Talk:Medieval football

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the football variants task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Rugby union Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rugby league Low‑importance

	Medieval football is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Does anybody have a picture that shows an example of a medieval football field? It'd be greatly appreciated!

Medieval football, to my knowledge, doesn't have specific fields, but the Workington game starts off here: http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/images/articles/fixed/150/0/20064611369816.jpeg Also, edited this page to put Workington in the surviving ball games section, which is where it should be. ~Falky

Merge with Mob Football Taken Down

I've removed the merger suggestion at the Mob Football article. The debate has been very little over the last few months. I won't do it to this article, because I haven't had a hand in editing it. So, I'm suggesting that you take it down here as well. Rowlan 13:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave it in the hope that the reverse happens and we get mob football merged into this article. Can you tell me what is so important and distinctive about mob football that it requires a separate article? Grant65 | Talk 03:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While 'mob football' is an authentic name for an ancient sport, 'mediaeval football' is a modern umbrella term for a range of mediaeval games. I should have thought 'mob football' justifies an article in its own right. If so, it clearly would not make sense to merge the general into the specific, and I say keep both articles. 194.72.162.199 19:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Authentic"? Do you think that the players referred to themselves as a mob? I doubt it. They would have just called it "football". Both are modern terms. Grant65 | Talk 02:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Retinue of Mary Stuart, 1568

The Tullie House Museum is referred to in the passage as stating that 'many nationalities' were in Mary's retinue but there is no actual reference provided to back this up. It is also suggested that, Her normal Scottish retinue was presumably not allowed in order to prevent her escaping back to Scotland. There is no factual basis to this statement. Mary had a small number of French servants in her personal household, who fled south with her after the Battle of Langside. Her retinue and followers, however, were overwhelmingly Scottish (who had been on the losing side of a civil war and fled south to escape persecution). Evidence of the Scottish presence can be found in Rev Robert Keith's, History of the affairs of church and state in Scotland from the beginning of the reformation to the year 1568, Vol 2, Edinburgh, 1844. P827 (I have added the known nationalities in brackets).

Among Mary's attendants in Carlisle Castle were Bishop Lesley of Ross (Scottish), Lords Herries, Livingstone, and Fleming (all Scottish), George Douglas, the foundling page "Little Douglas" (both Scottish), Curll and Naive, her two secretaries (one Scottish, one French), John Beaton (Scottish), and Sebastian (French).

I have also added a translated extract of a letter written by Sir Francis Knollys to Secretary Cecil, on 2nd June 1568, and published in James Anderson's, Collections Relating to the History of Mary Queen of Scotland, Vol IV, Part I. London, 1728. Pp62-63.

Her company of servants hitherto are not above thirty or forty, whereof there be Gentlemen Servers, Carvers, and Cupbearers, half a dozen, and as many Gentlemen Waiters, not much inferior to the other. Then the rest be Cooks and Scullions, and Varlets of the Chamber and Lackies; but yet not past three or four of those that lie within the castle, whereof George Douglas is one, because we found him so. Now the Lord Claud (Hamilton), and the Laird of Skirling (Sir James Cockburn), and the young Mr Maxwell (John, later 8th Lord Maxwell), with various other Gentlemen, and their servants, do lie in the town at their own charge, to the number of thirty or forty more; which gentlemen do between meals come in to see the Queen, because we found that usage and would be loath to grieve them with alterations, until we know further of her highness’s pleasure.

Within this letter Hamilton, Cockburn and Maxwell are listed as members of the Queen's retinue and they were all Scottish subjects. Furthermore this letter demonstrates the uncertainty that existed prior to Mary's removal to Bolton Castle. During Mary's confinement at Carlisle Castle Knollys had to maintain a balance between keeping her 'secure' and under constant watch, whilst he awaited further instructions from Cecil, and permitting her a degree of freedom while she waited to hear from Elizabeth (she was not openly regarded as a prisoner at this early stage). It is because of this uncertainty that anxious views are expressed of her access to Scottish nobles and her freedom to venture out from Carlisle Castle (so close to Scotland) to watch games of football. If the nationality of the players is an issue, then the passage, judging from the Scottish encampment that was based in Carlisle and the known nationality of 'gentlemen' servers within her retinue the passage should refer to an overwhelmingly Scottish retinue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.68.188 (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling castle football

A little balance is needed here. A modern size 5 football is the norm today for adults, but regulation of size did not exist 500 years ago. The writer discounts that the Stirling ball could have been a football based on what he /she thinks a football should look like. Even within the post regulated era the Stirling ball itself is only slighty smaller than a size 4 football, used by under 12s playing association football, and is bigger than the tanner ba' which was kicked about tenement streets in Glasgow during the 1950s. Size is not important.

The smallness of footballs in early 19th century Scotland are conveyed in the art work of Alexander Carse. Much closer to the date of the Stirling ball, the description of the 'smallness of the ball' by the English observer in the 1568 football match which was played in front of Mary, Queen of Scots provides some insight. The size of the inflated animal bladder in the sixteenth century determined the size of the leather casing. A small inflated bladder meant the leather casing would be small. The NMS are right to point out other possible uses such as Pallone but two museums support the view of the ball's use as a football - first of all the Stirling Smith Museum which owns the ball and displays items pertaining to Stirling Castle - http://www.smithartgallery.demon.co.uk/collections.html - and secondly the Scottish Football Museum, quoted in Simon Inglis' A Load of Old Balls, English Heritage, 2005, P20.

definition of medieval

I think that the medieval period tecnically finished in 1500 or 1550. Some of these references come after this and this needs to be acknowledged or a new page be added.

I know where you are coming form, but there is no agreement on when the medieval period ended. Also, the games we are talking about were devised during that period and are quite different from modern codes of football. Grant65 | Talk 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britain and outside

This article concentrats heavily on Britain. I find it hard to believe football-like games were not played elewhere, therefore this must be a case of systemic bias. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is curious, since it fails to explain why it should be desirable to have "worldwide" games of football in an article which is concerned with medieval, that is European, sports. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag should't be added without at least some effort at confirming the systemic bias, especially when someone 'finds it hard to believe' something, which is 100% opinion. If finding information on other types of medieval football is so easy, why not go find it and add it in, rather than denigrating the text which IS here as second rate just because the information is about England. Mdw0 (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Removed {globalize/UK}} template - the point is that Medieval football was a phenomenon of the British Isles - if anyone has any WP:Verifiable evidence to the contrary, then please enlighten us. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree on the whole - perhaps the article should be renamed 'Medieval Football in the United Kingdom'? ....Football games did exist in Europe. Calcio Fiorentino and La Soule are good examples. -- Talskiddy (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than that, lets find other examples from Europe and the rest of the world and put them in. The information here should reflect teh information we can gather. If there was a lot of writing about the british games then it should be expected that British information should dominate teh article, but it shouldn't be exclusive if its just a matter of a bit of research on our part. Mdw0 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Linked from Main page today

This article is linked to from Wikipedia's Main Page today (7 December 2008), due to the new Golf in Scotland article appearing as the lead item in the Did you know? column. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of article

Any codes of football from outside Europe are beyond the topic and should be removed, since the intro makes it sufficiently clear that the topic is about "football games which were invented and played during the Middle Ages in Europe", ball games which furthermore may "be regarded as the "ancestors" of modern codes of football". Since neither is the case with the Song Dynasty example it should be removed as the term Middle Ages does not apply to Chinese historiology (which follows a different chronological system) and China is not in Europe, neither. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article has to be worldwide - especially as it has only just recovered from a mark of systemic bias. If we follow the European restriction we are open to another accusation of systemic bias because the article is Eurocentric. Middle Ages is a time limitation, not a geographical one. The term Middle Ages might be European in its origin and general use, and some definitions limit it to Europe, but what it really means is the middle period between ancient and modern times, which applies as much to China as it does anywhere else (although its exact length and what periods it does or doesn't include is debatable.)

Games and players influence each other, and football games played at various places at the same time should be mentioned here, as the article is primarily to show the development of football games that could have or would have influenced each other, not just in Europe but everywhere, no matter what categories the historians may want to slot them in. This is much more important than following a very limited definition of what 'Middle Ages' means.

As for your assertion that Cuju cannot be regarded as an ancestor of modern football, if you read through what you've deleted I don't see how you can make that claim. "Prior to the Song dynasty the main type of cuju had been the one most like modern football between 12-16 players on each side trying to kick a leather ball through opposing sets of goals, made of bamboo with silk nets." It is a valid addition to the article. Mdw0 ([[User talk

Mdw0|talk]]) 23:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The scope of the article has nothing to do with a "systemic bias". In Cuju the subject is cuju, not medieval football, and in Medieval Football the subject is medieval football, not cuju. Since the term Middle Ages refers solely to European events, medieval football can also refer to football in Europe, for the simple reason because Middle Ages is a term which refers to European history, and is very uncommon for Chinese historiology. If we start starting introducing Far Eastern ball games from between 500 and 1500, we must also include ball games from all other world regions. That cannot seriously be your point here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English doesn't usually fail like this. For some reason we cant use a European name for a particular time period to apply worldwide, and for some other strange reason we dont have a name for that time period which DOES apply worldwide. Because 'medieval' GENERALLY refers to European history an interesting and relevant development of the subject is being deleted. I dont see why such a strict interpretation of medieval should apply when it is merely the best reference we have to a particular time period. If the ball games of the period are relevant and possibly influential, then yes, they definitely should be included whether or not they are strictly European. The only one I could think of that could be considered irrelevant would be the Aztec games, but who knows what influence they may have had in the development of modern football?

In terms of systemic bias, it applies here simply because there is no term in English that applies to a worldwide view of this historical period. This lack of worldwide focus from Eurocentric historians is a classic case of systemic bias. I've been trying to think of a better name for the article which DOES have a worldwide focus. Any suggestions? Mdw0 (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

See the football template

template:Team Sport Where medieval football was placed as one subtype of football type alongwith Gridiron football and rugby.So medieval football was also a subtype ont a geographic-limited terms.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 05:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII

The article says Henry VIII banned football in 1548. This is obviously false as he died in 1547. Some sites on the internet claim he banned it in 1540, can anyone verify that year? --Feuerrabe (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC) it is also an amazing sport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.240.44 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "Medieval Football"

This generic understanding some people hold that “Medieval football” is a catch all term for ball games played around the world that contain aspects which feature in modern football codes is a distortion of History.

Despite its name this article is substantially about "Mob football" a modern term coined to categorise a group of ball games that come from around the British Isles. These include games such as Hurling (Cornwall ), Cnapan (Wales), The Ba' game (Scotland), La Soule (France), Caid (Ireland), Campball (England) The Ball game (England) and Football (England). All of these games have medieval histories in their countries of origin. The game called football from which modern football codes games take their name played in medieval England is, by definition, "medieval football".

The Public school which first applied codes of conduct to football had students from all over the British Isles (including Ireland) who fed their ideas from the ball games played in their regions into the football games being developed at their schools. It is in this collective context that all "Mob football" games can be seen as the forerunners of modern football using the English word "football" as a name for these codified games.

The idea perpetuated by the likes of FIFA that more technically advanced games such as Cuju from classical antiquity could have somehow morphed into the riotous medieval football or similar mob games is nonsensical. Moreover not a shred of documented evidence from anywhere in the world exists to support this assertion. It is unethical for any encyclopaedia to continue supporting this information known it to be false without correction or explicit explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Roebuck (talk • contribs) 10:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Medieval football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Medieval football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Medieval football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain, not England

Why does the article keep referring to football starting predominantly in England, when it was all across Great Britain? Scotland and Wales had major roles in the development of football, and they are not in England. Infact England, Wales and Scotland did not even exist when football was starting according to this article. Some of the first mentions are in what became Wales, And some of the first mentions of football are in Scotland as mentioned by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_ban_football_games#Scotland. Plus mob football takes places in Orkney in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishSusan (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was this noteworthy for?

"...a player was killed as a result of running against an opposing player's dagger. This account is noteworthy because it is the earliest reference to an English ball game that definitely involved kicking:" That's your takeaway from this incident? It's not noteworthy as the earliest reference to a game that involved a stabbing? SpinningSpark 11:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]