| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
You should be asking yourself when England became a nation-state ie it acquired its immortal borders.
The usual response would be 'under the Tudors' - yes, I know it's orthodox and therefore unacceptable, but you have to start somewhere... |
This is not the usual response a) because it is wrong and b) orthodoxy has never bothered to do a systems analysis of nation-states. The border with Scotland was settled in...(look it up, Deirdre) and the Welsh border ceased to exist in Edward I's time.
| during the Wars of the Roses immediately preceding Henry VII's accession when families were fighting each other, retainers' loyalty was to the lord or head of the family rather than to "England". |
Well, you're half right. Consider the real reason for the Wars of the Roses. Who were the great families involved? The Percies, the Mortimers, the Tudors themselves. Non-nation states have to keep huge forces on their boundaries and this creates general instability. England was but a nascent nation-state so still had these centres of instability.
What was the Big Issue? Essentially it was whether to use England as merely part of a continental dynastic empire (traditional non-nation-state politics) or to be an independent entity (the new nation-state politics). It is true that England technically became a nation state in the fourteenth century -- which made her superior to neighbouring non-nation-states but 'twas still early days. The Tudors merely completed the process.
| The last French possession, Calais, was lost in 1558 under Mary. The threat of invasion undoubtedly reinforces the sense of nationhood. |
Nation-states can have as many non-contiguous possessions as they wish without jeopardising their status. However it is true that Calais was the last of the old-style dynastic possessions. And you will note that Calais was continually used as a launchpad for destabilising England (another old-style problem). Mary (or rather Elizabeth by not bothering to try to get it back) did her Tudor duty by completing the nation-state proper.
There is only one criterion so far as I know: a parcel of self-ruled land that has the same boundaries for everybody's lifetime.
Doesn't this mean that outsiders also have to take cognisance of the borders? |
Not in the least, nor does it make any difference 'who's right'. Take Alsace, by any standards a German territory and yet, because it had become part of the French nation-state, the French went on fighting for it until they got it back. Absurd, no doubt, but that's the thing about nation-states. They are immortal whatever the cost.
| Maybe the real test is what happens when there's no obvious successor to rule the parcel of land and yet it still remains intact. |
No test is involved but this has often been the case faute de mieux. Brittany became part of the French nation-state when it ran out of rulers.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| This is not the usual response a) because it is wrong and b) orthodoxy has never bothered to do a systems analysis of nation-states |
I'd have thought it was an extremely predictable (as well as wrong) response since Henry is seen as the founder of the English navy and the English Reformation, Elizabeth as the quintessential symbol of the Golden Age coinciding with the flowering of English poetry... The term "nation-states" tends to be associated with much later nationalistic movements, orthodoxy would no doubt mutter about anachronisms.
| The border with Scotland was settled in... |
...1357 (Treaty of Berwick). The Scots clearly gained a breathing-space in 1337 when Edward III took off for Flanders pursuing the chimera of the French throne; this was the start of The Hundred Years War which only ended in 1453 when the Turks were at the gates of Vienna. {Chaucer was writing within a generation of the end of the Scottish wars, there seems to be a correlation between patronage of the arts and establishing immortal borders}.
| Consider the real reason for the Wars of the Roses. Who were the great families involved? The Percies, the Mortimers, the Tudors themselves. |
The reason would be politically motivated with the aim of taking charge of the country, which by now is a 'nation-state'.
| Non-nation states have to keep huge forces on their boundaries and this creates general instability. England was but a nascent nation-state so still had these centres of instability. |
So having a national army is a sign of nation-statehood? But the insurgent Catholic families continued to organise rebellions, in effect raising personal armies long into the sixteenth century...
| The last crusade was conducted the year after the Jewish expulsion. The lack of future crusades would have saved a hell of a lot of cash. |
Well, if this is the age of burgeoning nation-states it would certainly be more politic to consolidate your territory through alliances and dynastic marriages rather than conducting expensive wars in far-flung lands. If the crusaders' zeal had focused on more immediate targets, Spain might have managed to dislodge the Moors earlier and could even have been the first European nation-state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Before this, Scotland (13th cent.) was a happening place. A 'Golden Age' had developed and propagated under the illustrious reign of Alexander III. It became one of the prime locations in Europe. |
What you think of as the Alexandrian Golden Age is just... |
Not I sir. Note the funny little marks on either side of the fantastically twee precious metalled term. It comes strictly from ortho-land, as you must know. Whereas the groovy, cool and rather irritating phrase "happening place" is my own. Ithenkyoo.
| Wallace merely discovered (as Edward I, II and many other English and Scottish kings did) the futility of invading a nation-state. |
It's never futile to put the wind up one's enemies. Otherwise, point taken. Well and truly.
