Cost of Living and Governance

[tanksoldier]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Is the state organized as a res publica (a corporate entity owned by some group defined as "the people") or a res privata (the private property of some specific family or lineage)?.

The point is, there a point where things switch from one to the other.

At all feudal levels... at what point does a landed knights money stop and the money of his demesne start, especially if he’s buying his horse and arms out of the income from his demesne... which are his but required as part of his feudal duty?

...a baron, required to collect tax s for the king, pass some on, maintain roads, bridges, keep the peace, provide troops in war and find his own upkeep out of what’s left?

At some point those two financial realms separate, but where is that point?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

At what point does a government’s money stop being the monarch’s money?

Probably a better question is "at what point does a government's money start being the monarch's money. Most polities, even "pre-state" or "semi-state" or, "might be state depending on how you define the term" were until recently patronage webs. The exceptions tended to be hydraulic empires where the infrastructure was so important as to demand a centralized system, and eighteenth century European style monarchies, bolstered by a lot of capital and gunpowder equipped standing armed forces. Republics tended to be city-states and tribes or confederations of same.

In a hypothetical feudal system several owners will hold a given patrimony. The Crown will hold some lands as an absentee landholder; this was one of his main revenue sources. In England at least it was held that a King in peacetime should be able to live off of that (there was no such thing as peacetime as we know it back then of course, but there were times when no big campaign was going on). Rural nobles had their estates. Cities were likely to have a corporate relation to the King analogical to that of a noble. And anyone with enough clout to make a treaty with the king could get similar terms.

In a sense only a sovereignity can hold real property because real property needs to be defended by force of arms. That is there is no fully allodial property in the English tradition. There are patrimonies that were given semi-allodial claims because that was a treaty with a conquered people or it is part of an endowment as with a university or religious organization. Semi-allodial claims would include tax benefits and internal self-government, heraldric and ceremonial symbols, and what can only be termed as "eccentricities". In fact they would really be just one step above a feudal title. The exception to that would be a Federal or Confederal system like the US where the subdivisions are supposedly the creators of the central government, or exist contiguously. It is hard to say whether or not a US State rules allodially, but it is easy to say that a county in the UK does not. Parodoxically the right to hold property needs a guarantor whether you call it a corporate state or a monarch, and so must always be limited.

There is no actual time when it is more likely that the monarch will own the country and more likely that it will be corporate. The concept of "commons" is known at a fairly low tech level and several English villages had a portion of land that belonged to the village (I think they had a moot at regular times where they cast lots, or something to decide who could use a portion this year). I suspect that in Anglo-Saxon times it did not occur to them to think much about the question of who ultimately owned it. However in England probably the mark of when England was definitely a republic that happened to have a monarch rather then a monarchy that happened to have a parliament was somewhere in the Tudor and Stuart times. Certainly it seems to have been settled by the time of the early Hanovers.

It must be taken into account that much of the assigning of property is legal fiction. If I remember, technically a Scottish chief owned his clan's land, however clansfolk do not seem to have behaved as serfs.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

It must be taken into account that much of the assigning of property is legal fiction. If I remember, technically a Scottish chief owned his clan's land, however clansfolk do not seem to have behaved as serfs.

Long ago, when I studied business law, we were taught that as a matter of law in the United States, all land belongs to the sovereign—that is, the people of each individual state. The "owners" are merely people the sovereign permits to occupy the land; what they own is not land but estate. This was described as the justification for property tax (you have to rent the land from the sovereign), inheritance tax (you pay the sovereign a fee to assume ownership, just like a medieval serf), and eminent domain (when the sovereign needs the land, he can take it back). So as a matter of law the United States is "socialist" at least as regards land. In practice, not so much, as we have active markets for land and things attached to it.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

They might have been better-organised than you think. The system of having a captain, a lieutenant, and a sergeant-major at the company, an intermediate, and the general levels is pretty old,

Sixteenth-century ... I think it was one of the Hapsburg reforms which everyone copied.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Sixteenth-century ... I think it was one of the Hapsburg reforms which everyone copied.

That's rather after the Middle Ages. I tend to count them as ending with the Fall of Constantinople and the Reconquista (yes, it's forty years, but that's a short time historically speaking).

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

However in England probably the mark of when England was definitely a republic that happened to have a monarch rather then a monarchy that happened to have a parliament was somewhere in the Tudor and Stuart times. Certainly it seems to have been settled by the time of the early Hanovers.

Surely the English Civil War is the turning point. The abuse of the right of the King to demand unfair taxes (ship-tax) and parliament being unwilling to grant him money for wars are a few of the many reasons it started.

The aftermath was the rise of the common classes (as the army started to influence politics) then a lord protector in Cromwell, who whilst he governed a "Commonwealth" was effectively an emperor. After a while we got bored with not having Christmas and had to put out an advert for a foreign king to take the job (having messed up the line of succession by having an interregnum).

As fodder for the discussion it should be recalled that Monarch on a royal progress would foist themselves on a member of the nobility and effectively eat them out of house and home. When they had exhausted their hospitality (in both senses) they would move on. In this case "the state" meeting their COL is the lesser nobility (who owe their nobility to royal patronage).

During the civil war the king appointed officers who would then pay to raise a regiment at their own expense. Again the "state" subsidizing the King in the execution of his prerogatives.

One of the contributory factors in the Kings ultimate defeat at the hands of his Parliament was that after the attrition of several years conflict the Parliament re-organised its remnants into a new-modelled army under a revised command structure. The King couldn't afford to "cashier" his officers (i.e. pay them the value of their mens' equipage) in order to restructure into a more appropriate command structure and as a result his army became top heavy with some regiments having almost as many officers as fighting men.

Of course even the Kings most "personal" expenses were arguably state expenses. His meals were often public affairs with people doubtless paying bribes for the privilege of watching him eat.

And I am still a Crown Servant. British police have a crown on their badge even though their duties are determined by the home office. Technically the Queen invites the leader of the party winning the general election to from a government. Our parliament sits in the Palace of Westminster. The Queen's representative (Black Rod) is formally denied entry into the house of commons in direct recollection of when King Charles entered the commons to arrest members of that house in breach of the constitution.

Oh, and the Duchess of Sussex and spouse of the sixth in the line of succession was an American commoner. Perhaps you will not find her common now - continuing the princess bride theme.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by swordtart

Surely the English Civil War is the turning point. The abuse of the right of the King to demand unfair taxes (ship-tax) and parliament being unwilling to grant him money for wars are a few of the many reasons it started.

The aftermath was the rise of the common classes (as the army started to influence politics) then a lord protector in Cromwell, who whilst he governed a "Commonwealth" was effectively an emperor. After a while we got bored with not having Christmas and had to put out an advert for a foreign king to take the job (having messed up the line of succession by having an interregnum).

As fodder for the discussion it should be recalled that Monarch on a royal progress would foist themselves on a member of the nobility and effectively eat them out of house and home. When they had exhausted their hospitality (in both senses) they would move on. In this case "the state" meeting their COL is the lesser nobility (who owe their nobility to royal patronage).

During the civil war the king appointed officers who would then pay to raise a regiment at their own expense. Again the "state" subsidizing the King in the execution of his prerogatives.

One of the contributory factors in the Kings ultimate defeat at the hands of his Parliament was that after the attrition of several years conflict the Parliament re-organised its remnants into a new-modelled army under a revised command structure. The King couldn't afford to "cashier" his officers (i.e. pay them the value of their mens' equipage) in order to restructure into a more appropriate command structure and as a result his army became top heavy with some regiments having almost as many officers as fighting men.

Of course even the Kings most "personal" expenses were arguably state expenses. His meals were often public affairs with people doubtless paying bribes for the privilege of watching him eat.

And I am still a Crown Servant. British police have a crown on their badge even though their duties are determined by the home office. Technically the Queen invites the leader of the party winning the general election to from a government. Our parliament sits in the Palace of Westminster. The Queen's representative (Black Rod) is formally denied entry into the house of commons in direct recollection of when King Charles entered the commons to arrest members of that house in breach of the constitution.

Oh, and the Duchess of Sussex and spouse of the sixth in the line of succession was an American commoner. Perhaps you will not find her common now - continuing the princess bride theme.

That is the most dramatic event, yes. But it did not really congeal until quite a bit later. For one thing everyone had some sort of idea of what a King was supposed to do and no one had an idea of what the heck a Lord Protector did (other then protecting the Lord?).

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

There may have been technicalities if rank and status but rarely did anyone militarily out rank someone they also didn’t outrank socially.

I just assume that social status more or less equates to military or administrative rank

I don't think so, because it was possible to be a high noble and not be given any of the appropriate commands and state offices. A few great offices did become hereditarily attached to particular peerages (steward of England to the earldom of Leicester, earl marshal to the dukedom of Norfolk), but the inevitable result of that was the king having to create a new office for someone who actually discharged the responsibilities.

A better approach, I think, is to model it as a system in which Status is a prerquisite of Rank.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I don't think so, because it was possible to be a high noble and not be given any of the appropriate commands and state offices. A few great offices did become hereditarily attached to particular peerages (steward of England to the earldom of Leicester, earl marshal to the dukedom of Norfolk), but the inevitable result of that was the king having to create a new office for someone who actually discharged the responsibilities.

A better approach, I think, is to model it as a system in which Status is a prerquisite of Rank.

Sometimes all the professionals would be jealous of each other, and so a high status commander who had no experience would be justified on that basis.

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

That is the most dramatic event, yes. But it did not really congeal until quite a bit later. For one thing everyone had some sort of idea of what a King was supposed to do ...

Whatever he damn well pleased according to Charles I (Divine Right and all that) ;)