Alright. As some of the people, who follow me for a longer while know... I do have opinions about cooking in historical settings. For everyone else a bit of backstory: When I was still LARPing, I would usually come to LARP as a camp cook, making somewhat historically accurate food and selling it for ingame coin. As such I know a bit about how to cook with a historical set up. And given I am getting so much into DnD and DnD stories right now, let me share a bit for those who might be interested (for example for stories and such).
🍲Cooking at Home
First things first: For the longest time in history most people did not have actual kitchens. Because actual kitchens were rather rare. Most people cooked their food over their one fireplace at home, which looked something like what you see above. There was something made of metal hanging over the fireplace. At times this was on hinges and movable, at times it was set in place. You could hang pots and kettles over it. When it came to pans, people either had a mount they would put over the fire or some kind of grid they could easily put into place there with some sourts of mounts (like the two metal thingies you can see above).
If you have a modern kitchen, you are obviously used to cook on several cooktops (for most people it is probably four of them), while in this historical you obviously only had one fire. Of course, as you can also see in the picture above, you could often put two smaller pots over the flames or put in a pan onto the fire additionally. But yes, the way we cook in modern times is very different.
Because of this a lot of people often ate stews and soups of sort. You could make those in just one pot - and often could eat from the same stew for days. In a lot of taverns the people had an "everything stew" going, which worked on the idea that everyone just brought their food leftovers, which were all put into one pot everyone would eat from.
Now, some alert readers might have also noticed something: What about bread and pastries? If you only have one fireplace and no oven, how did people make bread?
Well, there were usually three different methods for this. The most common one was communal ovens. Often people had one communal oven in a neighborhood. Especially in a village there might just be a communal oven everyone would just put their bread in to bake. (Though often this oven would only be fired up once or twice a week.)
The second version to deal with this some people used was a sort of what we today call a dutch oven. A pot made either of metal or clay with a lit you would put into the hot coals and then put bread or pastries into that, baking it like that.
There was also a version where people just baked bread in pans on the fire, rotating the bread during the baking process. At least some written accounts we have seem to imply. (Never tried this method, though. I have no idea how this might work. My camp bread was mostly done in dutch ovens or as stickbread.)
Keep in mind that the fireplace at home was very important for the people in historical times. Because it was their one source of warmth in the house.
🏕️ Cooking at Camp
Technically speaking cooking at camp is not that different - with the exception of course that you have to drag all your supplies along. And while in Baldur's Gate 3 and most other videogames you can carry around several sets of full-plate armor and several pounds of ingredients so that dear Gale can whip something up... In real life as an adventurer running around you need to make decisions on what to take along.
If you have read Lord of the Rings, you might remember how many people have criticized Sam for actually dragging all his cooking supplies along and how sad he was for not being able to cook for most of the time, because they were very limited in taking ingredients along.
So, yes, if you are an adventurer who is camping out in the open, you will probably need to do a lot of hunting and gathering to eat during your travels. You can take food for a couple of days along, but not for a lot.
A special challenge is of course, that while you can cook food for several days when you are at homes, you do not want to drag along a prepared stew for several days. So usually you will cook in smaller batches.
A lot of people who were journeying would often just take along one or two pots along.
So, what would you eat as an adventurer travelling around while trying to save the world from some evil forces? Well, it would depend on the time of the year of course. You would probably hunt yourself some food. For example hares, birds or squirrels. Mostly small things you can eat within one or two days. You do not want to drag along half a dead deer. In the warm months you might also forrage for all sorts of greens. You also can cook with many sorts of roots. Of course you can also always look into berries and other fruits you might find.
Things you might bring with you might be salt and some spices. A good thing to bring along would be herbs for tea, too, because I can tell you from experience that water you might have gotten from a river does not always taste very well - and springs with fresh water are often not accessible.
Now, other than what you can access the basic ideas of camping fires and cooking with them has not changed in the last few thousand years. While modern people camping usually have a car nearby and hence will have access to a lot of ingredients. But the general ideas of how to build a fire and put a pot over it... has not really changed.
So, yeah.
Just keep in mind that for the most part in historical settings until fairly recently, there was not much terms of proper kitchens. People cooked over an open fire and hence had to get at times ingenius about it.
Good stuff! For a bunch of visual references, I recommend checking out @lamus-dworski, specifically a five-part photo series on medieval food. The photos were taken during assorted reenactment festivals (in Poland). The blog focuses on Poland's history, culture, folklore, art, and more. All photos hereafter are sourced from Archaeological Museum in Biskupin via @lamus-dworski.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
So here's one of the coolest things that has happened to me as a Tolkien nut and an amateur medievalist. It's also impacted my view of the way Tolkien writes women.
Here's Carl Stephenson in MEDIEVAL FEUDALISM, explaining the roots of the ceremony of knighthood:
"In the second century after Christ the Roman historian Tacitus wrote an essay which he called Germania, and which has remained justly famous. He declares that the Germans, though divided into numerous tribes, constitute a single people characterised by common traits and a common mode of life. The typical German is a warrior. [...] Except when armed, they perform no business, either private or public. But it is not their custom that any one should assume arms without the formal approval of the tribe. Before the assembly the youth receives a shield and spear from his father, some other relative, or one of the chief men, and this gift corresponds to the toga virilis among the Romans--making him a citizen rather than a member of a household" (pp 2-3).
Got it?
Remember how Tolkien was a medievalist who based his Rohirrim on Anglo-Saxon England, which came from those Germanic tribes Tacitus was talking about?
Stephenson argues that the customs described by Tacitus continued into the early middle ages eventually giving rise to the medieval feudal system. One of these customs was the gift of arms, which transformed into the ceremony of knighthood:
"Tacitus, it will be remembered, describes the ancient German custom by which a youth was presented with a shield and a spear to mark his attainment of man's estate. What seems to the be same ceremony reappears under the Carolingians. In 791, we are told, Charlemagne caused Prince Louis to be girded with a sword in celebration of his adolescence; and forty-seven years later Louis in turn decorated his fifteen-year-old son Charles "with the arms of manhood, i.e., a sword." Here, obviously, we may see the origin of the later adoubement, which long remained a formal investiture with arms, or with some one of them as a symbol. Thus the Bayeux Tapestry represents the knighting of Earl Harold by William of Normandy under the legend: Hic Willelmus dedit Haroldo arma (Here William gave arms to Harold). [...] Scores of other examples are to be found in the French chronicles and chansons de geste, which, despite much variation of detail, agree on the essentials. And whatever the derivation of the words, the English expression "dubbing to knighthood" must have been closely related to the French adoubement" (pp 47-48.)
In its simplest form, according to Stephenson, the ceremony of knighthood included "at most the presentation of a sword, a few words of admonition, and the accolade."
OK. So what does this have to do with Tolkien and his women? AHAHAHAHA I AM SO GLAD YOU ASKED. First of all, let's agree that Tolkien, a medievalist, undoubtedly was aware of all the above. Second, turn with me in your copy of The Lord of the Rings to chapter 6 of The Two Towers, "The King of the Golden Hall", when Theoden and his councillors agree that Eowyn should lead the people while the men are away at war. (This, of course, was something that medieval noblewomen regularly did: one small example is an 1178 letter from a Hospitaller knight serving in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem which records that before marching out to the battle of Montgisard, "We put the defence of the Tower of David and the whole city in the hands of our women".) But in The Lord of the Rings, there's a little ceremony.
"'Let her be as lord to the Eorlingas, while we are gone.'
'It shall be so,' said Theoden. 'Let the heralds announce to the folk that the Lady Eowyn will lead them!'
Then the king sat upon a seat before his doors and Eowyn knelt before him and received from him a sword and a fair corselet."
I YELLED when I realised what I was reading right there. You see, the king doesn't just have the heralds announce that Eowyn is in charge. He gives her weapons.
Theoden makes Eowyn a knight of the Riddermark.
Not only that, but I think this is a huge deal for several reasons. That is, Tolkien knew what he was doing here.
From my reading in medieval history, I'm aware of women choosing to fight and bear arms, as well as becoming military leaders while the men are away at some war or as prisoners. What I haven't seen is women actually receiving knighthood. Anyone could fight as a knight if they could afford the (very pricy) horse and armour, and anyone could lead a nation as long as they were accepted by the leaders. But you just don't see women getting knighted like this.
Tolkien therefore chose to write a medieval-coded society, Rohan, where women arguably had greater equality with men than they did in actual medieval societies.
I think that should tell us something about who Tolkien was as a person and how he viewed women - perhaps he didn't write them with equal parity to men (there are undeniably more prominent male characters in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, at least, than female) but compared to the medieval societies that were his life's work, and arguably even compared to the society he lived in, he was remarkably egalitarian.
I think it should also tell us something about the craft of writing fantasy.
No, you don't have to include gut wrenching misogyny and violence against women in order to write "realistic" medieval-inspired fantasy.
Tolkien's fantasy worlds are DEEPLY informed by medieval history to an extent most laypeople will never fully appreciate. The attitudes, the language, the ABSOLUTELY FLAWLESS use of medieval military tactics...heck, even just the way that people travel long distances on foot...all of it is brilliantly medieval.
The fact that Theoden bestows arms on Eowyn is just one tiny detail that is deeply rooted in medieval history. Even though he's giving those arms to a woman in a fantasy land full of elves and hobbits and wizards, it's still a wonderfully historically accurate detail.
Of course, I've ranted before about how misogyny and sexism wasn't actually as bad in medieval times as a lot of people today think. But from the way SOME fantasy authors talk, you'd think that historical accuracy will disappear in a puff of smoke if every woman in the dragon-infested fantasy land isn't being traumatised on the regular.
Specifically, you want to write about horses in your medieval-inspired fantasy novel, rpg, or daydream fantasy. Knights in shinning armor on noble steeds, damsels in distress(or not!) on fine prancing mount, or an evil sorcerer cackling on a fierce charger above your poor tandem MCs.
Whatever it is you're imagining, a medieval horse appears. But you know nothing about horses. I can help.
(If you would like to begin with my first basic Basics post, start here)
^ When thinking knight, you're probably imagining a horse like this.
Preface: When talking about fiction, there is always a question of historical accuracy. That is wholly up to you. But you will at least, after reading this, know more of the historical fact involving horses, and certainly know about some of the more commonly-complained about fallacies involving horses in media.
Now, the above still is from the film Ladyhawke (1985), which is often credited for popularizing the Friesian breed in the United States. I can almost guarantee you have see a Friesian in a film or on TV. The recent series Shadow and Bone had a central character ride a Friesian in one episode. They epitomize the romantic nobility and grace of knights. Except they don't.
The horse you see above came into existence in 1879, primarily as a harness and agricultural use horse. Horses known as Friesian horses have existed since the 11th century, but those horses were completely different from the breed created in the 19th century. The modern Friesian is a trotting breed, made to pull carriages and look beautiful doing it. They have a long back, short neck, and due to inbreeding, a host of nasty genetic problems including dwarfism, aortic rupture, hydrocephalus, and megaesophagus.
However, breeds that trace ancestry back to beyond the middle ages do exist, and they have been breed to look much the same for generations. Introducing:
The Barb/Berber Horse
^Kinda just looks like A Horse™
The Barb comes from North Africa, and was spread into Europe through the Muslim conquest of Spain, where the breed mixed with the native Andalusian breed to create the Spanish Jennet, which is possibly the most widely successful horse breed in all of history. The Jennet is currently extinct*, but due to its durability, it was the horse used by the Spanish AND the British to invade the Americas, and descendants of the Jennet survive in local breeds from Argentina to Canada.
*a revitalization breed does exist of the same name
The Andalusian/Lusitano/Pure Raza Espanol
^The true Fabio of horses, known for thick flowing locks and sweet dispositions
Possibly the horse that most strongly resembles the ancient knighly horse, this noble creature used to be the preferred horse of film, before the Friesian rise in popularity. Horses of Spanish bloodlines are Andalusian, horses of Portuguese bloodlines are Lusitano, but the characteristics of both breeds are nearly identical. They are also known for a fancy 'high stepping' movement, in which they raise their knees higher than other breeds naturally.
The Arabian
^Note the narrow, 'dished' face and raised tail, breed characteristics
The ancient horse of the desert, made famous through books such as The Black Stallion, King of the Wind, and films such as Hildago. These horses are known for their stamina and intelligence, and were traditionally used as war horses by the desert tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. The Arabian has descendants in almost all modern breeds, as it is used to add strength and stamina to the original stock, despite being a relatively small horse. During the Napoleonic wars, this horse became the prized war horse of Europe as well, with Napoleon himself preferring to ride Arabians into battle.
The Mongolian Horse
^Thick head, thick body, this horse is made to survive winter on the steppes
Introduced to Europe from the Hunnic invasions that ended the rule of Rome, the Mongolian horse is made to survive, thrive, and run in harsh cold weather. This horse allowed Ghengis Khan and his soldiers to conqure one of the largest empires to ever exist, from Korea to Poland. This compact horse would have mixed with the native stock of Russian, Eastern European, and Germanic tribes to help create the ancient northern horses, resulting in a thicker breed of horse in the north, and a lighter breed of horse in the south of Europe. Modern-day pony breeds such as the Exmoor, Fjord, Icelandic, and other have been found to have genetic ties to the Mongolian horse.
These horses do not exactly look like the modern image of knights on massive horses, but it is useful to remember that 1. people back then were a lot smaller and 2. horses back then were a lot smaller. Of course, there were hundreds of other local breeds during the middle ages, but many have been modernized and become today's sport, work, or pleasure horses.
During the middle ages, horses were not actually defined by breed. They were defined by the work the horse was suited and trained to preform. There were five main types of medieval horses.
The Destrier
Also called The Great Horse for its size, strength, and price, this horse was the renown mount of knights and kings in battle. These horses were highly trained for battle, and could be taught to do such things as striking out at soldiers in front, kicking at soldiers from the back, and even leaping all four feet in the air to protect it's rider. They would wear the most armor, and these horses would likely be closest in appearance to the modern Andalusian.
^Ornate heavy armor on a model horse. This armor was made for a horse not much more than 15hh, what today would be a small horse.
The Courser/The Charger
A lighter horse than the destrier, the courser is also a warhorse, highly trained and well-bred, but a little less expensive. A knight might not be able to afford a destrier, especially as a minor knight, but every knight should have a courser. The Spanish Jennet is the epitome of the medieval courser, and in fact was the horse used by Richard II. According to Shakespeare, the horse's name was White Surrey, although other sources claim the horse was Roan Barbary, and was a Barb or Berber horse*.
*Bought from Spain and likely a cross of Spanish and African blood, so a Jennet. But Jennet was also a classification of a horse type in those days, so, sources are muddled.
The Rouncey
The 'average' horse of the time, this horse was used mainly for riding, but could sometimes be ridden into battle if trained properly, and were the preferred horse for lower-class fighters such as archers or men-at-arms. As it described a riding horse, these horses came in all shapes and sizes, from all lineages, and in all colors. In peacetime they could be used to draw carriages or work fields. A proud and expensive destrier would never be caught pulling a plow.
The Palfrey
A highly-bred, highly trained horse, this horse is a high quality riding horse known for a specific gait, called an ambling gait. This horse had a special pattern of moving its feet that gave the rider a considerably more comfortable ride than the traditional 4 gaited horse. After the middle ages, these horses almost disappeared, only to be recovered in the Americas in the form of 'gaited' horses such as the Paso Fino, the Rocky Mountain Horse, the Missouri Foxtrotter, and the Tennessee Walking Horse. The Icelandic horse has also retained the special Tölt gait that may* be the exact gait of medieval ambling horses.
*may, I am not a gaited horse expert.
The Packhorse
This describes any kind of horse, usually a rouncey, that is used not for riding but to carry supplies. Packhorses could also be mules, donkeys, and ponies, so long as they could carry weight for long miles. These were supply horses, carrying food, weapons, tents, whatever else may be needed.
Knights, Horses, and the Battlefield
^ What an incredible creature of power and nobility. The man is fine too, I guess.
Now, if you have seen the above scene, you have probably seen The Hollow Crown, a historical drama with a few late Medieval battle scenes. In these scenes, knight clashes against knight in a furious charge, leading to pitched battles on horseback. I'm not going to say that never happened, but by and large cavalry was directed against infantry, not other cavalry, or used to conduct maneuvers requiring speed and surprise, such as a charge, a circling maneuver, a bluff retreat and most importantly, to chase down routing enemy soldiers. A knight on horseback was most effective in close quarters against unmounted and surprised soldiers. Lances were the primary weapon, allowing a mounted warrior length to spear and batter down at enemies, and a sword was secondary, as it had a shorter length, and would be used if a mounted warrior was surrounded by infantry or in battle against another knight. Throughout the medieval period, horses sometimes were removed from the fight all together due to unfavorable land, and kept in reserve to either help the army flee or to chase down the fleeing enemy.
Hungry for more?
There are many sources out there to learn more about the medieval period and knights in particular. I would highly recommend that you not look at Medieval Times sources, if only because better sources are out there. I enjoy the videos produce by Jason Kingsley CBE (Yes, that Jason Kingsley CBE) on his Modern History TV YouTube Channel, and find them to be accurate as far as I'm aware.
^ Jason Kingsley and his horse Warlord, in costume. I've sent marriage proposals but I've not yet received a reply.
That's all for this post. I'll have more when I feel like it, and send me questions if you want to know more about specific things or need a writing question answered
Everyone liked the color charts I test printed for Basilisk so much, I felt compelled made a nice version! Great for anyone that has an interest in Risograph printing, historical pigments, or weird medieval marginalia.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
In many situations, daggers might be more plausible than a sword fight.
Dagger are eaiser to carry and conceal, lighter, faster, good for spontaneous action, suicide bids, self-defense and assassination.
Dagger vs. Knife
No clear distinction; terms used interchangeably
Dagger is more for thrusting with 2 sharp edges
Knife is more for cutting (slashing) with 1 sharp edge
Concealment
Carried in a leather sheath on the belt
Can be concealed under a cloak, in a bodice (sheath sewn into the bodice), in a boot, behind hari ornaments
Bodice daggers (popular in the Renaissance) had no cross guards.
Connotations
Beside its combat value, the dagger has lots of emotional and sexual symbolisms.
The closeness need to attack with a dagger creates intense personal connection. They are often used in fights where emotions are running high: gang warfare, hate crime, vengeance.
Due to its shape and the fact that it's usually worn on a belt made it a symbol of virility in many cultures and periods.
Sometimes it was the hilt rather than the blade: like in the case of bollocks daggers with two...balls on either side of the hilt.
Fighting Techniques
Stabbing:-
The dagger with long, thin blades are made to stab a vital organ like the kidneys, liver, bowel, stomach or heart.
Stabbing directly at the chest seldom works, since the blde may glance off the ribs. Position the dagger below the ribcage and drive it upwards, through the diaphragm and into the lungs. If the sword is long enough and your fighter is a professional, you can get to the heart.
If no professional, just keep going for the stomach and you'll get one of the vital organs eventually.
Slashing:-
When describing a slash wound, show a lot of blood streaming, or even spurting.
Slashing dagger fights are bloody - show your MC's hands getting slick with blood, grip on the weapon slipping.
The aim is to cut the opponent's throat or cut tendoms, muscles, or ligaments to disable. Slashing the muscles in the weapon-wielding arm is the most effective; insides of the writst or back of the knee is also critical.
Assassinations:-
Show good knowledge of the humna antatomy
Use a stabbing dagger
A single, determined, calculated and efficient stroke, probably below the ribs.
Self-Defense:-
Disable the attacker by slashing their weapon-wielding hand (elbow or wrist)
Quick, multiple stabs wherever the MC can get the blade to land; the attacker won't give time for careful positioning
If the blade is too short to do any significant damage, maek up for this by stabbing so ast that the pain and blood loss distracts the opponent.
Vegeance and Hatred:-
Someone who is motivated by raging emotions will stab the victim repeatedly, even after he is already dead.
The attacker may stab or salsh the victim's face, disfiguring it.
Contemporary street fights and gang warfare usually involves these.
Duels:-
If both fighters are armed with daggers, include wrestling-type moves as they try to restrict each other's weapon hand.
Show them trying to disable each other by slashing insides of writes, elbows, the back of the knees, etc.
Dagger + Sword
If the character is expecting a fight, they can hold a sword in their right hand, and a dagger in their left to fight with both
Reference for Historical Fantasy Setting--Writers save this!
1. Emperors and Empresses
Rank: Supreme
Territory: Vast empires, often comprising multiple kingdoms.
Titles: Your Imperial Majesty
Authority:
- Ultimate sovereign power over multiple regions or kingdoms.
- Capable of enacting laws and decrees that influence entire empires.
- Commanders of large, imperial armies and navies.
- Oversee administration across vast territories, managing both justice and taxation.
- Engage in high-stakes diplomacy with other empires and realms
2. Kings and Queens
Rank: High
Territory: A single kingdom.
Titles: Your Majesty
Authority:
- Absolute rule within their kingdom, capable of legislating and decreeing laws that impact their entire realm.
- Lead the kingdom's military forces and are the highest judicial authority.
- Oversee administration, including management of the kingdom's justice system and tax collection.
- Conduct diplomacy with foreign powers such as neighboring kingdoms and empires.
3. Princes and Princesses
Rank: Royalty, often next in line for the throne
Territory: Varies, often given duchies, counties, or smaller regions to govern.
Titles: Your Highness
Authority:
- Dependent on position; typically serve as advisors to the king or queen and govern specific territories.
- Can command military forces, administer justice, and oversee taxation within their assigned lands.
- Play significant roles in court politics and are often key players in diplomatic missions or alliances.
- As heirs, princes and princesses are groomed for future rule, receiving responsibilities that prepare them for kingship or queenship.
4. Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses
Rank: High
Territory: Large regions, often exceeding standard duchies in size and influence.
Titles: Your Grace
Authority:
- Command significant regional power, governing over numerous counts, barons, and lesser nobles.
- Ability to enact regional laws, oversee justice, and manage estates across vast territories.
- Command regional military forces, often pivotal in defending or expanding the realm.
- Conduct regional diplomacy and maintain relationships with nearby territories.
5. Archdukes and Archduchesses
Rank: High
Territory: Large, often strategically or ceremonially important regions.
Titles: Your Grace
Authority:
- Hold considerable sway in both local and imperial court politics.
- Exercise legislative power, control estates, and command military forces within their territories.
- Responsible for the administration of justice and collection of taxes in their lands.
- Engage in diplomatic negotiations at both the local and imperial level.
6. Dukes and Duchesses
Rank: High
Territory: Duchies.
Titles: Your Grace
Authority:
- Exercise significant influence, overseeing the administration of their duchies.
- Govern large estates, enact local laws, and command regional military forces.
- Oversee justice, taxation, and maintain order within their lands.
- Engage in diplomacy, often acting as key regional liaisons with neighboring nobles and the crown.
7. Marquises and Marchionesses
Rank: High
Territory: Marches or border territories.
Titles: My Lord/My Lady or Your Lordship/Your Ladyship
Authority:
- Tasked with defending frontier regions, holding vital military responsibilities.
- Oversee the administration of law, justice, and taxation within their border territories.
- Command border garrisons and protect the realm from external threats.
- Often engage in frontier diplomacy, managing relations with nearby foreign powers.
8. Counts and Countesses
Rank: High
Territory: Counties.
Titles: My Lord/My Lady or Your Lordship/Your Ladyship
Authority:
- Govern counties, ensuring law and order, tax collection, and justice administration.
- Oversee estates, command local military forces, and implement local laws.
- Conduct regional diplomacy and manage relationships with neighboring lords and the crown.
9. Earls and Countesses (Primarily British Context)
Rank: High
Territory: Counties.
Titles: My Lord/My Lady or Your Lordship/Your Ladyship
Authority:
- Similar to counts, earls govern counties, overseeing local governance, law enforcement, and tax collection.
- Command local military forces, often participating in regional defense.
- Engage in local diplomacy, managing relationships with surrounding nobles and the crown.
10. Viscounts and Viscountesses
Rank: Intermediate
Territory: Sub-regions within counties.
Titles: My Lord/My Lady or Your Lordship/Your Ladyship
Authority:
- Act as deputies or assistants to counts or earls, managing smaller estates and overseeing local justice.
- Enforce laws, collect taxes, and maintain order within their territories.
- Command smaller local military forces.
- Manage local diplomacy, often representing higher lords in negotiations.
11. Barons and Baronesses
Rank: Lower Nobility
Territory: Smaller estates.
Titles: My Lord/My Lady or Your Lordship/Your Ladyship
Authority:
- Govern their lands, maintaining local law and order, and providing military support to higher-ranking nobles.
- Responsible for the administration of justice, tax collection, and estate management within their lands.
- Command small local forces and contribute to the defense of the kingdom.
- Engage in local diplomacy, often representing higher-ranking nobles in smaller disputes or agreements.
Medieval Gentry
The gentry represented the upper-middle class of medieval society, often possessing land, wealth, and influence, though they were not part of the nobility. They held important local roles and contributed significantly to governance, military, and economics at the regional level.
1. Knights
Rank: Upper Gentry
Territory: Typically smaller manors or estates.
Titles: Sir/Dame
Authority:
- Sworn military service to a higher noble or the crown, responsible for local defense and enforcement of law and order.
- Managed estates granted to them, overseeing agricultural production and local administration.
- Often served as local judges or sheriffs, ensuring justice in their regions.
- Held significant status in society due to their martial role, often participating in tournaments and other chivalric events.
2. Esquires (Squires)
Rank: Upper Gentry, typically below knights
Territory: Often managed smaller estates or served as aides to knights.
Titles: Esquire
Authority:
- Served as apprentices or attendants to knights, gaining experience in military tactics and estate management.
- Held responsibilities in local governance, such as collecting taxes and overseeing the workforce.
- Managed the day-to-day affairs of estates, particularly if the knight or lord was away in service.
- Held potential for knighthood, depending on service and recognition by higher nobles.
3. Gentlemen and Gentlewomen
Rank: Gentry, below esquires
Territory: Often owned small estates or managed properties for wealthier lords.
Titles: Mister/Mistress
Authority:
- Possessed land and wealth but did not typically hold titles of nobility.
- Often served as local officials, such as justices of the peace or mayors, contributing to the administration of justice and local governance.
- Acted as stewards for larger estates, managing agricultural production and tenant relations.
- Enjoyed a degree of prestige due to their education, wealth, and societal position, often involved in trade or finance.
4. Yeomen
Rank: Lower Gentry, often wealthy commoners
Territory: Small farms or lands, usually worked by themselves or with hired labor.
Titles: Yeoman
Authority:
- Owned or leased their land, making them independent farmers who were economically stable.
- Often served in the militia or as archers in times of war, providing military service in exchange for protection and privileges.
- Held responsibilities in local governance, such as acting as jurors or local officials.
- Represented a prosperous middle class, often rising in status through hard work and successful management of their lands.
5. Merchants
Rank: Lower Gentry, wealthy commoners with commercial influence
Territory: Based in towns and cities, owning shops, warehouses, or trade routes.
Titles: Master/Mistress
Authority:
- Held economic power through trade, commerce, and banking, often becoming influential in local councils or guilds.
- Managed extensive trade networks, both locally and internationally, playing a crucial role in the economic life of the region.
- Acted as benefactors, sponsoring local events, religious institutions, and sometimes even providing loans to the nobility.
- Often accumulated significant wealth and influence, sometimes enough to purchase land and enter the gentry class through marriage or royal favor.
6. Clergy (Higher Ranks)
Rank: Gentry (non-noble but influential)
Territory: Managed ecclesiastical estates or served in key positions within the Church.
Titles: Father/Mother, Brother/Sister, Reverend
Authority:
- Held power over church lands, overseeing agricultural production, taxation, and local governance.
- Served as local religious leaders, offering spiritual guidance and administering sacraments to the community.
- Often involved in local and regional politics, acting as advisors to both nobility and commoners.
- Collected tithes and other forms of ecclesiastical income, contributing to both church and community projects.
People could gain nobility through various means in medieval society, though the process often required the favor of the monarch or other high-ranking nobles.
1. Birthright (Hereditary Nobility)
- Inheritance
The most common way to become a noble was by being born into a noble family. Titles and lands were typically passed down through generations, with the firstborn son often inheriting the majority of the family’s wealth and title (primogeniture). In some cases, titles could also pass through female lines if no male heirs existed.
- Titles Inherited
Children of nobles inherited their parents' ranks, becoming dukes, counts, barons, etc., upon their death or abdication.
2. Royal Favor or Granting of Titles
- Ennoblement by the Monarch
A king, queen, or emperor could grant titles of nobility as a reward for loyal service, significant achievements, or contributions to the kingdom. This could include elevating a loyal knight to a baron, a wealthy merchant to a count, or a successful general to a duke.
- Acts of Valor or Service
Displaying extraordinary bravery in battle or performing a critical service to the crown, such as negotiating treaties or managing crises, could result in ennoblement.
- Financial Support or Gifts
Wealthy individuals who provided substantial financial support to the crown or military might be rewarded with a noble title.
3. Marriage
- Marrying into Nobility
A commoner could gain noble status by marrying someone of noble birth, although this often depended on the consent of the noble family and the monarch. Marriage alliances were key to both maintaining and enhancing noble status, as they could bring new lands, wealth, or military alliances into the family.
- Dowries and Alliances
In some cases, wealthy or influential commoners could arrange marriages with lesser nobles by offering a substantial dowry or political alliance, which could lead to their family entering the nobility over time.
4. Military Achievement
- Knighthood
A commoner could be knighted for bravery, loyalty, and exceptional service in battle. Knighthood was a step towards nobility and often the gateway to further titles. Knights who distinguished themselves could be granted estates or titles, eventually rising into the nobility.
- Military Leadership
Successful generals or commanders could be rewarded with noble titles and lands for their leadership in protecting or expanding the kingdom.
5. Clerical Elevation
- High Church Positions
Bishops, archbishops, and other high-ranking clergy often held noble titles or lands. While clergy were technically separate from the lay nobility, the church wielded significant power. Clerics of humble origin who rose to positions of influence within the church could gain noble status through church appointments or by receiving land grants from the monarch.
- Influence over Secular Affairs
Clergy who played key roles in advising or assisting the crown could be rewarded with lands and titles, blurring the lines between ecclesiastical and secular power.
6. Wealth and Land Ownership
- Accumulation of Wealth
Wealthy commoners, particularly merchants, financiers, or landowners, who accumulated significant land or financial influence could sometimes purchase noble titles or secure them through royal favor. This was more common in later medieval periods and into the Renaissance when wealth became increasingly influential in determining status.
- Purchasing Titles
In some cases, particularly in financially troubled realms, noble titles could be outright purchased from the monarch. This was controversial but became more common in later periods.
7. Legal and Political Achievements
- High Office
Serving in a high office, such as a chancellor, treasurer, or other key political position, could lead to ennoblement. Those who proved their loyalty and effectiveness in governing could be rewarded with titles and land.
- Diplomatic Success
Successful diplomats who negotiated critical treaties or alliances might be granted noble titles as a reward for securing peace or expanding the influence of the realm.
8. Adoption and Favor by Nobles
- Adoption
In rare cases, a noble without heirs might adopt a commoner or relative, raising them to noble status and making them the heir to the title and estates. This required the consent of the monarch and was often done to preserve the family name and estate.
- Favoritism
Individuals who became favorites of the monarch or powerful nobles—such as courtiers, artists, or scholars—might receive titles, estates, and positions in return for their service or companionship.
9. Conquest or Seizure
- Conquest
Nobility could also be gained through conquest. A warlord or leader who seized land and power could eventually claim a noble title, often through negotiations with the crown or by force of arms.
- Seizing Titles
During times of turmoil, individuals who rose to power by overthrowing or displacing existing nobles could claim their titles, provided they gained the monarch’s recognition or solidified their power through force or alliances.
10. Elevations through Legal or Social Changes
- Social Mobility
In later medieval periods, legal reforms and social changes allowed for some mobility between the classes. Wealthy or influential commoners could leverage their status to gain noble titles, particularly in times of economic or political upheaval.
- Inheritance Laws
Changes in inheritance laws, such as the decline of strict primogeniture, sometimes allowed for non-traditional heirs to rise to nobility.
Gaining nobility typically required a combination of wealth, land, military service, and favor from the existing nobility or monarchy. It was a complex process, often intertwined with the politics, wars, and social structure of the time.
Medieval Clergy
The medieval clergy held a significant place in society, balancing religious duties with political power. The Church's hierarchy mirrored that of the nobility, with various ranks conferring different levels of authority, responsibility, and influence. Unlike the nobility, positions in the clergy were not inherited but achieved through devotion, education, and sometimes political maneuvering.
1. The Pope
Rank: Supreme Head of the Catholic Church
Territory: The entire Catholic Church, with temporal power over the Papal States.
Titles: His Holiness, Holy Father
Authority:
- Spiritual leader of all Christians in Western Europe, regarded as Christ's vicar on Earth.
- Held ultimate authority over religious doctrine, canon law, and church governance.
- Had the power to excommunicate kings, issue decrees, and call for crusades.
- Acted as a temporal ruler over the Papal States, wielding political and military power.
- Appointed cardinals, bishops, and other high-ranking clergy, guiding the direction of the Church.
2. Cardinals
Rank: Princes of the Church, directly below the Pope
Territory: Often governed major dioceses or held high positions within the Church's central administration.
Titles: His Eminence
Authority:
- Advisors to the Pope, often serving as administrators of the Vatican or as legates to foreign courts.
- Participated in the election of new popes in the College of Cardinals.
- Held considerable influence over church doctrine, policy, and political matters.
- Governed large dioceses or regions, exercising authority over bishops and the clergy within their jurisdiction.
- Acted as intermediaries between the Church and secular rulers, negotiating treaties, alliances, and policies.
3. Archbishops
Rank: Senior Bishops overseeing an archdiocese (a major ecclesiastical region)
Territory: Governed an archdiocese, often encompassing several dioceses.
Titles: His Grace, Your Excellency
Authority:
- Supervised the bishops within their archdiocese, ensuring adherence to church laws and doctrines.
- Held authority over religious matters in their region, including the appointment of clergy and the administration of sacraments.
- Played a political role, often advising kings and princes, and sometimes held seats in royal councils.
- Presided over religious courts, dealing with matters of heresy, marriage, and church disputes.
- Held significant wealth and land, often rivaling secular nobility in power and influence.
4. Bishops
Rank: Senior Clergy, overseeing a diocese (an administrative district of the Church)
Territory: Governed a diocese, typically including several parishes.
Titles: His Grace, Your Excellency
Authority:
- Responsible for the spiritual welfare of their diocese, including the ordination of priests and the administration of sacraments.
- Managed church lands, finances, and estates within their diocese, acting as landlords and administrators.
- Held power in local governance, often serving as advisors to local rulers or acting as judges in ecclesiastical courts.
- Built and maintained cathedrals, the central church of the diocese, which served as the bishop’s seat of power.
- Engaged in diplomacy and politics, often involved in regional power struggles between the Church and secular rulers.
5. Abbots and Abbesses
Rank: Heads of Monasteries and Convents
Territory: Governed a monastery (for monks) or convent (for nuns), with control over large estates and communities.
Titles: Father Abbot/Mother Abbess, Your Reverence
Authority:
- Held authority over the monks or nuns in their care, enforcing the Rule of their order (e.g., Benedictine, Cistercian).
- Managed extensive lands and estates, which provided the monastery or convent with food, wealth, and resources.
- Oversaw religious and educational activities within their communities, including copying manuscripts, teaching, and providing charity to the poor.
- Acted as local powerbrokers, often wielding influence over surrounding towns and villages.
- Abbots, in particular, sometimes sat in local councils or parliaments, representing the interests of the Church.
6. Priors and Prioresses
Rank: Deputies to Abbots and Abbesses or Heads of Smaller Monasteries/Convents
Territory: Managed priories (smaller religious communities).
Titles: Father Prior/Mother Prioress
Authority:
- Assisted abbots or abbesses in managing the affairs of the monastery or convent.
- Sometimes acted as the head of smaller religious houses, with similar responsibilities to abbots and abbesses, but on a smaller scale.
- Enforced the religious discipline of the order, ensuring that monks and nuns adhered to their vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
- Managed the lands and resources of the priory, often engaging in agricultural production or other economic activities to support the community.
- Provided spiritual guidance and performed religious services for the local community.
7. Priests
Rank: Parish Clergy
Territory: Governed individual parishes, typically one or more villages or a small town.
Titles: Father, Reverend
Authority:
- Responsible for the spiritual care of their parishioners, including administering sacraments such as baptism, marriage, and last rites.
- Served as the primary religious authority in the local community, providing sermons, religious instruction, and guidance.
- Managed the parish church, often the center of community life, and oversaw local charities and events.
- Acted as mediators between the church hierarchy and the laypeople, relaying messages and collecting tithes.
- Held some political influence in their communities, often serving as advisors to local lords or as scribes for legal matters.
8. Monks and Nuns
Rank: Lower Clergy, members of religious orders living in monastic communities.
Territory: Lived in monasteries or convents, often removed from secular life.
Titles: Brother/Sister
Authority:
- Dedicated their lives to religious contemplation, prayer, and service to God.
- Engaged in various activities depending on the order, such as copying manuscripts, teaching, farming, or providing charity to the poor.
- Took vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, living according to the rules of their religious order.
- Held little secular power but wielded significant moral and spiritual influence in their communities.
- Monks and nuns were often seen as holy individuals, respected for their devotion and service to God.
9. Friars
Rank: Itinerant Clergy, often belonging to mendicant orders (e.g., Franciscans, Dominicans).
Territory: Did not own property or reside in monasteries; instead, traveled and preached.
Titles: Brother/Sister, Friar
Authority:
- Preached to the public and lived among the people, relying on charity and alms for sustenance.
- Focused on poverty, humility, and missionary work, often in contrast to the wealth and power of the established Church.
- Played a significant role in evangelizing, educating, and caring for the poor in urban and rural areas.
- Held little formal power within the Church hierarchy but were influential in spreading religious reform and charity.
Preindustrial travel, and long explanations on why different distances are like that
Update March 1, 2024: Hey there folks, here's yet another update! I reposted Part 2a (the "medieval warhorses" tangent) to my writing blog, and I went down MORE of the horse-knowledge rabbit hole! https://www.tumblr.com/jadevine/741423906984951808/my-post-got-cut-off-so-i-added-the-rest-of-it
Update Jan 30, 2024: Hey folks, I've posted the updated version of this post on my blog, so I don't have to keep frantically telling everyone "hey, that's the old version of this post!" https://thebalangay.wordpress.com/2024/01/29/preindustrial-travel-times-part-1/
I should get the posts about army travel times and camp followers reformatted and posted to my blog around the end of the week, so I'll filter through my extremely tangled thread for them.
Part 2 - Preindustrial ARMY travel times: https://www.tumblr.com/jadevine/739342239113871360/now-for-a-key-aspect-that-many-people-often-ask
Part 2a - How realistic warhorses look and act, because the myth of "all knights were mounted on huge clunky draft horses" just refuses to die: https://www.tumblr.com/jadevine/732043691180605440/helpful-things-for-action-writers-to-remember
Part 3 - Additional note about camp followers being regular workers AND sex-workers: https://www.tumblr.com/jadevine/740604203134828544/reblogging-the-time-looped-version-of-my
--
I saw a post on my main blog about how hiking groups need to keep pace with their slowest member, but many hikers mistakenly think that the point of hiking is "get from Point A to Point B as fast as possible" instead of "spending time outdoors in nature with friends," and then they complain that a new/less-experienced/sick/disabled hiker is spoiling their time-frame by constantly needing breaks, or huffing and puffing to catch up.
I run into a related question of "how long does it take to travel from Point A to Point B on horseback?" a lot, as a fantasy writer who wants to be SEMI-realistic; in the Western world at least, our post-industrial minds have largely forgotten what it's like to travel, both on our own feet and in groups.
People ask the new writer, "well, who in your cast is traveling? Is getting to Point B an emergency or not? What time of year is it?", and the newbies often get confused as to why they need so much information for "travel times." Maybe new writers see lists of "preindustrial travel times" like a primitive version of Google Maps, where all you need to do is plug in Point A and Point B.
But see, Google Maps DOES account for traveling delays, like different routes, constructions, accidents, and weather; you as the person will also need to figure in whether you're driving a car versus taking a bus/train, and so you'll need to figure out parking time or waiting time for the bus/train to actually GET THERE.
The difference between us and preindustrial travelers is that 1) we can outsource the calculations now, 2) we often travel for FUN instead of necessity.
The general rule of thumb for preindustrial times is that a healthy and prime-aged adult on foot, or a rider/horse pair of fit and prime-aged adults, can usually make 20-30 miles per day, in fair weather and on good terrain.
Why is this so specific? Because not everyone in preindustrial times was fit, not everyone was healthy, not everyone was between the ages of 20-35ish, and not everyone had nice clear skies and good terrain to travel on.
If you are too far below 18 years old or too far past 40, at best you will need either a slower pace or more frequent breaks to cover the same distance, and at worst you'll cut the travel distance in half to 10 or so miles. Too much walking is VERY BAD on too-young/old knees, and teenagers or very short adults may just have short legs even if they're fine with 8-10 hours of actual walking. Young children may get sick of walking and pitch a fit because THEY'RE TIREDDDDDDDDDD, and then you might need to stay put while they cry it out, or an adult may sigh and haul them over their shoulder (and therefore be weighed down by about 50lbs of Angry Child).
Heavy forests, wetlands and rocky hills/mountains are also going to be a much shorter "distance" per day. For forests or wetlands, you have to account for a lot of villagers going "who's gonna cut down acres of trees for one road? NOT ME," or "who's gonna drain acres of swamp for one road? NOT ME." Mountainous regions have their traveling time eaten by going UP, or finding a safer path that goes AROUND, so by the time you're done slogging through drier patches of wetlands or squeezing through trees, a deceptively short 10-15 miles in rough terrain might take you a whole day to walk instead of the usual half-day.
If you are traveling in freezing winters or during a rainstorm (and this inherently means you HAVE NO CHOICE, because nobody in preindustrial times would travel in bad weather if they could help it), you run the high risk of losing your way and then dying of exposure or slipping and breaking your neck, just a few miles out of the town/village.
Traveling in TOO-HOT weather is just as bad, because pushing yourself too hard and getting dehydrated at noon in the tropics will literally kill you. It's called heat-STROKE, not "heat-PARTY."
And now for the upper range of "traveling on horseback!"
Fully mounted groups can usually make 30-40 miles per day between Point A and Point B, but I find there are two unspoken requirements: "Point B must have enough food for all those people and horses," and "the mounted party DOESN'T need to keep pace with foot soldiers, camp followers, or supply wagons."
This means your mounted party would be traveling to 1) a rendezvous point like an ally's camp or a noble's castle, or 2) a town/city with plenty of inns. Maybe they're not literally going 30-40 miles in one trip, but they're scouting the area for 15-20 miles and then returning to their main group. Perhaps they'd be going to an allied village, but even a relatively small group of 10-20 warhorses will need 10-20 pounds of grain EACH and 20-30 pounds of hay EACH. 100-400 pounds of grain and 200-600 pounds of hay for the horses alone means that you need to stash supplies at the village beforehand, or the village needs to be a very large/prosperous one to have a guaranteed large surplus of food.
A dead sprint of 50-60 miles per day is possible for a preindustrial mounted pair, IF YOU REALLY, REALLY HAVE TO. Moreover, that is for ONE day. Many articles agree that 40 miles per day is already a hard ride, so 50-60 miles is REALLY pushing the envelope on horse and rider limits.
NOTE: While modern-day endurance rides routinely go for 50-100 miles in one day, remember that a preindustrial rider will not have the medical/logistical support that a modern endurance rider and their horse does.
If you say "they went fifty miles in a day" in most preindustrial times, the horse and rider's bodies will get wrecked. Either the person, their horse, or both, risk dying of exhaustion or getting disabled from the strain.
Whether you and your horse are fit enough to handle it and "only" have several days of defenselessness from severe pain/fatigue (and thus rely on family/friends to help you out), or you die as a heroic sacrifice, or you aren't QUITE fit enough and become disabled, or you get flat-out saved by magic or another rider who volunteers to go the other half, going past 40 miles in a day is a "Gondor Calls For Aid" level of emergency.
As a writer, I feel this kind of feat should be placed VERY carefully in a story: Either at the beginning to kick the plot off, at the climax to turn the tide, or at the end.
Preindustrial people were people--some treated their horses as tools/vehicles, and didn't care if they were killed or disabled by pushing them to their limits, but others very much cared for their horses. They needed to keep them in working condition for about 15-20 years, and they would not dream of doing this without a VERY good reason.
—
UPDATE January 13: Several people have gotten curious and looked at maps, to find out how a lot of cities are indeed spread out at a nice distance of 20-30 miles apart! I love getting people interested in my hyperfixations, lol.
But remember that this is the space between CITIES AND TOWNS. There should never be a 20-mile stretch of empty wilderness between City A and Town B, unless your world explains why folks are able to build a city in the middle of nowhere, or if something has specifically gone wrong to wipe out its supporting villages!
Period pieces often portray a shining city rising from a sea of picturesque empty land, without a single grain field or cow pasture in sight, but that city would starve to death very quickly in preindustrial times.
Why? Because as Bret Devereaux mentions in his “Lonely Cities” article (https://acoup.blog/2019/07/12/collections-the-lonely-city-part-i-the-ideal-city/), preindustrial cities and towns must have nearby villages (and even smaller towns, if large and prosperous enough!) to grow their food for them.
The settlements around a city will usually be scattered a few miles apart from each other, usually clustered along the roads to the city gates. Those villages and towns at the halfway point between cities (say 10-15 miles) are going to be essential stops for older/sick folks, merchants with cargo, and large groups like noble’s retinues and army forces.
Preindustrial armies and large noble retinues usually can’t make it far past 10-12 miles per day, as denoted in my addition to this post. (https://www.tumblr.com/jadevine/739342239113871360/now-for-a-key-aspect-that-many-people-often-ask )
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Here's THE masterpost of free and full adaptations, by which I mean that it's a post made by the master.
Anthony and Cleopatra: here's the BBC version, here's a 2017 version.
As you like it: you'll find here an outdoor stage adaptation and here the BBC version. Here's Kenneth Brannagh's 2006 one.
Coriolanus: Here's a college play, here's the 1984 telefilm, here's the 2014 one with tom hiddleston. Here's the Ralph Fiennes 2011 one.
Cymbelline: Here's the 2014 one.
Hamlet: the 1948 Laurence Olivier one is here. The 1964 russian version is here and the 1964 american version is here. The 1964 Broadway production is here, the 1969 Williamson-Parfitt-Hopkins one is there, and the 1980 version is here. Here are part 1 and 2 of the 1990 BBC adaptation, the Kenneth Branagh 1996 Hamlet is here, the 2000 Ethan Hawke one is here. 2009 Tennant's here. And have the 2018 Almeida version here. On a sidenote, here's A Midwinter's Tale, about a man trying to make Hamlet.
Henry IV: part 1 and part 2 of the BBC 1989 version. And here's part 1 of a corwall school version.
Henry V: Laurence Olivier (who would have guessed) 1944 version. The 1989 Branagh version here. The BBC version is here.
Julius Caesar: here's the 1979 BBC adaptation, here the 1970 John Gielgud one. A theater Live from the late 2010's here.
King Lear: Laurence Olivier once again plays in here. And Gregory Kozintsev, who was I think in charge of the russian hamlet, has a king lear here. The 1975 BBC version is here. The Royal Shakespeare Compagny's 2008 version is here. The 1974 version with James Earl Jones is here. The 1953 Orson Wells one is here.
Macbeth: Here's the 1948 one, there the 1955 Joe McBeth. Here's the 1961 one with Sean Connery, and the 1966 BBC version is here. The 1969 radio one with Ian McKellen and Judi Dench is here, here's the 1971 by Roman Polanski, with spanish subtitles. The 1988 BBC one with portugese subtitles, and here the 2001 one). Here's Scotland, PA, the 2001 modern retelling. Rave Macbeth for anyone interested is here. And 2017 brings you this.
Measure for Measure: BBC version here. Hugo Weaving here.
The Merchant of Venice: here's a stage version, here's the 1980 movie, here the 1973 Lawrence Olivier movie, here's the 2004 movie with Al Pacino. The 2001 movie is here.
The Merry Wives of Windsor: the Royal Shakespeare Compagny gives you this movie.
A Midsummer Night's Dream: have this sponsored by the City of Columbia, and here the BBC version. Have the 1986 Duncan-Jennings version here. 2019 Live Theater version? Have it here!
Much Ado About Nothing: Here is the kenneth branagh version and here the Tennant and Tate 2011 version. Here's the 1984 version.
Othello: A Massachussets Performance here, the 2001 movie her is the Orson Wells movie with portuguese subtitles theree, and a fifteen minutes long lego adaptation here. THen if you want more good ole reliable you've got the BBC version here and there.
Richard II: here is the BBC version. If you want a more meta approach, here's the commentary for the Tennant version. 1997 one here.
Richard III: here's the 1955 one with Laurence Olivier. The 1995 one with Ian McKellen is no longer available at the previous link but I found it HERE.
Romeo and Juliet: here's the 1988 BBC version. Here's a stage production. 1954 brings you this. The french musical with english subtitles is here!
The Taming of the Shrew: the 1980 BBC version here and the 1988 one is here, sorry for the prior confusion. The 1929 version here, some Ontario stuff here, and here is the 1967 one with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. This one is the Shakespeare Retold modern retelling.
The Tempest: the 1979 one is here, the 2010 is here. Here is the 1988 one. Theater Live did a show of it in the late 2010's too.
Timon of Athens: here is the 1981 movie with Jonathan Pryce,
Troilus and Cressida can be found here
Titus Andronicus: the 1999 movie with Anthony Hopkins here
Twelfth night: here for the BBC, here for the 1970 version with Alec Guinness, Joan Plowright and Ralph Richardson.
Two Gentlemen of Verona: have the 2018 one here. The BBC version is here.
The Winter's Tale: the BBC version is here
Please do contribute if you find more. This is far from exhaustive.
(also look up the original post from time to time for more plays)
making another post about this: the reason why the concept of tiktok making their own version of goncharov really annoys me is because of how forced it feels and also the fact that the op of the tiktok asking people to pretend zepotha exists is just like trying so hard to make an artificial trend so that they can promote their own music and like sure promoting your music isn’t necessarily a bad thing but don’t like try to take an idea that is so ingrained in the yes and culture of tumblr and use that to make people listen to your music it’s just lazy and unoriginal
Neil really just updated his long fic slow burn with a chapter 2 after a 4 year hiatus and then left an authors note like haha hope you like it I’m working on ch 3 but idk if/when it’ll get posted bye!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
here’s a little comparison for people who say engagement hasn’t gotten that bad and anyone who complains is ungrateful.
these are two posts from my first go round on tumblr circa 2014-2017, my most popular gifset of all time
& a text post
notice how the ratio is about even on likes to reblogs?
here’s from this go around, my most popular gifset
and my most popular fic
do you see how that’s discouraging?
i love being on this site. i love the little community i’ve found and the people who follow me and the mutuals i’ve made friendships with and the mutuals that i’m still getting to know. i love it. but at a certain point it’s hard to justify spending so much time on works that get bad engagement.
reblog, comment, send asks. without them, this site doesn’t work.