Middle Ages were not dark

[Aldarion]

In fact, Renaissance was in some ways far darker...

Here there be... a short overview of typical misconceptions about Middle Ages, and their rebuttals.

Education and scientific knowledge was lacking
Compared to today, yes (although even that is debatable in some fields - medieval philosophy is likely far superior to modern one). But far less than commonly assumed. Educated people were aware that Earth is not a flat plate even in Middle Ages, and experiments from Antiquity - including a calculation of Earth's circumference, precise to cca 10% IIRC - were available to learned people at least, if not to the masses.

People were not reasonable
That depended on time and place, but generally medieval people were no less reasonable or more prone to superstition than modern people are. The only difference is that we tend to recognize medieval supersitions for what they are yet hold our own superstitions as facts; a reasonable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

Personal hygiene was limited
Eh, no. In fact, people in Middle Ages bathed rather frequently - Roman bathing houses and saunas survived well into 14th century. It was only after the Black Death epidemic - in Renaissance - that people stopped bathing (and started using perfumes to cover up the genuinely terrifying body odour). Public hygiene was lacking, however. With no operational Roman sewer system, dung was dumped to a "shit pool", and at worst tossed out into streed. Cities thus did stink. Pack animals used for transport also tended to leave their waste around.

Monarchs wielded absolute power
They did not. In fact, medieval monarchies were often far more democratic than modern-day UN or EU. Exact form varied, but the gist was that king gave land and income to retainers so they could provide services - and they divided it to their retainers etc., all the way down to landed knights and eventually peasants. This was the only way for state to be organized in conditions of limited literacy, but it also meant that power was highly decentralized. Monarch, effectively, ruled by consent, and had no power to override customs and traditions which formed basis of laws. In fact, modern "democratic" states have capability to be, and often are, far more authoritarian than medieval feudal states (for various reasons - political, social, organizational and technological). Once Louis XIV attempted to introduce absolute monarchy, his project quickly collapsed, leading to Louis XVI, French Revolution and its consequences - both good and bad. It also led to France being less effective, and thus lagging behind more decentralized Britain.

Plate armour, plate armour everywhere
Plate armour was *not* the primary form of armour for most of Middle Ages. It only appeared at tail-end of Middle Ages, in 14th century, and full plate armour - particularly Gothic armour that most people likely think of - only appeared when Middle Ages were already slowly going into Early Modernity (so 1450s - 1480s). Even then, other forms of armour were far more widespread than full plate.

Burn the witch!
Witch hunts were rare during actual Middle Ages. They only started going full-tilt after Reformation, and majority (cca 90%, if memory serves me) of burnings happened in Protestant Europe. In fact, witch hunts really only took off during Thirty Years War, and were used to facilitate religious clearing as well as for personal revenge.
-------------
Anything to add?

 

[Ban]

In fact, medieval monarchies were often far more democratic than modern-day UN or EU.

No I have to stop you right there, the example of the EU is nonsense. All of the European Legislative institutions are elected by the people, of which the Parliament is directly elected. The European Council comprises the heads of state (many of whom directly elected) and the European Commission is appointed by the elected goverments of the memberstates. This is not at all comparable to a feudal system. Carry on.

 

[Riva]

although even that is debatable in some fields - medieval philosophy is likely far superior to modern one

Could you elaborate more on this?

In fact, medieval monarchies were often far more democratic than modern-day UN or EU.

I'm not very informed about UN or EU, but you can consider the feudal system to be democratic only to the extent that you consider democratic a system where laws are dictated by tradition and a few landlords and the king. I highly doubt that your average serf had any decisional power
But yes I get the point, that's true, absolute monarchy came later on (around XVII century for certain parts of Europe)), actually in response to the growth in influence of the parliament if I'm not wrong, so yeah the king had not at all absolute power. Furthermore he was bound by tradition and moral norms.

Oh, and I'll add one.
While it's true that alcohol kills germs and all, they also had wells ecc, so they also drank water
Quite obviuos I know but hey

 

[Insolent Lad]

And practical everyday technology---not the large scale stuff like building temples and aqueducts---was often more advanced than during antiquity, even in the 'darkest' early middle ages. Maybe because with the collapse of a slave economy, folks were forced to innovate and find labor-saving solutions. Ship building really leapt forward.

 

[Yora]

The UN does not govern anything.
The EU is as democratic as it's member states. All decisions in the EU are made by the elected governments of the member countries, and the EU laws are made by the Members of the European Parliament that are elected by the people of their member states. Being a member state in the EU is just as democratic as being a state or a province inside a country.

 

[Aldarion]

No I have to stop you right there, the example of the EU is nonsense. All of the European Legislative institutions are elected by the people, of which the Parliament is directly elected. The European Council comprises the heads of state (many of whom directly elected) and the European Commission is appointed by the elected goverments of the memberstates. This is not at all comparable to a feudal system. Carry on.

Democracy is not defined solely by who elects a bunch of standup comedians (also, only EU Parliament is elected by the people - if you transfer your right to make decisions, you are not making decisions). There is also a question of overall impact of political authorities on life of a citizen. Medieval and ancient administration had to be far more localized than is the case today, simply because it was physically impossible for central administration to be all that effective, due to communications technology. Local administration - even unelected one - will be, in its interests and ideals, far closer to the people it is governing than will be the case with national or, God forbid, supranational administration - even if said administration is directly elected by the people.

Basically, decentralization automatically leads to democratization (as well as improved administrative efficiency and a lot of other positive effects - compare England and France through history). That is what happened in Byzantine Empire with introduction of thematic system, to the point that they had regularly-held and hotly contested elections. Now, these elections took the form of civil wars, rebellions and similar, due to technological limitations I had mentioned; but they still served their purpose, and continued to do so until theme system fell apart as civilian and military aristocracy alike got richer and gained ever more power.

Could you elaborate more on this?

That is just my impression; but basically, as we know more "facts", we tend to think less and less.

I'm not very informed about UN or EU, but you can consider the feudal system to be democratic only to the extent that you consider democratic a system where laws are dictated by tradition and a few landlords and the king. I highly doubt that your average serf had any decisional power

But yes I get the point, that's true, absolute monarchy came later on (around XVII century for certain parts of Europe)), actually in response to the growth in influence of the parliament if I'm not wrong, so yeah the king had not at all absolute power. Furthermore he was bound by tradition and moral norms.

That depended on the exact form of the system. In Byzantine Empire - which I studied far more than your average feudal monarchy btw - people tended to vote very often, and very violently. In fact, Justinian is probably the only Emperor that managed to resist a rebellion against himself, and even absent outright rebellion, threat of rebellion tended to keep Emperors in check. Population of Constantinople was notoriously fickle and politically active - how many today's politicians fear getting lynched by an angry mob if they take away economic/civil/etc. rights? And if they do not fear lynching, can you really say you have democracy?

Christianity in Western Europe (that has to be emphasized - Byzantine Empire, as I explained, was very different case) was in all likelyhood lethal to democracy because it justified the stratified society; "divine right of kings" being perhaps the best known, but far from the only, such example.

Oh, and I'll add one.
While it's true that alcohol kills germs and all, they also had wells ecc, so they also drank water
Quite obviuos I know but hey

True.

And practical everyday technology---not the large scale stuff like building temples and aqueducts---was often more advanced than during antiquity, even in the 'darkest' early middle ages. Maybe because with the collapse of a slave economy, folks were forced to innovate and find labor-saving solutions. Ship building really leapt forward.

Indeed. Roman Empire had advantage of economies of scale and organization, but actual technology of Middle Ages was typically at least as advanced as Roman technology, if not more so. And yes, collapse of slave economy had a lot to do with it - though it should be noted that slavery as such did not collapse.

 

[Ban]

Democracy is not defined solely by who elects a bunch of standup comedians

This is not a political forum, please refrain from politics. We have rules for a reason.

also, only EU Parliament is elected by the people - if you transfer your right to make decisions, you are not making decisions

Seeing as people in medieval times did not have direct democracy, were subject to laws not made by them and had no chance of changing those laws to reflect them, this entire point is moot. We do elect representatives, they didn't, that's a world of difference.

