This problem is really particular to the fantasy genre, and specifically those set in pseudo-medieval settings. Now, fantasy isn't reality, and you can do what you like in your setting. ut this may provide food for thought. Everyone had a sword Swords were expensive. Ironworking was difficult, and a skilled profession and so buying a sword could cost you the better part of a year's wage, not a worthwhile investment unless you intended a career as a soldier. And swords are hard to learn to use. A spear is a much simpler, and cheaper weapon - point the sharp end at someone, and poke. Peasants knew all about the world beyond Most peasants (serfs, villeins and many freemen) never left their village, and certainly not their county. In fact, one could escape justice by fleeing to another county. A peasant might visit a nearby market town on Sunday, but otherwise, few ever saw the lights of the big city. Crossbows can punch through plate armour They really can't. Nor can longbows, except perhaps for some very specialised bodkin arrows. The English longbowmen at Agincourt caused damage by killing and wounding horses, rather than men. An unhorsed knight is a vulnerable knight. People spoke very formally Speech varied between the different social classes, just as it does today. Not everyone spoke like "I fain bid ye good tidings". Horns and wings on helmets No. Just no. Kings and nobles had absolute power Some people still believe this, that monarchs can dip into the Treasury whenever they want. Possibly caused by too much Braveheart. Ever since the Magna Carta in England, people were protected by law (or at least, free men were). Kings couldn't simply tax people whatever they wanted - Charles I tried that and lost his head. In many places, a king could only raise money from his personal holdings, as well as anything he could beg, borrow and steal (borrowing being an important factor in the rise of the moneylending class and thereby modern banking). As for droit de seigneur, if nobles really were doing this, there'd be noble bastards running riot, and peasants doing the same. People drank water Water could be dangerous to drink, given various water-borne diseases. Most peasants drank a weak beer - the alcohol content would kill any dangerous germs. Knights had to be winched onto horses I don't recall which film was responsible for this misconception, but it didn't happen. Plate armour was well fitted, and surprisingly well articulated. The era of the full-plate covered knight actually didn't last very long before firearms took over. I'm sure there are plenty more I've missed out. I'll add if I think of any.
Misconceptions of medieval life has been the bane of my fantasy writing career. Getting critiques from people who just are too stupid to actually look things up and getting mad at me when I explain that it wasn't always the case. Being a Noble means you were rich and "better off." No, it doesn't. It just meant you could boss other people around, but it didn't necessarily make you rich. Knights, for example, were constantly struggling for wealth. And having lands and castles involved a pretty penny in upkeep and taxes. One person tries to argue with me that they had access to education, but not even that was always true. People Were always dirty and smelly This is a really bad misconception. While water in urban areas could be difficult, making taking a bath difficult, it didn't mean people just neglected hygiene all together. People didn't bathe regularly because it was impractical. But were people could find ways to get clean, they typically utilized. The Vikings were clean freaks, bathing every week. And most people at least tried to scrub off whenever possible. People were Loyal to their country No. Just no. The idea of patriotism as we understand it, really didn't exist in the middle ages. The idea of "king and country" was actually a fairly modern one. The Catholic church was an evil entity that went around burning witches, suppressing science, and spreading superstition. Sure, it did some evil things, but so did ALL governments, including distinctly pagan ones. In fact, pagans were often far more superstitious then the Christians were, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, it's not that black and white. We often like to look at the reigning church through the lens of the Holy Roman Empire that was desperate to gain and keep power, no matter the cost, but that wasn't always the case. Prior to its attempt to gain power, the Christian church was the keeper of knowledge and enlightenment, not its suppressor. And it did indulge in the pursuit of science and medicine. In fact, it went about preserving as much of the world's knowledge as possible. Monasteries built themselves as libraries and often painstakingly would copy books in an effort to preserve them. Homer, Aristotle, and Plato all owe their current existence to the early Catholic church.
I agree with the water one. I'd say that people would drink alcoholic beverages which by our standards were weak because the fermenting process killed off the evil bacteria. That would cover mead, wine, beer, and sake. I'm sure there are more..... I have always thought it was interesting how people think Shakespeare is a great writer and held him up as an example. I always wondered how much competition he had - how many people in his time could read and write? My understanding of history is that only the children of the rich and those studying for the priesthood were educated. With regards to financing wars, my understanding is that kings were always borrowing money from Jewish money-lenders (money lending being one of the professions they were allowed to pursue) and then rising taxes to repay the Jewish money lenders. This was a dangerous profession for the money lender. Do you really want someone with the power to cut off your head owing you a bunch of moolah? What if he didn't repay? What are you going to do now....cry? Unlikely that lawyers would take your case against a king and unlikely that you'd win. I have a copy of a book somewhere about the richest man who ever lived, Jakob Frugger, I think, and he apparently was loaning enormous sums of money to kings and queens for their wars. With regards to bathing, there is some discussion in the Eric Flint 1632 series about how people did not bath because they were afraid of being accused of being Jewish or witches. I'm not entirely clear on how being Jewish has anything to do with bathing though. I guess prejudice does not make sense. There is also discussion about how the Jewish doctors were the "best" so it would seem logical that most people would try to imitate them in order to remain healthy but...... In terms of weapons, I would think a stout stick, like a bo staff would be the go to weapon of most people. Or maybe a baseball bat sized club. EDIT: I just thought of tea and later, coffee. In those particular drinks, the act of boiling the water would make it safe....umm, safer anyways.... EDIT # 2: The book I was thinking of is, "The Richest Man Who Ever Lived: The Life and Times of Jacob Fugger" by Greg Steinmetz. I'll give it a read soon and report back on the highlights of money lending.
I agree with most of these points, but there are a few of them that need addressing: A bunch of us in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) actually tested this out on some reproduction armor and crossbows. There were crossbows that could indeed punch through the thinner plate that was common in the early Middle Ages, but they were cumbersome to use. Longbows with specialized points could, too. But you're right that horses were the main targets. It's true that some water could be unsafe, but they were smart enough, usually, to know which sources were bad and which ones weren't. To be sure, the people who were better off drank weak beer and wine. But there are plenty of references to drinking from wells, springs, and such. I remember a discussion about that. The lecturer said that the only time those lifting devices were ever used were while jousting ... a very specialized form of mock combat that involved way more armor than was practical for real combat. He added that there was exactly one period reference to the practice, which tells me that it probably was experimental, or only used if the jouster was too infirm to mount a horse in the usual way.
Leather Armor Nope, as far as I know, there are no records nor archeological evidence supporting the existence of leather armor; the cheapest armor was the gambeson (a thick textile armor), then you had armors like the riveted chain mail, brigandine and of course the best armor would be a full plate suit. On that note. Swords were the main battlefield weapon Absolutely ridiculous, swords were the equivalent of modern pistols they used polearms like spears, pikes, bill hooks, war scythes or bec de corbins. If, for some reason you wanted or more likely needed to go to war with a one-handed weapon it would've been an axe (not a woodcutting axe) in combo with a shield, the only other one-handed weapons that are (or at least can be) considered battlefield worthy are the mace and the warhammer due to being really good against full plate, and even then you would be better of with polearms like the lucerne warhammer or the poleaxe.
Behold! The non existent leather armor! https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7048/6840030630_4aeb6217ec_z.jpg Okay, that tells us that yes, leather armor did exist. What it doesn't tell us is if it was anything more than a decorative piece. Which maybe, maybe not. I personally think that there were no significant pieces of leather armor, but there were some fragments usually chosen for decorative pieces. But it definitely did exist, just not like how it's depicted in fantasy games. Those games that have "leather armor" are often misinterpreting brigandine armor. I can tell you from experience that leather armor is not often that much lighter or even cheaper than steel or iron armor.
I suggest that those interested in the subject make contact with Dr. David Friedman (known in the SCA as Duke Cariadoc of the Bow). He has extensively researched the subject and has made leather armor for his own use. He can be reached at DDFr@daviddfriedman.co He cites as his references: Robert Elgood, ed., Islamic Arms and Armor, Scolar Press: London 1979. Ian Heath, Byzantine Armies 886-1118, Colour plates by Angus McBride, Osprey Men-at-arms Series 89, Osprey Publishing, London 1979. H. R. Robinson, Oriental Armor, London, 1967. Thordeman, Armour From the Battle of Wisby.
Kings had lots of care free time Not if they wanted to stay alive and avoid bankrupcy. Managing lots of people with different expectations is hard work. Soldiers were always proud Killing people in close combat while losing friends will make any medal feel meaningless while suffering from PTSD. Reaching a climax of success will also reduce team morale when there's nothing more to prove, no goal in sight. Realizing that you lost an arm for a small piece of land where nothing grows would break the illusion that leaders worked hard to build up with propaganda. Super advanced mechanics for traps If there's someone rewinding and repairing the traps after each use who somehow survived behind a sealed entrance without food for hundreds of years, he/she could at least remove the pile of alarming corpses or come out with a weapon when the treasure is actually being stolen.
not necessarily many professional soldiers throughout history have fought wars and not come away feeling meaningless or with PTSD... not to mention that in a medieval setting life was much more violent anyway so people were both less effected by violence and also there was much less of a transition between combat and peace... certainly some medieval soldiers would have been traumatized by things they'd seen or done, but to suggest all of them would be is a much as a generalisation as suggesting that none would
Because they totally knew what to look for when it comes to PTSD. In fact, the Celts had a group of people known as gelts who were exiled from their clans because they had symptoms of PTSD.
