Forget the colors, the armor is the silliest thing about the bottom pic. Especially the mail on the main guy. Even though the background dudes look like they're wearing the cheapest fabric "grandma's sweater" mail, at least it looks OK from far away. The king looks to be wearing a modern gay bondage costume under his badly proportioned breastplate.
The most annoying thing about the Game of Thronesification of medieval movies is the absence of surcoats, coats of arms and flags. How the frick are you supposed to know which side you're on?
It's so dumb especially since the ASOIAF books AREN'T like that and do acknowledge nobles and their men at arms have their own sigils and colours.
There were only three periods of the Middle Ages that could be attributed to the "Dark Ages": the immediate collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the economic collapse of Europe as a whole due to Islamic conquests disrupting Mediterranean trade routes, and the widespread death toll of the Black Death.
Both "correct" depictments of medieval life on both pics, is incorrect.
Blue fabric didn't exist in everyday life and was an aristocratic, very expensive thing.
The reason is absolutely simple: Blue dye wasn't cracked untill recently and best you could get is a washed out blue (Which the first drawing do depict kinda right, on the girl's dress)
Strong blue on clothes? Only if you were ultra rich
https://kahikateafarm.co.nz/product/woad/
Very cheap
Very shitty "certain shades of blue"
That's why I said "strong blue" which is what most movies depict (and the OP's drawing)
The only knights with the strong blue is a noble and his bodyguard. I would say they count as very rich. As picrel shows nobles did ride onto battlefields with strong blue colors.
Yeah the top would work great for the dour atmosphere The King was going for
Bright colors and starving people. Brilliant.
This complaint has it's place, Napoleon for example the color grading is insane. But sometimes it's just fricking dumb. Like here. If you think The King needed more color you're an absolute dumb frick.
The israelites trying to convince people that the middle ages weren't actually a traditional Catholic paradise where all virginal men were given trad milkmaid wives and Satan hadn't created gays and blacks yet. Or at least that's what I've been told
>No its because the Catholic Church was burning scientists
Uh no actually science was codified into Catholic law when Muslims was philosophy was banned because it said two truths could exist.
So please lower your tone.
Latin was great as a literary language at the time, it had consistency and could be read by anyone literate anywhere. Imagine if they had to translate every book by hand into their local languages, it would take a lot of work for something only a few locals would be able to read and not for long since languages change. And you also didn't have national languages like today, you had a bunch of local dialects.
>moron, you thought the interior was baroque
But it is!!!
It's not, there's a statue in the altar that's baroque, the rest of the church is medieval gothic, and no an altar isn't an "interior"
4 months ago
Anonymous
>It's not, there's a statue in the altar that's baroque
exactly the thing in the picture you posted. >the rest of the church is medieval gothic
but you didn't post the church you posted the altar. because you didn't knew it was post medieval and real medieval art isn't fancy enough for you >and no an altar isn't an "interior"
Well it actually is but I don't expect you to have the minimal basic integrity to admit you were wrong.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>baroque thing in the background of overwhelmingly gothic image of gothic building >clearly this must be a baroque image
have a nice day moron
4 months ago
Anonymous
thing in the background of overwhelmingly gothic image of gothic building
It's not the background it's the center piece of the picture YOU CHOOSE.
this must be a baroque image
Yes I noticed that. And instead of admitting to that mistake you are shitting and pissing yourself for half an hour. >have a nice day moron
Wow you are really mad about that mistake you made huh? I mean it is pretty embarrassing so I get that.
4 months ago
Anonymous
didn't read your breath smells like wiener
4 months ago
Anonymous
>real medieval art isn't fancy enough for you
Frick off, moron >Well it actually is
The hell it is, I've never seen anyone refer to an altar as the interior of the church
4 months ago
Anonymous
That's your line now? >Yes I posted a picture of a baroque altar as medieval art but you called it the interior of the church which idk gives me the ick
How do you live with yourself?
4 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not even that guy, he posted a picture of the interior of Chartres and you focused solely on the baroque altar as your argument, because you're a homosexual. If you ignore the fricking altar the point still stands, you absolute moron.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>focused solely on the baroque altar as your argument, because you're a homosexual.
Because it's a picture of the altar. >If you ignore the fricking altar the point still stands, you absolute moron.
But he didn't make that point. He (you) deliberately posted a picture of the altar because he (you) thought it was medieval.
There is really no other way around it.
4 months ago
Galileo
So you make shit up like the Black person you are. The picture was of the church and the altar is inconsequential, end of story.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah like said I didn't expect you to admit your error. But judging by your level of seethe hopefully you have learned enough about medieval art this thread to not spout such bs again.
You may now continue with your excuses.
The truth is inbetween what tradlarpers and fedoras say. The main thing was the authority of the catholic church. This was during the reformation and they were very insecure about that. Protestants had no issue publishing his findings, so this wasn’t a christian thing, it wasn’t even a scriptural thing because ptolemy is not biblical. The church felt anyone contradicting them might be a schismatic, and when galileo a) could not prove his theory and b) insulted the pope, they seethed pretty massively. They didn’t kill him, but let’s be real, making a 70 year old man travel to the vatican to be bullied and intimidated and then put under house arrest isn’t exactly saintly. But it was the ego of the ruling class in the clergy more than it was anti science. You can see from their correspondence with him that they knew his theories were probably correct, they just didn’t want to look stupid after a big public row.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Basically in the time of Galileo, books where published in the form of Dialogue. So your Science book was two guy talking, one asking questions and the other answering.
Galileo inserted a third guy ''Simplissio'' which was a priest. The chruch didnt liked it and asked him to retract and he did not. They killed him. But the real reason the church went so hard is that they were in the beginning of the reformation and loosing power, so they overreacted.
This is also why MSM and leftist today are getting more and more unhinge. They were the predominant ower since at least the 70s and are now loosing power to the new heretics and the new printing press.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>They killed him.
They did not, he lived under house arrest
4 months ago
Anonymous
they didn’t kill him where do you people get this shit from
4 months ago
Anonymous
If they didn't kill Galileo then bring him out so we can talk to him.
4 months ago
Galileo
I'm here, any questions?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>They killed him.
They did not, he lived under house arrest
The same place they get things like ''the church stopped scientific progress'' or ''the early christian destroyed libraries''.
Public education.
4 months ago
Anonymous
It’s mad innit. In my schooling I was taught that the church tried to stop columbus sailing to america because they believed the earth was flat. Very weird that i’d get taught something I now know to be flagrantly false. I wonder how qualified the teachers even were
4 months ago
Anonymous
They are very qualified, but their goal is not exclusively education.
4 months ago
Anonymous
The Salamanca dispute, from when that myth originates, was real, but the funny thing is that the Salamanca sages were right: basically they knew the actual distance between Europe and India(Colombo original target) and told him he would have died of hunger and thirst by going that way; Colombo got lucky though, and found America in the middle.
But yes, take America out of the ocean and it would have been a massive failure.
4 months ago
Anonymous
The teachers are qualified to wrangle kids and to move information from McGraw Hill textbooks into children’s heads
Very little of primary school ‘teaching’ has anything to do with a teachers knowledge of a particular subject - an ‘informed’ teacher is just one that happens to be interested in reading more on their own about some niche subject and often this is actively penalized because a teacher might spend 2 days of class on the types of armor that knights wore, which is fun and accurate information for students, but will not be on any standardized exam and these lessons come at the cost of days that could’ve been spent learning information relevant to the state/national exam
The optimal ‘meta’ as a teacher is to teach for the exam and focus on wrangling kids
Source: taught for a few years
4 months ago
Anonymous
>They killed him
Dude no, he was forced to abjure
The one who was killed is Giordano Bruno
4 months ago
Anonymous
>call the church a pack of morons >wtf why is the church mad at me
>why did they kill Galileo
What's the point of making shit up? Why are you even talking about things you obviously know nothing about?
4 months ago
Anonymous
Confusing him w Giordano Bruno? Thing is we don't know why Bruno was executed because Napoleon carted off a bunch of Church archive for no resean and lost them on the way back to Paris (probablu used as toilet paper by dumb frogs).
4 months ago
Anonymous
Looking at his other post (this is 100% the guy behind
No its because the Catholic Church was burning scientists and books instead of learning from them so everyone was literally in "the dark"
), there is no fricking way he ever heard of Bruno. "Galileo was burned at the stake because he discovered the Earth is round and the dark age happened because the Church was holding back science" is typical pop history bullshit that morons heard once and will repeat again and again.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>happened because the Church was holding back science
They didn't even believe in evolution or space lol. They thought stars were angels.
4 months ago
Anonymous
It was a monk that discovered genetics. >they didn't believe in evolution!
They didn't believe in global warming, or gender psychosis, or the covid vaccine either.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Mendel is really interesting because he knew what he was looking for before he found it. Mendelian paradox.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Because it’s clear you don’t know what time periods are being talked about or the knowledge of anyone involved, it’s clear to anyone reading your posts that your opinions are wrong
1. Galileo was not burned at the stake
2. At the time of the controversy, Darwin had not been born and wouldn’t be for a couple hundred years
You’re projecting your views on modern ‘
conservatives into people four hundred years ago - stop talking about things you have no idea about, it’s like seeing somebody claim ‘all toothbrushes are red because mine is red today’
4 months ago
Anonymous
I know its fun larping as a tradcath its time you except that the Dark Ages were a backwards, violent time to live in. Women didn't have any rights and slavery was practiced. Are you that set on being edgy that you can't admit that the literal actual Dark Ages weren't that great of a time? Most people had no rights, would live to 35, and die from the plague. Assuming your village wasn't burned down by some king or you weren't drafted into his army to die on the frontline.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>its time you except
4 months ago
Anonymous
You do not get to decide. Not him but your whole logic is womanly and feminine >It's time to accept...
Ok, says who? You? Frick you! You are not the judge. And I hate womens rights, I hate feminism, youre just admitting youre a modern day feminist and view history through that lense.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Women were actually far better off in the middle ages than they were in rome. They could own land in most places, that’s the only thing a progressive should actually like about the era. You start seeing powerful women. Also people didn’t die at 35 most of the time, that’s a statistic skewed by childhood and infant mortality. If you lived past 10 you would probably see 55. And most armies were made of mercenaries, they were about 10% peasantry.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Slavery is still practiced, but only by brown people so nobody can criticize it.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I’m an atheist
You’re still projecting (and I say this because you call me a ‘tradcath’) and also you don’t know history (I say this because you confuse figures and centuries in each of your posts)
You don’t know what the dark ages are and you have strong opinions about them
to test this, without using google, what years do you believe are the dark ages?
