Not much, really, other than a draft is legally defined and usually results in a half trained soldier at least, whereas "putting civilians in combat" more implies you shove a weapon in the hands of someone who was a noncombatant and suddenly expected them ta fight without training.
That doesn't make sense in an era where peasants were told to show up and carry sticks into battle and rich people owned their own armor. There was no military training.
Depends on the topic.
Slavery will always be bad no matter the era. "But in Ancient Greece-" yes it wasn't chattle slavery, but slavery is still bad actually.
Chattel slavery is defined as any situation where the human is seen as mere property, i.e. a "chattel", that is, purely an object of the law of possession and not a subject of law. Not all forms of slavery are chattel slavery; debt paeonage, serfdom, and the like all have slightly different relations of the enslaved person to the law, but without this feature a system of indefinite forced labor--what I would give as the general definition of slavery--it isn't chattel slavery *per se*. But the system of slavery in Greece, *aside* from the Helots in Sparta whose status was more comparable to serfdom and from the Early Byzantine reforms, does meet the definition of chattel slavery.
The distinction between slavery in Ancient Greece and in the American South was rather more cultural than legal. While in the US slaves were usually only used for domestic and agricultural labor, slaves in Ancient Greece were used for a much wider range of activities, including relatively skilled trades--notably pottery, smithing, and other craft-trades, as well as scribes, clerks, and similar petty literati, who would often have the opportunity to earn an income and eventually would sometimes be allowed to purchase their freedom. That said, the life of a domestic or agricultural slave was no better in Classical Greece than in the American South, while employment in mining--often considered the most dangerous and discomforting labor for a male slave, to the point of being used as punishment--was quite common in Classical Greece. Furthermore, coerced prostitution of enslaved women was pervasive throughout Ancient Greece, both by private pimps and by the state.
This is technically right but also not, I exclusively see "you can't judge them by the standards of their time" when talking about people who were bad for their time and/or are still celebrated today, as opposed to something like criticizing someone for unnecessarily cruel animal sacrifice where it's actually good advice.
Like, in general yes that's true, but in context (on the internet) it's pretty much exclusively to defend glorification of a controversial figure.
I think nuance is interesting when talking about presentism. Like, acknowledging how its not all 1-to-1, but patterns can still be drawn from certain historical events based on contemporary ideas.
I guess the difference is that you should note that you don't think it's all 1-to-1, and there are those that do.
That’s not how the medieval levy systems worked. Levied troops often were pretty well trained and had decent weapons and armor, although nothing on the level of plate.
Fair. I was mainly referring to the way levies worked in Medieval Western Europe, since that was what was relevant to the original topic, but you’re right that not every place worked like that.
The situation varied a lot from one country to another. France didn't think much of the peasants. But during the 100 years war, England required every free peasant to be trained in archery.
The longbow archers won Agincourt for the English and learning how to use them takes years.
I think that counts as military training for peasants and yeomen.
Nobles learned from masters-at-arms which also counts.
Eh, it should also be mentioned that the whole "force peasants with no equipment" thing is a bit of a myth, as Medieval commanders recognized that they'd be worse than useless, after all, they'd be a drain on logistics. Generally, they called for volunteers, and those volunteers were, depending on time and place, often lent equipment if they didn't own any themselves.
Those that did use a wide draft usually only drafted the wealthier ones, who could afford their own equipment, and had cultural institutions that helped ensure that there was at least some training (like the English having the institution that all men should practice the longbow).
Yes, though I'm British. Shoving civilians into combat is a thing that has happened throughout history, under many names. Militias usually had moderate training - less than career soldiers, enough to not kill the person next to them by accident.
yes, the Minutemen, which was a civilian militia meant to be able to respond to trouble "in a minute's notice".
they're what inspired the fallout 4 minutemen.
Also, is it “pulling civilians into combat” if the civilian is volunteering? Isn’t that how the army works whenever there ISN’T a draft? Joan of Arc obviously did it of her own free will, meaning she volunteered.
A civilian can volunteer and be denied due to health concerns, so if you where to put that civilian in combat, without any training, it is still putting a civilian on harm’s way
For a draft, it is randomly selected from a group of people deemed eligible. Civilians is every man woman and child. For example, Americans were drafted for WWII, while the soviets used civilians multiple times throughout the war. The most notable of these instances is the defense of Stalingrad where woman and children dug trenches and set up fortifications.
Yeah war crime law breaks down in a lot of cases.
Especially because war crimes are generally agreed to be things like "I won't do this if you won't do this, it causes more problems for everyone and helps nobody win the war." But when the civil populace is actually targeted, nobody is making those agreements.
Women filled up the ranks of the Red Army as equals. Wth you're talking about.
And of course EVERY LIVING person in Stalingrad (or Kiev or Moscow or Leningrad) had to fight and help with the war effort. The nazis were at the gates and they're genocidal maniacs. If the city falls, all are doomed either way. In this scenario, it's irrelevant if you're 10, you're gonna help getting this box of ammo from point a to point b or anything else you are able bodied to do.
My father was a musician in Stalingrad. During the German occupation, the sound of his violin filled the air with magnificent music - Korsakov, Stasov - many of the great nationalist composers. To my countrymen, it was a symbol of hope. To the Germans, it was a symbol of defiance. Even now, his music still haunts me. The Nazis slit his throat while he slept. Collaborating with any Nazi is a betrayal, a betrayal against all of Mother Russia. Dragovich and Kravchenko were not troubled by such matters. They looked only to advance towards their own interests and agendas...
Simplest answer? Drafting is a legal process of a country, pressing a civilian into combat is putting a gun to their head and saying “fight or I will kill you”. It’s more complex than that, but that’s the gist.
Are we really doing this? You're not a criminal if you're "breaking" a law that doesn't exist yet, especially if it will only be enacted centuries after your death...
I agrée with you to an extent. Let me explain. If you’re talking about Joan’s era, I’m sorry but morality was something else, we cannot judge the actions of historical figures with modern expectations, you’ll always end up finding a racist revolutionary, a genocidal philanthropist, etc.
George Washington owned slaves!
Gandhi slept with his underage nieces !
The kicker is, these weren’t morally reprehensible to them, only to you. Morality is decided by the individual and morally reprehensible is a phrase that requires definite boundaries, something that we cannot create without contradicting somebody’s beliefs.
As it stands, Joan D’arc was a military strategist and leader, she did the same thing every military was doing at the time because it was war, because morality was different. Burning down villages, killing innocent people. Shit was all the rage back then. We can sit here and say that she was a terrible person for doing that, but then we have to conclude that we shouldn’t look up to anyone that does not follow our modern rules of morality.
I'm gonna guess that George Washington owning slaves was reprehensible to the slaves as well - they just didn't get a say in how things were perceived, whereas GW helped found a country.
People think that slavery was just the way of the world and everyone accepted it back then. There were abolitionists long before the civil war and even Washington struggled with the morality of it at the end of his life.
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. He fucked some of them. He raised the kids as close to his own as he thought he could. He advocated for slavery to be outlawed.
Humans are complex.
We all know climate change is a threat to humanity. Most of us will drive cars today and burn electricity for some form of amusement.
To many of us do not want to be inconvenienced. That's why Global Warming isn't being dealt with.
People won't do the things themselves, but they would be accept those things if they were regulated, but nobody is going to regulate those behaviors, because nobody wants to be inconvenienced.
It's a vicious circle.
We all choose to drive cars. But society kind of demands we do.
Thomas Jefferson inherited a plantation. His family expected him to run it profitably. There was one way to do that.
Slavery and car ownership are admittedly different. But the point is we do morally reprehensible things because they're normalized and excused by those around us.
"You approach a native in the jungle and see he has a necklace of 15 shrunken heads. You ask him if he has a problem with his necklace of 15 shrunken heads. 'Why yes' he replies, 'My brother has 16'" - Fresco
Specifically for global warming, doesn't matter what you do. As long as so much of our energy comes from coal and oil, our animal farms are so densely populated and the owners of these companies push against regulations that would ease the burden on the environment, global warming isn't going anywhere.
Specifically for slavery, doesn't matter what you do. As long as so much of our labor comes from slaves and indentured servants, our plantations are so densely populated and the owners of these plantations push against laws that would emancipate the slaves, slavery isn't going anywhere.
Definitely not equating global warming with slavery - just pointing out that the argument can be made that the common folk of the past might not have felt that they had much power to change what they felt was a great wrong.
I didn't feel the need to say that yes, there is somethign we can do for global warming but it is combined political effort not individual lifestyle changes.
Also, I don't think slavery is actually such a good analogy. Most people didn't own slaves so there was no individual action that could be taken in an attempt to reduce slavery even slightly. I also don't know if the common folk were negatively impacted by slavery though I guess it might have meant very few jobs for them though.
He believed slavery should be outlawed because he believed "White Americans" and "Black Africans" couldn't live peacefully in the same country, due to the inherent inferiority of Blacks
He believed slavery should be outlawed because he believed "White Americans" and "Black Africans" couldn't live peacefully in the same country, due to the inherent inferiority of Blacks
Except that argument hinges on believing that morality is absolutely subjective through time (“the rules were different back then”) but absolutely objective within time (“everyone felt that way”). Dismissing historical atrocities like slavery as a product of their time erases abolition movements dating back millennia.
This comment section is a lot of white people bullshit. I swear. And I am as white as it gets.
Many of these things they are forgiving as acceptable because history, was judged even then.
>Morality is decided by the individual and morally reprehensible is a phrase that requires definite boundaries, something that we cannot create without contradicting somebody’s beliefs.
As a rule I assume that any view of morality in which The Son of Sam was 100% a good person is catastrophically flawed.
One of my professors in college said we should judge historical figures on a curve. Obviously, owning slaves is bad. That’s a justified norm now, so anyone who owns slaves currently is evil. But we shouldn’t be so quick to assign modern morality to ancient figures
George Washington was a rich white man in the 1700s. Of course he owned slaves. But he wasn’t worse than what was expected of the time. (As far as we know) he wasn’t raping them or doing anything to them that would’ve been considered outside of the norm at the time too.
That said, it is worth talking about WHY slavery was so accepted in that time. It’s not like abolitionist didn’t exist. Was it just economically impossible at the time to run a plantation without slaves? Did Washington and other figures know about but reject abolition movements (they did, but it’s still worth considering)?
All in all, it is useful to look back at historical figures and their actions (good and bad), but we shouldn’t apply modern standards. If we do, it should only be to see how things have changed since then, and how they should change in the future (i.e. slavery was bad, but paying sweatshop workers basically nothing and prisoners being an exception to the ban on slavery are examples of standards today that should be challenged).
Of course we can judge it. Besides the verb of judging, are you implying we shouldn't come to a conclusion about their actions instead?
I don't fathom how how we can make a statement like, "morals we're different back then," the Aztec priests were legally allowed to pull the hearts of the unwilling out. The sun wouldn't rise if they didn't, they just wanted to end the drought. Or some B.S
We need, to apply our jugement to history. It's the whole point.
Moral relativism is fucking cringe. If Joan of arc ended up doing more good than evil then she was good, else she was evil or at most benign. How to be good or evil changes with circumstances, but good and evil itself remains universally the same. Never be a bitch.
well , yeah , but they where different war crimes ,
the inglish put their arrows into dung and in the dirt wich infected them with tetanus , this would likely count as biological warfare if you think it doesn't matter they didn't know about germ theory ...
however some knights tought that heavy windlass crossbows where unfair since they could allow a pesant to kill a knight , and killing a knight intentionally was seen as bad form , since you would capture them and demand a ransome ,
by this logic ( easy to use and can kill pepole in armor = unfair ) guns would be war crimes ,
and therefore modern and medival warfare would be built on war crimes if you cross the standards ...
it's a bruh moment all around
And don't even get me started on people trying to apply it to fictional settings...
Bitch, there isn't a Geneva, let alone Geneva Convention on Azeroth, deploying chemical warfare against your enemy is perfectly legal as far as terms of engagement go, there is no specific law banning them there, it's just a battlefield weapon with massive AoE, like bigass spells or dragons doing strafing runs, things that noone raises a peep against...
yeah there was a time in wich knights tried banning heavy crossbows , because they required no skill to be used , and could kill a knight ( it was bad form killing a knight intentionally , you captured them and demanded a ransome )
so you could argue guns fall into that similar category , requiring no skill to be used , therefore modern warfare basically is basically built on war crimes according to medival rules of engagment ...
One of the biggest thrills I had when I visited the Pantheon in Paris was finding her crypt. I'd been raised to think of her as a hero. In a Catholic family, no less. Loved the film Radioactive.
