The Medieval Mindset (2017)

72 点作者 marchenko大约 7 年前

18 条评论

Much of the mindset(s) of the 14th century make a LOT more sense when you realize two things.1. 19 year olds were routinely making critical military decisions. Remember how friggin' twitchy you were at 19 about big capitalized ideas like Honor and Purity and Romance? Yeah, now be that guy but in charge of a thousand lances. A reasonable modern equivalent to 14th century france is 21st century afghanistan. A few old survivors trying to keep the peace, and teenagers flipping out on blood vendettas keeping everyone on their toes.2. Basically everyone had PTSD and most of the warrior class had semi-permanent concussions. This explains most if not all of the weird contradictions between battlefield brutality and the extremes of social politesse off it. Froissart and other chroniclers of the age have plenty of examples of knights who would shit themselves in terror before making themselves fight, or have screaming nightmares for days, or any of a long list of things that are pretty obvious signals of severe psychological distress. They would also do things like bawl their eyes out at music or at the death of a pet or other seemingly small things -- and flip into murderous rage when social conventions were violated. This is entirely coherent with, for example, things we see retired NFL players do. I suspect it's for a lot of the same reasons.

评论 #17069126 未加载

评论 #17068705 未加载

twoquestions大约 7 年前

My favorite comment from this story, one which I'll remember the next time I run a low fantasy or Bronze Age game:"You know the creepy basement at your cousin's house that's full of furniture covered in sheets, weird barrels, and bad smells? You know how the lightswitch is way on the other side of the room so you've got to walk through, in pitch darkness, to try and find it? And you know how you always had one eye on the stairs just in case you had to run away from whatever horrible monster might live down there?Well medieval life is like that all the time, except there is no lightswitch, and there are no stairs."

andrepd大约 7 年前

>We live in an enlightened era. Our mental toolboxes are full to bursting with evidence-based reasoning, with precedent, with doubt, and with logic. We hold many truths to be self evident. We stand on the shoulders of intellectual giants and we think this plain of shoulders is ground level.>If you want to think medieval, chuck your entire toolbox out the window and start from scratch. You need to un-learn rationality, un-learn concepts you've been steeped in since childhood.This is one thing I've thought about before and that made quite an impression on me. We are physically identical to humans in the 14th century, or any period of history for that matter. Same brains, same "intelligence". But we would never dream of doing most things that were commonplace in the 14th century, we would never tolerate living in the way they did. Some things we know are elementary and almost childish in their simplicity, but took millenia. They looked at the world in a way that seems entirely silly to us. Aristotle was probably more intelligent than anybody in this thread, however he believed the most ridiculous things, same for, oh I don't know, Julius Caesar or St Thomas Aquinus.We all are in a very real sense standing on the shoulders of billions, and their slow and tortuous progress.

评论 #17069757 未加载

评论 #17069787 未加载

jkingsbery大约 7 年前

As a defense of medieval society, I see where this is going, but a lot of the details of the defense are just wrong. Just a couple examples:"Foreigners. I can read about far-away places in a book or look up a street-view picture of a city on the other side of the world. I live in a multicultural city. I'm not so much tolerant as apathetic, but that's good enough (and might even be better; tolerance implies tension). Anyway, forget all that. Ignorance and fear all around." We often think about how the educated spoke Latin in addition to their local language. But on top of that, many commoners were bilingual. There was a fair amount of movement of people between France, Scandinavia, Ireland, England, Scotland, just as one example. With that, came a sharing of culture, artistic style, literature, and so on. Elements of this shared culture can be seen from the Black Sea all the way to Ireland."The person of the monarch was literally sacred - divine matter" - Compare this claim, for example, with the story of England (<a href="https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/story-of-medieval-england-from-king-arthur-to-the-tudor-conquest.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/story-of-medieval-en...</a>). Actually, the opposite is closer to the truth: the king was not held sacred and was almost continually under attack from the lower nobles."Neither speech nor assembly nor the commonest transactions of life are free." - This would depend in large part on where you were. In Ireland or Scotland, this was certainly not true. In England, customs taxes didn't come about until the second half of the Middle Ages.

评论 #17070002 未加载

simonh大约 7 年前

On top of all that, you also live in a world full of heavily armed and armoured impulsive brutes that will murder you and your entire family as soon as look at you. They may well have tried to do so pretty recently too.Fortunately many of those people are foreigners or strangers, but they are out there, they want all of your stuff and it's only a matter of time before they come to get it. Or, you can team up with your family, friends and allies and go get their stuff off them first. Much of the time, these are pretty much your only viable options. Everything else that your community do - farming, crafting, trading - is largely geared towards supporting a defence/offence capability to keep hold of it all and stay alive.Furthermore, staying alive when it gets real usually doesn't mean looking down a sight and pulling a lever, it generally means forcing a metal object vary hard and deep into someone else's body face to face. So you'd better gear yourself up to be ok with that, or at least become very good friends with a lot of other people who are.

