Live data from Hacker News

A Look into Medieval Homes

medievalists.net

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: A Look into Medieval Homes

#61

Setting aside the problem (mentioned in the article) that these images were produced for an aristocratic class, and possibly don’t accurately describe the reality of a peasant’s home, then what’s most striking is how decorative the interiors are: patterned floors, painted walls, and neat carpentry. I’ve read the theory that the life of peasants in the Middle Ages was demonized and made to sound dystopian to encourage…

The life of a peasant was one of serfdom, watching too many of your children die before their 4th birthday. The wheat you grew you had to mill in a landlord's mill and they collected a tax from it. There was no light in the evenings because tallow or other wax was far too expensive so when it got dark there were limited things to do. Floors were covered in rushes instead of carpet and were host to bugs. True medicine…

> Floors were covered in rushes instead of carpet and were host to bugs.

What do you think the carpets owned by rich people were made out of? It certainly wasn't synthetic fibers. I don't see any reason to believe their carpets weren't host to pests as well. The rich class were doubtlessly covered in lice and other parasites.

Re: A Look into Medieval Homes

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think your comment falls into the “it was unadulterated hell being a peasant”-trap that I was referring to You might be reading my comment as if that were the case, but I assure you that my thoughts are not that. Humans adapt to any situation, that's why we are the superior species, we are the world's greatest adapters. Peasant life wasn't misery all the time, but there was FAR MORE misery on a FAR GREATER scale…

> Humans adapt to any situation, that's why we are the superior species, we are the world's greatest adapters. Peasant life wasn't misery all the time, but there was FAR MORE misery on a FAR GREATER scale than there is for the average Brit. That's my point. Life expectancy dropped with the industrial revolution, and the condition of your average working class Brit was so abject that it literally inspired Communism: h…

The industrial revolution was even worst is not exactly argument for "average lowly peasant life was better then ours". It just means other (otherwise short) period was even worst.

For that matter, medieval times had uprisings and discontents. Feudalism itself had also periodic uprisings, both during medieval times and after. French revolution did not exactly started when everything was fine and dandy.

Re: A Look into Medieval Homes

#63
post #51
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2589850 To be clear work never ended and got really intense for part of the year, but productive labor was limited by raw materials, transportation issues etc.

Couldn't read your link but did a quick dig myself and found this, backing up what you say https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...

That article ignores quite a lot of activity that needs to be done. It seems to count only some kind of field work or work for landlord as work and ignores everything else that needs to be done.

Or take this:

> t stretched from dawn to dusk (sixteen hours in summer and eight in winter), but, as the Bishop Pilkington has noted, work was intermittent - called to a halt for breakfast, lunch, the customary afternoon nap, and dinner. Depending on time and place, there were also midmorning and midafternoon refreshment breaks. These rest periods were the traditional rights of laborers, which they enjoyed even during peak harvest times.

This literally describes full day of work, but tries to make it sound like it is less then that. It is made to sound like it is somehow less, because there is time for lunch, dinner and a break once in two to three hours.

Re: A Look into Medieval Homes

#64
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you gravely misunderstood my comment, I’m certainly not harking back to some romantic ideal of pre-industrial Arcadia. If you were an under-nourished worker, living in the rat-like polluted conditions of an Industrial Revolution town in Northern England (for instance), constantly breathing sulfurous fumes, suffering cholera epidemics, seeing the whole town and all the countryside around it blackened by the as…

True, most socio-economic 'revolutions' e.g. agricultural, industrial, Rome conquering/"brining civilization [to]" most of the know world had huge negative effects for the majority of the population at least in short and medium term,

That makes no sense. The immediate result of the Industrial Revolution was a significant improvement in the material well being of vast classes of people.

Re: A Look into Medieval Homes

#65
post #63
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't read your link but did a quick dig myself and found this, backing up what you say https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...

That article ignores quite a lot of activity that needs to be done. It seems to count only some kind of field work or work for landlord as work and ignores everything else that needs to be done. Or take this: > t stretched from dawn to dusk (sixteen hours in summer and eight in winter), but, as the Bishop Pilkington has noted, work was intermittent - called to a halt for breakfast, lunch, the customary afternoon nap,…

“the customary afternoon nap”

That 90+ minute break is a little more than a smoke break in the middle of a long shift. Similarly people didn’t have stop watches to time the other two breaks which lasted significant periods on top of the normal short breaks required for any significant physical labor.

Also in reference to “work that need to be done” we don’t include washing our clothes or shopping in labor statistics. If you define works as any productive activity then modern labor statistics also need no be dramatically increased.

Re: A Look into Medieval Homes

#66
post #64
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, most socio-economic 'revolutions' e.g. agricultural, industrial, Rome conquering/"brining civilization [to]" most of the know world had huge negative effects for the majority of the population at least in short and medium term,

That makes no sense. The immediate result of the Industrial Revolution was a significant improvement in the material well being of vast classes of people.

> immediate result

If we agree that the first phase of the industrial revolution began in the mid 18th century and lasted until the 1840s. The material well being for most people did not really start improving until the middle if not the end of that period.

For instance: - average height of men in England peaked around 1740 and continued decreasing until at-least the 1830s or 40s or even later. Similar trends are noticeable in France and Holland. In the United Stated it was even worse, the trend didn't reverse until the late 19th century (of course this was mostly driven by immigrants from Europe, since the 18th century Americans were considerably taller than average Europeans).

- similar things could be said about real income. According to estimates real wages in England peaked around 1600 and then collapsed during the civil wars and other calamities in the 17th century. Then returned to similar levels just on the eve of the industrial revolution (1740s) when they crashed again and didn't surpass their past height until around 1820.

Re: A Look into Medieval Homes

#67

Visited “Golden Lane” under Prague Castle not long ago. Dates back to 16th century. What fascinated me was how tiny some of the “apartments” were. Basically 15 square meters for living, but also conducting their craft or business. Yet many of them seemed quite charming. Maybe we don’t need much.

They could be small partly because several of the feature of modern homes that are regarded as indispensable now were mostly absent from such dwellings: kitchens, bathrooms, and toilets in particular. I have an ex-colleague who lives with his wife in Oslo in a 45 sq. m. flat but that does include a bathroom, kitchen, and a bedroom. That would feel claustrophobic to me having lived for the last 34 years in a house wit…

> Oslo in a 45 sq. m. flat

While I live in Sweden (about 4 hours away from Oslo by train), I think the two countries are sufficiently similar that I can mention some of my experiences moving here from the US.

Many apartments here have a shared laundry room/area, with washer and dryer, or drying cabinet/room, and place to iron/fold.

I think just about every apartment also has a storage area, either in the basement or the attic. For us this is about 10 sq. m.

Many apartments have access to a common area that can be booked for parties or other larger events. Two rooms with kitchen is pretty common. Some have a bookable sauna, that isn't common. I've also seen places with a bookable guest rooms, which reduces the need for everyone to have a guest bedroom.

Many have some sort of green space with a play area for the kids. Some have an enclosed courtyard where residents can have their own garden. Some have a gazebo, or grill area, and one new construction here has a freestanding shared conservatory (labeled "orangery", but without any orange trees).

We don't have this, but we are a block from a small park and four blocks from a couple good play areas.

Even with these, the result is certainly not as spacious as the house you describe. Rather, I wanted highlight there might be some additional aspects of the Oslo flat which aren't reflected in your summary.

While researching what I wrote I found https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arealberegning_av_bygninger with a chart showing "Size in relation to primary area and number of people in the household - Area standards" ("Størrelse i forhold til primærareal og antall personer i husholdning - Arealnormer"). It puts 45 sq. m. for 2 people as "cramped", with the lower range for "normal" being 55 sq. m. Above 100 sq.m. for 2 people is "spacious" and above 150 sq. m. is "very spacious."

You are right too about kitchen and toilet. In the late 1800s there would have been one shared well, for the apartment building, with a shared toilet. I've read that people would have kept a pig or other animals in the courtyard. And one of the buildings here was the first worker-owned apartment building in town. The historical sign on it says it had a shared kitchen for all the residents.

Re: A Look into Medieval Homes

#68
post #65
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article ignores quite a lot of activity that needs to be done. It seems to count only some kind of field work or work for landlord as work and ignores everything else that needs to be done. Or take this: > t stretched from dawn to dusk (sixteen hours in summer and eight in winter), but, as the Bishop Pilkington has noted, work was intermittent - called to a halt for breakfast, lunch, the customary afternoon nap,…

“the customary afternoon nap” That 90+ minute break is a little more than a smoke break in the middle of a long shift. Similarly people didn’t have stop watches to time the other two breaks which lasted significant periods on top of the normal short breaks required for any significant physical labor. Also in reference to “work that need to be done” we don’t include washing our clothes or shopping in labor statistics.…

Siesta is a thing in countries with hot summer sun - still today. If you are doing physical labor outside, in the summer on the sun that started soon in the morning, having such break does not turn the work into leisure. Especially not if you then work till dinner and dinner break and then continue working.

> Also in reference to “work that need to be done” we don’t include washing our clothes or shopping in labor statistics. If you define works as any productive activity then modern labor statistics also need no be dramatically increased.

Now, washing cloth was actually massive work in the medieval setup. Unlike now, it was not question of loading and unloading machine. It was done rarely for obvious reasons, but was absolutely work that counts. They were not shopping as much as we do, given transportation issues a lot more was created in house or within small area.

But go on, count both wood chopping as work and setting temperature in your house as work too. That would be fair.

Making those cloth, fabric and bedsheets and what not DOES count as labor now. Making soap does count as labor now. Caring about animals in the winter also does count as labor now.

Re: A Look into Medieval Homes

#69
post #68
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“the customary afternoon nap” That 90+ minute break is a little more than a smoke break in the middle of a long shift. Similarly people didn’t have stop watches to time the other two breaks which lasted significant periods on top of the normal short breaks required for any significant physical labor. Also in reference to “work that need to be done” we don’t include washing our clothes or shopping in labor statistics.…

Siesta is a thing in countries with hot summer sun - still today. If you are doing physical labor outside, in the summer on the sun that started soon in the morning, having such break does not turn the work into leisure. Especially not if you then work till dinner and dinner break and then continue working. > Also in reference to “work that need to be done” we don’t include washing our clothes or shopping in labor st…

What you’re missing here is how many new productive activities today like exercise or a multi hour commute basically didn’t exist back then. Doing laundry is nominally the push of a button, except you also need to buy laundry detergent and pay the electric bill etc.

The number of hours the average American spends working, traveling to or from productive locations, shopping, exercise, medical care, cleaning, doing bills/taxes/DMV etc and you quickly get 100+ hour weeks for the people working a nominal 40 hour week but often far more year round. We even sacrificed the traditional breaks by eating in our cars to be more efficient.

Meanwhile a peasant may be working long days in the summer subtracting ~4 hours of food, break, nap but they also cut back when days became shorter. Meanwhile today people just turn on the lights and keep working even chronically sacrificing sleep to work more.

PS: People are better off today in so many ways, but don’t forget not everyone was a peasant back then.

Re: A Look into Medieval Homes

#70
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life as a peasant was fine until it was not. If a flood or drought wiped out your crops, you were completely screwed. You might be able to get by with rationing or foraging, but you'd have to start over the next year weaker and demoralized. As populations grew, it becoming increasingly riskier to live off the land, which is why they moved to the cities where they can earn money that you can save in the case of an eme…

They didn’t necessarily choose anything. As the feudal system broke down, those peasants were released from the land. (ie kicked out)

Not true. The wealthy were more than happy to employ peasants. Even as late as 1800, hundreds of years after the feudal system, 78% of Europeans were peasants.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-...

Post reply on HN