What year did the ruling class stop being noble warriors who were expected to lead their people in battle, and become a class of sleazy and inept bureaucrats?
What year did the ruling class stop being noble warriors who were expected to lead their people in battle, and become a class of sleazy and inept bure...
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Sometime in 1600-1700s when organic aristocracies started being replaced with finance class.
Idk man, when was the first time people did politics? People generally tend to flee and hide from violence, if you read literally any historical accounts you'd probably know that the ruling classes have never been an exception.
Political rulers that stand up against a revolt/revolution/mob are glorified and remembered but are in the tiny minority.
>if you read literally any historical accounts you'd probably know that the ruling classes have never been an exception.
Wrong, before "modernity" royals and aristocracy led military campaigns and fought with the rank and file.
Coward ruling classes is a specific trait of "modern" governments.
Royals and aristocracy regularly fled the battlefield the second a battle went against them. Kings running away from a battle with their bodyguard is probably a top 3 cause of military defeats pre-modernity.
People that didn't do this like Caesar or Alexander were the exception, and it was in many cases their notable bravery on the battlefield in comparison to their opposition that carried the day for them.
Also wrong, royals and aristocracy WERE the elite military back then from the days of antiquity to early modernity.
It can be traced even to more recent examples, such as members of Romanov House fighting and dying on frontlines of Great War.
They weren’t the “elite military” in any sense of being different from modern institutions. They served as officers, and depending on the country did this alongside plenty of commoners. Which isn’t the same thing as the House of Representatives. The modern comparable institution would be the US Army Officer Corps.
Which despite losing in Afghanistan, also didn’t just break and run away from battles.
It was different from modern institutions, since back then being in elite unit implied partaking in combat duty and taking the highest risk.
The closes thing we have today is politicians occasionally sending their children into military so that they can take photo ops in military gear, but far away from actual combat.
Very different things.
As the guy above said, coward ruling class is very specific to "modern" governments.
Oh, so it was speculative and didn't actually happen?
Thanks for clearing that up anon. I guess I accept your concession
Preddit gotcha moment, everyone.
Consuls went to wars and died in them. You literally WANTED to fight in wars as a member of Roman government.
Roman elites that went to fight in wars did so for public aggrandizement and enrichment of their supporters. It was paramount to an election campaign for them.
It's the same reason like 25% of the current US Senate are also combat veterans.
>It's the same reason like 25% of the current US Senate are also combat veterans.
Lol them being in the military during a war happening somewhere else doesn't make them combat veterans.
Look if you want to LARP as a retard, feel free. But combat military experience is one of the largest contributors to electability in the USG.
There's a reason something like 30 presidents have seen active combat.
> look, senator McNuggets joined military for 2 years and bravely bled for his nation as he sat behind a desk in Charleston
Yeah bro, totally same as Roman nobility and European knights actually fighting in battles.
Anon, do you think the Roman Senate was just decamped from Rome for its entire existence to follow the Legions everywhere? What do you actually think most Senators did all day besides arguing in the Senate?
If you're talking about the feudal system, the death rate for nobility in war rapidly declines after the Black Plague and well before the rise of Modernity. People don't change, the only time nobles really died in warfare was during the most de-centralized fragmented period of European history. And it should probably be clear why there was a such higher death rate in this period.
How is a minor cousin of the Romanov dynasty being deployed any different from Senator Fucknaggers son being deployed?
You know those kids regularly get killed right?
Because litter of current politicians doesn't partake in combat. They get desk jockey jobs and sometimes take photo-ops in military drab, but they are far from fighting.
Have you seriously never heard of a "knight"? Man this has to be the worst history board on the internet.
Back in the olden times, nobles were an elite shock force heavy cavalry that was responsible for breaking enemy formations.
>royals and aristocracy led
Commanded by their marshals and generals while they took the glory, yeah
>and fought with the rank and file
No they didn't, only in truly exceptional circumstances, and usually that wound up killing them so any smart ruler wouldn't
>Wrong, before "modernity" royals and aristocracy led military campaigns and fought with the rank and file
Imagine actulaly believing holy shit. Please tell me you're 12 or have down syndrome
what's going on here, why are all these politicians so tired
Long day. Time for a siesta
You're a sleazy and lazy piece of shit Marxoid. Shut up, tranny.
>He can't tell aristocracy and marxism apart
We've reached levels of stupidity never before thought possible
>When Stephen Norris - A lieutenant with the famed Royal Newfoundland Regiment - dies on the eve of the battle of Gueudecourt in 1916, his family business is left without an heir. With the end of the Norris family enterprise, the once thriving town of Three Arms disappears.
Now our ruling elite refuse to do their part: https://youtu.be/89sXG6kTo6o
I miss the likes of Enoch Powell, and Anthony Eden. I will never see rulers like them again. Just money men in suits now. Sure the Royal family still does it, but they’re kept so safe everyone nothing will happen to them.
>The son of William Donnelly (deceased December 19, 1907) and of Bridget Donnelly (née Jordan)* of 169, Gower St. in John's, he had also been brother to Mary-Bridget, to William-Bernard, to Rose, to Francis-Joseph, and to Michael-Joseph – this last to whom he had allotted a daily ninety cents from his pay (later transferred to his mother) - and who was soon to die, in June of 1919.
>Michael Joseph was the last of the Donnelly children to die, according to a written statement made by their mother, Bridget in August of 1919.
>Captain Donnelly was reported as having been killed in action on October 12, 1916, on the day of the assault at Gueudecourt during First Somme. He had been the officer leading ‘C’ Company, fighting on the Battalion’s right, and had been killed upon reaching the enemy trench.
>Captain Donnelly died at thirty-four years of age: date of birth in St. John’s, Newfoundland, October 23, 1882 (from Roman Catholic Parish Records).
Son of William Donnelly, and heir of that mercantile dynasty.
>Captain* Eric Stanley Ayre lies in Ancre British Cemetery – Grave reference II. E.
*Officers who were eventually promoted from the ranks may be identified from their Regimental Number. Other officers who were not from the ranks received the King’s Commission, or in the case of those in the Newfoundland Regiment, an Imperial Commission, and were not considered as enlisted. These officers thus had no Regimental Number allotted to them.
>And since officers did not enlist, they were not then required to re-enlist ‘for the duration’, even though, at the beginning, as a private, they had volunteered their services for only a limited time – twelve months.
>The occupation of Eric Stanley Ayre before service in the Newfoundland Regiment was as a director of Ayre & Sons Ltd., St. John’s merchants. Having been appointed Musketry Training Officer for the months of October and November of 1914, he was granted a temporary Imperial Commission to the rank of Lieutenant during that same period. His appointment in rank was confirmed on or about December 2.
KIA, July 1st 1916, along with his two brothers, Gerald and Wilfred. The family empire dies with them.
Same story across all armies on all fronts. 1916 is the year the old chivalrous aristocracy died, leading from the front as was expected of them.
>director of Ayre & Sons Ltd., St. John’s merchants
You're so fucking retarded I'm anxious it may be contagious. Now show me how many sons of the Rothschild family or royals died.
How about this for starters, you slack jawed homosexual.
>Captain Fergus Bowes-Lyon (18 April 1889 – 27 September 1915) was a British soldier and older brother of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Queen consort of the United Kingdom from 1936 until 1952, and generally known in Britain as the Queen Mother.
Eat shit and die, cretin.
>Quentin Roosevelt I (November 19, 1897 – July 14, 1918) was the youngest son of President Theodore Roosevelt and First Lady Edith Roosevelt. Inspired by his father and siblings, he joined the United States Army Air Service where he became a pursuit pilot during World War I. He was killed in aerial combat over France on Bastille Day (July 14), 1918.
Woah... so unique to hereditary monarchy.
>How about this for starters, you slack jawed homosexual.
>Eat shit and die, cretin.
Why are you this emptional over such a retarded claim you loser?
The 7th child isn't part of the ruling class but part of a family that has to win glory for status.
>Second Lieutenant Robert Bruce Reid (Regimental Number 593*), having no known last resting- place, is commemorated on the bronze beneath the Caribou the Newfoundland Memorial Park at Beaumont-Hamel.
>A member of the Reid family whose business ventures form a major part of Newfoundland’s history, Robert Bruce Reid presented himself for medical examination on September 3 of 1914 at the Church Lads Brigade Armoury on Harvey Road in St. John’s, capital city of the Dominion. It was a procedure which was to pronounce him as being...Fit for Foreign Service.
>A letter written to Sir William Duff Reid by the Governor of Newfoundland, Sir Walter Davidson:
>7th July, 1916
Sir William Reid, Montreal
It is with the deepest regret that I have to announce that Lieutenant Bruce Reid is reported as missing after the heroic action which the Newfoundland Regiment fought at Beaumont on July first.
>Four Officers were reported missing but one is since reported wounded and in a British Hospital in France. I am satisfied that Bruce at the front of the advance fell on ground which remained in enemy hands. I believe that he is wounded is in enemy hands and will be well tended.
The casualties all resulted from machine gun fire at close range and not from shells so there is little doubt that ninety five per cent of the wounded will make a speedy and complete recovery.
Unban dueling for politicians
nigga, they were usually hiding on the back side and surrounded by a troup of the most elite soldiers possible
read a book some time
>During the Roman kingdom and the first century of the Roman Republic, legionary cavalry was recruited exclusively from the ranks of the patricians, who were expected to provide six centuriae of cavalry (300 horses for each consular legion).
>[Cataphracts] These early riding traditions, which were strongly tied to the ruling caste of nobility (as only those of noble birth or caste could become cavalry warriors), now spread throughout the Eurasian steppes and Iranian plateau from around 600 BC and onwards...
>In the Early Middle Ages in Europe, knighthood was conferred upon mounted warriors. During the High Middle Ages, knighthood was considered a class of lower nobility. By the Late Middle Ages, the rank had become associated with the ideals of chivalry, a code of conduct for the perfect courtly Christian warrior.
>The Companion cavalry was composed of the Hetairoi of the king, mainly upper class citizens who were able to acquire and maintain armour and horses.
Uhhhhh.... anon.... the books all say that nobles fought as elite cavalry units
These weren't ruling class they were the warrior class. Equistes were below senators.
And knight literally means knecht - servant because they were serving the rulers as military
>The patricians (from Latin: patricius) were originally a group of ruling class families in ancient Rome. The distinction was highly significant in the Roman Kingdom, and the early Republic, but its relevance waned after the Conflict of the Orders (494 BC to 287 BC).
This doesn't say anything about them fighting with the rank and file.
Seriously, read a book. Roman tactics typically used Equites to run down enemy skirmishing forces, cover their flanks (typically against enemy cavalry) and to engage in flanking attacks against the enemy lines.
This still doesn't say anything about patricians fighting in rank and file with the common soldiers?
Are you brain damaged?
>The cavalry of Roman armies before the Second Punic War had been exclusively Roman and allies, with each holding one wing of the battleline (the Romans usually holding the right wing).
This says the opposite of what you claim idiot.
>The royal cavalry may have been drawn exclusively from the ranks of the Patricians (patricii), the aristocracy of early Rome, which was purely hereditary
What are you even arguing?
My point: nobles of the ancient era were an elite fighting force
You point: No they weren't, they hid at the back of the battlefield (????????)
The 17th century
It started to occur more now that our weapons ten times more powerful than the weapons we had even 200 years ago. We have drones, we have nukes, we have jets that can wipe you out in a blink of an eye! The 20th century ruined any so-called glory of the battlefield and the 20th century was the end of barbarism and savagery for the most part.
>the 20th century was the end of barbarism and savagery for the most part.
Lol no, current wars are fought with less rules then wars in 1600s.
>fought with less rules than the 30 years war
Sorry, wrong Anon.
All the more reason for the rulers to lead by example and fight from the front lines.
If they cannot show bravery and die in battle then by what authority do they claim to be able to order others to go and fight to death?
I agree; that's what I hate about war today is that a lot of these rulers/elites are too chickenshit to even do a fraction of the bloodshed they want others to do.
I'm pretty sure we can't use chemical weapons against our enemies, nor can we rape, murder, and pillage openly like they used to do 500 years ago, nor be cruel to our POW's (officially that is).
>a lot of these rulers/elites are too chickenshit to even do a fraction of the bloodshed they want others to do.
Well, comparatively I guess. You'd also have to consider that we haven't really been in any wars of similar existential importance in which most pre-modern rulers were killed. But WW2 saw Axis leaders dead at the end of it. And really any actual contemporary conventional war against another great power would also see DC nuked and most of Congress killed.
There's still a level of risk that politicians are taking on, even if it's probably much more opaque and dispersed now.
And that's the more the reason we shouldn't have wars anymore, but I digress.
>And really any actual contemporary conventional war against another great power would also see DC nuked and most of Congress killed.
And that's why the U.S. will always lend weapons to other countries to fight against their enemies, like Afghanistan versus Russian and now Ukraine versus Russia; indirect fighting is now the only way we can fight without starting a full-fledged war.
>I'm pretty sure we can't use chemical weapons against our enemies, nor can we rape, murder, and pillage openly like they used to do 500 years ago, nor be cruel to our POW's (officially that is).
Pff tell that to the soviets. These rules are only ever enforced in a surrendered enemy and never fairly but only as a means to execute the enemy country's entire ruling class and replace them with compliant puppets.
At least when medieval rulers conquered their enemies, they would make treaties with the old ruling class and integrate them into the new empire. Modern day rulers are basically no better than Attila the Hun.
This. Objectively speaking, average European government from 1700s (with exclusion of whig England and post-revolutionary France) was far more civilized then modern "democratic" governments.
>institutes such an oppressive police state to preserve conservative Austrian dominance he has to flee a revolution
That’s what I call civilized. Love me autocrats.
>Rebelling against the glorious Kaiser, your father and guardian
VGH imagine would could have been if we lived in a world without peasant scum
> he types about Austrian government being oppressive for enforcing common laws while living in a country that tracks his every movement.
>The 20th century ruined any so-called glory of the battlefield and the 20th century was the end of barbarism and savagery for the most part.
Fuck. No. XX century in terms of sheer scale of atrocity outweighs anything Huns and Mongols did combines.
Looking at the example of England, when power shifted from the Aristocracy to Democratic politicians.
Aristocrats carried the concept of 'noblesse oblige', that their privilege came with certain responsibilities
with fighting in wars being a big part of that. A large portion of the aristocracy was completely wiped out in WW1
where they served as officers who had a higher death rate than normal soldiers. 1 in 5 of Eton graduates (one of the richest and most exclusive schools) who served were killed. When the relevance of the aristocracy diminished in positions of power so too did the concept of noblesse oblige in the new ruling class.
Having kings in war is poor talent allocation in a sophisticated society.
>Having kings in war is poor talent allocation in a sophisticated society.
What talents lol? All that "democratic" rulers do is serve corporate interests, fuck children and live off taxpayers expense while not contributing anything themselves.
Key difference is that monarchies and aristocracies were organic and accountable, "democracies" are just oligarchies that get all the benefits, while not having any responsibilities for their shitty rule.
Do you think British people are dumb?
Do you think anyone can be a King/queen?
Did you know that the societies with the highest living standards are mostly constitutional monarchies?
>Do you think British people are dumb?
> Do you think anyone can be a King/queen?
If Windsors can do it then anyone can lol. Though I wouldn't really call them real monarchy for obvious reasons.
> Did you know that the societies with the highest living standards are mostly constitutional monarchies?
I live in one. Commonwealth countries are just oligarchies with symbolic "elections" and even more symbolic monarch that doesn't do shit. The last true English King was murdered in 1649.
Also high living standards is horseshit, they literally change definition of inflation to claim that things are great lol.
When the conquerors who took the land by might got old and left their fat spoiled brats in charge
>he unironically thinks nobles always took part in battle
>he also discounts the fact that they were usually far better equipped when compared to most enemies and if they get captured most of the time they would be treated well since somebody would pay for their release later on when compared to the common foot soldier who was fucked
Sure there were occasions they led a valiant charge and suffered with their men but 9/10 they didn't really charge into the heat of battle and just commanded it
>he unironically thinks nobles always took part in battle
Because they did.
> also discounts the fact that they were usually far better equipped when compared to most enemies
Not always nor does it really change the fact that rulers and nobility back then took part in actual combat.
> and if they get captured most of the time they would be treated well since somebody would pay for their release later on when compared to the common foot soldier who was fucked
Dumb generalization. Nobles were murdered or mistreated in captivity plenty of times, there were also plenty of examples when "common foot soldiers" were treated humanely.