NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think would be the best place to live in during 500AD to 1200 AD? Not considering language or eitquette where would you want to live? I choose the city-states of Italy.

Baghdad, circa 900. That or Constantinople, at any time period.

Scandinavia, before the Jesus Fan Club took it over. Vikings were badass, and they had a much cooler religion.

I'll say New Zealand...if only because of it's isolated location. I get to avoid things like religious wars and continent wide plagues.

I'll say New Zealand...if only because of it's isolated location. I get to avoid things like religious wars and continent wide plagues.

Yeah, but your sustinence would consist of shrubbery and that bigass bird that used to live on the islands.

Scandinavia, before the Jesus Fan Club took it over. Vikings were badass, and they had a much cooler religion.

I would say that the best place to live then would be the place that's the best place to live now. Iceland.

Though the west coast of what's now the US would be pretty cool, too. Temperate climate, abundant resources coupled with a relatively small population... must have been nice.

Pre-Christian Ireland or Scotland I think would also be good.

Scandinavia, before the Jesus Fan Club took it over. Vikings were badass, and they had a much cooler religion.

I FORGOT THE SCANDINAVIAN PENNISULA! Sorry!

Scandinavia, before the Jesus Fan Club took it over. Vikings were badass, and they had a much cooler religion.

plus if you get bored you could go sack a church (which had gold and lots of nice smelling candles back then)

O jeez.........Constantinople, Baghdad, perhaps Muslim spain, and like Venice or Milan or one of those Italian City-States. Perhaps, knowing what I know now, I would gather up a bunch of people and sail to the West Indies, where I would set up a peaceful, stable, tolerant governmet, and try as best I could to spread immunity to European diseases among the islands, and in isolated parts of the mainland in general. Over time, this could lead to a prevention of the pandemic that occured when Europeans first arrived.

And I would get funding by advising the rulers of Europe, who would hear of my intricate knowledge of the future.

Damascus

but only because I've been playing Assassins Creed the last hour and thought it the best looking city.

The women were so hairy before the 20th century and bathing was rare that as much as people talk about the old days, it would be tough to live in them.

Scandinavia, before the Jesus Fan Club took it over. Vikings were badass, and they had a much cooler religion.

Agreed.

hmmmm... either Japan or (North) America.

The women were so hairy before the 20th century and bathing was rare that as much as people talk about the old days, it would be tough to live in them.

Well, consider that in ancient Rome and medieval Constantinople, people bathed daily (sometimes multiple times in one day). Bath houses were free, and were all over the place. Not that they used soap or anything (at least not usually), but soaking yourself is better than nothing.

But, no deodorant? Blah!

China. Most advanced, most powerful, and wealthiest civilization on Earth at the time.

Yeah, but your sustinence would consist of shrubbery and that bigass bird that used to live on the islands.
You're forgetting the abundance of fish. And that bigass bird weighed a couple hundred kilos so it would certainly have fed you well.
Of course there would be the dangers of being attacked by the bigass eagle that fed on said bigass bird:
http://www.newzealandeagle.com/eaglephysiology.html

Iceland -- first democracy FTW.

America. Because America is, was, and always will be, the greatest place on earth.

No, actually I'd like to live here because the problems of disease, poverty, hunger, and persecution weren't as big in a hunter-gatherer tribe as they were in Europe, the Middle East, and China.

Vikingia.

I would love to be a Viking.

No, actually I'd like to live here because the problems of disease, poverty, hunger, and persecution weren't as big in a hunter-gatherer tribe as they were in Europe, the Middle East, and China.
You might want to do a bit more research there. Hunter-gatherer tribes have never been much other than bare subsistence-level living. You don't hunt enough moose in Summer, you starve in Winter.

Yeah Potarius, but you are talking about the extremely rich and very select area's. Most of the people in every place were filthy before the modern era. That's why even the richest people wore so much perfume in England for example, because everyone stunk because no one bathed above once a year.

When I think about living in another era, I just think about hairy women, hygiene, no sanitation and be glad that I live in even this politically correct era. That's why you can understand why the settlers to America mixed with the Indian women so much, they were much cleaner since they bathed regularly in the rivers and creeks.

America. Because America is, was, and always will be, the greatest place on earth.

No, actually I'd like to live here because the problems of disease, poverty, hunger, and persecution weren't as big in a hunter-gatherer tribe as they were in Europe, the Middle East, and China. you might want to recheck that. many tribes had inter tribal conflicts that were down right vicious.

How dare you not put Mongolia!!!!

Yeah, people have this view of the American Indians as these peaceful people who never did anything to bother anyone and nothing could be further from the truth. They regularly waged imperialistic wars, took slaves, brutally tortured each other and were extremely prejudice to the point of active genocide against tribes like the Calusa. In fact, Americans Indians practiced slavery for decades after it was outlawed in the South. Not that you ever hear about that in a college lecture. They were very violent societies and the women were property.

A good example would be when Custer pointed out that the Sioux had actually taken the land they were on from the Crow. Though the Comanches and Apaches were probably the worse.

I'm just talking about American Indians, not the Aztecs and the Incans who were no different all than the Nazis in their racial beliefs.

you might want to recheck that. many tribes had inter tribal conflicts that were down right vicious.

I realize that the Americans were not the "noble savages" that they are often depicted as. But if I had to choose between feudal warfare in Europe and tribal warfare in America, I'd go with the latter.
Also, America is an incredibly broad term. I'd stick with the group that was the most peaceful.

Also, America is an incredibly broad term. I'd stick with the group that was the most peaceful.

They were usually the ones who were attacked...

I realize that the Americans were not the "noble savages" that they are often depicted as. But if I had to choose between feudal warfare in Europe and tribal warfare in America, I'd go with the latter.
Also, America is an incredibly broad term. I'd stick with the group that was the most peaceful.

just wanted to make sure that you wern't going into this with rose-colored glasses. ;)

as tempting it is to try to be a knight in Europe... Heavy metal really wasn't my cup of... er... wine?

You might want to do a bit more research there. Hunter-gatherer tribes have never been much other than bare subsistence-level living. You don't hunt enough moose in Summer, you starve in Winter.

starvation is much rarer among foragers than among farmers

America. Because America is, was, and always will be, the greatest place on earth.

No, actually I'd like to live here because the problems of disease, poverty, hunger, and persecution weren't as big in a hunter-gatherer tribe as they were in Europe, the Middle East, and China.

Really depended on where you lived in America. I have read up on the Mississippian societies and they had similar problems as the Europeans.

China. Most advanced, most powerful, and wealthiest civilization on Earth at the time.

Hopefully for your sake it is closer to the earlier end of that time period than the latter. China in the few decades after 1200AD was potentially rather dangerous..


On topic: Central America. Ball games? Human sacrifice? Blood letting? Inability to discover the wheel? Sign me up!

America. Because America is, was, and always will be, the greatest place on earth.

No, actually I'd like to live here because the problems of disease, poverty, hunger, and persecution weren't as big in a hunter-gatherer tribe as they were in Europe, the Middle East, and China.

i don't know, the time period in question is one of the more 'civilized' and sucky for large swaths of north america. farmers, farmers, everywhere, basically.

I would choose Medieval Ireland, which had an incredible level of erudition and strong traditional of liberal customary law. Either that, or England before the Norman Invasion.

I'd have to agree with the Middle East, preferrably somewhere along the Silk Road. There's a killing to be made there with a bit of business sense.

And then you can use those connections to get in the best of both worlds, ie from Europe and from China, to live in luxury.

I'd like to add to my comments. Being Norse, I'd probably join the Varangian Guard and get pretty damn rich.

I'd have to agree with the Middle East, preferrably somewhere along the Silk Road. There's a killing to be made there with a bit of business sense.

also, black death

also, black death
Meh, I'll be too rich to die. :D

Somewhere in the Middle East. They bathed.

...and try as best I could to spread immunity to European diseases among the islands, and in isolated parts of the mainland in general. Over time, this could lead to a prevention of the pandemic that occured when Europeans first arrived.

Sadly I'd say that'd be impossible. As I understand it, the Eurasian immunity comes from two sources. One is living in close proximity with livestock, which exposed people to the diseases over time. The other is the interconecctedness between populations, allowing the zoonotic diseases to spread over the whole continent.

Note that there were pandemics in Eurasia as well - and not just plauge and smallpox - that were related to initial exposures.

The women were so hairy before the 20th century and bathing was rare that as much as people talk about the old days, it would be tough to live in them.

Bathing was much more common before the Black Death. It's really the Renaissance that was disgusting by modern standards of hygene.

Well, consider that in ancient Rome and medieval Constantinople, people bathed daily (sometimes multiple times in one day). Bath houses were free, and were all over the place. Not that they used soap or anything (at least not usually), but soaking yourself is better than nothing.

But, no deodorant? Blah!

Indeed. Eric does have a point re how wide spread and available bathing was practiced in Europe. However, the images of the stinky aristos is more from the Renaissance.

You heard right--people in the old days did stink to high heaven. What with domestic animals, nonexistent sanitation and refrigeration, and (after 1800) crowding and pollution, pretty much everything stank. Efforts were made to alleviate the stench, the most famous result being the public baths of Rome, but the more common practice was to disguise foul scents with fairer ones. A wealthy party host was expected to tickle his guests' olfactory receptors with exotic perfumes, incense, and ointments. If he didn't they'd be more likely to smell the chamber pots--separate toilet rooms draining to a cesspool weren't common until the 19th century.

Probably the low point in terms of BO was reached during the Renaissance.In the Middle Ages public baths had been available in larger towns; while these were more recreational than hygienic and often did a good side business as brothels, you could get clean if you wanted to. In the wake of the plague, though, Europeans decided baths were dangerous. Hot water allowed toxins to penetrate the skin--better to keep the pores caulked with healthy grime. A grossed-out Muslim in the Arabian Nights suggested that once Christians were doused with baptismal water they felt entitled to avoid bathing for the rest of their lives. Personal grooming, such as it was, focused entirely on appearances. People washed their faces and hands sometimes but refused to immerse their entire bodies except on doctors' orders. The rich drenched themselves with perfume to conceal odor. Lice and fleas were universal, etiquette requiring merely that one refrain from scratching conspicuously in public. People were used to a baseline level of putridity; to attract attention, you had to really reek.

This noxious state of affairs persisted for centuries. One small step forward was the wearing of underclothing, preferably of white linen--dirt would rub off on the linen, which you could wash every few weeks without having to wash yourself. The prejudice against water began to recede in the 18th century, but bathing remained an aristocratic luxury (later extended to the bourgeoisie) for another 150 years. (Not that the aristos set much of an example--it's said Versailles stank due to bluebloods relieving themselves in corners.) Partly it was a matter of expense--for those too modest to simply jump in the river, the only bathing facilities were public bathhouses, revived in popularity but out of most people’s price range. It’s estimated that in 1819 the 700,000 inhabitants of Paris collectively purchased only 600,000 baths.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041217.html

For a more in depth, and cited, source, try "A Short History of Bathing before 1601" (http://www.gallowglass.org/jadwiga/herbs/baths.html).

As for the OP question... Hmmmm.... maybe one of the more peacable Polynesian isles?

Rome, 546 AD.

Yeah Potarius, but you are talking about the extremely rich and very select area's. Most of the people in every place were filthy before the modern era. That's why even the richest people wore so much perfume in England for example, because everyone stunk because no one bathed above once a year.

When I think about living in another era, I just think about hairy women, hygiene, no sanitation and be glad that I live in even this politically correct era. That's why you can understand why the settlers to America mixed with the Indian women so much, they were much cleaner since they bathed regularly in the rivers and creeks.

The Vikings were actually some of the cleanest of European peoples, bathing once a week, such that in Scandinavian languages, the word for saturday means washing day (at least according to Wikipedia, which on this fairly non-controversial subject I think should be pretty reliable). Certainly by our shower-every-day standards in this modern age that isn't that clean, but compared to what you're saying it is.

As for the OP question... Hmmmm.... maybe one of the more peacable Polynesian isles?

yeah, just be careful not to land on one of the ones where they cut down all the trees and started eating each other. but if you can get in on the initial wave of expansion, especially to some of the larger islands, it sounds rather nice to me as well.

Baghdad under the Caliphate, no doubt - but leave before the Mongols arrive - largest city of the age, exciting intellectual life, few religious fanatics, fountains and rivers.
The italian cities are more interesting between 1200 and 1500.

Bathing was much more common before the Black Death. It's really the Renaissance that was disgusting by modern standards of hygene.


Iirc, it was Caterina de' Medici who brought to the then-uncouth French the habit of washing oneself's hands before going to dinner... italian cities had better sanitation standards than most of Europe, maybe except Spain - it could be because of the closer relationships (trade and culture) with the more civilised islamic world of the time.

tibet or nepal, maybe even serindip (shri-lanka) or india.

japan would have been interesting, but neither it nor china would have been my first choice. someplace none of the empire builders of the time had ever heard of or cared about would.

=^^=
.../\...

prior to the sack of baghdad by the mongols I'm thinking there would've been pretty cool...but venice was pretty liberal and cool in the late middle ages and renaissance.

What do you think would be the best place to live in during 500AD to 1200 AD? Not considering language or eitquette where would you want to live? I choose the city-states of Italy.

Any particular reason America is listed twice?

Anyway I'd go for somewhere in North America, probably in what would be Colorado in the future. So long as I avoid the Native American tribes I'd probably be able to live pretty decently.

yeah, just be careful not to land on one of the ones where they cut down all the trees and started eating each other. but if you can get in on the initial wave of expansion, especially to some of the larger islands, it sounds rather nice to me as well.

Yep.

The big question though is low or high island. The former are more vulnerable to natutal disasters but the latter tended to develop more violent societies, from what I remember.

I'd go for Byzantium under the Macedonian Emperors, preferably from Nicephorus II Phocas to Basil II Bulgaroktonus.

If not, then early Anglo-Saxon England or the Viking period in Northern Europe. So long as I wasn't one of those Saxons being ground under the boot-heel of the Danes.

And then, probably some-one high born in the latter, as it was no fun being a peasant.

Pre-Christian Ireland. Because the Irish rock in any time period.

Hawai'i - I could have it all to myself.

I'll say New Zealand...if only because of it's isolated location. I get to avoid things like religious wars and continent wide plagues.

New Zealand was uninhabited in 500 AD. It was first inhabited at some point between the ninth and the thirteenth centuries. As I recall, historian James Belich suggests that persistant warfare didn't start until the 15th or 16th century, so around 1200 AD you should be more or less OK.

Australia was, by all accounts, a comparatively good place to live. You were far likelier to lead a peaceful and healthy life in Australia than more or less anywhere else in the world.

Europe isn't particularly appealing at that time. South America even less so. The Muslim world would be a lesser evil.

Although... Maybe San Marino? At least it was stable and peaceful.

Sadly I'd say that'd be impossible. As I understand it, the Eurasian immunity comes from two sources. One is living in close proximity with livestock, which exposed people to the diseases over time. The other is the interconecctedness between populations, allowing the zoonotic diseases to spread over the whole continent.

Note that there were pandemics in Eurasia as well - and not just plauge and smallpox - that were related to initial exposures.


Well, as the few surviving natives on the island I landed on regrouped, I would talk to them and convince them to go out among the other islands, and pass along to their children the immunity they have gained from the diseases common in my time. Eventually, this immunity will be spread to the mainland, where it will help save a larger portion of the population. Although admittedly it wouldnt protect against the later plagues, it would help for many of the basic ones.

In Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire. They were a rather progressive society and very clean. :)

In Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire. They were a rather progressive society and very clean. :)

Bring us back some gold!

Byzantium. Hands down.

To live in Constantinople after the fall of the Western Roman Empire is the ideal, IMHO. The Roman Empire had sanitation, security, roads and weath. The Byzantine Empire preserved this well into the second Millenium.

Byzantium. Hands down.

To live in Constantinople after the fall of the Western Roman Empire is the ideal, IMHO. The Roman Empire had sanitation, security, roads and weath. The Byzantine Empire preserved this well into the second Millenium.
I'd have said the best time to be there was before the middle of the 11th century.

Easily Andalusian (Muslim) Spain during its golden age would be my pick, before infighting, Christian Europe and the Eastern part of the Muslim "Empire" ended up bringing it down. At its peak it was a marvel of intellectual dialog between three religions, multiple cultures and tons of currency from all over the world flowing through it.

If we're allowed to pick up to 1400 AD, I'd say I'd just follow Ibn Khaldun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun) around to...well, wherever the hell he decided to go. Probably one of the greatest minds, and at the same time most under-appreciated geniuses, in history.

I'd have said the best time to be there was before the middle of the 11th century.

Agreed, but with such a wide range of dates to choose from...

I'm just glad the range of dates didn't cover 1453... The thought of being impaled doesn't excite me much...

Hawai'i - I could have it all to myself.

Early in the time frame maybe. Depends on exactly when the Polynesians settled Hawaii and which islands they settled first.

But Hawaii had a caste system and the culture was pretty violent.

From what I know of the cultures, I'd probably take Tahiti. Culturally, the "Chatham" Islands seem prtty nice, but the climate wasn't the best.

Bring us back some gold!

What's the matter, your brethren hoarding all of the gold, leprechaun? ;)

Hmm. Almost impossible to know for real, but Anglo-Saxon England was quite nice. Reasonable taxes, and decent tradepertunities.

ICELAND!!!!!!!!!!!


This is a UN vote :D HERE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071127/lf_nm_life/un_development_index_dc)

tibet or nepal, maybe even serindip (shri-lanka) or india.


India is a bad choice . India was invaded in multiple waves by Arabs, Turks, Persians, Mongols, Afghans etc and was laid waste with only some stability and peace with middle Mughal era which started well after 1200 AD.

I would rather be in Baghdad before Hulagu Khan came or maybe in Istanbul after it fell to Turks.

I agree with Julianus II that Constaninople, or maybe another part of the Eastern Roman Empire would probably be best...

I would say that the best place to live then would be the place that's the best place to live now. Iceland.

Though the west coast of what's now the US would be pretty cool, too. Temperate climate, abundant resources coupled with a relatively small population... must have been nice.

Pre-Christian Ireland or Scotland I think would also be good.

Gosh darn right. That's exactly what my post would've been if I'd not read yours first.

Constantinople or Rome :p

Iroquois confederacy. It was founded around about that time.

Iroquois confederacy. It was founded around about that time.

the end of that time, maybe. the various mound-building cultures were dominating for most of it. but yeah, you could certainly do a lot worse than hooking up with the haudenosaunee. a lot.

What do you think would be the best place to live in during 500AD to 1200 AD? Not considering language or eitquette where would you want to live? I choose the city-states of Italy.

Would these be the Italian "city-states" that might only be considered to exist in even nascent form after the Lombard invasion in the 550's? What on earth do you propose to do before that? Enjoy Ostrogothic occupation and billetting, the Gothic Wars and Belisarius' invasion of Italy, Justinian's plague, and then Lombard invasion? Have fun.:rolleyes:

Constantinople or Baghdad for me, anyway. I would suggest Moorish Spain, but since 500 ad predates Moorish Spain, that would be impossible.

Would these be the Italian "city-states" that might only be considered to exist in even nascent form after the Lombard invasion in the 550's? What on earth do you propose to do before that? Enjoy Ostrogothic occupation and billetting, the Gothic Wars and Belisarius' invasion of Italy, Justinian's plague, and then Lombard invasion? Have fun.:rolleyes:.
I think the OP is asking if there's any place we would wish to live any time btween 500-1200AD, rather than if we were to live from 500AD to 1200AD. Christ, if we were to live that long, I doubt mere plague would stop us.

Although the pokey swords might.

I think the OP is asking if there's any place we would wish to live any time btween 500-1200AD, rather than if we were to live from 500AD to 1200AD. Christ, if we were to live that long, I doubt mere plague would stop us.

Although the pokey swords might.

Don't care. He clearly knows fuck all about the period; actually, as I think upon it, it's a damn silly period as well. The Great Schism, or the First Crusade, would be much better finishing dates than an arbitrary 1200.

Don't care. He clearly knows fuck all about the period; actually, as I think upon it, it's a damn silly period as well. The Great Schism, or the First Crusade, would be much better finishing dates than an arbitrary 1200.
True. I'd probably would have gone for the fall of Constantinople in 1204, but then may have gone the whole way for the Battle of Bosworth Field.

I do like the Wars of the Roses.

Shiny armour an' all.

And I would have gone from the dethronement of Romulus Augustulus, too.

True. I'd probably would have gone for the fall of Constantinople in 1204, but then may have gone the whole way for the Battle of Bosworth Field.

I do like the Wars of the Roses.

Shiny armour an' all.

And I would have gone from the dethronement of Romulus Augustulus, too.

Yep. Although I thought Constantinople fell in 1453? 1204 does, in the murky depths of my memory, seem significant, but I'm sure Constantinople was taken by the Turks in 1453...

Yep. Although I thought Constantinople fell in 1453? 1204 does, in the murky depths of my memory, seem significant, but I'm sure Constantinople was taken by the Turks in 1453...
Taken by the Crusaders during the Fourth Crusade in 1204, retaken by the Byzantines 1261 and then finally fell 1453.

Taken by the Crusaders during the Fourth Crusade in 1204, retaken by the Byzantines 1261 and then finally fell 1453.

Ah. The Crusade launched from Venice.

My apologies.

'Tis my pleasure, sir.

One of the things I can go on about at length.

'Tis my pleasure, sir.

One of the things I can go on about at length.

At least you haven't just finished a 10 week course on C6th Italy. I didn't actually think it would ever be of any further use.:D

At least you haven't just finished a 10 week course on C6th Italy. I didn't actually think it would ever be of any further use.:D
That does sound interesting, though. I do like the "dark ages". I'm currently completeling a course on post-Roman/early Medieval Europe, but as it's more from an archaeological perspective, it does tend to be more of a general introduction than a proper look at the period, which is a shame.

That does sound interesting, though. I do like the "dark ages". I'm currently completeling a course on post-Roman/early Medieval Europe, but as it's more from an archaeological perspective, it does tend to be more of a general introduction than a proper look at the period, which is a shame.

It depends how its taught as well. Half of my course consisted of discussing the "great men" school of history as much as it did the history itself, which was a shame, given that I've done philosophy of history before, and would have chosen to do it again if I'd wanted to.

That said, it is a fascinating period to study.

It depends how its taught as well.
That's very true. A subject that you really like can be rendered dull and boring by someone who can't really teach that well. I had a lecture on archaeological science, more specifically dating techniques, where the lecturer basically said "I taught you this last year, so I'll only go over it briefly", so it ended three quarters of an hour earlier than it ought to. Although he did have a U-series Disequilibria which was dating a neolithic skull, which was cool.
That said, it is a fascinating period to study.
Definately. Especially Justinian's attempts at re-conquering the Western Empire.

I need to buy a book on that...

China. Most advanced, most powerful, and wealthiest civilization on Earth at the time.

yeah, but then you'd be Chinese....