Why UK Succeeded in Colonising India While Others Failed

 

There was a curious series of videos on Youtube that raised this interesting question, that I placed in the title of this article. UK was neither the strongest colonial power in the area, nor was it the first to discover India. India was rules by powerful Mughal Empire, that was not an easy target for colonialists to dismantle. Yet in the end UK succeeded while then much stronger French and early discoverer Portuguese failed. The series of videos I mentioned above did a good job of chronicling how British take over happened, but it did not answer the ultimate question of why that happened? Here I will answer that question for you.

To begin with a Mughal Empire. Modern Western sources like to praise this state as both very powerful and very enlightened even by modern standards. Powerful is simple, they had more soldiers, more and often better weapons, more money and more everything compared to any coloniser in the area. Enlightened needs clarification. Mughal rules were very educated: versed in many languages as well as in culture science and technology. Westerners who visited their court, were impressed with its level of culture and sophistication. As rulers they supported religions tolerance and multiculturalism. They patronised arts and build many famous Indian landmarks such as Taj Mahal, that is probably the most famous Indian structure in the Western World. So how could such wonderful people lose their country to colonisers?

The answer to that does not lie in some evil western weapons or such, but rather in the problems within Mughal Empire itself. To begin with I had to point out the obvious, Mughals were not of Indian origin. Just like many others before and after them, they were descendants of foreign invaders who conquered their empire with force and later made India their home. For those who came after the conquest was complete that fact might be unobvious, after all Mughals are born in India and rule from Delhi in India, however for locals that was not so. 

Mughals like other conquerors were Muslims, they preached religious tolerance but that was due to the fact that most of their country was Hindu, and they had to somehow coexist with it. For a European both Islam and Hindu equally foreign but for Indians Hindu is a local native faith and Islam is the faith brough in by conquerors from the West: Iran is west of India even if its east of Europe. Officially Mughals preached religions co-existence, but in order to advance in society one likely had better chances if they were Muslim or converted to Islam. That certainly did not sit well with Hindu majority.

Finally Mughal court used Parsi as its official language. Parsi is Iranian language, no one in India speaks it natively. Yet Mughals insisted that their subjects have to learn their language to speak to them rather than the other way around. It was not just language either, Mughal rulers liked Persian art, architecture and other such things. Taj Mahal too was built in Persian, rather than Indian style, a fact likely missed by many tourists who visit it every year.

All in all, Indians did not feel like Mughals were one of their own but rather saw them as foreigners who occupy their land and rule it as they see fit. 

That provoked an uprising. A Maratha Confederation/Empire was an attempt by Hindus to drive the Mughals out. At first, they were successful and nearly took over the country. Then the founder and the original ruler died and things went downhill. A succession war broke out between several contenders for the throne. That war gradually completely destroyed Marathas. There was always another princeling, wanting to take the throne and common Maratha solders kept killing each other for their ambitions. They would have completely destroyed themselves with this fratricidal war, unless they figured a way out. That way out was East India Company.

Relationship between Marathas and EIC begun way back. Maratha founders likely convinced them to lend them weapons, promising to pay back when they won. That later never came and when Maratha infighting begun, in leu of paying with money, different pretenders gave EIC right to tax people in areas they conquered. With taxing came administrative burdens too. Gradually Marathas pawned all their land to EIC.

Maratha solders defected to EIC too as EIC could pay them stable salaries and did not require them to keep killing each other. It may be called British Raj but most of the personnel especially military was local. Indian Sepoys and Nepalese Gurkhas were not only the military of British colonial rule but also important component of all British forces. They saw service in many British wars outside of India.

EIC did not just taxed land, they figured they could improve things by running more tea and cotton plantation, textile factories and then sell all that produce to Europe for money. That was the solution everyone wanted and liked. Europeans liked their newfound tea and preferred cotton clothes to those made from local materials. The money this trade made India richer, making this overall a successful business operation. EIC kept expanding its business opening more plantations and textile mills, employing more and more people, gradually this became the biggest business in the area.

EIC eventually capsized under its debts and was dissolved. Even before that many in UK's parliament were saying that scope of EIC operations have long since exceeded the trade in tea that it was created to do. By early 18th century it effectively ran a country much larger than UK itself. After Sepoy Uprising of 1857 EIC was dissolved and UK government took civil control over British India. 

That did not end British rule, it merely changed its administrative structure. Instead of being run by commercial executives, it was ruled but civil servants instead. The second part of the Raj saw creation of various civil institutions and other things, countries typically have. 

So, why the British Raj succeeded while both Marathas and Mughals faded into history. Because it managed to solve various economic and social problems that India had at that time. Fundamentally people preferred it to both Mughals and Marathas. As foreign as British were, they could bring them more prosperity and stability that either Mughals or Marathas could. Aslo British that generally loved India and all things Indian were preferable to Persophilic Mughals of Uzbek origin or local Maratha princelings who cannot pay their solders but expose them to unnecessary dangers.

Societies are complex structures. The more complex they get, the stranger are solutions, that are needed to fix their problem. That can apply to modern times as well. For example, one might find it strange why Western world is so obsessed with Japan and all things Japanese. Chinese would particularly be baffled by the fact that Japanese, whom they see as inferior to them in every possible way, are for some reason loved so much by the West and Chinese themselves are not. The answer to this problem once again lies in unique problems of Western society, Western family and Western women, that Western men seek solution to these problems in Japan and Thailand. 

That is also why we need Universal Basic Income to fix the economy.

Truth about 90s in Russia

I do criticize how KGB regime depicts 90s, its dishonest and misleading. However, a lot of time have passed since 90s. A new generation, who have not experienced it, have grown up and know nothing about it but what Putin's liars tell them to. So, I decided to write a separate article about actual realities of 90s, not tarred and marred by Kremlin's propaganda.

To begin with, elephant of the room, bandits. Yes, bandits did exist in 90s and occasionally they killed people, mostly each other, but sometimes other people too. Murder is a big news, unlike someone importing computers or TVs, so stories about bandits circulated around and got exacerbated. Listening to them know one might imagine it was like Fist of North Star or something, it was not. For most people life was peaceful, and all the scary stuff was only on TV.

Even among bandits not all were equally outrageous, some did wild things, but majority tried to not attract undue attention to themselves. Use common sense here, if you are breaking laws then undue attention will do you no good, police and public will be after you and before long you will either be killed or in prison. Most bandits did not do anything wild; they just rode their Mercs and BMW to settle disputes with other bandits and kept quiet. Mind you only some of these disputes resulted in shootouts and someone dying. 1% of people who did most outrageous stuff got remembered and their deeds retold over and over. The remaining 99% were all but forgotten. Those who really went wild were either idiots who died soon after, or some people with government connections, like police undercover, military or KGB, someone who really had nothing to fear. Now those very same KGB people claim they ended the "banditism" of "wild 90s".

Mind you, murders did not end when KGB took over, they just changed targets, instead of bandits killing each other now the regime kills wonderful people like Nemtsov, Politkovskaya, Navalny and many others. People who could actually improve Russia, unlike KGB-an dwarf and his henchmen who only drag it down back in Soviet monk-like ascetic misery. KGB killed some, other fled and Russia lost is best people. At least during 90s its people few would miss, who killed each other, and afterwards it the best and brightest who are destroyed by KBG regime. Also joining mafia, they knew what could happen to them, victims of KGB did not have the same choice, they are purely innocent victims.

Now to the real heroes of the 90s, the businessmen. They by far outnumber the bandits. For every one bandit there were hundreds of businessmen, big and small. Together they rebuild ruins of USSR into a modern country. They imported awesome foreign goods, TVs, computers, mobiles, clothes, music, movies and more. Together they transformed drab post-Soviet reality into something classy comfortable and stylish.

Businessmen of 90s are the only reason Russia is not as backward and dilapidated as Cuba or North Korea, Upper Volta with nukes. Without them there would be no computers, phones or internet. Russia would be a stone age country. 

