Is it just a meme myth that all medieval peasants had shitty lives?

Is it just a meme myth that all medieval peasants had shitty lives?

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Debunking feminism;
    "Women did not work males"
    Fake. We work hard as men

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ???
      tf does that have to do with OPs question?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly I think women have to work harder than men, just to meet half their output.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only thing that makes me think you're a woman. Is you look at the lense of everything through Male and Female. Women's jealously of men's superior nature is very telling. I really hope you're a larping troony. Because women are beaten by men in every single field. Unless men are barred from entry, we are just better.
      Women are for making babies. Nothing else. Sorry not sorry. Practice servicing men, and you'll start being happier. Trust me.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Being a peasant sucked everywhere regardless of where you lived. Peasants in England payed more in rent on top of mandatory 'gifts' which could be commuted for cash, they had no legal right to common law or the Kings court, they owed dues to their Lord. Just being a free tenant alone meant you had access to the Royal courts and payed far less in rent and weren't bound to the land and a manor.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A peasant is just a commoner in a village. They could be either free or bound to the land they rented

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Peasant as a proper term did not refer to free tenants in the 14th century. It refered to unfree men.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thats false. The term peasant derived from pays which is French for field or countryside. It has nothing to do with being either free or bound

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This. It's "paese" in modern Italian. It simply means "rural" or "village dweller". Old Italians still call people from the same region "paesano" which would literally translate to "peasant" but also "countryman" and the latter is the most common meaning. I've never heard it as insult but always as a term of endearing
            like "hey senpai" or "hi brother". it usually sounds like "uei paisá" or "oei paisá" in Southern Italian dialects.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You're confusing the peasantry & serfs.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The vast majority of peasants were serfs. Otherwise you'd only be counting some 8% of the population

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They're distinct categories (free vs. bound), unless you're making up your own that are different from anyone else's understanding.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >they had no legal right to common law

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE COMMONS ARE

      WHAT DO YOU THINK THE WORD COMMONER MEANS

      POINT AND LAUGH

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no, he is functionally correct, at least. Suits at common law in medieval england were initiated by writs, and writs costed a lot of money to get, which effectively locked most people out of the courts.
        This is where chancery came in. Courts sitting in equity started hearing cases from poor people for free because poor people couldn't get justice anywhere else.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The common law isn't fundamentally about suits, it's more about contracts and rights.

          It's really a code commonly understood by the natural born freemen of the land, and agreed upon in assembly. The Irish would call this a "tuath". In the case of a dispute, both parties would have to agree on the choice of judge.

          Moreover, while you'll see a lot of nonsense about common law emerging after the Norman conquest, it's actually an outgrowth of the far older Celtic law systems that go back to before the Roman period.

          This system would exist through the entire medieval period, and notably in Wales until the so-called "Laws in Wales" acts.

          That's really where the commons come from.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it's more about contracts and rights.
            yeah
            and the only way you enforce that shit is through lawsuits
            and you can't start unless a lawsuit unless you have money
            it doesn't matter what your rights are in theory. If you can't enforce them, they may as well not exist.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >only way you enforce that shit is through lawsuits
            >and you can't start unless a lawsuit unless you have money

            like I said, these disputes would be hammered out by a mutually chosen judge

            because both parties are part of a voluntary assembly, an assembly which guarantees it's members insurance in case of breach of their commonly agreed upon code

            under that ancient system, I don't know of any monetary requirements for justice
            damages could take the form of money though, it's where we get the term "blood money"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >like I said, these disputes would be hammered out by a mutually chosen judge
            which the aggrieved would have to pay for out of their own pocket
            >under that ancient system, I don't know of any monetary requirements for justice
            >The forms of action were the different procedures by which a legal claim could be made during much of the history of the English common law. Depending on the court, a plaintiff would purchase a writ in Chancery (or file a bill) which would set in motion a series of events eventually leading to a trial in one of the medieval common law courts. Each writ entailed a different set of procedures and remedies which together amounted to the "form of action".
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_action
            you literally had to pay a big fine to take someone to court, what the frick are you on about.
            There's a very good reason that petitions to chancery always started with "I am fricking broke and someone is violating my rights and there's nothing I can do to stop them please somebody help me."

