Is it true that the peasants were inbred and unhealthy in the middle ages, while the nobility was genetically superior?
>>7083875Most of people back then (and still now) are dirty subhumans and the chances of finding someone like OP pic is 00.1% just look at medieval and renaissance paintings
>>7083875English nobility were quite open to marrying wealthy peasants children
>>7083875It's the exact opposite, the noble class were known for inbreeding and suffering from mental and physical defects because of it. The peasants didn't inbreed as much because their marriages usually didn't involve political arrangements with their cousins.
They weren't GENETICALLY superior. They got adequate childhood nutrition and access to education.
>>7084056But from what I heard apparently the commoners were more inbred than the nobles, since the nobles would marry other nobles all across Europe, while the commoners mostly just married inside their very small villages.
>>7083879not true, most women had cute faces like Audrey Hepburn who was malnourished in ww2 and didn't develop a more masculine face when older, it is just they were high test and naturally drawn to signs of fertility more than prettiness
>>7084089Ignore that retarded. He fell for the Habsburg meme
>>7084089Didn't the Church regulate inter-village marriage?
>>7083875Is it true OP is a faggit?And stop posting this 19th/20th century looking bitch
>>7084093>Most women had cute faces The majority of people are non white in the globe so their ugly and I'm also talking about medieval shit not late 17th to 20th century,Peasants were illiterate low iq subhumans with shit genetics and prone to disease nobles were inbred leeches i doubt women would've looked good that and different beauty standards(Men may have been aesthetically good looking or average at least since their looks aren't affected by old age and hygiene)
>>7083875yep only in a modern democracy like america can you find the "nobility" and political families ironically more inbred those poor Kennedys...
>>7084126Yikes ruined somebody anime/movie fantasy
>>7084104Yes but they allowed marriages between cousins.
>>7084175>people were dumb because it was the pastIs this the worst meme ever developed?
>>7085270>medieval peasants supposedly had more freetime than modern wage workers>and yet modern workers still have the time to teach their children how to read while medieval peasants never didEither they were lazy or just dumb
>>7085277I wish i never agree with a weeb but here we are
>>7085316You're either samefagging or you're a dumb as the weeb then. Medieval peasants didn't learn to read because reading was completely unnecessary for working on a farm and books were fucking expensive because no printing press.
>>7083875No. Medieval peasants were quite healthy while nobles were a bunch of lardasses with 'beetus.
>>7083875It was the other way around.
>>7083875Yes exactly right. You see this especially in the arab world.
>>7084175>that grammar>"non white">mens looks arent affected by old age or hygene>what that last word implies in this contextTell me how I know you are American with a 100% certainty. Fucking New Worlder waste of skin.>>7085270Its cope by countries that have no history and too much inflated sense of worth that has spread too much due to the movies industry and pop culture in general.>>7085316>>7085277If either of you are for real (though more likely you are samefaging and this is just bait), please do not reproduce.
>>7083875>inbredno, except perhaps some far off mountainoius regions, most peasants lived in well populated developed fairly urbanized regions like loire valley, saxony, po valley>>7083875>unhealthytheir diet was mainly carb based unlike nobles who ate more expensive and nutritious protein based food, still wealthier peasants would eat better than servants just like today when elites can afford healthier food
>>7083875based ymir fritz
>>7083875The nobility were much taller on average thanks to better nutrition, I've always wondered how much that contributed to the perception of superiority.
>>7086873Their noble blood probably helped in that regard.
>>7083875That's what the nobility would have you believeThe truth is that the nobility were fortunate to be born into a comfier life with vast wealth and opportunity for elite educationPeasants were born into poor families and lacked the same opportunities
>>7086903Not all peasants were so worse off, you had plenty of wealthier peasants like the gentry and skilled artisans and clerks within the cities, and yet it was very rare for them to rise up to nobility. The nobles were just made of better stuff than the peasants, that's all.
>>7084206Only for the very rich. For most of the Middle Ages consanguinity within the seventh degree was unacceptable; the 4th Lateran Council lowered back to the Roman civil practice of 4 degrees but added in new forms of affinity to prevent step-siblings from going at it. To get from 4 which is second-cousin marriage to 3 which is cousin marriage required dispensations. And as all dispensations in the medieval church you want it you're gonna pay for it.
>>7083875>peasants were inbred.>nobility was genetically superior.have you ever looked at the family trees of nobility?
>>7087033How did the church arrive at such a surprisingly reasonable system of systematically reducing inbreeding?
>>7087057Guys like Charles II were an anomaly, generally speaking most nobles were stronger, healthier, more intelligent, longer lived, and less inbred than the peasantry, and they also had noble blood.
>>7087059There are some books and articles on the development of medieval canon law, but I personally blame the Spanish nobility always trying to marry the closest relative possible. The first (local) Council to pass prohibitions on marriage was the Council of Elvira and it seems if the bishops didn't intervene the Spanish crowns would have been practicing incest regularly since there were numerous occasions when an uncle would marry his niece or a nephew would marry his aunt and then they had to buy the Catholic Church off.
>>7085277You do realize that no culture had any reason for random peasants to read until Protestant Christianity, right? Why would a medieval farmer need to learn how to read? What would they read? Books were ridiculously expensive and took hundreds of manhours to produce a single one. Why is that your only metric to determine intelligence?
>>7083875Other way around buddy
>>7087571>Why would a medieval farmer need to learn how to read?So he and his children can attend a university and get a much better job rather than being stuck as a peasant farmer.
>>7087065You’re pulling this out of your ass and you’re a faggot with no sources.
>>7087586>You don’t know how to read>no one in the village except the priest knows how to read>priest will only teach you if you’re going to become a priest>people in the city will teach you but it costs money>be dirt poor>don’t teach your kids to readPerson on 4chan a thousand years later “lmao dumb or lazy” Questionable logic
>>7087659Why were the priests such cunts?
>>7087661The priests at the time didn't teach others how to write or read because it was thought that they didn't need it. It's important to note that all of this was before the printing press, so it was thought that specialists were the only people who needed to read/write.Priests were specialists, your average farmer who is never going to see the written word in his life doesn't have as great a need to be taught as priests/scholars.
>>7087678>>7087661Also the pops didn't give fucks about reading anyway. Readimg wont make the crops grow faster
>>7087678But the Church was the one who funded and built the universities in the first place, universities that accepted people who could read and turned them into educated men who could contribute more and get a better job. How is that not a good enough reason for the priest to teach a peasant how to read?
Silver spoon was a health reference, not a wealth reference. It's inert for bacteria.
>>7087683Peasants arent really the brightest people in the middle ages. So I think they thought it was also pointless teaching someone a braindead person to read, even more if they don't really care for the academy whatsoever. Arguably a big mistake.
>>7087687>Peasants arent really the brightest people in the middle agesSo then that just proves >>7085277 right then. They were just fucking dumb. Or lazy. Or the priests were cunts.
>>7087692I dunno I just came into the discussionlmao
>>7087692>They were just fucking dumb.Pretty much>Priests were cunts.Pretty much. I mean, they also don't care, so why should we care?
>>7087683Peasants don't need to learn how to read. Parchment was the primary way of which books were written on, and parchment is expensive. Paper is hardly used.Education at that time was better in the hands of the specialists and the rich than in the hands of the peasants. A reason for this is that most everyone is living a rural lifestyle, which doesn't really require literacy.Ever wonder why churches have bible stories and saints in the stained glass? It's because it was thought that it would help people understand these stories and people without having to teach them to read.Also, although I said it earlier, I'll say it again. Books were *very* expensive and a peasant getting a hold of one and reading it would be very difficult.Plus, priests were incredibly busy with not just being holy men, but administrators of their parish, making sure tithes were coming in, donations, etc/These are a few reasons why it wasn't really common for peasants to be taught how to read in the middle ages.
>>7087065>they also had noble bloodDo you consider it to be a superpower? Every country has a few nobles who were major failures.>>7087586Did you miss this part of his post or something, or do you think he's lying?>Books were ridiculously expensive and took hundreds of manhours to produce a single one.Have you ever written a long essay by hand? Imagine how long it takes to copy a whole book -- several hundred pages long -- by hand.The ink they had wasn't cheap either, and they didn't have paper until much later. Instead you used parchment which is specially processed sheepskin and isn't made from some lumber you can go to a forest and just chop up.Because of all this, books were ludicrously expensive, If you even just wanted to read one in a library you'd need to be super careful since you weren't dealing with something someone created using an fairly advanced machine, it was something someone very important spent a lot of time and effort to make using expensive materials, so it makes sense to not hand them out to every hick that passes by since some asshole can just tear up or burn a bunch of them and thats an immesurable amount of effort and potentially knowledge lost forever.>>7087661>>7087683What books are they gonna read? Do you think every peasant family had money to send their kids away into the few cities that HAD universities so they could become epic educated people? They were not dirt farmers but on average they weren't rolling in money either.And what is the alternative to sending your kid to get a potentially useless degree, if you even were aware that this was a thing? Keeping your child at home, having him work with you in the fields and getting him or her married eventually so he or she still supports you but you don't need to feed 'em. All of those are a big plus for both you and the kid.>b-bu-but they would be illiterateIrrelevant pre-printing press like the non retard anons in this thread tried to explain to you knuckleheads.(1/2)
>>7087821>>7087687>>7087693Read the thread before you post.>>7087701The priests didn't care because it was fucking impossible to do for reasons stated above and if some random priest started a school in some random village how many of them would you think would turn up so they could learn to read, a skill which they cannot put to use at all? Their parents would just tell them to fuck off back to the fields since they are actually doing something useful there.Nobles are another matter since they'd actually have the money to blow on books, but they were mostly illiterate in the west. In the Balkans rulers were literate and some of them engaged in writing and poetry, but getting roached wiped all of that and it did not avail them.(2/2)
>>7087821>Do you consider it to be a superpower?Kings were known for being able to heal the sick with their touch, so yeah, it kind of is.
>>7087586So you're assuming people who lived a thousand years ago have the exact same cultural and economic needs and ambitions as people do today, while at the same time implying they are the stupid ones for not reaching the same standards you expect? Holy shit get some self-awareness.
>>7088000Good point, I guess it was wrong of me to assume they were dumb, they were just unambitious. I tend to assume that most people are naturally inclined to seeking out a better life for themselves and their children, but I guess some people just like to stay where they are, especially in the middle ages.
>>7088009Did you read the posts above
>>7088021There's not really any other way to interpret it, being able to read and go to a university means being wealthier, more educated, and higher up on the social hierarchy. If a peasant doesn't want that then he's just plain unambitious.
>>7088029>Do you think every peasant family had money to send their kids away into the few cities that HAD universities so they could become epic educated people? They were not dirt farmers but on average they weren't rolling in money either.And what is the alternative to sending your kid to get a potentially useless degree, if you even were aware that this was a thing? Keeping your child at home, having him work with you in the fields and getting him or her married eventually so he or she still supports you but you don't need to feed 'em. All of those are a big plus for both you and the kid.also>Social mobility was always the same as in modern times!
>>7088170>Keeping your child at home, having him work with you in the fields and getting him or her married eventually so he or she still supports you but you don't need to feed 'em.So giving him the exact same life you have, and your dad had, and your grandpa had. That's not ambition anon, that's complacency.
>>7083875>Nobility.>Not super-inbreed due the whole political marriage thing.
>>7088190Political marriage meant nobles married people from all across Europe. Peasants meanwhile only married within their small hamlets, which meant they were much more inbred.
>>7084175Many nobles were illiterate too. Thing is, being literate wasn't that useful before books became widespread thanks to the printing press.
>>7083875Some peasant did learn law and how to read so to deal with law disputes over property because even peasants could be litigious as fuck. It was all about getting your child in the right school which in the middle ages meant being snap up by the church. Village priest often taught the sons of villagers their ABC and that one in 10 of these boys were gone into the clergy. Some sons of peasants went on to be come high-flying members of the intelligentsia. such as William of Wykeham. In the church, william would rose to become one of the richest and most powerful men in England, Lord Chancellor not once but twice. He funded Winchester College, one of the oldest public schools in England.
>>7083875If a peasant wants to learn he isn't doing because he wants to read literature, or crosswords skills. He is learning because he wants to SUE THE SHIT OUT OF YOU!
>>7088009>I'm just going to assume for no reason that people a millenium apart from me have the exact same cultural and economic needs I do>wow those people sure were lazy dumbasses based on my arbitrary standards!If you didn't have so much bias in your entire framework you would've gotten my point before weebposting. Also I like the ridiculous assumption that medieval universities held the same social and cultural function as modern day community colleges do.
>>7088600Okay, imagine you're given two choices, learn to read and get a good respected job where you can live a more prosperous and comfortable life, or don't and stay poor. Which would you choose if you were ambitious?
>>7088611Yeah, because human culture has always had the same values modern day "get a good job". Job doing what? Pro-tip: most ambitious peasants became mercenaries.
>>7088642Well if we define a good job as a job that pays better, is well respected, and provides for an more comfortable and safe life for you and your family, then yes, I'm pretty sure wanting a good job coincides with being ambitious.
>>7088196>which meant they were much more inbredIf the the claim that all peasants were inbred were true then Europe would be as backwards and retarded as the Middle East and other heavily Islamic regions which are demonstrably inbred.
People couldn't write in wood carvings and stone scratches?
>>7088611Anon i dont want to raise hostilities in this thread further but your reading comprehension isnt very good.Getting good education isnt easy in this time period and it is extra not easy for a farkin peasant.
>>7089474I know it's not easy, the other anon is acting like it's not even preferable though. Like being a peasant farmer is the better option over going to a university.
>>7087659>>7087661>>7087678>>7087683>>7087701>>7087823Broadly speaking, diocesan priests in provincial backwaters in the Middle Ages didn't know how to really read either; they knew enough to muddle through the prayers of the mass and that was about it and maybe had one or two books like the Golden Legend or one of the lives of Christ memorized by route. One of the big reforms of the Catholic Church in response to the Protestant reformation was to actually standardize the education of diocesan clergy and make it so they were as educated as monastic priests were.Also depending upon the period, many of the diocesan priests would have had concubines and were primarily concerned that one of their "nephews" would have inherited their posts, so much of their clout would have been trying to secure/pass on their knowledge and position to the next generation of their families.
>>7089530Based informative poster.>Also depending upon the period, many of the diocesan priests would have had concubines and were primarily concerned that one of their "nephews" would have inherited their posts, so much of their clout would have been trying to secure/pass on their knowledge and position to the next generation of their families.I don't get why Catholics just didnt do the same thing as Orthodox where the low rung secular clergy just marries, has kids and thats it. Trying to keep the average priest on the similar level as a monk in this regard seemed to have just done more harm than good in the long run.
>>7084056>the noble class were known for inbreeding and suffering from mental and physical defects because of it.meme based knowledge of history
This whole thread is just reddit/fedora posting. Lay off the Braveheart and Monty Python.Anyway, it's already been found that elites who can trace lineage centuries perform still perform well in their societies. Men in business are also found to have signs of higher intellect. Point is, the elite are born to be better than you (hence revolutions like the French's depending on the support of defectors).>>7088182>he's a bugman with children of his own.>>7088649And yet modern men like you don't have children.>>7089915It's just a prog narrative where the elite cheated for their position.
>>7084175>since their looks aren't affected by old age and hygieneOh dear
Winners and losers are chosen by God and anything that suggests otherwise is just playing along with false justifications.Even from the perspective of the atheistic historical narrative the modern era has proven pretty well that nobles aren't physically or intellectually superior to regular people when placed on an even playing field.
>>7083875Peasants were genetically superior
>>7084175Why are racists the ones with the stupid opinions
>>7083875It would make a great deal of sense for nobility as a rule of thumb be predisposed genetically to be superior in many ways to the average serf and peasant since they're family history would be filled with the strong and powerful be it in commanding armies planning and managing land or even further back just being very good at shanking and these same people would be marrying other nobility with similar backstories and to further solidify the idea that they could be better genetically we also have to understand that they didn't only exclusively marry with people from only noble stock but also from people who were just very adept and skilled at what they did be it someone with a wealthy mercantile business or someone who gained a nobility title or was famous for his martial prowess or even the odd artist or musician and poet who managed to catch the eye of a noble and become close to their family
>>7091534Although to add on to this they weren't under the same physical and with farmers mental selective pressures that the peasantry faced such as surviving in very harsh times and being conscripted to fight as largely fodder for their lords but ti imagine those peasantry who performed extremely well would be noticed and potentially elevated to a position where they may be able to marry a minor noble or at least have a better future for their children who in turn if they perform admirable in whatever path they choose could also be viable partners for nobility even more so than the first generation as it would hold more weight
>>7086898*InbredAll nobles and monarchs should be hanged. Without peasants, rulers cannot exist, without rulers peasants can.Peasants > n*bility