13th Century Mass Murderer Identified By Modern 'Criminal' Investigation.

[Valmy]

Just out of curiosity, before it got to that point, how many times did I say, "Not my bag, but if you like it, cool"? And what part of:

I was just wondering why you were being so dismissive of another part of history and why that was necessary, the subject we were discussing (or failed to discuss ) was interesting enough on its own.  The context was I just see people do that so often and am always like 'really?'.  I was not even offended really, I just did not get it.

But I get the way I posted that totally backfired and I am sorry.

[mongers]

Another promising thread ruined by the out of control passions of academic types.

Clearly, what this site needs is more lawyers. 

Yeah I noticed that too. 

Though I think more lawyer's would just mean a better definition of the word, History, rather than an understanding of 'What is History?', which this thread was in part about. 

[merithyn]

Meri would like the history channel show 'Going Medieval'. A lot of the mundane stuff is covered.

I've seen it. Another great favorite of mine is Tales from the Green Valley from BBC. It shows two historians and three archeologists trying to live as early 16th-century farmers for a year. It's fascinating how much they learn about food production, household work, and general money-making schemes for plebes of the time.

We had a show around here last year which was called historical food or some such. Basically a man and a woman who was to live a week surrounded by the proper seeting, wearing the proper clothes etc. And of course eating the proper food. Most of the shows were different eras of the 20th century to give people those "oh remember that" moments but a few had them going way back. The one in the early 17th century had them being mostly drunk for a week.

The same crew that did the Tales from the Green Valley also did a Tudor Feast show. It was remarkable. It was basically a Yuletide Feast as would have been done during Tudor England. The food was incredible, and you had to marvel at how all of it was made for 100+ guests with the tools available.

I have about six books on medieval beer brewing, and I'm planning a brew day that will involve making a few gallons of 13th-century England brews, sans hops. Supposedly, the stuff is vile, but I want to try it to see. Having never actually tasted bog myrtle before, I've no clue how it will turn out.

Here's the show on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3DmrqjtD1Y

Ruth.

[PDH]

Another promising thread ruined by the out of control passions of academic types.

Clearly, what this site needs is more lawyers. 

Fuck you too.

Wow.  This almost cathartic.  Now I need to go flunk some people.

[Valmy]

I know this is a bit before the Medieval time period but one podcast I had been listening to recently was 'The British History Podcast' by this American-accented Welshman: http://thebritishhistorypodcast.com/

Yes I listen to history podcasts I do not have the time to read much these days. 

Anyway, it starts kinda meh with him going through the pre-Roman and Roman stuff, nothing I had not heard or read before done better though he was pretty entertaining, but it really turned into something pretty special around episode 42.  He goes into the daily life and times of people in post-Roman England.  It completely challenged alot of my views on that period and introduced tons of new information not only on the nature of the Anglo-Saxon invasion but also on all sorts of aspects of culture and technology.  He has a long series on the Staffordshire horde as well with guest experts that is tres cool.  Anyway if one of you likes podcasts and has the time I would love to hear what you think about it.

One anecdote from this: I had just listened to the episode on Dark Ages farm life and then took David and my niece to a park near my house.  In this park they have a preserved frontier farm that dates from the Republic and looking at the buildings and the sorts of things that went on there I couldn't help but notice that it was roughly the same sort of stuff that went on that Dark Ages Romano-British farm.  In some ways those 1840s Texans had life styles closer to 6th century people than to me.

For something completely different: there was one episode about women in history that is more preachy than informative (though had a few interesting things) but it has one throw away line that Roman women could not inherit.  I was kind of blown away by that.  I mean I remembered how Livia had been adopted by Augustus and given something like a quarter of his estate, and how Galba had been forced to take his mother's name so she would put him in her will (she did not want her noble Patrician house to die out...but Galba, being the asshole he was, changed it back to his father's name once she died).  Furthermore the Free Marriage that became the standard from the first century BC onwards was primarily about protecting the property of the wife's family from the grubby hands of the husband's family.  But this is Rome so I am well aware that contradictory things can be true at the same time.  Any truth to that for any Romanophiles out there?  Was it in the Ten Tables, Justinian Codex, or some customary law that women could not inherit property? 

