The West vs. the Rest. When and why?

[Abdul Goatherd]

I'd really like some cold hard stats (life expectancy, infant mortality, (and more importantly, mortality-corrected life expectancy), perhaps some PPP) to back up this assertion that there has been no improvement in the standard of living from 1000 to 1800.

I'd really like that too. Alas, there are no "cold hard stats" of anything until the late 19th C. There are guesses and conjectures, and extrapolations from examples. And that's the best we can do. Some, like Maddison, are almost purely arbitrary. Others are more cautious.

Private wills are the best source of knowledge about average living standards. And they reveal that people didn't have much of anything - some cutlery, some tools, a couple of pieces of homemade furniture, a couple of sets of homemade clothes. And that didn't perceptively change.

You can also draw inferences from things like contemporary paintings and other descriptive accounts of daily life.

Estimating productivity depends on knowing how much a peasant had to work with - there's a technical upper limit on how much you can get with x tools on y acres of land with z type of crops. Deduct the rates of rent, taxation, tithes and other extractions that you might be able to find in manorial or magistrate's accounts, and that's a rough guesstimate of what he had left over for himself.

Maddison isn't nearly as careful. He comes up with his "growth" statistics by assuming a unduly low subsistence baseline to begin with, and just imposing that baseline everywhere he doesn't have data for. So it "looks like" growth or divergence, because of that.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

I'd say every canal, bridge and windmill, dyke built, swamp drained etc. drastically improved living standards in the area. That sort of stuff can be quantified.

The canal-building era for most of Europe wasn't until much later.

That said, building canals, dykes & waterworks is something the Chinese government excelled at since eons.

Cities being chartered too.

Hm. Depends. Charter numbers alone are not necessarily very revealing.

e.g. in Italy, charters were all handed out in the 11th C., at the very beginning of this era. While it did indeed reflect an urbanization change from the Dark Ages, keep in mind it was a process that started in the depths of Dark Ages (fortifications against Magyar and Saracen raiders, absent kings undermining the authority of feudal counts which he did not control, to enhance that of the bishops he could control, etc.).

But once a charter is given, it's done. The data falls off. In other countries, charters were given, then revoked later. What does the revocation reflect?

And keep in mind many charters were handed out for military reasons alone. I have enormous lists of Spanish charters from the Reconquista era, most of them for places that were non-existent and at best remain villages to this day. Those charters were to induce people to move there, where they can form a militia to hold a frontline. Some developed, most didn't.

 

[Herbert West]

I'd really like that too. Alas, there are no "cold hard stats" of anything until the late 19th C. There are guesses and conjectures, and extrapolations from examples. And that's the best we can do. Some, like Maddison, are almost purely arbitrary. Others are more cautious.

And yet, we see stuff that could easily be termed "megaprojects". Fortifications (AFAIK the amount of stone turned into castles in Europe dwarfs the Great Wall many times over), forest clearings (land use peaked in the late middle ages in England), swamp clearances, the Netherlands, as a whole. Hard to deny the clear improvements on that level.

If your argument that those improvements did not, however, translate into a quality of life improvement for the average poor peasant? Because that I can buy, but your narrative reads like a run-of-the-mill "dark medieval times" guys' lament about the fall of Rome.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

And yet, we see stuff that could easily be termed "megaprojects". Fortifications (AFAIK the amount of stone turned into castles in Europe dwarfs the Great Wall many times over), forest clearings (land use peaked in the late middle ages in England), swamp clearances, the Netherlands, as a whole. Hard to deny the clear improvements on that level.

If your argument that those improvements did not, however, translate into a quality of life improvement for the average poor peasant? Because that I can buy, but your narrative reads like a run-of-the-mill "dark medieval times" guys' lament about the fall of Rome.

Clearing, draining, etc. is about bringing new land under cultivation, not improving productivity of existing land. If anything, the new lands tend to be of lower productivity than old, e.g. take twice as much work to yield half as much fruit (which is why those lands weren't used before). Expansion of land under cultivation doesn't necessarily translate into higher standards of living (i.e. food per person) if population rises to meet it (which it generally did before the 19th C.) And when population declines, cultivation declines and the new lands tend to go back to wasteland.

If estimates we have are reliable (which they aren't), population and agricultural output have followed each other pari-passu, and only begin to diverge in the 19th C. The Malthusian trap is real - until then. Only then do we see agricultural output rising without inducing a population explosion that raises the denominator among which it is divided.

As for big megaprojects (esp. the vanity kind), that tends to depend on income distribution, not level. You'll find that wherever the elite takes over half of income, they always blow it on big useless stone monuments - Ziggurats, Pyramids, Cathedrals, etc. Where income is more equalized, they aren't built.

Of course, its not always the horse before the cart. If you think fortifications are needed, then you have to impose that degree of inequality (by force, e.g. serfdom, forced labor, taxation) in order to pay for it.

 

[Herbert West]

I dont know (and this be me ignorance on the matter), but I dont know of a single post-bronze culture where income is equalized.

 

[Maq]

Clearing, draining, etc. is about bringing new land under cultivation, not improving productivity of existing land. If anything, the new lands tend to be of lower productivity than old, e.g. take twice as much work to yield half as much fruit (which is why those lands weren't used before). Expansion of land under cultivation doesn't necessarily translate into higher standards of living (i.e. food per person) if population rises to meet it (which it generally did before the 19th C.) And when population declines, cultivation declines and the new lands tend to go back to wasteland.

If estimates we have are reliable (which they aren't), population and agricultural output have followed each other pari-passu, and only begin to diverge in the 19th C. The Malthusian trap is real - until then. Only then do we see agricultural output rising without inducing a population explosion that raises the denominator among which it is divided.

As for big megaprojects (esp. the vanity kind), that tends to depend on income distribution, not level. You'll find that wherever the elite takes over half of income, they always blow it on big useless stone monuments - Ziggurats, Pyramids, Cathedrals, etc. Where income is more equalized, they aren't built.

Of course, its not always the horse before the cart. If you think fortifications are needed, then you have to impose that degree of inequality (by force, e.g. serfdom, forced labor, taxation) in order to pay for it.

What you say is basically that the poorest segment of society lived on barely subsistence level until 19th century, or even after that. With that I can easily agree.
The point is, howerver, how many people remained among those poorest of the poor. We have paintings, and even photographs from 19th century. Look at Russian serfs, par example. Their appearance, cloths, footwear, the shacks they dwelled in. That is living on near subsistence minimum. And compare that with appearance and housing of peasants in Western Europe (not only Low Countries, or England), you will clearly see the difference.
Also, the share of society who did NOT live on the bottom level gradually increased.
You say it didn't, and life remained the same. That's just amusing...

 

[Yakman]

What you say is basically that the poorest segment of society lived on barely subsistence level until 19th century, or even after that. With that I can easily agree.
The point is, howerver, how many people remained among those poorest of the poor. We have paintings, and even photographs from 19th century. Look at Russian serfs, par example. Their appearance, cloths, footwear, the shacks they dwelled in. That is living on near subsistence minimum. And compare that with appearance and housing of peasants in Western Europe (not only Low Countries, or England), you will clearly see the difference.
Also, the share of society who did NOT live on the bottom level gradually increased.
You say it didn't, and life remained the same. That's just amusing...

Russians in the 4th century were also much poorer than Romans in the 4th century.

Basic living conditions for the vast majority of people did not change dramatically until the 19th century. Some times they were better, and other times they were worse. But the quality of life operated within basically the same bounds for hundreds of years.

Russians in the 21st century are also much poorer than French in the 21st century, btw.

 

[jurrz12]

Throughout this period, for the vast bulk of the population, standard of living was the same as ever, very static, very poor, always precariously poised on the edge of disaster (hunger, disease, war).

