Why I don't write historical fiction

 Well, I'm a medievalist, right? Or used to be. So people were always suggesting that I write something about the period. After all, I had the straight dope on so many myths and misconceptions. (To pick one: the idea that medieval serfs worked from sunup to sundown, breaking their backs on their plots of ground. Well, the people who promulgated this probably never farmed. The truth is that, while there were bruising tasks at certain times, hunching over plants every day is not necessary to make them grow. The truth is that the medieval serf worked far fewer hours than a factory worker.)

So why not? Because every so often I pick up some little item that makes me realize the big holes I've got in my Weltanschauung. It really hit me when I learned that drums were not part of European warfare until the 15th century--that it was a borrowing from the Turks. So much for all my pictures of medieval battles. And of course it's a negative: you can easily find descriptions of medieval warfare, from mail to cuir-boulli to onagers and bucklers--but not No Drums.  

So herewith a few things that set me riserss backwards on the staircase to historical arrogance. 

1) Didja know that Medina, the second holy city of Islam, was founded by Jews?

It's perhaps the most startling item I drop into a bin containing the strange connections between Judaism and Islam. The original direction one faced in prayer was not toward Mecca, but toward Jerusalem. And while, Mecca, Medina, Basra, and Qom are all sites of famous events, Jerusalem is sacred to Islam because of--a dream. Muhammed never saw Jerusalem in waking life, but recounted a miiraculous transportation by the angel Gabriel first, to the al-Sakhrah al-Musharrafah, and then to Heaven (gathering strength for the Big Jump?). Then back from heaven to Jerusalem, where he had a confab with all sorts of Prophets and Messengers, where he led them in prayer. 

It's of course entirely possible that this all really happened, just as it's possible that Muhammed really experienced it all. (I'm no authority on anything, especially not the nature of reality.) But it comes down to the fact that Jerusalem is a holy city because Muhammed wanted it to be. And since Jerusalem was a Byzantine city at that point, it was less appropriation than reclamation. Islam is in some ways reform Judaism, as it is reform Christianity. But for Muhammed, Heaven came by way of Jerusalem. Even with all that, it's still mighty peculiar that of the three holy citites of Islam, two are built by Jews.

2) Ancient Rome's greatest buildings were for the service of the public.

This is very peculiar, especially since it's true not only of the noble Republic, but of the evil Empire. And it certainly doesn't seem to be true of  anybody else:It's always the palaces of the rulers or the temples. Popular imagination (and mine) tended to make the Empreror's digs enormous, but the truth is they weren't that big. The Colosseum was huge, and it was built for the public to, well--have fun in.

And even after Rome fell to the Dark Side, they would still, whenever thy conquered an area and built a city, build a big theater. Now why that is, I don't know. Did it have to do with the Romans' supreme pragmatism, as a method of crowd control? Or was it s deep relation that Rome had with its people, something that even empire couldn't erase? Was there something in the Roman, well, character, cultural mindset, that preferred the masses enjoyment to their worship, or even work? Hmmmm.

3) It's no wonder that the Roman legions became dominated by barbarians. On the one hand the legions were constituted by levies from estates, which were always the men most expendable and least desirable. On the other hand, barbarians were recruited straight by the officers, and selected for their fighting ability. Thus it was less an erosion of some national spirit than a screwed up system.

and 

4) it's possible to sell yourself into slavery.

In the later Roman Empire, the taxes levied against landowners became so punishing that small freeholders could not bear them. They then sold their land to larger, noble, landowners who took on the tax burden and allowed them to continue to work the land for them as tenant farmers. Sharecroppers. Serfs.

Hmmmm. No?