###

# Population

There are many eyewitness accounts of the horrific damage caused by the Fifteen Years' War, and news of Transylvania's misery spread far beyond its borders. The situation was all the more noteworthy in that the abject poverty prevailing after the war reflected in part the great famine that swept across Europe. The adverse weather conditions recorded in Transylvania at the turn of the century affected much of the continent. The reports did not give the full story. When the Transylvanian diet reconvened after the war, in 1607, it reduced the rate of state tax by no more than 0.8 percent: the base became five oxen (or the equivalent) instead of the four set in 1578. This suggests that the lawmakers considered economic conditions to be only slightly worse than before the war, but their optimism was soon shown to be ill-founded. A year later, they had to acknowledge that, far from causing a marginal decline in wealth, the war had drastically impoverished the country. In 1609, the diet replaced the property tax with a poll tax, which, in practice, considerably reduced the tax base: the number of taxed households ('gates') plummeted from around forty thousand to four thousand.

Obviously, these statistics did not signify the disappearance of nine-tenths of the population. The number of 'gates', before or after the war, gave little indication of the total population, for they included a purely notional figure for Saxon 'gates' and did not include the Székelys, who remained exempt from standard taxation. The figures do allow for some tentative extrapolation. Since {2-154.} the Middle Ages, taxes had been linked to property, and it can be assumed that the rate imposed in 1609 took some account of the taxpayers' means. If, as seems likely, the property of ten villeins came to be regarded as roughly equivalent to the prewar tax-base of four oxen, and if this was the rationale for reducing the number of taxable gates by nine-tenths, then it would appear that the war and the climatic disasters at century's end had reduced the wealth of Transylvanians in the same proportion. And this conclusion would hold equally for the Székelys, since they continued to pay the same rate of special tax: in 1609, as in 1578, this rate stood at half of that applied to the Saxons and the Hungarian counties.

The reduction in the tax base points clearly to a decline in wealth, but one must also take into account what must have been a substantial drop in population. This drop was caused not only by the war. but also by the devastating plague that struck Transylvania in the winter of 1601–1602, and by a famine that even gave rise to cases of cannibalism.

With regard to the human cost of the era's warfare, it is commonly noted that the damage was spread unevenly, losses being of a smaller magnitude in remote mountain areas and in well-defended towns. There is evidence that this was the case in Transylvania as well. The previously-noted statistics for 1603 indicate that in Belső-Szolnok and Doboka counties, which were less touched by the war, only 45 percent of Romanian mountain-dwellers perished, compared to 85 percent of the Hungarians and 88 percent of Saxons. It is likely that remote and inaccessible location helped people to survive the Fifteen Years' War in other regions as well. On the other hand, Transylvania's towns offered no guarantee of survival. Barely a quarter of Szeben's and Brassó's inhabitants lived to see the peace, and statistics on craftsmen reveal an even more tragic decline: one a shade over ten percent of leather craftsmen in the guild at Beszterce survived. Similarly, in certain rural districts of the Szászföld, 90 percent of the population had vanished. {2-155.} As for the Székelys, since their warrior tradition led them to participate actively in the war, they must have suffered at least comparable losses.

Thus, even in the absence of comprehensive statistics, it is evident that the population of Transylvania suffered a drastic fall in number. Bearing in mind that many people must have fled and sought refuge in the mountains, it can be safely estimated that around half of Transylvania's population perished in consequence of the Fifteen Years' War.

It is not possible to give a precise indication of the growth in population over the period between that low point and the next disaster, the Turkish invasion of 1658. There is some evidence, however, that by the 1650s, the numbers were approaching those that prevailed in the late 1500s.

It is clear that there occurred a process of demographic regeneration. One striking piece of corroborative evidence is that, at the end of the 1620s, the feudal orders changed their attitude regarding fugitive villeins. Whereas the diet previously had devoted much attention to the forcible return of villeins, this issue receded after 1628. Similarly, whereas, in the first two decades of the century, the diet had commonly granted new settlers a six-year exemption from taxes, it did so much less frequently in the following period. To be sure, references to runaway villeins and abandoned plots could still be found in subsequent registers. But it seems that by the end of the 1620s, most estates had regained a certain economic stability, even if their labor force did yet reach prewar levels.

With regard to Székely villeins, sources suggest that their number doubled between 1614 and 1622. Admittedly, the 1622 figure is not wholly reliable, and thus the estimate may be optimistic; and since the estimate also reflects the shift of many Székelys from free to villein status, it cannot be taken as a clear measure of population growth. On the other hand, the state strictly prohibited the indenture of new villeins in this period, and while the practice did {2-156.} not disappear, it was probably kept out of official registers. On balance, the registered increase in the number of villeins must be construed as indicating a significant growth in the general population of Székelys.

In contrast, there is evidence that the demographic regeneration of Saxon towns was less dynamic. According to travellers' accounts and municipal records, there were many unoccupied houses as late as the 1650s. At the same time, the economy of the towns was restored to good health. In the period of high inflation, it was these towns that converted to gold the devalued currency that had been collected in taxes. Thus Saxon society survived the drastic human losses and was functioning productively by the 1620s.

Demographic changes represent the most significant factor in the postwar process of revitalization. Disasters generally tend to induce a rise in the birth rate, and this was the case with Transylvania. There is no hard data on birth rates among burghers or villeins, nor, for that matter, within the ruling class, but genealogical sources on the latter do provide some clues. Records show that in the early decades of the century, Transylvanian noble families produced an uncommonly large number of children. Lázár Apor, who died in 1643, had ten children, but his family tree shows only two grandchildren and five great-grandchildren; and, in the previous century, each Apor family had no more than two or three children. The genealogy of the Barcsai family shows that, in the 16th century, several generations and branches produced but one offspring, and only one had as many as seven children; similarly, in the second half of the 17th century, the number varies between one and three. At the turn of the century, however, one Barcsai family had eight offspring. The Béldi family's genealogy shows one, two, or three children in the 16th and 17th centuries, except for a Béldi in the early 1600s who produced five offspring. The Haller family seldom produced more than three children, yet Pál Haller, who was born in the early 1600s, had nine children by his three wives. The {2-157.} four children born to a Kendeffy in the same period are similarly an exception to the general pattern in that family; later that century, another Kendeffy produced six offspring. In the early 17th century, two branches of the Macskási family produced five and six children respectively; their 16th century ancestors had two or three children. The Mikó family tree also shows a rise from one or two to four or five children in this period, and that of the Mikes family, from one and three earlier to two cases of five offspring in the 17th century. The Lázár family may be the only aberrant example: they produced seven children twice in the 16th century, but never more than five in the 17th century.

It is likely that most of these genealogical sources indicate only those who reached adulthood, and thus do not account for all live births. Allowing for this margin of uncertainty, the data does give a comparative measure of family size. For want of better sources, this evidence suggests that generations born in the early part of the 17th century produced an exceptionally large number of children, and that catastrophe was followed by a demographic explosion. The direct causes of this phenomenon remain unknown. There are no sources to indicate a lowering of the marriage age or a conscious effort to produce large families in Transylvania. It may be that amidst the shock of depopulation, people came to value children more highly and to look after them better.

It is also noteworthy that Transylvania did not experience the decline in birth rates evident in much of 17th century Europe. This is corroborated by data pertaining to two widely separate locations, the Gyalu domain and the Fogarasföld. The registers of eleven parishes on the Gyalu domain show that, in the period 1640–1666, the average number of sons born to householders hovered above one: 1.2 in 1640, 1.1 in 1652, and 1.1 again in 1666. Thus the average family size, including females, must have been around four. Data that includes females is only available for 1638 and four parishes, where the average family size was 3.8, 4.4, 3.7 and 4.3 respectively.

{2-158.} Since the sources give no indication of age, there is no way of telling whether the families had reached their maximum size or were still growing. Moreover, sons who had moved away were not always recorded; of those who settled on their another plot, some were registered elsewhere, while others were evidently included in the basic family count. Although this data does not allow for firm conclusions about family formation, it does suggest a steady pattern of reproduction, with families of respectable size.

The registers of Fogarasföld show an even more favorable picture. They encompass villeins as well as boyars on the domains of Fogaras, Porumbák, and Komána, in the years 1632, 1637 and 1640. The ratio of sons to householders ranges from 1 to 1.6, except in 1632, in Fogaras, when it dipped below one. The rate in Fogaras grew from 0.9 in 1632 to 1.4, and in Porumbák from 1.4 to 1.6. Although the rate fell in Komána from 1.6 to 1.3, the overall figure for the Fogarasföld increased from 1.07 in 1632 to 1.3 in 1637, and 1.4 in 1640. Thus the average family size was greater in the Fogarasföld then in Gyalu, and the birth rate was rising.

The demographic explosion early in the century and the steadily high or growing birth rate may not have touched all regions and social strata in Transylvania. Although demographic data concerning the Saxons is momentarily unavailable, it is likely that this group had a comparatively low birth rate. On balance, however, rising birth rates were an important factor in the postwar recovery.

A third important aspect is the striking increase in the number of Romanians. This owed to two factors. First, groups of Romanians who formerly practised transhumance settled on the land after the Fifteen Years' War. Second, many Romanians migrated from the voivodeships to Transylvania. The first shift, from mountains to villages, did not represent actual population growth, but those involved were only registered in censuses after they had settled in villages. The arrival of the second group made for a net increase in population.

{2-159.} The estimates of two contemporary observers are commonly cited with regard to these changes. According to Antal Verancsics, archbishop of Esztergom, Romanians accounted for one quarter of Transylvania's population in the 1560s. Some eighty years later, the voivode Lupu wrote to the pasha of Temesvár that one third of all Transylvanians were Romanian. However, according to more methodical estimations, the 700,000 inhabitants of Transylvania proper at the end of the 16th century included some 220,000 Romanians; while, in the entire principality, there were over 330,000 Romanians within a total population that numbered in excess of one million. The proportion in both cases is about a third, the ratio claimed by Lupu. However, the latter evidently exaggerated the facts that were at his disposal with the intent of persuading the pasha to invade Transylvania; he argued that this mass of Romanians would revolt and guarantee victory for the Turks.

The recorded increase in the proportion of Romanians owes not only to settlement on the land and immigration, but also to demographic factors linked to ethnicity. The statistical disparity between Gyalu and the Fogarasföld may be explained by the different customs of Hungarians in the one and Romanians in the other. The steady rate of increase among Hungarians may have been higher than in much of Europe, but it was low compared to that of the Romanians, who tended to have larger families and show a growing rate of natural increase. The differences between their demographic customs clearly helped to alter the ethnic balance in the principality.

There is no evidence of any organized attempt to compensate for the depopulation caused by the Fifteen Years' War. The purposeful colonization that often followed such disasters in other countries had no parallel in Transylvania. No foreign power was responsible for the migration of Romanians into the principality.