Tuesday, April 29, 2025

The Dutch -- more interesting than you think

The Netherlands is a much-admired country, a modern success story. But the success story of today is based on a long history of prominence, remarkable for what is really a very small region. In the 17th century the Netherlands had a competitive position in world trade, a healthy domestic environment in an era of plague, and some of the best painters of all time who served to document it all. Thus the painting above of a Dutch raid on England, one of their chief rivals. Most of the famous and attractive paintings of this time are portraits of real people in their public settings. Can you say "Rembrant"? One of his most famous paintings is The Night Watch a group portrait of a civic militia. These were upper-class but not noble men who were a key part of the politics of the Netherlands (and especially Holland and the city of Amsterdam).
A modern take on the painting is the song "The Night Watch" by the eccentric progressive rock (?) group King Crimson. Another example of the public/personal element of the art of this Dutch golden age is a striking self-portrait by Artemisia Gentileschi.
a href="https://smarthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/593683-1458214692.jpg">

Saturday, April 19, 2025

My review of Daniel Baloup's L’Homme armé from the Medieval Review

Baloup, Daniel. L’Homme armé: expériences de la guerre et du combat en Castille au XVe siècle. Madrid: Casa de Velaázquez, 2022. Pp. 309. €35.00 (pb). ISBN: 978-84-9096-361-6. Reviewed by Steven Muhlberger Nipissing University steve.muhlberger@gmail.com Daniel Baloup has written a massive book that seeks to reconstruct the place of warfare in the culture of Castile during the fifteenth century and to show how people of different types took part in it. His approach is more like a reference work than a monograph. The title is somewhat deceptive. Contemporary sources and modern scholars both have used “man-at-arms” to designate one type of warrior. Baloup is far more inclusive. He takes as his subject all types of warriors and others who were affected by war. Baloup does not neglect any of them. His self-set task is to create an “anthropology of the Castilian wars of the 15th century.”

L’Homme armé is divided into two parts, which are further divided into six substantial chapters.

Part one (two chapters) is “Thinking and writing on war” and is a survey of the literary sources and the writers and theoreticians who devoted themselves to the subject. B. places the writings of such people in their social and military contexts. Not many of these writers are well known but in some cases we have a rather full portrait. Chapter I, 1 is devoted to the case of Lope Garcia de Salazar, a prolific chronicler who has much to say about warriors, war and politics. Most of the writers cited by B. do not provide us with as much material as Lope Garcia de Salazar, but the historians, clerical writers, and biographers, taken together, provide a more extensive picture of what warriors thought and shared with each other than one might have expected. Chapter 2 is a detailed discussion of the historiographical characteristics of noble-written chronicles. Chapter 3 explores, rather briefly, women's involvement in war. I was rather surprised that more was not said about the role of women in romance literature who might be relevant to the themes of the book. Chapter 4 is concerned with the role of clergy (rather, of prelates) in war. B. begins with canonical legislation that restricted the participation of prelates and progresses to a long description of fifteenth-century prelates actually commanding troops and fighting. This is one of the longest and most interesting sections of the book.

Part two has four chapters on “The Culture of war and warlike practice.” I was particularly impressed by Chapter 5, “The Army in the shadows,” which gives a rather full survey of the communal militias that took on a particular importance because of their participation in the many wars foreign and domestic in and around Castile. The activities of the “commons” are often underrated by military historians. B. does better than most in bringing them out of the shadows. Similarly B. gives us a good amount of attention to clerics who not only preached and theorized about war but fought on the battlefield. Chapter 6 constitutes an interesting exploration of the dangers of warfare and the way warriors’ reaction to those dangers contributed to noble identity--a complicated subject.

I noticed too that B. seldom uses the word “chivalry.“ This a defensible position since chivalry means so many things that one can get lost in its complexities. More relevant to his subject are such characterizations of how nobles were motivated and gained renown: by service (to the land and the king) or by noble descent or personal reputation. These values could easily come into conflict, and such conflicts shaped life in fifteenth-century Castile. Various readers will come to this book for different reasons. Specialists in the history of the fifteenth century may find it to be a useful reference tool; beside the analytical material in the body of the text, there is a very large bibliography and indices of personal and place-names. Researchers whose main interest is not warfare in Castile but other topics such as chivalry, the literature of war, or the evolution of nobility, who wish to make wide comparative studies and include Castilian manifestations of their subjects, may find Baloup a valuable guide. Certainly the “anthropological” approach adopted by Baloup gives readers the opportunity to construct a fuller picture of war in Castile and warfare in general during the fifteenth century.

Thursday, April 10, 2025

Remember Ukraine?

When Trump is destroying the American Constitution and the world economy, it's all too easy to forget Ukraine and its vital place in the current moment. Catherine Merridale has not forgotten and >has written an essay on Ukraine past and Ukraine now. Her historical survey ends rather optomistically:

It is all the more impressive, then, that Ukraine’s citizens, knowing their past, should seek and find paths out of it. This outcome was not guaranteed in 1991, the time of the country’s independence. The young state was divided along multiple deep faults. In some regions — the Donbas in particular — allegiance to Russia remained high, Russian-speakers dominated (resenting the imposition of the Ukrainian language in schools), and Soviet political traditions endured. Ukrainian-speaking cities like Lviv might have seemed foreign, even sinister, if you came from the East. A political culture steeped in corruption — again inherited from Soviet times — brought Kyiv into disrepute. But all that changed in 2014. The loss of Crimea played a part, uniting people in outrage, but the mass of citizens had made their choice already months before. Whatever their land used to be (and whatever their own ethnic origins), the Maidan protesters agreed. They wanted a new country and they’d all call it Ukraine. Their novel form of nationhood demands no mist-wreathed past. To focus on pre-history is to sink into a trance. Since Putin’s long essay appeared, I have caught myself checking the dates of the medieval Grand Duchy of Volhynia and laughed at the absurdity. Independence and democracy are concepts that address the present, not the legacies of hate. Kyiv has asked for patriotic service, true, but only on behalf of a free, confident community. Addressing the liberal West, President Zelensky’s call is for democracies to think and act; the courage that Ukraine has shown has put NATO to shame. But Ukraine is bilingual so it speaks to Russia, too. Though Putin’s clique blocks out the sound, one day it will get through. A peaceful state, and democratic, sworn to heal old wounds? ‘Everything is Ukraine.’ It shouldn’t need another war for that to resonate.
IMAGE: St Vladimir's Ortthodox Cathedral, Windsor, Ontario ;

Saturday, March 29, 2025

Two statistics: 1,000,000,000/8,000,000,000

I drew attention last year to the fact that 1,000,000,000 Indians were eligible to vote in the recent elections in that country. (And it seems to have been a reasonably honest election as things go these days.) It is generally accepted that the human population is about 8 billion.

I don't quite know what to think about this, but it seems to be worth thinking about.

IMAGE: If your serious about democracy, you have to work hard to make it real.

Thursday, March 27, 2025

Happy Election!

That is what a CBC radio host said to a political guest the other day at the end of an excerpt on the upcoming Canadian election.
And you know I think that Canadians are genuinely happy to have an opportunity to have this election.

Thursday, March 20, 2025

A medieval sketch from Novgorod

The usual writing medium in the Russian North during the 13th century was birch bark. One of the most important centers of the "Rus" people in that period was Novgorod, and the inhabitants generated a lot of commercial, religious, and perhaps personal documents.

Thanks to the vast supplies of birch trees there is a lot of work for archaeologists. I've never heard how this trove compares to the Cairo Geniza, but perhaps I'll look.

The image above comes from Live Science which often includes neat stuff.

The explanation of this document is that it was written by a 13th-century boy named Onfim who got bored with his schoolwork and started drawing on some. See Wikipedia for more on Onfrim.

Sunday, March 16, 2025

Authoritarianism watch -- USA

In the last few months people have been debating with themselves whether the United States has lost its constitutional orderand is now in the hands of an authoritarian regime, a police state instead of a democracy. Lots of the discussion focuses on details of Trump and Musk's arbitrary and illegal actions and efforts to use the courts to restrain him.

Most people, I'd guess, have a hard time evaluating the significance of the various conflicts. I recommend two posts. First , from Talking Points Memo, a post by David Kurtz, one of the best people at this sterling source:

Columbia University Is Ground Zero For Trump Extortion

If you still harbored any doubt that President Trump’s ongoing attack on Columbia University – a private institution – is drawn straight from the authoritarian playbook, then the latest development should be clarifying. The Trump administration – specifically the Department of Education, HHS, and GSA – sent a letter yesterday to Columbia attempting to extort an array of concessions in how the university is run before it may consider restoring some $400 million in frozen federal funding. Imposing an arbitrary March 20 deadline, the Trump administration demanded that Columbia complete a laundry list of internal restructurings, policy changes, and submissions to federal authority. Among the most alarming demands: put the Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department in what it calls “academic receivership” for at least five years. If Columbia complies by the deadline, then and only then will the Trump administration “open a conversation about immediate and long-term structural reforms” at the university. If it’s not clear, it sure should be: Even if Columbia submits to this extortion letter, it doesn’t get federal funding restored. It merely sets itself up for a later round of bullying, exorbitant demands, and more extortion. The extortion letter came the same day DHS agents executed search warrants at the residences of two Columbia students. “According to the sources, it was part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on individuals it has described as espousing the views of Hamas and threatening the safety of Jewish students,” ABC News reported. This all transpired as Columbia graduate and pro-Palestinian protest leader Mahmoud Khalil remained in federal detention as the Trump administration attempts to deport him even though he’s a legal permanent resident. His lawyers amended their filings as they obtained new information about his detainment. In an interview with NPR, a top DHS official could not articulate what wrongdoing Khalil was being accused of.

The second post is from Brad DeLong, on the attempt to deport Mahmoud Khalil

: Extending the penumbra of some political rights to non-citizens, extending the umbra of full civil rights to non-citizens, tolerating assemblies that turn into disruptions, and siding with causes that wish they were a threat to national security—those are things that a confident nation proud of itself and its liberties is willing to

support. But that is not us now. And that is certainly not the Republican half of us now.

We see here the intention of the Trump Regime to shut down free speech and free thought, especially at universities. Their ambitions are vast.

Friday, March 14, 2025

Vikings and Vikings Valhalla

I am currently watching the Vikings and Vikings Valhalla, and I am enjoying them immensely. I don't know if I can rate them with the Korean series Mr. Sunshine an ironic title for a story about a radicalized young woman resisting the establishment in the period of the Russian-Japanese War, and her lover, a Korean emigrant to the United States who comes back to Korea as a US Marine and finds himself conflicted as to his identity: Korean or American?

Mr. Sunshine is so wonderful that even though I started out talking about Vikings etc. I find myself swept away by my memories of this wonderful Korean saga...

Well, I think the viking saga is very satisfying. Professional medievalists who are experts in 9th century Northern Europe and especially Scandinavian culture will no doubt find lots of things to criticize, but I must say that the producers and writers have made a serious effort to recreate an interesting story about an interesting period: the building of viking kingdoms, and at the same time the conversion of the Scandinavians to Christianity. Here's what I liked: The beautiful cinematography, especially the dramatic land- and seascapes.

Horses and boats.

All the tools, costumes, furniture, buildings, etc. They were convincing

The great amount of care to create and develop characters who evolved over both series. This was quite an acccomplishment, given that IMDB lists for the first series 250 actors who had speaking roles and portrayed named characters.

The acting! The serious effsort to show what the conflict between Christians and Pagans might have been like. And more!

Wednesday, March 05, 2025

China Day at Muhlberger's World History

The most interesting posts I have read so far today are both about China, a world in itself. Fun and wonder: China Talk brings you China's Best Music of 2024 . It's a small selection by Jake Newby, who writes on Chinese music in a substack, of what is a tiny sample of what is obviously a very diverse and energetic music scene. Well, with a population of 1.4 billion and millenia of musical cultural, you might expect some good stuff. Well, without a maniacal dictator who thinks that the routine cure for all social ills is killing, by the millions,anyone who steps out of line, or send them to work in the fields, a lot of good stufff is being produced. Note that even with a milder dictatorship "the authorities" still interfere. But have fun with this, which shows that current Chinese musicians can do anything, in any genre.

