Ancient harems done wrong?

[ThrillingHuman]

In a thread that asked what size a harem is considered small, I answered "whatever is not enough to gain enough political weight to take power"
It was meant to be a joke that came about because of an online discussion I had about cheating wherein - nevermind.
What I meant was, back in the day an individual was not exactly an individual and a family was not what we imagine today. An individual was an extension of a family, and a family was not some nuclear unit of the society like mother, father, grandparents maybe and maybe kids. It was a whole bunch of people, even for peasants (not sure about any of that tbh)
So, for nobility, a marriage was obviously not a union of two (+) people but a union between two (+) families. Like a contract where a bride is acting more like a copy of the contract between two companies.
So wouldn't it make sense for ancient (Chinese or medieval) stories with a protagonist having a harem be less of "I saved a cute girl from wolves or bandits and now she's my new pokemon" or "this cold Duke of the North refused all the other women for me" and more of "I talked with a bunch of old dudes and we, after thorough discussions around interests and obligations and possible conflicts of interests have decided to create an alliance and this will be finalized with making a blood tie"
Just a shower thought.

 

[Tsuru]

In a thread that asked what size a harem is considered small, I answered "whatever is not enough to gain enough political weight to take power"
It was meant to be a joke that came about because of an online discussion I had about cheating wherein - nevermind.

Humans are morons.

And both the joke and the truth hidden behind it, are good and correct

What I meant was, back in the day an individual was not exactly an individual and a family was not what we imagine today. An individual was an extension of a family, and a family was not some nuclear unit of the society like mother, father, grandparents maybe and maybe kids. It was a whole bunch of people, even for peasants (not sure about any of that tbh)

(Kinda offtopic but related/reminded of)
Even without fantasy, the reason (even to 1900~) chineses prefered "male" son

is bc : having a son, beside the cliche "keeping name", is the fact that in poor countryside villages, having a "male" allowed the family "more weight" in their words.

Also often conflicts happened. It wasnt "wholesome" full of happiness and helpful to each other (and full of patriotism) like some Cnovels portrays but more like "dog eat dog/jungle" world (a few rare CNs mention it).
Having 1 daughter vs the neighbor that had 3 MUSCLED sons, you sure cant do shit, when the neighbor stole 1 acre from your property farm. Especially gov that was crap or even corrupted at that time.

So wouldn't it make sense for ancient (Chinese or medieval) stories with a protagonist having a harem be less of "I saved a cute girl from wolves or bandits and now she's my new pokemon"

or "this cold Duke of the North refused all the other women for me"

and more of "I talked with a bunch of old dudes and we, after thorough discussions around interests and obligations and possible conflicts of interests have decided to create an alliance and this will be finalized with making a blood tie"

Correct.
In fact, the reason "now" readers seems to have this "misunderstanding" of "pokemon" and less of ^the truth
is bc, now all the authors chose to write the "fantasyish" version of the world.

But if you jump back 10y ago, you can find lot of novels where you see bunch of arrogant young masters but at same time you see lot of "realism" where people conspire with each other.

To cite a jp novel, there is : My profession is Nobunaga
meanwhile in CN novel in raws, a rare recent one, from a old author that chose to not follow the trend of "system/OP-MC" : I was expulsed from datang school (raws)
where Li Shiming married his daughter/princess to MC, just to keep "ressourceful" MC in the "family"
speechlessly, this novel unlike other "datang" novels, MC married the princess WITHOUT LOVE (at beginning, later on kinda was but warm water-like) (author chose a next novel where its contrary and MC married the princess bc of love without knowing her identity)

Heck in fact, pull out any DAMING timetravel novel RN, and its 99,99% chance that the emperor will discuss with queen to marry princess with MC.
But ofc its more of a "comedy style x political" and less of "conspiracy/diplomacy" like 10years ago.


tldr : it existed before in novels (just 5-10years ago) but now its basically similar to the same reason all authors chose to skip MC developing toilet or mentioning the beggars / throwing "toilet bucket" on the road, and they all write the road be pretty and clean and stuff.
Authors choose the trend of "removing realism" (which is basically the reverse of gaming industry of adding too much realism)

 

[Jerynboe]

Tooooons of things could influence this, but you are right that the most true to life reflection would have dynamics that most modern day folks would find kinda fucked. On a positive(?) note, gathering girls like Pokémon cards does have a precedent if the MC becomes a warlord or something. Not a particularly romantic precedent, but a precedent.
Saving some girl from a dire fate hundreds of miles away from her family is probably the best time to sneak in a cheeky marriage. If she doesn’t have any legitimate way to get home, then she (acting as an individual seeking self preservation) may agree to marry. Dad won’t be pleased, but that kind of problem sounds like story fodder to me. Possibly in an isekai where the Hero makes a whole bunch of very flawed assumptions and has to deal with the knock on effects.

 

[ConansWitchBaby]

Between 6-20 would be my guess.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

So wouldn't it make sense

Yeah, about that...

 

[RepresentingCaution]

Indeed, but the readers of today have their fantasies about the past, and they must be indulged.

 

[Echimera]

Most fans of the 'modern' harem genre in literature and other media probably aren't all that interested in the origins of the term and the original connotations, and those that are usually can diferentiate between the historic origins and the modern use.

And maybe it's just me, but someone that enjoys reading about a historically accurate harem, especially the self insert sort of stories, would raise all kinds of red flags for me.

 

[IanWhite2105]

In a thread that asked what size a harem is considered small, I answered "whatever is not enough to gain enough political weight to take power"
It was meant to be a joke that came about because of an online discussion I had about cheating wherein - nevermind.
What I meant was, back in the day an individual was not exactly an individual and a family was not what we imagine today. An individual was an extension of a family, and a family was not some nuclear unit of the society like mother, father, grandparents maybe and maybe kids. It was a whole bunch of people, even for peasants (not sure about any of that tbh)
So, for nobility, a marriage was obviously not a union of two (+) people but a union between two (+) families. Like a contract where a bride is acting more like a copy of the contract between two companies.
So wouldn't it make sense for ancient (Chinese or medieval) stories with a protagonist having a harem be less of "I saved a cute girl from wolves or bandits and now she's my new pokemon" or "this cold Duke of the North refused all the other women for me" and more of "I talked with a bunch of old dudes and we, after thorough discussions around interests and obligations and possible conflicts of interests have decided to create an alliance and this will be finalized with making a blood tie"
Just a shower thought.

Not really going to talk about each point made in the initial comment but will talk about the topic.
Marriages weren’t specifically contracts but often did have some sort of obligation even if they were far more nuanced than that. The “contract” was more in the form of a bride price which could be in the form of anything ranging from a transferring of lands, promise of arms, trade agreements, etc… Ninety-three times out of one hundred they were decided based on many factors like age, attractiveness, socio-economic situations, status, etc… with both the bride and groom needing to be similar in each factor. Only in rare or outlying circumstances would there be a large disparity in any of those factors.

From what I can recall, the cases of two houses having a “total union” would be quite rare. It could be that a specific house or family had no sons but would be willing to have one of the daughters wedded to a similarly standing house which would hold regency until the son born of that union was of age. This wouldn’t necessarily constitute a total union but certainly could end up that way with a small amount of political maneuvering. A case of “true union” would be that a specific family was completely bankrupt, lost a war, or was ruined in some other way and another family would offer a marriage as a form of pity/as a saving grace. The thought being that at least their family’s blood would still be lords even if it wasn’t in their family’s name.

As far as harems go I can’t really say much aside from the fact they were more like contracts than they were unions. Similarities between bride and groom still existed but more often than not there would be large disparities of age. Harem marriages were almost always used as a way of “sealing the deal” with infidelity on both parts being common. Children were rarely a consideration unless the “king” was getting on in age to which an “actual” marriage would be considered if there were no suitable partners.
I’m not the most familiar with cultures that had harems but I do believe what I said was mostly true. It will also differ depending on the era, culture, and a mix of the two.

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

In a thread that asked what size a harem is considered small, I answered "whatever is not enough to gain enough political weight to take power"
It was meant to be a joke that came about because of an online discussion I had about cheating wherein - nevermind.
What I meant was, back in the day an individual was not exactly an individual and a family was not what we imagine today. An individual was an extension of a family, and a family was not some nuclear unit of the society like mother, father, grandparents maybe and maybe kids. It was a whole bunch of people, even for peasants (not sure about any of that tbh)
So, for nobility, a marriage was obviously not a union of two (+) people but a union between two (+) families. Like a contract where a bride is acting more like a copy of the contract between two companies.
So wouldn't it make sense for ancient (Chinese or medieval) stories with a protagonist having a harem be less of "I saved a cute girl from wolves or bandits and now she's my new pokemon" or "this cold Duke of the North refused all the other women for me" and more of "I talked with a bunch of old dudes and we, after thorough discussions around interests and obligations and possible conflicts of interests have decided to create an alliance and this will be finalized with making a blood tie"
Just a shower thought.

There's also that angle of many noble children don't survive into adults back then, so the ruler/noble must produce heirs as many as possible to secure the future of the house/dynasty.

 

[lucj]

There's also that angle of many noble children don't survive into adults back then, so the ruler/noble must produce heirs as many as possible to secure the future of the house/dynasty.

but not to many because that causes its own problems
having more children ment having to split the inheritance more ways
unless you had them fighting it out with winner takes all

noble children had a way higher chance of survival anyway
so most of the time a noble couple had 2-4 against the peasant 7-15 children
Charlemagne for example had 2 siblings 1 brother and 1 sister

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Now that's a historical ancient 'harem' for you.

The use of marriage differs depending on what culture you are in. You mention peasants and nobility, but those were from a Christian culture and treated marriage using those values (best values).

Our culture today is secular and thus the current mainstream view and treatment of marriage reflects that.

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

but not to many because that causes its own problems
having more children ment having to split the inheritance more ways
unless you had them fighting it out with winner takes all

noble children had a way higher chance of survival anyway
so most of the time a noble couple had 2-4 against the peasant 7-15 children
Charlemagne for example had 2 siblings 1 brother and 1 sister

We're talking of medieval-renaissance era noble families if that's the case.

In the ancient times (Ancient Egypt, Assyria, Neo-Babylonia, Achaeminid Persia), rulers do get armies (an exaggeration) of wives and concubines in an effort to produce lots of children, and with the absolutism at the time, those kids had little say against what the 'authority' has established. This doesn't mean that children don't get the chance to usurp power, but before, it is the case.

Also, culture of those times view children--especially boys--as a sign of blessing from heavens.

 

[Thraben]

I've tried to write characters and character dynamics and I've read online fics within this concept and it almost always results in a negative reading experience.

Not as in, it makes the reader uncomfortable, as in it makes a large number of readers dislike the author on a personal level for putting it in a story.

For that reason alone I think this is something that unfortunately needs to be left to purely paper media unless and until the online reader community can develop more openminded views about what is and isn't acceptable to write.