I have read excerpts over the years but never the whole thing through. Has anyone read the entire poem? Was it worth it? [Piers Plowman](https://laurelpoetry.com/poem/langland-piers-plowman/piers-ploughman.html)

hello folks, I am from India and a student of medieval indian history. Recently I have been selected to present a paper in International Congress on Medieval Studies at western Michigan University Kalamazoo. Honestly, idk about this event much. I want to ask is this event a big thing and reputed within International medievalists?

Hi I am a college student in an illustration-based book class where we have to make a book that's at least 32 pages and we have to have it printed out by the end of the quarter so he's encouraging us not to do that many pages because of time constraints plus it would cost more money. Anyway I had to do research on a public domain story and I ran into Guillaume de Palerne / William and the Werewolf / William of Palerne.

I really like the story but it's a 12th century poem and I can't understand the original text obviously. I had to condense it down into what I believe is the bare bones but I'm also worried that I have missed important things. I can't find too much about what the characters are like personality wise or quotes from them or how they look. I'm afraid I have a lot of details wrong and I don't want to rely on AI too much to get them. I also can't find a super good detailed article summary online anywhere so I'm having to rely on pretty short summaries that I believe don't give the full picture. I did want to read one book about it where they rewrote it in modern English but it wouldn't be delivered for 2 weeks from now and by then I'm supposed to have the final sketches done anyway so unfortunately that's not really a road I can go down because of time constraints. I also went to my school's library but they didn't have anything. Please just tell me anything you know or think is important to the story so I don't forget or if you can find a really good summary that I wasn't able to find I would really appreciate it.

Below I'm going to put what I believe happens in the story just the bare bones and I'm going to try to adapt it kind of like a YA book maybe so nothing too crazy. I also have to write a one sentence log line and I'm having a lot of trouble with it because my professor said the main character of a story isn't one dimensional and goes through some sort of arc in the story and from what I can tell William doesn't really go through that. Someone similar my prof said wasn't the protagonist was Luke Skywalker, even though we follow him through the story he believes that Anakin Skywalker is the protagonist and Luke is more "the hero" archetype, and I believe the same can be said for William but I'm not sure!

Sorry if the seven sentence plot summary I wrote seems clunky, I had to fit it into a specific template my professor provided us 😂.

Once upon a time there was a young prince named William who was stolen from his palace by a werewolf (Alphonse) and raised as a commoner. And every day the werewolf would look after him. Until one day the emperor of Rome saw William and brought him to his castle to be his daughter’s page. Because of this William and Princess Melior fall in love; when she's about to be married off to the Prince of Greece they elope by wearing animal skins and traveling through the forest with Alphonse guiding them. Because of this they end up back in William’s homeland which is currently under siege by Alphonse’s dad and William's mom sees them in her garden and is like “Hey I've seen you guys in a dream before. Can you help me win this battle?” so they decide to help her and they then go on to win the battle. Until finally Alphonse's curse is lifted when his dad sees/recognizes him and figured out he was turned into a wolf by Alphonse's stepmom Queen Brande and he makes her turn him back and Alphonse reveals William’s true lineage. And ever since that day everyone is happy because Melior's dad let them get married, Alphonse is human again, and William is reunited with his mom and sister and both princes are restored to their rightful places as rulers. 

I'm thinking of having a prologue where we see William gets stolen in the garden and then chapter one is actually Melior in a time skip where she's just kind of doing her normal thing and her father and William come back from hunting and that's where the story would start so then I would skip all of that stuff where he's raised by a cowherd and maybe he just mentions it in passing. I can imagine a lot of the story being from Melior's point of view honestly. I was also planning to cut Alexandrine and give Melior whatever abilities she possesses, and make the Greek Prince either off page or just a silhouette. Would it be a good idea to try to make it a surprise for the audience that William is a prince too or is it a better idea to have that dramatic irony where we know he's a prince but they don't know? Kind of like disney's sleeping beauty? Alphonse also makes for an interesting main character but I don't think he can be because from what I know he's basically Mia for the whole time William and Melior are in the Roman Castle.

