|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Here's a blog post from the Victoria and Albert museum which talks about it in more depth, and shows the bullet hole. No sword damage. The author claims it wasn't help against a direct sword blow, though. Interesting stuff. HEY GAL posted:when wallenstein's brother in law trzcka was assassinated his assailants' daggers bounced off so they beat him to death with their carbines, but the personal accounts from that blame it on him knowing the magic that makes you unwoundable, not his elkskin coat protestowned
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:It could also be that, being 17th century guys, the assassins were all emaciated and struck with the fearsome strength of sick lambs and he still killed at least one of them! once he realized something was going down he defended himself with his proto-rapier in one hand and the room's loving candleholder in the other one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:still, a dude that required a roomfull of conspirators and an entire goddamn squad of dragoons to take him down is A Bad Dude a true swashbuckler
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:I assume a buff coat can't stop a point blank gunshot. So, at what distances could you expect a buff coat to protect against pistol shots, musket shots, and arquebusier shots?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:and he still killed at least one of them! once he realized something was going down he defended himself with his proto-rapier in one hand and the room's loving candleholder in the other one. Honestly though given how flexible weapon definition is I hate using hyphenated words to create some semblance of order to a truly jumbled mess. Edit: ah I didn't realize digrassi was before either of them and his was 1570 lol Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
it beats a discussion that divides things into "real rapiers" and "everything else" i guess we just do what hard counter concluded and say "there are a lot of people, and there are a lot of swords, and those swords vary a whole lot" edit: what about the clothing a proto-rapier-user is probably wearing, a "proto-uniform"
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:rodrigo diaz has a paper on muzzle velocities that will answer that exact question Idk where it is and I'm not going to find it
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i guess we just do what hard counter concluded and say "there are a lot of people, and there are a lot of swords, and those swords vary a whole lot" there so many I imagine squires and similar were just ye olde caddies *squints at enemy* looks like a tough one but nothing too spooky, I recommend an oakeshott XVIII here *rummages in bag o blades*
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
rapier is a state of mind
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:edit: what about the clothing a proto-rapier-user is probably wearing, a "proto-uniform" I actually have no problem with that, because we have uniforms in contemporary use and so have a fairly serviceable definition to work from. Rapier is so vague (blade: thinner than a broad sword hilt: complex probably? Maybe?) that proto rapier is not really useful, save that it is what comes before a rapier (this also bothers me because the sword types were contemporaries)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
hard counter posted:there so many I imagine squires and similar were just ye olde caddies The secret to a good proper thrust is all about your tip speed. Make sure your hips are in the proper position when you follow through. No, not like that Horatio! You look like a bloody pansy when you do that. Stupid squirmy Italians..
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:blade: thinner than a broad sword
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Given the overall quality of the golfers that use caddies, that'd be horrifying. Keep your drat head down and stop topping the poor bastard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I actually have no problem with that, because we have uniforms in contemporary use and so have a fairly serviceable definition to work from. Rapier is so vague (blade: thinner than a broad sword hilt: complex probably? Maybe?) that proto rapier is not really useful, save that it is what comes before a rapier (this also bothers me because the sword types were contemporaries) I don't actually care what words people use, I was just aware that some scholars/hobbyists/nerds get really really fussy over the idea of a ~*true rapier*~ being a separate entity from other weapons that convergently evolved to have a similar form - I see that distinction made in scholarly writings, recreationist materials, medieval weapon pop up picture books. Upon closer inspection there's a lot of bastard weapons that appear to fall at neither extreme from this period (when is that never the case) but it's a difference I've seen others maintain anyway and it seems to hold up marginally if you're willing to be so fussy. It'd be cool to have performance data but we can't always be so lucky. Anyway I'm def not here to be a word nazi, in fact I'm not here at all. plz resume regular medieval combat chat  buff coats vs padded jacks, what's 'in' this season
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
hard counter posted:buff coats vs padded jacks, what's 'in' this season  (trczka's the one in the cape, wallenstein on the far right--far left with the little smirk is Walter Butler, one of the guys responsible for killing everyone else in this picture) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_Herod_with_the_Beheading_of_St_John_the_Baptist
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Can you explain to me - in detail - whatever the gently caress Wallenstein is wearing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Animal posted:Can you explain to me - in detail - whatever the gently caress Wallenstein is wearing? The shirt would be a loose, knee-length garment of (in his case) fine linen, possibly with embroidery. Shaped like this, but the fabric would be much thinner, you see how it billows? http://costumehistorian.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-early-modern-shirt-c1530-c1660.html The pants would be cut like this. http://store.reconstructinghistory.com/downloadable-pattern-rh106-1630s-breeches.html Knee-length, very full. In his case they're scarlet silk with heavy gold embroidery up the sides. Embroidery or ribbon trim over the places where the seams were was popular, in part for decoration and in part because a lot of the time the clothing was pieced together kind of clumsily. You keep your pants up by either lacing them into your jacket or hooking them onto your jacket with little metal hooks. His have greenish ribbon laces with gold or brass aigletts on the ends. Those look like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiguillette_(ornament) I used to think he was wearing a buff coat, but now I have two possible options. (1) Nobody laces buff coats to your pants, so it could be a jacket. If so, it's probably stiffened with interlining, which is a layer between the outer fabric and the lining. You could do this with buckram, which is a very stiff fabric, or--since nobody washes their outer clothing--with cardboard. The deep slashing gives a sort of military-looking aspect to what he's got going on. (2) It could be a buff coat that's decoratively slashed, since it's better to look good than to wear armor that actually protects you. If so, those ribbons are false laces, sewn onto the coat to give the impression that he's laced it to his pants. That would look like the bottom right picture on this page. http://www.sarahjuniper.co.uk/17c.html If this is a buff coat, he's got a doublet on underneath that we can't see, to hold his pants up. I think this is the less likely option, because there's a lot of shirt visible under these slashes. Whatever the case, note that that watery greeny-gold of the ribbons is also echoed in a layer of fabric poking through a slit in his breeches at the side of the leg somewhat below knee level, just above the tops of his boots. Sash of office on over that, big silk sashes around the waist or over the shoulder are another military thing. His is red because Imperialist. Collar on over that, you tie it around your neck separately. This is the 1630s/40s (nobody knows when this was painted) so it looks like this: http://thegoodwyfe.blogspot.com/2011/10/collars-and-falling-bands.html Big old horseriding boots. Here's some other examples of this style:  Except in his case every piece of leather is trimmed separately with red ribbon. Golden spurs. Ivory walking stick. edit: just also want to say I'm really into Trczka's stockings and cape situation HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Just, wow. Did they decide what to wear, or did they have teams of fashion experts/designers/armorers in their entourage who took care of these things? I can imagine a sperg like him could go either way of the spectrum; fastidiously choosing his own clown outfit in detail, or being a person who needed to be dressed by real adults because his mind could only laser focus on war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
everyone in this army but Tilly dresses extremely well wallenstein was a cultured man who also enjoyed Italian-style architecture--at least he put loving enough of it on all the lands he used to own edit: when a man and a whole fuckton of cash love each other very much... edit 2: you do have tailors in your entourage though edit 3: and he did not only laser-focus on war, there's a whole lot of stuff in his correspondence about the care and maintenance of his estates, down to a sort of...granular level: 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that's actually an Imperial Star Destroyer, not a jacket. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
also check out the giant feathery hat in his left hand. that thing is huge (i wonder if it's meant to look a little Spanish; until now, the broadest hats I've seen have been on Spanish men, since it's a sunny place.)
