[eevilspock]

History is written by the upper class, especially in past times when only the upper caste could read or write.

Even if what the author says is true about medieval upper caste people (I don't doubt it), I have trouble believing that peasants could afford the cost and time required of regular bathing. Water didn't come easily unless you happened to live next to a river or have a well next to your house. We've all seen women in third world countries carrying water for cooking and drinking on their heads, often long distances. And we haven't even gotten to the costs of the other things she mentions. Poor people rarely ate meat because they couldn't afford it; where are they going to get animal fat to make soap?

The author doesn't provide any evidence, just makes claims using words to imply you're stupid if you doubt her. All the "photographic" evidence she provides all pretty clearly DO NOT depict poor people.

[kumarvvr]

> We've all seen women in third world countries carrying water for cooking and drinking on their heads, often long distances

This aspect of 3rd world countries is commented upon again and again. But, what I find most amusing is that in modern times, water comes to your home, but you go to the gym to slog it out for an hour. Just waster your energy that you over ate the day before.

Its true that women used to carry water over a few kilometers every day. But in most cases, water sources were available nearby (Most settlements happened in the vicinity of water sources, and there are many historical references that show whole villages up and leaving in search of water sources if their current source seems depleted)

Across the board, obesity is high, BP problems are high, Diabetes problems are high, people have lesser stamina and strength and a whole host of health problems, that were not even an issue a few decades ago are now mainstream.

In ancient times, we depended on nature and it necessitated regular work for living a life. Getting water from local well or pond, cooling for long hours, household chores like washing clothes, etc took a long time. People traveled a lot by foot, etc. Life was hard, but life was healthy too. To account for accidents, health issues in old age, etc, joint families were the norm, where the family and the society supported a disabled person or an incapacitated person to the extent possible.

Modern living in convenient, but not healthy. Is luxurious, but not cheap. Is plentiful, but not sustainable.

[kortilla]

People had a much worse life expectancy back than. Babies frequently died. Treatable illnesses were just death sentences (e.g. type 1 diabetes).

> Modern living in convenient, but not healthy. Is luxurious, but not cheap. Is plentiful, but not sustainable.

You’re very confused if you think the way people lived in India 1000 years ago was sustainable. Packing up the village when a well ran dry should hint at something for you. It was both sparse and unsustainable.

[kumarvvr]

By sustainability, I meant environmental sustainability. Indians cooked in earthen pots, ate in banana leaves, wore hand woven clothes and the local economies were largely self sufficient.

[kortilla]

You mentioned villages running wells dry and moving. That’s not sustainable.

[dmix]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

[bsder]

> Water didn't come easily unless you happened to live next to a river or have a well next to your house.

I'm pretty sure that "existence of village" almost always implies "next to a river" in Europe/Americas up until the 1800s. I'm trying to think of a notable exception and failing spectacularly. Long distance goods transport via roads basically didn't exist. Not being next to a river would be a horrible handicap in almost every way possible.

It's something that we take for granted in modern times, but Bret Deveraux (acoup.blog) talks about how if armies couldn't forage (water, wood, food, and fodder) an army simply couldn't go there. https://acoup.blog/2022/07/29/collections-logistics-how-did-...

[andrew_]

I enjoyed the color in the language, it was entertaining. But it definitely wasn't a scholarly article haha.

[kgeist]

>Water didn't come easily unless you happened to live next to a river or have a well next to your house

According to [0], "over 50% of the world's population lives closer than 3 km to a surface freshwater body, and only 10% of the population lives further than 10 km away." They also note that it varies by region, and Europe is among regions where people live closest to water.

Walking 10 km by foot to the nearest river to bathe is not a gargantuan task, especially for medieval people who were used to walking by foot.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110782/

[ziotom78]

I am not a historian, but I reckon that in the Middle Ages, villages and towns were only built if a river was nearby.

In 1000 A.C. the estimated world population was ~200–300 million people, so it was probably easier than today to settle people near fresh water.

[Ekaros]

There is also good question how bathing worked and how much of water was actually used. A family or multiple persons could have shared the same bath water. Thus sharing the heating and procurement costs. Or they could have simply rinsed themselves. 10-20l is quite good enough for washing a body if bucket and something like ladle is used.