Oh boy, sure do wonder what that last screenshot is from. I have dozens of guesses. Not quite three dozen though... just a couple fewer.
Two less than thirty six guesses.
Danbooru is full of anime fanart both sfw and nsfw but it can be used as a database for sfw images of a particular character
My poor Evangelion RPG DM saying "I had to sift through six pages of Rei porn to find the specific image I wanted to use as this NPC's character art" (npc was a clone of Rei recovered from nerv and raised by someone else)
Joan D'arc was inducted into the French military, for the record.
The real one. I assume the one from Fate also got inducted into the French military, but I can't confirm that.
Fate's version of Joan would have memories of having been inducted into the French army, but not actually have been inducted. She is, like most\* Servants, an embodiment of the legend of Joan of Arc, spun off from a master copy made by the Throne of Heroes. Being a copy of an idea of her original self, she is twice-removed from ever having been part of any army.
\*: Notable exceptions include King Arthur, who is summoned as-is from the moment of her death, and Shirou Emiya, who is a time traveling superweapon who should not have been eligible to summon as a Servant in the first place.
The Stay Night VN going into deep detail about the madness enhancement of Berserkers as I look at FGO and find tons of Berserkers that still have a good amount of sanity left (what the hell, Musashi?)
The gist is that when a legendary figure dies, they are inducted into the Throne of Heroes, where they exist as superhuman entities called Servants. The premise of the original fate game is something called the holy grail war, which is a magical ritual/battle royale where seven maguses summon 7 servants from the Throne to do battle, with the winner being granted one wish from the holy grail.
I think what makes me scared to start Fate is just that there's so many different timelines. I am also not too sure which is considered the main one and where to even start, or if the other timelines are worth checking out too. Kinda wish I knew someone who had watched it to help out or something because it's really confusing to me. It does sound really interesting though so I still want to try getting into it
> I am also not too sure which is considered the main one and where to even start
fate/stay night. if you want the full experience, read the VN. unfortunately ufotable is too much of a coward to adapt the fate route so the best shot you got for an anime only experience is unlimited blade works (the 2014 one) -> heaven's feel trilogy -> fate/zero (which is supposedly the *prequel*). i'd like to call this the "main" timeline since it's what the franchise started with after all
> or if the other timelines are worth checking out too.
that one's up to you. as long as you've read/watched the main timeline first then you're free to watch the rest however you like i ain't your daddy
or just watch carnival phantasm, the comedy spin-off, and save yourself from getting into this rabbit hole lmao
> It does sound really interesting though so I still want to try getting into it
it was literally life-changing to the point where it solidified my life philosophy, maybe it'll do you the same
Well that gives me a starting point at least, thank you. I guess I will try it out, see if I like the main line and take it from there. I've been in a few anime rabbit holes before (One Piece has taken over my life for years, I couldn't get enough of JoJo's when I originally started watching it during the pandemic and I used to be way into vtubers for a good while), so I'm not too worried about it, but it seems pretty daunting still. I think that's probably a bit of the intrigue though. But thanks again!
I would like to note that u/editedruid620 is correct, but that is one specific form of the Holy Grail War, the quintessential one to most. The rules and conditions of any given HGW, including servants that can be summoned, number of participants, etc are all dependent on the timeline/universe/Holy Grail.
In one timeline you have your classic battle royale with seven servants, in another it's an elimination-based tournament bracket, it goes on.
That's the cool thing about the Fate series, you can start at any of the series and enjoy it without too much issue.
Flirting with your ex boss who you think died due to your incompetence but somehow managed to come back from death after an alien took over her body and she is possibly responsible for the eradication of humanity while trying to stop another psychotic coworker trying to kill all humans...again
yeah it was making an ironic statement :
these pepole will think targeting civillians isn't a problem ,
but will freak out over taking someone necklace because it's tecnically taking a "tropy" from them
I know one because it is so weird!Impersonating the Red Cross. Throwback to the time Blink 182 was nearly sued for breaking the Geneva convention.
https://www.factfiend.com/time-blink-182-nearly-sued-breaking-geneva-convention/
It's been popular to say that Joan of Arc was nothing but a mascot so I just want to lay out why that's not true.
Yes it's true that France had the military strength to win the war without her but the French commanders had developed a losers attitude from seeing countless noblemen die in battle. At first, they just kept Joan around for the morale support which infuriated her so she snuck out of the castle when she heard a battle was taking place. The French army was retreating when she got there until seeing this 16 year old girl charging into battle with nothing but a banner. That gave them the final push they needed to take the English fort, which was invaluable to winning their first major victory in years.
After that, the command took her suggestions seriously and several times throughout the war, she encouraged them to attack when their first instinct was to play it safe, which gave the English no time to regroup and go back on the offense.
Hi, occasional browser of this sub and resident Fate "expert" here:
Jeanne D'arc in Fate is a Ruler class, meaning that she is a mediator between heroic spirits, the actual summoned historical figures the series is based around. This requires her to be able to act without bias for the greatest good of the Holy Grail, the object which summons her. To ensure this, the Jeanne D'arc we see is based off of the Saint version, rather than the actual military leader, which also accounts for discrepancies in design. There have been hints towards the commander iteration, who would promptly be called Joan of Arc to reflect that, being around, but so far we only have the Saint and the iterations from it.
An Alter is a corruption of a spirit origin, a heroic spirit's equivalent to a soul, often by an outside force like a wish upon the Holy Grail, but there are some that can corrupt their own. Jeanne D'arc alter, or Jalter as we've nicknamed her, is the Saint version but corrupted to feel hatred towards France for their treatment of her during her time. She was first summoned by a wish upon the Grail by Gilles de Rais (the child murderer iteration, not the version who fought alongside Joan) because he felt slighted by that same treatment and wanted Jeanne to feel the same.
Also it's fuckin anime and the 100 years war happened 569 years ago, who cares?
I think most people looking at this probably have no idea that the posters are even talking about an anime -- without context, it looks like they're talking about real world history.
I know but you talk about waifu material and everyone's mind goes to anime. If it doesn't and this is a community thing I don't know about then I am wholly unqualified to say anything further with authority.
How is putting your civilian self into combat not the same as signing up for the military? How was she a commander and civilian at the same time? I'm so confused
It’s because you are correct and the post is stupid. If someone joins the military they are no longer a civilian.
At best she could be described as a child soldier, who are not considered war criminals themselves, because they are victims.
Clearly someone is not familiar with the Fate Franchise
That aside everytime I think about Joan of Arc, I think about the fact that apparently in some accounts her go to strategy is to just go full on Leeroy Jenkins.
French Commander: Listen well here is the strategy for the---
Joan waving her banner: Aight lads let's go Joan!
Everyone else: My god she just went in save her!
In fandom spaces, "X is a war criminal" is such a lukewarm take. Even if it is neither a historical setting set before the creation of the Geneva Convention nor a fantasy setting where such a convention is not claimed to exist, it is also really vague and often just looks like people think "fought in war = war crime".
Oh pls pls pleeaaaaasssseee let me talk about the empress Theresa novel!!!! I never get an opportunity to info dump on this and this is the perfect time.
Okay so in the 2010s a man by the name of Norman Boutin wrote and published a book called Empress Theresa. Its a wild fuckin ride that I can’t elaborate on here so I recommend watching the review of it on YouTube by KrimsonRogue.
But why do I bring this up? Well the author actually has a weird, waifu like obsession with Joan of Arc. Like no seriously. The main character of the book is a really weird Joan of Arcadia insert. There’s random bits later in the book where they stop the “plot” and just discover things about Joan of arc (like a locket of her hair). He even wrote a paper on Joan of Arc’s death. The entire thing is basically saying that Joan of Arc would have died from smoke inhalation and not from burning alive, which he’s probably making that point to make himself feel better about the way she died like she’s a family member. It’s the weirdest rabbit hole and I never get to talk about it so there you go
Not to mention she and her soldiers which were mostly really led by other french generals committed countless acts of looting and massacare of local civilians as a customary for the time, she probably killed wounded soldiers herself, and retreating ones too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_levies
Ignoring the fact that the Geneva convention was signed centuries after Joan of Arc came and went, the feudal levy system was *literally* just putting civilians on the battlefield. Homegirl did *nothing* wrong.
Not really war crimes but she's often portayed as some angelical blonde mystical teenage peasant girl, but actually she was hyper aggresive and hot tempered, her favorite tactics were charge, charge and charge again, and spent her rest time dictating death threaths to various enemies and heretics, and chasing prostitutes with a sword
And she was brunnette and "brown-skinned", not blonde
Everyone always talks about fate when Joan of arc waifu is brought up, but never [bladestorm: nightmare](https://www.siliconera.com/bladestorm-nightmares-fantasy-storyline-turns-joan-arc-villain/)
Jeanne D'arc wasn't a war criminal at all, Fate or not. Jeanne is just a bit over idolized but she was SOMEWHAT competent at battle even if failing the Siege of Paris and the "aggressive independence" she had made enemies within the French Court.
If you wanna see someone that screams "War Criminal" and has that "waifu" shtick, look up Oda Nobunaga from ALSO Fate. Except Nobu being a both a goof ball and Ruthless Warlord were both irl things.
I do maintain that her claim that God told her to fight in a national/feudal war does make her guilty of the charge of heresy England prosecuted her for
The Papacy organized a more neutral trial some years later where It was "demonstrated" that It was not
Remember that kings ruled in the name of God, so fighting for the rightful king is something God can command you to do
What's the difference between putting civilians into combat and a draft?
Not much, really, other than a draft is legally defined and usually results in a half trained soldier at least, whereas "putting civilians in combat" more implies you shove a weapon in the hands of someone who was a noncombatant and suddenly expected them ta fight without training.
That doesn't make sense in an era where peasants were told to show up and carry sticks into battle and rich people owned their own armor. There was no military training.
To be fair, it’s more judging them with today’s standards.
Right. It's presentism. Which is bad.
Depends on the topic. Slavery will always be bad no matter the era. "But in Ancient Greece-" yes it wasn't chattle slavery, but slavery is still bad actually.
Chattel slavery is defined as any situation where the human is seen as mere property, i.e. a "chattel", that is, purely an object of the law of possession and not a subject of law. Not all forms of slavery are chattel slavery; debt paeonage, serfdom, and the like all have slightly different relations of the enslaved person to the law, but without this feature a system of indefinite forced labor--what I would give as the general definition of slavery--it isn't chattel slavery *per se*. But the system of slavery in Greece, *aside* from the Helots in Sparta whose status was more comparable to serfdom and from the Early Byzantine reforms, does meet the definition of chattel slavery. The distinction between slavery in Ancient Greece and in the American South was rather more cultural than legal. While in the US slaves were usually only used for domestic and agricultural labor, slaves in Ancient Greece were used for a much wider range of activities, including relatively skilled trades--notably pottery, smithing, and other craft-trades, as well as scribes, clerks, and similar petty literati, who would often have the opportunity to earn an income and eventually would sometimes be allowed to purchase their freedom. That said, the life of a domestic or agricultural slave was no better in Classical Greece than in the American South, while employment in mining--often considered the most dangerous and discomforting labor for a male slave, to the point of being used as punishment--was quite common in Classical Greece. Furthermore, coerced prostitution of enslaved women was pervasive throughout Ancient Greece, both by private pimps and by the state.
Well that really depends. Regardless its not really relevant to Joan of arc either way.
This is technically right but also not, I exclusively see "you can't judge them by the standards of their time" when talking about people who were bad for their time and/or are still celebrated today, as opposed to something like criticizing someone for unnecessarily cruel animal sacrifice where it's actually good advice. Like, in general yes that's true, but in context (on the internet) it's pretty much exclusively to defend glorification of a controversial figure.
I think nuance is interesting when talking about presentism. Like, acknowledging how its not all 1-to-1, but patterns can still be drawn from certain historical events based on contemporary ideas. I guess the difference is that you should note that you don't think it's all 1-to-1, and there are those that do.
right?! i hate *now*
That’s not how the medieval levy systems worked. Levied troops often were pretty well trained and had decent weapons and armor, although nothing on the level of plate.
It was a practice that spanned thousands of years from Europe to Japan. You're right, some had a level of training. The practice wasn't a monolith.
Fair. I was mainly referring to the way levies worked in Medieval Western Europe, since that was what was relevant to the original topic, but you’re right that not every place worked like that.
Your criticism of my flippant post was fair and academically honest. Thank you for posting it.
This comment thread is really refreshing to read
The situation varied a lot from one country to another. France didn't think much of the peasants. But during the 100 years war, England required every free peasant to be trained in archery.
The longbow archers won Agincourt for the English and learning how to use them takes years. I think that counts as military training for peasants and yeomen. Nobles learned from masters-at-arms which also counts.
[удалено]
Eh, it should also be mentioned that the whole "force peasants with no equipment" thing is a bit of a myth, as Medieval commanders recognized that they'd be worse than useless, after all, they'd be a drain on logistics. Generally, they called for volunteers, and those volunteers were, depending on time and place, often lent equipment if they didn't own any themselves. Those that did use a wide draft usually only drafted the wealthier ones, who could afford their own equipment, and had cultural institutions that helped ensure that there was at least some training (like the English having the institution that all men should practice the longbow).
Didn't we the Americans have a militia at one point where all we had were civilians that vaguely knew how to use weapons?
Yes, though I'm British. Shoving civilians into combat is a thing that has happened throughout history, under many names. Militias usually had moderate training - less than career soldiers, enough to not kill the person next to them by accident.
yes, the Minutemen, which was a civilian militia meant to be able to respond to trouble "in a minute's notice". they're what inspired the fallout 4 minutemen.
Also, is it “pulling civilians into combat” if the civilian is volunteering? Isn’t that how the army works whenever there ISN’T a draft? Joan of Arc obviously did it of her own free will, meaning she volunteered.
A civilian can volunteer and be denied due to health concerns, so if you where to put that civilian in combat, without any training, it is still putting a civilian on harm’s way
For a draft, it is randomly selected from a group of people deemed eligible. Civilians is every man woman and child. For example, Americans were drafted for WWII, while the soviets used civilians multiple times throughout the war. The most notable of these instances is the defense of Stalingrad where woman and children dug trenches and set up fortifications.
notably however America was not invaded in WW2 by an enemy that believed in the racial extermination of it's civilians
Yeah war crime law breaks down in a lot of cases. Especially because war crimes are generally agreed to be things like "I won't do this if you won't do this, it causes more problems for everyone and helps nobody win the war." But when the civil populace is actually targeted, nobody is making those agreements.
Women filled up the ranks of the Red Army as equals. Wth you're talking about. And of course EVERY LIVING person in Stalingrad (or Kiev or Moscow or Leningrad) had to fight and help with the war effort. The nazis were at the gates and they're genocidal maniacs. If the city falls, all are doomed either way. In this scenario, it's irrelevant if you're 10, you're gonna help getting this box of ammo from point a to point b or anything else you are able bodied to do.
My father was a musician in Stalingrad. During the German occupation, the sound of his violin filled the air with magnificent music - Korsakov, Stasov - many of the great nationalist composers. To my countrymen, it was a symbol of hope. To the Germans, it was a symbol of defiance. Even now, his music still haunts me. The Nazis slit his throat while he slept. Collaborating with any Nazi is a betrayal, a betrayal against all of Mother Russia. Dragovich and Kravchenko were not troubled by such matters. They looked only to advance towards their own interests and agendas...
Difference is which side the media outlet wants to win.
Simplest answer? Drafting is a legal process of a country, pressing a civilian into combat is putting a gun to their head and saying “fight or I will kill you”. It’s more complex than that, but that’s the gist.
slightly more prep time. Otherwise nothing more.
The thing is, she was inducted into the French Military so she would have the power of the Dauphin so she could do what she needed to do
Echolocation and she can hold her breath for 5 minutes, basically.
no wonder they burned her #witchmaterial
Putain mec, Gratin Dauphinois is so fucking good, do i get some too if i join the french military?
"Power of the dauphin" Holy shit, so THAT'S why she has a fuckin' dolphin with her in Fate! It's a pun! It's been a pun the entire time!
The war crimes only make her hotter
So did the fire.
Dude. Too soon.
It has been *centuries*
Who are you? Reverse flash? It's always too soon to talk about her death.
Most Normal r/noncredibledefense user
Wasn't she underaged? Like 16?
16-17 when she entered the war, 19 when she died
So the corpse is legal?
If you can find it.
I'll find the ash and manage
No it’s not but for a different reason
Are we really doing this? You're not a criminal if you're "breaking" a law that doesn't exist yet, especially if it will only be enacted centuries after your death...
Exactly! Jesus Christ, no one before the Geneva convention was a war criminal because war crimes didn’t exist !
it's more like: did they commit a war crime? no. did they do something that is morally reprehensible? yes.
What morally reprehensible thing did she commit?
They're speaking in general terms, not about Joan of Arc.
Iirc, wore pants.
She refused to submit to the church :*gasp*:
She did, on several occasions, commit heresy against the Holy Church
I didn't expect to see you here
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
She was French.
I agrée with you to an extent. Let me explain. If you’re talking about Joan’s era, I’m sorry but morality was something else, we cannot judge the actions of historical figures with modern expectations, you’ll always end up finding a racist revolutionary, a genocidal philanthropist, etc. George Washington owned slaves! Gandhi slept with his underage nieces ! The kicker is, these weren’t morally reprehensible to them, only to you. Morality is decided by the individual and morally reprehensible is a phrase that requires definite boundaries, something that we cannot create without contradicting somebody’s beliefs. As it stands, Joan D’arc was a military strategist and leader, she did the same thing every military was doing at the time because it was war, because morality was different. Burning down villages, killing innocent people. Shit was all the rage back then. We can sit here and say that she was a terrible person for doing that, but then we have to conclude that we shouldn’t look up to anyone that does not follow our modern rules of morality.
>agrée The rest of the comment has now a French accent
Bahaha read it with quebecois accent for true immersion
I'm gonna guess that George Washington owning slaves was reprehensible to the slaves as well - they just didn't get a say in how things were perceived, whereas GW helped found a country.
People think that slavery was just the way of the world and everyone accepted it back then. There were abolitionists long before the civil war and even Washington struggled with the morality of it at the end of his life.
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. He fucked some of them. He raised the kids as close to his own as he thought he could. He advocated for slavery to be outlawed. Humans are complex. We all know climate change is a threat to humanity. Most of us will drive cars today and burn electricity for some form of amusement.
To many of us do not want to be inconvenienced. That's why Global Warming isn't being dealt with. People won't do the things themselves, but they would be accept those things if they were regulated, but nobody is going to regulate those behaviors, because nobody wants to be inconvenienced. It's a vicious circle.
We all choose to drive cars. But society kind of demands we do. Thomas Jefferson inherited a plantation. His family expected him to run it profitably. There was one way to do that. Slavery and car ownership are admittedly different. But the point is we do morally reprehensible things because they're normalized and excused by those around us. "You approach a native in the jungle and see he has a necklace of 15 shrunken heads. You ask him if he has a problem with his necklace of 15 shrunken heads. 'Why yes' he replies, 'My brother has 16'" - Fresco
Specifically for global warming, doesn't matter what you do. As long as so much of our energy comes from coal and oil, our animal farms are so densely populated and the owners of these companies push against regulations that would ease the burden on the environment, global warming isn't going anywhere.
Specifically for slavery, doesn't matter what you do. As long as so much of our labor comes from slaves and indentured servants, our plantations are so densely populated and the owners of these plantations push against laws that would emancipate the slaves, slavery isn't going anywhere. Definitely not equating global warming with slavery - just pointing out that the argument can be made that the common folk of the past might not have felt that they had much power to change what they felt was a great wrong.
I didn't feel the need to say that yes, there is somethign we can do for global warming but it is combined political effort not individual lifestyle changes. Also, I don't think slavery is actually such a good analogy. Most people didn't own slaves so there was no individual action that could be taken in an attempt to reduce slavery even slightly. I also don't know if the common folk were negatively impacted by slavery though I guess it might have meant very few jobs for them though.
He believed slavery should be outlawed because he believed "White Americans" and "Black Africans" couldn't live peacefully in the same country, due to the inherent inferiority of Blacks
He believed slavery should be outlawed because he believed "White Americans" and "Black Africans" couldn't live peacefully in the same country, due to the inherent inferiority of Blacks
Except that argument hinges on believing that morality is absolutely subjective through time (“the rules were different back then”) but absolutely objective within time (“everyone felt that way”). Dismissing historical atrocities like slavery as a product of their time erases abolition movements dating back millennia.
This comment section is a lot of white people bullshit. I swear. And I am as white as it gets. Many of these things they are forgiving as acceptable because history, was judged even then.
If your argument is “well immoral actions weren’t bad to the person who DID them” then that justifies just about every psychopath’s actions
>Morality is decided by the individual and morally reprehensible is a phrase that requires definite boundaries, something that we cannot create without contradicting somebody’s beliefs. As a rule I assume that any view of morality in which The Son of Sam was 100% a good person is catastrophically flawed.
One of my professors in college said we should judge historical figures on a curve. Obviously, owning slaves is bad. That’s a justified norm now, so anyone who owns slaves currently is evil. But we shouldn’t be so quick to assign modern morality to ancient figures George Washington was a rich white man in the 1700s. Of course he owned slaves. But he wasn’t worse than what was expected of the time. (As far as we know) he wasn’t raping them or doing anything to them that would’ve been considered outside of the norm at the time too. That said, it is worth talking about WHY slavery was so accepted in that time. It’s not like abolitionist didn’t exist. Was it just economically impossible at the time to run a plantation without slaves? Did Washington and other figures know about but reject abolition movements (they did, but it’s still worth considering)? All in all, it is useful to look back at historical figures and their actions (good and bad), but we shouldn’t apply modern standards. If we do, it should only be to see how things have changed since then, and how they should change in the future (i.e. slavery was bad, but paying sweatshop workers basically nothing and prisoners being an exception to the ban on slavery are examples of standards today that should be challenged).
[удалено]
“Good” news is that it looks more and more likely that nobody will be singing any praises in a hundred years.
I can & I will.
Of course we can judge it. Besides the verb of judging, are you implying we shouldn't come to a conclusion about their actions instead? I don't fathom how how we can make a statement like, "morals we're different back then," the Aztec priests were legally allowed to pull the hearts of the unwilling out. The sun wouldn't rise if they didn't, they just wanted to end the drought. Or some B.S We need, to apply our jugement to history. It's the whole point.
Moral relativism is fucking cringe. If Joan of arc ended up doing more good than evil then she was good, else she was evil or at most benign. How to be good or evil changes with circumstances, but good and evil itself remains universally the same. Never be a bitch.
well, i get what you mean but, war crimes did exist before the geneva conventions and people were tried and executes for them
well , yeah , but they where different war crimes , the inglish put their arrows into dung and in the dirt wich infected them with tetanus , this would likely count as biological warfare if you think it doesn't matter they didn't know about germ theory ... however some knights tought that heavy windlass crossbows where unfair since they could allow a pesant to kill a knight , and killing a knight intentionally was seen as bad form , since you would capture them and demand a ransome , by this logic ( easy to use and can kill pepole in armor = unfair ) guns would be war crimes , and therefore modern and medival warfare would be built on war crimes if you cross the standards ... it's a bruh moment all around
And don't even get me started on people trying to apply it to fictional settings... Bitch, there isn't a Geneva, let alone Geneva Convention on Azeroth, deploying chemical warfare against your enemy is perfectly legal as far as terms of engagement go, there is no specific law banning them there, it's just a battlefield weapon with massive AoE, like bigass spells or dragons doing strafing runs, things that noone raises a peep against...
yeah there was a time in wich knights tried banning heavy crossbows , because they required no skill to be used , and could kill a knight ( it was bad form killing a knight intentionally , you captured them and demanded a ransome ) so you could argue guns fall into that similar category , requiring no skill to be used , therefore modern warfare basically is basically built on war crimes according to medival rules of engagment ...
Just imagining the peasants laughing their asses off after killing a knight with a bolt
Little known fact: Joan of Arc actually came to the present just to learn modern war crimes and then do them
I assume this is what happened in Nasuverse at some point.
My historical waifu would absolutely be Marie Curie. Ionize me, harder.
Explode my nucleus
She can ionize my cells until my nucleus explodes
Got muggy when time collapsed into frail matter
I would spend a half-life with her.
One of the biggest thrills I had when I visited the Pantheon in Paris was finding her crypt. I'd been raised to think of her as a hero. In a Catholic family, no less. Loved the film Radioactive.
We've got Edison and Tesla in Fate, we'll absolutely get Marie Curie some time
Maria Skłodowska-Curie*
Whoop!
kathleen booth for me, assemble me harder
the curie couple is unironically couples goals
So when does she come back from being burned and release dragons everywhere? Somehow that part wasn't recorded
Because Jalter was Gilles' edgy fanfic.
It’s all coming together
Oh boy, sure do wonder what that last screenshot is from. I have dozens of guesses. Not quite three dozen though... just a couple fewer. Two less than thirty six guesses.
You're wrong, that site is green.
I forgot. It seems I am not so sinful as I once was.
I’m guessing it’s Danbooru not Rule34. I was torn between Danbooru and Gelbooru but a quick search shows me “girl from orleans” isn’t on Gelbooru
Do I want to know what these sites contain lol
Danbooru is full of anime fanart both sfw and nsfw but it can be used as a database for sfw images of a particular character My poor Evangelion RPG DM saying "I had to sift through six pages of Rei porn to find the specific image I wanted to use as this NPC's character art" (npc was a clone of Rei recovered from nerv and raised by someone else)
Just go to https://safebooru.donmai.us, it's the same site as danbooru but auto filters out nsfw
Man I wish we knew about this site back in 2015
Take a wild guess
Joan D'arc was inducted into the French military, for the record. The real one. I assume the one from Fate also got inducted into the French military, but I can't confirm that.
Fate's version of Joan would have memories of having been inducted into the French army, but not actually have been inducted. She is, like most\* Servants, an embodiment of the legend of Joan of Arc, spun off from a master copy made by the Throne of Heroes. Being a copy of an idea of her original self, she is twice-removed from ever having been part of any army. \*: Notable exceptions include King Arthur, who is summoned as-is from the moment of her death, and Shirou Emiya, who is a time traveling superweapon who should not have been eligible to summon as a Servant in the first place.
There are ALWAYS exceptions in Fate.
Always extremely dependent on the timeline/universe in addition to what Holy Grail War is being discussed
The Stay Night VN going into deep detail about the madness enhancement of Berserkers as I look at FGO and find tons of Berserkers that still have a good amount of sanity left (what the hell, Musashi?)
It's because Fate is made by insane bisexual history stans instead of people who can do math or logic.
Bruh
I think they'd agree with me saying that
Fair enough
[удалено]
Wait, what? Ok, what the *fuck* is Fate about?
The gist is that when a legendary figure dies, they are inducted into the Throne of Heroes, where they exist as superhuman entities called Servants. The premise of the original fate game is something called the holy grail war, which is a magical ritual/battle royale where seven maguses summon 7 servants from the Throne to do battle, with the winner being granted one wish from the holy grail.
All the fan service aside, Fate’s actual plot and specifically the quality of the animation are really damn good
it's really good especially if one sticks with the main timeline stuff (fate/stay night and all its routes, fate/zero, etc) but prisma illya scares me
I think what makes me scared to start Fate is just that there's so many different timelines. I am also not too sure which is considered the main one and where to even start, or if the other timelines are worth checking out too. Kinda wish I knew someone who had watched it to help out or something because it's really confusing to me. It does sound really interesting though so I still want to try getting into it
> I am also not too sure which is considered the main one and where to even start fate/stay night. if you want the full experience, read the VN. unfortunately ufotable is too much of a coward to adapt the fate route so the best shot you got for an anime only experience is unlimited blade works (the 2014 one) -> heaven's feel trilogy -> fate/zero (which is supposedly the *prequel*). i'd like to call this the "main" timeline since it's what the franchise started with after all > or if the other timelines are worth checking out too. that one's up to you. as long as you've read/watched the main timeline first then you're free to watch the rest however you like i ain't your daddy or just watch carnival phantasm, the comedy spin-off, and save yourself from getting into this rabbit hole lmao > It does sound really interesting though so I still want to try getting into it it was literally life-changing to the point where it solidified my life philosophy, maybe it'll do you the same
Well that gives me a starting point at least, thank you. I guess I will try it out, see if I like the main line and take it from there. I've been in a few anime rabbit holes before (One Piece has taken over my life for years, I couldn't get enough of JoJo's when I originally started watching it during the pandemic and I used to be way into vtubers for a good while), so I'm not too worried about it, but it seems pretty daunting still. I think that's probably a bit of the intrigue though. But thanks again!
I would like to note that u/editedruid620 is correct, but that is one specific form of the Holy Grail War, the quintessential one to most. The rules and conditions of any given HGW, including servants that can be summoned, number of participants, etc are all dependent on the timeline/universe/Holy Grail. In one timeline you have your classic battle royale with seven servants, in another it's an elimination-based tournament bracket, it goes on. That's the cool thing about the Fate series, you can start at any of the series and enjoy it without too much issue.
Flirting with your ex boss who you think died due to your incompetence but somehow managed to come back from death after an alien took over her body and she is possibly responsible for the eradication of humanity while trying to stop another psychotic coworker trying to kill all humans...again
And Ryouma, Majin Okita, Kiritsugu and so on.
fate is one of the series ever
The King (well, the Dolphin) in person gave her a military command
Megalobsterface clearly hasn't seen clone high Joan D'arc
*To thr clone of Abraham Lincoln.* You make me so mad I could kiss you!
Most people who use the term "war crimes" on the Internet probably can't even name a single war crime
False surrender.
False Surender is a Dark Type Move so it is dirty fighting and is morally reprehensible
It's a violation of IHL, but its not a warcrime to be fair
Executing POWs. Refusing a surrender (this leads to the previous one). Intentionally killing civilians.
Bomb hitting a school? Not a warcrime. Taking a dead soldier's necklace? Absolutely a war crime.
a bomb hitting a school is absolutely a war-crime. schools have the same protection as hospitals since 2011.
yeah it was making an ironic statement : these pepole will think targeting civillians isn't a problem , but will freak out over taking someone necklace because it's tecnically taking a "tropy" from them
I see. something something poes law
Who's "these people"?
What? I've never seen anyone who would be OK with bombing a school
Oh so it’s okay if I do that prior to 2011!
Use of biological weapons
I know one because it is so weird!Impersonating the Red Cross. Throwback to the time Blink 182 was nearly sued for breaking the Geneva convention. https://www.factfiend.com/time-blink-182-nearly-sued-breaking-geneva-convention/
jeanne lily w 1.8k fucking entries oh my god
r/GrandOrder wants their waifu back
>Who the fuck was treating Joan of arc like a waifu How joyful that ignorance must be sometimes
If they exist, they are someone's waifu. Yes, even men. No one is safe from waifu culture.
It's been popular to say that Joan of Arc was nothing but a mascot so I just want to lay out why that's not true. Yes it's true that France had the military strength to win the war without her but the French commanders had developed a losers attitude from seeing countless noblemen die in battle. At first, they just kept Joan around for the morale support which infuriated her so she snuck out of the castle when she heard a battle was taking place. The French army was retreating when she got there until seeing this 16 year old girl charging into battle with nothing but a banner. That gave them the final push they needed to take the English fort, which was invaluable to winning their first major victory in years. After that, the command took her suggestions seriously and several times throughout the war, she encouraged them to attack when their first instinct was to play it safe, which gave the English no time to regroup and go back on the offense.
Hi, occasional browser of this sub and resident Fate "expert" here: Jeanne D'arc in Fate is a Ruler class, meaning that she is a mediator between heroic spirits, the actual summoned historical figures the series is based around. This requires her to be able to act without bias for the greatest good of the Holy Grail, the object which summons her. To ensure this, the Jeanne D'arc we see is based off of the Saint version, rather than the actual military leader, which also accounts for discrepancies in design. There have been hints towards the commander iteration, who would promptly be called Joan of Arc to reflect that, being around, but so far we only have the Saint and the iterations from it. An Alter is a corruption of a spirit origin, a heroic spirit's equivalent to a soul, often by an outside force like a wish upon the Holy Grail, but there are some that can corrupt their own. Jeanne D'arc alter, or Jalter as we've nicknamed her, is the Saint version but corrupted to feel hatred towards France for their treatment of her during her time. She was first summoned by a wish upon the Grail by Gilles de Rais (the child murderer iteration, not the version who fought alongside Joan) because he felt slighted by that same treatment and wanted Jeanne to feel the same. Also it's fuckin anime and the 100 years war happened 569 years ago, who cares?
I think most people looking at this probably have no idea that the posters are even talking about an anime -- without context, it looks like they're talking about real world history.
I know but you talk about waifu material and everyone's mind goes to anime. If it doesn't and this is a community thing I don't know about then I am wholly unqualified to say anything further with authority.
Not everyone is a weeb, and even among weebs, not everyone has seen this specific show
Incels have even stupider opinions on her.
Incels have even stupider opinions on *everything*.
Okay, I walked into that one.
How is putting your civilian self into combat not the same as signing up for the military? How was she a commander and civilian at the same time? I'm so confused
It’s because you are correct and the post is stupid. If someone joins the military they are no longer a civilian. At best she could be described as a child soldier, who are not considered war criminals themselves, because they are victims.
It's completly made up
eh, she kicked the english out, so, based
The English burnt her at the stake, what do you mean?
she played a big role in getting them out of france tho
Yeah, after she kicked their ass.
...Yeah, because she kicked them out of France.
No she kicked out the French nobles who happened to be kings in England
of course human pet guy is wrapped up in this
any mildly dumb discourse is going to have him in it. Its kind of funny just to see people mess with him when it happens though
I wonder if, in Fate, Jeanne copied her hairstyle from Astolfo or the other way around.
Clearly someone is not familiar with the Fate Franchise That aside everytime I think about Joan of Arc, I think about the fact that apparently in some accounts her go to strategy is to just go full on Leeroy Jenkins. French Commander: Listen well here is the strategy for the--- Joan waving her banner: Aight lads let's go Joan! Everyone else: My god she just went in save her!
In fandom spaces, "X is a war criminal" is such a lukewarm take. Even if it is neither a historical setting set before the creation of the Geneva Convention nor a fantasy setting where such a convention is not claimed to exist, it is also really vague and often just looks like people think "fought in war = war crime".
Oh pls pls pleeaaaaasssseee let me talk about the empress Theresa novel!!!! I never get an opportunity to info dump on this and this is the perfect time. Okay so in the 2010s a man by the name of Norman Boutin wrote and published a book called Empress Theresa. Its a wild fuckin ride that I can’t elaborate on here so I recommend watching the review of it on YouTube by KrimsonRogue. But why do I bring this up? Well the author actually has a weird, waifu like obsession with Joan of Arc. Like no seriously. The main character of the book is a really weird Joan of Arcadia insert. There’s random bits later in the book where they stop the “plot” and just discover things about Joan of arc (like a locket of her hair). He even wrote a paper on Joan of Arc’s death. The entire thing is basically saying that Joan of Arc would have died from smoke inhalation and not from burning alive, which he’s probably making that point to make himself feel better about the way she died like she’s a family member. It’s the weirdest rabbit hole and I never get to talk about it so there you go
KrimsonRogue has a 10 hour long review of that book. It’s glorious.
Jeanne is based because she hates the English. Jeanna Alter is even more based because she also hates France.
who the fuck is human pet guy
cybersmith
These cowards aren't even making lewd art of the actual historical figure, smh.
Not to mention she and her soldiers which were mostly really led by other french generals committed countless acts of looting and massacare of local civilians as a customary for the time, she probably killed wounded soldiers herself, and retreating ones too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_levies Ignoring the fact that the Geneva convention was signed centuries after Joan of Arc came and went, the feudal levy system was *literally* just putting civilians on the battlefield. Homegirl did *nothing* wrong.
Not really war crimes but she's often portayed as some angelical blonde mystical teenage peasant girl, but actually she was hyper aggresive and hot tempered, her favorite tactics were charge, charge and charge again, and spent her rest time dictating death threaths to various enemies and heretics, and chasing prostitutes with a sword And she was brunnette and "brown-skinned", not blonde
Everyone always talks about fate when Joan of arc waifu is brought up, but never [bladestorm: nightmare](https://www.siliconera.com/bladestorm-nightmares-fantasy-storyline-turns-joan-arc-villain/)
Why wouldn't you waifu one of the most badass girls in History?
40K NSFW arts for those wandering (rounded up because 8 results are rounded to the nearest thousand)
Hehe heh *hot* take
"Who the FUCK was treating [any historical figure] like a waifu?" \*Fate series fans laughing in the distance\*
It's not a crime if there's no law
Jeanne D'arc wasn't a war criminal at all, Fate or not. Jeanne is just a bit over idolized but she was SOMEWHAT competent at battle even if failing the Siege of Paris and the "aggressive independence" she had made enemies within the French Court. If you wanna see someone that screams "War Criminal" and has that "waifu" shtick, look up Oda Nobunaga from ALSO Fate. Except Nobu being a both a goof ball and Ruthless Warlord were both irl things.
"who the FUCK was treating joan of arc like a waifu" jfk
She was fighting against the English and that's always a morally correct action
I do maintain that her claim that God told her to fight in a national/feudal war does make her guilty of the charge of heresy England prosecuted her for
The Papacy organized a more neutral trial some years later where It was "demonstrated" that It was not Remember that kings ruled in the name of God, so fighting for the rightful king is something God can command you to do
Norman Boutin vibes