Quote from: dragoner;903617These would be when?

Pretty much all the time.  I think Bren has the right of it.  Ever read the Peasants of Languedoc (1966)?  It is a landmark in social history that studies the poor classes in southern France over a 400 year period (14th-18th centuries).  There is lots of violence, but it is all religious conflict, mostly with other peasants. There is nothing that could be construed as a genuine peasant revolt where the aristocracy and social order was the target of unrest.  There have of course been many studies since in different eras and places. Peasant life was pretty stable and static - for the most part - perhaps even remarkably so. There were of course many peasant revolts in Europe over the many centuries between Rome and modernity, but for most of us, exceptional events are a lot more interesting then normal day to day patterns of life so we tend to focus on the exceptions rather than the norm.  Most peasants spent their lives farming, praying, fucking, and drinking a lot, but never dreaming of or seeing a peasant revolt.  The world wasn't braveheart, and concepts of freedom, self-determination, and revolutionary social orders are a modern rather than a medieval thought form.

not that it is any of my business to interject in your conversation...

From what I understand, there were occasional uprisings, but only occasional, and only when the local lord was utterly unendurable and his reachable superiors were just as bad - in short, if all legitimate options were exhausted. Which was exceptionally rare, for reasons already discussed. Even then, the aristocratic system wasn't the target, only the specific aristocrat. At least that's my minimally-informed understanding.

As for adventurers, in a D&D milieu, they exist because they're needed: they fill a necessary role, that of pushing back the often very dangerous frontier, and opposing forces and solving problems for which conventional guards are ill-suited. They're basically the equivalent of special forces at the start of their careers and as they advance reach the equivalent of superhero status - and power. A good monarch will deal honestly with them and give them reasonable latitude because they are personally powerful, and they are important to his kingdom, and because they're usually good or at worst neutral - meaning of good or neutral alignment, so they're reasonably trustworthy. Neutral monarchs will do the same because it's beneficial to them not to give the self-propelled WMDs a reason to take his throne. "Your majesty," says the advisor to the neutral monarch, "you rule by the might of your guardsmen and your armies. It is through them you hold your throne. These people defeat armies. They do not take your throne because they do not want or need your throne. Don't give them a reason to think they do." Evil monarchs... well, there's a reason evil dynasties don't often happen or last in a D&D milieu.

Quote from: Madprofessor;903630There is nothing that could be construed as a genuine peasant revolt where the aristocracy and social order was the target of unrest.

I would dispute the source then, wiki gives a list of larger revolts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts with three in France during the 14th century. No, they were not about "concepts of freedom, self-determination, and revolutionary social orders", more just about rights being taken away, or some such, the wiki gives a list of various causes. They were often small, and generally forgotten, with the victors writing the history. Another side of the social order is that those at the bottom, just didn't care, and rebelled not to subvert the social order, more likely the wolves of starvation were barking at their doors, and their only feeling being "if I die, I'm taking you with me."

I would say the bucolic peasant life image is more a creation of Victorian Romanticists, it fairly reeks of their ideology.

Quote from: dragoner;903637Another side of the social order is that those at the bottom, just didn't care, and rebelled not to subvert the social order, more likely the wolves of starvation were barking at their doors...

Starving people don't rebel.

BTW on teeth, bad teeth was the result of sugar, and England only established sugar colonies at the end of the 16th century. Without sugar, medieval humans' teeth were no worse than typical animals' teeth, except molars got ground down by stone flakes in the bread flour.

Quote from: dragoner;903637I would dispute the source then, wiki gives a list of larger revolts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts with three in France during the 14th century. No, they were not about "concepts of freedom, self-determination, and revolutionary social orders", more just about rights being taken away, or some such, the wiki gives a list of various causes. They were often small, and generally forgotten, with the victors writing the history. Another side of the social order is that those at the bottom, just didn't care, and rebelled not to subvert the social order, more likely the wolves of starvation were barking at their doors, and their only feeling being "if I die, I'm taking you with me."

I would say the bucolic peasant life image is more a creation of Victorian Romanticists, it fairly reeks of their ideology.

Well, if you look at the list, it's pretty small if you consider it covers 2,000 years of global history almost all of which was under aristocratic rule.  Also, at least a third of the list are from the wars of religion which affected all classes of society and were really a different animal.  Another third are post French/American-Revolution, the revolution that made social revolt a thing (where rights become a thing).  Of the remaining peasant uprisings, about half are from Chinese dynastic cycles/mandate of heaven.  That leaves maybe a dozen peasant uprisings over 1500 years of global history. France in the 14th was also a special case (black death, 100 years war - see A Distant Mirror (Tuchman)). Now I did notice a couple of rebellions that weren't listed, and I am sure there were many, especially smaller ones lost to history, but there is certainly isn't evidence that revolts were "constant," or indeed even common. I agree that peasant life was often falsely romanticized in the Victorian and even the modern era (Tolkien), but there isn't evidence to suggest that peasants were in a constant froth. As far as sources, wikipedia trumping la Roy Laudurie? Anyway, I don't mean to get all pedantic and jerkish about a side issue.  It's just that "constant" peasant uprising is a pretty strong misscharacterization of medieval society.

Quote from: S'mon;903643Starving people don't rebel.

Wrong. "Let them eat cake."

BTW Sugar is sugar, chemically, whether in fruit or sugar cane.

Quote from: Madprofessor;903662Anyway, I don't mean to get all pedantic and jerkish about a side issue.  It's just that "constant" peasant uprising is a pretty strong misscharacterization of medieval society.

Because you are wrong, that would give you reason. If you want to play out some childish fantasy-fairytale about bucolic peasants happy and having fun all the time, nobody is stopping you, but don't represent it as real. Being a peasant was shit, and living a shitty life, inequality breeds hate, one of the basic foundations of human competiveness, and part of the animal nature of humans. I'm not using one single book and one single country to characterize the entire world, I don't care who wrote it. I know from just studying central Europe around the Peasant's War, it was a slow burn. Ever from my own family history, one of my ancestors returned from fighting the turks and had a dispute with a priest and he hacked the priest's hands off and had him burned alive, he had a rebuke from the archbishop, any mention of stirring up the peasants resolved the issue quickly.

Living in shit, where someone else keeps you in line through acts of terror, that never breeds dissent. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903616They're always revolting, the bad teeth, the knobby knees...

Oh wait...

Exactly. Glad you got the reference.

Quote from: dragoner;903617These would be when?

When they aren't revolting. Which words are confusing to you?

If your thesis is that peasants were all, always and everywhere in a state of active revolt against the aristocracy then you should provide some support. Three revolts doesn't even come close to TOTAL PEASANT WAR!!!! (Also what Madprofessor said.)

Quote from: dragoner;903637I would dispute the source then, wiki gives a list of larger revolts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts with three in France during the 14th century.

To dispute the source you actually have to understand what Madprofessor said and read and understand what your source says.

Languedoc is in the south of France. The three revolts wiki mentions are in the north of France. They last for a total duration of at most 5 years in Flanders, 1 year in the Oise valley north of Paris, and 1 year in the city of Rouen. All those locations are in the north (not the south) of France. So your sources support, not refute what Madprofessor said.

Most provinces in France were unaffected by peasant revolt for the entire century. Most years all provinces were unaffected by peasant revolt. Peasant revolt was not constant.

QuoteI would say the bucolic peasant life image is more a creation of Victorian Romanticists, it fairly reeks of their ideology.

No one (except you) said bucolic. No one said peasant life was pleasant. Only that it was usually a stable routine unbroken by open revolt.

Quote from: dragoner;903675Wrong. "Let them eat cake."

It was brioche not cake.

dragoner you still haven't provided anything other than some half-baked ideology that supports your contention that the European peasantry was in a constant state of revolution. Please try harder or just talk about RPGs.

Nowhere do I state that there was "TOTAL PEASANT WAR!!!!", if you have to extrapolate it that far just to be right, you are fairly ignorant. Then again, you are saying that everything was fine, in a time of incredible cruelty, ignorance and superstition, where being 30 was old, and watching your entire family die of a fever in your one room shit shack.

He's only saying that peasant revolts were uncommon (and providing sources). You, on the other side, are saying that peasant revolts were, in your own words, constant. But you haven't provided sources, and the ancestor you mention at the top of the page was clearly an aristocrat of some stripe. So his anger at a priest is quite irrelevant to peasants' feelings toward the nobility.

Quote from: dragoner;903686Nowhere do I state that there was "TOTAL PEASANT WAR!!!!", if you have to extrapolate it that far just to be right, you are fairly ignorant. Then again, you are saying that everything was fine, in a time of incredible cruelty, ignorance and superstition, where being 30 was old, and watching your entire family die of a fever in your one room shit shack.

Yes you caught me. "TOTAL PEASANT WAR!!!!" is an exaggeration and a caricature of your claim that the peasants were constantly in revolt.

But I don't have to extrapolate to be right. Let’s look back to where we started.

Quote from: Bren;903591

Quote from: dragoner;903586There were constant peasant uprisings, Europe, Japan, where ever.

Frequent and usually localized. Not constant.

Now either you agree that peasants revolts were not constant and that they were usually localized or you don’t. You seem to be disagreeing. So provide some facts to support your position.

No one has said, "everything was fine." No one has said that life as a peasant was rainbows, butterflies, and free beer or even that life as a peasant was pleasant. You keep claiming we are saying things that no one is saying.

• Try actually responding to the things we are saying.

• Try finding support for your claim that the usual state of affairs for the typical peasant in most locales was a life in active revolt against the aristocracy.

• Or just admit you were wrong about the peasants constantly being in revolt.

Quote from: Whitewings;903690He's only saying that peasant revolts were uncommon (and providing sources).

Where are his sources? The only sources are mine. He is engaging in fucking idiocy is what he is doing. Parsimony of science explains that the most simple of answers is usually true, was the system stable? No. Proof? It no longer exists.

Quote from: Bren;903691Yes you caught me. "TOTAL PEASANT WAR!!!!" is an exaggeration and a caricature of your claim that the peasants were constantly in revolt.

So just admit you are wrong then, or just an idiot. I don't care either way, I promise that. Your argument is a weak semantics quibble.

Quote from: dragoner;903675Wrong. "Let them eat cake."

BTW Sugar is sugar, chemically, whether in fruit or sugar cane.

"They say that every society is only three meals away from revolution. Deprive a culture of food for three meals, and you'll have an anarchy. And it's true, isn't it? You haven't eaten for a couple of days, and you've turned into a barbarian."

Quote from: dragoner;903686where being 30 was old

This is incorrect; it's a misunderstanding of how life expectancy is calculated for populations, especially third world ones.  Life expectancy is a mathematical average, which means infant mortality and deaths from war, famine and disease all drag the number down (especially infant mortality, which is why there's some debate about whether it should be included).  30 would not have been considered "old" throughout the European Middle Ages.  Death rates once past infancy just weren't high enough for that; it took the two Great Plagues to depopulate Europe seriously enough to change the demographics.