Population of the Russian Empire (1897-1917). The growth of the population of the Russian Empire. Demographic victory of Russians Population in the 18th century
Historical demography of the Russian people
How to explain the explosive growth of the Great Russian population from the beginning of the 16th to the end of the 18th century, that is, in a period of time that included a church schism, the Time of Troubles, Peter's reforms, which were the most difficult for the population, incessant wars, crop failures and other misfortunes and misfortunes typical of Russia? And yet, during this by no means vegetarian period, the number of Russians quadrupled, from 5 to 20 million people! Moreover, one gets the impression that the losses did not restrain, but stimulated the growth of the Russian birth rate. During the same time, the population of France and Italy, which were in incomparably more favorable climatic (and France - in political) conditions, grew incomparably less: the French - by 80%, Italians - by 64%. Moreover, Russia, France and Italy at that historical time had a similar type of population reproduction.
From the beginning of the XVI century. and for almost four centuries there was an explosive growth in the size of the Great Russian population. During the first three centuries, by the end of the 18th century, the number of Russians increased 4 times, from 5 to 20 million people, and then, during the 19th century, more than two and a half times: from 20-21 to 54 -55 million people. Any possible inaccuracies in the calculations do not change the order of the numbers. It was truly phenomenal, unprecedented for the then world demographic dynamics, especially since we are not talking about the population of the Russian Empire in general, but only about the dynamics of Russians, taken without Ukrainians (Little Russians) and Belarusians. Moreover, at the start of this demographic race, the Russian position looked rather weak: at the beginning of the 16th century. the Great Russians were numerically inferior to the Italians by more than two, and the French by more than three times: 5 million Russians against 11 million Italians and 15.5 million French. TO early XIX V. positions more or less leveled out: 20 million Russians against 17 million Italians and 28 million French.
A century later, at the beginning of the 20th century, the Russians had already become the third largest people in the world - 55.7 million people, yielding (albeit significantly) only to the Chinese and the peoples of British India, but ahead of the Germans (a little over 50 million) and the Japanese (44 million people). The total number of subjects of the Russian Empire (129 million people) was almost equal to the population of the three largest European states - Great Britain, Germany, France and exceeded the number of inhabitants of the United States. At the same time, the 19th century In general, it was marked by a sharp - from 180 to 460 million people - growth in the population of the West, causing hitherto unprecedented European migration, including in the colony.
But even against such a background, Russians and Russia stood out in relief in terms of the size of the absolute annual population growth. In the second half of the XIX century. natural population growth in European Russia was 20%, in the first decade of the 20th century. - 18%. According to this indicator, only China was ahead of Russia (and even then not for sure).
If in 1800 the share of Great Russians was 54% of the population of the empire, then a century later, according to the 1897 census, it decreased to 44.3% (17.8% were Little Russians and 4.7% Belarusians). For comparison, ethnic Turks in the middle of the XIX century. accounted for only 40% of the population of the Ottoman Empire. In the Habsburg Monarchy, the Germans at the beginning of the 20th century. accounted for less than a quarter of the population (together with the Hungarians - 44%; coincidentally, the same number as the Russians in the Russian Empire).
V.D. Nightingale. Blood and soil of Russian history. M., 2008. S. 87-88, 93-94, 113-114
In 1719, the population of Russia can be considered clarified: it was equal to 15.5 million people. In 1678, the population was also clarified: without the Left-Bank Ukraine, the Don and the non-Russian population of Siberia, it was about 9 million people.
What was the population of the Left-bank Ukraine and the Don at the end of the 17th century?
The population of the Don increased mainly through migration from the central regions of Russia. In 1719 it was 29,024 males, which means that in 1678 it was even less.
In Left-bank Ukraine, population censuses were carried out only in 1731-1732. and registered 909,651 people. m.p. For 1678-1719. Russia's population has increased by about one-third. The population of Ukraine during the same time should have increased faster, since, in addition to natural growth, there was also resettlement. But for simplicity, we will assume the same percentage increase. Then in 1678 there were about 1.4 million people of both sexes in Ukraine (according to other estimates - 1.7 million people).
The total population in 1678 will be rounded at 10.5 million people. Let's go even further - in the XVI century. Let's be careful and take for the second half of the XVI century. the smallest value (5%) of the proposed natural increase, and for the first half of XVII V. Let's assume that there was no growth at all. Thus, the population at the end of the XVI century. is defined as 7 million people, and in the middle of the XVI century. - 6.7 million people.
In 1552-1556. Russia included the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates. The population of these khanates in the middle of the XVI century. determined by several hundred thousand people, based on the fact that in late XVIII V. there were about 2 million people in this territory. This figure should be subtracted, and then the total for the middle of the 16th century. will be approximately 6.5 million people.
Thus, according to our calculation, which may have given overestimated, but not underestimated figures, the population of Russia increased from 6.5 million people in the middle of the 16th century. up to 15.5 million people at the beginning of the XVIII century. (conditionally for 1719):
Mid 16th century - 6.5
End of the 16th century - 7.0
1646 - 7.0
1678 - 10.5
1719 - 15.5
Ya.E. Vodarsky. The population of Russia for 400 years (XVI - early XX centuries). M., 1973. S. 24-27
It can be said that rapid population growth was a boon for Russia, as it allowed it to colonize vast territories and become a great power in terms of population, resources, military and economic power. Without a 35-fold increase in population and an 8-fold increase in territory over the years 1550-1913, Russia would have remained a small and backward European country, which it actually was until the 16th century, and no serious achievements in the field of literature, art, science and technology would be expected. from it would not be necessary, just as it would be impossible to count on a high standard of living for citizens.
Boris Mironov. Causes of Russian revolutions // Motherland. No. 6. 2009. P. 81
That is, according to Mironov, in 1550 the population of Russia was about 5 million people.
Kolyankovsky himself cites data that contradict his thesis about the balance of power in Eastern Europe in the 60s and 70s, which was allegedly unfavorable for Casimir. He emphasizes the material superiority of Lithuania over the Muscovite state, pointing out that Moscow Rus at that time had 84 cities, and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (excluding Poland) had 190 cities (L. Kolankowski. Dzieje Wielkiego ksiestwa Litewskiego za Jagiellonow, t. I, Warszawa, 1930, page 311).
I.B. Greeks. Essays on history international relations Eastern Europe XIV-XVI centuries. M., 1963
That is, judging by the number of cities, in the 1460s-1470s. The population of Lithuania in number exceeded the population of Rus' by more than 2 times.
By the 17th century Crimeans worked out the tactics of mass raids on slaves to such perfection that neither the defensive system of the Russian state and the Commonwealth, nor the system of military self-defense of the Don and Zaporizhzhya Troops could completely prevent the hijacking of the population. In order to limit the size of this disaster, 5-6 million people Russia, 8-10 million people the Commonwealth and 5-6 million people Iran, not to mention the vassal Circassia and Moldova, were forced to spend money not only on defense, but also on cash payments Khanate, whose population in the second half of the XVII century. was 250-300 thousand ("Perekop horde") and up to 707 thousand people, together with the Nogais and Circassians.
V.A. Artamonov. On Russian-Crimean relations in the late 17th - early 18th centuries. // Socio-political development of feudal Russia. M., 1985. S. 73
That is, according to Artamonov, in the 17th century. (more precisely, in its first half) the population of the Commonwealth exceeded the population of Russia by almost 2 times.
The population of the Russian Empire was multinational in its composition. Only peoples numbering more than 10 thousand people lived in the empire over 20. Most of all in the Russian Empire there were Russians. However, the share of the Russian population in Catherine's era decreased: from 62.8% in 1762 to 48.9% in 1796. This was due to the fact that new territories were annexed to Russia, in which representatives of other nationalities lived.
The second place in terms of numbers in the Russian Empire at the end of the 18th century. occupied by Ukrainians, the third - Belarusians. Then came the Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Tatars, Finns, Jews. The list was completed by peoples whose number did not exceed several hundred people.
The position of the non-Russian peoples was different. The rights of some of them were limited. So, for the Jews in 1791, the so-called Pale of Settlement was introduced, beyond which they were forbidden to live permanently.
The Pale of Settlement covered a significant part of the Kingdom of Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Bessarabia, Courland, most of Ukraine. Jews were allowed to settle only in cities or in so-called towns.
The subjects of the Russian Empire professed different religions. The majority of the population was Orthodox.
The accession of new territories to Russia led to an increase in the number of Catholics (inhabitants of the western lands) and Muslims (Crimea). In 1773, Catherine II signed the Decree on religious tolerance. All religions in the Russian Empire received the right to exist, forced conversion to Orthodoxy was abolished.
The principle of religious tolerance was easily found on the main street of the capital of the Russian Empire. On Nevsky Prospekt in St. Petersburg, in close proximity to each other, in the second half XVIII century there were: the Orthodox Church of the Nativity of the Virgin (on the site of the Kazan Cathedral), the Lutheran Church of St. Peter and Paul, the Dutch Reformed Church, the Catholic Church of St. Catherine, the Armenian Church of St. Catherine. The last two temples were erected under Catherine II.
The social status of subjects of the Russian Empire was different. People who lived in Russia belonged to various estates and social groups. All of them differed from each other in their rights and duties. There were three main social groups:material from the site
- nobility ( see Nobility under Catherine II) is the smallest population group;
- peasantry ( see Peasants under Catherine II);
- merchant class ( see Merchant Guild).
Pictures (photos, drawings)
On this page, material on the topics:
Sitkovsky Arseniy Mikhailovich student of the faculty government controlled Chelyabinsk branch of RANEPA
Galiev Sergey Sergeevich Researcher of the Department of Demography, Migration and Ethno-Religious Problems of the Center for Geological Research, Russian Institute of Strategic Studies, Candidate of Philological Sciences
The census is carried out in different countries ah from ancient times, in order to establish the number of taxpayers and warriors. Approximately in the VI century BC. e. V Ancient Rome began to collect taxes in different coins from citizens, depending on gender and class. After counting the coins, an approximate population structure was obtained. The birth of modern demography is considered to be 1662, when John Graunt in his essay reflected an approximate census of the population of London. Since then, demographic science began its development.
For our country, the history of demography began in Russian Empire. Replacement of household taxation in the 1st quarter of the 18th century. poll tax demanded a personal accounting of taxable estates (peasants, burghers, merchants). Then the first 10 population censuses were carried out.
However, these censuses did not give a complete picture, since they did not take into account the non-taxable sections of the population. However, only 5% of the population was not taken into account. From the above data, it can be seen that the population of the Russian Empire increased almost exponentially, but this may be due to the improvement in the quality of the census.
The first general census of the population of our country took place on January 28, 1897 by direct survey of the entire population on the same date, in accordance with the “Regulations on the First General Census of the Russian Empire” approved in 1895. The initiator of the census was the Russian geographer, statistician and statesman Pyotr Petrovich Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky.
Comparison of the census of the Russian Empire and Russian Federation.
Almost 120 years have passed since then, and it is interesting to see what our country has achieved over the years. The first general population census registered 125,640,021 inhabitants in the Russian Empire. It is worth noting that in 1914 an additional census was conducted and, according to various sources, 166,650,000 people lived in the Russian Empire (according to the Office of the Chief Medical Inspector of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, based on statistics of births and deaths) and 175,137,800 (according to the Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs without counting inhabitants of Finland). As of January 1, 2016, according to Rosstat, there were 146,544,710 permanent residents in Russia. This is a rather low indicator, both for the scale of the country and for assessing the quality of the development of the demographic potential of the nation. If you look at the dynamics of population growth in the Russian Empire and in modern Russia, now the population is practically not increasing at all. For comparison, in 1850 the population of China was 432 million, and in 2016 it is 1,373 million.
Fertility trends in modern Russia are depressing. That is why you should pay attention to the experience of past generations. The experience of different ethnic groups and civilizations varies greatly, so it is reasonable to focus on the historical experience of our country. During the Russian Empire, demographic indicators were a positive example for Europe.
One of key indicators is the average number of children born per woman. In the Russian Empire, it was equal to approximately 5.93 children per family. At the end of the XIX century. our country ranked first among European countries in terms of the number of children in a family. For example, in France even then this figure was 2.97 children per family. Now it is quite difficult to calculate the number of children per family, so in modern Russia you have to take the number of births per woman. This figure is 1.76 children per woman (in 2014). In fairness, it should be noted that in modern France, the total fertility rate is 2.0 (in 2014). Consequently, once the world's first country is now lagging behind even the outsiders.
The number of people living is strongly influenced by the infant mortality rate. Contrary to popular belief, about 267 children per 1,000 births died in the Russian Empire, that is, less than a third. In our society, for some reason, it is generally accepted that during the time of the Empire, more than half of the children born died. Many people forget that modern system health care, with the division of the territory into medical areas, with systems for prevention, vaccination, improving household hygiene, etc. was created by the government of Alexander II in the middle of the XIX century. Soviet Union only inherited the successful experience of organizing a system of universal free health care.
Thanks to the achievements of modern medicine in modern Russia, this figure is 7.4 deaths per 1000 live births (in 2014). But you need to understand that earlier the calculation was carried out only for the children being brought up, that is, about six children were brought up in each family, and this is without taking into account the dead. In France, for example, this figure is now 3.17 (2014), so here the Russian Federation is still lagging behind. In the Russian Empire, the infant mortality rate was one of the highest in Europe, but this rather speaks of the colossal demographic potential of our country.
| Average age of marriage at the endXIXV. in Europe | |
| A country | Average age of marriage |
| Russian empire | 20,7 |
| Hungary | 23,3 |
| Germany | 26,2 |
| Holland | 26,2 |
| Austria | 25,8 |
| Italy | 24,0 |
| Finland | 27,0 |
| England | 25,6 |
| Belgium | 28,4 |
| Scotland | 26,0 |
| Norway | 28,4 |
| Denmark | 28,0 |
| Sweden | 28,2 |
| Switzerland | 27,0 |
| France | 24,8 |
| Ireland | 25,2 |
From the above table it can be seen that in the Russian Empire the average age of marriage is the lowest in Europe at that time. However, we are not talking about 12-14 years, if you look at more detailed statistics by provinces, then the minimum for the country belongs to the Chernozem province (the territory of present-day Voronezh) and is 19.3 years. Such a striking difference from the countries of Europe speaks of more serious attitude to the choice of a spouse. It is the spouse, not the sexual partner. Purely physiologically at this age, a partner is already required, but in Orthodox tradition bodily intimacy always assumed a union in heaven, and therefore marriages were concluded earlier. In modern Russia, the attitude towards marriage has changed a lot, but the age of marriage still remains one of the lowest in Europe - 23 years according to the Levada Center (2013). It is important to note that during the time of the Russian Empire, marriage almost always meant the birth of the first child. Such an early date left time to create more descendants. The average age of first-born birth in the Russian Federation is 27.6 years. The reproductive age of a woman, the period of life when she is able to reproduce offspring, ranges from 15 to 45 years. Of course, the birth of the first child at the age of 27 leaves no biological possibility for the birth of six children.
In the Russian Empire, 16,828,395 people lived in cities, which is 13.4% of total number. In Russia, the urban population is 74.15%. Having studied the above indicators, the relationship between the number of births and the distribution of the population across the territory becomes obvious. Even now, the birth rate in private households is higher than in the urban environment. This suggests the need for state intervention in the resettlement of citizens outside the city. After all, with the proper development of infrastructure, hardly anyone would not want to live in their own home.
