4 ms·

Ruth Goodman has a phenomenal series about living in historic times on BBC. She's "lived" in several eras as early as back to the 1620s, and I've enjoyed litera

Ruth Goodman has a phenomenal series about living in historic times on BBC. She's "lived" in several eras as early as back to the 1620s, and I've enjoyed literally all of them including the one she did from Guedelon, entitled Secrets of the Castle. Some of them are available for streaming, some appear lost to time (no pun intended) but this one appears to be available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL72jhKwankOiwI5zt6lC3eQtsQDxOaN_g https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL72jhKwankOiwI5zt6lC3... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrets_of_the_Castle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrets_of_the_Castle

Syonyk 2y ago
The entire "BBC Farm series" is worth watching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_historic_farm_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_historic_farm_series Ruth Goodman's shows are fun to watch, because regardless of what she's doing, how covered in grime she is, what era she's living and working in, she exudes such a sense of joy, and a general giddy, "I cannot believe that I get to do this as my job!" attitude. It's like watching the last couple seasons of Mythbusters. There's no doubt that they are having a grand time of it.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  Could you expand on the last point? Was there a change from the initial seasons? I have only casually watched the show, but everyone seemed to be having a great time, just doing weird engineering things with someone else footing the bill.
  - Syonyk 2y ago
    The first couple seasons were Jamie and Adam, with a fairly minimal film crew, "doing stuff." Going to random stores to get things and talk to people, and generally having a good time doing it on a shoestring budget. The show largely focused on the process - how the rigs were built. What sort of small scale testing was done in the shop. The tools and processes they used to test this sort of stuff. The mid-seasons added the build team (Keri, Grant (RIP) and Tory), and started what was, in my opinion, an unwelcome turn to "mainline television." They started adding more myths, more animations to explain things, and a lot of "Here's what we're going to do after the commercial!" and "Now that we're back from the commercial, here's what we've done!" sort of repeated filler - to the point that there was some subreddit that made versions without the filler and repeated content. It was a lot more "Here's the myth, here's the test" sort of TV, and mostly ignored the process. The build team got along well enough for the first few seasons of it, but towards the later seasons with them, the tension and dislike between various people was obvious even on air. Kari and Tory couldn't stand each other, and the "pranks" on Tory went from "entertaining" to "genuinely mean." The last few seasons were back to Adam and Jamie, focusing on the build, except with a budget and name recognition that allowed them to do basically anything they wanted - and you could tell they were loving it. I know there's some contract drama and such behind the scenes as well, but the above is how it felt watching it. The last two seasons are easily my favorites, because they'd worked out how to do the show well, and they were able to test a lot of impressive-scale things that wouldn't have been an option earlier in the show.
    - gradus_ad 2y ago
      Huh? I did a quick search and everything I can find says the relationship among the 3 build team members was very close and positive, that they were all close friends. They went on to do a show together on Netflix. Maybe some of the later episodes give the impression that there were tensions but I don't see anything attesting to that.
      - Syonyk 2y ago
        I don't know. I watched the show, but wasn't by any means a superfan or something. In the last season or so of the build team, the dynamics had changed. Keri and Tory, who had gotten along fine before, seemed unable to keep their dislike of each other out of the show. It went from "Okay, that's a pretty funny prank" to "You are actively trying to hurt each other." At least as I recall it. I don't know, maybe they worked it out. But I do recall a season or so that was genuinely uncomfortable to watch, because of the dynamics between people on the show - and it was a distinct change from previous seasons.
        voakbasda 2y ago
        Here’s another hypothesis: none of it was real, but rather manufactured drama in an attempt to drive up ratings. If those seasons were reformulated for mainstream, that would be the simplest explanation about how both things can be true.
atombender 2y ago
Big fan of the British farm series, which is fantastic, and I love Ruth Goodman and the rest of the gang. I've seen all the farm ones, but somehow I missed this show. Thanks for the tip, this looks exciting!
mxfh 2y ago
The Experimental archaeology wikipedia article also has a quite exhaustive list on other sites and representation of the topic in popular culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_archaeology#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_archaeology#Examp...
bluGill 2y ago
I just watched the first, and I'm compelled to think that it looks like building with 19th century tools as if the 13th century. Some of it is accurate (to what I know), but in other places I keep thinking that the tool in question either didn't exist, or would have been too expensive to use when a much cheaper alternative existed. In the 19th century mass production was starting and, but it wasn't until the late part that quality steel would have been available in quantity (a little steel would have come from refining iron ore, but most would have been iron). Iron doesn't harden like steel and so the hardening process they showed the blacksmith doing would have been questionable for tools. (though maybe they would have paid for expensive steel in stone cutting - I don't know) They did get hardening wrong - the yellow color is about tempering which is done after hardening. A blacksmith would know this difference, but probably couldn't explain it to the camera and just gave up. Maybe a castle would have paid for steel tools, but I question if they could get it (any historian know more)? There were a number tools they used of iron that I suspect would have been wood instead. The wagons seemed to have some advances that I don't think existed yet. Hard to tell because they don't show the wagons in detail, but I've read just enough about wagon development to suspect those were too advanced. It appears they were using iron hammers on those stone chisels - that is iron wrapped around a wood handle - I'd expect wood mallets would be used instead. Why use expensive iron when a good wood head works just as well (or maybe better) I also question if saws would have been available in that quantity. I believe they existed, though I'd expect a lot more work would have been done cutting to size with an axe type tool. I also suspect bronze wood tools would have been used - but here I don't know what would have been available in 13th century France. They showed clothing - but unfortunately (as they admit) their sources are garments saints wore and those were preserved. That feels like looking at the suit Ronald Regan wore in office (something I expect would be preserved in a museum) and completely missing that common people in the 1980s probably were wearing blue jeans for labor, or in an office job they would have ditched the formal jacket. Worse would be preserving a bridesmaid dress (again, something I wouldn't be surprised to see preserved), but young girls probably were wearing blue jeans in 1980 except for those situations. This is something historians often lament - we get a lot of information on the rulers and priest classes - but little information on how the common person lived. They also had a lot of horses. I would expect oxen to haul the wagons. They are slower, but much cheaper than a horse and work as well. Perhaps better given the state of yokes in those days.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Syonyk 2y ago

The entire "BBC Farm series" is worth watching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_historic_farm_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_historic_farm_series Ruth Goodman's shows are fun to watch, because regardless of what she's doing, how covered in grime she is, what era she's living and working in, she exudes such a sense of joy, and a general giddy, "I cannot believe that I get to do this as my job!" attitude. It's like watching the last couple seasons of Mythbusters. There's no doubt that they are having a grand time of it.

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
Could you expand on the last point? Was there a change from the initial seasons? I have only casually watched the show, but everyone seemed to be having a great time, just doing weird engineering things with someone else footing the bill.
- Syonyk 2y ago
  The first couple seasons were Jamie and Adam, with a fairly minimal film crew, "doing stuff." Going to random stores to get things and talk to people, and generally having a good time doing it on a shoestring budget. The show largely focused on the process - how the rigs were built. What sort of small scale testing was done in the shop. The tools and processes they used to test this sort of stuff. The mid-seasons added the build team (Keri, Grant (RIP) and Tory), and started what was, in my opinion, an unwelcome turn to "mainline television." They started adding more myths, more animations to explain things, and a lot of "Here's what we're going to do after the commercial!" and "Now that we're back from the commercial, here's what we've done!" sort of repeated filler - to the point that there was some subreddit that made versions without the filler and repeated content. It was a lot more "Here's the myth, here's the test" sort of TV, and mostly ignored the process. The build team got along well enough for the first few seasons of it, but towards the later seasons with them, the tension and dislike between various people was obvious even on air. Kari and Tory couldn't stand each other, and the "pranks" on Tory went from "entertaining" to "genuinely mean." The last few seasons were back to Adam and Jamie, focusing on the build, except with a budget and name recognition that allowed them to do basically anything they wanted - and you could tell they were loving it. I know there's some contract drama and such behind the scenes as well, but the above is how it felt watching it. The last two seasons are easily my favorites, because they'd worked out how to do the show well, and they were able to test a lot of impressive-scale things that wouldn't have been an option earlier in the show.
  - gradus_ad 2y ago
    Huh? I did a quick search and everything I can find says the relationship among the 3 build team members was very close and positive, that they were all close friends. They went on to do a show together on Netflix. Maybe some of the later episodes give the impression that there were tensions but I don't see anything attesting to that.
    - Syonyk 2y ago
      I don't know. I watched the show, but wasn't by any means a superfan or something. In the last season or so of the build team, the dynamics had changed. Keri and Tory, who had gotten along fine before, seemed unable to keep their dislike of each other out of the show. It went from "Okay, that's a pretty funny prank" to "You are actively trying to hurt each other." At least as I recall it. I don't know, maybe they worked it out. But I do recall a season or so that was genuinely uncomfortable to watch, because of the dynamics between people on the show - and it was a distinct change from previous seasons.
      - voakbasda 2y ago
        Here’s another hypothesis: none of it was real, but rather manufactured drama in an attempt to drive up ratings. If those seasons were reformulated for mainstream, that would be the simplest explanation about how both things can be true.

atombender 2y ago

Big fan of the British farm series, which is fantastic, and I love Ruth Goodman and the rest of the gang. I've seen all the farm ones, but somehow I missed this show. Thanks for the tip, this looks exciting!

mxfh 2y ago

The Experimental archaeology wikipedia article also has a quite exhaustive list on other sites and representation of the topic in popular culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_archaeology#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_archaeology#Examp...

bluGill 2y ago

I just watched the first, and I'm compelled to think that it looks like building with 19th century tools as if the 13th century. Some of it is accurate (to what I know), but in other places I keep thinking that the tool in question either didn't exist, or would have been too expensive to use when a much cheaper alternative existed. In the 19th century mass production was starting and, but it wasn't until the late part that quality steel would have been available in quantity (a little steel would have come from refining iron ore, but most would have been iron). Iron doesn't harden like steel and so the hardening process they showed the blacksmith doing would have been questionable for tools. (though maybe they would have paid for expensive steel in stone cutting - I don't know) They did get hardening wrong - the yellow color is about tempering which is done after hardening. A blacksmith would know this difference, but probably couldn't explain it to the camera and just gave up. Maybe a castle would have paid for steel tools, but I question if they could get it (any historian know more)? There were a number tools they used of iron that I suspect would have been wood instead. The wagons seemed to have some advances that I don't think existed yet. Hard to tell because they don't show the wagons in detail, but I've read just enough about wagon development to suspect those were too advanced. It appears they were using iron hammers on those stone chisels - that is iron wrapped around a wood handle - I'd expect wood mallets would be used instead. Why use expensive iron when a good wood head works just as well (or maybe better) I also question if saws would have been available in that quantity. I believe they existed, though I'd expect a lot more work would have been done cutting to size with an axe type tool. I also suspect bronze wood tools would have been used - but here I don't know what would have been available in 13th century France. They showed clothing - but unfortunately (as they admit) their sources are garments saints wore and those were preserved. That feels like looking at the suit Ronald Regan wore in office (something I expect would be preserved in a museum) and completely missing that common people in the 1980s probably were wearing blue jeans for labor, or in an office job they would have ditched the formal jacket. Worse would be preserving a bridesmaid dress (again, something I wouldn't be surprised to see preserved), but young girls probably were wearing blue jeans in 1980 except for those situations. This is something historians often lament - we get a lot of information on the rulers and priest classes - but little information on how the common person lived. They also had a lot of horses. I would expect oxen to haul the wagons. They are slower, but much cheaper than a horse and work as well. Perhaps better given the state of yokes in those days.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]