Without referring to some secondary source, you don’t even know what time period you’re arguing about
You’re upset about a period you think is defined by ignorance but you’re the most glaring example of it in this thread now
4 months ago
Anonymous
>years do you believe are the dark ages?
300 to 1789
4 months ago
Anonymous
You googled "Nicene Creed" and "French Revolution"? Props for moron effort...
4 months ago
Anonymous
>the Dark Ages were a backwards, violent time to live in
As opposed to what? The Roman Empire era? The Renaissance? The Napoleonic era? What do you mean by the Dark Ages? When? Where?
4 months ago
Anonymous
Presumably he means compared to today, in his country (US or Canada)
4 months ago
Anonymous
>They thought stars were angels.
Only because Plato told them they were.
4 months ago
Anonymous
He’s the kind of guy who will fellate classical learning when they had the exact same ideas about quintessence and the firmament that medieval people did.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>same ideas about quintessence and the firmament that medieval people did
wut?
4 months ago
Anonymous
Tommy was a good Aristotelian.
Plato and Aristotle butted heads a lot.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Ptolemy and aristotle cosmos. Big concentric rings with stars fixed in them
4 months ago
Anonymous
Here is a nice primer for Late Antiquity and Medieval thinking, if anybody is interested.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Cool, didn't know he ever wrote on such topics. Probably not much a an intensive work, but I'm going to check it out.
4 months ago
Anonymous
That was literally his job.
The book is the opening lecture for his Medieval Literature class.
4 months ago
Anonymous
You know, I feel pretty moronic now. For some reason when I think of him only his Apologetics and fiction come to mind. God I wish recording lectures was a thing back then.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Those were hobbies.
In his apologetics he constantly restated that he isn't a "proper" theologian and is merely sharing his thoughts.
4 months ago
Anonymous
etienne gilson is good for 20th cent christian philosophy stuff. being and some philosophers is a great book
4 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah. Thing is I knew all that thus the moment of realization of moronation. Any other recommendations of his scholarly work?
4 months ago
Anonymous
this and the story of art are really good for explaining how the medieval mind worked.
The ACTUAL dark age is VII-IX century Great Britain, because of the political unrest from Viking invasions AND because we have very few recorded sources of the period pre-Alfred.
Dark because we don't know much about it.
>achieve space travel >60 years later all technological, philosophical, and metaphysical progress is spent placating jungle apes pretending they're just like us
more literal "dark" ages are today
The israelites trying to convince people that the middle ages weren't actually a traditional Catholic paradise where all virginal men were given trad milkmaid wives and Satan hadn't created gays and blacks yet. Or at least that's what I've been told
Its called the Dark Ages for a reason moron.
Thanks, reddit
It’s literally what the audience wants. People think bright colors in a medieval setting look cheap and corny, like a renaissance fair.
Makes sense, the sculpture is what I based my estimate off of. It's been a while since I took Art History, and even then architecture was only like 10% of the curriculum
The altar was designed in the 18th century. It is physically impossible to now a single thing about the middle ages and believe the picture shows medieval art.
>baroque interior
Weird way to say altar. Why did you say interior?
>chuddy janny deleted it
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
CHUDSERVATIVISM CAN'T EXIST WITHOUT CENSORSHIP LMFAO
Not that i’d ever report anyone because it’s pathetic, but why is liking the middle ages political now? Every scholar of the middle ages today will tell you people have exaggerated and misrepresented its flaws, this isn’t a political thing
>if you ignore the one thing i posted and look at something else you get a completely different view
Amazing but we both know why you chose the baroque altar as your first picture.
Its close to that, but the real answer is that the modern ''progressive'' religion has to devaluate everything that came before in order to validate its hold on public conciousness.
By making Middle age dark, violent, gray and unappealing you reinforce your own position in the publi conciousness.
This is very similar to how modern sequels from classic such as Star Wars has to disgrace the original heros.
TL;DR they want you to think ''wow the medieval times sucked I sure prefer modern times''. This is also why people has to be shon unhappy in those films.
I think since none of us have first hand experience of living in the middle ages, it's just an ez mode way of setting the mood. >da jooz
Can you guys get a job
I have lived in the Middle Ages - I'll be 672 years old this year - and I can tell you're a israelite
Quite similar to the community my village expelled when I was a wee lad
The point is that except for material conditions people during the middle age werent much different from us, they had fun, they went to work, had parties, they grieved for their dead etc...
But the ''mood'' you talk about is comes of a leftist materalist point of view, and very meta in a sense, where everything has to be shit because they dont have the high tech stuff we have today and the story told has to be self concious about that.
And this would also imply that movies today should all be gray moody shit because we dont have the high tech stuff available in 100 years from now.
>where everything has to be shit because they dont have the high tech stuff we have today and the story told has to be self concious about that.
Or maybe it's because they were born as chattel to inbred nobles, broke their backs doing pre-industrial agriculture, and constantly died from raids, starvation, and preventable illnesses.
>but they worked less than we do today!
This is an urban legend.
>watch this YouTube video because I lack the wherewithal to articulate a point myself
No wonder the zoomer morons educated by pop-history channels have the worst takes on this site
4 months ago
Anonymous
Ok fine then, we know for a fact they worked about 2/3 of the year. For one thing you don’t need to work in a land based economy when there’s nothing to harvest. For another thing, we know every feast day they got off work and shit like that, as well as how long their breaks were. For most of winter they would barely have to do any work aside from household maintenance. And for another thing, your idea of a peasant isn’t accurate. They owned land. Peasant land was passed down generationally and their barons didn’t have the right to remove them from it- this went all the way up to the enclosure acts in england. Some peasants were independently wealthy merchants. You’re talking about 80% of the medieval population and making moronic sweeping assumptions about them. Happy?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>For one thing you don’t need to work in a land based economy when there’s nothing to harvest.
Harvesting isn't the only part of agriculture. Tending to your property to ensure fertility is a year-round undertaking. Not to mention animal husbandry and various cottage industries for producing other necessities like clothing. Just because you weren't threshing or harvesting grain doesn't mean you were chilling in your hovel with your thumb up your ass.
>For most of winter they would barely have to do any work aside from household maintenance
You can't believe this. Trees still need to be felled, firewood chopped, homosexuals collected, livestock fed, food cooked and stored, etc.
>They owned land
Generally speaking they were leased properties to farm for their manor lords. A serf isn't the same as a yeoman or freeholder, and most peasants were serfs.
>Some peasants were independently wealthy merchants
And most weren't
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Trees still need to be felled, firewood chopped, homosexuals collected, livestock fed, food cooked and stored, etc.
Oh wow! So much work! A normal person would have collapsed after so much effort!
4 months ago
Anonymous
Glibness isn't an argument
4 months ago
Anonymous
The argument is that that type of work is not the backbreaking slavery, you're just gay
4 months ago
Anonymous
>year round fertility
Crop cycling eliminated this. You’d have fallow fields you cycled between each year, which aren’t that complex to maintains. And I said as much, they still would need to fix their leaky roof or repair their clothing, but this isn’t exactly a back breaking slave drive- it’s stuff most human beings had to do since time began, and this didn’t stop for most even up until the last century. Managing the woods near their homes wasn’t something their lord compelled them to do for a certain duration every day, it was just part of life. The part we are arguing about, the actual labour hours compared to today, is true. If it was as demanding as you say it was, they wouldn’t be getting breaks to eat and nap every few hours which we know they did, and they had food provided for them. That sort of natural pacing of the day, working for 2 hours and resting for an hour and a half, wouldn’t be possible if all these domestic matters were as pressing and as time consuming as you say. There’s no way they could have managed slave labour and tending their own property and household. Furthermore, and it’s weird I have to say this, but they weren’t chattel slaves. They met with their lords once a week most of the time and rents were established by discussion and agreement. Of course you’re right, there’s that threat of violence there, and it did happen on occasion, but it wasn’t as frequent or as brutal as people make out. I’m not saying they lived an idyllic life, and they could be exploited badly, but the picture culture gives us of peasant life is a load of bullshit. Another fact is that a lot of peasant oppression came from OTHER peasants. They weren’t a monolith and there were class divisions between them. Most of the time peasants kicked off it was because their baron wasn’t taking the distinctions between them and their lessers seriously enough. >serfs didn’t own land
They did. They’d pay an inheritance tax
4 months ago
Anonymous
>For most of winter they would barely have to do any work aside from household maintenance.
You have no idea how back breaking providing basic amenities are without modern technology and conveniences. Collecting water, firewood, cooking, laundry, looking after your animals, making your own clothes, tools. People who say shit like this I bet haven't even gone camping even with modern camping comforts.
4 months ago
Anonymous
None of those things take more than a few hours in the morning
4 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah dude I do all that every morning with my pickup
4 months ago
Anonymous
t. Apartment dweller
t. actual apartment dwellers
4 months ago
Anonymous
t. Apartment dweller
4 months ago
Anonymous
there are people in the countryside still doing these things and it’s not that bad. go visit a farm
4 months ago
Anonymous
>put ten times more effort in to refuting my bullshit or you lose
have a nice day
4 months ago
Anonymous
Maybe try putting in ANY effort instead of plopping your brown ass into a chair and copy and pasting a youtube link
4 months ago
Anonymous
He wasn't even me, but it took him more effort to find a youtube link to a comprehensive video on the subject of how much more people have to work to support themselves in the post-industrial world than it took you to go "um this has been debunked" pre-emptively because you knew that would be the response to your moronic post saying the medieval era was worse because.. because.. IT JUST WAS OKAY
I will not accept any rebuttal to any of this that isn't thoroughly sourced
4 months ago
Anonymous
Absolutely zoomer brained post. Try reading books, they're like YouTube videos made of trees
>chattel
Except for serfs, most peasants in France and England owned the land they worked on, and had to pay 10% taxes to Clergy and Nobles. Jeanne of Arc dad was actually a middle class land owner and when he petitioned the local lord for an escort for his eccentric daughter, the lord listened.
Try to petition your mayor/senate rep to stop Black folk from raping your daughter.
So... like most of human history? Do you people honestly believe that stuff like that happened all the time everywhere constantly and no one was ever happy?
Thats exactly the point, the question is: why are those artistic choices made?
The answers, like
>where everything has to be shit because they dont have the high tech stuff we have today and the story told has to be self concious about that.
