Dragual Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Why just one type of government for ALL the lands? Why not mix it up? Say, Marind's Bell would be a Democracy, Loreroot would be a Republic, Necrovion would be a Dictatorship and GG a Monarchy. I believe that that would make the lands a little more... Distinct. It would be a type of government that FITS the land, not the entire MD. Chewett and Brulant 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipstickz Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 That's all well and good in theory, but then people will go run to whichever land fits their political view, rather than the land that actually fits them. Plus, if there will be kings again at all, you can't force them to follow the policy they are assigned to. Watcher and Chewett 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brulant Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 I think it's probably wise to wait until the rest of this announcement pans out, and then see what we can do from there. Maybe after Mur comes back from being sick/on vacation. [quote] [color="#CCCCCC"][font=Georgia,]Ann. 2096 - [2011-11-18 18:46:01 - Stage 11][/font][/color] [b]King Firsanthalas resigns[/b] Due to yet untold reasons King Firsanthalas resigns from his position as King of Loreroot. A forum topic about this was opened. Like the other resigned Kings, Firsanthalas agreed to finish some of the remaining kingship related activities and leave LR in good standing. Currently all kings are resigned or unable to rule (jester). I will not open any new elections season for now. [size=4][b]More details about why and what will happen next will be given in a few days. (currently there is no set plan but elections is clearly not the solution).[/b][/size] [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubaris Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 [quote name='Pipstickz' timestamp='1322800803' post='97021'] That's all well and good in theory, but then people will go run to whichever land fits their political view, rather than the land that actually fits them. Plus, if there will be kings again at all, you can't force them to follow the policy they are assigned to. [/quote] Monarchy itself is being forced upon the lands, or was being forced since it may happen that Mur will abandon it. Dragual Monarth is right, some types of governments fit some lands more than the others. But like I've always said, I think that the people of the land should reach one of the governmental systems on their own, and not being pushed by Mur. Even without game mechanics features of a monarch that you witnessed in recent Kings and Queens you can achieve authority. As far as I know, Nelya Setesh from Loreroot didn't have those tools, and yet everybody listened to her, she was a de facto Sovereign of Loreroot, and I think letting the lands achieve that on their own makes the game history much more fun, makes this world realistic, or at least not-absurd like with the permanent (supposedly) Kings who get elected by vote of the entire MD for a single land. Such de facto sovereigns can later be backed up with some ability support from the Mur, like in case of good role players who get some abilities due to their roles. Prince Marvolo, Hedge Munos, Neno Veliki and 3 others 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Chewett Posted December 2, 2011 Root Admin Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 It would be intresting to see each land form their own group, but exceptionally problematic for Mur. Say he wants each land to do X or Y. Who does he turn to as the person or people in charge? What happens if a land is split, does he pick the biggest and totally ignore the others? There is a benifit for having one person at the top of a land, becuase then mur can just go to them and ask them things and do stuff. Wheras if you have multiple people organisation and planning things becomes a nightmare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passant the Weak Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 [quote name='Rhaegar Targaryen' timestamp='1322811155' post='97023'] ragual Monarth is right, some types of governments fit some lands more than the others. But like I've always said, I think that the people of the land should reach one of the governmental systems on their own, and not being pushed by Mur. [/quote] Asides from the mechanical "Monarchy after election" that we have seen, it is my feeling that each monarch has set up its own system of government in the past: - Autocracy/dictatorship in Necrovion by Jester - Feudalism with a king and many independant barons in GG by Yrthilian - Democracy based on a council/government in Marind Bell by Handy Pocket. (I don't really know about loreroot). That is to say, whatever mechanism are given by Mur, we always can adapt them to what Darth is describing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Chewett Posted December 2, 2011 Root Admin Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 [quote name='Passant the Weak' timestamp='1322815432' post='97029'] - Democracy based on a council/government in Marind Bell by Handy Pocket. [/quote] You refer to the MB council that was set up by Lifeline and I before the first Kingship Voting?Handy Adopted the system, Rheagar and I improved it so it worked in the new age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passant the Weak Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 yes, I shouldn't have named the monarchs! But you got the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubaris Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 So Chewett, you say there shouldn't be a governmental system for a group based on the needs of the group, but on the potential of solving Mur's requests? dst, Ackshan Bemunah and Prince Marvolo 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipstickz Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 [quote name='Rhaegar Targaryen' timestamp='1322811155' post='97023'] Monarchy itself is being forced upon the lands, or was being forced since it may happen that Mur will abandon it. Dragual Monarth is right, some types of governments fit some lands more than the others. But like I've always said, I think that the people of the land should reach one of the governmental systems on their own, and not being pushed by Mur. Even without game mechanics features of a monarch that you witnessed in recent Kings and Queens you can achieve authority. As far as I know, Nelya Setesh from Loreroot didn't have those tools, and yet everybody listened to her, she was a de facto Sovereign of Loreroot, and I think letting the lands achieve that on their own makes the game history much more fun, makes this world realistic, or at least not-absurd like with the permanent (supposedly) Kings who get elected by vote of the entire MD for a single land. Such de facto sovereigns can later be backed up with some ability support from the Mur, like in case of good role players who get some abilities due to their roles. [/quote] Some types of government might fit a land in theory, but that doesn't mean they should practice it. Government is a social institution, not based on where it is. You might say "Communism fits China perfectly", but that doesn't mean that tomorrow there won't be a revolution. As I said before, you can't force the leaders into this, and you certainly can't force the people. If you want this to happen, wait until there actually is some leadership, and address them and their people. You do have the power to change things, you just need to work to use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubaris Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) Oh, no, I never called for any kind of enforcing, Pip, I'm against such methods. Regarding one system "fitting" a certain land more than the others, it was just in theory, analyzing the symbolism of the lands. In RL, where you mentioned China, you would analyse the mentality of people and I guess the ideals of the nation's culture, of its myths. There was this nice introduction in a book of my childhood (collection of Serbian epic songs) where the author (the one who collected them all in the book, he didn't wrote them of course) said how a nation is measured (in sense of studied) by learning about their ideals. Edited December 3, 2011 by Rhaegar Targaryen Ackshan Bemunah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantasm Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 in a way there already is a few different type of leadership. Tribunal is under a dictatorship, one in which the dictator isn't really there for its people, but a dictatorship non the less. Yrth was more like the true King in senses of the term. Loved by most of his people, often never questioned, and king for LONG before actual kingships came around. Firs was more like a president. Trying to be political with his citizens, giving them the right and choice to voice their opinions. Allowing others in positions of power to make choices, or aid him in choices. Yes all have their up and down sides. So don't go flaming about how what king did what wrong or right. I am mearly stating that in such a world as MD often any title is nothing more then that. It is the decisions, actions, and use of what tools one has that makes up the meaning. One of the few ideals that haven't been seen in MD anymore is "Communism". Not in the horrible terms like Russia and Germany, but in the terms communism was really meant for. People all helping each other for the good of the group. So in a way, there already were different forms of leadership style, simply from the choices and ideals of the "king/queen" currently in charge. You almost can't help any other way of it, since as I said before, power is nothing more in MD then the desire and will to take action in a certain direction. Duke of Malfi, Esmaralda, Chewett and 5 others 4 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragual Posted December 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Let me point out... Dictatorship-Someone takes over, via methods of his/her choosing. Military strength, Earning the trust of the people, etc. Democratic Republic-Several leaders who were elected into power. Monarchy-A King or Queen, said to be given his right to rule by 'god'... Hands his/her title down to their child. Democracy-An elected official holds sole leadership. Each one of these types of government can be applied to a land. As far as who to contact, that wouldn't have to be a problem for the DR because they could simply have a representative with equal power to be the 'voice'. Some one who just gives the news. And as far as the people rushing over to their political affiliation... If it's chosen by the people what kind of Government they want, then it's up to them. Brulant, Kyphis the Bard, Esmaralda and 1 other 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burns Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 That is entirely incorrect, unfortunately. Democracy, Autocracy (and Plutocracy) are definitions about where the power comes from, Republic and Monarchy are state forms. The first 3 are almost entirely compatible with the latter 2, for example there are many democratic monarchies in Europe. Republics don't have to have several leaders, there can also be one, not all monarchs base their power on higher powers, and few democracies have just one leading figure. Esmaralda, Tarquinus, Brulant and 1 other 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragual Posted December 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 It is not entirely wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic Note: Not several, perhaps I used the wrong word, but the idea is more than one. Rome was at first a Republic, with a senate. They did not have a single leader, they had more than one. (Until Cesar and then...) However, you are correct on the Democracy part. And yet this is MD... It is OUR realm to decide the fate of. We CAN have it like that. A Democracy with one ruler. Perhaps my diction is a bit off on a few statements, but the point is mostly clear and coherent. Chewett and Brulant 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Chewett Posted December 3, 2011 Root Admin Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Citing wikipedia... poor poor poor Brulant and Grido 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brulant Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) Here are Wikipedia's citations. On something as big as Republics, I think you can take most of what Wikipedia has to say as correct. As a quick forum definition, it should suffice, even if you wouldn't use it as a paper source. [log Citations][list] [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-0"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu"]Montesquieu[/url], [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_the_Laws"]The Spirit of the Laws[/url][/i] (1748), Bk. II, ch. 1. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Britannica_1-0"]^[/url][/b] "Republic". [i]Encyclopædia Britannica[/i]. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-WordNet_2-0"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic"]"republic"[/url], [i]WordNet 3.0[/i] (Dictionary.com), retrieved 20 March 2009 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-M-W_3-0"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic"]"Republic"[/url]. [i]Merriam-Webster[/i]. Retrieved August 14, 2010. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-4"]^[/url][/b] See Aristotle's [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle)"]Politics[/url][/i] [url="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D1265b"]1265b[/url]: "In fact some people assert that the best constitution must be a combination of all the forms of constitution, and therefore praise the constitution of Sparta （for some people say that it consists of oligarchy, monarchy and democracy, meaning that the kingship is monarchy and the rule of the ephors oligarchy, but that an element of democracy is introduced by the rule of the ephors because the ephors come from the common people; while others pronounce the ephorate a tyranny but find an element of democracy in the public mess-tables and in the other regulations of daily life）." Aristotle is considered the crucial surviving source for understanding Polybius and Cicero's comparisons to Greek regimes. In[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics"]Nicomachean Ethics[/url][/i] 1160a34 he says [i]politeia[/i] can mean the same thing as "[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timocracy"]timocracy[/url]". In the [i]Politics[/i] 1293b22 he says [i]politeia[/i] can mean what is today often translated as a "[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_regime"]mixed regime[/url]". [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-5"]^[/url][/b] Montesquieu, [i]Spirit of the Laws[/i], Bk. II, ch. 2–3. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-6"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html"]Constitution of the United States.[/url] [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-7"]^[/url][/b] Rubinstein, Nicolai. "Machiavelli and Florentine Republican Experience." in [i]Machiavelli and Republicanism[/i] Cambridge University Press, 1993. [*]^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Ideas2099_8-0"][sup][i][b]a[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Ideas2099_8-1"][sup][i][b]b[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Ideas2099_8-2"][sup][i][b]c[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Ideas2099_8-3"][sup][i][b]d[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Ideas2099_8-4"][sup][i][b]e[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Ideas2099_8-5"][sup][i][b]f[/b][/i][/sup][/url] "Republic" New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Ed. Maryanne Cline Horowitz. Vol. 5. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005. pg. 2099 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-9"]^[/url][/b] Lewis, Charlton T.; Charles Short (1879). [url="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dres"]"res, II.K"[/url]. [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Latin_Dictionary"]A Latin Dictionary[/url][/i]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved August 14, 2010. [*]^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Haakonssen_10-0"][sup][i][b]a[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Haakonssen_10-1"][sup][i][b]b[/b][/i][/sup][/url] Haakonssen, Knud. "Republicanism." [i]A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy.[/i] Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit. eds. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1995. [*]^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-William_R._Everdell_2000_11-0"][sup][i][b]a[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-William_R._Everdell_2000_11-1"][sup][i][b]b[/b][/i][/sup][/url] William R. Everdell. The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. University of Chicago Press, 2000. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-12"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Bloom"]Bloom, Allan[/url]. [i]The Republic.