• it_depends_man@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours 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
      3
      ·
      3 hours 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.

      • leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours 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…?