[merithyn]

I know this is a bit before the Medieval time period but one podcast I had been listening to recently was 'The British History Podcast' by this American-accented Welshman: http://thebritishhistorypodcast.com/

Sounds interesting. I'll see if I can get it at work.

Anyway, it starts kinda meh with him going through the pre-Roman and Roman stuff, nothing I had not heard or read before done better though he was pretty entertaining, but it really turned into something pretty special around episode 42.  He goes into the daily life and times of people in post-Roman England.  It completely challenged alot of my views on that period and introduced tons of new information not only on the nature of the Anglo-Saxon invasion but also on all sorts of aspects of culture and technology.  He has a long series on the Staffordshire horde as well with guest experts that is tres cool.  Anyway if one of you likes podcasts and has the time I would love to hear what you think about it.

This is the bit that intrigues me, too. It's called The Dark Ages, but they weren't without a society. It's one of the reasons the Skystone Series is one of my favorites. The author, Jack Whyte, did an insane amount of research on that time-period, so his books do a fairly good job of recreating how society operated then.

[merithyn]

Sounds interesting. I'll see if I can get it at work.

I can.

[Valmy]

Sweeeeet

[merithyn]

I'm starting at 35 - Scotland Part I.

I didn't realize that we'd had a mini-iceage while the Romans were there. I knew we'd had one in the 11th century (moving into the 12th), but this one is news to me. Interesting stuff.

[Ed Anger]

The problem with Scotland is that its full of Scots.

[derspiess]

Personally I suffered from the post-war british under-16 school's consensus that Tudors and Stuarts were at the core of British history, its' unimaginative* near rote-learning of kings and queens,battle dates and endless acts of parliament, nearly killed of my interesting in history several times.

I must be the only person who likes this way of learning.  Memorizing the succession of monarchs/leaders and important dates gives you an solid framework you can use to begin with.

[Malthus]

Personally I suffered from the post-war british under-16 school's consensus that Tudors and Stuarts were at the core of British history, its' unimaginative* near rote-learning of kings and queens,battle dates and endless acts of parliament, nearly killed of my interesting in history several times.

I must be the only person who likes this way of learning.  Memorizing the succession of monarchs/leaders and important dates gives you an solid framework you can use to begin with.

It's important, but at a later time in the learing process - when you have an interest already in the subject-matter.

For a kid, there has to be some sort of "hook" as to WHY you would want to go through the process of learning history in the fisrt place (other than 'do it or you get in trouble'  ).

What that "hook" is will, as we can see very clearly in this thread, vary from person to person. Some get interested because they are excited to know how people in the past lived. Others, because they are excited about great battles and political intrigue. Others will have yet other reasons.

[derspiess]

It's important, but at a later time in the learing process - when you have an interest already in the subject-matter.

I suppose that's true, but in my case I already had the interest, and learning chronology & whatnot was a great starting point.  I could then pick out the time periods or events that most interested me and learn about them on my own (or pay special attention to them in class if they were being covered).  Context was always important to me in learning history, and knowing the chronology helped with that.

Problem with teaching history in the US is that most American students seem have a shitty attitude about it, and there's rarely a hook to capture their interest.

[Grey Fox]

Sweet find Valmy & It's on itunes too.

I'll be listening. Starting at 1, I'm hardcore like that.

I listen to alot of podcasts while at work, not sure where I'll fit that one.

[garbon]

Personally I suffered from the post-war british under-16 school's consensus that Tudors and Stuarts were at the core of British history, its' unimaginative* near rote-learning of kings and queens,battle dates and endless acts of parliament, nearly killed of my interesting in history several times.

I must be the only person who likes this way of learning.  Memorizing the succession of monarchs/leaders and important dates gives you an solid framework you can use to begin with.

I never found it interesting to know exact dates.  Generally sequence in which things occurred, sure, but the exact date?