Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

During the 16th century, Portuguese captured Melaka to dominate the lucrative spice trade; other city states such as Aceh, Banten, Brunei and Pegu also sprung up by exporting and trading spices. However, I don't quite understand why is spice trading such a profitable venture as spices are quite expensive when they reach their terminal buyer. There are sayings that compare spices to gold

How did the high price of spices allow such high demand? Were the demands from the aristocrats capable of upholding and sustaining such high volumes of trade that enriched South Asian city states?

= Assumptions I was under the impression that the European population was predominantly serfs during 15 and 16th century. The abolition of serfdom wasn't until 18th centuries for most European powers, except England and France. This is precisely why I was confused in how European buyers was capable of sustaining a demand that wasn't a necessity. Are the aristocratics of European powers wealthy enough to buy spices at the price similar to that of gold? And where did that wealth come from? I understand that high demand result in high price, but there must be some kind of wealth that is sustaining that demand or else the price will drop until the demand reaches the supply.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Razie Mah, Comintern, Tyler Durden, jwenting, Rajib Jun 15 at 19:05

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions on social sciences other than History are off-topic here, unless they also involve history in some fashion. While ethics, archaeology, etc. are all connected to history, each field has their own experts who are better equipped to answer such questions." – Razie Mah, Tyler Durden, jwenting
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

5  
Because spices are expensive when they reach their destination. That is one of the best ways to be profitable, sell a good for which there is a small or restricted supply and a wealthy stable demand. Perhaps i do not understand the question? –  Mark C. Wallace Jun 15 at 6:37
2  
So the assumption is that expensive items don't allow profit? I'm with @MarkC.Wallace C.Wallace- I don't think I understand the issue. –  Rajib Jun 15 at 6:58
1  
I think OP's saying that something as expensive as spices shouldn't be in enough demand to be "so profitable". –  Semaphore Jun 15 at 14:14
1  
possible duplicate of The value of spice trade during the age of exploration –  Comintern Jun 15 at 14:33
2  
@AvnerShahar-Kashtan in that case he's mistaken in believing it was a very poor society that was consuming those spices... –  jwenting Jun 15 at 16:53

3 Answers 3

up vote 6 down vote accepted

The question is a bit confusing. The way I read it, you're asking why something expensive has enough demand to sustain a profitable trade ("How did the high price of spices allow such high demand?").

The answer is that it wasn't that expensive. A pound of spices might cost several days' worth of wages for an average craftsman, but a pound of pepper is a lot of pepper. It was a luxury item, to be sure, but it wasn't completely out of reach for the average middle class professional. Furthermore, that is not at all a prohibitive sum for the wealthy, which includes the ranks of not only the aristocracy, but also the growing class of merchants and higher level professionals and other large land owners.

And no, Western Europe was not "mostly serfs" during this period.

The claim that spices were worth their weight in gold (quite an exaggeration to tell the truth, for all but saffron) also shows why the spices had a market. Gold and silver were expensive, and yet there was clearly a market for it. The Spanish shipped in shiploads of it from the New World, for instance. Spices, which were cheaper and yet consumables, would logically have a bigger market as long as Europeans have a demand for them as luxury goods.

Of course, highly priced luxury items by their nature are not traded in high volumes. Neither was spices: the supply, in Europe, was severely limited. Much later when the VOC gained its spice trade monopoly, the Dutch began shipping around 270 tons of cinnamon per year, which was at the time a vast quantity that outstripped local supplies. Contrast that with modern cinnamon production of ~35,000 tons. And as more and more trade routes were established and transplanted spices started to be growing in more places, supply enlarged and the value of spices fell.

Note that limited supplies in the late Medieval period didn't affect the profitability of the spice trade. The spice trade was "such a profitable venture" precisely because "spices are quite expensive when they reach their terminal buyer" - relative to their cost in Asia, which is something like 1/10 or 1/100 the sales price. And again, as supplies expanded, prices fell.

EDIT:

As luxury goods, The main consumers of spice were the wealthy, middle to upper class members of society. Religious and supposed medicinal uses aside, these people valued spices because it is expensive; it formed a social status symbol, desirable for showing off. The marriage of Duke Georg of Bavaria to Polish Princess Hedwigis was celebrated with a feast involving almost 1300 pounds of various spices, for example.

While the rich could afford the a wide variety of expensive spices in ridiculous amounts (i.e., Duke Georg), it wasn't beyond the means of the common folk either. As noted above, a pound of pepper might cost a craftsman several days work - enough to make it a luxury goods, but not so expensive that it was affordable. So even (well to-do) peasants could afford pepper, the cheapest of the common spices.

share|improve this answer
1  
Thanks for the answer, would you mind explaining who were the major buyers of spices? In terms of country, and social class. From your response I feel that I have a wrong impression in the wealth of Europeans during 15th to 16th century. –  user4984 Jun 15 at 17:46
    
@user4984 I'm not sure you have the wrong idea per se; but perhaps you underestimated their numbers, purchasing power and demand. Spices were by and large bought by nobles, upper level clergies, affluent traders; upper class, and the wealthier upper middle classes. Basically anyone who could afford it. Oriental spices were regarded as medicinal, exotic, and most importantly status symbols - serving guests with spices was a non-optional social obligation. The other use for spices you might not have realised was "medicinal" - they were thought to have pharmaceutical benefits. –  Semaphore Jun 15 at 19:52
    
However, even the poor peasant could buy a bit of spice here and there. Try weighing your salt and pepper. You don't use that much in a typical meal; and pepper to the medieval peasants would have been a luxury like say truffles. –  Semaphore Jun 15 at 20:14

It is pretty logical. Back in time there were no electronic, car and many industries, and the wealth - gold and silver - of the world arrived to Europe - mainly to nobles and kings. There was a big portion of extra wealth available to spend, and it was an interesting luxury item since those times the spices in foods were very limited in europe due to the climate.

On the other side spice was a perfect commodity to transport. You needed to calculate in grams, not tons. Therefore you didn't need a huge fleet of ships to make a good business out of it. The price was maintained simply because of the risk, the long trip, and the fact the nobles are willing to waste the extra wealth on it.

Also the prices were maintained by the big companies formed in these times: British East India company and the dutch one for similar purpose. The paid 40% dividend, and everybody was happy about it. And if I say everybody, I include customers too, spicing their food was a good sign if they are wealthy, which was obvious for their guests, when they learned they ate for example three spices from indonesian islands and india.

share|improve this answer
    
mind to comment why downvote? –  CsBalazsHungary Jun 15 at 11:26
1  
maybe because (and it wasn't mine) it's such blatant nonsense as to be without any value at all. And unsourced as well, which might be ok if it can be verified but in fact the opposite of your statements can be easily verified. –  jwenting Jun 15 at 16:57

The spice trade was started by ancient Indians, to Rome, and then carried foward by the Arabs. It had been going on for long, when thd Europeans dominated it. This points out, that more than profitability, the demand, was the driving factor of further trade, which in turn of profitability.

Food in Europe was relatively dull. That may sound a small factor, but believe it, the monotony and dullness could drive people to do anything to find an escape. Boiled salted meat, and bread were like nothing, once the people had tasted spices. So if I am the trader, and I bring spices to a market, I can just set any price I want. The people WILL buy it. Ofcourse, those who have money. Those who dont have, will earn money so that they can upgrade their lifestyle, and their family can eat spiced food, which again will be bought from me. $So, my stuff gets sold, whatever cost I set. That reads profitability.$

Spices were not readily available in Europe. Spices dont grow in cold regions. And even in tropical regions, all spices are not found everywhere. After the fall of Constantinopole, land trade routes were all blocked, which further reduced the supply. That is also one of the reasons why European cuisine is so vast in desserts. And also one of the factors which led to discovery of Americas. Its sort of Big History.

share|improve this answer
    
And the answer to the question is..? –  Rajib Jun 15 at 11:23
    
Do you see it now? –  Rohit Jun 16 at 10:55
    
"Food in Europe was relatively dull". Don't believe your history teacher. And your answer is otherwise confusing too. Is it demand or is it profitable? This of course does not take away from the fact that the question too is based on assumptions. –  Rajib Jun 16 at 11:45
    
@Rajib, What makes you think that I have a history teacher friend? –  Rohit Jun 18 at 8:10
1  
What makes you think Food in Europe was relatively dull? Your answer makes atrocious assumptions regarding the culinary abilities of the Europeans, which has nothing to do with profitability, even by your completely convoluted logic. Stick to the point, and answer without such biases. –  Rajib Jun 18 at 10:28

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.