There is an opinion that the Dark Ages gave humanity nothing new and were a period of stagnation and religious hysteria. But that’s not true. During those difficult times, there were certainly strange and bizarre events, but people also accomplished good things.
Glasses
Yes, it was in Medieval Europe—most likely in Pisa in 1284—that glasses were invented, helping people with weak vision to read.
Before that, a Berber astronomer, chemist, and engineer named Abbas ibn Firnas in the 9th century invented the “reading stone”—a polished piece of quartz that had to be moved across the pages of a book to magnify the letters. But it took another 300 years for Italians to come up with the idea of shaping such a stone into lenses and placing them in a frame. Allegedly, Alessandro di Spina from Florence invented glasses.
Initially, they were attached to the nose like a clip and were used only for correcting farsightedness. It wasn’t until the middle of the 15th century that they invented side pieces (temples) and lenses for nearsighted people.
Mechanical Clocks
Mechanical clocks appeared in Europe between 1280 and 1320. Of course, this wasn’t the first timekeeping device ever—the ancient Greeks and Chinese had made water clocks long before.
But the invention of the escapement mechanism with a toothed wheel, likely in Italy, allowed for the creation of fully mechanical clocks that operated without any liquid, relying instead on a weight descending on a rope. Finally, it became possible to make chronographs that didn’t take up an entire room or freeze in winter.
This can be compared to the shift from massive vacuum-tube computers with punch cards to devices that fit on a desk.
Watchmaking guilds in medieval Europe were highly respected, and their members crafted incredibly complex and finely made mechanisms. Often, clocks—especially large, tower clocks—not only measured time but also tracked the movement of celestial bodies.
This was important because, according to medieval doctors, the planets predicted the future. For example, if Jupiter entered the house of Scorpio without an invitation, a plague would break out. You needed to be prepared for such events.
Flying Buttresses
Flying buttresses support the main vault of St. Mary’s Church, in Lübeck, Germany. Image: Andreas Praefcke, CC BY 3.0
Flying buttresses are clever architectural supports that allow the weight of large building walls to be distributed, making them more stable.
These structures were invented in the 12th century, and they made the so-called Gothic architectural style possible. You know, all those huge cathedrals with statues and towers, like Notre Dame de Paris. Building them without flying buttresses would have been impossible—the buildings would have collapsed under their own weight. Structural mechanics at work.
Before this, truly massive architectural monuments had to be built on the principle of the Egyptian pyramids—with a wide base and a small top. But flying buttresses transformed them from gray, dull piles of stone into majestic works of art.
Tower Mills
Windmill de Dellen in New Scheemda
The idea of using wind to grind grain, pump water, and lift loads wasn’t new. The first windmills were invented in Eastern Persia in the 9th century, and their blades were horizontally placed.
But in the 13th century, Europeans invented the tower mill, which had a rotating roof and could carry really large sails. It was much, much more efficient than the Persians’ earlier inventions.
For almost 600 years, the tower mill was the primary energy source in Europe.
These structures were highly valuable in the Middle Ages, and building them was costly. As a result, they were often attached to castles or repurposed from existing watchtowers. The mill thus became not only a marvel of engineering but also a fortress capable of withstanding a siege.
Enemies at the gates? Take down the sails so they don’t get damaged by arrows, and with a single elegant move, the structure transforms into a battle-ready bastion.
Printing Press
A replica of Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press at the Featherbed Alley Printshop Museum, Bermuda.
What do you think wine and books have in common? Well, alcohol not only provided inspiration to some writers, but it also enabled their work to become widely distributed.
The thing is, a German engineer and engraver named Johannes Gutenberg, in the mid-1440s, looked at a wine press used to crush grapes for alcohol, thought about it, and decided to use a similar machine to print books.
The mechanism worked like this: you assemble text from lead letters, like building blocks. Attach them to a plate, fix the plate to the press, apply ink, and press page after page until you’ve produced the desired number of copies.
By the way, a couple of centuries before that, in 1282, Europe invented factories powered by water and wind, which allowed for the mass production of quality paper. Before this, the Chinese and Muslims produced it exclusively by hand, making the material too expensive.
Printing and cheap paper triggered a revolution in European education, significantly increasing literacy rates.
And yes, because books became more accessible, public libraries appeared in medieval Europe. The first was founded in 1452 by Malatesta Novello, ruler of the Italian city of Cesena.
The traditional image of a Roman is that of a person wrapped in a white toga, proudly gazing at us from textbook illustrations or movie screens. However, as British archaeologist Alexandra Croom writes in her book Roman Clothing and Fashion, the toga was the primary garment of “a small number of people for a short period of time within a limited area of the empire.”
In fact, only Roman citizens had the right to wear wool togas. A Roman sent into exile lost this right, and foreigners were prohibited from wearing togas altogether.
To properly wear and maintain a toga, one needed a trained slave (or even several slaves). Therefore, only wealthy citizens could afford to wear togas daily. By the time of the late Republic and early Empire, as we learn from the writings of Martial (40–104 AD), togas were worn only on holidays and official occasions.
In everyday life, Romans preferred simple and comfortable clothing, such as the tunic — a shirt-like garment resembling a sack with holes for the head, arms, and torso, typically reaching the thighs (the toga was usually worn over it), as well as a cloak or mantle. Women wore the stola, a type of tunic that was wider, longer, pleated, and belted.
The Roman Empire Had Many Slaves, and They Lived Very Poorly
When people think of Roman slaves, they often imagine shackled individuals chained to the oars of Roman warships. However, only free men could serve in the Roman army and navy. Even slaves taken into the navy were granted freedom.
Slaves did not only perform heavy and dirty work: they were artisans, farmers, accountants, doctors, household servants, and teachers. Moreover, slaves could serve not only individual Roman citizens but also the state itself.
According to Roman beliefs, a slave had no personal identity, name, or ancestors, and thus no civil status. A slave could be sold (including to gladiatorial arenas and brothels), chained, and tortured. However, externally, slaves were indistinguishable from ordinary citizens. They dressed the same way, and the collars with the names of their masters, initially introduced for them, were quickly abolished. A slave could be freed and even obtain Roman citizenship. He could own property given to him by his master and conduct business.
Of course, this was not an enviable position, but it also didn’t resemble the fate of slaves depicted in films.
Moreover, as the empire expanded, efforts were made to legally combat cruelty toward slaves. Emperor Claudius freed slaves whose masters neglected them during illness. Later, it was forbidden to throw slaves to wild animals in gladiatorial arenas. Emperor Hadrian prohibited the arbitrary killing of slaves, their imprisonment, and their sale into prostitution and gladiatorial fights.
Despite several uprisings (the peak of which occurred during the height of slavery in the 2nd–1st centuries BC), slaves did not play a major role in Rome’s social conflicts. Free workers also fought in Spartacus’ army. Even in the 2nd–1st centuries BC, when slavery was most widespread, slaves made up only 35–40% of the population in Roman Italy. Throughout the empire, which stretched from the British Isles to Egypt, out of its 50–60 million inhabitants, only about five million (8–10%) were slaves.
Emperor Caligula Made His Horse a Consul
This famous story is often cited as an example of the decadence and excess of Roman rulers: Emperor Caligula supposedly made his horse Incitatus a senator. However, in reality, this never happened.
The myth originates from Roman History by Dio Cassius, who lived a century and a half after Caligula’s reign and was not particularly fond of him. But Cassius only mentions the emperor’s intention, not an actual event:
One of his horses, whom he called Incitatus, Gaius invited to dinner, during which he offered him golden barley and drank to his health from golden cups. He also swore by the life and fate of this horse and even promised to make him consul. And he undoubtedly would have done so had he lived longer.
Dio Cassius, Roman History, Book LIX.
Additionally, Gaius himself was a member of the college of priests of his own cult and appointed his horse as one of his companions; birds of exquisite and expensive breeds were sacrificed to him daily.
However, modern research even questions Caligula’s intention to make his horse a senator. In 2014, English researcher Frank Woods analyzed this story in an article published in an Oxford University journal. He concluded that Caligula’s joke, based on a play on words, was taken out of context. Another viewpoint suggests that Caligula used such antics to mock the senators’ greed and intimidate them.
The Death of Gladiators in the Arena – A Favorite Spectacle of the Romans
A wounded gladiator falls to the sand. The other warrior raises his sword over him and looks at the stands of the Colosseum. The roaring crowd gives the thumbs-down gesture. Blood spurts. This is the image often painted by films about Ancient Rome. However, it wasn’t exactly like that.
To begin with, the Romans’ favorite spectacle wasn’t actually gladiatorial combat, but chariot races. While the Colosseum could hold “only” 50,000 spectators, the Circus Maximus, according to modern estimates, could accommodate about 150,000 Romans.
The extent to which the inhabitants of the Eternal City loved chariot races is illustrated by the fact that the Roman charioteer Gaius Appuleius Diocles is considered the highest-paid athlete in history. Over his lifetime, he earned nearly 36 million sesterces, which is roughly equivalent to 2.6 tons of gold. Peter Struck, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, estimates that today Diocles would have a fortune of about 15 billion dollars.
It’s also important to mention that most often in the arena, it wasn’t people but animals—often exotic ones—that were killed: lions, panthers, leopards, lynxes, elephants, rhinoceroses, and others. Major gladiatorial battles, like naumachia, could only be organized by emperors.
As for the likelihood of a gladiator dying in battle, it was about 1 in 10. Gladiators were specially bought and trained for combat, and some of them were even free men. Gladiators wore good armor, and in the case of injury in the arena, they were usually granted mercy.
It should also be noted that we don’t quite understand the gestures used in the arenas correctly. There is no unanimous opinion on what the extended thumb meant—whether it symbolized death or life. It is certain that the crowd didn’t decide the fate of the wounded; this was done by the emperor or, in his absence, the organizer of the games. Most likely, mercy was symbolized by a clenched fist, representing a sword sheathed in its scabbard, while the thumb, regardless of its position, likely meant a death sentence.
Nero Set Fire to Rome
Fire in Rome by Hubert Robert (1785)
One of the most famous myths in Roman history—that the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD was caused by Emperor Nero (37–68 AD)—can be traced back to Roman historians themselves. The first to write about it was Suetonius (70–122 AD), who spoke just as unflatteringly of Nero as he did of his predecessor Caligula.
Somebody in conversation saying—“Nay,” said he, “let it be while I am living” [emou xontos]. And he acted accordingly: for, pretending to be disgusted with the old buildings, and the narrow and winding streets, he set the city on fire so openly, that many of consular rank caught his own household servants on their property with tow, and (368) torches in their hands, but durst not meddle with them. There being near his Golden House some granaries, the site of which he exceedingly coveted, they were battered as if with machines of war, and set on fire, the walls being built of stone.
“Then followed a terrible calamity, whether accidental or instigated by the will of the princeps is not known (both views are supported by sources), but, in any case, it was the most severe and relentless of all the disasters ever to befall this city at the mercy of raging flames.”
Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annals, Book XV.
To meet the needs of those displaced by the fire and left without shelter, Nero opened the Field of Mars, all the buildings associated with Agrippa, as well as his own gardens. Additionally, he hastily erected structures to accommodate the homeless masses. Food was brought from Ostia and nearby towns, and the price of grain was reduced to three sesterces.
Historians tend to agree with Tacitus. At the time, Rome was extremely overpopulated, and there were many flammable buildings. There is no direct evidence that Nero caused the fire (he wasn’t even in Rome when it started). On the one hand, upon learning about the fire, he helped the victims and developed a new building plan to prevent such fires in the future. On the other hand, soon after the fire, Nero began constructing a massive palace complex on the ashes, which, even in its unfinished state, astonished contemporaries.
The Inhabitants of Ancient Rome Were Engulfed in Orgies and Feasts
It is traditionally believed that the lives of wealthy Romans were full of indulgent feasts and gluttony. However, the reality was not quite like that.
Roman society was extremely conservative and traditional. Great importance was placed on mos maiorum—the “custom of the ancestors”—and modesty was one of the Roman virtues.
Since the alcohol content in wine (the primary drink of the time) was high, it was diluted with water before consumption. Drinking undiluted wine or in excessive amounts was considered the habit of barbarians and provincials.
Romans also washed their hands before meals and used napkins. They ate reclining, mostly using their hands. Bones and other inedible leftovers were thrown on the floor, which slaves later swept away. The food was fairly modest: the diet of wealthy people consisted mostly of vegetables, berries, game, grains, and poultry. During a feast, guests might entertain themselves with gambling.
However, moderation in food gradually disappeared during the late Republic. The tables of wealthy Romans began to feature delicacies like peacocks and flamingos. At the same time, morals became coarser, and gluttony and drunkenness became the norm. Still, this applied only to a narrow segment of the richest members of Roman society.
When it comes to orgies, the situation is also not so clear-cut. Ancient ethics viewed sexuality and its expressions differently. For example, the depiction of the phallus was not considered indecent, as it symbolized fertility and played an important role in the cults of agricultural gods.
At the same time, marriage held great significance for Romans—this was one of the differences between Rome and Ancient Greece. Roman women had more rights than Greek women, but also more responsibilities and accountability (for example, they were personally responsible for infidelity).
The Roman Empire Was the Largest in History
From the start, Romans were a nation of warriors. They conquered much of Europe and made the Mediterranean mare nostrum (“our sea”). At the height of its power, the Roman Empire stretched from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, but it was not the largest or greatest empire in history.
In terms of land area, the Roman Empire does not even rank among the top twenty largest states in history, falling behind, for example, the British, Mongol, and Russian empires.
Moreover, Rome does not rank in the top three largest states of antiquity. It was smaller than the contemporary Han Chinese state and the Hunnic Empire, from which the Han Chinese protected themselves with the Great Wall of China. The Roman Empire was also smaller than the earlier Achaemenid (Persian) Empire and the empire of Alexander the Great.
Roman Legionnaires Wore Red Clothing and Armor
In films and TV shows, Roman soldiers are always dressed in red. Indeed, such uniforms could help distinguish between friend and foe in battle, as well as exert psychological pressure on the enemy. However, in reality, there is no evidence that Roman legionnaires wore uniform scarlet equipment.
Red and purple clothing was only accessible to wealthy Romans and those in high positions. Martial, for example, wrote that red clothing was very rare. Therefore, unlike commanders, an ordinary soldier was unlikely to wear a bright tunic.
Legionnaires took care of their clothing themselves: they either bought it or received it in parcels from relatives. Typically, Roman soldiers wore short tunics, mostly made of wool. In the northern provinces, soldiers wore warmer tunics with long sleeves. A cloak (sagum) protected them from bad weather.
Although scarlet was the color of the god of war, Mars, the legionnaires’ clothing was most likely the natural color of wool: white, gray, brown, or black.
Pharaoh Pepi II Smeared Slaves with Honey to Attract Flies
Jar with the cartouches of pharaoh Pepi II, from Egypt. Neues Museum, Berlin. Image: Wikimedia
Pharaoh Pepi II of the 6th Dynasty lived around 2300–2206 BCE. Officially, he was called Neferkara Piopi II, meaning “Beautiful is the spirit of the sun god,” in case you’re curious.
He reigned for about 64 years, during which he established trade with the Nubians and married at least five times. He was notorious for his lax attitude toward paperwork and his indifference to internal politics, which led to conflicts and feuds among the nobles (nomarchs) and contributed to the Old Kingdom’s subsequent crisis. However, Pepi became most famous for his hatred of flies.
It’s easy to sympathize. Flies are unpleasant insects.
Pepi invented his own method for dealing with them. Traditional fans were fine, but his solution was more radical. The pharaoh surrounded himself with naked slaves smeared with honey. Flies would land on them, get stuck, and then be killed. These slaves acted as living traps for the insects.
Pepi, of course, wasn’t concerned about the comfort of his slaves. They weren’t made of sugar, so they could endure it.
Ancient Egyptian Fly Swatters Were Made From Giraffe Tails
Giraffe tail attachment. A lion, symbolizing Pharaoh, devours a Nubian. Image: MET Museum
By the way, if you’re stingy with honey, here’s another method for dealing with flies that the Egyptians came up with. Take a giraffe tail, attach a stylish handle to it—like in the picture above—and there you go: a fashionable fan. You could swat a fly easily—just make sure it’s not sitting on the pharaoh’s forehead at the time.
Incidentally, even today, the people of South Sudan hunt giraffes for meat. And the brush made from the tail is used as part of a bridal dowry traditionally presented to the bride’s father.
Egyptians Used Baboons to Hunt Down Lawbreakers
Wall relief of Ramses III and baboons, mortuary temple of Ramses III, Medinet Habu, Theban Necropolis, Egypt. Image: Rémih/CC BY SA 3.0
When we think of police animals, dogs usually come to mind. But the Egyptians rarely opted for such ordinary solutions.
Instead, they used… baboons as guards and watch animals.
If you doubt that they were helpful to Egypt’s city watch, just look at the teeth of these monkeys. In addition, baboons can move quickly and are as good at parkour as Altair from *Assassin’s Creed*. The guards would unleash trained baboon troops on thieves, and the baboons would chase and capture them. This is documented in many Egyptian frescoes.
Particularly distinguished baboons could be mummified after death as a sign of gratitude, ensuring their passage to the afterlife.
Yes, the Egyptians did have dogs, too. But baboons were better. Better than dogs.
In addition to law enforcement duties, baboons had other roles. They were among the Egyptians’ favorite pets.
For example, they were trained to gather figs from trees and bring them to their owners. And due to their habit of screeching in the morning, baboons could serve as living alarm clocks.
There’s a theory that the word “baboon” has ancient roots and is connected with the name of the Egyptian god Babi (or Baba), the deity of baboons and scribes. Don’t ask why monkeys and calligraphy are related—just accept it as fact.
Court Physicians of the Pharaoh Had Strange Titles
The Egyptians had a peculiar yet advanced medical system. Particularly skilled doctors could expect high positions at court.
Since the pharaoh was considered a god, court physicians were also partly priests. Each one was responsible for treating only a specific disease or for the care of a particular organ. They held titles such as “Royal Keeper of the Pharaoh’s Left Eye” and “Royal Keeper of the Pharaoh’s Right Eye.”
However, the most fortunate physician was the one who served as both a proctologist and dietician, known as the “neru pakhut,” or “Shepherd of the King’s Anus.”
One of the most famous of these Shepherds was Ir-en-akhti, who lived during the First Intermediate Period of Egypt (roughly 2181–2040 BCE). He succeeded his predecessor, Shepherd Khui, in this honorable position.
The “neru pakhut” had the authority to administer enemas to the pharaoh, purge his system with emetics, prescribe his daily diet, and even impose fasting. Enemas were especially popular in Egypt, and the pharaoh, along with his court, performed them several times a month for preventive purposes.
Of course, this was accompanied by the recitation of prayers and incantations meant to maintain the pharaoh’s health.
Egyptian Medicine Was Advanced Overall
The Edwin Smith papyrus, the world’s oldest surviving surgical document. Image: Public Domain
Top-notch medical care was available not only to the pharaoh and his entourage but also to ordinary citizens. For example, it’s documented that peasants in ancient Egypt wore pouches around their necks filled with mouse bones, which were thought to prevent nighttime incontinence.
And if you rubbed your head with a mixture of fat from a mountain goat, cat, hippo, and crocodile, it was believed to cure baldness. Just be careful when explaining to the authorities how you got fat from sacred animals.
The ancient Egyptians also invented their own toothpaste. The recipe: powder from ox hooves, ash, burned eggshells, and pumice.
Even dog, donkey, and gazelle dung had medicinal properties. These were used by the priests of Khepri, the scarab god. Since scarabs are born from dung balls, dung must be a source of life force. Logical? Logical.
According to the Kahun Papyrus, honey and crocodile dung were excellent contraceptives. They were also good for women’s health in general. Apply externally.
Finally, the Egyptians suffered from diseases like schistosomiasis, which caused men to urinate blood. But this wasn’t considered bad—it was believed that they were simply menstruating like women. Egyptians even thought that such men might become pregnant.
Ramses the Great Had More Than 170 Children
After hearing all these curious facts about Egyptian medicine, you might think that poor pharaohs barely made it to 30 and died in agony—more from their treatments than from actual dangers.
But that wasn’t always the case. Some pharaohs lived quite well. For example, Ramses the Great was over 90 years old when he died.
The king lived a grand life. He had eight official wives, nearly 100 concubines, 111 sons, and 67 daughters. There’s also reason to believe he was left-handed and had red hair.
Both Men and Women Used Cosmetics
Egyptians, regardless of gender, applied eyeliner, painted their lips, and rouged their cheeks, as well as rubbed themselves with aromatic oils. This not only made them look very beautiful but also protected their skin from the scorching sun.
The weather certainly called for it, as you can imagine.
However, the usefulness of Egyptian skincare products is quite questionable, as they contained lead.
Egyptians Shaved Their Eyebrows in Mourning for Cats
Cats were highly revered in ancient Egypt. It was believed that they were protected by the goddess Bastet. Cats were useful in controlling rodents and snakes, and a whole cult formed around them.
It is documented that when a cat died, its owners would shave their eyebrows (which was a sign of mourning for Egyptians). The deceased pet was mourned for a full 70 days.
Moreover, cats were mummified like humans and buried with honors.
For the deliberate killing of a cat, the penalty was death. For an accidental killing, a large fine was paid to the priests of the nearest temple of Bastet, along with public repentance (if the person was lucky). There is a historical account by Diodorus Siculus that in 60 BCE, Egyptians lynched a Roman who accidentally ran over a cat with his chariot.
Pharaohs Had Stylish Footwear and Socks
Golden sandals and thimbles for the feet of Tutankhamun. Image: Public Domain
The soles of Tutankhamun’s sandals bore portraits of barbarian peoples. So, wherever he walked, he would trample his enemies. Additionally, the enemies of the kingdom were depicted on pharaonic thrones to symbolize that the king of Egypt trampled them with his throne.
And by the way, Tutankhamun wore socks with his sandals. If you have anything to say about that, remember that the royal crocodiles were purposefully not fed for two days.
The first socks were invented by Egyptians around 5000 BCE.
The oldest surviving pair of socks, however, is only 1,700 years old. These were made by Egyptians between 250 and 420 CE. Perfect for wearing with open-toed shoes.
The ancient Greek historian Herodotus believed that the Great Pyramid was built by 100,000 slaves. The image of unfortunate captives hauling massive stones under the blazing sun while being whipped by overseers is frightening. But in reality, nothing like that happened.
Archaeological evidence shows that the pyramid at Giza was built by 5,000 permanent workers, assisted at different stages of construction by up to 20,000 seasonal laborers. These were free people who worked for wages.
They worked in shifts: a farmer or craftsman would leave home for 3-4 months to earn extra money on the construction site and then return to his regular life.
They were provided with food, drink, and medical care, and were housed in a camp near the construction site. Those who died during construction were buried near the pyramid—an honor that slaves would not have received. Additionally, the workers were supplied with large quantities of meat—something slaves could only dream of.
Although the labor was tough, the workers believed that they were demonstrating their loyalty to the pharaoh and the gods. Plus, they were earning points for the afterlife.
Some Ancient Egyptian Tombs Had Toilets
The Egyptians wholeheartedly believed in the afterlife. So much so that they included bathtubs and even toilets in tombs. For example, such a toilet was found in the tomb of the Egyptian architect Kha, dating back to the 2nd millennium BCE.
Even the dead, the Egyptians thought, might need to relieve themselves from time to time.
Iranians Celebrate the Start of Winter With Watermelons and Pomegranates
One of the most important holidays in Iran is Yalda, or Chelleh. It is celebrated between the last sunset of autumn and the first sunrise of winter—on the night of the winter solstice.
It is customary to celebrate Yalda within the family circle. All household members gather together to celebrate the birth of the new sun. The holiday table features watermelons, pomegranates, walnuts, and sweet treats.
At first glance, this holiday seems very similar to our New Year’s celebration. Find the differences: the whole family gathers at the table, often with relatives coming from afar, and special festive dishes are prepared. However, Yalda night is not a New Year’s holiday. The New Year in Iran is celebrated according to local customs three months later—in late March.
The Iranian Santa Claus Is Quite Different From Ours
Every year, the country celebrates Nowruz, or “new day” in Persian. This is the local New Year—a holiday that symbolizes the rebirth of nature after a long slumber. It begins on the first day of the spring month of Farvardin, that is, on the day of the vernal equinox, between March 20–22. The celebration does not go without the local New Year’s wizard, called Haji Firuz.
He is also dressed in red, like our Santa Claus. But he’s not an old, kind, white-bearded man sprinkled with snow. On the contrary, Haji Firuz is young and very slim.
His distinctive feature is a black face. According to one version, black represents darkness, a symbol of frozen, lifeless nature. However, some legends claim that Haji was a black slave who managed to gain freedom. Therefore, he became one of the beloved characters in Iranian culture, and his appearance brings hope for positive change.
Haji Firuz often does not come alone but with his frequent companion, Amu Nowruz, or Baba Nowruz. This character has a white beard and staff, so he resembles our Santa Claus more closely. Yet, the main hero of the holiday is still Haji Firuz. These two characters are considered harbingers of spring. Their appearance signals that slumbering nature is ready to be reborn.
Local Food Is Very Specific
Surprisingly, the Persian language has a word for “pirozhki” (small pies). It’s exactly what you think—dough with a filling wrapped inside. However, the word that came into Farsi from Russian refers to just one small pie. The plural also exists—the Iranians add their own ending, and it becomes “pirozhki-ha.”
In general, Iranian cuisine is very interesting. The country is known for lamb kebabs, i.
Moreover, the traditional kebab is not just minced meat on a skewer. It also refers to thinly sliced pieces of meat, as well as an equivalent of our chicken, lamb, or beef shashlik.
Iranians prepare sauces with added lemons, walnuts, and vegetables. Rice is often slightly overcooked and lightly fried to form a delicious crust—a part loved by almost everyone.
There are also two local dishes in this country that may not appeal to everyone. The first is called “kalle-pache.” It is a recognized delicacy in Iran—boiled lamb’s head. Its edible part is the brain. They say it is very tasty, but not all foreigners are ready to try it.
The second dish looks very similar to porridge. It is called “haleem,” and it tastes like sweet, hearty millet. It’s hard to guess that it’s made from grains and meat. Both components of the dish are boiled for many hours until they turn into a homogeneous mass. It looks somewhat like overcooked oatmeal or wheat flakes. However, those who have tried it say they were pleased.
Iranians Remember and Value the Work of Their Compatriot—Omar Khayyam
The scientist and philosopher, who lived and worked a thousand years ago, is known today as a poet and author of short quatrains. But in Iran, Khayyam is remembered as a mathematician who solved cubic equations, an astronomer, a lawyer, a historian, and even a physician.
During his lifetime, Khayyam was especially valued by his contemporaries as an astronomer. He made an important contribution to the creation of the Persian calendar, which Iranians still use today and consider the most accurate in the world.
By the way, several calendars are in use in the country. In addition to the international Gregorian calendar, their own Persian calendar is actively used. This calendar is divided into 12 months and begins on the day of the vernal equinox. Iranians believe that Omar Khayyam contributed to its creation.
The poet’s short “rubaiyat” (quatrains) are known worldwide. Interestingly, about 5,000 quatrains are attributed to him. However, Iranian scholars believe that only 300–500 actually belong to Khayyam. Some are certain that only 57 quatrains can be definitively proven to be his. Who wrote the rest is unknown.
There Is a Concept of “Temporary Marriage” in Iran
Such a union can be entered into by an unmarried or even an officially married man and a single woman—for example, a widow. The parties sign a marriage contract (prenuptial agreement), which at first glance differs little from a traditional one. However, it is not permanent and only lasts until a specified date, such as several months or a year. After that, the couple can agree to extend the contract, and this can continue as long as the arrangement suits both parties.
If the contract is not extended, the man and woman officially part ways—no divorce process is required. However, a temporary marriage can be terminated earlier than the agreed-upon date.
The marriage contract clearly specifies all the details—what the wife receives when entering into a temporary marriage and how property is divided after the term ends.
Such unions have become common in Iran, although attitudes toward them are mixed. Many believe that women enter into such marriages to improve their financial situation since material payments to the wife are mandatory in a temporary marriage.
These kinds of relationships can shock foreigners, especially foreign women, who receive proposals from Iranian men. Women are often unaware that the marriage being offered might only last for a predetermined time. As a result, they may not even inquire about whether the union is temporary or permanent, leading to an unpleasant surprise when the contract is signed.
It is commonly thought that the word “plague” is associated with the grim and unclean Middle Ages. It was during this period, between 1346 and 1353, that a wave of the disease later named the “Black Death” swept across Europe. However, few remember that this epidemic was neither the first nor the only one.
Historians identify three waves of the plague. The first pandemic originated in Central Asia in the mid-6th century, likely in what is now Kyrgyzstan.
The epidemic reached Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, during the reign of Emperor Justinian I — hence it was named the “Justinian Plague.” The plague raged until the mid-8th century and killed between 15 and 100 million people, equivalent to 25–60% of Europe’s population at the time. Exact numbers, however, are impossible to determine — it happened a long time ago, as you can imagine.
The second wave is the well-known medieval “Black Death.” From 1348 to 1352, it spread throughout Europe, reaching even England, Scandinavia, and Russia. The bubonic plague wiped out, according to various estimates, between a third and half of Europe’s population — that is, between 75 and 200 million people.
Finally, the third pandemic occurred in the 19th century. It again originated in Central and Southeast China but spread via trading ships to Hong Kong, Bombay, Egypt, Australia, Paraguay, Venezuela, Peru, Russia, the USA, Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba, and other countries. The worldwide death toll is estimated at 15 million — much less than in the Middle Ages, but still an imposing figure.
To this day, the plague remains undefeated. About 200 people die from it worldwide each year, mainly in poor countries like Madagascar, Congo, and Peru.
Even in nearby Mongolia, the plague is still present. It mainly affects small rodents such as shrews, marmots, and ground squirrels, as well as some local residents who skin and eat them.
In Russia, natural foci of the plague are found in Siberia, Tuva, the Urals, the North Caucasus, and Altai.
Mongols Used the Plague as a Biological Weapon
For a long time, scientists were unsure where the plague in medieval Europe came from. However, modern research has shown that the second wave of the disease, caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, appeared in Mongolia in 1320. It arrived in China and India with nomadic tribes and then spread across the continent with the trading caravans of the Great Silk Road.
In 1347, Kipchak Khan Janibek laid siege to the Genoese trading port of Caffa in Crimea. Today, this place is known as Feodosia. The siege seemed to be going well until an outbreak of plague erupted in the Khan’s camp.
A significant part of the personnel became incapacitated due to their poor health, characterized by a complete loss of vitality.
In short, Janibek’s forces suffered such heavy sanitary losses that his army simply disbanded. The Khan waved his hand and retreated from Caffa’s walls, having first catapulted a dozen or so plague-infected corpses into the city to ensure the Genoese wouldn’t be bored either.
From Caffa, trading ships spread the disease throughout the Mediterranean, from where it penetrated deep into Europe.
The Causes of the Plague Were Attributed to Planetary Alignments, Sins, and the Schemes of Lepers
Today, we understand well how the plague works. The bacterium Yersinia pestis is carried by fleas living on rodents, such as rats or marmots. The plague bacterium forms a special biofilm in the intestines of insects, preventing them from defecating. The poor flea bites a rat, fails to digest the blood, and regurgitates it back into the wound, now along with the plague bacillus.
However, in the Middle Ages, microscopes had not yet been invented, so people didn’t delve into the details of these creatures’ lives. The best minds of the time did not consider such mundane causes for the plague; they looked more to the heavens.
For example, 14th-century scholars from the University of Paris believed the “Black Death” epidemic was caused by a “triple conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars in the 40th degree of Aquarius on March 20, 1345.” Astrology in the Middle Ages was an important branch of medicine. After all, stars and planets were thought to have a direct influence on human destinies, including their illnesses, right?
It was believed that these three closely aligned celestial bodies created miasmas — poisonous air vapors that descended to Earth and caused the plague.
Other scholars thought that comets, considered harbingers of disaster in the Middle Ages, brought the disease to Earth. From 1300, six of these celestial bodies, including the famous Halley’s Comet, were observed in Europe.
This theory long dominated medicine and explained not only the appearance of the plague but all diseases. They supposedly arose simply from bad air and foul smells. And indeed, in a plague barrack, the atmosphere is somewhat unhealthy and the smells unpleasant. Therefore, the plague is caused by odors. Logical? Logical.
Thus, many residents of medieval Europe concluded that they should rarely open windows to prevent miasmas from coming in from the street. They also sought to improve the air inside their homes with perfumes, flowers, and aromatic plants like garlic.
Clergy and theologians categorically stated that diseases were sent by God as punishment for sins, so to rid themselves of the plague, one needed to pray, fast, and listen to sermons.
Meanwhile, the Church did not recommend bathing or removing fleas and lice: public baths were considered sources of debauchery, and “warm water could give good Christians impure thoughts.” Fleas were even called “pearls of God” and a sign of holiness, for they “partook of Christian blood.”
Saint Benedict was cited as an example, declaring, “Those who are healthy, especially the young, should rarely bathe.” Likewise, Saint Agnes of Rome, who died without ever bathing so as not to wash away the holy water of her baptism.
Some believers, who took the calls to repent and pray too much to heart, formed the flagellant sect in the mid-13th to 14th centuries. This group, particularly popular in Switzerland and Germany, consisted of people who traveled from town to town, whipping themselves and others until they bled. Through asceticism and mortification of the flesh, they sought to appease God and stop the epidemic. Unfortunately, they only succeeded in spreading it further, as they carried fleas on themselves. It was, in particular, the flagellants who brought the plague to Strasbourg, which had not been affected until then.
Finally, medieval Europeans believed that Jews, who supposedly poisoned wells out of hatred for good Christians, and lepers, who spread the disease on the devil’s orders, were the carriers of the plague.
This led to numerous pogroms in Jewish quarters and leprosariums. However, as you understand, these executions did not stop the disease.
Plague Doctors Beat Patients with Canes and Took Wills
Doctor Schnabel von Rom or Kleidung wider den Tod zu Rom, by Paulus Fürst, 17th century, via The British Musuem
The “Black Death” is now associated with plague doctors—colorful figures in black cloaks, hats, and masks with beaks, making them resemble birds. In modern culture, they are considered either villains who conducted inhumane experiments on patients or, conversely, the first heroes of medicine who sought to heal the sick despite the imperfections of science and the obstacles posed by the church.
In reality, the image of the doctor in the distinctive mask and cloak only appeared at the end of the Middle Ages. Before this, doctors dressed in whatever they could manage.
It was not until 1619 that the physician of King Louis XIII of France, Charles de L’Orme, invented an outfit made of Moroccan goatskin: boots, breeches, a long coat, hat, and gloves modeled after a soldier’s canvas coat that covered the body from neck to ankles.
Doctors were advised to cover their faces with a mask with a beak in which dried roses, cloves, lavender, mint, juniper berries, myrrh, and other aromatic substances were placed. It was believed that pleasant smells protected against the plague, which was thought to be spread by miasmas.
To some extent, the costume was indeed useful, but not because of the roses in the beak. It was because it was coated in fat, wax, and fragrant oils, which hindered fleas from crawling on the doctor. It was, in a way, the first hazmat suit in history.
However, doctors did not connect fleas with the plague. They covered themselves in fat to prevent their clothes from being torn off by unruly patients. Thus, the protective properties of the costume were accidental. The pneumonic form of the plague, however, spread through the air without any odors, and the aromatic herbs did not save the doctors—mortality among them was still high.
In addition to the greasy, slippery costume, a heavy cane helped doctors maintain social distance from their patients.
In most cases, plague doctors were just apprentices of surgeons, interns starting their careers, or sometimes even people who came from the streets.
As a result, they often did not even try to treat the sick. Instead, they transported and buried corpses, registered the dead and infected for statistics, and took the last will of the dying, certifying their wills. By the way, there was no prohibition against robbing patients and extorting money from them.
Plague doctors would bleed the sick and apply leeches, which, naturally, were not particularly effective. In addition, they would rub human feces into buboes (swollen lymph nodes caused by the plague) and let chickens peck at the growths on patients’ bodies, believing the birds could “suck out” the disease.
However, some doctors were real surgeons who genuinely helped the sick. For example, the French doctor Guy de Chauliac once contracted the plague. He did not panic and went into self-isolation. While in quarantine, he lanced and cauterized his own buboes.
The pain was, of course, excruciating, but de Chauliac recovered and subsequently healed many more people using the same method. Lancing and cauterizing buboes did not always help, but it worked better than leeches.
The Plague Ultimately Benefited Humanity
It might seem insane that such a tragedy as the “Black Death” epidemic could have positive consequences. However, modern historians believe that, in the end, the plague contributed to the development of human civilization since it was thanks to the plague that the Renaissance began.
The upheavals caused in European society by the terrible disease led people to think more about their earthly lives and enjoy them, rather than focus solely on spirituality and heavenly rewards in paradise. It was precisely due to the weakening of religious morality and the church’s influence that the Renaissance era was marked by outstanding achievements in art and culture.
Had Michelangelo tried to sculpt a naked David in the 13th century, he would not have fared well.
Moreover, the need to find a cure for the plague prompted the thinkers of that era to move away from theology and engage in more practical endeavors such as chemistry and biology. While they did not invent a panacea, they did come up with new types of gunpowder and medicines, as well as rat traps, distillation devices, glasses, chronometers, and other useful inventions.
Additionally, the medieval plague brought an end to the feudal era, as the reduction in the peasant workforce increased the cost of labor. Many lands previously dedicated to agriculture were freed up and converted to pastures, allowing even the poorer sections of the population to consume meat and milk, which had previously been available only to the wealthy.
Over nine hundred years ago, thousands of Europeans set out to reclaim the Holy Sepulchre — a term that symbolically referred to Jerusalem and the surrounding Holy Land. Since then, many myths and legends have formed around the crusaders and their wars.
The Crusades Were the First Confrontation Between Christians and Muslims
To understand why this is not the case, we need to look at the events that preceded the Crusades.
By 1096, the beginning of the Crusades, the Reconquista — the process of reclaiming the Iberian Peninsula (modern-day Spain and Portugal) from the Moors who had seized it — had already been ongoing for more than three centuries. The Moors were North African tribes who had embraced Islam in the 7th century. In just seven years (from 711 to 718), the Moors defeated the Visigothic Kingdom, conquered almost all of the Pyrenees, and even invaded southern France. The Europeans (the inhabitants of Leon, Castile, Navarre, and Aragon, who would later become unified Spain) would only fully reclaim these lands in 1492.
Jerusalem itself had been under Muslim control for more than four centuries at the time of the First Crusade, having been seized from the Byzantine Empire. Both Arabs and, later, Seljuk Turks had been pushing back the Byzantines since the 7th century. Gradually, the Byzantines lost their territories (Egypt, the African coast of the Mediterranean, Palestine, Syria) and eventually retained only part of Asia Minor and Constantinople. This brought Byzantine Greek civilization to the brink of catastrophe by the end of the 11th century.
Meanwhile, the remnants of the Arab Caliphate continued their expansion in the Mediterranean. For instance, in the 11th century, Europeans were reclaiming Sicily from the Arabs. In 1074, more than 20 years before the beginning of the Crusader movement, Pope Gregory VII even planned a holy war against the Muslims.
Therefore, the Crusades cannot be considered the first clash between Muslims and Christians. This idea was already in the air and was realized in the sermons of Pope Urban II in the French city of Clermont in 1096.
The Crusaders Only Fought Muslims
Conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders
The classical Crusades are considered to be the expeditions of European knights to the Middle East and the surrounding territories from 1096 to 1272. However, there were many wars sanctioned by the Catholic Church that were fought in the south, north, and east of Europe itself. From the mid-12th century, Crusades were organized not only against Muslims. Pagans, heretics, Orthodox Christians, and even other Catholics were declared enemies of the Crusaders.
The Albigensian Crusade from 1209 to 1229 was directed against the Cathar heretics — the Albigensian sect — who did not recognize the Catholic Church.
The Crusades against southern Italy and Sicily from 1255 to 1266 were initially directed against fellow Catholics. The Pope, who sought to unite all of Italy under his authority, claimed that the Catholics living there were “worse than pagans.” Thus, the holy war became a political tool of the Roman pontiff.
There is also a well-known movement of German knightly orders against the followers of pagan cults in the Baltic region. In the 12th and 13th centuries, Crusades were organized against the Polabian Slavs, Finns, Karelians, Estonians, Lithuanians, and other local tribes. The Crusaders even reached the northern Russian lands and fought against Alexander Nevsky, among others.
In the 15th century, the Roman Catholic Church sanctioned Crusades against its opponents — the Hussites in Bohemia and the Ottoman Empire. The last Crusade could be considered the campaign of the Holy League of European states against the Ottoman Empire from 1684 to 1699.
Executions of the “undesirable” were also carried out without papal sanction. The First Crusade began with mass pogroms of Jews in northern Germany and France. The brutality of this persecution was such that many Jews chose to kill themselves rather than fall into the hands of the “soldiers of Christ.” It was a common practice to offer a choice between death and baptism.
The Crusaders behaved no less shamefully towards the Christians of the Middle East, of whom there were many. The fact is that by that time, a clear division between the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity had already emerged. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Europeans considered the Orthodox to be barbarian pagans. For example, after capturing Antioch in 1098 following a tough siege, the participants of the First Crusade conducted a massacre in the city, sparing neither Muslims, Christians, nor Jews.
The participants of the Fourth Crusade (1202–1204) even captured Constantinople instead of heading to Egypt. The city was plundered, and many treasures and relics were taken to Europe. As can be seen, the “civilized” Greeks (Byzantines) were little different from the “barbarians” to the Crusaders.
Only Knights Went on Crusades to the Holy Land
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. In 1071, Jerusalem was conquered by the Seljuk Turks. Image: Flickr
In reality, almost all social strata of medieval Europe participated in the Crusades, from kings to paupers and even children.
The very first Christian campaign (not to be confused with the First Crusade) was the People’s Crusade in 1096, also known as the Peasants’ Crusade or the Crusade of the Poor. Inspired by the sermons of Peter the Hermit and the speeches of Pope Urban II (who suggested joining the “holy army” to atone for one’s sins), a large crowd of ordinary people and a small number of knights (a total of up to 100,000 people, including women and children) did not wait for the official start of the Crusade. They didn’t even bring supplies with them. This force invaded the Seljuk lands and was defeated — almost all the participants perished.
Subsequently, peasants repeatedly organized their own “Crusades,” for which the popes even excommunicated the participants from the Church, and their own kings crushed their armies.
In 1212, a movement began in Europe that became known as the Children’s Crusade. It all started when a teenager named Stephen from Cloyes claimed that Christ had appeared to him and commanded him to liberate the Holy Land. Stephen was supposed to do this through the power of the pure prayers of innocent children’s souls. A similar “prophet” also appeared in the French lands. As a result, up to 30,000 children from France and Germany set out following Stephen, believing his sermons. They barely made it to Marseille, where they boarded seven ships provided by local merchants. The children were then taken into slavery in Africa. However, today many historians doubt that the participants in this crusade were truly children — more likely, they were adolescents and young people.
Of course, the Crusades mentioned above were not organized with the pope’s approval, making them somewhat unofficial. But they cannot be excluded from the Crusader movement either.
Women also participated in the Crusades. For example, in the Seventh Crusade, 42 women traveled on one of the ships along with 411 men. Some traveled with their husbands, while others — often widows — went independently. This gave them the opportunity, like men, to see the world and “save their souls” after prayers in the Holy Land.
Knights Went on Crusades Solely for Profit
For a long time, it was believed that the main participants in the Crusades were the younger sons of European feudal lords—knights who did not inherit wealth. Consequently, their primary motivation was thought to be filling their pockets with gold.
In reality, such a simplification is difficult to take seriously. Many of the Crusaders were wealthy individuals, and participating in a holy war was expensive and rarely profitable. A knight had to arm himself and equip his companions and servants. Moreover, throughout the journey to the Holy Land, they needed food and shelter. The overland journey alone took months.
Often, the entire family participated in raising these funds. Knights frequently mortgaged or sold their property.
For example, the leader of the First Crusade, Godfrey of Bouillon, mortgaged his family castle. Most of the time, Crusaders returned home empty-handed or with relics, which they donated to monasteries. However, participating in a “righteous cause” significantly raised the family’s prestige in the eyes of other nobility. Therefore, a surviving single Crusader could hope for a profitable marriage.
To reach the Holy Land by sea, they also had to spend money: to “book” a place on a ship for themselves (as well as for their retinue and horses, if they had any) or to buy provisions. At the same time, no one could guarantee the safety of either the sea or land journey. Crusaders died in shipwrecks, drowned while crossing rivers, or succumbed to disease and exhaustion.
The territories seized in the Holy Land not only failed to generate profit but almost entirely depended on European resources. To maintain them, kings introduced new taxes. This is how the “Saladin Tithe” came about, named after the ruler of Syria and Egypt who recaptured Jerusalem from the Crusaders.
The overseas possessions were literally draining money. The Seventh Crusade of Louis IX cost 36 times more than the annual income of the French crown.
The Crusades Awakened Religious Intolerance
Despite the successes of the Crusaders, initially, there was no rush to declare jihad against the incoming Christians in the East, although Jerusalem was also an important city for Muslims. The fact is that Muslim rulers were more occupied with conflicts among themselves than with the Crusaders. It got to the point where they invited Christians to participate in their quarrels. Only when the Middle East began to unite under the authority of a single ruler (for example, Nur ad-Din or Saladin) did Muslims start to offer genuine resistance.
However, this confrontation cannot be called the cause of the emergence of religious intolerance. Much earlier, in 1009, the Egyptian Caliph Al-Hakim ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and initiated persecution of Christians and Jews—with killings and forced conversions to Islam. Therefore, it is naive to say that the Crusades caused Islamic extremism.
The situation with the Crusaders seems somewhat different at first glance.
For medieval Europe, the Crusades were the first instance where war was not only not considered a sinful act but was presented as a righteous and holy endeavor.
Only 30 years earlier, after the Battle of Hastings in 1066, Norman bishops imposed penance—a form of ecclesiastical censure and punishment—on their warriors (who, by the way, had won).
Overall, despite the wars, Muslims and Christians in the Middle East coexisted peacefully with each other most of the time. While Jerusalem was under Arab control, Christian pilgrims could freely venerate their holy sites, which were not destroyed. Muslims were also tolerant of local Christians, imposing only a special tax on them. A similar situation existed in the Crusader states, where followers of Islam made up the majority of the population.
The Era of the Crusades Brought Only Death, Destruction, and Disease
The Crusades claimed many lives and caused much suffering, but they also had beneficial consequences for societal development.
Since wars in distant territories required a constant supply of provisions, this stimulated the development of shipbuilding. Sailing across the Mediterranean Sea became safer and more active, as shipwrecks became less frequent. Many products (saffron, lemon, apricot, sugar, rice) and materials (chintz, muslin, silk) from the East reached Europe. After the Crusades, interest in travel grew significantly in Europe.
For the first time since the Roman Empire, large groups of people set off not as pilgrims or traders, but out of interest in the unknown.
The Crusades significantly expanded the cognitive horizon of Europeans, who became acquainted with other peoples, cultures, and countries. This movement helped accumulate vast knowledge and explore significant territories.
The Fifth Crusade (1217–1221) laid the foundation for the first medieval expeditions to Central Asia and the Far East.
Thanks to the Crusades, Europeans were able to access works from around the world that had been carefully collected by Muslims. Numerous texts by ancient scholars and philosophers, lost in Europe, were returned thanks to Arabic translations.
Medieval science acquired an unprecedented amount of knowledge in geography, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, philosophy, history, and linguistics. It is believed that the Crusaders thus paved the way for medieval Europe to enter the Renaissance.
However, it should not be forgotten that all of this was achieved at the cost of the economic devastation of modern-day Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. Many cities and settlements were destroyed or fell into decline, and vast forests were cut down due to numerous sieges. Traders and artisans, for which these places were once famous, relocated to Egypt.
It took participants of the First Crusade, which lasted from 1096 to 1099, three years to capture Jerusalem. After that, there were eight more large-scale expeditions. The Crusaders held the lands of Palestine and the Levant for nearly 200 years, until 1291, when they were finally defeated and expelled from the Holy Land.
Around the Crusading movement, many legends were formed, creating a kind of romantic aura. But in reality, as always, everything turned out to be somewhat more complicated.
The Egyptians had a distinctive cuisine. Most of their diet consisted of bread and beer. The latter, as is well known, is also bread, just in liquid form. However, the Egyptian version of this drink could only loosely be called a liquid.
It was made from crumbled wheat or barley underbaked bread and date juice, and this mixture was left to ferment in jars sealed with gypsum. The resulting “beer” was not only sipped through a straw but also scooped up, with people eating the porridge from the bottom. It was consumed daily—at home, while working in the fields, and even during meals.
The pyramid builders working for the pharaohs officially received part of their payment in beer. In some historical periods, it was even considered a form of currency.
Interestingly, children were also not forbidden to try it. “Eat your porridge and grow big” might have been a common refrain.
Hedgehogs for Breakfast
Egyptians ate much less meat than bread because raising livestock without large pastures was a challenging task. Studies of the remains of Pharaoh Akhenaten’s subjects, conducted by anthropologists from the University of Arkansas, show that most residents of Ancient Egypt suffered from clinical protein deficiency.
Only the wealthy could afford to indulge in beef, and pork was entirely off limits.
Pigs were considered sacred animals belonging to the god Set. Therefore, consuming pork (including bacon) was forbidden, as it was believed Set would punish those who did so.
However, it was acceptable to eat crocodiles, even though they were also sacred, as well as hippopotamuses and ostriches. All of these were considered very tasty and nutritious.
The main delicacy for Egyptians, however, was hedgehogs. They were rolled in clay and then baked in an oven. The top layer, along with the quills, was then removed, and the meat was eaten with dates and accompanied by beer.
Cleaning Teeth with Pepper and Salt
Residents of Ancient Egypt frequently experienced dental problems due to their environment and diet. Living in a land surrounded by deserts, their food contained numerous abrasives: sand from millstones mixed with flour during milling and stone particles from dishes that got into the dough. Consequently, their bread was gritty and harsh on their teeth.
Naturally, chewing food containing sand was detrimental to oral health.
The situation was even worse for wealthy Egyptians, who consumed very sweet foods. They mixed honey with many dishes, ate dates frequently, and washed their meals down with pomegranate juice. It was believed that food that puckered the mouth was a delicacy for affluent citizens. As a result, tooth decay became a common occurrence.
Of course, Egyptians sought to address this issue and cleaned their teeth as best they could. They even invented a form of toothpaste, or rather, a powder. It consisted of crushed rock salt, pepper, dried iris flower, and mint. This mixture was moistened with saliva and rubbed directly onto the teeth. They cleaned their teeth either with their fingers or a chewed stick.
An Austrian dentist, Dr. Heinz Neumann, once prepared this powder out of academic interest, following the Egyptian recipe. After using it, he stated, “The gums hurt a lot and the mouth bled, but the breath definitely became fresher and cleaner.”
If the combination of pepper and salt doesn’t appeal to you, there’s an alternative. Try another variant that has been preserved: a mixture of powdered ox hooves, ash, burned eggshells, and pumice. Afterward, you can freshen your breath with a lozenge made of frankincense, myrrh, and cinnamon boiled in honey.
Laxatives Three Times a Month
In general, medicine in Ancient Egypt was quite strange. Many peculiar recipes for various diseases have been preserved in the papyrus found by Egyptologist Edwin Smith.
According to the doctors of that time, the root cause of most health problems was related to the intestines. Egyptians were constantly troubled by two diseases of this most important organ in the human body.
Constipation and diarrhea. Both of these ailments were supposed to be treated with laxatives.
The remedy was made from castor oil. Healers recommended that patients take it three times a month. Why so often? Prevention. To cleanse the body.
If it is clear why it was used for constipation, then why was it used for diarrhea? Apparently, the Egyptians adhered to the principle of treating like with like. The sooner everything leaves the intestines, the sooner the diarrhea will end—obviously!
Enemas from Gourds
Besides castor oil, enemas were also used. According to Pliny the Elder, the Egyptians invented them by observing how the sacred ibis bird would take water into its beak and then insert it into its anus to wash out its intestines.
It is unclear whether ibises really do this, but the Egyptians decided that regularly injecting water into the bowels was an excellent idea. According to their mythology, enemas were the favorite tool of the god Thoth.
It was not only a medical but also a hygiene procedure, just like brushing teeth.
The use of enemas is described in the Ebers Papyrus. Enemas were made from the bladder of a bull, to which a wooden tube was attached, or from a gourd. A particular type of plant, specifically the bottle gourd or Lagenaria, was also used for these purposes. Look at its shape, and you’ll understand why.
Naturally, the frequent use of laxatives, obsession with enemas, and daily beer consumption led to numerous intestinal problems, but the Egyptians considered this normal.
Beatings of Witnesses During Interrogations
In Ancient Egypt, there was a fairly developed law enforcement system. This can be judged by the preserved records of court hearings from that time. However, investigators back then did not trouble themselves much with observing any human rights.
The papyri mention that the interrogations of suspects were conducted as follows: the subject would be tied to a post and beaten on the arms and legs with sticks until they revealed everything the honest executors of the Pharaoh’s will needed to know. A scribe present during this would make a note in the record: “was beaten with a double stick” or “was beaten with rods.” Everything was meticulously documented, leaving no room for doubt.
The strangest part is that the laws allowed for such punishment not only of the criminal but also of the witnesses—just in case.
There are records showing that sons, slaves, and wives of suspects, and even those who were simply passing by, could be beaten to make sure they were not lying.
Strange Laws
Egyptians disliked prolonging investigations and interrogated witnesses directly at the trial, not before it. Before giving testimony, an oath was taken, which could vary depending on the time or the judge’s wishes.
For example, a female witness swore: “If there is evidence against me, I will be punished with a hundred lashes.” Another man stated: “If I lie, all my servants and property will be taken from me.” Poor laborers who had nothing to confiscate were forced to tell the truth “under threat of injury.”
If a suspect declared themselves innocent even after being beaten with a stick, they were released. In one court record, a man named Amenhau was interrogated at a trial.
Despite the beatings, he continued to insist, “I saw nothing! Everything I have seen, you have already heard from my lips!”
Amenhau was released, but despite this, a note was left next to his name in the papyrus: “a great criminal.” Presumption of innocence? No, never heard of it.
Human Cat Toilets
It is well known that Ancient Egyptians loved cats. The goddess Bastet patronized the furry creatures, and she did not tolerate jokes. She could stop protecting them from evil spirits and, most importantly, from mice, which could eat the harvest—what would you do then? So, they cared for their cats so much that they even mourned after their death, shaving their eyebrows as a sign of grief.
However, it seems that the Egyptians did not come up with toilets for their beloved pets. At least, archaeologists have not discovered anything of the sort yet.
On the other hand, the Egyptians themselves used hygienic devices that we would now consider a cat litter box.
Boxes filled with sand and other, less pleasant, contents were emptied daily, and the filler was replaced with clean sand. Wealthy people had wooden or even stone seats installed over the containers, while the poor had to make do without them.
However, they never came up with a water-based sewage system to carry away waste. The Romans were the first to invent such a system.
Strange Wigs and Wax Hats
Many Egyptians, including women, shaved their heads bald. The reason was simple: to avoid lice. For priests and priestesses, the procedure was mandatory because the gods demanded not only moral but also physical cleanliness.
But walking with a bald head in the heat was not particularly pleasant—it could easily lead to sunstroke. So, the Egyptians wore a variety of wigs. The poorer wore wigs made from sheepskin and plant fibers, while the wealthy could afford luxurious wigs made of natural hair.
Making wigs was quite a profitable profession and was traditionally practiced by women.
Nevertheless, fashion for them would periodically fade away, and people would grow their own hair and create intricate hairstyles. For example, they would wrap curls around a stick, coat them with mud, and wait for it to dry. Then, they would remove it, shake off the mud, and get a (possibly) stunning curl.
Baldness and gray hair were considered a tragedy. But the Ebers Papyrus provided a reliable remedy for hair loss: one had to rub rotten donkey liver into the scalp, and everything would be fine. To prevent graying, a dye made from black calf’s blood with oil was highly effective. It smelled, of course, but lotus perfume was supposed to help.
But the strangest invention of the Egyptians was the aromatic cones. These were peculiar headpieces made of a mixture of oil, resin, fat, or wax with fragrant myrrh. They would melt in the heat and emit a strong aroma. Apparently, Egyptians wore them to demonstrate their status; they were worn by those close to the Pharaoh and priests.
Women especially fancied these items, but men could also wear a wax cone on occasion. After all, it is so pleasant and beautiful when wax and oil trickle down your head.
Battles with Hippos
Hippopotamus (“William”), Middle Kingdom. Image: MET Museum
These animals were a serious problem for the inhabitants of Ancient Egypt: they would devastate crops on the banks of the Nile, capsize fishing boats, and kill people who tried to drive them away.
A rampaging hippo is a monster beside which alligators are just a trifle. And such a beast could wander onto your land at any moment because they swam wherever they wanted, and no fences could stop them.
It’s no surprise that Egyptians considered hippos a symbol of chaos and one of the worst incarnations of the evil god Seth.
Therefore, hunting these animals and their extermination were considered highly useful deeds, often undertaken by wealthy Egyptians. Especially by Pharaohs, because a god-like king who personally destroyed a symbol of evil deserved the adoration of his people.
Egyptians did not have weapons that could kill a hippo from a distance: its skin was thick, a bow was unlikely to penetrate, and it was not easy to hit the eye. Therefore, they used spears.
The hippopotamus had to be provoked into aggression by shouting various Ancient Egyptian curses and wishing it misfortunes in the afterlife. And when it opened its mouth and roared in response, the weapon was thrown directly into it.
As you can imagine, this was no easy task, because a hippo bite had truly catastrophic consequences for the human body. And the hunt did not always end well. For instance, Pharaoh Menes died from injuries inflicted by this beast.
But if the giant could be felled, the feast was magnificent: these creatures had plenty of meat and fat. Pharaohs who did not want to hunt hippos would hunt ostriches instead. But that was far less honorable.
Typically, a young man and a woman end up in bed together for intimate purposes. At least, that’s what modern people think. But in the Middle Ages, there were different views on this.
Historical records show that in Germany, Switzerland, Wales, and Scandinavia of that time, the sexuality of teenagers was restricted—strict morals, Christian values, no physical relations before marriage. Hence, courtship customs were quite strange.
Young men would lie in bed with their loved ones without undressing. They would always place a thick wooden board in the middle of the bed to maintain proper boundaries of decency. And they would sleep like that all night.
This custom was in practice up until the 17th century. It allowed a young man to subtly hint to a girl that he cared about her, but he wanted everything to be official and proper. Only after the bride’s parents approved the courtship could a marriage be arranged, and physical love made possible. Until then, it was only with clothes on and with a board in between.
Shared Beds for Kings
Dream of the Magi from Queen Mary’s Psalter, England, 1310-1320. Image: British Library / Public Domain
In the Middle Ages, sharing a bed was a common practice because beds were expensive, and it was costly to provide separate sleeping places for everyone.
However, even those who were not financially constrained sometimes did this. Even monarchs did not mind sharing a bed with someone else—as long as it was another person of royal blood.
Philip honoured Richard so highly that every day they ate at the same table and shared the same dishes; at night the bed did not separate them. The king of France loved him as his own soul and their mutual love was so great that the lord king of England was stupefied by its vehemence.
This fragment from the chronicle led some historians to seriously believe that King Richard I the Lionheart was not interested in women.
However, as English researchers John Gillingham and Stephen Jaeger write, for monarchs of that time, sharing a bed was not a sexual gesture but a political one. Eating from the same dish and sharing a bed with someone was a way to express friendship and affection; for carnal matters, there were mistresses.
Moreover, nobles who respected each other could exchange clothes and kiss each other on the lips in a “Brezhnev style”—not for anything inappropriate, but to establish diplomatic relations. A kind of stern royal male friendship with pajama parties.
Unusual Duels
As we have previously discussed, ordeals, or judicial duels, were a common way to administer justice in the Middle Ages. Proper forensic examination and criminal investigation had not been invented yet, so determining who was right or wrong often came down to a physical fight.
There was one catch. Medieval jurists believed that God would not allow an innocent person to lose. However, in practice, it usually turned out that God sided with people who were in good physical shape and professionally skilled with cold weapons.
Of course, one could hire a professional duelist to fight on their behalf—such knights were called “champions.” But not everyone had the means to do so.
Therefore, measures had to be taken to equalize the chances of both sides in a duel.
In the late Middle Ages, two rules were developed for duelists. First, the fighters were literally sewn into duel suits, which could not be removed independently, and were smeared with grease.
Second, they were given unfamiliar weapons. A skilled fencer would be given, instead of his usual sword, a club, a hook, or even a full-length battle door, so that his less experienced opponent had a chance to fight him on equal terms.
These fights looked comical—nothing like Ridley Scott’s film “The Last Duel.” But they were fierce and bloody and, in most cases, ended in the death of one of the participants.
Desecration of Graves
It would seem that the superstitious inhabitants of the Dark Ages should have treated the graves of their ancestors with extreme reverence. However, according to the Austrian Academy of Sciences, about 40% of burials in medieval Europe were disturbed.
In graves discovered by archaeologists in England, Switzerland, Germany, and Austria, many skeletons were found in strange positions—bound, turned face down, with twisted joints, or in unusual postures. Many were decapitated.
The reason, historians believe, is simple: medieval people were fighting zombies. Europeans were preventing the threat of undead uprising at its root. This was necessary to ensure that the restless, or revenants, whom they sincerely believed in, did not rise from their graves and harm the living.
It is quite hard to become a cool vampire when your head is lying somewhere between your knees.
However, not all deceased were considered dangerous by the inhabitants of the Middle Ages. There were also good ones. For example, in Germany, members of the Lombard tribe opened the graves of their relatives to take skulls from there as keepsakes. Thus, in the 6th-century cemetery of Brunn-am-Gebirge, out of 42 graves, a third of the heads were missing.
Apparently, the tribe members believed that the skulls of their ancestors could protect them and bring good luck. In some cases, however, they did not take the skulls away but, on the contrary, added a couple of new ones. Why this was done—archaeologists still cannot figure out.
In other parts of Europe, from Transylvania to southern England, people also often opened the graves of relatives, taking weapons and brooches from them. At the same time, they did not touch the other belongings of the deceased.
In general, in the Middle Ages, people were less concerned with the dead than they are today. Christianity preached that life after death is better than in the mortal world—not surprisingly, with the constant plague outbreaks and Viking raids. So, people regularly held gatherings, fairs, strength competitions, theatrical performances, and court trials in cemeteries.
And women of easy virtue served clients there because cemeteries belonged to the church, and individual entrepreneurs did not have to pay taxes on them.
Demonstrative Weeping
We usually imagine lords or knights as stern, stoic, and unwavering. “Men don’t cry,” and all that. But in the real Middle Ages, tears were viewed quite differently.
In classic knightly romances, we regularly encounter scenes where brave riders cry either about separation from their ladies, the death of their comrades, or the loss of their suzerain.
This is not a literary exaggeration. Chronicles of that time also report knights and aristocrats crying frequently. For example, one ambassador, who arrived at the court of Philip the Good, gave such a speech during negotiations that he not only cried himself but also moved all the courtiers present to tears.
Many men at that time “shed tears, were overcome with grief, and fainted.” Knights with tear-soaked eyes who fainted did not seem ridiculous to those around them but noble.
No one tried to hold back their tears back then—on the contrary, both men and women cried demonstratively at the slightest emotional tension.
To us, this seems strange, but at that time, tears were considered a sign of piety, a “gift from God.” Tears, according to the people of medieval Europe, brought a person closer to Christ. Crying was an essential part of the church services of that time, and the rules of monastic orders required shedding tears during prayer, preaching, and confession.
The custom of crying at every opportunity in England, for example, persisted up until the Early Modern period. In 1628, English politician Thomas Alured described the reaction of the House of Commons to a letter from the king threatening to dissolve parliament: “Sir Robert Phillips spoke and mixed his words with tears… Saint Edward Coke was forced to sit down when he began to speak through abundant tears… The Speaker of the House also could not hold back from crying…”.
Only the harsh Scandinavia managed to avoid widespread tearfulness. There, suspicion of crying was a serious insult to a man, and for it, one could easily be challenged to a duel and killed.
This sport looked like this: take a bull or a bear, as well as a fighting dog (or better, several) on a short leash, and try to kill one animal with the other. It’s that simple.
There were many variations of this entertainment. For example, the unfortunate animal could be placed in a pit or chained to a post, so spectators could enjoy the show from a relatively safe distance. Bets were placed on how long the beast would last and how many dogs it would tear apart and trample before they finally brought it down.
However, it was far more exciting to unleash enraged bulls and bears from their chains in a field or a wide enclosure, giving the participants with their dogs a chance to chase them. A thrilling workout for both the owners and their loyal mastiffs—far more interesting than football or hockey, don’t you think?
Initially, the idea was to make the bull or bear meat more tender before cooking. But tenderizing an entire carcass with a hammer is inconvenient, while setting dogs on it is quite practical.
Naturally, this blood sport was dangerous, and not just for the dogs. First, the hunters often died or were injured by getting too close to the wild beast. Second, even the spectators were not immune from mishaps.
For example, in 1583, during a baiting event at Paris Garden in London, an excited crowd accidentally collapsed the arena, and several dozen visitors were trapped under the debris. Then, they got to know the bear a bit more closely than they had planned, and for many, the encounter was fatal. English Puritans saw this as divine wrath but believed it was due not to cruelty to animals, but because the games were held on a Sunday.
This entertainment appeared in England during the Middle Ages and remained popular until 1835. Then, the British peers decided that cruelty to animals was somewhat unbecoming and banned bull baiting, cockfighting, and other such antics. Before that, even Queen Victoria had taken part in these competitions.
English Football Without Rules
The Village Ba’ Game by Alexander Carse, 1818: a village football match in Jedburgh, Scotland. Painting of a large group of men playing football in front of a large rural building.
What happens if you give a crowd of rugged medieval men a ball made from a pig’s bladder stuffed with peas—heavy and hard as a stone? That’s right, you get traditional English football.
It was usually played during Shrovetide, just before Lent. The goal was simple: get the ball into the opponent’s goal by any means necessary. Sometimes, the goals were several kilometers apart. At times, they didn’t bother with constructing goals at all—in such cases, one had to throw the ball onto the balcony of the opponent’s church.
The rules did not prohibit beating opponents to take the ball, nor did they forbid causing them serious injuries and fractures. Naturally, there was no protective gear. You could even trample opponents who were lying down.
It goes further—there are mentions that participants brought knives to some matches. Why not?
There were no enclosed fields—the ball was chased through city streets, marketplaces, and agricultural fields, causing considerable material damage to unwitting spectators. Sometimes, the number of players on a team reached a hundred. Chroniclers mentioned that many footballers ended up with broken arms and legs, knocked-out teeth and eyes, and fatal outcomes were not uncommon.
This game was rightly considered incredibly dangerous, and some kings even enacted laws banning football. For instance, Henry VIII was an avid player in his youth. However, later, when he realized the damage caused to royal property by overzealous football fans, he called the sport a “plebeian game” and banned it in 1548 under the threat of death.
However, the severity of the law was mitigated by its lax enforcement: footballers continued to play, sheriffs turned a blind eye, and by 1603, the ban was lifted.
Stick fighting, illustrations from Old English Sports, Peter Hampson Ditchfield. Image: Public Domain
The shillelagh (from the Gaelic s iúil éille—”oak club”) is a traditional weapon in Ireland, also used as a cane. To make one, you need to trim a sturdy oak branch, carve beautiful traditional patterns on it, and then bury it in a pile of manure or put it in a chimney for several months to make the stick black and shiny.
The ancient Celts regularly held competitions in fencing with such clubs, and in the Middle Ages, the English and Irish continued this tradition. The game had clear rules—this was not a drunken brawl.
Stick fights were not only a form of entertainment but also a standard legal method for settling disputes among tenants.
Usually, the rules required knocking the opponent to the ground and dragging them along the ground for the judges to count it as a win. Often, fencing with shillelaghs led to serious injuries.
Interestingly, women were allowed to participate in the tournaments. However, men were forbidden from hitting them—they could only strike the shillelagh in the woman’s hand. The woman, on the other hand, could strike her opponent however she wanted.
And who says that women were oppressed in the Middle Ages?
Hammer Throwing
Image: Public Domain
Another sport with ancient Celtic roots is hammer throwing. The Celts engaged in hammer throwing as early as 1600 BC during the so-called Tailteann Games. These were athletic competitions that included jumping, running, javelin throwing, hammer throwing, boxing, fencing, archery, wrestling, swimming, and horseback riding.
Much like the Olympic Games, you might say. But the Tailteann Games were held at funerals.
Yes, the stern Celts believed that when an important figure like a king or military leader died, simply throwing them on a funeral pyre was too dull. So, they organized three-day feasts and competitions like hammer throwing, boxing, and vaulting. The Celts generally believed that funerals were a cause for celebration, not mourning, as the deceased was going to a better place.
Over time, the Tailteann Games were forgotten, but hammer throwing remained, becoming a popular sport in medieval England. In principle, anything could be thrown—Irish people, for example, used heavy cartwheels.
Medieval hammer throwing was a rather dangerous sport because, at fairs where it was held, there were no barriers or protection for either athletes or spectators.
Therefore, when an athlete missed the target and the projectile flew into the crowd, casualties were inevitable. But then again, what is sport without risk?
Water Jousting
Jousting on the Hérault river in Agde. Image: Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0
Everyone knows about knightly tournaments. Two strong men in heavy armor mount their horses, take blunted lances, and charge at each other at full speed. Whoever remains in the saddle after the collision is the winner. The rules are simple—no mistake possible.
But doesn’t riding horses seem a bit dull? Isn’t it far more interesting to hold tournaments… on boats?
These jousts were invented in France—the first mentions date back to a tournament in Lyon on June 2, 1177. The mechanism of the duel is as follows: take two boats, fill them with teams of rowers. On the boats, set up simple ladders on which the knights should stand.
The boats are launched into the water—full speed ahead! The knight who knocks his opponent off the ladder wins.
Despite the seemingly comical nature of this competition, it was quite dangerous. Due to the armor, falling into the water could be fatal—25 kilograms of steel does not add to buoyancy.
Also, clashing with a single shield could result in serious injuries.
Boat jousting remains quite popular in France. Modern athletes, following in their ancestors’ footsteps, regularly hold traditional competitions in communes such as Cognac, Merville, and other places.
In the Middle Ages, the Contents of Chamber Pots Were Dumped Out of Windows
It is believed that this was a very common practice. In 13th century France, there was allegedly even a law requiring residents to shout three times, “Watch out, water!” before emptying a chamber pot.
However, this is not true. People in the Middle Ages did use chamber pots, as toilets had not yet been invented, but they would empty the contents into cesspits and ditches, not onto the street from a window.
Of course, there may have been some eccentric individuals who did throw waste out of a window, but they probably did not have an easy time.
For example, in 14th century English cities, someone could be fined 40 pence for throwing garbage out of a window — an amount that many ordinary workers earned in a month. That could buy several barrels of beer, a couple of sheep, or a grown pig, so one would have to think twice about whether it was worth it.
It’s also unlikely that the residents of medieval towns would have been thrilled about human waste being dumped on their heads from windows. Records have survived of a man named Thomas Scott who urinated in the street in 1307, which angered two other townspeople. They demanded that the troublemaker go to a public restroom, but when he responded rudely, they beat him and wounded him with a knife.
Another man who threw a spoiled smoked fish out of his window was beaten so badly by his neighbors that he barely recovered.
As you can see, people did not go easy on dirty habits back then.
Wide-Brimmed Hats Were Needed to Protect Against Waste Being Dumped
This myth is related to the previous one. It is also claimed that such hats were worn by middle-class people attending medieval theaters, forced to crowd in the pit. When lords and ladies lounging on the balconies and upper boxes threw leftovers or sneezed down on the commoners, the brims of these hats would help keep their heads relatively clean.
In reality, wide-brimmed hats were made for the obvious purpose of protecting against rain and sun. They were common in all cultures, not just European ones.
In the Middle Ages, they were most often worn by peasants and pilgrims. For the latter, the wide-brimmed hat eventually evolved into the capello romano, or saturno, as well as the galero — hats worn by clergy.
Additionally, they were favored by soldiers, who often had to wander outside in bad weather or heat. Over time, their hats turned into the famous feathered hats of musketeers, known as cavalier hats. And when firearms became widespread and the wide brims began to interfere with aiming, they started pinning them up with pins, creating the tricorne.
Nobles also liked such hats, but not because poor people often poured chamber pot contents on their heads. Aristocrats simply considered pale skin a sign of nobility, while a tan was seen as a distinctive feature of commoners who worked in the fields.
Isabella of Castile Bathed Twice in Her Life
Isabella I of Castile (1451-1504), queen of Castile and León
Experts in the unclean and suffering Middle Ages often cite Queen Isabella I of Castile, who ruled Spain in the 15th century. Allegedly, this lady was so devout that she considered bathing a sin and proudly claimed to have bathed only twice in her life — at birth and before her wedding.
All this to avoid washing away the holy water that touched her skin during baptism.
However, this is a myth, with no evidence to support it. There is only this legend: in 1491, the queen laid siege to the city of Granada, intending to expel the Muslims from Spain. She vowed not to bathe or change clothes until the city fell.
Unfortunately for her, the siege dragged on for eight months, during which time Isabella’s clothes took on an unpleasant grayish-yellow tint that artists later named “isabelline.”
The legend is quite murky: historians can’t determine whose name the color was originally based on — Queen Isabella I of Castile or Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain. There were also rumors that the latter made a similar vow not to bathe when she began the siege of the Dutch city of Ostend in 1601. And the fighting went on for three years.
As a result, the stories of these two Isabellas often get confused in tales about the unwashed Middle Ages, making it difficult to determine if there is even a grain of truth in the story.
At that time, people often made strange vows to demonstrate steadfastness and win divine favor in battle through their suffering. For example, some knights vowed not to eat meat or shave during war, covered one eye with a patch, or deliberately refused to use fire to warm themselves.
But even if we assume that the legend has a basis in reality and the queen did vow not to bathe for several months, this means that such behavior was unusual for her in normal times and was seen as a real ordeal. And after the city was taken, she did bathe again.
Louis XIV “Stank Like a Beast”
Louis XIV with the Sword of Charlemagne Joyeuse
Another figure allegedly known for avoiding bathing was Louis XIV de Bourbon, King of France—also known as the “Sun King” or “Louis the Great.” According to an internet myth, this monarch supposedly bathed only two or four times in his entire life and did so only under doctor’s orders. However, the idea of Louis XIV‘s poor hygiene can hardly be explained by medieval customs, given that this was already the Early Modern period.
According to some “Russian envoys” (or “Cossacks” in another version), “His Majesty stank like a wild beast.” Sometimes, this phrase is even attributed to Peter the Great himself. However, the Tsar could not have said this because, by the time he visited Versailles in 1717, Louis XIV had already been dead for a couple of years.
There are no historical records of Russian envoys or Cossacks making such a statement.
Most likely, this anecdote was invented by blogger Denis Absintis, the author of a book about the “dirty and sick” Middle Ages, titled Zlaya Korcha (“Evil Cramp”). While describing the unsanitary conditions of that time, he might have gotten a bit carried away and “slightly” exaggerated.
Moreover, in his work, he seriously references the writings of Patrick Süskind—a supposed “Swiss chronicler.” In reality, Süskind is a contemporary author known for his novel Perfume.
In fact, Louis XIV bathed regularly. Otherwise, it would be hard to understand why he spent a fortune on bringing running water to Versailles and building baths and swimming pools there. As contemporaries noted, His Majesty was an excellent swimmer and could swim across the Seine on a dare.
He built a Turkish-style bath in his palace and regularly took baths there, often in the company of court ladies. And when he could not bathe while traveling, he ordered his valets to wipe his body with grape spirits and sprinkle him with perfume.
Crusades Brought Soap to Europe
The dance of the “wild men”. Miniature from “Chronicles” by Jean Froissart. 1470-1472
There’s a claim that Europeans only started bathing after the dirty Crusades stole the secret of soap-making from the Muslims. Before that, the residents of Europe supposedly didn’t know about it at all.
In reality, Europe had entire guilds of soap-makers as early as the 6th century. It’s unclear how they managed to produce their products if the First Crusade only took place in the 11th century.
Crusades did bring back a specific recipe for soap from Palestine—one made with olive oil. When European soap makers started using olive oil instead of animal fat, their products began to smell better. Wealthy people then switched to this new soap. But to say that Europeans didn’t use soap before the wars with the Muslims is inaccurate.
Europeans Considered Russians Perverts Because They Bathed Once a Month
This statement also circulated on the internet, thanks to the author of Zlaya Korcha. However, there’s a catch: he provided no sources for this claim.
Bathhouses were common in Europe at that time, both private ones (for wealthy gentlemen) and public bathhouses. The latter often doubled as bakeries or blacksmith shops to save firewood and not waste the heat from the ovens when there was no need to heat water. Here is a description of such establishments in the city of Erfurt in the 13th century:
The bathhouses in this city will bring you true pleasure. A beautiful young girl will rub you well with her tender hands. An experienced barber will shave you without a drop of sweat falling on your face. A pretty woman… will skillfully comb your hair. Who wouldn’t steal a kiss from her if they wished?
Civilization of the Medieval West, Jacques Le Goff
Yes, bathhouses were often combined with brothels, and it was easy to receive additional services from the bath attendants besides washing. The Church turned a blind eye to these minor sins—in England, for example, bishops taxed bathhouses located within their dioceses.
In the Middle Ages, People Ate with Their Hands and Had No Manners
Medieval people, even noble lords, are often depicted as very ill-mannered diners who grabbed food from the table and ate it with their hands. The myth goes that forks were only brought from the East towards the end of the era, and before that, people had to use their dirty fingers.
However, medieval table etiquette can be judged from a 15th-century manuscript titled “Les Countenance de Table.”
……and let your fingers be clean, and your fingernails well-groomed. Once a morsel has been touched, let it not be returned to the plate. Do not touch your ears or nose with your bare hands. Do not clean your teeth with a sharp iron while eating. It is ordered by regulation that you should not put a dish to your mouth. He who wishes to drink must first finish what is in his mouth. And let his lips be wiped first. Once the table is cleared, wash your hands, and have a drink.
Les Countenance de Table, 15th-Century Manuscript
As you can see, it doesn’t quite resemble a scene from the comedy Black Knight, where the king served peas with the same hand he had just scratched himself with, and then fed the dog.
Forks indeed appeared in Europe relatively late, in the 1600s. Before that, people only used spoons and knives, and a noble lord carried his eating knife on his belt—it was considered foolish to show up at a feast without your own cutlery. When medieval aristocrats finally acquired forks, they initially carried them in sheaths, too—a rather amusing custom.
So Much Filth Flowed Through City Streets that People Walked on Stilts
Medieval European cities, of course, were not as well-kept as modern ones, but authors of articles and books about the “grim Dark Ages” sometimes exaggerate too much.
For example, there is a myth that streams of feces, manure, and other filth, poured from the windows and doors of surrounding houses, flowed down the streets of settlements. People were supposedly forced to walk on stilts to navigate the streets.
It is also said that heels were invented to allow people to move through dung-covered streets without getting dirty.
Sounds disgusting, doesn’t it? However, images of medieval sufferers on stilts, which are often used to illustrate such statements, are misunderstood by modern people.
These devices were indeed worn, but not by city dwellers. Rather, they were used by peasants, who used them to move through wet fields and swamps without getting stuck. Additionally, stilts were used to harvest crops from tall trees and for entertainment—there were even amusing battles and tournaments held on them.
It was not necessary to move around on stilts in cities, as filth did not flow down the streets. There were designated sewage channels for this purpose, and they were covered to prevent odors from spreading. Special responsible individuals made sure these channels did not overflow.
As for heeled shoes, ladies sometimes wore them to avoid getting their dresses dirty—not in filth, but in rain puddles. Later, men adopted this fashion, using such shoes to emphasize their status and increase their height.
Fifty-two regular Sundays, a week each for celebrating the main Christian holidays—Easter, Christmas, and Pentecost—along with other obligatory holidays like Epiphany, Baptism, Candlemas, Palm Sunday, Ascension, Trinity, the Feast of Corpus Christi, the Sacred Heart, Transfiguration, Exaltation of the Cross, Feast of the Holy Family, Immaculate Conception, Saint Joseph’s Day, Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and All Saints’ Day, plus days dedicated to various saints—patrons of cities, guilds, and so on—along with days for their commemoration and associated events, as well as entries of rulers, bishops, and other important figures. Altogether, about a third of the year was spent by medieval city dwellers in leisure.
Go to Church and Listen to a Preacher
Festive church services were performed with great pomp, featuring the best choir singers. From the 9th–10th centuries, festive Mass began to resemble an allegorical play due to performances based on Old Testament, Gospel, or hagiographic stories. These performances lasted until about the 13th century when they were replaced by city theatrical events.
On holidays, women tried to dress up: they went not only to the service but also “to see people” — to look at others and show themselves. Everyone in the church had their place, determined by their social status. On Sundays and holidays, working was forbidden, and after Mass, parishioners often sought entertainment: dancing and singing often occurred right in the churchyard, although clergy at least formally condemned such behavior.
Sometimes, a preacher would visit the city, and if he did not perform in the church courtyard, the townspeople would build him a platform where he could pray with the congregation and then deliver a scathing sermon.
Watch a Performance
King Charles VI nearly burned to death in 1393 at the Bal des Ardents at the Hôtel Saint-Pol
Medieval theatrical performances primarily provided spiritual entertainment for the townspeople and explained the Holy Scriptures in the vernacular in various forms. The basis of a miracle play was apocryphal Gospels, hagiographies, and chivalric romances. In England, miracle plays were usually staged by members of craft guilds in honor of their patrons. In France, they were popular among members of puy—urban associations for joint pious activities, music, and poetry competitions.
The plot of a mystery play was usually the Passion of Christ, the expectation of the Savior, or the lives of saints. Originally, mysteries were part of church services, but they later moved to the churchyard or cemetery, and then to city squares. They were performed not by professional actors, but by clergy and members of the puy.
Moralities were something between religious and comic theater. In allegorical form, they showed the struggle between good and evil in the world and in the individual. The outcome of this struggle was either the salvation or damnation of the soul.
Performances were announced in advance; posters were hung on city gates, and during the performance, the city was carefully guarded “so that no unknown people could enter the said city on that day,” as stated in a 1390 document preserved in the city hall archive in Tours.
Despite the conventionality of the productions, what happened on stage was entirely fused with reality for the audience, and tragic events were mixed with comic scenes. Spectators often became participants in the action.
Enjoy Wandering Performers
One could also enjoy entertainment without moral lessons, like watching wandering performers. Around the 14th century in France, troupes of professional actors began to form—such as the “Brotherhood of the Passion” and the “Carefree Lads.” Traveling performers—histriones, spielmänner, and jugglers—used all sorts of tricks to amaze and amuse the public. The “Teaching of Troubadour Giro de Calancon to a Juggler” (he lived in the early 13th century) lists a whole range of skills an actor needed:
[He] should play different instruments; juggle balls on two knives, tossing them from one blade to another; show puppets; jump through four hoops; don a fake red beard and costume to dress up and scare fools; train a dog to stand on its hind legs; master the art of a monkey handler; amuse the audience with comical depictions of human weaknesses; run and leap on a rope stretched from one tower to another, making sure it doesn’t give way…
Listen to Music or Poetry
Instrumental music was mainly the domain of jugglers and minstrels, who sang, danced, and performed to the sound of their instruments. Besides various wind instruments (trumpets, horns, flutes, Pan flutes, bagpipes), harps and types of bowed instruments—the ancestors of the future violin, like the crwth, rebab, and vielle or fiddle—were introduced into musical life over time.
Moving from place to place, jugglers performed at festivals in courts, castles, and city squares. Despite church persecution, jugglers and minstrels managed to gain the opportunity to participate in religious performances in the 12th–13th centuries.
In the south of France, lyrical poets were called troubadours, in the north trouvères, and in Germany Minnesingers. The lyric of the Minnesingers belonged to the nobility, heavily influenced by knightly poetry and the love songs of the troubadours. Later, the art of versification in German cities was taken up by the Meistersingers, for whom poetry became a special science.
Like craftsmen, city poets formed societies similar to guilds. In Ypres, Antwerp, Brussels, Ghent, and Bruges, guilds of so-called “rhetoricians”—craftsmen and merchants who took charge of poetry—held festivals. Each guild had its own coat of arms and motto in the form of a charade, as well as a special hierarchical structure: dean, standard-bearer, jester, and other members of the “elder council.” The city authorities funded competitions in poetry and acting, awarding several prizes: for literary achievements, the best jester’s line, the richest costume, and the most magnificent entry into the city.
