CC History Faculty

[Norse]

Thought that would be the response. Unfortunately it is innately flawed, and the textbook answer I get from undergrads every year. How can you label anything as fluid as the many and varied relationships which fall under the banner of feudalism as a 'system'? You're right in saying that medieval societies never regarded themselves as feudal, but that should give you a clue as to the impotence of the term in general. Any study of any aspect of the Medieval period will bring up intense problems for any application of the label, and so it is only mildly useful as a catch-all term.

or at least, thats the prevailing wind in the Medievalist community.

I hear what you say, but isnt the nature of a feudal system such, that it does not necassarily restrict all sociological and heirarchal structure, but in itself represent a very general idea of how the structure of any political/economic system works, in such circumstances?

I mean, from my understanding of a feudal system, it was only a general idea as such.

[Norse]

Zionist plans? Lost tribes?

With all due respect, I'd prefer it if we kept your you-tube conspiracy findings out of the thread in favour of actual history (i.e. something which would be published in a peer-review journal).

Guissy old boy, stop being so naive.

You can talk about molly-coddled distorted politics with your socialist buddies whenever you like, but if you want serious debate, you will need to accept the simple truths.

[ignotus]

Iggy old boy, stop being so naive.

You can talk about molly-coddled distorted politics with your socialist buddies whenever you like, but if you want serious debate, you will need to accept the simple truths.

it was Guiscard, not me. I'm still googling & looking on the pictures of young Kitchener, Mountbatten, Churchill...

[Guiscard]

I hear what you say, but isnt the nature of a feudal system such, that it does not necassarily restrict all sociological and heirarchal structure, but in itself represent a very general idea of how the structure of any political/economic system works, in such circumstances?

I mean, from my understanding of a feudal system, it was only a general idea as such.

System is the problem. System or structure indicates something with solid rules or guidelines. That categorically was not the case. The way you described it, and the way my undergrads understand it before they read up, gives us a defined system of lord-vassal and fief relationships. My field of expertise is the crusades, which is a brilliant example. There was no political system inherent in such a conquered land, so you'd have thought the 'feudal system' would have been imported in the style of the prevailing legal codes (France, perhaps). It wasn't. The legal and 'feudal' relationships took years to define and were built on precedent rather than an acknowledged 'system'.

If we get too general there's no point labeling it whatsoever. 'Political system' is just as good a label given the diversity.

[Guiscard]

Zionist plans? Lost tribes?

With all due respect, I'd prefer it if we kept your you-tube conspiracy findings out of the thread in favour of actual history (i.e. something which would be published in a peer-review journal).

Guissy old boy, stop being so naive.

You can talk about molly-coddled distorted politics with your socialist buddies whenever you like, but if you want serious debate, you will need to accept the simple truths.

I'm not talking politics in this thread, I'm talking history. I'd much rather you did too so we can keep the thread on track. BK made a valiant attempt at a thread jack by starting a religious debate but that was, graciously, taken elsewhere. What you're waffling on about is categorically not accepted as historical fact by any stretch of the imagination, and you know it. You might not believe that it isn't historical, but that's another thread please.

[Tyr]

anyone know anything about post roman kingdoms in europe?

[ignotus]

anyone know anything about post roman kingdoms in europe?

that's a term that covers...
....
...
..
.

Name one or two and what do you find interesting in them.

[Norse]

I'm not talking politics in this thread, I'm talking history. I'd much rather you did too so we can keep the thread on track. BK made a valiant attempt at a thread jack by starting a religious debate but that was, graciously, taken elsewhere. What you're waffling on about is categorically not accepted as historical fact by any stretch of the imagination, and you know it. You might not believe that it isn't historical, but that's another thread please.

Well funnily enough, history and politics are woven together. IN FACT, funilly enough, history is the study of all historicl events, albeit political or otherwise.

Now, I can imagine that you would only want to go by the "written in stone" history, but what you must understand, is that "written in stone" is not necassarily condusive to a fair portrayal of historical events, is it?

[Guiscard]

anyone know anything about post roman kingdoms in europe?

Which ones? And post-Roman can be pretty general... Do you mean the 'barbarian' kingdoms of the migration period (dark age)? Earlier ones (the Gothic kingdoms and the like)?

[Norse]

One mans history is another mans freedom fighter, or sumfink like that.

[Guiscard]

I'm not talking politics in this thread, I'm talking history. I'd much rather you did too so we can keep the thread on track. BK made a valiant attempt at a thread jack by starting a religious debate but that was, graciously, taken elsewhere. What you're waffling on about is categorically not accepted as historical fact by any stretch of the imagination, and you know it. You might not believe that it isn't historical, but that's another thread please.

Well funnily enough, history and politics are woven together. IN FACT, funilly enough, history is the study of all historicl events, albeit political or otherwise.

Now, I can imagine that you would only want to go by the "written in stone" history, but what you must understand, is that "written in stone" is not necassarily condusive to a fair portrayal of historical events, is it?

