# Ask me about the 19th Century



## Corwynn (Dec 20, 2017)

When it comes to discussions among fantasy writers and enthusiasts, there is no shortage of resources for those interested in a Medieval setting. If you want to learn exactly how to use a broadsword, or learn the names of all the pieces of a suit of armour, there is no shortage of forum posts and Youtube videos that can tell you all you need to know. There are plenty of resources on the Middle Ages, but what about other eras?

My interest has always been in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and I have read many books on the subject. The constructed universe I have in mind for my stories draws more from the Victorian Era than any other period (although there are others). If this is the case for you as well, or you are simply interested in the world of the 19th century, then feel free to ask me any questions about the period, and how aspects of it can be incorporated into your worlds. If you want to know how a steam engine works, or details of everyday life like what people ate or wore, feel free to ask me. I may also do a monthly feature post covering a topic that I think would be of importance or interest, but since I’m a horrible procrastinator, I’ll make no promises.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 20, 2017)

How did British and French fashion differ? Most resources I've found suggest Regency was this ubiquitous blob. But then like, Alsatian women had steadily growing bows in their head since 1839.

I ask despite my work being set in 21st century, cause a MC here and then is born in the 1800s. (Reincarnation, not really that old.) Post Decapitation Stress Disorder.


----------



## Corwynn (Dec 20, 2017)

The differences between British and French fashion were subtle, but definitely present if you know what to look for. From what I can gather, French fashion was generally lighter and more frilly, whereas British fashion was more plain (relatively-speaking) and heavier. This is a vast oversimplification of course. I recall Hippolyte Taine, a Frenchman who visited England in the Victorian Era, commented that the shoes worn by English women were as large and sturdy as those worn by men, likely on account of Britain's colder and wetter climate. For the men, the spike beard and moustache were popular in Second Empire France because it was the style worn by Emperor Napoleon III, but British men favoured thicker facial hair styles like muttonchops. Another difference was a greater emphasis in France on formality, elegance, and artificiality. For example, the French Garden (developed in the 17th and 18th centuries) is essentially a formal salon in the open air, with neat, geometrically-ordered rows of hedges and flowerbeds. In contrast, the English Garden (which was originally inspired by Chinese gardens) more resembles a natural landscape, but with artfully arranged naturalistic features like ponds and grottoes.

I'm not sure what you mean by Regency fashion being a "ubiquitous blob". If you mean it was shapeless-looking, perhaps it was (I prefer more complex garments myself). Women's dresses of the era were inspired by Ancient Greek, Roman, and Egyptian clothing (provoked by new archaeological discoveries during the period), which had simple, draped lines, and muted colours. If you mean it was uniform across national lines, perhaps it was, but there were likely some differences all the same. For example, French women were willing to show more decolletage, whereas English dresses had a slight bulge over the abdomen to make the wearer look slightly pregnant (although this may not have been unique to Britain).

You also mentioned Alsatian folk dress. An interesting thing to note is that most "traditional" European peasant dress only dates from the 19th century. Before the advent of mass-produced textiles and cheap synthetic dyes, lower-class people could not have worn such elaborate and colourful outfits. These costumes were concocted out of an interest in history and a rising sense of nationalism at the time. Even in those days, folk dress wasn't exactly everyday wear, certainly not when doing hard labour in the fields, although they may have worn more toned-down versions of the same.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 20, 2017)

I didn't know this, thanks.

Anna-Marie  Boeglin was 17 around 1838, and committed her murders around 1837.

I'm a real sucker for French True Crime.


----------



## Corwynn (Dec 20, 2017)

Have you read the Auguste Dupin detective stories by Edgar Allan Poe? They're fictional stories, but I think they would be right up your alley.

If you prefer true stories, you might look up Eugene Vidocq. He was a criminal turned police investigator, and he established many modern crime-fighting techniques. He served as the inspiration for Dupin and (either directly or indirectly) Sherlock Holmes.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 20, 2017)

Corwynn said:


> Have you read the Auguste Dupin detective stories by Edgar Allan Poe? They're fictional stories, but I think they would be right up your alley.
> 
> If you prefer true stories, you might look up Eugene Vidocq. He was a criminal turned police investigator, and he established many modern crime-fighting techniques. He served as the inspiration for Dupin and (either directly or indirectly) Sherlock Holmes.



