Just another WordPress site
The 10 greatest changes of the past 1000 years
From the emergence of markets in the 13th century to the scientific revolution of the 17th century to castles in the 11th century, this is a list of historian Ian Mortimer’s 10 biggest changes of the past 1000 years.
Most people think of castles as representative of conflict. However, they…
Your DA love interest probably never brushed their teeth in their life.
Let that sink in.
Oh my god
I can’t believe it
All that obsessive research into medieval dental hygiene actually paid off
I was spending all this time thinking “Literally no one cares about Thedosian dental hygiene, Amy, why are you wasting your time on this” but HERE IT IS
So yeah, this isn’t actually true! While the toothbrush itself is a fairly modern invention, there’s a well recorded history of people in medieval Europe using a combination of various sweet-smelling mouth rinses and scrubbing their teeth clean with a cloth and a mild abrasive herb paste of some sort. Some common rinses included mint and wine or mint and vinegar, and pastes included things like marjoram and mint, rosemary and charcoal, and vinegar, pickling alum, white salt and honey.
So rest assured, your DA makeouts are probably reasonably minty fresh!
But what about things like Queen Elizabeth’s black teeth? Is that just like, an historical outlier?
My understanding – and I’ll admit there’s some information I haven’t been able to dig up, so anyone who knows more is of course free to chime in with any additional information or corrections – is that the introduction of hugeass amounts of sugar to the British diet fucked shit up, toothwise. It rotted teeth a lot faster than standard (sugary stuff can cause serious tooth decay even with our modern dental hygiene, and while dental hygiene was definitely a thing throughout history they still did not have the options and knowledge we have), and rather than looking at this tooth rotting and trying to prevent it, people started to see black teeth as a status symbol, because it meant you could afford sugar, and people even started intentionally blackening their teeth. (A couple other cultures have had tooth blackening traditions throughout history, actually – you can check out a bit about that here, and probably find some better sources if you poke around more)
Hey let’s destroy the pernicious myth that preteens were regularly marrying in medieval and early modern Europe and were having children as young teenagers. It’s just not true. Church records show the typical age people got married was around 18-23. Sure, around a third of brides were pregnant at the time of their marriage, but premarital sex was actually completely fine in medieval and early modern Europe if the couple intended to marry. (Oh look! Another historical fact the Victorian period completely mangled!)
Very young girls were not having babies in medieval times, people. The only people who ever bring this non-fact up are paedophiles looking to defend their dangerous paraphilia. So cut it out. Stop spreading this myth. It’s not historical, it’s not factual, it’s not true.
By the way the texts in support of these facts are here and here.
“Emerging evidence is eroding the stereotype of medieval child marriage. Goldberg and Smith’s work on low- and lower-middle-status women has refuted Hajnal’s argument for generally early marriage for medieval women. Even Razi’s ‘early’ age at marriage for girls in Halesowen hardly indicates child marriage, as a large portion of his sample married between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two… . Goldberg has offered evidence from fourteenth and fifteenth-century Yorkshire showing that urban girls tended to marry in their early to mid twenties and rural girls married in their late teens to early twenties, and both groups married men who were close to them in age.” (Kim M. Phillips, Medieval Maidens: Young Women and Gender in England, c. 1270-1540, p. 37 (x).
Bolded for emphasis.
Reblogging this as a reminder since I just saw another long thread on a social media website about how “the stigma of marrying at age 13-15 is recent”. No it isn’t, you’re just a pedophilia apologist.
Thank you for saying it.
this preconception comes entirely from accounts of arranged marriages amongst the nobility and royals of the era. Except even then a noble or royal couple may be officially married (not betrothed, actually married) at 12 or 13 but not consummate the marriage until both are of age which tended to be 15 or 16.
There are rare occasions where very young noble brides did consummate their marriages (Margaret Beaufort and Caterina Sforza come to mind) at a young age but that tended to be because there is a concern with either the bride or groom’s family that a marriage might be annulled and consummation is a one off to essentially legalize the marriage and then the previous custom applies.
Going back to Caterina Sforza the reason she married her first husband was because her 12 year old cousin was supposed to marry him but he wanted to consummate the marriage on the wedding night, the parents of Caterina’s cousin objected to the suggestion and so Caterina was offered as an alternative bride. Caterina was younger than her cousin but it was a very advantageous match for her so her family considered the less than ideal arrangement to be worth it to secure her a good future.
