Why didn't Russia or Iraq or the ottoman empire to imperial Japan ever have a moment where the lords or aristocrats decided to limit the power of the king? Seemed like natural coarse of events for poeple to limit the power of the king and expand on other poeples rights. Allow others more say in how a country is ran.
Poland had and it led to its downfall.
>>16887917England was unique in that it was way more centralized than most other medieval entities. This was the result of the Norman Conquests, since William the Conqueror was undisputed king and overlord and could assign trusted vassals to each region while keeping his personal crownlands very large. Contrast this with France whose Kings often had over-mighty vassals, such as Dukes of Normany, who were stronger than him and had little authority outside Paris.So while the histories of countries like Russia, Japan, etc... were feudal fragmentation heading towards centralization, England went on the opposite course. It was already pretty centralized and the barons wanted the king to have less power. Russia, Japan, and France would have wars that decidedly ended any hope that they'd devolve powers until the 1900s. France had Louis XIV and the Fronde civil war where the royalty won over the nobles, Japan had the Boshin War and Meiji Restoration, Russia had a lot of powerful monarchs but notably Peter the Great and Catherine the Great who centralized power very well.
Danish kings would sign a contract with the nobility before becoming kingAnd Japanese shoguns limited the power of the emperor to the point of figure head
>>16888009>This was the result of the Norman ConquestsAnglo-Saxon England was already relatively centralized prior to Norman rule.
>>16887965>Poland had and it led to its downfall.True, but the Polish nobility went full-retard, to the point they literally cut their own throats with their Golden Freedumbs.
Japan first had that moment in like the 570s, figurehead emperors are the historical norm not the aberrationOttomans had some sultans deposed by ulemaI think the Russian diet (like the old one, not the 20th century version, might be using the wrong name) at times tried to restrict the powers of the Tsars, but they got wrecked. Didn't help matters that they had a very narrow social vision, demanding more restrictions on serfs and couldn't get the clergy on their side, so once Tsars were rich enough for permanent standing armies the boyars had little social base for resistance
>>16888362Except they elected their leaders, which is pretty devolutionary
>>16888461Not that anon but if what little evidence we have is anything to go off the Witan was more or less English magnates/notables rubber-stamping the succession of the previous ruler's heir, rather than having the power to veto the succession if they disapproved.
>>16887917The importance of Magna Carta has been massively inflated by revisionist Whig historians. It really did not mean much for most of history
>>16888714The anglo saxons did not follow primageniture in royal succession, instead the Witenagemot had the right to choose the king from the extended royal family
>>16888786Hardly an indication that England was significantly less centralised, especially given that once the king was elected the Witan were at best advisors whose advice the king could choose to heed or ignore at his leisure.
>>16888725Whigs built the United States. The Magna Carta is the oldest relevant document within the American Justice system. America's entire legal system is based on it, and it strongly influenced all laws within the US. It is a required topic in all American legal studies, all American lawyers know what the Magna Carta is, what it does, and why it's important to American democracy;Most countries aren't free and don't have freedoms as Americans do, so non-americans cannot appreciate this fact.
>>16888009Anon, Russia was very centrilised too, as result of Moscow rise as Mongols tax enforcer henchman. But Russia forever stayed Asian despoty, literally was small period of freedom in 1991-2008.
>>16887917>magna carta momentA document written so the rebellious lords could gain more power over the king and which was never actually used?
>>16888815Zelensky is calling youHe needs another soldierSave the Jews
>>16888813any law textbook will tell you Magna Carta was a functional nothing burger, retrospectively chosen to represent the spirit of modern law
>>16887917>Why didn't Russia or Iraq or the ottoman empire to imperial JapanYou're asking why modern states did not have a feudal revolt against central power?>>16888009>England was unique in that it was way more centralized than most other medieval entities. This was the result of the Norman ConquestsIf anything the Norman Conquests broke down the centralised administration of Anglo-Saxon England by introducing Feudalism and inheritable titles. Anglo-Saxon government and central power had more in common with the Carolingians than France and Germany in the 11th century>>16888461No they didn't. The Witan for over a century had been completely nominal and only proclaimed the Kings heir, who was already chosen. The last possible point where the Witan might have made an independent decision was in 924 with the death of Edward the Elder with Athelstan being chosen in Mercia and Ælfweard in Wessex but it is unclear if this was Edwards choice or an independent choice by the Witan. So the last truly clear example of the Wessex Witan actually electing somebody was with Ecgberht over 250 years before the end of Anglo-Saxon England.
>>16888433>they literally cut their own throatsWrong use of "literally". Yes I'm bumping this thread to point that out.
>>16887917>Grand grand kids of Merovingians, Carolingians, Medici's , Habsburgs etc. still rule Western Europe>elected people rule USA and RussiaNo evil kings who killed all competitors to a point they weakened their countries blood and Western Europe is dying now? No need to limit their power.
>>16887917The rest of Europe weren't isolated islands filled with money grubbing merchants.
Japan did each time a shogun took power. But the problem was they didn’t write it down or make it permanent. Some in the end the Meiji reformation happens, and the Emperor actually does write it down that he has supreme power and thus maintains itNot sure why Japanese were too stupid to write it down before
I feel at least part of it has to do with the unique geography and the unique political situation it creates for the British barons and noblesIf there was a major rebellion in France against the king. The priority would be winning and replacing him. Not writing up a set of new laws.The reason being France would be scared its neighbors would take advantage of the chaos to invade a divided France.This was much less of a concern for the major English nobles. Their only direct neighbors were weaker as entire countries than regions of England, and the sea barrier meant they’d have news so far in advance if a nation was coming for war then they’d be prepared.Therefore, English barons don’t actually want to depose and execute the king. They just want him to sign a contract that promises them certain rights and privileges. And after all, it’s a two way relationship, the king can’t really rule unless his subject barons and nobles follow his commands. So unless he agrees to this, they have no reason to agree to some request for an emergency tax or for men for a campaign in France or whatever
>>16888813The USA is not free, it's a country of tax evaders to base their lives on sex money and businesses
>>16889642>it's a country of tax evaders to base their lives on sex money and businessesBut enough about the UK.
