Standards of living varied enormously between the wealthy and the poor in sixteenth century England.
Increasing commercialisation as towns grew larger and more important, led to wider social mobility and the emergence of the middle classes. The well off were becoming more and more comfortable as England grew Rich from the mining of Tin, Lead, and Coal, and the Iron industry. On the other end of the scale however, peasant labourers grew poorer as the population recovered from the devastation of the Plague two centuries earlier, pushing real earnings down.
With access to improving medical care, education, and living conditions, the better off often lived into their 60's. Between one third and one half of all children however died before the age of 16. The average life expectancy overall was 35 years.
Afghanistan's life expectancy is low not necessarily because the people aren't living as long (though I'm sure that's a minor factor), but because infant mortality (early childhood death) is very high. (24.53 times higher than the U.S. rate in 2008 at 165 deaths per 1,000 born) This dramatically lowers the statistic. It would be like saying the average life expectancy in the U.S. is 50 years old when taking two individuals, 1 who dies at birth (age 0) and one who dies at 100 years.
Mid 30's would have been considered old
The primary risk to women has been childbirth.
It was rubbish.
Advantages:more food and comfort, higher living standards, longer life expectancy, Disadvantages: exploitation of poor, pollution, loss of biodiversity, more people
The average life expectancy in England in the 17th century was 39.7 years, from birth to death.
Yes. There was Country life in Italy.
Average life expectancy was around 30-40 years.
In the 16th and 17th centuries, life expectancy was generally lower than it is today, with the average lifespan around 30-40 years. High rates of infant mortality and deaths from infectious diseases contributed to this lower life expectancy. However, it's important to note that life expectancy varied greatly depending on factors like social class, access to healthcare, and location.
plague
The life expectancy in the 16th century was right around the late 30s or early 40s, but the numbers are artificially low because of the high number of infant deaths. Many people actually lived into their 50s and 60s.
life in England is the 16th century consisted of an ongoing struggle to survive due to the persistently changing living conditions and life style it was difficult to maintain your cook privileges king Henry VIII world always chop your scrotum off and feed it to his poodles.
1997 buick life
The mortality rate in the 16th century varied widely depending on factors such as location, access to healthcare, and living conditions. In general, life expectancy was lower than it is today, with many individuals dying at a younger age due to infectious diseases, lack of medical knowledge, and poor sanitation. The mortality rate was likely higher than in modern times.
In the Netherlands late 16th century.
chesapeake:40-45 new england: 60-65
Life expectancy improved in the eighteenth century due to advancements in sanitation and healthcare, such as improved sanitation practices, better medical knowledge, and the development of vaccines. These improvements led to a decrease in infectious diseases and higher survival rates among infants and children, ultimately increasing the overall life expectancy of the population.