If there is any serial killer women, hit me up! Will check them out.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 20, 2017)

Corwynn said:


> You also mentioned Alsatian folk dress. An interesting thing to note is that most "traditional" European peasant dress only dates from the 19th century. Before the advent of mass-produced textiles and cheap synthetic dyes, lower-class people could not have worn such elaborate and colourful outfits. These costumes were concocted out of an interest in history and a rising sense of nationalism at the time. Even in those days, folk dress wasn't exactly everyday wear, certainly not when doing hard labour in the fields, although they may have worn more toned-down versions of the same.



Corwynn, do y0u have a source for this? Inquiring minds want to know more.


----------



## Corwynn (Dec 21, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> Corwynn, do y0u have a source for this? Inquiring minds want to know more.



I've gleaned my information from various sources, but this Wikipedia page ( Folk costume - Wikipedia ), summarizes my main points, as well as providing links to examples of traditional costume from around the world.

To be clear, there were formal versions of peasant wear, which were and are reserved for festivals and other special occasions, and utilitarian clothing. The former (in Europe) was largely (but not completely) a 19th century invention. The latter was a natural evolution of older peasant clothing increasingly influenced by international fashions.

New inventions in textile-making technology such as the spinning jenny and the Jacquard loom (the latter of which was programmed using punched cards) allowed greater quantities of cloth with more elaborate patterns to be produced. Synthetic dyes developed in the mid-19th century, like mauveine, provided cheaper and easier-to-come-by alternatives to natural dyes, as well as enabling a wider variety of hues than was previously possible. This enabled more people to afford brightly-coloured and elaborately-patterned clothing, and the upgraded formal wardrobe of 19th century peasants became identified as the traditional costume of European nations and regions.

One example of "traditional" European folk dress that is actually a modern invention is the Scottish family tartan. While plaid predates the industrial revolution by many years, the notion that specific patterns and colour schemes were associated with particular clans is an invention of the Victorian Era. This was the result of a vogue for Scottish Highland culture inspired by the works of Robert Burns and Sir Walter Scott. For a time, even some Englishmen would dress up in Highland garb on special occasions. Lowland Scots also got in on the act, identifying themselves with Highland culture, even though they wouldn't have been caught dead wearing a kilt a hundred years previous. In fact, for a time, Highland dress was actually illegal, as punishment for the Jacobite Rebellion (1745-1746) in which many Highland clans attempted to overthrow the Hanover King of Great Britain and restore the ousted House of Stuart.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 21, 2017)

I think where I get confused, weren't wooden shoes (but that I mean shoes made entirely of wood, not just boots with wooden soles) I used to here about all the time. In fact, Balzac used to discuss those who wore wooden shoes, or otherwise went barefoot as far back as the early 1800s. I have a difficult time imagining poor people wearing rich people's footwear during the mid to late 1800s.

And according to my own research, the oldest found in Europe was left over from the 1200s, around the dark ages. So what exactly are we speaking of when we say formal?

Except for like this one place in Europe where they didn't get them until the 1890s (which was in Eastern Europe), clogs go a ways a back.

Is it differing images of peasant dress? I'm thinking of ragtag torn garmets and wooden shoes, not necessarily fancy dyes. Maybe a basket of bread if they're lucky.

It's one of the reasons I'm wondering if Anna-Marie Boeglin (I study serial killer girls), really wore that silly looking bow, or if that's purely a modern invention. It's unclear what even the average hair color was, as at the time ... I don't think, France was yet an imperialist super power.



Corwynn said:


> I've gleaned my information from various sources, but this Wikipedia page ( Folk costume - Wikipedia ), summarizes my main points, as well as providing links to examples of traditional costume from around the world.
> 
> To be clear, there were formal versions of peasant wear, which were and are reserved for festivals and other special occasions, and utilitarian clothing. The former (in Europe) was largely (but not completely) a 19th century invention. The latter was a natural evolution of older peasant clothing increasingly influenced by international fashions.
> 
> ...


