Discussion All the Historical Inaccuracies in the World of Romance Fantasy Otome Isekai Novels

Neuschwanstein Castle

Eltz Castle


I made a reddit post to find out all the anachronistic things/ historical Inaccuracies in the Romance Fantasy Otome Isekai Genre that don't make sense in the Real Word of Western European Monarchies:
https://www.reddit.com/r/OtomeIsekai/comments/1bqz74k/curious_can_you_list_all_the_historical/

To list the best arguments I collected:

1. Corsets on bare skin, a chemise or shift.
2. Not wearing a corset underneath a dress that size and weight would make it hard to move around well.
3. In 2014-2015 there was a huge online feminist movement in Korea surrounding a community known as Megal and the word they utilized to discuss internalized misogyny and enforced gender roles that were formed under cisheteropatriarchy was corset, with the term "taking off one's corset" being utilized as a feminist declaration.
   The reason Korean RoFan authors slag off corsets is in this context, especially bc the vast majority of Korean RoFan readers are women. When they're talking about corsets they're not actually talking about clothes, they're taking the shorthand/cultural reference and utilizing it to say the MC won't follow enforced gender roles etc.
4. Also, big boobs don't magically stay perky for long once you throw off your corsets and breast binding would have painful long term.
5. Dresses that would require multiple layers for structure are often depicted as a single layer of fabric.There are so many layers that go into these dresses. The bloomers and chemise, corset, corset cover, an underskirt. Then you would have all the layers that shape the dress, like petticoats or the various cages like crinolines or bustles.
   
6. Often times they’ll mix different time periods, too. Your FL’s daily wear will lean more towards an Edwardian style, but the ball gowns look more like they’re from the romantic era. Also the more medieval ones will often dress women in corsets, when they should be wearing stays. They’re different, but they look really similar to the untrained eye.
   Also, none of the ladies really wear hats? Hats have been a large part of women’s fashion in the western world for centuries and none of these women have their hair styled properly for their eras.
7. And when they do wear hats, they have messy long hair worn fully down or the hats are modern ones more suited to ladies' day at the races rather than historical ones.
8. Ready made dresses in general, most clothes were made to order, and lower classes made their own
9. Women wearing stiletto heels everywhere (invented in 1930, only got popular in like 1950).
10. All the loose hair
11. Men wearing shoes without socks
12. The city of the royal family. Where an emperor, empress and also some princes etc. have their own house / mansion near the palace. A lady-in-waiting can be anyone and have any responsibilities, depending on the author. Chaperone? Never heard of her. The individual members lived in the same building. A royal or noble family might have houses in town and in the country (and English Royalty has a couple of castles). The king (well, the English one, at any rate) might grant a noble the right to a castle and its lands in exchange for taking care of it and the people living there. Dukes, especially, since that title is basically "Commander".
13. Other thing I noticed, is that a lot of OIs and RoFans have an Empire with only four Dukes, I mean??? How on Earth will the Emperor be able to rule properly with only four Ducal Houses?? It doesn't make sense
    I believe in modern-day UK there are currently around 30 Dukes/Duchesses, so just the idea of only existing four in a big Empire is just absurd hahaha
14. In European royalty the line of succession was pretty iron clad with the firstborn son inheriting everything, it would take extreme illness to bend that rule. A 3rd son earning a title like king or Duke based on achievements is not a thing, and ministry posts were given to friends of the King.
    The idea of an "anti-royal" political faction of nobles is in itself treason and would be cracked down on.
15. Kings having multiple wives or official concubines. While European royals were no strangers to extramarital affairs, concubines like in China were not a thing at all. Children of royals/nobles, somehow being both illegitimate and acknowledged as a child of the family. If they're illegitimate, they have no claim to the name whatsoever, that's what the illegitimate part is referring to. In rare occasions, the bastard child of a mistress might be officially recognized and brought into inheritance...but then they aren't illegitimate, just a bastard.
16. Drinking poison enough that they become immune to poison. This is just going to give you organ damage and maybe give you a tiny bit of resistance to the single poison you've been killing yourself with. That will only matter if your poisoner calculated the perfect dosage for your weight and metabolism to exactly kill you. Guess what? People just put in enough poison to make sure you're dead several times over. Silver reveals poisons: This only works with arsenic based poisons.
17. No one standing in the bridal chambers to watch the newly married couple bang in order to confirm the legitimacy of their marriage. Ok, this wasn't done everywhere, but I just have to mention this was a thing because its so fucking weird.
18. Every noble has a castle. Castles were important military installations, and monarchs had to be really careful about where a castle was built and who got to own it. They took a ton of time and money to build, and kingdoms would go bankrupt if they got over ambitious with them. While castles were great for defending the kingdom from enemies, it also made it a lot easier for the noble who controlled the castle to rebel.
19. Having one bed in your castle bedroom, and it being in the middle of the room. Castles were miserably cold and drafty, and you'd have two beds in your room. The first bed was actually basically a couch, you'd sit on while having meetings and to show off. The second bed was in a closet, and it was the one you'd actually sleep on.
20. Information guilds
21. Knight was a specific very low-ranking noble title, and its holders would almost certainly be trained for the position from the age of 7. Knights were either the son of a knight or the son of a noble who wasn't going to inherit a title. A "commoner" knight was someone who fought in a war and caught the eye of a noble, who then knighted them and bestowed land upon them.
22. A Duke would probably get his ass absolutely handed to him by one of his knights if they ever fought. The Duke has to divide his time between being a bureaucrat, manager, and warrior.
23. Calling things Medieval that aren't Medieval, your Baroque palace complex was not built before the year 1500 god-damn it. (but that is also a problem I have with Media in general).
24. Accuracy of Armor being all over the place, Plate exists for a reason and is not clunky. Leather was rarely used. In the late Middle Ages, it was normal for most men to have plate armor at home.
25. The Heroine, and only the Heroine, wearing anachronistic Dresses and being praised for it. It honestly drives me mad.
26. The lack of hygiene, or rather stating that this Country/Empire has no knowledge of it. Also pretending that soap and perfume did not exist, both are over 4000 years old.
27. There were Black Aristocrats due to the transatlantic slave trade.
28. Homosexuality and Queer People among the aristocrats & royals were not uncommon. But they had to hide it or not make it public.
29. Co-education (boys and girls going to school together). High-ranking nobles going to school at all, rather than just having private tutors. Wealthy children would be taught by tutors and governesses. All other children would learn in one-room school houses.
30. lol the funniest thing to me is that the thing about multiple castles is taken directly out of the way ancient CN/JP/(KR I guess?) mansions and palaces were structured, with multiple courtyards and multiple concubines. Considering how medieval Europe was largely defined by Christianity (a strictly monogamous religion), you can be pretty damn sure that wasn't a thing. This trope stems purely from the fact that the writers are East Asian.
31. Multiple concubines to one emperor, fighting each other to become the empress via birthing a male heir. Very popular in Korean and Chinese historical dramas, but polygamy wasn't a thing in European monarchies. You can even see things like palaces for each concubine or the "cold palace" where disgraced concubines are sent, which existed in some dynasties.
32. The title of Crown Prince being constantly stripped and passed around all the other Princes like a hot potato, and that once stripped they can ‘earn’ it by being favored. In Western Europe, ONLY the Firstborn son is Crown Prince no matter what and the title only passes to the next eldest son if the first one dies and wouldn't pass to a bastard ever unless he basically conquered the Kingdom with a huge army and defeated all the nobles too. This would be hard as they wouldn't have the resources to build such an army and manage to hide the fact they were doing so, that's why it's only happened very, very rarely in history and usually because other countries helped them and wanted something for it.
33. Titles and how they are addressed, Duke's daughters are not called princesses or ‘your Grace’ they are just Lady [insert name] or ‘Your Ladyship’ and I don't know why it happens so often. It was risking death to present yourself as a royal if you weren't one, or make your servants and others address you as such. The titles of Grand Duchess or Duke are rarer than they are presented in OIs and mean one of them is a Prince or Princess in the marriage but the Grand part doesn't pass down to the next Heir, just the title Duke does with the title Duchess going to his wife. Also, the King is ‘Your Majesty’ not ‘Your Highness’ and ‘Your Royal Highness’ was often reserved for the Crown Prince and his wife to distinguish them from the other Royals.
34. Younger male sons don't inherit anything, they get one of their father's lesser titles or if he is a lesser Noble himself then his sons would just be titled as Lord [insert name] and receive a smaller estate of their own with hopefully a good marriage match to help.
35. Contract marriages where they agree to easily divorce after X amount of years. That's a more ancient Asian culture thing where marriages were contracts and could be broken, and both sexes could remarry for political or monetary gain. Western European marriages were based on a Christian faith, once married YOU.COULD.NOT.DIVORCE just because you want to. As the marriage ceremony says, “what God has brought together, no man shall asunder”. You could get an annulment from the church, but you had to do it within days/months of the wedding and go through so much evidence and proof you did not consummate the marriage. This nearly always brought great shame to the man and his manhood and family so it wasn't easy, plus the church made it very difficult to do, and often they would write to the Pope in Rome who rarely granted one (ask Henry 8th on how easy that is). On the incredibly rare times a divorce was granted, the woman was left with nothing, lost all rights to see her children, was completely shunned by society (they often entered a Nunnery and became a nun to regain some respectability and lessen the shame on her family) and only a man could ask for a divorce. The only respectable woman was a young well-behaved woman pre-marriage, a Wife or a respectable widow.
36. Costumes are wildly, wildly inaccurate. The majority of OIs, the women are wearing like....fancy prom dresses and the guys are wearing skinny fit contemporary suits.
37. Anyone ridiculed for being an orphan AND blaming the child for mother's death in childbirth. Maternal mortality is quite common.
38. I'm quite sure daughters of Counts had very little opportunity to actually get married to a Duke, the difference in status was actually very apparent even if both families had the same class rank!
39. They forgot about the servant staircase. Servants cannot use the same path as their master. So Maids bumping with their masters is very very rare because servants are meant to be hidden.
40. Dukes of the North being more powerful than the Royal
41. A war won by a small group of knights without a large number of people being mobilized.
42. A lack of sick children before germ theory
43. Not addressing the incest /Inbreeding among the nobles & royals
44. Two unmarried people of the opposite sex together would be unthinkable
45. Numerical titles for royalty. There is no First Prince, Second Princess, etc. There’s Prince x, Princess xx, etc.
46. Hierarchy. In OI, a king outranks everyone, a duke is just under a king, then there’s an earl, count, viscount, baron, etc. There’s a strict hierarchy. Meanwhile in reality, the titles are basically irrelevant. What matters is the size of your territory, the age and prestige of your house, and the closeness of your relation to royalty. A Count with a single castle can outrank a Duke or Prince.
47. Church vs Empire is actually fairly accurate - The investiture controversy + King Henry VIII vs The Roman Catholic Church
48. The power of the church. OI really underestimate just how powerful the Catholic Church was. It was wealthy as shit and most people followed it. An excommunication from the church was big.
49. Saints. Sainthood is posthumous, there is no single living saint. Saints also hold no position in the church, plus there are a hell of a lot of them compared to in OI
50. Glass wasn’t cheap nor clear. You might be able to afford a few glass windows or something if you’re rich, but it’s not universal.
51. Armor. Your troops did not wear heavy armor. Armor was equal in cost to a modern house today and required time to get fitted to the wearer. You didn’t just order all of your troops plate. Most would wear gambesons or mail at best.
52. Swords. Why is everyone using a damn sword? Where are the lances, the maces, the poleaxes, etc? A sword was a prestige symbol and a sidearm. It was not your primary weapon because it had subpar armor penetration.
53. Drinking. Water was typically dirty and so alcohol was actually healthier than water for most people.
54. Women’s rights. I hate to say it, but OI is actually worse on women’s rights than reality was. Women still didn’t have a lot of rights, but they weren’t all forced into arranged marriages. Most marriages were at least out of love unless you were high nobility and even then they were at least expected to be close before they made an arranged marriage:
55. Wives fighting to become the monarch's mother
    It's hilarious, the authors should've just gone in an Eastern Asian setting than Europe, cause in Europe you got one wife and many chicks on the side unless your wife died or you sent her on a convent (the first divorce to the wives before Divorce was implemented) unless the monarch goes Henry 8th but even Henry 8th have respect that he just divorce, beheaded, died, divorce, beheaded, survive his wives but on the trope the only one that closely resembles that trope is in Ottoman Empire (which is a Muslim country) because that surely match the infighting of the wives especially those who have son.

Spoiler: The History Expert AnxiousPanda15 / Ancient Artefact

The Bastard Child Becoming The King or Emperor
Typically impossible by Western monarchical laws, as the Crown was inextricably linked to Christian conventions and morality, which in turn informed the laws. By law, an illegitimate was not deemed to be eligible for the same inheritances or privileges that were granted to legitimate children. This is in addition to the popular perception and understanding that bastardry was itself sinful and thus the bastard was "tainted" as an individual, making any claims (or intentions to claim) to the throne questionable at best and immoral at worst.
Thus, by law and convention and popular approval, most illegitimate children in Europe during the Middle Ages (Early, High, and Late) were simply out of luck and depended on the goodwill of their legitimate half-siblings or their own ability to rise above that "taint." In the case of noble-born bastards, they were almost always excluded from succession disputes outright, save in situations where extenuating circumstances existed -- for instance, if the only available heir at the time is a woman (as was the case with Henry Fitzroy, the illegitimate son of Henry VIII, whom everyone considered the likely heir-apparent given that the alternatives were Mary and Elizabeth. The only reason he didn't become a bigger deal is that he died while still a child.

It's also important to note that noble bastards did enjoy a different status compared to non-noble bastards. In the case of noble illegitimate children, their treatment and inheritance depended on several major factors:

1. The lineage of both parents
2. The favor of the noble parent (or male noble parent in the event of a noble-noble liaison).
3. The sex of the legitimate children
4. The popularity of the dominant parent.

For instance, if an illegitimate child was born to a nobleman and a commoner woman, that child was likely never going to be a threat to their half-siblings and would've had a childhood likely raised in parallel, but always hierarchically lower than the legitimate siblings. And then there's the question as to whether the parent would've even liked to be reminded of their liaison -- sometimes the noble was, sometimes not. It also greatly depended on whether or not the lineage of the illegitimate child was a threat to the legitimate wife's children (as was the case for Henry Fitzroy). Moreover, if the nobleman's position was precarious and depended on the goodwill of their wife and wife's family, the illegitimate child's status could become precarious as well.

It's important to note that in the history of Western Europe, I've only been able to decisively track down three (3) instances of a bastard becoming King: Mauregatus of Asturias (the Usurper), the son of Alfonso I of Asturias, who ruled just 5 years after a coup; Henry II of Castile, son of Alfonso XI of Castille, who only came to power after defeating and killing his half-brother, Peter of Castille, in a major noble revolt against Peter's rule; and Ramiro I of Aragón, who technically did not inherit the Crown of Aragón, but rather inherited the County, and then expanded it into the Kingdom of Aragón. That is not to say that there haven't been others who came close or who weren't claimants, but all of those others either died before it could materialize into anything, or failed.

Incidentally, I do not include William of Normandy/William the Conqueror, because although he is nicknamed William the Bastard, his father technically never married anyone, and thus while he was born out of wedlock, he was begot by Robert the Magnificent's longstanding concubine/partner, Herleva of Falaise, who is his only known/named concubine.

The Church & the Imperial Family being (Deadly) Enemies or Rivals
Again, some truth in fiction. But not to the extent seen in Manhwas. While it's true that the Catholic Church very often butted heads with the monarchies of the Middle Ages, this was almost always -- if not absolutely always -- because of temporal agendas rather than spiritual issues. One thing the manhwas don't get right is that organized religions absolutely must be political to survive. A purely spiritual religion cannot survive the test of time because it will be unable to navigate the corridors of power and adapt to changing circumstances -- hence why Norse religions died out remarkably quickly once the Catholic Church set their sights on them.

Thus, the Church has always had to be political and corrupt in order to be able to even communicate and wheel and deal with the surrounding monarchies and republics -- in fact, the more spiritual the Papacy, the worse it often ended up and the more damage it did to the faith. It bears mentioning, for instance, that the only reason Spain exists is because of the immensely corrupt dealings that legitimized Isabel and Ferdinand's marriage (involving the at-the-time Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, aka the future Pope Alexander VI).

Another major issue in Manhwa depictions of the Church is showing it as being a monolith. Heck, the Catholic Church argues amongst itself more than it does with other faiths! For instance, the Inquisition? That "monolithic" super-repressive spy agency at the beck and call of the Papacy? Yeah, no. It was decentralized as hell, underfunded, and extremely regional and situational. The Spanish Inquisition, for instance, was deliberately made independent from the Roman Inquisition. The Venetian Inquisition, for its part, regularly ignored requests for extradition of suspects to Rome if the suspects were citizens of Venice. Bishops and priests even within the same country often hated each other as much as, if not more than, they hated other faiths -- some even participating on opposite sides of a civil war as military commanders! Some bishops even considered it more their duty to assist their kings' political ambitions than obeying every word out or Rome, but used their religious connection to Rome as a way to get the King to acknowledge that without the Church, they would have no legitimacy (effectively creating a quid pro quo arrangement).

And finally regarding Church depictions, the issue of fanaticism. Let me be clear here: there was nothing the Church of the Middle Ages hated more than fanatics -- even of their own faith. Fanatics are a problem if they are not under the Church's strict control, which is why the Church was more interested in sociopolitical stability than in religious purity. Accusations and statements made on the basis of religion were, for the most part, just the window dressing on whatever the actual issue was. Oh, time for a Crusade? Yes, yes, God Wills It and all, BUT ALSO, if we don't distract these lunatics in charge of Western Europe with some self-righteous shiny, we're going to be seeing a whole bunch of war in the region and that's bad for everyone. If the Church manages to earn a pretty penny in the meanwhile, well, that's just dandy! And if the Crusade succeeds, well...great? But if they don't, then we have an excuse to launch another one and keep the monarchs busy without tearing Europe apart!

So, yeah, manhwa depictions of the Church tend to be way too religious for actual real life. The worst the Church and Protestantism ever got was during the Reformation, and that was just a race to the bottom to see who could "out-faith" the other more.

The Condemnation Scene + How easy or difficult is it to Break Off a Noble or Royal Engagement?
So, so, so hard. Breaking off a noble engagement wasn't just like dumping your boyfriend/girlfriend/partner. For a noble to break off an engagement in the feudal era would've likely meant that either:

A) One party found a better, more secure engagement that could offset the disadvantages of breaking of the first engagement;

B) Ties between the two families had grown so tense and estranged that no amount of marriage was going to resolve them;

C) One or both parties had chosen to go to war with each other, or supported different factions in another war; or

D) The monarchy had gotten involved (highly improper and irregular) and ordered one or both parties to break the engagement.

While it's true that royal houses had an easier time breaking off engagements with their own nobles, marriages of state (i.e. between two Royal Houses) was another matter entirely. They were often the seal on a major agreement of some kind, so breaking the engagement functionally meant invalidating whatever treaty was behind it. That was grounds for war. In the more feudal parts of Western history, that would've applied to noble-noble marriages as well, as authority was far more decentralized.

Commoner Maids or Servants easily Abusing or Disrespecting anyone with Blue Blood

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, no.

Beginning with the monarchy, anyone caught openly disrespecting the monarchy in Western Europe during the Middle Ages (Early, High, and Late) could easily find themselves on the wrong end of the Lèse-majesté laws -- for which the penalty always involved some measure of physical punishment, or just outright death. In some Western countries, this remained true until the late 18th-mid-19th centuries. You can generally tell when these laws stopped being active in a country when constitutionalism begins to take hold and absolutism is on the decline.

For nobles, no such laws explicitly existed, of course, but commoners depended on noble patronage. During the Middle Ages, most commoners did not own their own land, but rather lived as renters -- or, more commonly termed, serfs. In exchange for the right to live on and work the land and their safety, they paid fealty -- both material and performative -- to the nobility in charge of their lands. Thus, to insult or disrespect your local noble would be akin to insulting your landlord just as your tenancy agreement is up for negotiations and you've got no way to pay if he hikes the rate.

Nor could you afford to insult other nobles, unless implicitly or explicitly allowed to by your noble, as insulting other nobles could lead to discord between your noble's house and the other noble's house -- which could end up in anywhere from a handshake and bygones to outright war.

Towards the Victorian Era, commoners would still have only ever allowed disrespect about the nobles to be voiced in absolute secrecy and only among those of equal or lower rank -- and even then, only with those they trusted implicitly. Feudalism might've been abolished, but working for the nobility was as good as it was going to get as a commoner if you weren't a successful entrepreneur or skilled worker. You had lodgings, security, job security, a decent -- but not necessarily amazing -- wage, and so did your immediate family, probably. So if you went around disparaging the nobility, you were quickly going to get fired -- and then good luck finding similar employment elsewhere, because the nobility of the Victorian Era weren't just tight with each other and constantly gossiping, but also highly connected to the nobility in other countries as well.

Freckles being considered as very Ugly
Unfortunately, some truth in fiction here. Even in the West, freckles were seen as imperfections by cultural convention -- dating as far back as Ancient Rome, at least. According to Felton (1999), Pliny the Elder even described them as marks of religious and/or spiritual stains. Of course, that is not to say that everyone hated freckles -- as people do have individual tastes -- but it is true that, according to beauty standards prevalent in the past, freckles were seen as a negative more than a positive.

Divorce in a (Christian) Monarchy
Important distinction here: Catholic = Christian, Orthodox = Christian, Coptic = Christian, Protestant = Christian, but Catholic =/= Protestant =/= Orthodox =/= Coptic. That being said, civil courts could not in any way issue divorces or annulments -- only religious ones could (except in the case of Protestantism).

Catholicism explicitly does not permit divorce, but does recognize the principle of annulment and of "divorce a mensa et thoro" -- a form of legal separation but not absolute divorce. Protestantism generally does. Orthodox Christianity does recognize the need sometimes for people to separate and remarry, but is conditional. Coptic Christianity (at least the more orthodox branches) seem to only permit it in case of adultery. Thus, you'd have to be more specific on which major faction of Christianity is involved, but for the sake of simplicity, I'm assuming Catholic.

Under Catholic religious doctrine, divorce is simply not allowed. Marriage is considered a permanent sacrament that cannot be dissolved by secular hands because it was consecrated before God -- hence why, for instance, in my country, they hold pre-wedding seminars as a way of getting couples to ask themselves "are you really, really sure about this? Because there's no turning back."

However, Catholicism did recognize a "loophole," so to speak, which was the principles of annulment and "divorce a mensa et thoro," or "divorce from bed and board." The latter meant that you were still legally married, but were not permitted to live together or cohabit any longer. The former was more serious. The former did amount to a divorce -- i.e. the dissolution of marriage -- but only because it functionally argued that the marriage was never valid in the first place (Blackstone, 1984). While this may sound like what you're looking for, take into consideration what I just said -- the marriage was never valid in the first place doesn't just mean everything is fine and dandy and everyone moves on, it also means that anything produced out of that marriage in the interval is now of doubtful origin and legal standing. Your legitimate children? Possibly bastards now. Alliances made out of that marriage? Probably invalid. Inherited lands predicated on that marriage? Possibly no longer legally yours. An annulment therefore means you are willing to completely erase the slate on everything prior to that moment, with potentially massive repercussions -- which is why the only authority who could dispense such a thing was, for monarchs, the Pope.

Cinderella Fairy Tale OR The Lost True Princess/Heir
The latter is a fairytale. The former...kinda depends. There have been historical instances of (typically) women of low standing rising to immense power. Off the top of my head -- Hürrem Sultan, aka Roxelana.

The Anachronistic Costumes
Fashion in OI/RoFan stories, as you've well noted yourself, seems to follow the artist/author's preference more than anything, and as other members have pointed out, the modern understanding of corset culture is incredibly anachronistic and incorrect.

That being said, my only comment on this particular topic is that fashion trends in RoFan/OI are also way too fast. Even for the Victorian Era stories. The ability to create fashion statements was hard in an era where everything has to be done by hand -- and even in the Victorian Era, attempting new designs and normalizing them took time and money. The concept of fast fashion and seasonal fashion trends is much more of a modern concept than anything true to life as regarding the 19th century and before.

Oh, man, it felt nice to get that off my chest. And that's only addressing the ones you've listed!

Homosexuality doesn't exist in the Monarchy / The Erasure of Queer Aristocrats & Royals
This is unfortunately a case of 19th/20th century revisionism along puritan, religious factionalist lines than historical accuracy. If one didn't have a good, up-to-date History teacher, one might be forgiven for not knowing just how common LGBTQ+ persons were among the nobility over the course of history.

To begin with, we need to make a distinction here, however. Historically speaking, there were individuals who were firmly LGBTQ+ and therefore acted upon their sexual orientations in that way, and then there were those who partook in LGBTQ+ activities due to social customs. Moreover, virtually all LGBTQ+ individuals in the past, with few exceptions, would have likely participated in cis het relationships as well due to socio-political obligations.

The most common example of an LGBTQ+ society that I tend to hear the Classical Greeks, what with Athens and Sparta and Thebes. However, it is important to note that in all of these societies, while it is true that love between men was considered to be of a greater standard than love between men and women, that in all of the Greek City-States, it was still an obligation to marry a woman and have children. So you could have your male lover, but you still had to participate in a cis het relationship. Nonetheless, it is largely plausible that due to the lack of severe religious attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals in the pre-medieval era, they were more prolific and open -- but not necessarily "out" -- than in the present.

And then you get to the medieval era. In Europe, it unfortunately meant that LGBTQ+ individuals now had to contend with initially just Chalcedonian, then Catholic and Orthodox, and then Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox moralism. So any society in Europe where they had been able to live more or less "out" effectively revamped themselves to be openly hostile to their presence. However, even as legislation was issued against homosexuality in particular (Li livres de jostice et de plet [c.1260 AD] being one example), the fact is that it still obviously happened -- you just had to be more discreet about it. It should be noted that the little evidence we have of lesbian couples in Medieval Europe is largely a testament to how well they were able to be discreet, as the named cases almost all ended up in execution.

Of course, a major factor would've been your social status. The higher up you were, the more protected you were from prosecution and persecution. If the King was happy being gay with his "favorite," then what was the Church going to do about it? Depose him? Them and what army? And if the Queen liked spending time with a particular lady-in-waiting behind closed doors...well, it's not like a bastard could be born out of that union, so who really gives a damn as long as she also births an heir for her spouse?

Of course, political stability, the competence of the monarch, and the relationship between the specific monarch and the church (specifically, their personal bishop) all weighed in as considerations, but it was far from an unknown situation.

Lower on the totem pole, it kinda depended. Even as far up as Dukes, you had to be more careful about your open sexual orientation because it could be used against you by both Church and State. If you were an openly gay Duke, for instance, and you were on the outs with the Crown, they could use that as an excuse to get rid of you. Idem for the Church lobbying for your expulsion from court. So while there's no doubt that LGBTQ+ aristocrats existed, they mostly would've been significantly more careful about keeping that out of the public eye up until at least the Early Modern Era.

Anything else you wanna add to this topic?

 

As you mentioned some of the stuff you complain about happened in one way or another in Ottoman Empire. For instance back in the day they'd send the Shahzadeh (royal prince) to various sanjaks at age 12 with an experienced mentor so that they'd learn proper governance and military affairs (which ended roughly around 1600s).

Soap and hygiene are an ongoing pet peeve of mine. A lot of rofan writers treat the era as world of magical cavemen. But since you already mentioned those I'll add food is in general nonsense.

It's either stuff from new world popping up way earlier (like cocoa, tomato, potato etc.) Or our transmigrator "inventing" stuff like jams and pancakes and everyone claps.

 

Again, you mentioned clothes, but I would really like to point out how much the genre is missing by not having MLs wear hoses.
Or even just generally having codpieces for the smut subgenre

Personally, I'm always rolling eyes at all this "every servant bullying one of their noble masters" business. I could probably understand this being done rarely in very not obvious ways, but really, bringing waste instead of food for years or bringing outright physical harm to their noble masters? Historically, people were killed for less.

 

I never understood that insane logic.
Those fictional stupid servants, maids, butlers etc. should be well aware of their place in the social hierarchy and the risk of offending an aristocrat and royal.
In reality, these lower subjects are at the mercy of nobles and royals. Their whole livelihood depend on their masters.
Maid Abuse is far more likely to happen than an Elite with Blue Blood being obviously bullied or dominated by a mere servant!

 

This is an issue in medieval fiction in general.

 

That’s an impressive list. I can’t argue a single point. If anything you under sell it.

One of my huge pet peeves is mining.
First off most modern people do not know what the raw materials look like in nature. So how the he// they get the chemistry right.
Two. Most mining operations could not produce what the MC are doing. Especially with the variety of ores. You don’t normally get everything you need to make gunpowder in one spot.

Another thing. How the he// do the MC make a lathe? It’s a precision piece of machinery. It’s not something you can just slap together.

One more thing. Why the he// do the MC make concrete for everything, but when it comes to ship building. They have to always use wood. Like why?

I have to ask. Why do you see so much paperwork on the MC desk? I mean it’s a simple idea to have a wood carver make a stamp. Ink/ paint it. Then place a sheet of paper on top. Boom! The beginning of bureaucracy. That way it would be so much faster to sort and answer so many requests or inquiries.

That’s all I can think of off the top my head.

 

They existed since ancient times. The precision ones came way way later but they're not new. Definitely not something someone can just make on a whim though.

 

While all true. I just hate how they gloss over the building of certain machines. I mean it’s like plot armor. I want one. So I create one in a couple of days. With what? A couple of stones and a stick. It just irk me

 

'tis realm of european ambiance~ but there are times I detest it moreso that others, especially on the premise of being informative.
There are two titles that betrayed that expectation, "The Duchess 50 Tea Recipes" and "The Tyrant's Only Perfumer."
The former, "The Duchess 50 Tea Recipes" has a clear lack of focus, and general lack of time-appropriate behavior; ex. adding milk to tea in a European setting, imposing hairnets and mousetraps in what appears to be a tea wholesale store... I find the cleanliness agenda to be distasteful, especially when authors superimpose our current standard of cleanliness in a period that was survivable. Not to mention they never depict the gross side of the early period, like having human waste flow downstream or the illogical fallacies of disease at the time, they were never convincing and assumed readers will feel disgusted and sympathize with the main character.
And the latter, "The Tyrant's Only Perfumer" has a lack of compelling characters and detracts from the main themes of the story. It had enough promise so I researched some things to write a reimaging of the story, and would you believe that I felt more betrayed after researching? There is a lack of legitimate organizations and governance in aristocratic stories. Turns out there is a smell library, and that there are copyrights to chemical formulas with the Food & Drug Administration. And another historical inaccuracy that completely undermines all the main character's products, atomizers, or spray perfumes during the early period is wildly inaccurate! They were made quite recently with the invention of PLASTIC, spray perfumes are vintage at best. But period people still had pleasant-smelling cosmetic products, in fact the idea is simpler as perfume is a compound of essential oils. There were also sachets, bath additives and perfume balms and more!
I love creativity and the process of inventing, making products, etc. I have yet to see the main character obsess over packaging or get into liability trouble solely because of the product. I feel betrayed because not only is it making light of the process, but the writing is dogwater. People who write against the period are senseless, as what is even the point of setting the story in that period.
On a positive note, for recommendations,

• My Derelict Beloved. The main focus isn't on governing or soap-making, but there are considerations such as marketing their soap, product trials, figuring out their customer market and the religious bias that disfavors soap. Additionally, the main character comes to a creative solution for her dress~ Altering a dress justifies that it's appropriate for the period, while adding the flair to suit current extravagant trends using 'modern knowledge.' (Though I did try looking up to see if there is precedent for crush seashells creating a sparkly dress, but it seems there is none. I believe the author took the idea of glitter, rhinestones and sequins and adapted it for the setting. Regardless the main character convinced me, as there is plot significance to compensate for the author's creative liberties.)
• Empress Cesia Wears Knickerbockers. The main focus is on fashion design, women in influential roles (nobility and workforce) and the duality of artistry and practicality. It's received favorable reactions, but I'm not well informed.
• Isekai Yakkyoku. Carries some of the cons of being a japanese isekai, but otherwise the main character does well to adapt, excel and embrace the new world. He goes through trial testing to produce a mircoscope. And he never undermines his father's work, which are a product of the current time.
  
• Honorable mentions: "Villainess Maker" and "Not-Sew Wicked Stepmother," both titles understood that dresses they had in mind had to be appropriate for the period, and that was they wear communicate a statement.

 

This is interesting, but you seem to be forgetting that most stories of this genre don't take place on earth, and as such aren't constrained, to, well, most of this stuff. The author can make up a bunch of settings that are different from historical earth, and it's fine for that world. And I imagine the addition of magic, monsters, and other races changes things quite a bit too when they show up.

 

A very good point.
It's make more sense to criticize a historical plot / period drama that is set in our reality.
Example: Vikings or Bridgerton.
But it becomes more complicated when the author is creating a fantasy world building that is supposed to be based on a specific era.

That reminds me:
I recently watch a video essay about "Anime's Obsession With Europe: A Brief History" by The Soak, and I found these arguments:

• "Just like how Japan is exotic to us, we are to them."
• "Europe is the blueprint for anything Fantasy."
• "Paris Syndrome" - Europe is seen as a fantasitical place by many Asians
• Asian Authors, who live in a conservative society, use European Settings/Scenaries to explore various topics or taboo subjects or to express some social commentaries from a safe distance and without coming off as too preachy.
• Asian Artists also want their work/product be successful in Western Countries

Correction:
@Testjd3smvor
The director of Heidi is not Hayao Miyazaki, but Isao Takahata. Takahata had his focus on realism, unlike Hayao Miyazaki who had his focus on fantasy.
@GribGFX
I find it hard to believe the popularisation of the Europe fantasy setting comes from D&D as it relates to games and therefore anime. Fantasy had existed in the past in the form of ancient and often religious epics. But modern fantasy, which is associated with Europe, was birthed by predominately English authors in literature. They combined bits from the medieval period and European mythology. Tolkien is said to have been the one to have popularised it. It’s disputed whether he influenced D&D to a great extent but ultimately D&D was influenced by literature. And I don’t know for certain but I’m going to guess that modern fantasy literature, such as the lord of the rings, had the bigger impact in pop culture to cement the fantasy setting, even as it relates to Japanese games and anime.
@TheSteakLP
Actually Japan's interest in Germany started way before WWII during prussian times, because the japanese leaders were fascinated by (among other things like medicine and law) the prussian military so they got some generals over to Japan and they taught them how the prussian military works, which led to a lot of the japanese military at the time being remodeled after the prussian one. Search up Jakob Meckel who was a foreign advisor to the japanese government during the Meiji period. This also led to some german words being integrated into japanese, like Arbeit in german meaning work, becoming the japanese arubaito meaning part-time work (and later the korean areubaiteu), because japanese students at the time often worked for german officials as their part time job. German was also a popular second language along with french back then and a lot of medical sciences back then used german loan words.

Spoiler: Bibliography:

- Oscar García Aranda | Representations of Europe in Japanese anime: An overview of case studies and theoretical frameworks - Jonathan Clements | Anime: A History - Cobus van Staden | Heidi in Japan: What do anime dreams of Europe mean for non-Europeans? https://www.iias.asia/sites/iias/file...
- Rebecca Suter | Orientalism, Self-Orientalism, and Occidentalism in the Visual-Verbal Medium of Japanese Girls’ Comics. - Frederik L. Schodt | Manga! Manga!: The World of Japanese Comics
- Deborah Shamoon (2012) | Passionate Friendship: The Aesthetics of Girls' Culture in Japan - Marco Pellitteri | East of Oliver Twist: Japanese Culture and European Influences in Animated TV Series for Children and Adolescents https://www.academia.edu/11877294/Eas... - Patricia Pârvu | Norse Culture as a Source of Inspiration for the Vinland Saga Phenomenon https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feat...
- Dani Cavallaro | The Anime Art of Hayao Miyazaki
- Andrew Shaner | Defining Steampunk Through The Films of Hayao Miyazaki https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/98-...
- Clothilde Sabre, (2016) | French Anime and Manga Fans in Japan: Pop Culture Tourism, Media Pilgrimage |
https://contents-tourism.press/wp-con...

It seems that both Japan & South Korea have a great fascination with the West.

 

The pet peeve I have that no one have mentioned here are the throne rooms. If you read most novels, then a throne room is treated as kings workplace. He wakes up, goes to the throne room, and just sits there on the throne all day while accepting visitors. And if you ever do meet with a king, it's always in a throne room and nowhere else with a crowd of people.

Another pet peeve is the mish-mash of noble titles that existed at different times in different countries without clear hierarchy, but in novels they are all together in one strict hierarchy.

And also one that currently irks me the most are novels where family is portrayed like some sort guild or a company instead of family. You have children treating parents as lords and calling them by titles instead of "mother" and " father". Children cannot visit the parents without an appointment in formal setting, has to kneel and ask permission to speak. And then you got servants with more power and authority than a family head's children. I think this kind of thing is mostly in Korean novels.

This is not really true. This kind of thing is very situational and depends on where people lived and the time period. People knew about clean water and tried to live in places where they had access to clean water. They also had to cook and knew that boiled water was good, they used boiled water for drinking as well. In larger cities or on occasions where they couldn't get access to clean water, they did drink ale more. Also, the ale and wine were often less alcoholic than we might think.

Dunno what you specifically referring to here, but this is a historical fact. There are many famous battles that were won by a small group of people against much larger force. Unless what you are talking about is something like 10 knights winning a battle against 10 thousand strong army in a head-on confrontation in world without magic or any kind of thing that would give them an advantage.
Well, there is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vítkov_Hill about 60 farmers drove off a trained army of a few thousand.

 

About The Rose of Versailles / Lady Oscar by AnxiousPanda15:

"In general, my impressions of "The Rose of Versailles" is that it's a decent shoujo manga, but predicated far too much on a romantic, idealistic vision in terms of politics and governance. Insofar as the shoujo tropes are concerned, they are executed very well. In terms of the historical accuracy, there's a few things that are weird, but not so much as to be an issue.

