Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #46 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalistCavalier

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRoyalist
Quote:
A man going around shirtless is left alone, but when a women tries to go around topless she gets arrested and forced to cover up. I think this is hypocritical. 

There`s a reason for that!,and i think it´s pretty obvious

..............

If Women have to cover up then we should too.


I don't even mow my grass shirtless.  Not that my breasts would require a bra to stop them from flapping or anything, but just because it isn't proper to go out of the house without being dressed.

I think those who do this 'if women have to, why don't men' type of thing are very often gravely disconnected from reality.  In general men are more easily sexually excited by visuals.  A shirtless man doesn't have the same emotional/chemical reaction on women that a shirtless woman would on men.  (I haven't seen studies on the relative visual components of sexual excitement among non-heterosexuals).


I personally don't sexualize breasts to any great extent (they are for feeding babies, or as useless as the teats on a boar hog, after all), perhaps that's from having reared 9 children (all of them breast feed by my loving wife...).   Nonetheless, I'd be opposed to a 'topless beach' and most certainly wouldn't (knowingly)  allow my wife or daughters to go about in public without proper clothing.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #47 

This certainly has been a most peculiar and very long thread. To take issue on a couple of points; the Seleucids were not Persians. They were Macedonians, like all the Successors of Alexander. Their domains did originally include the ancient Persia and stretched as far as India, but they diminished steadily to the east and eventually the dynasty were rulers of effectively a Greater Syria, with their capital in Antioch, founded by the first Seleucid ruler, unsurprisingly called Seleucus. Antiochus was the name of his father, for whom the city was named, and continued to be a popular name in the line.

Their domains did include Palestine, when the Egyptians hadn't taken it over, it tended to be passed back and forth between the rival kingdoms depending on who had the upper hand. Eventually the Maccabees definitively terminated Seleucid rule in their territory; naturally the Seleucids do not get a good reputation from the Maccabees, who were rebels against them. The growth of Roman power eventually put an end to Seleucid rule everywhere.

What was the other point? Oh yes, Tsarevich Alexei and the Russian succession. If Alexei had lived to adulthood, as haemophiliacs even then often could, it is very likely that his health would have improved and he would have been able to live fairly normally, especially as blood transfusion techniques being developed at the time were able to infuse haemophiliacs with the vital clotting factor they lack. So there was no reason to remove him from the succession on account of his health. Also, he would not have passed the deficiency on; it is very likely that some of his sisters would have.

As for the semi-Salic law, Paul I was able to arrange matters this way if he wished. Female succession was not exactly an ancient tradition in Russia. There had been no female rulers at all before Catherine I seized the succession to her husband Peter I. Elizabeth I and Catherine II also succeeded by coup, it begins to look like a trend. The two Catherines were neither of them even Russian, never mind Romanovs!

Not that these were bad rulers once they got in power, in fact the worst of the four reigning Empresses was probably Anna, the only one who succeeded legitimately. My point remains that Paul I was not violating some ancient Russian tradition by arranging the succession law as he did. If anything, he did so by providing for the possibility of female rulers at all, not by limiting it in the way that he did. And as royalcello pointed out, his main concern was that the succession should be regulated, and no longer proceed by coup and counter-coup. In this he succeeded, though not for himself against his own sons.

PS I knew there were a couple of other minor things. It's not Allah Akbar and it's not Allah Du Akbar. It's Allahu Akbar. And the Persian dynasty overthrown by Islam was the Sassanids, a native dynasty. The Seleucids had disappeared from the scene a number of centuries before that, as I made clear above. If I seem to be ignoring the main topic, it's because I am, I'm not at all interested in the Hierarchy of Hell. Little points about real-world kingdoms I am happy to help clear up, if I can.

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #48 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

This certainly has been a most peculiar and very long thread.

Twisted and knotted too!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
To take issue on a couple of points; the Seleucids were not Persians. They were Macedonians, like all the Successors of Alexander.

I'll grant the leadership was Alexandrian Greek, but the territory was almost the same as that of the Persian Empire Alexander had conquoured.   It was on this 'occupied territory' that I based my rather overly simplistic description.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Their domains did originally include the ancient Persia and stretched as far as India, but they diminished steadily to the east and eventually the dynasty were rulers of effectively a Greater Syria, with their capital in Antioch, founded by the first Seleucid ruler, unsurprisingly called Seleucus. Antiochus was the name of his father, for whom the city was named, and continued to be a popular name in the line.

Their domains did include Palestine, when the Egyptians hadn't taken it over, it tended to be passed back and forth between the rival kingdoms depending on who had the upper hand. Eventually the Maccabees definitively terminated Seleucid rule in their territory; naturally the Seleucids do not get a good reputation from the Maccabees, who were rebels against them. The growth of Roman power eventually put an end to Seleucid rule everywhere.

What was the other point? Oh yes, Tsarevich Alexei and the Russian succession. If Alexei had lived to adulthood, as haemophiliacs even then often could, it is very likely that his health would have improved and he would have been able to live fairly normally, especially as blood transfusion techniques being developed at the time were able to infuse haemophiliacs with the vital clotting factor they lack. So there was no reason to remove him from the succession on account of his health. Also, he would not have passed the deficiency on; it is very likely that some of his sisters would have. 

Wouldn't the Tzarevich's daughters ALL have been carriers of  the disease?
(having gotten his 'bad X')

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
As for the semi-Salic law, Paul I was able to arrange matters this way if he wished. Female succession was not exactly an ancient tradition in Russia. There had been no female rulers at all before Catherine I seized the succession to her husband Peter I. Elizabeth I and Catherine II also succeeded by coup, it begins to look like a trend. The two Catherines were neither of them even Russian, never mind Romanovs!

Not that these were bad rulers once they got in power, in fact the worst of the four reigning Empresses was probably Anna, the only one who succeeded legitimately. My point remains that Paul I was not violating some ancient Russian tradition by arranging the succession law as he did. If anything, he did so by providing for the possibility of female rulers at all, not by limiting it in the way that he did. And as royalcello pointed out, his main concern was that the succession should be regulated, and no longer proceed by coup and counter-coup. In this he succeeded, though not for himself against his own sons.

PS I knew there were a couple of other minor things. It's not Allah Akbar and it's not Allah Du Akbar. It's Allahu Akbar. And the Persian dynasty overthrown by Islam was the Sassanids, a native dynasty.

Thanks I still get the Assassinated (Sassanids) and Seduced (Selucidds) Persians mixed up....Though for the point made (or rather tried to make), neither were especially monotheistic...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
The Seleucids had disappeared from the scene a number of centuries before that, as I made clear above. If I seem to be ignoring the main topic, it's because I am, I'm not at all interested in the Hierarchy of Hell. Little points about real-world kingdoms I am happy to help clear up, if I can.



And your clarifications are welcomed! (at least by the one who messed up the Selucids so badly...)

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #49 
Well, they weren't Alexandrians, that would have been the Ptolemies. Essentially there were three main successor states, the Antigonids in Macedonia itself, ruling Greece and sometimes parts of Asia Minor, where the dynasty's original territories had been before they moved in on the Antipatrids in Macedonia, the Seleucids in Syria and originally a great deal more, and the Ptolemies in Egypt, though they normally held various other chunks of Eastern Mediterranean real estate as well. All were founded by Generals and Companions of Alexander, all Macedonians, naturally enough. The picture in detail was a lot more confusing than that, but it will do for an outline.

Alexander's natural heirs were an as yet unborn son, who became Alexander IV when he made an appearance, and an idiot half-brother, elevated to joint kingship as Philip III. Between an infant and an idiot, there was nothing to stop the generals carving up the empire as they pleased, apart from each other. They did so, their numbers being somewhat whittled down in the process, while lip service was paid to the Kings.

An Antipatrid, Cassander, murdered Alexander IV, still a child. Alexander's mother Olympias had already murdered Philip III, and was murdered in turn by Cassander. That left only Alexander's sister Cleopatra, and she was murdered as well, by an Antigonid I think, though it's hard to keep track. Then the Successors all started to call themselves Kings, which of course they were, and their dynasties remained dominant in the region until Rome arrived a couple of centuries later.

The Seleucids were certainly polytheists. The Sassanids though were Zoroastrians, and I would have thought counted as monotheists. You make a fair point, the Tsarevich's daughters would not have been haemophiliacs themselves, their mother's good X countering their father's bad one, but would have been carriers, as some of his sisters almost certainly were. Anyway, his sons would have been clear, of more immediate concern for the succession.
chas

Registered:
Posts: 241
Reply with quote  #50 

Female breasts being "sexualized" isn't simply a cultural construct. Female breasts, unlike male breasts are sexual, since breast-feeding is a sexual act. In any case, the deterioration of social differences which is associated with democracy has always included a blurring of the differences between the sexes. In order to get back to a more monarchical social arrangement we need to get back to a more traditional understanding of the sexes. Different treatment does not mean unequal treatment. Different requirements as to dress are hardly a sign of oppression.  In the old days, men placed women on a pedestal--hardly a sign of oppression either.

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Well, they weren't Alexandrians,

The successors of Alexander, (I must quit writing so late...) -  not the folks from the city with the library...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
that would have been the Ptolemies. Essentially there were three main successor states, the Antigonids in Macedonia itself, ruling Greece and sometimes parts of Asia Minor, where the dynasty's original territories had been before they moved in on the Antipatrids in Macedonia, the Seleucids in Syria and originally a great deal more, and the Ptolemies in Egypt, though they normally held various other chunks of Eastern Mediterranean real estate as well. All were founded by Generals and Companions of Alexander, all Macedonians, naturally enough. The picture in detail was a lot more confusing than that, but it will do for an outline.

Alexander's natural heirs were an as yet unborn son, who became Alexander IV when he made an appearance, and an idiot half-brother, elevated to joint kingship as Philip III. Between an infant and an idiot, there was nothing to stop the generals carving up the empire as they pleased, apart from each other. They did so, their numbers being somewhat whittled down in the process, while lip service was paid to the Kings.

An Antipatrid, Cassander, murdered Alexander IV, still a child. Alexander's mother Olympias had already murdered Philip III, and was murdered in turn by Cassander. That left only Alexander's sister Cleopatra, and she was murdered as well, by an Antigonid I think, though it's hard to keep track. Then the Successors all started to call themselves Kings, which of course they were, and their dynasties remained dominant in the region until Rome arrived a couple of centuries later.

The Seleucids were certainly polytheists. The Sassanids though were Zoroastrians, and I would have thought counted as monotheists. 

The are, (Hopefully I'm awake and remembering correctly) more duoteheistic, the powers of God and Evil being balanced, with Man being the 'decider' by his actions....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
You make a fair point, the Tsarevich's daughters would not have been haemophiliacs themselves, their mother's good X countering their father's bad one, but would have been carriers, as some of his sisters almost certainly were. Anyway, his sons would have been clear, of more immediate concern for the succession.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #52 
It occurred to me after posting that that's probably what you meant, Baron. I left it alone on the assumption that you would correct me if need be. In fact the Greek community in the city-that-had-a-library lasted over 2,000 years, waxing and waning at different times, until probably decisively terminated by Nasser in the 1950s. The wonderful poet Constantine Kavafis, or Cavafy, was among its members. So my initial interpretation was a natural if mistaken one.

I think modern Zoroastrians would say that they are clearly monotheist, in fact that their very ancient faith always has been, in that the evil principle has never been worshipped, only the good. We do have one here, Shahpour, but I doubt he's reading this thread to give us an answer. Having read a little elsewhere, it seems that the Sassanians followed the long-extinct Zurvanite branch, though as with most matters that happened so long ago it is difficult to be sure. This had what appears to be a trinity! An original Creator, not worshipped, and the good and evil principles, twins born of him.

Again only the good principle was worshipped. Seems reasonably monotheistic to me. I will be interested to see you argue that trinities can't be monotheistic! Said with a twinkle, and absolutely no offence intended.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #53 
There is a tendency (as expressed in a way by this thread) among the 'Christians' to elevate the Evil One to 'god like status' or 'godhood', even though leaving him unworshiped.  That would create a condition more like that of the Zoroastrians, who acknowledge the 'co principality' of good and evil, while doing what they can to ensure that the end is a kingdom of goodness and light.

Unlike the 'Three-in-one" (intellectual quagmire / unspeakable mystery), the Zoroastrian system has different persons and personalities who aren't also one.  The two are in conflict having different goals.

The Evil and the Good are even more distinct in it that Ying and Yang. 
Again, unlike the Christians, they don't have one the creator of the other though -  each has the same source.


During a period of my life (12 - 14 yeras old) I actually studied Zoroastiranism, with an eye to becoming a believer.   My Christian faith was actually restored by my Granny's testimony, the power of the Holy Ghost, and the words of the book of Job.




__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #54 
A very good answer, Baron. I too had been bemused on this thread by the seeming elevation of Satan, a mere created being and a rebel in any remotely orthodox version of Christian belief. There you go, I posted on-topic at last!

But I don't get the impression that Zoroastrians believe that the evil principle is co-equal or that the ultimate triumph of good is other than inevitable. Which would accord with Christian views, if I have those of Zoroastrians right. I may not have, of course, and from what you say you know a lot more about it than me.
clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,066
Reply with quote  #55 
Zoroastrianism is an interesting faith. The Shiite Islamic school actually views them as "people of the book". I had looked at it at one time (actually baron when I was about 15  ) when I was just examing various belief systems.

The OP's view of Satan does seem to lend more towards Zoroastrianism rather then Christianity...
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #56 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
A very good answer, Baron. I too had been bemused on this thread by the seeming elevation of Satan, a mere created being and a rebel in any remotely orthodox version of Christian belief. There you go, I posted on-topic at last!

But I don't get the impression that Zoroastrians believe that the evil principle is co-equal or that the ultimate triumph of good is other than inevitable. Which would accord with Christian views, if I have those of Zoroastrians right. I may not have, of course, and from what you say you know a lot more about it than me.


Well, my learning was based only on books available to me - there weren't any Zoroastrians handy (though they were still some communities living in Iran that claimed to be Zoroastrian...) to check with.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #57 
I think Zoroastrianism may be either henotheistic or monolatristic, and as far as I can tell, the latter is the most likely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatry

__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #58 

Leave it to KYM to go digging through the cat litter for a five month old post...

noachian

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 587
Reply with quote  #59 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalistCavalier
In truth God has not been a good friend of Monarchy at all. After all if God put Monarchs on their thrones why would he allow them to be overthrown and in some cases killed. I am sad to say that God did not protect such monarchs from King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland to King Louis XVI of France and to Emperor Nicholas II of Russia when they were overthrown and later murdered by savage revolutionaries.


BREAKING NEWS: "It turns out that Monarchs are actually HUMANS! Who would have ever thought they were subject to natural human processes?!?!? Stay tuned for Sports!"

Not only has the Divine Right of Kings gone well out of date, actually blaming God that Monarchies have become republics is simply outrageous. Blame people for what people do.
You may have been more comfortable in pre-WWII Japan.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #60 
Quote:
Originally Posted by noachian

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalistCavalier
In truth God has not been a good friend of Monarchy at all. After all if God put Monarchs on their thrones why would he allow them to be overthrown and in some cases killed. I am sad to say that God did not protect such monarchs from King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland to King Louis XVI of France and to Emperor Nicholas II of Russia when they were overthrown and later murdered by savage revolutionaries.


BREAKING NEWS: "It turns out that Monarchs are actually HUMANS! Who would have ever thought they were subject to natural human processes?!?!?


Not to mention that God isn't limited to seeing things from this linear perspective... HM Charles I, King and Martyr may very well like the new palace much better.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by noachian

Stay tuned for Sports!"

Not only has the Divine Right of Kings gone well out of date, actually blaming God that Monarchies have become republics is simply outrageous. Blame people for what people do.
You may have been more comfortable in pre-WWII Japan.

God could quite well be punishing the sins of society by taking away the guidance and protection offered by the Royal Families.  Much as he gave Israel Saul - becasue they deserved it.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.