What would have been the best overall Medieval Kingdom to live in?

[GloryofGreece]

In other words, if you had to live in the Middle Ages what nation/kingdom would have been the most stable for the average joe overall? And what approximate time period specifically?

1200s England?....Swiss Cantons ? Venice? Constantinople?

[heydaralon]

In other words, if you had to live in the Middle Ages what nation/kingdom would have been the most stable for the average joe overall? And what approximate time period specifically?

1200s England?....Swiss Cantons ? Venice? Constantinople?

The most stable? I would go with Constantinople around late 1452-1454.

[GloryofGreece]

In other words, if you had to live in the Middle Ages what nation/kingdom would have been the most stable for the average joe overall? And what approximate time period specifically?

1200s England?....Swiss Cantons ? Venice? Constantinople?

The most stable? I would go with Constantinople around late 1452-1454.

Thanks for playing...

[Ex-California]

I think Venice and Florence and the like would have been a little better than hard feudal Europe simply because of the opportunities trade put up

[C-Mag]

Mongol's rising empire

[TheReal_ND]

The Antonine age was the most prosperous and peaceful time in history for subjects of the Roman Empire.

That said, I've always been partial to Feudal England.

[Speaker to Animals]

Depends on who you are and what you want.

For most of us, the obvious answer is England. You could easily adapt to the earlier form of the language and the customs are not that far off from what you are used to as Americans. In some ways, they had more in common with us than they do modern Englishmen by a country mile.

Istanbul would *not* be an ideal place. The modern myth of it being so wonderful is part of the anti-western bias in academia. In reality, that place was very violent and very turbulent up until the Turks finally broke the front door down.

Venice is interesting. It also had a lot in common with Americans, though culturally and linguistically it would be very alien to most of us. The learning curve would be steep.

[GloryofGreece]

Depends on who you are and what you want.

For most of us, the obvious answer is England. You could easily adapt to the earlier form of the language and the customs are not that far off from what you are used to as Americans. In some ways, they had more in common with us than they do modern Englishmen by a country mile.

Istanbul would *not* be an ideal place. The modern myth of it being so wonderful is part of the anti-western bias in academia. In reality, that place was very violent and very turbulent up until the Turks finally broke the front door down.

Venice is interesting. It also had a lot in common with Americans, though culturally and linguistically it would be very alien to most of us. The learning curve would be steep.

So, Medieval Eastern Orthodox Constantinople/Byzantine Empire wasn't a civilized place to live comparatively? And there is a narrative saying it was which is inherently anti-western? Really? (I'm ignorant of it) Elaborate some.

[Speaker to Animals]

Depends on who you are and what you want.

For most of us, the obvious answer is England. You could easily adapt to the earlier form of the language and the customs are not that far off from what you are used to as Americans. In some ways, they had more in common with us than they do modern Englishmen by a country mile.

Istanbul would *not* be an ideal place. The modern myth of it being so wonderful is part of the anti-western bias in academia. In reality, that place was very violent and very turbulent up until the Turks finally broke the front door down.

Venice is interesting. It also had a lot in common with Americans, though culturally and linguistically it would be very alien to most of us. The learning curve would be steep.

So, Medieval Eastern Orthodox Constantinople/Byzantine Empire wasn't a civilized place to live comparatively? And there is a narrative saying it was which is inherently anti-western? Really? (I'm ignorant of it) Elaborate some.

I didn't say it wasn't civilized. The question was the best overall place to live in the medieval period. Constantinople/Istanbul was not that place. It was very violent with near constant unrest, terrible riots, and open warfare between various factions led by princes who wanted to be the next emperor. The famous story used to tarnish Latins (the sack during the crusade) was actually a case of one of the Venetians getting trapped in the scheming, and being forced to fight for one of those princes to seize the throne in order to pay debts he claimed for hosting them. The whole narrative of the poor, poor Byzantines getting oppressed by the Latins was not exactly accurate. Latins hated them for this type of thing.

They would even send people into the Latin quarter of the city (mainly Venetian) and desecrate hosts during the Latin mass to foment more violence.

Hard pass.

[GloryofGreece]

Depends on who you are and what you want.

For most of us, the obvious answer is England. You could easily adapt to the earlier form of the language and the customs are not that far off from what you are used to as Americans. In some ways, they had more in common with us than they do modern Englishmen by a country mile.

Istanbul would *not* be an ideal place. The modern myth of it being so wonderful is part of the anti-western bias in academia. In reality, that place was very violent and very turbulent up until the Turks finally broke the front door down.

Venice is interesting. It also had a lot in common with Americans, though culturally and linguistically it would be very alien to most of us. The learning curve would be steep.

So, Medieval Eastern Orthodox Constantinople/Byzantine Empire wasn't a civilized place to live comparatively? And there is a narrative saying it was which is inherently anti-western? Really? (I'm ignorant of it) Elaborate some.

I didn't say it wasn't civilized. The question was the best overall place to live in the medieval period. Constantinople/Istanbul was not that place. It was very violent with near constant unrest, terrible riots, and open warfare between various factions led by princes who wanted to be the next emperor. The famous story used to tarnish Latins (the sack during the crusade) was actually a case of one of the Venetians getting trapped in the scheming, and being forced to fight for one of those princes to seize the throne in order to pay debts he claimed for hosting them. The whole narrative of the poor, poor Byzantines getting oppressed by the Latins was not exactly accurate. Latins hated them for this type of thing.

They would even send people into the Latin quarter of the city (mainly Venetian) and desecrate hosts during the Latin mass to foment more violence.

Hard pass.

So was the overthrow and looting of the city really orchestrated by people within the city that just wanted a chance to take power/quick cash grab more than the Crusaders plotting to do it themselves.

Every successful siege has someone from within betraying their own. Letting the outsiders in/opening the gate and so forth. Sad.