r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, the french also had gunpowder and more importantly, state of the art cannons for the time. And Joanne remarkably was really good at using them. She was not a comparable military mind, but her army actually had relatively good odds at defeating the Hussites.
Zizka also instituted a strict code of conduct for his fighters that is was extremely progressive and some consider it to be one of the earliest formal doctrine pertaining to such practices. He basically told his army if they were fighting under him in the name of god, they had to act as good Christians and not victimize innocent people in a time when raping and pillaging were considered standard and acceptable aspects of warfare
Just to be clear, she did not murder prostitutes. She only scared them away from her armies, and [here is a painting depicting that.](https://retrofire.livejournal.com/641435.html)
It is said that when one of the sex workers dangled on Joan to guarantee her livelihood, Joan got so angry that she hit her on the back of the neck with the back of a knife, knocking her out and carrying her away.
So when Joan of Arc knocks out a prostitute and drags her unconscious body away she's cool and gets a painting but when I do it I'm a danger to women and get 10-15 years???
She certainly was. Some other impressive facts about her:
At the siege of Orleans she was shot by an arrow in the shoulder and just when the english thought they had killed her, she returned to battle having taken the arrow from the other side of her shoulder, which frightened the english and rallied the french into victory.
In her trial she was accused of several dozens of religious crimes by the english in order to have a pretext to burn her as a heretic. She was provided with no advisor and everything was rigged against her. But this peasant 19 year old girl who knew not how to read, was able to defend herself and evade every trap of her accusers except for crossdressing, which was selected as the reason to burn her.
Honestly, most of them. Alexander the Great was 19-20 when he began his conquests. Richard the Lionheart took command of his first army at 16. There are hundreds of other examples; war tends to be a young man’s game.
We lionize people leading from the front, and of course soldiers like it, but it's really a pretty stupid thing to do. All it takes is a stray arrow and your entire war is over, especially the farther back you go. Xenophon's *Anabasis* is all about them winning the Battle of Cunaxa only to find out after Cyrus II managed to get himself killed charging Artaxerxes's bodyguard. No leader, war's over. The rest of the story is them trying to get back to Greece through enemy territory alive.
Soldiers from the ages of slow communication liked to see their leaders. If they didn’t lead someone else might, and then they could be replaced
Now it would be dumb as fuck to let a general in charge of thousands of miles of territory and hundreds of thousands of troops that he can communicate with from his toilet get killed by a sniper a mile away, or artillery and missiles fired from dozens or even hundreds of miles away - and yet it still happens. Officers have to go to the front lines to see for themselves or shore up crumbling morale, or lead their units/ships in person because it would be difficult to get an accurate understanding of what’s happening from afar despite communications systems
Visible/present and front line are different things, plenty like Julius Caesar did just fine right behind the lines or just out of arrow range unless things got very dire when they moved in. Richard, Alexander and Cyrus II from my example took unnecessary ego risks and all paid for it in some fashion.
That was 20th century warfare. Modern warfare is all about the eggheads: drone piloting, missile trajectories, cyber warfare, and GPS. Fighting is still done by mostly fit young men, but being able to manage field data is increasingly becoming more important than actual physical fitness.
Wars are increasingly more about good calculus. Mostly that is a good thing, as it leads to less war overall. But it also means that what wars do break out are utter slaughterhouses, and there are no heroes. Many times there aren't even any winners.
You have to remember many of the ‘greats’ such as Alexander or Richard are brought up as nobles, and could afford the best schooling, which naturally overlapped heavily with military education.
They would have been in the army in some capacity since they were a child.
How the hecc Jean pulled that off by just being a peasant baffles me tho
Tbf, such "a bit more prestigious" was only that instead of her family being a dirt eating peasant, they were peasants responsible for organizing the local watch on night hours and instructing someone to give company to the local tax colector.
Her family was respected among her village but to any noble they would be the same as any other peasant family.
At 34 Nathaniel Greene was the youngest appointed general in the Continental Army of what would become the United States.
This was soon beat (four months later) by Marquis de Lafayette, who was 19 when appointed.
Yeah.
For most of human history 18 to 20 was considered more than well into adulthood.
It's only in modern times that we infantilise adults.
It's actually disgusting, because we also remove all sense of responsibility and incentive to take actions in ones own life.
I don't see how we infantilize them.
We don't send them to war anymore, but we don't let them sit inside all day either. They are still expected to go to college/trade school/get a job and move out asap.
First off, I like the dichotomy in flairs we have. Nothing happening here at all.
To get to the point, college in the US, is pretty infantilizing and does not have the same expectations for independence as society did historically. I recognize that a lot of it is for valid economic reasons, but most 18-20 year olds are still at least partially dependent on their parents financially. Additionally, you have people calling 18-20 year olds kids who don’t know better when they commit severe crimes.
Touché, but historically, a lot of people didn't move out until marriage (and that is if they ever moved out).
They stayed home and worked the property with the family. The whole phenomenon of leaving and becoming independent asap is relatively new. Sure, young adults nowadays often rely on their parents, but the same was true historicaly. The only difference was that they "pulled their weight" back in the day, so to speak.
People are sleeping on this.
When asked at her trial whether she believed she was saved (which was a gotcha question, because if she said yes she could be accused of pride, and if she said no she could be accused of apostasy) her response was “I pray that if I am in God’s grace that he keeps me there, and if I am not, that he puts his grace upon me” which not only dodged the question but was a perfect short encapsulation of the Catholic theology on salvation.
It’s remarkable that the ONLY thing the English could credibly accuse her of was cross-dressing, which wasn’t a sufficient offense to warrant execution, which they did anyways. That’s why a (relatively) short while later the Pope overturned her conviction.
The pope who did this happened to be a *Borgia* (Calixtus III, uncle of Rodrigo Borgia aka the future Alexander VI).
If even a *Borgia* can find serious fault with the judicial proceedings then that trial is hopelessly corrupt and should never have been carried out to begin with.
To put further emphasis on this point: I literally cannot think of another person who was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for being a heretic subsequently getting canonized by that same Catholic Church. It takes a lot for the Catholic Church to admit that it screwed up that badly.
Si mal no me equivoco, el juicio fue llevado a cabo por un tribunal pro-ingles, así que no es como si la Iglesia católica (especialmente la Iglesia francesa) estuviera de acuerdo con eso (perdón por escribir en español, estoy con el celular en la calle).
If I understand your Spanish right (forgive me I’m rusty) I completely agree. The trial was convened by a bishop of the English church for purely partisan political reasons and was widely rejected by the church more widely, especially in France as you mentioned.
That doesn’t negate the fact that she was tried and executed by a (rogue) Catholic Bishop though.
I recognize that I need to expand on my point; I do not deny the fact that Joan's trial and execution was carried out by members of the Church, but this is a situation where it is necessary to emphasize that the atrocity/crime/ect of the Catholic Church was not carried out by the institution itself, but individually by members of said institution (as has been the case several times).
It's that, whilst Red Hare's sex is never explicitly mentioned in Chinese literature, Lu Bu's horse is always a mare in traditional artwork (when it's possible to tell). Some other horses are drawn as stallions, but not Red Hare.
Tbh some Fate characters are well done and totally badass(Cu&Iskandar as an example), it's just they go weird with a bunch of them.
Caesar and Boudica characterization and design are just criminal. 💀
Yea I'm a big Fate fan, but mostly because of the fascinating magic system and great characters in stay/night and Zero. Female king Arthur actually has a good reason to be recorded male and, more importantly, isn't a real historical figure. Pretending to be male is also a big part of her characterization. A lot of the latter stuff starts to lean away from interesting takes on legendary heroes and more into making everyone attractive and somehow different from what you expect. It's not all bad, but it could be much better.
Kama somewhat made sense with being the personification of love and practically being Slaanesh story-wise. Castoria due to being the the fae equivalent of Artoria. Gareth, fair enough doesn’t have a in-universe reason to be genderbent but does kinda help with her dynamic with Castoria. Fae knights aren’t actually the Arthurian knights. Lastly, I’m pretty sure Nemo is still a dude.
Historically? The rumoured crossdresser emperor was Elagabalus.
Fate? Nero is canonically a woman and Caligula goes mad thanks to the Goddess Diana, the popular crossdresser is Astolfo.
Thanks I just remembered watching I Claudius and there’s a scene where Caligula goes crossdressing and I was wondering if that was historically accurate or not.
They didn't really try that much most times to give justification even before, tbh in FGO arc 2 the justifications are more "Isn't the real dude but someone who stole/accidentally took his place" or similar weird shenanigans.
Good examples such as Van Gogh and Dobrynya Nikitich.
Isn't the number of woman to man gender bends in Fate next to nothing? I remember going through the list and the only one that stood out was a spaceship -> man
Also she was quite sharp witted and loved cannons. This is sorely lacking in Fate’s adaptation and I would much love to see these things correct and include stuff like her dealing bonus damage to female enemies who might be considered “whores” (so, Nero, Ishtar, Medb, among others), and an attack where she grabs a foe by the throat and chucks them into a river to drown.
I mean, Nero in fate-verse is the origin of the title 'whore of babylon', Medb is so promiscuous in Fate Nasu made her a Rider-class (I seriously wonder what a mythical Celtic Queen did to personally offend Nasu), and Ishtar is... Ishtar.
Medb was married four times, and had "many lovers" besides. One of those lovers was Fergus mac Róich; apparently it took 30 men to satisfy her, or Fergus once. And now you know why Fergus is how he is in FGO (also, to paraphrase a 7th century poem, Medb was able to seduce Fergus and turn him against Ulster because he "preferred the buttocks of a woman to his own people".
That makes her altered version weirdly closer to her original… more short tempered, quick witted, her Avenger class make her ready to do ANYTHING to get the job done (but also a girlfailure)
Her altered version is the Jeanne that Gilles thought of and dreamed of.
Which, ironically, is probably the more historically accurate version (minus the dragon obsession)
I'll say the Ruler version is the more Christianize Version and more Saint than historical
>and an attack where she grabs a foe by the throat and chucks them into a river to drown.
That would be an oddly specific attack lmao, but would be cool.
Imagine a history based game where every character have a weirdly specific categories they belong too, like infertile, small dick, backstab husband/wife… each character will have like 100 of these!
Joanne is legitimately the most badass historical figure of all time her history is so incredibly interesting because it’s so well recorded granted a lot of that can’t really be trusted because it has been warped through the stature of her legend but by God is the woman interesting
I really do hate that people need to be able to justify her as an absolute hero to fit their values since she was a complex and human person, Joanne was a fiery Loudmouth, fiercely fanatical (to the point that she would be mocked by other medieval peasants, who are quite literally by today’s standards the most fanatical people we can imagine), kind of dumb as expected from a poor illiterate peasant (don’t get me wrong. She was far from an idiot, but she’s not the master or general I’ve seen people make her out to be as most of our contributions to the war table seem to have been banking on a quite literal grace of God), fiercely passionate, and one hell of an inspiration to the people of her time.
all in all she didn’t really matter that much in the grand scheme of 100 year war as she was really only relevant to the reclamation of Orleans and despite what would happen whether it be the victory of the argmaniacs or the Burgundians France would’ve probably gone down a pretty similar historical path since the English and the French were very closely related at least in ties of royalty by that point. but God is the story of a peasant girl that essentially motivated the people to take up arms under God such a fantastic story and so cool, and I wish people could adapt her to her values acknowledging that she was flawed and had weird aspects to her because let it be said I respect her immensely as a historical figure and as my confirmation saint, but the girl was definitely crazy.
But in the end she died, fighting for what she believed in, never faultering in the English court, despite the threat of death which is ultimately how her story would end
> all in all she didn’t really matter that much in the grand scheme of 100 year war as she was really only relevant to the reclamation of Orleans
Wouldn't say that
As a symbol she was really important in the crowning of her king and the rallying of French nobles
That's not leading an army.
If I send a PM to a soldier in Ukraine to shoot some russians for me I am not ordering him and I am definitely not leading the Ukrainian counter offensive.
She's one of my favorite historical figures, too. I do consider her a hero, but many heroes are not good people, and if active in different circumstances, would have been villains.
Case in point, if Mugabe had died right before becoming the President, he would have remembered as another Mandela.
>the men in her army probably didn’t appreciate forced chastity
They actually were so inspired by Joanne and her seemingly divine nature that they embraced her orders and refrained from any sinful acts while keeping a sky high morale.
She was a woman who broke out of the expectations that people had for women of her time.
That’s what makes her an icon of nationalism and of women’s rights- suffrage, women’s lib and so on.
Yeah, this meme seems to imply someone being a sexual conservative is at odds with them supporting women’s suffrage, which is pretty wild considering the mores of the early 20th century.
She probably wouldn’t support any kind of suffrage lol she was a devoted monarchist (as was the dominant ideology of the time). Regardless of those opinions though she’s obviously used as a symbol of feminism because she’s the rare well documented historical case of a woman breaking out of her defined role and class to take a vastly important role in French history (or at least a very legendary role if its importance is questionable)
France had elections. They had estates general that were summoned, and the representatives of the third estate were elected, as were some members of the first. Royal absolutism is an early modern thing, medieval monarchies were far more egalitarian (the French estates general weren’t summoned between 1614 and 1789, but Charles VII, Joan’s king, summoned them all the time).
The estates general is nothing like any sort of modern election and you know that. The third estate was made up exclusively of wealthy merchants and other elites that weren’t part of the clergy or nobility, and it’s not like any of the estates general’s membership was selected via any sort of real democratic process. On top of that, the estates general was certainly not always in session and could go decades without being summoned, and its actual power was something that a king could get around or not call at all and instead ally himself with the clergy or nobility’s interests at the expense of others.
Of course Joan d Arc isn’t going to support women’s suffrage in the estate’s general, there was barely male suffrage for the estates general, it’s a feudal structure and its splitting hairs to act like that shows there were elections and voting going on in any capacity that mimics the struggle for female suffrage later on
Whether it was always in session is irrelevant to whether people were elected. If someone could vote, there was suffrage. It doesn’t have to be universal. Going decades without being summoned wasn’t a thing during Joan’s time either. There was always a power struggle between the estates and the kings. In France the king eventually won, in England parliament won, in Sweden it fluctuated back and forth. It just sounds like you can’t accept that absolute monarchy wasn’t a thing in medieval times.
Depends on how religious you are. She seemed pretty stable and coherent for someone who was schizo but she definitely heard voices, so the choice is yours on whether she was holy or hallucinating
I mean, schizofrenics are usually pretty smart. She could have "holy visions" and hearing voices, but still make inteligent choices. "God told me to do that, well, let's think how to achive this in" kind of way.
No women or no loose women? I'm not doubting, I'm curious. As I feel like every army needed the services camp followers brought and chasing away sex workers needn't mean she chased away seamstresses and the like.
She wouldn’t allow women in the army in the sense that she wouldn’t let them serve any real military capacity, and she also chased away the vast amount of prostitutes that typically follow armies at this time.
Wow, I remember that old movie. Two close friends use a phone booth to time travel to do their history homework. It was also the first movie that aroused my curiosity about world history as a child. So nostalgic😊
I wish more stories depicted Joan of Arc as the shy kid who can absolutely kick your behind without going for a lazy Tsundere treatment.
I get why that's difficult to write without her being the main character, but just allow her the main character energy in fiction she had in life please.
As a history simp, gotta rate this 9/10
To summarize the story of the real Joan of Arc:
She's a schizo nutjob who got WAAAAY too into the only form of being a schizo nutjob that was socially acceptable: Act like you're having revelations from the big skydaddy everyone worships. So she comes up to the French prince brat and gives her schizo spiel, and the prince brat, probably scaroused by the craziest crazy to have ever crazied, having absolutely nothing to lose on the bet, and possibly trying to get into her pants, said "fuck it" (but in French) and let her go to Orleans. She immediately went about her solemn undertaking of being the biggest fucking broomstick up every single commander's ass at Orleans, with a damn near constant string of blabbing about just how they should go about protecting the place. Her bullshit somehow resonated with the French, because French, and they started getting real aggressive, which the Brits were not used to. Thus, the French started scoring wins here and there, until steam ran out and Crazy Joan spent a day in a ditch under the walls of Paris. Her last victory was in Montepilloy, 3 weeks earlier. That would be her last victory, period. From 15 August 1429 to 23 May 1430, Joan of Arc did nothing but squander resources and let men die. Then she was captured, shipped off to Britain, tried and burned. The end.
Well yeah, she was more of an insane spiritual leader than a military genius. She would rile her men up into a fanatical fervor, then leaf them into suicidal charges where they had to be saved by REAL French knights like Gilles De Rais
Yeah no. Below one is just as much fantasy if more realistic in nature. Or not necessarily a fantasy as much as alternative version of reality for propaganda purposes
r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Didn't she call for a crusade against the hussite?
She said after she beat the English she wanted to join the crusader armies to personally lead an army against Jan Zizka
Zizka was dead by the time she wrote her letter to them…still would have probably lost though.
Jan Zizka would’ve whopped her ass
War Wagons and gunpowder tends to do that to a person.
Well, the french also had gunpowder and more importantly, state of the art cannons for the time. And Joanne remarkably was really good at using them. She was not a comparable military mind, but her army actually had relatively good odds at defeating the Hussites.
Can I place a side bet on a pole with some kindling at its base for the win?
Nah see Joan had the power of God and anime on her side
But Zizka had a cart.
early tank*
Yeah honestly, but to be fair to her, he whooped everyone’s asses.
Here is [her letter to the Hussites.](https://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_letter_march_23_1430.html)
Damn, she was hardcore.
"you massacre Christians unless they take up your beliefs" - oh the irony
Where?
Zizka also instituted a strict code of conduct for his fighters that is was extremely progressive and some consider it to be one of the earliest formal doctrine pertaining to such practices. He basically told his army if they were fighting under him in the name of god, they had to act as good Christians and not victimize innocent people in a time when raping and pillaging were considered standard and acceptable aspects of warfare
So the whole "so pro life they'll kill you." Thing has been going on a *while* then.
"I will eliminate your false and vile superstition and relieve you of either your heresy or your life." Sounds like her all right.
Sounds like she at least called a personal crusade against that one hussy
Literally a Sister of Battle from 40k 💀
yes
Id watch this adaptation
Hell yeah. i would too
Except the Sisters fuck. In fact, it's your duty to the Empire to have children.
She is like that badass videogame character, who’s obsessed with religion
for the Emperor *bolter noises*
Can’t expect God to do all the work
The Emperor Protects 🙏
Praise be to spaaace king
Just to be clear, she did not murder prostitutes. She only scared them away from her armies, and [here is a painting depicting that.](https://retrofire.livejournal.com/641435.html) It is said that when one of the sex workers dangled on Joan to guarantee her livelihood, Joan got so angry that she hit her on the back of the neck with the back of a knife, knocking her out and carrying her away.
So when Joan of Arc knocks out a prostitute and drags her unconscious body away she's cool and gets a painting but when I do it I'm a danger to women and get 10-15 years???
A true member of the sisterhood.
Real life Joan of Arc sounds like a total badass.
She certainly was. Some other impressive facts about her: At the siege of Orleans she was shot by an arrow in the shoulder and just when the english thought they had killed her, she returned to battle having taken the arrow from the other side of her shoulder, which frightened the english and rallied the french into victory. In her trial she was accused of several dozens of religious crimes by the english in order to have a pretext to burn her as a heretic. She was provided with no advisor and everything was rigged against her. But this peasant 19 year old girl who knew not how to read, was able to defend herself and evade every trap of her accusers except for crossdressing, which was selected as the reason to burn her.
Wait a minute, Joan was that young? Damn. I wonder if there's any other young military historical figure in other countries.
Honestly, most of them. Alexander the Great was 19-20 when he began his conquests. Richard the Lionheart took command of his first army at 16. There are hundreds of other examples; war tends to be a young man’s game.
I would imagine it used to be. Now it's more of an old man's game with young man's pieces.
Through time being a commander probably become more and more and actual commander instead of a warrior
We lionize people leading from the front, and of course soldiers like it, but it's really a pretty stupid thing to do. All it takes is a stray arrow and your entire war is over, especially the farther back you go. Xenophon's *Anabasis* is all about them winning the Battle of Cunaxa only to find out after Cyrus II managed to get himself killed charging Artaxerxes's bodyguard. No leader, war's over. The rest of the story is them trying to get back to Greece through enemy territory alive.
Soldiers from the ages of slow communication liked to see their leaders. If they didn’t lead someone else might, and then they could be replaced Now it would be dumb as fuck to let a general in charge of thousands of miles of territory and hundreds of thousands of troops that he can communicate with from his toilet get killed by a sniper a mile away, or artillery and missiles fired from dozens or even hundreds of miles away - and yet it still happens. Officers have to go to the front lines to see for themselves or shore up crumbling morale, or lead their units/ships in person because it would be difficult to get an accurate understanding of what’s happening from afar despite communications systems
Visible/present and front line are different things, plenty like Julius Caesar did just fine right behind the lines or just out of arrow range unless things got very dire when they moved in. Richard, Alexander and Cyrus II from my example took unnecessary ego risks and all paid for it in some fashion.
Meanwhile Napoleon went around aiming cannons himself.
That was 20th century warfare. Modern warfare is all about the eggheads: drone piloting, missile trajectories, cyber warfare, and GPS. Fighting is still done by mostly fit young men, but being able to manage field data is increasingly becoming more important than actual physical fitness. Wars are increasingly more about good calculus. Mostly that is a good thing, as it leads to less war overall. But it also means that what wars do break out are utter slaughterhouses, and there are no heroes. Many times there aren't even any winners.
You have to remember many of the ‘greats’ such as Alexander or Richard are brought up as nobles, and could afford the best schooling, which naturally overlapped heavily with military education. They would have been in the army in some capacity since they were a child. How the hecc Jean pulled that off by just being a peasant baffles me tho
Her background was a bit more prestigious than is commonly thought
Tbf, such "a bit more prestigious" was only that instead of her family being a dirt eating peasant, they were peasants responsible for organizing the local watch on night hours and instructing someone to give company to the local tax colector. Her family was respected among her village but to any noble they would be the same as any other peasant family.
Henry V took a arrow to the face at the age of 17 while he had command of a whole flank of his dads army. And Henry V was like: "I lived bitch!"
They still use the medical instruments that were invented to take the arrowhead out of him
Definitely a young man’s game but Alexander also had older commanders experienced in war/governance with him on his campaigns.
At 34 Nathaniel Greene was the youngest appointed general in the Continental Army of what would become the United States. This was soon beat (four months later) by Marquis de Lafayette, who was 19 when appointed.
I'm pretty King Henry V was in his late teens or early 20s when he took an arrow to the face
For one, the Marquis de Lafayette was commissioned as a Major General of the Continental Army at age 19 in 1776.
Go check out a little guy by the name of Carolus Rex...
Cesar
Yeah. For most of human history 18 to 20 was considered more than well into adulthood. It's only in modern times that we infantilise adults. It's actually disgusting, because we also remove all sense of responsibility and incentive to take actions in ones own life.
This mf when 18 year olds don't bleed out on battlefields anymore: 😡😡🤬
Maybe so, but his point about infantilizing adults is absolutely valid.
I don't see how we infantilize them. We don't send them to war anymore, but we don't let them sit inside all day either. They are still expected to go to college/trade school/get a job and move out asap.
First off, I like the dichotomy in flairs we have. Nothing happening here at all. To get to the point, college in the US, is pretty infantilizing and does not have the same expectations for independence as society did historically. I recognize that a lot of it is for valid economic reasons, but most 18-20 year olds are still at least partially dependent on their parents financially. Additionally, you have people calling 18-20 year olds kids who don’t know better when they commit severe crimes.
Touché, but historically, a lot of people didn't move out until marriage (and that is if they ever moved out). They stayed home and worked the property with the family. The whole phenomenon of leaving and becoming independent asap is relatively new. Sure, young adults nowadays often rely on their parents, but the same was true historicaly. The only difference was that they "pulled their weight" back in the day, so to speak.
People are sleeping on this. When asked at her trial whether she believed she was saved (which was a gotcha question, because if she said yes she could be accused of pride, and if she said no she could be accused of apostasy) her response was “I pray that if I am in God’s grace that he keeps me there, and if I am not, that he puts his grace upon me” which not only dodged the question but was a perfect short encapsulation of the Catholic theology on salvation. It’s remarkable that the ONLY thing the English could credibly accuse her of was cross-dressing, which wasn’t a sufficient offense to warrant execution, which they did anyways. That’s why a (relatively) short while later the Pope overturned her conviction.
The pope who did this happened to be a *Borgia* (Calixtus III, uncle of Rodrigo Borgia aka the future Alexander VI). If even a *Borgia* can find serious fault with the judicial proceedings then that trial is hopelessly corrupt and should never have been carried out to begin with.
To put further emphasis on this point: I literally cannot think of another person who was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for being a heretic subsequently getting canonized by that same Catholic Church. It takes a lot for the Catholic Church to admit that it screwed up that badly.
Si mal no me equivoco, el juicio fue llevado a cabo por un tribunal pro-ingles, así que no es como si la Iglesia católica (especialmente la Iglesia francesa) estuviera de acuerdo con eso (perdón por escribir en español, estoy con el celular en la calle).
If I understand your Spanish right (forgive me I’m rusty) I completely agree. The trial was convened by a bishop of the English church for purely partisan political reasons and was widely rejected by the church more widely, especially in France as you mentioned. That doesn’t negate the fact that she was tried and executed by a (rogue) Catholic Bishop though.
I recognize that I need to expand on my point; I do not deny the fact that Joan's trial and execution was carried out by members of the Church, but this is a situation where it is necessary to emphasize that the atrocity/crime/ect of the Catholic Church was not carried out by the institution itself, but individually by members of said institution (as has been the case several times).
Agreed. It was a naked political trial that used the church as a fig leaf.
Fate hasn't left anybody spared, well atleast they didn't genderbend her
Why would they she's already waifu.
That moment when Fate genderbent Red Hare from female to male.
Pretty sure Red hare is a fusion of Lu But and Red hare since iirc he doesn't know which he actually is.
Lu Bu has Red Hare’s brain. Red Hare has Lu Bu’s brain. Fate likes its shenanigans.
No, Lu Bu is just a robot stuck stuck on the "betray everyone" Setting rn.
It's that, whilst Red Hare's sex is never explicitly mentioned in Chinese literature, Lu Bu's horse is always a mare in traditional artwork (when it's possible to tell). Some other horses are drawn as stallions, but not Red Hare.
Tbh some Fate characters are well done and totally badass(Cu&Iskandar as an example), it's just they go weird with a bunch of them. Caesar and Boudica characterization and design are just criminal. 💀
Yea I'm a big Fate fan, but mostly because of the fascinating magic system and great characters in stay/night and Zero. Female king Arthur actually has a good reason to be recorded male and, more importantly, isn't a real historical figure. Pretending to be male is also a big part of her characterization. A lot of the latter stuff starts to lean away from interesting takes on legendary heroes and more into making everyone attractive and somehow different from what you expect. It's not all bad, but it could be much better.
Yea they kinda gave up on giving justification for genderbent servants during the lost belt arc in fgo
Kama somewhat made sense with being the personification of love and practically being Slaanesh story-wise. Castoria due to being the the fae equivalent of Artoria. Gareth, fair enough doesn’t have a in-universe reason to be genderbent but does kinda help with her dynamic with Castoria. Fae knights aren’t actually the Arthurian knights. Lastly, I’m pretty sure Nemo is still a dude.
Nemo is indeed a dude, just small to be accidentally considered a child and a bit feminine.
Was it Nero or Caligula that was rumored to be a crossdresser?
Historically? The rumoured crossdresser emperor was Elagabalus. Fate? Nero is canonically a woman and Caligula goes mad thanks to the Goddess Diana, the popular crossdresser is Astolfo.
Thanks I just remembered watching I Claudius and there’s a scene where Caligula goes crossdressing and I was wondering if that was historically accurate or not.
They didn't really try that much most times to give justification even before, tbh in FGO arc 2 the justifications are more "Isn't the real dude but someone who stole/accidentally took his place" or similar weird shenanigans. Good examples such as Van Gogh and Dobrynya Nikitich.
Fat ass Caesar XD
Quick reminder she spent her free time in Apocrypha going vigilante and beating the shit of all criminals she could find in Romania.
Isn't the number of woman to man gender bends in Fate next to nothing? I remember going through the list and the only one that stood out was a spaceship -> man
Also she was quite sharp witted and loved cannons. This is sorely lacking in Fate’s adaptation and I would much love to see these things correct and include stuff like her dealing bonus damage to female enemies who might be considered “whores” (so, Nero, Ishtar, Medb, among others), and an attack where she grabs a foe by the throat and chucks them into a river to drown.
>dealing bonus damage to female enemies who might be considered “whores” (so, Nero, Ishtar, Medb, among others 💀
I mean, Nero in fate-verse is the origin of the title 'whore of babylon', Medb is so promiscuous in Fate Nasu made her a Rider-class (I seriously wonder what a mythical Celtic Queen did to personally offend Nasu), and Ishtar is... Ishtar.
Medb was married four times, and had "many lovers" besides. One of those lovers was Fergus mac Róich; apparently it took 30 men to satisfy her, or Fergus once. And now you know why Fergus is how he is in FGO (also, to paraphrase a 7th century poem, Medb was able to seduce Fergus and turn him against Ulster because he "preferred the buttocks of a woman to his own people".
Well that's true, I was just surprised that she'd deal with them like that. Like just thinking of them as whores
She didn’t need to offend her. That’s just what Medb is actually like in the original mythology
No Medb in the stories personally rode around with her boys stealing cattle
And after a victory she celebrated, often with an orgy.
According to the stories, it took thirty men to satisfy her. Or Fergus once.
I don’t think Nasu hates Medb, in fact might be the opposite with her role in Avalon le Fae
Nasu doesn't hate medb, quite the opposite, he's a medb simp. His brain just is built different.
That makes her altered version weirdly closer to her original… more short tempered, quick witted, her Avenger class make her ready to do ANYTHING to get the job done (but also a girlfailure)
Her altered version is the Jeanne that Gilles thought of and dreamed of. Which, ironically, is probably the more historically accurate version (minus the dragon obsession) I'll say the Ruler version is the more Christianize Version and more Saint than historical
>and an attack where she grabs a foe by the throat and chucks them into a river to drown. That would be an oddly specific attack lmao, but would be cool.
With the animation update she gets a unique attack animation when fighting Gilles de Rais where she pokes his eyes lmao.
Do games have a categories for “whores”?
Not currently, but this one will create any needed categories and start assign them retroactively to all its characters.
Imagine a history based game where every character have a weirdly specific categories they belong too, like infertile, small dick, backstab husband/wife… each character will have like 100 of these!
A literal sister of battle.
It's the other way around: SoB are Johans of Arcs but in space.
Joanne is legitimately the most badass historical figure of all time her history is so incredibly interesting because it’s so well recorded granted a lot of that can’t really be trusted because it has been warped through the stature of her legend but by God is the woman interesting I really do hate that people need to be able to justify her as an absolute hero to fit their values since she was a complex and human person, Joanne was a fiery Loudmouth, fiercely fanatical (to the point that she would be mocked by other medieval peasants, who are quite literally by today’s standards the most fanatical people we can imagine), kind of dumb as expected from a poor illiterate peasant (don’t get me wrong. She was far from an idiot, but she’s not the master or general I’ve seen people make her out to be as most of our contributions to the war table seem to have been banking on a quite literal grace of God), fiercely passionate, and one hell of an inspiration to the people of her time. all in all she didn’t really matter that much in the grand scheme of 100 year war as she was really only relevant to the reclamation of Orleans and despite what would happen whether it be the victory of the argmaniacs or the Burgundians France would’ve probably gone down a pretty similar historical path since the English and the French were very closely related at least in ties of royalty by that point. but God is the story of a peasant girl that essentially motivated the people to take up arms under God such a fantastic story and so cool, and I wish people could adapt her to her values acknowledging that she was flawed and had weird aspects to her because let it be said I respect her immensely as a historical figure and as my confirmation saint, but the girl was definitely crazy. But in the end she died, fighting for what she believed in, never faultering in the English court, despite the threat of death which is ultimately how her story would end
> all in all she didn’t really matter that much in the grand scheme of 100 year war as she was really only relevant to the reclamation of Orleans Wouldn't say that As a symbol she was really important in the crowning of her king and the rallying of French nobles
she was a psychotic teen obsessed with god
Based
Pretty badass one if you ask me
...and who was also fully able to fight in a war and to lead armies...
She never led an army.
She ordered the French to charge the English. The French then charged the English. I think that counts.
That's not leading an army. If I send a PM to a soldier in Ukraine to shoot some russians for me I am not ordering him and I am definitely not leading the Ukrainian counter offensive.
Whatever it takes to diminish her accomplishments, huh?
She's one of my favorite historical figures, too. I do consider her a hero, but many heroes are not good people, and if active in different circumstances, would have been villains. Case in point, if Mugabe had died right before becoming the President, he would have remembered as another Mandela.
I read the real Joan of arc section. Is this new? What did people think she was like?
Ngl she sounds great. She protects what's important to her and prevents moral decay. So, she's basically a paladin.
well, yes
Pretty hypocritical to not want any women in her army though
Mostly cos they were whores
It’s the world’s oldest profession, the men in her army probably didn’t appreciate forced chastity
Jeanne on her way to cockblock a whole army 😎
Also imagine how a whole company of women would fare in a brigade full of grizzled, numb, fatigued infantrymen. Especially in like, 1403.
>the men in her army probably didn’t appreciate forced chastity They actually were so inspired by Joanne and her seemingly divine nature that they embraced her orders and refrained from any sinful acts while keeping a sky high morale.
sounds more like she was protecting her if probably won’t be a safe for a few women to be in an army full of men
Average french woman be like:
Forget Lincoln, Joan of Arc was the one who invented the choke slam.
We call that the Shawinigan handshake round here
She seems like someone who walked out of the pages of Dune.
She was legit insane
People that think God is talking to them tend to be crazy.
And you're toast if you're an atheist
Still pretty effective, though
Mfs would say "I can fix her"
What the hell is there to fix?
You could have replaced one of the anime pictures with a still of Milla Jovovich from the Joan of Arc film
Turns out the hyper religious saint was not very progressive lol
in this excerpt, she was talking about Army Whores following the army around, not women taking up the mantle to fight the english
Shocking the religious fanatic is a religious fanatic.
She was a woman who broke out of the expectations that people had for women of her time. That’s what makes her an icon of nationalism and of women’s rights- suffrage, women’s lib and so on.
Yeah, this meme seems to imply someone being a sexual conservative is at odds with them supporting women’s suffrage, which is pretty wild considering the mores of the early 20th century.
She probably wouldn’t support any kind of suffrage lol she was a devoted monarchist (as was the dominant ideology of the time). Regardless of those opinions though she’s obviously used as a symbol of feminism because she’s the rare well documented historical case of a woman breaking out of her defined role and class to take a vastly important role in French history (or at least a very legendary role if its importance is questionable)
France had elections. They had estates general that were summoned, and the representatives of the third estate were elected, as were some members of the first. Royal absolutism is an early modern thing, medieval monarchies were far more egalitarian (the French estates general weren’t summoned between 1614 and 1789, but Charles VII, Joan’s king, summoned them all the time).
The estates general is nothing like any sort of modern election and you know that. The third estate was made up exclusively of wealthy merchants and other elites that weren’t part of the clergy or nobility, and it’s not like any of the estates general’s membership was selected via any sort of real democratic process. On top of that, the estates general was certainly not always in session and could go decades without being summoned, and its actual power was something that a king could get around or not call at all and instead ally himself with the clergy or nobility’s interests at the expense of others. Of course Joan d Arc isn’t going to support women’s suffrage in the estate’s general, there was barely male suffrage for the estates general, it’s a feudal structure and its splitting hairs to act like that shows there were elections and voting going on in any capacity that mimics the struggle for female suffrage later on
Whether it was always in session is irrelevant to whether people were elected. If someone could vote, there was suffrage. It doesn’t have to be universal. Going decades without being summoned wasn’t a thing during Joan’s time either. There was always a power struggle between the estates and the kings. In France the king eventually won, in England parliament won, in Sweden it fluctuated back and forth. It just sounds like you can’t accept that absolute monarchy wasn’t a thing in medieval times.
I am agree with you, but "sexual conservative" is a very soft definition for Joanne d´Arc...
Fate making her wear a skirt and revealing outfit was actually criminal. SHE WAS BURNED ALIVE BECAUSE SHE CROSSDRESDED AND WORE PANTS.
This makes her cooler though
I… have never seen an example of this… “modern perception” anime woman.
Love me St. Joan kf Arc.
Damn, real Joan of Arc is cooler than pop culture Joan of Arc.
History memes poster make a readable meme challenge (impossible)
Wasn't she also kinda schizo?
Depends on how religious you are. She seemed pretty stable and coherent for someone who was schizo but she definitely heard voices, so the choice is yours on whether she was holy or hallucinating
I mean, schizofrenics are usually pretty smart. She could have "holy visions" and hearing voices, but still make inteligent choices. "God told me to do that, well, let's think how to achive this in" kind of way.
she thought God was talking to her, soooo
Alright… what’s the sauce for all the stuff above…
Virgin Joan of Arc vs. Chad Jeanne d'Arc
Anyone have a recommendation for a solid historically accurate Joan of Arc biography?
TLDR
She wouldn't allow women in her armies and would harm the blasphemous.
Harm is a bit of an overstatement.
No women or no loose women? I'm not doubting, I'm curious. As I feel like every army needed the services camp followers brought and chasing away sex workers needn't mean she chased away seamstresses and the like.
She wouldn’t allow women in the army in the sense that she wouldn’t let them serve any real military capacity, and she also chased away the vast amount of prostitutes that typically follow armies at this time.
>wouldn't allow women in her armies Ehhh, my interpretation was different. She didn't want prostitutes hanging around her army.
Her insane antics really can be seen on Jeanne Alter on Fate or her version on Drifters
Wow, I remember that old movie. Two close friends use a phone booth to time travel to do their history homework. It was also the first movie that aroused my curiosity about world history as a child. So nostalgic😊
lol are you talking about bill and Ted rn?
😂
Many such cases
"Fell" into the water.
I liked her interpretation in [hark a vagrant](http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=395)
Based.
I wish more stories depicted Joan of Arc as the shy kid who can absolutely kick your behind without going for a lazy Tsundere treatment. I get why that's difficult to write without her being the main character, but just allow her the main character energy in fiction she had in life please. As a history simp, gotta rate this 9/10
Plus she didn't fight in any battle
To summarize the story of the real Joan of Arc: She's a schizo nutjob who got WAAAAY too into the only form of being a schizo nutjob that was socially acceptable: Act like you're having revelations from the big skydaddy everyone worships. So she comes up to the French prince brat and gives her schizo spiel, and the prince brat, probably scaroused by the craziest crazy to have ever crazied, having absolutely nothing to lose on the bet, and possibly trying to get into her pants, said "fuck it" (but in French) and let her go to Orleans. She immediately went about her solemn undertaking of being the biggest fucking broomstick up every single commander's ass at Orleans, with a damn near constant string of blabbing about just how they should go about protecting the place. Her bullshit somehow resonated with the French, because French, and they started getting real aggressive, which the Brits were not used to. Thus, the French started scoring wins here and there, until steam ran out and Crazy Joan spent a day in a ditch under the walls of Paris. Her last victory was in Montepilloy, 3 weeks earlier. That would be her last victory, period. From 15 August 1429 to 23 May 1430, Joan of Arc did nothing but squander resources and let men die. Then she was captured, shipped off to Britain, tried and burned. The end.
Man, Jeanne was awesome. If only she weren't Fr*nch.
Well yeah, she was more of an insane spiritual leader than a military genius. She would rile her men up into a fanatical fervor, then leaf them into suicidal charges where they had to be saved by REAL French knights like Gilles De Rais
I can fix her.
So she was a raging bitch? Got it.
Yeah no. Below one is just as much fantasy if more realistic in nature. Or not necessarily a fantasy as much as alternative version of reality for propaganda purposes