|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Feb 19, 2011 21:19:42 GMT -5
Medieval art: Sorry, Michealangelo, Leonardo, and the other Ninja Turtles, but this is awesome.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 19, 2011 21:44:36 GMT -5
For all you peaceniks out there, interesting fact about mediaeval warfare, it tended (there are, of course, exceptions) to be significantly less bloody than most periods before or since. Until the 20th Century, if you want an example of truly brutal butchery and the slaughter of millions, in terms of both combatants and civilians, you need to look at the Rennaisance, particularly the 30 Years War, or the Roman and Migration periods, where entire regions could be laid waste, and populations exterminated or banished. But that also happened in the middle ages as well - look at the Anglo-Scottish wars or the Scottish Civil War, where whole aeas of both Scotland and England were denuded of pretty much everything (including people) and the fighting became very bitter. Also look at the chevauchee of the English forces in the 100 Years War - even by today's standards it's a pretty horrible thing to use on a civilian population. You will note I DID say that there are, of course, exceptions... Yes, the Scottish wars had some attrocities, but were unusual in that they did. Chevauchees are actually in the first category... they were destructive of people's property (that was the whole point) but rarely harmed non-resisting civilians, and the associated military casualties, in terms of overall numbers, were lighter than most similar sized actions before or since. While we're on the topic, for all you guys who are so down on organised religion, I wonder if you are familiar with the extreme lengths the Catholic Church went to to broker peace and limit violence in the Middle Ages? And yes, I know about the Crusades. But in inter Christian conflicts, the Papal envoys worked tirelessly trying to prevent bloodshed.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Feb 19, 2011 21:53:21 GMT -5
Sorry I'm new. Besides I just got the first cool picture I could think of, and the SCA period is 600-1600. My own kit is 13th centurish, but its still a it incomplete. ...Anyway... We do have metal weapons as well these days, and their use is increasing slowly. I only do fighting with rattan weapons, but thats just a fun sport. Indeed. I fence with a (steel) rapier. More experienced fencers get to use arming swords and longswords, and my kingdom is experimenting with steel-tipped spears. If you'll pardon the pun, would you like some tips?
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 19, 2011 21:58:09 GMT -5
If you've got any historical fencing tips, I'd be glad to hear 'em. I'm very much a novice.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 19, 2011 21:58:47 GMT -5
Indeed. I fence with a (steel) rapier. More experienced fencers get to use arming swords and longswords, and my kingdom is experimenting with steel-tipped spears. If you'll pardon the pun, would you like some tips? Spears *shudder* thats dark ages stuff. Real men use a LANCE.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Feb 19, 2011 22:00:44 GMT -5
While we're on the topic, for all you guys who are so down on organised religion, I wonder if you are familiar with the extreme lengths the Catholic Church went to to broker peace and limit violence in the Middle Ages? And yes, I know about the Crusades. But in inter Christian conflicts, the Papal envoys worked tirelessly trying to prevent bloodshed. Money being spent on war taxes means less for church tithes.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Feb 19, 2011 22:10:19 GMT -5
But in inter Christian conflicts, the Papal envoys worked tirelessly trying to prevent bloodshed. Given that the position was pretty much king of Europe until the Renaissance, the Pope had clear self-interest in keeping his kingdom from internal squabbling. That's no different from any other head of state. You haven't so so much made a defence of organised religion as a defence of the European Union. Oh, and what did they do as soon as people started to criticise the Pope's endemic and ridiculous corruption?
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Feb 19, 2011 22:21:21 GMT -5
A minor change of pace, Renaissance clothing is much prettier than that of the middle ages, hands down... at least during the latter 15th century, and Tudor era. A lot less efficient, though. C. 12th century, somewhat plain: Late 15th century, getting prettier: Tudor, super pretty dresses: Then the Elizabethan era showed up, and everything went to shit: Blech.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 19, 2011 23:24:46 GMT -5
While we're on the topic, for all you guys who are so down on organised religion, I wonder if you are familiar with the extreme lengths the Catholic Church went to to broker peace and limit violence in the Middle Ages? And yes, I know about the Crusades. But in inter Christian conflicts, the Papal envoys worked tirelessly trying to prevent bloodshed. Money being spent on war taxes means less for church tithes. Another misconception, or perhaps a modern prejudice... actually tithing was taken off the top of income, BEFORE any other expenses... so whether a king fought someone or not, his contributions to the church were the same. Also, most of the European churches from the Middle ages were, at least in part, built as a form of penance, paid for either in part or in whole by donations from magnates to help atone for their wars. No wars, less churches.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 19, 2011 23:26:01 GMT -5
But in inter Christian conflicts, the Papal envoys worked tirelessly trying to prevent bloodshed. Given that the position was pretty much king of Europe until the Renaissance, the Pope had clear self-interest in keeping his kingdom from internal squabbling. That's no different from any other head of state. You haven't so so much made a defence of organised religion as a defence of the European Union. Oh, and what did they do as soon as people started to criticise the Pope's endemic and ridiculous corruption? King of Europe? Uhuh... So I see this is yet another subject about which you are purely objective and not at all ideologically involved.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 19, 2011 23:30:45 GMT -5
A minor change of pace, Renaissance clothing is much prettier than that of the middle ages, hands down... at least during the latter 15th century, and Tudor era. A lot less efficient, though. *snip* Blech. Fashion is somewhat like art, very much a matter of taste. For myself, I think the absolute pinacle of male fashion, in any age, is that of the late 15th century, circa 1490s. Thigh high boots, with spurs, doublet and sword... swish!
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Feb 19, 2011 23:42:59 GMT -5
Given that the position was pretty much king of Europe until the Renaissance, the Pope had clear self-interest in keeping his kingdom from internal squabbling. That's no different from any other head of state. You haven't so so much made a defence of organised religion as a defence of the European Union. Oh, and what did they do as soon as people started to criticise the Pope's endemic and ridiculous corruption? King of Europe? Uhuh... Well, what was the name given to most of Medieval Europe? the Holy Roman Empire. Or Christendom. The Pope, as you pointed out, exercised significant political control over all of Europe, right up until You-Know-Who nailed You-Know-What You-Know-Where. The rise of Protestantism wasn't just of religious significance; it was a geopolitical act, too. The wars of religion were also of independence.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Feb 20, 2011 0:41:11 GMT -5
Fashion is somewhat like art, very much a matter of taste. For myself, I think the absolute pinacle of male fashion, in any age, is that of the late 15th century, circa 1490s. Thigh high boots, with spurs, doublet and sword... swish! For female clothing, I'd say that 1480-1550 was the nicest. Elizabethan, late 16th century, was a monstrosity, and fashion didn't recovery until the mid 17th century, before taking a nose-dive again with the powdered wigs of the 1700s, though many of the dresses then were quite pretty: Late 18th century was crap. Early 19th century was nice, with the simplified Regency dresses. And then came the horrors of the bustle... For guys, I'm not fond of any of the clothing up until the Victorian era... though this smug bastard does make the 1600's look awesome: But aside from that, there's just something really smart about the black suits and top hats of the 1800s:
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Feb 20, 2011 0:44:46 GMT -5
And getting back to art, I was scanning through wiki's articles about fashion, and for some reason, the photo-realism in these two paintings really stood out to me: Painted mid 1600s: Painted c 1870: ^^ Gorgeous dresses, even with the dreaded bustle.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 20, 2011 0:58:02 GMT -5
What's so bad about the bustle? It's rather exaggerated, granted, but not as much as the corseted and huge hipped Elizabethan look.
|
|