| death at the endXIXV. in Europe | |
| A country | Deaths per 1000 population |
| Russian empire | 32,0 |
| Hungary | 31,5 |
| Austria | 28,2 |
| Germany | 26,2 |
| Italy | 26,0 |
| Romania | 25,7 |
| Spain | 25,4 |
| Serbia | 25,3 |
| Portugal | 23,1 |
| France | 22,0 |
| Finland | 21,7 |
| Scotland | 20,9 |
| Holland | 20,3 |
| Switzerland | 20,3 |
| Belgium | 19,6 |
| England | 18,5 |
| Denmark | 18,2 |
| Ireland | 18,0 |
| Greece | 17,0 |
| Norway | 16,9 |
| Sweden | 16,5 |
| Bulgaria | 12,6 |
The table shows that the mortality rate in the Russian Empire is the highest in Europe. However, it is far from the highest in the world. For example, Honduras has the lowest indicator among all countries of the world - 44.7. In this study, the number of deaths was taken not for a year, but for a certain period, different for different countries. For the Russian Empire, the figures are taken for the period from 1884 to 1888. The author of the table himself claims that the data are inaccurate. Mortality in modern Russia is 13.1 deaths per 1,000 population (according to the World Bank for 2014). This is a high figure, our country is still leading among European countries, but we were surpassed in terms of mortality by Serbia - 14.2 (considered as a country from the list above), Ukraine - 14.7 and Latvia - 14.3 (considered as once part of Russian Empire).
The relationship between the mortality of married and unmarried people is of particular importance for demography.
It can be seen from the data that the mortality of non-family people in the Russian Empire was significantly higher than that of family people. To assess this fact, it is necessary to understand the realities of the society of that time. Almost all citizens of the empire (of reproductive age) were married. A small part of the citizens who were not married represented the lowest stage of the spiritual and moral development of a person, as a rule, they were people of marginalized strata of the population, thrown out of normal social interaction. That is why the mortality among such people is higher. In modern Russia, such studies are not carried out, however, according to 2007, even now, mortality among family people is lower.
This is due different type thinking. A family person is in a complex system of intra-family relationships that form protective behavioral norms that preserve the health of spouses. For example, the concept of fidelity in marriage protects spouses from dangerous sexually transmitted diseases. The family always reduces the involvement of a person in situations and enterprises associated with great risk. But the most important deterrent is the value factor - family people make long-term plans for life, they always have a goal in relation to which they focus their efforts. Such a life disciplines a person, preventing him from wasting his strength on trifles, unsystematically. Therefore, in the times of the Russian Empire, that in the times of modern Russia, family people are the backbone of the country.
Life expectancy in the Russian Empire was equal for men and women and amounted to 62.5 years. In Russia in 2015 this figure was 70.1 years (according to the World Bank). Of course, for almost 120 years this figure has grown slightly, especially against the background of our European colleagues.
Someone points to a high proportion rural population in the Russian Empire, which gave the main increase. However, if we compare the distribution of population between cities and villages in Russia and in some European countries, we will see that our country did not stand out much in this respect. In the period from 1908 to 1914 in Russia, 85% of the population lived in the countryside, for Hungary this figure is 81.2%, for Sweden 77.9%, for Italy 73.6%, for Holland 63.1%. However, despite this, none of these countries could even come close to Russia in terms of birth rates.
Many believe that the high population growth was due to the development of medicine and life-saving technologies in the 20th century. However, this is not the case, immediately after 1927, the birth rate in Russia begins to fall, even despite the subsequent improvement in housing conditions, an increase in the level of medical care and education of the population. After civil war the demographic power of the Russian people began to decline, as if something had broken in it, as if the people had lost something important, some kind of spiritual core.
The demographic indicators of the Russian Empire were very impressive, especially in comparison with the current demographic problems of our country. These indicators served not only as an example for posterity, but also for contemporaries. The experience of the Russian Empire in the field of demography should not only be remembered and proud of it, but also put into practice in modern Russia. Of course, much has changed since then, especially in the field of value orientations, but the reasons for the high birth rate and low mortality remain unchanged. The predominance of private households and family people, the strengthening of the institution of marriage, the priority role of Orthodoxy, political and economic stability in the country - all this contributes to an increase in the birth rate and a decrease in mortality. Experience in solving demographic problems should be sought not so much in the practices of foreign countries, which today cannot solve their own demographic problems, but in best examples from the history. You and I are lucky, because there is such an example in the Russian genetic memory, the now forgotten history of a great country - the Russian Empire, which, of course, can and should be used.
