Thank you quite much for the acknowledgement. I most certainly will post my views as long as they are welcome. I should add that my views are offered on a platter for any other to inspect - that is the manner in wich they are given. At no time would I want them to be constued as being force-fed to someone. Think what you will. But please look at what you really think.
Can you give me a definition of "absolutive truth"? See, I very much so agree with the second part: that much disagreement is simply based on not having adequate definitions of terms. So, Id like to understand what you mean before I can tell you that I think youre a dog and that youre wrong and all that... :tounge2:
Yeah, the prozac thing is a hard one to understand. Seemingly, any problem that a human encounters in modern times is a direct result of a chemical imbalance in his brain. Sure, makes sense, if your mom dies, and you don't like it because you never got to say goodbye to her then it's not the fact that you didn't get to say goodbye (wich maybe could be lessened if you went over to the grave and balled your eyes out) that is the problem; it's that theres to much brick-a-brack chemical in your skull and THAT'S the target!! Yeah, makes sense....I think. I dont understand my girlfriend... so I get a little unsettled sometimes... well, gee, let's not attempt to understand what goes on in interpersonal relationships, lets not try to find out what happens when i get upset, lets not try to nail down if theres anything that could be done to improve the situation - NO, LETS TAKE DRUGS!!! That will solve everything and make everyone an nice, decent managable VEGETABLE! That's the ticket. Make's you wonder how the species ever survived the other 99.99999934% of the time that prozac wasn't around, huh? And I guess were better off with it with all the suicides and degraded life that goes with it, eh? Those drugs SUPPRESS SYMPTOMS and nothing more (Except for the arms length list of side effects...) :Eyecrazy:
You're right, my friend. Modern peole don't live up to their own standards just as they didn't back then. As I said in another forum, it's the same game just a few years have passed.
I would have to agree with you 100% that the lack of definitions contributes to such a great ammount of conflict.
The answer to this (or the senior thing) goes like this: Look, the things in the pickle jar are PICKLES regardless of wether or not it's labeled "mayonaise".
In this universe real things do exist. There IS a way it all goes. There are many people speculating on what they see. Unfortunately, were all so stirred with a stick and blind that we can't seem top communicate with eachother to save out own souls. And that is sad. Really, all religions are seeking the same basic end: A higher state of existence. To de more divine, if you can call it that. Seems all have the idea that theres something better than the go-to-work-at-9-get-off-at-5-go-home-and-eat-then-watch-tv. Inherently, people know this. Different religions unfortunately fall prey to the idea that other religios are saying something different. Yeah, much of it is lack of definitions. Theres also alterations ... intentional alterations. This place wasn't meant to be a camping ground.
And Finally, along the lines of modern war vs. times of old:
Which do you, the reader think is more honorable? Holding your own sword and shield and looking your opponent in the eye or sitting in an office pushing a button from thousands of miles away?
More importantly, wouldn't the thought of having to stare your opponent (who also has a sword) in the eye in face-to-face combat make it such that you wouldn't go to war unless it was over a matter that was serious and that you truely believed in?
Back then. wars were fought over passionate subjects. Today much is money based. Excuse me in advance but I think that's panzy.
Full Version: Battles, Wars and Politics
:bbfft:
Georges Duby sums up the medieval political and sociological ideal:
Most modern people, especially Americans, have a tendency to judge the whole world and all of history according to their ideals of democracy, rights, equality, and personal freedoms. For this reason, medieval people and their civilizations seem extremely foreign, even downright WRONG in the way they looked at the world, themselves and others. It is often difficult for modern people to understand a mindset that saw the world in terms of an objective hierarchy, and people who saw themselves and their freedom in terms of being part of this hierarchy. It is difficult for us to understand why a noble and virtuous warrior such as William Marshal should serve a vicious king, and serve him happily. While it is true that most (if not every) medieval person failed to live up to the era’s ideals, it is equally true that most (if not every) modern person fails to live up to our modern ideals. What’s important to the medieval enthusiast is attempting to understand this ideal by abstracting it from the rich history of the peoples and civilizations of the medieval period. Tapping into the medieval mindset from the angle of politics and military history is the focus of this forum category.
In many ways warriors, from the hired mercenary to the crowned king or prince, were the men (and in more cases than one may at first assume, women) who significantly shaped the medieval world. By discussing their lives, politics, ideals and wars perhaps we can gain an on-going insight into their way of looking at reality, and see how different, and, in many cases, how similar their view was to our own. Any topic pertaining to political or military history, roughly between the years AD 1000 to AD 1500, is welcome in this category.
While boundaries are good, there are reasonable exceptions, of course. Any boundaries assigned to historical timelines are artificial, and at times it may be necessary to treat with some depth elements that may fall outside of this temporal boundary. It can also be very difficult to separate political or military history from Church history, especially in regards to the Crusades. In general, discussions pertaining to the administration of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, specific battles in the Holy Land, or the political aspirations of those involved in the Albigensian Crusade (to name just a few examples) belong here; on the other hand, discussions pertaining to pilgrimages, the militant orders, or the doctrines of the Albigenses belong to the Medieval Church History category. Likewise, while modern re-enactment, armor or weapon crafting, etc. may have bearing on a particular issue here, there are other forum categories at Castle Duncan specifically dealing with these topics.
All view points are welcome, and even necessary. You don’t have to be a degreed historian to contribute (God knows, I’m not even close!)), and you don’t have to know all the answers or ask all the right questions. All you need is an interest in a time of old, very different from our own, but at times, remarkably similar. The first priority is to have fun, then to feed our curiosity, nurture our hobbies, pass on some information and maybe even learn something in the process.
David :sheildsmile:
Duby, Georges. William Marshal: The Flower of Chivalry. Trans. Richard Howard. Pantheon, 1984.
Georges Duby sums up the medieval political and sociological ideal:
QUOTE
This society, as we know, was conceived by thinking men at the end of the twelfth century as they conceived the whole of the visible and the invisible universe: cemented by what the clerks called caritas and the language of the courts amitíe, sustained by “faith,” another key word evoking a combination of confidence and fidelity. On this affective relation, generating certain rights and duties, rested the coherence of a hierarchical structure consisting of superimposed layers; everything was in order, according to God’s intentions, when men established at a certain level lived together in harmony, served faithfully, loyally, those who were their immediate superiors, and received suitable service from those who were their immediate inferiors.
Order thus appeared based on the intermingled notions of inequality, service, and loyalty. If it established this part of society en bloc above all laymen, it arranged many stratifications within this ruling class, determined simultaneously by relations of domesticity, which assured the authority of the head of the family over all the people of his household, by relations of consanguinity, which subordinated younger individuals to older and the generation of the young to that of the old, by relations of vassalage, establishing the lord above those how had sworn homage, and lastly by political relations founded on the hierarchy of homage, that pyramid of which mere knights formed the base, the king the apex, and the barons the median level.
These different systems of dependence often intersected, their arrangements were sometimes contradictory, but always the friendship that obliged -- more or less rigorously, according to the proximity of the men involved and the quality of the relation -- mutual service, counsel, and assistance was deployed on two perpendicular axes: horizontally, it maintained peace among peers; vertically, it compelled reverence above oneself, benevolence below. (132-3).
Order thus appeared based on the intermingled notions of inequality, service, and loyalty. If it established this part of society en bloc above all laymen, it arranged many stratifications within this ruling class, determined simultaneously by relations of domesticity, which assured the authority of the head of the family over all the people of his household, by relations of consanguinity, which subordinated younger individuals to older and the generation of the young to that of the old, by relations of vassalage, establishing the lord above those how had sworn homage, and lastly by political relations founded on the hierarchy of homage, that pyramid of which mere knights formed the base, the king the apex, and the barons the median level.
These different systems of dependence often intersected, their arrangements were sometimes contradictory, but always the friendship that obliged -- more or less rigorously, according to the proximity of the men involved and the quality of the relation -- mutual service, counsel, and assistance was deployed on two perpendicular axes: horizontally, it maintained peace among peers; vertically, it compelled reverence above oneself, benevolence below. (132-3).
Most modern people, especially Americans, have a tendency to judge the whole world and all of history according to their ideals of democracy, rights, equality, and personal freedoms. For this reason, medieval people and their civilizations seem extremely foreign, even downright WRONG in the way they looked at the world, themselves and others. It is often difficult for modern people to understand a mindset that saw the world in terms of an objective hierarchy, and people who saw themselves and their freedom in terms of being part of this hierarchy. It is difficult for us to understand why a noble and virtuous warrior such as William Marshal should serve a vicious king, and serve him happily. While it is true that most (if not every) medieval person failed to live up to the era’s ideals, it is equally true that most (if not every) modern person fails to live up to our modern ideals. What’s important to the medieval enthusiast is attempting to understand this ideal by abstracting it from the rich history of the peoples and civilizations of the medieval period. Tapping into the medieval mindset from the angle of politics and military history is the focus of this forum category.
In many ways warriors, from the hired mercenary to the crowned king or prince, were the men (and in more cases than one may at first assume, women) who significantly shaped the medieval world. By discussing their lives, politics, ideals and wars perhaps we can gain an on-going insight into their way of looking at reality, and see how different, and, in many cases, how similar their view was to our own. Any topic pertaining to political or military history, roughly between the years AD 1000 to AD 1500, is welcome in this category.
While boundaries are good, there are reasonable exceptions, of course. Any boundaries assigned to historical timelines are artificial, and at times it may be necessary to treat with some depth elements that may fall outside of this temporal boundary. It can also be very difficult to separate political or military history from Church history, especially in regards to the Crusades. In general, discussions pertaining to the administration of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, specific battles in the Holy Land, or the political aspirations of those involved in the Albigensian Crusade (to name just a few examples) belong here; on the other hand, discussions pertaining to pilgrimages, the militant orders, or the doctrines of the Albigenses belong to the Medieval Church History category. Likewise, while modern re-enactment, armor or weapon crafting, etc. may have bearing on a particular issue here, there are other forum categories at Castle Duncan specifically dealing with these topics.
The modern “system” of heraldry has its roots in the medieval period. Because there is no specific category for discussions about heraldry, discussions about this topic are welcome in this category, even if they do not strictly adhere to the timeline. (This just happens to be my family coat arms.)
All view points are welcome, and even necessary. You don’t have to be a degreed historian to contribute (God knows, I’m not even close!)), and you don’t have to know all the answers or ask all the right questions. All you need is an interest in a time of old, very different from our own, but at times, remarkably similar. The first priority is to have fun, then to feed our curiosity, nurture our hobbies, pass on some information and maybe even learn something in the process.
David :sheildsmile:
Duby, Georges. William Marshal: The Flower of Chivalry. Trans. Richard Howard. Pantheon, 1984.
Ok. Let me take a stab at this. I had some reservations because I did'nt want to spam you out but here goes:
My viewpoint is that the component parts that comprise a man (body, mind and spirit - if you'll agree that those are the basic components) have remained the same throughout the ages. The major determining factor that alters or determines his actions, lifestyle and behavior is the data he has with which to operate in life (does he believe that the moon is made of cheese and that all the universe revolves around earth wich is a flat surface?). Technology has a role in it also but thats of lesser importance.
But yes, medeival lifestyle certainly looks foreign. And I wouldn't be surprised if one of them were to say that our lifestyle was quite a bit more strange. Today, if you have a conflict with someone you go through this elaborate proceedure called "the justice system" which can take months or years to get through. If you are upset for some reason like your dog died - you need Prozac. And they really dont make houses the way they used to.
