Important figures during the Middle Ages?
I think it is a myth that individualism didn't exist in medieval times. There were plenty of individuals in medieval times. You have only to look at medieval history to find lots of interersting individuals, Roger Bacon for example, the friar who conducted scientific experiments and speculated about the use of flying machines among other things. Or Hildegarde of Bingen, the doctor, composer, philosopher and mystic. Or Joan of Arc - you couldn't get much more individual than her. Or Margery Kempe, who wrote what was probably the first biography in the English language. or Catherine of Sienna, who advised two popes. It is certainly not true that no peasants could read or write. About one peasant boy in ten became a clergyman, which required the ability to read Latin. Some peasant boys who entered the church rose to high office, like for example william of Wykeham, who became Chancellor of England to King Edward III, or Abbot Suger of France, who advised two kings. Peasants could also become free if they went to live in a town and could escape detection for a year and a day, hence the expression 'town air makes you free'. They could become tradesmen or craftsmen in the town. But in fact many peasants were quite happy with village life, they had some independence on their own small farms, and villages ran their own affairs without much intereference from the lord of the manor. And they lived quite well, peasant dwellings that have been excavated have been shown to be substantial dwellings, well-furnished, with evidence that peasants ate a varied diet. The individuals who increased in importance during the 'Renaissance' were kings and princes and Popes, in other words powerful men who became more powerful. The individuality of more humble people was not increased or encouraged. In fact, the power of the common people declined during the renaissance. The power of the medieval guilds waned, and standards of living among the common people declined.
What were the roles of different classes of society in the French Revolution of 1789?
As far as I can make out, there were three main players: the aristocracy, some kind of educated middle classes and the peasants.The aristocracy (most significanafterwordKing Louis XVI) were the smallest group, yet wielded the most power. Louis practically led an oligarchy, and was seen to opress the peasants who made up the vast number of French people. When the 'National Assembly' was created to try to represent the people, Louis failed to work with them, and this eventually led to the revolution against him. Consequently, he was deposed an executed. The role of this group was essentially to cause the revolution and resist the revolutionaries, but many were killed.The middle classes were the educated ones who first posed an intellectual challenge to the King's dominance. Many were technically lower (or in some cases, quite important) members of the aristocracy, who sought to abolish the monarchy for their own ends. It was this class which created the National Constituent Assembly, a sort of parliament, which they said was elected and representative of the people. The NCA advocated fundamental human rights for the peasants, stirred them up into rebellion, and led them both during and after the revolution.The peasants were the oppressed majority, who were subservient to those above them, and had worked for little reward for generations, with no chance of social improvement. After growing frustrated at this state of affairs, and as a result of the educated revolutionaries' propaganda, they became the footsoldiers of the revolution, beginning with the storming of the Bastille on 14th July 1789. Despite fighting for the revolution, only very few actually saw much improvement in their lifestyle as a result.
In European society, how have nobles and other elites been challenge to new monarchs?
They were a challenge to old monarchs, as well.Part of it was technological. With premodern technology, and particularly pre-rennisance technology, it’s very hard to manage an empire from the centre. You need to delegate. This dovetails very nicely into Feudalism.Or in other words, the Monarch’s power tends to exist because they can call upon the resources of the nation, by calling upon the resources of the nobles. But should the nobles refuse?Nobles and other elites were a problem when military and economic power was concentrated in them as opposed to the monarch, and when they realised that the other nobles would NOT band together to destroy a single errant one. You see this happening a fair bit in British history. Magna Carta, and in certain respects, one of the origins of modern Western civil morality, was created because the King had less power than his combined servants, and the servants demanded better legal conditions.
What was the role of kings in feudal societies of middle ages when all authority was between feudal lords and priests?
Kings were kings and feudal lords both. Feudalism was interwoven and sometimes overlapping layers of responsibility signified by formal vows of homage made to one's feudal lord - of which - depending on your status - you could have several. In the end, however, or more accurately said - on the top - was the feudal lord who was the king. Kings could though in fact be vassals of other kings depending on where their land holdings actually were. King's power however went only as far as the cooperation of his nobles - his vassals -- and there could be distinct tension between the nobility and the king as the king saw himself as such and nobles could resent that and quietly resist it. Parish priests were not particularly powerful - they answered to the Church's hierarchy at the top of which was the Pope. Kings and Popes vied for power and to the point where one King declared himself the head of the Church in his country and he no longer answered to the Pope. Nor did parish priests and lords conspire with each other. Cardinals were the princes of the Church - the Pope's highest ranking representatives. Cardinals sought the alliance of Kings - the political struggles for power at the time were on a higher level than parish priests.
Feudalism in Western Europe?
