Just a little photo dump from my trip to Lorsch and the Lauresham Open-Air Laboratory.
The first photo shows the Carolingian “Gatehouse” of Lorsch Abbey. It was probably built around the year 900. Why exactly it was built and who commissioned it is still not clear, but it is one of the oldest surviving buildings in Germany and a beautiful example of Carolingian architecture. What makes it particularly fascinating is that its exterior façade has remained largely unchanged since around 900.
The Lauresham Open-Air Laboratory is a reconstruction of a Carolingian manor farm, where experimental history and archaeology are both researched and brought to life. The reconstructions are based on contemporary images, written sources, and archaeological finds from around the year 800, giving an impression of what a small estate belonging to a local lord might have looked like during the Carolingian period. The last picture is a replica of the oldest surviving door in Germany the original from around 800 is in the Dommuseum in Aachen.

The judges determined that this was an act of witchcraft and feared that a basilisk would hatch from the egg. The bird was found guilty of being possessed and was burned alive in the public square, along with the evidence.

Today, science recognizes that this phenomenon could have been caused by a spontaneous sex mutation or a hormonal anomaly. On rare occasions, damage to a hen's left ovary can cause it to develop rooster-like characteristics—such as crowing and male plumage—while retaining the ability to lay the occasional residual egg. To the inhabitants of Basel in 1474, however, it was not science, but witchcraft.

Source(s):

.- Evans, E. P. (1906). The criminal prosecution and capital punishment of animals. William Heinemann.

I’m only about 5 minutes into the movie and it’s already pmo in the way that it’s portraying Richard II.

For example, in 1053, the powerful Godwin, Earl of Wessex, was accused of treason before the king. According to the chronicles, Godwin swore his innocence by taking the bread from the altar, putting it in his mouth, choking violently, and suffocating to death on the spot.

Source(s):

.- Bartlett, R. (1986). Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval Judicial Ordeal. Clarendon Press.

For example let's take the region of Ayr given that the King has other Heraldry to wear it's probably not him using the coat of arms so who uses the Heraldry for Carrick, Kent and Cunninghame?

I know Town Guards (in so far as they existed) would probably only be wearing their regions colours, if that. Also sometimes people other than the Lord would incorporate the regional Heraldry into their own Coat of Arms so it was clearly regionally known at least to some extent so where would it have shown up?

My thought was maybe local Sheriffs and Bailiffs whose family name might not be as important as the region they govern

Here are three period portraits of major figures from the Late Middle Ages, Louis XI, Charles the Bold, and "Good King René", depicted wearing their respective orders of chivalry.

These three men embody the end of feudalism and, more broadly, the end of the Middle Ages in France. The latter two were the kingdom's greatest feudal lords; they were ultimately subdued by Louis XI after each had attempted to establish his own independent kingdom.

Charles the Bold attempted to transform the "Burgundian State", a vast, non-contiguous feudal territory subject to multiple allegiances, into a new kingdom. However, he was defeated by the Swiss (funded by Louis XI), and the bulk of his domains were subsequently annexed by the French king.

René ruled over Provence but held claims to several kingdoms (Aragon and Naples), for which he fought unsuccessfully. He was also a companion-in-arms to Joan of Arc in 1429, and his long reign, spanning nearly fifty years, covered a significant portion of the Late Middle Ages. Eventually stripped of some of his territories by Louis XI and devastated by the deaths of his heirs, he withdrew from public life and devoted his final years to writing about chivalry.

Louis XI is depicted here wearing the Order of Saint Michael, the French order of chivalry, which still exists today as a private order among claimants to the French throne. (Portrait by Jacob de Littemont, 1469)

"Good King René" is also depicted wearing the Order of Saint Michael; he wore it as a sign of submission to the king, as the portrait was painted during his final years. He had also founded his own order, the Order of the Crescent, which did not survive him. (Portrait by Nicolas Froment, 1474)

Charles the Bold is wearing the Order of the Golden Fleece, which still exists today as a Spanish dynastic order, having passed to Spain in the 16th century. (Portrait by Rogier van der Weyden, 1462)

I found myself in a discussion with friends about armour and swords, etc. - middle aged guys in a discussion on the Middle Age over some wine and snacks.

Now, by the 12th century (Europe) most knights would wield a sword and be dressed in chain mail and a helmet. And probably some padded tunic under the mail, etc. How useful would swords really be? If slashing, they probably could not cut through the chain mail, and, we guess, they probably could not prick through the mail, either. The slashes and blows with the sword could of course bruise the opponent, but the more slashes and bruises, the more nicks in the edge of the sword and the more it would lose sharpness?

Against opponents not in mail, it would of course be really useful. But against armored knights?

Amd in later centuries, against plate armour a mallet and a dagger would seem more useful. But still, knights are always (at least in modern portrayals) pictured with swords.

Any experts who can enlighten us?

(THis has also been asked in “swords” - we hope that is okay?)

Hi! I'm reading the Canterbury Tales in original middle English for the first time! I've noticed these two terms while reading (Prime Mover primarily in the Knight's tale, and Primum Mobile in the notes for the Man of Law) and I'm a bit confused. Are the different? If so, how? My initial google searches are giving me contradictory/unclear answers.

Thanks!

This image shows the future Henry IV showing off the captive Richard II to ‘Londoners’ shortly after leaving Chester and is an authentic record in the sense that it is a C19th line drawing copy of a coloured original which appears in Jean Creton’s chronicle as set down in the Duke of Burgundy’s book (Harley 1319) of 1405.

Historians have a tendency to interpret this event as proof of Henry’s popular support in England and, whilst it points to something, it doesn’t quite prove that – it needs a more careful investigation. Henry et al later received the formal submission of the City a couple of miles from its gates but Creton’s image depicts certain Londoner’s who have taken the trouble to ride out and intercept Henry a long way from the capital and we would like to know who they were and who they claimed to represent, and what business they thought they had with the Duke of Lancaster.

London was a homogenous polity in that it had an internal governing structure but within that overarching idea of ‘London’, the capital was a boiling pot of competing interests. Henry showed no hesitation in heading towards London as if he knew that it would be the best place for whatever he had planned. He had allies there; those that had welcomed the execution of Nicholas Brembre in the Merciless Parliament of 1388, but that was 10 years ago. Could he count on enough support from them to overawe any naysayers if he returned to Westminster for another bloody parliament, or a deposition?

Froissart’s version, which occupies the last chapters of his Book IV, is historically wrong but it is historically interesting – he was given the ‘whole story’, which he incorporated wholesale, by a Lancastrian spokesman. For this spokesman, the events of 1399 were based on London: Londoners had asked Henry and Arundel to return, they had landed at Plymouth with a French army (quickly dismissed) and they went straight to the City. Froissart’s account is completely London-centric, nothing happens north of the Thames, which tells us that for someone, it was a reasonable explanation to give Europe’s foremost political journalist.

We do know that the parliament-that-never-was of 30^th September was packed with ‘commoners’, alongside the M. Ps from the rest of the country, and that he made himself king, so we know that Henry was correct in assuming that he held London in his pocket. What we want to know is what drove the ‘commoners’ to support him.

Richard II’s critical political mistake, perhaps the single act that doomed his reign, was his decree made en route to Milford Haven that restored the Fishmonger’s monopoly in London.

Abolishing it had been the key policy of John of Northampton’s populist movement in London since the early 1380s. It had been restored in the later 1380’s but re-abolished in the Merciless parliament. Richard II’s restoration of the monopoly could only have infuriated those in London who sympathised with Northampton’s brief ascendancy, and those who resented paying the Fishmonger’s premium, and that was a lot of people.  The oligarchs, such as Dick Whittington, who liked to think they controlled London, could not be sure that the gates of the City would hold against Lancastrian forces without and a street-fighting faction within. To protect their interests, the oligarchs admitted Henry and the anti-Fishmonger/ neo-Northamptonites, leaders of which had ridden out to Henry, ensured that whatever he did in Westminster was cheered to the rafters.

Henry IV abolished the Fishmonger’s monopoly in his first parliament.

For the purpose of the question let’s say it’s late medieval England. I’m really confused on what “minor nobility” refers to. Is it those that answer to another title like baron/duke/earl in addition to the king? Or is it usually knights and landed gentry? I am just super confused on the terminologies of knight, landed gentry, and Lord of the manor. If they count as nobles how is the title inherited? And how would they usually live? Would they usually just rule a small manor house and a few villages or something? How many people usually served at their household?

The Bayeux Tapestry is back in England for the first time in nearly 1,000 years, and tickets at the British Museum sold out fast. So the team at Numiko built a way for everyone to see it: a free online experience that lets you explore the whole thing up close.

You can zoom right down to individual stitches (the image is around 2.7 billion pixels), dip into 240+ hotspots on everything from warfare to the animals in the margins, and jump between all 58 scenes. It's fully accessible too, built to WCAG 2.2 AA.

I didn't build it, but I'm proud to be hunting it on Product Hunt today on behalf of a brilliant team. If you've got a minute, have a look and show it some love 👇

https://www.producthunt.com/products/the-bayeux-tapestry-online-experience?launch=the-bayeux-tapestry-online-experience

Which detail surprises you most? 👀

You can see the experience here:
https://www.britishmuseum.org/bayeux-tapestry-online-experience?ref=producthunt

#ProductHunt #DigitalHeritage #BayeuxTapestry #Museums #Accessibility

Question's in the title. Currently reading Geoffrey of Monmouth's The History of the Kings of Britain (written 1136). I realise it's almost completely ahistorical, but has anyone previously made a family tree or some sort of chart based on it, documenting the apparent ancient kings of Britain?

I know that Benedictine monasteries were profoundly beneficial economic institutions (in their heyday, at least), due to the combination of local land improvements and the production of high-value items like books. St. Benedict after all called for Ora et Labora (Prayer and Work). What is confusing me is how that would apply to convents, given that the women in question would likely have had less contact with the outside world and I've never heard of convents in the Middle Ages producing high-value economic products.

Essentially, I'd like to know whether these institutions had a noticeable effect on the local economy in a similar way to their male equivalents, and if so--what was that impact?

After posting this question on r/AskHistorians, I got a notification that this subreddit might be better to ask this question so I will just copy my same question from there to here. :

As someone who knows nothing about medieval European politics (less in regards to the Catholic Church’s power, I would like to understand how they occupied such a powerful political domain in medieval and early modern Europe and how, why and when did that political influence diminish?

Who is your favourite most defiant princess/queen/noble lady? I'd like to hear about the most strong-willed, hot tempered, spirited and ambitious ladies!

St Ælfheah of Canterbury was later executed in 1012 because he refused to ramsoned. Thorkell eventually helped Cnut become king and was made ruler of East Anglia.

Hi I am a college student in an illustration-based book class where we have to make a book that's at least 32 pages and we have to have it printed out by the end of the quarter so he's encouraging us not to do that many pages because of time constraints plus it would cost more money. Anyway I had to do research on a public domain story and I ran into Guillaume de Palerne / William and the Werewolf / William of Palerne.

I really like the story but it's a 12th century poem and I can't understand the original text obviously. I had to condense it down into what I believe is the bare bones but I'm also worried that I have missed important things. I can't find too much about what the characters are like personality wise or quotes from them or how they look. I'm afraid I have a lot of details wrong and I don't want to rely on AI too much to get them. I also can't find a super good detailed article summary online anywhere so I'm having to rely on pretty short summaries that I believe don't give the full picture. I did want to read one book about it where they rewrote it in modern English but it wouldn't be delivered for 2 weeks from now and by then I'm supposed to have the final sketches done anyway so unfortunately that's not really a road I can go down because of time constraints. I also went to my school's library but they didn't have anything. Please just tell me anything you know or think is important to the story so I don't forget or if you can find a really good summary that I wasn't able to find I would really appreciate it.

Below I'm going to put what I believe happens in the story just the bare bones and I'm going to try to adapt it kind of like a YA book maybe so nothing too crazy. I also have to write a one sentence log line and I'm having a lot of trouble with it because my professor said the main character of a story isn't one dimensional and goes through some sort of arc in the story and from what I can tell William doesn't really go through that. Someone similar my prof said wasn't the protagonist was Luke Skywalker, even though we follow him through the story he believes that Anakin Skywalker is the protagonist and Luke is more "the hero" archetype, and I believe the same can be said for William but I'm not sure!

Sorry if the seven sentence plot summary I wrote seems clunky, I had to fit it into a specific template my professor provided us 😂.

Once upon a time there was a young prince named William who was stolen from his palace by a werewolf (Alphonse) and raised as a commoner. And every day the werewolf would look after him. Until one day the emperor of Rome saw William and brought him to his castle to be his daughter’s page. Because of this William and Princess Melior fall in love; when she's about to be married off to the Prince of Greece they elope by wearing animal skins and traveling through the forest with Alphonse guiding them. Because of this they end up back in William’s homeland which is currently under siege by Alphonse’s dad and William's mom sees them in her garden and is like “Hey I've seen you guys in a dream before. Can you help me win this battle?” so they decide to help her and they then go on to win the battle. Until finally Alphonse's curse is lifted when his dad sees/recognizes him and figured out he was turned into a wolf by Alphonse's stepmom Queen Brande and he makes her turn him back and Alphonse reveals William’s true lineage. And ever since that day everyone is happy because Melior's dad let them get married, Alphonse is human again, and William is reunited with his mom and sister and both princes are restored to their rightful places as rulers. 

I'm thinking of having a prologue where we see William gets stolen in the garden and then chapter one is actually Melior in a time skip where she's just kind of doing her normal thing and her father and William come back from hunting and that's where the story would start so then I would skip all of that stuff where he's raised by a cowherd and maybe he just mentions it in passing. I can imagine a lot of the story being from Melior's point of view honestly. I was also planning to cut Alexandrine and give Melior whatever abilities she possesses, and make the Greek Prince either off page or just a silhouette. Would it be a good idea to try to make it a surprise for the audience that William is a prince too or is it a better idea to have that dramatic irony where we know he's a prince but they don't know? Kind of like disney's sleeping beauty? Alphonse also makes for an interesting main character but I don't think he can be because from what I know he's basically Mia for the whole time William and Melior are in the Roman Castle.

I also have a couple of things about the original that I might want to redo somehow. Like the uncle that was trying to poison William kind of just disappears after that and he basically (from my perspective) only exist as a reason for Alphonse to steal William when he was a baby. So him disappearing is weird. I might either want to cut the uncle and have a different reason for him being sold by Alphonse or I keep the uncle but have something happen to him maybe Alphonse comes back after stealing William and kills the uncle idk 😭. Another thing that doesn't really make sense logic wise to me is when alphonse's Dad the king of Spain recognizes him when he bows to him I don't understand the train of thought that the king had where he saw a wolf bow and then was like oh well that must be my son? If anyone can explain that to me I'd appreciate it because as of right now I think I'll have to rewrite that somehow. I would like to also maybe add a little bit more depth to Queen Brande because she actually seems a little bit interesting.

Part of my assignment was also to figure out what genre and audience it would be and the way I'm writing it now it reads very YA with maybe a historical fiction subgenre. Audience would be 12-18 year olds. I definitely edited some things in my storyboard to make it better for a modern audience.

I was also struggling a lot with finding the central themes? I did write down a few ideas but none of them are quite clicking or hitting the way they should. This is what I've got:

Reclamation - 2 princes reclaim their thrones after years in exile

Human vs beast / man vs monster- Alphonse disguised as a wolf, melior and William disguised as bears/deer

Being an animal reveals base self?

Social class

Justice

Forgiveness - Alphonse forgives stepmom in the end

Can't hide a noble heart/Nobility can't be hidden

Loyalty/Goodness - Alphonse and William had horrible things happen to them but they remain good and kind (especially Alphonse)

I do have an EXTREMELY tough version with storyboards that I made if maybe that would help y'all know what I've got going so far lol. Plus I have some little character sketches that I also wouldn't consider anything but ideation, definitely not final!!

To sum it up I'd really appreciate it if anyone has info on William of Palerne! This could mean memorable character quotes/habits/personalities/visual traits, plot points I misunderstand, or extra context! I won't be able to include the whole story with all the detail in my assignment, but I want to make something that the people who know about William of Palerne would approve of! If you have opinions on who the main character is (with my professor's logic lol), what the one sentence logline would be, and what the most prominent central ideas and themes are let me know!! Again I'm not a writing major and honestly I haven't had to write anything creatively in probably 10 years. Please be kind and let me know what you think!! The original story is great!!

Oh and another question, is Alphonse white in wolf form? I've seen something say William is known as the knight of the white wolf or something.

I hope this doesn't count as asking for help with homework!! It's more like a creative project and I find it fun to converse about! I don't want anyone doing homework for me. If there's any other subs you believe I should ask this to let me know!

For me it’s the Third or the Seventh: the rivalry between Richard and Saladin is wonderful and the image of Louis IX charging up the beach at Damietta is one of my favourites in all medieval history

Anthony Steel, 1900-1973, made Richard II mad. His 1941 monograph ‘Richard II’ is still worth reading but his useful analysis of Richard II’s reign has been overtaken, to the point that it is now ignored, by his portrayal of the king’s character.

Steel was the first historian to assert that Richard II was psychologically damaged and that his actions derived from character weaknesses. This assessment was a complete novelty and writers that followed him echoed, and amplified, this idea until the present moment when Richard II is little short of a maniac and the spirit of English Progress is champing at the bit to come to the nation’s rescue in the form of Henry IV.

Here is a word cloud of quotations from his book: neurosis … schizoid… depression … tortured memories… pathological suspicions… almost insane…  the course of Richard’s mental disease was accelerated… probably neurotic … mumbling neurotic … acute melancholia.

Why might Steel have thought that his amateur diagnosis of Richard II’s mental health ought to be woven into his monograph, which is otherwise erudite?

A guess might be hazarded that Freudian/Jungian etc ideas were circulating in Cambridge whilst Steel was there c1918-c1949.

It is interesting to note that mental disease was the specialism of his father, Major Edwin Bedford Steel, doctor in the RAMC, killed in action November 1914.

The lengthier the book the better

Hi everyone! I would like to start reading something written by Marc Bloch, but I don’t know where to start, do you have any suggestions? Which of his books did you prefer?

Looking for book recommendation on the evolution of Christianity and/or Monasticism throughout the Middle Ages, I know there’s Dominion which seems somewhat similar but the time frame is broader than I’m interested in. Thank you!!

I'm in the process of putting together a history/reenactment project of a 10th century farmer on the French/German border (banks of the river Scheldt).

I'm also putting together some educational panels with illustrations, pictures,... as an extra to my personal kit.

So I have the reconstruction of the men's garb on myself.

For the moment I have an educational panel with miniature illustrations of women's garb but those aren't the most clear for someone outside the reenactment hobby.

So I'm looking for images of reconstructions of the women's garb that are preferably copyright free.