How do they help? The best they could do is confirm that the figures for Glorantha are in line with a real world equivelent. If they are not similar it proves nothing because we don't fully understand the reasons for changes in population in the RW nor do we know and understand the differences in Glorantha.
>> In trying to reconcile Heortling populations with map
>> scale the limitation is maximum population per square mile given the
>> farming methods used. For that we can use 19th Century populations
>> of similar rural areas - even early 20th century ones for places like
>> Eastern Europe and Russia. Granted 19th century farming methods were
>> more efficent than medieval ones but the result of that was a labour
>> surplus which moved to the cities not people sat around idle in the
>> villages.
>
>Similar farming methods? Or any farming methods?
The most suitable farming method for land of that type known at the time.
>If you could factor out a) the number of people actually involved
>directly in farming, and not just assumed to be, by this construction;
>b) the efficiency in terms of land use, and c) the efficiency in terms
>of workforce, then you might be able to draw some conclusions, but
>absent of such an analysis I'm not convinced.
I don't think enough information exists to calculate numbers like that. However we know that there were several significant advances in technology and farming practices - e.g. the horse collar (allowing the horse to replace oxen) and the end of strip farming. Equally the enclosures of the 16th & 17th centuries transferred large amounts of land from growing crops to sheep. The people displaced moved to the cities yet the national population continues to rise and famines become less frequent. So we know that more food is being produced with the same or fewer people. The total amount of land is fixed (subject to minor changes) so any increased usage is due to improved technology or climate changes making more or less land available for cultivation.
From that we can conclude that the *maximum* population density in rural areas did not change significantly prior to the industrial revolution.
>> The use of magic would also improve productivity.
>
>I must admit I'm irrationally and vehemently unenthused by this sort of
>rationale, in all its very many forms and occurrences. I think it's a
>pretty basic difference of approach -- is magic a manifestation of the
>truth of mythic themes, or is it Fantasy Tech Economy? OK, all our
>experience of Glorantha games probably tells us its "a little of column
>A, a little B", but at least I'm being up front about my foibles...
>
>Besides, Greg has more than once said that in Genertela at least, magic
>is _necessary_ to survive, work the land, etc -- not hi-tech fertiliser
>to make the agribusiness that key 25% more productive. (Though I can't
>think of anything quite so bald-faced as this actually in print, so this
>is arguably open to "hyperbole with a dunkel in 'im" question.)
Unless he is claiming that without magic no food at all can be grown, which seems extreme, then magic must improve productivity. Also the existence of blessings and common magic which improve crop production in the HQ rules rather contradicts that interpretation. I would agree that it is impossible to put any figures on it and to Gloranthans the attempt to split magic and natural elements just doesn't make sense (although some lunatic sage has probably asked the question).
More significantly though magic is one of the factors which make it impossible to say whether a particular piece of land could support more or less people in Glorantha than in the RW.
>> The main reason for lower population figures in ancient and medieval
>> times would be unused land - there weren't enough people to cultivate
>> it.
>
>Due to what, then -- lack of effort on the reproductive front?
Lack of the ability to bring enough children to maturity in the main and also social constructs, such as feudalism, which restricted land use.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail