All the stuff you wrote is purely imaginary and has nothing to do with how people in medieval times actually behaved. You just made it all up, completely, based on what you want history to be.
In particular, if you was too sick or invalid or whatever, you got kicked off. That is it. No one expected the master to care for you or handle your healthcare. It is true you was not paid and worked for food.
If you produced low quality work, you would get simpler jobs (cleaning, wood chopping) for a but, would not learn and would eventually be kicked off too.
> When you show up broke after years, I bet you get kicked out there also. You have better choices moving to a new city or living off the streets.
Generally, they were unwilling to kick you off family, unless you was disobedient. That would be shameful for them. This was your safety net and related social obligations were actually strong.
You was not better off "living in the streets" of a town (which were significantly smaller).
Like, cities had very real limit of how many people they could accommodate before it became impossible. Newcomer with troublemaking potential was not making it richer nor was welcome.
> You just made it all up, completely, based on what you want history to be.
I'm sorry, I'm not yet 500 years old, I have only knowledge based on school and it being portrayed in public media. Do you have sources for your differing knowledge.
> No one expected the master to care for you or handle your healthcare.
Yes nobody is going to sue him. However when one of your prentices vanishes, there will be gossip, that's bad for business. Also I argued that this is bad for the master purely for economic reasons (sunken costs), because feeding someone is not cheap especially in the middle ages.
> It is true you was not paid and worked for food.
Yes and this is not something bad at all. It is just a different economy.
> Generally, they were unwilling to kick you off family, unless you was disobedient.
Yes and your father would claim you were disobedient to your master when you have not learned enough, as he has sent you there. That's why I would earlier that it's kind-of like you are now part of the master's family.
Public media are entertainment made by artists. They did not study history nor are attempting to paint it accurately. They are trying to create something for for their contemporaries, sorta kinda inspired by history.
Their blacksmiths are as accurate as their vampires as sibling puts it. Which is ok, the rest of us are supposed to realise the difference between a fiction , random tech guy or economist blog and actual history.
In a book having a story and then some pages about the historic context, I would expect the context to be somewhat accurate? I also mean stuff like that researchers are sometimes (I think often) unable to determine whether a picture, a music piece was created by the master or by the prentices. I don't expect public media to lie about that.
It's also about common sense economy and human behaviour. I don't think humans change all that much.
Wars and rivalities between cities and between the nobility-dominated land are part of history classes in school. Can you bring actual arguments why my reasoning is wrong, instead of simply claiming it just didn't happened this way?
> In a book having a story and then some pages about the historic context, I would expect the context to be somewhat accurate?
Why would you expect that if written by random writer?
> It's also about common sense economy and human behaviour. I don't think humans change all that much.
Your common sense is massively dependent on your values, your religion (or lack of it) and our technology. Humans with different values, different religion and massively different technology function differently.
> Wars and rivalities between cities and between the nobility-dominated land are part of history classes in school.
What you did NOT learned in high school history is how cities, towns and peasants operated in their day to day life. What you did NOT learned was anything about periods in between wars - and most cities were not in constant war with each other.
> Can you bring actual arguments why my reasoning is wrong, instead of simply claiming it just didn't happened this way?
Just about any actual specialized historical book about medieval time, frankly. And frankly, you are the one who made confident claims, you should be able to support them with evidence first.
In particular, if you was too sick or invalid or whatever, you got kicked off. That is it. No one expected the master to care for you or handle your healthcare. It is true you was not paid and worked for food.
If you produced low quality work, you would get simpler jobs (cleaning, wood chopping) for a but, would not learn and would eventually be kicked off too.
> When you show up broke after years, I bet you get kicked out there also. You have better choices moving to a new city or living off the streets.
Generally, they were unwilling to kick you off family, unless you was disobedient. That would be shameful for them. This was your safety net and related social obligations were actually strong.
You was not better off "living in the streets" of a town (which were significantly smaller).
Like, cities had very real limit of how many people they could accommodate before it became impossible. Newcomer with troublemaking potential was not making it richer nor was welcome.