How many who post here are actually Medieval Historian?
Karen
dispute here as to what constitutes a "medieval historian"
I would like to know who here has at least a Master's Degree in Medieval
history and has or is presently teaching at the university/college level.
Just for curiosity
Karen
Just a meek, mild librarian with a B.A. in History
Simon Pugh
<karen...@mi.mun.ca> writes
I have absolutely no history qualifications, thanks for asking :)
--
Simon Pugh
C A Candy
Karen <karen...@mi.mun.ca> wrote:
>I will clarify the meaning of "medieval historian" as there seems to be some
>dispute here as to what constitutes a "medieval historian"
>
>I would like to know who here has at least a Master's Degree in Medieval
>history and has or is presently teaching at the university/college level.
Given those specific criteria, I qualify.
>Just a meek, mild librarian with a B.A. in History
Possibly the world's expert on the Durham archives only has his B.A.,
though he may have upgraded it to a master's. Never bothered submitting
for a PhD, as he felt it was a waste of his time, if I recall correctly.
I'd like to see someone yank his chain on this issue.
Cheers,
Chris
------------------
Christopher Candy Check out the 'Treason, Heresy & Riot:
Department of History Instability in Britain and Western Europe,
University of Durham 1200-1550' Conference, August 2002, at
43 North Bailey http://www.dur.ac.uk/c.a.candy/2002/
Durham DH1 3EX
United Kingdom
+44 191 374 2005
C.A....@durham.ac.uk
Hari Seldon
"Karen" <karen...@mi.mun.ca> wrote in message
news:abu14l$gpi$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...
Err... I should graduate within 2 months with a ma in med. his. warfare,
teach allready for 2 years in college, though...
David C. Pugh
"Simon Pugh" <si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> skrev i melding
news:$sK6IFHV...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk...
> >I would like to know who here has at least a Master's Degree in
Medieval history and has or is presently teaching at the
university/college level.
> >
> >Just for curiosity
> >
> >Karen
> >Just a meek, mild librarian with a B.A. in History
> >
> I have absolutely no history qualifications, thanks for asking :)
No pretensions here to being anything other than a student for the
love of it -- unqualified, unprofessional, unpaid, amateur, hobbyist.
David
David Read
<davi...@online.no> writes
I've got an A-Level in medieval European History with the reign of
Henry VIII as a special subject, 1972-4.
Other than that, same as David Pugh.
cheers,
--
David Read
William Black
C A Candy <C.A....@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:abu9lt$b...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
> Possibly the world's expert on the Durham archives only has his B.A.,
> though he may have upgraded it to a master's. Never bothered submitting
> for a PhD, as he felt it was a waste of his time, if I recall correctly.
> I'd like to see someone yank his chain on this issue.
I seem to remember that English one of the pair who discovered DNA (Watson
and Crick, can't remember which one was which) said something similar.
He's probably not a real scientist...
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Gryphon801
seminar is produced by a man or woman, surely that is the test.
Lblanch001
>
>I would like to know who here has at least a Master's Degree in Medieval
>history and has or is presently teaching at the university/college level.
Certainly not me. But I have readers cards at the Bodleian and the BL, which
suit me fine as "or equivalent."
--
Laura Blanchard
lblan...@aol.com (or lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu)
http://www.r3.org/
(see http://orb.rhodes.edu/ to reach major medieval gateway sites)
Simon Pugh
<lblan...@aol.com> writes
I can match you with a Bod and a BL and raise you with a PRO
Does this mean am an "or equivalent" too? <g>
--
Simon Pugh
Ben Buckner
Do psychohistorians count?
Ben B.
A non-historian
Lblanch001
> can match you with a Bod and a BL and raise you with a PRO
>Does this mean am an "or equivalent" too? <g>
As Senior Philosophunculist on active duty, I decree that you are an "or
equivalent" first class.
Lblanch001
>Do psychohistorians count?
>
Only if they have a plan.
Michael W Cook
si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk wrote on 15/5/02 10:26 pm:
I'll throw in PRO, BL..... and the hand winner - Hammersmith Libraries.
They've got a pretty good medieval section you know ;-)
And if that doesn't make me an equivalent, I've also got a Shell card, WH
Smiths, Tescos and Boots cards.
MWC
Kathy McIntosh
<karen...@mi.mun.ca> writes
Education]. I do teach History, but not medieval, as the KS2 curriculum
doesn't include it - unless you count the Vikings and the Tudors :-}
--
Kathy
There is nothing more dangerous than a man with an idea.
Tiglath
"Ben Buckner" <tar...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote in message
news:3CE2D4B8...@imap2.asu.edu...
> Do psychohistorians count?
>
All psychos welcome here.
Simon Pugh
Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> writes
Funnily enough I was in the Hammersmith library the other day, they
didn't give me a card though :(
--
Simon Pugh
Lblanch001
>I'll throw in PRO, BL..... and the hand winner - Hammersmith Libraries.
>They've got a pretty good medieval section you know ;-)
>
>And if that doesn't make me an equivalent, I've also got a Shell card, WH
>Smiths, Tescos and Boots cards.
>
>MWC
I think the Boots card disqualifies an otherwise excellent Or Equivalent c.v.
Inger E
"Tiglath" <tig...@tiglath.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:abuko2$clm$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Provided that they do know the difference between Medieval and non-Medieval
that is...
Inger E
Alex
> dispute here as to what constitutes a "medieval historian"
>
> I would like to know who here has at least a Master's Degree in Medieval
> history and has or is presently teaching at the university/college level.
Not that I had ever any claims on being "medieval <whatever>" but the
definition above simply means (to me) "a person who teaches history in
university". Does not tell anything about studying and its quality.
People who are not _teaching_ will be disqualified regardless their
professional activities.
To be more precise, this is a typical BT-based definition (AFAIK, most
of the "professional studies" are concentrated in the universities/colledges).
However, there were/are places where this is not the case. For example,
Soviet/Russian Academy of Sciences: special non-educational institutions
that are doing historic, etc. studies.
Afropea
concentration on Film History. My minors were in History and Humanities. I
did not specialize in the Middle Ages, although I did take many courses on
Renaissance art. I once audited a course on Gothic art, but that's about as
close as I got to the Middle Ages other than the general courses.
I'm very much an amateur at Medieval history and only began studying it within
the past few years.
Eve
Inger E
"Afropea" <afr...@aol.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:20020515235410...@mb-bh.aol.com...
> I have a BA and an MA in Art History. My Masters had an additional
> concentration on Film History. My minors were in History and Humanities.
I have a BA on paper but all points, written essays and papers etc have been
up for a MA in History and that will not be sent in before they accept that
I can use my points in religion and finish it to a minor, that's what I from
beginning was promised. (Unfortunatly not promised on paper)
added to that I have points(courses passed) in Mathematic, Sociology,
Religion, Cultural Geography, Methodology, Science Methods and some other
subjects.
I am specialist in(have had to do special reading courses and tests to pass
those courses) in 400-1400 AD
Inger E
Drew Nicholson
Not me. English Major, love of history, re-enactor.
--
-- Drew
********************************
Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now!
"In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher." - Dalai
Lama
Inger E
http://www.liu.se/tema/history/kurser.htm
Sorry that the URL is written in Swedish but I didn't find an English text
so I will do some ruff translation
"GRUNDKURSEN HISTORIA 1 (1-20 poäng) kan fungera som ett led i en vidare
utbildning i ämnet historia."
Basic/Ground level History 1 (1-20 points) can be used as a step towards a
higher eduqation in History"
"Alla typer av arbete, offentliga och privata, som innehåller
utredningsmoment, bygger på att man ska kunna kritiskt granska olika
framställningar och ordna fakta till förklarande beskrivningar av
sammanhang. En grundutbildning i historia ger sådana kunskaper."
"All types of work, Public or private, where analyses needs to be done, call
for the person to be able to do objective critic studies of different
presentations as well as sort facts of detailed descriptions of
connections[between facts, sources etc.]. A Basic level in History will give
you that skill"
Then a literature book list to be read at this level follows in the page.
HISTORY 2 (21-40 POINTS)
"är den direkta fortsättningen på grundkursen vid Linköpings universitet.
Denna kurs ger framför allt träning i att insamla, värdera och bearbeta ett
källmaterial i ett självständigt uppsatsarbete."
"is the directly following [course] of the Basic/Ground course at Linköping'
s University. This course primary aim is to practise collection of facts,
valuate and work at a study of Prime source material presented in an own
essay without assistance."
