Remembering the Past to Save the Future

no, medieval people did not only eat grey porridge with no herbs or spices, they had a great variety of vegetables we dont even have anymore, grains and dairy products, not to mention fruits and meats, all seasonal and changing with the time of the year. no, medieval food was not just tasteless, maybe this will surprise some of you but you can make tasty food without excessive spice use, and can use a variety of good tasting herbs. if you'd ever tried to cook some medieval recipes you would know that. medieval people needed a lot of energy for their work, if they would only eat fucking porridge all of the time they would get scurvy and die before they could even built a civilisation. they had something called 'pottage' which was called that because it was cooked in one pot. you could leave the pot on the fire and go about your day, doing stuff and come back to a cooked meal. they put in what was available that time of the year, together with grains, peas, herbs, meat etc etc. again, if you would try to make it, like i have with my reenactment friends, it can actually be really good and diverse.

dont confuse medieval peasants with poor people in victorian england. dont think that TV shows what it was really like. dont think that dirty grey dressed people covered in filth were how the people looked like.

they made use of everything. too poor to buy proper meat? buy a sheeps head and cook it. they ate nettle and other plants we consider weeds now. they foraged and made use of what they found. hell, there are medieval cook books!

most rural people had animals, they had chickens (eggs), goats (milk and dairy), cows (milk and dairy), sheep (milk and dairy) and pigs (meat machine), and after butchering they used ALL THE PARTS of the animal. you know how much meat you can get out of a pig, even the smaller medieval breeds? the answer is a lot

if you had the space you always had a vegetable garden. there are ways to make sure you have something growing there every time of the year. as i said they had a variety of vegetables we dont have anymore due to how farming evolved. you smoked pork in the chimney, stored apples in the dry places in your house, had a grain chest. people could go to the market to buy fish and meat, both fresh and dried/smoked. they had ale, beer and wine, that was not a luxury that was a staple part of their diet.

Here is a great collection of information about medieval cook books from all over europe with links! Here is another simple summary and some cook book links from the british library!

Here two books that I have myself and found great, and am soon going to try to remake some dishes:

The Forme of Cury: oldest known english cook book, compiled around 1390 for the english king (aka they put saffron into everything)

Das Bůch von gůter spîse: a german cookbook from 1350, part of the Housebook of Michael de Leone, a prothonotary (so no king this time). Way more down to earth recipes, and sometimes simple but still very creative with different foods and some sounding very tasty (I only know the middle high german version of this, so sorry)

It is also important to note that of course the food was VERY dependent on where you were living! Like wine and grapes were super normal every day food and drink for people where i come from (Vienna) where most of the economy was built on wine and the city (that is in a basin surrounded by low hills) is surrounded by massive wineyards, even today, going back over 1000 years. Where I live now (Norway) life and diet was fundamentally different! The ground is frozen most of the year, it is always cold, but you have a lot of access to fish (no wonder they went raiding).

To the many people on the notes asking over and over again (even though I answered it already) about the vegetables we don't have anymore:

Every modern vegetable used to look quite different, and we used to have a lot more variety of all of it. E.g. carrots: you are probably most familiar with the orange one, but that is just one vaeiation. Even today we have yellow and purple carrots, and back in the medieval period they had even more variants. There are a lot of things, especially salads that have grown 'out of fashion' and thus are not cultivated anymore like they used to be. There are a lot of kinds of peas dying out that used to be an important crop before we had potatoes in europe. Grains used to look very different (think of grain fields as high as corn fields). A lot of foods that need to be foraged also are out of fashion, sadly.

you know how far you can get into eurasia and africa by sailing up rivers from the baltic and mediterranean seas? pretty fucking far, and that’s what vikings liked to do to trade

then, you know, people are people, so love happens, business happens, and so ppl get married and take spouses back home to the frozen hellscape that is scandinavia (upon which i’m guessing the horrorstruck new spouses went “WHAT THE FUCK??? FUCKING GIVE ME YOUR JACKET???????”)

and sometimes vikings bought thralls and brought them home as well, and i mean, when your indentured service is up after however many years and you’re a free person again, maaaaaaaaaaaaybe it’s a bit hard to get all the way home across the continent, so you make the best out of the situation and you probably get married and raise a gaggle kids

so yeah

Why?

Check that out: the goods Vikings and Scandinavians were getting from their trade with the rest of the world was so important they buried themselves with it, as part of their treasure hordes.

We KNOW this.

Vikings in Persia

Black Vikings

Vikings in North Africa

Buddha statue in Viking hoard

Vikings brought Native American woman to Europe

Unflattering texts in Arabic about Vikings

Original text by Ahmad ibn-Fadlan

More about the Islamic World and Vikings (some Vikings converted to Islam! sort of sketchy site tho)

Viking technology came from Afghanistan

More on trade route determination via metallurgy

–and I hate how the entire subculture has been so thoroughly co-opted by white supremacists. To the point where I, a person who likes viking stuff, am deeply and immediately suspect of anyone else who likes viking stuff, guilty until proven innocent, cuz that’s what the odds are these days.

Anyway.

As far as I’m concerned, anyone can be a viking, and thus I am so, so pleased to find that the historical record backs me up.

Incredibly violent well-armed vagabond who kills people for money/political favors

member of the landed elite who does the same and also just to maintain/extend their personal fortune

Did something to get in the monarch's good books and got a big special pat on the head for it.

Knights were

a social class of feudal europe,

part of the noble class,

comprised of

well-equipped

mounted

warriors and warlords (i.e. professional "officer" soldiers, they fought themselves and also had men-at-arms under their command, "rank and file" soldiers),

who

owed their allegiance as warlords to a lord/baron/king/religious institution

and

owned land and exploited (in the marxist sense, it's not a value judgement, it just describes a social relation) the labour of those who tended that land (serfs or otherwise), often without being taxed (in lieu of paying taxes, they waged war on command)

AND/OR

were part of a christian military order, and waged holy war for a living.

"Allegiance" is the key word here. That's what separates knights from generic warriors and mercenaries. It's not an inherent trait of the class, it's part of an ideological superstructure which evolved gradually over time. And to a significant degree, it evolved precisely to separate knights from mercenaries, and to offer to mounted well-equipped warlords some tempting privileges (land, tax exemptions, social status, honours and glory) in exchange for becoming a reliable war asset. Which mercenaries were certainly not. Hence the enormous emphasis on loyalty and fealty and oath-keeping.

This is the purpose of chivalry. To take a horse-rider with a sword, who would be a wild card if left to his own devices, and turn him into a reliable war asset. A good little tool of death. The rest is pretty ribbons tied around the sword.

Now obviously, if the ideal was "the loyal knight", in practice knights were not necessarily loyal. It was a process to establish it, and an effort to maintain it, and then at times it broke completely, and the place got swarmed by robber knights. (Usually when the ruling class was no longer willing or able to give away lands, and found out that titles alone are not enough to control heavily armed warlords). So the war asset was not, in fact, always reliable, and the little tool of death was not always pointed at the desired direction.

But remember that the robber knights, who operated in their immediate vicinity instead of marching wherever their liege lord or order sent them, were in the exact same business with the loyal ones. They killed and plundered and enslaved. We often read complaints about their brutality, and how they forsake their vows and shit on chivalry, but you know what's the main complaint, the real one? "They're doing it to US! They should be doing it to other people far away!"

@illuminaidan

The chevauchée is a type of military tactic, kinda like scorched earth, where the cavalry raids madly through the country and summarily burns and pillages fields and villages, slaughtering everyone. It's pure destruction: it's not like, to secure this strategic position, nor is it about depriving the enemy's army of food and shelter, which is how scorched earth is often used, as defence vs an invasion. The only goal is demoralisation, and forcing the enemy to come meet you in battle. Because you just devastated a portion of their lands and eliminated a portion of their peasants, and you are gonna keep doing it until there's nothing and no one left. So they better show up.

The pyramids were built by contemporary workers who received wages and were fed and taken care of during construction

The Dendera “lightbulb” is a representation of the creation myth and has nothing to do with electricity

We didn’t find “““copper wiring””” in the great pyramid either

Hatshepsut wasn’t transgender

The gods didn’t actually have animal heads

Hieroglyphs aren’t mysteriously magical; they’re just a language (seriously we have shopping lists and work rosters and even ancient erotica)

The ancient Egyptian ethnicity wasn’t homogeneous

While the Egyptians were fine-ass astronomers they didn’t align any of their enormous and/or important buildings to modern star constellations, because constellations look very different now than they did ~5000 years ago 

Speaking of that particular sphinx, the Napoleonic expedition is not responsible for its missing nose

Akhenaten was not a “heretic” by contemporary standards

Ramses II appropriated a lot of his predecessors’ buildings/reliefs and isn’t really deserving of the epithet “the Great”

It was not, in fact, practice to shave off eyebrows after cats died; Herodotus lied about that

Here are some vetted Egyptological books/sources (that are by and large appropriate for a lay-audience) you can find most, if not all of the above:

Lehner, M., The Complete Pyramids

Wilkinson, R. H., The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt

Hornung, E., The One and the Many: Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt

Dunand, F. & Zivie-Coche, C., Gods and Men in Egypt

Kemp, B., Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization

Bard, K., An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt

Stevenson Smith, W., The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt

Kitchen, K. A., The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt

Sweeney, D., Sex and Gender (in Ancient Egypt)

McDowell, A. G., Village Life in Ancient Egypt:  Laundry Lists and Love Songs

a lot of what people are drawing on when they talk about eg. "butch knights" or otherwise use knights as an articulation of a particular (generally non-normative) mode of gender is located within the chivalric imaginary. broadly speaking, chivalry as a european cultural phenomenon emerged in the literature of the late crusading era, largely fermented in the chrysalis of nostalgia for christian conquest and rule of the so-termed 'holy land' in west asia; crusading, in turn, was of course a bloodthirsty practice of christian conquest leading to the slaughter of vast swathes of muslim and jewish populations—cf. for example, the rhinelands pogroms or the aftermath of the siege of jerusalem in 1099, or the siege of maarat in 1098. chivalry as a cultural construct was significantly steeped in a desire to reconcile the military practices of knights with the guidance of the church, and the paradigmatic 'chivalric knight' was one whose military prowess or whatever could be matched by his piety. we see this effort to reconcile the 'worldly' with the spiritual as a galvanising force in much of the key works of chivalric lit; chrétien de troyes' perceval being a key example, or the narrative tensions around lancelot and galahad throughout the arthurian canon. the point is: chivalry is a phenomenon loyal to medieval european christianity, and deference to a medieval imaginary is most often reactionary. (cf., for example, the weight held by nostalgia for the 'chivalric era' in the ruling class of the antebellum american south.)

in chivalry and violence in medieval europe, richard kaeuper writes against the impetus to take the romantic image of the chivalric knight (as we may find in, say, chrétien de troyes) at face value, and urges us as historians to understand instead that many of our sources on the chivalric imaginary were produced as part of a reform effort promoting this idealised cultural construct. the natural follow-on here, of course, is that a reform effort must have a particular political tempering, and—imo—a meaningful queer politic of gender should be capable of understanding and reckoning with that political tempering which continues to hold currency in the present day rather than borrowing what we like and discarding what we don't.

like…knights are a state militia, chivalry is a social relation constructed around that fact, steeped in the presumed supremacy of the church, and loyal to the primary governing power. these very vague ideas around deference to 'ladies' (drawing on a romanticisation of the ruling class, ofc) can't really be separated from their broader social setting and the relations of power that chivalry sought to articulate and affirm. in short: it's very very white and it's very very goyish.

this isn't to say that like, everyone who does this has to Stop Immediately or else they're directly endorsing the ideological thorniness that chivalry invokes, but i do think it's worth spending some time with what it is that makes these cultural histories a) hold currency in the present discourse and b) appeal specifically to a lesbian/butch/transmasc/etc. imaginary. what are we trying to integrate ourselves into and what ideological hegemons are we trying to resist, and are we succeeding? can we be more imaginative?

The castle does not run itself. The castle would remain a pile of stones without servants to keep it running. The guide below focuses on the private household of the lord himself, anybody who worked inside the main keep of the castle. I will be expanding outside the walls in a future post.

The Steward/Seneschal

This person was the head of the household staff. They would have the task of running things on the Lord’s estate. They are the managers, so it is up to them to keep the staff in line. The steward would keep the castle accounts and keep the lord informed of all of the goings on of the lands and tenants. They would have to be educated needing to do accounts and write letters. Though the castle’s Lady would be expected to do all these things, the steward served as a backup and assistant in all the tasks even representing the lord and lady when they were unavailable.

The Chamberlain

The chamberlain is the servant employed to look after the Lord’s bedchamber. He would look after the Lord’s clothes as well and keep track of the other servants’ liveries, the official uniforms of the guards, pages and squires. This was not always the case, some larger households had a separate office but most medium seized manors and castles lumped them together. The chamberlain’s main task was ensuring the lord was kept happy. He would even be the last servant a lord would see at night before he went to bed at night. They would be educated.

The Marshal

A Marshal was in charge of the stables as well as the military presence in the castle. They would oversee the household’s horses, carts, wagons, and containers. He oversaw blacksmiths, horse grooms and stableboys. He also oversaw the transporting of goods. The Marshal was sometimes in charge of disciplining servants. They would likely come from a middle class background as well as having military experience and education.

The Page

A page was a young noble boy about seven years old who would be sent to serve a Lord. He would be in charge of tidying up after the lord, carrying messages to other servants and occupants of the castle and serving him at meals. Unlike others on the list, the page would not be paid. His experience was his payment as he would learn the running of a castle and manners of a lord.

The Lady’s Maid

The lady’s maid is be the female body attendant of the castle’s noble women. She would be in charge of caring for the lady’s chamber and her things. She would dress the lady and attend her wherever she would. (The lady’s maid would basically do all the work a chamberlain would but you know the wage gap…)

Maidservant

A housemaid/maidservant works to clean the castle. She would be among the first to awaken every morning. Her first task would be sweeping the floors. The thing with mediaeval floors a that they were often covered with a thin layer of rushes, a kind of grass. Weekly if not daily, a maidservant would be expected to change out the rushes and scatter new ones. If it really needed it, she would scrub the stone floors which would be done with a soap called lye, made from ashes and lard. The maidservant would also be expected to go into the bedchambers when the occupants awoke. She would empty the chamberpots if need be. She would get rid of the ashes from the fire and ready the fire for later. She would make up the bed or strip it for the laundresses. She would wash anything that needed washing including furniture and ornaments.

Laundress

The laundress was responsible for the cleaning of anything made of fabric in the household. The laundress would have to fetch their own water either from the castle well or from a nearby river. They would heat the water in large vats and add lye soap (the most popular of the cleaning agents). The constant exposure to soap and hot water was physically tough on the hands of the laundresses and their backs. When the detergents were added to the water, the laundress would dump them into the vat and stir that shit like soup. To dry it they would pin it out on lines or beat the water from it. The laundress might make money by selling secrets. Since they are handling unmentionables, they knew what happened behind closed bedchamber doors or what didn’t.

Nursemaid

The nursemaid was in charge of the castle’s children. They would ensure the child was fed, washed and generally kept alive while the parents would either be away at court or busy with the lands. The nursemaid would be a common woman from the surrounding lands who would come in to care for a noble child in the stead of the mother who would be expected to get on with other jobs. The nursemaid would be an underlying of the noble governess, a sort of hands-off nanny.

Cook

The cook was one of the most important servants in the castle. They would have the task of overseeing the running of the kitchens and keeping supplies in order. They would likely be on call at all times. Henry VIII’s cook was often woken in the night because his royal master wanted a midnight snack. The cook was a valued member of the household and would have been highly sought after if they were a very skilled cook. Cooks would have been paid a handsome wage.

Scullion

The scullion was the lowest member of staff. They would be responsible for scrubbing and cleaning the servants quarters and the kitchens. They would scrub floors with lye, scour pots with sand, sweep put the fireplace and clean up after the other servants. They were the first to rise in a castle and tasked to light all the fires in the kitchens.

Payment & Lifestyle

Within the mediaeval household, payment came from the hand of the steward. As the Lord’s manager of accounts, he was in charge of paying staff.

The grander jobs in the castle such as the marshal, the chamberlain, nursemaid and lady’s maid would pay better. They would have certain privileges including better bedchambers.

A nursemaid who was breastfeeding the Lord’s children would be a valued member of staff. She would be fed better than the other servants.

The page would sleep in a chamber off the lord’s bedchamber or sometimes at the foot of the bed. A page would wear the Lord’s livery so he would be dressed on the Lord’s coin.

The chamberlain would have rooms close to the lord and lady, just in case they were needed by the master in any kind of emergency.

The cook would sleep near the kitchens so they were close enough just in case they are needed in the night.

The other household servants would all sleep in chambers together. The women would sleep in one and the men would sleep in another. Nightly dalliances were frowned upon massively.

"The festivities of Saint Jeanne d’Arc in Orleans, this year.