Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers.
Well, I don't know, man... I think you're idealising it. You state it like it was some kind of paradise, but was it? Was it that good? (Not that I'm huge believer in official history, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with that.) I suppose it is possible that for average peasant life back then probably was more meaningful and morally/spiritually better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses. You say yourself that people strongly believed in power of monarch. In short, it worked. And that is precisely why rulers went with it. If it wouldn't work I can assure you that not me nor you would have even heard of such things as Christianity or the Bible.
...challenged the natural order and hierarchy...
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is not quite so. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem a bit like a can of worms, honestly... Real belief in God should probably not be institutionalised and/or politicised.
So no, it is not that the rulers of the old world could no longer sell their worldview to the people and the "enlightened masses" out of their own free will got to arms and liberated themselves from the tyranny of superstition and slavery.
I agree that people did not liberate themselves. That is not what I meant. What I meant was that due to various reasons fairytale of hereditary rulership did not work anymore and had to be replaced with another fairytale: democracy. No one liberated anyone. They just exchanged one fairytale with another. It's all about justification (which would be believable enough for the peasants) of why existing power exists.
In any case, my suggestion is that we look at the root cause of all of them (without singling out some in particular) which is belief and submission to authority. Any ruler (a king, elected official, whatever) could be dumber, weaker and less capable than average peasant (which they probably are in most cases). What gives them power though is the belief of said peasant that the ruler indeed has power over them. You see, it's almost like an Ouroboros eating its own tail. There is no power as such, it doesn't exist, but it becomes so, because those that submit believes it exists.
Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers.
Well, I don't know, man... I think you're idealising it. You state it like it was some kind of paradise, but was it? Was it that good? (Not that I'm huge believer in official history, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with that.) I suppose it is possible that for average peasant life back then probably was more meaningful and morally/spiritually better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses. You say yourself that people strongly believed in power of monarch. In short, it worked. And that is precisely why rulers went with it. If it wouldn't work I can assure you that not me nor you would have even heard of such things as Christianity or the Bible.
...challenged the natural order and hierarchy...
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is not quite so. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem a bit like a can of worms, honestly... Real belief in God should probably not be institutionalised and/or politicised.
So no, it is not that the rulers of the old world could no longer sell their worldview to the people and the "enlightened masses" out of their own free will got to arms and liberated themselves from the tyranny of superstition and slavery.
I agree that people did not liberate themselves. That is not what I meant. What I meant was that due to various reasons fairytale of hereditary rulership did not work anymore and had to be replaced with another fairytale: democracy. No one liberated anyone. They just exchanged one fairytale with another. It's all about justification, which would believable enough for the peasants, of why existing power exists.
In any case, my suggestion is that we look at the root cause of all of them (without singling out some in particular) which is belief and submission to authority. Any ruler (a king, elected official, whatever) could be dumber, weaker and less capable than average peasant (which they probably are in most cases). What gives them power though is the belief of said peasant that the ruler indeed has power over them. You see, it's almost like an Ouroboros eating its own tail. There is no power as such, it doesn't exist, but it becomes so, because those that submit believes it exists.
Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers.
Well, I don't know, man... I think you're idealising it. You state it like it was some kind of paradise, but was it? Was it that good? (Not that I'm huge believer in official history, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with that.) I suppose it is possible that for average peasant life back then probably was more meaningful and morally/spiritually better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses. You say yourself that people strongly believed in power of monarch. In short, it worked. And that is precisely why rulers went with it. If it wouldn't work I can assure you that not me nor you would have even heard of such things as Christianity or the Bible.
...challenged the natural order and hierarchy...
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is not quite so. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem a bit like a can of worms, honestly... Real belief in God should probably not be institutionalised and/or politicised.
In any case, my suggestion is that we look at the root cause of all of them (without singling out some in particular) which is belief and submission to authority. Any ruler (a king, elected official, whatever) could be dumber, weaker and less capable than average peasant (which they probably are in most cases). What gives them power though is the belief of said peasant that the ruler indeed has power over them. You see, it's almost like an Ouroboros eating its own tail. There is no power as such, it doesn't exist, but it becomes so, because those that submit believes it exists.
Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers.
Well, I don't know, man... I think you're idealising it. You state it like it was some kind of paradise, but was it? Was it that good? (Not that I'm huge believer in official history, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with that.) I suppose it is possible that for average peasant life back then probably was more meaningful and morally/spiritually better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses.
...challenged the natural order and hierarchy...
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is not quite so. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem a bit like a can of worms, honestly... Real belief in God should probably not be institutionalised and/or politicised.
In any case, my suggestion is that we look at the root cause of all of them (without singling out some in particular) which is belief and submission to authority. Any ruler (a king, elected official, whatever) could be dumber, weaker and less capable than average peasant (which they probably are in most cases). What gives them power though is the belief of said peasant that the ruler indeed has power over them. You see, it's almost like an Ouroboros eating its own tail. There is no power as such, it doesn't exist, but it becomes so, because those that submit believes it exists.
Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers.
Well, I don't know, man... I think you're idealising it. You state it like it was some kind of paradise, but was it? Was it that good? (Not that I'm huge believer in official history, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with that.) I suppose it is possible that for average peasant life back then probably was more meaningful and morally/spiritually better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses.
...challenged the natural order and hierarchy...
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is nothing but. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem a bit like a can of worms, honestly... Real belief in God should probably not be institutionalised and/or politicised.
In any case, my suggestion is that we look at the root cause of all of them (without singling out some in particular) which is belief and submission to authority. Any ruler (a king, elected official, whatever) could be dumber, weaker and less capable than average peasant (which they probably are in most cases). What gives them power though is the belief of said peasant that the ruler indeed has power over them. You see, it's almost like an Ouroboros eating its own tail. There is no power as such, it doesn't exist, but it becomes so, because those that submit believes it exists.
Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers.
Well, I don't know, man... I think you're idealising it. You state it like it was some kind of paradise, but was it? Was it that good? (Not that I'm huge believer in official history, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with that.) I suppose it is possible that for average peasant life back then probably was more meaningful and morally/spiritually better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses.
...challenged the natural order and hierarchy...
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is nothing but. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem a bit like a can of worms, honestly...
In any case, my suggestion is that we look at the root cause of all of them (without singling out some in particular) which is belief and submission to authority. Any ruler (a king, elected official, whatever) could be dumber, weaker and less capable than average peasant (which they probably are in most cases). What gives them power though is the belief of said peasant that the ruler indeed has power over them. You see, it's almost like an Ouroboros eating its own tail. There is no power as such, it doesn't exist, but it becomes so, because those that submit believes it exists.
Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers.
Well, I don't know, man... I think you're idealising it. You state it like it was some kind of paradise, but was it? Was it that good? (Not that I'm huge believer in official history, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with that.) I suppose it is possible that for average peasant life back then probably was more meaningful and morally/spiritually better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses.
...challenged the natural order and hierarchy...
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is nothing but. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you actually read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem a bit like a can of worms, honestly...
In any case, my suggestion is that we look at the root cause of all of them (without singling out some in particular) which is belief and submission to authority. Any ruler (a king, elected official, whatever) could be dumber, weaker and less capable than average peasant (which they probably are in most cases). What gives them power though is the belief of said peasant that the ruler indeed has power over them. You see, it's almost like an Ouroboros eating its own tail. There is no power as such, it doesn't exist, but it becomes so, because those that submit believes it exists.
Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers.
Well, I don't know, man... I think you're idealising it. You state it like it was some kind of paradise, but was it? Was it that good? (Not that I'm huge believer in official history, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with that.) I suppose it is possible that for average peasant life back then probably was more meaningful and morally/spiritually better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses.
...challenged the natural order and hierarchy...
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is nothing but. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you actually read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem like a can of worms. I'm not entirely sure we should look for truth or ultimate solution in that direction.
In any case, my suggestion is that we look at the root cause of all of them (without singling out some in particular) which is belief and submission to authority. Any ruler (a king, elected official, whatever) could be dumber, weaker and less capable than average peasant (which they probably are in most cases). What gives them power though is the belief of said peasant that the ruler indeed has power over them. You see, it's almost like an Ouroboros eating its own tail. There is no power as such, it doesn't exist, but it becomes so, because those that submit believes it exists.
Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers.
Well, I don't know, man... I think you're idealising it. You state it like it was some kind of paradise, but was it? Was it that good? (Not that I'm huge believer in official history, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with that.) I suppose it is possible that for average peasant life back then probably was more meaningful and morally/spiritually better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses.
...challenged the natural order and hierarchy...
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is nothing but. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you actually read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all of that and is much more coherent and personal...
In any case, my suggestion is that we look at the root cause of all of them (without singling out some in particular) which is belief and submission to authority. Any ruler (a king, elected official, whatever) could be dumber, weaker and less capable than average peasant (which they probably are in most cases). What gives them power though is the belief of said peasant that the ruler indeed has power over them. You see, it's almost like an Ouroboros eating its own tail. There is no power as such, it doesn't exist, but it becomes so, because those that submit believes it exists.