Historical Freedom

Remove all ads!

Wow, this is going to be a broad topic. Some of the recent topics posted here in the AoDA got me thinking of this, when it was mentioned that some people may not understand the history of other countries because of "cultural difference". It was also correctly pointed out that unless you happen to be a Polish citizen, you likely have no idea who the first president of Poland was.

So I ask any of you for your input of who, in your opinion, had the greatest effect of facilitating freedom (and to a lesser extent democracy) on the world-wide scale. As an American, I of course, am more familiar with my own country, and know very little of the history of democracy and freedom on the other side of the pond other than the history of Great Britain and France (and very recent 20th century history of the rest of Europe).

For my own input, the U.S. has IMO, three prime canidates up for discussion. The first would be George Washington, who not only was one of the founding fathers, but was the general of the Continental Army, and of course was the first President of the U.S. Of equal importance was Thomas Jefferson, who was the author of the Declaration of Independence, and had a large hand in the writing of the Constitution in addition to being the third President of the U.S. The third one I'd like to throw in for discussion is Abraham Lincoln. However, I suspect that his influence on freedom was more localized to the U.S. and thus perhaps he is not viewed on the world scale as a great proponent of freedom (I think that most European countries had abandoned the use of slaves long before the U.S.)

I also am aware that some European countries, most notably Great Britain, started moving away from a powerful monarchy long before the U.S. revolution. King George III was the monarch during the American Revolution, but George III's grandfather (George I) was German by birth and did not even speak English when he took the throne. That played a large part in diminishing the power of the monarchy.

The point is I'm in the dark on the spread of Freedom beyond the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and Britain's history, and I'm sure there's a great many people I don't know about due to "cultural differences".

So fire away! Feel free to list who the most important figure is in your own country, as well as on a world-wide scale if you'd like.

*sarcasm with no ill-intent follows* I wonder if we'll hear from Chandros on this issue. His head may explode in trying to narrow it down to a single answer! But in all seriousness, if he choses to respond I'll be very interested to see what his answer is.

 

I think that's a very intersting topic. But the question is, in my view at least, "culturally tainted". It's wrong to ask for a country or a single person, because single individuals or single countries do not, at least in my opinion, explain complex evolution of many countries in many parts of the world.

As for President, can't helpt to point out, that only in a culture where dead president are printed on money, the individual that is president is usually seen as important person. Whereas, in other cultures or countries, a presidency is an obscure office, no one really cares about.

As for the the specific accomplishment of my country. We spread the deadly desease of presbyterianism and calvinism and zwinglianism. But relax, we still suffer from it too.

But going back to the point with the specific country. Well, yes, the big countries count. French history is important, for Europeans at least, because not so long ago, every forth European was French. And today, every tenth ? Once they had a pretty big cultural impact. But the point is, the USA for example. How can you understand what happenend in the 18th of the USA if you don't know what happened in the 17th in the Netherlands. How to understand the USA without understanding the Dutch and their Republic ? How to understand the Dutch, without understanding the Habsburgian-Empires ? And so forth. If asked about a single country, I'd say Iraq, it at least is deemed as craddle of Western Civilization. Or the question could be answered with: The cities! City air does make free, as the saying goes. The free-city of Bremen ? The development in the Hanseatic cities ?

I remember seen the development of the modern state in a ping-pong-style prestend. Which I think is the most accurate description. Ping-Pong. One is influencing the other. For the USA, this development is clear, as if you read the federal papers, it's also a compilled history of European state developement. Madison is even commenting on the typical Swiss council-goverment.

 

I didn't mean to imply a country. I'm just saying that if you feel there is someone from your country that had a large impact within your native country, but not on a world scale, that you should feel free to mention him as well.

 

I have a head(-)ache so I only read the last post, where it says that one should mention an important person for their country...

Thinking of a good answer only gave me more head-ache and the only one I could think of is someone that an author called Arn de Gothia (whom I don't really know is real).
Apparently, he helped a king with strategic info in some wars a few hundred years ago...


Oh well... I may get back to you when my head clears...

 

1. Solon, the first lawmaker who introduced laws, which protected the simple folk from the nobles.

2. Cleisthenes, the man who established the first democratic form of goverment in Athens.

3. The Athenian generals Miltiades and Themistocles and the Spartan general Pausanias,who prevented the expansion of the persian empire to Europe as well as Alexander the Great, who destroyed it.

4. Byzantine emperors and generals like Nicephoros Phocas, who prevented the expansion of Islam to Europe for almost 800 years.

5. Charles Martels, who won Arabs in the battle of Poitiers for the same reasons as above.

6. Jan Sobieski, who won the Turks in the siege of Vienna and prevented the expansion of the Ottoman empire to Europe.

6. John Locke, Voltaire, Modesqieu, Diderot and other reprsentantives of the enlightenment.

7. Adolf Hitler because I think that the nazis would be the winners of the war if they had another leader.

 

Hmmm, I wonder what you mean by 'freedom' exactly. Also, it is interesting how you seem to revere those dead presidents who helped establish a system that so many people here (apologies if you are not one of them) seem to continually complain about.

Anyway, from a New Zealand perspective, a woman named Kate Sheppard had a notable influence on 'freedom' by being a prominent figure in the campaigns that lead to NZ being the first country in the world to grant voting rights to women in 1893. I guess that helped give a measure of 'freedom' to over half of the population, which is no small deal.

 

I admit that freedom means different things to different people. I was mainly referring to movement away from an absolutist, dictatorial government that was prevalent the world-over in past millenia.

 

BOC has already covered the ancient era and middle ages, so let's move on:

The military leaders of Hungary and Poland who held the Turks off after the Byzantine Empire fell. The leaders of Poland held off Russian expansion as well. There was virtually no generation, nor a noble house without heroes. The greedy parliament would consent to any taxes, so the royal army was, like, a couple of thousand folks even in bad times. Aristocrats had bigger armies than that, but they would rather fight each other. The royal army ended up learning to deal with vastly outnumbering enemies. Some 3:1 was perfectly normal circumstance and a good moment to commence assault. That is, before it becomes 6:1. Now, 6:1 can become 10:1 and 10:1 could be a little worrying

Also, the input of Venice, Order of Malta, Papal State and other Italian city-states was crucial in holding the Turks and Berberic pirates in check.

Spain also contributed, and Austria, under the Habsburg dynasty. Don Juan D'Austria, notably.

Constitutional movements of the 18th century, I guess. The first three constitutions - US 1787, Poland 1789 (May), France 1789 (September ). I'm very skeptical about the French revolution and its leaders, so let's stick to the guys who didn't actually take part in the forming of subsequent revolutionary governments, so far as France goes.

For good or for bad, Napolean crippled the remnants of feudal order in early 19th century, dragging Code Napoleon all the way with him. Both he and his enemies were fighting for some vision of freedom. Both sides have contributed to the current views, I think.

Then go the freedom fighters of all conquered and/or oppressed nations of all 19th century.

Field Marshal Pilsudski of Poland, who crippled the Red Army on the outskirts of Warsaw in 1920. The Weimar Republic was too weak to handle them should Pilsudski have fallen, and the French army was heavily decimated after WWI as well, and fleet alone wouldn't make it - no matter how powerful, so who the hell knows what could have happened.

Actually, in the battle of Tannenberg, Field Marshal von Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg of Germany prevented the Red Army from moving into Germany as well, and the consequences would have been quite dire had he failed.

Stalin and Hitler crippled one another in WW2, but it was all their own doing, so they two don't really count.

Juan Carlos of Spain, who sorted the whole mess left by the Francists and the Republicans.

Pope John Paul II as of more recent times.

Special thanks to all who have kicked some commie ass.

 

i cannot see the link between winning battle aganist Muslims and freedom. And certainly, i cannot see Islam being oppressive.

