NCAA rules LSU has to vacate 3 years wins under Les Miles
A booster provided improper benefits that he embezzled from…a children’s hospital. Seems fine. As a result Les is no longer eligible for CFB Hall of Fame as a coach.
While we're at it we should make William the Conqueror vacate all of his wins from 1066 to 1072 since he cheated to get the Pope's approval to commit genocide and whatever other sins he and his knights wanted to based on lies about Harold's legitimacy.
Genocide? Are you talking about the battle of Hastings?
No I'm talking about the Harrying of the North. The Battle of Hastings was only the first set piece in his ruinous colonization war. To this day the north of England is poorer and less populated than the south, and it wasn't that way before.
Craig Ross is loving this
He didn’t at the time.
His approach, although harsh, was not uncommon in medieval warfare, where the destruction of the enemy's economic and logistical infrastructure was often seen as a legitimate means of securing victory. From a pragmatic standpoint, the aim was to assert his authority and prevent future uprisings that could threaten his rule and destabilize the newly conquered territory. It is worth noting that the events of the Norman Conquest were part of a broader historical context of conquest, occupation, and power struggles that were common during the medieval period. The notion of a fair "just war", as understood today, did not exist in the same way at that time.
True, but I think Les was more concerned with his Skoal Long Cut Cherry and hookers.
when in Baton Rouge.........
Some thngs never change #Putin #Ukraine.
No, the Harrying of the North was actually quite beyond the pale for his time. Even his personal hype man was like "Uh, this is really bad." William by that point wasn't trying to destroy his enemy's economic resources; he was wiping out the north out of vengeance and fear, because he was so sick of rebellions. His intention was genocidal, not military.
Now, you can place what William did in the context of what came after, because his friend in Rome would later become Pope and take William's example and apply it to the First Crusade. But Normandy's particular ruthlessness, barbarism, and despotism was not at all the norm for Medieval Europe; it was the extreme, and William was the most extreme of the Normans.
I think it's quite fair to put William the Conqueror up there with Hitler among the worst beings to ever take human form. His upbringing and the shittiness of Norman culture absolutely helped create that monster. But there's no doubt he was a monster, and thought of at the time as a monster, and not just by the people he conquered. To try to hide that in a cynically false version of history is downright irresponsible. We don't have to ascribe all of our modern views on things like raiding and legitimate warfare to compare the Normans to the English, Franks, Germans, Danes, Norse, etc.
The Conquest was not "Common" in any sense of the word. Its conduct was a Third Reich-level destruction of norms on the flimsiest of pretenses, and only made possible by a radical shift in Church leadership. In fact one of the biggest reasons it was accomplished was the English didn't realize until far too late that it wasn't anything like the kinds of wars they were used to. It made no sense to do it that way--a couple of generations earlier Cnut won his empire, put some English allies in charge, and collected his checks. William set fire to the bank, and spent the rest of his life putting out the embers.
Come for the info about Les Miles and his vacated wins, stay for extended commentary on William the Conqueror and the Harrying of the North.
The MGoBlog Difference (the best kind).
For real - I never studied any of this stuff so it's pretty fascinating to me. Seth should have a recurring podcast/column segment with Craig Ross and Desmond Was Tripped about momentous battles and conquests throughout history. Sports? Eh ok, I guess.
I hear you and mostly agree i guess, but he wasn't as bad as Hitler. While I think it's true that the Harrying of the North was a brutal campaign with severe consequences for the region, labeling William as genocidal and comparing him to Hitler seems to be an exaggeration and an oversimplification of historical events. In my opinion, you really have to consider the historical context in which the events occurred. The Norman Conquest took place in the 11th century, a time when warfare and conquest were commonplace. The actions of William, though EXTREMELY ruthless, must be understood within the framework of the era's norms and the challenges he faced as a conqueror trying to establish his rule. Viking and Anglo-Saxon rulers prior were even more brutal in executing their enemies prior to all of this. You said his motivations were primarily genocidal and driven by vengeance and fear. However, it might be more accurate to see it as part of a broader military strategy to suppress rebellion and consolidate his power. The Harrying of the North, while devastating, primarily aimed to break the resistance of the rebellious northern regions and assert Norman control over the conquered territories. Hitler's motivations were rooted in extreme ideologies, including racial supremacy, territorial expansion, and the persecution of certain groups based on his discriminatory beliefs. William and Hitler engaged in warfare, but their methods and conduct differed significantly. William's military campaigns were in line with the brutal realities of medieval warfare, but he did not espouse genocidal policies or systematically target entire populations based on ethnicity or religion. While the Church certainly played a role in supporting William's claim, it is essential to recognize that the Norman Conquest was a complex historical event influenced by numerous factors, including military strength, political alliances, and the support of local elites.
My friend Craig Ross was there and says you're wrong.
The Holocaust was also a complex historical event that has even deeper historical factors than the Conquest.
Hatred of Jews in Europe goes back thousands of years. But most start with the Rhineland massacres in 1096, just before the Crusades began. Thousands of Jews were hunted down and slaughtered and their homes and businesses destroyed.
What would follow is an ebb and flow of violent antisemitism in Europe that would see Jews denied civil rights and citizenship, segregated, deported en masse, and subjected to pograms on an all too regular basis. Jews would be kicked out of England by Edward I in 1290(the villain from Braveheart). They wouldn’t return for 350 years.
Martin Luther would say “The Jews are our misfortune.” Antisemitic caricatures exist in Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucer, and many other European works of literature.
With the advent of slavery and colonialism in the Americas came the invention of race. This is the foundation of Blackness and anti-Blackness in the modern mind. It’s also the foundation of the identification as white too.
(As an aside, it is painfully ironic that a black man could walk through a Medieval village with less fear of being harassed than in a modern American town.)
In the 19th century antisemites started to develop the idea of racial antisemitism and the idea of an Aryan race. August de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain were at the forefront of this movement.
This is a key development on the road to the Holocaust as previously Jews could be assimilated by conversion(as Karl Marx’s father had done). Here “Jewishness” becomes racial. A matter of blood.It was irrevocable.
Hitler himself grew up in provincial Austria before migrating to Linz and eventually Vienna where he was exposed to the polyglot, multicultural society of Vienna. Vienna had at the time Hitler was there a deeply antisemitic mayor named Karl Lueger whose antisemitic policies would influence Hitler. Hitler read volkisch and antisemitic magazines and papers such as Ostara and the works of volkisch antisemites like Guido Von List.
Hitler moved to Munich just before the war. He avoided compulsory duty in the Austrian army. The Austrians charged and convicted him of draft dodging. Germany for whatever reason did not send him back to face justice. Instead they let him stay where at the outbreak of war he joined the List Regiment(16th Bavarian Reserve) of the Sixth Bavarian Reserve Division.
After Germany’s defeat in WWI and during the ensuing Marxist uprisings in Kiel and Berlin and Marxist seizing of power in Munich(many of whom were Jewish), Hitler was in a demobilization unit and later an intelligence unit where in the service of he was sent to observe a small party in Munich called the German Worker’s Party or DAP. At that meeting in September of 1919 Hitler would “find his voice”.
A voice that would silence tens of millions of voices.
Hitler stood upon the shoulders of monsters. He was a beast borne of a millennias old hatred of Jews. Add this to Germany’s bitter and traumatic defeat in WWI( the myth of the Stab in the Back), extreme nationalism, and the subsequent Marxist grasps for power and what you have is an immeasurably potent and toxic concoction.
PS: In 1939 Europe had approximately 9 million Jews. Today it has 1.4 million.
Logged in just to reply. What William did to the North surely ranks up there amongst the worst retaliations in medieval history. But in comparison to what occurred on the regular in the ancient world, dark ages and by the Mongols it pales in comparison.
But to put him at the level of a Hitler who created a systematic process to kill off people based on their ethnicity is surely unrealistic, but I appreciate the attempt because it was terrible.
William was a hard man who did not put up with rebellion and this was the last gasp of the Anglo-Saxon lineage of the north to regain supremacy of the land.
That said, some of his descendants were almost as savage, such as Edward I in his treatment of Wales and Scotland, or Henry II in Ireland or even Edward III and Henry V in their cheveches in France. Even Henry VIII was pretty savage in putting down Catholic uprisings and conspiracies. "Might is Right" seemed to be the rallying cry of the English (and British) monarchs.
I'm not certain that William's Harrying of the North is the total cause of the north's population and economy poverty today as much as the many rebellions came out of the north over the following centuries. Each one put down with violence with only one truly being successful if only for a time and that was when the Yorks won and put Edward IV on the throne.
All that said, the entire British monarchy is founded on tearing down other kingdoms and empires, looting them of all wealth and basically enslaving the survivors.
“All that said, the entire British monarchy is founded on tearing down other kingdoms and empires, looting them of all wealth and basically enslaving the survivors.”
All kingdoms and empires are built upon that. There is no such thing as a genteel empire or kingdom. They are all won through deployment of extreme violence on a large scale.
The British Empire is hardly unique in this.
You are very correct in that the British monarchy is not unique in building their wealth off the demise of other nations. Where I think they are unique is their worldwide reach of doing so, “the sun doesn’t set on the British Empire” used to be more than a saying.
The other part of that is that there are few other surviving royal families and even fewer that this could be said of. In fact I’d put them in a class of one. Today it’s the entrepreneurs who have taken on that role and have been at least since the Industrial Revolution. But the British monarchy continues to survive and enrich themselves. And I’m not against the institution, I’ve always been an avid fan of medieval history and the monarchies of the British Isles, but the modern institution not so much.
I highly recommend the video series on William the Conqueror from HistoryMarche on Youtube.
I didn't have an opinion on him before watching the series. Now... he was a massive cunt.
That doesn’t change the fact that it was genocide.
Mass killing is common throughout history. It’s a disturbingly widespread behavioral pattern that isn’t regulated to any one era.
The Allies in WWII destroyed Germany and Japan’s economic and logistical infrastructure with catastrophic results for the citizens despite the idea of a “just war” being extent.
Seems obscure and inconsequential it's not as if the English were involved in any other colonization efforts.
It’s not obscure and it is definitely consequential. The Norman Conquest shaped the English language, architecture, social systems, law….we live with it’s legacy to this day.
I would also point out that the island of Britain(a colonial name BTW) was colonized by the notoriously brutal Romans. The indigenous tribes were destroyed through killing and assimilation. This too had profound effects that last to this day. Most explicitly in the existence of London.
Guillaume le Conquerant reminds me of 'ol Vladimir Vladimirovich.
Oh, and #VPDFO
I was in Normandy a year ago and went to the Bayeux Museum to see The Bayeux Tapestry. Very cool!
https://www.bayeuxmuseum.com/en/the-bayeux-tapestry/
Vacate all Caesar's wins in the Gallic wars since he was just crushing it for the dignitas at home rather than any real strategic purpose. Plus, he paid recruits with enslaved Gauls, which is even worse than the shit Louisville did.
As a saving grace, if you will, Caesar only enslaved the Gauls that reneged on their initial surrender and revolted against him. If you surrender before he entered into battle with you, he took your weapons and plundered through taxes and tributes, but otherwise allowed you to live. Quite merciful in those times! However, if you then fought back - dude, you better win or you're fucked. He executed every leader he could find and sold the rest of your population into slavery.
But we can hardly hold that against Caesar alone - it was the way of the world in those times. Merchants literally followed armies around to purchase the conquered. After one such war, when Caesar's army finally won the day, he was able to sell 53,000 people into slavery. This is one reason generals of the day were fantastically rich.
Hmmm. I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you here. I feel about Caesar the way Seth feels about William the Conqueror: he should be vilified not celebrated.
You're wrong about Caesar and the Gallic campaign. The entire point of his operations there was defeating Gauls in battle--victories he could then trumpet back home increase his dignitas in propagandistic accounts that have been handed down to us as Caesar's Gallic Wars. Note that attacking Gauls was a different affair than attacking Eastern Mediterranean cities. In the ancient world, the cities east of Rome was where the wealth was. So attack an eastern city and you return to Rome with slaves yes, but the greater value is the in treasure you obtain from sacking and looting. But the Gallic peoples were pastoralist and nomadic--they had no cities to sack and loot. The wealth to be stripped from Gaul was entirely in human capital to a degree not seen previously.
Some background: At the outset of the Gallic Wars, Casar was, of course, locked in a power rivalry with Pompey and Crassus. He was at a disadvantage with respect to both; Crassus was the wealthiest man in Rome, and Pompey was so acclaimed as a general in eastern campaigns that he was known as Pompey Magnus--Pompey the Great. So Caesar engaged the Gallic Wars solely to increase his wealth and fame to confront his rivals. He invented a justification out of thin air to get it started--a territorial dispute between Gallic tribes (the Helvetii and the Aedui). And let's be honest here, most people who are invaded won't simply surrender. If they do, you can generate a conflict later by imposing odious terms. Or you can get an ally to claim they were attacked by the tribe you want to the crush. You can invent a justification any time you like. Caesar emptied the bag of tricks to keep the wars going, to keep the bodies piled up, the keep wealth generated from enslavement flowing, to ensure his place as the center of attention in the Roman world, for eight years. In the end, it's estimated that his legions slaughtered between 8-12 million Gauls. That's something like 16-25% of the Gallic population at the time, and millions more were enslaved. That is genocide. All so Caesar could enrich himself and increase his political power base at home. This was a scale of violence that was senseless even for fucking Romans--he was recalled by the Senate to answer for this as a war crime, and he responded by attacking the Roman state with his invasion.
So yeah, fuck that guy...
Dan Carlin has a great episode on Hardcore History about this, called The Celtic Holocaust, great listen.
Better throw Troy in that mix too:
Intent to Deceive. Major Level I.
A.Chiles is not coming to Michigan. Let it go.
Hey man, God wills it. Or something or other.
Pretty sure that was the exact quote Pope Urban II uttered to justify ransacking the Holy Land in the First Crusade and the slaughter of thousands.
Muslims first attacked Constantinople in 673. They wouldn’t stop for 800 years until they finally did seize it in 1453.
They sacked Rome in 845. They invaded and colonized the Iberian Peninsula and attempted to do so to France. They killed many, many people in the process.
The Crusades can only be understood alongside the centuries of Islamic imperialism and colonialism that pre-existed the Christian war for the Holy Lands by 300 years.
Islam and Christianity are both have much to reckon with in terms of the past. Both, for good and bad, indelibly shaped our world.
The aliens aren't here to kidnap our wimmens, harvest our children, extract our natural resources, or create a race of alien-human hybrids.
They've seen what we do to each other, and they're here solely to enforce the quarantine.
highly recommend "humankind: a hopeful history." Bad things have happened and they should be called out, and the world can improve. but it isn't all bad. In fact, I'd argue it's mostly good. Here's a quote in the book from the maker of Love, Actually
If you make a film about a man kidnapping a woman and chaining her to a radiator for five years - something that has happened probably once in history - it's called a searingly realistic analysis of society. If I make a film like Love Actually, which is about people falling in love, and there are about a million people falling in love in Britain TODAY, it's called a sentimental presentation of an unrealistic world.
Unfortunately, that is wishful thinking. Many men have held woman captive.
Violence and cruelty is as much a part of being human as peace and compassion are. Both are choices we make. We choose to be violent, hateful, and cruel. We choose to be kind, loving, and peaceful.
Last night I spent some time looking at videos of 9/11 and read some short biographies of the victims. In a single event we see both the best and worst of Mankind. The audacious compassion of people like Welles Crowther and the First Responders. The hateful savagery of Mohammed Atta and the 18 other hijackers.
Each of these people made conscious choices to act as they did. Choices that reverberate well beyond their deaths.
Many men have. But many more have been decent lovers, fathers and brothers. We all have both the capacity for violence and compassion. But compassion happens far more often than violence. And yet, the less frequent occurrence is portrayed as more realistic.
Scientists are split but I think lean towards humans having no free will so we don’t actually choose anything. Thinking about having no free will gives me an existential crisis so I’ll believe we have free will
It is silly. Isn't is common knowledge that pretty much all of the teams in the 1910s and 1920s had paid ringers? Should everyone vacate their wins from those eras?
Not Seth, but I think the joke is less about trivializing LSU's crimes as mocking the NCAA's "punishment". This isn't "everyone cheats so LSU is OK".
Like how vacating William's record doesn't do anyone justice, LSU's ill-gotten wins are still recorded in history, just with asterisks now, so it's not punishment at all. Especially since the NCAA does not retroactively award victories to whichever team(s) got screwed by the corruption.
In spirit, the sum result of the NCAA's action against LSU is a one-sentence edit in Wikipedia. That. . . is a joke.
We should vacate battles the Confederacy won during the Civil War.
What the hell are you talking about? He'd already instituted a self-imposed two-year war ban; isn't that punishment enough? The NCAA seems to think so; I haven't seen them do anything about it.
when did you change your username from Misopogon?
did Craig steal your login?
Interesting, Seth, that you chose an historical event 1,000 years ago. Suggesting that it takes forever for the NCAA to deal with anything? Because it sure seem that Les Miles and LSU were at least a few lifetimes ago.
no politics, no religion? no problem, so long as it is in the past, then it's history.
"no politics, no religion? no problem, so long as it is in the past, then it's history."
There is a great deal of truth in this. History departments at each of the colleges where I have enrolled allow much more leeway from their professors. An example would be a class I took at Yale on Jonathan Edwards. "Hey, I'm just telling you what he said."
"no politics, no religion? no problem, so long as it is in the past, then it's history."
There is a great deal of truth in this. History departments at each of the colleges where I have enrolled allow much more leeway from their professors. An example would be a class I took at Yale on Jonathan Edwards. "Hey, I'm just telling you what he said."
"no politics, no religion? no problem, so long as it is in the past, then it's history."
There is a great deal of truth in this. History departments at each of the colleges where I have enrolled allow much more leeway from their professors. An example would be a class I took at Yale on Jonathan Edwards. "Hey, I'm just telling you what he said."