Sure, you’ve sketched out the mountain ranges and made flow charts of the magic system, but have you thought of how the people act when in groups? Have you considered if your characters live in a society, man? If not, this podcast is here to help with advice on how to create a realistic culture. We discuss history, economics, religion, and perhaps the most important question: Are there any fun spices around?
Show Notes
- Historical Accuracy Isn’t a Reason to Exclude Diversity
- “Historical Accuracy” In Westeros
- Historical Fiction With Dragons In It
- The Way of Kings
- Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary
- Oppressed Mages
- Does My Fantasy Setting Need a Religion?
- Children of the Light
- Buddhism and Shinto in Japan
- Interest and Christianity
- The Hail Mary Project
Transcript
Generously transcribed by Clementine. Volunteer to transcribe a podcast.
You’re listening to the Mythcreants podcast with your hosts Oren Ashkenazi, Wes Matlock, and Chris Winkle.
[Intro music]Chris: You’re listening to the Mythcreant podcast. I’m Chris and with me is…
Wes: Wes
Chris: and
Oren: Oren
Chris: And after almost 400 episodes, it feels like we’ve created our own culture at the Mythcreants podcast. One with cuisine consisting of sandwiches. A religion devoted to Podcastia; God of podcasts and with the legends of Wraith McBlade.
Oren: Oh, everyone loves Wraith McBlade. He is a household name around here.
Chris: Yes. With time and care, you too can create a culture so rich and realistic for your setting as we have here at the podcast.
Wes: All hail Podcastia!
Chris: Yes, we shall open the prayer. That is our prayer. Our bad jokes is our prayer to Podcastia; or sacrifice, if you will.
Wes: Each pun is a sacrifice to Podcasti.
Chris: So yeah, this time we’re gonna be talking about creating fictional cultures. Honestly, we see a lot of mistakes when it comes to culture creation, and I don’t think it’s often talked about as much as other aspects of world building are talked about. It’s good to cover some of the basics of creating a culture, and what can go wrong, and maybe some cool cultures that we have in popular stories.
Wes: Are you saying that we can’t just arbitrarily pick things for our culture and call it culture?
Chris: Well, we can call it culture. Nobody can stop you. [laughs]
Wes: Okay.
Oren: Look, what’s important is that Game of Thrones is back. So we now have five more years of reminding people that Westeros isn’t a historical place.
Wes: [laughs] What?
Chris: Oh yeah. This was kind of a riot. But, also kind of sad because when we discuss the fact that people use historical accuracy as an excuse in other world fantasy for doing gross things. We’ve got a bunch of people who are like, “no, you don’t understand. It’s great because we have to have sexism and sexual assault in historical settings”. And usually we would just delete those comments. Then there’s the other half of people who are like, “what are you talking about? Ha ha ha historical accuracy. It’s fantasy. Nobody does that’. [laughs] Well, we deleted the inappropriate comments that were doing that, so it’s kind of hard to show you the fact that lots of people are doing that all the time.
Oren: Well, Game of Thrones in particular is notorious for the first defense that whenever anyone questions like, “did we really need that graphic, horrible torture rape sequence?” And someone will be like, “well, that’s what it was like back then”. And that’s the first defense. What do you mean back then? What are you talking about? Now there’s supposedly quotes from various people involved saying it’s not really historical fantasy, it’s historical fiction…with dragons. If that’s an accurate quote, I don’t even know what to do with that.
Chris: I mean, all medieval fantasy or other world fantasy could probably called it that, if we wanted to. You have dragons, spell casting, you know, some ice zombies.
Oren: Yeah. It’s all of those things. It’s fine. Whatever.
Wes: I just like the idea of—they keep adding things to the end of that list. It’s like with dragons and ice zombies and different continents… and magic.
Chris: Little Elf people. In this case though, we can clearly point the finger because George R. R. Martin has a quote where he was interviewed. He says that the reason that he included sexual assault in the originals was to make it feel historical. So, we know that this is the reason. We can’t pretend. Well, at least we have a way to keep people from pretending that that is not a justification that’s being used.
Oren: On a less gross note, I will give Song of Ice and Fire at least this much credit which is that if you’re gonna go with a standard feudal society for your fantasy setting at least do something with it. And Game of Thrones does do that. Game of Thrones is all about shifting feudal power structures, and for better or worse, that is actually something that it focuses on. So it feels like it’s actually using its setting for something as opposed to something like, The Way of Kings, which is not really doing that, at least not in the first book, but still has very standard feudalism. And at that point we could have gone with something a little more imaginative if we weren’t gonna try to go for the really immersive version.
Chris: Imaginative, or not imaginative, maybe fairer just to make sure we’re not glorifying monarchy. If you’re not gonna use it anyway, the story doesn’t need it.
Wes: Regime change, I think is a really good thing to explore for your fictional culture, because talk about ultimate conflict. About this is the way we live and somebody’s saying, well, I hate that we should change it up. And then you get all kinds of conflicting values. And I think it just offers the rich opportunity to put maybe more for your culture out there in the world. What type of ruler do you have? How long have they been around? How well off are the general people? Why are they rebelling? You know, all of these kinds of things I think are pretty solid ways to flesh out a culture.
Chris: Let’s loop back on some mistakes. We talked about the first one a little bit, which is the idea that culture is arbitrary. The culture could be anything or do anything. Cultures do sometimes do weird things, but there’s always a reason, even if it looks very weird. Even memes have a cultural purpose, which is to make people feel like part of an in-group, because they’re all references that you have to understand. Their exclusivity is a big part of their social appeal.
Oren: If you don’t have a compelling reason to do otherwise. My advice here is always to look to your environment and the rest of your world as a source of why the culture is the way it is just because that is so easy to understand. And that’s not the only reason culture happens. Culture’s complicated. It’s often difficult to track down the exact origin of why a certain thing is the way it is. You can get into some weird arguments about—this makes sense. It’s like, no, it doesn’t for this reason or that reason. And you can just head that off at the past.
If you use tangible environmental reasons to produce your culture, The Broken Earth is my go to example. I love the world building of The Broken Earth, except the oppressed mages, but that’s not what we’re talking about today. I love how the setting is super focused on small communities because it has constant apocalypses and the first thing that breaks down in an apocalypse is central authority. I love how there’s a huge focus on everyone having a well-rounded set of skills. Because again, when an apocalypse happens, specialties break down. You can no longer be assured of having the right number of specialists so everyone has to be able to do a little bit of everything. That’s just super cool.
And it’s so easy to explain, as opposed to like Way of Kings where it’s, “why are women’s left hands considered erotic?” Well, ‘cause 500 years ago, some lady wrote a book and then cultural trends happen. That’s much harder to explain and it’s not anywhere in the book for me to see, you have to go find an interview with Sanderson to find that, compared to the tangible reality of the Broken Earth. It feels like nothing.
Chris: If you wanna know why would my culture be a certain way you can first start with just survival tips. So for instance, if you have a body of water, that’s really stagnant and people often get dysentery, like you’re in the Oregon trail by drinking it. You could have a religion that includes the idea that stagnant water is unclean or unholy, and you should not drink it for that reason, but it has an actual survival purpose behind it.
You can orient beauty standards to reflect whatever ailments people are struggling with so the people who don’t have whatever sickness, those are the people who are gorgeous. You can start with survival, that’s one thing that you can do. People’s daily habits and experiences often are important or become symbolic after a while. A really interesting thing I think is honestly the Grim Reaper—imagine death having a scythe, which is just a farming implement, it’s used for harvesting, but now it has this other deeper cultural meaning.
Oren: It’s mostly so we could collect corn subsidies. [laughs]
Chris: We’ve got important historical events that can become stories or sayings. I think people sometimes put a little bit too much talk on historical events where they’re like, “oh, but you see in history, this one bad thing happened. And so now emotion is outlawed”. No, that’s—those things are not in proportion.
Oren: It’s like how we still live in cities. Despite the fact that at multiple points in history, we have had plague outbreaks that have been very bad in cities. The Black Death, for example, was really bad in cities, but we still live in cities. Various attempts to destroy our cities did not stop that from happening,
Chris: But we still have neat little things like “Mary Mary quite contrary, how does your garden grow?” Which is again, based on a historical event and other cultural knowledge and sayings. Then of course, there’s etiquette, which also matters. There’s some etiquette that’s really elaborate that might just be for fostering or showing off. But there’s also standards for courtesy that just help people know what to expect of each other; tell people what they are supposed to do in social situations and help people get along—that have kind of a practical function.
That’s just something to keep in mind is that those cultural rules often come from self-interest and experience; survival, that kind of thing. But the important thing, and this goes back to what Oren was saying, it protects people’s interests but not equally because another really important thing is that culture is largely shaped by the most powerful people. Not equally by everyone which goes back to our oppressed mages.
Oren: In general, if there is some kind of cultural rule that inconvenience is powerful people, there’s a good chance it’s gonna go away. The idea that computer programming was for women was a thing for quite some time, but then computer programming got way more profitable and you could demand higher wages and then suddenly guys wanted it.
And now programming is seen as mainly a male dominated thing, and we have to make special drives to create opportunities for women to get into programming. That’s just one single example, but you can see that in a lot of places when something shifts and powerful people want to do a thing that culturally they’re not supposed to, that cultural taboo tends to go away.
Chris: It’s hard to imagine now, but back in Renaissance Europe, people—not only do they believe in the divine right of Kings—but they believed that every person was intended by God to be of a specific class. In England, they had rules about what each group was allowed to wear as far as clothes. Everybody thought that that was what God wanted. And again, this is obviously to benefit the upper classes. Those are the people in power. That’s a lot of times why there’s a link between the monarchy and the church is because if you are so powerful that you have absolute power over a kingdom, you’re gonna make yourself a church to then cement your power and make you look legit.
Oren: And if the church won’t let you get divorced, then you find a new church. [laughter]
Wes: Adding churches at religion to flesh out your culture does just seem a little heavy handed to me. But I mean, it makes sense. It’s heavy handed in reality, too, I guess. You were saying this one thing happens so we don’t do that anymore. Well, the church said, so we don’t do that anymore. Feels similar, but do we just accept that because it’s from a powerful organization, it has staying power.
Oren: Well, if it’s in the church’s interest and the church is a powerful faction in your setting, then probably. The church doesn’t necessarily have to be that powerful. If you’re in a Western country, your model is the Catholic church. There are many other models of how religion can function, even organized religion and it is not always that dominant. I had a question from someone a while back about does my fantasy setting need a religion and my conclusion, after I thought about it for a while, was probably not.
Depending on the setting, you could probably get by without one or having a generic one that doesn’t play that big a role in the story. As long as you’re not trying to do the Wheel of Time thing—where there isn’t an organized religion because everyone just knows the creator is real, but there’s also the Children of Light who operate like the military arm of a church that doesn’t exist. Very weird.
Chris: There’s also more possible than you might think for multiple belief systems to coexist. For instance, Buddhism and Shinto got along very well in Japan, but they also tend to fill different niches. They’re not directly competing with each other. Whereas what happens when a big powerful religion splits and has two different denominations is they tend to fight a lot more than two different belief systems that just fill different places in a person’s life.
Oren: There’s different kinds of belief systems. Some of them are more totallist than others. Some are like, “yeah, whatever, all your gods, who cares”. And others are like, “no, only my specific set of gods” or only this one God, plus a bunch of archangels, which are basically also gods. But you know, we’re gonna be semantic about it.
Wes: A lot of cultural elements need strong factions or people sustaining them.
Oren: Can you think about whose interest is this in and why is it happening that.
Chris: And it’s also important that if it’s onerous or burdensome, that is in proportion with the interest and the power of the person with that interest. So if you have, let’s say a powerful church or a powerful monarch that is making everybody do something that’s really hard for them. It has to both really be in that monarch’s interest. And that monarch really has to have the power to enforce. So if you have them on a whim, do it an incredibly onerous requirement and their grip as a monarch is not doing too well. You have to think about how much power they wheeled. Is there a way that people would start trying to get around it to get what they want? That kind of thing.
Oren: Although that is a good place to start your revolution or regime change type story because it is not uncommon for leaders to let their reach exceed their grasp and try to push further than the people that they rule are willing to go.
Chris: That also leads me to another mistake that we commonly see, which is just believing that culture is more powerful than it is. Or, that societal taboos will really make people do things that are not in their interest. This happens a lot because writers try to use cultural problems and cultural rules to create plot books and plot devices. Like, “oh, in our culture, everybody has to either wear blue, red, or green and adhere to the blue, red or green faction and nobody can mix—ever” or “we don’t have guns because our culture doesn’t believe in using guns” would be a big one. But if there is a big economic incentive or a survival incentive, anything like that, it’s just more powerful than any kind of cultural taboo. And so culture is never gonna trump economics. If people can make money, that’s gonna be more important even if it’s a religious belief. Now you can have change.
For instance, going back to the idea that there’s some stagnant water that makes people sick and then there’s like a religious rule about that water being unclean, and you’re not supposed to drink it ‘cause it will, you know, taint your spirit or would have. Then somebody’s like, “hey, guess what? We could boil this water.” Then I can sell this water. People need water if there’s a drought, for instance. It will hold people back for a time, but people will start to drink the water because it’s really in their interest. Then more and more people will drink the boiled water that’s considered religiously unclean until pretty soon only conservatives, better traditionalists are against drinking it and it goes away. That can only happen for a limited time period. And then people’s self-interest is just gonna trump, whatever the cultural rule was.
Oren: A good example of this historically is charging interest on loans because there was a period where the Christian church in Europe was very against that and you were not supposed to charge interest on loans. That was not something you did. If you were a Christian that worked for a while, because there wasn’t really a large incentive to do so. Then as more money became available and there was more of an incentive to start charging interest on loans. Various Christians found ways around it. They found ways to disguise it, or they made Jews do it. That was a popular thing for a while. And then eventually that just went away and they were just like, yeah whatever. We just all charge interest on loans. Now, although it should be noted that that practice is still generally not common among Muslim majority cultures, they have their own ways of doing things, which I’m not an expert on. So I’m not gonna try to explain that.
Chris: Another thing that is good to keep in mind that relates to this is there are a lot of restrictions on women that only actually apply to upper class women. Because if you think about a culture where, and again, it’s gonna vary from culture to culture. There may be some cultures where even women of average class, mostly staying indoors, but there’s plenty of cultures where we have this idea of a woman never going outside without being escorted. But that’s upper class women because lower class women need to work to feed their families so they just cannot afford to have a woman locked indoor all day. She’s gotta work. Granted, families that adhered to that rule of keeping women inside that would’ve been a sign of higher class. So that would make them look classier and make them look better. But again, how much that rule was followed would stick to what people can afford to do and what they can’t.
Oren: You can tell that Sanderson was trying to do that with his weird-ass erotic, left hand thing, because there’s some stuff in there about how like it’s mostly the upper class women who keep their hand hidden in a special sleeve because the lower class women, they have to work in the fields and it’s like, okay, well, what do the upper class women do? And it’s like, “oh, well they all have jobs as painters and scribes and engineers”. Hang on. Hang on. What? And they don’t need a left hand for that.
Wes: Apparently not.
Oren: What kinda weird-ass painting have you been doing?
Chris: The Way of Kings is of course gets the whole power dynamic wrong where men are more powerful, but only women are allowed to write, which is not something that’s in men’s interest. So it’s not something that would have ever happened.
Oren: I explained this in my article, where when you look at separations of labor, you have the tasks that are considered unmasculine like cooking and childcare that’s because it is advantageous for a man. If a woman is doing those things for him, whereas reading is something you have to be there for regardless, having a woman read to you is much more onerous than just reading something yourself. It doesn’t save you any time and so there’s no way you’re gonna get that kind of tradition in a patriarchal society,
Chris: Especially since we might believe that a king has a scribe to do writing and reading for him so whatever that might make it easier for him. But that also applies to the merchant classes and the crafts people classes, and all the other mid-upper classes where men are still more powerful and there’s no way they would just be like, “no, we can’t write because women do that”. They’d be like, “no, I want that for myself. Women that’s too manly for you to do”.
Oren: Yep. That is exactly what would happen.
Wes: So we should talk about food.
Chris: Yeah! Food.
Wes: Food’s a big part of culture.
Oren: It’s also delicious.
Wes: Yeah. We like food.
Oren: You can ask questions like what kind of food is available in your area? What kind of food is traded for? What kind of foods can you even trade for? Some food doesn’t travel well.
Chris: Also what food is easy to farm in that climate because, for instance, the potato was not originally in Ireland, it was traded for from the Americas. It was like having bread ready to bake instead of wheat that you had to make into flour and then make into bread.
Oren: And I should just to be clear that it wasn’t just in Ireland that was a huge thing across Europe—the potato. It enabled a lot of stuff. And then of course the British were like “Ireland you’re only growing potatoes ‘cause you’re here to economically benefit us and not yourselves”. So that worked out not.
Chris: It became a really big problem too because even though potatoes are easy to eat, the crops can be very sensitive. We had potato famine, which was a huge tragedy.
Oren: You can also think about spices, of course, various seasonings. That matters a lot to what kind of culture you have. If those are rare, then they will only be brought out for special occasions, which is often the case, depending on where you live.
Chris: Oh, is that why White people can’t tolerate spicy food is because we didn’t have spices in Europe.
Oren: I mean, it’s not like White people are genetically intolerant of spices, but yes, our food is less spicy than other parts of the world because there are fewer spices that grow in Europe than other places.
Chris: It all makes sense. It all connects together.
Wes: It is fascinating though. A culture’s food is just so connected to a place. I think that is the chief complaint of globalism. The speed of communication is you start eating what’s expedient.
Chris: But it is also surprising how many foods were not originally in a place and became associated with it. Again, potatoes, tomatoes—come from the Americas.
Wes: When I learned that tomatoes came to Italy, I was like, wait, what? They didn’t have them. They didn’t have them for that long.
Chris: We associated so strongly with Italy, but they didn’t have tomatoes, peanuts. Again, a lot of those new world foods that are now something that we are used to seeing in cuisine around the world. It was not originally there.
Wes: I think if you’re going to have a culture that is vegetarian and/or vegan, having scarce food animals seems contrived, but that’s probably getting back to a religious element. Then what else would get people to not eat meat?
Chris: I think if plant food was really plentiful and it was just unnecessary because it actually takes a lot more effort for fewer calories often to get meat depending on the location.
Wes: And depending on the technology of your culture because food production is just off the charts these days, to what extent they’ve industrialized their meat production, greatly affects how plentiful that is.
Chris: But there’s also some places for instance, in the Pacific Northwest, where it was actually a very plentiful place to live. We think of hunter-gatherers, always living, barely getting by but that’s not necessarily the case. I think you could definitely construct a scenario where the culture has all they need easily from plant materials, and it just doesn’t usually make sense for them to go to the great effort that comes with hunting animals at that point.
Oren: Plus, if you have lots of weird fantasy creatures, maybe humans can’t eat those. I was always kind of surprised in Way of Kings that humans can just eat all the big land crabs. I was like, are those—are those safe for human consumption? I dunno, maybe they’re just like ocean crabs, but they seemed a little more monstrously.
Chris: The last thing I wanna just mention is, I just wanna see more stories that make an effort to show a different culture than the one we have. Because that’s the most disappointing for me when we do, for instance a far future space setting or an other world fantasy setting, and it’s just like it is on earth without many changes, without rethinking things. And again, I think it’s easy to think about what creatures are in your world and whether there’s magic and technology, what the landforms are and just to make culture very default and that’s always a little disappointing. A great example I wanna share, from a story, Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir, there’s an alien named Rocky and he has some cultural details that are really nice that come from his unique biology. For one, he hates sleeping alone because his species, when they sleep they’re not like humans where they can easily be disturbed and wake up. It’s like they’re dead so they have a culture that includes watching each other while they sleep for protection. And even though he’s safe in the story, he doesn’t need somebody to watch him, he always wants somebody to watch him while he sleeps. He also thinks eating is a gross thing that is taboo to watch because they use the same orifice for eating and waste. So watching somebody eat for him is like watching somebody go to the bathroom. And even though Andy Weir uses he/him, he also does specify that they do not have gender.
Oren: Yeah. Someone needs to teach the astronaut in that story about gender neutral pronouns.
Chris: So again, that’s an example of how you can take some of that—those differences if you have aliens especially and just make a different culture based on biology.
Oren: All right. Well, I think with that we are going to call this podcast to a close as is our cultural tradition.
Chris: It’s not in our interest. It’s just culture. We gotta do it ‘cause those dogmatic cultural rules. In any case, Mythcreants now has a discord server. Those of you who would like to chat with us, you can join us if you become a patron, just go to patreon.com/Mythcreants.
Oren: Then I want to thank a few of our existing patrons. First, we have Callie Macleod, then Kathy Ferguson—professor of political theory in Star Trek. Next there’s Ayman Jaber, he is an urban fantasy writer and a connoisseur of Marvel. And finally, Danita Rambo, she lives at therambogeeks.com. We’ll talk to you next week.
[Outro Music]
This has been the Mythcreants podcast, opening-closing theme, The Princess Who Saved Herself by Jonathan Coulton.
P.S. Our bills are paid by our wonderful patrons. Could you chip in?
I couldn’t say that I’ve seen many superhero movies where they actually explore the impact of superpowers on modern culture, if any. It’s mostly beat up the bad guys and be done with it. There might be some I haven’t seen that explore culture, although I couldn’t recall any off the top of my head.
The Boys does this, but it’s a TV series, not a movie. The Watchmen hints at it.
The MCU would really prefer you not consider the implication of Tony Stark not only solving fusion power, but also miniaturizing it.
It might have to do with the fact that superpowers are a relatively recent arrival in most movies. Many of the later Marvel movies do a decent job at showcasing the status of the Avengers as celebrities in global culture though.
It’s because if something like superheroes existed, modern culture would collapse. It would be like having to run a 21st century society with the Greek Gods running about and mucking things up. Combining super powers with bog-standard human morality would not make for fun stories.
This exactly. There are basically only two ways you can take a story centered on exploring the ramifications of superpowers on modern society in any great detail, and they’re either dystopian deconstructions like Watchmen where the world population lives in constant fear of a handful of unstoppable, unaccountable godlings throwing a nuclear hissyfit in their neighborhood, or comedic parodies like the Venture Bros where these lunatics have carved out a societal bubble in which to smash themselves together like overgrown children playing action figures, complete with super-bureaucracies to play parent and keep them pointed away from the general public and at an acceptable level of collateral damage.
Superheroes are such an inherently incompatible concept with modern society that the only way to have the kind of straightforward fun and wish fulfillment that most audiences turn to the genre for is to either deliberately not examine it too closely, or set it somewhere other than an otherwise realistic version of the modern world.
Another thing that affects a culture’s cuisine is the fuel available to cook it; in the Far East, the fuel was mostly bamboo, which produces a hot blaze for a short time, so stir-frying became a popular cooking technique, while in Ireland the main fuel was peat, which smoulders for a long time, leading to Irish stews that need long, slow simmering.
I hadn’t considered fuel, that’s super neat!
Wait, so you mean that my Minecraft bamboo being super quickly burnt off is not just a way to compensate for the advantage of its fast growth …?
…
Wait…Is the fast growth the reason real bamboo burn fast ? Are we in a simulation ? Brb, I got some internet diving to do
Fantastic episode today. I’m so happy that Wraith McBlade is still a returning joke, I remember the first episode he appeared in.
Speaking of him, names are an often overlooked aspect of culture. It’s easy to default to the Western standard of Givenname Familyname, where you address them as Givenname to be informal and Mx. Familyname to be formal. But there’s no good reason to stick to that, and the social dynamics behind which name you choose to address a person can be very interesting. Some variations are:
– in East Asian names, the family name comes first, and the given name is considered very personal. In Chinese culture, you usually address someone by their full name, because calling them only by their given name is reserved for very intimate connections.
– in Iceland, family names as we know them are very rare, and a person’s surname is usually a patronymic (a name derived from their father’s name). This means that you can address nearly anyone just by their given name, even influential people. Russian names do that too, but also include a family name afterwards.
– Arabic names usually have patronymics and may even include the grandfather’s name. Additionally, in some regions, a person may gain new parts to their name as an adult, derived from their children’s names.
– I once read about a tribe (can’t remember what they were called) in which people only receive names when they’re adults.
Also, while many Western families simply pick names that sound good, other cultures place a lot more importance on what a name means. Some cultures (like Iceland) also place restrictions on which names can be chosen, providing a list that parents can look through.
All good advice. Also if you’re designing a culture from the ground up, keep in mind that the more complicated a naming system, the more your readers have to remember.
From what I can tell, LOTR had a mix of approaches to naming people. We had Frodo Baggins, where I believe Baggins was the family surname. On the other hand, we had Arigorn, son of Arithorn; not sure I’m spelling either of those two right, by the way. The latter seems to be named the son of someone else. Pros and cons of mixing those approaches?
Another point here is that names in China are traditionally chosen based on a complicated process that includes when you were born according to the lunar calendar among other things. Although this seems to have fallen out of favour recently.
I wouldn’t say a fantasy world needs religion but considering that every human culture on this planet had a religion before modernity (even if there were always skeptics), you are going to need a very good reason not to have a religion. Humans without magic being a real thing still had religion. In a world with actual supernatural forces, not having a religion is going to be really odd.
Counterpoint, if magic is commonplace and understood, humans might not have any need to invent gods to explain the world around them. If “Magic” is an entirely known and reasonable justification for anything you don’t immediately understand, there’s much less reason to create a mythology to support a specific deity who could be responsible.
It depends on how deeply people want to delve into it. In a world with magic as a regular part of life, “magic” alone likely wouldn’t suffice as an explanation, any more than “weather” or “physics.”
I think religion does far more than explain how the world came to be. It gives people a sense of a purpose and comfort. People just feel better about awful things happen, when they trust that it’s according to gods’ plan.
I guess religion would be different if we had magic, but it’d definitely still exist.
Before the Second Industrial Revolution, the one where humans mastered the art of refrigeration and long distance shipping, you can’t have vegetarianism in a place that had a winter. Trying to have a mass vegetarian society when you have all four seasons and no way of keeping plant based food getting to you in the winter is really hard.
People had refrigeration before the industrial revolution, they just used natural refrigeration. In places with cold winters, they would create a dry but cool place to store produce like apples for the winter. That’s also not counting other forms of preservation like drying or pickling.
As Chris said, there are ways of storing certain vegetables and fruits long-term.
Apples or potatoes can be stored in every normal basement, away from the light at a constant temperature (which the basement provides). The same goes for certain other fruits and vegetables and people in an area where they grown would find out.
Preserves and pickles are another option. Those can even be stored for more than a full year, so until after the next harvest.
Drying is another option for both fruits and vegetables. Some, like peas, have been stored dryed for many centuries as to be available all year.
Grain can also be stored, either as grain or as flour, depending for what it is to be used.
For any society past the first industrial revolution, canning would also exist as an option.
A mass vegetarian society would grow and harvest a lot of fruits, vegetables, grains, and roots and know perfectly how to prepare or store them for long-term storage. Or do you think a poor peasant in the middle ages was allowed to eat only meat in the cold times of the year? They lived mainly on a vegetarian diet all year, long before someone called it ‘vegetarian.’
Historically speaking, it’s the inverse. Meat is hard to preserve long-term. Plants, not so much. We tend to think of vegetarians eating a wide variety of plants, but the reality is that the bulk of most diets was grain—maize in the Americas, cereal crops in Europe and at least parts of Africa, rice in Asia. That’s not vegetarians, or the poor, or anything–that was everyone. They added meat and seasonal produce to this mix as available. But grain itself is easy to store for long periods of time, which can be lengthened by various methods (hard tack, for example, can be kept for a long, long time).
Meat, on the other hand, was hard to preserve. Smoking took fuel, which had to be harvested. Drying required salt–a commodity that was once rare enough to be used as a form of money. And remember, eating meat meant eating part of your wealth–a live animal can produce more animals. That’s why chicken was a rare treat in the past: they were more valuable as a means to make eggs and more chickens than they were as a food source. You could keep some meat cold, especially in cold months, but ice had to be transported, which was only really economically possible with the rise of railroads. (The exception in Europe was fish, which were farmed but which grew rapidly enough to replenish their stock.)
A fun fact is that this is how the idea of fish not qualifying as meat came about. Fish wasn’t a luxury, and people regularly ate fish during Lent (when you were expected to abstain from luxuries), so many stopped thinking of fish when considering meat.
Long before railroads there were ‘ice-houses’, usually underground rooms stocked with ice from local lakes during winter, that would remain cold through most of the rest of the year. Grand houses might have their own ice-house, and there would be businesses who would also have one.
Granted, but we’re still talking a fairly limited supply. And I don’t recall reading about ice houses in the Middle Ages (where, for better or worse, most fantasy is set). And before railroads you were really limited to how far you could transport ice. You could store it from local sources, assuming there WAS a local source, but you weren’t going to get Great Lakes ice to Atlanta, Georgia. At best, prior to railroads ice houses would have been ways to prolong cold temperatures in areas that experienced fairly cold winters; areas that experienced fairly mild winters would have had to rely on other means of preservation.
And unless the ice houses were massive–and I mean on the scale of a modern warehouse–there simply wouldn’t have been enough room for a significant percentage of the local diet to be preserved that way. Humans eat a LOT of food. If we assume the average person eats 6 lbs of meat a week (per British Royal Navy regulations at the start of the Industrial Revolution), a village of a thousand people would need to store three tons of meat per week. Assuming a 9 month non-winter period, that means your ice house needs to hold 234 tons of meat. That’s not a small building–we’re talking about a structure that can store several hundred cattle.
Grain doesn’t have that problem. You store grain by building a building–something everyone in the past had at least some experience with. You preserved it by harvesting at the right time and keeping the rain and rats out of it. Milling was often done at home or at mills, but regardless it was done periodically; they didn’t store tons of flour, they stored it as grain (if nothing else, grain doesn’t explode as easily, and in a world where “light” meant “open flame” this is not an insignificant concern!). And it keeps for a long time without expensive, difficult preparations.
Also numbers. Despite most cultures using arabic numbers nowadays, the very way of counting changes from culture to culture. The Oksapmin from New Zealand uses a base 27 system with several body parts with 13 numbers from one side of the body, then the forehead (14) and then other 13 numbers with the “tan” prefix that mean “of the other side”, so 12 is nata (ear) and 16 is tan-nata (ear form the other side).
In french 70 is “soixante-dix” (60+10) but 90 is “quatre-vingts-dix” (4×20+10) and in Danish 50 is “halvtreds” a contraction from “halv tred sinds tyve” (“half to three times 20” or 2½ x 20). 70 is 3½x20 and 90 4½x20.
Conspicuous consumption is also a thing
Someone might have a huge expensive-to-maintain lawn simply because they say “I can afford a huge expensive-to-maintain lawn”
Many times, poor people might create their own culture, which is then appropriated and “adapted” by the rich
I do wonder, though:
If the powerful rarely inconvenience themselves, then what about the fancy uncomfortable clothes the royalty wore. The Edwardian era comes to mind, although before and after certainly qualify
Even today, most powerful businessmen and male politicians wear suits and ties, while we shlubs wear T-shirts and jeans to work
In most cases, fancy uncomfortable clothing is about looking good, which comes with a lot of benefits that far outweigh the inconvenience. Though even here, there’s a reason women’s clothes and beauty products tend to be much more of a hassle than men’s.
Thinking about it, it might also have to do w/ conspicuous consumption
“I’m so rich and powerful I don’t do manual labor, as you can see by my clothes”
Also true.
Don’t discount the price tag of the clothing itself, either. The fancier and more extravagant the garment, the harder it was to produce, especially pre-industrialization. The more skilled the tailor had to be to make that ridiculous outfit, the more expensive it must have been, the greater the status symbol.
On the subject of price tags, the British upper classes once had their own unit of currency, the guinea, worth a pound and a shilling (there was a short-lived guinea coin, but the guinea continued to be used in prices long after the coin was no longer used).
I always wondered why the guinea existed, and now I know the rich are to blame
That’s where the expression “Blue Blood” comes from, as the higher classes didn’t had to do field work plus wearing gloves, which equals to untanned hands and the veins showing bluish.
“If the powerful rarely inconvenience themselves, then what about the fancy uncomfortable clothes the royalty wore.”
It was tactical.
A lot of the fancy garb was heraldic, meaning it directly signified membership in and status within a group. Those big chains you see people wearing in paintings weren’t a fashion statement, they were badges of rank, an immediate way to identify people in positions of authority. Some sumptuary laws required certain badges to be worn (though it’s more usual that they disallowed peasants from wearing certain things).
The rest was conspicuous consumption, but for a purpose. It was important that the nobles appear, well, noble–rich, powerful, and effective. Vassalage was a two-way street: I offer my services to my lord, but only because my lord provides wealth and power to me. If he fails his side of the trade, I’m not obliged to fulfil mine. Examples of such switching of sides are extremely common in history. A lord that at least appears powerful and successful will obtain more effective subordinates and thus BECOME more powerful and successful. One that tries to display modesty and humility may be praised as saintly, but will ultimately be ineffective (Diocletian not withstanding–and even he wore purple garments, though of the same material as the soldiers’ garb).
This is one of the ways in which the Middle Ages is very, very different from our world. We value equity and equality. They absolutely did not. In fact, they would have thought it sinful and immoral. The foundations of Medieval society (specifically manorialism and vassalage) were built upon the Ladder of Creation, where nobility was intrinsically superior to peasantry. More practically, only about 10% of a population can be kept under arms without starving the rest; that 10% was the nobility. Having a richly-dressed lord was an intimidation tactic, a not-so-subtle way to indicate that “If you try to fight us we’ll mop the floor with you, so let’s all be friendly.”
For a further discussion on this, I highly recommend reading the history of Cluny, a Benedictine monastic franchise. They were in theory supposed to be poor, chaste, and apart from worldly affairs, and periodically reformed for forgetting that. It gives you a good insight into Medieval thoughts on clothing.
Plus, fashion is always absurd. It’s communication, not practical, after all.
Although, I should probably mention that in the early Middle Ages, different classes of people weren’t exactly superior or inferior to each other, at least in theory. They had different purposes, duties and lives, but were all considered next to God. Of course, theory and practice are quite different.
It was only in the later Medieval centuries that hierarchy was acknowledged legally as well as in practice, such as the banning of peasants from wearing the same clothing as the nobles.
And monks certainly are an interesting case of how culture can be influenced by a single person, especially when they don’t plan to. Benedict merely wanted to practice Christianity in peace, so he moved away from Rome and into a cave in the Simbruini mountains. Later others grew interested in following Benedict’s idea of ascetic devotion, and the cave began to get crowded. So, Benedict organized his new followers into separate communities, and wrote a book on the rules of which they were to follow.
As for the whole forgetting the worldly things, well, I suppose you can blame the sinfulness of the world for it.
The thing is, with Christianity defining much of Medieval life, that also included the matter of getting into Heaven. The thought was that the purer and simpler life you lived, the likelier God was to listen. And since monks lived the purest and simplest lives, they were the de fact to hotline to almighty. Eventually, the idea was born that monks could pray not only for their own salvation, but outsiders as well.
In other words, prayer became a commodity, something to invest in, especially if you had killings as burden to your soul, which many nobles and knights did. You can probably guess the rest.
As for the fashion of the monks, it was determined by symbolism. How absurd those things were is up to debate, of course.
The distinctive hairstyles of the monks, the tonsures, were made in imitation of the Crown of Thorns Jesus was made to wear, and the robes of the Benedictines had very wide sleeves to imitate angel wings.
One monastic order’s fashion that particularly comes to mind would be that of the Cistercians’. They sought to return to the intended purity of the monks and to the strict following of St. Benedict’s rules. So, they wore white robes as symbol of purity, and no underpants, because Benedict had never mentioned them.
The lessons we learn from monks do offer some useful guidelines in creating the fashions of fictional clergy. Their clothes, even their hairstyles, are likely to be influenced by the religion’s mythology, values, and the interpretations of the founder’s scriptures.
It’s rather sad, how we associate atrocities with authenticity and realism. Almost like human history was defined by the bad things done to fellow man.
Not that such a mindset is a new one. Ursula Le Guin herself criticized readers’ habit of declaring unforgivable acts as natural in her 1973 metafictional story “Those who walk away from Omelas”.
I know said work has been mentioned once or twice, but I thought it would fit here, due to the subject.
Throughout the story, Le Guin not only describes the city of Omelas as a utopian society, but encourages the reader to give their own touch to it, so that it would fit their vision of utopia.
As a final touch, after determining that the reader can’t believe in Omelas’s existence, because it seems too good to be true, Le Guin acts a single atrocity the city: A child, kept in perpetual darkness, filth and misery, to ensure that the city’s splendor and happiness continues.
Essentially, it is this single suffering child, that makes Omelas realistic to the audience, and perhaps even to the citizens of Omelas themselves, because once they are old enough to know the truth, most stay there. Only a few leave, looking for a place that is better (and even more unbelievable to the audience), hence the story’s name.
For me, at least, there’s an important lesson to be learned here. On our quest for social justice, especially in our works, we need to stop thinking that atrocity is reality, that there must be a child in darkness, for everything to make sense. We must all walk away from Omelas.
I’m going to be ‘that person’ and point out that neither staying nor walking away would help the child still suffering, which, I know isn’t the point. The point is, as you said, that it’s important to walk away. It just made me wish for a third option.
The third way would be to start a revolt, free the child, and accept the consequences.
Yeah, the story never suggest rebelling. Whether or not this is linked to Omelas having no soldiers is up to debate, of course.
As for the child… I should probably note at this point that the following can be considered quite ableist. Just so you know.
In the story it is posited that rescuing the child is pointless, not just because it would end Omelas as a utopia (which hypothetical rebels are probably ready for, if they intend to accept the consequences), but because the child is too far gone.
It (the child is referred to as ‘it’ in the story for dehumanization) is said to be “too degraded and imbecile to know any real joy; afraid too long ever to be free of fear; have habits too uncouth for it to respond to humane treatment”
On the other hand, the child also remembers its mother and the sunlight, and still protests its situation, begs to be let out, even if there is no answer.
Take it as you will. Though I admit, the relationship between rebels and the released child could make for an interesting sequel.
The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas is a fascinating story, full of applicability beyond the original criticism on anti-utopian literature and its readers. Over the years it has been seen as commentary on things such as sweatshops, bystander effect, privilege, utilitarianism, or, like in my case, writers’ habit of associating “atrocity” with “realism”.
Late to the foraging party, and hoping somebody replies.
I come here offering a counterargument, one that itself will hopefully be countered. We don’t want That Guy using it as a bludgeon, assuming he even reads this blog.
The first is that war rape did happen, and was quite normalized. This is specifically mentioned in Bret Devereaux’s blog (specifically here: https://acoup.blog/2022/07/29/collections-logistics-how-did-they-do-it-part-ii-foraging/), described as something so normalized that the *wives* of rapists helped out with the whole thing. (Now *there’s* something edgy for the Historically Accurate™ folks to think on.)
The second is that while atrocities are not necessarily historically accurate for fantasy worlds, especially since they develop in different sociological milieus than Earth’s, I would argue they are *psychologically* accurate. People are *jerks*, especially in us-vs-them circumstances.
In addition to Bret’s blog I can cite *yours*, specifically how a lot of people *want* prisoners to be raped (https://mythcreants.com/blog/storytellers-must-stop-dehumanizing-prisoners/). *We* don’t, and there *are* genuinely kind people in the world, but they’re not the ones in power. And a lot of evil people get into power by being *voted* in, and on a platform of “wall out the refugees and lock their children in kennels” at that.
Honestly, I feel *social justice*, is the aberration here. A desirable one worth fighting for to be sure, but not what I’d consider the natural state of humanity barring biotechnological modification.
Hopefully these claims can be successfully countered with empirical evidence. The good thing about being a pessimist is that even if I’m wrong I win anyway.
All that said, the only reason to have gratuitous rape scenes in a work is when the whole point is edgeplay pornography. (Anybody who says that Goblin Slayer is *really* about the clever tactics has forgot why we even know about it in the first place. Bofuri’s a better example instead, and is an ideal palate-cleanser for this topic.)
AlgaeNymph,
There are many things to unpack here.
First, these arguments are based on the assumption that anything that’s realistic should appear in a fictional story. This is what we call the real-world fallacy (https://mythcreants.com/blog/five-concepts-for-becoming-a-better-storyteller/). The real-world fallacy is based on an artistic ideology of realism, an ideology which is continuously used by literary genre writers and professors to tear down speculative fiction, and even fiction altogether.
Fiction is not real, so there’s no inherent reason it has to limit itself to what is real. We show highly unusual events in stories all the time. Insisting on using a 100% typical scenario for only rape shows some very distorted priorities.
Second, to say whether something did or did not happen is to place those events on a binary. This ignores when and where they happened, how often they happened, and what the severity was. Just because rape happened during war at some point in history doesn’t mean it’s not realistic for rape to not happen.
Often, people imagine the past to be worse than it actually was. Because stories focus on conflict, we often make problems look super common or super severe. Similarly, the idea of humans being jerks is one-sided. All of our post-apocalyptic stories show humans turning on each other, but that’s not actually what humans do in the face of a shared disaster. I even made fun of this in a comic: https://mythcreants.com/blog/comics/aftermath/ – again, saying people are either jerks or not jerks is reducing it to a binary.
You said “I come here offering a counterargument, one that itself will hopefully be countered.”
Why post it then? There is no shortage of bad arguments on the internet, and we see them here all the time. Any argument you post is almost certainly something we have already encountered. If you genuinely want to know why these arguments are wrong, you can ask. Making an argument that is used by regressives only spreads regressive messaging.
> Why post it then?
So you’ll have a counterargument already worked out, because I can’t assume you would. I haven’t read as much on this site as you have, after all. And because I wanted to see the answer publicly, so it could be easily read by anybody *and* mitigate regressive messaging. I should hope I made it clear that I *don’t* want to promote it.
Also…there’s more than a bit of contrarian in me that just wants to *push back* when people start preaching, even when I essentially agree with them. Yes, that’s the term I use, because that’s how I feel about it. An attitude of “thou shalt (not), or we shalt scold thee” just *grates* on me.
And *speaking of* binaries, I always get the feeling that I always have to be completely in agreement with moral arbiters or else I’m perpetuating evil. I said a lot more here (https://mythcreants.com/blog/how-to-give-social-justice-feedback/#comment-740816), and the answer was a reassuring ‘just keep doing your best’ essentially.
…
Maybe I said something that grated on *you?* In that case, sorry about that. I don’t know *how* people feel, so often forget to think about that…
Anyway, I just…don’t want to feel like I’m talked down to, and get hypersensitive about that. I certainly don’t want to get told I did a bad thing any more than I’ve already been, and am certain I’ve only dug myself deeper. But I also feel I had to say *something* in response.
So, that’s it for now. I hope we can be on good terms again.
I’m sorry that the answer you got disappointed you. That isn’t my fault. I told you what anyone else here would, and I tried to do it politely.
“The second is that while atrocities are not necessarily historically accurate for fantasy worlds, especially since they develop in different sociological milieus than Earth’s, I would argue they are *psychologically* accurate. People are *jerks*, especially in us-vs-them circumstances.”
There’s no nice way to talk about this, so I’ll apologize in advance.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of war rape. It’s not “People are jerks”. It’s a tactic, with a specific goal. See Bret’s discussion of Roman siege tactics: The idea was to make resistance so horrific that no one in their right mind would resist. It was built in, from the ground up, as a part of their military campaigns, as a negotiating tactic. “Our siege weapons are getting REALLY close–you know what happens once we start, probably want to surrender pretty soon, eh?”
This means that culture’s going to matter. First, the invading army has to be willing to engage in rape. This is not always the case, either because the invaders view it as immoral (that it absolutely is isn’t the issue; perception is for the purpose of this question), or because the invaded party is such that physical intimacy is undesirable (say, Elves vs Dwarves in LOTR) or impossible (giants invading pixie territory, for example). Second, the invaded party has to view it as horrific (again, that it ABSOLUTELY is isn’t the question; people get used to pretty messed up things after a few decades of constant warfare).
In the Middle Ages they engaged in rape, sure, but it was more common to carry people off. Bret talks about women from raided areas joining raiding/foraging parties in that time, and that the locals despised them more than the invaders. Power dynamics and the like come into play, obviously. So does the economy of the military camp–these captured people played key roles in maintaining the army in the field, oddly enough.
But again, the point is that culture will matter. The invader will have to want to carry people off. The invaded party will need to be able to survive being carried off (wars were typically fought to gain control over agricultural land, and the farmers were an important part of it). This whole process has to be part of the culture, or else it’s going to look VERY strange to the commander.
The cold, brutal truth is that these were tactics of war, and the applicability of these tactics, like any other, will depend on their efficacy and the history of conflict (see Bret’s discussion on fort construction to see how different cultures can solve the same problem different ways based on history). Whether they are even applicable to a fantasy culture is going to depend on the setting. Historically, Aragorn’s march to Mordor should have been brutal for the residents of the region–except that it would make zero tactical sense, given the aims of the campaign.
And I think that’s something important for storytellers to realize: Brutality for the sake of brutality simply isn’t realistic, and breaks immersion. It has to make sense from the perspective of the societies in question. To apply this in a different direction: Darth Vader’s policy of killing officers that disappoint him is self-defeating, because 1) he’ll run out of competent officers, and 2) they’ll eventually get sick of it and kill him. It DID happen in history–there was a British admiral who was hung for failure, and policy was to put any captain that lost his ship on trial–but it’s the exception, not the rule, because killing every officer that loses (or even dismissing them from service) necessarily weakens your military unacceptably. Similarly, brutal tactics that don’t offer a military advantage are expensive, time-consuming, make everyone hate you, and don’t make sense.
Again the broad strokes “In the Middle Ages they…” Good sir the Middle Ages lasted from 476 to 1492 a thousand years; “They” mostly refer to european people (despite other continents being populated) which equates to roughly from 25 to 50 million people as time goes by, which is a lot of people. Who are “They” again? Why do people insist on attaching a cultural trait to everyone, specially in an ever-changing time like Middle Ages?
Look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI pick any region on the map and see how it hardly stay the same for the whole Middle ages.
Also, people would have take Vader out if they were able to, but Vader is a badass non-opressed mage, so…
Vader is a badass mage with a severe breathing problem, just saying. The guy needs very specific environments in which to take his mask and helmet off which could be used against him…
Yes, ‘the middle ages’ is very broad strokes, but that doesn’t invalidate what Dinwar was saying.
Rape is a means to scare the population and is either used by the advancing army to scare those they have not yet conquered into giving up (or else…) or by the government holding an area to tell people that they’ll definitely be raped by the enemy if they’re conquered (so they should do whatever they can to avoid it…). In war, rape is all about strategy, not about people being jerks. Therefore, it is a question of culture and history whether or not an army will use it, as Dinwar said.
For the purposes of this discussion–specifically the use of rape (and, by extension, other terror tactics) in war–it’s not unfair to treat the Middle Ages as a singular entity. Replace it with “Christiandom” if you like. The use of rape as a tactic was largely consistent, due to the nature of warfare at that time (plus things like the Peace of Christ, where the Church attempted to reign in violence a bit). My use of the Middle Ages was merely to demonstrate that differing cultures results in differing views on warfare and rape, which results in differing uses of it as a tactic. Differences within Medieval culture will only serve to enhance the point I’m making.
I was actually considering including a discussion the Ukraine/Russian war here. Specifically, the Ukraine is using NOT harming people (including not raping them) as a tactic. Please don’t get me wrong–I 100% support the Ukraine, and consider their defense one of the few examples of a truly just and good war in history. But the brutal truth (there is no other kind in war) is that what we’re seeing coming out of the Ukraine is propaganda. (Propaganda does not cease to be propaganda when you agree with it. I actually consider this to be to the Ukraine’s credit–they understand the reality and are responding appropriately, both on the conventional battlefield and on the cyber battlefield.) If the Ukraine were to engage in terror tactics at any significant scale (they have the political capital to do some damage to civilian infrastructure inside Russia, so long as it’s not too much) support from NATO would vanish. Their whole strategy is to convince NATO that they are morally in the right and thus deserving of aid. There are, without a doubt, jerks in the Ukrainian army; the Law of Large Numbers demands it be true. But the culture and strategic realities are such that those urges are suppressed, because they work against the objectives of the Ukrainian army. Russia….has not opted to adopt such tactics. And the response has been for even other totalitarian states to be disinclined to fully support Russian efforts.
Again, I’m not insulting the Ukrainians. I am, in fact, praising them.
Again, my point is to illustrate the importance of culture. If this were a Roman invasion OF COURSE Russia would rape the women and ransack the town and slaughter everyone in it; that’s what Romans do, so that the next city would fall with less bloodshed. Where this a Medieval war rape wouldn’t be as openly used as a tactic, but carrying people off from conquered territories to aid the army would be normal and expected. In modern war both are occurring and both are considered horrific war crimes worthy of international condemnation and risking nuclear war.
(As an aside, this is not a great format for discussing topics which are typically covered in thousand-page book format. Pretty much every phrase in the above paragraphs could have a university course dedicated to it. I’m indicating my views, not exhaustively presenting them. There will obviously be things I don’t include.)
As for Vader, there’s no indication that the people would have tried to kill him. There were plenty of opportunities, after all. He sleeps sometime, and he was in a one-man fighter during Yavin (Han nearly does take him out, in fact, proving he is not invulnerable). He was obviously an underling for the first movie. This has historic precedent. The Roman doctrine (such as it was) was that soldiers should fear their superiors more than the enemy. Look up the history of the word “Decimate” sometime to see this. Yet it was rare for soldiers to rebel and overthrow their commanders. The commanders held the power of life and death over their underlings, and that’s just how it was. Same thing with the Empire in Star Wars, though the application of this principle was far more limited.
It’s clear that using Force powers takes concentration, which gives someone looking to slip a knife into him an opportunity. Vader’s badassery is in one-on-one hand-to-hand combat, fleet actions (where he suffers HORRIFIC losses), and confined battlespaces where the enemy is forced to face him without the chance to maneuver. In a situation where Vader had to face numerous foes with ample room to maneuver, or worse facing a group willing to die to take him out, he’d be toast. The reason Vader won in the last scene of “Rogue One” was tactical–the objective was to deliver the Death Star plans, NOT to kill Vader. This limited their capacity to act. Any of them with a thermal detonator could have taken Vader out, but only by sacrificing the larger tactical objective. In other word: Vader wins the one time we see him in a fire fight because the Rebels LET HIM WIN.
Merely stating “badass non-opressed mage” isn’t an actual argument, much less a tactical assessment. The reality is that Vader was kept alive by the Emperor and by Imperial doctrine. That only holds people back for so long however. Leia specifically states how this works in “A New Hope”, and the number of ex-Imperial fighters (and repurposed Imperial equipment) in the Rebellion show this.
Just a heads up: you might not have known this (I certainly didn’t for the longest time), but it’s just called ‘Ukraine’, not ‘the Ukraine’.
Any historical source of the Roman Empire or Republic to actually raping enemy civilians? cause as far as i know only Josephus stated that as an one time occurence in the Jewish revolt times. That, plus the occurences where laws were put in place to prevent it, marked the times where it was a thing, but not something encouraged by the leaders (as it is stupid to try to control an area where everyone hate you for allowing someone to rape you people). War rape in a context of an expansionist war is stupid, cause you won’t repopulate the area with your people. “Romans” were everyone living under roman rule, from the Iberians in Hispania to the Egyptians , Dacians or Mauritanians. Everyone was a roman citizen (the ones that had the citizenship, of course, not the slaves), and any citizen could enlist in a Legion and conquer more land for the Republic/Empire and then retire to said land or some other anywhere in “Roma”. Noone would ever submit to Rome if they were raping people around (there are famous events of resistance like Numancia, but if terror tactics were a thing there would be a lot more around).
Later in middle ages, do you find any logic on ultrareligious cultures giving into carnal desire to interbreed with infidels? in the times where a king could be overthown and replaced if there were proofs of commiting adultery? (despite the popular opinion,, kings “absolute power” wasn’t a thing until absolutism with Louis XIII or so (XVII century), prior to that there were plenty of courts where the noblemen put limits to the king’s power, spreading it between several vassals and creating complex power relationships for the commoners being protected against abuse (even the Prima nocte is ust a XVIII century crap that wouldn’t be tolerated anywhere in the Middle Ages, and there is actual historical accounts on the nobles that tried such a move being lynched by the townfolks, the famous Lope de Vega’s play Fuenteovejuna plays with the topic).
I see, anyone could have killed Vader, yet noone did. That means one of two things, or noone dared to try fearing to fail or they actually wanted him to be alive (which makes no sense). Any armed group would take out a enemy’s high official given a chance. I’m surprise how you belittle Vader given that “The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force”. I for one wouldn’t take the risk as, in Verbal Kint words, “How do you shoot the Devil in the back? What if you miss? “
“Any historical source of the Roman Empire or Republic to actually raping enemy civilians?”
See “A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry”. It’s a blog, but it’s by a historian focused on Rome and each post includes an extensive citation list.
The short version is yes, there is AMPLE evidence–witnesses of the events, reports from generals, and–and this cannot be emphasized enough–it was official Roman doctrine. There were even standardized signals for the various stages of this action. That one historian in a particularly odd situation didn’t record it doesn’t disprove that. Judea was a perpetual problem for Rome, but was technically part of the Empire and therefore not subject to the same rules of engagement as, say, Germania or Gaul. The soldiers there were interested in keeping tensions to a minimum, not with horrifying the population to the point where they no longer resisted Roman conquest. The reason is that Rome had already conquered there.
And to be clear, the doctrine wasn’t just “Rape whoever you want.” The doctrine was “If our siege engines touch your walls we will inflict such horrors on you that the very earth beneath the city cries out in horror. Few will survive, and those few will be broken by the overwhelming brutality of our armies.” It was a terror tactic, not a general breakdown of social order. The point wasn’t to get people to surrender to Roman rule despite the action, but BEFORE the action. The intent was to make failure to surrender before a specific point so horrific that people would surrender before it.
Did they sometimes outlaw it? Sure. We’re talking about two distinct civilizations over the course of a thousand years and against numerous other societies. Just like any other tactic this one was effective sometimes, not others. Exceptions do not disprove it happened. It did.
“Later in middle ages, do you find any logic on ultrareligious cultures giving into carnal desire to interbreed with infidels?”
I’m not sure what you’re asking. There is clear genetic evidence that our species has interbred with other species of hominins. The idea that a bunch of men high on testosterone and living in a culture where rape was a routine, accepted part of warfare would be disinclined to engage in it because the women worshiped the wrong gods is simply irrational. And we know it happened, if by contrast if nothing else–there are contemporary discussions of how merciful certain warrior bands were because they merely slaughtered the women, without raping them first.
And remember, there were a LOT more conflicts than the Crusades going on. A Germanic prince invading the territory of another Germanic prince would find few women practicing objectionable religions (though honestly that should have made them less inclined to rape, as the Peace of Christ held here while it didn’t in the Middle East).
“in the times where a king could be overthown and replaced if there were proofs of commiting adultery?”
First, religious orders weren’t kings, so this is hardly applicable. Second, we know priesthood ran in some families, and that the Church ran brothels, and that nobles with concubines were common, and several popes were more famous for their wild parties than for their theological insights; the idea that the Middle Ages was repressed is ahistoric nonsense. I don’t know of any case where a king was overthrown for adultery itself–in any case where it came up there were other issues involved, and Medieval trials being what they were one must take such accusations with a heavy dose of salt–but the issue here was one of stability of the realm. No one cared if the king had a few liaisons that were not strictly proper, they cared that 1) the queen (who was often married to the king as part of a political maneuver) wasn’t insulted–or, more accurately, that her male relatives, in charge of often powerful armies, weren’t insulted–and 2) inheritance wasn’t made too murky (because that led to war).
“I see, anyone could have killed Vader, yet noone did.”
This is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I mean, it’s true–even a lowly stormtrooper could kill Vader if they thought it through a bit–but it fails to understand the realities of the situation. Vader was not an independent person. He was part of an authoritarian military hierarchy. He wasn’t even the top dog; in “A New Hope” he was clearly subordinate to the local moff, and others at the meeting weren’t afraid to openly mock him, indicating that while he wasn’t low-ranking, he certainly wasn’t all that high up either. Any of them could have killed him–quite obviously violence wasn’t terribly uncommon, as Vader’s attempt at killing someone in a staff meeting was met with an extremely mild reproach.
His subordinates COULD kill him, the same way that any soldier could kill their general. But culture and military doctrine prevent it. Vader isn’t killed by his people because he has, by their logic, not committed sufficiently serious crimes to warrant mutiny. If he crossed that line (and authoritarian organizations have a very high bar for this–see Russia), he’d be put down. Again, there are numerous examples of this. A Roman officer decimating his soldiers (literally grouping them by tens, forcing them to draw lots, and having the 9 winners murder the loser) was brutal, but not rebelled against because in that culture, that’s what Roman officers did. They were playing the part of general as expected by Romans. Vader was particularly stupid and weakened the Empire by killing off generals he may need and sacrificing institutional knowledge for petty vengence.
“Any armed group would take out a enemy’s high official given a chance.”
Absolutely not. There are MANY examples of the contrary in history. In the Middle Ages, for example, ransom of high officials was routine–it could pay for the entire campaign, or even make you a tidy profit! In other cultures there were cultural prohibitions against targeting officers, for various reasons. 18th century European combat was built on the view that officers were intrinsically superior to the common soldier (called “the scum of the Earth” by a famous British general) and this was one way this idea carried through (note that the navies of the time had different views).
But you fail to understand the tactical situation in Rogue One. First, they couldn’t kill Vader. They were in the worst imaginable situation for trying to do so–a confined corridor with no room to maneuver. Second, while killing Vader would have been nice, the main objective was to kill the Death Star, something FAR more dangerous than a guy with a glowing sword. The tactics necessary to kill Vader would have rendered the success of the primary mission impossible, by destroying the Death Star plans. It would be criminally stupid to risk the latter in order to achieve the former objective.
“I’m surprise how you belittle Vader given that “The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force”.”
I’m not belittling anyone. I’m merely making a tactical analysis. Everyone is vulnerable.
No nice way to talk about this? This answer’s *far* kinder than I ever would’ve expected. “Rape was a tactic, not an impulse, and culture matters. Here’s why…” Now *that* (and what you say later about Ukraine) is a good counterargument!
I’ll honestly have to remember that for the future…
But the point is, I learned something today.
And apologies for not having more of a reply; I tend to be concise.
one of my core pet peeves on the ‘realism!’ argument:
fictional portrayals of sexual violence/rape against women (or AFAB people) = “teh GRITTY REALIZMS!!”
….fictional portrayals of sexual violence/rape against men or (AMAB people) ….? oddly, rarely even mentioned – despite ‘reality’ when talking about war, torture, etc.; (almost?) NEVER in as excruciatingly graphic (all too frequently disturbingly voyeuristic) detail.
which makes me wonder how many of these people screaming about realism actually understand “realism”.
not to mention the voyeurism itself which is its own problematic issue in portraying sexual violence but is somewhat of a tangent here.
I was telling myself it wasn’t worth the bother of walking into this but considering there’s ‘real life’ ramifications in denying particular facets of sexual violence that seemed wrong.
I might be completely wrong, but my best guess would be that it’s a twisted attempt to show the manliness of the villains.
The logic would be something along the lines of “no self-respecting bad guy would have his way with another man, even for the sake of power and control”
Rick and Morty episode “Raising Gazorpazorp” is a perfect example of this logic in action. The two genders of Gazorpian species exist separately, with the males being extremely horny. Yet they only try to have sex with something that’s female or something that’s similar to one (such as a breeding robot), never with each other, or even Rick.
In fact, it’s strongly implied that homosexuality doesn’t exist among the Gazorpians.
Well, almost every prison depicted in media have the trope of “shower raping” even being a running joke whenever is going to jail.
Anyway, as torture, is usually presented as a minor inconvenience (people “overcoming” their torture usualy mean healing physicaly and being angst about it, the reality beng is a systematic method to break someone, and there one can’t barelly recover from that)