837
Generations (lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] turdas@suppo.fi 104 points 2 days ago

The average mother having their average daughter at an average of 25 is historically probably quite an overestimate. 20 would be a much safer guess, but there's a good chance it's lower than that too.

Doesn't change the math that much though, easily less than a thousand generations since the advent of agriculture either way.

[-] dfyx@piefed.social 60 points 1 day ago

Surprisingly no. At least in central and western Europe, child marriages were very much a nobility thing. Securing alliances and such. And even for those the first child may well have been much later.

I don’t have an individual statistic on hand but https://fakehistoryhunter.net/2026/01/18/age-of-marriage-giving-birth-in-medieval-europe/ has collected a bunch of sources that suggest that the usual age of first marriage in medieval Europe for women was around their mid 20s, pretty much the same as today.

[-] turdas@suppo.fi 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm not talking about child marriage. Traditionally women were considered to be of marrying age at around 15 or 16 (note that this doesn't mean they got married at exactly this age -- it means the lower bound). The blog you link seems to be intentionally or unintentionally conflating child marriage (prepubescent girls) with marrying between 15 and 20. And indeed the sources it cites seem to largely support an average marrying age of around 20 for women until the 17th century.

This is also of course only for the medieval period, which is relatively recent all things considered. That still leaves 8500 years unaccounted for until the advent of agriculture, and during those 8500 years it's far more likely for women to have given birth to their first child younger rather than older than in the medieval period.

[-] arrow74@lemmy.zip 3 points 23 hours ago

Although interestingly we have to take into account how many children were born per woman and until what age. Then we have to consider how many survived.

This would push the average age above that of the average age of first childbirth. The child must survive to eventually descend to you. I don't think it makes the age 25, but likely higher than 15

[-] ButteryMonkey@piefed.social 31 points 1 day ago

Lots of babies and children died before adulthood though, so its actually not a bad bet for 25 as an average birthing age for one that survives to adulthood. Not that every woman would lose her first 2 kids or whatever but enough certainly did to drive the average up somewhat from what it would be with modern medicine.

[-] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 19 points 1 day ago

Always remember: these people were DNA-identical to us. All this life-saving, life-extending, life-improving technology... is always just 2-3 generations from poof

[-] gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago

i think it's also worth noting that a whole lot of children basically died due to malnutrition ... think about it. contraception was not existent, so if a woman gets pregnant 8 times, but the family can only feed 2 children, that effectively means that 6 would essentially starve (or die due to other "preventable" diseases, but actually the better prevention than modern medicine is just food, since enough food strengthenes the immune system).

even if you had modern medicine at the time, children would still starve; the thing that really drives down child mortality is just a lower birth-rate altogether, since the family can still feed 2 children, regardless of whether they actually make 2 or 8 babies.

[-] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 22 hours ago

Also decreases in available food impacts fertility and menstrual cycles. If you had very little food you are likely to start menstruation later in life. If you have a hard time getting food you can have an irregular cycle leading to less ovulation periods per year

[-] Emerald@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Can confirm. My great grandma told me she got married at 18 which made her an "old maid" at the time

[-] mister_flibble@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

Tbf, it was also far more common for people to have a shitload of kids, which takes time and thus would mean the mother was a fair bit older for the youngest few. My grandma was the youngest of 12 and her mother was well into her 40s when she was born.

[-] saltesc@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Yeah. As society becomes more complex, maturity and preparedness comes much later. "Growing up" takes much longer.

Go back a thousand years, things were much simpler. There was less to navigate and learn so "the real world" started much earlier.

Look at any other creature without society and see how their life unfolds. They're "adult" very quickly because within a short time they've got enough figured out to go out into the world alone.

Meanwhile, we're now at a point where it's normal to have a first child in the 30s and 40s, feeling completely unready.

[-] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

But they don't have a single kid, so the average age when giving birth is maybe higher

[-] gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

i looked that up a while ago and apparently the median age of first childbirth was around 21 or 22 for women, though this depends on wealth: wealthy people had children earlier (on average), going down to about 16-18 for many noble women.

poor people often didn't have children at all.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

[-] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 22 hours ago

poor people often didn't have children at all.

That's a poor claim to make. The European societies almost always were encouraged to marry off their daughters even the poor. I supposed slightly less men got married accounting for death rates and the possibility to remarry after your wife dies, but that vast majority of poor people that made it to adulthood had children. There was no contraception and women were married off the vast majority of the time.

this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2026
837 points (98.3% liked)

Microblog Memes

12396 readers
2597 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS