One element frequently missing in historical fantasy or even based on true events, of which I'd like to see more- head coverings! Medieval people had sooooo many hats and veils. Wearing a headcovering wasn't even simply for modesty, but for utility, warmth, cleanliness, and fashion. Farmers and warriors alike donned a coif of some sort.
I'm an aspiring writer, and one of my latest fantasy story ideas takes a fair bit of inspiration from the medieval period for its fashions, and all the women wear head coverings. The only time it would be proper for a young woman to be seen without her veil is when her hair is put up close to her head, like a crown braid. Even in other fantasy stories where the women don't wear veils they still sometimes put on kerchiefs when working, to help keep their hair clean. I need to do a better job of finding decent looking head covering options for the men, though, so far they're bare-headed unless they're wearing cloaks or helmets.
I've lost count of the number of times I've shouted at the TV/film "why aren't you wearing a hat?!" Game of Thrones was a prime example, lots of snow and cold beyond the wall and virtually no one had a bloody hat on. I think it's all down to them wanting to have the actors recognisable. Maybe a touch of the real world creeping in, because most people don't wear hats. But it really takes me out of the moment. Adding hats of all sorts (like you said, utility, fashion, etc) would add so much to a scene and make it feel more realistic.
@@oakmaiden2133 I think that's probably covered by "modesty" but it's good to be specific, because designing a fantasy world would require detailing religions. It could even be argued that without the building of industry, and advanced knowledge, there would not be pressure on culture, including religion, to adapt to the changes.
Oakmaiden In one of my stories, the main male character doesn't even fully see the main female character's hair until after they're married. I imagine the moment when she removes her veil for the first time to be slightly sensual without being inappropriate.
I think period blending is also more justifiable when you have super long-lived races. An elf who's 600 years old sticking with the arming sword he learned to use 500 years ago, and evolving his technique to compensate for newer tech short lived humans keep coming up with makes some kind of sense.
Not really; swords and weapons historically were semi-disposable items (and generally would still be so without significant amounts of magic… but other magic could undo that and make it a moot point and allow for the same amount of damage done to the sword). Over time what they use would probably develop. They may still prefer single handed swords similar to that, but it would likely turn from an older style arming sword into a later arming sword into a messer into a cutlass, for instance. This is also because the specifics of the weapon depend more on the environment than anything; with better material and workmanship you can get new developments, but also with the style of war it will change your weapons which then change how you use it which then may change the style of war again. Stagnation in this case is silly, not a viable strategy.
@@farmerboy916 swords weren't what I would call disposable. Most quality blades lasted hundreds of years, being passed down for generations, and being re-hilted as necessary. The best quality blades would be reforged occasionally in newer styles because top quality steel was precious. Cheap, low grade swords existed of course, but even those would often be reforged for a couple generations. Most soldiers, militia or conscript in particular, wouldn't even have swords. They'd carry spears or bows. It was later in the enlightenment era when steel started to become common enough that average people could afford more than a good sized dagger. Swords were traditionally reserved for the rentenue of nobles or some particularly wealthy mercenaries. More importantly, they were backup weapons. Pole arms, bows, crossbows, and javelins were favored on open ground. Axes and maces in close combat. Fencing duels were more a later renaissance thing.
@@joshuakruger9455 And once in a battle, swords and other weapons would very easily and quickly get damaged to the point of needing deep edge gouges sharpened out changing the profile, or getting bent and needing a smiths attention, etc. A sword can’t even be sharpened as necessary for hundreds of years, there would be nothing left. Your idea of swords passed down for generations is as display or pride pieces, not functional items that were used. Weapons as actual functional items are disposable or semi-disposable; that is, being expected to be damaged and needing repair or replacement as a matter of course.
Doesn't make any sense. How can you learn technique to compensate for newer tech? Hear me out. To get better at something (learn the technique) you first must fail. This is fine when you are training. But when you fight an enemy that has an unexpected advantage because of his weapon then when you fail, you die. Even if you get away, you most likely wouldn't want to fight with that disadvantage again. You could ask, well what if they can train against those weapons? Then at that point, why even train with the obsolete weapon in the first place? they may as well use the superior option. Of course this doesn't apply if the writer made up some lore reason. That's the best thing about writing, it doesn't have to make sense.
The modern aesthetic conception of 'medieval fantasy' owes more to the Golden Age of Pirates (the late 17th century) than it does to the actual medieval period. Why? Because it was the apex of pre-mechanized civilisation. Yes, you had batch production and movable type, drills and mills and clockwork, but the universal power sources were still water, wind, and muscle. Coal was for smelting, not power. Iron was for cannonballs and nails, not hulls and boilers. (And, yep, Cramer concludes that three minutes in.)
though keep in mind, the age of pirates, while not concurrent with knights, IS concurrent with Samurais, so we can still get knight, we just have to reskin Edo Japan into Maximilian plates, and yes, the samurais have guns.
Technically, "medieval" wouldn't even exist in fantasy. It is the time after the fall of the Roman empire in which the chaos had been sorted out and things had settled down into their new standard. If you don't have a Rome or Rome expy or it didn't fall, then you wouldn't have the massive loss of knowledge that came with it and the consequences and wasted time.
@@holeeshi9959 It was concurrent with knights, just not western knights. Polish Hussars were active alongside muscovite reiters well into the late 17th century. Khmielinsky clashed with polish winged hussars right as the privateers of caribbean grew independent.
Regarding a lot of the fantasy tropes we know coming ultimately from 17th-18th c. sources, I think that's because the fantasy we know is a descendant ultimately of late 19th c. literature... for whom the 17th-18th c. was "old timey." Related, I think it's easy for us in the internet era to overlook just how poor the reference material was for most writers until very very recently. When all you've got are books with engravings, and those are expensive... things can get muddled quickly. :)
I'm Fashion designer/costume crafter. In low tech societies, everything from growing/harvesting to processing/spinning fibers and, finally, weaving cloth is a labor intensive process that makes cloth a precious resource. Therefor clothing tends to be constructed as much as possible out of rectangular panels that require the least possible cutting and waste. This is also true in societies like parts of Asia and Africa where fabric is considered an art form in itself and chopping it up is disrespectful of the artisans who created the fabric. Complex fitted garments are only made possible by rising levels of technology and the existence of an upper middle class with the interest in, and financial capacity to indulge in, conspicuous consumption. In the transition between Medieval and Renaissance Europe that was aided by the establishment of international trade that made exotic materials available. Once those conditions are in place, those fashions will filter down to lower classes through hand-me-downs, recycling materials and aspirational adaptation. Those pointed shoes do not fit your fantasy world because they were designed to be functionally useless and demonstrate the wearers lack of need or desire to engage in productive activity. Allegedly, the strange hats evolved from people taking off their hooded caplets and pilling them on top of their heads to get them out of the way. I guess much like tying the sleeves of a modern hoody around your waist when you don't want to wear it. Eventually, they took on their own role. While not as conspicuously useless as pointed shoes, they were a sign of leisure, not function. As you noticed, neither is suitable for fighting dragons.
Definetly practical against dragons, they like gold and are smart aren’t they? So wouldn’t they want to hold someone fancifully dress for ransom to get more gold?
as a historical reenactor, I have found that historical clothing (in my case early 15th century) is not as silly as it seems, if you have your clothes well done and fitting they actually look cool in their own ways. Especially when you have to do things in a cold environment you understand that it all makes a lot of sense
I just put in a S shaped sleeve for the first time. I can actually move my arms without the fabric catching at my shoulders cutting into my arms and hurting me! I've got full range of motion! I will never do the modern bell shaped sleeve ever again !gussets under the arms too and shoulder seams actually were your armpits meet arms hell yeah ! Stays and vests that hold me up - shoulder back ? yes please !! ! I have 30% scoliosis from bra band up to upper shoulders and it helps me not slump and hurt !
Also, particularly if we just look at art, we shouldn't just look at the extraordinarily rich, which tends to be the case in a lot of the comparisons. Just look at the thumbnail, I'm not saying there wouldn't be a stark contrast between Aragorn in fellowship of the ring, and your typical 15th century German bürgher, or even a peasant, but it would certainly be less stark than comparing him to a gold clad noble. As to your point, 17th century clothing I've noticed looks a lot better in contemporary art than it does in a lot of reenactment. I suspect this has to do with how a lot of events in a lot of places are handled, or perhaps the 17th century artists themselves being somewhat perfectionists in their depiction. Still even baggy clothes with lots of extra fabric need to be made to fit on certain parts of your body, otherwise it will just look wrong.
I think the issue is that clothing that is actively being worn deteriorates. Its one reason we don't have many period clothes, as most clothes just falls apart with moisture and time
@@HosCreates I've been a historical reenactor and have scoliosis, and have noticed a lot of women who have scoliosis are very enthusiastic about stays and corsets. I'm the opposite of you, and have lumbar scoliosis, and have found that having something that will cinch in my waist makes everything much more comfortable.
I think the livability of armor is a big factor that is often not taken into consideration. Knights legit needed an entire entourage in order to function. I think stuff like gambeson and chain would be really popular with merchants and even for farmers worried about goblin raids.
You just need to build your european harness with the right considerations. The hardest plates to put on are pauldrons(which can be attached to the torso armour, which bypasses this issue) and sometimes the buckles on the torso armour(a front buckling brigandine will solve this issue) and rearbraces(which if your arm harness is all separately laced on can be ignored if armouring up by ones self is required.) Which seriously, if the wizard is just going into battle in their robes they can surely help the team tank with a few buckles.
I think that a lot of people forget that in a setting where fire and earth magic, as well as alchemy are ubiquitous, armor would be way easier to make.
Simply having farmer-mages that could prevent things like crop-blight, buffer against early frosts, increase yields, keep out weeds and pests, etcetera, would not only increase population by guaranteeing a steady food supply, but also cut down on illness due to malnutrition. Meaning there will be a LOT more people available to specialize in other fields.
@@MsJackle99 Yep! Not that some of those mundane spells could’t be turned to combat when needed. Imagine a harvesting spell for grain that normally husks the grain and moves it to a container. Then picture a farmer dealing with an intruder by husking a few stalks and reassigning the end location as their opponents eyes/brain. Or a smith or a baker using a spell to heat metal/stone on an opponent’s blade or armor. Or a tailor using a stitching spell to swiftly bind the legs of their opponent’s trousers together. And on and on. The sad fact of human history is that fair treatment is largely dependent on one’s ability to defend oneself. Magic opens up far more options for defense even for those who don’t make combat their career goal. Which in turn is going to have effects on culture. Feudalism could easily still exist, but the commoner class would have a lot more respect depending on just how accessible and widespread magic is.
@@MsJackle99 Would it though? Does the average mage care about the common person? What makes magic magic and not technology is that it depends upon a scarce resource of 'special people', otherwise you don't grow crops at all but just conjure food into existence. These special people will either end up ruling as mage-despots fearing only overthrow by their own students or will be guarded, bribed, indocrinated and controlled by the muggle rulers. A scarce resource is more likely to be used for warfare and controlling people than for the benefit of the economy, because it is going to be monopolised by those who hold power to secure their grip on it and there isn't a 'surplus' for civilian purposes on top of the basic demands of the powerful, particularly when you regard the competition among said powers.
Necromancers could probably create some sort of automated luxury communist utopia by simply having the undead do all the work, freeing the mortal population to pursue other goals.
Also while being inspired by medieval Europe, the environment in classic fantasy settings is always much more similar to 1600's Colonial America or Russia - sparsely populated societies with long frontiers. The overall population density wasn't particularly high in western and central Europe, but it was very evenly spread out to the point that there was essentially no wilderness between places. Villages and hamlets dotted the entire landscape. The logistics of fantasy adventuring, or really the whole concept, has a lot more in common with North American fur trapping or longhunting expeditions and the Cossack expeditions into Siberia than anything medieval.
That or the Meso/Neolithic eras, where humanity was just starting to settle and later farm. The Paleolithic would be if you want to switch out having settlements for tribes wandering an uncharted wilderness, and probably more extant megafauna.
@@draco_1876 Eastern Europe was also largely barren steppe punctuated by intermittent breadbaskets. The Eurasian steppe is more comparable to a desert of grass instead of sand with an occasional oasis than the frontier/wilderness zone of forest, swamp, field, and mountain depicted in fantasy.
27:43 Thing about armor is, you don't travel while wearing it unless there's a high probability you're going to be ambushed or skirmished while moving to the actual battlefield. Even in historical times, armor was transported on wagons or pack animals (or the wearer carried it, see Marius's Mules for a Roman example).
Really depends on the people and level of armour. Particularly in fantasy. In the Lord of the rings books Gimli is described as wearing a maile shirt, and one can probably count the times he wears something else on a single hand. I think a maile shirt (not a full hauberk, so around 6-8kg)is the highest level of armour to practically wear on a day to day basis. And I don't think its unsensible to imagine proud warrior folk getting around with such items worn with pride, or a noble rogue, or member of court wearing a finely linked maile vest underneath their regular clothes in order to protect against assassination.
@@rileyernst9086 it all depends on how dangerous it is, if you are expecting trouble, yeah a knight can sepdns a lot of time in armor and they were forced to many times, if you are walking down a city tho you might not be in full plate
I like to justify things that I think are cool even though they aren't historically accurate. For instance, bracers: people who weren't archers typically wouldn't wear leather bracers but I think they look cool. So, in my milieux, I simply made bracers a fashion trend. Those associated with a particular house or company may have a badge or some device on their bracers, and Freemen are proud to wear bracers without such a device.
This, as long as you can explain why or there is some internal consistency (like bracers just being part of the fashion, like hats might be in other cultures) you can basically do anything in fantasy.
The important thing here is that leather braces would be able to exist in the midevil period. I mean who is to say that a random archer around 1000 AD wouldnt share this sentiment. Probably one or the other dude also was thinking the same: Bracers look "cool". Only problem I see is when you do it systematically in something like movies which aims to represent history as accurate as possible. If aesthetic choices are valued over practical ones and not explained as such its creates misconceptions and simply lacks immersion.
The argument for bracers being far more widespread is cost and availability and just plain common sense. Hardened leather is very effective against slicing and even lighter projectile weapons. If you can't afford plate, then leather bracers are better than nothing at all, and even better if padded. With chainmail over the top they add a huge amount of protection and give you a robust place to secure the mail to. There's also nothing in the historical records that says only archers used bracers. We have so little evidence of what poorer people would have used that a blanket 'nope' just seems silly.
I think that a fantasy world inspired by the Greek Mycenaean period of the bronze age (c.1400 BC- c. 1100BC) would be a great setting for an RPG. At this time, Greece was made up of city states. Kings rarely ruled more land than this one city could cover, and these cities were heavily fortified with walls built of huge boulders (later ancient Greeks weren't sure how any human could have moved such massive stones, so they thought that the Cyclopes built them, and called it "Cylopean architecture). With how many deadly monsters there are in RPGs, cities being like this make a lot of sense. It's really dangerous living outside the cities, and the dangers can only be kept at bay by "heroes." To the Mycenaeans, these heroes would have been a warrior caste of some sort, while in the RPG, this is the role that adventurers fill.
That’s called sword and sorcery. It was the biggest fantasy genre before lord of the rings took off. Conan the Barbarian and the scorpion king are a prime example of sword and sandals.
For an early to high medieval setting, Rus could be exactly it. Cities of Rus, separated by forests full of dangerous animals, and attacked by political enemies from all directions, hired or welcomed feudals with a small army (basically, could be big parties) to protect themselves. Nobles would move to bigger cities and challenges after gaining experience
@@Blokewood3 Medieval Rus - as weird feudalism ... confederation on the territories of European Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (has ancient, Kievan, Separated, Moscow periods. I don't remember what but next to Novgorod, Novgorod, Kiev, Vladimir, Suzdal and Moscow were considered it's capitals respectedly). We actually have historical references for noblewomen of the period doing magic.
I like understanding the why of things. I always thought medieval linen coifs looked silly and pesanty. But now I know their purpose: as the medieval equivelent as a hair tie and hair cover I can't praise them enough. I have quite long hair, when I work I use a hair tie, when I used to wear armour you'd get hair snagged in your maile, scratching at your neck, over you face and just about stuck under every layer of armour around your head. Put a coif on and you have it all contained. If I was to work outside and not have acsess to modern hair ties a medieval linen coif would be my first choice for keeping my hair out of my face/work.
I think the reason different real life periods can so seamlessly fit together in a fantasy setting is because preindustrial technological change was so slow. The difference between say, 900 AD and 1300 AD is more societal and cultural than it is a technological change. As an example, over this time period clothing changed a lot, but it was always made with essentially the same fabrics for thousands of years.
Honestly the idea of humans whielding magic is scary af. With great power comes great responsibility. We already have great power, but we a are clearly lacking responsibility. Similar like in the "boys". Humans are not trusted with this kind of power. Cities would be leveled due to some entitled dude being enranged. Imagine the architecture? I don't think our species would survive long enough to produce significant architecture. Honestely I doubt it would be more impressive than what we have without magic. My bet is people would become not only extremely dangerous, but also lazy af. Why would you attempt anything difficult, when you can cheat yourself through life?
Shape stone is even more important for structural integrity and load bearing. Especially when combined with spells that also manipulate tree growth. It negates the need for telekinesis and cranes, and allows construction of walls a towers much taller than historically accurate while also being much thinner.
I get around this by running my D&D games in four distinct eras: late bronze age , ancient myth meets pulp sword and sorcery; "Medieval" 11th - 13th century, mostly the world as described by ibn Battuta and Marco Polo, but with sone regions being less technologically advanced; era three is "pirate-punk" 16th -18th century with tall ships, conquistadors etc. The last era is 18th - 19th century, magical industrial revolution. It's worth noting that the traditional "keep on the borderlands" style D&D setting doesn't feel like a medieval story at all. The idea of mercenaries exploring a frontier filled with hostile tribes is literally a bunch of "wild west" tropes with a thin veneer of medieval aesthetics on top. It owes more to "Cowboys and Indians" than to actual medieval stories, but has become so entrenched as "Medieval fantasy" that I think a lot of people don't realise it.
I love how you use eras, to differentiate technologies. This is exactly the way that I think it is intended. Existing in the PHB doesn't mean that it is readily available in the campaign. Regarding KOTB, while I agree that the trope fits very easily into the American Wild West, I think it also fits with the Roman conquest of Britain, the Mongol invasions or Alexander the Great's army everywhere else. Maybe not so much the mercenary aspect, but D&D is predicated on mercenary player characters.
Gygax was inspired by sword and sorcery, not medieval. In particular, if you read the stories of Cudgel from Dying Earth, I think it nails early D&D adventures pretty perfectly.
@@bobbycrosby9765 Yeah, I've never done a dying earth era for my main world, but do have another nearby planet which is more in that mold. I didn't get on well when I tried to read Jack Vance, the stories were interesting insights into early D&D, but I disliked the amoral wizards a lot. I had more fun with Clarke Ashton Smith's stories in a similar vein, the horror vibe made it work better for some reason. There's so much weird stuff in Appendix N, its fascinating to see that window into another era of fantasy really.
The Medieval fantasy is also wrong on weapons and army composition, it's WEIRD that with how much they're influenced by Westerns, they almost never have firearms. Like come on, a few single shot pistols and an arquebus would really spice the life of a society that already has full plate mail and longswords, . But the main thing I hate is how everyone is swordsman in leather armor, while in reality you'd have padded coats and mail, and polearms, polearms, polearms... also fantasy avoids cavalry too much.
As much as I appreciate this video, there are some points that I am urged to push back on. -Rapiers began phasing in at almost exactly 1500 in something akin to what we now call 'sideswords', and the first swords that could unambiguously be called rapiers show up in the early 1520s. Parrying daggers began showing up at the same time. They actually do not make a lot of sense to be showing in most D&D-esque settings as gross evidence suggests that they largely grew in popularity as a response to the growing popularity in unarmored civilian duels, which are rarely if ever presented as prevalent in most medieval/Tolkien-esque fantasy settings. Side-note, other swords continued to exist alongside other swords. The purposes and contexts of swords existed across several spectrums: cut vs thrust; EDC vs brief and prepared use; war vs duel; various armor types or lack thereof; reach vs ease of carry and draw; efficacy vs convenience. This list is not comprehensive. -This cultural thing does not exactly work with the example given. Material culture was intensely affected by industrialization, especially textiles and by extension, apparel. The socioeconomic factors at play behind 18th and 19th century fashion would not be present in this world. The bigger issue, though, is that technological stagnation is entirely implausible. Humans would presumably advance the understanding and application of magic in a manner comparable to our advancements in material science. The 'problems of the day' are never fully solved. Advancements in agricultural processes massively expanded crop production and was believed to solve world hunger... until human population size increased as food prices fell until the same supply-demand equilibrium was reached again. Whatever problems magic solves, new problems will arise from, and often the same problems will return in altered form. -You create replacement technology for many reasons; greater cost-efficiency, increased personal control, automation, cutting out middle-men. There is also no reason to assume that these two are mutually exclusive; combining material advancement with magical advancement increases the possibilities of both when combined. -The arms race point is also pretty far off. History has largely been a series of extended competition and domination, whether through violence, optics, or economics, with their neighbors. The Early Middle Ages of Europe was predominantly comprised of frequently-fighting small nations in such a manner as you described and things very much changed over time. -It is not really any more silly than 18th century or modern fashion elements. They were as appropriate for their intent and context as a longhunter's kit was for theirs. Long garments that were impractical for utilitarian purposes indicated affluence and career; the greater the obtrusiveness, the greater the wearer's implied socioeconomic standing in class and caste, as they could evidently afford to. Aesthetics, emulating those in positions of power, fashion, and the like similarly drive fashion, as did changes in environmental conditions (eg higher necks corresponding to the Little Ice Age compared to the Medieval Warm Period).
If you don't mind me asking, when it comes to writing low medieval fantasy (no magic or monsters), do you think it's feasible to have your setting have a more mobile class system where commoners have more capabilities? Like, in my story, it is easier for common folk to attain quality swords (I could write where they make an initial down payment and pay the rest in intervals over a period of time to the blacksmith or business that helped make the weapon). Also, I don't use the term "peasant". Only common citizens, noblemen, knights, dukes, lords, and kings and queens. Basically, I wonder if class mobility is dependent on technological advancement and I'm basing my story pre-industrial revolution and having no guns and electricity. Sorry for this messy post.
@@cadethumann8605 Eh... class mobility is not primarily a matter of access to armament. Much of what drove what is sometimes called the feudal or vassalage model was a combination of a localized barter economy and a military context wherein armed conflict was dominated by elite units (eg, heavy cavalry) which thus heavily favored a low-level gentry with lots of time and resources to invest into training and equipment. Meanwhile, the barter economy meant that socioeconomic power laid principally with those who owned land. Firearms were likely one of the primary factors in the decline of oath-based class and caste hierarchies in Europe because it transferred military importance from elite knights, cavalry, and such towards lower-cost masses of commoner pikemen and especially gunners and artillerymen. Well-armed, highly trained elites gradually declined as they became increasingly logistically inferior to investing those same resources into more infantry and had a knock-on effect of making monarchs less competitive and reliant on landed gentry and lead to greater centralization of political power. Meanwhile, the reestablishment of trade routes through the Silk Road during the High Middle Ages, development of mercantile groups such as the Hanseatic League, and the Age of Exploration, as well as greater industrialization, moved the economic context towards a money economy. Mercantilism and professions other than agriculture became increasingly profitable and accessible, giving rise to things such as the bourgeois as a parallel socioeconomic hierarchy to the secular and religious hierarchies that offered far greater mobility. So to answer your primary question, geopolitics, socio-politics, socioeconomic, and military context would all factor in, as well as the question of how magic functions in your world, especially with respect to accessibility. Broadly speaking, the less accessible major elements of power in a given context are, the more it inclines towards dominance by a small number of highly effective elites over the masses which tends to eventually crystalize into a low-mobility caste system. If your magic is both very useful and/or powerful and difficult to master and requires years of specialized training, that would most likely incline a system towards a steeper and less mobile hierarchy. The price of swords would be pretty inconsequential; modern people parrot a bigoted line about swords being exorbitantly expensive, which is not really true outside of the most economically depressed periods of the Early Middle Ages, and swords were largely side-arms to begin with. Spears and missile weapons (darts, slings, bows, crossbows, firearms, artillery) were far more significant and what the commoners most especially lacked was discipline, training, and understanding of tactics and strategy. Swords being more accessible is not really comparable to firearms because guns were primary weapons with range and able to overcome military-grade armor; almost all swords are sidearms that have great difficulty overcoming armor compared to polearms, and take more training to reach an equal level of military competency. Being fantasy, a lot of it is going to come down to how magic works in your setting and how fantastical elements factor into things like travel and trade. Once you are past subsistence modes of production, the more accessible things are, the more power the commoners will have relative to the elites and the more fluid hierarchies will tend to be. If 'monsters' are constantly disrupting production and trade, things will favor elites more. If magic as a powerful technology requires years of privileged education to use and has a large impact, it will favor elites more. If you want more social mobility for the commoners with a logical basis, that generally comes from increasing accessibility. As an example, you might consider making magic-or a branch of magic-relatively easy and low-investment to learn, or make some mercantile trade a flourishing industry with a low barrier to entry.
@@cadethumann8605 I mean, depending. Magic and the supernatural could move the balance either way or ultimately leave it unaffected, depending on the specifics. You have not specified much of which part of the Middle Ages it emulates or much of how the fantasy elements differ. The principals I laid out previously can help you set up a Medieval-ish context with greater social mobility yourself, and/or you can lay out some specifics of your setting that I can comment on. Civilian swords were relatively commonplace towards the tail end of the Late Middle Ages and some cities legally required citizens to have at least a sword. Some were highly restrictive well into the Early Modern Era. Not everyone who can wield a sword will, though; they are an obnoxious inconvenience to carry, so actually carrying them tends to correlate with how frequently one might expect to use it so less violent areas tended towards lower rates of wear. Most who wore swords routinely wore ones proportional to the frequency and type of problem posed, so most wore something minimal such as a large knife or small, short sword unless they had particular concerns making larger weapons more desirable.
I‘d like to make a little addition: full-plate armour disappearing due to the invention of firearms is kinda sorta a myth in itself. If you look at the various depictions of warfare during the late XV-early XVII c., you‘ll find a lot more intricate, complicated and sturdy examples of a full-plate than the simple semi-rectangular form of an actual XV c. one. In some period, you can even find the old good classical knighs clad in steel from head to toe riding a warhorse and armed with a pair of pistols themselves, LOL. The thing is not that an arquebuse or a pistolet wasn‘t capable of shooting through a full-plate armour, though they could; it‘s just armourers then design a new form of a full-plate that is impenetrable to the existing firearms until firearms masters design a new model that can pierce it, and so it is back and forth until the armour is so thich that you can only wear it if mounted, which later happened somewhere in XVI c. In some sense, “a gun that killed a knight (in his full-plate armour)” is only a half of the truth. The actual thing that did it was a pike - or, if a bit more correctly, the tactics that followed. The invention of a pike and a suitable formation of 300-500 men holding the line in the face of attacking cavalry brought the infantry back and changed the look of the battlefield due to how much cheaper a pikeman is than a fully equipped mounted rider to be effective, and although shooters with firearms greatly contributed to it, they weren‘t the reason themselves. I‘m not sure but I remember reading somewhere that crossbowmen or even archers were as common a sight as arquebusiers in early Swiss and landsknecht infantry formations. Initially, in the Dark Ages and later into the Late Medieval, infantry had almost fell into obscuity as riders dominated the battlefield simply because there was nothing in the ecomical and social structure of the European feudal states to allow building a foot force to match a mounted one; it had become a game of elite vs. elite, metaphorically speaking. Of course, you *wanted* your army to be cheaper and thus larger, but as long as you stayed in the paradigm of a mounted warfare you could do only so much. But the combination of a pike/musket tipped the balance back in favour of foot soldiers as it allowed the desired cheapness that at the same time stood on equal footing with cavalry. Oh, and cannons ;) It shifted the preferred European tactics from heavy-armoured horse-mounted cavalry backed up by some cheap shooting footmen back to cheap poking footmen backed up by heavy-armoured horse mounted cavalry, cheap shooting footmen and cannons.
Mounted armies were never actually a thing in Western Europe, those were far to costly and required extensive training for too many people to be really practical, some of the high lords of France got pretty close, commanding hundreds, if not thousand of knights and men-at-arms but an army without infantry was generally only for short, flashy heroics, not for actual military campaigns; who’d make the camp, entrench, scale the walls, man the siege weapons, be archers if not for the infantry. Even the dominance of heavy cavalry was dependent on circumstances and regularly failed against infantry also before the era of pike and shot, like in the prominent examples of the Hussite Wars, Sterling, Flanders, Azincourt and more. The cap-a-pied armour of the late medieval knight gave way for it’s natural development; armor covering less of the body but aiming to be bullet proof in the parts that really mattered, the shield was long gone and now the lance went too, the primary weapon once more became the sword now supplemented by heavy pistols and the “cuirassier” was born, who’s mission in well managed attacks were to ride on, fire up to 4 pistols and then turn away and let the next row fire and only when the opposition showed signs of breaking would a charge follow through. As the firearms became deadlier, halberds and the other melee weapons disappeared (also aided by the invention of the bayonet) which in turn made the non-bullet proof armour parts superflous and by the Napoleonic Wars the only armour left in the field were the chest plates and helmets of the dragoons with the primary weapons being sabers and muskets, though the short lance would find use with the lancer or “Ulan” of the early 1800s.
Discworld is one of the rare universes that doesn't stay in eternal medieval stasis but progresses to steampunk / Victorianish over the course of the books. It would be interesting to take a look at how it develops.
Based on what I remember from the books: The area in the Ankh-Morpork sphere of influence starts with magic being very difficult and labor-intensive, until a magical revolution occurred, at which point casting spells became a lot more common, but still limited to the 'elite' of wizards. Unlike our world, this elite was mostly keeping to themselves, and not interfering in politics. In that way, magic has become way more prevalent in society, but mostly in subtle ways, rather than for example, a prevalence of magical items, or mages for hire. Technological development happened by a combination of refurbishing old institutions (bank, post), adopting dwarven inventions (printing press), and random people being obsessed with working on their pet project that later expanded into a successful enterprise (telegraph, the railroad).
Kramer, your content is already amazingly informative, but this video (and potential series, please?) is just an absolute wealth of knowledge for those of us folks who are trying to run D&D campaigns and write novels with a more realistic/logical approach. I would be very interested in this turning into a series.
A lot of the medieval fashion and architecture that gets attention isn't strictly practical, but a display of wealth, power, and position. A product of that small segment of society who could afford to splurge. You didn't see long pointed toes on shoes, huge puffy sleeves, large vaulted ceilings and stained glass windows among the common people. Accounting for this, you could see distinct styles in the same region for lords and ladies at court, the same lords equipped for war, farmers and craft's men attached to a location, and freemen adventurers traveling.
Tip to fellow writers: To avoid having to deal with the overwhelming worry of getting something wrong in your story, I reccomand pulling up the high fantasy card. You can take inspiration from a broader irl time period depending on the geographical area that will be showcased. I.e. perhaps the 15th century knights and the 10th century vikings can each live at the extremes of a continent. Perhaps the "15th century knights" society focuses on esthethic and fashon, maybe even on making war out to be beautiful with their shining (and yes functional) armors, maybe this society is made of mere mortals so they needed to develop armory skills to protect themselves. The "vikings" society on the other hand didn't feel the need to cover up as much as the knights did, perhaps they're not human, therefore they didn't need that much armor. The viking society might see it as more honorable (or even convenient) to go in the battle field witouth too much stuff on (i mean some Celts went to battle naked to intimidate enemies). There's also the different resources the two can take from, the climate, the events that influenced their development and probably more. You wanna have a story with medieval architecture and 18th century dresses? You can, as long as you give a reasonable explenation for it, and as long as you set your story in a completely different world from the real one, that you're only taking inspiration from. This does not go to say you are justified in pulling up a Wikipedie article and calling your research done (this depends on how much you care about worldbuilding tho) in my opinion if you're taking from irl history you should be as accurate as possible with those references.
It's a bit like what theGame of Thrones TV show did. In the books everyone is using the same armour, whether it's plate for the lords, knights or anyone who can afford it, or chain or cloth for the masses. For the TV show each region gets a far more unique look, not just in colour schemes and styles but in the type of armour used. In a way in made sense. The rich Lannisters could afford to equip their basic troops with good quality armour. In the North it's not good to walk around in full plate when it's so cold, plus they didn't have the money to equip more than the elite anyway, so leather is the dominant armour. Meanwhile down in Dorne it's the opposite, it's far to hot to wear heavy armour, so they wear thin light clothing that barely counts as armour. So it's entirely possible to have multiple different types of armour/clothing within the same setting, it just needs some logical practical reason for it. Another simple cultural explanation (that is allegedly the basis for some rl things) is the "our hated enemy do it, so we don't". eg "only a cowardly Nubler hides inside steel, real warriors reject such things", "Look at the filthy barbarians, we would never demean ourselves by wearing animal hide."
I was thinking the same thing about Tolkien's LOTR series. The hobbits seem to be 18th century. The Rohirrim are Anglo-Saxon/ viking era. The people of Gondor were based off of Byzantine if I remember correctly. The Dwarves names are straight out of Norse mythology. I remember the Hildebrand bros. LOTR art reminded me of high middle ages fantasy. 😃
It seems like a weird thing to get stressed over, considering the foundations for modern fantasy were pulp literature and pre-modern fantasy literature inspired by fairy tales, which largely handwaved all the historical details because the settings were instead understood to be either dream worlds outside of real time and space, or science-fiction places on other worlds or eras in distant pre-history or the far-future, or "modern" settings in distant and far-flung unexplored corners of foreign lands or within the Hollow Earth: I doubt you could find many historical fantasy settings where "getting it right" is necessary among great (or even mediocre) classics of fantasy literature! (Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft, a couple of Gygax's bigger influences for D&D, as well as being giants of fantasy literature in their own right, sometimes dabbled in historical settings like ancient Roman Britain or Puritan England, Europe, and Africa, but Lovecraft is much better known for his Jazz-Age horror stories and Dreamlands fantasy, while R.E. Howard is better known for his Hyperborean and Atlantean pre-history settings for the likes of Conan the Barbarian and Kull of Atlantis!) In other words, the best-loved writers of fantasy literature knew where to relax on the "historical accuracy", knowing their readers were along for the ride to escape from reality into a different world of imagination, rather than to check the homework on an accurate simulation of a reality that probably wasn't all that great. Convincing details should serve the minor role of helping to support our suspension of belief, rather than the other way around, where our fantasy world would serve a major role in helping to support "accurate" historical detail!
In a lot of D&D campaigns the first major purchase for a party is a Bag of Holding. Those things are essential for carrying around a ton of equipment that the party procures and would otherwise be impractical to keep. Gotta love the "it's Magic" explanation for world dynamics 😄
Sounds kinda like the bags or storage rings that are common in Xianxia stories. As for the "it's magic"...they usually go further and specifically label it time/space and/or dimensional magic.
Suggestion for a future episode: *Best equipment for NEW adventurers* the reason being that while you and others like Shad have covered what would be the all around best gear for fantasy adventurers those takes however seem to have seasoned veterans in mind who can actually afford a Gambeson, Great helm, or a quality weapon rather than some fresh face yokel who has never seen combat and who'd only have the resources to obtain at most would be cheap yet reliable armaments.
As someone really into world building I believe personally that if you can explain something and it does not mess up the rest of the world, hell yeah! Roll it on brother.
*Fully automatic machine-guns have existed since the late 1800s and early 1900s. Today, the assault rifle (and the semiautomatic handgun) is the most advanced standard infantryman weapon. However, many (if not most) people still have double barrel shotguns and bolt action rifles and revolvers. It still makes complete historically accurate sense to have weapons invented in different time periods being used at the same time. Most people have outdated weapons because the best weapons are simply too expensive.*
Very true. Don’t look further than then Ukraine war. Both parties use very modern (drones) as well as very outdated weapons/equipment (T-55). Even use of Mosin rifles was reported…
Really clever perception about why a society stagnates compare to reality. It finally realistically answer my questions in sooooo many books about how long the society goes on the same way. Your answer totally explains the inertia in development. Thanks for sharing!
I love these types of videos, that talk about how fantasy is inspired by different time periods and cultures, then find ways to justify why the fantasy world isn't exactly the same as our history.
I disagree that Rapiers would be dominant. They're a dualling weapon. They never had a place on the battlefield or against armoured opponents, even when it was the most common sword. And battles are what the typical adventurer gets into and opponents in armour are common (another point I disagree on is how common armour would be, I feel chest plates and brigandines would at least be common). Just look at how much scorn the 17th century fencer George Silver shows towards the Rapier. I do feel the complex hilt advancements would be more common on Arming Swords (making them Sideswords) and Longswords though.
@@RainMakeR_Workshop They were commonly issued en masse to pikemen and musketeers. Rapiers aren't the flimsy sticks you're thinking of, military rapiers had cutting edges and weighed about as much as longswords, they were just balanced towards thrusting because thrusting is very effective, these could still sever limbs.
@@hewhodoes8073 Even if that was the case, it would be as backup weapons to a better primary weapon. During a period where full armour wasn't as common. Also you're mistakenly assuming a lot about my views and understanding. I don't think rapiers are flimsy sticks. I own four. A blunt sparring one, a Meyer's style sharp, a complex hilt sharp and a cup hilt sharp. I'm *very* familiar with rapiers and their use. I've also done tatami cutting with them, so I know they can sever limbs. I do think they are good swords. I just don't think they would be the "dominant" sword in a fantasy world. I could see them being the dominant sword for civilian self defence, especially amongst the upper class. But not for adventurers, soldiers and guards. A rapier would be one of my top picks for a sword around town. But not for an adventure or battlefield.
Id imagine a cutlass being used more than a rapier its a good short sword and can fit in smaller area like a long narrow alleyway, inside buildings etc. Also, farmers would adapte a machete as a self defense weapon cut down brush - them use it to cut down people . While in the Dominican Republic I heard of one guy who got jumped by 6 men had his arm cut off with a Machete. Farmer could also use pruning hooks and turn them into polearms
13:27 Four humours and blood letting. 1) Blood letting is actually very late Medieval, ongoing when George Washington died - of excessive blood letting. It has its uses in alleviating high blood pressure, as I occasionally find out through nose bleeds. 2) Four humours would: a) partly be about observable states in the body (and sugar and salt will induce different ones of them), so Medieval theory is arguably pretty good for endocrinological conditions; b) partly be misascribed to conditions caused by microbes, but the remedies would be adapted through experience, so, the theory would at least work as a fairly useful peg for the memory. For 2a, I might just want to change "pretty good" to excellent ...
There are 1000 years between early and late medieval. And that's just for Europe, which had a lot of regional variations. Early medieval rural Transylvania is totally different from late medieval London.
Though socially speaking it is very alien, the norms and attitudes having a lot more in common with now than with any period of the past, even if on the face of it the system itself is feudal.
The rapier Actually co-existed with broadswords for quite sometime during the mid to late 1500s. The widespread adoption of skinnier swords didn't happen overnight, especially since the rapier was considered more of a duelling weapon than say something to be used on the battlefield...
27:24 GAM-BE-SONS. If you're an adventurer/traveller in a bit of a risky environment (probably thieves and perhaps a band of goblins) yet are not expecting to fight all the time, the logical/clever choice is a gambeson. It's not super heavy, yet quite effective as protection, you can use it daily if the climate is cold, you can sit on it, etc etc. Similar reason for the brigandine and other leather armours being popular in med-fantasy : makes SENSE. But I'd like to see more gambesons, serisouly.
Great video, enjoyed the different points you raised. Knew it would be worth the wait, thanks for the time and effort you put into this. And fab comments too! I, too, would love if this was turned into a series 🙏
The arms-race between early firearms (bow and crossbows too if you want to extend the topic) and the armor to protect against them is a fascinating topic in and off itself. Plate armor and firearms existed side-by-side for centuries, until ultimately the firearm won out and armor only got reintroduced in the later half of the 20th century.
I'm currently working on mid-12th century fantasy which I mean to be period-accurate. The hero's sword and armor are said to be enchanted but are actually made of high-quality steel, courtesy of the Fair Folk, whose metallurgy has always been ahead of ours. He also winds up with anachronistic gauntlets from the same source after taking a bolt to the back of his hand. But they aren't into technology and science as such. I'm mostly trying to represent the medieval worldview, so I try to keep the concepts right.
I love videos like this here, this is such a nice thing to sit down and listen to and think about. Like I’m in a class for something I actually want to learn about. I can tell a ton of effort and research went into this topic, thank you Kramer!
fantastic! side note: i will not die happy until some new historical realism media shows 14th century high French fashion in all of its 5-feet long black-cone hennins and flowery mens' gowns glory
It’s definitely interesting to think about how all sorts of different styles of weapons/clothing/etc can fit together in a fantasy setting. Like how in the Redwall books swords from several different historical periods are mixed together. But it still just fits somehow! Thanks for researching all of this! Definitely food for thought as I try to work on a Ranger kit!
Ah, a great topic to muse on. This video was fun. Excellent thoughts! I do think that the same line of reasoning that you applied to the medicinal also applies to the military though. I think everyone who didn't have magic would still want more technological advancement to enable the ability to do things without it.
A great time period to consider for a fantasy and adventuring motif would be the American frontier, thinking of the Mountain Man era where there were mixed groups of different people literally traveling around and adventuring, intermarrying, and fighting all the time. Plus that's when there were pirate (Hugh Glass started off as a pirate, ended up a mountain man), some still wore armor and fought with swords and shields (Spaniards with the rottella shields and cut and thrust swords). Hell there were even monsters in the form of grizzly bears. Just sprinkle in magic and a few fantasy creatures and it's a very interesting setting.
Carrying around armour rarely comes up in ''medieval fantasy'' games I've played in as well as ran, mostly because every good adventuring party gets a wagon. Like how else are you gonna haul your loot? Bags of holding aren't a thing in every setting or game system so having to physically carry everything comes up pretty often. Also sitting on a wagon with your armour on because you're ready for bandits and so on makes more sense than walking around in it or even riding in it for long periods of time because you can just sit there with your helmet as well as gauntlets next to you, ready to be put on fast if need be. Hell, if you're riding in the back you might just take your boots off too if it's a hot day.
The alchemist class in Pathfinder is pretty much the default "scientist" character. Its actually super interesting to see biologically based scientific method being applied to magical beats and plants. Because some aspects of darwinian evolution can still work even with magic as long as the magical creatures can "develop" new powers trough mutation
Lasers at the time of their invention were famously referred to as "a solution looking for a problem" because at the time they had very few practical applications. Science isnt about solving practical problems, thats just a good way to get funding. Its about not knowing something and finding an answer. Tech might develop more slowly if its not useful, but so long as theres still curious people research will still be done
I actually wrote about this sort of thing in my historic costume final. I was talking about how the lord of the rings used anachronism to transform it into another world instead of our own. Its a very cool concept
I feel if you took one or two fantasy races and make being able to use magic amongst their kind uncommon or even non-existent. They would be ideal to pursue the more technological/industrial side of fantasy. Producing the steampunk element that's becoming more and more common in fantasy setting. Gnomes and Dwarves tend to be the ones depicted as being more technologically inclined.
I’ve been thinking about this subject a lot lately. I realized that there isn’t as much real medieval fantasy and it’s made me think of what I can do to make sure an inject as much of the medieval age into my own fantasy book that is intended to be medieval as possible. You’ve given me even more things to think about. Keep up the good work on helping us all think more deeply on fantasy subjects.
Even travel itself. Most people never went more than 10 miles from their home unless they were matching to war. You are totally correct, D&D style fantasy is a total amalgam of time periods. Great video sir!
Bullshit. People went on pilgrimage More like 50 miles from home . Some wealthy people traveled all the way from China down to the southern tip of India , trading spices and silks. They found Norse runes in the mediterranean because some bored mercenary carved it into a building while waiting orders . People from what's now considered Sweden moved to Ireland . During the Bronze age Ireland sold wool and their wool has been found all over the west coast of england . Some people never left but people have always moved went exploring and ,trading or Raiding
Wrong, most people travelled to markets to sell their produce and buy things they or their village could not produce. Travelling a couple of days to a regional market would not be uncommon. As mentioned, pilgrimmage was not uncommon, many commoners would go on pilgrimmages of dozens or a few hundred miles to visit a shrine. A smaller percentage would travel many hundreds of miles on pilgrimmages to Rome Jerusalem Santiago de Compostela etc. It might be accurate to say most people lived and died within 10 miles of where they were born, but to say they didn't travel much farther is a modern myth, like peasants being unclean, bathing only once a year.
I like this Essay :) I personally play a stone age tribe in medieval fantasy larps so I totally understand this "mental conflict" you are depicting here. In the end larp is just a very funny thibg where one can find a lot of different fantasy realities^^
There are still people living as hunter-gatherers today, so a parallel existence of different technology levels is completely realistic, particularly if those different levels exist in different regions and cultures.
Halfway through I realized that the idea of magic offering an alternative path of progress is pretty much what Graham Hancock proposes for his hypothetical antediluvian civilization. His belief is that the "ancients" had mastered psionic abilities such as being able to use telekinesis to levitate heavy objects for construction. And yes, I am well aware of his scholarly reputation or lack thereof - but since we're on the topic of fantasy, it fits.
Depends on the magic system/monsters. High magic, low technology. Low magic, higher technology. Also Monsters if they can use magic, are the monsters more passive and aren't generally seen or are they everywhere and travel is dangerous where leaving the city for wood/stone is nearly a death sentence. Magic would be more controlled to keep monsters at bay, wizards would rarely if ever leave town cause they die it's a huge loss to what little civilization exists. Also if High monsters, low magic, technology would grow rapidly to combat the threats or humanoids would struggle horribly.
Thanks sage! You're sewing a Tudor dress?! That's amazing! If you share pictures of it like on IG or in the community discord, tag me, I'd love to see the finished product!
Are you talking about the 1700s or 1800s when you mention 18th century? BEcause I'm confused with a lot of the iconography being shown is infact more Victorian than Georgian? Which did you mean, just to be sure?
A note on distillation (and this us stuff i learned from the channel Esoterica), distillation was an important alchemical procedure, as it was believed that the essence or "spirit" of a substance could be concentrated for medicinal and other alchemical purposes. Hence, very strong alcohols are called spirits, a term that is still used today
This is an incredible discussion, and others have certainly touched on it before, but not so eloquently or concisely. I do hope more YTers respond in kind. This could not only be a series on your own channel but a larger discussion in the round within the Sword community.
Depending on the mechanics of the magic system, there could be situations or tools to negate/"turn off" magic 1. Special stones that emit anti-magic fields around them 2. The magic could have some sort of environmental self-limiting quality. Both could be used to explain why armies still fight in armor
I'm dabbling in making my own TTRPG and the whole armor thing just kinda blew my mind a bit. I think I'm going to incorporate that into my system if I ever bother to finish it lol
A very interesting topic! I look forward to your future videos on it! And hey! maybe if you'd like to add more CGI into some of your shots I could help?
28:00 One thought on the armor is that while cannons, dragon breath and other things will completely ignore armor, there are still many things on the battlefield or your adventure that will be stopped by armor. You see the decline of armor as firearms got better, but it wasn't really until every soldier could carry a gun that you see armor disappear (only to reappear in the 20th century starting with bomber pilots).
Another reason why armor went away in the 17th and 18th centuries was cost. Aside from heavy cavalry, cuirassiers, and such, it was just too expensive to outfit an entire army with armor that could withstand gunfire. And yes, there was "bulletproof" armors, mostly the aforementioned breast and backplates of the cuirassiers. Bulletproof armor was, however, fairly heavy, and wouldn't allow an army of infantry to move very far or as fast as a less encumbered force, except for the cavalry. Why go to the expense of outfitting your army in heavy bulletproof armor if it's more of a detraction than an advantage?
@@johnmullholand2044 I think people overstate the point of how heavy armor was. Like, it absolutely was heavier than not having armor - but it was less heavy than modern military gear, pack and ballistic plate and all, and not necessarily more restrictive (especially if you factor in the rucksack). Would it reduce mobility? Absolutely. But modern armor and gear also does, possibly more, and somehow it seems like settled that it is better to have it. It could have been an advantage in the past too - of course, provided you had professional soldiers that could train with it, familiarize with it, get used to it and be valuable enough to warrant all the effort comparatively to using that same time and resources for something else. I guess that was the thing, whatever advantage they could gain by it pales in comparison to just getting more troops with basic equipment on the field. Even it had been an advantage, the logistics strain could be better applied to something else.
I like the idea of a late medieval/early renaissance fantasy setting that has just recently discovered advanced magic and underwent something of a magical industrial revolution in the past 200 years. That way, you can have more variation across the world, with some cities being more or less advanced than others. The capital city can have people in Tudor style clothing, living in crystal towers, riding in magically powered elevators and having golems pull carriages, while the far away villages are stuck using oxen to plow fields. I think the term for this is Arcanepunk, but I'm not sure.
I always thought Tolkien did stuff like this a lot. The Hobbits with their Victorian pocket watches and waistcoats somehow don’t clash with Aragorn and his quasi-Medieval warriors. It’s quite impressive how Tolkien just makes you not notice these things.
I saw the book Eragon get criticized for having rapiers, longswords, broadswords, and flamberges (which in this case seems to be used to refer to a two-handed sword) all at the same time. But in reality: all those weapons could be found in use at the same time. In the second half of the 16th century, rapiers were commonly carried by civilians, though they also saw use on the battlefield. General cut-and-thrust swords were still in use that were very similar to medieval arming swords in blade shape, though different in hand protection. Broadswords were in use, particularly among the Scottish, and two-handed swords were a specialized weapon for mercenaries. So really, as long as everything is kept in the proper context, there shouldn't be any problem. When looking at apparent anachronisms and how they fit into a fantasy world, I also try to consider what something requires to be invented. Take the example of the rapier: in our world, true rapiers developed in the 16th century, and had their heyday in the 17th century, but their wasn't really a technological breakthrough that made them possible. It's theoretically possible that they could have been developed earlier if anyone had seen a reason to do so. The 15th century had some very narrow swords like the estoc, though it was used for different purposes than the rapier, and various swords and daggers had extra hand protection such as side rings even as early as the 14th century.
Since D&D was called out a few times, I feel it's important ot say that the basic generic fantasy setting, the forgotten realms, is a world that, for this reason or another, doesn't hold civilisations very well. It's in never ending cycle of cataclysms and rebuilding, which means technology is wiped out every so often, and people need to start from scratch. Which is, if you think about it, a reason why magic is more prevalent then technology. Even if you lose all libraries, and everything, the old wizard can still teach from his memory. If you wipe out the whole production line for aluminium foil, let's say, it takes years to rebuild it from scratch, and that is if you find enough people from all the necessary specialisations. Also, people tend to be contained in small protected towns and villages, because in the great outside are monsters, bandits and nothing good. Caravans have to hire mercenaries for protection, just to keep the trade going. Sure, some regions are more stable, but those rarely see play. As others already stated, the state of the word D&D is going for is mixture between western (conquering the frontier) and post-apocalyptic (small, isolated communities trying to survive the next dragon attack). Which reminds me.. in the video, it's said that people go on adventuring mostly to move up in the societal ladder. I dunno, but from what I gathered, adventurers are viewed mostly as scum that does anything for money. Sure they are specialists, and it may cost you less to hire them then to build an army...but they are still mercs. It's a job you do when you have little other options.
Historic architecture and comparing it to fantasy setting would make a nice video. Kinda a time line. And games or movies or books set along that timeline
omg im so happy i found a video on this topic because when i was designing my own world i found out that lots of clasical "medievel" fashion of adventurers isnt even from the period!
Honestly, this is one of the main reasons I like writing fantasy. When writing historical fiction, I feel compelled to get everything 100% accurate, even if that's not practicable, whereas with fantasy you're allowed to jump around a bit. The books I'm writing are still largely medieval in aesthetic, but I'm free to throw in bits of later Renaissance, ancient and even early modern culture into the mix for added spice. I like the idea of having technological regression in your world's timeline - like losing the secret to Greek fire or steam power or gunpowder for centuries, only to reintroduce it later.
If you've watched the extras from the Lord of the Rings movies (and I can tell you have), the costumers specifically go into how Strider's duster jacket is not accurate to the time period but they chose it because it was more functional. They chose to prioritize function in everything. I think that's a big reason why it has lasted so long. It is tactile as well as fantastical.
i really liked this a lot and i agree with the importance of magic shaping how a fantasy world evolves. but i also had the thought of how the ancient societies around the humans would influence them. being in proximity with ancient elves and dwarves would influence architecture and clothing styles. even if the humans could not afford elvish and dwarven crafts they may strive to do their own version of it, possibly reaching earth 18th century architecture and fashion. in my mind this would be a possible explanation of these anachronisms
"To answer your question about why would technology need to advance if magic could provide everything - the movie "Onward" has that answer. A fantasy setting, where magic existed, but only mages could use magic but everyone could eventually use technology. Instead of having a mage come by your house every night to light your lights, electricity can do it." - my husband, Chuck.
I don't agree that magic would automatically cancel technological progress. If it was very common - sure. But quite often in fantasy mages/wizards/people who do magic are kind of an elite, which means there's not that many of them. "Why would you invent a cannon when a mage can cast a fireball?" - So that you don't need the mage.
What comes to Architecture in fantasy, I have noticed different cultures and especially different races seem to have very distinguished styles from each other: Vampires have Gothic or neo-gothic style, elvish style is art deco, the highly organized militaristic empire has Roman style, the seafaring corsairs have 16th century wooden houses and docs,... And should any individual build their own house in a foreign country, they would at best make it a mashup of the two cultures' styles if not sticking to their own entirely - no matter how impractical it would be in the climate or other conditions of the country they live in. Overall, the architecture seems to be more of a visual shortcut to the different cultures. And I have to say, I kinda like it that way.
You are not wrong on this. Having said that it really does depend on what "world" you are in even D&D has multiple official settings, each with there own lore and designs.
One element frequently missing in historical fantasy or even based on true events, of which I'd like to see more- head coverings! Medieval people had sooooo many hats and veils. Wearing a headcovering wasn't even simply for modesty, but for utility, warmth, cleanliness, and fashion. Farmers and warriors alike donned a coif of some sort.
I'm an aspiring writer, and one of my latest fantasy story ideas takes a fair bit of inspiration from the medieval period for its fashions, and all the women wear head coverings. The only time it would be proper for a young woman to be seen without her veil is when her hair is put up close to her head, like a crown braid. Even in other fantasy stories where the women don't wear veils they still sometimes put on kerchiefs when working, to help keep their hair clean. I need to do a better job of finding decent looking head covering options for the men, though, so far they're bare-headed unless they're wearing cloaks or helmets.
I've lost count of the number of times I've shouted at the TV/film "why aren't you wearing a hat?!"
Game of Thrones was a prime example, lots of snow and cold beyond the wall and virtually no one had a bloody hat on.
I think it's all down to them wanting to have the actors recognisable. Maybe a touch of the real world creeping in, because most people don't wear hats. But it really takes me out of the moment. Adding hats of all sorts (like you said, utility, fashion, etc) would add so much to a scene and make it feel more realistic.
Don’t forget women were required to cover their heads in public.
@@oakmaiden2133 I think that's probably covered by "modesty" but it's good to be specific, because designing a fantasy world would require detailing religions.
It could even be argued that without the building of industry, and advanced knowledge, there would not be pressure on culture, including religion, to adapt to the changes.
Oakmaiden In one of my stories, the main male character doesn't even fully see the main female character's hair until after they're married. I imagine the moment when she removes her veil for the first time to be slightly sensual without being inappropriate.
I think period blending is also more justifiable when you have super long-lived races. An elf who's 600 years old sticking with the arming sword he learned to use 500 years ago, and evolving his technique to compensate for newer tech short lived humans keep coming up with makes some kind of sense.
They can also be left behind by new technology. Stuck to the concepts of their long gone youth.
Not really; swords and weapons historically were semi-disposable items (and generally would still be so without significant amounts of magic… but other magic could undo that and make it a moot point and allow for the same amount of damage done to the sword). Over time what they use would probably develop. They may still prefer single handed swords similar to that, but it would likely turn from an older style arming sword into a later arming sword into a messer into a cutlass, for instance. This is also because the specifics of the weapon depend more on the environment than anything; with better material and workmanship you can get new developments, but also with the style of war it will change your weapons which then change how you use it which then may change the style of war again. Stagnation in this case is silly, not a viable strategy.
@@farmerboy916 swords weren't what I would call disposable. Most quality blades lasted hundreds of years, being passed down for generations, and being re-hilted as necessary. The best quality blades would be reforged occasionally in newer styles because top quality steel was precious. Cheap, low grade swords existed of course, but even those would often be reforged for a couple generations.
Most soldiers, militia or conscript in particular, wouldn't even have swords. They'd carry spears or bows. It was later in the enlightenment era when steel started to become common enough that average people could afford more than a good sized dagger.
Swords were traditionally reserved for the rentenue of nobles or some particularly wealthy mercenaries. More importantly, they were backup weapons. Pole arms, bows, crossbows, and javelins were favored on open ground. Axes and maces in close combat. Fencing duels were more a later renaissance thing.
@@joshuakruger9455 And once in a battle, swords and other weapons would very easily and quickly get damaged to the point of needing deep edge gouges sharpened out changing the profile, or getting bent and needing a smiths attention, etc. A sword can’t even be sharpened as necessary for hundreds of years, there would be nothing left. Your idea of swords passed down for generations is as display or pride pieces, not functional items that were used. Weapons as actual functional items are disposable or semi-disposable; that is, being expected to be damaged and needing repair or replacement as a matter of course.
Doesn't make any sense. How can you learn technique to compensate for newer tech? Hear me out.
To get better at something (learn the technique) you first must fail. This is fine when you are training. But when you fight an enemy that has an unexpected advantage because of his weapon then when you fail, you die. Even if you get away, you most likely wouldn't want to fight with that disadvantage again.
You could ask, well what if they can train against those weapons? Then at that point, why even train with the obsolete weapon in the first place? they may as well use the superior option.
Of course this doesn't apply if the writer made up some lore reason. That's the best thing about writing, it doesn't have to make sense.
The modern aesthetic conception of 'medieval fantasy' owes more to the Golden Age of Pirates (the late 17th century) than it does to the actual medieval period. Why? Because it was the apex of pre-mechanized civilisation. Yes, you had batch production and movable type, drills and mills and clockwork, but the universal power sources were still water, wind, and muscle. Coal was for smelting, not power. Iron was for cannonballs and nails, not hulls and boilers.
(And, yep, Cramer concludes that three minutes in.)
though keep in mind, the age of pirates, while not concurrent with knights, IS concurrent with Samurais, so we can still get knight, we just have to reskin Edo Japan into Maximilian plates, and yes, the samurais have guns.
Also that was an era when plate armor and huge pikes were still being used.
Technically, "medieval" wouldn't even exist in fantasy. It is the time after the fall of the Roman empire in which the chaos had been sorted out and things had settled down into their new standard. If you don't have a Rome or Rome expy or it didn't fall, then you wouldn't have the massive loss of knowledge that came with it and the consequences and wasted time.
@@holeeshi9959 It was concurrent with knights, just not western knights. Polish Hussars were active alongside muscovite reiters well into the late 17th century.
Khmielinsky clashed with polish winged hussars right as the privateers of caribbean grew independent.
The modern aesthetic conception of "medieval fantasy" comes from XIX century historism. Pre-Raphaelites, Ivanhoe and the like
Regarding a lot of the fantasy tropes we know coming ultimately from 17th-18th c. sources, I think that's because the fantasy we know is a descendant ultimately of late 19th c. literature... for whom the 17th-18th c. was "old timey."
Related, I think it's easy for us in the internet era to overlook just how poor the reference material was for most writers until very very recently. When all you've got are books with engravings, and those are expensive... things can get muddled quickly. :)
And said engravings may have been made by people who knew little more than you did, more imaginative than anything.
I'm Fashion designer/costume crafter. In low tech societies, everything from growing/harvesting to processing/spinning fibers and, finally, weaving cloth is a labor intensive process that makes cloth a precious resource. Therefor clothing tends to be constructed as much as possible out of rectangular panels that require the least possible cutting and waste. This is also true in societies like parts of Asia and Africa where fabric is considered an art form in itself and chopping it up is disrespectful of the artisans who created the fabric. Complex fitted garments are only made possible by rising levels of technology and the existence of an upper middle class with the interest in, and financial capacity to indulge in, conspicuous consumption. In the transition between Medieval and Renaissance Europe that was aided by the establishment of international trade that made exotic materials available. Once those conditions are in place, those fashions will filter down to lower classes through hand-me-downs, recycling materials and aspirational adaptation.
Those pointed shoes do not fit your fantasy world because they were designed to be functionally useless and demonstrate the wearers lack of need or desire to engage in productive activity. Allegedly, the strange hats evolved from people taking off their hooded caplets and pilling them on top of their heads to get them out of the way. I guess much like tying the sleeves of a modern hoody around your waist when you don't want to wear it. Eventually, they took on their own role. While not as conspicuously useless as pointed shoes, they were a sign of leisure, not function. As you noticed, neither is suitable for fighting dragons.
The hoody on the waist comparison is such a funny realization, thanks!
YES ! Thank you for explaining all this, more people need to understand these points !
the pointy shoes are poulians (poo-lanes)and because they were so impractical yes they didn't last long the hood turned hat was called a chaperone .
Definetly practical against dragons, they like gold and are smart aren’t they? So wouldn’t they want to hold someone fancifully dress for ransom to get more gold?
@@averageeughenjoyer6429 😄🤣🤣
as a historical reenactor, I have found that historical clothing (in my case early 15th century) is not as silly as it seems, if you have your clothes well done and fitting they actually look cool in their own ways. Especially when you have to do things in a cold environment you understand that it all makes a lot of sense
I just put in a S shaped sleeve for the first time. I can actually move my arms without the fabric catching at my shoulders cutting into my arms and hurting me! I've got full range of motion! I will never do the modern bell shaped sleeve ever again !gussets under the arms too and shoulder seams actually were your armpits meet arms hell yeah ! Stays and vests that hold me up - shoulder back ? yes please !! ! I have 30% scoliosis from bra band up to upper shoulders and it helps me not slump and hurt !
Also, particularly if we just look at art, we shouldn't just look at the extraordinarily rich, which tends to be the case in a lot of the comparisons. Just look at the thumbnail, I'm not saying there wouldn't be a stark contrast between Aragorn in fellowship of the ring, and your typical 15th century German bürgher, or even a peasant, but it would certainly be less stark than comparing him to a gold clad noble.
As to your point, 17th century clothing I've noticed looks a lot better in contemporary art than it does in a lot of reenactment. I suspect this has to do with how a lot of events in a lot of places are handled, or perhaps the 17th century artists themselves being somewhat perfectionists in their depiction. Still even baggy clothes with lots of extra fabric need to be made to fit on certain parts of your body, otherwise it will just look wrong.
It's also a matter of taste and how used we are to it. I prefer the 18th styles over even modern ones.
I think the issue is that clothing that is actively being worn deteriorates. Its one reason we don't have many period clothes, as most clothes just falls apart with moisture and time
@@HosCreates I've been a historical reenactor and have scoliosis, and have noticed a lot of women who have scoliosis are very enthusiastic about stays and corsets. I'm the opposite of you, and have lumbar scoliosis, and have found that having something that will cinch in my waist makes everything much more comfortable.
I think the livability of armor is a big factor that is often not taken into consideration. Knights legit needed an entire entourage in order to function. I think stuff like gambeson and chain would be really popular with merchants and even for farmers worried about goblin raids.
Japanese style armour would be pretty useful since it is easier to get on than the usual knight armour you see.
You just need to build your european harness with the right considerations. The hardest plates to put on are pauldrons(which can be attached to the torso armour, which bypasses this issue) and sometimes the buckles on the torso armour(a front buckling brigandine will solve this issue) and rearbraces(which if your arm harness is all separately laced on can be ignored if armouring up by ones self is required.) Which seriously, if the wizard is just going into battle in their robes they can surely help the team tank with a few buckles.
@@edward9674depends, ashigaru paper armor is easy to get, but samurai armor is made of steel and is very expensive.
thats what brigandine is for,
I think that a lot of people forget that in a setting where fire and earth magic, as well as alchemy are ubiquitous, armor would be way easier to make.
Simply having farmer-mages that could prevent things like crop-blight, buffer against early frosts, increase yields, keep out weeds and pests, etcetera, would not only increase population by guaranteeing a steady food supply, but also cut down on illness due to malnutrition. Meaning there will be a LOT more people available to specialize in other fields.
That is an excellent point! Most magic in a fantasy realm WOULD be of the most practical and mundane variety for the benefit of the common person.
@@MsJackle99 Yep! Not that some of those mundane spells could’t be turned to combat when needed. Imagine a harvesting spell for grain that normally husks the grain and moves it to a container. Then picture a farmer dealing with an intruder by husking a few stalks and reassigning the end location as their opponents eyes/brain. Or a smith or a baker using a spell to heat metal/stone on an opponent’s blade or armor. Or a tailor using a stitching spell to swiftly bind the legs of their opponent’s trousers together. And on and on.
The sad fact of human history is that fair treatment is largely dependent on one’s ability to defend oneself. Magic opens up far more options for defense even for those who don’t make combat their career goal. Which in turn is going to have effects on culture. Feudalism could easily still exist, but the commoner class would have a lot more respect depending on just how accessible and widespread magic is.
@@MsJackle99 Would it though? Does the average mage care about the common person? What makes magic magic and not technology is that it depends upon a scarce resource of 'special people', otherwise you don't grow crops at all but just conjure food into existence. These special people will either end up ruling as mage-despots fearing only overthrow by their own students or will be guarded, bribed, indocrinated and controlled by the muggle rulers. A scarce resource is more likely to be used for warfare and controlling people than for the benefit of the economy, because it is going to be monopolised by those who hold power to secure their grip on it and there isn't a 'surplus' for civilian purposes on top of the basic demands of the powerful, particularly when you regard the competition among said powers.
Brb, gotta create a new character.
Necromancers could probably create some sort of automated luxury communist utopia by simply having the undead do all the work, freeing the mortal population to pursue other goals.
Also while being inspired by medieval Europe, the environment in classic fantasy settings is always much more similar to 1600's Colonial America or Russia - sparsely populated societies with long frontiers. The overall population density wasn't particularly high in western and central Europe, but it was very evenly spread out to the point that there was essentially no wilderness between places. Villages and hamlets dotted the entire landscape.
The logistics of fantasy adventuring, or really the whole concept, has a lot more in common with North American fur trapping or longhunting expeditions and the Cossack expeditions into Siberia than anything medieval.
That or the Meso/Neolithic eras, where humanity was just starting to settle and later farm. The Paleolithic would be if you want to switch out having settlements for tribes wandering an uncharted wilderness, and probably more extant megafauna.
It is more comparable to longhunters than anything in Europe from the Neolithic onward.
@@NevisYsbrydEastern Europe was more sparsely populated
@@draco_1876 Eastern Europe was also largely barren steppe punctuated by intermittent breadbaskets. The Eurasian steppe is more comparable to a desert of grass instead of sand with an occasional oasis than the frontier/wilderness zone of forest, swamp, field, and mountain depicted in fantasy.
Medieval Russia would look like A Tale of Tsar Saltan, but I hear what you're saying.
27:43 Thing about armor is, you don't travel while wearing it unless there's a high probability you're going to be ambushed or skirmished while moving to the actual battlefield. Even in historical times, armor was transported on wagons or pack animals (or the wearer carried it, see Marius's Mules for a Roman example).
Really depends on the people and level of armour. Particularly in fantasy. In the Lord of the rings books Gimli is described as wearing a maile shirt, and one can probably count the times he wears something else on a single hand.
I think a maile shirt (not a full hauberk, so around 6-8kg)is the highest level of armour to practically wear on a day to day basis. And I don't think its unsensible to imagine proud warrior folk getting around with such items worn with pride, or a noble rogue, or member of court wearing a finely linked maile vest underneath their regular clothes in order to protect against assassination.
@@rileyernst9086 it all depends on how dangerous it is, if you are expecting trouble, yeah a knight can sepdns a lot of time in armor and they were forced to many times, if you are walking down a city tho you might not be in full plate
@@dking6021 Unless you are walking down a city for ceremonial purposes that require you to wear the armor tho.
I like to justify things that I think are cool even though they aren't historically accurate. For instance, bracers: people who weren't archers typically wouldn't wear leather bracers but I think they look cool. So, in my milieux, I simply made bracers a fashion trend. Those associated with a particular house or company may have a badge or some device on their bracers, and Freemen are proud to wear bracers without such a device.
That's super cool! thanks for sharing!
This, as long as you can explain why or there is some internal consistency (like bracers just being part of the fashion, like hats might be in other cultures) you can basically do anything in fantasy.
The important thing here is that leather braces would be able to exist in the midevil period.
I mean who is to say that a random archer around 1000 AD wouldnt share this sentiment. Probably one or the other dude also was thinking the same: Bracers look "cool".
Only problem I see is when you do it systematically in something like movies which aims to represent history as accurate as possible. If aesthetic choices are valued over practical ones and not explained as such its creates misconceptions and simply lacks immersion.
The argument for bracers being far more widespread is cost and availability and just plain common sense. Hardened leather is very effective against slicing and even lighter projectile weapons.
If you can't afford plate, then leather bracers are better than nothing at all, and even better if padded. With chainmail over the top they add a huge amount of protection and give you a robust place to secure the mail to.
There's also nothing in the historical records that says only archers used bracers.
We have so little evidence of what poorer people would have used that a blanket 'nope' just seems silly.
See, now I'm imagining shirts where half the sleeve isn't even sewn shut because it will be inside the bracer they assume you are wearing!
I think that a fantasy world inspired by the Greek Mycenaean period of the bronze age (c.1400 BC- c. 1100BC) would be a great setting for an RPG. At this time, Greece was made up of city states. Kings rarely ruled more land than this one city could cover, and these cities were heavily fortified with walls built of huge boulders (later ancient Greeks weren't sure how any human could have moved such massive stones, so they thought that the Cyclopes built them, and called it "Cylopean architecture).
With how many deadly monsters there are in RPGs, cities being like this make a lot of sense. It's really dangerous living outside the cities, and the dangers can only be kept at bay by "heroes." To the Mycenaeans, these heroes would have been a warrior caste of some sort, while in the RPG, this is the role that adventurers fill.
That’s called sword and sorcery. It was the biggest fantasy genre before lord of the rings took off. Conan the Barbarian and the scorpion king are a prime example of sword and sandals.
@@draco_1876 good point.
For an early to high medieval setting, Rus could be exactly it. Cities of Rus, separated by forests full of dangerous animals, and attacked by political enemies from all directions, hired or welcomed feudals with a small army (basically, could be big parties) to protect themselves.
Nobles would move to bigger cities and challenges after gaining experience
@@annasolovyeva1013 do you mean the Rus from Sweden who emigrated to Russia during the Viking Age? That's a great idea.
@@Blokewood3 Medieval Rus - as weird feudalism ... confederation on the territories of European Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (has ancient, Kievan, Separated, Moscow periods. I don't remember what but next to Novgorod, Novgorod, Kiev, Vladimir, Suzdal and Moscow were considered it's capitals respectedly).
We actually have historical references for noblewomen of the period doing magic.
I like understanding the why of things. I always thought medieval linen coifs looked silly and pesanty. But now I know their purpose: as the medieval equivelent as a hair tie and hair cover I can't praise them enough. I have quite long hair, when I work I use a hair tie, when I used to wear armour you'd get hair snagged in your maile, scratching at your neck, over you face and just about stuck under every layer of armour around your head. Put a coif on and you have it all contained. If I was to work outside and not have acsess to modern hair ties a medieval linen coif would be my first choice for keeping my hair out of my face/work.
twill tape and braids are for longer hair for men and women. this is why medieval men didn't usually have hair past their mid neck in depictions
I think the reason different real life periods can so seamlessly fit together in a fantasy setting is because preindustrial technological change was so slow. The difference between say, 900 AD and 1300 AD is more societal and cultural than it is a technological change. As an example, over this time period clothing changed a lot, but it was always made with essentially the same fabrics for thousands of years.
wool, silk, linen, cotton.
A good reminder. The last 200 years have been the biggest outlier in human history.
Imagine the architecture we could make if we had telekinesis instead of cranes!
Honestly the idea of humans whielding magic is scary af. With great power comes great responsibility. We already have great power, but we a are clearly lacking responsibility. Similar like in the "boys". Humans are not trusted with this kind of power. Cities would be leveled due to some entitled dude being enranged.
Imagine the architecture? I don't think our species would survive long enough to produce significant architecture. Honestely I doubt it would be more impressive than what we have without magic. My bet is people would become not only extremely dangerous, but also lazy af. Why would you attempt anything difficult, when you can cheat yourself through life?
Its already imagined. Stronghold building manual for dnd3
I'd rather have telekinesis.
Shape stone is even more important for structural integrity and load bearing. Especially when combined with spells that also manipulate tree growth. It negates the need for telekinesis and cranes, and allows construction of walls a towers much taller than historically accurate while also being much thinner.
@@jlokison Also, if shaping stone becomes a viable option no matter how hard the stone is, that would allow even greater strength of stone structures.
I get around this by running my D&D games in four distinct eras: late bronze age , ancient myth meets pulp sword and sorcery; "Medieval" 11th - 13th century, mostly the world as described by ibn Battuta and Marco Polo, but with sone regions being less technologically advanced; era three is "pirate-punk" 16th -18th century with tall ships, conquistadors etc. The last era is 18th - 19th century, magical industrial revolution.
It's worth noting that the traditional "keep on the borderlands" style D&D setting doesn't feel like a medieval story at all. The idea of mercenaries exploring a frontier filled with hostile tribes is literally a bunch of "wild west" tropes with a thin veneer of medieval aesthetics on top. It owes more to "Cowboys and Indians" than to actual medieval stories, but has become so entrenched as "Medieval fantasy" that I think a lot of people don't realise it.
I love how you use eras, to differentiate technologies. This is exactly the way that I think it is intended. Existing in the PHB doesn't mean that it is readily available in the campaign.
Regarding KOTB, while I agree that the trope fits very easily into the American Wild West, I think it also fits with the Roman conquest of Britain, the Mongol invasions or Alexander the Great's army everywhere else. Maybe not so much the mercenary aspect, but D&D is predicated on mercenary player characters.
Gygax was inspired by sword and sorcery, not medieval. In particular, if you read the stories of Cudgel from Dying Earth, I think it nails early D&D adventures pretty perfectly.
@@bobbycrosby9765 Yeah, I've never done a dying earth era for my main world, but do have another nearby planet which is more in that mold. I didn't get on well when I tried to read Jack Vance, the stories were interesting insights into early D&D, but I disliked the amoral wizards a lot. I had more fun with Clarke Ashton Smith's stories in a similar vein, the horror vibe made it work better for some reason. There's so much weird stuff in Appendix N, its fascinating to see that window into another era of fantasy really.
The Medieval fantasy is also wrong on weapons and army composition, it's WEIRD that with how much they're influenced by Westerns, they almost never have firearms. Like come on, a few single shot pistols and an arquebus would really spice the life of a society that already has full plate mail and longswords, . But the main thing I hate is how everyone is swordsman in leather armor, while in reality you'd have padded coats and mail, and polearms, polearms, polearms... also fantasy avoids cavalry too much.
I've always wanted a fantasy rpg set in a world inspired by ancient Greece
As much as I appreciate this video, there are some points that I am urged to push back on.
-Rapiers began phasing in at almost exactly 1500 in something akin to what we now call 'sideswords', and the first swords that could unambiguously be called rapiers show up in the early 1520s. Parrying daggers began showing up at the same time. They actually do not make a lot of sense to be showing in most D&D-esque settings as gross evidence suggests that they largely grew in popularity as a response to the growing popularity in unarmored civilian duels, which are rarely if ever presented as prevalent in most medieval/Tolkien-esque fantasy settings.
Side-note, other swords continued to exist alongside other swords. The purposes and contexts of swords existed across several spectrums: cut vs thrust; EDC vs brief and prepared use; war vs duel; various armor types or lack thereof; reach vs ease of carry and draw; efficacy vs convenience. This list is not comprehensive.
-This cultural thing does not exactly work with the example given. Material culture was intensely affected by industrialization, especially textiles and by extension, apparel. The socioeconomic factors at play behind 18th and 19th century fashion would not be present in this world.
The bigger issue, though, is that technological stagnation is entirely implausible. Humans would presumably advance the understanding and application of magic in a manner comparable to our advancements in material science. The 'problems of the day' are never fully solved. Advancements in agricultural processes massively expanded crop production and was believed to solve world hunger... until human population size increased as food prices fell until the same supply-demand equilibrium was reached again. Whatever problems magic solves, new problems will arise from, and often the same problems will return in altered form.
-You create replacement technology for many reasons; greater cost-efficiency, increased personal control, automation, cutting out middle-men. There is also no reason to assume that these two are mutually exclusive; combining material advancement with magical advancement increases the possibilities of both when combined.
-The arms race point is also pretty far off. History has largely been a series of extended competition and domination, whether through violence, optics, or economics, with their neighbors. The Early Middle Ages of Europe was predominantly comprised of frequently-fighting small nations in such a manner as you described and things very much changed over time.
-It is not really any more silly than 18th century or modern fashion elements. They were as appropriate for their intent and context as a longhunter's kit was for theirs. Long garments that were impractical for utilitarian purposes indicated affluence and career; the greater the obtrusiveness, the greater the wearer's implied socioeconomic standing in class and caste, as they could evidently afford to. Aesthetics, emulating those in positions of power, fashion, and the like similarly drive fashion, as did changes in environmental conditions (eg higher necks corresponding to the Little Ice Age compared to the Medieval Warm Period).
If you don't mind me asking, when it comes to writing low medieval fantasy (no magic or monsters), do you think it's feasible to have your setting have a more mobile class system where commoners have more capabilities?
Like, in my story, it is easier for common folk to attain quality swords (I could write where they make an initial down payment and pay the rest in intervals over a period of time to the blacksmith or business that helped make the weapon). Also, I don't use the term "peasant". Only common citizens, noblemen, knights, dukes, lords, and kings and queens.
Basically, I wonder if class mobility is dependent on technological advancement and I'm basing my story pre-industrial revolution and having no guns and electricity.
Sorry for this messy post.
@@cadethumann8605 Eh... class mobility is not primarily a matter of access to armament.
Much of what drove what is sometimes called the feudal or vassalage model was a combination of a localized barter economy and a military context wherein armed conflict was dominated by elite units (eg, heavy cavalry) which thus heavily favored a low-level gentry with lots of time and resources to invest into training and equipment. Meanwhile, the barter economy meant that socioeconomic power laid principally with those who owned land.
Firearms were likely one of the primary factors in the decline of oath-based class and caste hierarchies in Europe because it transferred military importance from elite knights, cavalry, and such towards lower-cost masses of commoner pikemen and especially gunners and artillerymen. Well-armed, highly trained elites gradually declined as they became increasingly logistically inferior to investing those same resources into more infantry and had a knock-on effect of making monarchs less competitive and reliant on landed gentry and lead to greater centralization of political power.
Meanwhile, the reestablishment of trade routes through the Silk Road during the High Middle Ages, development of mercantile groups such as the Hanseatic League, and the Age of Exploration, as well as greater industrialization, moved the economic context towards a money economy. Mercantilism and professions other than agriculture became increasingly profitable and accessible, giving rise to things such as the bourgeois as a parallel socioeconomic hierarchy to the secular and religious hierarchies that offered far greater mobility.
So to answer your primary question, geopolitics, socio-politics, socioeconomic, and military context would all factor in, as well as the question of how magic functions in your world, especially with respect to accessibility. Broadly speaking, the less accessible major elements of power in a given context are, the more it inclines towards dominance by a small number of highly effective elites over the masses which tends to eventually crystalize into a low-mobility caste system. If your magic is both very useful and/or powerful and difficult to master and requires years of specialized training, that would most likely incline a system towards a steeper and less mobile hierarchy.
The price of swords would be pretty inconsequential; modern people parrot a bigoted line about swords being exorbitantly expensive, which is not really true outside of the most economically depressed periods of the Early Middle Ages, and swords were largely side-arms to begin with. Spears and missile weapons (darts, slings, bows, crossbows, firearms, artillery) were far more significant and what the commoners most especially lacked was discipline, training, and understanding of tactics and strategy. Swords being more accessible is not really comparable to firearms because guns were primary weapons with range and able to overcome military-grade armor; almost all swords are sidearms that have great difficulty overcoming armor compared to polearms, and take more training to reach an equal level of military competency.
Being fantasy, a lot of it is going to come down to how magic works in your setting and how fantastical elements factor into things like travel and trade. Once you are past subsistence modes of production, the more accessible things are, the more power the commoners will have relative to the elites and the more fluid hierarchies will tend to be. If 'monsters' are constantly disrupting production and trade, things will favor elites more. If magic as a powerful technology requires years of privileged education to use and has a large impact, it will favor elites more. If you want more social mobility for the commoners with a logical basis, that generally comes from increasing accessibility. As an example, you might consider making magic-or a branch of magic-relatively easy and low-investment to learn, or make some mercantile trade a flourishing industry with a low barrier to entry.
@@NevisYsbryd So, is my fantasy world plausible without using magic or anything supernatural?
Sorry, I wrote this in a hurry.
@nevisysbryd7450 One more thing, commoners would have swords in a civilian setting for self defense
@@cadethumann8605 I mean, depending. Magic and the supernatural could move the balance either way or ultimately leave it unaffected, depending on the specifics. You have not specified much of which part of the Middle Ages it emulates or much of how the fantasy elements differ. The principals I laid out previously can help you set up a Medieval-ish context with greater social mobility yourself, and/or you can lay out some specifics of your setting that I can comment on.
Civilian swords were relatively commonplace towards the tail end of the Late Middle Ages and some cities legally required citizens to have at least a sword. Some were highly restrictive well into the Early Modern Era. Not everyone who can wield a sword will, though; they are an obnoxious inconvenience to carry, so actually carrying them tends to correlate with how frequently one might expect to use it so less violent areas tended towards lower rates of wear. Most who wore swords routinely wore ones proportional to the frequency and type of problem posed, so most wore something minimal such as a large knife or small, short sword unless they had particular concerns making larger weapons more desirable.
I‘d like to make a little addition: full-plate armour disappearing due to the invention of firearms is kinda sorta a myth in itself. If you look at the various depictions of warfare during the late XV-early XVII c., you‘ll find a lot more intricate, complicated and sturdy examples of a full-plate than the simple semi-rectangular form of an actual XV c. one. In some period, you can even find the old good classical knighs clad in steel from head to toe riding a warhorse and armed with a pair of pistols themselves, LOL. The thing is not that an arquebuse or a pistolet wasn‘t capable of shooting through a full-plate armour, though they could; it‘s just armourers then design a new form of a full-plate that is impenetrable to the existing firearms until firearms masters design a new model that can pierce it, and so it is back and forth until the armour is so thich that you can only wear it if mounted, which later happened somewhere in XVI c. In some sense, “a gun that killed a knight (in his full-plate armour)” is only a half of the truth. The actual thing that did it was a pike - or, if a bit more correctly, the tactics that followed. The invention of a pike and a suitable formation of 300-500 men holding the line in the face of attacking cavalry brought the infantry back and changed the look of the battlefield due to how much cheaper a pikeman is than a fully equipped mounted rider to be effective, and although shooters with firearms greatly contributed to it, they weren‘t the reason themselves. I‘m not sure but I remember reading somewhere that crossbowmen or even archers were as common a sight as arquebusiers in early Swiss and landsknecht infantry formations. Initially, in the Dark Ages and later into the Late Medieval, infantry had almost fell into obscuity as riders dominated the battlefield simply because there was nothing in the ecomical and social structure of the European feudal states to allow building a foot force to match a mounted one; it had become a game of elite vs. elite, metaphorically speaking. Of course, you *wanted* your army to be cheaper and thus larger, but as long as you stayed in the paradigm of a mounted warfare you could do only so much. But the combination of a pike/musket tipped the balance back in favour of foot soldiers as it allowed the desired cheapness that at the same time stood on equal footing with cavalry. Oh, and cannons ;) It shifted the preferred European tactics from heavy-armoured horse-mounted cavalry backed up by some cheap shooting footmen back to cheap poking footmen backed up by heavy-armoured horse mounted cavalry, cheap shooting footmen and cannons.
Much text
@@dany2217 TLDR: It was a mix of things that outdated armors, not guns alone.
Mounted armies were never actually a thing in Western Europe, those were far to costly and required extensive training for too many people to be really practical, some of the high lords of France got pretty close, commanding hundreds, if not thousand of knights and men-at-arms but an army without infantry was generally only for short, flashy heroics, not for actual military campaigns; who’d make the camp, entrench, scale the walls, man the siege weapons, be archers if not for the infantry.
Even the dominance of heavy cavalry was dependent on circumstances and regularly failed against infantry also before the era of pike and shot, like in the prominent examples of the Hussite Wars, Sterling, Flanders, Azincourt and more.
The cap-a-pied armour of the late medieval knight gave way for it’s natural development; armor covering less of the body but aiming to be bullet proof in the parts that really mattered, the shield was long gone and now the lance went too, the primary weapon once more became the sword now supplemented by heavy pistols and the “cuirassier” was born, who’s mission in well managed attacks were to ride on, fire up to 4 pistols and then turn away and let the next row fire and only when the opposition showed signs of breaking would a charge follow through.
As the firearms became deadlier, halberds and the other melee weapons disappeared (also aided by the invention of the bayonet) which in turn made the non-bullet proof armour parts superflous and by the Napoleonic Wars the only armour left in the field were the chest plates and helmets of the dragoons with the primary weapons being sabers and muskets, though the short lance would find use with the lancer or “Ulan” of the early 1800s.
Discworld is one of the rare universes that doesn't stay in eternal medieval stasis but progresses to steampunk / Victorianish over the course of the books. It would be interesting to take a look at how it develops.
Based on what I remember from the books:
The area in the Ankh-Morpork sphere of influence starts with magic being very difficult and labor-intensive, until a magical revolution occurred, at which point casting spells became a lot more common, but still limited to the 'elite' of wizards. Unlike our world, this elite was mostly keeping to themselves, and not interfering in politics. In that way, magic has become way more prevalent in society, but mostly in subtle ways, rather than for example, a prevalence of magical items, or mages for hire.
Technological development happened by a combination of refurbishing old institutions (bank, post), adopting dwarven inventions (printing press), and random people being obsessed with working on their pet project that later expanded into a successful enterprise (telegraph, the railroad).
Legend of Drizzt, Mistborn, Riftwar, and Shannara have done this as well.
Kramer, your content is already amazingly informative, but this video (and potential series, please?) is just an absolute wealth of knowledge for those of us folks who are trying to run D&D campaigns and write novels with a more realistic/logical approach. I would be very interested in this turning into a series.
I second this!!
A lot of the medieval fashion and architecture that gets attention isn't strictly practical, but a display of wealth, power, and position. A product of that small segment of society who could afford to splurge. You didn't see long pointed toes on shoes, huge puffy sleeves, large vaulted ceilings and stained glass windows among the common people.
Accounting for this, you could see distinct styles in the same region for lords and ladies at court, the same lords equipped for war, farmers and craft's men attached to a location, and freemen adventurers traveling.
Tip to fellow writers:
To avoid having to deal with the overwhelming worry of getting something wrong in your story, I reccomand pulling up the high fantasy card. You can take inspiration from a broader irl time period depending on the geographical area that will be showcased. I.e. perhaps the 15th century knights and the 10th century vikings can each live at the extremes of a continent. Perhaps the "15th century knights" society focuses on esthethic and fashon, maybe even on making war out to be beautiful with their shining (and yes functional) armors, maybe this society is made of mere mortals so they needed to develop armory skills to protect themselves. The "vikings" society on the other hand didn't feel the need to cover up as much as the knights did, perhaps they're not human, therefore they didn't need that much armor. The viking society might see it as more honorable (or even convenient) to go in the battle field witouth too much stuff on (i mean some Celts went to battle naked to intimidate enemies). There's also the different resources the two can take from, the climate, the events that influenced their development and probably more. You wanna have a story with medieval architecture and 18th century dresses? You can, as long as you give a reasonable explenation for it, and as long as you set your story in a completely different world from the real one, that you're only taking inspiration from. This does not go to say you are justified in pulling up a Wikipedie article and calling your research done (this depends on how much you care about worldbuilding tho) in my opinion if you're taking from irl history you should be as accurate as possible with those references.
It's a bit like what theGame of Thrones TV show did.
In the books everyone is using the same armour, whether it's plate for the lords, knights or anyone who can afford it, or chain or cloth for the masses.
For the TV show each region gets a far more unique look, not just in colour schemes and styles but in the type of armour used.
In a way in made sense. The rich Lannisters could afford to equip their basic troops with good quality armour. In the North it's not good to walk around in full plate when it's so cold, plus they didn't have the money to equip more than the elite anyway, so leather is the dominant armour. Meanwhile down in Dorne it's the opposite, it's far to hot to wear heavy armour, so they wear thin light clothing that barely counts as armour.
So it's entirely possible to have multiple different types of armour/clothing within the same setting, it just needs some logical practical reason for it.
Another simple cultural explanation (that is allegedly the basis for some rl things) is the "our hated enemy do it, so we don't". eg "only a cowardly Nubler hides inside steel, real warriors reject such things", "Look at the filthy barbarians, we would never demean ourselves by wearing animal hide."
I was thinking the same thing about Tolkien's LOTR series. The hobbits seem to be 18th century. The Rohirrim are Anglo-Saxon/ viking era. The people of Gondor were based off of Byzantine if I remember correctly. The Dwarves names are straight out of Norse mythology. I remember the Hildebrand bros. LOTR art reminded me of high middle ages fantasy. 😃
@@deespaeth8180 Yupyup
It seems like a weird thing to get stressed over, considering the foundations for modern fantasy were pulp literature and pre-modern fantasy literature inspired by fairy tales, which largely handwaved all the historical details because the settings were instead understood to be either dream worlds outside of real time and space, or science-fiction places on other worlds or eras in distant pre-history or the far-future, or "modern" settings in distant and far-flung unexplored corners of foreign lands or within the Hollow Earth:
I doubt you could find many historical fantasy settings where "getting it right" is necessary among great (or even mediocre) classics of fantasy literature! (Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft, a couple of Gygax's bigger influences for D&D, as well as being giants of fantasy literature in their own right, sometimes dabbled in historical settings like ancient Roman Britain or Puritan England, Europe, and Africa, but Lovecraft is much better known for his Jazz-Age horror stories and Dreamlands fantasy, while R.E. Howard is better known for his Hyperborean and Atlantean pre-history settings for the likes of Conan the Barbarian and Kull of Atlantis!)
In other words, the best-loved writers of fantasy literature knew where to relax on the "historical accuracy", knowing their readers were along for the ride to escape from reality into a different world of imagination, rather than to check the homework on an accurate simulation of a reality that probably wasn't all that great.
Convincing details should serve the minor role of helping to support our suspension of belief, rather than the other way around, where our fantasy world would serve a major role in helping to support "accurate" historical detail!
@@pietrayday9915 Thank you for this comment, really informative!
In a lot of D&D campaigns the first major purchase for a party is a Bag of Holding. Those things are essential for carrying around a ton of equipment that the party procures and would otherwise be impractical to keep. Gotta love the "it's Magic" explanation for world dynamics 😄
Sounds kinda like the bags or storage rings that are common in Xianxia stories.
As for the "it's magic"...they usually go further and specifically label it time/space and/or dimensional magic.
I was going to say magic bags of holding !
Arcane managed to present a "fantasy" world where both magic and technology exists. of course, that tech is powered by...of course...MAGIC.
So basically just real life lol
They actually have something like that in the Rifts rpg, the magic and tech level advance side by side
Or like Greedfall
I think every larp setting creates its specific "science fiction" :D
So just steampunk?
Suggestion for a future episode: *Best equipment for NEW adventurers* the reason being that while you and others like Shad have covered what would be the all around best gear for fantasy adventurers those takes however seem to have seasoned veterans in mind who can actually afford a Gambeson, Great helm, or a quality weapon rather than some fresh face yokel who has never seen combat and who'd only have the resources to obtain at most would be cheap yet reliable armaments.
I will make this video, perhaps more than one, as it's a huge topic and I can see different kits for different types of worlds
Jackchains
I mean gambeson is cheap
he was wearing brigandine
As someone really into world building I believe personally that if you can explain something and it does not mess up the rest of the world, hell yeah! Roll it on brother.
*Fully automatic machine-guns have existed since the late 1800s and early 1900s. Today, the assault rifle (and the semiautomatic handgun) is the most advanced standard infantryman weapon. However, many (if not most) people still have double barrel shotguns and bolt action rifles and revolvers. It still makes complete historically accurate sense to have weapons invented in different time periods being used at the same time. Most people have outdated weapons because the best weapons are simply too expensive.*
Totally agreed
Very true. Don’t look further than then Ukraine war. Both parties use very modern (drones) as well as very outdated weapons/equipment (T-55). Even use of Mosin rifles was reported…
Really clever perception about why a society stagnates compare to reality. It finally realistically answer my questions in sooooo many books about how long the society goes on the same way. Your answer totally explains the inertia in development. Thanks for sharing!
I love these types of videos, that talk about how fantasy is inspired by different time periods and cultures, then find ways to justify why the fantasy world isn't exactly the same as our history.
I disagree that Rapiers would be dominant. They're a dualling weapon. They never had a place on the battlefield or against armoured opponents, even when it was the most common sword. And battles are what the typical adventurer gets into and opponents in armour are common (another point I disagree on is how common armour would be, I feel chest plates and brigandines would at least be common). Just look at how much scorn the 17th century fencer George Silver shows towards the Rapier.
I do feel the complex hilt advancements would be more common on Arming Swords (making them Sideswords) and Longswords though.
They were a battlefield weapon too.
@@harrybuttery2447 A few officers choosing to take them to war, doesn't make them a "battlefield" weapon.
@@RainMakeR_Workshop They were commonly issued en masse to pikemen and musketeers. Rapiers aren't the flimsy sticks you're thinking of, military rapiers had cutting edges and weighed about as much as longswords, they were just balanced towards thrusting because thrusting is very effective, these could still sever limbs.
@@hewhodoes8073 Even if that was the case, it would be as backup weapons to a better primary weapon. During a period where full armour wasn't as common. Also you're mistakenly assuming a lot about my views and understanding. I don't think rapiers are flimsy sticks. I own four. A blunt sparring one, a Meyer's style sharp, a complex hilt sharp and a cup hilt sharp.
I'm *very* familiar with rapiers and their use. I've also done tatami cutting with them, so I know they can sever limbs. I do think they are good swords. I just don't think they would be the "dominant" sword in a fantasy world. I could see them being the dominant sword for civilian self defence, especially amongst the upper class. But not for adventurers, soldiers and guards. A rapier would be one of my top picks for a sword around town. But not for an adventure or battlefield.
Id imagine a cutlass being used more than a rapier its a good short sword and can fit in smaller area like a long narrow alleyway, inside buildings etc. Also, farmers would adapte a machete as a self defense weapon cut down brush - them use it to cut down people . While in the Dominican Republic I heard of one guy who got jumped by 6 men had his arm cut off with a Machete. Farmer could also use pruning hooks and turn them into polearms
13:27 Four humours and blood letting.
1) Blood letting is actually very late Medieval, ongoing when George Washington died - of excessive blood letting. It has its uses in alleviating high blood pressure, as I occasionally find out through nose bleeds.
2) Four humours would:
a) partly be about observable states in the body (and sugar and salt will induce different ones of them), so Medieval theory is arguably pretty good for endocrinological conditions;
b) partly be misascribed to conditions caused by microbes, but the remedies would be adapted through experience, so, the theory would at least work as a fairly useful peg for the memory.
For 2a, I might just want to change "pretty good" to excellent ...
The Victorians had dedicated, decorative leach jars. The dismissal is mostly modern minds refusing to step back into a genuine medieval mindset.
GRRM did a good job of making A SOng of Ice and Fire actually feel medieval, which I felt helped it to stand out.
Agreed
There are 1000 years between early and late medieval. And that's just for Europe, which had a lot of regional variations. Early medieval rural Transylvania is totally different from late medieval London.
The rapier = Valyrian steel swords. How to introduce a powerful sword, but make it so that it doesn't become prevalent.
Though socially speaking it is very alien, the norms and attitudes having a lot more in common with now than with any period of the past, even if on the face of it the system itself is feudal.
@@vorynrosethorn903 the real feudalsim was 21st century capitalism all along
The rapier Actually co-existed with broadswords for quite sometime during the mid to late 1500s. The widespread adoption of skinnier swords didn't happen overnight, especially since the rapier was considered more of a duelling weapon than say something to be used on the battlefield...
As a DM, I have used a few of these in the past to explain things to my players. Awesome to see the subject explored in detail.
27:24 GAM-BE-SONS. If you're an adventurer/traveller in a bit of a risky environment (probably thieves and perhaps a band of goblins) yet are not expecting to fight all the time, the logical/clever choice is a gambeson. It's not super heavy, yet quite effective as protection, you can use it daily if the climate is cold, you can sit on it, etc etc.
Similar reason for the brigandine and other leather armours being popular in med-fantasy : makes SENSE. But I'd like to see more gambesons, serisouly.
Popular option for adventurers and explorers in cold climates up to XVIII century is gambeson + chainmail shirt. E.g. Yermak
sittind down in front of all the stuff gives me a lot of old shad vibes, hope your channel grows well!
Great video, enjoyed the different points you raised. Knew it would be worth the wait, thanks for the time and effort you put into this. And fab comments too! I, too, would love if this was turned into a series 🙏
The arms-race between early firearms (bow and crossbows too if you want to extend the topic) and the armor to protect against them is a fascinating topic in and off itself. Plate armor and firearms existed side-by-side for centuries, until ultimately the firearm won out and armor only got reintroduced in the later half of the 20th century.
I'm currently working on mid-12th century fantasy which I mean to be period-accurate. The hero's sword and armor are said to be enchanted but are actually made of high-quality steel, courtesy of the Fair Folk, whose metallurgy has always been ahead of ours. He also winds up with anachronistic gauntlets from the same source after taking a bolt to the back of his hand. But they aren't into technology and science as such. I'm mostly trying to represent the medieval worldview, so I try to keep the concepts right.
I love videos like this here, this is such a nice thing to sit down and listen to and think about. Like I’m in a class for something I actually want to learn about. I can tell a ton of effort and research went into this topic, thank you Kramer!
Thank you Ezra
fantastic! side note: i will not die happy until some new historical realism media shows 14th century high French fashion in all of its 5-feet long black-cone hennins and flowery mens' gowns glory
It’s definitely interesting to think about how all sorts of different styles of weapons/clothing/etc can fit together in a fantasy setting. Like how in the Redwall books swords from several different historical periods are mixed together. But it still just fits somehow! Thanks for researching all of this! Definitely food for thought as I try to work on a Ranger kit!
Ah, a great topic to muse on. This video was fun. Excellent thoughts! I do think that the same line of reasoning that you applied to the medicinal also applies to the military though. I think everyone who didn't have magic would still want more technological advancement to enable the ability to do things without it.
A great time period to consider for a fantasy and adventuring motif would be the American frontier, thinking of the Mountain Man era where there were mixed groups of different people literally traveling around and adventuring, intermarrying, and fighting all the time. Plus that's when there were pirate (Hugh Glass started off as a pirate, ended up a mountain man), some still wore armor and fought with swords and shields (Spaniards with the rottella shields and cut and thrust swords). Hell there were even monsters in the form of grizzly bears. Just sprinkle in magic and a few fantasy creatures and it's a very interesting setting.
Carrying around armour rarely comes up in ''medieval fantasy'' games I've played in as well as ran, mostly because every good adventuring party gets a wagon. Like how else are you gonna haul your loot? Bags of holding aren't a thing in every setting or game system so having to physically carry everything comes up pretty often.
Also sitting on a wagon with your armour on because you're ready for bandits and so on makes more sense than walking around in it or even riding in it for long periods of time because you can just sit there with your helmet as well as gauntlets next to you, ready to be put on fast if need be. Hell, if you're riding in the back you might just take your boots off too if it's a hot day.
The alchemist class in Pathfinder is pretty much the default "scientist" character.
Its actually super interesting to see biologically based scientific method being applied to magical beats and plants.
Because some aspects of darwinian evolution can still work even with magic as long as the magical creatures can "develop" new powers trough mutation
Lasers at the time of their invention were famously referred to as "a solution looking for a problem" because at the time they had very few practical applications. Science isnt about solving practical problems, thats just a good way to get funding. Its about not knowing something and finding an answer. Tech might develop more slowly if its not useful, but so long as theres still curious people research will still be done
The ancent Greek's invented steam power as a desk toy... the English invent steam power to seemly replace the horse.
I actually wrote about this sort of thing in my historic costume final. I was talking about how the lord of the rings used anachronism to transform it into another world instead of our own. Its a very cool concept
I feel if you took one or two fantasy races and make being able to use magic amongst their kind uncommon or even non-existent. They would be ideal to pursue the more technological/industrial side of fantasy. Producing the steampunk element that's becoming more and more common in fantasy setting. Gnomes and Dwarves tend to be the ones depicted as being more technologically inclined.
I’ve been thinking about this subject a lot lately. I realized that there isn’t as much real medieval fantasy and it’s made me think of what I can do to make sure an inject as much of the medieval age into my own fantasy book that is intended to be medieval as possible. You’ve given me even more things to think about. Keep up the good work on helping us all think more deeply on fantasy subjects.
Even travel itself. Most people never went more than 10 miles from their home unless they were matching to war. You are totally correct, D&D style fantasy is a total amalgam of time periods. Great video sir!
Not true, pilgrimages were fairly common and peasants would often travel to cities, often they legally had to to sort out inheritances and such.
There is this very famous book written by naked paul bettany called the Canterbury Tales, which is a pilgrimage to Canterbury.
Bullshit. People went on pilgrimage More like 50 miles from home . Some wealthy people traveled all the way from China down to the southern tip of India , trading spices and silks. They found Norse runes in the mediterranean because some bored mercenary carved it into a building while waiting orders . People from what's now considered Sweden moved to Ireland . During the Bronze age Ireland sold wool and their wool has been found all over the west coast of england . Some people never left but people have always moved went exploring and ,trading or Raiding
Wrong, most people travelled to markets to sell their produce and buy things they or their village could not produce. Travelling a couple of days to a regional market would not be uncommon. As mentioned, pilgrimmage was not uncommon, many commoners would go on pilgrimmages of dozens or a few hundred miles to visit a shrine. A smaller percentage would travel many hundreds of miles on pilgrimmages to Rome Jerusalem Santiago de Compostela etc.
It might be accurate to say most people lived and died within 10 miles of where they were born, but to say they didn't travel much farther is a modern myth, like peasants being unclean, bathing only once a year.
I'd be interested to see a video on Artificers, since they do the whole "combining science and magic" thing.
I like this Essay :) I personally play a stone age tribe in medieval fantasy larps so I totally understand this "mental conflict" you are depicting here.
In the end larp is just a very funny thibg where one can find a lot of different fantasy realities^^
There are still people living as hunter-gatherers today, so a parallel existence of different technology levels is completely realistic, particularly if those different levels exist in different regions and cultures.
@@johannageisel5390 That is true. Our Stone Age tribe is actually thought in the same way :D
Halfway through I realized that the idea of magic offering an alternative path of progress is pretty much what Graham Hancock proposes for his hypothetical antediluvian civilization. His belief is that the "ancients" had mastered psionic abilities such as being able to use telekinesis to levitate heavy objects for construction. And yes, I am well aware of his scholarly reputation or lack thereof - but since we're on the topic of fantasy, it fits.
4:18 Sorry to be that one 'acshully...' guy in the comments but I'm pretty certain that the rapier was introduced in the 1500s
Thanks again for the informative video. I would love to see this turned into a series.
Depends on the magic system/monsters. High magic, low technology. Low magic, higher technology. Also Monsters if they can use magic, are the monsters more passive and aren't generally seen or are they everywhere and travel is dangerous where leaving the city for wood/stone is nearly a death sentence. Magic would be more controlled to keep monsters at bay, wizards would rarely if ever leave town cause they die it's a huge loss to what little civilization exists. Also if High monsters, low magic, technology would grow rapidly to combat the threats or humanoids would struggle horribly.
Omg yay you posted! Now I have something to watch while I sew a historically accurate Tudor dress from the 1500s, love your videos bro keep it up!
Thanks sage! You're sewing a Tudor dress?! That's amazing! If you share pictures of it like on IG or in the community discord, tag me, I'd love to see the finished product!
@@LivingAnachronism thanks! If I actually end up finishing it and liking it I will!
Henry VIII was a Renaissance prince. Most of the LOTR costumes are based on earlier periods, Dark Ages or early Medieval for the Rohirrim for example.
In fact, only the Rohirrim costumes are based on earlier fashion than Henry VIII. The rest is way later.
I love long pointed shoes. I'd love to imagine that you could use the tip to check for traps or feel for places you cannot step.
Are you talking about the 1700s or 1800s when you mention 18th century? BEcause I'm confused with a lot of the iconography being shown is infact more Victorian than Georgian?
Which did you mean, just to be sure?
A note on distillation (and this us stuff i learned from the channel Esoterica), distillation was an important alchemical procedure, as it was believed that the essence or "spirit" of a substance could be concentrated for medicinal and other alchemical purposes.
Hence, very strong alcohols are called spirits, a term that is still used today
first. Hi!
You're second, actually
Fantastic video! I’ve always wondered about this so hearing someone take these thoughts and make sense of them in a historical context is amazing
This actually just gave me a great idea for a story I'm working on based on an idea I was already playing with. Thank you.
That sounds very interesting to do as a series.
This is an incredible discussion, and others have certainly touched on it before, but not so eloquently or concisely. I do hope more YTers respond in kind. This could not only be a series on your own channel but a larger discussion in the round within the Sword community.
Nice video to wake up to. Keep up the hard work!
This video is freaking amazing. Thank you so much for all your hard work and research.
Depending on the mechanics of the magic system, there could be situations or tools to negate/"turn off" magic
1. Special stones that emit anti-magic fields around them
2. The magic could have some sort of environmental self-limiting quality.
Both could be used to explain why armies still fight in armor
I'm dabbling in making my own TTRPG and the whole armor thing just kinda blew my mind a bit. I think I'm going to incorporate that into my system if I ever bother to finish it lol
A very interesting topic! I look forward to your future videos on it!
And hey! maybe if you'd like to add more CGI into some of your shots I could help?
YES. I will message you.
Very interesting conversation, I hope you talk more about this subject
28:00 One thought on the armor is that while cannons, dragon breath and other things will completely ignore armor, there are still many things on the battlefield or your adventure that will be stopped by armor. You see the decline of armor as firearms got better, but it wasn't really until every soldier could carry a gun that you see armor disappear (only to reappear in the 20th century starting with bomber pilots).
Another reason why armor went away in the 17th and 18th centuries was cost. Aside from heavy cavalry, cuirassiers, and such, it was just too expensive to outfit an entire army with armor that could withstand gunfire. And yes, there was "bulletproof" armors, mostly the aforementioned breast and backplates of the cuirassiers. Bulletproof armor was, however, fairly heavy, and wouldn't allow an army of infantry to move very far or as fast as a less encumbered force, except for the cavalry. Why go to the expense of outfitting your army in heavy bulletproof armor if it's more of a detraction than an advantage?
@@johnmullholand2044 I think people overstate the point of how heavy armor was. Like, it absolutely was heavier than not having armor - but it was less heavy than modern military gear, pack and ballistic plate and all, and not necessarily more restrictive (especially if you factor in the rucksack). Would it reduce mobility? Absolutely. But modern armor and gear also does, possibly more, and somehow it seems like settled that it is better to have it.
It could have been an advantage in the past too - of course, provided you had professional soldiers that could train with it, familiarize with it, get used to it and be valuable enough to warrant all the effort comparatively to using that same time and resources for something else. I guess that was the thing, whatever advantage they could gain by it pales in comparison to just getting more troops with basic equipment on the field. Even it had been an advantage, the logistics strain could be better applied to something else.
I like the idea of a late medieval/early renaissance fantasy setting that has just recently discovered advanced magic and underwent something of a magical industrial revolution in the past 200 years. That way, you can have more variation across the world, with some cities being more or less advanced than others. The capital city can have people in Tudor style clothing, living in crystal towers, riding in magically powered elevators and having golems pull carriages, while the far away villages are stuck using oxen to plow fields. I think the term for this is Arcanepunk, but I'm not sure.
I always thought Tolkien did stuff like this a lot. The Hobbits with their Victorian pocket watches and waistcoats somehow don’t clash with Aragorn and his quasi-Medieval warriors. It’s quite impressive how Tolkien just makes you not notice these things.
Third time watching/listening this video.
It's one of the best on this channel!
I saw the book Eragon get criticized for having rapiers, longswords, broadswords, and flamberges (which in this case seems to be used to refer to a two-handed sword) all at the same time. But in reality: all those weapons could be found in use at the same time. In the second half of the 16th century, rapiers were commonly carried by civilians, though they also saw use on the battlefield. General cut-and-thrust swords were still in use that were very similar to medieval arming swords in blade shape, though different in hand protection. Broadswords were in use, particularly among the Scottish, and two-handed swords were a specialized weapon for mercenaries.
So really, as long as everything is kept in the proper context, there shouldn't be any problem.
When looking at apparent anachronisms and how they fit into a fantasy world, I also try to consider what something requires to be invented. Take the example of the rapier: in our world, true rapiers developed in the 16th century, and had their heyday in the 17th century, but their wasn't really a technological breakthrough that made them possible. It's theoretically possible that they could have been developed earlier if anyone had seen a reason to do so. The 15th century had some very narrow swords like the estoc, though it was used for different purposes than the rapier, and various swords and daggers had extra hand protection such as side rings even as early as the 14th century.
Since D&D was called out a few times, I feel it's important ot say that the basic generic fantasy setting, the forgotten realms, is a world that, for this reason or another, doesn't hold civilisations very well. It's in never ending cycle of cataclysms and rebuilding, which means technology is wiped out every so often, and people need to start from scratch. Which is, if you think about it, a reason why magic is more prevalent then technology. Even if you lose all libraries, and everything, the old wizard can still teach from his memory. If you wipe out the whole production line for aluminium foil, let's say, it takes years to rebuild it from scratch, and that is if you find enough people from all the necessary specialisations.
Also, people tend to be contained in small protected towns and villages, because in the great outside are monsters, bandits and nothing good. Caravans have to hire mercenaries for protection, just to keep the trade going. Sure, some regions are more stable, but those rarely see play. As others already stated, the state of the word D&D is going for is mixture between western (conquering the frontier) and post-apocalyptic (small, isolated communities trying to survive the next dragon attack).
Which reminds me.. in the video, it's said that people go on adventuring mostly to move up in the societal ladder. I dunno, but from what I gathered, adventurers are viewed mostly as scum that does anything for money. Sure they are specialists, and it may cost you less to hire them then to build an army...but they are still mercs. It's a job you do when you have little other options.
Historic architecture and comparing it to fantasy setting would make a nice video. Kinda a time line. And games or movies or books set along that timeline
Kramer, you did an absolutely marvelous job on this video! ...and thank you for squashing the wearing of codpieces and those weird long-toed shoes!
17:43 What you say about the Enlightenment period totally mirrors the era c. 1000 to 1300 in France.
omg im so happy i found a video on this topic because when i was designing my own world i found out that lots of clasical "medievel" fashion of adventurers isnt even from the period!
Another beautiful and fun to watch video. Thank you 🙏 🫶
watching this certified (Robin) Hood classic on my mirror, mirror, on the palm.
Really enjoyed this video, thank you!
Honestly, this is one of the main reasons I like writing fantasy. When writing historical fiction, I feel compelled to get everything 100% accurate, even if that's not practicable, whereas with fantasy you're allowed to jump around a bit. The books I'm writing are still largely medieval in aesthetic, but I'm free to throw in bits of later Renaissance, ancient and even early modern culture into the mix for added spice. I like the idea of having technological regression in your world's timeline - like losing the secret to Greek fire or steam power or gunpowder for centuries, only to reintroduce it later.
If you've watched the extras from the Lord of the Rings movies (and I can tell you have), the costumers specifically go into how Strider's duster jacket is not accurate to the time period but they chose it because it was more functional. They chose to prioritize function in everything. I think that's a big reason why it has lasted so long. It is tactile as well as fantastical.
Most of those hats look just fine, as long as there isn't too much random hanging fabric :P
I like the idea that Adventures are basically Fantasy Bounty Hunters.
Wow!! That was beautiful! Nice bro, really nice!!
This would be an interesting topic for a series
i really liked this a lot and i agree with the importance of magic shaping how a fantasy world evolves.
but i also had the thought of how the ancient societies around the humans would influence them. being in proximity with ancient elves and dwarves would influence architecture and clothing styles. even if the humans could not afford elvish and dwarven crafts they may strive to do their own version of it, possibly reaching earth 18th century architecture and fashion. in my mind this would be a possible explanation of these anachronisms
"To answer your question about why would technology need to advance if magic could provide everything - the movie "Onward" has that answer. A fantasy setting, where magic existed, but only mages could use magic but everyone could eventually use technology. Instead of having a mage come by your house every night to light your lights, electricity can do it." - my husband, Chuck.
Fantasy worlds have different biögeögraphy, so if it's a totally separate fantasy world, you can't expect historical accuray in that.
I don't agree that magic would automatically cancel technological progress. If it was very common - sure. But quite often in fantasy mages/wizards/people who do magic are kind of an elite, which means there's not that many of them. "Why would you invent a cannon when a mage can cast a fireball?" - So that you don't need the mage.
What comes to Architecture in fantasy, I have noticed different cultures and especially different races seem to have very distinguished styles from each other: Vampires have Gothic or neo-gothic style, elvish style is art deco, the highly organized militaristic empire has Roman style, the seafaring corsairs have 16th century wooden houses and docs,...
And should any individual build their own house in a foreign country, they would at best make it a mashup of the two cultures' styles if not sticking to their own entirely - no matter how impractical it would be in the climate or other conditions of the country they live in.
Overall, the architecture seems to be more of a visual shortcut to the different cultures. And I have to say, I kinda like it that way.
For elves I think you might mean art nouveau.
Just discovered your channel. I like your content and the very thoughtful way you present it. Subscribed.
Thank you, and welcome!
You are not wrong on this.
Having said that it really does depend on what "world" you are in even D&D has multiple official settings, each with there own lore and designs.
Love it. Great video!