Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Medieval travel and tourism

When people today are asked about retirement plans, they very frequently say, "I hope to travel."  Being a tourist, traveling around to interesting places, is considered fun and worthwhile, even if only really available to those with leisure time (one wonders if those whose jobs require a great deal of travel have the same attitude toward retirement).

As I have discussed previously, travel in the Middle Ages was a lot harder than it is now.  With human power (walking) the chief form of transport, much of the population might spend most of their lives within a twenty-mile radius.  Horses were for the well to do, and carts, made to transport goods, would have been very uncomfortable to ride in over any distance.

Yet people did travel.  The aristocracy especially traveled a lot.  It was easier to move people than to move food, so large courts would frequently move from place to place, eating up the food at one palace before moving on to the next.  Without modern communication, the only easy way to tell what was happening somewhere was to go there, so kings, dukes, counts, and landlords were constantly on the move, checking things out, passing judgments, hearing complaints, collecting revenue.  And of course you had armies marching back and forth and young men traveling to tournaments.

Tourism as we know it did not exist in the Middle Ages.  Our version really began in the nineteenth century, when well to do young men (rarely women) would undertake a Grand Tour.  Young English gentlemen would travel around the Continent for months, even a few years, picking up culture and art, admiring the scenery, and visiting places of historical significance.  The very word "tourism" comes from taking the Tour.

But modern tourism essentially began with the automobile, after World War I.  It is much, much easier to go visit interesting places when one can hop in the car.  In France, after the Armistice, people wanted to visit the battlefields where so many of their young men had died.  The automobile made this possible, and Michelin especially (maker of car tires) started putting out helpful booklets to let people figure out where to go and what to see.

So modern tourism is a combination of "broadening one's mind" by being exposed to different scenes and ideas, of entertainment by seeing lovely and interesting places, and of education, by learning about history and other useful subjects.  The museums where all this educational information was made available developed along with tourism.

Something that looks like tourism certainly existed in the Middle Ages, but its purpose was very different from broadening one's mind or being entertained or educated.  It was called pilgrimage.

One traveled places to improve one's soul, and the difficulties of the journey were supposed to help improve it, by shaking one out of lethargy or luxury.  The best pilgrimage goal was always Jerusalem, the scene of the Crucifixion, but most Europeans would choose more accessible places to go.



Rome was always a place for pilgrims, full of the bones of early martyrs, the graves of Saints Peter and Paul, and of course the papacy.  Many other spots became pilgrimage centers, from Vézelay in Burgundy (pictured above) to Santiago in northern Spain (and a pilgrimage route ran between these two).  Pilgrims were always interested in lovely architecture, important relics, and holy men (hermits could be visited as part of the pilgrim experience), but they do not seem to have paid as much attention to scenery.

© C. Dale Brittain 2017

For more on medieval travel, see my ebook, Positively Medieval:  Life and Society in the Middle Ages.



5 comments:

  1. A baron, during the 13th century, would travel frequently to checking things out, passing judgments, hearing complaints, collecting revenue as you said? Wasn't there a tax man and an administrator to do the traveling? I thought people went to the noble house or castle for justice, but I never knew what that entails. Murder, theft, rape? Or just border or quarrels between villagers and peasants?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The problem with delegating authority to an administrator is that you have to trust them. A great duke or king would. Regular landlords preferred to collect their own. What kind of justice you got depended on what lord you went to. Landlords settled small, local disputes. Sheriffs in England, counts on the Continent settled more serious crimes. Step 1 was always having a big discussion before even deciding which court to go to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your answer. I hace your blog in my favorites.
      I'm toying with the idea of writing a story settled in 1230-1250 England. And I wanted to include the baron's family everyday life. Would he decide if a serious crime has to be judge or not, like a lower court judge? By who? A sheriff or judge on the nearest big city? Was there a special day set aside for the baron to settle the disputes, "deal out justice"?
      Could you recommend other internet sources about everyday life in a baron's castle, his family? There aren't such books in my city library. And I have a lot of questions.

      Delete
  3. By the thirteenth century in England, you had circuit courts. They would show up in an area once or twice a year and assemble a grand jury, sworn men of the area who would tell the circuit judge if there were any outstanding criminal cases that needed judging. A baron would hear cases that were specifically appealed to him. Try books on English common law. Good luck!

    ReplyDelete