DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**HsSp82U8** · 12-11-2006, 03:43 PM

Only if a tsar were to be handed autocratic power would monarchy have its sacramental meaning.

It is instructive to read the will of Tsar Alexander III in which he offers advice to his heir. In one vital respect, Tsar Martyr Nicholas did not follow his father's advice: 'do not get involved in war'.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

An interesting thought. The problem with the advice was, of course, that Romanov Russia was, in many senses, a vehicle for war. Whilst little in the way of what we would consider civil society existed, Russia proved over the centuries extremely good at war; I think Alexander III was one of the few Romanovs who heeded his own advice. The prestige which the dynasty gained from taking Russia to the height of Empire was crucial to its popularity, and, of course, had Nicholas II had the same success as, say, Alexander I or Catherine II, then the regime would have received a great boost.

Monarchies tend to rest on the support of aristocracies, and the aristocratic code is one in which war is a matter of honour; indeed, most aristocracies originally rested upon the warlike skills of their ancestors, and expertise in war was always one of the great justifications of aristocracy - all of which is to suggest that monarchies on the traditional model tended towards regarding war as politics by other means. One might, however, note that such wars tended to be less destructive and on a lesser scale than modern wars; exceptions were wars of religion, such as the Thirty Years' War.

Do you think that the Russian feelings you mention are evidence of the influence of the Byzantine model? There is, I suspect, something primal in the idea of a God-King, and early Christianity was able to take over, and sacralise, such pagan notions. Perhaps sadly, I can't see us going for that one now - although the late John Paul II gave us a glimpse of what might be possible.

In Christ,

John

12-11-2006, 03:43 PM	#19
HsSp82U8 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 435 Senior Member	Only if a tsar were to be handed autocratic power would monarchy have its sacramental meaning. It is instructive to read the will of Tsar Alexander III in which he offers advice to his heir. In one vital respect, Tsar Martyr Nicholas did not follow his father's advice: 'do not get involved in war'. In Christ, Andreas. Dear Andreas, An interesting thought. The problem with the advice was, of course, that Romanov Russia was, in many senses, a vehicle for war. Whilst little in the way of what we would consider civil society existed, Russia proved over the centuries extremely good at war; I think Alexander III was one of the few Romanovs who heeded his own advice. The prestige which the dynasty gained from taking Russia to the height of Empire was crucial to its popularity, and, of course, had Nicholas II had the same success as, say, Alexander I or Catherine II, then the regime would have received a great boost. Monarchies tend to rest on the support of aristocracies, and the aristocratic code is one in which war is a matter of honour; indeed, most aristocracies originally rested upon the warlike skills of their ancestors, and expertise in war was always one of the great justifications of aristocracy - all of which is to suggest that monarchies on the traditional model tended towards regarding war as politics by other means. One might, however, note that such wars tended to be less destructive and on a lesser scale than modern wars; exceptions were wars of religion, such as the Thirty Years' War. Do you think that the Russian feelings you mention are evidence of the influence of the Byzantine model? There is, I suspect, something primal in the idea of a God-King, and early Christianity was able to take over, and sacralise, such pagan notions. Perhaps sadly, I can't see us going for that one now - although the late John Paul II gave us a glimpse of what might be possible. In Christ, John
	Quote