Skip to content

Getting Medieval on George R. R. Martin

19
Share

Getting Medieval on George R. R. Martin

Home / Getting Medieval on George R. R. Martin
Books A Song of Ice and Fire

Getting Medieval on George R. R. Martin

By

Published on July 16, 2015

19
Share

As my fellow medievalists around the world will attest, telling people that you specialize in the Middle Ages (roughly dated from 500 to 1500 CE) is a decent way to start up a conversation with strangers. Few people that I meet aren’t fascinated with the medieval period, and they almost always have a question or two they want to ask an expert about the “real” Middle Ages.

These days, that means questions about Game of Thrones, HBO’s stratospherically popular television adaptation of George R. R. Martin’s staggeringly popular series of epic fantasy novels, A Song of Ice and Fire. Millions of readers anxiously await Martin’s sixth volume in the book series, and millions more viewers recently wrapped up the fifth season of the television series. Combined, the works are now a cultural touchstone, one that is branded—both by its own advertising and by the media and mainstream popular culture—as a “medieval” series. So the question I’m asked more than any other these days is this:

How medieval is Game of Thrones?

The answer depends, not surprisingly, on what you think it means for something to be “medieval.” After all, despite the fact that the label is so often applied to the series, neither the television episodes nor the books they are based upon are actually set in our real-world Middle Ages—and not just because Westeros and dragons aren’t real (despite the sighting of the latter in 1388 reported by the chronicler Henry Knighton). Nevertheless, I think that the “medieval” label isn’t the least bit wrong.

Let me explain how that is so by giving you my answer to another question I’m often asked: What’s your favorite medieval movie?

My answer, without hesitation, is Brian Helgeland’s 2001 film, A Knight’s Tale, starring the late Heath Ledger. Like most “medieval” movies, I saw it on opening weekend (for professional purposes, of course), and I knew I would love it from the opening credits, which are so full of non-medieval elements as to be laughable: clothing, armor, and hairstyling that’s a complete mish-mash of periods and types, turkey legs that wouldn’t be on the menu since they are native to North America, couched lances that improbably (and consistently) explode on impact … and, oh yes, a raucous crowd chanting Queen’s “We Will Rock You.”

Oh, but it’s perfect. And don’t get me started on that dance scene, which transitions so smoothly from what we expect of a “medieval” dance—simple instruments, slow movements, an utter lack of passion—to a joyous celebration of youthful exuberance as the gang boogies to the tune of David Bowie’s “Golden Years.”

It’s completely not medieval. It’s also one of the most medieval things I’ve ever seen.

How is that possible? Because like the artwork of the pre-Raphaelites, the music of Wagner, or the architecture of Disney’s Cinderella Castle, the film grabs certain very real, very historical medieval elements (including Geoffrey Chaucer!) and then re-imagines them into an entirely new, entirely original vision of the period, one that thereby speaks more directly to our own. That dance scene is so marvelous because it uses the motifs and milieu of the Middle Ages, but it welds them to the expectations of our modern world.

In other words, the dance captures the true spirit of the medieval dance by not giving us a true medieval dance. Likewise, the opening credits capture the true spirit of the medieval tournament by not giving us a real medieval tournament at all: it gives us instead a more recognizable sporting event of action shots and the audience doing the wave, and even that inevitable pack of drunken fools who’ve taken their shirts off. Helgeland’s film doesn’t give us the actual truth; it gives us the familiar truth we expect to see. And, not to get too philosophical, but that probably makes it more true than the truth.

Which is exactly what Martin has done in creating what (aside from being entirely outside of history) is perhaps best described as historical fantasy.

Martin is, by all reports, a voracious reader of history, and that breadth of knowledge permeates his pages and, from them, the television screen. It’s often said that his dynastic rivalries are rooted in the Wars of the Roses (1455-1487), when thousands of men and women died in the brutal clash between the Houses of Lancaster and York as each sought the throne of England. But it’s hardly as simple as a math equation: Martin’s Starks and Baratheons don’t equal the historical Yorks, and his Lannisters don’t equal Lancasters (despite a certain orthographic familiarity). Martin doesn’t engage in one-to-one associations between the real world and his fictional one. So while Martin’s Robert I Baratheon has a number of striking similarities with the first Yorkist king, Edward IV (1442-1483)—his wife Cersei Lannister is at once modeled on Edward’s wife, Elizabeth Woodville, and on one of his mistresses, Jane Shore.

Nor are all of Martin’s sources medieval. Readers have been quite right to see much of the later early modern period in the works, too. Matthew Iglesias, for instance, observes that much of the technology in Martin’s world seems more advanced than that of the medieval period, and Benjamin Breen goes further in likening the setting to

the globalizing epoch of the 16th and 17th centuries. A world where merchants trade exotic drugs and spices between continents, where professional standing armies can number in the tens or hundreds of thousands, where scholars study the stars via telescopes, and proto-corporations like the Iron Bank of Braavos and the Spicers of Qarth control global trade. It’s also a world of slavery on a gigantic scale, and huge wars that disrupt daily life to an unprecedented degree.

Martin may have planted his work in the Middle Ages, but it is hardly confined to that space. The author’s vision has grown much bigger, much bolder than that.

Martin’s expansive lands (along with Helgeland’s film and the other examples given above) are, in point of fact, what we call “medievalism,” where a more modern work looks back upon and refashions particular elements of the Middle Ages into a new imaginative construction. It isn’t at all true to the full historical truth, and as my friend Kelly DeVries has written elsewhere, that’s a good thing indeed: “the real Middle Ages were very boring—and if Martin’s epic were truly historically accurate, it would be very boring too.” Elizabeth Woodville was a fascinating character. So was Jane Shore. Put them together in one figure and we have the intoxicatingly marvelous figure that is Cersei. Like the compiler of a “Greatest Hits” album, Martin has taken the juiciest bits of the medieval world, enhanced them into high definition, added some new tracks, and then subsumed them through his own creativity into a pseudo-medieval world that—because it is what we want to see, what we want to imagine—is in a sense more “medieval” than the real thing.

That isn’t good history. It’s better than history.

And therein lies my love of A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones. These works might be built of who we have been, but they have become living and breathing entities that speak of who we are today and who we want to be tomorrow. The manipulative Cersei might have her roots in the figures of our past, but she is most frightening because she is all too familiar to our present. The struggles of Tyrion and Arya (like the Princes in the Tower forever twinned in my mind) can evoke both our laughter and our pity and our inspiration. The fate of Eddard Stark shakes us because we know only too well how good does not always triumph. Even the cruelty of the Boltons might barely give us pause were we to hear it on the nightly news. So it is, too, with Daenerys, Sansa, Jon, Melisandre, and all the rest of Martin’s expansive cast of characters.

We know them. We know them all. Martin’s works cut to the heart of our own cultural, political, and religious worldviews in the way only a fantasy can: it is not in the mirror, after all, that we see the truth of ourselves; it is in the eyes of strangers in unfamiliar lands.

So how medieval is Game of Thrones? Not very, thankfully, and yet—like those exploding lances in A Knight’s Tale—it’s real to the truth of our imaginations and our expectations. And, by the gods of this world or that, it’s this non-reality that makes it truly wonderful.

Michael Livingston is a Professor of Medieval Literature at The Citadel who has written extensively both on medieval history and on modern medievalism. His first novel, the historical fantasy Shards of Heaven, is forthcoming from Tor Books in November 2015.

About the Author

Michael Livingston

Author

Michael Livingston holds degrees in History, Medieval Studies, and English. He is an Associate Professor of English at The Citadel, specializing in the Middle Ages. His short fiction has been published in Black Gate, Shimmer, Paradox, and Nature. Author photo by Lance Livingston.
Learn More About Michael
Subscribe
Notify of
Avatar


19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Avatar
9 years ago

 

 

Avatar
Jeff
9 years ago

The Citadel in Oldtown or the one in Virginia?

Avatar
9 years ago

The Citadel is in beautiful Charleston, South Carolina. Thanks for reading!

Avatar
9 years ago

Are you the same Michael Livingston that makes some lectures at Jordancon?

Avatar
9 years ago

Aye, that’s me! At JordanCon I’ve lectured on Robert Jordan and Tolkien, and with my novel coming out from Tor this year I’ve been on some writing related panels, as well. JordanCon is a truly great experience. 

dwcole
9 years ago

Yea…you can’t be more true than the truth.  The movie you cite for example is an incredibly bad example of telling anyone what the real medieval ages was like.  Those dances were not displays of youthful exuberance even for the time.  They were highly staged affairs and should be portrayed as such.  Certainly things can mean different things to different people and different times and a joust in the middle ages (like the Roman Coliseum) was the super bowl for the people of the time but that doesn’t mean making a joust into the superbowl is a “true” representation of a medieval joust.    

Avatar
9 years ago

I definitely agree that Martin takes inspiration from history – and from historical fiction he likes, and from historical myths – but he does not make one on one translations.  As an example, while Robert is obviously based on Edward IV, it’s an exaggerated version of some aspects of Edward’s personality, or a certain view of Edward that’s not quite accurate; the real Edward was smarter and far more competent than Robert, his marriage was for love, and his history is quite different from Edward (and the latter aspects make young Edward a clear inspiration for yet another ASOAIF character, Robb Stark). This is also true of many other characters of ASOAIF. Cersei Lannister does have obvious similarities with Elizabeth Woodville (or rather, with a negative view of Elizabeth Woodville) and some minor similarities with Jane Shore, but she also has obvious similarities with other controversial historical queens – English queens Margaret of Anjou and Isabella of France (who is also one of the major characters in Martin’s favorite historical book series, Les rois maudits [The Accursed Kings] by Maurice Druon, which is a huge inspiration for ASOAIF) and French queen Isabeau of Bavaria, or rather, the more negative views about these queens. And then he added the incest charges that were brought against Anne Boleyn (who can also be seen in Margaery Tyrell and Barba Bracken), obviously false in Anne’s case, but true in Cersei’s. (None of the other women who are mentioned as inspirations for Cersei were ever rumored to have slept with their brothers; the closest any of them comes is Isabeau of Bavaria and the rumors she was sleeping with her brother-in-law, Louis Duke of Orleans. Margaret of Anjou was rumored to have lovers and her son’s paternity was questioned, but none of them were her family members, Isabella of France’s lover was also not a family member, and by all accounts, no one ever suspected Elizabeth Woodville of cheating on Edward IV.) But Cersei Lannister is not just a combination of all these women or myths about them, she is a unique character in her own right, especially as the series goes on and her story develops.

Speaking of Isabeau of Bavaria, though the so-called Wars of the Roses are an obvious and acknowledged inspiration for the War of the Five Kings, it also has obvious and strong parallels to a French civil war that predated the Wars of the Roses, the Armagnac-Burgundian civil war. (The emblems of the two houses were the wolf and the lion.)

But GRRM only takes historical events as a starting point. The War of the Five King is really NOT Wars of the Roses, not just because of the differences between the Starks and Baratheons and Lannisters and Yorks and Lancasters. The biggest difference is that the so-called Wars of the Roses were a series of armed conflicts that had minimal civilian casualties and mostly did not affect the common people much, while the most important trait of the War of the Five Kings is how cruel and devastating it was to the civilian, common folk population of Westeros, especially in the Riverlands. That makes it far more similar to some other wars (not just medieval but most modern wars, which tend to have a much higher civilian casualty percentage) and allows GRRM to make some strong point about war and its effects on the land and people. So, yes, as you said, this story is so frightening because it says a lot about our present.

A lot of the time, GRRM uses historical myths rather than actual history as inspiration. TWOAIF is full of such examples, with Sothoryos as a version of the dark medieval legends about Sub-Saharan Africa, or Summer Isles which seem like an idealized version of Western view of Polynesia. Tyrion Lannister is a subverted version of Shakespeare’s Richard III (being similarly “grotesque” in appearance and assumed by many to be evil), though he has almost nothing in common with the historical Richard; and Maegor the Cruel, as well as some aspects of the story about prince Daemon Targaryen, seem like an amalgam of some of the more bizarre legends about various historical monarchs and other figures. 

But I definitely disagree with this: ““the real Middle Ages were very boring—and if Martin’s epic were truly historically accurate, it would be very boring too.” The real Middle Ages, and the real history in general, is full of events, figures, mysteries and controversies that make it just as interesting as GRRM’s epic story. Having read a few different books on the so-called Wars of the Roses, I can say that it was a story just as interesting and possibly even more complicated than Martin’s – only far “greyer”. Despite of what many say, there are some clear good and bad guys in ASOAIF (especially the latter). Very few people, if anyone, from that time period was, as far as I can see, obviously evil as the Boltons, Joffrey or Gregor Clegane, or as good as Ned Stark or Brienne of Tarth (in spite of the efforts of many biased historians and historical fiction writers to present some historical figure or other as such).

Avatar
9 years ago

@5 michael-livingston

 

Any chance of you posting a video of that lecture (either one given at Jordancon or taped at your own home)? Or maybe just posting the text or presentation? I’m just very curious about it!

Avatar
w00master
9 years ago

Question…  the World of Westeros is clearly not Planet Earth. So, can we really call it “medival?”

Avatar
9 years ago

@6 I think you’re trying to disagree with me, but I think we might be saying the same thing. What I’m trying to articulate is that “medievalism” (which is what Knight’s Tale, ASOIF, and so many other wonderful works are) isn’t about portraying the “real truth” of the Middle Ages; it’s about the use of that past to speak to the present. Medievalism is “true” to our perceptions, not the truth. It’s apples and oranges.

(And truthfully, writing the word “true” so many times is truly making this historian a little anxious. I feel like I should take Indiana Jones’ advice and head to Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class just down the hall.)

Avatar
9 years ago

@7 Exactly so. I wasn’t asked for a full break-down of medieval inspirations for Martin’s work, but as you rightly observe there are an extraordinary number. To cover them all would be a book in and of itself (actually, such books are starting to come out). His work is simply steeped in historical bits and pieces that have been carefully refashioned into a new thing.

And it’s not just from the Middle Ages. Martin is grabbing from everywhere, which I find wonderful.

As for your last point, what I see Kelly DeVries saying (if I can put words in his mouth) is that the general experience of the Middle Ages was usually pretty quiet and unexciting. Sure, there were extraordinary moments and events and people — there’s a reason why I study this for a living! — but those are exceptions to the human experience across the period, not the rule. Generally speaking, Martin flips this equation on its head: “boring” ho-hum normalcy is the exception in ASOIF, not the rule. What he’s built, as I say above, is a kind of “Greatest Hits” — no B-tracks allowed!

Avatar
9 years ago

@8 There has been some interest from the Powers That Be for me to refashion my lecture into a couple of articles that could appear here. Won’t be as awesome as seeing the real thing at JordanCon, but perhaps it’ll do in a pinch!

@9 Absolutely right. In a historical sense, it’s not “medieval” at all. It’s “medievalism” by virtue of using the Middle Ages, but that’s a different thing. I’ve no doubt Game of Thrones in particular will continue to be called “medieval,” though, if for no other reason than our cultural affinity for the term. People tend to be interested in something that’s “medieval” — and as a medievalist I cannot blame them!

Avatar
9 years ago

@11: Yes, but that’s generally true about fiction in general. Fiction tends to be “life without the boring parts” (unless you’re one of the writers or filmmakers who deliberately focus on the dullness of everyday life, though those works rarely become as widely popular as the stories that are full of intrigue and violence). We can assume that life in Westeros was, for the most part, quite boring and uneventful during the years of peace between the Greyjoy rebellion and the death of Jon Arryn, but the book series opens with a murder mystery and then plunges us into intrigues and a conflict that turns into a bloody civil war with multiple sides.

But the quote seems to be saying that historical fiction about the Middle Ages that was historically accurate would have to be really boring, and I really disagree with that. To use the above example, Cersei is fun, but could write a novel about, say, Margaret of Anjou or Elizabeth Woodville that tries to be as historically accurate as possible, and make it really exciting; their lives were no less eventful. The only problem is that, for the most part (unresolved mysteries aside), most of the readers already know what we could call basic plot points: who will win this or that battle, who will ascend the throne, when this or that historical figure will die… But there is still a lot of reading excitement to be derived from details, characterizations, depictions of relationships, the “how and why” it all happened, there is a lot of room for imagination due to the blanks that need to be filled, different interpretations, and purely fictional moments that must happen in every work of historical fiction, as we obviously don’t know everything about things that happened and people who lived a long time ago.

Of course, a fantasy epic can be more exciting, but that’s not because the historical characters and events were dull in comparison, but because in that case, we really don’t know what will happen (unless the show spoils the basic plot points of the ending) and there’s a lot more flexibility with the characters and plot, which is the main reason GRRM prefers writing fantasy inspired by history to straight historical fiction. And of course, another big plus is that you can add magic, dragons and direwolves, and raise the stakes by introducing an apocalyptic threat in shape of icy ‘monsters’ from the far north, killing humans and turning them into zombies.

Avatar
9 years ago

@13 – Absolutely true, Annara!

And you are so very right about the difficulties inherent in using historical environments in fiction. How does one establish tension when the reader can look up what happened on Wikipedia? It’s an interesting challenge, to be sure, which is one of the many reasons why Shards of Heaven, my upcoming trilogy of novels with Tor, is “historical fantasy” rather than “historical fiction” — the rise of Augustus Caesar is well-documented, but my hidden mythology certainly is not!

Avatar
9 years ago

One way in which I think the series is very medieval in a sort of meta way is that storytelling in medieval culture relied heavily upon taking existing works from the past and having an author put his own spin on it, turning into a piece that fits the context – historically, politically, socially, whatever – that the new author lived in.  So the stories of King Arthur are reinvented over and over to be the Arthur that a particular culture always wanted him to be, or The Canterbury Tales borrow from Boccaccio’s Decameron heavily but make them perfectly English. 

By picking the tastiest bits of medievalism and turning them into a tale that works for us, Martin does the most medieval thing he could do, regardless of whether you consider the world of the story to be “medieval.” 

Avatar
Kaiser
9 years ago

Are you familiar with the works of Guy Gavriel Kay?  He writes superb historical fantasy set in lands that are analogues of actual places in our own world – places as diverse as medieval Spain, Byzantium, China, and Scandinavia, complete with their respective cultures and histories that are similar to but not the same as our own.  In my opinion he’s one of the best fantasy authors out thete

Avatar
9 years ago

@15 – That’s an excellent point. All ages are in a constant dialogue with their past, of course, reinventing it to serve the needs of their present. The Romans did it, Chaucer did it, and we certainly do it, too. GRRM just does it on a massive scale, and in that regard your example of Arthur is spot-on: Martin is like a new Thomas Malory!

@16 – Oh, yes! GGK is indeed a formidable voice in fantasy, and his style of re-imagination is simply delightful. (On a personal side note, though Shards of Heaven is more of a “secret history” with fantasy elements, one of my swoon-worthy moments was when an earmy reader compared my work to his — I regard GGK as one of the masters of storytelling!) 

Avatar
9 years ago

@16 & 17 — I’m not familiar with Guy Gavriel Kay, but after a quick perusal on Amazon, his books sound fascinating!  Do you have any recommendation on where to start with his stuff?  Thanks

Avatar
9 years ago

@19 – I think it’s safe to say that the consensus starting point for GGK is Tigana.