But is that the issue here? What does that sentence even mean, or add to the discussion?

The article quotes the historian as finding that peasants in 14th century England put in at most 150 days of work per year. This was, according to them, an abnormal period of especially large wages. That tangent in preen-day America bears little relevance. Also when you say "food was likely not plentiful (when it is, population explodes)", you're making a big oversimplification. There are other factors at work: diseases, warfare, etc.

And that's overlooking how hard mundane existence was: heat required collecting firewood, cooling was opening a window, cooking was over open indoor fires, food was hard to preserve, beds were scratchy/lumpy/hard, clothing was hand-made mostly from raw wool (clean, spin thread, weave, hand sew) so wardrobes were sparse, water was often dirty & diseased (beer was more necessity a la purified water than entertainment), etc.

Hence the point: the notion of "they had more vacation than we do" is a non-sequitur when our "work" would appeal to them as "luxury vacation", and their "vacation" was prolonged unemployment with few resources. You wouldn't trade your "work" for their "vacation".

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_w...

Does not sound like the actions of a group desperate for more work.

You could also cross bodies of water over the ice much easier with cattle or heavy loads (like wood, big game meat etc).

The core topic is "vacation", the concept of pleasurably not working while using reserves for sustenance. This in contrast primarily with "work" (the process of labor to create sustenance & reserves thereof), and raising the side contrast of "unemployment" (unable to produce sustenance, eating into reserves - or facing the prospect of none - in a decidedly UN-pleasurable situation).

Today we conflate "work" with "payment", as our society has become advanced enough that few indeed need produce the actual essentials of sustenance (ex.: by sitting here thinking for 8 hours, I can produce enough value to trade for a week's essentials - much more productive than simple gardening). The money (now mostly mere etherial bits, tacit agreements of trade) we earn should not obscure the fact that we're working for essential sustenance, plus surplus.

I grew up in a family which engaged in significant (though not complete) self-sufficiency. Heat? cut down trees, split logs, used wood stove. Food? grew half a year's vegetables & fruit. Clothing? made some of it, repaired much. That all wasn't "not working" just because a wage wasn't involved; it was hard work, not a vacation (and not unemployment).

The point was that if the people had employment opportunities, they'd be less likely to die from their own crops failing, either through acquiring savings during downtime to pay for food or being able to move out of farming when the crops failed. I mean, the seasonal pattern of agricultural labour still exists for millions in many developing countries, but none of them have any shortage of people who used to work on the land seeking work in their sweatshops.

> But is that the issue here? What does that sentence even mean, or add to the discussion?

I think the author of the article (not the author of the quoted research one level down) argues that an average medieval peasant had it better than an average modern worker; thus we should try to nudge in that direction, specifically by providing more vacation. Or at least that is how I read it and what the last sentence argues against. My 2c.

I'd go further than that. I would not want to swap positions with a 14th century monarch.

Sitting here in my study, I: teleconference with my team continent-wide, practically have more [e-]books than Vanderbilt's 25,000 volume library, enjoy a constant 74°F interior year-round, drink clean running water (so much available I literally irrigate my lawn & flush toilets with it), instant light & power, and can have darn near any product delivered to my door within 2 days flat. I may not have live-in servants but that's more a matter of law than ability (thanks, OSHA & minimum wage). Other luxuries would be nice, but are mostly impractical indulgences. ...and all this is available to practically anyone willing to get up & go to work.

Given all that, a 14th century peasant would consider my life a permanent vacation.

But the live-in servants have been replaced by external servants. People who are expected to be working when at 11pm I decide I want to eat a bite of food, yet are paid below what it takes to raise their own family and are working 2 jobs at once to make ends meet.

The boundary between nobility and servitude is more blurry, and yes there are a lot more ways to rise out of servitude than 7 centuries ago, but I'm reminded that all the niceties I currently enjoy are still coming at a price for those working in the system that supplies them to me.

Having lived in Europe and in the US, I'm aware that there's a tradeoff between having excellent service to the wealthy and decent living conditions to the poor.

The point of this thread: today's "decent living conditions to the poor" are now significantly on par with then-"excellent service to the wealthy". Outright luxuries, scale & elegance which doesn't really contribute to sustenance, remain a defining difference, but are more a matter of "money to burn" than contributing to survival & prosperity.

Let us not forget that your home would be staffed with a small militia of servants if you had to trade back your dishwasher, washing machine, dryer, fridge, and vacuum, etc.

On the other hand, power, especially over a large organization, and playing in a much bigger game is very interesting.

I spent 37 years largely without A/C, northern climate usually being below preferred room temperature. Heating, however, was essential. Moving south, both are surprisingly necessary as the area, while quite temperate on average, has annual temperature swings from about 25°F to 105°F - requiring HVAC.

Unless you're in an unusual situation, like high desert in a remarkably well-insulated home, I suspect HVAC is so prevalent in your life you've completely forgotten it's there out of familiarity. Mad King Ludwig of Neuchwuanstein Castle, however, would find much of the year uncomfortably cold - except that he'd completely forgotten it's there out of familiarity.

In fact, the only place where HVAC would be a "need" would be super cold climates, or super hot climates. Everything else is tolerable, just not comfortable. Plenty of places are hot, but people lived there just fine before we had electricity or any fancy cooling tech.

And a monarch would have more options for heating.

Traditionally heating was easier to come across than cooling, despite cooling taking less energy to have happen.

Now if you'd rather have a job which was notable in the 14th century, that's a different - and also interesting - discussion.

I never have. In fact if hospitals didn't exist and I never saw a doctor my entire life, I don't think anything would have changed.

I don't expect to live much longer than 60 as it is. Most 14th century monarchs, in the brief glance I did on Wikipedia before my answer, lived to 55 or 60 or so before they died of natural causes.

From this history.stackexchange[1] thread, on user found that the average age of death of monarchs to be 44 years in England. In the same thread it seem that it was 48.5 depending on how you made your calculation and 53.4 years if you made it to 20 year old. [1] -https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/43292/what-was-t...

FWIW: I’d have (probably) died from pneumonia at age 5 without modern medicine. In reality it was curable trivially.

That's the lifestyle explicitly being referred to when talking about swapping with a monarch.

And since we're talking 14th century, there was also that Black Death thing that killed about half the population of Europe.

As the article notes, peasant life consisted of working only part of the year, with longer workdays during harvest season, and short work days (or no work at all) during the rest of the year. In some climates, like the Pyrenees and the Alps, people essentially "hibernated" during the winter: they stayed indoors, lived off their food stores, and expended as little energy as possible.

Citing Graham Robb's The Discovery of France: 'An official report on the Nièvre in 1844 described Burgundian day-laborers thusly: '“After making the necessary repairs to their tools, these vigorous men will now spend their days in bed, packing their bodies tightly together in order to stay warm and eat less food. They weaken themselves deliberately.” Entering this inactive state was a physical and economic necessity. Lowering the metabolic rate prevented hunger from exhausting supplies.'

The time that they spent not working was not some leisurely edifying "vacation" that they enjoyed as a luxury; for French peasants in the 1700's and 1800's, being inactive was a survival strategy.

The parent article paints the time spent remaining inactive in a romantic light, remarking that "the medieval peasant took his sweet time eating meals, and the day often included time for an afternoon snooze." The reality is probably closer to the fact that he probably risked starvation if he regularly engaged in any sort of vigorous activity (no surplus calories to burn on frivolities like dancing or sports or other active forms of recreation), and it's quite possible that the afternoon naps may have felt more like an obligation than an opportunity to "relax." Lying around all day doing "nothing" sounds less like a vacation and more like a prison sentence (quite literally, in the sense that it probably resembles the life that some people live inside of modern prisons, doing essentially nothing as they wait for the days to pass).

The 14th century equivalent of unpaid vacation drinking malt liquor in a trailer isn’t my vision of a life of leisure.

Of course there are more serious traditions of pilgrimage, but people are people, and for every one with a deep connection to their faith, there are others who will use the excuse of pilgrimage for a break from the routine.

Going to music festivals is sort of like pilgrimage as well. But I definitely count it as vacation. People do classic pilgrimages and call that hiking vacation nowadays. Amateur sports events, especially multi-day stage ones, are totally like pilgrimage. You get together with people with common goal, do shit and hang out. I sure as hell count that as vacation.

You are looking at this from the perspective of an atheist living in 2018 and not a deeply religious medieval peasant.

Even including religious component, I don't really see how it differs much from e.g. pilgrimaging to music festivals. I've done quite a bit of traveling where solo task was to see a specific artist. I do count that as vacation :)

What is your definition of vacation? What specifically stops pilgrimage from being a vacation?

You might be conflating shightseeing and vacation as time-off. On top of that, you might want to look into how pilgrimage or other religious get togethers look like.

It's not like people come and pray and do nothing else. In most cases shopping and getting together with people from afar is involved. People have and always had natural needs like roof for the night and food. And rest during the day. If a bunch of people got together at night having a similar goal, they'll probably have a chat and maybe even party a little. There's a reason why many religious sights were surrounded by shopping and entertainment. Even a long time ago.

For example, the very simple act of sunday church. Back when traveling took time, it was certainly a day trip for rural people. It was pretty much a tiny conference or festival for them. That's why market square a frequently next to churches and markets are held on sunday. People come, shop, have a chat... And go to church while at it. I'm talking not only today, but from historical perspective too.

Talking about vacation only as "diversion", I guess quite a few of my vacations wouldn't count then. If I was going to a music festival, diversion itself wouldn't mean jackshit to me. I went to many festivals where I basically got to the location in cheapest possible way. Stayed on festival grounds and then got home in cheapest possible way. I saw no sights nor diversion itself was the point. But boy if it was vacation :)

Same about amateur racing. I get to the location, I race, get some food, sleep it off and go home. Sometimes terrain/location is part of signing up for the specific race. Sometimes I go there just because it's well organised and my friends are going. More likely than not no sights are seen nor I are about location aside from race track much.

Sometimes vacation is purely to get out of daily routine and jut spend time with myself. Diversion itself ain't the point either.

I don't see how amateur racing and attending a concert can meaningfully be distinguished from diversions.

Sure, a super religious nut might make it one. But usually a closest church would provide a fix for that. Let alone that not all were super deeply religious in medieval ages.

What "objective practical need" do you see in Camino de Santiago? [0] It's more or less a spiritual journey, meditation shall I say? And a significant chunk of modern tourism is based on that too. I could definitely say I had "objective practical need" to go to certain concerts or do certain trips. I find especially the later is great way at maintaining mental health and finding peace with oneself.

There's a good saying by bikers that "all you need to solve a problem is a tank of gas". Does it make motorcycle riding (e.g. motorcycle roadtrip vacation) an "objective practical need"?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camino_de_Santiago

Your average medieval peasant was much more afraid of his local nobility than of god. Good part of nobility was much more afraid of mortal repercussions rather than the underworld. And clergy... Let's say today's clergy with their scandals is not that different from medieval times.

Do you think protestantism could have happened if people were so deeply religious both towards god and church? Even though god was much more real to many more people, church (and to extent - pilgrimages and church mythology) was seen as separate from god in many cases. There was plenty of questioning going on throughout history.

This view may or may not be affected by the fact that christianity came to my country only in late medieval ages. And took couple hundred years to be established. With remains of the old worldview still surviving in popular culture. People were more than aware that church teaching is not the single one available.

I'm glad to have anesthesia, antibiotics, and so on, but if they lived as we do today, the Earth, seas, and air would have been choked with plastic, mercury, greenhouse gases, and so on centuries ago.

We're externalizing our costs to future generations, who will have to pay to clean up our messes, or live with them.

Would you prefer living in a way that leaves the Earth as clean as you found it? If so, are you? Why don't you?

Wars also took place in winter when the peasants had time off!

Medieval peasants, as far as I know, did drink a lot of beer.

Yes, because you exchange work for money, and exchange that money for machines that do the chores for you. That's what the last 300 years have given us.

Because back then beer was safer to drink than water.

The single most significant living improvement in rural America in the 20th Century was - rural electrification. Because the housekeeper got almost their entire Wednesday back, no longer spent out on the washing porch scrubbing at the washtub, cranking the wringer and hanging/gathering wet clothes at the line. My Mom for instance.

Interesting definition. Needs expansion to address the number of hours required to perform chores. Having more hours available to do laundry isn't better if laundry takes significantly more hours. Peasant may have had a whole day per week available to do laundry, but indeed expended that whole day doing it ... vs laundry taking me less than an hour per week.