Statistical Yearbook of Russia. 1914. Publication of the Central Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Pg., 1915. Section I. Statistical and documentary reference book. SPb., 1995.
E. M. Andreeva, L. E. Darsky, T. L. Kharkova. Demographic history of Russia: 1927-1959. URL:
The new feudalism of the second half of the 18th century took another step forward in comparison with the old Moscow one.
We remember that even then the estate was not quite self-sufficient: it lived not only to satisfy the immediate needs of its owner, but partly also for the market.
But it was not yet a rationally organized economy of the newest type. Rather, it was a kind of "robber agriculture" - a parallel to the "robber trade" of the 11th-12th centuries. The landowner of Godunov's time sought an incorrect permanent income - he strove in the shortest possible time to extract from his estate as much money as possible, which became cheaper year after year with a speed capable of inducing panic in people whose habits still smacked of a stagnant swamp of natural farming. He lowered everything he could in the market, and, one fine day, left on the plowed and devastated land with ruined peasants, he tried to turn at least these latter into a commodity, since no one was buying the land.
This orgy of naive people, who saw the money economy for the first time, was bound to end, like any orgy, with a severe hangover. In the 17th century we have a partial reaction of subsistence economy: but since the forces that disintegrated this last century earlier continued to operate even now, moreover, the further, the more, a new flourishing of landlord entrepreneurship was only a matter of time.
And this time should have been the shorter, the denser the population of landlord Russia, firstly, and the closer were its ties with Western Europe- secondly, because, as we remember again, the depopulation of the central districts and the rupture of trade relations with the West, thanks to the failure of the Livonian war, greatly contributed to the aggravation of the agrarian crisis of the end of the 16th century. Just in time for the flowering of the "new feudalism", towards the end of the reign of Elizabeth, circumstances in both these respects were developing for landlord economy unusually favorable.
The Petrine wars, as we have seen, greatly thinned out the population of the old regions of the Muscovite state, which had greatly increased by the end of the 17th century, but the traces of this devastation were smoothed out even faster than the traces of the Time of Troubles. The Peter's revision yielded about 5,600,000 male souls: twenty years later, less than one generation, the Elizabethan revision, which was far from being carried out with such ferocity as the first one, and which probably gave a much larger percentage of "leakage", nevertheless registered 6,643 thousand souls.
The first Catherine's revision, which relied solely on the testimony of the population itself, i.e. for noble estates, to the testimony of the landowners themselves and their managers (at first, such a simple method of counting, proposed by the empress, stunned even the members of the noble senate), however, gave a new and very significant increase - 7,363 thousand souls.
Starting from the fourth revision, the census included provinces that were not previously involved in it, due to a different tax organization in them (Ostsee and Little Russian), as well as areas newly acquired from Poland: for the whole of Russia, the figures are obtained, therefore, incomparable with the results of three first revisions. But already in the 70s (the fourth revision began in 1783), Prince Shcherbatov counted about 8 1/2 million souls within the borders of Petrine Russia. In other words, in the half century since Peter's death, the population has increased one and a half times.
The absolute figures of the population still say nothing, of course, by themselves. More important is its relation to the territory. With an average density for European Russia of 405 people per sq. a mile (about 8 per sq. kilometer), at the end of the reign of Catherine II, there were 11 governorships, where this density exceeded 1000 people per sq. km. mile (20 per kilometer), i.e. almost reached the average population density of present-day European Russia, which, as you know, according to the data of 1905, is 25 people per square meter. kilometer.
Those were the provinces: Moscow, with a density of 2403 people per square meter. mile (almost 50 per square kilometer, i.e. almost as much as now in the central agricultural provinces - Kursk, Ryazan, Tambov, etc.), Kaluga, Tula and Chernigov - from 1500 to 2000 per square. a mile (from 30 to 40 per kilometer, like the provinces of the Middle Volga, Simbirsk, Saratov, Penza, Kazan), Ryazan, Kursk, Kiev, Orel, Kharkov, Yaroslavl and Novgorod-Severskaya - from 1000 to 1500 per sq. km. mile, or 20 to 30 per sq. kilometer (denser than Samara and the region of the Don Cossacks and slightly lower than Minsk or Smolensk).
The city of Moscow had to exert a certain pressure on the population of the Moscow province, but not as strong, however, as it might seem: at the end of the 18th century, Moscow had no more than 250 thousand inhabitants. The influence of urban centers on the population of such provinces as Kaluga or Ryazan could have had an even lesser effect. Even if we reduce the population density of the Moscow province by 1/5, we will get up to 40 people per sq. km. kilometer of purely agricultural population.
In our time, provinces with such a density are already suffering from a lack of land: a hundred and fifty years ago it could not have been otherwise. Here is what Shcherbatov wrote in the 70s about the Moscow province of the Petrovsky division, which included the later Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Vladimir, Tula, Kaluga and Ryazan regions: "Because of the great number of people inhabiting this province (Shcherbatov considered 2169 thousand souls in it) , many villages remain so landless that with no diligence they can get bread for themselves, and for this they are forced to look for it by other works.For the same reason, the multitude of forests in this province has been greatly exterminated, and in the midday provinces there are so few of them, that they have a need for heating.
At the same time, in the Nizhny Novgorod province there were "many great villages and volosts", which, due to lack of land, "practicing themselves in needlework, crafts and trade", did not even have vegetable gardens.
Many times I have seen population growth charts in Europe that look almost like a straight line. That is, the growth in the number of Europeans for three centuries (from the 15th to the beginning of the 18th) was minimal. In Pierre Shonyu's book "The Civilization of Classical Europe" there are figures that explain this phenomenon well.
Shonyu refers to population censuses, church and tax acts. They become relatively detailed just at the beginning of the 17th century, and since that time it is possible to clearly trace the main demographic trends.
Personally, I was struck by the fact of a very late marriage at this time. For peasants (and they made up 80-90% of the population of states), the age of marriage for women was 27 years, and their husbands were a year younger. Moreover, before this age, for the most part, both women and men retained their virginity (among the peasants, the percentage of illegitimate births did not exceed 2-3%).
Among the bourgeoisie, the age of marriage for women generally rose to 27.5 years (in Geneva it was 28.5 years at all), husbands were older by 6-7 years.
Among the townspeople extramarital pregnancy increased to 6-10%.
The marriage rate among the peasants was 99.2-99.5%, among the townspeople 97-98%.
As Shonu rightly notes, such a late age of marriage was a "subconscious Malthusian act" aimed at limiting the birth rate.
As in our time, the bourgeoisie had the largest number of children: from 8 people in Flanders to 8.7 in the Swiss cantons. This was partly due to the fact that women in labor did not breastfeed their children, but gave them to nurses. That is, as Shonyu writes, they did not experience temporary infertility of a nursing woman.
The interval between the last birth and conception averaged 8 months.
By the way, Shonyu points out that at that time the only correct act social mobility there was a dairy fraternity. As a rule, dairy brothers received some significant preferences from the bourgeoisie (for example, they could pay a high fee for entering a monastery for a commoner).
Peasants living on the plains had an average of 5 children, those living in the forest zone - 5.5 children.
For that time, these figures meant, in fact, the stagnation of their numbers. As Shönu writes, "a figure above 6 means that the population is growing at an acceptable pace, below 5 it is declining." The fact is that about 40% of babies lived to the age of 19.
However, in the "pioneer outskirts of Europe" the number of children per peasant family is increasing sharply. So in Canada, there are 8.3 children per family, in Mexico - 7.6.
I was personally surprised by the age limit for women's fertility. So, 85% became mothers for the last time between 37 and 46 years. The average age of the last birth is 41 years.
In 12 years after the start of marriage, in 60% of families one of the spouses died (in 2/3 of cases it was a woman).
Well, the last numbers. During the period from 1620 to 1750, the population of Europe increased by only 35% (that is, the growth was at the level of 0.2-0.25% per year).
(In one of the following posts I will write about the main factor in the "regulation" of the population at this time - diseases and epidemics).
