Mudcorebros... We lost.

Traditional games?

>>95937457
What motivates a man to spend his days trying to change a board he clearly neither likes, understands or belongs in? This is not the only RPG-related site in existence, anon, and I'm sure there's some place that'd be a better fit for you. Maybe RPGnet, I hear they're big on strict moderation.

>>95937457
Go back to rēddit you ass eating faggot. We have ALWAYS had topics on /tg/ that are in the periphery of traditional games without actually discussing specific rulesets or mechanics. Medieval art styles and inspiration is 100% within the scope of /tg/ and you'd know that if you weren't a gay nigger

>>95937499
>>95937621
He really struck a nerve, huh?
It's okay, you can always just go to /v/ if you want to make random offtopic threads on a blue board.

>>95937664
Yes, anon, he did. Seeing dumb, shit in my favorite board does strike a nerve, especially when it's the same dumb shit in thread after thread, and even more so when that dumb shit isn't just the kind of shitposting every site has but some tourist who's apparently earnestly trying to stop /tg/ from having the kinds of discussions we've always had. Someone waltzing in, taking a look, deciding that he doesn't like the place but instead of going somewhere more to his tastes declaring "You're board culture is shit, we'll do it my way from now on" absolutely does piss me off, and I see no reason to pretend otherwise.

>>95937664
The irony here is that posting the same one liner phrase in every single thread you don't like is exactly the kind of shit you see on /v/

>>95937621
While I agree on the principle, this is really such a low effort OP. Doing some buzzwords, and some pic, like what er we even doing here?

>>95937699
NTA, but I've been here for quite a while, and these '1 line of text with a picture' threads are far from 'board culture', unless you count shitposts and barely relevant posts as 'board culture'.
If they are, they are the worst parts of the board, and really should not be DEFENDED by others.

>>95937440 (OP)
Ah yes, medieval art, well known for its lifelikeness and accuracy.

>>95938020
I actually like this art, does it have a name?

>>95938035
Medieval bestiary?

>>95937699
Report him for spamming/flooding. That's what I do. You're not alone in the hate for this off-site invader.

>>95937927
Oh, I wasn't specifically talking about this thread, just about that same "WHAT GAEM??!!" being in so many threads these days, including ones that clearly belong to /tg/.

>>95938035
yes. its called /monks screwing with each other for shits and giggles. its accompanied by little notations like 'where does the goat's horns go again? i never seen one.' in latin. followed by 'on its arse, behind its wings' also in shitty latin.

>>95938035
'Marginalia' is a good place to start, but just looking at medieval art in general will get you some interesting stuff. Unless you mean these specific images, I can't help you there.

For what it's worth, colorful surcoats and banners and such were a sort of "communications equipment" for knights in medieval battles. Everyone had to be able to tell where everybody was on a large battlefield full of hundreds of people at a time before radar and wireless communications. Or wire, come to that. Smaller groups undertaking a specific mission like a typical RPG party would probably wear bare armor or even camouflage themselves with cloaks made from the pelts of local animals or primitive ghillie suits (as seen in Macbeth).

Tldr: mudcore RPG good, mudcore war game bad.

>>95938020
How can you like this? There's no giant snail lancing

>>95938035
https://bestiary.ca/prisources/psdetail1132.htm
the organization is kinda ass so you gotta click each animals name individually to actually see the pictures

>>95937699
Cry more, faggot. Board culture is changing and you're the one who isn't welcome here anymore. So how about you go fuck off somewhere more suited to your tastes?

>>95937440 (OP)
Art is more colourful than reality tbf

>>95938020
Contrarian troon

>>95937440 (OP)
Medieval paintings intentionally used bright colours tho.

>>95938943
Right looks like my house

>>95938954
People intentionally wore bright colors

>>95937440 (OP)
Mudcore won the culture war though and keeps winning

>>95938943
Makes me think of Mexico getting a sepia piss filter in every movie and show.

>>95937499
>>95937621
Newfag(s) detected

>>95940017
>t. tourist samefagging

I got this knight commissioned in colorful medieval courtly aesthetic.

>>95940958
I like the classic "chivalric knight" trope.

>>95937440 (OP)
Hoe did this topic impact your last tabletop gaming session?

>>95940958
>>95940961
damn man, art's kinda shitty and generic
where's the armor paint?

>>95938020
The cool guy takeaway is that that medieval fantasy should also have loads of weird freaky creatures running about. If you put rats in your setting and they don't have human faces or something, get back to the drawing board.

>>95937499
>>95937621
>>95937699
Apply for janitor if it board culture offends you so much.

>>95937499
>>95937621
The louder you seethe at being exposed as the off topic shitspammers you are, the more obvious it is that you only want to ruin what's left of this board.

>>95940982
The AI his artist lies about passing his commissions through wasn't trained on historical art.

>>95941014
astonishing levels of projection from the newnigger hall monitor's toady

I hate how boring modern costume design is compared to how foppish and fun irl fighting men dressed. Black and brown leather with a bunch of buckles doesn't look cool, it looks like something a gay boomer bikerfag would wear.

>>95940988
> board culture
You started doing this last year, newfag.

>>95937440 (OP)
Just wait until you realize that castles were brightly decorated with painted furniture and tapestries, peasants wore bright colored clothes (it was common for each leg to be a different color), and peasant houses were also painted with brightly colored murals in every room.

The middle ages were far from mudcore, their tastes were actually so colorful that it would be considered loud and garish by today's standards. The idea of the middle ages as muted comes from Victorian era sensibilities when many castles were restored according to Victorian tastes, not medieval tastes.

>>95937499
Aaaaah, no games.

>>95942410
Well, yes, that anon having no games is no doubt a part of it, but there must be more to it.

>>95942414
"Innovative tactics are warranted."

>>95940984
I wish more fantasy artists would draw from historical sources for demon designs too: the generic "firey red dude with horns and goat legs" is kind of overdone.

>>95940984
>>95942599
forgot to mention: that's a page from Bodleian Library MS. Douce 134, and not the only depiction of demons in it if you care to look
This one (The Temptation of Saint Anthony, by Martin Schongauer) is from the renaissance but it's another great example of more creative demon designs

>>95940958
>paying for AI slop
Lol
Lmao even

>>95940958
>>95940961
This looks like pauldroncore and anime had a bastard son which then got raped by mudcore and twitter feminist ideas of "realistic" armor.

>>95940958
>>95940961
Lots of people are going to shit on you for this, anon, but I think it looks fine for a character piece and I hope it makes you happy.

>>95941053
>The Great Male Renunciation (French: Grande Renonciation masculine) is the historical phenomenon at the end of the 18th century in which wealthy men of the Western world stopped using bright colours, elaborate shapes and variety in their dress, which were left to women's clothing. Instead, men concentrated on differences of cut and the quality of the clothes' cloth.[1]
>Coined by British psychologist John Flügel in 1930, it is considered a major turning point in the history of clothing in which the men stopped being ornate and detailed.[2] Flügel asserted that men "abandoned their claim to be considered beautiful" and "henceforth aimed at being only useful".[3] The Great Renunciation encouraged the establishment of the suit's monopoly on male dress codes at the beginning of the 19th century.
Perhaps we ought to go back.

>>95941053
>zesty nigga wants to peacock for his bros
Lol.

>>95942789
Unironically ruined men's fashion. Clothing for men is boring as fuck. You only have three options: slob, job interview, and wedding/funeral.

>>95942599
>>95942630
Genital faces are sorely underused.

>>95943360
>You only have three options: slob, job interview, and wedding/funeral.
I don't think it's men's fashion's fault that your drawer's used to reenact the result of the spanish conquest of the West Indies through the medium of hoodies and graphic tees.

>>95942423
You jest but the "traditional games?" spammer was caught failing to recognize a famous 40k pic, they are an actual nogames bitch lmao

>>95943451
Limb joints just being mouths that the rest of the limb emerges from is a nice concept too.
I like to imagine that they can extend/retract the limbs at will: imagine seeing one of these fuckers a long distance away, only for it to suddenly come right up to you in a single really long step.

Mudcore is gay, 70's corny medieval movied were more historically accurate cause at least they had colors in them.
Fuck Hollyjew.

>>95943567
Got an archive link?

>>95937499
There has been an organized effort to change board culture since 2016.
>>95940017
Here he's trying to insinuate that people who prefer the old ways, are in fact new, in an effort to prevent others from agreeing with them.

>>95938943
>Ye olde mayor walking through the town
>Why is all this hay laying around? Get someone to clean that mess up!

>>95942789
Didn't knew this phenomenon had a name. Interesting.

>>95942789
>go back to wearing makeup and dressing in frilly cloths
You can do that right now if you wanted to.

>>95937621
So....no games.

>>95945164
Are you kidding? this has been going on much longer than since 2016.
The several years of bitching about quests, for instance, were a testbed for modern trolling tactics.

>>95939017
>>95938943
I hate this so much too. Having a desert with a yellow sky or a a medieval village of only brown is not “realistic” it’s ugly, boring and obnoxious. Look out your window. It’s the same sun as your ancestors saw 1,000 years ago. Is it the color brown? Does its light sap the color from things? Trees and flowers have been in towns and cities since their inception.

I don’t care about how making everything look like a pig-sty is supposedly necessary for the film’s theming or whatever. The unrealistic lack of colors and excess filth take me out of the experience, and they’re usually being used for the director to assert their own prejudiced view of the setting depicted.

>>95937440 (OP)
If it’s any consolation, the dyes being commonly used at the time would fade easily, so it wouldn’t necessarily be that bright.

>>95938943
>>95939017
>>95945958
Do you guys also get upset when a horror movie is far darker than it is in real life?

>>95946279
I'm not any of those anons, but a horror movie being too dark is one of the classical complains and large common foibles of new horror men.
Yes, it's supposed to be dark, but you still have to see shit.

>>95946279
>dark is when I fuck up the color grading

>>95946279
Yes, I do get upset when a director uses day-for-night in their shitty horror movie.

Plenty of games have stealth mechanics, but it seems like there should be more incentives for visible stuff in medieval-style combat.
>heraldry has morale and/or fellowship bonuses for games that track combatants' psychological state as well as physical damage
>red outer clothing reduces morale penalties from physical damage, since they make bleeding less obvious
>bright colors reduce the chance of friendly fire

>>95946948
>whack someone on the head
>"ow what was that for"
>"sorry, thought you were the enemy"
>

>>95946948
>don red outer garment
>speed increase

>>95937440 (OP)

>>95942599
Now available in miniature form

>>95947052
That's not bad. They do bommyknocker snsils and swordsman rabbits, too?

>>95947063
Those exist as well

>>95947072
It's a crime that Warhammer is the biggest fantasy miniature war game when this exists. There's no justice.

>>95947100
Everything everywhere is dominated by normshit, no point fretting about it.
There's potential indie wargamers everywhere for people that have the nous to find the right potential audience. Even amongst GW fans there's the people that play OOP specialist games, often they pick up fun stuff besides. But also more niche hobbies unrelated on the face of it with a bunch of nerds participating too.

You could have fun painting some medieval soldiers (The Barons War ones by Paul Hicks are pretty lush and price wouldn't be too punitive for a skirmish game) the demons, marginalia, 2'-4' square of terrain, a box to carry it in, choose a setting/miniatures agnostic fantasy system that suits yourself and your audience, and find people to play it with you.

>>95938443
>The average peasant who worked every waking hour of the day?
>and was always one bad harvest away from dying?
>he would totally have splurged to have gaudy clothes!
>Yeah fieldwork would destroy weak pre-modern dyes like this in less than a week
>b-b-but trust me he would have spent heaps of money he didn't have on this
>these colors were really used everywhere and definitely was not reserved for the upper 0.1%

>>95947353
That's stuff dyed with readily-available plant matter. It wouldn't have been as vivid or the colors as long-lasting as noble wear, where, for example, deep blue dyes would be made by crushing lapis lazuli gems.
It's just saying peasants had more options open to them than "dirt brown", "shit brown", and "piss yellow" that hollywood seems to think was all they had.

>>95947353
>these colors were really used everywhere and definitely was not reserved for the upper 0.1%
they actually were
the lords would have been even gaudier and brighter than whats seen there, but peasants definitely dyed their clothes as well

the colors listed in the above pic include actual colors that were available to the peasantry
woad was considered a lower-class dye for instance, weld was widely used by all classes for yellow, red was probably the easiest color to get for any class, and purple was actually common by combining dyes (the hyper expensive snail purple was obviously reserved only for kings, but the point is that some shades of purple could be worn by anyone)

really, the main difference between a noble and a peasant wouldnt be having color
it would be that a peasant has a pinkish red from having an inferior dye and a noble having bright red from a better one
but both definitely were colored
archeological evidence points to undergarments being the only article of clothing that was ALWAYS undyed, whereas outer clothing was only sometimes undyed, usually it was

>>95947385
even when they did wear brown, it was actually a lovely shade of brown made from tannins
not a drab dirt brown that people depict it as

>>95947353
Something simple as onion skins, already a waste product, could produce a bunch of different colours. Field work was only done from spring to fall. You had all winter time to do all the other stuff.

>>95947353
they didnt even get weekends off? daymn

>>95947451
a lot of peasants generally ran side-hustles in the first place, their harvest was primarily for personal consumption and sending to the lord
so they would do other stuff on the side to make coin which would include dyeing

not to mention the existence of fulltime dyers, a profession which would only exist if there was enough business to justify it, if lords were the only ones coloring their clothes then why would anyone be a dyer?
they would generally give the first dip to the ones with the most money, since it was the deepest and most vibrant, but they would then sell the second dip to everyone else
why waste it?
it would be paler and less intense, but still quite serviceable

>>95937499
Poor wuddle twiggered snowfwake.

>>95947480
>if lords were the only ones coloring their clothes then why would anyone be a dyer?
You realize we have people today who sell to even smaller classes of people and make an absolute killing off of it, right?

>>95947478
they did get weekends off, but this was from the work that their lord demanded or other such obligations
farmwork and housework was done when it was needed, which was year round, and if the roof needed fixing on a sunday then they would work on that sunday
if the field had to be tilled on a sunday, then they worked on that sunday

but, unless they didnt mind the occasional farmer uprising, then a lord would be wise not to tell his peasants to raise his windmill on sunday
it was in his best interests anyways, if a farmer had more time to tend to his own crops, that means he gets a bigger cut at the end of the season

>>95947493
nice bump, retard

>>95947480
Even then the poors generally didn't want to look like poors. If dipping your rags in some boiled plant soup would help to make them look less like rags, why not? A lot of activity was communal. People could bring different dyes together and clothes they wanted to dye.

>>95947037
Whenst thine foe attempteth too strike thee upon thine skull, boweth before him and offereth to him thine fervices of thine own mowthe.

>>95947505
>vastly greater population
>vastly greater wealth
>greater wealth ceiling
>global supply chains
>consider where you're being fucking retarded is on the internet
the independent dyer/tailor/haute couture house/whatever the braindead contrarian fuck bullshit you were trying to suggest absolutely DOES NOT have a smaller market than a medieval dyer even if you ignore history and pretend they were only selling to their le local lor

>>95947037
Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but something about this image strikes me as homoerotic. Can't quite put my finger on it though...

>>95947507
There's the old notion that peasants only worked 150 days out of the year.
That's true in that a typical peasant in good times would only have to work 150 days of labor a year to cover their rent to their lord.
But as you rightly point out, farms take a lot of shit to do just for yourself. Clothes needed to be sewn, the fabric for those clothes needed to be weaved. The material that was weaved into that fabric had to be spun from the natural materials, which had to be gathered and washed and readied for spinning. To say nothing of food that needed to be cooked over open fires, whose wood needed to be gathered and chopped to size.
To say nothing of the live animals they would have had. Livestock needed to be fed and their living areas cleared to excess debris and shit.

So while they only "had" to work half the year to pay their duty to their land-owning lord, they still had to put in hours upon hours of work and chores just to survive the daily grind.

>>95947538
>>vastly greater population
Flagrant illiteracy should be a felony offense.
>whatever the braindead contrarian fuck bullshit you were trying to suggest absolutely DOES NOT have a smaller market than a medieval dyer
So in your mind someone that sells to double digit numbers of 14-30 year old hipsters has access to greater market wealth than someone who sold to the nobility of Europe?
Lol, ok buddy whatever you say.

>>95947353
This. Nobody was ever happy.

>>95947572
it isn't said often enough these days but it used to be a common phrase that pretending to be retarded is the lowest form of trolling
if you aren't trolling, god help you

>>95947478
>>95947556
The idea that "time off" was even a thing was made up nonsense. The only occasion a peasant would have where he wasn't forced to work by necessity of survival were the occasional holiday, which many still worked through regardless because you literally didn't get a choice.

What /pol/tards confuse peasants were burghers and free men, who were part of the upper 1% of Medieval society. THEY could get away with less constant work and more time off as they subsisted off the surplus capital taken from the labor of the peasantry. Though the amount of free time they had was still significantly less than what even a working class person today gets to enjoy.

>>95947586
>No argument, just projecting about trolling
I accept your confession.

>>95947599
>I accept your confession.
not beating the retard allegations

>>95947572
>>95947599
You didn't actually present an argument. You just kind of stamped your feet and said "it was easier to sell in medieval times than it is with the modern internet because... because it just is okay!?"

How am I supposed to counter that besides "no it wasn't retard."

If you want to debate the point so badly, assuming you're not already on a sex offender registry you could have the nearest elementary school student explain it to you instead of waiting for a response.

Like the other anon said, I really hope you're just a failtroll and not actually this stupid.

>>95947621
>>95947619
>You didn't actually present an argument. You just kind of [Things you made up]
You're really convincing me with that one, anon.
>How am I supposed to counter that
See, when you're trying to convince people that you have even the slightest fucking clue of what you're talking about (You don't so a moot point, but let's pretend you did), you'd say... I don't know, explain how you believe something worked, maybe include some sources, maybe not repeat /pol/yp talking points? This shouldn't be hard, yet its apparently impossible, nay, inconceivable for you.
>If you want to debate the point so badly, assuming you're not already on a sex offender registry
Ah yes, immediately going for well poisoning. How do you feel about womens rights, Mr definitely-not-a-sex-offender?
>Like the other anon
Pfft
>I really hope you're just a failtroll
If I was a troll you lost the moment you replied to me, so either you're stupid or you don't even believe the bullshit you're spewing to defend your retarded worldview.

>>95947633
>If I was a troll you lost the moment you replied to me
Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Nu-trolling is just making a retarded statement and then trying to save face, I fear.

>>95947633
>maybe not repeat /pol/yp talking points
The /pol/ talking point is that medieval peasants lived better than the people today because of le jews. You have your boogeymen mixed up.

>>95947633
>demands sources
>doesn't post any

>>95947595
free men did make up at least half the medieval population, depending on when and where you lived anyways

free peasants were a thing, separate from serfs, and they entered the manorial system nominally out of free will (with a huge helping of "I dont own my land")

>>95947637
Are you really so young that you've never heard the term "Don't feed the troll"?

>>95947647
>free men did make up at least half the medieval population
Lmao no. 90% of the population were peasants.
If you constrain the time span this is more likely to increase than decrease. Free men and burghers were a vanishingly small portion of the population. The thing you're imagining, again, is likely not what actually existed in reality.

>>95947654
>90% of the population were peasants
land-owning free men did exist, and the domesday book actually mentions that they made up 10% of the population of england at the time
so upper 10%, not upper 1%

and only half of peasants were serfs, the other half were free peasants, who were non-land owning free men who worked the lords lands quid pro quo, as opposed serfs, who came with the land when the lord acquired it
not necessarily because they wanted to, if they couldnt afford their own land then they had no choice but to be peasant, but it is a legally distinct class compared to a serf

>>95947654
Peasants were free you fucking retard.
>Oh they were muh bound to land
And still able to travel whenever.
>Oh they had to produce food for the Lord
You mean they had to PAY TAXES. Just like you do.
Peasants had an extremely high quality of life compared to similar classes. You're just brain poisoned by hollywood shit.

>>95947645
>Peasants typically made up the majority of the agricultural labour force in a pre-industrial society. The majority of the people—according to one estimate 85% of the population [of Britain]—in the Middle Ages were peasants.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant
I'd think that common knowledge wouldn't require a source, but I forgot that common knowledge isn't actually common.

>>95947637
>>95947643
Trolling works by getting a reaction. If you're accusing the other side of trolling mid-argument, you're either a retard who can't argue facts and needs to bail out via ad hominem, or you're admitting you got trolled and are mad about it. You can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry.
>The /pol/ talking point is that medieval peasants lived better than the people today
This is all it is, and no it's not because of any specific reason. /pol/yps are a diverse group much to their own chagrin and will come up with any variety of schizophrenic reasons for why they're still working at McDicks in their 30s and stacey wouldn't let them tap it and how they would have been chad thundercock if they were just born 20/50/100/1000 years ago, and damn any facts that get in the way of that narrative!

>>95947671
all of that stream of consciousness mudcore bullshit and all you can come up with is
>Peasants typically made up the majority of the agricultural labour force in a pre-industrial society. The majority of the people—according to one estimate 85% of the population [of Britain]—in the Middle Ages were peasants.[13]
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant
lol lmao

>>95947664
>of england
England was not 'all of Medieval Europe'. Nor is it even a decent yardstick to measure the averages by, it was probably the most prosperous and best possible place to live in for the entirety of the medieval period, and had the fewest number of peasants. And it STILL sucked absolute cocks and almost everyone was effectively a slave.

>Blah blah blah serfs free peasants
You don't know what you're talking about. Serf is a term that did not even see use in the medieval period. In the circles of historians it is almost exclusively used to refer to the peasantry of Tsarist Russia and parts of Poland where peasants were treated as human property.

>>95947063
>>95947100
I'll give them credit for including more little weird creatures on the sprues in some of their kits now, but the influence seems to pretty much stop there.

>>95947668
>Peasants were free
Lmao, sure buddy, the guy who spent almost every waking hour working just to survive was "free".
>And still able to travel whenever
And theoretically he could totes be knighted if he went to war and did something heroic :^) see how free and how much social mobility he had? Not all like how my stupid boss at work won't promote me to assistant manager even though I clean the grill every friday after work
>You mean they had to PAY TAXES
Peasants didn't have to "pay taxes", their existence was purely centered around being exploited and subsidizing the upper classes.
>Peasants had an extremely high quality of life
Ah, there's the good ol' /pol/tard rhetoric. Lets have you, a guy who spends 1/3rd of every week playing video games and has never been on a farm in his life, tell us how easy peasants had it!

>>95947681
>all of that stream of consciousness mudcore bullshit
Mudcore is when you quote historical sources, noted.

>>95947705
Mudcore is anything that reminds chud that he's actually won the lottery by being born in the best era in all of history, and yet is still a loser in spite of that.

>>95947621
>it was easier to sell in medieval times than it is with the modern internet because... because it just is okay
the only time a lord would actually need a dyer on hand at all times is if he had a lot of knights and men-at-arms who needed matching outfits and lots of tapestries that needed colored cloth, so a fairly prosperous lord
most other times, the lord would actually just send out a request for so-and-so amounts of cloth of this color from the people of his land
and the people making the color would be those peasants, who would already be familiar and experienced with the process from dying their own clothes, and/or from the towns population of dyers who were selling their dyed clothes to the commoners already

>>95947621
>it was easier to sell in medieval times than it is with the modern internet
Yeah it was soooo hard for small business owners in medieval times, that's why they were dominated by MLMs and Mega corporations that lobbied to shut down all competition and owned every market and-oh... wait...

>>95947700
>Lmao, sure buddy
If they're not free, how come I have 458 peasants?

>>95947037
name of this move?

>>95947727
Inheritance and a few generations of inbreeding.

>>95947729
Low blow.

>>95945958
It’s supposed to make it look “cinematic”. Nevermind that all the good movies never follow these shitty trends. Just look at Barry Lyndon. The only thing they fucked up was the makeup.

>>95947705
>>95947710
get a room
you fags can't find better sources than a snip from a wikipedia article that doesn't address a fraction of the anti-intellectual, anti-academic contrarian shit you've posted in this thread
you want to make claims that go against the current academic orthodoxy, you back your shit up first
honestly looking forward to the lunatic fringe afrocentrism blogs or youtube vids, that's the major source of muscore shit on the net today

>>95947688
>You don't know what you're talking about
yeah, a free peasant is a thing
not all peasants were strictly bound to the land

>>95947738
>Chuddie gets upset when he realizes he doesn't have a majority on his side.

>>95947738
>you want to make claims that go against the current academic orthodoxy, you back your shit up first
Well? Are you gonna do that or what?

>>95947740
Again not disagreeing, you just have no idea what you're talking about.

>>95947725
in any case, dyers were a real medieval profession and they didnt just sell solely to the lord
if the lord and his men really were his only customers, he would just actually be part of the lords household

>>95945199
>Sorry ser, we havenay invented clæning yette

>>95947750
>you just have no idea what you're talking about.
you argue that free men dont exist because most people were peasants
except thats not the case, because peasants could, and were often, free men themselves

>>95947751
>in any case, dyers were a real medieval profession and they didnt just sell solely to the lord
Only you have claimed otherwise lol.

>>95947758
>you argue that [things I didn't argue]
You don't even know what a serf is, hop off my hog retard.

>>95937621
what system?

>>95947763
the cause of all this argument is that people in medieval ages did not wear coloured outfits
>>95947353
arguing that peasants were too busy and tired to have spare time to spend on making clothing that looked nice

not only did peasants dye their own clothes, but there was, in fact, a guy whose job it is to dye clothing, which would imply a high demand for colored clothing

the counter-argument is that
>>95947505
a lord could sustain a dyers entire business by himself by saying that the modern 1% could do a similar thing
which wouldnt make sense, because very few lords have that much cloth that needs dying in the first place, and would likely just supply their dyed cloth from those peasants and dyers rather than have their own

the medieval world did, in fact, have fairly common place colored clothing
which is whats being argued here, that the past was actually a lot more colorful than most media depicts

>>95947793
>the cause of all this argument is that people in medieval ages did not wear coloured outfits
Peasants literally would not because working in the fields would destroy most clothes physically. Not to mention that pre-modern dyes aren't very durable or long-lasting.
Dyed clothing would mostly be constrained to the wealthy. Morons like you think only "Duh lord and his men" were wealthy.

