Do regular people today enjoy a better life than the great rulers of the past?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=jimmmy]
Hey I am the first to jump to point out the dubiousness of Roman Life expectancy statistics. All modern estimates are based on small ancient data samples, usually anecdotes and sets of human remains, and anyone intellectually honest , and who understands what Life Expectancy at birth means, is going say that what is available is simply not enough to draw valid statistical conclusions. I certainly get that.

Having said that, I am unaware of any serious scholar who would quibble that Roman life expectancy was roughly 40, or would state flatly Roman Nobles expectancy was vastly greater than that. I can offer cites as to what I am talking about. Virtually any Google search on Roman life expectancy will undermine my contention THE OTHER WAY – saying I am being too optimistic
QUOTES:

*In the upper classes, women on average had their first child at 15. Family size was limited through infanticide, by exposure to the elements; by effective, if dangerous, forms of artificial birth control; and by equally dangerous abortions. Life expectancy for males at birth was between 20 and 30 years .

It has been estimated by Keith Hopkins that for the entire population the average life expectancy at birth was 20-30 years.

A Chart
Tombstones show that the life expectancy of women was 34 years as contrasted with 46 years for men because women often died in childbirth.*

I understand that you are saying Nobles lived longer – probably true. But we simply don’t know and based on what we do know there is simply no academic basis for you to get out there goggle-eyed, shocked acting like what I said was crazy.
[/QUOTE]

But life expectancy at birth is completely beside the point. The question asked is whether ancient rulers lived better than modern people, not their kids. I misunderstood your original post, and more or less missed the “son” part. As jayjay pointed out, life expectancy at birth skews low because of high infant mortality rates. I am sorry if I looked goggle eyed, but Senators tended to be a long-lived bunch. Not least because you couldn’t become one until middle age. That is the sense in which I say that it doesn’t matter what Life Expectancy rates are, because we’re talking about adults here. What’s the LE at age 18? Quite a bit higher, I would wager.

Also, there were lots and lots of families which had had senators for generations. You get born and you or one of your brothers was going to be in the senate. Good job and cheerio, old chap.

As for the question of how many soldiers actually got their land grant, it was a fair number. I’ll try to look it up this weekend, but it’s not like the pitch was “join the Legion. See far off places and kill the natives. If you hit the jackpot, you might get a farm at the end of the whole thing, you dumb bastard.” Like I said, I’ll try to dig up some numbers, but they are going to be not insignificant percentages of retirees.

sinjin

62

[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
Given that, according to my agents, you are even as we speak training hordes of cobras to assassinate me, I can’t believe you are wondering why I took your mongoose.
[/QUOTE]
One Cobra does not constitute a “horde”.

Anyhoo, I own it for Duck Hunting.

63

[QUOTE=jayjay]
This old saw about “people only lived to be 40 or so” comes about from a misunderstanding of what “life expectancy” means. When LE is calculated, it’s done by taking the age at death of a significant sample of the population and averaging those numbers. The low LE of ancient and medieval times doesn’t come from everybody only living until 40. It comes from a hell of a lot more infant mortality than we (generally) have now. Once human beings get through infancy and early childhood, they’re as likely to live till 60 or 70 as they are to live to 40 or so, even back in “olden days”.
[/QUOTE]

On the other hand, perception of life expectancy is skewed the other way by people refering to famous people of the past who aren’t representative, not simply because they benefited from better living conditions, but mostly because they generally wouldn’t have become famous at the first place if they had kicked the bucket at an early age. Of course, there are some exceptions, like say Alexander the Great, but on the overall, the works of a promising philosopher would be ignored if he didn’t have the chance of writing for decades on end, politicians only reached power at a late age, and kings who died young are just a name on a list (and many princes didn’t even hav a chance to reign because they ddn’t outlive their father).

So, picking them as examples to show that people used to live longer than it’s usually believed isn’t very sensible. They are generally remembered precisely because they lived longer than most of their contemporaries.
By the way, I just listed all the french kings from 1000 to 1500, and they died at : 52, 56, 56, 60, 57, 39, 56, 40, 46, 27, 4 days, 22, 34, 45, 42, 54, 58, 60, 28. Only two reached 60, and none lived longer. Average age at death, excluding the 4 days long reign : 46. And out of my head, I don’t remember any dying from battle wounds or somesuch, except maybe one. That’s not particularily impressive for people who were in all likehood well fed and well cared for. I actually expected some longer-lived ones, and a significantly higher average age at death. Currently, we expect to live well in our 70s, and probably in a significantly better health. This seems to show that, even discounting the issue of the high rate of death during infancy, people who believe that our forefathers were dying by the time they reached 40 aren’t that far off the mark.

64

[QUOTE=clairobscur]
By the way, I just listed all the french kings from 1000 to 1500, and they died at : 52, 56, 56, 60, 57, 39, 56, 40, 46, 27, 4 days, 22, 34, 45, 42, 54, 58, 60, 28. Only two reached 60, and none lived longer. Average age at death, excluding the 4 days long reign : 46. And out of my head, I don’t remember any dying from battle wounds or somesuch, except maybe one. That’s not particularily impressive for people who were in all likehood well fed and well cared for.
[/QUOTE]

I believe royals in the middle ages were short-lived even by the standards of the time. Kings may have been well-fed, but that doesn’t mean they were well-nourished. Before modern ideas of nutrition, “well-fed” probably meant an unbalanced diet and far too much of it. How many of these kings were obese? How many were suffering from vitamin deficiencies because they lived almost exclusively on prestige foods like red meat and game, not “peasant” foods like vegetables? On the other hand, the ordinary people would have had a more healthy diet, out of necessity. They couldn’t afford to eat themselves to death.

65

[QUOTE=jimmmy]
Add me to those who think we have it better in terms medicine esp. re life expectancy - a blue collar Appalachian kid’s life expectancy is still ~72ish years today. Caesar’s boy ~40 something.

[/QUOTE]

If I was an A-hole as is my wont I’m sorry Sinjinn.

Here is more to support what I said above.

We can look at Gaius Julius Caesar’s known kids. If we don’t include the stillborn son they had a life expectancy of 23.
[Now, some will claim Casarion wasn’t his kid. If we accept that, and exclude the stillborn son, we get a life expectancy of 29 for “Caesar’s kid“.]

A.
Ptolemy XV Caesar, better known as “Caesarion” lived to be 17
(June 23, 47 BC – August, 30 BC)

B.
Julia Caesaris lived to be about 29
Worth noting after 1 recorded miscarriage, Her child (and Casesars only known grandchild) also the son of the mightiest Roman then living -Pompey- lived 4 days.

C.
Son birthed stillborn (Caesar’s wife Cornelia’s dies trying to deliver him and her funeral is a significant event in Caesar‘s career).
If we want to say Julius Caesar was atypical lets take the next: From 3 marriages, the next “Caesar”, Augustus, had 1 daughter Julia Elder that reached Adulthood.

Julia had 5 children where we have a better sample and good example of my point (and which takes jayjay’s point of Infant Mortality being skewed) these were all adults- while noting any kids who died before 1 or 2 might be lost to history, these 5-- all of whom were viewed from birth as potential successors to the now all powerful Emperor, had a life expectancy of ~32
Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus (20 BC - AD 4), 24
Lucius Julius Caesar (17 BC-2 AD), 15
Julia the Younger (19 BC – AD 29) 48
(Vipsania) Agrippina (14 BC – 18 October AD 33), 47
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa Postumus (12 BC-AD 14), **26 **

So, if Cletus & Verma-Ellen in Bluetooth Kentucky birthed 5 young uns’ 2002-2005 they still have a life expectancy of +70 years - better than “Caesar’s kid”. That’s what I;m talking about.

66

Sorry, I think that’s mostly backwards. The Plantagenet line, for instance, tended to be tall, strong and fairly long-lived (although the Black Prince did, of course, die of dropsy and never get to the throne). The kings that famously died fairly young were often helped (Richard I – arrow and subsequent infection; Edward II – poker up the ass; Richard II – probably murdered in custody; Richard III – Battle of Bosworth Field). Any proper dinner for rich folks included greens and possibly other vegetables.

Peasants did eat more whole grains, more vegetables and less meat.

On the other hand, the richest king in Europe could get a puncture wound and die of tetanus (although William II (the Conqueror’s son) supposedly survived that disease).

Last year, on vacation in the UK, I slipped on a wet metal grate and severed my quadriceps tendon. Spent the rest of vacation on crutches. At the Royal Armoury Museum in Leeds, I watched a demonstration of donning 15th century plate, which included a mention that if you got a severed tendon you’d be crippled for life. Made me grateful for modern medicine, all right.

67

[QUOTE=Alive At Both Ends]
I believe royals in the middle ages were short-lived even by the standards of the time. Kings may have been well-fed, but that doesn’t mean they were well-nourished. Before modern ideas of nutrition, “well-fed” probably meant an unbalanced diet and far too much of it. How many of these kings were obese? How many were suffering from vitamin deficiencies because they lived almost exclusively on prestige foods like red meat and game, not “peasant” foods like vegetables? On the other hand, the ordinary people would have had a more healthy diet, out of necessity. They couldn’t afford to eat themselves to death.
[/QUOTE]

Nobody’s diet was all that healthy, but the nobles did eat some vegetables. I remember one king (though his name escapes me for the moment) who loved salads-- he ate them covered in butter and vinegar. They also ate asparagus, dates and raisins, apples (mostly stewed) and even oranges on occasion. Most fruits and vegetables, however, were prepared in jellies or otherwise cooked to death before they were served.

Just for shits and giggles, here’s a sample dinner menu from the 1591 Book of Cookrye:

Bon apetite!

68

Antibiotics, without which I’d be dead.
Fresh vegetables and fruit year-round.
Literacy and higher education for women.
Refrigeration.

Advantage: Me.

69

Great link, Lissa… I gotta ask: what the heck is a ‘cunnie’? I’m sure there’s a vulgar joke in there somewhere, but most of the Google hits seem to indicate it’s a nickname for someone named Cunningham.

70

It’s rabbit.

71

[QUOTE=Eve]
Then she added, “Damn, dogg, those shoes be crispy!”
[/QUOTE]

Really good one.

72

[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
One Cobra does not constitute a “horde”.

Anyhoo, I own it for Duck Hunting.
[/QUOTE]

One cobra. Rrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt. One FEMALE cobra who just, according to the spies, LAID EGGS.
And nobody uses cobras for duck-hunting. That’s what asps are for.

73

[QUOTE=bump]
Looks like Henry VIII didn’t get much privacy…

[/QUOTE]

I would gladly fire our au pare if I could employ one of them.

No cheap shot correlations concerning my name, thank you very much.

74

Says you.

75

[QUOTE=The Controvert]
Great link, Lissa… I gotta ask: what the heck is a ‘cunnie’? I’m sure there’s a vulgar joke in there somewhere, but most of the Google hits seem to indicate it’s a nickname for someone named Cunningham.
[/QUOTE]

Shoshana is right. It’s a mispelling of “coney”, which was another word for rabbit. (“Mispelling” may be too harsh a way of putting it, though-- spelling wasn’t standardized at the time.)

76

[QUOTE=Lissa]

Just for shits and giggles, here’s a sample dinner menu from the 1591 Book of Cookrye:
Bon apetite!
[/QUOTE]

But if you actually go and look at it, you get recipes for capons cooked variously with sauces of lemons/oranges; currants, dates, raisins, prunes, onions and spices; greens mixed with rasins, dates, spiices and sour grape juice; a sauce of sorrel and gooseberries. Frequently the capon was removed from the bones, and served on [essentially] toast [sops]

yummy, oatmeal - Take a pinte of Creame and seethe it, and when it is hot, put therto a pinte of Otemeale grotes, and let them soke in it all night, and put therto viii. yolks of egs, and a little Pepper, Cloves, mace, and saffron, and a good deale of Suet of beefe, and small Raisins and Dates, and a little Sugar. Sounds like something I actually make occasionally.

A ‘pudding’ in a hollowed out turnip - Take your Turnep root, and wash it fair in warm water, and scrape it faire and make it hollow as you doo a Carret roote, and make your stuffe of grated bread, and Apples chopt fine, then take Corance, and
hard Egs, and season it with Sugar Sinamon, and Ginger, and yolks of hard egs and so temper your stuffe, and put it into the Turnep, then take faire water, and set it on the fire, and let it boyle or ever you put in your Turneps, then put in a good peece of sweet Butter, and Claret Wine, and a little Vinagre, and Rosemarye, and whole Mace, Sugar, and Corance, and Dates quartered, and when they are boyled inough, then willl they be tender, then serve it in. And they have variants for carrots and cukes stuffed.

Hm, tarts[pies] full of fruits, ranging from quince, apple and herry to a spinach tart.

Of course, Cindy Renfrew’s Cookbooks have a lot more veggie recipes. Her first volume ‘translates’ the recipes into modern technique, but the second volume which has way more of the recipes arent modernized, but you are to use both cookbooks and learn to modernize yourself and then play with the second one. Always wanted to make flipper n grits for a feast [non mammal dolphin and wheat polenta]

Duke Sir Cariadoc of the Bow has a good site with more translations, though his include more from the persian area as his area of research has been the medieval middle east.

Not to mention the buttload of food discussion on Stefans florithingy

<skulking off back to the foodie medieval recreationsists closet to start making bourbelier of pork for dinner which oddly enough was actually planned into my menu almost a month ago :smiley: >

77

Okay, you’ve forced me to do it: MeatMice!!!

78

[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
One cobra. Rrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt. One FEMALE cobra who just, according to the spies, LAID EGGS.
[/QUOTE]

So? I like em poached.

79

[QUOTE=jayjay]
Once human beings get through infancy and early childhood, they’re as likely to live till 60 or 70 as they are to live to 40 or so, even back in “olden days”.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t buy it – there were plenty of infectious diseases that were fatal back then but easily treated (or avoided in the first place thanks to modern sanitation) today. There was a significant risk of being cut down in your 40s or 50s if an epidemic happened to come through that decade.

80

For my money, the best advantage I have over the wealthiest, most powerful person on the planet in the year 1400 is simply the vast wealth of knowledge available to me, and to anybody with access to a library or the Internet. (True, not everybody takes advantage of this; that’s why our “fighting ignorance” mission is taking so darn long.)

We’ve been gradually pushing back the surrounding darkness; first very slowly, but now it’s so fast nobody can really keep up with it. Exciting times.