Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[Tekeristan]

The story of the longbow and the warhorse!

Longbows did indeed honorably slaughter nobles in droves at Crecy and Agincourt.
But sadly Longbows take too long to train with and weren't spammy enough.

Bring forth the musket!

[Genivaria]

The domination of the officer ranks by the aristocracy up to and past the Napoleonic Wars says otherwise.
That said any battle where a bunch of nobles get butchered by peasants is a good battle to me.
Crecy, Agincourt, Stirling Bridge, Laupen you get the idea.

Dominating the officer corps was an obsolete holdover (which lead to Russia getting BTFO by the Ogre). I am referring to when the fighting was primarily done by aristrocrats.

They were LED by aristocrats but the majority of medieval armies were either raised peasant levies or hired mercenaries.
The peasants often died in droves as they were used as cannon fodder and sometimes not even given a weapon.

[The Parkus Empire]

Roman hedonism was at the very least, highly exaggerated and many times outright fabricated by early Christian sources

Wasn't the Cult of Bacchus banned by pagan Rome specifically because they got to out of control with their hedonism?

Yeah, for a time. The Roman Republic was plagued by depravity, hence the reforms of Augustus. But since Rome appeased the masses with opulent gladiator fights (banned by Constantine), it is hard to say they were not decadent.

[Tekeristan]

Dominating the officer corps was an obsolete holdover (which lead to Russia getting BTFO by the Ogre). I am referring to when the fighting was primarily done by aristrocrats.

They were LED by aristocrats but the majority of medieval armies were either raised peasant levies or hired mercenaries.
The peasants often died in droves as they were used as cannon fodder and sometimes not even given a weapon.

I remember hearing a bit where peasants were the ones to capture other nobles on the fields of battle, rather than mercs, knights, or other nobles.
It made me giggle.

[Genivaria]

Dominating the officer corps was an obsolete holdover (which lead to Russia getting BTFO by the Ogre). I am referring to when the fighting was primarily done by aristrocrats.

Wasn't it primarily done with mercs and raised levies?
At least from what I remember hearing, I have not read into much medieval history.

That is correct.
Though the mercenary part only became common during the later medieval period, especially the Italian Wars.

[Genivaria]

They were LED by aristocrats but the majority of medieval armies were either raised peasant levies or hired mercenaries.
The peasants often died in droves as they were used as cannon fodder and sometimes not even given a weapon.

I remember hearing a bit where peasants were the ones to capture other nobles on the fields of battle, rather than mercs, knights, or other nobles.
It made me giggle.

Nobles often captured other nobles to, but peasants had even more motivation to do so.
Nobles earn glory and ransom.
Peasants are chiefly concerned with the ransom money.

[Tekeristan]

I remember hearing a bit where peasants were the ones to capture other nobles on the fields of battle, rather than mercs, knights, or other nobles.
It made me giggle.

Nobles often captured other nobles to, but peasants had even more motivation to do so.
Nobles earn glory and ransom.
Peasants are chiefly concerned with the ransom money.

I don't ever remember of the peasants ever got to be the ones to give the ransoms.
Wouldn't they have to hand them to their own lords?

I thought they just killed em.

[The Parkus Empire]

Dominating the officer corps was an obsolete holdover (which lead to Russia getting BTFO by the Ogre). I am referring to when the fighting was primarily done by aristrocrats.

They were LED by aristocrats but the majority of medieval armies were either raised peasant levies or hired mercenaries.
The peasants often died in droves as they were used as cannon fodder and sometimes not even given a weapon.

That was the late Middle Ages and a thing of national war. Fief war did not do that because wasting droves of farmers in a subsistence economy would screw things up.

[The Parkus Empire]

Dominating the officer corps was an obsolete holdover (which lead to Russia getting BTFO by the Ogre). I am referring to when the fighting was primarily done by aristrocrats.

Wasn't it primarily done with mercs and raised levies?
At least from what I remember hearing, I have not read into much medieval history.

It was primarily done with levied knights, who were obligated to serve three months a year.

[Genivaria]

They were LED by aristocrats but the majority of medieval armies were either raised peasant levies or hired mercenaries.
The peasants often died in droves as they were used as cannon fodder and sometimes not even given a weapon.

That was the late Middle Ages and a thing of national war. Fief war did not do that because wasting droves of farmers in a subsistence economy would screw things up.

Yes they did, that is a widely known historical fact.

because wasting droves of farmers in a subsistence economy would screw things up.

As you've pointed out numerous times, the nobles were warriors, not economists.
Feudal societies had shitty economies, whooda thunk it?

[Genivaria]

Wasn't it primarily done with mercs and raised levies?
At least from what I remember hearing, I have not read into much medieval history.

It was primarily done with levied knights, who were obligated to serve three months a year.

.......'levied...knights' ?
Are we just making shit up now?

[Tekeristan]

As you've pointed out numerous times, the nobles were warriors, not economists.
Feudal societies had shitty economies, whooda thunk it?

Sugar, tea, coffee, and gold!

[The Widening Gyre]

That is pretty vague.

Vague questions get vague answers.

All animals who lead others, as well as animals with established territories.

You're walking your initial claim backwards - now we're just talking about animals 'who lead others' and territorial organisms and not 'everything in the natural world'. There's now the problem that territorial organisms are probably the least hierarchical of animal groupings, though. They are after all functionally solitary and do not interact with each other at all if they can avoid it. The young preferentially disperse to new uninhabited patches rather than contest existing ones, and conflict is avoided as being energetically expensive and dangerous. They aren't hierarchical because they aren't social enough for hierarchies to even come into existence.

And of course even in social organisms groups of conspecifics do not organize themselves hierarchically. Schools of fish, flocks of birds, herds of ungulates, swarms of bees and the like are not hierarchical - they operate through consensus-based 'swarm' behavior. Nowhere except in human imaginations are there 'alphas' or suchlike. Even amongst the most social and intelligent non-human organisms this pattern holds. Wolf packs are composed of a breeding pair and their offspring. Cetacean pods are suprafamilial groups. Hierarchy, where it exists, is a temporary and unstable phenomena - built of single individuals dominating a small cadre through fear and aggression until they are overthrown. Elephant seals and chimpanzees are the most prominent examples of this. No elaborate, tranquil and perpetual hierarchies exist in nature.

[The Parkus Empire]

That was the late Middle Ages and a thing of national war. Fief war did not do that because wasting droves of farmers in a subsistence economy would screw things up.

Yes they did, that is a widely known historical fact.

because wasting droves of farmers in a subsistence economy would screw things up.

As you've pointed out numerous times, the nobles were warriors, not economists.
Feudal societies had shitty economies, whooda thunk it?

It was absolutely not widely done except perhaps with freeholder peasants who could afford to equip themselves. Serfs did not fight because the aristocracy depended enormously on them as providers (each knight took a ton of serfs just to equipt and maintain) and they were 100% worthless as soldiers.

[The Parkus Empire]

It was primarily done with levied knights, who were obligated to serve three months a year.

.......'levied...knights' ?
Are we just making shit up now?

No. Upper aristocracy had a ton of knights under them,often bonded knights (serfs who became knights), and when they were called in, they called in their knights.

[The Parkus Empire]

That is pretty vague.

Vague questions get vague answers.

All animals who lead others, as well as animals with established territories.

You're walking your initial claim backwards - now we're just talking about animals 'who lead others' and territorial organisms and not 'everything in the natural world'. There's now the problem that territorial organisms are probably the least hierarchical of animal groupings, though. They are after all functionally solitary and do not interact with each other at all if they can avoid it. The young preferentially disperse to new uninhabited patches rather than contest existing ones, and conflict is avoided as being energetically expensive and dangerous. They aren't hierarchical because they aren't social enough for hierarchies to even come into existence.

And of course even in social organisms groups of conspecifics do not organize themselves hierarchically. Schools of fish, flocks of birds, herds of ungulates, swarms of bees and the like are not hierarchical - they operate through consensus-based 'swarm' behavior. Nowhere except in human imaginations are there 'alphas' or suchlike. Even amongst the most social and intelligent non-human organisms this pattern holds. Wolf packs are composed of a breeding pair and their offspring. Cetacean pods are suprafamilial groups. Hierarchy, where it exists, is a temporary and unstable phenomena - built of single individuals dominating a small cadre through fear and aggression until they are overthrown. Elephant seals and chimpanzees are the most prominent examples of this. No elaborate, tranquil and perpetual hierarchies exist in nature.

But from a human perspective, we see territory as hierarchical.

No, of course massive hierarchies cannot exist among animal because they do not have the means. Neither do humans without agriculture. That does not mean animals do not operate according to hierarchy.

[Genivaria]

.......'levied...knights' ?
Are we just making shit up now?

No. Upper aristocracy had a ton of knights under them,often bonded knights (serfs who became knights), and when they were called in, they called in their knights.

*face-palm*

[Genivaria]

Yes they did, that is a widely known historical fact.


As you've pointed out numerous times, the nobles were warriors, not economists.
Feudal societies had shitty economies, whooda thunk it?

It was absolutely not widely done except perhaps with freeholder peasants who could afford to equip themselves. Serfs did not fight because the aristocracy depended enormously on them as providers (each knight took a ton of serfs just to equipt and maintain) and they were 100% worthless as soldiers.

Serfs did not fight

No you're right, and knights rode into battle on unicorns and dragons.
As long as we're talking non-sense here.

[Genivaria]

Nobles often captured other nobles to, but peasants had even more motivation to do so.
Nobles earn glory and ransom.
Peasants are chiefly concerned with the ransom money.

I don't ever remember of the peasants ever got to be the ones to give the ransoms.
Wouldn't they have to hand them to their own lords?

I thought they just killed em.

Sometimes they killed them when it became too inconvenient to keep them alive.
And I just looked this interesting bit up.

Dr Ambuhl says that this system, operating between opposing forces, became an important financial incentive for soldiers.
Capturing a high-ranking prisoner could be like "winning the lottery", he said.
After the battle of Agincourt in 1415, an archer William Callowe gained almost £100 from the ransom of a valuable prisoner. This was at a time when an archer would earn about sixpence a day.

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-21168437

[The Parkus Empire]

No. Upper aristocracy had a ton of knights under them,often bonded knights (serfs who became knights), and when they were called in, they called in their knights.

*face-palm*

Allow me to correct your Whignorance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerialis

[The Parkus Empire]

It was absolutely not widely done except perhaps with freeholder peasants who could afford to equip themselves. Serfs did not fight because the aristocracy depended enormously on them as providers (each knight took a ton of serfs just to equipt and maintain) and they were 100% worthless as soldiers.

Serfs did not fight

No you're right, and knights rode into battle on unicorns and dragons.
As long as we're talking non-sense here.

They did not. Sending serfs to fight made about as much sense as sending cows and sheep.

[Genivaria]

*face-palm*

Allow me to correct your Whignorance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerialis

So they were mainly administrators and this was only in the HRE region.
Thank you for disproving yourself.

[Genivaria]

No you're right, and knights rode into battle on unicorns and dragons.
As long as we're talking non-sense here.

They did not. Sending serfs to fight made about as much sense as sending cows and sheep.

You can argue against historical fact until you're blue in the face, you're still wrong.

[The Parkus Empire]

Allow me to correct your Whignorance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerialis

So they were mainly administrators and this was only in the HRE region.
Thank you for disproving yourself.

made up a large majority of what could be described as the German knighthood during that time.

[Asherahan]

That is an easy question to answer.

Did the Romans practice it? Yes*

Then it definitely is a sin. Christianity was birthed as a counterculture to the mainstream hedonism of the roman pantheon so you can bet your ass anything that the romans did in excess is a sin.

Roman hedonism was at the very least, highly exaggerated and many times outright fabricated by early Christian sources

Also true but nevertheless they were still against what stood as the culture of rome.