Irish population history (my estimates)

[Hibernian]

Hey guys, wanna see a thing I made? (I posted this yesterday in the Off-Topic image thread, but perhaps it is more appropriate here).

While reading various Irish history books over the years, I've tried to keep a grasp of the demographics of the island. In the last few months I was reading more detailed analyses and decided to make it into a mini-project.

So, I present to you my estimates of the population history of Ireland. 450 to 2019 AD.

There are various other Irish population graphs around the internet, but I could not find one that covered this whole period, so that's why I wanted to create it.


Here's the data, and I've linked to Wikipedia articles about certain major events which caused a drop in population:

450: 0.50 million >
500: 0.54 million
535: 0.57 million < Famine (Extreme weather events of 535–536)
543: 0.54 million >
548: 0.55 million << Plague (Plague of Justinian)
550: 0.47 million
570: 0.47 million >
600: 0.49 million
650: 0.53 million
680: 0.56 million < Societal collapse (???)
690: 0.51 million
700: 0.51 million >
750: 0.55 million
795: 0.59 million < War (Viking Invasions)
800: 0.54 million
850: 0.52 million
900: 0.52 million
920: 0.52 million >
950: 0.55 million
1000: 0.61 million
1014: 0.63 million
1050: 0.68 million
1100: 0.75 million
1150: 0.82 million
1169: 0.86 million < War (Anglo-Norman Invasions)
1200: 0.83 million >
1250: 0.94 million
1280: 1.01 million >
1300: 1.03 million
1315: 1.05 million < Famine + War (Great Famine of 1315 - 1317 + Scottish Invasion)
1320: 0.95 million >
1347: 0.98 million << Plague (Black Death)
1350: 0.68 million
1400: 0.68 million >
1450: 0.78 million
1500: 0.89 million
1550: 1.02 million
1580: 1.11 million < War (Desmond rebellion)
1583: 1.06 million >
1595: 1.10 million < War (Nine Years' War)
1600: 1.05 million
1610: 1.00 million >
1641: 1.59 million << War (Irish Confederate Wars/Cromwellian conquest)
1653: 1.19 million
1656: 1.19 million >
1672: 1.55 million
1687: 1.98 million < War (Williamite War)
1692: 1.95 million >
1700: 2.01 million
1706: 2.06 million
1712: 2.32 million
1725: 2.56 million < Famine
1732: 2.53 million >
1740: 2.75 million << Famine (Irish Famine of 1740–1741)
1744: 2.23 million >
1749: 2.28 million
1753: 2.57 million
1791: 4.42 million
1800: 5.00 million
1821: 6.80 million
1841: 8.53 million
1844: 8.75 million << Famine + Emigration (Great Famine)
1851: 6.58 million < Emigration
1861: 5.80 million
1871: 5.41 million
1881: 5.18 million
1891: 4.71 million
1901: 4.46 million
1911: 4.39 million
1926: 4.23 million >
1936: 4.27 million
1946: 4.30 million
1951: 4.33 million < Emigration
1961: 4.24 million >
1971: 4.51 million
1981: 4.99 million
1991: 5.13 million
2001: 5.60 million
2011: 6.40 million
2019: 6.81 million

As for positive population growth periods, the introduction of Christianity in the 400s was accompanied by the introduction of many Roman and continental technologies (watermills, writing), techniques (improved dairy agriculture) and cultural aspects (like the move away from very small tribal polities to larger kingdoms with a clear ruling dynasty), which certainly caused an uptick in population.

The coming of the Vikings initially brought major destruction, an intensification of warfare, battles and raids, but after the re-establishment of the Norse coastal cities in the 900s as permanent trade centres, they added to a growing development. The 950s to 1160s saw a major boom in the archaeological record, which would have been associated with population growth.

Equally, the Anglo-Norman invasions, starting in 1169, initially killed a lot of people and caused economic havoc. But once things had settled down and the Normans started bringing in colonists and new technologies and techniques, the population went into a recovery and boom. That lasted until the 1300s, when a combination of huge famine and Scottish invasion brought devastation, and then of course the Black Death hit very hard.

We then have slow recovery, until it starts to really pick up in the 1500s (the Potato was introduced to Ireland in the 1580s). Wars and massacres held things back in the late 1500s and early 1600s, but when things settled down again there was a massive upsurge in population (partly to do with the Plantation of Ulster). But of course the wars of the 1640s and 50s caused more brutal destruction.

After that, the Agricultural revolution was significantly increasing food supplies and the Industrial revolution lead to urbanisation.

By far the largest things you'll see on that graph is, of course, the Potato Famine of 1845 to 1852. Where about 1 million died and another million emigrated in a matter of years. Poverty forced continuous emigration for the next century, and the population doesn't really start to recover until the mid-20th century (in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, things have reversed and we now get lots of immigrants, but the natural growth rate is also still high).

I've seen estimates that if the Famine had not happened, then Ireland today would have a population of between 12 and 18 million.



The caveats are of course that pre-census data is only an estimate (but based on sound reasoning and textual and archaeological evidence). And that various historians disagree on the pre-1700 numbers. The book "A New History of Ireland" had quite high numbers, whereas the book "Contested Island: Ireland 1460-1630" had very low figures, I've chosen something of a middle path between those.

The events around 680 AD are something of a mystery. I attended a lecture last year by Dr. Rowan McLaughlin (of Queen’s University Belfast), who had constructed a similar population history graph from the Stone Age to the Middle Ages, which was based on the number of archaeological finds (calibrated to their radio carbon dates) and he noted that there was a significant reduction in finds and inhabited sites after around 680 AD. And it took about a generation to recover. He said this event occurred in both Ireland and Scotland, but not in Anglo-Saxon England, so I'm not at all sure what it represents (neither was he). He described it as a kind of societal collapse, but the reasons for it are so far unknown (at least to me).

Anyway, hope you like it.

 

[Yakman]

Do you really think that Cromwell's invasion led to a quarter of the Irish dying / not being replaced in 5 years?

That seems awful high for a pre-modern imperial war w/o accompanied plagues.

it was bad, but 400 000 people bad?

The American Civil War (admittedly happened far later, but was almost apocalyptic for the time) had 650 000 deaths (admittedly almost all of soldiers).

Just seems a bit high. This is my uneducated query.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Do you really think that Cromwell's invasion led to a quarter of the Irish dying / not being replaced in 5 years?

That seems awful high for a pre-modern imperial war w/o accompanied plagues.

it was bad, but 400 000 people bad?

The American Civil War (admittedly happened far later, but was almost apocalyptic for the time) had 650 000 deaths (admittedly almost all of soldiers).

Just seems a bit high. This is my uneducated query.

The American Civil War wasn't nearly as apocalyptic as an all out 17th century War could be. The 30 years war in Germany killed between 25% and 50% of the population, depending on the region.

The 17th century wars had a religious component to them, and they took place in a time when soldiers and armies were a lot less disciplined than they would later be in the European wars of the 19th century or the fairly civil American Civil War. They also happened before the invention of railroads made it possible to supply armies at a long distance from the home regions, so the armies pretty much lived off the land in that time. You can imagine how destructive the mere presence of an army could be to a region, if they stayed for a longer while or did back and forth campaigns across the same region.

AFAIK the Cromwell's conquest of Ireland was quite a brutal affair that went along with widespread destruction, plunder and religious persecution

 

[olm]

At that era famines and plagues were pretty much part of package of having a hostile army stomping around in your land. A decade of the Great Northern War wiped out about half of population in Estonia.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Do you really think that Cromwell's invasion led to a quarter of the Irish dying / not being replaced in 5 years?

It's possible, particularly as the "not being replaced" issue is really important for pre-modern crisis periods: adult death-rates are very high even under normal circumstances, so if you have a situation where children aren't being born or infant mortality is even higher than the massive "normal" rate, then populations slump.

Direct deaths meanwhile would be down partly to soldiers killing people, but much more due to starvation due to disrupted or requisitioned food supplies, and disease from large numbers of people moving about.

 

[Hibernian]

Do you really think that Cromwell's invasion led to a quarter of the Irish dying / not being replaced in 5 years?

That seems awful high for a pre-modern imperial war w/o accompanied plagues.

it was bad, but 400 000 people bad?

The American Civil War (admittedly happened far later, but was almost apocalyptic for the time) had 650 000 deaths (admittedly almost all of soldiers).

Just seems a bit high. This is my uneducated query.

Yeah, as others have already mentioned, the casualty figures (mostly civilians) for that war (1641 to 1653) are often estimated between 250,000 to 600,000. Many historians would just say "around half a million". I've gone for a slightly less extreme figure, as it fits in better with the other population figures that I have (otherwise the recovery is too fast in order to reach 2 million by 1700).

Agriculture was severely disrupted and there was a mass ethnic cleansing campaign against Catholics (in 1641 the Catholics had driven out most of the Protestant colonists in their own ethnic cleansing campaign, see the 1641 rebellion, which started the war). The vast majority of the deaths during that conflict were civilians who were massacred, starved or died of disease and exposure. It was a real war of extermination, where there were no rules or niceties on either side.

There was a very large number of homeless war refugees left afterwards, many of whom died and a lot of others were forcibly shipped off to England's Caribbean and North American colonies as indentured servants. There was even a brief few years under Cromwell's rule were several thousand Irish "vagabonds" were actually enslaved (as chattel) and sent to Barbados (where most were worked to death). Though the surviving slaves were freed by Charles II in 1660, upon the restoration of the Monarchy and a slightly less harsh policy towards Catholics.

Interestingly, most of the Irish rebel armies who surrendered to Cromwell's forces with an agreement, were "sold" by England to France and Spain, to serve in their armies (large sums of money were exchanged and this sale was the main income source for the Irish exchequer for several years after the war). Some were even allowed to leave with their banners and arms, though under the stipulation that they never return to Ireland (those who did not surrender, of course, were massacred or summarily executed).

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Very interesting Hibernian. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Arilou]

It's possible, particularly as the "not being replaced" issue is really important for pre-modern crisis periods: adult death-rates are very high even under normal circumstances, so if you have a situation where children aren't being born or infant mortality is even higher than the massive "normal" rate, then populations slump.

Direct deaths meanwhile would be down partly to soldiers killing people, but much more due to starvation due to disrupted or requisitioned food supplies, and disease from large numbers of people moving about.

Though it should be noted that there has been a tendency to reassess the 30-years war slightly, in that population decline was very real, but the more extreme figures also included a lot of population displacement. It wasnt neccessarily all deaths.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Though it should be noted that there has been a tendency to reassess the 30-years war slightly, in that population decline was very real, but the more extreme figures also included a lot of population displacement. It wasnt neccessarily all deaths.

Where would the displacement have moved people in the 30YW if they weren't dead?

 

[Arilou]

Where would the displacement have moved people in the 30YW if they weren't dead?

Other parts of Germany, mainly, though there was also some who fled to areas outside The Empire. Some areas were very badly hit by depopulation, some even grew.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Other parts of Germany, mainly, though there was also some who fled to areas outside The Empire. Some areas were very badly hit by depopulation, some even grew.

But all of those things have been accounted for since people started first writing histories of the thirty years war?? How is that a "new" thing in the historiography of the 30YW.

The population estimates of the German states in modern times (post 1500) are not an area of history where records are lacking or were inaccessible to the historians of the 18th or 19th century. The consensus had always been that Germany as a whole lost around a third of its population and that was already an aggregate figure from combining the numbers of all areas, many of which had been much reduced in population and some had been not much reduced in population.

Here's a map from Wikipedia that I remember seeing (in a different graphical style) in 40 or 60 year old issues of the Putzger historical world atlas

You can already see that many areas which saw multiple and protracted campaigns were horribly devastated while areas which had seen only few campaigns were not so badly hit.

East Prussia isn't shown here but iirc it was among the worst hit areas. The old Prussian language went exctinct as a consequence of the severe depopulation of the area, and its subsequent resettlement with people from other parts of the German lands.

 

[MCMartel]

Do you really think that Cromwell's invasion led to a quarter of the Irish dying / not being replaced in 5 years?

That seems awful high for a pre-modern imperial war w/o accompanied plagues.

it was bad, but 400 000 people bad?

The American Civil War (admittedly happened far later, but was almost apocalyptic for the time) had 650 000 deaths (admittedly almost all of soldiers).

Just seems a bit high. This is my uneducated query.

I can't speak to the percentage killed in Ireland, but the US civil war killed a very small percentage of people compared to 17th century wars. For example, the contemporary King Phillip's war in the late 17th century in the US killed more US (technically people in colonies that woul become the US) people per-capita than any other war. The 30 years war killed between 20 and 30% of modern day Germany. Again, I don't know the specifics RE: Cromwell in Ireland, but 25% isn't outlandish on the face of it.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Woah makes me wonder what Ireland (both the Republic and Ulster) would like now if there wasn't any famine and subsequent mass immigration out of the country as a result. Eg how high would the population be etc?

 

[bz249]

Woah makes me wonder what Ireland (both the Republic and Ulster) would like now if there wasn't any famine and subsequent mass immigration out of the country as a result. Eg how high would the population be etc?

As compared to other European countries Ireland has a ridiculously low population density, especially if we take into account the good geography (no high mountains) and nice climate (from an angriculture and not mass tourism point of view).

 

[olm]

If you compare Ireland to places like Wales or Denmark then 10-12 million would be a fairly reasonable guess, although it obviously depends how exactly your alt-history scenario is constructed. If you go for a scenario with very favorable conditions, then I guess 15 or even 20 million wouldn't be impossible either.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

If you compare Ireland to places like Wales or Denmark then 10-12 million would be a fairly reasonable guess, although it obviously depends how exactly your alt-history scenario is constructed. If you go for a scenario with very favorable conditions, then I guess 15 or even 20 million wouldn't be impossible either.

Woah I don't want to imagine what the Troubles or the Irish Civil War would be like in that kind of higher population situation.

 

[Tomenable]

On another forum I once saw someone posted Irish population estimates also for the time period from Mesolithic to 450 AD.

Was it you perhaps, Hibernian? I forgot which forum that was and I'm unable to find those estimates for the second time.

=====

Ok, I found it:

9000 BC = 200
8500 BC = 800
8000 BC = 1,600
7500 BC = 2,000
7000 BC = 2,800
6500 BC = 3,500
6000 BC = 4,500
5500 BC = 5,500
5000 BC = 7,500
4500 BC = 9,000
4000 BC = 12,000
3500 BC = 15,000
3000 BC = 25,000
2500 BC = 35,000
2000 BC = 45,000
1500 BC = 70,000
1000 BC = 100,000
500 BC = 130,000
1 AD = 195,000
100 AD = 225,000
200 AD = 260,000
300 AD = 295,000
400 AD = 340,000
500 AD = 400,000
540 AD = 430,000

 

[Jopa79]

At where was I, when this was originally posted, I don’t have a clue…
Excellent work @Hibernian ! It’s been over three years and I tell you this

 

[Hibernian]

On another forum I once saw someone posted Irish population estimates also for the time period from Mesolithic to 450 AD.

Was it you perhaps, Hibernian? I forgot which forum that was and I'm unable to find those estimates for the second time.

=====

Ok, I found it:

9000 BC = 200
8500 BC = 800
8000 BC = 1,600
7500 BC = 2,000
7000 BC = 2,800
6500 BC = 3,500
6000 BC = 4,500
5500 BC = 5,500
5000 BC = 7,500
4500 BC = 9,000
4000 BC = 12,000
3500 BC = 15,000
3000 BC = 25,000
2500 BC = 35,000
2000 BC = 45,000
1500 BC = 70,000
1000 BC = 100,000
500 BC = 130,000
1 AD = 195,000
100 AD = 225,000
200 AD = 260,000
300 AD = 295,000
400 AD = 340,000
500 AD = 400,000
540 AD = 430,000

Well, it wasn't me who created those numbers, but they are interesting.
Any way you could show the source for that info?

Personally I think that those kind of numbers for the early periods are too low. Well, the Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherer era seems about right. I don't think it's possible to get a more accurate estimate for their population other than to say there were "a few thousand" on the island. "Less than 5,000" is the common estimate I've seen in some archaeology books and that seems most reasonable to me.

But I disagree about those Neolithic population numbers. The Mesolithic people left so little archaeological traces behind, but the Neolithic people left absolutely tons! The Neolithic starts in Ireland in around 4500 BC, and the early period has sparse finds, but after about 3500 BC we see an explosion of monument building and landscape change. I think you would have to have at least 100,000 people on the island to build all those megalithic monuments (of which there are thousands, some of them very large that must have needed a big workforce).

So I think the developed Neolithic period probably had a similar population to the Bronze Age (probably 100,000 to 200,000). Of course there was a collapse in the Neolithic population when the Beaker People migrated/invaded around 2500 BC (and possibly killed a lot of them, or at least replaced them). So there would have been a population crash at the end of the Neolithic and then a rebound in the following Copper Age.

And I also think that those Bronze Age and Iron Age numbers are too low. I doubt the they grew so rapidly in the early centuries AD, since there really isn't that much difference between the Early Middle Ages and the Late Iron Age in terms of culture, farming, settlement patterns or political organisation. Sure it went up somewhat with exposure to Roman imports, but I doubt that most of the Iron Age was that different in terms of population. I would say it was probably hovering under 300,000 to 400,000 for much of the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Well, that's my opinion on it anyway.

 

[Hibernian]

At where was I, when this was originally posted, I don’t have a clue…
Excellent work @Hibernian ! It’s been over three years and I tell you this

Sure, no problem. It was just a little passion project of mine.

Like I was explaining in the above post I could have made a graph going back to ~8000 BC, but it wouldn't have looked very good, since the earliest populations would hardly even register and it probably would just go up and down a bit in the Bronze and Iron Ages, leading to somewhat of an upward trajectory past the 5th century AD. It would also have been much more speculative.