Or maybe it's because they were born as chattel to inbred nobles, broke their backs doing pre-industrial agriculture, and constantly died from raids, starvation, and preventable illnesses.
>but they worked less than we do today!
This is an urban legend.
ar good example of this mindset, in that the goal of those artisitic pieces is to judge the past from a materialistc point of view.
>judge the past from a materialistc point of view
You dorks are all talk. You wouldn't last a single day in the pre-industrial agrarian paradise you're so desperate for
That's basically it, if the middle ages were portrayed accurately people would wonder why the frick our current era isn't more like that.
It's ironic because the "dark, violent, gray" ends up being closer to our shitty post-WW2 dystopian "culture".
I also blame 9/11, Hollywood made everything dark and emo past 2001.
I would say that people in Medieval times had the same ''capacity'' for happiness that we do today, which is quite different from materialistic welfare which is unquestionably better today. But these are two independent concept and you may want both.
The problem with leftist is that they want to mix both material wealth and happiness, the next logical step being of course all the redistributive policies and the subsequent Sate led oppression such redistribution necessitate.
What studio do you work at? They hire queers that spout nonsense to fit in that post on an anonymous Pokémon card and dragon dildo trading marketplace?
The real reason is that colorful period pieces look campy and garish and many aim for a darker mood and tone. It has literally nothing to do with some israeli psyop or Cinemaphile tradgays and their persecution complexes
There were only three periods of the Middle Ages that could be attributed to the "Dark Ages": the immediate collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the economic collapse of Europe as a whole due to Islamic conquests disrupting Mediterranean trade routes, and the widespread death toll of the Black Death.
The altar was designed in the 18th century. It is physically impossible to now a single thing about the middle ages and believe the picture shows medieval art.
The frick you onabout?
The dark ages are specifically from 410AD to 850AD
The fall of Rome to the Vikings.
The Viking raids marked the beginning of the middle ages and the start of the age of disovery culminating in the Crusades and then the transition into the Renaissance.
There is no "dark age" in modern historiography, they dropped the concept about 20 years ago. The fall of Rome at 476 AD is is the start of the early middle ages.
>modern
stopped reading there. It was called the dark ages because during those centuries, we lost so much knowledge, wisdom and information it was a complete reset for western Europe. We regressed back to base tribalism.
Only by the grace of Rome did the little knowledge that remained propagate throughout the world once again.
I don't give a frick what some mark who got taken by an institution calls the ages passed.
His predecessors were were far more learned than our modern 'experts' who have been corrupted by false ideals and notions and grandeur.
The Dark ages were just that, a dark period for mankind, losing all civilized progress of our forebears for centuries.
>Italy falls apart into tribal fiefs >Gaul and germania fall into tribal conquests resulting in the Goths and Vandal raids and sackings of mainland Europe >Muslims conquering Hispania
Britain recovered fairly well after the fall Rome mainly because a fair amount of Roman governors and military personnel stayed behind because they had made a life for themselves in Britannia.
The Saxon raids and settlement of Britain specifically happened because of Tribal conquests forcing them out of Saxony.
You're a moron and so am I for arguing with you.
4 months ago
Anonymous
You’re acting like this was a sudden thing. Western rome was doing the muttmerica tactic of paying off barbarians to attack other barbarians for centuries, it got to the point where most generals were gauls and goths. When the emperor stopped being able to pay them after north africa went to the vandals, they simply stopped listening to the emperor. But for one thing, the eastern empire continued fine, and for another, knowledge wasn’t “lost”. There was a period of instability and tribalism for a couple of centuries during which the church preserved codes of law and copied books. Once charles the great comes into the picture literary culture was already back on its feet and thriving. The medieval world of the 13th century surpassed a lot of what the romans were capable of, it just wasn’t a unified empire anymore, and it still isn’t. The idea that “progress” in any way was permanently disrupted is just whig history nonsense
4 months ago
Anonymous
none of those things caused an age of darkness. Neither technology nor learning regressed, there were just smaller states and less organized record keeping. It was always called the dark ages because records from it are noticeably harder to find than the classical period or the high medieval period.
You are just repeating vague talking points written by 250 years ago, which you probably got from a youtube video. We have access to more records and infinitely more ways to assess material conditions than when these ideas were written, which is why they've been abandoned by the discipline.
Do yourself a favor and actually look into this stuff for yourself, don't take the word of some homosexual farming views to make money.
Dark ages end more with consolidation of frankish rule but in some ways yes.
The outside pressure of muzzies vikangs and hungarians required localised military districts to mount effective defense.
The quintessential feudal element of local lords ruling largely autonomous steems from that.
I don't wanna be one of those moronic "le vikings were actually le migrants" ~~*historian*~~, but by mixing with French(Normans) and Brits later, they changed the history of Europe.
‘Foundations of Geopolitics’ claims that it was outside pressures, insufficient to overwhelm but sufficient to force collaboration between kingdoms, that resulted in modern European nations
Pressure from 3 sides, four if you count perfidious Albion, solidified the northern raiders as a sufficient element in establishing the modern order
>daughter raped by pakis and teacher beheaded by mudslimes >"AT LEAST I'M NOT A RACIST"
Btw, bandits were exactly why you paid taxes to KNIGHTS. Because fricking knights, unlike politicians, were hard motherfrickers who would find bandits and skin them/behead them, not put them in prison with 3 square meals a day.
>King Louis IX ordered four prominent rabbis to defend the Talmud. They faced off against Nicholas Donin, a Parisian israelite who had abandoned his faith and converted to Catholicism. Donin was not a fan of Judaism; he was also the one who’d written the damning letter to the Pope that started this crisis.
I wish I could have heard this debate. Imagine four medieval ben shapiros defending passages about raping goy children
4 months ago
Anonymous
>King Louis set the rules. Rule number 1: The Rabbis couldn’t criticize Christianity in any way. And if rule number 2 could have been announced, it would’ve been that there’s no way the israelites can win. >The trial did not go well. At one point, King Louis got so enraged, he shouted that a good Christian would plunge his sword into a israelite and not debate. One rabbi had to flee for his life. The remaining prominent rabbis argued all they could, but the Talmud was found “guilty” and condemned to burning. >Two years later, official searched all over France for any remaining volumes of Talmud and other Hebrew books. On June 17, 1242, 24 wagons deposited close to 10,000 books at the Place de Greve, near Notre Dame Cathedral, where they were burned.
Based Louis.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>loses debate >spergs out
Rather sad if you consider this a W
4 months ago
Anonymous
It's all anti Semitism personified. >Too dumb to reason or win a argument. >Just rely on violence.
No wonder they always lose long term.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Because their king was a stupid brute incapable of winning a argument?
Valid enough reason.
Found the medieval haters kvetching
4 months ago
Anonymous
Medieval time was cool. Most kings were stupid shits though.
4 months ago
Anonymous
The article was written by a woman or a israelite judging by the writing.
No fricking way you can defend the Talmud in an honest discussion, it's bronze age mentality barbarism and greed infused.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Makes you realise why certain “frenchmen” wanted rid of the monarchy
4 months ago
Anonymous
Did the israelites manage to infiltrate the Templars? I know they were screaming the last Grandmaster's name during Louis XVI's execution.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Because their king was a stupid brute incapable of winning a argument?
Why are former israelites ALWAYS the biggest antisemites?
4 months ago
Anonymous
They know
I'm also reading a book called "Blood Easter", by a Roman israelite Ariel Toaff, that talks about the Ashkenazi blood rituals in the XV and XVI century, and he says the proofs, unfortunately (for him) are damning. Of course him being a israelite says it was only some bad Ashkenazi orthodox and that Roman israelites weren't into that, but gonna take him with a pinch of salt.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>and he says the proofs, unfortunately (for him) are damning.
Very much doubt that. Especially considering there is as much evidence for fairies existing as there is for blood rituals.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Fairies are real.
They are not very nice but they are real.
Yes he pointed out parts of the talmud which were very clearly references to jesus being boiled in excrement. I’m sure all the weird shit about molesting gentile toddlers, or killing gentiles with impunity wasn’t popular either once it was all translated
That’s because nobody wants to watch medieval peasants go about their day. It would probably be boring and not sad and pathetic as we see in the movies.
It’s the same with the Wild West nobody wants to watch some guy work on a ranch they wanna see cowboys shoot savages
I refuted your claim about catholic kings in movies you inbred.
the troony part was just an insult because I assumed it would send you into flying rage.
And yes you are and for good reason I assume lol
4 months ago
Anonymous
>throws feces >feces thrown back at him >goes into a tard rage
Stick to reddit, my guy.
I'm really partial to pic related. It's mainly about the Hundred Years War, but that in and of itself has so many key elements (bubonic plague, beginning of English & French nationalism, adoption of gunpowder in Europe, Joan of Arc, Henry V, horrific peasant revolutions, etc.)
Because it was an age that smelled of shit where dumb religious lugnuts screeched at anyone intelligent (the example of scholar rabbis being screamed at and killed because the dumb french king can’t win an argument has been posted). Centuries of science and art was lost. Eat shit. It’s thematically accurate to portray the era as miserable
Well, if you're interested in the scientific progress stuff mentioned in this thread, pic rel. Somewhere there was a chan pic of a review done by the guy who writes the history for atheists website, pretty interesting but can't find.
medievalbro THE PIOUS, the NOBLE, the LEARNED ARISTOCRAT, the ASCETIC the CHIVALROUS the ROMANTIC the GENTLEMAN the KNIGHTLY the COURTLY the VIRTUOUS the SCHOLASTIC MEDITATIVE PONTIFICATE of CHARISM the HOLY the GALLANT
Industrial society has its problems, for sure, I just find it funny how pseudo-luddites who fetishize pre-industrial societies never put their money where their mouth is. Kind of like pinkos who b***h about capitalism but are unwilling to make the smallest of sacrifices to avoid participation in it.
The people who post this comic are worse than the people they try to parody
Tweeting about the working conditions in China is not comparable to installing seatbelts in cars - one is an empty and useless complaint, a popular activity online, and the other is an actionable observation (installing seatbelts)
Upvoted though
4 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah they post this trite comic because they have no actual rebuttal. It's not that they're unable to lessen their participation in capitalism, it's that theyre unwilling to make any sacrifice to do so, and then cope by saying they have no choice. You see the same thing here with morons who deride the material comforts we have now, but wouldn't actually give them up in a million years.
4 months ago
Galileo
Black person, how the frick am I gonna live like a medieval person in modern America? Literally how? Society is entirely different than it was, it's just not possible.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Obviously you can't live EXACTLY like a 10th century serf, but you can reduce your dependency on technology, and lessen your participation in modern society (like the Amish or off-the-grid homesteaders). But like I said, you won't, because you're all talk and unwilling to make sacrifices
4 months ago
Anonymous
See [...]
To what end? In the medieval you were a peasant because the social order provided you a wife and children as well as a home with a farmstead. In addition you got a warrior and noble classes who protected you. Nowdays you have politicians who lie to you and no warrior class just rich kid feds who arrest you on made up charges.
The reasons to live like a peasant are gone, so why live that way anymore?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>The reasons to live like a peasant are gone, so why live that way anymore?
Read the thread. A bunch of tradgay anons think life was so much better before modern material comforts made us soft, degenerate, and decadent, so much so that israeli tv producers have to psyop the population into thinking that pre-industrial Christian Europe was REALLY bad. If it was so great, then why not make minimal efforts to preserve or emulate it?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>If it was so great, then why not make minimal efforts to preserve or emulate it?
Try strongmaning your own question. Tell us why not?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>strongmaning
Try again ESLanon
4 months ago
Anonymous
See also steelmanning, ie the opposite of straw manning.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Life was better reread my comment. I'm saying I'd rather marry a wife, own a house and have children (things I'll probably never attain) than to have air conditioning and the internet. It's a trade off.
Obviously if stable households and modern tech were both possible that would be preferrable, but some might argue they're not. Either way just giving up tech won't give you a wife, children and a home of your own. It'll just make you the weird hermit living with his parents that doesn't use the internet and autistically refuses to watch tv with his parents. Or if you're successful you might be living alone and doing the same strange habits, but either way you won't get what makes the trade off worth it so why bother?
4 months ago
Anonymous
I became convinced that online dating was psychologically unhealthy and so I went out and met a woman who I am now going to marry this year - I also think television is psychologically unhealthy and so don’t watch it (though I still post in threads about shows I haven’t seen)
The people who decide that the internet as a whole is unhealthy then stop posting here, so there’s an obvious selection bias
Regardless, many people - like me - have cut out ‘convenient’ technologies and benefitted from this
4 months ago
Anonymous
>"The Left care about Chinese workers!" >Trump tries to bring jobs back to the US by deregulation >"REEEE MUH ENVIRONMENT!! REEEEE!!"
Why are Leftists like this?
Also peasants in the medieval weren't miserable and if they met a modern person they'd probably call you a filthy wretch for not covering your women and worshiping God with Latin chants. They actually were trad Catholics not modern online variants. So pretending they wouldn't execute communists and liberals is silly.
>put their money where their mouth is
There is nowhere in the US you could even if I gave you a 200 acre farm. Living an agrarian lifestyle is incompatible with property taxes at a fundamental level. Heck you would be expected to pay fifty-fold to the state what a literal medieval peasant would owe his Lord. Per year.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Yea but peasants couldn't vote.
4 months ago
Galileo
>year round fertility
Crop cycling eliminated this. You’d have fallow fields you cycled between each year, which aren’t that complex to maintains. And I said as much, they still would need to fix their leaky roof or repair their clothing, but this isn’t exactly a back breaking slave drive- it’s stuff most human beings had to do since time began, and this didn’t stop for most even up until the last century. Managing the woods near their homes wasn’t something their lord compelled them to do for a certain duration every day, it was just part of life. The part we are arguing about, the actual labour hours compared to today, is true. If it was as demanding as you say it was, they wouldn’t be getting breaks to eat and nap every few hours which we know they did, and they had food provided for them. That sort of natural pacing of the day, working for 2 hours and resting for an hour and a half, wouldn’t be possible if all these domestic matters were as pressing and as time consuming as you say. There’s no way they could have managed slave labour and tending their own property and household. Furthermore, and it’s weird I have to say this, but they weren’t chattel slaves. They met with their lords once a week most of the time and rents were established by discussion and agreement. Of course you’re right, there’s that threat of violence there, and it did happen on occasion, but it wasn’t as frequent or as brutal as people make out. I’m not saying they lived an idyllic life, and they could be exploited badly, but the picture culture gives us of peasant life is a load of bullshit. Another fact is that a lot of peasant oppression came from OTHER peasants. They weren’t a monolith and there were class divisions between them. Most of the time peasants kicked off it was because their baron wasn’t taking the distinctions between them and their lessers seriously enough. >serfs didn’t own land
They did. They’d pay an inheritance tax
>They met with their lords once a week most of the time and rents were established by discussion and agreement.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Gr8 b8 m8
4 months ago
Anonymous
Cope. Your luddite bluster is just a bunch of BS considering you're unwilling to make incremental lifestyle changes.
4 months ago
Anonymous
There's nothing to fricking increment towards. Living an autisticly minimalist lifestyle would never get you to the bullshit in da woods fantasy thats so popular. What part of fundamentally impossible in a statist overtaxed society did you fail to understand?
4 months ago
Anonymous
See
Obviously you can't live EXACTLY like a 10th century serf, but you can reduce your dependency on technology, and lessen your participation in modern society (like the Amish or off-the-grid homesteaders). But like I said, you won't, because you're all talk and unwilling to make sacrifices
4 months ago
Anonymous
Read again. That's exactly what I was criticizing. .
4 months ago
Anonymous
>There's nothing to increment towards
Lmao of course their is. You're just a performative gay who won't make a single lifestyle change
4 months ago
Anonymous
At what point is it possible to transition from a minimal-no modern convinces lifestyle to a proper agrarian lifestyle? Were in your "make sacrifices" roadmap does this change occur?
4 months ago
Anonymous
It's obviously near impossible to completely make that transition in a more globalized world, but to not make a single effort is the same lazy hypocrisy you see with tankies, like
demonstrated
4 months ago
Anonymous
Explain why someone who believes that agrarian life was culturally superior (rightly or wrongly) would start down a path that could never be completed? Why would someone forgoes all modern tech, spend half a lifetime saving, and then buy land that would be taxed away from him because agrarians don't make good taxpiggies?
Gray is a color they could have used, but they used all sorts of other colors. You are a huge homosexual moron by the way and you're also a c**t and a twat and a Black person too. Oh and a troony.
Dark Ages can be applied at a country by country level.
Egypt and Greece have been shadows of their former selves for thousands of years. It's been Millenia since their civilizations were at their Apex
>people still falling for the dark ages meme
it has dark in the name so clearly those damn religious people were holding the planet back
thank god we can be pregnant men atheists now.
I've got a buddy who is a professor of Roman history who once got called on by a studio to be an accuracy consultant on a kino. So he's there pointing out all the problems with the armor and the formations and the producer is basically like "yeah we know about that but audiences expect bracers like these even though it's not set at the right time." So the takeaway here is that they've been doing the medieval filter for so long that it's our conception of how things were and if they didn't do it that way about a third of Americans would be really confused
Truly a nation of squandered potential
Gunpowder but no guns, printing press but no alphabet, an intercontinental navy scuttled!
My heart weeps for Zhuanghe!!
why should i believe what tradlarping redpilled incels have to say? theyre just as likely to lie or bend the truth as much as any politically and religiously motivated israelite
Modern historical movies try way too hard to make everything look brown, dour and miserable and at this point there is obviously an agenda to make the past seem like a terrible miserable place. It's not just antiquity, the Middle Ages, or the Napoleonic era, they do it with anything set before the 1960s civil rights movement.
They have to sell the myth of progress.
People at renfairs wear traditionally dyed clothes, it's not some lost art. They need to be redyed regularly to stay vivid but not every week. Easily possible for most medieval people.
It's to make history seem worse than it was, if we look at it honestly it might make us question our society and realize not all that has changed has been for the better.
> nooo my medieval headcannon is that everything was brightly colored and everyone was happy because uh > because some painting told me > because some movie told me > because some moron on the internet told me
so basically the most neckbeard take ever, cool okay
Digital nonsense.
bottom scene is literally a raid at dawn.
I actually thought that richard v or whatever it was had good color
Forget the colors, the armor is the silliest thing about the bottom pic. Especially the mail on the main guy. Even though the background dudes look like they're wearing the cheapest fabric "grandma's sweater" mail, at least it looks OK from far away. The king looks to be wearing a modern gay bondage costume under his badly proportioned breastplate.
You're not allowed surcoats in current movies.
The most annoying thing about the Game of Thronesification of medieval movies is the absence of surcoats, coats of arms and flags. How the frick are you supposed to know which side you're on?
It's so dumb especially since the ASOIAF books AREN'T like that and do acknowledge nobles and their men at arms have their own sigils and colours.
It's an older phenomenon than Game of Thrones. I would rather blame Hackley Scott's Robin Hood
Sad.
Both "correct" depictments of medieval life on both pics, is incorrect.
Blue fabric didn't exist in everyday life and was an aristocratic, very expensive thing.
The reason is absolutely simple: Blue dye wasn't cracked untill recently and best you could get is a washed out blue (Which the first drawing do depict kinda right, on the girl's dress)
Strong blue on clothes? Only if you were ultra rich
>on
in
>blue fabric
woad, very cheap. you mean certain shades of blue
https://kahikateafarm.co.nz/product/woad/
Very cheap
Very shitty "certain shades of blue"
That's why I said "strong blue" which is what most movies depict (and the OP's drawing)
If it isn't mr hilarious party guest.
The only knights with the strong blue is a noble and his bodyguard. I would say they count as very rich. As picrel shows nobles did ride onto battlefields with strong blue colors.
>Strong blue on clothes? Only if you were ultra rich
Like being the king of England and large parts of France?
Yeah the top would work great for the dour atmosphere The King was going for
Bright colors and starving people. Brilliant.
This complaint has it's place, Napoleon for example the color grading is insane. But sometimes it's just fricking dumb. Like here. If you think The King needed more color you're an absolute dumb frick.
Contemporary society hates the medieval period because it depicts a successful religious and hierarchical society.
israeli hearts start beating rapidly if they see happy Christians
Frick off, schizo
Just activate your spambot to shut it down, Chaim.
Demoralization agenda
The israelites trying to convince people that the middle ages weren't actually a traditional Catholic paradise where all virginal men were given trad milkmaid wives and Satan hadn't created gays and blacks yet. Or at least that's what I've been told
Its called the Dark Ages for a reason moron.
Because Europe became sandwiched between vikings in the north and Muhammadans in the south so it took centuries for them to be sent back home
No its because the Catholic Church was burning scientists and books instead of learning from them so everyone was literally in "the dark"
>No its because the Catholic Church was burning scientists
Uh no actually science was codified into Catholic law when Muslims was philosophy was banned because it said two truths could exist.
So please lower your tone.
homie, learn english before you post
Please actually open a book about this period which you know nothing about.
he was obviously baiting my brother
Is that why Catholic monks would spend their lives copying books by hand to keep everyone stupid
>copying books
In their epic secret club language. Tom the plowman wasn't going down to the Abbey to read Aristotle in Latin.
Tom the plowman wouldn't go read anything at all, he was busy plowing and partying, you mongoloid
He wasn’t going to be doing that until the mid 19th century regardless
Latin was great as a literary language at the time, it had consistency and could be read by anyone literate anywhere. Imagine if they had to translate every book by hand into their local languages, it would take a lot of work for something only a few locals would be able to read and not for long since languages change. And you also didn't have national languages like today, you had a bunch of local dialects.
Tom the Plowman couldn’t read the originals in classical Greek either man
Tomus the plowmanius wasn't reading Aristotle at the Bibliotheca in ancient Rome either.
Ah yes latin the language of the secret club of.. anyone who was reading anything anywhere anyway
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_renaissances
If they loved science so much why did they kill Galileo?
No one killed Galileo
It's not, there's a statue in the altar that's baroque, the rest of the church is medieval gothic, and no an altar isn't an "interior"
>It's not, there's a statue in the altar that's baroque
exactly the thing in the picture you posted.
>the rest of the church is medieval gothic
but you didn't post the church you posted the altar. because you didn't knew it was post medieval and real medieval art isn't fancy enough for you
>and no an altar isn't an "interior"
Well it actually is but I don't expect you to have the minimal basic integrity to admit you were wrong.
>baroque thing in the background of overwhelmingly gothic image of gothic building
>clearly this must be a baroque image
have a nice day moron
thing in the background of overwhelmingly gothic image of gothic building
It's not the background it's the center piece of the picture YOU CHOOSE.
this must be a baroque image
Yes I noticed that. And instead of admitting to that mistake you are shitting and pissing yourself for half an hour.
>have a nice day moron
Wow you are really mad about that mistake you made huh? I mean it is pretty embarrassing so I get that.
didn't read your breath smells like wiener
>real medieval art isn't fancy enough for you
Frick off, moron
>Well it actually is
The hell it is, I've never seen anyone refer to an altar as the interior of the church
That's your line now?
>Yes I posted a picture of a baroque altar as medieval art but you called it the interior of the church which idk gives me the ick
How do you live with yourself?
I'm not even that guy, he posted a picture of the interior of Chartres and you focused solely on the baroque altar as your argument, because you're a homosexual. If you ignore the fricking altar the point still stands, you absolute moron.
>focused solely on the baroque altar as your argument, because you're a homosexual.
Because it's a picture of the altar.
>If you ignore the fricking altar the point still stands, you absolute moron.
But he didn't make that point. He (you) deliberately posted a picture of the altar because he (you) thought it was medieval.
There is really no other way around it.
So you make shit up like the Black person you are. The picture was of the church and the altar is inconsequential, end of story.
Yeah like said I didn't expect you to admit your error. But judging by your level of seethe hopefully you have learned enough about medieval art this thread to not spout such bs again.
You may now continue with your excuses.
Did any equivalent of Galileo exist anywhere else
The truth is inbetween what tradlarpers and fedoras say. The main thing was the authority of the catholic church. This was during the reformation and they were very insecure about that. Protestants had no issue publishing his findings, so this wasn’t a christian thing, it wasn’t even a scriptural thing because ptolemy is not biblical. The church felt anyone contradicting them might be a schismatic, and when galileo a) could not prove his theory and b) insulted the pope, they seethed pretty massively. They didn’t kill him, but let’s be real, making a 70 year old man travel to the vatican to be bullied and intimidated and then put under house arrest isn’t exactly saintly. But it was the ego of the ruling class in the clergy more than it was anti science. You can see from their correspondence with him that they knew his theories were probably correct, they just didn’t want to look stupid after a big public row.
Basically in the time of Galileo, books where published in the form of Dialogue. So your Science book was two guy talking, one asking questions and the other answering.
Galileo inserted a third guy ''Simplissio'' which was a priest. The chruch didnt liked it and asked him to retract and he did not. They killed him. But the real reason the church went so hard is that they were in the beginning of the reformation and loosing power, so they overreacted.
This is also why MSM and leftist today are getting more and more unhinge. They were the predominant ower since at least the 70s and are now loosing power to the new heretics and the new printing press.
>They killed him.
They did not, he lived under house arrest
they didn’t kill him where do you people get this shit from
If they didn't kill Galileo then bring him out so we can talk to him.
I'm here, any questions?
The same place they get things like ''the church stopped scientific progress'' or ''the early christian destroyed libraries''.
Public education.
It’s mad innit. In my schooling I was taught that the church tried to stop columbus sailing to america because they believed the earth was flat. Very weird that i’d get taught something I now know to be flagrantly false. I wonder how qualified the teachers even were
They are very qualified, but their goal is not exclusively education.
The Salamanca dispute, from when that myth originates, was real, but the funny thing is that the Salamanca sages were right: basically they knew the actual distance between Europe and India(Colombo original target) and told him he would have died of hunger and thirst by going that way; Colombo got lucky though, and found America in the middle.
But yes, take America out of the ocean and it would have been a massive failure.
The teachers are qualified to wrangle kids and to move information from McGraw Hill textbooks into children’s heads
Very little of primary school ‘teaching’ has anything to do with a teachers knowledge of a particular subject - an ‘informed’ teacher is just one that happens to be interested in reading more on their own about some niche subject and often this is actively penalized because a teacher might spend 2 days of class on the types of armor that knights wore, which is fun and accurate information for students, but will not be on any standardized exam and these lessons come at the cost of days that could’ve been spent learning information relevant to the state/national exam
The optimal ‘meta’ as a teacher is to teach for the exam and focus on wrangling kids
Source: taught for a few years
>They killed him
Dude no, he was forced to abjure
The one who was killed is Giordano Bruno
>call the church a pack of morons
>wtf why is the church mad at me
>why did they kill Galileo
What's the point of making shit up? Why are you even talking about things you obviously know nothing about?
Confusing him w Giordano Bruno? Thing is we don't know why Bruno was executed because Napoleon carted off a bunch of Church archive for no resean and lost them on the way back to Paris (probablu used as toilet paper by dumb frogs).
Looking at his other post (this is 100% the guy behind
), there is no fricking way he ever heard of Bruno. "Galileo was burned at the stake because he discovered the Earth is round and the dark age happened because the Church was holding back science" is typical pop history bullshit that morons heard once and will repeat again and again.
>happened because the Church was holding back science
They didn't even believe in evolution or space lol. They thought stars were angels.
It was a monk that discovered genetics.
>they didn't believe in evolution!
They didn't believe in global warming, or gender psychosis, or the covid vaccine either.
Mendel is really interesting because he knew what he was looking for before he found it. Mendelian paradox.
Because it’s clear you don’t know what time periods are being talked about or the knowledge of anyone involved, it’s clear to anyone reading your posts that your opinions are wrong
1. Galileo was not burned at the stake
2. At the time of the controversy, Darwin had not been born and wouldn’t be for a couple hundred years
You’re projecting your views on modern ‘
conservatives into people four hundred years ago - stop talking about things you have no idea about, it’s like seeing somebody claim ‘all toothbrushes are red because mine is red today’
I know its fun larping as a tradcath its time you except that the Dark Ages were a backwards, violent time to live in. Women didn't have any rights and slavery was practiced. Are you that set on being edgy that you can't admit that the literal actual Dark Ages weren't that great of a time? Most people had no rights, would live to 35, and die from the plague. Assuming your village wasn't burned down by some king or you weren't drafted into his army to die on the frontline.
>its time you except
You do not get to decide. Not him but your whole logic is womanly and feminine
>It's time to accept...
Ok, says who? You? Frick you! You are not the judge. And I hate womens rights, I hate feminism, youre just admitting youre a modern day feminist and view history through that lense.
Women were actually far better off in the middle ages than they were in rome. They could own land in most places, that’s the only thing a progressive should actually like about the era. You start seeing powerful women. Also people didn’t die at 35 most of the time, that’s a statistic skewed by childhood and infant mortality. If you lived past 10 you would probably see 55. And most armies were made of mercenaries, they were about 10% peasantry.
Slavery is still practiced, but only by brown people so nobody can criticize it.
I’m an atheist
You’re still projecting (and I say this because you call me a ‘tradcath’) and also you don’t know history (I say this because you confuse figures and centuries in each of your posts)
You don’t know what the dark ages are and you have strong opinions about them
to test this, without using google, what years do you believe are the dark ages?
Without referring to some secondary source, you don’t even know what time period you’re arguing about
You’re upset about a period you think is defined by ignorance but you’re the most glaring example of it in this thread now
>years do you believe are the dark ages?
300 to 1789
You googled "Nicene Creed" and "French Revolution"? Props for moron effort...
>the Dark Ages were a backwards, violent time to live in
As opposed to what? The Roman Empire era? The Renaissance? The Napoleonic era? What do you mean by the Dark Ages? When? Where?
Presumably he means compared to today, in his country (US or Canada)
>They thought stars were angels.
Only because Plato told them they were.
He’s the kind of guy who will fellate classical learning when they had the exact same ideas about quintessence and the firmament that medieval people did.
>same ideas about quintessence and the firmament that medieval people did
wut?
Tommy was a good Aristotelian.
Plato and Aristotle butted heads a lot.
Ptolemy and aristotle cosmos. Big concentric rings with stars fixed in them
Here is a nice primer for Late Antiquity and Medieval thinking, if anybody is interested.
Cool, didn't know he ever wrote on such topics. Probably not much a an intensive work, but I'm going to check it out.
That was literally his job.
The book is the opening lecture for his Medieval Literature class.
You know, I feel pretty moronic now. For some reason when I think of him only his Apologetics and fiction come to mind. God I wish recording lectures was a thing back then.
Those were hobbies.
In his apologetics he constantly restated that he isn't a "proper" theologian and is merely sharing his thoughts.
etienne gilson is good for 20th cent christian philosophy stuff. being and some philosophers is a great book
Yeah. Thing is I knew all that thus the moment of realization of moronation. Any other recommendations of his scholarly work?
this and the story of art are really good for explaining how the medieval mind worked.
