And you’ll note that The Two Towers shows precisely that level of production.
This is bullshit. Yes, there *was *a period where shoes weren’t left/right , but it only starts in the 1600s with the rise (heh!) of heels. Medieval shoes were NOT the same for each foot. I’ve seen enough actual examples to know.
Fuck, I hate it when people know a fact about history, but they mess it up like this, and then spread the bullshit to other people.
As **Tamerlane **has said, this is also bullshit. Look at all those one-handed-sword using mfs
You might be a *little *surprised - for one thing, medieval cities just didn’t have all the sources of general litter- plastic + paper + aluminium cans - that we do. For another, stuff like human waste was literally a commodity that sometimes even got paid for. And people were often required to keep their own streets clean.
I’m not saying a Medieval city would be Disneyland-clean, but it certainly wouldn’t be as bad as popular imagination would have it. At least until the rapid urbanization of later periods, anyway.
No room to do anything in that siege engine.
With city hygiene, the same as with everything else in the Middle Ages, the answer is ‘it varied’. It’s almost never true to make sweeping generalisations about ‘medieval people’ or ‘medieval towns’ or in fact any aspect of medieval society.
Things varied from one country to another, from one part of a country to another, from one town to another, and from one part of a town to another. In the same place, things varied over time from one century another, and from one decade to another.
But some things were constant to all city life before the 20th century. Streets tended to be badly paved, muddy, and to have lots of horse dung. Waste water from laundry, kitchens, tanners, fullers, dyers, etc. tended to be poured out in the streets. Rivers were often filthy where they flowed through cities, and water tended to be unsafe to drink. The air tended to be smokey from large numbers of wood or coal fires.
I had no idea what that was.
Thanks!
Starting from the 15th Century - the end of the Middle Ages - armies in Europe and in Japan starting mass-producing standard, interchangeable plate armor for their soldiers. It was simplerthan the fitted plated armor of the nobility, but still effective, and could pass for shiny armor onscreen.
Too bad Robin Hood is by definition set in the late 1100s. 
Somehow the idea of doing a review based on a trailer reminds me of Monday’s Zits strip.
Are those ears?
Only, Jeremy Renner is neither speeded up to impossibility, nor aiming with his dick’s eye.
Águila Roja. You’re welcome (or not).
that made me chuckle, as I said to myself… is it as bad as Kevin Costners film?
Hmm. Very cool. There was a series of The Musketeers made in the UK a couple of years ago that is even closer to my idea, but still different enough.
Answer - seeing as it has no Alan Rickman in it, how can it not be even worse?
Robin Hood, Kingsman!
A good friend, a bowl o weed, humongous cup of sprite–oh yeah, it’s happening! 
Yes, the Coster film was terrible and only saved by Rickman as the Sheriff.
Winner! 