Analyse the economic, social, and political aspects of the 17th century European crisis.

The 17th Century crisis according to Niels Steensgaard has become a hallmark event of the 17th C. albeit
from a Euro-centric point of view. There is broad consensus among historians that the crisis existed, its
characteristic features and aspects however continue to be hotly debated. Steensgaard points to 4
general conceptions of the crisis- a general economic one, a general political one, one concerned with
the Marxist interpretation as propagated by those like Hobsbawm and Christopher Hill, and the last as a
crisis which comprises all aspects of human life. To understand the 17th C. crisis and its intricacies, we will
broadly outline its economic, political, and social aspects henceforth.

Economic

The analysis of this crisis is done within the constraints of its ‘pre-statistical’ feature that the period
allows for. The first aspect we may explore under the umbrella of Economic aspects is: Population. The
16th century rise in population was followed by a 17th century decline. This decline, however, had regional
variations in terms of geography, and its positioning within the century itself. For instance, the
demographic peak reached southern Europe earlier than the north. Similarly, while England also showed
the same trend of increasing population, a major part of this increase was probably in the first half of the
century only. Steensgaard also talks of a more human and less mechanical form of demography by
pointing out that family planning based on either economic considerations or collective mentalities
played a role in population fluctuation as well. The second aspect we may dissect is Agriculture. In Parker
and Smith’s work, two main methods for evaluating these trends emerge: analyzing price history and
studying yield ratios, with supplementary data from corn trade. Abel's analysis, based on European price
history, suggests a sixteenth-century boom followed by a turning point around 1600 and a subsequent
depression until the mid-eighteenth century, primarily due to demographic changes. While Abel's data is
not always reliable, his findings are generally supported by recent studies. Slicher van Bath's yield ratio
analysis supports Abel's conclusions, indicating declines in yield ratios across various regions during the
16th and 17th centuries. Despite some skepticism about van Bath's data, his findings align with broader
trends. The correlation between declining yield ratios and stagnant or falling prices suggests demand-
side factors influencing agricultural markets, supported by information on international corn trade.
Changes in demographic conditions and the cultivation of new crops like maize are proposed as
explanatory factors. This highlights complex economic dynamics, including the interplay between
demographic shifts, agricultural practices, and trade patterns, shaping European agriculture during the
17th century. The third aspect is industry which Steensgaard explains through the case study of weaving
of woolen textiles. While previous discussions have suggested a European crisis based on isolated data
series, a closer examination reveals a more nuanced picture. The decline of traditional woolen centers in
Italy, Castile, and Catalonia occurred at different times, with Mediterranean regions experiencing
recession while north-western Europe saw increased production and exports to southern Europe, the
Levant, and Asia. For example, Leiden's production increased until 1654, but there was a shift towards
more expensive goods. In England, while cloth exports stagnated after 1614, the value of exports
increased due to a shift towards finished and dyed cloth. The Netherlands also saw a transition from
broadcloth to lighter textiles. Similarly, in France, the wool industry faced a crisis in the 1630s but
recovered slowly, focusing on luxury production. This analysis by Steensgaard warns us against drawing
conclusions about general European trends from isolated data series, as local crises occurred at different
times. It also highlights two significant structural changes in the industry: the shift towards rural
production and the production of lighter textiles. Overall, the 17th century witnessed significant changes
in the woolen textile industry, reflecting shifting tastes and economic dynamics across Europe. Through
the analysis of the fourth aspect- international trade, we can further understand why sweeping
generalizations which contribute to a European crisis overall are problematic. In the trade between
Seville and Spanish America, there was a decline until the mid-17th century, but later imports of silver
from Spanish America to Seville were greater than previously thought. Additionally, the emergence of
competitors such as Brazil, England, and the Dutch impacted trade dynamics. In the Baltic trade,
fluctuations were observed, with signs of real depression in the 1650s and 1660s, particularly affecting
corn exports. However, important industrial sectors continued to advance. Trade to Asia showed a
complementary relationship between English and Dutch activity, particularly in the latter half of the 17th
century. While the Netherlands experienced a decline from 1672 onwards, other nations like England,
France, and Denmark-Norway saw advances in foreign trade and shipping during the latter part of the
century. Lastly, we may comment on the increasing public expenditure that was seen throughout the 17 th
century which was probably due to the various wars and unrest in regions, causing the need for large
armies. This meant increased taxes for the population. However, as Steensgaard points out, even
countries like Sweden, Castille or Naples who avoided warfare, increased taxes, leading to burdens on
the public.

To conclude the economic aspects, we may say that identifying long term trends is not only impossible
but also inaccurate. This being said, the various problems discussed above do point to a situation which
was other than normal. No one region or point of discussion or period may yield accurate results, and all
of them must be seen in cohesion if we are to label the 17th century as one of crisis.

Political

According to Steensgaard, Trevor Roper’s take on a ‘general crisis’ does not apply to this instance
because the 17th c revolts were not “directed against a stagnating parasitism, but against a dynamic
absolutism”. Olivare’s attempt to change the established order in Catalonia and Portugal, the financial
drain of the people of Spain after prolonged war, the high taxes in in Palermo and opposition of
Parlement of Paris in the 1640s against the Crown’s fiscal legislation were some of the various revolts
that happened. Steensgaard points out the concrete similarity in these revolts as the government’s
policy to increase their income or control over the state without any consideration for customary rights.
He criticizes Roper’s “starting point” of the conflict which relegates them to armed conflicts only.
Meanwhile Steensgaard says that the starting point should be the conflict irrespective of its nature, as
behind all of them was the commonality of the state’s demand for higher revenues.

This ask for higher taxes disrupted the social balance which naturally leads us to discuss the social
aspects of the 17th c crisis. However, before that, we must go into the overarching problem which
encompasses the economic, political, and social, that is, absolutism.

Absolutism

Mousnier’s view of the 17th c crisis points out the effect that rising fiscal demands had on all sections of
society. Eventually he also places these demands as central to peasant revolts in France at this time. He
does however defend absolutism and believes it to be a fulfillment of people’s wishes and puts the
people and the state in the same camp as victims of pressures of the international system. Soviet
historian Porshnev agrees with the former part of Mousnier’s argument but believes that the wars were
just hiding the true function of the government, which as Steensgaard puts it was “the subjugation of the
exploited classes”.

While concluding the economic and political aspects of the 17th c crisis, Steensgaard says “the revolts
were not social revolutionary, but reactionary against the demands of the state. He urges us to recenter
focus on absolutism through the lens of policy and not just a passive instrument. This being said, we
cannot ignore that there were social aspects to this crisis.

Social

Jan de Vries in his work ‘Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis’ has asked three questions which give us a
broad overview of the social changes taking place among the peasantry, the proletariat and the
bourgeoise. The same have been discussed in the following three paragraphs respectively.

In England, the process of enclosure, often attributed to capitalist landowners, was known for displacing
peasants from their historical roles. However, the threat also originated from within the peasantry itself,
leading to the emergence of successful landowners whose interests diverged from traditional peasant
systems. Similar divisions were observed in Germany, Holland, France, and Tuscany, where different
political and landownership structures facilitated the rise of rural bourgeoisie and large hereditary
tenants. By the mid-seventeenth century, agriculture in Holland became dominated by a minority of
rural dwellers, leading to a distinct social hierarchy with farmers enjoying material comforts and urban
influences. Peter Kriedte points out that feudal lords had tightened their grip on agricultural incomes and
caused rents to skyrocket for the peasants. Additionally, the taille which had already gone from 6.2-13%
was made even higher after the 1690s.

Upland areas where cottage textile industries emerged experienced rapid population growth and a shift
away from traditional agricultural practices. This new society, characterized by insecurity and
dependence on merchant capital, faced desperate poverty but continued to grow in population and
reliance on rural industry. Similar patterns were observed across Europe, where the socio-economic class
of laborers and cottagers grew substantially during the seventeenth century. This growth was influenced
by changing marriage and family formation patterns, leading to higher fertility rates and earlier
marriages among rural industrial workers compared to agricultural communities.

While impact of developments like the formation of a capital market in northwestern Europe during the
seventeenth century was felt most strongly in major trading centers like Amsterdam and London, it led
to a growing economic dualism, dividing prosperous growth poles from stagnant regions. The
bourgeoisie, traditionally seen as a unified class, exhibited diverse characteristics and behaviors
depending on their location and economic circumstances. This period also witnessed a convergence
between nobility and bourgeoisie, with many noble families becoming involved in capital investment
alongside bourgeois entrepreneurs. In England as per Kriedte, the aristocracy and upper gentry tried to
create barriers between them and the lower classes, and the exercise of political power was in the hands
of this extremely wealthy and influential landowning class. Despite these changes, the true industrialists,
often from humble backgrounds, emerged as drivers of innovation and economic growth, particularly in
sectors like textiles, mining, and metallurgy.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the 17th century European crisis remains a complex and multifaceted historical
phenomenon that continues to be debated among scholars. While there is a consensus among historians
that a crisis did indeed occur during this period, the precise nature and causes of this crisis remain
subject to interpretation. Economic factors such as demographic changes, agricultural fluctuations, shifts
in industry, and international trade dynamics all played significant roles in shaping the crisis. Meanwhile,
political tensions stemming from absolutist policies, increased taxation, and revolts against centralized
authority further exacerbated the situation. Social upheavals, including the rise of rural bourgeoisie,
shifts in agricultural practices, and the emergence of distinct social hierarchies, added additional layers
of complexity to the crisis. However, the notion of a unified European crisis is challenged by the Dutch
Golden Age, which saw economic prosperity and cultural flourishing amidst the turmoil experienced
elsewhere in Europe. The Dutch experience underscores the importance of considering regional
variations and local contexts when analyzing historical events. In examining the 17th century European
crisis, it becomes evident that there is no singular explanation or overarching narrative that can fully
encapsulate its complexities. Instead, a nuanced understanding of the interconnected economic,
political, and social dynamics is necessary to grasp the full extent of the crisis.

Parker, G. and L.M. Smith, (Eds.). (1997). The General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century. London:
Routledge. (Introduction ,Chapters: 2,4, 5 & 7)

de Vries, Jan. (1976). Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis 1600-1750. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Kriedte, Peter. (1983). Peasants, Landlords and Merchant Capitalists: Europe and the World Economy,
1500-1800. Warwickshire: Berg Publishers Ltd.