[Artemisia] Historiography and Richard Lionheart

Tue May 8 13:28:36 CDT 2007

Thanks for posting your great question! I'd like to apologize (to  
everyone) for ransacking the discussion in such a narrow direction.  
The one opinion I've expressed that I do hope contributes to your  
endeavor is that you can't write the ultimate history paper that  
defines only the facts--and definitely not all the facts about all  
its aspects. I think approaching any history paper has to start with  
knowing you are going to research historical sources, decide which  
elements interest you, and then discuss possible interpretations of  
the sources. As you mentioned, deciding you're going to truly cover  
even a small piece of a historical subject is enough material for a  
dissertation--possibly two or three dissertations that express  
different points of view. It might be helpful to remember that the  
word dissertation comes from the Greek word for "position." A  
dissertation, and smaller papers about history (arguments, which  
comes from Latin), advance a point-of-view by definition--at least  
they do if you write anything at all in your own words between  
citations.

On May 8, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Tamar Black Sea wrote:

> Thank you Ryryd for stating this point (historiography) so  
> succinctly. I felt a little silly at first, posting a question that  
> seems so obvious at first glance.
>
> One unintended consequence of playing in our "current middle ages"  
> is that we can become quite habituated to seeing everything in  
> modern terms. There are all sorts of aspects of the middle ages  
> that we avoid like the plague (such as the plague :-) in the SCA.  
> For example, we DON'T recreate the role of the church in every day  
> life. We do not recreate an inherited aristocracy. Advancement in  
> the SCA  is merit based and, unfortunately, won't make us rich or  
> powerful; (sigh), the list goes on and on.
>
> I have been completely enthralled reading everyone's responses and  
> have learned a lot in the process. Thanks to everyone for taking  
> the time to post such thought provoking responses.
>
> The teaching materials I am using for covering the middle ages are  
> a lot of fun and give a good (extremely) broad  overview  of  the  
> big issues in the middle ages.  The period covered is from the end  
> of the Roman Empire to the early Italian Renaissance. It is such a  
> huge time and place that it gets a little frustrating trying to do  
> justice to any one subject. People can, and have done PhD's in any  
> one of the subject areas that the book covers.
>
> A few of the subjects that we will be hitting next include; the  
> development of a legal system in England (during the reign of Henry  
> II), King John and the Magna Carta, the role of castles and forts,  
> the construction of catherdrals and the rise of the medieval  
> university.
>
> Thanks again to everyone for adding so much depth to the  
> discussion. We are having a ball reading your posts.
>
> YIS,
> Tamar
>
> OHH!! P.S. I wrote earlier that Henry the First reigned after King  
> Stephan....I meant Henry II ...I am so embarrassed :-) Also, I  
> didn't count the Empress Maud in the line of succession....you all  
> can decide if she should be included or not.  :-)
>
>
>
>
> rcfaevans at comcast.net wrote:
>> Okay, I am jumping back into the fray...
>>
>> What we have going on here is called Historiography: The  
>> superimposing of non-contemporary concepts on contemporary  
>> events.  In other words: Trying to attach ideas from one period in  
>> time to a different period.
>> (The classic example of this was in Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of  
>> the Roman Empire".  During Gibbon's time, there was a large anti- 
>> Christian bent within academia.  Gibbon's thesis was that Rome was  
>> destroyed by the inception of Christianity.  This thesis has been  
>> completely disproved, but was very popular ***during Gibbon's  
>> time***.  "Decline and Fall..." is still taught to History majors  
>> to this day to keep fledgling historians from falling into this  
>> trap.)
>>
>> So, what's going on?  About 30 years ago, with the greater  
>> acceptance of homosexuality as a social norm, historians began to  
>> reexamine historical figures with the intent of proving that many  
>> of these figures were homosexual.  In this way, homosexuality  
>> would be accepted at a greater rate.  Much of this historiography  
>> is, at best, taken out of context.  At worst, completely wrong.  A  
>> fundamental problem is the English word 'love'.  As we all know,  
>> 'love' can mean many things in many contexts, most of them non- 
>> sexual.  Even doctors make a mess of this in technical terms:  
>> Pedophilia means, literally "love a child as a brother".  Pedoeros  
>> would be the correct word, meaning "love a child sexually".
>>
>> Some examples of this effect:
>> Alexander the Great had sex with men, therefore was homosexual:  
>> (bisexuality in Greece and Macedon were social norms, accepted,  
>> and expected.  About the only ones who condemned this at that time  
>> were the remaining Hebrew Tribes in Judea)
>> Abraham Lincoln slept with a man, therefore was homosexual: (He  
>> slept with him because there was only one bed, it was large enough  
>> for two men, and it was too cold and stupid for one to sleep on  
>> the floor)
>> Gilgamesh and Enki loved each other {from the Epic of Gilgamesh},  
>> therefore Gilgamesh was homosexual: (First, Enki wasn't even  
>> human.  Second, as our good King mentioned in a prior post, this  
>> just means they were close friends)
>>
>> The absurdity of these arguments can easily be seen with common  
>> expressions we use all the time:
>> "I love beer and peanuts at a baseball game": Odd that Security  
>> doesn't arrest you in the stands.
>> "I love the Denver Broncos":  All of them? It would probably be  
>> wise to go to a clinic and get yourself checked.
>> "I love Christmas": Okay, this is just getting weird.
>>
>> It is very unlikely that Napoleon, T. E. Lawrence, Augustus  
>> Caeser, Peter the Great, Richard Lionheart, and so many others  
>> just happened to be homosexual.  It is even more unlikely that it  
>> was homosexuality that made these figures, and others, great.
>>
>> The Church wasn't trying to cover-up anything.  "Cover-up" became  
>> part of the vernacular in the 1970s, following Watergate.  The  
>> Church didn't have to hide anything.  They were the just about the  
>> only ones who could read and write.  Universal literacy only came  
>> into existence about 100 years ago.  Things we take for granted  
>> today didn't even exist 20 years ago.  My admonition: be very  
>> careful with history.
>>
>>
>> Ryryd  _______________________________________________
>> Artemisia mailing list
>> Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Artemisia mailing list
> Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
>