The senior point here is that the vast majority or any populace present or past is going to do what they think is pro-survival; they'll do what they think is right. If being "right" means that as a serf you obey the lord "or else", then they'll probably do it. It might mean that to be right one must bow to the God of the fungus tree three times per day.
I don't profess be learned in the field of medeival times. But I am quite certain that the games they were playing then are strikingly similar to those that are played now. Unfortunately, there aren't too many detailed accounts of what really went down back then - at least they aren't abundant to my knowledge.
Here's an example of how I see it that the data they had been given or were operating off of plays a big role. This misses the time reference mark by about 450 years but oh, well:
Justinian the 2nd had a wife named Theodora. They ruled something like 1/4 of the world in their time (circa 475 A.D.) She strongly influenced her husband. There was some kind of political movement they either made or tried to make which a good portion of the populace disagreed with. I believe it was intended to favor themselves rather than the good of all or some such thing. (I don't have the source of the data anymore) Anyway, it was met with disapproval and it created a debacle in the society. There must have been some kind of ethical significance to what they tried to implement because there was religious protest to it. May have been that they tried to redefine Bible scriptures or whatever.
In anycase per the source I had, her handling for the situation was to have select parts of the Bible eradicated that delineated the existence of past lives (reinarnation). The part of the populace that believed in this were opposed to her and her husbands decision. It was thereafter made heresy to discuss the subject of past lives... Effective way to deal with dissenters.
There's politics and religion for ya!
There's a law in life : "The concept of otherness breeds cruelty." This is why the Jew's are against the Muslems and the Protestants are fighting the Catholics, the Neo Nazi fights everyone who isn't "Just like him" and Americans are currently leaning toward not liking Middle Easterners too much.
It's the idea that someone or something else is different that does it. Are they? Ok, so they've got blue hair and speak a different language. Yea, so what? The question one has to ask himself is are you your body? Aside from obvious body-differences, person to person the mind functions identically.
The tatic of making an enemy seem different has been used to give waring nations an excuse to kill their opponent. (Nobody would kill thier own kind, right?)
This mechanism also exists in the caste system (spelling ok?) Different clothes, privelages etc. It is a contributing factor to turmoil which can result in war and certainly change. You can shape a populace, it's endeavours and technology by shaping the way people think. Guess you could also "make them believe" under threat of sword.
But boiling it all down I really think that the shape of society throught time (certainly to include that time period) has been affected by people who were in a position of power in some fashion or another and knowingly or unknowingly interjected false data into it which came to be accepted as "truth". Then down the road we see things like "Kosher pork" - what's up with that? Well, People [/i]used[i] to get sick from eating it since they didn't cook it well enough. So eating pork gets outlawed.
Today, religion and politics tend to be four-lettered words. I hope this steps on no toes.
My viewpoint is that the component parts that comprise a man (body, mind and spirit - if you'll agree that those are the basic components) have remained the same throughout the ages. The major determining factor that alters or determines his actions, lifestyle and behavior is the data he has with which to operate in life (does he believe that the moon is made of cheese and that all the universe revolves around earth wich is a flat surface?). Technology has a role in it also but thats of lesser importance.
But yes, medeival lifestyle certainly looks foreign. And I wouldn't be surprised if one of them were to say that our lifestyle was quite a bit more strange. Today, if you have a conflict with someone you go through this elaborate proceedure called "the justice system" which can take months or years to get through. If you are upset for some reason like your dog died - you need Prozac. And they really dont make houses the way they used to.
The senior point here is that the vast majority or any populace present or past is going to do what they think is pro-survival; they'll do what they think is right. If being "right" means that as a serf you obey the lord "or else", then they'll probably do it. It might mean that to be right one must bow to the God of the fungus tree three times per day.
I don't profess be learned in the field of medeival times. But I am quite certain that the games they were playing then are strikingly similar to those that are played now. Unfortunately, there aren't too many detailed accounts of what really went down back then - at least they aren't abundant to my knowledge.
Here's an example of how I see it that the data they had been given or were operating off of plays a big role. This misses the time reference mark by about 450 years but oh, well:
Justinian the 2nd had a wife named Theodora. They ruled something like 1/4 of the world in their time (circa 475 A.D.) She strongly influenced her husband. There was some kind of political movement they either made or tried to make which a good portion of the populace disagreed with. I believe it was intended to favor themselves rather than the good of all or some such thing. (I don't have the source of the data anymore) Anyway, it was met with disapproval and it created a debacle in the society. There must have been some kind of ethical significance to what they tried to implement because there was religious protest to it. May have been that they tried to redefine Bible scriptures or whatever.
In anycase per the source I had, her handling for the situation was to have select parts of the Bible eradicated that delineated the existence of past lives (reinarnation). The part of the populace that believed in this were opposed to her and her husbands decision. It was thereafter made heresy to discuss the subject of past lives... Effective way to deal with dissenters.
There's politics and religion for ya!
There's a law in life : "The concept of otherness breeds cruelty." This is why the Jew's are against the Muslems and the Protestants are fighting the Catholics, the Neo Nazi fights everyone who isn't "Just like him" and Americans are currently leaning toward not liking Middle Easterners too much.
It's the idea that someone or something else is different that does it. Are they? Ok, so they've got blue hair and speak a different language. Yea, so what? The question one has to ask himself is are you your body? Aside from obvious body-differences, person to person the mind functions identically.
The tatic of making an enemy seem different has been used to give waring nations an excuse to kill their opponent. (Nobody would kill thier own kind, right?)
This mechanism also exists in the caste system (spelling ok?) Different clothes, privelages etc. It is a contributing factor to turmoil which can result in war and certainly change. You can shape a populace, it's endeavours and technology by shaping the way people think. Guess you could also "make them believe" under threat of sword.
But boiling it all down I really think that the shape of society throught time (certainly to include that time period) has been affected by people who were in a position of power in some fashion or another and knowingly or unknowingly interjected false data into it which came to be accepted as "truth". Then down the road we see things like "Kosher pork" - what's up with that? Well, People [/i]used[i] to get sick from eating it since they didn't cook it well enough. So eating pork gets outlawed.
Today, religion and politics tend to be four-lettered words. I hope this steps on no toes.
QUOTE
yes, medeival lifestyle certainly looks foreign. And I wouldn't be surprised if one of them were to say that our lifestyle was quite a bit more strange. Today, if you have a conflict with someone you go through this elaborate proceedure called "the justice system" which can take months or years to get through. If you are upset for some reason like your dog died - you need Prozac. And they really dont make houses the way they used to.
I'm still laughing about the prozac bit! :smile2: I'm not too sure, though, that medieval people didn't have an equivalent. For example, "I'm feeling depressed today... I think I'll go out, find a tournament, and find somebody to beat me over the head a couple thousand times." :banghead:
Personally, I'm an absolutist. I believe in absolutes and objective truth, so maybe that is why I've been drawn as I have to medieval thought. Still, it becomes obvious after investigating medieval history, that the absolute truths held by medieval people were seldom lived up to. This, however, can be said of any people of any time. The work I think of serious historians isn't so much judging historical peoples, but abstracting from source material a vision of their worldviews and lifestyles in the hopes that something can be found that is applicable to our day and age.
The reason I think that religion and politics are four letter words isn't so much a problem with various religions or politics, but a certian inability to agree on common definitions. This is seen in the medieval world as well, but not with as much plurality as we see in modern society. At any rate, I think there is much to medieval military and political history that is fasinating, and even applicable to today. For example, is the barbarism of a medieval battle as barbarous as modern wars? Is equality as valuable as loyality? Questions like these aren't necessarily the point of this forum, but it doesn't hurt if they are in the back of our heads.
Welcome to the forum, and I hope to see your views on this and other matters that might find their way here.
--David :sheildsmile:
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.