Was just doing some irony, don't worry :P The fact is that before the 17th century none questions on the nature of royal power. It was given for granted that it came directly from God.

I don't think anything was questioned back then. Everyone just accepted it as it was, either because they were illiterate and uneducated or because they feared the almighty church that was out to get anyone who was going against it's teachings. Dark ages, indeed.

No. Kings in the 17th century certainly ruled with a divine right to rule, but that's been pretty much standard for all of history- every despot since the cavemen claimed to rule with the mandate of heaven. And throughout that history, it was never enough to just shut everyone up- whether the people accepted an autocrat was largely dependent on the man's political strength. I mean, the 17th century saw ol' Charlie of England- one of the great proponents of the divine right to rule, mind you- be overthrown and executed, largely because of his attemps to control everything. The second assertion I'd like to contest, and one that makes me cringe in terrible agony every time I see it, is everything you said about the so called 'dark ages'. Apparently, everything between the fall of Rome in the 400s and the renaissance was anarchy and cultural stagnation, which lasted over a thousand years. Except for, what do you call it, the Carolingian renaissance of the 700s, or the cultural brilliance of the Byzantines and the Islamic world, ect, ect. /Sarcasm My point here is that calling the 400-1400 period the 'dark ages' is a gross oversimplification, one which reduces the greatness of the countless civilizations that rose and fell in that period (yes, civilization did exist). Finally, you seem to imply that the 'church'- by which I assume you refer to the Roman Catholic Church- was not only a proponent of the divine authority of Kings, but actively hunted those who opposed their tyranny. This is a ridiculous concept; for one thing, the popes would never impart divine authority on kings, authority they guarded as their own. The thousand years you clumped into the 'dark ages' saw a constant struggle between the papacy and the European Kings for religious authority. And even if one were to ignore that and pretend that the popes loved these Kings, it ignores the simple fact that your statement is an anachronism. By the 17th century, the roman church was already spiraling into its political decline. A third of Europe had broken off and formed their owned reformed churches, and even in those catholic nations that remained, papal authority was almost non-existent. With that said, good sir, I bid you adieu. (Oh, and I'm interested in the RP.)

Indeed. Defining them 'Middle ages' is degrading as well, since the name derives from the humanist conception of those times as 'intermediary' between two worthy of mention (obviously I'm referring to late Roman history and Renaissance, whose itself is a craft of humanism as well.). Medieval times were, after all, not a period of obscurantism like many know, but some sort of cradle, theocentric and pretty unwired, that permitted modern nations to sprung.

No. Kings in the 17th century certainly ruled with a divine right to rule, but that's been pretty much standard for all of history- every despot since the cavemen claimed to rule with the mandate of heaven. And throughout that history, it was never enough to just shut everyone up- whether the people accepted an autocrat was largely dependent on the man's political strength. I mean, the 17th century saw ol' Charlie of England- one of the great proponents of the divine right to rule, mind you- be overthrown and executed, largely because of his attemps to control everything.

What are you disagreeing with? You are practically repeating what we already established which is that no one questioned why someone is born to rule over others. Sure, rebellions happened, monarchs were killed, and crowns shifted hands, but at the end of the day those peasants that rose up would go back to their fields and just work for the next guy that comes along claiming he is destined to rule them. They accepted it as a normal thing because they never left their little bubble of ignorance. Progress of philosophy was crippled by Church who insisted that every new idea must be explained and be connected to God. Everything else was sacrilegious. You can clearly see the difference in philosophy of the Medieval ages and that of the Renaissance and the Enlightment, for example reading works of Machiavelli and Hobbes, who are mocking the way society works. If this was done in the Medieval times the author would be punished, most likely by death.

The second assertion I'd like to contest, and one that makes me cringe in terrible agony every time I see it, is everything you said about the so called 'dark ages'. Apparently, everything between the fall of Rome in the 400s and the renaissance was anarchy and cultural stagnation, which lasted over a thousand years. Except for, what do you call it, the Carolingian renaissance of the 700s, or the cultural brilliance of the Byzantines and the Islamic world, ect, ect. /Sarcasm

I don't deny there has been civilizations in the Medieval Ages. It's called the Dark ages because scientific progress was relatively stagnant. Sure, it's not exactly historically accurate to call it Dark ages as it implies nothing significant happened. Obviously this is not true. However, there was no progress in neither medicine nor literature (most of it revolved around religion), science was practically non-existent and anything that remotely went against contemporary standards was frequently dubbed witchcraft. Contrast to this is the Renaissance and the Enlightenment period when literature and art flourishes, science is still somewhat held back but is making break throughs in secret. Criticizing Church is slowly becoming acceptable. This is the era when Europe is slowly leaving it's conservative cocoon. We're talking about Europe here, I'd leave the Islamic world out of it, who by the way, was ahead of Medieval Europe in a lot of aspects, including mathematics, astronomy, astrology, anatomy, physiology, philosophy etc. We can see this by the fact that Europe had to gather and translate old scripts from the Arabs, who unlike Europeans, wrote down and preserved literature of the ancient times and built upon the foundations laid down by the ancient Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, and other great civilizations.

My point here is that calling the 400-1400 period the 'dark ages' is a gross oversimplification, one which reduces the greatness of the countless civilizations that rose and fell in that period (yes, civilization did exist).

Sure, civilizations existed, but was there much progress in anything other than in art of warfare? It was a time of wars, poverty, famine, plagues and death. On top of that, it was an era of little to no hygiene. Byzantium can be somewhat excused as far as that goes.

Finally, you seem to imply that the 'church'- by which I assume you refer to the Roman Catholic Church- was not only a proponent of the divine authority of Kings, but actively hunted those who opposed their tyranny. This is a ridiculous concept; for one thing, the popes would never impart divine authority on kings, authority they guarded as their own.

Was it not the Popes that gave the titles to European monarchs? If I recall correctly, the Catholic Church was the founder and supporter of Spanish inquisition. Was this not tyranny against those that opposed them? Crusades? Slaughter of fellow Christians, even those who had slightly different teachings than the ones preached from Rome. I'm talking about the Cathars who were systematically hunted and killed by Catholics.

The thousand years you clumped into the 'dark ages' saw a constant struggle between the papacy and the European Kings for religious authority.

Papacy wouldn't be as strong as it was if the monarchs wanted all the power for themselves. Fact is, they acknowledged Pope as the religious leader. The Pope literally had the authority to stop two kings fighting each other and make them fight together against a common enemy which is the case with Crusades. This 'struggle' for power only culminated in the 16th century with the emergence of Protestant church and even then Kings only joined it for completely unrelated reasons, for example King of England converted because he wanted a divorce. King of Denmark converted because he needed the money from confiscating church lands after his country was broke following a civil war. By this time Europe was already largely in Renaissance period.

And even if one were to ignore that and pretend that the popes loved these Kings, it ignores the simple fact that your statement is an anachronism. By the 17th century, the roman church was already spiraling into its political decline. A third of Europe had broken off and formed their owned reformed churches, and even in those catholic nations that remained, papal authority was almost non-existent.

If I'm not mistaken, 17th century is 100-150 years after the Medieval ages. How is it anachronism?

What are you disagreeing with? You are practically repeating what we already established which is that no one questioned why someone is born to rule over others. Sure, rebellions happened, monarchs were killed, and crowns shifted hands, but at the end of the day those peasants that rose up would go back to their fields and just work for the next guy that comes along claiming he is destined to rule them. They accepted it as a normal thing because they never left their little bubble of ignorance. Progress of philosophy was crippled by Church who insisted that every new idea must be explained and be connected to God. Everything else was sacrilegious. You can clearly see the difference in philosophy of the Medieval ages and that of the Renaissance and the Enlightment, for example reading works of Machiavelli and Hobbes, who are mocking the way society works. If this was done in the Medieval times the author would be punished, most likely by death.

My point is that the idea of the divine right to rule of kings is as old as civilization, and not at all a characteristic of medieval society. In fact, the monarchies we typically associate with that kind of posturing came after the Renaissance.

I don't deny there has been civilizations in the Medieval Ages. It's called the Dark ages because scientific progress was relatively stagnant. Sure, it's not exactly historically accurate to call it Dark ages as it implies nothing significant happened. Obviously this is not true. However, there was no progress in neither medicine nor literature (most of it revolved around religion), science was practically non-existent and anything that remotely went against contemporary standards was frequently dubbed witchcraft. Contrast to this is the Renaissance and the Enlightenment period when literature and art flourishes, science is still somewhat held back but is making break throughs in secret. Criticizing Church is slowly becoming acceptable. This is the era when Europe is slowly leaving it's conservative cocoon. We're talking about Europe here, I'd leave the Islamic world out of it, who by the way, was ahead of Medieval Europe in a lot of aspects, including mathematics, astronomy, astrology, anatomy, physiology, philosophy etc. We can see this by the fact that Europe had to gather and translate old scripts from the Arabs, who unlike Europeans, wrote down and preserved literature of the ancient times and built upon the foundations laid down by the ancient Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, and other great civilizations.

Wiki Quite a long list.

Sure, civilizations existed, but was there much progress in anything other than in art of warfare? It was a time of wars, poverty, famine, plagues and death. On top of that, it was an era of little to no hygiene. Byzantium can be somewhat excused as far as that goes.

Yup, the medieval period was characterized by these things. But how is that any different from any other pre-industrial period? From Rome to 18th century Germany, population growth was glacial, pandemics were epidemic, famine was the family friend of every peasant. The medieval period (and again, lumping together 1000 years of history under one period is a gross oversimplification) wasn't any more bleak or bright than previous or following eras.

Papacy wouldn't be as strong as it was if the monarchs wanted all the power for themselves. Fact is, they acknowledged Pope as the religious leader. The Pope literally had the authority to stop two kings fighting each other and make them fight together against a common enemy which is the case with Crusades. This 'struggle' for power only culminated in the 16th century with the emergence of Protestant church and even then Kings only joined it for completely unrelated reasons, for example King of England converted because he wanted a divorce. King of Denmark converted because he needed the money from confiscating church lands after his country was broke following a civil war. By this time Europe was already largely in Renaissance period.

I'm not talking about religious dissidence, I'm talking about conflict for religious authority. Both King Henry and Emperor Henry engaged in ugly squabbles with the papacy over this.

If I'm not mistaken, 17th century is 100-150 years after the Medieval ages. How is it anachronism?

It's an anachronism in that the church had nowhere near the authority to hunt down dissenters in the time period known for the divine right to rule of kings.

Wait so do we just send you our house name or make an app?

My point is that the idea of the divine right to rule of kings is as old as civilization, and not at all a characteristic of medieval society. In fact, the monarchies we typically associate with that kind of posturing came after the Renaissance.

Alright.

Wiki Quite a long list.

As can be seen from the list, the biggest achievements of the era came from outside of Europe. The ones from Europe are involving military and some "new" technology in agriculture. Quite an accomplishment. Only noteworthy advances are those concerning architecture.

Yup, the medieval period was characterized by these things. But how is that any different from any other pre-industrial period? From Rome to 18th century Germany, population growth was glacial, pandemics were epidemic, famine was the family friend of every peasant. The medieval period (and again, lumping together 1000 years of history under one period is a gross oversimplification) wasn't any more bleak or bright than previous or following eras.

Ancient European civilizations had sewers, public toilets and baths. They had running water, cold and warm, and sophisticated heating systems. Soap was brought to Europe from the East by the Crusaders. Clearly when it comes to hygiene Ancient world was lightyears ahead. They had less plagues and less famines. When it comes to culture I have to say that medieval Europe was lacking in a lot of things that were lost in time from the ancient era. Every progress of those that lived before them was lost. As for the rest, I'll concede. It's true, famine and sickness remained a problem even after that. Some things don't change, I suppose. We had one of the most powerful royal families in the world believe a person should only bathe once a year. And this was in the Renaissance. However, the period after the Medieval ages has seen advancement in a variety of topics which were paused since the ancient times.

I'm not talking about religious dissidence, I'm talking about conflict for religious authority. Both King Henry and Emperor Henry engaged in ugly squabbles with the papacy over this.

Why is this even relevant? Pope remained a powerful figure throughout the Medieval Ages. This is a fact. His authority began to decline after Europe began to emerge from the Dark Ages. I don't think this is helping your cause.

It's an anachronism in that the church had nowhere near the authority to hunt down dissenters in the time period known for the divine right to rule of kings.

Yet, it did. We're talking about Medieval Europe when Church was one of the most influential states on the continent. It had the power to call other Christian states to join their Crusades and they had the power to establish the Inquisition against anyone that was in any way preaching against common Christian dogma. Popes gave crowns to monarchs and chose electors of the HRE. Is that not authority? They practically controlled the entire political scene in Europe of that time. Those rulers that were against the pope would get excommunicated. This actually meant something back then and the excommunicated ruler would risk losing stability in his country, among other things. It had far-reaching political consequences as well.

Wait so do we just send you our house name or make an app?

Just send me a name of either Slavic, Hungarian or preferably German surname that you want your royal house to be called. This is just so I can choose who will have title of a count, which i will reveal when I post my family history. After that I will start accepting applications which will include Family Name, Family history, Family tree and perhaps a Coat of Arms, although it's not necessary. Note that German nobility would bear the prefix "von" in their name as a proof of their noble roots. "Von" literally means "of" so for example Edmund von Lieberau means that his family possibly comes from a place by that name.

Sorry guys, RL caught up with me and I didn't do much work the past two days other than add all the villages and a few abbeys/monasteries to the map. I plan on finishing the map tomorrow 'cause I'm tired right now and also start writing the family history. My family tree has 9 generations so it's kind of lengthy to write about.

Sorry guys, RL caught up with me and I didn't do much work the past two days other than add all the villages and a few abbeys/monasteries to the map. I plan on finishing the map tomorrow 'cause I'm tired right now and also start writing the family history. My family tree has 9 generations so it's kind of lengthy to write about.

No worries, we shall all await with bated breath. (Speaking for the group of course)

Sorry guys, RL caught up with me and I didn't do much work the past two days other than add all the villages and a few abbeys/monasteries to the map. I plan on finishing the map tomorrow 'cause I'm tired right now and also start writing the family history. My family tree has 9 generations so it's kind of lengthy to write about.

No worries, we shall all await with bated breath. (Speaking for the group of course)

Well, I felt bad about not doing anything so I just started working on a list of events. I have around 60 at the moment. More will be added, of course.

Well, I felt bad about not doing anything so I just started working on a list of events. I have around 60 at the moment. More will be added, of course.

Cool

Well, I felt bad about not doing anything so I just started working on a list of events. I have around 60 at the moment. More will be added, of course.

So will you tie in our family names with yours?

Well, I felt bad about not doing anything so I just started working on a list of events. I have around 60 at the moment. More will be added, of course.

Quite a few. You're really going in-depth for this.

So will you tie in our family names with yours?

Do you mean royal marriage between my family and yours?

Quite a few. You're really going in depth for this.

Actually, it's not that many. About 10-15 are historical and most of them do not get us involved at all. But many are relatively nearby and could potentially lead up to our involvement depending on how we Roleplay. For example, Ottoman tour through the Balkans. Doesn't affect us directly but it will be mentioned because of potential problems in the future and the fear of Muslim expansion into Central Europe. I got some more history in store :)

So will you tie in our family names with yours?

Do you mean royal marriage between my family and yours?

Quite a few. You're really going in depth for this.

Actually, it's not that many. About 10-15 are historical and most of them do not get us involved at all. But many are relatively nearby and could potentially lead up to our involvement depending on how we Roleplay. For example, Ottoman tour through the Balkans. Doesn't affect us directly but it will be mentioned because of potential problems in the future and the fear of Muslim expansion into Central Europe. I got some more history in store :)

Well that could be done but I meant like for the backstory how our houses/families came into contact with your house and became the Lords

Well that could be done but I meant like for the backstory how our houses/families came into contact with your house and became the Lords

Yes, I will add some in my family history. Most likely those that will be given control of counties will be mentioned as supporters of the Duke at the time of breakdown of Austria. I plan to have the breakdown some 50 years prior to the start of the RP so that there's a bit of history between. Perhaps I will fit in a war of Austrian aggression in attempt to recapture it's lost territories, etc. so some prominent knights or nobles that fought against the Austrians were awarded land etc. I won't name families in that so whoever wants to take that route in writing their family history can do so. As for royal marriages with my family, it's possible although it's most likely going to be possible only for the most prestigious and strongest royal families. Now, since I don't plan to kill my royal family this means those that marry with me will probably not going to inherit anything. On the plus side they are more likely to be awarded new land and will be somewhat preferred in conflicts between noble families. If both families have intermarried with me then I will be neutral in the conflict.

Well that could be done but I meant like for the backstory how our houses/families came into contact with your house and became the Lords

Yes, I will add some in my family history. Most likely those that will be given control of counties will be mentioned as supporters of the Duke at the time of breakdown of Austria. I plan to have the breakdown some 50 years prior to the start of the RP so that there's a bit of history between. Perhaps I will fit in a war of Austrian aggression in attempt to recapture it's lost territories, etc. so some prominent knights or nobles that fought against the Austrians were awarded land etc. I won't name families in that so whoever wants to take that route in writing their family history can do so. As for royal marriages with my family, it's possible although it's most likely going to be possible only for the most prestigious and strongest royal families. Now, since I don't plan to kill my royal family this means those that marry with me will probably not going to inherit anything. On the plus side they are more likely to be awarded new land and will be somewhat preferred in conflicts between noble families. If both families have intermarried with me then I will be neutral in the conflict.

You might not but others my especially if married into the family.

You might not but others my especially if married into the family.

I think what he meant was he wouldn't give those with a related back-story too much extra land in the beginning so they wouldn't be an immediate threat.

You might not but others my especially if married into the family.

Haha you plan on killing yours or mine?

Hey let my little serf rebellion do try and fail at that.