Were the Middle Ages boring compared to Game of Thrones?

[Queequeg]

TBH I think the author of the article overstates the impact medieval Europe has on the world of the series.  Essos draws quite a bit from the ancient near-east, and most of the free cities have far more in common with Carthage and Venice than the Hanseatic League.  TBH, I think the entire world has quite a bit in common with ancient China or Japan (Japan during the Age of the Country at War in particular, with the Fire-worshipers standing in for Christianity.)  Feudal families in Japan and China tended to have ownership of a certain region for far longer periods than families in the west. 

[Queequeg]

I'm not totally sure how much that post made, I've had a pounding fever headache for the last 24 hours and the fact that it is dulled now with massive amounts of ibuprofen is probably not helping my coherency. 

[Agelastus]

Does the author really use Towton as an example of a brief and relatively bloodless battle? I hope I'm just too drunk and tired to understand.

Yes. Yes he does; he claims that most medieval battles lasted 20-30 minutes them states Courtrai was an exception and compares this fight with Patay and Towton as being more "normal" battles. Oh, and he also argues that most medieval warfare was aimed at encouraging the enemy to flee, not killing them; which while having a modicum of truth does beg the question of how Towton can be touted as an example of this either!

Which means his knowledge of medieval military history is pretty shit; I can't immediately comment on the rest though.

[Malthus]

Meh. The politics of the Wars of the Roses, which is clearly a big influence on Martin, were every bit as deadly and unpleasant (read, "exciting") as his fictional creation.

Just look at the life and death of Richard the 3rd. And what happened to his brothers. And his nephews ...

[Martinus]

Also, are battles in Game of Thrones really that common as some people have claimed? It seems to me that 95% of time, military campaigns are about people chasing each other and burning stuff down.

Besides, I don't think the campaigns really last that long, to be honest, either.

The entire campaign of the Northerners lasts around two years, and they have a pretty good reason to keep the banners up, but begin to grumble about the length of the campaign anyway.

Stannis's campaign is pretty short and he sails to the Wall eventually only with a handful of very loyal men.

Only Lannisters seem to be able to keep their bannermen in the field for a longer period of time, but they have gold and everybody is scared shitless of them.

[dps]

In terms of battles, maybe. In terms of intrigue and politics, the Middle Ages were probably even more exciting, as there's likely a lot of medieval intrigue that we don't know about.

So it was more exciting, but no one knew enough about it to get excited? Okay.

Well, intrigue is going to be exciting to those directly involved, but if people not directly involved know enough about it to get excited about it, someone's doing it wrong. 

Also, a lot of what people scheme and plot isn't going to be all that interesting to anyone else even if it becomes known.  Most intrigue wasn't about someone plotting to overthrow the king, or even about someone scheming to marry their oldest daughter to the duke's son--it was about someone in the court trying to move from being the king's fifth most favored advisor to being the king's fourth most favored advisor.  Important to the people directly affected?  Sure. Historically significant?  Very rarely.  And for a lot of plots, if you have any sense at all, you aren't putting anything in writing, 'cause if things don't work out, you don't want any evidence of what you were doing.  And often, even the nobles involved couldn't read and write anyway (though that was more true of the Dark Ages than the high Middle Ages).

[crazy canuck]

Also, are battles in Game of Thrones really that common as some people have claimed? It seems to me that 95% of time, military campaigns are about people chasing each other and burning stuff down.

Besides, I don't think the campaigns really last that long, to be honest, either.

The entire campaign of the Northerners lasts around two years, and they have a pretty good reason to keep the banners up, but begin to grumble about the length of the campaign anyway.

Stannis's campaign is pretty short and he sails to the Wall eventually only with a handful of very loyal men.

Only Lannisters seem to be able to keep their bannermen in the field for a longer period of time, but they have gold and everybody is scared shitless of them.

If you consider all the battles that were fought during the period of say roughly 700-1000 in Ireland, Scotland and England (both internally and against the Vikings) and then consider all the battles that were fought on the Continent by Charlemagne and then throughout his empire as it disintegrated (both internally and against Sarcen pirates, magyars, etc) you would have a large number of battles competing for the title of bloodiest battle.

[Martinus]

Also, are battles in Game of Thrones really that common as some people have claimed? It seems to me that 95% of time, military campaigns are about people chasing each other and burning stuff down.

Besides, I don't think the campaigns really last that long, to be honest, either.

The entire campaign of the Northerners lasts around two years, and they have a pretty good reason to keep the banners up, but begin to grumble about the length of the campaign anyway.

Stannis's campaign is pretty short and he sails to the Wall eventually only with a handful of very loyal men.

Only Lannisters seem to be able to keep their bannermen in the field for a longer period of time, but they have gold and everybody is scared shitless of them.

If you consider all the battles that were fought during the period of say roughly 700-1000 in Ireland, Scotland and England (both internally and against the Vikings) and then consider all the battles that were fought on the Continent by Charlemagne and then throughout his empire as it disintegrated (both internally and against Sarcen pirates, magyars, etc) you would have a large number of battles competing for the title of bloodiest battle.

Was your post in response to mine you have quoted? 

[Martinus]

In terms of battles, maybe. In terms of intrigue and politics, the Middle Ages were probably even more exciting, as there's likely a lot of medieval intrigue that we don't know about.

So it was more exciting, but no one knew enough about it to get excited? Okay.

Well, intrigue is going to be exciting to those directly involved, but if people not directly involved know enough about it to get excited about it, someone's doing it wrong. 

Also, a lot of what people scheme and plot isn't going to be all that interesting to anyone else even if it becomes known.  Most intrigue wasn't about someone plotting to overthrow the king, or even about someone scheming to marry their oldest daughter to the duke's son--it was about someone in the court trying to move from being the king's fifth most favored advisor to being the king's fourth most favored advisor.  Important to the people directly affected?  Sure. Historically significant?  Very rarely.  And for a lot of plots, if you have any sense at all, you aren't putting anything in writing, 'cause if things don't work out, you don't want any evidence of what you were doing.  And often, even the nobles involved couldn't read and write anyway (though that was more true of the Dark Ages than the high Middle Ages).

This is a good point and also indicative of a broader issue - we have this tendency to retroactively view history in terms of certain grand narratives, and discard everything that does not fit or is not relevant for the purpose of such narratives.

For example, a lot of pre-modern European history is taught from the perspective of the emerging nation states, and countries that were not relevant for that are often ignored - the high medieval Duchy of Burgundy is a great example of that.