How was the life of a little girl in the middle ages?

>High Middle Ages (1000-13000)
>13000
The Hyper Middle Age?

witch hunted.

>1000-13000
>13000
Damn nigga, that must be the ultra-late hyper-middle ages after the fall of the Neo-Ethiopian Empire.

You guys know I meant 1300, stop picking on me.

It was probably shit.

lel

Full of diseases

Take your pedophile cartoons back to

How don't more people know this? It's literally where the term "Lollipop" was invented.

Hansel and Gretel were abandoned in the woods by their parents so they wouldn't grow up

From the director of movie " "In fact I came across an amazing article on the Internet that showed how the medieval system was genuinely socialist alongside our social Democracy, which was no longer a system of mutualism, often based on the notion of giving or charity, and the lord was bound to protect his peasants, not only militarily, but also by collecting grievances and ensuring It is not surprising that women were highly respected, and that they had a certain amount of power, They were noble or peasant. ""

Apparently women had power, both peasants and nobles.

They are kinda rare to find.

They born and do baby shit, they grow up and play and work, keep growing up more work, they get married to some other peasant , they fuck like rabbits, have children, die or not , raise children, work, die

so is posting pedophile cartoons allowed on this board now?
mods deal with this

Where do you think we are?

How old would that girl be, 12? I'm shit at estimating ages.
I don't see why her internet profiles wouldn't show her age either, it's not like she's 40 trying to make herself younger.

>posting a fully clothed girl is proof of pedophilia

Was pedophilia (13>) frowned upon back then?

It wasn't common. Normal people (not the nobility) actually married quite late.

depends what area

under 13 isn't pedophilia. Ages 11-14 (when girls begin puberty) is hebephilia. So was hebephilia frowned upon? Not at all. Until the 20th century is was common all over the world. Pic very much related.

USA was more degenerate than Europe.

>as long as it's not illegal it isn't immoral

t. Fucks dogs because it's legal where you live and it "doesn't affect anyone"

>From 1619 to 1660 in the archdiocese of Canterbury, England, the median age of the brides was 22 years and nine months while the median age for the grooms was 25 years and six months, with average ages of 24 years for the brides and nearly 28 years for the grooms, with the most common ages at marriage being 22 years for women and 24 years for men; the Church dictated that the age when one could marry without the consent of one's parents was 21 years. A large majority of English brides in this time were at least 19 years of age when they married, and only one bride in a thousand was thirteen years of age or younger.[46]

Which goes to show that some people claim innate moral shock by things because of their own upbringing that doesn't even apply to their own parents' generation, yet claim it's common sense.

And the changes would come decades later and with a smaller increase in other countries.

I guess there's a reason the 10 commandments are taught despite seeming obvious. People think they can decide what's been set in stone.

made to do farm work or spin wool by her mother or some other female relative or in-law, when her guardian is taking a break and not supervising them she would ride pigs and engage in other farm-related fun with the other children of the village

> Tfw weeb garbage like your picture is the reason why we will never have any good historical anime

See the responses before this, which I didn't see, for examples of denial and revisionism.

>morality is fixed

back to pol

I'm not danish.

*all of us who clicked this thread

No, most girls, especially in the past, did not undergo puberty by 11. For them it was 12-14. Only now a days do we see such instances like puberty occurring as early as 10 or 11 for girls. Hebephilia starts from teens user, or when a person has halfway physically matured as an adolescent such that they have some presence to adults. A 11 or 12 year old just now budding some tiny breasts and small patch of pubs is hardly matured at all.

>No, most girls, especially in the past, did not undergo puberty by 11. For them it was 12-14.
Proof with citation?
>Only now a days do we see such instances like puberty occurring as early as 10 or 11 for girls.
Puberty can begin as early as 8 for girls senpai. For boys it's later.

Rose of Versailles was pretty good

Muslim word: no
Christian world: I think so. I think 15 was the expected marriage age.
underrated post
Ruroni Kenshin's pretty good.
>morality is variable
go back to tumblr

Shooting AKs, SVDs, etc.?

Why would you use Diocese of Canterbury, instead of Diocese of Kent? A town with no population, in a era before towns had population, will not be a statistically accurate.

I knew that we're still in the middle ages. It's still feudalism, except by corporate nobles now. Little girls are still smuggled for rich lords even now.

I know, but it is rare. 8 being one of the rarest.Do you think I'm dumb?
>proof
Science. See: delayed menses and amenorrhea
emedicinehealth.com/amenorrhea/article_em.htm
In certain African tribes where women are more active, they tend to have it later around 14-15 on average. There is a book i read once that mentioned this I just need to remember. Gymnasts and certain Olympic athletes tend to start a bit later too. Never earlier than 14.
Women in the past, Peasant girls especially with their lack of a balanced diet along with increased physical activity would probably not be having it so early. Only now with modern diets, knowledge of health, and extreme lack of exercise do we start seeing such early onsets. like 8 or 9.

Also the is the whole hormones in meat products scare too, but I'm less inclined to believe that one. Could be a possibility and definitely could explain a lot.

>medieval peasants are equivalent to Central African tribes
No they weren't.
>something something diet
Nice conjecture. Medieval peasants had a rich diet but keep buying the memes.

You got it the wrong way. In most cases nobility married quite late (but they could be betrothed really early). Early pregnancy is dangerous, you don't want important people to die because of childbirth.

No. The de facto minimum age of marriage was set at 10 in most of Western Europe for a very long time (something like 1100-1700), although younger marriages weren't unheard of. It was understood that the marriage wasn't to be consummated until the girl had her first period, but as far as I know there was no legal mandate nor framework in place to enforce that.

Average age of menarche is roughly 11.5 now. In the middle ages, median age was over 16. That means that a small but significant number of 18 year old girls would still be prepubescent. Male maturity also occurred at a much later age. It was truly a glorious era to be a child lover.

>In the middle ages, median age was over 16. That means that a small but significant number of 18 year old girls would still be prepubescent.
Proof with citation? And please no 21st century nigger tribes in Africa.

ya sure theres some good historical stuff that came out before anime became complete garbage (i recommend the "the cockpit" if you haven't already seen it)

but these days you cant get even historical fiction without them shoving bug eyed, candy colored haired anime girls, and the fan service that comes with it so they can pander to the lowest common denominator in japan

we will never gets japans version of saving private ryan because that would require a non shit budget and the writers having to think of a story themselves instead of working on manga and light novel adaptations which usually entails a high chance of financial success

You dismiss good shows on the grounds that you don't like their aesthetic and praise garbage because you like the art style. Cockpit has a somewhat passable first episode, but the following two are utter garbage.
There's many good anime, although maybe not in the tiniest of tiny niches your autistic focus lies on.

>something diet
In major proteins? Did you even read my source? If you want go look up the details on a good diet needed to prevent amenorrhea in women who are often physically active go ahead. And the key thing here is more active than people today. The African tribes thing was an extremely obviously just to illustrate a point. Notice I said 15 years is an average for them.
My original point was menses at ages less than 12-13 like we have today would be extremely rare considering the differences in physical activity and diet of today whit many peasants especially.

my bad, typos
African tribes thing was an extreme*
with*

>tfw in another 100 years, little girls won't exist
Feels bad, man.

>19th-20th century northern Europe
Into the trash it goes

>As Christian girls grew up, they were constantly told of their worthlessness and sinful lustfulness. Women, said Tertullian, were “irrational, more prone to lust than men, and at every turn waiting to seduce men,” so husbands had to beat them all the time to keep them from sinning.5 “A good woman and a bad one equally require the stick” ran a Florentine saying, and medieval laws concluded: “Provided he neither kills nor maims her, it is legal for a man to beat his wife…”6 St. Paul said that women had to cover their heads in church because otherwise “lice-like demons would leap like sparks from female hair and poison the church.”7 Plus, of course, women were liable to turn into witches at any time and remove a man’s penis; as John Chrysostom maintained, “All witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which in women is insatiable.”8 Parents in early Christian families routinely beat their little girls badly from early infancy in order to punish their lustfulness. The historical records contain hundreds of descriptions of beating girls “to discipline them, as with this father who punished a little girl for four hours: ‘the little girl in the diapers would not receive her discipline. She cried and cried and he kept hitting her…He told me, you spank her till she breaks…But she didn’t break and, after four hours, he couldn’t continue.’”9 Teaching girls in schools was not allowed, Aelred said (1170), because the teacher might be tempted to show them affection.

psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-9-bipolar-christianity-how-torturing-sinful-children-produced-holy-wars/

