Classical Era > Medieval Era

[Battletoads]

This is about the happiness of people.

Medieval era had serfs,plagues, Religion which was twisted to meet their own needs and the wars. Classical era had slaves , brutal religions , barbarians.

Anyone else agree that it was much better to live in the classical era then medieval?

[Stavroforos]

No.

Or at least no until Sig shows up.

[Juggernaut]

Um, Classical era had plenty of plagues and war as well. Personally, I wouldn't want live in either era. In fact, I don't want to live in any era but now.

[Xerrop]

Medieval era had serfs,plagues, Religion which was twisted to meet their own needs and the wars. Classical era had slaves , brutal religions , barbarians.

Classical era had also serfs, plagues and wars, while Medieval era had also slaves and barbarians

And why would classical religions be more brutal?

[Stavroforos]

Classical era had serfs? This is news to me...

[Visitor13]

Both eras sucked to live in. If I had to choose, I'd choose the classical era for its superior medicine.

[gaius valerius]

Both era's faced equal hardships for the common man. Medieval medicine relied on the classic heritage and don't forget that most medicine was done by 'popular' rituals and the use of 'witches' (male/female), who's knowledge directly traces back to pre-medieval traditions.

[Babur]

Classical era had serfs? This is news to me...

Late antiquity had the beginnings of serfdom once law and order in the countryside of the Western Roman Empire began to break down.People there couldn't really afford to pay full taxes.Some say this downturn financially and economically had their origins in the crisis of the third century.

I think this thread is misleading if it is a euro-centric view of the period.For example the Parthian and Sassanid states bore a remarkable resemblance to later Medieval Europe in terms of the satraps and the use of heavy and fully armoured cavalry.

Both eras sucked to live in. If I had to choose, I'd choose the classical era for its superior medicine.

it was probably better than America's healthcare system today!

[Lord Tomyris]

Civilisation for the win!

[gaius valerius]

I think this thread is misleading if it is a euro-centric view of the period.For example the Parthian and Sassanid states bore a remarkable resemblance to later Medieval Europe in terms of the satraps and the use of heavy and fully armoured cavalry.

Which it probably is being that we're arguing a eurocentric part of history, referring to classical and medieval period, not something immediately applicable to other parts of the world. This thread isn't aiming at the whole world it seems, but specifically at Europe, not at Persia, India, China or anything else.

[Odovacar]

Life was hard back then.
Today it seems to be easier,(in some places!) (and medically it certainly may be) but we have new problems..a wasted nature, alienation, frustration, relying too much on machines.
Life is hard in every period, in every time. For some, there is luck, for others there isn't.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

This is about the happiness of people.

Medieval era had serfs,plagues, Religion which was twisted to meet their own needs and the wars. Classical era had slaves , brutal religions , barbarians.

Anyone else agree that it was much better to live in the classical era then medieval?

First off, you are making very rough generalizations. F.e. classical era wasn't about just the slaves, and the slavery = eternal misery myth has been debunked several times. Secondly, you can't possibly compare these two eras, both of them had their highlights and their darker spots. Both of them made progress in human history and made steps backwards. Ranke, the German historian said somewhere that "all eras and all societies are equally distant from God". Thirdly and finally, you can't measure happiness, there's no sure-fire scientific, philosophical or any other method to do that. Even if you choose a half-arsed method which won't produce any appreciable data, it will rely on your definition of "happiness", which is always subjective. At least we can tell, that happiness has not much to do with financial abundance, welfare or political freedom. Diogenes was a happy man and he lived in a barrel and had one piece of ragged cloth to wear. Jesus was a happy man, even when he lost everything in life, was tortured and agonized on the cross. Seneca was a happy man, even though he was sick, lived in constant danger under Nero, and had to commit suicide on Nero's order. As Gandhi said once, happiness isn't about the outer world, it is an inner mindset irrelevant to the circumstances and events of your life. That's why it's immeasurable.

[Visitor13]

As Gandhi said once, happiness isn't about the outer world, it is an inner mindset irrelevant to the circumstances and events of your life. That's why it's immeasurable.

This bears repeating.

Though on the whole the classical era probably boasts longer periods of peace than the medieval one, especially under Roman and Han rule. I think it's fair to say this had a lot to do with the contentment (not the same thing as happiness) of the general populace.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Generally true, Power, but Senca wwasnt poor, he was one of the richest man in Rome...

True and my bad.

This bears repeating.

Though on the whole the classical era probably boasts longer periods of peace than the medieval one, especially under Roman and Han rule. I think it's fair to say this had a lot to do with the contentment (not the same thing as happiness) of the general populace.

It may be the case, but even then you can't compare these wars as the methods, weapons, tactics and outcomes were very different. And war doesn't equal the lack of "happiness". There were a lot of groups of people who enjoyed warfare and did it out of living and passion. Hegel's political philosophy comes to my mind, who thought of wars as a necessary tool for human progress:

Hegel addresses Kant’s position on the cause of war at several points in “Elements of the Philosophy of Right”. While Hegel agrees with Kant’s position that war catalyzes the development of humanity he offers a critique of Kant’s aspirations of perpetual peace. For Hegel war is a byproduct of the state and will always exist. War serves the function of revitalizing the state. Further, Hegel believed that if perpetual peace were to be accomplished it would only lead to the state becoming “rigid and ossified” ultimately leading to its death.

The state is of primary importance for Hegel because it is the highest expression of rationality. The state is the harmonious construction of rational thought applied to questions of the right and ethics. Hegel describes the state as a structure in which “through the strict proportions in which every pillar, arch, and buttress is held together, produces the strength of the whole from the harmony of its parts”. Unlike Kant, Hegel does not argue that the individual was compelled to join the state in order to rationally conqueror social antagonism. Instead, Hegel argues that the individual does not have access to meaning without the state. Because the state is the expression of thought and the universal “it is only through being a member of the state that the individual himself has objectivity, truth, and ethical life”. It is through the state that the spirit underlying world history is expressed and moves towards its end.

In Hegel’s view, a consequence of the individual access to “objectivity, truth, and ethical life” through active membership in the state is that individuals are also given access to a “higher form” of action. The movement of the individual into the universal, ie the state, is akin to the formation of a many. In the case of valour, for example, Hegel notes, “the true valour of civilized nations is their readiness for sacrifice in the service of the state, so that the individual merely counts as one among many”. Further, “not personal courage but integration with the universal is the important factor here”. This “integration with the universal” requires a “total obedience and renunciation of personal opinion and reasoning”. Through service to the state the individual becomes a member of the whole. Their action is therefore elevated to a higher level in which their opponent is also a universal. Valour when expressed in its higher form is deed directed “not against individual persons, but against a hostile whole in general”. This explains why modern warfare has increasingly been directed against populations. Hegel saw the development of the gun as an expression of thought that has “turned the purely personal form of valour into a more abstract form”. This position complicates any discussion of the cause of war because it suggests that the state must create, and kill, its enemy at each stage of its development. For example, we can imagine that a given country invaded the same neighboring country at several different points it its history. As the invader country progressed it would experience its enemy in different ways and would use different methods of killing at each stage of this movement from the personal to the abstract.

Under Hegel’s view, it is a duty for the individual to defend the state: “in so far as the state as such and its independence are at risk, duty requires all citizens to rally to its defence”. Even if it weren’t a duty, the formation of the “military estate” that carries out these wars on behalf of the state is a necessary consequence of the state’s existence:

The fact that the armed power of the state becomes a standing army and that the vocation for the particular task of defending it becomes an estate is [a result of] the same necessity whereby its particular moments, interests and functions become estates such as those of marriage, trade and industry, the civil service, business, etc.

If the formation of the military estate is a necessary consequence of the state, is the creation of an enemy also inevitable? Hegel argues yes. Addressing Kant’s prescription for perpetual peace, Hegel argues that “the state is an individual, and negation is an essential component of individuality. Thus, even if a number of states join together as a family, this league, in its individuality, must generate opposition and create an enemy”.

The inevitability of war plays a positive role in the development of the state because it acts to revitalize thought and society. While Kant held the position that peace was something imposed through rational thought, Hegel argues that this imposition would lead to stagnation:

In peace, the bounds of civil life are extended, all its spheres become firmly established, and in the long run, people become stuck in their ways. Their particular characteristics become increasingly rigid and ossified. But the unity of the body is essential to the health, and if its parts grow internally hard, the result is death.

The state is not morally culpable for using war to revitalize itself because states are individuals and interact as “independent units which make mutual stipulations but at the same time stand above these stipulations”. Further, there is no higher power than that of the state which is the expression of rationality and the universal: “the nation state is the spirit in its substantial rationality and immediate actuality, and is therefore the absolute power on earth; each state is consequently a sovereign and independent entity in relation to others”. Ultimately, the state’s individuality makes war the only way of solving disputes: “if no agreement can be reached between particular wills, conflicts between states can be settled only by war”. Thus, for Hegel, war is a necessary, and sometimes positive, consequence of the progression of world history.

Source:
http://www.why-war.com/commentary/20...leuze_war.html

[Odovacar]

Generally true, Power, but Senca wwasnt poor, he was one of the richest man in Rome...

[the_mango55]

Several sources I've seen indicate that being a serf in the middle ages really wasn't all that bad.

[ivan_the_terrible]

I think the only point I can add that hasn't been raised is that quite possibly the fluctuation of the quality of life within the eras were maybe greater than between them.

For instance, archeology suggests that peasants in england in the 10th-12th centuries were quite big and strong (healthy), while evidence from 13th-14th centuries suggests the opposite (unhealthy).

I don't know of specific examples, but I'm sure life varied in different times within the classical era too.


Then there's the geographical differences to consider...