Re: Re: Tribal size

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 11:57:05 +0100 (BST)

 

> But we're talking about population as relating to
> total land area, unless
> someone has gone round a map of Sartar working out
> what's suitable for
> cultivation and what's not. Certainly there's a fair
> bit which couldn't
> be cultivated with modern technology never mind
> anything in Glorantha.

Very true! And the same is not true of anywhere in Britain, as anyone who's met a wandering sheep on a lonely bit of rock can tell you.

> Nothing similar to the great forests of ancient
> Britain appears on any
> map of Sartar I've seen. That difference alone would
> create a population several times the RW one.

The "great forests of ancient Britain" were gone before the Romans arrived, cleared by agriculure to make downlands and so on, so this is hardly surprising.

Remember, the "New Forest" was deliberately planted because of a shortage of trees and hunting area! I can't now remember who by, but since William Rufus was killed there, it must have been Domeday sort of period.

(Note to Americans: it's all right, even by our standards, calling something a thousand years old "new" is unusual.)

> I'd much rather find a time when there was
> recognisable overpopulation
> for a similar mix of land types and use that as a
> basis. Particularly
> as the only complete set of figures I'm aware of
> from that time is the
> Doomsday Book which only covers England

Confused: are you saying that at the time of the Domesday Book, England was at maximum population or even over-population? Not that I have enough knowledge to say that you're wrong, but I'm surprised.



Jane Williams                                   

Powered by hypermail