Hello, I'm working on my world again (yay!).
But I've hit a snag with regard to populations. My setting is bronze-age, and largely wilderness/tribal, but there are a few cities and populated areas where I could really do with some numbers, both for in-city and for the surrounding rural area. Alas, my attempts at googling bronze-age census numbers didn't get me anything ;).
So what say you, CBG? Does anyone have a good way of estimating populations for non-medieval cities/lands? Sources are double-awesome.
http://www.lucidphoenix.com/dnd/demo/kingdom.asp
more medieval, but interesting
http://www.di2.nu/pop_sim.html
sf notations on same
Actually, the numbers from that should be relatively accurate. If they aren't you can calibrate from ancient Egypt, which does have decent estimates on population.
Quote from: Stargate525...you can calibrate from ancient Egypt, which does have decent estimates on population.
Where? :o
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_461511156_2/Ancient_Egypt.html
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/people/index.html
As far as urban vs. rural populations, Colin McEvedy estimated that Megara - a fairly typical Greek city-state during the classical period - had a population of about 20,000, of which 3,000 at most lived in the city itself. When you consider that classical era Greece was extremely urbanized compared to other surrounding cultures at the time, it gives you some idea of the huge disparity between rural and urban populations. Persia, for instance, had fewer large cities than Greece at the same time, and it had a total population that was ahead of Greece's by orders of magnitude. Urban centers may be important in a cultural, economic, or political sense, but in terms of population they will be dwarfed by rural regions.
In case you haven't seen, the Medieval Demographics Made Easy (http://www.io.com/~sjohn/demog.htm) article may be very helpful to you in determining number of settlements and populations that are urban vs. rural.
Here you go: Historical_urban_community_sizes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes) shows the numbers you want for a number of major cities of that (and other) periods. I ran across this a few days back while trying to find info on geographic size of medieval cities - I have a hard time believing that medieval London for instance was "no more than a mile or two across." Unfortunately, I have not been able to find what I was looking for - if you've seen good data in your search for populations on square mileage please let me know.
Quote from: Snargash MoonclawI have a hard time believing that medieval London for instance was "no more than a mile or two across."
Believe it. Anything bigger than that and you run into serious issues with sewage and simple storm drainage near the center.
Map with scale for proof: http://vrcoll.fa.pitt.edu/medart/image/England/london/Maps-of-London/London-Maps.html
Note that that is circa 1600, well into the renaissance, and it's still that small.
Wow, this is great. Thanks guys.
Thanks Stargate - that's the kind of reference I've been looking for. Trying to scale Salis Freeport runs a bit bigger - it's not super dense (no walls) and it's on both sides of the river - I hadn't realized that medieval London did not yet straddle the Thames. Storm flooding *is* a problem in the low reaches of Salis - the city scale runs a six mile stretch of river from the first to the last (3rd) bridge and about four miles out from either bank - although occupied territory extends a few miles beyond these loose boundaries. I'm conceiving the major metropolitan centers primarily on European high renaissance models, although I would like to include some other Asian models and a certain Byzantine quality should pervade all. . .
/swipe :D
Quote from: Snargash MoonclawHere you go: Historical_urban_community_sizes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes)
I'm not an expert on historical populations but these (specifically the Mediterranean/near east ones in the iron age and bronze age) seem inordinately high to me compared to what I've read elsewhere. For example, inscriptions from the 9th century BC place Calah/Nimrud, the capital of Assyria, at 16,000 inhabitants; Wikipedia calls it "as many as 100,000" with no explanations. In the 7th century, wikipedia says the Assyrian capital at that time, Niniveh, was 120,000, an incredible leap considering that Niniveh was certainly not more than 10 times the size of Calah. Knossos is cited at 100,000, an estimate from 1950, while more modern estimates propose somewhere between 10 and 20 thousand, not a
hundred thousand. And I thought the "millon man Rome" position was pretty well discredited by now?
Ancient population numbers are notoriously unreliable since most were arrived at through guesswork - educated guesswork perhaps, but guesswork nonetheless. Cities might be surrounded by thousands of people in rural villages and communities that supply the city itself and depend on it for protection and trade connections, but these aren't urban inhabitants. Like Megara I cited earlier, the actual urban center was dwarfed by the population of the entire "city state," which was mostly rural. Someone who wasn't paying much attention might just assume "city state" meant the city and draw no further distinction, and end up with bizarrely high numbers.
Hopefully we have someone here more educated that I who can correct my probable errors. :)
I would have to say that the aforementioned medieval demographics made easy guide is probably the best guide for this kind of thing. It is not exact as it details a later period though overall it is good for giving a general feel of things. Furthermore Polycarp has a big point in that city state is more than a city. Using my setting as an example, even in a place where inhabitants are forced into a certain area the city proper is likely only a fraction of the total city state population. You could have a total population of over 100 thousand and yet there might only be 15-30 thousand inside the city itself.