It’s called the “Christian dark ages” for a reason
The ACTUAL dark age is VII-IX century Great Britain, because of the political unrest from Viking invasions AND because we have very few recorded sources of the period pre-Alfred.
Dark because we don't know much about it.
>achieve space travel
>60 years later all technological, philosophical, and metaphysical progress is spent placating jungle apes pretending they're just like us
more literal "dark" ages are today
Look, I agree we should kill Trump and his supporters, but I won't call the modern world a dark age just because we have to pretend they are people.
Trump isn't the one taking money from NASA to feed urban youth and pay for their school lunches
An inability to look at history without analyzing it through the lens of the most recent American administrations is a sign of extremely low IQ
It’s literally what the audience wants. People think bright colors in a medieval setting look cheap and corny, like a renaissance fair.
Thanks, reddit
Literally no one thinks that
>Literally no one thinks that
I think that
I also think you're a troony
Look at this barbaric mudhut from the 1200s
That doesn't look like the 1200s. I'd say that's closer to the 1600s, past the dark ages and the Renaissance
Only the statue is post-renaissance
Makes sense, the sculpture is what I based my estimate off of. It's been a while since I took Art History, and even then architecture was only like 10% of the curriculum
Then maybe shut the frick up next time.
Its chartes cathedral, 1252. Embarrassing for you!
The altar was designed in the 18th century. It is physically impossible to now a single thing about the middle ages and believe the picture shows medieval art.
where are black people???
Black person the “dark ages” were over and done with by the 11th century, arguably before if we look at caroline stuff
You are a fukken brainlet
>posts baroque interior in defense of middle ages
tradlarpers all need to be gassed
It's XIII century Gothic.
Despite the buzz, Italian architects were far behind French ones.
No it's 18th century baroque.
I have. And it confirms that the altar is an 18th century baroque piece.
The altar, rest of the church, which frankly looks better made than any shitty evangelical "church" in the US, is XIII century.
>baroque interior
Weird way to say altar. Why did you say interior?
Not that i’d ever report anyone because it’s pathetic, but why is liking the middle ages political now? Every scholar of the middle ages today will tell you people have exaggerated and misrepresented its flaws, this isn’t a political thing
>Why did you say interior?
To differentiate it from the building that the altar is in.
Can you at least try to think?
moron, you thought the interior was baroque and now you're coping
Where did I say I wanted to live in medieval times? Sad cope
>moron, you thought the interior was baroque
But it is!!!
At least reverse image search before making a fool of yourself. That’s clearly gothic for a start
If you remove the statue there's nothing baroque there, it's gothic all over, try harder
>if you ignore the one thing i posted and look at something else you get a completely different view
Amazing but we both know why you chose the baroque altar as your first picture.
b***h movies should be black and white anyway.
Its close to that, but the real answer is that the modern ''progressive'' religion has to devaluate everything that came before in order to validate its hold on public conciousness.
By making Middle age dark, violent, gray and unappealing you reinforce your own position in the publi conciousness.
This is very similar to how modern sequels from classic such as Star Wars has to disgrace the original heros.
TL;DR they want you to think ''wow the medieval times sucked I sure prefer modern times''. This is also why people has to be shon unhappy in those films.
I think since none of us have first hand experience of living in the middle ages, it's just an ez mode way of setting the mood.
>da jooz
Can you guys get a job
I have lived in the Middle Ages - I'll be 672 years old this year - and I can tell you're a israelite
Quite similar to the community my village expelled when I was a wee lad
That was hysterically funny, you should tryout for fishtank
The point is that except for material conditions people during the middle age werent much different from us, they had fun, they went to work, had parties, they grieved for their dead etc...
But the ''mood'' you talk about is comes of a leftist materalist point of view, and very meta in a sense, where everything has to be shit because they dont have the high tech stuff we have today and the story told has to be self concious about that.
And this would also imply that movies today should all be gray moody shit because we dont have the high tech stuff available in 100 years from now.
>where everything has to be shit because they dont have the high tech stuff we have today and the story told has to be self concious about that.
Or maybe it's because they were born as chattel to inbred nobles, broke their backs doing pre-industrial agriculture, and constantly died from raids, starvation, and preventable illnesses.
>but they worked less than we do today!
This is an urban legend.
>this is an urban legend
coooooppeeee
>watch this YouTube video because I lack the wherewithal to articulate a point myself
No wonder the zoomer morons educated by pop-history channels have the worst takes on this site
Ok fine then, we know for a fact they worked about 2/3 of the year. For one thing you don’t need to work in a land based economy when there’s nothing to harvest. For another thing, we know every feast day they got off work and shit like that, as well as how long their breaks were. For most of winter they would barely have to do any work aside from household maintenance. And for another thing, your idea of a peasant isn’t accurate. They owned land. Peasant land was passed down generationally and their barons didn’t have the right to remove them from it- this went all the way up to the enclosure acts in england. Some peasants were independently wealthy merchants. You’re talking about 80% of the medieval population and making moronic sweeping assumptions about them. Happy?
>For one thing you don’t need to work in a land based economy when there’s nothing to harvest.
Harvesting isn't the only part of agriculture. Tending to your property to ensure fertility is a year-round undertaking. Not to mention animal husbandry and various cottage industries for producing other necessities like clothing. Just because you weren't threshing or harvesting grain doesn't mean you were chilling in your hovel with your thumb up your ass.
>For most of winter they would barely have to do any work aside from household maintenance
You can't believe this. Trees still need to be felled, firewood chopped, homosexuals collected, livestock fed, food cooked and stored, etc.
>They owned land
Generally speaking they were leased properties to farm for their manor lords. A serf isn't the same as a yeoman or freeholder, and most peasants were serfs.
>Some peasants were independently wealthy merchants
And most weren't
>Trees still need to be felled, firewood chopped, homosexuals collected, livestock fed, food cooked and stored, etc.
Oh wow! So much work! A normal person would have collapsed after so much effort!
Glibness isn't an argument
The argument is that that type of work is not the backbreaking slavery, you're just gay
>year round fertility
Crop cycling eliminated this. You’d have fallow fields you cycled between each year, which aren’t that complex to maintains. And I said as much, they still would need to fix their leaky roof or repair their clothing, but this isn’t exactly a back breaking slave drive- it’s stuff most human beings had to do since time began, and this didn’t stop for most even up until the last century. Managing the woods near their homes wasn’t something their lord compelled them to do for a certain duration every day, it was just part of life. The part we are arguing about, the actual labour hours compared to today, is true. If it was as demanding as you say it was, they wouldn’t be getting breaks to eat and nap every few hours which we know they did, and they had food provided for them. That sort of natural pacing of the day, working for 2 hours and resting for an hour and a half, wouldn’t be possible if all these domestic matters were as pressing and as time consuming as you say. There’s no way they could have managed slave labour and tending their own property and household. Furthermore, and it’s weird I have to say this, but they weren’t chattel slaves. They met with their lords once a week most of the time and rents were established by discussion and agreement. Of course you’re right, there’s that threat of violence there, and it did happen on occasion, but it wasn’t as frequent or as brutal as people make out. I’m not saying they lived an idyllic life, and they could be exploited badly, but the picture culture gives us of peasant life is a load of bullshit. Another fact is that a lot of peasant oppression came from OTHER peasants. They weren’t a monolith and there were class divisions between them. Most of the time peasants kicked off it was because their baron wasn’t taking the distinctions between them and their lessers seriously enough.
>serfs didn’t own land
They did. They’d pay an inheritance tax
>For most of winter they would barely have to do any work aside from household maintenance.
You have no idea how back breaking providing basic amenities are without modern technology and conveniences. Collecting water, firewood, cooking, laundry, looking after your animals, making your own clothes, tools. People who say shit like this I bet haven't even gone camping even with modern camping comforts.
None of those things take more than a few hours in the morning
Yeah dude I do all that every morning with my pickup
t. actual apartment dwellers
t. Apartment dweller
there are people in the countryside still doing these things and it’s not that bad. go visit a farm
>put ten times more effort in to refuting my bullshit or you lose
have a nice day
Maybe try putting in ANY effort instead of plopping your brown ass into a chair and copy and pasting a youtube link
He wasn't even me, but it took him more effort to find a youtube link to a comprehensive video on the subject of how much more people have to work to support themselves in the post-industrial world than it took you to go "um this has been debunked" pre-emptively because you knew that would be the response to your moronic post saying the medieval era was worse because.. because.. IT JUST WAS OKAY
I will not accept any rebuttal to any of this that isn't thoroughly sourced
Absolutely zoomer brained post. Try reading books, they're like YouTube videos made of trees
wow just like today
>chattel
Except for serfs, most peasants in France and England owned the land they worked on, and had to pay 10% taxes to Clergy and Nobles. Jeanne of Arc dad was actually a middle class land owner and when he petitioned the local lord for an escort for his eccentric daughter, the lord listened.
Try to petition your mayor/senate rep to stop Black folk from raping your daughter.
to be fair a lot of this shit depended on the when and where rather than being black and white much like today.
Exactly, hence why "muh muddy grim middle age" being such a brainlet take.
>wow I'm glad I have no rights because at least my manor lord is a based tradcath white man and he leases me a half acre to farm barley and cabbage
So... like most of human history? Do you people honestly believe that stuff like that happened all the time everywhere constantly and no one was ever happy?
So what steps have you taken to remove yourself from contemporary society if it's causing you so much misery?
OH NO NO NO
Wow it's almost like movies aren't objective views of reality, I am utterly shocked bro.
Thats exactly the point, the question is: why are those artistic choices made?
The answers, like
ar good example of this mindset, in that the goal of those artisitic pieces is to judge the past from a materialistc point of view.
>judge the past from a materialistc point of view
You dorks are all talk. You wouldn't last a single day in the pre-industrial agrarian paradise you're so desperate for
That's basically it, if the middle ages were portrayed accurately people would wonder why the frick our current era isn't more like that.
It's ironic because the "dark, violent, gray" ends up being closer to our shitty post-WW2 dystopian "culture".
I also blame 9/11, Hollywood made everything dark and emo past 2001.
I would say that people in Medieval times had the same ''capacity'' for happiness that we do today, which is quite different from materialistic welfare which is unquestionably better today. But these are two independent concept and you may want both.
The problem with leftist is that they want to mix both material wealth and happiness, the next logical step being of course all the redistributive policies and the subsequent Sate led oppression such redistribution necessitate.
>modern ''progressive'' religion
The depiction of the dark ages as an age of violent primitives dates back to the enlightenment philosophers.
It started in the Renaissance.
It was literally a dumb boomer meme.
it was humanists uncovering caroline manuscripts they mistook for lost roman knowledge
pretty funny
Maybe it had something to do with the collapse of the Western Roman state that afforded large cities safety and stability
the western roman state hadn't offered that for like 300 years before the alleged dark ages started
holy shit that horrible greenscreen
What studio do you work at? They hire queers that spout nonsense to fit in that post on an anonymous Pokémon card and dragon dildo trading marketplace?
The real reason is that colorful period pieces look campy and garish and many aim for a darker mood and tone. It has literally nothing to do with some israeli psyop or Cinemaphile tradgays and their persecution complexes
chuds be like
>living in a world without antibiotics or anesthesia and dying of an infected toe at age 37 was good actually!
There were only three periods of the Middle Ages that could be attributed to the "Dark Ages": the immediate collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the economic collapse of Europe as a whole due to Islamic conquests disrupting Mediterranean trade routes, and the widespread death toll of the Black Death.
I recognise these dudes
In english gomez
Let me try to translate for you:
you big dum dum
smart grug know not middle ages
The frick you onabout?
The dark ages are specifically from 410AD to 850AD
The fall of Rome to the Vikings.
The Viking raids marked the beginning of the middle ages and the start of the age of disovery culminating in the Crusades and then the transition into the Renaissance.
There is no "dark age" in modern historiography, they dropped the concept about 20 years ago. The fall of Rome at 476 AD is is the start of the early middle ages.
>modern
stopped reading there. It was called the dark ages because during those centuries, we lost so much knowledge, wisdom and information it was a complete reset for western Europe. We regressed back to base tribalism.
Only by the grace of Rome did the little knowledge that remained propagate throughout the world once again.
I don't give a frick what some mark who got taken by an institution calls the ages passed.
His predecessors were were far more learned than our modern 'experts' who have been corrupted by false ideals and notions and grandeur.
The Dark ages were just that, a dark period for mankind, losing all civilized progress of our forebears for centuries.
And that corresponds to the early middle ages, you would have known that if you read his post
>losing all civilized progress of our forebears for centuries
they didnt have any
Yeah except the part where this literally didn’t happen. Do you only read history books from the 1700s?
>Italy falls apart into tribal fiefs
>Gaul and germania fall into tribal conquests resulting in the Goths and Vandal raids and sackings of mainland Europe
>Muslims conquering Hispania
Britain recovered fairly well after the fall Rome mainly because a fair amount of Roman governors and military personnel stayed behind because they had made a life for themselves in Britannia.
The Saxon raids and settlement of Britain specifically happened because of Tribal conquests forcing them out of Saxony.
You're a moron and so am I for arguing with you.
You’re acting like this was a sudden thing. Western rome was doing the muttmerica tactic of paying off barbarians to attack other barbarians for centuries, it got to the point where most generals were gauls and goths. When the emperor stopped being able to pay them after north africa went to the vandals, they simply stopped listening to the emperor. But for one thing, the eastern empire continued fine, and for another, knowledge wasn’t “lost”. There was a period of instability and tribalism for a couple of centuries during which the church preserved codes of law and copied books. Once charles the great comes into the picture literary culture was already back on its feet and thriving. The medieval world of the 13th century surpassed a lot of what the romans were capable of, it just wasn’t a unified empire anymore, and it still isn’t. The idea that “progress” in any way was permanently disrupted is just whig history nonsense
none of those things caused an age of darkness. Neither technology nor learning regressed, there were just smaller states and less organized record keeping. It was always called the dark ages because records from it are noticeably harder to find than the classical period or the high medieval period.
You are just repeating vague talking points written by 250 years ago, which you probably got from a youtube video. We have access to more records and infinitely more ways to assess material conditions than when these ideas were written, which is why they've been abandoned by the discipline.
Do yourself a favor and actually look into this stuff for yourself, don't take the word of some homosexual farming views to make money.
>written by 250 years ago
NTA but written by 250 years ago? Strange name.
>I'm gonna name my kid 250 Years Ago just to confuse people in 250 years
Why were they like this
Gibbons and his History have been a disaster for the human race.
I like vikings, but were the viking raids really significant enough to warrant their own European time period?
Dark ages end more with consolidation of frankish rule but in some ways yes.
The outside pressure of muzzies vikangs and hungarians required localised military districts to mount effective defense.
The quintessential feudal element of local lords ruling largely autonomous steems from that.
They get hyped up to distract us from the near-catastrophic effects that Umayyads brought down.
I don't wanna be one of those moronic "le vikings were actually le migrants" ~~*historian*~~, but by mixing with French(Normans) and Brits later, they changed the history of Europe.
‘Foundations of Geopolitics’ claims that it was outside pressures, insufficient to overwhelm but sufficient to force collaboration between kingdoms, that resulted in modern European nations
Pressure from 3 sides, four if you count perfidious Albion, solidified the northern raiders as a sufficient element in establishing the modern order
Did they actually wear these helmets into battle?
>chuddy janny deleted it
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
CHUDSERVATIVISM CAN'T EXIST WITHOUT CENSORSHIP LMFAO
>I was born in le wrong century
>Is outnumbered by both the English and the Burgundians
>Invests all of his points into FTH and gunpowder
>Wins
>directors and historians keep jerking off on Agincourt anyways
I hate anglo bias
>on
to
>oh noooo I'm being raided by bandits and murdered
>at least there's no movies with black people ^_^
>daughter raped by pakis and teacher beheaded by mudslimes
>"AT LEAST I'M NOT A RACIST"
Btw, bandits were exactly why you paid taxes to KNIGHTS. Because fricking knights, unlike politicians, were hard motherfrickers who would find bandits and skin them/behead them, not put them in prison with 3 square meals a day.
>I was born in le wrong century
Why do the middle ages make them fume so much wtf
wasn't that caused by a israelite who converted to Christianity who then translated the talmud?
>King Louis IX ordered four prominent rabbis to defend the Talmud. They faced off against Nicholas Donin, a Parisian israelite who had abandoned his faith and converted to Catholicism. Donin was not a fan of Judaism; he was also the one who’d written the damning letter to the Pope that started this crisis.
I wish I could have heard this debate. Imagine four medieval ben shapiros defending passages about raping goy children
>King Louis set the rules. Rule number 1: The Rabbis couldn’t criticize Christianity in any way. And if rule number 2 could have been announced, it would’ve been that there’s no way the israelites can win.
>The trial did not go well. At one point, King Louis got so enraged, he shouted that a good Christian would plunge his sword into a israelite and not debate. One rabbi had to flee for his life. The remaining prominent rabbis argued all they could, but the Talmud was found “guilty” and condemned to burning.
>Two years later, official searched all over France for any remaining volumes of Talmud and other Hebrew books. On June 17, 1242, 24 wagons deposited close to 10,000 books at the Place de Greve, near Notre Dame Cathedral, where they were burned.
Based Louis.
>loses debate
>spergs out
Rather sad if you consider this a W
It's all anti Semitism personified.
>Too dumb to reason or win a argument.
>Just rely on violence.
No wonder they always lose long term.
Found the medieval haters kvetching
Medieval time was cool. Most kings were stupid shits though.
The article was written by a woman or a israelite judging by the writing.
No fricking way you can defend the Talmud in an honest discussion, it's bronze age mentality barbarism and greed infused.
Makes you realise why certain “frenchmen” wanted rid of the monarchy
Did the israelites manage to infiltrate the Templars? I know they were screaming the last Grandmaster's name during Louis XVI's execution.
Because their king was a stupid brute incapable of winning a argument?
Valid enough reason.
Why are former israelites ALWAYS the biggest antisemites?
They know
I'm also reading a book called "Blood Easter", by a Roman israelite Ariel Toaff, that talks about the Ashkenazi blood rituals in the XV and XVI century, and he says the proofs, unfortunately (for him) are damning. Of course him being a israelite says it was only some bad Ashkenazi orthodox and that Roman israelites weren't into that, but gonna take him with a pinch of salt.
>and he says the proofs, unfortunately (for him) are damning.
Very much doubt that. Especially considering there is as much evidence for fairies existing as there is for blood rituals.
Fairies are real.
They are not very nice but they are real.
Yes he pointed out parts of the talmud which were very clearly references to jesus being boiled in excrement. I’m sure all the weird shit about molesting gentile toddlers, or killing gentiles with impunity wasn’t popular either once it was all translated
Damn, the Qui were getting very uppity in the 1490s.
Portugal deported them into the ocean?
SEA YOU LATER
>israelite are going to Brazil!
>He doesn't know about the Fall of Atlantis
to Sao Tome, an African island
>Kings wanted money this many times
Greedy dicks.
This explains a lot about Genoa.
do you mean venice?
Venetians had the sense to invent the ghetto and make them live on one shitty island.
Genovese have always been shitheels
There is no information about genoa in that pic. You have italy the wrong way round.
Genoa is on the west coast
Venice is on the East.
Bridegroom of the Adriatic, blessed by St Mark.
Yes this means the pic has no info on genoa ffs.
Hence the comment "this explains genoa" is wrong
There are two israelite arrows going there.
The Black Death was brought to Europe by Genoese merchants, coincidence?
>Absolutely zoomer brained post. Try reading books, they're like YouTube videos made of trees
That’s because nobody wants to watch medieval peasants go about their day. It would probably be boring and not sad and pathetic as we see in the movies.
It’s the same with the Wild West nobody wants to watch some guy work on a ranch they wanna see cowboys shoot savages
The real question is why so many in this thread are desperate to defend Hollywood's grimdark middle ages bs.
Because it reinforce leftist worldview.
There's been an ongoing israelite/commie raid on Cinemaphile since 2020
leftypol is here
Because not everyone wants campy, saccharine period dramas because some brown tradcaths on the internet feel wounded by darker tones
Because it’s bait.
Blue filters in medieval movies is white genocide.
>But why?
antiChristianity really
all these kingdoms had great Catholic Kings, but we cant have that on tv or movies
You need to frick off with your christrannity persecution complex.
>screeching about trannies out of nowhere
you're done
you called him a troony literally in the post I replied to
if the mere word troony triggers your insecurities this hard you might just be one.
>call someone a christtroony
>rebut that by saying actually atheists on a statistical basis support trannies the most
>UGH YOURE TRIGGERED
I refuted your claim about catholic kings in movies you inbred.
the troony part was just an insult because I assumed it would send you into flying rage.
And yes you are and for good reason I assume lol
>throws feces
>feces thrown back at him
>goes into a tard rage
Stick to reddit, my guy.
It is you who is inbred.
lmao the guy seething about Saint Louis itt
Want some more cheese with that whine?
I'm really partial to pic related. It's mainly about the Hundred Years War, but that in and of itself has so many key elements (bubonic plague, beginning of English & French nationalism, adoption of gunpowder in Europe, Joan of Arc, Henry V, horrific peasant revolutions, etc.)
Because it was an age that smelled of shit where dumb religious lugnuts screeched at anyone intelligent (the example of scholar rabbis being screamed at and killed because the dumb french king can’t win an argument has been posted). Centuries of science and art was lost. Eat shit. It’s thematically accurate to portray the era as miserable
Well, if you're interested in the scientific progress stuff mentioned in this thread, pic rel. Somewhere there was a chan pic of a review done by the guy who writes the history for atheists website, pretty interesting but can't find.
Why did that innocuous post asking for reading recommendations get deleted?
It adds intrigue
Call the spymaster. Interrogations must be made.
I think he made a typo when he wrote "I don't hate israelites" and he didn't want people seeing it.
troony jannies don't like it when the convo goes the wrong way.
medievalchads won in another thread
medievalbro THE PIOUS, the NOBLE, the LEARNED ARISTOCRAT, the ASCETIC the CHIVALROUS the ROMANTIC the GENTLEMAN the KNIGHTLY the COURTLY the VIRTUOUS the SCHOLASTIC MEDITATIVE PONTIFICATE of CHARISM the HOLY the GALLANT
NEVER TRUST A GENOAN.
when is the neo sincerity movement starting where we can have colourful kinos about gallant knights again and not just endless misery porn
Why would Hollywood be sincere?
They are in an agenda pushing mode.
If blue was so expensive, what did the average French soldier wear? Any surcoat or did they just huddle around a single fleur-de-lis standard?
Chiefly greens and yellows.
Anyone have that chart that shows how scientific achievement dropped off during the Christian dark ages?
Why do you believe scientific achievement is so important? Outside of medicine and agriculture most of it is useless.
How dark is your skin?
You didn't answer the question. People can live comfortably without most of the stuff we have now, in fact they'd live better without them.
Industrial society has its problems, for sure, I just find it funny how pseudo-luddites who fetishize pre-industrial societies never put their money where their mouth is. Kind of like pinkos who b***h about capitalism but are unwilling to make the smallest of sacrifices to avoid participation in it.
The people who post this comic are worse than the people they try to parody
Tweeting about the working conditions in China is not comparable to installing seatbelts in cars - one is an empty and useless complaint, a popular activity online, and the other is an actionable observation (installing seatbelts)
Upvoted though
Yeah they post this trite comic because they have no actual rebuttal. It's not that they're unable to lessen their participation in capitalism, it's that theyre unwilling to make any sacrifice to do so, and then cope by saying they have no choice. You see the same thing here with morons who deride the material comforts we have now, but wouldn't actually give them up in a million years.
Black person, how the frick am I gonna live like a medieval person in modern America? Literally how? Society is entirely different than it was, it's just not possible.
Obviously you can't live EXACTLY like a 10th century serf, but you can reduce your dependency on technology, and lessen your participation in modern society (like the Amish or off-the-grid homesteaders). But like I said, you won't, because you're all talk and unwilling to make sacrifices
To what end? In the medieval you were a peasant because the social order provided you a wife and children as well as a home with a farmstead. In addition you got a warrior and noble classes who protected you. Nowdays you have politicians who lie to you and no warrior class just rich kid feds who arrest you on made up charges.
The reasons to live like a peasant are gone, so why live that way anymore?
>The reasons to live like a peasant are gone, so why live that way anymore?
Read the thread. A bunch of tradgay anons think life was so much better before modern material comforts made us soft, degenerate, and decadent, so much so that israeli tv producers have to psyop the population into thinking that pre-industrial Christian Europe was REALLY bad. If it was so great, then why not make minimal efforts to preserve or emulate it?
>If it was so great, then why not make minimal efforts to preserve or emulate it?
Try strongmaning your own question. Tell us why not?
>strongmaning
Try again ESLanon
See also steelmanning, ie the opposite of straw manning.
Life was better reread my comment. I'm saying I'd rather marry a wife, own a house and have children (things I'll probably never attain) than to have air conditioning and the internet. It's a trade off.
Obviously if stable households and modern tech were both possible that would be preferrable, but some might argue they're not. Either way just giving up tech won't give you a wife, children and a home of your own. It'll just make you the weird hermit living with his parents that doesn't use the internet and autistically refuses to watch tv with his parents. Or if you're successful you might be living alone and doing the same strange habits, but either way you won't get what makes the trade off worth it so why bother?
I became convinced that online dating was psychologically unhealthy and so I went out and met a woman who I am now going to marry this year - I also think television is psychologically unhealthy and so don’t watch it (though I still post in threads about shows I haven’t seen)
The people who decide that the internet as a whole is unhealthy then stop posting here, so there’s an obvious selection bias
Regardless, many people - like me - have cut out ‘convenient’ technologies and benefitted from this
>"The Left care about Chinese workers!"
>Trump tries to bring jobs back to the US by deregulation
>"REEEE MUH ENVIRONMENT!! REEEEE!!"
Why are Leftists like this?
Also peasants in the medieval weren't miserable and if they met a modern person they'd probably call you a filthy wretch for not covering your women and worshiping God with Latin chants. They actually were trad Catholics not modern online variants. So pretending they wouldn't execute communists and liberals is silly.
>put their money where their mouth is
There is nowhere in the US you could even if I gave you a 200 acre farm. Living an agrarian lifestyle is incompatible with property taxes at a fundamental level. Heck you would be expected to pay fifty-fold to the state what a literal medieval peasant would owe his Lord. Per year.
Yea but peasants couldn't vote.
>They met with their lords once a week most of the time and rents were established by discussion and agreement.
Gr8 b8 m8
Cope. Your luddite bluster is just a bunch of BS considering you're unwilling to make incremental lifestyle changes.
There's nothing to fricking increment towards. Living an autisticly minimalist lifestyle would never get you to the bullshit in da woods fantasy thats so popular. What part of fundamentally impossible in a statist overtaxed society did you fail to understand?
See
Read again. That's exactly what I was criticizing. .
>There's nothing to increment towards
Lmao of course their is. You're just a performative gay who won't make a single lifestyle change
At what point is it possible to transition from a minimal-no modern convinces lifestyle to a proper agrarian lifestyle? Were in your "make sacrifices" roadmap does this change occur?
It's obviously near impossible to completely make that transition in a more globalized world, but to not make a single effort is the same lazy hypocrisy you see with tankies, like
demonstrated
Explain why someone who believes that agrarian life was culturally superior (rightly or wrongly) would start down a path that could never be completed? Why would someone forgoes all modern tech, spend half a lifetime saving, and then buy land that would be taxed away from him because agrarians don't make good taxpiggies?
inb4 seething tradlarpers can't refute any of the data points on the graph
>Not posting the whole chart
We would have real enter-video-games devices if not for Finland...
>Christian dark ages
That isn't how it worked at all. Historylets (liberals) need to sit down more often
Where you there? No? Then frick off.
We have paintings. How many medieval paintings are gray? Zero. Everything is colorful.
>Paint was colorful
wow thanks buddy
(You)
Gray is a color they could have used, but they used all sorts of other colors. You are a huge homosexual moron by the way and you're also a c**t and a twat and a Black person too. Oh and a troony.
Dark Ages can be applied at a country by country level.
Egypt and Greece have been shadows of their former selves for thousands of years. It's been Millenia since their civilizations were at their Apex
>people still falling for the dark ages meme
it has dark in the name so clearly those damn religious people were holding the planet back
thank god we can be pregnant men atheists now.
I've got a buddy who is a professor of Roman history who once got called on by a studio to be an accuracy consultant on a kino. So he's there pointing out all the problems with the armor and the formations and the producer is basically like "yeah we know about that but audiences expect bracers like these even though it's not set at the right time." So the takeaway here is that they've been doing the medieval filter for so long that it's our conception of how things were and if they didn't do it that way about a third of Americans would be really confused
If I got sent back in time to the dark ages in Europe I would immediately set out for China.
Truly a nation of squandered potential
Gunpowder but no guns, printing press but no alphabet, an intercontinental navy scuttled!
My heart weeps for Zhuanghe!!
why should i believe what tradlarping redpilled incels have to say? theyre just as likely to lie or bend the truth as much as any politically and religiously motivated israelite
I just like medieval stuff bro. Not my fault they persecuted your israeli people
Cool it with the antisemetism bro. Whats wrong with a motivated israelite exactly? And be specific.
Modern historical movies try way too hard to make everything look brown, dour and miserable and at this point there is obviously an agenda to make the past seem like a terrible miserable place. It's not just antiquity, the Middle Ages, or the Napoleonic era, they do it with anything set before the 1960s civil rights movement.
They have to sell the myth of progress.
Where you there? No ? Then frick off.
Hahahaha, chill out
medievaleers lived in dirt and squalor and did not have the type of modern detergents that maintained colors in clothing.
Seriously, try dying something using a natural ingredient from your local environment. after a week it'll be completely washed out and grey.
this is the weirdest forced meme on Cinemaphile.
People at renfairs wear traditionally dyed clothes, it's not some lost art. They need to be redyed regularly to stay vivid but not every week. Easily possible for most medieval people.
Weird. My ren-fair is mostly just nerds in furry suits and mandalorian cosplay, with a handful of alt girls dressed as elves.
Your ren faire sucks
Which country are you in? Sounds North American
It's to make history seem worse than it was, if we look at it honestly it might make us question our society and realize not all that has changed has been for the better.
nope. its because vibrant colors that last are a recent invention of clothing technologies etc.
You can make natural clothes so bright people tell you they're anachronistic at events.
We are no longer allowed to romanticize the past. We must only praise the current day.
> nooo my medieval headcannon is that everything was brightly colored and everyone was happy because uh
> because some painting told me
> because some movie told me
> because some moron on the internet told me
so basically the most neckbeard take ever, cool okay
(You)