>>95947793
>arguing that peasants were too busy and tired to have spare time to spend on making clothing that looked nice
Buddy, the average 4channer can't even keep his room clean and yet has practically infinite free time compared to medieval peasants. You're gonna have to do more than make wild and unfounded claims to make a convincing argument.

>but there was, in fact, a guy whose job it is to dye clothing
I guess in your mind everybody also wore full plate and mail because there were specialized armorsmiths, too yeah? Lmfao

>a lord
Only you use this term. Try again, retard.

>>95947809
>Peasants literally would not because working in the fields would destroy most clothes physically
peasants not only wore colored clothing, they literally dyed their own clothes

>Not to mention that pre-modern dyes aren't very durable or long-lasting.
medieval dyes werent as good as modern ones, but they still provided color
and peasants definitely made use of them
the primary difference between a lord and a noble would have been the quality and strength of the dye, but both of them definitely did wear color

>>95947822
>peasants not only wore colored clothing, they literally dyed their own clothes
Show me proof from three different sources that all peasants dyed their clothes.

>medieval dyes werent as good as modern ones
Concession accepted.

>>95947828
>Concession accepted.
medieval dyes being not as good as modern dyes does not mean that medieval clothes were undyed
that argument does not even follow

>>95947834
Your view is that everyone was taking dozens of hours out of their week to dye their clothes colors that would last for maybe a week, and you know this is true because "local lords" couldn't be the sole recipients of dye-makers, who... Existed exclusively in towns and lived among the upper 1% of medieval society.
You're retarded lmao

>>95947836
no bro listen just trust me peasants dyed themselves the colors of the rainbow all the time because they just liked to suffer in color. please ignore how my only example of dyes that not even a majority could get ahold of were different shades of poopy brown.

>>95947809
>Peasants literally would not because working in the fields would destroy most clothes physically.
Clothes can be repaired. You can also take off your clothes. Not to forget that you wouldn't be working with everything you have on.
>Not to mention that pre-modern dyes aren't very durable or long-lasting.
Not like you're washing your clothes as often as we do either.
>Dyed clothing would mostly be constrained to the wealthy.
Even though it's easy to get your hands on various common plants that can be used to dye?

>>95947828
>show me proof from ONE MILLION SOURCES that peasants didn't use readily available plant dyes while I continue to provide none

>>95947836
>dozens of hours
>last for maybe a week
lmao you've got zero fucking clue as to how it works, the blog that this image came from would blow you the fuck out at this point
>>95938443

>>95947852
Look at how the /pol/tard can't come up with an argument when asked for a source hahahaha

>>95947836
>Your view is that everyone was taking dozens of hours out of their week to dye their clothes
we do know that peasants gathered woad several times a week, we also know that woad was seen as a less-prestigious dye ingredient because peasants would use it, and we also know that woad blue (and other colors) were used in depictions of peasants clothing

so the ultimate conclusion is that, yes, peasants did use that dye for themselves
even if they were dying the cloth
es for someone else like their lord, they wouldnt just chuck out the remaining perfectly useable vat of dye aferwards after spending all their trouble making it, they would use it on themselves
this also goes for dyers living in town, they would sell the second dip of cloth to other commoners, and then use the third dip for mixing colors

>>95947864
meant several times a year, not a week
still considered cheap compared to madder, which was once a year

>>95947849
>Clothes can be repaired.
Which already ate up several hours of work. More than doubling that by having to work on dyes would be insane.
>You can also take off your clothes
You can really tell when someone has a modern mindset because they can't imagine a time when people didn't have several sets of clothes to go through whenever they felt like it.
>Not like you're washing your clothes as often as we do either.
Which is just going to cause them to go to shit even faster.
>Even though it's easy to get your hands on various common plants
You realize that in real life you can't just get clothes, a plant, and then press the "craft dye" button to magically combine the two right? Processing dyes took a great amount of time and effort.

>>95947864
>we do know that peasants gathered woad several times a week
Where are the multiple sources supporting this claim?
>>95947867
Oh nevermind you just had no idea what you were talking about lmao. Business as usual.

>>95947856
I thought I was pretty clear, but I guess I have to go "see spot run" for you:
What you said was so ignorant and retarded that it outs you as somebody that knows nothing about the topic you're bloviating about, to the point where a simple little blogpost with a modest bibliography would ruin you
>/pol/tard
that's the first time I've ever been called a /pol/tard, but you are one desparately coping little bitch

>>95947864
>we do know
>we also know
The correct phrase here is "I believe", because you certainly don't know fuck all if you mix up years and weeks with eachother.

>for someone else like their lord
If you had money, you could afford to travel and buy clothes and dyes in a town from someone who actually had the time, capital, and free labor to dye their clothes. Even an idiot wouldn't be using random peasants on his estates for it, as they won't have the skills, expertise, time, nor in many places the obligation to fulfill every random request their "lord" gave them. Or are you the same idiot who thinks peasants were all chattel slaves with zero rights?

>>95947888
The only thing that's clear is that you have no idea how to make nor source an argument.
>What you said was so ignorant and retarded that it outs you as somebody that knows nothing about the topic you're bloviating about
Stole the words right out of my mouth. Embarrassing how you're pining so hard for a time that never even existed just because you can't be assed to do something with your pathetic life.

This is like the third time on this board that I've seen a huge sperg-off argument over whether or not medieval peasants dyed their clothes. What is it with this topic that drives this place insane?

>>95947899
>What is it with this topic that drives this place insane
it seems to be people unable to admit that the past was not nearly as drab and dreary as usually imagined in fiction
why they want to hold on to such a belief is unclear, but it seems to be a 200 year holdover from Victorian times where it was popular to make the past, such as medieval times, look as bad as possible to emphasize modern progress

>>95947899
/pol/ gets incredibly buttmad over medieval times being portrayed as anything but a gigatrad fantasy where they can self insert as either a nobleman or a farmer who doesn't actually have to do any work aside from plow his barely-legal wife all day.
This then results in people going to the polar opposite of claiming everything sucked 24/7 and it was a misery fest of mud where dying of the plague was tuesday and happiness was illegal because the local lord would personally cut off the head of anyone who smiled.

Basically, it's a tug of war between two hyperbolic brands of autism. Though the latter is closer to the truth than the former could ever hope to be.

>>95939017
That's pure cringe, especially when you don't need that to make a desert look dangerous.

>>95947911
>Though the latter is closer to the truth than the former could ever hope to be.
I'll add to this that it especially riles up autists because this is the commonly accepted viewpoint and 99% of people think of the middle ages as an absolutely horrible time to be alive in.

>>95947910
>>95947911
There really are only two types of people on this site.

>>95947871
>Which already ate up several hours of work.
That's why you had large families. Wife, kids, grandparents, etc. And, again, there's no fields to work in the winter. Plenty of time to do stuff like repair your clothes. Unless you want to suggest peasants just wore their clothes down until they fell apart, not maintaining them. When you have limited articles of clothing, you want to take care of them.
>More than doubling that by having to work on dyes would be insane.
Have you ever dyed cloth with natural dyes? I have, and it's really not that hard.
>You can really tell when someone has a modern mindset because they can't imagine a time when people didn't have several sets of clothes to go through whenever they felt like it.
You can really tell when someone's being disingenuous and strawmanning. I did not say "changes your clothes" I said "take off your clothes." Get naked, if you have to. What do you need clothes for in the field? Also, medieval people wore a lot of layers. If you're working the field, you don't need your top layers, you'll just get hot.
>You realize that in real life you can't just get clothes, a plant, and then press the "craft dye" button to magically combine the two right? Processing dyes took a great amount of time and effort.
A lot of plants can be found in nature, the very nature a peasant would be living in. And as you'd be gathering plants for medicine, food, and other needs from said nature anyway, picking some stuff to dye isn't any more trouble. Not to forget stuff like onions that have been mentioned already. Then all you need is the cloth of your choosing, a pot, some water, and a fire. All which a medieval peasant would have anyway.

Never forget.

