As everything, it is relative. Based in our standard, they did not smelt bad, it was awful! But, since everybody had more or less the same odor, for them was not bad, it was natural. If they smell a person today, with one fragrance for shampoo, another for soap, another for our clothes, another for perfume, another for toothpaste, mouthwash, etc, etc, we are the one with a nauseous smell...
2006-12-14 01:51:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Victoria 4
·
16⤊
4⤋
Well, we know that they were unable to wash as regularly as we do now. Of course, I think the smell issue is a matter of what we are currently comfortable with.
Today, we usually bathe daily and wear clean clothes. Then, due to a lack of running water, hot water, etc. they bathed less often and wore clothing more than once before washing. In the past, I am sure it took more than the norm for someone to be considered "stinky". :)
2006-12-14 02:13:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by HarmNone 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Logically, like from rarely washing at all (let alone with soap), and often living in close proximity to animals (keeping chickens in the house etc), and walking on streets on which everyone chucked their chamberpot contents! Although they wouldn't have thought they smelt so bad as they were used to it. And the richer ones would have made an effort to scent their clothes, but considering people had a lot less material comfort in those days i doubt they cleaned their clothes much (many would have have only a couple of outfits if that).
2006-12-14 03:40:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Nikita21 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Just imagine you don't go for a wash for 7 days, and in the meantime you you go to the gym once every day to sweat a lot, and never change you clothes during those 7 days. At the end of the week, you'll pong so much that nobody will want to go near you! Not to mention that they lived with other animals that also stank, they didn't have toilets and no perfumes or anything that may mask the smell. You can imagine just how stinky they were, but not to each other. They were used to it.
2006-12-14 01:46:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Luvfactory 5
·
6⤊
1⤋
I have read sources that talked about people actually stripping down and taking a complete bath, usually in a river or stream, only about twice a year. So you can imagine the stench was probably pretty bad. Smell you own armpits after a week of no bath and multiply that by 52 and you can get an idea.
2006-12-14 03:11:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by Kokopelli 7
·
5⤊
1⤋
I always tell my students the one thing we cannot recreate about the past is the smells, and thank God!. They didn't have sanitation technology or laws back then. They didn't have toothpaste or deodorant either. We could recreate the scene and have a person live just as a person did back then taking a bath once a season and eating the same foods, etc and see what happens I suppose. Betcha the smell wouldn't be fantastic.
2006-12-14 02:12:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by Vegas_v 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Try not taking a bath for a week and see what you smell like. In Europe it was common not to bathe for weeks at a time. Interestingly, in the Americas at the very same time, the Indians often bathed at least once, possibly twice a day!
2006-12-14 01:47:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Try living with no bathroom or toilet, clean water or washing machines and only one or two sets of clothes whilst working in a muddy field seven days a week and believing that bathing/washing is so unhealthy that even the most daring sorts only did it once or twice a year.
I guarantee you will stink to high heaven.
2006-12-14 01:54:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
This was how Shakespeare described a crowd of his time (although technically it was a Roman crowd, in "Julius Caesar":
Casca. . . . "And then he offered it the third time. He put it the third time by; and still as he refused it, the rabblement hooted, and clapped their chapped hands, and threw up their sweaty nightcaps, and uttered such a deal of stinking breath because Caesar refused the crown that it had, almost, choked Caesar; for he swooned and fell down at it. And for mine own part, I durst not laugh, for fear of opening my lips and receiving the bad air." Those are the words of someone who was familiar with body odour!
Cardinal Wolsey famously carried a pomander because he couldn't stand the stench of the poor people around him. The pomander was worn or carried in a fase, also known by the same name, as a protection against infection in times of pestilence or merely as a useful article to modify bad smells.
2006-12-14 02:19:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Doethineb 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
In Medieval times most of the clothing was made from wool, as the wool used would be ruined if they tried to wash them, they simply refrained from doing so due to the expense of the materials.
For the same reasons shirts especially were often left to family members, so on occasions you could be wearing a shirt that could have belonged to your dead father or even grand father.
2006-12-14 01:57:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by Hendo 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
well, i am a member of a medieval battle re-enactment group, and we aim to recreste the lfestyles of the people we portray as accurately as possible. I can tell you that we did a week long show, living authentically and in authentic tents. that meant no toothpaste, showers etc, sitting around and cooking near o wood fire, etc. And Surprisingly, you smell more of wood smoke than you do anything else.We obviously smelled worse than 21st century people, but not as horse manure ridden as you may think.
2006-12-14 03:45:36
·
answer #11
·
answered by banjo 2
·
5⤊
2⤋