As to the original post a tribal based game is going to still have a great deal of society as hunter gatherers. The actual cities will be where people have learned how to make use of agriculture. I can see this as at a point in time where everyone is slowly beginning to shift from a nomadic way of life to the settled life centered on early farming.
There will likely be as you say, vast tracks of wilderness and many wandering tribal groups. Those groups who have began to explore agriculture will have the appearance of an early city. For the most part you will see small groups. Tribes that have set up camp permanently in small village like gatherings. Though this does not rule out large groups banding together and using agriculture to a great advantage. Namely the ability to remain in one spot and thus build up defensive fortifications. Small cities would spring up from this, likely defended by wooden palisades and simple stone walls. The area within the city probably containing a town hall for celebrations and meetings. It might also contain houses and work areas for those who maintain the town both in leadership positions as well as those that maintain it physically such as builders and doctors (the food being better handled allows people to specialize and also enables for trade and possibly early currency to take hold). Outside it would be everyone else, most of them growing crops and herding livestock and the like. This is where most of daily life takes place. The town functions as a place of leadership and meeting and provides a defendable position should enemy raiders attack. For the last reason, a town at high risk of attack would likely stockpile food and weapons and maintain a militia of sorts.
So there you have it, my take on the whole thing. From the feel I am getting of your setting I doubt cities would hold more than a few thousand (with those in the double digit thousands being the most powerful major groups). The total population of the cities though would be far higher. Indeed your largest cities could reach ten to twenty thousand, yet their total population could well approach 100 thousand (those smaller few hundred to few thousand population cities might have a total population of 1000-10000).
Good point - defining what constitutes the "city proper" is often rather murky unless you have a distinct walled enclosure to point to - and that physical definition only covers a certain period of time. I think that when we develop cities in our settings though we are often looking a bit past the walls to the interconnected fibers binding them to our settings. Still, discreet, large and in depth, developments such as Waterdeep (I used to have the full ten sheet map set) and Erewhon set a standard for urban setting development which may not be accurate in terms of comparative historical examples. I have always been very fascinated and intrigued by such Byzantine, labyrinthine urban settings as Ghormenghast, Sanctuary and Viriconium. Of the latter I have only read one story decades ago and the flavor was indelibly imprinted in my mind as the sort of city I wished to create - manifesting as the Masques, among other elements now, of Salis Freeport.
It also bears mention that some cultures are simply more urban-oriented, for whatever reason, than others. The Persian empire was huge but had very few cities; the king had seasonally inhabited "palace towns" but these were not year-round metropolises like the Greeks had. When the Greeks took over the empire, they (especially the Seleucids) planted cities all over the place and filled them with Greek immigrants. For them, having cities like Alexandria and Antioch and filling them with all the accoutrements of urban Greece was a crucial part of the culture and society they identified with.
Seagoing peoples in particular seem to be more urban, which makes sense - you need centralized places for boats to dock and congregate, and there may be only a few suitable natural harbors. Think about the cultures and needs of your various peoples and consider whether they would be "urban inclined" or not.
Yes, most definitely. Look at ancient Tyre, practically the epitome of a walled urban seaport. Actually ancient Tyre is a very good example to pull from as its location and design makes it amazing to think it actually existed and wasn't just some place out of a fantasy story.
Also about the comment in regards to medieval London only being a mile or two across. Actually that was quite normal. In modern times it is hard to imagine this as the average person lives with between zero and four other people on a parcel of land that is from 1/8th of an acre up to a full acre or more. Back then a single acre of city likely held a population density upwards of 60 people. Living quarters were cram packed and many houses were little more than a big room with perhaps a small area for storage. There was little to no privacy. Of course again this is a big place like London. Smaller bronze age cities however had a similar issue. They were small.
Take a look at the city of Portland Oregon. From the statistics I can gather that it has roughly 130 square miles of livable space or nearly 84,000 acres (and yes I know there are different types of acre I am just generalizing). With medieval population density the city of Portland would contain over 5 million people (possibly upwards of 6 million at higher densities). Note that this is a greater population than the entire state of Oregon.
In conclusion, even modest sized modern cities greatly dwarf their ancient counterparts by many orders of magnitude. And yes I know this was already answered, I just wanted to detail the precise scales in regards to why they were so small.
Recognizing the density - and actually capitalizing on it to some degree in urban design, i still wrestle with a bit of perceptual disjunct. I've always walked (or at times bicycled) all over, spent 5 years in the army, so I just think nothing of walking a mile or two. So when I think of a major city, I inherently imagine it to at least require some fairly significant time and effort to cross it from end to end on foot and back say as a messenger doing so at most 2 times in a day. Whereas in a modern metropolis, simply crossing one way in the span of sunrise to sunset could be a significant achievement in view of outlying suburbs, etc. If I look at Portland as geographic model (which I do for some parts of Salis terrain) I'm comparing the hills overlooking downtown and the Willamette River and about as much of "close in east side" of the river. Crossing those hills for instance will move beyond city districts, but still through outlying city territories housing facilities of the Mercenaries Guild, the Harak Shyz'n Regimental HQ and Prime Battalion Garrison, etc. but wouldn't even begin to extend as far as Portland's western suburbs (and even this model is recognized as oversize due to the height and breadth of Portland's hills). What I'm trying to reach a happy medium in is between the reality and the narrative feel when describing the city to players and handling their actions and movements through it - it's hard to get people to feel like they're in a big, significant city if they know they can entirely circle it in a good morning's run. . .
Quote from: Snargash MoonclawThanks Stargate - that's the kind of reference I've been looking for. Trying to scale Salis Freeport runs a bit bigger - it's not super dense (no walls) and it's on both sides of the river - I hadn't realized that medieval London did not yet straddle the Thames.
It did, there just wasn't much over there. The globe theater and the bear baiting pits, really, as well as some other less savory stuff.
Well just remember that you don't HAVE to follow histories example. That is why it is called fantasy. If you want your city to have a huge feel to it then it is overall simple to do. In general you should look to make the city more open. Have buildings surrounded by large open lawns, have plenty of parks and grand buildings (chapels, palaces, and the like). Doing so will greatly expand your city. However a city of this style does have certain prerequisites. The vast size and open space likely means that unless this is the norm, the locals are probably very rich or have the help of high magic (property in medieval times wasn't something most could easily afford). You also have logistics issues like messengers and even more importantly waste management. Again this means that the vast cities that mesh modern size with ancient feel are going to have their foundation solidly on high magic.
true - for me at least there is a need to at least present the reason for the variance from historical examples - as you've probably guessed by now, I'm real big on continuity. Fantasy does offer the possibility to do things differently, but fails to satisfy if it does not provide sufficient rationale. I was originally conceiving Salis at a population around 15k not counting Undertown, but want to do more with the location's peculiar mix of elements and chose to push it up in significance. Really, as I look at the glacial cycle, any of the cities in the tropical zone take on much deeper historical significance since they are the ones that remain stable through the cycles - others beyond this central band are either under water now or will be covered in ice and snow later, but the region around the Suntrack Sea has sustained some relatively constant humanoid populations since the dawn of time. . . Which is why at 1500 years, Salis feels "young" in contrast to the rest of the region. But I think I can rationalize its size and population reasonably well given the time frame and influences. Salis of course will be the "jewel" city of my game setting, so I'm taking great care in the weaving of its fabric
Quote from: NomadicAgain this means that the vast cities that mesh modern size with ancient feel are going to have their foundation solidly on high magic.
Or vastly forward thinking methods of waste disposal and water transport. I once calculated I could get indoor plumbing and near-modern sewage for 50,000 people with a single decanter of endless water and a workforce of 1000. Unfortunately, I lost those calculations.
Quote from: Polycarp!Quote from: Snargash MoonclawHere you go: Historical_urban_community_sizes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes)
I'm not an expert on historical populations but these (specifically the Mediterranean/near east ones in the iron age and bronze age) seem inordinately high to me compared to what I've read elsewhere. For example, inscriptions from the 9th century BC place Calah/Nimrud, the capital of Assyria, at 16,000 inhabitants; Wikipedia calls it "as many as 100,000" with no explanations. In the 7th century, wikipedia says the Assyrian capital at that time, Niniveh, was 120,000, an incredible leap considering that Niniveh was certainly not more than 10 times the size of Calah. Knossos is cited at 100,000, an estimate from 1950, while more modern estimates propose somewhere between 10 and 20 thousand, not a hundred thousand. And I thought the "millon man Rome" position was pretty well discredited by now?
Ancient population numbers are notoriously unreliable since most were arrived at through guesswork - educated guesswork perhaps, but guesswork nonetheless. Cities might be surrounded by thousands of people in rural villages and communities that supply the city itself and depend on it for protection and trade connections, but these aren't urban inhabitants. Like Megara I cited earlier, the actual urban center was dwarfed by the population of the entire "city state," which was mostly rural. Someone who wasn't paying much attention might just assume "city state" meant the city and draw no further distinction, and end up with bizarrely high numbers.
Hopefully we have someone here more educated that I who can correct my probable errors. :)
I can't really prove or disprove anything in this statement, particularly the numbers given, but I was under the impression that many historical populations were artificially inflated, too.
That said, I've never really understood the point of trying to rely on factual accuracy when creating fantasy fiction. Just because Million Man Rome has been disproved doesn't mean that it can't still be used for inspiration. A fictional empire of that size would allow for some great epic political stories. An invasion by Million Man Rome would be much scarier, the fall of Million Man Rome much more shocking, the ruling of Million Man Rome much more impressive... you get the idea. It's just not the same if you're ruling some hippy commune in Indiana.
Although, even if you want to take factual historical accuracy into consideration, there's still the matter that that's apparently what the citizens believed the population to be. You could still easily get away with Rome having a "population unknown; believed to be one million". Just like the fictional Million Man Rome, you could even extend that to fictional empires.
In short, when looking for inspiration for fictional settings, factual accuracy isn't as important to me as believability and interest. As far as I'm concerned, creating a fictional world is already dealing with "factual inaccuracies".
I cannot speak for anyone but myself here. However, from my experience I find it necessary to order my facts. I need to have an idea of the real world numbers and systems in order to get my own system flowing. It is a guide from which I can draw that believability.
That is my position too. I was questioning the wiki's accuracy, not asserting that large figures are inappropriate for a fantasy setting. I believe in using historical figures as a basis; even if I end up deviating from them significantly, it gives me an understanding of reality so my fantasy can be informed.
Additionally, in "large scale" campaigns, knowing population figures can be very useful. I've played campaigns where a PC has acquired title to a village, town, or fortification, and has been interested in how many blacksmiths or cobblers are in residence, how large of a militia can be raised, how much money they'll get in taxes, and so on (this is especially common among my friends who enjoy strategy games). For a party that has adventures out in the hinterlands and only stops by a city to resupply, rough estimates like "million man Rome" are fine. If you're actually ruling Rome, however, accurate figures become much more important.
Unless I'm mistaken, Athens, at its height as a city-state, had a population of 35,000 to 40,000 people. Athens was the largest city-state in ancient Greece, most city states were much smaller around 3000 to 5000 people. But with a proper structure most greek city-states could easily support 20,000.
GP
Quote from: Gamer PrintshopUnless I'm mistaken, Athens, at its height as a city-state, had a population of 35,000 to 40,000 people. Athens was the largest city-state in ancient Greece, most city states were much smaller around 3000 to 5000 people. But with a proper structure most greek city-states could easily support 20,000.
GP
The problem with those figures is that even though it's called a city-state, those population numbers probably refer to the entire territory they controlled, which included a significant amount of countryside.
Quote from: Stargate525Quote from: Gamer PrintshopUnless I'm mistaken, Athens, at its height as a city-state, had a population of 35,000 to 40,000 people. Athens was the largest city-state in ancient Greece, most city states were much smaller around 3000 to 5000 people. But with a proper structure most greek city-states could easily support 20,000.
GP
The problem with those figures is that even though it's called a city-state, those population numbers probably refer to the entire territory they controlled, which included a significant amount of countryside.
That countryside is part of the city state. The city itself though was probably only a small percentage of that.
In the early 5th century B.C. Athens had an estimated population of 45,000 citizens liable for military service (ages 18-61). If one included estimates for their families this would suggest a total of about 180,000. There were also about 20,000 resident aliens who with their families might add another 80,000. These figures do not include the number of slaves who it is estimated to be at least as high as the number of citizens and their families if not much higher. A low ball estimate would put the total population of Athens and its hinterland (Attica) at a minimum of 460,000 people. Though this estimate is for Athens during the Iron age. Estimates of population for Bronze Age cities depend on which part of the Bronze Age we're talking about. Early Bronze Age cities are on average going to be smaller than the average city size at the end of the Bronze Age.
This link (http://www.irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows22/irows22.htm) has some data and charts on the sizes of cities though out history and their growth. If you look at fig. 4 you can see that Rome in 100 A.D. (or C.E. the common era) has a population of 450,000, and this is the city itself and does not include the hinterland populations (I think). If you look real close at the figure you will notice that UR, a Bronze Age city has a population of around 100,000 give or take. However, this is the largest city of the time and it is definitely not the norm. I think that population estimates for Neolithic cities are on average 3,000 - 5,000 while Çatalhöyük (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalhoyuk) had a maximum population of 10,000 and more likely only about 5,000 - 8,000. So the question then becomes, what part of the Bronze Age is the setting in and are the population centers in the setting the main centers of civilization and therefore the largest or are they on the periphery and much smaller. As a general rule I would double the cities population for the hinterland of a region if not triple it.
you mention a small but important census detail here - troop levies. City states count on the surrounding countryside in this matter and so city populations when looked at in terms of military strength may reflect these numbers rather than those solely within the cities precincts. Again to cite wikipedia regarding an interesting phenomenon in this particular respect arising later (but useful for any period in settings) is the development of the medieval commune. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_commune)