From what I have gathered, non-nobility were restricted to to hunting small animals such as rabbits/hares, squirelles, and birds. But how was hunting regulated in places where the Nobility were almost non existent such as Florence?

From a powerful imperium in the 1150s to a shell of its former self by the 1210s. Is there anything that could have strengthened it and prevented its collapse? Or was it simply unsustainable in the long run?

Personally, I don't think it would have survived for very long as a single entity. Henry's original plan to split it made the most sense, even if the way he went about it didn't.

Henry VI becomes King 31st August 1422 after his father Henry V dies of dysentry. Weak and inept, he was adverse to violence which probably led to Wars of the Roses. King 1422-1462 and 1470-1471.

Edward IV deposed him but Henry VI came back for a year before his death probably murdered by Edward IV. A cult rose that regarded him as saint and martyr and miracles were attributed to him. A patron of education and founded Eton College.

I went to Warvick Castle and saw these arrows next to the cannons, but no info about them.
I’m very curious about how they were used. My guess is that they were fired with cannons, but I don’t thinkt hey would shoot very accurately or powerfully.

Can anyone tell me why Martin Luther is the first name that comes to mind when telling the story of the reformation when Jan Hus triggered a similar reformation in the late Middle Ages a century earlier? At first glance they both seem to oppose the same things: Church excesses, simony, the sacraments etc... And his criticisms seemed to be adopted across Czech before Luther nailed his thesis in Wittenburg. Is it simply a Western European bias, or are the two movements significantly different?

I want to turn my front room into a library. I’m looking for a late medieval/ early renaissance pattern. Either something with different images of medieval life (images 1 and 4) or a repeating design like image 2 or heraldry/coat of arms. Or option 3 is what YOU think would look good as curtains

Hi. I'm interested in medieval history and I'm learning English. To improve my language skills I want to read history books in EPUB format on my phone (easy to translate, I can save word and phrases, etc.).

What about books from XIX century? Are they worth to read? Hundred years ago historians didn't know as much as modern scholars know. Maybe this is not a big deal? I'm not sure.

Unfortunately buying ebooks in foreign currency is too expensive for me so I try to find something interesting on Project Gutenberg.

When most think of France during the medieval period, their first thought is probably the humiliation of HYW, but that was really a dark age after centuries of dominating Europe.

France's power began in the early 13th century when Philip Augustus conquered Normandy and Toulouse, making the French monarchy the most powerful in Europe.

While Philip still reigned, France's power was so well-known that Barons invited his son, Louis the Lion, to invade England, which was only thwarted by the brilliance of William Marshal.

Louis's two sons were stellar. Saint Louis became a super star that tried invading Egypt and Tunis; the pope paid his brother, Charles, to conquer South Italy from the Swabians. Charles' sons also inherited Hungary.

French power was at its apex in 1300 AD under Louis's grandson, Philip IV, who made the pope his puppet by forcing him to move to Avignon.

Just think about how insane it was in 1300 AD:

• Paris is the biggest city in the west of Constantinople by a wide margin

• Philip has his own puppet pope

• The other two richest kingdoms of Europe (Naples and Hungary) are ruled by Philip's cousins

• Philip's wife is queen regnant of Navarre

• French knights are literally invited to settle areas everywhere in Europe from Scotland to Spain

* Disclaimer: This whole thread isn't entirely serious, just some dumb thoughts I have, and I hope you get a good laugh out of it.

So, I know he's a pop historian that emphasizes good storytelling and accessibility, and I think that's wonderful.

I started reading Henry V by Dan Jones, and the beginning chapters feel a little strange to me. He starts off the book seriously glazing Henry V so hard, and the hero worship feels a little... let's say weird. He goes in pretty hard dismissing other historians for not properly jerking Henry off. One quote specifically was something like "other historians have tried to knock Henry V down a few pegs, but even their efforts weren't able to tarnish THE LEGEND"

And I'm like... other historians were trying to show his humanity? Exploring flaws and insecurities and mistakes and greed and ambition is part of what makes these historical figures feel real. Even though showing Henry V's humanity is part of Jones's stated goal, I fear I won't get that if his head is constantly up Henry's butthole. I'm sure his butthole was very nice, but maybe some fresh air is needed for a biography.

Speaking of, he also makes the claim that it can't be a biography if you don't have access to the subjects inner thoughts. Is he confusing a biography with a memoir?

There's also some pretty extreme claims like, "Henry V was the greatest king who ever lived ever and it's not even close!!" and I'm like... is he really though? The greatest ever? Like, of all time? There's no one else? No one? Really?

Honestly, the glazing went so hard in that first section, I honestly think Dan Jones is about to start his own version of the Snapewives and have a mass marriage ceremony with other Henry-wives. Dan Jones is a man in love, and honestly, you live your best life, man. I won't judge. Maybe a double-ceremony with some Ricardians?

Context for those who aren't a complete terminally online, lol: (What can I say, I love hobby drama)

https://fanlore.org/wiki/Snapewives

Anyway, I will definitely finish the book. It'll be a fun read, I'm sure. Feel free to share your honest thoughts on it, whether it's good, bad, indifferent.

Hello,

I'm working on a historical fiction novel that involves the Siege of Caffa by the Golden Horde as an important set piece. Does anyone know if there are any detailed accounts of the city, such as who was running it, what conditions were like, or how the city operated, and where I might find them? I'm specifically looking to study the renewed siege in 1345 and onward, but any relevant information would be appreciated.

Stephen tried to do this earlier, but the pope refused to give his blessing. Judging from the results of the fighting it's never been tried since.

Not sure why but everything about this movie doesn’t seem to be looking good… The more footage I see, the more same unnecessary anachronisms there are. Can’t believe that a Knight’s Tale is the last great medieval film we’ve had. At least those anachronisms were obvious to the audience and were filling in modern link for the audience so you could get a connection without feeling like you were getting bad history. Not only that good history doesn’t mean not entertaining, it’s just… fucking lazy, too lazy to do any work.

Hi everyone! I'm working on a personal project where I'm creating a handwritten, detailed encyclopedia/notebook about the Middle Ages.

I want to make it as thorough and authentic as possible, including primary sources (quotes/texts from actual medieval authors), fun trivia, daily life details, bestiaries, recipes, and more.

What topics, specific historical primary sources, or obscure medieval facts would you recommend including? I'd love to hear your favorite historical details or book recommendations, thanks in advance.

Sorry if anything sounds a bit off, I used a translator to write this post!

Does anyone have any non-fiction book recommendations regarding specific people who weren’t kings or queens in the Middle Ages?

I have already read books about Sir William Marshall (The Greatest Knight) and Sir Jean De Carrouges (The Last Duel).

I was watching a video about King John of England, i was so confused because John was married to Isabella, Countess of Gloucester, but they annulled the marriage because their cousins, I'm slightly confused, i thought medieval Europe tolerated cousin marriages, I'm confused can someone explain.

Frankly, I'm becoming tired of them. Granted, I might be in the minority because they do get a lot of upvotes.

But they bury everything else in this subreddit and come off as cheap karma-farming. And most of them do not have enough context to spark conversation, but are limited to 1-2 comments.

Then again, maybe that's what this subreddit wants to be.

Let's say you're a North German merchant east of Denmark: If you want to sell your goods by sea westward, won't you need to risk paying the Danes for safe passage? Similar for westerners trying to operate in the Baltics or eastern europe's river networks. Surely the HRE would rather those cusoms, fees, dues, etc etc go to the Empire, but they never annexed Denmark to my knowledge. Did they try to ally with the Danes? Coerce them?

The concept of concubines is pretty universal, and in most societies, children of concubines were on equal terms with "legitimate" offspring. Granted, concubines tended to be limited to the wealthy.

However, the Romans were an outlier in this, as they were deeply devoted to monogamy. Ironically, the root word for concubines, concubina, didn't mean an additional wife, but essentially a morganatic marriage. So, a Roman man could have a proper wife, or a concubina of lower caste, but not both. The Romans discriminated against children of concubinas pretty hard.

Either way, when the barbarian kingdoms took over Western Rome, they all practiced concubinage, despite Roman tradition banning it. The Catholic church became a champion of retaining the Roman tradition of monogamy, and spent 500 years writing angry letters to the kings telling them to stop taking concubines.

Because the barbarian kingdoms relied on the Church for their legitimacy, they were motivated to agree, but did so extremely reluctantly. The ban on concubines was included in the Visigothic code since the 6th century, and Anglo-Saxons began accepting it in the 8th century; however, Franks were more stubborn about it, and even Louis the Pious had a concubine in the early 9th century. However, by the 10th Church had succeeded in depriving the children of non-lawful wives of their legitimacy and birthright.

An exception was in Normandy, where the Normans retained the concept of concubinage until the 11th century. Even then, by William's time, his inheritance was disputed by his uncles. And a few decades later, his illegitimate grandsons by his son, Henry, were considered completely eligible for inheritance.

But it wasn't like bastards were completely deprived of their right. In many cases, the rights of bastards were merely demoted to equal status to daughters, resulting in multiple conflicts between legitimate daughters vs bastard sons. E.g., in Sicily and Portugal.

Interesting thing about bastards is that while daughters' birthrights would overrule them in the early modern period, there wasn't actually stigma around them. A king didn't actually have a reason to hide his bastards. It was very common for the bastards to be given lands and paraded in the royal court.

Many people believe bastards were scandalous, but that's really a 19th-century thing, which began with Victoria banning bastards from court.

Either way, thank you for reading.

According to a Medieval documentary by the late Terry Jones, the Medieval Church insisted that there be 80 holidays a year. And the according to the same documentary, the Church wasn't just a place of worship. It was also where peasants had parties, did amateur plays, held football/soccer games, and priests even brewed their own beer.

But I'm wondering if this applied to weeks where there were NO holidays? Did every peasant have to go to work or was Sunday still day off or for the Church?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm working on a Dungeons and Dragons campaign/setting and I've decided to put in some Medieval realism in certain areas. Every god in this settings pantheon has their own holiday. Also, while people have their favorites among the pantheon and churches to individual gods exist, the pantheon is actually a tight one that falls under a single religion. So most churches and temples are for the whole group. In other words, I'm trying to work out what the common folk did on normal days in the real life medieval era, and give the common folk of my setting the same schedules.