Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « Military law – England – 18 century »

This comprehensive work provides a treasure trove of ways to seek, find, and use the power of will to gain an advantage over one's opponents in mental conflicts. Will has been and always will be the basis for succeeding in any conflict or competition. To win in a conflict or competition, decision-makers must comprehend the meaning and implications of will and successfully transform theories about it into practice. In the 21st century, it is especially important for military leaders and security professionals to comprehend will in sufficient depth to enable them to impose their will on other re

Abstract Ever since Sir Henry Spelman used the words of French feudists, backed by what was in the circumstances an impressive amount of genuine medieval evidence, to explain ‘the original, growth, propagation and condition of feuds and tenures by knight-service, in England’, ideas about feudalism in England have been derived from ideas of feudalism in France and yet, paradoxically, have been different from them in several ways. Deep-rooted traditions of linguistic and pseudo-racial nationalism have fostered the belief that feudalism came to England from France as a result of the Norman Conquest, yet attention here has always been focused on military service and the rights of kings over those who held their land directly from them, both of which, as I have argued, seem hard to find in anything like comparable form in France. One reason why the paradox has not attracted more critical thought is that these phenomena were very early on incorporated into the general model of non-Marxist feudalism, so that those who started from the model and were primarily—or only—interested in England naturally took them for granted, just as those who were primarily interested in France took for granted the contrasting situation there. The model has obscured the evidence for historians both sides of the Channel. Another reason is that since the twelfth century the peculiar development of English law has discouraged English lawyers and legal historians from looking at all closely at other countries.

Abstract Ralph Rishton first married in 1531, when he was 8 or 9 years old. After his first wife succumbed to mental illness and he returned from military service in wars with Scotland, he secured a forged certificate of annulment from church officials in order to marry another woman, whom he had gotten pregnant. The first part of this chapter reconstructs the narrative of this part of Ralph’s life, with an emphasis upon the ways in which witnesses in court depositions conveyed their observations and impressions of married life. The chapter then goes on to examine child marriage among the Lancashire gentry and yeomanry in the sixteenth century, based upon dozens of cases in the consistory court of the Diocese of Chester. Child marriage was a common experience, entwined with family strategies for alliance building and property acquisition, and cases subsequently initiated to annul such marriages on grounds of underage compulsion offer detailed insight into expectations surrounding marriage. Lancashire gentry also married much closer to home, geographically speaking, than their counterparts elsewhere in England. One result was a tightly knit propertied class, intensely local in outlook, who acted for each other in a wide range of legal capacities, especially in relation to their property.

Abstract That the constitutional status of the police in England and Wales is unclear has long been recognized. The uncertainties arise because of the difficulty of reconciling the inherent, discretionary powers of a constable with membership of a disciplined force organized on military lines: because of the different but inevitably competing roles of central government (chiefly the Home Office), of local government (chiefly the local police authorities), and of chief officers of police; because of the eclipse of the principle, endorsed by two Royal Commissions in this century, ‘that police powers are mostly grounded in the common law and differ little from those of ordinary citizens’;because of the steady enhancement of central control of the police at the expense of local police authorities, raising expectations that a national police force will emerge through the cumulative impact of statute law; because of the hesitations often shown by the courts in purporting to examine the legality of police activities; because of the implications of new technology, media coverage, greater mobility, and international contacts; and because of the increasing significance of the European Convention on Human Rights.

L’Estoile’s journals are a major confluence of legal and tragic discourses on villainy, including high-brow tragedy. Chapter 18 focuses on a tragic problem coursing throughout this book: why the nobility, especially prominent military leaders, found it so difficult to shake off villainy even at the point of death. This chapter covers two notorious examples: Louis Bussy d’Amboise and Charles de Gontaut, Duc de Biron. L’Estoile was among the first of many observers to reflect on the high drama of their deaths. Between law and literature, L’Estoile records the lineaments of an ambivalent discourse on valour and villainy that would develop more fully as the ‘discursive space’ expanded into England. The debasement of Bussy and Biron was revisited in stage tragedies by George Chapman, whose work afforded a transcultural meditation on two haughty malcontents who thought they were above common and criminal law.

Abstract One reason why the events following hard upon William of Orange’s landing came to be known as the Glorious Revolution was that-in England at least¬ they involved almost no armed conflict or loss of life.1 This remarkable contrast to Monmouth’s recent invasion, let alone the mid-century civil wars, resulted largely from James H’s failure to make a determined military stand against the numerically inferior forces commanded by his nephew and sonin-law. Physically debilitated, stricken by recurrent nosebleeds (here indeed the Revolution was far from bloodless), apprehensive for the safety of his family as well as himself, perhaps also fearful that William’s safe arrival signified a loss of heavenly favour, James vacillated. His decision to tum back towards London from Salisbury on 23 November without giving fight merely hastened his already demoralized army’s disintegration. Lieutenant-General Churchill, the King’s former military protege and commander at Sedgemoor, now headed a stream of officers and men defecting to William’s camp. As the Prince moved slowly onward from Exeter, with declarations of support coming in from all over the country, James’s military and political position collapsed.