>Historians have also begun to consider the word "Renaissance" as an unnecessarily loaded word that implies an unambiguously positive "rebirth" from the supposedly more primitive Middle Ages.
>Some historians have asked the question "a renaissance for whom?," pointing out, for example, that the status of women in society arguably declined during the Renaissance.
When can I get off Mr Bones' Wild Ride?
When it's no longer the [CURRENT YEAR] user
He's right, though. Renaissance? What 'Reinassance'? This rebirth was mostly focused on the Italian city-states, and it does not imply some kind of sudden revolution in art or philosophy or the sciences that everyone thinks occurred. I'd argue the 'Renaissance' was actually even more bleak, violent, and terrible than the Middle Ages
The first statement makes a good point
But the second, no
First paragraph is right.
The Renaissance was an actual cultural movement involving the development and spread of regional Italian culture throughout the Western world. But yeah, it wasn't actually a 'rebirth' and it was just another cultural period rather than the end of some kind of 'Middle Age'.
The problem really isn't with the term 'Renaissance' but with the term 'Middle Ages'. The former is a recognizable cultural period, the latter is a huge lumping together of everything from the actual Dark Ages when the West was just a collection of shitty barbarian kingdoms to the 13th century when the West was the most prosperous civilization on Earth.
What should it be called then?
All of europe gently sucking tan italian dick?
catchy
The Aoegstid Period
yeah it does help when mongols killed everyone but I will give you that there was probably a moment when the west was most prosperous in 1300
I hope the """Enlightenment""" is next.
they'll get off it when they realise that it was the med who benefitted from the renaissance, and not the pale northmen.
The Enlightenment is the biggest fucking fraud in all of history.
>pre-Renaissance science
>Robert Grosseteste, William of Ockham, Ramon Llull, Thomas Bradwardine, Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme
>new advancements in the mathematization of physics, empirical studies of the real world, first forays into the scientific method
>Renaissance "science"
>Marsilio Ficino, Paracelsus and Pico della Mirandola
>mystical quackery and alchemy bullshit
That's also been critiqued to hell and back for like 50 fucking years.
>
>
>
I call your bullshit on this board sometimes, SAYING EH OH GALILEO
A plagarist who never actually added any proof to the theory of Copernicus, instead he prefered slinging insulta over research
Renassiance was just the easiest francophone translation from Risorgomento, which was used by Italian artists and writers to reflect on the rediscovery of Greek literature and art in the 14th & 15th century. It was only the French who started applying to an entire "era", mostly due to Montaigne.
>paracelsus
>the father of toxicology
>mystical quackery
FUCK OFF
U
C
K
O
F
F
Will Europe ever reach a Renaissance tier level of culture again?
Arguably it already has, depending on what you define "a Renaissance tier level of culture" as.
I'm fairly sure the word renaissance doesn't refer to how humanitarian the era was. The renaissance did not improve male conditions either, so i don't see why it should be made a gendered issue. Peasants had a worse life probably.
...
>Paracelsus
>not a quack
>Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Paracelsus Bombastus von Hohenheim
>a quack
>you
>not a quack
why should i listen to a quack?
t. pole
>who is Luca Pacioli
You know, Veeky Forums baffles me some times. They whinge endlessly about people portraying the middle ages as a time of ignorance and squalor, and then whine about people wanting to do away with one of concepts that most ensures that image remains.
Could it be that those are different people? Or that those people are not serious? In either case? That there is trickery afoot?
Is it so hard to imagine that the Renaissance was better than the Middle Ages without that meaning that the Middle Ages were shit?
Most people here say they agree with the first paragraph, but not with the second. Which is entirely reasonable.
By its year/century.
Nothing the historian said was wrong, though. As someone who has studied the Renaissance extensively at a tertiary level, it is becoming more and more clear through the study of evidence previously dismissed and discounted by earlier historians, that the Renaissance is a highly romanticised point in history.
But it wasn't an enlightenment.
Nothing wrong with that, though.
The Renaissance sure as fuck wasn't an all around improvement for everyone and everything, and acting as if it was is stupid.
You are only proving the OP right, because you treat Renaissance differently than most people. It is now mostly seen as a period in time in which everything got better and Europe woke up from a corrupted nightmare, which wasn't the case.
*tips fedora*
Galileo lived two centuries after the Renaissance.
>that feel when feminists and neoreactionary revisionists agree on something
Renaissance is about a cultural movement, a "rebirth" from classical innovations and an explosion of intelligence in Europe.
I especially like Dürer's paintings, absolutely astounding and Michaelangelo's Pieta
When has the term 'Renaissance' been coined?
I've always thought of the Renaissance as mostly an artistic and philosophical movement rather than a scientific or social one.
Renaissance creators clearly took their inspiration primarily from a new source - Antiquity - and the result was a "rebirth" of ideas. How is that in any way deniable?
I agree with the first line, renaissance as an all encompassing movement is a bit weird and I would rather argue that everything we see during this time is the result of a rather slow evolution rather than revolution.
Define culture m8
>to the 13th century when the West was the most prosperous civilization on Earth
um, actually those were East Asian and Islamic civilizations.
Europe wasn't relevant until like the 16th century.
>13th century
>islamic civilizations
the mongols put a swift end to that
...
>Europe wasn't relevant until like the 16th century.
The crusades say otherwise, the relatively tiny kingdoms in Europe managed to create some states in a place where sending troops was a nigthmere and they lasted for sone years, it's not that the European civilization wasn't the most prosperous by that time, it's that Islamic one hadn't totally died.
>The crusades say otherwise, the relatively tiny kingdoms
Not to even mention that the participants were mainly dukes and counts, not the entire kingdoms united
Let's make it clear then. Civilization began with the suffrage movement in late 19th century. Don't try to deny it or I'll call you a sexist bigot.
But this implies that everyone will start treating the Renaissance like shit AND continue to view the Middle Ages the same way. That's just worse.
A lot of people see history as an inexorable march of progress. If we can leave that idea aside it would benefit us a lot.
I like history because I've always enjoyed learning about stuff - I've always seen it as a huge case study of human behavior - but I hate shit like this that is just about semantics. It's like the use of A.D. vs. C.E.
That's from 1260!?
Yep
The first statement is kind of true, the Renaissance was the start of mass migration to cities, which resulted in poorly planned urbanization. Plus it coincided with the reformation which, as we know, resulted in the Thirty Years war
It says so.
>Initialement situé au revers de la façade sud du transept de Notre-Dame de Paris, l'Adam, probablement sculpté par Pierre de Montreuil au milieu du XIIIe siècle, était accompagné d’une Ève aujourd’hui disparue.
PS, the text says 13th century so 1260 is probable.
What's so weird about it?
It's not really that weird at all. Gothic sculpture was already beginning to embrace naturalism, though the proportions were cruder and the anatomy less idealized than the Renaissance.
Neoclassical period gets my vote. It describes the rising focus on the Classics in art and philosophy in Europe at the time without the implications of the term Renaissance being any sort of rebirth of Europe
but it is a rebirth
a rebirth of the classics
It were fun times
>renaissance for whom
artists, engineers, architects, sailors, navigators, astronomers, mathematicians, historians, doctors, traders...
>defending the Memeaissance
You're 25 years too late /pol/tard. Historians have been calling it the early modern period for longer than that even. But now all people who study the period refer to it as such.
Whiiiiiine some more. I've got the cheese ready so I'm all prepped.
historical revisionism is for the dredges of society.