True or false

[DougM]

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..).

[Mark G]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

[DougM]

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. 

[Dangun]

Any chance of revisiting the "constant war" question?

I am pretty confident that the implied comparisons don't hold up.

[RichT]

Chips on shoulders duly aired and out of the way?

Rich 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).

[Erpingham]

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.

Interesting - I went for false but excluded lawlessness.  When does lawlessness become warfare, I wonder?

[Swampster]

When does lawlessness become lawlessness?

[Erpingham]

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. 

[RichT]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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 :-)

[Imperial Dave]

blimey, look what happens when you ask a simple yes/no question 

[Erpingham]

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?

[Jim Webster]

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