The landscape of the movie is vast and well designed. The castles are very detailed and everything looks almost perfect for the time they are in. One downside to the move is the “gore” effect. When in sword fights they attempt to show a lot of blood splatter which adds to the fake look of the fight. Although this is very noticeable it does not take away from the movie. All in all I would say this is one to watch if you like middle age, action movies.

Since all of the hoopla over the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton it seems as though Americans have been swooning over England’s monarchy. Americans need to put things into perspective, after all we had a revolution two and a half centuries ago to rid ourselves of the heavy hand of the English monarchy. It seems like people have forgot that not too many years after the American Revolution we were even invaded by the British and they went so far as to pillage and sack Washington D.C. Admittedly that was all a long time ago and since then our two countries have become close allies.

To an American at least, it seems as though the citizens of Great Britain delight in their monarchy and all the pomp and ceremony that it entails. We should all respect that. But it seems that Americans could benefit from a short refresher on the history of monarchies in the western world right now.

In 1215 A.D.  the Magna Carta was forced onto King John by English noblemen. The Magna Carta is widely considered as being a forerunner of the U.S. Constitution and it was designed to grant rights to English citizens, thereby limiting the rights of the King. The Kings of England tried to repudiate the Magna Carta and it had to be resurrected in modified versions throughout the 13th Century. The Magna Carta itself was preceded by the Charter of Liberties in 1100 A.D.

More recently history has shown people rejecting monarchies as an institution of power. On March 5, 1770, the Boston Massacre took place. This was a result of colonials protesting the presence of British soldiers. Several more incidents took place over the next few years all leading up to the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776 and the American Revolution. After several years of war Britain signed the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, recognizing the United States of America as an independent nation.

One fact that’s often overlooked in American history classes is the role that France played in the American Revolution. The victory at Yorktown on October 17, 1781, was largely made possible because of the help provided Washington’s army by the French army and navy. In fact, the support that France provided the 13 colonies during the Revolution was a huge financial drain on them which exacerbated internal problems within France and eventually led to the French Revolution.

Remember that before the Declaration of Independence several attempts were made to work through various points of dispute and to reconcile with the King. But it was the unwillingness of King George to deal with the American colonists in a just manner that led to the American Revolution.

The French Revolution was brought about because of domestic and economic problems. Incidents began taking place even before the Treaty of Paris which eventually led to their Revolution. The storming of the Bastille took place on July 14, 1789, the official starting date of the French Revolution. Years of internal discord, the guillotine, and foreign wars characterized the Revolution. On November 9, 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte and fellow conspirators staged the coup d’etat which led to Napoleons leadership as First Consul and is generally recognized as the end of the French Revolution.

The legacy of Napoleon is a mixed bag but one thing that characterized his reign was that he ruled through a meritocracy rather than an aristocracy, with the exception of his own family. This brought on a great deal of resentment by the royal families of Europe and played a part in the Napoleonic Wars.

In many ways the pressures brought on by World War I brought about the death of the old order in Europe and the birth of a new one. The monarchies of Russia, Germany, and Austria-Hungary, all fell from power by the end of the war.

This brief historical review should clearly show that as an institution monarchies are largely a thing of the past, and like a dinosaur in the space age the monarchy of Great Britain is a notable exception. Traditionally Americans are proud of their independence and freedom from class distinctions. Americans need to put this all into perspective before getting too worked up over Obama’s blunders with royal protocol.    

Magna Carta, in its first sentence declares, that it has been granted to “all the free men of our realms and their heirs for ever.” The holy charter, as it is viewed, and was in vogue for more than 600 years in its amended form from 1225 has many clauses granting many rights and fixing responsibilities for the citizens.

Many path-breaking pronouncements that proclaim liberty and democracy were included in Magna Carta. Some of the salient pronouncements include:

• “No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or deprived of his property or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land”

  This pronouncement in Magna Carta is the seed or the foundation for the process of trial by court in the later years

• “If the heir of one of our tenants has been in wardship, when he comes of age, he shall have his inheritance without having to pay a relief.”

  This clause in Magna Carta is the foundation for major and minor gradations. The age to become a major is defined as 21 in the charter.

While there are many such clauses, freedom and democracy was not fully granted to all the people in the community then. Only two clauses actually were beneficial to the people in the lower strata of the society.

