#but google said this whole story actually wasn't historically accurate

[oneanothername]

[script-a-world]

Submitted via Google Form:

I was looking at very old historical maps because I was trying to set my story in both modern and historical times in a fictional place and I notice that sometimes a lot of it is in fact empty. What exactly is in those places? Just.. wilderness? No inhabitants? No country? Random tribes that don't make the map? Unknown? Sometimes it changes, like I had a map of countries in 400 AD. But the same map for 500 AD, well the country that was there in 400 AD just disappeared and that spot on the map for 500 AD is now empty.

Utuabzu: Maps are, traditionally, functional objects. They help to navigate between places. There's a reason maritime maps don't generally show much detail about what's inland. It simply wasn't relevant. Sailors needed to know where ports were, roughly how many day's sail they'd be, that sort of thing. A lot of pre-renaissance European maps take the form of long lines, because they're basically visual representations of journeys. Even modern public transport maps are often highly abstracted, because they don't need to depict accurate geography. Maps that attempt to show the whole world accurately are a relatively modern phenomenon, in part because accurate surveying is relatively modern. It's not for no reason that maps only start looking normal and not weirdly distorted in the 18th Century.

Tex: Why are you examining maps in the first place - what knowledge are you looking for in them? What are the most pertinent points for you to incorporate from “modern” and “historical” times? How are those terms defined for you?

To compare a map from 400 A.D. to one from 500 A.D., a hundred years of time needs to be acknowledged - that can be anywhere from four to six generations’ worth of history; what happened during that time period? If an entire country “disappeared”, was it destroyed? Subsumed into a new kingdom or other rulership? Who were the cartographers of those maps you examined? What were their backgrounds? Who paid them to make those maps? Those are very pertinent details to establish the context of your reference materials.

Empty space on a map is not empty so much as deemed irrelevant to the scope, as Utuabzu said. A sailor need not know inland mountain ranges, nor a train traveller where a furniture maker’s business is. What is the scope of your story? I can guarantee that there are probably a dozen maps available for the finding that fit the perimeters of your world and the perspective you wish to show your readers.

Feral: Additionally to Utuabzu’s and Tex’s point, maps are political objects. To accurately understand what you’re looking at when looking at a historical (or present day) map, you need to understand who made it, what their purpose was in making it, what the subject matter actually is, and what the end user of the map will use it for - and how all of those are going to intersect.

Consider the map accompanying the Proclamation of 1763 (because I’m far more familiar with colonial cartography than with cartography around the fall of Rome and the beginning of the Middle Ages). The Proclamation Line altered the western-most territory line of several British colonies, reducing their perceived size following the French and Indian War and Pontiac’s Rebellion. 

From 1755:

To 1763:

And a modern/easy-read version:

And then look again at a map created in 1782, after the Revolution and formation of the United States of America:

The Proclamation Map was a political object created under the direction of King George III and his government as a conciliatory act towards the indigenous populations of (primarily) Appalachia. However, the differences between the Proclamation line and the earlier map of the colonies were used as propaganda for the American Revolution - because of the debt incurred by the French & Indian War, colonists were being more heavily taxed but were denied access to more lands, which were previously considered “unclaimed,” that would allow them to produce more agricultural goods. Revolutionaries weaponized the anger of normal colonists, who under the earlier system would have been rewarded with land titles for being the “first” to settle and “civilize” an area, and promoted a system in which colonial governments could create their own land treaties and maps without Britain’s approval.

A few links I highly encourage you to read as a starting point:

A political look at territory by Philippe Rekacewicz

Propaganda Maps by Juliet Jacobs

How Maps Can Be Deceiving by Matt Rosenberg

The History of Cartography by Amanda Briney

[timeladyjamie]

Yeah Marian (or Marion, as it's spelled in RoS) nearly gets forced into a marriage a couple of times. Or, well, with de Belleme in Robin Hood and the Sorcerer I would say it's more like an excuse to get her to his castle so he could sacrifice her for Magic Ritual Stuff. But in Herne's Son she actually does get forced into a marriage, that's true.

And yeah RoS Marion is very much an action girl (in Witch of Elsdon she actually beats Robin up to convince him that she's no more a liability than any of the other outlaws). At the time I think that was somewhat new, having her be a part of the gang so to speak. She doesn't get to do a lot of the hand-to-hand fights and generally has no melee weapon, but she shoots as well as any of them. Or better even, maybe. At least in "Seven Poor Knights" in the beginning when the outlaws were sort of competing on who could shoot most accurately, she and Robin were the only ones of to hit the target. But on the other hand in actual fights they always hit the target when it matters, so that doesn't narratively count for anything.

I did get around to watching the first episode of BBC Robin Hood, too, and one sort of half-similarity I noticed is that Much is /definitely/ not the sharpest tool in the shed in either. I find it way more irritating in BBC RH, though. Dunno why. I guess it's just that in RoS Much is not so much stupid as just... well, naive, really, and inexperienced, and youngest of the group (the actor was the youngest, too, only 18 or so when they started filming the show). Whereas with BBC RH Much it's more like cliche comic relief character stupidity which for some reason really gets on my nerves sometimes.

With what you said about Robin and Guy's relationship in Robin of Sherwood... yeah, you're partly right. Keep in mind, RoS has two separate Robins, though (if you've done googling I think you'll probably have already found that out, right?) Gizzy is half-brother to Robert of Huntingdon, but not to Robin of Loxley. Robin of Loxley canonically has no biological siblings, but he was raised by Much's parents so they're basically brothers, the two of them. (Considering that I do find it funny that they have different enough accents that even I can hear it, and I'm not a native English-speaker and my accent ear is downright horrible.)

Fun fact, by the way: according to Kip Carpenter (who created the show and wrote almost all episodes), the reason Guy and Robin number two were revealed to be brothers is that the cast and crew of the show were at some party at one point, and someone pointed out to Kip how funny it was that the only two blondes in the room were Jason Connery and Robert Addie, who played Robin and Gisburne.

I find incredibly funny, by the way, that BBC went and made their Robin Hood both Robin of Locksley and the Earl of Huntingdon at once, and Robin of Sherwood had both Robin of Loxley and Robert of Huntingdon (although Robert wasn't the earl, just the earl's son and heir) as Robin Hood, but kept them separate characters. Like, my understanding is that most adaptations choose one of those two, but not these shows I Guess.

I'll have to admit that one thing that is going to take me some getting used to in BBC Robin Hood is how clean and kind of new everything looks. Like maybe the difference is just made by the sharper image of newer cameras, but like everything in RoS, even various noblemen's places, looks kinda rough around the edges, worn, lived-in. Like in Nottingham castle, there's straws scattered on the floor, servants hurrying somewhere in the background, an open fireplace in the center of the hall rather than on one wall or something, there's always some random items scattered about, and so on. Whereas my first impression of BBC Robin Hood's Nottingham Castle is... kind of like it's all new and shiny, you know? Everything's clean, in perfect condition and orderly, very few things have a look as if they'd been in use for a while.

And I feel like it shows even more with the lower class characters. Sure, their homes and their clothes are less impressive, less showy... but even the buildings don't really look that old, the clothes seem clean and straight as if recently ironed, and it doesn't look as if they've seen much use.

Compare Robin of Sherwood. The ordinary people's homes look kind of shaggy and while they're in good condition, they don't look as if they've been built yesterday, you know? And everyone's clothes, and that includes the outlaws (except Nasir whose clothes somehow always stay neat, but then again half the time Nasir's there mainly to look good so whatever), are kind of like... there's a little bit of stain in them, you might see some mended tears (in some episodes you can see the outlaws actually repairing their own clothes, too, I think) and patches, and frayed edges and such. They're still in good condition, obviously, but they've seen enough use that they no longer look new.

I'm not complaining, mind you, but it just feels weird because I'm not used to it. (So does the show starting by Robin returning from the Holy Land to find everything a mess, even though I think it's a fairly common way of starting Robin Hood stories. In RoS neither of them was at any point involved in the Crusade stuff.)

Yeah, BBC Robin Hood is known for not being accurate with the times when it comes to physical appearances, hence it’s contemporary edge. I mean, the costumes are kind of obvious with it: (Guy’s leather biker armor, Marian’s hair going from straight to curly as if by magic, and a good majority of the characters costumes in general. I could keep going.) And as you’ve pointed out, even some of the sets look as if they are perfectly neat. Despite taking place in the 12th century, they also allude to political things of the 21st century at times and use contractions not yet used in those times. I think they made it this way though to help adapt it to modern times when it came on in 2006 and keep it interesting for the kids (since it is still a kids show too.) It’s cheesy at times, and some things are just so damn obvious it hurts or makes you laugh, but that’s why I love this show. I think the costume department started to do a little better towards the middle of Season 2, but Season 3 is where they really shined with the more historically accurate costumes thanks to new costume designers. I can’t say anything different about the sets though XD.

As for Much, the writers sadly made him the Butt-Monkey a good majority of the time in the show. And it’s sad, cause I actually see a lot of wonderful potential with Much and adore his character as Robin’s former man-servant and best friend. I’m glad to see they have Much in ROS and like the idea of him being Robin’s foster brother. I will warn you that the writing for some characters may get to you at times (the fandom knows that all too well), but it’s still worth the watch. <3

And yes, they are two separate Robin’s which surprised me. In my previous reply, what I was talking about concerning Archer was if the show wasn’t canceled, the writers were planning to make Archer the new Robin (spoiler spoiler), so the two different Robin’s kind of reminded me of that along with the whole half-brother thing. I’ll probably find it a bit weird to get use to, especially since that was something I didn’t like about the Russell Crowe one, but I’ll get to that bridge when I get to it. :)

I love those little tid bits though about how the crew just sat together and was like: lets make the only blondes in the cast related, and bam, Gisborne/Huntingdon became half-brothers. Haha, nice!