i just read a snide askhistorians thread where this ass insisted an italian had to be exaggerating child labor in 16th century England, because what really went on was on-average later marriages!
so that's libshit, right? western europe getting so rich cuz late marriage & not y'know, enclosure, proletarianisation, and imperialism is pretty ridiculous.
but if anyones read hajnal and thinks theres something to it please share
Sounds liek someone trying to justify occupation of Ireland and Slavic lands to me.
i can't imagine it having zero effect but it's probably not very important compared to imperial plunder. women would have had a few years more to dedicate to non-reproductive labor, but they would still have a bunch of children later so even the malthusian argument is iffy.
From the wiki on the Hajnal line lol:
The idea itself has its roots in earlier theories of the racial inferiority of Slavic people. Nazi anthropologist Werner Conze is credited with the earliest development of what would later be called the "Hajnal line". Werner Conze's work directly influenced the decision makers responsible for the Holocaust and the associated mass murder of millions of Slavic civilians in German-occupied territory during World War 2.
