The high Middle Ages was the peak of humanity.

The high Middle Ages was the peak of humanity.

Every other period of history was a transitional period towards feudalism, since the invention of agriculture.

People were loyal to individuals, not artificial intangible ideas of “statehood”. There was no police, no prison system, no national army. No single apparatus that could give someone too much power.

No wonder this system lasted so long, I honestly think this is what was most natural for humans. A system can’t collapse if there is no real “system” in the first place

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    anarchy wins

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    After youve had a shit in the bog, dont wash your hands with bog water

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >whole armies shitting themselves to death by dysentery
      imagine the smell

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The High Middle Ages through Late Middle Ages was certainly the peak of Islamic power globally. Cracks emerged thereon.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >This system which existed for 3-400 years is the natural system even though it didn’t even exist for that long
    The high Middle Ages was a transitional period which followed the collapse of the Carolingian Empire and the centralisation of the state. To say states or nations didn’t exist in this period would be dead wrong, there very much was a France, England, Germany and even Spain in existence which people recognised

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most ancient and medieval states were based around a regime, usually a single person, a king, emperor, or dictator, or a small ruling oligarchy. thus they cannot be considered nations in the modern sense.

      A modern state exists based upon a constitution, and working rule of law. Everyone, including the government and head of state, is subject to the state’s constitution and the laws

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Everyone, including the government and head of state, is subject to the state’s constitution and the laws
        Which also existed in the Middle Ages. Even though you are ignoring the perception of the nation which existed. A nation exists as people believe it does. The people in England believe that they belonged to an English nation, which represented a certain area, which had its own laws and was represented by the King and Parliament. This existed in France and Germany too. The kingdoms of Spain had the same arrangement but the concept of Spain was seen differently due to the practical reality that one man did not effectively rule over the whole nation.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nationality is a modern concept, because in the past, rulers were more interested in themselves as the basis for the state, and growing it into a multinational empire

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Nationality is a modern concept
            Except there isn’t any reason to believe that at all.
            > rulers were more interested in themselves as the basis for the state, and growing it into a multinational empire
            Just because rulers wanted power does not mean that an idea of a nation didn’t exist. Using the Carolingians is a particular terrible example as they had their own idea of a Frankish nation that was seperate from their Empire. There was the Franks and Francia and there were other regions that made up the Kingdom like Burgundy and Bavaria but they weren’t Francia as Neustria and Austriasia

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nationality is a modern concept
            No it isn't. The Normans and their Anglo-Saxon subjects were keenly aware of it, for example.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >subjects were keenly aware of it
            So what did that make normandy? Part of the french nation, or part of the norman one?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Norman. There was no single French nation at that time. There arguably isn't even now.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            By that reasoning, only north korea and israel are real nations

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't say it wasn't a nation. And I didn't use the word "single" for no reason. The Normans were French. It was A French nation, but it was not THE French nation. Because there was more than one.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Normans were French. It was A French nation,
            So what was it when Henry V ruled it?A norman nation?They were subjects, not citizens

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Norman. Are you still not getting that nation =/= state? I'll admit to playing a little coy in the first reply, but I feel the second was quite straightforward. That's why we have the term nation state to describe when a nation and a state do actually correlate fairly well with one another, because that isn't always the case.
            Nations are people. If the people haven't changed then neither has the nation. And a change in ruler seldom changes a people. At least not very quickly.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nations are people.
            Do you mean like a national spirit?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe? That depends on what you mean by national spirit. I'm talking about the people themselves and the shared history and culture that makes them who they are distinct from other peoples.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nationally is different to ethnicity.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it was definitely the better medieval era compared to the early middle ages and the late middle ages

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