It struck me that Anatolia and Middle East had a remarkably little population (at least in early-modern period and beyond) before experiencing high population growth in 20th century . For example in early 19th century, the population of entire Ottoman Empire, from Balkans to Egypt, was comparable to France or Germany (which had been ravaged in Thirty Years’ War, as far as I know), despite having a much bigger landmass, even if barren areas such as deserts are excluded. Iran wasn’t any better either, it had significantly less population compared to Italy or Spain. Why was that? Invasions? Disease? Agriculture? Was it like that since antiquity, or say since early middle ages? Any good books or articles etc. that are specifically about this subject (or that have a good deal of information about this subject) ?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I dunno about Anatolia or Egypt but by some estimates Iran and Iraq didn't regain their pre-Mongol populations until the twentieth century. The mongols not only killed a massive number of people and destroyed the states there, but they smashed up irrigation systems that had been in place since antiquity.
The Columbian exchange caused all kinds of shifts in the population distribution in the Old World, so 19th-century numbers are going to be poor representations of medieval or antique populations. I looked up estimates for the Roman Empire circa 14 CE and they've got 8.2 million people in Anatolia, 4.3m in Greater Syria and 4.5m in Egypt versus 7m in Italy, 5.8m in Gaul + Germania and 5m in Iberia. These populations collapsed after the 5th century, but more drastically in the West than in the East. That's just one example of a set of ballpark estimates and on particular event that would have thrown off the balance between regions. There were plenty more, between plagues, hordes, civil wars, changes in agriculture and climate, etc.
I think you misunderstood me a little in the first part. I was not asking why Anatolia & Middle East had less population in medieval or ancient eras, using 19th data. I was asking why Anatolia & Middle East had less population in 19th century, and was this true as well in Middle Ages & Antiquity.
Where do you find estimates about populations of provinces in the Roman Empire? I was always curious about that. I'd be also glad if you had other sources relating to these. I really want them
. And I do not expect you to go into great detail, but could you briefly explain how Columbian Exchange affected the populations.
I would figure their lower wealth and having much less water and everything that goes with it. Less food, medicine, infrastructure, etc.I think you misunderstood me a little in the first part. I was not asking why Anatolia & Middle East had less population in medieval or ancient eras, using 19th data. I was asking why Anatolia & Middle East had less population in 19th century, and was this true as well in Middle Ages & Antiquity.
Where do you find estimates about populations of provinces in the Roman Empire? I was always curious about that. I'd be also glad if you had other sources relating to these. I really want them
Oh no I understood, I just wanted to point out that before and after the Columbian exchange are completely different ballgames.
Where do you find estimates about populations of provinces in the Roman Empire? I was always curious about that. I'd be also glad if you had other sources relating to these. I really want them
I found the numbers on wikipedia, based off of Beloch's work on ancient demography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire#Population
For contrast, some medieval numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography#Demographic_tables
These numbers cut off before we can see the impact of the Columbian Exchange or the agricultural revolution, but you can see clearly that by 1000 France, Germany, Spain and the Balkans were all much more populous than they had been under the Roman Empire while Italy was roughly the same. We can extrapolate that regions like Egypt and Anatolia, which had been urbanized much longer than even Italy had, probably reached the ceiling of sustainable population while parts of western and northern Europe were still being cleared and opened for new settlement. So by the year 1000 you have a substantial shift towards the west in population, even without much technological or agricultural change.
I'm digging around for Middle Eastern numbers, but here's Egypt and Turkey:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Turkey
The big takeaway from the Egypt numbers are that the Egyptian population in 1805 was essentially what it had been in Roman times, but by 1917 it had more than tripled from that number. The Turkish population in 1927 was 13.6 million, versus 9.2 million in the 2nd century.
I'm about to head to work but I'll keep digging up more afterwards.
Wrong question. The right question to ask is: Why were the populations of France, Germany, Italy and Spain (and other parts of Europe) so anomalously large compared the rest of the world from the early 19th century until the mid 20th century? And the answer is the industrial revolution. Everywhere the industrial revolution went, populations spiked dramatically. Europe saw this happen first, and had a population explosion starting roughly in the early 19th century, and ending roughly in the early 20th century. The rest of the world played catch-up, going through their own industrial revolutions, and subsequent population explosions. Most of Asia caught up first, The middle east is in the process of catching up now, and Africa is just beginning it's catch up explosion. The Americas have somewhat different dynamics, since for the most part they are still 'filling up' compared to the old world, and have seen consistent population growth since their discovery.
What gagenater said.
Also regarding Anatolia another thing is erosion. These lands been incredible fertile but constantly eroded. Same with most surounding areas.
Also regarding Anatolia another thing is erosion. These lands been incredible fertile but constantly eroded. Same with most surounding areas.