Games - Quoits

Alright, so I wanted to get away from football variations for a little bit to keep your attention.  Today we want to get a little bit away from the rough and tumble sporting events and introduce a little more leisurely past time.  I always enjoy a competition I can drink/eat in the middle of (though I have done such while playing ultimate frisbee, it's not recommended).

http://www.allenvalleyquoits.co.uk/

Like many popular games, the history of quoits is muddled at best.  Played with metal (rope, or rubber) rings, and thrown at a distant peg, quoits has been played for quite some time (attributed by some to ancient Greece).  There are those who believe that the game originated from the discus throw, as a distance competition.  Many believe that the game of quoits originally used rounded horseshoes, others say that the game of horseshoes later evolved into quoits.  However it came about, the outdoor form of horseshoes and quoits are roughly similar (indoor quoits being a pub game which developed much later).  Today, there are a number of popular variations.

    "The Northern Game" is played in the north of England.  The hobs, or stakes, are placed eleven yards apart in three-foot clay squares (not sand), sticking three to four inches above the ground.  The quoits are around 5.5" in diameter, weigh around 5.5 pounds, and have a curved upper face (so if overturned, can more easily be flipped out of position).  You score for each quoit closer than your opponent's nearest.  Matches are played to a set score (11, 15, or 21 generally), with scoring 1 for closest to the hob, or 2 for a "ringer" (only the top quoit on the peg scores).  Games can be individual or in teams of two.  

    "The Long Game" or "The Old Game" is played mostly in Wales and Scotland and like many Celtic sports, requires a bit more strength.  Here, the hobs are eighteen yards apart and the 9" quoits weigh around 11 pounds.  Another important difference is that the hobs are driven flush with the ground, to act as a simple target.  You score for each quoit closer than your opponent's nearest. 

    Other variations have developed in other regions colonized by the Brits during the course of their history.  On cruise ships they tend to use rope quoits and wooden peg boards, to save the decking.  Indoor games are likewise played on gaming tables (as targets) and over shorter distances.  A similar game is played at fairs, using rope hoops (or hula-hoops) tossed at pegs to win prizes.  Rubber quoits are sometimes used in the US to cut down on injuries resulting from hucking about metal discs (oh how I miss lawn darts). 
    Quoits were popular with all types, from society gentlemen to miners, though there certainly were detractors.  Henry IV, "hated the game as the devil did holy water." (Walken pg 38).  Other monarchs outlawed it, like many other games at the time (see football) for being distractions from more useful activities.  To be fair, drinking and wagering was (is?) pretty popular in connection with the game, but then again just about all leisure activities can be connected with drinking and wagering.  Soldiers played it on the march.  Workers played it in the village.  I'm sure you can find a place for a game somewhere in your stories. 
   

    

Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoits

History - http://www.quoits.info/history/history.html

Info on Varieties - http://www.tradgames.org.uk/games/Quoits.htm

US Quoiting Association - http://www.usqa.org/

Early Games - http://books.google.com/books?id=ljAPAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=quoits+history&source=bl&ots=Nff7pjlbrM&sig=3MTsT1pgz4-lyfIfZuTmoaVTg2I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sCasU4OkO8OeyATchIHIDw&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=quoits%20history&f=false

Games - Soccer

Okay, so maybe I have been a little swept up in the World Cup lately, but that's not the only reason for this newest idea for a series of posts.  Characters tend to have serious things that they're going through while we're telling their stories, but everyone needs downtime.  Hell, kids had to do something for fun back then, it wasn't all toil and drudgery.  So, time to look back on how our ancestors had fun (apart from drinking and killing each other).

While ball-games have long been popular around the world, even ones that require the use of no hands, they were not what the world now knows as association football  (soccer/futbol/futebol).  It is commonly agreed that association football was formalized in the 19th Century to give a consistent set of rules to the games having been played in English public schools since at least 1303.  It was this period that differentiated association football, rules football (now, most commonly Australian), and rugby.  The term "soccer" was coined in the 1880s, in England, as an abbreviation for the word "association." 
    Early games were rather rough (as might be imagined, if you've ever seen rugby or rules football).  The legend connected with the origin of the games comes from an 8th C tale of soldiers kicking the head of a defeated (obviously) Danish prince around a field (though this makes me think of Tolkien's legendary history of golf).  In fact, the earliest record we have of football being played in public schools, is related to the death of a player.  The Lord Mayor of London forbid its playing in 1314 to try to cut down on the chaos it encouraged.  These negative sentiments were echoed by kings in England, Scotland and France in hopes of keeping their soldiers in line and engaged in more useful pursuits (like practicing their archery).  Other proscriptions were related to breaking windows or breaking the sabbath (remember, no weekends at this time, so Sunday was the only real free time during the day for most people). 
    Football, in the early days, was played by an indefinite number of people (different versions of "mob football" developed around the globe, including thousands of Native Americans on the beach at one time).  Whole villages might take part, playing over any ground.  Local rules might allow play with any part of the body and a certain level of violence was expected.  Not even the ball was formalized in size or weight, until nine years after the modern sport was codified.  The ball to be used and the duration of the game were agreed upon between the contending parties prior to the onset of hostilities.  While most play was disorganized, a record from a public school (1581), does describe a recognizable football league with organized sides, small numbers, standings and a formal referee. 
    All kinds of materials have been used to play ball games around the world.  In South America, the natives used a light elasticized ball (the process for vulcanizing rubber coming much later).  Other cultures used bundles of rags or animal skins stuffed with feathers, cork, furs, what have you.  I'm not sure we can consider skulls to be "balls," but it is said that some folks kicked them around at play as well.  We get closer to the modern definition of a football when those playful Medieval folks started inflating pigs' bladders to bop around, though it was too delicate for football.  Later they were covered in leather to protect the bladder and produce a more regular shape.  It wasn't until the 19th Century that rubber bladders were invented, creating uniform balls.
    Obviously, the modern sport of soccer (again, using the modern American term) was not present in the Medieval period, but there were many similar games which led up to this phenomenon.  The benefits of play were recognized by early schoolmasters, who encouraged the children to participate, though they tried to tone down the violence.  Football was widely played by men as well as boys (even women were known to have participated, though not in public schools).  For a fantasy setting, it seems a rather simple task to devise some basic rules, toss a ball out there and let your characters hurt each other.  See?  You can still torture your creations even when they're having fun.

That looks like enough for a first installment.  In the future, I'll cover some of the related ball games and well as spill over into other arenas.  If you have some suggestions as to what I might cover, or you want to write one, just drop me a line.  I'm always happy for input.
    







History Timeline - http://www.topendsports.com/sport/soccer/history.htm
Soccer Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football
English Public School Football Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_public_school_football_games
Government Opposition - http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/the-game/opposition-to-the-game.html
Early Games - http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/the-game/Britain-home-of-football.html
Game Balls - http://www.soccerballworld.com/History.htm

Creature Culture (part 6b)

Let's see, where were we?  Sorry, my computer options were acting funky with the last post, so I cut it a little shorter than normal and didn't do much editing (as I'm sure is obvious).  Still had some good stuff I hope.  

    I first want to expand on the idea of environmental pressure's role in evolution.  For many years, the prevailing understanding was that, because of environmental change, the dinosaurs died out.  They just couldn't keep up when food became scarce, because of their massive bulk and caloric requirements, .  We now understand that some of their descendants live on in the birds.  Dinosaurs didn't die out.  They responded to environmental pressure by getting smaller, or more precisely, the smaller dinosaurs survived to pass on their genetics.  In my last trip to the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, they even had some had some fair sized dinos mocked up with feathers (they had pretty butterflies too, but that's beside the point), again highlighting how difficult the geologic record is to interpret.
    Conversely, as the dinosaurs got smaller, mammals (not humans yet) started getting bigger.  Calling this a simple predator/prey relationship would probably be oversimplifying, but there is likely some connection.  When the big dinos were running things, it paid to be small and quick.  Bigger slower creatures probably became lunch.  These kinds of chain reactions happen all the time as populations adjust to each other.  Think about how certain animals have adapted to human environments, carving out niches for their families in this new terrain (thinking squirrels, deer, mice, ants, racoons, foxes, etc).
    These environmental niches are very important when we are devising the interactions between different peoples.  If elves take over the forests, dwarfs take the mountain, and humans take the plains, how does that limit each culture?  What traits are desirable for surviving in each environment (that they survive there, or moved there to survive)?  Do these creatures prey on each other?  How does resource availability impact population size/rate of reproduction?  When you create a new species, they impact every part of their environment and thus generate pressure.

     The second primary part of the initial question was about branchings within the evolutionary family tree.  As I said in the previous post, it's tricky to try to detect this happening in the geologic record.  We've long searched for "The Missing Link" in human evolution.  It would be highly unlikely for branching to happen within a single population, simply because of interbreeding (this was kind of the initial catch for the Sentinels in X-Men, their programming realized that all humans had the potential to produce "Homo superiors").  If a trait is desirable for survival, everyone wants it.  Those that don't want it die out.  It's been suggested that Neanderthals disappeared because they were absorbed back into the human line (or maybe we murdered them all), though if they were a different species I'm not sure how that could happen (see the definition of "species" in the previous article).  To separate the strains, it would be necessary to maintain strict reproductive controls, or some kind of caste system, perhaps with defined roles (elite/labor) providing differentiating environmental pressures maintained through the millennia.
    The easiest way to create new branches on the evolutionary tree is by moving a portion of the population into a new environment, or splitting them off onto a whole new landmass altogether (see: Madagascar, Australia, and so on).  With significantly different environmental pressures, evolution is more likely to make populations drift apart to fit this novel situation.  However, this is not a magic formula.  Humans come in all different shapes and sizes after spreading over the globe a long long time ago (sorry for all the technical terms), but we are all still one species (ah the joys of variety).
    One of the tricks to evolution is that it does not depend upon time exactly, but upon generations.  The more often a species has little ones, the higher the likelihood for mutation and the higher the rate of response to environmental pressure.  This is one of the reasons Biologists like to experiment on insects.  Given enough generations, you could easily create creatures in your world who have diverged through evolution.  Going the traditional D&D route, giants (and elves) were described as being from different terrains.  Maybe they diverged (or were created wholly different by their respective deities).  If you're thinking of going the "lost tribe" route where they've evolved along a different path than their cousins, be careful.  That would be a culture much older than anything we've seen and is probably much more appropriate to Sci/Fi than Fantasy (because they would probably have progressed significantly more in the technological realm than traditional Fantasy over that much time).  I'm not sure anyone could say how many generations it takes to make a new species, but you should definitely think more in terms of millennia than centuries. 
    You could certainly make all of your bipedal creatures distant relations who have been reintroduced after a long separation.  D&D, in referring to these groups as different races (and able to breed), certainly suggests this idea.  Alternately, they could have been separated long enough to diverge into separate species.  Then you could get into some interesting questions about the morality of sexual relations with the other groups (we certainly frown strongly on the idea of sex with monkeys).  It's usually how they try to portray those long lived and culturally elite elves who deign to have a relationship with a human, though it's usually employed as a comment on racism.  Divergent species would be useful to comment more on how we treat other intelligent animals, or even how we measure intelligence (as we measure intelligence in relation to our application of it).  I could certainly see a situation where, once being reintroduced to each other, one of these distant relations subjugates the other (anyone see Planet of the Apes?).  Exploring the impact of these choices is a big part of the joy in these exercises.
   

    There was a third part to the question, wherein it was wondered about the agents carrying this genetic information.  Would all of these creatures utilize DNA to pass along traits?  I'm not sure exactly where the thrust of that was going.  There are certainly interesting ideas about hive minds and genetic memory out there, but that doesn't feel like I'm on track?  If anyone has a suggestion on this or anything discussed above, please add it in the comments.    


     


 Related Article (well, somewhat)
Gender in the natural world - http://sciencemadeeasy.kinja.com/what-can-we-learn-from-the-tree-of-sex-1585353821/+katharinetrendacosta

Creature Culture (part 6a)

I received a message from a reader with a suggestion for a topic in this series, which I could swear I've covered...  Looking back, it ain't there, or maybe it's hidden in one of the other posts I put up (there are over 80 now).  So, I figure that if it isn't in this series (though a little off topic), maybe there are others looking for this kind of information.

    The question was about applying the real world biological principles of evolution to creature development, including the spreading branches of the evolutionary tree, reasonable timeframes, as well as potential social impacts resultant.  Damn, that's a big topic, but I'll do my best.  

First of all, it's important to define certain terms.  

Species - Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Alright, this is a close to accurate definition, but requires the caveat that the offspring produced are viable (in other words, the little ones ain't sterile).  Consequently, all breeds of dog are one species, but donkeys and horses are different species, even though they can interbreed to produce mules (which can't reproduce).  This does go back to some earlier post about "races" in genre writing.  

Evolution - Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection,and genetic drift.

The most common misconception about evolution sounds like a semantic argument to some people, but is essential to understanding how it functions.  It is not uncommon to hear a statement like, "the giraffe evolved a long neck to reach leaves high on trees."  My paleontology professor called these "Just So Stories," after Mister Kipling's famous tales.  The better way to say it is, "the giraffes who had long necks, could reach the leaves high on the tree and survive to pass on the trait."

The essential element which drives evolution is environmental pressure (or lack thereof).  Your environment consists of everything around you, so this could refer to a change in temperature, rainfall, food supply, predation, and so on.  Remember that both more food and less food impact species.  When competition for resources is minimal, nature can come up with some really interesting, though not necessarily efficient, designs. See Stephen Jay Gould's book, Wonderful Life, on the Burgess Shale.  When competition for resources is high, species tend to specialize and dominate a specific niche in the landscape (sometimes literally, with specific birds occupying selected heights in a tree).  

It is difficult to say at what point a species differentiates itself from its elder counterpart.  Some view evolution as a long term gradual change.  Gould coined the term "punctuated equilibrium" to describe long periods of stasis, followed by rapid evolutionary change, then a return to stasis.  There is plenty of debate on how it works.  The difficulty lies in the fact that we are reading from a book that has been caught in a rainstorm.  The pages stick together and fall apart in our hands.  The science of Paleontology is a study of statistics, but our data is terribly flawed.  The processes we are describing take place over large gulf of time and begin with an individual specimen.  Good luck finding that one and its offspring.  

So, how does this all apply to creating creatures and their cultures?  I. Guess you'll have to come back next time and find out. Mwahahahah.







Environmental Niche - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche
Dictionary.com - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Species?s=t
Just So Stories - http://www.boop.org/jan/justso/

Jobs - Forester

Like many boys, I grew up adoring the legend of Robin Hood (I still end up whistling songs from the Disney version from time to time).  Anyway, this leads me to thinking about working outside a bit more, without digging in the dirt.  Who were the men that lived in the woods?  Time to do a different kind of digging.

http://www.magnacartacanada.ca/the-charter-of-the-forest/

    In the Medieval Period, "forest" referred simply to a designated area of land, be it: forest (the kind with trees), field, or fen.  In England, the King's forest encompassed farms, villages, monasteries, and manors, as well as untouched acreage.  The "forest" was ostensibly maintained for the benefit of the animals to be hunted within it.  Naturally, hunting/killing the wild animals was also off limits.  It was the forester's (or woodward's) job to administer and enforce the King's rules within this designated area, similar to how a sheriff would outside the forest.
    Foresters in the Medieval period were free men, but still of the peasant class.  In England, the chief foresters answered only to the King.  Sub-foresters (or underforesters) answered to their chiefs and handled the day-to-day work of the forest.  The distinction in the literature seems to be 'riding foresters' versus 'walking foresters.'  The chief foresters tended to be prominent in the community, at times holding other offices, such as barrister or magistrate.  Naturally, the prominence of the post depended upon the area under supervision.  As the right to hunt in the forests denoted the King's favor, so administering them was also an honor (as well as being lucrative).  Sub-foresters tended to be a bit more earthy.  They were capable outdoorsmen, who needed to be able to give service as enforcers as well as trackers.  This also proved handy in times of war.  While these men remained peasants, some of these posts appear to have become almost hereditary in fact, their holders accumulating land and prestige. 
    Administering the Lord's forest constituted a variety of duties.  Foresters were responsible for negotiating lumber sales, deciding which land was best converted to farmland, and generally handling the natural resources of the forest.  Poachers were a common concern.  These poachers were not just commoners (though they were the most frequent), but might also include neighboring Lords who would be infringing on the owner's rights.  In England, the King used the right to hunt on his lands as a special privileged granted to certain Lords.  Forests were also a great place for those feeling justice to hide out (like Robin), so it was often the forester's job to round up a posse and flush them out.  For breaking forest law, there was a rather complex court system to deal specifically with these cases. However, there are more than a few stories of lawmen dispensing the King's Justice personally. 
    The Forest Law under discussion here relates specifically to English history and was outside of all other forms of law.  Changes with how the forests were organized began with the Norman Conquest, and continued to be a political issue well into the 19th Century.  In the 12th C, things really started to get formalized (and become a great money-maker simultaneously).  It was illegal to clear trees, to cultivate the land, or to graze your herds upon it without permission.  Some offenses (like creating arable land) would incur what amounted to a tax, forcing the landholder to pay the fine annually.  While the forest system in England was onerous to the peasants, it effected the nobles as well, severely curtailing their rights on lands within the area designated by the King (which could change based on whim or bribe).
    The courts system handling these cases in England was also outside of the standard judiciary system.  Lower level cases (penalties of as little as a few shillings) were handled locally, where men from surrounding villages would come to see the evidence against the accused and decide upon the penalties.  More heinous crimes (amounting sometimes to hundreds of pounds in damages), like those against the venison, would have to be tried in the eyres.  The eyre was presided over by the chief justice of the King's Forest and occurred when he passed through town.  In the 14th C, it became illegal for commoners to hunt at all, or even to own hunting dogs. 
    The one thing all sources agree on is that foresters were really disliked.  The system was essentially designed for them to exploit.  It was expected that the sub-foresters would be maintained out of the production of the peasants who lived within their area and did their own collecting.  Some of the chiefs foresters actually paid the King an annual fee to maintain their offices.  It was essentially required that foresters exploit the locals (though certainly not to the extent some did).  Some practices became so notorious (such as taking grain to brew beer, then forcing the locals to buy it, known as "scotale") that specific laws were passed against them.  Additionally, many of the foresters were not locals.  Any time you bring in an outsider and put them in power, you're going to have trouble (whether he's cruel or not).  Disliking the local forester seems to have been one of those inevitable and universal truths.  

    Ah to live such a pleasant life in the forest...  Gods, who knew this would be such a coarse tangle?  I came in looking for simple woodsmen and came out with political animals and thugs.  It really was an eye-opening journey.  If you enjoyed my brief overview, I encourage you to look through some of the references below for a more in-depth look (and read more of my other posts). 




Forest Law - http://www.earlyenglishlaws.ac.uk/reference/essays/forest-law/
Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forester
Because it's the Robin Hood Society - http://www.robinhood.ltd.uk/robinhood/Forest_Survival.htm
A Masters Thesis - http://herkules.oulu.fi/thesis/nbnfioulu-201312052004.pdf
Charter of the Forest - http://www.magnacartacanada.ca/the-charter-of-the-forest/
Book about medieval lawmen - http://books.google.com/books?id=lhgNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=medieval+forester&source=bl&ots=c2_GzWVsmN&sig=LHLP6_uEuXrIRPzBaurhGp_2fdE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z_GYU9SiGYukyATE1ILgAw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=medieval%20forester&f=false
Another Book on Laws and Lawmen - http://books.google.com/books?id=1pIdd74zfZ4C&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=medieval+forester&source=bl&ots=HUdStaBWqm&sig=_rMuFwVr4dZImI4SEovFRsx5sOU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H_iYU8CDPIKpyASKpILwCQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=medieval%20forester&f=false

chalk and slate

http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144508

Quite some time ago I did a whole big blog post on the subject of books and their manufacture.  As a writer, this is of natural interest (though it took a long time for me to look into it).  In the course of my writing, however, I came across a man who needed to write, but for different purposes.  It's a tool.  He doesn't want to preserve his writing for the ages.  That man is an engineer and an educator.  I could always make plenty of ink and paper available to him, but it felt more characterful and evocative to hear the chalk squeaking across the slate.  Then I realized, "I need to know where he got those things."
    Slate is a metamorphosed shale or mudstone (these are rocks, people).  It is relatively fragile and naturally forms sheets.  Because of the latter quality, slate was used as roofing material long before it became a ground for writing.  Fun fact: the easy way to tell the difference between shale and slate is by chewing them (slate has a creamy consistency). The first European reference to writing slates come from Chaucer's Treatise on the Astrolabe (ca 1391).  Similar "boards" were noted in India in the 11th Century.  Slates were generally double sided with a wooden or cloth frame (to protect the fragile slate) and might be hinged to include two or more "pages."  Lines were etched into some slates to make it easier for writing practice.  They were used by schoolchildren, merchants, and gamblers alike (though hopefully for somewhat different reasons).  Large scale blackboards were not used until much later (ca 16th C), due to the weight and fragility of the material.
    Chalk is what I remember using on the "blackboards" in my youth.  Then again, the "blackboard chalk" we used may have been made from gypsum.  Anyway, chalk forms in deep marine conditions from a gradual accretion of calcite (calcium carbonate) plates.  In nature, it is normally associated with clays and tends to stand out as the clays degrade around it (see: the white cliffs of Dover).  Chalk is nice and crumbly, for writing on rough surfaces, but kind of a mess.  What was commonly used on slate tablets was the "slate pencil," which was made of soapstone or a softer slate, with a wooden handle.  These made less mess, but the sound was apparently worse than nails on a chalkboard (though my parents' dinner plates made roughly the same sound when scratched by a fork or knife, so the squeal tended to make me hungry).  Later evolutions in slate technology tried to take away the squeak.  This isn't to say that chalk was not used, simply that there was competition.
    Cool, I'd never heard of slate pencils before today, but they make perfect sense.  The stresses of metamorphism (we need to form the slate) are not uniform, so naturally you find different hardness (and color) materials relatively close together.  Ready made writing tools.  In contrast, chalk seems an unlikely choice.  Mudstones originate in freshwater, while chalks are from saltwater sources, so the odds of having them occur near to each other are not so great.  However, as we've seen, geology can do some funky things (given enough time).  Wales has a great source of slate and there is plenty of chalk in England, so there you go.  The personal slate was an incredible leap forward in the classroom, allowing extensive practice in writing and arithmetic without the extreme expense of pen and ink.  As the use of blackboards slowly declines, it makes me wonder how teachers punish bad students.  I can still smell the chalk dust.


 


Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_%28writing%29
blackboard history - http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/reference-material/the-history-of-the-classroom-blackboard/
slates and slate pencils - http://pastperiodspress.com/2012/08/31/slates-slate-pencils/
pencils - http://www.officemuseum.com/pencil_history.htm
Detailed History (related material begins on pg 33) - http://etd.lib.umt.edu/theses/available/etd-06062008-182026/unrestricted/Swords_Molly_Thesis_PDF.pdf
Indian History - http://www.archive.org/stream/alberunisindiaac01biru#page/162/mode/2up

Universities in Medieval Europe

While there is no debate that institutions of higher learning evolved first on other continents, the growth of the Medieval European University was distinct process.  Prior to the 5th-6th C, European education focused primarily on copying and translating Christian texts.  The Christian monastic and cathedral schools evolved, in part thanks to the reforms of Charlemagne, to educate promising your boys (of any background) in the skills needed to administer the Empire.  While the educational strengths of these schools varied widely (in curriculum as well as quality, no doubt), through their growth and development, modern scholarship evolved.
    As interest in education continued to expand, the institutions attempted to place some strict delineations to separate the greater form the lesser.  A Stadium Generale was to: not restrict admission to natives, have a certain number of masters, teach the seven liberal arts, as well as one of the higher studies (Theology, Law, Medicine).  Unfortunately, there was no way to restrict the use of this term, so it came to be applied to educational institutions great and small, narrow and wide of focus.
    It's interesting to note that both the terms "college" and "university" were used to describe a group or organization, but not specifically an academic one.  This application is still recognizable in long standing organizations such as Britain's College of Arms, which deals with issues regarding heraldry.  Medieval Universities formed either as associations of masters (as in Paris) or of students (as in Bologna), as was common with other trade groups.  While the concept of students organizing to found a school might seem an odd way to go about it for most of us, it functioned much as a modern union might, allowing collective bargaining for the protection of students who were not residents of the city in which they wished to study.  By organizing these "universities" or "colleges," these men invented institutions which would achieve great social, economic, and political power.
    Several significant privileges were granted to the members of the Universities.  In 1158, Frederick the First (HRE) permitted safe passage to all scholars and their messengers (leading to that mail carrying organization we discussed before) and allowed them their choice of venue (lay or ecclesiastical) for any charges brought against them.  Phillip Augustus (Fr) seconded this privelidge in 1200 and further granted freedom from arrest by any royal official, unless it was important.  The scholars' possessions could not be confiscated in either case.  Even Popes got into this, with Gregory IX giving the University of Paris unimpeded rights to run the school as they saw fit and the right to move the university if the government attempted to tamper with them.  With these additional privileges, it's easy to see how students (who were commonly of the elite to begin with) came to be so disruptive socially and politically.
    At this time, few Universities owned the buildings in which they taught.  Consequently, it was easy to pull up stakes and move to a new city if the masters or students were threatened.  It was actually not uncommon for a portion of the staff and student body to move and establish a new university elsewhere, as Oxford University was formed by students who left Paris (due to a quibble between monarchs).  This practice continued even in the new world where Amherst College was apparently founded when the (then) President of Williams College took half the student body and all the book in the library across the mountains (as told to me by a Williams College alum). 
    Instruction in any discipline at the University was conducted in Latin, serving to make students of all nations equal.  The seven Liberal Arts were divided into the Trivium (Grammar, Rhetoric and Dialectic) and the Quadrivium (Music, Arithmetic, Geometry and Astronomy).  Sciences were often bulked under the Geometry or Astronomy headings, but were frowned upon by many of the day's luminaries.  Add to these disciplines, the Philosophies: Physical, Moral, and Metaphysical.  The studies often commenced with these liberal arts, which needed to be mastered before progressing on to other disciplines.  Lectures were either "ordinary" or "cursory."  Ordinary lectures were delivered in the morning hours by the masters, while the cursory lectures were delivered in the afternoon by bachelors.  The delineation gradually disappeared, but the ordinary lectures tended to be more somber and workmanlike.  The method of delivery was also regulated in some cases by the university, requiring the masters to speak as if orating, making it impossible to take complete notes on the lecture. 
    Goodness, I should have guessed that this would take more than one posting to work through.  Please understand that each school was a unique instance with differing traditions and points of emphasis.  The above is intended as an overview and general picture of the situation at the time.  I'll come back to this soon and broaden the picture with a bit more of the political and social implications that these bodies constituted.  Until then, do some reading.  There is plenty of material to be found.  Below I've listed just a couple that I used to start putting all of this together.  Pleasant reading.
-Ben



Quick Intro - http://www.csupomona.edu/~plin/ls201/medieval2.html
Excerpt from Carlton Munro, The Middle Ages, 395-1272 - http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/MedUniv.html
Rait, Robert S. Life in the Medieval University - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20958/20958-h/20958-h.htm

Letter Carriers

Communication is one of the essential elements of maintaining an Empire.  Every large political structure in history seems to have developed (or adopted) a standardized means to relay information reliably across vast distances.  Couriers, used in Ancient Egypt (2400BC), are the earliest documented example of this idea.  They enabled the Pharaoh's decrees to be known across the Empire.  By creating these lines of communication, a ruler could send and receive detailed (political and military) information, allowing the administration of an empire from behind the walls of the royal palace.
    Naturally, the first messages were carried by specific trusted individuals, from one person to another.  With the desire to increase the speed of transit, systems of stations (or posts) were devised at crossings or regular intervals to allow messengers to rest (posata or pausata in Italian), message to be handed off, or horses changed.  The first clear evidence of a postal system comes from the Persian Empire (6th Century BC).  The first clear Chinese claims come from the 3rd Century BC.  Rome established theirs in the 1st Century BC, which also may have been the first true mail service (carrying letters for the public).  To allow for larger volumes of mail (or packages), some of these systems came to use carts, chariots, and carriages.  The Mongols had an especially massive system to help transport soldiers and tributes.  While posts were designed to relay information, they also served to patrol the roads, and as visual reminders of the power of the Empire to the locals.  
    The first Sultan of Delhi (ruled 1206-1210) created India's post system, using runners.  This was later expanded (1296) into a horse and runner system to help protect the messengers against bandits and wild animals.  They finally went to all horses under Sher Shah Suri (ruled 1540-1545), who also extended the Grand Trunk Road, which had highway inns (caravansarais) placed at regular intervals, as well as trees lining the roadway to provide shade for travelers. The Indian Postmaster was also the head of the intelligence service, making one wonder if private correspondence remained private.  It also makes me think the more modern practice of using embassy postings to move spies from country to country.
    While the postal system of Europe was initiated by the Romans, when the Empire fell, the system fragmented.  Charlemagne (9th C) was reduced to sending out envoys in the form of a layman and an ecclesiastic, as pairs (missi dominici), to administer his lands and speak in his name.  The Thurm and Taxis postal system operated between the Italian City States from 1290AD.  They spread into the Holy Roman Empire in 1505 and were honored by making the title of Imperial Postmaster hereditary in 1615. Throughout Europe, services were established by monarchs to serve their own needs.  It wasn't until the 19th C that treaties allowed for the unification of these systems.
    While governments were the most common founders of mail systems, religious orders and universities developed their own ways to pass along information.  The Cistercians (founded 1098, thanks for your Trappist Monks and their beer), at the height of their influence, had around 750 houses across Europe with thousands of lay brothers.  Each abbot was required to annually inspect each of his abbey's "Daughter Houses" and to convene with his brother abbots.  Fostering the connections between these autonomous institutions maintained their theological continuity and encouraged a free flow of information.  By the 12th C, their network was serving to disseminate innovations in farming and engineering throughout Europe.  Many organizations which operated outside of the standard political scheme functioned in a similar manner, using their requisite travel to transport correspondence.
    Postal service is taken for granted today, but was a significant innovation at the time.  Every known form of human transport has been employed to carry correspondence (including zeppelins, yeah).  In a time before telegraphs and telephones, it was these routes which tied together an empire.  Because of the ability to pass messages efficiently, the king didn't need to be on the road so often (holding court) to dispense justice or plot with his allies.  It allowed information to be passed efficiently in times of war as well.  For once, political ambition created a system that benefited the whole (eventually).

The Royal Mail (founded 1516) opened to the public in 1635.
Prussian State Postal Service (founded 1490) opened to the public in 1646.
Portuguese Mail (founded 1520) available to the public immediately (controlled by the crown until 1606).



Note: homing pigeons were used to carry messages as well, but they only fly home, so required transport to the place from which they were to carry the message.




New World Encyclopedia entry - http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Postal_system
Thurn and Taxis - http://www.thurnundtaxis.de/en/family/in-regensburg-for-250-years/post.html
India - http://www.apta.com.au/SubMenu/Brief_Postal_History_of_India.aspx?id=114
Sher Shah Suri - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sher_Shah_Suri
Cistercians - http://www.cistercian.org/abbey/history/the-cistercian-order/beginnings.html
European Unification - http://www.upu.int/en/the-upu/history/about-history.html
Zeppelin Mail - http://www.airships.net/zeppelin-mail
Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail
Teutonic Knights - http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id16.html
Deutsche Post History - http://www.dpdhl.com/en/about_us/history/history_without_flash.html
Royal Mail - http://www.postalheritage.org.uk/page/timeline
Portugal - http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A2266724
Portugal - http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Portuguese_Brazilian_Studies/ejph/html/issue6/pdf/coelhoneto.pdf