Hellenistic/antiquity fantasy vs medieval fantasy

I have this conflict brewing for awhile now and I think it;s one worth discussing in depth. Simply put, how exactly can antiquity era fantasy(that's Macedon, Rome, Greek city states period for those unaware) be sufficiently differentiated enough from the medieval type fantasies we all know and love in order to be easily recognized as different.

In terms of architecture it's more obvious as everyone is familiar with Greco-Roman style buildings but what about in terms of theme?, nations?, creatures?

I would like more outside opinions on this...

Have you read Codex Alera?

First, I do NOT love medeuro fantasy; I just need that to be noted. Now to the important stuff:

The themes will depend on your individual work; genres don’t really have themes, they have motifs and tropes.

As you probably already know, the Greeks were divided into numerous “tribes” like the Italians before the empire unified them; many lived in city-states, while some lived in isolated villages. You have Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians, and Achaeans; the Aeolians didn’t have their own language but spoke a form of Doric. I can’t tell you much more than that, though, as I have little knowledge of Greek culture beyond what I learned about the Athenians and Spartans (who I only JUST learned were both Dorian) in middle school.

As for creatures, there isn’t a single fantasy bestiary I’ve encountered that isn’t full of Greek monsters. Literally all of the classic monsters are Greek. The hydra, the chimera, Medusa and her gorgon sisters, nymphs, satyrs and fauns, centaurs (including the bull-horned Cyprian centaurs and the ox-horned Lamian centaurs), the minotaur, the sirens, the harpies, the furies, Typhon, Echidna, gryphons, giants, the cyclopes, the hecatonchires, unicorns, catoblepas (you don’t see boar-headed buffaloes very often), cerastes (spineless ram-horned snakes), the dang-near eldritch crocotta, Charybdis, manticores, phoenixes, sphinxes, ghosts (contrary to what Edith Hamilton told us, apparently), witches like Medea and Circe, Lamia, winged horses, and dragons of diverse types; that doesn’t even include automatons, gods, or the many beings who may be singular entities but could just as easily belong to species with small populations.

In fact, because the wilderness teems with horrifying monstrosities and implacable aliens, the cities would be oases of safe, sane civilization (but also cesspools of corruption and vice). Those who live in villages in the wild would have to cultivate polite relationships with the less predatory beings for protection against the man-eaters. An isolated village community might absolutely depend on local nymphs and satyrs for protection against a dragon; and perhaps a rule of etiquette might be broken, causing the nymphs to withdraw their protection, allowing the dragon to feast until some demigod happens along to save the people, who forever after revere that hero’s ghost (because he is most likely going to die unless his mother is a queen).

edited 9th Aug '16 4:38:48 PM by nekomoon14

Classical Greco-Roman mythology was very heavy on tragedies. As far as I know, of all Zeus' mortal descendants, Perseus was the only hero whose story had a happy ending.

So Im just going to go ahead and quote myself from this thread:

"I always wanted to see something set in the Ancient Mediterranean. The period while Greece was at it's height, Republican Rome was on the rise, and Carthage was still a power. You have such a wide variety of cultures, geographical areas, cities, trade routes, and professions to include. Lots of international and domestic politics to weave into a story. Not only the three main powers, but the remains of Ancient Egypt where an ancient priesthood keeps it secrets in the shadows of ruins older than history. Farther south are the pagan desert nomads, and even farther the trackless jungle. To the north is are dark forests of Europe, filled with savage Celtic tribes, and beyond them the icy land of the Lapps. East is the ancient kingdom of Persia, and further east than that is the sub-continent of India. The northwest are the endless steppes, and the horse-nomads that trade with China. To the West is the boundless Atlantic Ocean, and all the lands along the northern and southern coasts. The era has a greater variety of languages, religions, lifestyles, myths, legends, magic systems, monsters and fighting styles than any fantasy setting I ever heard of, and that includes Middle Earth. The characters to include: scholars in the Library of Alexandra, merchants plying the seas between Carthage and Tyre, the Lawgivers of Athens, philosophers, mercenaries, criminals, slaves, priests and lords.

It was an amazing time and place. I cant understand why it isn't used more often."

Firstly you need to define 'medieval type fantasy', because until you have that, you can't reliably say what is different from it.

edited 9th Aug '16 11:53:30 PM by MattII

The "antiquity era" in Europe covers more than just ancient Greece. There's also ancient Egypt, North African peoples like Carthage and Numidia, Rome, Mesopotamia, and all the Celtic and Germanic peoples, Basically everything from before 600 AD falls under that label.

The "medieval period" is also an extremely broad and vague historical label, covering a thousand-year period between the 5th and 15th century. It began with the fall of the western Roman Empire, when tribal warlords were fighting with spears, swords, bows and shields, and ended in the Renaissance, when mercenary soldiers were marching around in steel plate, shooting at each other with arquebuses and getting blown to pieces by cannons.

edited 10th Aug '16 4:33:12 AM by Tungsten74

The tech level for warfare would be the most obvious difference. Also, social structure and government, as antiquity had kings but was before the time of the feudal system.

I think the best way to be different would be to not so much focus on a different time period and instead focus on a different culture. Tolkien's Middle-Earth is not very particularly medieval save for the impressive fortresses, but is very much centered on Germanic myth and culture mixed with Biblical influence. By contrast, the Thief Of Eddis series has a late medieval setting but is based off of Greek myth and culture.

Thematically, the main difference between Medieval and ancient settings is the way society is organized. In Middle Ages Northern Europe they have the feudal system. Basically that means the population is divided among lots of little semi-rural kingdoms, each of which are more or less self-sustaining. Suspicion of strangers is high, travel is rare, trade and commerce is less important. Society is geographically fragmented, but tightly bound by hierarchy. Though peasants are on the bottom and the aristocracy is at the top, technically no one is legally or morally "free". Everyone is the bound vassal of the lord they report to, up until you get to the King. Aesthetically you get Lords and ladies living in stone castles, surrounded by their peasants, served by their craftsmen.

Antiquity is completely different. The unit of social organization is the city-state. Actual slaves do all the really hard labor, above them everyone is a "citizen" with certain legal rights, even in the cities run by tyrants. Trade and commerce are much more important to economic life, the marketplaces are much more cosmopolitan, people from foreign lands are a familiar sight, and geographically the world is more inter-connected. Hierarchy exists, obviously, but is less important. The Roman Republic, and many of the Greek city-states are democracies. Citizenship, not vassalage, is the main organizing principle. Aesthetically, you get urban centers, connected by maritime trade-routes.

They are almost thematic opposites.

Oh, and the fighting styles. Medieval-style fantasies are dominated by broad-swords and body-armor. Antiquity is spears, short swords and large shields. Medieval warriors decapitate their foes with a mighty hew. Ancient warriors get in close and stab their opponents.

That's not really true. Spear and shield have remained the go-to fighting style for infantry for most of the Middle Ages, and swords were a side-weapon in battle (that is, until the pike squares and zweihanders of the late Middle Ages / Renaissance).

There were indeed differences in body armor, though. The greeks had cloth armor (not as useless as it sounds: layered cloth can be surprisingly protective) and bronze cuirasses. The romans had more medieval-like armor: lamellar (lorica segmentata), mail (lorica hamata), scale (lorica squamata). Later in the Middle Ages the coat of plate was introduced followed by the iconic plate armor.

An important technological developments for warfare was the introduction of the stirrup in the 6th-7th century. Together with the couched lance technique, it led to cavalry dominating the battlefields, whereas the Antiquity was all about infantry phalanxes.

Fortifications evolved a lot too. While settlements had been fortified for a long time, the feudal society of the Middle Ages led to a boom in castle construction and constant improvements in the design. The first design was the motte-and-bailey, which became a keep and curtain wall when castle started being built in stone and mottes fell into disuse. Many improvements were made on this basic design: gatehouses (with portcullises, drawbridges, murder-holes, the works), wall towers (first rectangular, then round), battlements, moats, and concentric designs.

Most siege engines were invented in the Antiquity: battering rams, siege towers (the most famous of which was the Helepolis, which failed miserably during the siege of Rhodes), and various artillery such as ballistas and onagers. Theses engines were used extensively during the Middle Ages, with the notable addition of the trebuchet, a 12th century invention.

edited 11th Aug '16 12:48:30 AM by Aetol

The difference in weaponry and battle strategy is also the reason behind the more democratic and less segregated nature of antique societies. The focus on infantry conscripts meant that a much greater proportion of the populace had the ability to enforce their will in government. To contrast, medieval societies rely on mercenaries and knights on horseback - which are devastating when properly used, but also expensive, meaning eventually you'd have a noble class both rich enough to field such forces, and consequently powerful enough to defend its wealth. The closest equivalent in antiquity was Egypt, which relied on chariot archers with much the same social results.

Another key difference is religion, and hence certain aspects of culture - societies in Antiquity were far more accepting of multiple gods and traditions, to the point there was little religious friction; if anything, the usual persecution targets were the monotheistic ones. Consequently, cultural and racial friction was also significantly less then in the medieval times. Even slavery was more a matter of dealing with war prisoners and debtors, with freed slaves enjoying all the rights of regular citizens. Again, the deification policies of Egypt differentiated it from other regions, with corresponding effects on society.

Physically, there was a lot more emphasis on the division between civilized city-states and the untamed wilderness. The closest medieval equivalent would be the highly decentralized German domains (ironically, medieval Germany is much closer to the Tolkien-inspired standard fantasy setting than medieval England).

So, at a glance, compared to the standard fantasy setting, you're looking at societies that were more diverse, more independent, and somewhat more democratic (it should be noted that medieval burgs had elected mayors and law-enforcement, and were generally more liberal than fiefdoms). For that matter, even tyranny was more of a job description than a moral epithet, meaning simply a ruler having taken power by force, rather than succession.

It's kind of funny that nobody ever gets the spear thing right. The spear (and variants on spears.) is the first and the final word in melee weapons. It's strictly better than a sword, and the only reason any other melee weapon even exists is that archers can't really carry one for a backup weapon, nor is it very socially acceptable or practical to go around with one in hand at all times. The guard standing around with spear/slash halberd in hand? That's the equivalent of a cop guarding an airport with an FN-Fal strapped on. The nobility carries swords not because they're better, but because they're badges of civil legal authority - a cop with a glock 19 on the belt that is more supposed to make people obey than ever actually be fired in anger.

I... what? What the hell are you talking about? Bronze Age and Iron Age societies were not more democratic or less segregated, and conscription almost never saw widespread use prior to the early modern period, when guns became commonplace. Antiquity-era Europe was dominated by the nobility, and heavily stratified. Slavery was widespread, and life as a slave could be absolutely terrible (Roman gold mines were practically slave meat-grinders, they were that dangerous). Mercenaries were commonplace too - the Romans used mercenaries heavily to support their legions, and (while not a historical document per se) the Illiad is full of mentions of Greek warriors who were literally only fighting in the hopes of a share of the loot and plunder.

Indeed, landed nobility and warrior elites are things that have existed since the dawn of agriculture. Ancient Athens (and the early Roman republic, to some degree) are the only instances of anything close to democracy forming prior to the modern era. And in Athens' case, that was largely due to the economic situation at the time, where lots of Athenians owned their own land (and slaves to work it), and so felt entitled to a say in how it should be governed. The fact they held wealth, and thereby economic power, was what allowed them to exert their political will, not some hogwash about everyone having weapons.

It's not so much "conscripted" rather than "volunteering with great honor".

So, from what I'm gathering so far a way to look at this era in general is a more advanced society but with lesser technology. Which also happens to exist alongside more "primitive" organizations such as the gaulic and germanic tribes...

Pretty much. Not that these tribes were all that primitive either, but that's a fair way to put it.

As mentioned before, the stirrup was a game-changer, since it allowed riders to actively engage in the fight, with devastating results. However, horses are notoriously difficult to train for battle and maintain for long campaigns, so you basically have a very powerful weapon that only the very rich could afford to field and train with. Interestingly enough, the other medieval superweapon - the crossbow, which requires a lot less training to use effectively - was banned for use against Christians... mostly meaning local authorities. Fancy that, eh? Swords were similarly banned, but that was subject to massive rules-lawyering - for instance, the messer, which is a fairly large broadsword, was legally a knife.

Not to paint too dark a picture of the middle ages, most of the above counts for traditional fiefdoms. The burgs and other free cities had systems a lot more similar to both the antique city-states and modern societies. It's the purely geographical difference between small villages on a week's trip from a castle, and self-contained city-states with directly associated farmlands, that is the main physical driver of these two kinds of societies.

All in all, the greater the proportion of the populace had the effective ability to use force, the freer and less stratified it was. The same went for religion - less pretense for exclusivity meant less friction, to the point that gods from different traditions were frequently identified with each other, like Thoth and Hermes for instance. Finally, unlike the structural basis of medieval society, there was no concept of royal blood to inherently divide the populace into elites and commoners.

As for horses, they didn't have heavy cavalry back then, mainly because horses weren't big enough. Their riding horses were suitable for light cavalry, and those that weren't quite big enough to ride were used to pull chariots. Draft horses and heavy chargers were the result of specialized breeding programs, but they wouldn't reach the size of Clydesdales for another few centuries yet.

Exactly. It was common for knights to own dedicated war horses and switch to them only for battle - again, that's a heap of expenses that most people simply couldn't afford. However, the real use of the mounted rider, as well as the basis for the medieval lord-vassal relationship, was the ability of cavalry to quickly counter bandit raids - vikings were at their height precisely during that time, and they weren't in the habit of hanging around until the peasantry got their gear. However, hollering at the castle for a posse to chase down and eliminate the raiders was a valid move. Officially, that was the social contracts between nobles and peasants, though to what extent it was kept varied extensively between times and places.

Another difference is that even before the gunpowder age, medieval armies relied much more on projectile weapons - ancient short bows and slings were useful, but not essential. To contrast, the English longbow could easily penetrate even plate armor - but again, it required years of training, and could be useful against riders mostly in large groups. Once the easier to use guns enabled kings to field large professional armies effective against heavy cavalry, while cannons drastically reduced the effectiveness of fortifications, the age of knights and castles was effectively over.

edited 12th Aug '16 7:50:29 AM by indiana404

I'd say pikes are the things that killed mounted cavalry.

Unless you are the Mongols.

The Mongols are the odd ones out when it comes to horses, considering that horses originally come for central asia and all and the fact that every single Mongol depended on their existence to survive...

Though the Mongols appear towards the medieval age, I believe the Huns would be a better fit for something like this....

I have to said something, is that while is truth they a diferent in fantasy usually the manage to find a way to live side by side, is usually no weird to have a ancient egyptian country, a ancient greek one and mediaval town here and there.

The Mongols could afford horses because they were a nomadic society, not an agricultural/sedentary one. Their horses were smaller than the European Destriers, and they utilized lighter armor. They still had stirrups, which allowed them to fire bows accurately while riding. Neither knights nor Mongols were possible during antiquity, as the appropriate technology hadn't been invented yet.

Ancient city-states were more democratic, but only for a certain class of citizens (free males). This included the working classes, however, so craftsmen had more say in public policy in, say, ancient Athens than they ever did in, say, 10th century London. I'm not aware of any studies relating the rate of upward mobility of ancient slaves vs. medieval peasantry, or a comparison of their standard of living, but I wouldn't be surprised if the slaves had it marginally easier.

As for spears vs. swords, I was referring to the depiction of fighting styles in works of fiction. In terms of writing a 1-on-1 combat scene, your medieval fantasy hero (here I'm referring as much to someone like Arathorn as to King Arthur) will be whacking bad-guys heads off with a honking big two handed sword. It's all big swings, heroic leaps through the air, lone warriors hacking through heaps of evil minions. Ancient combat is more brutal- they get in close, look each other in the eye and go for a stab in the chest. In an extended fight scene they will be hitting each other as much with their big heavy shields as with their weapons. This is semi-historical and due to differences in the quality of the steel available at the time.

The aesthetic differences in large scale warfare are obvious. An overlooked aspect is naval warfare- more common and important during ancient times than during the medieval period, Vikings notwithstanding.

Cavalry co-existed with pike phalanxes. Indeed, cavalry was in use right up until the First World War.

Maxim guns, landmines and barbed wire killed mounted cavalry, not pikes.

@slavery: Actually, you can think it like this: no matter the era, whether slave owner or management who employs minimal wage worker, they'll tend to treat their worker well if the workers aren't easily replaced. Athenian (allegedly) treat their slaves better since they don't get chance for getting slaves as booty as often as, say, Spartans.