Was the english king/royal family also “not as important as we usually think there were” or is that more of french thing?

It’s really complicated, and depends what period you’re talking about. So here’s how I’d explain the relative power of English and French monarchs:

Under Charlesmagne, there was a relatively powerful bureaucratic state left over from the days when his ancestors who served as “mayors of the palace” (i.e, majordomo) to the Merovingian kings gradually usurped authority from their erstwhile monarchs (not unlike the Tyrells and the Gardeners). The counts (the main direct vassals of the king) were supervised by palace inspectors, whose job it was to keep an eye on the counts and in extreme cases recommend they be removed from fiefdoms for disloyalty or incompetence – as fiefdoms were considered a gift from the Emperor for the lifetime of the count.

At this time, the kings of the Franks were substantially more powerful than any of the warring heptarchs of the Anglo-Saxons.

After Charlesmagne’s death, this system gradually broke down, partially because his empire was divided between his three grandsons and then a lot of infighting took place between and within each of the three sections, but more significantly because the weakening of central authority empowered the regional nobility. The assembly of nobles got the right to decide who got appointed as inspectors, inspectors were now chosen from within districts, all of which meant that they became weak and corrupt. At the same time, fiefdoms became seen as property of the landholder to be inherited by their sons, and taking away a fiefdom was seen as a violation of the social contract. Over time, this meant that the king could only maintain power by giving away land, but then didn’t have land to give away in the future to keep their followers loyal, and it meant that the king’s own land diminished:

At the same time, in England, the Kingdom of Wessex was one of the few Saxon kingdoms to survive the Vikings, and under Alfred the Great reformed its military, its taxation system, military and civilian infrastructure, and legal system, which allowed the West Saxons to annex London, Kent, and west Mercia, then eastern Mercia and East Anglia, then Northumbria, at which point they controlled virtually all of England.

When William, Duke of Normandy, defeated Harold Godwinson in 1066, this entire kingdom fell into his personal possession, an enormous windfall in feudal terms. And the Norman Kings of England managed the hell out of their new acquisition, what with the Domesday Book, the invention of the Exchequer, etc.

For a while, this gave the Kings of England (who were still Dukes of Normandy, remember) more clout than the King of France, especially when the Kings of England managed to get their hands on the western half of France (note the dark blue on the map below represents the lands of the King of France):

However, French Kings from Phillip Augustus onwards were able to capitalize on disunity within the Angevin Empire, the growing wariness of French noblemen in eastern France about the expansion of said Empire, and the troubled reigns of Richard I and John I, to expand his holdings at the expense of the English. Normandy, Anjou, Vermandois, Touraine, and Auvergne were retaken by Phillip Augustus, then Louis the Lion seized control over Toulouse through the Albigensian Crusade, giving the French king a far more contiguous realm.

The English bounced back in the early phase of the Hundred Years War, allowing them to reconquer much of what they’d lost in southwestern France as well as adding the Pale of Calais into their territory, but even at their height they never got back their former north/northwestern provinces.

Eventually, however, the French recovered, and the mobilization against the English allowed the French monarchy to further their consolidation over their own territory.

Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis: Daenerys II, ASOS

“This beggar queen must understand, such wonders do not come cheaply…Unsullied are the finest foot in all the world, and each represents many years of training. Tell her they are like Valyrian steel, folded over and over and hammered for years on end, until they are stronger and more resilient than any metal on earth.” Synopsis: Daenerys gets given the showfloor pitch by Kraznys mo Nakloz by way…

View On WordPress

Guerrillas

Outside the realm of Robin Hood, is there any basis for a social/guerrilla movement like the Brotherhood Without Banners from actual medieval history, or would we have to look to the post medieval era to find a group as complex and organized as this resisting an overlord?

Social movements? Absolutely. There were a whole host of “peasant uprisings” in the 14th century, from the Battle of Golden Spurs to the Jacquerie revolt of 1358 to the Great Peasant Revolt of 1381.

In the 15th century, you had Jack Cade’s rebellion, and then in the 16th century you had the Bauernkrieg.

These uprisings tended to involve at least some organized groups – craft guilds, local notables and local governments, former mercenaries, John Ball’s “Great Society,” Yorkist sympathizers in Cade’s example, the German peasant haufen which were organized along professional military lines, etc.

Guerrilla tactics? See here.

Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis: Arya IV, ASOS

credit to Patrick McEvoy
“The lightning lord is everywhere and nowhere, skinny squirrel.”
Synopsis: Arya and the Merry Men go looking for Robin Hood.
SPOILER WARNING: This chapter analysis, and all following, will contain spoilers for all Song of Ice and Fire novels and Game of Thrones episodes. Caveat lector.
(more…)

View On WordPress

Regarding being Dany a foreign invader to Westeros, how did England view William I, James I, William III or George I? Was there any of that attitude about them? AFAIK there was some objection to William III, but was that because he was Dutch or because he was a Protestant?

I wrote a much longer version of this, but delted it because I was getting repetitious, so here’s trying for something more concise:

William I: did face quite a bit of opposition from the remaining Saxon Earls and the heirs of Harold Godwinson and the remaining members of the House of Wessex, but also from the Count of Boulogne (a former ally of his during the Conquest who was pissed off at the division of the spoils), King Sweyn of Denmark, King Malcom III of Scotland, and in his Continental holdings from King Phillip of France. His foreignness definitely played a role in the Saxon rebellions, but you have to put it into a complicated international context where Saxons might ally with Danes or Scots against Normans and other Saxons ally with the Normans against the Danes and Scots.

