Conquer Club

Guiscard wrote:

Norse wrote:Youi wanna learn about history?

Give me any historical question, and I will answer it truthfully, and correctly.

Is Feudalism an applicable concept for the medieval historian?

Well, obviously it is.

I find this question intruiging, not so much by the content of the question itself, but by the fact that you would ask it.

We still live, to a degree within a feudal society, but a slightly more developed one than that of the medieval era. Gordon brown is, to a degree, destroying the vassalage of previous governments, although I hear that the vikings are also making a come back.

The reforms of Diocletian and his successors attempted to put certain jobs, Moreover, the evolution of the Holy Roman Empire greatly affected the history of the feudal relationship in central Europe. Medieval societies never described themselves as feudal, the fief is the primary reason the vassal chose to enter into the relationship. In addition, the lord sometimes had to fulfill other obligations to the vassal and fief.

lord was a noble who owned land, a vassal was a person who was granted possession of the land by the lord, and the land was known as a fief, Though it is sometimes used indiscriminately to encompass all reciprocal obligations of support and loyalty in the place of unconditional tenure of position, jurisdiction or land, the term is restricted by most historians to the exchange of specifically voluntary and personal undertakings.

The Black Death of the fourteenth century devasted Europe's population but also destabilized the economic basis of society, Popular parlance generally uses the term either for all voluntary or customary bonds in medieval society or for a social order in which civil and military power is exercised under private contractual arrangements, the autonomy with which the Normans ruled their duchy supports the view that, despite any legal "feudal" relationship, the Normans did as they pleased.

Next!

Here's a tricky one for you Norse.

What happened to the Knight's Templar and their fleet after they were disbanded by the Pope?

muy_thaiguy wrote:Here's a tricky one for you Norse.

What happened to the Knight's Templar and their fleet after they were disbanded by the Pope?

Good question!

They were pretty much ex-communicated from their home lands of gaul, and the surrounding area's. They were homeless mercinaries. Luckiy for them, there was a large battle that needed them to take a part in.

Scotland Vs the english

They sided with the scots, and overcame a much larger army, with the help of these mercinaries. They were soon at the top of the tree in scotland, and when the chance arose to take over the english crown (when elizabeth I died with no heirs) The scots took it.

They soon became inter-mingled with the previous royalty of England, became close with their ex-homeland France, and incited the revoloution in France, which ended with the french royalty being toppled, and the subsequent control of France ending up in the "knights templar" hands.

This is the tip of the iceberg.

Norse wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Here's a tricky one for you Norse.

What happened to the Knight's Templar and their fleet after they were disbanded by the Pope?

Good question!

They were pretty much ex-communicated from their home lands of gaul, and the surrounding area's. They were homeless mercinaries. Luckiy for them, there was a large battle that needed them to take a part in.

Scotland Vs the english

They sided with the scots, and overcame a much larger army, with the help of these mercinaries. They were soon at the top of the tree in scotland, and when the chance arose to take over the english crown (when elizabeth I died with no heirs) The scots took it.

They soon became inter-mingled with the previous royalty of England, became close with their ex-homeland France, and incited the revoloution in France, which ended with the french royalty being toppled, and the subsequent control of France ending up in the "knights templar" hands.

This is the tip of the iceberg.

Oh? And what about the sudden military strength of Switzerland and rumors of Knights wearing white in the battle field? You also forgot to answer the question about their 200 ship fleet.

muy_thaiguy wrote:
Oh? And what about the sudden military strength of Switzerland and rumors of Knights wearing white in the battle field? You also forgot to answer the question about their 200 ship fleet.

This is the tip of the iceberg

Ok then, MTG, you seem to be a man of knowledge.

What does the name "13th tribe" mean to you, and what do they have to do with a past German government?

Norse wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:
Oh? And what about the sudden military strength of Switzerland and rumors of Knights wearing white in the battle field? You also forgot to answer the question about their 200 ship fleet.

This is the tip of the iceberg

Ok then, MTG, you seem to be a man of knowledge.

What does the name "13th tribe" mean to you, and what do they have to do with a past German government?

I keep thinking of Khazar (if that's the right name) in Eastern Europe in the Middle/Dark Ages. Also, if I'm not mistaken, some articles I've read have said that the Jews in that area where not from Israel, aka, the Holy Land and leading some to believe that they are not God's Chosen People, as the Bible and other documents say they are. Leading me to believe that since Hitler claimed to have a Christian type government (and we all know how he felt about Jews), I believe he tried to use this as another way to persecute them. But I have not been able to find much on that particular area of history, but I have come across the Khazars a couple of times.

I would suggest looking into the possibility that since the 13th tribe, aptly named, for as you point out, were not descendents of the original 12 hebrew tribes, and were slaughtered effectively by the nazi government so as to rid the world of the "fake jews". What one must remember, is that Hitler was not only of jewish origin himself, he was a grandson of a Rothschild, who also aided the nazi government alongside Prescott Bush.

Ask yourself why the jews in Denmark and norway, ie the true jews were given a safe passage into Britain and the states, whilst the "fake-jews" were left to starve in concentration camps.

It was a part of the Zionist plan.

Actually, from the little I have come across, they helped defend the Byzantine Empire until the Golden Horde and other Far East horsemen came and started to slaughter them. Also, how would Hitler have known that they were the direct decsendents of the same people from 600 years before? And how are we to know if they were "fake" Jews or not? The Baylonian Captivity made it so that the Jews wandered in many directions, who's to say they did not travel North into what became Khazar?

muy_thaiguy wrote:Actually, from the little I have come across, they helped defend the Byzantine Empire until the Golden Horde and other Far East horsemen came and started to slaughter them. Also, how would Hitler have known that they were the direct decsendents of the same people from 600 years before? And how are we to know if they were "fake" Jews or not? The Baylonian Captivity made it so that the Jews wandered in many directions, who's to say they did not travel North into what became Khazar?

Khazar's were converted during a visit to their lands from saint-cyril. These khazars were ethnically mixed, some with pale skin and blue eyes, some with a darker skin of asian appearance.

These were not ethnic jews.

Norse wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Actually, from the little I have come across, they helped defend the Byzantine Empire until the Golden Horde and other Far East horsemen came and started to slaughter them. Also, how would Hitler have known that they were the direct decsendents of the same people from 600 years before? And how are we to know if they were "fake" Jews or not? The Baylonian Captivity made it so that the Jews wandered in many directions, who's to say they did not travel North into what became Khazar?

Khazar's were converted during a visit to their lands from saint-cyril. These khazars were ethnically mixed, some with pale skin and blue eyes, some with a darker skin of asian appearance.

These were not ethnic jews.

So, Jews who have lighter hair and eyes, are not ethnic jews. And wouldn't the techical term for ethnic Jews be Semites? Along with others from there the same region? And what about the ones in Scandinavia? Wouldn't some of them have light hair and eyes? And the rest of Europe, Middle East, and North Africa? Colors of eyes and hair does not a religion make (except for some extreme religion groups).

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Norse wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Actually, from the little I have come across, they helped defend the Byzantine Empire until the Golden Horde and other Far East horsemen came and started to slaughter them. Also, how would Hitler have known that they were the direct decsendents of the same people from 600 years before? And how are we to know if they were "fake" Jews or not? The Baylonian Captivity made it so that the Jews wandered in many directions, who's to say they did not travel North into what became Khazar?

Khazar's were converted during a visit to their lands from saint-cyril. These khazars were ethnically mixed, some with pale skin and blue eyes, some with a darker skin of asian appearance.

These were not ethnic jews.

So, Jews who have lighter hair and eyes, are not ethnic jews. And wouldn't the techical term for ethnic Jews be Semites? Along with others from there the same region? And what about the ones in Scandinavia? Wouldn't some of them have light hair and eyes? And the rest of Europe, Middle East, and North Africa? Colors of eyes and hair does not a religion make (except for some extreme religion groups).

Read what I fucking write, and dont put words into my mouth.

They were not jewish in either faith nor ethnicity until the time in which saint-cyril converted the khazars into jews. The descendents of these khazars migrated into eastern europe, taking this faith with them, and practising this quasi-judaism, though they were not ethnically, nor traditionally jewish. These jews, you will find, were the ones who ended up in Aushwitz. Not the descendents of the 12 tribes of hebrew, who would have been in the positions of power that over-saw the mass murder of these khazar jews.

Lawrence of Arabia: gay or just pedophile?

Ahh, iggy, just the man we need!

What has the illegal opium trade historically acheived for the ruling classes of the western world?

Norse wrote:Ahh, iggy, just the man we need!

What has the illegal opium trade historically acheived for the ruling classes of the western world?

Norse did you really (kinda) read my article about Burma??? I published it just a week ago...

norse you are really freaking me out... Please tell me how did you find out about my Burma article?

ignotus wrote:norse you are really freaking me out... Please tell me how did you find out about my Burma article?

Chill.

I know alot of things.

Norse wrote:
Chill.

I know alot of things.

Chill

I wrote that before writing you a pm. You can really dig all kind of stuff...

Did I ever tell you that you bear a striking resemblance to this man?

Norse wrote:

ignotus wrote:norse you are really freaking me out... Please tell me how did you find out about my Burma article?

Chill.

I know alot of things.

and that's why you're really freaking him -and others- out

Norse wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Norse wrote:Youi wanna learn about history?

Give me any historical question, and I will answer it truthfully, and correctly.

Is Feudalism an applicable concept for the medieval historian?

Well, obviously it is.

I find this question intruiging, not so much by the content of the question itself, but by the fact that you would ask it.

We still live, to a degree within a feudal society, but a slightly more developed one than that of the medieval era. Gordon brown is, to a degree, destroying the vassalage of previous governments, although I hear that the vikings are also making a come back.

The reforms of Diocletian and his successors attempted to put certain jobs, Moreover, the evolution of the Holy Roman Empire greatly affected the history of the feudal relationship in central Europe. Medieval societies never described themselves as feudal, the fief is the primary reason the vassal chose to enter into the relationship. In addition, the lord sometimes had to fulfill other obligations to the vassal and fief.

lord was a noble who owned land, a vassal was a person who was granted possession of the land by the lord, and the land was known as a fief, Though it is sometimes used indiscriminately to encompass all reciprocal obligations of support and loyalty in the place of unconditional tenure of position, jurisdiction or land, the term is restricted by most historians to the exchange of specifically voluntary and personal undertakings.

The Black Death of the fourteenth century devasted Europe's population but also destabilized the economic basis of society, Popular parlance generally uses the term either for all voluntary or customary bonds in medieval society or for a social order in which civil and military power is exercised under private contractual arrangements, the autonomy with which the Normans ruled their duchy supports the view that, despite any legal "feudal" relationship, the Normans did as they pleased.

Thought that would be the response. Unfortunately it is innately flawed, and the textbook answer I get from undergrads every year. How can you label anything as fluid as the many and varied relationships which fall under the banner of feudalism as a 'system'? You're right in saying that medieval societies never regarded themselves as feudal, but that should give you a clue as to the impotence of the term in general. Any study of any aspect of the Medieval period will bring up intense problems for any application of the label, and so it is only mildly useful as a catch-all term.

or at least, thats the prevailing wind in the Medievalist community.

First: I don't think we look that much alike. Second: I honestly can't recognize the man on the picture.

ignotus wrote:First: I don't think we look that much alike. Second: I honestly can't recognize the man on the picture.

I find that suprising.

Norse wrote:

ignotus wrote:First: I don't think we look that much alike. Second: I honestly can't recognize the man on the picture.

I find that suprising.

It's true. Maybe he changed as he got older...

Norse wrote:I would suggest looking into the possibility that since the 13th tribe, aptly named, for as you point out, were not descendents of the original 12 hebrew tribes, and were slaughtered effectively by the nazi government so as to rid the world of the "fake jews". What one must remember, is that Hitler was not only of jewish origin himself, he was a grandson of a Rothschild, who also aided the nazi government alongside Prescott Bush.

Ask yourself why the jews in Denmark and norway, ie the true jews were given a safe passage into Britain and the states, whilst the "fake-jews" were left to starve in concentration camps.

It was a part of the Zionist plan.

Zionist plans? Lost tribes?

With all due respect, I'd prefer it if we kept your you-tube conspiracy findings out of the thread in favour of actual history (i.e. something which would be published in a peer-review journal).