Do you believe it’s a Hollywood psyop that medieval commoners were living shit barbaric unhappy lives even though depictions through paintings and books depicted them with colorful clothing, farm work, dancing and praying. It’s probably the fact that Hollywood hates European culturehttps://youtu.be/RHZq4mw1Gpc?is=MaSB_fdRk5BnvghN
maybe medieval times had some colour but your suggestion that it was good and happy time is so unhinged i'm surprised you can solve captchas on your own
>>223806948Europe was a shithole from the year 500 to the year 1650 or so,unless you were bizantine or muslim.but yeah,the wealthy highborn of some very concrete places had it less terrible i guess.
>>223806948Is the joke that neither vikings or monty phyton are hollywood productions?
i mean yeah they surely had good times too, but the thing is, when they had bad times it were REALLY bad times.
>>223807010life of brian also doesn't take place in medieval times or even in europe
>>223807001retarded
>>223807010they are using the cliche Hollywood - JOOS. Medieval europe is gray and grim in movies because joos hate white people
People in the dark ages were like niggers today, sorry to say.they had sex infront of their kids regularely, talked about their sexual conquests with their kids, tortured animals to death for fun and the list goes on and on.
>>223807053>life of brian
>>223807112isn't that what the screengrab is from?
>>223807099nobody really understands the concept of living in a big city without doctors and sewers unless you live in India.
>>223806994Op here no I wasn’t suggesting it was happy times or any of that shit but trying to find out whether which is accurate or not but I do believe it was a mix of both these where the same people that reused bath water to kept themselves clean.
>>223807269>Do you believe it’s a Hollywood psyop that medieval commoners were living shit barbaric unhappy lives even though depictions through paintings and books depicted them with colorful clothing, farm work, dancing and praying.go be a chud on a dedicated chud board
>>223807269tinting clothes,or extracting the chemicals that coloured things wasnt cheap.but yeah,in battle the banners and the clothes really needed to be distinctive,so they were as colourful as the regional warlord could afford.
>>223807151it's obviously from monty python and the holy grail, you retard
>>223806948If historical records are to be believed the color of clothing was associated to social status. The hierarchy hasn´t changed all that much though, society was divided on laboratore (workers), oratore (clergy) and bellatore (warriors) and each class had assigned a certain color palette to be recognizable at a glance. Even fabrics and tints were restricted by both price and law to ensure everyone knew their place. For example, oratores wore true black and white, laboratores dressed in earth muted tones like browns, greys, dulled greens and bellatores could use reds and blues. Meanwhile high nobility and royalty used complex combinations and had even more complex hierarchies that accounted for stuff like brightness. Crazy how a society with no modern plumbing or medicine on which people were usually dead by their 30´s had time to worry about such things...
>>223806948grey and brown colorgrading in ancient history films was invented by ridley in the movie gladiator
>>223807514What are you talking about? While it's true that some professions tended to wear certain colors (that depended on the place, time period and certain cultural aspects), it's not like peasants couldn't wear (muted) red or blue clothing, since those were relatively common dyes. The quality of the fabric and the vibrancy of the colors were much more important as signs of status.
>>223807377People make mistakes, no need to be rude.