>>95947896
>The only thing that's clear is that you have no idea how to make nor source an argument.
where's yours?
>Embarrassing how you're pining so hard for a time that never even existed just because you can't be assed to do something with your pathetic life.
pure salty fiction because I dare to support the current academic orthodoxy

>>95947899
I have no idea, it's a pop-cultural thing
some dutch lady on social media has basically built a career off of the mudcore myth
afrocentrists spread it but I've got no idea what white geeks on 4chan are doing it, besides /tg/ being the home of a particular sort of warhammer simp that has zero interest in any other traditional nerd subject, also 4chan in general is full of tards that think contrarianism is a good personality replacement

>>95947927
and they have to go to town at some point anyways, to get metal tools and such
and while there, they would get pre-dyed cloth from there
blue, red, and yellow would not have been insanely expensive luxuries to get, and they need cloth anyways

they would have been a lot paler than modern days, but it sure was not just limited to brown and off-brown

>>95947927
>That's why you had large families. Wife, kids, grandparents
Seniors aren't exactly productive citizens.
>And, again, there's no fields to work in the winter
Depends on where you lived, but there's a million other things you'll be doing instead. Mere housework for a single person used to take up as much of a quarter to a third of the time in a week, and that was from barely a hundred years ago.
>Have you ever dyed cloth with natural dyes? I have
Proof? Because I have and yes it is that hard.
>You can really tell when someone's being disingenuous and strawmanning.
Yeah, like when you immediately poison the well and make strawman claims in the first line of your post.
>I did not say "changes your clothes" I said "take off your clothes." Get naked, if you have to.
Ah now that's real genius. Wear no clothes, get sunburnt to a crisp, die of heatstroke, because that's preferable to damaging those precious dyes. Now you're thinking like a real medievalist! It's amazing how you can tell when somebody has never worked on a farm.
>A lot of plants can be found in nature
I have nothing to say, I just find it funny how you can keep talking while saying nothing. You are the highest grade of idiot.

>>95947934
No source still? Thought so. /pol/yps get terrified when asked to prove their fantasies.

>>95947934
>the current academic orthodoxy
Says that peasants lived like shit.
You done letting blacks live in your head rent free yet chuddie?

>>95947934
>afrocentrists
Second time you've mentioned this bogeyman ITT. Obsession runs deep.

>>95947944
>and they have to go to town at some point anyways, to get metal tools and such
Almost every village had a blacksmith.
>and while there, they would get pre-dyed cloth from there
With money they didn't have on travels they couldn't afford? Haha, no.
>but it sure was not just limited to brown and off-brown
Grey was also a common color for peasant clothes, but most went with undyed clothes. Takes much less maintenance and much less work. If you lived in a prosperous region this could differ.
>blue, red, and yellow would not have been insanely expensive luxuries to get
By the standards of a peasant? Uh, yes, they would have been insanely expensive. Read Power and Profit: The Merchant in Medieval Europe. Dyed were not cheap even by the standards of the rich.
>they would have been a lot paler than modern days
They would have worn away much quicker too. It's why it was uncommon among the lower classes to bother. Colorful clothing required regular income and sustainable wealth to maintain, and agriculture has always been a boom and bust industry.

>>95947996
>but most went with undyed clothes.
purely undyed clothes were a rarity, if anything, for underclothes that are rarely seen

>Uh, yes, they would have been insanely expensive
yellow was literally a cheap dye, on par with brown, followed by blue
red was the most expensive, but still within reach of all but the absolute poorest
the rich would have had largely the same colors, just much deeper and more intense

>>95947951
seeing as you're too much of a newfag and too stupid to reverse image search:
https://postej-stew.dk/2019/05/medieval-fabrics-part-2/
start there and tell me what you need help with next

>>95947964
if you care to stop being intellectually dishonest for a moment and read the rest of the sentence for context you can

>>95947996
>They would have worn away much quicker too. It's why it was uncommon among the lower classes to bother
woad-based blue was popular with the lower classes because it didnt wash away easily
madder based red did wash away, turning pale reddish-orange, but it was still popular among the lower classes because it was better than undyed white

>>95948001
>purely undyed clothes were a rarity
Not according to the historians, they weren't.
>yellow was literally a cheap dye
Stopped reading there. There's no such thing as a simply "cheap" dye. It could be CHEAPER than other dyes, but it was by no means "cheap", or even affordable by the standards of subsistence-farming peasants.
>red was the most expensive
Not even close to true lmao, and your own source also points this out.
>the rich would have had largely the same colors
Even further from the truth, your own source disagrees.

>>95948003
Your own source calls you retarded and agreed with me.

>Undyed wool would have been cheapest. Wool can be home grown, processed and weaved into finished fabric without investing in expensive equipment or paying anyone to do anything too it. Wool naturally comes in off-white, greys, browns and a very dark grey. You can of course also dye your wool using plant dyes which is also fairly easy and inexpensive. It does require an agent to set the colour (mordanting) which makes it a bit more expensive to do – it might require spending actual money.

>Unlike today wool fabrics would have been the most affordable and practical option for most clothing. Today wool is expensive but until very recent, it was cheap and what most people wore most of the time.

>Unbleached linen was also a very common fabric. While linen cloth is more labor intensive than wool, it is still possible to make within a village setting. Unbleached linen is greyish. To make it more white people could dry it in the sun, which beaches it for free and it will get you a much lighter grey.

>Clothing in greys, browns and muted blues were thought most suitable for the lower class. While brighter colours were seen as less humble and unsuitable for common people. That does of course not mean that commoners never wore brighter colours, but people with higher status disapproved of the practice.
Thanks for playing, try harder next time.

>>95948010
>Popular
I don't think you know what that word means. Most peasants didn't ever wear madder-dyed or woad-dyed clothes.

>>95948011
>>Clothing in greys, browns and muted blues were thought most suitable for the lower class. While brighter colours were seen as less humble and unsuitable for common people. That does of course not mean that commoners never wore brighter colours, but people with higher status disapproved of the practice.
and yet you didn't read what you quoted

>>95948011
>the historians
as yet unnamed

>>95948003
>if you care to stop being intellectually dishonest
Can you stop obsessing about BBC and africans for ten minutes?

>>95948021
more projection

>>95948018
>and yet you didn't read what you quoted
>Clothing in greys, browns and muted blues were thought most suitable for the lower class.
Almost like you didn't read what you googled lmao.

>as yet unnamed
You've been given multiple sources, and the only one you even tried to reference thinks you're a retard and has contradicted everything you said. /pol/ loses to basic reading comprehension yet again

>>95948017
>Most peasants didn't ever wear madder-dyed or woad-dyed clothes.
they did, along with meld yellow

>>95948023
You're the one who can't stop talking about it and bringing it up out of nowhere bruv. Did a nigger steal your girl at a renfaire or something?

>>95948028
>Clothing in greys, browns and muted blues were thought most suitable for the lower class.
>Undyed wool would have been cheapest... and what most people wore most of the time.
>Unbleached linen was also a very common fabric

>>95948003
In light of the ass wooping I've witnessed, I now understand why you were so reticent about using sources.

>>95937440 (OP)
You ever realize only medieval europe has this problem? Have something set in fuedal japan and the peasants will be walking around in faded blues, greens, yellows, or reds and nobody will bat an eye.

>>95947353
>The average peasant who worked every waking hour of the day?
>and was always one bad harvest away from dying?
You have an insane idea of what medieval times were like anon for an average person anon.

>>95948051
Feudal japan doesn't get featured in much media, and what few weebs consume historical japanese media could care less about historicity.

>>95948060
Got your ass whooped so bad you had to relitigate the start of the discussion huh? Embarrassing. At least come up with an argument next time.

>>95947385
most artistic depictions of peasants do use blue, red, yellow, and brown, which tracks with the most readily available dyes

But green shows up a lot too
maybe they were really good at mixing colors?

>>95947072
>>95947063
>That's not bad. They do bommyknocker snsils and swordsman rabbits, too?
Also these guys https://www.skullncrown.com/

>>95948070
>most artistic depictions of peasants
>Posts an image of Israelites who existed before medieval Europe ever did
?????

>>95948081
it was common to depict biblical scenes in contemporary fashion

>>95948024
>You've been given multiple sources
one (1) irrelevant quote from a wiki article entitled "peasant", so that's a lie, and I guess your inability to understand a simple 3 sentence string on opinions about propriety is you pretending to have dogshit reading comprehension
could be having an interesting discussion but you just want to beg for attention by aggressively shilling ugly aesthetics from pop culture
I'm going to the pub

>>95948081
more unashamed dumbfuckery

>>95948031
>still projecting

>>95948086
Contemporary fashion of the nobility, sure. SInce the image in question depicts Saul, king of the Israelites, and other leaders of the tribes of Israel. Not even a lowborn common man in sight.

>>95948091
>one (1) irrelevant quote from a wiki article entitled "peasant"
And two books.
And your own blog that you gave as a source.
So, yeah, multiple sources. And you've been wrong about everything.
>could be having an interesting discussion
Sorry I'm not interested in discussing your fantasies about tradwives standing in wheatfields, nor am I interested in discussing african men, which seem to be your only two relevant interests.
>I'm going to the pub
>Immediately keeps replying to me
Somehow, I get the feeling that you'll be back here to cry some more within the hour.

>more unashamed dumbfuckery
Being right is dumbfuckery in the /pol/yps mind.

>>95948051
when color movies became a thing, samurai movies didnt hesitate to use colored outfits for everyone
an artistic choice rather than a historical one, but it has eased people into easily accepting that they wore colored outfits back then

>>95948061
But it goes outside of fuedal japan though, pretty much every older civilization I can think of tends to get depicted with more color then medieval europe. And not just talking about the clothing I mean the enviroments as well. Mudcore is just as much about everything looking like it is covered in shit the sky being overcast grey and the grass and forests dark along with everyone wearing nothing but brown.

>>95948125
>Mudcore is just as much about everything looking like it is covered in shit the sky being overcast grey and the grass and forests dark along with everyone wearing nothing but brown.
that's just England

>>95948125
>pretty much every older civilization I can think of
Doesn't get much media spotlight.
If you look at actually popular films or series, you see they don't get a different treatment. For example, take the Shogun series. Any wider shot is usually drab and dreary, and anyone that isn't a main character or a woman gets dressed in muted greys or browns. Hell, even they don't often escape being dressed in pretty dark and grim looking colors.
Why? Because it's a dark and grim show. It's not exactly rocket science.

>>95948125
while the idea of re-romanticizing medieval europe goes back to mark twain, and even further back to don quixote though this was more about the people who romanticize knights rather than knights themselves, it was monty python that really popularized "Everyone in medieval europe was poor, ugly, stupid, and covered in crap"

they exaggerated it while making the movie, they even said they made up the part about bad teeth when real life medieval skeletons have fairly good teeth due to a lack of sugar, and made as a reaction to people who were overly nostalgic for the days of chivalry
but it has massively popularized the idea that the medieval ages was never ending suffering and crap who only wore brown and grey

>>95948146
>but it has massively popularized the idea that the medieval ages was never ending suffering
Everyone between the medieval ages and now watched monty python?

>>95948150
monty python holy grail was specifically made as a reaction towards people who thought the medieval ages were actually really swell and great
and they admitted to exaggerating most of it for comedy, but that hasnt stopped people from assuming that is exactly how it happened

>>95948146
>but it has massively popularized the idea that the medieval ages was never ending suffering and crap
People thought (read: knew) the medieval ages were pretty shit for a long time before Chapman was even born, and Monty Python was really only popular or well known with the British, and coastal Americans who wished they were British.

>>95948156
Yeah Idk what has led you to believe this but most people don't take a comedy film for historical fact, and most people have never even seen of Monty Python or heard of it outside of references.

>>95948169
>>95948173
did you not read the part where they made it as a reaction towards the popular opinion of the time being that medieval times were actually great and then replaced one inaccuracy with another?

overall perception of medieval times has fluctuated greatly over the times, but the modern depiction of stupid, filthy, medieval people can be traced back to holy grail

>>95948183
>did you not read the part where they made it as a reaction towards the popular opinion of the time being that medieval times were actually great and then replaced one inaccuracy with another?
I don't really care for that claim nor do I take that as fact. Some british people (Never a popular opinion lmao) may have been erroneously believing that living in medieval times wasn't hellish, and... So what?

>overall perception of medieval times has fluctuated greatly over the times
It really hasn't. For the last 3 or so centuries in Europe and America, it is broadly true that every year has been better than the one that came before it as far as the standards of human living are concerned.
Most people living in this time can instinctively conclude that, given that their lives still aren't cakewalks, it must have REALLY sucked before this trend of continuous improvement began.
>but the modern depiction of stupid, filthy, medieval people can be traced back to holy grail
And allegedly the victorians too. It's been a common opinion since the medieval era ended, really.

>>95948183
Did you miss the part where most people aren't british boomers and have never care or been influenced by monty python?

>>95948198
>And allegedly the victorians too
just like monty python, the victorians depiction of the middle ages as worse than it actually was was itself a replacement for the romanticist movement which did 100% buy into the medieval times as the age of chivalry and heroism

the victorians did a 180 on that and chose to depict the past as far worse, and everyone should count themselves lucky to be amongst more enlightened people
intentionally or not, this would end up being a one of the justifications for the british to keep their colonies, they were saving them from the terrifying primitiveness of being backwards savages and bringing progress, a sentiment that would endure past the victorian age

>>95948236
>everyone should count themselves lucky to be amongst more enlightened people
This mentality also probably stemmed from the British upper class feeling the need to convince people that being a factory worker living in the miserable, filthy squalor that cities were in those days was actually an improvement over being a peasant farmer.

>>95938020
What, you've never taken a loan out from the Jewowl or fought the Jesuscroc?

>>95948272
I mean, it was.

>>95948236
>just like monty python, the victorians depiction of the middle ages as worse than it actually was
Not really. They're fairly accurate about their portrayals.
Furthermore, alot of third world countries that rapidly industrialized have similar accounts of life being a living hell, and then becoming tolerable after their own feudal systems and 'medieval' era-equivalents ended.

>everyone should count themselves lucky to be amongst more enlightened people
They should. If you like not dying of the common cold, social mobility, and not suffering from malnutrition, you should be incredibly grateful to not have been born in the medieval period. And so the vast majority of people, do.

>>95948324
>listen commoner your life in that squalid tenement when you aren't spending 70+ hours a week in my factory is absolutely better that what your grandfather had as a farmer
>pay no attention to the fact that I avoid this place in favor of my country house as much as I possibly can

>>95948354
Yes, actually. Around 40% of the population were factory workers, which alone makes life better than it ever was in the medieval period.
Given that the British population also tripled in that time and nearly eclipsed the entire population of medieval Europe, it's pretty obvious that it was insanely prosperous relative to literally any period of time that came before it.

reminder these threads are regularly made by an antisemitic poltard schizo, who has been making them for years, on multiple sites like 4x4 chin.
His theory is literally
>jrpgs are colourful and i like the pretty colours
>why don't wrpgs have bright colours
>…
>the jews did this, the jews are stealing colour from europeans

>>95940958
>>95940961
>Korean MMO armor
>green heraldry
>Jap cherry blossom motif
>no scabbard
>using a bastard sword and shield during... what I assume was supposed to be 15th century and not a pole weapon, zweihander etc
Solid 2/10 at least the shield isn't fucking metal. Get a refund and tell that fag to look at /his/ armor

>>95948354
Main thing I see as being way worse is risk of injury from working the machines and lack of proper safety regulations. Losing fingers and lung problems are well documented from the time. Crowded living space is probably the other one too. You might not have had a lot of space in a peasant hut but at least you could escape to a field instead of being surrounded by london streets. Otherwise a lot of things I think are pretty comparable. Health wise they seem similar higher population desnity leads to its own problems of sanitation and medical science was still a far cry from being safe or reliable, plenty of quack rememdies of the time.

>>95946279
yeah, a lot of these ignorant people whining about artistic choices would film ugly made for tv shit. colors determine the tone of a film

>>95937699
The wannabe janny retard that seethes about "wot game" in every thread is such a colossal newfaggot that he for example, completely failed to recognize classic 40k tyranid artwork in a thread that used such art as an OP before starting to bitch and whine. He should be just ignored and mocked as the retarded newfaggot he is.

>>95944120
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/95836690/#95836704

>>95937440 (OP)
Question is, how accurate is the historical art and more importantly, how find out how widespread the use of dyes was.

>>95946279
Darkness is real. And it has a purpose in a horror movie.
A medieval filter only serves the purpose of drilling into our heads that our ancestors were filthy pigs and that we should accept the superior immigrants cultures.

>>95948374
Tried to visualize all the things that were wrong with it, although I'm sure someone pickier or more discerning could come up with more.
Credit where it's due a lot of stuff I borrowed from you.
More forgiving on some stuff though because it's supposed to be fantasy so meh.
Really I'm just a petty bitch that wouldn't to properly convey why I don't like the image and think it's kind of bad.
One big problem I forgot to put on the picture is it's like the uncanny valley effect but for armor. At a glance it looks OK, but the more you look at it closely the worse it gets.

>>95946279
I don't care much, but my dad hates this with all his soul. The reason is that he can't watch the movie because of the darkness.

>>95948557
*wanted to properly convey

Gotta proofread my posts better apparently.

>>95948465
It's 90% accurate and yes, people did use colors.

>>95948465
Some dyes, like certain variants of red can be made out of literally just mud so yes, people did use dyes. The color selections however were typically limited by how expensive the dyes were. Black and red were quite common because both can be produced rather easily and cheaply, while shit like purple was expensive as fuck because back in the olden times it could be produced only from glands of some fucking octopus in the mediterranean sea or someshit

>>95948573
it was made from the gland of a sea snail, and you needed ten thousand of them to make barely a single gram of purple
it was an extremely bright purple that didnt wash away easily

the poor mans purple could be made by blending madder red with other dyes
though it didnt hold as well and it would fade into a reddish purple pretty quickly, but it was something that was available if you really wanted

>>95948590
A mollusk nonetheless. But yeah, my overall point was that dyes were available even to the plebs, it was just the inexpesive and easy to make dyes.

For example, in 16th century peasants in sweden started using literal waste waster sludge from a mine to create bright red paint for their houses and shit.

>>95947353
Motherfucker, the Gauls would paint their bare dicks with woad and you question the ability of a French peasant to afford a blue tunic?

>>95937499
>>95937621
>>95937440 (OP)
Just put the extra effort of finding some actual TTRPG/Board game art for the OP comparison rather than just copy-pasting whatever reddit/Xitter/Tiktok meme image you found. THEN you can have a tangential /tg/ thread because at least if someone wants to also discuss the artstyle of the game referenced, it will be on topic.

>>95949026
>Gallic warriors, wealthier than any peasant could ever hope to be, used woad paint
Ok. Did you think you were proving something other than your own ignorance or what?

>>95947649
>>95947671
That doesn't really apply to nu-trolls.

Nu-trolls are just people who try to pretend they're trolling when they lose an argument. So there's no harm in making fun of them a little.

See: This guy trying to redefine trolling as "getting a reaction" so he can feel like he won something in his sad, sad, sad life when that's never what trolling ever was in the traditional sense. He is DESPERATE for a win at something so it's best to just poke fun at him when he crops up while enjoying the thread otherwise.

>>95949865
This is cope. The goal of trolling is to get a reaction. If you give one, you've already lost. At that point it's just a question of whether you're stupid enough to keep reacting and doubling down on getting trolled or not.

>B-b-but nu-troll-
People who can't help but get angry online have been making your exact claim since the day this website was founded. It's because they, like you, were morons who can't stop feeding the troll.

>>95947933
>>95949888
>The goal of trolling is to get a reaction

If you're a sad loser who can't even win a 4chan argument and has to redefine words to feel like you won then sure.

Trolling is an artform. Pissing your pants in public for attention to get a reaction is just sad and makes me feel bad for you.

Reminder anon that under your definition, if you reply to him that means he got a reaction out of you and that means he wins.

>>95949865
>Nu-trolls are just people who try to pretend they're trolling when they lose an argument.
But... You were the one screaming that the person you were arguing with was a troll, not the other way around.

>>95949955
>>95949958
Oh.

>In slang, a troll is a person who posts deliberately offensive or provocative messages online[1] (such as in social media, a newsgroup, a forum, a chat room, an online video game) or who performs similar behaviors in real life. The methods and motivations of trolls can range from benign to sadistic. These messages can be inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[2] extraneous, or off-topic, and may have the intent of provoking others into displaying emotional responses,[3] or manipulating others' perceptions, thus acting as a bully or a provocateur.

>The behavior is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or purposefully causing confusion or harm to other people.[4] Trolling behaviors involve tactical aggression to incite emotional responses, which can adversely affect the target's well-being.[5]

>One common strategy for dealing with online trolls is to ignore them. This approach, known as "don't feed the trolls",[21] is based on the idea that trolls feed on attention and reactions. By withholding these, the troll may lose interest and stop their disruptive behavior. This is considered by psychologists to be the best way to stop trolling.

>>95949975
I see>>95949955

If that's really really what you want the definition to be, then I accept your concession.

>>95947688
Bitch England sucked dick for most of the medieval period and most of its suppossed freedoms weren't even unique. In Spain, for example, the christian border was populated by free peasants that often got wealthy enough to become knights.

You know shit about the topic.

>>95950024
England was better to live in than every other single place in Medieval Europe.
>But what about this incredibly specific example that isn't even true?
Lmao

>>95947353
>he thinks Monty Python and the Holy Grail was a documentary

>>95950024
>>95950029
>>95950034
Is that so?

>>95947700
You fucking retard, you think a society can mantain itself by being at a constant risk of dying of hunger all the time? Were the peasant's lives were much harsher than our own they did have time to rest, celebrate, and live as good as most peoples across history could affort it.

>>95948371
I'm his dad, do you have any proof of my son's actions?

>>95937499
fully agree, the trannies keep trying to demoralize us with pedophile woke agendas but we're to busy drinking Nuln Oil to care

>>95950029
>that isn't even true?
Are you genuinely retarded? You can find sources and studies of the "caballeros villanos" and their role during the Reconquista plenty, alongside of course overall works of how the moorish frontier worked.

>>95950072
>Are you genuinely retarded?
No, why are you?
>You can find sources and studies of the "caballeros villanos"
Which are not what you claim they are lmao
>and their role during the Reconquista
Their role was the same as the Men At Arms of literally every other place in medieval europe. If you were in the rare upper <1% of wealthy land-owners, you were legally obligated to buy a horse and go die in a war when called upon. They were as much "knights" as English Yeomen being conscripted to die of dysentery in the hundred years war were.
There were also probably less than 10,000 of them in existence at any given time. If you were born in medieval Spain, you would not have been a totally-not Man at Arms, you would have been a peasant desperately trying to squeeze produce from whatever arable land you were allowed access to.

>>95948198
>Some british people (Never a popular opinion lmao) may have been erroneously believing that living in medieval times wasn't hellish, and... So what?
By our modern standards, it would be hellish because we have a frame of reference with our technological and societal developments.

But people did function and live in the middle ages, there were laws, industry, infrastructure, peasants actually practiced or were at least aware of hygiene contrary to popular belief. If medieval times were truly as archaic as people in this thread are making it out to be then humanity would have never progressed to modernity in the first place.

The issue is that many people take Game of Thrones as their frame of reference for what it was like back then, and so erroneously believe people just casually murdered and raped each other all the time and that every marriage was between children who also gave birth before they turned 14.

>>95950190
>By our modern standards, it would be hellish because we have a frame of reference with our technological and societal developments.
Duh.

>But people did function and live in the middle ages, there were laws, industry, infrastructure, peasants actually practiced or were at least aware of hygiene
Outstanding levels of saying nothing. What's next, the skies were blue, too?

>If medieval times were truly as archaic as people in this thread are making it out to be
The "archaic" point you actually take issue with is pointing out that our lives are a million times better right now. You don't have an actual criticism to argue against besides made up strawmen nobody has referred to. Why, you're the first and only person to even bring up some TV show that bombed.

The truth is that /pol/yps don't want to admit that medieval europe sucked. It sucked unbelievably hard for 99% of people, and if not for the Meds and Middle East, it probably would have just kept sucking forever.

>>95947595
Source?

I suddenly have the inspiration to make a "20th century mudcore" setting where everything is based on the battle of Verdun, siege of Leningrad, Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, and Congo wars.

>>95950379
40k already exists.

>>95950238
There is a distinction between the points about how "our lives are a million times better right now" and "it sucked unbelievably hard for 99% of people".

It was definitely harder for people back then but they did adapt and they could live in content, even if the living standards were objectively worse than they are now.
Likewise, we live in an era where the internet and surgery exist yet it's not hard to believe that "it sucks unbelievably hard for 99% of people" could still apply today.

>>95950447
>It was definitely harder for people back then but they did adapt
The same way a conscript on the western front in 1918 would adapt, sure. You suffer long enough, you get emotionally numb to it.
Physically though? Haha, yeah not knowing just how bad you have it doesn't change that.

>yet it's not hard to believe that "it sucks unbelievably hard for 99% of people" could still apply today.
Wanna try saying that again but without the ESLisms?

>>95950404
I mean as imagined by a person in the far future, who skimread some articles about some of the most noteworthy/extreme events in the period and just assumed that's what everyday life was like back then.

>>95950518
40k already exists.

>>95950379
Storm of Steel already exists.

>>95950696
Storm of Steel is nowhere near as mudcore as Nothing New in the West.
Ernst Jünger had fun doing the war stuff (and a lot of luck), the book can be very funny.

>>95947911
Chuddies are living rent free in your head.

>>95950477
Medieval warfare was incredibly different from 20th century trench warfare, much less medieval life in general. Not sure why that was your point of comparison.

>>95949831
Gallic warriors were too poor for armor nigga. It's just paint, not gold.

>>95949944
>trolling is an artform
It's not that deep dude, settle down.

>>95950822
>Gallic warriors were too poor for armor
No they weren't lmao. Most of them wore incredibly expensive armor as they were from the upper rungs of Gallic society. The very few who chose to instead go naked or paint themselves up were doing it as a show of courage and fearlessness in the face of death.

>>95950801
>The autistic ESL can't understand how comparisons work
No surprises here.

>>95950841
Or were poor low ranking soldiers.

>>95950851
Nah, if they could afford a sword and shield they could've afforded clothes easily. They were wealthy, just insanely brave, which is why it was incredibly rare for them to do so in the first place.

>>95950477
NTA, but that's not an ESLism, it's a grammatically correct independent clause, you moron. You having shitty reading comprehension does not automatically make other people brown.

>>95950841
Please deepthroat a shotgun.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isatis_tinctoria

>Woad was one of the three staples of the European dyeing industry, along with weld (yellow) and madder (red).[23] Chaucer mentions their use by the dyer ("litestere") in his poem The Former Age:[24]
Here's a l*ddit thread with all yuo need, son.
https://www.leddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6sn4yp/dye_colors_expense_and_availability_in_medieval/

>>95950860
Shields were made with popplar boards on a crappy iron boss, and not all swords were elite tiee. The ones we have that survived were those of nobility, cause most weapons used by low ranking soldiers were recycled for tools once broken or the war ended. It's called survivorship bias, dumbass.

>>95937457
/tg/ isn't just for traditional games but for fantasy and scifi discussion in general.
lurk more.

>>95950889
>Dyes existed
>Refers to a reddit post where someone says you would probably have dyed clothing unless they were a peasant

>>95950888
>Does not understand what an ESLism is
>Does not have good reading comprehension and projects
>Thinks ESL means someone is 'brown'
/pol/tards really can't help but reveal themselves.

>>95950909
The thread says that peasants would wear the shitty pastel dies and a man at arms would get bright shit.
McNutt yourself already you insufferable fag.

>>95950909
>unless they were a peasant
Weren't peasants like 95% of society?

>>95950915
The thread says that unless you were a peasant you would be wearing dyed clothes and would want them to be vivid.
That's it. It doesn't even agree with you. You had to use reddit as a source, and even reddit think you're retarded lol

>>95950925
>>95950909
Circle jerk and reply to yourself some more.

>>95950928
You should jump off a bridge.
https://youtu.be/4FxOL3afweI?si=cj-X862ivkuqLIDP

>>95950914
I understood the original post just fine. That's why I'm convinced you have poor reading comprehension, because it had a number of complex sentences in it. Do you not remember sentence diagramming from the 6th grade?

>>95950938
>>95950956
>>95950959
>Youtube as a source
>Still thinking ESL = Brown
/pol/tard please.

>>95950966
I am not that guy thoe and I am ESL. Let chuddies live rent free now that trump is in power.

>>95950956
A fat woman narrating about how "Not EVERYBODY wears black and grey and brown!" doesn't really argue for your point, but against it.

Her argument for it is just that people with capital (ie burghers and nobles, not subsistence farming peasants) would have dyed their clothes through dyemakers or have had the money and time to do personal albeit simple color dyeing at home as a communal service.
Which is more or less what everyone has been saying in this thread.

>>95950971
>ESL samefag getting mad when his ESLisms are called out
Like I said, no surprises here.

>>95950993
Go back to leftypol

>>95951003
Did you see the word 'communal' and get mad?

>>95951008
No, it's cause you said /pol/lyp previously and only commies that goon to Alunya lolicon pornography say that.

>>95951057
That's funny because I didn't, but congrats on telling on yourself for being a pedophile I guess.

>>95951057
>Alunya lolicon pornography
/pol/tards go 10 minutes without fantasizing about underaged girls challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)

>>95951076
I lurked the bunker long enough to tell yall niggss got infiltrated by MAPfags.

>>95947395
>archeological evidence points to undergarments being the only article of clothing that was ALWAYS undyed, whereas outer clothing was only sometimes undyed, usually it was
Makes sense. Nobody wants to have literally blue balls because the crappy dye on their knickers stains everything when they get sweaty.

>>95951093
You hung out with pedophiles and now see them everywhere, huh? Interesting, but can you take it to your board instead of shitting up mine?

It's a game.
You can imagine it to be as colorful or as dull as you want.

>>95950900
Poplar boards are pretty good, hard to make too, and they didn't use crappy iron since it could mean missing fingers.
Even a poor sword was not a cheap sword either. So yes, warriors were all fairly wealthy by their standards.

>>95950841
Saying most or all of them had armor is a very broad statement that goes from just a skullcap and pectoral plate to a proper cuirass or mail shirt. You can’t really say those are equivalent, though I would agree that a basic Gallic warrior would be a man of means.

>>95950841
Most of them likely wore tunics and had shields and helmets, of course.
Maybe they had gambesons, but as far as I understand there are no archeological evidence for gambesons before middle ages, just some art depictions and references in the sources (like roman subarmalis).

>>95937440 (OP)
Who the fuck was the person who made "core" a thing needs to be slapped around a few times.

>>95948495
people didn't have showers back then, they had laws that criminalized public shitting for crying out loud

have you been to a farm before? Europeans like that but more stinky

>>95956091
Where I live that's still illegal

>>95956091
>they had laws that criminalized public shitting for crying out loud
Meaning it was not at all a typical or approved practice in society, just as how pedophilia is criminalized in the present day.

>>95956356
Laws require a group of people to recognize a problem first.

Pedophilia/AoC laws were first introduced by feminists between the 19th and 20th century. Similarily, Euro street shitters had it introduced against them after they took a shit on the street

>>95956150
lt is funny to see pampered suburban white dudes with ac, soap, and running water desire a world without them. If you grew up in a farm instead of playing CRPG, then you wouldn't romanticize the past from watching dark age tiktok edits.

>>95957031
>Pedophilia/AoC laws were first introduced by feminists between the 19th and 20th century.
Anon, we've been murdering people for child diddling for way longer than that. It wasn't that feminists emerged, it was that our whole standard of how society operates radically changed between then and now, extending the range of sexual acts that would allow somebody to take rope dance lessons for child diddling.

>>95945252
Yeah, but then everyone will call me gay (except women, who will say I look nice). We all need to do it together so nobody calls me gay.

>>95956091
People already bathed before showers were invented, else soapmaking wouldn't have been such a massive industry

>>95957031
>Laws require a group of people to recognize a problem first.
It requires social consensus that someone doing it is a problem in the first place. Again, the fact that pedophilia is illegal is not because literally everyone wants to rape children and it's the only thing keeping us in line.

>>95957463
In fact, I should add, it would rather be the exact opposite reason: if there were no central justice system to punish pedophiles on the public's behalf, the more likely result would be people taking matters into their own hands and stringing nonces up on street corners.

>>95957174
>Anon, we've been murdering people for child diddling for way longer than that
No we didn't. We really, really didn't. Humanity has been operating on degenerate 'If it bleeds, it breeds' logic for most of its history.

>>95957918
Raping little boys was covered under Sodomy, which could be expanded into covering other non-productive acts of sex, such as raping prepubescence girls, when the occasion called for it.
Incest covered sexual abuse within the family, which was, when trying to kill a motherfucker, defined in a broader sense through non-genetic legal and social family categories.

The term "pedophilia" apparently originated from Kraff-Ebbing, btw, who worked in clinical and forensic Psychopathology.

The ancients generally agreed that girls peaked at 14, but they were still going to sue or kill a mother who goes around raping children that were not his own slaves.

>>95940975
Arguements over descriptions of the conditions in town, wealthy lords wearing muddy belts tl, that sort of thing

>>95957918
>>95958049
Humanity has always had a concept of ages of consent, pretty universally across all societies. The actual ages may've varied but the concept of it's always been there.

>>95943845
Mudcore was already becoming established in the 70s, the stupidity of it was the basis for the "how can you tell he's a king" joke in Monty Python's Holy Grail.

It was the 50s and earlier that Hollywood movies really indulged in the garish aesthetic of the period, at least when they qere filming in color. Things like Ivanhoe, Adventures of Robin Hood, etc.

>>95958429
>Humanity has always had a concept of ages of consent, pretty universally across all societies. The actual ages may've varied but the concept of it's always been there.
In Ancient Greece at least (and Ancient Rome to a lesser extent) this was definitely NOT the case. In the words of Professor James Davidson, "there were no illegal sex acts" in Classical Greece. There are no grounds for the idea that certain forms of penetration were illegal, certain ages were off-limits or even that certain behaviours were frowned upon. They didn't even have a word for sibling incest. We know one of Solon's laws stated that marriage between siblings by the same father were just fine; it was only siblings by the same mother that couldn't marry. And in the classical period, Athens had a firm legal principle that when a man died intestate, his anchisteia (near kin) were entitled to marry any female dependents.

Only parent-child sex seems to be always painted as a very, very bad thing. The famous story of Oidipous indicates a strong taboo against parent-child incest and parent-child marriage.

>>95941053
did evola ever comment on this? would be interested to see what he says about how a TRVE hyperborean aryan solar priest-king and olympian/uranian warrior should wear

>>95958787
Actually read the greekd and not schizo jewish psychobabble, Plato says pedos should be killed.

>>95959907
>Plato says
Plato's writings and opinions were not the law

>>95959907
cite it then faggot

>>95948201
only if you count the non eurozone/anglosphere aka countries that don't matter

>>95948374
>>95948557
What's wrong with green heraldry?