Feudalism is a contentious subject amongst Medieval historians. Although there is no overall consensus,the most common date for the beginning of Feudalism would be under Charlemagne,in the late 8th or early 9th century. As for an end date,France was a wholly feudal society in class and economic terms right up until the French Revolution of 1789. Edit: R g and Jonathan: Precisely why I said feudalism is contentiuos amongst Medieval historians - only a fraction of which attend the kind of seminars described.As it's academic historians that write the textbooks, how come they haven't "caught up" yet...? Trends and opinions amongst the academic history community change over time (as I've noticed over the past 30 years in my own specialist field),and there is often revisionism.While (as I'm not a specialist in Medieval history as such) I have no ideological objection to the idea that Feudalism as an all embracing and rigid social system might not have actually existed as described in some academic history books,no one (including Jonathan in his many erudite and interesting answers on the topic in this forum) has ever put forward an alternative to what the social and economic system in Medieval Western Europe therefore actually was,if not some form of feudalism,perhaps needing a different definition and nomenclature. It's not enough for an academic historian to just say that something didn't exist or that an interpretation is wrong - you need to say why it is wrong,and what existed in its place,as an alternative theory.Surely neither of you are suggesting that there was no social or economic system at all in Western Europe during all or part of the Middle Ages...? And if you are,then say so and back it up with some arguments please.
The French Revolution - Abbe Sieyes?
Hi, Sieyes was a clergyman found of the ideas of the Enlightenment. In January 1789, he wrote that line that made him famous: “What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it been until now in the political order? Nothing. What does it want to be ? Something.” Sieyes was elected representative of the Third Estate (the poorest French citizen) during the Estates General meeting of May 1789. He participated in the Tennis court oath of June 1789 and to the creation of the National Assembly. You will find a biography of Sieyes and a summary of the main events of the French Revolution in this website. Cheers.
What was St. Francis of Assisi's main accomplishment?
Francis founded the Order of Friars Minor and the women's order, the Order of St. Clare. Later, he founded the Third Order of St. Francis, which was established for those who wished to serve the poor but were unable to live as itinerant preachers. Francis created the first nativity scene to depict the birth of Christ.Though it's not really "an accomplsiment," Francis is the first person recorded as receiving stigmata, the wounds of Chrust's Passion. Francis journeyed to Egypt to try to inspire a resolution for the conflict at the root of the Crusades. He returned home to find his three Orders expanded and suffering from growing pains. He reorganized the Orders, then withdrew to live simply, away from the demands of a busy life. He is known for his passion for nature and animals. Francis was sainted by Pope Gregory IX. He is, along with Catherine of Siena, the patron saint of Italy. He is the patron saint of animals and of the environment. The Feast of St. Francis is celebrated on October 4. A lot of Catholic churches invite parishioners to bring their pets to church for a special blessing. I will leave you to decide which of these achievements is most significant.
What are the French Revolution's ideals?
The French Revolution was centred around three main ideals:1. Liberty2. Equality/ egality3. Fraternity
What groups were in Third Estate in the French Rev? What were the grievances of each group? How successful?
The Third Estate was composed of anyone who was not a member a of the Nobility or the Roman Catholic Clergy. All the groups within the Third Estate had their individual grievances, however they were united in their desire for more legislative, economic, and legal rights within France and desired an overhaul of the Ancien Régime, if not an outright abolishment of it. They desired an abolishment of the feudal tax system, where the nobility and the church were mostly exempt from paying taxes. They also sought greater powers in the courts and with the throne in regards to legislation and economic policies. Their desires were successful in the long term, as the French Revolution certainly did away with the old feudal order of the Ancien Régime and brought about liberal democracy to France. Short term it could be argued as a failure, as the Revolution succeeded in replacing one monarch for another (Louis XVI replaced with Napoleon Bonaparte). Hope this helps, Peace!
What was the importance of the dechristianization during the French Revolution?
Thank you for an actual thought provoking question in a sea of mediocrity! The de-Christianization of France carried out during the Revolution of 1789 was a critical component of breaking the unity of church and state and the hegemony they held over French society. Both church and state dictated almost every aspect of life in French society up until that point and you couldn’t eliminate one and not the other as they were so intertwined and interdependent. Unless you are French or have studied French socioeconomic history it’s hard to comprehend.Outside of France the focus on the French Revolution tends to be on the political aspects of deposing the king and establishing a republic and rarely venture into the dismantling of the Catholic Church in France. But I would argue takings down the Church was more important and far more difficult as so many French felt more positively towards the church. It was an integral part of life. Births, baptisms, marriages, and deaths were all registered with the church rather than at the civil level. In villages and towns the church was a focal point of life. The church aided the poor and dispossessed. If it did not exist who would help? The church was more revered and respected than the Kings of France and a tougher target to assault.There are many great books on the subject of de-Christianization in Revolutionary France that have been translated into other languages from French. I’ve digitized older bibliographies and will see if I can find some good titles to suggest and will append my response.Thank you for such a good question. My interest in Quora has been flagging as of late and this isn’t just the tonic I needed!