Population densities in Roman-Age Europe?

Wed Jun 4 15:51:46 UTC 2014

man Caesar was a tyrant in my opinion....he got what he deserved as an emperor.....I can see no praise fer
a person like that.... 

On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:36 AM, "'Jamie Polichak' jamiepolichak at hotmail.com [gothic-l]" <gothic-l at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Try the Germanic group too. Germanic-L at yahoogroups.comThey 
regularly deal with eastern and northern European population distributions. 
Though not always in English. 

Population is also highly dependent on geography, 
especially the climate part.  Britain is warmer than much of interior 
Europe, especially in the east, for its latitude. Even with the Pruth and 
Dniepr, there would likely be a large difference between the coast of the Black 
Sea and elsewhere. For example, the Dniepr tends to freeze in winter, while the 
Thames does not (aside from the Little Ice Age of the 17th-19th 
centuries). 

Roman towns would also probably tend to be larger than 
non-Roman towns. Outside the core region around the Mediterranean (and even 
parts there), many towns were specifically constructed at a regular size with a 
regular plan and with a set number of people intended to inhabit 
them. 

Also, Wikipedia gives a population of 1.5 million for 
England in 100 BC (Prior, 
Francis. BC Life in Britain and Ireland Before the Romans year=2004. 
London: Harper Perennial.) and 3.25 million in 1100 AD (John Hatcher and Mark Bailey, Modelling the Middle 
Ages, Oxford University press, 2001, pg. 29). 

There was also a drop after 
1100, with 3 million left in 1350 (Black Death), but continuing to 2.75 million 
in 1541. 

3 (or 3.7) million sounds far 
too high for 1-4th C AD Roman Britain. It wasn’t until the 17th century that 
England made it past 4 million inhabitants and stayed 
there.  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20140604/c8bb713e/attachment.htm>