Surging humanity:
citizens, self-styled Romans
a noble in a palanquin carried by slaves
an Orthodox priest
English
Flemish
Germans
French
Iberians
Italians
Turks
Arabs
Russians
Mongols
"...half the world poured down the throat of New Rome." (p. 26)
"...ocean-like roar..." (ibid.) from:
voices
shuffling, clattering feet
ringing hoofs
rumbling wagon wheels
grumbling, grinding city
Thick, rolling smells from:
dust
smoke
cooking oil
sweat
sewage
horse droppings
Colour:
sun lighting white seagull wings (more hovering scavengers)
Three senses.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
A bit surprised Mongols were listed, once I thought of it, because the Mongol Empire broke up 12 years before after the death of Kublai Khan.
Altho active and seemingly vigorous the city of New Rome will soon be shown to readers that not all is well there.
Ad astra! Sean
"the Mongol Empire broke up 12 years before after the death of Kublai Khan."
Yes, but that left a lot of successor states still ruled by Mongols, including the Golden Horde which ruled the area north of the Black Sea at that time.
Kaor, Jim!
I sit corrected, you are right. And of course there would still be some Mongols going to Constantinople for both private and official reasons.
Ad astra! Sean
The breakup of the Mongol Empire shows the virtue of primogeniture! Mongols generally distributed property (and power) among their sons.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Even if the Mongols had adopted Salic Law style primogeniture for the succession to the Kha Khanate I wonder how long such a vast realm would remain unified.
Ad astra! Sean
"virtue of primogeniture!"
If you are going to have hereditary rulership, primogeniture is definitely better than splitting the kingdom every so often.
For private property it seems far from obvious to me that primogeniture is a good thing. It seems to be a way to help keep wealth concentrated in a small group, not something I consider desirable.
Kaor, Jim!
I have to disagree with your second sentence. I would using the State to mandate how a man should bequeath his property. If he has a billion dollars and wants to leave it to one heir, that's his right and choice, as long as he was of sound mind.
Secondly, it doesn't really matter, because it's hard to preserve great wealth. It can be done, but not easily. The tendency has been for inherited wealth to become more and more diluted as time passes among more and more heirs. The end result, after a century or so, might be descendants of Cornelius Vanderbilt or John D. Rockefeller flipping burgers at a Burger King!
Ad astra! Sean
"The tendency has been for inherited wealth to become more and more diluted as time passes among more and more heirs."
I recall reading a history of the early United States, written by an author of libertarian leanings. As I recall it he noted with approval that the early US leaders forbade rules such as entailment &/or *requiring* that the first born son inherit the entire estate whether the current owner desired that or not. This was because such rules were needed to keep large estates of hereditary aristocrats owned by one person for many generations, and those early US leaders did not like hereditary aristocracy.
The founding fathers of the US would approve of the great-grandchildren of John D. Rockefeller flipping burgers. BTW are there such cases?
Kaor, Jim!
Actually, no--I read up a bit about entail and that was not the case. Entail existed in Great Britain but that form of landownership soon became unpopular, due to its disadvantages. Entail made the most efficient uses of land harder, with landowners more and more preferring simple un-encumbered ownership of land, so they could buy, sell, trade, bequeath, inherit, or gift, etc., land as simply as possible. Entail still exists (it even exists in MA!), but only as a now minor type of land owning,.
I don't really care about Thomas Jefferson, my least favorite of the US founders, esp. with his sneering hostility to the Catholic Church. I far prefer John Adams, who was a real conservative.
I was being metaphorical, re descendants of the great industrial magnates of the past flipping burgers! But I vaguely recall some of them becoming close to being poor.
Btw, I dislike the hostility I've seen for those who have great wealth. It stinks of spite and envy, less successful people envying those who are more successful. As long as they were not drug or sex traffickers, that does not bother me!
Ad astra! Sean
I'm not sure what Jefferson wrote about the Catholic Church in particular, so I can't comment on whether his statements are justified. His actions re: slavery (eg: Sally Hemmings) seem rather hypocritical though.
Yes, "Behind every great fortune is a great crime" is at best a gross exaggeration.
However, "drug or sex trafficking" aren't the only ethically dubious business practices, see eg: the claims that Trump underpaid contractors & used the expense of legal proceedings to deter those contractors from getting what was owed.
Kaor, Jim!
Nor do I really care about Jefferson owning slaves. It was centuries ago and irrelevant to me. Some of the founders of the US were at least uneasy about the "peculiar institution."
Of course some who have great wealth gained it by questionable or dubious means. Or use it abusively. I expect that to happen due to all humans being flawed, imperfect, corruptible.
Ad astra! Sean
Primogeniture at the local level in England was used to keep estates under single ownership -- younger sons of wealthy landowners went into the Army or the Church or occasionally into trade, with minor inheritances.
As a result, by the Victorian period England had the most concentrated landownership pattern in the whole of Europe, including places like Hungary and Russia.
My paternal grandmother's family in Wiltshire owned their own farm, which was uncommon, but they also had 13 children -- the eldest son inherited the farm, one daughter married a neighboring farmer, and the rest had to make their own way in the world.
Absent which, I wouldn't exist -- my grandmother was on her way to Boston when she got shipwrecked and taken to St. John's, Newfoundland in 1912.
That is a job for the Time Patrol: to ensure that that shipwreck happens on schedule.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That's about what I thought was the favored pattern, when possible re landowning. The eldest surviving son inherited the land, some younger sons became clergy (Catholic or Anglican), others went into the army or navy, trade, etc. Daughters might sometimes get dowries if their families had the money for that.
I think this was mostly good for Britain, land did not get split into smaller and smaller farms/estates, making them more and more inefficient. Able younger sons had to seek their fortune elsewhere, into the trades and professions listed above.
I'm certainly glad your grandmother survived that shipwreck! Maybe the Time Patrol intervened, as Paul suggested. (Smiles)
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment