Live data from Hacker News

What Did Medieval Peasants Know? (2022)

theatlantic.com

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: What Did Medieval Peasants Know? (2022)

#41
post #6

> Our ancestors of the distant past can be invoked in conversations about nearly anything: They supposedly worked less, relaxed more, slept better, had better sex, and enjoyed better diets, among other things. That’s just an artifact of modern life. Pool enough money between family and friends and you can buy yourself a cheap plot of land in the middle of nowhere and wild out on your own agrarian commune

No, that won't work. The dynamics have changed completely: although your agrarian commune has a ton of advantages compared to a farm 200 years ago, neither you or them could get by without their outer societies. The farm 200 years ago would have been unlikely to make its own critical tools, for instance, and certainly not, say, extracted the iron for those tools. And the economy between the farm/agrarian commune and…

> The farm 200 years ago would have been unlikely to make its own critical tools...

Yes they would have! There's a huge slew of great YouTube shows basically recreating how people did things in the past and it's rather stupidly amazing. For instance you probably think iron mining is some complex process where you need to go dig into a mountain in some specific place or whatever, which naturally leads to your worldview.

In reality? Let me introduce you to bog iron. [1] It's stupidly common, and naturally recycles. Depending on where you live, and how often you step outside, you've probably even seen it! That orange gunk in boggy type waters? Maybe a shining shimmer on the surface? That's not pollution as many think, at least not usually - it's iron hydroxide - good by itself and often a clue of bigger deposits just below it.

Gather it all up, smelt it down, and you now have iron. And now here [2] is a video of a guy making a homemade bellows capable of iron working. A bit of skill and you can build basically whatever you want. You can even make steel. The big gap from the stone age to the iron age and beyond was mostly one of knowledge rather than requiring any sort of large scale industrialization or associated technologies.

I also strongly disagree on the agrarian:urban divide. If urban outputs disappeared, society would change a lot but still continue along just fine for the most part. If agrarian outputs disappeared, everybody would die. The fact that socially worthless, if not harmful, work is economically rewarded more than socially critical work is mostly because we swapped to economic systems that no longer value anything except money, and the closer somebody is to the flow of money, the easier it is to take a bit more for themselves - and farmers are about as far away from the flow of money as you can get.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UuwGukUavW0

[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wVNOEU_-Es

Re: What Did Medieval Peasants Know? (2022)

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A median modern person, no question. What’s the argument that you are implying but not stating?

I dunno… median OECD state modern person, or median modern person globally? I might go with being one of the richer medieval kings, in the latter case. Global median is pretty bad. Only things that might sway me otherwise are antibiotics and if we’re factoring in the whole “sword of Damocles” aspect for despotic rulers.

Global median is pretty good - out of poverty even by modern standards. And antibiotics and other medical care are definitely a large factor here, as well as the general safety that comes from living in a state with laws.

Re: What Did Medieval Peasants Know? (2022)

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devereaux wrote that series in large part in response to all the people going "gosh, modern life is just so much worse than medieval peasants!" But honestly, even if you're comparing to the richest kings of the time, your median modern person has a better life. People seriously underestimate just how much of our modern life would be unattainable luxury in the Medieval period.

> even if you're comparing to the richest kings of the time, your median modern person has a better life And the question I always ask when people make this claim - now would you rather be a median modern person or one of the richest kings of the medieval era? It emphasizes that there's far more unquantifiables to having a good life than there are quantifiables, yet we almost entirely socially neglect them.

I remember a study from many years ago: people want to be better off than their immediate peers, regardless of where this puts them on an absolute scale.

The study went something like this. Which do you prefer? 1. You earn $250k but all your friends earn $500k. 2. You earn $125k, but all your friends earn $75k.

It was more refined then that, but anyway: most people picked (2).

Re: What Did Medieval Peasants Know? (2022)

#45
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get you are probably being purposefully derisive to make a point by saying the name of the dark ages is because of our ignorance, but that's also just not correct. The general consensus of historians is that Europe suffered from widespread material simplification during the early middle ages, compared to classical antiquity. The name was coined by earlier historians, generally less concerned about mixing moral judg…

Thats one version of why. The other version is that it ran counter to a historical narrative about the (alleged, believed) moral superiority of antiquity and so was coined to further a somewhat political goal.

I mean, you can see pretty clear evidence of sharp declines in trade and industry in all sorts of ways following the fall of Rome, such as rates of silver production tied to concentrations of atmospheric lead in Greenland ice samples. It's not just something historians made up.

Re: What Did Medieval Peasants Know? (2022)

#46
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if you're comparing to the richest kings of the time, your median modern person has a better life And the question I always ask when people make this claim - now would you rather be a median modern person or one of the richest kings of the medieval era? It emphasizes that there's far more unquantifiables to having a good life than there are quantifiables, yet we almost entirely socially neglect them.

Why would you not want to be a median modern person?

What do you want out of life? Personally I am striving to have a large family, plenty of social relations, and would really like to have some ability to play a role in shaping the future of society. As a medieval king you have these to the point of absurdity.

In modern times? The median personal income (US only) is $45k. [1] That's something that's very easy to forget, especially on a forum like this. And at that income, doing anything, besides accumulating meaningless gadgets, will be a challenge. Even having children, the most fundamentally critical responsibility for a society to sustain itself, is a challenge. I don't think the skyrocketing rates of psychological, mental, and other disorders is simply a coincidence.

We've created a dysfunctional and unsustainable society. This can still be quite a nice place when you're way above the median, but the median lifestyle is going to be quite unpleasant. It's certainly not a lifestyle I would ever even consider preferring over that of a medieval king.

[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

Re: What Did Medieval Peasants Know? (2022)

#47
post #23

>> The internet has become strangely nostalgic for life in the Middle Ages. There’s a flood of AI-generated slop around this nostalgic content and many of them are generated as documentaries but with ridiculous claims, fictitious characters, and timelines that never happened. It’s the enshittification of YouTube and the new rickroll.

That's true of anything that's been identified by the ensloppifiers as a trend. It doesn't necessarily mean anyone is pushing these narratives for political reasons (although I'm sure that happens too).

[deleted]

Re: What Did Medieval Peasants Know? (2022)

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if you're comparing to the richest kings of the time, your median modern person has a better life And the question I always ask when people make this claim - now would you rather be a median modern person or one of the richest kings of the medieval era? It emphasizes that there's far more unquantifiables to having a good life than there are quantifiables, yet we almost entirely socially neglect them.

I remember a study from many years ago: people want to be better off than their immediate peers, regardless of where this puts them on an absolute scale. The study went something like this. Which do you prefer? 1. You earn $250k but all your friends earn $500k. 2. You earn $125k, but all your friends earn $75k. It was more refined then that, but anyway: most people picked (2).

[deleted]

Re: What Did Medieval Peasants Know? (2022)

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if you're comparing to the richest kings of the time, your median modern person has a better life And the question I always ask when people make this claim - now would you rather be a median modern person or one of the richest kings of the medieval era? It emphasizes that there's far more unquantifiables to having a good life than there are quantifiables, yet we almost entirely socially neglect them.

I remember a study from many years ago: people want to be better off than their immediate peers, regardless of where this puts them on an absolute scale. The study went something like this. Which do you prefer? 1. You earn $250k but all your friends earn $500k. 2. You earn $125k, but all your friends earn $75k. It was more refined then that, but anyway: most people picked (2).

I'm also familiar with that study, but I think it's a bit misleading because it implies the behavior is irrational by associating a fixed cost with everything. In reality, there's a perfectly rational logic that I think most people may subconsciously adapt to.

Imagine I give you a guaranteed $100k/year with the nuance that you're not allowed to earn any money beyond that, as the study implied that was your personal earnings. Where are you going to go live? In an area where most people are earning $200k or in an area where most people are earning $50k? It's the exact same question in effect, but now the phrasing makes it obvious that the choice is completely rational.

It's not about wanting to psychologically dominate your peers, but about making your money go further. If your friends are all earning twice what you do, then you're likely to struggle to afford even a decent house in a reasonable part of town. This logic breaks down at extremes of wealth, but $250k/year is nowhere near that point.

Re: What Did Medieval Peasants Know? (2022)

#50
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats one version of why. The other version is that it ran counter to a historical narrative about the (alleged, believed) moral superiority of antiquity and so was coined to further a somewhat political goal.

I mean, you can see pretty clear evidence of sharp declines in trade and industry in all sorts of ways following the fall of Rome, such as rates of silver production tied to concentrations of atmospheric lead in Greenland ice samples. It's not just something historians made up.

A good point, and to the specificity of early post Roman to 1000AD feels like a valid measure. But you also see innovations in trade, arts and embellishments, cathedral building. I don't think the coining of "the dark ages" label had the luxury of gas chromatography, it was an adjective of philosophical value, figuratively applied as a value judgement.
Post reply on HN