I just finished reading David Cordingly's Under the Black Flag, a brief history of pirates and how writers and films romanticized them. For those interested in reading about piracy in general, it mainly focuses on Caribbean pirates between 1500 and 1730, and only briefly touches upon piracy in other parts of the world.
The most fascinating part of the book was its comparisons between life on a merchant ship and life on a pirate ship. Being a sailor on a merchant vessel was a taxing job, to put it mildly. Because sailors were guaranteed a percentage of the profits from the ship's cargo, the investors had every incentive to undermanned the ship, thus cutting back on shares. As a result, the few sailors on board worked like dogs, each performing multiple tasks. To make matters worse, captains were effectively gods on their ship, and they were petty gods at that. It was not uncommon for captains to punish their sailors for the slightest infractions, sometimes causing death or permanent injury. And mutiny was a criminal offense punishable by death.
Pirate ships, on the other hand, were actually overmanned because they needed plenty of armed men in order to make sure that they could take any ship they came across. But in-between battles, the average pirate had little to do because there were more than enough men to handle the basic tasks of sailing (this led to a different problem, chronic drunkeness and gambling as a way to pass the time). Another advantage of being a pirate was the surprisingly democratic nature of the crew. The captain was elected and his authority was largely limited to battles. All major decisions, including where the pirates were going to strike, had to be put to a vote. Distribution of booty was also remarkably egalitarian, as the captain took only a slightly larger share than the average pirate.
No wonder so many merchant sailors took to piracy when the opportunity presented itself.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Adventures in Demography!
Demographics: the very word gives rise to feelings of boredom and loathing in the average person, but it's an essential part of any broad historical analysis. A student of history can read about all the Great Men they want, but if you don't understand the composition of a population and how it changes over time, you don't really understand the history of a country.
Take France, for instance. It's demographic history goes a long way to explain why its industrial development during the 19th Century was sluggish compared to Germany. Demographics may even explain why France never fully recovered from World War I, and why it was defeated so rapidly in 1940.
In general, as nations industrialized and modernized they also underwent a profound demographic transition. For most of human history, population growth was sluggish. Without ready access to contraceptives, women had large numbers of children, but infant mortality was extremely high. Childhood diseases and malnutrition ensured that a large number of children never reached adulthood. But during the 19th century, most European countries experienced dramatic improvements in nutrition, sanitation, and medical services. Infant mortality plummeted, but birth rates still remained very high. The result, not surprisingly, was a dramatic increase in the size of the population, which in turn propelled the Industrial Revolution by forcing excess labor off the land and driving down wages in the city, making manufactured goods cheaper and more globally competitive. The demographic transition also explains the mass emigration of Europeans to the sparsely populated Western Hemisphere.
The 19th century demographic transition can be observed in Britain, Ireland, Italy, Germany, but not France. During the first half of the 19th century, France was the second most populous country behind Russia. But by 1900 the French population was smaller than that of Germany, and by 1930 it was smaller than the population of the UK. If French population growth had been equivalent to German, the population of France today would be around 110 million, rather than 64 million.* Also, unlike the other major nations of Europe, France never produced a large wave of emigration to the New World. A few thousand French settlers scattered throughout its empire was a paltry number compared to the millions of Irish, Britons, Germans, and Italians who were leaving Europe.
Why did France not experience a demographic explosion like the rest of Europe? The historian Roger Price posited that contraceptive practices were far more common in France during the 19th century than in other European countries, perhaps due to the collapse of traditional social values during the French Revolution. The most widely used contraceptive method was coitus interruptus (a.k.a., pulling out), which Price believes was practiced by the French with far greater enthusiasm than by other European nations. This seems like a plausible theory, but France was still a Catholic country, and most of its population during the 19th century was rural and poor. Typically, this would be a recipe for large families, yet French peasants were apparently using family planning methods that were unthinkable in Germany, Italy, or the UK.
