Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I assure you, medieval people bathed (2019)

going-medieval.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 360 posts

Re: I assure you, medieval people bathed (2019)

#331

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

jvanderbot wrote: post #270
politelemon wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In ancient times, right until the attacks by Islamist marauders and "civilized" Britishers, none of what you have mentioned were an issue. Your statement reeks of colonialist attitudes of seeing natives of other lands as some sort of brutes and degenerates living in destitution in poverty. Your statements reek of nationalism and revisionist history, viewing the past through black-and-white-and-rose tinted glasses,…

Arguing across an ocean about the validity of anecdotal bathing practices is not the transhumanist future I though ubiquitous internet would provide. But what did I expect...

This is actually the content I come to HN for. You could argue that HN specializes in one-upmanship or pedantry but it's also a breeding ground for a lot of good discussion on incredibly niche topics.

Re: I assure you, medieval people bathed (2019)

#332

Post by taeric »

happyopossum wrote: post #283
taeric wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Body oder is an odd one. I saw a sibling post talk about skin biome and I feel that has was more traction than it is credited. As an example, I can definitely develop body oder. However, it generally takes me longer than the rest of my family. I can do 30 miles on my bike and just need to change clothes. And I basically never use deodorant. To see this at a notional level, consider that deodorant is not common in Jap…

Everyone I’ve ever met who thinks they don’t stink, does.

Certainly not discountable. But the number of folks I've shocked by letting them know I don't use deodorant is rather amusing. They typically think I'm lying.

Edit: more relevantly, the number of times I've seen people complain about how someone must not shower, to then learning that person showers daily, is also amusing. BO is something that has a quick onset for a large number of people.

Re: I assure you, medieval people bathed (2019)

#333

Post by hypertele-Xii »

ncmncm wrote: post #277
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you shop that doesn't sell plain old soap bars? Need me to mail some for you?

Obviously, plain old soap bars will not suffice to make a bath last for weeks or months. As I said pretty clearly, and you must have read, you cannot buy the good stuff .

Stuff's pretty good that I buy. And I bathe very infrequently.

Re: I assure you, medieval people bathed (2019)

#334

Post by hypertele-Xii »

ncmncm wrote: post #322
happyopossum wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re gonna need a lot more evidence than “it was explained to me”… It’s trivially easy to find ancient soap recipes and revert them at hope. Or one can buy Aleppo soap, or Castilian soap from specialty markets. It’s not like there’s some lost secret, or extinct ingredients - it’s soap, and it’s been a pretty simple thing to make for thousands of years.

You may try finding soap that will make a bath "last" for weeks. If you do find somebody claiming that, and actually give them your money, that is on you. I promise you will not get any of it.

This is starting to sound like a 'no true bath soap' fallacy.

Re: I assure you, medieval people bathed (2019)

#335

Post by ncmncm »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #334
ncmncm wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may try finding soap that will make a bath "last" for weeks. If you do find somebody claiming that, and actually give them your money, that is on you. I promise you will not get any of it.

This is starting to sound like a 'no true bath soap' fallacy.

You are ranging on the target now, but you are still off in the weeds. Don't give up yet!

Re: I assure you, medieval people bathed (2019)

#336

Post by mensetmanusman »

jvanderbot wrote: post #270
politelemon wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In ancient times, right until the attacks by Islamist marauders and "civilized" Britishers, none of what you have mentioned were an issue. Your statement reeks of colonialist attitudes of seeing natives of other lands as some sort of brutes and degenerates living in destitution in poverty. Your statements reek of nationalism and revisionist history, viewing the past through black-and-white-and-rose tinted glasses,…

Arguing across an ocean about the validity of anecdotal bathing practices is not the transhumanist future I though ubiquitous internet would provide. But what did I expect...

This is also classic HN. Right above you someone is backing up their argument by proclaiming with gusto that humans are network computers.