Magna Carta, nevertheless, is considered a milestone in World History in that it emanated as the powerful symbol between the struggles against tyranny prevalent at that period and seen as the first step towards democratic process.

11.  Monasticism played an important role in feudal Europe. Men who monastic orders were considered monks, women were called nuns. The first European monastery was created on the example of the Benedictine order which stressed seclusion from worldly affairs.

12.  The Vikings had caused some effects on Europe during the middle ages. The Vikings raided and conquered throughout almost all of coastal Europe, as far south as the Mediterranean. The Vikings settled in present-day Canada, Iceland, Greenland, England, Scotland and Ireland. By attacking countries, the Vikings had prompted the nations to centralize to a greater degree than they had during the early medieval period.

13.

a. William the Conqueror: William the conqueror was the Norman king who invaded England and defeated its Saxon king, and established rule there. William the Conqueror brought French-Style feudalism to England. After he died and a civil war occurred, England began to take more solid shape.

b. Henry II: After William the Conqueror, in the late 1100’s Henry II took power. He created common law for the entire country, a unified court system and the concept of jury trials.

c. Magna Carta: In 1215, the Magna Carta was imposed upon King John by his barons, which legally guaranteed the nobility certain rights and privileges, thereby legally restricting the king’s might.

d. Parliament: Later in the 1200’s, the English nobility won the right to form a parliament.

e. Expansion: After Parliament, another major development was expansion. During the late 1200’s and 1300’s, under Edward I and Edward III, the English conquered Wales and Scotland. Ireland would follow later.

Image via Wikipedia

The Magna Charta is usually celebrated as the original Constitution limiting the absolute right of kings.  But it wasn’t.  The Magna Charta has an often unjustly-overlooked a precedent: Henry’s Charter of Liberties.  It is not a sweeping document; indeed most of it (as indeed does the Magna Charta itself) concerns the English barons and their specific grievances of the time.  However, it laid an important precedent with the words: “according to the law of King Edward.”  That is according to Saxon laws; according to laws that predated William the Conqueror’s victory at Hastings in 1066.  With this Charter, King Henry bound himself and his realm to Saxon law.

It is doubtful that Henry had wanted to sign the Charter.  But in 1100, he needed the barons.  Henry’s ascent to the English throne was anything but unblemished.  Henry was in the hunting party when his brother Rufus, then King of England was killed by an arrow in what was called a hunting accident.  The crown should then have gone to Henry’s brother Duke Robert who was away on the First Crusade.  But never mind.  The minute Rufus lay dead, Henry proceeded to seize the royal treasury at Winchester and had himself crowned king a mere five days after his brother’s “accident”.  He could not have done this without the consent of the barons—and the barons weren’t going to give their consent to Henry’s coronation unless they got something in return.  That something was the Charter.

Still, Henry did not like signing it—and he quickly ignored it.  Some even say that he tried to recover all the copies ever made of it.  If so, he was unsuccessful.  For at Westminster on August 25th, 1213, Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury read Henry’s Charter to the assembled barons.  The barons who would in a mere two years’ time compel yet another king to sign yet another Charter—one that would stick. 

It is not known who wrote Henry’s Charter.  But whoever he was, he laid the foundation stone for the Magna Charta and for our own Constitution. 

John of England signs Magna Carta. Illustration from Cassell’s History of England (1902)

Image via wikipedia

King John was so despised by his nobles because of his cruel rule and heavy taxation that his position as king of England was imperiled by 1215.  On May 17, London had fallen into the hands of rebel barons; by June 15 at Runnymede by the banks of the River Thames, the barons met the king, who, under tremendous pressure, reluctantly placed the royal seal on Magna Carta, also known as the Great Charter of Liberties.  The charter set certain bounds to the king’s powers, and dealt with matters ranging from the right to trial of all freemen and justice for everyone, to weights and measures and foreign merchants.  Even thought John attempted to retract on it, Magna Carta survived as not only the groundwork of the English constitution, but an inspirational symbol of freedom everywhere.

The Aztec and the Conquistador

Montezuma II, from Historia de la conquista de México by Antonio de Solis
Image via wikipedia

The Aztec civilization of Central America centered on Tenochtitlan, Mexico, was one of the glories of the world during the 15th and 16th century.  An empire of 15 million people was run with great efficiency, while the beauty of its craftsmanship in gold and silver was matched by the splendor of the architecture, until the gold-lusting Europeans came, hungry for conquest.  Hernan Cortes, a Spanish nobleman accompanied by 400 conquistadors, arrived at Tenochtitlan on November 8, 1519.  One of those sights was the Aztec emperor, Montezuma II, carried on a litter beneath a canopy of green feathers, decorated with gold, silver and pearls.  Cortes’ arrival coincided with the predicted return of the Aztec’s mythical bearded white god Quetzalcoatl and the Spaniards were warmly welcomed, a hospitality that Cortes soon repaid by taking Montezuma hostage.  The unfortunate emperor was ultimately stoned to death by some of his subjects as he pleaded for calm, and Tenochtitlan fell to the forces of Cortes in 1521.  The Aztec era was over, that of New Spain just beginning.

The American Commodore and the Samurai

Image via wikipedia

For more than two centuries, Japan was a wholly closed society.  On July 8, 1853, that era was brought to a close when Commodore Matthew Perry of the US Navy arrived in Edo Bay near Tokyo with a fleet of six steam-powered ships and presidential instructions to open up the country to American rule.  Perry would return the following year with a much larger fleet. The Americans proffered gifts of whiskey and miniature steam engines, while the Japanese put on an exhibition of sumo wrestling, which Perry matched with a demonstration by his men of arms drill on the beach.  Perry’s display of pomp and military force convinced Japan’s military government, the shogunate, to open two ports to US trade. 

The Big Three

In January of 1919, following the close of the First World War, the victorious allies met at Versailles outside Paris, to forge a peace settlement that, it was hoped, would end all wars forever.  But from the very start, the three main figures were already at odds: David Lloyd George of Britain sought reconciliation and for the general good, Germany’s return to full economic strength; Georges Clemenceau of France, in view of his country’s sacrifices, was steadfast in his decision to ensure that Germany remain a totally vanquished power; while Woodrow Wilson of the United States leaned more toward by considerations of justice than practical realities.  As a consequence, the treaty, signed in June, was severely defective.  Germany lost much of her territory; a demilitarized Rhineland to be occupied by the allied powers; and a scandalous ‘war guilt’ clause committing Germany to enormous reparation payments.  Instead of ensuring peace, Versailles had sown the seeds for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

The Students and the Tanks

In April 1989, following the death of the Chinese reformist politician Hu Yaobang, hundreds of students assembled in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square with the purpose of mourning Hu, while also protesting against government corruption and calling for greater democracy.  The number of students grew over the next few weeks, and by the middle of May, 200,000 troops circled Beijing.  The ruling Communist Party eventually decided not to tolerate the situation any longer; and so on June 3 and 4, tanks were ordered to enter Tiananmen Square, massacring between 2,000 and 3,000 protesters according to some estimates.  It was apparent that economic freedom without political reformation was untenable. 

More Articles:

• 8 Images That Altered the Course of History

• 5 Speeches That Altered the Course of History

It was the common law of Anglo-Saxon England that had the strongest influence upon the concept of the rule of law, when even the Norman conquest could not stop its ongoing development.

The fundamental basis of the rule of law is the notion that all members of any society are not above the law of the land, whether they are monarchs, politicians, the nobility, or indeed ordinary people. The rule of law itself is a concept that contends that everybody lives under the same jurisdiction, of the law of their particular land from its rulers and its lawmakers downwards.

At first appearance the concept of the rule of law seems to be a straightforward one, yet there are disagreements about the exact nature of the ideals at the core of the concept itself. The critique below will thus discuss the extent to which today’s British state reflects the core ideals of the rule of law.

England was the country, as already mentioned, in which the concept of the rule of law was developed. The concept being influenced by the common law, Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights of 1688 establishing the notion that the state should uphold the rule of law to protect its citizens, instead of ignoring the law and subjecting the people to their autocratic will.

Magna Carta was supposed to firmly establish the principle and concept of the rule of law and curtail the power of the state. In reality the monarchy, despite often-repeated claims of accepting the concept of the rule of law, still held considerable power until the 18th century, when the Prime Minister started to make widespread use of the royal prerogative instead.

Gardiner & Wenborn (1995) the History Today Companion to British History, Collins and Brown Ltd, London

MacDonald A, (2007) Reinventing Britain, Constitutional change under New Labour, Politico’s, London

Martin E A, (2003) A Dictionary of Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford

McCormick, (2002) – Understanding the European Union, Palgrave, London

Nugent N, (2003) The Government and Politics of the European Union 5th edition, Palgrave, London

Parpworth N, (2004) Constitutional and Administrative Law, Butterworths, London

Young H, (2003) supping with the Devils – Political writing from Thatcher to Blair, Guardian Books, London

The British state regarded the concept of the rule of law as being a reflection of the strength of liberalism both as an ideology and principle as espoused by John Locke and others. Liberalism as a ideological principle within the British Constitution reflected the increasing influence of capitalism, as well as being a result of the legal and political supremacy of Parliament. The House of Commons passed legislation, whilst the House of Lords contained the highest court in the land, all in the name of the monarch whilst representing the people.

The unwritten constitution meant and continues to mean that whether or not the state keeping to the rule of law in Britain was less clear than in other countries. The lack of a written constitution was considered to be a legal not to mention a constitutional virtue instead of a problem as some legal experts have argued. It was assumed that because the British state has claimed to have adopted the concept of the rule of law for its constitutional, as well as its legal systems that the British government and all its departments in reality accepted and adhered to the notion in full. There are times though when governments have acted in ways that suggested they believed that they were above the rule of law. Generally if government ministers or senior civil servants act in ways that appear to be contrary to the rule of law they will lose their jobs, protecting the government from the legal or political consequences of their actions.

Providing the political party forming the British government holds a Parliamentary majority in the House of Commons, it theoretically can pass constitutional and legal not to mention politically motivated legislation that might run counter to the rule of law. British governments have on various occasions been accused of only paying lip service to the concept of the rule of law. This concept is known as Parliamentary sovereignty. It is a very important principle within the unwritten British Constitution.

Detractors of the lack or limited rule of law within the British state as large parliamentary majorities and the powers accorded via the royal prerogative has allowed governments to adopt policies without fully consulting Parliament, the courts, and ignoring the wishes of the general public. Governments with parliamentary majorities have argued that they are carrying out the policies contained within their manifestos, democracy does not always fit in exactly with the concept of the rule of law. The late Lord Hailsham a former Law Lord once described the constitution of the British state as being an elected dictatorship.

Arguments, as well as debates concerning how the concept of the rule of law affects the legal and the constitutional situation within the British state partially reflect the vagueness and also the ambiguity of the very of the rule of law itself. People with more liberal or more democratic attitudes were not particularly convinced that the British state was not totally committed to the core values within the concept of the rule of law.

The critics of the contemporary British state argue that the rival political parties have considered the concept of the rule of law and other constitutional principles as being less important than the gaining and maintaining of political power via the winning of general elections. Such critics have pointed out that the combination of an unwritten constitution and the use of the royal prerogative has allowed the British state to bypass the democratic process through the use of dubious though not illegal means whenever it suited British governments to do so.

However, in many respects Britain’s membership of the European Union has had profound constitutional and legal consequences for the British state when taken as a whole. The British Parliament no longer has the complete legal and political sovereignty with European Union legislation taking priority over domestic laws.

The European Convention for Human Rights also has the power to make judgements about British laws and the government can change the legislation it considers to be contravening human rights.

The ways in which the British state reflects the core values of the concept of the rule of law has undoubtedly changed 1997. The New Labour government was committed to wholesale constitutional and legal changes which have reshaped the British State, thus affecting how the core values of the concept of the rule of law are reflected inside today’s Britain itself.

In 1997 the outgoing Conservative government had been deeply unpopular in Scotland and Wales due to its economic policies whilst it had governed both countries without any Scottish or Welsh MPs. New Labour was the dominant political party in Scotland and Wales so it was committed to the introduction of devolved government to both countries in order to reduce support for nationalist parties as much as making the British state more responsive to the core values of the rule of law.

Devolved government has given the voters of Scotland and Wales a greater degree of input into the legal and political decisions that concern their lives. The introduction of devolution also means that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly can pursue policies and pass legislation that is different from those implemented in England. There is also the possiblity that devolution could to lead to the independence of Scotland at some point in the future, which would literally shrink the British state whilst demonstrating that the democratic will of the Scottish people was not been ignored. Devolved government has also been restored in Northern Ireland as part of the peace process. Power sharing is hopeful sign that there is a return to the normal rule of law after the Troubles had closed down the Storemont Parliament and led to thousands of deaths. Devolution is intended to make the British state more responsive and more representative for all the people of Britain.

A fundamental shift in the way that the core values of the rule of law are thus reflected in the British state has been witnessed in the area of human rights. New Labour passed the Human Rights Act 1998 in order to protect the human rights of all British people by enshrining the European Convention of Human Rights into the constitution, as well as the legal system. The purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998 was to make sure that the British state could not abuse or reduce the human rights of its own people, in other words to comply with the rule of law.

The Human Rights Act 1998 increased the power of the courts to make legal decisions instead of the Home Secretary using the royal prerogative, for instance for judges to set the maximum term for jail sentences. The Human Rights Act 1998 also made it easier for people to question the decisions of government departments that have adversely affected their lives. Being able to hold the government and its various departments into account is certainly a reflection of core values that mean the British state is abiding by the rule of law. Other legislation such as the Data Protection and the Freedom of Information Act are intended to improve the rights of citizens whilst making the government, officials, and departments more accountable for their actions.

To conclude today’s British state does to some extent reflect the concept of the rule of law as the government is democratically elected, yet can have its actions scrutinised by Parliament, the media, and the European Convention of Human Rights. The introduction of devolution in Scotland and Wales has made the British state more responsive to the wishes of its component countries and their populations, whilst increasing the risks of the United Kingdom dissolving in the future. The Human Rights Act 1998 is also a reflection of the core values being reflected as the rule of law. However, despite membership of the European Union and the change linked with the Human Rights Act 1998 the British government and its ministers can still wield considerable influence and power.

Thus to conclude the combination of an unwritten constitution and the use of the royal prerogative has allowed the British state to bypass the democratic process through the use of dubious though not illegal means whenever it suited British governments to do so.

The principles of the rule of law and Parliamentary Sovereignty remain despite membership of the European Union and the legal alterations connected to the Human Rights Act 1998 the British government and its ministers can still wield considerable influence and power.

Bibliography

Alder J, (2007) Constitutional and Administrative Law, 6th edition, Palgrave, London

Breyer S, (2008) Active Liberty, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Coxall B, Robins L & Leach R (2003) Contemporary British Politics 4th edition, Palgrave, London

Eatwell R & Wright A, (2003) Contemporary Political Ideologies 2nd Edition, Continuum, London

To tell you the truth, what is the true meaning of democracy? Is it power to the people or people should have the power. I know I write this in a redundant form but these answers are right. In other words, the government should secure the people to provide free, fair and transparent elections, effective branches of government (whether it’s parliament or presidential, for example), transparent perspectives from media, critics and people, equality of society regardless of race, gender or creed, and most of all secure our fundamental values of human rights, especially once an individual is arrested by authorities by providing habeas corpus (alive and treated fairly while in custody).

To begin the historical trends of democracy briefly, it began in Ancient Rome where they perfect the true meaning of democracy until the fall. In the 1200’s, King John of England known for its laziness and one of the brutal dictators of their time, forcefully accept, fron the barons, to change how the monarchy behave to the people, especially decreeing Magna Carta. Magna Carta should provide a rule of law between the monarch and the people, and have respect fairly and decent living. Fortunately, Magna Carta improved the lives of the English people but there are problems. Men that are decent and rich take the advantage to secure their democracy while the rest are considered inferiors. Through time to time, there are changes in democracy, especially in the 1600’s, the English created their Bill of Rights so that democracy is fairly established. After the United States of America was born, they provide a constitution to set up the government, and plus provide the Bill of Rights to secure the true meaning of democracy. Good, isn’t it? Well, what about the territories that the imperialists controlled for, they need to understand and practice the true meaning of democracy and the rule of law. After the World War II, most territories provide not just independence to establish countries but exercise the true meaning of democracy. Therefore, the United Nations is also born and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was enacted in 1948. 

Eleanor Roosevelt once said, when speaking in Paris, “Basic human rights are simple and easily understood: freedom of speech and a free press; freedom of religion and worship; freedom of assembly and the right of petition; the right of men to be secure in their homes and free from unreasonable search and seizure and from arbitrary arrest and punishment.” You understand what Roosevelt is saying, right.

Unfortunately, democracy is not easy to tolerate as there are countries around the world that are facing tremendous pressures in order to make democracy a better one. U.S. is included, even though the United States is one of the most poweful and the most democratic nations in the world. For example, there are countries that are controlled by one or few leaders that uses excessive authority to suppress their people like North Korea or Myanmar (Burma). Other countries like Mexico and the Philippines have fair governance to the people but uses corruption as a tool to compromise our basic principle of democracy and the rule of law, especially elections and law enforcement, where these countries, for example, should focus the most .

Sounds déjà vu isn’t it. When new countries are formed, there are problems both the government and the people to control themselves and be tolerant to provide the best democracy in the world. Once again, there are dictators or oligarchic influentials that seek authoritarian powers to overwhelmingly control the people and the society. Then, the people are tired of authoritarian or totalitarian society, and ended up having a revolution of change, which ended up risking the lives of individuals, even when people are oppressed during those times. Ultimately, the people ended up winning the battle against the oppressors with the help of certain individuals to assist making a change and make their place a democratic way of life.

One of the successful example is the Philippines, where in 1986, People Power Revoution was formed, where Corazon Aquino, widow of the slain opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr., became the first woman president and change the true meaning of democracy in the Philippines after the leader Ferdinand Marcos (one of the worst dictators of the 20th Century) fled to Hawaii for a safe haven and served for two decades. Before Corazon Aquino was installed and Marcos fled, the country faced a sour note of society where Marcos declared Martial Law in 1972, and dissidents especially Benigno Aquino were jailed for something that democracy was provided for in the past. He and his family, fled to Boston, with the help of Marcos’ wife, Imelda, to refuge for a safe haven. In 1983, Benigno Aquino himself returned to Manila but unfortunately, he was shot to death by the tarmac of the airport by someone in connection to Ferdinand Marcos. Aquino stated in his final words before he was shot to death, ” The Filipinos are worth dying for” (you can see the quote on a 500 Philippine Peso bill). Between 1983 to 1986, the lives of the Filipinos were in a sourer life where most Filipinos back then tired of a dictator leading the nation. 1986 was a good one yet for the Filipinos on a snap election but the end was a widespread cheating claiming Marcos the winner. Thus, People Power Revolution was formed and people are there to say, “Enough is enough, it’s too much”. U.S. Senator Paul Laxalt told to Marcos, “cut now and cut clean”. In other words, get out of there before the people will hurt you from your mistakes, and Marcos complied to Laxalt and U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s recommendation. Marcos and his family fled, and Corazon Aquino became president and she promise democracy is coming to the Philippines. In fact, Paul Simon quote the situation in the Philippines that the American teach Filipinos the true meaning of democracy, and now the Filipinos show the true meaning of democracy to the world.

In response to the People Power Revolution in the Philippines, there are countries in the world like Romania, Panama, Poland and the Soviet Union change to a democratic society in later years. However, there are more countries to go on to make democracy worth better for the world.

“Democracy will remain a fragile butterfly”, as Sheen said on an episode on “Jimmy Neutron”. Hope this century, the true meaning of democracy should make it better. In other words, there should have not just freedom of press and freedon of expression, there should have transparency to each other and respect to ourselves. Then, there should have tolerance, an unlimited one, to make sure when the individual is arrested, the person should be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Also, governments should have a common philosophy to protect people and provide them a peace of mind for a democratic fundamentals, so people not have the voice be heard but to have a democratic, tolerated consensus, not controlled by an individual or oligarchic people. Political parties should provide a common ground for democracy, as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those challenges, as stated, seems overwhelming, especially for the oppressors. However, democacy in this world should be celebrated even that philosophy cannot agreed to as a whole.

This International Day of Democracy should be dedicated to leaders who make change in the true meaning of democracy, even though they died: Sir Winston Churchill, Ehud Barak, Nelson Mandela, Corazon Aquino, Lech Walesa, Boris Yeltsin, Helmut Kohl, and certain others. For Aung San Suu Kyi and other opposition leaders in certain oppressed countries, we will support you till the end.

Early Middle Ages

In the early middle ages, Rome began to fall. The cities infrastructures started to decay and break apart and since Rome lacked a strong leadership there was no one there to tell someone to repair them. Rome’s borders changed day after day and people wandered into neighboring countries which brought confusion and war. People lived in very local villages and had their own religions which made most people superstitious of life.

Feudalism was Rome’s main type of government in the early middle ages. Feudalism consisted of a king that ruled lords and those lords ruled lesser lords with ruled serfs. The king hired the lords and lesser lords to control land but it was a very confusing process. Lords were always attacking each other to increase their wealth and property. The confusing part was that if a lesser lord died, no one would be controlling the land that he controlled. The king would have to then control that land till he could find a replacement but then, a lord would control the king.

High Middle Ages

Stronger monarchies made it possible to act quickly when needed. They created stability, trade, and protection throughout Rome. Eventually, a middle class was created. The middle class was significant because it made up most of Rome’s population and instead of bartering and working to live on land, people worked for money.

The crusades were religious missions to get people to convert to Christianity. Over the years of people traveling from country to country the demand for eastern good had risen. Cultural diffusion, advances in medicine, optics, and the reintroduction to Greek ideas were all caused by the crusades.

Late Middle Ages

The black death of 1347 killed 1/3 of the European population. You may think this is a bad thing but in fact, it was very helpful to European society. The huge loss of workers caused wages to raise considerable high and the huge loss of people in general caused others to question their faith. People started looking towards science to answer their questions.

The Magna Carta set limits on the power of the king or, in other words, bound him by law. The kings could no longer do whatever they wanted. They had to abide by rules which led to different types of governments today. The Magna Carta was a very significant document.

One of the greatest representations of the positive effect of the Church and state conflict was the Gregorian Church reformation. The Gregorian Church reformation was a religious advancement which vastly improved the Church by bringing it back to its roots while reducing greed and corruption. The reformation is named for Pope Gregory VII, who started it as a result of pressure from kings and secular leaders during the lay investiture conflict of the 11th century CE. While trying to win what appeared to be an uphill battle, Gregory realized the importance of improving the Church’s image, and decided to enact a series of reforms to transform the Christian Church. His reformation was “an attempt to separate [the Church] forever from the conflicting claims of the secular world.” The conflict between the Church and state was clearly his motivation for enacting these reforms.

One of the first things that Gregory realized was that election of bishops and priests by lay people had a negative effect on the Church, and on Christianity itself. He threatened any religious leader appointed by a layman with excommunication, the most severe punishment in the Catholic Church in medieval Europe. This move purified the Church by removing secular influence. With his ban of lay investiture, Gregory was “triumphant in his effort to move the Church forward.”

Pope Gregory’s reformation also addressed the problem of simony, the sale of Church positions. Simony was a significant source of corruption in the Church of medieval Europe. In fact, the term “Simony” comes from a corrupt individual by the name of Simon Magnus, who, according to the book of Acts, attempted to buy holy powers from the Apostles. Pope Gregory made simony illegal, and took away simoniacs’ rights to officiate. After this ban, a practice that was previously commonplace was now much rarer, and as a result, the amount of corruption that came along with simony was “irrevocably altered”. The ban of simony purified the Church from these corruptions.

Another significant part of the Gregorian reform was celibacy among the clergy. By the 11th century, this practice was becoming common, despite being outlawed by the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. The Council of Nicaea was the first major meeting of Christian bishops, and established several important Church laws, one being the prohibition of clerical marriage. While originally a belief taken very seriously by Christian leaders, its importance gradually diminished until clerical marriage became relatively common during the Middle Ages. Popes throughout the years had realized this and repeatedly outlawed it, but their efforts had little effect. In 1074, Gregory added a decree of his own to the long list of papal decree prohibiting clerical marriage. But just a year after the issuing of Gregory’s decree, the bishop of Constance permitted his clergy to marry. The idea of local bishops disobeying papal authority infuriated Gregory, who ordered the bishop expelled. After this incident, not only did the frequency of the practice of clerical marriage diminish, but papal power was asserted and taken more seriously. Through his ban of clerical marriage, Gregory “strengthen[ed] the Papacy and extend[ed] its influence”. In this way, Gregory achieved two things at once: The Catholic Church returned to its roots on the issue of clerical marriage, and the papacy now had the power it required to run the Church properly and efficiently.

The Gregorian Church reformation was a religious advance whose effects were to be felt for hundreds of years to come, with its motivation coming from a clash of secular and religious powers. On the political front, the Magna Carta, from which some laws in our modern constitution were taken, was very similar. The Magna Carta provided people with basic freedoms which influence society even today, and the Church versus state conflict was a major motive behind the barons who forced King John to sign it. At the time, England was under interdict as a result of Pope Innocent III’s anger at John over unfair taxes that funded his war with France. Furthermore, the outrageous taxes were financially too demanding for the English people, who were beginning to starve. The barons of England were furious with John and his feud with Innocent, with England’s interdict, and with the fact that they were struggling to survive. They decided to capture John and force him to sign the Magna Carta.

Speaking almost directly to the argument between Innocent and John, the very first clause of the Magna Carta strived to separate the crown from the Church. It says that “the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired”. This lays out one of the most important rationales behind the creation and forced signing of the Magna Carta: the barons could not live under interdict; they could not live with the feud between their King and the Pope, so they aimed to simply keep the two entities away from each other. The first clause ends “We have also granted to all the free men of our realm for ourselves and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written below, to have and hold, them and their heirs, from us and our heirs”, an “introduction” to the heart of the Magna Carta. This introduction was followed by some of the most important and influential laws and rights ever written, including habeas corpus (clauses 36, 38-40), prohibition of taxation without representation (clauses 55-57), and prohibition of “paying” one’s way out of the legal system (clauses 17-22, 24).

Although less obvious than the Magna Carta or the Gregorian Church reform, the development of city-states in medieval Italy also had a correlation with the Church and state conflict. This is apparent during many quarrels between the Church and state. As both secular and religious powers were entwined in conflict, a clear pattern of development can be seen in these city-states. This pattern can be seen during the aforementioned lay investiture conflict of the 11th century. In Italy, one of the most important Florentine Churches, the Basilica di San Miniato al Monte, was built. The Basilica is a symbol of Florentine art, which thrived during this period. In Genoa, politics flourished during the investiture conflict. Power slowly shifted from the Holy Roman Emperor and the Bishop of Genoa to a council of elected senators. Genoa essentially became a Republic during this period. Very shortly after, the Lombard League of city-states was founded. The Lombard League was an organization dedicated to stopping imperial powers from gaining ground in city-states, and promoting free communes. By the turn of the 12th century, “some 300 Italian towns were effectively independent city-states”.

Also, during the reign of Frederick II, Italian-city states experienced a freedom which allowed them to grow and develop. Tensions were high as Frederick’s territory encircled the papacy. The city-states were able to “[exploit] the vacuum of political power”. The “vacuum” came about as a result of the conflict between Frederick and the Pope. This gave the city-states a good opportunity to grow and develop.

The Church and state conflict also had a positive influence on the growth of Italian city-states during Pope Boniface VIII’s conflict with King Phillip VI of France. As part of the conflict, the papacy was moved from Rome to Avignon, in France. The increased distance between Italian city-states and the papacy gave the city-states even more independence. The independence allowed populations to flourish and grow to the point where the populations of Florence, Milan, and Venice were all exceeding 100,000. This was crucial because of the Black Death, which occurred in the 14th century, shortly after the move of the papacy to Avignon. Without this period of prosperity of Italian city-states, they may not have survived the Black Death, or been around long enough to give us the Renaissance.

The Renaissance was one of the most prolific times in the fields of art, education, and intellect. Its influences are undeniable, from Michelangelo’s art, to Leonardo Da Vinci’s radical scientific ideas, to the start of an individualistic philosophy called humanism, to another great Church reformation enacted by Martin Luther. The Renaissance first began in the major city-states of Italy after the Hundred Years War, around 1450. During the transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, wealth was noticeably concentrated in the city-states which survived the Black Death. This wealth was one of the influences which brought the Middle Ages into the Renaissance and started the time period characterized by incredible advances in artistic techniques, the creation of a world where humans constantly pushed their talents to their limits, and the creation of the Protestant Church. The Church and state conflict, which allowed city-states to flourish despite the Black Death, was one key reason the Renaissance could happen.

The Church and state conflict was a driving force behind decisions and events which promoted the development of political, religious, and social ideas. Driven by Pope Gregory’s fight over lay investiture, the Gregorian Church reformation was a crucial step towards making Christianity what it is today. The Magna Carta, written by English barons who were motivated by the conflict between King John and Pope Innocent III, provided English citizens with basic rights and freedoms which shaped the course of their history, and even the entire world’s. And with the independence gained as a result of the Church and state conflict, the development of Italian city-states led to the Renaissance, a period of innovation in the fields of art, religion, and philosophy. Although frequently viewed as a major problem in medieval Europe, the Church and state conflict was the basis for several constructive changes which helped move society forward.