The thread is supposed to be about things which are not well suited to be discussed under subject "Times and seasons": namely whether England was important kingdom in medieval times, whether HYW was more important than Mogol invasion etc.
First I want to assure you that posting here you will be on-topic. As long as CK is not published, any discussion relevant to history of the period is on-topic for the forum (from the FAQ).
In this post I will try to clarify thesis we are discussing, and I am arguing for greater importance of Mongol invasion; I am also putting examples to show that England wasn't important in medieval times and its development were not something unusual in Europe.
Because I know mainly history of main own country, the examples will be from history of Poland; it does not mean that I want to boast or because I think Poland is the centre of universe, but simply because history of Poland i know the best. I am aware that my knowledge of Western history is somewhat limited, but I also noticed that knowledge of Eastern European history of some of you is not just limited, is nonexistent and based on slogans repeated by Western scholars, mainly for assuring themselves in their own feeling of superiority.
I could be wrong; try to prove me that. In Polish we have the saying that only cow does not change its mind. I am open for discussion.
The original thesis is that "Mongol invasion is more important than Hundred Years War". Everything else is from that. First, we would want to define what we consider important. I think that "important" event is such one, which either affects a lot of people and countries, or which changes significantly history. Therefore, the more changes to history, the more affected countries, the more important the event is.
That's why I don't understand why some of my opponents are thinking that Mongol invasion is less important, because eventual lack of it would result in counterfactual history. I think that this is argument for importance of the event. Mongol invasion changed history of the continent so drastically that you can't even imagine what would happened without it: it affected Poland, Hungary and Rus. Without it, Poland would be reunited 100 years later and probably much more germanised. Rusin principalities would continue normal development and probably in result there would be few normal, powerful Rusin states (No GDL for starters), instead of being putted in state of constant chaos. And what were the results of HYW?
Let me quote: "HYW is important in that it was integral to the rise of England and France as early modern states - standing armies, feudal nobles power curtailed, fixed tax systems". In other words it was important, because it speeded normal evolution, because other countries also had sooner or later fixed tax system, standing armies and curtailing nobles power without being involved into HYW. On one side: speeded development of two European players, on second side: TOTAL DESTRUCTION of one player.
The answer was that England was important, because.. well, it was important. One discutant said:
In other words, it was important because it was later important, and the groundwork for its importance was laid in medieval period. But when I said exactly that, it was called "strawman".
Another discutant said:
Let's see what's left of that. We saw, that also other countries (Hungary - GOlden Bull just 7 years later, Germany etc) had similar acts to Magna Charta, developed independently of England. Parliaments were in fact quite common in christian Europe. In fact I can't think about kingdom without parliament, stronger or weaker. Actually I could argue that England up to XVIII or even xIX century was on of average European states and there were many more democratic states. In other words, it cannot be claimed that Engish system was such important, because it seems like it was common pattern in much of Christian EUrope.
Later others admited that in fact also other countries had all of those specific English features. If they all had it, then what's so special about England? Many states laid groundworks for future power. It is just matter of geographical location plus many accidents which caused that England from all those states became power in XIX century.
In early XVI century Poland had more steelworks than France. In Poland and in neighbouring SIlesia there was one of European centres for producing clothes. Productivity (based on avg. gran effectiveness) was on par with England. Poland had the same percentage of city population as England (20%).
Until destruction of Kilia, Kaffa and COnstantinople POland was on one of most important European trade routes. Until half of XV century cities had large impact in Polish political system. Poland had strong king until end of XVI century (1450s - no taxation without representation 1505? Nothing about us without us and only 1573 - constitutional monarchy). If not death childless first of Kazimierz the Great, and then if not stubborness and childless death of last Jagiellon then Poland would continue to be constitutional strong monarchy well later.
Not to mention that I have no idea what do you want to say by "feudal" abd "fractured". Some historians are claiming that there was never feudalism in Poland. Poland became decentralised state in XVII century, with liberum veto first time used in 1660s. If you all want to claim that England was important in 1066, because it became important in XVII century while other countries (even if they had similar groundworks for futute power) lost their chances and became weaker, then i fail to see why not to call England important in Roman times, because Roman times also influenced English history.
Or, why you can't say that Poland was important in XII century (I am NOT claiming that - Poland was country on the edge of the known world in that time) because it was European power since XV to XVIII century.
I am refusing to call state important because it will be important later, unless you show me that there was determinism in England becoming important and other countries with similar developments to fail. And I refusing to think that HYW was more important than Mongol invasion only because Mongols destroyed only half of continent which was unimportant anyway (why? it seems, because, well, it was destroyed and therefore had no chacnes of future developments) while HYW speeded development of England.
First I want to assure you that posting here you will be on-topic. As long as CK is not published, any discussion relevant to history of the period is on-topic for the forum (from the FAQ).
In this post I will try to clarify thesis we are discussing, and I am arguing for greater importance of Mongol invasion; I am also putting examples to show that England wasn't important in medieval times and its development were not something unusual in Europe.
Because I know mainly history of main own country, the examples will be from history of Poland; it does not mean that I want to boast or because I think Poland is the centre of universe, but simply because history of Poland i know the best. I am aware that my knowledge of Western history is somewhat limited, but I also noticed that knowledge of Eastern European history of some of you is not just limited, is nonexistent and based on slogans repeated by Western scholars, mainly for assuring themselves in their own feeling of superiority.
I could be wrong; try to prove me that. In Polish we have the saying that only cow does not change its mind. I am open for discussion.
The original thesis is that "Mongol invasion is more important than Hundred Years War". Everything else is from that. First, we would want to define what we consider important. I think that "important" event is such one, which either affects a lot of people and countries, or which changes significantly history. Therefore, the more changes to history, the more affected countries, the more important the event is.
That's why I don't understand why some of my opponents are thinking that Mongol invasion is less important, because eventual lack of it would result in counterfactual history. I think that this is argument for importance of the event. Mongol invasion changed history of the continent so drastically that you can't even imagine what would happened without it: it affected Poland, Hungary and Rus. Without it, Poland would be reunited 100 years later and probably much more germanised. Rusin principalities would continue normal development and probably in result there would be few normal, powerful Rusin states (No GDL for starters), instead of being putted in state of constant chaos. And what were the results of HYW?
Let me quote: "HYW is important in that it was integral to the rise of England and France as early modern states - standing armies, feudal nobles power curtailed, fixed tax systems". In other words it was important, because it speeded normal evolution, because other countries also had sooner or later fixed tax system, standing armies and curtailing nobles power without being involved into HYW. On one side: speeded development of two European players, on second side: TOTAL DESTRUCTION of one player.
The answer was that England was important, because.. well, it was important. One discutant said:
In other words, it was important because it was later important, and the groundwork for its importance was laid in medieval period. But when I said exactly that, it was called "strawman".
Another discutant said:
Let's see what's left of that. We saw, that also other countries (Hungary - GOlden Bull just 7 years later, Germany etc) had similar acts to Magna Charta, developed independently of England. Parliaments were in fact quite common in christian Europe. In fact I can't think about kingdom without parliament, stronger or weaker. Actually I could argue that England up to XVIII or even xIX century was on of average European states and there were many more democratic states. In other words, it cannot be claimed that Engish system was such important, because it seems like it was common pattern in much of Christian EUrope.
Later others admited that in fact also other countries had all of those specific English features. If they all had it, then what's so special about England? Many states laid groundworks for future power. It is just matter of geographical location plus many accidents which caused that England from all those states became power in XIX century.
In early XVI century Poland had more steelworks than France. In Poland and in neighbouring SIlesia there was one of European centres for producing clothes. Productivity (based on avg. gran effectiveness) was on par with England. Poland had the same percentage of city population as England (20%).
Until destruction of Kilia, Kaffa and COnstantinople POland was on one of most important European trade routes. Until half of XV century cities had large impact in Polish political system. Poland had strong king until end of XVI century (1450s - no taxation without representation 1505? Nothing about us without us and only 1573 - constitutional monarchy). If not death childless first of Kazimierz the Great, and then if not stubborness and childless death of last Jagiellon then Poland would continue to be constitutional strong monarchy well later.
Not to mention that I have no idea what do you want to say by "feudal" abd "fractured". Some historians are claiming that there was never feudalism in Poland. Poland became decentralised state in XVII century, with liberum veto first time used in 1660s. If you all want to claim that England was important in 1066, because it became important in XVII century while other countries (even if they had similar groundworks for futute power) lost their chances and became weaker, then i fail to see why not to call England important in Roman times, because Roman times also influenced English history.
Or, why you can't say that Poland was important in XII century (I am NOT claiming that - Poland was country on the edge of the known world in that time) because it was European power since XV to XVIII century.
I am refusing to call state important because it will be important later, unless you show me that there was determinism in England becoming important and other countries with similar developments to fail. And I refusing to think that HYW was more important than Mongol invasion only because Mongols destroyed only half of continent which was unimportant anyway (why? it seems, because, well, it was destroyed and therefore had no chacnes of future developments) while HYW speeded development of England.
