The Middle Ages vs. the typical fantasy setting

[Broomstick]

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.

There's actually an interesting supposition that in Ireland the "fairies" (Tuatha De Danaan) were foreign invaders who displaced the indigenous smaller, darker population of Ireland. In other words, some of those stories may be highly distorted but originally based in fact.

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

In a feudal or tribal society, "get away with it" and "legal right" are frequently the same thing.

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.

I see the point whooshed over your head - the meme goes back thousands of years. It's not unique to medieval Europe. You seriously think that in all that time no one used that meme as justification for fucking someone else's woman?

If you're looking for a written law encoding the right of first night I'll doubt you find it - but then, a lot of other laws back then were unwritten, too, and basically custom and tradition rather than formally codified. Shall we then conclude the times were lawless? But they weren't - there were courts and judgments passed all the time, even if the legal system wasn't as formalized as ours.

[Straha]

I see the point whooshed over your head - the meme goes back thousands of years. It's not unique to medieval Europe. You seriously think that in all that time no one used that meme as justification for fucking someone else's woman?

It's a repeated meme, just because a lot of people say it happened doesn't mean it actually happened. A lot of people say that the U.S. Government was behind Pearl Harbour, 9/11/, the sinking of the Maine, the Luisitania, etc. Just because it's oft repeated that the government is behind some great war-causing catastrophe doesn't mean that it's true. Just like the idea that gasoline companies all have various different pills that will make engines run forever. It's the loved idea that "big rich important folks are always out to screw with us, and there's nothing the little fellow can do about it. But we had it worse in ye olden days." And it often ranks right up there with the "Things were better in my day, kids were tougher and respected their parents, people all worked, nobody locked their doors at night, and race issues only came up in motorsports." in terms of accuracy.

On the subject of Ius Primae Noctis, it's a story that goes back to Herodotus and before. Check here for a long history of the tale. In short, though, it's a repeated story with about as much accuracy as the Middle Eastern story of "Papal Excrement" or the New England witch trials.

[Darth Wong]

Would noblemen even want peasant women? After all, peasants were probably physically unattractive. Not because of genetics, but because of terrible diet and living conditions.

[Broomstick]

Depends, I suppose, in part on how horny they were.

Seriously, though - the nobles weren't that much better than the peasants when it came to health and hygiene. Nobody owned a toothbrush regardless of station in life. In France during the reign of the Sun King - admittedly post-medieval but stay with me a moment - women had tools for pushing vermin out of their hairstyles and those were the sophisticated people. You know, the folks who had improved since the Dark Ages!

[ray245]

What about areas outside europe during the middle ages? Like the middle-eastern region?China? Or the Roman empire during that time? (yes I know that greece is still a part of europe)...

[Dooey Jo]

It's not us you have to convince of this, Dooey. It's those idiots who think that fantasy settings are more or less accurate depictions of real life medival societies (and yes, Hollywood depictions count). It's not our fault if morons can't tell the difference between a story and history, or if they didn't do their homework.

Yeah, but apart from Wiccans, maybe, the number of people who think the Middle Ages had real wizards is probably quite low. Most people get their ideas of the period from things like Robin Hood, which are usually quite a bit different from typical fantasy settings (but not necessarily more accurate).

And it doesn't help telling other myths to dispel previous notions. Like the claim of the cat exterminations. Pretty much the only source I could find for that was two unsourced (and identical) lines on Wikipedia. There are however accounts of Jews in cities (Strasbourg, for example) being killed as they were believed to cause the plague by poisoning wells.

They're not called the "Dark Ages" because the weather was crap and people sought out piles of mud to roll around in, but because we have very few sources from the period, especially concerning the living conditions of the average person. We do know that they differed greatly depending on what part of Europe you're looking at, and during what time, so it's dangerous to make blanket statements like "most people were basically slaves, owned by their lords", which supposedly should apply to an entire continent over many centuries.

