Why is medieval warfare often romanticized as "clean" and "noble" when in fact it was just as brutal as the technological means enabled it?
Why is medieval warfare often romanticized as "clean" and "noble" when in fact it was just as brutal as the technological means en...
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
The real truth behind the myths of the warrior, including the myth of medieval times as a romanticized time, is that medieval warfare was a time of brutality and atrocity like that of many past and present wars. To the chagrin of most people, but not to those who take pride in fighting, warfare and the warrior's role in it never had anything to do with the noble arts and values. This was not a romantic era of chivalry and knighthood, which is what the public sees depicted in the medieval movie and television programs. War was not about defending your country or your religion, although some wars were (and are). It was, and is, all about violence and domination for the sake of the warrior and his clan. This is why it is important to know the facts about warriors and warfare and not rely on Hollywood's renditions of what life in medieval times was like.
Never heard anyone say it was "clean". Maybe the disciplines were more nobly elaborated on and theorized (like traditional Japanese Budo is still today) but the warfare itself was always understood to be extremely brutal.
Depending on the century and belligerents, knights and nobles would mostly get spared and made prisoner, while the footmen would get slaughtered mercilessly. Most histories are written from a knight/men-at-arms' point of view, or by someone serving a noble, so they don't relate the cruel fate infantry suffered in the Middle Ages.
Footmen were also taken prisoner
Not to the same degree. Read the History of William Marshal, only two knights/nobles die in battle in the whole biography, while there are graphic descriptions of footmen, bowmen and siege engineers getting their heads lopped off. Towards the end of the book, there is a description of the 1217 naval battle of Sandwich, where William Marshal's forces make it a point to rescue every French noble and let all other French sailors drown.
At the Battle of Bouvines, French cavalry slaughtered the German and Flemish footmen, whereas knights and men-at-arms were mostly made prisoner. Footmen seem only to have been captured after their army's defeat, and even then medieval horsemen have been known to chase and slaughter footmen during routs, because they made far less valuable hostages compared to enemy knights who could pay their own ransom.
It's not though. Haven't you heard the phrase "get medieval" on someone?
No, it wouldn't even work in my language.
in the 1000s 1100s you would get almost scot free in Western Europe : small armies (50-to 100 nobles) who tried to capture each other. the exceptions were the crusades were slaughter would happen.
Modern warfare is cowardly with the emergence of drones and bombs. What’s more manly? Killing someone face to face with a sword or droning then from a city away.
>Killing someone face to face with a sword or droning then from a city away
"Modern" doesn't only mean 21st century dummy.
And I am telling you why people at the present time romanticise the old ways
old war wasnt that much different, if anything you were most likely to die just as today
arrows are overpowered
You’re stupid. Please show me an archer able to shoot an arrow from 100km away
Not him but distance doesn't mean much since the enemy can retaliate and hit from the same distance.
No, most countries can’t even into drones tech. If you don’t think hitting people with drones is cowardly then there is something very wrong with you.
I was rather thinking about missile launchers, I agree with you on drones. As I was saying I was talking about modern warfare in general, not just contemporary and modern warfare goes back to, depending who you ask, WW1 or all the way back to the Crimean War, according to some even earlier.
>Why is medieval warfare often romanticized as "clean" and "noble"
Is it? By who?
People talking about "knightly virtues".
There was a much smaller amount of death and warfare was concentrated in the hands of small groups of professionals as opposed to levee en masse. Also no chemical weapons, snipers, and indiscriminate shelling of towns is nice. And you are far less likely to survive horrendous injuries ie losing limbs.
It VASTLY differs from place to place and time to time.
Some places like 14th Century France DID have a lot of chivalry, fights determined by duels, prisoners taken as ransom instead of just getting put down etc etc.
Other places where complete chaos, where only the most brutal warlord would prosper.
So the real answer is, its somewhere in the middle. Battle is never ever going to be pretty, but some mercy goes a long way.