Dark Ages and Period Advances

Story & Setting
#1

I have seen this mentioned a few times in various post and hope it is something that can be avoided in the future. Medieval, certainly, Middle, possibly, but Dark? Never.

There are a lot of misconceptions about the Medieval ages. For instance it is widely assumed that the average life span is around 40 years old. Total myth. But, also some truth. The infant mortality rate was extremely high. But, if one were to survive childhood, they lived almost just as long as we do now. With a average life span of 64 years once they reached the age of 21. The black death also took itā€™s toll. During that time period it ran strongest roughly, 1300 - 1400, it was around 45 years old. From which this should be a past event as the game is supposed to take place in the 15th Century.

Also, it was hardly the dark ages. Many advancements were made during this time. People seem to think we went through some time of stupidity, and then woke up one day in the Renaissance. There were many innovations during this time period, without which the Renaissance would never have occurred. For instance the heavy plow using oxen or horse greatly enhanced farming. Field rotation, mechanical clocks, and many other things.

I am hoping this game shows some of this and helps dispel people from using the term Dark Age. At any rate I feel by using the proper period tools that we will notice some of this in the background while out adventuring to enhance the period feel.

6 Likes
#2

Hm, it might have something to do with the where and when of my history lessons (Switzerland, 30 years ago) but ā€˜Dark Agesā€™ was used for the period roughly from the fall of Rome to the reign of Charlemagne, so just the time of the Barbarian invasion.

#3

Some history sources Iā€™ve seen end the dark ages in 1066 and the middle ages in 1453. Iā€™d just say 1000 and 1500.

#4

Here is another example in this thread of mine:

2 Likes
#5

the periods depend on where you are.
In England the medieval period typical starts in 1066.
In France and ā€œgermanyā€ the reign of Charlemange is often used.
Here in Denmark , 936, 1066, 1080 is used. But thre is no clear date. Before that we have the viking age.

#6

I also would hope that ā€œdarknessā€ is not overemphasized.

But in addition, it would be great if the story could be kept clean of modern values and other anachronisms. Usually many medieval stories and movies (basically all of them, except maybe ā€œFlesh+Bloodā€) contain e.g. characters who seem to have modern day liberal values and this way the alien aspects of medieval thinking are contrasted and reader/viewer can feel superiority. I donā€™t like this at all, main characters in movies such as Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood, Gladiator (though not medieval) etc. are just ridiculous and anachronist. All the characters should be realistic in their behavior and thinking even though they might appear then alien or repulsive at times.

3 Likes
#7

Sources Iā€™ve seen have the Middle Ages as 1066 (Norman invasion of England) to 1485 (end of The Wars of the Roses), and they held it to be pretty Europe-wide. 1066 because it was the first significant time a war of conquest was triggered by legal issues (as opposed to greed on its own), combined with an advance in battlefield tactics that stuck, followed by the instigation of a new social system (hierarchical fuedalism, compared to the levied monarchism of before). 1485 because the Battle of Bosworth was the last time a mainly-feudal army (as opposed to a mainly-professional/mercenary one) was fielded effectively, and was swiftly followed by thorough shake-up of the ruling class of England and Wales to end the continual internal wars, which allowed the already-emerging attitudes and practices of guild/patron economies to be given a stable climate in which to flourish. Given that some of theses changes (in both times) were already starting to take place across Europe, particularly Italy, and the demonstratable success of their implementation in the relatively-contained Kingdom of England, their adoption was accelerated in the rest of Europe.

1 Like
#8

That is a very english view. The war of the roses have no influence on the rest of Europe.
Flodden in 1513 still had two feudal armies on the field. The brits using billsā€¦ and not pikes.
I was still a medieval battle. And not a proper pike and shot battle.

The same goes for 1066. Nothing new in a war about succession and the use of cavalry was also not new.
Huge effect in Brittanā€¦ but not for the rest of Europe.

The Charlemagne empire is a much more important change. effecting most of Europe.

The reformation is a much better break if you want a specific year for the end of the medieval period in Europe.

1 Like
#9

Not only were the Wars of the Roses almost entirely inconsequential for the European continent (aside from France), I think it it should also be pointed out that they were actually highly unusual when compared with the other conflicts England had fought in recent memory. Both sides in the Hundred Years War, for example, primarily fielded forces of professional soldiers and mercenaries rather than feudal levies. The atypically heavy reliance on household retinues and feudal levies in the Wars of the Roses was a reflection of the fact that they were a dynastic conflict for the throne, and under the circumstances a loyal force that could be easily and quickly assembled and brought into the field was preferable to relying on mercenaries or risking domestic unrest by fielding a standing army.

When it comes to the subject of effectively dating the beginning of the early medieval period, my own preference is to use Theodoric the Greatā€™s creation of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy. Its the first time (to my knowledge, anyways) that we see any effort by a non-Roman ruler to establish some sort of status quo built on the Roman model, and it sort of sets the tone for the next several centuries as various Germanic princes attempt similarly conceived efforts until the efforts of dynasties like the Frankish Carolingians, the Saxon Ottonians or the English house of Wessex brought some measure of stability. For dating the end of the period, I agree that the Reformation is probably a pretty good place to date it at (it makes a whole lot more sense than, say, 1453).

#10

Oxen and horses who have been connected to a wooden structure for farming have been already used in the time of the anglo-saxons. A lot of bad things in the time period that happened, were the tortures (The tortures off the vikings were probably nastier and deadlier (The blood eagle) but not as frequent as in this time period) but you are right with the advanced Technology that has been researched in this time period, like the blunderbuss. Sorry if Iā€™m wrong with something, Iā€™m no histrorican, this is just what Iā€™ve heard.

#11

Iā€™m with you on this one. Start of the Reformation (1516/1517) is definitely a game changer, with the upheaval in the church and the homogenizing of church scriptures. A sign of change.

Start of the Medieval Period? I think it varies from country to country.

1 Like
#12

The only reason people use the term ā€˜dark agesā€™ is because there was so little written down about a certain period of Medieval history, at least in Egland there was a gap a a few centurys where not much was recorded about what was happening.

That is all the term stands for/means, the lack of written accounts and thus knowledged about that particular period of time.

Itā€™s got nothing to do with technological or artistic advancements etc. or lack of it as some peopel seem to wrongly assume.

#13

Iā€™d say the start of the reign of Charles the fifth is a pretty good indication to.

However do remember that knights in armor fighting with lances remained on the battlefield till around 1550 after which they gradually were transformed into cuirassiers which wore 3/4 armor and pistols instead of lances. All in all you could say warfare only entered the renaissance around the French war of Religion.

#14

you had cuirassiers with armour until wwii
And ā€œlansersā€ just as long. And the Fanco-german war did have succesfull cavalry charges despite breachloading rifles.

(and no the Polish actually did not charge Panzers with lances in 1939. That is a myth. But there where 2-3 succesfull against infantry and against a battery that was on the move. where they rode in close and used thier carabines, smgs and pistols.)

From a military point of view, I would put the renaissance to when the change to Pike and shot happened.

#15

Well pikes happened as early as 1470ish when the Swiss defeated Charles the Bold. Shot also was around at 1500 but the knight in shiny armor with lance still rode on the battlefield till 1562 so in that regard you could put it around that time.

One more thing to note is that cuirassiers dropped their armor around 1648 and it was napoleon who reintroduced them in western Europe.

#16

@Dushin

What do you mean by ā€˜shotā€™? Handgonnes have been used in Europe in their most primitive form by the late 1300s. And hackbuts, etc. came into circulation in the 15th Century with many types and alternatives being made all the way upto and surpassing the 1500 mark.

#17

I am talking about the arabesques and early muskets, those early handgonnes werenā€™t used in the Pike and shot formations we know from the renaissance.

#18

Pike and shot = the infantry is armed with a mix of pikes and shots.

Look at the spanish Tercios, the 30year was and English civil war. Offcause both Swiss and LandsknƦgts did take a leading role in the development.

Ā© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz