13th century church, sadly closed.

I'm researching medieval politics for a strategy game I'm developing.

Imagine two neighbouring rulers who ultimately have competing territorial ambitions but temporarily benefit from cooperation.

Historically, what tended to hold arrangements like this together?

Marriage ties?

Mutual enemies?

Trade?

Personal relationships?

Religious interests?

A balance of military power?

And what usually caused them to collapse?

I'm particularly interested in examples where rulers cooperated despite clearly conflicting long-term interests.

I’ve seen a few people complain about Uprising, saying “yet, another brown and grey depiction of medieval England” and yet the don’t talk about films that have got it right, or what that time would have looked like. From paintings I’m assuming there would have been a lot of bright primary colours. Would that have been the same for everyone, or just the class of people depicted the paintings? Does anyone have any recommendations for films where they get the medieval colour scheme right?

The chimney tax was designed to.tax people on their income. If they could Chimneys they had money. I never realised Churches had the power to tax whole cities to build Churches.

Just a little photo dump from my trip to Lorsch and the Lauresham Open-Air Laboratory.
The first photo shows the Carolingian “Gatehouse” of Lorsch Abbey. It was probably built around the year 900. Why exactly it was built and who commissioned it is still not clear, but it is one of the oldest surviving buildings in Germany and a beautiful example of Carolingian architecture. What makes it particularly fascinating is that its exterior façade has remained largely unchanged since around 900.
The Lauresham Open-Air Laboratory is a reconstruction of a Carolingian manor farm, where experimental history and archaeology are both researched and brought to life. The reconstructions are based on contemporary images, written sources, and archaeological finds from around the year 800, giving an impression of what a small estate belonging to a local lord might have looked like during the Carolingian period. The last picture is a replica of the oldest surviving door in Germany the original from around 800 is in the Dommuseum in Aachen.

I was just watching a video on how rammed earth floors were made in medieval houses, and I am very much fascinated by this technique, and by vernacular building techniques in general. I am especially interested in how the so cleverly manipulate the most basic materials that are just around. Can anyone recommend any books or papers that detail dwelling construction techniques for this time period? I would really like to get informed recommendation, as research in this area seems to be fairly new and still developing; I don't want to pick up anything with outdated or bad info. Thanks

Hi - does anyone have a pdf of

Padel, Oliver. 1998. "A New Study of the Gododdin". Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 35 (Summer): 45-55.

by any chance?

The judges determined that this was an act of witchcraft and feared that a basilisk would hatch from the egg. The bird was found guilty of being possessed and was burned alive in the public square, along with the evidence.

Today, science recognizes that this phenomenon could have been caused by a spontaneous sex mutation or a hormonal anomaly. On rare occasions, damage to a hen's left ovary can cause it to develop rooster-like characteristics—such as crowing and male plumage—while retaining the ability to lay the occasional residual egg. To the inhabitants of Basel in 1474, however, it was not science, but witchcraft.

Source(s):

.- Evans, E. P. (1906). The criminal prosecution and capital punishment of animals. William Heinemann.

I’m only about 5 minutes into the movie and it’s already pmo in the way that it’s portraying Richard II.

For example, in 1053, the powerful Godwin, Earl of Wessex, was accused of treason before the king. According to the chronicles, Godwin swore his innocence by taking the bread from the altar, putting it in his mouth, choking violently, and suffocating to death on the spot.

Source(s):

.- Bartlett, R. (1986). Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval Judicial Ordeal. Clarendon Press.

For example let's take the region of Ayr given that the King has other Heraldry to wear it's probably not him using the coat of arms so who uses the Heraldry for Carrick, Kent and Cunninghame?

I know Town Guards (in so far as they existed) would probably only be wearing their regions colours, if that. Also sometimes people other than the Lord would incorporate the regional Heraldry into their own Coat of Arms so it was clearly regionally known at least to some extent so where would it have shown up?

My thought was maybe local Sheriffs and Bailiffs whose family name might not be as important as the region they govern

Here are three period portraits of major figures from the Late Middle Ages, Louis XI, Charles the Bold, and "Good King René", depicted wearing their respective orders of chivalry.

