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.
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
What's really annoying is movies making people think medieval nobility were all fat and lazy even though they're all traditionally military positions
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.
Very insightful post
trvthnvke
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?
They still caused those wars (for the main part) and the consequences were suffered by all (peasants and nobles alike).
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
for the most* part, goddammit
We did fight over resources before, what we didn't do is fight over the dumb dynastic claims of the nobility.
>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?.
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).
>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.
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
>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.
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.
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
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.
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.
>Taleb talks at great lengths about this
which book?
Skin in the Game.
Taleb is also a fricking idiot. I can't think of a single thing he's ever gotten right.
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.
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.
This they sucked at their job and were complete fools during World War 1 discrediting the whole system
Different/better times
The politicians of those times (Mayors, Parliament) did frick all as well
A majority of US Presidents were veterans you dullard.
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.
>Nobles were always involved in some capacity with state defense.
Not true at all especially lesser nobels.
>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.
>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)
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.
>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
>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).
>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
>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.
>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
>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.
name a war since the mexican-american war that was in the interests of white protestants
Spanish American War
Civil War
Indian Wars
Mexican Revolution
Boxer Rebellion
World War I and 2
>mayors, city council members, aldermans, governors, state senators
None of these people would have fought in the middle ages
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.
>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
You've conflated like four different terms in that have wildly different meanings across Europe in the span of two posts. Unfrick yourself moron.
>You've conflated like four different terms
Which ones? I'm talking generally here. Burgher = Rich fat frick, Medieval equivalent of Bill Gates
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.
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.
ITT: OP seething because his cuck peasant ancestors were always ruled by rich fat fricks
you're the one seething, not posting any arguments and using memes to cope
>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.
>Holy shit you're stupid. A literal fricking idiot.
You are Mexican
>words words words
You will always be an ESL
Are you projecting? I'm literally an Anglo-Saxon American.
You can't be. Anglo Americans are Canadians
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-10-02-0180#TSJN-01-10-0185-kw-0002
tldr the red and white dragons are my spirit animals and the red and white roses are my spirit flora
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.
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.
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
vgh.. vve need to go back, the r*nnaissance was a mistake
High medieval serf > modern wagecuck > antiquity/early medieval chattel
>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.
So nothing changed, except the amount of dead commoners increased by orders of magnitude, and they stopped participating in their own battles.
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
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.
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.
>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.
Historically illiterate people often make the mistake of confusing medieval nobility with Renaissance and Enlightenment nobility. Medieval nobility were extremely martial.
It really was all a projection
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
>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.
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.
Additionally, soldiers got rewarded at the very least in loot. Nowadays you won't even get cripple welfare.
Does you country not have benefits for soldiers or any kind of Veterans Department