It happens to me, that every single time I read a book, or article, or literally anything about the Middle Ages, I am met with almost intense remarks that "and by the way, it was ugly back then," even if they do not promote the well-known stereotypes of "you could get burned for knowing to read and everything was muddy."

For example, I was reading Ian Mortimer's "A Time Traveler's guide to Medieval England," which was cool, but I am starting to doubt if it is a good source on some topics. For example, it said that the marriage vows were only for women, and that men "shall do as he pleases," such as going with prostitutes and stuff, and that it was fully legal. My first reaction was doubt, as far as I know, marriage in Europe was only legal through the Catholic Church, which, indeed, placed the vows on both males and females (correct me if I am wrong), I dismissed it, but Mortimer kept writing about how a woman could not resist her husband sexually (at least legally); that if she was raped and had a child, she was said to technically have "enjoyed it" as it was believed "you could not get pregnant unless you enjoyed the sex," therefore "you were not raped" (I thought a woman being raped was a violation to the property of whoever her male guardian was, so legal procedures should have happened instead of just forsaking her, but Mortimer gave the impression that just being dismissed was her fate); and that she was always confined to the domestic sphere while man was the one who managed the public sphere, which sounded too "post-industrial 1950s" for me (I thought that in middle ages most business were in the same place as the house, so "domestic" and "public" was not as defined as today) but hey, he's a historian, he knows his stuff.

I have also read how feudalism was "borderline slavery" and that feudal lords constantly used fear to keep their peasants obedient (with the fact that "peasants did not resent their lords, they genuinely feared them"), and that lords could force a woman to marry to someone so she kept giving kids (I also raised an eyebrow here, because I thought marriage through the medieval church should be "consented," which explains the kidnappings and torture to force a woman/man to say "Yes" at the altar, as it was invalid without the verbal affirmation). On another occasion I read in a harmless and non-academic article about uncommonly mentioned medieval jobs that one of them was the alewife, and that a woman on this role had kind of a financial autonomy and was very present in public life; this put a small smile in my face, but almost as if the writer said to themselves "Oh no! They will think there was something minimally good in the middle ages! No way! I have to avoid that!" they proceeded to immediately say that alewives were socially marginalized and blamed for everything "just for being a woman; haha, look how sexist and stupid medieval people were."

I take this kind of thing personally, as I am both:

1. A middle-aged enthusiast
2. Someone who has a visceral hatred for sexism

Of course, I did not expect medieval times to be a utopia or that their treatment of women was equal and respectful; that would be kind of silly. I am mildly infuriated because it doesn't matter where I look, EVERYTIME I get rubbed on my face that "the Middle Ages were horrid, btw," like, hell dude, Rome and Greece were absurdly worse, but the public barely checks the plagues, the final boss of sexism (Greece), or the blood sports, as classical people were "advanced and very intelligent."

I am not saying it is bad to point out the ugly sides of an historical era, but it is unnatural how absurdly emphasized they are regarding the Middle Ages. "Medieval" has become a word that is a synonym of brutish, irrational, superstitious, etc. etc. etc.

This makes me think: "Even if all the old stereotypes were fake, were the REAL Middle Ages worth all the hate if even historians say so?"

So, ignoring my entire manifesto, did I just have bad resources, or were the Middle Ages actually that ugly? I'd like to hear your opinion.

The knights Templar invented the modern banking system, that King Philip IV of France was deeply indebted to. Gérard de Villiers, Précepteur de France, was the master banker at the Temple of Paris until he disappeared from records in June 1307. Hugues de Pairaud stepped down from his superior office of Visiteur de France and stepped into the office Villers vacated. Jacques de Molay was the last official Grand Master of the Knights Templar in France, as the grand master de Molay was in full contact with his officers. While King Philip IV, and his Chief Minister Guillaume de Nogaret were paying gold for ex-Templars and false witnesses, the gold they were paying them with came from the Knights Templar banking system. Villiers realized what was going on and fled as Brother Jean de Châlon described in the trial records. On September 14. 1307 King Philip IV drafts the arrest orders, writing that the Templars were guilty of an “execrable evil” and a “thing most inhumane”. Those orders were leaked, and preceding the leak, Villiers disappeared. On the morning of October 12, 1307, Jacques de Molay arrives in Paris as an invited pallbearer. De Molay is often viewed as an unsuspecting guest, blindsided, having no idea the orders for his arrest were already signed. Jacques de Molay was the Grand Master (Commanding General) of the Knights Templar, he was in full contact with his officers, he knew very well what was going on. Jacques de Molay did not arrive at the funeral unaware; he arrived as a masterful chess player. Jacques de Molay stood tall in public on Main Street while Huges de Châlon was carting off Pairaud’s treasury down Front Street. Jacques de Molay remained in Paris to be arrested and serve as a human lightning rod (the grand masters always lead from the front never the rear) along with numerous others while the main body and assets disappeared into the night. Jacques de Molay was no fool. He was, as I read the playing field, the most underrated player on the field in October of 1307.

On May 15, 1293, the Battle of St. Mahé erupts; and King Edward I’s privateers send King Philip IV’s navy into a rout. This was the beginning of the conflicts in Flanders and the English Channel that tied up Edward’s and Philip’s navies. While the king’s battled on the waters, the entire western seaboard was a military blind spot. On the day of September 14, 1307, King Philip IV issues orders for the arrests of the Knights Templar and the seizure of all assets thereof. The orders were given under penalty of death, not to be open until the dawn on October 13. These orders being sent to all of Philip’s bailiffs, seneschals, and royal patrols. With specific, orders to open at dawn, the men enforcing these orders would be gathering (pre-staging) at their command centers awaiting the reading of the orders. With all the bailiffs, seneschals, and royal patrols held up at the commandries, the cities, residences, temples, and docks; the coastal ways north and south of the Port of La Rochelle were complete military blind spot. The only Ships on the Atlantic were the ships belonging to the Crown of Castile, and the Crown of Aragon; both military allies with the Knights Templar. If an 18-ship fleet were to sail into these waterways outside of La Rochelle, they would have an entire western coast of Europe to sail out of, under the extreme threat of a - sunburn.

Was the ghost fleet a myth, or did GÉRARD DE VILLIERS who disappeared from public records 4 months prior stage a masterful evacuation?

Modern descendants of the Villiers family frequently claim that after the initial raids on Friday, October 13, 1307, the Précepteur de France, Gérard de Villiers, simply "went over to the Knights Hospitaller" to find safety.

It is a clean, comfortable family myth because the Villiers family did hold ranks within the Order of the Knights Hospitallers. But it completely falls apart under raw, tactical mechanics and institutional physics.

First, look at the strict structural rules of the era. In 1307, the Templars and Hospitallers were fierce institutional rivals, competing for favor of King Philip IV, and Pope Clement V. The Rule of the Order of St. John explicitly blocked them from taking in defectors or high-profile fugitives from another military order. If the most wanted man in France showed up at a Hospitaller commandery gate in 1307, harboring him would have been an open declaration of war against King Philip IV. The Hospitallers wouldn't have hidden him; they would have detained him instantly to secure political favor from the Crown, that the Hospitallers and the Templar contended for.

Second, look at the timeline math. Pope Clement V did not authorize the Hospitallers to absorb the Templars' assets until May of 1312—a massive 4.5-year (54-month) bureaucratic lag after the initial raids.

Any military evaluator or modern commando will tell you the same thing: hiding out on a heavily fortified European mainland, under an intense royal dragnet, for four solid years without leaving a single paper trail, arrest record, or signature is an operational impossibility. For 4 months? Yes, a master operative can disappear in the initial chaos. For 4 years? Absolutely not. The King's network of spies would have squeezed the region until he surfaced.

Furthermore, Villiers was not a spy trained in deep-cover anonymity. His face was instantly recognized as the high-ranking, elite Templar that he was. He could not simply "blend in" to a local crowd. It would be like trying to hide John Wayne or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in a crowd on Main Street; he would have been instantly identified and reported for the massive royal rewards on his head.

He wasn't hiding in a French cellar, and he didn't check into a rival monastery. Gérard de Villiers' only path of escape was the Atlantic Ocean. Because he could not stay on the mainland, Villiers exited the theater entirely by pulling out onto the open, unpatrolled waters of the Atlantic Ocean—vanishing from the European map.

If King Philip’s arrest orders turned up little more than a handful of men and little assets, where did they go, and how did they get there?

Hey RTS fans!

I'm a solo developer working on Wars of Empire, a medieval-inspired 2D isometric RTS.

The game currently features five playable civilizations:

• Byzantines
• Ottomans
• Britons
• Huns
• Chinese

I'm now thinking about which civilizations to introduce next, and I'd love to hear what fellow RTS players think.

Some candidates on my list are Vikings, Japanese, Mongols, Franks, Persians, Mamluks, Malians, and Seljuks.

I'm primarily focusing on the Middle Ages and closely related historical periods, rather than civilizations from entirely different eras.

One thing I really want to get right is making each civilization feel unique in gameplay, not just visually. Different military tactics, special units, buildings, technologies, and economic strengths.

If you could pick just ONE civilization to add, which would it be, and what unique gameplay mechanic should it bring?

I'm genuinely curious about your ideas!

Just a few dramatized events from the hundred years war.

So, recently I saw a short of a dude jumping into the pool with different weights on a weight belt and trying to swim up. He got all the way up to 15kg and he couldn't swim to the surface, at all. That had made me remember that knight's training involved swimming in bodies of water with their armor on that could have reached up to 20 kilos of weight. Kind of insane to think of how strong the knights must have been back then to be able to do this kind of training.

Reminder that submission for the Medieval North conference is due on November 1st.

The conference shall be held from April 19-21, 2027 in the Edda auditorium at Háskóli Íslands and online.
This conference is an interdisciplinary forum for postgraduate applicants at the master's and doctoral level and for early career researchers working in the field of medieval northern studies, e.g. postdoctoral fellows. Independent academics are also welcome to apply.
Applicants who have not presented papers at an academic conference before are especially encouraged to submit.
Our theme this year is "Between Worlds."
Interested scholars should submit an Outlook form with personal details (name, email, institution, etc.) and an abstract of 250-300 words by November 1st, 2026. Additionally, please indicate whether you intend to attend the conference online or in person. Submissions will be reviewed anonymously by a panel of specialists (PhD candidates and higher level). This selection committee reserves the right to make selections based on the quality of written abstracts, adherence to submission guidelines, and timely submission. For more information on the submission guidelines see our website: https://histudentconference.wordpress.com/.
The conference is held in both Icelandic and English. Individual paper presentations will be 20 minutes in length followed by 10 minutes for discussion. In addition to presentations, poster sessions will be available for applicants to present their material in poster form. Applicants may apply for either a paper or a poster. The selection committee may offer a poster presentation to some paper applicants. Please direct any further inquiries to the conference committee via email: conference-mn2027@hi.is. 
After the conclusion of the conference, presenters will have the opportunity to submit their papers to the conference proceedings volume, which will be published as an e-book in the autumn of 2027.

Medieval Knight in 3D made by me
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/ndd054

A tattoo artist's flash style print of a set of odd marginalia fellows. I'm particularly happy with the skeleton florist, the walking fish, and the human radish.

Structure relatively "quick" to make that you would not care about leaving behind like how trenches would be abandoned as your side was able to advance. I would say seige camps, but those often turn into pure forts with literal food markets over time so they dont count.

I am not too worried timeline wise, early renaissance is fine too.

I am not too fussed about how the information is presented, be it book, article, or video.

I'm making a card game inspired by marginalia and the medieval era in general, and right now I'm tightening up the events on the map.

So far I've got generic dice roll stuff (chests, crates), one very enthusiastic barber (especially about the cutting and bleeding part), and a little KCD reference.

Already planning a pig trial, falaise 1386, pig in clothes and all. What else would you add? Superstitions, weird laws, history, strange jobs, anything odd that actually happened.

Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England, was pacing around a field in southern England on Sunday, giving a thunderous speech to energize his troops before a battle against the forces of William the Conqueror, the Norman invader who was trying to steal his throne.

“People of England,” Godwinson bellowed, “I ask for you to believe in me, believe in our England!”

If they did, Godwinson added, history would remember them as the heroes who “drove the Norman dogs back into the sea whence they came.”

As Godwinson’s rousing speech reached its climax, the bearded king punched the air in celebration, and, like a rowdy sports crowd, the dozens of onlookers chanted his name. “God-win-son! God-win-son!”

Access full gift article, NO PAYWALL.

