17th century was sandwiched between the renaissance and reformation on one hand and

enlightenment and industrial revolution on the other. Scholars have usually considered the
17th century as a period of crisis or as a transitory stage. The view that it was a period of crisis
was put forth by Voltaire. He described this phase as a general crisis- a period in which the
catastrophe was not only confined to Europe but had spread across the globe. The scholars
have laid emphasis on various factors- Ecological, Demographic, Political, Economic and
Social- and these factors differ from one scholar to another. Some like Hobsbawm consider it
as the crisis in the development of capitalism whilst others argue that it was a crisis in all the
spheres of life.

Ecological factors- Since, Voltaire described the century as a crisis all through the globe, then
it can be assumed that there would have been a common cause that would have pushed the
globe into a crisis. Scholars have deduced climatic or ecological changes as the common
factor that lay behind the universal nature of the crisis. The sources reveal that the
astronomers were not able to observe the sun spots and Aurora Borealis were not witnessed
during this period. The less number or no sun spots reflected the increase in droughts that
were prevalent in the 17th century. Braudel found that the overall temperature experienced a
drop of 1oC. This change had significant consequences leading to prolong winter period and
excessive rainfall. This in turn affected the harvest negatively and the growth of plants was
restricted to 3-4 weeks. The altering global climate and harvest failures had serious
repercussions and had a huge impact on the demography.

Demographic Factors- A series of poor harvests in regions like Sweden Poland, and Italy
caused a hike in prices of essential commodities. As result, people were dying due to
starvation. Epidemics were another evil that took away people’s life. The birth rates were
stagnating and were even declining in some cases. The period was marked by major wars.
These proved extremely disastrous for the population. During this period, Germany lost about
30-40% of its population. The population of Southern Europe witnessed a sharp decline.
Hence, population was suffering immensely.

Economic Factors- Due to changing climatic conditions, the agriculture was badly affected.
The agricultural sector became exhausted especially in the Mediterranean regions where the
terrain and soil were not very conducive. The yield ratio also declined. The trade sector was
also impacted by the decline in productivity. The trade in corn was hit the hardest by this
decline. The centres of power in the Mediterranean region were losing their eminence around
this period. The prosperous woollen industry of Italy started to dwindle around 1600.
Similarly, England experienced a stagnation in the export of broad clothes. Owing to the poor
economic conditions, there was a frequent debasement of coinage. The silver imports had
reached its peak and there was a decline in their circulation. But Niels Steensgard has argued
that it wasn’t a crisis of production rather it was a distributive crisis. It implied that, as a
result of harvest failures, the manufacturing industry was also hampered. Hence, people were
unemployed and could not sustain themselves. The imposition of increased taxes by the state
strained the economy even further. Therefore, the scholars have argued that economy was
jolted and was experiencing severe hardships.

Political Factors- This period was marked by political upheavals. This was the age of
reformation and counter-reformation. Hence, a huge amount of state’s expenditure was
diverted towards financing the armies. This increased the burden on the economy as the state
was levying heavy taxes on the people. Niels Steensgard has argued that both the political
and economic factors fed into each other. Due to the increase in taxes, people ended up
revolting against these excesses. For instance, in France when taille was increased to 4 livre it
became a cause of the rebellion. The political unrest was visible in regions such as England
where Charles I was beheaded or in Spain where the King lost his possessions in Asia or in
France where Louis XIV ‘s mother was on the run to protect her children. Above all,
Germany- the epicentre of the thirty-year war was facing battles at home that gradually
turned into a religious war joined by many neighbouring kingdoms. Therefore, these were not
socially revolutionist revolts but a reactionary response against the policies of the state.

The above stated arguments reflects that the 17th century was a period of crisis and all-round
decline as per the views of various scholars. But Niels Steensgaard’s work- a relatively recent
one- has uncovered various aspects about the period that present a picture otherwise.
Using sound toll register as one of his crucial sources, Steensgaard has argued that the
fluctuations in the agriculture sector were definitely present. Yet they were for a relatively
shorter period. Moreover, he argues that even though there was a decline in the woollen
textile industry and the English broad-clothes did not enjoy a wide market. These broad-
clothes were replaced by the draperies and their production intensified. This phase also
witnessed the entry of Netherlands as one of the important players in the economy especially
in woollen textile. Secondly, in the trade and commercial sector he stated that the decline was
short-lived. Moreover, after the decline of Spain, England and Spain emerged as eminent
commercial players. Thirdly, he presents the picture of the contemporary prosperous Holland.
The region was known for its ship building and Fisheries. It had a name in the market for the
construction of ships and supplied the ships to the rest of the Europe. It was doing fairly well
in economic terms. So it was rather a golden age for Holland.
Therefore, he argues that one can realise that usage of the term crisis for the entire phase of
17th century is little dubious. Even if some parts of the Europe were experiencing a crisis, rest
were performing considerably well. This is clear from the examples of Netherland, Holland
or England for that matter which emerged as an extremely powerful state after the mid-17 th
century. Even in a region that experienced crisis, there were certain classes that were
prosperous enough and were gaining power. Hence, before labelling it as a general crisis we
must ponder that for whom was it a crisis. We must not lower the stature of a century by
terming it as a crisis. It was this particular period in history that had set the premise for the
emergence of Capitalism in full form. The period also witnessed a significant shift from
Mediterranean to Atlantic regions. Hence, the 17th century might be a crisis but one cannot
generalise the time period and the nature of the crisis. The fault somewhere lies in the
trajectory that historiography has followed started with Voltaire. But upon examining the
things carefully it will be evident that it was not a crisis for each and every region of Europe.