Golden Age or Parasitic Rule? The Knights in Malta
Two historians debate the Knights of St John's rule in Malta (1530–1798). Historian A argues: 'The Knights transformed Malta: they built the Valletta and Floriana fortifications, founded the Sacra Infermeria, and the population rose from about 20,000 to 100,000.' Historian B argues: 'They were a parasitic theocracy: their wealth came from European estates, they imposed monopolies on grain and tobacco, the Inquisition censored books, and the local nobility was excluded from high office.' A student must write an essay assessing both. The evidence includes notarial records showing some local merchants prospered, petitions complaining of grain shortages, evidence that the Knights' navy protected shipping, and the 1775 revolt of the priests against the Order. The student wants to avoid simply choosing one side.
1. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of each historian's interpretation. What does each select and omit?
Read the worked answer
Historian A is strong on infrastructure, public health, and population growth, which are visible and measurable. But A omits who paid for the fortifications and who was excluded from the benefits. Population growth may reflect immigration and economic opportunity, not only good rule. A also ignores censorship and monopolies. Historian B is strong on extraction, monopolies, and political exclusion, which are documented in petitions and institutional records. But B omits the security the Order provided, the employment it generated, and the fact that some local merchants prospered. B's label 'parasitic' is evaluative rather than explanatory. Both are selective: A focuses on outputs, B on distribution and power. Neither is simply wrong; each answers a different question. A's evidence supports a case for development, B's for exploitation, but the two can coexist.
2. Formulate a thesis that goes beyond 'golden age' versus 'parasitic' and propose two types of evidence to test it.
Read the worked answer
A better thesis: the Order's rule was a negotiated and uneven regime that provided security and urban development while extracting surplus and restricting political participation; its effects varied by class, locality, and period. This avoids a single verdict and allows change over time. To test it, first use fiscal records: who paid the grain monopoly, how much, and with what effect on household budgets. Second, use notarial contracts to see whether local merchants and artisans gained from Order spending or were crowded out. Other useful evidence includes petitions and court cases, which show negotiation and resistance, and comparative data from other ancien régime port cities. The thesis would be strengthened if the Order's spending raised local incomes but the monopoly burden fell unevenly; it would be weakened if local merchants prospered regardless of monopoly or if security was minimal. The point is to specify mechanisms, not to praise or condemn.