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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The demography of the Middle Ages - changes in the number of human populations in Europe in the Middle Ages. Approximately demographic trends of the Late Antiquity and during the Middle Ages can be described as follows:
1-550: decrease in population (from 75 to 28 million people) - smallpox epidemic, general decline of agriculture, ruralization (Rome I in ~ 1 million hours; Rome VI in ~ 12 thousand hours) of the Mediterranean
550–1200: level of population below the 1st century AD e. (from 28 to 67 million people)
1200–1340: a sharp increase in population (with the exception of periods; the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols, the Great Famine) from 67 to 120 million people
1340–1350: a sharp decrease in population (from 120 to 88 million people)
1350-1450: a sharp increase in population (from 88 to 168 million people)
1450-1470: stable low population growth (expulsion of the Moors from Spain and Portugal more than 275 thousand people)
1470 and beyond: a slow increase accelerated in the seventeenth century.
One of the most controversial issues in Gothic history - what are the limits of the kingdom of Hermanaric, how far his power stretched across the expanses of our continent. Ammianus Marcellinus mentioned only that the Goths bordered on the Alans-Tanites somewhere in the lower reaches of the Don. In confirmation of this, archaeologists have found Chernyakhov elements from residents of Tanais, a city located at the mouth of this river. If in the West the Gothic influence is quite perceptible to the Oder and Transylvania, and in the South the border with the Romans definitely lay along the Danube, then what lands became part of the German Empire in the Northeast is not entirely clear. Jordan simply listed those "arctoi gentes", that is, literally the northern ethnic groups, which they succeeded in subjugating to the famous Germanarich: bells, sorcerers ". Some peoples from this list were identified by scientists very quickly, good, they are almost under the same names present in the ancient Russian chronicles: they saw "Chud" in "Thyudas", in "Mehrens" they recognized "Merya", in "Mordsens" they discovered "Mordvu" . The "Vasinabronka" is suspected of "all of Abronkov", where the Gothic preposition "in", completely analogous to English, was written along with the name of the area. According to the same principle, some researchers believe that "inaunsy" is not at all an independent people, but an indication of the area of residence of "thiuds", they are also "chud." Type "Chud from Aunks". In "Imniskarah" they suspected the error of the scribe, who changed the letters "m" and "n" in some places, as a result of which the reference to the region known from antiquity - Meshchera (Miskara) - became a false name for a separate tribe. In the "horns" and "tanzans" they saw one word that should be translated from Gothic as "inhabitants of the shores of Ra", that is, "Volga inhabitants". In the "golteskifs" some see the tribe Golad, who lived in the Slavic era near Moscow. Others, however, goladiyu believe "sorcerers." And the first Golteskyphes in the list are suggested to be considered as the collective name of all further enumerated peoples, something like “inhabitants of Scythia”. Even scientists with a well-developed imagination were unable to determine who such “ataul”, “navego”, “bubengen” could be. But even from the fact that he was able to decipher, a certain route clearly showed through, an ancient trade route: from the Gulf of Finland and the southern coast of Ladoga, the places of residence of the Chud and the Rivers, through the Volga upper reaches to the middle course of this river, and then, possibly, to the Caspian Sea. It turned out that Germanarich annexed a significant part of European Russia to his country. However, it is more likely that the Goths simply took over the "soft gold" of the region - the fur of the northern Russian forests. Their detachments, moving along the Volga, under the threat of ruin of these places, collected tribute from forest dwellers, like the way the Vikings would turn around later, and then the Slavic princes with the retinue. The dependence of such distant regions on the Gothic rulers was hardly reduced to something more than regular skin taxes.
Goths did not interfere too much in the affairs of the conquered peoples. Although Jordan argues that Germanarich "ruled over all the tribes of Scythia and Germany, as over property", figuratively tells of "the enslaved leaders of quads" or vandals "lying under the right hand", but in reality the Germanic empire is by no means was similar to typical oriental despots. For the rest of the Germans, submission to the Goths turned out to be only a payment of tribute and a duty to support the army on demand. The northern peoples, not capable of war, got off with only tribute. And inside the state, the oppression of the top was not great. The Goths, apparently, were opposed to slavery. At least, handicraft slavery, associated with the creation of slave centers. Most likely, it is the liquidation of the latter that explains the rapid flowering of their power. The forerunners of the East Germans, as is known, created whole slave trading posts, where they drove prisoners from different places, forcing them to work for the good of their masters for free. Of course, such labor cost the convict owners cheap, but its results left much to be desired. Significant numbers of supervisors and wardens were always required, and technical progress in general could be forgotten.
The Goths brought with them to the Northern Black Sea region a completely different system of relations, something like rudimentary feudalism. The Gothic leaders, having conquered the country, considered themselves masters of all arable land and, as property owners, distributed land in possession of their warriors. They settled in the villages of large family communities, cultivated fields and were obliged to their "overlords" for military service. The local population, of course, lost the land, but at the same time saved personal freedom. It could either lease land from Gothic landowners and farmers, turning into semi-dependent peasants, or engage in crafts and trade. For the descendants of the "Scythians-plowmen," a people who had been in hopeless slavery for a thousand years, and who endlessly drove from one edge of Scythia to another, literally came the Golden Age. In many respects it was precisely the efforts of these people who suddenly became free, the development in the Gothic state moved forward by leaps and bounds. Many of them owned their own workshops or were engaged in trading operations, and in terms of wealth were in no way inferior to people from the Baltic. Late Scythians, thus, from the arrival of the Germans, acquired rather than lost.
Can not be. They were in the period of the Zhou dynasty. 1000 years BC. At the same time in China there lived elephants, with the help of which the Chinese repulsed the attacks of Indo-Europeans. Chinese used to tame elephants than Indians
But even from the fact that he was able to decipher, a certain route clearly showed through, an ancient trade route: from the Gulf of Finland and the southern coast of Ladoga, the places of residence of the Chud and the Rivers, through the Volga upper reaches to the middle course of this river, and then, possibly, to the Caspian Sea. It turned out that Germanarich annexed a significant part of European Russia to his country. However, it is more likely that the Goths simply took over the "soft gold" of the region - the fur of the northern Russian forests. Their detachments, moving along the Volga, under the threat of ruin of these places, collected tribute from forest dwellers, like the way the Vikings would turn around later, and then the Slavic princes with the retinue. The dependence of such distant regions on the Gothic rulers was hardly reduced to something more than regular skin taxes.
Goths did not interfere too much in the affairs of the conquered peoples. Although Jordan argues that Germanarich "ruled over all the tribes of Scythia and Germany, as over property", figuratively tells of "the enslaved leaders of quads" or vandals "lying under the right hand", but in reality the Germanic empire is by no means was similar to typical oriental despots. For the rest of the Germans, submission to the Goths turned out to be only a payment of tribute and a duty to support the army on demand. The northern peoples, not capable of war, got off with only tribute. And inside the state, the oppression of the top was not great. The Goths, apparently, were opposed to slavery. At least, handicraft slavery, associated with the creation of slave centers. Most likely, it is the liquidation of the latter that explains the rapid flowering of their power. The forerunners of the East Germans, as is known, created whole slave trading posts, where they drove prisoners from different places, forcing them to work for the good of their masters for free. Of course, such labor cost the convict owners cheap, but its results left much to be desired. Significant numbers of supervisors and wardens were always required, and technical progress in general could be forgotten.
The Goths brought with them to the Northern Black Sea region a completely different system of relations, something like rudimentary feudalism. The Gothic leaders, having conquered the country, considered themselves masters of all arable land and, as property owners, distributed land in possession of their warriors. They settled in the villages of large family communities, cultivated fields and were obliged to their "overlords" for military service. The local population, of course, lost the land, but at the same time saved personal freedom. It could either lease land from Gothic landowners and farmers, turning into semi-dependent peasants, or engage in crafts and trade. For the descendants of the "Scythians-plowmen," a people who had been in hopeless slavery for a thousand years, and who endlessly drove from one edge of Scythia to another, literally came the Golden Age. In many respects it was precisely the efforts of these people who suddenly became free, the development in the Gothic state moved forward by leaps and bounds. Many of them owned their own workshops or were engaged in trading operations, and in terms of wealth were in no way inferior to people from the Baltic. Late Scythians, thus, from the arrival of the Germans, acquired rather than lost.
Then funny thing that there are no lions on Balkan in 6th century; they died 3 centuries before this date at best.
Still. Tarpans aren't exactly big (meter and quarter height, meter and half lenght), but they lived in Prussia until 19th century - last one was killed in 1814. European bisons lived in Poland/Ukraine (Białowieża Forest) until 20th century (1921). So, at least tarpan can coexist with preindustrial civilization with a nice density of population.
Just in case. Balkan area in modern sense, without at least half of Pannonia, is 666,700 square km wide. If we take 2 millions population there, it's 3 men per square km. I wouldn't call it "dense". For reference: modern population density of Mongolia (have you ever seen it?) is 2 men per square km.
Then funny thing that there are no lions on Balkan in 6th century; they died 3 centuries before this date at best.
Still. Tarpans aren't exactly big (meter and quarter height, meter and half lenght), but they lived in Prussia until 19th century - last one was killed in 1814. European bisons lived in Poland/Ukraine (Białowieża Forest) until 20th century (1921). So, at least tarpan can coexist with preindustrial civilization with a nice density of population.
Just in case. Balkan area in modern sense, without at least half of Pannonia, is 666,700 square km wide. If we take 2 millions population there, it's 3 men per square km. I wouldn't call it "dense". For reference: modern population density of Mongolia (have you ever seen it?) is 2 men per square km.
You read Herodotus. Understand that you're lying.
I'm afraid I can't handle it. After all, I am not a historian. Even if I show 1000 facts, they will not accept.
Yes. He did. So?
I mean... you do know that Herodotus lived in 5th century BC, and we're speaking about dates of, like, eight centuries after Herodotus? Lions survived Herodotus; there are evidences lions were there in, like, 4th century (Themistius was sad that Thessalian lion disappeared, meaning no beasts to beast pens; still, it can be anecdotic).
Still, Herodotus literally couldn't say there is lions in Balkans in 6th century AD. I'm not a specialist, but fast sweep on Internet shows me that lions presumably disappeared from Balkans in 1-4 century AD.
Yes. He did. So?
I mean... you do know that Herodotus lived in 5th century BC, and we're speaking about dates of, like, eight centuries after Herodotus? Lions survived Herodotus; there are evidences lions were there in, like, 4th century (Themistius was sad that Thessalian lion disappeared, meaning no beasts to beast pens; still, it can be anecdotic).
Still, Herodotus literally couldn't say there is lions in Balkans in 6th century AD. I'm not a specialist, but fast sweep on Internet shows me that lions presumably disappeared from Balkans in 1-4 century AD.
And there is. But if Eastern Europe was densely populated, the lions would have disappeared earlier. Do you know how many hectares and herbivores you need for one lion?
After all, there are other methods that suggest a rare population of Eastern Europe compared to the Carpathians. This is only indirect.
Define "densely". Byzantine density in 4th century, when lions lived (presumably) in Greece, was 8 men per square km - and, let's say, Greece wasn't the less populated area of Empire. If Greece could support lions, Balkans with 3 men per square km would be able to support them as well.
Greek East of Roman Empire had population density of 20 men per square km in first century AD - lions supposedly endured. Even if they don't, well, it took better then 2 millions people on modern Balkans to wipe them out.
Define "densely". Byzantine density in 4th century, when lions lived (presumably) in Greece, was 8 men per square km - and, let's say, Greece wasn't the less populated area of Empire. If Greece could support lions, Balkans with 3 men per square km would be able to support them as well.
Greek East of Roman Empire had population density of 20 men per square km in first century AD - lions supposedly endured. Even if they don't, well, it took better then 2 millions people on modern Balkans to wipe them out.
Just in case. Ukraine aren't on Balkans.
Still. Can you show me how did you do your estimate, and where all the slavic peoples fighting Byzantium and inhabiting reliably slavic territories of 9th century came from?
