|
I really love this thread. I love history and study it a lot for fun, but I had a lot of misconceptions sprinkled with some skepticism on depictions and common thoughts of medieval life. That said, I have some questions for you medieval buff goons. I have read a lot about royal hostages in non-fiction and in fiction. Was this a thing? I took it to be insurance against a defeated enemy who was allowed to retain their lands from rising up again, in fear their heir would be killed in retaliation. Is this about what it was, or was it more akin to ransoming? Did said hostage retain his or her noble status and were they treated by their conquerors in keeping with their status, or were they more or less ill-treated prisoners with no privileges? How did the Knights-Hospitalers differ from the Templars? I don't know much about either other than (I think) they were both religious warrior sects. Did they have notable prowess in fighting and riding? Were they basically the same as Templars without the subsequent negative stigma? I read through the entire thread and came across a discussion of Bernard Cornwell, so having read his entire Saxon Tales series, I thought I'd weigh in and ask a related question as to his historical accuracy: In the books he describes the main character, Uhtred of Bebbanburg (modern Bamburg) in his dealings with Christians. As was discussed before he seemed to place a heavy bias against medieval Christians in that he distrusted them and they were all liars, only converted to be sheltered from Alfred's pious wrath, etc. At one point he describes the character with a group of Christians who are traveling with the corpse of St. Cuthbert as a holy relic. Was this a thing, carting hallowed corpses around as relics like this? Wouldn't it have been considered heretical to not bury the bodies of your most revered saints? How prevalent was the shield wall and when did it fall out of use? Where did this form of warfare originate? How much freedom did the typical commoner have in the medieval period? Were all commoners serfs or peasants in service to a lord, or were some free men who had a little money and a trade but no status? I know it seems silly asking about historical accuracy in a work of historical fiction, maybe like little kids asking if I've used some weapon they had in Modern Warfare 3 or something. Sorry if they are silly questions.
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
Blue Star posted:Some questions about medieval navies and boats: I am curious about this too. I was under the impression that the Saxons at least derived much of their culture from the Vikings. Is that true? And I also thought that there were Vikings in Ireland as well. I am really curious as to how the Celts made it to Britain to later be known as the Scots.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:I'm pretty sure proto celts from Iberia were in Britain long long before the later immigration waves that we associate more with the British population. Forgive me, I've heard the term "proto-celts" before but not sure exactly with whom they are related now. Are the proto-celts the Scots? I didn't even know they all originally came from Iberia; I just assumed they were essentially native peoples of Britain, minus the Scots, who, I originally thought, came from Ireland. We may be moving back into land-bridge and Pangaea territory now though, right? I mean, if we're talking about how they got there. But yeah, we are getting off topic a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Pangaea? A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, Pangaea does not have anything to do with the settlement of the British Isles, at least not any more than it has to do with all history after its formation. You're right though that there was a land bridge between the British Isles and continental Europe, which pre-historic humans might have used to crossover to Britain before it was washed away. That's way outside the Medieval era though! Arriving by boat seems like another sensible option, given that the South Pacific was settled the same way, and the distances there are quite a bit more challenging. Thanks guys for setting me straight, for some reason I was thinking Pangaea was much later. But I guess you guys got the gist of my post. I have no doubt that ships were probably the main mode of transportation, but I am confused as to how the Scots got there and why they went. Isn't it at least pretty well-known that the Vikings were the most skilled sea-farers of the time, since they had to use ships to raid pretty much anywhere? It seems to me, from archaeological finds and such, that much of their lives revolved around seamanship and settling in conquered lands.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:As for the why, it probably isn't some deep reason. My assumption is the typical reason that people migrate. Some people looked around the place they were living and said "You know what? gently caress this place." and went to live somewhere else. I say this daily at work and at home and I'm stuck in both. At any rate, good info, thanks guys. I'll probably think of more stupid questions later.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This isn't really medieval history. Noted, but considering the Scots were around during the time the Danes were antagonizing the Saxons in Britain and neither wanted to mess with them, and also the fact that this thread contains questions and answers related to Swedish, Danish and Scandinavian Vikings, I assumed it was at least slightly within the scope of the thread. But I digress.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm sorry, I don't get how your question of how the Scots got there is related to Medieval history. The Scots had been there for a long time, no matter how you define them, before medieval times. So, it'd be pretty much definitely not medieval history. The specifics of the questions I was asking in support to another question kind of evolved into that, but the discussion was over by the time you said anything; not to mention there wasn't even substantial discussion on it. Thus I'm not sure why you thought it was a big enough deal to even say anything. But to not derail the thread any further, and because I wasn't really trying to argue with you in the first place, we can move on now. I hope that's okay.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:How long did the Knights in religous orders such as the Templars, Teutonic order and Hospitallers serve? How many were in for life and how many were just around for a couple of years? I'd say the ones who were only around for a couple of years were...well, you know.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Excelsiortothemax posted:Anyone catch Vikings last night? I watched it and really enjoyed it. I wish I knew more about the period and the culture. I will say they showed a boy receiving his first arm ring as a man, the episode featured a Thing, and there was reference to one of the characters having been a shield maiden. I also know, however, that earlier in the thread there was discussion on the show and there were gripes that they only featured Scandinavian Vikings as opposed to Danish, which as I understand were the most powerful group of people at the time who were considered Vikings.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:It's not especially accurate but it's not completely made up either. The timeframe is correct for when the first Viking raids on England began, I believe it opens in 793, but overall you gotta remember that it's a show and not a documentary. Vikings didn't fight with ninja skills (or completely unarmored), none of them seemed to be using a shield which was a very important weapon for Viking combat, Shieldmaidens are a bit of a fantasy trope, etc. That, and Gabriel Byrne is badass and perfect for the role of the earl.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Denmark is part of Scandinavia. Didn't Alfred the Great have a large part in that? What with the fortification of towns, knowing the Danes would have a hard time taking a city or town that was fortified as such? I mean, couldn't we say that that Vikings as a whole simply gave up after a while?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 23:36
|
|
Even if you stick to the Scandinavian Peninsula (named after the cultural region, not the other way around), what's now the southern tip of Sweden was Danish territory at the time (and until about 1650). Actually, there are still Danes there, even if the Swedes did make a hearty effort at forcefully assimilating them. (I get what you mean, just wanted to point that out. 
)
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Huh? Not sure how this relates to my post? Not really dealing with why the English managed to eventually stop the Danish invaders, more why they were ever a serious threat to begin with. (Which if you assumed proportional populations to current ones would be a real feat.) I meant to reply to your last, as speculation as to why England's population swelled and Denmark's declined as time went on. What I meant was, the Saxons having driven off the Vikings for good may have had an impact on the population swells and declines of Britain and Denmark, respectively. Sorry if I wasn't more specific.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
canuckanese posted:I wouldn't say they drove off the vikings for good, quite the opposite actually considering many of the later Anglo-Saxon kings were the descendants of vikings. Cnut the Great was king of Denmark, Norway, and England. The son of one of his most important earls was the last king of England (Harold the Second), and obviously William the Conqueror was a Norman, who were also descendants of vikings. A lot of the decline in population of Scandinavia could possibly be because the vikings were TOO good at establishing footholds in new lands and many obviously chose to stay instead of returning home. This is true, I am fairly sure Guthrum (Aethelstan) was also "king" or at least earl of, I think, East Anglia(?) after converting to Christianity as part of his treaty with Alfred after his defeat; I had forgotten about Cnut, though he seems to have been the most well-known of Viking kings in Britain. And to your last point, that makes sense, I had never thought of it that way; they probably got comfortable with where they were and never went back to Denmark.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 01:06
|
|