I think what you must understand, Norse, is that you're not a historian. Of course history and politics are woven together. What has politics got to do with it? I'm not talking about 'written in stone' history. There's room for endless interpretation, God knows my job relies on that, but hat you're talking about is conspiracy theory rubbish. We may as well discuss the Da Vinci Code. The reason I started this thread was (you'll note) 'for all those who study history (or plan to).' The theory I believe you are referring to is that of Arthur Koestler (who was not a Historian, but a journalist and hobby social-philosopher). That theory has been disproved many times by real historians, and now by DNA studies I believe. You KNOW this is a conspiracy theory. If you believe it thats fine but don't bring it here.

[Tyr]

anyone know anything about post roman kingdoms in europe?

Which ones? And post-Roman can be pretty general... Do you mean the 'barbarian' kingdoms of the migration period (dark age)? Earlier ones (the Gothic kingdoms and the like)?

from the fall of rome to the norman conquest of england

[Guiscard]

anyone know anything about post roman kingdoms in europe?

Which ones? And post-Roman can be pretty general... Do you mean the 'barbarian' kingdoms of the migration period (dark age)? Earlier ones (the Gothic kingdoms and the like)?

from the fall of rome to the norman conquest of england

So the early middle ages then. Yes. I know a lot. It's my job, which is great for me!

What do you want to know?

[Tyr]

well al i know is in 1066 there was a frankish kingdom and the holy roman empire alot of itlaian states a few spanish states i dont know anything about eastern europe at the time except for the gold horde and muscovy so basically the beginining of modern europe

[Norse]

I think what you must understand, Norse, is that you're not a historian.

alas, for my history book is not worthy!

woe is me! thine art not a noble collection of wisdom, but a wicked leather-bound concoction of deceit!

Of course history and politics are woven together. What has politics got to do with it?

Best.Quote.Ever.

I'm not talking about 'written in stone' history. There's room for endless interpretation, God knows my job relies on that, but hat you're talking about is conspiracy theory rubbish.

My word, you're on hypocritically-acclaimed fire today.

We may as well discuss the Da Vinci Code.

Are there any historical references to the di-vinci code?

or is that not to your pretentious taste?

The reason I started this thread was (you'll note) 'for all those who study history (or plan to).'

No, by the sounds of it, you created this thread in the vain hope that some people would be willing to massage your wilting ego.

That theory has been disproved many times by real historians, and now by DNA studies I believe. You KNOW this is a conspiracy theory. If you believe it thats fine but don't bring it here.

Ha! this is where you are wrong!

in fact, DNA has proven that the royal family of england, for example, matches that of the 12 tribes, and is also proven to show that they are closely related to danish nobility, a great number of the senators in the current administration/opposition of the states, the federal reserve bankers, high ranking politicians and business owners etc. etc. etc.

It is one big happy inbred family...which would explain the pathalogical, sadistic insular actions of these people who are holding the whips.

I feel, that the study of this particular branch of ugly-history is necassary for the ignorant among us, of which you are a star pupil.

Dont like it? find another proffession

[ignotus]

well al i know is in 1066 there was a frankish kingdom and the holy roman empire alot of itlaian states a few spanish states i dont know anything about eastern europe at the time except for the gold horde and muscovy so basically the beginining of modern europe

Name a country.

For instance Croatia was a tribute country of Charlemagne and his successors but in 10th century it became kingdom under king Tomislav (925 AD). Serbia became kingdom on the beginning of 13th century, it was a Byzantine vassal before that. Great Moravian Kingdom was a great Slavic power in 9th century. Today's Russia was a couple of city-states when Norsemen came and formed first kingdoms of Novgorod; and later Kiev.

What do you want to know exactly?

[Norse]

Im actually very ignorant of croatian history.

How was the climate in croatia during the ottoman invasions? in terms of alleigance, and war?

[Guiscard]

Dont like it? find another proffession

Wait a minute, what's yours again?

Because as far as i can tell we're looking at you tube documentaries as sources, unless you'd like to name me a single reliable peer-reviewed historical account of what you're saying.

And if you can't do that? f*ck off.

[Norse]

Dont like it? find another proffession

Wait a minute, what's yours again?

Because as far as i can tell we're looking at you tube documentaries as sources, unless you'd like to name me a single reliable peer-reviewed historical account of what you're saying.

And if you can't do that? f*ck off.

Hahaha!

Teh peeragez0r's are teh master geezers!!!1!

What you seem to struggle with, is the grey nature of History. it is not black-and-white like maths, where, catagorically, 1+1 = 2.

I, for one, do not need a frazzeled old git to tell me what is, and isnt reliable. Are you so niave to think that, from an arguementative point of view, if everything I say about the whip-handlers is true, that they would be happy to let "peer-reviews" seep out the ugly truth?

