Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Medieval UK Battle Records Released Online

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the next-year-at-agincourt dept.

The Military 178

eldavojohn writes "Do you have ancestors who served in the British military under Henry V or fought in the Hundred Years War? Look them up online now that 250,000 medieval battle records are online and available for searching. According to the project details (PDF): 'The main campaigns of the period were to France but there were others to Flanders, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Wales and Scotland, a much wider geographical spectrum than before 1369. In addition, garrisons were maintained within England (such as that held at the Tower of London), the Channel Islands, Wales and the marches, as well as at Calais and in Gascony. In the fourteenth-century phase of the Hundred Years War, the English also held some garrisons in areas of northern France, and in the fifteenth century phase, there was a systematic garrison-based occupation of Normandy and surrounding regions...'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Surely this viloates EU privacy laws? (0, Flamebait)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776401)

n/t

Re:Surely this viloates EU privacy laws? (1)

KronosReaver (932860) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776429)

Awwww come on.....

This is a VERY useful tool

Yes, My ancestors were from one of those areas the British campaigned in

Re:Surely this viloates EU privacy laws? (5, Funny)

KronosReaver (932860) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776447)

""The reason the sun never sets on the British Empire is because God doesn't trust the British in the dark.""

Re:Surely this viloates EU privacy laws? (4, Funny)

Bassman59 (519820) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776785)

"The reason the sun never sets on the British Empire is because God doesn't trust the British in the dark."

God knows about Lucas, the Prince Of Darkness.

Did anyone else read this as (1)

mrwolf007 (1116997) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777755)

Medieval UK battles records released online.
Even so i never heard of recording mafia called Medieval it would be kinda fitting.

Battle Wax! (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777957)

I assumed they were Medieval UK was a music label myself and assumed they had put their battle records [wikipedia.org] online.

Re:Surely this viloates EU privacy laws? (0, Offtopic)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777057)

And some of my ancestors were some of those British. You might consider acquiring a sense of humor.

Re:Surely this viloates EU privacy laws? (0, Offtopic)

KronosReaver (932860) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777307)

Let me get this right...

You don't think it's funny, so I am the one who doesn't have a sense of humor?

"The reason the sun never sets on the British Empire is because God doesn't trust the British in the dark." is at the least a 150 year old saying, and damn if it doesn't get funnier every time I hear it. Of course it was funnier as a reply to the first post (by someone else), that seems to be gone now.

Re:Surely this viloates EU privacy laws? (0, Offtopic)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777527)

I was not responding to you.

Re:Surely this viloates EU privacy laws? (0, Offtopic)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776943)

Someone has no sense of humor...

Freedom!!! (2, Funny)

spinlight (1152137) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776417)

Maybe we can find him there.

Braveheart (3, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777745)

Scotland was not a part of England at the time.

Re:Braveheart (5, Informative)

bw-sf (937673) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777821)

Scotland is not now, and never has been, part of England.

Stupid and short sighted (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28776423)

Terrorists could exploit this knowledge to close the trebuchet gap.

Re:Stupid and short sighted (4, Funny)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776701)

But uncovering the conspiracy could catapult you into stardom!

Re:Stupid and short sighted (3, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776981)

"Trebuchet... catapult"

Slashdot readers put a lot of mental effort into being funny. Often Slashdot story comments are dominated by humor.

Another subject: The story to which Slashdot could have linked: Was your ancestor a social climbing soldier in the Hundred Years War? [rdg.ac.uk] . That story leads to a story that contains a link to the database. I didn't want to post that link because it might be Slashdotted.

Battle Results: Warning: spoiler!!!! (2, Informative)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776523)

If you were wondering who won, it was the British.

Re:Battle Results: Warning: spoiler!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28776709)

Thank God for crazy chicks!

Re:Battle Results: Warning: spoiler!!!! (3, Interesting)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776717)

If you were wondering who won, it was the British.

I know you were probably joking but someone should mod you informative for those people who are too stupid/ignorant to know who won. I say that because I was recently interviewing someone from the West Coast of the U.S. (I'm in WV) and the person did not catch the fact that we said we were located in *West* Virginia 3 times during the course of the interview. The person even made a note to ask how close we were to a particular airport because he said he has been to Virginia in the past. Someone needed to remind him of the Civil War and what happened afterward. Your comment reminded me of that, which just happened a couple weeks ago.

Re:Battle Results: Warning: spoiler!!!! (1)

ManuelH (1303433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776851)

Actually, in a random interview [youtube.com] , asking people (in USA) a country name that begins with U, none of them could mention anyone. Ok, they live in America.

Re:Battle Results: Warning: spoiler!!!! (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777573)

Oddly enough, even though I'm American, the first two such countries that sprung to mind were Uruguay and Uganda.

-jcr

Re:Battle Results: Warning: spoiler!!!! (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777287)

So, how far are you from Richmond? ;)

Re:Battle Results: Warning: spoiler!!!! (2, Informative)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777093)

You do know, don't you, that before the Hundred Years War the English owned Normandy and other bits and pieces of what's now Western France? The reason they don't still is because the French gradually kicked them out.

Re:Battle Results: Warning: spoiler!!!! (3, Informative)

sqldr (838964) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777259)

the English owned Normandy

It was the other way around. The Normans invaded in 1066 and annexed England. After that, things got complicated.

Re:Battle Results: Warning: spoiler!!!! (2, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777331)

It was the other way around. The Normans invaded in 1066 and annexed England. After that, things got complicated.

Not all that complicated. When Norman Willie died, he gave his eldest Normandy, since that was the valuable part of his lands, and left England for a younger son.

Because, after all, England wasn't really worth giving to your primary heir...;)

90% success (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28777701)

You do know, don't you, that before the Hundred Years War the English owned Normandy and other bits and pieces of what's now Western France? The reason they don't still is because the French gradually kicked them out.

The British don't lose battles, when they get their ass handed to them the operation in question is called a "90% success" [wikipedia.org] (According to Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein). In fact one can describe much of the British involvement during WWII with two words "Bloody Shambles". If it hadn't been for massive US aid on all levels as well as the Soviets soaking up huge amounts of punishment, Britain would today be an island fortress off the coast of the Thrid Reich. It's much the same with the hundred years war as with WWII. The hundred years war was a decisive victory for the French but most of what one hears about in modern times is a few cherry picked British victories.

Beancounters in the day... (4, Interesting)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776567)

Yeah, they had them back then:

Dr Bell said: "The service records survive because the English exchequer had a very modern obsession with wanting to be sure that the government's money was being spent as intended.

Seems that even absolute monarchies had problems with bureaucrats. Makes you wonder if the species will ever evolve past them.

Re:Beancounters in the day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28776665)

> Makes you wonder if the species will ever evolve past them.

Are you sure we haven't? Have you ever tried breeding with a bureaucrat?

Re:Beancounters in the day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28776747)

I'm sure I've been screwed by a few....

Re:Beancounters in the day... (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776849)

Actually, bureaucrats were a creation of the monarchy and essential to their attempts at absolutism.

Before bureaucracy, the king's only way of making something happen beyond his own landholdings was to apply pressure down a chain of one or more (generally recalcitrant) nobles who theoretically owed him ties of obedience and/or kinship; but, in practice, enjoyed considerable autonomy. Bureaucrats, by contrast, were simply commons with technical skills(yes, reading, writing, and bookkeeping count, even when you don't do them with computers) and depended directly on the monarchy for their positions.

Everybody loves to hate them, and sometimes they deserve it; but bureaucracy is one of the defining characteristics of the move from feudalism to the nation-state.

Re:Beancounters in the day... (2, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777089)

> Everybody loves to hate them, and sometimes they deserve it; but bureaucracy is one of
> the defining characteristics of the move from feudalism to the nation-state.

You say that as though you consider it to be self-evident that it was progress.

Re:Beancounters in the day... (3, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777193)

You don't know anything at all about feudalism, do you?

Yes, it /is/ progress.

Re:Beancounters in the day... (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777209)

Feudalism, when you have a bunch of rich nobles with armies who own most of the land where the peasants grow their food, is not particularly conducive to the egalitarianism of democratic government, or a variety of things like that which modern society views as quite nice; furthermore, the excesses of feudalism and serfdom and such are not too pretty.

Re:Beancounters in the day... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777297)

I'd say, on the balance, that it was(though it isn't self-evidently so).

From the perspective of the present, where highly centralized governments are a nontrivial threat to freedom and efficiency, decentralized systems sound like a good idea. And, it is true that centralization can, and frequently has, taken a downright nasty turn. However, the feudal model of decentralization looks very little like the modern one and, to be frank, it sucked.

Central government existed largely in theory(the king did have power, under the right circumstances; but it was severely tempered by the local power of the nobility and the church); but that didn't make the people any freer. In the country, many people were serfs(legally bound to the land and service to the local noble, though not salable as slaves are) or small renters. In the towns and cities, the guilds controlled much of the commerce and industry. Religion exerted considerable temporal power(and siphoned off a good deal of wealth). Because of the fragmentation of power and the quasi-independence of numerous little fiefdoms, codes of law were a hideous mess of customary cruft, civil and ecclesiastical, that often varied from place to place. Weights and measures were not standardized across many areas and running into taxes, tolls and whatnot at the edge of every petty strongman's domain was always a risk(does wonders for trade, that).

For all its(considerable) vices, the notion of the nation-state, first under monarchs of greater or lesser absoluteness, and gradually under more representative flavors of government, was vital in breaking down the heavily entrenched local nobility, and their webs of onorous customary obligation, and replacing it with the notion of equals under law, with standardized rights and obligations. This is not to say that that was the intent(indeed, it almost certainly wasn't, it was about the king attempting to consolidate his own power at the expense of other strongmen); but it turns out that the effect of the absolutist project was the creation of an institutional system of governance that could survive a transition from dynastic power to representative governance.

In a sense, it took a period of centralization to attenuate the power of local nobility and create a uniformity of infrastructure and law sufficient to allow the modern concept of decentralization(often an excellent idea) to exist. Feudal decentralization was pretty pathological.

Lots of blokes called John (4, Informative)

fantomas (94850) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776599)

Lots of records with no family /surname. "What's your name soldier?" "John" "Right, stick him down scribe, John the archer".

Don't hold your hopes out if you were dreaming to find your ancestor on some particular march out to France or Scotland. Not unless your ancestors happen to be the Dukes of Northumberland or the like...

Re:Lots of blokes called John (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28776653)

Who'd want a French ancestor?

Re:Lots of blokes called John (1)

ItsBlueB (1602929) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776805)

I would! :D That would be sweet!

Re:Lots of blokes called John (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28776861)

Don't hold your hopes out if you were dreaming to find your ancestor on some particular march out to France or Scotland. Not unless your ancestors happen to be the Dukes of Northumberland or the like...

My ancestors were Dukes of Northumberland you insensitive clod!

Re:Lots of blokes called John (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28776935)

I am a descendant of John the archer you insensitive clod!

Re:Lots of blokes called John (3, Informative)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777013)

I actually looked up the first name of John as it would return something with near 100% success rate and a lot of Johns have surnames and looking at the nature of these names(names not directly refering to objects, professions or places), I'd say a good bunch are not invented on the spot.

Re:Lots of blokes called John (2, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777845)

"Don't hold your hopes out if you were dreaming to find your ancestor..."

I found 8 records with my family name and only one of them was an Earl. However I already knew my family name was connected with some powerfull head-kickers who owned large chunks of land and a couple of castles along the welsh border. They were part of the nobility for ~400yrs starting with a donation of 22 viking boats and crew for William the conqueres invasion. The male line died out and the families claims to the throne were passed to the Plantangents.

Re:Lots of blokes called John (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 5 years ago | (#28778411)

Lucky you. I found The Bastard Hamelin when looking up my surname.

Re:Lots of blokes called John (1)

bingoathome (1027034) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777897)

Lots of records with no family /surname. "What's your name soldier?" "John" "Right, stick him down scribe, John the archer".

.

and scibe assign him to Starship Captain

I know I shouldn't have

Re:Lots of blokes called John (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28778095)

It's always interesting. For instance my family..

Descendants of Lord Audley include U.S. Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Millard Fillmore, and Warren G. Harding and Diana, Princess of Wales.

Re:Lots of blokes called John (2, Informative)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28778405)

I found my namesake was an archer in 1441.

He was probably an asshole, too.

Purpose? (1)

adeelarshad82 (1482093) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776615)

Wow can't imagine someone actually invested the time to put this together. As cool/interesting as this is... it really doesn't serve a purpose. or does it ?

Re:Purpose? (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776655)

Does understanding history really serve a purpose? I contend unto you that it does.

Re:Purpose? (1)

adeelarshad82 (1482093) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776695)

history does serve a purpose however these records..... i'm not so sure about. I mean still fascinating to look at but think thats about it.

Re:Purpose? (4, Interesting)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776743)

You can do statistics on the datasets...

Did the name "Cuthbert" not appear before 1361, and then it spread along river valleys because its carriers were predominantly farmers (with occurrences of it popping up here and there because people were conscripted into armies/died out/whatever)?
      Did the plague wipe out mainly those with surnames common to the Mediterranean region, because those people had less exposure to the rats, which carried the fleas, which were the main vectors?
      Do "Smiths" follow the armies, or settle in the cities? Were Teutonic names more indicative of higher classes? Did northern European names cluster more with archers rather than cavalry?

      I'm forseeing a lot of interesting temporal/spatial analysis which could be done with the data.

Re:Purpose? (1)

adeelarshad82 (1482093) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776803)

I guess that answers my question

Re:Purpose? (1)

chiguy (522222) | more than 5 years ago | (#28778147)

I mean still fascinating to look at but think thats about it.

I guess that answers my question

I'd say you answered your own question. Why is it fascinating? Anything that's fascinating to look at is prime breeding ground for people who enjoy taking very close looks at fascinating things.
 

Some people find tracking cause and effects in history fascinating.
 

I find Carmen Kass fascinating.

Re:Purpose? (1)

sqldr (838964) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777309)

If you want to know what England is, or what France is, or what Normandy was, or what Wales is, or who was responsible for all that, and how it could have all ended up different, and why you're speaking on this website in English, which didn't really exist as a language until it replaced Anglo-Saxon, or why there's so many French words in it, and you want proof of it, then a load of verifiable evidence from a bean-counter in charge of paying each individual soldier involved in it, complete with dates, is a good place to start looking.

Alternately, you could pick up a bible and guess. That would be the King James version, I imagine, which just happens to be written to "thee" in sixteenth century English.

Man... (2, Insightful)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776623)

For the first time in my life (Probably the last), I wish I was British. This is so damn cool...

Re:Man... (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776725)

yeah it is pretty cool but it's not worth carrying an umbrella all the time.

Re:Man... (2, Funny)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776781)

yeah it is pretty cool but it's not worth carrying an umbrella all the time.

We don't have to carry umbrellas all the time -- we've had roofs for, ooh, years now.

Re:Man... (2, Funny)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28778431)

" We don't have to carry umbrellas all the time -- we've had roofs for, ooh, years now."

Can central heating be far behind?

!newsfornerds is way wrong. (4, Insightful)

EWAdams (953502) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776685)

Nerds love ancient historical stuff -- who the hell else is in the Society for Creative Anachronism, the Sealed Knot, various battle re-enactment societies, etc. etc.? Nerds! And what could be more nerdy than a mountain of statistics about the same?

Oh, and anybody who can't think of a use for this data has no idea what historical research is. You crowdsource this stuff and all kinds of interesting things will pop up. The better we understand our past, the better we understand ourselves.

As for the observations about monarchs needing bureaucrats -- EVERYbody needs bureaucrats, unless you'd prefer the government to be run by astrology and guesswork. If you're a soldier and you want to get paid the correct amount, on time, you need a bureaucrat to look after it. Plus, Britain during a lot of this period was essentially a police state, and police states need more bureaucrats than most. The Stasi in East Germany were Exhibit A, closely followed by the Nazis. The latter's record-keeping got a fair number of them hanged.

Re:!newsfornerds is way wrong. (1)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776735)

You obviously aren't a nerd because nerds don't like to be called the derogatory term "nerd", nerd. Geek is the preferred insult :)

Re:!newsfornerds is way wrong. (5, Funny)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776813)

Slashdot: News for Nerds, and also XPeter

Re:!newsfornerds is way wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28776945)

Nerd is distinct from Geek. Nerd falls below Geek in the pecking order.

Re:!newsfornerds is way wrong. (1)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776793)

Working off the oldest surnames I have been able to track back to in my family tree (1600s), one side of my family seem to be all descended from archers and the other side is all descended from men-at-arms. This would explain why I'm hopelessly confused all the time.

Re:!newsfornerds is way wrong. (2, Informative)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776891)

SCA is not ancient or historical. It's an excuse for Internet Tough Guy to put on black leather, take a few tokes, and finally make it with that weird chick at the pet store.

Re:!newsfornerds is way wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28777135)

It's an excuse for Internet Tough Guy to put on black leather, take a few tokes, and finally make it with that weird chick at the pet store.

Ha ha, yeah- Wait. Nobody ever told me that last part! Off to chainmail.com I go.

Re:!newsfornerds is way wrong. (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28778465)

" SCA is not ancient or historical. It's an excuse for Internet Tough Guy to put on black leather, take a few tokes, and finally make it with that weird chick at the pet store."

Oh rly? Where do I sign up?

Re:!newsfornerds is way wrong. (-1, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776893)

Nerds don't like racism, and this history is so Euro-centric it's not even funny. It's more lily-white than a KKK rally or the X Games. The whole thing is about Europeans either killing each other for being insufficiently white, or killing nonwhites for the same reason.

Re:!newsfornerds is way wrong. (1)

ignavus (213578) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776967)

Writing English is Euro-centric too.

Perhaps you should switch to some non-Western language?

Re:!newsfornerds is way wrong. (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777081)

Right... being from Europe is racist. It all makes so much sense now...

For a great study on Agincourt... (5, Informative)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776733)

...check out John Keegan's Face of Battle [amazon.com] . It covers the battle of Agincourt and several other major battles - Waterloo and the Somme. This book really gives you a feel for the human element in these battles.

As an additional stamp of approval, it's also on both the Army and USMC reading lists [militarypr...glists.com] .

Re:For a great study on Agincourt... (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777757)

I'm reading Cornwall's book Agincourt right now. It's a bit repetitive at times, and has a fictional main character, but otherwise provides a great deal of information on Henry V and his campaign through northern France. I'd never heard of the massacre at Soissons before the book, as well, but it was apparently bloody enough (in real life as well as in the book) to help convince Henry V that he should invade.

Re:For a great study on Agincourt... (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 5 years ago | (#28778267)

Keegan is an excellent writer. I have read his book titled "Intelligence In War" several times. It really gives you an idea of how military intelligence has evolved over the years, and how it has affected the outcome of wars.

I always suspected (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28776753)

that a family member had served in the military back in the day.

Signed,
John Arrowbait

Re:I always suspected (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777549)

So you are French, are you?

Re:I always suspected (1)

StarTux (230379) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777859)

Arrowbait? Wouldn't you have needed to use the French Battle records for 1415?

In the interests of the Entente Cordiale the above statement is just a joke! :)

Ponderings on record keeping... (3, Insightful)

lumenistan (1165199) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776763)

Reports like this, where fairly old records are referenced, always make me wonder about the accounting that we keep regarding current events. To what degree will our own stories be available to future generations? We have an ever-growing dependency on a computerized-only storage monoculture, and frankly all this may just be a good $CATASTROPHE$ away from being made into doorstops.

I'm not suggesting we transfer the contents of Slashdot to cave paintings, or transcribe $CELEBRITY_DU_JOUR$'s Tweets to stone tablets, but does anyone know of projects underway to preserve the highlights of modern history in some sort of permanent medium? Is anyone taking down the top x significant stories in a year and sticking them in a jar in a cave somewhere?
---
L

Re:Ponderings on record keeping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28776807)

archive.org
and no.

Re:Ponderings on record keeping... (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777025)

I imagine that there are at least dozens of libraries that archive major newspapers to microfilm (err, microform, I guess) and store it in artificial, man made caves.

Apparently, some of the archives go back a ways:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaperarchive [wikipedia.org]

And some are enormous:

http://www.loc.gov/about/facts.html [loc.gov]

Re:Ponderings on record keeping... (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777051)

We have an ever-growing dependency on a computerized-only storage monoculture

I'm more concerned about the corporate/government insistence on deleting data older than some period of time, be it seven or five or three years, or even 60 days. It makes me ponder the possibility of limiting the admissibility of certain evidence in civil cases where the evidence is older than a particular timeframe. Otherwise, we risk intentionally deleting data that could be used by future generations to understand how our civilization works.

wow, kdawson certainly shut up about politics fast (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28776787)

fucking bitch. nothing more than a sack of shit.

Re:wow, kdawson certainly shut up about politics f (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28776993)

whoever modded this down is a faggot shill. keep sucking that obama dick boys. you're truly fucked by the man.

Two technologies come to mind... (3, Interesting)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776795)

...Sphinx [sphinxsearch.com] for lightning-fast searches (and stemming, and relevancy, and much more) and Open Calais [opencalais.com] for text analysis. Combine this data set with those two tools and you could have a pretty nifty site.

Re:Two technologies come to mind... (1)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 5 years ago | (#28778137)

Pleh!

Xapian [xapian.org] and NLTK [nltk.org] all the way!

Wrong Side (4, Funny)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776923)

>The main campaigns of the period were to France but there were others to ... Scotland

Sorry, but my ancestors were on the other side. Damn English. Well, they were good at raising cattle to steal.

Re:Wrong Side (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777169)

AND they smelt of elderberries.