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >which the aggrieved would have to pay for out of their own pocket

            Oh? While that might have been true of the Norman courts, it doesn't sound to me like it was true of the older Celtic systems the later Medieval common law actually developed from.

            See, members of the assembly were sworn to take up arms to defend their neighbors in times of war. Why would these freemen be required to pay a fee for justice in their disputes when they already had peerage?

            You're still focusing on the more centralized system associated with the king of England. All I'm trying to do is show that these are later impositions on a voluntary system of association that already existed.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In Germanic areas, including Anglo-Saxon England (and probably for centuries after the Norman invasion in practice), the king's judgement would have been needed only in rare cases. Usually you'd have the free men of the village decide who was in the right, or you'd have one or a handful of local lords sit in judgement. And actually, the King of England would often be happy to hear cases brought to him by lower nobles and sometimes commoners, because those cases presented an opportunity to claw land, privileges and prestige out of the hands of the upper nobility, who were always trying to claw the same things out of the hands of the king.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Germanic areas, including Anglo-Saxon England

            Ah, but in areas free of the Angloid pox those ancient systems continued through most of the high medieval period.

            You seem very knowledgeable on this subject. Props.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You even had the Femegerichten, or Vehmgerichten, in Germany up until the late 18th century. If you were a free man born to married Christian parents of German origin in a state of the Holy Roman Empire that allowed these courts (most notably Westphalia), you were allowed to sign up for membership, and in many criminal cases - especially those where execution was on the table - only your peers could bring a case against you, you had the right to defend yourself and call witnesses, and only judges belonging to the same court could pass judgement.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Fascinating.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he older Celtic systems the later Medieval common law actually developed from.
            the common law was created by the anglo-saxon monarchs. Medieval historians all unanimously conceded this fact. And anyway, it doesn't fricking matter where the common law ultimately made came from, as by the medieval period, all actions at common law required purchasing a writ from the crown.
            >You're still focusing on the more centralized system associated with the king of England
            that's the only fricking law system that there was at the time you mouthbreather
            they literally had to get invent new courts because poor people had literally no other remedies.
            Everything besides equity and the common law was basically the equivalent of what arbitration is in the modern day. It's all arbitrary, extralegal BS. You're just going off some c**t's word that he's going to stop violating your rights. A foolproof plan, I'm sure.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >that's the only fricking law system that there was at the time you mouthbreather

            Not so. The Britons of Strathclyde and Wales operated their own systems independently of the Angloid menace. Systems which ultimately came from the Druids.

            >Welsh law fell into the juristic category of Volksrecht (“people's law”), which did not lay great stress on royal power, as opposed to the Kaisersrecht or Königsrecht (“king's law”) of both England and Scotland, where it was emphasised that both civil and common law were imposed by the state.[11]

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The Britons of Strathclyde and Wales
            is this like one of those situations where someone is so eager to jump into a conversation that they don't even know what's actually being discussed and just start spouting worthless non sequiturs
            we were discussing the english common law, not whatever mockery of law moronic savages out in east egypt bumfrick practiced.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The vile Angloids perverted a perfect system with their Germ autism.

            Then after the Normans cut down the flower of the Angloid nobility at Hastings, afterwards marrying their widows and daughters to legitimately take over their estates and produce better heirs, that glorious and truly free system was further imposed upon.

            >east egypt

            Yes.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Common law was from the Royal courts. Unfree people couldn’t use Royal courts. Therefore they couldn’t access common law.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kings had shitty lives too. Modern people have better lives than ancient kings.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No they don't moron, ancient kings lived infinitely better lives than modern people, especially if by "ancient" you mean bronze age

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/a9z44tE.jpeg

        Ancient Kings have better homes, tastier food, and more friends and excitement than most modern people. And they're Kings, they can do whatever they want without the government hounding them

        Every night I get high and order wingstop using ubereats, then I play vidya on my two thousand dollar computer. Name a King who regularly lived in such luxury. Their nicest luxury was god damn bowling.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          My house has better heating than King Whogivethafuk of Bussex in 100 A.D.

          they had sex with a lot of sex slaves

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >sex with malnourished slave women
            I have tinder.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And yet you are here. You must be an amerimutt that you think goyslop and distractions mean something.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >get high
          Ale and wine with the boys
          >order chicken
          He would have chefs cook whatever he wanted
          >vidya
          He had the thrill of fighting real wars instead of some lame simulated surrogate activity, and sports like falconry and hunting

          Also you are an adult virgin

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you know what medieval kings also did? Travel around their countries 24/7, doing constant legal work. Like just literally doing unending paperwork and other assorted bureaucratic busywork.
            Your conception of a medieval king is the equivalent to that of a 13 year old boy who thinks the monarch spent all his time sitting on a velvet throne getting head from his busty concubines while slaves shovel gourmet food down his throat.
            People seem to forget that these guys ran entire countries. The modest luxuries they enjoyed did little in the way of making up for the inconceivable amount of hardship they dealt with in any given year.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Travel around their countries 24/7, doing constant legal work. Like just literally doing unending paperwork and other assorted bureaucratic busywork.
            kek, that's maximum plebeian wagie's job, like something a monk would do, no way

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >John was the most peripatetic of all English monarchs. His 17 years on the throne are often described as a reign of crisis. In 1214 John lost his lands in France, earning him the name John Lackland. Beset by financial problems, and with his authority threatened by rebellious barons, John was seldom in residence at Windsor and Westminster – but spent much of his time on the move, raising taxes and holding courts, as he toured the country.
            get to work, kinggay.
            As for me, I'll be playing vidya in my pants on a workday. Real wageslavery type shit going on over here.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            lol relax, monk boy, it's that time again, the bishop is a special kind of horny today

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"No way, kings aren't just turbowagies with fancy clothes!"
            >*gets presented with irrefutable evidence that kings were just turbowagies with fancy clothes*
            >"Hah! Looks like I was right!"
            I swear, the average IQ on this board is in the single digits

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I swear, the average IQ on this board is in the single digits
            indeed, monkboys will never learn, they think giving the boypussy is a free pass to heaven, shame

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No ruler ever had it easy. Your life is easy because you have no responsibility. As far as luxuries go, they had much better.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Medieval/early modern period kings had the worst job in the entire world. No wonder very few of them lived past 60. Henry VIII was 53 when he died and had the body of an 85 year old at the end.

            >always a war or military campaign somewhere
            >always rebellious nobles, clergy, or foreign powers out to cause you problems and if they win you get exiled, jailed, or killed
            >constant inane busywork of running a government
            >everyone making constant demands on you every waking minute, the stress must have been insane

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ancient Kings have better homes, tastier food, and more friends and excitement than most modern people. And they're Kings, they can do whatever they want without the government hounding them

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        My house has better heating than King Whogivethafuk of Bussex in 100 A.D.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Actually medieval peasants have more free time than workers under capitalism.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They also had a lot more house chores.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not really. You are just neglecting your house chores and saying that to cope.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >thinking making your bed is the same as securing food and water daily

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the brain algorithm was better optimized. How could you even say that you had "more" chores to do if you had no point of comparison? it just was what it was and the brain algorithm was optimized just like ours

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes but the work they had to do was hard physical work which most modern people would find extremely difficult. It would be literally physically impossible to do that at the same kind of rate as just about any modern job. Also they had to deal with all kinds of diseases and ailments which would be easily avoidable and treatable by today's standards, faced the threats of famine, plagues and wars, and had limited legal freedoms and were directly lorded over by the nobility and clergy. So there's all of that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Capitalism is just the market. The market has always been around

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Free time didn't exist in that context.
      You didn't have labor hours as a peasant the same way that your boss expects you to work 8hrs today.
      You worked as much as you needed to every day, whether that be 12 hours or 4 hours or not at all.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They weren't as ignorant as people assume. In fact, some actively sought education which the church provided. Some could be fairly litigious if pressed. Of course no everyone was literate or even semi-literate, but remember that the printing press was not invented yet either.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They probably had some good years or periods when they had plenty of harvest and good weather. But a bad period with bad harvest meant starvation and over taxation and combined with some war it was what we think about the worst stereotypes about life in medieval times.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A peasant boy lived a pretty cozy life. A peasant girl, not as much. Besides the fear of rape, they'd likely marry early and get pregnant over and over again each year. Period cramps and labor pains, lack of c section, and bleeding made them pretty miserable I suppose. And they still had to do household chores, gardening, cloth making, and wicker weaving. I imagine their aunts, sisters, grandmas, and adolescent daughters helped somewhat with that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      so basically like modern women

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >A peasant boy lived a pretty cozy life.
      Not necessarily. In the Middle Ages you had widespread concubinage, including in leading Christian countries. It was normal and socially acceptable for noblemen, priests, craftsmen, merchants and financially successful freemen to take peasant girls as concubines. In addition, if an influential man's wife died, he would quickly find another woman to replace her. Charlemagne is considered the 'Father of Europe' in large part because he had several dozen children by his five wives and at least five concubines.

      The result of these practices was that many men from the lower social strata did not marry or reproduce. It's been estimated that by 1000 AD there were no living descendants of ~50% of men alive in 500 AD, and likewise by 1500 AD there were no living descendants of ~50% of men alive in 1000 AD. Simply put, the bottom 50% of men were replaced twice-over by way of financially/reputationally selective breeding by women, social exclusion/banishment and the widespread use of capital punishment. A lot of these leftover men became petty criminals, traveling con artists or bandits, generally with very little success and a noose at the end of it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Charlemagne was also a barely civilized barbarian in a society where the Catholic Church hadn't imposed moral monogamy yet.
        prostitutes and affairs were tolerated so long as they were quiet, but otherwise polygamy was heavily repressed.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It's been estimated that by 1000 AD there were no living descendants of ~50% of men alive in 500 AD, and likewise by 1500 AD there were no living descendants of ~50% of men alive in 1000 AD.

        These estimates are complete nonsense.

        Supposing that trend held true during the Roman Empire, whereas in fact that effect would have been MORE pronounced during the Empire, it would mean that everyone in Europe would be severely inbred.

        That simply isn't the case and we can tell.

        Instead, what really is happening here is genetic drift. Sometimes, men reproduce but only have daughters or their sons die before reproducing themselves.

        That means even though these men contributed to the autosomal profile of their region, their Y-DNA wasn't passed on.

        You might note that your figure of 50% is the same chances of a woman giving birth to a boy or a girl. Take into account the likelihood of a woman dying in childbirth, and you account for this estimate without needing to imply that half of men never reproduce.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >they'd likely marry early and get pregnant over and over again each year. Period cramps and labor pains, lack of c section, and bleeding made them pretty miserable I suppose. And they still had to do household chores, gardening, cloth making, and wicker weaving. I imagine their aunts, sisters, grandmas, and adolescent daughters helped somewhat with that.
      this is literally how all women lived for 99.9% of human history

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well, when most people use the word peasants they really mean serfs and are usually referring to Medieval Europe and especially England, so with that as a baseline:
    Yeah, they definitely had it rough by our standards for reasons that other guy already mentioned, but as compared to the common schmucks from other periods of history they were pretty ok. In terms of food security, social stability, life expectancy, and health, they were, by differing amounts, better off than their equivalents in the neolithic period, bronze and early iron ages, and possibly the early modern period, the latter mostly due to the better climate in Western Europe in the middle ages compared the EMP's little ice age, as well as some social differences.
    The quality of life of a serf would obviously be subject to a lot of variation due to context. Blights, famines, and epidemics like the Black Death sucked ass. Wars were often but not always highly destructive to serfs and other rural people. Those things are constant throughout history, though, and if you were lucky enough to live in relative peace and prosperity, it wasn't exactly a life of abject misery and horror.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There were lots of well off and happy peasants. Just like today there are middle classes that have a pretty comfortable life... But there are millions of poor people, homeless, debt slaves, etc. Groups are closer to eachother than to the oligarchy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Even with the andronovo people?

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They did have shitty lives, poverty and disease was a fact of life and it hurt, you would watch your children die and family and friends drop dead before old age, you would suffer from malnutrition and chronic illness.

    However they didn't all commit mass suicide. Why? Because they had families, because in certain seasons they'd harvest peaches and honey and make sweets, they lived in nature, their community shared the same culture and religion and would hold festivals, as children they would not be dropped in a school full of strangers, if they grew old they would not be dumped in a care home. I read somewhere that social acceptance is the equivalent of a 6 figure income in terms of the happiness it brings you.

    In the modern world everyone is callous and judges you by how entertaining you are to them, you are worth nothing except whatever corpjob you have or whatever welfare is needed to keep you out of poverty and keep you from revolting. If you weren't raised to be part of their subculture and don't amuse them you get ghosted and they try to get rid of you, you are surrounded by strangers who are incredibly malicious and hateful. Most people are lonely and isolated in the modern world, we somehow still manage to make people miserable despite all our wealth. The happiest people are probably those that cling to trad values, even though mass media and everyone tells us this is le bad and we should seek the dopamine coom and if you can't conform you are a bad person who should just frick off and be socially excluded.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Living in stable small communities is definitely a big plus of peasant life. Having a steadfast group of childhood friends, relatives nearby, and a society where antisocial behaviour is controlled by soft and hard means is out of the reach of even very successful modern people.
      That said, a lot of posters here hold as their ideal life a kind of "just let me grill" freedom that realistically isn't available in any low tech setting and certainly not in medieval society. You mentioned the self invested callousness of modern society and you're right about it but in the Medieval world you were appraised with a similar cynicism based on your ability to contribute materially, by labour and production or by military obligation or any other form of service (eg working for someone else for free seasonally if you were a man or by pumping out kids and looking after other people's kids if you were a woman). Your village needed you to pull your weight and contribute and if you wanted the benefits of a close-knit community, as a man, you were obliged to give more than you took.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >However they didn't all commit mass suicide. Why?
      I think people are just very capable of acclimating to hardship as long as it is "normal". People commit suicide when they feel hopeless, but for most peasants what exactly was there to hope for? You work your farm and you have your annual festivals, you just live until you don't anymore. I'm sure peasants had their own forms of pride in things, like peasants had their arts and probably enjoyed some more than others. Peasants likely played games with each other, and some person might have felt pride in their strength or endurance or whatever just like people do now. So peasants probably had specific things they lived to preserve or improve upon, but in modernity there is this idea that many people have that they can become wealthier or higher status over time. The vast majority of peasants were probably not thinking like this. Some peasants may have aspired to wealth or to rising to a new social position through being a warrior or something like that, but overall these were rural people living rural lives.

      Honestly you just have to look at the more well documented culture of rural people from modernity. It is different from what a medieval peasant would understand because it is in response to modern urbanization, but rural people are documented as valuing a "simple life", despite its difficulties. When you're raised to live by the harvest, that's what you come to expect from life. So there isn't despair, so long as you can continue the harvest then life is functioning as it should.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, what people hate isn't pain or struggle, but disparity.
        Everyone suffering can be tolerated and accepting, but the division between haves and have-nots and the feeling of missed potential at not becoming one of those at the top, is what hurts people.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If a medieval peasant was introduced to modern life they would find our technological advances amazing and be envious but likely view our societal changes as manmade horrors beyond imagination and probably something so 'bad' to them they'd desperately want to return home. It'd vary depending on what you introduced them to - suburbia and say, the japanese example and they'd be having a panic attack at the sheer isolation and loneliness. But if you took them to Mexico and some day laborer then they'd find it not so different.

      Pre-modern peasant life depended a lot on time, place and other circumstances.

      Take diet, for example. Most peasants only ate meat on special occasions, like weddings, funerals or religious holidays. But if you were a peasant along a major river or near the sea, you'd be able to fish and scavenge for seafood to add to your diet. If the soil you worked was particularly good, you might be able to get surplus crops and trade them for other types of preserved food at regional markets. And if you had a particularly kind or absent lord and you lived near a forest, you could trap small animals. On the other hand, if you were farming on poor soil with very rigid feudal hierarchies, such as in Eastern Europe, you likely had a fairly poor and one-sided diet.

      And while people like to pretend that medieval Europe was the worst for commoners, it's actually Egypt that was the worst place in the world for commoners throughout most of history. In medieval Europe (and most other places until the 20th century), life expectancy was low due to high infant mortality, but if you survived your childhood you could reasonably expect to see your 50th birthday. In the 14th and 15th centuries, about 25% of people in Europe lived to be 70 or older. But in ancient and medieval Egypt, even if you survived our childhood, you would likely die before your 40th birthday. We know from skeletal remains - of free men, by the way - that ancient Egyptian commoners typically died between 20 and 40, were almost all malnourished and suffered from many underdeveloped, broken and porous bones, indicating very poor health. This was likely due to Egypt's high, concentrated population and dependence on unreliable Nile floods, causing regular food shortages.

      The meat thing is exaggerated, it's simply that the meat they consumed was not going to be ground beef and chicken breast/thigh (the two most popular meats we eat daily) but rather sausages, stewed meats, potted meat and so on. They'll eat meat but it won't be the boutique meat we eat, and it might be every other day or weekly rather than daily at worst, but it's not once in a blue moon only on special occassions. After all, why would you need to prohibit meat on lent and on fridays if not for the fact that it was available and desirous? Not just to the nobles but to the monks, given how much rule lawyering there was by monks about having meat more often.

      You won't eat beef often (if at all) because of how valuable the cow is, but the pig literally exists for no purpose but meat. The chicken gives you eggs and can be harvested once it is no longer laying eggs, the cow gives you milk, but the pig you feed scraps and then get a massive bounty of meat that is fairly quick to grow too.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It depends on your frame of reference, the era you're talking about, and which region you're talking about. The "medieval era" spans centuries, well over 700 years even using the narrower start/end dates, and a lot changed for people in different areas over that time. There's also the fact that "peasant" is a very general term for agrarian laborers, and was often subdivided into myriad social classes. We know a lot about British peasant social classes because we have a lot of surviving historical documents that talk about the different tax systems of different British rulers, where the obligations of different social classes are described.

    So we know that, at least in Britain, there were an array of "peasants", from the lowliest serfs who owned nothing but the clothing on their backs in the early and high medieval periods (so up to 1200 AD roughly), to the independent and free yeomen in later periods, who could even own the land they worked.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >so up to 1200 AD roughly
      Over 90% of people were unfree in the reign of King John and by the death of King Edward it had only decreased to some 60-70%.
      >to the independent and free yeomen in later periods
      Sokemen only ever made up a smaller portion of the non gentry which only stopped in the Early Modern Period.
      >who could even own the land they worked.
      The only people who 'owned' land were Barons, you payed rent to them for using their land. Regardless of your status as free or unfree.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They worked less hours than the modern wagecuck. They had guilds, labor union-like institutions which defended them against the abuses of the powerful (they even had seats in the Parliament), etc.

    All the Middle Ages bashing comes from the Enlightenment, most especifically it's most anti-Christian (read anti-Catholic) side.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      serfs working the land wouldn't have been part of protective guilds. Guilds had to be approved by the king, and were usually provided to organizations who regulated commerce in big cities.
      Bumfrick farmers had to look out for themselves.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >peasants
      >guilds and seats in the parliament
      You're a moron.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They had guilds, labor union-like institutions which defended them against the abuses of the powerful
      Peasants weren't part of guilds nor were they like unions. They were epxressely expressly interested in only their members, especially the high ranking ones, you couldn't just join one, you were born into it. They mostly regulated the practice of a craft, often to the detriment of everyone outside of the top of the practice.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They lived much harder lives than we do today.
    Famines were a question of when, not if. Farming is hard and tedious, and in the off-months you're still having to chop wood, do animal husbandry, gather water and many more chores that all take great effort.

