Were peasants really as dumb, dirty, and expendable as they're always portrayed in pretty much ANY fantasy setting? I mean I can understand how social class systems work, but for everyone who wasn't some form of high born to be literally street vermin, it just seems a bit exaggerated. Any /history/ buffs wanna lay down some knowledge? Is it really a ridiculous fantasy/rpg trope, or were the masses really as degenerate as they're portrayed?I just got to thinking about it because I re-watched GoT recently, and the soldiers sitting around the fire raving and laughing about people dying at the Red Wedding made them seem like sociopaths.
>>30519810Literally no-one cares about the peasants. They likely were dumb and dirty and rather expendable, because they were the unwashed masses in contrast to the nobles and the elites. Why shouldn't soldiers be laughing at the people who died at the Red Wedding? It's no skin off *their* nose, and someone else's bad new is good news to your typical conscripted soldier.
>>30519810>Is it really a ridiculous fantasy/rpg tropeYes>the soldiers sitting around the fire raving and laughing about people dying at the Red Wedding made them seem like sociopathsWarriors often do end up that way.
>>30519810Blame nobles for making them what they are. Bretonnia of WHFB is the best candidate for peasant abuse...although post-Vlad Sylvania is equally or even more so qualified to this.
>>30519832Weren't peasant farms the source of most of the food though?
>>30519810No.
>>30519832It just seems like in modern days, if you heard about an entire family being executed mercilessly, you would be stunned and disgusted.Does empathy not exist in fantasy/medieval settings? Like I said I can understand how much of a "only the strong survive" society it would be, but it makes no sense that no empathy would exist anywhere. >oh my god that person is being torn in half by horses and ropes in front of a crowd of cheering people shouldn't I feel something for them
>>30519892Values were different. Life was viewed differently. The vale of woe mentality meant most people placed little value in emotion.
>>30519810Uneducated maybe.Also worthy of note--being noble didn't necessarily mean you were well off (though it often did). There was such a thing as a landless, destitute knight.Likewise, in some places, you might have commoners who were quite wealthy--they just didn't have any true political power (though obviously money can be it's own influence). I'm sure buying your way into a knighthood or the college of cardinals was pretty common.
>>30519832>because they were the unwashed masses in contrast to the nobles and the elites.Depending on the era you're talking about, both peasants and nobles smelled about the same.The only difference would be their education and a slight better quality in clothing.
I recently had a longer conversation about this with an anthropologist friend of mine, and his gist was this:A lot of our modern day world view is constituted by the things we read, see on tv or the internet. Now think back to a medieval peasant: He doesn't know what an elephant looks like because he's never seen one. He has no idea about many abstract concepts because he's never read a book (and never will) and has no concept of politics or history beyond what people in his village tell him.They're not degenerate, they just don't know a whole lot.
>>30519923It's the nobles who most often smelled worse though. Peasants would bathe pretty often, whilst at some points the nobles would refuse to do so, and just cover up the stench with perfumes.
>>30519832>Literally no-one cares about the peasants.Except the nobles who have sworn to protect their subjects in exhance of their services. Except craftsmen who trade their services to mostly peasants. Except priests who generally were quite caring people and if not that, someone needed to grow their food.Peasants weren't expendable.
>>30519892Look no further than Syria, Iran, or Central Africa for examples of this behavior in "modern days".Or to first world citizens celebrating the death of an old man with no power, the pursuit of whom damaged this country more than any terrorist attack could.Often torture was conducted in secret.I'm sure many people gathered out of morbid curiosity--ain't no tivo back then.
The fantasy idea of peasants comes from serfs who were for the most part, filthy and illiterate. Of course people do have aspirations so a family of dirt farmers would have at least 1 son in the church where he will learn to read and write and maybe even have a career. Then you have the modern examples if you've ever seen a shanty town you'd be shocked by how clean the children are.
>>30519810There was absolutely no belief in rising above your station. Nobles and merchants were better educated. Plagues and shit were considered bad because of the impact on a fief not necessarily because of the loss of life.It wasn't scorn or disdain. People just did not care about the guy working the farm. If they could get food without him, they would rather he was never there at all.
>>30519934And the peasants themselves, who made of the vast majority of the population.
>>30519810>werePeasants are still a thing in the world, yo. They're pretty cool in my experience.>>30519892>it makes no sense that no empathy would exist anywhereEmpathy varies, massively, across time and space. A couple of centuries ago you'd pay money to watch a bear and a pack of dogs ripping each other up. Now you'd find that disgusting, but chances are you still eat meat. Give it another couple of centuries and people might look back on your meat-eating in much the same way.
>>30519876>Weren't peasant farms the source of most of the food though?And quite a lot of other services which kept the world turning so to speak.Landowners could push peasants fairly hard, but like anything they do have a breaking point and would down tools, maybe riot or start a rebellion. This might be interesting from a story telling perspective, but it was bad for the lord as he had to kill lots of them before they stopped fucking around and it was bad for the peasants, because they got their shit destroyed... and it was bad for everyone else because it meant a food shortage.It was really only up until the plagues in Europe that the peasants got any kind of actual 'power' because with half or more of the population dead, that set of hands actually had a purpose and they could charge for their services- later of which would become what we now as a 'middle class'.
>>30519892The fact there is or would be a crowd of cheering people should answer your question. NO. In fact ppl dying was a good source of entertainment. Look at gladatorial fights or even better the almot as popular unarmed-man vs. lion fights. Or look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Peasants%27_War, when nobles massacred at least 100k peasants.
>>30519934Dependency != Empathy
Peasants were essentially slaves. Bound to lord or land. They were extremely expendable and incredibly stupid due to lack of even the most basic of education.Serfs were often traded by lords. In Russia for example a good horse could cost you 20 odd serfs.
>>30519993We have video games nowadays. And sports.People probably lived ordinary enough lives and didn't think twice about enjoying the circus, for one reason or another.
>>30519933After the black death hit bathing for both came to a screeching halt. Prior to that, yeah, the peasantry loved bathing. Soap was made on a near industrial level and you were expected to bathe with a houseguests.
>>30519810>the soldiers sitting around the fire raving and laughing about people dying at the Red Wedding made them seem like sociopathsSoldiers today will say (and do) some seriously fucked-up shit- so will doctors and other people who have a more intimate relationship with death than most of us. Wind back the clock a few centuries, to a time when there was nothing much you could do about disease, half the village kids died, and most women died in childbirth, and you'd expect to see a pretty different approach to life and death.
>>30520032Sorry>mostis probably an exaggeration. Lots of women, but not most, that would be a little too grimdark. I hope.
>>30519997Yes, yes, but the point is that the well being of peasants was a concern for the ruling class, most of the time. Atleast in a way to avoid making their life even shittier. Of course this varied from place to place and time to time and person to person.Like, in Sweden there was no serfdom and peasants had atleast theoretical chance to send written pleads to their king while Russian serf might had worse life than a roman slave.
>>30520001>Peasants were essentially slaves. Bound to lord or land.This was true in some places/time periods. Not true/less true in others.A good example if contrast is Britain pre & Post Black Death.Pre Black Death, serfs had essentially zero rights. You do as you're told by your betters or you'll be used as an example for your replacement.Post Black Death. Massive population reduction. The Lords don't have enough serfs to replace them like they used to. They need the ones they have to tend their land, work their crafts and do all the peasant stuff the Nobles always just took for granted before."Serf, go till my fields. I'll allot you 1% of the harvest to feed your family.">"M'lord, I think I'd like 3%. I shouldn't lose m' youngest this winter if I has a bit extra.""What! You'll do as you're told or you'll get nothing. These are my lands and I say how much you may keep.">"Very well M'lord. I'll just grab the family and head over to the next County. The Lord there needs people t' work 'is land an' is offerin' 3%."What. You can't leave. Try to leave and I'll see you hung at the cross roads.">"Then who'll tend you land's M'lord?""..... I. I''ll get other serfs. From other Counties. They'll tend my land.">"But you'll need to offer 'em better than what they got to lure 'em away. An' if they hear you still killin' us serfs like the Nobles used to.... I doubt any would come.""Fine. You can keep 3% of the harvest."
>>30520032Not like war hasn't been romanticized with movies and books and games, so every child is raised to think sand nigger death is fuckawesome and go amurrka.
>>30519810Depends on what peasants and where. In places like England or Sweden, peasants had a relatively high level of education and social rights. In places like Poland or Imperial Russia though, you get the classic unwashed and ignorant dirt farmers.
>>30519810>Were peasants really as dumb, dirty, and expendableLooked at any Central African countries recently, Anon? The ones with civil wars are the best example. Soldiers can raze an entire village to the ground, after mass-raping every woman present, and leaving not a single survivor. No-one bats an eyelid.And when's the last time you met an African subsistence farmer with a sparkling manicure who was willing and able to discuss the advantages of nuclear power with you?
>>30519810Keep in mind that when it comes to actual medieval relationships, GoT is unrealistic as fuck.Yes, "everything is grim and shit" IS unrealistic.Average peasant wasn't retarded. They just had more narrow and practical scope of vision (and it kinda helps when you depend on land to not starve).Soldiers... soldiers often -are- like that, even in modern times.
>>30520148>Soldiers... soldiers often -are- like that, even in modern times.Helps you deal with all the death and killing certainly. It's a lot easier for one's mental health to make a joke about the guy flying 20 metres up in the air after a drone strike, than to dwell on the fact that the guy probably had a family to feed and had his own aspirations, dreams and fears.
>>30520140>high level of educationnoin 17th century they became citizens in the modern sense of the word and they were no longer a part of social class "peasant"
>>30519993> gladiatorial fights> ppl dyingWas REALLY rare since gladiatorial combat was not even MMA of its day but the WWE.If you wanted actual bloodshed you put prisoners of war or condemned criminals fighting each other or animals, but without the groovy gear that was the trademark of sorts of the gladiators. Anything that would have put the sports superstar who was earning sestertii to his manager (and to himself) by the cartload in any real danger would have been foolish. What would the businesses whose products the star endorsed say were he to die unexpectedly?
>>30520165war is hell, ain't it?
>>30520148>Soldiers... soldiers often -are- like thatRight about now is when I wish I had a digital copy of Crecy to dump.
>>30520231Crecy is a Shit comic.
Feudalism had been a relatively stable system for hundreds of years because agricultural production was very primitive--producing few surpluses, and thus keeping trade and urban developments at a low level.The once extensive road system had fallen into complete disrepair and most of the towns and cities of the former Roman Empire had severely decayed or vanished altogether; in some places cattle grazed among the sometimes still visible ruins of Antiquity.Three field agriculture made a bigger supply of food, allowing for bigger towns and the growth of trades, attracting peasants to the towns.
>>30520178The relevant word is "relatively". You might want to look it up in a dictionary.
>>30519810Alright, OP. Peasants. They aren't really that different from today's working class - in a sense. Sure, they are totally uneducated but there's a reason: imagine you'd have to struggle to get enough food to feed yourself and your family all year long. And that only when the weather is right. Pre-taxes. And the food is mostly shitty gruel. Life is hard; you have to work hard every year to make it and pray that God doesn't hate you and sends famine or diseases your way. Or marauding bandits.And, no, peasants aren't all just sheep. They have a contract with their uppers: they trade in some of their freedoms for the pledge of security (anyone reminded of the NSA?). The whole thing degenerated a bit over time so people had lost their freedoms while protection by nobility wasn't always granted. But when peasants got together and petitioned their superior as a group, their chance of being listened to was much higher.That should be a lesson for all of us to never trade freedom for security.
Yes, people forget how fuck close we are to chimps with no education. You want to see present day rabble watch some videos of china's rural farms who come into the capital.You typed that out: Reading, Writing Things that one made you upper class and you don't even think about them any more.We live in a K to high school world and teach our young to read and right. Then think all people must be that way. The Noble Savage never existed.
>>30520196>hasn't seen the M*A*S*H screenshotsWar is worse than hell.
>>30520244I love how everything is always completely black and white on this site, either it's SHIT or GOTYAY.
The black death, while a tragedy, basically started the middle class and thus the renaissance in time (combined with crusade knowledge and general advancement). When peasants became a limited commodity lords really couldn't afford to treat them like shit any more. Kinda explains why places that didn't get hit by a plague (such as china and india) didn't advance like europe did, and thus colonialism happened. If your setting doesn't have a big plague then it is completely logical to have worthless peasants and low tech.
>>30520267>NeverAll things come in balance.Complete freedom is as bad as crippling security.
'Peasants' is not even a real thing, it was invented after the Middle Ages. You have serfs and freemen. Serfs had to spend a certain amount of days a year working the lord of the manors fields but got the rest to tend their own little plot of land that came with their house. They could not leave the land without permission. Any serf who ran away to a town or city and stayed for a year and a day was now free. Freemen owned more land and were not 'owned' by the lord. Some of them were nearly as wealthy as the nobles who owned the smaller manors. As for the cleanliness thing people washed their hands multiple times a day and would have done their best to keep their house and themselves clean even if the floor often is just dirt with rushes on it. They were not educated but they were not idiots and they knew their legal rights.
Peasants were always dumb and expendable. But they werent really dirty.They went form slaves to serfs over time during the ealy middle ages into the late middle ages basically.Especially following the fall of the roman empire shit got grim for peasants. They were still pagan and the nobles and kings were christian.The church even had to step in and regulate knightly violence vs peasants because knights liked to rape and steal before the christians invented chivalry and crusades.
>>30520413Chivalry is a myth, mostly. There were "ideals" but they only applied to others in the noble social class and were often ignored. You're right about the crusades though
>>30520364It's worth noting that depending on where they were, a serf could have more days a year off than modern man. They loved their celebrations, or the various religious holidays(there are a mess of those), or the parties the local lords were expected to hold, and then you have the parties the church held(made better by virtue of them making the best beer).They weren't quite the downtrodden wretches that fantasy likes to portray them as.
>>30520364On the cleaning part... medieval people of the lower classes at least were really sexually comfortable. Maybe not like us today, but certainly much more free sexually than people in the Victorian age.People would just wash themselves openly at rivers or wells without giving a fuck.Medieval people (including the nobles) also had FUCKING NASTY humour. Knights wore armour with middlefingers engraved on it. People sold daggers with dick-hilts.I can't say this for certain, but virginity wasn't really something people cared about, except for noble daughters. I think. I might be wrong though.
>>30520461Chivalry as in "you're not allowed to just rape and steal your own peasants".You were allowed to rape and steal from peasants from other fiefs.Basically chivalry in the middle ages was just the combo of horsemanship, combat skills and not raping your own fief into economic collapse.
>>30520463>Knights wore armour with middlefingers engraved on it.RL Angry Marines?Also, that's sort of interesting. It's kind of like the proles from 1984; they're too low for the powers-that-be to really worry about controlling their thoughts directly. Maybe it's the very development of the middle class that starting spreading noble-esque social rules around a greater portion of the populace.
>>30520463You're quite right actually. Sexual 'purity' was an issue only for nobleborn girls as they were to marry for alliances and bear heirs. A woman who had premartial sex put the legitimacy of her husband's heirs in question.
>>30520491Might be. You might really have a good point there.Also interesting fact. It wasn't until after Charlemagne that it became commonplace for nobles to know how to read and do proper math.Before that, nobles were just expected to know how to kill a lot of dudes.
>>30519810>Were peasants really as dumb, dirty, and expendable as they're always portrayed in pretty much ANY fantasy setting?No.A bit of thought would've saved you asking this question.
>>30520491Probably.The middle class may have adopted noble-esque social practices, customs and rules in order to try and imitate them, much in the same way some people try to imitate celebrities or fashionable trends.
>>this entire threadReminds me of this article.http://www.cracked.com/article_20615_5-ridiculous-myths-you-probably-believe-about-dark-ages.html
>>30520497OH OH OH! I remember something from a documentary on Charlemagne.He had a lot of wives. A LOT of wives. Hell, one of my female ancestors is a descendant of one of Charlemagne's "harem waifus".Something about how in those days marriage wasn't really codified so it really was just a matter of how much bling you had to keep your extended family running.
>>30520413The Crusades served the purpose of channeling the violence of knights into something the church deemed constructive, namely bailing out Byzantium and going after the glorious loot of the Muslims.For all the bloodshed, the crusades did bring new sciences and learning to Western Europe.
>>30519810I recommend this documentary:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg3YDN5gTX0
>>30520538And, of course, were it not for the Mongols, the Arab world might have continued to match Western Europe.
>>30520538It's actually pretty funny how it goes.>moors get pushed out of arabia because fuck those guys fucking shit up in arabia>they go raid europe>while later>knights get send on crusade because they keep fucking up shit in europe>they go raid the holy land
>>30520548"I am the punishment of God.If you had not committed great sins, god would not have sent a punishment like me upon you."I think they had it coming. Never mess with a king's messenger.
>>30520510Mind you, a big warning sign about information in the Middle Ages.Information wasn't lost. But it wasn't shared, and there was no real new generation of information.People just categorized information and rewrote old books over and over again.Bit like the Adeptus Mechanicus.>of course certain things just went about their own business like military engineering and church constructionBut no guy in the Middle Ages was going to question the Roman literature about dragons hunting elephants in India.
>>30520463>>30520497Now I wonder how different sexuality was seen among peasants.Being a gay noble was no big deal, because well, you're a fucking noble... but what about serfs, freemen and city dwellers?
>>30520601In most places, they didn't care. The Catholic Church was pretty tolerent back in the day doing everything from gay marriage between priests to running their own brothels to keep men from going crazy and raping all the women(that really was their excuse).
>>30519810I'm living in a shithole 3rd world country. The poorer classes can't feed their children properly. I'm willing to speculate that its full of retarded teens because of it even before getting into the local equivalent of crack
>>30520463The Victorian age wasn't as sexless and uptight as common-knowledge portrays it.
>>30520616I know that but was this restricted to certain regions? I know Italy was pretty gay friendly. And what about time periods? Did the gay friendliness stem from the Roman culture, and did it disappear as the Roman culture faded away (and then suddenly the Reformation hit)
I don't get why medieval kingdoms needed peasants.Why couldn't they just send one of their servants to the grocery store to buy food?
>>30520548Got to hand it to the mongols, wrecking shit in the arab world, spreading the bubonic plague through biological warfare AND making the 2nd biggest empire ever. Shaped the fucking world
>>30520639Yeah yeah yeah, I know. Be all uptight outside, be all nasty and fetishistic on the inside.
>>30519979In the last L5R session I played, two of us engaged in the traditional Samurai pastime of dog-shooting.
>>30520601As long as you produced sons, people didn't care much. Witches - before the renaming of 'poisoner' to 'witch' to give the Church more land taking capability - were lesbians who were tolerated because they performed valuable community services (midwifery, medicines, growing hard-to grw herbs, etc.).
>>30520463>Medieval people (including the nobles) also had FUCKING NASTY humour. Knights wore armour with middlefingers engraved on it. People sold daggers with dick-hilts.If you didn't have a Victorian-derived mindset, you wouldn't consider these things "FUCKING NASTY", you would just consider them "humorous".
>>30520650Well you do need money to buy food in the first place. And Servant. And a grocery store.
>>30520653Don't forget that Ghengis Khan is probably the human that had the biggest genetic influence on the history of Earth.
>>30520668It's a joke, you fucking sandcunt.
>>30520510Oh fuck i read that and am laughing so hard, the quote in reference to the Romans IG strategy of throwing men at a problem till it went away was hilarious "There's no political issue too intractable for a bunch of angry men with pointed sticks."
>>30520656Did you also fuck little boys while high-fiving?
>>30520674But they were kings, so they were already rich.
>>30520462>a serf could have more days a year off than modern manNo, he DID.Every single one of them did, for obvious reasons.
>>30520689People on the Internet can't hear inflection, you goddamned autist.
>Were peasants really as dumb, dirty, and expendable>Dumb?No. people then were no less intelligent than people today. Conversely, they were far less educated than today. so they would very easily be much less aware of things in the world.>Dirtyno. Bathing was commonplace - infact there are laws in places (prague, for example) that stipulated that those who did not bathe on a regular basis would be fined. Vikings were renowned for their fastidious personal hygiene, too. That's not to say they smelt of roses all the time. the environment was certainly dirtier than today - particularly cities, which would be rank. >Expendableyes, within reason. kill them all off, and there's no food. but the average peasant was pretty much given as much thought as you give about the average guy in North Korea. - so, very little.
>>30520148The thing is it's set during a huge war. Dunc and Egg isn't super grim, because it's a time of peace.GoT isn't even as fucked up as, say, Flesh+Blood because Benioff and Weiss took out the scene where Arya watched three women being gang raped, as opposed to Verhoeven who had a little kid laughing and playing his drum.
>>30520267>imagine you'd have to struggle to get enough food to feed yourself and your family all year longMedieval peasants had far more leisure time than modern people do. Sure, there were times of the year when you'd have to work hard, but at other times you took it easy. Like, if your lord demanded you work for him, you only had to do half a day's work, and if he made you do overtime you got tomorrow off.
>>30519892Read about Iraq. Soldiers have always been brutal and enjoyed it.
>>30520723So we're agreed it's an unfortunate communication problem based on the medium through which it was expressed, you foul-smelling cuntfungus?
>>30520656>Much arrow>Very shoot>Wow
>>30520734Interestingly enough the Flynn Effect suggests that actually medieval peasants were significantly less intelligent than the average person today.The exact reasons for this haven't been fully determined but it's kind of cool.
>>30520798What else could it have been, you retarded shit-nipple?
>>30519810I don't have much time, but I'll say a bit. People should do some research on these topics. Read some real scholar level books, most of what is said in this thread is nonsense.First, when considering how peasants were treated be careful that you are not getting how Russian Feudal system worked. That was horrible, but it was Feudal only in name - in reality they were slaves. Not so for Europe, certainly not for Britain. Most peasants, wait for it, could read. They had a very specific reading interest, which was law (contracts actually). Contracts completely ruled their life, and if you could not read them yourself you were screwed (contract with your lord about obligations, etc). Outside of that narrow range they had no interest in reading and no skill there. It isn't like there were book stores for them to buy fantasy novels to read. So they really didn't care.Stupid? Within the context of what they were doing they should be considered specialists. A Feudal farm had a lot going on and the peasant had to be able to do all of it and do it well or starve. The idea that they were stupid is just cultural bias. These are the same human beings as are alive now, they were just as innately intelligent as anyone on this forum. I'd suggest that if any of us were transported back to their time that rather than being hailed as a wizard, most of us would be considered pretty stupid as we would be unable to do even the most simple of tasks.Peasants were certainly not street vermin. They were the very foundation of a Lords wealth. Their labor was a measure of wealth. To kill a peasant was to commit theft against a lord.
>>30520854This is the only correct answer in this thread.
>>30520854Whaaa?Wasn't literacy seen as something to be feared by the nobility, because peasants who could read the Bible for themselves might realize that their lords were full of shit?Or was there just a prohibition against reading the Bible if you weren't a member of an approved class?
>>30520867You are fucking retarded.
>>30520867Not him.But Bible was written in Latin.
>>30520876OK.Now could you answer the questions that I asked with the assumption that people would realize that I didn't know the answers, based on the fact that I had just asked about that topic?I mean, if you're not too busy sucking your own cock.
>>30520854Over all the peasant had less interaction with his lord than you have with your government. It was arguably somewhat of a libertarian'ish (but not really) society in that the Lord only gave a shit about his peasants within the context of what wealth he could get from them. Other than that, he didn't care. They could, and did, manage almost all of their own affairs. Legal matters, the entire thing were handled by the peasants themselves.The Feudal system itself existed as a response to a lack of currency. Lacking money, the one thing that people had to 'trade' (be taxed) was their labor. As such the Lord demanded X amount of labor each year from the peasants (X changes depending on era and nation). That could be paid instead with food or coin, but for the big tax that was rare until the end. Though the Lord almost always preferred to receive goods or better yet coin when he could get it.Taxes? Beyond the big (think of it as their version of income tax) yearly labor. There were a ton of 'fees' that were had for damn near anything. If you research it you are going to laugh, it is so much like our current system. A fee or tax or 'license' on damn near everything. this was usually paid with a food good 'chicken' or 'X eggs' that sort of thing.
>>30520885Sorry, sucking (my) cock(s) is too fun to answer questions a high schooler should know answer of.
>>30520914No problem, I didn't realize you were an Internet tough guy.
>>30520930I'm glad we are in agreement.
>>30520867None of that is true. This myth comes from later on when, as is typical, later generations wanted to think of themselves as smarter than earlier ones. Also, there is a lot of 'and this is how evil the nobles or church were' depending on which axe you have to grind.The fact is that other than legal matters (contracts) the peasants did not give a fuck about reading. Who cares? There were no books to read. The church actually taught the peasants for free in order to protect them (peasants) from noble abuse and to give the church more power (see all that we do for you, etc).Gotta go guys. Be back in about three hours after I work out. If this thread is around I'll talk some more. I'm a bit of scholar in this area.I promise you though, the more you learn about this era the more you will go 'fuck, they were just like us'.
>>30520009Christfags also frequently opposed bathing due to their weird sex and nudity taboos. It didn't help that many bathhouses were hangouts for prostitutes.
>>30520938>Hey baby, you wanna get... "clean"?
>>30520930Just in case you missed it because you were fighting with your boyfriend, peasants learned how to read their own language, Bibles were printed in Latin, a language that the clergy used. The myth that you're attempting to perpetuate is 100% Fedora Tippery.
>>30520938>Christfags also frequently opposed bathing due to their weird sex and nudity taboos. those were a minority - pretty much the wesboro baptists of their day, and were looked on as a bit crazy by the normal christians.
>>30520125You do also know that humor is a coping mechanism, right?
Luther had a low opinion of the peasants: "The people live like animals."
>>30520962>The myth that you're attempting to perpetuate>attempting to perpetuate>by asking for answers from people who ostensibly know betterOK. They weren't kidding about daytime /tg/ being worst /tg/.
>>30520967Luther just didn't like anyone.Except ex-nuns I guess.
>>30521010All nuns are whores
>>30521029Now that's generalizing.MOST nuns are whores.
>>30520865No, it isn't. Because even it fails to take the heterogeneity across Europe and across the centuries into account. And, yes, I have taken a lecture or two on the Middle Ages.
>>30520937Depending on era and place, peasants in servitude to a feudal lord had no business with contracts.
>>30519810European Peasants are academically dumb but are smart in the practicals of their lives (i.e. hunting, farming, trapping, and so on).As for their education, shit varies. In England for example, peasants tend to be decently educated than their mainland European counterparts owing to the fact that the background of the English peasant is the Saxon Freeman, who ought to know laws, statutes, and obligations required of them. Sure the Normans brought the Feudal System of the mainland Europe to England but they can't snuff out what essentially is a parliamentary society that's already there.And then you had the French peasantry who got the shit-end of the Feudal experience (i.e. mean lords, who take 80% of your income, robber barons, semi-independent counts/marquises/counts who rarely follow the king.). It's a hit and miss being French peasant. Sometimes you had a fair lord and in the next village they have an utter shit one.Worst of all, however, is the Eastern European Peasant. They're close to literal slaves.>I just got to thinking about it because I re-watched GoT recently, and the soldiers sitting around the fire raving and laughing about people dying at the Red Wedding made them seem like sociopaths.People are mean in war. Specially victorious soldiers.
>>30520854Most of what is said in this thread was agreeing with you you arrogant piece of shit.
>>30520364>Written by Lisa J. SteeleWait, didn't isn't that the one who wrote GURPS Mysteries?
If you need historical information I have the most accurate source.
>>30521232No, it really wasn't you insecure faggot
>>30520978>daytime /tg/ being worst /tg/You should try midnight /tg/. These guys at least are just full of themselves.
>>30521273The thread is full of posts pointing out that the common conception of the Medieval peasant is inaccurate then you barge in and declares that only YOUR post pointing out it is inaccurate is right. Its unnecessary and pathetic.
>>30521252Are you telling me that its not true that half of all men in a community were rapists forming rapegangs and there was no punishment for rape.
>>30519810It's probably bullshit. Peasants in medieval artwork aren't portrayed as looking much different aside from clothing. At least, the farmers did. Miners probably weren't so lucky.
>>30520978History /tg/ is the worst /tg/ as its full of people presenting misconception as fact, or outdated facts as still facts despite primary evidence to the contrary.History threads on /tg/ shouldn't just be deleted for off-topic, but for being so obnoxiously wrong with a self-assured attitude problem to go with it.I am with the guy saying how humans now are no different from humans then, they could read and probably weren't too dirty or downtrodden, but ultimately you need to find appropriate sources to find out for certain (still with some degree of uncertainty) just how your peasants were treated in your time period of interest.
>>30520709High fives are dishonoraburr
>>30520854>Most peasants, wait for it, could read. They had a very specific reading interest, which was law (contracts actually). Contracts completely ruled their life, and if you could not read them yourself you were screwed (contract with your lord about obligations, etc).In England maybe. Not so everywhere else in Europe.Yes this is just France, but France is the focal point of Feudalism in Europe. Furthermore there are other ways of leaning laws for the illiterate. You could either ask a priest about it and also passes orally.
>>30521336BODYPARTS BODYPARTS GETTING ME ERECThttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TLlbVW-VA0
>>30521284Please. Those are both wonderful compared to morning and evening /tg/
>>30521380History /tg/ is still better than history any other board.
>>30521422>France is the focal point of Feudalism in Europe.>focal point of Feudalism in Europe.Depending on what you mean to say, I don't think so.There is no focal point of Feudalism.The Holy Emperor of the Realm (Germany) was for centuries the co-leader of christianity (not that anyone cared). How is that for a focal point?Bog-standard Fantasy is generally 40% mediaeval Germany, 40% mediaeval England and 20% rest of Europe anyway.
Thanks to this thread, I now want to see a version of L5R based on mediaeval Europe, and (thanks to >>30520182) a game based on gladiators in Rome competing for the best sponsorships whilst squeezing in things like posing for promotional pictures, training and such like.
>>30519810If I recall correctly bathing was viewed as heresy or at least frowned on for a long time due to its pagan connections. And shit was literally thrown into the streets. Clothing was usually worn until it simply fell apart.As far as smarts, you only get so much brain power plowing fields. And they were rather plentiful, so yeah, pretty damn expendable.So, no, usually fiction gets it wrong. They were much worse.
>>30521422>but France is the focal point of Feudalism in Europe.Yup.Is debated how "Feudal" most kingdoms were outside of the Frankish core between Rhin and Loire.
>stupid claims based on hear say>not so stupid but sourcless claims>stupid claims get refuted>shit flinging>stupid claims get repeated by faggots who didn't read the thread>stupid claims might get refuted if anyone still cares or get reinforced with additional retards>repeat until 404Every history thread on /tg/.
>>30521422Let's not forget that ~50% of the population was women, and why should they learn to fucking read in1780s France?
>>30521514Germany wasn't really a thing till, like, 1871 (maybe 1848-9 if you want to count the Frankfurt Parliament instead of the formal declaration, for some reason)Germany is 'younger' than the US
>>30521591Such knowledge, tell me more.
>>30521591>Germany wasn't really a thing till, like, 1871Sure, the unified country of "Germany" wasn't a thing before then.But are you honestly going to try to deny the existence of the Frankish lands east of the Rhine for all time before someone called it "Germany"?
>>30521540They were actually going to have a scene in the Gladiator movie where Maximus was being sponsored, as in brand name sponsorship endorsing goods, but the test audiences didn't think it was believable.
>>30521591Depends what you mean by "A Thing"There was a general idea of the German people being a thing at least since the 16th century
>>30521591You know why that has been called the 2nd Reich, right? Because the first Reich was the Holy Roman Empire. While, it was not initially called the Holy Roman Empire of German nations, that addition popped up in the 15th century, so late Middle Ages.
>>30521433Hey, I like evening /tg/. Things get a little lewd, but still.
>>30521591>>30521637>Cont >>30521624The term "Germany" is derived literally from "Home of the Germans". The first Reich, or unified state, of Germany was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (originally just the HRE, but "of the German Nation" was added before it was dissolved, established in 962.The HRE lasted until 1806, then the German Empire was re-established in 1871. That lasted until the end of WWI, before the rise of Nazi Germany in 1933. After Nazi Germany, we had the Cold War, which led to the unification of what is now simply "Germany".Before 962, there was no unified country of Germany, simply a collection of states who all spoke German, and all descended from the Germanic tribes.tl;dr, Germany has been "a thing" since pre-Roman period.
>>30521624It's the same way I wouldn't talk about Spain before... I'll hazard a guess at the 2nd half of the 1400s. I'd say the Iberian PeninsulaOr Italy before... hmmm 1860-1871The land's there, but it was something else at the time
Check out Terry Jones' Medieval Lives documentary series on BBC's youtube.
>>30521575Doesn't it fill you with a sense of wonder?
>>30521635That's a shame. Still, doesn't stop there being a board game about it or something.
>>30519892> It just seems like in modern days, if you heard about an entire family being executed mercilessly, you would be stunned and disgusted.Not really. After 9/11, I thought that every civilian casualty was justified payback. I've mellowed since then, but there's usually a reason to celebrate death: Gaddafi, Kim Jong-il, Osama bin Laden getting shot in the fucking head...You know, that kind of thing. Schadenfreude is a universal constant.
>>30519934> Except the nobles who have sworn to protect their subjects in exhance of their services. Except craftsmen who trade their services to mostly peasants. Except priests who generally were quite caring people and if not that, someone needed to grow their food.You milk cows, and you have buffalos pull your plough. But you don't cry when the time comes to turn them into steaks.
>>30521575>Every history debate ever.ftfy.>>30521717>the Iberian PeninsulaBut that's a different thing to "Spain" as well. The "Spain" you're trying to refer to would presumably be the Spaniard peoples? IIRC, there were four nations, maybe five? of Frankish/Iberian peoples independently wrestling for power against the Moors during that period. Unless you were attempting to refer to the Moors as well? In which case, the use of the term "Spain" would indeed have been silly, but for completely different reasons.But at the same time, for all intents and purposes, using the term "Spanish" would be acceptable for conveying the meaning of the term.
>>30521739It indeed does.
>>30519892They didn't have television back then. Watching other dudes try to kill each other was entertainment. Just look at Rome's Colosseum, and the equivalent in other countries.
>>30521717Check out any map of the Holy Roman Empire. It is to be considered German for practically all intents and purposes.
>>30521514There is a focal point. Italy was largely urban, Germans had craploads of ways of doing things given that they were a collection of Rural/Urban states, while France was so fucking feudal, nobles who ought to answer to the king can afford to be little statelings.And since Normans went around conquering shit, they brought French brand of Feudalism along with them.
>>30520125I'm Chinese, and I think sand nigger death is awesome. They're hostile to us, so I don't see why there's so much hand-wringing about returning that hostility at every opportunity. It's not like they could hate us - Civilization - *more*, after all.
>>30521828Yeah dude, execute all muslims.
>>30521828Yeah but you're Chinese, you have no soul, just like Gingers.
>>30521849Not that guy, but the Chinese are traditionally quite hostile to Muslims. The Uighurs of the Xinjia province regularly get slaughtered by the Chinese, for instance.
>>30521637In some of the oldest surviving Swedish city laws (I've read parts of them in 'elder Swedish'; language history is gold), they actually talk about how there is a limit to the number of German traders and craftsmen who are allowed in the councils, as they had immigrated in such a majority.These texts are from 1200-1300. GERMANS as a people and concept have been around a long time.
>>30521823Depends on what you call "so feudal". Germany did have kings/emperors and a liege system. See Heerschildordnung. The main difference is that in France the king managed to concentrate more power.
>>30520491
>>30519810Let me explain the average life of a peasant OP. Sorry for wall of text.First off, peasants don't own land. They live on the noble's land, and pay "rent" by giving their lord a portion (usually a fat cut too) of the crops they harvest, in addition to taxes. Keep in mind, they are trying to feed themselves and their families at the same time, and medieval agriculture wasn't as plentiful as today; everything had to be sown, separated, and harvested by hand, and their were no pesticides to keep bugs away, and it's vey likely the weather will kill at least some of the original crop.Second, peasants almost never leave. Once they're born on a lord's land, they normally aren't allowed to leave. Doing so would be similar to a runaway slave, and if they're caught, they'll be punished. The average peasant would never see the world outside the noble's land.Third, peasants are uneducated. Education was only for the wealthy, i.e. nobles. The vast majority could not read, write, or even do simple math. The most you could assume they knew was how to count on their fingers.Fourth, peasants are poor. The average peasant's house was a one-room wooden "house" that had to hold the whole family, their possessions (which were few), and all their livestock during the winter. They slept on hay. If someone in the family got sick, there was a good chance the others would too, and this was an era were something as small as a cold could kill. Most days they would eat stew made from whatever they had, and the soggy bread crusts nobles would sometimes throw them.
>>30521930Finally, a peasant is a peasant for life. There was no moving up in life for peasants, they would spend their short lives growing crops for the noble who's land they happened to be born on, then died on said nobles land. Books, games, and other forms of media often show some working as servants for their local lord, but that wasn't actually very common. Most servants, from the meat carvers to the people who dressed the lord, were minor nobles or bastards. A peasant could become a footsoldier (though often they had no choice in the matter), but they were too poor to afford armor or weapons, and they were not issued any. Often a peasant footsolder would go into battle with normal clothes and maybe a leather helmet.In conclusion, peasants are not necessarily bad, if anyone the nobles are for making them live like that. Granted they're not going to be the most sophisticated people, but that's be because their living conditions made them that way.
>>30521876>the Chinese are traditionally quite hostile to MuslimsThere's only room for one militant xenophobe culture in these parts, partner.
>>30521876>but the Chinese are traditionally quite hostile to Muslims. The Uighurs of the Xinjia province regularly get slaughtered by the Chinese, for instance.That's largely due to the fact that the Uighurs are Turkic and what Turkics loved to do to China was raid & invade it.Which is why China pretty much fucked them up ever since the T'ang dynasty.
>>30521930>First off, peasants don't own land.Thats only a certain kind of peasant.
>>30521952>>30521957To be quite fair, the Chinese are only xenophobic due to being fucked over by literally every geographic neighbor of theirs at one point in the past.
>>30520491>RL Angry Marines?Probably more like /b/tards in plate mail.>LOLOLOL YON KNAVE'S ARMOR DOTH SAY "PENIS"
>>30519934This, the whole thing about peasants being massacred was due to medieval warfare at the time, where opposing lordships/kingdoms/whatever would raid each others lands and kill each others peasants in order to eithera) lure the opposition out of their castles b)weaken them economically
>>30521981>being fucked over by literally every geographic neighbor of theirs at one point in the past.Isn't that the history of everyone?
>>30521974Well okay, specifically serfs can't own land, but that's what a lot of them were. Plus, there's not a lot of land a poor peasant can buy.
>>30521876>>30521957Addendum: the Chinese aren't "traditionally" hostile to Muslims. Loads of Western and Southern Chinese are Muslims. Furthermore they're one of their best trading partners and not to mention Chinese Muslims were career soldiers, to the point that the sons of muslim Chinese solider took over their dads jobs and people with the surname of Ma (a Chinese name for "Muhammad") were commonly soldiers.They just hate.the.fuck out of the Uighurs because they are Turkic horseniggers, and Imperial China hates aimless steppe horseniggers
>>30522007Invasion didn't really exist as a concept until Sargon invented it about 6000 years ago, and implemented it on all his Mesopotamian neighbors.
>>30520050Not him, but I would say most is the right word. The dark ages happened to be pretty grimdark.
>>30522007Sure, I guess.But China's history is defined mostly by who was invading them at the time.
>>30521947I thought generally lords didn't conscript unless they absolutely needed too because they always need people to work the fields and feed the army.
>>30522024Depending on era, land doesn't have to be bought, you can simply start cutting wood.
>>30520491Nah, RL angry marines would be Viking berserkers. They'd get themselves riled up for battle by banging their weapons and gnawing on their shields, then run in and kill everything in a fit of rage. I think there may have also been some kind of drug they used before a battle that would throw them into a frenzy.
>>30521981Nope, their xenophobia came about by being a regional power and initially being surrounded by either>Nomadic tribes.>Civilizations that followed their lead.
>>30522024What I mean is that you cannot just generalize about the how the 90% population of a whole continent lived during 1000 years.The situation of the peasantry varied enormously on different areas from the same country, during the same time.
>>30519810>literally street vermin
>>30519926 This. Don't think of them as sub-human. They're just... hillbillies. Probably never read a book, don't watch TV. Don't know much about what goes on in the next administrative region next to them. But they know their neighbors, the home town and surrounding area, their traditions, their religions, and are all around decent people just trying to get by. Might be prone to conspiracy theories and discrimination, especially against people someone they know/trust has told them is bad, but they had enough sense to not wallow around in filth, wear rags, and and kill anything "just because it's different".>>Looked at any Central African countries recently, Anon? The ones with civil wars are the best example. Soldiers can raze an entire village to the ground, after mass-raping every woman present, and leaving not a single survivor. No-one bats an eyelid. The people living there bat an eyelid. They're in a long term war. It's the rest of the world that is trying to not pay as close attention, seeing as it is a horrible situation with no clear/easy answer, and it doesn't affect them too much.
>>30521947>>30521930Refer to >>30521575 and guess which part your posts are.
>>30522072Hey, I never said the Chinese didn't contribute to the problem.Just that they did, eventually, get invaded by everyone.
>>30519892Public executions were a form of entertainment.Not even the peasants gave a shit about the peasants.
>>30521041For the era, most nuns were nobles. Have an extra son (or later brother who didn't inherit) he goes off to be a wondering tourney knight (crusades yay). Got an extra daughter you didn't marry off? She goes off to the convent.
>>30521422You will probably have to help me out and explain that chart. As I read it, it seems to indicate that prior to 17xx literacy was pretty high and that it fell after that dramatically.Which would seem to indicate agreement with what I said, 1730 and on into the 1800's isn't what I would discuss as 'feudal' era. We also have to be careful about what we consider 'literate' in this area. A peasant (serf) would be very interested in being able to read and understand a contract - he likely is obligated by at least 2-3 such contracts. But he isn't going to give a fuck about 'see spot run'. So how literate was he? Will, within the very narrow area of understanding a contract he was very literate for the language that was used at that time. However, for general purposes not so much. You can probably understand how quantifying 'this percentage is literate in this society' might actually be under such circumstances.
>>30519810While they could be quite brutal, some of the things that you see are made up of whole cloth.They could not empty their chamber pots into the streets because filth led to bad smells, and bad smells led to disease and death. They were required to haul their filth away.In one case, the peasants on one street beat a stranger who had tossed a fish skin onto the street. Knowing that they could be fined, they imparted vigilante justice to the litterbug.
>>30521577More importantly, I think the discussion would end by 1600 if we were discussing the Feudal era.
>>30521732Actually, those are pretty good if I remember correctly. I got to admit. I can't think of a better 'tv' source off the top of my head as opposed to a book source.
>>30519991holy fuck the plagues made the middle class? jesus.this is worse than the nasa/nazi's one.choose either: having a middle class, or a 1/3 chance of you dying.
>>30519940Comparing murdering a defenseless peasant to killing a terrible mass murderer is full retard, man.Also 9/11 did damage to the country far beyond the death toll would suggest (the damage to optimism in general for example shit up sci fi for decades to come), and there's no evidence to suggest that pursuing him "damaged the country."
>>30519926In the game, Pendragon, players take the role of knights. One of the skills available is knowing what the peasants are actually doing."Ah, yes, it appears that they are moving filth about on that field. I'm sure it serves a purpose. Probably to keep them out of mischief."
>>30522173I'm not sure hillbillies act subhuman like medieval peasants do, though...
>>30522677The bubonic plague is considered the catalyst for the increase of worker's rights and gentrification of Western society by most historians. It is what is taught in universities.
>>30521930>First off, peasants don't own land. They live on the noble's land, and pay "rent" by giving their lord a portion (usually a fat cut too) of the crops they harvest, in addition to taxes. Keep in mind, they are trying to feed themselves and their families at the same time, and medieval agriculture wasn't as plentiful as today; everything had to be sown, separated, and harvested by hand, and their were no pesticides to keep bugs away, and it's vey likely the weather will kill at least some of the original crop.This is where we get into the 'what era' discussion. The contract almost always was 'you provide X period of time of labor on the lords fields'. So the peasant paid 'tax' with his labor. In most such contracts the peasant had the option to pay with goods instead.However, he almost always preferred to pay with his labor. In part because the lord had certain obligations to HIM for doing so, such as feeding him a good meal (these were actually written out as exactly what was provided, quantity and quality). The lord had the additional option of demanding more labor if he liked, but he had to feed the peasant even more. The peasants usually really liked this situation. As you can imagine, the lord not so much. He would much rather be paid in goods that he can then sell or barter for coin. He would REALLY rather be paid in coin.This actually goes as a truth right up the food chain. The 'lord' was obligated to provide military service to HIS lord. But in fact, that lord would much rather have coin instead that he could use for whatever purpose or to hire mercenaries.See, there were all kinds of restrictions (era and area) on what that military service was and how long it lasted. Mercenaries were yours as you liked as long as they were paid. Much better from that upper lords point of view.The whole thing about feudalism is to understand that it was a barter era. There was in effect no coin to be had.
>>30521930>Second, peasants almost never leave. Once they're born on a lord's land, they normally aren't allowed to leave. Doing so would be similar to a runaway slave, and if they're caught, they'll be punished. The average peasant would never see the world outside the noble's land.This is the one big 'oppression' thing about the Feudal era. You were in effect bound to the land if you were a serf. You weren't a slave (unless you were Russian), but you were not a 'free man' either.For fun, look up what how cities interacted with that run away serf thing. I think you might be surprised how that worked out.
>>30521930>Third, peasants are uneducated. Education was only for the wealthy, i.e. nobles. The vast majority could not read, write, or even do simple math. The most you could assume they knew was how to count on their fingers.As I covered above, this just is not true. He could read as much as he needed to read. He could do as much math as he needed to do. He simply had no further need for more education in those areas. He need to be able to read and understand contracts and his obligations under them, math was needed in the same way. He likely could do some forms of math much faster and better than we can (weird use of fractions with measurements and such) while struggling heavily to do many of the things that we would consider gradeschool basic. These people were highly educated in narrow areas that they had need of. They did not waist time (time = labor = money = feudalism) on things they did not need. They didn't have that luxury.I'd also advise against our rather modern arrogance over 'simple' skills. Farming, husbanding, construction, etc. We look down on these things and think of them as having know skill or knowledge. Anyone can do it. But the reality is that this is not true. Within those areas the peasant was highly educated and very capable. From mending fences to sowing to weeding to taking care of animals. A whole wide area of knowledge was evident that none of us have. They would be considered 'ignorant' in our world, true. But we are morons in theirs as well. Likely, as well, they could adapt to ours and survive - we would likely starve in theirs.
>>30522831They had to in fact pass a law in England at one point telling lords that they were not allowed to deny their vassals the right to give military service instead of paying it off. Higher ups would often rather have mercenaries but lots of the knights wanted to go fight.
>>30519810>I just got to thinking about it because I re-watched GoT recently, and the soldiers sitting around the fire raving and laughing about people dying at the Red Wedding made them seem like sociopaths.Listen to a bunch of marines sitting around an FOB raving and laughing about a drone blowing up buildings full of people. It's nothing to do with peasantry, that's just soldiers.
>>30522741That is funny. But the odds are that any noble on that lower end would know full well what was going on. The nobles were not fools either. They managed their land and holdings. They had to understand all of this or the peasants would rip them off in a heartbeat. Woman (noble wives) often found this a place where they had power. The Lord might have to be off doing something for his Lord and would leave his Lady in charge of things. It wasn't always like this. There would be variation from noble to noble. But it wasn't uncommon for the Lady to be in charge running the manor while the Lord focused on that war stuff. Basic division of labor. The lower you go in power scale the more often this was true. You don't get the Lady as someone who does nothing until you go up the power scale. At that bottom level, you can't afford to have ANYONE be unproductive.
>>30522938>lots of the knights wanted to go fightOr were too poor to pay with coin. Of course a poor noble's retinue might not have been up to all standards.
>>30521952What about the Hui?
>>30522938As with all things, we always have to consider the era.As we go earlier you tended to pay with labor, as you move later you paid with goods, at the end you paid with coin (and then feudalism collapses after that).But you are right, the Lord really wanted that coin. And the lesser Lords wanted to pay with 'labor'.See, those lesser Lords didn't have an open ended obligation. They might only owe a few months total per year. So if that invasion doesn't work out in that timeline, fuck you I am going home. And they did. Funny as hell, but they did.From the lesser Lords perspective he could go off and tool around doing jack shit, let his wife run the manner, for a few months and likely have nothing happen...or he could pay coin that he really didn't have. Guess which HE wanted to do?Remember here though, there are lots of 'knights' in this discussion. There were many landless knights out there (second sons, etc). And they had no obligation and would also go out on those excursions (loot, yay). Keep in mind as well, even when an obligation was paid in coin it might very well be that the Lord decides to go along anyhow (loot, yay).
>>30522831>The whole thing about feudalism is to understand that it was a barter era. There was in effect no coin to be had.Currency is merely a tool to deal with debt. That's true today and it was always true.
>>30522986Yeah Dukes and Earls would often spend most of their time at court for the benefit of their career and influence. Suffolk will only actually be in Suffolk if he is ill and needs the country air or if he pissed off the king so an employee would actually run the land.
>>30523000Very true.We should also consider that when we start talking Crusades many nobles were sincerely committed. We tend to look cynically at it, but in fact there were a lot of people that went out of religious belief.
>>30522301Think how many people hate criminals today anon.Then remove the insulation from death and toil for goods that modern people generally have (especially those in cities).Add in an increased respect for authority and belief in punishing wrongdoers.Remember our love for gory games and TV shows, and remember the dearth of entertainment options back thenWhy are you surprised execution was also entertainment?
>>30523102All of these thing should be reflected in games, I think. That local Lord that runs 'owns' the village? He is a hands on guy. knows his shit. Depends on his wife as his right hand man so to speak. That Duke? His Steward has a way better idea of what is really going on. His wife has some Ladies in waiting and is there to help the Duke play politics at court, otherwise she can shut the fuck up.
>>30523110That's true. Especially the first crusades were such agonizing journeys, someone with only secular interest most likely wouldn't have seen them through.
>>30523056>feudalism collapses after thatEven in the 1200's people were paying off their obligations in coin, I think it was more the Black Death in 1350ish that hurt feudalism more.
>>30523056Well it makes sense. Why would you bother squatting in the middle of god knows where while back, paying out the ass for every minute you spend there in terms of food and pay for your men, while back home you're loosing money on untilled fields and god knows what elseTime is money, and unless loot is a guarantee fighting isn't a very good investment
>>30523165That and the revolution in ship building that allowed for better returns on trading.
>>30523165It is hard to cut the point where one becomes the other. There never is a hard point right? Where X is no longer Y. We tend to see one bleed into the other over the course of hundreds of years.For TG purposes though...I'd suggest that for most D&D games you want to look at using a later obligation (coin) system. Otherwise the players come back from a dungeon with lots of gold coins will just not make sense (not that D&D economies ever really make sense of course). But if you wanted to be the most consistent that is what I would suggest.About then you start seeing standing armies (which are usually reflected in D&D games), that sort of thing.
>>30523183>untilled fieldsThe manor keeps running when the knight is away you know. His wife, bailiff and/or steward do a lot of the actual running of the manor and can handle it in his absence.
>>30523200Well a single gold coin would feed an average person for weeks, I have never liked how worthless a lot of fantasy games make gold relatively.
>>30523203Unless he raised the able bodied men as part of the troop levy or fyrd or whatever. I guess it depends on the era, but you see this a lot with the vikings. They could form huge armies that would wreck shit, but only as long as the promise of easy money and land to settle was promised. If victory and the returns on it weren't certain, most of the army would break back up into individual crews and sail somewhere with better financial prospects.
>>30523226If the someone could somehow turn the coin into commodities without first getting robbed or cheated out of it.
>>30523144The thing about the first crusade is that there was also the interests of the muslim slave traders who kept raiding the coastal villages of italy and southern france with "official" consent for thousands of slaves over the period before without retribution, this was one of the many reasons
>>30523226It could be that gold is devalued by adventurers constantly unearthing buried treasure or slaying dragons and spending their hordes in huge binges.Like how Mansa Musa's pilgrimage pretty much left egypt in economic shambles because he was literally GIVING away gold, and the resulting devaluation played havoc with peoples savings and the price of goods
>>30523253Yeah, nothing is simple.
>>30523183>>30523056On the topic of Loot there's one thing people often forget about.The most valuable things you can get on campaign are enemy knights and lords for ransom.The amount of money you can get from capturing nobility and selling them back to their family/lord was amazing. Prisoner swaps were also very common (but only for knights and nobles)
>>30519876Feudally, yesThey also had the best nutrition because they drank "poor people" beer and "poor people" whole-grain bread.+5 CON for all peasants
>>30523203All true. However, consider that a Lord may not want to be away because he may feel that when he is away shit just isn't getting done right. Think of it like a small businessman today.The guy doesn't REALLY take a vacation, he is still on the phone with customers and the manager he left behind daily when he is 'on vacation'. The knight didn't have a phone and may very well be wringing his hands the entire time.Now, that isn't an 'era' thing that would be an individual thing. Some might recognize that their wife is better at running things (and sometimes they were). So feel free in games to have some go one way and some the other.
>>30519943That's the russian tradition of serfdom, which lasted right up until the revolution.Being a serf in russia sucked.
>>30523283>The most valuable things you can get on campaign are enemy knights and lords for ransom.I'm not really well versed in that area, but that does seem to match everything I have heard.My main line of study has been 'how did they live, what were their lives like'. Pretty narrow in that area.
>>30523293Being poor in Russia ALWAYS sucked (and still sucks now)
>>30519810Soldiers just wanting a little fun isn't all that uncommon
>>30523267Just look at the average dragon hoard, many of them have more gold than has been mined in several hundred years in the real world. Gold is just ridiculously common in many fantasy worlds.
>>30523293Most of our negative views of Feudalism come from Russia. That place sucked.I'd argue that while Russia used Feudal terms...they did not really practice feudalism and instead it was just straight up slavery.(a Serf has rights, a slave does not)In a game you could point this out and have fun with it. We tend to treat all lands in campaigns as the same. Have some peasants treated well, true feudalism. And then the characters wonder into not-russia...
>>30523337yet stable in value...
>>30521784Spain as a thing didn't exist until the kingdoms of Aragon and Castille were united by marriage in the late 15th century, after which columbus opened the new world which the newly minted spainish nobles profited ridiculously, so much so that they ended up facing inflation that would ultimately cost them their short lived aspirations of reasserting the holy roman empire as an actual political force
>>30523315To be fair I'm not so much a student of the times, it's more I've read a fair bit about knights, lords and castles, mainly because I've been in said castles and their information books make good reading when there's no internet (before my smartphone). I stayed interested.
>>30523337Eh, a dragon has had several human lifetimes to acquire his hoarde, plus he's pratically a one man army that can fly and breathe fire. It doesn't seem that unlikely that a dragon accumulated enough wealth that spending it all at once could result in rapid inflation and destablization of gold as a currency.
>>30523365Spain did exist as idea way before the union of th Crowns.
>>30523363That's because draconic hoards don't have velocity. Until murderhobos show up, anyway.
>>30523348What was Russian feudalism like?
Honestly the greatest thing to ever happen to mankind was the black plague, without we'd still be mud eaters under the rule of the church with no advancement in science or culture
>>30523426Fukken brootal.
>>30520655Actually, if you read Victorian Lit there were as many as 20,000 to possibly 80,000 prostitutes in London alone, almost 1 in 20 of the city's population. "Uptight" images of Victorians was propagated 100% by some asshat writer who hated what they had become and wrote satirically. Their name isn't coming to me atm. Anyway. They were tripping over prostitutes in the Victorian era. On every corner, in every street, etc. Sex was happening.
>>30519979>Humanity might stop eating meat in the futureI certainly hope not...
>>30522610That chart shows illiteracy rate, not lliteracy rate.
>>30523426It's like thralldom but with less chance to meet exotic inviduals and see foreign landscapes.
>>30523524I doubt they will, not so long as there's enough land to support animal life anyway.
This thread has been selected for archiving into the suptg archive.It shall be saved for the enjoyment and use of future generations.http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive.html?tags=The%20Archivist
>>30523524Vat grown meat will probably replace off the animal stuff, considering how energy intensive it is to raise most livestock to slaughter
>>30523600Thank you mister archiver
>>30523477If you are interested in the Victorian era take a look at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eaQr7JJ1msOr search 'victorian' and 'bbc' on youtube.These are very interesting and should give you some good ideas.On the (very late, really transitioning out of or just fully out of) feudal era look at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBW8YpcYcEcMost of the BBC stuff is pretty good honestly.
>>30523601Probably. We need proteins and the complex crap found in animal meat.>Go to crossfit training>Right off the bat, the trainer says "If you're vegetarian, you will not do well here."
>>30521776>Kim Jong-ilI don't get this, he lived a long life and died peacefully in death. How exactly is that justice for all the horrible things he did in life?
>>30523664>JusticeOh for fuck's sake.
>>30523649Vegetarians don't do well in athletic activities of any sort.
>>30520538in civ terms, "using up soldiers to steal that science asshole who trys to spread his religeon into your country, he keeps sacking your friendly city states.
>>30523647On the book side of things I have enjoyed several books by Frances and Joseph Gies, such as 'Life in a Medieval Village'. Nice thing about them is that you can get them used on Amazon for not very much. They are a bit dry, but they will inform. I prefer these more scholarly works to the usual pop approach that you seen in school text books.
>>30523664It's not, we were just glad to be rid of him and hoped his son wouldn't follow in his dad's footsteps the way he did.Also,>died peacefully in death
>>30520543Came here to make sure this video was posted. Go ahead and watch the whole series, it's good.
>>30523732Actually, its funny, I was a victorian lit major. My own recommendations would be Aurora Leigh, Pride and Prejudice, Adam Bede. There are others. Aurora Leigh is going to be the best bet to get a nice insight into city-life, as the main character horribly judges her best friend who is basically an angel. If you were single, you were presumed to be a prostitute. Hell, if you were pretty and not Merchant class, you were basically a prostitute with an unpaid price tag. If you were pretty in general, life sucked for you in the mail dominated world. But, read books from the Era and you will get a great view of the different class struggles. Popular struggles in literature at the time was the struggle against the expanding railway and the disappearing country side and the fusion of dialects. Other popular ideas were the evolution of the noble class, getting edged out by a new modern wave of sentiments such as voyeuristic styles of reading, diets, the like. Popular trends that 'ruined' tradition. To answer the thread's questions about peasants, it was to be horribly powerless but at the same time to be the source of new-money. Peasants had money even if it was small amounts and began to drive a whole new industry of inexpensive books, magazines, etc. Also, note that the Victorian Era was RIFE with Rebellions. You have the French Revolution that ended just at the beginning of the Era, (1789-1799) and this freaked the hell out of the nobility of Europe. More revolutions came throughout the Victorian Era, and each one left the 'upper class' who is the main viewpoint being written about, STUNNED. Ultimately, I'd point to patronage of books to be the main reason we don't have a ton of fabulous books that show how the peasantry really was and to some extent some canon-censorship done by each generation. Also, some other good books would be anything by Charles Dickens. If you like smashing your head in with a brick, try Bleak House.
>>30519810>Were peasants really as dumb, dirty, and expendableNo. They were not dumb, they just weren't as educated as the nobles. Cleanliness can be argued. They were probably cleaner than people during the antiquety, anyway. And no, they weren't expandable. Peasants were the source of your kingdom's food. The reason castles were made so big was so that they could house all the local peasants when your nation was invaded and protect them.
>>30519810>made them seem like sociopaths.Yeah, what do you expect when you give a bunch of bored, horny, drunk inbdreds horses, armor and weapons and the authority to kill people who offend them?
>>30523995Correct! Peasants had very limited power, but look at the revolutions and you see that they hit a tipping point over and over, where education shows them what they are suffering.Really though, the Peasantry represented buying power and were a major source of money moving. Don't doubt them. They murdered a lot of people ALL THE TIME throughout history. Peasants got shit done when they couldn't eat.
>>30524081Just remember:History was recorded by people who could afford to sit around doing nothing for long periods of time.
>>30524099Or pay others to sit around and write about them. Or kill those who sat around and wrote something they didn't like (Subversive material)
>>30523937Keep in mind that the Victorian era was around two hundred years after the Feudal era. It was a time of rapid change as well. To put it into perspective for us Americans, we are talking the war of 1812 being at the beginning of the Victorian era. Which I think would be recognized as being no place close to Feudal times from our perspective. I'd offer that your typical feudal serf had more power and was bothered less by his Lord than your typical peasant was during the Victorian era. Things don't always get better.Although the food did. Which counts for a ton.
>>30524099Brits?
>>30519810Well, the only people who matter in a fantasy setting are the heroes and villains. No one else is a person, just a statistic. That's conservation of detail, but it DOES bug me how so often everyone but the main characters are helpless, useless, and/or worthless. But I guess we DO teach history that way...
>>30524081Peasants, read 'serf', had plenty of power during the Feudal era. They would routinely sew their Lord for infractions of the social contract for example.You should read the court recordings, they are awesome. If you have ever read letters from the civil war and thought 'we have gotten dumber since then' you will likely have the same reaction.
>>30524171Anyone.
>>30524221>sewOf course, that would get them in trouble. They probably had better luck when they would sue them...I'm so stupid.
>>30524196It is unfortunate that the background gets no detail.You could always have some fun with the PCs getting into trouble with the peasants. That bard that likes to seduce? He may have actually ended up in a marriage contract depending on what he said to get in her pants.Even off the cuff remarks could be considered a binding contract back then. The sex that followed would just be considered 'proofing the marriage' and not the actual intent of prior flirting.Flirting = negotiationSex = commitment to contract
>>30524221My area of knowledge is the Victorian Era, so, going further back to the Feudal Era would be a stretch outside of the most canon of poetry/epics which really only serve to make it even more difficult to understand what was going on.I'm shocked by the conversation here, and hope I am correct in assuming everyone is just adding on additional bits of knowledge and not slamming me. Continuing that assumption, its also worth noting that except for the most extreme of circumstances for a noble, there were hundreds of circumstances that put power in the hands of the peasants. Another one to consider is simply distances. Travel was a different issue entirely, which left a lot of power in the hands of each person. From my own limited knowledge, most land-owning nobles had a relationship with the peasants as 'The Law' and would mediate disputes. Aside from paying taxes to use the land, their relationship was dictated by the individual noble, with the 'Social Contract' as a guideline for expectations? Otherwise, it was as hands-off as the Noble wanted, with some nobles being well liked by their serfs.
>>30519810>were peasants really as dumb, dirty, and expendable as they are portrayedhop in your car and drive around any suburban trackhome neighborhood. thengo check out your local stripmall with its corporate restaurants and junkshops. there's your answer.
>>30519810Slaves had more rights than poor people back then. Poor people were seen as immoral, and slaves were a wealthy persons property, like a car.
>>30524330Well I hope you don't think I am 'slamming' you. I'd hope that nothing I have said would be taken as more than earnest discussion. I apologize if I came across otherwise.From what I have read the noble himself didn't get involved in that sort of thing. Unless the case directly effected the noble the peasants handled the entire thing themselves. So, unless your trespass was against the Lord or you were messing with the Lord, the peasants handled their own business.Which I think is strikingly different when you get into the Victorian era.
>>30524337Not at all. The primary definition of a slave is one who had no rights. Serfs had plenty of rights in that the Lords power over them ended with their obligations under the feudal contract.I'm honestly surprised we haven't gotten into the 'first night' thing yet.(again: Russia is entirely different)
>>30521546>If I recall correctly bathing was viewed as heresy or at least frowned on for a long time due to its pagan connections.Not true. Roman traditions were carried on for centuries. Public baths were common. There were major manufactures of soap in the Netherlands and England. This all came to an end because of plague and ideas of sin.>And shit was literally thrown into the streets. Not true. The miasma theory of disease held that smell was the culprit. If you threw shit into the street, you would be beaten, and fined.>Clothing was usually worn until it simply fell apart.Maybe if you were poor.
>>30523664>justiceWho said anything about justice? Reveling in someone's death isn't just.
>>30524658First Night is a myth lords and their serfs level led at other lords. We have no reliable evidence that it occurred.
>>30521425So that was terrible on pretty much every level. I'm actually quite surprised I got to the end.
>>30524661I forgot to address that post anon, thanks.That guy had it entirely wrong. Not one thing was correct. It makes me wonder if it was a troll.As far as sex goes: that changed during the Feudal era (damn me for not remembering the date). Anyhow, prior to that date the church was all about bangin that ass. Fine with all of it. Priests got married, had mistresses, the people had all go out. About half way through things changed to become more constrained. Basically a priest wrote a paper on how sex was for procreation and if you are doing it for fun then you are not following the Lords will. Something along those lines anyhow. Up until then things were pretty rowdy. Anal and oral sex for example were likely the most common forms of sex (birth control), they being stigmatized later because they allowed enjoyment without pregnancy. Those, now taboo, forms of sex were considered not desirable back then because you had to save PIV for special intent. So the whole thing of what is desirable was turned upside down from our perspective 'wow, you got to fuck her pussy! That is awesome' sort of thing. Hilarious when you think about it considering todays porn. Oh yeah, and the entire not bathing things is entirely later generations painting their forebears as icky and them as more special because of that.Something we do to this very day.
>>30524736I know. I'm just surprised someone didn't bring it up as 'and this is how oppressed the peasants were' sort of thing.We've seen everything else right?
>>30524792To be fair, a lot of that had been brought up far earlier, by Paul; I suppose it might have been unevenly enforced for some time.
>>30519892I dunno man, police murder people in full view of the public literally every day. Nothing is done or in some cases, said. You always hear police bootlickers say,"At least the officer made it home safe that night", totally ignoring that he just shot an unarmed man to death for non-compliance. We are peasants now Anon-kun.
>>30525137>hurr durr police stateSo how much weed did the officer 'steal' off of you during that completely bullshit traffic stop anon?
>>30525418http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e4_1393423658>Police officer literally telling someone "you have no freedom of speech"
>>30524925As I'm looking this up it seems pretty solid that things didn't completely change until 16th century. Up until then the church couldn't even enforce marriage as having to happen in a church - many still happened in private with nothing more than a few words between a couple in private (lawsuit to follow against bard later that week when he skips town).Up until then sexual relations were pretty open ended and were more local affairs. Across the country rules didn't exist so much, even though there were general morals of course. Pregnancy out of wedlock wasn't that big of a deal from a legal standpoint for example. There were some fines, but they were rare and low. Most marriages probably saw the bride entering into it already pregnant (proofing the marriage, you didn't want to marry someone you couldn't have kids with). Considering the odds of getting pregnant from anyone given sex act...there was some action going on.Likely issues of communication had a lot to do with the lack of central control.
>>30525479There weren't any cops as we would recognize them across most of the feudal era.
>>30525479In my experience, there isn't much point trying to convince people about problems within' the police unless they're already aboard that train.You've either grown up in a bad area and seen it or had to deal with it, or you grew up in a good one and can't even imagine it happening.I'm not one for the SJW bandwagon, but corruption within the police is one that I agree is all too real.
>>30525479Yes. One cop saying something is definitely the entirety of the criminal justice system doing evil. Not like the guy wasn't talking shit and actively attention whoring over drunks getting arrested for starting shit.
>>30525707>Not like the guy wasn't talking shit and actively attention whoring over drunks getting arrested for starting shit.what part of quietly recording an arrest is attention whoring? He literally doesnt say a word, the cop just notices he has a camera and immediately makes a beeline for him, he wasn't even walking in the camera mans direcetion until AFTER he sees the camera pointed at him. Can you point out for me, word for word, what the guy said to warrant the police giving him shit and threatening him with jailtime? Because all I see are some on edge cops taking out their own fears and bias' on the wrong people.
>>30525824>Part of crowd of people yelling inciting comments>b.b.but he wasn't doing anythingSure thing pard.
>>30520196>>30520165>>30520148My father (ex-military) to me and some friends after a few beers, talking about today's military (compared to the one he had known)"-If you can't rape and pillage, what's the point in being a soldier, really ?"He was half-joking, off course but it still was true :Up until the end of the 80s, even in occident, your hierarchy wouldn't as much as raise an eyebrow if you and the boys had a little fun at the expense of the locals.You just had to keep it small scale and quiet.
>>30525618I've never seen or dealt with the police in a negative way, but I can believe the system's problematic and has problems. Nothing is perfect, least of all institutions that are specifically designed to give a subset of the population more power than the rest of the population.
>>30525846so the guy holding the camera is just "randomly selected" from a crowd of other people, not to mention is beholdne to their actions as well as his own? I dont see how the camera holder should be singled out when the guy NEXT to him is the one yelling, explain please. And don't tell me the cop couldn't tell who was saying what, because thats obviously BS.
>>30525912>the cop couldn't tell who was saying whatBut you already said the important bit.
>>30525955pardon? I suggested that the excuse "the cop could not tell who was yelling" was BS and therefore should not be brought up in the cops defense, I was simply trying to save us some time by heading off a stupid point which you could have potentially brought into your arguement. Please answer the question or admit you're wrong, dont dissemble like you are now.
>>30525912You do realize that you do not automatically have 1st amendment privileges in regards to this situation, right?
>>30526041I don't automatically have the right to stand wherever I please, assuming it doesn't directly interfere with the officers job? The cop could have gone about his job just fine without harassing some random dude just because hes holding a camera, if anything you should go above and beyond your job when being watched, so as to make a better impression on the potentially MILLIONS of people who might see the footage.
>>30526101Right to assemble has been repeatedly discussed as being affected by time, place, and manner. Deciding to take up a busy sidewalk screaming and inciting in the middle of the night puts this as an 0/3 situation.>inb4 citationLook up the key terms listed and court cases. This shit is common knowledge to anyone who actually gives a fuck about protesting. Learn the laws and principles behind your actions, and don't be a cunt when you're called out on them.
>>30525418http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/aclu-sues-state-troopers-over-man-s-shooting-deathThis was my friend. Fuck you.
>>30526180once again, this one guy wasn't screaming or shouting, or inciting anything. If you listen to the footage you can clearly tell the voice belonging to the camera holder cannot be heard previous to the officer accosting him.>hurr look up duh laws m8>implying I'm American, and that these laws mean shit to me.
>>30526206>Drunk/drug user crashes vehicle into property>Attempts to evade arrest, talks shit to officers through door>Kick in door>Fights>Gets killedGood. I feel no sympathy for your shit tier friend.
>>30526256>Recording>Live action arrestGood thinking there.>Discussing amendments and laws of a nation>Get told>b.b.but i dont know nothingWhich was obvious in your discussion you dumb fuck.
>>30525137>>30525418>>30525479>>30525587>>30525618>>30525707>>30525824>>30525846>>30525864>>30525904>>30525912>>30525955>>30526029>>30526041>>30526101>>30526180>>30526206>>30526256>>30526277And again, TG assassinates a good thread.
>>30523293The Tsar abolished serfdom in 1861. They may have had peasants, but they weren't serfs.
>>30526206God damn, this is terrible. I'm sorry for your loss anon. I'm so glad I don't live in America.
>>30524792One thing about the prohibition of the clergy having sex is that the priesthood owned land, and could acquire more land and wealth. They could potentially challenge the king himself. If they were to marry, and have children, they could have dynasties of their own greater than the crown. No king wants that. Eventually, kings appointed bishops.
>>30526277Suck shit dickrider. $chan is not real life. Don't cut rourself on all those edges m8. As they say. If you really think any of that is a capital offense, you deserve what happened to him far more than he did.
>>30526440No shit. My first reply in this thread was on modern policing instead of the subject of medieval life, which is my actual education. On that point though, I notice no one has mentioned medieval life in scandinavia (and earlier) which was usually freer than in the rest of europe. For example, the vikings had laws on bathing, and most folk usually owned their own farms (in medieval times too) and had free use of the forests and seas as this was considered to be owned by all. And you could get a divorce( after a set period of time) too, if you couldn't procreate.
>>30524925Paul was a self - loathing homosexual.
>>30526910Thx Anon. It doesn't stop there though. Me and my friends were at a bar watching hockey one Sunday afternoon in the same town. Then this happens while we watch.http://www.nbc11news.com/localnews/headlines/88957607.html?site=full
>>30527094To be fair, I havent read the whole thread, only a fair bunch of it, pretty much all "examples" are from France or England, with the Russian mentions.
>>30526975It really wasn't until towards the end of the Feudal era, if I remember correctly, that priests stopped being able to marry and have kids. Even after they couldn't officially marry the still had open mistresses and raised families for a good while after that.
>>30527147Damn son. Not a good situation for either part though.
>>30527094Divorce wasn't as difficult as people think back in the Feudal era. It was just rare because of economic reasons.Couldn't have kids? DivorceCouldn't get your pecker up? DivorceHated the bitch? little more tricky, but you could divorce her.The Peasants never really had a problem with divorcing, nobody cared. It was only the nobles that had problems getting divorced, and they were the ones that tended to want to (there could be economic advantage to ending the marriage, rarely so with peasants). In the case of nobles they just needed to show that, as one technique, that they should never have been married in the first place.See, incest was a huge problem taboo. But nobody really knew for sure who was related to who. Those records were not well kept. In addition, the church had (to begin with) rules that said you couldn't get married if you were related within some rediculous number of generations. Can't remember the number, but it was large enough that most people actually were related somehow at that point.So all you did as a noble was 'discover' much to your shock and horror that you were related. Instant divorce, no fault.Later the church reduced the number of generations by half to show incest because it had become such an obvious tactic.You could also get divorced if you never had sex with your wife in the first place (and who would know if you don't have kids) as in that case the marriage never took place.These were all noble games though. Peasants didn't give a fuck and nobody cared about what peasants did. Ironically, peasants rarely got divorced for any reason because of other economic and social issues.
>>30527424Another reason that divorce among nobles was more common was that nobles typically engaged in arranged marriages where the intent was economic advancement. The marriage was arranged without either party knowing each other. After a short time, you might discover she is a total bitch or really fugly - or you.Peasants didn't engage in that. They knew the person they would marry and the courtship was a bit like today (although there were a lot of trap/shotgun marriages as well). Economics played a big part, but so did personal compatibility. Ironically our big noble romance stories are outgrowths of this situation. While many nobles grew to love their spouses, very few ever married for love. Not so with Peasants.
>>30527424Biblically, it's 8 generations, I believe. Not entirely sure though.
>>30527424>Can't remember the number, but it was large enough that most people actually were related somehow at that point.Seven grades.But obviously, they knew that enforce such a number was dumb.
>>30527254Most people tend to study harder the history that is best associated with them.
>>30527489Very true. It was usual in scandinavia too. Though the noble situation was also quite different there then in continental europe. There were relatively few noble families, and the local chief was just a rich farmer. These could be just as rich as the nobles, and had just as much power in some areas.
>>30527491>>30527537It was something like that. I mean, who in the hell knows that far back? The nobles at the time just made it up out of whole clothe. Oh, don't like your wife? Oops, we just discovered this tapestry that shows we were related X-1 generation back. Wow, I am so horrified. We must get a divorce.The church caught on of course very quickly.Really though, even among nobles, there were not that many divorces. Looking back I probably made it sound pretty common.
>>30527254>with the Russian mentions.OK.Well, I haven't looked hard at Russia because I'm not Russian. But every book I have read has mentioned 'and then there was Russia, which really sucked, but lets go back to talking about Europe that didnt suck so bad'.But there may be other reasons.For one, Feudalism came to Russia late. Up until then, basically, the peasants WERE slaves and many many people were in fact slaves. Remember, Feudalism is a big step up from slavery.So we probably have some looking back at slavery Russia when every one else was Feudal and comparing that as if it were Feudal going on.Further, Feudalism died in russia last. So, Feudalism was going on when the rest of the world had moved on. Feudalism is a big step down from being a freeman in this context. So now we have people looking at Russia and going 'wow, they suck compared to what was going on with European peasants of the time'.Lastly, Russia had this thing with conscripting peasants into the army and using them as cannon fodder. Didn't happen in Europe, or only very rarely. But it was a common practice in Russia. You combine those things and you might end up with the 'russia is horrible' thing going on. When, just maybe, it wasn't as bad in context. Just a bit behind the times.The conscription thing was shit though and probably is what feeds most peoples perceptions of using serfs as cannon fodder in war.
>>30520854>Most peasants, wait for it, could read. They had a very specific reading interest, which was law (contracts actually).What the fuck nigger. You're either retarded or you are seriously mixing up some regional oddities with the whole of Europe. Dumbshit.Nevermind that serf culture changed massively from 500 to 1400.Hell, in the early middle ages EVEN THE KING COULDN'T READ!
>>30527708At least many of the byzantine emperors divorced several times, which led to shit relations and deadly favoritism among the mothers and children on who the true heirs were.
>>30520937Fuck you're dumb.>>30520938>>30520964Not Roman-Catholics. Hardline Christian cults, Protestants and the beginnings of the Protestant cults, yes. They hated sex and nudity.In fact, they hated sex and nudity so much, even the Roman-Catholic church had to change its attitudes to sex and nudity.
>>30521029>>30521041That's not really funny.When my grandma was a young girl she lived in a nunnery.One day she stumbled on some nun burying some baby corpses in a lime pit.She never really trusted the church ever since.
>>30527864>Hell, in the early middle ages EVEN THE KING COULDN'T READ!What king? In which area?The situation deffer from date to date and from one region to another.>He was closely associated with the scholar and encyclopaedist Isidore, bishop of Seville, and is usually regarded as the author of a Latin poem on astronomy, Carmen de Luna or Praefatio de Libro Rotarum,[2] dedicated to a friend who is identified with Isidore.
>>30522053Lords would conscript serfs during labour extensive months.I forgot which season it was, but during the Moor invasion some guy named the Hammer made a big deal out of it and managed to convince the lords to levee serfs during farming season, allowing him to beat back the Moors with insane numbers.
>>30528020Charlemagne was the first noble who began the tradition of nobles knowing how to read. Which means it took until the 800s before your average king was aware that reading was a good thing.And that's just kings and emperors. Nobles took even longer.All this talk about serfs being able to read... that's late middle ages. People are so fucking retarded on /tg/ they don't know fucking timelines and think anachronistically.
>>30528042Are talking about Charles Martel and Poitiers?That was before what we call Feudalism developped. It was a proto-feudal society at best.He likely raised a general levy, as later did his own descendants, we had some ordinances of how the levies should work.
>>30528135Nobles as in local lords and knights.
>>30528151Now now, lets not bring facts into an argument over the pop culture perception of history. Our public schooled friend will have too much trouble with that.
>>30528151I don't see how you can call it a proto-feudal society when there were serfs and there were nobles, and the serfs worked the field.The entire feudal system is just a reaction to the apocalyptic economic collapse of the Roman Empire, with the local Roman soldiers becoming knights and local lords. So the moment the Roman Empire fell is the moment feudalism began.
>>30528042I don't think we should confuse exceptions with rules. And the rule, in Europe, was that one did not conscript your peasants into military forces. That went entirely against the social contract and ended with a peasantry that now was pissed off and had martial experience.
>>30528204I'm sure his confusion comes from having Scholars refer to the dates he has given for the Feudal era and describing it as such. It's easy to understand why that would be confusing.
>>30528135Sisebut, the guy who I posted before, was king in the VII Century, like 150 years before Charlemagne´s birth.While Charlemagne learned to write when he was old, he likely learned to read when he was younger. Today, we learn to read and write in the same time, but that was not rule in the past.
>>30527954>One day she stumbled on some nun burying some baby corpses in a lime pit.So a nun who has to exorcise halfbreed demons made because some slut decides to fuck the devil is somehow evil?In all seriousness your gram was a slut who got placed in the nunnery to drop such a baby. Sorry for breaking the news dear.
>>30527424Henry VII wanted to secure an alliance with Spain through a marriage of his heir, Arthur to Catherine. When Arthur died, he didn't want a good marriage go to waste, so he would have his new heir, Henry, marry her. The problem was that Catherine was now sister-in-law. Papal dispensation was need.Later, Henry VIII wanted a divorce from Catherine, and in his appeal, he claimed that she was his sister-in-law, and special dispensation should not have been granted.
>>30528227Yeah, I know it was an exception of the rule. Martel or whatever his name was had to convince the lords AND the peasants to give up farming and fight. (But first train, because a peasant could ONLY farm, not fight.)
>>30528279You think a 12 year old girl can become pregnant? You're retarded.This was fucking 1920-1930 or some shit. There weren't any hormones in the water.
>>30528274So?Charlemagne started the idea that a noble should know how to read and write.Not Sisebut.
>>30527864Your reading comprehension is very poor. You should probably read the thread.
>>30528204Cause the meaning of the Feudalism is obscure, and has been debated by some of the greatest historians of the XX Century.What you cite "Serfs and nobles" as the defining core of the Feudalism, but according to others that should be, the "Feud".The transformation from Slavism to Feudalism, is a long one, it begans during the Empire Roman itself, with the fixation to the land of the Colonii.The process continues during the Merovingian monarchy, in which ties between men grows even more important from both, from the Germanic and Roman traditions.And is considered that the Feudalism gains her clasical form during the Carolingian days, more exactly after the Fall, not of the Roman one, but of the Carolingian Empire.
>>30528435And you're complaining because you're a dumb fucking retard who completely misunderstands that EUROPE IS A CONTINENT AND THERE IS NO SINGLE DEFINITION OF SERF OR PEASANT THAT DEFINES EVERY ASPECT OF THE EUROPEAN SERF!
>>30528397You said that in the High Middle Ages not even the king knew how to read, I said that you cant claim that, cause the situation varies enormeusly from region to region, from century to century, And proved my point citing Sisebut.Thats it.
>>30528465Yeah yeah yeah. Historicians like big revolutionary moments, but history is really about gradual evolutions and changes, and memetic linguistic cultural mutations.
>>30528508>You said that in the High Middle Ages not even the king knew how to readNo I didn't you fucking retard.Unless you think the High Middle Ages began in the 6th/7th century.
>>30528483You are a troll right?
>>30528635Try an argument instead of acting like you're on /v/.
>>30528530Oh, sorry for fault, even if you posted:>Hell, in the early middle ages EVEN THE KING COULDN'T READ!
>>30528716Which is true.Just because you found one king who was an exception in Spain still means my post is true for every other European area except Spain.
>>30528668That would be why I'm wondering if you are a troll or not. You come in, yell nigger, and that is about it. I'm seeing nothing from you at all that would indicate your historical knowledge comes from something other than watching the Holy Grail a few times.The post I responded to as a good example. Your shouting and accusing about something that has been stated one way or another several times.So, again, are you a troll or simply an excited young man who has lost his ability to speak reasonably because his parents aren't around?
>>30528716Fug, sorry for my mistake.*
>>30528508>>30528716>confusing the early and high middle agesdayum nigga
>>30528745Point out which posts of me are trolling posts? You don't know who I am. This is an anonymous board mister.
>>30528742And my point was that you cannot make such wide assumptions, even more, when, apparently, you dont like when others do the same. Just try to not act as defensively.
>>30528819You can make wide assumptions when there's only ONE exeption on the rule.You never learned grammar?
>>30528788Your language and...enthusiasm...tends to point them out. You can easily look back over the thread and see how people have respectfully discussed, and disagreed, with each other. And then one certain person gets home from school and things change. For example, the one I responded to that sparked this conversation...Yes, you can hide behind being anonymous. Which is a good thing.All you have to do to fix this, if you desire, is simply stand back and start speaking reasonably. In effect, reinventing yourself from a teenager to a possible respectable adult.
>>30528764You know, there are different names according to different historiographies.What you call Early Middle Ages, I call it Late Antiquity.And yes, in some books it will appear as High Middle Ages, and some people may adress it, in that way.
>>30528868Not really, didnt you study philosophy? "Even if most ravens are black, even a single white raven would invalidate that all ravens are black".
>>30528871>You can easily look back over the thread and see how people have respectfully discussed, and disagreed, with each other.So? I was one of the first to reply to this thread, so your point is invalid.>>30520413Whoever started shitposting. It wasn't me. Likely, it was you.
>>30528918That's not what the biologist would say.
>>30528999Fortunately, I am not a biologist, nor this thread roams about biology.
>>30529084Dude.It's about people. It's ALWAYS about biology.
>>30526304why can't people record an arrest, is there some reason that impedes the arrest, or would you prefer that noone saw what was happening for some reason? It might be obvious to an autist like you why this the case, but n real people world you're expected to provide a reason why this is a bad idea, not just say "HURR BUT HE WUZ FILMIN IT GUISE".>get told>implying you haven't been made to look like an chucklefuck this entire time
>>30529880>Trying to get the last word when a thread goes page 10Adorable.
>>30530106I'd left to meet a friend for drinks, just got back. You didn't expect me to put my plans on the back burner for an argument I'd already won did you?
>>30530144>Implying friendsAgain, adorable britbonger.
>>30530185what? Im canadian you flag-waving cheeto-monkey
>>30530221Maple-licking poutine-fingered furfaggot please go.
>>30530239No u XD.>implying you dont love poutine
>>30530266As I'm not a fat fuck who would rather speedfuck a moose than understand basic laws of your neighbors, that are easy as fuck to Google?Nope, not a fan you socialized medicinal caribukkake-loving ming.
