The Marrocidenian war

[Lychaon]

Is it just a name? Thanks God, I couldn't barely sleep with that on mind! 

[Penchant]

That is entirely wrong, go read some of the Chivalry prose written from the 12th century to the fourteenth or even fifteenth. Or even research the Chivalric orders, such as the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Star, both of which produced their own written codes of chivalry to instruct knights on how to conduct themselves.

It's a more modern view that knights were simply men in flashy armour who were little better than bandits, as those who did so were reviled and outright punished in Medieval Europe.

+1. Honor and largess were key things that differentiated rich peasants and actual nobility.

[Vellos]

Um, no.

Noctus prima kids.

Knights were serial rapists too.

It's not called "raping and burning" for idle reasons.

Codes of Chivalry were drafted as prescriptive correctives to a problem– not as descriptive accounts of behavior. Now, certainly many knights did try to aspire to such things. But it's tough to rule the peasants without raping and mauling some here or there.

[Hroppa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur

Primae Noctis was a myth, first mentioned in the 16th century.

The idea of the chivalrous knight is one with complex origins. One explanation for it is that the church tried to promote a moral code for warriors from the 10th century onwards, because so many knights (or at least mounted soldiers) were killing and robbing people (most relevantly, church people). The notion of chivalry itself with more specific connotations originated in the chivalric literature NoblesseChevaleresque mentions.

Basically, the idea of what a knight was changed dramatically over the medieval period, as did their actual activities and attributes (up to and including the degree to which you could say what we call knights existed), so it's easy to pick and choose examples to support most generalisations you could make.

[Glaumring the Fox]

What about the knights in white satin?

[Marlboro]

With no one able to call them out on it though I'm damn sure they all saw themselves as knights in shining armor. Anyone who disagreed got to face off against the medieval equivalent of a main battle tank. Unless they were higher nobility, in which case the knight would just sit out the next big battle in the shade.

Bad people think they're great. Rich bad people with absolute power KNOW they're great.

[Phellan]

Bad people think they're great. Rich bad people with absolute power KNOW they're great.

+1

Human nature truth ftw.

We can quote all the books we want  - people are corrupt and even modern day armies (or politicians/power groups) mistreat and abuse people.  And "human rights" have really only been around for the last 50 or 60 years (and even the nations that "signed" onto them . . ignore them when its convenient).  Prior to that they were laws meant to empower certain groups or classes of people.

[Glaumring the Fox]

Nobles: people who dressed well yet were still infested with the same fleas, ticks and mites as the peasants.

[Penchant]

Nobles: people who dressed well yet were still infested with the same fleas, ticks and mites as the peasants.

Pretty much.

+1

Human nature truth ftw.

We can quote all the books we want  - people are corrupt and even modern day armies (or politicians/power groups) mistreat and abuse people.  And "human rights" have really only been around for the last 50 or 60 years (and even the nations that "signed" onto them . . ignore them when its convenient).  Prior to that they were laws meant to empower certain groups or classes of people.

I disagree with the words used by Marlboro. Everybody generally sees himself or herself as a good person, or in the right, its society that determines if they are though.

[Phellan]

Pretty much. I disagree with the words used by Marlboro. Everybody generally sees himself or herself as a good person, or in the right, its society that determines if they are though.

And like people, society tends to view itself as being in the "right" when compared to others.   So who judges societies?  Those societies that follow usually I suppose. . .

[Penchant]

So who judges societies?  Those societies that follow usually I suppose. . .

Yeah. But this discussion does not belong in this thread.

[Phellan]

Yeah. But this discussion does not belong in this thread.

Back to why we should wipe out the Vandils and their ilk!

[Penchant]

Back to why we should wipe out the Vandils and their ilk!

+1. Cracks me up how the Vandals have so many different names people call them, except the one they actually want to be called no one ever does. Terran seems to not really care about the war though so that sucks.

[Vellos]

They want to be called Orvandeaux, don't they? That's the name Hireshmont usually uses.

And I don't know what you mean about Terran not caring. It's hard to do anything when neither of your allies are willing to help and you don't share a border. What's the point in invading Aurvandil if it's just going to lead to your allies bitching at you about endangering them, and if your allies aren't willing to take any regions?

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

You know, now this is just a thought, but if you're not actually intending to fight you ought to make peace because all this continuation of an endless war does is galvanise the opinion in Aurvandil that the Veinsormoot will not accept peace by any means, by any concessions or agreement, and that leaves only violence as a resort.

Terran's demand that we pay them three thousand gold just to open up peace talks exacerbating what is now becoming a prevalent opinion in Aurvandil,  and whilst Mendicant doesn't want to fight the Veinsormoot, nor even weaken them or to destroy any realm in the Veinsormoot, he won't be ruler for much longer if the Veinsormoot continues to spurn peace talks and he continues to refuse to launch military campaigns on the Veinsormoot.

If you're just going to uphold an endless war that you have no intention of either ending, or fighting, then Aurvandil is going to lash out because the current state of mass war is bad for internal affairs (Though, it has allowed Mendicant to get away with a lot of stuff that previously would have gotten him deposed, like Orthodox Astroism and Cult of Reason, or actually signing an alliance and with the Freestate no less) we don't want to keep fighting, and we don't want to be forced into a climate of constant hostility with our neighbours, which if they won't accept peace leaves their complete capitulation or destruction.