Some of the more detailed responses to my request for anachronisms are archived here. I've taken the liberty of slightly editing some texts in order to "glue together" responses from the same person,and to divide the responses between the details for anachronistic items and details for other anachronisms. Also, .sigs etc. have been removed.
Gypsy appearance is going to vary. Easter Europe saw them earlier than mid 14, I beleive. It took several hundred years for them to migrate to western europe/UK. The first reference to nomadic gypsies is in the Middle east around 700 AD, I beleive. Give or take a century. :) They were an Indian low caste which was given to some ruler in Persia as entertainers.
Unless your Saga takes place after the mid 1300s, you're not going to find any gypsies in Europe. Secondly, the gypsies didn't take up tarot, documented, until the mid-1800s. They did palmistry. Also, the whole "gypsies are from Egypt" thing is a mostly a British viewpoint. The other Europeans usually assumed they were from the southeast of Europe, usually somewhere just over the horizon. The French thought they were from Germany, the Germans thought they were from Hungary, the Hungarians thought they were from Turkey or modern-day Khazakstan, when in fact, they were from northern India, as we now know.
> Mass production. Not entirely right (nicer way to say wrong). Good example of early mass production are the amfora. In swedish museums there are plenty of examples of mass produced plates, cups and bowls inported to sweden from germany, flandern and italy. The exact dates of this production I don't know but the romans had mass production so why not in 1220?
What I want to know is "what counts as 'mass production' in this context?" Coins have certainly been "mass-produced" since (at least) ancient Greece, in the sense that the prince of the city-state authorized a single set of blanks which were used to stamp out zillions of coins. I believe that medieval shoes were often made -- and sold -- "off the rack" rather than being fitted to individual clients. On the other hand, I think that it's fairly clear that the assembly line mode of mass production only became common and popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; it's commonly attributed to Henry Ford, but "mass-produced" goods were quite common before that.
Papal primacy was an idea being tossed around since the IV century or so; Papal infallibility (although rooted in newer interpretations of older texts) was first proposed in the XVI century. Both became dogma in the first Vatican Council (1870, IIRC).
>> If I Remember/recall Correctly (Thanks for clueing me in guys :) ) the >> Papacy did not enshrine that until the 1800's as in the bull of Papal >> infalability - until then it was only assumed. > >Funny. I seem to recall that was one of the reasons for the schism >(Roman vs Orthodox)... It depends on what schism you're referring to (though the East and West tended to be seperated for much of the time, the 'reason' for the Schism changed from time to time. The two main grievances which caused most schisms were 1) the use of unleavened bread in the West to celebrate the Eucharist, and 2) the 'Filioque' clause in the Creed. (The date of Easter sometimes gets dragged in, but that was more of a controversy between the Celts and the Romans in the early Middle Ages). There was, as near as I can tell, no claims of papal _infalability_ per se in the early years; merely the claim of papal predominance. With the ancient sees of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria in the hands of the Muslims, only the late-comer see of Constantinople challenged the Pope's claim to predominance -- he was the only remaining 'metropolitan' patriarch. (The regional churches of the Eastern Empire had their own patriarchs, IIRC, but these were not considered to be seated in Metropolitan sees.) In the late Empire/early Middle Ages, the monks of the East would appeal to the Pope in their challenges against the Patriarchs of the East -- it was from this practice that the Pope would develop his theory of predominance; the Patriarchs of the East considered the four Metropolitan Sees (Constantinople had not yet been founded, nor was a political power) of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Jerusalem to be co-eval. The Pope had other ideas.
The ideal of equality between men and women was certainly not unfammiliar to the medieval scholars. Christine de Pisan (14th century) wrote several works about the subject, the most famous one was La Cité des Dames (the city of the women). The well known Boccaccio also wrote a book about famous women (if that can be said to be feminism). Both contributed to a on going debate.
Jakob R wrote: >The ideal of equality between men and women was certainly not unfamiliar > to the medieval scholars. Christine de Pisan (14th century) wrote several > works about the subject, the most famous one was La Citi des Dames (the > city of the women). The well known Boccaccio also wrote a book about famous > women (if that can be said to be feminism). Both contributed to a on going > debate, however, were Sappho (6th century BC) was just one of the voices. Someone responded that neither Sappho nor Lilith were feminists in the modern sense to which Jakob then responded something to the effect that "Lilith was concerned with equal rights." I'd call this feminism "in the modern sense." Likewise I consider Christine de Pisan a feminist in the modern sense, (though she's 14th C). Before taking this any farther I should define feminism: an interest in the condition and role of women in their society which is driven by a concern for equality. Because their was a powerful anti-feminist movement in the Middle Ages (spear-headed by the Church) one must assume their was some sort of feminist consciousness (at the very least, an acceptance of women as (near) equals to men). In other words, why spend the energy denouncing women if it was a non-issue? This would amount to a interesting but circular argument except that recent scholarship has found that women _did_ enjoy greater legal, political, religious, and social status than traditionally believed. To save time and space I'll only provide a few examples along with the works from which I found them: *Late Anglo-Saxon England laws show a great concern for the legal status and rights of women (Christine Fell. _Women in Anglo-Saxon England_ *Anglo-Saxon nuns were educated alongside Anglo-Saxon monks (_Women in Anglo-Saxon England_) *Frankish women of the Merovingian period performed liturgurgical functions and could even hold the position of deaconess. Merovingian abbesses who oversaw dual houses (a combined monetary and nunnery) heard confession of both the nuns and the monks (I can't remember if they said mass). (Suzanne Wemple. _Women in Frankish Society_) *A study of gender roles in Old Norse sagas comes to the concussion: "but the general notion, that sexual difference used to be less a wall than a permeable membrane, has a great deal of explanatory force in a world in which a physical woman could become a social man, a physical man could (and sooner or later did) become a social woman, and the originary god, Othinn himself, played both sides of the street" (Carol Clover. "Regardless of Sex: Men, Women, and Power in Early Northern Europe." _Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies._ April 1993 (sorry, I don't have the volume number)) *Marie de France, who is believed to have been attached to the court of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, in her _Fables_ (the beast fables to be specific) changed traditionally male gods, Jove and Jupiter, into females. She refers to them with such terms as la deuesse (the goddess), la destinee, la sepande (Wisdom), and la criere (the Creator). (Marie de France. _Fables_ ed. and trans. by Harriet Spiegel) *Also, in both her _Fables_ and her _Lays_, Marie shows a uncharacteristic (from a Medieval perspective) for women and their condition. These are just a few examples off the top of my head, but I believe they show both that the traditional view of medieval women does not hold and that the anti-feminist movement was a reactionary movement rather than much ado about nothing. So where does our traditional view of medieval women come from? It is logical to place such blame on the anti-feminist movement of the middle ages. The rest of this paragraph should be taken as purely speculation (though learned speculation). The anti-feminist movement of the middle ages was essentially a Church movement started by Augustine (for an interesting study on how this evolved see Elaine Pagel's _Adam, Eve, and the Serpent_). As this anti-feminist movement was largely a movement of the Church, it was also a movement of the educated class. As time progressed, anti-feminist belief became doctrine and women's position in society evolved (read fell) into the role late 19th and 20th century feminists have and our fighting against. These anti-feminist attitudes became so ingrained in our consciousness that scholars (for the most part) were unable to see, ignored, or fought to suppress any evidence to the contrary. I offer two examples: the position of Anglo-Saxon women and Marie de France. As early as the 19th century scholars began studying the position of Anglo-Saxon women and come to the conclusion that A-S women enjoyed a much greater equality than traditionally believed. Each time someone made such a suggestion (usually well supported with evidence) they were shouted down by the establishment which ignored the evidence in favor of tradition. It was not until the later half of this century that a statement, such as the one written by Lady Doris Stenton, was taken seriously: "The evidence which has survived from Anglo-Saxon England indicates that women were then more nearly the equal companions of their husbands and brothers than at any other period before the modern age. In the higher ranges of society this rough and ready partnership was ended by the Norman Conquest" (Doris Stenton. _The English Woman in History_). For a study of the study of A-S women, see Fell's _Women in Anglo-Saxon England_. Marie de France's _Fables_ provide another example of the establishment suppressing evidence contrary to its anti-feminist perspective (I not a rabid ideologue, really, I just sound like one). I mentioned above Marie's feminization of male gods. The original editor of Marie's manuscript remasculinized Marie's gods (so what if she consistently used feminine pronouns and declinations. Everyone knows Juno and Jupiter are men, so it's obviously a mistake, right?). It wasn't until the last 15 years or so when a feminist went back to the manuscript that Marie's feminization of Juno and Jupiter was discovered. (Let this be a lesson to all scholars and scholars-in-training on the list)
Is feminism anachronistic? Yes and no. The modern spin on Feminism is certainly out of place in the middle ages, and one should be cautious about imposing its structures on the past. On the other hand, feminist themes and issues can be identified in any era. (Heck, you can find them in ancient Athens -- Lysistrata, frex -- which was a mighty gender-unequal place.)
> issues can be identified in any era. (Heck, you can find them in ancient > Athens -- Lysistrata, frex -- which was a mighty gender-unequal place.) Ah, the book that says women are morally superior to men, and civilise them into not fighting wars? 8) My point being that you can have strong women in-game, but they are likely to claim a superiority of womenkind in the situation in which they claim authority. As such, they play into the idea of women's difference from men, rather than, as many modern feminists do, discussing their equity with them. Queen Bess, who is far later, I know, but as an example, takes the throne using her "weak woman" act to rally valiant defenders who'd have knifed her had she been a bloke. She then goes about being More Moral Than A Man Could Ever Be, at least in the public imagination. This sort of thing is quite popular with ladies of rank and nuns and so forth, at least IMC.
>> There is evidence of a wealth of Anglo-Saxon literature up to the Norman >> conquest... >> >> Exactly my point. The examples are in the British Isles, which I would >> define as the "fringes" of western society at the time. > > This Franco-Prussian bigotry _really_ bothers me. I quote from _The > Evolution of the Medieval World_ by David Nicholas: Charlemagne "revived > the palace school and brought the leading intellectual of the day, Alcuin > of York, to direct it" (128). Or shall I mention that as Charlemange's > empire crumbled around his grandsons, the embassy from Byzantium to the > Carolingian Empire included Scandinavians? And, of course those > barbarians of the North "found" America nearly 500 years before someone > from the heartland of Christendom did. But I'll quit ranting now. A very good point indeed, which I'd like to extend beyond the question of languages. It is a matter that has always bothered me somewhat, that the description of Scandinavia in most/all ArM publications seems to be more directed against the situation in the late Viking-Age than the 13th century. This can certainly be interesting from a game point of view (my group rather likes to pillage monastries along the irish coast. Guess we haven't changed that much through the years after all...), but otherwise it's rather anachronistic. Though geographically on the 'fringes of Christendom', both Britain and Scandinavia were culturally and economically integrated in western christendom. Some random examples from Norway: In the 13th century, the royal house of Norway took part in the 'inter-european' royal marriages, for example with the spanish kingdoms. Around the official time of ArM, the works of Chretien de Troyes were translated to the native tongue (Old Norse), and read among the high nobility. The town of Bergen was one of the central points in the trade-system of the german Hansa, with maybe as much as 2000 german merchants/craftsmen etc. living there on a permanent basis. The position of the church were equally strong in Scandinavia as in more southern parts of Europe (According to generally accepted research, the church controlled more than 40% of the land in Norway prior to the big plague). The higher clergy got their education at universities and monastries in places like Bologna and St. Denis, bringing the thoughts from the centres of education back with them (making sure that also the scandinavian kings got into the general struggle of church and state in the period).