In fact, without businessmen of 90s there would not even be food to eat or clothes to wear. All Soviet era production was not enough to actually feed or cloth the population. The monk-like austerity nuts in Soviet Gosplan thought people can survive with one pair of trousers per year and on a starvation diet. For normal people that was not enough but Soviet state refused to do anything about it. It was not until businessmen of 90s could import foreign goods, that people could finally have access to good food and clothes.

Businessmen of 90s did all that while fighting against ridiculous outdated Soviet era regulations as well as useless government bureaucrats who not only did nothing to help but actively interfere to extort bribes and generally be a nuisance. These guys were real chads of business, unlike modern Western small businesses who cry "help government" when they could not afford even paying their employees their salaries and government then think of something, like importing migrants or unpaid apprenticeships to keep these losers solvent.

While there were jokes about "Novyi Russki" with kitsch looks and low intelligence, most told by businessmen themselves. This was far from what an average businessman was. Most were classy people with awesome sense of style and fashion. They build themselves truly marvelous homes with cool design, state of art appliances and more. Sure, few got to see it as most businessmen were secretive and kept their prosperity under wraps, only inviting people from fellow business circles. You cannot blame them for being so secretive, Russian people are naturally envious and fuelled by Commie hysteria about "bandits robbing people" would not hesitate to steal or just vandalise out of spite.

Finally common people. Unlike commie and KGB propaganda tells you, people did not struggle or were robbed, at least not all of them. Employees of government owned factories and other people paid by government like doctors, teachers, military and police were in trouble, but that was only because government bureaucrats were not paying them their salaries or not increasing these salaries with inflation, essentially government fault. Government nonetheless blamed it on nefarious mythical "bandits" while in reality bureaucrats were simply pocketing salaries of common people and using them to buy themselves Mercs and other luxuries. 

Government paid sector, betrayed by government they trusted, ended up blaming bandits for their misfortunes, because commies like Zyuganov told them its bandits. In reality it was government who robbed them in the first place.

People who worked in trade, retail and other sectors paid by other people or employed by businessmen of 90s did well, not as well as their bosses but much better that people in these sectors did under Soviet rule. USSR used to shit on retail and trade professions and called them second class compared to factory workers or teachers. 90s got this reversed, USSR era government darlings were now in shit and people who sell stuff were new cool. 

Government paid sector did not took it well. That is why there were so many communist protests, all waving red flags and blaming Yeltsin for everything. Part of it was not even that government fucked them, but that people government always told them were lesser and less deserving than they are somehow ended up owning more and living better than the "good Soviets" who did everything government told them was right and end up poor and unpaid anyway. 

Yet when election came Yeltsin won and not because it was rigged, but because people who sell food, clothes and every other consumer good imaginable voted for Yeltsin to keep Zyuganov and his commies out.

Finally, freedom. During 90s, TV was the most awesome it ever was in Russia. No censorship from government allowed many awesome shows to flourish on TV. Some were critical of government or system, but most were original, creative and genuinely entertaining to watch. Newspapers and other media too were allowed anything they wanted. 

All that gradually came to an end after Putin seize power, now government destroyed all creativity and imagination. Only retarded sycophants who lick KGB's ass are allowed on TV and no one interesting have been on TV since 1999.

Freedom of speech took a fall too, now insane KGB regime jails people for saying obvious common-sense things. The regime completely lost sanity and common sense.    

Finally, relationships with the west. Nowadays it might be hard for some to believe that Americans and Western Europeans were very friendly to Russia back then, but it was true. They all just decided to forgive and forget years of Cold War, and all helped Russia to recover from collapse of USSR. They actually hoped and believed that Russia can be their friend in emerging world.

All these hopes were betrayed when Putin took over and started his purges. Even then they sometimes hoped that increasing rift can be mended somehow and they could be friends again. Now that looks silly considering war in Ukraine and Kremlin rhetoric about mythical Nazis.

This time around common people might end up suffering consequences for all the aggression and evil, Kremlin did and continue doing. 

So, this is how real 90s really were. Not how Kremlin told you they were, covered with thick coat of tar and bile, but how they really were. A few KGB agents disguised as bandits did all the nasty stuff and everyone else was trying to live and make things better. Some even managed to.

Some more information here and pictures too. Guess which one my relatives were connected to.

How Humanity Went from Bows to Gunpowder Weapons

 

Common story about bows and guns goes as follows: in ancient times people used bows and swords, then guns were invented and we switched to a newer better weapon, case closed. Actual story is more nuanced. When guns first appeared, archers did not like them at all and did not switch. In limited capacity bows continued to be used even into 19th century: Russia employed Kalmyk arches in its army but did not train native soldiers in archery. Yet guns did prevail in the end. So, what did actually happen, is gun really better than bow or is it something else.

Bow

To begin with, let's look at the bow. It looks like a very simple weapon with just two parts, plus ammunition. What tricks could this thing possibly hide? Here appearance is misleading as bow is not as simple as it looks. The trick is in bowstring, in its tightness to be precise. How tight the bow string should be? 

Here there are two mutually exclusive answers. On one had bowstring should be just tight enough so that a person could easily pull it. What will be the point of bow with a bowstring that is too tight for a person to use it? Simple enough? Not so much actually. A bowstring that is too lax will not be able to propel the arrow with significant enough force to actually penetrate the body of an enemy, much less their armour.

What is the solution then: make bow string as tight as possible so that it will pack a serious enough punch and actually kill its target? However again a bowstring this tight and strong will be hard to pull even for the strongest of men, making such bow near unusable. Catch 22 situation.

The problem with the bow is the fact that strength and speed with which bow can propel an arrow is determined by the tightness of the bow string. Make it flexible enough for every person to use and you will get a pea shooter that will not kill anyone. Move in the opposite the direction and make it tight enough to pack serious punch and hardly anyone could use it. What is the solution to such a strange and unobvious at first glance dilemma?

During Middle Ages the best arches were people who grew up using bows. Mongols used their bows for hunting and every Mongol learned how to use is since early ages and used it continuously. Years of constant practice made them accustomed to powerful recoils of their bows and by adulthood they could use a very powerful bows with little effort. Abovementioned Kalmyk archers used both Mongolian bows and tactics and were descendants of Mongols too, it was good enough to survive into 19th century.

Across the continent, in distant Wales, Welsh/English Longbowman did fundamentally same thing as Mongols. There is huge difference in materials, size and construction methods between Welsh Longbow and Mongol Composite bow, but one thing both have in common is the fact that in order to master it, one has to start training at early age, and it takes years to master it. Welsh stated training at age of 7 in order to be able to fight as longbowman by the age of maturity.

That was is, English and Mongols had good arches with superior bows, who could and did make history. Meanwhile everyone else plainly sucked at using bows and their archers were irrelevant as they could not kill anything with their smaller weaker but easier to use bows.

Even for English and Mongols however not all was sunshine and roses. Long training and complex secrets behind making bows made longbowmen impossible to replace. Should the battle go bad and archers will be decimated by the enemy, commanders could not just recruit more man and train them to use bows. They had to wait decade or two until new generation of archers will come of age. If you ever wondered why 100 Years' War would occasionally be interrupted for couple of decades only to resume later, now you know. Too many archers died and English took a pause waiting for their replacements to come of age. To call this not ideal from military perspective would be an understatement.

To make matters worse, their rarity and exclusivity gave archers significant leverage over King. King needed them and could not easily replace them. Archers used this fact to extract various privileges from the crown. In Medieval England, privileges of yeomen (legal term for longbowman) were second only to knights and by extension lords (read more of it here), they were a special caste, rarer and more important than pandas nowadays. But there was nothing kings could do about it, or is it?

Crossbow

Italians figured out how to solve the bow problem with the power of engineering. Why train forever and use frail human strength to pull impossibly strong bow string when you can build a machine to do it for you. That is how they made crossbow.

