Why are the military elite of Medieval Europe not referred to as "warlords", when they held the same position as warlords in every other place and time did?
>>6299186Warlord is a tribal term. European nobles did more than just fight.
>>6299186In the context of European history, for some reason, the term warlord normally only gets applied to pre-civilized tribal types of leaders, and usually before around the Norman conquest of England. It could be an English language academic bias, if not entirely a Western one.
>>6299191No it’s notMost people variously call european military aristocrats warlords
>>6299194Yes it is. I don’t know anyone who does that. A warlord is more like a Turkish conqueror or Ghengis Khan. A warlord is not a minor baron who fought like once in his life when Vikings came to raid his holding,A warlord is someone who lives solely for war and everything they do is dedicated to it.Whereas european nobles quickly became decadent in the Middle Ages and fulfilled more than just the warrior king role.
Duuuuuuuuude, what if all rulers, kings and politicians are warlords? Like, mindblown, maaan!
>>6299217If this were true we’d live in a utopia like society. A people that must fight to maintain hegemony always become a strong and just people
>>6299186Stop arguing about trivial semantics like it actually fucking matters you sperg.
>>6299214Warlord simply means military commander dude. Normans were warlords. Rus’ were warlords. Lombards were warlords. Crusaders were warlords.
>>6299193>>6299186White Europeans like to think of themselves and their culture as better than others. The term warlord has a negative connotation as it has the word war in it, that is why it is applied to foreign peoples and not their own. See >>6299214This whole post is completely wrong. There were plenty of war raging all through the middle ages.
>>6299226>a military commanding with a personal army and total autonomy That’s not a european noble, that’s not even a european king.Warlord just doesn’t fit.>Lombards Not in the Middle Ages, a tribal warrior society.>RusNot in the Middle Ages, a tribal warrior society >NormansNot autonomous. >crusadersNot autonomous>>6299230>actually doood people fought No one said there was widespread peace, but not everyone who fights is a warlord. You’re an unsubtle retard who doesn’t under the definition of the word “warlord”.If we extend the definition to everyone who fights, then literally everyone is a warlord. The actual definition is only possible with tribal chieftains.
>>6299230Europeans would be happy to earn the title of warlord as it is a masculine title that denotes both ferocity and nobility. You only see it as negative because your hand would break if you hit someone.
>>6299193Rome total war was a damn good game
>>6299234Military commander is simply a commander of armed forces dudeDuke quite literally means “Warlord”
>>6299234>>Lombards >Not in the Middle Ages, a tribal warrior society.Why does being tribal make them not count also they were around in the Middle Ages and stopped being tribal during this period>>Rus>Not in the Middle Ages, a tribal warrior society See lombards>>Normans>Not autonomousRuled England they were quite autonomous and autonomy doesn’t matter for warlords they just need to be a commander>>crusaders>Not autonomousAutonomy doesn’t matter here
>>6299251Duke is from the latin dux, which means leaderYou're a spastic retard
>>6299186>Why are the military elite of Medieval Europe not referred to as "warlords"The were in Slavland.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VoivodeVoivode or Vojvoda (/ˈvɔJˌvoʊd/; Old Slavic, literally "war-leader" or "warlord") is an Eastern European title that originally denoted the principal commander of a military force.
>>6299186Don't try to explain historical terminology.China gets away with the "warring states" period.
>>6299214Your point kind of falls apart when you look at the Chinese warlord era.
>>6299186I don't think the term ever gets applied earlier than the 20th century.
Because why on earth would you go from an intricate system of nobility, ranging from Viscounts, to Earls, to Marquesses, to Kings, in favour of a broad-brush description of them as 'Warlords?' European nobles are called what they were and called themselves, funnily enough.
>>6299249I think the picture I posted was of a Warlord’s Hall type of building in that game. It might have been the most advanced form in Rome: Total War, but in Barbarian Invasion, there was one higher tier building added.
