|
Post by id82 on Feb 17, 2011 14:16:53 GMT -5
Yeah art was better (sarcasm) Considering everything was commisioned by the king or by the church, all art was was paintings of the Madonna and child or other scenes from the bible, and maybe a shitty looking portrait of the king and his family. Yeah totally interesting art there. Artists didn't understand perspective or color theory until the Rennaisance so everything looked flat and was flat colored.
Yeah things were so much better during the middle ages.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Feb 17, 2011 14:22:53 GMT -5
The only people who wrote down their daily lives were the people who weren't too busy making sure they didn't die from one day to the next. Correction/simplification: the only people who wrote down their daily lives were the only people who could write down their daily lives. Sort of. Monks and nuns could write down their lives but they usually didn't. But I get what you're saying--very few people (just the wealthy, privileged few) were literate, and by and large peasants weren't among them.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Feb 17, 2011 14:25:42 GMT -5
For more comedy, check out the "Greatest benefits of Capitalism" list, which may have been a stealth parody on the part of the person who submitted it (though the site owner believes that the list is not only genuine, but also accurate). I'm not against having a free market, but I'm pretty sure that capitalism isn't made entirely of sunshine and rainbows, either. listverse.com/2010/12/24/top-10-greatest-benefits-of-capitalism/Ok, so I almost blew a gasket on the first entry in there, how does this qualify as stealth... or am I hitting poe's law from the other direction here? Captialism has nothing to do with the numbers on packaging, that socialist government regulation does. Not to mention the fucking picture to number 2...
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Feb 17, 2011 16:31:54 GMT -5
In the middle ages you did have a small selection of art. However, we have much lager selections now. Today the majority of towns have art galleries, and if I want to view recent or historical art, all I have to do is take a short drive and pay a small fee.
Art in the middle ages was also incredibly censored. And if an artists made painting that the king or church didn't like, they were often jailed or killed. Today, if you want to view arts of different cultures and religions, you can free of persecution.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Feb 17, 2011 19:24:34 GMT -5
Ok, so I almost blew a gasket on the first entry in there, how does this qualify as stealth... or am I hitting poe's law from the other direction here? Captialism has nothing to do with the numbers on packaging, that socialist government regulation does. Not to mention the fucking picture to number 2... "Stealth" in that the site owner believes it's real, as do many people who commented on it. Not only that, but they actually agreed with it.
|
|
|
Post by chad sexington on Feb 17, 2011 19:41:31 GMT -5
Serfs only had to work the fields during summer? Wow, that has to be one of the most uneducated things I have ever read. It takes a hell of a lot of work to have a successful farm. That work starts in early spring and does not stop until the weather forces you to stop in winter. Guess what, the serfs could not just go inside and turn there electric heaters on. They has to have enough fire wood to last the winter. They also had to work to preserve enough food for them and any animals they had. Sounds like one of those people who thinks agriculture consists of planting a few seeds, then sitting around waiting until they've grown.
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on Feb 17, 2011 19:41:40 GMT -5
I believe that the upcoming The Sims Medieval has a more accurate conception of the Middle Ages then this guy does. And I suspect that the aforementioned game will not have a very accurate conception of the Middle Ages.
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Feb 18, 2011 1:53:29 GMT -5
I believe that the upcoming The Sims Medieval has a more accurate conception of the Middle Ages then this guy does. And I suspect that the aforementioned game will not have a very accurate conception of the Middle Ages. Yeah like how the monarchy occasionally employs wizards with lightning hands.
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Feb 18, 2011 6:56:41 GMT -5
Sort of. Monks and nuns could write down their lives but they usually didn't. "Monday: prayed, considered theological implications of God, wrote part of Bible. And I am so fucking bored."
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Feb 18, 2011 9:36:55 GMT -5
Wat Tyler rebelled because he was bored? In fact, all those peasant rebellions about tax never happened? Wow. That'll come as a shock to all those historians who thought it did. What utter bollocks. What complete and utter bollocks. A lord's job is to be a lord. This meant the modern equivalent being something akin to micromanaging the land. This is before I add in the bit about being called out to war. The average serf would have loved to laze away the winter months, but pigs, cattle, chickens and crops all need looking after. This is all before you realise that there's not much to eat over winter due to lack of fresh produce - most of what you would have eaten would have been dried meat that was stewed for most of the day with bread, vegetables would have existed but not in sufficient quantity. Oh good grief..... There was crime and lots of it. Sawney Bean (who came 500 years after the Dark Ages, but the author's confused Dark Ages with Medieval too much) may not have existed, but criminals and murderers there were. It would seem that a lot ended up in the many military campaigns that existed - look at England in the 100 years war, there's a lot of truly heinous behavious. Similarly, look at Robert the Bruce in the Scottish Civil War of the early 14th centry, a lot of what he did was comparable to the actions of the SS in the 20th Century. In one word: Crusades. The Crusades came about because of priests wandering the countryside getting people worked up about the idea of the Holy Land in the hands of the unbelievers. Sounds like a lobbyist to me. Kings could be benevolent. They usually weren't. As already mentioned, we have the 100 years war and the Scottish Civil War. Both had kings who behaved in a way that was so beyond the pale as to be unimaginable by today. One example: When he invaded Buchan, Robert the Bruce needed to feed his men. A group of local fishermen were approached to supply his army. They refused. So he ordered them to have their entire catch of fish force fed to them. That sound benevolent to you? Marriage was common the early teens because you became a man at the age of 14. That's when apprenticeships started and young men were expected to go and work. They were also expected to start their compulsory military training (once a week, come rain, hail or shine) and could be sent off to war. This service doesn't end until you're dead or maimed too badly to fight. If you come back without a limb, there's no social security and less chance of a pension, so there's a good chance your family will see you as a useless mouth and you'll end up begging. Doesn't sound so idyllic now, does it? Except that the majority wouldn't have been a knight, they would have served in the ranks. If captured, all that bollocks about chivalry goes out the window. Expect a kicking followed by getting your throat slit. As to the knights - to become a knight was a hard, brutal life. You would leave your parents at about the age of 7 and be sent to another knight to enter his service. You would then go through a very demanding training regime, the only modern equivalent I can think of is that for the Royal Marines - except Marine recruits are all about 16 - 20, not 7 years old. even becoming a knight was horrendously expensive, as late as the 14th century there are records of squires staying in their roles as equipping a knight would have left them broke - their isn't just a suit of armour and sword to buy: There's also tents (and you're not about to sleep on the grass, a proper bed in it is required) as well as servants (you're a knight, you don't get your own dinner) and the minimum of 15 soldiers as part of your retinue. All of which has to be paid for - including making sue you have spare weapons and armour for any soldiers that turn up without it, as well as making sure they have food. You also have to tend to their spiritual requirements, so a priest is necessary. In all, it's modern equivalent is equipping a regiment on your own. You may get lucky and take another knight or Lord prisoner, in which case you can ransom him back to his family. Alternatively, you might be the one being ransomed. A very hard life in all. As mentioned above, there was a lot of begging. It was practically a career in itself, but during times of hardship people became less charitable and no wonder. There is a lot of work, but it's a lot more dangerous (think of a cathedral. Now think of building it by hand.) and you could end up stuck in a job you hated for the rest of your life What became the middle classes rarely, if ever, ran shops: Most would have been those who rose to the rank of a gaffer (supervisor) or Master of apprentices. And all, regardless of rank, worked for their lord. They didn't have to, however, they could to a degree opt out. In the same vein, the local lord wouldn't then protect them from being raided. Suddenly, this all doesn't sound like a great idyll. Still, I do enjoy re-enacting it.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Feb 18, 2011 9:45:57 GMT -5
I read that one: Like the other one, its author doesn't understand that Wikipedia isn't a source to use. He also confuses Renaissance with Medieval.
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Feb 18, 2011 11:46:59 GMT -5
I read that one: Like the other one, its author doesn't understand that Wikipedia isn't a source to use. He also confuses Renaissance with Medieval. Rule of thumb. Medieval was when the Catholic Church held the most sway over the lives of the population. Renaissance was when that influence was challenged by intellectuals and many smaller churches.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Feb 18, 2011 16:04:18 GMT -5
I read that one: Like the other one, its author doesn't understand that Wikipedia isn't a source to use. He also confuses Renaissance with Medieval. Rule of thumb. Medieval was when the Catholic Church held the most sway over the lives of the population. Renaissance was when that influence was challenged by intellectuals and many smaller churches. Renaissance started in the 15th century. The difference was, ny then people had seen that the traditional forms of societal control (the Catholic Church and to an extent, feudalism) weren't all they were cracked up to be,
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Feb 18, 2011 16:42:16 GMT -5
Someone's confusing the middle ages with middle earth.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Feb 18, 2011 17:29:33 GMT -5
Art-wise, he's confusing the Renaissance for being part of the Middle Ages. Middle Ages art was composed almost entirely of shit.
Of course, all that's left of any era of art is the good stuff, more or less, so comparing one period's art to another period's is difficult at best.
|
|