Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI

[Vitruviansquid]

I can definitely attest that I tried a few times to follow the thread of this discussion and I can no longer understand how the end connects with the beginning.

But I don't really think it's due to malice on anyone's part (though wow, both got pretty catty in the middle). It's a kind of debate that is naturally pretty difficult to get to grips with because it was all about definitions in the beginning... which tends to change at will by everybody. Is the HRE a failed state? By some standards yes, by other standards no. The dictionary definition I found is "a state whose political or economic system has become so weak that the government is no longer in control." Well what constitutes being "in control?" What if what we consider being "in control" is not even a desirable level of control for medieval people whose social and economic systems can be so different from ours?

Had the discussion been about something that is more solvable, I'm sure discussion would've ended more civilly. Maybe like, was it safe to travel unarmed or even armed between cities in the HRE? Did the typical subject of the HRE identify as a member of the HRE or more as a member of a local power? How often did the emperor try to get his nominal underlings to do stuff, and those underlings told him to suck a lemon?

Most of these questions have been more or less answered prior, but you see what I'm getting at?

[Tiktakkat]

Tiktakkat, you are being totally . . .

Unwilling to just admit you are right.
That is correct.
I think your analysis is wrong.
If you wish to debate it civilly, I am happy to.
As you are not, then that is on you.

[Martin Greywolf]

Ottomans. And you talk about them without properly mentioning Hungary. Who knew.

Western Europe in general has a very, very poor understanding of Ottoman wars, mostly because they have a very poor understanding of Eastern European history in general. What then happens is equivalent of people talking about the battle of Agincourt without knowing what Hastings was all about. Since I live in the exact same place where Ottoman frontier was, and have an interest in history, I know a fair bit about it.

1) Were Ottomans existential threat to Europe?

Not to all of Europe at the same time. They did manage to for all intents and purposes annex Hungary, with only a thin band of land around Danube remaining in, well, I'm gonna say European hands, there were quite a few kings here, some Hapsburg, some not. Thing is, they didn't remove people that were there - local nobles and dukes (equivalents of them at any rate, good luck translating ispan correctly) swore fealty to Ottoman sultans and could keep their "client kingdoms".

The actually conquered parts that became part of Ottoman provincial system (pashaliks and so forth) had only the top members of administration replaced by Ottomans, nobles by and large kept their land and some of the privileges, ordinary people kept on keeping on.

Hell, Ottomans improved life for many of the religious minorities, like jews, lutherans and so on, since all they had to do was pay lower taxes. They even imporved lives of these minorities in Hungary, mostly because everyone had bigger problems to worry about than kalvinist/lutheran split. It didn't remove the religious issues, but which religion was in favour depended more on conversions than on persecutions. Loosely speaking.

Now, there's no way in hell Ottomans could threaten, say, England in any way at the time we're talking about, but they were pretty close to threaten Rome, and Rome was, even with all of the religious upheval at the time, viewed as a symbol of Christianity. Popes did exert their influence to help fight against Ottoman empire, and it was a very significant help. In the times between sieges of Vienna, you had times when Hungary received over 1 000 000 florens/ducats in foreign aid, and that's not counting foreign contingents of soldiers.

So, despite Ottomans not being existential threat to all of Europe, they were a threat to a lot of it, and it was a big enough threat that Ottoman armies were fought off by combined armies of Czech/Bohemian, Magyar, Slovak, Croat, Serbian, Italian, German, Austrian, Polish and other forces.

If, and I mean a huge IF, Ottomans managed to make a foothold in Vienna, and if they managed to spearhead industrial revolution, they may have been able to create a pan-European empire, but that's about as much of a stretch as ancient Rome conquering Russia.

2) Ottoman atrocities

People make a massive mistake of looking at what happened in these wars with modern sensibilities. Sure, if someone started to impale people on stakes today, there would be hell to pay. Back then, it was a regular punishment, albeit a pretty severe one, but remember, this is a time when penalty for theft was a chopped off hand.

Of course, there is the propaganda factor, I'm pretty sure all the accounts you've read are European-based sources, and they tend to portray Ottomans as the devil himself, obviously. Unbiased accounts are non-existent, and what little we have translated of Ottoman sources makes claims just like these about Europeans.

Our best source of this are court documents, and they don't paint a pretty picture. Basically, thanks to the religious subtext of the whole war, both sides had no shortage of fanatics and sociopaths. There are accounts that tell us that Ottoman raid did about as much damage to the population and wealth of a region as "allied" forces passing through it, especially if the region was recently captured.

Many villages had to pay "taxes" that amounted to little more than blackmail to three or four different sides, and were attacked is they didn't, killing off a significant dose of population.

The prevailing attitude towards this at the time was a shrug with a does of "tough ****" - yes, people in charge tried to help somewhat (they got taxes out of them, after all), but the conflict was too big for them to change anything. In the light of this, Ottoman atrocities while still atrocities are markedly less exotic.

3) Killing all people in a city

From what I can tell, this wasn't done lightly, or without a good reason. If a fortress or a city surrendered after a siege, they were treated reasonably well. Hell, there was one case where a commander of a fort decided to charge besieging Ottomans all by himself after the soldiers deserted (he got lightly wounded for his trouble), and Ottomans were impressed with him enough to release him without demanding a ransom.

What was usually raided were villages - enough so that they started to put up walls around themselves. The goal here was to acquire loot, though, so while there was a helathy dose of killing, these usually didn't result in full on depopulation.

If a city was exterminated, it was usually because they refused to surrender even after a siege and forced Ottomans to storm the walls. Killing everyone inside in this case was more a matter of strategic expedience, and was not done by Ottomans exclusively. You could even say that it was a standard practice at the time.

As for POW treatment, we have very few sources telling us how common soldier fared, from them it seems they were sold to slavery. Do remember that this slavery wasn't the European colonial type, not yet, slaves had quite a few rights in Ottoman empire. Many slaves even stated that they were better off as slaves than as free men, though these were usually a) not catholic (so, escape from persecution) and b) recorded in Ottoman sources (making the claim a little suspect).

Nobles that were captured by Ottomans were ransomed off for the standard price. Yes yes, someone is going to bring up Nicopolis, those guys were ransomed for a significantly heftier sums, but that was a one time thing - Ottomans wanted to take some revenge for the whole Crusade thing. Captives were usually treated well, unless Ottomans had a real beef with them.

4) The big picture

So, we can conclude that Ottoman frontier was an extremely ****ty place to live with both sides being *****, Ottoman empire as such was about as nice as the rest of them and nicer than most of the European kingdoms (religious freedom will do that). Ottomans certainly had an eventual conquest of Europe as an ambition, but were very, very far from achieving that. Even annexing all Hapsburg lands was hell of a long term goal, and those were by no means all of Europe.

So, not an existential threat, but both Ottomans and their opponents liked to claim that they were just that.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

I don't know historical examples but it completely makes sense to me that special execution weapons could be made heavier than a battle-weapon, in the same way that an axe used for chopping wood is generally going to be heavier than a fighting axe.

I guess there's another possibility for their use - some of the gladiator types were essentially designed around story telling and propaganda, especially where they represented enemies the Roman army had defeated, so if there's a particular enemy that used larger than normal weapons, gladiators taking their role may have used even larger weapons both for dramatic effect, and to actually make them visible for those in the cheap seats at the back of the coliseum.

Although in that case, and given they're not really designed to kill, the weapons might be made from lighter materials.

[cobaltstarfire]

This keeps going back to Cathedrals, but one of the reasons I brought up the Bruges tower is that it wasn't a Cathedral, it was the bell tower on the town hall. This was a lookout tower for the town, and where they rang bells for the different work hours and so on. Many prosperous towns had very high towers, especially if they didn't already have a huge Cathedral or a large church, because it was so useful as defense and as an observation point.

But I concede, Bruges was a fairly large town by medieval standards.


G

I didn't know the big tower part was originally for guarding and things (when I visited the only info I really had was it was a part of a church, and about some other good places to visit, such as where to get the best chocolate...) All I can really remember is the tower in particular dominates everything, and just gets taller and taller and taller the closer you get to it, it's definitely the most interesting [thing that is attached to a (place of worship)] that I have visited. The only other noticeably big church I've seen in person is the Notre Dame in Paris, which I liked more for its doors and other external decorations than for the architecture. Most the other churches I've visited were relatively small*, but very richly decorated and painted inside. (mostly in/around Austria)

*I was much younger when I visited all those "small" churches, I can't remember what any of them looked like outside, but they weren't nearly as massive, more like typical church size.

I do think that that tower still goes back to "our aesthetics/needs have moved on" though.

That underground system looks like it'd be pretty interesting to visit

[Galloglaich]

4) The big picture

So, we can conclude that Ottoman frontier was an extremely ****ty place to live with both sides being *****, Ottoman empire as such was about as nice as the rest of them and nicer than most of the European kingdoms (religious freedom will do that). Ottomans certainly had an eventual conquest of Europe as an ambition, but were very, very far from achieving that. Even annexing all Hapsburg lands was hell of a long term goal, and those were by no means all of Europe.

So, not an existential threat, but both Ottomans and their opponents liked to claim that they were just that.

Interesting post Martin and provocative counterpoint, but let me offer a couple of responses here.

Life under Ottoman rule included the tax on your children (little boys) many of whom would be taken away into sex slavery and some to be made into Janissaries (also a rather brutal process) who would be used to conquer more Christian lands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme



I wouldn't want my kid taken away into Ottoman slavery, personally.

And this is a little complicated to get into but it also meant that local Ottoman governors had total arbitrary authority over life and death that wasn't so widespread in Latinized Europe, at least Central and Northern Europe and a lot of Italy. In the Latinized, Christian parts of Europe the various estates had a lot of rights and couldn't safely be pushed around due to the delicate balance of power. But under Ottoman rule it was a much more strict top-down hierarchy and brutal mass punishments were much more frequent.

Religious Freedom
Though the post-medieval era would be beset religious wars, leading ultimately to the horrible Apocalyptic 30 Years War in the 17th Century - which admittedly was as bad as anything the Ottomans did, in the Late Medieval and even the 16th Century things were not as universally terrible as most tend to assume.

The Lutheran / Calvinist / Catholic splits were post-medieval, but even in the 16th Century you also had plenty of places within the HRE and other Latinized Christian nations which allowed other religions, probably the most obvious being Poland / Lithuania where they had pretty well established religious freedom laws which was much nicer, at least as far as I'm aware, than the Ottoman rule which did impose a rather heavy burden on non-Muslims. Poland and Lithuania (and later Poland-Lithuania) allowed Catholic, Hussite, Orthodox, Jews, even Muslims, and later Lutheran and Calvinist people to live there without paying extra taxes or being persecuted in the Late Medieval period and continuing through most of the 16th Century and early 17th. Of course once that broke down it got really nasty in the mid-17th with the Cossack uprising and the Deluge etc..

see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Poland

"Numerous royal privileges, as well as internal autonomy granted by the monarchs of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, allowed the Tatars to preserve their religion, traditions and culture throughout the ages. The most notable military clans were granted with Coats of Arms and szlachta status, while many other families melted into the rural and burgher society. The first Tatar settlements were founded near the major towns of the Commonwealth in order to allow for fast mobilization of troops. Apart from religious freedom, the Tatars were allowed to marry Polish and Ruthenian women of Catholic or Orthodox faith, uncommon in Europe of that time. Finally, the May Constitution granted the Tatars with a representation in the Polish Sejm."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Confederation

You live in Slovakia so you tell me if this is true, but my understanding is that religious cohabitation did take place in other places too, if not necessarily in sweet harmony, people did have enough autonomy to be able to live - Hussite heretics for example settled in what was then Northern Hungary (now Slovakia) and lived in a bunch of Royal (Free) cities there pretty independently, in spite of Hungary being rather aggressively Catholic at the time. Jan Jiskra etc. It's not that Hungarian or Austrian nobles wouldn't have loved to be every bit as mean and ruthless as the Ottomans but they didn't have the kind of system in place that always allowed them to be, at least not everywhere, though they could in some local places.

King George of Podebrady in Bohemia protected Catholic as well as Hussite subjects.

Many towns in the HRE had dual confession rules, for example Augsburg, with split populations between Catholic and Protestant. The Swiss Confederation was made up of a mix of Catholic and Protestant zones after the reformation... there was a lot of trouble there initially but they worked it out.

Freedom in General

Technically everyone in the Ottoman Empire right up to the Grand Vizier and the Pasha's was a slave. Some slaves had a lot of rights but many, arguably most, did not. Children were used as sex slaves on a large scale, galleys were rowed by slaves, salt mines and quarries were death-holes in which slaves died by the tens of thousands (in sharp contrast to European mines at that time which were run by paid experts). The Ottoman system of unlimited carrot and stick management could accomplish a lot but death was a very common punishment for the high as well as low ranked and the wheels of power ground many up over the slightest whim of the Sultan.


That said it's true that many European artisans worked for the Ottomans and European merchants, soldiers and diplomats visited their courts, admired many things about their culture and technology and Ottomans certainly weren't all bad. They did pose an existential threat to the European political systems and to European polities, at least in a large part of Europe. Of course it's hard to say what would happen if they hadn't been so aggressively and skillfully opposed by the likes of Hunyadi / Corvinus, the various Polish kings, Czech mercenaries, the Austrians and Germans, and the Balkan people and so on.

France did eventually ally themselves with the Ottomans of course but that was only after an incredibly powerful Spain, surging with wealth from the New World, joined with the HRE and allied with Venice, showed that they were capable of holding the Ottomans back - and posed a major threat of taking over Europe themselves and France specifically. That was post-medieval though, all part of the very new reality of global Colonial Empires.

G

[Galloglaich]

I didn't know the big tower part was originally for guarding and things (when I visited the only info I really had was it was a part of a church, and about some other good places to visit, such as where to get the best chocolate...) All I can really remember is the tower in particular dominates everything, and just gets taller and taller and taller the closer you get to it, it's definitely the most interesting [thing that is attached to a (place of worship)] that I have visited. The only other noticeably big church I've seen in person is the Notre Dame in Paris, which I liked more for its doors and other external decorations than for the architecture. Most the other churches I've visited were relatively small*, but very richly decorated and painted inside. (mostly in/around Austria)

*I was much younger when I visited all those "small" churches, I can't remember what any of them looked like outside, but they weren't nearly as massive, more like typical church size.

I do think that that tower still goes back to "our aesthetics/needs have moved on" though.

That underground system looks like it'd be pretty interesting to visit

There are two towers, one in the Church (basilica of St. Mary) (80 meters) and one in the city hall (70 meters).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_H...r,_Krak%C3%B3w


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Ma...a,_Krak%C3%B3w

G

[cobaltstarfire]

I'm thinking about this one

But neither of the things you linked are in Bruges? So I think I got lost somewhere along the way.

[Galloglaich]

I'm thinking about this one

But neither of the things you linked are in Bruges? So I think I got lost somewhere along the way.

I think you are probably thinking of this one then, in Bruges. 83 meters high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfry_of_Bruges



It's not a church.

[cobaltstarfire]

I think you are probably thinking of this one then, in Bruges. 83 meters high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfry_of_Bruges

(image)

It's not a church.

I see you didn't look at the pictures I linked.

I googled the building and it's the Church of Our Lady, which is according to wikipedia 122.3 meters tall.

[Galloglaich]

Ottomans. And you talk about them without properly mentioning Hungary. Who knew.

I did mention Hungary several time and the Corvinus / Hunyadi's and the Black Army etc... ?

[Galloglaich]

I see you didn't look at the pictures I linked.

I googled the building and it's the Church of Our Lady, which is according to wikipedia 122.3 meters tall.

I did look, but I thought it was a mistake. Lots of big towers in Bruges! Usually people refer to the one in the town square. I stand corrected!

G

[cobaltstarfire]

Well there we go, we were both just thinking/talking about completely different buildings the whole time.

Cause when I think of tall towers in Bruges that church is the only one that comes to mind, it just dwarfs everything else in its vicinity. (Some detective work of my other pictures tells me I did pass through the town square, but didn't notice the Belfry at all or can't remember it...but there was a building with cool lion statues that drew my attention)

But yeah, that (the church) was what I was comparing earlier to modern mega churches.

For a minute there I seriously thought I was going more crazy, I took those pictures, and I walked inside that church. It's about the only thing I clearly remember from that particular day trip.

[Tiktakkat]

And this is a little complicated to get into but it also meant that local Ottoman governors had total arbitrary authority over life and death that wasn't so widespread in Latinized Europe, at least Central and Northern Europe and a lot of Italy. In the Latinized, Christian parts of Europe the various estates had a lot of rights and couldn't safely be pushed around due to the delicate balance of power. But under Ottoman rule it was a much more strict top-down hierarchy and brutal mass punishments were much more frequent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasan...323%E2%80%9328
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Ge...Night_Uprising
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harelle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samogitian_uprisings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...ant_rebellions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Cade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_William_Merfold
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remen%C3%A7a

So actually, peasants could be safely pushed around in Europe, both the Latinized and Germanic parts, and it resulted in rather frequent uprisings, that were brutally suppressed.

The Lutheran / Calvinist / Catholic splits were post-medieval, but even in the 16th Century you also had plenty of places within the HRE and other Latinized Christian nations which allowed other religions, . . .

The Albigensian Crusade was in the 13th century.
Wycliffe showed up in the 14th century, and was brutally repressed after the Peasants' Revolt and the Oldcastle Revolt.
The Bohemian Reformation began in the 14th century was well, and led to the Hussite Wars.
Hugenots showed up in France at the start of the 16th century, and led to the French Wars of Religion.
The 16th century had the Peace of Augsburg and cuius regio, eius religio, which excluded Calvinism, and was predicated on religious exclusion.
Oh, and that also means that the Lutheran/Calvinist/Catholic splits were in the 16th century. So . . . medieval.

The places tolerating other religions were few and far between.
As for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, it tried and failed repeatedly to impose orthodoxy, and only granted religious freedom in a desperate attempt to hold onto the Tatar region.

Of course the Ottoman Empire was no grand bastion of religious rights, despite the degree to which they tolerated Christians and others. Indeed some people assert that the only reason they did tolerate other faiths was to have a source of recruits for the devirne and similar impositions.

France did eventually ally themselves with the Ottomans of course but that was only after an incredibly powerful Spain, surging with wealth from the New World, joined with the HRE and allied with Venice, showed that they were capable of holding the Ottomans back - and posed a major threat of taking over Europe themselves and France specifically. That was post-medieval though, all part of the very new reality of global Colonial Empires

.

Spain did not "join" with the HRE.
It was inherited by the Hapsburgs.

At the time, wealth from the New World was only beginning to trickle in - Charles V/I became co-ruler in 1518, a mere 26 years after the New World was even opened up. The Aztec Empire would not be conquered until 3 years after he was recognized, and the Inca Empire would not fall until 11 years after that.

Spain was powerful - sort of. It was not just modern Spain, but also Sicily and Naples, as well as portions of North Africa.
However, it was politically fractured just as the HRE, with each province having its own laws, and the two main cortes of Aragon and Castille having to separately agree to accept Charles V/I as the King. Indeed, he never was the "King of Spain". He was the King of Castille and Leon, the King of Aragon and Sicily, the Count of Barcelona, and the King of Naples, each as distinct holdings and titles. His son Phillip II had the title of King of Spain, along with all of the subsidiary titles, but he was never Holy Roman Emperor - that went to his uncle, Ferdinand I.

And again, this was at the start of the 16th century, which was medieval.

[Galloglaich]

As for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, it tried and failed repeatedly to impose orthodoxy, and only granted religious freedom in a desperate attempt to hold onto the Tatar region.

Lol, good try Breh, you almost got me there... very tempting. But I won't bite. You can go round and round with some other sap. I will say this, you do a good job imitating someone who knows what they are talking about while writing utter crap made up out of thin air.

G

[Tiktakkat]

But I won't bite.

G

I am correcting your errors for the benefit of others who are interested in history.
Thank you for not posting even more errors that I have to correct.

[Galloglaich]

I am correcting your errors for the benefit of others who are interested in history.
Thank you for not posting even more errors that I have to correct.

Hahahahah yeah sure you are mate. Keep trying. Not gonna happen.

G

[Martin Greywolf]

1) Ottoman children tax

Again, you make massive mistake of looking at this through modern sensibilities. First of all, being selected as a janissary candidate was thought of as an honour, a good start, akin to going to a well-respected boarding school, or in more medieval terms, getting an apprenticeship with a great craftsman.

There was significant controversy even within Ottoman empire itself whether this thing was acceptable, and a lot of the argumentation went along the way of "we can't let former non-muslims into high governmental positions". There was no forced conversion per se, you were just heavily peer pressured into one - not an upstanding thing to do for sure, but separation of church and state is a very modern concept.

Janissaries had a tough training, sure, but only a small portion of kids were even allowed into it, and again, it was something to strive to, not something to avoid. Other occupations for people from this tax were in imperial administration, which was a pretty cushy job.

Lastly, this didn't separate families. There was nothing stopping these recruits from contacting their families back home (save for a lack of literacy), and indeed, most of them kept in touch with them, either by writing (somewhat rare) or by visiting.

Yes, you can find lots of primary sources saying Ottomans tore crying children out of their mother's arms to brainwash them into being bloodthirsty killers. These claims have about as much substance as US anti-Japanese propaganda during WW2.

2) Religious freedom

Well, you seem to have read a few articles and left it at that. Once you start to dig in, the picture is very different - yes, there were royal decrees that protected one faith or another. They were usually issued under pressure of a political faction, or in response to a religious unrest that resulted in a whole lot of people dying.

Hungary did indeed have cohabitation of a lot of denominations, and those tended to result in violent mobs every other Tuesday. To give a famous example, a lot of evidence against Elizabeth Bathory is suspect because of religious background alone (she was a Calvinist and investigations were started because of a Lutheran minister's complaints).

That's not even going into what were most likely actual, literal human sacrifices done in Hungary's rural areas.

[Max_Killjoy]

1) Ottoman children tax

Again, you make massive mistake of looking at this through modern sensibilities. First of all, being selected as a janissary candidate was thought of as an honour, a good start, akin to going to a well-respected boarding school, or in more medieval terms, getting an apprenticeship with a great craftsman.

There was significant controversy even within Ottoman empire itself whether this thing was acceptable, and a lot of the argumentation went along the way of "we can't let former non-muslims into high governmental positions". There was no forced conversion per se, you were just heavily peer pressured into one - not an upstanding thing to do for sure, but separation of church and state is a very modern concept.

Janissaries had a tough training, sure, but only a small portion of kids were even allowed into it, and again, it was something to strive to, not something to avoid. Other occupations for people from this tax were in imperial administration, which was a pretty cushy job.

Lastly, this didn't separate families. There was nothing stopping these recruits from contacting their families back home (save for a lack of literacy), and indeed, most of them kept in touch with them, either by writing (somewhat rare) or by visiting.

Yes, you can find lots of primary sources saying Ottomans tore crying children out of their mother's arms to brainwash them into being bloodthirsty killers. These claims have about as much substance as US anti-Japanese propaganda during WW2.

I will point out that the other issue that comes along with the "tax of children" is still a major problem in some places dominated by Islam today, as independently reported to me (in face to face conversations) by multiple people who have spent time in those areas.

[Vinyadan]

You are really confused about a lot of this. It did start in Italy, you are correct about that. But it was not because of Boccaccio. His main role was as one of the 'Three Fountains' of Italian literature, and not for his work in Latin, but because of his work in promoting and elevating the Italian vernacular dialects as literary languages. Same with Petrarch and Dante.

Much more importantly, you are extremely confused about the "Northern Renaissance", though this isn't surprising or unusual.

You skipped Flanders , which was hand in glove with Italy and was in full swing Renaissance mode already in the 14th Century. Italian Scholars like Boccaccio and Petrarch traveled to Flanders. The explosion of literary artistic and technological development in Italy, Flanders, Catalonia, Bohemia, and many parts of Germany actually started before the era of Boccacio, the 'First Renaissance' was in the 13th Century, then it started again in the late 14th in all the same places - sparked by the developments in Florence, but not limited to them by any means.

It happened in many places, and for many reasons, not just cultural reasons (ala Scholasticism or Humanism which came later), some of them economic, some technological, some military, and not in the order you laid out. It sounds like you know a bit more about Italy than in the "Ultramontaine" regions.

G

You keep repeating Boccaccio, but I did not write that name in my post. Also, could you please give me some names from the 14th century for the Renaissance in Flanders?

Maybe what you perceive as my confusion has something to do with misreading the post? Or with different terminologies?

I have to be extremely short because I am up to something else, but, if you write more, I will surely read it.

They were thriving. They were extremely prosperous. They were producing art and architecture we would be hard pressed to match today. Yet by todays standards we would also call these areas 'failed states' - if we are honest about it. I know it's a provocative statement, but I believe it is the correct way to describe it.
G

I don't really agree here. Yes, it can stimulate thinking, and the concept of failed state is itself open for discussion. But then, as long as the definition is today's, calling a lot of states failed because they are small doesn't make much sense. The Kingdom of Italy or Lombardy was a failed state, sure, but it had been so almost constantly since 818. After 300 years, I think it's better, for a historical perspective, to consider its own constituents as their own states, and judge them by how they were singularly doing.

No doubt, there was a lot of instability, and the political climate was very often volatile. I personally would use the term "frail states" or "areas of instability" or "(comparatively) weak states". IIRC, the English actually eventually pushed towards unifying Italy exactly to solve the problem of European instability its fragmented state caused.

I found this short and interesting paper about the terminology: http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationalDe...ailedState.pdf

warehouses with a fancy innards.

Look at this. http://www.pmap.it/parrocchiemap/dio.../foto_temp.jpg It's the thing you just defined, I have no idea of how much they paid the architect, but they must have been in a sparing mood. Inside they had the whole place covered in Byzantine-like frescoes. It's new BTW.

I don't disagree with any of your points - La Hire using a very heavy sword may just have been propaganda or something that's been exaggerated over time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATxT7CHpIkw

About the whole yesterday - today debate, I think they just had a better taste back then. Many things which were meant to be beautiful still are beautiful today, and they also are meaningful, because their structure has a number of meanings ingrained into it. Pretty much every piece was supposed to be a symbol. Now it is much more difficult to see beyond the mere structural function to add a certain meaning to the piece, and the attempt to build new conceptual art makes modern buildings cold or disorienting, and bereft of relations with normal experience: nature is sometimes called upon, but in a very remote way and is practically absent. Back then, they could go for naturalism, go for symbolism, go for tradition and go for innovation all at the same time and used a set of languages which were more or less understandable to everyone. If you ask me today what Notre Dame is I can answer and also decipher some of its symbology, if you ask me what the Centre Pompidou in Paris is, I honestly have no idea.

Finally, it's worth reminding, about small states keeping the Ottomans at bay, that fortified cities back in the day were a very serious business, to the point that Machiavelli noticed how certain German cities were secure enough to do what they wanted even in proximity of the Emperor. Add a few choke points and strategic passes, and you get a long-term containment strategy. Whether it would have worked if European economy and Russian military strength hadn't taken a crazy jump upwards is up to discussion.

[Tiktakkat]

1) Ottoman children tax

I partly agree and partly disagree with your assessment here.

Yes, being a janissary was a major step up. Indeed it became an issue at some points of people "stacking" the janissary corps for political ends, particularly when the janissaries themselves tried it.

I would also note that one of the cites made, to the Poles protecting the Tatars, was predicated on the Tatars providing military service. While not the same as taking children away, religious freedom predicated on military service is hardly what one would call actual religious "freedom". A similar "tax" was imposed on Jews in Russia.

Conversely, as originally noted, not everyone taken in such collections wound up as a janissary. More than a few wound up as sex slaves. It cannot be made into something purely legitimate just because the janissaries wound up nearly ruling the Ottoman Empire. (Or that the Mamluks, who were similarly structured, wound up ruling Egypt, eventually for the Ottomans.)
At its core, modern sensibilities or not, it was a tax of human life, imposed on religious minorities. No matter how good some outcomes may have been, there is no way to whitewash that.

2) Religious freedom

Well, you seem to have read a few articles and left it at that. Once you start to dig in, the picture is very different - yes, there were royal decrees that protected one faith or another. They were usually issued under pressure of a political faction, or in response to a religious unrest that resulted in a whole lot of people dying.

Precisely.
One thing overlooked with the existence of such decrees and such is the fact that they were needed in the first place. If things were all that sunshine and kittens, why would such decrees have to be issued in the first place?

Let's look at a precursor to the Warsaw Confederation:
And just how abusive were thing that they provoked these decrees?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Kalisz

Clearly there was some severe oppression of Jews going on in the 13th century (the Statue was issued in 1264):
Abuse of courts of law
Murder and assault with impunity
Defilement of the dead
Interference with free movement
Religious harassment
the Blood Libel
and the concept of defiling items merely by touch

More on that can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...6.E2.80.931385

Note in particular the abuses of the 15th century.
Overall, the rulers wanted to protect the Jews for economic reasons, while the church and common people preferred abusing them.

Meanwhile, what prompted the Warsaw Confederation?
"This act was not imposed by a government or by consequences of war, but rather resulted from the actions of members of Polish-Lithuanian society. It was also influenced by the 1572 French St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, which prompted the Polish-Lithuanian nobility to see that no monarch would ever be able to carry out such an act in Poland."

Right there we see a direct fear of events from the French Wars of Religion.
Remember, Poland and Lithuania were split between Catholic and Orthodox, neither of whom was eager to be forcibly converted by the other. That they wound up tolerating dissenters, Jews, and Muslims in the process was mostly incidental to preventing a full civil war, and being conquered even faster by Russia.

But did everyone like it?
"They were opposed by most of the Catholic priests: Franciszek Krasiński was the only bishop who signed them (Szymon Starowolski claimed he did so under the "threat of the sword"), and the future legal acts containing the articles of the Confederation were signed by bishops with the stipulation: "excepto articulo confoederationis.""

Clearly religious tolerance was not universally embraced.

And we find a reference to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Wielu%C5%84
"Excerpts of the Edict of Wieluń:

"We, Wladyslaw, by the grace of God King of Poland, state that whoever in our Kingdom of Poland and in our lands turns out to be a heretic or a supporter of heresy, this person must be captured by our starostas and other civil servants, as well as all our subjects. This person shall be regarded as offender of our Majesty, and shall be punished accordingly to their offence (...) If any of our subjects neglected to return from Bohemia until the coming holiday, this person shall be regarded as a heretic, and punished as a heretic. All his properties shall be confiscated by our treasury, and his offspring shall be deprived of all honors and status (...) We also forbid all merchants and other persons from transporting all goods, including lead, weapons and foods, to and from Bohemia"."

Which was from 1424. It seems Poland wasn't THAT tolerant in the 15th century.

Ultimately, reviewing the entire history, and not merely isolated events, we can see that religious tolerance in the "best" part of Europe was far from stellar. Sure the 16th century worked out rather well, but that was about it, and it simply didn't last.

And the simple fact is that a parallel history can be found for the Ottoman Empire, with abuse and forced conversions interspersed with offers of sanctuary and proclamations of protection.

[Spiryt]

And we find a reference to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Wielu%C5%84
"Excerpts of the Edict of Wieluń:

"We, Wladyslaw, by the grace of God King of Poland, state that whoever in our Kingdom of Poland and in our lands turns out to be a heretic or a supporter of heresy, this person must be captured by our starostas and other civil servants, as well as all our subjects. This person shall be regarded as offender of our Majesty, and shall be punished accordingly to their offence (...) If any of our subjects neglected to return from Bohemia until the coming holiday, this person shall be regarded as a heretic, and punished as a heretic. All his properties shall be confiscated by our treasury, and his offspring shall be deprived of all honors and status (...) We also forbid all merchants and other persons from transporting all goods, including lead, weapons and foods, to and from Bohemia"."

Which was from 1424. It seems Poland wasn't THAT tolerant in the 15th century.

Well, in so called meantime, Hussites were peacefully agitating, living and performing masses all over the country, and the trade was going very strong. The fact which Teutonic Knights were constantly pointing out.

The Wieluń edict was issued to represent old Lithuanian Jogaila as good, proper Catholic, despite the fact that he was pagan for half of his life.

And to please Zbigniew Oleśnicki, who was very influential, and very much enemy of Hussites.

As a result, plenty of magnates in Poland were likely sympathetic towards the Hussites mainly to oppose Oleśnicki.


With all this comparison with Ottoman Empire, one has to mention Włodkowic and other polish intellectuals who had formulated their theses about wrongness of forceful conversion, self defense right of pagans, immorality of aggression without 'just reasons', etc.

All of those were part of political game against Teutonic Knights, of course, but this doesn't change the fact that Poland was indeed place of relative religious peaceful coexistence.

As much as it was possible in times when religion really was the important part of the mindset itself and people were treating it very seriously.

Clearly there was some severe oppression of Jews going on in the 13th century (the Statue was issued in 1264):

Before 14th century, particularly earlier in 11th and 12th century, Jews in Poland would mostly be slave traders, trading Poles. Not exactly 'socially neutral' occupation. First Jewish farmers were noted in 1227.

So prejudices were pretty much forced to appear, even without all the 'blood collecting' myths and social-economical conflicts traveling from the West.

[Galloglaich]

You keep repeating Boccaccio, but I did not write that name in my post. Also, could you please give me some names from the 14th century for the Renaissance in Flanders?

That is a big topic, most of the painters start showing up at the very end of the 14th and early 15th. It's not that well known in the Anlgophone world, my main source for the Low Countries is an early 20th Century historian named Henri Pirenne who has been translated into English. But anyway here are some links:



Painters

Robert Campin 1375-1444

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Campin

Jan Van Eyk 1390-1441

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_van_Eyck

Roger Van Der Wilden 1399-1464

Spoiler: Amazing Van Der Wilden painting

Show

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogier_van_der_Weyden

Hugo Van Der Goes 1430-1482

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_van_der_Goes

Literature

Helwige Bolemardine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilwige_Bloemardinne

They started these debating guilds in the late 1300's / early 1400's which created competitions with prizes etc., which were considered an important part of the Northern Renaissance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_rhetoric

I mentioned Boccachio because he's linked to Petrarch (who I think you mentioned?) and Dante in Italy as one of the 'Three Fountains' of Italian vernacular literature and precursors of the Renaissance there.

I don't really agree here. Yes, it can stimulate thinking, and the concept of failed state is itself open for discussion. But then, as long as the definition is today's, calling a lot of states failed because they are small doesn't make much sense. The Kingdom of Italy or Lombardy was a failed state, sure, but it had been so almost constantly since 818. After 300 years, I think it's better, for a historical perspective, to consider its own constituents as their own states, and judge them by how they were singularly doing.

My point was that the more weak and inept (in the case of HRE north of the Alps) or non-existent except as a legal concept, south of the Alps "Failed State" is partly what enabled the smaller more coherent polities like the Italian City-States and the Northern Free Cities, and the various city leagues like the Hanse and the smaller permanent ones like the Lusatian League, Decapole, pentapolitana and the Prussian confederation and so on to exist. To me obviously it was the Free Cities, City-States, and also some of the independent princely and Church polities to which we mostly owe the development of the Renaissance.

No doubt, there was a lot of instability, and the political climate was very often volatile. I personally would use the term "frail states" or "areas of instability" or "(comparatively) weak states". IIRC, the English actually eventually pushed towards unifying Italy exactly to solve the problem of European instability its fragmented state caused.

I think that was a very different era though if it's the one I'm thinking of... (attempted Italian unification in the 19th Century)

Look at this. http://www.pmap.it/parrocchiemap/dio.../foto_temp.jpg It's the thing you just defined, I have no idea of how much they paid the architect, but they must have been in a sparing mood. Inside they had the whole place covered in Byzantine-like frescoes. It's new BTW.

Quite beautiful, art is not dead after all...

Finally, it's worth reminding, about small states keeping the Ottomans at bay, that fortified cities back in the day were a very serious business, to the point that Machiavelli noticed how certain German cities were secure enough to do what they wanted even in proximity of the Emperor. Add a few choke points and strategic passes, and you get a long-term containment strategy. Whether it would have worked if European economy and Russian military strength hadn't taken a crazy jump upwards is up to discussion.

Fair point but remember, unlike the Mongols the Ottomans had the technology of sophisticated siege engines and cannon, including truly giant bombards (which admittedly they sometimes had a hard time getting into place).

Machiavelli was right about the German (etc.) Free Cities thumbing their nose at the Emperor - or other princes, even when their armies were mobilized and nearby. Bruges and Ghent first did it in the early 14th Century to the King of France. It continued to happen all over Europe through the 17th Century. But that didn't mean it was without risk of course. I think the primacy of defense, which thanks to Trace Italienne and the productive gun forges of the free towns themselves, they managed to maintain well into the era of Cannon, is part of what maintained what I would call the (comparatively) 'benign failed state' situation in so much of Central and Northern Europe. I think what ended it was money from the New World and global colonial Empires, as well as the wars of religion and perhaps, other new innovations like Syphilis which seems to have showed up right at the end of the 15th Century.


Incidentally the religious tolerance laws in Poland date back to their original merger (or 'Personal Union') with Lithuania in the 1380's, and was strengthened in subsequent legal negotiations all through the 15th Century as Poland and Lituhania gradually came together in fits and starts (with bickering in between). It was because of the Lithuanian policies over their own concerns, and became legal thanks to the genius of some amazingly skillful Polish lawyers. Like this guy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_W%C5%82odkowic

The 1424 law against Heretics was specifically against Bohemian Hussite heritics. At that time they were going on rather violent raids into the lands of their neighbors. This lasted several more years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussit...auch.C3.A9e.29

By medieval law, somebody from another religion like a Muslim, Jew, or even a pagan was not necessarily a heretic. A Hussite definitely was but Poland learned to live with them pretty quickly, mainly because Hussite mercenaries were the most sought after and effective infantry available. They were kind of like the Swiss were further West.

G

[Vinyadan]

I mentioned Boccachio because he's linked to Petrarch (who I think you mentioned?) and Dante in Italy as one of the 'Three Fountains' of Italian vernacular literature and precursors of the Renaissance there.

While this is true, Petrarch reached a European size as a thinker, diplomat and courtier that the other two never got while they were living. While there were a few thinkers before him who shared his great interest for the works of antiquity, he was the first who made looking for ancient, lost or forgotten Latin and Greek works the cool thing to do. This was the catalyst for a new understanding of the classical age; the more information was uncovered, the more evident it became how needed a new, scientific approach to texts was, with the purpose of taking away all the weird meanings that had been added to them during what was then being called by Petrarch the Dark Ages, trying to read instead what was actually written in them. This would cause enormous changes in the way of thinking (opposition to Scholastic), reading (Luther), and interpreting the position of man in the world, which also meant new political ideas. Petrarch could easily have been the most important man of culture in Europe since St. Isidore, and most of the changes he brought about still influence our culture.
His importance for Italian literature is somewhat different, in that his language became one of the bases for standard Italian. This is why Dante was post-roman Italy's greatest poet, but Petrarch was the most important one.
Of course, the vulgar work of Petrarch would spawn a whole style and cause competition with him in the centuries to come. However, his Latin work also had a deep effect in that he attempted to write classical works instead of medieval Latin poems, and was what made him well known in Europe during his life.

[Tiktakkat]

Well, in so called meantime, Hussites were peacefully agitating, living and performing masses all over the country, and the trade was going very strong. The fact which Teutonic Knights were constantly pointing out.

You mean because of the Jews?
Yes, see below.

The Wieluń edict was issued to represent old Lithuanian Jogaila as good, proper Catholic, despite the fact that he was pagan for half of his life.

And to please Zbigniew Oleśnicki, who was very influential, and very much enemy of Hussites.

As a result, plenty of magnates in Poland were likely sympathetic towards the Hussites mainly to oppose Oleśnicki.

Absolutely.
That's why I noted the feelings were not universally for or against, and combined with the previous, why they were heavily economic.

All of those were part of political game against Teutonic Knights, of course, but this doesn't change the fact that Poland was indeed place of relative religious peaceful coexistence.

"Relative" is one of those wonderful terms - until you are the one being targeted by the oppression.

Before 14th century, particularly earlier in 11th and 12th century, Jews in Poland would mostly be slave traders, trading Poles. Not exactly 'socially neutral' occupation. First Jewish farmers were noted in 1227.

So prejudices were pretty much forced to appear, even without all the 'blood collecting' myths and social-economical conflicts traveling from the West.

From the article:
"The first extensive Jewish emigration from Western Europe to Poland occurred at the time of the First Crusade in 1098. Under Bolesław III (1102–1139), the Jews, encouraged by the tolerant regime of this ruler, settled throughout Poland, including over the border in Lithuanian territory as far as Kiev.[30] Bolesław III recognized the utility of Jews in the development of the commercial interests of his country. Jews came to form the backbone of the Polish economy. Mieszko III employed Jews in his mint as engravers and technical supervisors, and the coins minted during that period even bear Hebraic markings.[28] Jews worked on commission for the mints of other contemporary Polish princes, including Casimir the Just, Bolesław I the Tall and Władysław III Spindleshanks.[28] Jews enjoyed undisturbed peace and prosperity in the many principalities into which the country was then divided; they formed the middle class in a country where the general population consisted of landlords (developing into szlachta, the unique Polish nobility) and peasants, and they were instrumental in promoting the commercial interests of the land."

No, they weren't mostly slave traders in the 11th and 12th centuries. They were urban dwelling craftsmen, merchants, and administrators. This caused a conflict with German migrants, who also expected to hold those positions.
They found an ally with church officials looking to impose universal orthodoxy, and so Jews faced periods of oppression throughout the era.

As much as it was possible in times when religion really was the important part of the mindset itself and people were treating it very seriously.

No, it wasn't that bad.
Which in a way is a significant achievement.

Again though, that same standard can easily be applied to the Ottomans, making it less than appealing as a claim to fame.

[Galloglaich]

You mean because of the Jews?
Yes, see below.

Ah, no man I don't think that is what he's talking about.

[Tiktakkat]

Ah, no man I don't think that is what he's talking about.

Yes, I gather that he is suggesting the Hussites were responsible for the trade.

I am disagreeing, and using the citation I provide further down to suggest that it was the Jews living in Poland who were responsible for the trade. From that again:

Jews came to form the backbone of the Polish economy.

[Galloglaich]

Yes, I gather that he is suggesting the Hussites were responsible for the trade.

I am disagreeing, and using the citation I provide further down to suggest that it was the Jews living in Poland who were responsible for the trade. From that again:

You are not even in the ball park. F for accuracy. But A for effort.

[Tiktakkat]

You are not even in the ball park. F for accuracy. But A for effort.

Then he can clarify.
Clearly you cannot.
So . . .
Incomplete for Accuracy, and F for effort.

[wobner]

can anyone name any other examples of these types of... I guess assassinations is probably the best word for what I am after(massacres works too in some cases, obviously) I think this qualifies as a question for this thread.

the st. Bartholomew day massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguen...s_Day_massacre

the black dinner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Douglas#Black_Dinner

the glencoe massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Glencoe

bah, those are the only ones I can seem to find at the moment. hope that's enough to get the picture. killings of leaders, supporters, or both, with some measure of subterfuge or manipulation. no specific time period or region. any leads are appreciated.