51 Images Showing That The Medieval Period Was Not As Dark As We Were Led To Believe (New Pics)

really beautiful and a real masterpiece and this was used in the Harry Potter movies

The Imperial Regalia of the Holy Roman Empire is the only complete set of regalia from the Middle Ages to have survived. For centuries, it played an important role in the coronation of Roman kings and emperors. Today, it can be seen in the Imperial Treasury in the Hofburg in Vienna.

The Imperial Crown was originally made for the coronation of Otto the Great and later modifications were made under Conrad II. Its octagonal shape references the Palatine Chapel of Aachen Cathedral. Made of gold, the crown is decorated with 240 pearls and 120 precious stones, including sapphires, emeralds and amethysts. Four enamel plates depict Christ in Majesty between two cherubim, as well as the biblical kings David, Solomon and Hezekiah, alongside the prophet Isaiah.

The Imperial Orb symbolises the emperor's earthly rule under Christ's dominion. It most likely dates from the late 12th century, during the reign of Henry VI. The sapphire in the centre of the cross features a Merovingian monogram.

Also known as the Sword of Saint Mauritius, the Imperial Sword was made for the coronation of Otto IV in 1198 AD. Its scabbard depicts Roman kings from Charlemagne to Henry III, and it was presumably made for Emperor Henry IV.

The church, much like that of Sicily itself, is characterized by cultural diffusion of the many groups that have settled the island over the ages. Comissioned in the 12th century by the Norman King Roger II, this church blends elements of Arab, Byzantine and Norman design.

Raimundo de' Cabanni, also called Raimundo da Campania (died October 1334), was a Neapolitan and Corcian knight of black African descent.

Born in sub-Saharan Africa, in the Sahel region, Raimundo was originally a slave sold by pirates to Raimondo de' Cabanni, dean of the royal kitchens. This Raymond, recognizing the boy's abilities, freed him, baptized him, gave him his name, and named him heir to both his property and his office.

The first document mentioning Raymond is dated 6 February 1305. It is recorded that Robert, Duke of Calabria, son of King Charles II, granted an annual pension of 20 ounces to Raimondo on the occasion of his marriage to Philippa of Catania, the nanny of Robert's second son, Louis.

Raimondo, being an "extremely daring man", asked for and received the skill and knighthood on the occasion of his wedding. On 25 February 1311, Robert, now king, confirmed the pension he had granted six years earlier and at that time Raimondo was a member of the court family.

Through royal favors and connections, he acquired a palace in Naples near Porta della Fontana, in the royal Castel Nuovo neighborhood. He also acquired several crown claims, such as Minervino, Mottola and Pantano di Foggia, as well as other claims from Charles of Calabria in the land of Otranto. A document from 1324 shows him and his wife as co-owners with another couple of castles of Cercepiccola, Sassinoro, San Pietro Avellana, Rocca del Vescovo, San Giuliano and Pacile. Other properties are known from the division carried out by his widow and children after his death. Raimondo died in October 1334. He received a lavish funeral and was buried in the Santa Chiara complex, the resting place of the Angevin kings.

Just thought this was cool and wanted to share

Originally called the Guild of Our Lord Jesus and the Blessed Mary. The current name dates from 1581

Greets everyone, since you all liked the last ring I shared, I thought I’d post another special piece from my collection. This is a genuine Crusader-period silver seal ring, dating to the 12th–14th century. The bezel shows a central Latin cross surrounded by symbolic letters and a crescent. Rings like this were likely worn by knights or clerics, serving both as personal devotion and as a functional seal.

Found in Faversham uk.

I read that the Cumans settled the in the Kingdom of Hungary to avoid Mongol invasion. I'm curious as to how Cuman modern day Hungarians are today, as well as any other parts that the Cumans settled.

Thanks for reading!

This is a vase owned by Eleanor of Aquitaine which she gave as a wedding present to her first husband King Louis VII of France in 1137.

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to post here to share my great hope -- and anxiety -- of potentially exploring the contents of the most extensive collection of medieval charters in South Italy.

The briefest of backstories: La Trinita della Cava is a Benedictine abbey nestled in the hills just north/northwest of Salerno, a little ways down the Italian coast from Naples. Like most events from this era, the story of its foundation is disputed. Tradition holds that Alferius, a disillusioned monk whose pedigree included service to Guiamar, Prince of Salerno and an extended stint at Cluny, "founded" the abbey around 1010-1011, when he and a couple of other monks retreated to a cave in the hills to undertake the hermetic way. A surviving foundation charter exists from 1025, leading some to hold the belief that the abbey was simply founded by the Lombard Salernitan princes for political reasons. Personally I have a feeling it was a bit of both.

The abbey thrived in the latter half of the 11th century under the invading Norman rulers, who were eager to win the favor (and wield the power) of the local church, becoming great patrons of abbeys like Cava and Montecassino, granting them huge amounts of land and churches across South Italy (even in Sicily) in the process. The foundation of the Kingdom in 1130 only cemented their status.

While there's lots to admire about the abbey, its claim to fame in the modern era is the survival of a dazzlingly extensive collection of medieval charters, including investitures, legal cases, marriages and births and deaths, etc.

And to make a long story only slightly shorter, I reached out to the abbey to arrange a visit while I'm in the area later this month, hoping to conduct a little independent research there. I'm waiting anxiously for a reply, so to abate that anxiety, I decided to post this. It isn't really working.

The Żuraw crane in Gdańsk, Poland, dates to the 15th century and is one of the largest surviving medieval port cranes in Europe. It functioned both as a cargo-lifting device and as part of the city’s fortifications.

Unlike later mechanical cranes, the Żuraw relied on large human-powered treadwheels. Workers walking inside these wooden wheels generated the force needed to lift heavy goods, often several tons.

From what I understand, similar treadwheel cranes were used across medieval Europe, particularly in port cities involved in long-distance trade networks such as the Hanseatic League.

I’d be interested in any sources or further reading on how efficient these cranes were compared to other lifting technologies of the period.

• Encyclopaedia Britannica – “Crane (machine)”

According to Rafael De Julian Alcalde: On St. Matthew's Day, September 21, after having besieged the city since the Epiphany.

Angel Gabriel. It was found in 2003, and the sainted statue is considered of really significant European importance.

For example, this castle (located in modern day Austria) would be incredibly difficult to conquer using conventional means. If I was some kind of medieval commander tasked with taking this fortress, I’d distract the defenders with probing attacks along its main entrance, ideally at night. While this is happening, I’d send some specially trained operatives to scale the cliffs on the left side of the image above, entering the castle through one of the windows. These operatives could then do anything from attacking key leaders to potentially opening the castle’s main gate, to poisoning water supplies.

This takes me to my main question: did medieval armies have any form of special operatives that could perform specialized tasks in order to further a main effort?

Ostrožac Castle is a haunting hilltop fortress above the Una River where medieval ruins, Ottoman history, and surreal modern sculptures collide in one strangely unforgettable place. The image is taken by me.

There is the notion that old medieval castles such as the famous Norman keep in Rochester, UK, (finished construction in 1127) ought to be restored to their former glory.

It would undeniably boost tourism, it would give people a much better visual insight into these kinds of historical structures, it would make a 30 minute visit looking at ruins potentially an hour or two looking at a fully fitted and furnished fortress.

Historical castles that changed hands through wealthy owners such as Hever castle (not too far from Rochester) preserved their historical interiors for the public to enjoy to this very day.

Rochester wasn't so fortunate, despite being a far more significant structure historically it obviously didn't have the same treatment as a stately home or as a fortified manor to be stewarded and occupied over the centuries.

I would say that it's clearly a case by case basis. Not every castle needs full restoration, leave lesser castles as ruins as reminders of the passage of time and their dereliction. As symbols of the old ways passing away, replaced by the new. There's a certain charm to a crumbling ruin.

But castles in a town centre of particular importance, like at Rochester, could benefit from restoration. Where most of the shell of the building remains; restoration surely comes into the conversation.

John Ruskin (writer, art critic) was a key voice in conservation. In his book The Seven Lamps of Architecture (1849), he argued that trying to restore old buildings was essentially a lie — you couldn’t recreate their original spirit, only damage authenticity.

William Morris, inspired by Ruskin, founded the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) in 1877.

And thus, since the 19th century, UK conservation has generally followed the principle of “conserve, don’t reconstruct” (inspired by William Morris and the SPAB movement). The idea is to respect the castle’s current form as a record of its history, rather than “resetting” it to one moment in time.

Pre-1800s: Restoration/rebuilding was normal, often romanticised.

Mid-1800s: Growing criticism (Ruskin).

1877: William Morris & SPAB establish the conservation ethos formally.

20th century onwards: Conservation (stabilisation, minimal intervention) becomes the standard UK heritage approach.

However there are some exceptions to this conservation ethos that have come up before or since:

The Great Tower of Dover Castle was restored with furniture, banners, and decoration.

Carcassonne in France.

Warwick castle.

Malbork castle in Poland.

Among others.

In conclusion, should this old conservation ethos that dates back to the mid 19th century be reexamined? The errors of old private restorations, that often mistakenly introduced inaccurate architectural features, are in the past.

We now have an opportunity to selectively restore structures in an informed and careful manner under modern frameworks that respect these remains. Doing so could boost local economies and great a sense of awe, wonder, and connection to history that a ruin cannot.

I think the conservation ethos has protected the UK’s heritage brilliantly for 150 years — but we might be reaching a point where selective, carefully justified restoration could add real cultural and educational value. It doesn’t have to be all-or-nothing.

What are your views?