|
JaucheCharly posted:Check out the work of 2 of my friends Niiiiice.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:A year back or more another dude talked about this maker, and it's pretty bland work for that price. Sick arbalests, yo. I like how clean his workshop is; no garage junk in sight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
I don't believe for a second that this isn't completely staged. The second that you start to work with horn it's a dusty and disgusting shitfest. Those guys do reenactment and exhibitions, I think those workshop pics are from one of these occasions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:I don't believe for a second that this isn't completely staged. The second that you start to work with horn it's a dusty and disgusting shitfest. Those guys do reenactment and exhibitions, I think those workshop pics are from one of these occasions. edit: posting from my own disgusting shitfest
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
In political-economic terms how similar was feudalism throughout the Carolingian world in say 1500? Especially in Germany/HRE's western bits, in the history of Germany everyone talks about neo-serfdom and the East Elbian Junkers but nobody talks about the Rhineland
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Massive differences depending on local situations. Local economy, local religious mix, secular vs ecclesiastical lords, rural vs urban, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:In political-economic terms how similar was feudalism throughout the Carolingian world in say 1500? Especially in Germany/HRE's western bits, in the history of Germany everyone talks about neo-serfdom and the East Elbian Junkers but nobody talks about the Rhineland http://store.steampowered.com/app/327930/
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:In political-economic terms how similar was feudalism throughout the Carolingian world in say 1500? Especially in Germany/HRE's western bits, in the history of Germany everyone talks about neo-serfdom and the East Elbian Junkers but nobody talks about the Rhineland What do you mean by Carolingian? I'm not familiar with the use of that term for anything other than the 8th/9th-century Frankish dynasty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
deadking posted:What do you mean by Carolingian? I'm not familiar with the use of that term for anything other than the 8th/9th-century Frankish dynasty. Pretty much the core territory of the Carolingian empire, northern France, western Germany, the low countries, and England(not part of the empire but a graft from it after 1066
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:07
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Pretty much the core territory of the Carolingian empire, northern France, western Germany, the low countries, and England(not part of the empire but a graft from it after 1066 That's... Not a particularly reasonable linkage, especially nearly 700 years later. Also English feudal practice was never particularly closely related to the French. Even in the Anglo-Norman period there were some pertinent differences, so calling it a "graft" but not, say, contemporary Tuscany doesn't really make sense. I don't know enough about the larger politics of 16th century Germany or France to give you a good answer, though, since all I care about are fluffy ostrich feathers and outrageous amounts of slashing and particolor (aka the military side) Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Pretty much the core territory of the Carolingian empire, northern France, western Germany, the low countries, and England(not part of the empire but a graft from it after 1066 This is triggering me really hard
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Pretty much the core territory of the Carolingian empire, northern France, western Germany, the low countries, and England(not part of the empire but a graft from it after 1066 That is incredibly not related to anything Carolingian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Hey guys could you tell me about the funeral traditions in the Viking world, specifically Sicily in the 30 Years War.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Hey guys could you tell me about the funeral traditions in the Viking world, specifically Sicily in the 30 Years War. They lighted the ships of their chiefs with gunpowder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:In political-economic terms how similar was feudalism throughout the Carolingian world in say 1500? Especially in Germany/HRE's western bits, in the history of Germany everyone talks about neo-serfdom and the East Elbian Junkers but nobody talks about the Rhineland icantfindaname posted:Pretty much the core territory of the Carolingian empire, northern France, western Germany, the low countries, and England(not part of the empire but a graft from it after 1066 The explanation made it worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
what the how i
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
"I study the Carolingian world" "Really? Do you have a specialty?" "Anglo-Saxon England in 1066"
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
wow calm down, i'm asking you a question about what you're mocking me for not knowing? how much of whatever political uniformity existed in western europe in the middle ages remained by the beginning of the early modern period? and how similar was feudalism in england to its counterpart on the continent?
