Can someone explain to me what life and the world was like 1000

>>3065432
What an incredibly vague question made even more vague by your huge time constraints and failure to ask about a specific culture. What aspect of life? Going to the bathroom? They used outhouses and chamber pots.

>>3065432
What region?
What class?
What aspects?

Most people died as children. The rest were poor and dumb. The tiny noble minority at least got food and servants. You basically have better quality of life than past kings did

Op here
just life in general for an ordinary person or a upperclass priest or educator or merchant or whatever and what the life and day to day affairs was like for the people in the cities and kingdoms like back than say 1000 years ago,


1000 years is a really long time compared to say 10 or 20 or even 100 years so of course there's a lot of events and learning and action and changes.......

What was life like for a king during medeviel Europe or England or France or China or Africa? What were the education and job prospects and family life and culture like for people so long ago like a thousand or two thousand years ago

>>3066805
>cities

urbanization is not present yet, the achievements of the roman empire is gone, you empty your bowl of shit and piss on the streets or some canal in the backyard

priests and merchants lived very different lifes

avarage joe was a serf, you were in a village and you died in a village doing the exact same thing your dad did

tend the land you were given, work on the nobles land, pay taxes to noble and church, get your harvest ruined in case the region is in war

upperclass had a somewhat more eventful life but also higher risks as you were expected to wage war or your business was prone to disasters, being a priest is similar to peasanty as you are tied to your "sheep" or worse, you were a monk in a monastery and become a religious peasant essentially

>>3066805
Well still incredibly vague, but I'll try one:

>What were the education and job prospects and family life and culture like for people so long ago like a thousand or two thousand years ago

Well lets look at Central Europe in 1000 AD. Generally for peasents you would do what your parents did, horizontal or vertical mobility were very limited. If you were a farmer, you were probably bound as a serf to the estate (with your entire family), you would work the lands of your lord (fields, mines, forrests) in exchange for protection.
Around this time there were still very few cities and little trade, so there was only a small middle class of craftsmen or merchants, most tools etc. were homemade, some castles may have designated smiths/fletchers or similar. Education was in the domain of the monks/the church, most people were illiterate, some nobles may have recieved education from monks/scribes and were literate.

Peasant Families lived in multi-generational houses, together with livestock. There was most likely no privacy, either at home or in the hamlets.
Marriage was usually politacally/economically driven and fairly pragmatic, although the concept of romantic love wasn't unheard of, although most poems/songs about it are from the high middle ages.
Child mortality was high and childhood ended soon, the concept of teenage years didn't exist, but there are sources, that confirm, that parents still loved their children, unlike what is often portrayed.

Culture was mostly dominated by the church. Art was almost solely religious

>>3066805
Are you Esl, generally unintelligent, or merely really uneducated?

Not trying to insult you, just trying to figure out what's behind your curious questions and posting style

>>3066914
sry hadn't seen you post on a smiliar topic.

>>3066968
Cont.
There were many religous holidays, and life even as a peasant wasn't as dreary, bleak or dirty as is often portrayed and hygiene was better than in later periods (it was the cities, that were so terribly filthy)

Life as a male noble was mostly martial, although administrative skills were also acquired. As a nobleman you swore an oath to next highest in the feudal ranks, meaning the landless classes (knights) were retainers at a castle/court, their lord would swear fealty to the next highest and so forth.

In central europe (HRE), the king/emperor travelled around the land from palatinate to palatinate, recieving set amounts of food/drink from the vassals on the way for him and his entourage. This system allowed a better control of the realm and was cheaper to maintain. Of course this meant, that the life of a holy-roman king/emeror wasn't as comfy as contemporary rulers.

>>3067035

>knights
>landless

Is this ever actually a thing? In England there was a designated unit of measurement called a "knights fee" which was the minimum amount of land required to support one knight and his family.

>>3067067
Yes, it did exist, especially in the early MA the term knight/ritter/ridder was used more as a martial role and not a social role. IIRC it was more common in the Carolingian tradition, due to fiefs being larger and more few (I could also be wrong about this, it might have to do with general Germanic Gefolge traditions).
What I should have said, is that the lowest of the nobles had no land and were retainers for landowners #notallknights and this was increasingly rare in 1000 AD, I didn't feel like going into to much detail on the feudal system, since that dosen't appear to be OP's homework