Human Nature

[Haerthorne]

At the same time you can counter what I said by pointing out just how inhumane people could be to one another in the middle ages. Sieges in Italy during the wars of the HRE involving the wholescale slaughter of prisoners of war, the blinding of the entire Bulgarian army by Basil II (aptly named "The Bulgar Slayer"), the classic tales of savagery from the Crusaders in the Holy Land -- although interestingly enough those accounts are exaggerated by the Christians and often excluded from the Muslim sources on the recieving end. Of course the German colonisation of the areas we now know as Eastern Germany involved a great deal of butchery and warfare against the local Slavs. Yet my point is that tolerant societies as we know them were present in the medieval world. Greek and Turkish communities existed in both countries for hundreds of years without genocide or some great oppression/disaster forcing migration until the current century. Perhaps it is merely that we have better tools than we did then, but Europe was not a homogenous entity and communities could not have existed if they were at constant conflict with themselves.

What I would love to get a hand on, however, are examples in written sources and legal documents which tell of small-scale conflicts -- say the size of a village brawl or distrust between villages of different religions.

[Vellos]

... and oh dear I went on a rant.

But a good one.

I would agree with everything Haerthorne said.

The Middle Ages weren't "tolerant." Even in societies like Moorish Spain or Norman Sicily, there were still squabbles, religious feuds, fanatics, and even some legal discrimination. However, that doesn't mean every Medieval society was bent on eradicating their neighbors. Maybe when the Plague comes through we'll blame the Jews and have a few pogroms, but a few weeks later we'll still sell them cabbage. There was intermarriage, conversation, and, yes, hostility.

It does not easily map onto our modern ideas of tolerance, because tolerance was not what Medievals were looking for. Order is what Medievals were looking for.

What I would love to get a hand on, however, are examples in written sources and legal documents which tell of small-scale conflicts -- say the size of a village brawl or distrust between villages of different religions.

Hmmm.... have you checked Medieval Sourcebook? That seems like an implausible source to find, but you might find some reference to Germanic tribal feuds, or some kind of juristic document.

[Gloria]

She's a keeper!

I've had two characters get married. Neither was very awkward. Then again, one of them was basically a completely political marriage (Hireshmont and Retravic).

That one was superfun!  Was that in Irombrozia? 

[Vellos]

Hireshmont was in Irombrozia, Retravic was in Fwuvoghor. Iro was at war with Rio, and Fronen was marching south... so an extremely political alliance.

[Haerthorne]

Hmmm.... have you checked Medieval Sourcebook? That seems like an implausible source to find, but you might find some reference to Germanic tribal feuds, or some kind of juristic document.

From what I remember, the inquisition rooting out the Cathar heresy following the crusade was very thorough in its documentation of the questioning. Typically they'd uncover the relationships of village life through them - who saw who on weekends at the church, which family had a grudge, where this person came from and why they were mistrusted. Because of those things I think I'd have the best luck looking into those kinds of sources. Other forms of legal documents in the same vein would be useful too.

Eurgh, but I should be sleeping and getting ready for my Byzantine class tomorrow...

[Vellos]

Eurgh, but I should be sleeping and getting ready for my Byzantine class tomorrow...

You lucky dog. I wish my uni offered a class in Byzantine history. It's probably my favorite time period.

[Haerthorne]

You lucky dog. I wish my uni offered a class in Byzantine history. It's probably my favorite time period.

I came to the conclusion today that the reason why Basil II never married is because he didn't want to have an empress getting horny over those hairy blonde Varangians and having him murdered so she could sleep with them.

[Vellos]

I came to the conclusion today that the reason why Basil II never married is because he didn't want to have an empress getting horny over those hairy blonde Varangians and having him murdered so she could sleep with them.

Or because women don't actually find eye-gouging very attractive.

[Gloria]

So, how do you make a medieval-based environment patriarchy-free?  And should we? 

[Haerthorne]

Or because women don't actually find eye-gouging very attractive.

Apparently not the case with Byzantine women. Hell, its practically a gesture of affection. Chopping the heads off husbands, gouging their sons eyes out...

So, how do you make a medieval-based environment patriarchy-free?  And should we? 

Depends what you see as an expression of a patriarchical environment. The way that Tom has set up the game means that the game itself registers no distinction between males and females aside from title. There is no mechanic stopping women from recruiting and leading units, from fighting in tournaments, or from taking positions of high command. All of these could be considered to be traditionally jobs restricted to the realm of men, and yet they are available to either gender in the game. As for roleplaying, that is mostly up to the players themselves - discriminating someone solely on the basis of gender on the other hand is something frowned upon by the community.

So as far as I see it, Battlemaster is already very much removed from "the patriarchy". If you think otherwise then please feel free to dispute my point.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

The gender equality is one of the few exceptions from the medieval atmosphere. Asking "why are women equal to men in BM" or anything resembling that question is much akin to asking "why are you supposed to throw the ball into the basket in basketball" (Using rough terminology here. Besides it really was a basket originally).

The answer: Because probably very early in the development, very likely even before public release, this guy named Tom Vogt decided that, similarly to why religions should not resemble real life religions too closely. They are decisions meant to be considerate to the players, as some people may be sensitive to topics like gender and religion.

Now before someone goes to me and says "But this is the Background section, we're supposed to discuss the Background!", I'll concede that such an observation is quite correct. And yes, men were pretty much the ones fighting, leading, making money, and so on. That's great, and have fun talking about that. But that doesn't hold in trying to enforce it in the game, one in which almost every player has been raised in an environment with little or no gender discrimination.

[Gloria]

This is interesting.

What makes a female character authentically female and not just a male with a female name and refered to as "she"?

[songqu88@gmail.com]

If you want to play a crossdressing medieval noble, then more power to you. But try asking whether the majority of players assert that their characters are really female or transvestites.

[Indirik]

As for roleplaying, that is mostly up to the players themselves - discriminating someone solely on the basis of gender on the other hand is something frowned upon by the community.

Is it really? I don't think I've ever seen anyone really try to set up a religion or realm that was gender-biased, towards either male or female. Personally, I think it would be interesting to see how the players respond to it. So far as I know, it is not forbidden in any way, so long as the bias is toward the character, and not the player.

Thee was a DList thread about this. I really don't remember the outcome... I'll see if I can find some reference to it.

[Haerthorne]

This is interesting.

What makes a female character authentically female and not just a male with a female name and refered to as "she"?

Some women want to play the damsel just as much as some men want to play up to the manly man. Do you think a woman has to be concerned with make-up and children to be a woman, or that a man must get drunk and bluster about with a sword to be a man? People are varied, and although there may be more gossips amongst girls and more fist fights between boys, a woman is able to keep her femininity whilst acting whatever way she likes.

In my personal opinion though, there's little nuances in the way women act and think that seperate them from men, even if it was a woman who for all purposes was treated like a man.