Myths in History - what do you know?

[Condottiere 40K]

1325
With regard to the Mongols and the Middle East, as I recall, that area seems fairly horsey when it comes to military campaigns.

[Twido]

-snip-
b) Thanks to Mel Gibson and fiction novelists, is that Edward II was effeminate coward while in fact he was one of the strongest men in England and had to be dragged off the Bannockburn after fighting and "slaying many Scotts".
-snip-

So you have some references for that?

I had also read somewhere that Edward was a particularly strong individual. His assassins had first tried to overpower him and drown him in a barrel, they had to resort to the infamous alternate method after this proved unsuccessful.

However, it was my understanding the when Edward quit the field it caused a rout among the English. Despite this the accusation laid upon Edward II is most often one of incompetence rather than cowardice.

I am not intending to call you out on this, I am genuinely interested and have read several differing accounts of what happened. Part of the problem seems to be that this battle has such great national significance that many writers and historians lose their objectivity.

[Henry of Grosmont]

So you have some references for that?

I had also read somewhere that Edward was a particularly strong individual. His assassins had first tried to overpower him and drown him in a barrel, they had to resort to the infamous alternate method after this proved unsuccessful.

However, it was my understanding the when Edward quit the field it caused a rout among the English. Despite this the accusation laid upon Edward II is most often one of incompetence rather than cowardice.

I am not intending to call you out on this, I am genuinely interested and have read several differing accounts of what happened. Part of the problem seems to be that this battle has such great national significance that many writers and historians lose their objectivity.

Will do. I have a very busy schedule these days (including week-end) but I will post. I honestly thought these were well known misconceptions. Go figure, hehe...

Edit.
Also, that "rod in the rectum" story is most probably a fabrication too. IF he indeed was murdered, a simple pillow would suffice.

[Henry of Grosmont]

double

[Cyclops]

...
snip...

Good points, a lot of myths about medieval times: modern notions are projected backwards onto a canvas that just doesn't accommodate them. Its hard for modern people used to fixed national identities and regular armies etc to understand the nuances of the feudal system where a man speaking French could be an English knight and/or a Scottish Lord at the same time. The Scottish myth of Robert the Bruce minimises (although to their credit doesn't hide) the infamous murder of Comyn in a church while under truce. Guys like Moray get forgotten, its easier to have a good guy painted in clean colours, and the bad guy painted black.

Edward II gets stick because he was deposed, like Richard III. John I gets stick for other reasons (he's an Anglican bete noir and also the bad guy in the Runnymede myth of "English Democracy"), history doesn't just get written by the winners, it gets simplified and adapted.

Hey there's another one: Westminster is the mother of all Parliaments (its not, there are older Things https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamtam%C3%B3t possibly the Tynwald too), and parliament is an English institution directly descended from the Witan. In fact the English parliament is a continuation of the French institution of the Curia Regus, not surprising as the Normans were culturally French by that time, and imported French political legal and social theory wholesale into England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curia_regis

I am convinced the "English Common Law" is likewise French legal practice with at best a smattering of pre-Norman customs. The officers, court procedure and terminology all derive from Norman French and Latin, I don't see why a group of alien invaders would bring their own political system, weapons and new social order and then adopt the local peasant's legal system.

Many of these historical myths support nationalist versions of history that are painful for members of that nationality to hear. Other things are glossed over. There's no mention in standard Australian history texts of the results of the well known gender imbalance in white settlement. Until the 1970's IIRC there were more men than women. In the first fleet it was six men to one woman. There was a very great deal of homosexuality and rape by white men, and female convicts coming here were often "assigned" one to a group of up to ten men (although an officer usually got to pick one out for himself).

That's our foundation story but strangely no one wants to hear it. The myth is of rugged Europeans coming to a land of opportunity, making wealth from hard work and establishing a tradition of male friendship ("mateship"). Well mateship is right, they came on ships and they mated.

[Condottiere 40K]

6441
John gets stick for really good reasons; his treason forced Richard to break off the Third Crusade, and then get captured as he tries to sneak through Europe, forcing Eleanor to raise a hundred thousand pounds (or whatever) for his ransom, that practically bankrupts England; then when he's King, he loses his Norman patrimony, which Richard was steadily recovering from Philippe. When John was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he alienates the Irish chieftains; when he's left in charge, he commits treason with the French; when he's King, he alienates the English Barons and loses to the French. He sells his soul to the Pope. He loses the crown jewels.

[Cyclops]

6441..He sells his soul to the Pope....

This.

John fits into the Whig pantheon as Satan. In fact John merely confirmed the relationship with the Pope established by William the Bastard (who however as "the founder" of the feudal system in England has an unassailable place in English mythology), and was in many ways a better King than the gloried Richard. John was a traitor? Richard's own revolt against his father suggest loyalty was not common conduct at that time. Runneymede was the birth of democracy? In a pigs ear. It was nobles ensuring they were treated better than the commoners, the exact opposite of democracy.

John is a "bad guy" in a simplified version of history where "good constitutional Protestants" defeat "evil despotic Catholics".

[conon394]

John fits into the Whig pantheon as Satan. In fact John merely confirmed the relationship with the Pope established by William the Bastard (who however as "the founder" of the feudal system in England has an unassailable place in English mythology), and was in many ways a better King than the gloried Richard. John was a traitor? Richard's own revolt against his father suggest loyalty was not common conduct at that time.

Well it does prove that for all that he was effective king Henry II was a really bad father and husband and poor at dynastic politics. In particular I would say he actually proves true some off what has been called above myths about the middle ages or feudalism. No matter how talented he could not develop a sense of statehood or national identity for his creation.

Runneymede was the birth of democracy? In a pigs ear. It was nobles ensuring they were treated better than the commoners, the exact opposite of democracy.

No not democracy but deflection away from absolute royal power/and or pope power - a start at least if oversold often.

[Copperknickers II]

"The Germans toppled the Western Roman Empire" lol the Germans were defending it mostly.

Yes, against other Germans. And it was the Germans who were supposed to be defending it who finally broke all ties with the Eastern Empire and began the breakup.

Another one is the classic "Barbarization" theory that says the Roman army became a bunch of disorderly barbarian mercenaries in the 4th century.

But it did. By the end of the Western empire Germanic tribesmen of some description made up a majority of all troops.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I keep seeing the myth that Subutai conquered Russia. This is false as Subutai and Jebe led their armies into Russia, conquered some nomadic areas and defeated an allied Russian force. Afterwards they raided some areas in the south and returned to the Mongol Empire. In fact it was Batu Khan son of Jochi that conquered the Russian city states in the reign of Ogedei Khan. Batu Khan established the Golden Horde and it was Subutai who served under Batu Khan in the campaigns against Hungary and Poland.

[Condottiere 40K]

4700
I have the feeling that the Russians don't actually care, except that some Mongol did.

[Cyclops]

Yes, against other Germans. And it was the Germans who were supposed to be defending it who finally broke all ties with the Eastern Empire and began the breakup....

The Goths by the time of Adrianople are a horde and not an ethnos, and a heavily Iranianised one at that. They belong to the steppe tradition which often bundled subject peoples (be they Slavs, Germans, whatever) and loaded them with the momentum to wreck continents. Furthermore the Goths and other groups in the Volkswanderung were driven forward by the Huns, another steppe culture horde.

The Germanic tribes like the Franks, Vandals and Lombards were vermin that swarmed the corpse slain by Attila and Alaric. Rome fell to the pony riders not the spearmen of the forest, who squatted among the ruins they failed to defend.

[Henry of Grosmont]

So you have some references for that?

I had also read somewhere that Edward was a particularly strong individual. His assassins had first tried to overpower him and drown him in a barrel, they had to resort to the infamous alternate method after this proved unsuccessful.

However, it was my understanding the when Edward quit the field it caused a rout among the English. Despite this the accusation laid upon Edward II is most often one of incompetence rather than cowardice.

I am not intending to call you out on this, I am genuinely interested and have read several differing accounts of what happened. Part of the problem seems to be that this battle has such great national significance that many writers and historians lose their objectivity.

Will do. I have a very busy schedule these days (including week-end) but I will post. I honestly thought these were well known misconceptions. Go figure, hehe...

Edit.
Also, that "rod in the rectum" story is most probably a fabrication too. IF he indeed was murdered, a simple pillow would suffice.

As promised, although with delay, I refer you to Vita Edwardi Secundi and Scalacronica.
Also, Ian Mortimer, in one of his books (need to find it) presents a more complex Edward II. He lacked neither intelligence nor courage. His lack of judgement and fierce irrational personal loyalty was his undoing (as it was Richard's) and he just wasn't fit to be a Medieval king.

[Condottiere 40K]

813
Whether or not he had an actual homosexual relationship, his problem was that he wasn't his father, and he wasn't any good at generalship, and worse, his choice of friends weren't smart enough either to rein him in or to cultivate alliances with the English nobility, since you can reign well if you have the capability to find the right man for the job.

[+Marius+]

'The mongols wouldn't have been able to conquer western Europe.'

The probably could not.

The Mongols actually tried to take out Hungary and Poland on multiple occasions after the initial invasion and got their asses kicked in frontal engagements on multiple occasions.


They also failed to take a single post 1200ish made castle or fort, because European castles are not walled up living establishments that were the cities of the East, European castles were deathtraps that even the most prone in siege warfare tended to avoid assaulting.

An entire Tumen of Mongol troops failed to take Trogir and barely managed to assault Klis, one a small city barely a thousand strong, the other an outpost fort with a garrison barely 90 men strong.


Lets not forget that about 30 000 Mongols were massacred to a few by a couple of thousands Moldavian peasants and some heavy knights.
They were good, but not as good as people think.

[Henry of Grosmont]

813
Whether or not he had an actual homosexual relationship, his problem was that he wasn't his father, and he wasn't any good at generalship, and worse, his choice of friends weren't smart enough either to rein him in or to cultivate alliances with the English nobility, since you can reign well if you have the capability to find the right man for the job.

I'm confused, are you agreeing with me here? Because if not, you should've posted something that contradicts my point.
As for him being homosexual, I think bisexual describes him better. Gaveston is a safe bet, in case of Despenser it's more vague. Edward did pay female prostitutes before his marriage, sired children with Isabella and even acknowledged, at least, one bastard. But then again, it was expected of him to continue the dynasty and being homosexual would have little, if at all, to do with him impregnating Isabella - duty is duty.
And another thing about him, there's a theory that he wasn't murdered at all. A theory that isn't as ridiculous as it may sound. Some evidence I find being a stretch but many things would've explained the actions of every party involved, actions that otherwise look odd.

[Aru]

They also failed to take a single post 1200ish made castle or fort, because European castles are not walled up living establishments that were the cities of the East, European castles were deathtraps that even the most prone in siege warfare tended to avoid assaulting.

An entire Tumen of Mongol troops failed to take Trogir and barely managed to assault Klis, one a small city barely a thousand strong, the other an outpost fort with a garrison barely 90 men strong.

Speaking of myths, I'd like to know a source for those claims.

[+Marius+]

Speaking of myths, I'd like to know a source for those claims.

Third invasion of Poland by Nogai Khan;

Mongols besiege towns, some of the towns agreed to Mongol terms, Mongols break those terms(as the Mongol vermin do) and massacre the civilians.
About 30 000 Mongols go about raiding and, instead of peasants with farming equipment, actually have to fight a proper army.

After separating into two forces, the northern Mongolian force, after a series of failed siege assaults at small western style forts, is completely wiped out December 7, 1287, near Łagów.

The southern Mongolan force does the same(fails at sieges and breaks agreed terms with surrendering cities while massacring the innocents, you know, the usual Mongol stuff), after which they assault both Krakow and the Polish army that came to rescue it on December 24, 1287, the Mongolians are massacred, out of 18 commanders only 7 survived the day.

Finally at Stary Sącz, the Hungarian expeditionary force of an unknown number of knights led by György of Sovaru destroys the remaining Mongols in a frontal engagement.

Nogai Khan, the grandson of Genghis and khan of the Golden Horde, runs like a little girl and is reported having a mental breakdown in Ruthenia in late January of 1288, year of our Lord.


Second invasion of Hungary by Nogai Khan;

Mongols fail to capture...anything really, and are massacred by the army of Ladislaus IV, who met them head on in a proper, open field engagement.

Nogai Khan retreats from Hungary after a series of smaller engagements with the local troops in Transylvania, the Saxons, Vlachs, and Székely, in which the Mongols are decimated.

After these two invasions, the Mongols never again invade Poland or Hungary...they do invade Serbia a few years later in 1291 though...and get defeated again by a bunch of Balkan sheepherders.


Funny how the Mongol rapetrain does not really work that well in "this time our enemies are not peasants armed with farming equipment" scenarios.

[NikeBG]

Funny how the Mongol rapetrain does not really work that well in "this time our enemies are not peasants armed with farming equipment" scenarios.

Even against peasants they didn't always fare too well.
While the Golden Horde remained a rather powerful force for awhile, they can't really compare to the original impetus from Genghis' times, it seems.

[+Marius+]

While the Golden Horde remained a rather powerful force for awhile, they can't really compare to the original impetus from Genghis' times, it seems.

They are basically the same Mongols, apart from the leaders ofc, only 40ish years after the first invasion.

It seems that once their enemies figured out who they were dealing with, they just became another enemy.


To make things even more ironic, while some(mostly Hungarian) blame the initial defeat of Hungary on the fact that the Hungarians abandoned their "Eastern ways" of fighting, it was actually Hungary's obsession with westernization that led to the later defeats of the Mongols.

Bela and Ladislav recruited crossbowmen and western mercenaries as well as western style knights rapidly after the first invasion.

Remember, at the battle of Mohi the few crossbowmen managed to push the elite Mongol horse archers into retreat over the bridge and the situation against them became so dire that Mongols had to clear the crossbowmen with artillery.
Apart from that, it was only when the Mongols engaged western style equipped knights that they had to give ground at Mohi(regardless of the fact that they were winning).


The main weakness of the western armies was their size though, while the Mongols rode with tens of thousands of professional horsemen, the Europeans had to resort to a few hundred heavy cavalry, some proper infantry and a giant blob of drafted peasant levies.

It was a miracle that they even managed to do anything considering what they faced.