Another perspective on Chinese culture is provided by Noah Smith in Is China inventing big important things? Noah has good ideas and writes well. You might want to follow him on

Tuesday, March 04, 2025

Trump will die

Few analyses of the current political situation in the United States even the most intelligent, don't even refer to the non-zero chance that Trump will not finish his term, to be replaced by Vance (or someone else; remember what happened to Spiro Agnew!). He could be shot or more likely his health will collapse. I live with a very healthy 80 year old, and can't help notice how much more fragile she is than just a few years ago. Trump can't rely on his healthy lifestyle. And there are his fits of anger, which can be deadly even for the middle-aged...Trump's opponents should think about the world post-Trump, which could manifest itself as soon as tomorrow.

Further, March 16: Another discussion by experts on CBC 1's excellent The House with no reference to Trump's physical and mental health. In fact, the experts didn't know what to say on any aspect of the current crisis. This is where we are.

Wednesday, February 26, 2025

2025

Whether Trump wins or is stopped this year will forever be considered a turning point in American history.

Wednesday, February 19, 2025

The Lady of Kalymnos

I didn't know about this magnificent Hellenistic statue until today.

If you want to see more, go to Greekreporter.com where there is much more information about this style.

The Decline and Fall of the Trump Regime? Already?

From Timothy Burke from 8 by 7: I
’m on record as finding the whole debate about whether what is happening right now in the United States is fascism or conservatism or totalitarianism and so on as being fundamentally uninteresting, for roughly the same reason that I think squabbling about whether bombardment that is indifferent to civilians is genocide or not. You have to start with the basics: what is happening now is bad. What is happening now is worse. What is happening now seems likely to become even worse than worse.

So if there is any position I disdain it is that this moment in America, in the Levant, in the world, is just par for the course, nothing new under the sun, a continuation of a status quo.

What I am trying to evaluate now is not the comprehensive badness of the past year and the almost certainly comprehensive worse-ness of the year to come, but what is new here. Like most historians, I’ve been busy reaching for analogies, in part to just try and get everybody who is “waiting to see whether this is that bad” that it’s very bad. But analogies always fail when it comes to seeing what’s new.

Right now, there are two things that I think are new. The first is that the intensity of Trumpism at the heart of a major global power that has so powerfully shaped the last century really seems like the death-knell of neoliberalism. Among other things, it’s revealing just how much the Democratic Party was intertwined with neoliberalism and the extent to which that is limiting its ability to serve as a meaningful opposition going forward. I don’t say this in the conventional sense of tossing off “neoliberalism” as an invective for all the things I don’t like. Perhaps not unlike many Democrats, I’d frankly prefer neoliberalism to Trumpism in part because I could imagine ways to move forward from neoliberalism to a better society without a disastrous collapse in between. The regulatory and managerial apparatus that neoliberalism rested upon is being completely demolished. That’s really different than in many cases of 20th Century authoritarianism that were either a strong reaction to social democracy or socialism or the threat thereof or were an outcome of a militarized elite seizing power in a state with very weak capacity and underdeveloped political institutions.

This point leads to the second new wrinkle, which is more consequential. Right now Musk and his gang of teenage burglars are destroying the capacity of the federal state in a more or less indiscriminate way. I’m almost starting to believe that they might even blast their way through the Pentagon, though that seems unlikely in comparison to everything else. They’re doing that without the kind of long-standing economic crisis that someone like Javier Milei in Argentina has used for his justification. They’re not just radically cutting spending, they’re decomposing vast infrastructures of government, regulation and management that allowed the federal state to project its presence and authority while also holding up the national economy through direct and indirect subsidies.

A lot of the motive here from the Bannonite wing of Trumpism seems to be hurting educated professionals as much as possible, whereas on the Muskian side, it seems to be annihilating the regulatory state. But what happens when they’ve finished demolishing the government entirely?

They’ve already discovered that they can’t easily restore capacity when it turns out they blew up something of vital and immediate importance like the workforce attending to the nuclear arsenal and the maintenance of dangerous waste sites connected to nuclear weapons.

I think they’re going to find that if they were hoping to direct future contracts to their own businesses or the businesses of allies, they might have accidentally trashed the basic mechanisms for awarding contracts, signing contracts, and having the security of contract for the bottom-line of the contracting party. Even if Musk’s little gopher squad have established cut-outs that let them illegally drain money from the Treasury to deposit in a bank account for SpaceX, that’s not anything like a sustainable pipeline for long-term corruption. If they were hoping to find ways to create a new client elite, they’ve already destroyed a lot of what they might offer to people willing to bend the knee and take a lifetime job in an authoritarian bureaucracy.

Perhaps more startling from the vantage point of the analogies already in play, it’s no longer clear to me how they’re going to govern at all from Washington. They had a vast warehouse full of carrots and they’ve dumped gasoline and a match on most of them already. They have a fair number of sticks, but that’s not enough to hold practical authority over a nation this big and (formerly) wealthy—assuming the sticks even agree to be used in such a manner. They’re even getting rid of prosecutors, FBI agents, IRS agents and others who would have known how to be sticks if they were tasked with doing so. It’s one thing for small authoritarian states with a long history of casualized abuse of power to just murder, torture and imprison anybody who looks the wrong way at them and another to do that in the U.S. This is not to say that they won’t be trying very soon to act in precisely that way, but they’ve already cut into their own capacity for doing so.

That’s what seems different. I can’t really think of a state with a tremendous amount of power that has turned in a sharply authoritarian direction and elected to voluntarily cripple itself. I can think of states that have done that by accident because they were so incompetent and corrupt, but that also was often a move from a weak semi-democratic state to a weak authoritarian one, not a move from the most powerful country on the planet deliberately destroying its own power for reasons of ideological purity. (Though corruption and incompetence are of course part of the mix as well.) In an odd way, this might be one source of hope in this dark moment. If a number of state governments retain their authority and administrative coherence, they might be able to capitalize on the retreating tide of federal power. If Trump is going to ignore the courts, even the Supreme Court, then state governors and legislatures might feel empowered to do the same while buoying up what the federal government is trying to sink and ignoring any commands from Washington to the contrary. In a year that is already overflowing with constitutional crises, that move would just be one more stone on a towering pile. Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more The News: Yes, It's True. Wednesday's Child Is Full of Woe Timothy Burke Feb 19 READ IN APP I’m on record as finding the whole debate about whether what is happening right now in the United States is fascism or conservatism or totalitarianism and so on as being fundamentally uninteresting, for roughly the same reason that I think squabbling about whether bombardment that is indifferent to civilians is genocide or not. You have to start with the basics: what is happening now is bad. What is happening now is worse. What is happening now seems likely to become even worse than worse.

So if there is any position I disdain it is that this moment in America, in the Levant, in the world, is just par for the course, nothing new under the sun, a continuation of a status quo.

What I am trying to evaluate now is not the comprehensive badness of the past year and the almost certainly comprehensive worse-ness of the year to come, but what is new here. Like most historians, I’ve been busy reaching for analogies, in part to just try and get everybody who is “waiting to see whether this is that bad” that it’s very bad. But analogies always fail when it comes to seeing what’s new.

Right now, there are two things that I think are new. The first is that the intensity of Trumpism at the heart of a major global power that has so powerfully shaped the last century really seems like the death-knell of neoliberalism. Among other things, it’s revealing just how much the Democratic Party was intertwined with neoliberalism and the extent to which that is limiting its ability to serve as a meaningful opposition going forward. I don’t say this in the conventional sense of tossing off “neoliberalism” as an invective for all the things I don’t like. Perhaps not unlike many Democrats, I’d frankly prefer neoliberalism to Trumpism in part because I could imagine ways to move forward from neoliberalism to a better society without a disastrous collapse in between. The regulatory and managerial apparatus that neoliberalism rested upon is being completely demolished.

That’s really different than in many cases of 20th Century authoritarianism that were either a strong reaction to social democracy or socialism or the threat thereof or were an outcome of a militarized elite seizing power in a state with very weak capacity and underdeveloped political institutions. This point leads to the second new wrinkle, which is more consequential. Right now Musk and his gang of teenage burglars are destroying the capacity of the federal state in a more or less indiscriminate way. I’m almost starting to believe that they might even blast their way through the Pentagon, though that seems unlikely in comparison to everything else. They’re doing that without the kind of long-standing economic crisis that someone like Javier Milei in Argentina has used for his justification. They’re not just radically cutting spending, they’re decomposing vast infrastructures of government, regulation and management that allowed the federal state to project its presence and authority while also holding up the national economy through direct and indirect subsidies.

A lot of the motive here from the Bannonite wing of Trumpism seems to be hurting educated professionals as much as possible, whereas on the Muskian side, it seems to be annihilating the regulatory state. But what happens when they’ve finished demolishing the government entirely?

They’ve already discovered that they can’t easily restore capacity when it turns out they blew up something of vital and immediate importance like the workforce attending to the nuclear arsenal and the maintenance of dangerous waste sites connected to nuclear wea

I think they’re going to find that if they were hoping to direct future contracts to their own businesses or the businesses of allies, they might have accidentally trashed the basic mechanisms for awarding contracts, signing contracts, and having the security of contract for the bottom-line of the contracting party. Even if Musk’s little gopher squad have established cut-outs that let them illegally drain money from the Treasury to deposit in a bank account for SpaceX, that’s not anything like a sustainable pipeline for long-term corruption. If they were hoping to find ways to create a new client elite, they’ve already destroyed a lot of what they might offer to people willing to bend the knee and take a lifetime job in an authoritarian bureaucracy. Perhaps more startling from the vantage point of the analogies already in play, it’s no longer clear to me how they’re going to govern at all from Washington. They had a vast warehouse full of carrots and they’ve dumped gasoline and a match on most of them already. They have a fair number of sticks, but that’s not enough to hold practical authority over a nation this big and (formerly) wealthy—assuming the sticks even agree to be used in such a manner. They’re even getting rid of prosecutors, FBI agents, IRS agents and others who would have known how to be sticks if they were tasked with doing so. It’s one thing for small authoritarian states with a long history of casualized abuse of power to just murder, torture and imprison anybody who looks the wrong way at them and another to do that in the U.S. This is not to say that they won’t be trying very soon to act in precisely that way, but they’ve already cut into their own capacity for doing so.

That’s what seems different. I can’t really think of a state with a tremendous amount of power that has turned in a sharply authoritarian direction and elected to voluntarily cripple itself. I can think of states that have done that by accident because they were so incompetent and corrupt, but that also was often a move from a weak semi-democratic state to a weak authoritarian one, not a move from the most powerful country on the planet deliberately destroying its own power for reasons of ideological purity. (Though corruption and incompetence are of course part of the mix as well.)

In an odd way, this might be one source of hope in this dark moment. If a number of state governments retain their authority and administrative coherence, they might be able to capitalize on the retreating tide of federal power. If Trump is going to ignore the courts, even the Supreme Court, then state governors and legislatures might feel empowered to do the same while buoying up what the federal government is trying to sink and ignoring any commands from Washington to the contrary. In a year that is already overflowing with constitutional crises, that move would just be one more stone on a towering pile.

That would be a way to make the point about why authoritarians have hitherto elected not to void their own power, real and potential. When you’re setting yourself up as a tyrant, you generally expect to have to project your power ubiquitously rather than in capricious and enfeebled ways, to dispense benefits as well as punishments, to tie people to you in ways they will be reluctant to sever. We may need a new word meaning “dictatorship whose first move is to achieve dicklessness” to describe the system that Musk and Trump are trying to create right now. That would be a way to make the point about why authoritarians have hitherto elected not to void their own power, real and potential. When you’re setting yourself up as a tyrant, you generally expect to have to project your power ubiquitously rather than in capricious and enfeebled ways, to dispense benefits as well as punishments, to tie people to you in ways they will be reluctant to sever. We may need a new word meaning “dictatorship whose first move is to achieve dicklessness” to describe the system that Musk and Trump are trying to create right now.