评论 #17067878 未加载

drzaiusapelord大约 7 年前

>Rationalism is a very modern inventionStatements like these are probably good for D&D campaigns, but its really dismissive of ancient thought, even medieval thought. No, they didn't have germ theory but they had a complex rationalism of their own and every 'dumb' serf could outlive us in any environment considering how educated they were on farming and survival.Also the laundry list of things that they didn't have mostly applies to us as well. I take issue with how equality is supposed to be a modern given. Even in enlightened societies the difference between someone with a 7 or 8 digit net worth and a low class person is incredible. I mean, a sci-fi level of oddness here. Worrying about your next meal or next rent is a universe away from being pissed that the guys who waxed your yacht didn't do a perfect job. I sometimes end up in one of Chicago's less than stellar neighborhoods and the incredible desperation and violence and just hopelessness is overwhelming compared to my upper-middle class life.Ignoring technology, we aren't too different from them. We had two world wars very recently, for example, which would be horror unimaginable in that age. I'd think a good D&D gamer would know that we're not different from them socially or politically and that what he describes isn't modernity but the entitled and pampered life of a suburban white American male who has never, and will never, have any real hardship in his life.

评论 #17070063 未加载

lainga大约 7 年前

In the spirit of Patrick Stuart's review referenced at the start of the article: perhaps future generations will look back at us and think, "those poor fools! Instead of doing actual work, they spent their days congratulating each other for being born into a more advanced society than their ancestors."

评论 #17069494 未加载

sunseb大约 7 年前

I think it may be biased to think that medieval life was a nightmare. It's kind of a modern propaganda (that started in the Renaissance - a more bloody period with a lot more wars by the way) to dismiss this old world and impose a new one.

评论 #17068136 未加载

评论 #17070778 未加载

LoSboccacc大约 7 年前

This is half right. The half wrong part is thinking that medieval people were inconsistent, painting a picture of brutes changing behaviour on a whim.There are instead two aspects to consider: one cannot completely trust contemporary accounts, as these were propaganda. Written word was a tool of the influential and used as deliberately as today. The other was that the wast majority of time was rough but uneventful, so there isn’t much prose about it. We do have a glimpse of it trough official records tho, which are free of glamour and paint a quite banal view of medieval life

Karolus大约 7 年前

for those who unlike the author aren't drawn to lazy and dismissive conclusions and are genuinely interested to study the beginning of this fascinating and terribly misunderstood era (in particular, it seems, in the Anglo-Saxon world) from a literary perspective, I recommend the following write up/compilation as a good starting point: <a href="https://pastebin.com/8ZgDV5mt" rel="nofollow">https://pastebin.com/8ZgDV5mt</a>

tabtab大约 7 年前

I don't see that "insanely flaky deluded narcissists" went out of style. We just have slightly more checks and balances on them now.

gumby大约 7 年前

This is quite good, though I disagree on one point:> "FORGET...Progress"I mean I completely agree, it's just for the modern reader infected with the victorian idea of "progress" (which has also polluted most people's understanding of how evolution works) this difference is even more profound.There was a common belief in a largely static social order; why try for profound change? You can try to usurp the king, but that just shows that the old king was illegitimate, and anyway only certain people could get away with it.But the other significant and related force was one of declinism: the romans had had a more advanced society (look at all their artifacts still around! Their literature!) and that, perhaps due to original sin, the then-current world was a less advanced society.

评论 #17076694 未加载

CalRobert大约 7 年前

"The Autumn of the Middle Ages" by Huizinga is a fascinating exploration of this time period and how people thought during it. If you don't read Dutch there's a few translations out there; I liked the most recent.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Autumn_of_the_Middle_Ages" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Autumn_of_the_Middle_Ages</a>

Dirlewanger大约 7 年前

Slightly off-topic: the second link goes to a site called Erenow, which has many, many books for free. Anyone know anything about this site? It doesn't make sense, I don't see how it's legal? Especially when the site has an OK layout.

评论 #17070010 未加载

1123581321大约 7 年前

I would recommend reading A Distant Mirror, the book referenced at the start.

评论 #17067342 未加载

froasty大约 7 年前

This article is everything wrong with privileged moderns looking back on the past.The world and the humans within it hasn't changed at all, barring costumes and jewelry.The biggest fallacy in this article isn't that it's wrong per se; it's that the thesis distilled is "a member of the current intelligenstia criticizing the hoi polloi of the past" when the hoi polloi of their own current era are just as ignorant and the intelligentsia is just as fallible.I really wanted to deconstruct the entire article, but I've spent way too much time on this as it is.>Here's an early modern example, right when the world seemed to start to make sense. It might seem insane to us that George Spencer, a troublesome one-eye old servant in Connecticut, was tried and executed in 1642 for the crime of bestiality after a one-eyed pig was born in his village. It might also seem insane that both the pig and his own retracted confession were called as the two witnesses required to convict him. But by the standards of the community and the times, the only insane person was that godless trouble-making pig-fucker, George Spencer.Let's look at some secondary sources regarding this case:>"The early court records teem with incidents of irreligion, drunkenness, profanity, lechery, and worse. In one of the most extreme cases, George Spencer was charged at New Haven with 'prophane, atheistical carriage, in unfaithfulness and stubbornness to his master, a course of notorious lying, filthiness, scoffing at the ordinances, ways and people of God' culminating in his bestiality with a pig. An anxious committee of ministers asked him 'whether he did use to pray to God. He answered, he had not since he came to New England, which was between four or five years ago'. Spencer admitted that he had scoffed at the Lord's day, calling it Lady's day, but denied all the rest. However, he could not gainsay the record of his bad character, or the evidence of a monstrous piglet, to which he allegedly showed a telling paternal resemblance." 1One can almost imagine the #LeafletStorm released in the days before his arrest:"George Spencer Calls The Lord's Day The "Ladyes Day": Gets Schooled On Godliness""George Spencer: Genius, or dude who's gone too far this time?""George Spencer's Brand of 'Freethinking' Has a Long, Awful History""George Spencer Needs To See Some Of These Epic #IfTheLordWasALady Leaflets To See How Ridiculous His Remark Really Was"And then you have this:>"One of the magistrates reminded him of the scriptural text: "He thatt hideth his sin shall not prosper, but he that confesseth and forsaketh his sans shall > finde mercie." Spencer confessed, clearly misunderstanding the magistrate's use of the word "mercy." The judge was thinking of the next world, Spencer of this one. Before the trial, Spencer confessed the act eleven separate times and permitted a paper asking for mercy to be put up in church. At his trial, he refused to confess, apparently on the advice of a man who had told him that without it he could not be convicted. Faced with the many persons to whom he had confessed, he admitted that their testimony was true but denied having had intercourse with the sow. The court found him guilty because the "everlasting equity" of the Bible demanded the verdict." 2So from these sources we can establish that:1. The case of George Spencer is an outlier as considered by historians of the era.2. George Spencer is essentially a neckbeard of the New Atheist type, circa 17th century America.3. George Spencer admits that he is an irreligious, uncleanly man with a bad reputation, and that he admitted his guilt to these people, but that truly, he did not have sexual relations with that pig, even if the resemblance is uncanny.4. The "proper" classes thought and had thought that he was clearly an ungodly person. Periodde. By troth, why are we even having this conversation? It's 1642 Anno Domini. #BurnAHeretic5. His legal advisors insinuated that if he pled guilty, he could get a plea bargain.6. Apparently, someone whom he trusted more advised him pre-trial that this was ill-advised--although whether it was "they're still going to hang thee if thou confess" or "the constable hath lyttle but shite in his hands without thine confession, brethren" remains ambiguous.7. The court, having their orderly show-trial upset, says fuck it, claims that George Spencer is clearly guilty because of something he said in the past, and the pig is a self-evident witness, and why the fuck not? No one is going to defend this blaspheming piece of shit.None of these strike me as particularly particular to an era. People have been crucifying others with the force of social pressure since recorded history began. The only difference is the scenery.>We live in an enlightened era. Our mental toolboxes are full to bursting with evidence-based reasoning, with precedent, with doubt, and with logic. We hold many truths to be self evident. We stand on the shoulders of intellectual giants and we think this plain of shoulders is ground level.Hint: Every class of intelligentsia throughout time thinks its own set of platitudes, dogmas, and evidence-derived conclusions are immaculate and inviolate. It's like a twisted form of Conway's Law 3 for ideology.>Displays of magnificence were not only convenient, they were mandatory. Misers were spurned and mocked. Today we value a person by the money they have, but to the medieval mind, it was the money you spent and how you spent it that elevated your status. The Church glittered. Cathedrals were pieces of heaven brought to rest upon the earth. The nobles ate extraordinary dishes and wore imported silk, and the rising merchants strove to imitate them. The peasants might be annoyed by the idleness and corruption of the nobility, but few ever expressed wonder at the cost of their everyday behavior, only at cost wasted on pointless wars or lost causes. A crown of diamonds could silence any peasant in awe. To the First and Second Estates, earning money by labour or personal action was degrading; gifts were common and welcomed.So let's break out two of the most egregious assumptions:1. Conspicuous consumption is a medieval construct absent in the modern period.2. All peasants are identical and identically stupid. They have no capacity for rational thought. If you put shiny in front of them, they will be entranced like Lennie Small.The first is ludricrous, as the existence of the entire field of consumerism theory proves (an invention solely of the 20th century).The second is equally as ludricrous and ironically, embraces mythological feudal castes as reality.>Patrick says "the ruling class are living like Kardashians" and he's exactly right. The Kardashians seem to be reviled because they are talentless, unproductive, and ignorant - all flaws to a modern viewer, all virtues to a medieval one. We prize our working celebrities and revile our idle ones; if you want to think medieval, flip that idea on its head.Uh, people revile people like the Kardashians? What? Their reality TV show has been running for more than ten years. Before that, it was Paris Hilton. Before that, it was Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. The great masses of people (you know, the generally termed talentless, unproductive, and ignorant) in all eras love vicariously revelling in decadence.> Even today, people who meet a celebrity or a monarch express wonder at the oddest and most mundane details, as if some part of them had expected the object of such idolization to be more-than-mortal. Also, men and women were made of completely different substances. The idea of a law that applies equally or fairly to everyone was neither acceptable nor practical. Justice is a modern conceit. All relationships are horizontal and unsymmetrical.I have but one retort to this: When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? 4History is a long series of contentions, victories, and defeats by conflicting parties with their own self-evident and self-motivated truths--No people, no culture, no time is homogeneous, except to the extent that they are homogeneously heterogeneous.My favorite counter-point to the implicit idea that people "in the past" were unthinking proto-humans unlike us is the entirely mundane ancient bathroom graffiti of Pompeii 5 that wouldn't be out of place in any public restroom anywhere.-1 Cressy, David. Coming over: migration and communication between England and New England in the seventeenth century2 Chapin, Bradley. Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 1606-1660. University of Georgia Press.3 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law</a>4 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ball_(priest)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ball_(priest)</a>5 <a href="http://www.pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti%20from%20Pompeii.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti%20from%2...</a>

评论 #17069813 未加载

评论 #17069893 未加载

cat199大约 7 年前

or, how to regurgitate the inherent biases used to justify the establishment of of your own philosphy about another one without actually understanding it to be biased...> Nobody is Equal The world is hierarchical.Unlike now?> People of different estates and statuses are widely seen to be "of a different substance." > Peasants, seen by the nobility, are closer to hounds than the noble's peers.1st world 2nd world, developing countries, etc.> The person of the monarch was literally sacred - divine matter.Not actually true. Rule by divine right was not universally accepted, and didn't imply immunity since this was a 'right' or 'title' under a christian society - the monarch was intended (yes I know) to embody the best virtues of the best families, and if this was not the case, he (or more rarely she) was deposed.Indeed, having such a strong power structure meant abuses were rampant, and people took advantage. but even the philosophical basis of the time did not believe this.> Also, men and women were made of completely different substances.Clearly much crazier than the present day, where men and women are made of the exact same substance even though they actually aren't but somehow embody distinct 'gender identities' which are devoid of biology and can be applied equally and arbitrarily in differing configurations.> The idea of a law that applies equally or fairly to everyone was neither acceptable nor practical.Pretty sure murder was punished with death, as one example. Whether one could get away with it is another thing.. Certainly our courts now are always fair and never manipulated..> Justice is a modern conceit.justice under rule of law is an enlightement concept. justice under law of 'what is right' is more traditional.I posit that false convictions or incorrect enforcement are both feasible under either model.> Neither speech nor assembly nor the commonest transactions of life are free.mass surveillance, etc.> There are laws for everything, and if there are no laws there are customs, and if there are no customs people will be reactionary and suspicious anyway.see also voting response to this post, I am sure.> The medieval world could be shaken by a speech, forever changed by a book, split by theological controversies over a line of text or the intonation of a hymn or the date of a holiday.And what are the Kardashians up to this week? I hear so-and-so is planning to invade somewhere-or-the-other.. It's 9/11.> Displays of magnificence were not only convenient, they were mandatory. Misers were spurned and mocked.Indeed. This is why monasteries utterly failed in that time period, and dressing simply and repairing ones garments, items, etc. is a common practice in modern consumer society.> The Church glittered. Cathedrals were pieces of heaven brought to rest upon the earthJohn Calvin called, he want's his reformation back. But I guess you were away and on holiday in Vegas, so you missed the memo.> Patrick says "the ruling class are living like Kardashians" and he's exactly right.welll well, looks like we agree on something.

评论 #17067993 未加载

js8大约 7 年前

This is a great article. I almost cannot watch any historical movie, the life was so hopeless back then.