"Även historiografiskt inriktade studier ingår."
This level includes courses in Histography
Then a literature book list to be read at this level follows in the page.
HISTORY LEVEL 3(41-60 POINTS)
"syftar till en fördjupning i ämnet, dess teori och metod. Kursen avslutas
med att studenten genomför ett längre, självständigt uppsatsarbete, som
beaktar vetenskapliga krav. Historia 3 ger behörighet till forskarutbildning
i historia."
Aims to a profound knowledge of the subject[History], it's theories and
methods. In the end the student will present a long, independent
Essay-study, where all academic claims have to be met. After History 3 [the
student] will have competence needed for scholar education.
Then a literature book list to be read at this level follows in the page.
******
Up to this point this is exactly what I had to study and pass to receive a
BA-diploma.
After History 3(in previous years called C-level) you can go two ways if you
want to continue your scholar education:
You can apply for a Ph.D. -student Scholarship (the universities here in
Sweden are by authorities asked for ability to give each Ph.D. student
accepted a Scholarship, if it can't the student can't be accepted for Ph.D.
studies).
Or you can continue with a History 4 level.
The later is what I did.
HISTORY 4 (61-80 points)
"kan ingå i en magisterutbilning. Kursen omfattar tre delar, nämligen teori
och metod, vetenskapligt arbete och en fördjupningskurs. Den senare omfattar
litteraturstudium och är inriktad på sju olika forskningsförberedande fält."
Can be used inside a MA degree. This level have three courses: Theory and
Methods; an Academic study and a profound course[in History]. The later
includes literature's to be read [analysed and presented meeting traditional
Academic demands and prepares [the student] for seven different
research-introductory fields.[in History]
I passed History 4 and I have also studied Local History, Culture Geographic
History as well as Methodics and Didactics during my study to become a
Teacher of History.
If that's one thing I am not it's an amateur and no amateur who haven't
shown to have all this skills and knowledge can't call him-/herself a
Historian.
Inger E
"Drew Nicholson" <DRE...@techsanctuary.org> skrev i meddelandet
news:NjKE8.26999$L76.1785@rwcrnsc53...
Edgar De Blieck
> Funnily enough I was in the Hammersmith library the other day, they
> didn't give me a card though :(
> --
Well, they are quite selective... ;)
EDEB
Edgar De Blieck
I got an MA hons in Medieval History from Glasgow, where I'm doing my PhD,
and I teach history there!
What's the prize?
EDEB.
"Karen" <karen...@mi.mun.ca> wrote in message
news:abu14l$gpi$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...
Michael W Cook
si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk wrote on 15/5/02 10:49 pm:
>>>
>>> I can match you with a Bod and a BL and raise you with a PRO
>>> Does this mean am an "or equivalent" too? <g>
>>
>> I'll throw in PRO, BL..... and the hand winner - Hammersmith Libraries.
>> They've got a pretty good medieval section you know ;-)
>>
>> And if that doesn't make me an equivalent, I've also got a Shell card, WH
>> Smiths, Tescos and Boots cards.
>>
>> MWC
>>
> I'll see you with a Wellcome Trust (History of Medicine) :)
>
> Funnily enough I was in the Hammersmith library the other day, they
> didn't give me a card though :(
Well there you go, Simon, it costs me a £1000 a year in council tax to
qualify for one !!
The problem with Hammersmith is that most of their good books are held in
storage in the basement. If you can be bothered to search through their
catalogue, they've a mine of some cracking old books that are really
difficult to get hold of.
Regards
Michael
Michael W Cook
mwc...@crusader-productions.com
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
-
Michael W Cook
lblan...@aol.com wrote on 15/5/02 11:14 pm:
> Michael writes:
>
>> I'll throw in PRO, BL..... and the hand winner - Hammersmith Libraries.
>> They've got a pretty good medieval section you know ;-)
>>
>> And if that doesn't make me an equivalent, I've also got a Shell card, WH
>> Smiths, Tescos and Boots cards.
>>
>> MWC
>
> I think the Boots card disqualifies an otherwise excellent Or Equivalent c.v.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
Damn it, I knew that lovely looking black lady who fluttered her eyes at me
would come back and haunt me one day - all for a loyalty card too !
I'll destroy it right away, Laura, and hide the evidence in my waste bin ;-)
MWC
William Black
Inger E <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in message
news:iWBE8.38082$n4.83...@newsc.telia.net...
What exactly is the difference?
William Black
Edgar De Blieck <Debl...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ac00d8$i44$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> I'm one!
> I got an MA hons in Medieval History from Glasgow, where I'm doing my PhD,
> and I teach history there!
>
> What's the prize?
Inger get's to say you're not a real medieval historian.
Lblanch001
>I'm one!
>I got an MA hons in Medieval History from Glasgow, where I'm doing my PhD,
>and I teach history there!
>
>What's the prize?
The prize is you get to teach at slave wages until you get your PhD, and
possibly also thereafter.
Inger E
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:ac06vn$7cu$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> Edgar De Blieck <Debl...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ac00d8$i44$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> > I'm one!
> > I got an MA hons in Medieval History from Glasgow, where I'm doing my
PhD,
> > and I teach history there!
> >
> > What's the prize?
>
> Inger get's to say you're not a real medieval historian.
William,
don't ever do that again - I haven't said that nor would I have said that
Edgar wasn't a real medieval historian - he has met all criterias and
passed. He is a medieval historian, Paul Gans isn't.
He is teaching at the Universy and I am using my MA studies(completed all
criterias long ago but haven't sent in the verified papers which we have to
do here in Sweden) to teach grade 6 and up.
Inger E
Martin Reboul
Karen wrote...
> I will clarify the meaning of "medieval historian" as there seems to be
some
> dispute here as to what constitutes a "medieval historian"
>
> I would like to know who here has at least a Master's Degree in Medieval
> history and has or is presently teaching at the university/college level.
>
> Just for curiosity
>
> Karen
> Just a meek, mild librarian with a B.A. in History
Hmmm....
I am a medieval historian, no question about it. So are nearly all the
people who post here. Most of them probably know as much if not more than
most History Professors about certain medieval things, albeit in a very
narrow field sometimes (like myself).
I do have 'O' Level history in fact (European, 1896 - 1952 - garde A, pretty
impressive really, although anyone who'd watched 'All Quiet on the Western
Front', 'Dr. Zhivago' and 'The Battle of Britain', (and paid attention)
could have passed - add 'Oh What a Lovely War' to that, and you'd be sure to
get an A too....
Nonetheless, I am confident that regarding one particular event, I know more
than anyone else alive or dead (apart from the men who actually fought the
battle of Barnet, and probably even more than many of them perhaps, in view
of what happened?).
Hows that for arrogant?
Quite seriously, History is a subject that *anyone* can become expert in to
some degree - qualifications help add weight to opinions, but a love of and
(most importantly) an interest in it are far more important. A certain
cynical objectivity helps of course...
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
Michael W Cook wrote
>
>
> >>>
> >>> I can match you with a Bod and a BL and raise you with a PRO
> >>> Does this mean am an "or equivalent" too? <g>
> >>
> >> I'll throw in PRO, BL..... and the hand winner - Hammersmith Libraries.
> >> They've got a pretty good medieval section you know ;-)
> >>
> >> And if that doesn't make me an equivalent, I've also got a Shell card,
WH
> >> Smiths, Tescos and Boots cards.
> >>
> >> MWC
> >>
> > I'll see you with a Wellcome Trust (History of Medicine) :)
> >
> > Funnily enough I was in the Hammersmith library the other day, they
> > didn't give me a card though :(
>
> Well there you go, Simon, it costs me a £1000 a year in council tax to
> qualify for one !!
>
> The problem with Hammersmith is that most of their good books are held in
> storage in the basement. If you can be bothered to search through their
> catalogue, they've a mine of some cracking old books that are really
> difficult to get hold of.
Hmmm.... they sold off all the good stuff in Borehamwood Library to the
local peasants, to light their fires with, prop up wobby tables with, or
...well, too ghastly to think of. My entire Wars of the Roses Coffee Table
Collection came from there....
Cheers
Martin
Edgar De Blieck
> non-Medieval
> > that is...
>
> What exactly is the difference?
>
> --
Medieval stops at Bosworth.
Richard iii = Medieval. henry Vii = modern.
(pulls out pin, lobs and runs away...)
EDEB.
C'est la vie
C'est la guerre
C'est l'amour
Pomme de terre.
Edgar De Blieck
> I haven't said that nor would I have said that
> Edgar wasn't a real medieval historian - he has met all criterias and
> passed. He is a medieval historian
Nice to know, thanks.
EDEB.
William Black
>
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:ac06vn$7cu$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> >
> > Edgar De Blieck <Debl...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:ac00d8$i44$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> > > I'm one!
> > > I got an MA hons in Medieval History from Glasgow, where I'm doing my
> PhD,
> > > and I teach history there!
> > >
> > > What's the prize?
> >
> > Inger get's to say you're not a real medieval historian.
>
> William,
> don't ever do that again - I haven't said that nor would I have said that
> Edgar wasn't a real medieval historian - he has met all criterias and
> passed. He is a medieval historian, Paul Gans isn't.
Sorry about that Inger.
OK then, it means Inger gets to decide if you're a medieval historian, or
not.
I wonder which history departments (and I do mean history departments and
not the maintenance department or the library or the genealogist under the
stairs, but something that has a real live tenured professor of history at
the top) submit applications to her before interview?
Edgar De Blieck
> >I got an MA hons in Medieval History from Glasgow, where I'm doing my
PhD,
> >and I teach history there!
> >
> >What's the prize?
>
> The prize is you get to teach at slave wages until you get your PhD, and
> possibly also thereafter.
>
Ooooh! You cynic... - I heard say that policemen from the rank of sergeant
and above over here can earn more than most professors of history. Not sure
how true that is, but perhaps someone can fill me in on that one?
EDEB.
Manny Olds
> In message <20020515165234...@mb-md.aol.com>, Lblanch001
> <lblan...@aol.com> writes
>>Karen asks:
>>
>>>
>>>history and has or is presently teaching at the university/college level.
>>
>>suit me fine as "or equivalent."
>>
>>
>>
>>Laura Blanchard
>>lblan...@aol.com (or lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu)
>>http://www.r3.org/
>>(see http://orb.rhodes.edu/ to reach major medieval gateway sites)
>>
> I can match you with a Bod and a BL and raise you with a PRO
> Does this mean am an "or equivalent" too? <g>
How does the Library of Congress fit into this rating scheme?
--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"Thou hast most traitorously corrupted the youth of the realm in erecting
a grammar-school; and whereas, before, our forefathers had no other books
but the score and the tally, thou hast caused printing to be used, and,
contrary to the king, his crown and dignity, thou hast built a
paper-mill." -- Wm. Shakespeare, Henry VI, part II
sophia
>dispute here as to what constitutes a "medieval historian"
>
>history and has or is presently teaching at the university/college level.
>
I have a BA (Hons) in Mediaeval English and Archaeology (I've
considered doing an MA or M Phil, my thesis would be on the post
dissolution uses of monasteries in England, but there hasn't been
time so far). For my job I work in the media.
--
Sophia
Faith in Fabulousness
www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
William Black
> > > Provided that they do know the difference between Medieval and
> > non-Medieval
> > > that is...
> >
> > What exactly is the difference?
> >
> > --
>
>
> Medieval stops at Bosworth.
> Richard iii = Medieval. henry Vii = modern.
>
> (pulls out pin, lobs and runs away...)
I'll play then.
So Lorenzo the Magnificent is a medieval figure...
How about this:
I'll see your Bosworth and raise you an 'The rule of Edward IV is
indistinguishable from the rule of any other renaissance prince in Europe'.
Alternatively I'll give you that one and open with a new one:
Shakespeare was the only truly great renaissance figure produced by England,
until Elizabeth came to the throne England was a backward medieval state.
Anyone else want to play?
Matthew Harley
>
> I will clarify the meaning of "medieval historian" as there seems to be some
> dispute here as to what constitutes a "medieval historian"
>
> I would like to know who here has at least a Master's Degree in Medieval
> history and has or is presently teaching at the university/college level.
I don't have any history degrees but I have a couple of historic
degrees in other subjects ;-).
OTOH I would claim some expertise in the history of France and Italy
between the years 1498 and 1515 (the reign of Louis XII), at least as
far as knowledge of events is concerned. I would not claim to have
any special abilities of an analytic nature.
Matt Harley
Lblanch001
>
>Medieval stops at Bosworth.
>Richard iii = Medieval. henry Vii = modern.
>
>(pulls out pin, lobs and runs away...)
>
Medieval good.
Modern bad.
Lblanch001
>My entire Wars of the Roses Coffee Table
>Collection came from there....
You have a collection of Wars of the Roses coffee tables? The mind boggles.
sophia
<Debl...@btopenworld.com> writes
>> > Provided that they do know the difference between Medieval and
>> non-Medieval
>> > that is...
>>
>> What exactly is the difference?
>>
>> --
>
>
>Medieval stops at Bosworth.
>Richard iii = Medieval. henry Vii = modern.
I don't buy that: I see little significant difference between the England
of Henry VII and that of the Yorkist Kings. For me, the change should
be put some time in the reign of Henry VIII - I personally favour
1536-40 with its sweeping away of mediaeval institutions and
transfers of power, land and property.
D. Spencer Hines
Indeed.
The Dissolution of the Monasteries ---- for England ---- should be the
line of demarcation.
The basic problem is that we have some control freaks here on SHM whose
_pretended expertise_ is much earlier for England ---- 1066 to 1347 ----
so they want to cut things off earlier.
It makes them feel more confident of the field and that they can
justifiably claim the coveted title of "medievalist."
Deus Vult.
"Have you ever heard of Harry Houdini? Well, he wasn't like today's
magicians only interested in television ratings. He was an artist. He
could make an elephant disappear in a theater filled with people. And
do you know how he did that?"
"Misdirection." -- Gabriel [John Travolta]
"What the [----] are you talking about?" -- Stanley [Hugh Jackman]
"Misdirection."
"What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes." -- Gabriel
[John Travolta]
"Swordfish" [2001] -- Directed By Dominic Sena -- Written By Skip Woods
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"sophia" <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+WjIyAAF...@arxana.demon.co.uk...
erilar
> I will clarify the meaning of "medieval historian" as there seems to be
> some
> dispute here as to what constitutes a "medieval historian"
>
> I would like to know who here has at least a Master's Degree in Medieval
> history and has or is presently teaching at the university/college level.
>
> Just for curiosity
>
> Karen
> Just a meek, mild librarian with a B.A. in History
>
>
I have an M.A. in medieval philology, so how do I count me?
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>In article <ac09qt$k3c$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Edgar De Blieck
><Debl...@btopenworld.com> writes
>>> > Provided that they do know the difference between Medieval and
>>> > non-Medieval that is...
>>> What exactly is the difference?
>>Medieval stops at Bosworth.
>>Richard iii = Medieval. henry Vii = modern.
>I don't buy that: I see little significant difference between the England
>of Henry VII and that of the Yorkist Kings. For me, the change should
>be put some time in the reign of Henry VIII - I personally favour
>1536-40 with its sweeping away of mediaeval institutions and
>transfers of power, land and property.
The real mistake, it seems to me, is trying to pinpoint a date. I
don't think that this works very well even if you limit yourself to a
single geographical area. If you look at science and scientists, for
instance, you find a fair bit of what I'd call a medieval outlook even
into the 17th century.
Brian
D. Spencer Hines
Historical effects linger long after the "period" is over.
Karl Marx referred to the phenomenon as "cultural lag."
One can still find "the medieval outlook" being practised in some places
in the World in the 21st Century.
So, this comment by a mathematician, who seems to teach night school to
adults, at "Cleveland State University" ---- and who is certainly no
*scientist* ---- is blather.
As Well As...
Woefully Historically Ignorant...
Par for the course for Igor Scott, who rarely, if ever, thinks for
himself ---- but simply listens to and parrots _His Master's Voice_.
Deus Vult.
"Have you ever heard of Harry Houdini? Well, he wasn't like today's
magicians only interested in television ratings. He was an artist. He
could make an elephant disappear in a theater filled with people. And
do you know how he did that?"
"Misdirection." -- Gabriel [John Travolta]
"What the [----] are you talking about?" -- Stanley [Hugh Jackman]
"Misdirection."
"What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes." -- Gabriel
[John Travolta]
"Swordfish" [2001] -- Directed By Dominic Sena -- Written By Skip Woods
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:3ce40e5a....@enews.newsguy.com...
Inger E
"sophia" <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:+WjIyAAF...@arxana.demon.co.uk...
OK Sophia,
I understand your point. Still OED say mid 15th Century. Comments?
Inger E
>
> Faith in Fabulousness
> www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
>
Michael W Cook
b.s...@csuohio.edu wrote on 16/5/02 9:00 pm:
But what of warfare ?
With a fear of going over old ground, I think there is a case to be stated
that medieval warfare in Western Europe ended as early as Castillion in
1453, when the French under Maitre Jean Bureau's firearms cut down the
English.
Would any scholars here on the Wars of the Roses advocate that the tactics
of battle were essentially the same as the tactics used in the previous 150
years.
What was the impact of the firearm?
Probably not much at the time, but I think it fair to say that the armies in
the WOR hardly used the right tactics with them and they took a while to
gain favour.
What was the next battle after Castillion where the firearm played such a
decisive role ?
Brian M. Scott
<mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote:
>in article 3ce40e5a....@enews.newsguy.com, Brian M. Scott at
>b.s...@csuohio.edu wrote on 16/5/02 9:00 pm:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2002 14:46:45 +0100, sophia <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> In article <ac09qt$k3c$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Edgar De Blieck
>>> <Debl...@btopenworld.com> writes
>>>>>> Provided that they do know the difference between Medieval and
>>>>>> non-Medieval that is...
>>>>> What exactly is the difference?
>>>> Medieval stops at Bosworth.
>>>> Richard iii = Medieval. henry Vii = modern.
>>> I don't buy that: I see little significant difference between the England
>>> of Henry VII and that of the Yorkist Kings. For me, the change should
>>> be put some time in the reign of Henry VIII - I personally favour
>>> 1536-40 with its sweeping away of mediaeval institutions and
>>> transfers of power, land and property.
>> The real mistake, it seems to me, is trying to pinpoint a date. I
>> don't think that this works very well even if you limit yourself to a
>> single geographical area. If you look at science and scientists, for
>> instance, you find a fair bit of what I'd call a medieval outlook even
>> into the 17th century.
>But what of warfare ?
It's not something that greatly interests me, so I've no great fund of
knowledge on which to draw, but I don't see why it should be any
different in this respect. Saying that it ended with a particular
battle seems to me to be akin to saying that the boundary between
green and blue is a particular wavelength. Might it not prove more
useful to consider how late 15th c. European warfare, say, did and did
not resemble that of a century earlier, or two (not to mention that of
a century later)?
[...]
Brian
William Black
Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
news:B909E9CB.4FB5%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
> Would any scholars here on the Wars of the Roses advocate that the tactics
> of battle were essentially the same as the tactics used in the previous
150
> years.
Well I'm not a scholar, Inger says so, but...
The Wars of the Roses are odd in several respects.
First of all they are a series of short and extremely violent conflicts
between 'overmighty subjects'. One one side the 'king' spends a lot of the
time in a catatonic state.
Most Continental (European) wars of the time were fought by siegecraft with
emergence of castle destroying cannon driving the development of
fortifications. You only have to look at something like Tilbury built not
long after the end of the WoR to see how far things have come.
But in England the rise of the cannon proof fortification is later.
So what you have is essentially a group of nobles fighting with their
household 'troops', and whatever else they could scratch up with the
available cash and 'going off to war'.
None of the campaigns lasted more than about 16 weeks, so logistics weren't
an issue.
The more you look at it the more it starts to look less like a war and more
like a series of big gang fights over thirty years.
It doesn't stop until there's only one man standing (and not even then,
remember Stoke)
To get to the point. There isn't really anything pushing the military
technology side of the conflict at all. The cranquin and arbalest doesn't
even appear to any extent. While cannon were around (I believe Warwick had a
large number) they do not seem to be utilised effectively. They fight with
the weapons left over from the late war with France because it's not really
a war, they just call it that because it's the only word they had to use to
describe it.
Mike Dana
>
> "Simon Pugh" <si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> skrev i melding
> news:$sK6IFHV...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk...
> > In message <abu14l$gpi$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>, Karen
> > <karen...@mi.mun.ca> writes
>
> Medieval history and has or is presently teaching at the
> university/college level.
> > >
> > >Just for curiosity
> > >
> > >Karen
> > >Just a meek, mild librarian with a B.A. in History
> > >
>
>
> No pretensions here to being anything other than a student for the
> love of it -- unqualified, unprofessional, unpaid, amateur, hobbyist.
>
> David
Sounds about right for me.
--
Mike Dana Everett, Washington, U.S.A.
"It's all just bubblegum and baloney!"
--Eliseo Soriano, 18 September, 2001
Grethe Bachmann
Ciao!
Grethe
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> skrev i en meddelelse
news:erilarloFRY-19E9...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
Michael W Cook
b.s...@csuohio.edu wrote on 17/5/02 1:09 am:
>> But what of warfare ?
>
> It's not something that greatly interests me, so I've no great fund of
> knowledge on which to draw, but I don't see why it should be any
> different in this respect. Saying that it ended with a particular
> battle seems to me to be akin to saying that the boundary between
> green and blue is a particular wavelength. Might it not prove more
> useful to consider how late 15th c. European warfare, say, did and did
> not resemble that of a century earlier, or two (not to mention that of
> a century later)?
>
> [...]
>
> Brian
Good point, however, after Castillion, it proved that cavalry charges
against well positioned firearms rendered the armour wearing knight
effectively useless. Thereby instituting a new, more powerful method of
waging war.
Yes, it took a further hundred years to perfect, bows and engines still held
out, but nevertheless it issued forth a new type of warfare bring to an end
the mass pitched battles one associates with the middle ages.
regards
Michael W Cook
black_...@hotmail.com wrote on 17/5/02 9:49 am:
>
> Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
> news:B909E9CB.4FB5%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
>
>> Would any scholars here on the Wars of the Roses advocate that the tactics
>> of battle were essentially the same as the tactics used in the previous
> 150
>> years.
>
> Well I'm not a scholar, Inger says so, but...
Now, now !
> The Wars of the Roses are odd in several respects.
>
> First of all they are a series of short and extremely violent conflicts
> between 'overmighty subjects'. One one side the 'king' spends a lot of the
> time in a catatonic state.
>
> Most Continental (European) wars of the time were fought by siegecraft with
> emergence of castle destroying cannon driving the development of
> fortifications. You only have to look at something like Tilbury built not
> long after the end of the WoR to see how far things have come.
Indeed, Henry VIII's castle chain along the south coast were all
particularly reliant on the cannon.
> But in England the rise of the cannon proof fortification is later.
>
> So what you have is essentially a group of nobles fighting with their
> household 'troops', and whatever else they could scratch up with the
> available cash and 'going off to war'.
>
> None of the campaigns lasted more than about 16 weeks, so logistics weren't
> an issue.
>
> The more you look at it the more it starts to look less like a war and more
> like a series of big gang fights over thirty years.
>
> It doesn't stop until there's only one man standing (and not even then,
> remember Stoke)
>
> To get to the point. There isn't really anything pushing the military
> technology side of the conflict at all. The cranquin and arbalest doesn't
> even appear to any extent. While cannon were around (I believe Warwick had a
> large number) they do not seem to be utilised effectively. They fight with
> the weapons left over from the late war with France because it's not really
> a war, they just call it that because it's the only word they had to use to
> describe it.
I agree, it hardly pushed the boundaries of technology assisted warfare at
all, and as I've always believed, was just a continuation of the style and
tactics used in France. The tactics of English armies had reached a
stalemate and had progressed little since Crecy, still relying on masses of
bowmen and sheer numbers.
Cheers
Michael W Cook
mwc...@crusader-productions.com wrote on 17/5/02 6:50 pm:
> but nevertheless it issued forth a new type of warfare bring to an end
> the mass pitched battles one associates with the middle ages.
Until Towton et al ;-)
MWC
William Black
Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
news:B90B0A37.50E2%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
I already said that the WotR aren't typical.
But there is no 'new form of warfare.
Cannon get used at Crecy (probably)
Bows get used by Henry VIII
People still wander about in 3/4 armour in the ECW, and only stop when they
can't get warhorses powerful enough to carry them.
There is a lot of change between Agincourt and Blenheim, but none of it
seems particularly revolutionary. Medieval warfare doesn't stop because it
doesn't exist in any real sense.
People think that the presence of men on horses and the lack of firearms
denotes something called 'medieval warfare'. It isn't, other stuff changes
as well, it's just a bit more difficult to see.
