scans_daily | Warren Ellis: Crécy

I thought that gesture meaning 'har har i can still shoot' was debunked?

But whatever it means.. it is still so very satisfying when in use.

I've been thinking of getting my sister this book for her birthday, so thanks for the scans! I can ponder in more detail.

I got it at the same time as THE BLACK DOSSIER. I have repeatedly gone back to both ever since. It's one of Ellis' very best works.

This was impressive. And informative.

There is a great myth / story told by Robert Wuhl in "Assume the Position 201" on HBO, a documentary about history told to a college class. the section was Truths and Myths.

I am horribly paraphrasing,so forgive me: Turns out that when the English archers taunted the French across the battle field, that gave them the middle finger, indicating that even though their provisions were low, they were stlll free to rain down holy hell on top of them. Still able to "pluck" the strings, and "pluck" you. And of course the French misinterpreted what they heard and it turned into the words we know today.

....

....

And then Wuhl went and popped everyone's bubble by stating he had made that all up, as an example of how great spin doctors can change history and make things sound plausible and believable but still disinformation. And then Wuhl compared it to the stories of the news of today. It was great.

(deleted comment)

Well, the French DID hold out against the Muslim invaders coming from Spain at the battle of Poitiers, stopping the advance of Islam through Europe long enough for the Spaniards to start taking back their land.

Erm. You're thinking of the Battle of Tours, in 732 AD. The French under Charles Martel (grandfather of Charlemagne) killed the Muslim commander, Abd ar-Rahman, on the battlefield (along with a sizeable proportion of the Muslim army), and that made the Muslims retreat back into Spain, figuring the losses they'd take in conquering France would leave them stretched too thin.

The Battle of Poitiers was just more French and English squabbling over territory, a few years after the Battle of Crecy.

And technically those weren't "French" but Franks. Which is nitpicking but true.

Yeah, I know. I was being lazy because it was late. Figured the people who were liable to care would already know the difference.

Looks like I was right, too. ;-) :-P

Larry Gonick and Robert Crumb got me interested in the Franks(and Crecy is, really, first-person Larry Gonickness) and I am amazed these were more or less the founders of medieval Europe. In fact, I'm amazed that they didn't kill each other long before battling everyone else.

I wish I had that Crumb strip about the queen who was jealous of her daughter's beauty and tried to kill her by smashing the lid of a trunk full of jewels down on her neck. Now a story of the Franks--THAT would be an interesting comic.

I haven't even gotten into Bob the Weasel.

The Battle of Poitiers and the Battle of Tours are the same thing. It took place between the two cities, that's why it's known under both name; in France it's best known as the Battle of Poitiers.

Ah, I wondered about that. Sorry, French history isn't my forte, even if I'm french-canadian. But let's just say we Quebecois have our own view of French-English relations. ;)

Huh. That's interesting. I'm American, and sources over here always refer to the 732 battle as "Tours" so as to avoid confusion with the later battle.

History is made by stupid people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdTlDP2AC90)
clever people wouldn't even try.
So if you want a place in the history books,
then do something dumb before you die!

There was that Napoleon guy, he did all right for a while.

And then he met the British. And the Russians. I'm sorry, that should read "And then he met RUSSIA."

Good point about "Russia" as a land itself. Talk about people repeating mistakes others made before them, you'd think Hitler had never read history. Napoleon conquered or subjugated nearly all of continental Europe, then decided he was on a roll and should invade Russia. (In winter no less, if I'm recalling correctly).

Have you read Conan Doyle's Brigadier Gerard stories? Very droll and ironic, told by a blindly patriotic French soldier who blissfully misunderstands what goes on around him but which the reader understands.

Never actually read any Doyle directly.

I should also add that the Brits took up the "only fight the weak" policy of France during their imperial period, when natives attacking with sharpened fruit were more their speed. This of course was usually after they let corporations, like Cecil Rhodes' DeBeers or the East India Company, do most of the slaughtering and land-stealing first. (The first use of Maxim guns, the first true military machine guns and fearsome, savage weapons they were, was not by the British military, but by Cecil Rhodes' own men against the Matabele in what became Rhodesia, and is now Zimbabwe.)

From the always applicable Kate Beaton. (http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=41)

Napoleon conquered or subjugated nearly all of continental Europe, then decided he was on a roll and should invade Russia. (In winter no less, if I'm recalling correctly).

Pretty close. It wasn't so much that he initially invaded during winter, just that winter came while the Russians were delaying the French so that Russia could defeat them.

Psh, everyone gets their plans fucked up in Russia.

It's like it's compulsory or something.

To the point that the Russians finally got tired of jumped-up Europeans taking a run at them every so often and decided to create their own little empire as, among other things, a buffer zone.

On the other hand, Mongols.

Took them out with a winter campaign, no less.

(edit to fix a really stupid mistake)
What I find bizarre is that this taught the French nothing for later at Agincourt, because the English defeated them exactly the same way, with less men, that time too. If this story seems familiar, it's because it is. Every time someone tells me I should have more respect for the French, I think of stuff like this. As far as I can tell, except the Normans, the French could only hold power by brutalizing those weaker than themselves and seemed to often fold fairly easily.

And some with them too. I recall being particularly struck at the end by the story of John, King of Bohemia, or "John the Blind" as he was known. From Froissart, check this out:

...for all that he was nigh blind, when he understood the order of the battle, he said to them about him: 'Where is the lord Charles my son?' His men said: 'Sir, we cannot tell; we think he be fighting.' Then he said: 'Sirs, ye are my men, my companions and friends in this journey: I require you bring me so far forward, that I may strike one stroke with my sword.' They said they would do his commandment, and to the intent that they should not lose him in the press, they tied all their reins of their bridles each to other and set the king before to accomplish his desire, and so they went on their enemies. The lord Charles of Bohemia his son, who wrote himself king of Almaine and bare the arms, he came in good order to the battle; but when he saw that the matter went awry on their party, he departed, I cannot tell you which way. The king his father was so far forward that he strake a stroke with his sword, yea and more than four, and fought valiantly and so did his company; and they adventured themselves so forward, that they were there all slain, and the next day they were found in the place about the king, and all their horses tied each to other.

It's also said the Black Prince, who was one of the victors, adopted his crest as his own. Whether in honor or insult, I'm not sure.

I love history, because it proves that people are gloriously stupid, more often than not. I have no idea how the human race survives.

One would suppose there's only so many ways to fight medieval battles, especially if you're going to restrict your leading posts to the nobility.

As far as I can tell, except the Normans, the French could only hold power by brutalizing those weaker than themselves

How do you define that? If winning a war supposedly makes a country stronger than their opponents, then yes, I imagine most wars/battles are won against weaker opponents, but otherwise I'm not sure how to understand your point.

I guess I'm just thinking of things like, the reason commoners weren't then in the French army was because the nobility feared allowing commoners to become skilled with arms.

But really, I'm probably off-base, because in both situations, Crecy and, even more, Agincourt, the greater military might was on the French side. And yet they still lost, both times.

But then the upper class is always afraid of the power those they exploit could wield. And in the end they were right! :D

They certainly were. Another reason I love history.

Entirely true....you know, except for the fact that it isn't.

1. The French ULTIMATELY WON THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR. That's why England is an island nation. Notice that Crecy and Agincourt are fought...in FRANCE. Because the Plantangenets believed themselves kings of England AND France.

2. Despite Shakespeare's poetic license, Agincourt was NOT a complete rout. It was a risky battle for both sides. Had the French attacked when Henry moved his archers forward and before they dug in a second time, we might not be talking about it today. In both cases, the battle was not so much won by the English as lost by the French nobles who refused to follow orders of their experienced soldiers or their king..because they were over-confident. Crecy was a battle that changed how wars were fought...Agincourt was a testament to stupidity that has more cache due to its prominence in a famous play.

The Black Prince took the king's helmet of ostrich feathers as his crest (as the prince of Wales) as an honor to his bravery, as it's said that the near-blind King John inflicted several of the few casualties the English experienced that day. (It's also worth noting that he wasn't called 'the black prince' during his lifetime).

History more often proves that a good story is more popular than the truth, that I'll grant you.

Interestingly:

"It is now a famous symbol throughout England and Wales, being the crest of the Surrey Cricket Club and of course the Welsh Rugby Union."

Most of European history until 1871 is pretty mcuh "OK, how do we keep the french from fucking us over?" (then it becomes "OK, what about those germans?")

Seriously. That's THE issue of european politics. And the thing is, most of the time it's basically France Vs. Everyone Else, and then they fight to a draw, or a minor victory for one side and the other, and do it again ten years later.

And around 1900 until 1914, it becomes "OK, how do we keep them from tearing at each other again?"

Anyone looking for info on the above should check out "The face of battle" (section on Agincourt)by John Keagen. :)

Actually, it's spelled 'Keegan' but yeah, what she said.

Excellent book.

(http://pics.livejournal.com/dr_hermes/pic/0020015b/)

I enjoyed this, but it feels like I'm reading some 1950's comic named something life GREAT BATTLES OF HISTORY dubbed over by Ryan North (http://www.qwantz.com/index.php).

Well, consider that you're reading history literally being told by the victor.

And in this case, the victor happens to be Warren Ellis' stock character.

And I like Ellis' stock character. He's talking about far more interesting things than, say, DC's stock characters.

Ok, so I know what I'm getting on my next trip to a comic shop.
Not only was this awesome, the art! The art is so beautiful, it works perfectly, but the best thing is the faces, like the fact that the children in the family actually look like a mix between what is preseumably their parents, amazing.

And the best thing? It's pretty cheap.

No, I totally recommend this book.

omg, I need a copy of this NOW. Screw that, I need two copies. This deserves to be lent out in order to hook unsuspecting vic- er, readers immediately.

Regarding the opening panel, while it may be true that swords were smeared with excrement (I don't know if that's the case or not), the intent to cause infection cannot possibly have anything to do with it. In those days there was no conception of what infection was, or that cleanliness or not had anything to do with it. Illnesses were ascribed to all sorts of mystic nonsense, including demons and the disfavor of God, and were often treated by bleeding.

It wouldn't be for a few more centuries until microorganisms would be discovered, and their role in infection and the effect of cleanliness on infection become understood. Even when these things were discovered, it took time for them to become accepted and prior beliefs to fall by the wayside.

I think though that they probably realized that shit and filth can cause sickness when it's in your blood, regardless of what the reason was that they thought it did that. A soldier on the battlefield would understand wounds get infected and that had nothing to do with demons but with a piece of metal entering the body. So it wouldn't be a big step to think, "Filthy sword will make them sick." Just as the barbarian hordes might not have realized what the plague was or its root cause, but they did know being around the corpses could get you sick. Because they knew enough to throw them over the city walls to kill the people inside.

There's all kinds of things we do that work despite our not understanding the real reasons. Tech often precedes science in that respect. Now, that Ellis is phrasing it in a modern way, I'll grant that, but that's kind of the whole tone. This isn't really a character so much as a narrator, not different from Larry Gonick except in personalizing it.

That would be believable except for the fact that when actual scientists discovered germs and started recommending measures like clean hospital rooms and that doctors wash their hands prior to surgery, there was significant resistance from the medical sector who dismissed it as nonsense.

If DOCTORS disbelieved germ theory when it was first proposed several centuries after the events we're discussing here, what makes you think much more primitive people would have just figured it out?

And to clarify, it's not just that they disbelieved that sickness was caused by little tiny nasties too small for the eye to see. It's that they literally insisted that it was nonsense that cleanliness and infection had anything to do with one another at all, and wouldn't so much as bother to wash their hands prior to surgery. This is as recent as the american civil war.

The concept of dirt and filth causing infection simply was not known prior to the 19th century. It just wasn't. That is documented fact. Sorry to burst the bubble.

didn't say they understood germ theory, just that sickness seems to cause more sickness. The Mongols made that connection, why not the English?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare#The_ancient_world

"During the Middle Ages, victims of the bubonic plague were used for biological attacks, often by flinging corpses and excrement over castle walls using catapults. In 1346, the bodies of Mongol warriors of the Golden Horde who had died of plague were thrown over the walls of the besieged Crimean city of Kaffa (now Theodosia). It has been speculated that this operation may have been responsible for the advent of the Black Death in Europe."

This is a pretty well-known fact and that was the very same year. (apart from the last sentence which is only, as it says, speculative) What I said was that you don't have to know HOW something works to make it work.

Because they didn't. As I said, when the recommendations were first made to keep hospital spaces clean and for doctors to wash their hands prior to surgery, the idea was met with resistance. Not only did they not know, they actively disbelieved it when it was told to them. Again, documented fact.

Okay, so the Mongols were just lucky, then?

Because they did do that and other armies did too. Why did they do that if they didn't think it would harm the people inside? They were generous and sharing meat?

Apparently the Mongols made an observation that others did not, and the knowledge might have get lost.

Seems it was pretty common to know that sickness and shit would be deadly inside the body. From the same article:

"During the 4th century BC Scythian archers tipped their arrow tips with snake venom, human blood, and animal feces to cause wounds to become infected..."

Granted, they were trying a bit of everything, and Europeans did do things like use cowshit to build homes. (No, seriously--watch Tony Robinson's WORST JOBS IN HISTORY, which if nothing else, shows that shit was apparently quite important back then) But it doesn't take science to know that shit is foul, and that foul things might cause harm. I never said(that was Ellis) that they knew WHY.

An example that might illustrate what I'm saying here: Bleeding has, in certain specific cases, health benefits. As they didn't know why, though, they used it for most everything, and unsurprisingly most of the uses they put it to were inappropriate.

As Ellis lurks here, I really wish he'd settle this by explaining what his source is on that fact.

Partially that was due to lack of experience though: There was a general idea that water was filthy. (Which made some sense, remember, no plumbing, and water that has been standing around for a bit is not particularly healthy)

There was known the idea that sick things caused more sickness, but mostly it was connected to ideas about bad vapours and such. (hence why people cleaning things usually involved burning stuff nearby)

There's a difference between figuring out "hey, sicknesses are spread by little dinky creatures too small to even see -- cleaning your hands before handling wounds kills a lot of them off, and makes it less likely that they'll get into the wound in large enough quantities to infect the patient" and figuring out that "hey, some sicknesses seem to spread easily from sick people to healthy people, regardless of the environment"

Hell, Vlad Tepes III -- the actual Vlad Dracula/Vlad the Impaler/Kaziglu Bey ("Lord Impaler" in Turkish)...whatever you prefer to call him, so long as you're clear that we're discussing the actual historical figure, not the fictional vampire -- figured the latter one out.

When he was fighting the Turks in the 1400s, he sent sick peasants with all sorts of diseases into the Turkish army's camps. If any Turks died from the same thing the plague-bearer had, that peasant got a reward...assuming he or she didn't die of it as well. (Though Dracula might have paid the reward to their families in that case. Man was real big on rewarding peasants who served him well -- the other side of his "incredibly tough on crime/disloyalty/" attitude.)

Can't cite a primary source, but it's in here:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Dracula-Prince-of-Many-Faces/Radu-R-Florescu/e/9780316286565

People have been quarantined during epidemics since forever. If they didn't think it could be spread that would not have happened. In Britain under Henry VIII the king would not leave his home because of the "sweating sickness." To this day we do not know what that was. They did not. But they knew enough to see cause and effect. Sick person comes near, others get sick. We are only pretty sure it's HIV that causes AIDS, but it's the most credible candidate and we proceed on that because so far, targeting it seems to work. But even before we knew that we knew ways to protect yourself against it, or at least minimize its danger.

If people didn't think sickness could be contagious, why did they send away lepers? Why did lepers have to warn people when they passed through?

They understood that sickness can spread from person to person. I'm sorry, but I just cannot imagine the human race would have survived if people didn't understand the concepts of infection or contagion on a basic level. To say they attributed everything to evil spirits is simply not true, and I should also point out that a foot soldier would know that's crap; there's nothing as practically-minded as the soldier on the ground and illusions get killed quick in battle. They were, as it says above, not stupid, they simply didn't have our accumulated knowledge.

Well, it appears Warren was asked directly about this and responded:

http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=1377

Authormoheinous:
A number of times in the book the narrarator described using dirt or shit applied to their arrows and swords to cause wounds to become infected. Yet the Germ theory of disease wasn't understood until the 1800's. At the very earliest it may have been inferred during the black plague of the 1400's. Medieval medicine actually involved applying mud to wounds to speed healing.
So is there some historical basis for the tactic or just some enjoyable literary liberty being taken by Bill?

warrenellis:
I think anyone half-awake will assume that smearing shit in an open wound isn't going to be good for the woundee. It is actually recorded that blades would be wiped in shit before big battles -- the first instance I remember being told of was the Siege of Berkeley Castle, 1645-ish. So the germ theory may not have been understood until whenever, but it's my understanding that soldiers believed there was a link between them wiping their blades in the latrines, and sticking their arrows in the ground, and people getting sick from those adulterated wounds...
Hold on, hold on -- why did the Tartars catapult plague-infected corpses into Kaffa, back in the 1300s, if they didn't have a grasp of the idea? I mean, I know that as late as the 1800s people were still saying "all smell is disease," but there was certainly an understood correlation between shit and sickness.
I also seem to recall some bastard, maybe Lithuanian, using trebuchets to fire heaps of shit and corpses into a city, around 1430..."

"orwellseyes:
The Muslims used plague dead on besieged cities as early as the conquest of Egypt, 642 AD or so. The mongol sack of baghdad, 1260, Hulagu Khan flung corpses into the city ahead of his army to bring pestilence and drive people out into the Horde's waiting armies. Word of that, and it's effectiveness, surely spread.

Sanitation was pretty well understood, remember the Romans built entire architectures for the purposes of moving waste and water around. People might not have had standards of cleanliness, but they knew a bit. Packing wounds with linen and herbs was common practice since before Christianity rose in Europe."

I would submit, too, that what the Mongols did was hardly something obscure nobody noticed.

That WORST JOBS IN HISTORY series I mentioned:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=79242C442EDCB935

Matter of fact, the Greeks figured out cleanliness back in the BCs, thank you very much.

Try looking up the root-word of 'hygiene' sometime.

Warren Ellis: Crécy

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

And also

no subject

More on the place of shit in history

no subject