So apparently we're doing 'do modern people work more than pre-modern farmers' discourse again on Twitter, so it seems like a good time to point out I have a series on pre-modern farming which discusses the considerable labor demands: 1/acoup.blog/2020/07/24/col…
The statistic that gets passed around - 150 working days a year for a medieval farmer - is badly incomplete; the 150 days is the required labor of a peasant on the lord's estate; farming any other land and literally any other task is extra. 2/
How much extra? A lot depends and I am better here with the Roman evidence. Columella (2.12), a Roman agricultural writer, figures that there were 290 working days in a year, accounting for festivals, market days, rain and the general seasonal cycle. 3/
How many of those days would you need to survive? Probably nearly all of them. It depends very heavily on the size of your household and the land you have to work. One can run a lot of simulations, assuming different yields, taxes or rent owed, etc. 4/
In a number of cases, we see that peasant labor was 'inefficiently allotted' in the countryside - too many farmers in a household for the land - so you might have 'excess labor' but pre-modern societies had all sorts of ways to soak up that excess labor. 5/
For instance, the 150 working days you are required to work your lord's estate where you only get a fraction of the food produced. Or systems of corvee labor. In the Roman Republic, an average of 7-10 years of military service per citizen male.
Gotta factor that in too! 6/
Of course you'd also need to err on the side of working more, because error in the other direction means you starve in the long gap between one harvest and the next. Generally, you'd be pretty close to Columella's 290 days, once all those demands were accounted for. 7/
Of course we should also note that farming labor wasn't the only labor going on in the peasant household. Household textile production, generally done by women, was also a huge full-time job time skink (acoup.blog/2021/03/05/col…). 8/
And we also want to note that the 'work day' in the high labor demand seasons (planting, harvest) was a lot longer than an 8-hour workday too - harvest especially was all-hands-on-deck dawn-to-dusk schedule, for weeks at a time. The pre-modern version of 'crunch.' 9/
And it also seems worth noting that we have a lot more non-work *years* too - peasants started working (boys in the field, girls spinning) at very young ages and effectively never 'retired,' so when you account for all of this, factor that in too. 10/
The end result is that your intuition is likely to be correct: the average pre-modern peasant worked more days than the c. 260 work days that you see somewhat typically (with exceptions) in the United States. Probably around 20-30 more days, w/ longer hours.
end/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Kinda odd to ask a question and turn off replies, sort of defeats the purpose.
But its gone very badly and quite obviously so. As a move to weaken or deter Israel, a pretty miserable and counter-productive failure that got more Yemenis and Palestinians killed on the net. 1/
Red Sea shipping remains down by about 50%, which hasn't meaningfully deterred Israel, but did contribute (with a whole bunch of other things) to a political climate in which you have an incoming administration whose position is essentially a green-light for Gaza annexations. 2/
The Status-quo-coalition response (Prosperity Guardian and Aspides) continues to carry out strikes in Yemen while Houthi strikes on shipping seem increasingly ineffective and strikes on warships have been entirely ineffective. 3/
Apparently this comment is sparking debate as if it really counts as 'mind control' if someone doesn't control your actions, but merely your sense perception so you can only see and hear a convincing fake world they present.
I am gonna contend that yes, that is 'mind control.'
If someone can make you see and hear things which are not there, and disguise things that are such that you don't know that, say, your city is burning and under siege, I don't think you are operating with complete free will and can be understood to be under a form of coercion.
And in my view that's a problem because the sad end of Celebrimbor really only makes thematic sense if you understand his decision to be arrogant, self-serving and wilful: he is making the rings in defiance of Eru's plan, for elves only, out of arrogance.
So in the last 24 hours, I've seen serious, well-informed people conclude that Trump's nominees 1) are obviously unconfirmable 2) will obviously be confirmed 3) there will be no confirmation process.
I think that high level of uncertainty is notable and quite bad. 1/
I think the source of it is its just really hard to understand a 'normal' reason to nominate a bunch of people (Hegseth, Gabbard, Gaetz, esp.) who would be obviously unconfirmable in normal circumstances for any other administration.
It prompts confusing, upsetting questions. 2/
The one answer I am most skeptical of is the assumption this is 5-D chess to take over the government, if only because it would be extremely foolish to precipitate a showdown with Congress *before* you had your yes-men in charge of DoJ and DoD. 3/
Further DA: Veilguard thoughts: I've heard folks rip on the writing. I think it's not *bad* but it also isn't strong.
Part of the problem for me is not enough thought was put in to how individuals embedded in this world might talk about things. 1/
Take for example, the Evanuris, the gods of the Elves, who are a major part of the plot. Regardless of background or faction, characters generally call them 'the gods' or 'the risen gods.'
Two problems: one, hearing that over again sounds strange and two there's no variation. 2/
Most people in the DA world (Thedas) worship the Maker and Andraste - those characters are not going to call the Evanuris 'the gods,' because they don't think they are.
You might get the proper noun 'Evanuris,' but I'd expect 'false gods' or more rude variations of that. 3/
So I was listening to @ezraklein podcast with Jon Stewart & struck around the midpoint as they tried to get at anxiety & polarization.
It put me in mind of something re: the fall of the Roman Republic - 'the Republic' clearly meant different things to different Romans. 1/
At the beginning of my Rome course or my Rome unit in the anc. history survey, we lay out what the Roman Republic was in institutions (blog version of that here: ) and most students decide that 'the Republic' is a system of voting and office holding. 2/acoup.blog/2023/07/21/col…
And I actually try to push back, a little, on that early in class. Because surely that was what the Roman Republic was to some Romans. Presumably the Romans that voted Scipio Aemilianus to be consul, twice, over the objections of the Senate (and, uh, the law) thought so. 3/
I just...who wants this to be the culture in our country? Who wants to tell their kids, "these are our values?"
And sure, there are spaces for off-color jokes (although this is also distressingly racist), but "the process where we decide who gets the nuclear codes" ain't it.