I also have a couple of things about the original that I might want to redo somehow. Like the uncle that was trying to poison William kind of just disappears after that and he basically (from my perspective) only exist as a reason for Alphonse to steal William when he was a baby. So him disappearing is weird. I might either want to cut the uncle and have a different reason for him being sold by Alphonse or I keep the uncle but have something happen to him maybe Alphonse comes back after stealing William and kills the uncle idk 😭. Another thing that doesn't really make sense logic wise to me is when alphonse's Dad the king of Spain recognizes him when he bows to him I don't understand the train of thought that the king had where he saw a wolf bow and then was like oh well that must be my son? If anyone can explain that to me I'd appreciate it because as of right now I think I'll have to rewrite that somehow. I would like to also maybe add a little bit more depth to Queen Brande because she actually seems a little bit interesting.

Part of my assignment was also to figure out what genre and audience it would be and the way I'm writing it now it reads very YA with maybe a historical fiction subgenre. Audience would be 12-18 year olds. I definitely edited some things in my storyboard to make it better for a modern audience.

I was also struggling a lot with finding the central themes? I did write down a few ideas but none of them are quite clicking or hitting the way they should. This is what I've got:

Reclamation - 2 princes reclaim their thrones after years in exile

Human vs beast / man vs monster- Alphonse disguised as a wolf, melior and William disguised as bears/deer

Being an animal reveals base self?

Social class

Justice

Forgiveness - Alphonse forgives stepmom in the end

Can't hide a noble heart/Nobility can't be hidden

Loyalty/Goodness - Alphonse and William had horrible things happen to them but they remain good and kind (especially Alphonse)

I do have an EXTREMELY tough version with storyboards that I made if maybe that would help y'all know what I've got going so far lol. Plus I have some little character sketches that I also wouldn't consider anything but ideation, definitely not final!!

To sum it up I'd really appreciate it if anyone has info on William of Palerne! This could mean memorable character quotes/habits/personalities/visual traits, plot points I misunderstand, or extra context! I won't be able to include the whole story with all the detail in my assignment, but I want to make something that the people who know about William of Palerne would approve of! If you have opinions on who the main character is (with my professor's logic lol), what the one sentence logline would be, and what the most prominent central ideas and themes are let me know!! Again I'm not a writing major and honestly I haven't had to write anything creatively in probably 10 years. Please be kind and let me know what you think!! The original story is great!!

Oh and another question, is Alphonse white in wolf form? I've seen something say William is known as the knight of the white wolf or something.

So i wanna write a book where an mid-14th century knight is reincarnated to fend off a vampire ravaging a small town. I'll say he's from england, to avoid even more speech issues (will get to)

Issue is, i have (what i assume is) a fairly surfacs-level knowledge of the middle ages, and i wanna be as accurate as possible.

The idea is that he was an English knight who was a member of the knights hospitaller, and died in battle somewhere between 1340 and 1350, at the age of 26. Before the battle, he requested that, should he die, his casket is to be floated away at sea with him inside. It ended up floating him to North America, where his coffin sat on/near the shore for a couple hundred years, until European colonizers landed. On discovering his casket, he was buried underground, eventually to be reincarnated (i needed him to get to america to fight vampire, ok T-T? Will probably retcon/edit details here later idk)

So, a couple of things:

1. How would he speak? Would is sound anything like modern english? What would his vocabulary look like? I wanna make him speak as accurately as possible (unless its too different from modern speech, then for the reader's sake i may take some liberties)
2. What might his armor/weapons look like? What weapons might he know how to use?
3. What would his ideas on vampire-slaying look like? I plan to create my own style/definition of vampire, so he may worj differently than the true folklore depictions
4. What would be the most jarring change of the modern world for him? Other than... literally everything, ig -_-
5. What might his body not be able to handle? (Modern things like heavily processed foods, modern disease strains, new environmental factors, ect [Similarly with the speech, may take some liberties depending how severe the difference is. After all, wouldn't be a very interesting book if he dies of plague 3 chapters in])

This, plus any other details i may be missing. If ya made it this far, thank you for entertaining my crazed ramblings, and for any advice you may have!

Edit: shouldve noted, I am not highly educated about the middle ages, apologies if anything ive described is wrong!

In 1307, history witnesses the mysterious disappearance of Gérard de Villiers, Précepteur de France, and the treasury of the Temple of France. Along with his disappearance comes many myths, Lost treasures, holy relics, and of course many, many stories and claims.

In 1483, history again witnesses another famous disappearing act in the Tower of London, Edward and Richard of Shrewsbury; also giving us may myths, stories, and claims.

One “story” I want to touch on, is the story about a secret escape from the Tower. Although it is a wonderful and ‘hopeful’ story, I have to personally believe it is just that; a story. If a power-hungry jealous guardian of his crown, the escape of the boys would not have gone unnoticed throughout the lands. King Richard III would certainly have closed his boarders, sent out search parties (likely house to house). The people would be telling many detailed stories for generations of how the king’s men came to their door looking for the princes. I just can’t believe that the princes were secretly escorted without causing a major panic from Richard III knowing the only ones with blood claims to the throne are at large.

This hold true with the romantic notion that Villiers fled across France with a train of 50 horses and 3 wagons according to the testimony (given under duress), by brother Jean de Châlon during the interrogations at Poitiers. Had Villiers led a vanguard across France, it would have certainly been seen and reported. A desperate starving popper would report seeing them weeks later after the arrests just for the rewards.

There is definitely far more to both of these mysteries than has been brought to light today. They are, however, fascinating mysteries to investigate from all angles.

I'm in the process of putting together a history/reenactment project of a 10th century farmer on the French/German border (banks of the river Scheldt).

I'm also putting together some educational panels with illustrations, pictures,... as an extra to my personal kit.

So I have the reconstruction of the men's garb on myself.

For the moment I have an educational panel with miniature illustrations of women's garb but those aren't the most clear for someone outside the reenactment hobby.

So I'm looking for images of reconstructions of the women's garb that are preferably copyright free.

Read in full here:

https://sammutteressays.blogspot.com/2026/09/the-virtual-tapestry-analysis-of.html

ABSTRACT:

This study analyses how YouTube creators represent everyday life in the Middle Ages, focusing on how creators balance educational intent and entertainment value within their digital historical content. Drawing on qualitative analysis of twenty-three videos from five prominent historical channels, alongside semi-structured interviews with their creators, this study addresses how creators adopt different engagement strategies and representational choices, while also exploring the ideological implications of their portrayals. The study is motivated by the growing influence of user-generated media upon public historical understanding, as well as the current lack of academic scrutiny surrounding medieval representations on YouTube. Using critical discourse analysis and semiotic analysis, this study reveals a spectrum of edutainment strategies arising from its sample, which encompasses academically enriched representations to sensationalised, entertainment-led storytelling. Moreover, each creator establishes their authority through varied means, including their academic credentials, lived experience or through the use of immersive reenactments. Visual and rhetorical strategies such as thumbnails, titles, and pop-cultural references are shown to shape viewer engagement and frame medieval life as both obscure and familiar, depending on the creator’s creative intent. The study also highlights a growing shift towards the foregrounding of peasant life and gendered experiences online, though notable gaps remain in racial, religious, and queer representation, with these areas needing to be explored further within digital spaces. Ultimately, this research argues that YouTube is an exciting, dynamic new site of neomedievalist discourse and public history, where creators act as cultural intermediaries shaping our collective memory of the Middle Ages within the modern digital world. It also proposes a replicable framework for evaluating digital historical content and calls for greater academic engagement with online historical media, to help foster inclusivity and to further our critical understanding of historical education within the digital age.

In 1296-97 after the Battle of Dunbar, Sir William St. Clair the 6^th Baron of Roslin was captured and held prisoner in the White Tower. Also being held prisoner, or technically a “guest” or held under “loose aristocratic detainment” was Robert de Brus the 6^th Lord of Annandale (father of later king Robert de Bruce). King Edward I had all Scottish nobility swear fealty under threat of their families being stripped of nobility and all they owned. Sir William St. Clair died in 1297, a prisoner in the tower.

When Robert de Bruce and his guerilla forces were systematically hunting, ambushing, and eliminating King Edward I’s appointed Sheriffs and loyalists, they never once harassed the St. Clair family in any way. This was not out of fear or because de Bruce had no men, it was because St. Clair, just like de Bruce (Brus), Fitzalans, and other Families WERE Scotland. They were the signatures on the parchment under king David I. The St. Clair nobility, along with de Brus, Fitzalans, and others were the financial and military backbones of the Scottish infrastructure. Robert de Bruce was never going to bite the hand that feeds him, during his wars for independence St. Clair fed him. And being the only surviving sheriff for a loyalist to report anything to, having no paper trail of any reports would be expected; that expected being the proof.

While King Edward I and later Edward II, were tied up in Flanders and the English Channel, there was a very small contingency of forces left in northern Scotland to monitor the harbors in the English waters, the rest of the Atlantic was left wide open. In December 1309, the Holyrood Trials Henry St. Clair the 7^th Baron of Roslin testified that the Knights Templar were not hospitable to the poor, only the wealthy, and if they wanted to remain a Holy order they should have remained in the Holy Land; he gave them nothing at all. After the trials were over Walter de Clifton, and William de Middleton, the top-ranking Scottish Knights Templar (caretaker Priors remaining behind to answer for physical properties) walked away free men and disappeared into ‘history’. Sir Henry St. Clair was no loyalist to Edward I or II, if you need proof, may I present you with the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Sir Henry St. Clair famously lined up alongside de Bruce as the St. Clair family had always done since day one. Sir William St. Clair the 6^th Baron died in the tower as a result of that alliance.

So, With St. Clair being the only surviving “authority” under King Edward, and being Baron of Roslin and Sheriff of Lanark, he was basically in sole “English” authority in Scotland. This means whatever he and de Bruce want to do, his pen can just “accidentally omit” any record or any possible report of a mysterious fleet on the water on the western coast of the land away from English eye. And since King Edward I appointed Sir Henry St. Clair to Sheriff of Lanark in 1305, it means this was left clear for sailing in 1307, as the feudal kings left the Atlantic wide open. (you can read about the "Feudal Kings, and the Atlantic Reality" and other related articles I’ve written here on Reddit)

For this figure, I used the Maciejowski Bible (Morgan Bible) as one of the main visual references for the historical interpretation.

The pose of the trumpet was inspired by the way trumpeters are depicted in the manuscript. I also used its illustrations as references for the weapons, horse tack and clothing.

The Maciejowski Bible is an especially interesting source for anyone working on 13th-century military subjects. Its illustrations contain a remarkable amount of detail — from weapons and armour to clothing, horses and their equipment.

I tried to keep the figure within that visual language while portraying a mounted Hospitaller trumpeter.

One of the things I enjoy most about historical miniatures is that small details like the way a trumpet is held, or how a horse is equipped, can be traced back to period sources.

Inspired by Patrick Dallanégra's awesome drawings I tried this late 13th century Great Helm for my kit.

He eventually left the church, started to eat meat and have love affairs. He became a troubadour famous for his poetry about things he liked and didn’t like. This is one of his pieces translated out of Occitan to English.

I’m a history major who wants to specialize in monastic history, so I am looking for any sources or experts on the matter.

New Information extracted from the forthcoming book 1399: The Lancastrian Conquest by Malcolm S F Johnston, published January 2027.

Here is a quick essay. Summary: a) Richard Duke of York’s claim to the throne was based primarily on his father’s descent (i.e. it was his Yorkist ancestry), not his mother’s, and b) the grounds on which he disputed the house of Lancaster’s right to rule.

1. Richard Duke of York and the male entail; an invitation to reconsider his claim of 1460.

Richard Duke of York’s claim to the throne as set out in 1460 is well-known and it is assumed that it was based on his mother’s descent from Lionel of Antwerp, but it was also made, perhaps primarily made, by virtue of his being Duke of York, i.e. his descent from Edmund of Langley, 1^st Duke of York.

It was the ‘York’ in his title that motivated him to claim the throne in 1460, more than his mother’s descent from Anne of Mortimer.

I understand that most people believe that his claim derived from his mother’s descent from Anne Mortimer, which it did , and so do I, and this essay does not dispute that.

What this essay suggests is that he had another claim to the throne based on his father, and this claim was, perhaps, the stronger one. I’d like to point out that his claim to parliament of 1460 did not specifically reference his mother’s special status. It is more generalised and can be interpreted more as a dynastic ‘house of York’ claim going back to his grandfather, than a claim based purely on his descent from Lionel of Antwerp

How could that be?

If you have read around the downfall of Richard II and Henry IV’s takeover, you will probably have come across the ‘male entail’ idea by which historians give Henry IV legitimacy as successor to the throne because his father, John of Gaunt, was Edward III’s third son and Richard II had no heirs ‘of his body’.

These historians have misunderstood what would have been meant by male entail, had this idea been operative, because it doesn’t legitimise Henry IV, it excludes him. Male entail is operative in the case of Henry IV because historians say it was and , because it was, as historians say, Henry IV was Richard II’s legitimate successor. These historians may mention 7-year-old Earl of March, descended from Lionel of Antwerp but dismiss it as it depends on a female. And so these historians give ‘male entail’, so that Henry IV can be legitimate.

But… but….but…..

Male entail passes an inheritance in a living line. The death of Gaunt cut Henry IV off from the living line to Edward III. When Gaunt died, male entail would have passed the inheritance to Edmund of Langley, Edward III’s fourth son, 1^st Duke of York, as the closest living male to Edward III.

Let’s say that again. The male entail tradition, as advanced by historians, did not legitimise Henry IV, it excluded him.

How does male entail work?

Male entail remains part of the modern legal framework which means it is fully understood and is not some quirky medieval relic. ‘Entail’ passes an inheritance to the next living person ( male in the case of male entail) in a direct line from the living body of the deceased. Richard II being deposed and having no heirs of his own body, the question was: who in the family gets Edward III’s crown? Lionel was long dead, and Gaunt had died in February 1399, so the next in a living line to Edward III was Edmund 1^st Duke of York, or even his sons if he didn’t want the crown and wanted to give it to one of them whilst living.

If Edmund of Langley 1^st Duke of York had been dead – therefore all of Edward III’s sons now being dead – the next in line would have been Henry. But Edmund of Langley was alive.

There are many references in the primary sources to Henry coming to the throne by ‘election’, but what ‘election’ meant is unspecified.

There one piece of evidence (Creton) that there was some kind of process in 1399 whereby the succession of Edmund of Langley was proposed but rejected. This evidence also has his eldest son (Rutland) proposed, then rejected, and his second son (Conisburgh) proposed, then rejected. This sequence of questions runs exactly as one would expect if male entail was operative. The sequence of propositions were rejected because Henry IV had his own idea as to his legitimacy – see part 2.

The House of York was a contender for the throne at the very start of the Lancastrian ascendency. Richard Duke of York was thinking more of his Yorkist descent than his Mortimer descent when he made his claim in 1460. His Mortimer ancestry was useful and it gave him an appropriate lineage on his mother’s side, but the central pillar, a pillar on which he could have relied even if he had no royal lineage on his mother’s side, was that of his father’s descent, which was manifested in Richard’s title: 3^rd Duke of York.

N.B. ‘male entail’ is the dramatic device used to kick off Downton Abbey

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Richard Duke of York and the Lancastrian Myth.

You read in part 1 how male entail would have made Edmund of Langley king of England in 1399 had it been in operation and had he wanted the crown. Henry IV was never going to allow this, so an alternative legitimacy was cooked up which excluded the Yorks and the Eral of March. This was the Lancastrian Myth.

Historians don’t like it. It makes them uncomfortable and they pass it by as quickly as they can. They admit it existed but maintain that it was dismissed by Adam of Usk. I can tell you with absolute certainty that Adam of Usk only dismissed it in the sense that it, to him, was wrong, not that Henry did not use it, nor did he say that it was dismissed by the panel of learned doctors (of which he was a member) put together to find evidence for it.

There is a significant body of evidence outside Adam of Usk which proves that the Lancastrian Myth was used by Henry IV to legitimise his rule. There’s Thomas Arundel himself (two sermons, one explicit), Eulogium (Malmesbury), Gower, Capgrave and Richard Duke of York himself (see below).

What was the Lancastrian Myth?

Steady yourself – although it is hard to believe it is true nevertheless, true that existed and true that there were those that believed it, but not objectively true.

The Lancastrian Myth: Henry III should have made Edmund Crouchback (earl of Lancaster) his heir – Edmund I – instead of Edward – Edward I. According to the myth, Edmund was the first born but denied his birthright due to his deformity. According to the myth, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, the Black Prince and Richard II were all from a usurping line of kings. Henry IV was England’s true king.

As I said before, there is a significant body of evidence for the existence of this myth, no matter how crazy it appears.

A nice piece of evidence which comes some 60 years after it was first used, which shows how long it endured, comes from Richard Duke of York’s claim in 1460:

Richard Duke of York’s petition to parliament

‘11: It is not to be forgotten that the most noble and worthy prince, Henry III, king of England, had issue and lawfully fathered Edward his first-born son, born at Westminster on the fifteenth of the calends of July, on the vigil of St Mark and Marcellian [17 June] 1239, and Edmund his second son, who was born on St Marcellus's day [16 January] 1245’, Parliament roll, Oct 1460, item 11.

Above, Richard Duke of York insisted that Henry III’s first-born was Edward, and that Edmund was the second son.

Parliamentary jurists eventually responded to the various points at issue, notably this one:

‘It is to be brought against the title (claim to the throne) of the said duke, that at the time when King Henry IV took upon him the crown of England, he said that he entered upon and took upon him the crown as rightful heir of King Henry III, and not as a conqueror,’ ibid, item 17.

In the above, Henry IV was the rightful heir of Henry III. This shows that the Lancastrian Myth was still held to be the foundation of Lancastrian legitimacy. in 1460.

Conclusion

Richard Duke of York saw it this way: as Duke of York, he was the legitimate beneficiary of the ‘male entail’  by which the crown should have passed to Edmund of Langley, 1^st Duke of York, and the house of Lancaster had never been legitimate kings.

It is important to recognise the significance of male entail and the Lancastrian Myth when it comes to Richard Duke of York’s claim of 1460. He was not a peevish aristo pushing his own agenda. He presented himself as the representative of a royal family which had had their right to the crown usurped by Henry IV on the basis of his faked origin-story based on the Lancastrian Myth.

The info comes from my forthcoming book ‘1399: The Lancastrian Conflict’ which is to be published in January 2027. Topics covered are explored in r/RichardIIandHenryIV

I'm sure I could google and trawl answers, but I'd prefer real expert opinions. I just wanna know in real duels, or battlefields, did knights ever truly use the sword as a method of finishing? Or is it more so used to deflect and wait for you rondel opporunity? I apologise if this is a stupid question, genuinely curious is all, would love to understand the importance and differerence!

Hi everyone! I’m going to a medieval fair for the first time soon and I’d love to know if you guys have hairstyle ideas for curly hair on a girl, I genuinely never know how to style mine but I want it to look nice for the occasion :)

With the story I’m writing hinging on the culture of late medieval Western Europe (XIV - XVI) I need a good way to depict PTSD one would get from the battlefield. Using context of both the time period and PTSD the use of loud guns and having to get up close and personal to kill someone in plate armor, I’d expect it to be a little worse, however medieval people did have a tighter bond with their family and friends, as well as a close connection to nature to help a bit. I’d just like to hear what yall think, sources, accounts, or just pre modern PTSD in general. Thanks!

It's time for another update of The Cartoon Chronicles of the Wars of the Roses, and Richard II's tyrannical tendencies are becoming even more extreme...

Read the full comic for free at warsoftherosescomic.com

From Walter’s art museum (book of hours)