In this four-section article, Inama-Sternegg examines fifteenth-century censuses from Nürnberg, Straßburg, Freiburg im Uechland, and Nördlingen. He combines a revision of medieval urban population estimates with a methodological argument: enumerations establish population totals more securely than demographic structure, and their interpretation requires exact publication and historically grounded definitions.
Bis vor wenigen Jahren sind eigentliche Volkszählungen aus der Zeit des Mittelalters nur von zwei deutschen Städten bekannt gewesen.
English translation: Until a few years ago, censuses properly so called from the time of the Middle Ages were known from only two German cities.
The opening section situates the article within an expanding body of archival evidence, culminating in Friedrich Dorner’s publication of Nördlingen’s enumeration of 1459. These discoveries encourage further research but expose weaknesses in editorial practice. Summary tables must be reproduced accurately, and categories such as citizens, women, children, and servants require explanation. Where individual records survive, readers should be able to verify calculations against them.
Um so wichtiger wäre es für Freiburg und Nördlingen, wo die Urlisten erhalten sind, gewesen, diese selbst zu publizieren, um eine einwandfreie Bearbeitung zu sichern.
English translation: It would have been all the more important, for Freiburg and Nördlingen, where the original lists are preserved, to publish these themselves, in order to ensure an unobjectionable treatment.
Publication is therefore part of the statistical argument, not merely its documentary foundation. Inama-Sternegg’s criticism of the Freiburg and Nördlingen studies concerns independent checking and fuller analysis. Scarcity makes these records especially valuable, but does not justify treating editorial reconstructions as unqualified observations.
The second section compares the circumstances and completeness of the enumerations. Nürnberg and Straßburg each had roughly 20,000 urban inhabitants, while Freiburg and Nördlingen numbered approximately 5,000–6,000. Their figures nevertheless arose under different conditions.
Den erstgenannten drei Volkszählungen ist es gemeinsam, daß sie ihre Entstehung einem besonderen Anlässe verdanken, der in der Besorgnis vor einer bevorstehenden Belagerung zu erblicken ist.
English translation: The three first-named censuses have this in common, that they owe their origin to a particular occasion, which is to be seen in the apprehension of an impending siege.
Military preparation connected the counting of people with the assessment of provisions, while rural refugees increased the population temporarily present. Nördlingen apparently enumerated its inhabitants in peaceful circumstances for administrative purposes. The evidentiary foundations also differ: Freiburg’s total combines incomplete lists from different years with tax records, whereas Nördlingen possesses a complete register susceptible to comparison with contemporary tax books. Low recorded numbers of children do not, in themselves, demonstrate omissions.
The third section draws the principal historical conclusion: medieval cities were substantially smaller than earlier estimates had suggested. Four direct enumerations, supplemented by calculations from tax and civic records, support this correction across twenty-one towns. Inama-Sternegg distinguishes population size from political and economic importance. Municipal autonomy, wealthy and energetic citizenries, and the sparse settlement of surrounding territories could give comparatively small cities considerable influence. The absence of usable evidence for Köln and Wien leaves the upper limit of medieval urban population unresolved.
The fourth section investigates household composition, sex ratios, and service employment while questioning the comparability of recorded categories.
Für Straßburg ist die analytische Arbeit auf ein Minimum eingeschränkt, da hier die Summartabellen überhaupt nur zwischen Stadtleuten und (vorübergehend Anwesenden) Landleuten unterschieden.
English translation: For Strasbourg the analytical work is restricted to a minimum, since here the summary tables distinguished only between townspeople and (temporarily present) country people.
Straßburg’s tables exemplify a wider problem: administrative classifications do not automatically answer demographic questions. “Bürger” cannot simply be treated as a uniform adult age group. Inama-Sternegg challenges Bücher’s restriction of Nürnberg’s citizens to men over twenty-five, drawing on the treatment of women and the younger ages at which sons took the civic oath. Differences in the classification of dependent sons similarly weaken comparisons of children per household. Freiburg provides firmer evidence where the material was specifically counted for existing marriages and children living within them.
Apparent female surpluses concern adults, since the surviving figures do not separate children by sex; they cannot establish the sex ratio of the whole population. Service categories likewise include more than domestic servants, encompassing agricultural workers, journeymen, and apprentices. Nürnberg’s larger service population is interpreted in relation to industrial activity and household wealth.
The conclusion locates the censuses’ strongest achievement in establishing population totals, while retaining caution about structural analysis. Further archival discoveries could extend the historical reach of statistics. The article corrects exaggerated urban magnitudes while specifying the documentary and interpretive conditions under which medieval enumerations become reliable demographic evidence.
This work was divided into 4 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 4 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian