Knights: more like Tony Soprano than Lancelot ~the History Channel

[Warren Okuma]

I was watching a show on the history channel about the dark ages. One of the quotes that stuck out in my mind was that "Knights were more like Tony Soprano than Lancelot." Their job was to be enforcers and raiders. The only code was from the church that knew that they couldn't collect enough money whilst local lords were constantly pounding on each other.

I think that let's D&D paladins and knights off the hook!

Thoughts?

jh

If you are playing historical DnD, sure.

 

[green slime]

I meant history as a science.

What we know of the past is subjective depending on the people who study history.

It's not just the interpretation of historical events that's subjective - the actual events are too (what might've or might've not happened).

But isn't that what happens when people start to speculate on the facts, as opposed to just ascertaining the facts?

Few doubt the Spanish Inquisition, the European "Discovery" of America in 1492. The fall of Acre in 1291. The Apollo landings on the Moon.

They are facts, in most people's eyes. Where history becomes speculative, is where 1) there are conflicting sources of information on an event. 2) no information exists on certain, interesting details 3) the motives and causes of events (cause and effect). But in the big picture, most events are fairly objective. (Not that it requires a lot of deep research to encounter speculative issues) The trick is knowing when the line between the factual, and the probable (speculative), is.

 

[billd91]

It's precisely because of that that I'm inclined to distrust it. It seems every age wants to repaint history to suit itself. When what we discover from history is precisely what we expect to discover, it really worries me. Why should I be inclined to think that the current spin is any less spin than the romantic view of the knight as chivilric idea?

Why are you inclined to distrust it? Many of the romantic views cropped up when people still had a closer stake in the social orders that grew out of the middle ages. If any views seem suspect, it should be those.
Now, most of us have a lot more distance on the time period. Social orders have changed all over Europe. That should lead to more objectivity.

But in any event, I'm still not surprised by the findings because they match many of the other things I've picked up through history, particularly the way the crusades were used as a way to take relatively uncontrollable knights and channel their aggression and ambition outwards, away from the western European heartland.

 

[Celebrim]

Sort of reminds one of a more modern tale of stagnation and decline.

Future historians will record that decline of Western Civilization began on September 2, 1970. I'm not sure that that isn't a conservative estimate, since the seeds of that go back a century or more.

 

[green slime]

Future historians will record that decline of Western Civilization began on September 2, 1970. I'm not sure that that isn't a conservative estimate, since the seeds of that go back a century or more.

Really? I'd have hazarded somewhere between 1910 and 1919.

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion. Perhaps a brief outline, in order to stay true to the Rules of the Forum. If you'd care to post.

 

[Celebrim]

Why are you inclined to distrust it? Many of the romantic views cropped up when people still had a closer stake in the social orders that grew out of the middle ages.

???

My understanding from my reading is that the terms like Dark Ages and Middle Ages, and the general derision against the inhabitants of those times dates to the Reinnasance and the Reformation, a time of social upheaval when people had a closer stake in the social orders that grew out of the middle ages.

If any views seem suspect, it should be those.

Indeed.

Now, most of us have a lot more distance on the time period. Social orders have changed all over Europe. That should lead to more objectivity.

Because new social orders have arose, because we are in a time of social upheaval ourselves, you think that this should lead to greater objectivity about older social orders? You don't, for example, think that any current social or political commentators have a stake in the history of the Catholic Church?

But in any event, I'm still not surprised by the findings because they match many of the other things I've picked up through history, particularly the way the crusades were used as a way to take relatively uncontrollable knights and channel their aggression and ambition outwards, away from the western European heartland.

Ahhh... yes. The new 'just so' stories. Someone says, "The Crusades were a noble adventure inspired by piety to liberate and protect the Christians in the historically Christian lands of the middle east, and it happened just so." Someone else says, "The Crusades were an ignoble expression of European racism and religious fanaticism inspired by greed and envy, and it happened just so."

Just so stories have a way of being long on explaining secret motives, the internal thought processes of the actors, what emotion people were experiencing, what we should feel about what happened and so forth, and very short on actual facts, this happened, and then this happened and then this happened. They also happen to be short in thier summaries, whereas actual history is too bloody long and complex to fit in a book. Both the above 'just so' stories would have a very hard time accounting for the actual narrative of events.

 

[green slime]

"Just so" stories occur because they fit in with an agenda, and successful ones give the illusion of a truth by making sweeping generalisations that appeal to the audience, rather than examining each piece of evidence in turn on its own merit. They are assimulated and spread because they appear to explain complicated matters simply, which is often what an audience is looking for. All too frequently, they play to the audience's prejudices.

Happens everyday, in newspapers and newsrooms all over the world.

 

[00Machado]

Please don't insist on historically accurate classes. Playing a historically accurate wizard would suck.

LOL. Hilarious.

 

[Vigilance]

Me, I wish they'd stop using the term "Dark Ages."

Cheers,
Cam

I think Dark Ages is as good a term as any for that period. I mean, it's basically a post apocalypse society compared to Rome.

Rome had a mail system, women were (relatively) free, they had concrete, aqueducts etc.

Basically the Dark Ages was the beginning of a period where technology and culture would need about 1000 years to catch up to Rome.

Im not saying Rome was perfect, but I do think the Dark Ages were pretty "dark".

 

[Warren Okuma]

I think Dark Ages is as good a term as any for that period. I mean, it's basically a post apocalypse society compared to Rome.

Rome had a mail system, women were (relatively) free, they had concrete, aqueducts etc.

Basically the Dark Ages was the beginning of a period where technology and culture would need about 1000 years to catch up to Rome.

Im not saying Rome was perfect, but I do think the Dark Ages were pretty "dark".

Viking raiders, dark. Black death made the age pretty dark.