Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT Strips 3641 to 3645 (25th - 30th December 2017)

<< < (24/29) > >>

TheEvilDog:
Its like the song Hotel California, you can check out any time you like, but you never leave.

brasca:
It’s been nice taking a break from controversy which may be why these bonus strips were chosen.

Pilchard123:

--- Quote from: Bollthorn on 29 Dec 2017, 02:54 ---That's right, Richard the Lionheart didn't die in glorious combat or of ripe old age, he was shot by a cook with a crossbow.

--- End quote ---

Other sources apparently say that he was shot by a young boy in revenge for killing his father and brothers, while laughing at the cook, and died of the injuries caused by his surgeon. He forgave and pardoned the boy, and ordered that he be given 100 shillings.

After Richard died, the boy was flayed and hanged anyway.

JimC:

--- Quote from: cucumber error on 29 Dec 2017, 11:41 ---I had no idea the connection between priests and maces (in D&D and things inspired by D&D) was based on actual history, thanks for this!

--- End quote ---
Trouble is there's history and history, especially in these days of click bait history pages and Wikipedia, although there is nothing new about 'historians' presenting us with the stories that most appeal to them, or think will most appeal to their audience, even 'interpreting' them a little.  Herodotus, Titus Livius, they were all at it...

Cornelius:
The more colourful story has it that the Lionheart saw a boy with a crossbow, using a pan to shield himself from arrows, and was consequently shot by the boy, while he was laughing at so daft a sight.

Actually, at the time he was besieging the castle of Chalus-Chabrol, where his entrails are buried in what still remains of the castle's chapel. Nobody really can explain why he was walking the perimeter that morning, without his mail -  a mistake, some claim, a seasoned warrior like himself should not have made. The motives of the bowman, likewise, remain obscure - though as a defender of the castle, I don't think we need look much further. As he was not a knight, the code of chivalry does not apply to him. However, as the bowman who killed the king, who was repressing a revolt, at the time, I think they simply decided he could not live. Treason, or some such. They didn't look very kindly on that.

I do doubt the connection between priests and maces, as expressed. The crozier has always been the shepherd's staff, quite distinct from the formal maces some dignitaries carry in processions. In fact, priests were decidedly non-combatants, and were only allowed non lethal weapons for self defence, when present as chaplain or confessor on the battlefield. Shedding blood disqualified one for priesthood, much like how a church where blood has been shed must be reconsecrated.

Edited for clarification. And I just thought of the parallel with churches.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page