Michael W Cook
black_...@hotmail.com wrote on 17/5/02 8:44 pm:
Thank you William, I appreciate what you are saying, I'm just talking myself
into a cul-de-sac I'm afraid, ignore me.
Cheers
Michael
Brian M. Scott
<mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote:
[...]
>Yes, it took a further hundred years to perfect, bows and engines still held
>out, but nevertheless it issued forth a new type of warfare bring to an end
>the mass pitched battles one associates with the middle ages.
In all honesty, I associate mass pitched battles even more strongly
with the early modern period.
Brian
D. Spencer Hines
myself into a cul-de-sac I'm afraid, ignore me."
Pogue Cook ---- 17 May 2002
---------------------
Truer words were never said.
And, Good Advice...from the Goose's Mouth...
Talking himself into a cul-de-sac is a recurrent pattern with Pogue
Cook....
Which leads him to lie, distort, prevaricate, evade and dissemble ----
in desperate, fumbling attempts to extricate himself from said
culs-de-sac....
Which attempts invariably come a cropper...
"Bottom of a Sack, Dead End, or Blind Alley Cook"...
Yes, that's our boy....
Hilarious!
How Sweet It Is!
Or, just refer to him as Cul-de-Sac Cook....
Yes, that has a nice cosmopolitan ring to it.
Alex
> Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
> news:B909E9CB.4FB5%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
>
> > Would any scholars here on the Wars of the Roses advocate that the tactics
> > of battle were essentially the same as the tactics used in the previous
> 150
> > years.
>
> Well I'm not a scholar, Inger says so, but...
>
> The Wars of the Roses are odd in several respects.
>
> First of all they are a series of short and extremely violent conflicts
> between 'overmighty subjects'. One one side the 'king' spends a lot of the
> time in a catatonic state.
>
> Most Continental (European) wars of the time were fought by siegecraft with
> emergence of castle destroying cannon driving the development of
> fortifications. You only have to look at something like Tilbury built not
> long after the end of the WoR to see how far things have come.
I think that comparison is not completely valid. A civil war, like WoR
is often fought differently from a "conventional" war.
Michael W Cook
b.s...@csuohio.edu wrote on 17/5/02 9:33 pm:
Ignore me Brian, William. I am floundering helplessly here and talking
gibberish, as usual. I'm going into areas I really don't want to be going at
the moment, or at any time really. My mind was thinking one thing, and my
fingers were typing rubbish, sorry.
I'm tired, I've been trying to finish up a proper job that pays my bills,
I've also been trying do some work on my Malfosse investigation. I'm reading
and re reading Barlow's Carmen and Davis' Poitiers, AND trying to crash
together an hour and a half talk for some US & Canadian history tourists on
Bodiam Castle and the HYW on the Sussex coast - hence my other post on the
bells.
Who said medieval history wasn't fun !
Early tomorrow I'm off to Yorkshire, where men are men and women
are.....well, like Auntie Mary Fisher I suppose - anyway, hopefully I'll
squeeze in an Abbey and a Castle.
Regards
Simon Pugh
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes
How about pitched fork battles then?
--
Simon Pugh
D. Spencer Hines
gibberish, as usual. I'm going into areas I really don't want to be
one thing, and my fingers were typing rubbish, sorry."
"Cul-de-Sac" Cook ---- 17 May 2002
--------------------------------------------
Quite...
I could hardly put it better myself.
Cook may be gaining some insight into his Gross Cerebral Deficiencies
[GCD]....
Incipient Self-Knowledge Aborning ---- or Aborting?...
Perhaps...Perhaps Not...
However, he is a *bit* hard on himself. He does not *always* post
gibberish.
Even Pogue Cook has occasional, brief, isolated episodes of lucidity.
His critical task now is to *build* on those brief episodes of
lucidity...extrapolate and grow from them.
Deus Vult
---------------
Brian M. Scott
<Si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3ce568a6....@enews.newsguy.com>, Brian M. Scott
><b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes
>>On Fri, 17 May 2002 18:50:33 +0100, Michael W Cook
>><mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>>>Yes, it took a further hundred years to perfect, bows and engines still held
>>>out, but nevertheless it issued forth a new type of warfare bring to an end
>>>the mass pitched battles one associates with the middle ages.
>>In all honesty, I associate mass pitched battles even more strongly
>>with the early modern period.
>How about pitched fork battles then?
'Sir, there's a Tridentine Mass approaching on the left flank!'
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote:
[...]
>Early tomorrow I'm off to Yorkshire,
I certainly hope that you get better weather than we're having here at
the moment! I like Yorkshire, but I imagine that it's a bit chancy in
mid-May.
> where men are men and women
>are.....well, like Auntie Mary Fisher I suppose - anyway, hopefully I'll
>squeeze in an Abbey and a Castle.
And sheep are sheep. Mustn't forget the sheep.
Brian
D. Spencer Hines
Pogue Cook
"I certainly hope that you get better weather than we're having here at
the moment! I like Yorkshire, but I imagine that it's a bit chancy in
mid-May."
Brian 'Igor' Scott ---- in Cleveland, Ohio
| ... where men are men and women are.....well, like Auntie Mary
| Fisher I suppose - anyway, hopefully I'll squeeze in an Abbey
| and a Castle.
Pogue Cook
"And sheep are sheep. Mustn't forget the sheep."
Brian 'Igor' Scott
---------------------------
Hilarious!
Yes, that's our Igor all right.
Give him a choice between a woman and a sheep ---- and he'll go for the
sheep every time.
The sheep seem to show more interest in him as well, which works out
nicely for both the sheep and Igor...
Deus Vult.
Exitus Acta Probat
Alex
> Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
> news:B90B0A37.50E2%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
> > in article B90B0179.4FFE%mwc...@crusader-productions.com, Michael W Cook
> at
> > mwc...@crusader-productions.com wrote on 17/5/02 6:50 pm:
> >
> > > but nevertheless it issued forth a new type of warfare bring to an end
> > > the mass pitched battles one associates with the middle ages.
> >
> > Until Towton et al ;-)
>
> I already said that the WotR aren't typical.
>
Actually, it could be rather "typical" for a civil war. Of course, they
differed greately depending on time and place but you can trace some more
or less common features. Higher than "average" degree of a cruelty, shorter
and more "chaotic" campaigns, esp. when none of the sides has a solid power
base, greater "flexibility" of the participants (in simple words, switching
of the sides), etc.
AFAIK, with the few exceptions, like American CW and perhaps Civil War in
Russia, they hardly resulted in the major innovations in tactics and or
equipment.
> But there is no 'new form of warfare.
>
Are you positive? :-)
> Cannon get used at Crecy (probably)
>
> Bows get used by Henry VIII
>
They had been used during Napoleonic Wars and even later (in Asia and
Africa). Henry VIII and whatever passed for his army were of a marginal
importance for continental warfare.
> People still wander about in 3/4 armour in the ECW, and only stop when they
> can't get warhorses powerful enough to carry them.
>
BT again. :-)
Polish hussars had been wearing a lot of a metall on them and existed well
after ECW (in XVIII).
> There is a lot of change between Agincourt and Blenheim, but none of it
> seems particularly revolutionary. Medieval warfare doesn't stop because it
> doesn't exist in any real sense.
It probably depends on a point of view.
It could be (and was) argued that Swiss performance in the Burgundian
Wars was revolutionary because it made infantry a dominant force on a
battlefield (100YW did not achieve the same goal).
It was argued (at least on shm) that Hussite warfare was revolutionary because
it introduced a consistent use of a massive artillery (Personally, I have
doubts that this revolution really happened because the system more or less
died out).
It can be argued that revolution actually happened at <one of the numerous
battles> when the firearms proved to be a decisive factor.
It can be argued that it actually happened when dragoons of Henry of Navarra
defeated men at arms of Duke Jouaize.
>
> People think that the presence of men on horses and the lack of firearms
> denotes something called 'medieval warfare'.
[splork]
I missed something. Had you been talking about armies of Xerxes or Alexander
of Macedonia? :-)
>It isn't, other stuff changes
> as well, it's just a bit more difficult to see.
Indeed. It is simply much easier to have some turning point. Yesterday
everybody lived in the Middle Ages but today everybody woke up in the
Renaissance.
Brian M. Scott
>"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ac3mir$dv5$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
[...]
>> People think that the presence of men on horses and the lack of firearms
>> denotes something called 'medieval warfare'.
>[splork]
>I missed something. Had you been talking about armies of Xerxes or Alexander
>of Macedonia? :-)
Early Indo-Europeans. ;-)
>>It isn't, other stuff changes
>> as well, it's just a bit more difficult to see.
>Indeed. It is simply much easier to have some turning point. Yesterday
>everybody lived in the Middle Ages but today everybody woke up in the
>Renaissance.
It would indeed be easier if I could trade in middle age for rebirth!
Brian
Frank Martin
"D. Spencer Hines"
<D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in
message
news:HwiF8.2940$0A1....@eagle.america.net..
.
| |Early tomorrow I'm off to Yorkshire...
|
| Pogue Cook
|
| "And sheep are sheep. Mustn't forget the
sheep."
|
| Brian 'Igor' Scott
| ---------------------------
|
| Hilarious!
|
| Yes, that's our Igor all right.
|
| Give him a choice between a woman and a
sheep ---- and he'll go for the
| sheep every time.
The rams or the ewes?
|
| The sheep seem to show more interest in him
as well, which works out
| nicely for both the sheep and Igor...
|
| Deus Vult.
|
| Exitus Acta Probat
|
| "Have you ever heard of Harry Houdini?
Well, he wasn't like today's
| magicians only interested in television
ratings. He was an artist. He
| could make an elephant disappear in a
theater filled with people. And
| do you know how he did that?"
I don't believe he did it!
|
| "Misdirection." -- Gabriel [John Travolta]
|
| "What the [----] are you talking about?" --
Stanley [Hugh Jackman]
|
| "Misdirection."
|
| "What the eyes see and the ears hear, the
mind believes." -- Gabriel
| [John Travolta]
|
| "Swordfish" [2001] -- Directed By Dominic
Sena -- Written By Skip Woods
|
| All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank
you kindly.
But when will you reply to your posters...?
|
| All original material contained herein is
copyright and property of the
| author. It may be quoted only in
discussions on this forum and with an
* toss*
Simon Pugh
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes
<snip>
>
>>>>Yes, it took a further hundred years to perfect, bows and engines still held
>>>>out, but nevertheless it issued forth a new type of warfare bring to an end
>>>>the mass pitched battles one associates with the middle ages.
>
>>>In all honesty, I associate mass pitched battles even more strongly
>>>with the early modern period.
>
>>How about pitched fork battles then?
>
>'Sir, there's a Tridentine Mass approaching on the left flank!'
>
>Brian
Ave Maria!
--
Simon Pugh
William Black
> On Fri, 17 May 2002 23:06:44 +0100, Michael W Cook
> <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Early tomorrow I'm off to Yorkshire,
>
> I certainly hope that you get better weather than we're having here at
> the moment! I like Yorkshire, but I imagine that it's a bit chancy in
> mid-May.
No chancy at all.
Warm sunny day on Thursday
Cloudy and damp yesterday
Raining like the clappers at the moment.
Normal...
William Black
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8e58188.02051...@posting.google.com...
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ac3mir$dv5$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
> > I already said that the WotR aren't typical.
> >
>
> Actually, it could be rather "typical" for a civil war. Of course, they
> differed greately depending on time and place but you can trace some more
> or less common features. Higher than "average" degree of a cruelty,
shorter
> and more "chaotic" campaigns, esp. when none of the sides has a solid
power
> base, greater "flexibility" of the participants (in simple words,
switching
> of the sides), etc.
I think the 'terrain' is different as well. European wars of the period
(like the wars in Northern Italy) tended to be siege based. The WotR tended
to be about pitched battles by field armies.
There are no modern fortifications in England to retreat behind, they've
got to come out and fight. This makes it all fast and nasty.
> > But there is no 'new form of warfare.
> >
>
> Are you positive? :-)
There are no absolute facts in history :-)
> > People think that the presence of men on horses and the lack of firearms
> > denotes something called 'medieval warfare'.
>
> [splork]
>
> I missed something. Had you been talking about armies of Xerxes or
Alexander
> of Macedonia? :-)
Xerxes is something I don't know about, However the effectiveness of
Alexander's 'companion' cavalry is something people have been going on about
for ages.
Javelin armed light cavalry with no stirrups isn't really cavalry in a
modern (or medieval) sense, they are a fast moving missile armed element.
>
> >It isn't, other stuff changes
> > as well, it's just a bit more difficult to see.
>
> Indeed. It is simply much easier to have some turning point. Yesterday
> everybody lived in the Middle Ages but today everybody woke up in the
> Renaissance.
I once made a case for the renaissance 'happening' in 1492, Columbus,
Botticelli's 'Venus', Alexander VI, loads of other stuff.
Drawing lines is fun, you can do it all day.
David J. Starr
> >
> > Indeed. It is simply much easier to have some turning point. Yesterday
> > everybody lived in the Middle Ages but today everybody woke up in the
> > Renaissance.
>
> I once made a case for the renaissance 'happening' in 1492, Columbus,
> Botticelli's 'Venus', Alexander VI, loads of other stuff.
>
> Drawing lines is fun, you can do it all day.
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
There is something modern in the mind set of a man setting off into the
unknown ocean, looking for a trade route. It's a grand experiment to
prove a theory. Roger Bacon's scientific method write large. Granted
Columbus's theory was weak (the earth is larger than he thought it was)
but the practical results of the laboratory work were gratifying.
--
David J. Starr
Dst...@TheWorld.com
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
black_...@hotmail.com (William Black) wrote:
> Javelin armed light cavalry with no stirrups isn't really cavalry
> in a modern (or medieval) sense, they are a fast moving missile
> armed element.
This has been discussed here before. Stirrups are useful but not
essential for shock cavalry. More important is a decent saddle.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
William Black
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ac8u1p$e1r$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> In article <ac5cka$fic$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,
> black_...@hotmail.com (William Black) wrote:
>
> > Javelin armed light cavalry with no stirrups isn't really cavalry
> > in a modern (or medieval) sense, they are a fast moving missile
> > armed element.
>
> This has been discussed here before. Stirrups are useful but not
> essential for shock cavalry. More important is a decent saddle.
Probably true.
However I don't think the 'Companion' cavalry got used for shock much.
Light missile armed cavalry aren't really suitable for that, especially if
they don't have stirrups.
D. Spencer Hines
essential for shock cavalry. More important is a decent saddle."
Ken Young
------------------------
1. Do tell us all about the discrete, verified, historically
documented, Western European, mediaeval battles where "shock cavalry"
[using couched lances] was employed successfully by the winning
commander ---- and said winning "shock cavalry" [using couched lances]
had no stirrups at all, but only "decent saddles" [which you need to
define].
2. Cite your sources and give us full quotations ---- proving that the
"shock cavalry" [using couched lances] were victorious ---- and had no
stirrups at all ---- just "decent saddles".
3. We're Waiting.
4. If you don't reply, within a reasonable time ---- say 72 hours ----
we'll just assume that the casual, faux-authoritative assertion you have
made, supra, is more of the usual confused, conflated, derivative
gibberish which you often post to SHM ---- and consign it to the rubbish
bin, posthaste.
Deus Vult.
"Have you ever heard of Harry Houdini? Well, he wasn't like today's
magicians only interested in television ratings. He was an artist. He
could make an elephant disappear in a theater filled with people. And
do you know how he did that?"
"Misdirection." -- Gabriel [John Travolta]
"What the [----] are you talking about?" -- Stanley [Hugh Jackman]
"Misdirection."
"What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes." -- Gabriel
[John Travolta]
"Swordfish" [2001] -- Directed By Dominic Sena -- Written By Skip Woods
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Martin Reboul
Grethe Bachmann wrote...
> I´m a middle-aged happy Medieval history amateur - how about that?
>
> Ciao!
I particularly like the 'happy' bit! Anyway, you are therefore as qualified
to comment, argue and nitpick as anyone else here!
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
Inger E wrote...
>
> "William Black" skrev i meddelandet...
> >
> > Edgar De Blieck wrote..
> > > I'm one!
> > > I got an MA hons in Medieval History from Glasgow, where I'm doing my
PhD,
> > > and I teach history there!
> > >
> > > What's the prize?
> >
> > Inger get's to say you're not a real medieval historian.
>
> William,
> don't ever do that again - I haven't said that nor would I have said that
> Edgar wasn't a real medieval historian - he has met all criterias and
> passed. He is a medieval historian, Paul Gans isn't.
>
> He is teaching at the Universy and I am using my MA studies(completed all
> criterias long ago but haven't sent in the verified papers which we have
to
> do here in Sweden) to teach grade 6 and up.
Oh Inger! Do we have to pass some sort of test to comment or offer an
opinion here?
I think not......
I always think it is so tacky to brag and boast about one's qualifications
on a forum such as SHM, which is why I don't choose to call myself 'Doctor'
or harp on about my extensive University experience (including both Oxford
and Cambridge)
One's knowledge, intelligence, reasoning and logic should shine out enough
to make a few letters after one's name completely irrelevant, surely?
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
Alex
> On 17 May 2002 19:10:37 -0700, am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote:
>
> >"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ac3mir$dv5$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
>
> [...]
>
> >> People think that the presence of men on horses and the lack of firearms
> >> denotes something called 'medieval warfare'.
>
> >[splork]
>
> >I missed something. Had you been talking about armies of Xerxes or Alexander
> >of Macedonia? :-)
>
> Early Indo-Europeans. ;-)
>
>
It looks like I'll NOT get a credit for NOT mentioning the Mongols. :-(
Alex
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.02051...@posting.google.com...
> > "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<ac3mir$dv5$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
>
> > > I already said that the WotR aren't typical.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, it could be rather "typical" for a civil war. Of course, they
> > differed greately depending on time and place but you can trace some more
> > or less common features. Higher than "average" degree of a cruelty,
> shorter
> > and more "chaotic" campaigns, esp. when none of the sides has a solid
> power
> > base, greater "flexibility" of the participants (in simple words,
> switching
> > of the sides), etc.
>
> I think the 'terrain' is different as well. European wars of the period
> (like the wars in Northern Italy) tended to be siege based. The WotR tended
> to be about pitched battles by field armies.
Indeed. It looks like Italy of the time was heavily fortified and this
definitely found its reflection in a general style of a warfare. OTOH,
it looks like there were numerous battles during Italian Wars and, anyway,
those were not _CIVIL_ wars. BTW, Machiavelli (if taken seriously) creates an
impression that the earlier fighting among the Italian states involved
frequent and "heavy" battles. Don't remember exact numbers (read his "History
of Florence" years ago) but they looked well above and beyond what would
be realistic (IMO) for rather small city republics. More or less the same
picture I found in the De Comnin's Memories. When he writes about the events
at which he had been present, the numbers (often broken by the feudal lords)
look much smaller than those about which he "heard".
>
> There are no modern fortifications in England to retreat behind, they've
> got to come out and fight. This makes it all fast and nasty.
Of course, there were "national specifics" in every civil war.
>
> > > But there is no 'new form of warfare.
> > >
> >
> > Are you positive? :-)
>
> There are no absolute facts in history :-)
Where is Paul? :-)
>
> > > People think that the presence of men on horses and the lack of firearms
> > > denotes something called 'medieval warfare'.
> >
> > [splork]
> >
> > I missed something. Had you been talking about armies of Xerxes or
> Alexander
> > of Macedonia? :-)
>
> Xerxes is something I don't know about,
No firearms and a lot of horses. Typical "feudal" army following definition
above. :-)
>However the effectiveness of
> Alexander's 'companion' cavalry is something people have been going on about
> for ages.
>
Well, yes, but were they "feudal"? To fit a ... er ... [chocking] "classic"
feudal schema they would have to come to service with their personal bands,
etc.
> Javelin armed light cavalry with no stirrups isn't really cavalry in a
> modern (or medieval) sense, they are a fast moving missile armed element.
>
IIRC, the Persian cavalry had swords and at least _tried_ to attack the heavy
infantry during the Greek-Persian Wars. Can't imagine why didn't they figure
out that they should rather act on the flanks and rear of a phalanx instead
of trying to attack its front. In general, their behavior looks
very "chivalric" in following an absurd code (if my recollections are correct).
BTW, why would they be disqualified from being a "cavalry"? They and Scythians,
Numidians, Hunns (?) and other missile-armed riders. BTW, even after stirrup
had been introduced, the light cavalry troops were not necessarily able to
launch a direct attcak against the heavier opponents (like Polovtsy vs
Russians).
> >
> > >It isn't, other stuff changes
> > > as well, it's just a bit more difficult to see.
> >
> > Indeed. It is simply much easier to have some turning point. Yesterday
> > everybody lived in the Middle Ages but today everybody woke up in the
> > Renaissance.
>
> I once made a case for the renaissance 'happening' in 1492, Columbus,
> Botticelli's 'Venus', Alexander VI, loads of other stuff.
>
> Drawing lines is fun, you can do it all day.
Marxists were very good at this. :-)
Grethe Bachmann
Thank you very very much!!
Grethe ´) `) *) ; ) ´:) `:) *_*
"Martin Reboul" <rebou...@freeserve.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:ac9kva$ii9$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
William Black
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > There are no modern fortifications in England to retreat behind,
they've
> > got to come out and fight. This makes it all fast and nasty.
>
> Of course, there were "national specifics" in every civil war.
That's true, except the WotR is only a civil war in a very specific sense.
The centers of economic power were the expanding urban areas, and for some
reason the various factions didn't seem to want to fight over them, except
in a couple of cases. the WotR is about kings, and killing them.
I should add that there is a theory that says that England's depressed
economic state stopped castle/fortification building. I have to say that
most of the castellos of the period that I have seen in Northern Italy are
made of brick which resists cannon fire better than stone, as it doesn't
shatter.
> > > > But there is no 'new form of warfare.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Are you positive? :-)
> >
> > There are no absolute facts in history :-)
>
> Where is Paul? :-)
Asleep.
Brian M. Scott
[...]
>It looks like I'll NOT get a credit for NOT mentioning the Mongols. :-(
You didn't? Hm. I guess my newsreader automatically inserts Mongols
into any post from am...@hotmail.com that mentions horses. ;-)
Brian
sophia
<black_...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f8e58188.02052...@posting.google.com...
>> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > There are no modern fortifications in England to retreat behind,
>they've
>> > got to come out and fight. This makes it all fast and nasty.
>>
>> Of course, there were "national specifics" in every civil war.
>
>That's true, except the WotR is only a civil war in a very specific sense.
>The centers of economic power were the expanding urban areas, and for
>some
>reason the various factions didn't seem to want to fight over them, except
>in a couple of cases.
Though London was attacked a couple of times and several other
urban areas suffered serious damage, though there was no
Magdeburg equivalent. If the Lancastrian court hadn't fled after
Towton it's possible to imagine that the fate of York might have been
horrible after Towton.
> the WotR is about kings, and killing them.
I'd agree with that, though specifically I think it's about an insane
king. If Henry VI had kept his marbles York would never have claimed
the throne. My interpretation is that he only did as a last resort under
intolerable provocation and when it was clear that King Henry was
incapable of governing.
>
>I should add that there is a theory that says that England's depressed
>economic state stopped castle/fortification building.
That theory doesn't seem to me to match with the evidence. The 15th
century was a great period of castle building: the quality of such
beautiful and luxurious sites as Raglan, Caister, South Wingfield,
Tatershall, Herstmonceux and Sudeley shows no lack of economic
resources - quite the opposite. It's just that the patrons of the 15th
century didn't feel the need to commission works that would resist a
full scale siege in the way that one of the castles built in the time of
Edward I might. I also think that the strength of some of the 15th
century 'show castles' can be under-estimated: more than one proved
its worth when put to the test in the English Civil War.
>I have to say that
>most of the castellos of the period that I have seen in Northern Italy are
>made of brick which resists cannon fire better than stone, as it doesn't
>shatter.
Though whether that was a deliberate design decision or because
brick was a traditional material in much of Italy is open to question.
The castles of Italy went down dramatically before King Charles'
artillery train in 1498 during the French invasion. As a reaction to this
the Italians developed first the low profile castle with thick ramparts,
no towers and a pronounced batter on the walls (cf Sinigaglia) and
later the bastioned trace.
--
Sophia
Faith in Fabulousness
www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
Pat James
(in message <abu14l$gpi$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>):
> I will clarify the meaning of "medieval historian" as there seems to be some
> dispute here as to what constitutes a "medieval historian"
>
> I would like to know who here has at least a Master's Degree in Medieval
> history and has or is presently teaching at the university/college level.
>
> Just for curiosity
>
> Karen
> Just a meek, mild librarian with a B.A. in History
>
>
not me. I've just got a BAHIST from some obscure Yank Church school. Got it
'cause I was an 'Arts-and-Letters Engineer'. Spend five years, get two
degrees.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Pat James
(in message <abu9lt$b...@altair.dur.ac.uk>):
> In article <abu14l$gpi$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>,
> Karen <karen...@mi.mun.ca> wrote:
>> I will clarify the meaning of "medieval historian" as there seems to be
>> some
>> dispute here as to what constitutes a "medieval historian"
>>
>> I would like to know who here has at least a Master's Degree in Medieval
>> history and has or is presently teaching at the university/college level.
>
> Given those specific criteria, I qualify.
>
>> Just a meek, mild librarian with a B.A. in History
>
> Possibly the world's expert on the Durham archives only has his B.A.,
> though he may have upgraded it to a master's. Never bothered submitting
> for a PhD, as he felt it was a waste of his time, if I recall correctly.
> I'd like to see someone yank his chain on this issue.
Those who play the qualifications card tend to not like people like him and
Clyde Tombaugh.
Edgar De Blieck
EDEB.
PS
looks like a great conference.
"C A Candy" <C.A....@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:abu9lt$b...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
> In article <abu14l$gpi$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>,
> Karen <karen...@mi.mun.ca> wrote:
> >I will clarify the meaning of "medieval historian" as there seems to be
some
> >dispute here as to what constitutes a "medieval historian"
> >
> >I would like to know who here has at least a Master's Degree in Medieval
> >history and has or is presently teaching at the university/college level.
>
> Given those specific criteria, I qualify.
>
> >Just a meek, mild librarian with a B.A. in History
>
> Possibly the world's expert on the Durham archives only has his B.A.,
> though he may have upgraded it to a master's. Never bothered submitting
> for a PhD, as he felt it was a waste of his time, if I recall correctly.
> I'd like to see someone yank his chain on this issue.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ------------------
> Christopher Candy Check out the 'Treason, Heresy & Riot:
> Department of History Instability in Britain and Western Europe,
> University of Durham 1200-1550' Conference, August 2002, at
> 43 North Bailey http://www.dur.ac.uk/c.a.candy/2002/
> Durham DH1 3EX
> United Kingdom
> +44 191 374 2005
> C.A....@durham.ac.uk
>
C A Candy
Edgar De Blieck <Debl...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>Anything Burgundian in the Durham archives, do you know?
I'm unsure; most of the archive is relating directly to the bishopric, its
lands, and the individuals who held the position. However, considering
their involvement in English politics over the centuries, this could
address just about anything under the sun. You'd have to contact someone
like Alan Piper here at Durham to check, though I do think there are
published catalogues floating around somewhere.
>looks like a great conference.
We're looking forward to it, to say the least; you're at Glasgow, you
said? Matthew Strickland is coming down to it in August, going to come
with?
Sharon L. Krossa
> > > Provided that they do know the difference between Medieval and
> > non-Medieval
> > > that is...
> >
> > What exactly is the difference?
> >
> > --
>
>
> Medieval stops at Bosworth.
> Richard iii = Medieval. henry Vii = modern.
>
> (pulls out pin, lobs and runs away...)
No, no, no! The Middle Ages ended in August, 1560. (I'd give a specific
day but I'm still trying to figure out if we know the specific day...
;-)
Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
Sharon L. Krossa
> I will clarify the meaning of "medieval historian" as there seems to be some
> dispute here as to what constitutes a "medieval historian"
>
> I would like to know who here has at least a Master's Degree in Medieval
> history and has or is presently teaching at the university/college level.
Well, I'm (still ;-) minor corrections away from my Ph.D. in Scottish
medieval history, and while at Aberdeen I did actually get paid for a
couple years to teach undergraduates history. However, nobody pays me to
do history these days (well, other than my parents who are subsidizing
me while I finish the dissertation, so that's kind of like getting paid
;-), and when I finish the degree I'm going into Academic
Technology/Computing rather than be an academic proper. But I intend to
continue doing research into history and publish (both for a popular
audience and also in academic journals). Ooh! Just occured to me -- if
they ever pay me for something I publish, I could claim to be a
professional historian again! :-)
Edgar De Blieck
"Sharon L. Krossa" <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
news:1fccv72.br3gk4zs8yyuN%kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu...
> Edgar De Blieck <Debl...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Provided that they do know the difference between Medieval and
> > > non-Medieval
> > > > that is...
> > >
> > > What exactly is the difference?
> >
> > Richard iii = Medieval. henry Vii = modern.
> >
> > (pulls out pin, lobs and runs away...)
>
> No, no, no! The Middle Ages ended in August, 1560. (I'd give a specific
> day but I'm still trying to figure out if we know the specific day...
> ;-)
>
> Sharon
22 Aug 1485?
is that the day you're after?
EDEB.
Michael Farthing
<C.A....@durham.ac.uk> writes
>In article <acbvro$htc$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>,
>Edgar De Blieck <Debl...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>Anything Burgundian in the Durham archives, do you know?
>
>I'm unsure; most of the archive is relating directly to the bishopric, its
>lands, and the individuals who held the position. However, considering
>their involvement in English politics over the centuries, this could
>address just about anything under the sun. You'd have to contact someone
>like Alan Piper here at Durham to check, though I do think there are
>published catalogues floating around somewhere.
>
>>looks like a great conference.
>
>We're looking forward to it, to say the least; you're at Glasgow, you
>said?
He can't be. He's been accusing you of being a Sassanach, so he must be
from North of Crianlarich.
--
Michael Farthing
David Debono
wrote:
David D.
The Mediaeval Combat Society
The Historical Reenactment Web Site
http://www.montacute.net/histrenact/welcome.htm
David Debono
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 May 2002 10:56:20 -0500, Karen wrote
Not me either. Maybe I should just shut up in such august company :-)
Mind you I am about as far through a Mediaeval Degree as Inger seems
to be!
Take care
Douglas
>
> Well I'm not a scholar, Inger says so, but...
>
> The Wars of the Roses are odd in several respects.
I'm not a scholar either, just a lurker / occassional poster, and I
don't know much about the WoR, but this thread sparked off a few
ideas, and I hope you don't mind my using your post as a peg from
which to hang them.
<snip>
>
> Most Continental (European) wars of the time were fought by siegecraft with
> emergence of castle destroying cannon driving the development of
> fortifications. You only have to look at something like Tilbury built not
> long after the end of the WoR to see how far things have come.
>
Agreed. I would argue that siege cannons, and the use of gunpowder
with mining, are far more significant than battlefield firearms
during this period.
I could go on about this, maybe in a later post if there's interest.
What is really striking is the emphasis placed on all kinds of
engineering, not just the construction of formal fortifications. Road
building, assault bridges, battlefield breastworks, mining, impromtu
defences during sieges...
The other major change is the organisation of effective heavy foot.
The technology for this had not advanced much since Alexander, but for
some reason, the ability of certain societies to prepare and field
such troops improved. Yet, as I recall, the evidence for formal parade
ground drills is ambiguous prior to Maurice of Nassau. (Ducks incoming
flames from Sealed Knot types.)
> But in England the rise of the cannon proof fortification is later.
>
> So what you have is essentially a group of nobles fighting with their
> household 'troops', and whatever else they could scratch up with the
> available cash and 'going off to war'.
>
Sounds like most wars. I'm not sure that Continental recruitment was
always as organised as the Burgundian & French Ordonnances might lead
us to believe. Look at the chaos in late medieval Spain until the
Catholic Monarchs imposed some order. At one point Ferdinand of
Aragorn rescinded an order for the Gran Capitan to recruit a new army
for Italy, as he feared Gonsalvo might be too successful and too
popular, so the concern obviously persisted for a generation.
> None of the campaigns lasted more than about 16 weeks, so logistics weren't
> an issue.
Logistics are always an issue. Try providing food, water and, dare I
say it, housing, for any number of men for any length of time.
Seriously though, I take your point. At the same time in Granada you
have a typical border squabble between 'medieval' nobles escalate into
something far more organised due to a massive injection of logistical
support from the central monarchy. Some of the figures in McKay about
the proportion of labourers and road-builders to combat troops looks
like World War II, not the Middle Ages.
>
> The more you look at it the more it starts to look less like a war and more
> like a series of big gang fights over thirty years.
>
Sounds like most wars to me.
<snip>
Douglas
Mike Dana
<snip>
> At one point Ferdinand of Aragorn...
A Tolkienian Slip? ;-)
--
Mike Dana Everett, Washington, U.S.A.
"It's all just bubblegum and baloney!"
--Eliseo Soriano, 18 September, 2001