4 ms·

The author seems not to know what a codpiece is, as if he thinks it's an unneeded extra garment men wore on top to draw attention to their genitals. Mens' trou

by w0mbat 6y ago

The author seems not to know what a codpiece is, as if he thinks it's an unneeded extra garment men wore on top to draw attention to their genitals. Mens' trousers in those days were two separate garments: a left leg and a right leg. It's why we still say "a pair of trousers". You needed a codpiece to cover the gap in the middle, and it would also help hold your trousers up. Peasants didn't need to bother with all this stuff as they could not afford trousers and would just wear a dirty tunic like a sack. Then someone invented modern trousers that are one garment and the codpiece was not needed any more.

Non24Throw 6y ago
It’s amazing to me how different the reality of that era is from depictions of it in entertainment. For example, I recently read that wars during that time were fought mostly by peasant hordes, and they didn’t have the resources to train and equip them, so mostly they all just beat each other to death with wooden clubs or whatever blunt object happened to be available. Thousands of starving and diseased peasants covered in dirt and potato sacks clubbing each other to death with sticks isn’t exactly the story we want to see or read about, though. We want skillful knights with swords, archers and trebuchets, chainmail and plate helmets, etc. But most of the violence was peasants, and most of the wars were won by peasants. And somewhat ironically, a lot of the shiny equipment and weaponry we love served its most significant role in allowing the ruling class to subjugate their peasant hordes into fighting those wars for them (knowing that an even worse fate awaits them back at home if they refuse to fight)... Peasants were then mostly written out of history, one common exception being peasant revolts, presumably because stories of revolt are more sympathetic to the ruling class than stories about peasants winning all of their wars for them... I’m writing this because I think it’s interesting, but also because you seem like you might know whether it’s true or not haha. Do you think what I read is mostly true, or is it more theory/fantasy?
- donavanm 6y ago
  I would suggest looking in to the origins of the “company” for professionalization of the military in the renaissance. Before that it depends on where you were, but lords were generally responsible for raising and arming vassals for the kingdoms campaigns. The level of equipment and training varies, but there are interesting examples like english yeomanry. Re peasant revolts these were almost never popular class uprising AFAICT. It looked a lot more like a commoner or minor noble taking on a warlord position against the local rulers. Think of afghanistan or parts of NE africa for equivalants.
artsyca 6y ago
It wasn't only trousers but the entire outfit including the top i.e. the much reviled suit that saved people from these elaborate costumes You think they could've invented the t shirt back then and been done with it

by w0mbat 6y ago

Non24Throw 6y ago

It’s amazing to me how different the reality of that era is from depictions of it in entertainment. For example, I recently read that wars during that time were fought mostly by peasant hordes, and they didn’t have the resources to train and equip them, so mostly they all just beat each other to death with wooden clubs or whatever blunt object happened to be available. Thousands of starving and diseased peasants covered in dirt and potato sacks clubbing each other to death with sticks isn’t exactly the story we want to see or read about, though. We want skillful knights with swords, archers and trebuchets, chainmail and plate helmets, etc. But most of the violence was peasants, and most of the wars were won by peasants. And somewhat ironically, a lot of the shiny equipment and weaponry we love served its most significant role in allowing the ruling class to subjugate their peasant hordes into fighting those wars for them (knowing that an even worse fate awaits them back at home if they refuse to fight)... Peasants were then mostly written out of history, one common exception being peasant revolts, presumably because stories of revolt are more sympathetic to the ruling class than stories about peasants winning all of their wars for them... I’m writing this because I think it’s interesting, but also because you seem like you might know whether it’s true or not haha. Do you think what I read is mostly true, or is it more theory/fantasy?

donavanm 6y ago
I would suggest looking in to the origins of the “company” for professionalization of the military in the renaissance. Before that it depends on where you were, but lords were generally responsible for raising and arming vassals for the kingdoms campaigns. The level of equipment and training varies, but there are interesting examples like english yeomanry. Re peasant revolts these were almost never popular class uprising AFAICT. It looked a lot more like a commoner or minor noble taking on a warlord position against the local rulers. Think of afghanistan or parts of NE africa for equivalants.

artsyca 6y ago

It wasn't only trousers but the entire outfit including the top i.e. the much reviled suit that saved people from these elaborate costumes You think they could've invented the t shirt back then and been done with it