I need to find a blacksmith who can craft me the finest broadsword in all the land
Printable View
I need to find a blacksmith who can craft me the finest broadsword in all the land
Fail. It was bcause the Jacobite monarchy .Quote:
Originally Posted by rubycalaber
:goodone:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli
That's because you hate his guts for whatever reason, I've never really asked or found out why since I didn't post in 2009Quote:
Originally Posted by maks
I hate him because he's not funny or interesting, it's as simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetics
plug drugs is always wrong about anything
lets argue about marvel comics
vouchQuote:
Originally Posted by lnopia the great
Quote:
Originally Posted by lnopia the great
I guess, I can't really hate the dude. He gave me a dota 2 beta key that was pretty cool of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by maks
he'll get on your nerves eventually, no matter how much he kisses your ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetics
;_;Quote:
Originally Posted by maks
reminder that stomple went out of his way to defend obnoxious bitch when it showed up so he could have a new frend
WOAH, that's pretty... oh man I'm not sure what to think of this my perception of stombleb has been shatterd. Damn you DoliQuote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli
truth hurts
uhh cavalry divisions in the roman army being given land grants?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli
why not you've just been pulling the argument about barbarians being the founders of the Feudal age out of your ass with no references; you must be thinking "uhh yeah it makes sense in my head so it must be true".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli
Just because Britons were Anglos or Saxons by blood does not mean that the Barbarian tribes were the ones who invented the Feudal system.
"civilized barbarians" is any oxymoron Doli.
Its okay to be wrong...
I was wrong too, once
Writings from post-Roman England after the beginning of the 5th century are fairly rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by rootbeer
Yeah there wasn't a bit of sarcasm in my second post in this thread. Hence "But did it actually happen?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli
i only read the first few posts because i assume the rest arent worth bothering. however:
1.) the moors never invaded italy. they only invaded the iberian peninsula and stopped at castile and aragon. viva el cid.
2.) the successful barbarian invasions of italy were much after the fall of rome. power had already been split and mostly placed in constantinople by that point.
yall some dumb nerds
The term "fee" of "fief" which is the basic root of the word "feudal" derived from an ancient Gothic source faihu signifying simply "property" which in its most basic sense was "cattle".[2] This can be compared to the very ancient classical Latin word pecunia, which means both cattle and money. Many primitive societies in existence today demonstrate the ancient use of cattle as financial currency, for example the Masai of Kenya, who still pay dowries in this form. Because feudalism was in its origin a Teutonic or Gothic system from northern Europe untouched by Roman civilization, it did not exist in ancient Rome, where the nearest equivalent was clientelism. No classical Latin word therefore exists to signify it, and a new Low-Latin word feodum was invented by mediaeval European scribes to use in their Latinised charters and other writings.[3][4]Quote:
Originally Posted by Plug Drugs
Youre stupid the moors invaded sicily in the late 9th century idiotQuote:
Originally Posted by clay
Both forms of feudalism had their roots in the organization of primitive Germany. A glance at that system is desirable for a thorough comprehension of our subject; it will help us to realize what feudalism was, if not to discern how it grew up. The leading characteristics of the Teutonic polity were individual liberty and tribal autonomy. Each tribe or canton is theoretically independent, and entitled to manage its own concerns; within the tribe all free heads of houses are politically equal, and entitled to a voice in the affairs of the community. Each free villager has his share of the tribe lands,—his homestead, his propor tion of the arable land, with corresponding rights over the forest and pasture lands. The shares are not necessarily equal, as social distinctions exist, and are fully recognized by the law ; but whether large or small, the shares are held on the like terms of participation in all public duties, chief of which are the obligations of attendance in the communal meetings and in the host. The shares so held "bore among the northern nations the name of Odal or Edhel." Whether any etymological connexion exists between the words odal and alod " may be questioned, but their signification as applied to land is the same : the alod is the hereditary estate derived from primitive occupation, for which the owner owes no service except the personal obligation to appear in the host and in the council." As above intimated, political equality was not held incompatible with social inequality ; the population was divided into three classes, rated at different values in the legal tariff. First came the nobilis, eorl, or cetheling, the man distinguished by ancestral wealth and reputed purity of blood; next ranked the simple freeman, the ingenuus, frilingus, or ceorl; at the bottom of the social scale stood the serf or slave (colonus lazzus, lost, servus. theow). An injury done to an eorl or his property would cost the offender twice or three times as much as the same injury done to a ceorl ; at an equal distance below the ceorl ranks the slave, but the compensation for injury done to him of course goes to his master. The official magistracy {principes) are selected from the ranks of the nobility; very distinguished parentage will at times entitle a mere lad to high office, but this is rare.3 Superior birth gives weight and precedence in the national councils; above all, where a powerful tribe or confederation of tribes think fit to exalt their dignity by conferring regal honours on their chief, care is taken to select the king from the family of noblest birth. But in critical times the instinct of a free people taught that the claims of birth must give place to more weighty considerations : whoever might be allowed to rule in time of peace, on the field of battle only the man of tried ability could take the load. Judicial and political business was transacted in the various national assemblies held at fixed times, " generally at the new or full moon." Local questions and matters of police were determined in the meetings of the mark or township (yicus, dorff); the higher criminal jurisdiction and questions of a political nature were reserved for the malls or gemotes of the hundred, canton, or tribe {gait, pagus, gens); "there was no distinction of place ; all were free, all appeared in arms." The order of business was settled beforehand by the chiefs in com-mittee , a leading elder would open the debate; others followed as the spirit moved them ; the people decided as they thought fit. "Opposition was expressed by loud shouts, assent by the striking of spears, enthusiastic applause by the clash of spear and shield."
The analogy of popular meetings in other ages and countries will warrant the belief that under ordinary circumstances the people would be greatly swayed by the policy of their leaders, but the fact remains that the ultimate appeal was to the people. So with the local judi-cial meetings: the position of the elected princeps is " rather that of president than of judge; " all the free men sit as his assessors. "Doubtless they both declared the law and weighed the evidence." The authority of the princeps was in all cases limited : " De minoribus rebus principes consultant; de majoribus omnes." Even the prerogatives of the monarchical chiefs were subject to strict limitations. Their position was one of high honour but not of irresponsible power. The practical influence of the chief, whether exalted to royal dignity or not, depended largely upon the strength of his comitatus, or household retinue. This institution, " one of the strangest but most lasting features " of early Aryan civilization, was an arrangement " partly private and partly public in its character," which served to furnish " a sort of supplement to an otherwise imperfect organization." The comitatus was a voluntary bond of partial vassalage, intended for mutual protection and support, by which a freeman, even a man of noble birth, attached himself to a more powerful lord (Maford,s princeps). At the table of his lord the free companion, as he was called {comes, gesith), found a comfortable seat; from his lord he received his equipment for war or the chase (heregeatwe, heriot), which reverted to the lord at his death. In return he was bound to espouse the cause of his lord as against all men and by all means. The position of a favoured gesith was one of comfort and social importance ; but involving, as it did, the surrender of all freedom of individual action, it probably entailed a certain diminution of political status. The tie of the comitatus, when coupled with the tenure of land, gives us the germ from which the whole feudal system was developed. It has been commonly held, apparently on the authority of Montesquieu, that the Frankish con-quests in Gaul were effected by independent nobles fighting each with a powerful comitatus at his back; that the lands so conquered were immediately parcelled out by them among their comités upon terms of military service and special fidelity ; and that the Merwing state from the first was built up on the feudal principle of vassalage. The sound view appears to be that—as in Britain, so in Gaul—the Germanic tribes came over as " nations in arms," " with their flocks and their herds, their wives and their little ones that they brought their Germanic social and political organization with them ; and that the Merwing kingdom was mainly constructed on that basis—subject to modifications introduced perforce by the circumstances of the conquest. In Britain it is clear that the primitive political institutions were introduced en bloc, and took root ; of the agrarian settlement effected, evidence is lacking dur-ing the first centuries of the new order. When trustworthy data begin to appear feudalism has already made large inroads on primitive alodialism. In Gaul the chain of evidence is continuous, and it is beyond doubt that under the first dynasty the tenure of land was still mainly alodial ; that all the people were bound to be faithful to the king as a national duty, and not by virtue of special land ten-ure ; that " the gift of an estate by the king involved no defined obligation of service," all the nation being still bound to military service ; that " the only comités were the antrustions, and these few in number and that the supposed larger class of comités, the leudes, were in fact the whole body of the king's good subjects, in Anglo-Saxon phrase, his "hold."
Oh am I puling thing out of my ass now retardQuote:
Originally Posted by Plug Drugs
http://s019.radikal.ru/i627/1204/1d/5cdd173b543e.jpg
w extra virgin olive oil & sub 21 nerd fags ITT
maybe if youre going to the school of Pop Culture History (heres some more sources for you)Quote:
Originally Posted by Plug Drugs
"It should also be noted that the word "barbarian" will be used here as a convenient, nonpejorative term to refer to all the non-Latin and non-Greek speaking exterae gentes who dwelt around, and even eventually settled within, the Roman Empire during late antiquity". Ralph W. Mathisen "Barbarian Bishops and the Churches "in Barbaricis Gentibus" During Late Antiquity" Speculum 72.3 (July 1997), p. 665. Mathisen notes that Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine described the emperor as bishop "of those outside" (exterae gentes).
http://youtu.be/BCnw6aW2dDQQuote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli
wait did plug drugs think england was founded by celts or roman remnants in southern britain?
listen i play europa universalis 3 extensively i think i nkow my history okay.
The term feudalism is recent, first appearing in French in 1823, Italian in 1827, English in 1839, and in German in the second half of the nineteenth century.[14] It derived from "feodal" which was used in seventeenth-century French legal treatises (1614)[15][16] and translated into English legal treatises as "feodal government". In the 18th century Adam Smith popularized the forms "feudal government" and "feudal system" in his book Wealth of Nations (1776).[14] In the 19th century the adjective "feudal" (i.e. "the feudal government") evolved into a noun: feudalism.[14]Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli
battle of the wikipedia autists
you cn make it out of a moor invasion, but can you make it out of Garland alive?
Clay is dumber and alcoholic dork than nerds
doli are you on steam
copy past arguments only thing missing is autoplay and baby bottle post stretching bs
*removing camoron on my steam due to useless and inactivity, needs to be clean*Quote:
Originally Posted by Camoron
since you're using wikipedia as the undisputed Word of Truth, i'll step it up a notch with some Yahoo! Answers
Quote:
The collapse of central governing authority in the West meant that regional authorities were left to govern their various areas - most often military commanders, the strongest of whom were also immigrant barbarian federate kings. With no more central bureaucracy, Roman cities shrank or disappeared entirely and society reverted to a more "natural" rural agricultural base. Wealth was measured in land rather than money. There was also little role for learned civilian administrators outside of the church, so the landholding aristocracy focused on military service to maintain their status. The kings, in turn, tended to reward these loyal warriors with land.
Quote:
Feudalism is often called the economic/social model that was typical for a medieval Europe. The foundation for a feudal economy were laid already during the late Roman Empire, and can be detected from the crisis of the 3rd century onward, and definitely from the Diocletian/Constantine economic reforms that changed the social and economic structure of the empire. The late Antiquity can be seen as time where the long distance trade disintegrated and the urban economy collapsed; so, citizens were leaving cities to move into landlord to obtain food and protection. This gave the basic foundation where people were giving up their personal citizenry and freedom from state to the latifundia landlord, who than were bestowing fiefdom titles to the land. People were forbidden under Diocletian reforms to switch trade, running from land, and their children were expected to follow the same path as their parents. This social immobility continued further fragmentation of the Roman Empire where provinces were left on its own and bound between them and Rome weakened.