The ask questions about history thread.

I have a question. It is said that the left and right of the political spectrum stems from how the different parties seated themselves in the National assembly during the French revolution. But was it their right and left or the left and right from someone seated facing the assembly?
 
I have a question. It is said that the left and right of the political spectrum stems from how the different parties seated themselves in the National assembly during the French revolution. But was it their right and left or the left and right from someone seated facing the assembly?
From the president/speaker facing the assembly, same way parties are still ordered today in most European countries and beyond.
 
I was mostly wondering whether anybody knew of any good English sources on Minamoto no Yorinobu.
 
During the First Crusade there's mentions of wells around Jerusalem being poisoned. Any way to find out what kind of poison? Would it be animal carcasses or more of a hellebore situation? Or something else entirely?
 
During the First Crusade there's mentions of wells around Jerusalem being poisoned. Any way to find out what kind of poison? Would it be animal carcasses or more of a hellebore situation? Or something else entirely?

In all cases that I can remember where poisoned wells are mentioned in a historical context it is via dead animals or feces. I can't think of a single case in a historic warfare context where a more complicated poison was used.
 
In real medieval times, was there ever a given answer to that? Any philosophers outlining why you should choose your family or your monarch?
I wrote my college senior thesis on this in the context of the Anarchy. Long story short: oaths matter, but people weren't stupid. If an oath would stop you from doing something you'd want to do, people would find a (often legalistic) way to get out of it.
 
Less than the United States, but still significant. Stuff like the 1946 Iran Crisis, the 1948 coup of the Czechoslovak government to stop them from accepting Marshall Plan aid, and the Berlin Blockade are all things that confirmed all the worst American fears.

The Iran Crisis in particular was a completely unforced dick move by the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
Even before that, the Lublin Poles, the annexation of the Baltics, the Bulgarian, Romanian, and Hungarian puppet governments; the Cold War emerges directly out of the behavior of the USSR in the Second World War. It is obviously true that the USSR fought heroically to defeat Naziism. It is also true that they used the Second World War to extend the Russian Sphere from (in 1945) Manchuria to the Adriatic.
 
I have, in passing, heard something about there being large cities in the Amazon, that were overgorwn when the civilization building them "fell". IIRC they were rediscovered by LIDAR. Does anyone know more about this and did they cover the whole Amazon or just a part of it?
 
I have, in passing, heard something about there being large cities in the Amazon, that were overgorwn when the civilization building them "fell". IIRC they were rediscovered by LIDAR. Does anyone know more about this and did they cover the whole Amazon or just a part of it?
"Overgrown" is a bit of a loaded term here. From what (little) I have read, anthropologists originally tended to dismiss the journals of early Spanish explorers who reported large societies within the "jungle" because you need a lot of food to support that population.

However, some later scholars have argued that the Amazon wasn't a wild jungle, it was a carefully managed orchard - effectively a form of forest agriculture that the earlier western experts, used to thinking in terms of farming fields, missed.

So, while technically there is overgrowth, using the term kinda puts one in the wrong mindset. Don't think of the trees as natural and opposite to human development/exploitation of the land, the trees are part of a human-cultivated system.
 
Last edited:
I've found myself wishing I had more of an interest in medievalism. Can anyone recommend any entertaining writing (up to and including historical fiction, if it feels grounded in the period, this isn't an academic interest) about how life was lived back then? A good place to start would be wonderful.
 
I've found myself wishing I had more of an interest in medievalism. Can anyone recommend any entertaining writing (up to and including historical fiction, if it feels grounded in the period, this isn't an academic interest) about how life was lived back then? A good place to start would be wonderful.
Christian Cameron. The Chivalry series is hidtorical fiction and exactly what you are looking for imo. He also has the Tom Swan series in a similar vein.
 
The ASOIAF books has some characters questioning whether oaths to family or to their king is more important, some choose family, others choose king.

In real medieval times, was there ever a given answer to that? Any philosophers outlining why you should choose your family or your monarch?
So just to highlight how diabolical politics could be.


Henry the II had been expanding his power and lands in both France and England. How this started was his father control of Normandy. As a deal to formalise Henry ownership, he swore fealty to King louis of France, as Duke of Normandy.
He then married Eleanor of Aquitaine, the former wife of King Louis which threatened to give him ownership over more French lands than any other noble. It also deprived King Louis daughters of Aquitaine lands.

This guy allied with King Louis, placing himself under King Henry aegis, but his oath forbade that he moved troops against his feudal lord King Louis.

The Breton dukes held little power across most of the duchy, which was mostly controlled by local lords.[124][125] In 1148, Duke Conan III died and civil war broke out.[124] Henry claimed to be the overlord of Brittany, on the basis that the duchy had owed loyalty to Henry I, and saw controlling the duchy both as a way of securing his other French territories and as a potential inheritance for one of his sons.[126][nb 12] Initially Henry's strategy was to rule indirectly through proxies, and accordingly, Henry supported Conan IV's claims over most of the duchy, partly because Conan had strong English ties and could be easily influenced.[128] Conan's uncle, Hoël, continued to control the county of Nantes in the east until he was deposed in 1156 by Henry's brother, Geoffrey, possibly with Henry's support.[129] When Geoffrey died in 1158, Conan attempted to reclaim Nantes but was opposed by Henry who annexed it for himself.[130][131] Louis took no action to intervene as Henry steadily increased his power in Brittany.[132]
Yeah.....



Henry tries to repeat this for

Henry hoped to take a similar approach to regaining control of Toulouse in southern France.[132] Toulouse, while traditionally tied to the Duchy of Aquitaine, had become increasingly independent and was now ruled by Count Raymond V.[133] The rulers of Aquitaine had made tenuous claims on the county by hereditary right; Henry now hoped to claim it on Eleanor's behalf,[134] and encouraged by her, Henry first allied himself with Raymond's enemy Raymond Berenguer of Barcelona and then in 1159 threatened to invade himself to depose the Count of Toulouse.[135] Louis married his sister Constance to the Count in an attempt to secure his southern frontiers; nonetheless, when Henry and Louis discussed the matter of Toulouse, Henry left believing that he had the French king's support for military intervention.[136][137] Henry invaded Toulouse, only to find Louis visiting Raymond in the city.[138] Henry was not prepared to directly attack Louis, who was still his feudal lord, and withdrew, contenting himself with ravaging the surrounding county, seizing castles and taking the province of Quercy.
However, the presence of his feudal lord , despite the fact that Henry was here trying to take over more and more of said feudal lord lands stopped Henry from attacking Toulouse.



As the decade progressed, Henry increasingly desired to resolve the question of the inheritance. He decided that he would divide his empire after his death, with Young Henry receiving England and Normandy, Richard being given the Duchy of Aquitaine, and Geoffrey acquiring Brittany.[304] This would require the consent of Louis; accordingly the kings held fresh peace talks in 1169 at Montmirail.[305] The talks were wide-ranging, culminating with Henry's sons giving homage to Louis for their future inheritances in France. Also at this time, Richard was betrothed to Louis's young daughter Alys.[301][306] Alys came to England and was rumoured to have later become the mistress of King Henry, but the rumour originates from prejudiced sources and is not supported by French chronicles.[307]

If the agreements at Montmirail had been followed up, the acts of homage could potentially have confirmed Louis's position as king while undermining the legitimacy of any rebellious barons within Henry's territories and the potential for an alliance between them and Louis.[308] In practice, Louis perceived himself to have gained a temporary advantage. Immediately after the conference, he began to encourage tensions between Henry's sons.[309] Meanwhile, Henry's position in the south of France continued to improve, and by 1173 he had agreed to an alliance with Humbert III, Count of Savoy, which betrothed Henry's son John and Humbert's daughter Alicia.[140][nb 28] Henry's daughter Eleanor was married to Alfonso VIII of Castile in 1170, enlisting an additional ally in the south.[140] In 1173, after unremitting pressure from Henry since 1159, Raymond finally capitulated to the English king and publicly gave homage for Toulouse to Henry and his heirs.


You can see multiple times how the oath of fealty can be manipulated, or barons would just openly rebel if they felt you were not worthy of being their king. Or were courted by your own son .


It's examples like this which shows why the "idealisation" of feudalism simply never existed.

However, the fact remains that such paths justified the king rule. A king couldn't break such oaths willy nilly, or he would suffer the consequences to his government. Hence why despite grabbing King louis lands, King Henry refused to attack simply because his feudal lord was present. Breaking such an oath would threaten his own royal authority and justification of rule



When moving against the Church and his friend Beckett, the consequences of breaking such rules meant his son could find ample support amongst rebellious nobles to fight against Henry.
 
I've found myself wishing I had more of an interest in medievalism. Can anyone recommend any entertaining writing (up to and including historical fiction, if it feels grounded in the period, this isn't an academic interest) about how life was lived back then? A good place to start would be wonderful.
For an introduction, Terry Jones' Medieval Lives is a nice pop-history taster, that nonetheless undercuts a lot of commonly held myths about the era. The entire series is on YT, I believe.
The Horrible Histories tv series is another in a similar vein, albeit not specific to the medieval era.

It's examples like this which shows why the "idealisation" of feudalism simply never existed.
Yeah, rather than the simplistic pyramid set up of "classic feudalism", it makes more sense to think of a lot of interlocking and interacting spheres of influence and magisteria, where a Bishop can be a Lord and a vassal but also a "superior" who can maybe get you excommunicated, and a notional commoner could be a banker who can make or break mere Princes.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, rather than the simplistic pyramid set up of "classic feudalism", it makes more sense to think of a lot of interlocking and interacting spheres of influence and magisteria, where a Bishop can be a Lord and a vassal but also a "superior" who can maybe get you excommunicated, and a notional commoner could be a banker who can make or break mere Princes.
What I find interesting is how the "law" applies thru the land, since the judicial function is both part of the role of Lordship, with success conferring legitimacy to rule.

For England , county assizes Vs manor courts Vs church... Add in the concept of church as sanctuary and well.... It's interesting as hell.
 
Plus the whole idea of benefit of clergy, or living in a free town for sufficient period extinguishing a serf's status. It bears noting that something like the stereotypical HRE map is a vast simplification of the interactions at work.
 
Plus the whole idea of benefit of clergy, or living in a free town for sufficient period extinguishing a serf's status. It bears noting that something like the stereotypical HRE map is a vast simplification of the interactions at work.
Its an apt reminder that nothing we know of historical governments is as simple as we think.

Be it Roman, Chinese or etc. it's just a matter of how much we know about the civilisation that allows us to see more nuance and changes.
 
Back
Top