162 réponses à ce sujet

[ejoslin]

Addai67 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Oh, i would think children are put to work younger than 8-10.  They'd have to be.  Still, back in the middle ages, many children were sold because their families could not afford to feed them.

!!!  Slavery was outlawed by the medieval church.  Even so, I'm not sure where you get the idea that people sold their children?  If some did so, it is hardly "many."

Hmmmm, I get that because even in the modern day, children are still sold.  I'm talking about the truly poor.  Or perhaps it was mainly orphans and abandoned chidlren that found themselves in the brothels and in the streets.  

Slavery being outlawed doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Slaving was huge business.

Edit: You're not saying slavery didn't exist in the middle ages, are you?  Indenture servitude may have been a more sanitized name I suppose.

Second edit: I understand that the slavery in western Europe was most likely not the same as in North America.

Again, history is not my field at ALL so I could be wrong about the conditions of the poor in Europe.  HOWEVER, *grin*, I have gone way from my original point that not having girls being married off at 13 14 or 15 is not airbrushing for the sake of political correctness.  Since this is going into things I obviously don't know as much about, I'll bow out! 

Modifié par ejoslin, 19 juin 2010 - 05:55 .

[Addai]

ejoslin wrote...

Now, history is not my field, but weren't abbesses over nunneries?  They weren't over churches, over priests, etc.  Now, some may have had more power than others, but they definitely did not have the same power as men in the churches did.

Yes, abbesses presided over monasteries, but that is not to minimize them.  The pre-Reformation church in Europe was largely decentralized, so the local church authorities had a lot of autonomy.  Abbesses were often out of the noble classes and could have enormous sway.  Nuns also contributed a great deal to the foundation of various national churches, from Clothilde in France to Brigid in Ireland, Hilda in England, Hroswitha in Germanic lands.. I could go on.  They were an important source of education and culture in medieval Europe, but also had political influence.

Comparing it to the Chantry, well, it's hard to compare.  Obviously the Revered Mother can be compared to a bishop, and the Grand Cleric is analogous to an archbishop I suppose.  But few churchmen in medieval England or Scotland or Ireland would have had much contact with Canterbury, still less with Rome.  So you could look at a place like Whitby in northern England, which was traditionally headed by an abbess, and say that a woman was in charge of church affairs in that region.  So the Chantry is not as "revolutionary" as it first appears.

[Addai]

ejoslin wrote...

Hmmmm, I get that because even in the modern day, children are still sold.  I'm talking about the truly poor.  Or perhaps it was mainly orphans and abandoned chidlren that found themselves in the brothels and in the streets.  

Slavery being outlawed doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Slaving was huge business.

Edit: You're not saying slavery didn't exist in the middle ages, are you?  Indenture servitude may have been a more sanitized name I suppose.

Second edit: I understand that the slavery in western Europe was most likely not the same as in North America.

I see what you're saying.  It does come down to definitions, I suppose.  A lot of economic activity can be called slavery in a more metaphorical sense.  I sometimes feel like being chained to a desk qualifies.  LOL

But the idea of non-personhood, of being able to own another person like property, was largely outlawed in medieval Europe.  It was brought back in the 16th century out of a "renaissance" of Roman law, which is also where some of those bad ideas about women came back into European consciousness.  Ferelden seems to accord pretty well with how it went.  The elves in the alienage, for instance, refer to themselves as free people and take pride in this fact, and other Fereldans will distinguish their status from the slaves held in other lands.  This despite the fact that their economic and political power is severely limited.

Again, history is not my field at ALL so I could be wrong about the conditions of the poor in Europe.  HOWEVER, *grin*, I have gone way from my original point that not having girls being married off at 13 14 or 15 is not airbrushing for the sake of political correctness.  Since this is going into things I obviously don't know as much about, I'll bow out! 

Well I'm the one who's butting in since I haven't read the whole thread.  I gather we agree then!  About the larger point, that sexual activity with young adolescents would not be considered normal even in medieval society.

Modifié par Addai67, 19 juin 2010 - 06:23 .

[ejoslin]

But but but... I cannot believe that priests weren't the main contact of the lay populace.

Though truly, the Protestant reformation did a lot of pretty bad things for women.

Also, an Abbess would be under the protection of a church; I can definitely see why the nunnery in many circumstances would be preferred to a marriage. But that wouldn't have been an option for most women, would it have been? And would most women actually be in a position to choose that for themselves? Some would, yes.

I honestly don't know. I went in here assuming that people saying that girls were married off very young in medieval Europe were correct (as I really know next to nothing about the period), but not thinking that it was a good parallel as there were many other differences with women and the Church. So the basis of what I was arguing against was flawed to begin with.

It does not surprise me that women married older as there are so many added health risks to young (13, 14, and younger) girls giving birth. These are things that would be noted and understood.

Edit: I hope you don't mind me picking your brain on this stuff.  It's fascinating!

Modifié par ejoslin, 19 juin 2010 - 06:26 .

[Addai]

ejoslin wrote...

But but but... I cannot believe that priests weren't the main contact of the lay populace.

I don't want to overstate my point.  You're right that men were still considered "in charge," even if only in name.    The traditional churches consider the priest as stand-in for Christ, and so only a man could do that.  It's just not the case that women were invisible or completely oppressed.  In many ways your choices were limited more by your class and economic status than by gender.

Though truly, the Protestant reformation did a lot of pretty bad things for women.

The Renaissance and the Reformation together, yes.  It's kind of amusing that we moderns think we've come up with so many revolutionary ideas that no one ever thought of before, when in some cases we've only solved problems that modernity itself created.

An entertaining and informative little read is Regine Pernoud's Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths.  A lot of the popular idea of the medieval era is still sticking around from the 19th century "historians" who were eager to show how much progress they'd made from the bad old days.

I honestly don't know. I went in here assuming that people saying that girls were married off very young in medieval Europe were correct (as I really know next to nothing about the period), but not thinking that it was a good parallel as there were many other differences with women and the Church. So the basis of what I was arguing against was flawed to begin with.

Not so many as you might think.  Women also fought sometimes.  LIke I said upthread, many European nations have warrior women and female religious figures in their national mythology.  This didn't have a lot to do with the average life of a woman, of course, but then mythical male figures didn't have much to do with your average crofter or footsoldier, either.

Edit: I hope you don't mind me picking your brain on this stuff.  It's fascinating!

Not at all.  I'm an amateur myself- I studied medieval history in college but since then it's a hobby, so I'm happy to be corrected if I'm misstating anything.

Modifié par Addai67, 19 juin 2010 - 06:45 .

[maxernst]

One of the difficulties with trying to pin down what things were like in "Medieval Europe" is that you're covering a huge swath of time and geography. The notion that nothing happened between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance is enlightenment propaganda, and medieval Europe includes Byzantium, Muslim Spain, the Norse, the Slavic peoples, as well as western Europe. It's almost impossible to find any appropriate generalizations...even if you restrict yourself to England, English society was hardly static between the 6th and 14th centuries.



On the subject of slavery, as ejoslin says, the fact that it was theoretically against canon law (through some of the period), never came close to eradicating it. Also, some of laws didn't actually forbid slavery, but only the export of Christian slaves. It remained widespread in Moorish Spain and Byzantium (outside the western church) and the Vikings continued to trade slaves extensively even after becoming Christian. The Venetians and Genoese also actively traded in slaves, mostly from the Black Sea area. And--depending on where you were--peasants were sometimes little better off than slaves. Though technically you couldn't buy and sell them, you could buy and sell land, and tenants were often not free to leave their lands. There was certainly some slave trade in England for some time after the Norman conquest. Peasants in England were (most of the time) free, but they did try to pass laws preventing peasants from leaving their manors after the Black Death, when labor shortages had created a suddenly competitive labor market.



The status of women is similarly complicated and varied. Certainly, abbesses were viewed as very important people and often their monasteries would own extensive lands, effectively making them part of the noble class. Still, ultimate power in the catholic hierarchy always rested with men. Depending on local laws, women could sometimes inherit property and become politically important outside the church like Matilda of Canossa and Eleanor of Aquitaine. So women weren't always chattel...but it depended on the time, the place, and (I suspect) the woman. I doubt very many women of that era would have made the choices Matilda and Eleanor did.

[Addai]

maxernst wrote...

One of the difficulties with trying to pin down what things were like in "Medieval Europe" is that you're covering a huge swath of time and geography.

Very true.  So maybe we can discuss where we pin down Ferelden in terms of a comparable history and geography?  I'll throw out a guess as Britain, 13th century.  Just entering the High Middle Ages.  I've read that it is actually based on medieval Scotland?

I doubt very many women of that era would have made the choices Matilda and Eleanor did.

Nor many men make the choices that noblemen and powerful war leaders could.  But I still think it is fair to say that the status of women we see in-game is not too far out from the historical reality.

[JowyXXV]

Meh. I just want the 1.04 patch to let us KILL TILVER!

[tmp7704]

Hmm bumping an older thread sort of, since found some dev quotes while browsing the DA wiki which have some relevance to the discussion at hand -- namely, how men and women are perceived compared to our idea of medieval Europe.

link: http://old.dragonage... women&mode=and

Okay, Mr. Gaider- are there are normative differences between gender in the game? Between NPCs. All we know is that women are Priests and families are often patrilineal though individual circumstances are often taken into account.

Well, combat and protection is still considered the male "province", though women are not restricted from such pursuits. Moral and spiritual authority rests with the female, so I don't think it should be surprising that women have more rights than they would have historically had in medieval Europe.

 Is royalty restricted by gender- as in there can only be a King and no queen?

In Ferelden there have historically been ruling Queens on occasion -- and not solely when there is no male heir.

 Is military restricted in any way by gender- as in everyone can fight, but only men get to be commanders?

In the Ferelden military you will find women in command positions (in fact, there is one depicted in the trailer, as I recall -- she is an important character), they are just not very common. As Ferelden is primarily a meritocracy, such advancement is more dependent on skill than anything else. Though prejudice would not be unheard of.

 Does this apply to other races?

No. Nor to other nations. Cultural prejudice against women is far more pronounced in the human nation of Antiva, for instance, mainly because their role is much more romanticized than in Ferelden. They are seen as precious things to be put on a pedestal and not sullied by such things as combat.

Don't really have any point based on that, it just seemed informative and as such, worth quoting.

Modifié par tmp7704, 27 juin 2010 - 05:26 .

[MKDAWUSS]

tmp7704 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

How old is Isolde? I would guess at the same age as Teagan.

She is 10 years younger (than Eamon) according to the Toolset -- he's 45, she's 35.

The timeline can be sort of arranged if you presume that some of Orlesian nobles stayed around in Ferelden for some time after the war concluded. Say, a few years more (i think the Orlesian noblewoman who was employing Leliana's mother didn't return immediately, either) ... that would give Eamon time to reach age of 20-odd or so when he was the resistance and Isolde would be then uhmm 12-13?

Eamon's 45? The dude looks 65.

[tmp7704]

They don't have a hair tint to make character appear like he's just starting to get grey hair, so it's either an obvious dye job like Loghain is sporting, or the Santa Claus look...

[Chuvvy]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

What is 'of age' in Ferelden, anyway?

16?

That's incredibly high, considering in the middle ages the average life span for a commoner was around 25 years.

[LupusYondergirl]

Slidell505 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

What is 'of age' in Ferelden, anyway?

16?

That's incredibly high, considering in the middle ages the average life span for a commoner was around 25 years.

I saw a dev post somewhere that said the main character would fall somewhere between 18 and 25, so it seems to make sense. 

25, while technically accurate, isn't really the whole story in terms of medieval life expectancy.  Infant and childhood mortality was very high compared to today, which skewed the whole thing younger when you're just looking at the pure average.  If you survived childhood you would be very likely to live to see what we would consider middle age if not older yet.  (barring death in childbirth or exceptional circumstances like the black plague). 

I'm fairly sure the average age people married at in the medieval era was around fourteen for women, with men generally being older.  (since men outliving wives while still being young enough to remarry would be very common.)

That, and the actual middle ages didn't have healing magic available to them like Ferelden does, so a higher life expectancy seems likely.

[nos_astra]

LupusYondergirl wrote...
That, and the actual middle ages didn't have healing magic available to them like Ferelden does, so a higher life expectancy seems likely.

It's certainly a bit less likely to die of an illness, You could have magical healing poultices and potions, maybe not available for elves and human commoners.
Actual healing via spell shouldn't be that common because mages are supposed to be locked away in the tower. I know, in the game we see so many apostates (in services of Howe, Loghain, the Crows and whatnot) it's easy to forget.

Modifié par klarabella, 28 juin 2010 - 01:42 .

[Carmen_Willow]

Maviarab wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Looking at one of my old history textbooks, History of the Wife it appaers that the age of consent was based around biology rather age. As soon as a girl hit puberty she was considered of age in Medieval Europe, to marry or have children. While for a male he had to be able to provide for a family on his own so that meant he had to be much older, at least into his twenties in many cases. Its only been this century since their was a legal age to marry.

This!

One cannot argue with nature, or God depending on your beliefs (which rather makes a mockery of the church legal age ruling).

Marriage in medieval times was a financial/sexual/procreational partnership that had little to do with emotion.  It was all about exchanging the ability to produce children for the ability to provide and care for them.

When it came to the nobility, it also encludes advantageous land grants (dowry) and political advantage.  Women were often married off very young - think 8 and 10 - although common practice was to wait to consummate the marriage until the bride had hit puberty or a little after. Even back then the disadvantage of getting a female pregnant too young was understood by many.

It was common practice for nobles to marry women much younger than themselves.  And because the pregnancy/childbirth fatality rates in those days came close to 50% in was common for a noble man to marry more than once, or twice (think of all those wicked step mothers in the fairy tales).

[Patriciachr34]

klarabella wrote...

It's certainly a bit less likely to die of an illness, You could have magical healing poultices and potions, maybe not available for elves and human commoners.
Actual healing via spell shouldn't be that common because mages are supposed to be locked away in the tower. I know, in the game we see so many apostates (in services of Howe, Loghain, the Crows and whatnot) it's easy to forget.

When thinking of the apostate mage, I can't help but think of the "illegal" plumber hired by the main character in the movie "Brazil".  Although one could get into trouble by not using the government sanctioned plumber, it was often more expedient for the common man to use the "illegal" plumber.  The results were often better as there were no restrictions as to how the plumbing could be fixed.  However, there were consequences if you were found out.

My guess is that apostate mages might be more prolific than the chantry would like the populace to think. Based on this assumption, in Ferelden and Thedas in general one could assume that healing magic would probably be more available than not.  I would think that the nobility would have ample access to legal mages making their lifespans longer.  Since hiding in a populated area would be dangerous for apostates, we might also assume that fairly isolated communities might have acess to healing magic and therefore be healthier.  There is also the mages collective to consider.  I really wish the end quest for this quest line were not broken as it would be interesting to see what the mage sub-culture is like in Ferelden.    Would these mages be more available to the community at large or not?  Just my thoughts.

[Herr Uhl]

Slidell505 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

What is 'of age' in Ferelden, anyway?

16?

That's incredibly high, considering in the middle ages the average life span for a commoner was around 25 years.

No, not if you retract all the child mortalities. And the doctors are seemingly competent in Thedas, as opposed to medieval Europe (ergo, they at least don't make things worse). If you became 25 you were expected to become at least 50.

[Sarah1281]

Patriciachr34 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

It's certainly a bit less likely to die of an illness, You could have magical healing poultices and potions, maybe not available for elves and human commoners.
Actual healing via spell shouldn't be that common because mages are supposed to be locked away in the tower. I know, in the game we see so many apostates (in services of Howe, Loghain, the Crows and whatnot) it's easy to forget.

When thinking of the apostate mage, I can't help but think of the "illegal" plumber hired by the main character in the movie "Brazil".  Although one could get into trouble by not using the government sanctioned plumber, it was often more expedient for the common man to use the "illegal" plumber.  The results were often better as there were no restrictions as to how the plumbing could be fixed.  However, there were consequences if you were found out.

My guess is that apostate mages might be more prolific than the chantry would like the populace to think. Based on this assumption, in Ferelden and Thedas in general one could assume that healing magic would probably be more available than not.  I would think that the nobility would have ample access to legal mages making their lifespans longer.  Since hiding in a populated area would be dangerous for apostates, we might also assume that fairly isolated communities might have acess to healing magic and therefore be healthier.  There is also the mages collective to consider.  I really wish the end quest for this quest line were not broken as it would be interesting to see what the mage sub-culture is like in Ferelden.    Would these mages be more available to the community at large or not?  Just my thoughts.

I'll agree that nobles probably had illegal access to mages. If nothing else, Isolde's appeal to Loghain to find her a mage and him supplying her one easily enough without much fanfare or suspicion on either side points to that. I doubt the common people did or they would be more exposed to magic and not freak out so much around mages.

[Avilan II]

As for women's place in Ferelden.. Remember that Ferelden is a norse / celtic society, staying "barbarian" far longer than say Orlais; and in such societies women were allowed to be both chiefs, fighters and other things, even if it was not entirely common (In the human (female) origin story this is basically stated outright, where your brother's wife is saying how a woman fighting would be impossible in Antivia, Your mother also points out that she was a sword maiden when your father met her).

[Addai]

LupusYondergirl wrote...

I'm fairly sure the average age people married at in the medieval era was around fourteen for women, with men generally being older.  (since men outliving wives while still being young enough to remarry would be very common.)

We went into this in upthread, but historians no longer believe that marriage as young teens was common in the medieval period.  Early 20s, later for men, is thought more likely.

That, and the actual middle ages didn't have healing magic available to them like Ferelden does, so a higher life expectancy seems likely.

Judging from what Alistair says when you ask about the taint, Fereldans do seem to have a fairly robust ife expectancy.  Alistair is telling you that you have 30 years give or take, you are about 20, so he considers dying at age 50 "dying young."

Modifié par Addai67, 28 juin 2010 - 10:54 .

[nos_astra]

Addai67 wrote...

LupusYondergirl wrote...
I'm fairly sure the average age people married at in the medieval era was around fourteen for women, with men generally being older.  (since men outliving wives while still being young enough to remarry would be very common.)

We went into this in upthread, but historians no longer believe that marriage as young teens was common in the medieval period.  Early 20s, later for men, is thought more likely.

The medieval period covers a thousand years, from the 5th to the 15th century. I'm sure at some time during that period 20 was more common than 14 but I have a hard time wrapping my head around it as a general rule.

Without a legal age what were people waiting for if they married at the early twenties? Today it's common to wait until the late 20s, at leats it is here in Germany. When my mother was young (30 years ago) it was extremely common to marry as soon as you came of age (18-22) in East-Germany. This age is not arbitrary, there are reasons for it. It takes very long in Germany to complete school, your vocational training or university, get a job  and achieve some security (Germans are special that way). 30 years ago in East-Germany you completed school at 16, finished your vocational training at 19 and settled into a safe job, with an effective child care system at hand.

In the middle ages there was no educational system, you were one more mouth to feed for your family. If they needed a helping hand around the house you were welcome, if not you could be a burden. Marrying wasn't that easy, too. A dowry could be required which made marriage expensive for a girl.

I know that in medieval Germany the average dropped to very young after one third of the population died because of the famines and plagues in the late middle ages. What would be the reason behind a high average?

Edit: Also, being common doesn't mean it would be illegal to marry off a fourteen-year-old, maybe frowned upon.

Addai67 wrote...

That, and the actual middle ages didn't have healing magic available to them like Ferelden does, so a higher life expectancy seems likely.

Judging from what Alistair says when you ask about the taint, Fereldans do seem to have a fairly robust ife expectancy.  Alistair is telling you that you have 30 years give or take, you are about 20, so he considers dying at age 50 "dying young."

I found this annoying. Why would he be concerned about it? He's a soldier, if you fight in close combat with a sword it's very likely you are going to be injured and die younger anyway. Maybe even with mages available.

The more we talk about it the less dark fantasy-ish Dragon Age appears to be. It's a quite comfy world, even after an occupation, a civil war and a Blight. The arrogant European in me would say it's pretty americanized and glossed over (no offense, I know, this is predjudiced, but maybe it explains why some of us are so eager to add more uncomfortable, gritty features to it).

Modifié par klarabella, 29 juin 2010 - 10:46 .

[Xandurpein]

It may be worth noting that even if the middle ages was a patriarchal society, it wasn't really patriarchal the way we understand it today. We are used to think about traditional gender roles as something that means that men and women are fundamentally different from each other. That men are supposed to be workers, warriors and providers, while women are caring and delicate child bearers.

This is not how the patriarchy worked during the middle ages really. The patriarchal system had more an emphasis on men being stronger and better than women, rather than fundamentally different. Women worked as hard as men and every one understood it. It's a modern idea that women are the "delicate sex".

You could argue that for a woman to attain the status of war leader would be more a sign of social upward mobility than gender bender. There is in fact variants of medieval myths and legends of women who, due to their strength and determination reach a higher status and physically change into men.

Souce: Thomas Laqueur: "Making Sex, Body and Gender from the Greeks ot Freud."

Modifié par Xandurpein, 29 juin 2010 - 10:32 .

[Herr Uhl]

The delicate sex thing isn't really a modern idea, but has more to do with living in comfort. You can't afford to think such things if you're starving. Which is why it was usually more prevalent in southern Europe than let's say Ireland.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Xandur.
Gender conceptions depend largely on class too. Women from lower classes generally were much more involved in labour, society and even politics than women of higher classes. The delicate sex conception imo was present throughout history, but only to those who can afford having such conceptions. Ironically, from a feminist point of view, poor women were generally better off than aristocratic ones. Of course the subject is too vast and broad to be simplified like this. Surely we have seen many women from higher classes who were also greatly involved, but in general I believe that gender conception varied according to class and social standing even to this very day.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 juin 2010 - 10:41 .

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
@ Xandur.
Gender conceptions depend largely on class too. Women from lower classes generally were much more involved in labour, society and even politics than women of higher classes.

I read about how being pale was considered especially beautiful. It meant that you were wealthy enough not to work outside, so your skin wouldn't tan.

Don't know if it it's a myth, though.