 

I didn't say that Islam is an oppresive religion and it's true that during medieval ages the civilization was much more advanced in the muslim territories. Although muslim conquerors weren't something good for the population of Europe and if the Byzantines, the Franks and the Austrians had been defeated history would be very different today.

 

I don't see Islam as oppressive, or posing a threat to freedom, not the religion in itself.

However, there's a difference between the religion in itself and how Seljuk, Ottoman and Berberic rulers understood it. It's easy for people to single out crusades, which is because they covered a relatively small area, a relatively short period of time and had some great publicity. However, the sword-in-hand expansion of Islamic cultures covered vastly greater areas over vastly longer periods of time, beginning with the conquest of Arabia in the 7th century, through Palestine and Egypt in the 7th/8th, and the whole of North Africa and most of Spain by the end of the 8th. Add conquering Sicilly and even lands in Italy itself, attacks on the Balkans and the whole of the Byzantine Empire way before 1000 AD (378 years after Muhammad). By the year 1025 (the battle of Manzikert), Muslim Seljuk Turks have moved in. Granted, they mostly slaughtered other Muslims, but they turned their eyes on the Byzantine empire soon. In the year 1095, the outbreak of the crusades, the emperor Alexios Comnenos was in dire need of aid when he asked the Pope Urban II for support. He was already pressed hard. Seljuks were replaced by Ottomans, who moved into Europe and in the 14th century conquered most of the Balkans after fierce fights, and pressed on Hungary who were forced to seek powerful allies and thus Poland entered the scene (Wladislaus III of Poland became the king of Hungary in 1440 in order that the two powers could oppose the Turks together). By the year 1453, the Byzantine Empire had fallen, followed a few years later by enclaves held in Achaia by the Emperor's brothers, and Trebisond - the enclave of the Comnenes. By 1526, Hungary had fallen and smaller countries became vassalised by force. Close to that time, the Ottomans found a common tongue with the remnants of Mongol Hordes in Crimea. Et voila, Turkey had a border with Poland. Attacks on Austria started soon but weren't successful. A massive offensive was launched by Turkey in the 20.ies of the 17th century, with a great defeat of the Polish army in Moldova in 1619, avenged some 2 years later. In 1648, another one. And one in 1672. In 1683, they went on Austria and got beaten by Sobieski. Otherwise, we would all speak Turkish. By that time, they had already taken most of Venice's enclaves on the Ionian Islands, Crete and Cyprus. From the defeat at Vienna on, the Turks only really fought Russians, after a brief war in which Poles regained the lands lost in 1672-1673. The activity of Berberic pirates was far from ceasing, though, and it didn't really end until the conquest of Algieria by the French in the 30.ies of the 19th century. About a million of Europeans had been captured into slavery by that time by Berberic pirates (Tunisia, Tripolis, Maroc, Algieria).

Expansion in Africa went on the same way as in Europe, creating the tradition of Abissynia's heroic resistance that was never broken. South Asia witnessed the same.

Even though the religion itself isn't to blame, someone actually did all that. Though economic and social pressure was more widely used, sword-point conversions were not uncommon, especially in the course of wars. A whole lot of saints and other heroes are those who chose the sword point. Europe didn't attack the Muslim world, it went the other way round.

This is meant to give some historical account, not to antagonise anyone. Myself, I've spent some time learning about Islam and its history (even if not in the interest of embracing it) and I value highly the noble principles that are to be found in Islam. It was the religion of some of my ancestors, as well.

Another thing is that no one really knows what would have happened... so who knows if modern democracy wouldn't come to existence regardlessly?

 

Chev brings up an interesting point here. If the Muslims had conquered most of the world, would modern democracy have existed? I believe it would, but only to a certain degree. However, hudud laws will certainly be implemented. Anyone remember the Nigerian woman who was sentenced to death by stoning? The hudud has many punishment for crimes that border on the extreme. However, crime rates would definitely be lower since the punishments are more severe. Also keep in mind that the Prophet Muhammad only carried out the sentences if there was absolute proof.

