CGP Grey
Published 30 Sep 2020
October 1, 2020
Supreme Court Shenanigans!
English lead and the European markets of the 1600s
In the latest Age of Invention newsletter, Anton Howes considers the meteoric rise in lead production in England and Wales from the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII to the Thirty Years’ War in Europe:
In the early sixteenth century, England was a minor producer of the stuff. It was widespread and cheap enough to be used for roofing buildings (unlike much of the rest of Europe, where copper was preferred), but the country never produced more than a few hundred tons per year. It didn’t really need to. Like stone in [the game] Dawn of Man, you could amass a stockpile and not worry too much about any leaky bucket problems [where stockpiles need to be replenished due to wastage or other “drains”]. The lead in roofs could always be recycled, and hardly any more was needed for pipes or cisterns. The vast majority of the demand came from Germany, and then the New World, where it was used to extract silver from copper ore. Even this dissipated in the mid-sixteenth century, when the New World silver mines began to switch to using mercury instead.
Yet by 1600, England was producing about 3,000 tons of lead a year, up from just 300 in the 1560s. By 1700, it was producing two thirds of Europe’s lead — a whopping 20,000 tons a year. How?
Unlike copper or iron, there is no evidence that lead mining or processing techniques were imported. If anything, they seem to have emerged from the Mendips, in Somerset, where production costs fell with the introduction of furnace smelting in the 1540s. As well as raising the extraction rates from the ore coming up from the mines, the new furnaces allowed previously unusable ores — found in the easily-accessible waste tips of old mining camps — to be smelted after some simple sifting. Unfortunately, we don’t have a clear idea of who was responsible for the innovation.
Yet the source of England’s supremacy was really, at first, religious. Following the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII in the 1530s, the melting down of their roofs dumped some 12,000 tons of lead onto England’s markets — at least a year’s worth of Europe’s entire output. Although the immediate effect was to annihilate England’s own lead industry, the medium-term effect was to send the other European producers into disarray. By the 1580s, once the stockpile had depleted, England’s lead producers were among the only ones left standing. The sale of monastic lead ensured that the English retained a foothold in foreign markets, while the cost-saving innovations then gave them the competitive edge. These factors explain, at least, England’s eventual hold over the European lead market.
But there was yet another phenomenon responsible for the industry’s massively increased scale: the development of hand-held firearms. Gunpowder technology was of course centuries old, but cannon had largely fired balls made of stone or cast iron. Muskets and pistols, however, used bullets made of lead. With the proliferation of the weapons over the course of the seventeenth century, lead thus acquired a major leaky bucket problem. Bullets were too costly to recycle, leading to an estimated fifth of Europe’s annual production of lead disappearing every year — a wastage that only increased as armies grew, weapons’ rate of fire improved, and the continent experienced extraordinary violence. Europe lost an estimated fifth of its population to the Thirty Years’ War, and England itself succumbed to civil strife.
England’s lead industry thus had to drastically increase its production just to maintain Europe’s stock of lead, let alone increase it. It was from soldiers entering the fray, to trade bullets across sodden fields, that it owed its extraordinary success.
Historical Breakdown of A Bridge Too Far – Planning and Failure of Market Garden I RHINELAND 45
The Great War
Published 30 Sep 2020Support our brand new World War 2 documentary about The Battle of the Rhineland (not to be released on YouTube): https://realtimehistory.net/rhineland45
After last year’s Downfall video (with over 1 million views!) we thought we look at another classic WW2 movie and give you a breakdown about the historical figures and background. Our pick this time: A Bridge Too Far.
» SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thegreatwar» OUR PODCAST
https://realtimehistory.net/podcast – interviews with World War 1 historians and background info for the show.» BUY OUR SOURCES IN OUR AMAZON STORES
https://realtimehistory.net/amazon *
*Buying via this link supports The Great War (Affiliate-Link)» SOURCES
A. Beevor, Arnhem: The Battle for the Bridges (2018)
B. Horrocks, Escape to Action (1960)
R. Neillands, The Battle for the Rhine 1944 (2005)
Builder, Bankes, Nordin, Command Concepts (1999)
www.pegasusarchive.org
www.nam.ac.uk/explore/market-garden
www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-story-of-operation-market-garden-in-photos» MORE THE GREAT WAR
Website: https://realtimehistory.net
Instagram: https://instagram.com/the_great_war
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WW1_Series
Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/TheGreatWarChannel»CREDITS
Presented by: Jesse Alexander
Written by: Jesse Alexander
Director: Toni Steller & Florian Wittig
Director of Photography: Toni Steller
Sound: Toni Steller
Editing: Toni Steller
Motion Design: Philipp Appelt
Mixing, Mastering & Sound Design: http://above-zero.com
Maps: Daniel Kogosov (https://www.patreon.com/Zalezsky)
Research by: Matthew Moss
Fact checking: Florian WittigChannel Design: Alexander Clark
Original Logo: David van StepholdContains licensed material by getty images
All rights reserved – Real Time History GmbH 2020
From the comments:
The Great War
6 hours ago
Support our brand new World War 2 documentary about The Battle of the Rhineland (not to be released on YouTube): https://realtimehistory.net/rhineland45 **We know that some of you don’t like the fact that we upload non-Great War content once in a while. But here are a few fun facts: Last year’s video about THAT scene from Downfall has been one of our most successful videos ever produced. It helped us spreading the word about our crowdfunding campaign last year and it also brought new subscribers to The Great War that hadn’t heard about it. And in the cut-throat world of the YouTube attention economy this is really important for our continued existence. Another “fun” fact: Both this video and the Downfall video were both claimed for copyright violation even though they clearly fall under fair use. We disputed and lost and now there is nothing we can do about the fact that someone else is earning money through our work. Just one of the reasons why it’s increasingly frustrating working with YouTube and why we are exploring other avenues for The Great War and our other projects.
Tank Revolutionary: Fuller’s Diary | The Tank Museum
The Tank Museum
Published 5 Jun 2020J.F.C. Fuller has been described as a satanist, Nazi and bigot. Director Richard Smith, explores this highly controversial character, who was pivotal to the story of armoured warfare, using Fuller’s personal diary.
Support the work of The Tank Museum on Patreon: ► https://www.patreon.com/tankmuseum
Visit The Tank Museum SHOP & become a Friend: ► https://tankmuseumshop.org/Twitter: ► https://twitter.com/TankMuseum
Instagram: ► https://www.instagram.com/tankmuseum/
Tiger Tank Blog: ► http://blog.tiger-tank.com/
Tank 100 First World War Centenary Blog: ► http://tank100.com/
QotD: Even so-called “Keynesians” fail to follow Keynes
The thing about deficit spending is that you should only be doing it when you need to be doing it. No, this isn’t a rejection of that Keynesian idea or ideal, it’s the point of it.
When wages are flatlining, when the economy needs that bolus of extra demand then, OK, go borrow and spend. Or, in the MMT world, print money and spend. But once you’ve delivered that bolus and the economy has recovered then you must be able to stop that spending – whether delivered by borrowing or printing. That is, a permanent increase in spending is not Keynesian demand management, only a temporary one is.
Tim Worstall, “The Guardian‘s Absurd View Of NHS Funding”, Continental Telegraph, 2018-06-15.