RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[Luminesa]

Is this rad trad or weird enough?
I feed feral cats, and an opossum was stealing their food. I chased it away with a halberd.

Bruh, where’d you get the halberd?

[Northern Davincia]

So they assaulted an oppressive organisation responsible for many wars and interrupted their childfucking. True heroes

Probably a good time to mention that Vikings weren’t exactly shy about raping or pillaging, far more so than any priests or bishops.

Silly, things are only bad when some unrelated Christians do them.

[Novus America]

Is this rad trad or weird enough?
I feed feral cats, and an opossum was stealing their food. I chased it away with a halberd.

Bruh, where’d you get the halberd?

You do not have a halberd lying around
The question should be not why I have one, but why you do not

Admittedly it is of course a reproduction but I saw one for a good price a while back so got it.
And keep it around for the aesthetic.

I have more effective weapons of course but I merely want to scare the opossum from stealing all the cat food and ending up looking like a opossum version of Kim Jong Un, not hurt it.
Opossums are beneficial creatures but it is not good to feed them.

[Salus Maior]

Is this rad trad or weird enough?
I feed feral cats, and an opossum was stealing their food. I chased it away with a halberd.

It is at the very least, based.

[Diopolis]

No, teach every boy in schools to stand in a tercio. None of them graduates unless they can form a proper pike square.

But pike squares use the arquebus too, and I though such “modern” gunpowder weapons are degenerate

Actually many Germans fraternities still teach sword fighting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_fencing
Which is pretty cool.

Firearms tech is pretty cool. Not degenerate at all.

But un-ironically this is why one year of ROTC should be mandatory again in colleges as it does teach basic military drill and physical fitness. (Of course the US actually has no tradition of the Tercio but for some European countries that would be cool).
Besides it would be pretty cool to see how big some of the college ROTC units would be for some schools, they could raise a legitimate strength Brigade.

There is a need for more discipline, structure, and physical fitness in most of college life in this country. That certainly seems to fit the bill.

[Fahran]

I was always under the impression that Robin Hood was just an English peasant who happened to be incredibly clever. Huh.

Originally, he was probably envisioned as an outlawed peasant or yeoman, as evidenced by his association with the longbow and archery. While aristocrats were expected to learn how to use a bow as well and hunting was a popular pastime among them, their primary skills were probably with the equestrian arts and melee weapons. Plus they'd have a nice shiny suit of mail and probably wouldn't have become outlaws that robbed people anyway because they'd have been at the top of society.

[Diopolis]

Sounds like witchcraft to me

Dio please do not burn me...

They are good to keep the vermin away. The opossum is too, but unlike the cats the opossum does not moderate food intake, dumps the whole bowl and eats it all. I do not want a morbidly obese opossum, but I do not want to shoot it or actually hurt it either.

I throw out some chicken scraps for feral cats every once in a while too, although only during the day so the cats eat it before the possums wake up. Really possums are good to have around, though. I don't mind giving some food to opossums, they'll hunt rats if they're used to hanging around anyways.

[Fahran]

Richard was a good fighter and that's about it. He took stupid unnecessary personal risks, was a totally incompetent administrator, didn't give the tiniest of fucks about the country he was king of and just milked it for cash so he could keep hitting things with swords. The only reason nobody bothered rebelling against him in England was because he was never there.

John was objectively a far more competent king who had the misfortune to preside over a far, far worse economic, political, and military situation thanks to his dumbfuck brother picking a fight with Philip II. It is to John's credit that England did not cease to exist entirely.

Richard the Lionheart remains a contentious subject among historians but the interpretation that he was a horrible ruler or poor administrator is mostly a modern one rooted in modern conceptions of kingship. Firstly, a medieval king or lord was expected to be a competent commander and skilled warrior/soldier. Secondly, the level of piety that would have led a ruler to go on crusade was almost invariably worthy of praise by medieval standards. Lastly, the assertion that Richard I was a poor administrator or diplomat is not supported by his time in the Holy Land where he skillfully maneuvered among the local nobility, the Byzantines, the Saracens, and accomplished coherent and concrete political objectives.

A lot of the criticisms directed at Richard that have a bit more merit revolve around how he put down rebellions in the South of France. A lot of the nobles complained that he acted like a tyrant and there is ample evidence that he was cruel, duplicitous, and capricious. However, his conduct while on Crusade reveals a king who could prosecute war to such an extent that he earned the praise of friend and foe alike and he comes off looking like a capable administrator as well. With regard to the last chapters of his life, he spent them imprisoned after a shipwreck and never managed to serve as a proper king again. We have no way of knowing if this was just either - since the ill deeds of which he is accused may have belonged to Saladin or one of the nobles of the Holy Land.

John was not by any measure a good or competent king, and, in fact, his arbitrariness and cruelty eventually provoked a revolt by the barons which led to the signing of the Magna Carta, specifically to limit the king's power. He then violated the promises he'd made repeatedly. It got to the point that the barons invited a Frenchmen to rule them.

[Dylar]

Is this rad trad or weird enough?
I feed feral cats, and an opossum was stealing their food. I chased it away with a halberd.

Bruh, where’d you get the halberd?

You can buy some really nice recreations on the web for SCA fights. They're a little pricey but they're worth it.

[Novus America]

Dio please do not burn me...

They are good to keep the vermin away. The opossum is too, but unlike the cats the opossum does not moderate food intake, dumps the whole bowl and eats it all. I do not want a morbidly obese opossum, but I do not want to shoot it or actually hurt it either.

I throw out some chicken scraps for feral cats every once in a while too, although only during the day so the cats eat it before the possums wake up. Really possums are good to have around, though. I don't mind giving some food to opossums, they'll hunt rats if they're used to hanging around anyways.

I have started taking in the food at night too. Like I said I do not mind having opossums around as they kill rats too, (hence I merely scared it away from the food rather than shooting it) but this opossum eats way too much.

I do not want it dead or gone, just to moderate its food intake.

It will empty the entire food bowl in one night then throws the bowl. When it takes the 2 cats a few days.

If the Opossum would behave better I would have no problem with it. But I will go broke feeding it plus it will end up being a Kim Jong Un opossum, which is not good for it either.

[Diopolis]

I throw out some chicken scraps for feral cats every once in a while too, although only during the day so the cats eat it before the possums wake up. Really possums are good to have around, though. I don't mind giving some food to opossums, they'll hunt rats if they're used to hanging around anyways.

I have started taking in the food at night too. Like I said I do not mind having opossums around as they kill rats too, (hence I merely scared it away from the food rather than shooting it) but this opossum eats way too much.

It will empty the entire food bowl in one night then throws the bowl. When it takes the 2 cats a few days.

If the Opossum would behave better I would have no problem with it. But I will go broke feeding it plus it will end up being a Kim Jong Un opossum, which is not good for it either.

Set out some emmentel cheese and Hennessy for it in that case. The dear leader eats in style.
The cats and possums in my backyard are fed like the north korean people, not their leader. Just enough rice scattered over a third of the yard to encourage them to hang around, some chicken fat during the day every once in a while for the cats.

[Novus America]

Bruh, where’d you get the halberd?

You can buy some really nice recreations on the web for SCA fights. They're a little pricey but they're worth it.

The one I have is not a great one either. But it looks cool enough.
I might want to buy a better one down the line.
I love the look of them.

[Novus America]

I have started taking in the food at night too. Like I said I do not mind having opossums around as they kill rats too, (hence I merely scared it away from the food rather than shooting it) but this opossum eats way too much.

It will empty the entire food bowl in one night then throws the bowl. When it takes the 2 cats a few days.

If the Opossum would behave better I would have no problem with it. But I will go broke feeding it plus it will end up being a Kim Jong Un opossum, which is not good for it either.

Set out some emmentel cheese and Hennessy for it in that case. The dear leader eats in style.
The cats and possums in my backyard are fed like the north korean people, not their leader. Just enough rice scattered over a third of the yard to encourage them to hang around, some chicken fat during the day every once in a while for the cats.

The thing is I just leave a bowl of food and water out for the cats, and I was able to leave it our overnight before the Opossum started stealing it.
So the cats can eat whatever they want, feral cats only eat what they need for the most part.
The good thing is cats kill mice for for the lols, even if they are not hungry.

But yeah I have to be more careful with the food with the opossum around.

If I just left the food out the opossum would probably kill itself anyways by getting too fat, which is not what I want.

[Kragholm Free States]

Ugh

Richard was a good fighter and that's about it. He took stupid unnecessary personal risks, was a totally incompetent administrator, didn't give the tiniest of fucks about the country he was king of and just milked it for cash so he could keep hitting things with swords. The only reason nobody bothered rebelling against him in England was because he was never there.

John was objectively a far more competent king who had the misfortune to preside over a far, far worse economic, political, and military situation thanks to his dumbfuck brother picking a fight with Philip II. It is to John's credit that England did not cease to exist entirely.

Extremely cringe and bluepilled.

The concept of Kingship in the Middle Ages was tied up with being an effective soldier and administrator. Richard the Lionheart managed a campaign in the Holy Land far from England with a multinational force conducting what we would now call today coalition warfare. An incompetent would not have been able to manage the logistics of such a force let alone the political skill to keep it in the field. Furthermore, this nonsense about picking a fight with Philip is pure revisionism. He went home to exploit a claim to lands because a fellow who had been on crusade with him had died.

Philip was smart in that he encouraged repeatedly divisions in the Angevin realm to sow discord and weaken them. The problem is John was an idiot and took the bait. Not only had the perfidious Frenchman broken his oath not to start a war with England while Richard was on crusade, he actively sabotaged the whole thing by his intriguing forcing more lords to come home.

You're right in that he did not particularly care for England but this was not unique. Furthermore to people of that time, their religious duty also mattered. Its why you'll hear Christians put God before nation in descriptors even today.

People know Richard as the Lionheart for a reason but there has never been another King of England named John. That alone speaks volumes as to his "record".

You're absolutely right that being an effective soldier was an important aspect of medieval kingship. Firstly, being an effective crusader was arguably more important than just being an effective soldier, and Richard failed utterly at that. Secondly, Richard took his desire to be perceived as a good soldier to ridiculous extremes.Take the episode where he, with only a few men, decided to run up a mountain ahead of the actual army to fight with a Muslim reconnaissance party, and then Richard continued to chase them down on his own when they fled - probably slightly embellished for effect by Ambroise, but unlikely to be a total fabrication given that Ambroise was actually there. Being a good soldier is not being a rash brawler.

And he was far from a competent military administrator. His actions prolonged and then lost the entire crusading effort. His army was pulling itself apart and he did nothing to remedy the situation (other than a half-hearted begging letter to the abbot of Clairvaux) and everything to exacerbate it. Almost as soon as he arrived and besieged Acre he was an arse to the Germans and they fucked off. He and Philip got into an argument and Philip fucked off (ok, perhaps that one isn't entirely Richard's fault, but breaking his betrothal didn't exactly help matters). The Burgundian and Champagnian contingents were keen to wrap it up and fuck off as soon as possible too, the military orders implored him to stay put and fortify his position, the majority of his actual remaining manpower wanted to take Jerusalem, which they could plausibly have done - yes, I'm aware of the theory that Saladin deliberately left Jerusalem exposed as a trap, no, I'm unconvinced that said theory is anything but a post-hoc justification for Richard's failure to push his rapidly fading advantage. And what did he do? If de Templo is to be believed, he ordered everyone to march down towards Egypt, in poor conditions, with insufficient supplies and wholly insufficient motivation, crippling his army's morale and losing men through both attrition and desertion (yes, normal in medieval campaigns, but entirely avoidable in this case had Richard not been an idiot).

And then when he finally realised how badly he'd fucked the crusade, he went and had a chat with the Muslims, renounced his claim to Jerusalem, surrendered Ascalon, literally told Saladin that the Christian army was weak and about to disperse, and fucked off. Yeah. Smart man.

I'll admit "picking a fight with Philip" was very inaccurate phrasing. My bad. But of course John "took the bait". Richard had utterly mishandled the political situation in the Angevin realm before he even went on crusade, forcing John to promise not to even visit England for three years because he was so paranoid. John was made to administrate a realm he was banned from a large part of, with justiciars under orders to keep an eye on him, and a crown ready to fall upon the head of an infant, all on behalf of a brother who, let us not forget, had conspired and rebelled against his own kin before. John took the bait, but the bait was crafted by an unwitting Richard. All Philip did was use what was already there.

Richard was not unique in not caring for England, but that doesn't make it any less of a flaw in his kingship. He warped his religious duty in favour of diverting and unnecessarily prolonging the crusade away from what had always been its goal, against the explicit wishes of the Church, and then when his many mistakes caught up with him he abandoned his religious duty entirely to deal with a rebellion of his own making.

Lion-hearted, perhaps, but pig-headed.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Richard was a good fighter and that's about it. He took stupid unnecessary personal risks, was a totally incompetent administrator, didn't give the tiniest of fucks about the country he was king of and just milked it for cash so he could keep hitting things with swords. The only reason nobody bothered rebelling against him in England was because he was never there.

John was objectively a far more competent king who had the misfortune to preside over a far, far worse economic, political, and military situation thanks to his dumbfuck brother picking a fight with Philip II. It is to John's credit that England did not cease to exist entirely.

Richard the Lionheart remains a contentious subject among historians but the interpretation that he was a horrible ruler or poor administrator is mostly a modern one rooted in modern conceptions of kingship. Firstly, a medieval king or lord was expected to be a competent commander and skilled warrior/soldier. Secondly, the level of piety that would have led a ruler to go on crusade was almost invariably worthy of praise by medieval standards. Lastly, the assertion that Richard I was a poor administrator or diplomat is not supported by his time in the Holy Land where he skillfully maneuvered among the local nobility, the Byzantines, the Saracens, and accomplished coherent and concrete political objectives.

A lot of the criticisms directed at Richard that have a bit more merit revolve around how he put down rebellions in the South of France. A lot of the nobles complained that he acted like a tyrant and there is ample evidence that he was cruel, duplicitous, and capricious. However, his conduct while on Crusade reveals a king who could prosecute war to such an extent that he earned the praise of friend and foe alike and he comes off looking like a capable administrator as well. With regard to the last chapters of his life, he spent them imprisoned after a shipwreck and never managed to serve as a proper king again. We have no way of knowing if this was just either - since the ill deeds of which he is accused may have belonged to Saladin or one of the nobles of the Holy Land.

John was not by any measure a good or competent king, and, in fact, his arbitrariness and cruelty eventually provoked a revolt by the barons which led to the signing of the Magna Carta, specifically to limit the king's power. He then violated the promises he'd made repeatedly. It got to the point that the barons invited a Frenchmen to rule them.

While I think it's safe to say that John was the worst king in English history, looking favourably upon Richard's kingship is a bit too much of a swing in the opposite direction.

Richard was a good knight, but that's about all. He didn't care about England, didn't care about rulership in general (aside from the titles, prestige and money that came along with it) and was a pretty awful family man (both repeatedly rebelling against his father and failing to produce any legitimate offspring). His diplomatic skills sucked (his arrogance caused the French king to abandon him halfway through the Third Crusade, along with several other important nobles), he got himself imprisoned through sheer stupidity (his ransom nearly bankrupted England) and died a stupid and preventable death (being killed by an infection from an arrow wound that he suffered whilst taking unnecessary risks during a minor siege).

Richard's legacy as a warrior-king is largely undeserved, and his reign was overall fairly negative for England. He was more interested in being the Duke of Aquitaine and a crusader than actually ruling over England, which he visited for a mere six months during his 10-years reign.

[Kragholm Free States]

John was not by any measure a good or competent king, and, in fact, his arbitrariness and cruelty eventually provoked a revolt by the barons which led to the signing of the Magna Carta, specifically to limit the king's power. He then violated the promises he'd made repeatedly. It got to the point that the barons invited a Frenchmen to rule them.

Firstly, it should be noted that of around 197 baronies in England, only 39 were in revolt against John. Around the same number were actively supporting him. Of the 39 who opposed the king, a few switched back to supporting him after 1215, and certainly not all were complicit in the invitation of Louis - that was Fitzwalter's little conspiracy, along with de Quincy, and he was viewed with disdain for his treachery by even his fellow rebels and the French themselves.

John violated Magna Carta because it was impossible not to - any other medieval king would have done the same. The Magna Carta of today is not the Magna Carta John sealed at Runnymede; it was deliberately designed to give the barons an excuse to prolong their war against John with legal legitimacy, and to place the 25 sureties in a position of de facto supremacy over the crown. For its era, Magna Carta was wholly unreasonable, and in fact it's surprising that John even bothered to go through the legitimate channel of having the Pope issue a bull annulling the charter (which one chronicler, whose name I can't remember but am currently searching for the Anonymous of Béthune says John did as a direct result of the barons being deliberately as shitty as possible in their enforcement of clause 61) instead of just flouting it immediately.

As for John's supposed cruelty, might I ask you to provide specific examples so I can address them?

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Ugh

Richard was a good fighter and that's about it. He took stupid unnecessary personal risks, was a totally incompetent administrator, didn't give the tiniest of fucks about the country he was king of and just milked it for cash so he could keep hitting things with swords. The only reason nobody bothered rebelling against him in England was because he was never there.

John was objectively a far more competent king who had the misfortune to preside over a far, far worse economic, political, and military situation thanks to his dumbfuck brother picking a fight with Philip II. It is to John's credit that England did not cease to exist entirely.

Extremely cringe and bluepilled.

The concept of Kingship in the Middle Ages was tied up with being an effective soldier and administrator. Richard the Lionheart managed a campaign in the Holy Land far from England with a multinational force conducting what we would now call today coalition warfare. An incompetent would not have been able to manage the logistics of such a force let alone the political skill to keep it in the field. Furthermore, this nonsense about picking a fight with Philip is pure revisionism. He went home to exploit a claim to lands because a fellow who had been on crusade with him had died.

Philip was smart in that he encouraged repeatedly divisions in the Angevin realm to sow discord and weaken them. The problem is John was an idiot and took the bait. Not only had the perfidious Frenchman broken his oath not to start a war with England while Richard was on crusade, he actively sabotaged the whole thing by his intriguing forcing more lords to come home.

You're right in that he did not particularly care for England but this was not unique. Furthermore to people of that time, their religious duty also mattered. Its why you'll hear Christians put God before nation in descriptors even today.

People know Richard as the Lionheart for a reason but there has never been another King of England named John. That alone speaks volumes as to his "record".

I'm all for dissing on John, but I think it's a bit unfair to call him out for rebelling against his king and buying the Frenchman's bait when that's exactly what Richard did... twice.

Richard actively rebelled against his father Henry II and swallowed the Capetian bait to sow discord within the Angevin domains. He was a terrible son and even more gullible with foreign policy than John ever was. The only notable differences between the two is that Richard never resided in England long enough to piss the barons off, and unlike John he could actually hold his own in a fight.

It's also worth noting that while future kings of England were named after Richard, they both kind of sucked (both Richard II and Richard III being overthrown and the last kings of their dynasties), so it's not much of a legacy.

[Joohan]

Speaking of the UK - https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompa ... ts_the_uk/

Norn iron unionist

[Cekoviu]

John was not by any measure a good or competent king, and, in fact, his arbitrariness and cruelty eventually provoked a revolt by the barons which led to the signing of the Magna Carta, specifically to limit the king's power. He then violated the promises he'd made repeatedly. It got to the point that the barons invited a Frenchmen to rule them.

Firstly, it should be noted that of around 197 baronies in England, only 39 were in revolt against John. Around the same number were actively supporting him. Of the 39 who opposed the king, a few switched back to supporting him after 1215, and certainly not all were complicit in the invitation of Louis - that was Fitzwalter's little conspiracy, along with de Quincy, and he was viewed with disdain for his treachery by even his fellow rebels and the French themselves.

John violated Magna Carta because it was impossible not to - any other medieval king would have done the same. The Magna Carta of today is not the Magna Carta John sealed at Runnymede; it was deliberately designed to give the barons an excuse to prolong their war against John with legal legitimacy, and to place the 25 sureties in a position of de facto supremacy over the crown. For its era, Magna Carta was wholly unreasonable, and in fact it's surprising that John even bothered to go through the legitimate channel of having the Pope issue a bull annulling the charter (which one chronicler, whose name I can't remember but am currently searching for, says John did as a direct result of the barons being deliberately shitty in their enforcement of clause 61) instead of just flouting it immediately.

As far as John's supposed cruelty, might I ask you to provide specific examples so I can address them?

It's spelled "brony", not "barony."

[Diopolis]

Firstly, it should be noted that of around 197 baronies in England, only 39 were in revolt against John. Around the same number were actively supporting him. Of the 39 who opposed the king, a few switched back to supporting him after 1215, and certainly not all were complicit in the invitation of Louis - that was Fitzwalter's little conspiracy, along with de Quincy, and he was viewed with disdain for his treachery by even his fellow rebels and the French themselves.

John violated Magna Carta because it was impossible not to - any other medieval king would have done the same. The Magna Carta of today is not the Magna Carta John sealed at Runnymede; it was deliberately designed to give the barons an excuse to prolong their war against John with legal legitimacy, and to place the 25 sureties in a position of de facto supremacy over the crown. For its era, Magna Carta was wholly unreasonable, and in fact it's surprising that John even bothered to go through the legitimate channel of having the Pope issue a bull annulling the charter (which one chronicler, whose name I can't remember but am currently searching for, says John did as a direct result of the barons being deliberately shitty in their enforcement of clause 61) instead of just flouting it immediately.

As far as John's supposed cruelty, might I ask you to provide specific examples so I can address them?

It's spelled "brony", not "barony."

Well it was organized around horsemanship....

[Kragholm Free States]

Firstly, it should be noted that of around 197 baronies in England, only 39 were in revolt against John. Around the same number were actively supporting him. Of the 39 who opposed the king, a few switched back to supporting him after 1215, and certainly not all were complicit in the invitation of Louis - that was Fitzwalter's little conspiracy, along with de Quincy, and he was viewed with disdain for his treachery by even his fellow rebels and the French themselves.

John violated Magna Carta because it was impossible not to - any other medieval king would have done the same. The Magna Carta of today is not the Magna Carta John sealed at Runnymede; it was deliberately designed to give the barons an excuse to prolong their war against John with legal legitimacy, and to place the 25 sureties in a position of de facto supremacy over the crown. For its era, Magna Carta was wholly unreasonable, and in fact it's surprising that John even bothered to go through the legitimate channel of having the Pope issue a bull annulling the charter (which one chronicler, whose name I can't remember but am currently searching for, says John did as a direct result of the barons being deliberately shitty in their enforcement of clause 61) instead of just flouting it immediately.

As far as John's supposed cruelty, might I ask you to provide specific examples so I can address them?

It's spelled "brony", not "barony."

Sadly I suspect there might be a few more than 197 of those.

[Bienenhalde]

Speaking of the UK - https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompa ... ts_the_uk/

Norn iron unionist

I would be either One-Nation Conservative or High Tory.

[Novus America]

Honestly neither Richard nor John was a good king.

Richard was quite effective on the battlefield for the most part but a poor diplomat (he only got captured because he pissed everyone else off). He just wanted to fight, more than act like a king.

And the Third Crusade did score some victories but never took Jerusalem nor secured the Levant long term, which it maybe could have done except Richard pissed off the Austrians and French so much.

[Diopolis]

Honestly neither Richard nor John was a good king.

Richard was quite effective on the battlefield for the most part but a poor diplomat (he only got captured because he pissed everyone else off). He just wanted to fight, more than act like a king.

And the Third Crusade did score some victories but never took Jerusalem nor secured the Levant long term, which it maybe could have done except Richard pissed off the Austrians and French so much.

The third crusade did a much better job than the subsequent crusades, which were mostly exercises in not even trying. It didn't measure up to the first crusade, however.

[Valrifell]

Honestly neither Richard nor John was a good king.

Richard was quite effective on the battlefield for the most part but a poor diplomat (he only got captured because he pissed everyone else off). He just wanted to fight, more than act like a king.

And the Third Crusade did score some victories but never took Jerusalem nor secured the Levant long term, which it maybe could have done except Richard pissed off the Austrians and French so much.

The third crusade did a much better job than the subsequent crusades, which were mostly exercises in not even trying. It didn't measure up to the first crusade, however.

"There were other crusades, some of which almost didn't fail"