Eeep, I'm

 

A very interessting view of the history Chev but I'd like to add a few points I think you forgot.

When talking about the fall of the Byzantine Empire we ought not to forget the third Crusade in which was organized by Vencie (and had the blessing of Pope Urban II) to raid their worst competitor, in other words Constantinople. The crusade was pretty much a success and crippled the Byzantine greatly beyoned recovery.

And when we bring up the forced conversions of the muslims I would like to say that this was also done by the Catholic Europeans. When Sweden launched their Crusades to Finland they used this method quite a lot and so did the Spanish on their little trip to America.

Oh and the millions of deaths caused by the muslims, I'm quite certain that the Inquisition killed as much if not more of civillians. And the crusades where also a perfect example of the peaceful minds in west. Now I'm not certain was it the first or the second crusade which slaughtered the entire population of Jerusalem (not just Muslims there also Orthodox Chrsitians) which is a perfect example of the peaceful minds in west.

Now to add my two cents to the topic itself I would present G.E Mannerheim as the person who brought most freedom to Finland. He commanded the white troops during the civil war and was the field Marshal of Finnish troops during our both wars in WWII against the Soviet Union. Even though we were eventually defeated he made it damn sure that we'd avoid the fate of the other eastern european countries. He was also a talented diplomat and got Great Brittain to redeclare Finland as an independent nation after the horrors of our civil war.

[ June 10, 2004, 15:07: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

Argh! How could I forget Mannerheim. Sorry, I really should have remembered to put him in my list.

As for the Crusades I didn't forget anything

The Crusade that crippled the Byzantine Empire was launched in 1204 AD, and it was the Fourth Crusade led by Conrad of Montferrat on Crusaders' side, and de facto headed by doge Enrico Dandolo of Venice and it was Dandolo whose idea the assault on Constantinople was. However, it's not like the Crusaders didn't like the idea, anyway. After all, it wasn't only Venice who benefitted from that travesty. The Crusaders established a Latin Empire there, which lasted until 1271 when Michael Palailogos reclaimed the city and became the Emperor Michael VIII of Byzantium.

While it's true that the Crusaders crippled the Byzantine Empire, there's not much reason to suppose it would have survived Muslim attacks otherwise. It might, if the Crusaders helped the Byzantine Empire instead. However, the Byzantine Empire wouldn't likely have survived without foreign aid.

The Pope Urban II had nothing to do with that, as he was long dead. Urban II was the Pope who answered the Emperor Alexios Comnenos's call and in his speech at Clermont synode, he urged Europeans to go help the Byzantine Empire (which was a real Roman Empire and was viewed as such in Middle Ages) and to reclaim from Muslims the lands they took some 300 years before, by force, from the Byzantine Empire.

Also, there was no wholesome slaughter of Jerusalem's inhabitants. That would be quite hard to achieve technically, anyway. There was, however, heavy slaughter after nearly each successful assault on the city, no matter who was actually holding it and who attacking. Civil disorders were quite common, so various groups fought one another, but there was no "official" slaughter of any group, except maybe after capturing the city and exacting revenge on the defenders (still a crime, anyway). In fact, most of the time, relations between diverse groups were quite good within Crusader states. Not like Christians were persecuted all the time in the Muslim countries, anyway. Plus, Christian-Muslim alliances were common and often Muslims fought other Muslims alongside Christians or Christians fought one another with the help of Muslim allies. Many states, many tiny lordships, so the politics were quite... interesting.

Well, and it needs to be said that the Muslim attack on Europe started way earlier. The landing at Gibraltar and invasion of Spain started in 711 AD and by that time, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa had already been taken by force from the Byzantine Empire.

As for the Inquisition, there's some difference between Papal inquisition (Sanctum Officium) and corresponding institutions of other churches, and the machines built by secular rulers to exterminate their political enemies, whatever denomination it was. Actually, each church prosecuted heretics and schizmatics, or rival church believers, and each had its believers persecuted in other places where it wasn't dominant. It was a bad idea to be Protestant in Spain, but it wasn't really nice to be a Catholic in England - for instance. I guess it was the times. The question of civilian or not is irrelevant with regard to such persecutions, as they were directed against "enemies in our ranks". An exception would be the hell that was brought to American Indians under the guise of faith

I'm telling you the East was no better. And the West didn't have slavery. While Westerners would slaughter a large part of defenders after capturing the city, the Easterners would sell the whole lot into slavery. Rape and pillage was universal.

Next, I have to remind you that the march of Muslim powers into Europe had already begun way before the Crusades and the Crusades were a reaction to it. Again, I'm not going to brag about how evil it was - my aim is only to stress that the Crusades weren't as evil as the publicity they're now getting. And relatively small in proportion to Muslim conquest as well. The Muslim threat to Europe lasted from the 7th/8th century to the 19th and the Crusades started in 1095 AD and ended by 1291 when the Kingdom of Jerusalem fell (ironically, Saint Jean d'Acre in Syria was the capital since Jerusalem was long lost).

 

That might be difficult to prove. The centre and the most important part of the empire was Constantinople and without it the empire was very weak and was weakend even further by all those years without the city.

Hmm, I was quite sure it was Pope Urban II but I suppose a Catholic knows these things better. I am sure however that the pope eventually gave his blessing to the crusade even though he hesitated at the beginning. And yes you are of course right it was the fourth crusade not the third.

True I might have exaggerated a bit, but my point was really that the crusades were really not that "virtuous" just conquests for power and wealth hidden under the cross.

While I do agree that protestants also did their deal of persecution especially as you said in England but even the protestants were part of the western world. And I really can't recall any major inquisitions or persecutions done by the Orthodox church and even the persecution of the protestants pale in comparison with those of the Catholic church.

And I'm telling you that the West was no better either, in my view both the muslims and the christians during the medieval were a barbaric bunch with no major difference.

 

Agreed on this one. My point is, the Muslims were pressing on the Europeans not otherwise.

Agreed, impossible to prove fully. The Empire was weakened by 1095 AD already and it's debatable if from that time on it was able to survive on its own. It's impossible to say what could have happened with the Byzantine Empire were it not for the Crusaders, but it seems it would have fallen maybe a couple centuries later.

As for Urban II, you can check it in google or some encyclopedia. It's not like Middle Ages are a legendary period, so things like that are recorded. I don't remember the name of the Pope who held the seat in 1204, but I've read the letter in which he condemned the Crusaders. He actually excommunicated the whole bunch of adventurous nobles responsible for it from Conrad of Montferrat down the ladder. Not like he ordered Constantinople returned to the Byzantines. Not like they would listen to him if he did.

Agreed. One of the reasons behind the Crusades was to get rid of noble bandits and send them away from Europe, to get lost or killed. I can't think of many virtuous Crusaders, either.

Well, we shouldn't view the past the way we view the present. What I said was necessary to provide some arguments as to why some people were fighting for freedom when opposing Muslim expansion but I don't want to create any tension. It's history. There's also a reason why none of the Crusaders are on my list

 

That was exactly my point when I made that comment about cultural differences on another thread. We may have our views of the Founding Brothers of our own country. But why should those of other countries and nations bother to understand such details? The comment, which was really off topic anyway on that particular thread, centered on George Washington. He is not just considered to be one of the Founding Brothers by many Americans, but THE Founding Father - often described as the "Father of our Country." It is a phrase and a tribute which has little meaning unless one looks closely at what he accomplished. And my point was that why should anyone other than another American really care anyway? On that point I was NOT being sarcastic.

Through the force of his own character and personality, Washington held the Continental Army together. He became the symbol of American freedom to those who were still willing to fight for independence after the horrible defeats in New York and New Jersey. He made the famous "crossing of the Delaware" and defeated an outpost of mercinaries at Trenton, on a cold, wintry Christmas Eve, and then again at Princeton. But then the Contenintal Government was forced to evacuate its capital, which at the time was in Philadelphia. He spent the winter in a place called Valley Forge, suffering along with his soldiers. He could have gone back to the comfort of his wife, and plantation, Mount Vernon, but chose not to.

