Misconceptions of Medieval Times in Media

[Spiryt]

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.

Generally I bet that spear is the weapon that has most victims than any other weapon so far. Especially if we count bayonet on rifle as spear too, although this is kinda stretch.

But swords are just symbol of Medieval I guess.

[Gavin Sage]

Generally I bet that spear is the weapon that has most victims than any other weapon so far. Especially if we count bayonet on rifle as spear too, although this is kinda stretch.

But swords are just symbol of Medieval I guess.

In a way its funny in that there is no real time the sword is dominant. Especially with armor in the equation. You want to kill someone wrapped in metal you had better get a mace and do blunt force trauma through the armor.

The sword is a weapon for practiced bullies to abuse unskilled peasants with.

[Spiryt]

In a way its funny in that there is no real time the sword is dominant. Especially with armor in the equation. You want to kill someone wrapped in metal you had better get a mace and do blunt force trauma through the armor.

The sword is a weapon for practiced bullies to abuse unskilled peasants with.

Romans. Killing thousands of poor Celts with their stabby things.

Usage of every weapon depends on circumstances, I guess.

[Anteros]

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?

I'd like to point out that I answered this question well before you asked it.

Also just because two statements are contradictory does not necessarily mean that one of them is correct.

Statement One: Elizabeth Tudor was the worst leader of all time.
Statement Two: Elizabeth Tudor can't be the worst leader of all time because George Washington was the worst leader of all time.

Here we have two statements that contradict each other, but neither is correct.

[chiasaur11]

I'd like to point out that I answered this question well before you asked it.

Also just because two statements are contradictory does not necessarily mean that one of them is correct.

Statement One: Elizabeth Tudor was the worst leader of all time.
Statement Two: Elizabeth Tudor can't be the worst leader of all time because George Washington was the worst leader of all time.

Here we have two statements that contradict each other, but neither is correct.

True.

Everyone knows GHANDI was the worst leader of all time, followed by Grif.

[Prophaniti]

In a way its funny in that there is no real time the sword is dominant. Especially with armor in the equation. You want to kill someone wrapped in metal you had better get a mace and do blunt force trauma through the armor.

The sword is a weapon for practiced bullies to abuse unskilled peasants with.

Swords have historically been the weapon of the elite. Harder to manufacture, harder to aquire, harder to use. They're beautifully effective weapons in the hands of a master. Now, of course we can't train all our armies to use swords, no time and no resources. So we stick with more basic weapons such as spears and axes, which can be equally effective for a lot less training. There always has been a sort of pride with swords, though. Observe the ban Charlemegne placed on selling swords to Norsemen, as they would then use them to raid his towns. It was too late though, by the time the ban took real effect, the Norse had learned to make swords themselves.

Also, there are swords, especially in european history, that were made to fight armored knights. There was a military manual dug up in Finland, I think it was, that detailed tactics with a two-handed sword. Against armored foes, the strikes were not with the blade, but with the crossguard and hilt, which were designed with flanged heads much like a mace.

As far as misconceptions that bother me... the crane to pick up the heavily armored knight. Plate that heavy was used and manufactured for a very brief period of time, more early renaissance than medieval, when they attempted to make armor that was proof against increasingly advanced firearms. Obviously, this was abandoned fairly quickly.

I've also been bothered with depictions of battling knights as slow and cumbersome juggernauts. These men trained constantly in armor and with their weapons and were by no means slow or clumsy. The slow and clumsy ones would never make it onto the battlefield, let alone survive if they did.

I don't like the depiction of the Middle Ages as a largely static time, either, as someone pointed out earlier. It was, in fact, quite a dynamic period with many political, social and scientific changes. If I recall correctly, windmills (in europe) were invented and refined in the middle ages. That's a pretty big deal, comparable to the invention of steam power during the industrial revolution.

[Dervag]

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?

Also, qualifications aren't very relevant on anonymous forums. It's more important to provide citations, because a cited fact is valid no matter who states it. You could be a bedridden six year old with attention deficit disorder and it doesn't matter if your arguments are sound. And you can demonstrate that they are sound and are backed up by good historical research with citations.

In a way its funny in that there is no real time the sword is dominant. Especially with armor in the equation. You want to kill someone wrapped in metal you had better get a mace and do blunt force trauma through the armor.

The sword is a weapon for practiced bullies to abuse unskilled peasants with.

It's also good for resolving personal duels among the bullies. When the bullies rule the political system, this makes it an important tool.

Also, keep in mind that really good armor, the kind that was almost guaranteed protection against swords in melee, was not invented until extremely late in the age of musclepowered weapons. By that point, its iconic status had already been assured by millenia of battles in which the enemy usually had unarmored or lightly armored body parts that a swordsman could wound effectively.

Even then, it was expensive and rare. Is a modern rifle ineffective just because it won't work in the event that the enemy you need to kill is sitting inside an attack helicopter?

[Don Julio Anejo]

I won't get into the discussion, but I think we should distinguish between movies made to entertain (like A Knight's Tale, Monty Python or Black Knight) and fairly serious movies like Kingdom of Heaven (I have yet to see a complaint against it in this thread).

If a movie is meant for entertainment, it's not really fair to assume the writers would do their research and try to be historically accurate, that's not their point. A few common tropes is usually enough. "People think armor is heavy? Well, let's show knights get onto horses with the help of cranes."

In serious movies, on the other hand... Yeah. But then serious movies, like Alexander (well, serious compared to Monty Python) usually get their history right and mostly make mistakes on details that are in dispute among historians anyway, even if they are really sucky movies (and right back to Alexander).

[Turcano]

Observe the ban Charlemegne placed on selling swords to Norsemen, as they would then use them to raid his towns.

Considering the quality of Norse swords, that's a lot like California banning wine exports to France.

I won't get into the discussion, but I think we should distinguish between movies made to entertain (like A Knight's Tale, Monty Python or Black Knight) and fairly serious movies like Kingdom of Heaven (I have yet to see a complaint against it in this thread).

Most of the inaccuracies in Kingdom of Heaven are particular to the Crusades, not medieval life or warfare in general (Templars wearing Teutonic crosses and whatnot).

[Don Julio Anejo]

Most of the inaccuracies in Kingdom of Heaven are particular to the Crusades, not medieval life or warfare in general (Templars wearing Teutonic crosses and whatnot).

I wouldn't hold them to it too much... After all, their plot (well, the parts about the main character) were 95% made up. The only thing known about Bailen was that he was a knight in charge of defending Jerusalem from Salah-ad-Din.

[Tenadros]

....fairly serious movies like Kingdom of Heaven (I have yet to see a complaint against it in this thread).

You mean "Dances with Wolves in Armor"?

I have some complaints.

1) Basic theme of the movie: "Whitey Bad. Brownie Good"

2) Blatantly offensive insinuations: Templars Evil. Hospitalers Happy.


I have strenuous objections to the villification of the "Heterosexual White Male" current in contemporary media. This an especially common theme in period peices.

[stm177]

If I recall correctly, windmills (in europe) were invented and refined in the middle ages. That's a pretty big deal, comparable to the invention of steam power during the industrial revolution.

Windmills were invented in Persia around the 9th century, and spread to Europe by the 12th century. The Europeans were the "Japanese engineers" of their time, and improved upon the design of windmills in a really impressive fashion.

[Oslecamo]

When everything is so clean.

Bathrooms were a lost concept during the middle ages except for the upper classes, and people lived side by side with most animals, so everything would be really really dirty.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Well, you have to realize it that 1. most actors have really nice teeth, otherwise they simply wouldn't get cast for anything, and 2. most people wouldn't like watching a movie where everyone looks like a hobo alcoholic who just went on a 2 week drinking binge and woke up in a ditch by the road.

[Solo]

I have strenuous objections to the villification of the "Heterosexual White Male" current in contemporary media. This an especially common theme in period peices.

Heterosexual White Males were, historically, b*st*rds.

Of course, so was everyone else, so I think you should just protest the one sided villification that goes on.

[Sotextli]

1) Basic theme of the movie: "Whitey Bad. Brownie Good"

I disagree with this. There were a lot of good guys in that movie who were white. It's been a while since I saw the movie, but the film was mostly us seeing through Balien's eyes, and as such we're obviously going to see more "whiteys", and therefore are more likely to see bad "whiteys".

[Joran]

most people wouldn't like watching a movie where everyone looks like a hobo alcoholic who just went on a 2 week drinking binge and woke up in a ditch by the road.

Pirates of the Caribbean! Uh oh, did I open up another can of worms...?

so everything would be really really dirty.

Were baths a lost art? I can see how a bathtub would be impractical, but since a lot of people would have to live next to a stream or other form of water, would they bathe regularly?

[Solo]

Were baths a lost art? I can see how a bathtub would be impractical, but since a lot of people would have to live next to a stream or other form of water, would they bathe regularly?

Some people thought tha tbathing was unhealthy.

[stm177]

I don't know how widespread it was, but there was that saint that didn't bathe for a year. It was mentioned as a sacrifice and an example of his dedication to God. His name escapes me at the moment, but it was the saint that made friends with small animals like birds and squirrels.

I guess my point is that bathing wasn't something people forgot. They didn't have public bathhouses like in the Roman Empire though. Those were closed because of accusations of immorality. That may be true in fact, since at ruins of Pompeii, the mosaics have some pretty graphic sex scenes in the public bathhouse. (For the curious, look them up on Wikipedia).

People probably bathed a lot less especially since running water became pretty rare in Western Europe after the Roman Empire was dismantled. If you have 10 kids, and have to hike water up from a half mile away, you probably only give them a bath once or twice a week.

[Dervag]

If that.

Hauling bathwater half a mile is enormous, backbreaking work, especially if you live on limited food supplies and don't have immense physical strength. It's also very time consuming, in a society where people had to labor to the point of exhaustion to get urgent tasks done for large parts of the year.

If you bathe, you're likely to bathe in a naturally occuring body of water. Which is dangerous- there are people out there who regard you, personally, as a kind of loot. Being isolated and naked isn't exactly smart in a medieval setting.

Would people try to clean genuine filth, such as excrement or thick layers of dirt, off themselves? I'm sure of it. Would they do anything like what we could consider real washing and bathing? I doubt it.

[kamikasei]

Can anyone cite actual historical evidence on the bathing issue? I'm leery of supposition, however reasonable the arguments may seem.

I don't know how widespread it was, but there was that saint that didn't bathe for a year. It was mentioned as a sacrifice and an example of his dedication to God. His name escapes me at the moment, but it was the saint that made friends with small animals like birds and squirrels.

Francis of Assisi?

[Gaelbert]

Considering the quality of Norse swords, that's a lot like California banning wine exports to France.

Hey! Happy wine comes from happy grapes, and happy grapes come from California! Or something like that.

[kpenguin]

I believe that Bartoleme Sanchez was convicted of heresy for bathing, but I'm unsure.

[Anteros]

People bathed quite often. In fact there's actual historical evidence that the church would have people go without bathing as a penance. There is even evidence of the existance of public bathhouses in some areas. Although certainly nothing comparing to what the Romans had.

However, there is also historical evidence of the other extreme. We have a quote from the diary of an American woman as late as the 18th century in reference to her first bath in 28 years. She states "I bore it better than I expected, not having been wet all over for the past 28 years." And this was a very wealthy, and well known individual.

Basically, like many things in history...we can't really know the answer for sure. There is strong evidence to suggest that bathing took place, but there is also strong evidence that it was not a priority, even among the wealthy.

[kpenguin]

Interesting New York Times article published in 1873 on the subject.

I don't know its accuracy, which is doubtful, but it is interesting.

[Querzis]

Okay, I see how being showered with scalding hot water is potentially very uncomfortable but wouldn't cold water make you more clean than dead?

I dunno why nobody answered this one. Of course, cold water woudnt really be a problem in summer. But in winter in many countries in Europe, you are gonna end up frozen solid in a matter of minutes. I didnt read this anywhere and I'm just using my good old logic though so I guess I could be wrong but I'm sure you know why being showered in cold water in the middle of winter while you are pretty far away from any fire means death.

Anyway, I gotta say the medieval protaganist with modern ideas annoy me a lot. I dont get why some people say they have to be or otherwise they woudnt be sympathetic. How can you hate someone just for thinking what absolutely everyone thought back then? Of course, this doesnt apply to fantasy. I dont care if the elf who ride a dragon is against slavery, its another world after all. But the guy in the 10th century of our world? Hes definitly not supposed to be for class and gender equality. And that wont make me hate him just for that. As long as hes not a bastard with his slaves and his wife and treat them well, I really dont see how its supposed to be bad or make the protagonist less sympathetic.

Interesting New York Times article published in 1873 on the subject.

I don't know its accuracy, which is doubtful, but it is interesting.

It doesnt work for me, I just get a blank page. Do we have to be a member to read this page or something?

[kpenguin]

It doesnt work for me, I just get a blank page. Do we have to be a member to read this page or something?

Well, I'm not a member and I can read it...

[Anteros]

It doesn't work for me either.

In regards to the cold water thing...I doubt that would be particularly effective. For one thing, it would likely freeze before they could dump it in those conditions. For another, the areas of the world that were generally that cold were already generally very wet. Any commander foolish enough to hold a campaign in the winter, would undoubtably already be taking measures to combat the cold and the wetness. Finally...although they certainly did take place on occassion...assaulting a citadel in that type of weather is pretty suicidal. Scaling a wall isn't very safe in the best of conditions...much less in icy ones, and most competant captains wouldn't do it anyway. Much better to either wait until Summer, or starve them out.

I'm not saying cold water was never used...but I've personally never seen any reference of it.

[Solo]

I am in your New York Times, stealing your articles!

[kpenguin]

Its a PDF...

Try this link.