Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
The problem with the article is that it assumes that there is something new under the sun. Nothing has changed, except technology. Do you think all of the reactionary nobility of Europe hundreds of years ago actually lived in cities or did things that were beneficial to cities and the people living in them? Of course not. Do you think the medieval barons and dukes cared about the cities? No.
If the King wanted to build a new palace or embark on a city building project, he would have to face the ire of the landed nobility who could care less. Most Kings in the middle ages were weak, wheres the rural oligarchy (nobility) was strong and made most decisions. Nothing has changed.
|
I'm sorry, but this is just wrong.
I'm most familiar with the status of nobility in Britain, but there it was customary for nobles to have both a country estate and a residence in the city (called a "town house" - and the origin of the modern term).
Norfolk House in London is probably one of the largest examples, built in the 18th century as a resident for the Duke of Norfolk, but used since 1938 for offices.
Nobility did live in the cities - at least part of the time. And you can't blame them for not living there all the time, because in era before public sanitation, European cities were horrible places. Pretty universally they were population sinks - people died faster than they were born, with continual in-migration from the rural areas the only way they stopped from shrinking.