[/i] Bsic Books, 1991. pg. 439-440 [*]^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Kingsxxiii_13-0"][sup][i][b]a[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Kingsxxiii_13-1"][sup][i][b]b[/b][/i][/sup][/url] William R. Everdell. The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. University of Chicago Press, 2000. pg. xxiii [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Monarchy_14-0"]^[/url][/b] "Monarchy" [i]New Dictionary of the History of Ideas.[/i] Ed. Maryanne Cline Horowitz. Vol. 5. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-15"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Finer"]Finer, Samuel[/url]. [i]The History of Government from the Earliest Times.[/i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Press"]Oxford University Press[/url], 1999. pg. 950. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-16"]^[/url][/b] Nippel, Wilfried. "Ancient and Modern Republicanism." [i]The Invention of the Modern Republic[/i] ed. Biancamaria Fontana. Cambridge University Press, 1994 pg. 6 [*]^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Rahe_17-0"][sup][i][b]a[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Rahe_17-1"][sup][i][b]b[/b][/i][/sup][/url] Paul A. Rahe, Republics, Ancient and Modern, three volumes, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1994 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-18"]^[/url][/b] Reno, Jeffrey. "republic." [i]International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences[/i] pg. 184 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Pocock_19-0"]^[/url][/b] Pocock, J.G.A. [i]The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition[/i] (1975; new ed. 2003) [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-20"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://p2.www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074639/Vaisali"]http://p2.www.britan...9074639/Vaisali[/url] Vaisali,[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica"]Encyclopædia Britannica[/url]. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-21"]^[/url][/b] Bindloss, Joe; Sarina Singh (2007). [url="http://books.google.com/?id=T7ZHUhSEleYC&pg=PA556&dq=Vaishali#v=onepage&q=Vaishali"][i]India: Lonely planet Guide[/i][/url].[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonely_Planet"]Lonely Planet[/url]. p. 556. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number"]ISBN[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1741043085"]1741043085[/url]. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-22"]^[/url][/b] Hoiberg, Dale; Indu Ramchandani (2000). [url="http://books.google.com/?id=DPP7O3nb3g0C&pg=PA208&dq=Vaishali#v=onepage&q=Vaishali"][i]Students' Britannica India, Volumes 1-5[/i][/url]. Popular Prakashan. p. 208. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number"]ISBN[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0852297602"]0852297602[/url]. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-23"]^[/url][/b] Kulke, Hermann; Dietmar Rothermund (2004). [url="http://books.google.com/?id=TPVq3ykHyH4C&pg=PA57&dq=Vaishali&q=Vaishali"][i]A history of India[/i][/url]. Routledge. p. 57. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number"]ISBN[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0415329191"]0415329191[/url]. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-24"]^[/url][/b] Sharma, RS. [i]Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India.[/i] Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1999 pg. xxix [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-25"]^[/url][/b] Radhey Shyam Chaurasia [i]History Of Ancient India Earliest Times To 1200 A.D.[/i] Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, 2002 pg. 296 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-26"]^[/url][/b] Alterkar, AS. [i]State and Government in Ancient India.[/i] Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2002 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-27"]^[/url][/b] Martin Bernal, [i]Black Athena Writes Back[/i] (Durham: Duke University Press, 2001), 359. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-28"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/15"]Aksum[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO"]UNESCO[/url] [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-29"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://upress.kent.edu/Nieman/Concepts_of_Democracy.htm"]Concepts of Democracy and Democratization in Africa Revisited. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Kent State University Symposium on Democracy. by Apollos O. Nwauwa[/url] [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-30"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iceland-free-speech-20110403,0,5332545.story"]http://www.latimes.c...0,5332545.story[/url] [*]^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Finer_1999._pg._950-955_31-0"][sup][i][b]a[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Finer_1999._pg._950-955_31-1"][sup][i][b]b[/b][/i][/sup][/url] Finer, Samuel. [i]The History of Government from the Earliest Times.[/i] Oxford University Press, 1999. pg. 950-955. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-32"]^[/url][/b] William R. Everdell. The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. University of Chicago Press, 2000 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-33"]^[/url][/b] Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge. Law in Medieval Russia, IDC Publishers, 2009 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-34"]^[/url][/b] Finer, Samuel. [i]The History of Government from the Earliest Times.[/i]Oxford University Press, 1999. pg. 955-956. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-35"]^[/url][/b] Finer, Samuel. [i]The History of Government from the Earliest Times.[/i]Oxford University Press, 1999. pg. 1020. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-36"]^[/url][/b] "Republicanism." [i]Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment[/i] pg. 435 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-37"]^[/url][/b] "Introduction." [i]Republicanism: a Shared European Heritage.[/i] By Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner. Cambridge University Press, 2002 pg. 1 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-38"]^[/url][/b] "Republicanism." [i]Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment[/i] pg. 431 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-39"]^[/url][/b] "Latin American Republicanism" New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Ed. Maryanne Cline Horowitz. Vol. 5. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-40"]^[/url][/b] Anderson, Lisa. "Absolutism and the Resilience of Monarchy in the Middle East." [i]Political Science Quarterly[/i], Vol. 106, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 1–15 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-41"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis"]Bernard Lewis[/url]. "The Concept of an Islamic Republic" [i]Die Welt des Islams,[/i] New Series, Vol. 4, Issue 1 (1955), pp. 1–9 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-42"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OED"]OED[/url], [i]s. v.[/i] [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-43"]^[/url][/b] "Presidential Systems" [i]Governments of the World: A Global Guide to Citizens' Rights and Responsibilities.[/i] Ed. C. Neal Tate. Vol. 4. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2006. p7-11. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-44"]^[/url][/b] Article VII, Constitution of the United States [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-45"]^[/url][/b] Article II, Para 2, Constitution of the United States [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-46"]^[/url][/b] The novelist and essayist [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.G.Wells"]H.G.Wells[/url] regularly used the term crowned republic to describe the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom"]United Kingdom[/url], for instance in his work [i]A Short History of the World.[/i] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred,_Lord_Tennyson"]Alfred, Lord Tennyson[/url] in his poem[i][url="http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tennyson/alfred/idylls/chapter13.html"]Idylls of the King[/url][/i]. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-47"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Montfort_Dunn"]Dunn, John[/url]. "The Identity of the Bourgeois Liberal Republic." The Invention of the Modern Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-49"]^[/url][/b] "[url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/"]Republicanism[/url]" [i]Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[/i] Jun 19, 2006 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-50"]^[/url][/b] McCormick, John P. "Machiavelli against Republicanism: On the Cambridge School's 'Guicciardinian Moments'" [i]Political Theory[/i], Vol. 31, No. 5 (Oct., 2003), pp. 615–643 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-51"]^[/url][/b] Pocock, J.G.A [i]The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition[/i] Princeton: 1975;2003 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-52"]^[/url][/b] Philip Pettit, [i]Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government[/i], NY: Oxford U.P., 1997, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0198290837"]ISBN 0-19-829083-7[/url]; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-53"]^[/url][/b] William R. Everdell. [i]The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans.[/i] University of Chicago Press, 2000. pg. 6 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-54"]^[/url][/b] GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly ... Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-55"]^[/url][/b] W. Paul Adams "Republicanism in Political Rhetoric Before 1776."[i]Political Science Quarterly[/i], Vol. 85, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 397–421 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-56"]^[/url][/b] Bailyn, Bernard. [i]The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution[/i]. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-57"]^[/url][/b] Kramnick, Isaac. [i]Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late Eighteenth-Century England and America.[/i]Ithaca: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University_Press"]Cornell University Press[/url], 1990. [/list] [/log] Or, you know, there's always the dictionary. [quote] republic |riˈpəblik| noun a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. [/quote] Edited December 4, 2011 by Brulant Zyrxae and Tarquinus 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragual Posted December 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Meh. I did more then cite Wikipedia. I gave an example... Rome before Cesar. And also stated I did not have the best diction in this. It is the idea that is significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Chewett Posted June 9, 2013 Root Admin Report Share Posted June 9, 2013 Looks like this has turned out to happen! Funny thing looking back at past ideas Dragual 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragual Posted June 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 I didn't even remember posting this until you brought it back to life. xD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Citing wikipedia... poor poor poor Agreed as a professor at one of the leading institutions in Illinois I would have failed your paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubaris Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Yep, I'm glad everything turned out proper and lands elected their own leaders. :) Much better this way. Zyrxae 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.