>>56360

>рыцарское вооружение

Полностью импортировали из Германии.

>тактика боя -рыцарская таранная сшибка

На Руси было то же самое.

>развитые турниры, княжеская и шляхетская геральдика

Заимствовано полностью от немцев

>города с Магдебургским правом

Опять же населённые почти полностью немцами. У поляков в средневековье не сформировалось своей городской культуры.

>каменнае замковая архитектура

Каменная крепостная архитектура бытовала и на Руси, но только в тех местах, где она требовалась.
Псковский Кром
Изборская крепость
Гдовская крепость
Порховская крепость
Островская крепость
Крепость Велье
Копорская крепость
Тиверская крепость
Крепость Ям
Ладожская крепость
Крепость Орлец
Новгородский Детинец
Ивангород
итд

>отсутствие геральдики

Геральдика была. Постоянно в летописях упоминаются знамёна. Осталось полно печатей с геральдическими изображениями

>города - совокупность дворов знати

Опять чушь. Большинство населения городов составляли различные категории посадских людей.

>преимущественно деревянная фортификация

Так же как и в Польше. Каменная фортификационная архитектура в современной Польше концентрируется в бывших немецких регионах:
Пруссии, Силезии и Померании.

>В 14-15 вв. этот процесс (светскость) охватил всю Европу под названием Возрождения.

Да, особенно Польшу, население которой до сих представляет собой сборище фундаменталистов.

>>57404
Вот и помер кнехт Максим,
Да и меч остался с ним.
Положили его в гроб -
Меч уперся в потолок.

Он здоровенный был мужик,
Он на мече вертел шашлык,
Им траншеи он копал,
И рейтаров разгонял.

Маркитантку тетю Зину
Цваем пёр через корзину,
Московита дядю Гришу
Продырявил через крышу.

А в какую-то войну
Как-то роту спас одну:
Шведы кнехтов окружили,
Шведы кнехтов перебили.

А кнехт гульфик отстегнул
И меч над речкой протянул.
Кнехты по мечу пошли,
Кнехты кнехтов пронесли.

А за ними шведы вспять
Стали на меч наступать.
Кнехт фальшгардой колыхнул -
Шведов в реку окунул.

А тех, кто плавал по воде,
Он бил мечом по голове.
После боя генерал
Ему меч поцеловал.

Едут сани в Урумчи,
А в них лежат одни мечи
Молчите, бляди, я ландскнехт,
Я ландскнехт!

>>61263 (Del)
Вообще отчасти так и есть, но это характерно для города.

По данным В. Абеля, относящимся главным образом к Германии, люди в XV в. потребляли в среднем 100 кг мяса в год pro capite[22]. Это — огромная цифра, «самый настоящий физиологический максимум» (Р. Мандру), которая означает — если учесть дни воздержания, предписанные церковными нормами, — что-то порядка 450–500 г мяса в день для 200–220 дней реального потребления. И все же имеются свидетельства, позволяющие признать возможными — и даже вероятными — подобные данные, правда ограничив их северными странами (где всегда потребляется больше мяса) и средними и высшими слоями общества или, по крайней мере, городскими слоями. Высокий немецкий уровень потребления мяса, например, находит подтверждение для Польши, Швеции, Англии, Нидерландов, где в XV в. «мясо настолько вошло в обиход, что в год неурожая спрос на него едва ли уменьшился» (Г. ван дер Вее); в Париже в XVI в. иностранный наблюдатель подмечает, что «все мастеровые и трактирщики, а не только богачи, хотят в скоромные дни съесть козленка или куропатку».
Но стоит выйти за городские стены, как положение меняется. Не радикальным образом, ибо мясо не редкость на столах у крестьян в XIV–XV вв., как и в предыдущий период. Но складывается впечатление — подтверждаемое крайне немногочисленными данными, еще более гипотетическими, чем те, что собраны для городов, — что в деревне дело с продовольствием обстоит сложнее. Согласно Стуффу, провансальские крестьяне XV в. ели мясо два раза в неделю. Значительно более высокой (40 кг в год pro capite) является оценка Э. Ле Руа Ладюри относительно наемных сельскохозяйственных работников Лангедока. Благоприятным было и положение наемных работников на сицилийских виноградниках в XV в.: они получали минимум 800 г мяса в неделю (а иногда и вдвое больше), в то время как разнорабочие потребляли его лишь трижды в неделю. Это, конечно, далеко до условий жизни эльзасских крестьян, которым в 1429 г. приносили на дом, в обмен на предоставленный в форме барщины труд, «два куска сырой говядины, два жаркого, меру вина и хлеба на два пфеннига»; но и это гораздо лучше, чем условия питания, которые сложатся у европейских крестьян с XVIII в.

>>61860
Я до сих пор не дождался от тебя ни единого пруфа на каждую твою жирную смехохуёчку.
От и до твои высеры - пустые слова, которые ты придумал в своем подросткоом мозге лично сам и нихуя из этого ты не подкрепил ни литературой, ни статьями. Ты малолетний гадёныш, который пришел сюда поржать и вбросить очередную толстую рыготину. К конструктивному диалогу ты не приспособлен, потому что ты малолетняя свинья.

>всем слоям общества

Номер скелета и его принадлежность к сословию мне назвал.
The majority of commentators on pre-industrial Europe have posited a close association and inverse relationship between food resource and mortality. In particular, as Fogel has described, historical demographers established a broad consensus that mortality crises had a general effect of lowering population and that they were the product of crises in subsistence, either directly, through starvation, or indirectly, through dearthand famine-related epidemics.2 It was, as he also notes, only the publication by Wrigley and Schofield of the mammoth Population History of England and Wales which, through a wealth of empirical data on early modern England, established an alternative hypothesis. This hypothesis had two interpretative consequences. The direct consequence was to question any immediate relationship between, on the one hand, mortality crises arising from harvest failure and a collapse in food supply and, on the other, long-term movements in population. Wrigley and Schofield, along with Ronald Lee, employed data derived from parish records to show not only that short-term variations in mortality were only weakly correlated with grain (wheat) price movements, but that long-term trends in mortality showed not even the weakest correlations.3 The indirect consequence was to throw emphasis upon background mortality and, in particular, the demographic consequences of chronic malnutrition. To quote Fogel, reflecting on early modern Europe and its emergence into a modern era of significantly reduced mortality rates, ‘the elimination of chronic malnutrition played a large role in the secular improvement in health and life expectation’.4 In drawing such a conclusion, Fogel has consciously attempted to find common ground for both the argument that crisis mortality arising from subsistence crises had little or no long-term effect on population movement and the alternative thesis that subsistence crises and their associated epidemics induced long-term population shifts. While accepting entirely the arguments propounded by Wrigley and Schofield for the limited impact of crisis mortality on total mortality and the extremely limited consequence of famine for the same, Fogel considers that the decline of mortality rates was largely dependent upon a significant improvement in average nutritional status. This improvement might be measured through changes in height and body mass indices. The demographic transition was, for Fogel, a consequence of improved agriculture and associated technologies which permitted an advance in per capita consumption.5 McKeown has argued, along broadly similar lines, that it was an improvement in nutrition prompted by agricultural advances rather than other endogenous developments, and notably medical developments, that first reduced mortality in the modern era. Essential to McKeown’s argument is an association between nutrition and infection. He argues for a close association between nutritional status and diseases so that ‘malnutrition contributes largely to the high level of infectious deaths’.6 Chronic malnutrition creates the sort of conditions that ensure a constant and vital influence of infection upon populations.7 While the arguments of the classical economists and those, such as Fogel and McKeown, who have applied or extended them have a forceful logic, their acceptance is not universal. In particular, some historians and demographers have contested any close and clear association between a failing or lowered allocation of resources per capita and population behaviour. In a succinct polemic on European demographic history, Massimo Livi-Bacci, while acknowledging ‘that nutritional variations were of great importance in the history of European populations’, has argued that ‘the mechanisms which link demography and nutrition are, to say the least, ambiguous’.8 In a controversial thesis, which reviews evidence of the body’s ability to adapt to privation, Livi-Bacci argues that a decline in resource is to be measured less in terms of deaths than in changes in human physiology: ‘the human phenotype may assume body size compatible with limits imposed by its environment.’9 Livi-Bacci recognizes that the adaptability of human populations and of individuals to periods of want is finite and that extreme periods of constraint on resources lead to death, not to adaptation; but he emphasizes the potential of societies to absorb changes in diet and in the availability of food without consequence for their survival.10 In developing this thinking, Livi-Bacci suggests that evidence of adaptability challenges an immediate and negative correlation between the availability of food and the movement of population, of a kind advanced by Fogel and McKeown. In the first place, he argued that the association between food shortage and disease only occurs ‘at high levels of malnutrition’ and is ‘triggered more by social dislocation than by malnutrition’. Secondly, since (a) elite groups do not appear to have enjoyed better chances of survival than did their poorer contemporaries and (b) the nutritional experience of the wealthy and the relatively poor as infants was similar or the same, that is, before they were weaned, mortality levels were as or more likely to be determined by environment, culture, or society than they were by nutrition. Thirdly, in historical populations, there is an observable increase in mortality at points of apparent and general improvement in standard of living. Here Livi-Bacci makes explicit reference to the century and a half after the first outbreak of plague in the mid-fourteenth century. Finally, when mortality does begin to decline, there is no clear evidence of an improvement in standard of living; in fact, evidence, especially that relating to height, indicates the contrary.11 Many of Livi-Bacci’s observations cannot be easily accommodated with the views of some of the commentators discussed earlier.12 His work encourages caution in extrapolating causative explanations from apparently compelling sets of data. As will already be evident, much of the debate about the relationship between nutrition and mortality has been conducted between demographers and historians working on population histories of the early modern and modern periods.13 Relatively little work has been attempted for the Middle Ages, largely for practical reasons. The sorts of cumulative data available to historical demographers working on later centuries—registration of baptisms, marriages, and deaths, information on morbidity, health statistics, and the like—do not exist, or only in the rarest of caches, for the Middle Ages. That said, there are sources for medieval England which might allow us to approach some of the questions that have engaged the attention of modernists. Medievalists do have information on local populations, the types of resources available to them, the allocation of food, and, in price and wage data, indices of change in supply and demand. Archaeology offers some limited information on health and morbidity, while narrative sources discuss the more significant moments of crisis mortality, including famines in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. It behoves us at least to assess some of the ways in which we might approach the relationship between nutrition and mortality for this period. Diet and the availability of food per capita The principal food for the population of England in the Middle Ages was cereals. Campbell, using extensive research on grain and livestock production, has estimated the total food allocation for the population of England c.1300 and c.1375. Around 1300, the arable area in England was c.10.5 million acres; this had reduced by about 25 per cent by 1375 and was roughly equivalent to the cultivated acreage around the time of Domesday Book.14 Accounting for a range of factors including the costs and methods of production, the extent of fallow, and the types of grain sown, Campbell calculated the total net grain output in 1300 as 7.39 million quarters, declining to 4.79 million quarters c.1375. Extrapolating from this, he estimated that the net output in 1086 was between 3.4 and 3.9 million quarters.15 By estimating the extent of the employment of the output, in terms of, for instance, proportion of grain brewed as ale, fed to livestock, milled, and so on, Campbell proposed an ‘extraction rate’—the percentage extracted for consumption in relation to the total net output—of 50–6 per cent in 1086, 58 per cent in 1300, and 48 per cent in 1375. Further calculation from this produces a daily kilocalorie output for England at these same points: 2,518–3,383 million kcal in 1086; 6,569 million kcal in 1300; and 3,503 million kcal in 1375. Campbell proposed that, if we assume a daily minimum requirement per person of 1,500 kcal derived from grain, then the population which could be sustained in England was in 1300, 4.38 million, and, in 1375, 2.34 million.16 Campbell’s estimate of 1,500 kcal per individual can be tested against those few sources which offer particular insight into the general diet of the population. While sources for certain groups within medieval society, such as monks and members of high-status, secular households, suggest that they frequently consumed far in excess of this base figure,17 it is also evident, where we can extrapolate from sources for low-status populations, that a majority of the population consumed levels of food that came closer to 1,500–2,000 kcal per day. Dyer’s examination of peasant maintenance agreements, which detail grain allocations provided, typically by family members, for older relatives in retirement, indicates an amount close to Campbell’s base figure. A sample of 141 agreements, over two centuries, reveals that the majority of payments were of 9 to 16 bushels of grain per annum, with an average of 12 bushels (1.5 quarters). Dyer estimates 12 bushels of wheat and barley would produce a daily allowance of about 1.5 to 1.75 lb of bread, or 1,700–2,000 kcal.18 Analysis of payments to harvest workers, recorded in manorial accounts, while tending to offer information on much larger lump sums which must have been subsequently distributed amongst the labour force and its dependants, also indicates daily levels of a similar proportion.19 Long-term patterns of food availability in medieval England The general availability of food altered significantly across the high and late Middle Ages. Dyer’s work has done most to establish a broad chronology of food availability, describing a pattern generally consistent with long-term shifts in population and entitlements. In particular Dyer’s examination of payments to harvest workers and famuli indicates ways in which a peasant diet dominated by cereals gave way, in the second half of the fourteenth century and in the fifteenth century, to a diet which was significantly higher in protein.20 These general patterns were not representative of all patterns of consumption. The availability of food types was dependent upon status and the extent to which food availability altered across the period was also dependent upon wealth and status. In particular, the diet of the wealthy, especially members of social elites, did not alter dramatically relative to changes in the diet of their social inferiors.21 In fact, it was the more pronounced variation in the diet of the poorer members of society which attracted most attention and, as the diets of those of lower status drew closer to patterns of high-status consumption, censure.22 Diet did not create social difference in this period but it was evidence of social difference and, in demographic terms, it helped perpetuate that difference. The majority of the population throughout the period consumed a diet that was principally cereal based; elites, however, consumed diets that were relatively, and often extensively, rich in protein. Thus the monks of Westminster Abbey ate, outside Lent, a diet highly rich in protein.23 Those further down the social scale also sought to replicate, albeit to a limited degree, the diets of their social superiors. While the poorest members of society could not hope to enhance their diet unless through charity, wealthy urban and country dwellers, including peasant elites, could vary their diet. As we have seen in earlier chapters, wealthier villagers purchased meats and fish, as well as rearing their own livestock and fish for sale and consumption.24 The opportunities brought by wealth had dietary implications which we may detect in other demographic indicators. For instance, we know that the families of the wealthier peasants were often larger than those of their poorer neighbours.25 In many respects, this is an indication of the potential for the reallocation of resources within the family and the opportunities for early marriage thereby presented in a system of neo-local household formation. But this also suggests that members of these wealthier families may have been better nourished and particularly able to provide for themselves, their offspring, and their elderly relatives.26 In discussing the changing pattern of food availability in this period, therefore, we need to acknowledge that the general patterns of availability were not universal patterns and that individual entitlements to food varied significantly, with differing proportions of the population more or less able to gain an appropriate quantity and quality of food.
It is manifestly not the case that we are what we eat, but normal growth and development of the skeleton certainly do depend upon a diet that will ensure that sufficient calories and the correct balance of carbohydrate, protein, and fat are provided.

>>61759

>Рост

В прошлых своих постах ты мне пиздел, что рост не показатель.
Корреляция роста в общей статистике в средневековье будет выше, чем в Новое время. Выделяй гринтекстом, где я это опровергал. Я тебе предоставлял статью.
http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/1010782/38/Montanari_-_Golod_i_izobilie._Istoriya_pitaniya_v_Evrope.html
Статистика показывает, что после 1750 г. снижение покупательной способности широких потребительских масс приводит к резкому сокращению потребления мяса в городах. Приведем только один пример: в Неаполе в 1770 г. было забито 21 800 голов скота при населении около 400 000 жителей; двумя веками ранее при населении в 200 000 жителей забивалось 30 000 голов. Однако ухудшение питания охватывает все средние и низшие слои и отмечается повсюду: и в Италии, и в Испании, и в Швеции, и в Англии. Статистические данные относительно человеческого роста (который тесно связан с условиями жизни и качеством питания) говорят о том же самом: в течение XVIII в. средний рост рекрутов в империи Габсбургов заметно уменьшился, то же относится и к шведским рекрутам конца того же века; понижается в конце XVIII — начале XIX в. и средний рост лондонских подростков из неимущих классов, да и рост немцев в начале XIX в. значительно уступает достигнутому в XIV–XV вв.
В данном случае - население стало меньше есть, статистический рост людей упал.
А рассматривая средневековье внутри, колличество калорий в питании населения закономерно уменьшается в сторону крестьян и соответственно рост также уменьшается в сторону крестьян.

Further calculation from this produces a daily kilocalorie output for England at these same points: 2,518–3,383 million kcal in 1086; 6,569 million kcal in 1300; and 3,503 million kcal in 1375. Campbell proposed that, if we assume a daily minimum requirement per person of 1,500 kcal derived from grain, then the population which could be sustained in England was in 1300, 4.38 million, and, in 1375, 2.34 million.16 Campbell’s estimate of 1,500 kcal per individual can be tested against those few sources which offer particular insight into the general diet of the population. While sources for certain groups within medieval society, such as monks and members of high-status, secular households, suggest that they frequently consumed far in excess of this base figure,17 it is also evident, where we can extrapolate from sources for low-status populations, that a majority of the population consumed levels of food that came closer to 1,500–2,000 kcal per day.
Соответственно рост обычного населения - ниже.
An opportunity to test this hypothesis presented itself during the examination of skeletons excavated from the Black Death plague pit at the site of the Old Mint in London. An analysis was made of mean height by presumed year of birth, calculated from the estimated age at death. Four birth cohorts were defined, those born before 1303, and those born 1303–12, 1313–22, and 1323–33. In the event, there was not the smallest difference between the mean heights in either sex, irrespective of their year of birth. There are a number of explanations for this unexpected result, the most obvious being that those who were born early in the century were not affected by food shortages to the extent that their final achieved height was impaired. It is possible that their growth may have been curtailed during the famine years but if they survived, and food became plentiful again, their growth spurt started again and they caught up; we know from other evidence that children probably did not stop growing until a later age than is the case nowadays and most likely did not achieve their final height until their early twenties.6 The numbers within each cohort were small, however, and there is likely to have been some error when assigning age at death (and hence year of birth); these two factors may easily have combined to obscure any real difference that there may have been. Some effects of status on final achieved height are apparent at the Old Mint site, however (Fig. 18.1). Here a cumulate frequency distribution is shown for male skeletons excavated from within the church of St Mary Graces and from thelay cemetery associated with the abbey.7The mean height of the men from the church was 4 cm greater than those from the lay cemetery: 80 per cent of those buried within the church were over 1.65 m, but only about 55 per cent othose in the lay cemetery. We assume that those who were buried within the church were either the monks or abbots, or benefactors of the abbey and other high-status lay individuals, and further, that their nutritional status was better during their adolescence than those who came to be buried in the cemetery outside.
Рост зажиточных людей - выше
The growth of children Although there are no generally agreed formulae for determining the heights of children from their skeletons, use can be made of long bone measurements to study their heights for age by comparison with a modern sample.8 When the length of the femur of children who died at Barton between the ages of 1 and 15 was compared with those of modern children of the same age, it was found that the great majority (c.88 per cent) were ‘short for dates’, that is, had shorter femurs than their modern counterparts.
Что в корне опровергает твой наглый высер о "здоровье".
These data indicate that the rate of growth at all ages was slower in the past, presumably reflecting a relatively poorer state of nutrition during this period than enjoyed by modern American children, perhaps a not very surprising conclusion.
>>61860

> Захоронения при Таутоне как раз и принадлежат всем слоям общества. И все они атлетичного сложения.

Две статьи выше наглядно показали, что практически все были профессиональными воинами и рост у них стабильно выше и нигде не было сказано о рандомной выборке. Деформации скелтов, разивтость мышц говорят лишь о том, что они все были связаны с войной. В этих же статьях прямым текстом написано, что у непосредственно ПРИЗВАННЫХ КРЕСТЬЯН рост ниже - >>61865

> The male mean stature of the Battle of GoodFriday victims from Uppsala was slightlytaller than most of the Towton men at 174 cmand taller than the average in Sweden at thetime (Kjellström 2005, 41). At Visby, Sweden(1361), the average height was 169 cm (Ingel-mark 1939, 159). The shorter stature of theVisby dead may be due to the fact that thosefighting on the Swedish side were not sol-diers, but the local Gotland men, defendingtheir farms and land. At St. Mary’s church,Oslo, E. Brødholt and P. Holck (2012, 212

> The average living height of the individualsat Towton was 172.08 cm (tab. 3; fig. 5),which was slightly taller than the averagemedieval male stature (171.0 cm; cf. Roberts/Cox 2003, 248). Notably, the individualswith healed trauma were generally tallerthan the Towton overall mean stature, withan average living height of 175.5 cm. It is pos-sible that this group consisted of professional soldiers who had been selected on the basisof their height. The stature of the disarticu-lated remains of the Mary Rose (1545) indi-viduals ranged from 159 cm to 180 cm, with amean of 171 cm (Stirland 2000, 80), corre-sponding with the British male mean for the period. the contemporary male mean stature in Por-tugal.It should be taken into account that heightwas often an important criterion by armiesappointing recruits. Reasons for this includethe aim to maximise fitness, strength, visualimpact and also size of uniforms (Gould1869; Friedl 1992, 35). However, in times ofwar, height often becomes secondary and fit-ness becomes the main decisive factor, al-though extreme circumstances sometimesmean that any person was called to arms, aswas the case at Visby. Bearing this in mind,perhaps the taller men at Towton were pro-fessional soldiers, whereas the shorter menwere hired under feudal law for 40 days (Cokeet al. 1817).

Я тебе также напомню, что ты мне до сих не доказал все свои высеры

> > > Физический труд с детства любого сделает богатырем

>Жрали нормально..

> > >Диета была правильной и сбалансированной.

> Любой крестьянин был здоровее современного атлета.

> > > то есть в войско загребали вообще всех.

> > >Да и теже лучники из крестьян.

> > > Впрочем наемники тоже происходили из крестьян.

> > Пфф.. Без креветок и лобстеров можно прекрасно прожить. Белка достаточно в любых растительных культурах, причем он усваивается даже лучше.

> >Корова и куры были в каждой семье

>все были крестьянского происхождения

Где твоя аргументация, гадёныш малолетний? Ты можешь только вбрасывать толстую дрисню, которую придумываешь лично сам на ходу или что? Так и пойми, что твои толстые высеры так и будут толстыми высерами. Твой уровень знаний, а ведь я тебе, выблядок, напомню ещё раз, что ты высрал только одну статейку в лайфджорнал и ничего более, доходчиво показывает, что у тебя нет никаких прав выражать какие-то мнения в этих вопросах.

>>61865

>Оружие и одежда говорит об их неплохом достатке.

Трофеи, либо казенное имущество.

>Анализ скелетов говорит о том, что это были в основе профессиональные воины

Где? Это гипотезы основанные на некоторых особенностях строения скелета и росте, что наблюдается у меньшей группы скелетов.
Опять же там сказано что средний рост англичан 171 см, что даже выше чем русских в начале 20 века и сравнимо со средним ростом многих современных стран. Сомневаться в здоровье и силушке русских крестьян не приходится, да и современные "карланы" по физическим данным не уступают более высоким. В целом рост не показатель физической силы, скорее показатель общего объема поедания жрачки и особенностей генетики.

>Призванные имели всё равно развитое телосложение.

Что и требовалось доказать. Ты сам себя обоссал.
>>61867

>Вон лейб-гренадеры из дворян были весьма разного роста.

>Последовательное «упрощение» народного питания, которое повсеместно и в невиданных масштабах сводится к потреблению считанного числа продуктов, сильно обеднило рацион бедняков по сравнению с прошлыми годами.

А это тут причем? Ты походу хуячишь все пасты подряд.. Лейб-гвардия это дворяне, причем не какие нибудь, а из дворянских семей приближенных к императору, охраной которого они и занимались. Какой то там голод их вообще никак не касался никогда в жизни. Но как видно разброс в росте весьма приличный, треть солдат типичного крестьянского роста.

>Выделяй, где было сказано, что ккал было недостаточно, выблядок. Было четко сказано, что 1500 - минимум для питания. И также было озвучено - 1500-2000 ккал для большинства населения, в том числе и бедного.

Мудило ты тупорылое, сам же выше про это и написал. Как работающий человек мог работать если потреблял ккал меньше чем нужно для выполнения работы? Все бы помирали прямо в поле, тупица. Очевидно автор высрал данные от балды, взяв за основу только данные по зерну.
Остальное пасты я бы разобрал по частям и обосал тебя, но смысла в этом ноль, ибо ты опять побежишь к моче что бы он потер посты.