Modern idea of a crossbow, that you occasionally see in movies, is that of essentially a bow-pistol that shoots bold rather than bullet. Medieval crossbows, especially most powerful and effective ones, were nothing like that. They were huge and cumbersome machines, with metal rope bow string and a prod. To cock it the crossbowman used a special device called cranequin or windlass, that looked like pedals for a bicycle. There were simpler designs too, but they were also less powerful. More info here. 

The best Genovese crossbow set, that also included protective pavise, was both very effective but also very costly. It also required work of a skilled weapon maker, who understood complex physics and more. That was not something that was available in every country at that time. Thus, good deadly crossbowmen were also limited a few localities in northern Italy and everyone else had to do with much weaker crossbows.

Guns

There is a saying that rifle made everyone equal. After reading the following passage, you will understand why.

Modern guns have magazines with many bullets (cartridges), some can fire automatic or at least semi-automatic. Early Medieval Guns were nothing like that, they were but a plain tube with hardly any parts at all. They required pouring powder down the barrel and then push bullet down the same barrel, using metal rod. To fire one had to ignite powder using burning cord, called match, by pushing it through a small hole in the barrel. After firing one had to clean the barrel before reloading again. To make matters worse they were inaccurate and unreliable, frequently injuring the shooter. To say seasoned longbowmen and crossbowmen were not impressed would be an understatement. The gun was worse than their weapons in every possible way. It was not a boomstick but dumbstick.

If guns were so bad, then why did they managed to replace superior bows and crossbows? The answer is cost and simplicity. Gun was much easier and cheaper to manufacture than a crossbow. Arquebus did not require complex gunsmithing and expertise, the Genovese crossbow did. One makes arquebuses not only cheap but also many. Even a simple smith without much gun making knowledge and experience could put the tube together.

Using it was much easier than both longbow and even crossbow. Powder propelled the bullet, making strength, or lack of, of the user irrelevant. That made it much more accessible. Now everyone could train to be a shooter in very short time. That made replacing lost soldier much easier. Decade long pauses in wars became thing of the past. Now kings could recruit and train as many arquebusiers as they needed. Not only that but anyone could actually become proficient with the gun at any age.

Conclusion

Guns replaces bows not because they were better weapons, but because they were cheaper and easier to use. Guns made everyone equal: with guns anyone could be deadly on the battlefield. With swords and bows, the outcome of battle was almost always a foregone conclusion in favour of better trained and equipped. Guns managed to shatter this status quo, giving underdogs a fighting chance. War become cheaper and more accessible. More and more people would become soldiers. That increased casualties too. However, war stopped being a thing for upper classes only, with commoners had little choice but to accept whatever the outcome was. Now common people could fight for their interests with guns in hand.

Bows and crossbows or people proficient with them did not disappear overnight, however. At first, they became elite units in the new army, later they became royal bodyguards and eventually ceremonial guards. Yeoman of the Guard, as name suggest, were once longbowmen. They still exist a be it no longer use longbows.

This is how we went from bows and swords to guns. One can notice parallels between this and AI for example. Even if AI is not better than real programmers, the fact that every idiot and their dog could use it, unlike actually writing code that requires years of education, will make AI widespread and it will gradually replace many other more specific roles.

How Ukraine Can and Should Reshape Borders and Future of Eastern Europe

Ukraine should stop clinging to old Soviet era borders and begin shaping not only new frontiers but also new life and future for all post-Soviet space. Ukraine's performance in its war with Russia created a unique opportunity for Ukraine to stop being a small state threatened by its large neighbor and instead become one of the powers who shape geopolitics rather than shaped by them. 

However, to achieve it Ukraine has to play its cards right to secure support of key players and then use it to enact the change we all can benefit from. To do that Ukraine should stop thinking in terms and categories of small powers and start thinking big, like a superpower carving the world with other fellow superpowers. However, doing that is not as simple as it sounds. Great powers act and play by their own complex rules and Ukraine has to learn these rules to be able to play the big game in the big league. If it manages to do that, it can become a regional power in charge of Eastern Europe. I will explain the rules after a little bit of context.

Currently many in Ukraine and Europe are puzzled by the fact that Trump seamlessly openly supports Russia and Europeans clearly do not do enough to fight off Russia. Why a democratic power like the US will side with an autocratic Russia that openly shits on everything democratic free world holds dear? That does not make sense. 

History does repeats itself and around 200 years ago Nicolas I of Russia was just as puzzled over the fact that UK, France and future Italy sided with Ottoman Empire and now fighting against Russia in Crimea? Was not Turk a great bane of Europe and Christendom that threatened existence of both for several centuries? Did not Ottomans besieged and nearly destroyed Vienna twice, requiring grand Christian coalition to finally be driven away? If so why when Russia went on to finally put an end to this now weakened beast, everyone sided with them over their fellow Christian Russians? Even Austria who suffered from Turk so much tacitly supported the coalition. That seamlessly did not make any sense.

Nonetheless there were reasons. UK recently secured control over Egypt and started building Suez Canal. Sudden collapse of the Ottomans would have put these plans in jeopardy. In fact, a sudden collapse of such a large country will create loss of chaos. New warlords will spring up all around former Ottoman territory, threatening British trade and links with India, Southeast Asia and Australia. Russian plans for Ottomans never accounted for the Suez or shipping problem, that was just too far away from Russian borders for Nicolas I to care about. However, shipping was important for UK and that is why UK said no, and when Nicolas I ignored that, Brits landed in force in Crimea to put an end to Russian adventure with force. France and future Italy tagged along as they too benefitted from trade. Austria stayed out due to close links and alliance with Russia but was broadly against Russian plans. Nicolas, I felt betrayed, just Ukrainians feel betrayed by Trump's actions.

200 years forward to nowadays, much the same situation plays out in modern war in Ukraine. Russia now plays role of dying Ottoman empire (I wrote about it in separate article), Ukraine plays Russian role from 200 years ago and the US plays role of the Brits.

Just like Ottomans were useful for Brits, Russia is also useful for Americans. After all Putin is called this way because he was 'put in' power by people in Washington, just so you know who is the puppet. Russia plays one crucial role for the US: it blocks hungry Chinese dragon from lush pastures of Siberia. Resource starved and overpopulated China could really benefit from seizing all or part of Russian Siberia. That will allow China to become so strong it will easily be able to eclipse the US as preeminent world superpower. That is not something Washington will allow for obvious reasons. They will readily sacrifice other geopolitical issues for this one, keeping China down is Washington's No 1 priority. Ukraine, just like Nicolas I before them, certainly did not thought of it that far, for them Siberia is but far and unimportant. Nonetheless for the US keeping China down is more important that helping the Ukraine. For them if Ukraine falls its no big deal, but if Russia collapses, then its a disaster. That is why they, while not abandoning Ukraine completely as that will look bad publicly, hold Ukraine's hand to make sure Russia does not collapse somehow.

Europe is a lot more cordial towards Ukraine. At the very least they care for Ukraine to not be just absorbed into Russia. For EU Ukraine is needed as potential new EU member as well as barrier against Russia. They do not want Ukrainian government in Kyiv to fall or become a Moscow's puppet. That hold American hand. At the same time Europe does not care if Ukraine returns its occupied territories. If anything, Europe would prefer if Ukraine was smaller, not bigger. Smaller states are easier to integrate and easier to deal with in various European institutions. Eastern parts of Ukraine are both anti-EU and very corrupt. Brussels hates Kernsograd (Kharkiv) about as much Russian chauvinists hate Bandershadt (Lviv). They certainly think Ukraine is better off without it or any other pro-Russian parts. Last thing EU wants is another pro-Russian Yanukovych winning power in Kyiv and tearing down EU agreements. The most certain way of preventing it is removal of pro-Russian parts of the country from the country. When Bismarck advocated small Germany, he had this idea in mind.