Re:Wrong Side (0, Offtopic)

dave562 (969951) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777333)

I'm with you, and my ancestors were with yours. They came from the Scotish low lands, and having done some research, it seems like their primary reason for living was reiving. http://www.rampantscotland.com/clans/blclanarmstrong.htm [rampantscotland.com] Damn the English!

Re:Wrong Side (1)

v4vijayakumar (925568) | more than 5 years ago | (#28778359)

cattle to steal

this is a way to start war. cattle then, oil now.

Well....there was this one... (5, Funny)

djupedal (584558) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776957)

"I am Arthur, king of the Britons."

"King of the who?" - "The Britons." - "Who are the Britons?" - "We all are. We're all Britons. And I am your king." - "Didn't know we had a king. I thought we're an autonomous collective." ... "I am your king!" - "I didn't vote for you." - "You don't vote for kings." - "How did you become king then?"

"The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying, by divine providence, that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king." - "Listen, strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses. Not from farcical aquatic ceremony."

Binary Expansion (5, Interesting)

meehawl (73285) | more than 5 years ago | (#28776979)

Let's see...
2009-1369 = 640 years
Using a (conservative) 25 years/generation...
640/25 ~= 25.6. Call it 26.
2^26 = 67,108,864

According to medieval demographics [wikipedia.org] and human population [wikipedia.org] , the number of people alive in "Europe" around then peaked at 70-100m *before* the famines and plagues of the 14th century [wikipedia.org] . Europe would not regain that population peak again for 200 years.

If you are caucasian then, given these figures, unless you are descended from a multi-generational set of *extremely* inbred kin, the probability that at least one of your ancestors was in that battle is quite high. The Most Recent Common Ancestor [wikipedia.org] of all peoples. never mind all Europeans, is more recent than you think.

England and France (4, Informative)

meehawl (73285) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777035)

I should add these population numbers:
1350, England: 2,500,000 [wikipedia.org]
1345, France: 20,200,000 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Binary Expansion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28777469)

The Most Recent Common Ancestor [wikipedia.org] of all peoples. never mind all Europeans, is more recent than you think.

Say, 6,000 some odd years?

Re:Binary Expansion (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777473)

I think it's easier to see it if you imagine a matchmaker generation, imagine a fan down from the supposed ancestor and a fan upward from you. In 13 generations there's 2^13 = 8192 at the end of each fan - actually it will be more children and less parents, but it's a decent approximation. Now, for you not to be related all of those decendants must avoid being one of your ancenstors. Even though it's only a few thousands, there's millions of combinations. Even in a population of 100 milllion there's about 50% chance you will be related (Calculation: ((100 000 000 - 8 192) / 100 000 000)^8 192 = 0.511137763).

Them's fightin words! (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777581)

Hey, cuz, who you callin an inbred?

Just because I have a few attention issues... oooh, shiny!

Anyhow, where was I? Say, yer mouth sure is purty!

Damn it!! (3, Funny)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777149)

And here I thought we were going to get to hear some 15th century hip-hop!

Just as I suspected (3, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777525)

All of my ancestors are dead.

Harry was right (2, Funny)

uvdiv_blog (1602161) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777605)

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered

The search sucks (3, Insightful)

thewils (463314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777613)

I guess it's only a start, but speaking as someone who works on database searching from a website the search method they use really sucks. You practically have to know what you're looking for in order to find it, and once you do there's precious little information apart from a couple of names and a campaign. there's no hyperlinking (er, this _is_ the web in 2009 yaknow) and there's no way to just browse the data (see commanders in a campaign for instance) to pick up interesting facts or trends. In short, useless. Most people will look up a couple of names then forget about it completely.

I hope I'm wrong.

Oh! (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777671)

So that's where my great great great great great grandfather's bleeding left eye rolled to.

The UK was formed in 1707 (1)

bw-sf (937673) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777787)

And a lot of the people in this database fought *against* Scotland, one of the constituent kingdoms of the UK.

Re:The UK was formed in 1707 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28778021)

Well, "A United Kingdom" rather than "The United Kingdom" was formed then when the Scots ran out of cash when the Darien scheme went tits up, but the current "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" was only established in the 1920s.

In the late 1600s there was a lot of talking up of the similarities of the inhabitants of the islands of Britain, and the "Kingdom of Great Britain" was what resulted from the union. It didn't stop various disaffected Scots wandering south in the 1700s.

John vs. George (1)

unix_geek_512 (810627) | more than 5 years ago | (#28777855)

28502 matches for John.

147 matches for George.

Something tells me John was a popular name.

I thought St. George was the patron saint.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?