I feel it's underappreciated that pre-industrial nobility, sometimes even royalty, used to fight their own wars, often leading from the front, in...

I feel it's underappreciated that pre-industrial nobility, sometimes even royalty, used to fight their own wars, often leading from the front, instead of telling them to go die for them while they remain in total safety. It's increasingly difficult to imagine a politician doing anything beneficial to you, let alone actually putting their lives on the line with you. Nobody really talks about this.

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's really annoying is movies making people think medieval nobility were all fat and lazy even though they're all traditionally military positions

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's the projection of the modern ruling class onto the past, in hopes of making themselves look better in comparison, and justifying their rule. In truth, if you transplanted the fractal corruption of a 21st century parliament to a time when mankind had not yet developed the tools to overcome the dangers of nature (famine, disease, wildlife, cold, etc), everyone would literally die because the malice of the world is enough to bear without an actively malicious and irresponsible state on top of it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Very insightful post

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        trvthnvke

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is it? Early nobility got their legitimacy from their martial abilities. I don't think anybody denies that. Only really in the late 16th century and onwards did their administrative and political duties/functions increase - although of course many nobles still served in the officer corps of the armed forces. Hell even to this day.

      Didn't two movies about the 100 Years War come out three years or so?

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They still caused those wars (for the main part) and the consequences were suffered by all (peasants and nobles alike).

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We been fighting and killing each other since we were monkeys, hell nature is ruthless and they too form big groups to fight sometimes. If you remove the ruling class someone else is gonna come anyway to destroy your village and rape you. Might as well organize and follow a strong leader
      It's not their fault, it's nature

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      for the most* part, goddammit

      We been fighting and killing each other since we were monkeys, hell nature is ruthless and they too form big groups to fight sometimes. If you remove the ruling class someone else is gonna come anyway to destroy your village and rape you. Might as well organize and follow a strong leader
      It's not their fault, it's nature

      We did fight over resources before, what we didn't do is fight over the dumb dynastic claims of the nobility.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What we didn´t do is fight over the dumb dynastic claims of the nobility.
        If you were raised and born and being raised in a society which said it was a necessary good to fight over this.
        Would you fight?.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Incredible digits, and no. Not even all nobles actually believed it was their duty and or prerogative to fight over dynastic claims and duties (though the immense majority did).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >dumb dynastic claims of the nobility.
        This wasnt as common as you think and this is in fact a form of fighting over resources.
        Also, chimps have fought each other just because they dont like each other, so do Lions and sometimes Elephants.

        >this is le dumb
        uh hello, you admitted we are animals.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    in medieval times the explaination they gave to the general populace as to why some people had priviledges and some other didnt was that everyone had a place in the world
    the priests would tell the peasents who "they are the most blessed by the Lord because you're forced to do the worst jobs" but for this to hold true the nobility also had to do their job
    the nobility had to show off so that they could prove to the common populace they were in fact working for them and doing their part

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >nobles
      >once, maybe twice a year dress up and go stab motherfrickers.
      >Maybe die, maybe live.
      >If live, feast off peasants work until the next war
      They absolutely had a great racket going.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah that's part of the reason the elites did away with the concept of nobility, they'd much rather either be the wealthy c**ts behind the scenes or blame the plebs who voted them into office. Being a noble means risking your life in battle, or getting a pitchfork shoved in your belly because you pissed off the peasants.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    on the other hand, weren't they lazy c**ts in peace time, and it was considered ok?

    my understanding is that all they did was hunting and collect taxes. meanwhile, the time they dedicated to ruling on issues, overseeing development of land and resources and so on was minimal. i think i read here sometime that it's kinda insane the level of complexity that emerged on hunting because the nobles dedicated a shitload of time and resources into it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Genuine question: which media depicts nobles as overwhelmingly "fat, lazy, corrupt, etc."? Granted I don't watch many movies or series but the ones I have watched, had nobles painted in at worst an ambiguous light.

      Their peace time duties really fluctuated between time period, position within the feudal hierarchy and location. Many were also responsible for passing lesser and higher judgement, keeping the peace/policing and the overall development of the land. In addition to their training. But this is just a blanket statement.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Taleb talks at great lengths about this.
    The whole point of getting periods of status and quasi lavishness is that you, in exchange, take on risks on the battlefield.

    Without the risk-reward mechanism everything falls apart.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Taleb talks at great lengths about this
      which book?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Skin in the Game.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Taleb is also a fricking idiot. I can't think of a single thing he's ever gotten right.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A lot of data fitting power law and not Gaussian dist naturally, the latter was just used more because of computational tricks which made it easier in early stat days.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's not something to be praised that's just their job. They aren't exactly professional soldiers or careerists, elite military participation was not universal and only the most prolific of them served in more than 4 campaigns. Only with standing armies is military participation the only service of the soldier.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This they sucked at their job and were complete fools during World War 1 discrediting the whole system

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Different/better times

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The politicians of those times (Mayors, Parliament) did frick all as well

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A majority of US Presidents were veterans you dullard.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You're talking about only presidents, of presidents about 2/3rds have been. But then we're also talking about mayors, city council members, aldermans, governors, state senators, etc etc etc. Nobles were always involved in some capacity with state defense.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Nobles were always involved in some capacity with state defense.
        Not true at all especially lesser nobels.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Not true at all especially lesser nobels.
          Yes, it applied to them also. Every member of government in a feudal society is directly engaged with parallel links in the network of families, dynasties, and polities. It's why the crusades took off like they did. A pope came out and said "hey stop dicking around and wasting time" and that was enough to end half the ongoing feuds in Europe and build a multinational force in the tens of thousands over night. If someone did that in a liberal capitalist bourgeois oligarchy then everyone would just spam hate online about it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Every member of government in a feudal society is directly engaged with parallel links in the network of families, dynasties, and polities
            Nope. Most actual work involving the government (boring) was left in the hands of rich Burghers (who didn't fight)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know why you capitalized burghers, why you think burghers were universal, or why you think burghers weren't responsible in some form for state security. In the HRE for example the ministerialen would have been the early equivalent of burghers, and they were involved in everything from financial book keeping to logistics to fighting. There were female ministerialen, they didn't fight but were organizers for conflicts.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >burghers were universal
            Rich commoners were universal, yes.
            >why you think burghers weren't responsible in some form for state security.
            Because that was the domain of the nobility
            >the ministerialen would have been the early equivalent of burghers, and they were involved in everything from financial book keeping to logistics to fighting.
            Not fighting. They would get their thugs to do that for them

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Rich commoners were universal, yes.
            So you're not talking about nobles here then, are you? OP is talking about nobles. And this cuts straight to the heart of the matter: replacing nobles with rich oligarchical commoners was a mistake because they're not as invested as the nobles were.

            >Because that was the domain of the nobility

            You're proving the point of the entire thread. Are you intending to do this?

            >Not fighting. They would get their thugs to do that for them

            Negative. They were responsible for direct action (as long as they were male).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >replacing nobles with rich oligarchical commoners was a mistake because they're not as invested as the nobles were.
            Except they were never replaced, just made irrelevant. Nobles basically existed in their own little world isolated from the ugliness of commoner politics.
            >They were responsible for direct action (as long as they were male).
            They would "direct" their mercenaries to kill their enemies

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nobles basically existed in their own little world isolated from the ugliness of commoner politics

            I'm not sure what you mean by this. They were literally the political class.

            >They would "direct" their mercenaries to kill their enemies
            Ministerialen are literally the non-nobles who were acting as minor nobles. You could have bothered to look up the term before posting. Get off of my board you complete idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not sure what you mean by this. They were literally the political class.
            Nobles only cared about commoners in so far as they weren't trying to rebel, otherwise they mostly lived in an alternate anime land of rich and beautiful people that didn't have to deal wit plague and only went to war over fantastical nonsense (Crusades)
            >Ministerialen are literally the non-nobles who were acting as minor nobles. You could have bothered to look up the term before posting.
            You yourself said that they are the equivalent of burghers i.e rich fricks who don't do shit but cuck poor people

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >replacing nobles with rich oligarchical commoners was a mistake because they're not as invested as the nobles were.
            What the hell are you on about. The end of the warfare organisation based on obligation and the start of professional armies began a huge increase in military effectiveness and ability.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      name a war since the mexican-american war that was in the interests of white protestants

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Spanish American War
        Civil War
        Indian Wars
        Mexican Revolution
        Boxer Rebellion
        World War I and 2

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >mayors, city council members, aldermans, governors, state senators
    None of these people would have fought in the middle ages

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because they didn't exist in the middle ages, in the liberal form. Counts and barons left to go fight all the time. I'm shocked by how many signed up for the crusades alone given that they didn't have to go anywhere or do anything. They had castles and comforts according to post-modernists but they left all of that to throw down in a sandbox quite often.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Because they didn't exist in the middle ages
        >In modern England and Wales, the position of mayor descends from the feudal lord's bailiff or reeve (see borough). The chief magistrate of London bore the title of portreeve for considerably more than a century after the Norman Conquest. This official was elected by popular choice, a privilege secured from King John. By the beginning of the 12th century, the title of portreeve gave way to that of mayor as the designation of the chief officer of London, followed around 1190 by that of Winchester. Other boroughs adopted the title later.
        Idiot

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You've conflated like four different terms in that have wildly different meanings across Europe in the span of two posts. Unfrick yourself moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You've conflated like four different terms
            Which ones? I'm talking generally here. Burgher = Rich fat frick, Medieval equivalent of Bill Gates

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A burgher would be the equivalent of a small businessman, probably from the trades, or an office worker. They weren't "rich fat fricks", and they absolutely weren't in the 10% of wealth holders.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Maximilian I was the last ruler that did this and even by his time it was extremely uncommon.

    But yes, OG nobility was based. Would fight and die for/10.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: OP seething because his cuck peasant ancestors were always ruled by rich fat fricks

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you're the one seething, not posting any arguments and using memes to cope

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >You yourself said that they are the equivalent of burghers
    In responsibilities, not in training, temperament, or expectations. Holy shit you're stupid. A literal fricking idiot.

    >Nobles only cared about commoners in so far as they weren't trying to rebel, otherwise they mostly lived in an alternate anime land of rich and beautiful people that didn't have to deal wit plague and only went to war over fantastical nonsense (Crusades)

    This is really the opposite of true. For one, if you read any dogma from actual monarchists and pro-nobles, they always argued to and among themselves that what makes them noble is not what they have but what they can do. This is a running theme all the way up until the 20th century. I feel like you don't even have the slightest clue on the topic and you're just referencing moves over the last twenty years. Secondly, they did have to deal with plague and war whenever it arose. It's not like liberal oligarchies where rich people shut themselves off in gated communities. Castles really couldn't operate that way and everyone suffered when major plagues came through, nobility included. The best upper nobility could try to do is sequester themselves in palaces if plagues grew too bad but even then during the black plague no one was safe.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Holy shit you're stupid. A literal fricking idiot.
      You are Mexican
      >words words words
      You will always be an ESL

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Are you projecting? I'm literally an Anglo-Saxon American.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You can't be. Anglo Americans are Canadians
          https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-10-02-0180#TSJN-01-10-0185-kw-0002

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            tldr the red and white dragons are my spirit animals and the red and white roses are my spirit flora

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ESL is such a worthless insult. Ghetto Black folk and trailer park hicks are native English speakers and sound no less moronic for it. Most European IQfy posters use the language more elegantly and intelligibly than an outright majority of the US population, to say nothing of the British goblins.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You had to be during those times. Strength and leadership counted and if you wanted to acquire lands and power, you couldn't afford to be a pussy.

    Feudalism was very flawed but at least the king and nobles had an obligation to protect the peasantry because their livelihoods depended on it. Today's plutocrats are entitled frickwits who are gonna hunker down in underground hideaways and hope their mercenaries won't turn on them.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pre industrial is not correct. It's Pre WW2, and even during WW2 there was still a lot of it. It's just Pre gunpowder dominance, nobility used to play an outsized role on the battlefield

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      vgh.. vve need to go back, the r*nnaissance was a mistake

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    High medieval serf > modern wagecuck > antiquity/early medieval chattel

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >It's increasingly difficult to imagine a politician doing anything beneficial to you, let alone actually putting their lives on the line with you
    They seldom ever fought for things that benefited the common people. Maybe occasionally when there was an existential threat like the Mongols which threatened commoners and nobles alike, but most of the time they were fighting each other over their own personal interests and getting thousands of common people killed in the process.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So nothing changed, except the amount of dead commoners increased by orders of magnitude, and they stopped participating in their own battles.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Friendly reminder this war was decided when the king received an arrow in the eye and died kek, that's how things were back then

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Eh, actual monarchs leading armies was still rare and the exception rather than the norm, most monarchs including those who led during times of warfare often didn’t directly partake. On the other hand you did see leaders of republics who would personally lead armies into battle like William the Silent, Maurice of Orange, and Frederick Henry of Orange.

    Besides it’s not like politicians and even presidents with military or even combat experience is that rare, it’s simply that the commander in chief has better things to do than personally lead armies, especially when others are better qualified. Louis XIV dominated Europe even when they united against him without leading armies into battle because he was able to delegate to better subordinates.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Putting politicians, or even command level officers on the front lines of a modern war is generally asinine. Personal combat ability counts for nothing and battlefields are so large that anyone in a command position must be far from the front lines to be affective.
    > a politician doing anything beneficial to you, let alone actually putting their lives on the line with you.
    Nobles generally put their lives on the line for themselves, or at most because the law obligated them to. the idea of a medieval noble fighting for "the people" is close to laughable.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >be good leader
    >die on the battlefield
    >lose everything
    >your kingdom gets cucked by the corrupt runner up

    It's moronic and always has been nothing more than a show of moronic bravado. The nobility are just humans. And are just as vulnerable.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Historically illiterate people often make the mistake of confusing medieval nobility with Renaissance and Enlightenment nobility. Medieval nobility were extremely martial.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It really was all a projection

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Government used to be based on personal relationships. Countries were run like a family business. The modern era gave rise to the bureaucratic state because it made it easier to manage complexity. There were trade-offs but the bureaucratic state won out.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The modern era gave rise to the bureaucratic state because it made it easier to manage complexity.
      How so? It seems to be much, much worse at that.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Efficient, easy to access and impartial state offices aren't completely built on nepotism and obviously, work better. One of the major differences in modern and medieval bureaucracy is only how easy to access, cheaper and impartial the modern one is. If you're going through a Medieval bureaucracy you're still going to have to jump through as many hoops as we would today, it's just going to cost you a lot more to get anything done.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Exposed to combat from a young age, the king was well-trained in the arts of war and developed into a brave if at times impulsive and rash warrior
    >He led his army at the Battle of Taillebourg in 1242, defeating Henry II of England in a pitched battle.
    >To his troops, he was clearly an inspiring leader with great charisma. "I never saw a man so finely armed", writes Joinville admiringly of the king when in 1250 he appeared in the thick of the fray at the Battle of Mansourah. "He could be seen from the shoulders up, set above the rest of his men, with a gilded helmet on his head and a German sword in his hand"
    Lions led by Lions.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >When the king heard that the standard of Saint Denis was on shore and in danger, he strode quickly across the deck of his ship, and in spite of all the legate, who was with him, could say, refused to be parted from the emblem of his sovereignty, and leapt into the sea, where the water came up to his armpits. He went on, with his shield hung from his neck, his helmet on his head, and lance in hand, till he had joined his people on the shore. When he had reached land and scanned the enemy, he asked who they were, and was told they were Saracens. He put his lance under his armpit, and holding his
    shield before him.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There are plenty of accounts of normal people doing these kind of things. When Caesar landed in Britain the first man off the ship did so while others were in fear and they followed him. A israeli warrior at Jerusalem mocked and fought with multiple Romans in single combat before a Centurion shot and killed him. Nobility is irrelevant.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Additionally, soldiers got rewarded at the very least in loot. Nowadays you won't even get cripple welfare.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Does you country not have benefits for soldiers or any kind of Veterans Department

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *