Author Archives: Majken Hirche

Anmeldelse: Griftopia og finanskrisen

af Robin Engelhardt, cand.scient., Ph.D., forfatter og journalist

Hold da op. Jeg vidste slet ikke at man kunne skrive så sjovt, så frækt og så informativt om noget så kedeligt som finanskrisen. Grunden til at jeg købte bogen Griftopia af Matt Taibbi var, at jeg er en af dem, som længe har forsøgt – eller tænkt på at forsøge – at forstå, hvad der egentlig foregik under finanskrisen, og hvordan det sidenhen er lykkes disse kriminelle bankmænd og skrupelløse børsmæglere at slippe for straf.

Bogen var et godt valg. Griftopia betyder noget i retning af Slyngelstan, dvs. et land, der styres af grådige skurke og koldblodige svindlere (i insiderkredse kaldt ’banksters’), der ved at smøre den politiske klasse har formået at deregulere hele den internationale finansielle sektor, og nu faldbyder giftige finansprodukter til folk og fæ. Taibbi blev i 2009 kendt for at kalde Goldman Sachs for en kæmpe vampyrblæksprutte, der har sat sig på fjæset af menneskeheden. Med sin bog sætter han trumf på og viser, at det ikke kun er Goldman Sachs, men stort set hele Wall Street der har sagt farvel til alle hensyn, og med slimede og grådige tentakler suger velstanden ud af stat og folk.

Problemet er ikke staten. Problemet er, at staten er blevet solgt til Wall Street. I et særdeles underholdende og oplyst første kapitel viser Taibbi, hvorfor teaparty-bevægelsen (og i det hele taget den åndssvage højre-venstre-opdeling af mennesker) har mistet enhver relevans i forhold til hvad der i virkeligheden er sket. Mens højrefløjen ser bureaukrati og lokalpolitik som ondskabens rod, ser venstrefløjen sig sur på entreprenører. Men de virkelige dumme svin er finansbosserne, som har købt bureaukratiet og forvandlet økonomien til et kæmpe high-tech casino, der med credit default swaps og collateralized debt obligations dræber både lokalmiljø og entreprenørskab.

Historien om ”the biggest asshole in the universe”, Alan Greenspan, spores tilbage til kulten omkring Ayn Rand og hendes vanvittige forsøg fra 1950’erne på at forfremme grådighed (som hun kaldte ’objectivism’ og ’rational egosim’) til en filosofisk nødvendighed. Greenspan var nok den mest obskure akolut af alle i denne bevægelse, men det lykkedes ham at blive chef for FED, det amerikanske federal reserve system, hvor han målrettet har kanaliseret rigdomme til den økonomiske elite via dereguleringer og printning af trillioner af papirdollar.

Et grundigt kapitel gennemgår, hvordan så mange amerikanere måtte gå fra hus og hjem, et andet fortæller, hvordan handlen med råvarer fjerner al relation til udbud og efterspørgsel, og hvorfor priserne på korn og ris, osv. er begyndt at stige efter at spekulanter har fået lov til at dominere markedet. Et tredje kapitel forklarer, hvordan den amerikanske sundhedsreform er blevet en parodi på sig selv, fordi det største problem ved det amerikanske sundhedssystem (papirarbejdet med forsikringsselskaberne, der ofte fylder mere end 50 % af arbejdsbyrden i et sygehus) slet ikke er blevet fjernet, og faktisk har fået frihjul på den betingelse, at de betaler demokraternes valgkampagne de næste to valg. Det sidste kapitel tager fat i Goldman Sachs, og viser, hvordan denne vampyrblæksprutte har formået at bore sine slimede tentakler ned i alle dele af den globale økonomi og placere små Goldman Sachs robotter overalt, for at bøje og dreje regler, der måtte hindre jagten på den personlige berigelse.

Det bedste ved bogen er, at den faktisk forklarer hvordan den slags foregår. Og når man har forstået lurendrejeriet, kan man ikke andet end at tage sig til hovedet og spørge, hvordan i hulen offentligheden har kunnet gå disse svindlere på limpinden – og stadig gør det! ”The new Mr. Dollar”, Allan Greenspan, var den sande designer af boble-økonomien, og hver gang boblen brast, trykkede Greenspan bare flere penge og lovede sine elskede investorer på Wall Street at staten, i tilfælde af ny bobler, altid vil være klar med flere penge og bailouts. De småbeløb som Goldman Sachs og Citigroup og Deutsche Bank og JPMorgan Chase og AIG og Morgan Stanley har måttet betale i bøde, når de blev fanget, har blot bekræftet deres strategi: Opfind nye Ponzi-skemaer, tag hvad du kan, få et trecifret millionbeløb i bonus, og lad fanden tage resten.

