It may be connected to blood libel, the idea that jews used christian blood for dark magic.
Like I'm not familiar with the story but it's possible that in its original telling the physician was jewish. Like that kind of story does seem like it follows the standard formula for medieval blood libel. (Yes it was common enough that there was basically a formula for it.) Again don't know the details but it could be possible that Innocent VIII passed some decree telling christians to be less shitty to jewish people and that was motivation for creating the story in the first place.. The vatican, while itself heavily anti-Semitic, was still often the source of legal protection for jews from property theft, eviction, or violence. This is less because the Vatican was particularly tolerant and more that in Christian Europe jews increasingly had no legal rights in common and formal law as time progressed. So while the vatican still heavily denigrated Jews they were one of the few institutions who would at least occasionally go "hey don't murder them all."
It's the blood libel thing. Innocent's doctor was Giacomo di San Genesio, a jew. The transfusion story is contemporary, but could easily be in the rich tradition of making bad shit up about your hated predeccessor/enemy, with anti-semitism added for extra flavor.
One of the reasons Alexander VI got the reputation as "most corrupt pope in history" is related to his (relatively) benign treatment of the jews. On 30 July, 1492, all the Jewish community – some 200,000 people – were forcibly expelled from Spain. 9000 jews made their way to the Papal States, where newly elected Pope Alexander VI "permitted them to lead their life, free from interference from Christians, to continue in their own rites, to gain wealth, and to enjoy many other privileges". He similarly allowed the immigration of Jews expelled from Portugal in 1497 and from Provence in 1498. Allegations of "for money" were made by contemporaries.
(It should be noted that as reward for "reconquering" Spain, Isabella and Ferdinand got the appelate "Most Catholic Majesties" by (the Spanish) Alexander VI in 1493.)
For the whole "allow jews into Papal States" thing, Alexander was much critizised. His arch-rival Giuiliano della Rovere (future Pope Julius "the Warrior Pope" II) smeared Alexander as a marrano or crypto-jew (jews who pretended to have converted to Christianity but secretly practiced the faith of their ancestors).
Lots of weapons and armor were made not to actually be used, but to flaunt your wealth.
Also artistic / ceremonial weapons and armor are usually going to be well cared for and not spend much time in the mud / rain / filthy armories, so instead of just rusting away or getting turned into nails they actually get preserved for posterity.
Which is also a reason why swords tend to get so over-represented in our imagining of medieval warriors. Spears don't have much metal, they just rot and corrode away.
Indie Winterdie KräheRudi Hurzlmeier (German, b. 1952)Registered Userregular
edited April 2021
if I can be Rude and Crude and provide another book recommendation that's deeply connected to Lords of the Horizon in my mind:
The jagged peaks of the Caucasus Mountains have hosted a rich history of diverse nations, valuable trade, and incessant warfare. But today the region is best known for atrocities in Chechnya and the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia.
In Let Our Fame Be Great, journalist and Russian expert Oliver Bullough explores the fascinating cultural crossroads of the Caucasus, where Europe, Asia, and the Middle East intersect. Traveling through its history, Bullough tracks down the nations dispersed by the region's last two hundred years of brutal warfare. Filled with a compelling mix of archival research and oral history, Let Our Fame Be Great recounts the tenacious survival of peoples who have been relentlessly invaded and persecuted and yet woefully overlooked.
even if the subject wasn't incredibly interesting, which it is,
So reading about the first war of Scottish independence as one does and
Sir Hugh de Cressingham was the treasurer of the English administration in Scotland from 1296 to 1297. He was hated by the Scots and did not seem well liked even by the English.
The Lanercost Chronicle states the Scots dried and cured his hide and "of his skin William Wallace caused a broad strip to be taken from the head to the heel, to make therewith a baldrick for his sword."
I must say this is not presented as particularly unusual I wonder how common your anthropogenic arts and crafts were at the time
Broke as fuck in the style of the times. Gratitude is all that can return on your generosity.
In general history is a more recent subject than most people realize and weapons and armor is one sub-field where this is especially true. For pretty much the entire 20th century getting too into the history or weapons and armor was not fashionable among historians. And there was a lot of absolute nonsense written on the subject (like every other subject) during the Victorian era. It's a subject that is changing quite rapidly as it has started to get some serious research.
There's always exceptions but it's pretty rare for a sword to be the primary weapon of a soldier throughout history. They are almost always sidearms / backup weapons (aside from their more important role off the battlefield as status symbols). When someone has a spear and a sword the spear is the main weapon and if that sword comes out something has gone to shit. Imperial Rome was quite exceptional in having their main heavy infantry focus on sword use and that was only possible as those swords were paired with such large shields and heavy armor. That is a common theme for any shorter weapon like maces or axes as well, they need something like a shield or heavy armor to allow the user to close the range with short one handed weapons.
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
+2
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
The primary, but not exclusive, weapon of the knightly class from like 700 to 1600 in Europe was the sword when not mounted. Lower classes would use all sorts of weapons
You don’t get polaxe and pike formations en masse until guns essentially force knights off the battlefield and standing armies become more common
The primary, but not exclusive, weapon of the knightly class from like 700 to 1600 in Europe was the sword when not mounted. Lower classes would use all sorts of weapons
You don’t get polaxe and pike formations en masse until guns essentially force knights off the battlefield and standing armies become more common
See this is the kind of thing that I think was the common scholarship for quite a long time but is no longer the case. A sword, as a sidearm, is (to borrow an awful modern phrase) part of the everyday carry. It is an important part of the ostentatious display of a warrior aristocrat. But it was not (usually, barring some exceptions) the primary battlefield weapon of those who wore them. The analogy is very rough (though not as rough as trying to spread the notion of a knightly class across those 900 years in even a single region let alone all of europe) but the sword was the pistol as compared to the spear, lance, poleax (which were in common use in the 1300s, long before gunpowder weapons were common and when plate armor was just coming into its own) being the battle rifle. They aren't something that you can wear around and show off - or even carry for personal protection - but on the battlefield they were the primary weapons.
If we are honest, a large part of the interest in medieval arms and armor comes from tabletop and video games. And people like Gygax and Jeff Perren and Arneson etc... were actually well read in history for the 1970s. But I wouldn't trust a history book written before the 90s at the oldest. Stuff that my teachers in college would have sworn up and down as true is no longer true. But a lot of the gaming space (tabletop and electronic) is still very much dominated by the kind of things that games designers in the 70s were writing down. Hence stuff like the seemingly weird obsession with zillions of different kinds of pole arms that persisted in D&D up through 3rd edition. And in the last couple decades the designers of D&D 4th and 5th edition took the view that there need not be any connection between what they wrote about arms and armor and history whatsoever. This saved them a lot of time in research I am sure but it means that what is still the way people often get interested in the subject is now full of ideas that are just totally wrong without even the excuse of having been written in the 70s.
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
+3
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
the notion comes from manuals, illustrations, and artwork contemporary to the eras in addition to contemporary accounts
people who could afford to be trained in it, use swords a whole fucking lot
now samurais? they used swords as a last resort and were predominately horseback archers and used polearms as backup
+1
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
It's a lot easier to train a peasant to use a spear than anything else.
"The sharp end is for sticking."
Training done.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
the notion comes from manuals, illustrations, and artwork contemporary to the eras in addition to contemporary accounts
people who could afford to be trained in it, use swords a whole fucking lot
now samurais? they used swords as a last resort and were predominately horseback archers and used polearms as backup
The oldest known European treatise on fighting is the Royal Armories I.33 manuscript which dates to ~1300 CE and is only about 1:1 dueling with sword and buckler. The next few oldest (eg: Fiore Dei Liberi) are from the early 1400s CE and likewise are almost totally focused on 1:1 dueling. These are very useful sources but don't tell us about battlefield combat.
And I think you are mischaracterizing the artwork and other sources.
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
+1
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
I'd say that military history is very unfashionable now, and not without some good reason I think. Its just that we seem to have a fascination for methods of war and killing. I dunno why. I find it interesting too I'm no different.
War creates stories of dramatic conflict, heightened emotion, camaraderie, the overcoming of adversity, tragedy, and (although it's never actually true) the victory of good over evil.
All of the awful horrors and atrocities of the reality of war notwithstanding, the sanitized, idealized concept of war ticks pretty much every emotional need and experience that humans have.
I think it was a lot more exciting studying war when there were a lot more wars going on. We still have wars, but no one really gets excited about 20 years in Afghanistan. Used to be countries had new wars all the time, so you weren't just studying history but also the present. But we're currently living in the longest (one of the longest at least) periods of peace in history (depending on where you live, kinda goes without saying that this whole convo is very Eurocentric, as most history tends to be).
I would say that Afghanistan bears much more resemblance to most wars in history (long, asymmetrical, largely civilian casualties, relatively little distinction between civilians and military forces for at least one side etc) than say, Stalingrad
Our entire perception of war is "WWII" and WWII is not like any other war. Arguably WWI is similarish. But realistically those two are just massively different
According to Medieval Death Bot, a Twitter bot that tweets real post mortems from like, the 1100's and up, the most common weapon used to kill people was a stave (I guess a big stick) or the occasional arrow.
Also, everybody was a clerk and all the clerks back then were murderous assholes.
The primary, but not exclusive, weapon of the knightly class from like 700 to 1600 in Europe was the sword when not mounted. Lower classes would use all sorts of weapons
You don’t get polaxe and pike formations en masse until guns essentially force knights off the battlefield and standing armies become more common
700 to 1600 is a very long period of time and there is a lot of change during in terms of social structure, technology and tactics.
The sword was certainly the symbol of knighthood. It’s expensive, hard to make and takes training. It’s easy to carry around with you all day as a badge of office or mark of station. However, it’s not always the most suitable weapon given the circumstances presented to a knight at any particular time in their lives. Knights, being a martial class, had time to learn multiple weapon systems. Lance, sword, horsemanship but also wrestling, daggers, and various weapons like polearms depending on the particular time and place.
For example, better and heavier armor like plate sees the decline of shields and the rise of two handed weapons for knights and men at arms. You certainly do see specialized swords like the estoc and techniques like halfswording in use, but you also see a whole lot of shorter polearms like poleaxes because you have two free hands now and they have an advantage in reach and power over a sword, which is great for dealing with another fellow in plate armor.
Posts
It's the blood libel thing. Innocent's doctor was Giacomo di San Genesio, a jew. The transfusion story is contemporary, but could easily be in the rich tradition of making bad shit up about your hated predeccessor/enemy, with anti-semitism added for extra flavor.
One of the reasons Alexander VI got the reputation as "most corrupt pope in history" is related to his (relatively) benign treatment of the jews. On 30 July, 1492, all the Jewish community – some 200,000 people – were forcibly expelled from Spain. 9000 jews made their way to the Papal States, where newly elected Pope Alexander VI "permitted them to lead their life, free from interference from Christians, to continue in their own rites, to gain wealth, and to enjoy many other privileges". He similarly allowed the immigration of Jews expelled from Portugal in 1497 and from Provence in 1498. Allegations of "for money" were made by contemporaries.
(It should be noted that as reward for "reconquering" Spain, Isabella and Ferdinand got the appelate "Most Catholic Majesties" by (the Spanish) Alexander VI in 1493.)
For the whole "allow jews into Papal States" thing, Alexander was much critizised. His arch-rival Giuiliano della Rovere (future Pope Julius "the Warrior Pope" II) smeared Alexander as a marrano or crypto-jew (jews who pretended to have converted to Christianity but secretly practiced the faith of their ancestors).
even if the subject wasn't incredibly interesting, which it is,
just look at that cover art
look at that name
how can you not want that book on your shelf
I must say this is not presented as particularly unusual I wonder how common your anthropogenic arts and crafts were at the time
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
Also the supposed ‘Wallace sword’ does not have human skin on it, but it was restored centuries ago
Imagine that having a pleasureful sip out of the skull of some guy you hated and you murdered, sure showed him
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
It was common enough to completely wipe out the MacRame clan.
the wallace sword is like 5 different bits of old broken swords forge welded together into something totally unusable as a weapon
There's always exceptions but it's pretty rare for a sword to be the primary weapon of a soldier throughout history. They are almost always sidearms / backup weapons (aside from their more important role off the battlefield as status symbols). When someone has a spear and a sword the spear is the main weapon and if that sword comes out something has gone to shit. Imperial Rome was quite exceptional in having their main heavy infantry focus on sword use and that was only possible as those swords were paired with such large shields and heavy armor. That is a common theme for any shorter weapon like maces or axes as well, they need something like a shield or heavy armor to allow the user to close the range with short one handed weapons.
You don’t get polaxe and pike formations en masse until guns essentially force knights off the battlefield and standing armies become more common
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
See this is the kind of thing that I think was the common scholarship for quite a long time but is no longer the case. A sword, as a sidearm, is (to borrow an awful modern phrase) part of the everyday carry. It is an important part of the ostentatious display of a warrior aristocrat. But it was not (usually, barring some exceptions) the primary battlefield weapon of those who wore them. The analogy is very rough (though not as rough as trying to spread the notion of a knightly class across those 900 years in even a single region let alone all of europe) but the sword was the pistol as compared to the spear, lance, poleax (which were in common use in the 1300s, long before gunpowder weapons were common and when plate armor was just coming into its own) being the battle rifle. They aren't something that you can wear around and show off - or even carry for personal protection - but on the battlefield they were the primary weapons.
If we are honest, a large part of the interest in medieval arms and armor comes from tabletop and video games. And people like Gygax and Jeff Perren and Arneson etc... were actually well read in history for the 1970s. But I wouldn't trust a history book written before the 90s at the oldest. Stuff that my teachers in college would have sworn up and down as true is no longer true. But a lot of the gaming space (tabletop and electronic) is still very much dominated by the kind of things that games designers in the 70s were writing down. Hence stuff like the seemingly weird obsession with zillions of different kinds of pole arms that persisted in D&D up through 3rd edition. And in the last couple decades the designers of D&D 4th and 5th edition took the view that there need not be any connection between what they wrote about arms and armor and history whatsoever. This saved them a lot of time in research I am sure but it means that what is still the way people often get interested in the subject is now full of ideas that are just totally wrong without even the excuse of having been written in the 70s.
people who could afford to be trained in it, use swords a whole fucking lot
now samurais? they used swords as a last resort and were predominately horseback archers and used polearms as backup
"The sharp end is for sticking."
Training done.
exactly
and if they can't afford a spearhead, a quarterstaff can put out some very serious damage
The oldest known European treatise on fighting is the Royal Armories I.33 manuscript which dates to ~1300 CE and is only about 1:1 dueling with sword and buckler. The next few oldest (eg: Fiore Dei Liberi) are from the early 1400s CE and likewise are almost totally focused on 1:1 dueling. These are very useful sources but don't tell us about battlefield combat.
And I think you are mischaracterizing the artwork and other sources.
little nubly bit at the end too
the pen? little spear.
everything is spears.
always has been
All of the awful horrors and atrocities of the reality of war notwithstanding, the sanitized, idealized concept of war ticks pretty much every emotional need and experience that humans have.
Our entire perception of war is "WWII" and WWII is not like any other war. Arguably WWI is similarish. But realistically those two are just massively different
Also, everybody was a clerk and all the clerks back then were murderous assholes.
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
Rivers, wells, creeks, big pots of water. People just fell in em and drowned all the time.
I would say it's a solid 60-40 split of either dying by clerks or drowning in a river.
700 to 1600 is a very long period of time and there is a lot of change during in terms of social structure, technology and tactics.
The sword was certainly the symbol of knighthood. It’s expensive, hard to make and takes training. It’s easy to carry around with you all day as a badge of office or mark of station. However, it’s not always the most suitable weapon given the circumstances presented to a knight at any particular time in their lives. Knights, being a martial class, had time to learn multiple weapon systems. Lance, sword, horsemanship but also wrestling, daggers, and various weapons like polearms depending on the particular time and place.
For example, better and heavier armor like plate sees the decline of shields and the rise of two handed weapons for knights and men at arms. You certainly do see specialized swords like the estoc and techniques like halfswording in use, but you also see a whole lot of shorter polearms like poleaxes because you have two free hands now and they have an advantage in reach and power over a sword, which is great for dealing with another fellow in plate armor.
It's not related to any conversation, just thought that it's a cool weapon
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
Fix’d.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
The most fun thing I have personally ever swung around was a montante, but that thing looks like a blast to play around with.
RIP to those knights but I'm different.