Even in terms of its treatment of sociopolitical issues, the manga does a fairly good job of underpinning a lot of the major issues that were brewing in France leading up to the Revolution, though -- as expected for the available curriculum and information in the 1970's -- it skews towards the simplistic overall. For instance, while Marie Antoinette's spendthrift style is well documented, and it certainly was a major issue for the palace finances at the time, it should be noted that the French state was beyond broke -well- before Louis XVI. Heck, it was broke by 1775, when the American Revolution started, because of a multitude of issues related to the deregulation of grain, introduction of laissez-faire capitalism, and major crop failures deriving from the volcanic eruption of Laki in 1783-1784.

In point of fact, the roots of the French Revolution truly begin with the reforms of the Physiocrats under Louis XV, whereupon the introduction of laissez-faire exacerbated an already deteriorating economic situation that was worsened by the strict class and wealth divisions created by the Estates-General. Combine this with an ineffectual leader, and it's no surprise that the entire thing came crashing down -- but while Marie Antoinette is by no means an innocent in all of this, she was most certainly not a major factor in the institutional rot.

As feminist literature, it's very in tune, I find, with the Second-Wave Feminist discourse taking place roughly at the same time -- which is no surprise, as I read that the author was inspired in part by the New Left, which put her roughly among the Radical Feminist faction of Second Wave Feminism of her time. In that respect, I think it's a valuable piece of feminist critique of gender conventions and norms, and especially of the homophobia predominant in the era, but I think a lot of modern, fourth-wave feminists might find some of its content too conservative or restrained -- particularly Lady Oscar's final decision to live as a man, or the fact that she, in the end, fell in love with André."

 

I’m not to sure about the water thing. There is a lot evidence for drinking alcoholic drinks during this time, but it is also true that the alcohol content was a lot lower. Also over time peoples tolerance goes up. There’s also many health benefits to it during this time.

As for the battle reference. There have been many battles that have happened in history. From the 300 to the American Revolution. Battles between farmers or a small groups do exist. Some good. Some bad, but all to true and real

 

They did drink alcohol, but not the way it is implied "instead of water all or most of the time". If you think about it - people built their houses and formed villages and such in places where they had access to good water. They knew about possibility of getting sick and die of bad water, which also shows they have drank it. They always preferred water to alcohol if they had a choice + they knew that boiling the water will make it drinkable in many cases. What usually happened is water went bad after a large group of people were living by the water source, like in large cities. There are also many cases where you don't want to get drunk, like on important job.
Well, here is one of the articles about it https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/the-myth-of-medieval-small-beer-19763/

 

I couldn’t read the article because I won’t acknowledge cookies. I won’t agree to anything online. That’s just me.

As far as water is concern. There are certain points I’m not sure how people figure out. For instance boiling water. Sure I can say that because I know about microbes and what effect boiling water will do. But that’s 20/20 hindsight. I mean when you think about it. If a person got sick. They usually died. How are you going to figure out that the water is bad with no one around. Besides that’s a pretty big leap. I mean dysentery killed thousands. Whole armies were wipe out, but no one knew why. I sort of see that as the common thing for many ancients. Saying it’s a curse or the will of the gods. Don’t get me wrong I know many knew that something was wrong that’s why they went to alcohol, but boiling water? That’s a stretch.
Sure the ancient use water for their food, but I can’t see them putting 2+2 together…
But what do I know

 

It's actually very simple, but cruel. People have been using fire to cook for tens of thousands of years. They have over time figured out that people who drank often directly from the river (or one particular water source) have died or got sick while those who haven't - didn't get sick. That's all there is to it. Basically, people have figured it out by death toll. You don't really need to know about the germs theory to figure out cause and effect relationship just by looking at the outcomes and figure out what was the difference. They also basically used smell and flavor of water to tell if it's good or bad, which is not really that good of an indicator, but at least something.
Also, remember the roman aqueduct. Thousands of years ago people already invented what we can call plumbing and they could bring water from some place to another place. Meaning, they could find a clean water source and build a delivery system to town.
I dunno, do you read Wiki without cookies? Here is one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Conduit

 

It makes sense. I just wish there was a defining recorded moment. Something like how iodine was discovered. IDK. I’m sorry for being stubborn

 

While a lot of this is valid there is also a lot of generalization going on here.
We are talking about period of time lasting for nearly a thousand years and involving dozens of different countries.
Regarding the first born son inheriting everything, just as an example of how things are not always that simple, Moscow for a while had a succession where the throne passed to the next brother in line, and then to the oldest son of the oldest brother only after running out of brothers.
And then there is the clusterfuck that is the Holy Roman Empire with it's elective monarchy. lol

Honestly I don't really care if a fictional setting is true to history when it comes to things like laws or cultural customs, what matters is if it makes sense with the story's own internal logic.
Like it doesn't really make much sense to me to complain about the saints being different than christian saints when the entire religion is different aside for some borrowed aesthetics.
What does irk me though is when a story is specifically claimed as being medieval despite clearly being inspired by the early modern period instead.

 

To be fair, inaccuracies are very expected and maybe even necessary in these novels. Korea wasn't a country that was colonized by the Europeans so they are a lot more influenced by Eastern culture than European culture. Most of what they were exposed to European culture probably came during modern times from books where a lot of things were idealized and romanticized.

And once you get dumped a lot of historical information like that in a short period it becomes hard to distinguish the difference between timelines and timeline-specific culture unless you've studied the history in depth or it has a close resemblance to your own history which in this case, really doesn't.

So adding Eastern nobility elements (Like succession battles and granted nobilities) was bound to happen or likely even necessary to gain popularity and actually sell in Korea while adding romanticized European elements.

And if the authors wanted to be they could have been accurate because they had information access, but it's better to take the best parts and label it a fictional world because it's just more fun that way. Because if you get too realistic, there's not much room for imagination and you'll mostly end up with a dreadful history retelling.