Were Men "More Expendable" in Medieval Societies?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 тра 2018
- My book about the Crusades:
www.amazon.com/Why-Does-Heathe...
Pledge $5 or more to Real Crusades History on Patreon and get a full mp3 library of our entire podcast catalog, plus bonus podcasts:
/ realcrusadeshistory
Donate through PayPal:
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
My CD:
www.amazon.com/Scatheless-J-S...
I am responding to this excellent and very interesting video from LindyBeige. I hope to add to the discussion in some way. The question is, were men more expendable in the ancient and medieval world?
• Sex power - why women ...
"They rode a lot more saddles than they did women."
Thanks for today's gem, Stephen.
1. Polygamy was forbidden.
In the Summa contra Gentiles Aquinas says that because one woman can't have more men at the same time, due to gender equality and paternity issue, than neither a man can't have more women due to a double gender equality argument: equal "posession" (one benefits exclusively from the other, and the other way around); and equal nature (because paternity issue limits a woman to having only one man, for the sake of nature equality to women, a man myst limit to one woman).
So Polygamy was forbidden.
2. The argument Aquinas gives against Plato on the issue of women serving as soldiers relies on protection towards women. Aquinas considers unjust to put women in a context to fight against men, due to physical force issue. He doesn't forbid this, cause he admits women crossdressing for protection during campaigns. But he argues that women soldiers can't be a regulary rule due to their own protection.
Aquinas on the other hand considers totally unacceptable for the clergy to be soldiers, due to the fact that inevitable killings occur in wars, and any type of killing is incompatible with celebrating Christ's supreme sacrifice that gives Eternal Life.
If you loose most of your men (presume in war) then you wont have that much of a chance repopulating with your own people (tribe, kingdom or whatever) since you were most likely conquered...
MyRkAcc exactly
The sack of Troy is the classic ancient example. The men were killed and the women taken as slaves.
They rode a lot more saddles, than they did women
Eloquently put
I think the whole idea of expendability, or most modern concepts of gender, are not appropriate for pre-modern societies. Simply put, people were just doing what they had to to survive. I think that Metatron's idea that men went to war more often because they were better fighters is more accurate. If you have a hammer and a chainsaw, you don't cut down trees with the hammer and you don't pound nails with the chainsaw.
"9-10-11 kids was the norm even amongst noble women"
- Didn't know that the upper echelons of society was going 'this hard' at it! But what was the infant mortality rate? Would only half of these see their 18th birthday?
Harald Baldr as far as I know you might lose one or two babies. Most of them would grow to adulthood. I have no idea what the infant mortality was for peasants.
Did some Googling and it seems 30% was the norm. A tour guide in an museum also told me once how in those days people thought differently of death as they lived surrounded by it pretty much at all times. Everyone knew a great number of people very close to them who had died at a very young age.
Harald Baldr From my own genealogy research I'd say child mortality was 50%. There was a lot of stillborn births and ones who died within a couple days which I figure into the 50%. From that point onward the odds were against the kids until they hit puberty/teens. I noticed a distinct drop in deaths during the teens for male and female.
Adult men often died of accidents of one sort or another. Horse kick was common. Women deaths started increasing in their 30's usually childbirth related. Unlike today it was rare for a woman 40yr to have "healthy" babies that survived. One ancestor in the 1700's had 6 boys (all lived to have families) but as soon as she turned 40....four still-borns in row.
The biggest surprise has been how many lived into their 70's and 80's, even a 90yr old now and then. Not as frequently as today but a 75 yr old was not rare.
Edit: most of my ancestors were farmers or fishermen in Europe, lots of ways to die young in those occupations. If you lived in Copenhagen or Amsterdam your odds of a fatal horse kick were less but you'd probably get a disease instead. History is so interesting when you dig into it.
Most people don't understand that modern medicine is a recent development. My dad lost 2 brothers in infancy 1930-1935 in midwest USA. I've been in southern Italy and it looks like a hard place to make a living as a peasant.
I've heard that Nobles had twice as many kids as peasants. Did you ever read anything about this?
"Expendable" in the big picture of history depends on the culture, time, belief systems and circumstances. A highly trained knight and war horse would be of more value to society as a whole, being he's a protector and presumably loyal to his group. You could go shopping for a woman but replacing the knight/horse is much more difficult. It seems like a weird question but it's still relevant today.
I think the biggest difference between now and then is attitude towards pregnancy and child rearing. Today both are seen as a burden, a hindrance to a woman’s career and control over her body
Henry I (r. 1100-1135) holds the record among English monarchs for the number of illegitimate children, surpassing even Charles II. Yet he was a very energetic king, a capable warrior and administrator.
William Cooke yeah I didn’t say good administrator and fathering bastards were mutually exclusive. But we need to be cautious when assessing what your average successful king’s daily life was actually like. Henry I is an extreme example anyway.
I mean❤he would need to be energetic to set that record drink lots of fluids
One of the kings of Spain advised his son in a letter to not spend much time at all making love to his wife, and when he did, "only briefly." So I think you're right, they believed that too much sex weakens a man and is a distraction from his duties, which is really a common sense notion that ought to be followed today.
I like your profile image. I know it’s Hospitaller, but you should take a gander at the Ostrogoth Cross.
This is so very true!
Oh man I could listen to you all day long...most of the history that we find online now days is fake, arranged history except for you and few others...keep them coming!
One more thing, a society lacking the sufficient number of men ore women, leading to intermixing with a neighbouring one doesn't mean the extinction of that society. In my region for example, some generations ago in the neighbouring german speaking Pemian-Banathian villages there was a big lack of men. So it became quite common for men from our romance speaking Wallashian-Banathian village to go an marry in those german villages. As also to have german speaking women marry in our village. And guess what? That didn't affect much the nature of the german speaking villages, cause the descendants, although bearing Wallashian surnames they speak Pemian and consider themselves Pemians. Also the Wallashian surname appears only on the ID, in their villages they are known under the matrilinial Pemian surname instead.
And even within my ethnic group the only dominant element is the house, the clan. Not the female, nor the male part. Myself for instance, I'm the head of the Vlaicu clan, although my ID surname is Stepanescu. But Duke George II Vlaicu left the title to his sister's son, Clement II Stepanescu, so the latter became Clement II Vlaicu to the people in our village. He became known under his mother's surname, cause he became the head of her house and through him her house continues living. Same in my mother's clan, in my great-grandmothers.......etc. What mattered was the house, the house decided the local surname, the religion and status of the person. And all this comes from an old tradition: in our counties we had the obligation of defending the border. We were Medieval Hungary's border guards. We were the 8 privileged Wallashian districts. Officially only men could inherit land, women had to be paid the fourth quarter of the inheritance as a compensation. But there was a special process called "maling girls", which ment considering women as "male heirs". It was a status which a father used to obtain for his daughters in exchange for a sum of money paid to the King. I have in my pedigree such cases. One of the first recorded cases was the coronation of my relative Mary I of Anjou as "King" of Hungary, not Queen. By getting "maled" ancestress of mine managed to inherit land in their own name. And it is very common in our villages to have two different surnames: the ID surname and the village clan's surname, the latter generally inherited from maternal lineages.
You talked much about the warrior nobility class, but what about the lower peasant class? And what do you think about the fact that we have the double number of female ancesters than male ancesters (from Jordan Peterson)?
Ander Aristondo These data by peterson are from the very distant past, prehistory even, before established monogamy gave almost all men at least one woman
Ander Aristondo I don’t think it was much different for peasants. This was a period of time when female fertility was plentiful. Nobody thought twice about it.
What is the time period that you would define as the middle ages RCH? 500 - 1400 seems to be what is usually put forward.
I think that's basically correct.
We were, and continue to be.
Great podcast! This could be a "hot topic" considering current events, but you did so respectfully and deftly.
You mentioned there has been a historical incident of female appropriation. I assume you meant the founding story of Rome? I believe that is more of a foundation myth that many ancient societies used to give their cities roots and significance. They also believed a She-Wolf helped Romulus and Remus! More likely, women were appropriated through a series of conflicts and not just in one grab.
I would think back when populations were very small, female stealing was quite prevalent. Anthropologists have suggested it happened often during the evolution of early Man. Elephants, lions, etc. do it as a means of population limitation (to secure food source territories) and to ensure the promotion of postive gene pools (only the strong survive!). So why not early humans?
My suggestion is that we could get an idea of your topic by studying the aftermath of epidemic outbreaks, such as the various Plagues that decimated great extents of the world population. I would think that in cases like that, where up to 2/3 of a town's population died acutely, you would see instances of females, and even males, migrating - either through choice or more forceful means.
Thanks J. Stephen, keep up the great content!
Thanks so much! A very thoughtful comment.
@@RealCrusadesHistory @2:32 - ''I don't mean to diss Lindy Beige''
Well, I do. ''Men are disposable'' isn't merely a mistake men make out of ignorance. It is done out of hostility to other men. And I don't respect that
I realize that the story of William Wallace in Braveheart was somewhat a stretch of what really happened between King Edward and William Wallace and the Scotts. There was one seen in the movie when King Edward was mentioning breeding the Scotts out of existence, was that something that actually happened?
Mark Brucker I’ve never encountered that kind of thinking in the medieval world. My guess is that is much more of a modern mentality.
Real Crusades History thank you!
Source for the thumbnail picture?
If your still interested in the identity of the image, it's called "The Meeting on the Turret Stairs" (full title "Hellelil and Hildebrand, the Meeting on the Turret") by Frederic William Burton.
I don't think men were more expendable for several reasons. One was If there were not many men left, others could procreate, but that would take years and in the mean time how could the women do all that the men use to do? the women would have been taken captive and would probably have been used as workers or servants, only the elite would been absorbed and treated as equals.Women had their value too because of many dying in child birth also, since many were married too young before their bodies developed enough to come thru childbirth, but warriors were valued more, the Roman Empire certainly learned this to be true. Women were valued as workers because the men needed them to take care of their children and homes, and even businesses. So all were valued but men to fight was 1st concern.
The laws of primogeniture were not inherent among the Germanic Gothic tribes who occupied and transformed the western Roman Empire into medieval Europe. Instead it was a legal accommodation to avoid the fragmentation of the kingdom caused by the nobility having multiple male heirs. It really developed from the 10th-11th centuries and once in place the disadvantages of multiple male heirs was largely eliminated.
You'd have to wonder what medieval folks would make of the modern world's relationships between the sexes and our crashing birthrates....numb horror comes to mind. And that's before the irreligiousness is brought up. Or the tidal wave of third world migration.
Back in the day having kids made you richer not poorer, even if you were a lowly farmer. Also the irreligiousness is good for world peace for the most part that’s not that bad tbh. The matter of third world migration is just a shift of power dynamics soon people will choose where to live similarly to how they choose where to buy their stuff.
Is they were to look at us they would not so much be baffled as they would shake their head on disapointment and : how do you fail so much and not realise it, also thanks for proving us right on everything and may God help your kids for you are beyond hope.
On another note, is it me or all historic youtubers Say the i like Lindy but line before debunking one more of his videos.
Time to bring forward the anthropological concept of the Sneaky Fucker. For instance, when a buck deer is gathering and defending his harem against other tough bucks there are always sneaky younger bucks hanging around looking to get a little off the the stragglers while the top buck was waging battle with other contenders.
Same thing probably happened when the Knights went off to fight. I think I am a descendent of a long line of Sneaky Fuckers.
I see the question as, person A say "A-group have this problem", person B answer doesn't this mean that B-group have this problem? Or something similar. But you right, land would be conquer when its in weak state. The proper question in the debates is: are/where People seen as expendable by the elit?
I'm just tired of the general idea that people who put their lives on the line to protect a state's interest ARE expendable. Its like people don't care that just because one is a soldier or firefighter and "they knew the risks" it doesnt give license to treat them like disposable assets. These people have lives worthy of dignity too.
It's actually even the opposite in my opinion. The fact that they are protecting the state makes them invaluable. If they all die, the state is doomed. And very often a state had to put a lot of effort in training and equipment. So even from a money point of view you really don't want to lose those guys.
