StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I guess millions of youtube comments probably are as dumb as rocks but I though these ones would be amusing to look at:

Ironsabine wrote:Where are you recieving your information from,
fiscornioman? Enlighten my on your historical acumen, and site sources, please. Otherwise, we will be apt to think that you are getting you cues from Hollywood which, whith it anti-Christian mentality, portrays a "bloody" european era with the Church at the forefront.

THIS IS A MODERN DAY LIE, promoted through secularist education that brainwashes men to be nothing more than slaves to a commercialism, aquisition, and atheism.

The middle ages saw less bloodshed in a 400 year span than modern times. In the last 100 years of "enlightened" western culture, we have murdered over 50,000,000 soldiers,civilians and children in war,

World war II was sparked by an anti-human, anti-Christian campaign. The same can be said of the devastation in Tzarist Russia, and communistic mentalities the world over.

Medieval times were not filled with dungeons as television would have it,
but with HONOR,LOYALTY AND LOVE OF GOD.

You need to point out , fiscornioman, where you reciever your information from.
Lords did not rape women, your confusing the medieval ages with our modern cities, son.

Now, if you are so adamant in relating how murderous the middle ages were, you need to cite a source such as the works of an historian who has had his literature published.
I would go out to Barnes and Nobles and gladly pick up a copy.

The industrial revolution devalued man and turned him into a slave for commercialism.

The middle ages gave way to the Rennaisance. It stirrings for the greatest artworks the world had ever seen, volumes of poetry and literature, noblility and loyalty, all trace its psychological gestation in womb of the european middle ages.
The Rennaisance was THE LOVE OF GOD. It's precursor, the undying devotion of the middle ages.
Just listen to the scores of lyrical compilations that still exist today that allow us into the hearts and minds of the medieval man through his music.
LEARN!

From here: http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet ... %3Drelated

I have never seen that many fundies romantize this era so it was new to me. Do they do this often?

Man, if I was a god I'd teleport these people into the time periods they idealize just for giggles. It'd be hilarious to watch this guy being dropped into the Middle Ages.

Youtube comments are retarded. Don't read them. Seriously.

Youtube comments are stupid, what else is new?

They're not Romanticizing the Medieval Era per say, as they are resorting to a stance of self victimization. They're a victim of a secular government that prevents or places barriers in the way of any religious group from forcing their beliefs to play an active role in making government policies.

The irony here, is that a lot of what we know regarding medieval times and the barbarism that occurred came from existing church documents or people who have been educated through the church.

Besides, it's Youtube. The place is not exactly a bastion of intelligence.

You're talking about a place where most of the commenters think that "you are" is a single two-letter word.

Lords did not rape women, your confusing the medieval ages with our modern cities, son.

The moron obviously never heard of the ius primae noctis.

It probably comes more from the median age of the people who post comments then anything else.

I had friends in High School who sincerely thought that the average person in ancient Greece was a philosopher like Socrates, and that the average person in 1700s England was a physicist like Issac Newton, and therefore that humanity has been in a constant state of intellectual and educational decline since the average person today has little concern for science or philosophy.

Just when you thought that ignorance and idiocy wouldn't drop lower.

It does make some sense the fundies romanticise and idealise the medieval era and the dark ages: these were the times when Christianity was de facto. Most people of the time viewed it as undisputable reality. They believed, according to my literature studies, that life was a valley of grief and suffering before Heaven.

Fundies would have a masturbary fest over the era as their mentality is precisely from there. Then again, fundies aren't excatly reknown historians to begin with.

Nevermind such things like how feudalism was far, far, far worse then any nightmare of commercialism. Commercialism at least pretends that you are a person, to be treated with respect and dignity. Feudalism was a systematic approach of beating you into submission and doing what was essentially, slave work. I say slave work because you didn't have that much choice in the matter, especially if you were a woman.

Your entire life was deceided on one thing, the one thing that was never under your control: whom you were born to. It didn't matter if you were a peasent or a noble: your life was pre-written by your parents and you can only best hope that you enjoy it.

Or if you were very lucky, you might join the priesthood and live a life of solitude, quiet study few will care about and of guilt and misery.

But let me give you a brief idea of what you might be:

You might be a peasent, in which case you pretty much were a serf that was allowed to work the land but did not own it. This meant that you had to toil allot of land and whatever you grow will be only halfly be yours if you get any at all. You pretty much had no rights, aside what you established within the community, which was pretty much self-governed by laws laid out in the Bible and whatever the Kingdom had. Usually, the Bible word's was the preacher's, who had little to stop him to twisting it to his own end. If he didn't, then you were constantly told how you were a peice of shit that shouldn't exist for just existing or for everyting ranging from being human to pretty much anything that wasn't about giving to the Church. Oh, did I mentioned that if bandits came you were pretty much on your own? And that some of the landlord acted like he owned you, as he did and did pretty much as he pleased with you and your family?

I don't know about other countries, but mine once had something called "the right of the first night" which translated that a lord could fuck a virgin of his choice and there was nothing you could do about it. Oh, and anyone getting excited, no, the child was usually not considered a relative or sometimes even a bastard. They were considered orphans, if anything at all.

Then there was the nobility that also had priests calling them shit too. While they weren't at the risk of starving, they had the happy life of either looking over their shoulders of playing spy games with other nobles. Or just trying to not piss them off. Keeping your secrect life secret and trying to hide things that you were told in your entire life are evil and sinful, like having a lover as opposed to the husband you hate and never wanted.

If you were a man, you were expected to be a soldier and kill people. If you were a woman, you wouldn't considered more then property, just more expensive and delicate. Don't let any of the romantic literature fool you: your life was written and you were pretty much a slave that did what was told of her.

Medieval war was bloody, dangerous and horrible. Plagues and starvation is what usually killed most of the army rather then the enemy, which included anyone from random pagans to other Christians for no other reason then that the lord commands it. Again, don't let the code of chivarly fool you: knights were just as good-natured as today's soldiers. Except that they usually believed themselves superior to your average man and wore much better gear then your average foot soldiers. Not that you were that much less likely to be killed. Your fellow soldier was just as likely a pyschopathic person that reveled in what he was doing.

So, yeah, medieval life. It was great. Please note my sarcasm.

Compared to today, medieval life was dirty, barberic and delusional. I prefer my heartless consumerism, thank you.

He cites we killed 50 million people in conflicts during the XXth century. Compared to the overall european population of the period, however, 400 years of near constant warfare and plagues was bound to kill a higher % of the population.

The simple fact is that even having 50 million people to kill was a completely unattainable goal during the Middle Ages, where sustaining a city of 20 thousand people was a spectacularly difficult task.

PeZook wrote:He cites we killed 50 million people in conflicts during the XXth century. Compared to the overall european population of the period, however, 400 years of near constant warfare and plagues was bound to kill a higher % of the population.

The simple fact is that even having 50 million people to kill was a completely unattainable goal during the Middle Ages, where sustaining a city of 20 thousand people was a spectacularly difficult task.

The only people who could claim to have killed hundreds of thousands are the Mongols, but they are at the extreme end of brutality.

Patrick Degan wrote:

Lords did not rape women, your confusing the medieval ages with our modern cities, son.

The moron obviously never heard of the ius primae noctis.

Pffft, it's not rape if the King consents on her behalf.

PeZook wrote:He cites we killed 50 million people in conflicts during the XXth century. Compared to the overall european population of the period, however, 400 years of near constant warfare and plagues was bound to kill a higher % of the population.

The Black Plague wiped out about 30% of Europe's population. World War II, by contrast, killed a spectacular ... wait for it ... 8.4% of Europe's population. So your chances of surviving the most vicious, brutal, and devastating war in human history were four times better than surviving in medieval Europe. In fact, the Black Plague had such a major impact on the society of Europe that there is a hypothesis floating around which credits the population shrink for launching a merchant class and pushing Europe into the Renaissance.

Is the person who claimed that the nobility didn't rape women and that's a purely modern phenomena crazy or stupid?

The aristocracy abusing peasants was a time-honored tradition. Being an attractive female (usually, though I'd imagine it happened to men as well, it just wasn't acceptable in polite society) serf was basically an invitation to rape -- the only difference was that the nobility didn't consider it rape because women, especially peasant women, were chattel not people. "First night" was a mere formality; being a married woman and a peasant just meant your husband would probably blame you for being raped, not that the local lord or his sons wouldn't do so anyway.

Hell, it wasn't even limited to the nobility. The atrocities committed by invading armies on conquered lands were appalling -- such things still happen, even in modern militaries, but a medieval army wouldn't even consider rape, pillaging, and arson to be problems. It was in the job description. For that matter, from what I understood garrison troops weren't always much gentler on the local populace even if the locals "belonged" to the same lord the troops worked for.

The Feudal system isn't quite as bad as being described, which is to say it could by as bad but wasn't always. There were, for example, a fuck load of holidays in every village and peasants and serfs did have rights as well as obligations. There was even some social mobility.

The illegal stuff that could be gotten away with is pretty scary. If the local lord and his retainers of armed men want to flout the law, its hard to stop them as long as he isn't giving one of his superiors the finger. There isn't an FBI that you can sick on bandit gangs and if they decide to spend some time near your village your fucked.

The kicker is health. With near 50% child mortality rates and every serious injury that is easily treatable in modern society becoming a serious threat to life and limb, wanting to live in medieval society is basically the same as wanting to pick up a gun and shooting half your family and friends in the head.

Zixinus wrote:J
I don't know about other countries, but mine once had something called "the right of the first night" which translated that a lord could fuck a virgin of his choice and there was nothing you could do about it. Oh, and anyone getting excited, no, the child was usually not considered a relative or sometimes even a bastard. They were considered orphans, if anything at all.

Patrick Degan wrote:The moron obviously never heard of the ius primae noctis.

Hasn't first right been shown to be more of an urban myth than reality? One spread in fact by the nobility at the end of the era to impress upon the people that they were superior?

Surlethe wrote:The Black Plague wiped out about 30% of Europe's population. World War II, by contrast, killed a spectacular ... wait for it ... 8.4% of Europe's population. So your chances of surviving the most vicious, brutal, and devastating war in human history were four times better than surviving in medieval Europe. In fact, the Black Plague had such a major impact on the society of Europe that there is a hypothesis floating around which credits the population shrink for launching a merchant class and pushing Europe into the Renaissance.

Actually, the 30% death toll for the plague is a low ball estimate because so many people died and record keeping was so poor that 30% seems like the lowest correct answer. I've heard estimates as high as 60%, though, in which case, it was even more horrible.

And that was just regular old bubonic plague! Cholera, smallpox, English sweats (a disease which thankfully seems to have been a single epidemic that then just went away), St. Vitus's dance, typhoid, tuberculosis, and even just the fucking flu killed piles and piles and piles of humanity.

And what did people do when disease killed huge swathes of the population? They prayed for God to spare their miserable asses and thought that they deserved what they were getting! Or blamed the Jews for poisoning their water.

PainRack wrote:Hasn't first right been shown to be more of an urban myth than reality? One spread in fact by the nobility at the end of the era to impress upon the people that they were superior?

It really wasn't a right of the first night. It was more of a right of any damn night the noble so desired. That's because the peasants did not have much recourse for nobles doing whatever they so desired, especially when the judiciary was made up of nobles or people being paid by the nobles. Plus, most peasants were fucking outside of marriage anyway, and so it was unlikely that any given peasant woman was a virgin. However, unlike the nobility, peasants could at least marry for love. Small consolation that is, though.

Jaevric wrote:Hell, it wasn't even limited to the nobility. The atrocities committed by invading armies on conquered lands were appalling -- such things still happen, even in modern militaries, but a medieval army wouldn't even consider rape, pillaging, and arson to be problems. It was in the job description. For that matter, from what I understood garrison troops weren't always much gentler on the local populace even if the locals "belonged" to the same lord the troops worked for.

An English king, one of the Henrys, if I remember correctly, threatened the Scots that he could not control his armies if he invaded, and that they should think very carefully about the welfare of their wives, sisters, and daughters and make the best decision (i.e. surrender to England) based on that.

So, yeah, something that would get a general hanged for crimes against humanity today was a diplomatic bargaining chip to induce surrender in the Middle Ages.

So how much peace and love was there in the Spanish Inquisition?

Timotheus wrote:So how much peace and love was there in the Spanish Inquisition?

Those people weren't Christians, so they don't count. Did you miss the part where the middle ages were built around love of god?

want to see the time period in modern times...I do believe Darfur has had close to it

Zixinus wrote:It does make some sense the fundies romanticise and idealise the medieval era and the dark ages: these were the times when Christianity was de facto. Most people of the time viewed it as undisputable reality. They believed, according to my literature studies, that life was a valley of grief and suffering before Heaven.

Fundies would have a masturbary fest over the era as their mentality is precisely from there. Then again, fundies aren't excatly reknown historians to begin with.

Yeah, it makes sense that fundies would try to whitewash or idealize the Middle Ages when you think about. Midaeval Europe was a place where all the social policies the fundies want were in full effect, so the fact that it was an oppressive hellhole has uncomfortable implications for them.

Akhlut wrote:<snip>especially when the judiciary was made up of nobles or people being paid by the nobles. <snip>

Why does it matter who paid the courts? If they ruled unfairly, their reputation would be ruined and no one would ever employ them to arbitrate again!!!!!/VOLLY]

It's no real surprise they'd romanticize things. The Middle Ages might have been pretty nice for the Church, but it was horrible for everyone else.

Setzer wrote:
It's no real surprise they'd romanticize things. The Middle Ages might have been pretty nice for the Church, but it was horrible for everyone else.

Wasn't even nice for the Church. The Church had more power over society in those days, but that didn't stop monasteries from being plundered (and I'm just talking about the Christians here), nuns getting raped, priests slaughtered, the occasional political murder of important churchmen including the pope, and papal succession sometimes being determined by an angry mob. They also got the short end of the health care stick like everyone else.