There were unpleasant consequences for France due to its relative demographic decline. The French Industrial Revolution never experienced the "breakout" of Germany or the United States. France also suffered from a manpower disadvantage in comparison to its main military rival, Germany. France's loss of 1.2 million men in World War I was a more substantial share of its population than Germany's loss of 1.6 million. The loss of such a large portion of its population would have affected France economically, politically, and psychologically. With low population growth, there was no way that France could recover from losses of such magnitude by the time the Second World War began.
None of this is meant to suggest some sort of demographic determinism. Germany's victory over France in 1940 was largely due to its superior strategy. But that strategy could only have arisen in a powerful nation with a large population, and that population was the result of a demographic explosion that never occurred in France.
*http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Demographics_of_France_-_Historical_overview/id/4979358
Take France, for instance. It's demographic history goes a long way to explain why its industrial development during the 19th Century was sluggish compared to Germany. Demographics may even explain why France never fully recovered from World War I, and why it was defeated so rapidly in 1940.
In general, as nations industrialized and modernized they also underwent a profound demographic transition. For most of human history, population growth was sluggish. Without ready access to contraceptives, women had large numbers of children, but infant mortality was extremely high. Childhood diseases and malnutrition ensured that a large number of children never reached adulthood. But during the 19th century, most European countries experienced dramatic improvements in nutrition, sanitation, and medical services. Infant mortality plummeted, but birth rates still remained very high. The result, not surprisingly, was a dramatic increase in the size of the population, which in turn propelled the Industrial Revolution by forcing excess labor off the land and driving down wages in the city, making manufactured goods cheaper and more globally competitive. The demographic transition also explains the mass emigration of Europeans to the sparsely populated Western Hemisphere.
The 19th century demographic transition can be observed in Britain, Ireland, Italy, Germany, but not France. During the first half of the 19th century, France was the second most populous country behind Russia. But by 1900 the French population was smaller than that of Germany, and by 1930 it was smaller than the population of the UK. If French population growth had been equivalent to German, the population of France today would be around 110 million, rather than 64 million.* Also, unlike the other major nations of Europe, France never produced a large wave of emigration to the New World. A few thousand French settlers scattered throughout its empire was a paltry number compared to the millions of Irish, Britons, Germans, and Italians who were leaving Europe.
Why did France not experience a demographic explosion like the rest of Europe? The historian Roger Price posited that contraceptive practices were far more common in France during the 19th century than in other European countries, perhaps due to the collapse of traditional social values during the French Revolution. The most widely used contraceptive method was coitus interruptus (a.k.a., pulling out), which Price believes was practiced by the French with far greater enthusiasm than by other European nations. This seems like a plausible theory, but France was still a Catholic country, and most of its population during the 19th century was rural and poor. Typically, this would be a recipe for large families, yet French peasants were apparently using family planning methods that were unthinkable in Germany, Italy, or the UK.
There were unpleasant consequences for France due to its relative demographic decline. The French Industrial Revolution never experienced the "breakout" of Germany or the United States. France also suffered from a manpower disadvantage in comparison to its main military rival, Germany. France's loss of 1.2 million men in World War I was a more substantial share of its population than Germany's loss of 1.6 million. The loss of such a large portion of its population would have affected France economically, politically, and psychologically. With low population growth, there was no way that France could recover from losses of such magnitude by the time the Second World War began.
None of this is meant to suggest some sort of demographic determinism. Germany's victory over France in 1940 was largely due to its superior strategy. But that strategy could only have arisen in a powerful nation with a large population, and that population was the result of a demographic explosion that never occurred in France.
*http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Demographics_of_France_-_Historical_overview/id/4979358
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Mission Statement
The textbook's reign of terror is over! So begins the blog's reign of terror!
Thanks to the Internet, I can now share my boring anecdotes about Hittite marriage customs and medieval Russian farming techniques to anyone unfortunate enough to stumble upon this blog.
Actual, substantive posts about history coming soon...
Thanks to the Internet, I can now share my boring anecdotes about Hittite marriage customs and medieval Russian farming techniques to anyone unfortunate enough to stumble upon this blog.
Actual, substantive posts about history coming soon...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)