It's episode 19 of The Cartoon Chronicles of the Wars of the Roses, and the brown stuff is starting to hit the fan for the Lords Appellant... Read all previous episodes for free at warsoftherosescomic.com

When I talk about the world, there are a few things I want to clarify. I'm mostly interested in how people would react to modern alliances and national borders.

For example, how would people in the Middle Ages feel about France and England, two kingdoms that were often at each other's throats, now being friends and allies with two massive Empire's. What would they think of France having such a large empire while being a republic rather than a monarchy?

And what about Germany? In 1914, Germany was a unified country, but its territory was only a portion of what had once been the Holy Roman Empire. How would medieval people react to seeing Germany as a unified nation rather than a collection of smaller kingdoms and territories?

I'm sure there are plenty of other interesting things for people from the Middle Ages to discover about the modern world, but these are the main things I'd like to explore.

I’m absolutely baffled by how specific the Lex Frisionum gets
I’ve been reading about the Lex Frisionum, an early medieval law code associated with Frisia (roughly the coastal regions of today’s Netherlands and northwestern Germany), and I’m fascinated by just how detailed it gets.

There are rules for all sorts of injuries, with different monetary fines depending on exactly what you did to someone. Even facial injuries could be distinguished by location: the upper forehead versus the lower forehead, for example. Apparently, in early medieval Frisia, where you hit someone mattered quite literally in terms of compensation.
The text also reflects a society with a strict social hierarchy, in which the amount owed for an injury could depend on whether the victim was noble, free or semi-free.
The Lex Frisionum was written down in the late 8th century, around the time Charlemagne was incorporating Frisian territories into the Frankish realm. It also preserves traces of religious customs that predated Christianisation, which makes me wonder how much older tradition survived in a text recorded in this particular political context. For instance, sacrilege: the highest punishment was for a person who violated a sanctuary, they were sentenced to death as a sacrifice to the god whose sanctuary was destroyed/stolen from.
The offender was tied to the beach at low tide, then drowned as the water rose.

I came across it while visiting the Redbad-exhibition at the Fries Museum in the Netherlands, and now I have far too many questions about this law code. Very interesting times, early medieval Frisia. And the archeology in the exhibition is breathtaking..
Are there any other law-texts from this same medieval period from other societies that are also so detailed?

Hello, can anyone here help me by giving a breakdown of how to estimate what century of the middle ages a peasant village house, manor house, or town house might be from based on its construction? Pictures would be greatly appreciated. I am particularly interested in telling the difference between 12th and 13th century houses vs Late Medieval and pre-1066. This is for an art project and I am trying to find references I can know are historically accurate.

A few odd fellows with no common theme. Just threw them all together like a tattoo artist's flash.

Long story short, I’m a jazz bassist and guitarist, and I recently got hired to play medieval songs with some improvisation, on mandolin and voice. The catch is that I don't really play mandolin nor I'm a singer. Today my client told me the music was great, but it lacked the vibe of a bard playing in a tavern. Honestly, they’re right. I caught the musical style but not really the performance side.

I’d like to hear how you bring that storytelling feel to a performance, whether it’s how you talk to the crowd, how you move, or how you sing when you don’t have a big trained voice. on the side of the music, I’m comfortable with modes and improvising, but I think there’s a rhythmic feel that I’m missing specially when strumming.

On the repertoire side, I’d really appreciate pointers to songs that I should know when playing medieval stuff. I know there’s a gap between historically medieval pieces and the fantasy stuff people expect from games, my client really likes video games like The Witcher, and I’m not sure where to focus. Any recordings, channels, or books for someone starting from scratch would be amazing too.

Thanks, any advice would be really appreciated since I just have a month to do it.

so long story short, im working on designing weapon types for my fantasy/scifi setting which i like to keep in the realm of practicality and plausibility. that being said while doing research, ive gotten an idea for a type of warhammer but i wanna make sure i get the details right in how the head of it is designed and its key features/reasons for them being designed that way.

ive seen a lot of different types of hammers in games and different designs, some just being a straight up flat face sledgehammer, some having a more concave look to the face, some having a spike, etc etc...

im trying to figure out the different ideas behind these designs but its rather difficult. especially given that searching up 'warhammer' online doesn't exactly point you in the direction of the medieval weapon but instead the tabletop game.

all that being said, anyone more knowledgeable able to explain the design philosophies behind the different faces of a warhammer?