[Broomstick]

It's not us you have to convince of this, Dooey. It's those idiots who think that fantasy settings are more or less accurate depictions of real life medival societies (and yes, Hollywood depictions count). It's not our fault if morons can't tell the difference between a story and history, or if they didn't do their homework.

Yeah, but apart from Wiccans, maybe, the number of people who think the Middle Ages had real wizards is probably quite low.

Please - even most Wiccans have better sense than that!

[Straha]

What about areas outside europe during the middle ages? Like the middle-eastern region?China? Or the Roman empire during that time? (yes I know that greece is still a part of europe)...

The Middle East was much better off and much more open during the "Dark Ages." There were strong governments, a good city culture, and a tradition of innovation and invention. But starting around 1200 the Middle East was conquered by the Mongol Hordes who razed a grand portion of the region to the ground, causing incredible amounts of damage, which some would say the area never recovered from. To give some idea of what happened, in the 1100s Merv was the biggest city in the world. When the Mongols sacked it almost a million people (some historians believe more) were killed.

China suffered similarly but to a much lesser extent. The Mongols were much kinder to the Chinese than they were to the Middle East and Russia. As for Byzantium (I assume that's what you mean by Rome) I'll let someone else on the board answer that question.

[Elfdart]

Would noblemen even want peasant women? After all, peasants were probably physically unattractive. Not because of genetics, but because of terrible diet and living conditions.

That would depend on the time period. Skeletons unearthed from Saxon and Viking-era England are as tall and healthy as modern ones, and the relative size and health of unearthed skeletons is one method used by archaeologists to date burial sites. Since the nobility were usually cremated on huge funeral pyres, these skeletons would more than likely be from the lower classes.

[Elfdart]

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.

My point is that if it's a matter of some noble grabbing some peasant bride because he knows the law won't touch him, why would he have to wait until the night of the wedding? He could rape her anytime before or after the wedding if he wanted. Hell, he could do it during the wedding if that were the case.

[Eleas]

That would depend on the time period. Skeletons unearthed from Saxon and Viking-era England are as tall and healthy as modern ones, and the relative size and health of unearthed skeletons is one method used by archaeologists to date burial sites. Since the nobility were usually cremated on huge funeral pyres, these skeletons would more than likely be from the lower classes.

Well, the skeleton I saw on display back when I visited on the British side of the Scottish border was of a peasant, and that guy was not only fairly short, but his molars had been ground down by greystone flakes in the flour, and he had lived with some truly appalling injuries that had among other things fused parts of his spinal cord together. Of course, they theorised that he had served as part of a lord's army, but still...

[Elfdart]

What period?

[Eleas]

What period?

I honestly don't recall; they spoke of Vikings as well, and conflict there, so tentatively I'd say around 800 - 1000 AD.

[Broomstick]

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.

My point is that if it's a matter of some noble grabbing some peasant bride because he knows the law won't touch him, why would he have to wait until the night of the wedding? He could rape her anytime before or after the wedding if he wanted. Hell, he could do it during the wedding if that were the case.

'Cause doing it just after the wedding would be the act of an utter bastard? I don't know - it would be just plain mean. Why do people do mean things of any sort? In many ways, the ideal feudal lord was a bully, and bullies do mean things.

[Guardsman Bass]

I see the point whooshed over your head - the meme goes back thousands of years. It's not unique to medieval Europe. You seriously think that in all that time no one used that meme as justification for fucking someone else's woman?

It's a repeated meme, just because a lot of people say it happened doesn't mean it actually happened. A lot of people say that the U.S. Government was behind Pearl Harbour, 9/11/, the sinking of the Maine, the Luisitania, etc. Just because it's oft repeated that the government is behind some great war-causing catastrophe doesn't mean that it's true. Just like the idea that gasoline companies all have various different pills that will make engines run forever. It's the loved idea that "big rich important folks are always out to screw with us, and there's nothing the little fellow can do about it. But we had it worse in ye olden days." And it often ranks right up there with the "Things were better in my day, kids were tougher and respected their parents, people all worked, nobody locked their doors at night, and race issues only came up in motorsports." in terms of accuracy.

On the subject of Ius Primae Noctis, it's a story that goes back to Herodotus and before. Check here for a long history of the tale. In short, though, it's a repeated story with about as much accuracy as the Middle Eastern story of "Papal Excrement" or the New England witch trials.

That's what I've been trying to point out. It's not that it's not just in any of the written customs in medieval times - there are no credible accounts of it, period, other than "I heard that people x did this".

[Eleas]

My point is that if it's a matter of some noble grabbing some peasant bride because he knows the law won't touch him, why would he have to wait until the night of the wedding? He could rape her anytime before or after the wedding if he wanted. Hell, he could do it during the wedding if that were the case.

'Cause doing it just after the wedding would be the act of an utter bastard? I don't know - it would be just plain mean. Why do people do mean things of any sort? In many ways, the ideal feudal lord was a bully, and bullies do mean things.

I wish it wasn't so, but there's easily a more practical reason for doing it. The lords of that time ruled by two parts fear and one part loyalty. Sometimes, they probably felt like reminding their subjects that they could inflict pain on them at will, and that all they owned and were, they had at the sufferance of that noble. Otherwise, they might forget that they were inferior.

It's the same method bullies use in the schoolyard, or superpowers in the international arena: sometimes, they feel the need to set an example of what happens if you even think of disobedience.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Interestingly, Tolkien did not depict a medieval feudal society for Gondor.

Tolkien had far more imagination than most of those who followed him. A common criticism of the worlds described in fantasy novels is that they are “just like mediaeval Europe, only with magic”. They have knights on horseback, an aristocracy of nobles under a king, and so on, coexisting with magicians, fantastical creatures and items of cosmic power beyond belief.

You won't find any of these feudal European elements in Gondor. The only identifiable vassal state of Gondor is Dol Amroth, otherwise the kingdom is unitary. The army of Gondor fights on foot, even the nobility like Aragorn and Boromir. Faramir rides a horse during his retreat from the Pelennor wall, but he doesn't participate in cavalry charges, despite what Peter Jackson may have shown you. The couched lances of Arthurian tradition are strictly a Rohirrim technique. In fact there are references to there being only one company of cavalry in the entire army of Gondor.

I think Tolkien had a particular culture in mind. These features are much more reminiscent of imperial Rome than of feudal Europe. To be honest, the army is more reminiscent of early imperial Rome than of Byzantium, but I never expected this to come out perfect.

We don't get a look at the Gondorian navy, but we see one that comes from a related tradition and quite likely is similar: the Corsair fleet of Umbar. This has two types in it: large troop transports and “dromunds”. The ”dromon” was the standard Byzantine warship, so this fits very well with the dromunds being escorts to the transports, in a basically Byzantine style of fleet.

One other analogy should probably be mentioned: Minas Tirith is, of course, Byzantium. An almost impregnable fortress sitting astride an absolutely critical path, protecting the remnants of the empire from the forces that destroyed the rest, a magnet for every attacker.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Would noblemen even want peasant women? After all, peasants were probably physically unattractive. Not because of genetics, but because of terrible diet and living conditions.

Standards vary, but I don't really think that it's justifiable to say that most people in medieval times were in wretched physical condition. Certainly a vastly larger proportion of people would be infirm or mangled, because of the lack of medicine, hygiene, and more brutal society, and the elderly would be physically beaten down by a lifetime of extremely hard labor. However, there's reason to doubt that the majority of people would be degraded physical specimens. Think of it this way--pre-industrial agriculture invariably went through lean times and even famines. If most people spent most of their time in poor physical condition, then most people would have been unable to survive these periods. Most people during lean times would have been in shitty condition, of course, but they would usually have time to recover when harvests improved.

And in fact we have modern models from whom we can approximate the likely condition of a medieval person, those being peasants the more impoverished third world rural regions, such as those in Africa or isolated regions of Asia. The diet of such people is much the same as it was 1000 years ago (with the addition of helpful crops like maize and potatoes), and differences from a medieval peasant would be of substance rather than degree. In some cases, medical care is also scarcely improved. Or we can look at the condition of say, Chinese peasants 100 years ago, or Vietnamese peasants 60 years ago. At any rate, these well documented cases are good as a very rough guess and, while poor specimens by the standards of modern medicine, they are not exactly cripples.

Of course, most peasants would indeed be suffering from minor diseases such as rashes and acne due to the total lack of hygiene, and they would harbor lice and other parasites, and they would smell, but that was true of the nobility as well.

Nobody owned a toothbrush regardless of station in life.

Just a note, the necessity of good dental care is actually a more or less modern condition; the medieval diet had very minimal sugars, so tooth decay was a less serious problem. Obviously most people would have stained teeth, would likely lose a number of teeth to accident and violence during their lives, and their breath would probably smell terrible, but the phenomena of a person's entire supply of teeth rotting right out of their heads was uncommon in the medieval era.

[Raptor 597]

Interestingly, Tolkien did not depict a medieval feudal society for Gondor.

Tolkien had far more imagination than most of those who followed him. A common criticism of the worlds described in fantasy novels is that they are “just like mediaeval Europe, only with magic”. They have knights on horseback, an aristocracy of nobles under a king, and so on, coexisting with magicians, fantastical creatures and items of cosmic power beyond belief.

You won't find any of these feudal European elements in Gondor. The only identifiable vassal state of Gondor is Dol Amroth, otherwise the kingdom is unitary. The army of Gondor fights on foot, even the nobility like Aragorn and Boromir. Faramir rides a horse during his retreat from the Pelennor wall, but he doesn't participate in cavalry charges, despite what Peter Jackson may have shown you. The couched lances of Arthurian tradition are strictly a Rohirrim technique. In fact there are references to there being only one company of cavalry in the entire army of Gondor.

I think Tolkien had a particular culture in mind. These features are much more reminiscent of imperial Rome than of feudal Europe. To be honest, the army is more reminiscent of early imperial Rome than of Byzantium, but I never expected this to come out perfect.

We don't get a look at the Gondorian navy, but we see one that comes from a related tradition and quite likely is similar: the Corsair fleet of Umbar. This has two types in it: large troop transports and “dromunds”. The ”dromon” was the standard Byzantine warship, so this fits very well with the dromunds being escorts to the transports, in a basically Byzantine style of fleet.

One other analogy should probably be mentioned: Minas Tirith is, of course, Byzantium. An almost impregnable fortress sitting astride an absolutely critical path, protecting the remnants of the empire from the forces that destroyed the rest, a magnet for every attacker.

Well Tolkien outright says in one of his letters, 253 I believe that Gondor is Byzantium. He says that he wanted to emulate the Byzantines as Gondor, a people who mingle more and have more manpower than the other half of Numenor in Middle Earth. Arnor was supposed to represent the Western Romans which fell to the barbarian hoarde of Orcs.

[LadyTevar]

Just a note, the necessity of good dental care is actually a more or less modern condition; the medieval diet had very minimal sugars, so tooth decay was a less serious problem. Obviously most people would have stained teeth, would likely lose a number of teeth to accident and violence during their lives, and their breath would probably smell terrible, but the phenomena of a person's entire supply of teeth rotting right out of their heads was uncommon in the medieval era.

Cavities and rotten teeth were actually more common in the nobility, who could afford pricey sweets.

[Typhonis 1]

Depends on the fantasy setting as well. Remeber you will have druids and clerics who can cast healing and plant growth magic. This will affect how people live.

[Zor]

Personally my responce to anyone goes on about the "Good 'ol Days" like this guy is that he needs to Watch Tony Robinson's Worst Jobs in History series.

Zor

[cosmicalstorm]

Nobody owned a toothbrush regardless of station in life.

Thats not true, people have been using various ways of cleaning their teeth since the dawn of time, twigs, roots, bones, rags soaked with soot/chalk/baking soda, chewsticks etc.
This combined with a very low sugar diet actually kept peoples teeth in a suprisingly good shape.