Tell me about the renaissance Veeky Forums

the Renaissance marks the end of Feudalism and the end of the dark ages

Maybe in the sense that rich merchants got increasingly influental and powerful with their guilds. This new class needed legitimation for their new position so they invested in art, education etc. as symbols of power and money. This investment encouraged progess in these fields

What about humanism and cultural changes that differs the 15th century from the middle ages?

There were many impressives changes as well during the Middle Ages. The 14th century is not the 13th, etc. I'm an admirer of the so called Renaissance, but many historians now argue that it was not the complete cultural revolution some people still imagine. The thousand years of the Middle Ages deserve some credit, it's not like nothing happened and then suddenly, out of the blue, there comes the Renaissance, making life better for everyone.

I personally think that humanism is the foundation of the Italian Renaissance Furthermore,he works of Renaissance artists like Shakespeare, Brunellschi and Bach are eternally appreciated because of their humanism.

This simplistic view is the very reason I wrote this and this Honestly this is meme history.

Bach? A Renaissance artist? In the 18th century? I had no idea the Renaissance lasted so long. ;)

and you just write contrarian posts in a failed attempt to sound smart.

Renaissance replaced feudalism because people started using money and banks instead of barter. You know money like what the ancient romans had

>people
But that mainly applied for the upper class, did it? The peasants life didn't change that much and it's not like feudalism was completely or even partially abolished

>But that mainly applied for the upper class, did it?
Do you think they paid their artists in geese?

Yes, since artists usually originated from poor peasant families

Genoa and Pisa did, and Florence and Milan took them over.

>Renaissance replaced feudalism because people started using money and banks instead of barter. You know money like what the ancient romans had
Feudalism is a (simplistic) way to describe medieval politics. The Renaissance is normally seen as a cultural movement, or a period of human history. Comparing the two doesn't make sense. And there was money in the Middle Ages. Soldiers were paid with money, for example. We still have the payroll.

You are so ignorant that you actually sound like a troll to me.

Oh, dear. This thread is just hillarious. Meme history at it's finest!

good theory, though most patrons of the renaissance masters seemed to be more traditional aristocrats and the church

I think exquisite art requires a large number of artists to improve the chances of at least one being brilliant, the new middle class funded tons of kitsch junk artwork as you say while the elite picked out the best and hired them, raising them to prominence

so basically there was no notable progress in europe until around the 19th century, because peasants

It was caused by a financial boom that was caused by the crusaders giving Italian coastal cities a lot of money. Also by the revival of Greek and Roman texts by a similar cultural boom by the Arabs.

I have to say on the topic of the nomenclature and themes of ages - while the idea of everything from the fall of Rome to the 1300s being a dark age is false I think people are bullshitting themselves to not accept that
>politically
and
>economically
and
>architecturally/infastructure-wise.
that period (shave a few years off from 1300 to maybe end at 1000 or so) were undeniably worse than during Roman times and worse than during high/late medieval times.

We can't pass judgement on a cultural decline because that definitely buys into the proto-secular humanists business of just hating Christianity and loving pre-Christian Rome. the culture was different but it was not inferior.

But shit it'd be a real revisionist hack who could say with a straight face that
>Western Europe ripped apart by various feuding successor states whose wars more directly involved the local populace than the isolated coups of the late empire,
>having Arianism/Orthodox holy-wars,
>having Muslims and Norsemen raiding and raping,
>having fortifications being made of wood and earth more than stone and brick,
>Urbanization which had been the hallmark of Roman civilization plummeting dramatically in France and England and somewhat less so but still notably in Spain and Italy.
>Literature steadily eroding until only the church really keeps it going.
>civil society having disappeared outside of shrinking islands of cities in Spain and Italy.
>Roman culture being completely forgotten in England
>International trade decreasing until a resurgence in the 2nd millennium

All didn't imply that the period was bleaker and darker and more grim than before or after it. Dark ages were real, they just weren't the grim notion of literal apocalyptic cavemen.

I was going to say that if you wanted to truly pull off the pretentious contrarian historian gimmick that you'd talk about how feudalism isn't real and lo and behold...

No I just wanted to disprove his theory that feudalism was replaced

Posting your opinions doesnt disprove anything.
Its obvious by the art and buildings of the era there was alot more wealth than in the dark ages (which used barter)

dude feudalism was never replaced we're all just serfs 99% fuck the 1% okay i gotta go back to the peat bog farm now to go catch feet aids