Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Monarchy vs Democracy -The Case for Feudal Monarchies

  1. #1

    Default Monarchy vs Democracy -The Case for Feudal Monarchies

    Feudal Monarchy or Absolute Monarchy?

    “The feudal order, in fact, was very different from the monarchial order that replaced it [absolute monarchy] and to witch succeeded, in a still more centralized form, the order of state control that is found today.”
    -Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

    “However In the course of many centuries these originally stateless societies [Feudal ] had gradually transformed into absolute – statist- monarchies.”
    --Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

    “Patriarchal monarchy unfortunately gave sway at a later period to absolute monarchy, which became entangled in nationalist etatistic movements, a process which finally led to a suicide of the monarchical form of government.”
    -Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

    As an important clarification I am here going to compare the christian feudal monarchies of the medieval time period to modern democracy- rather than the later Renaissance time period of absolute monarchies witch were a turn towards centralization. It was during the Renaissance and the reemergence of ancient Roman/Greek law that transformed the medieval feudal system to a system of centralized power of either absolute monarchies or later democracies and republics. Urban merchants, power hungry Kings, and Reformationist studying Roman law and needing or looking to justify centralization of power left the middle ages Feudal political system behind and moved into the Renaissance of centralized power.

    “If an unjust government is carried on by one man alone, who seeks his own benefit from his rule and not the good of the multitude subject to him, such a ruler is called a tyrant—a word derived from strength—because he oppresses by might instead of ruling by justice. Thus among the ancients all powerful men were called tyrants.”
    -Thomas Aquinas On Kingship to the king of Cyrus 1225-1274

    “[Roman law] it was the law par excellence of those who wanted to affirm a central state authority”
    -Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisc

    Decentralization and Self Government During the Feudal Monarchical Middle Ages

    “By the end of the tenth century the kingdom of France remained a legal and ideological construct, but it's kings exerted little genuine power outside their own family lands. The main political foci were the great counties ruled as autonomous principalities by comital families...contrast mirrored different histories customs and laws. The far south retained a tradition of written law.... there was no uniformity of rules of landowning, judicial systems, weights, measures or currency. A kingdom often in name alone.”
    -Christopher Tyerman Gods war a new history of the Crusades Harvard U Press Cambridge Mass 2006

    “Medieval civilization was also decentralized, and it was vast in scale. It was a mosaic of thousands of independent and quasi-independent political units: kingdoms, principalities, dukedoms, bishoprics, papal states, republics, free cities, and tens of thousands of titled manors. The medieval contribution to politics is the idea of a federated polity where various independent political units are held together in a larger realm by compacts and traditional hierarchy.”
    - Donald Livingston The Southern Critique of Centralization

    The agrarian western european christian middle ages were the most decentralized libertarian societies ever known. Medieval scholar Thomas Madden in The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture says “ Feudalism was a set of practices that arose....during the middle ages.” Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote “Federalism in the European anti-centralistic sense has always been part and parcel of Catholic political ideologies.” There were various forms of monarchies usually hereditary but some were elected by Lords and Bishops, or a mix of both. For example France elected Kings until Hugh Caput in 987 and than started a hereditary monarchy. Decentralization was at a peak, Lords controlled within their own spheres, as did dukes, princes, barons etc and held autonomy. Each realm had their own laws and courts and near everything was done by the local village with no influence from the Kings Capital. In describing France in the middle ages medieval scholar and Oxford professor Christopher Tyerman said “few of the great princes in France bothered to pay homage and feality to the King” and “the vast majority of Frenchmen, their spheres of economic, public and private life operated entirely beyond the reach of necessity of royal influence or power.” and the region of France had an“absence of national instincts.” “a Europe that contained no nation states in the modern understanding” Thomas Asbridge in his book the first crusade described France as a national identity as “endured only in imagination” Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn in his great work The Menace of the Herd said of the mindset of medieval man as first and foremost his loyalty was to his family, witch had its own flag and arms, second was to their local town or village, than to their region. Any sense of a nation was almost mystical. In his book Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time he stated “The Middle Ages and their aftermath were characterized by a multitude of such autonomous and semi-autonomous spheres; medieval man frequently belonged to a variety of these.” The greatest power in the middle ages was custom and tradition and these were local. These traditions and customs were fixed and could not be altered by any ruler including a King. In the Holy Roman Empire Dukes and Archbishops elected their kings and the states [such as Saxony Swambia Bavaria etc] and had near complete autonomy where they were “dominated by its own Duke.” Often wars such as the Germans into into Poland were funded and controlled by local Lords and Dukes with no input from the King. Famed French historian Regine Pernoud in her book Those terrible middle ages debunking the myths wrote “Only local powers reined.”

    “As people came before courts or before judges they would have to declare witch they were and what law they lived under”
    -Thomas Madden The Modern Scholar: The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture

    “They stand as monuments to the intense localism of the High Middle Ages, when every man’s country’ was not the kingdom, duchy, or county in which he lived, but his own town or village... Even the law might change from village to village; a thirteenth-century judge pointed out that in the various counties, cities, boroughs, and townships of England he had always to ask what was the local customary law and how it was employed before he could successfully try a case... Davis describes medieval civilization as “firmly rooted. It grew out of the earth, as it were.” The Road from Serfdom “
    -Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

    Unlike in a democracy actual self government by consent rather than force was practiced. The people had the choice of witch Lord to follow and what political system to live under. Generally men would swear an oath to the Lord of their choice who would give the peasant land to work and protection. In return the peasant would give a small % of his produce back to the Lord. And also at times volunteer military service to the Lord. Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. This was a loyalty by choice not a forced servitude. Thomas Aquinas said “ Good kings, on the contrary, are loved by many when they show that they love their subjects and are studiously intent on the common welfare, and when their subjects can see that they derive many benefits from this zealous care, government of good kings is stable, because their subjects do not refuse to expose themselves to any danger whatsoever on behalf of such kings.” Likewise a wicked ruler will have no support from his people and his kingdom will not last. French historian Leon Gautier writes in his book Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight on the bonds between Lord and his men “The bonds of feudalism were stronger than family ties. The Lord was greater than a father, and a vassal was more than a son.”