Local administration - even unelected one - will be, in its interests and ideals, far closer to the people it is governing than will be the case with national or, God forbid, supranational administration - even if said administration is directly elected by the people.

Which is why we have local administrations in modern-day Europe? You can elect your mayor, you can't elect your baron. Your mayor has the need to keep your interests in mind for future re-election, your baron did not.

Now, these elections took the form of civil wars, rebellions and similar, due to technological limitations I had mentioned; but they still served their purpose, and continued to do so until theme system fell apart as civilian and military aristocracy alike got richer and gained ever more power.

Yeah... so they're not elections. I can't overstate how wrong that equivalency is. By that logic you can say that vigilante justice is a suitable substitute to a court because hey same outcome right? No not the same outcome. The build-up only fires if the problem has reached a breaking point and the process is a massacre, that is not at all comparable to modern society. It leads to a system that only addressed the biggest issues and does nothing for the smaller issues, nor does it allow for discourse on solving those issues. Again,a world of difference,

 

[Yora]

The more I think about it, the angrier I get. There were very few republics in the middle ages that usually were city states, and none of them had voting rights for all adult permanent residents.
If any form of government that bans women from voting is considered more democratic than modern western democracies, then I am out of words.

 

[Kasper Hviid]

As I read it, the claim is not that voting rights were awesome in the middle ages. Rather, the claim is that power was more decentralized.

 

[skip.knox]

Power as well as authority was more decentralized in the Middle Ages than in modern nation-states. That has nothing to do with political forms.

I have to point out that the word itself matters. Democracy means rule by the demes, a political unit of ancient Athens. Voting rights belonged to adult male citizens. That's democracy. It's their word, they get to say what it means.

 

[skip.knox]

What continues to fascinate me is why these misconceptions about the Middle Ages persist. It will be an essay, one day, but even just glancing through the items Aldarion lists, it's easy to see they are all about how medieval people were less than ourselves--worse in just about every way. There's a whole other set of misconceptions derived from the romanticization of the Middle Ages in the 19thc. Separate essay.

I've said this elsewhere, but I'll repeat it: when people complain about the Middle Ages being overused in fantasy, they're really only talking about a very small sliver of a thousand years and an entire continent. Most of medieval Europe remains a mine with plenty of ore left in it.

 

[Kasper Hviid]

I have to point out that the word itself matters. Democracy means rule by the demes, a political unit of ancient Athens. Voting rights belonged to adult male citizens. That's democracy. It's their word, they get to say what it means.

I call Etymological fallacy on that one!

 

[skip.knox]

Just because a word is *not necessarily* the same today as way back when does not therefore mean no word is. Nor does it mean there's no such thing as incorrect understanding of a word.

There's plenty of room to argue the meaning of democracy as a concept. But it's also worth knowing the word's meaning. It helps explain, among other things, why America is not actually a democracy, it's a republic, a distinction the Founding Fathers felt was important to make.

 

[Aldarion]

This is not a political forum, please refrain from politics. We have rules for a reason.

I know, but it is difficult to illustrate the topic without comparison with today's systems, seeing how most misconceptions are very much result of modern conditions.

Seeing as people in medieval times did not have direct democracy, were subject to laws not made by them and had no chance of changing those laws to reflect them, this entire point is moot. We do elect representatives, they didn't, that's a world of difference.

People in modern-day West are also subject to laws not made by them and have no chance of changing those laws. How many laws do you think are a result of international agreements as opposed to country's own decision? In France, international agreements come above national law, and in Croatia practice is very much the same.

Which is why we have local administrations in modern-day Europe? You can elect your mayor, you can't elect your baron. Your mayor has the need to keep your interests in mind for future re-election, your baron did not.

Difference is in relative power between local and central administration. Modern states are far more centralized than any ancient or medieval state. In fact, individual cities in Roman Republic (and later Empire) had at least about as much power and independence as individual US federal states, and perhaps more. Medieval states were, if anything, even more decentralized - which had both good and bad effects, to be sure. But the whole "absolutist tyrant king" trope is flat-out impossible in any premodern state (not so in a modern state; I have explained here how gunpowder helps enable centralization and absolutism). Somebody like the Mad King Aerys from ASoIaF would have gone by simply ignored, and people would not have noticed much difference.

Yeah... so they're not elections. I can't overstate how wrong that equivalency is. By that logic you can say that vigilante justice is a suitable substitute to a court because hey same outcome right? No not the same outcome. The build-up only fires if the problem has reached a breaking point and the process is a massacre, that is not at all comparable to modern society. It leads to a system that only addressed the biggest issues and does nothing for the smaller issues, nor does it allow for discourse on solving those issues. Again,a world of difference,

In a system where populace in general is politically active, and misrule may end up with ruler's head on a stick, fear will often keep the ruler in line even long before the breaking point is reached. Whereas modern representative democracy gives an outlet in electing a different bunch of representatives - but the resulting difference is cosmetic rather than functional most of the time. Which means that result in electional democracy is often the opposite of what you noted: a system that adresses small issues but feels no pressure to adress the big ones.

The more I think about it, the angrier I get. There were very few republics in the middle ages that usually were city states, and none of them had voting rights for all adult permanent residents.
If any form of government that bans women from voting is considered more democratic than modern western democracies, then I am out of words.

Read OP again. Voting rights are not the only - or even the basic - definition of democracy.

 

[Ban]

People in modern-day West are also subject to laws not made by them and have no chance of changing those laws. How many laws do you think are a result of international agreements as opposed to country's own decision? In France, international agreements come above national law, and in Croatia practice is very much the same.

Well here we just have a fundamental disagreement. Those international agreements you're talking about are extensions of our voting as well, the difference simply being that the range of people being represented is greater. If you're of the belief that democracy should be confined to the nation one lives in this argument might make sense, but I identify myself by regional and civilizational levels. The agreements made on the international stage are birthed from my democratic will as much as the ones applicable only to the nationstate. This argument relies on a cut-off point between the national and the international, which I as someone who identifies himself as European simply find arbitrary.

Difference is in relative power between local and central administration. Modern states are far more centralized than any ancient or medieval state. In fact, individual cities in Roman Republic (and later Empire) had at least about as much power and independence as individual US federal states, and perhaps more. Medieval states were, if anything, even more decentralized - which had both good and bad effects, to be sure. But the whole "absolutist tyrant king" trope is flat-out impossible in any premodern state (not so in a modern state; I have explained here how gunpowder helps enable centralization and absolutism). Somebody like the Mad King Aerys from ASoIaF would have gone by simply ignored, and people would not have noticed much difference.
.

I agree with you that the medieval times weren't an age rampant with dictators the likes of which exist in modernity. I don't have much to dispute here, as this is a stance I already held.

In a system where populace in general is politically active, and misrule may end up with ruler's head on a stick, fear will often keep the ruler in line even long before the breaking point is reached. Whereas modern representative democracy gives an outlet in electing a different bunch of representatives - but the resulting difference is cosmetic rather than functional most of the time. Which means that result in electional democracy is often the opposite of what you noted: a system that adresses small issues but feels no pressure to adress the big ones.

This assumes it's an either/or affair, which it isn't. In medieval times the potential of people to rise up and take what they want might have been a deterrent that led to reforms in their favour simply by power of fear, but to compare this to modern electional democracy assumes that we have shifted wholesale from one to the other. This is nonsense, for the power of the people never went anywhere. Popular revolts, riots, protests and more still happen when the need grows too high and the threat of them still looms over modern day politicians, the difference is that nowadays we have this wonderful thing called elections and civil discourse to not only prevent things from escalating to that point, but also solving the issues at heart in ways that we as a collective wish them to be solved in. The argument only makes sense if power of the people was exclusive to the past, which it isn't. Not to turn political, but for reasons of example I'd point you to the yellow vests or the farmers who have united here in the Netherlands in full fleets of tractors to block roads and drive to governmental buildings to demand reform. We still have this power you claim as a democratic nowadays, we just also have an immensely democratic alternative as well.

 

[Aldarion]

Well here we just have a fundamental disagreement. Those international agreements you're talking about are extensions of our voting as well, the difference simply being that the range of people being represented is greater. If you're of the belief that democracy should be confined to the nation one lives in this argument might make sense, but I identify myself by regional and civilizational levels. The agreements made on the international stage are birthed from my democratic will as much as the ones applicable only to the nationstate. This argument relies on a cut-off point between the national and the international, which I as someone who identifies himself as European simply find arbitrary.

There are several problems with that. One problem is democratic deficit: as I have mentioned before, "Local administration - even unelected one - will be, in its interests and ideals, far closer to the people it is governing than will be the case with national or, God forbid, supranational administration - even if said administration is directly elected by the people.". Basically, democracy requires decentralization; and more levels you have between the voters and people making decisions (this also includes the number of people each decision-maker is representing*), less democratic the system is. Personally, my ideal are city-states, but that simply wouldn't work in modern world, which is why I find nation-state to be an optimal political unit.

Now, I am not against supranational integrations as such; however, I do believe that decision-making should be relegated to the lowest level possible in all aspects of life, for reasons of democracy and efficiency both. To go back to historical examples, in Roman Republic / Empire, the basic political unit was not the province, but rather the city. Republic as a whole was a federation of city-states, and it was municipal government which made most of decisions. This was abandoned later, and under Diocletian and later emperors central government took ever greater powers. Only later, during Middle Byzantine Empire, did state decentralize again, this time around themes - though cities also regained many of the decision-making powers. And that period is also one where I consider Byzantine Empire to have been a full-blown republic (if not necessarily a 100% democracy).

* EU Parliament has 751 MPs representing 513 million people, or 683 000 per MP

This assumes it's an either/or affair, which it isn't. In medieval times the potential of people to rise up and take what they want might have been a deterrent that led to reforms in their favour simply by power of fear, but to compare this to modern electional democracy assumes that we have shifted wholesale from one to the other. This is nonsense, for the power of the people never went anywhere. Popular revolts, riots, protests and more still happen when the need grows too high and the threat of them still looms over modern day politicians, the difference is that nowadays we have this wonderful thing called elections and civil discourse to not only prevent things from escalating to that point, but also solving the issues at heart in ways that we as a collective wish them to be solved in. The argument only makes sense if power of the people was exclusive to the past, which it isn't. Not to turn political, but for reasons of example I'd point you to the yellow vests or the farmers who have united here in the Netherlands in full fleets of tractors to block roads and drive to governmental buildings to demand reform. We still have this power you claim as a democratic nowadays, we just also have an immensely democratic alternative as well.

Yes and no. It is not a binary OFF/ON question, that much is true. It is however a question of scale. Modern day is the time of professional militaries, professional police force, and highly destructive weapons. This means that government has much less to fear from the people, than it did in the time when central military did not have major weapons advantage over armed populace, and when many armed forces were essentially those of citizen soldiers anyway (e.g. greek polises, pre-Marian reforms army of Roman Republic, Byzantine thematic army). Popular revolts still do happen, and can be successful; but on a whole, they are much less dangerous than before. It is true that they are supplemented by elections and civil discourse, but for either elections or civil discourse to be effective, government needs to be afraid of the people to begin with. Of course, question is lot more complex than that; but I was originally using modern examples simply to better explain my point about medieval administration anyway.

 

[skip.knox]

The current conversation belongs over in Chit Chat. There's no reason to shut down the conversation; it is perfectly legitimate. It simply is not speaking to writing fantasy any more. Please take it over there.

 

[Ban]

No need to take it anywhere, I think we've both explained our side adequately. In the end it's a matter of whether or not one considers distance of the subjects to those ruling over them as more or less important than the availability of means to interact with those rulers.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Democratic and authoritarian are not mutually exclusive. Tyranny of one, tyranny of a dozen, tyranny of a hundred, or tyranny of the masses have one thing in common, heh heh.

 

[skip.knox]

Democratic and authoritarian are not mutually exclusive. Tyranny of one, tyranny of a dozen, tyranny of a hundred, or tyranny of the masses have one thing in common, heh heh.

Prepositions?
<gdr>