[hobilar]

Of course they did not have OSCARS, BAFTAS and other celebrity 'pat-on the back' events during the Medieval age, but if they had, who do you think would be up for nomination for Man (or Woman) of the era?

Joan of Arc, Thomas Beckett, Chaucer, Ghengis Khan, Richard the Lionheart, Saladin or perhaps somebody else entirely.

Perhaps members might like to propose their nominations ( and hopefully including a brief reason why they have made that choice). Members may make more than one choice and maybe later we could have a Poll based on the nominations in which the voters are not allowed to vote on their own nominations.

Could be quite interesting. Any takers?

Hobilar :sorceror:

[Ricker]

I think they'd have to have given Margery Kempe a Razzy (basically the opposite of an oscar) for overdramatic performances. She was quite the character, from what I've read, and way over the top (as you can probably tell, I'm not a very big fan).

Richard I (the Lionhearted) should probably receive best leading actor, although I really hate to call it acting. He was quite the warrior-king of a leader, though.

Joan of Arc should get best leading actress. It's really quite amazing for a woman to have been such a leader during the period, and based on the evidence, you could definitely make the argument that she was acting (her visions) in an attempt to rally her people together and increase morale.

Chaucer would have to receive some sort of award for best writing for The Canterbury Tales, Troilus and Cresside, and other works. Another notables would include Boccaccio's The Decameron.

For best unfinished work, I think the award should go to Strasberg for Tristan und Isolt.

I'll probably list some more in the future, but I think that's enough for now. Some villianous types might include Richard II and John I, and Louis XIV and women like Heloise definitely belong on the notable list.

[hobilar]

King John... Have you seen the sort of disfunctional family he came from? His Brothers hated their Father. His Mother hated her Husband. His nephews sided with the French and Germans. Pope Innocent III thought he could exert moral Blackmail on him. Philip II Augustus of France was busy thiefing John's estates.

No wonder he turned out Bad... Send for the Social worker.

Hobilar

[Ricker]

I didn't realize how messed up John's family was. You're right - too bad there weren't any medieval psychologists in the royal court.

[hobilar]

If there is one thing that I can not forgive King John for, it is the fact that he had the audacity to die in Newark-on-Trent.

Of course Newark does have another claim to fame besides its unfortunate role in the Civil War (for which Robert E Lee must have been extremely grateful), and this is that it is the only Medieval town where the trains actually stop in order for tourists to take photographs of all the empty factories and boarded up shops.

The passengers can then re-embark and proceed on their way, happy in the knowledge that, whatever their own problems may be, somebody else has it much, much worse.

[Ricker]

Why would Robert E. Lee have been extremely grateful, out of curiousity?

[hobilar]

Sorry, That was meant to be a joke that seems to have badly misfired on me. You will have appreciated by now that I can sometimes have a rather odd sense of humour. I am sure that all our well educated members will have realised that the Civil War to which I was referring was the one between King and Parliament (That is Roundheads v Cavaliers to anybody living in Texas OK)

[Ricker]

Yeah, I knew that was the civil war to which you were referring. I thought that maybe good ol' Robert E. Lee was perhaps distantly related to some sort of crazy Newarkian who was involved on the losing side in your civil war. I didn't want to miss out on any sort of irony that was involved in your post.

Either that or I guess I'm just trying to save face since I'm not very well educated.

[Saqqara]

I'd have to say Shakespeare( I realize he was considered Renaissance, but he deserves an Oscar! ). He focused solely on his writing, and churned out some excellent support. I believe even without the backing of Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare would have been a great hit among the public. His talent just goes to prove that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Now if you were focusing purely on military might and prowess, I'd have to say Genghis Khan. He built the largest empire known to man, overextending Alexander the Great's empire by several thousand miles. Although he couldn't hold it together, he did establish it, which in it's self is quite an accomplishment.

-Saqqara-

[Ricker]

I agree with you. Shakespeare definitely deserves an Oscar, even if he is a little outside the period, and Genghis Khan would win the Conqueror category.

[hobilar]

I am going to disagree. For all the brilliance of his prose Shakespeare was, very much a man of the rennaissance era. As such his historical perspective was very much directed to renewal of the great classical and Roman arts, with the Middle ages being utterly dismissed as an era of barbarianism.

In my opinion Shakespeare paints a somewhat biased view of the Medieval world which was to affect the way that many people did ( and still do) consider it.

It was not until the 19th Century that historians began to seek a different view, and even today it can be extremely difficult (except for secretive learned Professors of Medieval History in the better Universities) to seperate the myths and legends from realistic fact.

[hobilar]

Saqqara, on Aug 30 2004, 02:04 PM, said:

Now if you were focusing purely on military might and prowess, I'd have to say Genghis Khan. He built the largest empire known to man, overextending Alexander the Great's empire by several thousand miles.

Quite obviously you are of the 'God is on the side of the Big Battalion' school of thought.

For my part I should like to nominate someone whom you may not have heard of-Sir John de Courcey.

Sir John was the Grandson of one of Duke William's Knights who fought at Hastings. Having made a bit of a name for himself fighting for the Crown in France, Sir John was appointed as an aide to the notorious Governor William Fitz-Aldelm in Dublin around 1175. The faithless Fitz-Adelm was soon utterly despised by both Irish and Norman alike, and so in January 1176 Sir John with just 22 Knights, 50 Squires and around 300 Footsoldiers set out on a mission to conquer one of the few parts of Ireland which had so far not yet attracted the attention of the Normans-The unknown province far to the north which is today known as Ulster.

So sucessful was the expedition that despite facing greatly superior numbers of Irish tribesmen he was very soon able to, not only to defeat them, but to set up what would seem to have been almost an Independent Kingdom of his own. Naturally, despite assistance from the Norse King of Man, whose daughter, Affreca he married, Sir John was soon attracting many influential enemies amongst the jealous Norman Barons, and in particular with King John of England who one could say was not greatly impressed with the thought of anyone creating thei own Kingdom within the Royal realm (it didn't help when Sir John started minting his own coins without authority of course).

During King Richards reign Sir John appears to have become so powerful that he was appointed Justicular of all Ireland, but when King John succeeded his brother he dismissed de Courcy from office. He sent Hugh de Lacy to capture him. In 1203, de Lacy and his brother, Walter, the Lord of Meath led a raiding force into Lecale and attacked and captured de Courcy in Downpatrick.

He returned the following year to Carrickfergus, but was again defeated. Offered safe conduct, he would still not submit to King John, so his lands were forfeited to the Crown and on 29 May 1205 King John granted them to Hugh de Lacy, belting him Earl of Ulster.

De Courcy could not accept this and in July 1205 he arrived with Norse soldiers, carried across the Irish Sea from the Isle of Man, in ships supplied by his brother-in-law, Ragnold, King of Man. They landed at Strangford and laid siege to de Lacy's stronghold of Dundrum castle. Walter de Lacy arrived with his forces from Meath and de Courcy was again expelled from Ulster.

He disappeared into exile until 1207, when he seems to have regained favour with the King who gave him permission to return to England.

An exciting story and one well equal to that of Cortez's expedition against the mighty Aztec empire many centuries later.

[Saqqara]

Quote

Quite obviously you are of the 'God is on the side of the Big Battalion' school of thought.

No, I am not of that mind(Since I am a Deist, this would go against my "faith"). Do you know the whole story of Genghis Khan? Most people don't, and from your opinion, I'd say you don't know the entire one either.

Genghis Khan was born in the year 1162 to a Mongol chieftain, Yesugei, and his wife. He was born with the name of Temujin which means iron worker in his native language. When Temujin was born his fist was clutching a blood clot which the wiseman declared as an omen that Temujin would be a heroic warrior, which history has proven to be true.

ery little is known of Temujin until he was around age 13 when his father declared that his son was to find a fiancée and get married. After several days of travel Temujin and Yesugei came across a tribe of Mongols that were very hospitable and welcoming. Temujin was not there long when he noticed a certain girl that would be destined to become his wife. Bortei the daughter of the chieftain of that tribe was to become his wife.

Now with a wife for his son Yesugei decided to head for home and leave his son with his new fiancee. However on his was back to his home tribe he encountered a group of Tartars, who happened to be the enemy of nearly every Mongol. Yesugei was murdered and very quickly word came to Temujin that his father was dead, he declared that one day revenge against the Tartars would be his. Temujin left his fiancée and headed back to his tribe where he intended to declare himself leader of that tribe, keeping in mind that he is only 13 years old. The members of the tribe laughed at him and rejected Temujin as chieftain, they also abandoned him and his family to the brutal Mongolian plains.

Genghis vowed revenge for this act, and revenge he got. After a long struggle, he united the Mongols and set out to avenge his fathers death. He didn't do so by having a "God is on the side of the large Battalion", he did it by conquering quick and efficiently. He pillaged, burned, destroyed because he hated the people he was conquering for taking his father. I'm not disputing the fact that he did have a large force, but even if it had not been as large, I believe the hate in his heart would have still lead him to strike fear in Asians and Europeans.

Please, don't assume.

[Ricker]

hobilar, on Aug 31 2004, 04:17 AM, said:

I am going to disagree. For all the brilliance of his prose Shakespeare was, very much a man of the rennaissance era. As such his historical perspective was very much directed to renewal of the great classical and Roman arts, with the Middle ages being utterly dismissed as an era of barbarianism.

In my opinion Shakespeare paints a somewhat biased view of the Medieval world which was to affect the way that many people did ( and still do) consider  it.

It was not until the 19th Century that historians began to seek a different view, and even today it can be extremely difficult (except for secretive learned Professors of Medieval History in the better Universities) to seperate the myths and legends from realistic fact.

I probably should have worded what I said a bit differently. I think that Shakespeare would definitely deserve an "Oscar" for his works, just not a medieval one.

Shakespeare's plays have many different levels, and I completely agree with you that he was biased. I think that playing to the popular opinions of the day was something that was of the utmost of importance to Shakespeare. This is one reason he paints Henry V in a much more positive way than he does Richard II.

Shakespeare constantly critiques characters within his plays, and one such critique found in the history plays is an analysis of past English kings in search of the 'perfect' or most admirable one. I think that Henry V comes the closest in Shakespeare's view, but we can definitely see in Act V of Henry V that Shakespeare has problems with Henry as well.

Basically, even though I agree that Shakespeare was biased, I would argue that he would not completely dismiss the Middle Ages as being "an era of barbarism". He pays attention to the 'credible' sources of his day, closely following Froissart, for example. There is definitely forward-thinking in Shakespeare's works (i.e. "we've progressed from this"), but I do not think that Shakespeare would have considered the medieval period to be the 'dark ages'. I would argue that if we want to talk about someone who completely dismisses the Middle Ages as a time of barbarism, we should be talking about someone like Petrarch.