GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=fable]As for Shrub, if his character was the same you'd never have jousted with him. He would have poisoned your food the night before, and blamed it all on an arch-enemy of his. [/QUOTE]

Then it would eventually be discovered that he was a wooden construct, operated by little gnomes called "Cheney"'s. Evil little gnomes I might add.

Old customs? Wenching, pillaging and general roustabouting!

[QUOTE=RedDragon7175]Old customs? Wenching, pillaging and general roustabouting![/QUOTE]

My kind of man!

Kill the women and rape the cattle, men!

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]My kind of man!

Kill the women and rape the cattle, men![/QUOTE]

*shudders* Twisted, very, very twisted man. Creepy even.

As far as the Dark Ages/Renaissance deal...the dark ages happened to be more of a survival of the fittest type situation. I think I would have done well if I had been forced into that situation. I would have been perfectly fine stomping anyone who got on my nerves or in my way and not worrying about some idiot in a strange get-up telling me I broke a law.

[QUOTE=Magrus]As far as the Dark Ages/Renaissance deal...the dark ages happened to be more of a survival of the fittest type situation. I think I would have done well if I had been forced into that situation.[/quote]

The "Dark Ages" never occurred. It was a way the Victorians had of idealizing the Rennaisance when they suddenly went mad on its art (nevermind the incredible hell the peasants lived in or the way the Borgias and Medicis behaved: just look at what they bought!). The Middle Ages (or so-called Dark Ages) were a lot less prosperous, but generally more tolerant of other folks, with no nationalism or crusades. Levels of society had not been firmed up yet, and although it was unlikely that a peasant would become a noble, it was not unheard of.

Mind, I'm not saying the Middle Ages were a glorious time to hang around, but many of the characteristics the Victorians foisted on the Renaissance--barbaric behavior, nations in constant wars, etc--were actually part of the period and people they liked best.

well if that isn't a wet blanket then I don't know what is. Fab

Hey, I try.

[QUOTE=fable]The "Dark Ages" never occurred. It was a way the Victorians had of idealizing the Rennaisance when they suddenly went mad on its art (nevermind the incredible hell the peasants lived in or the way the Borgias and Medicis behaved: just look at what they bought!). The Middle Ages (or so-called Dark Ages) were a lot less prosperous, but generally more tolerant of other folks, with no nationalism or crusades. Levels of society had not been firmed up yet, and although it was unlikely that a peasant would become a noble, it was not unheard of.

Mind, I'm not saying the Middle Ages were a glorious time to hang around, but many of the characteristics the Victorians foisted on the Renaissance--barbaric behavior, nations in constant wars, etc--were actually part of the period and people they liked best. [/QUOTE]

*nods* However, there was a period of time involved where it was essentially a large carpeting of various groupings of people who worked together to survive. Also, there was a period BEFORE this, when there was just people, and no "groups" yet formed. I don't speak of the Dark Ages in the nonsensical history trash they teach. More of the sense of, when it was simply a matter of 'do as you must to survive'.

A time when, if for some reason the person who was living in the area close to you stole from you, there was no authority figure to settle it. You were on your own, and if you did not defend yourself, you were overrun as soon as someone took it into their head to do so. Laws were made for reasons, as were "rulers". Previous to both, people dealt with daily life and it's contingencies without either of them.

[QUOTE=Magrus]*nods* However, there was a period of time involved where it was essentially a large carpeting of various groupings of people who worked together to survive. Also, there was a period BEFORE this, when there was just people, and no "groups" yet formed.[/quote]

There's no evidence supporting a non-societal basis for humanity. The earliest human remains we possess show some forms of specialized physical structures, social roles: villages. Given the fact that other relatives of ours on that branch of the evolutionary tree have elaborate societies, I'd suspect it was true of our mutual ancestor, as well.

I don't speak of the Dark Ages in the nonsensical history trash they teach. More of the sense of, when it was simply a matter of 'do as you must to survive'.

But there was far more than simple survival in the Middle Ages. It wasn't a period of great learning in the West, but it did involve scientific discoveries, as well as musical developments. Trade was instigated with the Near East and Far East. Communities experimented with communism, anarchism, and a host of other strcutures. Law systems inherited from Rome mixed with those of the North, and there were elaborate judicial frameworks, everywhere.

A time when, if for some reason the person who was living in the area close to you stole from you, there was no authority figure to settle it.

Almost never happened, and always on a very local, temporary basis. Social frameworks existed to punish wrongdoers, and were often more successful than during the Renaissance period. What you're discussing isn't individual survival, but a period of absolute disorder, the breakdown of every social norm, and those happened when people were driven to form the ancient equivalent of terrorist cells--not unlike modern Chechnya, with young folk heading to the hills to escape the Russian army. Even then, those cells had a social basis, and such periods thankfully were short-lived. Usually, the invaders or overlords simply got tired of ruling areas that were no longer profitable, and pulled out.