Prima Noctae rights????

[unmerged(6448)]

Still, the fact that it was normal for a lord to have many bastards and the wife was not supposed to complain kinda invalidates the argument that she would complain about him using his Ius Primae Noctis right.

Marriages in middle ages were arranges and very rarely involved love. It was actually expected (if perhaps not encouraged) of the lord to seek more carnal pleasures out of the marriage bond, while the marriage itself served only for the propagating of his line. And, to what Slargos was I believe implying, it was I think only the 19th or even 20th century that came up with a concept of rape within marriage.

I disagree. In fact, I think the initial point was very fair. Certainly a queen was a quite important figure and marital discord a serious problem, no matter what you may contend. The idea that it did not matter what the queen thought because the queen could simply be locked up and "raped" every few nights to produce an hier is an idea I find absurd. A queen certainly served more purposes than simply propogating a line. Further, there is a big difference in many women's eyes I suspect between tolerating simple affairs and tolerating the engaging of the law to obtain sex on specific and public dates with unwilling women. I wonder if your current dissatisfaction with contemporary definitions of marriage isn't causing you to attempt to redefine the nature of medieval marriage.

In popular culture there is the idea that primae noctis was widespread throughout western europe. This idea has been rather thoroughly demolished in this thread. You then say: "Well, we can still have it around Poland in the game because at this time we were much more barbaric than other parts of Europe." That may well be true. For all I know, it may even hold true today. But your logic ignores a crucial fact--there is still no convincing evidence it existed in Poland, and the simple barbarism of Poles is not enough to prove the existence of primae noctis.

So then why would the event be including in the game in any location? I can only see one answer: because of the modern day myth. And yes, I know this is just a game and a game can include mythology if it wants. However, the question many have about this game is whether it will recreate the flavor of the actual period or the flavor of the mythology of the period. The inclusion of primae noctis does not condemn the game by itself, but it is a good indication that the game is recreating the mythology rather than the reality. As someone who wants to play a more historical game, I am disturbed by this.

 

[Gwalcmai]

I doubt nobles trampling fields was a very unusual event, at least. After all, their income depended on the harvest too. And I think that's the point. If it happened, it was at least not an event common enough to justify the existence of an event in the game. And the subject of the thread is the same. It may have happened somewhere, but it was not in any way a right granted by the king to his nobles, and I guess that if it happened somewhere it would be more a cause of unrest for the peasantry than a reason for the nobles to be contented.

 

[unmerged(17248)]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but looking at this thread along with several others, it might be a good idea for a moderator to combine this into a larger "I'm Smarter Than Paradox" thread.

That way everyone can complain about every single detail of the game none of us has actually played yet, focusing especially on why <Idea X> on which I/We are particular expert(s) is/is not included in the game and what a travesty the whole thing is because of its inclusion/exclusion.

I mean, what were those people at Paradox (conjecturally) thinking?

The gall. The unmitigated gall.


EF1

~hey, my Satire Hat still fits.

I agree, I mean good God, it's a game. If you don't like that aspect of it, remove it from your game or don't use it. The point is that we don't know one way or the other what is the truth - it's all conjecture and opinions. Why don't we move on and agree to disagree .

Jono

 

[Varyar]

great movie if you like action and heroism, but the retelling of the tale is so holywood fabricated you can almost call it prapaganda

Actually, I do enjoy that movie despite it's flaws. I blame my childhood, seeing Optimus Prime and his buddies storming out of a trench yelling "never surrender" at a tender age might create a soft spot for heroism in general.

I would recommend taking a step back, a deep breath and perhaps drinking a bit (despite this being lent or whatever) as you are making a laughinstock out of yourself.

Not to be a wise-ass, but Leper King is the only one so far who has bothered to show any kind of material at all to back up his points. So the laugh is on you, really... unless you were thinking about his passionate response to this thread, of course. If so, just give him a break. Being a scholar it naturally hurts to see myths being maintained about one's area of profession.

And no, I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that you haven't backed up your statements with facts, AFAIK.

 

[unmerged(11620)]

I see nothing wrong with either of these events.

You missed my whole point. The first two events are outright fallacies. While the third might happen in a battle, it's a silly event (since it's based on an out-dated Marxist criticism). My point was that all the events I just listed are common myths about the middle ages which either have no basis in fact, or are meant purely to malign the period and people for the purposes of some other agenda. The ONLY reason one might want to put stuff like that in is if they specifically wanted to a: spoof common misconception, or b: they actually believe it. All these events would just be silly since they are all ideas meant to ridicule and have no justification in fact. Let me make, hopefully, a clearer analogy; suppose there was an event where by, you successfully freed a princess from an evil dragon? We all agree that would be just plain silly and would have no place in this game which isn't fantasy. So, why can't we agree that the equally fantastical myths commonly associated with the middle ages should also have no place. What makes dragons any less real then prima noctis? There are plenty of accounts of dragons in medieval text; more so than prima noctis certainly.

Now you may think I'm being overly lugubrious about this, but if you had to deal with it all year round from otherwise smart people you might get depressed too.

 

[Slargos]

"Well, we can still have it around Poland in the game because at this time we were much more barbaric than other parts of Europe."

Heh. Very interesting "argumentation" you've got there, Dorsey. I commend you. :rofl:

 

[Slargos]

Not to be a wise-ass, but Leper King is the only one so far who has bothered to show any kind of material at all to back up his points. So the laugh is on you, really... unless you were thinking about his passionate response to this thread, of course. If so, just give him a break. Being a scholar it naturally hurts to see myths being maintained about one's area of profession.

Not to be a wise-ass, but you're wrong. Keynes offered up "evidence" that supports the position of the myth-crowd, but without making any points or positions. Leper King has only offered up his opinion which may or may not be based on fact. We can't know until he offers up some credentials and even then we can't know since he could just be a 12 year old claiming to be a professional historian.

It's quite amusing to see how serious some of you are taking this.

 

[unmerged(11620)]

Being a scholar it naturally hurts to see myths being maintained about one's area of profession.

Thank you Varyar

And I would like to add, that I'm not calling for the unmitigated glorification of the middle ages. The fact that I could be described as a medievalist has no baring on my complaint. It is a common criticism I've heard on these boards that "if you don't think this lie about the middle ages, then you must be a medievalist so nothing you say is going to be fair anyway." The obvious problem is that it is usually never argued that the lie is in fact a truth, just that is shouldn't matter since "we all know that the middle ages were a barbaric time, right?"

 

[unmerged(11620)]

Leper King has only offered up his opinion which may or may not be based on fact. We can't know until he offers up some credentials and even then we can't know since he could just be a 12 year old claiming to be a professional historian.

I have not offered up credentials but I will say that I will be graduating soon with a degree in history, then I will be going for an MA in medieval studies at Western Michigan University (the Mecca for Medievalist around the world). I also have not offered any opinions, I have used reasoned arguments against it based on ...

1)That, in my experience, the argument about prima noctis is like really old (I cannot think of a single modern scholar of the period who I've read in like the past 6 years, who actually believes it).
2)It's unlikely since there have, to my knowledge, never been any documents containing Church criticism of the practice, which as any Church historian knows, is just plain silly, when you consider all the other thing they complained about.
3)That the form which this rights takes as feudal custom would, even if it did exist in one place at one time, likely have only existed in one place at one time. Feudal rights were not universalities. If it existed in borough A about 5 miles down the road it would cease to exist in borough B. As I said earlier the fact that this custom is generally referred to as a universal feudal right is one of the best arguments against it. And combine that with my previous point there is a lot of explaining those who support the myth of prima noctis are going to have to do.

[edit: Fixed spelling]

 

[Varyar]

Not to be a wise-ass, but you're wrong. Keynes offered up "evidence" that supports the position of the myth-crowd, but without making any points or positions. Leper King has only offered up his opinion which may or may not be based on fact.

Ah, yes I was. Sorry about that. What I ment was of course that it was only Leper King's point that had been backed up with some kind of evidence, by Keynes indeed. Substantial evidence, no, but the fact that it (appears) to be a work of scholars weighs heavier than not having anything at all. Reading it would probably remedy any doubts held...

It's quite amusing to see how serious some of you are taking this.

Again, it's essentially about arguing against myths concerning your area of expertise. Much like a US diplomat would argue against claims that the US wants to conquer the world, or a WW2 historian would argue against claims that the Holocaust never happened. It's of a lesser magnitude but still the same phenomenon.

You can be amused, since you don't seem to care. Your choice of course, but respecting those who do care wouldn't hurt, IMHO...

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Not to be a wise-ass, but you're wrong. Keynes offered up "evidence" that supports the position of the myth-crowd, but without making any points or positions. Leper King has only offered up his opinion which may or may not be based on fact. We can't know until he offers up some credentials and even then we can't know since he could just be a 12 year old claiming to be a professional historian.

It's quite amusing to see how serious some of you are taking this.

You know that Leper King and Keynes are on the same "side", right? Ie. supporting the same argument. It's the "it's real" bunch that hasn't yet done anything aside rattling their bone boxes.

And IMO, you can't take history too seriously.

I have to agree with Leper King that the attutude "its just a game/movie/documentary, it isn't supposed to be 100% accurate" is rather sickening. Media is propably the most influential tutor in the modern world. Yet many people who work in it somhow fail to realize this and take the proper responisibility.

Now what I'm saying isn't generally aimed towards Paradox (which, in fact stands out as a shining example), but if you are going to make a product concerning history and you know it isn't going to stand up to academic levels of correctness you should either:

1) Quit your job

2) Or preferably, include a declaimer stating the level of accuracy you think you have achieved, so that even the ignorant common man will realize that this isn't what actually might have happened, just something based on what somebody thought might have happened.


So just like the movie Braveheart should have included a declaimer reading "This movie is entirely fabrication of Mr. Gibsons imagination with no real basis on history of any kind" the Paradox products should hopefully include a more lenient one stating that in the light of limited human and time resources the entire medieval history can not be presented in it's full possible accuracy.

 

[Gwalcmai]

Actually, I think it was the fabrication of Randall Wallace's imagination, but other than that... I especially like the bridgeless battle of Stirling Bridge.

 

[Slargos]

Again, it's essentially about arguing against myths concerning your area of expertise. Much like a US diplomat would argue against claims that the US wants to conquer the world, or a WW2 historian would argue against claims that the Holocaust never happened.

Woe is me to be so uncaring to your needs as an opponent to this imagined event which we've not even had confirmed is actually in the game ( ) but don't you think your comparison is exaggerated in the extreme?

 

[unmerged(11620)]

So just like the movie Braveheart should have included a declaimer reading "This movie is entirely fabrication of Mr. Gibsons imagination with no real basis on history of any kind" the Paradox products should hopefully include a more lenient one stating that in the light of limited human and time resources the entire medieval history can not be presented in it's full possible accuracy.

They did, don't you remember “Historians from 'England' will say I'm a liar” ? Damn straight they will!

And for the record I would never bring up any complaints like this on any other gaming forum and probably very few other forums in general. Which, if ya think about it, is actually sort of a compliment to Paradox.

[edited for spelling again, I really am typiong too fast right now]

 

[Slargos]

You know that Leper King and Keynes are on the same "side", right? Ie. supporting the same argument. It's the "it's real" bunch that hasn't yet done anything aside rattling their bone boxes.

Actually, Keynes has only supplied evidence to the argument at hand. He has, believe it or not, yet to take "sides" in it. It *is* possible to supply evidence in an argument that disproves your own position if you're an openminded person who's interested in discerning the truest facet of the argument rather than "winning".

I have to agree with Leper King that the attutude "its just a game/movie/documentary, it isn't supposed to be 100% accurate" is rather sickening. Media is propably the most influential tutor in the modern world. Yet many people who work in it somhow fail to realize this and take the proper responisibility.

And at the same time, people who work in the industry aren't always knowledgable enough to make it 100% accurate. Infact, I'd say that in 99-100% of the time, this is the case. And when it's a case of a popularly held myth that can't be easily disproved, it's ridiculous to expect a gaming company to pick up on it.

Let's hypothetically assume that this event is in the game rather than being "fluff" in the AAR (Which, again, we don't know yet. This whole discussion could very well be meaningless.)
If this is the case, then even the beta-testers who usually represent a VERY wide range of historical knowledge have missed it.

Now what I'm saying isn't generally aimed towards Paradox (which, in fact stands out as a shining example), but if you are going to make a product concerning history and you know it isn't going to stand up to academic levels of correctness you should either:

1) Quit your job

:rofl:

Are you serious? Do you actually think that if it isn't 100% accurate, the production team should quit their jobs and go into gardening?

And your other suggestion is even more interesting. If Paradox has aimed for as much accuracy as possible, but miss 100% because they don't know they're mistaken, how are they supposed to be able to say "We're only 90% accurate" if they think they're 100% accurate?

I'm so sorry if I've stepped on any tender toes here. I feel horrible. Truly. I do. Horrible.

This isn't a history textbook. It's a game.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

I think that any useful purpose of this thread has now been exhaused and am almost inclined to go with EF's suggestion except it would take too long to merge the 700 or 800 of them. Instead I'll just go with a simple lock down.