I've been reading this for awhile now, and I really find this discussion interesting...
Thank you, I'm glad I'm semi-legible at least ;).
I can't help but wonder if one of the two factors (Nature or man) would have caused it without the interference of the other.
It's interesting. My take is - the famine cycle had been going on for hundreds of years and hadn't changed much. What did change was man's reaction to it, that there was a growing, although rather nebulous idea that fairer political representation could be linked to more food for hungry people. I'm not an expert on pre-revolutionary harvests and I'm sure there are a lot of people here who could set me straight, but I seem to remember reading somewhere harvest failure being a fairly common occurrence - something like every six years or so. A political system that is at mortal peril from something that happens as regularly as that seems to me a little screwed.
I can't think of an instance in history where a people have revolted when all their basic needs are being met. Usually hunger or lack of medical care play a role Of course, absolutely. We're selfish buggers and if it's all hunky-dory there's not much motivation to risk your life and livelihood for a principle. But all to often hunger or lack of medical care is not a natural event but something man had a role in, particularly when we get to the last 200 years of history. Oh and this point I can't stop harping on, sorry! Hunger and lack of medical care have been fairly endemic in the world for most of its history and yet revolutions have been relatively rare.
I mean, would the people have revolted against the monarchy if Louis had not been such a schlub
Yay! That's my favourite wildcard argument, the whole but what if Louis had been more of a go-getting enlightened despot kick-ass sort of monarch who could have battered through tax reform and not gone through finance ministers like silk stockings. Because I genuinely don't know and I'm quite interested when the better informed argue it either way.
To me though it does highlight a bit of a flaw in the monarchy system, rather like the famine cycle there also seems to be a schlub cycle of kings, every three monarchs or so one gets thrown up that really, really shouldn't be put in charge of a puppy, let alone 25 million people. Also I'm not necessarily one for cod psychology but I do think the limitations you must put on your thinking to believe it is your right/duty to rule irrespective of merit or performance must cause quite serious difficulties in how one deals with one's fellow humans if one's natural temperament is not that autocratic. Again, my knowledge of history is fairly holey but I do seem to recall I think the schlub factor was also an element in the Russian revolution too, and it certainly was in the War of the Roses. So I think monarchy as a political system has this severe inbuilt flaw and at some point that weak link in the chain was going to come around just at the wrong point in time.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-04-19 06:35 pm (UTC)Thank you, I'm glad I'm semi-legible at least ;).
I can't help but wonder if one of the two factors (Nature or man) would have caused it without the interference of the other.
It's interesting. My take is - the famine cycle had been going on for hundreds of years and hadn't changed much. What did change was man's reaction to it, that there was a growing, although rather nebulous idea that fairer political representation could be linked to more food for hungry people. I'm not an expert on pre-revolutionary harvests and I'm sure there are a lot of people here who could set me straight, but I seem to remember reading somewhere harvest failure being a fairly common occurrence - something like every six years or so. A political system that is at mortal peril from something that happens as regularly as that seems to me a little screwed.
I can't think of an instance in history where a people have revolted when all their basic needs are being met. Usually hunger or lack of medical care play a role Of course, absolutely. We're selfish buggers and if it's all hunky-dory there's not much motivation to risk your life and livelihood for a principle. But all to often hunger or lack of medical care is not a natural event but something man had a role in, particularly when we get to the last 200 years of history. Oh and this point I can't stop harping on, sorry! Hunger and lack of medical care have been fairly endemic in the world for most of its history and yet revolutions have been relatively rare.
I mean, would the people have revolted against the monarchy if Louis had not been such a schlub
Yay! That's my favourite wildcard argument, the whole but what if Louis had been more of a go-getting enlightened despot kick-ass sort of monarch who could have battered through tax reform and not gone through finance ministers like silk stockings. Because I genuinely don't know and I'm quite interested when the better informed argue it either way.
To me though it does highlight a bit of a flaw in the monarchy system, rather like the famine cycle there also seems to be a schlub cycle of kings, every three monarchs or so one gets thrown up that really, really shouldn't be put in charge of a puppy, let alone 25 million people. Also I'm not necessarily one for cod psychology but I do think the limitations you must put on your thinking to believe it is your right/duty to rule irrespective of merit or performance must cause quite serious difficulties in how one deals with one's fellow humans if one's natural temperament is not that autocratic. Again, my knowledge of history is fairly holey but I do seem to recall I think the schlub factor was also an element in the Russian revolution too, and it certainly was in the War of the Roses. So I think monarchy as a political system has this severe inbuilt flaw and at some point that weak link in the chain was going to come around just at the wrong point in time.