The middle ages were a time of constant war.
True
Or
False?
(believe it or not, this is an official question in the current British citizenship test).
It must be true, in the middle ages we have the 100 years war, by 1600 its the thirty years war and by 1700 the seven years war. Thus the duration of wars has gone down over the centuries and must have been greater in the mediaeval period:-))
It's a trick question, defining neither the temporal or geographical limits of the term "Middle Ages". It also doesn't say from whose perspective we are talking - a peasant in a field somewhere, a knight, a modern commentator? To a peasant in Rutland in 1314, his village has been at peace for as long as anyone can remember. For an English knight in a marsh field in Scotland, this war against the Scots seems never ending.
It is a bit like saying "The 20th century was a time of constant warfare".
Quote from: aligern on December 22, 2015, 09:27:52 AM
It must be true, in the middle ages we have the 100 years war, by 1600 its the thirty years war and by 1700 the seven years war. Thus the duration of wars has gone down over the centuries and must have been greater in the mediaeval period:-))
Blimey - Seven Weeks' War in 1866, Six Day War in 1967 - it works! At this rate, the nuclear war that obliterates us all in the 2060s will only last a few hours....
Quote from: Duncan Head on December 22, 2015, 09:57:18 AM
Blimey - Seven Weeks' War in 1866, Six Day War in 1967 - it works! At this rate, the nuclear war that obliterates us all in the 2060s will only last a few hours....
ObOT: Lundwall's science fiction novel
2018 A. D. or the King Kong Blues takes place in a world where most the the Middle East has been turned into radioactive wastelands by the Six Minutes' War.
I once saw a "timeline of war" that showed for every year since about 3000 BC whether the world had been at war or not - defined as there being a war fought somewhere that the compilers had found out about. Needless to say, the peacefulness of an era was inversely proportional to how well documented it is. (And yes, acc'd to this, the 20th century was a period of constant warfare - every single year of it a war was going on somewhere.)
Time to vote guys.
I'll post the 'correct' answer in a day or two, and we will see who gets to be British or not.
(no uk voters might want to self identify).
Not all the questions are so shoddy, who beat the Vikings (lists Anglo Saxon kings), which part of England did Boudicca come from (east, west, etc), what year was Bosworth. All reasonable to ask.
But this one ...
No :o
Taking the parameters the modern boundaries of the united kingdom, the time period 500-1500 and the perspective of most people at the time, no it wasn't. Most wars were localised and often largely involved elites. Even a period of warfare like The Wars of the Roses contained much more business as usual that active warfare. Though business as usual was more violent and lawless than many of us would be comfortable with.
From the perspective of a United Nations-influenced politically-correct exam question-setter, it probably was. ;)
Ref Erpingham's business as usual, I am often struck by how reatively stable even periods of great disruption must be, r the peopke concerned would just die out. Of course when armies passed whole dupustricts might be destroyed, gut considering how fragile life is and how we need water every day and food every coupke of weeks and the food cycle is long and fragile it argues that much of society had to be continuing on producing even whilst the barbarians were invading or armies were passing through or fighting. I think its Victor Davis Hanson who points out that Grrek city states cannot have laid waste the fields surrounding a city in the way that the historians suggest because olive trees take many years to mature and if you burnt them at the levels suggested.the city was doomed,nsame I think with vines. Wheat would hopefully have been gathered in.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on December 22, 2015, 12:15:14 PM
Ref Erpingham's business as usual, I am often struck by how reatively stable even periods of great disruption must be, or the people concerned would just die out. Of course when armies passed whole districts might be destroyed, gut considering how fragile life is and how we need water every day and food every couple of weeks and the food cycle is long and fragile it argues that much of society had to be continuing on producing even whilst the barbarians were invading or armies were passing through or fighting. I think its Victor Davis Hanson who points out that Greek city states cannot have laid waste the fields surrounding a city in the way that the historians suggest because olive trees take many years to mature and if you burnt them at the levels suggested.the city was doomed, same I think with vines. Wheat would hopefully have been gathered in.
Victor Davis Hanson presumably does not credit Greek city-states with the intelligence and ability to purchase new young trees/vines from neighbours and get them planted, thus saving years on the growth-to-production cycle. Otherwise yes, and one can understand the inconvenience and distress the Spartan invasions caused Athens in the Peloponnesian War (this incidentally was a Twenty-Five Years' War while the Trojan War was only a Ten Years' War, so back in antiquity wars were getting longer ...).
According to James Cameron the Nuclear holocaust happened in 1997! The date then moved to 2017 in further films...
I agree, trying to determine if the Middle Ages were a time of constant conflict all depends on where in the world you were living at the time. In the UK some areas were calm for many years, other areas were frequently visited by war. If we take the date of 476AD to say 1600AD then there were lots of invasions/attacks on the UK during that time frame- Angles, Jutes, Saxon's, Normans, Vikings, Vandals, French, Dutch, Spanish, Welsh, Scots, Irish plus others no doubt.
Quote from: valentinianvictor on December 22, 2015, 12:28:08 PM
If we take the date of 476AD to say 1600AD then there were lots of invasions/attacks on the UK during that time frame- Angles, Jutes, Saxon's, Normans, Vikings, Vandals, French, Dutch, Spanish, Welsh, Scots, Irish plus others no doubt.
Of course, other inhabitants of the present UK would put the English front and centre in the list of invaders :) This reminds me of the debate on the title of the appropriate wikipedia page about "Invasions of Britain" - we settled on "Invasions of the British Isles" rather than political entities in the end.
SPOILER ALERT
.
.
.
.
http://www.citizenshiptest.org.uk/Read/ShowSection/77
"The period after the Norman Conquest up until about 1485 is called the Middle Ages (or the medieval period). It was a time of almost constant war."
So true. QED.
To be fair you can't expect a nuanced answer in a few hundred word history of the UK. The purpose of the question is to test the applicant has read the set text, not to seek historical truth. (It's stlll quite funny though).
Quote from: RichT on December 22, 2015, 01:10:16 PM
"The period after the Norman Conquest up until about 1485 is called the Middle Ages (or the medieval period). It was a time of almost constant war."
So true. QED.
Is it from the section "The Middle Ages and All that"? Good job we haven't developed a more nuanced understanding understanding of the period in the last 100 years, isn't it?
As opposed to the beknighted 21st in which we have lived in a period of almost constant peace...
Oh rich,
You ruined it for everyone.
Quote from: Mark G on December 22, 2015, 08:30:20 AM
The middle ages were a time of constant war.
True
Or
False?
(believe it or not, this is an official question in the current British citizenship test).
Man, I hate stupid bureaucrats.
Quote from: Mark G on December 22, 2015, 10:48:16 AM
Time to vote guys.
I'll post the 'correct' answer in a day or two, and we will see who gets to be British or not.
(no uk voters might want to self identify).
Not all the questions are so shoddy, who beat the Vikings (lists Anglo Saxon kings), which part of England did Boudicca come from (east, west, etc), what year was Bosworth. All reasonable to ask.
But this one ...
Which begs the question - why would a test for
UK citizenship ask questions about a nation that
ISN'T the UK? England=/=UK. Were there questions about the Battle of Largs? Edward Bruce, Welsh Kings? The Covenanters?? Kenneth McAlpin? Who was at least as significant to one kingdom making up the UK as Alfred was to another.
There were lots of questions about each region. And not just the hone "nations" either, but actual regions.
And they are all pretty reasonable, and none mentioned coronation street or x factor.
The history ones were mostly quite reasonable.
Except that one, which was clearly written by the sociology graduate intern.
Or the commerce graduate.
Or possibly former education minister, Charles Clarke.
And if you know why him, you get automatic citizenship.
So why is it reasonable for a Scot (for example) to know the date of Bosworth, or where Boudica came from or who Alfred was? It is genuinely NOT part of their history. It's the history of another country before the two joined in a Union.
Would you set a test for Spanish citizens that asked questions about Portugal? Or a test of American citizenship that asked questions about the Mexican state of California? Seriously, if you don't see why this is problematic - then that's very strange.
So what questions were asked about Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland? Enquiring minds want to know.
Quote from: DougM on December 23, 2015, 07:45:58 AM
So why is it reasonable for a Scot (for example) to know the date of Bosworth, or where Boudica came from or who Alfred was? It is genuinely NOT part of their history. It's the history of another country before the two joined in a Union.
One can think of two reasons.
1) Scotland is now part of the UK, despite some recent attempts to the contrary. This makes the history of all UK territories relevant in retrospect without prejudice to Scots history itself. On the same basis, people born in Mercia, Essex and Northumbria learn about King Alfred, despite having been part of the Danelaw.
2) Civilised people are (among other things) those who study the history of other peoples as opposed to just having a loose grasp of their own. If Scots were to learn only the history of Scotland, they would lose this important advantage and criterion of civilisation.
Another thought is that quite a bit of the UK's history has been written by Scots historians ...
Although I do think using the definition of Middle Ages I was taught in primary school (1066-1485) anchored as it is on two English dynastic changes, was rather naff. Using a "neutral" date range (e.g. 1000-1500) would at least be equally arbitrary to all parts of the UK.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 23, 2015, 08:26:52 AM
One can think of two reasons.
1) Scotland is now part of the UK, despite some recent attempts to the contrary. This makes the history of all UK territories relevant in retrospect without prejudice to Scots history itself. On the same basis, people born in Mercia, Essex and Northumbria learn about King Alfred, despite having been part of the Danelaw.
Ah, I presume then that details of Scottish history prior to the Union are broadly taught across the UK and treated with the same level of attention?
You're having a laugh aren't you?
Who were 'The red and the black' ? - 'what was the black dinner?' - 'who was known as 'Bell the Cat'? - who was Rizzio?' or even 'who was considered the first king of a united Scotland?
Or is it only the non-English components of the UK that are required to learn another country's history and treat it as their own?
Seriously this in other countries and times was known as rewriting history to support assimilation. Exactly the same thing happened in Poland many times, in every soviet socialist republic, etc. Much easier to do in Australia with the deliberate excision of thousands of years of history in preference to a narrative of Terra Nullius - done in Africa so that even today, most westerners assume there was no such thing as Sub-Saharan civilisation.
I don't mean to be offensive - but I am pointing out what I see as a real case of cognitive dissonance - or a blind spot - that as individuals with even a passing historical interest, we should be able to see.
Quote from: DougM on December 23, 2015, 08:48:46 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 23, 2015, 08:26:52 AM
Who were 'The red and the black' ? - 'what was the black dinner?' - 'who was known as 'Bell the Cat'? - who was Rizzio?' or even 'who was considered the first king of a united Scotland?
Most UK Scots commentators on this problem include Darien (critical to the fate of independent Scotland, virtually unknown in England).
Doug has a fair point but, truthfully, history has such a low status in our education system, I doubt this will be rectified in the near future.
PS I think the first four of Doug's questions are pretty straightforward but the last one could cause some debate :)
I read "The Isles: A History" by Norman Davies last year. In his introduction he raises the same points as Doug and bemoans historians' tendency to equate the history of the archipelago with that of England. Unfortunately he then manages to pretty much ignore the history of my bit of Ireland once we stopped being part of the UK in 1922.....
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Mick Hession on December 23, 2015, 09:35:30 AM
I read "The Isles: A History" by Norman Davies last year. In his introduction he raises the same points as Doug and bemoans historians' tendency to equate the history of the archipelago with that of England. Unfortunately he then manages to pretty much ignore the history of my bit of Ireland once we stopped being part of the UK in 1922.....
Cheers
Mick
Well - If those in Eire want to be treated as part of an archipelago or geographic entity rather than a political one, that's a pretty reasonable complaint. :)
The required reading for the citizenship test are really very broad strokes of history. Henry VIII's wives do get rather detailed coverage, but Mary QoS gets more than Elizabeth I. I think the only battle to get two mentions is Bannockburn. Alfred and Kenneth McAlpin get the same coverage - one short sentence each.
The tests are sample tests.. It would be just as possible to get a question about Alfred as Kenneth. I happened to get two questions on naming 2 UK landmarks - 2 English, 1 Welsh, 1 N. Irish in my examples, so I imagine Scottish examples could also appear. The vast majority of the test is not about history. There are a few debateable answers too - I was asked a question about the role of school governors and it said it did not include setting the school curriculum (they do for Social and Personal education, esp. sex) .
Quote from: DougM on December 23, 2015, 05:25:18 AM
Quote from: Mark G on December 22, 2015, 10:48:16 AM
Time to vote guys.
I'll post the 'correct' answer in a day or two, and we will see who gets to be British or not.
(no uk voters might want to self identify).
Not all the questions are so shoddy, who beat the Vikings (lists Anglo Saxon kings), which part of England did Boudicca come from (east, west, etc), what year was Bosworth. All reasonable to ask.
But this one ...
Which begs the question - why would a test for UK citizenship ask questions about a nation that ISN'T the UK? England=/=UK. Were there questions about the Battle of Largs? Edward Bruce, Welsh Kings? The Covenanters?? Kenneth McAlpin? Who was at least as significant to one kingdom making up the UK as Alfred was to another.
Quote from: Swampster on December 23, 2015, 11:30:23 AM
The required reading for the citizenship test are really very broad strokes of history. Henry VIII's wives do get rather detailed coverage, but Mary QoS gets more than Elizabeth I. I think the only battle to get two mentions is Bannockburn. Alfred and Kenneth McAlpin get the same coverage - one short sentence each.
The tests are sample tests.. It would be just as possible to get a question about Alfred as Kenneth. I happened to get two questions on naming 2 UK landmarks - 2 English, 1 Welsh, 1 N. Irish in my examples, so I imagine Scottish examples could also appear. The vast majority of the test is not about history. There are a few debateable answers too - I was asked a question about the role of school governors and it said it did not include setting the school curriculum (they do for Social and Personal education, esp. sex) .
Is that school governors in England and Wales? I don't believe they exist in the separate and different Scots Education system.. (Scottish School Act 2006) so conceivably you could in respect of law, education, established religion, and other areas, give an answer that was perfectly correct in Scotland but get marked as incorrect as it was different in England?
Are you sure this was a 'UK Citizenship Test' and not an 'England & possibly Wales and N. Ire Citizenship Test'? ;-)
Quote from: DougM on December 23, 2015, 11:55:29 AM
Quote from: Swampster on December 23, 2015, 11:30:23 AM
The required reading for the citizenship test are really very broad strokes of history. Henry VIII's wives do get rather detailed coverage, but Mary QoS gets more than Elizabeth I. I think the only battle to get two mentions is Bannockburn. Alfred and Kenneth McAlpin get the same coverage - one short sentence each.
The tests are sample tests.. It would be just as possible to get a question about Alfred as Kenneth. I happened to get two questions on naming 2 UK landmarks - 2 English, 1 Welsh, 1 N. Irish in my examples, so I imagine Scottish examples could also appear. The vast majority of the test is not about history. There are a few debateable answers too - I was asked a question about the role of school governors and it said it did not include setting the school curriculum (they do for Social and Personal education, esp. sex) .
Is that school governors in England and Wales? I don't believe they exist in the separate and different Scots Education system.
No, following the link given earlier, it's
QuoteSchool governors, or members of the school board in Scotland, are people from the local community who wish to make a positive contribution to children's education ...
But you'd rather rant than check. This is getting boring.
I think you will find that School Boards were abolished in 2006 in Scotland. The system now relies on parent forums and parent councils plus the school and the Local Education Authority. But you are right. Boring. I had a go at a practice test. All questions were post union with three exceptions - 2 about Henry VIII, (famous for, and why did he found the Church of England) and what years were Romans in charge Britain( the grammar of the questions was appalling..).
Doug neatly encapsulates a world view of grievance and persecution that bears no relevance to the facts at hand.
All parts of the UK are covered, i just didn't mention examples to offer a geographic balance cause I didn't.
The topic is quite clearly about whether all of the middle ages (no geographic limit stated) was a time of constant war, true or false.
I had expected grown ups to pick one or the other choice for a day or two, and then we could laugh at the "right" answer.
Rich rather blew that by quoting the actual study point.
But for someone to leap in with suggestions there is a hidden agenda at odds to their view on a political question from last year, now resolved. Do not be ridiculous!
Still, if that is your first exposure to the "new Scotland"... My apologies, it is a minority view. We took a vote to prove it.
Let us hope we can leave it at that
Quote from: Mark G on December 23, 2015, 05:10:35 PM
But for someone to leap in with suggestions there is a hidden agenda at odds to their view on a political question from last year, now resolved. Do not be ridiculous!
Agreed: history by chip-on-the-shoulder criteria makes for even worse history than history by political committee. Leaving out huge chunks of history (whether English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish) seems to be more a matter of keeping things simple and maybe even encouraging immigrants to understand the historical background misrepresented by Carry On films ;) than any serious attempt to denigrate the (often rather involved and occasionally quite boring) history of various parts of the British Isles.
Personally, I would scrap the whole thing in favour of a coherent history of military systems as the backbone for any further historical study, but doubt we shall ever see that approach adopted.
Quote
Let us hope we can leave it at that.
I would give Doug one last word if he wishes, and then suggest we end the discussion. I would ask Doug to bear in mind that the thread topic is notionally whether the Middle Ages were, in the view of the UK's citizenship testers, a time of 'constant war' and inferentially whether this view has a sound and rational basis when compared with other eras. Sadly we can probably take it for granted that whenever politicians try to write history by consensus much of it is going to be neglected, and what is presented will be presented in piecemeal and arbitrary fashion.
I will make this my last word on the subject, and interestingly, there are parallels to be drawn with a discussion I am having in another forum.
I don't believe in 'chip on the shoulder' or 'agenda' statements. I don't think there is a formal agenda, (and I don't think anyone is being marginalised). But it is interesting that my posts above should be characterised in that way.
What I was trying to point to; is that as individuals who should have at least some degree of capacity for rational analysis, I found it interesting that there seemed to be a blind spot to the fallacy that somehow, UK history is synonymous with English history.
I find English history interesting, it's important to understanding the UK as it is now. But it seems to me that asking: "why is it, that a select strand of English history, is so commonly equated with UK history", is not an unreasonable question.
My own view, as I said, is that it is simply a blind spot, it stems from a number of roots. But the fact that some people cannot actually see it, is curious.
As for politicians and the teaching of history - history has become incredibly political - it always has been. In Australia at least, in large part this is a straightforward attempt to deny Aboriginal heritage or history. Any alternate views, such as the classification of the 'pacification' (interesting word) - of the Queensland Aboriginals as a border war, creates an immediate and disproportionate backlash. It also comes from a narrative of moral superiority for political purposes.
Most Australians would have little knowledge of the white slavers 'blackbirding' labour from the islands to cut cane, the anti-Chinese riots and murders in the 19th Century, the massive dispossession of settled Aboriginal cultures, settler massacres of the natives, the genocide of the Tasmanian Aborigines, the White Australia policy, and a whole raft of extremely unpleasant and nasty historical episodes.
Many politicians would like to brush the uglier bits of history under the carpet. It threatens the carefully constructed narrative of the moral high ground, the capacity to 'be a force for good'. It undermines their capacity to point a finger at another country, creed or political leader and say.. he/she/it is less worthy - so we have the right to do this.
The parallels with any number of cultures - Roman, Chinese, Mongol, etc are inescapable. Once you have established you are the 'good guy' - you can rape, loot, burn, pillage and torture, because by definition, they are the 'bad guys' - so they deserve what's coming to them. True of the British Empire in India, as well as Nazi Germany.
McAulay, Gibbon and a whole range of others used history as a morality tale for civic leaders, but every country has their own 'guilt' or at least, episodes of which they should be embarrassed, but the imperative to say - 'no we are right', we have the right to do this, we have the right to colonise, the right to punish, the right to take, the right to impose our will, leads to some extraordinary blind spots. Exceptionalism is probably the purest current expression of this, but the act of self examination and self criticism is much too painful for many countries, and much too threatening for the arguments of those who insist on the moral high ground.
In Africa, they say.. "when the white man came we had the land, and the white man had the bible and the guns. He told us to close our eyes to pray. When we opened our eyes, we had the bible, the white man had the land, and he kept the guns."
And in answer to the question about the middle ages.. yes, and no. It's much too simple a question.
Any chance of revisiting the "constant war" question?
I am pretty confident that the implied comparisons don't hold up.
Chips on shoulders duly aired and out of the way?
QuoteRich rather blew that by quoting the actual study point.
Apologies - I did put a spoiler warning, and don't think what the text actually says need have any impact on the discussion that could be had (barring nationalistic interruptions) on the warfariness or otherwise of the middles ages.
So my answer(s):
Q: The middle ages were a time of constant war.
A: True. If by war we mean not just organised combat between sovereign polities, but include various forms of low level violence and lawlessness.
Q: In the Middle Ages, everybody was at war almost all the time.
A: False. Wars were localised geographically and in terms of combatants. There were more settled interludes. There were periods of greater and lesser lawlessness and violence.
Q: The Middle Ages saw more warfare than other periods before or since.
A: False. Probably no more than before. More than many periods since, but some periods since saw warfare of higher intensity (though generally with less casual violence and lawlessness).
QuoteQ: The middle ages were a time of constant war.
A: True. If by war we mean not just organised combat between sovereign polities, but include various forms of low level violence and lawlessness.
Interesting - I went for false but excluded lawlessness. When does lawlessness become warfare, I wonder?
When does lawlessness become lawlessness?
Quote from: Swampster on December 24, 2015, 10:09:15 AM
When does lawlessness become lawlessness?
I'll begin with a caveat that I am mainly speaking of England here (because I haven't really looked at other areas of what would become the united kingdom in non-warfare terms) but, while medieval England had law, it frequently struggled to apply it. Quarrels were frequently settled by violence and, even when courts were involved, they didn't have enforcement officers on the ground. So, if the vicar of the next parish insisted on pasturing his sheep on your pasture despite legal demands to stop, beating his shepherds up and dispersing his sheep might be the only option. Organised gangs were rife at times (poaching in the deer park, raiding the warren) and they were met by what might be known as "private security" - parkers, forresters, warreners - and deaths often ensued. Then there were crime families of minor gentry, who operated protection rackets and could descend on and loot manor houses and murder anyone who got in the way. That to me is lawlessness but I don't think it is warfare.
Like many things, it could just come down to arguing about meanings of words.
I think that if a peasant is beaten up and his sheep stolen, it matters little to him whether the perpetrator is an invading French army or a neighbouring vicar - so while this isn't really warfare by any normal definition, it would feel like warfare to those living through it, which I guess is the sentiment behind the original question. Also I suspect that including Wales, Scotland and Ireland would change the picture somewhat (but - it's not my period).
A different tack, given we are into games here - what do the preferred forms of mass entertainment tell us about the place of warfare and violence in a society? For the Greeks it was athletics (and poetry and drama) competitions. For the Romans, it was watching slaves, prisoners and criminals ('others') being killed. Byzantines - chariot racing. MA (in W Europe), watching and taking part in mock battles. Early modern - what? - various forms of animal cruelty? Modern - team ball games, with corresponding team (and national) loyalties. That sort of makes the MA quite warfare-y.
I think we can overestimate how much time medieval people spent watching mock battles (tournaments etc.). In England they weren't that common (in Scotland, Wales and Ireland probably even less so). As far as I can tell, popular medieval pastimes included football, drinking, dancing, wrestling, archery. Sword and buckler fighting was popular among the young in London in the later middle ages (mainly, it seems, to impress the girls). The Scots would add golf to this list. Pilgrimages were a popular pastime, because it was a good way to wander round the country without getting apprehended as a vagabond. These people had a tough life and they liked to enjoy their holidays. Looks a bit less warlike if you put it like that.
Perhaps that's why the laws of Ine specified that a group up to seven strong were thieves, up to 35 a band and over 35 an army.
It allowed arbitrary definitions to be imposed on the chaos :-)
blimey, look what happens when you ask a simple yes/no question :)
Quote from: Holly on December 24, 2015, 11:56:04 AM
blimey, look what happens when you ask a simple yes/no question :)
Yes, it should really have been multi-choice :) One of those strongly agree, slightly agree, neither agree nor disagree type ones, perhaps?
I think it's just a hint that having too much knowledge smacks of education and thus is un-English and disqualifies you from citizenship
It's un-Scottish, un-Welsh and un-Irish too of course...
I say old chap, its just un-British! What?
I'd say it's the least simple of yes no questions, as it presupposes books worth of background to the question.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 24, 2015, 10:26:45 AM
Quote from: Swampster on December 24, 2015, 10:09:15 AM
When does lawlessness become lawlessness?
I'll begin with a caveat that I am mainly speaking of England here (because I haven't really looked at other areas of what would become the united kingdom in non-warfare terms) but, while medieval England had law, it frequently struggled to apply it. Quarrels were frequently settled by violence and, even when courts were involved, they didn't have enforcement officers on the ground. So, if the vicar of the next parish insisted on pasturing his sheep on your pasture despite legal demands to stop, beating his shepherds up and dispersing his sheep might be the only option. Organised gangs were rife at times (poaching in the deer park, raiding the warren) and they were met by what might be known as "private security" - parkers, forresters, warreners - and deaths often ensued. Then there were crime families of minor gentry, who operated protection rackets and could descend on and loot manor houses and murder anyone who got in the way. That to me is lawlessness but I don't think it is warfare.
Malcolm Musard was one of the minor gentry of the sort mentioned (who lived in my locality in Edward II's reign). http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/brief-biographies-4-malcolm-musard.html
I suspect that the amount these guys could get away with depended on the overall circumstances of the reign. Looks like Malcolm got away with a lot because he would change his allegiance as necessary, at times being given the task of apprehending others (doubtless making a profit as he did so).
Even here, there are signs that there were attempts to apply the law. I've had a look at some research on murder statistics in the middle ages. It is difficult to assess because doubtless many cases of murder were not recorded and also because the population of an area or city can only be estimated. London may have had a murder rate double that of 1970s New York - or half the rate, depending on the population estimates.
Another set of figures analysed was that for Oxford in the mid 14th century. This had a murder rate of 110 per 100000. That is pretty huge - someone compared it to a Mexican cartel run town. Again, it may be exaggerated by the population estimate. It also depends on how the figures are read - this is based on figures which may well contain accidental deaths It may also have been skewed by particular events. Just after the period studied, there was a riot between town and gown (started by an argument over the quality of wine served) which lasted 3 days and led to (IIRC) 6 deaths. That sounds pretty lawless but events like this can compress all the murders expected for a couple of years into a very short period. The rest of the time, things may well have ticked over fairly evenly. Comparison with modern rates are also complicated that a blow to the head causing concussion might be a night in a modern hospital or a death in a medieval hovel.
There are some figures for conviction rates. In some areas, murder prosecutions led to about 35% convictions. Was that the jury being nobbled or unconvinced. In other areas, the rate was over 70%. Was that the jury being nobbled or easily convinced?
There is a (critical) review of one study of historical murder rates here http://bedejournal.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/steven-pinkers-medieval-murder-rates.html
I've just read a book I picked up second-hand on the Medieval Isle of Wight. It has a chapter on corners inquests from the 14th century. Over the 15 years of the coroners roll analysed, there were 42 deaths investigated. Of these, 18 were homicides i.e. just over a murder a year. Much lower than some of the other figures mentioned, so maybe rural crime was rarer? Another 3 "deaths by misadventure" were killings by "officials" - a troop commander who killed one of his men in self-defence and two poachers killed by warreners. Drink plays a part in some murders (as we might guess) but most seem to be arguments that get out of hand, knives are drawn etc etc.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 24, 2015, 02:57:13 PM
I've just read a book I picked up second-hand on the Medieval Isle of Wight. It has a chapter on corners inquests from the 14th century. Over the 15 years of the coroners roll analysed, there were 42 deaths investigated. Of these, 18 were homicides i.e. just over a murder a year. Much lower than some of the other figures mentioned, so maybe rural crime was rarer? Another 3 "deaths by misadventure" were killings by "officials" - a troop commander who killed one of his men in self-defence and two poachers killed by warreners. Drink plays a part in some murders (as we might guess) but most seem to be arguments that get out of hand, knives are drawn etc etc.
Does it give an estimate for the size of the population? At Domesday, the population seems to have been about 10 per sq. mi. so even by the 14th century I suspect it may well have been well below 10000. 1 per year gives a rate of over 10 per 100000 - apparently similar to the rate for modern Bolivia.
With just about universal possession of knives, it is not surprising that a brawl can quickly turn to worse.
From the time of the coroners roll we do have a tax roll showing the adult population was 4,733 i.e. a total population of about 9,500-10,000. So, your calculations are good. Not as pacific as I had thought but still less than the urban figures.
Isn't there quite a lot of evidence for the idea that societies have become less violent over a long period of time?
But it might be tempting to conclude that the middle ages was particularly violent, simply because the records of violence were only just beginning to appear. Conversely, population density and urbanization in the period would contribute to rising violence.
State-vs-state violence obviously follows a different trajectory.
I think the basis for middle ages violence was twofold, status comes from military skill, and there is virtually no state for most people, just local warlords who claim power for protection.
Remembering that a valid tactic throughout was to despoil land to price the current lord couldn't protect you, it presupposes violence as a common event.
State vs state violence just didn't exist, it was some noble vs another, and only the size of claimant mattered
Quote from: Mark G on December 26, 2015, 09:41:36 AM
State vs state violence just didn't exist, it was some noble vs another, and only the size of claimant mattered
Assuming kings are just big noble claimants? This does presume the answer to "The state did not exist in the Medieval British isles" is true :)
When does 'violence' become warfare? The guiding rule here would seem to be that 'warfare' begins when crowned heads or sovereign entities are involved: two crowds of football supporters laying into each other is not war, whereas El Salvador vs Honduras in July 1969 (the Football War) is.
In mediaeval England, we can trace two broad levels of 'violence': one was the usual minor attrition through crime represented in coroners' records (once coroners were introduced), while the other was the kind of anarchy seen when 'God and his angels slept' during the reign of King Stephen, when the King was unable to control the barons.
An important part of mediaeval society, at least in England, was that the crown was the protector and guardian of the poorer classes: merchants and tradesmen in particular were subject to stringent laws about providing full value in transactions (e.g. the 'baker's dozen' arose to avoid bakers being fined for selling underweight and the 37" 'clothyard' to avoid clothiers being fined for selling short measure) and the King's Justice was at least in theory open to all, including commoners who had been wronged by their lord. If wronged by another lord, their own lord would take up matters on their behalf.
When the Crown was disabled, as might happen in a regency or civil war, there was little check on the actions of the barons, and one might validly claim that some of them existed in a state of war with others - whether to place a claimant on the throne or simply grab some territory which had been disputed with a neighbour. Re-enabling the Crown soon put a stop to such activities, and the land and population would be back to the usual run of fights and murders which could have filled books of mediaeval detective stories but which statistically had little impact on the population.
Quote from: Dangun on December 26, 2015, 02:38:14 AM
Isn't there quite a lot of evidence for the idea that societies have become less violent over a long period of time?
This would seem to depend upon the society, in particular its laws and policing arrangements on the one hand and its constitutional arrangements for leader succession on the other. The advent of communism seems invariably to produce a massive and sustained upsurge in 'violence', most of it state-administered. The descent of a country into anarchy (e.g. Somalia) also adds considerably to the violence quotient unless and until a
modus vivendi is developed among the various territory-controlling factions. Presidential succession in early 20th century Haiti or Mexico tended to involve intermittent or ongoing civil war, while some outsiders' accounts of 19th century American elections suggest that belligerence and fisticuffs were at least as important as policy in determining the outcome.
Quote
But it might be tempting to conclude that the middle ages was particularly violent, simply because the records of violence were only just beginning to appear.
An interesting and astute observation, which I can see as being uniquely applicable to our statistics-based breed of historians. My own observations (well, we were bound to get those sooner or later ;) ) over the course of history are that the level of violence within societies is usually inversely proportional to the strength of the monarch governing that society: if he rules unchallenged, the society is generally peaceful within itself. Conversely, the level and frequency of violence between societies (or nations, or states) seems to be independent of the strength of the monarch, although the results of such violence are not.
A while ago I came across a case which points to the complicated position of the law in the period.
In the 1320s, Roger de Mortimer had some of the land south of Birmingham enclosed. Locals who had their common rights infringed filled in the ditches, broke down the fences and possibly killed the bailiff. Mortimer turned to the law to get payback rather than sending heavies to break heads.
Being a powerful man, he arranged for a favourable jury who found in his favour. According to rolls in the PRO, the tenants "did not dare appear to challenge the jurors of the inquisition (held at Bromsgrove) for fear of death and the power of the earl, they were convicted and adjudged to pay £300 to the earl for damages."
So the earl has the power to impose his will but wants to be seen to be following the law. The fine is extremely punitive and Mortimer may have intended to gain power over the villagers by keeping them in debt. As it happened, he was executed soon after.
The villagers then felt it necessary to return to the law and had the decision overturned (though the exchequer took a cut of £40). Even this was not simply the king making an on the spot decision. A legal commision was established to investigate the case.
So the law is strong enough that one of the most powerful men in the country want to be seen to be following it, though weak enough that he can sway a decision in his favour. The law is strong enough that he feels he can use it to get his 'damages' but weak enough that there is an implied threat of violence to prevent a fair hearing. At least, the commission gives this as a reason - it is just possible that they are blackening the name of a man recently executed for treason. Perhaps he was acting legally and it was the locals attempt to use force to stop him which was foiled by the law.
It's a good example of medieval "lawlessness". Its not that there was no law - our examples are being drawn from legal records. But it struggled to be enforced consistently or impartially, so evading it or taking direct action seemed like viable (and cheaper) options.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 26, 2015, 10:20:45 AMThis would seem to depend upon the society, in particular its laws and policing arrangements on the one hand and its constitutional arrangements for leader succession on the other. The advent of communism seems invariably to produce a massive and sustained upsurge in 'violence', most of it state-administered. Quote
I think state-vs-state violence has to be separated from civilian violence. They follow different trajectories. The former is more driven by centralization of power, military technology, and institutions like a standing army etc. I think we are talking about the latter? Because if the examination was asking a question about the former - its just dead wrong.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 26, 2015, 10:20:45 AMThe descent of a country into anarchy (e.g. Somalia) also adds considerably to the violence quotient unless and until a modus vivendi is developed among the various territory-controlling factions. Quote
Somalia and Haiti may - sadly - add disproportionately to the numerator, but they have no impact on the conclusion because they contribute near-to-nothing to the denominator.
Quote from: Dangun on December 27, 2015, 02:57:08 PM
I think state-vs-state violence has to be separated from civilian violence. They follow different trajectories. The former is more driven by centralization of power, military technology, and institutions like a standing army etc. I think we are talking about the latter? Because if the examination was asking a question about the former - its just dead wrong.
The question which arises is where the line of separation is to be drawn, considering such entities as today's 'Islamic state' and Latin America's drug cartels. One can have organised violence without nations/states being the driving participants - as people raided by the Free Companies in the latter part of the 14th century AD were all too aware. Perhaps we should more closely define 'civilian violence': would this, for example, include the frenetic Greek city-state political faction-fighting? Or the riots and risings of mediaeval peasantry and occasional worker-types (e.g. the
ciompi (wool-workers) in Florence)?
Quote from: Erpingham on December 26, 2015, 04:30:52 PM
It's a good example of medieval "lawlessness". Its not that there was no law - our examples are being drawn from legal records. But it struggled to be enforced consistently or impartially, so evading it or taking direct action seemed like viable (and cheaper) options.
And we can contrast this with King Stephen's reign, where real lawlessness became the norm in the absence of effective royal authority.
Thanks, Peter, for providing that Mortimer example.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 28, 2015, 10:27:10 AM
The question which arises is where the line of separation is to be drawn, considering such entities as today's 'Islamic state' and Latin America's drug cartels. One can have organised violence without nations/states being the driving participants - as people raided by the Free Companies in the latter part of the 14th century AD were all too aware. Perhaps we should more closely define 'civilian violence': would this, for example, include the frenetic Greek city-state political faction-fighting? Or the riots and risings of mediaeval peasantry and occasional worker-types (e.g. the ciompi (wool-workers) in Florence)?
True. But in the context of this admittedly odd exam question, even if we conservatively categorize the violent non-state institutions as civilian, they have - so far/fingers crossed - failed to do anything big enough to alter the broad conclusions.
Maybe we are overthinking this? I truly doubt the person who set the question was cleverly commenting on how violent criminality could be considered warfare in the Middle Ages. It is as unlikely they defined what war was as they thought about the perspective they were taking in declaring the Middle Ages as a period of constant warfare.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 24, 2015, 09:41:56 AM
Interesting - I went for false but excluded lawlessness. When does lawlessness become warfare, I wonder?
Clausewitz had an answer - when it becomes violent, instrumental and political. (Diplomacy by other means and all that.)
Quote from: NickHarbud on December 28, 2015, 04:51:54 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on December 24, 2015, 09:41:56 AM
Interesting - I went for false but excluded lawlessness. When does lawlessness become warfare, I wonder?
Clausewitz had an answer - when it becomes violent, instrumental and political. (Diplomacy by other means and all that.)
Good thought, though he actually said a continuation of
politics by other means. Diplomacy is simply a way of tidying up the resultant dog's breakfast in a semi-permanent fashion once everyone knows who has won and lost.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 28, 2015, 12:14:49 PM
Maybe we are overthinking this? I truly doubt the person who set the question was cleverly commenting on how violent criminality could be considered warfare in the Middle Ages. It is as unlikely they defined what war was as they thought about the perspective they were taking in declaring the Middle Ages as a period of constant warfare.
I suspect this observation may be correct: a more precise and accurate phrasing might have been a period of
constant conflict, at least from a perspective whereby any conflict anywhere is considered to leave a mark on the calendar even if huge swathes of territory elsewhere are subject only to intermittent criminality or bouts of individual bad temper.
Mrs Erpingham here (Erpingham is in the bathroom feeding the cat that lives there)
Just to note that Daesh considers itself a legitimate expression of government according to Sharia. It is founding a Caliphate, much as North African Islamic forces did in Spain in the 10th (??) century, and the endorsement of the Caliphate comes from the Qu'uran. Which is to say that one must perhaps look at the motivation of criminal forces/civil unrest/terrorism before one can decide whether what one is seeing is merely Queensbury chavs writ large, attempting to establish the lawlessness of an area, something like the Poll Tax riots of 1990 (when I was working in a local government revenue service - exciting times) which will achieve political change without a shooting war, or the Soviets of 1916-17.
We now return you to your scheduled programme :D :D :D
And the moral is never ask your wife to shut down the computer while you feed the cat. It's been a devil of a job to keep her from arguing with Patrick about Egyptian matters all year, to be honest :)
Quote from: Erpingham on December 29, 2015, 09:19:58 AM
And the moral is never ask your wife to shut down the computer while you feed the cat. It's been a devil of a job to keep her from arguing with Patrick about Egyptian matters all year, to be honest :)
It might be interesting to let her do so as a Family Member ... she sounds (writes) like an intelligent person with a good sense of humour, and could make a useful contribution to discussions.
QuoteJust to note that Daesh considers itself a legitimate expression of government according to Sharia. It is founding a Caliphate, much as North African Islamic forces did in Spain in the 10th (??) century, and the endorsement of the Caliphate comes from the Qu'uran.
Indeed true, although despite its involved and complex organisation it functions more like organised crime writ large. The revolt of Harwennefer and Ankhennefer against the Ptolemies similarly had the rationale of establishing a 'true' and 'legitimate' state (in this case Egypt ruled by Egyptians) but with similar expression in robbery, destruction and general human misery rather than actually building a sustainable realm - not unlike the Sudan in the 1880s, in fact. One can take it as read that anyone seeking to establish a niche and/or gain for themselves will have a rationale which to them seems legitimate - or will attach themselves to one out of convenience if they feel it helps. Bohemond of Taranto went on Crusade ... and ended up with Antioch.
Just one question (and we shall be back in period as soon as this is done):
Quoteor the Soviets of 1916-17
Does this refer to the agitation groups established in the army and elsewhere at this particular time rather than the Bolsheviks
per se, who seized power in a
coup d'etat in late 1917?
I'm tempted of offer a reward for the person who can come up with a rebel group who didn't claim to be legitimate
Jim
Outside of star wars?
Even the claim to be the heirs to the previous admin don't they?
Returning to earth for a moment, the definition of war as politics by other means (a precis, rather than a quote) we do end up in the Middle Ages with the problem of what politics was. A lot seems to have been around the interests of different classes (the nobility used armed might against what they thought was the undermining of their priviledges by "tyrants" like John or Richard II, the peasants revolted against over taxation and other grievances, the Middle classes tended toward political leverage gained from financing warfare). There was the faint stirrings of pursuit of religion by other means in Oldcastle's revolt, a theme more common in Europe. We also had the pursuit of legal redress by other means, such as the dispute over the Fastolf legacy which led to the siege of Caister Castle in 1469.
And then there was the indictment of Falkes de Breaute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkes_de_Breaut%C3%A9), a contemporary of William Marshall, on charges of 'wrongful disseisin' when he fell out of favour ... which brings us to another conceptual semantic border: when does intrigue become politics?
In fact de Breaute's whole career well illustrates various facets of mediaeval 'politics' and 'violence'.
QuoteDoes this refer to the agitation groups established in the army and elsewhere at this particular time rather than the Bolsheviks per se, who seized power in a coup d'etat in late 1917?
I have checked and the Oracle says she was thinking of naval and military soviets pre-Revolution.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 29, 2015, 10:21:14 PM
I have checked and the Oracle says she was thinking of naval and military soviets pre-Revolution.
Merci beaucoup. My understanding is that the only change these actually achieved was to increase the desertion rate, as discipline held until the abdication of the Tsar in March 1917 (new style), whereupon the 'enlightened' liberal successor government promptly abolished the death penalty and the secret police, which permitted the socialists and socialist revolutionaries to destroy discipline in a major way. Focus was given to these activities, specifically a deliberate cultivation of Bolshevik affiliation, when the 'bacillus' (Ulyanov) was introduced by the Germans via a sealed train.
As usual, the key to developments seems to have been the strength - or lack of it - of central authority, combined with the effects of individual personalities.
The result of the subsequent Bolshevik coup was yet another rising-turned-regime with impeccable self-justifying legitimacy credentials.
Quote from: Jim Webster on December 29, 2015, 06:25:21 PM
Even they claim to be the heirs to the previous admin don't they?
Yes, the legitimacy of the Star Wars rebellion was based on their 'continuity' from the Old Republic, including some ex-senators from same.
Even Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire had a 'legitimacy' aspect: it was a war of revenge by Hellas united against the Persians, who under Xerxes had dared to violate Greece and burn Athens. (The Persian justification for Xerxes' invasion had been to avenge the burning of Sardis during the Greek revolt.)
I may have to claim that reward Jim, what about the Bacudae? They did not claim any legitimacy or attempt the overthrow of the Roman Empire, as far as surviving records show.
I think we have another spectrum.
We have bandits who live more or less out of the rest of society other than preying upon it. These may be those who the prevailing society has never really integrated in the way the Persian Empire was said to be like a mist, occupying the lower lands but not the higher lands. Or they may be those who for whatever reason have left the rest of society - runaway slaves, the dispossessed, the dislocated, ex-soldiers, misfits, outlaws... As their group grows, a society develops but as a modus vivendi rather than with a particular aim. The bacaudae may fit in this category though with so many groups over a fairly wide area and period one can over-generalise.
Generally these would have no ideology other than survival and possibly personal enrichment though often the gained riches were either squandered or hoarded though individuals may have gained and maintained influence through their distribution. Land is gained as a safe haven from which to operate rather than as something to be ruled as such. Port Royal in the pirate days has some of this aspect though a degree of co-operation with the supposed colonial power was often in evidence. If the safe haven becomes sufficiently established, it may become the nucleus of a new state, but not in itself through a process of rebellion. It may later become the core of a rebellion, but through some additional motivation if only because successful resistance to an outside authority gives the bandits ideas. At this point, the bandits become rebels.
We then have those who operate in a similar way but within an existing hierarchy. Robber barons if you will. They possess a position which they (mis)use. The degree of tolerance depends on the society - in many that is simply the way of the world and if displaced by others it is merely to indulge in the same abuse of power, not to improve society.
I think either of these may be termed as bandits rather than rebels. Rebels may act against them, especially the latter. Their stated aim is usually that they wish to improve their own lot which may be by becoming the next robber barons or by a genuine attempt to improve society. Rebels may also gain their support, with bandits realising that they may have the power to change society. "Do not despise the snake for having no horns, for who is to say it will not become a dragon?"
We also have those rebels who do not wish to change society or their place in it but to remove individuals or to change policies. We often have instances where rebels emphasise their support for the king but wish to remove hated advisors. These may be peasants, the bourgeoisie or the nobility. Such a rebellion may lead to pillage murder etc. but usually with only a short term gain in mind. The destruction of the Savoy Palace was a statement against John of Gaunt rather than some attempt to make strategic or even monetary gains (supposedly looting by one rioter led to his death at the hands of the others).
Then there are the rebels who seek to overthrow the whole order of society, replacing it with another of their own choosing (in theory) through all or part of the territory. IS's policy of death and destruction is a deliberate choice as a way of achieving aims. It is more than an insurgency where you keep hitting the enemy until they get fed up of resisting - this is a policy of conquest. The training of the Iraqi army has had to change with tactics reverting to those used against an enemy army rather than an insurgency.
As for legitimacy, there are so many different ways in which this can be expressed. It may be justified as being the loss of the mandate of heaven by the rulers, the abuse of ancestral rights, the dastardliness of the king's advisors. Bandits can become rebels and the line between the two can depend where one is sitting. Take a certain group who lived in Chinese swamps.
One of the weakest judicial claims is to base legitimacy on right of conquest, yet that was Henry VII's stated claim since his claim by inheritance was rather dubious. Even if the exclusion from inheritance of his branch is ignored, then even his own mother had the right to the crown before he did. His marriage to the York line essentially increased his legitimacy as well as reducing dynastic tensions.
The Bacudae are an interesting case.
They may have been different things in different centuries.
The earlier ones may not have been a 'government' as such, more an 'informal anarchist collective' and they were more aiming at preventing government rather than creating one.
The later ones may actually have been people who would normally have governed as part of the Roman State but just refused to deal with the Roman state. Effectively they drew their legitimacy from the 'real' Empire, not the degraded current one.
But yes, they are the best contenders I can think of
Even with various peasants' revolts we get the slogan "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman." Which I suppose is an attempt to give biblical legitimacy to the revolt.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 29, 2015, 07:10:42 PM
Returning to earth for a moment, the definition of war as politics by other means (a precis, rather than a quote) we do end up in the Middle Ages with the problem of what politics was. A lot seems to have been around the interests of different classes (the nobility used armed might against what they thought was the undermining of their priviledges by "tyrants" like John or Richard II, the peasants revolted against over taxation and other grievances, the Middle classes tended toward political leverage gained from financing warfare). There was the faint stirrings of pursuit of religion by other means in Oldcastle's revolt, a theme more common in Europe. We also had the pursuit of legal redress by other means, such as the dispute over the Fastolf legacy which led to the siege of Caister Castle in 1469.
Clauswitzian analysis of the Peasant's Revolt can easily dismiss it as a warlike act. It meets two criteria in that it was violent (people were killed) and political (it had coherently expressed messages to the government including abolition of serfdom and tax reduction.) However, it fails on the grounds of intrumentality (the deployment of violent means to achieve political ends.) Setting fire to books in the Temple and attacking gaols are hardly likely to advance one's cause and therefore constitute mindless violence rather than an act of war.
Quote from: NickHarbud on December 31, 2015, 03:33:25 PM
Clauswitzian analysis of the Peasant's Revolt can easily dismiss it as a warlike act. It meets two criteria in that it was violent (people were killed) and political (it had coherently expressed messages to the government including abolition of serfdom and tax reduction.) However, it fails on the grounds of intrumentality (the deployment of violent means to achieve political ends.) Setting fire to books in the Temple and attacking gaols are hardly likely to advance one's cause and therefore constitute mindless violence rather than an act of war.
I disagree. There are two tiers of politics which the Peasant's Revolt demonstrates. There is the higher, idealistic, element of egalitarianism of John Ball, though the degree to which it influenced the rank and file of the revolt is moot. However, there was certainly a current of anti-authoritarianism (burning palaces and books, opening gaols etc). What isn't in dispute is that the revolt had a real intention of creating political change by replacing the "evil counsellors" around the king, especially his treasury officials who were considered responsible for an inequitable tax regime, and extracting "confirmations" of "traditional" rights. Richard dispersed most of the rebels around London by issuing pardons, remissions and confirmations of rights, not by military force, which points quite clearly to what the rebels thought their achievable political aims were.