Medieval Times vs. Modern Times

College Confidential Community
1

<p>Back in the day, things were much simpler. you had the serfs. they did all the work. you had the noblemen, they collected all the money and occasionally did noble things, but mostly just built castles and had affairs with other men. you had the knights, they killed people. the clergy/monks, they learned things and absolutely, positively, unequivocally, never got laid, ever.</p>

<p>Now, since nobody believes in god anymore, the non-laid-getting clergy has bred itself into the population, producing a class of smart people who enjoy studying and never getting laid (CC). The noble knights of yore have been replaced by the, while honourable, much less noble military who have no pretenses about their purpose, which is to kill mad people.</p>

<p>The serfs of today have nothing to believe in. today, they work themselves stupid like the serfs of yore did, probably harder than most people here realize. unfortunately for them, they live twice as long as the serfs of yore.</p>

<p>The lines between classes have blurred since then. In modern times, our communities are nonexistant. We leave them upon graduating/dropping out of high school usually to go to college or Iraq or in search of distant employment. Our towns and cities have become fragmented as young people venture off in search of opportunities, leaving their families and hometowns behind, and their communities disjointed and with people, like, not knowing their neighbors.</p>

<p>As you can tell, I am of the persuasion that ancient times > now, aside from some things like clean water, food, clean women, cars, aluminum siding, and, most importantly, THE MATTRESS.</p>

<p>I never would have said this when I was a youngin', because I watched hella TV, played hella N64, got driven places that I would otherwise have to walk to, rode a bike (which for some reason wasn't invented until, when, 1800s?), and just about everything else in my life was influenced by modern conveniences. but now, as a man (and a sexy one at that), I spend most of my time doing things I don't want to do - i.e. working, studying, studying, working, etc. - so I benefit much less from the modern living apparatus. I would be doing the same thing if it were 1890 with little difference - reading books, working my ass off, etc. so I say, remove the clutter, and the conveniences, and go back to a simpler way of life, only with mattresses.</p>

<p>So which is better; modern times or medieval (or your preferred ancient period)?</p>

<p>I posted this long and inane post here because this is likely the only forum on the entire internet where people will actually read the whole thing. :)</p>

2

<p>hmm, sometimes i think about whether it would’ve been better to live in the past, but I still think it is better now.</p>

<p>Now:

  1. more rights (well if you’re a guy or a rich person you wouldn’t be as affected)
  2. more education/knowledge
  3. health care
  4. this sounds stupid but you didn’t get to read as many books back then either so thats a reason i wouldn’t like it
  5. a pretty fair justice system</p>

<p>i wouldn’t have minded living during greek times though. so much was going on then.</p>

3

<p>

</p>

<p>If you are into man-love, you certainly would’ve been able to get it very easily back then.</p>

4

<p>^lol…</p>

<p>I’d much rather prefer to live in modern times.</p>

5

<p>I want to live in the future, 100 years from now.</p>

6

<p>^good luck with that.</p>

7

<p>Modern. Because in medieval times, I’d be either a field worker or a wench. Or both. </p>

<p>(OP, I know your name is football, but come on. Make it SLIGHTLY less obvious that you’re white and male.)</p>

<p>I prefer modern times because nowadays, our chief concerns aren’t finding clean food/water and avoiding smallpox/polio/cholera/bubonic plague/every other disease that killed hundreds of thousands of people then.</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>lol they had woman-love back then too…
or whatever you’d call it</p>

9

<p>Medieval times cuz We asians might have the chance of brought the thousand kings of Europe under our feet XD
muhahahahaha </p>

<p>and I really want to be like a confucian scholar like Li Bai, I’d love to have a high paying salary while pursuing my bourgeois interests at the expense of few farmers. hahahahahahahaha</p>

10

<p>Asia existed in medieval times too, pharmakeus</p>

11

<p>My impression of the medieval times was not something I romanticized. I like mattresses too, but I think my reasons for preferring life as it is more concern the invention of penicillin, handguns, birth control, and the impact of the enlightenment. I had to read the fascinating, yet superfluously detailed “A World Lit Only by Fire” by Mr. William Manchester, and what I best remember is as follows:</p>

<p>The clergy and monks, especially those on the lower rungs of the church hierarchy, were essentially adulterous semi-literates. With gambling and drinking problems. It is entirely possible that the Catholic Church of medieval times was more corrupt and in need of reform than the Church of today. Its debatable. </p>

<p>The whole “community” aspect of life in medieval times meant that each isolated village spoke their own dialect, that people rarely had more than one name, and that you often got to marry your cousin. After all, when a few families live together for a hundred+ years, you’re all pretty much family. </p>

<p>Most peasants worked in order to survive, and a great deal of them failed in that mission. A bad crop meant you probably weren’t going to eat much that winter, and two bad crops pretty much meant starvation. Everyone in a peasant family, plus any visitors, shared a single bed in what was likely a single roomed house. You didn’t wear underwear, and you probably had one set of clothing. No deodorant, no daily bathing, and lots and lots of lice. </p>

<p>Anyways, although I view our current system of democracy to be a horrible system of government, only slightly less horrible than all the other ones, I like not being a serf, and not having a life expectancy of about 35 yrs. That is, if I survived childhood. There also seemed to be a lot more violent deaths in medieval times, I think at that point murder was the most likely cause of death, if you don’t count the periods of time in which the Black Death killed off a third of the population at a time. I also really like having my food pre-packaged, and being at the top, rather than at the very bottom, of the socio-economic system. But that’s just me.</p>

12

<p>A bad crop meant starvation? ever hear of hunting?</p>

13

<p>^Ever hear about wildlife actually running away when you try to kill it? Ever hear about the days when guns and ammunition were very difficult for anyone but noblemen to obtain? When they were difficult to use, slow to load, and prone to jamming? Ever hear about tissue-bourne diseases and flies laying eggs on a carcass 10 minutes after the animal’s death? Ever hear about the days of no refrigerators?</p>

<p>Seriously; people starved to death back then for a reason.</p>

14

<p>The Native Americans did okay. you don’t need a gun to hunt. Sure, there might not have been enough to go around, but it’s not like a bad crop or 2 was a GUARANTEE of death…</p>

15

<p>People in the medieval times smelled really bad. End of discussion.</p>

16

<p>Typically, in the feudal era, it would be against the “law” to hunt a number of species, because those were for the lord to hunt. You lived on his land, payed him rent, and were at his mercy, and so hunting anything other than small game would be a no-no. </p>

<p>And when you have no ability to preserve food, or to produce enough for more than a year, you go hungry very fast. The Great Famine/ The Great Hunger in Ireland was quite recent (1845-49) as compared to the medieval era, and still, approximately a million people died of starvation or disease, reducing the pop. of Ireland by around 20-25%.</p>

17

<p>^^ only on CC lol</p>

18

<p>okay, were ALL the Noblemen really THAT BAD? I mean sure, a bad egg here and there, but being that they were Noblemen, they had to have been at least somewhat noble, right?</p>

<p>If a nobleman owned a ****load of acres, did he really need all the animals on said land to feed himself and his family? did he let the serfs starve SOLELY so he could have more game to hunt?</p>

<p>You make it sound like life for the average medieval european was worse than that of an African tribesman. were there any cases of serfs escaping the feudal system to form bands of badass vagabonds? or just escaping to Africa, where they were free to hunt AND farm?</p>

19

<p>People lived until 40, and probably were toothless by 30 in Medieval Times. No thanks.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>Are you daft? OF COURSE noblemen closed off entire tracts of land, at the expense of serfs, just so that they could go hunting for leisure. Do you know what enclosure was?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You’re right. Nobles earned their titles by virtue of their noble deeds, not because kings needed money and social climbers wanted titles.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Do you have any knowledge about what life was like in Africa during those years?</p>