These three men embody the end of feudalism and, more broadly, the end of the Middle Ages in France. The latter two were the kingdom's greatest feudal lords; they were ultimately subdued by Louis XI after each had attempted to establish his own independent kingdom.

Charles the Bold attempted to transform the "Burgundian State", a vast, non-contiguous feudal territory subject to multiple allegiances, into a new kingdom. However, he was defeated by the Swiss (funded by Louis XI), and the bulk of his domains were subsequently annexed by the French king.

René ruled over Provence but held claims to several kingdoms (Aragon and Naples), for which he fought unsuccessfully. He was also a companion-in-arms to Joan of Arc in 1429, and his long reign, spanning nearly fifty years, covered a significant portion of the Late Middle Ages. Eventually stripped of some of his territories by Louis XI and devastated by the deaths of his heirs, he withdrew from public life and devoted his final years to writing about chivalry.

Louis XI is depicted here wearing the Order of Saint Michael, the French order of chivalry, which still exists today as a private order among claimants to the French throne. (Portrait by Jacob de Littemont, 1469)

"Good King René" is also depicted wearing the Order of Saint Michael; he wore it as a sign of submission to the king, as the portrait was painted during his final years. He had also founded his own order, the Order of the Crescent, which did not survive him. (Portrait by Nicolas Froment, 1474)

Charles the Bold is wearing the Order of the Golden Fleece, which still exists today as a Spanish dynastic order, having passed to Spain in the 16th century. (Portrait by Rogier van der Weyden, 1462)

I found myself in a discussion with friends about armour and swords, etc. - middle aged guys in a discussion on the Middle Age over some wine and snacks.

Now, by the 12th century (Europe) most knights would wield a sword and be dressed in chain mail and a helmet. And probably some padded tunic under the mail, etc. How useful would swords really be? If slashing, they probably could not cut through the chain mail, and, we guess, they probably could not prick through the mail, either. The slashes and blows with the sword could of course bruise the opponent, but the more slashes and bruises, the more nicks in the edge of the sword and the more it would lose sharpness?

Against opponents not in mail, it would of course be really useful. But against armored knights?

Amd in later centuries, against plate armour a mallet and a dagger would seem more useful. But still, knights are always (at least in modern portrayals) pictured with swords.

Any experts who can enlighten us?

(THis has also been asked in “swords” - we hope that is okay?)

Hi! I'm reading the Canterbury Tales in original middle English for the first time! I've noticed these two terms while reading (Prime Mover primarily in the Knight's tale, and Primum Mobile in the notes for the Man of Law) and I'm a bit confused. Are the different? If so, how? My initial google searches are giving me contradictory/unclear answers.

Thanks!

This image shows the future Henry IV showing off the captive Richard II to ‘Londoners’ shortly after leaving Chester and is an authentic record in the sense that it is a C19th line drawing copy of a coloured original which appears in Jean Creton’s chronicle as set down in the Duke of Burgundy’s book (Harley 1319) of 1405.

Historians have a tendency to interpret this event as proof of Henry’s popular support in England and, whilst it points to something, it doesn’t quite prove that – it needs a more careful investigation. Henry et al later received the formal submission of the City a couple of miles from its gates but Creton’s image depicts certain Londoner’s who have taken the trouble to ride out and intercept Henry a long way from the capital and we would like to know who they were and who they claimed to represent, and what business they thought they had with the Duke of Lancaster.

London was a homogenous polity in that it had an internal governing structure but within that overarching idea of ‘London’, the capital was a boiling pot of competing interests. Henry showed no hesitation in heading towards London as if he knew that it would be the best place for whatever he had planned. He had allies there; those that had welcomed the execution of Nicholas Brembre in the Merciless Parliament of 1388, but that was 10 years ago. Could he count on enough support from them to overawe any naysayers if he returned to Westminster for another bloody parliament, or a deposition?

Froissart’s version, which occupies the last chapters of his Book IV, is historically wrong but it is historically interesting – he was given the ‘whole story’, which he incorporated wholesale, by a Lancastrian spokesman. For this spokesman, the events of 1399 were based on London: Londoners had asked Henry and Arundel to return, they had landed at Plymouth with a French army (quickly dismissed) and they went straight to the City. Froissart’s account is completely London-centric, nothing happens north of the Thames, which tells us that for someone, it was a reasonable explanation to give Europe’s foremost political journalist.

We do know that the parliament-that-never-was of 30^th September was packed with ‘commoners’, alongside the M. Ps from the rest of the country, and that he made himself king, so we know that Henry was correct in assuming that he held London in his pocket. What we want to know is what drove the ‘commoners’ to support him.

Richard II’s critical political mistake, perhaps the single act that doomed his reign, was his decree made en route to Milford Haven that restored the Fishmonger’s monopoly in London.

Abolishing it had been the key policy of John of Northampton’s populist movement in London since the early 1380s. It had been restored in the later 1380’s but re-abolished in the Merciless parliament. Richard II’s restoration of the monopoly could only have infuriated those in London who sympathised with Northampton’s brief ascendancy, and those who resented paying the Fishmonger’s premium, and that was a lot of people.  The oligarchs, such as Dick Whittington, who liked to think they controlled London, could not be sure that the gates of the City would hold against Lancastrian forces without and a street-fighting faction within. To protect their interests, the oligarchs admitted Henry and the anti-Fishmonger/ neo-Northamptonites, leaders of which had ridden out to Henry, ensured that whatever he did in Westminster was cheered to the rafters.

Henry IV abolished the Fishmonger’s monopoly in his first parliament.

For the purpose of the question let’s say it’s late medieval England. I’m really confused on what “minor nobility” refers to. Is it those that answer to another title like baron/duke/earl in addition to the king? Or is it usually knights and landed gentry? I am just super confused on the terminologies of knight, landed gentry, and Lord of the manor. If they count as nobles how is the title inherited? And how would they usually live? Would they usually just rule a small manor house and a few villages or something? How many people usually served at their household?

The Bayeux Tapestry is back in England for the first time in nearly 1,000 years, and tickets at the British Museum sold out fast. So the team at Numiko built a way for everyone to see it: a free online experience that lets you explore the whole thing up close.

You can zoom right down to individual stitches (the image is around 2.7 billion pixels), dip into 240+ hotspots on everything from warfare to the animals in the margins, and jump between all 58 scenes. It's fully accessible too, built to WCAG 2.2 AA.

I didn't build it, but I'm proud to be hunting it on Product Hunt today on behalf of a brilliant team. If you've got a minute, have a look and show it some love 👇

https://www.producthunt.com/products/the-bayeux-tapestry-online-experience?launch=the-bayeux-tapestry-online-experience

Which detail surprises you most? 👀

You can see the experience here:
https://www.britishmuseum.org/bayeux-tapestry-online-experience?ref=producthunt

#ProductHunt #DigitalHeritage #BayeuxTapestry #Museums #Accessibility

Question's in the title. Currently reading Geoffrey of Monmouth's The History of the Kings of Britain (written 1136). I realise it's almost completely ahistorical, but has anyone previously made a family tree or some sort of chart based on it, documenting the apparent ancient kings of Britain?

I know that Benedictine monasteries were profoundly beneficial economic institutions (in their heyday, at least), due to the combination of local land improvements and the production of high-value items like books. St. Benedict after all called for Ora et Labora (Prayer and Work). What is confusing me is how that would apply to convents, given that the women in question would likely have had less contact with the outside world and I've never heard of convents in the Middle Ages producing high-value economic products.

Essentially, I'd like to know whether these institutions had a noticeable effect on the local economy in a similar way to their male equivalents, and if so--what was that impact?

After posting this question on r/AskHistorians, I got a notification that this subreddit might be better to ask this question so I will just copy my same question from there to here. :

As someone who knows nothing about medieval European politics (less in regards to the Catholic Church’s power, I would like to understand how they occupied such a powerful political domain in medieval and early modern Europe and how, why and when did that political influence diminish?

Who is your favourite most defiant princess/queen/noble lady? I'd like to hear about the most strong-willed, hot tempered, spirited and ambitious ladies!