What fantasy book have you read that gave you the same 'feel' LotR?

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You are projecting a feeling on a whole population that simply was not there. It is a myth. There was continual revolt against the Count of Flanders by the weavers of Ghent, who followed their purse strings and supported the King of England and his endless supply of wool. France itself had no unity under a French King until the English had so exploited and ravaged France in the 14th century that the peasants chose despotism over having their villages burned and their daughters raped. In any case, Henry V's early death had more to do with France's consolidation, and it was more a wily centralization of huge duchies (Brittany and Burgundy were two) by the French monarchy than any sense of "patriotism". Also, the Swiss booted out the emperor and sundry lords quite early on and Bohemia was often a class battleground.

Of course, there was constant revolt among the Irish, Scots and Welsh, who never took kindly to the "liege lords" that were forced on them.

The nobility fought over many things and often had conflicting loyalties. People were loyal to their Lords and fought under them. Where did I ever say the middle ages had a sense of "patriotism"? I have actually said the opposite. Whilst there was a national identity for certain countries, England being the most notable, there was very little patriotism or nationalism. The loyalty we have today was more often given to individual families.

The defeat of England in France had more to do with the trouble raising taxes and the death of Henry V than any growth of nationalism.

A "Liege Lord" forced on you is not the same as a Lord you believe has been put there. Even back then you needed good PR to invent a reason why you had taken over land. What do you think the Bayeux tapestry was?

And yet it seemed they learned their lesson and did nothing when Henry IV had Richard II strangled a few years later.

A very different situation entirely. A war between two cousins, both the grandsons of a beloved king causes a lot of conflict. Especially when the reigning king is incompetent.

The Magna Carter is but one example of the king being defeated and not being replaced.

I would suggest the French decapitated that idea in 1789. And a small band of Russian extremists exploded that myth altogether during WWI.

This was not during the middle ages and a lot of things had changed. The growth of nationalism (not national identity), the questioning of religion, the growth of the middle classes, urbanisation and the belief in democracy.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The nobility fought over many things and often had conflicting loyalties. People were loyal to their Lords and fought under them.

A genereralization that does not hold up under scrutiny. The "people" were no more loyal than the ever-shifting nobility. One look at post-Black Death Europe and peasants fleeing manor holdings en masse seeking higher wages and freedom from the rigid tenancy of their feudal overlords would show that. To which "people" and "which "lords" are you referring to, and what time period and place? You hold an idealization that is about as true as saying "all U.S. citizens are and have been loyal to the federal government."

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Where did I ever say the middle ages had a sense of "patriotism"? I have actually said the opposite. Whilst there was a national identity for certain countries, England being the most notable, there was very little patriotism or nationalism. The loyalty we have today was more often given to individual families.

Again, to whom are you referring? Your ever-shifting argument is as confused as it is confusing.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The defeat of England in France had more to do with the trouble raising taxes and the death of Henry V than any growth of nationalism.

Yes, that was part of my argument. What is yours, exactly?

Originally Posted by cellurdur

A "Liege Lord" forced on you is not the same as a Lord you believe has been put there. Even back then you needed good PR to invent a reason why you had taken over land. What do you think the Bayeux tapestry was?

When, in particular, did peasants think a lord was not forced on them? I am sure the nobility would stress their belief in a god-given right to rule, but I'm not sure their tenants would be on board.

And the Bayeux Tapestry was a wondeful bit of propaganda by Norman adherents of William the Bastard (probably his half-brother Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, but nothing is certain). That it resided in Normandy and not in England leaves some question as to its power as a piece of propaganda, since those subjugated probably never saw it.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

A very different situation entirely. A war between two cousins, both the grandsons of a beloved king causes a lot of conflict. Especially when the reigning king is incompetent.

Edward III and his unpopular mistress were largely ignored the last 20 or so years of his life. Edward did not die beloved.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The Magna Carter is but one example of the king being defeated and not being replaced.

The "Magna Carter" is a hip hop album. I believe you mean the "Magna Carta".

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

A genereralization that does not hold up under scrutiny. The "people" were no more loyal than the ever-shifting nobility. One look at post-Black Death Europe and peasants fleeing manor holdings en masse seeking higher wages and freedom from the rigid tenancy of their feudal overlords would show that. To which "people" and "which "lords" are you referring to, and what time period and place? You hold an idealization that is about as true as saying "all U.S. citizens are and have been loyal to the federal government."

Yes it's a generalisation, but it would be accurate to say that the majority of citizens have been loyal to the Federal government.

Again, to whom are you referring? Your ever-shifting argument is as confused as it is confusing.

No you brought in words like patriotism, which I actually said did not exist. Instead of nations people were loyal to Houses. This is precisely why bad monarchs were replaced with other members of the family. Just think about the logic today. Can you imagine a situation where the people of Libya fight to remove Khadafi and then place his son in charge? A bad leader would be overthrown, but loyalty to the family remained.

Yes, that was part of my argument. What is yours, exactly?

No I brought up the taxes. You seemed to think that I had mentioned nationalism, even though I had said nationalism as we know really took off in the 18th century.

When, in particular, did peasants think a lord was not forced on them? I am sure the nobility would stress their belief in a god-given right to rule, but I'm not sure their tenants would be on board.

Peasants probably thought their Lords were not forced after long periods of subjugation, decrees from religious figures and brutal suppression. After a few hundred years of a House in charge, in begins to be the norm. People were on board a lot more than you think and that is why it worked.

And the Bayeux Tapestry was a wondeful bit of propaganda by Norman adherents of William the Bastard (probably his half-brother Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, but nothing is certain). That it resided in Normandy and not in England leaves some question as to its power as a piece of propaganda, since those subjugated probably never saw it.

In the case of William the Conqueror he went to great pains to appease the people. He gave several reasons why he had been promised the throne. Only declared himself king after the Witan ratified it, was anointed by English clergy, had the blessing of the pope and married into the English royal family. These are the actions of a man, who wants to establish legitimacy. In the end that was not even enough and he decided to brutally crush the peasants in the North.


As for the Bayeux Tapestry, we don't know where it displayed originally. It's widely agreed that it was made in England and would not surprise me if it was displayed there for some time before being sent to France.

Edward III and his unpopular mistress were largely ignored the last 20 or so years of his life. Edward did not die beloved.

Edward III was not ruling towards the end of his life and a lot of tragedies like the Black Death had befallen , but he was still beloved and remained so. A lot like with King Richard I, it is a fairly modern phenomenon in criticising the two. Both of them remained wildly popular and Edward III was thought as the best king since King Arthur.

The "Magna Carter" is a hip hop album. I believe you mean the "Magna Carta".

Yes mistake, but the point still stands. A very, very bad king was defeated and on his knees. Not only was he a bad king, but he had proven time and time again to be dishonest and untrustworthy. Yet the barons still let him remain king. Can you think of any modern setting where a country removes their leader to put one of their relatives in charge?

[Erestor]

I have to say, I'm more in support of Cellurdur's view. Morthoron, you seem to look at those revolts as commoners rising up against their lords, but the truth is much more complex. In fact, medieval revolts were very diverse in their social ranks: an allegiance between nobles, peasants and burghers were rather the rule than a rarity. Of course, these groups acted out of self-interest (the reason why in the late middle ages, so many revolts failed because there was no unity on interlocal levels - between cities for example - while their rulers gained much more power). Also, most revolts were conservative by motivation. Like Cellurdur said: they didn't want to change the system, they wanted to keep it.

I'm especially familiar with the revolts in Flanders. One example that stands out in this perspective - even more than the Magna Carta - are the revolts against Willem Clito. Willem Clito acted as an oppressor, but the reason why the revolt started was because he did not abide the rights given to the people, which were part of the system. This case is rather interesting because of a speech of Iwein of Aelst, in which he states the people are sovereign, it's the people who choose their lord. However, the principle of having a lord is not questioned at all, and it's stated that as long the lord keeps his promises, the people would and should be loyal to him. This mindset, which was very traditionalistic, was also the prime motive for the Brabant Revolution of 1789. Even the German Peasant's War of 1525, in which the abolishment of serfdom was asked, first started because the rights given to the people were broken.

Also, there is one particular study from Bas van Bavel about revolts in the Low Countries which I find interesting to quote in this case.

All five rebelling regions had in common that a relatively large share of the land was held in free ownership by the ordinary rural population, without large-scale manorialism or strong lordly power. In Drenthe and Holland even the great majority of the land was owned by peasants, at around four-fifths of the land. The situation in these regions was not found in all parts of the Low Countries. In several regions, as in Salland, the Guelders river area, the Hesbaye, or Zeeland, this share was only a quarter of the land or less, with most of the land in the hands of noblemen and religious institutions. This clearly differed from the landownership structures in the rebellious regions.

This conclusion is rather striking, especially when it's placed against the idea of medieval revolts as acts of serfs who wanted to be free. In fact, these findings seem to support the idea that (two-folded) loyalty was important.

[Aiwendil]

And the Bayeux Tapestry was a wondeful bit of propaganda by Norman adherents of William the Bastard (probably his half-brother Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, but nothing is certain).

This is way off topic, but I feel obliged to point out that, while the Bayeux Tapestry was almost certainly commissioned by the Normans, it is far from clear that it is a piece of propaganda. In many ways, it deviates from the Norman point of view seen, for example, in William of Poitiers. For instance, it seems pretty clear that in the tapestry, Edward the Confessor nominates Harold as his successor on his death-bed, while William of Normandy claimed that Edward had always intended him (i.e. William) to be his heir.