# Population of countries/cities



## TheokinsJ (Mar 24, 2013)

I only recently posted something similar about the age of cities and how long they last, however now I find myself facing a rather different problem. Well, not so much problem, more of an idea I had that needs thought. For those who didn't see my first thread, my fantasy world is set in a cold, Northern part of a continent where it snows practically all year, and where there are several cities, each tens upon thousands of years old. Basically the idea I've had is that these cities are quite small, some as few as 20 000 people live in them. However, if they have been standing for thousands of years how has the population remained so small? That's the question I'm trying to answer, the population has somehow maintained itself at the same amount for a long time, and I'm trying to figure out how. I've had ideas that perhaps the people have moved out into the countryside rather than stay in the city, or that there have been huge famines in years gone by that have cut the population in half. Any suggestions as to how the population would have remained the same over so many years? Or is it not possible?


----------



## Graylorne (Mar 24, 2013)

Cities can't grow larger than their ability to feed their populace. If it snows all year, what do these 20.000 people live on? I'd say the towns would be smaller.

I think the excess population migrates. Is the hinterland suitable for colonization? If it's very mountainous or barren, the migrants will keep on walking till they find a suitable place, or die in the process. A greater part of present-day Europe got relocated that way (the great migrations).


----------



## Saigonnus (Mar 24, 2013)

Graylorne said:


> Cities can't grow larger than their ability to feed their populace. If it snows all year, what do these 20.000 people live on? I'd say the towns would be smaller.



Perhaps they get much of their food from trade, but generally you are correct. Without a suitable growing season a place wouldn't really be suitable for colonization in the first place. If the weather changed from what it had been, turning it INTO a frozen wasteland, likely most if not all of the population would migrate to warmer climes; where life would be easier. 

An idea I had for a frozen city was one centered around a series of hot springs, providing warmth to the city. Since magic is likely a factor, perhaps they have greenhouses that provide some if not all of the vegetables the city needs for the populace and fodder for the livestock (likely you'd have to have sheep or goats)


----------



## ThinkerX (Mar 24, 2013)

Excess popuation would migrate to more sustainable climes.

Real world parallel: vikings.  Population excess drove them to colonize Iceland and forcibly settle themselves elsewhere.


----------



## The Unseemly (Mar 25, 2013)

People in cold climates are resourceful. It's the process of natural selection. The weak die and the strong survive, and considering that your people have been around for a long time, they're probably going to know what animals are edible, what stuff to avoid, etc. Also, people in such conditions tend to be buff, and live off a tiny amount of food per day. Nonetheless, I think you got the population count about right: in the larger cities of Vikings (which is how I envision your people), there was about that amount of people living in that city.


----------



## Kahle (Mar 27, 2013)

Increased population density increases the amount of waste, disease, and strain on the available resources. The Romans managed to increase the sanitation of their cities with designated refuse pits, bringing in water via the aqueducts, pumping water into houses, and building some of the first sewers. Of course, they also began to use the poor for their armies and settled the veterans in provinces, but the city did periodically experience grain shortages.

For the greatest population management, I would still have to go with plague. In the 14th century, the plagues killed a 1/3 of all the people in Europe and the Middle-East; that was in the span of about ten years, and Europe's population is just now recovering. Its one reason why Europe isn't as densely populated as the Americas even though their cultures have been around longer. The Black Death (bubonic plague, other two were pneumonic and ) completely wiped out some villages, and did not spare any social class. This had an huge impact on European culture and economic situation. The Catholic church lost power b/c it could not save the people and had no answers when its own clergy began dying, and as there were no peasants in the fields, Europe suffered a widespread famine for the next five years. However, the value of physical labor also increased, which gave the peasants some temporary power.

So I would say a more advanced culture could develop greater sanitation processes or suffer famine, whereas a poorer culture would be highly prone to plague. Just remember to consider the cultural and economic consequences of those options.

Just and end thought, the plagues of Europe were stalled during the winters b/c the fleas that spread the virus all died and there was less trade. So for your cultures in a colder climate, they may not have to worry as much about plague, though their harsh environment and limited resources might limit population growth.


----------



## SeverinR (Mar 27, 2013)

"This is Berk. It snows nine months out of the year, and hails the other three. What little food grows here is tough and tasteless. The people that grow here, even more so."  HTTYD

I would agree with disease, the more people in a small area, the more likely a disease will take hold and spread quickly.  Mainly from sanitation problems.
When things get in short supply, people will seek to find it on their own away from others.  So a town will self limit by necessity, either by illness or people leaving. 
Disease from the warmer areas would be limited but not impossible. Fleas not kept warm will die, but fleas on a warm furry body can spread diseases when they find another warm body to feast upon. Maybe in this scenerio Typhoid Mary is a call girl with an infestation of fleas, and she spreads the fleas to the men that use her services, and brings them home to his family?  maybe the people from the south have a basic immunity to the disease(having been exposed to it so much), but the people up north don't?
Scurvy might also be a problem if fruit(vitamin c) doesn't get brought in large enough supply.


----------



## druidofwinter (Mar 27, 2013)

greylorne is right. food availability determines population. do your people live inland or by the cost? if they live inland i can think of vary little they could eat. if it snows all the time, as you say, then no animals would migrate there to breed/feed,and doubt any plants would grow. if they dwell near an ice sheet seals would be about their only option, since they live in polar regions all year round. and i'm not sure but i can't imagine twenty thousand people in one place living off seals! hope this helps


----------



## skip.knox (Apr 2, 2013)

Twenty thousand is actually a big city in pre-industrial terms. A good-sized city in the Middle Ages would come in around 5,000. So my first recommendation would be to reduce the size of your town.

Cities *always* have negative growth. The death rate is higher. That's pretty much universally true. They maintain population (or grow) through migration from the countryside. Cities are always magnets.

Cities are subject to siege; that's always a good one for reducing population. Even more so if the city was taken and sacked.

Not so much famine, as towns usually have a grain reserve to get them through hard times. Famine tends to hit the countryside hardest.

Another thing to remember is fire. Towns of wood *always* struggled with fire, burning to the ground with some regularity. It's not always a direct population loss, but it's a good way to reconfigure the town if you want. People did not tend to leave because there wasn't anywhere to go *to*.  They tended to stay and rebuild.

But plague is the biggie. You can cook up a plague any time you like and sweep away a quarter to a third of the population in a matter of months. More and faster, if you want a fantasy-based plague. Bugs love cities!

Far north cities absolutely could survive. Look at Novgorod as a example. They survived by trade. They would bring grain in by the shipload from warmer climes, trading furs ... and baby seals.


----------

