• arrow74@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Unfortunately you’ll also need to account for generally better access to nutrition in the modern era. The immune system has a better chance if you’re not malnourished or starving all winter.

      You could probably extrapolate this number by the death rates amongst just the nobility

      • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        But then you also have to account for all the processed garbage food we eat now also. There may be less kids starving now, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the general quality of the food has also plummeted.

      • Doom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Not necessarily. Nobiles of the past had a diet similar to ours. Higher fat, carbs, sugars, more processed, not exactly healthy. They were also far less active then their servants and highly, highly, inbred. And while they had healthcare, I wouldn’t necessarily call it good healthcare. Having access to more food energy helps but it isn’t a magic bullet.

        • arrow74@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          not exactly healthy

          I promise it was a lot healthier than starving during the winter

          As for the rest you’re really relying on a generalization that’s based on what is essentially the highest ranked nobles of the later Renaissance period.

          In 1100 AD their marriages were insular, but not hapsburg level. And generally nobles were expected to have some martial prowess or at least look like they did.

          But I think this comes down to the bigger issues of people lumping in the middle ages and the Renaissance, and to be completely fair no one specified either