    But they lived better lives than industrial workers during the Industrial Revolution.
    It wasn't until unionization and reform movements started kicking off in large numbers that life recovered and then got better than before.
    Enclosure was a necessary process to force peasants off their land and into the cities and urban centers.
    Even today we can see in industrializing areas, that most people really hate the work without all the reforms we have today -
    >https://www.france24.com/en/20200204-angry-workers-spurn-ethiopia-s-industrial-revolution
    >https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/some-see-modern-slavery-ethiopian-garments-production-other-appreciate-creation-jobs

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In America prior to the exodus German and Irish immigrants, the people working industrial jobs were young women who were paid extremely well, provided home, and a lot of time off.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Those Lowell Mill girls didn't have that charmed of lives and were basically locked in those factory towns as live-in labor.
        They were also basically sold to the factory by their agriculturalist families, that otherwise couldn't afford them.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah absolutely. The people had a strong idea of society and how it connected to the eternal.

    Arts and trades were thriving. Life was hard and harsh but they did not think of death as a dead-end and had plenty of material and spiritual culture to deal with and comprehend the hardship.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Arts and trades were thriving.
      When did an average peasant have time to enjoy the arts aside form Church murals ?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The church murals you dismiss so easily would have been very interesting to them, which is why the church used murals and other works of art to teach people about Biblical stories. In addition to that, most peasant families would still have owned decorative items for their homes (like simple wall tapestries, potted flowers, decorated vases, plates and cups, hand-me-down furniture from their lords, et cetera), israeliteels, board games and toys. They also took pride in their clothes, especially on festive occasions. Even the relatively poor would have owned one outfit that they'd wear to church services, market days and religious holidays. And speaking of market days, they'd have regional markets where they'd meet up once or twice a year to trade surplus goods, catch up with old friends, play games, drink and visit prostitutes.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Even the relatively poor would have owned one outfit that they'd wear to church services, market days and religious holidays.
          Weren't most people tailors as well, or at least knew the basics of tailoring/making their own clothes

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No.

            This is a myth. People have been specializing in crafts and forming guilds since the bronze age.

            Most people wouldn't have been able to procure the wool or other materials they needed for clothing on their own. Not everyone owned sheep or had the time to weave flax.

            You'll see the same people who claim this say that everyone made their own tools. This is likewise either a lie or misunderstanding. Not everyone is a smith or hafter.

            Nobody has the time to split equally between every task required for civilization. That's why we specialize in certain trades, and that includes agriculture.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You'll see the same people who claim this say that everyone made their own tools. This is likewise either a lie or misunderstanding. Not everyone is a smith or hafter.
            Not only that, but most of the world's population did not live in areas where metals for tools were available anyway. Take Denmark, for instance. There has been a lot of detailed archaeological work looking into the tools used by Bronze Age households in Denmark. They studied hundreds of known settlements and looked at the types of tools that were found, their level of wear, any improvised repairs, et cetera. It was found that nearly all households used bronze or other metal tools and regularly replaced them instead of repairing them. At the same time, people in Denmark deposited large amounts of ornamental bronze axes and other items into bogs.

            But here's the thing: the nearest major tin deposits to Denmark during the Bronze Age were in what is now the Czech Republic, and the nearest copper would have come from either Wales or the Alps. So there was a very large-scale trade - this would have been several metric tons per year, transported by cart, boat or basket - in metals going to Denmark alone, well over 3000 years ago.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Craftsmanship in traditional societies is definitely art. And it is incredibly pleasant and rewarding work sometimes.

        A garden can even be planted in a way that pleases the eye and mind.

        Premoderns tended to invest everything they made with care. Of course peasant labor often left people starving in squalor, but this varries a great deal over the period.

        In general though, their world was covered in art.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I do peasant work right now and besides having no wife, I think my life is considerably better. No bandits bands or neighboring lords attacking. I have no fear of starving due to bad weather/pests/getting sick and not being able to work. Another thing, I'm not going to frick die because I have diarrhea. Shit since we're on the topic of shit, what did peasants use to wipe their ass? I know it wasn't a bidet and wet wipes. I can go to the store and get ice cream or beer or a nice juicy steak. How often did peasants eat meat? I eat meat with every meal I love eating meat. I love fruit, too. How often did peasants eat fruit?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Literally this. How often did peasants get to shitpost on IQfy all day?

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Define shitty lives.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes but they had more pain tolerance than modern people so it didn't feel as bad.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they had better lives than us. at least they had a purpose.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    think about it for just a second, it was the reign of chirstcuckoldry, and those who wrote about it were the wagies of the christcuck power core
    they're gonna tell you it was heaven on earth
    >who owns the press

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    now you could be one of those useless rulers like some Ottoman sultans or the later Ming emperors who just loafed around in their harem and let their grand viziers run everything but that usually resulted in SHTF in short order

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Typically those guys were forced to act very carefully because being so useless and being such a figurehead, meant you were also totally replaceable.
      So if you got too indolent or stepped on the wrong guy's toes, you'd be killed or exiled and replaced.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not a bad idea actually, maybe one of Japans "emperors"

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pre-modern peasant life depended a lot on time, place and other circumstances.

    Take diet, for example. Most peasants only ate meat on special occasions, like weddings, funerals or religious holidays. But if you were a peasant along a major river or near the sea, you'd be able to fish and scavenge for seafood to add to your diet. If the soil you worked was particularly good, you might be able to get surplus crops and trade them for other types of preserved food at regional markets. And if you had a particularly kind or absent lord and you lived near a forest, you could trap small animals. On the other hand, if you were farming on poor soil with very rigid feudal hierarchies, such as in Eastern Europe, you likely had a fairly poor and one-sided diet.

    And while people like to pretend that medieval Europe was the worst for commoners, it's actually Egypt that was the worst place in the world for commoners throughout most of history. In medieval Europe (and most other places until the 20th century), life expectancy was low due to high infant mortality, but if you survived your childhood you could reasonably expect to see your 50th birthday. In the 14th and 15th centuries, about 25% of people in Europe lived to be 70 or older. But in ancient and medieval Egypt, even if you survived our childhood, you would likely die before your 40th birthday. We know from skeletal remains - of free men, by the way - that ancient Egyptian commoners typically died between 20 and 40, were almost all malnourished and suffered from many underdeveloped, broken and porous bones, indicating very poor health. This was likely due to Egypt's high, concentrated population and dependence on unreliable Nile floods, causing regular food shortages.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Everybody had a shitty life, some lives were shittier than others. However those were meaningful lives, so despite all the misery you could be happy.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Shitty is relative. Medieval is not specific, neither is peasant.

    Does being a farmer in current year suck? If you're living in a nice wealthy vineyard in southern France, not really. If you're living in a crumbling shack in a gang infested shithole in Honduras, yes.

    Be more specific

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Be more specific
      It a pol fantasy;living in a ethnocentric community off the grid with a 16 year old wife

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is that a bad thing?

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    threadly reminder that the Angloid widows of Hastings and their daughters were wed by literally Bretons

    yeah, Bretons

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's an anti-white myth. Peasants were just farmers and had the same rights as farmers in any other place or area.
    The only thing shitty about the middle ages was that everyone had to worship a israelite on a cross or get exiled from society

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The only thing shitty about the middle ages was that everyone had to worship a israelite on a cross or get exiled from society
      This

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yes, back then 15% of a worker’s yearly wage could cover all their yearly expenses

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Define shitty
    The average human today is basically a drone with no true soul. They exist and are viewed by their governments as a cog in the system. They work, spend money, frick, produce kids and die. That's it.
    You know who I'm talking about. People without a shred of introspection who's only thoughts concern work and how they're gonna get drunk on the weekend.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, why do you think people did anything they could to escape peasant life?

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is she happy? I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not nearly as shitty as pop-history would have you believe, but significantly more shitty than all but the most catastrophic of failures in the modern first and second world.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can meats and fruits from all over the world for every meal of the day. I drink the some of the best teas and wine. People conquered countries and explored the world for good food and drink and it's all near effortlessly at my fingertips every day.
    I would love to see what peasants ate and drank in a week.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *