So apparently we're doing 'do modern people work more than pre-modern farmers' discourse again on Twitter, so it seems like a good time to point out I have a series on pre-modern farming which discusses the considerable labor demands: 1/acoup.blog/2020/07/24/col…
The statistic that gets passed around - 150 working days a year for a medieval farmer - is badly incomplete; the 150 days is the required labor of a peasant on the lord's estate; farming any other land and literally any other task is extra. 2/
How much extra? A lot depends and I am better here with the Roman evidence. Columella (2.12), a Roman agricultural writer, figures that there were 290 working days in a year, accounting for festivals, market days, rain and the general seasonal cycle. 3/
How many of those days would you need to survive? Probably nearly all of them. It depends very heavily on the size of your household and the land you have to work. One can run a lot of simulations, assuming different yields, taxes or rent owed, etc. 4/
In a number of cases, we see that peasant labor was 'inefficiently allotted' in the countryside - too many farmers in a household for the land - so you might have 'excess labor' but pre-modern societies had all sorts of ways to soak up that excess labor. 5/
For instance, the 150 working days you are required to work your lord's estate where you only get a fraction of the food produced. Or systems of corvee labor. In the Roman Republic, an average of 7-10 years of military service per citizen male.
Gotta factor that in too! 6/
Of course you'd also need to err on the side of working more, because error in the other direction means you starve in the long gap between one harvest and the next. Generally, you'd be pretty close to Columella's 290 days, once all those demands were accounted for. 7/
Of course we should also note that farming labor wasn't the only labor going on in the peasant household. Household textile production, generally done by women, was also a huge full-time job time skink (acoup.blog/2021/03/05/col…). 8/
And we also want to note that the 'work day' in the high labor demand seasons (planting, harvest) was a lot longer than an 8-hour workday too - harvest especially was all-hands-on-deck dawn-to-dusk schedule, for weeks at a time. The pre-modern version of 'crunch.' 9/
And it also seems worth noting that we have a lot more non-work *years* too - peasants started working (boys in the field, girls spinning) at very young ages and effectively never 'retired,' so when you account for all of this, factor that in too. 10/
The end result is that your intuition is likely to be correct: the average pre-modern peasant worked more days than the c. 260 work days that you see somewhat typically (with exceptions) in the United States. Probably around 20-30 more days, w/ longer hours.
end/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's an episode in Plutarch during the dictatorship of Julius Caesar, where Marcus Antonius (Antony) at a major Roman festival (the Lupercalia) offers Caesar a crown.
But the crowd isn't buying it: the cheer when Caesar refuses the crown. 1/
And Plutarch reports there was a bit of a pantomime, where Antony would offer the crown and the crowd would sulk, only the sycophants would cheer.
And then Caesar would refuse it, and the crowd would cheer loudly.
And again: offer and silence; refusal and cheers. 2/
It's not entirely clear what Caesar and Antony were playing at, but one imagines that this was a 'trial balloon' for monarchy, that the crowd was supposed, at some point to relent.
Someone had, Plutarch says, put crowns on Caesar's statues at the same time. 3/
Now it is fair to also fault Biden for engaging in a water-treading 'solution' of escorts and smaller-scale strikes against missile sites, but Hegseth is running blindly into the very constraints that produced that approach.
It is the blindness that is remarkable.
2/
Namely: there's to be no amount of airpower-induced pain that will compel the Houthis to stop, nor does bombing the Houthis put leverage on Iran to stop supplying missiles.
Which leaves two options: treading water, Biden-style, or "caring about the Yemeni civil war." 3/
One of the things that made the Roman Republic's alliance system in Italy - upon which was built the lion's share of Rome's victories - so successful was that the Romans handled the system tactfully.
Part of the 'deal' of the system was 'we won't humiliate you.' 1/
The process of *becoming* a Roman 'ally' in the moment of conquest or submission, might involve humiliation (and a lot of violence), but after that, you were 'in the club' and Rome would tolerate no violence against you or humiliation of you. 2/
Whereas Greek diplomacy could be astoundingly blunt, what Polly Low terms the 'Language of Kratos' ('strength'), the Romans never call subject Italian communities subjects, or 'those ruled by us' the way the Greeks would.
When folks react with confusion at the rejection of Great Man Theory by historians, it is generally because they think it is just the first proposition, which we might put as, "historical events are often shaped by the decisions of key, powerful leaders." 2/
Now, actual Great Man Theory - in its original 19th century form (e.g. Thomas Carlyle and Johann Droysen; coining the term) - harden this position to insist that great changes in history are *always* *primarily* the result of the genius of a great man. 3/
Certainly history is sometimes influenced dramatically by highly capable people. Of course, hereditary monarchy being what it is, just as often key decisions are made by rulers who aren't very capable at all.
See, for instance, the July Crisis.
I suppose I would also note that 'high IQ' does not appear, to me, to be the only form that 'highly capable people' take. The compression of every virtue to intelligence obscures more than it clarifies.
The first thing to understand is that war for modern states is always a net loss; *any* use of military force is losing, because warfare is so catastrophically expensive that no state can hope to gain enough to offset its costs.
So you are gambling over a *negative* pot. 2/
Every so often a state leader - Bush, Putin - forgets this, imagines they can war their way to a 'good' outcome rather than just a 'less bad' outcome and the result is catastrophe.
This has been true since 1914 and was recognized by theorists in the 1940s; it has not changed. 3/