The capture of Thessaloniki by the Normans of Sicily in 1185 dealt a severe blow to the Byzantine Empire. The inhabitants fiercely defended the city. Archbishop Eusthathios of Thessaloniki provided a lively first-hand account of the siege in The capture of Thessaloniki. He recounted the women’s active participation in the defense:
“It was not only men but women also who were overcome by martial fury. Some of these did nothing out of the ordinary, if we allow for the fact that they worked to the limits of their endurance throughout each day. They brought up stones for the machines and for the slingers, and carried water, not only those who were young women in their prime, but those whom age had made slow, and who were already tottering in the direction of the grave, into which we shall all fall in the end.
But others equipped themselves for battle, making up imitation breastplates from rags and rushes, and swathing their heads with spiralling headdresses, pretending to be soldiers; and loading themselves with stones suitable for throwing by hand, they made their way to the walls and hurled them at the enemy as best they could. These women proved the ancient story of the Amazons, and allowed no doubt of its truth. In fact they even surpassed the fame of those women of ancient times whom we know to have helped their fellow-citizens by cutting off the tresses of their heads and making cords from their hair because of the exigencies of war: our women offered not the locks of their hair, but their lives."
wish i was publius clodius pulcher tr pl 58 bc. would've been so fun torturing cicero would've felt amazing to invade his house would've commissioned someone to write monthly gossip suspiciously centered around all his embarrassing failures and displayed it at the grain/bread stalls
The mother of the last two Byzantine emperors, Helena Dragaš (c. 1372–1450) was a driving political force during the empire’s final years.
The Serbian bride
Helena was the daughter of the Serbian ruler Constantine Dragaš. In 1391, she married Emperor Manuel II, who had remained a bachelor until then. Helena was therefore much younger than him. Manuel II had long opposed marriage, fearing that having a wife and family would make him vulnerable in those troubled times. However, his influential mother, Helena Kantakouzene, convinced him to marry.
The union was celebrated in Constantinople with a splendid ceremony. In addition to sealing a strategic alliance, Manuel II gained a wife he could rely on. Helena indeed possessed great spiritual strength, and there are no negative comments about her in sources from the period.
Their relationship appears to have been harmonious. Manuel II had fathered illegitimate children before his marriage, but none are recorded afterward. Helena became the mother of a large family: six of her sons survived into adulthood. Four other children died in infancy, including two daughters whose names were never recorded.
A long wait
The empire was facing a difficult situation, particularly because of the threat posed by Bayezid I. By 1399, the imperial family had endured five years under siege in Constantinople. Manuel II therefore decided to seek help from European rulers. Before leaving, he sent his family to the Peloponnese.
Manuel II’s journey failed to secure the support he hoped for. However, the arrival of Timur and the crushing defeat he inflicted upon the sultan temporarily relieved the empire of that danger.
In the decades that followed, Helena remained a discreet presence. She was likely occupied with managing the large imperial household. Nevertheless, she became an influential figure during the final years of Manuel II’s reign, particularly in diplomacy.
The empress mother
After the death of Manuel II in 1425, Helena became a nun under the name Hypomone, meaning “patience.” Yet she did not withdraw from political life. Her influence increased during the reign of her son John VIII. Helena’s sons seem to have held her in particularly high esteem. Foreign representatives, for instance, wrote separately to both the emperor and his mother, as her support was considered essential. Helena established herself as a key figure in political affairs.
A devoted Orthodox Christian, Helena opposed her son’s desire to seek a union with the Western Church in hopes of securing military assistance. Nevertheless, she agreed to mediate with anti-Unionists and summoned a council, convincing them to participate in the council of Ferrara. This demonstrates her stabilizing influence.
When John VIII left for Italy in 1437, Helena took part in governing the city in his absence. Despite the distance, the emperor continued to seek her counsel on various matters. When John VIII returned, Helena bore the difficult responsibility of informing him that his beloved wife, Maria of Trebizond, had died.
Securing the throne
When John VIII died in 1448, Helena played a crucial role in securing the crown for her son, the future Constantine XI. Constantine seems to have felt deep affection and respect for his mother, as he styled himself “Constantine Dragaš Palaiologos.” He was the only one of Helena’s sons to use his mother’s family name, even though Helena herself had abandoned it after marrying into the imperial dynasty.
Standing beside her son and more powerful than ever, Helena was even compared to a co-emperor. She persuaded Constantine to remove the name of John VIII from liturgical commemorations. John’s policy of pursuing union with the Western Church had indeed been deeply unpopular. Helena perhaps hoped to distance Constantine XI from his predecessor. However, her son would later realize that such a policy had become necessary.
Helena died in 1450, three years before the conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmed II. She was deeply mourned and unanimously praised. As Constantine XI was unmarried at that time, she became the last Byzantine empress to sit upon the throne.
If you enjoy this blog, consider supporting me on Ko-fi!
Further reading:
Marjanović-Dušanić Smilja, “Hélène Dragaš, princesse serbe et impératrice de Byzance”, in: Impératrices, princesses, aristocrates et saintes souveraines
Melichar Petra, Empress of Late Byzantium
Philippides Marios, Constantine XI Dragaš Palaeologus (1404-1453): The Last Emperor of Byzantium
28 MAY 1445: The marriage of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou.
On Friday May the Twenty Eighth, fifteen year old Margaret of Anjou, daughter of Duke Rene of Anjou married the twenty three year old Henry VI. The young royal was received with great pomp and ceremony as she made her way to London. Two days later she was crowned Queen of England.
Cotton. Vesp. F. xiii. f.. 49 containing the inscription: thys boke ys myn elysabeth the kyngs dawghtyr (this book is mine elizabeth the king's daughter) written by Elizabeth of York
Cotton. Vesp. F. xiii. f.. 49 containing the inscription: thys boke ys myn elysabeth the kyngs dawghtyr (this book is mine elizabeth the king's daughter) written by Elizabeth of York
Monastic, mercenary, mage - a truly fantastical tale of the Middle Ages.
"The Romance of Eustace the Monk is at times colourful and taking artistic liberties as it is based on real world history. Although the Romance stretches the limits of belief, the adventures of this outlaw, who bafflingly performed the contradictory paths of pirate captain and Benedictine monk, are attested with other documentary evidence in the form of close rolls, patent rolls, and charters.
... Whatever the truth of Eustace, (the fact is hard to decipher from fiction), the Romance has it that Eustace was commanded by the devil to hurt as many people as possible and wage war on Kings and counts alike. This he did to no avail. His deeds went beyond simple practical jokes on monkish brothers or polite pirating as the tale depicts him in a very dark and dastardly light, labelling him at one of his lowest moments as “that fake monk of a pissing whore”. Yet despite his evil, reading the Romance it strikes me he’s almost a Flashman-esque anti-hero. He’s no Robin Hood, as he’s certainly not motivated with noble intent, but he’s an outlaw we root for regardless."
Since people loved my "Preindustrial travel times" post so much, I decided to repost my "Realistic warhorses" info separately from the original link, where it was a response to "how to get the feel of realistic combat."
--
The original link is here.
The "Warhorse" post on my blog, plus a recent addition, is here.
And here's the text for people who want to go down my "grown up horse-girl" rabbit hole right away!
Medieval Warhorses:
First of all: DESTRIERS WERE NOT DRAFT HORSES. Horse/military historians are begging people to stop putting their fantasy knights on Shires, Belgians, and other massive, chunky farm-horses! The best known instance of “a knight needs to get lifted onto their 18-hand draft horse” is a SATIRE (A Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, if I remember right), but somehow laymen decided to take it seriously.
Hell, I think the film’s historians knew that this was extremely inaccurate and begged the director not to do it.
--
For the purposes of this post, I will not get into the different TYPES OF WARHORSES. That is a hyper-fixation for another day, lol.
—
First problem with “Draft horses as warhorses:”
The bulk of modern-day “breeds” are far too recent for a medieval or medieval-fantasy story. Modern horse “breeds” began around the 1700s-1800s, so that’s in the EXTREMELY late-medieval/early-modern period. Before that, most medieval horses were referred to by “TYPE/PURPOSE” and maybe a “Country/Region.” “Spanish/Iberian horses” (the ancestors of modern-day Andalusians, Carthusians, and Lusitanos) were overwhelmingly popular for combat, and other baroque horses were also esteemed.
Destriers are physically average-height at 15 hands high (about 5 feet tall at the shoulder/withers), but the important part is that they are STACKED at 1200-1300lbs when most 15-hand horses are only 900-1000lbs, so that’s a quarter to a third more weight in muscle.
And remember, muscle will not make a given horse look “chubby!” Good ways to get across a warhorse’s muscles in writing is 1) how ROCK SOLID they are when you touch them, 2) their chiseled shoulders, necks, and butts, and 2) when they get into motion, especially for a fight, their muscles will flex and get REALLY defined. The three regions I mentioned are usually the most visible if they’ve got horse tack or a rider on them.
Think of the difference between “regular horse” and “destrier” as “regular Tom Hardy, who looks fit but normal,” versus “Tom Hardy playing Bane, where he put on thirty pounds and his torso and arms look like a fucking tree-trunk.”
Warhorses had nerves of steel, and the best-trained warhorses used could sprint and turn on a dime–they’ve been called “the sports cars of the medieval world.” This is a far cry from huge, sweet, and lumbering draft horses.
Besides Spanish horses, modern-day candidates for destriers would be European cobs (heavier all-purpose horses, large Welsh cobs are the best-known modern breed), and Foundation Quarter Horses (working/stock horses that can herd cattle and race and actually USE their muscles, not the bloated halter-horses who are mostly bred to look “good” to judges).
—
But if the destrier was supposed to be the horse equivalent of “Tom Hardy as Bane” and not “The Mountain from Game of Thrones,” then how could they carry a knight’s armor as well as their own?
First of all, human combat armor is different from JOUSTING armor and it is easily half the weight for better mobility. Warhorses from proper medieval times aren’t shown wearing much horse-armor, even in jousting. The stuff you see in museums is also frequently the custom-made armor for wealthy nobles, who either 1) wore it once or twice a year for public celebrations, which is also why the armor’s in pristine condition instead of dented and bloody like combat armor would be, or 2) wore it because they were rich enough to not want themselves OR their expensive horses to die too soon in combat.
Assuming that all destriers needed to carry 150lbs for an adult armored man, PLUS another 150lbs of the horse’s riding tack and armor, is like people from the years 2500-3000 assuming that everyone with a “car” must have a Lamborghini or a Ferrari that takes up a lot of maintenance (if you want to keep it looking nice, at least) and can go 200 miles per hour.
So the vast majority of realistic warhorses/destriers didn’t get much if any armor, because 1) horse-armor is for princes and dukes, not Count Whoever’s third son or his nephew that he tossed out on adulthood with barely any money, and 2) horse-armor is going to weigh down your FAST and NIMBLE warhorse. (Remember: Knights wanted sports cars, not tanks!) Take a look at the horses and knights of the website called “Destrier!” Most horses there aren’t notably tall, and they mostly wear head-armor and fancy but not heavy horse-tack like capes, instead of full barding.
Another reason average/short warhorses were preferred is for medieval safety issues: You wanted to mount your horse from the ground without help. The famous knight Jean Le Maingre was so dedicated to fighting that he could VAULT onto his horse in armor, without touching the stirrups. His instructions are, essentially, “put on your armor, find your horse, put your hands on the horse’s back/saddle, and FUCKING JUMP.”
Unless you’re seven feet tall or a gymnast, you’re not jumping onto an 18-hand draft horse.
So all those Red Dead Redemption animations where you get to alley-oop your way onto your loyal steed? POSSIBLE, IF YOU ARE CRAZY/ANGRY ENOUGH.
Quick note: In ancient Ireland, they refer to a “steed-leap” that nobles, warriors, and other “people rich enough to own RIDING horses” were trained to use–with the important distinction that Gaelic nobles often took pride in either using saddles without stirrups, or NOT USING SADDLES TO PUT ANY STIRRUPS ON. So the bulk of Gaelic Irish nobles could theoretically go Red Dead Redemption on your ass.
—
And the third reason most combat-ready warhorses didn’t get armor is because infantry (the vast majority of most medieval armies) just had a low chance of hitting them in the first place.
First of all, most horses are already faster than people. Destriers were EXCEPTIONALLY fast as the cream of the crop. For the horse to need armor, someone needs a good chance of hitting the horse.
Second, most horses are hard to kill physically because horses don’t tend to like getting stabbed or shot at, so they will likely try to kill YOU, which means that a knight and his horse are TWO fighters who are both very angry and very protective of each other. Most people love their horses, and many combatants share intense bonds! IMAGINE IF YOUR HORSE IS ALSO YOUR SQUAD-MATE!
And last of all, most horses are hard to kill mentally because when you want to use cavalry, you ALSO want the other side’s infantry to get consumed by panic and bolt for their lives, away from their companions and AWAY FROM THE CHARGING HORSES. (Which routinely leads to a slaughter, often called a “rout” in period literature, or a “curb-stomp battle” on TV Tropes.) While most knights could dish out one-on-one duels against EACH OTHER, a knight against a foot-soldier is going to have a huge and explicitly unfair advantage if the soldier is not specifically trained and equipped to take them on.
See, when you get a herd of knights on their steeds, the noise and the wave of horseflesh charging at you is going to make your reptile-brain instincts scream “NOPE NOPE NOPE, WE GOTTA GO!!!”
That instinct is so strong that infantry ACTORS in movies–who know that this is not a real war, and the riders don’t actually want to kill them–still routinely break formation and run.
It was possible to stop cavalry with infantry and end up slaughtering them instead of getting routed–it was just extremely notable.
Also, unless you’re specifically going for blood: You don’t WANT to slaughter a whole formation of knights! That means you’ve just pissed away a WHOLE lot of money that the knights represent!
You killed the horses that you could have used for your own side, and possibly bred for more high-end horses! You ruined the armor that you could have used for your own side, or at least melted down for high-quality, already-mined metal! You killed the knights that you could have sweetened up and used for your own side–or more likely, told their families to pay you if they wanted them home intact.
Barely anyone remembers that knights were as good for HOSTAGES as they were for actually fighting. (Except for Game of Thrones, and it’s still only plot-relevant for Jaime Lannister and Theon Greyjoy, and they explicitly did NOT get the protection a noble hostage should have.) It’s noted that Agincourt was a GREAT ending for England because capturing all those French nobles earned them TWENTY YEARS’ WORTH of regular income in ransoms. If they hadn’t won and gotten all that sweet, sweet French money, they would have been bankrupted and depopulated instead.
—
Two more strikes I’d feel are appropriate for “not wanting draft-type horses in combat:”
-Logistics 1: Too much food, too much hassle. Horses are already notorious for eating a lot, and a DRAFT horse that’s 2000lbs instead of 1200lbs will eat twice as much. No army wants to use their fodder for only half the number of horses they’d expect.
-Logistics 2: Too much hair, too much hassle. Shires and other British horses often have feathering on their legs, and anyone with long hair knows that loose hair/fur is a fucking PAIN. You can braid a horse’s mane and tail, but if you’re one of the many average/poor knights who DON’T have servants to take care of your horse for you, do you want to spend extra time cleaning and combing out your horse’s LEGS instead of necessary things? Like feeding them, grooming them, and checking for wounds? Nope, you’ll probably shave the feathering off or just pick a horse that doesn’t have it.
-Extra note on Friesian horses, who are RIDICULOUSLY common in “medieval” movies: Friesian horses are technically baroque horses in body form (Strong-boned! Big necks and butts!), but they’re also over-used in general, so most horse folks are sick of seeing them in movies. And if you don’t have the right kind of MODERN Friesian, you’ll probably be a laughingstock in addition to an eye-roll.
Some strains of modern Friesians are from carriage-horse lines, often referred to as “big movers.” This means “fun to LOOK AT, but terrible to RIDE.” Because, you know, those strains of Friesians weren’t meant for riding, but for PULLING CARRIAGES. Their movements are big, dramatic, and flashy… and their trot is notorious for bouncing people out of the saddle with every step. Not something you want for a knight who fills his opponents with terror.
A good riding horse’s movements are usually smooth and low to the ground, often described as “floating” and “effortless.”
—
A horse-note that I can’t figure out where to put: Many Western cultures love the idea of fiery stallions (intact male horses) for their noble knights and kings to ride into battle on, but realistically, stallions are only half of a given horse population. Many Western stallions are also gelded if they’re not the cream of the crop (which is probably at least the bottom half of the male horse population). So mares can be used by at least half of a realistic formation who just wants a warhorse, and doesn’t care about aesthetics or masculinity.
Also, mares can be ruthless and stallions can be nervous wrecks! Horses are living creatures, with personalities and feelings!
Horses also aren’t very sexually dimorphic, so a 1200lb war mare is DEFINITELY a match for a 1300lb war stallion. And remember how Loras Tyrell used a mare in heat to distract The Mountain’s stallion? That happens with a lot of stallions… almost like they’re living creatures, with instincts that they can’t always control! So if you know when your girl is ready to go every month, you can play dirty in a joust, too!
Just remember that you’re taking an equal risk, since your mare will possibly try to let a stallion mount her instead of fighting. You will either need to bail when she starts making googly-eyes, or you need to know you have ABSOLUTE loyalty from her, and she will listen to YOU instead of “the hot dude I just met five minutes ago!” HORSES ARE LIVING CREATURES, WITH INSTINCTS THAT THEY CAN’T ALWAYS CONTROL.
Then geldings will be used by at least another quarter of “the knights who cannot afford a horse good enough to keep his testicles,” so that leaves “a quarter or less” of knights who can realistically be mounted on stallions.
WORSE NEWS: If you geld a stallion too late (usually once they’re MOSTLY physically mature at 4-5 years old), that risk may never go away–so you’ve got a gelding who’s not breeding quality, but he’s still chasing mares in heat and fighting other stallions in turf battles, without understanding that he can no longer make babies!
On the other hand, some cultures don’t geld stallions because they view it as unnecessary or outright unnatural… but they also don’t want half the horse population distracted by pretty mares, or fighting with other stallions who walk by the pasture, so those cultures breed them to be sweet and easily managed (outside of battle, at least).
In short: ALL HORSES HAVE POTENTIAL TO BE WARHORSES, WHETHER THEY HAVE BALLS OR NOT.
—
Update, Feb 2 – Another day to expand on that “Different types of warhorses” mention!
Much like the common misconception of “all knights must be at least 6 feet tall and have 200 pounds of muscle” varied in real life due to genetics, cultural values, and logistics problems, the assumption that “all knights MUST have top-quality destriers that cost seven times the price of a normal horse” was not the case for the vast majority of “knights.”
Knights would have either “the best horse they could AFFORD” or “the best horse FOR THEIR SPECIALTY.”
A poor knight, or one of the early Middle Ages, would have “one horse that they’re with all the time;” that horse may not be pretty or come from fancy breeding lines, but they would get the job done and most definitely be taken care of. A wealthy knight of the later Middle Ages, when everything got more expensive and status more codified and finicky, would have two or three horses–one horse for warfare and one for regular riding, with the really wealthy knights having a third packhorse to carry all their stuff. (Moreover, they would have at least one servant to help take care of three horses.)
A muscled sprinter like a destrier is better in tight quarters and for short bursts of speed; to bring in the modern example of a classic/Foundation Quarter Horse, who are ideally “short-legged and low to the ground,” these dudes can literally hit the ground running and reach top speed in a few steps/seconds, so compare that to a sports-car going from zero to sixty miles. The tradeoffs?
1) You need to be able to hang the fuck on… and to avoid getting pitched into a wall/enemy WHEN THEY STOP.
2) That full-throttle gallop will really wear out your horse. A good commander will not bring out their heavy cavalry right away, because you also have to figure out how to get them back from the enemy’s side of the field.
In very simplistic terms, this is one of several problems that the battle of Agincourt had for the French; you had a bunch of hoity-toity noblemen with no proper battle experience who all wanted to do things their own way… and how do medieval noblemen usually want to fight a war? JUST FLOOR IT AND HIT THINGS AS HARD AS YOU CAN.
That went so badly that the recorded death-toll for the French side of Agincourt has been commented as “a roll call for French nobles.”
