8 ms·

Much of the mindset(s) of the 14th century make a LOT more sense when you realize two things. 1. 19 year olds were routinely making critical military decisions

Much of the mindset(s) of the 14th century make a LOT more sense when you realize two things. 1. 19 year olds were routinely making critical military decisions. Remember how friggin' twitchy you were at 19 about big capitalized ideas like Honor and Purity and Romance? Yeah, now be that guy but in charge of a thousand lances. A reasonable modern equivalent to 14th century france is 21st century afghanistan. A few old survivors trying to keep the peace, and teenagers flipping out on blood vendettas keeping everyone on their toes. 2. Basically everyone had PTSD and most of the warrior class had semi-permanent concussions. This explains most if not all of the weird contradictions between battlefield brutality and the extremes of social politesse off it. Froissart and other chroniclers of the age have plenty of examples of knights who would shit themselves in terror before making themselves fight, or have screaming nightmares for days, or any of a long list of things that are pretty obvious signals of severe psychological distress. They would also do things like bawl their eyes out at music or at the death of a pet or other seemingly small things -- and flip into murderous rage when social conventions were violated. This is entirely coherent with, for example, things we see retired NFL players do. I suspect it's for a lot of the same reasons.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
Why would the Knights have CTE? Would it be from practicing with wooden swords and hitting each other in the head? Or would it be from falling off horses, or something else?
- megaman22 9y ago
  Jousting has to be at least as violent as two NFL players running full-bore at each other on a kick-off, and we know that's dangerous for CTE. Also once you got to close-quarters on medieval battlefields, your center torso would be covered up pretty well with armor or a shield, so most of the injuries are coming underneath stabbing into the groin and legs. Or from above, bashing down on the head and shoulders with axes, maces, and hammery polearms. I'm sure training was also a big component; thwacking each other with blunted blades would be rough when leather or wool padding is about the best you've got. Quarterstaffs were also popular - and that's not too far off from getting hit with a baseball bat. And for practicing jousting, the quintain is pretty much designed to punish you by smashing you in the back of the head with a sandbag. It's just concussions all around.
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    Ok, I'll grant that jousting seems like an almost guaranteed concussion. But I always assumed that the percentage of people with access to jousting practice would be so small, that there wouldn't be enough of them to really define the mindset of the age.
    - jtolmar 9y ago
      The classes with access to jousting were the same as the ones making decisions, though.
  - voidlogic 9y ago
    >Jousting has to be at least as violent as two NFL players running full-bore at each other on a kick-off, and we know that's dangerous for CTE I'm sure there was a lot of tournament (of which jousting was only a part) derived TMI, but its important to keep in mind that during the high and late middle ages battle and tournament armor were different. Tournament armor was less flexible and heavier, after all you don't want to get hurt in a game. There were several styles of helm that attach directly to the breast plate that make your head an torso a single unit: https://www.battlemerchant.com/images/product_images/popup_images/1731001700_stechhelm_frog_mouth_helmet.jpg https://www.battlemerchant.com/images/product_images/popup_i... (you would probably never wear this on a battlefield) >Also once you got to close-quarters on medieval battlefields, your center torso would be covered up pretty well with armor or a shield, so most of the injuries are coming underneath stabbing into the groin and legs. Or from above, bashing down on the head and shoulders with axes, maces, and hammery polearms. This, your sword is your service pistol, your lance (mounted) or your polearm (unmounted) is your primary weapon as a man-at-arms. You will notice both Knight and Samuari developed the same 3 weapon system (poleweapon + sword + dagger). Also its worth noting that when rigid armor replaced (or was worn on top of) mail (no its not called chainmail) for most of the surface area the use of sheilds quickly declined and two-handed weapons increased. You were wearing your shield. (Also for anyone interested a suit of armor is a 'harness' to use the technical term, that is where we get the German term harnischfechten, the techniques for fighting in armor, which are distinct from blossfechten (shirt fighting), the term for the superset of techniques that work against unarmored opponents) >I'm sure training was also a big component; thwacking each other with blunted blades would be rough when leather or wool padding is about the best you've got. People have resurrected the old fighting manuals and its known as HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) today and encompasses armed, unarmed (strikes, grappling), unarmored and armored fighting. I do this and my cotton HEMA fencing jacket provides plenty of protection. I do no think training safety was an issue. >Quarterstaffs were also popular - and that's not too far off from getting hit with a baseball bat. Yes pole-weapons are much more dangerous than swords, but using the harnischfechten against anyone is dangerous, even with swords, since they are mean to kill people in armor. >It's just concussions all around. Its definitely a risk, but hardly a given. I have broken a finger, bruised bones, but even period head protection is quite effective.
benbreen 9y ago
These are great points. I specialize in the period a bit after the 14th century (the early modern era, roughly Columbus to the Industrial Revolution) and often say something similar to my class. I add these as points #3 and #4: - Diseases that we would consider to be debilitating were so common that it was completely normal for a person to suffer from, say, smallpox, dysentery and a gangrenous limb in a 10 year period. All in a world with no painkillers whatsoever (oddly enough, opiates were almost never used in a clinically effective manner in surgery prior to the late 17th century). The sheer level of physical pain that people dealt with on a daily basis is staggering and would have taken a psychological toll. - It was also completely normal for someone to have dealt with the loss of multiple siblings and children in infancy. You commonly see families that had 10+ children, of which only two or three survived into adulthood. So not only warriors but virtually everyone would have had something similar to what we'd today call PTSD. (Incidentally, this is also my theory as to why putti and the baby Jesus motif are so popular in medieval and Renaissance art - what today seems like a tacky baby painting was, in that period, deeply resonant with virtually everyone's personal experience of the loss of a beloved family member in infancy).
- hprotagonist 9y ago
  as an aside to your second point, there's a fascinating area of study looking at why much byzantine iconography stayed away from things like Pieta and representations of a suffering/crucified Christ, and stayed much more focused on other themes. Turns out, it correlates relatively well with "where the plague wasn't."
- froasty 9y ago
  I call shenanigans on all four points. 1. Delayed adulthood along with the carceral infantalization that accompanies it is purely a modern phenomenon. 2. Jousting was not nearly as common as popular culture presupposes. The notion that pitched battles, particularly ones that involved the nobility fighting personally and carelessly in melees, were encountered so frequently as to suffer from CTE goes against the historiography of the era. 3. Smallpox lasts about two weeks (if you live). Dysentery lasts about one week (if you live). Gangrenous limbs either kill you, come off, or recover. None of these cause persistent pain. If I get the flu every year, I'm going to have a worse time than these people, regardless of the existence of opiates. 4. Low infant mortality is also a purely modern phenomenon. It also ignores all known sociology on infant mortality. When infants and children die in highly mortal societies, their value is accordingly diminished. In many cultures where infant mortality is extremely high, they're not even considered fully human until around their first birthday. Humans are amazingly resilient when it comes to persistent stress and develop culture-ways to cope.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago

Why would the Knights have CTE? Would it be from practicing with wooden swords and hitting each other in the head? Or would it be from falling off horses, or something else?

megaman22 9y ago
Jousting has to be at least as violent as two NFL players running full-bore at each other on a kick-off, and we know that's dangerous for CTE. Also once you got to close-quarters on medieval battlefields, your center torso would be covered up pretty well with armor or a shield, so most of the injuries are coming underneath stabbing into the groin and legs. Or from above, bashing down on the head and shoulders with axes, maces, and hammery polearms. I'm sure training was also a big component; thwacking each other with blunted blades would be rough when leather or wool padding is about the best you've got. Quarterstaffs were also popular - and that's not too far off from getting hit with a baseball bat. And for practicing jousting, the quintain is pretty much designed to punish you by smashing you in the back of the head with a sandbag. It's just concussions all around.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  Ok, I'll grant that jousting seems like an almost guaranteed concussion. But I always assumed that the percentage of people with access to jousting practice would be so small, that there wouldn't be enough of them to really define the mindset of the age.
  - jtolmar 9y ago
    The classes with access to jousting were the same as the ones making decisions, though.
- voidlogic 9y ago
  >Jousting has to be at least as violent as two NFL players running full-bore at each other on a kick-off, and we know that's dangerous for CTE I'm sure there was a lot of tournament (of which jousting was only a part) derived TMI, but its important to keep in mind that during the high and late middle ages battle and tournament armor were different. Tournament armor was less flexible and heavier, after all you don't want to get hurt in a game. There were several styles of helm that attach directly to the breast plate that make your head an torso a single unit: https://www.battlemerchant.com/images/product_images/popup_images/1731001700_stechhelm_frog_mouth_helmet.jpg https://www.battlemerchant.com/images/product_images/popup_i... (you would probably never wear this on a battlefield) >Also once you got to close-quarters on medieval battlefields, your center torso would be covered up pretty well with armor or a shield, so most of the injuries are coming underneath stabbing into the groin and legs. Or from above, bashing down on the head and shoulders with axes, maces, and hammery polearms. This, your sword is your service pistol, your lance (mounted) or your polearm (unmounted) is your primary weapon as a man-at-arms. You will notice both Knight and Samuari developed the same 3 weapon system (poleweapon + sword + dagger). Also its worth noting that when rigid armor replaced (or was worn on top of) mail (no its not called chainmail) for most of the surface area the use of sheilds quickly declined and two-handed weapons increased. You were wearing your shield. (Also for anyone interested a suit of armor is a 'harness' to use the technical term, that is where we get the German term harnischfechten, the techniques for fighting in armor, which are distinct from blossfechten (shirt fighting), the term for the superset of techniques that work against unarmored opponents) >I'm sure training was also a big component; thwacking each other with blunted blades would be rough when leather or wool padding is about the best you've got. People have resurrected the old fighting manuals and its known as HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) today and encompasses armed, unarmed (strikes, grappling), unarmored and armored fighting. I do this and my cotton HEMA fencing jacket provides plenty of protection. I do no think training safety was an issue. >Quarterstaffs were also popular - and that's not too far off from getting hit with a baseball bat. Yes pole-weapons are much more dangerous than swords, but using the harnischfechten against anyone is dangerous, even with swords, since they are mean to kill people in armor. >It's just concussions all around. Its definitely a risk, but hardly a given. I have broken a finger, bruised bones, but even period head protection is quite effective.

benbreen 9y ago

These are great points. I specialize in the period a bit after the 14th century (the early modern era, roughly Columbus to the Industrial Revolution) and often say something similar to my class. I add these as points #3 and #4: - Diseases that we would consider to be debilitating were so common that it was completely normal for a person to suffer from, say, smallpox, dysentery and a gangrenous limb in a 10 year period. All in a world with no painkillers whatsoever (oddly enough, opiates were almost never used in a clinically effective manner in surgery prior to the late 17th century). The sheer level of physical pain that people dealt with on a daily basis is staggering and would have taken a psychological toll. - It was also completely normal for someone to have dealt with the loss of multiple siblings and children in infancy. You commonly see families that had 10+ children, of which only two or three survived into adulthood. So not only warriors but virtually everyone would have had something similar to what we'd today call PTSD. (Incidentally, this is also my theory as to why putti and the baby Jesus motif are so popular in medieval and Renaissance art - what today seems like a tacky baby painting was, in that period, deeply resonant with virtually everyone's personal experience of the loss of a beloved family member in infancy).

hprotagonist 9y ago
as an aside to your second point, there's a fascinating area of study looking at why much byzantine iconography stayed away from things like Pieta and representations of a suffering/crucified Christ, and stayed much more focused on other themes. Turns out, it correlates relatively well with "where the plague wasn't."
froasty 9y ago
I call shenanigans on all four points. 1. Delayed adulthood along with the carceral infantalization that accompanies it is purely a modern phenomenon. 2. Jousting was not nearly as common as popular culture presupposes. The notion that pitched battles, particularly ones that involved the nobility fighting personally and carelessly in melees, were encountered so frequently as to suffer from CTE goes against the historiography of the era. 3. Smallpox lasts about two weeks (if you live). Dysentery lasts about one week (if you live). Gangrenous limbs either kill you, come off, or recover. None of these cause persistent pain. If I get the flu every year, I'm going to have a worse time than these people, regardless of the existence of opiates. 4. Low infant mortality is also a purely modern phenomenon. It also ignores all known sociology on infant mortality. When infants and children die in highly mortal societies, their value is accordingly diminished. In many cultures where infant mortality is extremely high, they're not even considered fully human until around their first birthday. Humans are amazingly resilient when it comes to persistent stress and develop culture-ways to cope.