James I: Not really, except for conflict between James and Parliament over James’ desire to be recognized as King of Great Britain. James’ Scottishness was outweighed by the fact that he was the clear successor to Elizabeth and supported by her administrators, and also the fact that he was a Protestant (especially in the wake of the Gunpowder Plot). Not that there weren’t conflicts with the new King, but they usually had to do more with royal debt, taxation, and the prerogatives of Parliament vs. the King.

William III: I cannot emphasize how much this depends on where you’re talking about. William and Mary’s accession to the throne and the deposing of James II was way more popular in England than it was in Scotland or Ireland, hence why the various Jacobite revolts were based in Scotland or Ireland with only a minority of support in England. And this political conflict was directly linked to religious identity: James II’s Catholicism and support for Catholics in government was a major reason why he found support in Catholic areas of Scotland and Ireland, whereas William III’s Protestantism made him more popular in England. Indeed, when William landed in England as part of the “Glorious Revolution,” the motto on his banner (”Pro Religione et Libertate”) was understood by all to be referring to Protestant religion and Protestant freedom.

George I: more so than William III. William was Dutch, but his mother and wife were English and he himself could speak English, and his wife was an English Queen, so that militated against any such reaction. George’s English connections were more remote, and at least for the early part of his reign George couldn’t speak English. While this wasn’t a direct cause of the two major Jacobite revolts during his reign, the sense that George was a foreign monarch did probably contribute, at the very least to the increased participation of English Tories in the Jacobite uprising of 1715. However, later Jacobite risings in 1719 and 1745 really only drew their support from Scotland, suggesting it was something of a transient phenomenon.

Hi! Long time fan. Quick question, what’s the difference between a castle and a citadel?

Hi! Glad you’ve been enjoying the work.

Good question!

Citadel is a word that’s used in a slightly confusing fashion when it comes to fortification. For example, citadel can mean a fortress attached to a city (whereas a castle may or may not be attached to a city) that forms the inner defenses, to which an army could retreat to if the city walls fell.

However, a citadel can also be used to describe a part of a castle: another layer of walls between the outer walls and the inner keep. This is, however, a more rare use of the term.

What’s your take on Huey Long and the Share Our Wealth program, especially the net wealth tax? Any merit? Too populist to work?

Great question!

For those of you not familiar with this particular part of American political history, Huey Long was the famous populist governor of Louisiana, who turned his state’s constitution into silly putty, the entire state government into a giant patronage operation, and the only reason he was hated because of it was that, while he was absolutely corrupt on a personal level, he didn’t actually sell out to the powerful oil industry that had been running the state for decades.

Now, when Huey decided he’d like to become President on a third party ticket – after being U.S Senator and Governor essentially simultaneously – the centerpiece of his platform was the “Share the Wealth” Program, which included:

various caps on wealth and income: personal wealth no higher than $5-8 million (or rather, no more than 300 times the average family wealth), annual income no higher than $1 million (or rather, more than 300 times the average family income), inheritances no higher than $5.1 million.
sharply expanded progressive taxation on wealth and income.
a guaranteed family income of $2,000-$2,500 (or rather not less than 1/3 of average family income).
a universal old age pension for everyone over the age of 60.
government purchase and storage of surplus agricultural production.
veterans pensions and health care.
Free higher education and technical/vocational education.
Public works to boost the economy.

Now you’ll note that a lot of this is actually quite similar to stuff Roosevelt was already doing or in the process of doing – public works, government subsidies to farmers, higher taxes on the rich, old age pensions, etc. – but just more so, mostly because Huey Long was primarily interested in outflanking FDR from the left. And other parts of it was just stuff that Huey Long thought would be popular.

And it’s that last part that colors how I feel about this: while I’m sure that he was quite genuine about wanting to help the poor and hurt the rich, Huey Long didn’t care whether he could pay for any of this, or whether he’d be able to get it through Congress, or whether the Supreme Court would consider any of it unconstitutional. because what he really wanted to do was defeat FDR in 1936 and then become President in 1940.

And no, I don’t think it particularly pushed FDR to the left, because a lot of the things that people point to (Social Security, for example) were already in the works when Huey Long started pushing his program, and Huey was clearly taking parts of FDR’s program and saying “BUT BIGGER!” The biggest influence I would say it had on FDR was that he labeled his 1935 tax bill the “Soak the Rich Tax.”

In Medieval Saxon law a man who would throw a woman on the ground against her will, would forfeit the king’s grace. What does “the king’s grace” mean in this context?

Good question!

It’s a bit hard to tell, because as far as I can tell the phrase “forfeits the king’s grace” only comes up with reference to Saxon law on rape.

My best guess, from a mention in the writings of Sir Francis Palgrave, is that it has to do with the king’s prerogative to show mercy:

If my surmise is right, this would suggest that, if a man threw a woman on the ground against her will, the king was not allowed to reduce the penalty for the crime. Think of it like the medieval equivalent of a mandatory minimum sentence.

Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis: Jaime III, ASOS

“This was what he was meant for; he never felt so alive as when he was fighting, with death balanced on every stroke. And with my wrists chained together, the wench may even give me a contest for a time.” Synopsis: you’ve got to hand it to Jaime Lannister, he knows when to pick a fight at the worst time. SPOILER WARNING: This chapter analysis, and all following, will contain spoilers for all Song…

View On WordPress