[Ixa]

If we were as free as 1253:

• Government Agencies who abduct children from their parents would not exist.
• Learning from one's parents the family trade or being apprenticed to another meant you had a decent education, and attending or graduating from university would mean that the person was of the intellectual cream of the crop, not an over-schooled under-educated liberalist.
• There were no written medical, financial or family records for the government or anyone else to snoop into.
  When one had to travel, it would be done at the leisurely and civilised pace of human foot or equine hoof; life would not be a blur of rushing from one activity to the next.
  Security would be a matter of closing your door.
• The only terrorist fear we would have was that the Mongols could invade; but our lord would do most of the fighting if they did.
• Women would consider it the only option to stay at home and no one would consider them an abused minority for being married, having children, and baking bread.
• Social workers would not exist. Nor would contraceptives.
• There would be no standing police force. If there ever were a crime, one would raise the "hue and cry" and hunt down the scoundrel with his friends and neighbours.
• Divorce would not exist and marriage vows would be considered iron-clad.
• Children born out of wedlock would not be subsidized by the government (although they might be taken in by the Church).
• Every major feast day on the Church calendar would be a day of prayer, celebration, and abstention/exemption from servile labour.
• Usury would be illegal.
• There would be no laws against prayer anywhere, and Christian children would be taught to abhor rather than love the Moslem religion.
• Owls and fish would not be given preference over humans when discussing land use. You wouldn't need a permit or license to kill the wolf that is harassing your livestock
• Most goods purchased would have been made locally by one of your neighbours or a craftsman from the nearest city.
• Government welfare would not exist; begging for alms or relying on the charity of the Church would be a humbling experience, not a government entitlement.
• Neighbors would not be encouraged by the government to snitch on one another.
• Neighbours would actually know each other and attend Mass together.
• Homosexuality would be an exceedingly rare yet punishable crime, not a mandated subject for "education" in public schools (which of course, would not exist).
• Personal responsibility, cause and effect, and consequences of bad decisions would not be replaced by terms such as genetic defects or the results of a dysfunctional family.
• Most areas would not even have a standing court; what crime there was could be adequately handled by the local lord in addition to his other duties.
• Lawyers would not specialise in any one area of law because there wouldn't be enough business.
• The borders would be there for a reason other than to make lines on maps.
• Abortion would not be a subject for debate anywhere.
• Citizens would have the right (duty) to protect their lives, families and property without fear of being prosecuted for doing so.
• Most people would have their own plot of land and could not be forced off of it.
• No one would pay income or property tax. Farmers would work their lord's land one or two days a week. They would have to pay tolls on major roads, but these would be travelled but rarely.
• The media would consist of travelling pilgrims, peddlars, and troubadours.
• No one would care about a place called Iraq; they might care about a place called the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

source

[soron]

* Government Agencies who abduct children from their parents would not exist. They would have to be delivered by the parents to their liege and lord.
* Learning from one's parents the family trade or being apprenticed to another meant you had a decent education, and attending or graduating from university would mean that the person was of the intellectual cream of the crop, not an over-schooled under-educated liberalist. Of course the family trade might also involve picking pockets or poaching in the King's forrests.
* There were no written medical, financial or family records for the government or anyone else to snoop into. On the other hand having a tooth extracted by a leech or barber would usually happen in bright public and attract a gaping crowd who would discuss every moan, whimper and grimace in the local tavern.
* When one had to travel, it would be done at the leisurely and civilised pace of human foot or equine hoof; life would not be a blur of rushing from one activity to the next except during those moments when fleeting foot or hoof would be required in order to escape the local band of highwaymen for dear life.
* Security would be a matter of closing your door. Provided your hut would be strong enough to carry one without colapsing on top of you.
* The only terrorist fear we would have was that the Mongols could invade; but our lord would do most of the fighting if they did. However the fear of the Mongol hordes would be renewed each Sunday when the local priest would promise hell, plague and slavery if the people wouldn't behave and do charity (lack of logistic services would restrict charity to the locals in need, such as the priest).
* Women would consider it the only option to stay at home and no one would consider them an abused minority for being married, having children, and baking bread. Those were happier days.
* Social workers would not exist. Nor would contraceptives. Nor would laws against child labour.
* There would be no standing police force. If there ever were a crime, one would raise the "hue and cry" and hunt down the scoundrel with his friends and neighbours. Lacking the entertainement of bringing a villain to justice, hunting down a witch (preferably young and good-looking) would be the next best thing.
* Divorce would not exist and marriage vows would be considered iron-clad. Occasional "nullifications" of marriage would also involve iron usually in the form of a dagger or an axe.
* Children born out of wedlock would not be subsidized by the government (although they might be taken in by the Church). They would have to work in order to make a living.
* Every major feast day on the Church calendar would be a day of prayer, celebration, and abstention/exemption from servile labour. Fortunately, the restrictions regarding to right to call "party time" have been lifted.
* Usury would be illegal. However interest rates of 300% would be considered "within reason".
* There would be no laws against prayer anywhere, and Christian children would be taught to abhor rather than love the Moslem religion. However non-clerical people would be sentenced to death for owning a bible and spread around their own laymen's interpretations of it. As far as modern Christian science was concerned the brightest theologic students of the time clearly determined that Muslims worship the Gods Baal and Melcart and therefore had to be considered pagans.
* Owls and fish would not be given preference over humans when discussing land use. You wouldn't need a permit or license to kill the wolf that is harassing your livestock. However failing to deliver your prey (owls, fish, wolves and all) to the local nobleman would mark you a poacher, as such you'd be hung by your neck.
* Most goods purchased would have been made locally by one of your neighbours or a craftsman from the nearest city. Except for spiceries, fine ceramics, imported textiles, pelts, certain metals, ... while the nearest settlement qualifying as a "city" might be a couple of days away.
* Government welfare would not exist; begging for alms or relying on the charity of the Church would be a humbling experience, not a government entitlement. Physically large men would definately have an advantage here as they could convey the spirit of charity much clearer, often helping the passer-by to find his purse.
* Neighbors would not be encouraged by the government to snitch on one another. They would be encouraged by the church.
* Neighbours would actually know each other and attend Mass together. If for no other reason than not to give their neighbor anything to snitch on.
* Homosexuality would be an exceedingly rare yet punishable crime, not a mandated subject for "education" in public schools (which of course, would not exist). Of course if you had enough money to buy some goodwill you would not be "homosexual" but "weird".
* Personal responsibility, cause and effect, and consequences of bad decisions would not be replaced by terms such as genetic defects or the results of a dysfunctional family. Despite "Genesis" still being the official story, evolution was already up and running strongly.
* Most areas would not even have a standing court; what crime there was could be adequately handled by the local lord in addition to his other duties. Such as taxing the peasants and executing his priviledge "prima noctis".
* Lawyers would not specialise in any one area of law because there wouldn't be enough business. Mostly because most punishment would be over before any successful appeal could be made, or it would be of a finality that would make an appeal obsolete.
* The borders would be there for a reason other than to make lines on maps. Taxation of travellers was already a profitable business, harbinger of today's speed traps and parking tickets.
* Abortion would not be a subject for debate anywhere. The local herb doctor would know best what to do.
* Citizens would have the right (duty) to protect their lives, families and property without fear of being prosecuted for doing so. Because in case they used their right of protection against a more influencal person, the reprimand would be swift and direct.
* Most people would have their own plot of land and could not be forced off of it. Except if they failed to pay their 10th.
* No one would pay income or property tax. Farmers would work their lord's land one or two days a week. They would have to pay tolls on major roads, but these would be travelled but rarely. And compusory charity could hardly be regarded as "taxaton". Neither the church's 10th, a priviledge for each to pay. Nor extraordinary tributes (such as randoms for releasing a lord from prison or to keep the vikings from destroying London) for they were extraordinary.
* The media would consist of travelling pilgrims, peddlars, and troubadours. The stories they told usually involved utter nonsense such as Dragons, One-Eyed Giants or Unicorns. Which was a great deal more plausible than an average White House press release nowadays.
* No one would care about a place called Iraq; they might care about a place called the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. There would be lots of hate and outrage about the stories of Muslim raiders in the Holy Land robbing and murdering Christian pilgrims. Nonregarding that Christian raiders along the route to the Holy Land would do the same to their Christian brothers.

[Mikolaj]

I have a relative that went to the university of Tubingin and became of Judge. This was in the 17th century. I wonder how common that was. Surely I come from superior stock.

[CeilingCat]

If you really want to live in medieval times then you should move to a village in Afghanistan or Bhutan. That's probably the closest you'll get in this day and age.

[Velocity Girl]

Well thank God we've moved on somewhat in the last 757 years.

[Thompson_NCL]

Uhm, you are aware it's 2010 and this topic is from 2006, right?

[Ter]

Well thank God we've moved on somewhat in the last 757 years.

Except for the antibiotics and shit, no, I don't think so.

They have since invented feminism and shit and it galls all our lives.


Ter

[Velocity Girl]

Uhm, you are aware it's 2010 and this topic is from 2006, right?

I didn't realise this was such a slow-moving forum...

Except for the antibiotics and shit, no, I don't think so.

They have since invented feminism and shit and it galls all our lives.


Ter

Tell you what, throw your computer in the bin. You'll be one step closer to 1253, and I'll be happier.

[Thompson_NCL]

I didn't realise this was such a slow-moving forum...

The history section is not a very active area of the forum truth be told. Probably because there is a dedicated history forum, but also because people most people post historical issues in other areas of the forum too.

[MB.]

Velocity Girl is probably one of Ixabert's many admirers.

[Section Leader]

We also had the freedom to die of diseases that are considered trivial today.

[Rich]

No one would care about a place called Iraq;

Back then people in Europe cared deeply about Iraq. Many Bible stories used stories that came form Iraq at various stages of Biblical history. Empires that included large parts or all of Iraq played a significant part in the Bible. So if you threw out a casual remark like, I'm not sure if Abraham came form Sumer, or I'm not sure the Assyrians were really that bad, you would suffer the most hideous torture and be murdered. In modern Europe or European America today's passions about Iraq are trivial compared to those aroused in Europe in Medieval times.

[pugsville]

most people would have ZERO knowledge of Iraq. Most people were illiterate, the bible is in Latin, which most people do not speak. Any knowledge of the middle east would be limited to crusade stuff and be very very vague.

[QatzelOk]

Reading the OP list, it's clear that progress is a chimera.

We have lost many more lifestyle perks than we have gained.

Modernity is all marketing and extinction.

[Smilin' Dave]

I know you would really benefit from this item Qatz:

Homosexuality would be an exceedingly rare yet punishable crime, not a mandated subject for "education" in public schools (which of course, would not exist).

Enjoy your punishable existence (and shorter lifespan*... and feudal political arrangements) while I enjoy my "chimerical progress" with the divorced women and their contraceptives.

Seriously, did you read the list first?

*making 'extinction' a very personal phenomena for you, no marketing required.

[Ter]

I enjoy my "chimerical progress" with the divorced women and their contraceptives.

Really ? Do you fuck widows also ?

Who'd have thought ? Our Smilin' Dave !


Ter

[QatzelOk]

Homosexuality would be an exceedingly rare yet punishable crime

This one simply isn't true.

385 BC – Plato's Symposium is published in which it is argued that love between males is the highest form and that sex with women is lustful and only for means of reproduction. Only with men can the Greek male reach his full intellectual potential.

149 BC – The Lex scantinia, a Roman law, regulates homosexuality for the first time on record. According to the law, homosexuality should be denied between adult males and for male prostitution to protect the youth of noble families. It is probable that such a law was meant to prevent the possibility of an adult noble-born male becoming subject to sodomy by a slave.

218 – The emperor Elagabalus begins his reign. He marries a man named Zoticus, an athlete from Smyrna, in a lavish public ceremony at Rome amid the rejoicings of the public.

1250–1300 – Homosexual activity radically passes from being completely legal in the most of Europe to incurring the death penalty in most european states.

source

So in most of Europe in 1253, homosexuality was completely legal and very common. It was the imposition of Abrahamic religion (a new technology then) that this natural human behavior was repressed in order to "improve" on nature. And the Crusades happened around the same time that homosexuality became punishable by death. The military-religious complex replaced natural sexual relations with men with non-stop wars for Jesus.

But in 1253, this transformation hadn't taken place. Gay sex was common and legal and fun.

[Smilin' Dave]

Really ? Do you fuck widows also ?

Who'd have thought ? Our Smilin' Dave !

I figure if there were enough adherents to the above list and its 'glory days' it will be a more level playing field for me

This one simply isn't true.

You agreed with the whole list in your first response. Now you pick and choose. In other words my accusation, that you didn't really read that shit, is totally true.

But in 1253, this transformation hadn't taken place.

But your source says:

1250–1300 – Homosexual activity radically passes from being completely legal in the most of Europe to incurring the death penalty in most european states.

So 1253 is as the start of this apparent slippery slope to anti-gay law... and short ride down the slope to, since its only 50 years. Mind you, with your reduced life expectancy in 1253 you might not live all of that 50 years... was that the master plan?

Then I became suspicious by the massive jump between jolly 218 and 1250-1300... was there no relevant history in this period? Of course there was:

342 – The first law against same-sex marriage was promulgated by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans.

390 – In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.

But hey the Roman Empire was such a small place. Public execution... Qatz, I know you love to be the centre of attention but I don't think you would enjoy the burning bit.

589 – The Visigothic kingdom in Spain, is converted from Arianism to Catholicism. This conversion leads to a revision of the law to conform to those of Catholic countries. These revisions include provisions for the persecution of gays and Jews.

Catholicism being rare prior to 1253 right Qatz?

1120 – Baldwin II of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, convenes the Council of Nablus to address the vices within the Kingdom. The Council calls for the burning of individuals who perpetually commit sodomy.

The holy land isn't even safe!

1232 – Pope Gregory IX starts the Inquisition in the Italian City-States. Some cities called for banishment and/or amputation as punishments for 1st- and 2nd-offending sodomites and burning for the 3rd or habitual offenders.

Better stay away from Italy too then.

So the image you tried to create that early Europe was a land of generally legal homosexuality seems to be highly misleading to put it mildly. The examples also highly that 'Abrahamic religion' didn't just magically kick in around 1250, it was an important factor the whole time. And this is from the the source you produced! Once again you apparently didn't read the whole thing.

[QatzelOk]

So 1253 is as the start of this apparent slippery slope to anti-gay law.

So what?

The OP asks us to imagine ourselves frozen in time in 1253 in Europe.

And in almost all of Europe at that time, gay sex was available and legal.

The rest of your post is pointless because it strays from both the particular time-frame of the OP, as well as from the geographic non-specificity (Europe?).

[Smilin' Dave]

The OP asks us to imagine ourselves frozen in time in 1253 in Europe.

And in almost all of Europe at that time, gay sex was available and legal.

How much of Europe? Your quoted text does specify... and text I quoted from the same source shows anti-gay laws hardly being unusual.

The rest of your post is pointless because it strays from both the particular time-frame of the OP

Captain narrative deconstruction now wants to play the 'stick with the OP' card? Have you actually made time to read the whole OP yet Qatz?

Your response WRT to the OP was grounded in events prior to the 1253 'start', you even quoted specific years. Not only is limiting ourselves only to the OP's material and the exact year 1253 a nonsensical barrier, it is dishonest for you to introduce material prior to this arbitrary start point, and then refuse to debate material in this area further.

as well as from the geographic non-specificity (Europe?).

Which one of the items I quoted would have no applicability to the already broad area of Europe. Wait... actually, the OP doesn't mention Europe anywhere?... you want to stick to the OP, but misrepresented the OP (as quoted, you think its about Europe), then complained I wasn't sticking to the OP even when my response was within the bounds you set? I hope you find this as confusing as I do right now.

Maybe you should just stop here Qatz, every post you've made in this thread has been an unmitigated disaster. I don't think I'll even have to further demonstrate the hole you've inexpertly dug for yourself here.