|
Hydrolith posted:I'm still working my way through the thread, so apologies if this has been asked before. This partly depends on the terrain. In places like Wales and, as Odobenidae pointed out, Ireland, where the terrain was rougher and forests less well-managed, skirmishers on foot were a common feature. In Rus' and in South Slavic countries too, men with javelins were a common feature, though in the former they would sometimes be on horseback. Even in heavily chivalric parts of Europe like the kingdoms of Aragon, France and Germany there was still room for men with javelins. The almughavars of the Catalan Company are most akin to what you want, but knights, too, could throw spears. Suger mentions that 'javelins menaced javelins' at a confrontation near Montaigu. Though he is referencing Lucan, there is some implication of missile exchange. Indeed, the mid-12th century Rule of the Temple has a specific injunction against knights throwing their lances at each other in the lists, and Norman cavalry are (rarely) depicted throwing their lances in the Bayeux Tapestry. Throwing the lance was also listed as a knightly exercise by Orderic Vitalis. What seems to be more often the case for missile skirmishers, however, is that they are professional soldiers, archers and crossbowmen. William Rufus is described as deploying 'archers and crossbowmen' to watch the roads of Maine and harass his enemy, Count Helias. Speaking for the 11th and 12th centuries, knights made excellent skirmishers. By skirmish, in this instance, I mean a smaller confrontation than a battle, beyond any kind of permanent fortification. Ambushes on the roads, opportunistic combat while ravaging, that sort of thing. They were good at it because they combined high personal skill and good coordination within a conroi with good armour and mobility. It is clear that skirmish was an extremely common form of knightly combat, perhaps even the most common. Dedhed posted:Might not be technically medieval, but... It's about the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. The revocation made Protestant worship illegal, so the 'heretic' is a Protestant, who is presented as the victim of royal tyranny.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
Dedhed posted:Might not be technically medieval, but... Well he's wearing a green uniform and carrying a carbine and he's labeled "dragoon" so he's a dragoon. That one's easy. My high school French and google translate tells me that the big label is: THE NEW MISSIONARY sent by order of Louis the Great throughout the kingdom of France to return the heretics to the Catholic faith of the society of M. des Rut, Marshal-de-Camp, nicknamed Missionary Guitel  The dragoon is saying "He who can resist me is very strong" and the heretic is saying "the force is beyond reason." The musket is labeled "invincible reason." The cartoon seems to me like it predates standardized spelling and the author's punctuation leaves something to be desired, and I'm not sure what a guitel is and why it would be a sick burn to call somebody that, but the main thrust is clear. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
Dedhed posted:Might not be technically medieval, but... I don't know who that guy is, but I'm not loving with anyone with a gun loaded with big rear end crosses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Well he's wearing a green uniform and carrying a carbine and he's labeled "dragoon" so he's a dragoon. That one's easy. I think it's actually "misionnere bottez" (missionnaire botté), missionary in boots, and "M. de St. Rut" for Charles Chalmont, Marquis de Saint-Ruth and a general of Louis XIV.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Hey Obdicut, if you're around I went and looked around my translation of Wace and it seems the translator chose to translate 'gisarme' as 'pike', so what Wace ascribes the Saxons to carrying are not pikes but a different kind of polearm. However, what the word 'gisarme' literally means is somewhat open to interpretation, since terminology for polearms was not that precise at the time. The translator describes it as 'something like an axe . . . affixed to a lengthy pole'. This is a fairly good guess (and is the one Oakeshott makes) but I have no idea why he didn't just include the drat word 'gisarme'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Hey Obdicut, if you're around I went and looked around my translation of Wace and it seems the translator chose to translate 'gisarme' as 'pike', so what Wace ascribes the Saxons to carrying are not pikes but a different kind of polearm. However, what the word 'gisarme' literally means is somewhat open to interpretation, since terminology for polearms was not that precise at the time. The translator describes it as 'something like an axe . . . affixed to a lengthy pole'. This is a fairly good guess (and is the one Oakeshott makes) but I have no idea why he didn't just include the drat word 'gisarme'. Yeah, it'd be really interesting to create, like, a map-over-time of spear lengths, maybe combined with the percentage of armies that were spearmen. (If you consider a pike to be a modified spear and not a different class of weapon altogether, that is.) I like the "gigantic axe" theory of the gisarme, mainly because of the Gawaine and Green Knight connection which is my favorite 'Arthurian' legend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
When Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, one of the things he did was to quarter troops (the "dragoon" in the picture) on Huguenot families (the "heretic"). This was a common punishment in the period, or a common threat in international relations--one of the things you, as a head of state, would do to other heads of state that was somewhat less serious than war would be to raise an army and either send it over their border or threaten to. No actual combat, but the pressures of living with them would economically ruin an area. The Revocation was unpopular throughout France and Europe at large: "heretic" is ironic--as Roderigo Diaz pointed out, this cartoon wants you to sympathize with him. I wondered if this was printed over the border in Switzerland or in the Netherlands, since it's pretty subversive. It looks like it was printed at Lille, though--under the Huguenot, it says "Lilh de G. Engelmani." I'd bet that was a false imprint. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
