True or false

[Dangun]

The question which arises is where the line of separation is to be drawn, considering such entities as today's 'Islamic state' and Latin America's drug cartels.  One can have organised violence without nations/states being the driving participants - as people raided by the Free Companies in the latter part of the 14th century AD were all too aware.  Perhaps we should more closely define 'civilian violence': would this, for example, include the frenetic Greek city-state political faction-fighting?  Or the riots and risings of mediaeval peasantry and occasional worker-types (e.g. the ciompi (wool-workers) in Florence)?

True. But in the context of this admittedly odd exam question, even if we conservatively categorize the violent non-state institutions as civilian, they have - so far/fingers crossed - failed to do anything big enough to alter the broad conclusions.

[Erpingham]

Maybe we are overthinking this?  I truly doubt the person who set the question was cleverly commenting on how violent criminality could be considered warfare in the Middle Ages.  It is as unlikely they defined what war was as they thought about the perspective they were taking in declaring the Middle Ages as a period of constant warfare.

[Nick Harbud]

Interesting - I went for false but excluded lawlessness.  When does lawlessness become warfare, I wonder?

Clausewitz had an answer - when it becomes violent, instrumental and political.  (Diplomacy by other means and all that.)

[Patrick Waterson]

Interesting - I went for false but excluded lawlessness.  When does lawlessness become warfare, I wonder?

Clausewitz had an answer - when it becomes violent, instrumental and political.  (Diplomacy by other means and all that.)

Good thought, though he actually said a continuation of politics by other means.  Diplomacy is simply a way of tidying up the resultant dog's breakfast in a semi-permanent fashion once everyone knows who has won and lost.

Maybe we are overthinking this?  I truly doubt the person who set the question was cleverly commenting on how violent criminality could be considered warfare in the Middle Ages.  It is as unlikely they defined what war was as they thought about the perspective they were taking in declaring the Middle Ages as a period of constant warfare.

I suspect this observation may be correct: a more precise and accurate phrasing might have been a period of constant conflict, at least from a perspective whereby any conflict anywhere is considered to leave a mark on the calendar even if huge swathes of territory elsewhere are subject only to intermittent criminality or bouts of individual bad temper.

[Erpingham]

Mrs Erpingham here (Erpingham is in the bathroom feeding the cat that lives there)

Just to note that Daesh considers itself a legitimate expression of government according to Sharia. It is founding a Caliphate, much as North African Islamic forces did in Spain in the 10th (??) century, and the endorsement of the Caliphate comes from the Qu'uran.  Which is to say that one must perhaps look at the motivation of criminal forces/civil unrest/terrorism before one can decide whether what one is seeing is merely Queensbury chavs writ large, attempting to establish the lawlessness of an area,  something like the Poll Tax riots of 1990 (when I was working in a local government revenue service - exciting times) which will achieve political change without a shooting war, or the Soviets of 1916-17.

We now return you to your scheduled programme 

[Erpingham]

And the moral is never ask your wife to shut down the computer while you feed the cat.  It's been a devil of a job to keep her from arguing with Patrick about Egyptian matters all year, to be honest  

[Patrick Waterson]

And the moral is never ask your wife to shut down the computer while you feed the cat.  It's been a devil of a job to keep her from arguing with Patrick about Egyptian matters all year, to be honest

It might be interesting to let her do so as a Family Member ... she sounds (writes) like an intelligent person with a good sense of humour, and could make a useful contribution to discussions.

Just to note that Daesh considers itself a legitimate expression of government according to Sharia. It is founding a Caliphate, much as North African Islamic forces did in Spain in the 10th (??) century, and the endorsement of the Caliphate comes from the Qu'uran.

Indeed true, although despite its involved and complex organisation it functions more like organised crime writ large.  The revolt of Harwennefer and Ankhennefer against the Ptolemies similarly had the rationale of establishing a 'true' and 'legitimate' state (in this case Egypt ruled by Egyptians) but with similar expression in robbery, destruction and general human misery rather than actually building a sustainable realm - not unlike the Sudan in the 1880s, in fact.  One can take it as read that anyone seeking to establish a niche and/or gain for themselves will have a rationale which to them seems legitimate - or will attach themselves to one out of convenience if they feel it helps.  Bohemond of Taranto went on Crusade ... and ended up with Antioch.

Just one question (and we shall be back in period as soon as this is done):

or the Soviets of 1916-17

Does this refer to the agitation groups established in the army and elsewhere at this particular time rather than the Bolsheviks per se, who seized power in a coup d'etat in late 1917?

[Jim Webster]

I'm tempted of offer a reward for the person who can come up with a rebel group who didn't claim to be legitimate

Jim

[Mark G]

Outside of star wars?

[Jim Webster]

Even the claim to be the heirs to the previous admin don't they?

[Erpingham]

Returning to earth for a moment, the definition of war as politics by other means (a precis, rather than a quote) we do end up in the Middle Ages with the problem of what politics was.  A lot seems to have been around the interests of different classes (the nobility used armed might against what they thought was the undermining of their priviledges by "tyrants" like John or Richard II, the peasants revolted against over taxation and other grievances, the Middle classes tended toward political leverage gained from financing warfare).  There was the faint stirrings of pursuit of religion by other means in Oldcastle's revolt, a theme more common in Europe.  We also had the pursuit of legal redress by other means, such as the dispute over the Fastolf legacy which led to the siege of Caister Castle in 1469.

[Patrick Waterson]

And then there was the indictment of Falkes de Breaute, a contemporary of William Marshall, on charges of 'wrongful disseisin' when he fell out of favour ... which brings us to another conceptual semantic border: when does intrigue become politics?

In fact de Breaute's whole career well illustrates various facets of mediaeval 'politics' and 'violence'.

[Erpingham]

Does this refer to the agitation groups established in the army and elsewhere at this particular time rather than the Bolsheviks per se, who seized power in a coup d'etat in late 1917?

I have checked and the Oracle says she was thinking of naval and military soviets pre-Revolution.

[Patrick Waterson]

I have checked and the Oracle says she was thinking of naval and military soviets pre-Revolution.

Merci beaucoup.  My understanding is that the only change these actually achieved was to increase the desertion rate, as discipline held until the abdication of the Tsar in March 1917 (new style), whereupon the 'enlightened' liberal successor government promptly abolished the death penalty and the secret police, which permitted the socialists and socialist revolutionaries to destroy discipline in a major way.  Focus was given to these activities, specifically a deliberate cultivation of Bolshevik affiliation, when the 'bacillus' (Ulyanov) was introduced by the Germans via a sealed train.

As usual, the key to developments seems to have been the strength - or lack of it - of central authority, combined with the effects of individual personalities.

The result of the subsequent Bolshevik coup was yet another rising-turned-regime with impeccable self-justifying legitimacy credentials.

Even they claim to be the heirs to the previous admin don't they?

Yes, the legitimacy of the Star Wars rebellion was based on their 'continuity' from the Old Republic, including some ex-senators from same.

Even Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire had a 'legitimacy' aspect: it was a war of revenge by Hellas united against the Persians, who under Xerxes had dared to violate Greece and burn Athens.  (The Persian justification for Xerxes' invasion had been to avenge the burning of Sardis during the Greek revolt.)

[valentinianvictor]

I may have to claim that reward Jim, what about the Bacudae? They did not claim any legitimacy or attempt the overthrow of the Roman Empire, as far as surviving records show.