Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The 2nd-4th posts contain regional estimates, more specifically for:
The 5rd-15th posts contain more detailed local estimates, more specifically for:
-This field makes cryptozoology look mainstream. There are dead serious instances where population estimates vary by as much as 160,000%, and while there are different degrees of reliability from local historian X thinks Y number of people probably lived in the general area "some generations" ago, to contemporary censuses/estimates, to archaeologists' monographs based on excavated settlements "frozen in time" like Pompeii, the hard fact is guessing historical populations is for all intents and purposes a fool's errand.
Despite all this, we're going to go ahead and be fools a bit in this thread, because something is better than nothing and the fun thing about a project like this is no one is staking their professional reputation on a formal thesis. It is just a bunch of interested people positing logical or extrapolated possibilities based on the available information.
-Please note that there are currently no plans to adopt a "population system" in Beyond Typus. It is my considered position that historical demography is just too unclear in too many places, that any attempt to implement a population system would be overly fraught with guesswork, approximations, hypotheticals, and arguments devolving into pointless academic (in the worst sense) debates, all defeating the intended point of accurate representations of historical populations as a balancing tool. I know many people adore population systems, so I'm sorry to disappoint.
I should also add that I have enormous respect for mods that do attempt a population system, it is an ambitious and admirable goal that does much for immersion in the few well-documented areas where the information available makes it possible to do it somewhat accurately.
-Unless otherwise clearly specified, all estimates and figures are based on second half of the 15th century (1450-1500) borders and populations. It would certainly be interesting to extend the purview of this little thread to include population change and track pre-Plague Old World, post-Colonial Americas, or post industrial populations, but that is a bit too ambitious even for me.
I understand the instinct to want to bring up modern populations, or even early 20th century populations, but unless it is an extemely remote area with no outside contact until the point of the estimate you're referencing, please do refrain. 15th century populations and population distributions are in many cases very, very different than post industrial ones.
-If your country/your favourite country/your most hated country recieves an estimate you feel is unfair or inaccurate, please do not get offended; get evidence. I'm not pushing any agenda here but to assemble the best information possible, and as development ≠ population and I may still assign whatever development I see fit, I have no motivations to "tweak" or "creatively interpret" the numbers, though I am very critical of many historical demography sources. As mentioned before, this is the wild west of academia where good facts go to die, and there are many figures with political motivations, so do be wary of that.
-I'm posting this (really quite off-topic) thread with my notes to share information I've come across, so naturally I encourage people interested in the topic to check it out, and if they feel so inspired, to use this information. That said, please do offer some credit or link back here. It serves the dual purpose of acknowledging the work I (and probably others at some point) have done researching, and also promotes more interested people to stop by and share their thoughts, further improving the knowledge base. Regards -Draíocht.
-Known Estimates: 420m, 424m, 425m, 427m, 428m, 438m, 440m, 438m, 458m, 460m, 461m, 484m, 500m, 540m
-Known Estimates: 40m-190m, often 70m-90m, 73.8m, 79m, 81m, 81.8m, 84m, 84m, 84m, 84.8m, 85.5m, 87.7m, 90.7m, 100.4m
-Known Estimates: 227m, 243m, 245m, 277m, 280m, 284m, 286m, 304m
-Known Estimates: 46m, 46m, 54m, 85m, 86m, 87m
-Known Estimates: 8m, 10m, 14m, 15m, 19.8m 20m, 30m, 40m, 41m, 42m, 46m, 46.5m, 50m, 54m, 60m, 72m, 75m, 112m, 145m
-Known Estimates: 2m, 3m, 3m, 3m
-Known Estimates: 62m, 75m, 103m, 125m, as high as 325m, though these not taken seriously
-Known Estimates: 79m, 95m, 100m, 110m, 112m
-Known Estimates: 17.8
-Known Estimates: 53m
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: 0.5m, 1m, 2m, 2.1m, 2.8m, 6m, 7m, 8m, 10m, 11m, 12m, 16m, 18m
-Known Estimates: 3,550k - 57,000k
-Known Estimates: 4,500k - 38,750k
-Known Estimates: 3,000k
-Known Estimates: 3,942k, 4,742k, 5,000k
Roman Britain, some 1,100 years before our 1444 start, is generally believed to have contained about 4m people (though some estimates are as low as 1m, others as high as 6m), with likely at least another 0.5m north of the wall and 0.5m in Ireland. This 5m+ would fall to perhaps 2m, if that, in the Dark Ages after the Fall of Rome and in the wake of Germanic Invasions, Ireland & Scotland likely being a majority of that, before rising again to 2m in England by 1086 (Doomsday Book) and probably upwards of 1m in both Scotland and Ireland each. The population continued to surge, and some estimates even go as high as 11m+ (6m in England, 0.5m in Wales, 2.5m in Ireland, 2m in Scotland) by 1200, but this number would plumet with the Plagues (1349-->) and famines (1315-1317 especially) of the 14th century. This dramatic fall is universally agreed upon, but the exact figures on either side of it are not.
