Usmc common 30 tool set

TBF there are many types of smiths, so maybe that's why: blacksmith, goldsmith, tinsmith, coppersmith, etc. Probably not; the odds are very high that the name "Smith" or any analogue like "Kuznets" originally refers to a blacksmith. Most metalwork is ironwork. According to Mencken's The American Language any metalworking job qualified one for the surname. I remember him talking about how access to a ship even if over long distance with a good machine shop was critical to just get locals up and running with basic metal tools for everyday use and medical uses.

It reminded me of the importance of a local blacksmith and such. I learned a lot about the production and manufacturing of metal iron items. If I recall correctly, for iron production, a lot of people are involved in obtaining the fuel wood, ash, charcoal and not so many blacksmiths are necessary. Same, also surprised there how highly butcher ranks with baker not even in the to I had the impression that meat was a luxury in Medieval times.

Maybe paying someone else to make your bread is even more luxurious. I wonder if people who ran communal ovens, where you bring your own dough ready-to-bake and then take it out after it cooks, were counted as "bakers". Blacksmith wasn't a major job until the s when industrial revolution made the job possible. In the s a blacksmith should made nothing: everything was made in a factory and the blacksmith just did the final fitting or repair work.

Sure they could and did do some custom decorative stuff, but only the rich could afford that. Before then a city might have a couple in employee of the noble to make armor or swords, but the common person did without, or handed down tools until they couldn't be used at all.

In a village a blacksmith was a side job of a talented farmer, but it couldn't pay the bills as nobody could afford to buy much custom made metal. In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales there is a smith in the Miller's Tale, who worked on farming equipment: plow harness, shares, and coulters. Unless my Middle English is more forgotten than I thought. Sure there were self-learners that expanded their trade to supply others for coin.

One often had to dedicate themselves to it exclusively. Farming tools? Wood working rools? Tools for builders? All made a blacksmith of sorts. Those making arms and armor where a highly specialized bunch. That being said, arms manufacturing was a very well developed industry during tue middle ages. Including general contractors, cuttlers, in case of weapons that coordinated the work of the people making the blades, the handles, the scarbords and dis the heat treatment.

If anything, the classic blacksmith went into decline during yhe industrial revolution. With tools, weapons and everyday stuff being mass produced in a factory somewhere. Weren't bladesmiths a separate profession? I was under the impression that blacksmiths were your run of the mill iron workers, especially considering that a good blade could take far longer to produce than a blacksmith might be able to devote time to. Slapping a wedge of metal on a pole and calling it a pike could be done by anyone though, I suppose.

Jaruzel 38 days ago root parent prev next [—]. So who shoe-d the horses then, was it the farmers? That would be a farrier, which is a sort of specialized blacksmith. That said, sure, farmers can and do! I suspect that the ranking is somewhat distorted by the data source: every person working in the general field of notary would be represented in those lists of taxed household heads, whereas in e.

And I suspect that the wandering stonemasons traveling from project to project wouldn't appear there either. In short: I suspect that interpreting the source like that might be a tiny little bit like trying to derive the percentage of Americans working as plumbers by looking at what is listed at the NYSE.

Likely not too surprising, given that most people were illiterate. I've seen arguments that most people were literate. Learning to read and write is not hard, and it is a useful skill. Of course literate was relative: before the printing press there wasn't much to read book took months to copy by hand. You were reading and writing short notes. Spelling wasn't standardized so you phonetically spelled things and had to figure out what the other person meant.

Good enough for letters, but nobody was writing books on anything since teaching in person was or seemed to be more efficient. I'm not a historian, but the above seems like a good argument. Does anyone have a real reference as to the truth? LegitShady 38 days ago root parent next [—].

It kind of seems like your job as someone making the claim to come up with a reference? I don't know how to do that. Learning to write is difficult. You need paper and pen, and free time, and some reference, and probably a teacher. Paper is easy to make from bark. Charcoal pencils are easy to find or make in rhe common fire. Parents can teach their children. Paper was expensive before modern industry.

Don't have reference at hand, but I remember it because I read it from few different sources. Good paper was expensive. Bark paper is easy to make and works okay. You can also write on slates and other such things. On notaries and related officials in the middle ages, see this[1] painting by Pieter Bruegel from around Here Bruegel mocks the tax collectors that are bamboozling the farmers with paperwork. Aerroon 38 days ago root parent next [—].

For those who don't know: barbers were also surgeons and dentists until around the middle of the 18th century. Not only did they cut your hair they also pulled out your teeth and performed surgery on you. And where generally closer to our modern day MDs then real mediaval MDs. As those where theologists coming from christian universities where they received basically zero true medical training.

Secular doctors were also terrible: before the lateth century, seeing a doctor was more likely to shorten your lifespan than lengthen it. Unless you needed surgery, which meant that you were in serious trouble anyway, so even with the extreme likelihood of infection your odds were a bit better than just leaving it alone.

As far as I can tell, before like they prescribed mercury for everything. Even though they were universally terrible, when you read their writings they're no less confident in what they were doing than modern doctors are. My favorite historical doctor was Benjamin Rush, a "founding father," who was hilariously bad at his job even for the time. Medival doctors seemd to be fairly good, for their time, when it came to broken bones and such. Basically battlefield injuries that didn't damage inner organs.

I remeber when they discovered the bones of an English archer. That guy in hos forties had all kinds of broken bones, healed cuts to his bones and head That and the Egyptian medics, and before, that drilled holes in heads to relieve pressure. Why know those surgeries where successfup because the bone healed on the skeletons we found. Also back the day people seemed to be not too bad when it came to healing properties of herbs.

But you are right, generally speaking you had the choice between really bad, utterly had, extremely bad and outright killing theit patients bad doctors for the most part of history. After cancers and cardiovascular problems, aka "old age". This is inevitable as we can't really experiment on people and do real science.

An unknown, but large fraction of all three trace, lately, to sugar, among British subjects and its former colonies. It is probable that declining US life expectancy traces to sugar exposure. The BBC did a short series called "Victorian Pharmacy" where they attempted to use Victorian-era cures on modern people. Except they couldn't even try most of them because they were too dangerous - opium, arsenic, mercury, cocaine, etc.

Apothecaries were the main source of routine medical care for the masses. To the extent that "an apothecaries wages" was an idiom to refer to their high incomes, somewhat pejoratively. This is still the case in many communities worldwide, a good pharmacist is a real anchor for providing care for day-to-day health care.

It's a great filtering mechanism too, the pharmacist as a buffer for frivolous doctor's visits. Contrast that to here in the US. When's the last time somebody sought out direct medical care from a pharmacist? Pretty much the kneejerk always is go straight to a doctor, no matter how small the discomfort.

Many barbers also did some dentistry. I always want a shave and a blood letting after getting some rotten teeth pulled. It was a very convenient trade. I'm guessing the medieval toothpulling would count as a good bloodletting as well. It depended if you were a bleeder or not. My barber gave me some salted fish to pack in there, so it really didn't bleed all that much. MilStdJunkie 37 days ago parent prev next [—].

You've got to take into account that this is 15th C, after the first big wave of bubonic plague, which sent labor prices from "basically free" to "greater than the GDP of the entire continent". Whole new worlds of financial innovation were needed in this period, and not everyone was buying it. I suspect that this tax record itself was a relatively new project at the time, undertaken in part to control spiraling costs in a world without labor. But barbers would only cut the hair of the city population.

What surprised me was the many shoemakers. MikeTaylor 38 days ago prev next [—]. Striking that there were more shoemakers than tailors. Xylakant 38 days ago parent next [—]. It's much easier to make clothes at home than shoes. I could probably cobble together an odd looking shirt given some time and instructions without needing to buy special tools, but leather shoes are an entirely different thing. On a related note, this article reminded me of something one of my professors had to say about William Shakespeare.

There's a long tradition of conspiracy theorizing around Shakespeare, that he didn't actually write his own plays, that they were instead written by Francis Bacon or Queen Elizabeth or something ridiculous. These arguments usually start from his background: how could the son of a common glovemaker have gotten the sort of education necessary to write like this? The thing is, glovemaker was a highly skilled profession.

Exactly like you said, any dum dum could cut a hole in a sheet of fabric and call it a poncho, but handmade shoes and gloves take serious craftsmanship. This kind of profession would have put Shakespeare's family firmly in the upper-middle class. This gets particularly amusing when the conspiracy theorists start saying that Shakespeare's plays must have been written by Marlowe.

They were born only a couple of months apart and had the same sort of background- the sons of skilled craftsmen working with leather Marlowe's father was a shoemaker who attended their local grammar school. Both schools still exist- King's School Canterbury is a much more prestigious institution than King Edward VI School Stratford these days, but I'm not sure how much of a difference there is then.

The course of their lives diverged in their late teens- while Marlowe obtained a scholarship to study at Cambridge, Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway in some haste as she was pregnant with his daughter I'm amused and perplexed at your choice of the word "cobble" there. Xylakant 38 days ago root parent next [—].

Thank you. I've never met a non-native speaker who used the word "cobble", and successfully too. Props to you! Why I missed that is not the meaning of the phrase "to cobble something together", but its root in "cobbler", which is - at least for me - something I rarely use.

Also Cockneys in old London would say cobblers if you were talking out of your hat. Also balls to refer to the pawnbrokers on account of their three ball shop signs. Mind you -- my amusement was "odd looking shirt". It made me imagine what that would actually look like. The article nods to this in a few places, but it's important to recognize that this is an accounting of "recognized" professions, something that left some kind of written account most of the article is based on tax records it seems like.

Which means at the end of the day this is mostly a list of what the men were doing. Stuff done "at home" obviously involves work, but it wasn't a "profession" in a notional sense so it wasn't recorded.

Certainly we should assume that there was trade within and between cities based on this kind of output too i. Weaving and making clothing was done mostly within the household, by women. In tracing my family tree, I found a branch that went back to a small town in Scotland, and at least generations back were shoemakers.

When did my forefather leave the family trade? Circa , when the Industrial Revolution apparently hit shoemaking hard. He ended up keeper of a coffee shop in Glasgow, and his daughter was on a ship to Australia in They quit transporting people in Thanks, I didn't know that. I traced mine back to They were all shepherds. They may have been exported to the surrounding countryside too.

The one thing that a farmer couldn't make for themselves. One person working full time making shoes for every fifty-ish adults? I don't know what the right comparison is today. Perhaps shoes are a quarter of that? I assume 1 people walked a lot more, 2 shoes took longer to make, and 3 didn't last as long which means more people necessary to handle demand. I could be completely off, though. Point 3 is the key one - soles, especially. Rubber soles weren't a thing - they were made of leather or sometimes textiles and they wore out in a matter of a couple months or even a few weeks with heavy usage, especially give point 1.

Point 2 isn't really the case - your later period and fancier pointed-toe, lace-and-ribbon-bedecked shoes for the higher classes took probably some time, but a pair of common leather turn-shoes can be made in a couple hours. Exactly, walking! Something few of us do these days even at short distances. I prefer shoes that can recobbled but I know from the dwindling numbers of cobblers that I'm a shrinking demographic. They were serving a lot of customers from outside the city who would occasionally visit to trade and shop.

The shoemakers also repaired and maintained shoes. They would replace soles, repair holes etc. That's an argument for needing fewer people, not more - since it happens in situations where it's less labour-intensive to repair shoes than to make them from scratch.

Someone 38 days ago root parent next [—]. Not necessarily. If the materials are expensive, paying somebody to repair a shoe can be the cheaper option.

I think people still repaired socks after knitting them was automated for that reason. The first automated knitting machine was from TheCoelacanth 38 days ago root parent prev next [—].

Isn't the main reason that making from scratch is less labour-intensive than repairing because of mass production? With medieval production methods, I would bet that making from scratch is significantly more labour-intensive than repairing. It does seem a bit strange, you're right. When you read into it though, this city seemed to have a higher cobbler population than most, as alluded to by the author.

There's always an overlap of skills. Cobblers may have been tailoring on the side but wouldn't be counted as such. I've been to many dry cleaners that will do alterations or repairs on clothes but also will do some light shoe repair as well.

They won't make you a shoe but can fix a broken heel just like I'm sure there are cobblers out there who are capable of clothing repairs. Cobblers are very good for doing repairs of anything that requires heavier duty needles and threads. So, full-text search making full use of every core under the heatsink? When I was a kid there were vastly more shoe repair places than there are now.

I guess if we plotted the graph backwards there would be way more several hundreds years ago. You can keep wearing clothes that are messed up, broken shoes will stop you being able to do a lot of stuff.

PeterisP 38 days ago parent prev next [—]. As the article mentions, a lot of the "most popular jobs" is determined not by the popularity of the industries but by the fragmentation of jobs.

Perhaps the ranking may be also influenced by reporting requirements. According to the article, the shoemakers were organized in guilds, so possibly this would standardize the reporting to the city gov. I would expect that. Clothes last significantly longer than shoes you can wear a cheap T-Shirt for way over 5 years, but even good midrange shoes start to fall apart after 2 years. It is also fairly easy to repair or even make clothes at home.

But shoes? I'd say one would suffer a lot more with borked shoes than torn upper clothing. Shoes might fall apart in 2 years if you wear them every day. Do you wear the same t-shirt every day? Yeah, false equivalence. If you wear a dozen shoes on rotation, they will also last for 5 years. And, maybe, tolerated only one. I guess "gossip" was everybody's job, like textile production, so nobody's. According to ACOUP, all female members "the distaff side" of almost all households spent any time not devoted to other tasks on spinning thread or yarn, albeit less so after the spinning jenny spread after It's interesting to think about what my life might have been like if I had been born years earlier.

I think carpenter or stonemason are what I would have been most interested in. But I really love books, so maybe I would have ended up in the clergy. Thank goodness I was born now. I wonder what I would be born again as if rebirth was real. Maybe a prince. Or maybe a Nobel Prize winning physicist… You would likely have been a peasant.

You would very likely have ended up with the same profession as your father assuming you are male. AzzieElbab 38 days ago prev next [—]. Totally explains why the most common English last name is "Smith".

Interesting that there are no smiths or millers on that list, given how common those surnames are. LambdaTrain 38 days ago prev next [—]. Just visualized this Montpellier as Oxenfurt in witcher 3. Cool website. I miss this kind of internet.

I wonder what the most common jobs are in a modern city. Probably all bullshit. Probably not. Of course, it's highly dependent on how you group related professions, but according to [0], which has a granularity similar to our medieval source, the three most common occupations in New York in were retail salespeople, nurses and labourers. You need to get to 4 and 5 before the office and management jobs usually associated with the "bullshit jobs" epithet start to appear.

As someone who does not believe in god, are all of the church related jobs bullshit? Or are they not, since a lot of people want churches and their services? If a job exists, there's apparently at least one person who wants it done. I think the parent quote may be in reference to David Graeber's commentary on "bullshit jobs".

I figured as much. But I don't agree with the premise of the book. Sure, we all "know" the jobs are bullshit, and yet they aren't. We might look down on it, but they are providing value to their employer. Sadly perhaps, humans are just deeply subjective. See again my religion example. These people do a lot of real work. Probably to themselves too. How Do I Verify? You can verify by clicking on the appropriate ID. Simply follow the prompts and the steps provided in order to verify.

You can also sign up by visiting ID. Once your credential is verified, you will immediately receive your offer. You are also now able to visit the ID. No, this program is only for eligible members. No, you may receive a message inviting you to opt in to relevant communications, but you are not required or automatically signed up for these newsletters. You will receive a single confirmation email that requires action to confirm your account set-up, but that is only to complete the account set-up process.

For more information on ID. To learn more about the offers and benefits of ID. Having Trouble? For assistance call IDME or email help id. Close search. Log in to your account Continue as a guest. Loyalty Member? You can earn points for this product. Quantity must be 1 or more.