>Most of the murders, abandonments and tortures of Christian children were accomplished by deeply depressed mothers and wet-nurses, since fathers until early modern times had little to do with children during their early years. Jean Gerson felt he had to advise fathers as late as the 15th century: “Let us not be ashamed of speaking to children.”17 Marriage itself was sinful when spouses had sex for any reason other than to produce a child. Fathers who paid some attention to their young children only did so to express their ownership of them: “The father then lifted the baby in the air above his head and kissed it on the thigh, calling out ‘My Cattle,’ for that was what it represented to his imagination.”18 Girls would not be around to take over their father’s cattle, of course, since by the time they were 15-20 years old, the fathers would hand them over to an older man to marry.19 (Actually to be raped, since the girls would often not have even met their so-called “husbands,” so what are called by historians “arranged Christian marriages” were actually “arranged rapes.”) Girls were raped so often by neighbors or employers they were often forced into lives of prostitution if they should give birth. In addition, “throughout medieval Europe daughters were loaned to guests as an act of hospitality.”20 Medieval girls were sometimes told to carry knives as they walked down the street—to ward off rapists21—since the Christian men who might have protected them “seemed to regard their rape as a trivial issue.”22 When psychoanalysts today work with women who have been raped as young girls, they often find they cannot live with their buried rage and humiliation, so they often identify with the rapist and abuse their own children (identification with the perpetrator), saying “I am a man, I get to have whatever I want.”23 Thus the sexual assaults on young girls fed their abusive assaults upon their children when they

It's a global phenomenon associated with industrialization and childhood nutrition. Global median age is >14, despite the fact that it's as low as 11 in the US and Western Europe. If there's a developed region you'd prefer to see data from, I'll see what I can find. It'll probably match up.

>Parents were proud of being God’s agent in inflicting tortures. Fathers would brag about their being given the child to beat by the mother, saying, “The man who does not correct his children with whip or rod does not love them.”102 Mothers are not shown as protecting their children against the father’s blows: “She holds not his hand from due strokes, but bares their skins with delight to his fatherly stripes.”103 Girls were battered as often as boys, often later reporting that their “head was broken in two or three places.”104 “Fathers and mothers slashed their daughters [and] as a result, the child perfectly loathed the sight of his parents.”105 Parents that tolerated independence in their children are simply not to be found anywhere in the sources. Historians regularly ignore the hundreds of primary source instances of the endless beating of children, concluding without citing any evidence at all that “girls and boys were not maltreated” in medieval times.106 The first parents who have been discovered by family historians who did not regularly batter their children, who “abjured whipping, caning, slapping, ear-pulling or hair-dragging,” were in 19th century America,107 but even then the overwhelming majority of children were whipped or battered. Showing affection for children was deemed a Christian sin—parents were told their children should not be “petted, embraced or kissed by you until after their twenty-fifth year.”108

>Actually to be raped, since the girls would often not have even met their so-called “husbands,” so what are called by historians “arranged Christian marriages” were actually “arranged rapes.”
I can't take the rest as representative of reality, if the author doesn't understand the nature of arranged marriages and is so obviously biased.
It doesn't occur to her that the men would be getting raped too in the scenario she outlines.

This sounds like feminist propaganda, user.
Are they saying that most Indian women who are still given in arranged marriages are being raped currently? Most Muslim women as well. Not that they would know the importance of the idea that "loves grows" common at the time. Are they saying that women have NO sexual desire at all that they would never want to have sex with their new husbands? Even if they were handsome.
Nice bait though.

Psychohistory is not about feminism. Feel free to read the entire thing though, feminism is hardly the subject of it.

dude this is obviously propaganda why are you giving it any heed?
kek, this the cream on the crop. Christians are not supposed to show affection towards children despite what the bible, especially JESUS, says about children? lol This is a history board not, fiction.
Head to

>The Christian Church punished disobedience to husbands as a worse sin than infanticide, which was a “venial” (minor) sin usually punished if at all by mild dietary restrictions or by performing some prayers.44 Children were not considered fully human for many years by the early Church, since priests believed “the majority of children become unprofitable, possessed by demons… performing useless and abominable deeds.”45 God Himself, Gregory said, killed newborn infants “in order to prevent their full development of their evil passions.”46 Even when infants were found dead in privies, they “might have fallen into it by accident or been placed there after stillbirth” so the mother was usually not thought guilty of anything.47 Post-partum depressed mothers paid far more attention to Soranus’s instructions on “How to Recognize the Newborn That Is Worth Rearing”48 than to any Church opinion. Leopardi said he noticed that his mother, “when she saw the death of one of her infants approaching, experienced a deep happiness.”49 Even by the 16th century, a priest admitted that “the latrines resound with the cries of children who have been plunged into them.”50 Every morning mothers during most of the Christian period could be watched throwing their unwanted babies into rivers.

Feel free to read the article and the sources by yourselves.

Yet you ignore out points about the idea commonly taught that "love grows" in marriage, not there from the start. Couples were married for political convenience as well as finances they would often see it as their duty, especially women who are raised to think it is their highest achievement. This whole article seems so gynocentric except in the mention of child discipline (which I also argued was likely false considering Jesus' comment about children in the bible). I'm going to wait to see if you know what I am talking about.
Yes there is the saying spare the rod, spoil the child but it was in terms of children actually doing something wrong.

>Most sources are books acontemporaneous with the subject matter

>Psychohistory is not about feminism
I don't care, the shit you pasted is extremely tendial and focussed on females only, even though the topic isn't females but a general topic.

The bullshit about arranged marriages is especially outstanding because it is overtly wrong and shows a complete lack of both knowledge and understanding. How can someone who displays such deficiencies be trusted to summarize and quote other information reliably? It's not like arranged marriages are an marginal topic either, it is right at the center of what that person is writing about.

Many are also written by women, which is odd, since there are barely any competent female historians.

>That all human sin and misery came into the world through the first woman, Eve, is the founding belief of both Judaism and Christianity, and the origin of the most severely misogynistic cultures in history.

Reminder to disregard confirmation bias trash from all points of the spectrum

Medieval peasanpfkin fascists B T F O by the contrived application of some obscure academic field I guess

Exposure was not seen as bad, of course.
Obviously, in a superstitious and harsh world where children born with birth defects would be seen as useless if not a curse. You are telling me this applies to all types of kids? the sources don't convenience me.
The reference of priests saying it is ok to discipline kids based on a passage of Deuteronomy is totally cherry picking. Again, this is probably in response to children who did wrong.
Parents are responsible for raising the kids under Christian doctrine and making sure they conform.

*Refutes feminist historical revisionism by existing*

>feminist propaganda
>openly says women killed newborns, abused them as much as fathers, made them feel perpetually sinful

Uh oh. People from protestant cultures will have his go over their head and Ispew some spiel about her being a symbol of submissiveness despite the church asking both men and women to be equally submissive before god.

>kek thay belief of both Judism and Christianity
Except the far east eh? Oh right, because they were SO tolerant towards women right? And did they purposely leave out Islam or???

Except they said, as you posted earlier, that most of women's aggression towards their children was built up from the abuse they received for being women. It literally said that at the end of your 2nd post.

>The paintings of the Madonna and Child for more than the first thousand years of Christianity showed Mary as looking depressed, not looking at or smiling at her baby, and in fact often showed the baby Jesus as trying to cheer her up, wiping her tears away. The first paintings I could find of Mary actually looking or smiling at the baby Jesus in her lap date from the Renaissance, when Mary might be depicted as a “sometimes sad and often adoring mother since actually a child at this age was probably lying swaddled and immobile, and often miserable and starving, fed opiates to quiet them, at the mercy of a wet-nurse often miles away from its mother.”25 When their children returned from the wet-nurse, mothers in the Renaissance followed the prescriptions of friars like Dominici to avoid “hugging and kissing them” so they won’t be “sensual,” and instead “scare them with a dozen bogies,” to make them more fearful.26

Mary is portrayed as sad because she knows her son is destined to be crucified. How about do some basic research on catholic theology before spouting some feminist/Freudian nonsense.

All the responses against my posts are from people that have not read the chapter whose link I posted.
Its a chapter of a book that goes through all history looking for clues about the link between child abuse and war. It goes from tribal pagans, to romans, greeks, medieval christians, middeeasterners, asians, etc. tl;dr nobody has been without fault, abuse generates abusers who generate abuse that generates abusers ad infinitum

I posted from the chapter about medieval chsitianity only because OP is asking about GIRLS in MEDIEVAL TIMES.

How do you even come up with that fake none sense?

Let's satify the pollacks

>INFANTICIDE, RAPE AND VIOLENCE IN AFRICAN TRIBES
When one turns on television news and hears that a quarter million people have died in Darfur, Africa as Muslim military gangs attacked the south, the motivation for this carnage is usually attributed to their Communist ideologies . . . until one learns that what they actually did was chop off the penises of little boys and rape little girls, hardly the stated goal of materialist Communism.116 But if one knows that Darfur boys are routinely genitally mutilated and little girls both genitally mutilated and raped, as most Africans were,117 the motivation for the violence becomes more obviously a re-infliction of childhood traumas upon others. The mutilation of boys is “a practice that serves as a core rite of passage for young men,” sometimes removing all the skin from the penis, the chopping off of girls’ genitals is practiced upon “ninety percent of all women in Darfur,” and the rape of girls is common in Africa.118

>The core of these abuses lies in the widespread African practice of mutilating the genitals of African girls, a sadistic sexual assault that is said to be sexually arousing to those who attend the ceremony.119 Mothers, not men, insist on chopping off their daughters’ genitals, producing “horrendous pain, massive bleeding and raging infection.”120 It currently is found in 28 African countries, affecting about 130 million women—in 89 percent of Sudanese women and in 97 percent of uneducated Egyptian families and 66 percent of Egyptian educated families.121 It began historically thousands of years ago before the nations became Muslim, so it is not caused by Islamic beliefs. “Girls tremble as they hear about the experiences of other girls…first there is fear, and then the appalling memory of the experience. Sme girls live with a phobia that one or the other parent will kill them.”122 Also, most African tribal mothers still kill at least one of their children, sometimes as a child sacrifice to the gods.123

I'm not seeing the premise being logically argued here

>THE ORIGINS OF TERRORISM IN CHILD ABUSE
>The childhood of terrorists is as abusive as that of medieval martyrs described earlier. A recent survey of 652 Palestinian undergraduates asking if they recalled sexual abuse showed 18.6 percent said they had been used sexually by a family member, 36. 2 percent by a relative and 45.6 percent by a stranger.147 Islamic boys are routinely sexually abused, usually anally, with mothers often caressing their penises, families usually using their young boys sexually since females are considered “unclean,” and with teenage boy gangs routinely preying sexually upon younger boys.148 Murray documents that “a boy cannot learn the Koran well unless a scribe commits pederasty with him and an apprentice is supposed to learn his trade by having intercourse with his master.” In addition, “guests are often entertained and sexually serviced by ‘dancing boys.’”149 Human Rights International reports Islamic warlords “routinely sexually molest young boys and film the orgies.”150 Girls’ genitals are considered so “poisonous” that “when she is five or so the women grab her, pin her down, and chop off her clitoris and often her labia with a razor blade and the area sewed up to prevent intercourse.” In many Islamic areas 90 percent of the women surveyed say they have genitally mutilated all of their daughters.151

The sources still lack primaries though. I'm still not inclined to believe.

Read the first death chronicles of england. They talk about how distraught parents were when they lost their children, so there was love. Times were different with more chores, but I don't think they were doing them 24/7.
Just imagine being young, running through a town or a little village with a gaggle of children your age, laughing, playing, fighting.
Then the town shrew comes and yells at you to stop being little heathens, and run away into the woods.
Then as the sun starts to set, go with your parents and everyone to finish work in the field, then stay upo around a fire in a one room hut until you all pass out.

That's moderate scenario.

>more chores
But much much less school. Children in the middle ages probably had as much or more free time as children today.

Until you're old enough to help in the fields anyways, then you work just as much as your dad.

psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/

Great thread, 10/10. This is what I like about this board.

Also, anybody have any recommended readings regarding the Greek and/or Roman attitudes towards little girls (within the context of the thread)?

Hold the fuck up, I smell bullshit
>sometimes removing all the skin from the penis,
How are they raping and why would they rape if the can feel no pleasure from it?

I dont know about you user, but my skin grows back when cut.

1) Not everyone is that badly mutilated
2) rape doesn't have to involve a penis

>take a thread started by a pedophile
>turn it into a discussion about the lives of commoners in the middle ages
indeed

>Most children in antiquity would therefore have watched their mothers drown, suffocate and stab their siblings to death.23 Mothers often simply gave birth to their babies in the privy, smashed their heads in and treated the birth as an evacuation. Romans reported watching hundreds of mothers throwing their newborn into the Tiber every morning. So many infants were killed that even though mothers had eight or more babies the populations of antiquity regularly decreased. It is not surprising that the children who survived implanted terrifying Killer Mother alters in their amygdalan fear centers and then acted them out as adults in human sacrifice and war. Children playing in dung heaps, rivers and cess trenches would find hundreds of dead babies, “a prey for birds, food for wild beasts to rend” (Euripides).24 Those few exposed children who were rescued were raised as slaves or prostitutes. Physicians wrote works like Soranus’s “How to Recognize the Newborn that is Worth Rearing.”25 So many children were killed by their parents in early Greece and Rome that people were afraid their populations were declining, and passed laws limiting the infanticide of children of citizens, which, however, were rarely enforced. As Tertullian told Romans, “Although you are forbidden by the laws to slay new-born infants, it so happens that no laws are evaded with more impunity.”26

Most were diddled by daddies who could diddle without consequence

>someone is acknowledging that females had it bad

>better accuse them of F-f-f-feminism(!) and do my best to give a fuck whether they have a point or not

>I sure wish it was medieval times

Holy shit, I thought that was 100% Richard Stallman from the thumbnail.