Quantitative Methods in Historical Research

Abstract

When the historians came to realize that “they had to count”— which occurred on a visible scale only during the last 50 years — quantitative analyses became a legitimate element of historical narratives. Such analyses were needed very badly, for we know the astounding errors in texts written by earlier historians, who were not accustomed to handling figures and did not realize what precision was required on that point. They would send to battles armies which were so enormous that the entire adult population of a given state would not suffice to man them; they would make towns be inhabited by immense masses, and would send thousands to death when describing effects of plagues. Lelewel alleged that 193,000 people died in Cracow in 1652 as a result of an epidemic,1 which was at least 10 times more than the whole population of that city could amount to at that time. He assumed that in the boom period from two to five million tons of grain used to be exported from Poland through Gdansk.2 To realize how far he overshot his mark note that in Poland in 1961–3 the total annual four grain crops averaged 14.5 million tons; at the time referred to by Lelewel they could average 1.4 million tons,3 not more than 10 per cent of which would be exported. These data visualize the scale of the methodological upheaval in historical research over the last few decades. Those who are willing to use the term revolution might call that upheaval the quantitative revolution in historical research.