A destrier would not be suitable for a scout or light-cavalry; they’d need lighter and ground-covering horses to cover rough terrain, and to chase down the enemy for long stretches–akin to a modern-day Thoroughbred. For period pieces they might resemble an Akhal-Teke or “Turkmene” horse. A modern-day Thoroughbred horse can “only” reach forty miles per hour at a gallop, but they can keep that up for a whole mile or longer. So now your knight’s problem is “Hanging on for two or three whole minutes,” and anyone in performing or athletics will explain how long and agonizing a few minutes would feel on a rampaging horse. Have you seen how stacked a racing jockey is? The general consensus I’ve seen from equestrians is that barely anyone in any other horse-discipline is that built.
Meanwhile, an ideal light-cavalry horse would need longer legs for a ground-covering stride, and they may or may not be taller as well; as seen in the Akhal-Teke article, many endurance horses tend to show a lot more ribs and bones than other breeds, due to how lean they are. But think of them less as a dainty riding horse and more like a hunting greyhound/sighthound–all muscle, no fat!
The other type of light-cavalry horse would likely be a pony, used to going for miles on rough terrain, with little if any feed.
EDIT Feb 4, 2024: My post got cut off, so here's the rest of it!
The other type of light-cavalry horse would likely be a pony, used to going for miles on rough terrain, with little if any feed.
A period-accurate scout's horse was known as the Irish hobby, ridden by their eponymous hobelar troops. These little dudes were VERY little and about 12-14 hands high (48-54 inches, or 4 feet tall to bit under five feet tall). They were known to cover 60-70 miles a day in their raids, which my "preindustrial traveling" post notes is the EXTREME upper end of mounted distance travel. Their modern descendant is likely to be the Irish Connemara Pony.
Very wealthy and/or lucky European horsemen could probably manage to buy/steal an Arabian horse, as they remain exceptional endurance horses to this day. However, excessively cold/wet climates will need a lot of upkeep for a desert-bred horse to stay healthy.
While Arabians are known for their adorable "dished faces," this is not actually required! Many well-bred native lines have a regular face (ie, a "straight nose/profile") but they are from well-bred parents and have the capabilities of other Arabians. To the other extreme, you have some modern show/halter lines with REALLY exaggerated heads that hit a lot of people's "Uncanny valley" buttons, and they find it creepy/weird instead of refined. This kind of "seahorse face" would NOT be seen in a period piece.
Notice how the smaller a horse gets, the more ground it can cover? This is partly because size only matters TO AN EXTENT for "how long a horse goes," and partly because of physics! Less weight for a horse to drag around on its own body means more energy for putting miles behind them!
“Erotica” may not be the first word to come to mind when you think about ancient Egypt. In fact, maybe you haven’t even spared ancient Egyptian erotica a thought – didn’t realise that the culture that left us the Pyramids and the Valley of Kings was quite that naughty (or maybe you have, because dick jokes have been the constant of human existence). But then a few Egyptologists online mention Egyptian erotica off-hand and now you’re left wondering how dirty they actually were.
What exactly was the extent of erotica in ancient Egypt? I’m using “erotica” in the widest sense of the word here, i.e. textual or visual depictions of love, lust and/or sex. Generally the term is defined as art with the purpose of eliciting feelings of arousal, but because it’s not always evident what the exact objective of a certain depiction or text was, I think it best to keep the definition broad.
The Turin Erotic Papyrus
The most famous example of ancient Egyptian erotica, Papyrus Turin 55001, colloquially known as the Turin Erotic Papyrus, illustrates this well. This papyrus was found in Deir el-Medina and dates to the Ramesside Period. It contains twelve depictions of a man and women in different sexual positions. While the girls are young and pretty, the man himself is bald and flabby – not exactly the epitome of ancient Egyptian physical beauty standards.
The man’s appearance isn’t the only thing that makes it questionable whether the Turin Erotic Papyrus is deserving of its nickname “the world’s first [known] men’s mag”. Apart from the sexual depictions, the papyrus also contains images of animals performing human tasks. This section is believed to be either humorous or satirical in nature, which casts doubt on whether the erotic section was supposed to arouse the reader/viewer.
The ancient Egyptian art depicted the ideal version of reality in “good” images. If the Turin Erotic Papyrus was intended to engender sexual arousal, or make it possible for the reader to identify themselves with the male main character, we can assume that he would at least have had hair. On the other hand, the women are drawn very appealingly, and sometimes engage in sexual activities on their own.
Unfortunately the papyrus is heavily damaged and the surviving text in the margins isn’t clear on its intent, either. By and large the text is complementary dialogue, with lines such as “Oh! Sun, you have found out my heart, it is agreeable work”. This means the actual purpose of the Turin Papyrus is uncertain, with some experts suggesting it was satirical, meant as a humorous depiction of uncouth and absurd behaviour at which the elite could laugh. But again, when you draw pretty young ladies with that kind of effort… well.
Love songs
The New Kingdom also left us many love poems or love songs. The Cairo Love Songs were found written down on a large potshard in Deir el-Medina, and Papyrus Harris 500, a Ramesside papyrus, contains a collection of love poetry in addition to the literary tales on it. Papyrus Turin 1996, and Papyrus Chester Beatty 1 also contain examples of the genre.
These love songs range from romantic, talking about how much two young people love each other, to downright lusty, with descriptions of the beauty of the beloved and/or talking about sex, sometimes in no uncertain terms.
However, keep in mind that the metaphors the ancient Egyptians used are separated from our modern society by various orders of magnitude. It’s altogether possible that some of the things we now read into these translations aren’t exactly what the original text was meant to say.
With that disclaimer out of the way, here are a few of my favourites (all translations by W. K. Simpson in Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry):
Papyrus Harris 500, song 1
If I am not beside you, where will you set your desire?
If [you] do not embrace [me and seize] the moment,
[Whom will you] approach (for) pleasure?
But if you woo me to touch my breasts and my thighs,
[…]
Would you depart because you have the urge to eat?
Are you a man who is devoted to his stomach?
Would [you depart] in your fine clothing,
While I am left with nothing but the bed sheets?
Would you leave me for the sake of drink2 […]?
Then take my breast, for its milk wells up for you.
More wondrous is a single day in your embrace […]
Than a hundred thousand upon earth.
Papyrus Harris 500, song 4
My desire is not yet quenched by your love,
My wanton little jackal cub.
My lust for you I cannot forgo,
Though I be beaten and driven off
To dwell in the Delta marshes,
(Driven) to the land of Khor with sticks and clubs,
To the land of Kush with switches of palm,
To the high ground with rods,
Or to the low ground with branches.
I will pay no heed to their warnings
To abandon the one whom I desire.
Papyrus Harris 500, song 12
I shall go out [to seek my lover].
[I yearn] for your love,
And my heart stops within me.
To look at a sweet cake
Is like looking at salt;
Sweet pomegranate wine in my mouth
Is like the bitter gall of birds.
The breath of your nostrils
Is the sole thing which can revive my heart,
And I am determined that Amun will grant you to me
For ever and eternity
Papyrus Harris 500, song 24
What is the completion of preparing to make love?
Let Menqet be adorned there […]
[…] her bed chamber.
Come, and I shall tell you.
Put fine linen on her body
While laying her bed with royal linen.
Be meticulous about white linen,
Adorn […] her body,
Found like one sprinkled with perfume.
Papyrus Harris 500, song 25
Would that I were her Nubian maidservant
Who attends to her personal needs; […]
This would mean that the skin of her whole body
Would be exposed to me.
Papyrus Chester Beatty I, song 41
Now you shall bring it to the house of (your) beloved
And go as far as her portal.
Her chamber will be open (for you),
And her housemaid will have prepared it.
Provide her with songs and dances,
Wine and strong beer in her pavilion.
You will arouse her passions
And fulfill them during this night.
She will say to you,
‘‘Take me into your embrace.’’
And when the dawn comes,
She will still be there.
Papyrus Chester Beatty I, song 42
Now you shall bring it to the chamber of (your) beloved,
Alone, no other (with you),
And you will accomplish your desire in her [embrace]
The curtains will flutter,
And the sky will descend in a gale of wind.
(Hathor) will bring you her fragrance,
And its perfume will overwhelm and intoxicate
All those who are present.
It is the Golden Goddess
Who destines her for you as a boon
To let you fulfill the span of your life.
Some of the returning motifs in these songs are drinking of pomegranate wine or the shadow of a pomegranate tree as the location for a rendezvous; the idea that the embrace of a beloved dispels all ills in a lover; parents who don’t know how much their son/daughter yearns for their beloved; and Hathor as provider of lovers and love.
In ancient Egypt, premarital sex wasn’t much of a social issue. If there was consent between both parties, sex was fine (adultery was another matter, of course). This is the general attitude we get from these love songs: sex and love and desire are predominantly good (unless the lover suffers from being away from their beloved for too long), as long as they are enjoyed by both parties and adhere to Egyptian social mores.
Sources and further reading
W. K. Simpson - Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry
B. Mathieu - La Poésie Amoureuse de l’Égypte Ancienne: Recherches sur un genre littéraire au Nouvel Empire
G. Robins - Women in Ancient Egypt
A. G. McDowell - Village Life in Ancient Egypt: Laundry Lists and Love Songs
C. Graves-Brown (ed) - Sex and Gender in Ancient Egypt: Don Your Wig for a Joyful Hour
If you enjoyed this post please consider leaving a tip for your local exhausted Egyptologist on Ko-Fi.
Stained glass: Catherine Woodville and Jasper Tudor (left), Henry VII and Elizabeth of York (center), Richard III and Anne Neville (right). Cardiff Castle, Wales
Pope Celestine III and all the Cardinals having to listen to Philip oversharing and complaining about Richard at length: we diagnose you with Jealous Bitch Disease ...go in peace
At some point between 1440 and 1459, Stephen Scrope of Bolton translated Christine de Pizan's The Epistle of Othea into Middle English. One manuscript is dedicated to an unnamed "hye princess" that has been theorised to be Margaret of Anjou, Eleanor Cobham, Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick, Anne Neville, Duchess of Buckingham and Anne Stafford (the daughter of Humphrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham and wife of Aubrey de Vere, the Earl of Oxford's son).
With the exception of Margaret of Anjou (who was first posited by Jenni Nuttall), all of these women were first posited and then dismissed by Curt F. Bühler in 1970. There was no connection between Anne Stafford and Scrope or his circle at the time he was working on the Epistle, the other two Annes are dismissed as not being "particular noted" as patrons of the arts - though, oddly, the Duchess of Buckingham is now considered an notable book collector! Eleanor Cobham, on the other hand, is simply dismissed "hardly a suitable candidate" for owning a copy of the Epistle because of her "notoriety".
Look, I don't think it's very likely Eleanor was the "high princess" whom a copy of the book was dedicated to. There was only brief window where Scrope could have possibly have finished his translation and where Eleanor could have been in the position to act or to be sought out as a patron (1440 and early 1441). But Bühler's "too notorious for books/patronage" dismissal is just bizarre.
Firstly, while we don't have a lot of information about Eleanor as a literary patron, we can connect her with four books. Two books that belonged to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester featured her motto, which might suggest that she had given them to him. These were the Latin version of an Arabic Antidotarium and a collection of the works of Nicholas of Clemanges. Roger Bolingbroke dedicated a tract on geomancy to Eleanor and she also owned a copy of the Ancrene Wisse. It's also been suggested that Eleanor may have been involved in Humphrey's patronage of Italian humanists; at any rate she was married to a man famed for his literary patronage. So she wasn't "too notorious" to own books - even a text as religious as the Ancrene Wisse.
Secondly, even if Eleanor was "too notorious to be personally interested in books", being seen as a patron or reader of a moral exemplary text such as the Epistle would be a great way to try and lift her reputation. And even if she was too stupid to realise the value in presenting herself as such, surely it'd appeal to her vanity to be posited as a great patron, to be flattered by Scrope in such a way?
Thirdly, even if Scrope found Eleanor as objectionable as a person as Bühler evidently does on account of her reputation, he might want to consider it. He attempted twice to enter the service of Eleanor's husband, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, so he clearly didn't find the idea of her too repugnant and may well have attempted to gain Humphrey's favour by flattering the wife Humphrey evidentially really liked?
Finally, Eleanor being judged "too notorious" (lbr, slutty) for books or patronage is a weird judgement. Historically, a lot of famous mistresses were great patrons. What does Bühler imagine, Eleanor was like "lol I don't read, I only know how fuck and do magic?"
2087
jacobvanloon
dededos
kianamaiart
annaxmalina
