4 ms·
And very very importantly, this is taking the death ages of kings (i.e. people who lived long enough to actually become monarchs) compared to life expectancy at
by gampleman 1y ago
And very very importantly, this is taking the death ages of kings (i.e. people who lived long enough to actually become monarchs) compared to life expectancy at birth (i.e. people who lived long enough to be born).
Given that until roughly the 1700s infant mortality was brutal (according to [1] fully 50% of children died before reaching adulthood), this comparison becomes even starker, since average life expectancy of a crown prince at birth would be far lower (somewhere in their 20s).
[1] https://acoup.blog/2025/07/18/collections-life-work-death-and-the-peasant-part-ii-starting-at-the-end/ https://acoup.blog/2025/07/18/collections-life-work-death-an...
- bluGill 1y agohow much of that early death was poison or in war?
- rcxdude 1y agoGiven their position, kings and other members of a warrior elite generally would likely have downwards pressure on their life expectancy from that.
- psunavy03 1y agoThis "average life expectancy in the ancient world" thing is nothing more than an illustration of when to pick the median over the mean because the data is skewed by outliers.
- naniwaduni 1y agoQuite the opposite in this case—the median is single-digit; adults are the outliers.