    “Secular histories report that, when it was observed that Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, surrounded his person with guards, Plato inquired: ‘Have you committed so much evil that you need to have so many guards?’ This is in no way fitting for the prince, who in doing his duty so wins the affection of all that every one of his subjects would expose his own head to imminent peril for him ... and would sacrifice his own skin for the sake of the royal skin; and all that a man has he will give up for the life of the prince.”
    -John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

    A local government is more accountable to the people, and more in line with the local people. Decentralization allows diversity in government that a centralized government cannot offer. If one area wishes to provide universal health care, socialist tax code it can. If the area next town/county/state over wishes to have a libertarian society and a fair tax code, it can. The people can decide for themselves. This would also stop so much fighting between separate groups because neither could force themselves on the other as we do today in our modern centralized democracy. Wars would not be needed as there would be no cause when all can live as they wish. No cohesion. People could literally vote with their feet. Think of east Germans of the centralized soviet socialist who blocked in their runaway slaves [citizens] and shot them for running away from the tyranny. Decentralization also would allow multiple ways of dealing with a certain problem be tried and tested. We could have a dozen separate ways to do education, we could than test the results. The areas that “failed” in their way could adopt another more successful way if they chose to. But If the centralized government does education a certain way, and it fails, than everyone suffers. Since there are so many different opinions on how to better the education system in America, all could have it their own way instead of being forced by a central dictatorship in Washington- centralization forces conformity. Further this would force competition on government to behave and treat its citizens well and avoid corruption as this would give people choice and they could move to an area of like minded people. This is also the reason corrupt governments always seek centralization to avoid choice so as to be able to become more corrupt. True diversity would blossom as would free markets.

    “A highley decentralized power structure composed of countless independent political; units explains the origin of capitalism- the expansion of market participation and of economic growth. It is not by accident that capitalism first flourished under conditions of extreme political decentralization.”
    -Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

    “”secession/decentralization Increases ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural diversity, while centuries of centralization have stamped out hundreds of distinct cultures.”
    -Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

    A power structure of a centralized democracy can not be removed easily, where as a tyrant king [a single person] can be. Think of a town mayor turning tyrannical, he will be easily resisted, a strong military and centralized democracy turns evil it will lead to mass destruction. Centralized governments and the modern state can turn as tyrannical as they wish and have a monopoly on force through police and the military. If a monarchy did so it would pit him against all his population who could than turn against him and in a decentralized system, such as the medieval time period, he would be hopelessness outnumbered and the people would truly rule. Thomas Aquinas in on Kingship said kingdoms should be arranged so if a King turned into a tyrant, he can be easily removed and his power should not be absolute but limited so as to avoid his potential to become a tyrant. ” This is the medieval decentralized system. So today what a centralized authority declares law, it is so, with no hope of recourse no matter how tyrannical or contrary to previous laws. In the decentralized medieval system [as in antebellum America as well] laws were the authority.

    democracies “has placed the state above the law – the state self-defines and self-interprets the constitution; the state has a monopoly on the adjudication of its dictates. This places the state in a position to decide what law is, and how law is applied. The only hope one has to influence this is to turn a minority into a majority. Such a concept was unknown to the mediaeval mind – each individual held a form of veto. No majority was necessary, and minority rights were fully protected – even for the minority of one.”
    -Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

    Liberty During the Middle Ages

    “A period, about 900, when there was no empire, no state, and no public authority in the West. The state disappeared, yet society continued. It was discovered that economic life, religious life, law, and private property can all exist and function effectively without a state. … In Rome, in Byzantium, and in Russia, law was regarded as an enactment of a supreme power. In the West, when no supreme power existed, it was discovered that law still existed as the body of rules which govern social life.”
    -Carroll Quigley Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time Jun 1 1975

    “Before the advent of absolutism, monarchs were often in dire financial straits which could only be alleviated borrowing and not by taxation. Taxes were more or less voluntary contributions by cities and estates.”
    -Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

    The “state” as we think of it today did not exists. Tax were not a regular occurrence and were usually only at various times in dire need and were not forced but agreed upon. Private property was actually your property, not rented from the government [ property tax] and you could do with your property as you pleased as there was no government regulations. Or a mans home was really his castle. Before the second half of the nineteenth century under absolute monarchies tax never rose above 5-8%. In medieval monarchies it was far lower. The peasants rights were as good as the kings. “on his own ground entitled to hold off the king” To covet another property and to than steal it [democracy] would be seen as sinful in a christian monarchy not raised in a democratic education system. Hoppe in his book Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order wrote “All members of society learned to regard the taking and redistribution of another man's property as shameful and immoral.” And Bionic Mosquito in Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages wrote ““...The idea of destroying a village to save it, or abrogating property rights to preserve them, or stealing from one to help another in more need would be quite foreign to the medieval mind”

