Suchergebnisse

This book aims first to provide an account of a pivotal episode in the historical evolution of the idea of sovereignty - the supreme authority to command, legislate, and judge - in the thirteenth century. It also aims to reconnect early modern theorists of sovereignty to the medieval intellectual tradition out of which they emerged.

"Over the past two decades or so, medieval geopolitics have come to occupy an increasingly prominent place in the collective imagination--and writings--of International Relations scholars. Although these accounts differ significantly in terms of their respective analytical assumptions, theoretical concerns and scholarly contributions, they share at least one common - arguably, defining - element: a belief that a careful study of medieval geopolitics can help resolve a number of important debates surrounding the nature and dynamics of 'international' relations. There are however three generic weaknesses characterizing the extant literature: a general failure to examine the existing historiography of medieval geopolitics, an inadequate account of the material and ideational forces that create patterns of violent conflict in medieval Latin Christendom, and a failure to take seriously the role of 'religion' in the geopolitical relations of medieval Latin Christendom. This book seeks to address these shortcomings by providing a theoretically guided and historically sensitive account of the geopolitical relations of medieval Latin Christendom. It does this by developing a theoretically informed picture of medieval geopolitics, theorizing the medieval-to-modern transition in a new and fruitful way, and suggesting ways in which a systematic analysis of medieval geopolitical relations can actually help to illuminate a range of contemporary geopolitical phenomena. Finally, it develops an historically sensitive conceptual framework for understanding geopolitical conflict and war more generally"--Publisher's website

Despite the historical patina of much of the extant literature, most of the scholarship on the `Revolution in Military Affairs' (RMA) reflects a profoundly superficial and ahistorical understanding of the changing nature of warfare. To be sure, this literature is not lacking in historical detail and analogy — indeed, one of its defining characteristics is a selfconscious attempt to use history alternatively to `prove' the RMA thesis and to illuminate the transhistorical dynamics of radical change in the nature of war. But these historical references are almost exclusively to transformations in the nature of warfighting. The purpose of this article is to address the problem of ahistoricism by reconnecting changes in the nature of warfighting to both broader transformations in the social organization of warfare and deeper changes in the nature of war as an historically constructed social institution.