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
What's the deal with flamberges/flame-bladed weapons in general? Like, who came up with that? What are they for? I've heard both that it feels weird to the opponent who's intercepting the blade with his own and also that it leaves wounds which are harder to treat for..some reason. I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:What's the deal with flamberges/flame-bladed weapons in general? Like, who came up with that? What are they for? I've heard both that it feels weird to the opponent who's intercepting the blade with his own and also that it leaves wounds which are harder to treat for..some reason. I guess. One of my weapon books has a 30 Years War flame-bladed broadsword that looks a lot like this one except for the blade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou3CMaM7UaQ According to the caption, it was a parade sword.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:What's the deal with flamberges/flame-bladed weapons in general? Like, who came up with that? What are they for? I've heard both that it feels weird to the opponent who's intercepting the blade with his own and also that it leaves wounds which are harder to treat for..some reason. I guess. When you swing it and hit someone, the wavy blade means that any part that hits the target is hitting with a curved edge. That means the slicing edges is at a better angle to actually cut the person open. The problem is its a bitch to keep them sharp, and the act of sharpening them is way more intensive then a continuous edge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:What's the deal with flamberges/flame-bladed weapons in general? Like, who came up with that? What are they for? I've heard both that it feels weird to the opponent who's intercepting the blade with his own and also that it leaves wounds which are harder to treat for..some reason. I guess. Why did people put moustaches on their war masks? Why bejazzle your shield? Why wear a set of wings on your back? Sometimes you just want to look baller.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Why did people put moustaches on their war masks? Why bejazzle your shield? Why wear a set of wings on your back? Yeah, seconding this. Flamberge, for when your grossly over-sized codpiece just isn't enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:What's the deal with flamberges/flame-bladed weapons in general? Like, who came up with that? What are they for? I've heard both that it feels weird to the opponent who's intercepting the blade with his own and also that it leaves wounds which are harder to treat for..some reason. I guess. Most other cultures that use similar patterns use them strictly for ceremonial/status purposes or produce variants that are mostly straight for combat OR 'use' them as strictly side arms (peoples that do that often believe their wavy weapons have powers tho so their actual 'use' may just be as a charm). There is a consistent claim that it cuts better either by producing heavier wounds/not getting lodged but I'm particularly not into that explanation - especially since the ones that saw real use were made straight except for a wave or two near the hilt. They are harder to make though so the dude using a flame bladed rapier/broadsword/dagger/zwei probably has money and connections at least. hard counter fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Mar 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
So these guys can be kinda annoying at times, but they've made a few videos that actually have some practical research use. In this case, they tested a chain mail coif against throwing knives, a 2 pound cutlass, a high quality machete, a Cold Steel 3.8 pound dao-style sword, and a katana of some kind (I think a Shinwa-made blade). It includes slow motion footage, so you can get a clear look at how well chain mail can deflect blows from bladed weapons. According to the channel, it was 14 gauge galvanized steel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCvJc9KG7cs
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Is it just me or is that chainmail butted mail instead of riveted. Because it really looks like that and really matters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Does anyone have some solid English-language recommendations, preferably not super-dry, on the history of Muslim Spain / al-Andalus / the various Muslim states that ran large chunks of Spain, sometimes from North Africa? A lot of what I'm (loosely) famiiliar with has more to do with either
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
This seems to be exactly what you're looking for. I haven't read it personally, but Hugh Kennedy is a great scholar from what I remember. I don't know how not dry it is, but it seems like it was written with a wider audience in mind at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
deadking posted:This seems to be exactly what you're looking for. I haven't read it personally, but Hugh Kennedy is a great scholar from what I remember. I don't know how not dry it is, but it seems like it was written with a wider audience in mind at least. Bingo. Thanks much. (Kindle... Rent?  Whatever, $13 bucks is definitely an acceptable pricerange.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Hey deadking, how do the princes like the king of aquitaine see charlemagne's rule? How is loyalty to him understood?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
 Carolingian effort post incoming Charlemagne had to deal with a fair bit of conflict with local aristocrats throughout his reign, particularly from more peripheral regions like Aquitaine. The real Carolingian power base was in the north near the Rhine (parts of modern-day northern France, the low countries, and western Germany), so places like Aquitaine are relatively hard to influence for the Carolingian kings. During the waning of Merovingian Frankish hegemony, Aquitaine seems to have asserted its de facto independence and Charlemagne, as his father before him, spent a decent amount of time reasserting royal presence in Aquitaine. Very similar things happen in other peripheral parts of the Frankish realm (Bavaria, Thuringia, Alemannia, and later Saxony). The Bavarians seem to have been a particular pain in Charlemagne's rear end, and he eventually forcibly deposes Duke Tassilo III and forces him to enter a monastery (monastic "exile" was a relatively common way to deal with aristocratic rebels and political rivals at this time). If you look at aristocratic revolts from Charlemagne's reign, almost all of them happen in these peripheral regions, which suggests a certain degree of resentment about the extension of Frankish hegemony. So, basically the rulers of these peripheral regions see Charlemagne as a competitor and threat to their autonomy. It's important not to overstate the coherence and frequency of these revolts, though. Charlemagne only faces three or four major aristocratic revolts during a long and aggressively expansionist reign. Most aristocratic resentment of Charlemagne's policies was more individualized. But still, Charlemagne's policies did upset some aristocrats who apparently felt their local power and networks were threatened. On the other hand, regional aristocracies generally did quite well for themselves during Charlemagne's reign, and significantly there are no serious revolts between about 792 and Charlemagne's death in 814. Loyalty seems to have been an issue for Charlemagne. The rule of Frankish kings was far from authoritarian, and aristocrats seem to have thought they had the right to express their dissent, with violence if necessary. There's a school of thought among German early medievalists like Gerd Althoff which basically argues that aristocrats used rebellion as a way to express their discontent and reach a more favorable consensus with kings with the full expectation that they would be reconciled at the end. In fact, the punishment of elite rebels in the Carolingian period are relatively light; if they aren't reconciled - and most of them are - they're exiled temporarily or sent to monasteries. They're sometimes blinded, which the sources present as a merciful alternative to death. Charlemagne seemed to have expected a deeper commitment of loyalty than that. A few years after he was crowned emperor in 800, he circulated a decree through his agents that all free male subjects over the age of 12 were to swear loyalty to him. I think part of this expanded understanding of loyalty was the intensifying idea that the Carolingian kings were chosen by God and therefore had an obligation to reform the moral behavior of their subjects (part of the loyalty oath was an obligation to avoid perjury in court, which was unprecedented in early medieval loyalty oaths), but I can talk more about that in another post if anyone's interested since this post is already long enough. Now, at a certain point, Charlemagne tries to solve the problem of these peripheral regions by making his sons kings of more distant and problematic places. He makes Louis king of Aquitaine, his son Pippin (not Pippin the Hunchback, who is one of the people who rebels against him) king of Italy, and gives his son Charles land bordering Brittany, which the Franks only held indirect rule over and was another site of conflict. So, after a certain point, the king of Aquitaine was actually related to Charlemagne. This was a response to a fundamental problem for the Carolingian empire that never really gets solved and never goes away: the empire is simply too big and too regionally diverse to rule effectively given the limitations of the political culture and the technologies of rule of the time. Charlemagne does a lot to create something resembling an imperial administration, but the nature of political and social power in the early Middle Ages is very local and fragmentary, so he has to work within these limits. That said, Charlemagne does not seem to have been the world's best dad. He probably disinherited Pippin the Hunchback, his oldest son from his first marriage and went so far as renaming his second son from his second wife Pippin. He sent Louis to rule (in name at least) Aquitaine as a little kid, and forbade his daughters from getting married. These are all perfectly logical decisions that made perfect sense in the political and family culture of the time and we shouldn't project our modern perspective on them and blah blah blah, but seriously, what a dick. Louis actually doesn't seem to have liked his father very much, in any case. When he succeeds Charlemagne, he cleans house in the imperial court and has his sisters sent off to cloisters (as unmarried women hanging around the court, their alleged sexual behavior was a source of scandal; in fact Nithard, one of the most important Carolingian authors was Charlemagne's illegitimate grandson through one of his daughters). During the early parts of Louis' reign, there are several sources that are openly critical of Charlemagne's immorality. Even in his otherwise celebratory biography, Einhard concedes that Charlemagne kept concubines and criticizes him for it. There's also a source called the Visio Wettini which describes a monk's vision of hell, in which he sees Charlemagne in hell getting his genitals gnawed on by animals because of his immoral sexual behavior. These texts were likely written with at least some knowledge and approval on the part of Louis the Pious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
deadking posted:Loyalty seems to have been an issue for Charlemagne. The rule of Frankish kings was far from authoritarian, and aristocrats seem to have thought they had the right to express their dissent, with violence if necessary. There's a school of thought among German early medievalists like Gerd Althoff which basically argues that aristocrats used rebellion as a way to express their discontent and reach a more favorable consensus with kings with the full expectation that they would be reconciled at the end. In fact, the punishment of elite rebels in the Carolingian period are relatively light; if they aren't reconciled - and most of them are - they're exiled temporarily or sent to monasteries. They're sometimes blinded, which the sources present as a merciful alternative to death. This whole post is fascinating. This point in particular is reminiscent of both Eastern Roman and High Medieval attitudes toward rebellion. The point about lords eventually being reconciled is a big theme in my period, and examples can be had from Hugh of Le Puiset, Bishop William of Durham, and others. My bigger question though is what does Charlemagne expect from his aristocrats, and what do they expect from him in return?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
On forbidding daughters from marrying, was that a common action at the time? That sounds like something particuarly sickish, even for the time. I've heard phases that boil down to "we have the right to have sex with spouses" thrown around from the later middle ages and guessed it came from this point. I think Hey Gal said somewhere that women were viewed to want sex more than men. And I can't remember where I heard this, but I think in Renaissance England, a rumour went round that the king of Spain had to ban men having sex with their wives more than 5 times a night, so women complained to the king that their men couldn't get it up once. And then they attempted to ban coffee shops. Or I'm talking out of my arse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:My bigger question though is what does Charlemagne expect from his aristocrats, and what do they expect from him in return? The exact relationship between Charlemagne and the Frankish aristocracy is sort of hazy in the sources, but we have a lot more direct information for what Charlemagne wanted from his aristocratic subjects so I'll start there. Charlemagne had both moral and more "practical," political expectations of aristocrats. I've tried to parse these out, but it's really important to stress that the sources themselves make no such distinction between the moral and the political. It's also important to stress that there was a significant gap between Charlemagne's claimed authority and the actual exercise of royal power, which was far more irregular and limited in scope. One of the most fundamental things Charlemagne needs and therefore expects from local aristocrats is their cooperation in governance. As I mentioned before, the empire is too big and power networks too regionalized for effective central administration. On one hand, Charlemagne can't be everywhere at once (obviously), and on the other, social life and the management of disputes happens on a very local level, so the cooperation of the aristocracy is essential. Any attempt to implement policy on a local level requires the buy-in and assistance of local elites, so Charlemagne needs their help pretty significantly. As I mentioned previously, Charlemagne, in spite of parts of his later reputation, is not an autocrat, and the practice of royal power during his reign is largely a matter of cooperation and collaboration between state and local elites. Consequently, Charlemagne expects aristocratic buy-in and assistance in governing. Another practical expectation was probably the need to get men to serve in the Frankish army. Charlemagne is constantly fighting wars, so the demand for soldiers and equipment must have been high. There's no professional army, so I'm guessing that the bulk of the army is provided and led by elites, secular or otherwise. There's quite a few references to bishops or abbots supplying provisions and men for the army, as well as leading troops. As I mentioned before, Frankish kingship had acquired a more markedly sacral character, and this was most fully expressed during the reign of Charlemagne. Under this ideology, the king was responsible for reforming and correcting the moral behavior of his subjects, especially those who held offices. As I mentioned above, the oath of loyalty of 802 included the demand that people avoid perjury in court. A lot of Charlemagne's legislation (if we can call it that, but that's another kettle of fish) was also concerned with the proper execution of office: those men who held office, religious or secular, were supposed to exercise it in accordance with God's will and justice. There sources repeatedly insist that subjects, especially those with power refrain from a variety of behaviors, all of which had moral and religious significance: the oppression of the clergy, the poor, widows, and pilgrims (all groups with special importance in scripture), exercising justice in legal matters, and restraint from violence and feuding. For the last, there's a very interesting capitulary that demands that people who have had a relative killed accept compensation from the killer rather than retaliate violently, or face royal sanction. For their part, the aristocracy wanted and expected wealth, prestige, and office from Charlemagne. The expansion of the Carolingian frontiers, and the wealth seized from defeated peoples meant that aristocrats stood to benefit from the royal distribution of land and treasure. One of Charlemagne's accomplishments is the way he made royal office, with the title and land that accompanied that, a very desirable thing for aristocrats, who expect these offices in exchange for loyal service. It's also crucial to note that unlike later in the Middle Ages, these positions aren't hereditary, which probably intensifies the aristocratic desire for royal favor. Royal support in local disputes can also be quite handy, so I imagine that was part of Charlemagne's appeal. In a more negative sense, they want the king to stay out of their business and not violate their perceived or actual rights and privileges. A lot of the overt rebellions against Charlemagne are responses to perceived royal trespass in these areas. Hazzard posted:On forbidding daughters from marrying, was that a common action at the time? That sounds like something particuarly sickish, even for the time. I've heard phases that boil down to "we have the right to have sex with spouses" thrown around from the later middle ages and guessed it came from this point. My impression is that Charlemagne's decision not to arrange marriages for his daughters is a relatively uncommon one. I'm sure it's totally unsurprising to anyone who reads this thread, but aristocratic or dynastic marriages are important social and political tools. It's generally assumed that Charlemagne's decision was the same logic in reverse. Frankish kings usually tended to arrange marriages among Frankish elites rather than with outsiders (although there was allegedly an aborted effort to arrange a marriage between one of Charlemagne's sons and the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor). Under that assumption, Charlemagne was probably not arranging marriages for his daughters to avoid messy entanglements with various aristocratic factions. I also may have oversold Charlemagne's image as a bad dad as well. He certainly treats his oldest son like poo poo, but I guess he doesn't kill him after his failed rebellion. Anyway, Einhard tells us that Charlemagne was quite fond of his daughters, and even though his biography is in many ways (but not all) explicitly celebratory, I think we should take that at least somewhat seriously. Charlemagne keeps his daughters at court with him, and after the death of his second wife, they seem to have helped run the court by assuming the social and political function of elite women in early medieval court politics. As I mentioned before, we know that at least a few of them had relationships, so they seem to have enjoyed a pretty high degree of personal agency. In fact, it's their brother Louis who sends them off to convents because of the supposed scandal of their behavior at court.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
deadking posted:I also may have oversold Charlemagne's image as a bad dad as well. He certainly treats his oldest son like poo poo, but I guess he doesn't kill him after his failed rebellion. Anyway, Einhard tells us that Charlemagne was quite fond of his daughters Uh...'in fact Nithard, one of the most important Carolingian authors was Charlemagne's illegitimate grandson through one of his daughters'...you don't say. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
I've seen a particular anecdote show up several times in Charlemagne romances; one of Charlemagne's sons/nephews/cousins/paladins/etc (varies by story) is playing a game of chess and so enrages his opponent that they beat him to death with the board. After the first three times I ran into that one, I started wondering if there's any historical origin to it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:Uh...'in fact Nithard, one of the most important Carolingian authors was Charlemagne's illegitimate grandson through one of his daughters'...you don't say. Yeah, that was very poorly worded in hindsight. Charlemagne's daughter Bertha has a (probably) unmarried relationship with a guy named Angilbert and Nithard is their son. So he's illegitimate, but not an incest baby. Charlemagne did not bang his daughters 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 22:21
|
|