    “monarchs will tend to support a free market to gain competitiveness on a global scale. Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein does exactly this. As a result, his economy thrives. A monarch looks for the best, most prosperous system, because ideological lines are not his or her goal. Rather, a monarch’s goal is to bring prosperity to the owned country.”
    -Daniel Szewc The Case for Libertarian Monarchism

    A King or Lord would only benefit from uniting his people. A King took an oath to protect and serve all his people unlike a democrat who serves those who elected them and numbers rule as a tyrant. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote “The monarchic principle is thus, as St. Thomas characterized it in his De regimine principum, a uniting, not a dividing principle.—Every election, on the other hand, is a solemn manifestation of division.” Kings did not need to social engineering for more power or steal money [tax] to buy votes as they inherit the position. In a monarchy power seekers [aka politicians] will not receive power since it is inherited and not gained by campaigns, manipulation and money from special interests. Think of the time, money, and energy saved by avoiding campaigns. In a monarchy public opinion would not be manipulated by educators/media to sway a majority this way or that. Indoctrination would not gain any ground in its efforts as it would wholly useless. A Lord due in part to multiple competitors in any given area, would support free markets and low taxes specifically of the merchant class.

    “The Lords is not interested in messing with the profitability of these towns... and if that means to let the town manage itself, than most of these Lords are willing to go along with that. And since they are in competition with other Lords, in other towns, its in their interest to make there's work to the best benefit. These towns....become self governed.”
    -Thomas Madden The Modern Scholar: The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture

    But who Will Purchase the Votes of the Poor Masses – Sorry, I Meant What About Welfare?

    “The church provided education, literacy, civil services.”
    -Christopher Tyerman Gods war a new history of the Crusades Harvard U Press Cambridge Mass 2006

    Rodney Stark in his book Bearing false Witness wrote of the middle ages “all schools as well as most hospitals and charities were provided by the church.” In Feudal times as in the biblical model the church was to care for the needy leading people to Christ rather than dependency and political slavery as the wasteful corrupt government welfare system does [only 40% of money used by the federal for welfare reaches it target- it is said not to donate to an organization under 60%]. So in other words they gave to the poor not created them. Also the [than existing in a biblical agrarian society] extended family cared for the poor and medical needs of their family. As well as private contracts also provided services. In those times peoples wealth was there own [no fear of government taking it] and they believed God would judge them on how they treated the poor. Further Lords and Knights often swore oaths to protect the weak and poor as well as monks and priests. In a christian decentralized kingdom such as the medieval ages the local area would be family and like minded people willing to help each other. Look at the Amish today. When a house burns down the entire town helps out and rebuilds the house. This system avoids all the negatives of state welfare and works to uniting families and local continuities to Christ as well.

    “If each person laboured upon his own improvement and counted the affairs of others as outside his concerns, the circumstances of each and every person would be absolutely optimal, and virtue would flourish and reason would prevail, mutual charity reigning everywhere, so that the flesh would be subjected to the spirit and the spirit would be a servant in full devotion to God.”
    -John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

  2. #2

    Default Re: Monarchy vs Democracy -The Case for Feudal Monarchies

    The Power of the Crown in a Feudal Monarch

    “a man of our time cannot conceive the lack of real power which characterized the medieval King, from witch it naturally followed that in order to secure the exaction of a decision he needed to involve the other leaders whose say-so reinforced his own.”
    -Bertrand De Jouvenel

    “the feudal king was one Lord among other Lords.... the title of King did not signify that his economic or military power was greater than that of some particular vassal....The feudal King possessed none of the attributes reorganized as those of a sovereign power. He could not decree general laws nor collect taxes on the whole of his Kingdom nor levy an army”
    -Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

    “Feudal lords and kings did not typically fulfill the requirements of a state; they could only “tax” with the consent of the taxed, and on his own land every free man was as much a sovereign as the feudal king was on his. Tax payments were voluntary. ...The subordination of king to law was one of the most important of principles under feudalism. The king was below the law”
    -Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

    Absolute monarchies and the “divine right of Kings” were later protestant and enlightenment inventions. In the middle ages Kings did not create laws or legislate as do modern states to their own benefit they were under the law and local tradition, the true rulers of the middle ages. Medieval laws were not created by bureaucracies but were “given” and “fixed” by tradition and custom. All Lords, Dukes, and Kings were bound by the same laws. If a King was to become tyrannical, he was resisted and could be tried for violation of the laws.

    “The subordination of King to law was one of the most important of principles under feudalism.”
    -Nisbet Prejudices A Philosophical Dictionary Cambridge Mass Harvard U Press quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

    “There is wholly or mainly this difference between the tyrant and the prince: that the latter is obedient to law, and rules his people by a will that places itself at their service, and administers rewards and burdens within the republic under the guidance of law in a way favourable to the vindication of his eminent post..the prince is the public power and a certain image on earth of the divine majesty. ….For all power is from the Lord God, and is with Him always, and is His forever. Whatever the prince can do, therefore, is from God, so that power does not depart from God, but it is used as a substitute for His hand, making all things learn His justice and mercy.”
    -John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

    Decentralization was such that Oxford scholar Christopher Tyerman said “few of the great princes in France bothered to pay homage and feality to the King” and “the vast majority of Frenchmen, their spheres of economic, public and private life operated entirely beyond the reach of necessity of royal influence or power.” Medieval scholar Thomas Madden in the medieval world part 2 sums up the Kings power by saying “Medieval kings are pretty weak” and Christophe Buffin de Chosal in the end of Democracy says “The law was not at the monarchs disposal, for most rules of common life were fixed by custom”Kings were under the law only, not above it nor could they change law. Thus they function very different than a politician. Leland B Yeager in his article A Libertarian Case for Monarchy writes ““The king stands in contrast with legislators and bureaucrats, who are inclined to think, by the very nature of their jobs, that diligent performance means multiplying laws and regulations”Kings did not tyrannize their own people but provided protection and enforcement of the laws as a compact as with other Lords and peasants and the Lord would in return lend the King help out of loyalty or family ties and tradition. The King as the [usually] largest land owner would also be the number one protector of private property laws.

    “State expenditures, as we call them, were thought of in feudal times as the Kings own expenditures. It is somewhat as if a government of our times were expected to cover its ordinary expenditures from the proceeds of state owned industries”-
    -Bertrand De Jouvel Sovereignty quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

    A king was more accountable. He would be alone reliable for debt and it would pass on to his kids not to all of “we the people.” He could not force tax on his people for his own benefit. John of Salisbury wrote of the Kings money as not being his “he must count his wealth as the people’s. He does not, therefore, truly own that which he possesses in the name of someone else, nor are the goods of the fisc, which are conceded to be public, his own private property. Nor is this a surprise, since he is not his own person but that of his subjects.” A monarch has reason to leave his holdings better than when he began for his family. Monarchs seek the best for his Kingdom in low tax, high production efforts. The better his domain's situation the better off he is. If a King were to become tyrannical, he and he alone, would be to blame. And with other competing local Lords, he would be forced to treat people in his domain well. Most of the Kings army were men sent from Lords and allies to help the King out of their own free will. As John of Salisbury wrote “The fighter and the farmer were identical; but they would merely exchange their equipment.” The King himself did not own a massive army. G.K Chesterton wrote in Heretics ““The middle ages, when no King had a standing army. But every man had a bow or sword.”

    “The Kings of France struggled even to control small territory centered around Paris, while the Frankish realm fractured into murmurous dukedoms and counties whose power eclipsed that of the Royal house.”
    -Thomas Asbridge the First Crusade Oxford University Press 2004

    All governments tend towards expansion of territory and power. However the monarch has the option to do so through marriage. Nobels would marry other nobles to increase power [also why incest happened to keep power within the family] instead of warfare. The medieval wars were usually disputes over complex inheritance issues and extinct dynasties. Warfare was for the most part guided by the christian principles of chivalry. Wars were the domain of the King and his allied nobles- not of the country as a whole, nor of the people. The typical citizen would not realize a war was going on in either country. Prisoners of war instead of being locked up in concentration camps or prisons [at tax payer exspence] were released on their word of honor and were allowed to go home. The King was responsible to finance the expedition himself and civil life was left alone. If territory expansion was conducted by government [king] it benefits only him and he should pay experiences alone. This made wars very costly and a King would be reluctant to engage in long or large scale disputes. Add to that foreign policy was far more stable in monarchy unlike newly elected officials who change policy every four years, and we get reduced causes of international disturbance. Hoppe quotes Palmer in “A history of the eastern world” as saying of warfare in the medieval time period “Never had war been so harmless.”

    “definitely regarded as a kind of single combat between two armies, the civil population being merely spectators. Pillage, requisitions, acts of violence against the population were forbidden the home country as well as the enemy country... soldiers being scarce and hard to find...meticulous trained, but as this was costly, it rendered them very valuable, and it was necessary to let as few be killed as possible... generals tried to avoid fighting battles. The object of warfare was the exacustion of skillful maneuvers and not the annihilation of the adversary... war became a kind of game between sovereigns”
    -Guglielmo Ferrero Peace and war

    “wars were largely the occupation of Kings, courtiers and gentlemen. Armies lived on their depots ….soldiers were paid out of the kings privy purse they were too costly to be thrown away lighltey on massive attacks..”
    -Fuller war and Western Civilization quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

    In the feudal age nobles were expected to not just fight, but lead the armies into battle. Unlike in democracy were politicians send out none relatives conscripts to fight for them. Because of the costs to the King directly [does not have ability to steal through tax like a democracy] , limited numbers, and because of decentralization in the political system causalities were far lower. But also wars were far less frequent or total. Further the soldiers under the King were not forced mercenaries/slaves [conscripts] made to fight for a cause that does not benefit them and that they might disagree with or think evil. Instead Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. A much better situation for the people rather than modern democracies forcing men to fight for them or using state power to persecute them for “treason.” The king could not extract contributions only solicit subsides from loyal subjects who through their own free will supported the king and used it as an opportunity to make deals . Often deals were made to save each Lord from continuation of the expensive war and wars were won or lost based on small scale objectives.

    “Monarchy in the Christian world is an international institution.As long as it was a living force the wars between political units were of a relative and restricted nature— Kabinettskriege, as the Germans say. Between 1100 and 1866 A.D. no Christian kingdom was eliminated permanently from the map. (Naturally we exclude from consideration the Napoleonic period, and the casualties among the Italian republics, and the Rzeczpospolita Polska, the " Polish Commonwealth " under an elected King who was—to the greatest misfortune of the country—" nobody's " relative.) No monarch was thoroughly dispossessed, and the price to be paid for military defeat was merely a city, a county, a province. After the battle of Solferino the Emperor Francis Joseph said simply: " I have lost a battle and I pay with a province." He was not progressive enough to believe in " unconditional surrender " and in the guerre aux allures déchaînées—nor did Napoleon III. Conscription was an invention of the French Revolution, and so were wars on a nation-wide basis with great collective passions.”
    -Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time Caxton Printers LTD Galdwell Idaho 1952

    Kings were not just under tradition and laws, but also there own vassals. To be able to have the power to do anything such as a war, he needed his allies to help. So he must through diplomacy and gifts or other actions due to some degree the will of his vassals in return for service. If he were to try and force a vassal or become tyrannical this would push more and more resistance within his own kingdom against himself. To become powerful a feudal king must literally be the servant of others and a model rather than a dictator. As Thomas Madden in the medieval world part 2 says “ It is not possible for him to command them [vassals]...some are more powerful and quit dangerous to him.”

    “then every subject, every section of the people, and even the whole community was free to resist him..whereas today it is an illegal act for the people to resist the government authority, during this period after the fall of Rome the lords had a duty to resist the king who overstepped his authority. ... the act of resistance in and of itself was not considered illegal. It was a duty respected by king and people alike. …
    -Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

    Warfare itself was far different than modern wars. The Medieval Knight had its origins in Catholic Europe during the feudal time period. Anyone could become a Knight, it was not only for the nobility. Along with the nobels, the knight was the celberty of the day leading people to christian lifestyels. They would join voluntarily and were free to leave whenever they wanted. The medival Knight was a christian soilder who followed the 10 comandmnets of knighthood as outlined in Leon Gautier book Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight.

    “Chivalry is the christian form of the military profession. The knight is the christian soldier...nor are the religion and the profession at all separate from each one could become a knight without first becoming a christian, without having been baptized ”
    -Leon Gautier Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight Tumblar House 2015

    Among them was to obey the church, defend the church, defend the weak such as orpahns, widows, monks, preists, hospitals, charity organizations, to have love the country of their birth, no retreat, perform feudal duties if not contray to the laws of God, never lie, be genrous and donate, and be the chapion of the right aginst injustice and evil. A knights life consited of prayer in the mornings, daily mass, fasting, swearing an oath to the church. Knight were the guardians of the church and those who could not defend themselves. His model knight to imiate were king David, Joshua, Judas Maccabess, Charlemagne, Micheal the archangel, Godfrey of Bouillon and Richrad the Lionherted. John of Salasbury summerized as “The armed soldier is by necessity bound to religion.”

    “Wherever the church was, there the knight also was to be found to accompany and to protect...the knights mission was to defend all weaknesses”
    -Leon Gautier Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight Tumblar House 2015

    “Feudal wars which in no way resembled modern wars....previously war was above all a matter of taking prisoners, now it was an attempt to kill the adversary””
    -Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisc

    The “divine right of kings” teachings started with protestants in the 17th century never accepted by the catholic church. The Magna Carta of 1215 was written by a mix of nobles and church leaders. Absolute monarchies [such as what the colonies resisted] started after the Renaissance. From Agustin and Aquinas to John of Salisbury to the church fathers and councils, the catholic church held the biblical doctrine of resistance to tyranny. John of Salisbury states it very simple “by the authority of the divine book it is lawful and glorious to kill public tyrants.”

    Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God

    It was protestants and the enlightenment who when come into power steadily increase the power of the state weather to absolute monarchies or various republic/democracies. Thomas Aquinas in on kingship wrote “If to provide itself with a King belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the King be disposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude, becoming a tyarant, he abuses his royal power.” Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn in his book The Menace of the Herd wrote “The theory of the Divine Rights of Kings, as we see it under debate in the seventeenth-century England, is naturally not a part of Catholic theology.” John of Salisbury the great medieval political scholar wrote around 1159 in Policraticus “ I submit to his [the king] power... so long as it is exercised in subjection to God and follows His ordinances. But on the other hand if it resists and opposes the divine commandments, and wishes to make me share in its war against God; then with unrestrained voice I answer back that God must be preferred before any man on earth.” and

    “Furthermore, the law is a gift of God, the likeness of equity, the norm of justice, the image of the divine will, the custodian of security, the unity and confirmation of a people, the standard of duties, the excluder and exterminator of vices, and the punishment of violence and all injuries It is attacked either by violence or by deceit and, one might say, it is either ravaged by the savagery of the lion or overthrown by the snares of the serpent. In whatever manner this happens, the grace of God is plainly being assailed and God is in a certain fashion being challenged to a battle. The prince fights for the laws and liberty of the people; the tyrant supposes that nothing is done unless the laws are cancelled and the people are brought into servitude. The prince is a sort of image of divinity and the tyrant is an image of the strength of the Adversary and the depravity of Lucifer, for indeed he is imitated who desired to establish his throne to the north and to be like the Most High, yet with His goodness removed. For if he had wished to be like Him in goodness, he would never have endeavoured to snatch away the glory of His power and wisdom. Yet perhaps he aspired to be rewarded by being raised to the same level. As the image of the deity, the prince is to be loved, venerated and respected; the tyrant, as the image of depravity, is for the most part even to be killed. The origin of tyranny is iniquity and it sprouts forth from the poisonous and pernicious root of evil and its tree is to be cut down by an axe anywhere it grows.”
    -John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

    "The Church never endorsed the notion of the divine right of kings. That was first proclaimed by James I of England (1566– 1625), a Protestant...From St Augustine through St Thomas Aquinas, the great Church theologians denied the moral authority of the state and condemned tyrants, warranting their 1215 the English bishops participated in forcing King John to sign the Magna Carta... Indeed, Luther fully supported ‘the development of strong centralized states and absolute monarchies’."
    -Rodney Stark Reformation Myths Five Centuries of Misconceptions and (Some) Misfortunes SPCK Publishing

  3. #3

    Default Re: Monarchy vs Democracy -The Case for Feudal Monarchies

    Catholic Monarchs

    “That the ruler must have the law of God always before his mind and eyes, and he is to be proficient in letterss... The law of Deuteronomy,... And the prince properly writes Deuteronomy in a book because he may thus reflect upon the law in his reason without the letter disappearing from before his eyes....All censures of law are void if they do not bear the image of the divine law; and the ordinance ( constitutio ) of the prince is useless if it does not conform to ecclesiastical discipline. Nor did this escape the notice of the most Christian prince, who pro¬ claimed that his laws were not to disdain imitation of the sacred canons. And not only should one aspire to be ruled by the examples of priests, but the prince is dispatched to the tribe of Levi in order to obtain its benefits. Note how diligent in guarding the law of God should be the prince, who is commanded to hold it, to read it and to reflect upon it always.”
    -John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

    “The medieval society... was obsessively dedicated to this faith [Catholicism], almost every feature of daily exsistance being conditioned to its Urban's day, this faith dominated and dictated everyday life to an extent that can seem almost inconceivable to a modern observer.”
    -Thomas Asbridge the First Crusade Oxford university Press 2004

    “One must add that the idea of a Christian monarchy is quite distinct from the monarchical idea of antiquity, not only on account of the concept of legitimacy but also due to certain qualities which are intrinsic characteristics of a Christian monarchy.”
    -Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

    Unlike democracy that desires moral relativist and atheist. The medieval monarch built up the church and promoted it. The kings Christianity also effected his politics. Christianity in the middle ages was not relegated to a personal belief system of an individual or placed within the four walls of a church. It was seen as the guide to all life's activities. Education, family, politics, culture, music, science, art etc etc everything was influenced and revolved around Catholicism. As French historian Leon Gautier in his book the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight wrote “ The fatal separation which consists in isolating the faith from all other knowledge did not exists” and “It is no exaggeration to compare the church during the middle ages to the sun, witch illuminates everything...The thought of God then filled and animated all and it was as the breath of their nostrils in those believing centuries.” In the middle ages democracy and it accompanying philosophies had not convinced Christians that the Bible and the church were a spiritual personal belief of theirs not fit for public life. To the middle ages christian the Bible and church law were divine commands to form your every thought and action around. And monarchy encouraged this.

    “It goes without saying that, as all presidential republics or parliamentary democracies see authority as primarily coming up temporarily to elected rulers from the people of the nation themselves and not down from God upon divinely anointed and consecrated king and queens, no elected system can theoretically or practically embody, manifest, or make real the solemn and covenantal three-way relationship that exists between God, a crowned and anointed monarch, and his or her people.”
    -Quoted from A Theological and Political Defense of Monarchy Ryan P. Hunter

    “logic suggests and history demonstrates that monarchies have been much more stable than democracies in their adherence to Christian faith and morality. The history of democracy since the French Revolution shows an ever-accelerating decline in faith and morality, and an ever-expanding undermining of the natural hierarchical relations that God has placed in human society, whether these be between parents and children, husbands and wives, teachers and pupils, or political rulers and their subjects. And by undermining these natural heirarchical relations, it implicitly undermines the most important heirarchical relationship of all, that between God and man. The Orthodox monarchy, on the other hand, strengthens all these relationships, and orients society as a whole to spiritual goals rather than the exclusively secular and material goals of contemporary democracy.”
    -Vladamir Moss

    A King who believed the church and the bible's view was Governments are instituted among men to protect those unalienable rights that come from a higher authority than man [government] that is God. The medieval king constantly acknowledged that biblical higher power that they were accountable to. Man was not the ultimate authority. A monarch authority comes from God not a magic blood line [pagan] or a Roman republic [government] the King was under the churches and Gods authority. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote “Kingship was not only an office with religious implications (the coronation of a Catholic ruler is a sacramental), but the whole traditional Christian monarchy was deeply imbued with a religious spirit.” John of Salisbury in Policraticus summed up the difference of a prince and tyrant as one former had the holy spirit and the latter did not. And later “The prince is, therefore, to fear the Lord and he is to profess his servility to Him by an evident humility of mind and by the performance of pious works. For indeed a lord ( dominus ) is the lord of a servant. And so the prince serves the Lord provided that he faithfully serves his fellow servants, namely, his subjects.” This philosophy that reorganizes a creator, produces a limited government. “the Christian European monarchy was through most of its history of a constitutional pattern, which circumscribed and limited the ruler's sphere of action by the law of God and the law of the land.” wrote Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time.Government is not the ultimate authority but is to protect all citizens god given liberty and law. It also believes that man should alter and abolish a government that is destructive to those rights of the people.

    “He who receives power from God serves the laws and is the slave of justice and right. He who usurps power suppresses justice and places the laws beneath his will. Therefore, justice is deservedly armed against those who disarm the laws, and the public power treats harshly those who endeavour to put aside the public hand. And, although there are many forms of high treason, none of them is so serious as that which is executed against the body of justice itself. Tyranny is, therefore, not only a public crime, but, if this can happen, it is more than public.
    -John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

    In the traditional order, the source of power is God, the almighty. In him power resides in its essence, all other power is delivered from this essential power....power is delegated by the creator to human beings, and this is expressed symbolically and most lucidly in the traditional monarchical order where the King governs “by the grace of God” and is responsible before his celestial principle.”
    -Tage Lindbom the Myth of Democracy Wm. B Eerdmans Publishin Co 1996

    In a christian monarchies Christ was the true king and Kings obeyed God and law and reigned in the fear of the Lord. Thomas Aquinas in on kingship said a King who's actions benefited himself was not a King at all and in fact the best example of a hypocrite. He quoted another church leader Augustine as writing

    ““we do not call Christian princes happy merely because they have reigned a long time, or because after a peaceful death they have left their sons to rule, or because they subdued the enemies of the state, or because they were able to guard against or to suppress citizens who rose up against them. Rather do we call them happy if they rule justly, if they prefer to rule their passions rather than nations, and if they do all things not for the love of vainglory but for the love of eternal happiness. Such Christian emperors we say are happy, now in hope, afterwards in very fact when that which we await shall come to pass....Therefore it is God alone Who can still the desires of man and make him happy and be the fitting reward for a king.”

    In the Europe of the Middle Ages, the noble was concerned with his eternal life and God’s eternal kingdom and this concern shaped his behavior; no longer the case since the Enlightenment.”
    -Daniel Ajamian the Cost of the Enlightenment

    The Bible speaks of the eternal King to come who will rule from Jerusalem the model for an earthly King. Further the Old testament was not viewed as a collection of fables or myths but was taken as actual history and fully Gods word and authoritative on its politics. Thomas Aquinas On Kingship quotes constantly from the bible and the overwhelming majority are from the Old testament. The other great political work of the middle ages Policraticus by John of Salisbury as well overwhelmingly uses the Old Testament for justification of political rulers. Leading crusade scholar Christopher Tyerman in his massive book Gods war a new history of the Crusades wrote ““the medieval church placed considerable importance on the old testament.” To quote Leon Gautier agagin, “the spirit of atheism was not fitted, to enter into the mind of the feudal baron.”

    “Tamar the Great ...At the beginning of her reign, Tamar convened a Church council and addressed the clergy with wisdom and humility: “Judge according to righteousness, affirming good and condemning evil,” she advised. “Begin with me — if I sin I should be censured, for the royal crown is sent down from above as a sign of divine service. Allow neither the wealth of the nobles nor the poverty of the masses to hinder your work. You by word and I by deed, you by preaching and I by the law, you by upbringing and I by education will care for those souls whom God has entrusted to us, and together we will abide by the law of God, in order to escape eternal condemnation.… You as priests and I as ruler, you as stewards of good and I as the watchman of that good.”
    -Fr. Zakaria Machitadze The Lives of Georgian Saints quoted from A Theological and Political Defense of Monarchy Ryan P. Hunter

    Kings reigned by biblical standards and did not rule or control its people as we have today. John of Salsibury said the King must have wisdom, justice, mercy, humility, charity, selfishness, prudence, charity, he must be reluctant to punish and quick to reward. In on Kingship Thomas Aquinas wrote “ From this it is clearly shown that the idea of king implies that he be one man who is chief and that he be a shepherd, seeking the common good of the multitude and not his own.” Instead they led by example as moral christian royal families. To live godly lives. Unlike today's modern pagan celebrities who lead the masses away from Christ. '

    “Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”
    - C.s Lewis

    Even today kids grow up pretending naturally to be princess, queens, knights and kings, not presidents or lobbyist. Disney makes a killing off of its princesses and castles. Something of the monarchist system in mankind looks to royalty as a positive influence and christian morals. Every family has a father and mother just as a monarch serves as a form of father/mother to the country. This helps unification of the country rather than division from politicians like in democracies. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his book Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time wrote “Families, for instance, are minor kingdoms—ideal spheres for the development of personality; and free societies always have strongly developed hierarchically built family cells” They also symbolize christian ideals of marriage, family and unity. Like nature a monarchy seems to make sense as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his book Liberty or Equality said “Monarchy seems to be the most natural sort of government, for whatever nature produces with more than one head is esteemed monstrous.” And Aquinas wrote "There is only one queen among the bees and in the whole universe one God, Creator and director of all," Aquinas mentions the Kings only just functions as

    -To exsersize just judgment in his kingdom.
    -To have his rule under the authority of the church and the bible
    -To make suitable for his people to seek heavenly happiness and forbid the contrary
    -Protect his realm from foreign invasion
    -Restrain men from wickedness and push them to virtuous deeds following the example of God
    -And finally

    “the Book of Deuteronomy (17:18-19) that “after he is raised to the throne of his kingdom, the king shall copy out to himself the Deutoronomy of this law, in a volume, taking the copy of the priests of the Levitical tribe, he shall have it with him and shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep his words and ceremonies which are commanded in the law.” Thus the king, taught the law of God, should have for his principal concern the means by which the multitude subject to him may live well.”
    -Thomas Aquinas On Kingship

    And like the biblical decentralized/tribal model, the people remained in power and the King did not control an entire “nation”.

    “It is plain, therefore, from what has been said, that a king is one who rules the people of one city or province, and rules them for the common good.
    -Thomas Aquinas On Kingship to the king of Cyrus 1225-1274

    “Ancient Jewish society, even in the heyday of monarchy, never gave way to abolitionism [absolute monarch] . The “people” always remained, directly and indirectly a body of influence on the affairs of the state”
    -Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon Battles of the Bible GreenHill Books London 2002

    The similarity in Catholicism also led to more peace and less war.

    “The first monarchs, the founders of the European dynasties, were all outstanding people who excelled either through their wisdom, virtue, bravery, sanctity, or at least through their shrewdness, diplomacy, brutality, or daredevil courage. None of them was insignificant. The families of these rulers constantly intermarried; even back in the early Middle Ages the tendency was clearly one of intermarriage between the royal and imperial houses with the result that we find at the end of this epoch in the Christian Occident one large family of rulers with many different branches, united by the common faith as well as by the ties of common ancestors, of common tombs, of common blood.”
    -Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

  4. #4

    Default Re: Monarchy vs Democracy -The Case for Feudal Monarchies

    Agrarian Society

    “a feudal society was also essentially a country, rural society”
    -Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

    “Urban populations without any real religion or culture, like much of the U.S today, cling to government as the source of identity and the meaning of their exsitance”
    -Clyde Wilson Nullification Reclaiming the Consent of the Governed

    The medieval world was also an agrarian society witch saw a drastic increase in farm and food production. With the fall of Rome cities started to empty as people moved to the country. Big cities being unnatural need large scale infrastructure to survive and need large amounts of goods moved from the country into the city to survive witch needs massive government.

    “Then we meet the feudal system, and the castle was born.”
    -Leon Gautier Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight Tumblar House 2015

    The medieval society centered around the castle as the center of culture, protection, civilization, code of honor, court, laws, trade etc in a rural setting surrounded by small farms in no need of cities or urban areas. The agrarian nature went hand in hand with the form of monarchies and the church. Oxford scholar Christopher Tyermann in his book Gods war wrote the “Religious and political structures rested on settled agrarian economics and populations.” Regine Pernoud in her book Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths wrote “the authority was able to reside elsewhere than in a city.” Rural monasteries were the center of learning. Monks worked the land and were self sufficient [while making beer and wine] while maintain a place of learning and prayer. In ancient Rome farming was thought the work of slaves unlike the christian west. Not until the 16th century during the Renaissance does education moved to urban areas and culture moves towards cities and the origins of the modern state appear. To see the impact of centralization, democracy, urbanization and industrialization on the southern united states decentralized christian agrarian society and how hostile democracy is towards agrarianism, liberty, decentralization and Christianity in the united states context, see this link.

    I Wish I Was In The land Of Cotton- Southern Agrarian vs Northern Industrialization

    also see

    THE MENACE OF THE HERD or Procrustes at Large THE BRUCE PUBLISHING COMPANY MILWAUKEE 1943 Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Menace of the Herd, or Procrustes at Large_5.pdf

    “Authentic country life with its rugged spirit of Independence...its traditions, its distrust of modernity, and its self sufficiency, has compete disappeared, and with it, the most robust opposition to all state centralization.”
    -Christophe Buffin de Chosal the end of Democracy Tomblar House 2017

    “The age of the rule of the plains and the cities, which put an end to the rule of the mountains and castles, was indeed the beginning of the decline of Europe. The association of Berlin with Moscow, of nationalism with socialism, was, even in a geographical sense, a league of monotony against diversity.”
    -Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

    The Winner Writes the History

    It is so easy, in fact, to manipulate history... for a public that is not knowledgeable about it. We have nearly daily evidence of this on television”
    -Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

    “Official” history is always written by its victors I.e from the perspective of the proponents of democracy.”
    -Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

    Because the winner wrote the history we are fed that the western catholic system of monarchy was not the most decentralized, libertarian, self governing time period. But was instead ruled by tyrant kings who had complete control of the populace. Yet it was the return to centralization under roman law that led to king tyrants during the Renaissance.

    “Centralizing power in the extreme, that of the Roman empire.The revival of Roman law brought about legal standardization in the interest of centralized nation states”
    -Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

    “Everywhere men are leaving behind the liberty of the Middle Ages, not to enter into a modern brand of liberty but to return to the ancient despotism; for centralization is nothing else than an up-to-date version of the administration seen in the Roman Empire.”
    -James Madison quoted in Donald Livingston The Southern Critique of Centralization

    “The revival of Roman law brought about legal standardization in the interest of centralized nation states”
    -Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

    The middle ages are the time period of actual self government and liberty, the “evil” time when centralized governments did not rule and thus they are punished in the winners version of history. To dare set up an extended time period that allowed mankind to live under anything but a centralized dictatorship such as ancient Rome or our modern times, receives wrath from statist today and must be made to vanish from people mind and only be remembered as the worst of sins. As it was the middle ages that

    The idea of authority faded away, the notion of centralization was wiped out. The power declined into the hands of numerous petty sovereigns”
    -Leon Gautier Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight Tumblar House 2015

    Instead of acts of defense against Muslims aggressors for the purpose of saving their own lives and culture and persecuted Christians in lands taken by Islam, the crusades were violent unjust acts of aggression against peaceful Muslims and early colonialism led by brutal Lords and Kings and catholic bishops. The Jewish ghetto's were not area given Jews to fully observe the Torah and self govern themselves but instead examples of bigotry discrimination intolerance and segregation. The Inquisitions were not done to prevent wrongful accusations and save lives but were a tyrannical force of a mad church sent to burn innocent people at the stake. And on and on. Overall the medieval monarchist time period was the “dark ages” violent, backwards, tyrannical, and one would not wish to repete those time periods so be glad our savior democracy is here. Democracy has not been the most tyrannical time period, nor caused the most wars and death, nor moral decay, and the destruction of family unit and culture. No it has enlightened us, given us peace, progress, liberty, better health , longer lives, advancements and economic gains. The single greatest thing to happen to mankind. Democracy. Besides, if we did not bash other cultures that differ from us who cant defend themselves it would deprive us moderns of the aristocratic pleasure of despising earlier medievalist.

    "The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history"
    -Milan Hubl, Czek communist

    “If you can cut the people off from their history, then they can be easily persuaded.”
    -Karl Marx

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts