NEW PRODUCT: COOMODEL: 1/6 Legends of the Empire - Priesthood of The Holy War [Standard Edition/Legendary Edition] #EL004/EL005

JohnByng wrote:Bishops did fight in medieval times. From what I recall they were banned from spilling Christian blood so they carried a mace rather than a sword or spear.

Whether that is true or not I don't know, but it fits with the other sneaky ways that religious folk get around the rules!

However, I agree this is a fantasy figure and a very interesting one.

Bishops fought big time. They were expected to raise and lead troops just like every other land holder. It is a myth that there was some sort of prohibition against shedding blood. Plenty of clerics participated in battle with swords, axes, and spears and were rewarded for it afterwards, not punished.

St. Cuthbert was a monk when he participated in the battles against King Penda of Mercia in the mid 7th century. He wielded a spear, not a mace, and kept this weapon with him when he rode into Mailros after the great battle at Winwidfield. St. Emilian was a bishop who wielded a sword and led an army against the Saracens at Autun in 725. He was never rebuked for this bloodshed, but instead credited with helping to save Christianity from the Moslem threat and, like Cuthbert, was later canonised into sainthood.

Another example of a warrior priest is Bishop Michael of Regensberg, who led troops and actively fought against the Magyars at Lechfeld in 955. Another is Bruno, Bishop of Touls (later to become Pope Leo IX) who commanded an army and participated in the fighting in Lorraine in 1026. Both of these clerics wielded lances and swords, not maces. In the early Robin Hood legends, Friar Tuck was a skilled swordsman; he wasn’t given a quarterstaff until much later. Wimund, an English bishop in the mid 12th century was wounded by a hand axe thrown by a Scottish bishop who objected to Wimund’s demand for tribute.  Another example is Absalon, a Danish archbishop who personally led and fought in many battles from 1160 to 1184 to free Denmark from German rule. His statue in Copenhagen depicts him wielding an axe, not a mace. In 1171, Archbishop Christian of Mainz, was given the command of an army in the Lombard war and is said to have personally killed nine foes with his sword. 1219 King Valdemar II of Denmark and Archbishop Andrew of Lund led a crusade into Estonia. Andrew wielded an axe and a spear. Another incident is at the Battle of Mansourah in 1250. Lord Joinville described a priest named John of Voyssey who donned helmet and gambeson, and single-handedly routed eight Saracens with a spear, not a mace. The Abbot Henry, afterwards Archbishop of Narbonne, went at the head of the armies sent against the Albigenses armed with a sword. At the Battle of Otterburn in 1388, Froissart mentions William of North Berwick, a Scottish deacon who distinguishes himself with a battle axe. This man was not chastised for his using a bladed weapon; he was promoted for his valour to the position of Archdeacon of Aberdeen later in the same year.

Pope Julius II campaigned extensively to increase the papacy’s temporal power. His militancy began as an Archbishop when he was sent to lead an army restore papal authority in Umbria in 1474. He succeeded in reducing several towns. In 1506 he personally directed the campaigns against Bologna and Bentivogli and set out at the head of his army with a lance and a sword. In 1510-11 he once again took personal command of his army and set out at its head to do battle with the King of France in Northern Italy. It is said that when he commissioned Michelangelo to sculpt a bronze statue of himself and was asked if he would like to be depicted with a book in his hand, the Pope allegedly replied, “Why a book? Show me with a sword.”

There is a strong tradition of warrior bishops in the English see of Durham. Their coat of arms included a crozier crossed with a sword instead of the usual pair of croziers. Many of them rode to battle and actively participated in the fighting. At the Battle of Falkirk in 1298, Anthony Bek, the Archbishop of Durham, led the second column of Edward’s host against the Scottish left flank and was actively involved in the fighting. He wielded a lance and a sword like the knights under his command. Another was Thomas de Hatfield (Bishop of Durham, 1345-1381) who wielded a lance and an axe in battle. The following excerpt is from the Ballad of Durham Field (fought in 1346) and describes de Hatfield and five hundred of his priests wielding edged weapons in the battle (the bishop wields an axe and the priests have spears):

Five hundred priests said mass that day
In Durham in the field,
And afterwards, as I heard say,
They bare both spear and shield. [XLIV]

The Bishop orders himselfe to fight,
With his battell-axe in his hand;
He said, ‘This day now I will fight
As long as I can stand!’ [XLV]

GubernatorFan wrote:Hah, nice... Thanks, 3Afr. Someone must have been able to get through to them. But they still have the fake Greek... (probably harder to change that on the photos, even if they did change it on the actual product). Really, it is not that hard to locate the Greek text of the Lord's Prayer. Or better yet the Latin one.

Wow, it's almost as if you're saying -- yet how could it be? -- that this Pope's selection of his accoutrements was not, somehow, infallible?

shazzdan wrote:Bishops fought big time. They were expected to raise and lead troops just like every other land holder. It is a myth that there was some sort of prohibition against shedding blood. Plenty of clerics participated in battle with swords, axes, and spears and were rewarded for it afterwards, not punished.

Extensive, useful and enlightening contextualizing, Shazzdan, thank you.  Though I haven't seen this theorized, I personally suspect that the very common myth about clerics only being able to use blunt instruments rather than swords (supposedly to avoid shedding blood) is actually a thing that comes from the character classes of D & D, where Gary Gygax had the tough challenge of creating limitations that could roughly equate the effectiveness of fighters, wizards and clerics in a common party.

For purposes of this figure, though the general information about Bishops is instructive, I think he's meant to be an actual Pope, which historically does cut it down to just about only Julius II on the actual field of battle.  I do agree that his garb surely didn't look like this, but I suspect he probably did find something pretty distinctive to wear.

The myth about clerics and maces started with Victorian scholars and a misinterpretation of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae.

I always wondered how you were supposed to avoid bloodshed by smacking someone with a mace.

Julius used a sword and lance, not a mace. They stopped using shields in battle by the time of Julius. The helmet is 13-14th century, not 15-16th C. The above mace is a ceremonial device that would weigh 10-15 pounds, not a weapon. Real maces tended to weigh 2-3 pounds (the heaviest outliers are around 3.5 lbs). The rare two-handed ones were around 5 pounds. It seems to me that they just copied the above cosplay costume and had no historical character in mind. I still think it looks pretty cool.

shazzdan wrote:The myth about clerics and maces started with Victorian scholars and a misinterpretation of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae.

I always wondered how you were supposed to avoid bloodshed by smacking someone with a mace.

I knew that Aquinas was central to the discussions about clerics going to war, but I did not know that the supposed distinction between swords and maces (which as you say, is kinda arbitrary) came from him, or the Victorians explaining him.  It must have been weird as a subject matter arising in Victorian times, insofar as, if I'm an actual medieval cleric going to war, the logical question does come up of which implements I am permitted.  But 600 years after the fact it would seem moot, not immediately relevant to any cleric's war plans, and a fairly poor tool to explain the history of 600 years before.  You've got me curious now, can you explain further or effortlessly point me to a source?

It would seem that, throughout the history of Christianity, there were two opposing points of view in the theological debate regarding clerics participating in battle. One side claimed that it was improper for members of the clergy to take up arms at all. The other claimed that it was permissable if the cause was just (some argued that smiting non-Christians was fine but not Christians).

In the last half of the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas considered the two opposing points of view and attempted to finally solve the dilemma in a work titled Summa Theologiae. In this work he draws upon many prominent thinkers including Aristotle, Dionysius, Rabbi Moses, Augustine, and Peter Lombard. Aquinas introduces the concept of “non-combatants,” and said that a member of the clergy had permission to be on the battlefield, but they could not actively fight. Thomas wrote that war is forbidden to a cleric because war is secular in nature and it was beneath the clergyman to engage in such “earthly” practices. He further states that they should not, “slay or shed blood,” because they would become tainted and no longer capable of performing their primary duty as a member of the Church, i.e. “ministry of the altar.” If Thomas’ words were interpreted narrowly, one could conclude that a clergyman could actively engage in warfare so long as he didn’t shed blood and he didn’t kill anyone. Wielding a blunt weapon might conceivably be a means of conforming to this doctrine – so long as nobody was killed by it.

However, in order to justify this interpretation, Aquinas’ words must be taken out of context. One needs to ignore the rest of his argument, which states that members of the clergy had permission to be on the battlefield, but only so they may administer to the other participants. Thomas specifically wrote that it was “an abuse of this permission if any of them take up arms themselves.” Reading Thomas Aquinas’ work in its entirely, it seems clear that his opinion was that clerics could not actively participate in battle – regardless of whether they shed blood or not.

shazzdan wrote:It would seem that, throughout the history of Christianity, there were two opposing points of view in the theological debate regarding clerics participating in battle. One side claimed that it was improper for members of the clergy to take up arms at all. The other claimed that it was permissable if the cause was just (some argued that smiting non-Christians was fine but not Christians).

In the last half of the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas considered the two opposing points of view and attempted to finally solve the dilemma in a work titled Summa Theologiae. In this work he draws upon many prominent thinkers including Aristotle, Dionysius, Rabbi Moses, Augustine, and Peter Lombard. Aquinas introduces the concept of “non-combatants,” and said that a member of the clergy had permission to be on the battlefield, but they could not actively fight. Thomas wrote that war is forbidden to a cleric because war is secular in nature and it was beneath the clergyman to engage in such “earthly” practices. He further states that they should not, “slay or shed blood,” because they would become tainted and no longer capable of performing their primary duty as a member of the Church, i.e. “ministry of the altar.” If Thomas’ words were interpreted narrowly, one could conclude that a clergyman could actively engage in warfare so long as he didn’t shed blood and he didn’t kill anyone. Wielding a blunt weapon might conceivably be a means of conforming to this doctrine – so long as nobody was killed by it.

However, in order to justify this interpretation, Aquinas’ words must be taken out of context. One needs to ignore the rest of his argument, which states that members of the clergy had permission to be on the battlefield, but only so they may administer to the other participants. Thomas specifically wrote that it was “an abuse of this permission if any of them take up arms themselves.” Reading Thomas Aquinas’ work in its entirely, it seems clear that his opinion was that clerics could not actively participate in battle – regardless of whether they shed blood or not.

I'm still not understanding, in that instructive analysis, where or how the specific tactile distinction between pointed/bladed and blunt weapons comes into it.  I know that there was a lot of interpretative discussion, following from Aquinas, about (Level 1) clerics participating in warfare at all.  Then I know that the distinction moved further onto (Level 2) "shedding blood," which is what I think you are talking about above,  ie clerics doing religious or medical work or even running messages etc or "giving strength to the boys" but not outright fighting.  But I don't see anything Victorian getting to an actual (Level 3) distinction where supposedly "swords shed blood but maces do not."  I do know that there was some eventual discussion raising that actual level 3 distinction some 60 years ago, but not before that, afaik, in the context of some attempted analysis why Bishop Odo of Bayeux is on the Bayeux Tapestry with a club, and labelled "Here Bishop Odo, holding a club, gives strength to the boys".  But nothing either contemporaneous or Victorian specifically about Swords-NO CLubs-YES?  A fascinating subject.

They were trying to explain why characters such as Bishop Odo and Bishop Turpin were wielding maces.

Accuracy or otherwise aside, I really like that sculpt. I don't need any pseudo-holy knights, but a Pope...

Aren't CooModels almost as slow at getting stuff out there as SuperDuck, though? I've had one of their 'Reaper' figures on pre-order for what seems like centuries, now (a year overdue and counting).

GeeWillikers wrote:Accuracy or otherwise aside, I really like that sculpt. I don't need any pseudo-holy knights, but a Pope...

Aren't CooModels almost as slow at getting stuff out there as SuperDuck, though? I've had one of their 'Reaper' figures on pre-order for what seems like centuries, now (a year overdue and counting).

I would say it depends on the figure. The Reapers are super slow but other figures came out in what you would count as "normal" time compared to other companies. 6-9 month i would guess.



This turned into a great thread. Will take my time and read through the history class later on 

Glad they changed the name haha. It does feel like a warhammer 40k. Those scrolls hanging off the costume is what reminds me most of the 40k designs.

EL005 Deluxe version with armor:

$350 at Monkey Depot - https://www.monkeydepot.com/COO_Model_Jihad_Pontifex_Legendary_Edition_CM_E_p/coom0166.htm

$310 at Giantoy - https://giantoy.com/products/1-6-coomodel-el005-empire-legend-jihad-pontifex-legendary-edition

Can't find it at BigBadToyStore

There's also an EL004 version without the armor:

$190 at Giantoy - https://giantoy.com/products/1-6-coomodel-el004-empire-legend-holy-war-priest-standard-edition

I do not see the standard version at Monkey Depot.

Estimated release date is Q2... which is basically now.

I wonder if I could raise the money before it's released? Initially I had little interest, but I think about this figure from time to time. An idea for integrating it in to my photo-story world is emerging. It would be my most expensive figure purchase... and it's not even a cute girl fig!

Pre-order deposit is only ten bucks at Monkey Depot. Twenty bucks at Giantoy.

Hah, I had the same thoughts as you, always coming back to this figure.
I bought it two weeks ago only to cancel it two days later. I think it is cool, but in the end, I don't need another fantasy plate armor guy and want to concentrate my spendings more on other things. 

KGhobby had the best prices but sold out already.

But if you have ideas for photo stories - go for it. I think it is still a very exciting looking figure! It is a pope, a super fantasy armor knight in one figure AND a great looking HS 

For those who are interested, the release is scheduled for in a few days... I just received my Giantoy invoice

3Afr wrote:For those who are interested, the release is scheduled for in a few days... I just received my Giantoy invoice

Sweet. Looking forward to seeing him. I was very tempted to drop some money on this guy.

Just got my invoice from GianToy, looking forward to this one.

Would've been nice if there was an ordinary small skullcap also included for Casual Fridays, but you can't have everything.

GeeWillikers wrote:Would've been nice if there was an ordinary small skullcap also included for Casual Fridays, but you can't have everything.

Thank you, this made my day!

3Afr wrote:For those who are interested, the release is scheduled for in a few days... I just received my Giantoy invoice

  I don't quite have the money set aside yet!!!! Fortunately I placed my order with Monkey Depot, and it usually takes them a few additional weeks to receive items. Thanks for the notice! I'd better get to hustlin'!

Very interested in in hand pics of this one. Especially the head.

Hopefully all my current deposit preorders (this, Lady Adler, a couple of 1/12 sets), aren't all going to get released in the next two weeks, that would be just my luck.

GubernatorFan wrote:

GeeWillikers wrote:Would've been nice if there was an ordinary small skullcap also included for Casual Fridays, but you can't have everything.

Thank you, this made my day!

Heh, I did wonder whether or not to stick a smiley on the end of that sentence.

Catholic humour.

GeeWillikers wrote:Hopefully all my current deposit preorders (this, Lady Adler, a couple of 1/12 sets), aren't all going to get released in the next two weeks, that would be just my luck.

Just what is happening to me.... Coomodel, the 2 Tbleague Sobek and Damtoys 78086, in the same week...

next month will be difficult... haha, eat a lot of rice or potatoes, but not cancel these figures.

Mine (standard edition) is well on its way, should have it by next week.

3Afr wrote:next month will be difficult... haha, eat a lot of rice or potatoes, but not cancel these figures.

One can of tomato soup between five of us at my house until June.  

GeeWillikers wrote:Mine (standard edition) is well on its way, should have it by next week.

3Afr wrote:next month will be difficult... haha, eat a lot of rice or potatoes, but not cancel these figures.

One can of tomato soup between five of us at my house until June.  

You can always sell it as a diet month to your family - everybody will feel better and healthier!    

Some first images... (source bbicn).
The head seems very successful... and the rest too.
Too eager to receive mine.

.... the armor seems very (too) clean, a good "weathering" is needed

I really hope I can find the head and body + hands loose. This guy looks awesome.

Yes, beautifully done, for what it is.

I asked the guy who submitted pictures of his figure, to put some pictures of the face...

He looks great.

i SOOOOO want to get this but its a touch out of my budget
i dont get many full figures at all these days but i would love this as its so unusual!