|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 20, 2011 1:20:51 GMT -5
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. See... here's what happens when you make assumptions based on modern understandings of words... The Holy Roman Empire wasn't headed by the Pope, it was headed by the Holy Roman Emperor, chosen from among the eligible princes of Germany and elected by his peers for life. The Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor often came into conflict, militarily even, as is the case of, just off the top of my head, the Emperor Henry V (different to the English one) Further, the Holy Roman Empire, while large, certainly did not constitute anything close to "most" of Europe. External to the HRE were; England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Swiss Cantons, the French, the Spanish, the Portugese, the Belgians, the Dutch, the Danes, the Poles, and the rest of the Baltic/Scandinavian states, the Byzantines, and Russia. During the mediaeval period, all religious wars were of annexation, not of independence. The Lithuanian and Albigensian Crusades and the Reconquista of Spain being the significant examples. You know who didn't nail you know what to you know where until 1517. Most historians consider the Mediaeval period to have ended in the late 15th century... depending on who you ask, it ended when Constantinople fell to the Turks (1453), with the invention of the printing press (1455), Columbus' voyage to the Americas and the completion of the Reconquista in 1492, the English usually say 1485, with the death of the last Plantagenet King and the begining of the Tudor period, and the Spanish themselves tend to favour 1516, with the death of King Ferdinand. So... by any definition, Luther is a Rennaisance phenomenon, as are the great and bloody religious wars, like the 30 years war (1618–1648)
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 20, 2011 1:31:41 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: *snip* I utterly agree about the powdered wig period... as far as I'm concerned, both male and female fashion took a pretty comprehensive nose dive between the late Tudor period and the 19th Century. Some Tudor period dresses are very pretty, but there are some earlier mediaeval forms that are very pretty as well, and, I have it on good authority from those experimental archaeologists of a feminine nature, that the mediaeval forms are significantly more comfortable and user friendly than the Tudor forms. This can be explained because the role of mediaeval women tended to be less ornamental than that of Tudor women (HRH ER I being an obvious exception) I also approve of top hats and tails, and enjoy wearing them out and blowing formal competition from the water (although I dress it up with a silk waistcoat which would be considered gauche by most Victorian standards)... however, if you want pizaz, dress military uniforms of the 19th century are absolutely to die for. Developed in the same aesthetic school as your gentlemen in tophats and tails, but with a true sense of flair and elan, not to mention suitable for wearing with swords and high boots. Yes, if I could reintroduce only two things to male fashion today, it would be high boots and dress swords. And yes, I am a George MacDonald Fraser fan.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Feb 20, 2011 2:58:56 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. Well, it depends on the style. The ones in the painting I posted are quite pretty, as are any that are flow-y, like these: But the bunched up, really high up or low down, tapered ones were terrible: I totally agree about the 6 foot wide petticoats, though.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Feb 20, 2011 3:14:48 GMT -5
Though I will say that not much beats the ruff for ridiculous mainstream fashion:
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 20, 2011 4:56:55 GMT -5
Though I will say that not much beats the ruff for ridiculous mainstream fashion: *snip* I dunno... those stupid laser straight baseball caps with the shaggy hair the kids are wearing today strike me as utterly ridiculous. It is PRECISELY the look one would have gone for if deliberately attempting to portray a retarded cretin when I was at school.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Feb 20, 2011 5:23:08 GMT -5
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. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't headed by the Pope, True, but also false. As you pointed out, the Pope did have some say-so. As you pointed out, the Church successfully prevented mass-war in Europe at the height of it's power. Which is to say, the Pope had some power over 'Christendom' during the Middle Ages. Some popes might have even considered themselves in charge of 'Christendom'. I'm not exactly sure what you're point is. Yes, the Pope's power declined during the Renaissance period. As you accurately pointed out, I was correct when I impled that there were no wars of independence in the middle ages; only the renaissance. Therefore...?
|
|
|
Post by shadowpanther on Feb 20, 2011 7:26:14 GMT -5
Yes, if I could reintroduce only two things to male fashion today, it would be high boots and dress swords. Indeed. The point at which standards started slipping was when a gentleman would no longer go out with his sword strapped to his hip.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Feb 20, 2011 8:52:42 GMT -5
I seriously thought the article was a joke. I mean, it seems to be a "be careful what you wish for" deal.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Feb 20, 2011 9:31:08 GMT -5
If you've got any historical fencing tips, I'd be glad to hear 'em. I'm very much a novice. I do re-enactment based fighting, not HEMA, however, I do like to pass on advice: First of all, what kind of spear shafts are you using and how long are they and who's making your spear points?
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Feb 20, 2011 9:42:54 GMT -5
The Holy Roman Empire wasn't headed by the Pope, True, but also false. As you pointed out, the Pope did have some say-so. As you pointed out, the Church successfully prevented mass-war in Europe at the height of it's power. Which is to say, the Pope had some power over 'Christendom' during the Middle Ages. Some popes might have even considered themselves in charge of 'Christendom'. No, the Pope was in charge of the religious side, he was in no way in charge of a the country, pretty much the same as today. He had no earthly powers to command people to rise against a king, for example. So the two Scottish Wars of Independence didn't happen then? Am pretty sure they did, in 1297 - 1330 and 1332 - 1357, which is in the High Medieval Period.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Feb 20, 2011 10:06:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 20, 2011 11:37:54 GMT -5
If you've got any historical fencing tips, I'd be glad to hear 'em. I'm very much a novice. I do re-enactment based fighting, not HEMA, however, I do like to pass on advice: First of all, what kind of spear shafts are you using and how long are they and who's making your spear points? I haven't participated in any of the spear trials. I only do rapier so far.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 20, 2011 12:17:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Feb 20, 2011 13:27:28 GMT -5
Lord Mix-A-Lot speaketh the truth. Eth.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Feb 20, 2011 18:00:00 GMT -5
Yes, if I could reintroduce only two things to male fashion today, it would be high boots and dress swords. Indeed. The point at which standards started slipping was when a gentleman would no longer go out with his sword strapped to his hip. I beg to differ, sir. A 6', 4" blonde friend of mine regularly goes armed in our CBD. And he's allowed to, dammit!
|
|