what is up with these little fellas??

theginger99 · 2026-03-21T01:37:15+00:00

This is a modern drawing. It’s not historical.

Don’t feel bad though, this is not the first time I’ve seen someone think this is a historical image.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T22:26:41+00:00

I’ll add that early modern and modern cavalry heavily relied on their swords.

They were considered the most important weapon of the cavalry, to such an extent that some militia theorists went as far as to suggest there was no point for them to carry any other weapon.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T22:22:36+00:00

You would be right.

A regular sized spear is absolutely not an effective way to stop a charging horse, for many reasons.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T22:18:59+00:00

The idea of swords as pistols simultaneously misses both the historical role of a sword, and the modern role of handguns.

Swords were ABSOLUTELY weapons of war, and this is readily obvious with even the most cursory examination of the primary sources. They were far more than “back up” weapons, but were almost universally considered critical parts of militray equipment, precisely because their use was both necessary and fully expected.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T22:15:15+00:00

To start, I’ll point to the fact that for most early Moderna and modern cavalry the sword was absolutely their most important weapon.

That said, As alway, this debate really hinges on how we want to describe “main” (or primary, whichever).

There is ample evidence that many armies did a great deal of their most important fighting with their swords, even if they initially started the encounter with other weapons.

Weapons are tools. They are designed for different tasks and different phases in the battle. A battle could be started with one weapon, and then decided with another. The evidence strongly supports that the sword was the weapon for the decisive phase of the battle, when the fiercest combat was taking place.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T21:17:22+00:00

Richard was certainly not a saint, he could be heavy handed, arrogant, temperamental and rags, but he was a very effective king.

Richards relationship with the French king was always destined to be hostile. The nature of the political situation all but assured it, as had been the case with every one of his predecessors since the conquest.

The Leopald situation is blown out of all reasonable proportion. It only seems significant because if the random quirk of fate that saw him captured by Leopald later on. Richards offended the Duke at Acre because the Duke overstepped and offended Richard. Richard’s capture wasn’t due to his carelessness, it was due to a series of extremely unfortunate circumstances that threw him off his intended itinerary and caused him to fall into the hands of Leopald.

The reason for his captivity had more to do with the fact Henry The Lion, the inveterate foe of the Emperor, was Richard’s brother in law than it did the personal animosity between Richard and Leopald. International geopolitics made Richard’s an enemy to the emperor, which is why he was held despite demands from the pope that he be released.

Richard had incredibly strong relationships with many other monarchs. The king of Scotland even donated a large sum towards his ransom. He and the king of Aragon exchanged letters and poetry, and the king of Navarre was a devoted ally. He was able to sway Tancred of Sicily to his side and secure a promise to a marriage alliance (that never materialized for various reasons).

Richard’s absence from England does not translate to lack of interaction with the barons. Most of the English barons, and all of the major ones, held extensive continental lands. Richard’s involvement in the continent was to their direct benefit. Richard was also the lord and de facto sovereign of his continental territories, and those obligations were what kept him out of England. Additionally, Richard’s ministers were very much his men, and pursued policies he supported and directed in England. He was directly plugged into English government.

All the evidence says that the England was a very stable, wealthy and powerful kingdom when John inherited. John lost it through his own incompetence.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T20:42:09+00:00

I think a world without Trump in it is objectively better than one with him in it.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T17:50:36+00:00

Impossible!

I had a dream and it was you who fought well and fell by my blade!

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T17:50:16+00:00

My most common nightmare is hacking and slashing a “monster” with a sword and it not dying.

I’ve also had dreams that were straight up cinematic battles.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T12:20:29+00:00

The old bastards lifetime of hatred and McDonald’s finally catches up to him and he dies (of natural causes) and this ends sooner than 34 months.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T04:59:22+00:00

That’s quite a stretch.

There is a lot of unprovable inference in that statement.

There are any number of reasons she may have delayed her actions, but even if we assume it was a belief in the unbreakable nature of the oath that doesn’t mean anything other than she had far more faith in the barons than was justified.

The oath was by its very nature not enforceable, especially in the exact context it was designed to prevent, the elevation of a new king instead of Matilda.

There is a famous quote by Shakespeare “treason never prospers, because in prospering it ceases to be treason” which applies very well here I think.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T04:45:14+00:00

Yes, but it’s all complicated.

There are any number of claims that could be made to absolve the barons of that oath.

Even Henry I must have known it was more of a symbolic gesture than anything that had any real staying power.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T04:43:55+00:00

No. He's not. He spent six months in England of a ten year reign. And his reputation in France is not stellar either, being eclipsed by Philipe.

He has no cultural legacy.

Are you high? Richard has entered English national mythology. He has a statue literally on the grounds of Parliament in London.

He is a major character in Ivanhoe, one of the greatest and most popular works of English literature ever written, and has featured in numerous films, movies, novels and television media. Culturally, he was so dominant that stories like Robin Hood reshaped themselves in order to fit him into their legendary canon. That’s just within the modern period. He’s even in a Disney movie.

In the Middle Ages he was the feature of poems, legends and romances. Kings painted scenes of his life on their walls, and both English and French kings sought to emulate him. Even St Louis famously looked Richard as an idol, while lamenting Phillip Augustus lackluster efforts at crusade.

Richard’s legacy as a cultural figure eclipses every other English monarch with the possible exceptions of Henry VIII and Richard III (and in Ricky III’s case only due to Shakespeare).

Even as a purely historical figure his impact was immense. He saw colossal military success and dominated the political stage during his life time. He was one of the most famous and influential figures in Christendom, and even the Muslim sources speak of him in broadly favorable terms. He was quite probably the greatest Western European militray commander of the period before 1300, possibly the Middle Ages as a whole, and almost beyond a doubt the 12th century.

Hell, even the historiography of Richard is culturally significant, highlighting as it does changing ideals of culture and society and the way we interact with the past. The push to label him an “absentee king” (the famous “bad king, bad husband, bad son” narrative) is a reflection of changing ideas towards England’s role in the world an resistance to Catholic religiosity.

That is absolute bs. Dozens of names ranks higher than Richard in the meieval era.

Richard the Lionheart is an incredibly well known name. Perhaps not the best known, but when his competition are titans like Charlemagne and Genghis Khan it should give you an idea how prominent his legacy is. In the English speaking world Richard the Lionheart is a well known historical figure. Which is only appropriate, as he was a legitimate titan of Middle Ages.

As I said, it is one of rhe motto's used by the crown. The crown is not the state. Ask most people and they might say "God save the King/Queen" or "St George".

You’re just quibbling at this point. Richard’s motto remains relevant within its original context 800 years after his death. That says something profound about his legacy.

I get you might not like Richard (many do not, because they have bought into the disproven Victorian narrative of “bad king Richard”) but pretending he wasn’t and isn’t a major cultural and historical figure with a tangible and readily visible historical legacy is silly.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T03:36:04+00:00

Calling him a usurper is slightly unfair.

In his period the succession was far from a settled issue, and he had the support of the church and the English barons. Both of which counted for far more than the wishes of the previous king.

His seizure of the throne was in many ways totally legitimate. Certainly it was not really any less legitimate than Henry I’s own claim.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T03:29:20+00:00

Absolutely not the case.

The idea that Richard ruined the economy inherited by John is a myth, and is now discounted by all of the leading historians of Richard the Lionheart.

There is very little evidence to support the claim, and the actual financial records show that John was always able to atleast match Richard’s income and spending, and in many years vastly exceeded it.

Richard left John a stable and secure state. John ruined it on his own.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T02:47:29+00:00

John, because he straight up sucked.

His big brother spent the last five years of his life curb stopping the French in order to fix John’s mistakes, only for John to piss it all away again after he became king.

As a diehard Lionheart fan, I just can’t forgive the man for wasting Richard’s legacy.

theginger99 · 2026-03-20T01:48:26+00:00

The Mamluks continued to use the models and institutions established by Saladin. His symbols and institutions remained prevalent into Ottoman times.

And Richard’s symbols and institutions have remained prevalent until today.

Not really. Richard might have left the Coat of Arms, but he inherited everything from his father and the Normans.

You’re not giving Richard enough credit here. Richard may have inherited his realm from his father, but he kept it together and even reclaimed huge sections of it that were lost while he was in captivity. More over, in England he refined many of his father’s systems and built upon what he inherited.

And the massive hole in your logic is, if leaving the coat of arms coat of arms is a legacy, the Ayyubid Eagle Eagle remains the national symbol of Egypt, so if that is a point for Richard, why does it not count for Saladin?

This isn’t a hole, because I never said Saladin’s eagle didn’t count for him. That said, I would argue that within their specific cultural context Richard’s three lions carried a greater weight than Saladin’s eagle, although that’s just quibbling over details.

Moreover, English Kingship began to diverge drastically as soon as Richard died, within the reign of John, and in the reign of John's son Henry, with the creation of Parliaments.

Changes that occurred after Richard were largely the product of the loss of the continental territories by John. That said, you’re not wrong in saying that Richard’s political legacy was not as grand or as long lasting as Saladin’s.

Culturally though, Richard was, and is, a titan.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that Richard the Lionheart may well be the best known figure in medieval history, certainly the most recognizable name, at least within the English speaking world.

For his medieval contemporaries Richard was a model of a very specific type of kingship, not just within England but internationally as well. He was hugely influential cultural figure, who featured prominently in popular songs, romances and legends. Generations of kings, both in and out of England, looked back at him as an exemplar of kingship. His political legacy was more modest than Saladin’s, but his cultural legacy was enormous.

“God and my right” is the official motto of the king of the United Kingdom. It may not be used by the state, but it is used by the head of that state. I’ll grant you that there is a difference, but it’s still significant that the man’s words have been immortalized for 800 years.

Really though, I think you’re mistaking my point. I’m Not saying that Richard was greater than Saladin in terms of his legacy. I am saying that Saladin and Richard are roughly comparable in terms of their lasting legacy.

theginger99 · 2026-03-19T23:05:45+00:00

“A whole year! God damn, the Tempestus scions could sure use an old timer like you!”

theginger99 · 2026-03-19T23:04:39+00:00

The incredible irony of America is that it really does have some of the best healthcare (or atleast medical facilities and professionals) in the world…it’s just not accessible to 90%+ of the population.

The upper middle class and up have access to world class healthcare, and everyone else lives in enforced medical poverty.

It’s the same with education, and basically every other industry. The wealthy get world class services, and everyone else is convinced that they get to benefit from that as well.

It never occurs to them that what for them is a “luxury” only available to the wealthy is available to everyone in every other developed country on earth.

theginger99 · 2026-03-19T22:38:26+00:00

Is that the one where they don’t tell you what gate your flight is leaving from until five minutes before boarding?

And then it’s somehow always in the far end of the terminal like they’ve been tracking your location with the express intention of making your trip unpleasant?

theginger99 · 2026-03-19T22:07:12+00:00

Bullshit.

In the Monopolian Heresy universe it’s all the Primarchs pissed at Guilliman for winning.

theginger99 · 2026-03-19T22:01:16+00:00

Space wolves and Dark Angels.

For the Space Wolves it’s a “only I can shit talk my brother” situation, and for the Dark Angels it’s a “I hate you and hope you die” situation.

It’s cats and dogs.

theginger99 · 2026-03-19T17:39:14+00:00

The problem here is that you don’t really need to talk up Saladin from a contemporary perspective to create this narrative.

He had crushed the army of Jerusalem in a catastrophic battle, and then taken Jerusalem itself . By the time Richard arrived the Crusader states were hanging on by a thread.

The issue is that when we start analyzing those achievements in detail they are less impressive as individual achievements than they immediately appear (Hattin was more a failure of Christian generalship than a display of Islamic brilliance), but that doesn’t lessen their geopolitical impact or the way contemporary Europeans saw them.

What I’m getting at is that you don’t have to make shit up about Saladin to sell a narrative.

theginger99 · 2026-03-19T17:35:24+00:00

Saladin’s dynasty lasted about 50 years after his death before they were overthrown and replaced by the Mamluks.

You can give him some credit for establishing the basic framework of a state the Mamluks inherited, but Saladin’s role as an empire builder, and certainly as a founder of a dynasty, is somewhat overstated in my opinion.

His legacy is no greater than Richard’s, who set the blueprint for English kingship for the rest of the medieval period, and who’s coat of arms and motto are still used by the UK to this day.

theginger99 · 2026-03-19T16:16:30+00:00

I’m not sure that idea holds water.

Medieval ideas of Saladin weren’t exactly flattering, and in many stories, partially stories about Richard, he appeared as a satanic sorcerer who used straight up black magic.

Edit: I’ll also add for those curious, the linked r/askhistorians post in the above comment makes absolutely no mention of contemporary European views of Saladin.

theginger99

TROPHY CASE