For about 99.99% of the people, not too swift. Unless you were the King or a highly placed political figure, you were born in to poverty, or near-poverty, worked like a dog every day of your life until you were maybe 35, and then you died. There was very little in the way of public health, sanitation or education. Life was short, brutish, unhealthy and dangerous. It was not good. Anybody who longs for the "good old days" is out of their mind.
The living conditions were horrible. They were sorta like the middle passage. Look it up on wikipedia
tons of music was played some were from different countries.
The life span of a person in the 1700s varied due to factors like access to healthcare, nutrition, and living conditions. On average, life expectancy was lower than today, with many people not living past their 40s or 50s. However, some individuals did live into their 60s, 70s, or even longer.
cloudy and could
they were really hard living conditions
WHAT WERE LIVING CONDITIONS FOR THE WOMEN IN 1600
In the 1700s, London was a bustling metropolis, characterized by rapid population growth and industrialization. However, living conditions were often poor, with overcrowded housing, inadequate sanitation, and frequent outbreaks of diseases like cholera and smallpox. The city was marked by stark social contrasts, with wealthy elites residing in grand homes while the working class lived in squalor. Additionally, pollution from factories and coal fires contributed to a dreary urban atmosphere.
cloudy and could
No I can not answer this question
lush
In Europe: 1) Saw it off. 2) Wound is infected. 3) You get something like gangrene. 4) You die.
New delhi living conditions are crowded with people and have large sewage problems.