Then, after the war was won, he used all the political capital he had gained throughtout his career in public service to sit at the Constitutional Convention of 1787-88, to see that a true national government was crafted for the new nation. He was the first to fix his signature to the new Constitution.

But we should move on from Washington, in our quest for a description of historical freedom, (from an American perspective) to an event that did not involve him personally at all - the Battle of Lexington-Concord. The Redcoats came out in the spring of 1775 to arrest two of the "founding fathers": John Hancock and Sam Adams, cousin of John Adams, as well as capturing a "powder stock," which was rumored to be at Concord. Once the alarm had been given that the "regulars were out," the men of Middlesex County, converged on the area around Lexington-Concord, to face the English redcoats. At a place known as "Battle Road," which is the road between the two towns, the "minutemen," or local militia (those who have been described as "Billy Yank"), drove off what eventually became almost two thousand of "King George's finest," chasing them all the way back to Boston. This comment has been made about them and their actions that day:

But I think it had to do with self-government. Here's what "Billy Yank" had to say:

Many years later Captain Levi Preston was asked why he went to war that day. At the age of 91, his memory of the battle was still clear. An historian asked him:
"What made you go to Concord and fight?"
"What did I go for?" he replied.
"Were you oppressed by the Stamp Act?" the historian asked.
"I never saw any stamps," Preston replied, "and I understood that none were ever sold."
"Well, what about the tea tax?"
"Tea tax? I never drank the stuff. The boys tossed it all overboard."
"But I suppose you have been reading Locke and Sidney about the eternal principle of liberty?"
"I never heard of those men. The only books we had were the Bible, the catechism, and the almanacs."
"Well, then what was the matter?"
"Young man, what we meant in going for the redcoats was this: we always had governed ourselves and we always meant to. They didn't mean that we should."

How's that for a definition of freedom? I think that Old Cap Preston's definition is a good one. Maybe that was what Abe Lincoln was saying at another famous battleground known as Gettysburg. He said: "A Government by the People and for the People."

One thing that a lot of Britishmen, newly arrived to the colonies, hated was the town meeting. They came from a place where the government told the People what they should think and how they should "act." They were surprised by these "common folk" or " provincials" who had the nerve to debate their "superiors" over the issues of rule.
One thing that the redcoats always made it a practice of during the days surrounding that first confrontation at Lexington, was the destruction of "Liberty Poles." They were often just tree stumps, or actual meeting places where the locals would meet to post political tracts or discuss local politics. But the British authorities despised them.

IMO, representaive government, or self-rule, is probably a good place to start. Call it democracy, or repulicanism. Or whatever term one would care to, but it amounts to the same thing that Captain Preston had in mind when he went to Lexington that spring day in 1775.

My first wife's father is an American-Polish Catholic (as chance would have it). He admires the Pope and the tenets of his church. But he is also a liberal, and almost always votes for democrats. Something else about him. He is an old man, 89. In fact, he fought on D-Day. Then he fought across France, all the way to the liberation of a concentration camp. Yes, he took pictures of what he saw, as has been described as "a tourist, standing in the midst of Hell," for he still has old yellowed and tattered snapshots of piled-up dead bodies.

I mention him mainly because he is also a good candidate for a present day "Billy Yank." His father changed the family name to "Smith" after arriving in America. And he flies the flag in his frontyard on every patriotic holiday. He is very proud of his Polish heritage, (can speak some of the language) and his Catholic faith (and is anti-abortion). He takes great pride in his fellow countryman, of the "old country," Pope John Paul. I can't help but admire him also. But I don't know if he knows who the first King of Poland is, but I have a feeling he knows who George Washington is. You see, "kings" from anywhere just don't matter a whole lot to your average "Billy Yank." Just ask King George.

[ June 10, 2004, 05:39: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]