Hvis du læser bogen, vil du forstå, hvor langt ude nogle af alle disse finansprodukter er. CDO’s, derivativer, CDS’er, LIBOR, NINJA-lån, CFMA, LTCM, short selling, monoline insurance, CDO squared… du lærer det hele nemt og med en følelse, der er en blanding af hysterisk latter og klukkende fortvivlelse.

Taibbi har skrevet en overfed bog. Han kombinerer banebrydende reportage med grundig research, og fortæller den deprimerende historie om den efterhånden uovervindelige finanselite i et særdeles saftigt sprog.

Matt Taibbi
Griftopia – Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America,
252 sider, ISBN 978-0-385 52995-2, Spiegel & Grau, 2010

Alle sprog har samme oprindelse – men ingen fælles regler

Menneskets evne til at tale stammer fra Afrika, men grammatikken er primært kulturelt bestemt.

af Robin Engelhardt, cand.scient., Ph.D., forfatter og journalist

To yderst interessante artikler, som udkom samtidigt i fagbladene Science og Nature i forrige uge, viser, at alle menneskets sprog stammer fra det sydlige Afrika, men at der derudover ikke findes mange fællestræk i grammatikken på tværs af sprogfamilierne, sådan som de har udviklet sig i takt med, at mennesket har spredt sig ud over kontinenterne i de sidste 100-50.000 år. Det betyder, at evnen til at tale i høj grad er genetisk kodet, men at der er plads til stor fleksibilitet i selve udførelsen.

Da talte sprog ikke efterlader fysiske fossiler i jordbunden, må antropologer og lingvister prøve at finde indirekte spor, når de skal lede efter sprogets oprindelse. Den evolutionære psykolog Quentin Atkinson fra University of Auckland i New Zealand fik den gode idé at låne en erkendelse fra genetikken: Jo længere væk, vi er fra vores afrikanske oprindelse, jo mindre genetisk variation er der i vores populationer. Det kaldes ‘founder-effekten’. Kunne man forestille sig, tænkte Atkinson, at der også findes en founder-effekt inden for sproget, og en slags sproglige ‘gener’, der udviser en lignende variation som de rigtige gener?

Kliklydesprog 

Ved at undersøge 504 moderne sprog kunne Atkinson vise, at et sprogs fonemer, dvs. de mindste lyde, som vi udtaler, når vi giver vores ord mening, kommer tættest på, hvad man kunne kalde sprogets gener. Man har længe vidst, at antallet af fonemer er størst i gamle sprog og mindst i nye. Sprog med de fleste fonemer bliver talt i det sydlige Afrika (Namibia, Angola, Botswana), mens sprog med færrest fonemer bliver talt i Polynesien og Sydamerika. I Danmark har vi 20 konsonantlyde og mellem 11-40 vokalfonemer alt efter hvem, man spørger. Reglen fra genetikken er, at hvis grupper af mennesker bevægede sig stadig længere væk fra deres moderland i Afrika, blev deres repertoire af fonemer stadig mindre, ligesom deres repertoire af gener blev mindre.

Atkinson plottede antallet af fonemer i hvert sprog som funktion af afstanden mellem det sted, hvor sproget bliver talt, og 2.500 hypotetiske oprindelsespunkter spredt ud over hele kloden. En efterfølgende korrelationsanalyse af alle par af afstande/fonemer kunne så vise det faktiske oprindelsessted. Det viste sig at være i den centrale/sydvestlige del af Afrika, hvilket i øvrigt stemmer fint overens med forskningsresultater fra 2009 (se artiklen ‘Adam og Eva blev født …’ under ‘Læs også’ til venstre), som viste, at menneskets genetiske oprindelse kan spores tilbage til ørkenområdet nær grænsen mellem Namibia og Angola, hjemstedet for de kliklydtalende buskmænd kaldet San.

Kliklydsprog kaldes khoisan og tilhører sprogfamilien tuu. De er uden tvivl verdens sværeste sprog at lære. Det måske ældste af dem er sproget xóõ, som har 141 fonemer, hvoraf 83 er forskellige kliklyde med et utal af artikulationsmåder og artikulationsteder i munden.

Større ordforråd 

Det opsigtsvækkende i Atkinsons paper, offentliggjort i Science, er egentlig ikke, at talesproget stammer fra Afrika, men snarere det faktum, at alle verdens sprog ser ud til at have én og samme oprindelse, og at den primære evolutionære komponent, der selekteres på, ikke er selve ordene, syntaksen eller grammatikken, men ordforrådet og antallet af fonemer.

»Atkinson modellerer sig tilbage til det allerførste sprog og bryder på den måde med det tabu, som har hvilet over sprogvidenskaben, siden vi alle forlod tanken om primitive sprog,« siger Frans Gregersen, professor ved Københavns Universitet og leder af Center for Sociolingvistiske Sprogforandringsstudier, i en kommentar.

»Atkinson sandsynliggør, at de første sprog har været anderledes end de sprogtyper, vi kender nu. Det burde egentlig være en selvfølge, som følger direkte af evolutionsteorien, nemlig at der har været evolution også hvad angår sprog, men sprog er jo evolutionært set et meget nyt fænomen, så udviklingen har fået karakter af alene at skyldes ordforrådsforøgelse og tilkomsten af skriften (og nu andre former for sprogformidlende ‘devices’). Her adskiller Atkinson sig ved at påstå at der måske var mindre syntaks og flere lydlige forskelle.«

Sproget er den vigtigste og sandsynligvis også den mest komplekse ‘killer-applikation’, der adskiller mennesket fra andre arter. At sproget stammer fra dengang, mennesker stadig kun levede i det sydlige Afrika, viser, at det har en lang historie bag sig. Forskerne ved dog stadig ikke, præcis hvornår talesproget for alvor opstod hos vores evolutionære forfædre. Måske var det blot kort tid forinden mennesket begyndte at vandre hen over savannen og senere ud af Afrika, hvilket kan give grobund til at mene, at sproget er knyttet til udviklingen af det anatomisk moderne menneske for cirka 200.000 år siden. Men måske er talesproget langt ældre, og blev allerede brugt af Homo erectus og af Homo habilis for over to millioner år siden. Man ved det ikke endnu.

Jeg spiser kage 

Det andet opsigtsvækkende paper blev offentliggjort i Nature, og er skrevet af Michael Dunn og Stephen Levinson fra Max-Planck-instituttet for psykolingvistik i Holland samt Russel Gray og Simon Greenhill fra University of Auckland, New Zealand. Det tager fat dér, hvor Atkinson slutter, nemlig ved diskussionen om, hvorvidt syntaks og grammatik indeholder nogle universelle regler, som alle sprog benytter sig af, eller om grammatikken er kulturelt determineret, og derfor på ingen måde kodet ind i hjernen på mennesker.

Ved at lave en matematisk undersøgelse af 301 sprog fra de fire største sprogfamilier austronesisk, indo-europæisk, bantu og uto-aztekisk kunne Nature-forskerne finde hyppigheden af de mest typiske rækkefølger af ord, sådan som de bliver brugt og har udviklet sig igennem disse sprogs historie. F.eks. er det normalt på dansk at sætte subjekt foran verbum, og verbum foran objekt (jeg spiser kage). Analysen viser, at den slags indoeuropæiske subjekt-verbum-objekt-sprog (SVO) typisk bruger præpositioner (dvs. forholdsord: ‘fra dåsen’ og ‘med hånden’). Men hvis man taler et SOV-sprog (jeg kage spiser), så har man mere tendens til at udvikle postpositioner (dvs. efterstillede forholdsord, f.eks. ‘landet over’ eller ‘verden rundt’).

Disse tendenser kunne kaldes universelle syntaktiske regler, og har været vand på møllen for folk som Noam Chomsky, der siden 1950’erne har argumenteret for, at mennesket må være genetisk kodet til at kunne lære grammatik, fordi børn jo er så gode og hurtige til det, selvom de slet ikke har haft tid til at høre eller lære alle mulighederne.

Yoda-style: Kage, jeg spiser 

Men det er ikke, hvad man nu ser i det helt store billede. Ved at undersøge otte forskellige grammatiske former i de fire sprogfamilier, der tilsammen dækker mere end en tredjedel af verdens 7.000 sprog og i alt strækker sig over mere end 8.000 år, kunne forskerne kun finde fælles grammatiske regler inden for samme sprogfamilie, men ikke sprogfamilierne imellem. Tværtimod fandt de en enorm diversitet, der tyder på, at de kulturelle forskelle har meget større betydning for grammatikken end de biologiske.

Et godt eksempel er den situation, hvor sprog begynder med at bruge efterstillede forholdsord sammen med verbum-objekt-former (‘hånden med, spiser kage’). Hvis der er tale om et indoeuropæisk sprog, vil det typisk udvikle sig til at vende om på verbum og objekt (‘hånden med, kage spiser’), men hvis det er et austronesisk sprog, vil det typisk beholde VO-formen og i stedet stille forholdsordet foran (‘med hånden, spiser kage’).

Den slags vilkårligheder fandt man også i andre syntaktiske udviklinger, og de viser, at hjernen ikke har noget relæ, der foretrækker den ene grammatiske form frem for den anden. Det er selvfølgelig en konklusion, som Chomsky og andre ‘universalister’, som f.eks. lingvisten Joseph Greenberg, vil skulle forholde sig til. Og måske er der også stadig plads til en lille smule universel grammatik: Ud af de i alt seks mulige kombinationer af subjekt, verbum og objekt, er de to (‘jeg spiser kage’ og ‘jeg kage spiser’) brugt i over 90 procent af alle sprog. ‘Yoda-syntaks’ (‘kage, jeg spiser’) viser sig at være meget sjældent og bruges kun af cirka ti sprog i verden, heriblandt Hixkaryana, der tales i en udløber af Amazonfloden i det nordvestlige Brasilien.

Sprog er historisk dannet 

Ifølge professor Frans Gregersen er Nature-artiklen særdeles vigtig, fordi den viser, at sprog primært er et historisk-kulturelt fænomen.

»Det er noget nogle af os har haft en mistanke om altid,« siger han.

»Det betyder i denne sammenhæng, at der ikke er nogen entydig kognitiv mekanisme, som kan besejre det faktum, at sproget allerede er der, når vi bliver født ind i samfundet. For så vidt er vi altså tvunget til at arbejde med de foreliggende fakta som udgangspunkt. Det betyder, at vi snarere udvikler sprogspecifikke strategier for forståelse og afkodning, og at vi udvikler dem til perfektion i kraft af træning. Det forklarer, hvorfor det er så svært at lære andre (ubeslægtede) sprog. Når det ikke er umuligt, skyldes det til gengæld, at der er grundlæggende funktionelle ligheder, som vi kan benytte: Vi skal kunne udtrykke de samme grundfunktioner, uanset om vi taler det ene eller det andet sprog.«

De grundlæggende funktionelle ligheder blandt alle menneskesprog ligger altså dybere begravet end i en evne til at gætte syntaksen og genkende sprogets form. Vores hjerne er unik i sin evne til at kunne lære et sprog til perfektion, på trods af at den kun har hørt ganske få eksempler. En universel sprogtilegnelsesmekanisme i hjernen må derfor skyldes en kombination af mange ting, som det har taget lang tid at udvikle: evnen til at danne lyde og stavelser; evnen til at kombinere dem ved hjælp af fonemer, så man kan danne ord; evnen til at danne sætninger ved hjælp af syntaks og sidst men ikke mindst, evnen til at abstrahere og konceptualisere grammatiske regler og knytte dem til meningsgivende udsagn. Kun de mest basale grundelementer i denne proces er biologiske. Resten må vi stadig bruge store dele af vores barndom på at lære.

Fra et evolutionært perspektiv er sprogforskningen lige begyndt. Kun med fremkomsten af skriften, af computeren og af internettet – der i sig selv er vigtige skridt for videreudviklingen af menneskets kommunikationsformer – har forskere været i stand til at undersøge og forklare de mange aspekter af vores sprog.

Selvom der stadig er masser af uafklarede spørgsmål, er forskerne bag de to nye forskningsartikler kommet et godt skridt videre. Og deres brug af matematiske og statistiske metoder vil helt sikkert danne mere skole blandt lingvister, antropologer og de evolutionære psykologer.

On The Renaissance

Beginning in fourteenth-century Italy, Europe went through a transition over 400 years from medieval to modern times known today as the Renaissance, meaning a “rebirth” or “revival.” The Renaissance is a nebulous concept for which there is no clear beginning or end. It does, however, usefully mark the complete recovery from the barbarism of the Dark Ages to the new advancement in all fields that transcended the achievements of the great ancient civilizations.

Many different factors at work in the Middle Ages contributed to this revival and new advancement. One was the renewed interest in learning. The first college at Oxford University was founded in 1264. By 1400 there were more than 50 universities in Europe. Education and debate were stimulated by access to ancient texts preserved by the Arabs and freshly translated into Latin. Europeans had made contact with the Arabs in the Holy Land, in Sicily, and in Spain. The rediscovered works of the ancient Greek mathematician Euclid, for example, became the standard for teaching mathematics into the nineteenth century. The Arabs also transmitted a new system for numbers, the concept of the decimal point, and the concept of zero, all invented in India. The spread of learning accelerated rapidly following the invention of the printing press around 1450.

A second factor was the rising standard of living, especially in the great commercial cities of Italy. The Crusades had opened European eyes to the wealth of the East, especially silks, spices, and cotton. The merchants of Venice, Genoa, Florence, and other cities came to dominate the trade between Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean. With the excess wealth they accumulated in business, these merchants began embellishing their homes and cities with art. Sculpture, painting, architecture, music, poetry, and literature found new expression, exhibiting an interest in subjects beyond the religious themes that dominated previously in the Middle Ages. Popular depictions of everyday life, romance, and adventure revealed that European culture was becoming more humanistic and less focused on religion.

The revival was also due to technological progress that led to more efficient production of goods and services. Manufacturing, farming, and trade all improved past the abilities of the ancients. The drive for profits encouraged inventiveness and exploration. A middle class of merchants and craftsmen began grasping political power commensurate with their economic power, at the expense of a declining nobility.

By roughly 1500 the nations of Europe were leading the world in many important technologies. Energies unleashed by the exploration of the world, the search for trade routes, the Protestant Reformation, and continued political competition in Europe itself would make Europe the dominant region of the world within a few centuries.

On the Organisation of Medieval Armies

Organization

The organization of feudal armies was kept simple in comparison to the large national armies of more modern time. There were no permanent regiments, divisions, or corps until the very end of the age. When a feudal army was summoned, each vassal traveled to the meeting point with any knights, archers, and footmen that he was required to bring. At the meeting point, the contingents would be reassembled by role. The knights and their squires kept and marched together, as did the archers and footmen.

Special units, such as engineers and the operators of siege artillery, were usually professionals hired for the campaign. Christian mercenaries, for example, operated the artillery employed by the Turks against Constantinople.

Being a mercenary soldier was a respected profession in the late Middle Ages. Warrior entrepreneurs formed mercenary companies that allowed a rich lord or city to hire a ready-made competent fighting force. Mercenary companies existed that were all of one skill. For example, 2000 Genoese crossbowmen served in the French army at the Battle of Crécy in 1346. Other mercenary companies were mixed forces of all arms. These were often described in terms of the number of lances they contained. Each lance represented a mounted man-at-arms plus additional mounted, foot, and missile troops. A company of 100 lances represented several hundred fighting men. This system was the origin of the word “freelance.”

Command hierarchy within a feudal army was flat. Not much maneuvering was anticipated so there was little provision of large staffs to support the commander and pass orders.

In 1439 Charles VII of France raised Royal Ordinance Companies. These companies were filled with either knights or infantry and were paid from tax revenues. Each company had a fixed complement of men; their armor and weapons were chosen by the king rather than left to personal choice. This was the beginning of modern standing armies in the West.

Supply

There was little provision for food and medical supplies. Medieval armies lived off the land, to the detriment of everyone residing in an area they occupied or passed through. Having a friendly army march through was no better than having the enemy pass. Medieval armies did not linger in one area for long because local supplies of food and forage were quickly exhausted. This was a particular problem during sieges. If an army laying siege did not make arrangements to have food and supplies brought in, it might have to lift its siege to avoid starvation long before the defenders had to surrender.

Sanitation was also a problem when an army stayed in one place. A medieval army brought along many animals, in addition to the horses of the knights, and sewage problems led to dysentery. Feudal armies tended to waste away to disease and desertion. During his campaign in France, Henry V of England lost an estimated 15 percent of his army to disease at the siege of Harfleur and more on the march leading up to Agincourt. At the battle itself, he lost only 5 percent. Henry V died of disease related to poor sanitation at another siege.

Deployment for Battle

Most battles were set-piece affairs where the two sides arranged themselves before the fighting began. Campaigns of maneuver and meeting engagements were rare.

Prior to battle, commanders divided their forces into contingents with specific tasks in mind for each. The first separation might be into foot soldiers, archers, and cavalry. These groups might be divided further into groups to be given individual missions or to be held in reserve. A commander might arrange several “battles” or “divisions” of knights, for example. These could be launched individually as desired or held in reserve. Archers might be deployed in front of the army with blocks of infantry in support. Once the army had been arranged, the only major decisions were when to send in the prearranged pieces. There was little provision for pulling back, reforming, or rearranging once the fighting started. A force of knights, for example, could rarely be used more than once. After they had been committed to action, they were usually reinforced or withdrawn. A full charge by heavy cavalry caused such disruption, lost equipment, and loss of horses that the force was essentially spent. The Norman knights at Hastings were reformed for further attacks, but they did not launch a full charge because they could not penetrate the Saxon shield-wall.

Superior commanders made use of the terrain to their advantage and conducted reconnaissance to evaluate the enemy’s strength and weaknesses.

Ransom

The ultimate rewards from successful battle included honors and grants of fiefs. The proximate rewards included booty from looting bodies, ransacking captured towns and castles, selling the armor and weapons of the dead, and ransoming high-ranking prisoners. Knights were expected to pay ransoms to save their lives. One of the highest recorded ransoms was more than US $20 million paid to a German prince for the release of Richard I of England, captured during his return from the Crusades.

At Agincourt the English were holding a large group of French knights at the rear for ransom. During the battle, a French contingent raided toward the rear of the English and briefly panicked Henry V. He ordered the execution of the held French knights to prevent their release, thereby forgoing a fortune in ransoms.

The capture of knights was recorded by heralds who kept a tally of which soldiers were responsible and thereby due the bulk of the ransom. The heralds then notified the prisoner’s family, arranged the ransom payment, and obtained the prisoner’s release.

The popularity of ransoms seems remarkably civil but masks a darker story. Low-ranking prisoners of no value might be killed out-of-hand to eliminate the problem of guarding and feeding them.

On the Dark Age History of the British Isles

Following the withdrawal of the Roman legions to Gaul (modern France) around 400, the British Isles fell into a very dark period of several centuries from which almost no written records survive. The Romano-British culture that had existed under 400 years of Roman rule disappeared under relentless invasion and migration by barbarians. Celts came over from Ireland (a tribe called the Scotti gave their name to the northern part of the main island, Scotland). Saxons and Angles came from Germany, Frisians from modern Holland, and Jutes from modern Denmark. By 600, the Angles and Saxons controlled most of modern England. By 800, only modern Wales, Scotland, and West Cornwall remained in largely Celtic hands.

The new inhabitants were called Anglo-Saxons (from the Angles and Saxons). The Angles gave their name to the new culture (England from Angle-land), and the Germanic language they brought with them, English, replaced the native Celtic and previously imported Latin. Despite further invasions and even a complete military conquest at a later date, the southern and eastern parts of the largest British Isle have been called England (and its people and language English) ever since.

In 865 the relative peace of England was shattered by a new invasion. Danish Vikings who had been raiding France and Germany formed a great army and turned their attention on the English. Within 10 years, most of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had fallen or surrendered. Only the West Saxons (modern Wessex) held out under Alfred, the only English ruler to be called “the Great.”

England was divided among the Vikings, the West Saxons, and a few other English kingdoms for nearly 200 years. The Viking half was called the Danelaw (“under Danish law”). The Vikings collected a large payment, called the Danegeld (“the Dane’s gold”), to be peaceful. The Danes became Christians and gradually became more settled. In time the English turned on the Danes, and in 954 the last Viking king of York was killed. England was united for the first time under an English king from Wessex.

In 1066 the Witan (“king’s council”) offered the crown to Harold, son of the Earl of Wessex. Two others claimed the throne: Harald Hardrada (meaning “the hard ruler”), King of Norway, and Duke William of Normandy. The Norwegian landed first, near York, but was defeated by Harold at the battle of Stamford Bridge. Immediately after the victory, Harold force-marched his army south to meet William at Hastings. The battle seesawed back and forth all day, but near dusk Harold was mortally wounded by an arrow in the eye. Over the next two years, William, now “the Conqueror,” solidified his conquest of England.

During the remainder of the Middle Ages, the successors of William largely exhausted themselves and their country in a series of confrontations and wars attempting to expand or defend land holdings in France. The Hundred Years War between England and France was an on-and-off conflict that stretched from 1337 to 1453. It was triggered by an English king’s claim to the throne of France, thanks to family intermarriages. The war was also fought over control of the lucrative wool trade and French support for Scotland’s independence. The early part of the war featured a string of improbable, yet complete, English victories, thanks usually to English longbowmen mowing down hordes of ornately armored French knights from long range.

The English could not bring the war to closure, however, and the French rallied. Inspired by Joan of Arc, a peasant girl who professed divine guidance, the French fought back, ending the war with the capture of Bordeaux in 1453. The English were left holding only Calais on the mainland (and not for long).

On the History of the Vikings

The inhabitants of Scandinavia had made their living by herding, farming, and fishing for centuries. In the sixth and seventh centuries, they began trading along the Baltic Sea and deep into Russia along its great rivers. For reasons unknown, they began aggressively raiding the coasts of Europe suddenly in the late eighth century. Perhaps they were amazed at the relative riches they had encountered as traders, or they perceived a weakness among the civilizations to the south, or new sailing and boat technologies gave them the power to travel farther and more quickly. In 793 the pagan Vikings struck the great monastery at Lindisfarne, established by the Irish off the northeast coast of England.

Fast, low-draft longboats allowed the Vikings to strike quickly from the sea and up rivers. Because roads were so poor in the ninth century, the Vikings could concentrate against a rich village or monastery, land quickly, drive off any resistance, and carry off slaves and plunder before any organized response could be mounted. People living along the coasts and rivers of Germany, France, and Britain lived in fear of the raiders. The central authorities of these lands fell into disfavor because they could do little to defend against these hit-and-run attacks. The people turned to local nobles who built castles for defense. This shift of power strengthened the local nobles and weakened the kings.

The Vikings became bolder as the ninth century progressed. Larger Viking groups combined to make actual invasions, not just raids. They sacked major cities including Hamburg, Utrecht, and Rouen. They settled on islands off Britain, in parts of Ireland (founding Dublin), Iceland, and Greenland. The Danes captured and ruled the eastern half of England for a century. Another force sailed up the Seine River and besieged Paris for two years before being bought off with money and plunder. Another group ruled part of Russia from Kiev and assaulted Constantinople from the Black Sea. They raided the Muslim Iberian Peninsula and deep into the Mediterranean.

In the tenth century, the king of France bought peace with the Vikings by ceding them part of his country (Normandy, “from the northmen,” or Normans) and making their ruler a French duke. As part of this agreement, the Normans converted to Christianity. The Normans became one of the most remarkable groups in the Middle Ages. Later they conquered England, establishing the first great European kingdom. Other Normans conquered Sicily, half of Italy, and established Crusader kingdoms in Palestine.

Viking raids stopped at the end of the tenth century, partly because they had become Christians and no longer followed the warrior values of their past pagan beliefs. Scandinavia divided into kingdoms, and the new rulers concentrated on ruling what they owned. The Viking settlers in Russia, France, and Britain were absorbed by the cultures that surrounded them. The warrior cultures in Europe that had evolved in response to the Viking threat soon had a new outlet for their aggression, however, in the Holy Land of the Eastern Mediterranean.

On Bows and Crossbows in Medieval Times

Bows of one type or another played an important role in battle throughout the Middle Ages. They were used as direct fire weapons against individual targets on battlefields and during sieges. In some cases they were used as area fire weapons.

Missile fire allowed men to cause casualties at range. Archers were used as light troops to cause casualties and weaken enemy morale due to losses before mêlée combat. If the enemy force could be weakened or shaken, the chances of winning the mêlée were enhanced.

Bows

Bows used during the Middle Ages were of various types, including the short bow, the composite bow, and the longbow. The short bow was 3 to 4 feet long and rather easy to make and use. It was employed widely and the most common bow encountered. It had medium range, power, and accuracy and required substantial experience and training for effective use.

The composite bow was of Asiatic origin. It was made from a composite of wood or bone strips bonded together. The lamination created a more powerful bow, but one that required more strength and training than the common bow. This relatively short bow was the preferred weapon of horse archers, especially the Mongols and other horse peoples from Asia. A variant of the composite bow was curved forward at the tips during manufacture (by steaming and bending the laminate). This recurved bow generated more power and required a high degree of strength and skill.

The longbow originated in Wales and spread to England. It was a 6-foot bow made from a single piece of wood, usually from the yew tree. The longbow shot a 3-foot arrow (cloth yard). These were fitted with broad tips for use against infantry (for piercing leather armor and causing lacerations) and narrow tips for use against armored men (to pierce mail or plate armor). Shooting the longbow required extensive training and practice; men experienced with the weapon could get off six well-aimed shots in a minute. Longbows had a long range and were quite powerful. Large contingents of experienced longbowmen were a devastating force on many battlefields of the Middle Ages. They could fire individually aimed shots or rain down a barrage of arrows into an area.

The English encouraged the use of the longbow by sponsoring archery tournaments throughout the land. All other sports were banned on Sundays. This created a large pool of experienced bowmen from which they could recruit. Each English shire was required by law to provide a number of bowmen each year. There was usually no shortage of applicants because the pay of soldiers was so good relative to other work.

Crossbows

The crossbow was known in ancient China but seems to have been reinvented in Europe around 900. It had good range and was more powerful than most bows, but it took much more time to load. An average crossbowman fired 2 shots per minute.

The bow of the crossbow was held horizontally and fired with a trigger that released the taut bowstring. To load, the front of the weapon was pointed to the ground and held in place by foot. The bowstring was pulled up and back with both hands or with the help of cranks. The crossbow fired a quarrel, or bolt, which was much shorter than a typical arrow. The quarrel did have flights (feathers) for stabilization in flight and had a sharpened metal point.

Crossbowmen often carried a pavise shield into battle to provide cover while they loaded. This was a tall shield with wooden braces attached. A force of crossbowmen set up a wall of such shields and bent down behind the wall to load. When they shot, only the crossbows and their helmeted heads appeared over the wall of shields. If forced to fight in the open against a comparable force of longbowmen, they were usually forced to withdraw.

The crossbow was a deadly weapon and was very popular for the simple reason that it took little training to operate. Relatively raw soldiers could become proficient with a crossbow very quickly, and a well-aimed shot could kill a knight in armor who had spent a lifetime in combat training. The crossbow was considered unfair in some circles (those of the knights, primarily) because it took so little skill. Richard I of England, the Lionheart, was wounded twice by crossbow bolts. The second proved fatal. The idea of such great men being killed easily by common soldiers or worse was appalling to the nobility. In the twelfth century a pope tried to get the crossbow banned for being inhumane.

On Medieval Cavalry

Cavalry Weapons and Equipment

Since the first appearance of cavalry around 1000 BC, mounted troops have fulfilled several important roles in battle. They acted as scouts, skirmishers, a shock force for mêlée combat, a rear guard, and the pursuit of a retreating enemy. Cavalry were divided into several different categories depending on equipment and training, and some categories were better suited for certain roles than others. Light cavalry wore little or no armor and was best suited for scouting, skirmishing, and acting as a rear guard. Heavy cavalry wore armor and was better suited for use as a shock force that charged the enemy. All types of cavalry excelled at pursuit.

ager_sanguinis05 Knights of the Middle Ages were heavy cavalry, and the code of chivalry emphasized their role as shock troops charging enemy cavalry and infantry. From the thirteenth century on, the term man-at-arms was used to describe armored warriors fighting on horse and on foot. The new term applied to knights as well as squires, gentry, and professional soldiers.

The advantages of knights in battle were speed, intimidation, power, and height. As the Middle Ages progressed, the equipment of knights improved to enhance these advantages.

Weapons

The spear, and later the larger lance, was the weapon with which cavalry opened a battle. It was ideal for stabbing opponents on foot, especially those in flight. The presentation of the spear in front of a mounted horseman added greatly to the intimidation caused by an approaching charge. Much of the force of the horse could be transmitted through the spear point at the moment of impact. The charging knight became a thundering missile.

Historians disagree on the importance of the stirrup to the rise of knights. The stirrup first appeared in Asia and reached Europe in the eighth century. Some believe that it was critical to the rise of knights because it allowed the rider to brace himself and his lance, thereby transmitting the entire force of the charging horse through the lance point. No one argues with the advantage of this force multiplication, but others suggest that the high saddle developed in Roman times allowed riders to transmit this power before the stirrup appeared. The Bayeux Tapestry, which depicts William’s conquest of England in 1066, shows the highly regarded Norman knights using their spears mainly as overhand stabbing or throwing spears, not as couched lances. By this time the stirrup had been known in Europe for at least two centuries. For the remainder of the Middle Ages, the mounted charge by knights holding couched lances was the epitome of combats for knights. It was not always the correct tactic, however.

The initial charge by knights often resulted in the loss of spears or lances, or the charge ended in a general mêlée. In either case, knights switched to another weapon. This was usually their sword. The cavalry sword evolved into the saber, a wide, heavy blade that a man standing in his stirrups could swing down with tremendous force on the head and upper body of opponents. Swords were the weapons that knights prized most highly because they could be carried on the person, prominently displayed, and personalized. They were the most common weapons for hand-to-hand combat between knights. Good swords were also expensive, so ownership was another distinction of the nobility.

Other choices of mêlée weapon included the hammer and mace (evolutions of the club), the axe, and the flail. Hammers and maces were popular with fighting churchmen and warrior monks trying to obey the letter of the Bible’s admonition about shedding blood, which edged weapons were prone to do.

Under no circumstances did knights use missile weapons of any kind. Killing an opponent at range with an arrow, bolt, or bullet was considered dishonorable. Knights fought worthy foes of the same rank when possible and killed face to face or not at all.

Armor

Chain mail armor was worn by the late Romans and by some of the invading Germanic tribes, including the Goths. Chain mail remained popular with the nobility of medieval Europe until more protective plate armor came into use in the thirteenth century. The change was made in part because an arrow or sharp sword point could pierce chain mail. A cloth tunic, called a surcoat, was worn over the chain mail, especially during the Crusades to reflect the sun.

Helmets also evolved from simple conical designs, to large metal buckets, to large sculpted pieces designed to deflect arrows. Later, helmets could be bolted to the armor worn on the body.

Full suits of armor weighing up to 60 pounds appeared in the fourteenth century. Plate armor was well designed and knights retained a surprising amount of agility. An armored knight on the ground was not helpless and could easily stand up. There are accounts and depictions of armored men doing handstands and other gymnastics in lighter moments. Later suits put increased emphasis on deflecting missiles and reinforced areas most exposed to blows. Elaborate full suits of engraved plate armor appeared late during the age and were more ceremonial and prestigious than practical.

Armor was a large expense for a knight who equipped himself and a squire. An important lord had to provide armor for many knights. The making of armor was an important business, and a large market in used armor developed during the Middle Ages. Common soldiers on the victorious side of a battle could make a substantial sum by stripping dead knights of their armor and selling it.

Horses

Knights took special pride in their horses, which were bred for speed and strength. They required extensive training, as well, to be manageable during a charge and mêlée. Horses were trained to charge with minimal guidance, freeing the knight to hold his shield and lance. Historians disagree as to whether the horses of knights were the heavy horse thought necessary to carry the weight of a fully equipped knight or a smaller horse valued for its speed and agility.

Horsemanship was another characteristic by which the elite knights distinguished themselves from the commoners. It was practiced while hunting, a popular leisure activity of the nobles that carries on today in the traditional foxhunt.