Source: Facebook

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN LEGAL CODES WHETHER GERMANIC, HELLENIC, OR ROMAN DIFFERED IN LITTLE OTHER THAN SCOPE OF COOPERATION.

(Note that Rik Storey deleted my comment on the site.)

Good post, although the argument that they were stateless is specious (questionable). The state existed and is referenced throughout the literature. Applications of the law (“laws”) evolve with demand for them, and demand for them is almost entirely the function of production, distribution, and trade. The universality european customary law, which evolved into germanic law, and the european customary law of the Etru, Ital, Hellenes was as similar as were their religions. As the Lotharingian trade routes expanded, creating inter-territorial trade (particularly between northern italy and the rivers of france, germany, and the north-sea/baltic routes), demand for law increased, and the more advanced versions of the mediterranean commercial codes were adopted. They were adopted in large part because they were logically the same.

The church functioned as a very weak central government and power between the church (50%) of the lands, and the states (manor-holdings) was in constant competition – the church then tended to take credit for that which was produced organically.

The ancient traditional law of europeans is was of military necessity, natural law ( reciprocity ). The romans discarded hellenic idealism during the romanization of Greece, just as anglos discarded continental idealism in the enlightenment era. Thereby returning it to its anglo saxon > germanic > west indo european origins. The church then re-idealized it. Anglo enlightenment then restored it. The 20th century can largely be seen as a third attempt to make natural law idealized or supernatural. And some of us struggle to restore it.