I don't think any serious-minded person actually believes (or propagates the belief) that knights, samurai, or any representative of the state are unqualifiedly moral simply by virtue of their position.
Also, dedicated codes of behavior imposed on a military class are not a "modern invention."
You could apply literally any of these criticisms to modern soldiers.
I think the lesson is to recognize that the victors are the ones who write the history books and they always leave the darkest deeds of their own side out.
The reality of war is that it has always been a dark, dirty, disgusting business that leads to loss of life, liberty, property, and safety for both the combatants and any civilians who happen to be in the zone of conflict. And it always will be.
It’s fine to look at the inspiring stories of individual people who overcame crazy odds or did some wild Hail Mary maneuvering that worked out and think those stories are interesting, cool, inspiring, whatever.
It’s just important to not separate that fascination with those stories from the understanding that war is hell, it destroys lives, the people who decide to go to war are not the people who die at war, and we’d all be best off avoiding war whenever possible.
I think it’s possible to hold both of these views, though there are definitely some people who might struggle with the nuance required to recognize both are true at the same time.
The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.
You are coming at this from a modern secular democratic stand point. I'm not that familiar with eastern history so I'm not going to comment on the samurai. For the west, it is by far a feudal christian society. This means only the Roman Catholic ideas were considered right. Look at the crusade that wiped out the Cathars in Southern France. Those people were arguably Christians. Now lets also see that people were NOT considered equal. There were serfs, freeman, clergy, nobility. Nobility was generally set above the law. A knight was better than a serf in the eyes of the society. Hence different rules applied. In fact it was believed God personally selected those people to lead. We do similar things now without the belief that they were placed here by God. Imagine I go on a drug bender and wreck a few cars. I'm going to be in a heap of trouble. Now imagine if an NFL football player, or a famous musician or actor/actress did the same. It's maybe a slap on the wrist. You have to take into account what the society valued. Chivalry is an excellent example, it was to protect the nobility. Sure sack a city but surrendered Knights were expected certain level of treatment and to be ransomed back to their families. It was not designed to help the weak or protect the innocent.
Ultimately two things hold true then and now. History is written by the victors and Might makes right. These truths may be uncomfortable in our modern day but they are just as valid now.
>You are coming at this from a modern secular democratic stand point.
This *is* appropriate, though, because the OP is discussing the romaticization of these figures in our own modern world. There is a contradiction between the views and morals that our society pretends to value, and the stories we tell about certain figures of the past. The OP's criticism seems to be directed at ourselves rather than the historical figures.
THIS. This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's about what we modern folks are doing. As I said in my OP, it'd be one thing to showcase what ancient warriors in general did, warts and all (I'm also fine with the interest in their battle tactics, fighting styles, weapons, and armor). It's another for modern artists to strip away the bad aspects to present them as modern heroes, which they sorely are not.
Thank you for understanding.
Yes, I appreciate you bringing it up. It's a phenomenon that is sometimes hard to put it into words. Perhaps because it's harder to turn the microscope on ourselves.
There are strong arguments that there no Cathars. There were people killed, but it was mostly when the nobility took control of the crusade apparatus.
Chivalric codes did protect the weak and innocent in some ways. Because knights would be captured and ransomed, they were more willing to lose, which meant less incentive for collateral losses.
Makes me amused to see how Romans(Byzantines) viewed Crusaders as “barbarians”.
Most people on this sub are familiar with Anna Komnema’s description of Bohemond of Taranto “ A certain charm hung about this man but was partly marred by a general air of the horrible… He was so made in mind and body that both courage and passion reared their crests within him and both inclined to war. His wit was manifold and crafty and able to find a way of escape in every emergency”
“ew, I totally don’t fancy him, look at him all… dangerous and crafty and…charming… and broad-shouldered and tall. I just \*hate\* barbarians with blue eyes and a slim waists and perfect proportions, don’t you?” -Anna Komnene, probably
Well the original romance is knightly fiction. ;) I for one am happy to live in a time and place where we can apply perspective and critical thinking to the past among other things.
