Talk:Medieval demography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Medieval demography is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
 |
The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Stbalbach (talk • contribs • email) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute. |
 |
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. |
In the 1200-1350 section I personally feel that the population boom is not adequately explained.
It is my understanding that the increase of population is in part, if not primarily, caused by advancements in agriculture e.g. the horse collar (allowing a horse/donkey, which can be trained, to pull farm equipment instead of an oxen, which has the tendency to go where it pleases, or your wife... no really this apparently happened), and the metal plow was invented and made accessable at this time increasing the amount of ariable land (the thick, infertial topsoil from the reclaimed forests required a "blade" infront of the actual plow to cut into the ground making it able to turn with the plow).
- A very large and complex issue to discuss in this article. The horse collar and plow thing is what we are told in college and high school when the teacher has only a few minutes to spend on the topic. It would be like saying the world popultion boom of the 19th and 20th century was a result of the use of fossil fuels (fertilizer, tractors, etc..). Yeah sure its true, but it ignores all the other social, political and environmental factors. Indeed one could say technological innovation comes in response to population increase, to meet new needs that didnt exist before.. they are symbiotic, it is the nature of Demography. Anyway, also see Medieval technology, certainly the individual articles on the technologies could discuss their contributions to increased populations. Stbalbach 23:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This article should have a different name. This is not "medieval demography" but the medieval demography of Europe. Otherwise, it ought to be expanded to at least include the larger Eurasian civilization(s) of which Europe was a part during the Middle Ages. To discuss the demography of Europe outside of the context of the demography of the Middle East, the Muslim Empires, and Eurasia in general makes little sense to me, particularly since demography is a macrolevel look and the locus of civilization was elsewhere during that time period.
Saurav 06:30, 29 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] 3rd paragraph of 1300-50
Couple issues.
--1) "These bad economic conditions of the poor aggravated the calamities of the plague because of poor living conditions and access to food and medical help." If I'm not mistaken 14th century medical help was ineffective against the plague, so this should not be an issue. Not that you couldn't mention poor conditions in the context of famine or even typhoid, but plague hit even the British royal family.
--2) "Responding to these problems required a more equitable redistribution of wealth, which did not happen right away because property owners resisted change through wage freezes." is not wrong, but unclear. The plague and other exogenous causes of population decline caused wage inceases (lower labor supply) and a redistribution of wealth, which were resisted by such means as wage and price controls. The article does not make clear cause and effect.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.170.210.251 (talk • contribs) .
--1) True medical help in the 14th century would not have been effective; the poor did suffer more, they had no recourse, such as fleeing to a villa in the country, as in the Decameron, and lived in more crowded conditions, harder to isolate a sick person, and were generally weaker immune wise from a poorer diet and harder life. --2) Thats true too. Thank you for your input. --Stbalbach 05:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Population height
- Stbalbach, I'm not sure it belongs in this article, but I stumbled upon this research about variations in population’s height from the medieval period to modern times: [1]. There are some interesting, and possibly unexpected, findings here. --Leinad ¬
»saudações! 20:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] So, how many were they?
Having read through this article, I'm unfortunately none the wiser as to how many people there were in Europe in the Middle Ages. There are a few figures here and there in the text, and some of those don't make sense ("at the time of Charlemagne it is thought to be between 25 and 30 million, and of this 15 million are in Carolingian France", would mean that at least half of the Europeans lived in France), but most of the text talks vaugely abut populations growing and declining without including any numbers. So, is there anyone who could add some more numbers to the text? I realise that scientists are mainly making educated guesses, but it's still better than nothing. The person who have added the bibliography at the bottom will hopefully have access to those books, which ought to be a bit more specific than this. Thomas Blomberg 23:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Improving Clarity
Are there any year on year figures/estimates? It would be great to see this information in the form of a graph/timeline. Is there an accepted set of figures - I'd like to see something similar for other time periods too.
[edit] RafaelG
We can work in multiple POV's on what the numbers are (there is no single right answer) but you need to provide a source. The external link you gave makes no mention of medieval demography. The numbers in the article are based on the David Herlihy article from the Dictionary of the Middle Ages. -- Stbalbach 01:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Strange when I looked earlier it went to a different page, now I see it. Well, the numbers are from a single source, Josiah Russell, from 1972, from a paper. The DotMA article is more up to date (it draws from a bunch of sources), although I'm sure there are even more up to date sources. As the link says, hard numbers are highly speculative "Josiah Russell is the historian who has stuck his neck out" - when giving number we also have to give a source. Do we want to list lots of different numbers and sources in this article, or stick to a single source? --Stbalbach 03:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- My opinion is that we should have various estimates, since there is not any absolute number (like a census) for its total population.--RafaelG 19:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] IS EUROPE THE ENTIRE CONTINENT?
Reading the text of the article, I was struck by the relative imprecision of the term "Europe" as used in the context. Would the term Europe refer to everything from the Urals to northern Sweden, and from Gibraltar to Constantinople? My hunch is that something less was intended (i.e Europe, south of the Baltic and west of Russia) but the article never defines its real geographical scope.
If all of Europe, in a broad continental sense, was intended, then that fact might need to be clarified in the opening sentences.
Bonbga 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Medieval Warm Period
It is suggested that the rise in population was associated with the Medieval warming period which saw warm wet climates increase across the Mid Latitude areas of the world, (and a hotter drier period in the southern and eastern Mediterranean). As a result agricultural yields in Western Europe increased. Similarly the demographic collapse of the end of the 13th century is marked by the onset of the "Little Ice Age". John D. Croft 06:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] mobility
"Feudalism, which also brought increased social stability and thus more mobility. "
Could someone explain this? I always thought social mobility was heightened in times of cultural or social upheaval (e.g. when the feudal system began to become unnecessary and collapse at the end of the middle ages, and Europe began to transition from a land-based to monetary-based economy, the new moneyed bourgeois was better able to purchase nobility for their children. This is what I have been taught, anyway).
How would a more stable, rigid social structure make it easier to move around in the ranks?
[edit] Sources
There is a disturbingly large amount of unsourced data and conjecturing here. There should be more citations in this article. Kemet 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
so what hepened in the 19th centry to population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.2.197 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
