Medieval Quiz I (Knights, castles and sieges)

To tommo, the Middle Ages was the most fascinating period of history.
Here's 3 quizzes that will test your knowledge - and your resourcefulness.....With apologies to Horrible Histories for this spot of plagiarism.

Quiz 1 on Chivalry
Would you make a good knight ? It's more than just being able to ride a horse and swing a sword: You have to know how to behave. If there was a written exam in knighthood, would you be able to pass it ? You may answer 3 only in any 4-hour period. 1pt for choosing a) b) or c) correctly, with bonus points for elaboration.

1 Erneis d'Orleans is a traitor. You meet him in the cathedral at the coronation of your king Louis. What do you do ?
a) Hack him to death with your sword?
b) Punch him in the head ?
c) Let him go ?

2 When it came to winning the love of a woman, knights were worried about competition from priests. (Priests were not supposed to have girlfriends, you understand, but some naughty ones did !)....You agree with a French knight-poet called Guilhem, who suggested that a woman who loved a priest should:
a) Become a nun ?
b) Have her head shaved like a monk ?
c) Be burned to death ?

3 Knights should go hunting from time to time so they can practise their skills in riding and using weapons: You agree with Raimon Llull's book written in the late 1200s that says you should hunt bears, lions and....
a) Rabbits?
b) Dragons?
c) Peasants ?

4 King Edward I of England has set up a tournament to give you a bit of practice and he will be fighting in it: it would be a bad idea to kill the king so you agree to use a sword made out of what ?
a) Rubber?
b) Blunt steel?
c) Whalebone?

5 During the First Crusade you are besieging Ascalon with more than 1,000 soldiers when a gap appears in the wall. Your band of 50 knights has three choices: which do you vote for ?
a) 40 knights will rush into the city and 10 can hold back the rest of your own army so that the 40 get the glory?
b) Send foot soldiers and archers in first, then lead your 50 knights into the city?
c) 50 knights shall rush into the city as soon as the foot soldiers are ready to follow ?

6 You are the king of England and in 1274 you have entered a tournament in France. In the melee the Duke of Chalons fights his way towards you and tries to wrestle you off your horse. That's cheating ? What do you do ?
a) Wrestle back and try to throw him off his horse ?
b) Call your knights to tear this cheating lord off your neck ?
c) Break free and refuse to fight any more ?

7 You are the knight errant Ulrich von Liechtenstein. (A knight errant believes his duty is to go wandering through Europe looking for good deeds to do.) You get a message saying a lady is surprised to see that you have a particular finger: She thought you had lost the finger fighting in a previous tournament for her. What do you do ?
a) Cut off a peasant's finger and send it to the lady?
b) Cut off your own finger and send it to her?
c) Have a model of the finger made from solid gold and send it to her ?

8 You are Richard II and you have arrived in Palestine. You find that the Muslim Turks have 1500 Christian prisoners and they also have a piece of the cross on which our Lord Jesus was crucified: On the other hand you have 2,700 Turkish prisoners. You have asked for your prisoners AND the cross. The Turks offer a straight swap of prisoners. What do you do ?
a) Swap 1500 Turks for the 1500 Christians - but keep 1200 Turks until the cross is returned?
b) Offer 2700 Turks in exchange for the 1500 Christians, then offer 20,000 gold pieces for the cross?
c) Tell the Turks they can keep the cross and the 1200 Christians. And butcher the 2700 Turkish prisoners?

9 You are the Earl of Suffolk. In a battle you are captured by a squire. You are horrified to discover that he is not a knight and it is a disgrace. What do you do to the squire ?
a) Pay him to keep quiet?
b) Knight him there and then?
c) Kill him ?

10 You are Bernard de Cahuzac and you are having an argument with the abbot of your local monastery. You have a small army of knights to back you up. What will you do to persuade the abbot to change his mind ?
a) Burn down the monastery?
b) Lock him away and feed him bread and water until he agrees ?
c) Cut the hands and feet off his monks ?

Good luck !

[BigPhilMac]

1. I would go for A, because times have changed in the last thousand years. As a Knight you would give your life to the King and therefore to have a traitor knowingly in your midst would result in your own death? Whether it was at a special occasion or not.

2. B, women were treated as third class citizens in such times and such forbidden love would result in some ritual humiliation. Whilst everyone was governed by religion, burning borders on the extreme.

7. B because the love of honour and impressing the ladys was pretty mental. Many I'm sure would go to great lengths. To remove a peasant's finger is dishonourable whereas to get hold of gold would be rather tricky as the King controlled the gold?

Jul 26, 2014 21:08:07 GMT BigPhilMac said:

1. I would go for A, because times have changed in the last thousand years. As a Knight you would give your life to the King and therefore to have a traitor knowingly in your midst would result in your own death? Whether it was at a special occasion or not.

2. B, women were treated as third class citizens in such times and such forbidden love would result in some ritual humiliation. Whilst everyone was governed by religion, burning borders on the extreme.

7. B because the love of honour and impressing the ladys was pretty mental. Many I'm sure would go to great lengths. To remove a peasant's finger is dishonourable whereas to get hold of gold would be rather tricky as the King controlled the gold?

1) and 2) incorrect, but spot on with 7) = a good start to your squire's training nonetheless !

1. The answer is B: There's nothing wrong with killing a traitor, even in a church, but you should not spill blood on holy ground. French knight Guillaume d'Orange killed Erneis with a blow of his fist. (Clearly Guillaume was not a blood orange !) 1.5 bonus points for plausible answer with much accurate content.

2. The answer was C: Priests were not allowed to marry, but they could be terrible flirts ! And they spent a lot of time hanging around the noble ladies. But any woman who falls for a priest should be burned to set an example to other women. 1.5 bonus points for plausible answer with much accurate content.

7. Answer B. Spot on ! Ulrich was as nutty a knight as you could ever wish to meet....he is said to have cut off his finger for the honour of the lady. It's just as well that the lady hadn't heard that he was losing his head in passion for her ! 1pt for correct choice, plus 2 bonus points for arriving there by a process of elimination.


Leader:
BigPhilMac 6pts

[gandalf the untidy]

3 Suppose it ought to be dragons
4 don't think rubber was about then, whale bone would probably be too brittle so go for blunt steel... and it would sound right when hitting metal.
9 I reckon a knight in the making is in order to save embarrassment

Aug 11, 2014 16:28:47 GMT gandalf the untidy said:

3 Suppose it ought to be dragons
4 don't think rubber was about then, whale bone would probably be too brittle so go for blunt steel... and it would sound right when hitting metal.
9 I reckon a knight in the making is in order to save embarrassment

One out of three this time, perhaps you ought to go back to Knight School !
3) Answer is a)rabbits. Dragons only existed in fable. 0.5 bonus as at least you didn't say peasants or pheasants!
4) Answer is b)whalebone but you get a full bonus point for the observation about rubber. Edward's 38 knights in the 1278 tournament had whalebone swords, armour made from leather and wooden shields. The sharp steel was saved for the battlefields of Scotland and Wales.
9b) spot on, it was a disgrace to be captured by a squire, or - worse - by a peasant. Doling out the knighthood could be simply a matter of the knight putting a hand on the man's shoulder and saying "I hereby knight you". But if a peasant later claimed to have been knighted in this way, there would be a public outcry and the peasant would be punished ! 2pts for a top answer.

Leaderboard:
1. BigPhilMac 6pts
2. GandaalftheUntidy 3.5pts

[BigPhilMac]

5. B, why would you risk sending in the big boys when you can send in the dogs-bodies?

10. C, sounds very dark ages to me. A seems silly because if you burn down the monastry, well that defies the object of arguing with the abbot. B sounds a bot generous because bread and water is probably what the guy would of lived off anyway.

Aug 14, 2014 17:36:56 GMT BigPhilMac said:

5. B, why would you risk sending in the big boys when you can send in the dogs-bodies?

10. C, sounds very dark ages to me. A seems silly because if you burn down the monastry, well that defies the object of arguing with the abbot. B sounds a bot generous because bread and water is probably what the guy would of lived off anyway.

Two good answers, by which I detect you would have acted more sensibly and chivalrously than that which actually took place !

5) what actually happened was a) Gerald of Ridfort went all-out for glory. He led 40 knights into the gap and they were promptly massacred. The soldiers who could have saved them and won the battle were just a spear's throw away outside the walls. 1.5pts

10) answer c) Not all knights were kind, generous and noble. Some like Bernard were simply bullies who used their powere to get their own way. Of course, knights who followed the rules of chivalry would not have approved of Big Bernie !
1.5pts

Leaderboard:
1. BigPhilMac 9pts
2. GandaalftheUntidy 3.5pts

[BigPhilMac]

6. For the sake of being chivalrous I will go for C. If you do the same to the duke you will stoop to his level of dishonourableness, gotta be the bigger man and such. That said, I would personally mace him to death.

8. Because religion ruled all and would take precedence over human life I feel I would hold the turks to ransom, exchange 1500 for my 1500 guys and hold the rest as insurance until the cross is returned.

Aug 15, 2014 16:13:32 GMT BigPhilMac said:

6. For the sake of being chivalrous I will go for C. If you do the same to the duke you will stoop to his level of dishonourableness, gotta be the bigger man and such. That said, I would personally mace him to death.

8. Because religion ruled all and would take precedence over human life I feel I would hold the turks to ransom, exchange 1500 for my 1500 guys and hold the rest as insurance until the cross is returned.

What actually happened was 6a) and 8c). However, you have demonstration that you would have been more chivalrous than 2 Kings of England and given good explanations to back up your reasons so you earn 1.5pts for each.

6a......King Edward I, still in his formative years and before he got involved in the Crusades and declared war on Wales in 1276 and later became the 'Hammer of the Scots', entered jousting tournaments to prove his worthiness as a warrior king. In this instance he could not lose face, so wrestled back and threw the Duke to the ground. The French knights were furious and wanted bloody revenge. English foot soldiers watching the melee aimed their arrows at the French, who were forced to cool down. From then on there was a rule that knights should not lay hands on an opponent - a lance, an axe or a sword, but not a hand !

8c.....Richard II was not an able king, he lacked good judgement as the way he dealt with the Peasant's Revolt bears witness. Eventually his subjects had enough of him and allowed him to be deposed by the usurper Henry IV. In the case in point he ordered the killing of the Turk prisoners with swords and spears. To him, there was nothing wrong with killing Turks because they were non-Christians which the Pope himself had said were fair game ! Of course, the Turks then massacred the Christian prisoners - they beheaded them. 4,200 hostages killed, all in the name of religion !

Final points:
1. BigPhilMac 12pts
2. GandaalftheUntidy 3.5pts

I now dub thee Sir Philip McFarland (= son of the Far off Land).

[BigPhilMac]

Aug 15, 2014 19:44:36 GMT tommo III said:

Aug 15, 2014 16:13:32 GMT BigPhilMac said:

6. For the sake of being chivalrous I will go for C. If you do the same to the duke you will stoop to his level of dishonourableness, gotta be the bigger man and such. That said, I would personally mace him to death.

8. Because religion ruled all and would take precedence over human life I feel I would hold the turks to ransom, exchange 1500 for my 1500 guys and hold the rest as insurance until the cross is returned.

What actually happened was 6a) and 8c). However, you have demonstration that you would have been more chivalrous than 2 Kings of England and given good explanations to back up your reasons so you earn 1.5pts for each.

6a......King Edward I, still in his formative years and before he got involved in the Crusades and declared war on Wales in 1276 and later became the 'Hammer of the Scots', entered jousting tournaments to prove his worthiness as a warrior king. In this instance he could not lose face, so wrestled back and threw the Duke to the ground. The French knights were furious and wanted bloody revenge. English foot soldiers watching the melee aimed their arrows at the French, who were forced to cool down. From then on there was a rule that knights should not lay hands on an opponent - a lance, an axe or a sword, but not a hand !

8c.....Richard II was not an able king, he lacked good judgement as the way he dealt with the Peasant's Revolt bears witness. Eventually his subjects had enough of him and allowed him to be deposed by the usurper Henry IV. In the case in point he ordered the killing of the Turk prisoners with swords and spears. To him, there was nothing wrong with killing Turks because they were non-Christians which the Pope himself had said were fair game ! Of course, the Turks then massacred the Christian prisoners - they beheaded them. 4,200 hostages killed, all in the name of religion !

Final points:
1. BigPhilMac 12pts
2. GandaalftheUntidy 3.5pts

I now dub thee Sir Philip McFarland (= son of the Far off Land).

Well my knighting makes me most pleased. Thank you Sire!! One is most pleased with the surname translation too!

Well that Richard was a bit useless wasn't he. In those days people clearly had a severe lack of sense. It's just like that Burmese general who based foreogn policy on astrology!