Was the world really a shit place to live in if you were't

>>3010372
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa I'm a first world pussy


Kys faggot

>>3010380

Fuck off pajeet. Go poo in a fucking loo for once.

>>3010372
High Middle ages were apparently alright. If you don't mind doing agriculture for the rest of your life then they wouldn't be too bad. Just the risk of any injury being life threatening increases

>>3010372
I mean before "electricity, cars and computers" is a span of thousands of years of human history. Some of it was shit to live through. Some of it was awesome. What are you asking?

>>3010608
>High Middle ages
You're partially right actually. The period after Great Plague was really not that bad for people who survived, since the demand for workforce was extremely high and the wages jumped in return. There was also food in plentitude. This somewhat blissful period lasted for almost two centuries, from the second half of 14th century to 16th century, when prices went completely wild. When you read contemporary writings from 16th and 17th century describing the life in Europe, they almost always lament about the good old days when there was meat everyday on the table.

>>3010381
How can you shitpost if you aren't on a shitting street?

a flu could kill you
birth could kill your wife

there were no "knights"
they were noblemen

yes it was, ppl flocked to cities for a reason

It depends on time, luck and place, much like today, OP. If you lived in a prosperous land under a kind lord with little word of an epidemic or a drought you could live a cozy life. Get a family, tend to your fields, sell the surplus, buy more cows, move up in the world.

File: pic55.jpg (1MB, 1000x690px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x690px

>>3010372
Ancient Eygpt also comes to mind. There was a lot of surplus food and I remember reading that slaves were actually treated surprisingly decently althought I cannot point to a specific point in ancient Eygptian histoy

Neolithic stone age could have also been pretty comfy if you are in a bountiful part of the world like the fertile crescent. Interestingly smiths were pretty high up on the social ladder since working with metals was a noble skill. I wouldn't mind if someone confirmed this though.

>>3010755
>I remember reading that slaves were actually treated surprisingly decently
You're probably talking about the workers who constructed the pyramids. They were treated so well because they weren't slaves, but free men.
>Neolithic stone age
>smiths
pick one

>>3010800
There have been documented copper tools like axes dated back to approximately 5500BC in the Balkans. This is near the end of the neolithic period and there is an overlap as societies transition from their old ways. It is very basic metallurgy and ores like malachite were mostly used as powders but the inception of metallurgy still begins in the neolithic.

Just from this infomation it would not be far-fetched that people who could carry out this metallurgy and make tools would be unique to carry out a this new skill. Granted I probably should of said copper age and "Smith" is probably a too generous a word to use.

>>3010800
Eh, a lot of societies had 'slaves' that were more just a semi-pureament underclass. A 'slave-class' is sometimes much better treated than slaves.