War is devastating and disruptive. This was also true for Northwest Europe, but according to new research, the long-term impact here was limited.
Roaring guns, looting soldiers and violence against clerics. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there was great political and religious unrest in northwestern Europe. Protestantism gained a foothold and kings were constantly at odds with each other. What was the economic effect of these wars on the common man or a besieged city? For his dissertation, economic historian Bram van Besouw of Utrecht University investigated the effects of wars on local and regional economies.
The arbitrariness of war
Economic decline, epidemics and refugees seem obvious when you think of war. However, this link is not always correct. Van Besouw looked at the links between war, economics and politics in early modern Europe and concluded that on average the consequences of warfare were relatively limited. According to him, the differences between regions and countries he observed in the data can be explained by existing economic and political differences rather than by the wars themselves.
“Nevertheless, war could have very serious consequences in certain cases. A cautious conclusion I would like to make is that it seems that differences in the extent of war damage at a local level are often quite arbitrary”, Van Besouw explains by email.
Featured by the editors
MedicineWhat are the microplastics doing in my sunscreen?!
AstronomySun, sea and science
BiologyExpedition to melting land
The theories
For his research, the historian used existing literature and new data, such as data from grave collections for the death rates and new information about acts of war. It was known from the literature that wars could have a positive effect on the economy, because it would lead to more urbanization and employment.
Historians think that this is because people fled from the countryside to the city and continued to live there or because the war-spread epidemics mainly affected the cities, resulting in a shortage of labor. This increased wages in the city, attracting people from the countryside. Behind this latter theory is the idea that the outbreak and spread of infectious diseases is a consequence of warfare.
No evidence found
Van Besouw tested the existing theories about epidemics and urbanization in wartime in the Low Countries, roughly the Benelux, in the seventeenth century. He found no obvious evidence for it. “I did not expect the lack of a relationship between warfare and epidemic diseases. Epidemic diseases were common in the early modern period. Traveling armies often suffered as well—because of unsanitary camps and poor supplies. But there is no spatial connection between acts of war and the spread of diseases, with exceptions such as the year 1625.”
In 1624 and 1625 the Spaniards besieged the city of Breda and the plague broke out. A link is therefore quickly made. “It is indeed true that the plague struck strongly in the region around Breda. However, I do not think it is the case that the plague outbreak started around Breda. This plague outbreak affected a large part of the Low Countries, especially the Northern half, resulting in high death rates, while no acts of war took place there.”
So here too the plague is not a result of war. So why is 1625 an exceptional year? “In our empirical analysis, Breda indeed stands out because the correlation of acts of war and increased mortality around the city can be demonstrated very strongly. However, it is not a causal relationship, because the plague also made victims in regions where there was no fighting."
Van Besouw also found no indications of increasing urbanization in the Low Countries. “First, because the link between war and epidemic diseases doesn't seem to hold. In addition, the migration effect also seems to be quite limited, or only a matter of days or weeks, so that the overall effect is not large. There is certainly no question of general rural depopulation and general urbanization.”
Context more important than war
Were the Low Countries, or the seventeenth century, exceptional cases? The historian thinks not. He had chosen this area and this period for a reason, because the link between warfare and migration and urbanization would be obvious here.
“This is because of the many wars, the rich and relatively open cities, and the limited restrictions on the mobility of people and goods. Of course, this observation is not proof that there are no war refugees in other periods or regions who continue to live in their new city. It does indicate, however, that the existence or non-existence of such migration may well be determined by factors other than the war itself. For example, whether the recovery of the economy is to the advantage of those in power, and whether the means are available.”
Now there are plenty of examples in the history of depopulated rural areas or of cities that grew enormously by migrants from war zones. Just think of Amsterdam, which would, among other things, grow into a metropolis because of all the refugees from the southern Netherlands.
Van Besouw therefore notes that he has looked at the general, average effects. Whether and how this migration works seems to depend much more on the resilience of local or regional rural economies than on a 'general war effect' in the medium term of a few years. The general theory 'from war to migration' is more one of social scientists. Historians often emphasize that migration flows depend on context.”
The historian does not immediately have a full explanation for the inability to confirm the two existing theories. “There are several possible explanations, such as extremely high rural mortality or very short-lived migration. We can disprove the first of the two somewhat because we've found few examples of it — and even fewer examples that have a connection to war. We can't really investigate the second explanation with the data we have. However, this does not mean that that explanation is the correct one, because there are a lot of other explanations to be made. This therefore requires further research.”
In any case, it is clear that the economic consequences of war, through epidemics and urbanization, were relatively limited in the Low Countries. Whether or not ordinary people, in urban and rural areas, suffered lasting economic harm was rather arbitrary and determined by causes other than war.