RE: Re: Tribal size

From: Jeff Richard <richj_at_...>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:24:18 -0700

> > From Vingaford to Whitewall, Volsaxiland is about the same size as
the
> > Colymar and Malani tribes put together, but with much more arable
land.
> > Let's say that Volsaxiland has almost twice the population density
as
> > the Colymar and Malani (which isn't unreasonable) - that gets us
about
> > 50,000 people. Better harvests in Volsaxiland (lower elevation
means
> > less severe winters in the Marzeel Valley), lots of grazing land in
> > those hills.
> I thought there was something of a consensus that by most
appropriate-
> seeming RW comparisons, Sartar is already pretty outrageously
> overpopulated. I'd be very nervous about taking that as a baseline,
and
> lightly going to multiples thereof.
 

In the Domesday Book, 11th century southern-eastern England has a population density of between 20 and 50 people per square mile - so let's say about 35 people per square mile. 12th century France had a population density of about 50-65 people per square mile.  

The Colymar have a population density of about 25 people per square mile - which admittedly is pretty high, but not outrageous. When we measure population density in Sartar, we usually ignore the empty areas (Quivin Mountains, Colymar Wilds, Upland Marsh, Storm Mountains, etc), but if we look at figures for RW population density, those empty areas are usually factored in (thus medieval Scandanavia with its tracks of marginal lands has a very low population density - but that number would be much higher if we only measured Denmark, coastal Norway, Scania and the lands around the Malaren).  

Volsaxiland and the Heortland plateau should be more densely populated than Sartar - just look at the terrain!!! Let's give the Volsaxiland river valley a population density of about 50 people per square mile, which would make approximately the average for 11th century Kent or Essex. Give the river valleys on the Heortland plateau a population density of about 65 people per square mile. This is also somewhat high, but not outrageous.  

To make this work, let's assume that the Heortlings are more productive (and advanced) farmers than their late Anglo-Saxon counterparts (not really that hard to argue) and that they have less harvest failures than their medieval counterparts (not that wild an assumption). I've assumed they practice three-field agriculture and in Volsaxiland and the Heortland plateau they might plant a winter crop as well. Lots of cattle and sheep mean plenty of fertillizer for the fields (and Volsaxiland and the Heortland plateau is probably more fertile than Dragon Pass).  

Assuming Greg's scale is correct (and I have no reason to doubt Greg's maps), then the 16th century Heortlings maintain a significantly higher population density than the Anglo-Saxons did in the 7th - 10th century, but not quite as high as 12th century French or Italians. I don't think this is a fatal flaw though.  

Jeff

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]