Jump to content

Who would have harder time adapting.


Feologild

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Hereward said:

No, they don't. The only mention of burning a witch in England as opposed to Scotland and Western Europe in any of the three links was this: "A heart carved on a wall in the market place at Kings Lynn is supposed to mark the spot where the heart of Margaret Read, a condemned witch who was being burnt at the stake, leapt from the flames and struck the wall", which is hardly conclusive. All other mentions are of heresy, treason or counterfeiting.

Yeah, my fault for not fully vetting the first three google results.  

Here's another

http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/witchtrial/eis.html

Again, barely vetted, because I was so obviously posting something tongue-in-cheek on a silly thread.  If you need something more in depth about witches burned in England (some officially accused for other crimes like treason), I'll hunt down the title of the book I read a few months about about witches in England.  Or maybe you can figure out google and hunt it yourself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to witches and witchcraft, we’re way ahead of that period - didn’t pick up really until the end of the Middle Ages/start of the Enlightenment.

Numbers from scholars on the subject (generally agreed upon by most of them, I think) is somewhere around 50-60 000 for Europe. Most between 1550 and 1650. 

Fast google brings me this, in which it’s probably nessecary to point out that the writer isn’t a historian of the period, but that the blog entry from Darin Hayton is a broken link. Thony Christie, who comments, blogs here. I’m inclined to accept him (and Hayton) on this, knowing they are historians working on this period of time. 

Also worth noting on that point is that burnings were more common in rural areas distant from urban centres. What that means for Colchester, I couldn’t say.

Edit: what does this say for our hero? Not really much, s/he would’t be executed as a witch, but could certainly be executed as a heretic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That link also doesn't mention any burnings, bar one, where the person was burnt for treason and witchcraft. Burning though was the sentence for treason, i.e in this case, attempting to kill the king, not the means by which she was accused of doing it.

I can "figure out Google", but as I'm not the one making the unsubstantiated and ahistorical claim, I don't think the onus is on me to back your claim up.

 

Edit: But as you say, this was, one hopes, a light-hearted thread so I'll drop out of this threadjack. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hereward said:

That link also doesn't mention any burnings, bar one, where the person was burnt for treason and witchcraft. Burning though was the sentence for treason, i.e in this case, attempting to kill the king, not the means by which she was accused of doing it.

I can "figure out Google", but as I'm not the one making the unsubstantiated and ahistorical claim, I don't think the onus is on me to back your claim up.

 

Edit: But as you say, this was, one hopes, a light-hearted thread so I'll drop out of this threadjack. :)

No, dear.  It actually notes at least 5 who were burned while still alive.  

I have provided several simple links about people who were burned in England.  You've made the claim that it never happened and provided no evidence.  

Yes, it was a light-hearted thread.  I think most folks would have known that a person asking when they started burning witches would understand it to be a shorthand joke to point out that we'd be such outsiders in that time as to be alien and scary, something to be killed away.  I mean, I'm a non-white woman with lots of tattoos and short hair and never able to put up with pedantic men without at least a major eye roll or two.  As much as I'd love a chance to visit 1317, no matter the skills I have, I'd die quickly of burning or some other horrific death and be some random footnote in history of an alien creature who failed to conform to the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being actually from Colchester (I'd be interested to know why that town was chosen), the differences would be extreme but not as extreme as you'd immediately think. The castle is still here, and was still the better part of 150 years old (and already in a state of disrepair) in 1317, and the underlying geography, including the street plan, is the same. In fact, it's the same as it was 1,300 years before that when the Romans founded the town (hint: never, ever drive in Colchester town centre).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Being actually from Colchester (I'd be interested to know why that town was chosen), 

 
There is no reason for Colchester really it was just the first place that popped into my head.
I just thought they should be from the same place and for some reason Colchester was the first town that popped into my head. That is really the only reason.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/09/2017 at 8:48 PM, Feologild said:

Lets say that the average person from 1317 and the average person from 2017 switched places. The person from 1317 would be in 2017, and the person from 2017 would end back in 1317. So who do you think would have the hardest time adapting the person from 1317 or the person from 2017 ?

And lets say that they are both British from Colchester. 

I think both would have a very hard time adapting, But i do think it would be a bit tougher for the person from 2017 to adapt to 1317 than it would be for a person from 1317 to adapt to life in 2017


What do you think ?

5

I agree with you, for the most part.

The guy from 1317 would be very susceptible to our modern diseases. In comparison, thanks to inoculations we get as babies and being the genetic descendants of people who survived things like the Black Death so there is a better chance of immunity for the modern human over the medieval person, health-wise. The technological barriers for the medieval denizen would likely drive them mad, not to mention how noisy and bright the modern world is. It is also significantly more crowded. Much of it would probably feel like a living hell, literally, considering how irreligious modern Britain is. Ultimately, they would be very, very vulnerable. On the other hand, they would be very likely to receive a lot of help by modern doctors, psychiatrists and historians if discovered before PTSD, catatonia or disease set in. Overall, while our modern world can be quite selfish, it is better placed to help this time traveller.

The biggest problems for the modern human would be the physical trials of going back to a medieval level of technology. We are extremely reliant on technology these days, so having to use pre-early modern technology would be very, very hard for a generation of people where most do not have practical skills. Malnutrition would be an issue, too, due to a lack of available food or even a proper means of earning it. We also cannot ignore the lack of proper sanitation and foul smells, which would be sickening for many of us today.

There is the biggest problem that both would face: language barrier! Middle English, while understandable to us today, would probably be very, very difficult to follow due to it lacking standardisation. You might be able to follow as a modern human but it would be hard nor would they be able to understand you. Likewise, the medieval guy would be very difficult to understand for a modern human and they would be very unlikely to understand what we say. One benefit for them, of course, is the fact that we have modern academics who dedicate their lives to reading, writing and understanding medieval English (I myself have studied it). So, there will be some people who will be able to understand them.

So, the modern human might be better mentally equipped to deal with a regression in technology than the medieval human being exposed to it, having never seen the like before. However, the modern world would be better placed to help the time traveller from the past to try and make the transition easier. What little help the people of the fourteenth century could offer to the modern stranger would be based on superstition and outdated concepts. Ultimately, the modern human would have it harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/09/2017 at 7:40 PM, Rorshach said:

I’d be interested to know a bit about the history of Colchester. It’s a town I know nothing about, apart from them having a not really very good football team.

It's the oldest "town" in the UK (a couple of villages claim to be older, with some support), founded probably around 50-100 BC by the Catuvellauni, or their forebears. There's actually likely been settlements in the area for millennia earlier; there are tons of Neolithic and Paelaeolithic tools and artifacts that have been discovered in the region. We know the town was large and significant enough for it to mint coins as early as 20 BC. Colchester is built on a tall hill which is highly defensible from the north and east and sits astride a reasonably large river, the Colne, making it a natural spot for defence and trade.

A Roman legionary fort was built here shortly after the Roman conquest of Britain in 43 AD. As the borders were pushed outwards, the fort was dismantled and a Roman colonia was built instead. At its height circa 55-60 AD, the town had eight temples, including a large one to Claudius, baths and one of the the largest Roman circus and amphitheatres outside of Italy, able to hold 5,000 people. It became the administrative capital of Roman Britain, the first capital of a (more or less) unified Britain.

In 61 AD the Iceni tribe under Queen Boudica rebelled and sacked Colchester, attacking Londinium and St. Albans as well before being defeated. Colchester - or Camulodunum - was rebuilt with its still-visible walls but it was decided that the town was too vulnerable to attack so the capital was transferred to Londinium, which was deemed to have survived Boudica's attack and had a much larger river at its back, not to mention being effectively built in a swamp which hampered attackers. So without that attack, it's possible Colchester would be the capital of Britain today (although the much more strategic location of London on the Thames renders that debatable). After the collapse of Roman rule, Colchester ended up in the region known as the Danelaw and was ruled by Anglo-Saxons during their initial incursions into England.

Colchester is one of about a dozen sites which could have been an inspiration for the legend of Camelot, although its location (much further east than most other claimants) and lack of supporting evidence renders that debatable. The strongest evidence supporting it is that Colchester does appear to have had very little Anglo-Saxon influence (coins, tools etc) compared to everywhere around it, suggesting that it could have survived as a British enclave for a while.

In 1069, William the Conqueror ordered the construction of a massive castle at Colchester to defend the northern approaches to London. The castle was completed by around 1100. It used the foundation stones of the Roman temple of Claudius, which dictated the castle's slightly redundant size (Colchester Castle is 50% larger even than the White Keep of the Tower of London, which it really didn't need to be). It became the largest Norman keep in England, one of the largest in Europe and is only really outclassed by the Crusader castles in the Holy Land during the Crusades. The castle was pretty formidable but the only time it was tested in battle, by King John during the First Barons War, it fell (although that was a pretty messy civil war and no-one was really going all-out to defend it). By the 17th Century the castle had fallen into disrepair and an ironmonger was commissioned to tear it down; however, the castle was so well-built that it couldn't be torn down easily even with gunpowder and the ironmonger realised he was going to go bust trying, so he gave up. The castle was then extensively renovated in the 19th and 20th centuries, and has been restored to something approaching its original state (although it's now only two stories tall rather than the original three).

During the English Civil War, in 1648, Colchester was besieged in one of the most pointless escapades in military history. A Royalist army was cut off in Kent. It escaped over the mouth of the Thames and headed north to seize a Parliamentary magazine at Braintree, with the goal of withdrawing north to join the main royalist forces in the north. However, it was cut off by a Parliamentarian army and forced towards the sea, perhaps hoping they could seize boats and escape. Instead, it had to seek refuge in a defensible position and picked Colchester - a staunchly Parliamentarian-supporting town (as you'd expect, as Colchester is only 60 miles from London) - managing to capture it in a surprise attack since no-one was expecting a Royalist army to show up there. The Royalists then withstood siege for two and a half month, despite having zero chance of relief or resupply and the population of the town loathing them. After two and a half months and somewhere north of 2,000 deaths, the Royalists surrendered and their leaders were executed in the castle grounds (according to legend, no grass will grow on their graves; others suggest the presence of a massive concrete obelisk on the spot might have some bearing on that). According to myth, the nursery rhyme "Humpty Dumpty" refers to a massive cannon the Royalists installed on Colchester's wall which wasn't properly secured and fell down and broke, but this is contested by other claims about the origin of the song.

Since then Colchester has several further claims to fame: Jonathan Swift spent a while living here (Moll Flanders is set in the area) and acquired a taste for oysters, helping popularise a local industry which remains strong. Twinkle Twinkle Little Star was composed in Colchester and Margaret Thatcher lived here for a while, when studying and working as a chemist before entering politics. The town sent a large contingent to WWI (few of whom came back) but fared better in WWII, avoiding being bombed because it's contribution to the war effort - the town's textile factories creating military uniforms - was not deemed essential by the Germans. The countryside surrounding the town was covered in airfields (fake and real) and children watched the Battle of Britain playing out above them; my grandfather was based at an airfield just a few miles across the border into Suffolk. During the same time period, the coast surrounding Colchester was heavily fortified and you can still see massive defensive emplacements at Dovercourt nearby. Colchester did play host to the 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the Parachute Regiment for decades after the war, and the Russians allegedly tasked one ICBM for Colchester during the Cold War, which made us feel very special (less so now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Werthead docked 16 points and a mother of pearl ~ Victorian inlay thimble holder for failing to mention Dr. John Gray, the Lovejoy novels/tv show based on his creation, the pop-antiques boom those helped stimulate and my image of the Colchester arcade as a grungy sweat-stained haunt of nafarious dealers and blue-haired ladies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say that the man from 2017 would have an easier time adapting. First, if the 2017 man took a history class, he'd have some knowledge about the occurrences of 1317. I doubt the man from 1317 would know anything about 2017. Second, the man from 1317 would probably end up really and/or homeless since he has no marketable skills. Manual labor isn't difficult to learn, so while it might be a bit of a shock to the man of 2017, he could learn it far easier than the man from 1317 could in 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a person from 1317 would do okay. Some immigrants that go to modern countries come from regions that are only marginally more technologically developed* than medieval Europe was, and possibly quite a bit poorer (depending on the estimates) and well, most of them survive. 

The other way around would be much rougher, due to the absence of a safety net and the general suspicious attitude people held against vagrants and foreigners. You'd probably be lucky to be taken in as a farmhand or servant by someone.

 

*Rural Afghanistan, parts of rural Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why the little aside about Colchester made me laugh so much. I've never even been there. 

Anyway - depends on what skills someone has. I think a nurse would fare well in the past like Claire from Outlander. Me, I'd die straight away - I'm sure of it. And I'm a ''historian'' lol. I don't think i'd have a clue. As mentioned, I am not from Colchester 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1317 is a really bad year to adapt to in Europe.  It was the time of the Great Famine.

I also wonder what modern profession or skillset could have been most usefull in those times.  I think that being able to read and write latin would have insured a half way secure position, but probably would have raised a lot of suspicion against you, had they noticed you were a woman, unless you could pass as a noble.

I'd probably be best at dy(e)ing, since I learned some basic techniques from some centuries earlier an a bit further north (Bryneich), from this song, Weaver - Richard Dawson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On September 28, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Werthead said:

It's the oldest "town" in the UK (a couple of villages claim to be older, with some support), founded probably around 50-100 BC by the Catuvellauni, or their forebears. There's actually likely been settlements in the area for millennia earlier; there are tons of Neolithic and Paelaeolithic tools and artifacts that have been discovered in the region. We know the town was large and significant enough for it to mint coins as early as 20 BC. Colchester is built on a tall hill which is highly defensible from the north and east and sits astride a reasonably large river, the Colne, making it a natural spot for defence and trade.

A Roman legionary fort was built here shortly after the Roman conquest of Britain in 43 AD. As the borders were pushed outwards, the fort was dismantled and a Roman colonia was built instead. At its height circa 55-60 AD, the town had eight temples, including a large one to Claudius, baths and one of the the largest Roman circus and amphitheatres outside of Italy, able to hold 5,000 people. It became the administrative capital of Roman Britain, the first capital of a (more or less) unified Britain.

In 61 AD the Iceni tribe under Queen Boudica rebelled and sacked Colchester, attacking Londinium and St. Albans as well before being defeated. Colchester - or Camulodunum - was rebuilt with its still-visible walls but it was decided that the town was too vulnerable to attack so the capital was transferred to Londinium, which was deemed to have survived Boudica's attack and had a much larger river at its back, not to mention being effectively built in a swamp which hampered attackers. So without that attack, it's possible Colchester would be the capital of Britain today (although the much more strategic location of London on the Thames renders that debatable). After the collapse of Roman rule, Colchester ended up in the region known as the Danelaw and was ruled by Anglo-Saxons during their initial incursions into England.

Colchester is one of about a dozen sites which could have been an inspiration for the legend of Camelot, although its location (much further east than most other claimants) and lack of supporting evidence renders that debatable. The strongest evidence supporting it is that Colchester does appear to have had very little Anglo-Saxon influence (coins, tools etc) compared to everywhere around it, suggesting that it could have survived as a British enclave for a while.

In 1069, William the Conqueror ordered the construction of a massive castle at Colchester to defend the northern approaches to London. The castle was completed by around 1100. It used the foundation stones of the Roman temple of Claudius, which dictated the castle's slightly redundant size (Colchester Castle is 50% larger even than the White Keep of the Tower of London, which it really didn't need to be). It became the largest Norman keep in England, one of the largest in Europe and is only really outclassed by the Crusader castles in the Holy Land during the Crusades. The castle was pretty formidable but the only time it was tested in battle, by King John during the First Barons War, it fell (although that was a pretty messy civil war and no-one was really going all-out to defend it). By the 17th Century the castle had fallen into disrepair and an ironmonger was commissioned to tear it down; however, the castle was so well-built that it couldn't be torn down easily even with gunpowder and the ironmonger realised he was going to go bust trying, so he gave up. The castle was then extensively renovated in the 19th and 20th centuries, and has been restored to something approaching its original state (although it's now only two stories tall rather than the original three).

During the English Civil War, in 1648, Colchester was besieged in one of the most pointless escapades in military history. A Royalist army was cut off in Kent. It escaped over the mouth of the Thames and headed north to seize a Parliamentary magazine at Braintree, with the goal of withdrawing north to join the main royalist forces in the north. However, it was cut off by a Parliamentarian army and forced towards the sea, perhaps hoping they could seize boats and escape. Instead, it had to seek refuge in a defensible position and picked Colchester - a staunchly Parliamentarian-supporting town (as you'd expect, as Colchester is only 60 miles from London) - managing to capture it in a surprise attack since no-one was expecting a Royalist army to show up there. The Royalists then withstood siege for two and a half month, despite having zero chance of relief or resupply and the population of the town loathing them. After two and a half months and somewhere north of 2,000 deaths, the Royalists surrendered and their leaders were executed in the castle grounds (according to legend, no grass will grow on their graves; others suggest the presence of a massive concrete obelisk on the spot might have some bearing on that). According to myth, the nursery rhyme "Humpty Dumpty" refers to a massive cannon the Royalists installed on Colchester's wall which wasn't properly secured and fell down and broke, but this is contested by other claims about the origin of the song.

Since then Colchester has several further claims to fame: Jonathan Swift spent a while living here (Moll Flanders is set in the area) and acquired a taste for oysters, helping popularise a local industry which remains strong. Twinkle Twinkle Little Star was composed in Colchester and Margaret Thatcher lived here for a while, when studying and working as a chemist before entering politics. The town sent a large contingent to WWI (few of whom came back) but fared better in WWII, avoiding being bombed because it's contribution to the war effort - the town's textile factories creating military uniforms - was not deemed essential by the Germans. The countryside surrounding the town was covered in airfields (fake and real) and children watched the Battle of Britain playing out above them; my grandfather was based at an airfield just a few miles across the border into Suffolk. During the same time period, the coast surrounding Colchester was heavily fortified and you can still see massive defensive emplacements at Dovercourt nearby. Colchester did play host to the 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the Parachute Regiment for decades after the war, and the Russians allegedly tasked one ICBM for Colchester during the Cold War, which made us feel very special (less so now).

^^^Thats impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you know, I hate to quibble (!), but the Danelaw came into being at the end of the 9th century/beginning of the 10th, rather than after the Roman collapse and before the Anglo-Saxon settlement, as, no doubt accidentally, suggested above. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...