ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Round Table => Topic started by: Sir Edward on 2008-12-17, 20:39:54
-
This is an interesting topic that Sword Chick and I were discussing recently. Sorry if I'm stealing your thunder, Sword Chick! But I though this would be good to go ahead and post so we can discuss it.
The question is, what would you have been during the medieval period? What line of work would you have had? Would you still have been a soldier, knight, mercenary, or anything at all involving swords and armor?
Obviously it would have a great deal to do with what you were born into, in terms of class, and family trade.
But one of the things that makes this question interesting is the large number of technical people (and geeks in general) that are drawn to swords and historical swordsmanship. A deeper question might be why is that the case? For a lot of folks, their interest in history (or fantasy) has a lot to do with an escape from the mundane modern life. Perhaps if they lived during the times of our studies, these things would also be mundane. And add to this the fact that most techies and geeks don't consider themselves to be the least bit athletic, and yet in medieval times, it could be argued that jousting and tournaments of the knightly class were the epitome of athleticism. Swordsmanship and other combat skills are certainly athletic skills, and ones that would have been highly valued. And being less athletically gifted could cost you your life.
So where does the geek fit in? Having strong technical or artistic ability might have lead one to work as a carpenter, blacksmith, glassblower, or any number of other trades. Or perhaps, if they were to be involved in a military career, they might have done better as a tactician than as a soldier.
Statistically, we'd probably all be peasants. But ignoring that, what do you think you might have done for a living back then? If it's not military or combat related, what else and why?
I'm not sure I can answer that, in my case. I'd have done well in technical trade, no doubt. But would I have been a knight or man at arms? It's possible I'd have been repelled by the "mundane brutality" and sought something else, but I don't know. I might also have been drawn to it, as I have been today.
-
Sir Edward, You didn't steal my thunder at all. As I said, it's something I had been thinking about posting, but finding the right words had been a bit of a struggle for me.
What I had been wondering is not just where the geek would fit in, but where we, those that are drawn to the sword arts in this time period would have fit in then. Certainly a preponderance of us are geeks in some way. Would that have been an advantage or disadvantage?
I started thinking about this a lot recently after a couple of conversations with men whose athleticism and swordsmanship I greatly admire. Both said essentially the same thing, that they were not athletic growing up. The phrases they used were something along the lines of "I was the typical gawky teenager" and "I couldn't climb the ropes in gym class." (I'm leaving off names, but now they probably know who they are.) :) Obviously they've trained well beyond that point, but I wondered if in the time period they would have been given the chance or if only the natural jock would have been trained.
For me, the sword arts are as much a mental exercise as a physical one. If you'll pardon me while I stereotype for a moment, would a "typical jock", then or now, have seen it that way? Would the mental aspect have been more difficult or would it have been just as natural as the physical since they would already have the body awareness?
When the LHC first came on line, my Saturday longsword class got into a fun discussion about it before class one morning. I can't help but wonder if a similar discussion would have happened before a hockey training session.
Personal confessions of a geek: I can better grasp a play and internalize the concepts from it when I look at it as a proof. Each movement is a natural followup from the movement before and follows directly from the theory.
As far as where I would have fit in personally, well, being a woman I wouldn't have the options I do now. I would like to think that I would be like one of Brian Jacques female characters in his Redwall series. The women that minded the home fires were as strong and their role was as important as the warriors.
-
You're not having any trouble with finding the right words that I can see. :)
I totally forgot to bring up the mental aspects of these martial systems! Very good points.
-
Its an interesting question. For myself, I can't even begin to imagine an answer, though. Setting aside statistical probability that I'd be a peasant (and quite possibly already dead), its really impossible for me to imagine who I am without my surrounding culture and context. The events and people who've shaped me are from a completely different world than what would have shaped me in medieval life. Even though I try to study and have a better understanding of past cultures, they are still quite alien to a person who did not grow up in that society.
But that's a boring answer. :)
So for the sake of playing the game, let me give a subtly different answer. Rather than saying who I would have been, I'm going to say who I could have seen myself as. If I were alive in the 15th century, I could easily see myself as some sort of tradesman who practiced with a fencing guild. Perhaps I eventually would have worked my way up to become a teacher. Fencing masters, despite the modern connotations of the word "master", were still working class, not nobility. So I'd be the kind of person who worked for a living, who participated in martial arts for the love of the art, but not necessarily as a true warrior. I'd live up to the Chivalric ideals that were taught in the fencing guilds, and I might even spend time serving in the town militia or something of that sort, but I don't think I'd actually be a professional warrior. Its not exactly the most romantic life, but somehow I think it would suit me.
-
Both said essentially the same thing, that they were not athletic growing up. The phrases they used were something along the lines of "I was the typical gawky teenager" and "I couldn't climb the ropes in gym class." (I'm leaving off names, but now they probably know who they are.) :)
I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. ;)
Obviously they've trained well beyond that point, but I wondered if in the time period they would have been given the chance or if only the natural jock would have been trained.
Well, if a male were born as a commoner, he likely developed quite a bit of athleticism based on his daily life. Since desk jobs weren't exactly common (leaving aside religious professions for the moment), most work involved a fair bit of physical labor. We know that many commoners practiced some form of martial art, such as wrestling or staff. In some places and periods, it was even required to an extent (the English and their archery, for example). By the 15th century fencing guilds were much more common throughout Europe, and commoners trained in some of the knightly arts even if they weren't knights themselves.
For me, the sword arts are as much a mental exercise as a physical one. If you'll pardon me while I stereotype for a moment, would a "typical jock", then or now, have seen it that way? Would the mental aspect have been more difficult or would it have been just as natural as the physical since they would already have the body awareness?
I think, just as now, some viewed it more mentally than others. A good comparison is to look at long established living traditions that exist in modern times. Does a jujitsu fighter practice because he loves the technical aspects of the art, or because he likes to take people down on the mat? It could be either or both, depending on the person. I suspect if you went into Master Lekuchner's fechtschule in the 15th century you'd find people practicing ringen who would give you just as many varied answers.
-
Its not exactly the most romantic life, but somehow I think it would suit me.
And not all that different from what you are doing now. ;)
-
Being the very physical young man that I was, I would have had to belonged to some sort of
"common militia" if you will, or something close on those lines. As we've all pointed out, our
class upbringing would certainly have a lot to do with it, but so would the actual geography
of where we were.
Strange how no one as yet on the forum sees themselves forging blades...Hmmmm..... ;)
Actually, I'd probably be involved with some form of leatherwork and or tanning and curing.
I enjoy working with leather now, and it still has so many facets and qualities that are
fascinating. :)
-
Oh, I could easily see myself as a bladesmith, or as a cutler. I'm very hands-on, and probably would have done well in a trade, training up as an apprentice. Crafting the weapons for others to use might have been right up my alley, if I weren't the one using them myself. :)
-
Strange how no one as yet on the forum sees themselves forging blades...Hmmmm..... ;)
Heh... for me its probably because I've done just enough bladesmithing to know that I don't ever want to do it on a large scale. :)
-
Heh... for me its probably because I've done just enough bladesmithing to know that I don't ever want to do it on a large scale. :)
Haha, good point. But then, most of the things that would have been done in period would seem highly tedious or repetitive compared to what we're used to today. The line of work I think I would not want to do, from having done it myself, is making mail. Doing that all the time would be pretty unpleasant, I think.
-
A little bit later time period for most of you, but Tycho Brahe was a geek (astronomer and mathematician) and a swordsman. Though not necessarily good at the latter. He famously lost his nose in a rapier duel. He was a pretty darn good astronomer for his time and Johannes Kepler was his assistant.
http://www.nada.kth.se/~fred/tycho/index.html
-
As I reflect upon my professional accomplishments and failures in these modern times working as an
employee of the federal government, I think I am highly qualified to have been a very successful
village idiot! :D
Seriously I would most likely have been a common militiaman which would mean I would of had a very
short life span being the designated fodder for knights\archers\boiling oil\starvation\diseases... :-\
-
Again, I have to agree with the group. Statistically I would have been a peasant farmer; possibly a skilled tradesman or a monk.
Being a knight is possible, though unlikely since most of my ancestors were outside the aristocracy.
-
i most likely would have been a Karl (free man) in norway. i'd have apprenticed as a bladesmith and most probably an armorer, mostly because that's what i do for fun now. i'd have gone iviking with the other Karls because i'm the second born and can't have inherited a large estate without it. swordsmanship and spear-fighting have always come naturally to me, and i hope they would have then, too. i can't see myself not rising to a landholder or farmer position unless i got killed iviking.
which probably would have happened, because my eyesight is terrible and i would have pissed off just about everyone. haha
-
My wife would definitely have been a blacksmith, if the whole woman thing didn't get in the way. She's a metallurgist now and you just say the word "Steel" and she starts to drool. She even entertained the idea of joining the blacksmithing group in Arlington, VA. As for myself, I'd probably end up a farmer or something knowing my luck. Given my complexion and the lack of sunscreen back then, I'd probably die of skin cancer at a young age.
-
worm food? hehehhe
i would have to say I'd be in the military. I'm a decent builder and tradesman though so at least I could build myself a hut if needed be :)
-
Being multi-ethnic, I probably would not have been born back then. LOL All kidding aside, most likely a serf or slave, working someone else's land for the sustenance of me and mine until conscription and absorption by the armies of the time and given a small pension of land upon retirement to work. If I survived the conflict, that is.
-
Absolutely would have been a "Sovereign Lord" as I would use & abuse my vast knowledge to my own advantage to rampage & spread my tyrannical oppression across the realm. Defeating all who dare defy me with the most heinous methods of torture. Defiling all women of their honor by any forceful means of seduction in order to satisfy my lustful needs ensuring I have a land of bastard children with them all. :P
-
Absolutely would have been a "Sovereign Lord" as I would use & abuse my vast knowledge to my own advantage to rampage & spread my tyrannical oppression across the realm. Defeating all who dare defy me with the most heinous methods of torture. Defiling all women of their honor by any forceful means of seduction in order to satisfy my lustful needs ensuring I have a land of bastard children with them all. :P
Uhm, yikes?
-
Frustratingly, given some thought, I could be any number of things. It's probably easier to list some categories I'd have to fit under, and see what is left over as a common denominator.
Independant - I'm not one for the military, or to eagerly bow to orders.
Stealthy - I'm not really a brute force kind of guy.
Secretive - My intentions are my own, and it's far easier to listen in on things if people don't know you have a predetermined opinion on things.
My thought, from this, would be a bard/vagabond/rogue/mercenary type of thing.
Vagabond/Bard: I prefer not to work FOR anyone if I can help it, as it puts high levels of limitations on what one can and can't do. That being said, I do need a dayjob, and music back then was well-valued. I'm a singer, ocarinist and guitarist in life, so I'd probably be the stereotypical vocal/lute combo. I'd travel a lot, and I love to tell stories - and where else but your local tavern to exchange music/stories, and listen in on rumours.
Rogue: I don't generally tell people my intentions, and have a tendency to eavesdrop - though never on personal things, or things people would specifically not want me to hear. I tune those out. I personally can pick pockets, pick locks, move silently/hide, and I'm more of a sneaky rapier kind of guy (being an epeeist) than a long-sword head chopper.
Mercenary: Well, not really being just a thug, I'd be more like the A-Team/Leverage type deal, choosing the jobs that I agree with morally. Why else would I avoid working for someone other than to do things on my own terms?
So my thoughts are that I'd be a secretive vigilante type. Yes, I'd be batman. :P
-
Well, Quarantillo (my last name) is small group of forty in Italian, which probably means my ancestors got their name for leading a Condottierro (Italian Mercenary) force of 40 lances. So anytime about the 14th and 15th centuries, I'd be in or leading a force of men-at-arms about central Italy, fighting for the various City-states. (Barring the whole diabetes thing, which would put me under in under a month or so)
-
Absolutely would have been a "Sovereign Lord" as I would use & abuse my vast knowledge to my own advantage to rampage & spread my tyrannical oppression across the realm. Defeating all who dare defy me with the most heinous methods of torture. Defiling all women of their honor by any forceful means of seduction in order to satisfy my lustful needs ensuring I have a land of bastard children with them all. :P
Uhm, yikes?
GOTCHA!! :P Seriously, my family surname "DePaolo" is very Italian. I would imagine I would be working the family fields of the vineyards of northeastern Italy (Veneto) or northwestern Tuscany region (around Genoa or Piedmont) as my relatives do to this day. Anyone want a brand name cava?? pinot grigio?? Although I would imagine my family had a good noble life in each of their principalities as they were self-sustaining with the family lands even during the middle ages.
I would have been more suited for something in a 'service' role to the state. Whether military or something associated.
-
Heritage-wise, I'm so multicultural that I myself wouldn't have existed, being English/Irish/Hungarian/Croatian/Something else.
But going off of family histories, my deep-rooted English side, the Strettons, were primarily guards of Nottingham, so that's probably where I'd be were I one of my English ancestors. My Hungarian/Croatian side is of gypsy origin, so that would likely be the case there. I'm not sure on Irish medieval history, so I'm not sure about that side. My final quarter is pretty much unknown. Noone knew where my grandfather came from to the day he died, but it was suspected he might have been Jewish.
-
Heritage wise I would have been military or of the religious persuasion.
My dad was military (retired 43 years active service) so I would be entitled to his rank at some point.
Religious because somewhere along the lines on my dad's side there was an Ayatollah in Northern Asyria, that and his mum's parents were from Northern Asyria (Lebanon).
Dad is also a Member of the Order of St John, so I'm sure that's something interesting to go by.
I work for the military as a public service member so pretty sure military life of some sort for me.
-
In that period of time I would be very very dead.
See I was born with a lethal birth defect. ;)
Other than that I believe I would have been part of the middle class IIRC my family was involved in business in Russia for many centuries.
In Ireland I would have been a Farmer.
My SCA personae is of a descended Scandinavian Rus who "trades" along the Volga River.
-
I would rather be in medieval ages, I could see myself as a soldier or blacksmith considering both of those I find interesting
-
I was a Medieval Studies major, and have always been drawn to those times. For the longest time, I fancied myself as a 'wandering scholar' - a goliard . In those times (11th - 13th centuries) students did not often pursue their degrees in a single university, but went wherever their interests (or their lusts) took them. Say from Oxford to Bologna to Paris.... If you have a chance, read some of the songs of the goliards - irreverent, funny, tragic, and often erotic. But then came the Crusades, and my natural lust for blood overwhelmed my intellect. So, even though I would have been of low birth, I would have taken the Cross and gone forth to the Holy Land, entering into the military service of some Templar knight, baron or lord, hopefully carving out a small place for myself in the region where Christ walked and rose from the dead, and earning forgiveness for my many, many sins. That was one of the glories of Crusade - a man is not who he was born, but what he has it in himself to be. (Guess what film that is from!)
-
I was a Medieval Studies major, and have always been drawn to those times. For the longest time, I fancied myself as a 'wandering scholar' - a goliard . In those times (11th - 13th centuries) students did not often pursue their degrees in a single university, but went wherever their interests (or their lusts) took them. Say from Oxford to Bologna to Paris.... If you have a chance, read some of the songs of the goliards - irreverent, funny, tragic, and often erotic. But then came the Crusades, and my natural lust for blood overwhelmed my intellect. So, even though I would have been of low birth, I would have taken the Cross and gone forth to the Holy Land, entering into the military service of some Templar knight, baron or lord, hopefully carving out a small place for myself in the region where Christ walked and rose from the dead, and earning forgiveness for my many, many sins. That was one of the glories of Crusade - a man is not who he was born, but what he has it in himself to be. (Guess what film that is from!)
Same movie where this quote comes from..."What God requires of you is here (pointing to his brain) and here (pointing to his heart) and what you choose to do with them everyday will make you a good man.....or not". If the Crusades emphasized anything (in this movie and historically), it was the difference between man's conflict with himself and that of his world in the eyes of religious zealots only concerned over their own selfish indignation and lust for power in the name of God. That conversation with Balian emphasized the wisdom of 'free-will' in matters of conscience & morality comparatively to what is perceived as the 'root evil of men'. Truly pious men driven to God's teachings under 'Christendom' follow their own path to enlightenment (by believing in one's own good nature), seeking acceptance as opposed to tolerance, & recognizing our own frailties as mortal men in order to find divine virtue through those teachings. The trials of a man's soul in terms of 'faith' are weighed by his own words and judged by his own actions.
For that quote alone, I respect & see the wisdom of the Hospitalliers (at least in the movie). 'Indifference' should be expected amongst men but it should not be what causes us to war with each other. It is better to show 'acceptance' of others for their views as the means to find peace with each other & within ourselves. Tolerance only carries resentment & is a forced acceptance that will eventually lead to conflict. Through this means can man truly find his faith and value in what he believes. Absolutely one of my favorite movies. :)
-
I was a Medieval Studies major, and have always been drawn to those times. For the longest time, I fancied myself as a 'wandering scholar' - a goliard . In those times (11th - 13th centuries) students did not often pursue their degrees in a single university, but went wherever their interests (or their lusts) took them. Say from Oxford to Bologna to Paris.... If you have a chance, read some of the songs of the goliards - irreverent, funny, tragic, and often erotic. But then came the Crusades, and my natural lust for blood overwhelmed my intellect. So, even though I would have been of low birth, I would have taken the Cross and gone forth to the Holy Land, entering into the military service of some Templar knight, baron or lord, hopefully carving out a small place for myself in the region where Christ walked and rose from the dead, and earning forgiveness for my many, many sins. That was one of the glories of Crusade - a man is not who he was born, but what he has it in himself to be. (Guess what film that is from!)
Same movie where this quote comes from..."What God requires of you is here (pointing to his brain) and here (pointing to his heart) and what you choose to do with them everyday will make you a good man.....or not". If the Crusades emphasized anything (in this movie and historically), it was the difference between man's conflict with himself and that of his world in the eyes of religious zealots only concerned over their own selfish indignation and lust for power in the name of God. That conversation with Balian emphasized the wisdom of 'free-will' in matters of conscience & morality comparatively to what is perceived as the 'root evil of men'. Truly pious men driven to God's teachings under 'Christendom' follow their own path to enlightenment (by believing in one's own good nature), seeking acceptance as opposed to tolerance, & recognizing our own frailties as mortal men in order to find divine virtue through those teachings. The trials of a man's soul in terms of 'faith' are weighed by his own words and judged by his own actions.
For that quote alone, I respect & see the wisdom of the Hospitalliers (at least in the movie). 'Indifference' should be expected amongst men but it should not be what causes us to war with each other. It is better to show 'acceptance' of others for their views as the means to find peace with each other & within ourselves. Tolerance only carries resentment & is a forced acceptance that will eventually lead to conflict. Through this means can man truly find his faith and value in what he believes. Absolutely one of my favorite movies. :)
I am glad that KoH is one of your favorite films, Lord Dane. Mine as well. The actor who portrayed Salahadin should have been nominated for an Oscar. Unbelievable that the movie did not do as well as other Ridley Scott films here in the US. If you have not yet, you should watch the director's cut of the film. About an hour was taken out of the theatrical release. The only part that for me was problematic was his portrayal of the Templars.
-
Silvanus, KoH is a favorite of mine as well- in fact, I implore anyone interested in viewing it to view the Director's Cut as opposed to the theatrical version. What did you not like about his portrayal of the Templars?
-
Silvanus, KoH is a favorite of mine as well- in fact, I implore anyone interested in viewing it to view the Director's Cut as opposed to the theatrical version. What did you not like about his portrayal of the Templars?
I think the film showed them in a particularly bad light. It wouldn't have been universally so.
-
Was it a particularly bad light? I didn't think so...unless we're talking about Guy using them as his personal shock troops...I did not read anywhere that that was the case (the attack on Saladin's sister's caravan, or sending them to attack Balian- altho I thought those particular knights were Teutons, just based on the white surcoats and shields blazoned with a black cross) but it is Hollywood after all and someone had to be the villains, no?
Still, I thought the portrayal to be decent- bad thing about history is it doesn't tell us a whole lot about the Templars themselves. The Order, the organization, who the leaders were...but not of the men themselves. Lots of conjecture and discourse, but not a lot in the way of fact. Given the religious intolerances of the day, I did not think it a reach to portray them as zealots for the Church, that is, in fact, what they were.
-
Silvanus, KoH is a favorite of mine as well- in fact, I implore anyone interested in viewing it to view the Director's Cut as opposed to the theatrical version. What did you not like about his portrayal of the Templars?
Well, to be sure, there were some unjust - even evil - Templars who bullied and butchered the native population of Outremer. That might be said for any group of knights in the Holy Land. However, Scott seems to enjoy portraying the entire Templar brotherhood as greedy fools with no idea of the military reality in which they were in. The General of the Order, as well as Guy - who was not historically a Templar, btw - and Reynald were among the villains of the film.... Don't get me wrong, KoH and Scott did a great service to the portrayal of knights and the kingdom of Jerusalem. But not one good Templar? (You understand I have a certain duty to defend my overlords.) :)
-
Little footnote, the Teutonic Order wasn't around at the time. Find another band of knights to blame for attacking Orlando Bloom! ;)
Also, the real villain of the whole affair weren't the Templars (the knights of the Temple took no part in any of Reynald's raids, or were ever under his command) or even Guy. Reynald de Chattillion was the true villain, and he was portrayed pretty accurately.
Guy was actually a French adventurer, and it seems Sybilla fell madly in love with him (her family had little to gain from Guy, and were against the marriage). It also didn't help that Baldwin seriously undermined Guy's authority during his fits of madness (brought upon by his advancing leprosy). This caused many blunders under Guy's rule due to the nobility not respecting or obeying him (the most notable example was Hattin of course). In fact, Guy was actually the reason Outremer made it into the 13th century. Saladin released Guy after the fall of Jerusalem, thinking the man a broken king. However, after being released, Guy gathered up all of the remaining forces along the coast and besieged Acre, putting up a heroic resistance to the superior Muslim forces until Richard and Phillip arrived with the 3rd crusade.
-
I have seen it many times over Silvanus. :) And will continue to watch it wishing I could live in the time period of the Crusades. Was a great depiction of the era from one standpoint.
What I dislike is how the Templars act in this film or are portrayed (by Scott) as it makes me want to disfavor the Order (even though it is not a completely factual depiction of what historically occurred with characters as explained by Sir Nathan). Their bloodthirst & cry for war in the name of God is disheartening & a serious taint of any sense of pious honor. Templars in this movie needed to learn temperance & could have learned more following the actions of their Hospitallier brethren & Knights who followed King Baldwin IV faithfully in maintaining a peace w/ Saladin.
They could have maintained the Kingdom under Christian rule if they were more observant & wise to the true meaning of God's teachings & not the Pope's decree of what God demands of them. They were truly corrupted in this portrayal & 'real butchers' like the original Crusaders that won Jerusalem through the most non-Christian means. Their leaders were not men of God but of & for 'themselves'.
-
Little footnote, the Teutonic Order wasn't around at the time. Find another band of knights to blame for attacking Orlando Bloom! ;)
Also, the real villain of the whole affair weren't the Templars (the knights of the Temple took no part in any of Reynald's raids, or were ever under his command) or even Guy. Reynald de Chattillion was the true villain, and he was portrayed pretty accurately.
Guy was actually a French adventurer, and it seems Sybilla fell madly in love with him (her family had little to gain from Guy, and were against the marriage). It also didn't help that Baldwin seriously undermined Guy's authority during his fits of madness (brought upon by his advancing leprosy). This caused many blunders under Guy's rule due to the nobility not respecting or obeying him (the most notable example was Hattin of course). In fact, Guy was actually the reason Outremer made it into the 13th century. Saladin released Guy after the fall of Jerusalem, thinking the man a broken king. However, after being released, Guy gathered up all of the remaining forces along the coast and besieged Acre, putting up a heroic resistance to the superior Muslim forces until Richard and Phillip arrived with the 3rd crusade.
LOL, yes I saw that anachronism, too, Sir Nathan. Another thing about Reynald was that he was a bit of a pirate. He actually constructed ships on land near Gaza, tore them down and had them hauled across the Sinai to the Gulf of Aqaba and was set on sailing down the Red Sea and attacking Mecca and Medina. The mission failed miserably, of course.... He was ruthless, but I do have a grudging admiration for his daring - though not his massacres of innocent traders. He did spend 14 years in a Saracen prison as a younger man before his family ransomed him. Perhaps that was when he began to lose a bit of sanity.
-
Silvanus, KoH is a favorite of mine as well- in fact, I implore anyone interested in viewing it to view the Director's Cut as opposed to the theatrical version. What did you not like about his portrayal of the Templars?
Well, to be sure, there were some unjust - even evil - Templars who bullied and butchered the native population of Outremer. That might be said for any group of knights in the Holy Land. However, Scott seems to enjoy portraying the entire Templar brotherhood as greedy fools with no idea of the military reality in which they were in. The General of the Order, as well as Guy - who was not historically a Templar, btw - and Reynald were among the villains of the film.... Don't get me wrong, KoH and Scott did a great service to the portrayal of knights and the kingdom of Jerusalem. But not one good Templar? (You understand I have a certain duty to defend my overlords.) :)
I think what constituted a 'good' Templar differs from what we consider good, today. For instance, the Templars, while seemingly autonomous, were the Pope's elite fighting troops- they fought under the aegis of the Church, took the Cross as their blazon. I fancy myself a bit of a Crusades historian, with emphasis on the Third Crusade (which is slightly after the events of the film, only at the end do you see Richard on his way to the Holy Land) - but just from what I've read, we would consider such soldiers as fanatics in every sense of the word. Their ruleset was dedicated to keeping the soldiers in line, giving them somewhat else to focus their energies upon- things like the trappings of wealth and society held little meaning for the rank and file. Maybe not necessarily so for the leaders, but definitely for the ranks. They were groomed to be zealous in the defense of the Faith- and were granted 'immunity' from the sins they would commit in the Holy Land- and you can take that a number of ways, but I looked at it as a license to kill Muslims, be they citizen or soldier. It is also interesting to note that the Templars enjoyed success only in the First Crusade, although they butchered the indigenous populace when they first took the city...they were never again able to match that level of success, although Richard did make some progress toward restoration of the Holy Land to the Church but he was not ultimately successful. His treaty with Saladin, which could not have happened were it not for the actions of Guy prior to Richard's arrival (alluded to by Sir Nathan), allowed for the Holy Land to have a modicum of peace while still being in Muslim hands. At least until the 4th Crusade was called for ten years later.
-
Silvanus, KoH is a favorite of mine as well- in fact, I implore anyone interested in viewing it to view the Director's Cut as opposed to the theatrical version. What did you not like about his portrayal of the Templars?
Well, to be sure, there were some unjust - even evil - Templars who bullied and butchered the native population of Outremer. That might be said for any group of knights in the Holy Land. However, Scott seems to enjoy portraying the entire Templar brotherhood as greedy fools with no idea of the military reality in which they were in. The General of the Order, as well as Guy - who was not historically a Templar, btw - and Reynald were among the villains of the film.... Don't get me wrong, KoH and Scott did a great service to the portrayal of knights and the kingdom of Jerusalem. But not one good Templar? (You understand I have a certain duty to defend my overlords.) :)
I think what constituted a 'good' Templar differs from what we consider good, today. For instance, the Templars, while seemingly autonomous, were the Pope's elite fighting troops- they fought under the aegis of the Church, took the Cross as their blazon. I fancy myself a bit of a Crusades historian, with emphasis on the Third Crusade (which is slightly after the events of the film, only at the end do you see Richard on his way to the Holy Land) - but just from what I've read, we would consider such soldiers as fanatics in every sense of the word. Their ruleset was dedicated to keeping the soldiers in line, giving them somewhat else to focus their energies upon- things like the trappings of wealth and society held little meaning for the rank and file. Maybe not necessarily so for the leaders, but definitely for the ranks. They were groomed to be zealous in the defense of the Faith- and were granted 'immunity' from the sins they would commit in the Holy Land- and you can take that a number of ways, but I looked at it as a license to kill Muslims, be they citizen or soldier. It is also interesting to note that the Templars enjoyed success only in the First Crusade, although they butchered the indigenous populace when they first took the city...they were never again able to match that level of success, although Richard did make some progress toward restoration of the Holy Land to the Church but he was not ultimately successful. His treaty with Saladin, which could not have happened were it not for the actions of Guy prior to Richard's arrival (alluded to by Sir Nathan), allowed for the Holy Land to have a modicum of peace while still being in Muslim hands. At least until the 4th Crusade was called for ten years later.
Of course the original Crusaders had success because they killed everyone non-Christian including Jews, Orthodox, etc as well as Muslims when they took the Holy Land as they considered them all infidels (even if not by the Pope's decree). They butchered all in Jerusalem without concern of mortal sin or murder of innocents. They were unorganized to oppose them, unprepared, & not capable of a viable defense against the mass of Crusaders intent of killing all without mercy or concern of damnation. They won because none were left to fight them after the massacre.
-
Perhaps this is an old post but I'll add my voice to it.
I would have been a smith, its too much in my family blood to not to have been, we have had several generations of black smiths in my family tracing back to England and to Germany. Perhaps I would have been able to take it further as like most of you here I am highly technical but I also can visualize shapes and convert them to patterns fairly well, I am pretty good at tailoring as well as making armor. Combine that with a good chemistry and metallurgical education, and lots of practical experience at the forge, maybe I would have eventually been an armorer or bladesmith. I prefer armor to blades, but both have their quality. This background originally lead me to our more modern family business of engineering but I prefer my hot/cold and dirty forge to my office any day.
-
Lord Dane, yes, as depicted in KOA, the Templars were evil punks. No one disputes that, as it was kind of the point. In reality they, and the crusaders in general, were for the most part, nothing like that.
Also the Pope in Rome had very little to do with what the Crusaders did once they got on the boats for the Holy Land. The Pope didn't direct Reynald on his raids, or the Crusaders to Hattin. The Pope called the crusade, got them on the boats, told them the overall goal, and that's really it. The Crusades were in a spiritual sense, a show of devotion, and an extremely elaborate penance (that's where the forgiveness for past sins (and those committed on Crusade). There were those of course who abused this, and took it as a licence to do whatever they wanted, but that was never the idea.
Also the Crusaders actually just barely won the first crusade. At every turn they faced overwhelming odds, and their series of victories could almost be considered miraculous. The siege of Jerusalem was an extremely hard fought siege, with much death on both sides. A sack of the city was simply standard military protocol for the time. The total exterminations took place on the Temple Mount (the last and fiercest defender holdouts), not the whole city. It was a fierce siege followed by a fierce sack. Nothing abnormal at all for the time. And I would be very hesitant to call the defenders of Jerusalem "not capable". The only reason the siege succeeded as soon as it did (and it needed to, a Muslim relief force was on its way) was because of tactical ploys by the crusader leaders.
Also the Templars weren't around for the first Crusade, being founded almost 30 years afterwards.
-
Lord Dane, yes, as depicted in KOA, the Templars were evil punks. No one disputes that, as it was kind of the point. In reality they, and the crusaders in general, were for the most part, nothing like that.
Also the Pope in Rome had very little to do with what the Crusaders did once they got on the boats for the Holy Land. The Pope didn't direct Reynald on his raids, or the Crusaders to Hattin. The Pope called the crusade, got them on the boats, told them the overall goal, and that's really it. The Crusades were in a spiritual sense, a show of devotion, and an extremely elaborate penance (that's where the forgiveness for past sins (and those committed on Crusade). There were those of course who abused this, and took it as a licence to do whatever they wanted, but that was never the idea.
Also the Crusaders actually just barely won the first crusade. At every turn they faced overwhelming odds, and their series of victories could almost be considered miraculous. The siege of Jerusalem was an extremely hard fought siege, with much death on both sides. A sack of the city was simply standard military protocol for the time. The total exterminations took place on the Temple Mount (the last and fiercest defender holdouts), not the whole city. It was a fierce siege followed by a fierce sack. Nothing abnormal at all for the time. And I would be very hesitant to call the defenders of Jerusalem "not capable". The only reason the siege succeeded as soon as it did (and it needed to, a Muslim relief force was on its way) was because of tactical ploys by the crusader leaders.
Also the Templars weren't around for the first Crusade, being founded almost 30 years afterwards.
I said original CRUSADERS, Sir Nathan, not Templars. I know they were founded circa 1118.
Yes, they were not as well prepared & against odds but did find themselves having divine luck in most of their efforts. Desperation can motivate the most moral man to do the unthinkable even when intentions are good in his mind including betrayal to Christian beliefs.
However, Pope Urban II had everything to do with the 'motivational aspect' of those that chose to take the Holy Land & he certainly gave them the reasons to not be concerned about murder (even if not responsible for their actions). A one way ticket to Heaven & forgiveness for all past sins would be quite appealing to Christian guilt of the day especially to the knights who spent most of the their feudal days prior killing their fellow Christians in bloody disputes over land in Europe. He was the quinticential salesman of his day who knew how to market his trade to the masses of minions who followed Christian ideology.
They took Jerusalem because some competent Crusader leader(s) were able to convince (bribe) a certain Muslim guarding a tower to give them access to a lightly defended West Wall with ladders during a night raid that led to the opening of the gates. No one said Jersulaem defenders were 'not capable', they were 'unprepared'. So yes, in relation to their military tactical ploys, their strategy worked great. Just like when Joshua conquered Jericho's walls by having Isrealite spies win some whore's heart who in turn, allowed his commandos at night to scale the walls with dropped ropes & penetrate the city defenses. Distraction & deception work well in military strategy when desperate.
-
Lord Dane, I was responding to Sir William's post, which seems to imply that the Templars were present during the 1st crusade.
Lord Dane, what sources do you have that say anything that happened during the siege of Jerusalem was contrary to the common practices of the day, or contrary to medieval Christian thinking?
Yes, a church endorsement was a good motivator, and when later crusades actually do start getting around to offering plenary indulgences for going on crusade, you do get some effect beyond devotion and penance (the crusades were never a straight ticket to heaven by themselves, and it was not for the remission of sins themselves, noting of course that remission and penance are two different things. As Catholics, all of the crusaders would have access to total remission of their sins through Confession, right at home.) But the Pope never directed the actual military forces in Outremer.
Also, Urban II was responding to pleas for help from Alexius I of the Byzantine Empire. The Pilgrimage (it wasn't even known as a Crusade until much later) had the goal of seizing Muslim-held territory and returning it to the Byzantines (Christians, if not Catholics) in return for military aid on their pilgrimage. Land was only taken by the Crusaders when Stephen of Blois advised the Byzantine aid that the Crusaders were lost. If there was any true "salesman" behavior going on, it was probably Urban II hoping that the Pilgrimage could re-unify Christianity (Greek Orthodox had only split from the Catholic Church mere 50 years beforehand) under the Papal banner.
Also your description is actually the siege of Antioch. Jerusalem was won by a two-pronged attack, one of which shifted their position during the night to gain the element of surprise. And my point was that the garrison mounted an effective defense. The terms "not capable" and "unprepared" were taken from your post.
Also, where did you hear that account of the siege of Jericho? I am not near as knowledgeable with ancient battles, but it sounds rather interesting.
-
Lord Dane, I was responding to Sir William's post, which seems to imply that the Templars were present during the 1st crusade.
Lord Dane, what sources do you have that say anything that happened during the siege of Jerusalem was contrary to the common practices of the day, or contrary to medieval Christian thinking?
Yes, a church endorsement was a good motivator, and when later crusades actually do start getting around to offering plenary indulgences for going on crusade, you do get some effect beyond devotion and penance (the crusades were never a straight ticket to heaven by themselves, and it was not for the remission of sins themselves, noting of course that remission and penance are two different things. As Catholics, all of the crusaders would have access to total remission of their sins through Confession, right at home.) But the Pope never directed the actual military forces in Outremer.
Also, Urban II was responding to pleas for help from Alexius I of the Byzantine Empire. The Pilgrimage (it wasn't even known as a Crusade until much later) had the goal of seizing Muslim-held territory and returning it to the Byzantines (Christians, if not Catholics) in return for military aid on their pilgrimage. Land was only taken by the Crusaders when Stephen of Blois advised the Byzantine aid that the Crusaders were lost. If there was any true "salesman" behavior going on, it was probably Urban II hoping that the Pilgrimage could re-unify Christianity (Greek Orthodox had only split from the Catholic Church mere 50 years beforehand) under the Papal banner.
Also your description is actually the siege of Antioch. Jerusalem was won by a two-pronged attack, one of which shifted their position during the night to gain the element of surprise. And my point was that the garrison mounted an effective defense. The terms "not capable" and "unprepared" were taken from your post.
Also, where did you hear that account of the siege of Jericho? I am not near as knowledgeable with ancient battles, but it sounds rather interesting.
I agree with the Urban II historical account of why Crusaders went on Pilgrimage to the Holy Land resulting from the Byzantine Emperor requesting assistance from the Roman Church. It was just more a "ploy" on the part of the Pope that allowed the Crusades to begin (not just the invitation by the Byzantines who did not have the military might to retake their once-held territory from the occupying Muslims). Pope Urban II wished more to unify the East and West under the Papal banner so Christian power would again reign in Rome. Granted, he did not control the masses who flocked on pilgrimage but he began what he knew would result... a good marketing campaign to assist the Church's end goal.
True enough regarding the practice of "remission" and "penance" right at home but the Pope could not motivate masses of murderous Christian soldiers on campaign for something they could do at home. He needed to appeal to those knights who would undertake the campaign by his guarantee of divine forgiveness for all sins if they went on campaign in the name of Christendom.
Honestly, we know the crusaders were motivated by different reasons (i.e. faith, greed, power, etc) in accordance with most accounts of the 3 year campaign (1095-98) to reach Jerusalem. The effort alone to reach Jerusalem under such dire and poor conditions would lead many of them to do inhumane and barbaric things, and it has according to history. Noone can really say it was one mitigating factor that drove them to go, but I think if Urban II hadn't made his plea, the Crusades would not have happened in the same way. He took advantage of a situation and did it well.
The Byzantines needed the Papacy aid but did not want to share what they now enjoyed. They did not expect a Catholic mob of about 100,000 Crusaders at their doors so they were hesistant to welcome them. This made the leaders of the Catholic campaign reign in their own efforts to retake the lands from Muslims for other reasons and led to betrayal. It certainly would not make reunification of East and West occur.
Yes, those were "my terms" from my post. ::) History Channel's series "Ancient Battles of the Bible" accounts for a whole documented history dedicated to the Israelites campaigns to take Canaan. Series noted battles led by Joshua, David, etc. that included Jericho.
-
They took Jerusalem because some competent Crusader leader(s) were able to convince (bribe) a certain Muslim guarding a tower to give them access to a lightly defended West Wall with ladders during a night raid that led to the opening of the gates. No one said Jersulaem defenders were 'not capable', they were 'unprepared'. So yes, in relation to their military tactical ploys, their strategy worked great. Just like when Joshua conquered Jericho's walls by having Isrealite spies win some whore's heart who in turn, allowed his commandos at night to scale the walls with dropped ropes & penetrate the city defenses. Distraction & deception work well in military strategy when desperate.
Desperate or not, effective is effective. Never heard of that story. Seems interesting, is it fact based on evidence, or speculation?
-
They took Jerusalem because some competent Crusader leader(s) were able to convince (bribe) a certain Muslim guarding a tower to give them access to a lightly defended West Wall with ladders during a night raid that led to the opening of the gates. No one said Jersulaem defenders were 'not capable', they were 'unprepared'. So yes, in relation to their military tactical ploys, their strategy worked great. Just like when Joshua conquered Jericho's walls by having Isrealite spies win some whore's heart who in turn, allowed his commandos at night to scale the walls with dropped ropes & penetrate the city defenses. Distraction & deception work well in military strategy when desperate.
Desperate or not, effective is effective. Never heard of that story. Seems interesting, is it fact based on evidence, or speculation?
Which one, Jerusalem or Jericho? Jerusalem account was more speculation which is to say unproven but the Jericho siege account is documented history.
-
Actually, the siege of Jerusalem is quite well documented. It was rather important for Christendom, you see. The Wikipedia page covers the gist of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099))
Lord Dane, what sources do you have to substantiate your claims?
And what was the Church's goal if not the reunification of Christendom? And also, the Byzantines were quite thrilled that the turnout was so massive. Also, the total maximum estimated turnout for the 1st Crusade was closer to 60,000 or 70,000 at the most (to but some perspective, in the siege of Jerusalem, the Crusaders had 13,300 men to the garrison's estimated 10,000) . And for almost the first half of the campaign, the Crusaders worked well with the Byzantines and handed the conquered lands right to Alexius, just as they agreed. The troubles came at the siege of Antioch where Alexius withdrew his reinforcements when the crusaders needed them most. The fact that Antioch was held by Bohemond I (a historic Byzantine enemy) sealed the fate of the alliance.
The sacrament of Confession would allow a Catholic (all of the crusaders) to gain total remission for their sins at home. While they did gain this on Crusade, it wasn't merely a shady deal of salvation. For the great nobles who had everything to lose doing this, it was a great risk with little chance of profit (if things had gone to the original plan, all the cities would have been given back to the Byzantines). It was a show of devotion for many of them, and the Catholic doctrine of Faith and Works strongly influenced them to go as well. While some may have gone out of greed, the majority it seems went out of genuine concern for their salvation or protection of the Holy Land.
In the sources, you find that while Urban appeals to the Crusaders goal of salvation, he also appeals to their desire to protect their eastern brethren, to wage "Holy and Just War" instead of fighting each other, to protect the Holy Land, and once is mentioned the chance to keep Saracen possessions.
"We have beard, most beloved brethren, and you have heard what we cannot recount without deep sorrow how, with great hurt and dire sufferings our Christian brothers, members in Christ, are scourged, oppressed, and injured in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and the other cities of the East. Your own blood brothers, your companions, your associates (for you are sons of the same Christ and the same Church) are either subjected in their inherited homes to other masters, or are driven from them, or they come as beggars among us; or, which is far worse, they are flogged and exiled as slaves for sale in their own land. Christian blood, redeemed by the blood of Christ, has been shed, and Christian flesh, akin to the flesh of Christ, has been subjected to unspeakable degradation and servitude. Everywhere in those cities there is sorrow, everywhere misery, everywhere groaning (I say it with a sigh). The churches in which divine mysteries were celebrated in olden times are now, to our sorrow, used as stables for the animals of these people! Holy men do not possess those cities; nay, base and bastard Turks hold sway over our brothers. The blessed Peter first presided as Bishop at Antioch; behold, in his own church the Gentiles have established their superstitions, and the Christian religion, which they ought rather to cherish, they have basely shut out from the ball dedicated to God! The estates given for the support of the saints and the patrimony of nobles set aside for the sustenance of the poor are subject to pagan tyranny, while cruel masters abuse for their own purposes the returns from these lands. The priesthood of God has been ground down into the dust. The sanctuary of God (unspeakable shamel) is everywhere profaned. Whatever Christians still remain in hiding there are sought out with unheard of tortures.
"Of holy Jerusalem, brethren, we dare not speak, for we are exceedingly afraid and ashamed to speak of it. This very city, in which, as you all know, Christ Himself suffered for us, because our sins demanded it, has been reduced to the pollution of paganism and, I say it to our disgrace, withdrawn from the service of God. Such is the heap of reproach upon us who have so much deserved it! Who now serves the church of the Blessed Mary in the valley of Josaphat, in which church she herself was buried in body? But why do we pass over the Temple of Solomon, nay of the Lord, in which the barbarous nations placed their idols contrary to law, human and divine? Of the Lord's Sepulchre we have refrained from speaking, since some of you with your own eyes have seen to what abominations it has been given over. The Turks violently took from it the offerings which you brought there for alms in such vast amounts, and, in addition, they scoffed much and often 'at Your religion. And yet in that place (I say only what you already know) rested the Lord; there He died for us; there He was buried. How precious would be the longed for, incomparable place of the Lord's burial, even if God failed there to perform the yearly miracle! For in the days of His Passion all the lights in the Sepulchre and round about in the church, which have been extinguished, are relighted by divine command. Whose heart is so stony, brethren, that it is not touched by so great a miracle? Believe me, that man is bestial and senseless whose heart such divinely manifest grace does not move to faith! And yet the Gentiles see this in common with the Christians and are not turned from their ways! They are, indeed, afraid, but they are not converted to the faith; nor is it to be wondered at, for a blindness of mind rules over them. With what afflictions they wronged you who have returned and are now present, you yourselves know too well you who there sacrificed your substance and your blood for God.
"What are we saying? Listen and learn! You, girt about with the badge of knighthood, are arrogant with great pride; you rage against your brothers and cut each other in pieces. This is not the (true) soldiery of Christ which rends asunder the sheepfold of the Redeemer. The Holy Church has reserved a soldiery for herself to help her people, but you debase her wickedly to her hurt. Let us confess the truth, whose heralds we ought to be; truly, you are not holding to the way which leads to life. You, the oppressers of children, plunderers of widows; you, guilty of homicide, of sacrilege, robbers of another's rights; you who await the pay of thieves for the shedding of Christian blood -- as vultures smell fetid corpses, so do you sense battles from afar and rush to them eagerly. Verily, this is the worst way, for it is utterly removed from God! if, forsooth, you wish to be mindful of your souls, either lay down the girdle of such knighthood, or advance boldly, as knights of Christ, and rush as quickly as you can to the defence of the Eastern Church. For she it is from whom the joys of your whole salvation have come forth, who poured into your mouths the milk of divine wisdom, who set before you the holy teachings of the Gospels. We say this, brethren, that you may restrain your murderous hands from the destruction of your brothers, and in behalf of your relatives in the faith oppose yourselves to the Gentiles. Under Jesus Christ, our Leader, may you struggle for your Jerusalem, in Christian battleline, most invincible line, even more successfully than did the sons of Jacob of old - struggle, that you may assail and drive out the Turks, more execrable than the Jebusites, who are in this land, and may you deem it a beautiful thing to die for Christ in that city in which He died for us. But if it befall you to die this side of it, be sure that to have died on the way is of equal value, if Christ shall find you in His army. God pays with the same shilling, whether at the first or eleventh hour. You should shudder, brethren, you should shudder at raising a violent hand against Christians; it is less wicked to brandish your sword against Saracens. It is the only warfare that is righteous, for it is charity to risk your life for your brothers. That you may not be troubled about the concerns of tomorrow, know that those who fear God want nothing, nor those who cherish Him in truth. The possessions of the enemy, too, will be yours, since you will make spoil of their treasures and return victorious to your own; or empurpled with your own blood, you will have gained everlasting glory. For such a Commander you ought to fight, for One who lacks neither might nor wealth with which to reward you.
Short is the way, little the labor, which, nevertheless, will repay you with the crown that fadeth not away. Accordingly, we speak with the authority of the prophet: 'Gird thy sword upon thy thigh O mighty one.' Gird yourselves, everyone of you, I say, and be valiant sons; for it is better for you to die in battle than to behold, the sorrows of your race and of your holy places. Let neither property nor the alluring charms of your wives entice you frol going; nor let the trials that are to be borne so deter you that you remain here."
Your brotherhood, we believe, has long since learned from many accounts that a barbaric fury has deplorably afflicted an laid waste the churches of God in the regions of the Orient. More than this, blasphemous to say, it has even grasped in intolerabe servitude its churches and the Holy City of Christ, glorified b His passion and resurrection. Grieving with pious concern at this calamity, we visited the regions of Gaul and devoted ourselves largely to urging the princes of the land and their subjects to free the churches of the East. We solemnly enjoined upon them at the council of Auvergne (the accomplishment of) such an undertaking, as a preparation for the remission of all their sins. And we have constituted our most beloved son, Adhemar, Bishop of Puy, leader of this expedition and undertaking in our stead, so that those who, perchance, may wish to undertake this journey should comply With his commands, as if they were our own, and submit fully to his loosings or bindings, as far as shall seem to belong to such an office. If, moreover, there are any of your people whom God has inspired to this vow, let them know that he (Adhemar) will set out with the aid of God on the day of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary, and that they can then attach themselves to his following.
When now that time was at hand which the Lord Jesus daily points out to His faithful, especially in the Gospel, saying, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me," a mighty agitation was carried on throughout all the region of Gaul. (Its tenor was) that if anyone desired to follow the Lord zealously, with a pure heart and mind, and wished faithfully to bear the cross after Him, he would no longer hesitate to take up the way to the Holy Sepulchre.
And so Urban, Pope of the Roman see, with his archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priests, set out as quickly as possible beyond the mountains and began to deliver sermons and to preach eloquently, saying: "Whoever wishes to save his soul should not hesitate humbly to take up the way of the Lord, and if he lacks sufficient money, divine mercy will give him enough." Then the apostolic lord continued, "Brethren, we ought to endure much suffering for the name of Christ - misery, poverty, nakedness, persecution, want, illness, hunger, thirst, and other (ills) of this kind, just as the Lord saith to His disciples: 'Ye must suffer much in My name,' and 'Be not ashamed to confess Me before the faces of men; verily I will give you mouth and wisdom,' and finally, 'Great is your reward in Heaven."' And when this speech had already begun to be noised abroad, little by little, through all the regions and countries of Gaul, the Franks, upon hearing such reports, forthwith caused crosses to be sewed on their right shoulders, saying that they followed with one accord the footsteps of Christ, by which they had been redeemed from the hand of hell.
-
I know the history of the Siege of Jerusalem is well-documented Sir Nathan, and I agree with what you listed as the historical account....
There was a reference made in an unedited version of History Channel's 2005 series of "The Crusades: The Cross & The Crescent" referring to a journal found in Genoa (from 1099) of those who served under Guglielmo Embriaco, the Genoan merchant & commander of the naval forces that supported the original Crusaders at the final days of the siege. Supposedly, in addition to the siege towers he built w/ his ships, there was reference to an attempted night raid with ladders by a smaller force under Raymond that successfully scaled the west wall near Zion Gate because the tower had trouble reaching the wall.
The speculation was over if the Tower was used to take the west wall or the raiders sent previous to the Tower because they had difficulty with the terrain (and a defensive ditch) and needed a strategy to get his forces onto the wall if Godfrey failed. It was irrelevant to the siege account because Godfrey's forces had already entered the city. Genoan merchants kept good accounts for all transactions in their naval journals & some account survived the years apparently. Maybe it was just exaggeration or embellishment so Guglielmo Embriaco could get more credit for his efforts upon his return to Genoa (which he got anyways in recognition from Godfrey).
Genoan merchants traded much with the Holy Land prior to the Crusades so it is possible that he had "associates" in the city (even of Muslim faith) that may have assisted them for coin. But this is speculative. There was also rumor of a rivalry between Raymond & Godfrey that made Raymond push to be first one in the city during the siege. Of course, neither could take the city without the siege equipment provided by the Genoans. Raymond was not as popular with the campaigners as much as Godfrey (and this bitterness led to contestment in the ranks) and a push to conquer Jerusalem first (even if the efforts were driven by Godfrey).
-
Yes, the Crusade leaders were indeed at loggerheads (another possible reason for the two-pronged attack, to separate them).
No accounts I have read support a night attack, as the assault was fought during the day. Though Raymond's assault took the walls by a mad dash with ladders and ropes upon hearing the news that Godfrey had broken through (before that, Raymond's assault had been flagging badly), so there may be something to this merchant and the usefulness of his ladders.
I would doubt any accounts of insider help, as the native Christian (and all others suspected of being Crusader-sympathetic) population was driven from the city before the siege.
-
Forgot to add to mine that there is a very small chance I'm descended from Genghis Khan.
So in period I might have been a Mongol Horseman. ;D 8)
(http://gcaggiano.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/6_johnwayne.jpg)
-
And with your Asperger's, a stone-cold killer, my man!
-
The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters as your very own.
-
Sounds a lot like the words of Conan, that.
-
Sounds a lot like the words of Conan, that.
Yep, that part of the movie by Conan is based off the supposed original quote of Genghis Khan.
-
The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters as your very own.
I got a better one....
"Just think of yourself as the scabbard, and me as the sword. *Smiles smugly* And a nice fit you were too." ... "Your wife was much better forced than most women I have had willing." (Archibald - Rob Roy)
-
Yes...and he got his just reward at the end, did he not? Tim Roth is an incredibly gifted actor...to make me dislike the character the way I did.
-
Yes...and he got his just reward at the end, did he not? Tim Roth is an incredibly gifted actor...to make me dislike the character the way I did.
Cleaved him nicely with that Scottish cutlass of his. :) :)
-
I would have been an English Knight surviving the Battles of Crecy and Poitiers. Yep, under the command of The Black Prince himself.
-
mm,
this is an excellent question. It would all have to do with my upbringing. Statistically, I probably would have been a blacksmith or maybe a musician. But if there ever were a chance at all, thinking back to my life as a kid up to 12 years old, if my life was harsh at home and my parents thought I could have a better life elsewhere, I'd have joined the Church. I'd like to think I would have joined one of the Military Holy Orders, early on in the Crusades, part of the "Crusade and join an Order" bandwagon as I was very susceptible to that when I was younger, getting wrapped up in something "cool." (We all remember the Top Gun leather jackets) But then I would have found my calling there. It all would have had to do with whoever I met, and influenced me one way or another as to which order I would have joined.
Right now, thinking about it, Knights Templar, definitely. I was awkward as a kid, and shied away from women anyway, so the chastity and celibacy would have been actually easy at first. Also, because of a Fr. Robert I had as my Senior religion teacher in High School. Not only that, but it was his classroom where we had detention, which I am sheepishly proud to say I made the "dean's most wanted list" in my class yearbook. Fr. Robert was Benedictine, so right now, I'd lean heavily towards the Poor Fellows of Christ and the Temple of Solomon. I really have come to respect, admire, and appreciate every Benedictine I've met, even the nun who would throw the eraser at me, because after all it was my bad that she threw it.
On that note, a lot of the conspiracy stuff about the Knights Templar, I just can't believe in whole. They as a whole, were warrior monks, devoted to their cause and to their Christ, and especially to each other. That isn't something too far distant than believing they were the SEALs and SOCOM of their day, if anything, at least in spirit and tenacity. They were feared because they were powerful. But as another member said something similar and I was taught in school, "power doesn't corrupt, it's just easily sought by the corruptible as those that aren't have better things to strive for." I saw plenty of people wash out of USCG Basic Training because they were there for all the wrong reasons. I can't even imagine something like BUD/S or Fort Bragg. And that's who the Knights Templar were.
All of these accounts with "DaVinci Code," "Assassin's Creed," and "Kingdom of Heaven" (especially Kingdom of Heaven because the sources I've read said Guy and Reynold weren't even Templars to begin with) have just spread a bad light on a rather otherwise great order that fell apart because of only a few bad apples within the crop. But isn't that how it always goes? And then past that? My theory is that the Knight's Templar always have some level of mystique and clout, probably more back then than they do now, so like a Coastie going to a senior prom with a taller stack than he had actually earned (and yes, witnessed that FUBAR), they called themselves Templars. They jumped the bandwagon. I just have to believe that when the Knights Templar disbanded, probably 90% stayed within the Church in some form or fashion... at least that's what I hope.
Beyond that, there is no greater way to go out, than with yer boots on, protecting those behind and around you. I believe regardless of what era I was to be born in, that would have always stuck with me, as that is something that as far as I can tell, was never taught by my parents. They were all shocked (most of the family) at my choice to serve, especially after 9/11 and choosing the US Coast Guard for all the RIGHT reasons, not because they "didn't go to war" (which is a SNAFU in and of itself, ask any Marine worth his salt)
ok, off the soapbox
put it plainly, if I could ever devise a way, I'd serve a holy military order. Either that, or later on, with William Wallace, Robert the Bruce as a 10 pound man, or a gallogaleigh... funny too, my grandmother's maiden name on my mom's side: O'Niell. So maybe if there was a previous life, maybe that's why I am the way I am now ;)
**edit**
Knights Templar were following the Cistercian Order, not the Benedictine, although they followed the Benedictine Rule. My mistake and modified.
-
I'd probably have sought out the life of a Woodsman or perhaps tried my lot as a mercenary of sorts, assuming that I could find the training, and a blade ;)
-
Realistically, I would have been a peasant like everybody else. ;)
-
If I had been born in the Medieval Period I would have been of nobility. My ancestor's held land in the Cadiz region for centuries. I would have been a warrior of course, but also Wine maker and ship builder.
-
Tracing back ancestors to Charlemagne, Nobility, The 10th Earl of Umptysquatshire doesn't really mean much. If you look at the branches of a family tree and how many splits occur between now and then, statistically, most everyone has some connection to someone who touched history. I think people over-emphasize those connections and dismiss the other 100 that aren't as flashy. I'm not trying to take away from your lineage, but understand that when you're 25 generations removed, so much else contributed to that family tree, that a single leaf from 750 years ago does not translate into anything substantive today.
I guess this topic should really say 'What do you wish you would have been in the medieval age?' :)
-
ooooooooh wish?
then i'd be a king. why? cause i aint got $#% all over me
-
Ian I see your point. However my bloodline runs back directly to nobility until the purge by Francisco Franco. My family was land owners and nobles before the foundation of Spain as a country. Not that it means anything anymore. as far as trades are concerned I would be very happy being a Bard. or perhaps a wine maker.
-
ooooooooh wish?
then i'd be a king. why? cause i aint got $#% all over me
I'm with you. It's good to be the king. :)
-
Indeed ;)
-
Tracing back ancestors to Charlemagne, Nobility, The 10th Earl of Umptysquatshire doesn't really mean much. If you look at the branches of a family tree and how many splits occur between now and then, statistically, most everyone has some connection to someone who touched history. I think people over-emphasize those connections and dismiss the other 100 that aren't as flashy. I'm not trying to take away from your lineage, but understand that when you're 25 generations removed, so much else contributed to that family tree, that a single leaf from 750 years ago does not translate into anything substantive today.
I guess this topic should really say 'What do you wish you would have been in the medieval age?' :)
Agreed. We all know royals & nobles got their 'junk' into everyone's business then over the generations creating all kinds of bloodline relations & family ties of illegitimate means. To say you are related to someone of significance then who mostly has no importance today, is the same as saying you almost won the lottery. Doesn't get you anything or anywhere...but maybe creates some interesting scandals.
-
ooooooooh wish?
then i'd be a king. why? cause i aint got $#% all over me
I'm with you. It's good to be the king. :)
Why? Because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at you? :)
-
ooooooooh wish?
then i'd be a king. why? cause i aint got $#% all over me
I'm with you. It's good to be the king. :)
Why? Because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at you? :)
and isn't that why the SCA, Adrian Empire, WMAs, etc etc etc all appeal to us one and all? ;D
Tracing back ancestors to Charlemagne, Nobility, The 10th Earl of Umptysquatshire doesn't really mean much. If you look at the branches of a family tree and how many splits occur between now and then, statistically, most everyone has some connection to someone who touched history. I think people over-emphasize those connections and dismiss the other 100 that aren't as flashy. I'm not trying to take away from your lineage, but understand that when you're 25 generations removed, so much else contributed to that family tree, that a single leaf from 750 years ago does not translate into anything substantive today.
I guess this topic should really say 'What do you wish you would have been in the medieval age?' :)
and I must say, that and your response of "a peasant, just like everyone else." Was very well said Ian. And very humble considering what your esteemed profession is. I do love the sound of hawks on the horizon. They're truly a symbol of "home" for some of us. And even if your job flying that hawk is nothing more than as some of my other flyboy friends would say "esteemed taxi driver" without you guys, it would be a very very long walk!
But still, I like to do living history personas, not just a "name and look" as some do, which is fine. And in that, I must say, if my family were to approve, I'd run and join the Church, and fight alongside my brothers, for it isn't the hatred of those in front, but the love of those around and behind us that drives us now, and I hope that was still true back then. Not like in "Kingdom of Heaven"...
beyond that, lets say I could become Grandmaster of an order... now that would be nice! 8)
-
Well, a few years ago, I felt the desire to enlist into the military and serve my country, so I wager that were I alive in the medieval ages, I probably would have felt that same desire to serve my kingdom. I think I would remain a Soldier.
-
If I were to have my modern personality and opinions on life then I would undoubtedly be an heretic in the medieval world. Yep, that would be my lot in life.
-
Mercenary... I doubt I would have been noble.
-
Mercenary... I doubt I would have been noble.
I chose to represent a mercenary as well more than 20 years ago.
My understanding and representation has evolved over the years due to internal conflicts with the local establishment. These conflicts seem to ebb and flow, and recently disappear altogether.
The one thing that has never changed is the proverb “actions speak louder than words”. My SCA unit hires on with a knight or other dignitary at the beginning of an event (ceremoniously only, no fee or gift has ever been accepted). For the entirety of that event our Captain takes orders from the Sponsor (and the Sponsor only); we take orders from our Captain, without exception.
I find simplicity, elegance, nobility and honor within this arrangement. I suspect it’s not too dissimilar to mercenary arrangements in the late 14th to 15th century Europe.
-
Mercenary... I doubt I would have been noble.
you could form a lance. Hence the Term Free- Lancers
Im pretty sure a lance, is a man with a longsword, a man with a pole axe, and a man with a lance on horseback.
-
Mercenary... I doubt I would have been noble.
you could form a lance. Hence the Term Free- Lancers
Im pretty sure a lance, is a man with a longsword, a man with a pole axe, and a man with a lance on horseback.
|
I do already have the horse... and the lance... ;)