4 ms·

> One bit of interest -- if constructed back in the 1300s, it would have probably taken 4 years or so. Funding is the biggest difference, historically it would

> One bit of interest -- if constructed back in the 1300s, it would have probably taken 4 years or so. Funding is the biggest difference, historically it would have been built from a rich patron's pockets with no desire to wait 25 years for the protection and image it would provide. From visiting the site a couple of years ago, the team is about 30 people, so they are looking at a 25-30 years timeframe to build it. In 13 century, the builder would hire about 70 people (typical small lord could not afford to pay for more) and it would take 10-15 years.

sandworm101 2y ago
And 10-15 years, at a time when most were lucky to make their mid forties, is roughly 25-35 years for us today. Building a stone castle was always a generational endeavour.
- jrmg 2y ago
  As I understand it, the low life expectancy back then is, if not a myth, at least misleading. The average adult lived to what we’d still consider old age - the average life expectancy of all humans was ‘just’ low because child mortality was high, and even most child deaths occurred at very early ages.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Average adult male. Women commonly died in childbirth.
- adamsilkey 2y ago
  > most were lucky to make it to their mid forties This is a common misconception. Life expectancy at birth being low reflects high mortality for infants and children. If you can make it into adulthood, most people lived for a relatively long time. https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-not-a-modern-phenomenon.php#:~:text=In%20medieval%20England%2C%20life%20expectancy,in%20medieval%20England%20was%2025.7 https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-n....
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    >>However, life expectancy at age 25 for landowners in medieval England was 25.7. OK... 25+25 = 50 rather than 40. But that is for the wealthy, the top percentage who owned land. Everyone else would have been less. That is still about half of what we can expect today.

sandworm101 2y ago

And 10-15 years, at a time when most were lucky to make their mid forties, is roughly 25-35 years for us today. Building a stone castle was always a generational endeavour.

jrmg 2y ago
As I understand it, the low life expectancy back then is, if not a myth, at least misleading. The average adult lived to what we’d still consider old age - the average life expectancy of all humans was ‘just’ low because child mortality was high, and even most child deaths occurred at very early ages.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Average adult male. Women commonly died in childbirth.
adamsilkey 2y ago
> most were lucky to make it to their mid forties This is a common misconception. Life expectancy at birth being low reflects high mortality for infants and children. If you can make it into adulthood, most people lived for a relatively long time. https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-not-a-modern-phenomenon.php#:~:text=In%20medieval%20England%2C%20life%20expectancy,in%20medieval%20England%20was%2025.7 https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-n....
- sandworm101 2y ago
  >>However, life expectancy at age 25 for landowners in medieval England was 25.7. OK... 25+25 = 50 rather than 40. But that is for the wealthy, the top percentage who owned land. Everyone else would have been less. That is still about half of what we can expect today.