#fantasy shows | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

alpaca-clouds · 8 months ago

Text

Doing the "Well, Actually" thing for a bit...

Let me prephase this blog with a quick disclaimer: I freaking love Castlevania Nocturne season 2. I love it so much from a narrative perspective and all. I adored it, and I am halfway through a first rewatch.

However, I am also your local history nerd. And as such I cannot help myself to do this thing, where I am an annoying know it all and do a bit of: "See, actually, this is not quite right." Not because it ruined the show for me in any way, but more because this way I can talk a bit about some historical shit, and the people watching the show right now might learn something about history. Alright?

Good!

So, let's learn some interesting stuff about history.

Travel Speeds in the 18th Century

The very first thing that made me go "well, actually" when the trailer came out was the knowledge that Richter, Alucard and Annette would travel to Paris was: "Are they aware how far that is?" Just for reference, here some google maps.

On modern streets it is about 420km. From my knowledge of the street network at the time is, that it should be more like 450km, and that was on the roads that not everyone could use. And sure, they use partly the river, I guess, but that will not make travel that much faster.

So, given I am reading about the time right now, I know that the good travel speed if you had a horse was about 7 to 8km/h. Sure, you could do short distances faster, but not long distances. And that is with a horse. On foot people will usually average around 4km/h. So even if they walk 12 hours a day and do some part on river (where you can also reach about 7 to 8km/h)... They should have traveled around 6 days. According to my knowledge usual travel time between Machecoul and Paris was about 7-10 days.

Usually I could just ignore this and handwave it. But the big issue is, that we see about what happens parallel to it - and those events do not seem to cover more than 3 or 4 days. And then of course Erszebeth, her army, Maria, Mizrak, Olrox and Juste just basically instantly manage to get to Paris within like, what? A day?

I can buy it for Maria and Olrox, who both should be able to fly. (Maria on bird, and Olrox in his serpent form.) But everyone else? Especially the vampire army who absolutely will be incapable of moving during the day. Well...

And this is a thing that sooooooooo much historical media and fantasy media gets wrong. Usually it is said that people in historical times (before any engines were developed) traveled at around 40km per day. An army with a good marching speed could manage 50-60km. And somehow the Romans just marched 80km a day, but nobody else ever managed that. But also the Romans were masters of logistics.

The Best Documented Execution

Another scene that got me: "Well, actually..." Was the scene with the execution of King Louis XVI. Mind you, some stuff was really, really good. The clothing Louis wore? That is spot on. That absolutely lines up with what we know Louis wore to his execution. And it should also be said, that of course the nervous atmosphere definitely is about right, because folks knew things were probably going to get worse from here.

Still, there is some stuff amiss here. For once, there were by far not enough guards at this execution. You gotta see, France at the time was at the brink of the civil war - and there were still a lot of Royalist people around. Not everyone was on board with Louis being killed. A lot of people thought they would get a sort of constitutional monarchy, not a full Republic. So there were a lot of guards present at the execution.

And then... Look, there is this one thing. Executions were big social events. There absolutely - espailly at one like this - would be people shocked and crying. But also, again, especially at one like this, there would be people celebrating as well. It was kinda a form of entertainment. (And mind you, France really kept the habit going - public executions were a thing until 1939.)

See also this really good video by J. Draper - though this video focuses a bit more on England rather than France. Still, great video on public executions.

youtube

Castlevania and the Weather

Everyone who listened to me ramble on Castlevania before knows this specific pet peeve of mine. Castlevania, the show, really, really, REALLY is bad when it comes to the weather and keeping it consistent.

The first four seasons clearly seem to happen between September 1476 and January 1477, so in autumn and winter. Yet, in some episodes we see flowers and in one episode in season 3 even a little bee humming around. That is not how seasons work, is it? If there is snow, there is no bees. Sure, maybe if it was a single freak snow storm (which totally could happen with magic and monsters around). But given that the snowy weather seems to hold over all four seasons, I still would hazard a guess and say: Yeah, it is not summer or spring, so definitely no time for bees.

And, well... Nocturne seemed to happen in summer 1792. Pretty much everyone I knew was putting the show somewhere between May 1792 and August 1792, because the weather we saw in the show seemed to suggest it. Sure, there were a bit of flowers there that should no longer be blooming - but at least that does not stand out quite as much as the flowers that bloom among the show. (The cherry blossom usually blooms in March, and the Wisteria in April and May. Just to name examples.)

But then Louis gets executed. Which happened in January 21 of 1793. Which is the middle of winter. The literal middle of winter. One of the coldest times in the year.

Now, mind you. A quick google-fu told that that year was a fairly mild winter, but it was still cold. While the France average seems to have been around 10°C for the January this is the average for a pretty big country. The weather in Paris on the morning on which Louis was executed was 3°C and foggy. It had rained the night before.

Yes, mind you, those early years of the Revolution are actually fairly spotty in terms of weather data in comparison with both the 30 years before, and the years afterwards. But we do generally have fairly good weather data. (Mainly, because during the time of colonial empires there was a lot of marine travel and marine log books noted the weather of every day. So at least as long as a place had an harbor, we know the weather for the most part.)

Is this pedantic? It is. But part of me being pedantic is, that a lot of American media tends to act as if Europe is Narnia or something where we have magic weather. We don't. We have milder weather than the parts of North America on the same latitude because of the Atlantic currents, but generally speaking it does for the most part not snow in summer, and we do not have a lot of blooming flowers in January.

About the Louvre

Something I was being pedantic about before the season even came out was the Louvre. Because, well... It is a bit complicated.

So, even though the weather does not align with January, let's assume that season 2 is indeed happening in the warmest January ever in 1793. The Louvre as an art museum officially opened in August 1793, so a few months later, though in general I will let this slide, because indeed the art exhibition was being prepared in January already, so if they get in there, sure, there will be paintings there.

And to be a bit more pedantic: The Mona Lisa was only put there in 1797, but I will let that slide because the joke about the Mona Lisa actually not being that great of a painting was a good one. So, yes, by all means.

But...

The Egyptian exhibit only was created by Napoleon about 10 years later.

I will probably during the week make another entry about the French colonial history with Egypt - because I love to talk about colonial history - but let's just say: While there were definitely Egyptologists in France before Napoleon, it was Napoleons taking of Egypt, that started the hype around Egypt in Europe that lasted for pretty much the entire 19th century.

The Egyptian exhibit in the Louvre was created between 1801 and 1802. So, yeah. I know this one is very pedantic, but given Egypt was my first hyperfixation, I just need to point this one out.

Hyperspecific Things About This One Armor

When I saw this vampire in the Drolta flashback in episode 2, my brain first went: "Oh, Ottoman vampire!" Only to go then: "No, wait, this is 12th century, the Ottomans would not be around until the early 15th century!" And then upon rewatching the scene I realized that the helmet has a cross on it, which corrected me then to "Ooooh, Bryzantine vampire!"

The weirdly shaped helmet is something that first the Byzantine empire probably had for some of their soldiers, before the design was taken up by the Ottomans (who were obviously active in the same area that once had been the Byzantine empire).

And now this is a bit complicated. Because while the Byzantine Empire was super important for European history, we actually know super little about their armor, because very, very little has been preserved. So, if you go into a museum and see them exhibiting a Byzantine armor, there is a good chance that it is not based on some armor found in an archeological dig, but more on medieval carvings and paintings from the area, that depict the Byzantine soldiers in armor, mixed together with what we have found of Ottoman armor (of which more has been preserved).

Which brings me to the issue: We do not really know what the Byzantine armor looked like, and all those armors we usually reference are based on very vague depictions, that a lot of smiths have then used to let their fantasy go wild. Which leads to this super pronounced helmet.

We do know from those historical depictions that the Byzantine helmets were pointy. However, among most historians it is still agreed that they were probably not quite that high, because it is rather unpractical. If you look at the design above: Do you think that helmet would actually stay on the head during battle? Do you think it does a good job in protecting the head in any way? Probably not.

The armor is clearly based on what will come up when you google "Byzantine armor" in the Google Image search. But yeah, historians will generally disagree with this. Probably the helmet was more formed towards the actual head, and had some form that went further down the back of the head, which would stabilize it to stay on the head. And there was probably also something to protect the face at least partly.

The rest of the armor is not that bad, especially as it seems that Mr. Feral Vampire here might have lost some of his armor over the 200 years (I would assume this armor is from the mid-10th century) he was running through the desert. He looks quite run down.

This is mainly an issue that really relates to the fact hat we have so little archeological stuff of those armors, and that some people who made armors for exhibits really went a bit too wild. Not really a fault of whoever did this character design, as this definitely is what comes up when you try and find something about the topic online. More a fault of museums really loving their fantasy armor. lol

Women in the Revolutionary Army

Okay, let me prephase this last bit with one note: My main issue is not with the thing not actually checking out, but with a storytelling mistake that happens a lot in those contexts in media, that makes it stand out more.

No, I do not want to sound like a right-wing professional snowflake, who complains that "but women were not allowed in the army". Because, yes that technically is the truth, even though we know of some women who took up arms during the Revolution and participated in some battles. The fact of the matter is, that in 1791 and 1792 this was a heavily debated topic in France, because during the early days of the Revolution women played a large role in several fights. Most notably women partly lead the attack on the Bastille, and also played a huge role in getting the royal family into Paris in 1789. And a lot of women used that in the 1790s to argue, that actually totally they should be allowed to be soldiers and also should be seen as full citizens. Which I absolutely get and agree with. They should have been allowed this.

Men being men, they obviously were not, though that did not stop them from participating in some battles - or dress up as men to try and fight. A tale as old as time.

In fact some research suggests there were hundreds of women serving among the blues in active combat disguised as men, and additionally there were thousands of women who legally were working in logistics roles and as field nurses for the army.

So, generally speaking a female soldier would not seem that odd to me. The main issue here is that she is a) a Captain, and b) is so while openly presenting female.

Technically I would just shrug this off because this is still fantasy and all that, and I think we totally should see women fighting. Because - even though they were often disguised - this happened a lot throughout history either way.

No, the issue here comes with the problem that comes up in a lot of media that does this. We have a female military character, who is actually voiced and has a character, maybe - like here - in a leading role even. Yet all other soldiers we see are male. And that... just does not check out.

Please, my dear creative folks: If you want to bring in women in an army - be it in a historical or fully fictional setting - make sure that the women with voicelines are not the only women serving in those roles. Make sure there are just some random female background soldiers. They can absolutely be a minority. Maybe just 20-30% of all soldiers. But bring in some more background women who are participating in the fight. It makes this a lot more believable!

#castlevania #castlevania netflix #castlevania nocturne #history #french revolution #french history #18th century #ancient egypt #fantasy shows #Youtube

33 notes · View notes