Re: Tribal size

From: jeffrichard68 <richj_at_...>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:51:12 -0000


Alex -

> > 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.
>
> Which is both better land (certainly than Sartar, probably than
> Volsaxiland too), and a "later" historical analogue than is
normally
> used for the Heortlings. (Alas the Iron Age Britain was less
thoughtful
> in its bookeeping, though granted may not have been that much
lower.)

Iron Age Britain may have even had a higher population than mid to late 11th Century England. The difficulty with all this is that it is extremely difficult to come up with a reasonably accurate population figure for anywhere in pre-17th century Europe. The same difficulty exists trying to come up with population figures for preintroduction  of small pox North America.

> It's not utterly infeasible, but as I say, it's pretty high to be
taking
> as any sort of "baseline" -- certainly it hardly seems to support
much
> of an idea of Sartar as "difficult" country to farm (and graze, and
> hunt, which let's recall has been implied are both major parts of
the
> subsistence economy, and certainly don't help when it comes
to "packing
> 'em in").

Nope. But 35 people per square mile isn't "packing them in". 25 per square mile certainly isn't. Additionally, although much of Sartar is difficult to farm, the many valleys (like the Streamvale or the Nymie) are probably quite rich and productive.

> Sure, I certainly don't expect numbers anything like _that_ low
(and
> couldn't manage them by any means even if I did). (I don't know
that
> I've seen the Colymar wildlands excluded from any such count, and I
> don't think the Upland Marsh can really be said to be _in_ Sartar,
I'll
> throw in as bonus quibbles.)

I usually exclude try to wildlands and mountains when trying to figure out tribal population density.

> Granted we're stuck with 500,000 Heortlanders to put _somewhere_,
so the
> numbers are going to end up on the high side on way or another (as
they
> likewise are for Sartar), ultimately I've to suck it up, in one
form or
> another. I don't have an accurate measurement of the land area of
H.,
> but by eyeball it doesn't look to me much less than 10,000 sqm.
Given
> the much larger cities on the plateau, and its generally more
> 'Westernised' character I'd personally be happier to see a somewhat
> higher number for that area, and somewhat lower for V.

Volsaxiland takes up more than 10% of the total area, so I think 50,000 is pretty reasonable. I don't disagree with your quibbles - but I am trying to make the sources work out. I think Greg's population figures are largely set in stone - as is the scale of the maps. As a result, we just need to make it work.

Jeff

Powered by hypermail