So, does that mean there is nothing Ukraine can do? Of course, no. The solution can be pried out of the very same Russian history. Alexander II replayed the same Crimean war against Ottomans, this time achieving many of Russian objectives. He achieved it not through the martial proneness but through clever diplomatic maneuvering. Instead of going guns blazing he cut deals with various powers, promising lands to some, favors for others. Gradually he got most of the key players to his side and only then launched a second war to take from the Ottomans what he had agreed on with his partners. Unlike Nicolas I, Alexander II plan was not a reckless offensive with no regard for consequences, but a carefully planned demolition, where everyone had something to gain and important things were preserved. They agreed to expand and empower, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece while also created a brand-new state, Bulgaria. Austria got Bosnia and Russia itself large area around Kars. UK again interfered, demanding some changes, but that too was negotiated out and most changes stood. Alexander II clearly understood what key players wanted and delivered them just that while at the same time not forgetting to cut himself the biggest piece of that pie and a few secret pieces too while at it.

Ukraine has two key players to placate, US and the EU. Understanding their interests and catering to them is key to Ukraine's success in this war. US interests are simple, keep China out of Siberia, to that end Russia should at the very least survive as a state with functional army and economy, it does not mean it needs the same borders, just that it needs to survive and be a barrier to Chinese expansion. That is why various punitive measures against Russia are not welcomed by the US as that will weaken Russia against Chinese threat. Alternative to that can be in convincing the US to take control of Russian Siberia directly and either annex it into the US or occupy it.

EU is a lot more nuanced but it's the EU's interests that by far hold the greatest potential for Ukraine. EU always coveted Russian lands as future members of the EU. However, with current Kremlin regime Russian ascension to EU looks near impossible. Nonetheless EU likely will be interested in creation of new independent states from parts of Russian territory as these states could then be democratised and integrated into EU. Ukraine can be the spearhead in this process, creating new EU friendly states and in process cultivating and empowering pro-Ukrainian elites there while at it. My proposal for Don Republic in Don River Basin is just that kind of state, it can be like a pilot program to try out the idea. Various problematic areas of Ukraine that will be hard to rid of corruption and pro-Russian sentiment could be divested into this new state. Kharkiv can serve as its capital. If all else fails, it will serve as a useful buffer state between Ukraine and Russia. There is also Suwalki gap and Russian Kaliningrad oblast, that is a clear thorn in EU side. 

Finally, the biggest problem to the EU is Alyaksandr Lukashenka who shits on EU values and plagues them with migrants and all sort of other problems while hiding behind Russian back to avoid retaliation. It's almost certain that EU wants Lukashenka gone and Ukraine can easily achieve that. Belarus army is completely defenseless, and public is discontent with his dictatorial rule. With endorsement of the EU and Tsikhanovskaya, Ukraine can easily roll into Minsk and replace the Last Dictator of Europe with a Ukraine friendly government.

Fundamentally Ukraine has the best cards, its Ukrainian troops doing the fighting and thus Ukraine got to be the biggest shaper of Eastern European future. The problem is that Ukraine does not use its cards right, instead of offering solutions that other players can get behind and help to implement, Ukraine insist on returning to status quo of 1991 borders that does not satisfy anyone. Ukraine should think like great power and realise that two friendly puppet states on its borders is more valuable than a few eastern provinces and act accordingly. 

Right now, Ukraine needs to stop trying to bring back Crimea and Donbas and instead draft a plan of carving out Russian land and bring it to Europeans for considerations. It will be vise to prob first to see if EU is interested in carving a new state out of Russia or regime change in Belarus. If all goes well, Ukraine will get real assistance, and war will be over in days. Then state building could begin. 

Finally, Ukraine will be a lot safer with buffer states separating it from Russia, than with vague and opaque security guarantees that the US might not act on.

Just like that Ukraine can turn the stagnating exhausting war from a quagmire into an opportunity for solutions and greatness, the only requirement that officials in Kyiv should start looking at things outside of the box and they will notice plenty of solutions.

Medieval Ranks of Nobility and Some Others Explained

 

Recently there have been a lot of videos about ranks of nobility and such. Most of them are very bad as they simply do not understand how any of that actually worked. So here I will write a better version that is actually correct.

To begin with medieval nobility is military, all ranks of nobility are like military ranks, the higher the rank, the more authority one had. From Barons supervising a handful of knights, to Dukes and Kings commanding armies. Even modern royals spend plenty of time in actual military and always have military education. Even if public mostly knows thew as hand waiving smiling people, surrounded by luxury and such, many of these guys are actual war veterans. Back during Middle Ages all nobles and royals spent most of their time on the battlefield, fighting one or another war.

Just like in Marine Corps, where every marine is a rifleman, in nobility every peer is a knight and also a baron. That includes even King. That is why nobles or peers sometimes shortened to baron. Most knights however are not peers of nobles.

Knight

Knight is not just a rank of honour, like it is nowadays, but an actual type of soldier. Knights dominated medieval battlefields and because of that obtained plenty of political power as well. Medieval societies were government by the commanders and officers of knightly armies; they commanded societies just like they commanded knights on the battlefield, with exact the same hierarchy: more senior officers in the military were also more senior civil officials.

Each knight was a heavily armored cavalryman, who fought with wooden lance and heater shield when mounted, replacing lance with arming sword when on foot. Their armor was at least a full body chain mail and a helmet, though in late Middle Ages a wealthier knights could afford an even more elaborate plate armour. Such armor effectively protected a knight from near any pre-medieval and medieval weapons. Making pre-medieval infantry like lightly armored housecarls obsolete. 

Knight's armor, that is rather impressive even for a modern person, was so revolutionary by medieval standards, it made it almost impossible to kill a knight. For the first time a soldier could have an armour so good, it offered complete protection for the entire body. This fact gave knights unparallel leverage over the society, that resulted in the whole governing structure consisting of knights and their officers. In fact, the entire Middle Ages period is defined by this reality. Middle Ages begun when knights defeated all other forms of military and established their domination over society. Middle Ages continued while knights maintained their martial supremacy. Finally Middle Ages ended when knights started consistently losing to other types of units, such as Swiss Pike Square. Gradually blacksmiths figured out how to design and make a weapon to specifically destroy knightly armour and make the knight itself vulnerable.

When it came to social status, knight stood in the middle between commoners and lords. Unlike their officers, baseline knights did not govern anything but still enjoyed level of respect and honour from the rest of the society. They had various special privileges and such. 

Squire

Just like titles of nobility knighthood was de-facto hereditary, technically King could dismiss and appoint any rank of nobility but by convention, ranks always went to heirs and any exceptions were rare. Being a knight however had a one extra step to it, before one could be made a knight, one has to serve as a squire first. Armor, horse and other knightly equipment was very expensive by medieval standards, so lords were unwilling to bestow these things on just anyone. So, one had to first prove oneself as a squire, an assistant to the knight who would help knight to put their armor and will take care of horses and such. 

While doing these things, they will also train to become a knight. Like most Medieval professions, being a knight required starting training from young age of 7, it was not possible to decide to become a knight in one's 20s or switch careers. Missed time of training made one unsuitable for the role. 

On the battlefield a squire could serve as light cavalryman, using spare horse, but will do reconnaissance rather than fighting most of the time.

Squires too had a special status in society, just below that of a knight. Commoners had to show them respect and deference.

Once there is an opening in knights ranks and a squire is deemed worthy, he will be knighted. King will always do knighting personally. That is how important it was to select proper knights. So important that King will not delegate this to other lords.

Once knighted, a knight will be made a vassal to the baron and will be sent to live in their estate.

Yeoman

Particularly in England, there was an additional social and military rank of a Yeoman. Yeomans were longbowman and too enjoyed special status, because their skill with bow made them valuable as a military unit. Other countries did not have access to longbows and missed out of this type. I will later write separate article about bows.

Baron

Now we finally reached the first title of nobility proper, Baron. Baron is kind of medieval equivalent of a sergeant in modern military. He is backbone of military, economy and society. He also is hated by a lot of people for many different reasons.

In addition to his military duties, Baron is in charge of a single Manor. Modern people might think that Manor is some fancy historic building, but back in the days Manor is first and foremost a Medieval farm. Term manor applied to both the core building where lord of the manor lived, surrounding allotment of fields and even people who work the farm or lived in surrounding buildings. 

Modern farm could be run by a single family because complex machinery like tractors, harvesters and combines allow few people to do all farm work. Back during Middle Ages, such machinery did not exist, even basic scythe was not invented yet and best harvesting tool was sickle, yes, the same sickle communists later adopted as their symbol. Because of that agricultural work required a coordinated effort of many people as well as supervision from someone reliable. 

Baron was in charge of the whole process, directing and coordinating work of peasants to make sure they produce the harvest and will not fuck up. Baron could appoint vogt and delegate most of supervision to him but was still ultimately responsible for results before king. If peasants will fuck up somehow and harvest will fail, then everyone will starve, thus someone reliable has to be in charge of the whole process. That someone was picked from the ranks of the knights and given title and rank of baron.

In addition to running the Manor, baron should also not neglect their military duties and be always ready to fight as a knight if king summons them to war. Not only they have to maintain their own readiness, but also those of knights that were given to him as vassals (subordinates), typically 4 or 5 depend on how productive his manor is. Baron had to make sure make sure knights and their horses are fed, equipment is in good repair and that they train enough to maintain their fighting abilities, hence why I compared this role to modern military sergeant. In medieval times sergeant was a much lower rank with no authority over anyone.

All these military expenses have to come from the profits, the manor makes. On top of that there are also taxes to be paid to the crown, or to the Earl to be precise who will later pay his taxes further up the chain of command.

Finally on top of that Baron has to know law and serve as judge for disputes between people of his manor.

Being in charge of so many things, barons were hated by all sorts of people. Peasants and knights alike saw them as slavedrivers. Higher ranks will blame them if something goes wrong. For commoners he was the big, hated boss, with power beyond their imagination, hence term robber baron. For higher nobles he was the small guy who has one job and yet somehow fails at it. That is why some barons prefer to be known as knights to be associated with knightly chivalry instead of robber baron moniker.

Earl/Count

There is a title of Viscount between Earl and Baron, but that title is delivered from that of a Count and hard to understand out of context so I will explain Count first.

Count is a guy in charge of a county. Medieval countries were divided into territorial units called counties. England and US states are still divided into them. You can see here, how much land is that approximately. Earl is English equivalent of continental Count, just a different name for the same rank and duties. Wife of either Earl or Count is a Countess, and his heir is a Viscount, not to be confused with separate title of Viscount.

Average Medieval County consisted of several Manors as well as few towns and maybe a city. Count will run one of these Manors directly as if baron, would.  Because of that every count has a subordinate title of baron. That is also why counts would look down on barons for only having one job, when they had two. That mean that count had his count job on top of his other job as a baron.

Other manors were run by different barons. These barons were subordinates to the count of their county. Count did have authority to command barons as his subordinates, especially in military situations. In peace time he would supervise that barons fulfill their various duties to the crown sufficiently enough. Barons also had to pay their taxes to the count.

Count in turn had to pay tax to his superior officer, Duke.

Counts will also supervise cities and towns, Medieval cities had special enumerated rights, that entitled them to democratically elected city council and other rights. That however did not mean that they were sovereign and could do whatever, their internal governance was democratic, but they still had duties to the crown and counts were in charge of making sure these are met. 

Overall count was kind of a middle manager or military captain. Senior enough to have some authority and clot, yet not too big of a shot where a failure could result in some serious and often fatal consequences. He collected money from junior officers and pass them on to senior ones, was a middleman between King and the county, passing crown needs unto country but also advocating for his county in royal court. Count had some noble swag, but not too much of it.

Viscount

Sometimes a county would be split in two. When that happens, a bigger part will retain title and status of a county, and a smaller part will be dubbed viscounty instead. A viscount will then be created to run the newly created viscounty.

Viscount ranks between the proper count and baron. Viscount is the last of noble titles created, original system did not provide for this rank, but it was added later down the line. This rank shares its name with the title of heir to the county rank; the only difference is use of "of" between the name of the rank and the name of the place to which the rank applies. For example, Viscount of Shire will be a substantial title of a person who runs Viscounty of Shire and Viscount Shire is a courtesy title for the heir apparent to the title of Count of Shire.

Just because I mentioned it, medieval titles are named after some locality to which the power. Each count or baron will be given a certain particular county or manor to run, and their title will be delivered from the name of that county or manor. For example, Count of Cheshire runs county of Cheshire, and Count of West Yorkshire runs that county instead. By the way Cheshire is not made up for Alice in Wonderland, it's a real county and as Earl of Chester it is a subordinate title of Prince of Wales.

Some post medieval noble titles of modern peerage do omit 'of' because they were created after nobles' authority over land subdivisions and people who inhabit them was transferred to Parliament or local councils and by then noble titles no longer conferred any authority over any particular land. In that case tile was often delivered from surname. That said Ducal titles created for royal princes still use traditional 'of' style and delivered from various key localities across the UK even if they no longer confer authority over territory. 

Back to viscounts. Viscounts had all the responsibilities of a count but none of his perks and status. One saving grace is that viscounty is typically smaller than a county, so less work and travel. In reality however viscounty often will be created from most remote and poor areas of the county, so same amount of work but less gain, less prestige and less money.

Just like count, viscount had barons as subordinates, but these were much fewer in numbers compare to what average count had. Some viscounts even went completely without vassals. That meant less taxes for viscount and less importance in hierarchy. Viscount was in that grey zone of irrelevance, similar to 2nd lieutenant.

The real reason viscounts were even created is not because they did anything useful, but because someone among more senior nobility had extra children in addition to an heir to their main title and needed to arrange his spares a title and land so that they will not go without. King obliged and created more titles just like modern politicians create jobs to keep employment numbers low. Viscounts existed in grey area between counts and barons and did something between what these two did.

Marquess

Marquess is a rank that at first glance look like the worst of them all, but in actuality one of the best ones. Marquess is in charge of a march or mark. March means borderlands, typically it borders some wild tribes who are hostile, warlike and think stealing crops from your manors is good idea. Your job as marquess is to defend the march and your marcher barons/lords from the hostile tribespeople. If that sounds like a lot of trouble that is because it is.

However, there are many redeeming qualities to being a marquess. To begin with marquess is exempt from taxation. A little something that makes one richer. Money is needed for defence of the march, so you do not have to pay to maintain the kingdom.

Second is the fact that marquess is allowed to build fortifications. A count or a duke, building giant citadel in the middle of the kingdom will raise instant suspicion of plotting to secede or challenge the king for the throne. A marquess doing the same in his march can always justify it by saying tribesmen are hostile. Later however marquess can use these fortifications in an internal power play.

Third is the fact that you can expand your land by taking the fight to the tribes. Counts of barons could only marry into other noble families and hope the other line will seize and they will inherit both titles. Marquess that located on the kingdom outer edge can simply conquer the unclaimed land, convert its inhabitants into peasants, or exterminate them and bring your own peasants, create new manors on claimed land and give them to vassal barons. 

It a long process that could span generations but gradually it could allow your march to outgrow all the duchies and become de facto the most powerful lord in the realm. Many famous kingdoms and empires begun this way, Austria, before it was empire, or archduchy was actually a march and so were their rival Brandenburg-Prussians who later became German Emperors or even their neighboring Saxons. A junior branch of Hohenzollerns who got march of Brandenburg gradually and decisively eclipsed their senior inland branches. Even in England a Tudor dynasty has their origins in marcher lords in Wales. 

All in all, marquess is a long term but a near surefire path to the throne. Now all this trouble defending it from hostile outsiders does not look as bad, does it.

To top it up, marquess is a direct vassal to the king, like dukes rather than counts, who are vassals of dukes. That gives marquess a direct line to king in case they need something. Unlike dukes however, marquess are rarely seen as potential rivals to the throne. They are often seen as having enough on their plate as it is and will not be burdened with more work for the crown, unlike more inland lords. Quite as sweet spot to be.

Duke

Duke is a true noble of the big league. They have special forms of address to make them stand out but this is but a tip of the iceberg of their true importance and power.

Dukes are few and are closest to the king. On one hand that gives them a lot of power and influence, even opportunity to become a king should things play out well or turn out this way. On the other hand, there is serious responsibility and serious risks. You control a lot so if you screw up, it will be serious blow for the kingdom for which you will not be able to get away easily. Even worse is the fact that king might feel threatened by your power and influence, not ever duke plots to take over the kingdom one day, but everyone has enough power and clot to do so and king may be wary, if he is not a fool. As much as you may plot to take over the kingdom, a king may plot to keep himself safe from either real or alleged plot of your, even if you mean king no harm, you may still get a dagger to the back.

Structure wise, dukes rule over dukedom, which is a cluster of continues. Just like counts supervise, tax and command barons, dukes supervise, tax and command counts. 

There are typically but a few dukedoms in the entire kingdoms and every duke knows each other. Dukes are inner circle of the king, and they run the country together, make military plans together like joint chiefs of staff. On the battlefield dukes actually expected to command units independently, as king's lieutenants, and not just be supervisory authority like barons or counts. It is often expedient to split army into several units and dukes are ones who are called to command the splitter units.

Dukes are expected to work with king not just on battlefield but also on administration of the kingdom. During incapacity of Henry VI, different royal dukes took turns running the kingdom, disagreements over who is more worthy of being the regent gradually devolve into Wars of the Roses.

Most dukes are royals, i.e. related to king as brothers, uncles, cousins and such. Heir to the throne is also created a duke once of age. That allows heir to learn how to run a country while allow king to have at least one duke who is unlikely to plot against him. Nowadays heir to the throne is called prince, but that was more due to the exceptional circumstances surrounding Principality of Wales, unlike dukedoms, principalities could not be as easily created at will. Normally an heir will be made duke. Current and previous Princes of Wales still have Ducal titles as secondary ones.

There are however some dukes who are not royal. There is no established promotion path to a duke, and every such case is an exception in its own way. For example, Scandinavian in origin, Rolo the Viking was created Duke of Normandy by unrelated Capetian King of France to protect the area from other Vikings. A few generations later, now empowered as Kings of England and Dukes of Aquitaine, Dukes of Normandy came after French throne itself.

Being related to the king does not guarantee loyalty either, for example Capetian in origin, Duke of Burgundy, sided with Plantagenets of England against their relatives from de Valois dynasty. Wars of the Roses were also fought by English dukes, all of whom could trace their origin to Edward III.

Even if dukes do not plan to take over, they could still be called to fulfil royal duties, either permanently or temporarily. During war of the roses, de Valois kings would frequently be captured by either English or Burgundians, making dukes still loyal to the de Valois cause run France in their absence. De Valois themselves took the crown after mainlining Capetian branch died out, after being ducal for several generations suddenly they became royals again.

Because of that dukes are expected to be able to do everything a king does. In a way they are like spare kings, whose time may never come, but who still should be ready for the job.

King

Finally, we reached the king, pinnacle of medieval pyramid of power, asterisk attached. There were also pope, God, emperors and parliament who all claim supremacy on various grounds. Barons may try to overthrow you or make you sign Magna Carta. Pope may try to excommunicate you for not being good enough Christian. Emperors think they have universal authority that supersedes kings, just like that of kings supersedes dukes or barons. It was a hard game to play, but you were given good cards to play, better than those of dukes or popes. 

As a medieval king, most of your time you will spend commanding your knights and nobles in various battles. You will have castles, but unlike modern palaces, the medieval castles were built for defensive purposes and were not too comfortable, much less luxurious. However, they could store enough food and water to let you and your troops to survive for years, cooped inside and every so often you will do just that.

Yet that was still better than what many others had.

Kings that only wave hands and do not command armies, only became a thing over the course of 18th century. Even famous Sun King Louis XIV, that does not look like that tough of a guy, actually commanded his armies on the battlefield. He built Versalles but spent a lot of time in a tent in a military camp, sieging places. Even these culottes, he wore, that revolution later decried as symbol of upper-class decadence, was this short because it would be inconvenient to tack long trousers into above knee tall military boots, that soldiers needed to traverse swamps. Not something sans-culottes Parisian working class would have to concern themselves with. 

Medieval kings fought, died and made history. People like to read about decadence of Henry VIII and his obsession with producing a male heir, but in truth he was the first king who mostly lived in palace and not on the battlefield and could concern himself with such administrative and courtly concerns.

Medieval kings wore many hats. If you check the full title of King Charles III for example, in addition to royal title, you can find a few lesser ones, a ducal, and earl and a baronial one, in two examples. Medieval kings had to fight like a knight, ran own manor like a baron, supervise one county like a count and one duchy like a duke and then also be a king on top of that. If that sounds like a lot of work that is because it is. Juggling all these vassals, parliament, pope, rival kings of foreign kingdoms took a lot of time and effort, but also skill. Not everyone got it right, some failed. 

Yet it's because medieval kings did so much that we admire them nowadays, they were truly in the most demanding role of their lifetime. It's because they do little nowadays, despite living in such expensive luxury, that sometimes people bring up a question do we still need monarchy?

Grand Duke

Grand Duke is an, euphemism for a ruler of the unrecognised county. Even during Middle Ages there were places like Taiwan, that were their own countries in every possible sense but lacked official recognition as such. Such places were referred to as Grand Duchy. One most famous was Lithuania, that was actually the biggest state in Europe, bigger than any Kingdom. However, pope, who was in charge of creating new kingdoms, denied this dignity to Lithuanians. Pope's problem with Lithuanians was their high tolerance of different religions and unwillingness to force convert people to Catholicism. For that reason, pope withheld (or even revoked) recognition of Lithuania as Kingdom and did not sent them their crown, like he would do to other kings. 

That was Middle Ages so Pope possibly held monopoly on good goldsmith who could craft decent enough crown. Lithuanians had to do with rather simple ducal hat.

Later when Lithuanians Jagiellons united Lithuania with Poland in personal union, Poles would not press issue of Lithuanian recognition because Lithuania was bigger than Poland and only the fact that Poland was a kingdom and Lithuania was not would allow Poles to maintain a certain level of seniority within the union.

Perhaps in homage to Lithuania or out of personal humbleness, a dissolution of Holy Roman Empire, certain imperial princes, like Luxembourg and Baden assumed title of Grand Duke. Luxembourg still uses it.

Prince

Nowadays Prince is often seen as title of heir to the throne as well as that of various royals. 

During Middle Ages Prince was a ruler of an entity other and often much smaller than a kingdom. Principalities of Monaco and Liechtenstein are examples of such entities. Historically Principality of Orange was possibly the most famous example, despite being so tiny, it somehow managed to exist completely surrounded by France for a very long time.

It was also used as a generic word for a ruler of something, in this capacity it was used by Machiavelli for his Il Principe novel.

In certain sense Prince is polar opposite of the Grand Duke. Sovereignty of Prince is fully recognised but they rule something that can hardly be called a country or a kingdom.

Emperor

Emperor is a King with a pretence to universal sovereignty. In theory Emperor traces origin of their title to Roman Emperors, claiming legitimate succession from Ceasar himself, in reality is such claims sounded stretched at best and completely made up at worst. In theory there could be only one Emperor but in practice there were many, each claiming they are the only one legit and the others are fakes.

Out of these Byzantine Empire was indeed a remnant of what was once a Roman Empire, but time changed them a lot from times of Ceasar and Augustus, especially when after members of Venetian crusade overthrew the last native emperor and replaced them with of crusade leaders.

Another, Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation), was created from scratch by pope, but still claimed to be of universal authority of Roman Caesars and even disputed authority of popes, claiming that emperors are superior to popes and their clergy.

Byzantine empire had a different non-feudal internal administration, instead of counties, duchies and manors they had themes, that possibly worked like Muslim Iqta.

Holy Roman Empire was mostly feudal like other medieval kingdoms, but with their own unique traits like free cities. Emperor was elected and imperial Diet was more complex and bureaucratised than Estates General or Parliaments used by other kingdoms.

To back their claim to universal authority Holy Roman Emperors had several consistent kingdoms, held by the emperor together with his other titles, as well as Kingdom of Bohemia that was vassal to the emperor and prince elector. This was to lay claim that HRE is not just another kingdom with a fancy name, but an entity of higher authority than kingdoms around it. Similar to how USSR used Comintern, globe on their emblem and direct memberships of their subdivisions in UN to lay claim on a global authority rather than merely that or just another country. In both cases they functioned effectively as another country and their claims for universal authority were but claims with no substance.

Pope

Nowadays Pope is merely head of Catholic Church and has little influence outside this denomination. Back in Middle Ages however Pope was very influential and powerful. He could excommunicate kings, authorise invasions, call for Crusades and even transfer entire kingdoms from one dynasty to another. While not everything always went pope's way, he and the Church were often the only ones with long term vision for the future and often will get their way eventually if not immediately.

Pope claimed and still claims to be god's representative on earth and thus claimed authority over kings. Kings would often resist direct orders from a non-military man such as pope, but pope would play it by enticing their neighbors to take sword against those who provoked their ire. For example, he authorised Austrian Habsburgs to invade Bohemia and graded then full rights to Bohemian Crown and lands after native rulers converted to Hussite faith. Habsburgs ruled Bohemia for several centuries since, and Hussites went extinct. Pope also authorised Willam the Conqueror's invasion of England and granted him right to the kingdom. Only protestant reformation really put a dent into Pope's power.

Aside from such direct actions, Pope and Church would regulate things such as morals, ethics believes and such. They will also both sponsor and control science, first universities were founded by monks and Church. Things that may not have immediate effects but will determine long term development of society.

After Middle Ages Ended

Feudal system had its time under the sun, but eventually all things come to an end and so did Middle Ages. What have happened to nobles and knights since then.

To begin with knights, they had but one role, to fight and win wars. When they became ineffective, they were rather swiftly phased out. Nobles themselves sometimes continued to serve in heavy cavalry capacity, that rarely actually saw action, but plain knights with no higher titles became thing of the past.

Many centuries later knighthood was revived as an honour system for both military and civilian awardees. Modern knighthood shares with Medieval one the confirmation ceremony and nothing else.

Squires continued to exist as a rank of honor for various groups that were not nobles but were not commoners either. Sometimes it was conferred to gentlemen (sons of nobility) without any titles of nobility. Gradually it becomes associated with privilege and high status.

Yeomen became Yeomen of the Guard, ceremonial guards for various royal events.

Lower nobility (Barons, Viscounts and Earls (Counts)) mostly became peers and landowners. They no longer needed to support any knights or any other military and could use their profits for personal needs. Earl's power over counties were effectively abolished and they became little more than Barons with fancier titles. All three retained their manors and the land. Gradually many of them stopped using it for agriculture (though some continue to do so) and turned their manors into aristocratic country houses where they now lead varying degrees of frugally privileged life paid for from various other endeavors or by collecting rent from peasants turned farmers. That life however is but a far cry from that of higher nobility. Even if they continued agricultural use, they kept up with times and gradually replaced peasants with machinery.

At first, biggest work for lower nobility became attending parliament. Back in the days Commons did not have near complete control and Lords played significant role in parliamentary work. Gradually however Commons asserted more and more power and by now Lords are reduced to nearly ceremonial chamber with no real power or influence.

While their official roles now became nearly indistinguishable, their real financial situation varied. Some managed to evolve with times and prosper. Others lost their money, sold land and titles and became extinct.

Higher nobility (Dukes and sometimes Marquesses) continued to be granted to royals and sometimes to royal favorites like infamous and disliked by many, Duke of Buckingham. They continued their role as close advisors to kings and overall maintained a much higher standards of living and political importance compared to their lower nobility peers.

They too had place in House of Lords but few in number, they did not amount to much in one person, one vote system.

Higher nobility and kings were the one who really benefited from this development as they could really spread their wings and build themselves luxurious palaces instead of huge fortifications, they did during Middle Ages.

Kings gradually lost their powers to Parliament and cabinet, but they standards of living have only improved, and they now live like kings a very rich people who have special reason to be rich. Some think about abolishing monarchy but even if that happens, royals will likely retain their luxurious palaces and land ownership which will allow them to use these money to finance their lavish lifestyles. 

How Silver Made and Its Absence Broke Latin America

 

Nowadays Latin America is known for many things but being rich is not one of them. This part of the world is not as poor as Africa or parts of South-East Asia but is not prospering either. People there either emigrating to the West or blame the US for all its problems.

That was not always this way, back in 17th and 18th centuries, the Latin America was a place to be. It was full of all sorts of valuable goods, tropical wood, cacao, coffee, sugar, tobacco, even tomatoes. All these things came from this part of the world and then gradually spread across the globe. People who found them and cultivated them made big money of it.

However, the biggest commodity that made Latin America the place it was, was Silver. Back in days silver was used to mint coins, so access to silver mines meant near literal ability to just print money as you need them. That is what Latin Americans literary did, they mined silver, mint coins out of them and then went on a crazy shopping spree, buying near everything money can buy. Spanish treasure galleons, filled with famous Spanish Silver Dollars, regularly left Spanish Main (modern Colombia and Venezuela) for Europe and brought back all sort of cool tech Italians made back then. Not even Caribbean piracy could put a significant dent in that never-ending money stream. Latins still had more money that they knew how to spend. 

If you want a proof, it really was as good as I described, then look at how fancifully decorated buildings of their colonial architecture are. Surely nowadays they often look dilapidated or even derelict, but that is because Latin America was poor for the last 200 years. If you however can look past wear and tear, you can notice sophisticated decorations that often rival that of European palaces of kings and nobility. These were not homes build for cheap; these were homes build with no expenses spared. Because why spare when you can just dig out more silver to afford whatever you want.

Back during good times Latin Americans did not mind extravagant expenses, rip off prices, ridiculous rules and taxes imposed by Spanish crown or even pirates robbing treasure fleets. Because why bother with hard stuff when you can just mine more silver and mint more money. Problem solved. One of Latin American countries is even named after this metal that brought them this wealth and lavish lifestyle: Argentina means something of a Silveria or Silverland.

All that ended when silver ran out. Unwilling to be poor, Latin Americans started to look at those responsible. 

First to get the hit was Spanish crown, Bolivar united Latin Americans under the banner of freedom, promising that after colonial yoke of Spanish crown and its taxes and tariffs are gone, Latin Americans could finally breather free and be great again.

Bolivar easily won. He is still celebrated as hero of Latin world. Bolivia is named after him, and Venezuela has Bolivarian in its official name and even its currency is named after him. Colombia is named after the name he proposed for the new freed former Spanish colonies.

Newly independent colonies adopted grand and elaborate symbols often depicting cornucopia and other symbols of wealth and opulence, clearly stating their hopes and aspirations. However, wealth did not come back. By now these fancy symbols look more like cheap decorations than statements of opulence and prosperity.

After war for independence came internal squabbles. Different groups within newly independent Latin nations started to think it's their peers who are hoggin up all the wealth. Bolivarian Grand Colombia split into 4 nations, Central American Republic into 6. Fighting did not stop there, as parts of new smaller states started fighting for either independence or more autonomy. It took 100 years before borders finally stabilised.

