I search CZcams daily through a ton of videos to find little nuggets like what your channel offers. At my age I'm not sure what I can do with what I learn. But somehow It makes me feel better to know something today that I didn't yesterday. Great subject matter and presentation
Well, you are accumulating your own thread of knowledge and wisdom, which creates insight and its own thread of wisdom. You can then create your own thesis and lay it out - for your's and other's to contemplate. You can go to wordpress and create your own website, for free, and write out what you have realized. Maybe others will stumble upon it and start commenting, or perhaps some time later in the future.
I've always thought the Magna Carta related to modern democracy in that it was the first time the absolute power of the King over his subjects was addressed in an actual document. It was in later events and through later historical figures where the rights of the common man, or the laity, were addressed...like in the 2nd Baron's War (I'm not even sure if the laity was even addressed at all in that revolt, tbh) and by Simon de Monfort (but I do believe he addressed the question of equality amongst the laity). I'm quite sure I not only harbor a lot of misconceptions, but I am also missing entire giant gaps in my knowledge. This is one of the big reasons I enjoy Dr. Reeves' excellent videos so much.
Dear Mr Reeves, thank you very much for all your videos, I am watching them one by one and I love them. Thank you very much for this analysis of how King John, and Magna Carta, like so many other things in history, has been adopted and adapted by different generations to mean different things, depending on the sensibilities of the time. Great stuff! I'm curious: I live in Lombardy, in northern Italy, and here the figure of Frederick Barbarossa and his fight with the Lombard comunes is considered to be very important, and the eventual peace settlement they managed to win from him to ensure the rights and liberties of the comunes is sort of considered the Italian 'magna carta'. Since the papacy is intimately involved in this story (on the side of the comunes) I was wondering if you have studied it at all, and would like to do an insightful video into that, too.
James Curtis // Hey James. I love them already! :) I have a course in another playlist on this channel on Lewis-Tolkien and part of that course was assigning G.K. Chesteron and I talk about him earlier in one of the lectures. But they all form the impressions of my young mind, since they were all I read.
Thank you I'll be looking into it. I'm a big fan of G.K. Chesterton, and recently discovered C.S. Lewis, not to be confused with C.L. Lewis, (R.B.) for The New England Patriots.
This lesson demonstrates nicely how the ever-shifting lens of history can completely change our perception of various times and, to my mind, especially various historical figures. Besides King John, another example of our changing opinion of a monarch is how we view Richard III. I'm sure there are many other examples.
The real change in England came with my ancestor Simon de Montfort V. He established the First English Parliament and wrote the Provisions of Oxford. He was viciously murdered by Edward I in 1265.
I was wondering how the Magna Carta was important to modern government since the history textbooks don't really tell me why it would be important but now it's more clear
I think you are too unkind to those that point to the magna carta as the beginning of democratic ideals. it is pointed to not because it specificly states any of the things you mentioned, but because it is the first time strictures were put on the ruler of a nation for the benefit of a people of lower standing. as to aristotle's view of democracy, it is a bit disingenuous to say that he thought it was exclusively bad, as to him there were at least two forms of democratic governance, the best and the worst, and democracy is the term he uses to describe the worst. Having said that, i will admit that i didnt extensively study his politics, so if you can point to a paragraph that proves me wrong, i would be both unsurprised and grateful.
Great question to clarify: The point is it's not about people of lower station and it's not the first time in history strictures were placed on a monarch. That's the popular account of it, and that's mostly what I'm going against. I'm not going against those who wish to see the Magna Carta as prelude to what NEEDED to happen. However, given that it did not happen for nearly half a millennia or longer is enough reason to doubt this is the starting point. Maybe an analogy works to clarify my point: we all have had experiences where something big changed in our life but we had no idea WHAT was changed until a great deal later. Then later we begin to describe that initial time as a MAJOR change in our lives, but if you had asked us then we might not have said this. It's more like this in the big picture. At the time it was just nobles checking another noble for their own rights. They cared nothing about democracy or people beneath them. However, later once democracy began to spring into people's minds they began to look on Magna Carta fondly as the start. So it's true in a sense but not what happened in this actual year.
Did the Magna Carta result in the creation of a parliament? Was it the first creation of a parliament in England? My general understanding is: war is expensive. John lost a big battle in France. Because he lost that battle, he needed money, if for no other reason than to maintain a sufficient army in order to maintain an adequate defense. One the one hand: The people who provide money for such things wanted something for their money. Individually they had no pull with a king given the power disparaties - but collectively they could have some leverage. On the other hand: Calling parliament together was a way for the King to bring together the people who paid tax when a king needed some ducats, mostly for generating revenue for the expensive business of outfitting an army when the king was low on said revenue. This, at some point, then, was a new institutional arrangement. The creation of a new institution for the King to get money to save him the trouble of having to ask 3rd parties, such as the archbishop of Canterbury, to organize a gathering. The advantage for the king is lower transaction cost to get money. If he needs revenue, all he merely has to do is ask parliament to give it to him. The advantage for the members of parliament was collective leverage in dealing with the king. If the Magna Charta did not create parliament, what and who did? What was the context that drove it into existence?
+Adam Mangler // Well it is a survey class and this is one of those subjects people think they know about but never know the details. So MC for Dummies works! :)
Excellent analysis I don't know what more a man could expect from a thirty minute talk.The Magna Carta is over rated as it gave more control to the Barons over the serfs. Webster Tarpley has an interesting take on the Magna Carta also.
I search CZcams daily through a ton of videos to find little nuggets like what your channel offers. At my age I'm not sure what I can do with what I learn. But somehow It makes me feel better to know something today that I didn't yesterday. Great subject matter and presentation
ARBBFamily learning any amount of history helps you understand the wider world which is definatly a positive
Well, you are accumulating your own thread of knowledge and wisdom, which creates insight and its own thread of wisdom. You can then create your own thesis and lay it out - for your's and other's to contemplate.
You can go to wordpress and create your own website, for free, and write out what you have realized. Maybe others will stumble upon it and start commenting, or perhaps some time later in the future.
This Richard character seems to be a really good guy.
I will study him in detail later.
I've always thought the Magna Carta related to modern democracy in that it was the first time the absolute power of the King over his subjects was addressed in an actual document. It was in later events and through later historical figures where the rights of the common man, or the laity, were addressed...like in the 2nd Baron's War (I'm not even sure if the laity was even addressed at all in that revolt, tbh) and by Simon de Monfort (but I do believe he addressed the question of equality amongst the laity). I'm quite sure I not only harbor a lot of misconceptions, but I am also missing entire giant gaps in my knowledge. This is one of the big reasons I enjoy Dr. Reeves' excellent videos so much.
Dear Mr Reeves, thank you very much for all your videos, I am watching them one by one and I love them. Thank you very much for this analysis of how King John, and Magna Carta, like so many other things in history, has been adopted and adapted by different generations to mean different things, depending on the sensibilities of the time. Great stuff! I'm curious: I live in Lombardy, in northern Italy, and here the figure of Frederick Barbarossa and his fight with the Lombard comunes is considered to be very important, and the eventual peace settlement they managed to win from him to ensure the rights and liberties of the comunes is sort of considered the Italian 'magna carta'. Since the papacy is intimately involved in this story (on the side of the comunes) I was wondering if you have studied it at all, and would like to do an insightful video into that, too.
I do not understand why this guy did not complete the story of the Magna Carta and discuss the 1215 revised version that did stick.
That would be Katharine of Aragon, with no second R - there's only an Aragorn in Tolkien, LOL.
Ha. Love it. Can you tell my first love was Tolkien and his books??
Ryan Reeves
If you like Tolkien, then I highly recommend G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc!
James Curtis // Hey James. I love them already! :) I have a course in another playlist on this channel on Lewis-Tolkien and part of that course was assigning G.K. Chesteron and I talk about him earlier in one of the lectures. But they all form the impressions of my young mind, since they were all I read.
Ryan Reeves
Have you read on the other Inklings?
Thank you I'll be looking into it. I'm a big fan of G.K. Chesterton, and recently discovered C.S. Lewis, not to be confused with C.L. Lewis, (R.B.) for The New England Patriots.
This lesson demonstrates nicely how the ever-shifting lens of history can completely change our perception of various times and, to my mind, especially various historical figures. Besides King John, another example of our changing opinion of a monarch is how we view Richard III. I'm sure there are many other examples.
I love your videos, you have so many and they're all top notch. Two thumbs up my man.
THANK YOU. ANOTHER GREAT LESSON. I'M PRETTY SMART. IF I KEEP WATCHIN' YOUR MOVIES I MIGHT EVEN GET TO KNOW SOMETHING. HAVE FUN AND TAKE CARE GARE
Well presented and informative. Thank you.
The real change in England came with my ancestor Simon de Montfort V. He established the First English Parliament and wrote the Provisions of Oxford. He was viciously murdered by Edward I in 1265.
One of the best out of these already awesome videos!!!
Shouldn't Barrons be Barons?
I was wondering how the Magna Carta was important to modern government since the history textbooks don't really tell me why it would be important but now it's more clear
Very good analysis.
We are all "equal" just some are a little more "equal" than others it seems...שלום
My ancestor, Simon de Montfort IV and a group of Barrons wrote it and forced John Lackland to sign it.
Excellent!
I think you are too unkind to those that point to the magna carta as the beginning of democratic ideals. it is pointed to not because it specificly states any of the things you mentioned, but because it is the first time strictures were put on the ruler of a nation for the benefit of a people of lower standing.
as to aristotle's view of democracy, it is a bit disingenuous to say that he thought it was exclusively bad, as to him there were at least two forms of democratic governance, the best and the worst, and democracy is the term he uses to describe the worst. Having said that, i will admit that i didnt extensively study his politics, so if you can point to a paragraph that proves me wrong, i would be both unsurprised and grateful.
Great question to clarify:
The point is it's not about people of lower station and it's not the first time in history strictures were placed on a monarch. That's the popular account of it, and that's mostly what I'm going against. I'm not going against those who wish to see the Magna Carta as prelude to what NEEDED to happen. However, given that it did not happen for nearly half a millennia or longer is enough reason to doubt this is the starting point.
Maybe an analogy works to clarify my point: we all have had experiences where something big changed in our life but we had no idea WHAT was changed until a great deal later. Then later we begin to describe that initial time as a MAJOR change in our lives, but if you had asked us then we might not have said this.
It's more like this in the big picture. At the time it was just nobles checking another noble for their own rights. They cared nothing about democracy or people beneath them. However, later once democracy began to spring into people's minds they began to look on Magna Carta fondly as the start. So it's true in a sense but not what happened in this actual year.
now that i can agree with. thank you for taking the time to respond.
Did the Magna Carta result in the creation of a parliament? Was it the first creation of a parliament in England?
My general understanding is: war is expensive. John lost a big battle in France. Because he lost that battle, he needed money, if for no other reason than to maintain a sufficient army in order to maintain an adequate defense.
One the one hand:
The people who provide money for such things wanted something for their money. Individually they had no pull with a king given the power disparaties - but collectively they could have some leverage.
On the other hand:
Calling parliament together was a way for the King to bring together the people who paid tax when a king needed some ducats, mostly for generating revenue for the expensive business of outfitting an army when the king was low on said revenue.
This, at some point, then, was a new institutional arrangement. The creation of a new institution for the King to get money to save him the trouble of having to ask 3rd parties, such as the archbishop of Canterbury, to organize a gathering.
The advantage for the king is lower transaction cost to get money. If he needs revenue, all he merely has to do is ask parliament to give it to him. The advantage for the members of parliament was collective leverage in dealing with the king.
If the Magna Charta did not create parliament, what and who did? What was the context that drove it into existence?
Allthe conclusions you reach about the Magna Carta go double for the United States Constitution!
_Sounds like Magna Carta for Dummies_ ...
+Adam Mangler // Well it is a survey class and this is one of those subjects people think they know about but never know the details. So MC for Dummies works! :)
Okay.
So we should listen to your genus? Webster Tarpley has a good take on it.
Excellent analysis I don't know what more a man could expect from a thirty minute talk.The Magna Carta is over rated as it gave more control to the Barons over the serfs. Webster Tarpley has an interesting take on the Magna Carta also.
You make it more clear. I had to look up the definition of bowdlerize.
Magna carta....for all as long as you were white...