Slashdot Mirror


Medieval UK Battle Records Released Online

eldavojohn writes "Do you have ancestors who served in the British military under Henry V or fought in the Hundred Years War? Look them up online now that 250,000 medieval battle records are online and available for searching. According to the project details (PDF): 'The main campaigns of the period were to France but there were others to Flanders, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Wales and Scotland, a much wider geographical spectrum than before 1369. In addition, garrisons were maintained within England (such as that held at the Tower of London), the Channel Islands, Wales and the marches, as well as at Calais and in Gascony. In the fourteenth-century phase of the Hundred Years War, the English also held some garrisons in areas of northern France, and in the fifteenth century phase, there was a systematic garrison-based occupation of Normandy and surrounding regions...'"

32 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Stupid and short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Terrorists could exploit this knowledge to close the trebuchet gap.

    1. Re:Stupid and short sighted by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Funny

      But uncovering the conspiracy could catapult you into stardom!

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    2. Re:Stupid and short sighted by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Trebuchet... catapult"

      Slashdot readers put a lot of mental effort into being funny. Often Slashdot story comments are dominated by humor.

      Another subject: The story to which Slashdot could have linked: Was your ancestor a social climbing soldier in the Hundred Years War?. That story leads to a story that contains a link to the database. I didn't want to post that link because it might be Slashdotted.

  2. Re:Surely this viloates EU privacy laws? by KronosReaver · · Score: 5, Funny

    ""The reason the sun never sets on the British Empire is because God doesn't trust the British in the dark.""

  3. Beancounters in the day... by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Yeah, they had them back then:

    Dr Bell said: "The service records survive because the English exchequer had a very modern obsession with wanting to be sure that the government's money was being spent as intended.

    Seems that even absolute monarchies had problems with bureaucrats. Makes you wonder if the species will ever evolve past them.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    1. Re:Beancounters in the day... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, bureaucrats were a creation of the monarchy and essential to their attempts at absolutism.

      Before bureaucracy, the king's only way of making something happen beyond his own landholdings was to apply pressure down a chain of one or more (generally recalcitrant) nobles who theoretically owed him ties of obedience and/or kinship; but, in practice, enjoyed considerable autonomy. Bureaucrats, by contrast, were simply commons with technical skills(yes, reading, writing, and bookkeeping count, even when you don't do them with computers) and depended directly on the monarchy for their positions.

      Everybody loves to hate them, and sometimes they deserve it; but bureaucracy is one of the defining characteristics of the move from feudalism to the nation-state.

    2. Re:Beancounters in the day... by MrMista_B · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't know anything at all about feudalism, do you?

      Yes, it /is/ progress.

    3. Re:Beancounters in the day... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say, on the balance, that it was(though it isn't self-evidently so).

      From the perspective of the present, where highly centralized governments are a nontrivial threat to freedom and efficiency, decentralized systems sound like a good idea. And, it is true that centralization can, and frequently has, taken a downright nasty turn. However, the feudal model of decentralization looks very little like the modern one and, to be frank, it sucked.

      Central government existed largely in theory(the king did have power, under the right circumstances; but it was severely tempered by the local power of the nobility and the church); but that didn't make the people any freer. In the country, many people were serfs(legally bound to the land and service to the local noble, though not salable as slaves are) or small renters. In the towns and cities, the guilds controlled much of the commerce and industry. Religion exerted considerable temporal power(and siphoned off a good deal of wealth). Because of the fragmentation of power and the quasi-independence of numerous little fiefdoms, codes of law were a hideous mess of customary cruft, civil and ecclesiastical, that often varied from place to place. Weights and measures were not standardized across many areas and running into taxes, tolls and whatnot at the edge of every petty strongman's domain was always a risk(does wonders for trade, that).

      For all its(considerable) vices, the notion of the nation-state, first under monarchs of greater or lesser absoluteness, and gradually under more representative flavors of government, was vital in breaking down the heavily entrenched local nobility, and their webs of onorous customary obligation, and replacing it with the notion of equals under law, with standardized rights and obligations. This is not to say that that was the intent(indeed, it almost certainly wasn't, it was about the king attempting to consolidate his own power at the expense of other strongmen); but it turns out that the effect of the absolutist project was the creation of an institutional system of governance that could survive a transition from dynastic power to representative governance.

      In a sense, it took a period of centralization to attenuate the power of local nobility and create a uniformity of infrastructure and law sufficient to allow the modern concept of decentralization(often an excellent idea) to exist. Feudal decentralization was pretty pathological.

  4. Lots of blokes called John by fantomas · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lots of records with no family /surname. "What's your name soldier?" "John" "Right, stick him down scribe, John the archer".

    Don't hold your hopes out if you were dreaming to find your ancestor on some particular march out to France or Scotland. Not unless your ancestors happen to be the Dukes of Northumberland or the like...

    1. Re:Lots of blokes called John by Daimanta · · Score: 3, Informative

      I actually looked up the first name of John as it would return something with near 100% success rate and a lot of Johns have surnames and looking at the nature of these names(names not directly refering to objects, professions or places), I'd say a good bunch are not invented on the spot.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  5. !newsfornerds is way wrong. by EWAdams · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nerds love ancient historical stuff -- who the hell else is in the Society for Creative Anachronism, the Sealed Knot, various battle re-enactment societies, etc. etc.? Nerds! And what could be more nerdy than a mountain of statistics about the same?

    Oh, and anybody who can't think of a use for this data has no idea what historical research is. You crowdsource this stuff and all kinds of interesting things will pop up. The better we understand our past, the better we understand ourselves.

    As for the observations about monarchs needing bureaucrats -- EVERYbody needs bureaucrats, unless you'd prefer the government to be run by astrology and guesswork. If you're a soldier and you want to get paid the correct amount, on time, you need a bureaucrat to look after it. Plus, Britain during a lot of this period was essentially a police state, and police states need more bureaucrats than most. The Stasi in East Germany were Exhibit A, closely followed by the Nazis. The latter's record-keeping got a fair number of them hanged.

    --
    I piss off bigots.
    1. Re:!newsfornerds is way wrong. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Funny

      Slashdot: News for Nerds, and also XPeter

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  6. Re:Battle Results: Warning: spoiler!!!! by glitch23 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you were wondering who won, it was the British.

    I know you were probably joking but someone should mod you informative for those people who are too stupid/ignorant to know who won. I say that because I was recently interviewing someone from the West Coast of the U.S. (I'm in WV) and the person did not catch the fact that we said we were located in *West* Virginia 3 times during the course of the interview. The person even made a note to ask how close we were to a particular airport because he said he has been to Virginia in the past. Someone needed to remind him of the Civil War and what happened afterward. Your comment reminded me of that, which just happened a couple weeks ago.

    --
    this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  7. Re:Man... by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    yeah it is pretty cool but it's not worth carrying an umbrella all the time.

  8. For a great study on Agincourt... by tcopeland · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...check out John Keegan's Face of Battle. It covers the battle of Agincourt and several other major battles - Waterloo and the Somme. This book really gives you a feel for the human element in these battles.

    As an additional stamp of approval, it's also on both the Army and USMC reading lists.

  9. Re:Purpose? by gardyloo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can do statistics on the datasets...

    Did the name "Cuthbert" not appear before 1361, and then it spread along river valleys because its carriers were predominantly farmers (with occurrences of it popping up here and there because people were conscripted into armies/died out/whatever)?
          Did the plague wipe out mainly those with surnames common to the Mediterranean region, because those people had less exposure to the rats, which carried the fleas, which were the main vectors?
          Do "Smiths" follow the armies, or settle in the cities? Were Teutonic names more indicative of higher classes? Did northern European names cluster more with archers rather than cavalry?

          I'm forseeing a lot of interesting temporal/spatial analysis which could be done with the data.

  10. I always suspected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    that a family member had served in the military back in the day.

    Signed,
    John Arrowbait

  11. Ponderings on record keeping... by lumenistan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reports like this, where fairly old records are referenced, always make me wonder about the accounting that we keep regarding current events. To what degree will our own stories be available to future generations? We have an ever-growing dependency on a computerized-only storage monoculture, and frankly all this may just be a good $CATASTROPHE$ away from being made into doorstops.

    I'm not suggesting we transfer the contents of Slashdot to cave paintings, or transcribe $CELEBRITY_DU_JOUR$'s Tweets to stone tablets, but does anyone know of projects underway to preserve the highlights of modern history in some sort of permanent medium? Is anyone taking down the top x significant stories in a year and sticking them in a jar in a cave somewhere?
    ---
    L

  12. Re:Surely this viloates EU privacy laws? by Bassman59 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The reason the sun never sets on the British Empire is because God doesn't trust the British in the dark."

    God knows about Lucas, the Prince Of Darkness.

  13. Two technologies come to mind... by tcopeland · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...Sphinx for lightning-fast searches (and stemming, and relevancy, and much more) and Open Calais for text analysis. Combine this data set with those two tools and you could have a pretty nifty site.

  14. Wrong Side by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Funny

    >The main campaigns of the period were to France but there were others to ... Scotland

    Sorry, but my ancestors were on the other side. Damn English. Well, they were good at raising cattle to steal.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  15. Well....there was this one... by djupedal · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I am Arthur, king of the Britons."

    "King of the who?" - "The Britons." - "Who are the Britons?" - "We all are. We're all Britons. And I am your king." - "Didn't know we had a king. I thought we're an autonomous collective." ... "I am your king!" - "I didn't vote for you." - "You don't vote for kings." - "How did you become king then?"

    "The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying, by divine providence, that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king." - "Listen, strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses. Not from farcical aquatic ceremony."

  16. Binary Expansion by meehawl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's see...
    2009-1369 = 640 years
    Using a (conservative) 25 years/generation...
    640/25 ~= 25.6. Call it 26.
    2^26 = 67,108,864

    According to medieval demographics and human population, the number of people alive in "Europe" around then peaked at 70-100m *before* the famines and plagues of the 14th century. Europe would not regain that population peak again for 200 years.

    If you are caucasian then, given these figures, unless you are descended from a multi-generational set of *extremely* inbred kin, the probability that at least one of your ancestors was in that battle is quite high. The Most Recent Common Ancestor of all peoples. never mind all Europeans, is more recent than you think.

    --

    Da Blog
  17. England and France by meehawl · · Score: 4, Informative

    I should add these population numbers:
    1350, England: 2,500,000
    1345, France: 20,200,000

    --

    Da Blog
  18. Damn it!! by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    And here I thought we were going to get to hear some 15th century hip-hop!

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  19. Re:Battle Results: Warning: spoiler!!!! by sqldr · · Score: 3, Informative

    the English owned Normandy

    It was the other way around. The Normans invaded in 1066 and annexed England. After that, things got complicated.

    --
    I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
  20. Just as I suspected by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Funny

    All of my ancestors are dead.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  21. The search sucks by thewils · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess it's only a start, but speaking as someone who works on database searching from a website the search method they use really sucks. You practically have to know what you're looking for in order to find it, and once you do there's precious little information apart from a couple of names and a campaign. there's no hyperlinking (er, this _is_ the web in 2009 yaknow) and there's no way to just browse the data (see commanders in a campaign for instance) to pick up interesting facts or trends. In short, useless. Most people will look up a couple of names then forget about it completely.

    I hope I'm wrong.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
  22. Braveheart by rossdee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Scotland was not a part of England at the time.

    1. Re:Braveheart by bw-sf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Scotland is not now, and never has been, part of England.

  23. The great UK Venn Diagram by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  24. Interesting... by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I found 15, though none above the rank of knight, which is about right from what I know of the family history post-Conquest (they lapsed into obscurity in Norfolk, and don't really reappear until the 16th cent.)

    However, I have to ask - if the male line died out, how do you come to have your surname? Cadet branch?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."