is it true that in the 1600s 50% of the children died young?

Answer 1

That's not a surprise; it's one reason why large families were common back then. Modern medicine and greater attention to hygiene have dramatically reduced infant and child mortality.

In addition, the 17th century saw an epidemic of bubonic plague. In London in 1665, an estimated 75,000 died in a population of 460,000 ... that's one in six in one year alone.

Answer 2

I don't know if the % is right but it was high. This was also the main reason children were treated more like chattle. The depression resulting otherwise would be to much to bear. Charles Dickens had children classified as animals in order to give them some protection under the law.

Answer 3

If you mean that in previous centuries, people often died younger than they do, now, then yes, it's true.

It does not mean that EVERYBODY died young. There are plenty of verifiable records that some folks lived past the age of 100.

Still, during the times of pioneer western expansion, colonial period and during the middle ages, many, MANY people died of illnesses and injuries that are routinely survivable in the present. Lack of medical care is one reason, and the fact that pioneer and other primitive forms of existance was extremely harsh and dangerous.

Answer 4

And a large percentage of their mothers died in child birth.

Answer 5

we don't know since they didn't have any statistic's, but that lots of children must have died in result of lake of medicine, or dissent food or clouding is possible.

Answer 6

If they die as children, that would make them young, huh?