Classic-Castle.com

Hey all,

lego releases these factions, wich in medieval history I have never heard of. When there was war, the king asked to the ones lower on the social ladder (feudal system) to give him soldiers. These soldiers all "borrowed" the land of their lord, and needed to go to war with him. This way, many kinds of different patterns of shield, etc. must have existed of course, since each lord/ baron/... had his own heraldry. I suppose militia was also used from the cities, with the heraldry of the city on them.

So, enormous identical looking armies have never existed in medieval life (except orders like the templars, hospital knights, st. John order knights,...).

So did factions really exist?

TT

Well, I guess you could say that each 'faction' is a lord with the knights of his household and his soldiers. I know that realistically, the house-knights would have their own heraldry, and the soldiers wouldn't wear the lord's arms, but it is slightly more accurate. That's what I plan to do if I ever get enough figs (I don't want huge, boring armies).

~smcginnis

I realize that I am setting myself up for some sort of embarrassment, but I do believe there were some instances other than the holy orders you listed in which there were huge armies of identical troops, although I agree that this would be a very rare thing indeed.

Anyway, I guess my verdict is that I kind of like the idea of all the troops looking the same (although I am aware they didn't), I'm not sure why, but I always liked that idea more.

One thing that has always confused me, I must confess, is how in the world all the knights and warriors could tell who was on who's side with all the different colors and heraldry.

I do think that one could use all of the lion factions (for example) to illustrate the warriors of one king and all of the fright nights/scorpions/Castle Undead factions (for example) for another more evil king. That would work and probably be pretty cool as well~

As with most things, I think LEGO leaves it up to the consumers to decide.

well lets see large uniformed armies;

Greek City States with Sparta being prelevant
Romans
Persians
Egyptians
Crusade Armies
Frenach army
French musketeers
English army (loosely based on the Roman Cavalry,bet you didn't know that )

and so on and so on.

while the method you speak of was the feudal system ea. lords army usually sported his lord's colors or heraldry on his clothing,so yes there were as many factions as there were lords with ea. "Lord" having anywhere from 20-200 or maybe even more men at his disposal depending on the size of his land holdings.

Hello!

ottoatm wrote:One thing that has always confused me, I must confess, is how in the world all the knights and warriors could tell who was on who's side with all the different colors and heraldry. :)

Well, the different colours and heraldry were actually meant to help distinguish the one faction from the other...
And you must keep in mind that lords had not much to do other than banqueting with other lords and spending time at their king's (their liege!) court and debating over war and training for their battles. That's what they did. Part of their education was studying the who-is-who of the European nobility. They simply knew which lord was carrying which coat of arms and which colours. This knowledge was part of their qualifications for their job. Plus they knew all their allies in person, and probably even most of their enemies.

And the lords did have professional soldiers in their service. Those weren't necessarily noble, thus they didn't get the same education as noble children. However, they were professionals, and knowing the coats of arms of the lords belonging to their army was also part of their job. Also large armies were marching a long time to battle, the soldiers had time to get to know the coats of arms belonging to their own army, so they probably didn't have difficulties in battle to distinguish friend from foe.

I do think that one could use all of the lion factions (for example) to illustrate the warriors of one king and all of the fright nights/scorpions/Castle Undead factions (for example) for another more evil king. That would work and probably be pretty cool as well~

In terms of historical correctness there is no category like "good" and "evil". When William the Conqueror conquered England in the battle of Hastings, in his self-concept he wasn't "evil", even though the poor Saxons that got conquered might have thought of the Normans as "evil". But those Normans naturally didnt have evil-looking heraldry. Nor were the saxons evil, that didn't accept William for their king freely, which made him enforce his title by war. Nor were the Crusaders good. They did not free the Holy Land from any evil oppressors, but they simply conquered land for themselves. Nor were they evil, but they did what they thought that had to be done.
(That's just for some examples. Good and Evil never is a reasonable concept in politics. Neither in the middle ages, nor in modern times.)


Bye
Jojo

Ahh... very good stuff guys - and good to see you again Jojo! Thanks for your info - I had no idea that the knights and lords (etc) spent so much time with each other - I guess if that were the case, it would indeed be much easier for them to tell who is who and what is what...

I knew there were other examples Asterios - thanks for bringing them to mind! I do see your point about "good" vs. "evil" jojo, and I've read a fair share of Ranke, so I believe in looking at history from a more objective point of view - but I do believe that certain time periods have had aggressor nations that did act a bit more evil than others, although it's certainly not in every situation~

(That's just for some examples. Good and Evil never is a reasonable concept in politics. Neither in the middle ages, nor in modern times.)

Not to get too far off topic, but are you sure you want to stand by this statement? I'd say that Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, Burma's current government and the current Islamic extremist factions represent something closest to evil that I've seen... altogether these governments have oppressed and killed more people than any other government/faction in history - I just think that being afraid to call something "evil" is just as dangerous as being too eager to call something "evil".

Just my 2 cents - don't mean to cause any trouble or what-not.

ottoatm wrote:Not to get too far off topic, but are you sure you want to stand by this statement? I'd say that Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, Burma's current government and the current Islamic extremist factions represent something closest to evil that I've seen... altogether these governments have oppressed and killed more people than any other government/faction in history - I just think that being afraid to call something "evil" is just as dangerous as being too eager to call something "evil".

Just my 2 cents - don't mean to cause any trouble or what-not.

remember good or evil is a matter of perspective,as it goes alot of middle east nations consider the US "The Great Evil" so do the people of Cuba who worship Castro like a God,but he is still considered a dictator by the US and others.

While I understand the logic of your point, I think that the people of Burma would not agree that their government is a force of good... and those who manipulate others to blow themselves up and kill innocents in the name of fighting the "Great Evil" are still, at the end of the day, evil.

Certainly the SS didn't think they were evil, but... well... weren't they?

Hmm...something tells me we are dangerously off topic. And I'm a mod! I should know better! Sorry to open this Pandora's box~

Hello!

ottoatm wrote:Certainly the SS didn't think they were evil, but... well... weren't they?

Yes, they were. However, as Asterios said, it's still a matter of perspective. And! fighting against the "evil" doesn't necessarily make anybody "good". At least Stalin's Russia was fighting Hitler's Germany...

In mediaeval times, though, it's more than hard to decide who was the "evil" part in the game of war. The invaders usually thought they were entitled to do so, normally by right of birth, relationship and cousinhood; while the defenders had good reasons not to accept these rights. Anyway, nobody ever got up in the morning with a Pegleg-Pete-ish laughter, planning exceptionally evil misdeeds for the upcoming day. :-)


Bye
Jojo

I do agree that those who fight a more "evil" force are not by logic "good", however on other matters of the issue I think we have to agree to disagree on this... I don't equate "good" to perfect, but I do look at the net result of one's life or one's "rule" as a standard of good or evil.

For example, the KKK (here in US) was evil in my opinion despite the "noble" way they saw their cause, and Martin Luther King was a very good man despite the many ladies he "met" with (as a pastor) after being married.

On a national level, I do agree that Stalin was evil as well, but I think that the other Allies were indeed "good" overall, and had to make a decision about who to side with between Germany and Russia, and they chose the lesser of two evils.

But I do think that if you say there is no "evil" because it's all a matter of perspective, that you must say there is no "good" either, because that is also all a matter of perspective, and that is a very dangerous place to be at indeed, because everyone must have a standard of morals and ethics (secular or religious-based) in which they use to judge between good and evil.

On the topic of medieval "good" and "evil" factions, I can more readily see your point in Europe, South America, Asia, all around the world - while today the idea of invasion by birthright or god-given authority is less widespread (thank goodness!), it was indeed rampant in those days.

But now that I think of it, wouldn't you say the Vikings or more modern pirates probably were more evil? For example, when the vikings prepared to raid a town and it's women, they actually probably did wake up and thought "har har har... today I will do some real harm!"

Either way, I want to say that I have enjoyed this debate so far, although I must confess to living in fear that this thread is going to flame up suddenly and lead to chaos.

Ahhhh, the smell of chaos This was a good question, and I think Jojo answered it well. I often wondered how people kept from killing their allies as well. I won't point to any movie refrence since someone will say "that's inaccurate", but I imagine the chaos in fighting is similar. I bet fellow CCer Damien has some pretty good insight on this topic as well.

Anyway, nobody ever got up in the morning with a Pegleg-Pete-ish laughter, planning exceptionally evil misdeeds for the upcoming day.

I do.....all the time

Quickblade22 wrote:

Anyway, nobody ever got up in the morning with a Pegleg-Pete-ish laughter, planning exceptionally evil misdeeds for the upcoming day.

I do.....all the time

I second that.

what it comes down to in the end is the Winners are the good guys and the Losers are the evil guys,remember History is written by the winners.

Asterios wrote:

ottoatm wrote:Not to get too far off topic, but are you sure you want to stand by this statement? I'd say that Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, Burma's current government and the current Islamic extremist factions represent something closest to evil that I've seen... altogether these governments have oppressed and killed more people than any other government/faction in history - I just think that being afraid to call something "evil" is just as dangerous as being too eager to call something "evil".

Just my 2 cents - don't mean to cause any trouble or what-not.

remember good or evil is a matter of perspective,as it goes alot of middle east nations consider the US "The Great Evil" so do the people of Cuba who worship Castro like a God,but he is still considered a dictator by the US and others.

I understand what you are saying, but I must disagree. While viewpoints on some things might differ, evil is evil. Governments who massacre their own people are evil, no matter what perspective. Them thinking that they are good doesn't make them good.

Sorry to get off-topic, but I felt I had to respond to that.

Kelderic

kelderic wrote:

Asterios wrote:

ottoatm wrote:Not to get too far off topic, but are you sure you want to stand by this statement? I'd say that Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, Burma's current government and the current Islamic extremist factions represent something closest to evil that I've seen... altogether these governments have oppressed and killed more people than any other government/faction in history - I just think that being afraid to call something "evil" is just as dangerous as being too eager to call something "evil".

Just my 2 cents - don't mean to cause any trouble or what-not.

remember good or evil is a matter of perspective,as it goes alot of middle east nations consider the US "The Great Evil" so do the people of Cuba who worship Castro like a God,but he is still considered a dictator by the US and others.

I understand what you are saying, but I must disagree. While viewpoints on some things might differ, evil is evil. Governments who massacre their own people are evil, no matter what perspective. Them thinking that they are good doesn't make them good.

Sorry to get off-topic, but I felt I had to respond to that.

Kelderic

the Question is what makes your judgement right?in your eyes these people are evil,yet in their eyes they are following their beliefs in their god,who has decided your right?or wrong?oh wait in your mind by your perspective your right,so that proves my point since in their perspective their right.