The Middle Ages vs. the typical fantasy setting

[SirNitram]

In Fantasyland, if there is a local knight, he is either an idealistic upholding the most rose-coloured interpretation of chivalry, keeps a standing force of personal guards that are professional and courteous, and depending on the setting, may have actual powers for smiting the forces of Evil. Alternately, he may also be a grizzled veteran. Should he be married, it is to his true love, who generally keeps him young at heart and upholding the ideals of his youth, while adding his combat experience and her ability to blow bad guys up via fireballs. If he is single, he is a haunted, tragic figure who will find his way out of the darkness just in time to deliver a one-man assbeating to all the forces of evil that threaten his people.

[Broomstick]

Apparently, in Fantasyland, no one ever needs to dispose of their poop, if they even have to poop at all.

I'm so used to that meme that I actually found it startling that World of Warcraft has outhouses!. Admittedly, they seem confined to Human, Dwarf, and Foresaken areas... perhaps Elves don't poop, Taurens leave cowpies, and Trolls don't care...? Og knows what the Gnomes and Goblins do ... Then again, WoW is unabashedly fanstasy.

Fantasy land: Every blacksmith could make you decent weapons. This is more of a RPG thing, but it does seem to have melded over to literature a bit as well.

Real World: You had the right to be happy if the rural blacksmith could make a horseshoe properly, nevermind weapons. Plus, blacksmiths were rare and if they made weapons, they did not make them for the avarege peasent's price range. Whether a blacksmith was allowed to make weapons is an entirely different question.

Even today, blacksmith's who specialize in shoeing animals are called farriers, not blacksmiths. Smiths, in the sense of "metal worker", weren't that rare but they WERE specialized. Certain ones specialized in animal shoeing, others in small tool making/repair, and the armorers/weaponsmiths were yet another specialty that would be under the employ of a local lord or higher ranking noble, not accessible to the average peasant. Their apprentices might start with making bits that were then sold or issued to the peasantry (probably the origin of a lot of "pocketknives" used for eating).

Quality of smiths varied all over the spectrum, of course. If a small village didn't have a smith they'd obtain the tools they needed by trade. There WAS trade in medieval times, just not a lot of it.

You're right about how fantasy does seem to downplay the fact that anybody "fooling around" in a pre-modern setting should be very worried about getting pregnant.

That's why the gods gave us the powers of anal sex, oral sex, and mutual masturbation. Combine that with a monogamous relationship to avoid VD, and you're all set. No contraception necessary.

In most places in medieval Europe anal sex was a felony, and the death penalty was a real possibility. Remember, the Catholic Church was in charge, and any non-procreative sex was taboo. Consider that privacy was almost non-existent for peasant and lord alike and you won't be getting away with much.

Peasantry didn't always get the luxury of a monogamous relationship - in many places the local lord could appropriate a bride on her wedding night (this didn't always happen, of course, but it could) which could infect your wife with an STD. Brothels were a feature of cities. The kinds and nobles had their wives but also fucked on the side and it was OK back then - fidelity was much more valued for women than for men.

Yes, people did tend to marry early, and due to poor diet both men and women matured later than they do these days, so two 15 year olds fooling around during the hay harvest weren't that likely to get pregnant. Marriage was concerned primarily with inheritance, so it didn't matter that much to the peasants anyhow since they had neither land nor money to pass on to children. Children, though, were wanted very much because of high death rates, and if some of them were of questionable parentage it didn't matter overmuch as long as they were healthy and good workers.

[fgalkin]

Who says there is no magic in this world? For example, I can teleport this thread.

See?

*poof*

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Setzer]

This thread is inspired by Bluewolf's. I decided that as long as we're on that topic, we can show why actually doing your research is mandatory.

This sounds like the perfect opportunity to pimp my favorite fantasy series, A Song of Ice and Fire.

1. Fantasy settings typically have magic (or close equvalent) that will let at least some denizens help out with various tasks better than peasants can. Spells can easily be used for say construction, mapping, production of goods and of course security.

The Middle Ages don't even have that luxury. All tasks had to be done with physical labour.

That's par for the course in ASOIAF. Magic exists, but most people don't believe it does. Also, with one of the few people who can use magic, her powers are ambiguous. We don't know if, for example, she magically killed a certain character, or if it was his in laws who wanted his bride to wed his pliable younger brother instead.

2. Fantasy apparently have much hardier, tougher and prettier citizens than in real life. Really ugly people tend to be rare and almost nobody suffers from famine or disease (except by Act Of Plot).

The Middle Ages was full of ugly, malformed, and disabled (and soon to be dead) people. Unlike Fantasy where even broken bones are trivial (if they even exist) an unchecked lesion can quickly spell doom for all but the luckiest and strongest people.

ASOIAF has two of its toughest characters, combatwise, die of infected wounds. We hear lots of references to stillborns and death by childbirth, even among the nobility.

3. Most crime is swiftly punished in Fantasyland. Bandits rarely cause problems, and if they do, they soon cease to be problems. Thank the plucky band of adventurers that happened to stumble by.

In the Middle Ages, however, you'd be laughed at for even suggesting that the muggers outside village limits should be exterminated by a mob.

In Westeros, the local lords do a pretty decent job keeping bandits under control. However, it's clear that it's an ongoing effort, and we see nothing to imply that banditry is anything but another part of life in Westeros. Each generation of knights has its generation of bandits. Some knights who are poor take up banditry to survive.

4. If the fantasy setting has beings that are considered to be gods, then chances are most of them are going to be benevolent - or at least indifferent to humanity.

But even an apathetic deity is better than an imaginary God who nonetheless causes way more suffering, hatred, injustice, and inequality than even the most diabolical tyrant.

ASOIAF has the faith of the Seven, and the faith of the Lord of Light. It's been undeveloped so far, but as of book 4, there are two factions in the field, each led by religious fanatics for their respective faiths. It's only a matter of time, I think, before a religiously motivated conflict begins.

5. Fantasy has mythical creatures; The Middle Ages do not. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on circumtance.

Westeros has dragons, but only 3. The rest went extinct about 150 years before the series began. A dragon's egg is more valuable then a diamond, and a living dragon is valuable beyond compare.

6. If they exist, fantasy clergy tend to actually be worth something, healing any ill up to and including death. Health care, even if the only care worth using was magical, was still incredibly useful and common. (Hell, sometimes you'll get a setting where a good night's rest is all it takes to fix you up right and proper!)

Medival health care is an oxymoron. It's pathetic and primitive.

As before, twice in the series people have died of infected wounds. Another character, who suffers from shaking fits, is leeched to remove the bad blood that supposedly brings these fits.

As for religion... well, one High Septon (the Westerosi pope) was torn apart by a raging mob, He was too fat to get away, so even though King's Landing was in the middle of a famine, the rich and powerful didn't have any problem laying sumptuous feasts on the table. When a new High Septon comes to power, he sells all the jewels and gold to buy food for starving people, and the Queen was half convinced he was mad. It seems to be a given in Westeros that the religious hierarchy will be corrupt and self serving, and the Monarch seems to encourage this, since it means the faith can be bribed or threatened easily.

7. Fantasy settlements are mostly clean. Medival settlements aren't.

Well, we don't get long lingering descriptions of all the filth, but it's certainly not portrayed as Disneyland.

8. Fantasy rulers are either good people, or people brought to justice. Medival rulers are neither.

Ohohohoooo... where do I begin?

First we had King Aerys II Targaryen, who was the last reigning king of the Targaryen dynasty, which married brother to sister to keep their blood pure. They produced some very good kings and some very bad ones. Aerys was one of the latter. He was okay for the beginning of his reign. He appointed capable men to his government, and there was peace in Westeros, and a treasury overflowing with gold. Then Aerys was captured by a rebelling port city, and that sent him over the edge. He had a habit of executing men by burning men to death, which sexually aroused him. His son Rhaegar kidnapped (or ran off with) the fiance of another nobleman, Robert Baratheon, and when the girl's family demanded her return, Aerys burned them. He then demanded the heads of Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark, and the man who was warding them raised his armies in revolt. When Aerys lost the war, he prepared his pyromancers to burn the capital down around him (which had some 300,000 people) but was killed by Jaime Lannister before he could give the order.

Robert Baratheon put himself on the throne. He seems at first glance to be a stereotypical nice guy fantasy monarch. He's a brave and mighty warrior, makes friends easily, forgave the men who fought for Aerys against him, and loves to have a good time.

The problem is, he loves to have a good time so much, he ignored all his responsibilities as king. He threw so many feasts, parties, and tournaments he ran the kingdom into monstrous debt, and borrowed so heavily from House Lannister (his wife's family) that they have his balls on a leash. He fathered 16 bastard children, but his so called heirs were actually fathered by his wife's incestuous affair with her twin brother Jaime.

As for Joffrey... well... I'm not going to get into Joffrey here. Suffice to say, I was cheering at a certain scene in book 3.

9. Fantasy families only have a few kids per generation and commoners live long lives. In the Middle Ages, those babies lucky enough reach the age of three have a painful short life ahead of them! Whee!

As before, we have plenty of difficulty childbearing in Westeros. Lysa Arryn only gave birth to one living son, a sickly thing that no one expects to live long enough to breed. Men in Westeros seem to regard fathering children as part of their duties as a husband, and even Stannis Baratheon (whose wife has a mustache) makes time to fuck his wife at least once a year.

10. Fantasy tends to have modern social attitudes. Women are more likely to be taken seriously as a warrior, for instance, in a fantasy setting as opposed to an accurate medival one. Another example is that unlike the Middle Ages (effective) slavery is considered to be evil.

The only female warriors we see are the Mormonts, Asha Greyjoy, and Breinne of Tarth. The Mormonts have a long tradition of guarding their home from Wildling raids when the men are away, but it's still the men who do most of the fighting in Wartime.

Asha Greyjoy is from a society of Viking analogs. Despite being the chosen heir of her father, and a respected warrior, they still crown one of her uncles king when her father dies.

Brienne of Tarth is the only surviving child of the House of Tarth, and once her father dies, she'll be the sole heir of the isle of Tarth. According to Westerosi law, whoever marries her inherits the lordship of Tarth, yet she is still unmarried. Why?

Because she's fuck ugly, freakishly tall for a woman, graceless, socially inept, and in short, is a complete failure at everything expected of a woman in Westeros. She took up arms partly as a distraction from that. Most of the people in the book refuse to take her seriously, and look on her as a ridiculous upstart. The attitude towards her is that if she gets raped or murdered, it's her fault for trying to play at being a warrior.

Slavery is banned and looked down upon in Westeros, but considering their feudal system, that really doesn't make much of a difference. We see plenty of slaves outside of Westeros.

11. If the fantasy setting is lucky they'll stumble on long forgotten technology - or have it given to them - which can then be used to make their lives even better! But like magic, superior, hidden techonlogy didn't exist in the Middle Ages (or if it did, it would be quickly destroyed or sealed).

They don't even have aqueducts in Westeros. It's been more or less technologically static for thousands of years. Those who have an interest in science and mathematics usually join the Maesters of the Citadel, a special order of learned men. There's a Maester in nearly every castle in Westeros, but mainly to tend to the ravens that are used for communication. Lords, Maesters, and some Septons know how to read, but lesser knights, peasants, and the like do not.

12. Fantasy afterlives not only exist, but are likely to be pretty good for the souls involved. Christianity owes much of its success of a promise of a good life after death, by contrast.

We haven't seen much about the beliefs of the religions of Westeros as regarding the afterlife. It seems to be a merit based afterlife, as a common saying when someone dies is "May the Father Judge him/her justly." They also believe there are seven hells, but are vague regarding the natures of hell's torments.

[Thanas]

Jesus Christ, why is this topic even in the history Forum? This isn't talking about history, it is primarily just about the disconnect between fantasy and the medieval world.

And now this has degressed into pimping fantasy series. Yeah, all of that belongs here, right.

[Guardsman Bass]

Let's see -

In Fantasyland, your average medieval lord tends to either be some Soul of Generosity and Nobility or the Dark Lord of Oppression, screwing over all his peasants and doing things like Prima Noctis (which is actually, IIRC, a myth - there's not actual recorded case of anything like it actually happening in medieval times, despite what Braveheart shows).

In real medieval land, your average landlord ideally had his estates run like a business, using a steward, with the goal of simply getting what he could from it, whether in terms of labor or via monopolies like on mills and the like on his estates. They generally were a pretty banal group overall, and that's not including the Catholic Church, whose local leading lights usually ran estates themselves.

In Fantasyland, soldiers tend to all have matching uniforms and be well-equipped with clean weapons.

In real medieval land, the above might apply to knights (but limited even then depending on how wealthy the knight was) and lords with their retinues, but your average medieval foot slogger generally was armed with whatever he could get, and certainly didn't have nice, neat uniforms.

In Fantasyland, in spite of all the scheming, noble houses of all colors seem to stick around forever (this particularly being the case in ASoIaF), with single royal families holding a throne for a long time before being tossed off.

In real medieval land, the average duration of a particular noble family was rather limited (I think I remember Barbara Tuchman saying it was something on the order of 200 years, although obviously this was not the case with the biggest noble houses on the block), and rebellions were quite common. At least, that's one thing I noticed about Byzantium; there seemed to be a coup attempt against the Emperor pretty much every time he turned his back.

[Big Orange]

Fantasy Land: Short people belong to non-human humanoid races like Hobbits, Dwarfs, Gnomes, and Leprechauns.

Medeval Land: Short people exist because of generations of an appalling diet or/and the occasional birth malformation that people didn't understand.

[hongi]

Even today, blacksmith's who specialize in shoeing animals are called farriers, not blacksmiths. Smiths, in the sense of "metal worker", weren't that rare but they WERE specialized.

Oh my God. I didn't make the connection before now between Kate the Farrier, the female armourer in A Knight's Tale (yes I watched that movie and I enjoyed the damn thing! ) and farrier. Now that makes a lot of sense.

[Elfdart]

Peasantry didn't always get the luxury of a monogamous relationship - in many places the local lord could appropriate a bride on her wedding night (this didn't always happen, of course, but it could) which could infect your wife with an STD. Brothels were a feature of cities. The kinds and nobles had their wives but also fucked on the side and it was OK back then - fidelity was much more valued for women than for men.

The whole "first night" thing is bullshit. What's funny about this thread is how people make fun of fantasy brain bugs, only to offer up myths, legends and nonsense of their own.

I'd recommend The Year 1000 by Robert Lacey, which debunks a lot of the nonsense.

[Big Orange]

What is it with the fantasy brainbug of longlive to nearly immortal humanoid races, like Elves, Vampires, Nymphs and even Dwarfs? Why is it such a common cliche' in all of fantasy?

The brainbug has carried on into recent sci-fi like Star Trek and Stargate, with Vulcans living about two centuries, the Goa'uld being practically immortal and even their inept Jaffa having a comparable long life to the Vulcans (although to be fair sci-fi has better reasons for greatly increased lifespans and already in the 21st century one in four people born today could live to see a 100).

[Elfdart]

It's a way to show that they are "better". Some creatures are stronger, prettier, smarter or have longer lifespans. The more wanked-out the species, the more likely they are to be all of the above. Which tells me that Karen Traviss' Wank'd'a'bon'ea'n's''''' will be given longer lifespans in an upcoming EU novel. If they haven't already.

[Big Orange]

It's a way to show that they are "better". Some creatures are stronger, prettier, smarter or have longer lifespans. The more wanked-out the species, the more likely they are to be all of the above. Which tells me that Karen Traviss' Wank'd'a'bon'ea'n's''''' will be given longer lifespans in an upcoming EU novel. If they haven't already.

I hope a future novelist turns this well worn cliche' on its head and have Elves be very shortlived for once - not unlike Blade Runners' Nexus-6 Replicants, the Elves have vastly superior strength, agility, intelligence, attractiveness, psychic ability and physical health when alive, yet they have a heavily fixed lifespan of just thirty years (where they don't naturally age, merely abruptly shut down like Roy Batty did, implying they may be a engineered slave race).

[Broomstick]

The Voyager's Okampa had some "space elf" qualities, but a lifespan of only 9 years (although in one episode you have especially long-lived specimens last to 14 or something).

I've occasionally toyed with the thought that a modern person who went back in time to certain eras might be regarded as an Elf - compared to the time's average, the modern person would likely be taller, apparently age slower, and be possessed of technology indistinguishable from magic.

[Eleas]

In Fantasy novels, particularly less well-thought out ones, the nation state exists, and the lowliest peasant is, first and foremost, a citizen of Somethingland, and proud of that fact. In medieval reality, a peasant could be expected to know the name of her lord, which was useful; perhaps even name of the country, that is of course if it was even a proper country, the borders weren't contested, etc. Kings and dynasties and nobles were of import - vague notions of statehood were not. Any given peasant was far more likely to define themselves as primarily part of Christendom and a denizen of His Lordship the Duc d'Orleans' lands than as "French".

This leads us to another thing - common languages, indistinguishable from village to village. Who would enforce them before the advent of Mass Media? Hell, even today, we have villages in Småland (who during the Middle Ages were practically isolated in the midst of those massive forests) who developed their own languages that to this day have lingered. Said languages are completely incomprehensible to an outsider, and even if this is an extreme, it illustrates in a clear fashion just how nonexistent the concept of a unified language was.

Oh, and clothes? Who made them, wove the fabric, spun the yarn, et cetera? Why, everyone. It was something just about every woman was expected to do, and it took up a significant portion of spare time to spin wool, to sew, to embroider, and so forth. Spare time in general wasn't all that common.

[Broomstick]

Peasantry didn't always get the luxury of a monogamous relationship - in many places the local lord could appropriate a bride on her wedding night (this didn't always happen, of course, but it could) which could infect your wife with an STD. Brothels were a feature of cities. The kinds and nobles had their wives but also fucked on the side and it was OK back then - fidelity was much more valued for women than for men.

The whole "first night" thing is bullshit. What's funny about this thread is how people make fun of fantasy brain bugs, only to offer up myths, legends and nonsense of their own.

Your source mentions that there is no evidence this custom didn't exist. Although it is possibly a myth, there are other items of the medieval time period long thought to be fantasy - such as Vikings finding North America before Columbus - that have been eventually substantiated. The notion is quite widespread which makes me wonder if it might have been simple abuse of power - a local lord saying he had a right to the peasant women. Certainly rape of serfs and peasants by nobility did occur (along with bandits and other peasants)

The notion of a king taking advantage of a bride on her wedding actually extends back at least as far as Gilgamesh - it was one of the complaints the citizens of Ur had against him. The notion of the king taking whatever woman he wanted, married or no, is not confined to medieval Europe.

[Broomstick]

Oh, and clothes? Who made them, wove the fabric, spun the yarn, et cetera? Why, everyone. It was something just about every woman was expected to do, and it took up a significant portion of spare time to spin wool, to sew, to embroider, and so forth. Spare time in general wasn't all that common.

It wasn't unusual for the men to spend significant time on clothing production, too.

Spinning was something done by women in part because it could be done while doing other things women did If a woman could balance a water container on her head then she could use a drop spindle while going to and from the well, which means she could do two things at once. Which gives you an idea of the enormous labor involved in daily life back then.

[Eleas]

It wasn't unusual for the men to spend significant time on clothing production, too.

Thank you, I didn't know that.

[Guardsman Bass]

Peasantry didn't always get the luxury of a monogamous relationship - in many places the local lord could appropriate a bride on her wedding night (this didn't always happen, of course, but it could) which could infect your wife with an STD. Brothels were a feature of cities. The kinds and nobles had their wives but also fucked on the side and it was OK back then - fidelity was much more valued for women than for men.

The whole "first night" thing is bullshit. What's funny about this thread is how people make fun of fantasy brain bugs, only to offer up myths, legends and nonsense of their own.

Your source mentions that there is no evidence this custom didn't exist. Although it is possibly a myth, there are other items of the medieval time period long thought to be fantasy - such as Vikings finding North America before Columbus - that have been eventually substantiated. The notion is quite widespread which makes me wonder if it might have been simple abuse of power - a local lord saying he had a right to the peasant women. Certainly rape of serfs and peasants by nobility did occur (along with bandits and other peasants)

It's generally considered a myth by most serious historians - like I said, they've never actually found a recorded (written or oral) case of it happening. IIRC, they generally thought it grew out of the fact that the bride's family usually had to pay a tax when she got married.

The notion of a king taking advantage of a bride on her wedding actually extends back at least as far as Gilgamesh - it was one of the complaints the citizens of Ur had against him. The notion of the king taking whatever woman he wanted, married or no, is not confined to medieval Europe.

Gilgamesh doesn't claim that it was a systemic thing, though. That a king might abuse his power to get chicks isn't surprising, but the Prima Noctis idea is based on the belief that it was a custom that the lords could do this - that's the bullshit. Like I said, there's never been a recorded instance of it happening, and claiming that there is no evidence that it didn't happen is not an argument.

[Guardsman Bass]

This leads us to another thing - common languages, indistinguishable from village to village. Who would enforce them before the advent of Mass Media? Hell, even today, we have villages in Småland (who during the Middle Ages were practically isolated in the midst of those massive forests) who developed their own languages that to this day have lingered. Said languages are completely incomprehensible to an outsider, and even if this is an extreme, it illustrates in a clear fashion just how nonexistent the concept of a unified language was.

Just look up how widespread the use of Occitan was in southern France before the French Revolution, and you'll see how right you were. People under-estimate the importance of wide-spread education in creating commonality among disparate regions under a single "nation"-state.

Speaking of clothes, IIRC, clothes were one of the major expenses of your average lord and lady. Part of keeping up with the Joneses, along with lavish parties.

[Darth Hoth]

This leads us to another thing - common languages, indistinguishable from village to village. Who would enforce them before the advent of Mass Media? Hell, even today, we have villages in Småland (who during the Middle Ages were practically isolated in the midst of those massive forests) who developed their own languages that to this day have lingered. Said languages are completely incomprehensible to an outsider, and even if this is an extreme, it illustrates in a clear fashion just how nonexistent the concept of a unified language was.

This could, however, work the other way if you go sufficiently far back, before the languages had been as divided by spans of time and space; were not the Vikings, for example, able to make themselves understood to the inhabitants of the British Isles, as they both spoke related Germanic tongues? (Or is this a brain bug created by modern-day idiosyncrasies in the teaching of English?)

[Eleas]

This could, however, work the other way if you go sufficiently far back, before the languages had been as divided by spans of time and space; were not the Vikings, for example, able to make themselves understood to the inhabitants of the British Isles, as they both spoke related Germanic tongues? (Or is this a brain bug created by modern-day idiosyncrasies in the teaching of English?)

Vikings invaded. Yes, the linguistic roots were there, and the Viking language was closer than most to Old Englisc, but I'd say the bulk of the similarities were due to assimilation of conquered territories within the Danelaw. Place names in particular remain recognizable to this day, such as York (Jorvik).

EDIT: So what I'm talking about is that there may well be similarities in language, but that dialects will be inevitable, as there's nothing to prevent linguistic drift.

[Rogue 9]

It's a way to show that they are "better". Some creatures are stronger, prettier, smarter or have longer lifespans. The more wanked-out the species, the more likely they are to be all of the above. Which tells me that Karen Traviss' Wank'd'a'bon'ea'n's''''' will be given longer lifespans in an upcoming EU novel. If they haven't already.

I hope a future novelist turns this well worn cliche' on its head and have Elves be very shortlived for once

Been done.

[Darth Hoth]

Vikings invaded. Yes, the linguistic roots were there, and the Viking language was closer than most to Old Englisc, but I'd say the bulk of the similarities were due to assimilation of conquered territories within the Danelaw. Place names in particular remain recognizable to this day, such as York (Jorvik).

EDIT: So what I'm talking about is that there may well be similarities in language, but that dialects will be inevitable, as there's nothing to prevent linguistic drift.

You would know better than I; I never studied language history more than casually. As for your second point, certainly.

[Elfdart]

Your source mentions that there is no evidence this custom didn't exist.

We can't prove goblins and fairies never existed either, so I guess the jury is out on those, too.

Although it is possibly a myth, there are other items of the medieval time period long thought to be fantasy - such as Vikings finding North America before Columbus - that have been eventually substantiated. The notion is quite widespread which makes me wonder if it might have been simple abuse of power - a local lord saying he had a right to the peasant women. Certainly rape of serfs and peasants by nobility did occur (along with bandits and other peasants)

There's a huge difference between someone who commits rape knowing he can get away with it, and a legal right to do it.

The notion of a king taking advantage of a bride on her wedding actually extends back at least as far as Gilgamesh - it was one of the complaints the citizens of Ur had against him. The notion of the king taking whatever woman he wanted, married or no, is not confined to medieval Europe.

Gilgamesh is a fictional character.

[Darth Wong]

There's a huge difference between someone who commits rape knowing he can get away with it, and a legal right to do it.

Given the history of the Bush Administration, I would have to argue that this difference is smaller than you think. If the legal authorities do nothing to punish lawbreakers, then the law they are breaking is effectively nullified.

This happens all the time with old rules which are no longer enforced; people argue that it doesn't matter if the law is on the books, as long as it is not actively being enforced by anyone. A law is, after all, nothing more than a rule set down by a coercive authority. If that coercive authority decides not to enforce that law, then it may as well not exist.