Re: I assure you, medieval people bathed (2019)

#337

Post by UncleMeat »

verisimi wrote: post #313
UncleMeat wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment has a very strong connotation of "therefore history writing is either to be mistrusted or even downright wrong." You argue that history writing is a tool of the state or other power structures rather than honest analysis by competing professionals. That interpretation does not follow from the understanding that history writing is construction of narrative. I think you are unreasonably critical of histori…

Do you not think that historical writing is a tool of the state or, as I prefer to call it, the governance system? (I think the state is also a part of the governance system, a red v blue puppet show.) I hesitate to mention this, but here is an overt example of state management. You know it is a criminal offence to discuss certain events in World War 2 in many countries, including Germany and Canada? I use this as an…

Weaponization of historical memory is absolutely a thing that states can do for their own benefit. But you've got the logic backwards. This is not proof that history academics are tools of the state and are producing propaganda. In fact, historians are deliberately attacked by various political forces for being subversive or otherwise.

I am married to a history professor. I am quite aware of the relationship that historians have with funding bodies and state-run universities. I do not conclude anything close to resembling what you conclude in your post. I think you are making a completely false and ignorant claim about the field and about the author of the linked blog post in particular. This "we cannot actually trust what professionals write" and "go look at the sources yourself" approach is just folly. Professionals who've spent thousands and thousands of hours studying methodology and embedding themselves in the archive are simply able to understand the archive better than laypeople can.

Re: I assure you, medieval people bathed (2019)

#338

Post by jogjayr »

b112 wrote: post #14
kumarvvr wrote: post #12

Its funny that western history distorts the history of the rest of the world. I hear western kids saying no one used to bathe in the ancient times. As an Indian, it was practically mandatory for each and every individual to take a bath at-least two times a day. Additionally the following customs were very prevalent till recent times. 1. Washing legs after coming home from outside. 2. Washing hands, face and legs befo…

[flagged]

Yeah the oil and hot water sounds crazy over-the-top. But India is a tropical country that's mostly warm year-round. Everyone probably took a dip in a nearby river, lake, or pond every day. Or took a bucket bath with well water, which would have been perfectly warm enough. This isn't possible, or at least far more uncomfortable, in most European countries due to their climate. Plus you sweat way more in the tropics, so daily bathing is an absolute necessity to feel human.

Re: I assure you, medieval people bathed (2019)

#339

Post by jogjayr »

Jataman606 wrote: post #136
culi wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's incredibly silly how tied we are to the idea that something was invented once and then spread. Soap is literally just a fatty acid salt with some phytochemicals that have antimicrobial properties (extremely easy to come by considering most secondary metabolites of plants are specifically produced to keep them from succumbing to bacterial/fungal degradation). Soap has probably been "invented" a million ti…

> Soap is literally just a fatty acid salt with some phytochemicals that have antimicrobial properties It sounds literally like: "monad is just monoid in category of endofunctors, what is so hard to understand?"

Nah it would be pretty easy to discover soap accidentally. People have been using ash to scour metal for ages. Someone scours a plate or bowl with some leftover fat or oil or grease in it and it cleans really well, because it makes a kind of soap. It only takes one person to notice this fact, and the idea catches on.

Re: I assure you, medieval people bathed (2019)

#340

Post by unmole »

msravi wrote: post #287
unmole wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> afaik untouchables as a concept was mostly enacted around (british) colonial rule (when they instituted the caste system we see even to today), so might not apply to the time period they are talking about... This is revisionist nonsense. Ancient texts, both sacred and secular both describe a extant caste system.

Um, no, they don't. They describe a jaati system, and a varna system, both of which do not take the same meaning as caste. The british conflated the two, and invented caste. The jaati system was a system of hereditary professional guilds - so you'd have different jaatis for accountants (Kulkarnis for example), farmers (Vokkaligas), teachers (Upaadhyayas), etc. The professional skill was jealously guarded and generall…

Again, revisionist nonsense. Karna, one the greatest warriors of his time is not treated as a Kshatriya because of his birth. Shambuka, a Shudra is executed for daring to perform tapas. So much for the Varna is not hereditary theory. The Arthashastra makes it clear that privileges of being a Brahmin were accrued by birth. The Manusmriti describes the caste of the offspring based on the permutations of the parents castes in copious detail.

Varna has always been hereditary. Anyone claiming otherwise is mistaken or making stuff up.

Post reply on HN