My oh my, it's like trying to turn water to wine with you. One of my teachers always used to say to me, "with some people, it is not enough to tell them '1+1 =2', you have to bang their heads against the wall, whilst telling them ' 1+1=2'."

I can see where he is coming from.

[Guiscard]

Dont like it? find another proffession

Wait a minute, what's yours again?

Because as far as i can tell we're looking at you tube documentaries as sources, unless you'd like to name me a single reliable peer-reviewed historical account of what you're saying.

And if you can't do that? f*ck off.

Hahaha!

Teh peeragez0r's are teh master geezers!!!1!

What you seem to struggle with, is the grey nature of History. it is not black-and-white like maths, where, catagorically, 1+1 = 2.

I, for one, do not need a frazzeled old git to tell me what is, and isnt reliable. Are you so niave to think that, from an arguementative point of view, if everything I say about the whip-handlers is true, that they would be happy to let "peer-reviews" seep out the ugly truth?

My oh my, it's like trying to turn water to wine with you. One of my teachers always used to say to me, "with some people, it is not enough to tell them '1+1 =2', you have to bang their heads against the wall, whilst telling them ' 1+1=2'."

I can see where he is coming from.

Just f*ck off out of this thread, Norse. Please.

[Norse]

Priceless.

As you wish.

[suggs]

My area of study is Ancient Greece and Rome. From the Early Republic to the Fall of the Western Empire.

I have only just begun it in college, but have researched a fair amount about these two areas. Especially in the Military aspects of them.

Oh you big winner. The Fall of the Roman Empire (in the west) has to be one of the great historiographical debates of all time.
Prob. a bit basic for Masters level, but have you read Donald Kagan The End of the Roamn Empire"? Collection of extracts overviewing the debate, incl. Luttwak and Ferril.

Best of luck.

[muy_thaiguy]

My area of study is Ancient Greece and Rome. From the Early Republic to the Fall of the Western Empire.

I have only just begun it in college, but have researched a fair amount about these two areas. Especially in the Military aspects of them.

Oh you big winner. The Fall of the Roman Empire (in the west) has to be one of the great historiographical debates of all time.
Prob. a bit basic for Masters level, but have you read Donald Kagan The End of the Roamn Empire"? Collection of extracts overviewing the debate, incl. Luttwak and Ferril.

Best of luck.

I'll have to look for it. Thanks.

[suggs]

Ok this is A-level stuff-sorry if its way too basic!
A handy Mnemonic (sp?!) for the causes of the collapse of western empire:

Barbarian attacks
Abuses (ie corruption, administrative weakness)
Depopulation
Political weakness (Diocletians reforms)
Economic collapse
Religion (see Gibbon, Xianity)
Military Weakness

BADPERM, dude!

"IT was the increasing pressue of the barbarians, concentrated on the weaker western half of the empire, that caused the collapse". A. H. M. Jones The Decline of the Ancient World.[/b]

[ignotus]

Im actually very ignorant of croatian history.

How was the climate in croatia during the ottoman invasions? in terms of alleigance, and war?

When Ottomans came to Europe via decomposing corpse that was once a great Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) they encountered countries that had problems of their own. Serbia was in a state of civil war, Bulgarian kingdom has fallen almost without a battle. Today's Romania was divided in 3 little kingdoms (Valachia, Moldavia and Transilvania). One great force on Ottoman way was Hungaro-Croatian kingdom (when our last king died Croatian nobles elected Hungarian king as their own in 1102; Hungarian kings left to that nobles to do as they like on their land and they didn't interfere much).
When Ottomans came Hungaro-Croatian kingdom was in a state of civil war and some years earlier peasant's rebelled against bigger taxes. There has been no central power since last king died in battle with Ottomans on Mohač field so Croatian nobles, regardless of Hungarian nobles elected Habsburg house for their new kings in 1527.
The main thing for that election was the fact that Habsburgs had money and promised to give it for building new forts, building bigger guns, building the great army but that money came in small amounts and very slow and most of the officers in the army soon became Germans (or Austrians). Croatia didn't have funds of their own because Ottomans had taken control on 2/3 of the country and they pillaged other 1/3 of the lands almost regularly.
Croatians soon became skilled soldiers, especially when was Military Zone (it was called Krajina) on the border to Ottoman territory organized. There soldiers lived and trained and all they had to do for getting a piece of the land and a regular salary was to fight for that border.

Ottoman wars drained Croatia demographically (great war losses, emigrations, ...) & financially but it gave Habsburgs the greatest military camp (Krajina) with trained professionals that could do the job.

Regardless of almost constant war against ottomans (14th-19th century) Croatian contributed in great deal in a lot of wars in central European region of that time (War for Spanish Succesions, or Thirty year war when Croatian soldiers gave the whole world something that is today unavoidable in fashion: the tie, called la cravate by the French...).

Our allegiance (in the Ottoman wars) was always with the rest of Catholic world, although you could always find a black sheep or two...