Population Growth in the Middle Ages

Question

Okay, I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but in my Euro textbook it tells me that there was stable population growth in Europe in the eleventh and twelfth centuries due to more opportunities in commerce and agricultural advancements. i want to know why. After all, in America where we are very technologically advanced family size steadily decreased. So why is it that their families grew? Wouldn't more efficient methods mean less kids needed to work?

Answer 1

In the 12th and 13th century, more food and more job opportunities did lead to the population growth. However, a lot of what we see today has nothing to do with our growing food supply. Parents, like aristocrats in the 18th century, started to have smaller families to spend more resources on individual children (increased importance of education...etc). Then there is always birth control :)

Answer 2

There was a warm spell during that time, meaning there was more land for agriculture, and a longer growing season and more harvest.  When times are good, people are more willing to have more children is what usually happens--lots of children were required even with advances in agriculture (which still would seem backward by our standards).  With better weather, people were outdoors more, and more children lived--that was the real key.  There were fewer plagues and such until the mid-1300s, when the Black Plague (and probably severe anthrax) swept through Europe and killed one-third of the population.  At the same time, a Little Ice Age began, and there was less arable land for shorter growing seasons.  

The Roman Catholic Church only looked down on s*x outside of marriage.  Producing children is/was advocated by the Church.  

Answer 3

Technological advances doesn't ALWAYS mean smaller families.

It only means smaller families, if the technology means there are fewer jobs that children can do.  When the children can't do money-producing work, it's not worth having many; they become an expense, instead of  producing wealth.

Your point about needing less labor, if more efficient methods, is a good one.  Except, farms are not set to meet specific targets.  'More' is always better.  So, so long as one more kid can help you get more food out of your land, it's worth having one.

Doesn't Christianity look down upon s*x...There are always forms of birth control available, in any age, if that's what you're talking about.

And Christianity only looks down upon s*x outside marriage.  So long as you're open to children, you and your wife/husband can have as much nookie as you want!

Answer 4

Population dynamics changed with the Industrial Revolution.  Prior to that, families typically had lots of children, partly because many of them would typically die before adulthood.  So when times were good and families survived more intact than before, populations grew.  People didn't adjust their reproductive habits.

Enter industrialization and modern medical science.  Most of our worst diseases have been brought under control (smallpox, cholera, bubonic plague, polio, etc.).  Food is plentiful (hunger exists because of the way we distribute resources, but famines no longer occur in the Western world).  Suddenly the population exploded.  At the same time, people in the cities realized they could expect their children to survive, which meant it was in their best interests to have fewer of them.  The children would survive, and they could support them better on their limited finances.

So that's why populations in the developed world have stabilized.  It's also why the Third World is experiencing real population problems: more people are surviving because there have been some advances in medicine etc., but not enough to change their reproductive habits.

P.S. Catholicism (the only Christian sect in Western Europe in the 11th & 12th centuries) doesn't have a problem with s*x within wedlock. It also actively encourages married couples to have children.

Answer 5

Large families may have been because;

- Religious beliefs.

- More children meant that they could go out and work and bring in more money for the family.

- No family planning.

- Low infant mortality rates meant that people were engouraged to have larger families in the hope that more would survive.

EDIT: Not everyone lived on farms, most people didn't.

Hope this helps.

Answer 6

It was because of less deaths really. There was no real form of birth control but the pull out method, but that doesn't work.And because  agriculture was growing and so was medical science families who in the past because of bad nutrition and lack of medical action would give birth to 6 babies but only 2 would live now had higher chances to living babies. Also yes the church did look down at s*x but at the same time Nuns and high church figures were having s*x. Worse at this time the church was in hot water themselves for selling church seats for money. In fact a little reading and you can see that there was a female pope. She was just a legal male. Her parents bought her seat before she was born.

Answer 7

Religion.

People still had a social obligation to "go Forth and Prosper."

We have Much improved birth control.

Keep in mind Many people were still living under a feifdom.

People had an obligation not just under church to produce children, but under country.

They had as many children as they could because only a few survived.

Keep in mind offspring had to survive, birth, the first year, Disease, Hunger, accidents. If a Family was able to produce 5 children that survived long enough to help with the farm, they were considered lucky.

Besides it isn't like they had HBO.

What else was there to do?

Having children back then was not a choice. It was simply just done.

It was as obligatory as breathing and eating. If a person approached a family and tried to explian the Choices they had in family planning they would have thought that person was daft.

Family planning back then was making sure one didn't get pregnant before marraige or  Not getting pregnant while suckling a child under 2 years old.

It would have been like explaining weight Watchers.

Madness.

EDIT: No, s*x for procreation is an obligation in the eyes of the church. Within the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony s*x is the consumation of the Sacrament.