You go on a vacation...

[Jacob Harrison]

The degree of advancement is whenever a civilization moves above tribal level and establishees a nation.

A tribe is a smaller group, consisting of a community and based on close blood ties. A nation contains multiple communities under a single unified government.

Like the Inca empire.

And the Aztecs.*

And the Iroquois Confederacy.

And tons more.

*Now you say the Aztecs don't count because of human sacrifice, but the problem here is that you call the Romans advanced and they also practiced human sacrifice, that's where the Gladiator games came from.  So if that doesn't stop the Romans from being advanced, then the Aztecs aren't either.

Well the Inca Empire was one of the few examples of an Empire that did not have adaquate levels of civilization to make it wrong to conquer them.

The Inca Empire was unique in that it lacked many features associated with civilization in the Old World. In the words of one scholar, "The Incas lacked the use of wheeled vehicles. They lacked animals to ride and draft animals that could pull wagons and plows... [They] lacked the knowledge of iron and steel... Above all, they lacked a system of writing

Lacking wheeled vehicles, iron and steel, and writing disqualifies it from having an adaquate level of civilization.

The Iroquois Confederacy was a Confederacy meaning an alliance between different tribes, rather than a unified nation. It lacked the complex hierarchy that made it a nation.

And the gladiator games were different than human sacrifice because,

A gladiator (Latin: gladiator, "swordsman", from gladius, "sword") was an armed combatant who entertained audiences in the Roman Republic and Roman Empire in violent confrontations with other gladiators, wild animals, and condemned criminals. Some gladiators were volunteers who risked their lives and their legal and social standing by appearing in the arena. Most were despised as slaves, schooled under harsh conditions, socially marginalized, and segregated even in death.

So the people killed in the gladiator games were either criminals who deserved their death or people who VOLUNTEERED to risk their lives in the gladiator games, and many people risk their lives to do dangerous challenges today.

[Jacob Harrison]

How about the Mughal Empire, for that matter? Or all of the nations in Southeast Asia that France sorta just ran over?

Well the conquest of the Mughal Empire was done by the British East India Company which was chartered by the illegitimate British monarchs, so it was probably for an unjust reason such as corporate greed. The French conquest of Indochina was just because it was to stop the persecution of Christian missionaries there.

[Askold]

a) Much like this fake inheritance theory, no one in the world believes that this "your society has to meet Jacob's criteria for advancement or anyone is allowed to conquer it" code is how the world works or that such a code even exists.

b) You're going to have to shift the goalposts AGAIN because if you are not allowed to conquer a country then the entire plan to set up another king on the throne of England is also against your own code of honour.

[Jacob Harrison]

a) Much like this fake inheritance theory, no one in the world believes that this "your society has to meet Jacob's criteria for advancement or anyone is allowed to conquer it" code is how the world works or that such a code even exists.

b) You're going to have to shift the goalposts AGAIN because if you are not allowed to conquer a country then the entire plan to set up another king on the throne of England is also against your own code of honour.

a) My criteria is based on history. Conquerors justified their conquests based on the primitiveness of the people they conquered. England was considered a legitimate sovereign nation at the time of Knut's conquest.

b) It is not against my code of honor because it is conquest of an illegitimate government to put the true legitimate heir on the throne that is rightfully his.

[Askold]

a) Why don't you ask some of your schoolteachers or a priest or someone if they think that code of yours is smart or in any way legitimate?

b) I knew it, moving the goalposts again.

[Jacob Harrison]

a) Why don't you ask some of your schoolteachers or a priest or someone if they think that code of yours is smart or in any way legitimate?

b) I knew it, moving the goalposts again.

a) The problem is that the teachers and priests today do not have the old fashioned mindset on conquests because the age of colonialism is over.

b) England was a legitimate sovereign nation under the legitimate monarchs so it was the illegitimate monarchs that usurped the throne who violated my code. Having the true heir restored to the throne is retaking what was stolen.

[dpareja]

Every conqueror claims to have been more advanced than whomever they conquered. Doesn't make it true--by your own admission.

[Jacob Harrison]

Every conqueror claims to have been more advanced than whomever they conquered. Doesn't make it true--by your own admission.

It is true most of the times. The Romans were more advanced than the barbarians they conquered and the Europeans were more advanced than the natives they conquered in the Americas.

[Art Vandelay]

1. A tribe rather than being a specific number is a community which is a group of people living in the same location and are relatively related to each other. The size of the location and how closely related is also ambiguous however what is specific is the level of civilization.

Anthropologist Elman Service presented a system of classification for societies in all human cultures, based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four categories:

Hunter-gatherer bands that are generally egalitarian
Tribal societies with some limited instances of social rank and prestige
Stratified tribal societies led by chieftains (see Chiefdom)
Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments

So a tribal level of society is led by chieftains, while a nation has complex social hierarchies and organized institutional governments.

Stop shifting the fucking goal posts and give me a straight answer. If it's not about population after all, then at the very least admit you fucked up by bringing it up in the first place. Secondly, as I've said many-a time already, be specific. "Limited instances of social rank and prestige" and "complex social hierarchies" doesn't actually mean anything if you don't define what qualifies as "limited" or "complex" and what doesn't.

2. But the laws that the King makes apply to all the fiefs, so it has a unified institutional government. The lords are governors over their specific fief while the King governs the entire Kingdom.

No, they very much do not. He sets the obligations of his direct vassals (but not his indirect vassals), and that's about as far as is say in his vassal's affairs goes. Internal matters such as taxes on the peasants and merchants, penal system and even succession laws are decided solely by the local lord, whoever he or she may be. In fact, that sort of fragmented governance was kind of the whole point of feudalism in the first place. After Rome and its state bureaucracy fell, managing anything larger than a town and few hundred square kilometers of farmland directly was simply impossible, so a hierarchic alliance of independent micro-states was the best they could do.

Honestly, for someone who wants so badly to go back to such a system, you seem to know fuck all about how it actually works.

[Jacob Harrison]

1. A tribe rather than being a specific number is a community which is a group of people living in the same location and are relatively related to each other. The size of the location and how closely related is also ambiguous however what is specific is the level of civilization.

Anthropologist Elman Service presented a system of classification for societies in all human cultures, based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four categories:

Hunter-gatherer bands that are generally egalitarian
Tribal societies with some limited instances of social rank and prestige
Stratified tribal societies led by chieftains (see Chiefdom)
Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments

So a tribal level of society is led by chieftains, while a nation has complex social hierarchies and organized institutional governments.

Stop shifting the fucking goal posts and give me a straight answer. If it's not about population after all, then at the very least admit you fucked up by bringing it up in the first place. Secondly, as I've said many-a time already, be specific. "Limited instances of social rank and prestige" and "complex social hierarchies" doesn't actually mean anything if you don't define what qualifies as "limited" or "complex" and what doesn't.

2. But the laws that the King makes apply to all the fiefs, so it has a unified institutional government. The lords are governors over their specific fief while the King governs the entire Kingdom.

No, they very much do not. He sets the obligations of his direct vassals (but not his indirect vassals), and that's about as far as is say in his vassal's affairs goes. Internal matters such as taxes on the peasants and merchants, penal system and even succession laws are decided solely by the local lord, whoever he or she may be. In fact, that sort of fragmented governance was kind of the whole point of feudalism in the first place. After Rome and its state bureaucracy fell, managing anything larger than a town and few hundred square kilometers of farmland directly was simply impossible, so a hierarchic alliance of independent micro-states was the best they could do.

Honestly, for someone who wants so badly to go back to such a system, you seem to know fuck all about how it actually works.

1. Tribal society has chiefs as their leaders. Nations are more complex, because they have multiple levels of government and a bureaucracy.

2. You have it wrong. The kings in the medieval times did have absolute power. There was a concept that they had divine right to rule. Kings had the power to disinherit rebellious vassals, order taxation, and make laws for the entire kingdom. King Henry II established Common Law in England.

[Art Vandelay]

1. Tribal society has chiefs as their leaders. Nations are more complex, because they have multiple levels of government and a bureaucracy.

Once again, because you apparently haven't figured out how this whole reading thing works. Address the fact that you fucked up by bringing up population when by your own admission it's irrelevant, and be fucking SPECIFIC. What specific, objective characteristics defines a chief as opposed to a lord? What does "more complex" actually mean? How many "multiple levels" of government and bureaucracy are required, and what are each of these multiple levels composed of and what do they actually do?

One more vague non-answer out of you and we're done.

2. You have it wrong. The kings in the medieval times did have absolute power. There was a concept that they had divine right to rule. Kings had the power to disinherit rebellious vassals, order taxation, and make laws for the entire kingdom. King Henry II established Common Law in England.

Bull fucking shit. As I said, they can order taxation (as in, taxation of direct vassal lords, not taxation of said lord's subjects) and set obligations for their vassals. Yes, they can also disinherit rebellious vassals, assuming said vassal loses their rebellion (which is far from guaranteed). As for common law, if I may do what you often do in these situations and quote the Wikipeds.

Since 1189, English law has been a common law, not a civil law system; in other words, no comprehensive codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive. This may be a legacy of the Norman conquest of England, when a number of legal concepts and institutions from Norman law were introduced to England. In the early centuries of English common law, the justices and judges were responsible for adapting the system of writs to meet everyday needs, applying a mixture of precedent and common sense to build up a body of internally consistent law. An example is the Law Merchant derived from the "Pie-Powder" Courts, named from a corruption of the French pieds-poudrés ("dusty feet") implying ad hoc marketplace courts.

Following Montesquieu's theory of the "separation of powers", only Parliament has the power to legislate; but in the event of a statute being ambiguous, the courts have exclusive power to decide its true meaning, using the principles of statutory interpretation. Since the courts have no authority to legislate, the "legal fiction" is that they "declare" (rather than "create") the common law. The House of Lords took this "declaratory power" a stage further in DPP v Shaw,[50] where, in creating the new crime of "conspiracy to corrupt public morals", Viscount Simonds claimed the court had a "residual power to protect the moral welfare of the state".[51][52] As Parliament became ever more established and influential, Parliamentary legislation gradually overtook judicial law-making such that today's judges are able to innovate only in certain very narrowly defined areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_common_law

To sum up, it was basically the wild west of legal systems until parliament came along and took control over the whole thing as part of their gradual chipping away of the nobility's power.

[Jacob Harrison]

1. Tribal society has chiefs as their leaders. Nations are more complex, because they have multiple levels of government and a bureaucracy.

Once again, because you apparently haven't figured out how this whole reading thing works. Address the fact that you fucked up by bringing up population when by your own admission it's irrelevant, and be fucking SPECIFIC. What specific, objective characteristics defines a chief as opposed to a lord? What does "more complex" actually mean? How many "multiple levels" of government and bureaucracy are required, and what are each of these multiple levels composed of and what do they actually do?

One more vague non-answer out of you and we're done.

2. You have it wrong. The kings in the medieval times did have absolute power. There was a concept that they had divine right to rule. Kings had the power to disinherit rebellious vassals, order taxation, and make laws for the entire kingdom. King Henry II established Common Law in England.

Bull fucking shit. As I said, they can order taxation (as in, taxation of direct vassal lords, not taxation of said lord's subjects) and set obligations for their vassals. Yes, they can also disinherit rebellious vassals, assuming said vassal loses their rebellion (which is far from guaranteed). As for common law, if I may do what you often do in these situations and quote the Wikipeds.

Since 1189, English law has been a common law, not a civil law system; in other words, no comprehensive codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive. This may be a legacy of the Norman conquest of England, when a number of legal concepts and institutions from Norman law were introduced to England. In the early centuries of English common law, the justices and judges were responsible for adapting the system of writs to meet everyday needs, applying a mixture of precedent and common sense to build up a body of internally consistent law. An example is the Law Merchant derived from the "Pie-Powder" Courts, named from a corruption of the French pieds-poudrés ("dusty feet") implying ad hoc marketplace courts.

Following Montesquieu's theory of the "separation of powers", only Parliament has the power to legislate; but in the event of a statute being ambiguous, the courts have exclusive power to decide its true meaning, using the principles of statutory interpretation. Since the courts have no authority to legislate, the "legal fiction" is that they "declare" (rather than "create") the common law. The House of Lords took this "declaratory power" a stage further in DPP v Shaw,[50] where, in creating the new crime of "conspiracy to corrupt public morals", Viscount Simonds claimed the court had a "residual power to protect the moral welfare of the state".[51][52] As Parliament became ever more established and influential, Parliamentary legislation gradually overtook judicial law-making such that today's judges are able to innovate only in certain very narrowly defined areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_common_law

To sum up, it was basically the wild west of legal systems until parliament came along and took control over the whole thing as part of their gradual chipping away of the nobility's power.

1. Any system that has any multiple levels of government counts as a nation. Multiple levels indicates there being local governments under a central government.

2. There are many decrees that Kings made indicating that they did have absolute power to make laws. This is from a history site. http://www.thefinertimes.com/Ancient-History/it-was-good-to-be-king-in-medieval-times.html

The best term to describe the power that medieval Kings had is "absolute".  It is almost pointless to talk about the wealth that a medieval King had because for all intents and purposes, the entire kingdom was the possession of the King.  Their power was absolute so whatever the King determined was the right thing for the people to do or for him to do became the law of the land instantly. 

The feudal system was a bureaucracy, and the fiefdoms had a great amount of autonomy, but the King’s rule was supreme. And parliament in England represented both nobility and the common folk because since it had the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

[Art Vandelay]

One more vague non-answer out of you and we're done.

You were warned.

[Jacob Harrison]

One more vague non-answer out of you and we're done.

You were warned.

I don’t see how my answer was vague. I explained what multiple levels mean and how any society with multiple levels is a nation.

[Art Vandelay]

How many "multiple levels" of government and bureaucracy are required, and what are each of these multiple levels composed of and what do they actually do?

Once again, learn to fucking read. It's not hard.