Even then however blame game did not end, it just shifted to ideological sphere, different groups now saw solution in different economic models. Communism, Socialism, Peronism, Capitalism and what not were tried at various times. Revolutions, coups, countercoups, civil wars and US interventions became new norm.

Now in 200 years later, Latin America is still divided between blaming the US for their poverty and thinking Socialism is the answer or trying to emigrate into the US or the broader west.

Fundamentally however nothing will work. None of these methods will bring back the silver into mines that fuelled Latin Golden Age (or Silver Age). All they can do is to divide and redivide what is left between those who still remain. Will the commies manage to eat the rich to feed the poor, or will Javier Milei manage to sacrifice the poor to Quetzalcoatl or Inca Sun God for prosperity to the rest. It's a sad thing to watch.

Any country that was rich and now poor is a very sad place to be. Most of the time there is no solution, only escape or slow death. Vain hope you are not the one thrown to Quetzalcoatl for continued comfort of the rest. Rats flee sinking ship not because they are stupid, but because they are survivals.

That is also a somber tale that money indeed buys happiness and everything else. You can have things while you have money. Without money it will all disappear sooner or later, and you will be left with nothing.

People who like my parents think that family or emotions are more important are but fools. When they had money, we had family and what not, once they lost money, it all disappeared and fell apart. 

I do not look back towards my family, but only towards the wealth we had back then and lifestyle it could afford. Alas I cannot bring back the wealth, that I want back. I can only call my parents, but I do not want to. I do not want to listen to their annoying moralising pratting. A sad tale of a similar situation but on a personal level.

World Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington Fails to Predict Future and What 21st Century will Really Look Like

 

People often cite the above map from Samuel P. Huntington books as an explanation of differences between different parts of the world. It's simple, easy to understand and fundamentally wrong. 

It's not that these divisions are completely wrong, but they are superficial at best and lump together places that are vastly different from each other. Indonesia is very different from Iran or Morocco even if they are both Muslims.

I criticised a few issues with this map in the past. For example, there is a religious division between Orthodox and Western civilizations, yet there is no such division between say Catholic or Protestants. Sure, east west, schism happened earlier, but ground for the split was much more serious in Catholic vs Protestant split. Sure, there are many visual differences between Orthodox and Western churches,, but Western churches also differ from each other. That is far to arbitrary to just select out Orthodox but lump the rest together.

That also overlooks the elephant in the room, the fact that Islam branched out from Christianity. Christians deny is as fervently as Muslims deny that Bahaullah is the new prophet or how Judaists deny that Jesus was the Messiah their religion have promised them. Inglehard-Welzel cultural values, place Muslims close to Indians, Latin Americans and Catholic Europeans.

On the other hand, there is a division between Latin and Anglophone Americas. This cultural values chart for example places the US a lot closer to their Latin American neighbors, than to certain Europeans. Catholic Europeans are very close in values to Latin America; they are former Spanish and Portuguese colonies after all.

If you take into account time or history, you will get a different picture. Turns out that these civilizations are not distinct entities with completely different origins but branches that ultimately came from a single past. It might be possible to connect Asians and Africans to this too, if we dig further into history, but that far documented records are scarce.

If they came from a common past, then why are they different now? Simple evolution, basic principle of live. The same reason why cells divide or we evolved from chimpanzees. Just as tree branches into different directions as it grows so are human societies occasionally split into different groups. When old ways stop working, a certain group decides it's time for a change and splits up.

It's not just these groups, but countries within these groups split from a common whole precisely because common leadership stopped working for them and they needed autonomy. East West Christian split was ostensively about theology, but in reality, it was about power. Pope of Rome grew powerful enough and no longer wished to share equal status with eastern patriarchs who lost their people to Islam and became but a token authority backed by nothing more than past status. As much as one might be inclined to see such act as cynical power grab, there was nothing wrong with that. Why remain shackled to the dying corpse of pentarchy, when you are the only one of the pentarchs with any real authority? To quote Pearl Jam: "Its evolution, baby."

This is but one example where new better and more fitting structures replace those that are outdated and outlived their usefulness. Rome collapsed because it was too unwieldy and corrupt. Ottoman Empire replaced even more corrupt and useless Paleologi of Byzantine Empire and in turn was replaced by the new ascending European powers as well as Turkic ethnostate. 

These changes are not something to lament. Structures and systems of society are evolving to better serve the people they represent, replacing old and dysfunctional with new and better that allows society to grow and evolve instead of stagnating and repeating the same old patters, their ancestors used to do.

Thus, Huntington map represents not the future or even current times, but the past, times where these entities were still connected as well as features that they still share in common. By now religions is a dying phenomenon as it does not serve any meaningful purpose, there is no point in dividing humanity based on this outdated concept.

Reality proves that right. Many orthodox countries in easter Europe choosing EU over their fellow Orthodox brothers. The reason is simple, the EU has answers to the problems and challenges they are facing, the Orthodox faith does not. As much as Eurasian Duginite fanatics in Russia dream of some sort of Russia centered Orthodox Eurasian world, its but a dead and useless concept that cannot solve the challenges the region faces and not even majority of Russians can believe in it, much less their neighbors, like Ukrainians or Romanians who already joined the EU.

Because of that future will not revolve around these civilizations outlined by Huntington. Instead, it will revolve around entities like European Union who can invent solutions for the problems of the future and create opportunities for prosperity and growth. 

Regional unions like the EU, that allows for free trade and well-functioning economy like that in a large nation, but without compromising individual identities and cultures of member nations, is the solution to many challenges the world is facing. 

World will gradually federalise along the EU model, that fundamentally is based and expanded on the US and Swiss examples of federal-confederal type of union with powers divided between local and federal levels to accommodate conflicting interests in the union, and pave way forward.

There will be a certain interregional rivalry between such regional unions. Current back and forth between the US and the EU is an example of such rivalry. However, such rivalries will be unlikely to lead to war or any serious military conflicts. Geo-politics and military will likely stay out of it. Politicians, economists and cultural figures however will squabble over whose side of the pond is better. "Look at our better healthcare, that is miles ahead of what is available at that dump across the pond." That kind of thing. 

The biggest battlelines of the 21st century will be between Democracies vs Autocracies. Autocracies feel threatened by spread of democracy because autocrats and elites in charge there do not want to share power and be accountable to their people. Being autocracies that suppress rather than listen to their people is the only thing that unites countries as different as Russia, China and Iran, Bermuda triangular of Autocracy.

Autocrats however face an ultimately losing battle as in connected world, people in their countries could see how people in democracies live and ask a simple question of "why can we have democracy and prosper like them?" No amount of building Great Firewalls of China or blocking internet altogether like in North Korea can ultimately stop democratisation of these countries.

However, the fact that they are facing a losing battle, makes them dangerous, as in their desperation they could destroy the world with nuclear weapons they still have. The Free World will have to manage this transition carefully to avoid nuclear apocalypse. Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals will have to be somehow disabled from within. 

To avoid cornering the proverbial rat, one has to offer them a form of exit, perhaps in a form of an autocratic rump state, where they could continue to rule as before. European microstates, like Liechtenstein or Monaco are examples of such solution. It would be best if they agree to exile in cozy safe haven like Monaco or Bora Bora. 

As much as it will be well deserved and just to do so, one cannot leave them at the mercy of their people who will make them pay for their past grievances by lynching them in cruel way. End of Muammar Gaddafi is one such example of just that kind of outcome. Other autocrats are fully aware that this or even worse is what awaits them if their people take control of their states, so they might as well just blow the world in a nuclear apocalypse, just so that if they are going down anyway, they will take the rest of the world with them.

Overall future looks rather optimistic for democracies, but one cannot get too complacent. There are still a few challenges that might destroy humanity if things go wrong. Nonetheless a hand of time cannot be stopped, and future is coming whether one likes it or not. One cannot stop the spread of democracy and freedom; one can only find a better place to be in this transforming world, be on the right side of history.