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 21, 2017)

Hm, that Wikipedia article has only a couple of paragraphs, says nothing about 19thc, and has a note that it needs verification of sources. I am well out of my depth in the 19thc, and may well be writing something set in that era, so I'm curious on this score. I know there are acres of sources for 19thc costuming, both rural and urban; I can do my own research there. I'm specifically curious about the proposition that colorful costumes only (or mostly) appear in that century.


----------



## Corwynn (Dec 21, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> Hm, that Wikipedia article has only a couple of paragraphs, says nothing about 19thc, and has a note that it needs verification of sources. I am well out of my depth in the 19thc, and may well be writing something set in that era, so I'm curious on this score. I know there are acres of sources for 19thc costuming, both rural and urban; I can do my own research there. I'm specifically curious about the proposition that colorful costumes only (or mostly) appear in that century.



I think I'm getting out of my depth myself. What I meant was that elaborate and colourful outfits were more accessible for the peasantry of Europe after the industrial revolution than before, not that they didn't have them at all, they most certainly did. The difference was merely a matter of quality and quantity. I apologize for not providing more sources. There were a few others I had in mind, but I either can't remember their names, or they are no longer accessible to me. There is one book I have in mind that was in my university library, but I can't remember the name of it, and the part of the library where it was kept has undergone extensive renovations, so it may not be there anymore. After winter break is over I'll see if I can find it for you. There are also 19th century French paintings that document French peasant wear. One particularly famous one is _The Gleaners_ (I forget the name of the artist), and Paul Gaugin did some paintings of Breton women.



LWFlouisa said:


> I think where I get confused, weren't wooden shoes (but that I mean shoes made entirely of wood, not just boots with wooden soles) I used to here about all the time. In fact, Balzac used to discuss those who wore wooden shoes, or otherwise went barefoot as far back as the early 1800s. I have a difficult time imagining poor people wearing rich people's footwear during the mid to late 1800s.
> 
> And according to my own research, the oldest found in Europe was left over from the 1200s, around the dark ages. So what exactly are we speaking of when we say formal?
> 
> ...



You're probably right about peasant footwear (or lack thereof). In the cities, there was a brisk trade in second-hand clothing which was sold off by the middle and upper classes when they started to wear out, and which were bought by the poor at a discount. However, with lower and more scattered populations in the countryside, that wouldn't have been a viable business model, and so peasants would have had to make other arrangements.

Your image of peasant garb isn't too far off, especially for earlier periods, but one shouldn't go too far to the opposite extreme and assume all peasants wore filthy burlap rags 24/7. Working wear has always needed to be straightforward and utilitarian, so no fancy lace or rich fabrics that can be torn or stained. Even so, when making their own clothes, as the lower classes often did both during and before the industrial revolution, they would make some effort to make them presentable, within limits. In addition, unless they were completely destitute, a poor person would usually have a suit of Sunday Best clothing for going to church and special occasions. It is the latter which is usually stereotyped as "traditional costume".

As for Anna-Marie Boeglin, I'm afraid I can't help you, since I don't know anything about her. If she was Alsatian, she was probably as much German, culturally and ethnically, as French. Alsace shares a border with (and was at times a part of) Germany, and the local language, Alsacienne, is actually a dialect of German. Reading up on the Rhineland region of Germany might help. There is also a map of European hair and eye colours here: https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/AcpLt-K3M91J6D1Mt5tnLar_v93sOEaWP3VywZpBdnzbwghkWwkgdpE/. It shows modern distributions, but since large-scale immigration into France only started in the late 20th century, I don't think much has changed since the 1830s. French people in general tend towards black or brown hair, but Alsatians are more likely to have red or blonde hair due to their German heritage.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 21, 2017)

Ah goodie, I wasnt to far off then. I had kind of assumed Boeglin was blond based on this as well.



Corwynn said:


> I think I'm getting out of my depth myself. What I meant was that elaborate and colourful outfits were more accessible for the peasantry of Europe after the industrial revolution than before, not that they didn't have them at all, they most certainly did. The difference was merely a matter of quality and quantity. I apologize for not providing more sources. There were a few others I had in mind, but I either can't remember their names, or they are no longer accessible to me. There is one book I have in mind that was in my university library, but I can't remember the name of it, and the part of the library where it was kept has undergone extensive renovations, so it may not be there anymore. After winter break is over I'll see if I can find it for you. There are also 19th century French paintings that document French peasant wear. One particularly famous one is _The Gleaners_ (I forget the name of the artist), and Paul Gaugin did some paintings of Breton women.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 21, 2017)

Thanks, Corwynn. Clothing is a gigantic topic, heavily researched by folkorist historians of the late 19th and early 20thcs, and researched anew by SCA-types. It's a real rabbit hole, though fascinating.

One story I like to tell comes from Eugen Weber's _Peasants Into Frenchmen_, which I've cited more than once on these forums. He talks about peasants making their own bread, the dark, heavy kind before the advent of bleached flour. One source he mentions tells of a peasant household where the visitor was able to pick up the loaf by the bits of straw sticking out from it. I like the story because we often assume a level of competence among the peasantry (I know I did), but if you think about it there had to have been people who were just plain not very good at weaving or baking or construction (there are stories of peasant houses falling down, too).  Apropos of the present discussion, it made me imagine some colorfully embroidered peasant dress in which the designs look like a child's crayon drawing, with lines jagged and dangling thread.


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 22, 2017)

To start I'd like to thank you for making this topic, OP. The 19th century is certainly an interesting era most commonly associated with steampunk. But my question to you is this: How did political machines work?


----------



## Corwynn (Dec 22, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> Thanks, Corwynn. Clothing is a gigantic topic, heavily researched by folkorist historians of the late 19th and early 20thcs, and researched anew by SCA-types. It's a real rabbit hole, though fascinating.
> 
> One story I like to tell comes from Eugen Weber's _Peasants Into Frenchmen_, which I've cited more than once on these forums. He talks about peasants making their own bread, the dark, heavy kind before the advent of bleached flour. One source he mentions tells of a peasant household where the visitor was able to pick up the loaf by the bits of straw sticking out from it. I like the story because we often assume a level of competence among the peasantry (I know I did), but if you think about it there had to have been people who were just plain not very good at weaving or baking or construction (there are stories of peasant houses falling down, too).  Apropos of the present discussion, it made me imagine some colorfully embroidered peasant dress in which the designs look like a child's crayon drawing, with lines jagged and dangling thread.



Yikes. I too assumed a certain amount of competence among people of the past, but I suppose you're right about some people always being bad at certain skills. One of the advantages (or disadvantages depending on how you look at it) of mass production is that people can get away with not having practical skills like that.



Gurkhal said:


> To start I'd like to thank you for making this topic, OP. The 19th century is certainly an interesting era most commonly associated with steampunk. But my question to you is this: How did political machines work?



You're welcome. It is a fascinating era, and steampunk is perhaps my favourite speculative fiction genre.

Unfortunately, I don't really know anything about political machines. I know about big picture things like landmark policies and international relations, but not so much about the gritty details of politics on the ground. I think what the issue was (and this is just an educated guess on my part) was that supposedly democratic and meritocratic political organizations became closed shops, only allowing people who met certain criteria (namely being wealthy and white) to join their clique, resulting in the political class becoming self-serving and divorced from the people they were meant to represent.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 22, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> Thanks, Corwynn. Clothing is a gigantic topic, heavily researched by folkorist historians of the late 19th and early 20thcs, and researched anew by SCA-types. It's a real rabbit hole, though fascinating.
> 
> One story I like to tell comes from Eugen Weber's _Peasants Into Frenchmen_, which I've cited more than once on these forums. He talks about peasants making their own bread, the dark, heavy kind before the advent of bleached flour. One source he mentions tells of a peasant household where the visitor was able to pick up the loaf by the bits of straw sticking out from it. I like the story because we often assume a level of competence among the peasantry (I know I did), but if you think about it there had to have been people who were just plain not very good at weaving or baking or construction (there are stories of peasant houses falling down, too).  Apropos of the present discussion, it made me imagine some colorfully embroidered peasant dress in which the designs look like a child's crayon drawing, with lines jagged and dangling thread.



Sounds like the bread has plenty of fiber to me.

Or as my mom says, we like our whole wheat.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 22, 2017)

I got one, other than cryptography, and early steganography such as Grille and Null Ciphers, what other characteristics made 19th century espionage different from modern day tradecraft?

A lot of my work blends timelines, but I know NSA wasnt around until the 1940s.

I know they didn't have this Double ADGVX cipher I've recently made.


----------



## Russ (Dec 22, 2017)

I don't know how good their websites are, but lots of the Habsburg and related museums in Vienna have great examples of ethnic garb from all over the empire from the 19th century, particularly the beginning of the reign of FJ.   IIRC they were actually period examples, not repress.  They covered a multitude of ethnic groups.

Hair colour is a tricky thing.  There were plenty of people in all of the Germanic countries who were non-blonde throughout recorded history.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 22, 2017)

Russ said:


> I don't know how good their websites are, but lots of the Habsburg and related museums in Vienna have great examples of ethnic garb from all over the empire from the 19th century, particularly the beginning of the reign of FJ.   IIRC they were actually period examples, not repress.  They covered a multitude of ethnic groups.
> 
> Hair colour is a tricky thing.  There were plenty of people in all of the Germanic countries who were non-blonde throughout recorded history.



Plus it doesn't include hair dying. Or dying hair. Poor hair.


----------



## Corwynn (Dec 23, 2017)

Gurkhal said:


> To start I'd like to thank you for making this topic, OP. The 19th century is certainly an interesting era most commonly associated with steampunk. But my question to you is this: How did political machines work?



It turns out I was wrong about political machines. I did a bit of quick research, and it turns out that a political machine is when a single person, the boss, is the centre of gravity in a local political culture. The boss would pull strings and exert influence both in and out of official government channels. They would distribute favour and rewards within the government or organization based on member's abilies to drum up votes for the party, and their ability to get things done. The machine operated rather like an organized crime syndicate, only legitimate and without the crime (although that would depend on your definition of crime). Political machines were especially common in American cities during the Gilded Age (roughly 1877-1898).

Political machines were of course corrupt and undemocratic, and yet they often yielded political reform and public works projects that the official government channels couldn't or wouldn't push through. This is especially true for immigrant communities, who were often able to gain representation through the machine in exchange for their votes.

All in all, a political machine can go a long way towards adding some colour to a local setting, or opening up possibilities for storylines involving political intrigue. While political machines are not limited to a 19th century setting (or an invented world resembling it), they are unlikely to arise in countries that lack elected governments and which have an hereditary ruling class, since this would negate the need for such a thing; which is why they were so prevalent in the United States.



LWFlouisa said:


> I got one, other than cryptography, and early steganography such as Grille and Null Ciphers, what other characteristics made 19th century espionage different from modern day tradecraft?
> 
> A lot of my work blends timelines, but I know NSA wasnt around until the 1940s.
> 
> I know they didn't have this Double ADGVX cipher I've recently made.



Technology was of course more rudimentary, especially when it comes to encryption. For most of the period, only simple encryption methods like invisible ink and substitution ciphers were used. Intelligence agencies as we know them did not exist. Most spy rings were informal affairs operating either independently, or as part of a government ministry not exclusively devoted to intelligence. Even the few intelligence services that were founded during this time had very different purposes in the beginning. For example, the United States Secret Service, founded by President Ulysses S. Grant, was originally formed to catch counterfeiters. Lastly, until at least the 18th century, the rules of war prohibited spies from dressing up in enemy uniforms. However, I suspect this rule was frequently ignored at the time, and after the Napoleonic Wars people mostly stopped paying any attention to it.

However, if we want to take things in a speculative direction (and really that's what we're all here for), you could add analytical engines to your setting. The analytical engine, and its predecessor the difference engine, was a mechanical computer devised by Charles Babbage in the 1840s to perform mathematical calculations. Like the Jacquard loom (mentioned above), and early computers, it would have been programmed using punch cards, and the difference engine could be considered the missing link between the two. Sadly, neither of these machines were actually built due to lack of funding. If it had been, then it is possible they could have been quickly turned to cryptography purposes, since that was what the earliest computers were used for, and functionally they were very similar.


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Dec 23, 2017)

I thought early computers spent most of their time dealing with trajectories, statistics and census data?

Were the British clippers, like the Cutty Sark, Ariel and Thermopylae slower than the American ones, like Flying Cloud and Sea Witch, or is that just more of "Americans are best at everything"?


----------



## Corwynn (Dec 24, 2017)

Dark Squiggle said:


> I thought early computers spent most of their time dealing with trajectories, statistics and census data?
> 
> Were the British clippers, like the Cutty Sark, Ariel and Thermopylae slower than the American ones, like Flying Cloud and Sea Witch, or is that just more of "Americans are best at everything"?



Well, perhaps the earliest non-classified ones were, but the first computers (unless we count the difference engine) were developed by the British during WWII to aid their cryptography efforts.

As for clippers, it depends on the exact time period. The Americans got a head start with building clippers, beginning around 1845, but the British didn't start building their own until the 1850s, so the Yankee ships were better in the early years because their shipbuilders had more experience. Once the Brits got going, their versions caught up with their American counterparts by about 1860 or so, and possibly surpassed them. 

It is difficult to compare performance because the British and American clippers largely ran different routes. Yankee clippers usually ran the route from New York or Boston to San Francisco around Cape Horn, while the British clippers usually ran the China or Australia routes from England around the Cape of Good Hope. American clippers did do the China to London route (at least for a time), and an American ship, _Oriental_, made the voyage in 97 days, but this was in 1850 during the early days of clippers and before there was any foreign competition. The record for a clipper passage, both British and American, is 89 days. However, these were at different times on different routes, the American _Flying Cloud _going from New York to San Francisco in 1854, and the British _Taeping_ from Foochow (Fuzhou), China to London in 1866. There are too many variables, such as route length, ship design, currents that could help or hinder, to know for certain which performed better. Either way, British and American clippers were very similar in speed after about 1860.


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Dec 25, 2017)

I remember reading how Anna Judah worked as chief engineer and surveyor  of the Union Pacific after her husband Theodore died. It's a really cool story, even cooler than that of Emily Roebling, (who completed the building of the Brooklyn Bridge) because if it's true, it would mean Anna Judah worked as an engineer in the 1860's, while Roebling was just 'helping her crippled husband'. The only problem is I have never found a source for this again. Is it true?


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 29, 2017)

Just a short question. What's your take on Francisco Solano López, president of Paraguy during the Paraguayan War?


----------



## Corwynn (Dec 30, 2017)

Dark Squiggle said:


> I remember reading how Anna Judah worked as chief engineer and surveyor  of the Union Pacific after her husband Theodore died. It's a really cool story, even cooler than that of Emily Roebling, (who completed the building of the Brooklyn Bridge) because if it's true, it would mean Anna Judah worked as an engineer in the 1860's, while Roebling was just 'helping her crippled husband'. The only problem is I have never found a source for this again. Is it true?



This is the first I've heard of it, but then again, this is the first I've heard about Roebling either. I could look into it if you'd like.



Gurkhal said:


> Just a short question. What's your take on Francisco Solano López, president of Paraguy during the Paraguayan War?



I assume you mean the war where Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay basically ganged up on Paraguay? If so, then President Lopez was confronted with an impossible task. Allegedly, the damage to Paraguay from this war was so severe that the country has yet to make a full recovery to this very day (although I don't know if that's true, or how they define "full recovery"). I don't know anything about Lopez himself, but I imagine his virtues and flaws were irrelevant in the end.

I'm going to be out of town over New Year's, but feel free to ask more questions and I'll answer them when I can.


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Dec 30, 2017)

Corwynn said:


> This is the first I've heard of it, but then again, this is the first I've heard about Roebling either. I could look into it if you'd like.


I would like you to, as I have tried and not been able to find any mention of this.


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 31, 2017)

Corwynn said:


> This is the first I've heard of it, but then again, this is the first I've heard about Roebling either. I could look into it if you'd like.
> 
> I assume you mean the war where Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay basically ganged up on Paraguay? If so, then President Lopez was confronted with an impossible task. Allegedly, the damage to Paraguay from this war was so severe that the country has yet to make a full recovery to this very day (although I don't know if that's true, or how they define "full recovery"). I don't know anything about Lopez himself, but I imagine his virtues and flaws were irrelevant in the end.
> 
> I'm going to be out of town over New Year's, but feel free to ask more questions and I'll answer them when I can.



Yep, that's the war I had in mind. Its rather interesting in that the Paraguay president didn't just surrender and kept fighting until his death after the war had been settled. In a way that reminds me of certain other leaders who just won't accept death but can't stop it either. 

As for full recovery I imagine that you can calculate how much population, BNP etc. would be if the war had not happened, and the present day Paraguay still hasn't reach the calculated numbers they would have had if not for the war.


----------



## Usurper (Oct 9, 2018)

What power did religion have in Europe during the 19th century? I know there was a certain amount of secularization taking place, but I'm not sure to what extent, escpecially from country to country. For example, how much power did the Pope have, compared to medieval time, and to today?


----------



## Corwynn (Oct 12, 2018)

Sorry for the wait, it's been a long time since anybody asked anything.

To answer your question, the power of religion was continuing to wane in Europe during the 19th century. This was most concentrated in the (mostly Protestant) region of the north-west. Faith was stronger in the predominantly Catholic and Orthodox regions of southern and eastern Europe, a pattern which still holds to this day. 

All of Europe was devoutly Christian up until at least the mid-17th century. However, beginning around 1700, piousness began to wane, initially among the upper classes, who were most exposed to Enlightenment ideas. During this time, many European and American elites took up Deism or Freemasonry, which were essentially more scientific and less restrictive interpretations of Christianity. Rejection of religion outright was still taboo during this time. Things began to take off during the French Revolution, when the revolutionaries initially attacked the Catholic church, and tried to set up a Cult of Reason to replace it; however, this was undone by Napoleon. The 19th century was when atheism really started to become widespread. This was the first time that being openly atheist carried few or no social consequences (but again, this was more true in Protestant and French-speaking Catholic countries). Missionary societies of the time proselytized not only in foreign lands, but also the cities of their own homelands, because many of the urban working class were abandoning religion (although this was more due to apathy than deliberate rejection). New scientific theories and discoveries, such as Darwin's theory of evolution (published in 1859) added to religious skepticism. 

Yet despite all this, the great majority of Europeans remained at least nominally Christian, because Christianity had become such an essential component of European culture in past eras. Religion and science were not necessarily seen as diametrically opposed. Some people were still quite devout, and did work to convert others to Christianity, but there was much less open conflict between religion and science, or each other. Religion alone was not seen as a fighting matter in the 19th century. Some have dubbed the era as "the golden age of atheism", because, while atheism was less widespread then, atheists and secularists were not locked in a culture war with the more religious elements of society.

As for the Papacy, due to the rise of secularism, and weakening by the Reformation, its political power was pretty much nil by the beginning of the 19th century. No longer could the Pope bring the princes of Europe to heel. The Papacy's political control extended only to the Papal States in central Italy, and even that was taken away in 1870 when the Papal States were annexed by the newly-formed Kingdom of Italy. Between 1870 and 1929 when the Papacy was granted Vatican City, the Papacy controlled no territory at all. The Pope still had control over the Roman Catholic Church, but just as today, his authority no longer extends beyond purely religious matters.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 12, 2018)

Which religion? And what do you mean by power? To speak very broadly, most people greatly overestimate papal secular powers during the Middle Ages, and they tend to underestimate the influence of the Catholic Church (which is not the same thing as the papacy) in more modern times.

I ask which religion because Methodism, for example, had a significant impact in England during the first half of the 19th century. That century was the beginning of Sunday schools, for one thing. 

But are you asking about influence in daily life, economic importance, legal privilege? "Power" is a wide-ranging word.


----------



## Usurper (Oct 13, 2018)

Corwynn said:


> Sorry for the wait, it's been a long time since anybody asked anything.
> 
> To answer your question, the power of religion was continuing to wane in Europe during the 19th century. This was most concentrated in the (mostly Protestant) region of the north-west. Faith was stronger in the predominantly Catholic and Orthodox regions of southern and eastern Europe, a pattern which still holds to this day.
> 
> ...


Great, thanks c:


----------



## Gurkhal (Oct 31, 2018)

Time to shake some new life into this thread. 

I was wondering about how hard the stigmata of children born out of wedlock affected women from the lower classes? The period I have in mind is roughly for the period around the 1880s or so. The country I am most interested in is Protestant Northern Europe but given the Anglo-dominance on this forum (  ) I would suppose that generally a Protestant, urbanized and industrialized area like the American North-East Coast, England or something like it could work as well as regards to pointers.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Oct 31, 2018)

Gurkhal said:


> Time to shake some new life into this thread.
> 
> I was wondering about how hard the stigmata of children born out of wedlock affected women from the lower classes? The period I have in mind is roughly for the period around the 1880s or so. The country I am most interested in is Protestant Northern Europe but given the Anglo-dominance on this forum (  ) I would suppose that generally a Protestant, urbanized and industrialized area like the American North-East Coast, England or something like it could work as well as regards to pointers.


One thing you can look into is the Magdalene Laundries: Magdalene asylum - Wikipedia
In Ireland, there are plenty of horror stories about women ending up looked away there for a number of reasons - having children out of wedlock being far from the least of them.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 31, 2018)

Look also to the Netherlands, Denmark, or northern Germany (Brandeburg, Mecklenburg, Westphalia). Countryside will be different from the cities. And there was still a fair amount variation. Conditions in England were especially harsh in mid-century; not sure if that was mitigated in later decades. You might find this article useful
Bastardy and Baby Farming in Victorian England

This one is 18thc but might be useful
Background - Researching Bastardy  - London Lives
It's important to keep in mind what a social earthquake industrialization was. Just about everything changed, including issues surrounding illegitimacy.

The literature is huge, though mostly scholarly so you mostly need access to a university library. If you do, you're in tall grass. Here's a dissertation, though:
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/akron1384781123/inline

If you want a summary and an overgeneralization, women were treated more harshly in the 19thc than in earlier centuries. The moral censure was more severe and the legal penalties were harsher. Maybe that had moderated by the 1880s. I'd guess not, but better to do some research on that.


----------



## Corwynn (Nov 5, 2018)

Sorry for not responding earlier, I find it hard to make time to sit down and read and write on Mythic Scribes.

Unfortunately, it's not a subject I know a great deal about. There was definitely more of a stigma to birth out of wedlock in the 19th century than there is now, but I don't know how that compares to earlier eras.

It likely varied depending on social class. As a general rule, during this period, the middle class was the most morally uptight, while the upper and lower classes tended to be more relaxed, at least in private. The middle classes sought to differentiate themselves from the lower orders by acting more proper and refined. The wealthy did this too to some extent, but they didn't need to try so hard, since they were so clearly wealthy and powerful that they didn't need to prove anything. Even so, the wealthier classes would likely do their best to keep any bastard children a secret (or at least discreet) for fear of a scandal. The poor would have cared least, simply because they couldn't afford to. It is likely that many of the couples "living in sin" in Victorian London did so because they couldn't afford a wedding. Urban missionaries tried to encourage marriage among the poor, so evidently it was a common problem. Birth out of wedlock certainly increased if only because of the growing population. Greater ease of travel and the anonymity of city living likely contributed as well.


----------



## Gurkhal (Nov 19, 2018)

Thanks people, I'll go with a more Puritan version about illegitimate children in this case due to the needs of the story.


----------

