You go on a vacation...

[Askold]

So you're not counting Scotland and Wales then, just England? Because Britain's borders have changed a lot over the centuries...

Anyway, according to your rules no English king has ever been legitimate. Rome rules over Britain and they certainly had a more than enough development in their empire. Heck, after the borders of Rome changed and retreated to East the level of bureaucracy in Europe collapsed and it took centuries until another nation had a bureaucracy that could control an area bigger than a city.

And as I've said before, the Byzantine empire was a direct continuation of Rome (despite your bullshit claims otherwise) and therefore the inheritance of England went to Byzantine (whom the English and other European nations attacked unlawfully) and then the Tsar and finally Finland after the collapse of Tsarist Russia. The first and only king of Finland still has descendants in Germany if you want to find them and put them on the throne of England.

(And if you're going to go for some other bullshit excuse again I'll remind you that if a nation collapsing means that the new ownership goes to some other country rather than the heir then the current queen of England is the rightful ruler because her family got the throne and therefore the previous line ceased to be the rightful rulers.)

[Jacob Harrison]

So you're not counting Scotland and Wales then, just England? Because Britain's borders have changed a lot over the centuries...

Anyway, according to your rules no English king has ever been legitimate. Rome rules over Britain and they certainly had a more than enough development in their empire. Heck, after the borders of Rome changed and retreated to East the level of bureaucracy in Europe collapsed and it took centuries until another nation had a bureaucracy that could control an area bigger than a city.

And as I've said before, the Byzantine empire was a direct continuation of Rome (despite your bullshit claims otherwise) and therefore the inheritance of England went to Byzantine (whom the English and other European nations attacked unlawfully) and then the Tsar and finally Finland after the collapse of Tsarist Russia. The first and only king of Finland still has descendants in Germany if you want to find them and put them on the throne of England.

(And if you're going to go for some other bullshit excuse again I'll remind you that if a nation collapsing means that the new ownership goes to some other country rather than the heir then the current queen of England is the rightful ruler because her family got the throne and therefore the previous line ceased to be the rightful rulers.)

The Principality of Wales was a puppet state of England at the time when the last true king, Richard III was killed in battle. Scotland was a separate Kingdom at the time.

Ok I accept that the Byzantine Empire was a continuation of Rome. However England is still legitimate because in treaties, they recognized Charlamagne and Holy Roman Emperors as the Emperors in the West and the Holy Roman Empire recognized other European Kingdoms such as England as legitimate.

[Skybison]

It has to have towns and cities and have at least two levels of government, with local governments for towns and cities, and a central government ruling over the local governments.

Why?  Why is it okay to murder, rape and enslave someone who doesn't have those things?

It has to have writing, and knowledge of iron and steel making.

Why?  Why is it okay to murder, rape and enslave someone from a society that doesn't have those things yet?

Jesus said you must love your neighbor as yourself.  You seem to spend a lot of time trying to find excuses not to love your neighbors that have no basis in the bible (ie "The refugees aren't here legally"  "They're technology isn't advanced enough").  Jesus never says that makes it okay to kill someone or leave them to die.

If Christianity is true Jacob, you are going to hell unless you repent and change your ways.

[dpareja]

If a nation needs multiple levels of government, can we seize the Vatican?

No because the Catholic Church as a whole has multiple levels of government.

The Catholic Church doesn't govern Vatican City. That is governed solely and absolutely by (at present) Jorge Bergoglio.

[Jacob Harrison]

If a nation needs multiple levels of government, can we seize the Vatican?

No because the Catholic Church as a whole has multiple levels of government.

The Catholic Church doesn't govern Vatican City. That is governed solely and absolutely by (at present) Jorge Bergoglio.

And he is the Pope of the Catholic Church so the Catholic Church does govern Vatican City. Besides, it is advanced enough since it is a city and so it counts as a micronatiom which is a level between tribe and nation. It therefore has the same status as Monaco.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Right now Jacob is describing the more advanced nation as the one that burned alive minorities that were tolerated and had the protection of the law from the nation that preceded it. That should tell everybody what he means by "advanced."

[Jacob Harrison]

Right now Jacob is describing the more advanced nation as the one that burned alive minorities that were tolerated and had the protection of the law from the nation that preceded it. That should tell everybody what he means by "advanced."

Because the Kingdom of Spain was established after regaining Christian Land that was stolen by the Muslims. There were previous Christian Kingdoms on the Iberian Penninsula that were conquered by the Muslims. As I said, the Inquisition was a response to the Muslim invasion of Christian Land and Jews were targeted because they collaborated with the Muslims, but were given mercy because they could leave Spain if they didn’t want to convert to Catholicism.

[Skybison]

Jacob DIRECT QUESTION

Why does not having the wheel, metal, or writing make it okay for someone to be robbed, enslaved or killed?

[Jacob Harrison]

Jacob DIRECT QUESTION

Why does not having the wheel, metal, or writing make it okay for someone to be robbed, enslaved or killed?

It justifies conquering them because they are primitive and civilization must be brought to them. It is for the greater good of spreading civilization.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Jacob DIRECT QUESTION

Why does not having the wheel, metal, or writing make it okay for someone to be robbed, enslaved or killed?

It justifies conquering them because they are primitive and civilization must be brought to them. It is for the greater good of spreading civilization.

A guy saying the "for the greater good" in that context is...well, the same guy who thought the obscene horrors of the Spanish Inquisition could be justified because Jewish people were just trying to get by and live normal lives when Muslims ran the place.

And still a guy who insists he's gonna convert anybody to his deeply authoritarian, anti democratic pro genocide way of thinking. You're scum Jacob, thankfully you're the sort of scum that lacks the charisma and organisational skills to bring your horrific, primitive and regressive vision of how the world should be to fruition so I guess we'll just tolerate your mad barking here. It's all you got!