The reckoning board or abacus dates back to ancient times and was the standard "calculator" throughout the Middle Ages. The reckoning board was essentially a table or cloth spread on a table, on which stones were moved in much the same way beads are slid on an abacus. The abacus was a later (and somewhat indefinite, but prior to ArM period) development, with beads on wires or pegs in slots replacing the stones. Numbers were written with roman numerals. There's significant scholarly dispute about the first appearance of our modern "Arabic" numerals in Western Europe, and there's suggestion that they may show up first sometime in the 900's or 1000's, but they weren't used for calculations until after Leonardo Fibonacci's _Liber_Abaci_ in 1202, and didn't get much circulation until the second edition of that text in 1228. Their use was very slow to catch on -- arithmetic was mostly used for the keeping of accounts, and it seems to have been generally felt that "Arabic" numerals were too easily altered, and therefore allowed accountants to falsify records (numerous really boring story ideas spring to mind...). For ArM purposes, this means it's safest to figure everyone uses only roman numerals and either counting tables (in Britain in particular, IIRC) or abaci. Everything stated in ArM4 on Arithmetic as one of the Artes Liberales is to the best of my knowledge accurate. The thing I'd stress is that scholarly concern with numbers was pretty mystical by our modern standards, a great deal of attention going to which numbers were better than others, and the significance of odd, even, square, prime, perfect, and various other classifications of numbers. The only story use I can easily imagine for authentic medieval arithmetic is some NPC who bores everyone to death droning on about his subject, but maybe some of you are creative enough to do better...
> > > Leadership I'm not quite sure about. A strong leader probably has a great > er > > > relative effect on a smaller number of troops, but even large goups can b > e > > > rallied by a skillful speech. Tactical and strategic skills are another > > > matter entirely... > > > > I guess that real tactical skills would be anachronistical for the 13th > > century (ad that to your list!), but in any case, ArM doesn't contain such > > abilities. Leadership would be most close, though. > > Are tactical skills anachronistic for the 13th century? > Argh ! Here is back the old _Middles-Ages were a barbarian period_ (tm) ! In fact since the period was rather malitary active, there should have been good tacticians. (more about it and counter-examples below) >No. > > I think it > depends on the type of fight. Certainly in set-piece battles there > wasn't much scope for tactical decision-making after the battle > ensued. But there were crucial decisions which could be made before > the fight about the use of terrain; and very important choices as to > which troops to deploy in what order. I suppose this might be more > strategic than tactical. > >And when to deploy them. And when to call them back so that they don't >get slaughtered, and when to feign a retreat. There are a couple >of classic stories told about crusaders (Templars, IIRC) getting >trapped in a city after pursuing fleeing troops ahead of their >support columns. When you have to manage a battlefield or to lay siege to a city or castle, you ought better to have a good general at your side ! The period have seen major conflicts (Crusades, _invasion_ of Ireland and Scotland, conflict between France and England + Empire + dissident Flander, Frederick's adventures and so on). And the military arts were well developped. The major problems are the great variety of quality of troups (knights, and feudal army, ribauds, paysants, militia, ...), overconfidence, God not being where he should have been. Btw, you have some good armies, firstly Templars, and moreover St John Knights who had a strong organisation, and a good understanding of tactics, 100-y-old English army (a bit out of period) who was strongly trained and obedient. The main problems were : 1. Overconfidence of noblemen and knights : the Knight on horse will become the _absolute_ weapon, and nothing will be supposed being able to resist him. 2. Low consideration for troups on foot (levy and so on, people who are not born to fight : what can they do during a battle ?) 3. Very bad commanders ! All that is very true for French Troups after the Phillip the 2nd's reign. You have the demonstration during the 100-year-old war, when the best army of the time is annihilated, thanks to the Kings and most of his fellows' overconfidence on the all-powerful knights. But before that ... see the good tactical views of Louis IX during teh crusade ! Disasters following disasters (and few battles won mostly by luck, and by surprise (they won't attack here, it will be foolish ... they do !)). And about those templars : During a battle for I don't remember whch city, the moorish routed into the town. One of the greatest knight present and leading the assault (a french King related high noble whom I don't remember either), seeing that : - Cowards flee ! Let's catch them again and destroy the Christ's enemies ! The high commander of templars leading the knights of the Order, is a far better tactician. - My lord, adventuing in the city should be an eror. We have won. If we go there they could catch us, and beat us. We could loose our advantage ! - No, they flee like rabbits ! There is no danger. And God is with us ! Charge !! - At your order, my lord. Charge !! (It will be a slaughter.) No comment. And you can found simaler things with Kings Richard or John of England ... The matter is often that inefficient people were in charge of biggest battles. In fact, if tactical preoccupations were important, the too loosely directed troups did not always follow the orders, or equivalent things. More, you don't have real-time communication system on a battlefield ! If something does not happen well ... Later yet you will have the free companies (always mostly during the 100-year-old war) who are professional men-at-arms, independant and well commanded. They will have a rather good tactical formation (on the field) too. > Tactics has been around since well before Caesar; as a matter of > fact, at St. D.'s we specifically taught our grog captain to read > Latin (at his request) so that he could pore his way through the > Gallic campaigns, &c.
> >Tactics has been around since well before Caesar; as a matter of > >fact, at St. D.'s we specifically taught our grog captain to read > >Latin (at his request) so that he could pore his way through the > >Gallic campaigns, &c. > > Now, that would be really anachronistical. For tactics and organisation, > Ceasars legions belong more to the 16th century. People did study Ceasar > duiring the middle ages, but I don't think they could make much out of him. > In Mythic Europe things could be different, though... Anachronistical? Maybe not. Caesar, however, from what I have read, was not regarded as the chief authority on warfare. That honor goes to Vegetius, who, as Jakob writes, was very highly thought of in the 16th century. However, since I am at home with my books, I can quote Philippe Contamine with con- fidence. He states in _War in the Middle Ages_ (tr. from French, pp210ff), that Vegetius was fairly widely known in medieval Europe, citing references from the 9th century on up through the diffusion of the work by printing. In a stock AM saga, it would be in Latin--earliest known translations into the vernacular (French and Italian) both date from the mid 13th century. Frontinus' collection of strategems was also known, and, in the east, the Byzantine military manuals were apparently reasonably available. I've got the 6th century _Strategikon_ in my collection, as well as a collection of _Three Byzantine Military Treatises_ (both translated by George Dennis.) On the status of medieval tactics and strategy in general, I would suggest that supplementing Delbruek with more recent scholarship such as : Contamine, _War in the Middle Ages_ Beeler, _Warfare in Feudal Europe_ Smail, _Crusading Warfare_ Jones, _The Art of War in the Western World_ might be valuable. Even Oman's _History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages_ (the two volume version, not the short green covered one edited by Beeler from an 1885 Oman essay, sort of the 0th edition) is worth looking at, but considered a bit dated these days. If it sounds like I have a grudge against Delbruek, it's because he dismisses all of Byzantine military history with a one paragraph "just like the West, no need to elaborate" paragraph.
Paper: Arabic paper-making since 751 (first by Chinese
prisoners of war). Paper in the Christian Europe:
9th c. (Hispania), after 1100 (Italy). Paper-making
in the Christian Europe (that means "Common"? :) ):
1260's (Hispania), 1276 (Italy).
AD/BC dating: It was invented by Dionysius Exiguus in 525.
That's true that Beda Venerabilis used it, and his big
reputation helped it to become general. It was used in the
Papal chancellery since the second half of the
10th century. (The Papal chancellery was very conservative,
it accepted new things and ideas very slowly...)
I recommend you to list the Latin names of the coins as well:
English French Latin
pound livre pondus, libra, talentum
shilling sou solidus
penny denier denarius
halfpenny obulus
Units of weight:
I'm not absolutely sure about it (to tell the truth, I'm not
sure at all :) ), but as far as I know, at the time of the ArM there
was used the Tower-pound (aka London-pound, English-pound) in England
(it was cca. 0,350 kg).
The Troy-pound (that has French origin) and the Avoirdupois
are later units... (the Troy-pound, AFAIK, since the 16th c.
in England).
I certainly don't recommend you to beleive me :), but
I think maybe it should be investigated...
That's not to important (it's just a single error on the map
in the ArM - and not the one and only :( )
Budapest: The three cities (Buda, Obuda, Pest) were united
in 1873. The first mention of "Buda-Pest" was in 1499,
and _relatively_ frequent since the 16th century... but
officially just since 1873.
- comments?