What was the extent of antisemitism during the medieval era? I know about events like pogroms and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain (although that doesn't really fall into the medieval period), but were those the rule or the exception?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:A significant number of the Mongols' arrows were tipped with whistles, whose sole purpose was to scare the poo poo out of the enemy with their noise. WOAH MAN! How have a I never head of these before? That is too cool. I wanted to stop back by and say thanks to everyone that answered my question regarding terrifying weapons in medieval times, I'm amazed at how many of you chipped in. That bit about opening up an animal to stop its heart was pretty bad rear end too. Sorry I vanished for a minute, I've been super busy on the farm I manage. This is a cool thread though, I will continue browsing it and maybe come up with another good ask or two. Thanks again to everyone that answered my first one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
brozozo posted:What was the extent of antisemitism during the medieval era? I know about events like pogroms and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain (although that doesn't really fall into the medieval period), but were those the rule or the exception? Jews were routinely barred from taking up any kind of trade, except for banking. This was because Christians were forbidden to be bankers (that would be usury), but banking was still seen as necessary. As there was no other career option, some Jews became successful, wealthy bankers. Cue "greedy Jew" stereotypes and further persecution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
Hydrolith posted:Jews were routinely barred from taking up any kind of trade, except for banking. This was because Christians were forbidden to be bankers (that would be usury), but banking was still seen as necessary. Well, why were they banned from so many different trades? How was usury looked upon in Judaism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
brozozo posted:What was the extent of antisemitism during the medieval era? I know about events like pogroms and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain (although that doesn't really fall into the medieval period), but were those the rule or the exception? Jews were also commonly blamed for plague & disease outbreaks as they were considered 'dirty'. This was typically supported by nobles as they could use this as justification to strip Jews of their wealth. I'll poke around and see if I still have my sources. Also, if Christians weren't allowed to bank due to usury, how did the Medici Banks (and others) arise? And is this why the Medici's were rumored to have Jewish roots?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Speaking of banking, what did the Templars actually do? I know that they may be the beginning of the Swiss banking system, but what did they actually do besides protect Jesus's kids?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Jews were also commonly blamed for plague & disease outbreaks as they were considered 'dirty'. This was typically supported by nobles as they could use this as justification to strip Jews of their wealth. I'll poke around and see if I still have my sources. another option for banking is to give money as a gift and not charge usury but to charge insurance costs for transporting the money from one place to another even if the money didn't need to go anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Also, if Christians weren't allowed to bank due to usury, how did the Medici Banks (and others) arise? And is this why the Medici's were rumored to have Jewish roots?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
How important was feudal and church law to international (inter-kingdom?) politics in medieval Europe? Was the legal framework for legitimate rule a unique European thing or did other medieval regions (like the Islamic world) also fight wars over legal interpretations and that sort of thing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
brozozo posted:Well, why were they banned from so many different trades? quote:How was usury looked upon in Judaism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
How did the flow of news, rumor and information go back then anyway? I figure the nobles, of course, had their own messengers and spy services to keep up with the politics, but what about the merchants(who no doubt, are highly interested and can afford some) or the peasants?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
Anne Whateley posted:It varied a ton, by century and by class and by luck of the draw. In general, women weren't as uneducated as you might expect; many were literate and numerate. When you say "many," do you mean many noble women? For example, in the late 1940s in India at the time of independence, the literacy rate among women in India was about 9%. Presumably, medieval Europe wasn't much better. So, to me, to say "many" women were literate and numerate sounds like it's probably misleading to a modern/Western audience - "many" to us means, like, at least 30% or something. I'd venture that well over 90% of women were illiterate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
Railtus posted:All of the above. So in other words, this scene from Holy Grail is quite accurate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
LankyIndjun posted:When you say "many," do you mean many noble women?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 09:01
|
|
|
Wouldn't literacy be rather stratified so sweeping statements would be pretty useless? The value of literacy varies quite a lot between the classes, though having at least one person in the family who could read and write(to some extent anyway) would be pretty useful, and not all that costly if taught within the family.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 09:31
|
|
|
Where did the jew hate come from, actually? Or is this more like an Ancient History question?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 09:59
|
|
|
