3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

, if someone survived into their thirties

Which a significant number of infants didn't hence the low LEB for those times for the reasons given.

Edited August 6Aug 6 by pinball1970
Changed from "most" to "significant number."

29 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Which a significant number of infants didn't hence the low LEB for those times for the reasons given.

That's sort of how statistical averages work. What's your point?

Edited August 6Aug 6 by sethoflagos
typo

8 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

That's sort of how statistical averages work. What's your point?

Since you are a decent poster (Beacon of hope = likes) I will assume we are talking over each other.

LEB was not 70 in ancient times was my point, it was about 35, it was about 40 in the UK only 200 years ago

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040159/life-expectancy-united-kingdom-all-time/

Edited August 6Aug 6 by pinball1970
forgot to crop

10 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Since you are a decent poster (Beacon of hope = likes) I will assume we are talking over each other.

LEB was not 70 in ancient times was my point, it was about 35, it was about 40 in the UK only 200 years ago

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040159/life-expectancy-united-kingdom-all-time/

Multimodal probability distributions. The mean value may not be a particularly likely one.

2 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Multimodal probability distributions. The mean value may not be a particularly likely one.

What it means is that if you do have old people in that population it means you must have a bunch of dead kids.

In ancient times that number was high for infants not surviving child birth or making it past five which is what the thread is about.

A good comparison would be to look at areas where medical infrastructure and technology are very low today, endemic malaria and other diseases, poor access to clean water.

40 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

... A good comparison would be to look at areas where medical infrastructure and technology are very low today, endemic malaria and other diseases, poor access to clean water.

Hopefully someone who's lived for over 25 years in sub-saharan Africa, and has the odd bout of malaria now and then will chime in.

On 7/31/2025 at 2:33 AM, Moon99 said:

Why infants and children died at a horrific rate in the Middle Ages?

Quote For starters, infants and children died at a horrific rate (some say up to 1/3 of all died before the age of 5) Quote

https://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/

Why did infants and children died at a horrific rate in the Middle Ages

On 7/31/2025 at 2:33 AM, Moon99 said:

Most people only lived to mid 40s.

What happen in the Middle Ages people died so early?

Was there just more bacterial and virus back in that time?

• I of course don't hold the truth, but in my approach I use a combination of emotional and scientific knowledge (or perhaps we can call it experience too)

• It wasn't horrific by evolutionary standards. Some of it was probably needed because some of those babies were weaker and/or had difficult health issues for their times! It really depended on how good the mother's instinct and social standing were, to feed herself well and choose a... non-consanguineous mate, and shield herself from diseases such as sexually transmitted that even today pose problems because they're transmitted via placenta >.>

• Why people died so early? Stress, more diseases, improper nutrition. The lifespan nowadays is the way it is because we can prolongue life in a chronic illness state.

• Otherwise, our current lifespan averages would still be lowered considerably by those people who do not keep themselves well and develop diabetes, hypertension, obesity, alcoholic liver diseases, pancreatitis, etc. (first 4 are lifestyle diseases), IF we took their statins and etc. away (aka the "modern" life prolonging element in our equations). However, now we can also do blood transfusions in case of accidents, and know more in general about the human body. We've also reduced all kinds of violence in our society, assuming we're all from countries NOT at war...

• Bacteria and viruses: first, no, there were less species of these because people mingled and travelled less, so the strains had higher local specificity 🙂. It's highly likely we are more resistant now to more exotic varieties of viruses and bacteria, but less resistant to local bacteria. Secondly however, yes, in the sense that the idea of disinfection did not exist as such... People ate with their hands, bathed when they could once a week if they could, and STDs were everywhere. But there were less people in general, so smaller numbers touched the coin that ended in your pocket for instance. But I need to say people did know of cures and balms that had special characteristics and could ease fevers, pains, etc. In countries practising Apiculture from roman times, they knew of bee venom and their honey/propolis (very potent natural antibiotics).

• Infections and low vitamin intake killed lots of people though. From respiratory to flesh wounds. Antibiotics did wonders, but now we have the problem of evolving bacteria to resist antibios.

I genuinely believe that the problems of health, violence and nutrition killed people not because there weren't better ways back then too to distribute helpful things, but because of how bad social inequality was and classes were determined, and because of conflict and war, in countries that had them more, like the British Isles. In short, I genuinely believe it's due to many people undeservedly being pushed into poverty and left like that.

What do you think?

Edited August 6Aug 6 by FreeStyle

Unfortunately, I do not see a lot scientific knowledge represented here.

9 minutes ago, FreeStyle said:

• It wasn't horrific by evolutionary standards. Some of it was probably needed because some of those babies were weaker and/or had difficult health issues for their times! It really depended on how good the mother's instinct and social standing were, to feed herself well and choose a... non-consanguineous mate, and shield herself from diseases such as sexually transmitted that even today pose problems because they're transmitted via placenta >.>

This sounds more like a moral argument.

10 minutes ago, FreeStyle said:

Otherwise, our current lifespan averages would still be lowered considerably by those people who do not keep themselves well and develop diabetes, hypertension, obesity, alcoholic liver diseases, pancreatitis, etc. (first 4 are lifestyle diseases), IF we took their statins and etc. away (aka the "modern" life prolonging element in our equations). However, now we can also do blood transfusions in case of accidents, and know more in general about the human body. We've also reduced all kinds of violence in our society, assuming we're all from countries NOT at war...

The main topic was about infant death but all you are saying here is that yes, modern medicine is preventing deaths and without those life expectancy is likely lower. That would be pretty much universally true. If you had better medicine in the middle ages, more folks would survive.

13 minutes ago, FreeStyle said:

Bacteria and viruses: first, no, there were less species of these because people mingled and travelled less, so the strains had higher local specificity 🙂.

That is not a thing. Less travel means less spread not less diversity. In fact if there are more isolated pockets there is also a chance that there is overall more diversity as there is less genetic flow and/or competition between pathogens in different populations.

14 minutes ago, FreeStyle said:

It's highly likely we are more resistant now to more exotic varieties of viruses and bacteria, but less resistant to local bacteria.

Makes no sense. What is an exotic pathogen? Also you only acquire resistance to those you are exposed to (i.e. local pathogens).

15 minutes ago, FreeStyle said:

Secondly however, yes, in the sense that the idea of disinfection did not exist as such... People ate with their hands, bathed when they could once a week if they could, and STDs were everywhere.

I am not sure why you are so fascinated with STDs specifically. They have a long history with us, but so do many other infectious diseases. It is difficult to compare scope throughout history, but HIV is (was and is likely to be again) a killer of infants (to go back to OP) but it is a more modern pathogen.

18 minutes ago, FreeStyle said:

Infections and low vitamin intake killed lots of people though. From respiratory to flesh wounds. Antibiotics did wonders, but now we have the problem of evolving bacteria to resist antibios.

Not sure why low vitamin is snuck in here. Also you have been talking about infections the whole time, so I am not sure what the relevance to repeat it here again, but OK.

22 minutes ago, FreeStyle said:

I genuinely believe that the problems of health, violence and nutrition killed people not because there weren't better ways back then too to distribute helpful things, but because of how bad social inequality was and classes were determined,

While better social structures are likely always helpful, the issue is that in the middle ages modern medicine was not available. No level of redistribution of wealth would have solved that issue.

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Unfortunately, I do not see a lot scientific knowledge represented here.

This sounds more like a moral argument.

The main topic was about infant death but all you are saying here is that yes, modern medicine is preventing deaths and without those life expectancy is likely lower. That would be pretty much universally true. If you had better medicine in the middle ages, more folks would survive.

That is not a thing. Less travel means less spread not less diversity. In fact if there are more isolated pockets there is also a chance that there is overall more diversity as there is less genetic flow and/or competition between pathogens in different populations.

Makes no sense. What is an exotic pathogen? Also you only acquire resistance to those you are exposed to (i.e. local pathogens).

I am not sure why you are so fascinated with STDs specifically. They have a long history with us, but so do many other infectious diseases. It is difficult to compare scope throughout history, but HIV is (was and is likely to be again) a killer of infants (to go back to OP) but it is a more modern pathogen.

Not sure why low vitamin is snuck in here. Also you have been talking about infections the whole time, so I am not sure what the relevance to repeat it here again, but OK.

While better social structures are likely always helpful, the issue is that in the middle ages modern medicine was not available. No level of redistribution of wealth would have solved that issue.

That's just because you're used to reading "scientific" arguments expressed in a cold fashion 😂 but this is just a forum, and I choose friendly expressions and minimal "references", though I have read my fair share of studies and articles. Your answer is very unfriendly, however. You made a point to dislike my exposition of words and from there, to just randomly disagree with most of my paragraphs.

Throughout your post you don't even debate, you just state, as if you hold all the answers anyway. Again that's not very nice, nor scientific. This isn't a contest of who is more of a smartass.

I'm limited to only 5 posts today, so this will be my only reply to you 🙄.

Fascination with STDs... Lol. Wtf? It's just an interesting fact not many think about that I put in writing.

How can you say less travel only means less spread diversity, or ask me what exotic pathogens mean? It means pathogens exotic to where a person's lived (in the layman terms you so hate), as the OP did NOT give a geographical location for these Middle Ages, which in case you didn't know happened at different times in different countries...

Low vitamin isn't "snuck" in there unless I'm trying to create magic spells, it's the reality of not readily having as much fresh available produce in winter like we do now, such as fruit. Or pills like we do today. This is a fact.

Tell me the following: can you read a foreign language to be able to understand estimations made on average lifespans in the middle ages in other places of the world? The fact that you disagree with life back then being very unkind to many individuals of "lower standing" and with the fact that many might've survived if say social stratification was less stringent in certain places like the british isles, is your emotional choice, not a scientific one.

Such an unkind carrot in the arse post, honestly, and you're not even an expert on Middle Age matters in any capacity.

Edited August 6Aug 6 by FreeStyle

8 hours ago, studiot said:

I'm not disputing any of this, but your mention of Archimedes reminds me that there are two other outstandings causes of death missing.

War

Slavery

It’s not like war has been eliminated from the equation, nor slavery (if we’re comparing recent times to the middle ages, the 1800s are recent times)

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s not like war has been eliminated from the equation, nor slavery (if we’re comparing recent times to the middle ages, the 1800s are recent times)

May you I remind you, that evolution (it was mentioned above) is a change, not development. So, no, you can't compare ages. And according to evolution now is not better than in the middle ages.

Just now, m_m said:

May you I remind you, that evolution (it was mentioned above) is a change, not development. So, no, you can't compare ages. And according to evolution now is not better than in the middle ages.

Yes, evolution was mentioned, and it was not a good argument, which was pointed out. The focus on medical advances, nutrition, war and slavery really have little to do with evolution. The fact that it was mention in a few posts doesn’t make it relevant and it was not the focus of discussion. This seems like a complete non-sequitur. You most certainly can compare ages.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

You most certainly can compare ages.

And I think no, you can't compare ages. Because there were no modern instruments in previous times. Their medicine was modern for them.  People dealt with diseases with the means they had.

30 minutes ago, FreeStyle said:

Throughout your post you don't even debate, you just state, as if you hold all the answers anyway. Again that's not very nice, nor scientific. This isn't a contest of who is more of a smartass.

The first line of scientific discussion, whether cold or friendly is to distinguish facts from opinion. The former have evidence. Take the STD argument, for example, it seems that you kind of suggest that STDs are a major driver of mortality but make no effort to substantiate that and/or discuss it in relation to other diseases for example.

Same with pathogen diversity. There you just claim that geographic isolation also has to mean less diversity, which is just not true.

32 minutes ago, FreeStyle said:

How can you say less travel only means less spread diversity, or ask me what exotic pathogens mean? It means pathogens exotic to where a person's lived (in the layman terms you so hate), as the OP did NOT give a geographical location for these Middle Ages, which in case you didn't know happened at different times in different countries...

Less travel means diseases do not spread as widely and if diseases are localized, there is a change of diversification. Geographic isolation can lead to speciation (we call it allopatric speciation). Things are a bit complicated, of course, but there is no reason to believe that there were fewer pathogenic species or strains around.

Exotic is just weird as it assumes that there are places that are non-exotic. Folks are exposed to diseases where they are and attain immunity (or death) from what they are exposed to. I assume you mean to say that travelling individuals might be exposed to a broader diversity of pathogens but it is ultimately unclear what the relation to life expectancy might be.

36 minutes ago, FreeStyle said:

Tell me the following: can you read a foreign language to be able to understand estimations made on average lifespans in the middle ages in other places of the world? The fact that you disagree with life back then being very unkind to many individuals of "lower standing" and with the fact that many might've survived if say social stratification was less stringent in certain places like the british isles, is your emotional choice, not a scientific one.

This is an entirely different argument- and while one can argue yes more resources for poor folks would increase their ability to survive, when it comes to infant mortality (remember, the topic of this thread), it is not clear whether that would impact it by much without modern medicine.

I don't have the numbers here, but even the highest ranks of nobility has high infant mortality and if their mortality is only half of the average infant mortality, it would still be higher than folks in today's poorest countries (and definitely higher than the poor in high income countries).

That again, is due to medical advances as discussed throughout the thread. Even a fictionally egalitarian country in the middle ages would not be able to achieve that.

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s not like war has been eliminated from the equation, nor slavery (if we’re comparing recent times to the middle ages, the 1800s are recent times)

And given the fact that infant mortality is still lower in war-torn countries if there are at least remnants of medical support just shows how impactful modern medicine is (which would include emergency nourishment)

23 minutes ago, m_m said:

And according to evolution now is not better than in the middle ages.

There is no better (or worse) in evolution, so that doesn't make sense.

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There is no better (or worse) in evolution, so that doesn't make sense.

My point is that we can't compare ages.

10 minutes ago, m_m said:

My point is that we can't compare ages.

Why not?

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Why not?

Because this is the passage of time. People had equipment which was modern for their age.

May I say that previous ages were better because people didn't consider themselves animals or some biological beings??

8 minutes ago, m_m said:

Because this is the passage of time. People had equipment which was modern for their age.

May I say that previous ages were better because people didn't consider themselves animals or some biological beings??

Define "better". What has been discussed was infant mortality. So better in this context, I presume, would be lower.

1 hour ago, FreeStyle said:

That's just because you're used to reading "scientific" arguments expressed in a cold fashion 😂 but this is just a forum, and I choose friendly expressions and minimal "references", though I have read my fair share of studies and articles. Your answer is very unfriendly, however. You made a point to dislike my exposition of words and from there, to just randomly disagree with most of my paragraphs.

Throughout your post you don't even debate, you just state, as if you hold all the answers anyway. Again that's not very nice, nor scientific. This isn't a contest of who is more of a smartass.

I'm limited to only 5 posts today, so this will be my only reply to you 🙄.

Fascination with STDs... Lol. Wtf? It's just an interesting fact not many think about that I put in writing.

How can you say less travel only means less spread diversity, or ask me what exotic pathogens mean? It means pathogens exotic to where a person's lived (in the layman terms you so hate), as the OP did NOT give a geographical location for these Middle Ages, which in case you didn't know happened at different times in different countries...

Low vitamin isn't "snuck" in there unless I'm trying to create magic spells, it's the reality of not readily having as much fresh available produce in winter like we do now, such as fruit. Or pills like we do today. This is a fact.

Tell me the following: can you read a foreign language to be able to understand estimations made on average lifespans in the middle ages in other places of the world? The fact that you disagree with life back then being very unkind to many individuals of "lower standing" and with the fact that many might've survived if say social stratification was less stringent in certain places like the british isles, is your emotional choice, not a scientific one.

Such an unkind carrot in the arse post, honestly, and you're not even an expert on Middle Age matters in any capacity.

He is, however, a resident expert on biology, which is why he is able to speak with a degree of authority on subjects like this.

Are you an authority on Medieval History?

Edited August 6Aug 6 by exchemist

2 hours ago, FreeStyle said:

That's just because you're used to reading "scientific" arguments expressed in a cold fashion 😂 but this is just a forum, and I choose friendly expressions and minimal "references", though I have read my fair share of studies and articles. Your answer is very unfriendly, however. You made a point to dislike my exposition of words and from there, to just randomly disagree with most of my paragraphs.

Throughout your post you don't even debate, you just state, as if you hold all the answers anyway. Again that's not very nice, nor scientific. This isn't a contest of who is more of a smartass.

I'm limited to only 5 posts today, so this will be my only reply to you 🙄.

Fascination with STDs... Lol. Wtf? It's just an interesting fact not many think about that I put in writing.

How can you say less travel only means less spread diversity, or ask me what exotic pathogens mean? It means pathogens exotic to where a person's lived (in the layman terms you so hate), as the OP did NOT give a geographical location for these Middle Ages, which in case you didn't know happened at different times in different countries...

Low vitamin isn't "snuck" in there unless I'm trying to create magic spells, it's the reality of not readily having as much fresh available produce in winter like we do now, such as fruit. Or pills like we do today. This is a fact.

Tell me the following: can you read a foreign language to be able to understand estimations made on average lifespans in the middle ages in other places of the world? The fact that you disagree with life back then being very unkind to many individuals of "lower standing" and with the fact that many might've survived if say social stratification was less stringent in certain places like the british isles, is your emotional choice, not a scientific one.

Such an unkind carrot in the arse post, honestly, and you're not even an expert on Middle Age matters in any capacity.

Chill out and learn how we converse. When in Rome... We mostly stick to the rules of the scientific method, but we aren't averse to bantering. The fact you put" "scientific" arguments" as you did suggests you aren't really into viewing things in an objective way and like to colour your thoughts with random, pulled out of your arse opinions. If you talk bollocks without references, expect pushback. The first thing I do when I join a group is figure out peoples range and level. You might do the same.

Edited August 6Aug 6 by StringJunky

12 hours ago, exchemist said:

What time?

If you have read the thread you will already know what diseases we have been talking about.

Yes, it seems reasonable that ancient peoples could distinguish deaths from specific causes such as disease, conflict and famine from those due to what they might think of natural old age. So 70 is about right for that.

I can’t get data on it.

But in the US 100 years ago there is data on it.

That's a big change from 1900, when infectious diseases like pneumonia, tuberculosis and diarrhea accounted for almost half of all deaths. The historical decline represents great progress in sanitation, antibiotic discovery and vaccination programs, says Heidi Brown, an assistant professor of public health at the University of Arizona and an author of the research letter. "We've done phenomenal and amazing things with respect to infectious diseases," she says.

NPR

Infectious Diseases Keep Delivering Surprises To The U.S.

The death toll from pneumonia and other infectious diseases in the U.S. is much lower than it was 100 years ago, but new pathogens like the West Nile, dengue and Zika viruses pose challenges.

Vaccination

Strategic vaccination campaigns have virtually eliminated diseases that previously were common in the United States, including diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, and Haemophilus influenzaetype b meningitis (8). With the licensure of the combined diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccine in 1949, state and local health departments instituted vaccination programs, aimed primarily at poor children. In 1955, the introduction of the Salk poliovirus vaccine led to federal funding of state and local childhood vaccination programs. In 1962, a federally coordinated vaccination program was established through the passage of the Vaccination Assistance Act--landmark legislation that has been renewed continuously and now supports the purchase and administration of a full range of childhood vaccines.

The success of vaccination programs in the United States and Europe inspired the 20th-century concept of "disease eradication"--the idea that a selected disease could be eradicated from all human populations through global cooperation. In 1977, after a decade-long campaign involving 33 nations, smallpox was eradicated worldwide--approximately a decade after it had been eliminated from the United States and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. Polio and dracunculiasis may be eradicated by 2000.

Antibiotics and Other Antimicrobial Medicines

Penicillin was developed into a widely available medical product that provided quick and complete treatment of previously incurable bacterial illnesses, with a wider range of targets and fewer side effects than sulfa drugs. Discovered fortuitously in 1928, penicillin was not developed for medical use until the 1940s, when it was produced in substantial quantities and used by the U.S. military to treat sick and wounded soldiers.

Antibiotics have been in civilian use for 57 years (see box 1) and have saved the lives of persons with streptococcal and staphylococcal infections, gonorrhea, syphilis, and other infections. Drugs also have been developed to treat viral diseases (e.g., herpes and HIV infection); fungal diseases (e.g., candidiasis and histoplasmosis); and parasitic diseases (e.g., malaria). The microbiologist Selman Waksman led much of the early research in discovering antibiotics (see box 2). However, the emergence of drug resistance in many organisms is reversing some of the therapeutic miracles of the last 50 years and underscores the importance of disease prevention.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4829a1.htm

Edited August 6Aug 6 by Moon99

30 minutes ago, Moon99 said:

I can’t get data on it.

But in the US 100 years ago there is data on it.

That's a big change from 1900, when infectious diseases like pneumonia, tuberculosis and diarrhea accounted for almost half of all deaths. The historical decline represents great progress in sanitation, antibiotic discovery and vaccination programs, says Heidi Brown, an assistant professor of public health at the University of Arizona and an author of the research letter. "We've done phenomenal and amazing things with respect to infectious diseases," she says.

NPR

Infectious Diseases Keep Delivering Surprises To The U.S.

The death toll from pneumonia and other infectious diseases in the U.S. is much lower than it was 100 years ago, but new pathogens like the West Nile, dengue and Zika viruses pose challenges.

Vaccination

Strategic vaccination campaigns have virtually eliminated diseases that previously were common in the United States, including diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, and Haemophilus influenzaetype b meningitis (8). With the licensure of the combined diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccine in 1949, state and local health departments instituted vaccination programs, aimed primarily at poor children. In 1955, the introduction of the Salk poliovirus vaccine led to federal funding of state and local childhood vaccination programs. In 1962, a federally coordinated vaccination program was established through the passage of the Vaccination Assistance Act--landmark legislation that has been renewed continuously and now supports the purchase and administration of a full range of childhood vaccines.

The success of vaccination programs in the United States and Europe inspired the 20th-century concept of "disease eradication"--the idea that a selected disease could be eradicated from all human populations through global cooperation. In 1977, after a decade-long campaign involving 33 nations, smallpox was eradicated worldwide--approximately a decade after it had been eliminated from the United States and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. Polio and dracunculiasis may be eradicated by 2000.

Antibiotics and Other Antimicrobial Medicines

Penicillin was developed into a widely available medical product that provided quick and complete treatment of previously incurable bacterial illnesses, with a wider range of targets and fewer side effects than sulfa drugs. Discovered fortuitously in 1928, penicillin was not developed for medical use until the 1940s, when it was produced in substantial quantities and used by the U.S. military to treat sick and wounded soldiers.

Antibiotics have been in civilian use for 57 years (see box 1) and have saved the lives of persons with streptococcal and staphylococcal infections, gonorrhea, syphilis, and other infections. Drugs also have been developed to treat viral diseases (e.g., herpes and HIV infection); fungal diseases (e.g., candidiasis and histoplasmosis); and parasitic diseases (e.g., malaria). The microbiologist Selman Waksman led much of the early research in discovering antibiotics (see box 2). However, the emergence of drug resistance in many organisms is reversing some of the therapeutic miracles of the last 50 years and underscores the importance of disease prevention.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4829a1.htm

Good, so now you've got some insight into the answer to your original question, plus the knowledge that the big change was actually not at the end of the Middle Ages as you originally assumed, but between about 1850 and 1950. (I rowed at school with a guy who had a withered leg from polio - he was born in 1954, like me, but had somehow missed the vaccination that I had been given. So that time was about the end of polio cases in the UK.)

Edited August 6Aug 6 by exchemist

3 hours ago, m_m said:

And I think no, you can't compare ages.

You can compare e.g. mortality rates, and medical solutions. Which we did. See? That was pretty straightforward.

3 hours ago, m_m said:

Because there were no modern instruments in previous times. Their medicine was modern for them.  People dealt with diseases with the means they had.

We can’t compare them to see the differences because they’re different? Your “logic” escapes me.

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

Define "better". What has been discussed was infant mortality. So better in this context, I presume, would be lower.

Where is your sampling? The original data? What eras and diseases are you comparing mortality rates from?

And the most important question: what for?? They didn't have today's medicine. People used what they had.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

We can’t compare them to see the differences because they’re different?

Exactly. And I'm sure we can apply the term evolution here. Folks apply this term everywhere. And if evolutionary processes have occurred, medicine has just changed. It was a change, not development.

Likewise, you can't compare man and an ape, they are different.

14 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Hopefully someone who's lived for over 25 years in sub-saharan Africa, and has the odd bout of malaria now and then will chime in.

Countries with highest infant mortality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates

Lowest LEB https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/#google_vignette

LEB was about 35 in the middle ages so you are better off in Chad today then you were then.