New Stuff

[Joachim Nilsson]

No, it's a good point, etymology is almost always relevant when discussing history. I actually looked up the word and it does have a french origin, via late roman latin, but it seems to be in old french, which I believe would put it in the medieval period at least. I'll try to find out more. I apologize for coming across irritable.

No, I should apologize. Even though etymology certainly is relevant, Jamie Fellrath pointed out to me in a personal discussion that I was nit-picking. Which is true. I guess it stems from the fact that here in Sweden the word "aristocracy is almost exclusively used when discussing the state of affairs during the French Revolution. This despite the obviously antique origins of the word. Now had you, for instance, used the term "broadsword" in a medieval context or something like that my actions might have been somewhat more called for. But you didn't. I really hadn't anything particulary useful to add to the discussion, and thus shouldn't have commented on your usage of words, so I'll apologize and step down now.

[JeanryChandler]

James,

Your emotional response indicates to me that you feel at some level that any criticism of life in Medieval or Renaissance Europe is an indirect criticism of you or yours. If I may be so bold, I would suggest that it helps to be dispassionate when anylizing history. There is no "your side" or "my side" in history. These people didn't speak the same language, they didn't think the same way, and they certainly didn't smell the same. It was a different time.

A very different time which I never referred to as hell on earth or hell, another interesting term brought up a couple of times in this dicussion. It is of course a broad generalization to discuss the entire medieval period across the length and breadth of Europe, but I think most historians amateur and otherwise are aware that it was a more difficult time to live and thrive, and that conditions were much worse, than currently (at least outside of the third world). As Stacy said, it is remarkable how so much brilliance and beauty existed side by side with so much ignorance and insanity.

As for the specific issue of serfs restrictions on movement, this is a widely known historical fact. It's not "mud" I fling in the face of glorious Medieval history. Here is one example I just googled quickly from Boise State University:

"The serf is a medieval invention. The word servus meant slave during the Empire, but is also applied in the Middle Ages to a serf. The status of a serf was better than that of slave, for a serf was not chattel—no one owned him. But he was in various ways tied to a plot of land, and the land was owned by someone else.

A serf was a peasant—a farmer, usually, but the village blacksmith and miller were often also serfs. They were bound to the place and could not leave without the lord's permission."

Technically of course, by the later middle ages Serfs as such began to dissapear in Western Europe, to be replaced by better off peasant classes, but remained widespread through Eastern Europe through the 19th century.

I could go on and on citing a lot of examples of the insanity and depravity which was rampant at this range of time when so often, the blind led the blind (when so many of the great leaders were practically children, deciding important matters of state in their late teens and twenties...) To me as i said before, the historical fact of how bad things were does not detract from the accomplishments made, to the contrary.

But I doubt I'll convince you of anything. We'll probably only get angry at each other. So I'll take stacy's advice and wrap it up. Hopefully somebody else can provide any further proof you need.

Jeanry

[Gene Tausk]

Jeanry and Casper:

Amen to Stacy's post. I think you two have entered a great discussion topic and I plan to post something on a new thread tonight to continue this line of thought.

However, as Stacy also said, this is getting to close to the edge (no pun intended...well, maybe <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ). The discussion topic is interesting but this isn't cancer research (aka lives are not on the line) so let's tone it down a bit.


----------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
ARMA forum moderator

[JeanryChandler]

Here is a bit of history from the period, in case anyone doubted by mention of the "kill them all, god will know his own anecdote" or wondered about the period:

Cathar Castles: Béziers
On 22 July 1209 the Crusader army arrived at Béziers on the periphery of the area in the Languedoc where Cathars flourished. There were believed to be around 200 Cathars in the town among a much greater population of sympathetic Catholics. The townspeople, believing their city walls impregnable, were careless, and the town was overrun while the leading Crusader nobles were still planning their siege.
The crusading army sacked and looted the town indiscriminately, while townspeople retreated to the sanctuary of the churches. The Cistercian abbot-commander is said to have been asked how to tell Cathar from Catholic. His reply, recorded later by a fellow Cistercian, demonstrated his faith: "Kill them all - the Lord will recognise His own". The Roman Church has recently taken to disowning these words, but the hard fact is that they are entirely consistent with other sources. The Song of the Crusade [21], sympathetic to the crusaders at this stage, noted that the leaders of the crusade, including the clerics, had decided how to deal with those who resisted: "Qu'aneson a la espaza e qu'om les aucezis": "not even a new-born baby would be left alive". In any case, the crusaders behaved in the most appalling manner, entirely in accordance with Arnaud's words. The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the occupants slaughtered. 7,000 people died in the church including women, children, clerics and old men. According to the Song of the Crusade [20] they were singing the (Catholic) Office of the Dead.
Elsewhere many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice The town was razed. Arnaud, the abbot-commander, wrote to his master the Pope: "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand citizens were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex". Reportedly, not a single person survived.
Today, there is almost nothing to see remaining from the period. There is no mention of this attrocity in any of the churches in the town, but the city council has put up a number of discreet plaques commemorating the events that took place here. Perhaps the most enduring memorial is the sentiment "Kill them all - the Lord will recognise His own". The words - and their fulfilment - are remembered by almost everyone in the Languedoc.

I found this on a French tourism site:

http://www.languedoc-france.info/120701_beziers.htm

Jeanry

[JeanryChandler]

so let's tone it down a bit

i agree, and I suggest in lieux of being able to immediately pummel me for my opinions, take this energy to the sparring clips thread and pick apart the sparring clips from my group, tell me what our group are doing wrong. You'll find me a receptive audience!

Jeanry

[Casper Bradak]

There are obviously strongly defended emotional investments here, and the argument is at a standstill.

[david welch]

and the argument is at a standstill.

Oh, I don't know about that. I figured you pretty much conceded when you said I couldn't argue my case under conditions of:
1)Being somewhere where I would have a war horse I needed to train by trampleing serfs, and
2)Being somewhere where I would have serfs to trample.

Invasions without intent to remain and raids are off the subject and do not apply.

<img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Casper Bradak]

I'm not sure I'm getting you, but what I meant was that there is lack of legal recourse for being attacked by an enemy, as opposed to someone who should be protecting you.
If you were talking about a psychopathic knight who'd rather kill serfs for "training" than train with his buddies or a pell while in hostile terrirory, menacing the pupulace of his enemies, I agree. I think.
I think the argument between anyone and Jeanry is at a standstill. When nobody's convincing anybody, the argument becomes largely pointless. At least between him and me, I feel like we're two rocks hitting together hehe (I have no animosity towards him, for the record) It's been a pleasure and a source of learning, mostly.

[david welch]

I was never really worried with training the knight. If you were a knight... I would think you should already be trained. I was more concerned with training the horse.

There is quite a bit on the internet about even for cavelry, you don't "train" a warhorse, you "get" a warhorse once the horse figures out it can kill people.

[Casper Bradak]

Heh, either way. That makes sense, but I suppose you'd need it trained not to kill you then.

[JeanryChandler]

think the argument between anyone and Jeanry is at a standstill

I apologize for my fervor. I was surprised by this discussion. Because I agree with probably 99% of what I see on the ARMA site about swords and technical fighting things, and the historical articles I have read, I deluded myself into assuming that we were all on the same page vis a vis history in general. That is obviously not the case. I wasn't even aware some of the points of contention in this thread were even contraversial. I'm sorry to have derailed what was shaping up to be an interesting discussion.

and this time I SWEAR this is my last post in this thread!

Jeanry