They might approve of the elite not being driven by boredom to constantly murder each other in useless duels. They might approve of the wealthy elite sharing the power rather than consolidating it with a king or emperor. They’d probably approve of Cinemax After Dark.
We are not discussing what I think are good things. We are discussing what an average European nobleman 500 years ago might think. I think they would be pleased to hear how much more straightforward it is to buy influence these days, and how unlikely it is that buying that from the wrong person is likely to end up with your head in a basket.
Depends on who the European nobleman is. A noble-blooded merchant from Venice in the 14th century would have a different perspective to a Frankish Knight of the 8th century.
The set of average european noblemen from 500 years ago does not include 8th century anyones. Yes, I am aware that different people hold different opinions. You asked a very speculative question about what an average member might think. So, thats all I have to say about it.
Overall I think the nobility in Europe 500 years ago was probably closer to martial values than mercantile values. The difference between these two is what I tried to illustrate, with the example.
BTW A 14th century Italian also isn’t someone who lived around 500 years ago either. The example wasn’t directly about our 15th/16th century nobleman. Even more the average nobleman, was I think a knight, since they where the lowest and pretty common nobility.
They might approve of the elite not being driven by boredom to constantly murder each other in useless duels.
Apologies, historical pedantry follows...
“Useless” duels started out as a way for nobles to legally murder each other (a mark of class distinction from the commoners who would actually be committing a crime when killing each other—useless only in the sense that status signalling is useless), but the elites weren’t stupid. Dueling evolved from sword-fights to the death to sword-fights to first blood, and then to gun fights with rules that tended to minimize fatal outcomes.*
*A legacy of this is the difference between fencing rules in foil/sabre and epee. IIRC, the former have highly structured rules about advancing and retreating (because being ignoring such things in early duels would get you killed); the latter is much less structured because it is based on duelling after the change from to-the-death to first-blood.
**Though this varied by time and geography. The Russians, for example, had a nasty tendency to toss the “civilizing” rules out the window. The Wild West variant as well.
We are talking about a specific time and place. 500 years ago in Europe a lot of duels were still deadly.
Also, just because duels may have been necessary for gaining and maintaining status at that time doesn’t mean that individuals would prefer that the most successful status seeking strategies were so dangerous. Today, you do not risk your life in the status games, and yes I think that would appeal to many average noblemen even 500 years ago.
They might approve of the elite not being driven by boredom to constantly murder each other in useless duels. They might approve of the wealthy elite sharing the power rather than consolidating it with a king or emperor. They’d probably approve of Cinemax After Dark.
You mean an elite that dosen’t care about their honour?
The wealthy elite is sharing power?
Maybe.
With each other, yes.
And you are certain this is a good thing?
We are not discussing what I think are good things. We are discussing what an average European nobleman 500 years ago might think. I think they would be pleased to hear how much more straightforward it is to buy influence these days, and how unlikely it is that buying that from the wrong person is likely to end up with your head in a basket.
Depends on who the European nobleman is. A noble-blooded merchant from Venice in the 14th century would have a different perspective to a Frankish Knight of the 8th century.
The set of average european noblemen from 500 years ago does not include 8th century anyones. Yes, I am aware that different people hold different opinions. You asked a very speculative question about what an average member might think. So, thats all I have to say about it.
Overall I think the nobility in Europe 500 years ago was probably closer to martial values than mercantile values. The difference between these two is what I tried to illustrate, with the example.
BTW A 14th century Italian also isn’t someone who lived around 500 years ago either. The example wasn’t directly about our 15th/16th century nobleman. Even more the average nobleman, was I think a knight, since they where the lowest and pretty common nobility.
Apologies, historical pedantry follows...
“Useless” duels started out as a way for nobles to legally murder each other (a mark of class distinction from the commoners who would actually be committing a crime when killing each other—useless only in the sense that status signalling is useless), but the elites weren’t stupid. Dueling evolved from sword-fights to the death to sword-fights to first blood, and then to gun fights with rules that tended to minimize fatal outcomes.*
*A legacy of this is the difference between fencing rules in foil/sabre and epee. IIRC, the former have highly structured rules about advancing and retreating (because being ignoring such things in early duels would get you killed); the latter is much less structured because it is based on duelling after the change from to-the-death to first-blood.
**Though this varied by time and geography. The Russians, for example, had a nasty tendency to toss the “civilizing” rules out the window. The Wild West variant as well.
We are talking about a specific time and place. 500 years ago in Europe a lot of duels were still deadly.
Also, just because duels may have been necessary for gaining and maintaining status at that time doesn’t mean that individuals would prefer that the most successful status seeking strategies were so dangerous. Today, you do not risk your life in the status games, and yes I think that would appeal to many average noblemen even 500 years ago.