What was the fate of medieval peasant children when an invading army would start looting a village in search of food...

In real life? If they were lucky they would be ignored. Anyone resisting would be killed or severely punished in any case. Rape was common, especially in the earlier Middle Ages but began to decline (still happened at horrifyingly large rates compared to these days, but it did decline). If the became orphaned they usually got shifted off to a relative or, in extreme cases, sent to the Church. In some cases they headed out to the city, but only if the war was still raging and their village got killed by and large.

Also, depending on the invading culture, they might be taken for slaves, but not always. Really depended on a lot of various circumstances.

I just read Menzels A Histort Of Germany over the summer there and the line 'upon defeated the women then murdered their children before killings themselves' is repeated on almost every page for a lot of chapters.

Slavery was the norm. Everything before that is up to your imagination really it was only recorded historically when it Ed especially had.

Depends a lot on the parties at play some areas saw new
Leadership back and forth on a regular basis and where probably casual about new invaders coming through.

>it got better
Uh. The 30 Year’s War.

I'm reading a particularly poor translation it seems. That or my phone hates me.

The training of a Medieval knight was usually begun at the age of seven (7), and it was claimed after twelve, the boy is fit only for a priest. When a young nobleboy made 13, he was expected to serve his master on battlefield as a valet. At 17, he would serve as a fully armed man-at-arms.

Like I said, it got better. I didn't say it went away or that statistical hiccups didn't happen. And the 30 Years War wasn't in the middle ages (ended in the 15th Century, 30 YW was in the 17th Century).

To be fair, the rapes from that were more of a property thing. The nobility of Paris during that time had a special law in place where they can rape a girl, then legally marry her and take her stuff, without a dowry.

The most normal approach to looting seems to have been the mercenaries' leader going up to the village chief and saying "give as all your stuff or we burn your fucking village down". The villagers wouldn't really be in a position to argue, and if the mercenaries are in a hurry they might even be lucky enough to hide some of their valuable stuff (digging down the church silver was a common wartime practice). The mercenaries are spared having to go and gather all the stuff they need and they avoid destroying the village. Destroying every village would be dumb as eventually there won't be any villagers to raid.

In essence the mercenaries would not do anything that did not win them money, and wasting time raping every last woman/girl and murdering children didn't accomplish anything in the money making department. Mercenary companies mostly traveled with a whole train of hanger-ons. Smiths, tailors, prostitutes, even the soldiers' wives and children. You had all the whores you could dream of at hand, plus whatever you might find in the cities you visited.

All that said you might still get especially sadistic or ill-disciplined fucks just wrecking shit for the hell of it.

Of course there are considerable variation of this pattern. During the Thirty Years War the fighting was also fueled by religious persecution, and so massacring the opposition became an objective in itself. Filthy heretics and all that. I remember seeing a documentary some years ago, think it was a BBC thing, about a mercenary who would team up with his wife to plunder when the city (Ithink it was Magdeburg) they besieged fell. Basically they took shifts, with one resting/guarding their treasure in camp while the other went into the city and took everything they could carry, every man for himself. They even got into fights with mercenaries on nominally the same side as them over choice loot.

There's plenty of abhorrent shit in the Bible too. I'm not necessarily saying they're on the same level (I'm not knowledgeable enough about the Quran to speculate), and I'm generally more favorably inclined towards a hippie carpenter than a merchant warlord, but let's not pretend that the Bible isn't morally repugnant in a lot of places. I'm not specifically thinking of any passages about child rape, but there's stuff about killing children.

None of that invalidates the fact that Muhammad married a 9-year-old and that Muslims still marry and rape children daily in Islamic countries.

But keep trying, butthurt liberal trash.

The invading army consults their "Handbook on Standard Operational Procedures for Invading Armies 500-1500" and does whatever it says. :^)

Depends on influence of the commander and church.

Fuck off, /pol/! You people are the true niggers of Veeky Forums

I'm not defending Islam; I'm saying that Christianity is terrible too.

>denouncing /pol/ by adopting /pol/ language
what did he mean by this?

Rounded up, kept or sold as slaves.

>Christianity
Christians did terrible shit that that used Christianity as an excuse, but the actual religion forbade and condemns. The difference is that in Islam such acts are encouraged and are in their holy writings.

Why do you have to bring up the Bible? No one said anything about Christianity being better or worse than Islam. For all you know the previous poster could be taoist.

>Christians did terrible shit that that used Christianity as an excuse, but the actual religion forbade and condemns.
Depends entirely on the specific parts of that huge, meandering collection of stories you choose to adhere to.
>in Islam such acts are encouraged and are in their holy writings.
Depends entirely on the specific parts of that huge, meandering collection of stories you choose to adhere to.

>taoist
Buddhist actually

Balance in all things, even cowtits.

Aisha's directly stated age comes from the Hadiths
The Koran doesnt say her age outright, but it does say her age in relation to another person, and based on that, she was in her mid to late teens when she got married

>but the actual religion forbade and condemns
That simply isn't true.

>Why do you have to bring up the Bible?
The "look how terrible Islam is" people (on English-speaking boards, anyway) are almost always Christian (and there's frequently--but certainly not always--an element of racism involved among those most vehement in their opposition), and it's like watching a Stalinist condemn Hitler for human rights abuses. Yeah, Hitler was a fucking monster, but supporters of Stalin shouldn't be getting all holier-than-thou about it. Take your bullshit religious grudges elsewhere or expect to get counterpunched.

Jesus didn't fuck any 9-year-olds.

Christians don't explode themselves for Jesus.

Christ never said to kill non-Christians.

OP please keep your horrible fetishes to yourself

Christians martyred themselves against the Roman Empire. If they had the available materials to explode in 100 AD, you can bet there would have been a martyr saint of exploding vests.

Terrorist acts are the acts of a hostile government (ISIL) encouraging mentally ill people with promises of giving their lives meaning. This exactly the same as Communist attacks in the 20th century, only more encouraged because ISIL is actually at war with the West, whereas the USSR couldn't openly support (and often was very much against) terrorists. The more you know.

This makes no sense. You're just trying to deflect or muddy the issue.
What next, when people talk about Muslim rape grooming gangs in the UK, will you retort with pedophile priests? We all know pedo priests are bad, that doesn't mean that Muslim rape gangs are somehow "excused".
Stop being a dishonest twat.

Statistically we got 1-3 more of these events before the year's out

>Christians don't explode themselves for Jesus.
Christianity just genocided its way across the globe.

>Jesus didn't fuck any 9-year-olds.
No, but Moses insisted on killing male children and babies, and any non-virgin female captives from the land he invaded.

>Christ never said to kill non-Christians.
Like I said, I'll take a hippie carpenter over a merchant warlord any day of the week. Jesus wasn't perfect, but if Jesus, himself, was all Christianity was, it would be in a much better moral position.

>Muslim rape gangs
Asian rape gangs

/pol/ please go.

Ignored unless they got in the way of the looting.

I mean, that martyrdom generally took the form of persecution by the Romans, not by attacking random innocents.

>>Why do you have to bring up the Bible?
>The "look how terrible Islam is" people (on English-speaking boards, anyway) are almost always Christian
It kind of looks like you forgot atheists and agnostics exist for a moment there.

Christian Genocide?

Please explain.

>hurr durr christians can't be violent terrorists
>flusteredirishmen.jpg

>It kind of looks like you forgot atheists and agnostics exist for a moment there.
B-But they're supposed to be enlightened left-wing beatniks that protect poor, innocent Islam from the evol conservative xians!

It's depends a lot on culture and what the military action is. If you're trying to invade and take lands then the peasents will likely be spaired. If it's a raid, well, might as well kill the Lord's cattle as you go right?

No you racist cunt the Asian community have been great for decades before the Arab influx.

>It kind of looks like you forgot atheists and agnostics exist for a moment there.
It's not that Atheists won't criticize Islam; it's that they won't usually single it out like that.

>hurr durr let's bring up the past and ignore that the CURRENT generation of muslims is riddled with scores of violent assholes

Native Americans?

>It's not that Atheists won't criticize Islam; it's that they won't usually single it out like that.
But it deserves to be singled out for its conduct in the present era.

That is true. However, out of a population of millions of muslims in the West, there's been what, a couple hundred violent extremists? This is a whole conversation about outliers.

Oh they will. Because Islamists are the most active in their atrocities right now.

>>hurr durr let's bring up the past and ignore that the CURRENT generation of muslims is riddled with scores of violent assholes

I don't think anyone here is ignoring that fact. The argument being put forward is that believing followers of one or the other religion is always/never evil is naive.

Of course this fucking thread is getting derailed by politics.

Stop it, dipshits.

>hurr durr let's bring up the past and ignore that the CURRENT generation of muslims is riddled with scores of violent assholes
Hurr durr, let's ignore history in favor of focusing on only the current moment, when the Middle East is at a low ebb of civilization and full of religious extremism (helped in no small part by Western intervention). If Christianity were solely responsible for a more enlightened, moral society, then we should've gotten where we are much sooner. Religious zealotry is bullshit, and the Middle East is in a much worse place than the so-called Christian world right now, but that doesn't give you an accurate picture of the comparative histories of Christianity and Islam.

If we're supposed to judge people based on their religion, irrespective of their place of birth of their specific religious interpretation, I suggest we ignore their time of birth as well.

This is misleading in the extreme. Contrary to intuition, the relative numbers don't matter, the absolute numbers do.
To wit: Germany has about 500 dangerous islamists that authorities aware of. Let's say the numbers would increase by a factor of 100 and the number of violent terror attacks proportionately. Public life in Germany would become almost unbearable. However, the number of extremists (50,000) would still be really small compared to the overall muslim population (5 million)... about 1%. And faggots like you would STILL be claiming that you can't judge a group by the actions of 1%.
And that is why we have to refuse your thinking in relative numbers.

Why would we increase the number by 100 times though? It obviously isn't that far.
And I would absolutely state with certainty that you can't judge any group of anything off a sample off 1% of members.

>hurr durr all sides did shit in the past, let's just blame christians for being more successful at it
Nobody gives a flying shit about history in the face of current terror attacks, except those that want to downplay the justified accusations brought forth against muslim communities in our midst.

>what is a thought experiment
Kill yourself.

>And I would absolutely state with certainty that you can't judge any group of anything off a sample off 1% of members.
Q.E.D.

>niggers
>/pol/ language
Newfriends need to move themselves back to >>/reddit/

25% of the US voted for Hillary Clinton.
Ergo, the people of the US are all democrats.
:thinking:

90% died before they even came into contact with europeans
There were massive outbreaks of disease also before contact with europeans - verified through DNA evidence and historical records, and spread from europe by sea thanks to animals like sea lions.

Europeans colonized a continent where the natives had already been obliterated by disease and couldn't possibly, in any shape or form, hold onto any territory at all, regardless of anything that might've been done to them or not. European colonization was just the mop up after north america had its equivalent of the black death.

>No, but Moses insisted on killing male children and babies, and any non-virgin female captives from the land he invaded.

Moses is fanfiction though. None of those events happened, it's just a hillibillie fanfic about how they murdered all their betters forever and ever.

>90% died before they even came into contact with europeans

Well yeah, diseases don't need somebody to hold their hand to do their job.

Contacts in North America happened well before the First Thanksgiving or the erection of the first Anglo Gulag in any case. Fishing expeditions and low-level trade between sailors and Americans happened decades before that already - those are the points of transmission that mattered to future New England.

There were also the Spaniards and their farm animals down in Florida.

Also
>South America
>TB infections that happened a 1000 years before the arrival of any of the Eurasian strains of the disease
>mattering
Plastic Man go and pls stay go.

>Moses is fanfiction though.
So is religion in general.

>90% died before they even came into contact with europeans
They still slaughtered and subjugated the people who were there. You can argue that's what people do, but it still isn't a high-water mark for Christian civilization.

>Europeans colonized a continent where the natives had already been obliterated by disease and couldn't possibly, in any shape or form, hold onto any territory at all, regardless of anything that might've been done to them or not.
The diseases transferred by the Columbian exchange decimated the native population of the Americas, but it's not like they wouldn't have rebounded over the course of centuries. It took--what?--200 years for Europe to completely recoup the losses of the black death. Native American losses were worse, but they've had about twice the time to recover.

So yeah, it was mop up, but you're still talking genocide. And if we're talking about a shitload more deaths than from suicide bombers.

I think you're ignoring the important question. If all of the females in the peasant village you've conquered commit suicide, is it gay to rape the boys instead? I mean, what if you've been on the march forever? There has to be an unwritten rule about this.

>If they had the available materials to explode in 100 AD, you can bet there would have been a martyr saint of exploding vests
Except they didn't and there are no reports of christians that attacked romans for their polytheistic beliefs. Try harder next time.

>No, but Moses insisted on killing male children and babies, and any non-virgin female captives from the land he invaded.
Actually, God told him to kill everyone in the holyland if you want to go by the bible.

I'm not certain gay was a thing. There was fucking and there was degenerate fucking. As long as you were on top it was always manly.

>there are no reports of christians that attacked romans for their polytheistic beliefs
There are also no credible Roman reports about Jesus of Nazareth at all.

Christian martyrdom was about you not denouncing your beliefs in the face of death. Not cleaning yourself of sin by spilling the blood of infidels.

>>niggers
>>not /pol/ language

False equivalency fallacy, dude. Voting for HRC is not a crime; it is legal.
Anyway, you have failed to grasp the direction of my thrust: the absolute numbers of terror attacks matter in determining whether you think having a particular group be part of your country is worth it. Not relative numbers.

>:thinking:
It seems to be hard for you.

Actually the said wife of Mohammed was made younger by her descendants to better their claim on the caliph title against that of the descendants of the other wives.

t. mohammed

Too bad historians btfo'd you yet again. Seems like reality is hating /pol/ution.

Goalposts

Is it unified? No. Do all 2 billion Muslims do the same stuff? They are humans so no.
Have you ever thought about stuff yourself? No.

I hate to break your bubble, friend, but having sex with children was pretty common throughout history. You'd be hard pressed to find a culture whose past didn't involve a lot of child marriage, child prostitution, and child rape.

Hey guys

Here's a crazy thought

Instead of feeding the /pol/tards with replies and then getting confused when they continue to shitpost

Try ignoring them

The Albigensian Crusade. The Spanish inquisition. Hell, all the crusades, not only against Islam, but things like the Northern crusades.

Kekking at people who believe that Catholicism was all flowers and love. Catholicism has caused many massacres and sponsored many more.

Wrong. It specifically mentions that she was of the age to play with dolls, which means she was prepubescent. Playing with dolls past puberty is idolatry.

That's not going to happen.
Fa/tg/it's are easy to trick.

Yes, and?

>children were nothing but mouths to feed in medieval peasantry
Only until they reached 5 or 6 years old (if times aren't rough), in which case yes they'd better work their ass off. If it can hold a bucket of water, if it can give feed to the poultry, if it can fetch the tools from the shed, it works.
Why do you think peasants fucked like rabbits? It's slightly more food to produce but proportionally more manpower.

Can you please never come back to Veeky Forums ever again? Thank you.

I really do not understand where this shit about women and children not being able to work comes from.

That seems to be pretty logical. However when the English launched their chevauchees through France it's explicitly stated that they burned, raped and destroyed everything in a several mile wide corridor along where they travelled.

Also, men went to war back then for loot. That was the point. If you weren't willing to spend a lot of time looting, what were you even there for?

>If we're supposed to judge people based on their religion, irrespective of their place of birth of their specific religious interpretation
That's the thing though, the idea of the completely harmless peaceful islam and the evil bad jihadi minority is not true. There is more overlap and support of the reading of the quran as the literal word of god and supporting ideas that coincide with the more extreme versions of islam among the moderates. Until the moderates distance themselves greatly from these ideas and actually reform their religion in the same way the christian majority has done then it's going to be hard to do anything about it.
We're not ignoring the birthplace or background of these muslims, it simply is the case that the cultural context and historical context of islam that they're brought up in does not have this dichotomy of jihadis and moderates. It's more complex than that.

>implying that half of /pol/ isn't from r/The_Donald
Ironic

50/50 chance they would kill the kids.
I they didn't, they were either left for dead, or taken as slaves to be used or sold; sometimes labor, sometimes sex.

Depends on the tone of the game.
Gritty-real-dark-edge-coldsteel setting would definitely incude rape themes.
Fun high adventure with saturday morning cartoon villains. The children would be fine in that setting.

Oh, they were generally eaten alive. Sometimes they were raped first, but more often they were raped and eaten simultaneously. In the more sadistic cases, the children were forced to rape each other just prior to being eaten; the most entertaining child was usually eaten last, or even saved as rations. But such cruelty was rare.

What was the fate of Constantinople when its conquered by Crusaders?

Rape

Then their rapists would shit on them

Then rape them again

>Raping children is worse than murdering them
As someone who was raped as a child I disagree. I mean it wasn't good by any means but its better than being tortured or killed.

Look, you can stop pretending you're from around here.