The Rise of Modern

West ll
Semester 4
History Honours
Assignment -1

Question-
Do you agree with the view that the 17th
century was a period of total crisis in
Europe?

By- Khushi Gulati

Roll.no.- 2022/0456
Submitted to- Mr. Ajay Khandal
Introduction
In the history of Europe the early seventeenth century crisis has often been regarded
as a period during which a single general crisis afflicted the entire continent to some
degree affecting the economy, demography and the political stability of most
countries. It was Voltaire, the famous French philosopher of Enlightenment, who
brought out the concept of general crisis in his Essai sur les moeurs et l’ésprit des
nations in 1756. It led to the end of feudal age in Western Europe while in Central
and Eastern Europe, it resulted in the strengthening of feudalism. It also completed
the shift of the commercial and economic activities from the Mediterranean Sea to
the Atlantic Coast on Western Europe. It meant the decline of the Mediterranean
states and the rise of England, Holland and northern France.
The tenth century Europe had a protracted period of consistent economic growth,
agricultural expansion, and population increase. Early in the fourteenth century, the
trend was reversed by the Black Deaths, which caused significant population losses
and had a negative impact on trade, manufacturing, and agriculture. In the latter
part of the fifteenth century, the European economy started to recover. The sixteenth
century is remembered as a time of great wealth, population growth, notable
agricultural development, the beginning of proto-industrialization in various regions
of Europe, and the establishment of new trade associations. However, in many
regions of the continent, this enormous economic boom came to an end between
1600 and 1620. Historians and academics have offered varying explanations for what
caused the downturn, the nature of the crisis, and how it affected Europe.

What led to the “General Crisis”?

The exact date and severity of the crisis vary depending on the locality, hence
historians have differing opinions about what caused the crisis. A lengthy list of
uprisings and revolts that resulted in a crisis of the urban economy and trade, as well
as an economic downturn, population decline, social unrest, and major conflicts, is
provided by certain modern researchers. The Eighty Years' Period there were major
uprisings against Spanish control in the Netherlands during the War [1582–1662]. It
affected various regions of Europe. Along with France and Spain, the Thirty Years'
War (1618–1648) had wreaked havoc in a number of Central European states. France
also witnessed a series of revolts and uprisings beginning in the Aquitaine province
against the rise of gabelle (salt) tax. Other white spread peasants uprisings
throughout the 17th century also caused major challenges to French rule. At the same
period, there were further uprisings in the Mediterranean area. These comprised the
uprisings that led to a crisis in the Spanish empire in Catalonia, Naples, and
Portugal. A cluster of these revolutionary upheavals, political and social protests
make several writers believe that there was some widespread crisis in Europe that
had different times of their origins but they also reflect some commonness.
Demographic Crisis
In Europe some regions experienced stagnation population growth, in others places,
the growth rate slowed down. The population data that is available shows a decline in
many areas of Europe, with the exception of a few northern European nations
including the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. Up to 35–40% of the German
population perished during the Thirty Years' War, leaving a terrible legacy. Nearly
half of the people in the heavily populated states of Brandenburg, Bavaria, and
Saxony were lost. Poland also had this kind of a trend. Between 1587 and 1650, the
population of Spain decreased from 70,68,000 to 50,25,000. On the other hand, the
situation was different in some other parts of Europe where the population increased
swiftly in northern Europe including the Low Countries and England. Even here, the
rate of growth slowed down during the second half of the seventeenth century.
Historians offer varying explanations for what caused the seventeenth-century
population fall. According to Peter Kriedte, societal unrest and Malthusian forces
were the cause of the population fall. The eighteenth-century British economist
Thomas R. Malthus observed that in a natural economy—which most of Europe
possessed, with the exception of northern Europe—population expands at a
geometric rate while the natural economy's output increases in an arithmetic
proportion. This leads to recurring crises, which are remedied when the population
declines and the production to population ratio returns.

Agrarian Crisis
In many areas, the sixteenth century's population growth caused land holdings to
become fragmented. In the absence of technological innovation, deforestation and
land reclamation would increase food production. In many places, European
agriculture began to show indications of exhaustion throughout the seventeenth
century. Although there was not a noticeable agrarian decline in France,
governmental authorities were placing increasing pressure on the sector. The French
monarchs shielded small-scale peasants on their tiny landholdings from feudal
landowners in order to safeguard their financial interests, but this strategy led to
long-term agrarian stagnation. State exploited the peasants by raising taxes like taille
to meet the vast administrative structure and bear the financial burden of continental
wars.
While grain prices in Poland fell from 100 index points in 1580 to roughly 87 in
1650, the grain prices in France fell from 100 in 1625–50 to 1681–90. The
Swedish-Polish War caused more damage to the agricultural sector. In Germany and
Austria, a declining trend in agriculture was visible. In certain areas like Brabant,
Flanders, Zealand etc, grain prices fell and grain was replaced by crops like flax, hops
and rape seed. On the other hand, the prices continued to rise from 1601-10 levels in
England (1147), Belgium (150) and Austria(118) percent. The seventeenth century
crisis widened the gap between the eastern and western and northern and southern
zones of Europe.
Monetary Crisis
The scholars Earl J. Hamilton and Pierre Channu highlight the significance of Seville,
a well-known Spanish port, and the Atlantic trade that contributed to the financial
crisis. This theory holds that the crisis was brought on by a diminishing money
supply and the inability to finance transatlantic commerce. The frequent debasement
of coinage throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries indicate an acute
scarcity of currency. The economic growth of the sixteenth century began to slow
down once the quantity of silver imports to Europe was reduced. Hamilton considers
monetary factors related to the bullion imports the main reason for the crisis.
According to Hamilton, a rise in prices would lead to excess profit and increased
investment in commerce and industry, but a fall in the money supply would lead to a
decrease in profit margin and a withdrawal of capital from the industrial and
commercial sectors. He believes that the latter condition prevailed in the seventeenth
century. According to Ruggiero Romano, there was a consistent and occasionally
abrupt contraction in the money issue during the first forty years of the century. For
him, the most important years were 1619–1622. Romano argues that there was a lack
of money since the minting of coins saw a contraction. He contends that since
money, prices, exchange, and banking were necessary components of production and
distribution, the prices should not be viewed in a vacuum.
There are several other writers who reject Hamilton’s arguments. They provide a
counter argument that the American silver did not stay in Europe and was
re-exported via Levant to India and China. So the silver import to Europe had
virtually no role in the creation of the crisis.

Economic Crisis
Scholars suggest that the economic setbacks were not of uniform pattern. Fernand
Braudel, J.I. Israel, Domeico Sella, etc. support the view of Hobsbawm who argues
that the crisis was basically a complete economic regression but its outcome varied
according to regional variations. Most of the regions in Germany, Mediterranean
state and southern France experienced sharp decline. A few substitute centres of
production arose within each area; in Italy, the emergence of the textile industry in
Prato and Sienna coincided with the collapse of Florence. Amsterdam's ascent
coincided with the decline of Antwerp in northwest Europe. The majority of
historians consider that Italian textiles essentially vanished from the global trading
scene. The Flemish wool industry had a prolonged decline. Many French textile hubs,
like Rouen and Amiens, likewise saw a slump or stagnation. However, the textile
sector in England and Holland experienced distinct growth in the sixteenth century
and continued even in the seventeenth century.
During the sixteenth century, European economy tried to break the mediaeval
traditional structure to reach the capitalist mode of production. Craftspeople
experienced unemployment and socioeconomic disruption as a result of the loss of
the traditional textile centres. The number of weavers producing woollen textiles is
thought to have decreased by 1700 to just 10% of what it was a century ago. The last
ten years of the sixteenth century saw a decline in the Spanish shipbuilding sector.
The Dutch (Holland) shipping sector grew rapidly during this time and took the lead
in handling international cargo. Holland also became the hub of commercial
activities including banking, insurance and stock exchange. It was only in England
where the forces of capitalism could triumph and the old structure was destroyed and
a new economic order was created.

Climatic factors
The Annales writers offer a compelling perspective on the seventeenth-century crisis,
framing it as a 'subsistence' crisis arising from a convergence of various short and
long-term factors within the economic domain. This crisis encompassed elements
such as crop failure, grain prices, heavy taxation, epidemics, and climatic conditions,
alongside demographic and land tenure issues. The resulting peasant uprisings,
agrarian distress, reduced trade, and declining capital investments were exacerbated
by the era's limited technological advancements. Notably, interdisciplinary studies
involving historians, solar physicists, geologists, and meteorologists shed light on the
role of climatic factors, with astronomical observations contributing to identifying
non-human factors, such as the 'Little Ice Age.' Observations of phenomena like
sunspots and aurora borealis, alongside dendrochronological evidence, provided
insights into the impact of declining solar energy on atmospheric conditions,
agriculture, and water resources, collectively contributing to the general crisis of the
seventeenth century.

Conclusion
Europe's 17th-century crisis was a turbulent time characterised by social unrest,
economic instability, religious conflict, and governmental instability. This period was
marked by widespread hardship and transformation throughout the continent, from
the devastation of the Thirty Years' War to the difficulties presented by the Little Ice
Age. The extent of the crisis provides a wide range of fields like demography,
monetary, agrarian, economic and climatic factors which shaped the historical
passage of Europe in opposite directions. But from this chaos, resilience and change
were born, and they would influence the future generations of European history. The
crisis led to the forced adaptation of nations, the evolution of institutions, and the
emergence of new ideas that laid the foundation for the modern world. In the end,
the crisis of the 17th century serves as a reminder of how resilient human
civilizations are to hardship and their eternal potential for development and rebirth.