Awesome ! Thank you!
Basically the most common (in England at least) would have been similar to a modern day "capture the flag" game, where the Knights and Noblemen would split into two teams and properly fight each other for it. Knights even paid peasants to run round the fight, stealing armour and weapons from the dead!
These would have been dangerous, even to the extent that different people were trying to have them banned:
- Kings because their were so many dying in the tournaments so there were less in the actual armies. Also because they encouraged unchivalrous thievery, and lead to rioting sometimes.
- The Pope because it distracted them from fighting for christianity (crusading).
Other events were:
- Melee: Similar to what I talked about at the start, but with just a huge fight between the two teams, and no other aims. Began at midday and stopped when it got dark.
- Jousting: The most famous part, but never what the tournaments centred on.
- Personal Challenges: Basically, someone would challenge anyone to fight him in single combat.
- The two teams charging at each other on horseback way: pretty self explainatory really. This would end up in the huge melee described above.
There were other minor ones such as wrestling and archery contests, depending on what region and what date you're looking at.
As you get later on into the medieval period, jousting becomes more and more popular, and the melee less so. However, a joust is not to be confused with tournaments, as tournaments the like of which i have described died out in the 14th Century, whereas Jousting was sometimes even an event on it's own, and continued until much later.
Hope this helped!
Bitter is the wind tonight,
it stirs up the white-waved sea.
I do not fear the coursing of the Irish sea
by the fierce warriors of Lothlind.
As you can see this article states the manufacturing output of the world in the 19th century.
Also, this article states that the USA started out inferior in the 1st half of the 19th century, but was getting bigger in the 2nd half.
If I were you I should make a difference in the 1st and 2nd half in your article which you have to make.
Possible answer to the difference might be the time it took for industralization to reach the USA from Western-Europe.
PS: If you look close you can see a small bend around 1880 for both Germany and France.
This is because of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 in which Germany gained a lot of the industrialised area of France.
If I find more Ill show some.
In the Dark Ages, the world lost many of the technological and philosophical acheivements that the Roman Empire had given them, only for them to be gradually rediscovered by the Arabs, and later expanded upon in the Rennassance. Although we do have the Holy Roman Empire and Charlemagne, there is little debating that the Arabs far surpassed the westerners in civilisation, technology, science and organisation etc.
If you will, the spotlight moved from Europe onto the Middle East, leaving Europe... in the dark.
Then of course we have the more common usage, that of us being left in the dark about the dark ages. Ie, knowledge and literacy was kept by royalty and by clergy, and noone else. Compared to the 11th and 12th centuries onwards, there were very few written records, arts were lost, there were few driving forces, people were moving about and details on anything are sketchy. We have censuses, such as the Domesday book, from the Medieval period. From the Dark Ages, we have only legends written about Anglo-Saxons and King Arthur. If we compare this to the Greek Dark Ages, we see parallels: the dark ages end when people stop recording history as stories and songs, and start recording history as history, ie facts.
Darwinism doesn't suggest that we should be all-wise and do what is going to be best for our selfish genes. Rather it builds into our brains rules of thumb which worked in our ancestral past - Richard Dawkins
I have to make a project for school, trying to make the link of the Germanic imperialism from the post-Charlemagne Age to WWII, passing through the HRE emperors like Otto and Friedrich Barbarossa covering their eastern "colonisation" and the United Germanic States in the 19th century, in Bismark's ruleship. I have general info for all these periods, but I wold be glad to have the help of an accomplished person to help me more about this...
thanks in advance,
The Ostkolonisation was nothing that was in the focus of Ottonian, Salian or Staufian imperial politics. In particular the two you mentioned (provided the "Otto" is Otto the Great and not Otto III) were blamed by 19th Century German historians for having neglected the east when focusing their politics on Italy.passing through the HRE emperors like Otto and Friedrich Barbarossa covering their eastern "colonisation"
By the way Beorn of Carrock, Bismarck is exactly the opposite of an imperialist. He wanted to consolidate German unification and sought no expansion whatsoever. It was Emperor Wilhem II that wanted to expand by conquering colonies. AFAIK he was not motivated by a historically rooted urge to conquer, but wanted Germany to take its rightful place among the great nations of Europe, and no country was respected without colonies. So you might want to watch out you don't draw a line between two largely unconnected events. Hitler would be a better choice.
Originally Posted by Seneca
Indeed. When you want to learn about Bismarck's foreign policy you should look at the treatment of Austria after 1866, not at the (re-)conquest of AL.
Well, in my mind I had the word External for Germany considering that its "homelands" were from Elba to the East to Strasburg, and from Swiss Confedenarcy to the Sea, but if the Emperors consedered Italy as their own rightful domain is debatable. The same would apply to the Byzantines, and even to the Pope.
And Bismark unified the Germanic States under Prussia's leadership (or at least that was the case in my point of view) removing Austria from the main player's position in the Reich's affairs, and after that he made war to France in 1870 IIRC, right? It was more a nationalist than an imperialist I have to admit...
I really need to look more into this matter...
Drang nach Osten would be key words, as Charlemaigne fought against slavic states that were pushing Germans west
HRE emperors were conquering and colonizating land east of Elba river towards Poland, as well into Bohemia, they tried to make Bohemia part of HRE and germanize them
i dont realy getting about Bismarck, perhaps as as Bismarc was building strong centrilized germany that could later expand into Austria, Poland and Balkan ( and Turkey) this was later done by Hitler, for few years, he went too offensive, everybody got scared, not a greatest politician
That's why I said this topic would be much to complex to be packed into a school project. I would suggest that you either concentrate on a certain periode to describe German politics, for example the Bismarckian periode. Or that you look at a certain region, for example Poland, and its relation to Germany/the Germans, without the need to attach that to the external politics of all German governments.
I have to answer the following in an essay format, and although it doesn't seem too difficult a question, I've never really had to weigh the fault of the French Revolution on one thing. I've always thought of it as a vast multitude of things, but of course, I can't do that here. So, I was just wondering if anyone had an opinion on exactly how to go about this.
"Of the following events which occurred in 1789, which one, in your view, best marks the beginning of the French Revolution? Be sure to explain WHY you made that choice. (There is no right or wrong answer to this essay. You will be evaluated on the clarity of your argument, and how well you support your choice).
1. The publication of Abbé Sieyés´s pamphlet “The Third Estate.”
2. The Third Estate declaring itself The National Assembly.
3. The fall of the Bastille.
4. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizens."
thank you very much for any replies!