My own personal belief is that the island status of England and Scotland is the factor most responsible for their immortal boundaries. Apart from early incursions by Vikings (a wholly debatable subject), the western, northern and eastern boundaries of Scotland cannot be moved except through earthquake, water levels rising or lowering or the occasional Atlantean epoch.
But that's just me and me may be a nutter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TelMiles
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | As pertaining to nation states Mick, what about the earlier states, eg. Sparta? |
One of the chief characteristics of nation-states is that they are immortal -- ie all nation-states that have ever existed exist now. (But see Note CMXII for Scotland and England). Was Sparta immortal....if so, which qualifying group is she in for the next World Cup? |
But surely a nation-state could be overun couldn't it?
Do you consider England to only be a nation state once the lands in Frane were lost?
What do you mean by nation state? Is that when petty kingdoms join together for the greater good? (which I would argue happened under the Normans - and under duress) or is it just when we became cut off from the continent? (reinforcing Tess's excellent point that our island position helped us become the earliest nation? Is that why Scotland were first, because they didn't have any land in Europe?)
and Sparta are in the same group as Alexandria, Byzantium, Athens and Babylon. Tough group.
_________________
Against all Gods.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Was Sparta immortal....if so, which qualifying group is she in for the next World Cup? |
What about Scotland? Maybe once upon a time but she doesn't do too well anymore. Not that this depressing point is an argument. It is just a depressing point.
Wish I hadn't made it now.
Ironically Arsenal beat Sparta in August.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I'd have thought it was an extremely predictable (as well as wrong) response since Henry is seen as the founder of the English navy and the English Reformation, Elizabeth as the quintessential symbol of the Golden Age coinciding with the flowering of English poetry... The term "nation-states" tends to be associated with much later nationalistic movements, orthodoxy would no doubt mutter about anachronisms. |
Yes, this is what comes with bandying about terms like nation-states without applying even the most elementary priciples of systems analysis. Historians make a fetish of being anti-mathematical....in fact anti-anything that smacks of doing a bit of real brain-work as opposed to snoring gently amongst their beloved sources. For instance, one of the things an island nation-state doesn't particularly need, because of the pointlessness of invading it, is a navy. On the other hand one of the luxuries an island nation-state can afford (because there's no need for a standing army) is a navy.
The border with Scotland was settled in...
...1357 (Treaty of Berwick). |
This seems rather late to me...though perfectly acceptable in nation-state terms. Was this not a formalisation of an existing de facto border? You should also mug up on the history of Berwick since this is a perfect example of the way two nation-states behave when both have immortal borders but both like to bish-bash the other from time to time.
Consider the real reason for the Wars of the Roses. Who were the great families involved? The Percies, the Mortimers, the Tudors themselves.
The reason would be politically motivated with the aim of taking charge of the country, which by now is a 'nation-state'. |
Well...yes and no. Nation-states can regulate their internal forces, but non nation-states can't (to generalise for a moment). The idea of a 'family' taking over a nation-state is risible. But in a non-nation-state or in a very nascent nation-state, families are always taking over the entire gaffe. This is essentially why nation-states have such a competitive advantage. England can always invade France simply by bribing a Burgundy or an Armagnac or an Anjou, but France can't do the same thing back.
| So having a national army is a sign of nation-statehood? But the insurgent Catholic families continued to organise rebellions, in effect raising personal armies long into the sixteenth century... |
No, you can choose whether to have a national army, that's the whole point. However a non-nation-state can only have armies at all at the price they will be centres of instability. You are speaking of course of France which was still an extremely nascent nation-state in the sixteenth century. In England we get...what...the Pilgrimage of Grace...darn't make me larf.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| My own personal belief is that the island status of England and Scotland is the factor most responsible for their immortal boundaries. |
I wish you would spare us your personal beliefs and do some thinking instead. Neither England nor Scotland are islands. Spain is just as much an island as is England. Italy more so etc etc etc.
| Apart from early incursions by Vikings (a wholly debatable subject), |
No entity (under any name) that corresponded to Scotland existed in Viking times. Indeed, you should be asking yourself why the Vikings were replaced with Norway, Denmark et al just when Scotland was coming into existence.
| the western, northern and eastern boundaries of Scotland cannot be moved except through earthquake, water levels rising or lowering or the occasional Atlantean epoch. |
This is absolute nonsense. 'Scotland' has no natural boundaries whatsoever. I am sure the early rulers of the northern part of Britain sought the sea as a boundary (as most countries do since it is both economically and militarily advantageous) but there is no particular reason (or at least you haven't given any) why Scotland did not follow the Irish or the Welsh pattern and remain a congeries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| But surely a nation-state could be overun couldn't it? |
Of course it can. But one of two things must happen:
1. The occupiers have to go away again (like the Germans with the Dutch in 1940) and the nation-state resumes its existence as if nothing happened
2. The occupiers don't go away (like the Dutch with the Brits in 1688) and the nation-states continues its existence as if nothing happened.
I know you're all resisting this very simple idea but if you can find one exception to the rule you can blow the whole theory out of the water. But since you can't...
| Do you consider England to only be a nation state once the lands in Frane were lost? |
No, not at all. But there is a difference. Right up until King John you'd be hard pressed to say whether England lost her French lands or the Norman/Angevin empires lost their English bits. It was all one lump. But by the fourteenth century, it is perfectly clear that (let's say) Gascony is an English colony not part of England. The English can weigh up whether it's worth fighting for or not. But you couldn't do that with, say, Hampshire.
| What do you mean by nation state? is that when petty kingdoms join together for the greater good? (which I would argue happened under the Normans - and under duress). or is it just when we became cut off from the continent? (reinforcing Tess's excellent point that our island position helped us become the earliest nation? Is that why Scotland were first, because they didn't have any land in Europe?) |
No, no. A nation-state is a technical description of a self-governing area of land that retains its boundaries for a hundred years or so. It's true that some areas are easier for this to happen than others but the real reason why Scotland was first (or second or third depending on Japan and Korea) is a technical one that I won't go into at this time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Here's an excellent pub question that works every time:
Which country in England's World Cup Qualifying Group (and/or in England's last European Qualifying Group) is not a nation-state?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
Neither England nor Scotland are islands. Spain is just as much an island as is England. Italy more so etc etc etc. |
This is pedantry which should be reserved for the stupid, Mick.
| No entity (under any name) that corresponded to Scotland existed in Viking times. |
You may be right but in Scotland we tend to think of the Battle of Largs as being fought against Viking Norse enemies under Haakon in 1263. 5 million people can and often are wrong. In this case, I mentioned it out of habit.
| This is absolute nonsense. 'Scotland' has no natural boundaries whatsoever. |
Wha??? Can you explain this? Wait...I will give you an inch: You think it is absolute nonsense and not just plain old nonsense. You should be thinking about what other names to call the border between land and sea. And then get back to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
And don't say "The beach" or I will throw starfish at you.
Islands
At no point and under no circumstances would I ever consider that England and Scotland were two distinct islands. If I did think such a ridiculous thought, I wouldn't fit in here at all. The term "island status" I admit was rather careless (in the company of pedants that is) but the fact that the northern half of the British isles contains 790 islands I thought the term was fairly safe.
I disagree ohhhh soooo strongly that Spain and Italy are as much islands as the British Isles. No one would ever refer to the British Isles as being connected by land to a continent (and if you mention the prehistoric land-bridge, I will throw jelly fish at you), yet you have compared it to these entities. If I had said "the island status of the modern collective known as Scotland, England and Wales" I may have survived long enough to make the kids a better breakfast.
Maybe not...that is the magic of pedantry. It stops us in our tracks and forces us to waste even more time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | Here's an excellent pub question that works every time:
Which country in England's World Cup Qualifying Group (and/or in England's last European Qualifying Group) is not a nation-state? |
I wouldn't want to tell you what would happen if you asked that in a typical British pub.
"Nation state, mate? You want a punch in the ear??"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
A while back, Mick Harper wrote: | So now let's extend the story by naming the sequence of nation-states. I'll get you started with Scotland first, thereby creating England second, which because of its nation-state advantages triggered....third....and hence fourth... |
Scotland's "island" status has been brought up, I would say rather that Scotland, like Japan and I suppose Portugal, has its back to the sea and has a vantage point over landlocked territories in that it only has to determine its destiny on three sides so to speak. [This does not apply to a nation-in-the-making like Israel, also with its back to the sea, since the Med is a mere lake and therefore exposed to outsiders.]
Brittany, in this context, is interesting, being out on a limb as it were; it was known as 'Little Britain' but of course was eventually subsumed into France surprisingly late (1532).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
Okay....last post for this morning.
Would you believe me - after this lengthy divergence - that I like your theory, Mick, and have not once opposed it. I simply made a 'by-the-by' comment about natural geography, so try not to get caught up in the nitty-gritty of it (as I have).
Proceed with your own hypothesis as if I had never existed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
Another last post for the morning (there may be more).
| Hatty wrote: | | Scotland...has its back to the sea and has a vantage point over landlocked territories in that it only has to determine its destiny on three sides so to speak. |
Bingo! I thought it rather obvious that such a position would be beneficial to the development of an early nation-state. Thus I posted a by-the-by comment.
| ...absolute nonsense. 'Scotland' has no natural boundaries whatsoever. |
That is absolute nonsense, Mick.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
