Absurdism corner

Why?


  • Total voters
    202

ZWNxh8np.jpg
 
I heard that in the past the kings were actually the only people who were commonly fat and sick while peasants were generally quite fit because the peasants had no money for meat so they were forced to eat according to a healthy plant-based diet. Nowadays the peasants are just as fat and sick as the kings are because junkfood has become cheaper. Huzzah for progress!
 
In the past, poor people were skinny and sick, and far less healthy than their overweight lords. Generally the wealthy classes could afford to get fat, not just the king. Peasants always ate meat at the very least if they kept animals, which many of them did, but only for a day or two after killing the animal, after that the meat left over would go rancid without effective refrigeration. Better to share it out amongst the villagers.
 
Peasants rarely ate meat from what I understood. Even if they kept animals, meat production was expensive and thus they reserved meat for special occasions.

The irony is that kings (and other wealthy folks) ate the most expensive food, trying to be gluttons and consume the best, but in doing so they just ended up degrading their health and degrading their well-being on an inferior diet.
 
Meat production is expensive? Only in the rearing of the animal, and even then only if you're paying for buying in hay and antisetics and other injectables. If you've got land growing grass, most animals will happily eat that. Once it's done in for producing milk and what have you, slit its throat, slice it belly to sternum to get the guts out, and the rest is basically all meat and bones.

Yes, meat days were rare, because animals live a few years, and it's only when they're old and knackered you can afford to stop taking their milk.

And if you believe that kings, queens, lords and ladies lived shorter lives than their peasants, I give you this.

Archaeological evidence indicates that Anglo-Saxons back in the Early Middle Ages (400 to 1000 A.D.) lived short lives. Field workers unearthed 65 burials (400 to 1000 A.D.) from Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in England and found none who lived past 45. This site and this site has similar statistics.

Kings did better. The mean life expectancy of kings of Scotland and England, reigning from 1000 A.D. to 1600 A.D. were 51 and 48 years, respectively. Their monks did not fare as well. In the Carmelite Abbey, only five percent survived past 45.
 
And if you believe that kings, queens, lords and ladies lived shorter lives than their peasants, I give you this.
I never said that the kings lived shorter lives.

Meat production is expensive? Only in the rearing of the animal
Indeed, meat was probably expensive because it was expensive to raise animals.

If you've got land growing grass, most animals will happily eat that.
I guess that was what made raising an animal so expensive, you needed a lot of land for it.
 
I would guess inappropriate use of a spilling chucker when writing the sign, and blindly accepting the substitution of 'sweaty' for 'sweety'.
 
I never said that the kings lived shorter lives.
You said that peasants were healthier than kings. Now peasants were probably stronger than kings, but probably not stronger than the people who defended the king, but being strong has very little in common with being healthy. But being healthy has lots in common with eating well, and a good indicator of health is the ability for the body to live after reprodction.

I guess that was what made raising an animal so expensive, you needed a lot of land for it.
I suspect a lot of peasants kept animals on common land. They certainly did when they were taking animals to market.
 
Back
Top