2 ms·

Medieval people viewed war as something very different. For nobility, it was an opportunity for fame and glory. For common soldiers, it was an opportunity to ge

Medieval people viewed war as something very different. For nobility, it was an opportunity for fame and glory. For common soldiers, it was an opportunity to get rich or at least gain some wealth. For everybody involved, it was a duty and a question of honor. One thing that seems unexplored in historical writing to me is how we use the same concept to refer to activities that have changed dramatically over the millennia. War, specifically, is a good example: war today is a certain kind of experience, filled with bombs and drones and driving around avoiding IEDs and artillery. War a thousand years ago was an entirely different thing, where you might be fighting another guy in direct close quarters combat. Of course it was more complex than that and you had other things like widespread disease, or boiling fat thrown at you, but it seems plausible to me that it was much easier to feel “heroic” about war in the past than in our mechanized age.

aldarion 3y ago
Precisely. First World War has fundamentally changed our society - including our attitude towards the war.
- pferde 3y ago
  It's not just WW1, it's that the system or rules the society is organized in has changed. Under feudalism, one of its basic tenets was that vassals provided their liege with not only money, but certain amount of men for the army. Hence the "For everybody involved, it was a duty and a question of honor." part of the quote. Although I suspect that for common peasants, there was no sense of duty or honor in this, it was just a potentially family-destroying event, where men would be rounded up and marched off against their will to die. Modern society sometimes still has that in limited form (mandatory military service), but it's very different, and time-limited.
  - aldarion 3y ago
    "where men would be rounded up and marched off against their will to die" That is the thing, however - they weren't, at least not in feudal system. Peasants would be present only as personal servants of nobility, but weren't actually expected to fight. "All men under arms" is only typical of tribal society, but in that case theywere basically defending their homes - and also hoping to profit.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    > Although I suspect that for common peasants, there was no sense of duty or honor in this, it was just a potentially family-destroying event, where men would be rounded up and marched off against their will to die. The article brings some pretty decent arguments that suggest you are wrong: > For common soldiers, it was an opportunity to get rich or at least gain some wealth. > Masses of peasants willingly went to try and liberate the Holy Land – only to get slaughtered because they did not wait for backup by professional soldiers. Later, during the Ottoman Wars, peasants under John Capistrano played a major role in defense of Belgrade. There was also the whole "children's crusade" episode.

aldarion 3y ago

Precisely. First World War has fundamentally changed our society - including our attitude towards the war.

pferde 3y ago
It's not just WW1, it's that the system or rules the society is organized in has changed. Under feudalism, one of its basic tenets was that vassals provided their liege with not only money, but certain amount of men for the army. Hence the "For everybody involved, it was a duty and a question of honor." part of the quote. Although I suspect that for common peasants, there was no sense of duty or honor in this, it was just a potentially family-destroying event, where men would be rounded up and marched off against their will to die. Modern society sometimes still has that in limited form (mandatory military service), but it's very different, and time-limited.
- aldarion 3y ago
  "where men would be rounded up and marched off against their will to die" That is the thing, however - they weren't, at least not in feudal system. Peasants would be present only as personal servants of nobility, but weren't actually expected to fight. "All men under arms" is only typical of tribal society, but in that case theywere basically defending their homes - and also hoping to profit.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  > Although I suspect that for common peasants, there was no sense of duty or honor in this, it was just a potentially family-destroying event, where men would be rounded up and marched off against their will to die. The article brings some pretty decent arguments that suggest you are wrong: > For common soldiers, it was an opportunity to get rich or at least gain some wealth. > Masses of peasants willingly went to try and liberate the Holy Land – only to get slaughtered because they did not wait for backup by professional soldiers. Later, during the Ottoman Wars, peasants under John Capistrano played a major role in defense of Belgrade. There was also the whole "children's crusade" episode.