If you picture a place by assigning a real world environment, modern population figures will produces disbelief. Perhaps more of an Old Worlder problem, since we can go and take a hike to our favourite Orlanthi parallel...
>>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.
You'd be astonished at the persistence of ineffective methods in farming... (speaking from experiences with environmental issues)
> 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.
Do we know that people were displaced, or do we know that the rural areas produced a surplus population part of which it sent to the cities?
> 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.
Actually, the total amount of farming land was expanded drastically, at the heavy cost of wildland. Where I live, next to no wildland has survived, only some cultivated forestation.
> From that we can conclude that the *maximum* population density in rural
> areas did not change significantly prior to the industrial revolution.
Swamps were dried, marshland was cultivated, and less suitable land was subjected to intensive agriculture. The result was a trend to impoverish the farmers even more.
>>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.
Oh, food can be grown without magic. Expect to harvest about the same amount you sowed. This still is a viable method, preferable to food loss from storage, btw. Northern Norway practiced such marginal agriculture for centuries.
> 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).
E.g. me...
> 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.
We can very well make up the effects of no magic - Gloranthan history has known such events. There is a narrative advantage to be had from such ponderings.
>>> 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.
What about marginal suitability of the land? Some soils only became accessible with technological innovations.
Powered by hypermail