Little side note here: at around 4:59 we see a picture of the pope, a king and a peasant holding texts in german. They read: pope: "By my teachings I turned many people to god." king: "By my power I turned many people and lands to my posession." peasant:"Ha, Ha! (he is actaully laughing at the pope and the king!) If god and I would do nothing both of you would have nothing to eat."

great stuff. love these vids. it's just like being back at university....without having to loan $40,000 for the privilege of learning :)

@juleswoodbury2387

7 жыл бұрын

you still can go listen to lectures for free, you only pay 40000 for the exams.

@juleswoodbury2387

7 жыл бұрын

jospeh crosby mecham Ryan Reeves is a professional lecturer on theology. Theololgy, on the job market, has the same value as philosophy, meaning that after you get a degree in it, you can only teach philosophy or theology, there isn't anything else that you can do with that. Ryan Reevs gives a very simplified version of history that's heavily influenced by his beliefs. However he's pretty accurate when it comes to how people lived and what they believed in, which is equally important. So nobody here is going to put on their resumé that they have watched youtube videos on theology, but these lectures are still the same lectures he gives to his students so even if we don't get a degree in the end we share the same knowledge as his students.

@juleswoodbury2387

7 жыл бұрын

Can you read? Did I say he was historically accurate or precise? He get's the gist of history and the correlations between events. That is way more important than remembering dates and names. Because you could say that the assassination of Archeduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria byserbian Nationalists on the 28th of june 1914 cause world war one, when the reality is that Europe was engulfed in an economical and territorial cold war way before that and that the progressive and pacifist Prime minister of Germany, Bismarck, kept the peace beforehand and that the main powers of europe were just waiting for a sufficient cause to go to war. What's so absurd about what he says? what atrocities are we going to commit by believing the stuff he says? I think you don't like this guy because he is a chrisztian so his lectures are alittle biased and inaccurate, but there's no better way to understand medieval theology than by listening to a well-read christian. I'm an atheist myself, i am an excavator in archeology, all i know about this time period is how much moles died during a certain landslide approximately 500 years ago and that these people sure loved their pottery. When I'm lucky i find a human bone or two. There are several branches in understanding history: written History, Reenactments, Social economics, history of art, archeology, geology, ecology, philosophy, theology and anthropology. If you want to get the gist of history theology is as equally important, as all the other branches. There are a very few people who actually get the gist of history and it's only bylearning actively in all of these branches that you do so.

I can't get enough of your lectures. Thank you for doing these videos.

Thanks for this. It's rich stuff. My studies have included English Lit and Medieval European History and this puts some important pieces together. It's ironic how a modern view of chivalry as an oppressive force toward women, in reality, appears upside down, as it was actually intended and did to some degree alleviate that.

To me as a linguist specialized in Russian, calling last names and patronimics synonyms sounds off. In Russian of course it's standard to have a first name, a patronimic and a last name. But this isn't limited to Russia: it used to also be the case in Dutch. For instance, the Admiral who smashed the chains at Chatham to steal the English flagship was named Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter. His father's first name was Adriaen. De Ruyter was given to the Admiral as a token of honour, but it then became the family name after him; not everyone had a last name in the 17th century. But those who did, also had patronimics, and the two were different things.

excellent. absolutely inspired right now. you teach with a refreshing positivity. thank you

I appreciate these videos a great deal. I give you credit for attempting to be gracious with those skeptical of anything coming from a balanced perspective. You don't hesitate to show the warts or the virtues of church history. Great work much needed.

This is very interesting good job.

Excellent presentation!

Excellent video, and a perfect illustration of how the word "romantic" emerges from "Rome".

Great stuff. Thank you.

thank you very much for your lectures.

Thank you, very insightful.

Awesome history

I just learned a lot 😃

It's funny to note how some of these themes are reflected, in amusing and often beautiful ways, by popular novels. While listening to your lecture I couldn't help comparing what you had to say with The Once and Future King and The Mists of Avalon. haha

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+KarlHeinzofWpg // Absolutely. In many ways the need for this lecture is because even modern literature has kept the legendary tales of this going.

Mr. Reeves, Thank you for the awesome lecture. I am a dude who also likes to study theology as well as history however Im not a professional as you are. I found your awesome channel by searching to learn more about the code of chivalry as it was adhered to by the warrior class and whoever else lived by it. I was wondering if you could maybe off hand suggest a reading list or direct me to some sources that I could study from. It would be much appreciated! Thank you for the awesome videos...

It's a misnomer to think of a coat of arms as belonging to a family. It was always assigned to an individual by the king's herald. They were a means of personal identification. The herald had certain conventions he followed that used the same symbols on a son's shield as his father's, but both were distinctive because no two individuals were allowed to bear the same arms at the same time. They came to be associated in Victorian times with the families that descended from those individuals and lands they owned and the buildings and they built or sponsored and thus decorated in stone and stained glass with their arms. The son might be allowed to inherit his father's arms on his death. If a man married a titled woman he could quarter his arms with hers, and over several generations this could result in a great checkerboard of landholdings and titles represented on a single shield. Your point is still valid that the aristocracy sought to restrict the privileges of knighthood to its own bloodlines through intermarriage and other favors to their own class. By feudal times all occupations had become more or less inherited, so it's no surprise that the occupation of fighting had become hereditary as well.

great commentary!!

The story of John Hawkwood, English knight buried in Florence. Well worth reading. He curbed and advanced fighting when he was paid.

A nugget of superior scholarship from the professor that could spark another life-time of research. Curiosity demands that I at least determine the church affiliation of Troyes--his stature is enhanced (in my eyes) if he is but a lone humble pastor whom is sick to death of the senseless circumstances of his time.

Cool lecture ☺

Camelot was a silly place.

Incredible, informative...Ryan Reeves like))

excellent!

I recommend Shadiversity's video on this.

Facinating

@Ryan Reeves is that you in the picture at 11:50?

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+Scott Hill // No I'm not cool enough to pull that off. :) Stock image.

Yvain, the knight of the lion is also very good.

cool how (pretty much) the same thing happening in Japan- at the same time period

Was the awsome guy you, Ryan

There is something sad about the state of male affairs these days as compared to the knights of 1000-1300. Obviously, most of us would've been peasants and that sounds fairly miserable but these men sound legitimately hard core to joust and war. That's pretty impressive though the outcomes were often horrific. The Church shines the love of Chrst into the hearts of men and redirects their efforts for the betterment of all. I'm proud, everyday, to be Catholic. The Saints show us how to live.

I believe a lot of the info in these vids. That's saying a lot!!

I was told that being a late medieval knight was as costly as owning and maintaining a Lear jet in modern times.

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

Yeah I think that puts it into perspective: cost of armor, food, servants, horses, feed, etc. It would have been very high in price.

@thothheartmaat2833

7 жыл бұрын

Johnnyc drums they started as poor taking donations. it became prestigious. read about knights Templar on Wikipedia. basically the red Cross, hospitals, banking and secret societies come from knighthood. their early symbol is two knights on a horse emphasizing their piety and poor beginnings. it's said they protected religious travelers who were attacked by the hashashins. or maybe they were just the first protection racket who false flag attacked the religious travelers and demanded they pay them protection money or else. clever highway robbers.. basically the mafia. they were pretty much a gang. also, the knights Templar are said to be the world's first international corporation.. "chivalry" chivalry means you ride a horse. cheveu is horse in French. or something like that. it actually comes from the Arabian Teutonic knights who brought horses from Arabia to Europe.

The French 13th Century Lancelot-Grail aka The Vulgate expanded on the myth of Sir Lancelot of the Lake and his adulterous love affair with Queen Guinevere. It was a story of courtly love and earthly chivalry. Galahaut initiated a love pact between Lancelot and Guinevere due to his pity for Lancelot's sorrow about his being in love with the queen. Lancelot's foster mother, The Lady of the Lake encouraged Queen Guinevere to consummate her love with Lancelot, sending her a shield that depicted them with a crack that separate them. The crack disappeared after they made love. Lady of the Lake also gave further advice to Guinevere about loving Lancelot after she cured Lancelot's madness which happened after he was captured and put in prison. She even told Guinevere that she loves her for Lancelot's sake. Lancelot wasn't just a knight of King Arthur's court. He was a foreigner in King Arthur's land. He was a prince from Gaul. He was the son of King Ban and Queen Elaine of Benoic. King Arthur failed to come to the aid of King Ban of Benoic when King Claudas was making war on King Ban who died after losing his kingdom. The Lady of the Lake stole Lancelot from his mother, Queen Elaine and raised him as her own son. She took him to King Arthur to be knighted and told him the truth about not being his mother. Lancelot didn't find out about his name and parentage until the capture of Dolorous Guard. If Lancelot sided with Galahaut in the war against King Arthur, King Arthur wouldn't have a kingdom. Lancelot's extraordinary prowess of arms won over Galahaut who was a conqueror of many kingdoms. Lancelot got Galahaut to surrender to King Arthur even though he was at the point of victory. All of Lancelot's deeds that led to his being known as the greatest knight in the world were for Guinevere, and he confessed that to her. When Galahaut requested Guinevere to return Lancelot's love, she readily accepted and she sealed the love pact with a kiss. Guinevere told Lancelot that she is his because he has done so much and that it gave her great joy. Because of the conflict between the ascetic mysticism of the Quest of the Holy Grail and the glorification of Lancelot,earthly chivalry, and courtly love, The Vulgate was reworked by eliminating much of the Vulgate Lancelot material and attributing Arthur's downfall not to Lancelot's love for the queen but to the results of Arthur's early, unwitting sin of incest with his halfsister, Morgause that led to Mordred. This was known as the Post-Vulgate which was also written in the 13th Century. I cannot help wonder that Vulgate's Lancelot Proper and the Quest of the Holy Grail were written by totally different people. The former emphasized courtly love and the latter concentrated on the religious in such a great way that it seems like Christian monks wrote it. Thomas Mallory's Le Morte D'Arthur seems to be based on the Post-Vulgate with a little bit of Lancelot Proper.

@fomalhauto

9 жыл бұрын

The following that Guinevere said to Lancelot at the beginning of her 2 year stay in Sorelois with Lancelot and Galehaut during her estrangement from Arthur says it all to me about the relationship and love between Lancelot and Guinevere. page 275 of Lancelot-Grail: The Old French Arthurian Vulgate and Post-Vulgate in Translation Volume II edited by NorrIs J. Lacy: She said, "My dear friend, this where things stand, as you see: I am separated from my husband the king as a result of my misdeed-yes, I acknowledge it-not that I am not his lawful wife and just as crowned and anointed as he, and daughter of King Leodegran of Carmelide as well, but I have been hurt by the sin of going to bed with a man other than my husband." "Still, there is no upstanding lady in the world who would not feel impelled to sacrifice something to make an upstanding knight like you happy. Too bad Our Lord pays no heed to our courtly ways, and a person whom the world sees as good is wicked to God. But now I have to beg a favor of you, because I have reached a point where I have to watch myself more closely than ever before. I ask you, then in the name of your great love for me, to seek no more of me from now on than a kiss or an embrace, if you like, unless at my invitation. This much of me, though, you will have as long as I stay here; and when I find the time and place are right and you are willing, I will gladly let you have the rest." "But my will right now is that you be patient for awhile. You must not doubt that I am yours forever;you have deserved it, and my heart, besides, would never let me give you up. Remember, when my lord the king asked that I urge you to remain in his household, I said more to him than I have said just now, for I told him I preferred being with you to being with him." "My lady," said Lancelot, "nothing you wish can be a burden to me. I am wholly subject to your will, even if it means no less than happiness; and I'll endure whatever you like, because my fulfillment can only come through you." As a person that has Neo-pagan,New Age, New Thought,and Unitarian Universalist beliefs and see things in gray, I view Lancelot and Guinevere's love for each other as something that is not necessarily good nor bad. I think it's relative. I definitely don't view this couple as the type that just want to have sex. I view them as having romantic feelings for each other. The contrast between courtly love and traditional religious views is definitely acknowledged by Guinevere. Lancelot comes off as somebody that views Guinevere as more than object of carnal desire. He seems to be entirely devoted to her.

@fomalhauto

7 жыл бұрын

The video is about Knights and Chivalry. The beginning, there was talking about Arthurian Legend. He mentioned stuff about Lancelot and Guinevere as well as the Holy Grail. Everything that I mentioned was relevant to the video. Therefore, it's not astounding that I thought these fantasy narratives are relevant to a video on theological history.

@guessagainwrongitsstomedy3835

7 жыл бұрын

thank and fiction are linked life and art imitate one another.

I heard that the fork was first introduced in court in an effort by the ladies of the court to pacify their husbands. Perhaps this applies more to lords.

I love your lectures but my question is why do some call the dark ages "the early middle ages?" Isn't the "dark ages" a much more apt name?

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+Kiiru Bryan // Good question. It actually tends to be the other way round. The term 'dark ages' was sparked from the Renaissance, who tended to look the majority of the medieval period as backward and horrible. So the term has an almost ethically negative twang to it. Historians have always used Middle Ages of Medieval (Latin = 'middle ages') as it carries much less of this baggage. And with using the term medieval, you have the option of breaking up roughly 1000 years into various parts--since they are all quite different--and come up with 'early', 'high', and 'late' medieval periods.

@highlander1193

8 жыл бұрын

+Kiiru Bryan I guess in a way it goes to show that humans are humans

@highlander1193

8 жыл бұрын

I live in Africa and there are some great Africans, however our heros generally weren't warriors.

8 жыл бұрын

***** He started reviving the Roman empire practices. He existed almost 400 years after the collapse of the Western Roman empire.

@templebaptistchurchportsmo3270

7 жыл бұрын

agh

thank u haha

Some say.... hmmmmm...... let me guess. I'll take "Gender Studies students" for $500 mate.

@shadegreen5351

7 жыл бұрын

hit the nail right on it's non-binary head

a different take. What if the women of the age were really loose morally and the church actually wanted to upgrade their virtue? The church set a high ideal for virtuous women which sort of became the rage - chivalry? This can be a less man oriented less chauvinistic interpretation of events I think.

No the women will not send you on noble quests.

Interesting perspective on how the church, would guide the brutal warrior class to be less chauvinistic...ironic...

It seems I commented before watching your video long enough to hear about the Council of Charroux. However, I have not read much about it having any effect upon the blood-thirsty hordes existing at that time in the West. That would have been almost equivalent to banning the gladiator fights in Rome, or more to the point, eliminating the football matches which occur now. I hate to knock the Catholic Church, but I think this macho warrior culture stemmed from its misogynistic rules and regulations as promulgated by the old testament and confirmed by the council of Nicaea.

The biographies of Eleanor of Aquitaine that I've read claim that she formulated the rules of courtly chivalry. Other historians claim that the Church detested the code because it made women adorable, a direct threat to Christ.

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

Gawaine Ross // I would go more with the rule that there is never one originator of something as large as chivalry. Eleanor was certainly involved in a major way, though the point in this video was merely to say the church focused on the ending of violence. The bits where the church didn't like it all revolve around acutal love and sex, in which case they allegorized things to be the quest for purity or the Grail or something like this.

@gawaineross4656

8 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the clarification and I agree with you about sources.

An interesting theory. But the problem is that, like a movie plot, it smacks of invention. My observation is that the organized church has always shown itself to be as corrupt and stupid as any other institution and would therefore be totally incapable of any such pastoral artifice. My guess is that the whole (if indeed there is a 'whole') of chivalry, etc., is best understood as simply a phase of European history that evolved phenomenally.