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
i know about the carolingus
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:wow calm down, i'm asking you a question about what you're mocking me for not knowing? how much of whatever political uniformity existed in western europe in the middle ages remained by the beginning of the early modern period? and how similar was feudalism in england to its counterpart on the continent? Not much, and not very would be the broad answers. "Feudalism" is hugely regional because the whole system is basically codified customs. Everything from the power of nobles compared to monarchs, inheritance laws, to the legal status of the third estate can vary wildly between micro states in Central Europe much less areas separated by additional cultural religious and linguistic barriers. Not to mention historical accidents like s bunch of Normans ending up ruling a bunch of saxons. "Carolingian Europe" really isn't a category people think in past maybe his grandsons. Political authority decentralizes a lot on France much less the Italian and German chunks of his territory. Really people are thinking about a "European" identity in terms of greater Christendom which itself is just a short hand for western Rome. If you really want a lasting contribution it's probably in the HRE and the general idea of the pope being arbiter of who gets to officially be s king. I'm not 100% on that front though. Really it's in how it breaks up that you see the longest lasting influences. Conceiving of France and Germany as different political spheres is something that sticks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Okay, that's fair enough. Another question: why did neo-serfdom happen in the eastern HRE and central europe and not in the western HRE? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Okay, that's fair enough. Less travelers bringing in new ideas. West had a lot of ports and travel was way less restricted. That's my uneducated layman guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
The purpose of serfdom is to guarantee landowners will have consistent access to the labor power of their tenants, because the tenants cannot move away or pursue other work. It was introduced in the later Roman Empire to address a labor shortage in the agricultural sector. Serfdom in Western Europe is widely supposed to have broken down as a result of the 14th-century plagues. Mass death reduced the available labor pool, creating a labor shortage. But at the same time, institutions that enforced serfdom were weakened. In the 14th and 15th centuries there is clear evidence of increasing social tension, including spectacular uprisings like the French Jacquerie or the English Peasants' Revolt. This may indicate that the aristocracy tried to respond to the labor situation by retrenching serfdom, but struggled to do so and provoked militant resistance, such that serfdom eventually became untenable and was negotiated into milder forms of obligation. AFAIK the general line on late serfdom in Central/Eastern Europe is similar--states with small populations and large land areas faced labor shortages, and the landowning class resolved the problem by imposing serfdom on the peasantry, and had the power to make it stick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Have a bit of a (long) Arthurian question for y'all. So judicial duels are a big part of early (can of worms, but let's call this 12th century-ish French) Arthurian literature. Like, the legal truth or falsity of a case is pretty much always determined when someone gets shamefully unhorsed by my lord Titular Knight. To what extent are these portrayals reflections of contemporary systems of justice, dramatic inventions, attempts at historicity, or otherwise? My hunch is that they're largely just made up, but trial by battle was used in the period and I wouldn't put it beyond authors to include details familiar to the audience. I'm particularly concerned with two cases in Yvain, the Knight Of The Lion: -The first one is representing a woman accused of treason, wherein Yvain fights three government officials at once (and kills them all after his lion companion bit one of their legs off). -The second is a land dispute between two sisters whose father just died, wherein Yvain must battle his friend Gawain to determine which sister is in the right (it ends in a draw, I don't remember how the case was resolved atm). I know there were some judicial battles involving multiple participants, but were numerically unbalanced battles ever sanctioned? Could treason or crimes of similar severity by adjudicated like this in the absence of evidence? Did any judicial duels involve dudes getting eaten by lions???
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
"Go on, show me the law that says I can't use a lion"
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Read Eric Jager's The Last Duel if you haven't, it's later than the period your looking for but it goes into some of the nuts and bolts of trial by combat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
What are the rocks for in this picture and what is the staff-club-weapon that a few of them have called?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:What are the rocks for in this picture and what is the staff-club-weapon that a few of them have called? They are large peasant's flails with iron bits added. They were cheap to make and could hurt people in heavy armours, and were quite common rebel weapons in the late Medieval and Early modern periods:   But these kinds of flails existed only as fantasy replicas: 
Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Mar 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:What are the rocks for in this picture and what is the staff-club-weapon that a few of them have called? The image depicts a section of a Hussite wagon fort. Just googling, I'm finding some claims that they carried stones as weapons of last resort, to chuck at enemies if they were being overrun or ran out of ammunition. As Hogge Wild says, the club-like weapons are peasant flails modified as weapons. They originated as agricultural tools used to beat the husks from grain, but they were popular weapons of peasant rebels in late medieval/early modern uprisings. This is probably because they were available, peasants were familiar with using them, and they could apply a lot of percussive force, which is useful if you're being attacked by someone in armor. The flail was the characteristic Hussite weapon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
I just got done listening to this on audiobook https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Political-Order-Prehuman-Revolution/dp/0374533229 Origins of Political Order by Francis Fukuyama. Its scope is broader than this thread, but I'm not a historian and it went into tons of detail of the difference between various sorts of "fuedalism" probably a good read for anyone interested in that. It specifiacally gets into how the English and Russian systems differ from , and im being more broad than the book here, western European feudalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:They are large peasant's flails with iron bits added. They were cheap to make and could hurt people in heavy armours, and were quite common rebel weapons in the late Medieval and Early modern periods: Apparently even the short-handled ones like that did exist, though the length of the chain usually trends towards the shorter side. Matt Easton did a video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGf7n7iUF_k
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
why did feudalism develop representative bodies/parliaments in europe and not in japan? is this another bad question?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
In some cases these bodies were older than feudalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Do parliaments or similar representative bodies develop anywhere outside of Europe, even for brief periods of time?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do parliaments or similar representative bodies develop anywhere outside of Europe, even for brief periods of time? Iroquois Confederacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do parliaments or similar representative bodies develop anywhere outside of Europe, even for brief periods of time? There were several states in India that seem to have been republics (with some kind of ruling assembly instead of a king) between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE. Those assemblies might still have been dominated by the nobility or oligarchs. The historical record is spotty. That's how the government of the Buddha's people is described, for instance: Wikipedia posted:According to the Mahāvastu and the Lalitavistara Sūtra, the seat of the Shakya administration was the santhagara("assembly hall") at Kapilavastu. A new building for the Shakya santhagara was constructed at the time of Gautama Buddha, which was inaugurated by him. The highest administrative authority was the sidharth , comprising 500 members, which met in the santhagara to transact any important business. The Shakya Parishad was headed by an elected raja, who presided over the meetings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Can anyone here recommend me a good source to learn about the living conditions of the urban poor in the middle ages? A lot of sources I read seem to refer to large towns and cities as if they were only inhabited by skilled craftsmen, students, and nobility in their city-houses. The Western Roman Empire housed the urban lower class in insulae, but then I'm very unclear on whether some sort of apartment-analog survives after the Empire implodes. Can anyone comment on this, or recommend me a source? I'm mostly interested in France, (meaning Paris, as most of the other urban centers get real sparse) but I'd also be fascinated to hear if the Insulae persisted in the surviving Eastern Roman world. Thanks, medievalists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do parliaments or similar representative bodies develop anywhere outside of Europe, even for brief periods of time? Carthage had a Senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:why did feudalism develop representative bodies/parliaments in europe and not in japan? is this another bad question? There are only three parliaments in medieval Western Europe: Leon, England and Scotland. The French parlement is the etymological origin of the word but is not a legislative body, and is therefore very different. But all forms of representative government in Europe grow out of either earlier communal practices like the Nordic thing or from the reciprocal relationship between a king and his nobility as in the Polish sejm. I don't think, however, that the consent of the governed is a conclusion that particularly needs explaining. There is literally no governmental system that does not, to some degree, operate on some consensual level, even if it is only the consent of the nobility and their soldiers. Rebellion is political opposition, and it would be a challenge to find a governmental system that has never seen it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I don't think, however, that the consent of the governed is a conclusion that particularly needs explaining. There is literally no governmental system that does not, to some degree, operate on some consensual level, even if it is only the consent of the nobility and their soldiers. Rebellion is political opposition, and it would be a challenge to find a governmental system that has never seen it. This can also be modified by what kind of right to rule the king is claiming. Begining with the Zhou in China, for example, you have the idea of the "mandate of heaven" where the monarch has a responsibility to govern well and for the benefit of his people. Doing so indicates he has the favor of heaven, and if he's an unjust ruler then he's clearly lost heaven's support and rebellion is justified. I don't know enough to comment deeply on it, but it seems a much more flexible system re: getting rid of monarchs than the divine right of kings backed by Papal sanction that you see in post-Charlemagne Europe. At a guess forming some kind of body to try and negotiate with the monarch seems like something that might be an attractive point short of rebellion if your cultural assumption is that the King was appointed irrevocably by God.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 17:24
|
|