Hygiene after the Norman Invasion of England?

[24thRegiment]

I've been curious about what happened to hygiene after the Norman Invasion of England. As Saxons and Vikings bathed regularly, what happened in the Middle Ages when personal hygiene was very rare i.e Richest people in the country bathing around 4 times a year and peasants almost never. Anyone know what happened?

[River Lord]

I don't even believe that neither Saxons nor Vikings bathed regularly. Ibn Fadlan clearly describes Vikings and tells how dirty they are and says; They are the filthiest of all Allah’s creatures: they do not purify themselves after excreting or urinating or wash themselves when in a state of ritual impurity after coitus and do not even wash their hands after food.

So, nothing changed. They were filthy and remained same after Norman invasion.

[24thRegiment]

You may be right but i remember reading that Vikings often had Steam Baths and Saxons were often frowned on if they were filthy?
http://www.history.com/news/history-...ut-the-vikings
viking hygiene.

[River Lord]

That sounds great source... Ibn Fadlan lived with them and I take his words as truth not History channel. Ibn Fadlan wasn't saying just bad things about them. He says their physics are great but when it comes to hygiene, well, you know what he was thinking.

[Cyclops]

Firstly a viking is a verb, not a national identity. If you are talking about cultural traits like health and hygiene habits it helps to call these people Norse which is what they were.

I am pretty sure the criticism of the Norse offered in the quote above by Ibn Fadlan refers to ritual impurity rather than hygiene, so while I agree with River Lord, the quote is probably irrelevant. Elsewhere the Islamic explorer records Norse shared the same washbowl to blow their noses into, so you're definitely right, he is a source on a lack of Norse hygiene, not that they were clean: he finds them disgusting.

OTOH referencing site that offers a "top ten things you may not know about the Vikings" is hardly a worthwhile source. This is born out by the points (number two will make you wince with embarrassment for the idiot that wrote it). Citing the presence of ear cleaners as evidence of not being smelly, and baldly stating that "Vikings" (as this was an ethonym) "also bathed at least once a week—much more frequently than other Europeans of their day" is patent stupidity. In the so called "Viking Era" 793-1066 the city of Konstantinopolous Nea Rome and its empire which was established across a great extent of Europe had public baths which had in many cases most likely been in continuous operation for well over a thousand years as part of a culture of personal grooming exalted in Hellenic and Roman society.

The ritual purity demanded by Islam was buttressed in their European dominions in Iberia by the existence of public baths there too. I imagine there's about as much evidence for Slavic and Baltic steam baths as Norse ones, but as a source is not offered for this laughable claim its hard to tell: if its Ibn Fadlan he explicitly states they splash their faces and spit into a common bowl, its not a bath.

The raiders commonly termed Vikings were wandering Norse men seeking wives, plunder and/or (usually and) trade. By definition seafarers especially in cold Northern oceans do not have the hygiene opportunities their non-Viking Norse relative had, let alone cultures that actually had bathtubs. They were gangs of young men up to little or no good, soaking wet on a hard voyage follow by either a hurried transaction or a savage raid. Washing anything was a low priority in this worldview.

The presence of combs in archaeological deposits means the Norse may have had straight hair but that says nothing about whether it was washed. I'd also note combs can serve as decorative item,s, pushed into braids or other elaborate hairstyles. Once again, this may indicate some grooming but not necessarily cleaning, and these are not the same thing. There's also the possibility they were all stolen from someone who cared about grooming, and never used by the Norse as anything but loot to be piled up or buried in a hoard.

Clickbait rubbish is no basis for an intelligent conversation. There are other equally implausible citations (albeit with a few slim references) about Norse cleanliness scattered about the net: they use a handful of sources (such as the polemic attributed to the "Abbott of St Albans", as if a sermon about seduction by foreigners is a valid source for discussing this subject) to reach dubious conclusions about "the Vikings" vs "the Saxons" as if suspect and isolated citations establish unequivocal facts about the relative cleanliness of entire peoples.

[athanaric]

I've been curious about what happened to hygiene after the Norman Invasion of England. As Saxons and Vikings bathed regularly, what happened in the Middle Ages when personal hygiene was very rare i.e Richest people in the country bathing around 4 times a year and peasants almost never. Anyone know what happened?

What's your source for all these assumptions, though?

That sounds great source... Ibn Fadlan lived with them and I take his words as truth not History channel. Ibn Fadlan wasn't saying just bad things about them. He says their physics are great but when it comes to hygiene, well, you know what he was thinking.

He's a primary source though and that also means you have to subject him to source criticism, like all other primary sources. In addition, he didn't get to see all Vikings/Norsemen. IIRC the vikings he met were just that, a band of roving warriors and merchants.


I don't believe that any of these peoples, whether Norse, Anglo-Saxons, or continental Europeans were particularly unhygienic in their lifestyle. Logic dictates that people bathe, and wash, whenever they can.

[River Lord]

He's a primary source though and that also means you have to subject him to source criticism, like all other primary sources. In addition, he didn't get to see all Vikings/Norsemen. IIRC the vikings he met were just that, a band of roving warriors and merchants.


I don't believe that any of these peoples, whether Norse, Anglo-Saxons, or continental Europeans were particularly unhygienic in their lifestyle. Logic dictates that people bathe, and wash, whenever they can.

Of course he didn't live with entire Norse society but there was a big Viking community in the place he used to travel. He actually gives more details, not just seeing them once telling things about them. His words about Turks also not very lovely lol. Well, when considering that he's from Arabia, it's normal to belittle other peoples because Arabia was main source of knowledge and enlightenment and since they're Muslims, being clean is extremely important. When you compare such people to Europeans, well, Europeans were nothing but bunch of dirty, savage, ignorant people. You may think I'm exaggerating but I don't think I do.

[athanaric]

Of course he didn't live with entire Norse society but there was a big Viking community in the place he used to travel. He actually gives more details, not just seeing them once telling things about them. His words about Turks also not very lovely lol.

Yes I know. The point is that he didn't encounter all Norsemen (or Turks) in all social contexts, and that these were people far from their actual homes.

Well, when considering that he's from Arabia, it's normal to belittle other peoples because Arabia was main source of knowledge and enlightenment and since they're Muslims, being clean is extremely important.

Being ritually clean, as per the specific instructions of Islam. And as most Arabs come from the deserts, it's obvious that they highly valued water.
Also, Arabia (the peninsula) wasn't the "main source of knowledge and enlightenment", the Middle East was (and that's not even taking into account China, India, and Byzantium).

When you compare such people to Europeans, well, Europeans were nothing but bunch of dirty, savage, ignorant people. You may think I'm exaggerating but I don't think I do.

See now you're talking in cultural topoi again. You'll never have a meaningful historical discussion unless you find hard evidence to back up such arguments. Particularly when it comes to washing and basic hygiene, which is something that all sane people appreciate, regardless of how primitive their culture might be.

[Roma_Victrix]

See now you're talking in cultural topoi again. You'll never have a meaningful historical discussion unless you find hard evidence to back up such arguments. Particularly when it comes to washing and basic hygiene, which is something that all sane people appreciate, regardless of how primitive their culture might be.

Dude, even the ancient Celts bathed, WITH SOAP! Which they happened to invent, by the way.

This thread is truly exasperating, especially with the ready conflation of Anglo-Saxons with Vikings. I'm glad to see there's at least no assumption that bathing ended altogether when the Western Roman Empire collapsed (thankfully the Byzantine Empire has only been mentioned in passing...for shame if anyone thought they didn't bathe). Contrary to popular belief that seems to have sadly manifested itself in this thread, public bathhouses continued to exist in Europe, even in the freaking Early Middle Ages. If anything their use only expanded with the Crusader knights returning to Europe from the Levant in the High Middle Ages and bringing with them the bathhouse culture of the Arabs. Yet public bathhouses were for the poor and middle classes; the rich, nobility, and especially freaking royalty had their own private baths. And contrary to the garbage that has been spewed here about Nordic peoples, historical sources and archaeology inform us that the sauna was used throughout Scandinavia and Slavic countries by the High Middle Ages.

How do you guys not know this? This is basic, basic stuff. This whole misconception in the modern mind that medieval people did not bathe is most likely borne out by the cultural changes of the Protestant Reformation and inauguration of the Early Modern Period, the 16th century, when bathing went on the decline from its previous widespread practice. Much of that has to do with the switch from woolen to linen garments that allowed one to keep a relatively spotless appearance, but also due to the religious fervor (promoted mostly by the Protestants but also by some Catholics) centered around bathhouses and their connection to brothels and sin. That's right. People in the 16th century were more prude than their predecessors. That absolutely changed during the course of the 18th century Enlightenment, when bathhouses returned in vogue throughout Europe.

[sumskilz]

Dude, even the ancient Celts bathed, WITH SOAP! Which they happened to invent, by the way.

I'm skeptical about the inventing, unless they did so separately. There is an Old Babylonian cuneiform tablet from c. 2800 BC that has a recipe for soap. We don't know their word for soap at the time because it's written with a Sumerogram (NAGA), but that means that soap was probably invented much earlier even. The first time we have an Akkadian word for soap (Neo-Babylonian), it's sapān.

Now keep in mind, the following shifts are common in Semitic languages:

s > ṣ
ṣ > s
p > b
b > p

Old Akkadian:
ṣuppû = to soak
suppālu = juniper oil (which they used in soap making)

Neo-Babylonian:
sapān = soap

Aramaic:
ṣabūn = soap

Hebrew:
ṣabōn = soap

Arabic:
ṣābūn = soap

Here is an alternative etymology, but look at the words in the Romance languages. They are closer to the Semitic words than the proposed PIE etymology.

[Roma_Victrix]

I'm skeptical about the inventing, unless they did so separately. There is an Old Babylonian cuneiform tablet from c. 2800 BC that has a recipe for soap. We don't know their word for soap at the time because it's written with a Sumerogram (NAGA), but that means that soap was probably invented much earlier even. The first time we have an Akkadian word for soap (Neo-Babylonian), it's sapān.

Now keep in mind, the following shifts are common in Semitic languages:

s > ṣ
ṣ > s
p > b
b > p

Old Akkadian:
ṣuppû = to soak
suppālu = juniper oil (which they used in soap making)

Neo-Babylonian:
sapān = soap

Aramaic:
ṣabūn = soap

Hebrew:
ṣabōn = soap

Arabic:
ṣābūn = soap

Here is an alternative etymology, but look at the words in the Romance languages. They are closer to the Semitic words than the proposed PIE etymology.

Interesting, but according to Willcox (2000) the ancient Babylonians only created a "soap-like" substance using oils other than animal fats, not soap proper. The same rule applies to the ancient Egyptians, unless you have a source that says they used a comparable soap to the Celts and Germanic peoples.

Meanwhile, Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis of the 1st century AD is among the first sources to explicitly mention soap proper being made from tallow (animal fats) and used extensively by the Gauls and Germans. The Romans used a sponge (i.e. the strigil) to clean themselves while bathing, whereas Gallic soap seems to have been used marginally as an import. This had apparently changed by the 2nd century AD given Galen's approval of using soap in cleaning the body.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

Interesting, but according to Willcox (2000) the ancient Babylonians only created a "soap-like" substance using oils other than animal fats, not soap proper. The same rule applies to the ancient Egyptians, unless you have a source that says they used a comparable soap to the Celts and Germanic peoples.

It should be noted that many peoples have made the same or similar inventions independently. The Celts didn't use mesopotamian soap, nor did the Mesopotamians use celtic one. And no one used the chinese printing press, including, surprisingly, the Chinese themselves.

[sumskilz]

Interesting, but according to Willcox (2000) the ancient Babylonians only created a "soap-like" substance using oils other than animal fats, not soap proper. The same rule applies to the ancient Egyptians, unless you have a source that says they used a comparable soap to the Celts and Germanic peoples.

Meanwhile, Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis of the 1st century AD is among the first sources to explicitly mention soap proper being made from tallow (animal fats) and used extensively by the Gauls and Germans. The Romans used a sponge (i.e. the strigil) to clean themselves while bathing, whereas Gallic soap seems to have been used marginally as an import. This had apparently changed by the 2nd century AD given Galen's approval of using soap in cleaning the body.

Ah okay, seems like a word game. I figured oil + water + alkali = soap, since we call Castile soap "soap". I get the distinction Wilcox is making though, but I feel microaggressed by it.

[Roma_Victrix]

It should be noted that many peoples have made the same or similar inventions independently. The Celts didn't use mesopotamian soap, nor did the Mesopotamians use celtic one. And no one used the chinese printing press, including, surprisingly, the Chinese themselves.

This isn't a game of semantics or the difference between 11th-century Chinese-style movable type printing and Gutenberg's 15th-century printing press. Either something is soap or it is not. Even the Romans used oils (even olive oil) when bathing and wiping dirt from their body using the strigil, but we do not call the early substances that they used as soap. Soap is made from fatty acids derived from animals. It is the key component in making soap, which apparently the Gauls and/or the Germanic peoples figured out by the time of the 1st century AD at the very least. And we know this thanks to Pliny the Elder and Greco-Roman authors who followed him.

Even when bathing was on the decline in the 17th century, soap was still produced for bathing, albeit richer people now had better access to bathing with many of the public bathhouses having been closed down. For instance, according to Simmons (Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, London, 1915) in 1622 James I of England arranged for a yearly sum of 20,000 pounds paid to a company that would hold a monopoly on making soap, 3,000 tons of it a year that is.

As for medieval towns, it is common knowledge that they had bathhouses. Paris had thirty-two of them for both men and women. We know this thanks to a variety of sources, even city ordinances banning lepers and other undesirables from entering them; see Pennsylvania State University's Duiker and Spielvogel (2012). So no, the Normans and anyone else from France going to England during the High Middle Ages wouldn't be responsible for wiping out bathing traditions. To be honest I'm not sure where the OP got his ideas. It's pretty hard to ruin an OP that's already this flawed to begin with.

All sorts of information about medieval bathhouses can be gleaned from sources that are available online. For instance, James M. Murray's Bruges: Cradle of Capitalism, 1280-1390 (Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 340 plus various footnotes. He makes clear that Bruges was no exception from other medieval European cities in the 13th and 14th centuries, in that men owned the bathhouses and women operated them. He also stresses their connection to prostitution (which later became a concern when shutting them down in the Early Modern period), and gives intricate details about their financing and costs, even the names of the owners and patrons of specific bathhouses in the city.

Ah okay, seems like a word game. I figured oil + water + alkali = soap, since we call Castile soap "soap". I get the distinction Wilcox is making though, but I feel microaggressed by it.

Willcox...sounds like the name of a microagressor!