-Known Estimates: 1,900k, 2,100k (1430), 2,100k (1460), 2,365k, 2,250k (w/ Wales), 3,500k (w/ Wales), 3,600k (w/ Wales), 2,500 (1400), 3,000k (1530), 3,750k (w/ Wales)
-Known Estimates: 250k, 400k, 700k, 750k, 800k, 800k, 800k, 900k, 1,000k, 1,200k, 1,400k, 1,700k, 2,400k
The precedent set elsewhere is highly rural distributions are difficult to estimate, but most estimates end up being lower than reality when censuses were later conducted. This makes me suspect a figure at the higher end of the estimates, but the scholarly consensus seems to suggest the ~1m range, so not being an expert I'm deferring to the experts for now.
-Known Estimates: 500k, 500k, 600k, 750k, 800k, 1,000k
-Known Estimates: 250k, 278k (1536), 400k, 2,250k (w/ England), 3,500k (w/ England), 3,600k (w/ England)
-Known Estimates: 8,000k (1440), 8,000k, 10,000k, 12,000k, 15,000k, 15,000k, 15,500k, 16,600k, 18,000k, 21,000k
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: 850k-1,250k, 1,300k-1,500k
-Known Estimates: 7,800k, 8,500k
-Known Estimates: 3,900k, 4,300k, 4,500k (w/ Andalusia), 5,000k (w/ Aragon & Andalusia), 5,100k, 6,500k, 7,000k, 6,800 (w/ Aragon & Andalusia), 6,000k-10,000k (w/ Aragon & Andalusia)
-Known Estimates: 870k, 900k, 950k, 1,000k
-Known Estimates: 1,000k, 1,200k, 3,000k, 1,043k (Adult ♂ 1422), 1,262k (Adult ♂ 1527)
Portugal certainly has plenty of arable land and a somewhat less tumultuous history in the 14th & 15th centuries, augmented by the fact that the very rural population would have been theoretically less affected by the plague centuries than some, so I am inclined to believe a notably higher population density in Portugal than the rest of Iberia, but a population of 3m gives a frankly unbelievable density of 33/km2 (matched only by Italy in Europe, arguably the world). At the same time, the lower counts often focus on the small size of Portuguese cities and, like in Ireland, read this as an indication of a low total population, which is in my opinion quite small minded, and historically rural populations are consistantly higher when finally censused than estimates suggest. I hate to be so crass as to just pick the number in between the two extremes, but something around 2m gives a very-high-but-plausible density and seems plausible with the influence Portugal exerted, though I have a hard time believing the population didn't grow at all from 1500 to 1736, when the first census revealed about 2.15m, so I'm going to posit a population of about 1.8m for now. This is a very small growth for 250 years, but Iberia's population is known to have spiked after the plague years but subsequently grewvery little until the 19th century.
-Known Estimates: 250k, 350k, 500k
-Known Estimates: ~X
-Known Estimates: 16.95m, 25.55m (w/ Hungary)
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: 9,000k, 10,000k, 10,500k, 11,000k, 11,000k
-Known Estimates: Milan 1,250k, Venice 1,500k, Papal States 2,000k, Florence 750k
-Known Estimates: ~2,000k
-Known Estimates: 600k (1500), 576k (1501), 270k (1436), 400k (1478)
-Known Estimates: 116k (1320), 85k (1355), 26k families (1485), 122k (1485), 67k (1603)
-Known Estimates: 110k (1461)
-Known Estimates: 650k (w/out Finland), 1,450k (w/out Finland), 1,500k (w/ Finland?) 1,550k (w/out Finland), 1,690k (w/ Finland), 2,000k (w/ Finland)
-Known Estimates: 550k, 600k, 600k, 570k (1600 w/out Scania or Holstein)
-Known Estimates: 427k-531k (1571), 900k (1571), 550k, 600k, 650k, 800k
-Known Estimates: 140k, 225k, 250k, 300k, 300k, 400k, 246k (1520), 359k (1590), 400k (1600)
-Known Estimates: 100k, 300k, 300k, 300k, 300k (1550), 300k (1571)
In light of this, I'm breaking with all the experts & sources (and feeling a bit guilty about that) to posit a population of ~200k in 1500, growing from a slightly higher 50k-60k before Swedish control, and then continuing to grow, rather than stagnating as many estimates suggest, after 1500. I'd posit an especially large growth in the 17th century, which also saw Sweden's population boom, in order to bring the total to the ~450k first observed in organised censuses.
-Known Estimates: 30k-120k (widely agreed that population rose & fell often & quickly)
-Known Estimates: 4,500k, 8,000k
-Known Estimates: 1,500k, 4,500k (Greeks)
-Known Estimates: 3,050k
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: 6,000k, 12,000k, 15,000k, 11,000k (1550), 15,000k (1600)
-Known Estimates: 3,750k
-Known Estimates: 2,000k
-Known Estimates: 2,000k (1370), 3,250k, 4,000k
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: 500k, 1,250k
-Known Estimates: 1,250k
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: 3,550k - 57,000k
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: 0.5m, 1m, 2m, 2.1m, 2.8m, 6m, 7m, 8m, 10m, 11m, 12m, 16m, 18m
Suffice it to say, the population of North America has become a highly politically charged topic. The one extreme essentially calls the native population savages fundamentally unable to have possibly established any meaningful society and dismisses native claims and higher estimates as baseless legends. The other extreme accepts oral history as fact and is often guilty of sloppy scholarly practices like double counting or failing to account for even the most obvious 20th century demographic changes while acusing the former of colonial whitewashing.
Somewhere in the middle, there is a group of people trying to cling to some degree of objectivity in a polarised world where everything must be extrapolated several times beyond what any sane person could reasonably accept as a margin of error. We will almost certainly never know for certain what the pre-colonial population was, but here are some things to bear in mind:
-Known Estimates: 65,000 (circa 1800)
Though many of these estimates seem nearly beyond reproach, especially from a non-specialist, I did notice an interesting trend, which rather threw up some red flags for me. Universally, isthmi, coasts surround by steep mountains, & other areas which could be easily approached and quickly explored by sea average an estimated population density some x5 higher than inland areas. Islands average a further dramatic increase (~x5 again), and areas directly settled by the Russians represent another substantial increase to the average (~x5 again), to the point where estimates for small islands, a mere day's walk across, with early direct Russian contact often exceed vast swaths of land several hundred times larger. In many cases, coastal land and islands were superior to the interior, so this is expected to some degree, though frankly not to the extent one finds in these estimates.
It is also worth mentioning that the estimates giving 65,000 clarify *at first contact*, which in many cases would have been after the populations were devastated by Columbian Exchange diseases carried by the Russians, and the (very strong) posibility of pre-contact transfer of at least some Columbian Exchange diseases, as well. All this considered, I'm positing a considerably higher 15th century population of around 150,000 or so, about x2.5 the mainstream at-contact estimate, which encourages much more plausible coastal vs. inland averages as well as track nicely with (somewhat) better documented trends elsewhere on the continent of pre vs. at contact.
-Known Estimates: 130,000 to 330,000
Though some recent work is pointing towards potentially higher populations and there is circumstantial+logically likely evidence of population decimation from Columbian Exchange diseases (far in advance of any meaningful contact with Europeans), considering the width & breadth of the research done here, earlier documentation & smaller scope (easier to pin down estimates) than Cascadia, and transparency + back & forth discussion regarding all these estimates, I'm positing a pretty typical figure of around 300,000, with the note that around 1/8th of the modern state is counted as Cascadia and around 1/8th is counted as Oasisamerica.
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: 175k - 2,400k, 133k on CDN side
A major factor in estimates here is reliable evidence of several devastating smallpox and/or other disease outbreaks in the mid-late 18th century & late 17th century, each reducing population by *at least* 35%, but more likely 65% to 75% if precendents set elsewhere held. Several other unique factors probably contributed to devastating the population immediate before European contact, as well, which makes any estimate highly speculative and almost completely unrelated to the actually documented populations encountered at first European settlements in the early 1800s, which are widely accepted to still have been among the highest north of the Rio Grande.
While direct censuses & European estimates are sparse (nonexistant), it is somewhat compensated for by a decent volume of archaeological research, which is increasingly confirming longstanding native claims of 100s of thousands to millions, not the 10s of thousands argued in the early 20th century. One may still find references to older (usually pre-90s) academic texts arguing for < 200k, but these figures are now usually regarded as "definitively disproven".
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X
-Known Estimates: X