Well I can answer the ancient history part. The Romans were so angry with them after the Third Jewish Revolt (or the Bar Kokhba revolt) that they pulled down the temple, banished all Jews from Judea and even renamed the province to Palestine. As you might gather by the Roman name for the conflict this was not the first time this had happened and the Romans were tired of having to send armies to Judea. The Romans actually governed with a light hand in Judea (witness the power the Pharisees retained under Roman rule) and exempted Jews from participation in Roman religious rights* but the Jews failed to appreciate their privileges. Jewish ambitions to independence were ultimately foolhardy. Rome could never allow Judea its independence because it sat right between Syria and Egypt, both extremely wealthy and important economic centers of the Roman empire. The Jewish revolts backfired when the Romans hit on the idea of just evicting the Jews from their strategically important piece of land. Thus the Diaspora. Well that's the dramatic version of the story at least. The Jews began to spread throughout the Roman world before even the official diaspora as Roman rule brought contact, trade and the slave trade which no doubt made a fortune in Jewish prisoners after each of the revolts. *Freedom to practice your own religion was not a big deal in the Roman world as long as you honored your god alongside the Roman pantheon. Freedom from participation in Roman religion was a big deal and speaks volumes about the Roman respect for Judaism. Like the later Europeans, to Romans the East was the source of ancient and mysterious wisdom, and the sheer antiquity of Judaism impressed the Roman imagination.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
Well, bear in mind the Babylonians sacked the first holy temple. The Romans sacked the second one. I don't honestly know how much hatred was involved, though (beyond the ordinary hostility one feels to an enemy in wartime). And if you can go by the bible, there was the Egyptians before that. I'd actually be really interested to know if there are any actual historical records of the Jews being slaves in Egypt, to be honest, though we're already well outside the scope of this thread... Wikipedia says the earliest evidence of antisemitism dates from 300 BCE or so 
Hydrolith fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 12:37
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:*Freedom to practice your own religion was not a big deal in the Roman world as long as you honored your god alongside the Roman pantheon. Freedom from participation in Roman religion was a big deal and speaks volumes about the Roman respect for Judaism. Like the later Europeans, to Romans the East was the source of ancient and mysterious wisdom, and the sheer antiquity of Judaism impressed the Roman imagination. Counter point: the idea of monotheism sounded patently ridiculous to the vast majority of the Roman world. Reverence of a single god above or even apart from any others is one thing, but to deny the existence of gods other than your own is a bit ridiculous to a deeply polytheistic culture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
Azran posted:Where did the jew hate come from, actually? Or is this more like an Ancient History question? In Christian Western Europe, Jews were called "Christ-killers" and considered inferior because God had withdrawn his special deal with them and given it to the Christians (big theological problems with this, but that never stopped a good reason to hate). They basically became the scapegoats for everything wrong with the world and everything bad that happened was blamed on them - e.g. a plague was sent by God to punish the Jews but the Christians got it too, so it was the duty of Christians to punish the Jews some more on God's behalf. There are proscriptions against Jews in the pronouncements of most of the various Ecumenical/Lateran councils if you want to go look.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:In Christian Western Europe, Jews were called "Christ-killers" and considered inferior...
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
At that time, had Jews developed the idea that other people's gods simply don't exist?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Azran posted:Where did the jew hate come from, actually? Or is this more like an Ancient History question? This is true of any visible minority group. See, for instance, the meme of "minorities poisoning wells" you see attributed to anything from Jews in the middle ages to Koreans in 1920s Japan whenever a disaster hits. The mere existence of other ways and other identities is often considered a challenge to the normality and rightness of the majority culture, and this is something that you see even today. Arnold of Soissons posted:Counter point: the idea of monotheism sounded patently ridiculous to the vast majority of the Roman world. Reverence of a single god above or even apart from any others is one thing, but to deny the existence of gods other than your own is a bit ridiculous to a deeply polytheistic culture. Also because religion was an integral part of the Roman state and the essential idea of "Romanness." Romans in the late empire didn't really care about things like ethnicity - they cared about roman values and participation in the institutions of the roman state, which included the roman state religion of "some gods and poo poo." You could bring your own gods in no problem so long as you integrate them into the roman pantheon and roman ritual practices. The religion in part was used to mark out the state institutions and values that were special and sacrosanct. Denial of the state religion was considered anti-social behavior and a challenge to the authority and status of the state. The fact that Judaism was tolerated was likely because the Romans respected them for being, even in that era, an ancient and learned religion, and also because they were pretty generally practical about cultural things if it helped them rule the empire. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:At that time, had Jews developed the idea that other people's gods simply don't exist? Jewish monotheism dates to roughly 1200 BC (the time of the Exodus) or even earlier. The Jews themselves struggled with the concept until after the Babylonian Captivity, ca. 500 BC. Modern Rabbinic Judaism is little changed from that time. The Romans were great respecters of tradition, and even though Jewish theology conflicted with their polytheism they considered it a protected religion since it was even older than the Roman Republic. This was a big deal in early Christianity as it was considered a sect of Judaism and thus was also officially protected as it first spread. The real pogroms against the Christians started after the Jamnia conference in 95 AD where the Jews formally broke ties with the Christians and they lost that protection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
I thought there was no proof for the exodus ever actually happening?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I thought there was no proof for the exodus ever actually happening? It didn't happen the way the Bible describes it, but the idea of a group (or several groups) of people escaping Egypt during the chaos of the Sea Peoples invasions isn't at all unlikely. There is evidence of new settlements appearing in the highlands of Judea just about the same time the Jews claimed to have arrived (and the newcomers appeared to have been nomadic and didn't eat pork), so it's plausible. The nation of Israel was more likely a confederation of tribes, some new but mostly local, who developed a common religion and identity. The narrative of the Exodus gradually grew to include all of them as their national epic, even though most of them probably weren't involved in it. Hence the Biblical account is the result of centuries of embellishment and retelling of what was probably originally a fairly simple story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Ascetic Crow posted:Speaking of banking, what did the Templars actually do? I know that they may be the beginning of the Swiss banking system, but what did they actually do besides protect Jesus's kids? Is this post for real? Arglebargle III posted:How important was feudal and church law to international (inter-kingdom?) politics in medieval Europe? Was the legal framework for legitimate rule a unique European thing or did other medieval regions (like the Islamic world) also fight wars over legal interpretations and that sort of thing? Feudal custom was not quite fully formed in my period but it had a huge influence on relations between the Anglo-Normans and their successors and the Kings of France. Owing homage for French possessions was a huge part of politics up until the HYW decided the issue for good. Your question is really broad and vague, can you refine it a bit more? LankyIndjun posted:So in other words, this scene from Holy Grail is quite accurate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0 For a second I thought Railtus had started posting again. I will say the notion of 'the English' develops long before the HYW, and indeed by the time of Harold Godwinson there was a notion of 'Englishness', though more local identities would typically be stronger. While under the Normans and Angevins there was a definite cultural divide between much of the nobility and the commoners, this ebbs and flows to a degree, until the nobility becomes quite firmly English during King John's pitiful reign. As a whole, the notion of the Norman Yoke is stupid. Here's a good BBC podcast featuring Real Academics on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b009q7zm/In_Our_Time_The_Norman_Yoke/
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I will say the notion of 'the English' develops long before the HYW What's the HYW? HEGEL CURES THESES posted:Just off the top of my head, why would you assume medieval Europe (many countries, over a period of a thousand years) has a great deal in common with India in the 1940s? I am assuming that widespread, cross-class literacy as we conceive of it in the West today is a recent phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
LankyIndjun posted:What's the HYW? The Hundred Years' War - which was really the culmination of centuries of trans-channel hostility and disputation over which nobles owned what. Not saying it ended there, but it was probably the most dramatic conflict of the Medieval era. Arguments can be made as to when the French and English identities became truly separate, but by the end of the Hundred Years War there was no doubt that they were forever severed and that each was its own distinct Kingdom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
LankyIndjun posted:
And you're making some rather silly assumptions that gloss over a lot of complexity. You're forgetting, for instance, that writing in the vernacular was quite common on an informal basis, and that a large amount of people were at least partially able to read and write in it : even if you signed your name with an X, you probably knew how to read basic signs and the like. Also, the magic of non-standardized spelling. This isn't even touching on the fact that in the period, they would consider being "literate" to be being able to read/write Latin or Greek (or, in certain areas and periods, Occitan or French). Really, the whole question of how you define "literate" makes this not something that can be answered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Is this post for real? Yeah, go gently caress yourself man. I asked a real question with a lovely Da Vinci code joke, and now you're being a dick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Ascetic Crow posted:Yeah, go gently caress yourself man. I asked a real question with a lovely Da Vinci code joke, and now you're being a dick. Lol ok there big man. The fact that you didn't know their actual role but did know some conspiracy bullshit and some trivia made me think you were trolling, especially because this kind of question is one of the few questions to which 'go read wikipedia' is a reasonable answer. They were a religious order of knights (indeed, the first). They fought chiefly against Muslims, but I'm pretty sure they hosed up various Baltic pagans too. What else do you want to know? edit: oh hey you changed your avatar Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Lol ok there big man. The fact that you didn't know their actual role but did know some conspiracy bullshit and some trivia made me think you were trolling, especially because this kind of question is one of the few questions to which 'go read wikipedia' is a reasonable answer. Nothing anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 22:45
|
|