Medieval fiction is fashionable?

[Michael]

For the one or two possible fans of medieval fiction around here...

Chivalry and carnage: After decades of neglect, medieval themes are more popular than ever

Source: Article (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/chivalry-and-carnage-after-decades-of-neglect-medieval-themes-are-more-popular-than-ever-970617.html)

As a fan of both historical fiction as well as Tolkein's 'sword & sorcery' genre of fantasy fiction, I must say it feels rather odd to see this historical period become somewhat 'fashionable'. ;)

And it is interesting to see that Ken Follett's medieval novels (Pillars of the Earth & World Without End) get fairly high praise.

I'm certainly a fan of the genre - really the only fiction that I actually read these days - though I definitely prefer to read non-fiction medieval history (that's just me though).

[Korimyr the Rat]

Reckon it's good news, though I prefer my fantasy more modern-- ranging from steampunk to modern to Shadowrun.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Henryk Sienkiewicz was a magnificent historian, and wrote fine historical novels.

He wrote about the end of Middle Ages (1399-1410, in Poland this is medieval) about how the Poles managed to overthrow the tyranny of the Teutonic Knights. I've lived in Poland for 7 years, and it's interesting to see how many similarities there are between modern Poles and the Poles of that era. (there are also many many massive differences, please don't get me wrong here). But for example, the Poles are direct and fair-minded, and they like a drink. This is still true. If you go to a Polish wedding, drinking will always be high on the agenda.

I'm glad I don't live in the Middle Ages. No way would I appreciate it, and frankly, there wouldn't be much to appreciate. But by gum is it exhilerating to read about.

[Michael]

Henryk Sienkiewicz was a magnificent historian, and wrote fine historical novels.

He wrote about the end of Middle Ages (1399-1410, in Poland this is medieval) about how the Poles managed to overthrow the tyranny of the Teutonic Knights. I've lived in Poland for 7 years, and it's interesting to see how many similarities there are between modern Poles and the Poles of that era. (there are also many many massive differences, please don't get me wrong here). But for example, the Poles are direct and fair-minded, and they like a drink. This is still true. If you go to a Polish wedding, drinking will always be high on the agenda.

I'm glad I don't live in the Middle Ages. No way would I appreciate it, and frankly, there wouldn't be much to appreciate. But by gum is it exhilerating to read about.

I wouldn't be putting much stock into Polish medieval era politics! :lol:

Poland's medieval position is a proverbial joke and a warning about how a small group of people can destroy a nation with self-interest and stupidity.

Suffice it to say that in the 12th century, Poland was the largest and most powerful nation-state in Europe. By the 15th century, Poland had become irrelevant on the European stage (and shrunk in size). By the 17th century, it was just another crown to put into some foreigner's pocket. Most of this was due to decisions made by Poland's ruling class during the medieval era.

Perhaps a bit more dispassionate study of medieval history is in order. :shrug:

[Michael]

Btw, one of the very best medieval fiction books is Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose.

And if you like Dan Brown's Da Vinci stuff, I'd recommend Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. It is essentially satire of the Da Vinci Code before Da Vinci Code was written! :lol:

I'll also recommend a series of books by Ellis Peters about a medieval monk who acts like a detective solving crimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadfael

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Btw, one of the very best medieval fiction books is Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose.

And if you like Dan Brown's Da Vinci stuff, I'd recommend Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. It is essentially satire of the Da Vinci Code before Da Vinci Code was written! :lol:

I'll also recommend a series of books by Ellis Peters about a medieval monk who acts like a detective solving crimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadfael
I read Eco's Foucault's Pendulum.
But I read it in 2006-07, and found it a bit outdated.
I still think Dan Brown has rekindled people's interest in our history.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Michael, Poland was not an irrelevance at all in the 17th century. It was in a union with Lithuania, and together the 2 countries ruled over land from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The Poles were very enthusiastic about this union.

In the 1790s Poland was partitioned into Austria-Hungary, Russia and Prussia. It had to wait til 1918 before getting independence.

[Michael]

Michael, Poland was not an irrelevance at all in the 17th century. It was in a union with Lithuania, and together the 2 countries ruled over land from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The Poles were very enthusiastic about this union.

In the 1790s Poland was partitioned into Austria-Hungary, Russia and Prussia. It had to wait til 1918 before getting independence.

The point I made is that Poland was the largest nation in Europe in the early middle ages - then it began a relative decline that continued to the 20th century.

That's an argument made directly against your assertion about medieval Polish politics. The noble-veto adopted at that time enabled the nobles to enact laws compelling the king and nation to act, but at the same time, enabled the nobles to avoid paying any taxation or making any contribution to the state. The result was that the Polish crown was essentially pennyless and powerless and soon started losing territory and prestige at every turn of history as it became a relative European 'weakling'. That's actual Polish history, not the kind that is spoken of in Poland.

And I'm not trying to be harsh or dismissive of Polish culture or history. I'm just putting Polish medieval politics into actual historical perspective here.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Michael, but I don't see where my original assertian, that Poland once overthrew the Teutonic Knights (Grunwald 1410) is contradicted by anything you later said?

[Michael]

Michael, but I don't see where my original assertian, that Poland once overthrew the Teutonic Knights (Grunwald 1410) is contradicted by anything you later said?

That Poland was ruled in the first place by Teutonic Knights is proof of how badly Poland was ruled by Polish nobility in the medieval era.

My point is that much of Poland's historical misery can be blamed on the Polish ruling class - going right back to the medieval era.

Btw, the "medieval era" is historically defined in Europe as the period between the fall of the Roman Empire and the birth of the modern nation state - roughly covering the period of 500 AD to 1500 AD.

Poland failed to make the transition from feudalism to a modern state during this period.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Poland was only under the Teutonic Knights for a short period. The Teutons attacked Poland because the king of Poland was Lithuanian former Pagan, and this was the excuse that the Pope used to give the Teutons permission to attack Poland.

Poland had a Lithuanian king, because he had married the Queen of Poland, and moved to Krakow, the capital of Poland then, to be jointly the monarch with his wife, of both countries. The wife died and so the Lithuanian King took over the Kingship of both countries, but from Krakow.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

I have recently discovered a Danish writer, by the name of Preben Mørkbak. He writes novels about Vikings. At the moment I'm reading one about Eric the Red, the father of Leiv Eriksson, who discovered Canada.

Eric the Red was a hard leader, who was driven out of Norway, and then driven out of Iceland, and then discoevered Greenland, where he set up a democratic, Nordic nation.

Very exciting, so I can definitely recomment Preben Mørkbak, although I'm not certain he's been translated into English.

[Greendruid]

I have recently discovered a Danish writer, by the name of Preben Mørkbak. He writes novels about Vikings. At the moment I'm reading one about Eric the Red, the father of Leiv Eriksson, who discovered Canada.

Eric the Red was a hard leader, who was driven out of Norway, and then driven out of Iceland, and then discoevered Greenland, where he set up a democratic, Nordic nation.

Very exciting, so I can definitely recomment Preben Mørkbak, although I'm not certain he's been translated into English.

:facepalm: Again, you can't discover a place that already has people living there. Both Greenland and Canada had indigenous populations living there upon the arrival of the Vikings.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

No, Greenland didn't.
The Eskimoes came a long time later, and very possibly, exterminated the Nordics, who were found to have disappeared, when Denmark reopened contact with Greenland after several hundreds of years of no contact with the Nordic community of Greenland.

Don't speak without reading first!!!

As for Canada, yes, I admit, it had people already.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

[Greendruid]

No, Greenland didn't.
The Eskimoes came a long time later, and very possibly, exterminated the Nordics, who were found to have disappeared, when Denmark reopened contact with Greenland after several hundreds of years of no contact with the Nordic community of Greenland.

Don't speak without reading first!!!

As for Canada, yes, I admit, it had people already.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

You're cracked! You need to learn to do some actual research before accusing an academic of not knowing something about a related topic area. Greenland has been inhabited since about 3,000 BCE. That's a ballpark figure from what I remember from peopling of North America classes (yes, despite it being a part of Europe politically). It may be 2,000 it may be 4,000 but it's definitely not after the arrival of the Vikings. Your source is a magazine, not an academic journal.

[Greendruid]

And I will add that the current indigenous inhabitants may not be the descendants of the original ones either. This is usually the case everywhere in the world though.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Well, at least I do actually provide a source. You don't.
Let's see what source you can come up with, to back up the ludicrous suggestion that the Vikings came to an inhabited Greenland.

:facepalm: Again, you can't discover a place that already has people living there. Both Greenland and Canada had indigenous populations living there upon the arrival of the Vikings.

Come on, let's see a source.

I know you probably think you shoudl be source enough, but if it's true, you have to be able to find another source!!!

[NickKIELCEPoland]

I was wrong, and Greendruid was right.
I hereby eat humble pie.
;)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/245261/Greenland

[Non Sequitur]

Well, at least I do actually provide a source. You don't.
Let's see what source you can come up with, to back up the ludicrous suggestion that the Vikings came to an inhabited Greenland.



Come on, let's see a source.

I know you probably think you shoudl be source enough, but if it's true, you have to be able to find another source!!!

I realize that Greendruid can defend himself and that this comment is not directed at me, but...

Source (http://www.natmus.dk/sw18632.asp)
The Saqqaq culture is the archaeological designation of the earliest Palaeo-Eskimo culture of West and Southeast Greenland. The time frame is roughly 2.500 BC - 800 BC. The upper time limit is currently being questioned in connection with the discuss

That is from the national museum of Denmark

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Non-sequitor, look at my last posting.

[Non Sequitur]

Non-sequitor, look at my last posting.

ah well... I'm glad that is settled.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

And I will add that the current indigenous inhabitants may not be the descendants of the original ones either. This is usually the case everywhere in the world though.
Well, what you said was that there were people on Greenland when the Vikings arrived.

:facepalm: Again, you can't discover a place that already has people living there. Both Greenland and Canada had indigenous populations living there upon the arrival of the Vikings.

But never mind, I've eaten humble pie.

[Greendruid]

I won't belabour the point any further - I would have gone looking for some better academic sources than Encyclopaedia Britannica but my toddler woke up just as you had made your last response. Nonetheless, the Britannica article cites, very clearly (in the section on 'History'), that the Dorset II culture was present on Greenland from c. 700-1200 CE. This covers Erik the Red's period quite sufficiently. If nothing else, I want this to be a lesson to you à la Dan Brown's style of writing. You need to check actual academic sources about actual scientific research before making actual scientific claims. Otherwise, half-read articles from magazines with authors that have no expertise in an area of research will make blatantly wrong claims that convince the casual reader of history that never happened. It is quite common among the general population and I challenge you to go beyond this rampant disease. My original statement, that people were present on Greenland when Erik the Red and his Viking sailors arrived, stands. Incidentally, they migrated from what is now Canada!

[NickKIELCEPoland]

I want this to be a lesson to you
Greendruid, I could be wrong, but I think you should save this kind of talk for people who can't admit they were wrong. You seem to me at least, to be a little bit too keen on milking this moment of glory ;)

[Greendruid]

Greendruid, I could be wrong, but I think you should save this kind of talk for people who can't admit they were wrong. You seem to me at least, to be a little bit too keen on milking this moment of glory ;)

You seem to be a little too keen to fire back after supposedly eating humble pie. I want this to be constructive for anyone doing research, but you seem to be most in denial of the process for some reason. I milk no moments of glory. There are few that I've had that I would describe as such, and believe me, this is not one of them.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

What exactly am I denying? (you say I'm in denial, what about?

[Greendruid]

Okay, who am I to stop someone's happiness :):lol::lol:

Wow! Now you're going to claim I wrote things that I didn't, bold them in your supposed quote and then no doubt claim that it was all a joke. First, I'd like an apology for quoting things that I didn't write. Second, grow up and get your passive aggressive behaviour out of your system. I can take a joke anytime Nick but when you enter a serious discussion about research, I expect it to remain serious.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Have a look at what I last wrote? ;)

[Michael]

What exactly am I denying? (you say I'm in denial, what about?

Apparently the idea that Greenland was actually inhabited when the Vikings arrived there.

Hint: look up Dorset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorset_culture) people.

That should settle the matter.

Bottom line is that no land can be said to be "discovered" where human culture already exists. As such, Iceland was 'discovered' and colonized by the Vikings. Greenland was merely colonized.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

You seem to be a little too keen to fire back after supposedly eating humble pie. I want this to be constructive for anyone doing research, but you seem to be most in denial of the process for some reason. I milk no moments of glory. There are few that I've had that I would describe as such, and believe me, this is not one of them.

Greendruid and Michael, I repeat, what am I in denial about. I mean, I admitted I was wrong about Greenland's habitation status. So what exactly am I in denial about??? Please tell me!!! I'm very interested!!!

[andrewl]

I for one love medieval fiction.

http://www.bernardcornwell.net/index2.cfm?page=1&seriesid=10

The Saxon Stories is one of my favorites of all time.

I wonder if the popularity of Harry Potter has made this genre more fashionable?

[Michael]

I for one love medieval fiction.

http://www.bernardcornwell.net/index2.cfm?page=1&seriesid=10

The Saxon Stories is one of my favorites of all time.

I wonder if the popularity of Harry Potter has made this genre more fashionable?

Btw, I've read some historical fiction by Bernard Cornwell a few years back. I didn't like it because it was so far from actual history to be pure fantasy. The idea that Arthur was a Romano-Celtic warchief has never had any scholarly support.

Indeed, even as Cornwell was writing his books, actual Arthurian scholars were publishing recognition of Arthur as a known historical figure - and he ain't Roman (and he had nothing to do with Cornwall, Brittany or Glastonbury!).

I'm okay with writers taking liberties with fiction in their historical settings, but completely re-writing history is way out of line for 'historical fiction'.

Do you know how many times I've had people TELL me that Arthur was a Roman? They always cite these same Bernard Cornwall books as their source. :facepalm:

[Donkey]

Btw, I've read some historical fiction by Bernard Cornwell a few years back. I didn't like it because it was so far from actual history to be pure fantasy. The idea that Arthur was a Romano-Celtic warchief has never had any scholarly support.

Indeed, even as Cornwell was writing his books, actual Arthurian scholars were publishing recognition of Arthur as a known historical figure - and he ain't Roman (and he had nothing to do with Cornwall, Brittany or Glastonbury!).

I'm okay with writers taking liberties with fiction in their historical settings, but re-writing history is way out of line for 'historical fiction'.

Ever read Mary Stewart's Arthur (more Merlin, really) trilogy?

Greatly enjoyed them, though I don't think they are really based in anything verging on reality either. Good stories.

[Michael]

Ever read Mary Stewart's Arthur (more Merlin, really) trilogy?

Greatly enjoyed them, though I don't think they are really based in anything verging on reality either. Good stories.

Yes, I've read them (years ago). I don't fault Stewart for placing Arthur in Wales/Cornwall/Glastonbury as that was the reigning dogma on the topic for the last seven centuries.

I fault Cornwall for publishing later and ignoring ALL of the late 20th century scholarship on Arthur and ignoring the old tradition and inventing a new fantasy form of historical fiction that has no real basis in actual history.

[andrewl]

Btw, I've read some historical fiction by Bernard Cornwell a few years back. I didn't like it because it was so far from actual history to be pure fantasy. The idea that Arthur was a Romano-Celtic warchief has never had any scholarly support.

Indeed, even as Cornwell was writing his books, actual Arthurian scholars were publishing recognition of Arthur as a known historical figure - and he ain't Roman (and he had nothing to do with Cornwall, Brittany or Glastonbury!).

I'm okay with writers taking liberties with fiction in their historical settings, but completely re-writing history is way out of line for 'historical fiction'.

Do you know how many times I've had people TELL me that Arthur was a Roman? They always cite these same Bernard Cornwall books as their source. :facepalm:


Im no Aurthurian expert but from what i understand what we know about Arthur it is pretty scant at best and remains controversial. Very little history to re-write here. I give Cornwell credit for at least treating him as a historical figure when most people considered it pure fantasy. His treatment of Lancelot was at least more realistic than the common view.

But heh, its fiction. And that series was never meant to be totally historical, he himself said it was just about fun and not about history - i actually bothered to read the notes at the end of the books. ;) Who doesn't like Aurthur?

Anyway, the Saxon Stories are more grounded in actual history since the setting takes place later in the period and relies on more certain knowledge of the times. You should try the first book at least. Id be interested to hear your take.

Do you like alternate history fiction? There is a series called Dies the Fire by S.M. Stirling that could be described as medieval fiction set in the modern world that suddenly finds istself without the possibility of combustion. The villain is a history professor that specializes in the medieval period.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Arthur is probably the first (and last?) cuckold in literary history to be the hero,

[Michael]

Im no Aurthurian expert but from what i understand what we know about Arthur it is pretty scant at best and remains controversial.
Your knowledge of the state of Arthurian academic scholarship perhaps is outdated. Huge advances were made in the 1980's and 1990's. Apparently 11 of the 12 battlefields have been archeologically located. Linguistic analysis was a major key in unravelling the mystery.

Arthur and Gwenevere are deemed to be historical figures. Jury is still out on Merlin. Lancelot is definitely NOT historical and is almost certainly an artificial 13th century French addition to the legends - indeed, a necessary addition to the tale in order to turn it into a 'Courtly Romance' as was popular in France at that time.

Very little history to re-write here. I give Cornwell credit for at least treating him as a historical figure when most people considered it pure fantasy. His treatment of Lancelot was at least more realistic than the common view.
As noted above, Lancelot really only appears in the bastardized 13th century French versions of the Arthurian tales (i.e. Marie of France). There is no basis for Lancelot in the original tale.

But heh, its fiction. And that series was never meant to be totally historical, he himself said it was just about fun and not about history - i actually bothered to read the notes at the end of the books. ;) Who doesn't like Aurthur?
Like I said, historical fiction ought to be based on history - not fiction. The story can be fiction, but history is history and there has never been any serious academic support for the Arthur was Roman theory.

Anyway, the Saxon Stories are more grounded in actual history since the setting takes place later in the period and relies on more certain knowledge of the times. You should try the first book at least. Id be interested to hear your take.
Perhaps. As I've noted in other threads, I rarely read any fiction at all any more - I much prefer non-fiction especially on historical topics. I like to see pages and pages of footnotes in my books.

Do you like alternate history fiction? There is a series called Dies the Fire by S.M. Stirling that could be described as medieval fiction set in the modern world that suddenly finds istself without the possibility of combustion. The villain is a history professor that specializes in the medieval period.
I'm not much of a fan of alternative history (or any fiction). If I was, I'd read that series about the Roman Empire not falling and instead, advancing to industrialization! :lol:

Bottom line is that my non-fiction reading list is always so massive, I just don't have a shortage of things to read. :shrug:

[Michael]

The Saxon Stories is one of my favorites of all time.
I read a couple reviews on this - it does seem rather interesting. I don't think I've ever seen any historical fiction involving Alfred the Great!

I wonder if the popularity of Harry Potter has made this genre more fashionable?

I'd bet on it. Society seems to move in a herd according to contemporary fashions, often with the pace defined by the entertainment industry. I certainly remember growing up as a kid in the 1970's when 'space' was the big theme for everything.

[Non Sequitur]

Your knowledge of the state of Arthurian academic scholarship perhaps is outdated. Huge advances were made in the 1980's and 1990's. Apparently 11 of the 12 battlefields have been archeologically located. Linguistic analysis was a major key in unravelling the mystery

I am not doubting you, but I am curious what you are reading for this information? I almost focused my history major on medieval history so I'm incredibly interested in this stuff.

[Michael]

I am not doubting you, but I am curious what you are reading for this information? I almost focused my history major on medieval history so I'm incredibly interested in this stuff.

Research papers, and/or summaries of same, published on the net over the years. I'll look around for a suitable source. There was a big splash a few years back when Arthur was officially listed as one of the historical "Kings of England" - all due to the transformation in Arthurian scholarship.

The biggest surprise for people is usually the geography issue - historical Arthur lived in northern England and southern Scotland.

[The Drunk Guy]

Research papers, and/or summaries of same, published on the net over the years. I'll look around for a suitable source. There was a big splash a few years back when Arthur was officially listed as one of the historical "Kings of England" - all due to the transformation in Arthurian scholarship.

The biggest surprise for people is usually the geography issue - historical Arthur lived in northern England and southern Scotland.
I've casually read about some of the early contenders for the title of King of England. When is it suggested that Arthur fought these battles? And would they be anything like what legend and modern interpretations dictate?

Going by the timeline I think would be possible, perhaps the Roundtable was a treestump rather than a table. :lol:

[Donkey]

I remember that movie they made with, who was it, Keira Knightly and Clive Owen was supposed to be the most historically realistic depiction of Arthur?

Then it turned out to be godawful so everyone tried to forget about it as fast as possible.

[Michael]

I've casually read about some of the early contenders for the title of King of England. When is it suggested that Arthur fought these battles? And would they be anything like what legend and modern interpretations dictate?
Arthur's battles are early 6th century - at the height of the Saxon invasion/settlement of England.

Going by the timeline I think would be possible, perhaps the Roundtable was a treestump rather than a table. :lol:
Yes, you can be sure of that. Arthurian England wasn't very luxurious!

Indeed, this is the time known as the Dark Ages, in a place that has historically always been considered a 'poor land'.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

In the book which I'm reading by Preben Mørkbak (The plough and the sword) which is about Eric the Red, who was the first European in Greenland, Eric's son Leiv (Eriksson) has just returned from his maiden voyage to Norway. But he has a shock in store for his father. He has turned Christian. Norway has a Christian king, Olav Trygvasson, and Leiv has been influenced enough to accept baptism. Erik is not happy at all. He is a staunch friend of Thor, but after losing his temper, he reconciles to the fact that his son must choose for himself, which religion to have. He arranges for Leiv to go and explore the lands which are rumoured to lie even further west that Greenland. This is Canada, so Leiv is about to become the first European in Canada. It's very exciting stuff. I can recommend this book, most heartily.