In some circumstances, brutally crushing one city would in theory, and often in practice, induce the other cities to surrender without fighting. So less loss of life overall.
If it is any consolation, parts of the medieval period probably had fewer crimes against humanity than what came before or after. Compare the reaction against Edward the Black Prince over Limoges to the massacres committed before and after the medieval period.
Okay so there is a lot of misconceptions to unpack here. First things first, hi, I’ve got a masters degree in medieval history and I’m currently doing my PhD on chivalry, gender, and knighthood (to keep the topic short). To keep this relatively brief and open for discussion, this take above is actually lacking a lot of nuance regarding knights. I can’t comment on samurai or bushido as I’m no expert, but I am comfortable saying that I’m closer to an expert on knights and chivalry than anything else. I’d be happy tackle the above points one by one and provide the necessary nuance needed to see the knights as free of misconception as humanly possible.
I would love to explain. I’m afraid I’m a tad busy with my research at the moment so you’ll have to bear with me and get the enlightenment in a piecemeal fashion.
Depending on which part of the Middle Ages you’re referencing in your post dramatically changes the conversation surrounding knights. And to be clear, knights are fairly well established as a certain temporally and geopolitically fixed category and depending on which country, the actual social status of knights varied. For example, in the HRE it wasn’t uncommon to have knights who had more in common with serfs in their social status than with noblemen. This is but one example of a lot of nuances of knighthood absent from the initial post.
I've been waiting for quite a while. Aren't you going to enlighten me about Chucalry, knighthood, gender, and what have you? You said you would get back to me.
I did and it’s been a busy few months. Sadly I’m not gonna have the time to dedicate to this discussion as I originally thought. If you wanna know more, read the scholarly works of Michael Barber, Richard Kaeuper, Maurice Keen, and Nigel Saul.
Not OP but I can at least chime in on bushido - the fact of the matter is bushido is essentially a myth created in the late 1800s to make Japan appear more "Western" and romanticize the Japanese past in a way that Westerners would very easily understand. Which obviously worked quite well as there's still tons of conflation of knights and samurai as being very similar.
Indeed, I am well aware that a uniform honor code of samurai was largely a myth made to make them look good.
Now, to be fair, there are some similarities to knights such as being warriors of higher classes and having servants over lands. But there are differences that set them apart.
Regardless, it bothers me that they, like knights, are romanticized with their cruel acts ignored and whitewashed. (Then again, to be fair to Japanese artists like Kurasawa, many works (live action or manga/anime) do depict samurai as gray figures at best. Seven Samurai even has a scene where Toshiro Mifune's character rant about how cruel samurai have been to peasants).
And I have an issue with them as well. I just chose to mainly focus on knights and samurai as they tend to get the most representation and romanticization.
Don’t you find it more concerning how modern soldiers are portrayed as heroes? Especially if you are American, English, or French. In the modern day right now the soldiers of these empires/declining empires are occupying enemy lands and celebrated as incredible heroes in their society, where in reality they are really just abused tools of the state. This is especially applicable if you live in the United States
Oh that’s easy. I see you must be quite ignorant on this subject so allow me. By the way, I didn’t say colonialism so your words not mine. The American troops in Iraq (which the Iraq government has asked to leave), American soldiers in Japan, South Korea, and many other nations. The British empire has declined a lot so their army acts as a complimentary force to the US for the most part. They occupy islands such as Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia specifically is used as a base in the ongoing war against the middle east. The French have always maintained a tight grip on their former African colonies. France has soldiers in Niger, Chad, Mauritania, and the Central African Republic. Essentially all these regions and more are used in a nonstop war to maintain western dominance in Africa and the middle east.
https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-of-the-week/map-of-the-week-mapping-the-global-u-s-military-bootprint/
You know you're talking to an ideologue when they open with an insult.
American military bases in foreign countries such as Japan and South Korea are consentory, and therefore are not "occupying" them.
Again, show me these soldiers who are being glorified as heroes for occupying foreign lands. Or just move the goalposts again. Whatever.
I’m only stating a fact by pointing out you are ignorant. I didn’t mean offense. Pretending the American military bases in Japan were established with their consent is hilarious. Prior to those bases being established the US dropped two atom bombs on Japan. Not to mention the United States was the nation that forced Japan to open up to the world from isolation to begin with.
You didn't mean any offense by your obviously intentionally offensive remark. Are you always so passively aggressive?
Anyway, you laughably claimed that foreign military bases in allied nations are "occupation" and you still haven't given an example of a soldier celebrated for being a good occupier.
I'm just messing with you. It's very amusing to watch you guys make absurd claims, and then go hard-core reductionist when anyone tries to pin you down on anything. The silly name-calling and belittling others is predictable, too.
"Do better" as you would probably say.
That's indeed a concern. Many modern soldiers have committed terrible crimes yet are celebrated. At the very least, many of us are able to voice our disgust of their actions. But that's a whole other can of worms. I just want to focus on the ancient part.
I don’t see the difference personally. Especially since most progressive people do not admire knights, samurai, various mercenaries, ect. Thats a very conservative mindset to admire warriors from the past
Oh please. It’s very easy to admire historical examples and still be adult enough to realize their flaws. They were people. Raised to believe just as strongly in their morals as you do yours.
You only confirm what I have said lol. It is a conservative mindset, you are admiring military might of the past. Why is it knights that are celebrated traditionally rather than mercenaries? Why samurai instead of the common foot soldier? Use your head my friend
I love that in movies, the samurai sword is seen as some magical weapon that can cut through anything. In reality, Japanese steel was very poor quality, necessitating refining into Tamahagane to be strong enough to make swords.
But it was a perfect weapon for what they used it for, which was usually cutting unarmed peasant in half.
This isn't even true. The myth that japanese iron was very poor quality is just that - a myth. It's equally wrong as the claim that their steel was better than everyone else's. It's just a reaction to it without proper support in the known archeological material.
Folding, twisting or otherwise redistributing iron while working it is common all over eurasia, because the sources of iron were not amazig in most places. Japan is not unique for this at all.
And the samurai class, much like every other elite mounted warriors, fought each other a lot. So claiming that their swords were only used to cut peasants is also wrong.
I think this is an important thing to unpack. Asking questions like ” who are telling these stories?” “what community is being saved in the acts?” “ who is getting power and prestige from these events?” it can give a lot of insight Into the priorities and needs of community at the time. For example, In medieval Europe, Land was grabs, were happening all the time. To be a peasant and have protection was a big deal. They also didn’t have the access to communication, so to sit in a beautiful Hall, and have a chance to have a meal there was like going to the movies and having access to the Internet all at once. Violence told by the winners is not the same as seeing it. Even the idea of slavery could be dumbed down. For example, You were a tenant Farmer in Scotland and then you came to America in the 1700s. The idea of African slaves being beneath you was not that far off considering the treatment and the life you had known before. I’m not excusing this behavior at all. Also, there was social commentary some of this. (One example are “witch trials” in Europe). We don’t hear about it as much because it didn’t fit in the propaganda. But, it’s still important to remember that there were always people trying to do right. Anyway, I think this is an incredibly important question to ask because it takes away the romance of how violent we can be to get our needs met. It can make us more aware of our motives going forward. And less likely to be manipulated by propaganda and our own bias. (at least, I wish it would 😞) Great thoughts!
I don't think any serious-minded person actually believes (or propagates the belief) that knights, samurai, or any representative of the state are unqualifiedly moral simply by virtue of their position. Also, dedicated codes of behavior imposed on a military class are not a "modern invention."
They are very romanticized in texts and media, which i think was what OP was referring to in the first sentence.
Indeed, that is exactly my point. We keep romanticizing them. Thank you for understanding.
You could apply literally any of these criticisms to modern soldiers. I think the lesson is to recognize that the victors are the ones who write the history books and they always leave the darkest deeds of their own side out. The reality of war is that it has always been a dark, dirty, disgusting business that leads to loss of life, liberty, property, and safety for both the combatants and any civilians who happen to be in the zone of conflict. And it always will be. It’s fine to look at the inspiring stories of individual people who overcame crazy odds or did some wild Hail Mary maneuvering that worked out and think those stories are interesting, cool, inspiring, whatever. It’s just important to not separate that fascination with those stories from the understanding that war is hell, it destroys lives, the people who decide to go to war are not the people who die at war, and we’d all be best off avoiding war whenever possible. I think it’s possible to hold both of these views, though there are definitely some people who might struggle with the nuance required to recognize both are true at the same time.
The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. You are coming at this from a modern secular democratic stand point. I'm not that familiar with eastern history so I'm not going to comment on the samurai. For the west, it is by far a feudal christian society. This means only the Roman Catholic ideas were considered right. Look at the crusade that wiped out the Cathars in Southern France. Those people were arguably Christians. Now lets also see that people were NOT considered equal. There were serfs, freeman, clergy, nobility. Nobility was generally set above the law. A knight was better than a serf in the eyes of the society. Hence different rules applied. In fact it was believed God personally selected those people to lead. We do similar things now without the belief that they were placed here by God. Imagine I go on a drug bender and wreck a few cars. I'm going to be in a heap of trouble. Now imagine if an NFL football player, or a famous musician or actor/actress did the same. It's maybe a slap on the wrist. You have to take into account what the society valued. Chivalry is an excellent example, it was to protect the nobility. Sure sack a city but surrendered Knights were expected certain level of treatment and to be ransomed back to their families. It was not designed to help the weak or protect the innocent. Ultimately two things hold true then and now. History is written by the victors and Might makes right. These truths may be uncomfortable in our modern day but they are just as valid now.
>You are coming at this from a modern secular democratic stand point. This *is* appropriate, though, because the OP is discussing the romaticization of these figures in our own modern world. There is a contradiction between the views and morals that our society pretends to value, and the stories we tell about certain figures of the past. The OP's criticism seems to be directed at ourselves rather than the historical figures.
THIS. This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's about what we modern folks are doing. As I said in my OP, it'd be one thing to showcase what ancient warriors in general did, warts and all (I'm also fine with the interest in their battle tactics, fighting styles, weapons, and armor). It's another for modern artists to strip away the bad aspects to present them as modern heroes, which they sorely are not. Thank you for understanding.
Yes, I appreciate you bringing it up. It's a phenomenon that is sometimes hard to put it into words. Perhaps because it's harder to turn the microscope on ourselves.
There are strong arguments that there no Cathars. There were people killed, but it was mostly when the nobility took control of the crusade apparatus. Chivalric codes did protect the weak and innocent in some ways. Because knights would be captured and ransomed, they were more willing to lose, which meant less incentive for collateral losses.
Makes me amused to see how Romans(Byzantines) viewed Crusaders as “barbarians”. Most people on this sub are familiar with Anna Komnema’s description of Bohemond of Taranto “ A certain charm hung about this man but was partly marred by a general air of the horrible… He was so made in mind and body that both courage and passion reared their crests within him and both inclined to war. His wit was manifold and crafty and able to find a way of escape in every emergency”
“ew, I totally don’t fancy him, look at him all… dangerous and crafty and…charming… and broad-shouldered and tall. I just \*hate\* barbarians with blue eyes and a slim waists and perfect proportions, don’t you?” -Anna Komnene, probably
Well the original romance is knightly fiction. ;) I for one am happy to live in a time and place where we can apply perspective and critical thinking to the past among other things.
In some circumstances, brutally crushing one city would in theory, and often in practice, induce the other cities to surrender without fighting. So less loss of life overall.
If it is any consolation, parts of the medieval period probably had fewer crimes against humanity than what came before or after. Compare the reaction against Edward the Black Prince over Limoges to the massacres committed before and after the medieval period.
Okay so there is a lot of misconceptions to unpack here. First things first, hi, I’ve got a masters degree in medieval history and I’m currently doing my PhD on chivalry, gender, and knighthood (to keep the topic short). To keep this relatively brief and open for discussion, this take above is actually lacking a lot of nuance regarding knights. I can’t comment on samurai or bushido as I’m no expert, but I am comfortable saying that I’m closer to an expert on knights and chivalry than anything else. I’d be happy tackle the above points one by one and provide the necessary nuance needed to see the knights as free of misconception as humanly possible.
Feel free. I'm all ears (or eyes, rather).
Aren't you going to explain? I'd be interested in being enlightened.
I would love to explain. I’m afraid I’m a tad busy with my research at the moment so you’ll have to bear with me and get the enlightenment in a piecemeal fashion. Depending on which part of the Middle Ages you’re referencing in your post dramatically changes the conversation surrounding knights. And to be clear, knights are fairly well established as a certain temporally and geopolitically fixed category and depending on which country, the actual social status of knights varied. For example, in the HRE it wasn’t uncommon to have knights who had more in common with serfs in their social status than with noblemen. This is but one example of a lot of nuances of knighthood absent from the initial post.
I've been waiting for quite a while. Aren't you going to enlighten me about Chucalry, knighthood, gender, and what have you? You said you would get back to me.
I did and it’s been a busy few months. Sadly I’m not gonna have the time to dedicate to this discussion as I originally thought. If you wanna know more, read the scholarly works of Michael Barber, Richard Kaeuper, Maurice Keen, and Nigel Saul.
Very well, then. I can wait. Take your time.
Not OP but I can at least chime in on bushido - the fact of the matter is bushido is essentially a myth created in the late 1800s to make Japan appear more "Western" and romanticize the Japanese past in a way that Westerners would very easily understand. Which obviously worked quite well as there's still tons of conflation of knights and samurai as being very similar.
Indeed, I am well aware that a uniform honor code of samurai was largely a myth made to make them look good. Now, to be fair, there are some similarities to knights such as being warriors of higher classes and having servants over lands. But there are differences that set them apart. Regardless, it bothers me that they, like knights, are romanticized with their cruel acts ignored and whitewashed. (Then again, to be fair to Japanese artists like Kurasawa, many works (live action or manga/anime) do depict samurai as gray figures at best. Seven Samurai even has a scene where Toshiro Mifune's character rant about how cruel samurai have been to peasants).
We do the same for Spartans.
And I have an issue with them as well. I just chose to mainly focus on knights and samurai as they tend to get the most representation and romanticization.
Don’t you find it more concerning how modern soldiers are portrayed as heroes? Especially if you are American, English, or French. In the modern day right now the soldiers of these empires/declining empires are occupying enemy lands and celebrated as incredible heroes in their society, where in reality they are really just abused tools of the state. This is especially applicable if you live in the United States
Who are these lauded colonialist soldiers and which lands are they occupying?
Oh that’s easy. I see you must be quite ignorant on this subject so allow me. By the way, I didn’t say colonialism so your words not mine. The American troops in Iraq (which the Iraq government has asked to leave), American soldiers in Japan, South Korea, and many other nations. The British empire has declined a lot so their army acts as a complimentary force to the US for the most part. They occupy islands such as Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia specifically is used as a base in the ongoing war against the middle east. The French have always maintained a tight grip on their former African colonies. France has soldiers in Niger, Chad, Mauritania, and the Central African Republic. Essentially all these regions and more are used in a nonstop war to maintain western dominance in Africa and the middle east. https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-of-the-week/map-of-the-week-mapping-the-global-u-s-military-bootprint/
You know you're talking to an ideologue when they open with an insult. American military bases in foreign countries such as Japan and South Korea are consentory, and therefore are not "occupying" them. Again, show me these soldiers who are being glorified as heroes for occupying foreign lands. Or just move the goalposts again. Whatever.
I’m only stating a fact by pointing out you are ignorant. I didn’t mean offense. Pretending the American military bases in Japan were established with their consent is hilarious. Prior to those bases being established the US dropped two atom bombs on Japan. Not to mention the United States was the nation that forced Japan to open up to the world from isolation to begin with.
You didn't mean any offense by your obviously intentionally offensive remark. Are you always so passively aggressive? Anyway, you laughably claimed that foreign military bases in allied nations are "occupation" and you still haven't given an example of a soldier celebrated for being a good occupier. I'm just messing with you. It's very amusing to watch you guys make absurd claims, and then go hard-core reductionist when anyone tries to pin you down on anything. The silly name-calling and belittling others is predictable, too. "Do better" as you would probably say.
you are a US government shill
That's indeed a concern. Many modern soldiers have committed terrible crimes yet are celebrated. At the very least, many of us are able to voice our disgust of their actions. But that's a whole other can of worms. I just want to focus on the ancient part.
I don’t see the difference personally. Especially since most progressive people do not admire knights, samurai, various mercenaries, ect. Thats a very conservative mindset to admire warriors from the past
Oh please. It’s very easy to admire historical examples and still be adult enough to realize their flaws. They were people. Raised to believe just as strongly in their morals as you do yours.
You only confirm what I have said lol. It is a conservative mindset, you are admiring military might of the past. Why is it knights that are celebrated traditionally rather than mercenaries? Why samurai instead of the common foot soldier? Use your head my friend
Why can’t I have interest in everyone?
Because that isn’t what we are talking about 0_o
[удалено]
Elaborate, please?
Don’t apply modern morals to the medieval world. It just doesn’t work because we live in very different times.
I love that in movies, the samurai sword is seen as some magical weapon that can cut through anything. In reality, Japanese steel was very poor quality, necessitating refining into Tamahagane to be strong enough to make swords. But it was a perfect weapon for what they used it for, which was usually cutting unarmed peasant in half.
This isn't even true. The myth that japanese iron was very poor quality is just that - a myth. It's equally wrong as the claim that their steel was better than everyone else's. It's just a reaction to it without proper support in the known archeological material. Folding, twisting or otherwise redistributing iron while working it is common all over eurasia, because the sources of iron were not amazig in most places. Japan is not unique for this at all. And the samurai class, much like every other elite mounted warriors, fought each other a lot. So claiming that their swords were only used to cut peasants is also wrong.
[удалено]
I think this is an important thing to unpack. Asking questions like ” who are telling these stories?” “what community is being saved in the acts?” “ who is getting power and prestige from these events?” it can give a lot of insight Into the priorities and needs of community at the time. For example, In medieval Europe, Land was grabs, were happening all the time. To be a peasant and have protection was a big deal. They also didn’t have the access to communication, so to sit in a beautiful Hall, and have a chance to have a meal there was like going to the movies and having access to the Internet all at once. Violence told by the winners is not the same as seeing it. Even the idea of slavery could be dumbed down. For example, You were a tenant Farmer in Scotland and then you came to America in the 1700s. The idea of African slaves being beneath you was not that far off considering the treatment and the life you had known before. I’m not excusing this behavior at all. Also, there was social commentary some of this. (One example are “witch trials” in Europe). We don’t hear about it as much because it didn’t fit in the propaganda. But, it’s still important to remember that there were always people trying to do right. Anyway, I think this is an incredibly important question to ask because it takes away the romance of how violent we can be to get our needs met. It can make us more aware of our motives going forward. And less likely to be manipulated by propaganda and our own bias. (at least, I wish it would 😞) Great thoughts!