>> 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...
>
>Not that we can visit it as it was populated then, either: but we all know
>which bits of each town are "old" (pre-1700, say) and which are modern
>extensions.
I'm not suggesting using modern population figures, the industrial revolution distorted things far too much. However there were large areas of Europe the industrial revolution didn't reach until the 20th Century. Furthermore I suggested using *rural* areas only, i.e excluding cities.
>> You'd be astonished at the persistence of ineffective methods
>> in farming... (speaking from experiences with environmental issues)
>
>Take a look at Africa sometime. Any of the charity begging letters that come
>through the door. A better design of digging stick is a step forward in some
>cases.
True, but productivity does improve over time. One of the problems with Africa is attempts to jump too many in-between stages. Digging stick to tractor in one generation looks good but then falls apart when they can't get spares.
>> > Equally the enclosures of the 16th &
>> > 17th centuries transferred large amounts of land from
>> growing crops to
>> > sheep. The people displaced ...
>>
>> 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?
>
>If Donald was referring to Scotland, they were displaced. Forcibly. In
>chains, in some cases. The empty steads are still there, and very Orlanthi
>they look too. The ones actually built out of heather are great!
I was actually referring to the English enclosures rather than the Highland clearances. Over a couple of centuries the feudal landlords decided they were better off employing a few shepherds to raise sheep on the land than collect rent from their serfs. At first they bribed and threatened the serfs to give up their land before legislation was passed which allowed them to buy the serfs out compulsorily. The end of feudalism had this effect in every country - a mass movement of people from the country to the cities usually under duress. The most recent one was Stalin's forceable deportation of peasents to Siberia.
>> > 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.
>
>Same here. There *used* to be un-used areas of Britain. In times of low
>population, villages did get abandoned.
The land area didn't increase - the use changed. If places get abandoned they eventually return to wildland. If it wasn't for farming subsidies that would be happening now because economics makes a lot of farmland unviable.
>> > From that we can conclude that the *maximum* population density in
>> > rural areas did not change significantly prior to the industrial
>> > revolution.
>
>But how often was that maximum figure reached? Very rarely, I'd suggest.
I'd agree, because in a generation or so there would be overpopulation causing a famine or war. But it does mean that we can use any pre-industrial revolution population figures for comparison rather than insisting on using ancient/medieval ones.
"Joerg Baumgartner"
>>>> 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.
Probably a factor, but I can't think of a pre-industrial revolution innovation which would have a major effect unless you go back to the beginnings of agriculture. Today we are used to technological innovations changing things frequently, in the past this was a lot rarer and slower. Some very high quality agricultural land was created when the swamp of Chat Moss was drained but that didn't happen until Stevenson built the Liverpool/Manchester railway. The railway made it economic to do something which had been technically possible for millenia.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail