Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
HOW MANY PEOPLE??!!
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Thursday, 19th February 2009
A number of times on these threads people have been surprised to learn the amount of people that were inhabiting Britain at various times through history.
Some research suggests that 1 million people were living in Britain during the Bronze Age, some other that there were 3 million people alive in Britain at the end of the Roman occupation.
Does anyone have any knowledge to either confirm or to refute these figures?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 19th February 2009
Northern Europe was quite sparsely populated in ancient times (and thus the absence of evolved societies). It saw its populations rapidly inreasing from the early middle ages and onwards (and thus the rise of more evolved societal forms). By late middle ages, there were so many people around that the plagues could be seen as almost inevitable (taking for granted the deplorable hygenic habits of these people)... Southern Europe on the other hand followed an opposite procedure with its highest peak around late Hellenistic times - perhaps a bit further in early Roman ones - population levels never to be seen again till 20th century...
1 to 3 million people seem too few for some for a large island like Britain - personally I would go for 3, certainly it was not 10 million though!!! For comparison (and to explain why people in Northern Europe showed this relative cultural hysteresis, Greeks of Greek mainland and islands were around 5-6 million and Greeks of South Italy (the biggest Greek population in the Mediterranean) could rise nearly to 10 million (when large cities there reached even half a million people), both considerably smaller areas than Britain.
When a land is habitated by a relatively very small population, people tend to live in sparsely positioned small communities and thus no evolved societal forms may appear (the case for Africa - a continent 5 or more times the size of Europe with the 1/4th of the European population till very recent times!). -
Message 3
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Saturday, 21st February 2009
Try the Oxford History of England series, it charts the population of the Uk and how different estimates were arrived at from the turn of the century to the present, its the best all in one refernce to my knoweldge.
i have the relavent book for the Roman period and would bet that its the basis of the posters you mean, as it part of the edu required reading, and hasa chapter on how over time we have represented differnet pop levels for England in the roman to Norman period. -
Message 4
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Saturday, 21st February 2009
Historical Demography and Demographic History
The search terms to use are something to think about
The above only goes back to about the 16thC which is not what we are considering, century wise.
What should I add to "Historical Demography and Demographic History" or to one of those terms to
get to some assessment of Roman times, in these islands?
There may be quite a lot about those terms in Classical Greece and Rome; as always not so much about the pagan lands. -
Message 5
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Saturday, 21st February 2009
Warning pdf file
The hyperlinks offered using those search terms get in to Malthusian theories quite quickly, but I am sure it would be a pleasurable experience to endeavor to study it!
There are all sorts of social science terms which arise. -
Message 6
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Saturday, 21st February 2009
Dyer's model suggests that the population of England ranged between two and three million for every century between the ninth and sixteenth, except for the thirteenth, when it rocketed to about six million. By crafting such a fine synthesis of other aspects of the medieval economy, Dyer's work suggests that we still have much to learn about the inner dynamics of medieval demography, as well as about the structural relationships between population movementsÌý -
Message 7
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Saturday, 21st February 2009
Intensive surveys have been done of small sample rural areas, and have found a fairly high density of sites (almost one per sq km). In "The Romanisation of Britain" by Millet, the mid-range estimate of population is 3.6 million (with a very high degree of uncertainty).
Ìý
The hamlet called Puddletown in Dorset near Durnovaria (Dorchester) has been settled four or five times in slightly different places over the last 2000 years and I would not be surprised if it were in Roman times too. The archaeological remains are to be seen on the Archive plans.
The population remained static and different in all these dates of settlement, 2-300 each time. -
Message 8
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Tuesday, 24th February 2009
Wroxeter, a village in rural Shropshire that has given its name to the fourth largest town in Roman Britain, Ìý
such terms as population and demography are rarely found in the indices of archaeological textbooks.
We very much need here some means of indepndently assessing late Roman levels because it is frequently suggested that
a decline in population encouraged by reduced agricultural yields and disease was in part responsible for the collapse of Roman
Britain.Ìý (Roman Britain to Saxon England: An Archaeological Study - Google Books Result)
I have quoted Wroxeter above as the fourth centre of population at the time. A count of the towns and their suggested numbers, even in these
modern times of detailed research in to everything ,might be the only way of finding out!
My map of Roman Britain published by OS might well be a useful source for the highest populations.
Looking at those: what was the usual size of a "Colonia"? or of a "Civitas"?
Then I can count them! -
Message 9
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 24th February 2009
Sir Gâr Hywel dda
If you look back at my earlier post, you will see the Oxford History refernced, it contains the demographic studies from the 76 ariel photography that allowed a complet picture of agricuyltural usage to be created, and its the base for the 4/6 million range of England population, based on this, the Roman Empires 50 million at the same time does present a problem, which no one has yet solved!.
Best to think of Roman Britain with a pop the same as the MA, ie population was limted by food production and both the MA and Roman period saw that ceiling reached.
Next problem is how to explain the pop decline post ocupation whn no primary sources rewcount a widespread loss of life3 to famine etc. -
Message 10
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Tuesday, 24th February 2009
Can't find the aerial pictures nickiow.
that map is useful from there nickiow
(Civitas)
(Colonia)
Those may help a little. thank you Nickiow yes that was a useful link
to help concentrate our minds.
Lincoln best example of a 'Colonia' generally meaning three hundred families. -
Message 11
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
Sir Gâr Hywel dda
Soory my bad, i ment the OS map was redone after the longt dry summer of 76 when arial photography was done as it allowed the UK to be photoed from the air and showed up more archeology than was thougtht to exist, the number of roman sites went through the roof and the extent of them was also wider, hense the esitimates of Roman popultaion, based on domicile and agricultrural yields went up dramaticly, England was was an exporter to Germany to feed romans there while supporting the 00s of 000s of romans who came to the UK.
So working out from the OS, was already done and refernced in the Oxford history, along with the estimates from tyhe nturn of the century for comparison, and ending with the early 19880s estimates, with refernces to where they are deirvided from. -
Message 12
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
Another way to estimate population is to look at crop yileds, Romaqn britain wasa very productive place, and poulation was not limited due to lack of food. -
Message 13
Posted by MakeAgreement (U13818550) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
the Roman Empires 50 million at the same time does present a problem, which no one has yet solved!.
Ìý
Where does that figure come from? To me it is an absurdly low estimate, certainly for the early empire. We know that the number of Roman citizens was 6 million (census return as reported in Suetonius), and that means adult males only. With wives and children that means some 20 million would have been classed as Romans, and it is hard to believe that 40% of the population had that status then.
A mainly agricultural economy of so low population would surely not have been able to sustain large cities such as Rome (1.5 million) Carthage, Athens, Alexandria (half million each). -
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
50 million is really a small figure. Most people tend to think in modern aspects so say that if Italy today has 50 million back then it should have 7, if Spain 40 back thn 6 if Greece 10 million back then 4 and so on, muslim countries we ignore them cos they made too many kids in a world full of medicines and multiplied a lot... well... all these are quite simplistic...
In the case of the modern state of Greece, in fact in antiquity there could be more people habitating these specific lands - and if we add all other lands habitated by Greeks then the number easily rises to a double (thus today Greeks if not having had a painfull history, they should had been around 150,000,000... something easy to imagine considering people name Mediteraneans only those people that resemble like Greeks). This Empire at its heyday had 1 million standing army. Usually the standing army is around 1% of a country, otherwise even if extremely rich, the country is going soon to be bankrupt... even if we say they were militarists, they were easily 80,000,000. Places like Italy hostes some 15 million people, Greece 10,000,000, Minor Asia another 25,000,000, Egypt another 15,000,000, Spain easily some 10,000,000, Give 7,000,000 for France and 2 million for Roman England, 10 million for central Eastern Europe... now cut down from all these 20% and still you overpass the 80 million people... -
Message 15
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
That is extraordinary conjecture.
Now I wonder how many there would have been, in West Wales, in the year of our lord. -
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
Not so extraordinary... the Largest 10 cities in the Empire alone gathered some 5,000,000 people easily. Given the fact that even in those Imperial times the vast majority of people lived in the countryside and that the Empire had 100s of other cities of around 20,000 - 30,000 people ... then you get the picture.
-
Message 17
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
The following link indicates that the World population in AD 100 to AD 200 was 300 million.
with according to Roman sources (Augustus) there appears to be 40 million people in his day.
Once Britain and other Provinces were added to the Empire this is reported to have been 60 million within a century of Augustus census.
This still gives us no bearing on the population of West Wales!!!
Kind Regrads - TA -
Message 18
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Where does that figure come from?
Its many works, inc The Oxford history of Roman Britain, derived principle from Roman estimates rather than poolation models, my point was that increasing Uk population to 4-6 range appears out of wack when compared to an unajusted Roman Empire total. -
Message 19
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Friday, 27th February 2009
This Empire at its heyday had 1 million standing army. Usually the standing army is around 1% of a country, otherwise even if extremely rich, the country is going soon to be bankrupt... even if we say they were militarists.
I disagree of mil participation ratio, in the ancient world 15-33% is much more likly for the advanced societys and higher still but for shorter periods for the less advanced, Caesers comments on gaul for instance for its poulation before he went and after he was finished. -
Message 20
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Lets not forget that what ball the anceint cities had in common was that they were all on the seaboard, as no city of the period could sustain itself except by water borne inmportation of food stuff at the size they achieved, and it was only a few localations that produced the surplus to feed the end user, Sardinain/Egytian and Baltic grain for instance.
-
Message 21
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Nickiow, I have to stress that I speak without much of figures based on texts - more out of logic. I would not trust texts anyway. If Romans measured 40 million people for all the Roman Empire then the real figure is at least 80 since they measured mainly male citizens (and extacted by doubling for females) but then they measured people in and around urban centers... I cannot imagine them sending officers to measure people in the depths of Minor Asia, Spain, France or to the oasis of Egypt (where you can fit alltogether some millions more!) to measure with accuracy the population. Romans (like any other) measure those populations that could pay them some tax.
-
Message 22
Posted by MakeAgreement (U13818550) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Theodoric, Not so sure I like the figures shown in the link. It seems to rely on a notional world population of 300 million, but that figure in itself must be made up of estimates of individual regions including the Roman Empire. It also seems to accept without question an estimate of 45 million for the empire under Augustus, without any justification.
The number of citizens had expanded from less than a million in 70BC to over 4 million in Augustus’ reign due mainly, surely, to the extension of citizenship to all born in Italy. The increase to nearly 7 million in Claudius time is explicable by the expansion of the franchise into cisalpine Gaul, and more general grants of citizenship (eg every auxiliary in the army became a Roman citizen on discharge at end of service).
The census was taken for one reason, to know how many could attend and vote at the popular assembly. These were solely adult males (despite what the link says), and since most of them would have lived in Italy, we are talking of a total population in Italy alone of some 18 million. -
Message 23
Posted by MakeAgreement (U13818550) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Nik, I mostly agree with your figures.
I must disagree with you however about the enumeration of figures. There is ample evidence of the Romans being punctilious in assessing the numbers. Look at the Bible which says that everyone had to go to their home city for the census. In Egypt the census was held every 14 years. Multitudes of papyri attest to the beauracracy. One from a village, dated to the 5th century, which by that time had shrunk to just a couple of farm houses, records the imperial assessors saying that they encountered an owner with fierce dogs who frightened them off.
A gravestone records the death of an official who was sent to assess the population of Apamea (128,000). This is now in a relatively remote part of Turkey (and flooded I think). -
Message 24
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Friday, 27th February 2009
I think the population of the Demetae region of West Wales might not have been more than 25,000 , and 5,000 fitted in to the Amphitheatre.
How many people go to the big game from 70-80miles away?
Milford Haven which is Britain's fourth bigget port was not even used as such in those days but Carmarthen was a Roman Civitas. -
Message 25
Posted by MakeAgreement (U13818550) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Where does that figure come from?
Its many works, inc The Oxford history of Roman Britain, derived principle from Roman estimatesÌý
I would love to know what Roman estimate of total population, is being talked about. I have never seen any such estimate. I would also love to see the historian's reasoning. -
Message 26
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
Hi All
Well there still seem to be some differences of opinion in population levels....
18 million for Italy and 25,000 for the whole area that the Demetae controlled in West Wales.
Can we extrapolate the Millions in Europe to the population of Britain?
(Regarding the number of people going to the big game - there were a lot of Welsh in Paris last night!)
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 27
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Sunday, 1st March 2009
Hi
This is an interesting link regarding Romans and Slaves and the population of Italy around Augustus's time.
Kind Regards TA
-
Message 28
Posted by MakeAgreement (U13818550) on Sunday, 1st March 2009
Thanks for that link, which does at least go to primary sources to make some sort of estimate. Of course I take issue with the low population estimate for Italy (6 million, as if one in six lived in Rome). The estimate of one in 3 being slaves in Italy echoes what Gibbon wrote 250 years ago, who thought that at least a third of the population of the whole Empire were slaves.
I am inclined to look at figures of the cost of slaves. If they were common, they would be cheap, and if they were expensive they would be rare. I have read that a slave could be bought for about 80 denarii in the 1st century BC, which would make them as relatively cheap as cars are today. In the Empire, they seem to be more expensive (one inscription from Britain shows 500 denarii for a slave girl), and the fact that they were becoming more rare with each generation can be seen from the fact of how many times freedmen appear in inscriptions. It would be good to know why so many slave-owners decided to manumit the slaves that they had paid good money for. -
Message 29
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Sunday, 1st March 2009
I don't think the extrapolation may be made.
Rome/Greece was the cradle and centre of the early civilisation of the time.
The population there was high and lower, ad lower as it fanned out to the limits of the empire.
Ok 25,000 is too low, especially as by comparison with now it would have been proportionately much higher, due to sea port value, closeness to Cornwall, gold mine, and so on.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.