A Medieval Agricultural revolution?

(Credit for this goes to Stirling, who I'm shamelessly copying verbatim, proving a stopped clock is right twice a day)

In the medieval period (and earlier) most of Europe used either a two-course,
or, increasingly over time, a three-course field rotation. A two-course
involves alternating grain and fallow. The three-course involves alternating
winter grain, spring sown grain/field peas or other legume, and fallow.

Fallow land could be grazed but the weeds and crop residues didn't provide much fodder.

On reasonably good land with reasonably good weather, the above rotations gave yields in around 10 bushels per acre with a 3 or 4 fold return to seed;
sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less.

During the 17th through 18th centuries, some English farmers and landowners,
drawing on Dutch precedent, evolved a much more productive rotation, which came to be known as the Norfolk or 4-course rotation.

This involved winter grain, spring grain used as a nurse crop for a
legume-grass ley, and turnips raised as a field fodder crop. There were, of
course, many local variations; among other things, the four-course is much
better suited to light well-drained soils than to heavy ones. It also required
periodic liming or marling of the soil to correct soil acidity so you could
grow the clover, but this was an ancient practice.

The results were quite spectacularly better than the old system; grain yields
were up to 4 times higher, and there was a massive increase in fodder
production as well, allowing more and better animals to be kept. The two were connected -- increased fodder meant more manure, which meant higher yields.

OK, say that in the medieval period, the earlier part of which saw rising
population and prices, someone comes up with this. There _was_ some interest in agricultural innovation at the time; estate-management manuals were "published" and different methods tried.

Say it happens around 1200. Diffusion would be slower than in OTL, since the
economy was somewhat less commercialized, but lords _did_ sell a lot of the
grain they produced on their demense (directly-managed) farms.

So during the 13th century in Britain and then in adjacent parts of NW Europe,
agricultural productivity per-acre rises by about 4x, instead of declining as
it did OTL. What are the results.

Ag production declined in the 13thc? I thought it increased, then fell precipitately in the 14th due to climate change in the early part.

I recently saw a book on the Industrial/Scientific revolution in Medievel times. It supposedly peaked in the invention of the clock, but then was stopped by the aforementioned AG decline, the Black Death, a resurgence of mysticism, etc. If this occurred at that time it might prevent that. (Part of the reason the BD was so bad its speculated that everyone was malnourished.)

Problem is, the invention of the clock can also be seen as triggering the Renaissance, the Black Death too (it made things a lot better for the survivors and created a labor shortage leading to the rise of a middle class)

I don't think there have been lots of "revolutions" in history. The Agricultural Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution (the second still going on) Improvements don't constitute revolutions. People might become wealthier and better fed but that happens all the time.

Agricultural production increased, as more labour became available and marginal lands were brought under cultiivation. Agricultural PRODUCTIVITY did not, and they set themselves up for a fall by over-intensive farming on marginal, infertile land.

There WERE innovations in the high middle ages, no ABSOLUTE reason wht there couldn't have been more.

This would totally eliminate the population decline/stagnation of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and even allow a modes increase to continue.

I wonder how far later improvements can be traced to changes in rural land tenure/social structure rather than purely the advancement of knowledge though?

Matthew Craw said:

I wonder how far later improvements can be traced to changes in rural land tenure/social structure rather than purely the advancement of knowledge though?

Click to expand...

Ummm. I'm not altogether certain it was that much; England at the time was, just as it would 500 years later, making a lot more money off of wool than peasants.

Nobles preferred maximizing their revenues, and he's right when lords did look up how to maximize productivity.

Better crops

Maybe some American crops get through somehow, a failed expedition makes it back but is captured by pirates and the crew killed, so only the crop plants make it.
Potatos are a very cold and wet area, very high yield crop.
Corn grows where it is too dry for rice and to wet for wheat. They also do not require plowing and this helps control soil erosion in hilly areas.
Pumpkins are a vitamin c, vitamin E, and carotene source and an oil seed crop.
Sunflowers are a vitamin E crop and an oil seed crop.
American beans and runner beans help crop rotation by nitrogen and by alternating European beans to slow pathogen growth if you plant only peas, lentils, and broad beans.
Chillies are a carotene and vitamin c source, and dry very well, better than tomatos.
Sweet potatos are a carotene source and another tuber crop, but more susceptible to cold.
Peanuts are a nitrogen fixing crop, and an oilseed. They are more susceptible to cold and are probably only grown around the Mediterranean, like sweet potatos.
These eight major crops would radically help crop rotation, nitrogen fixation, nutrition, and soil erosion control. They are garden crops mostly, not like wheat.

The net result is that the population probaly grows rapidly and is better fed, which suggests that the poor may realise how badly the nobles are scewing them quicker and we'd have an earlier wave of revolutions. On the other hand, a larger euro population might lead to euro settlements in Africa, pushing back Islam, etc...

Chris

AFAIK there actually was an agricultural revolution in medieval Europe. At least, since the world was used to change far less fast than today, for the people from then, it felt like a one. They introduced the heavy plough, stables, and started to use two thirds instead of one half of their fields (due to exhaustion, they had to leave the rest unworked - no fertilizer methods) (they planted summer and winter grain).

Potatoes did indeed revolutionize agriculture in Europe, but it would be tough to get them to medieval Europe, as they are native to high plains in the Andes. Sweet potatoes are thought to be native to western S. America, and a theory has developed that Polynesians landed on America waaay before Columbus, because they had sweet potatoes when Europeans began to explore the Pacific. Maybe we could say the Polynesians passed them on to SE Asia, then to China, and from there they find their way to Europe?
Are tomatoes native to the Americas too? Any great nutritional value they have, or would we just have earlier pizzas?

Max Sinister said:

AFAIK there actually was an agricultural revolution in medieval Europe. At least, since the world was used to change far less fast than today, for the people from then, it felt like a one. They introduced the heavy plough, stables, and started to use two thirds instead of one half of their fields (due to exhaustion, they had to leave the rest unworked - no fertilizer methods) (they planted summer and winter grain).

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, we're all aware of that, and how that contributed to europe's population boom. We're discussing the ramifications here.

I wonder how this effects the 100 years war, for starters.