>>6299186In modern parlance, warlordism refers to powerful military leaders who *informally* control a given territory *within* a state and effectively act with de facto authority, undermining a central authority.The European nobility did start out as warlords running around the declining Roman Empire, but as they formalized shit like subject-ruler relations, the feudal system and the noble ranks, they ceased on being so. A typical European Medieval King was highly expected to recognize and uphold the rights and privileges of his vassals, and among the nobles they recognized that they were peers and should respect each other's properties, privileges, and territory.Meanwhile a warlord is something akin to what happened in Imperial China multiple of times. Ever since the demise of the Feudal System by the end of the Han Dynasty, theoretically everyone is subject to the Emperor and should obey central authority. Taxes go to the central government. The central government should be the only one to call the shots militarily. But when a dynasty weakens, ambitious individuals would begin to ignore central authority, keep taxes to themselves, or raise troops for their own purposes. Even if they weren't ambitious schemers, local regional governors faced with a weak court took matters to their own hands and did the same shit warlords did to protect their people. As this is not how its supposed to be done, is highly informal as fuck, in addition to undermining the central authority of the Imperial throne, this is warlordism.
>>6300034Wrong fucking picture.
>>6300034>military leaders who *informally* control a given territoryThis but unironically. A duke or knight is not a warlord because he holds his position by some legal mechanism, but someone like Arthur or the ad-hoc leaders of the Germanic invasions WOULD be called a warlord (and in fact usually are in the academic literature)
>>6299295What kind of leader specifically?
i've seen robert de hauteville and roussel de bailleul both referred to as warlords. warlord carries illegal connotations, although i think of wallenstein as a warlord even though he was subordinate to the emperor. many figures of the 30 years war could easily be described as warlords. what is the difference between a successful condottiere and a warlord? i can't see any.why do you project your own ignorance onto every other person who inhabits the same cultural region as you? in what sense is this any different from 'byzaboos' asking why byzantium is neglected?
>>6300231>what is the difference between a successful condottiere and a warlord?Territorial aspiration, mostly. A mercenary leader who establishes himself as ruler over territory becomes a warlord.
>>6300205started out as a term for leaders of indistinct or no rank, but by the dominate period it had become an officiated title appended to generals sanctioned by a superior legal authority, which is not a warlord. the term i think presupposes a weak central authority, hence the connotations of barbarism the word carries - you'd need a disintegrating state for there to be warlords, after all.>>6300060this
>>6300205No specific kind. It literally has the same etymology as leader: to lead > leader // ducere > dux
>>6300231>what is the difference between a successful condottiere and a warlord?Same as between a privateer and a pirate. A condottiere fights on behalf of a state, a warlord is out for himself.
>>6300253if he simply carves it out, i suppose he does. but if he is invested with that authority as a reward for service?if you allow for the fact that a plurality of forces would allow for any leader at any time to establish themselves over a territory, that naked force 'from below' and legal right 'from above' would be ambiguous at best and inextricable at worst, it has to remain a term that is mostly illustrative rather than descriptive?adventurer is a euphemism for warlord, in my mind. wasn't even so euphemistic/romantic to people of the 19th-20th c. and beforehand.
>>6300273An adventurer is a wannabe warlord, he has the ambition but possibly not the means (ie, a loyal army). Warlords or mercenaries who are invested with legal authority to rule cease to be warlords and become knights / princes / kings / dukes / w/e.
>>6299249Europa Barbarorum best mod
>>6299186Because they also had some role in civil administration. Feudal aristocracy was a mixed system of military+civil administration. They also wrote laws, financed building projects, managed their budget, decided trade policy and taxation, they were hardly just warlords.
>>6300284SemanticsA warlord is a military commander
>>6299186Because we run this place, nigga
>>6299230But white culture is better
>>6300564as it turns out, you're wrong, because people didn't call themselves warlordsalso, if a duke never goes to war how can he be a warlord