Scientists studying the ancient world claim that our ancestors lived much shorter than modern humans. No wonder, because before there was no such developed medicine, there was no knowledge in the field of our health that allows a person today to take care of himself and predict dangerous diseases.
However, there is another opinion that our ancestors, on the contrary, lived much longer than you and I. They ate organic food and used natural medicines (herbs, decoctions, ointments). And the atmosphere of our planet was much better than it is now.
The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. This article will help to better understand what was the life expectancy of people in different eras.
The ancient world and the first people
Science has proven that the first people appeared in Africa. Human communities did not appear immediately, but in the process of a long and painstaking formation of a special system of relationships, which today are called “public” or “social.” Gradually, ancient people moved from place to place and occupied new territories of our planet. And around the end of the 4th millennium BC, the first civilizations began to appear. This moment became a turning point in the history of mankind.
The times of the primitive communal system still occupy most of the history of our species. This was the era of the formation of man as a social being and as a biological species. It was during this period that methods of communication and interaction were formed. Languages and cultures were created. A person learned to think and make reasonable decisions. The first rudiments of medicine and healing appeared.
This primary knowledge became a catalyst for the development of humanity, thanks to which we live in the world that we have now.
Ancient human anatomy
There is such a science - paleopathology. She studies the structure of ancient people from the remains found during archaeological excavations. And according to the data obtained during the research of these finds, scientists found that ancient people were sick just like us, although before the advent of this science everything was completely different. Scientists believed that prehistoric man was not sick at all and was completely healthy, and diseases appeared as a result of the advent of civilization. Thanks to knowledge in this area, modern scientists have found that diseases appeared before humans.
It turns out that our ancestors were also exposed to danger from harmful bacteria and various diseases. Based on the remains, it was determined that tuberculosis, caries, tumors and other diseases were not uncommon among ancient people.
Lifestyle of ancient people
But it was not only diseases that created difficulties for our ancestors. Constant struggle for food, for territory with other tribes, non-compliance with any hygiene rules. Only during the hunt for a mammoth, out of a group of 20 people, about 5-6 could return.
Ancient man completely relied on himself and his abilities. Every day he fought for survival. About mental development there was no question. The ancestors hunted and defended the territory in which they lived.
Only later people We learned to collect berries, roots, and grow some grain crops. But it took a very long time for humanity to get from hunting and gathering to the agrarian society that marked the beginning of a new era.
Lifespan of primitive man
But how did our ancestors cope with these diseases in the absence of any medications or knowledge in the field of medicine? The very first people had a hard time. The maximum they lived to was 26-30 years old. However, over time, people learned to adapt to certain environmental conditions and understand the nature of certain changes occurring in the body. Gradually, the life expectancy of ancient people began to increase. But this happened very slowly as healing skills developed.
There are three stages in the formation of primitive medicine:
- Stage 1 – formation of primitive communities. People were just beginning to accumulate knowledge and experience in the field of healing. They used animal fats, applied various herbs to wounds, and prepared decoctions from ingredients that came to hand;
- Stage 2 – development of the primitive community and gradual transition to their collapse. Ancient man learned to observe the processes of the disease. I began to compare the changes that occurred during the healing process. The first “medicines” appeared;
- Stage 3 – collapse of primitive communities. At this stage of development, medical practice finally began to take shape. People have learned to cure certain ailments in effective ways. They realized that death can be deceived and avoided. The first doctors appeared;
In ancient times, people died from the most minor diseases, which today do not cause any concern and can be treated in one day. A person died in the prime of his strength before reaching old age. The average lifespan of a person in prehistoric times was extremely low. IN better side everything began to change in the Middle Ages, which will be discussed further.
Middle Ages
The first scourge of the Middle Ages was hunger and disease, which still migrated from ancient world. In the Middle Ages, people not only starved, but also satisfied their hunger with terrible food. Animals were killed on dirty farms in complete unsanitary conditions. There was no talk of sterile preparation methods. IN medieval Europe The swine flu epidemic claimed tens of thousands of lives. In the 14th century, a plague pandemic that broke out in Asia wiped out a quarter of Europe's population.
Lifestyle of a medieval man
What did people do in the Middle Ages? The eternal problems remain the same. Diseases, struggle for food, for new territories, but everything was added to this more problems, which appeared in a person when he became more intelligent. Now people began to fight wars for ideology, for ideas, for religion. If earlier man fought with nature, now he fought with his fellow men.
But along with this, many other problems also disappeared. Now people have learned to make fire, build reliable and durable homes for themselves, and began to observe primitive rules of hygiene. Man learned to hunt skillfully and invented new methods to simplify everyday life.
Life expectancy in antiquity and the Middle Ages
The wretched state in which medicine was in ancient times and the Middle Ages, many diseases that were incurable at that time, meager and terrible nutrition - all these are signs that characterize the early Middle Ages. And this is not to mention the constant strife between people, the wars and crusades that carried away hundreds of thousands human lives. The average life expectancy still did not exceed 30-33 years. Forty-year-old men were already called “mature husband”, and a man of fifty was even called “elderly”. Residents of Europe in the 20th century. lived to be 55 years old.
IN Ancient Greece people lived on average 29 years. This does not mean that in Greece a person lived to be twenty-nine years old and died, but this was considered old age. And this despite the fact that at that time the first so-called “hospitals” had already been formed in Greece.
The same can be said about Ancient Rome. Everyone knows about the powerful Roman soldiers who served in the empire. If you look at the ancient frescoes, in each of them you can recognize some god from Olympus. One immediately gets the impression that such a person will live a long time and remain healthy throughout his life. But statistics say otherwise. The life expectancy in Rome was barely 23 years old. The average duration throughout the Roman Empire was 32 years. So Roman wars weren't all that healthy? Or is it all our fault? incurable diseases, from which no one was insured? It is difficult to answer this question, but data taken from more than 25,000 epitaphs on the tombstones of cemeteries in Rome indicate precisely these numbers.
In the Egyptian empire, which existed before the beginning of our era, which is the cradle of civilization, the Siberian Movement was no better. She was only 23 years old. What can we say about the less civilized states of antiquity, if life expectancy even in ancient Egypt was it negligible? It was in Egypt that people first learned to treat people with snake venom. Egypt was famous for its medicine. At that stage of human development, it was advanced.
Late Middle Ages
What about the later Middle Ages? In England, from the 16th to the 17th centuries, the plague raged. Average life expectancy in the 17th century. reached only 30 years of age. In 18th-century Holland and Germany, the situation was no better: people lived to an average of 31 years.
But life expectancy in the 19th century. began to slowly but surely increase. Russia XIX century was able to increase the figure to 34 years. In those days, people in England lived shorter lives: only 32 years.
As a result, we can conclude that life expectancy in the Middle Ages remained low and did not change over the centuries.
Modernity and our days
And only with the advent of the 20th century did humanity begin to equalize its average life expectancy. New technologies began to appear, people mastered new methods of curing diseases, the first medicines appeared in the form in which we are accustomed to seeing them now. The life expectancy rate began to increase sharply in the mid-twentieth century. Many countries began to develop rapidly and improve their economies, which made it possible to increase the standard of living of people. Infrastructure, medical equipment, everyday life, sanitary conditions, the emergence of more complex sciences. All this led to a sharp improvement in the demographic situation throughout the planet.
The twentieth century foreshadowed new era in the development of humanity. It was truly a revolution in the world of medicine and improving the quality of life of our species. Over the course of just half a century, life expectancy in Russia has almost doubled. From 34 years to 65. These numbers are amazing, because for several millennia a person could not increase his life expectancy by even a couple of years.
But the sharp rise was followed by the same stagnation. From the mid-twentieth century until the twenty-first century, no discoveries were made that radically changed ideas about medicine. Certain discoveries were made, but this was not enough. Life expectancy on the planet has not increased as rapidly as it did in the middle of the 20th century.
XXI century
Humanity is faced with an acute question about our connection with nature. The ecological situation on the planet began to deteriorate sharply against the backdrop of the twentieth century. And many were divided into two camps. Some believe that new diseases appear as a result of our disregard for nature and environment, others, on the contrary, believe that the more we move away from nature, the more we extend our stay in the world. Let's consider this issue in more detail.
Of course, it is foolish to deny that without special achievements in the field of medicine, humanity would remain at the same level of knowledge of itself, its body at the same level as in the Middle Ages, or even later centuries. Now humanity has learned to treat diseases that have destroyed millions of people. Entire cities were carried away. Advances in the field of various sciences such as biology, chemistry, physics allow us to open new horizons in improving our quality of life. Unfortunately, progress requires sacrifice. And as we accumulate knowledge and improve technology, we inexorably destroy our nature.
Medicine and healthcare in the 21st century
But this is the price we pay for progress. Modern man lives many times longer than his distant ancestors. Today medicine works wonders. We have learned how to transplant organs, rejuvenate skin, delay the aging of body cells, and identify pathologies at the stage of formation. And this is only a small part of what modern medicine can offer every person.
Doctors have been valued throughout human history. Tribes and communities with more experienced shamans and healers survived longer than others and were stronger. States in which medicine was developed suffered less from epidemics. And now in those countries where the healthcare system is developed, people can not only be treated for diseases, but also significantly prolong their lives.
Today, the vast majority of the world's population is free from the problems that people faced before. There is no need to hunt, no need to make fire, no need to be afraid of dying from a cold. Today man lives and accumulates wealth. Every day he does not survive, but makes his life more comfortable. Goes to work, rests on weekends, has the opportunity to choose. He has all the means for self-development. People today eat and drink as much as they want. They don't need to worry about getting food when everything is in the stores.
Life expectancy today
Average life expectancy today is approximately 83 years for women and 78 years for men. These figures cannot be compared with those in the Middle Ages and especially in antiquity. Scientists say that biologically a person has about 120 years. So why are older people who turn 90 still considered centenarians?
It's all about our attitude to health and lifestyle. After all, the increase in the average life expectancy of a modern person is associated not only with improved medicine. The knowledge that we have about ourselves and the structure of the body also plays a big role here. People have learned to follow the rules of hygiene and body care. A modern person who cares about his longevity, leads a correct and healthy lifestyle and does not abuse bad habits. He knows that it is better to live in places with a clean environment.
Statistics show that in different countries where is the culture healthy image life is instilled in citizens from childhood, the mortality rate is significantly lower than in states where due attention is not paid to this.
The Japanese are the longest living nation. People in this country have been accustomed to the right way of life since childhood. And how many examples of such countries are there: Sweden, Austria, China, Iceland, etc.
It took a long time for a person to reach this level and life expectancy. He overcame all the challenges that nature threw at him. How much we suffered from illnesses, from cataclysms, from the awareness of the fate that was in store for all of us, but we still moved on. And we are still moving towards new achievements. Think about the path we have taken through the centuries-old history of our ancestors and that their legacy should not be wasted, that we must only continue to improve the quality and duration of our lives.
About life expectancy in different eras (video)
ATTENTION! GIVENMATERIAL IS OUTDATED
Find out the latest information about life extension in the section:
In ancient times average duration human life was about 25 years old. Adults always cared about the survival of children and gave them their last. So the main cause of death was lack of food and cold.
Death from lack of food and from cold. The average human lifespan is 25 years
Then people invented warm clothes and agriculture, and the average human life expectancy has reached 35-40 years.
But at the age of 35-40, the human immune system is already so weak that it is not able to resist infections, which until the 20th century did not allow people to live longer. And the average human life expectancy still did not exceed 35-40 years.
Death from infectious diseases. The average human life expectancy is 35-40 years.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, people invented antibiotics, soap, and the refrigerator. All these measures made it possible to defeat infections, and the average life expectancy reached seventy years. But even in those years, scientists believed that now the average human life expectancy could be record long. At that time, people were not yet well acquainted with old age. But the next obstacle in line was old age (with its own symptoms: cerebral stroke, heart attack, malignant tumors, etc.)
Average human life expectancy in countries of the world and in different eras.
As shown in the top graph, the average human life expectancy before the 20th century did not exceed 35 years due to the lack of antibiotics and vaccinations. Today, in Southern African countries, the average human life expectancy is the same due to the lack of proper health care there. As can be understood from the above, people in natural natural conditions don't live long.
But people began to grow old. A severe hereditary genetic disease - old age () does not allow people today to live as long as they want - as they thought after the victory over infectious diseases. And the average life expectancy of a person is developed countries“stalled” at about seventy years of age. People began to die from such symptoms of old age as: stroke, heart attack, cancer, diabetes mellitus the second type, senile dementia, etc. And the average human life expectancy still remains limited.
Old age is a serious genetic disease. The average life expectancy of a person due to old age does not exceed 70 years.
Currently, clinical trials of Ion Skulachev are being successfully conducted on people who are able to overcome old age. It is assumed that the average human life expectancy, thanks to Skulachev’s ions, will reach about 100-120 years.
Skulachev's ions cure old age. Average human life expectancy.
But according to the results of experiments, at 100-120 years, the average human life expectancy will still stop growing - we will die from cancer.
Scientists are already confident that cancer will be defeated in the next 5-10 years - then how will the average human life expectancy be limited to 150 years, when old age is defeated and cancer is defeated?
New ones are published every week scientific discoveries, and new means are emerging that can help extend life. Science is developing very quickly. We recommend that you become a subscriber to new blog articles to stay up to date.
Dear reader. If you find the material on this blog useful and would like to this information was available to everyone, then you can help promote the blog by devoting just a couple of minutes of your time.
25 comments on “Human life expectancy is not increasing?”
- Arkady
Please explain where the statistics about the average life expectancy of 19 or more come from early centuries? Out of interest, I read and refreshed my memory about conscription in Tsarist Russia: recruits went into service at the age of 20-35, served for 15-25 years, after service they either worked or received a pension. They went to work as watchmen, doormen, clerks, etc. Who will hire a candidate who is dead?
It is not serious to take Africa as a basis for calculations: climate, lack of banal hygiene and culture (in Soviet times our paratroopers taught African tribes to fight, before arriving on the mainland, soldiers were convinced not to have intimacy with local women, because the vast majority of the mature population suffered from hypotitis, and women were 100% safe due to the lack of marriages and family constitution.)
At the same time, nowadays they are increasingly declaring the exceptional pure density of Russians. In addition, there was an almost complete absence of reliable statistics and accounting until the 20th century. - admin
Statistics on average life expectancy in Russia in the 19th century:
Excerpt: “Average life expectancy of the population of Russia in 1896-1897. was 29.43 years for men, 31.69 for women. »
Sources:
1. I will not give a link (for obvious reasons...). I suggest typing on the Internet: “B.B Prokhorov, “HEALTH OF RUSSIANS FOR 100 YEARS””
2. About Tatyana Larina’s mother, Alexander Sergeich wrote “old mother”; Pushkin researcher Lotman writes that according to Pushkin she was 36.
3. I remember someone wrote about Leo Tolstoy, “a strong old man of 50 years old”
3. proriv.moy.su/_ld/0/85_Tsar_Russia_2_e.pdf (TRUTH AND FICTION
ABOUT TSAR RUSSIA) - the official textbook for universities by the way. Look on page 59.
4. It’s enough to read any fairy tale to understand that grandmothers were very rare in those days. and it’s enough to think that in those days children were born at 14-15 years old and realize that a grandmother is 30+ years old. so it was extremely rare to live to 40.
5. Federal service state statistics gks.ru/
etc.
———-
Regarding the recruitment service. Today, the average life expectancy of men in Russia is 59 years. But they hire people at the age of 55, despite the fact that, purely statistically, they are candidates for death. It’s time to ask the question, who then retires at 65? There is no need to confuse the concepts of average life expectancy and maximum. People, both now and then, lived to a maximum of 100-120 years. And this is a question of the genetics of each person. So the long-livers lived on after conscription service - those who were lucky to survive. If a person has the genes of a long-liver, he lives a long time regardless of his lifestyle. And if there are no such genes, then he lives as long as his lifestyle, living conditions and level of healthcare allow.
=========
People in Africa live in the same conditions as our ancestors. In the same climate in Malaysia (at the equator) with high level life and medicine live on average 70 years. (which means the climate has nothing to do with it). But the lack of hygiene is the conditions of medieval France. That is why Africa is a model of medieval life.
========
The first population census in Russia was in 1897 (full) - yes. But statistics from the Civil Registry Office have been kept since the beginning of the 19th century. And all the dead were registered in this system. Add up the ages of all the dead and calculate the arithmetic mean from them - this is how we get the average life expectancy. - primer
Arkady, before entering into a public discussion, would you at least learn to read and write... Three classes of parish school?? And this pearl just finished off - “(brown into a beard..”)))))))))))))
- Moishe
Even in the Bible, the book of Psalms, 3 thousand years ago it was said that the average life expectancy is 70-80 years.
The days of our years are seventy years, and with greater strength - eighty years; and their best time is labor and illness, for they pass quickly, and we fly.
(Psalm 89:10)But in the time of Noah, people lived 400-500 years. Without any antibiotics. At the same time, they indulged in honey and wine.
- Dmitry Veremeenko
Moisha. It's said in the Bible. With all due respect, the Bible is not science. And we're talking about science here. Sorry. And according to science, people lived on average 35-40 years even in the 19th century. And before, even less. What happened before has not been proven for sure by anyone, but all the data from ancient excavations say that people used to live on average 18-25 years - differently in different eras. I know the Bible very well, having studied it for several years. I studied it, delved into it, just like I do in research now. But she didn’t convince me of anything. That's the kind of person I am - I believe only in facts. But I don’t take anything on faith.
- Dmitry Veremeenko
- Paul
The Bible was written by people. People rewrote the Bible. People translated the Bible. People can make mistakes. People can lie. People can be other people's puppets. God exists, but religion and God are not the same thing. As for the rest of the opinions, as usual, “before, the grass was greener, the sky was bluer, and life was better...” They already consider vaccinations unnecessary, oh people, people, you’ve relaxed...
- Palych
At the beginning I wondered why they write that people lived for 35 years, because whoever famous people even antiquity, for example, Plato - 80 years, Socrates - 70 years and not his own death, Aristotle - 62; Pythagoras - 80 years old. Yes, and writers, saints, kings, most of the people I came across since childhood (I always liked to count who lived how long) lived as they do now. Then I learned about child mortality and that out of 12 children, 5-7 survived to adulthood, then everything fell into place. Well, plus wars and diseases, plague made their contribution. Now let's do the math. Given: 12 children were born, 5 died ± before 1 year + 4 of the 7 survivors lived to 55 and the last 3 to 70
(1+1+1+1+1+55+55+55+55+70+70+70)/12=36,25
And you can imagine two conditional countries, Villaribo and Villabajo)))) in the first, 50% of children die at 1 year, but those who survive are guaranteed to live to 99. And in the other, they have overcome infant mortality and everyone is also guaranteed to live to 99. That is . The average life expectancy in Villaribo is 50 years, and in Villabaggio 99. And so Villaribo also defeated infant mortality and now statistics are trumpeting to the whole world that the average life expectancy has doubled!! Hurray comrades! But for those who already lived for 99 years, nothing has changed. What is needed is new technologies, medications, genetic manipulations, so that it is obvious that a person at 50-60 years old looks 28 but feels 16))) Then this is a breakthrough! In order not to delay the end, but to prolong youth. Actually the site is dedicated to this. - Sergey
Palych, I just wanted to write this)
If you remove infant mortality, then life expectancy has not changed at all.
according to the same site - Dmitry Veremeenko
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25530442
Global, regional, national, and age-sex-specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study for 2013. - Konstantin Kalinin
Guys, everything is explained very simply. Yes, middle age life in 1913 in Russia was 32 years. Yes, many lived to be 50-60 years old. But the infant mortality rate was appalling. At the beginning of the 20th century, on average, only 40 children out of 100 lived to be 6 years old in Russia. By 1913, only every second child lived to be 6 years old. Mortality rate 50%. In Europe, in developed countries, the average life expectancy in 1913 exceeded 50 years. But in backward, feudal Tsarist Russia this was impossible. Poor country. With a national debt three times the country's budget. The national debt in 1913 was 9.5 billion rubles. Annual budget 3.5 billion. Of which 500 million paid interest on the debt. Thanks to the idiotic “gold standard” Witte. Which drove Russia into poverty and hindered its development. Tsarist Russia several times adopted plans to develop education and medicine in the country, like liberal Russia now, but nothing was implemented. Because there were no funds. Only 5% of the Russian population in 1913 had secondary education. 60% were illiterate. Higher education had less than 2%.
By the way, in 1935, the average life expectancy in the USSR was already 47 years. Less than 10% remained illiterate. And more than 50% had secondary education. Then it was 7 classes. Just like in the gymnasiums under the Tsar.
All figures and data are from the works of royal historians of the early 20th century. Rubakin, Nechvolodov, Engelhardt.
- Galina
I compiled a pedigree for two people. I looked at the registry books for 1795-1905 in the archive, i.e. for the 19th century, by rural parish. I found the dates of birth and death of 19 women and 20 men (peasants). These are those who are lucky not to die in infancy and leave offspring.
I made a table like this:
Women Men
1 person died at the age of 20-29. —
3 people died at the age of 30-39. 1 person
3 people died at the age of 40-49. 3 people
5 people died at the age of 50-59. 8 people
4 people died at the age of 60-69. 5 people
3 people died at the age of 70-79. 3 peopleThe arrival is large. As far as I remember, there were a couple of centenarians, but not in these bloodlines.
Regarding: “children in those days were born at 14-15 years old” - I haven’t seen anything like that. I looked at northern Russian villages; people gave birth from 19 to 45 years old.
- Galina
I'll complement myself.
I saw in the wedding records that the brides were 17 years old. In fact (I kept counting, I had birth records) - 21 years old, or even more. I don’t know, they were confused in the calculations or they deliberately underestimated the age of the girls? 🙂
- Galina
- Galina
Interestingly, the “Your comment is awaiting review” text has disappeared above the addition, but not above the main comment. Didn't he pass?
- Virtual Private Servers
First of all, under favorable conditions, the number of single-celled organisms increases exponentially, and the characteristic of this increase is the doubling time of the number of organisms or the time of one generation. Unicellular organisms have two types of aging - “conditional aging”, or chronological aging in the stationary phase, where it is possible to measure the average or maximum life expectancy.
M. Menshikov “From letters to neighbors.” M., 1991. P.158.
In one of my previously published posts on the topic: “RUSSIA, WHICH THEY LOST” (we were talking about natural increase and mortality in Russian Empire and European countries) I cited this quote from the book by V.B. Bezgin “Peasant everyday life. Traditions of the late 19th - early 20th centuries":
“According to demographers, the Russian peasant woman of this period ( turn of the XIX century– XX centuries – approx.) gave birth on average 7-9 times. The average number of births among peasant women in the Tambov province was 6.8 times, and the maximum was 17. Here are some extracts from the report of the gynecological department of the Tambov provincial zemstvo hospital for 1897, 1901:
“Evdokia Moshakova, peasant woman, 40 years old, married for 27 years, gave birth 14 times”; “Akulina Manukhina, peasant woman, 45 years old, married for 25 years, gave birth 16 times.”
In the absence of artificial birth control, the number of children in a family depended solely on the reproductive capabilities of the woman.
High infant mortality played the role of a spontaneous regulator of the reproduction of the rural population. According to survey data (1887-1896), the proportion of deceased children under five years of age in Russia on average was 43.2%, and in a number of provinces over 50%.”
Agree, the data on child mortality is impressive, isn’t it? I decided to “dig” deeper into this issue, and what I “dug” plunged me into a real shock.
“According to data for 1908-1910. the number of deaths under 5 years of age was almost 3/5 total number deceased. The mortality rate of infants was especially high” (Rashin “Population of Russia for 100 years. 1811-1913”).
“... in 1905, out of every 1000 deaths of both sexes in 50 provinces of European Russia, 606.5 of the dead were children under 5 years of age, i.e. almost two thirds (!!!). In the same year, out of every 1,000 male deaths, 625.9 were children under 5 years old; out of every 1,000 female deaths, 585.4 were among girls under 5 years old. In other words, here in Russia a huge percentage of children who have not even reached the age of 5 die every year - a terrible fact that cannot help but make us think about the difficult conditions in which they live Russian population, if such a significant percentage of deaths occur in children under 5 years old.”
Please note that in the quotes I have given we are not talking about the dark and deaf years of serfdom and the complete lack of rights of the peasantry of Tsarist Russia, but about the beginning of the 20th century! Speaking about this time, lovers and admirers of tsarism love to prove that the empire was “on the rise”: the economy was growing, the well-being of the people was also growing, the level of education and medical care was increasing.
"Gentlemen"!!! Not everything is as you think! Read the contemporaries of that “prosperous” time, for example, Nechvolodov (I note to you - a Russian, gendarmerie general, the largest analyst of the tsarist secret services) “From Ruin to Prosperity”, 1906 edition (I gave this material), Rubakin “Russia in Figures” edition 1912, Novoselsky “Mortality and life expectancy in Russia”, 1916 edition.
The main result is the gigantic external debt of the Russian Empire by 1914, the sale (“...we are not selling, but selling out” - as Nechvolodov wrote) of national wealth to foreigners, the purchase by the same foreigners of basic industries: metallurgy, shipbuilding, the oil industry, etc. ., its tiny share of industrial production in global production, a significant lag behind the USA, England, France, Germany in terms of gross national product per capita - “European Russia, compared with other countries, is a country
half-impoverished” (Rubakin “Russia in Figures”, 1912 edition).
The main thing is that there would be a desire to read the authors I’m talking about, but no - at least read what I have already cited in my LiveJournal on the topic “RUSSIA THAT THEY LOST” (tag “Tsarist Russia”). Everything that is posted there is based precisely on these sources (and on other authors), plus statistical data from the Collection “Russia 1913. Statistical and documentary reference book."
However, I have moved somewhat away from the topic of infant mortality in the Russian Empire. I think that what you have already read about her from me has interested you. Now I will give you the most detailed statistics that will convince you that the horror that both Rashin and Rubakin wrote about was just that.
We will start with the mortality rate of infants under 1 year of age in European Russia for the period 1867-1911.
The following table (source: P.I. Kurkin “Mortality and Fertility in the Capitalist States of Europe,” 1938 edition) shows infant mortality rates for the entire period under review.
Of 100 babies born, the following died before the age of 1 year:
1867 – 24.3;
1868 – 29.9;
1869 – 27.5;
1870 – 24.8;
1871 – 27.4;
1872 – 29.5;
1873 – 26.2;
1874 – 26.2;
1875 – 26.6;
1876 – 27.8;
1877 – 26.0;
1878 – 30.0;
1879 – 25.2;
1880 – 28.6;
1881 – 25.2;
1882 – 30.1;
1883 – 28.4;
1884 – 25.4;
1885 – 27.0;
1886 – 24.8;
1887 – 25.6;
1888 – 25.0;
1889 – 27.5;
1890 – 29.2;
1891 – 27.2;
1892 – 30.7;
1893 – 25.2;
1894 – 26.5;
1895 – 27.9;
1896 – 27.4;
1897 – 26.0;
1898 – 27.9;
1899 – 24.0;
1900 – 25.2;
1901 – 27.2;
1902 – 25.8;
1903 – 25.0;
1904 – 23.2;
1905 – 27.2;
1906 – 24.8;
1907 – 22.5;
1908 – 24.4;
1909 – 24.8;
1910 – 27.1;
1911 – 23.7.
With a generally high infant mortality rate, infant mortality was extremely high in 1868, 1872, 1878, 1882, 1890 and 1892.
Minimum mortality for 1867-1911. was achieved in 1907. But is it worth rejoicing at the fact that such a record low figure was obtained this year? In my opinion - no! Subsequently (1908-1910) it grows again to 27.1, after which it again declines to 23.7, which is quite natural if we analyze the trend in child mortality since 1867. The trend is the same - after any drop in this indicator for infants under 1 year, it increases again.
The only reason for some optimism among supporters of the tsarist empire is that from 1892 until 1911, the infant mortality rate among infants under 1 year of age did not reach the 1892 record 30.7 infant deaths per 100 births and showed a slight decrease at the maximum. But at the same time, please do not forget that with the beginning of the First World War, the economic situation in the Russian Empire only worsened, which could not but affect child mortality, because as the same Rubakin rightly noted: “... Any national disaster, be it a crop failure , epidemic, etc., first of all, is reflected in child mortality, which immediately increases.”
And now, if any of the admirers of tsarism are itching to accuse Kurkin that the figures he gives are biased (the publication, they say, is from 1938, i.e. Stalinist), I suggest, in fairness, to familiarize yourself with one more source.
In the work of S.A. Novoselsky “Review of the main data on demography and sanitary stratification”, edition of 1916 (!)) published the following summary data on the mortality of infants under one year in European Russia for 1867-1911.
So, out of 100 babies born, the following died before the age of 1 year (over five years):
1867-1871 – 26.7 (26.78 for Kurkin);
1872-1876 – 27.3 (26.26 for Kurkin);
1877-1881 – 27.0 (27.0 for Kurkin);
1882-1886 - 27.1 (27.14 for Kurkin);
1887-1891 – 26.9 (26.9 for Kurkin);
1892-1896 – 27.5 (27.54 for Kurkin);
1897-1901 – 26.0 (26.06 for Kurkin);
1902-1906 – 25.3 (25.2 for Kurkin);
1907-1911 – 24.4 (24.5 for Kurkin).
You can see for yourself that the data from both authors is almost identical. And although data for five years,
demonstrate a downward trend in infant mortality among infants under 1 year of age from 1892-1896. to 1907-1911 by 11.27%, this decline, generally not very significant, was interrupted with the outbreak of the First World War due to the rapid deterioration of the economic and epidemiological situation in the empire.
For example, the incidence of typhus in the Russian Empire increased from 118.4 thousand diseases in 1913 to 133.6 thousand in 1916. And these are only registered cases, among which, in the same “prosperous” year of 1913, according to the “Report on the state of public health and the organization of medical care for 1913,” only 20% were subjected to hospital treatment!
And now, a small “lyrical” digression for those who, after all, have not read my materials. The Russian Empire, according to the same Novoselsky (“Mortality and life expectancy in Russia” edition of 1916), was among the European countries he cited back in the relatively prosperous years of 1905-1909. demonstrated superiority in mortality from smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and whooping cough. In the prosperous year of 1912, more people suffered from scabies (!) and malaria (!) than influenza (4,735,490 people and 3,537,060 people, respectively, against 3,440,282 people) (Statistical collection of Russia.
1914, data are also given for 1912).
As always, cholera behaved unpredictably even in prosperous years. For example, in 1909 10 thousand 677 people died from it, and already in the next 1910. – 109 thousand 560 people, i.e. more than 10 times! And this too, only registered cases. (M.S. Onitskansky “On the spread of cholera in Russia”, St. Petersburg, 1911). The annual incidence rate of tuberculosis grew steadily, from 278.5 thousand in 1896. up to 876.5 thousand in the “prosperous” year of 1913. And it has never (!) (since the aforementioned 1896) had a tendency to decrease! (Novoselsky “Mortality and life expectancy in Russia”, 1916 edition).
This deplorable situation in the Russian Empire only worsened with the beginning of the First World War. Therefore, as I already said above, Rubakin absolutely rightly noted: “... Any national disaster, be it a crop failure, an epidemic, etc., first of all, affects infant mortality, which immediately increases.”
I think that after the statistics given above, no one will want to claim that the First World War, as a national disaster, was better than a crop failure or an epidemic, and its consequences did not in any way affect child mortality in general, and infants under 1 year of age in particular.
Now we put an end to the “lyrical” digression and again return to the topic of conversation.
Do you want to know which of the 50 provinces of the European part of the Russian Empire were the leaders in infant mortality among infants under 1 year of age? I have the answer to this question! So, for 1867-1881. The leaders in infant mortality (per 1000 children under 1 year of age) were the following provinces:
Perm - 438 children (Quiet horror!!!);
Moscow - 406 children (and this is not the abandoned outskirts of the empire!);
Nizhny Novgorod - 397 children (!);
Vladimirskaya - 388 children (!);
Vyatskaya – 383 children (!)
The general result for 50 provinces of European Russia is 271 children (under 1 year) died per 1000 births.
For 1886-1897 The leaders in infant mortality (per 1000 children under 1 year of age) of the 50 provinces of the European part of the Russian Empire were the following provinces:
Perm - 437 children (Again the highest figure among 50 provinces);
Nizhny Novgorod - 410 children (Quiet horror!);
Saratovskaya - 377 children (!);
Vyatskaya – 371 children (!);
Penza and Moscow 366 children each (!);
The general result for 50 provinces of European Russia is 274 children (under one year old) died per 1000 births.
For 1908-1910 The leaders in infant mortality (per 1000 children under 1 year of age) of the 50 provinces of the European part of the Russian Empire were the following provinces:
Nizhny Novgorod - 340 children;
Vyatskaya – 325 children;
Olonetskaya – 321 children;
Perm - 320 children;
Kostroma - 314 children;
The general result for 50 provinces of European Russia is that 253 children (under one year old) died per 1000 births.
(Sources: D.A. Sokolov and V.I. Grebenshchikov “Mortality in Russia and the fight against it”, 1901, “Population movement in European Russia for 1908, 1909 and 1910”).
Well, tell me. Maximum infant mortality rates (for infants under 1 year) compared to 1867-1881. decreased!
Ooo!!! Don't rush to draw conclusions!
By 1908-1910 infant mortality rates decreased mainly in a number of provinces with particularly high infant mortality (in Perm, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Vladimir, Yaroslavl, St. Petersburg, Orenburg, Kazan) and increased in Kursk, Kyiv, Bessarabian, Vitebsk, Kovno, Ekaterinoslav, Vilna provinces, Oblast Donskoy troops.
For example, in the Don Army Region for 1867-1881. the infant mortality rate was 160 deaths of infants under 1 year per 1000 births, in 1886-1897. it became 206 deaths of infants under 1 year per 1000 births, and in 1908-1910. it rose to a record 256 deaths under 1 year per 1,000 births. The growth in mortality in this area is no less impressive in its pace than the decline in mortality, say, in the Perm province.
For other provinces, changes in mortality rates for infants under 1 year of age for 1867-1881 and 1908-1910. were relatively small.
And one more thing. A short comment regarding the Moscow province. P.I. Kurkin in his special study on infant mortality in the Moscow province for 1883-1892. indicated: “Children who died before the age of 1 year of life make up 45.4% of the total number of deaths of all ages in the province, and this ratio for individual five-year periods ranges from 46.9% in 1883-1897. to 45.7% in 1888-1892. and up to 43.5% in 1893-1897.” (Source – Kurkin “Infant mortality in the Moscow province and its districts in 1883-1897”, 1902).
For complete clarity, a picture of infant mortality for 1908-1910 should also be given.
So, the 50 provinces of European Russia can be divided into the following 5 groups:
1st group with a mortality rate from 14 to 18% - 11 provinces: Estland, Courland, Livonia, Vilna, Minsk, Grodno, Podolsk, Volyn, Tauride, Ekaterinoslav, Poltava, located in the west and south of the Russian Empire. (At least one Russian province, E-MY!!!);
2nd group, where the mortality rate was from 18 to 22% - 8 provinces: Vitebsk, Mogilev, Kovno, Bessarabian, Kherson, Kharkov, Chernigov, Ufa, located mainly (with the exception of the Bashkir Ufa province) in the west and south of the Russian Empire. (Where are the original Russian provinces???);
3rd group, having a mortality rate from 22 to 26%, - 6 provinces: Astrakhan, Kiev, Kazan, Orenburg, Arkhangelsk, Don Army Region;
4th group with mortality from 26 to 30% - 14 provinces: St. Petersburg, Yaroslavl, Pskov, Vologda, Novgorod, Moscow, Ryazan, Oryol, Kursk, Voronezh, Tula, Tambov, Saratov, Samara, located mainly in the central zone, on the northeast and southeast of the Russian Empire (This is Central Russia! This is where Rus' degenerated!);
Group 5 with a mortality rate of 30% or more - 11 provinces: Kaluga, Tver, Penza, Smolensk, Vladimir, Simbirsk, Kostroma, Olonetsk, Vyatka, Perm, Nizhny Novgorod provinces, located mainly in the north and central part of Russia. Moreover, Nizhny Novgorod, Vyatka, Olonets and Perm provinces had an infant mortality rate above 32%!
The source of all this data is Rashin “Population of Russia for 100 years. 1811-1913.” For those who don’t believe that everything I posted there exists, find this magnificent book, open it and read it. It's very simple!
Now for a little shock! The numbers I cited above are relative, i.e. we talked about the mortality rate of children under 1 year of age per 1000 births. And how much in absolute numerically Did children under 1 year die, at least during some of the periods under consideration?
And here Rashin helped us:
“According to data for 1895-1899. out of a total of 23 million 256 thousand. 800 born babies died before the age of one year - 6 million 186 thousand 400 children!!! HOW IS THIS NOT A REAL GENOCIDE!!! Do lovers of Tsarist Russia have anything to say?
I think the question is rhetorical...
But that's not all. In conclusion, considering the mortality rate of children under 1 year of age in the Russian Empire, I will give another very useful comparison (N.A. Rubakin “Russia in Figures” (St. Petersburg, 1912):
“The following table shows the place that Russia occupies among other nations of the globe in terms of the mortality of its children.
In 1905, out of 1000 births, the following died before the age of 1:
In Mexico - 308 children;
In Russia – 272 children;
In Hungary – 230 children;
In Austria – 215 children;
In Germany – 185 children;
In Italy – 166 children;
In Japan – 152 children;
In France – 143 children;
In England - 133 children;
In Holland – 131 children;
In Scotland – 116 children;
In the United States of America - 97 children;
In Sweden – 84 children;
In Australia – 82 children;
In Uruguay – 89 children;
There are 68 children in New Zealand.”
These figures are so eloquent, so vivid, that any explanations for them become completely unnecessary.
In this regard, in the official review “Mortality of infants aged from birth to one year in 1909, 1910 and 1911 in European Russia”, compiled by the Director of the Central Statistical Committee, Prof. P. Georgievsky, we meet the following recognition:
“25-30 years have passed... In all countries, mortality has dropped significantly, even where it was very low, such as in Sweden, where it almost halved from 13.2 to 7.5. On the contrary, Russia - according to these data dating back to 1901, not only in comparison with European, but also with all states (with the exception of Mexico, where the coefficient reaches 30.4) has a sad primacy in terms of loss the largest number babies during the first year of their life compared with the number of births in the same year, namely, per 100 live births there are 27.2 deaths in the first year of life (here we are talking about the number of children who died per 100 births - approx.)" (Source - P. Georgievsky “Mortality of infants aged from birth to one year in 1909, 1910 and 1911 in European Russia”, 1914).
Let my opponents from the “gold chasing” camp try to comment on this somehow. And I'll see what they can do...
At this point, I consider the issue of infant mortality among infants under 1 year of age closed.
Let's move on to the issue of infant mortality among children who died under the age of 5, since it was with them that our conversation with you on the topic of infant mortality in the Russian Empire began. I remind you of the sacramental phrase of N.A. Rubakina (“Russia in Figures”, St. Petersburg, 1912 edition):
“... in 1905, out of every 1000 deaths of both sexes in 50 provinces of European Russia, 606.5 of the dead were children under 5 years of age, i.e. almost two thirds (!!!)
Looking ahead, I want to say right away - this quiet horror in the brightest colors!
So, our main source is already well known to you, Rashin “Population of Russia over 100 years. 1811-1913.” And we will present it (with regard to infant mortality for children under 5 years of age) for the same periods as when considering infant mortality for infants under 1 year of age.
So, for 1867-1881. The leaders in child mortality (per 1000 children under 5 years of age) were the following provinces:
Moscow - 554 children (quiet horror for the ancient capital of the state
Russian!!!);
Perm - 541 children (among dead infants under 1 year old, she was the leader in
this period);
Vladimirskaya - 522 children (!);
Nizhny Novgorod - 509 children (!);
Vyatskaya – 499 children (!)
For 1887-1896 The leaders in child mortality (per 1000 children under 5 years of age) were the following provinces:
Perm - 545 children (Leader in mortality among infants under 1 year for the same
period);
Nizhny Novgorod - 538 children (!);
Tula - 524 children (!);
Penza - 518 children (!);
Moscow - 516 children (!);
Generalized results for 50 provinces of European Russia for 1867-1881. – 423 children (under 5 years of age) died per 1000 births.
For 1908-1910 The leaders in child mortality (per 1000 children under 5 years of age) were the following provinces:
Samara - 482 children;
Smolenskaya - 477 children;
Kaluzhskaya - 471 children;
Tverskaya - 468 children;
Saratovskaya - 465 children;
The general result for 50 provinces of European Russia is 389 children (under 5 years old) died per 1000 births.
From 1867-1881 to 1908-1910. On average, the mortality rate of children under 5 years of age in European Russia decreased from 423 to 389 children per 1000 births. At the same time, along with groups of provinces in which the infant mortality rate decreased, there is a group of provinces where changes in mortality were relatively insignificant, as well as a group of provinces where infant mortality increased.
If we analyze the infant mortality rates for deceased children under 5 years of age per 1000 births (over the three periods under consideration) for 50 provinces of European Russia, we obtain the most interesting data:
1867-1881
500 or more (!) children died in 4 provinces;
450-500 children died in 13 provinces;
400-450 children died in 14 provinces;
1887-1896
500 or more (!) children died in 12 (!!!) provinces;
450-500 children died in 9 provinces;
400-450 children died in 10 provinces;
350-400 children died in 8 provinces;
300-350 children died in 7 provinces;
Less than 300 children died in 4 provinces.
Notice how significantly the number of provinces has increased where the infant mortality rate for children under 5 years of age was 500 (or more) deaths per 1000 births. I am almost sure that if we look up the mortality data for the provinces of the Russian Empire, where the famine of 1891-1892 took place, it will turn out that these provinces are the leaders in mortality among children under 5 years of age. Someday I will deal with this issue, but for now let’s continue.
1908-1910
500 or more children did not die in any province;
450-500 children died in 7 provinces;
400-450 children died in 18 provinces;
350-400 children died in 9 provinces;
300-350 children died in 7 provinces;
Less than 300 children died in 9 provinces
Positive dynamics in child mortality for children under 5 years of age, although extremely small, is still there. There are no more provinces where 500 or more children under 5 years of age per 1,000 births died; there are more provinces where less than 300 children under 5 years of age per 1,000 births died, but at the same time, the number of provinces where the death rate was 400 or more has increased significantly. up to 450 children under 5 years of age per 100 births.
So now draw your conclusions after all this, and to help you a little, I will again give you a small quote from Rubakin “Russia in Figures” (St. Petersburg, 1912):
“... in some corners of the Kazan province in 1899-1900, in some public schools there was no admission of students, since those who were supposed to enter school this year “became dead” 8-9 years ago, during the era of the great national disaster of 1891-1892, which, however, was not the greatest, but of which there are many in Russian history.”
And one more thing. I deliberately do not want to talk and write much about the reasons that gave rise to the terrible situation in which the Russian Empire was in terms of infant mortality among children under 5 years of age. Anyone interested in this can read about it in Bezgin’s “Peasant Everyday Life. Traditions of the late 19th - early 20th centuries,” as well as Milov’s “The Great Russian Plowman and the Peculiarities of the Russian Historical Process.”
I will dwell on this issue only briefly.
So, the main reasons for the high infant mortality rate in Tsarist Russia were: - unsanitary conditions caused by the living conditions of the peasantry and city residents, and in connection with this constant outbreaks of infectious diseases (especially in summer). Here, for example, small quote from the “Explanatory Note to the State Control Report on the Execution of State Schedules and Financial Estimates for 1911” (SPb., 1912. P. 194-200):
“As a result of a survey of the cities of Kyiv, Kharkov, Rostov-on-Don and St. Petersburg in 1907-1910. it turned out that one of the reasons for the widespread epidemics of typhus and cholera was contamination of the water supply wastewater" If such a situation was observed in the largest cities of the Russian Empire, then what was it like where there was no running water at all, and where the culture of life was at the level of dirty chicken huts (for those who don’t know, the majority peasant huts they drowned themselves “black”. Source – Bezgin “Peasant everyday life. Traditions of the late 19th - early 20th centuries")?
It is not surprising that at the same time, the main sore of the empire was scabies, and for the most part it was not the residents of the Central Asian possessions of the Russian Empire who suffered from it, but the residents of the European part of the Russian Empire (
Another tenacious myth: supposedly the inhabitants of that time turned into decrepit ruins by the age of 35-40 and instantly died from countless diseases in terrible convulsions. Let's figure out where this came from.
Of course, lowering the bar for “childhood” plays a role - to work (that is, to work hard, and not just help with housework) peasant child started at the age of 13-14. A nobleman at the age of 15 could already take part in wars - this is not the modern Pepsi generation, which is afraid to go into the army at 18. :) Noble girls got married at 12-14 and no one considered it pedophilia.
The “old age” bar remained approximately at the same level as now. A great deal of documentation has been preserved confirming this:
Decree of Philip V of France in 1319 allowing persons over 60 to pay tax to the local seneschal rather than travel to the king's court.
- Decree of Philip VI of 1341 on pensions reserved for civil servants and military personnel over 60 years of age.
- Decree of Edward II of England on military training of all men from 15 to 60 years of age.
- Henry VII's decree on pensions for soldiers over 60 years of age.
Against this background, the strict order of King Pedro I the Cruel of Castile on “compulsory labor for everyone” from 12 to 60 years old stands out - you can understand what’s going on by looking at the date: 1351. The great epidemic of the Black Death is ending, half (or more) of the population of Castile has died out, there is a catastrophic shortage of workers. Well, quickly pick up sickles and rakes and march-march into the field! That is, a peasant’s age of 60 was not considered something abnormal, since they were forced into forced labor after the plague (and probably with detachments too! :)
By the way, regarding the age of marriage. If early marriage was the norm among nobles, then among peasants, townspeople, city dwellers, and artisans, the situation was somewhat different. In the 14th century, in the south and east of Europe people got married at the age of 16-17, in the north and west - generally at 19-20. But at the border of 1400-1500, that is, closer to the Renaissance and Reformation, marriages became earlier, turning into an institution for the mass production of labor for developing industry. Let us note that by the so-called “Renaissance” (for some it’s the Renaissance, and for others it’s an ass), the skills of obstetrics-gynecology and contraception, which were fully developed in the “dark” Middle Ages, are lost, and the further it goes, the worse the situation becomes. It was precisely in the years 1500-1600 that, thanks to a catastrophic decline in the quality of life and climatic anomalies (we look at longevity, deep problems arose.
Golden autumn In the Middle Ages, before the clearly drawn borders of the Black Death, this very “quality of life” differed in positive side. Otherwise, where would such piquant stories come from:
In 1338, a certain cleric wrote an extensive slander to the Bishop of Lincoln, which describes the treacherous and dissolute behavior of Countess Alicia de Lacy, who, after the death of her legal spouse, vowed to take monastic vows and transfer all property to the monastery. But what a nuisance - before she was tonsured, a certain knight kidnapped the countess from the monastery and Madame de Lacy agreed to marry him. Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that the Countess was 60 years old - such adventures were at her age! :)
The cleric can be understood: the monastery lost the property of her ladyship, so in the complaint the bishop is asked to punish the romantic knight with a fine of a ruble in order to somehow compensate for the losses. By the way, at the same time in France and England, widows of 60 years old who owned a fortune were exempt from having to marry or pay a fine for refusing (to help) a king or lord. Well, grandma won’t go to war? Although, if you remember Eleanor of Aquitaine (who died at 84), who remained cheerful until old age... :))
Some examples of the life expectancy of the highest nobility and clergy in the 14th century:
King Philip IV the Handsome - 46 years old, suspected stroke. Philip was not lucky with his children - the heirs Louis, Philip and Charles died at 26, 31 and 34 years old, respectively.
- King Philip VI of Valois - 57 years old.
- King Edward III of England - 65 years old.
- Grand Duke of Burgundy Philip II the Bold - 62 years old.
- King Alfonso XI of Castile - 39 years old, died of the plague.
- Pope Clement V - 50 years old.
- Pope John XXII - elder, broke all records: 90 years. And this with such nervous work!
- Pope Benedict XII - 57 years old.
- Master of the Templars Jacques de Molay - 69 years old, violent death. :)
So retirement age at that time it was not something unusual or out of the ordinary.
Found it very interesting book and there are few statistics on life expectancy and infant mortality in the second half of the 18th century.
Actually, this is probably, in principle, almost the first such statistical study in Russia. But the figures here are given mainly from European sources. How accurate they are is also a question. But trends are reflected. And very scary trends.
This is a description of one of the long-livers. Natural selection at its finest.
Only half of the people lived to be 15 years old.
I saw quite a lot of icons of various kinds, as well as ancient frescoes. So there is such a canon there, pay attention if necessary. All warriors are exclusively without beards. If you remember that the main growth of hair in young men occurs somewhere around the age of 17-18, then you can understand where this canon came from and who made up the bulk of any army. Not for nothing back in the 19th century. And according to my calculations, well, you know about Romeo and Juliet.
Women have always lived longer than men.
And people lived married for a long time back then. Even despite the short lifespan. Well, we got married at 15-16.
And then the centenarians lived mainly in the mountains.
But this is very interesting passage, which shows the standard of living of the population in different areas. Moreover, as you can see, than larger city, the lower this standard of living. This seems to be very important point in understanding the history of that time.
Because of all this, people in the cities didn’t get married or give birth very much. And the influx of people from the village was not very large. In my series of posts, I clearly show that the population and size of cities have grown little over the course of 200 or even 300 years. until the early 20th century and the explosive growth of cities.
Vitamin deficiency is a terrible thing.
And now the scariest part of my post. Infant mortality:
And again this is the curse of cities.
But at the same time, the city was still more advanced in the field of medicine.
Progress in medicine was slowly taking place.
This is another scary moment of that time. Mothers or nurses were often so tired that they fell asleep while feeding or simply in bed and crushed their babies with their whole bodies so that the babies simply died.
We now have a poor understanding of the realities of life at that time. Human life was short and worthless. Therefore, the mentality of people was different. And the realities of life. And you need to know all this in order to correctly understand history. Otherwise, it appears before us in the form of a distorting mirror, where everything is wrong and everything is different.
Addition :
I also found data on mortality in the second half of the 18th century.
Book: Kurganov, Nikolai Gavrilovich (1726-1796).
As you can see, at that time the birth rate sharply exceeded the death rate. It was then that the population of Europe and Russia increased at a very rapid pace. According to my data, in Russia it began somewhere in the late 17th, early 18th centuries. A single autocratic state was formed in Russia and the number of internal strife decreased sharply. Again, there was less fighting than before. The raids of the Tatars and other nomads were completely a thing of the past. Labor productivity has increased, the common population has become more money in order to feed the offspring, and they gave birth a lot back then.
But at the same time, the mortality rate in cities was very high. Let's, for example, compare it with the current one. I live in the city of Perm. The population of the city is about 1 million people. Mortality 12 thousand per year. Population of the rest Perm region-1.6 mil. people and the mortality rate is 22 thousand people per year. Of course, most of it still lives in cities, but they are not comparable to the city of Perm in many respects. I think this disproportion in mortality is due to the difference in the quality and availability of medical care. Because the ecology in Perm itself is much worse than in other cities of the region, not to mention the countryside.
If you multiply 12 thousand by 23, as it is written in the book, you get 276 thousand people. This should have been the population of the city of Perm, given the mortality rate that was in the second half of the 18th century. The almost complete absence of medicine, even for the rich, took its toll. And the environment was clearly not all right. The lack of water supply and sewerage, given the general overcrowding of the population, did its job.
Life has clearly become better and certainly more fun.
The post was written as part of the cycle -.