Talk:Universal power

[Untitled]

The rest of this article is in the Spanish Wikipedia. Looks interesting, but needs translation by someone truly skilled in both languages. Cbdorsett (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll translate this over the next couple of weeks, but I'm new to Wikipedia and am not familiar with style guidelines and linking things, etc. I'll look at the guides but I might also need some help.Ledhead1788 (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So I put up my translation.Ledhead1788 (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Major issues with this article

"The emperor and the pope maintained their respective authorities through diverse factors such as territorial dispersion, low level of technic[clarification needed] and productive development in feudal mode of production, and social and political tendency of feudalism to decentralization of power."

Problems: -Assumes a particular politically-slanted ('feudal mode of production' is a Marxist idea) view of the Middle Ages. -The emperor and pope retained their (central) authorities through a tendency to decentralization? Makes no sense. -What is a 'low level of technic'? If 'technology' is meant, what does a low level of technology have to do with this? There are legitimate connections (lack of easy information flow, necessity of a large portion of the population to work in agriculture) but it needs --at least-- an explanation of why it is relevant.

"The universal powers continued into the early 19th century until the Napoleonic Wars"

Wrong as stated; the Pope's secular power in the Papal States was restored after Napoleon's defeat and lasted until 1870; his religious relevance remains to this day. What is presumably meant is that the situation of two universal powers ended with the end of the Holy Roman Empire in the Napoleonic Wars, but this should be what is actually said.

"Given the Caesaropapism of the Byzantine Empire, the situation in the Western World after the decline of the Roman Empire assumed an exceptionally powerful position of the Bishop of Rome. As the only patriarch in the Western World, his status was soon converted into that of a primate."

Problems: -Why does the Caesaropapism of the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire) mean that the Bishop of Rome (in the former Western Roman Empire) is more powerful? -'Assumed' doesn't make sense here, but it's not clear what is meant. 'Led to', 'allowed', 'required', 'demanded'? -The question of the primacy of the See of Rome in early Christian history is debated, and this isn't the right place to address it, but just stating one side ('the Bishop of Rome didn't have primacy until after the fall of the Roman Empire') is POV.

128.194.250.86 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus to move right now, but consensus the article could be merged with Dominium mundi. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Universal power → Universal power (Middle Ages) – The expression "universal power" is vague. I feel giving the title a precision would not hurt and could avoid some erroneous hyperlinks in the long term. Moreover, a search on Google Scholar (see the search with the term 'emperor' added) and on Google Books indicate the expression "Universal power" is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at all. Veverve (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Are there topics from which a disambiguation page could be formed for the phrase? BD2412 T 21:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• This article is not very good. We also have Dominium mundi. I think these should be merged and I do not know what the best title for the result would be, but I don't see a need to move this article right now. Especially when half of it is post-medieval. Perhaps Ichthyovenator has ideas. Srnec (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• The title "Universal power" is pretty poor since this seems not only eurocentric but also medieval-centric - there were Mesopotamian rulers going around calling themselves king of the Universe from the 3rd millennium BC onwards. It seems to me that the Chinese idea of the Mandate of Heaven is also a similar idea. The article on Universal monarchy treats the same idea but it's a bit wider in scope (though leaves a lot out as well). I agree with Srnec's view that Dominium mundi appears to cover the same concept as what this article does now and that they could perhaps be merged in some form. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.