Let's get the middle ages back.
Liktor67 That was certainly not the case with the Soviets and capitalist societies seem ambivalent about its soldiers at best.
Scutum Fidelis I disagree
@@scutumfidelis1436 What other societies are left?
LINDYBEIGE!!!!!!!!
PS: I read that during the middle ages that most died in their twenties. is this not true?
Definitely not true.
What about King Christian IV of Denmark... he is know to have been a so called playboy.... with children from mistresses in the 30s....
The previous statement is true.
I love Lindebeige’s contents as well, but he he sometimes claims to know the absolute truth of something he is not really an expert on. Such us referring to katanas as just “metal sticks” and saying British infantry are more efficient than the Germans because they used the Bren and the Germans used the MG42, period.
One of the reasons to why I really dislike the whole man-o-sphere thing is the ready acceptance of the whole "alpha male" b.s. Any person with a brain can see the whole philosophy is actually a power fantasy. It has no base in reality and most that believe such nonsense have very little interaction with actual people. Of course, the ancients valued men. Who else would do the fighting, you know the thing that all of the heroes are known? All of such heroes that happened to be near all, if not all, men. I have nothing serious against Lindbergh but at times he says some really stupid things and this is one of the highest. How can men be "expendable" if they are a very important part of society? That's like a person saying babies weren't valued in the ancient world 'cause they couldn't plow the field.
Was the Islamic world in the medieval times more accepting to other religions than Christians were at the same time? I hear this thrown out a lot and would like to know if it is true
No, it's not true.
Real Crusades History thanks for the reply, any book/article that goes more into detail? Love your vids btw keep it up
RCH has a few videos talking about this very subject. He also mentions details about it in passing in other videos. I unfortunately don't have anything that comes to mind immediately but you should be able to find them on the channel if you dig around enough. The comment sections of those videos should be helpful when you find them.
HistoricalMinds thanks, I’ll look into it
There was a preference for males not females. There was no police or standing armies so there was a need for lots of males. The population was ruled through prowess which gave rise to the chivalric code to limit the use of violence. I agree, without men your village would be at the mercy of knights from other villages.
Lindybeige is assuming that through battles you lose major portions of your population. England had a population of roughly 2 million in the 15th century (source: wikipedia). Does it really make a difference if it's 5000 less or more? During the battle of Agincourt they lost maybe a few hundred. The losing French a few thousand (for a population of 16 million?). During most of history the majority of the population was not fighting. It's not world war 2 through all of history.
Lindybeige's claim is just ridiculous. He has great videos, that isn't one of his.
But those who fought were usually well trained and equipped unlike the rest of population? Just asking.
You could argue that during the middle ages, losses would often be men at arms or knights. But you cannot argue that in general.
If I remember correctly, Lindybeige made this as a general statement (not just the middle ages). If we look at Roman legionaries for example, people usually didn't have military training prior to joining the military. And their equipment was given by the state. And there is no reason you cannot take the equipment from a dead soldier and give it to a new one.
Liktor67 I got the impression he was refering to ancient times though, not the A.D. era so much. I don't remember If he actually referred to middle age Europe in the video though. If you think of more primitive tribal societies and warfare, it's more in line with it. Tribal warfare is different compared to middle age Europe, for example. I wasnt thinking so much large populace and more advanced societies
So we are talking more like 10000-50000 years ago?
I wonder if the women back then thought their men were expandable considering that they protected them from enemy tribes and wild animals.
And let's test his repopulation idea: So a tribe lost the majority of men in a fight? Usually the other tribe will simply take over all the women now. No possibility for repopulation.
Maybe the other tribe also suffered significant losses and cannot take over. So the "leftover" men immediately start impregnating all the women. It takes about 16 years until you have a new generation of men able to defend the tribe (and half of the new generation will be women again). You are defenseless for 16 years! Any tribe can come in and take the women. Seems highly unlikely you actually get the chance for repopulation.
I still think Lindybeige's idea is not good. You have no need for the "birthing ability" of women if there are no men to protect them. I think it simply boils down to men being physically and mentally better suited for warfare. But that doesn't make them expandable. And again you see this in pretty much every war later on too. You don't want to lose you soldiers and make the other one lose as many as possible. Doesn't that make fighters actually very valuable?
In prehistoric times men had something like a 30% chance of dying from tribal warfare instead of natural causes. I'd imagine those conditions, over many generations, would ingrain protecting the wahmen and the expendability of men into the human psyche.
The proper word would be "disposable". Men were valued for combat, protection of lands and defense of women and children. They were very valuable and important but a very large number of them would perish because of this. They had high importance but also very high standards to be considered functional or useful, like everybody else, but men had their disposable nature on top of that. Lame, crippled or aged men were no longer useful, so I doubt they were respected too much by their younger and healthier counterparts. Women on the other hand were protected and valued, regardless of their abilities, beauty was often enough, they had standards, but they were always treated with the highest regard. As long as they could bear children. I'm not sure how an infertile woman would've been treated in the middle ages, probably not regarded too high.
Rammit Inma Azhole I think there are several errors in what you’re saying here. Older men and women were valued basically evenly. Older people were generally highly respected because they were rare.
Rammit Inma Azhole you’re also wrong that women were treated better because of their fertility. There is no evidence for that.
I stand corrected then, you know better than I do
It is purely biological and concerns the most precious resource, children. One man can produce millions of sperm at each ejaculation while women produce one or two ovum per month ordinarily and gestation takes nine months (a long time to be out of the baby making business). One man can impregnate thousands of women in a short period of time but it takes many women to sustain a population. Only women produce life, how could you forget that women are more precious than men in that regard. Who told you otherwise? Besides, women DO put their lives on the line giving birth and suffer pain every month from menses. Risking their lives for their wives and children, in their defence, and providing for them is, the least men could do for their women who sacrifice so much in childbirth.
I laid out a very good argument in this video explaining why the internet theory about men being more expendable in ancient and medieval societies doesn't line up with the actual conditions and practices of the ancient and medieval world. Your comment makes it clear that you didn't even listen to my argument, you just launched into a knee-jerk reaction when you read the title. Listen to the full podcast and see if you can take into account my argument. Otherwise, what's the point of commenting on my video?
And also, the idea that all women are more precious than all men is nonsense. Certain men are far more precious than certain women. A man who is a heart surgeon and saves hundreds of lives is far more precious than a crack whore who spends her life strung out and gives birth to drug addicted babies.
@@RealCrusadesHistory Based. Also not all women are fertile. So if you had to choose between a fertile man or an infertile woman to dispose off for society you would surely go for the infertile.
One comment about the alpha male getting all the woman. It's true they had other things to worry about but... 1 in every 200 people on this planet are somehow related to Genghis Khan. I guess there's an exception to every postulation. Lol. Good topic JSR.
Eric Rogers well I am talking more about western society here. The behavior of the mongols I imagine might be pretty different and is not a subject I’m very familiar with.
it is not medieval ... it is biological.
all mammals have that capability.
and many non-mammals.
but biology cares nothing for " society " it is about survival of the species.
Sometimes biology manifests in ways that don’t line up with neat little theories like “eggs are more valuable than sperm”.
I like your channel but I don't like some stuff in this video: you talked only about the nobility and said nothing about the common people in the middle ages; if we compare men's life expendability to the women's one, men have always been more expendable than women - men were working, fighting, and dying for the protection of women and children.
The life expectancy of peasant men was no less than that of peasant women, and they did a similar type of hard work. The idea of men being "more expendable" than women comes from modern perspectives and simply didn't exist in earlier time periods. You didn't present any arguments in favor of the idea that men were more expendable in the Middle Ages, meanwhile my video lays out a very good explanation of why they weren't.
You know what they used to say at the time; "better be a slave for an Arab than be a wife of a king"
In a wierd accent/ language
Nantz Stein I’ve never hear that saying before, and I think whoever said it had never been an arab’s slave.
Real Crusades History Well it only makes sense, and their is gor example Anastasia Sultan or also know as Qusum who was a slave for a muslim.
Michael Wilkins II Wow ExPerTs
Troll spotted.