• it_depends_man@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Pretty insightful. Key takeaways:

    1. linear growth didn’t really happen like that
    2. pre-planning would be good
    3. experience of tax collectors skimming the surplus, plus hazards of rural life.
    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah, I thought life was hard but sustainable mostly, turns out one was always at risk of extinction:

      Medieval villagers were often living on the edge of subsistence. Agricultural surpluses were skimmed by the church and the feudal lords. Bad harvests, banditry, warfare and disease might decimate a village community at any time. For this very reason, the demography of many European villages remained relatively stable between the twelfth and the eighteenth century.

      • Aqarius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        21 hours ago

        If I remember Devereaux, the village itself was set up to minimise that risk first and foremost, at the expense of optimisation for max yields. So, every year was around subsistence, never much above, but also never much lower.

      • leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        relatively stable between the twelfth and the eighteenth century

        Hm… wasn’t there like a 33% dip back in the fourteenth, not counting subsequent migration to the cities and whatnot…?