Misconceptions of Medieval Times in Media

[Spiryt]

In Eastern Europe (Slovakia, Poland and those states) the king was elected by the nobles.

In 1573 first time, it's not medieval anymore by any theory.

How much less effective was chain mail as opposed to plate?

It was just as impossible to cut, but that's all. Links could break beacuse of heavy strikes, it was quite reasonably easy to puncture with heavy stab, and most importatly, it offered no resistance to force of any strike. Searchhere for "Bastard sword on maile" and "Cut on the Maile". Interesting reasults - some ruptured flesh, even though maile is of course not.

Of course, exceptionaly solid mail could offer protection against thrusts, and even to some strikes, but then it was really heavy. If you wanted to be somewhat better protected against blunt trauma, you had to use really massive gambeson which was rather clumsy thing to wear.

[Matthew]

*crusade stuff*

I give you an "F" for effort, and advise you (and anybody else interested) to get hold of a copy of The Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith. It is an excellent introduction to a complex subject area.

[Avilan the Grey]

Actually, the bondsman system that you are talking about wasn't in place before the 16th century, on the end of Ivan the 4th's reign. Before that, the peasants could switch noble once a year.
Before that again (800-1300 at least) the peasants paid tribute to their nobleman overlord, but owned the land themselves.

You are right, but they were still worse off than our farmers were.

[Avilan the Grey]

I give you an "F" for effort, and advise you (and anybody else interested) to get hold of a copy of The Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith. It is an excellent introduction to a complex subject area.

I prefer the Terry Jones documentary series

[Matthew]

I prefer the Terry Jones documentary series

Heh, heh. I would definitely recommend staying away from anything purportedly written by Terry Jones. In my opinion, he is an entertaining storyteller, but not a good historian. I watched his crusade series when it first aired over here, and being about fifteen at the time, I believed everything he said. At university, I was gutted when I found out how much disinformation it contained. My first encounter with the unreliability of television history.

I quite enjoyed his more recent Medieval Lives, but being less familiar with the events he portrayed, I cannot speak to the veracity (though I seem to recall noticing a fair number of questionable assertions).

[rankrath]

<snip>
There's a reason why wrestling and the employment of daggers while doing so is a very LARGE part of historical fighting.

this would make sense if everyone was fully armoured but weren't full suits of plate extremely hard to make, not to mention expensive, meaning that most knights wore a mix of plate over their vitals and maille on the limbs?

[Anteros]

The misconceptions that irritate me the most? People who read something on the internet, or took one or two history courses and suddenly feel the need to "correct" people with a doctorate or dispute long term, well known facts based on what they have read/heard. The sheer amount of wrong in this thread is staggering.

[Joran]

The misconceptions that irritate me the most? People who read something on the internet, or took one or two history courses and suddenly feel the need to "correct" people with a doctorate or dispute long term, well known facts based on what they have read/heard. The sheer amount of wrong in this thread is staggering.

Feel free to join the conversation. What exactly have you seen that is wrong?

P.S. I've seen professors with doctorates get stuff wrong. It happens to the best of us.

[Anteros]

The thread is already full of people correcting each other without my adding anything in. It's just a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people give out misinformation as fact. This is how misinformation spreads.

However, on second thought, I suppose these forums aren't really the place for in depth historical analysis, and people are just trying to enjoy themselves by chatting. I apolgize if I came off a bit rudely before.

[Avilan the Grey]

Heh, heh. I would definitely recommend staying away from anything purportedly written by Terry Jones. In my opinion, he is an entertaining storyteller, but not a good historian. I watched his crusade series when it first aired over here, and being about fifteen at the time, I believed everything he said. At university, I was gutted when I found out how much disinformation it contained. My first encounter with the unreliability of television history.

I quite enjoyed his more recent Medieval Lives, but being less familiar with the events he portrayed, I cannot speak to the veracity (though I seem to recall noticing a fair number of questionable assertions).

Admittedly I am in no way an expert on the Crusades, but what I do know don't really make me feel the need to "correct" common picture of them. As I said above they might have been benificial to Europe, and that we should be glad for, but it doesn't make them any less bloody, or any more morally right.

Sweden's economical, military and cultural growth was accellerated by several 100% by the 30 year war, but I would not argue that clensing the germanic states from Holy Roman Catholics was the right thing to do.

That's all I'm really saying, regarding the crusades.

[Mc. Lovin']

Although this can be taken too far. I read an interesting piece once that argued that due to the lack of sugar in past diets, people's teeth would not be as bad as generally thought.

The thing that really gets me is the protagonist with modern ideas. "The class system is unfair, all religions deserve equal respect" etc.

Well they have to have that in for protagonists, because it's the choice between having a protagonist with morals that people agree with, and therefore like, or having the book historically accurate.

[Avilan the Grey]

Well they have to have that in for protagonists, because it's the choice between having a protagonist with morals that people agree with, and therefore like, or having the book historically accurate.

Also, are we talking about "Real Medieval Story(tm)" or are we talking about "Historical Fantasy"(tm).

[EvilElitest]

The misconceptions that irritate me the most? People who read something on the internet, or took one or two history courses and suddenly feel the need to "correct" people with a doctorate or dispute long term, well known facts based on what they have read/heard. The sheer amount of wrong in this thread is staggering.

your pretty much doing the exact same thing, feeling the need to correct people who are wrong, when you don't have any qualifications yourself. Only difference, you don't actually correct anyone but still
from
EE

[Swordguy]

The thread is already full of people correcting each other without my adding anything in. It's just a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people give out misinformation as fact. This is how misinformation spreads.

However, on second thought, I suppose these forums aren't really the place for in depth historical analysis, and people are just trying to enjoy themselves by chatting. I apolgize if I came off a bit rudely before.

We don't mind you saying so, but making the claim without specific quotes, why they're wrong, and the sources to back it up is somewhat annoying.

Jump on in and defend your position!

[Eerie]

8. Nothing ever freaking change. I don't so much refer to how it is a big mash-up of all medieval periods in Hollywood as it is the view that the middle ages were a static period without significant social change. Apart from the evolution of Christian theology and the constant creep to the east of European culture, there was the rebuilding of the European trade network that broke down in late Roman times and the evolution of such typically western concepts as citizenship and monogamous, lifelong marriages as the only acceptable lifestyle. And then comes the technological advances, which, even if we discount the dark ages, ran the span from developing the wheeled plow to creating clockwork and ocean going vessels. Really, the middle ages were a dynamic period as is to be expected for something lasting that long.

Those things happened over centuries. From the point of view of an individual, nothing ever freaking changed during the Middle Ages and, in fact, all ages but the modern.

[Miklus]

What annoys me the most is that peasants in movies are alway covered in crap all over. Yes, they may be poor, but surely they would wash their faces once in a while.

[Narmoth]

No, that's actually right. There are some writings (don't remember the source, but can find it) of some monk in england, where he tells that the native girls prefered vikings to the locals, as the viking traders (not the plunderers) actually washed.

[Solo]

What annoys me the most is that peasants in movies are alway covered in crap all over. Yes, they may be poor, but surely they would wash their faces once in a while.

[Terraoblivion]

Of course they happened over a long period of time, Eerie. What i was in fact referring to is that the media tends to side with the people of the Italian renaissance who claimed that nothing of any importance in the fields of art, science or technology happened in the middle ages. And that is simply not true. Lots of important stuff happened in the middle ages, even if they did at a slower pace than in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. However, compared to most periods before that the middle ages were no more or less dynamic.

Also i chose only to mention major things that would actually seem important as far removed in time from the events as this. The middle ages also had quickly changing fashion trends for example and the exact relationships between tenants and their noble landlords could sometimes fundamentally change several times in the span of a single life. Things also changed on a smaller scale and quite quickly at that, it would just require a lot of documentation to show it because it is small enough that people don't usually pay attention to it.

[Spiryt]

Generally refering to what Terraoblivion and others are saying the misconception that irritates me is treating medieval people (although it fits almost anything else) like some idiots or something, beacuse, yay, they didn't have fridges. And general judging things that people once do by the standards that are logical in other times (usualy modern times ).

[Anteros]

We don't mind you saying so, but making the claim without specific quotes, why they're wrong, and the sources to back it up is somewhat annoying.

Jump on in and defend your position!

But I don't need to point out specific examples. The thread is already full of people correcting fallacies. You've done it yourself.

Also EE, I'm actually quite qualified to teach History. At least according to the University of Tennessee. One of the reasons I get so frustrated by things like this. Half the job of teaching is dispelling people's preconcieved notions about these things. The internet is at the same time the greatest and worst thing in education.

[Terraoblivion]

I hope none of the fallacious information you refer to is mine, my teacher of medieval history at the University of Aarhus would feel bad. I only need the Chinese part to get my degree in history and Chinese, the history part being comprehensive and designed to give an overview of most basic parts of history, with some topics being a closer focus. The late middle ages in Scandinavia happened to be one of the topics i got as a better focus.

[Dervag]

your pretty much doing the exact same thing, feeling the need to correct people who are wrong, when you don't have any qualifications yourself. Only difference, you don't actually correct anyone but still

No, he's not doing the same thing.

He's pointing out that some people with a very narrow range of knowledge about a subject suddenly decide that they are in fact now qualified experts who don't have to take anyone else's opinions seriously.

Often, they don't know enough to evaluate the quality of the information they do have, which only makes things worse.

And he's right. It's irritating the way he put it, but definitely true. I've seen it happen here and elsewhere.

[Swordguy]

But I don't need to point out specific examples. The thread is already full of people correcting fallacies. You've done it yourself.

Also EE, I'm actually quite qualified to teach History. At least according to the University of Tennessee. One of the reasons I get so frustrated by things like this. Half the job of teaching is dispelling people's preconcieved notions about these things. The internet is at the same time the greatest and worst thing in education.

The vagueness of your original post called every post in this thread into question, which is why I asked for clarification.

[Anteros]

The vagueness of your original post called every post in this thread into question, which is why I asked for clarification.

That certainly wasn't my intent. There is actually some very interesting information in this thread, including some things covering topics that I know very little about such as what Terra posted earlier.

I already apologized for the tone of that post once earlier, but I'll happily do so again.

[Swordguy]

That certainly wasn't my intent. There is actually some very interesting information in this thread, including some things covering topics that I know very little about such as what Terra posted earlier.

I already apologized for the tone of that post once earlier, but I'll happily do so again.

Ah - I missed that, or just plain forgot. No offense intended your way, I assure you. *shakes on it amicably*

[factotum]

1) People with full-sets of teeth: Lack of dental care means that very few people in medieval times had a full-set of teeth.

Er...that's largely wrong. Mediaeval people may not have had dental care, but they also didn't consume the vast quantities of refined sugar we do these days, so their teeth weren't under anything like as serious an attack (see some primitive tribes for examples). It was the high-class Elizabethans who all had bad teeth due to the combination of massive amounts of sugar in the diet and poor dentistry.

[Kojiro Kakita]

Presuming we are talking about Europe when we refer to the medieval period as a whole, not just in Europe, then a common misconception is that in Japan, the Katana was the main weapon used in war. If we are to believe first hand sources, (Kōyō Gunkan) Katanas were rarely used in actually combat. The Bow was the primary source of wounds, followed by the spear.

[hamishspence]

Yes, I believe Samurai way is referred to as "The Way of Horse and Bow"

[Gavin Sage]

Also EE, I'm actually quite qualified to teach History. At least according to the University of Tennessee. One of the reasons I get so frustrated by things like this. Half the job of teaching is dispelling people's preconcieved notions about these things. The internet is at the same time the greatest and worst thing in education.

What people are looking for is not your qualifications to dispel false information, but what the false information in this thread actually is. Everything in this thread can't be wrong because we have contradictory statements. Therefore what do you find wrong, and can you quote it?