Not this silliness. Sure, it's a "very poor" compared to the modern day, but the idea of the "miserable peasantry" isn't really held up by the historical record. You lived a relatively secure life unless there was a war, famine, or epidemic, and despite your claims, these calmities were not omnipresent.

But yeah, most medieval commoners would not live in the modern concept of "absolute poverty".

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

I dont know (and this be me ignorance on the matter), but I dont know of a single post-bronze culture where income is equalized.

I didn't say equalized. I said more equal. The megaproject threshold seems to be about 50% of income for ruling elite.

What you say is basically that the poorest segment of society lived on barely subsistence level until 19th century, or even after that. With that I can easily agree.
The point is, howerver, how many people remained among those poorest of the poor. We have paintings, and even photographs from 19th century. Look at Russian serfs, par example. Their appearance, cloths, footwear, the shacks they dwelled in. That is living on near subsistence minimum. And compare that with appearance and housing of peasants in Western Europe (not only Low Countries, or England), you will clearly see the difference.
Also, the share of society who did NOT live on the bottom level gradually increased.
You say it didn't, and life remained the same. That's just amusing...

French 17th C. peasants. You think this is very different from how Russian peasants lived?

 

[Yakman]

Not this silliness. Sure, it's a "very poor" compared to the modern day, but the idea of the "miserable peasantry" isn't really held up by the historical record. You lived a relatively secure life unless there was a war, famine, or epidemic, and despite your claims, these calmities were not omnipresent.

But yeah, most medieval commoners would not live in the modern concept of "absolute poverty".

they might not have been absolutely poor, but they certainly were on the edge of disaster at all times. you don't know if there's a band of armed men coming out of the hills over there; you don't know if there's going to be a bad harvest; and you don't know when the plague is going to break out.

any of those things destroys your entire existence, and IF you survive, it's starting from the bottom or in the wreckage.

 

[nerd]

The chimney alone changed society massively and vastly improved living conditions at all levels of society.


<yes, someone will now claim it was stolen or pre-existed.>

 

[Maq]

French 17th C. peasants. You think this is very different from how Russian peasants lived?

I do can see some differences, yes I can.

 

[IsadorBG]

Russian are happier ? And they have a better men to female-ratio (and there's ton of them)

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

I do can see some differences, yes I can.

Yeah, so can I.

One is an idealized painting, the other is a photograph.

What else?

 

[Maq]

Yeah, so can I.

One is an idealized painting, the other is a photograph.

What else?

I have expected something like that.
Idealization is indeed an issue (also: Repin - Burlaki na Volge), yet you can see many details (footwear, clothes, architecture, dishes, meals...) which all painters "idealized" somehow unanimously.
Never mind, I know you will never change your mind. Perhaps Russian peasants lived better than the French ones after all, if you say so...

 

[Okcydent]

The earliest industry used steam machines appeared in Europe at the beginning of 18th century (Savery, Newcommen, Watt). But even before that the production was based on power of water and air. From 9th century mills have been applied to manufacture more and more goods like beer, hemp, iron, oil, sugar, paper, and many more.

The source of this data is 'History of Poland in Numbers' a publication from 2014 done by the Central Statistical Office of Poland. It incorporates large amount of data from the late medieval to contemporary times. Its available in internet in Polish and English.

In flour mills and other specialised plants, including groats mortars, oil mills, sawmills or fulling mills. It is estimated that ca. 300 thous. various water mills were operating in Europe in 1200, and even 500 thous. in 1800. In Poland mills were broadly used in the 13th―14th century, and their number was consistently growing, starting from ca. 500 (understated data) in the 13th century to 12,7 thous. at the beginning of the second half of the 16th century.

Number of windmills:
Poland 1569 ..........................................1 000
Poland end of the 18th century.......................................... a. 6 000 (in 1945 borders)
England 1800 ............................................10 000
Finland 1600 ....................................... 1 000
Finland 1820 ....................................... 7 500
Netherlands 1800........................................2 320

From: Stronger Than a Hundred Men: A History of the Vertical Water Wheel
Number of watermills:
England 1080 ..................... 5624
Picardy 1080 ...................... 40
Picardy 1124...................... 80
Picardy 1180 ...................... 245

I know that Chinese were first literally at everything, but can you provide analogous data for the rest of the world. To what extent did they utilize the power of wind and water?

 

[Tufto]

I have expected something like that.
Idealization is indeed an issue (also: Repin - Burlaki na Volge), yet you can see many details (footwear, clothes, architecture, dishes, meals...) which all painters "idealized" somehow unanimously.
Never mind, I know you will never change your mind. Perhaps Russian peasants lived better than the French ones after all, if you say so...

Well, painters would idealise certain things in a similar way. They were all part of a shared artistic tradition with shared conventions- it doesn't really tell us anything about the reality of life for the premodern peasantry.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

I have expected something like that.
Idealization is indeed an issue (also: Repin - Burlaki na Volge), yet you can see many details (footwear, clothes, architecture, dishes, meals...) which all painters "idealized" somehow unanimously.

All painters? No they don't. The 17th C. painting I presented earlier didn't idealize much of anything. Its details (footwear, clothes, dishes, etc.) are pretty realistic. You chose to ignore it in order to push an airbrushed bucolic fantasy instead.

Never mind, I know you will never change your mind.

I change my mind plenty. But it usually requires argument and honest evidence.

Hoping to persuade me with prejudice and petulance is not enough.

Perhaps Russian peasants lived better than the French ones after all, if you say so...

I never said they lived better. You are the one trumpeting some grand material superiority of western European peasants, and chose to denigrate Russians for some reason. I simply queried you about that. I'd like to know the basis of such a confident assertion.

The only thing I have said is that Medieval peasants were poor, and had always been poor. Material life may fluctuate, but don't expect to find much permanent change until the last couple of centuries. I could put those peasants in the 13th C. or the 17th C., in France, in Russia, or in Korea, for that matter, and there would not be much of a perceptible difference. Peasants are pretty much the same everywhere.

 

[Maq]

All painters? No they don't. The 17th C. painting I presented earlier didn't idealize much of anything. Its details (footwear, clothes, dishes, etc.) are pretty realistic. You chose to ignore it in order to push an airbrushed bucolic fantasy instead.



I change my mind plenty. But it usually requires argument and honest evidence.

Hoping to persuade me with prejudice and petulance is not enough.



I never said they lived better. You are the one trumpeting some grand material superiority of western European peasants, and chose to denigrate Russians for some reason. I simply queried you about that. I'd like to know the basis of such a confident assertion.

The only thing I have said is that Medieval peasants were poor, and had always been poor. Material life may fluctuate, but don't expect to find much permanent change until the last couple of centuries. I could put those peasants in the 13th C. or the 17th C., in France, in Russia, or in Korea, for that matter, and there would not be much of a perceptible difference. Peasants are pretty much the same everywhere.

Interesting then, that you recognized that the painting is from Western Europe, while the photograph from Russia. Perhaps "idealized" details helped?
Prejudice? I have made a list of medieval improvements. Is it a prejudice? It did not happen, or it did not change the life, production, population, anything? If not watermills and windmills, why steam-powered mills did, then? If not three-field system, why four-field did?
===
I believe you don't deny certain differences in the level of development in recent times, do you? Then tell me, what's the reason of these differences? Why some countries industrialized quickly and successfully, while others still lag behind?
If their starting positions were identical...then why?

 

[Maq]

Well, painters would idealise certain things in a similar way. They were all part of a shared artistic tradition with shared conventions- it doesn't really tell us anything about the reality of life for the premodern peasantry.

Idealized version of the photograph: