The game was therefore banned several times by the government. These culls, as well as other actions against pigs and pork, which often take place and took place in Islamic countries, led to accusations of discrimination from the Islamic government against Christian farmers. Historians usually give four explanations for the unusually low casualties of war: the Christian ethic of chivalry, the ransom that could be obtained for captive knights, better armor, and finally, the most important factor, the prevailing social code. Because FIFA wanted to prevent the Olympic football tournament from becoming too much of a competitor for the World Cup, new provisions were introduced. A century later, in the battle of Lincoln (1217), three knights lost their lives. Thirteen years earlier, at Tinchebray, Henry I lost no more than two men-at-arms. Usually two rival villages faced each other. Four caveats. First of all: in a football match two sides face each other. The two targets were therefore often kilometers apart and a match could therefore last a whole day. Italy against Norway was a game between two conservative teams, with Italy taking a 1-0 lead after almost twenty minutes thanks to a goal from Christian Vieri, who counter-attacked the Norwegian defense.
Better to win 1-0 than lose 3-4. Third: the difference between football and war is that there are rules and a referee? The medieval war was not total and did not lead to genocide. Five tickets were available for Africa, Nigeria was again there, Ivory Coast and Ghana were eliminated by Morocco and Egypt respectively, Algeria and Cameroon's places were taken by Senegal and Tunisia. Originally the piñatas were made of ceramic pots or cardboard in the shape of a star by making seven projections, representing the seven deadly sins. Did Celts and Germans know a form of football apart from the Roman 'harpastum'? When exactly did football originate? In the 1990s, Campos was one of the stars of global football. Campos also did well as a striker. His reasoning does not seem entirely convincing to me. After all, it is not the intention that the two teams destroy each other, but that they score goals. To survive in the long term, violence was therefore still necessary: no longer the old hunting violence of man against animals, but the new war violence of man against man.
'Medieval' football is still played today in some English towns, such as Ashboume not far from the city of Derby, we may hope in a slightly less brutal variant. Football has been played for centuries without a referee and with a minimum of rules. A medieval football game can perhaps best be imagined as a kind of giant rugby match, mexico soccer shirt but without rules. The latter undoubtedly comes from England. As mentioned, the earliest records of medieval football can be found in England and France in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. During the period from the end of the eleventh to the beginning of the thirteenth century, warfare in France and England was even remarkably 'bloodless'. From the end of the tenth century, the church, later assisted by the secular government, launched a real civilizing offensive against this state of general disorder, crisis and insecurity. The oldest records date back to the eleventh and twelfth centuries. A kind of football was played in China as early as the twenty-seventh century BC, later adopted by the Japanese. In Mexico, too, there are records of a game similar to football that was played until the Spanish conquests around 1520. The Chinese and Mexican 'football' may have been a religious ritual of sorts.
The period between 500 and 1500 was undoubtedly violent, but certainly no more violent than the twentieth century, which breaks almost all records in terms of war and state violence. So when we look at the number of victims, the dividing line between war and football suddenly seems very thin. Second, football is all about wins and losses, not so much the number of hits. Just because the war dimension of football is the most obvious doesn't mean it can't be the most important. The big problem is that there is no continuity between all these 'ball games' and modern football. The first modern athletic tracks were made of grass. There were hardly any rules and everyone was allowed to participate. Moreover, even for wars there have always been rules, because even in a war it is not the first objective that enemy armies destroy each other. To return now to Desmond Morris's theory: instead of tracing football directly back to hunting, it seems more logical to me to work in three steps, namely from hunting through war to football.