Selective 'historical accuracy' in fantasy

[JoanDrake]

I'll just quote from a PM I sent to SG:



The thing that I like most about books like these is that our past is (finally) not being neglected. They aren't especially historically accurate -- but then, neither are most books in a medieval setting -- except for little bits and pieces, but they don't pretend to be, and at least they go up against that selectivity that leaves our history and folklore out, as though they never existed. Fantasy can flourish in many settings.

And unlike fantasy that is relentlessly (and determinedly) dark and grim and full of hopelessness, these deal with a time in history when people genuinely believed they could make new lives and better themselves ... and sometimes did. That period in our history was sometimes violent, too, and not always pretty, and it could be full of hardship, but it was also a time when people aspired to do great things and were not inevitably crushed. We can write about these things, and it's no less true than the darker side of life.

Also, I think the change in setting is refreshing.




.

Thank you, I must get ahold of Clockwork Century, I'm an especial fan of AH that deals with the ACW.

I've always thought the best Western fantasies we have are, in fact, our best Western movies, all of Sergio Leonie's works are pure fantasies, IMO, and so much the better for it.

To return to Grimdark and historical accuracy I was watching Youtube excerpts from Game of Thrones, and after seeing a few of Khal Drogo's best efforts I began to wonder if Martin isn't having some fun with this character at our expense. I've read bios of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane and the surprising thing about them is how much their contemporaries, at least among their own people, actually liked them. If everyone is afraid of a leader they eventually will gang up to destroy him, but Harold Lamb says that the most common remark made of Genghis by other Mongols was that, "he'd give you the shirt off his back". The Mongols are still deservedly famous for atrocities, no doubt, but they were also probably the only Empire in their day that practiced general religious tolerance (among the survivors)

 

[Abernovo]

One of the things I read about the Mongol army (although I can't say how true it is) was that at least part of their reputation was based on propaganda. They would send riders on ahead to spread the word that the Mongols were coming. ('Flee for your lives!') Those that could, including soldiers, would evacuate and the Khan's army would have a much easier time in taking over the cities and lands. For many of those that remained, life went on as before, but with different overlords.

Curiously, that would probably result in the rich and powerful, (who would be most resentful of losing their riches and power) departing, and the poorest (who often just had to get on with it, regardless of the who was in charge) remaining. So the reputation would grow, as the former pillars of society would complain vigorously in their new cities about how they had lost everything to the 'vicious' Mongol army.

That's not to say atrocities weren't committed. Of course they were; these were rough times. But, the idea of using such propaganda rings true to me. Destroying everything and killing everyone means you only take over a barren wasteland. The Khan was smarter than that, I suspect.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Apparently they would give cities a choice: surrender and life goes on, or resist and be utterly destroyed. Here's an example of the latter. And another.

Usually word would spread and the next place wouldn't try resisting.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Apparently they would give cities a choice: surrender and life goes on, or resist and be utterly destroyed. Here's an example of the latter.

You see, that's what fires me up about history - one rich man causes the deaths of tens of thousands of people, yet he lives. History records his voice, but what about those who were killed for his vanity?

That's what I want to see more of in fiction, try to tackle as an aspiring writer.

History itself - and historical fiction with it - is too tied up with the upper classes, the rich, the political. What about the ordinary person who suffers?

Fantasy has a similar malaise - heroic characters are generally princes, lord, kings, knight champions - the financially stable upper classes. A protagonist is only poor until told they are prophesied about, then they are given the world on a plate.

That's what I talk about when I refer to "historical realism". It's about telling the story of normal people, without glamourising sex or violence. I want to see the everyday ordinary person given a voice.

The number of times I've read a history book and seen it casually mentioned that an army, or part of an army, raided a settlement or town. Rant!

 

[JoanDrake]

You see, that's what fires me up about history - one rich man causes the deaths of tens of thousands of people, yet he lives. History records his voice, but what about those who were killed for his vanity?

That's what I want to see more of in fiction, try to tackle as an aspiring writer.

History itself - and historical fiction with it - is too tied up with the upper classes, the rich, the political. What about the ordinary person who suffers?

Fantasy has a similar malaise - heroic characters are generally princes, lord, kings, knight champions - the financially stable upper classes. A protagonist is only poor until told they are prophesied about, then they are given the world on a plate.

That's what I talk about when I refer to "historical realism". It's about telling the story of normal people, without glamourising sex or violence. I want to see the everyday ordinary person given a voice.

The number of times I've read a history book and seen it casually mentioned that an army, or part of an army, raided a settlement or town. Rant!

Well, you might argue that stories about changing the world are logically going to involve Kings and Queens. The problem there is that LotR, supposedly the template for all modern fantasy, is mainly the story of 4 people who are so stubbornly ordinary they're not really even human. (It does involve Kings, like I say, it sorta has to, but the story is mainly about Frodo and Sam)

My problem is that what we're all calling "historical accuracy", isn't.

We actually have a pretty good record of how an actual "barbarian chieftain" kept power. (Yes, it's a movie but both Lawrence and his biographers generally agree something very much like it was a fact)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noyFiYKlFJU

After all, how much sense does it make that people who culturally despise fear would be ruled by it?

 

[allmywires]

History itself - and historical fiction with it - is too tied up with the upper classes, the rich, the political. What about the ordinary person who suffers?

Something that's been inherent in literature for a long time, but I think the tides are turning. Most of Shakespeare's plays were about kings, queens, the noblesse oblige, faeries, what have you. The ultimate escapism for the downtrodden masses; give 'em hope. These days we're much more cynical, I think, and we don't respond as well to that kind of rhetoric.

Fantasy has a similar malaise - heroic characters are generally princes, lord, kings, knight champions - the financially stable upper classes. A protagonist is only poor until told they are prophesied about, then they are given the world on a plate.

That's what I talk about when I refer to "historical realism". It's about telling the story of normal people, without glamourising sex or violence. I want to see the everyday ordinary person given a voice.

I agree with you, but that's where the line tends to blur with historical fiction, I think. It's quite a challenge to create a whole new society from scratch and give it depth right from the upper classes to the lower, as opposed to just mentioning them as peasants and the great unwashed and leaving it at that.

Where are the middle classes in fantasy, that's what I want to know.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Where are the middle classes in fantasy, that's what I want to know.

Living in the Shire!!

(Sorry, couldn't resist that! Serious answer - in the mediaeval period, I think they're living in the towns.)

 

[JoanDrake]

Living in the Shire!!

(Sorry, couldn't resist that! Serious answer - in the mediaeval period, I think they're living in the towns.)

In the early medieval they'd be in the castle. Mainly because the only real market for anything would be there and, besides a blacksmith to shoe horses and service weapons, some carpenters and a stonemason how many skilled artisans do you need? Peasants tended to fix it themselves, do without or go to the castle.

Most everything else came from traveling peddlers and, since most war and plow horses are uncomfortable to ride for long periods, they were limited to a walking pace, so would come once a year, if that much.

It was only after this shaggy little pony was introduced in the 12th century that lots of people started to travel any distances regularly as it had a 4th type of walk, the canter, that could be sat all day. This opened up the whole countryside and more to skilled artisans besides creating a whole new class of merchants.

That pony was introduced by, you guessed it, the Mongols. (Those little Youtube lectures are great).

 

[Anne Lyle]

In the early medieval they'd be in the castle.

In the early medieval/high feudal period there wasn't really a middle class as such - either you owned land and were gentry, or you didn't and were a serf - or a servant in a lord's household (e.g. the castle blacksmith).

Most everything else came from traveling peddlers and, since most war and plow horses are uncomfortable to ride for long periods, they were limited to a walking pace, so would come once a year, if that much.

It was only after this shaggy little pony was introduced in the 12th century that lots of people started to travel any distances regularly as it had a 4th type of walk, the canter, that could be sat all day. This opened up the whole countryside and more to skilled artisans besides creating a whole new class of merchants.

I was under the impression that the trot was the long-distance gait of choice for horses - a canter is quite fast and better suited to couriers and the like who change horses regularly. The canter is smoother and more comfortable than a trot (unless you have stirrups and can "post"), but tires the animal somewhat sooner. I did a bit of pony-trekking as a teenager, and we spent most of our time walking or trotting, with the occasional canter or gallop for a bit of fun!

From Wikipedia: "The trot is the working gait for a horse. Despite what one sees in movies, horses can only canter and gallop for short periods at a time, after which they need time to rest and recover. Horses in good condition can maintain a working trot for hours. The trot is the main way horses travel quickly from one place to the next."

Also, medieval England didn't have plough horses - they used oxen. Most peasants had no transport other than their own two feet, and in any case they weren't allowed to leave their lord's desmesne without permission.

 

[Kissmequick]

Pretty sure ponies were around before the 12th century as well -- not that many lowly peasants would own one. Ponies have been in Britain for thousands of years, so they weren't 'introduced'. They're native. But they were used for transport of goods more than riding -- the ponies carried stuff, the people mostly walked (and carriages were almost unheard of, except perhaps for a queen), so it was the people that limited to movement speed until the time more people could afford to own one.

since most war and plow horses are uncomfortable to ride for long periods, they were limited to a walking pace

No horse is limited to a walking pace. Shires are quite comfy to ride at a canter (it's like being on a rocking horse!)

 

[Anne Lyle]

Pretty sure ponies were around before the 12th century as well -- not that many lowly peasants would own one. Ponies have been in Britain for thousands of years, so they weren't 'introduced'. They're native.

"Archeological investigation from the 1970s has shown that domesticated ponies were to be found on Dartmoor as early as 1500 BC." (Wikipedia again)

IIRC, the Celts used fast, hardy native ponies to pull their chariots - huge warhorses are a later medieval creation, as they were needed to carry a man in full armour.

I wonder if the OP is thinking of the "amble" (rather than the canter), a characteristic gait of the palfrey, which was a medieval riding horse known for its comfort. The amble is about the same speed as a trot but smoother.

 

[Glisterspeck]

Teresa, I believe Umberto Eco does books sort of like what you describe and there is one that was popular by another author some years ago, about a midwife who invents a more humane forceps 400 years early and is nearly killed by the Inquisition for it.

I mentioned it in another quote, somewhere, but Eco's Baudolino is the best researched medieval fantasy I've ever read. It's a quest story, of sorts, centered around the legendary Prester John.

 

[Hypnos164]

http://www.joeabercrombie.com/2013/02/25/the-value-of-grit/

What he said!

When I have said "realistic"/"historically accurate" in the past, I think the concept that what I was struggling to describe is much better summed up as "sense of verisimilitude".

Edit: Oops didn't see this had its own thread

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I mentioned it in another quote, somewhere, but Eco's Baudolino is the best researched medieval fantasy I've ever read. It's a quest story, of sorts, centered around the legendary Prester John.

This sounds like something I would like to read.

As for the discussion above about whether there was a "middle class" in Medieval times: let's not forget the cities, where there were many, many craftsmen (not middle class as we know it, but free and sometimes upwardly mobile) and a not inconsiderable number of merchants, who could become quite wealthy. If the poor were more numerous, in the form of beggars or peasants working the lands, there were more craftsmen and merchants than lords and ladies, and kings and queens.

Writing about characters who are members of a craft guild might be very interesting if there were some small magical component to what they do -- I don't mean a magicians' guild or craftsmen who do all their work by magic. But craft guilds often had their trade secrets, and if there was something that master craftsmen secretly enhanced with magic, and the plot was about a character trying to get into the inner circle, past the guild politics, in order to discover that secret, it could make for a good story.

Perhaps there are stories of a similar sort. If anyone any of them, I'd be interested in recommendations.

A talented writer could write about middle class characters and make them fascinating, without having to concentrate on lords and ladies, feuds and wars.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Inspired by Teresa's post in the Prince of Thorns thread - why does so much of fantasy rely on the same tired old argument against often legitimate criticism, ie, 'That's what life was like back then,' when emphatically it often wasn't?

Just thought I'd check that you knew Prince of Thorns is set in the future?

 

[Brian G Turner]

I'm currently reading Terry Jones' "Mediaeval Lives" and it's a great read. It's confirmed a lot of what I was already working with, but what's really nice is the way it crusades against the idea that mediaeval peasants were poor and dirt-stained beggars living drab and dreary lives.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I didn't know that, Mark, but it doesn't matter, because I was responding to things that other people were saying about gritty fantasy in general. Pretty much the same response that I have given many times and many places when the subject of gratuitous violence came up. It wasn't directed at your books, because (as already stated several times) I haven't read them. If I happened to say it in a thread about your books, that was purely coincidental, because the argument had wandered a little off the topic. My apologies if I gave you reason to think otherwise.

But you do know, Mark, that not everything that is said in these forums is about you, don't you?

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

But you do know, Mark, that not everything that is said in these forums is about you, don't you?

When a thread entitled [Selective 'historical accuracy' in fantasy] opens with specific mention of my book (also mentioned later in the thread) then it seems perfectly reasonable to reply to that post with a polite enquiry as to whether the poster knew my book was set in the future.

It turns out that you for one did not.

I certainly drew an implication from the sum of the posts so far that I might number among the (possibly mythical) set of authors who claimed some kind of historical accuracy basis for their setting. It doesn't seem unreasonable for me to set the record straight on that.

Why that should draw the kind of comment you made I have no idea.

 

[allmywires]

Just thought I'd check that you knew Prince of Thorns is set in the future?

Um...I wasn't talking about you, I was referring to a post that Teresa made in that thread, and made a new one so I didn't go off-topic in that.

 

[Mirannan]

Regarding accuracy, or at least consistency with historical reality, in fantasy it it might be interesting to consider things the ancients could have done with the technology available, but didn't. I've been watching, occasionally, a programme on TV called "Beat the Ancients". In one of the episodes, the team were set the challenge of making a better multiple-firing gun; I think it was an organ gun. What they came up with was a minie ball and a cloth cartridge, and also a small amount of swivel on individual barrels. Much higher lethality and refire rate. The people who built the original could easily have built this thing. (Sure, it was early Renaissance not mediaeval, but...)

Consider the effect on accuracy of a simple post sight attached to a crossbow. Etc.

Fantasy worlds are usually prevented somehow from advancing into the modern era. Maybe gunpowder doesn't work. Maybe magic is so much easier to use that doing years of research on physical laws doesn't work. Maybe the world has deities that want things to stay more or less as they are, TYVM.

Which means that things that people stopped bothering with in the real world got hundreds of years more development in the application of available tech. This ought to make a difference!