It's cistern tragedy my dear lady. We have to buckle her up and stand at attention for that particular hour. I will the scapegoat there. Ruth is a booth. Stick it under there good day.

dont u think this is a theft? they didnt even give them any credit to the people who made this docu

It has its own Wikipedia page that lists the historians/reenactors! You can also get it on DVD (not if it is available outside the UK) :)

Oh my stars, ha! It’s SHEEP not SLEEP. (I just put my contacts in). 🙃

@@krbailess 🤣🤣🤣I read "Sheep" in your comment and was like: wtf, there were sheep everywhere!

Medieval people took baths at least once a week. And they would have washed they’re face everyday

urea isn't synthetic urine. urea is a chemical. urine does have urea in it, but they're not the same thing.

@@sethescope "About Synthetic Urea: How Was It Discovered, Who Did, And How Is It Manufactured Commercially by Ben Bareja Last Updated April 13, 2022 Synthetic urea refers to the urea that is produced artificially as distinguished from biosynthetic or natural urea. It is an industrial product that has found many applications but primarily as nitrogen fertilizer. Also described as synthetic or chemical fertilizer, it is an organic compound that is manufactured following an industrial process independent of living organisms. Natural and manufactured urea have the same chemical formula CO(NH2)2. However, natural urea is produced by living organisms, specifically, humans, other mammals, and other ureotelic organisms (excretes most nitrogen as urea; Mathews and Van Holde 1990) and subsequently excreted mostly in the urine. Pure urea was isolated from urine many years ago."

"The Discovery of Urea The discovery of natural urea preceded that of synthetic urea but the who and when seems not clearly established. The French chemist Hilaire Marin Rouelle (1718-1779) is commonly cited as the one who discovered urea. Accordingly, he isolated those colorless, odorless, crystalline substances in 1773 by boiling urine (Myers 2007). In 1797, French chemists Antoine François de Fourcroy (1755-1809) and Louis Nicolas Vauquelin (1763-1829) named the substance “urea” (Richet 1988). However, Dutch physician-chemist Hermann Boerhaave (1668-1738) seems to have described urea much earlier. According to Rosenfeld (2003), even before 1727 Boerhaave already obtained a crystalline residue from urine by heating, filtering, washing, and evaporating. He called it “the native salt of urine.” He noted that it differed from the sea salt (sodium chloride) which is also present in urine. Further, according to the same author, Rouelle’s extract was impure, and it was British physician-chemist William Prout (1785-1850) who, in 1817, isolated pure urea from urine. The Beginning of Synthetic Urea In 1828, German chemist Friedrich Wöhler (1800-1882) produced synthetic urea in the laboratory from inorganic compounds. He first heated a solution consisting of a mixture of silver cyanate (AgOCN) and ammonium chloride (NH4Cl). As shown below, this formed ammonium cyanate is also an inorganic compound (does not originate from living organisms). AgOCN + NH4Cl --> NH4OCN (ammonium cyanate) + AgCl But when ammonium cyanate was further heated, it produced clear, colorless, crystalline urea which has the same characteristics as urinary urea. It turned out that ammonium cyanate and urea have the same elemental composition (CH4N2O) and that heating of ammonium cyanate (NH4OCN) caused the atoms to rearrange resulting to its transformation into urea (H2N.CO.NH2). Wöhler’s teacher, Jöns Jacob Berzelius (1779-1848) who coined the term organic chemistry in 1807 for the study of compounds naturally produced by living organisms, likewise invented the term isomerism to describe the relation of distinct materials having identical elemental composition. Apparently, Wohler also discovered that an inorganic compound (ammonium cyanate) can be an isomer of an organic compound (urea). It was the first time that a substance of biological origin was synthesized artificially from inorganic compounds. It eventually led to a drastic change in the definition of organic compounds and to the birth of synthetic organic chemistry. Organic chemistry is now defined as the study of carbon compounds or carbon-containing compounds (Mark and the Editors of Time-Life Books 1966; Carey 1992; Myers 2007)."

I've found my geese are crap at successfully hatching eggs. I hatch them myself if I want to add to my flock

Don't think people could count in those days.

@@apolloniusbeitsman5444 They could count, yes. Especially the business savvy farmer and landowner. It's unfortunately a very common misconception that the common folk couldn't count. Otherwise, how would they sell or buy goods?

And the scrubbing part? That's how you turn fleece into felt! Agitate wet wool! Depending on how much scrubbing they did, they could have a heck of a time trying to card the stuff. Once felted, that's permanent!

Two things to consider 1 washing was about getting out months if not an entire years worth of matting of the wool. By comparison the silted mud of the pond bottom would be relatively minor. HOWEVER i cannot stress hard enough how their improvised and amateurish efforts would not have been tolerated by a career shepherd. A career shepherd of that time would have had a lifetime of experience at the craft, and the lifetimes of experience from their predecessors and the tools and furniture etc would have been well thought out. A stagnant pond would never have been even considered, instead a flowing stream with a down stream sheep gate and board ramp to boost the sheep onto and exit cleanly into a dry and sunny meadow. It would have been a team effort of multiple shepherd families and other helpers and any sheep that was not clean enough would have had a second dunking. Also washing might have occurred once a week for a whole month before sheering. These three were mostly going through the motions without their livelihood depending on the best possible outcome of their efforts

Hell no! Not unless I can take antibiotics with me.

@georgiafan - No. Cotton hadn’t been introduced and wasn’t ever going to be introduced to Britain bc the climate was (and is) completely wrong for growing it. People in the UK and Ireland grew flax to make linen, which was their version of cotton. Linen has been in use for thousands of years in countries all over the world.

Sheep gave them meat to eat, an fleece for clothing plus they provided a saleable product for trade. Much like if’s there was more usable products for the family.

It's too cold there to grow.

@@billysunday7507Sorry to burst your racist bubble, but plenty of white people also picked cotton.

Georgia fan….haven’t watched it yet but I’d like to put in my racial agitation mentality asap. Why was cotton, sugar and tobacco ever produced. Africans would have still been in Africa. How amazing would that be?

9:50

Basically, the same way they safeguarded themselves from diseases; they couldn't, so they didn't. You were lucky if half your babies survived childhood, and you were old at 40.

@@Butchinthewaikato I disagree. they didn't understand how disease actually worked, but they still tried to prevent it based on their limited understanding and with the tools they had available. one way they tried to keep themselves safe was drinking more ale and less water. they didn't understand what made some water less safe to drink because they didn't understand bacteria, but they did know that sometimes water made people sick, so they tended to drink more ale because people didn't get as sick when they drank that. there's also a lot of examples throughout history of people trying to keep themselves and their living environments as clean as they could. they didn't know why, but they did know people got sicker when they were in dirty conditions, so cleaning was an attempt to prevent illness.

Prayer. Useless prayer.

Where is the answer if any? Thanks.

If they had an extra son, he might be sent to a monastery.

formal schooling would have been very rare for farmers and for most people at the time. that being said, just because they didn't have formal schooling doesn't mean they didn't learn things. most people would have learned some very basic math so they could buy and sell things at markets. but education for most people would have been focused on gaining knowledge to help them survive. formal schooling would have been a waste of time for most people because they needed to be working on the farm so they wouldn't starve.

It's kind of silly to be watching amateurs do these tasks under the guise of education.

haha, the more you know

I'm guessing it was diluted, or was a weaker homebrew extraction.

Medieval extraction methods were far less sophisticated than modern rennet extraction, so it looks like more but is more diluted

Nah, probably poorly made rennet, much more dilute than modern, so you needed more. I can't see our lady house woman making that big a goof. Also, in another episode I saw her adding a huge amount of spice, but back then it was probably so old you had to add gobs to get any flavor, just like that really old bottle of spice many of us have on our shelves....😁

Imagine the boredom. Zero cat videos, no one to hear your complaints of being oppressed, no unboxing or selfies by the somewhat attractive.

Pretending that pushing sheep in a mud hole cleans them works for TV.

No only cheese, both sheep and goats were used to make curds and whey not sure why they never made butter other than it would take about 10-15 large ewes compared to only one cow.

So anglocentric.

It’s an English show. Get over it.

So you're appalled that a show produced in England covers the history of England? Do you think before you write anything?

@@albertoalejandrelara515I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic.

@@downtime86stars17 and how I am supposed to know it’s a British show?

the title is for search engine optimization (SEO), not accuracy. fewer people would have this video recommended to them (and thus fewer would watch) if the title was more accurate. it's important to take all historical "edutainment" with a grain of salt instead of expecting it to be rigorously educational.

Yes, right after 1492, resources from America flooded in. Or not.

As they did not give a year that I remember but talked about only the start of the Tudor period which is Henry VII not Henry VIII and if you really want to be correct Henry VII became king of England 537 years ago and Henry VIII became king 513 years ago.

@@dawsie henry 8 became a king in 1509 and its been said 500y ago

@@nutcase1 when they say "500 years ago," they're being intentionally general. saying the exact number of years would be too wordy and distracting. yes, it's technically inaccurate, but they're not trying to write a 100% accurate history paper. they're trying to give the average viewer - a viewer who is not an expert or overly knowledgeable about this historical period - a general sense of things. hopefully this helps explain the reason for their word choice!

Not really, he destroyed the very thing that helped the poor, the then government had to then , in turn create what we know as of todays standard the Social wealth-far as we know of it as today. But what he did do was create the written word for the English language that we know of today, as it was either French or Latin depending on your station in life. What he did was also the start of the great fall of the church as we know. People started to learn that the church did not control their very lives like they had first believed

The Catholic Church controlled/siphoned off about 30% of the wealth of the country. It owned that much land, and sent the profits to Rome instead of spending or investing in England (or whichever country). That had been one of the main reasons for rebellions against the Church for centuries. It had gotten to the point that nations did not have sovereignty in their own borders, the popes & prelates being all too involved in politics. With the English Reformation, that money and decision-making power stayed at home. The money certainly wasn't all spent with an eye to creating a more equitable society, but it opened up a lot of possibilities and made room for a lot of changes, good and not so good, that couldn't have happened otherwise. In addition, monks, priests, et al. held roles later filled by clerical and middle-class workers. Whether life became ''better'' depends on your personality, beliefs, goals, and socioeconomic status. It wasn't just closing down the monasteries, it was a fundamental re-ordering of society and most things in it.

This is how the Chinese live, with chicken, pig, and human excrement being eaten and creating new flus every year. I read an article about it, the Chinese government has tried to stop it, and animals going to market alive (because the Chinese don't trust one another that meat is fresh) continue the problem because live animals share viruses.

Well, sort of. Except it doesn't scan in Brit or Scot accent because ewe is pronounced yo (and used to be spelled yowe)

@@coop5329 that's okay it was a big hit in North America.

😳😳😳

I enjoy the evening before All Saints Day. It's called Halloween.

based on what's shown, these animals seem to be treated very well, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

William Shakespeare's Othello.

Why would you think that a video which is clearly about day-to-day farm life in rural England in the 1500s would discuss medieval European immigration patterns?

May Day riots, 1517

Right?! Like many content creators show a 5 second clip and they get slammed with copy right claims... all off the videos on this channel are stolen from the BBC. Or maybe this is channel is owned by the bbc?

The channel is part of it

This channel is part of the HistoryHit Network & have he rights.

It's the history Channel I'm sure they paid for it.

whether content is stolen depends on whether someone has permission to use it. if they have permission to use this content, it's not stolen. just because content originates with one corporation doesn't mean that anyone else using it is automatically stealing it.

This is not a movie but a doocumentary mainly focusing on three Historians/archeologists and the Tasks they are trying out. So there is really no need at all to put kids in this show. So shame yourself

There are a few episodes with children in it the harvest and Christmas feast for an example . But this is more equivalent to a 15th century version of Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe than either a fully authentic total immersion into the lifestyle or a Hollywood quality production

The site of the filming is actually a full live working Tudor village in England, now by todays laws they still can not put children to work in a working Tudor village, they would be braking the laws, now if it was a movie out of Hollywood then yes there would be children used in the film. We have working colonial villages in Australia and even they don’t have children working in them. As it stated at the beginning of the video it states it is following the lives of three people only, Ruth, John and Peter and how their lives were affected in the Tudor times not that of the lives of children