I recall ancient Assyrians talking about how men would 'see flashes of the battles they have fought before'. Anyway, a thing people usually forget: Its really frickin' dark. I mean seriously. Its dark as hell. No lights, only candles, torches, etc... If you're going to have light? Either open a window (not always possible) or burn something. And if you burn something? It's going to stink and its going to be expensive. You want to go out at night? Bring a lantern (If you got one) or use the moonlight. And watch out and try not to break a leg.
I agree with the fact that it got REAL dark. I deliver newspapers in the wee hours. I just drove down a street where the street lights were burnt out or turned off (forgot to turn on?) and it was DARK. I was really surprised by how DARK it was. Be awful to live back in the days before artificial light was a safe thing. I did wonder how much day light people could depend on? Depends on the season and the geographical area I imagine. Life spans....people were getting married at 10, 12? Having kids a couple of years after that and depending on wars, famines, illnesses, etc, they started to die at 15? 20? 25? 30? 40? I'd guess only the higher status people lived "long" lives and not necessarily in the best of health.
That too is a misconception. Average lifespans were shorter, but the average is massively skewed by the number of infant deaths. If you made it past, I forget, but I think it was the first year of life, your chances of making it to about 60 weren't bad, barring war, disease or famine. As for marriage, yes, some people - primarly nobles - did get married young but marriages weren't necessarily consummated immediately. https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/society/family/marriage.html
Actually, that depended. Ancient Romans were quite patriotic. But generally, people were loyal to their city / town / village first and foremost; if you want an ancient/medieval equivalent of nation-state, that is that. During Roman-Persian and later Roman-Arab wars, individual cities would often negotiate with invaders. When it comes to larger political entities, a lot depended on circumstances. In Byzantine Empire, people in Anatolia generally resisted Arab incursions, and later Turkish ones. Reasons for that were several, but basically had to do with 1) religion, 2) interests of elites, 3) common identity, 4) proximity of center of power in Constantinople. If there was no loyalty to country and sense of common identity, conquest of Constantinople in 1204. would have meant the end of the Empire; yet Empire "merely" spawned several successor states and survived for the next 250 years. But this common identity varied: it was strong among Orthodox Greeks, and basically nonexistent among Monophysites in Syria etc.; which is why these provinces were lost so quickly, first to Persians and then to Arabs. Anatolian plateau was somewhere in-between, while coasts were solidly Roman. However, there were limits to that, and safety of one's own town/village often took priority over interests of the Empire - unless army was around to reinforce those.
On another thing. Deaths. Or more accurately, deaths of children. Now, there has been dearth of stories that depict the people of medieval times being rather callous and a bit indifferent to death. Particularly when people bring up the death rate of children. But I assure you. They cared. They cared greatly. There are records, stating the dates, names, and causes of death of numerous children, recorded down by monks and priests.
I believe that's a myth in itself. From what I've read, medieval people drank lots of water. I thought Shakespeare was held in high regard, not because he was the best of his time, but that he compares so well to everyone since too. Also, he didn't study for the priesthood and his parents were only middle class: he was probably educated by going to a free school. My pet peeve for medieval settings is the knight in plate armour with a sword and shield. The point of plate armour is that it is your shield. By the time it became commonplace, knights used two-handed swords, because the old swords were ineffective.
You might want to talk with some fighters from the SCA or similar groups about this. True, there are people who fight without shields, but they generally have a spear or second sword in their hands as a defensive weapon. Shields work better to deflect blows that would otherwise land on your armor, and such a blow would likely numb your arm or leg even without cutting or breaking it. But shields have a second purpose: artfully used, they keep your opponent from seeing what's happening with your sword arm ... if they don't know where it is and what position it's in, they won't know what kind of snap you're going to be using next, and this gives you time to execute it before they recognize what's happening. There's a real art to it, which I'm sure they'll be glad to demonstrate for you.
Not to mention that the sheild is often used as a weapon itself to push the oponent back thus leaving them unstable and open to attack with the striking weapon
There were many, many types of armour and swords. Your names for your sword and armour are likely inaccurate or wrong.
This isn't so much a misconception but more of a pet peeve of mine when it comes to fantasy writing in medieval settings. And that's oversized weapons that would break a normal wrist, but somehow characters are able to swing them around like nothing and not even clip through the ground
