Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I forgot to add, I also love studying and reading up on the Hundred Years' War period... The vast differences in knighthood between England and France (not to mention any one else, but they are the 2 ive read up on) are amazing, and really make it stand out to me how/why France lost so many battles throughout its history.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I forgot to add, I also love studying and reading up on the Hundred Years' War period... The vast differences in knighthood between England and France (not to mention any one else, but they are the 2 ive read up on) are amazing, and really make it stand out to me how/why France lost so many battles throughout its history.

Please enlighten me. Is it because they were french?

 xole wrote:


Please enlighten me. Is it because they were french?

Nope, actually it was in the order of precedence of their oaths of fealty....

Basically, to be a Knight in England your oath went: God -> King/Country -> Feudal Lord

In France the oaths by and large went: God -> Feudal Lord -> King/country.

Which is why we see throughout French military history many battles in which many nobles are not present, even though the king made the call for them to come.

One thing about the American Civil War that I have mix feeling on is all the main commanders/leaders pretty much either known or recognize by each other from West Point.

The other that's hammered into out mentality is "Task Force Smith" Same as the American Civil War. Weapon technology out stripped current tactics.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 xole wrote:


Please enlighten me. Is it because they were french?

Nope, actually it was in the order of precedence of their oaths of fealty....

Basically, to be a Knight in England your oath went: God -> King/Country -> Feudal Lord

In France the oaths by and large went: God -> Feudal Lord -> King/country.

Which is why we see throughout French military history many battles in which many nobles are not present, even though the king made the call for them to come.

Yup, France was far less unified than England was militarily.

One of the reasons France was having such difficulty during the Hundred years war was because there was enormous dissension. France was less a unified kingdom and more of a loose coalition of Noble, many of whom were individually more powerful than the actual King. The prime example of a Feudal system.

England was able to basically pick them off alone or play them off of each other.

While the English may have also been squabbling Nobles there was one thing all English agreed on, the French were the enemy! So you wouldn't have trouble getting the English army all together to go beat up on the French.

Best watch out when the French get hold of that old time religion though.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Best watch out when the French get hold of that old time religion though.

Joan of Arc is old news;



Matilda of Tuscany is the new hotness.

Who really cares about the Italians though? They're even worse in a fight then Luxembourg.

There's a reason the Pope is guarded by Swiss

But as cooks on the other hand...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Who really cares about the Italians though? They're even worse in a fight then Luxembourg.

The Normans would like a world with you.

Who do you think even made the Crusades possible

 LordofHats wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Who really cares about the Italians though? They're even worse in a fight then Luxembourg.

The Normans would like a world with you.

Who do you think even made the Crusades possible

What about Fredrick Barbarossa? And the Normans won eventually didn't they? Not like the Italians have won a fight since.

Matilda defeated the Holy Roman Empire. That's her entire claim to fame XD

That and being really really devout.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: And my point really was that the Normans integrated into Italy. You mess with Southern Italy, you're messing with Normans

I like history about old civilisations, too many greek, roman, egypt and WW2 on TV, I would like too see more about Indus vally, Hittites, mesopotamia, south american history (toltecs, olmecs,nazca etcetera), More about African empires, persian empire, indian empires, vietnam/cambodia/laos empires(ankor wat). Soo many interesting civilisations are "ignored"

Most often the ones that are ignored are those which we have a serious lack of information on. The ones you listed have left little behind to go on.

The biggest reason for not knowing much about a culture is if there is a lack of written records. Egypt, Greece, and Romans have the most data because there is plenty of written material left behind.

I took a class on Mesoamerican history and much of it is still heavily speculative because of the lack of evidence of any kind.

We could always talk about Sumaria, which in the end we really know just shy of Jack and Squat about. Except their linguistics stuff is really popular for alien conspiracy theorists, and that their language is not even vaguely related to any currently spoken human tongue.

But even so, we don't really read that much about the Indian civilizations, or the Chinese civilizations, and they left a lot of written records to draw history from. And it's not like that the languages are undecipherable either, because the languages haven't developed and changed that much - Sanskrit is still spoken, and the Chinese traditional characters have been the same for hundreds of years.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
But even so, we don't really read that much about the Indian civilizations, or the Chinese civilizations, and they left a lot of written records to draw history from. And it's not like that the languages are undecipherable either, because the languages haven't developed and changed that much - Sanskrit is still spoken, and the Chinese traditional characters have been the same for hundreds of years.

In part it's familiarity. People in the West have been studying Egypt, Greece, and Rome since... Egypt, Greece, and Rome. There's plenty of info probably sitting out there that just hasn't been collected and published yet. Even in the Middle East throughout the middle ages there are hundreds of short lived states and dynasties that are know but no one has ever bothered getting around to writing about them.

People get to this stuff over time.

China wasn't exactly open for the longest time towards foreigners. Plus lots of stuff was destroyed in the Cultural Revolution. And some of the earlier Dynasties didn't leave written records IIRC.

 Grey Templar wrote:
China wasn't exactly open for the longest time towards foreigners. Plus lots of stuff was destroyed in the Cultural Revolution. And some of the earlier Dynasties didn't leave written records IIRC.

There's actually a lot of written records for China comparable to those in the West. The Spring and Autumn period I think is where things become hazy. What China to my knowledge lacks is archeological exploration to the scale of that in Greece, Egypt, and the Middle East.

But then what about India? Herodotus was clearly fascinated by it, he wrote a lot about what he heard about it.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
But then what about India? Herodotus was clearly fascinated by it, he wrote a lot about what he heard about it.

I have no knowledge. I think some of their history is covered in Hindu religious texts but I'm not knowledgeable of Indian history in the slightest. A lot of events there though can probably be correlated using Chinese and Muslim sources (guessing).

They wrote a hell of a lot down, and sent a bunch of emissaries to the near east and stuff.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I forgot to add, I also love studying and reading up on the Hundred Years' War period... The vast differences in knighthood between England and France (not to mention any one else, but they are the 2 ive read up on) are amazing, and really make it stand out to me how/why France lost so many battles throughout its history.

The French won the 100 years war...

Outside of a few very famous defeats, the French were pretty successful throughout the war.

The Renaissance is particularly fascinating to me. Such a huge amount of change occurred between about 1500 and 1800. Not as much as even 1900- 2000, but still a phenomenal amount of sociological change.

Japanese History is what really grabs me now, especially the rise of Japanese Imperialism, and their entrance into world politics in the late 19th century. Their early history, back to about 1100 AD is fascinating, but since they split connections with the western world when the Tokugawa Shogunate came to power, it's not really as interesting, since you can't really get a good picture of how they impacted worldwide politics. The origin of Shinto and the fall of Taoism and traditional zen Buddhism is also fascinating. As cliche as it sounds, I am strongly considering making some small transition into Shinto myself, since I currently do have the resources to do so, as well as shinto shrines being accessible. I hate being " that gaijin" though.

The rest of Asia is boring and uninteresting to me though. I was in the Richmond VFA museum, and they had an exhibit on Korean art. As nice as it was, my mind could not actually process what I was seeing as artistic, and I looked right past it, as one might look at a billboard for celebrity cologne.

Anyone know anything about the Korean Peninsular before it split?

 necrovamp wrote:
Anyone know anything about the Korean Peninsular before it split?

I watched War of the Arrows. That was kind of a cool movie

Joan of Arc's short but brilliant career.
Basil the Bulgar slayer, Emperor of Byzantium whooping up on Bulgarians.
Matilda of Tuscany is indeed a BOSS.
Venetian history is fascinating and utterly unique.
My specialty in history is butt-kicking women. Also look up Tomoe Gozen, Olga of Kiev and Buffalo Calf Road.

The but single most epic battle has to be the defense of Malta by the Knights of St. John.
If you're interested, I did a 3 part series on it for my blog. It's a fascinating battle that is more epic than anything from the movies. A small force of knights stand up to the entire Turkish army and navy.

part 1
http://minimumwagehistorian.com/2012/11/28/the-siege-of-malta-part-1-a-special-edition-of-minimum-wage-historian/
Part 2
http://minimumwagehistorian.com/2012/12/06/siege-of-malta-part-2/
part 3
http://minimumwagehistorian.com/2012/12/13/siege-of-malta-part-3/

 LordofHats wrote:

 necrovamp wrote:
Anyone know anything about the Korean Peninsular before it split?

I watched War of the Arrows. That was kind of a cool movie

May have to watch it. It just occurred to me I know nothing about Korea pre 1950's

They were an active player between the Chinese and the Japanese. However, their most famous moment of Military history was the defeat of the Japanese fleets by the famous "turtleships".

Anything to do with the Roman Empire or the many wars between the Irish and the English. Mainly because I have a personal connection to both and Roman History is very interesting.