>>2515479>Retarded. Even five seconds on youtube watching "what did medieval peasants eat" would tell you how horribly wrong you are.I've been watching reputable history-centric YouTube channels for years, and the great majority of them (not that any are entirely authoritative) contradict this bizarre narrative that medieval peasants ate well and had it easy. They weren't as badly off as modernophiles tend to believe, but their lives were hard and their diets were poor.
>No, just horses, oxen, donkeys, etc. for pulling plows and working.A beast of burden isn't necessarily a good mount. In fact, many famously aren't. But yeah, great sleuthing, Poirot. You totally caught me not knowing that peasants owned draft animals to pull wagons and plows.
>Except that doing so was literally a cottage industry and most people made their own bows and arrows, made their own clothes, etc.Caught me again, except that I wasn't only talking about jolly old England, and also that was the case for only for only a portion of the entire medieval age. Poirot strikes (out) again.
>The fact that Englishmen were required by law to own a bow and practice with it proves you wrongSee above. Your moronic gotcha applies to one region for only a portion of the medieval period. It's the exception that proves the rule.
>prime hunting grounds were reserved for the landed gentryWell, no shit. What else is new?
>concedes hunters do more to preserve wildlife than tree-huggers, then goes right back to the "hurr durr, fat, beer-swilling, git-er-dun rednecks blah blahYes, because that type of idiot absolutely exists too, they're very real, they're very visible to the public, and they give the rest of us a bad name. Why are you mad? You one of them, faggot? Can't handle nuanced reality?
>Lemme guess, daddy never took you out into the woods when you were a kidI'm a fly fisherman and bird hunter. I don't hunt deer, but most of my buddies do.
