they said we need to control how people think in order for them to accept further expansion of government. That is how we get the origins of state education. Go talk with 100 high school and college-age kids and you won't find an original thought or opinion. It will only be talking points they received from teachers, professors, or media neither would they be able to defend those views if challenged. They are told what to believe not how to think. I can support this [and do in my book] from the writings of they themselves. The upside of this as you mentioned is that there are so few decenters they no longer need to exterminate us in camps. But that is only so long as we play nice.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 10, 2021)

Speaking of playing nice, the OP and some of the discussion is interesting, and germane to the forum, but I think it might be time to remind everyone that politics and religion generally are both considered OT here. 

Let's try to keep it to Tolkien and Middle-earth, shall we?


----------



## 1stvermont (May 10, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> So I take it that with the European Renaissance, in your opinion, the feudal monarchies you so idealize went into decline. This is my interpretation of your above statement, so if I'm wrong, correct me. _The_ Renaissance seems to be seen as having taken place in the 15th and 16th centuries by "orthodox" consensus, though some extend it forward into the 17th century, and backwards into the 14th. The latter had a massive paradigm shift in form of the Great Plague, peaking in Europe between 1347 and 1351.
> 
> To put it bluntly, whatever intrinsic positive values the Catholic feudal monarchies may have had for the population as a whole, which I'm willing to accept at least for the sake of argument, before history they were failures, ending up on history's garbage dump.
> For European-internal reasons, too, the monarchs becoming - to steal the quote from Alcuin's above post:
> ...



The beggings of the transformation from feudal to absolute began at various times in the west. But the origins of various Roman and renaissance influences can be seen as early as the late 13th century. I would say the normal renaissance time period of say 15-17th century was more the full implementation of absolute monarchies. 

I agree the Catholic monarchies are done away with, but does might make right? Sorry for the bold but C.S lewis wrote

We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world it's pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We're on the wrong road. And if that is so we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on​


Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Speaking of playing nice, the OP and some of the discussion is interesting, and germane to the forum, but I think it might be time to remind everyone that politics and religion generally are both considered OT here.
> 
> Let's try to keep it to Tolkien and Middle-earth, shall we?



Agreed and I apologize for my part.


----------



## Olorgando (May 10, 2021)

1stvermont said:


> The upside of this as you mentioned is that there are so few decenters they no longer need to exterminate us in camps.


Maybe you need to get one fact into your head. Hitler is about as far away from democracy as is possible
Unless you are referring to those who invented concentration camps, the British during the Boer War in South Africa ...


----------



## Olorgando (May 10, 2021)

1stvermont said:


> The only reason you think no country calling itself a democracy is causing trouble is that you have been trained to agree with them and think like them.


There has been one country *calling itself a democracy* that has caused no end of trouble, starting in the 19th century.
I very much hesitate to call it such, and mentioned the term plutocracy above ...


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 10, 2021)

As this thread has drifted far off the original subject, I'm going to close it down.


----------

