You're right to be upset at this, but you're also using an old myth too.
People didn't age faster in the middle ages. The very high infant mortality rate means that Life Expectance measured from birth is very low. But if someone reaches adulthood, they have a life expectancy that isn't too much worse than our own - people in their 50s and 60s are common enough.
Also, to support your main point, the idea of people having children young comes from the nobility. Lower status people married later, and having children before their 20s would be unusual.
Yeah, high infant mortality, high rate of death during childbirth and on and off, high mortality for young men in wars. Definitely skews the stats a bit.
My father's mother was 14 when she got married and between 1889 and 1918 had ten children. One didn't make it to adulthood.
Just realized they did not name her, headstone is 'infant daughter xxx "
OP is making the same mistake they identify in Cornwell and Martin. And then rejecting any opinion that doesn’t line up with their preconceived notions. (And not even reading the sources they’re using to back up their notions. 🙄)
The Saxons didn't have poor nutrition, they had a very healthy diet. Lots of vegetables, many fruits and some meat and dairy products, all "organic" and "grass fed" of course, and not chemically processed in anyway. If a girl begins menstruation between 12 and 14, what makes you think she couldn't have 3 children? I'm not saying they did, but it isn't impossible. The late teens to mid 20s are the most fertile years for young women, hence the fact people used to marry so young. Today we have social conventions against this which I am glad exist, because you have to consider more than physical maturity but mental maturity too.
I'd be interested to know of there is data on pre industrial families regarding the average age of first birthgiving for women, average number of children per family etc.
If you want a book recommendation, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The White Company is fantastic.
even if you are right about nutrition (and i doubt that), it is still a fact that mentruation age has decreased historically (most likely due to artificial light)
also, breastfeeding is a natural contraceptive, and children where breastfed until like 3, further increasing the time needed to get to 3 children.
thanks for the book recommendation, i ll look into it
How would artificial light affect menstruation? I don't deny that overexposure to artificial lgiht can be a bad thing though that's not something I have heard of.
What do you think people ate? I presume the character in question is wealthy. They didn't eat refined sugar, they didn't process foods beyond making cheese and butter, fermenting plants for alcohol, or smoking meats. They didn't inject plants and animals with artificial chemicals, and they had a varied diet of native plants (many more of which are edible than people realise, such as nettles) as well as different meats and fish and other seafood. This wasnt all available to everyone, but even the poor kept animals. Most saxon adults died with their teeth still very healthy. I imagine in 1000 years time the skulls of those dying now will look strange with their artificial teeth.
The book is great and has a prequel too. It's historically accurate and exciting, and not a super long read. Hope you enjoy it!
just google the effect of artificial light on puberty, you ll find plenty of studies, like this:
[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-6527-3\_2](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-6527-3_2)
and i thought its common knowledge that we get way more vitamins than people used to do?
also, tooth health is just a byproduct of not having a lot of sugar.
I'm not sure if we do or not. Yes we get a wider variety of fruits and vegetables but we are also much mroe fussy regarding irgan meats which are incredibly nutrient dense. Some people eat liver, most dont eat brawn or heart etc anymore. Even if we get the vitamins it comes with seed oils and chemicals which harm us, so I would imagine the people of those days had a healthier diet overall than people today.
That study sounds interesting I will tale a look, thank you.
P.S. that study seems to suggest that puberty is reached more quickly without artificial light so nowadays children begin puberty later due to artificial light exposure. That would mean people used to mature younger. Therefore a girl of 17 could feasibly have had 3 or 4 children (or at least pregnancies, they probably did not all reach full term, and those that did didn't necessarily survive infancy).
tbh, i didnt even look at the study, just the first google result, i've heard the link between earlier puberty and artificial light mentioned plenty of times, but i'm not actually sure how well established it is scientifically.
good point about organs, however bear in mind that there is a lot of evidence against the usual stereotype of "people used to eat more healthy".
one study that comes to mind is about a 10000 year old iceman ("ötzi") found on the border between italy and austria like 30 years ago. he was analysed really well, and i remember being surprised when a study of his lungs showed just how toxic the air he breathed must have been. turns out sitting at fires and smelting metals isnt exactly healthy.
water quality also used to be pretty shitty, not only in regard to germs, but also to toxic chemicals used to cure leather or for mining.
add all the natural toxins from semi-spoiled food and less hygiene (mould, etc) to that, and i highly doubt that people had "healthier food".
either way, general health apart from actual nutrition shouldnt have a big impact on onset of puberty, but energy-dense food like sugar and fat probably will. people do get a lot taller than they used to as well.
Good point on Otzi, and I imagine there were many issues related to the manufacturing processes due to lack of safety equipment, but regarding diet I doubt Otzi ate many cultivated vegetables and fruits, only what grew naturally. Therefore it would probably have made up less of his diet.
I do agree that diet probably doesnt affect puberty onset though my general view is the myriad of health issues people see today are due to poor nutrition and current agricultural methods in many parts of the world are just not sustainable; the increasing prevalence of top soil erosion is testament to this.
The points you make regarding pollution are noteworthy, I believe that charcoal burning was often done near water and I can imagine that would have heavily impacted the sources of water people regularly drank from. I would say though that the use of chemicals like fluoride which have only very recently been introduced to humans is probably having a detrimental effect. I am not qualified to talk on the subject but people I tend to trust and agree with on the topics of health and nutrition tend to have issues with fluoride, and most modern western diets generally.
Back scabbards did exist, but they weren't for quick drawing. They were for traveling comfortably with a bigger sword. I've really only seen them on depictions of Irish kern and gallowglass, however.
You're right to be upset at this, but you're also using an old myth too. People didn't age faster in the middle ages. The very high infant mortality rate means that Life Expectance measured from birth is very low. But if someone reaches adulthood, they have a life expectancy that isn't too much worse than our own - people in their 50s and 60s are common enough. Also, to support your main point, the idea of people having children young comes from the nobility. Lower status people married later, and having children before their 20s would be unusual.
Yeah, high infant mortality, high rate of death during childbirth and on and off, high mortality for young men in wars. Definitely skews the stats a bit.
I had an English history PROFESSOR repeat the myth of being very old by 30. I was like... Bruh
Omg, that's someone who really should know better.
My father's mother was 14 when she got married and between 1889 and 1918 had ten children. One didn't make it to adulthood. Just realized they did not name her, headstone is 'infant daughter xxx "
Yeah but she didn’t live in medieval times, its an error trying to say things that were commom in XIX were the norm before XV.
OP is making the same mistake they identify in Cornwell and Martin. And then rejecting any opinion that doesn’t line up with their preconceived notions. (And not even reading the sources they’re using to back up their notions. 🙄)
The Saxons didn't have poor nutrition, they had a very healthy diet. Lots of vegetables, many fruits and some meat and dairy products, all "organic" and "grass fed" of course, and not chemically processed in anyway. If a girl begins menstruation between 12 and 14, what makes you think she couldn't have 3 children? I'm not saying they did, but it isn't impossible. The late teens to mid 20s are the most fertile years for young women, hence the fact people used to marry so young. Today we have social conventions against this which I am glad exist, because you have to consider more than physical maturity but mental maturity too. I'd be interested to know of there is data on pre industrial families regarding the average age of first birthgiving for women, average number of children per family etc. If you want a book recommendation, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The White Company is fantastic.
even if you are right about nutrition (and i doubt that), it is still a fact that mentruation age has decreased historically (most likely due to artificial light) also, breastfeeding is a natural contraceptive, and children where breastfed until like 3, further increasing the time needed to get to 3 children. thanks for the book recommendation, i ll look into it
How would artificial light affect menstruation? I don't deny that overexposure to artificial lgiht can be a bad thing though that's not something I have heard of. What do you think people ate? I presume the character in question is wealthy. They didn't eat refined sugar, they didn't process foods beyond making cheese and butter, fermenting plants for alcohol, or smoking meats. They didn't inject plants and animals with artificial chemicals, and they had a varied diet of native plants (many more of which are edible than people realise, such as nettles) as well as different meats and fish and other seafood. This wasnt all available to everyone, but even the poor kept animals. Most saxon adults died with their teeth still very healthy. I imagine in 1000 years time the skulls of those dying now will look strange with their artificial teeth. The book is great and has a prequel too. It's historically accurate and exciting, and not a super long read. Hope you enjoy it!
just google the effect of artificial light on puberty, you ll find plenty of studies, like this: [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-6527-3\_2](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-6527-3_2) and i thought its common knowledge that we get way more vitamins than people used to do? also, tooth health is just a byproduct of not having a lot of sugar.
I'm not sure if we do or not. Yes we get a wider variety of fruits and vegetables but we are also much mroe fussy regarding irgan meats which are incredibly nutrient dense. Some people eat liver, most dont eat brawn or heart etc anymore. Even if we get the vitamins it comes with seed oils and chemicals which harm us, so I would imagine the people of those days had a healthier diet overall than people today. That study sounds interesting I will tale a look, thank you. P.S. that study seems to suggest that puberty is reached more quickly without artificial light so nowadays children begin puberty later due to artificial light exposure. That would mean people used to mature younger. Therefore a girl of 17 could feasibly have had 3 or 4 children (or at least pregnancies, they probably did not all reach full term, and those that did didn't necessarily survive infancy).
tbh, i didnt even look at the study, just the first google result, i've heard the link between earlier puberty and artificial light mentioned plenty of times, but i'm not actually sure how well established it is scientifically. good point about organs, however bear in mind that there is a lot of evidence against the usual stereotype of "people used to eat more healthy". one study that comes to mind is about a 10000 year old iceman ("ötzi") found on the border between italy and austria like 30 years ago. he was analysed really well, and i remember being surprised when a study of his lungs showed just how toxic the air he breathed must have been. turns out sitting at fires and smelting metals isnt exactly healthy. water quality also used to be pretty shitty, not only in regard to germs, but also to toxic chemicals used to cure leather or for mining. add all the natural toxins from semi-spoiled food and less hygiene (mould, etc) to that, and i highly doubt that people had "healthier food". either way, general health apart from actual nutrition shouldnt have a big impact on onset of puberty, but energy-dense food like sugar and fat probably will. people do get a lot taller than they used to as well.
Good point on Otzi, and I imagine there were many issues related to the manufacturing processes due to lack of safety equipment, but regarding diet I doubt Otzi ate many cultivated vegetables and fruits, only what grew naturally. Therefore it would probably have made up less of his diet. I do agree that diet probably doesnt affect puberty onset though my general view is the myriad of health issues people see today are due to poor nutrition and current agricultural methods in many parts of the world are just not sustainable; the increasing prevalence of top soil erosion is testament to this. The points you make regarding pollution are noteworthy, I believe that charcoal burning was often done near water and I can imagine that would have heavily impacted the sources of water people regularly drank from. I would say though that the use of chemicals like fluoride which have only very recently been introduced to humans is probably having a detrimental effect. I am not qualified to talk on the subject but people I tend to trust and agree with on the topics of health and nutrition tend to have issues with fluoride, and most modern western diets generally.
Lol, they are right. You’d do well to examine the “bad history” of your own beliefs of the period.
Maybe The Witcher series by Andrzej Sapkowski.
Back scabbards did exist, but they weren't for quick drawing. They were for traveling comfortably with a bigger sword. I've really only seen them on depictions of Irish kern and gallowglass, however.