To Dance
A medieval peasant meal. Image: French National Library
Dance was a favorite pastime for all social classes in medieval society; no celebration was complete without dancing. Jugglers made the dance more complex by adding acrobatic elements, but townspeople loved to move themselves, not just watch the professionals. The church usually opposed such entertainments, and city governments did not always have a favorable attitude towards dancing. However, later on, authorities began to permit dances in city halls, and by the end of the 14th century, so-called dance houses began to appear. A dance house was usually located near or opposite the town hall and church. The loud music and laughter disturbed the pious atmosphere of the parishioners and church staff, causing their displeasure and endless complaints.
In Nördlingen, Bavaria, the dance house was located in a three-story building. During fairs, the ground floor was connected by passages to nearby butcher shops and a tavern, allowing visitors to move between establishments. In buildings with multiple floors, the upper-level halls were typically reserved for burghers of noble origin, while the lower levels were at the disposal of ordinary townspeople. In some cities, the dance house also served as an inn, and in Munich and Regensburg, prisoners were even held in the basement of the “Tanzhaus” (dance house).
Moreover, there were dance houses designed exclusively for commoners: a wooden platform slightly raised above the ground was covered with a roof supported by four columns. Musicians would be positioned on this platform, and men and women would dance in a circle around them. While the nobility preferred measured and ceremonial processional dances and guild festivals featured dances with hoops, swords, and other objects symbolizing artisanal products, the townspeople favored improvisational dances and round dances, which the church considered crude and shameless.
To Visit a Fair
Weekly markets served the townspeople regularly, but fairs were held much less frequently—only once or a few times a year: at Christmas, Easter, or on the feast day of a local saint, the city’s patron or the patrons of trade and craft guilds.
For example, the fair in Saint-Denis, outside the walls of Paris, was held once a year but lasted an entire month. During this time, all trading in Paris ceased and moved to Saint-Denis. Residents flocked there not only to shop but also to marvel at exotic items from distant lands, to watch performances by jugglers, acrobats, and trained bears, and to listen to stories told by merchants who had traveled overseas. The spectacle was so popular that Charlemagne issued a special order to his officials to “ensure that our people perform the work they are required to do by law, rather than waste time wandering through markets and fairs.”
Fairs attracted all sorts of riff-raff, often leading to fights and disturbances. This is why, for a long time, fairs were only allowed in cities where there was a bishop or ruler who could maintain order and resolve disputes between participants. In medieval England, there were even special courts with simplified procedures to ensure quick resolution of cases. These were called “courts of piepowder”—so named in 1471 by the English Parliament, which decreed that all persons associated with fairs were entitled to demand this type of court.
To Participate in a Carnival
Carnival was inseparable from Lent: it was the last multi-day celebration before a long period of abstinence, and it was accompanied by feasts, masquerades, processions, and mock fights with cheeses and sausages. Carnival was a realm of gluttony, chaos, and celebration of all things corporeal. Masks and disguises, half-animal half-human figures, kings of fools, ships of fools, and the election of an “ass pope”—all church and secular rituals were translated into the language of buffoonery, and symbols of authority were publicly mocked. Entire church services and sacred texts were turned upside down. The main events of the carnival took place in churches, although these obscenities had been officially banned with interdicts since the 13th century.
In a message sent by the theological faculty in Paris to the bishops of France in 1445, the carnival was described vividly:
One can see priests and clerics wearing masks and monstrous faces during services. They dance in the choir, dressed as women, pimps, and minstrels.
They sing indecent songs. They eat sausages in the corners of the altar while the priest celebrates Mass. There, too, they play dice. They burn foul-smelling smoke from the soles of old shoes. They jump, run around the church without shame. Then they ride through the city in dirty carts and carriages, making obscene gestures and uttering shameful and filthy words to the laughter of their companions.
During the carnival, anything forbidden on ordinary days was allowed, hierarchies were broken, and established norms were turned upside down—but as soon as the festival ended, life returned to its usual course.
Greeting a Guest or Ruler
Ceremonial entries of emperors, kings, princes, legates, and other lords into their subordinate cities were always laden with a multi-layered symbolic meaning: they reminded people of the nature of power, celebrated victories, and affirmed political dominion over distant territories. These events occurred quite often: in the Middle Ages and even in the Early Modern period, royal courts were itinerant — to maintain power, kings had to constantly move from place to place.
The ceremony consisted of several acts, each strictly regulated. It all began with the greeting of the ruler, often far outside the city; this was followed by the reception of the crowned figure at the city walls, the handing over of the keys, the opening of the city gates, and delegations from the nobility and clergy. From the gates, the procession moved along the main streets of the city, which were strewn with fresh flowers and green branches.
Finally, in the central city square, oxen and game were roasted, and barrels of wine were rolled out for all the townspeople. In 1490, during the entry of Charles VIII into Vienne, a “Fountain of Good and Evil” was installed, which spouted red wine from one side and white wine from the other. Such feasts were intended to embody the image of a fairytale land of abundance, a vision the ruler was expected to present to his subjects at least once.
For the guest, elaborate performances were staged. In 1453, a whole play was performed in Reggio: the city’s patron saint, Saint Prospero, hovered in the air with a host of angels who asked him for the keys to the city to hand them over to the duke, while hymns were sung in his honor. When the procession reached the main square, Saint Peter descended from the church and placed a wreath on the duke’s head.
In the German lands, the sovereign often entered the city surrounded by criminals sentenced to exile, and they didn’t just accompany him in the procession but held onto the edge of his garment, the harness, saddle, or stirrup of his horse — thus allowing them to return to the city. For example, in 1442, King Frederick III ordered eleven people to accompany him to Zurich, and in 1473, thirty-seven to Basel. However, city authorities could expel the criminals again as soon as the ruler left the city.
Watching a Knightly Tournament
The Codex Manesse (also Große Heidelberger Liederhandschrift or Pariser Handschrift) is a Liederhandschrift (manuscript containing songs), the single most comprehensive source of Middle High German Minnesang poetry, written and illustrated between c. 1304 when the main part was completed, and c. 1340 with the addenda
The tournament was a true celebration of martial valor and chivalric honor. Everyone wanted, if not to participate, then at least to watch how the noble youth earned glory and spoils. Initially, the event resembled a mix of a fair and a real battle: participants would clash wall to wall, some receiving serious injuries or even dying, and a diverse crowd gathered around, consisting of not only knights, their squires, foot soldiers, and servants, but also blacksmiths, merchants, money-changers, and onlookers.
Under the influence of chivalric romances, tournaments gradually became more organized, with participants using specialized weapons. Knights would face off in one-on-one duels, and the lists would be fenced off. Stands were built for spectators, each with its own “queen,” and the prize for the best tournament fighter was traditionally awarded by women. In 1364, Francesco Petrarch described the atmosphere of a Venetian joust (from the Italian word giostre — “duel”) as follows:
“Below, there is not a free spot… the vast square, the very temple [of Saint Mark], the towers, the roofs, the porticoes, the windows are not only full but overfilled and crammed: an incredible multitude of people hides the face of the earth, and the joyful, numerous population of the city, spreading around the streets, only increases the merriment.”
Eventually, tournaments turned into a costly and sophisticated courtly entertainment, accompanying various celebrations such as the wedding of a ruler, coronation, or the conclusion of peace or an alliance — along with festive masses, processions, banquets, and balls, most of which were not intended for ordinary townspeople.
The townsfolk responded with a parody “knightly tournament” (often organized during the big carnival at Maslenitsa), where the entire chivalric ritual was turned upside down. A person imitating a knight would ride out for a duel with a basket for a helmet on their head, sitting on an old nag or a barrel, and threaten the opponent with a rake or something from the kitchen instead of a lance. After the event ended, everyone would immediately set off to celebrate with a merry feast.
Participating in Sporting Competitions
The burghers had every opportunity to train and compete in the use of real weapons. For practice, archery societies and fencing schools were organized in Flemish, northern Italian, English, French, and German cities, as well as in Krakow, Kyiv, and Novgorod. Associations of archers and fencers had their own charters and resembled guilds.
Training was conducted in various disciplines, but each city chose a specific type of combat for its competitions. For example, in Spanish cities, preference was given to duels with cold steel and mounted bullfights, in southern England and Novgorod — fistfights, and in German and Flemish cities — fencing and wrestling.
In Italy, the games and competitions of city-republic residents resembled drills. In Pavia, for instance, the townspeople were divided into two groups, given wooden weapons, and wore protective helmets. Prizes were awarded to the winners. In river cities, battles could be staged for the symbolic capture of a bridge. Images of a bustling crowd fighting on such a bridge were a favorite subject of engravings from that era: in the foreground, gondoliers are rescuing those who have fallen into the water, while numerous spectators crowd the windows and roofs of nearby houses.
In England, playing ball was a popular pastime for young men.
Everyone who wished could participate, and there were almost no rules. The ball, stuffed with bran or straw, could be kicked, dribbled with feet, rolled, or carried in hands. The goal of the game was to get the ball across a certain line. In cities, such large-scale skirmishes were fraught with great dangers, and it was no coincidence that in London, Nuremberg, Paris, and other places, restrictions were introduced early on to temper the players’ fervor.
To Play
For those who didn’t enjoy street fun, there were home entertainments. For example, blind man’s buff and “Frog in the Middle.” The rules of the latter game were as follows: a person sat in the center while others taunted and hit them. The goal was to catch one of the players without leaving the circle, and then that person became the “frog.”
There were also calm games: some required players to answer questions from the leaders truthfully, while others involved telling a story. In addition, there was a game called “Saint Cosmas”: one participant took on the role of the saint, and the others knelt before them one by one. The leader had to make the kneeling player laugh by any means, and then that person had to perform some task.
By the Middle Ages, checkers, chess, dice, and even cards had become popular. Chess was a pastime for the nobility, and chessboards made of wood or metal were considered luxury items, often true works of art.
The rules for playing cards varied. For example, one participant would draw a card from the deck, and everyone present would bet money on it. If three or four cards of the same suit were drawn in a row, the player who drew the first card would win all the money bet on it.
But the most popular game was dice. This game was enjoyed by all social classes — in huts, castles, taverns, and even monasteries — with people losing money, clothes, horses, and homes. Many complained that they had lost everything they owned in this game. Moreover, there were frequent cases of cheating, especially with fake dice: some had magnetic surfaces, others had the same side reproduced twice, and others had a side weighted with lead. As a result, numerous disputes arose, sometimes even escalating into private wars.
To Go to the Bathhouse and Have a Good Drink
In most medieval cities, there were public bathhouses. In Paris at the end of the 13th century, there were 26 bathhouses, half a century later in Nuremberg — 12, in Erfurt — 10, in Vienna — 29, and in Wrocław — 12. Visiting a bathhouse was not limited solely to hygiene; rather, it was a place for entertainment, pleasure, and socializing. After bathing, visitors participated in receptions and dinners, played ball games, chess, dice, drank, and danced.
In German cities, wine merchants rolled wine barrels to the streets near the bathhouses, set up stools around them, brought out mugs, and offered wine to anyone who wanted to try it. An immediate drinking party would form on the street, so city councils were forced to ban this custom. Exceptions were made only for a few days a year, such as St. Martin’s Day when it was customary to open new wine. But on those days, people stood, sat, and lay in the streets — drinking wine.
Despite prohibitions from the authorities and the church, some bathhouses and adjacent taverns took on the character of brothels: in addition to food and drink, citizens could also enjoy massages and services from prostitutes, who were often referred to as “bath attendants.”
In general, although prostitution was condemned by the church, it was considered an inevitable phenomenon. “Women’s houses,” or “reputable houses,” belonged to noble families, merchants, royal officials, and even bishops and abbots, and the most prestigious of them were often located near the magistrate’s or courthouse. In the High Middle Ages, visiting a brothel by unmarried men was not considered shameful — it was seen rather as a sign of health and well-being.
To Rest by the City Fountain
Not all townspeople could afford to have a separate garden or water feature built behind their home; many lived in rented rooms, cubicles, and annexes. Water for household use was drawn from a public well or fountain located in the square, usually not far from the church. In the Late Middle Ages, these fountains served not only as decorations and sources of drinking water but also as meeting places and promenades for the townspeople.
To Watch an Execution
An execution site could be located outside the city, across the moat, on the square, or even in front of the victim’s house, but the execution was always a public event. The place and time of the execution, as well as the route of the criminal, were known in advance to all townspeople. Heralds summoned the spectators. The optimal time was considered to be noon, and often the authorities held executions on market days to ensure the maximum crowd, although not on religious holidays.
The crowd gathered around the criminal gradually as the procession moved through the city.
The entire punishment ritual was designed for spectators, a slow theatrical performance meant to involve the surrounding public in the ceremony. In some cases, the criminal was given the right to duel with the executioner, and people could assist in their release. This happened in Saint-Quentin in 1403 when, during the struggle, the executioner fell to the ground, and the townspeople demanded that the royal provost release the victor. Spectators monitored the precise execution of the ritual and could demand a retrial if something went wrong.
The bodies of criminals were forbidden to be buried in cemeteries, and their corpses remained on the gallows for many years until they completely decomposed, serving as a warning to those wandering around.
Even contemporaries of the early 17th-century events referred to them as the “Time of Troubles.” The word “troubled” (смутный) in pre-Petrine Russia had, as it does now, negative connotations: anxious, chaotic, full of discord, turbulent, and so on. It very accurately describes this period: a time of deep crisis in both governmental institutions and Russian statehood. Russia experienced a Polish military intervention, and the first civil war began.
This period can be compared to the beginning of the 20th century: it is no coincidence that General Anton Ivanovich Denikin, a contemporary of the October Revolution and the Civil War of 1917–1922, titled his memoirs written in exile “Essays on the Russian Troubles.”
Later in Russia, other political upheavals of the “rebellious” 17th century were also called “times of troubles.” Unlike the preceding and following centuries, the 17th century was full of political upheavals—not only the Troubles and the Razin rebellion but also numerous urban uprisings, streltsy (musketeer) revolts, and so on.
However, in historical memory, the term “Time of Troubles” or simply “Troubles” (with a capital “T”) became associated with the period from 1605 to 1612—from the accession of False Dmitry I to the surrender of the Polish garrison in the Kremlin. Nevertheless, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact beginning and end of the Time of Troubles, so other chronological boundaries are also legitimate.
Is Ivan the Terrible to Blame for Everything?
Reducing the causes of the Troubles to the personality of Ivan the Terrible alone is unjust, as various factors provoked it. However, it cannot be denied that many of these factors resulted from his reign.
It is not by chance that Russian writings often begin the narrative of the Time of Troubles with the death of Ivan the Terrible, even though he died much earlier, in 1584.
Ivan IV spent considerable effort creating Russian autocracy, characterized by the sole and unlimited power of the monarch. The results of his nearly half-century reign included both obviously positive innovations and negative consequences. Notably, there was no clear mechanism for transferring state power if the dynasty ended.
Ivan died, passing the throne to his son, Fyodor Ivanovich, a man openly incapable; it was already clear during his father’s life that he was unlikely to leave offspring. One of the key causes of the Time of Troubles was the dynastic crisis following the death in 1598 of Tsar Fyodor, the last of the Rurikids, and it was quite predictable. Nevertheless, as far as is known, Ivan left no instructions in case of such a development.
Furthermore, many of Ivan IV’s domestic and foreign policy decisions severely damaged Russia’s economy. Primarily, this concerns the Oprichnina and the Livonian War, the longest in the country’s history (it lasted 25 years). The consequences of the Oprichnina’s violent land redistribution, accompanied by numerous crimes and bloody excesses, and the exhausting war with significant economic and human losses, which ultimately yielded no positive results, affected Russia for many years after the Tsar’s death.
Was Tsarevich Dmitry Really Murdered?
Tsarevich Dmitry by Mikhail Nesterov (1899)
It is difficult to give a definitive answer to this question. Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible and the last representative of the male line of the Moscow branch of the Rurik dynasty, died in Uglich on May 15, 1591, at the age of 8. Among the people, the version that he was murdered became immediately popular, and the crime was supposedly organized by the Tsar’s favorite, Boyar Boris Godunov, who was counting on taking the throne after the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the elder half-brother of the young prince. At the same time, rumors began to spread that the Tsarevich had actually survived and gone into hiding.
The Boyar Duma, which included Godunov, ordered an official investigation by sending a commission to Uglich, led by Boyar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. After interrogating dozens of witnesses, the commission concluded that Tsarevich Dmitry had died accidentally, having fallen onto a knife during a game with his peers (a game similar to the modern knife game or “swiping,” as described in 19th-century ethnographic literature).
The commission also determined that rumors of his murder by Godunov’s agents—and the resulting unrest among the townspeople, who tore apart three of Godunov’s associates suspected of the murder—were provoked by the boyar’s ill-wishers. The investigation file from 1591 is kept in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts and is the oldest document of its kind in Russia to have survived to this day.
Nevertheless, the seemingly legally sound conclusions of the investigative commission convinced few. Many continued to consider Boris Godunov a murderer; others believed in the miraculous escape of the Tsarevich. The first circumstance greatly damaged Godunov’s reputation, forever tainting him with suspicion of regicide, while the second led to the appearance of several impostors claiming to be “Tsarevich Dmitry” during the Time of Troubles.
So, Was Boris Godunov a Villain, or Is He Being Demonized?
The delegation of the Zemsky Sobor marches to the Ipatievsky Monastery to inform Mikhail Fedorovich about its election (17th century). Image: Wikimedia
If he was a villain, the evidence from his reign does not confirm it. After Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich died in 1598 and the Rurik dynasty ended, Godunov was elected Russian Tsar at the Zemsky Sobor, and he ruled until his death in 1605.
Compared to the despotic Ivan the Terrible and the helpless reign of his son Fyodor, Godunov seemed to his contemporaries like an effective statesman, successfully handling both foreign and domestic policies. Modern historians also describe him as an extraordinary figure who did much to overcome the consequences of the Oprichnina and Russia’s international isolation under Ivan the Terrible.
However, in almost all writings from the Time of Troubles, Godunov is evaluated extremely negatively, and this is due to reasons beyond his control.
The 1598 election was an unprecedented event in Russian history, and the legitimacy of this procedure, about which we know little, was highly questionable to contemporaries: everyone was used to the idea that one could be born a tsar but not elected one. The third tsarist election, in 1613, which made Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov the tsar, notably did not cause such doubts—the procedure had become accepted. Additionally, Godunov’s reputation was affected by persistent rumors of his involvement in the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry.
Moreover, during Boris Fyodorovich’s reign, a series of natural disasters caused crop failures in Russia, followed by mass famine, epidemics, increased vagrancy, crime, and other calamities. Contemporaries saw these Troubles as divine punishment for the sins of the Russian people, focusing primarily on the sins of the ruler—seemingly imagined ones. This perception firmly established Boris Godunov’s reputation as a villain.
Who Were the False Dmitrys, How Many Were There, and Why Did People Believe in Them?
There were three known individuals who claimed to be the deceased Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich: a greater concentration of impostors than in any other period in Russian history. The first was Grigory Otrepyev, a runaway monk from the Chudov Monastery in the Moscow Kremlin (hence, in Russian texts from the Time of Troubles, he was called Rasstriga, meaning “deprived of holy orders”). In 1604, an official investigation initiated by Boris Godunov identified his identity.
In 1603, he fled to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where he presented himself as the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry. A year later, he set out for Moscow with armed supporters to claim the “father’s throne” and unexpectedly received support and recognition from almost all segments of society.
Garrisons in most border fortresses surrendered without a fight, and the army, upon learning of Godunov’s death, swore allegiance to “Tsarevich Dmitry” instead of Boris’s heir, Fyodor Godunov. In 1605, False Dmitry I was crowned in the Dormition Cathedral of the Kremlin, but he died a year later during a city uprising. In May 1606, the townspeople and the army killed part of the Poles who had come to the impostor’s wedding with Marina Mnishek and killed False Dmitry himself. Contemporaries attributed the “people’s wrath” to the inappropriate behavior of the “Poles” who did not respect Russian traditions. A Zemsky Sobor hastily convened in June elected the boyar Vasily Shuisky as the new tsar.
There is no reliable information about the true identity of the second impostor “Tsarevich” or his real name; we only know that he claimed to be the saved False Dmitry I. Russian contemporaries called False Dmitry II the Tushino thief: in 1608–1609, his supporters’ camp—those who had supported the previous impostor, along with Polish mercenary detachments—was located in the village of Tushino near Moscow. At the end of 1609, losing the trust of most “Tushinites,” he fled to Kaluga, where he was killed in early 1610.
The last False Dmitry was called either Sidorka or Matyushka. He appeared in 1610 in the Pskov region, hence his nickname Pskov thief, claiming to be the saved False Dmitry II and attracting his supporters to his side. In 1612, he was arrested by the people of Pskov. The further fate of False Dmitry III is unknown: either he was executed in Moscow, or he was killed on the way to the capital.
The success of these impostors was due to distrust of the central authority and its official information, a result of a deep socio-political crisis in Russian society.
Who Was Marina Mnishek? Was She Truly a “Gray Cardinal” Behind the False Dmitrys?
A “gray cardinal” is usually considered a behind-the-scenes yet powerful political player. It is doubtful that Marina Mnishek was such a player, although she certainly played a role in the events of the Time of Troubles. In 1603, Marina Mnishek, the daughter of Polish magnate Yuri (Jerzy) Mnishek, met Grigory Otrepyev at her father’s castle in Sambor, where the impostor was hiding. In 1606, after False Dmitry’s enthronement in Moscow, they married, but a week after the wedding, Grigory was killed.
The new tsar, Vasily Shuisky, sent Marina back to her homeland, but somehow, finding herself in the camp of the Tushino thief False Dmitry II, Mnishek publicly recognized him as her husband and even bore him a son. When False Dmitry II was killed in 1610 and the Tushino camp disbanded, Mnishek fled to southern Russia with a band of Cossacks, but in the summer of 1614, the army of the newly elected Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov captured her near Astrakhan. She died in captivity in Kolomna in 1614.
When assessing Marina Mnishek’s political influence, it is important to remember that we do not always know how independent her actions were. Her marriage to False Dmitry I could not have been concluded at her will—it required the sanction of her father and the Polish king. It is unclear how Marina Mnishek ended up in the entourage of False Dmitry II: it could have been a voluntary step or a direct abduction by the Tushino thief, who needed to confirm his legitimacy. It is also unknown whether she wanted to flee south or if this was the decision of the Cossacks surrounding her.
What Was the Involvement of the Poles in the Time of Troubles, and How Did They End Up in Russia?
Historians of the Early Modern and Modern periods refer to the subjects of King Sigismund III Vasa of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as “Poles.” Among them were ethnic Polish Catholics, as well as Orthodox Lithuanians (szlachta) and Cherkasy (Cossacks).
The Polish intervention was preceded by constant conflicts between Russia and its western neighbor, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, over border territories (particularly Smolensk). While Russia was an absolute monarchy, in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, royal power was significantly limited by the aristocracy, or magnateria, as it was called in Old Polish, as well as by the Sejm, the representative body of the nobility with broad powers.
Sigismund III sympathized with False Dmitry I, but the pretender did not actually receive support from him for his campaign against Moscow in 1604–1605, as the Sejm opposed it. False Dmitry I took the throne due to the crisis in Russia, not with the help of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
After the death of the first pretender, a civil war began (1606–1610) with two centers of power: in Moscow, led by Tsar Vasily Shuisky, and in Tushino, where False Dmitry II was located with his supporters. Among them were units of the Polish nobility under the command of hetmans, who came to Tushino as mercenaries. Unable to deal with the “Tushino people” on his own, Tsar Vasily Shuisky entered into an agreement with Sweden, which also had tense relations with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and in 1609 invited a detachment of Swedish mercenaries. Sigismund and the Sejm regarded this agreement as anti-Polish, which became the pretext for the Polish-Lithuanian army’s attack on Russia and the siege of Smolensk.
In the summer of 1610, the Moscow boyars deposed Tsar Vasily Shuisky and sent a delegation to Sigismund near Smolensk to invite his son, Prince Władysław, to the Moscow throne. After two unsuccessful attempts (Godunov and Shuisky), the boyars agreed not to elect a tsar from “among their own.” At this point, the Polish units near Moscow received the status of the army of the future Russian tsar, and one of them ended up in Moscow.
However, negotiations with Sigismund reached an impasse: the king likely decided to claim the Russian throne himself, and the negotiations were essentially going nowhere. In 1611, a liberation army, known as the Second Militia, was formed in Nizhny Novgorod, led by Prince Dmitry Pozharsky and zemstvo elder Kuzma Minin. The Second Militia marched to liberate Moscow, and on November 2, 1612, the Polish garrison surrendered. However, the intervention did not end there. In 1618, the Poles launched another campaign against Moscow, still hoping to place Prince Władysław on the throne, but they were defeated. The Polish intervention ended with a truce, which was concluded shortly thereafter in the village of Deulino.
Did Minin and Pozharsky Really Do Something Important?
The sources leave no doubt that they played a crucial role in liberating Russia from the Polish intervention and ending the Time of Troubles. Of course, the military victories and the restoration of order in the state were not solely their achievements.
There was no legitimate ruler in the country; it was devastated, and Polish intervention continued on its territory. In these circumstances, the idea of forming an army to end the Time of Troubles, liberate Moscow, and convene a Zemsky Sobor (Assembly of the Land) to elect a new tsar arose in Nizhny Novgorod in 1611. Under the leadership of Kuzma Minin, the zemstvo elder, who, according to some sources, was also a meat merchant, the people of Nizhny Novgorod raised funds to maintain military units and sent letters across the country calling for people to join their cause.
Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, an aristocrat and courtier who had served in command positions in the army, was recovering from wounds received in battles with the Poles in his village near Nizhny Novgorod at this time. A delegation from Nizhny Novgorod approached him with a request to take command of the militia and lead it to Moscow, and, as is well known, the plan succeeded.
Who Was Ivan Susanin, and Is It True That He Gave His Life for the Tsar?
Crowd at the Ipatievsky Monastery in 1613 imploring Mikhail Romanov’s mother to let him go to Moscow and become a tsar (17th century)
There is little information about the real Ivan Susanin, but it does exist. According to it, Susanin was a serf peasant, possibly the village elder of Domnino, located 60 kilometers from Kostroma, who was widowed by 1613 and had a son-in-law, daughter, and grandchildren (who were the recipients of the first royal charter). Knowing that Tsar Mikhail Romanov was in Kostroma, Susanin, subjected to terrible torture, refused to show the way to the city and was killed for it.
Ivan Susanin’s feat in the 18th–19th centuries in the Russian Empire was elevated to an official patriotic cult and acquired many unreliable details (which, however, does not negate the fact of his deed). For example, these events are presented quite differently in Mikhail Glinka’s opera “A Life for the Tsar,” renamed “Ivan Susanin” during Soviet times. In it, in the winter of 1613, a Polish detachment heads to Kostroma to kill Mikhail Romanov, elected by the Zemsky Sobor as tsar. The Poles take the local peasant Ivan Susanin as their guide, who leads the “Lyakhs” into the forest thicket and at the cost of his life saves the young tsar from death. No documents confirming this version of events exist.
How Did the Time of Troubles End?
It is difficult to pinpoint the end of the Time of Troubles to a single date or year. Several key events marked the end of the Troubles. Perhaps the most important of these was the unanimous election of a new tsar, Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov, by the Zemsky Sobor in Moscow and his coronation with the Monomakh’s Cap in the summer of 1613 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin.
This established a new ruling dynasty in Russia, accepted by the vast majority of subjects, and ended the civil war.
The end of foreign intervention—military actions on Russian territory continued even after the new tsar’s election—came in 1619 with two peace agreements: the aforementioned Deulino Truce with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Treaty of Stolbovo with the Swedish Kingdom.
However, despite Mikhail Fyodorovich being elected tsar, Sigismund III refused to recognize the decisions of the Zemsky Sobor as legitimate: he held a document from the Boyar Duma, issued three years earlier in 1610, offering the throne to his son, Prince Władysław. The matter was finally settled in 1634 during negotiations in Polyanovka, when Władysław, who by then had become King Władysław IV Vasa, received a compensation of 20,000 rubles in silver from Moscow and officially renounced his claims to the Moscow throne.
