Talk:Ancien régime/Old talk

Note

The history for the content that this archive refers to can now be found at Talk:Ancien Régime/Old history. Graham87 09:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

A query

There is an obvious distinction between the pre-WWI situation throughout Europe (monarchical) and post-WWI (democratic republican), not just France.

What does it have to do with the ancien régime? Plus, numerous countries in Europe right now are constitutional monarchies.

Elsewhere in Europe

The following was recently and anonymously pasted into the article below the categories and interwikis. Normally, I'd just move it where it belongs, but I don't think it is exacly accurate in the context of this article, so I've moved it here:

Though the term Ancien Regime was coined in France, it wasn't confined to it. In fact it was present in more moderate measures in Spain and Italy, whereas quite strongly in Germany and Eastern Europe, where the Feudal System established itself much later compared to the rest of Europe.

In English, I've never seen Ancien Régime applied to writing about Italy, Germany, or Eastern Europe. Yes, they all had feudal systems, and all of those came to an end at some time, but to the best of my knowledge only Spain had a system that closely resembled that of France.

In my view, what would be most relevant to whether this belongs in this article is whether there are significant citations for using this French-language term (or some close cognate, as in the Spanish-language Antiguo Régimen) for talking about these countries. Otherwise, I think this matter just belongs in the article Feudalism, not here. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:12, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Three Pillars

I've never heard of the "three pillars" concept before, although it may be new to me; it seems unusual for a model of society that excludes the largest segment (those who work). Normally, monarchs and aristocrats are part of the second estate: nobility. Is there more information about the "three pillars"? Stbalbach 05:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Pillars" here is not a particularly operative word—it is simply being used in the sense of that on which something rests—but the nature of the Ancien Régime was precisely that power was deemed to come from above, not below. One could make an argument from a more modern perspective that the power of the regime rested, in part, on the more or less passive consent of the governed, but that was certainly not the theory of the time, and the Third Estate becoming conscious of itself as a base of power led rather directly to the demise of the Ancien Régime. (Aside: even then, it was basically the upper stratum of the Third Estate that gained power: there were not exactly a lot of peasants and artisans even in the Republican legislatures.)

The regime's own theory of its sovereignty was that power passed from God to the monarch (and, through him, to the Second Estate) and to the Church (and, through it, to the First Estate). There was no claim to a basis in popular sovereignty and consent of the governed. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

Rather than scatter merge discussion over the place, let's centralize it at Talk:Estates of the realm#Proposed merge -- Jmabel | Talk 08:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

pejorative

just gonna add a link - Bagel7

Why VIIIth century?

It must be changed, I dont understand how can it be. In the wikipedia in spanish we have first translate this and after changed, you can see es: Antiguo Régimen. The Ancien Règime implies transition from feudalism to capitalism, society with the three estates of the realm, and a powerful monarchy, not necesarialy absolute but not feudal (we can use autoritarial monarchies). That is impossible to find before XVth century, and then only in Western Europe: Portugal, Castile, France, England (that made his change towards New Regime earlier than others).--Ángel Luis Alfaro 13:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with this. No one really uses "Ancien Régime" to refer to the Early or High Middle Ages. In most countries, there was more continuity from feudalism to the Ancien Régime than from the Ancien Régime to the republics and consitutional monarchies that followed, but the forms were quite distinct. - Jmabel | Talk 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Much better, but I must insist in two points: economy and localization:

• If only feudalism is linked in the article, the transition to capitalism is ingnored, and that's the key of the difference between Medieval Age (feudal), Early Modern Age or Ancien Regime (tansition), and New Regime or Contemporany Age (capitalism).
• If only France and Spain are linked, we forget at least Portugal and England.--Ángel Luis Alfaro 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with using the word feudalism is that the concept and word "feudalism" was an enlightenment-era concept meant to disparage the systems of the Middle Ages - it was a pejorative word, an insult - just like Ancien Regime. In the 20th century scholars more sharply defined its definition to something meaningful (although very ambiguous), but certainly at the time Ancien Regime was first being used, Feudalism was not like what we think of it today. Basically, I would be very cautious of using the term Feudalism as a neutral historical descriptor in the context of the time period of this article. -- Stbalbach 13:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is not the place to discuss, but there is a contradiction: if "Feudalism was not like what we think of it today" we must improve our knowledge, not renounce to use the term. The fact is that it's largely used in historic studies, and a powerful concept to describe economy, society and politics. Obviously, it changes a lot in ten centuries.--Ángel Luis Alfaro 16:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The word and concept of "feudalism" was invented in 1614 to disparage and mock the middle the ages. The term has only become "respectable" among historians in the past 100 years or so. So this sentence:

The Ancien Régime retained many aspects of a feudal system

we are using a 17th century pejorative word to describe an 18th century pejorative word. -- Stbalbach 12:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed!, and that's the way science works!: if we only could use the reality for describe the reality, we can't do nothing. Borges imagined a map so accurate that coincided exactly with the country to describe in a 1:1 scale. Useful, isn't it?. In science, we use inaccurate words to describe reality in sucesive approximations. We use always a simbolic lenguage, as human species.--Ángel Luis Alfaro 20:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)