3 ms·

Archimedes! Run through by a sword by an impatient soldier while he was trying to finish up a math problem instead of heeding a summons to some bureaucrat or g

by rotten 12y ago

Archimedes! Run through by a sword by an impatient soldier while he was trying to finish up a math problem instead of heeding a summons to some bureaucrat or general or something.

rotten 12y ago
Ah, he is on there. The list is neither sorted alphabetically nor chronologically.
amelius 12y ago
I'm actually amazed that he reached the age of 75! I didn't know people could become that old back in those days. Was he an exception?
- Evgeny 12y ago
  I don't think so - there is a widespread confusion about life expectancy. If, for example, child mortality was high compared to modern times, the life expectancy at birth was low. However, for those who survived childhood, the life expectancy would not be very much different from modern. Example: triplets were born, but one died at birth, another when he was 10, and another lived to 80. So, life expectancy at birth is only 30 years, but measured at five years of age it is 45 years, and measured at 20 years of age it is full 80 years. This short article gives some explanation. http://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-000-years.html http://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-...
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    75 would have been somewhat unusual in the US in 1900: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Tbl_10.html#wp1041324 http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Tbl_10.html#w... It shows the age 30 life expectancy, in 1900 it was 35 years, so 65 year old. Compare to today which is 47 years (77 years old). There are life tables for historical periods, but the modern data is likely more reliable and still shows quite some difference. Your link makes a good point about life expectancy at birth not being the right measure, but there is a very real expansion in life expectancy that has taken place. I guess infectious disease control probably pulled a lot of that expansion into the last 100 years.

by rotten 12y ago

Archimedes! Run through by a sword by an impatient soldier while he was trying to finish up a math problem instead of heeding a summons to some bureaucrat or general or something.

rotten 12y ago

Ah, he is on there. The list is neither sorted alphabetically nor chronologically.

amelius 12y ago

I'm actually amazed that he reached the age of 75! I didn't know people could become that old back in those days. Was he an exception?

Evgeny 12y ago
I don't think so - there is a widespread confusion about life expectancy. If, for example, child mortality was high compared to modern times, the life expectancy at birth was low. However, for those who survived childhood, the life expectancy would not be very much different from modern. Example: triplets were born, but one died at birth, another when he was 10, and another lived to 80. So, life expectancy at birth is only 30 years, but measured at five years of age it is 45 years, and measured at 20 years of age it is full 80 years. This short article gives some explanation. http://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-000-years.html http://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-...
- maxerickson 12y ago
  75 would have been somewhat unusual in the US in 1900: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Tbl_10.html#wp1041324 http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Tbl_10.html#w... It shows the age 30 life expectancy, in 1900 it was 35 years, so 65 year old. Compare to today which is 47 years (77 years old). There are life tables for historical periods, but the modern data is likely more reliable and still shows quite some difference. Your link makes a good point about life expectancy at birth not being the right measure, but there is a very real expansion in life expectancy that has taken place. I guess infectious disease control probably pulled a lot of that expansion into the last 100 years.