Rich Mayan houses were typically larger and made of stone or stucco, while poor Mayan houses were smaller and made of materials like wood and thatch. Rich houses often had multiple rooms, while poor houses were usually single-room structures. Additionally, rich houses had more amenities and decorative elements compared to poor houses.
Poor people's houses historically varied based on resources and location, but generally were more simple in construction using cheaper materials such as mud, thatch, or wood. These houses were often smaller in size and lacked amenities like electricity or plumbing, leading to more basic living conditions. However, the layout and design still aimed to provide shelter and protection for its inhabitants.
The wealth or poverty of Celts living in round houses would have varied depending on various factors such as their social status, occupation, land ownership, and access to resources. It is important to note that Celtic society was not homogenous, and there would have been considerable diversity in socioeconomic conditions among Celtic communities.
Poor Aztecs typically lived in small, basic homes made of adobe bricks or thatched roofs. These homes were often clustered together in villages and lacked amenities like running water and sanitation systems. They were simple structures designed to provide basic shelter for families.
The Aztec Indians lived in adobe houses made of mud bricks and thatched roofs. Their houses varied in size depending on the person's social status, with commoners living in smaller houses and nobles living in larger, more elaborate structures. The houses were organized in tight-knit neighborhoods with communal facilities and spaces.
Poor Victorian houses were typically constructed using inexpensive materials such as brick, wood, and corrugated iron for the roof. Interiors were often lined with basic plaster walls and floors made of simple, untreated timber. These houses would have had minimal decorative elements and would lack the ornate fixtures and finishes found in wealthier homes.
The differences between the poor houses and the rich houses were that the poor houses did not have fancy rooms or anything like that and the rich houses had store room lovely kitchen they had much better things then the poor houses
The differences between the poor houses and the rich houses were that the poor houses did not have fancy rooms or anything like that and the rich houses had store room lovely kitchen they had much better things then the poor houses
The poor house doesn't have some fancy rooms and the rich house has bathrooms , kitchen and lots of other stuff the poor Greeks don't have
Many Romans lived in fancy housing and had luxurious furniture while the poor had insulars[bad houses]. The rich Romans had awsome food and liked to show off.
=== === === === === ===
Clothes- poor- Men wore short garments called kilts women wor a dress attacheed to their shoulders children or slaves went naked rich- wore tunics houses- poor-homes made of mud bricks with about 4 rooms rich- houses with many rooms
The rich people had ornate and large homes. The poor had what they could afford. As more land became enclosed for raising sheep for wool, more people became poor and lost their homes. People were sometimes forced into workhouses.
Rich Romans lived in amazing houses poor Romans didn't. Rich Romans ate delectable food poor Romans didn't rich Romans had money poor ones didn't rich ones didn't work poor ones did but there is a difference between poor Romans and slaves were people who were very poor and were owned. and if you want to learn the difference between slaves and rich people or poor people and slaves i recommend going on to wikipedia it is a very advanced website that has about 20 A4 pages about every single precise subject.
they were poor
houses in Brazil are much different to houses in England. They're very cramped. Houses are very unclean. The houses are all close together with no space's in between them.
yes but not the poor kids
The rich generally have more economic and political power than the poor.