# Demographics, not so easy.



## ascanius (Dec 10, 2016)

So I've been working a lot on world building these past few months.  I came across this page a while back but have been rereading it for insight.
http://migration-issues/westeros-is-poorly-designed-3b01cf5cdcaf#.z78a4wrr6

How do your worlds fare against such scrutiny?


----------



## Alyssa (Dec 10, 2016)

Link above doesn't work for me, just in case:
Westeros is Poorly Designed ? In a State of Migration ? Medium


----------



## Ban (Dec 10, 2016)

Interesting read.

For my Fantasy world, which is currently on hold, I think I did relatively well on demographics. A 1600s-1900s mixture of techs and ideas with a total world population of around 800-900 million seems plausible when dangerous monsters are roaming around

I think the writer is also very right on worldbuilding being a reflection of the writer's mind. My fantasy world's primary area of conflict is decisively western-european in culture. If you consider American culture to be largely interchangeable with English culture (which I do) then I'd say all my worlds are western-european. Never thought of that really.

...Aaaaand I have Martin's dynasty of 17 rulers with an average reign of 17 years beat by a dynasty of over 30 rulers with an average of 20-30 years rule. There goes the realism


----------



## FifthView (Dec 10, 2016)

The article is very interesting and can serve as fodder and inspiration for world building.

But most of our books are only guesstimates, right?  We are usually writing from a handful of select POVs, and most of those are quite limited POVs.  If you select 15 people at random off the street in Bloomfield, Ind., and ask them how many people live in St. Louis, Mo., or Colorado Springs, Co., or New Orleans or Pune, Maharashtra, India, most of them will be quite wrong in their estimates.  They simply don't know and will overestimate or underestimate quite a bit.  Similarly, our characters aren't likely to have an objective overview of their own world.  And leaving things a little vague—or, suggestive—allows our readers to fill in the gaps and build impressions that work for them.

An example from that article:

"The Battle of Yarmouk, after which the Caliphate siezed the entire Byzantine East, had just 50,000 fighters or so, with the result that the Caliphate conquered the entire region. *Crucially, it should be noted that contemporaries gave much higher numbers: the Byzantines were routinely asserted to be fielding 100,000 men, while Muslims were depicted as leading hundreds of thousands.*"

So if we are writing, erm, authentic to a character voice, that character might describe the villain's army as having 100,000 soldiers even when there are only 30K.  The actual number probably won't matter much to the story; suffice to say, there were _a lot_, and the important impression for our reader will be the sense of vastness.

That said, some extreme goofiness could throw readers out of the story.


----------



## TheKillerBs (Dec 10, 2016)

I put a bit of work into the demographics of the setting where it mattered. I have 9 ethnolinguistic groups in a continent about the size of Europe, divided into a lot more subgroups. My total population was... I don't recall, actually, and the computer with that information is dead. I think the population density was probably about 30/sq km (roughly 11/sq mi if my math is right). The other setting is about hilariously overpowered wizards so realistic demographics weren't of particular interest.


----------



## Alyssa (Dec 10, 2016)

wrong way round, you want to multiply 30 by 2.56, so a population density of 77 per sqm


----------



## WooHooMan (Dec 10, 2016)

I don't want to pat myself on the back or whatever but I think my settings would hold-up well to this kind of examination.
It helps that my most in-depth setting is only about 400 square miles.  That alone clears-up like half of this person's criticisms. 

Granted, I think all this boils down to some very silly nitpicking.  And I'm saying this as someone who really doesn't like ASOIAF.
I do think this is a good argument against those type of people who insist on working on their setting to the last detail.  Sometimes it's better to keep things vague.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 11, 2016)

I am down with keeping things vague, and fantasy worlds throw off everything... What is the average population density of trolls in a subtropic mountainous setting? How does that effect the human population? I mean, what is the rate of consumption of humans by trolls per capita anyhow? What is the average lifespan of a human when there are common plants able to cure cancer? And in GoT there are obviously sooo many things historically that are mythic for timelines and all that. It flat out gets goofy. 

While I respect nerdliness in its many forms, and find it interesting, in this case it isn't worth thinking about too much. Basics are plenty good, unless of course your society runs an accurate census and you choose to release those numbers for public consumption... then you might need to put some thought into it. If you're relying on IC opinions on such things... Fifthview has the right of it.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Dec 11, 2016)

This is why I don't give many actual numbers in my books 

I do have an urban center in one of my WIP's that comes close to having 5-10 million people by my guess. But it's huge, like, covering an entire island. I don't care so much about the plausibility as i like the idea, and anyway, I never actually say what the population is. 

This was a neat read, but it's really just nitpicking. Zero percent of readers will care and miscalculation of population density shouldn't ruin a story for anyone. 

But, hey, whatever floats your goat.


----------



## valiant12 (Dec 11, 2016)

I think this article have too much nitpicking in it.
I don't think most readers care about the exact size of a fictional continent.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 11, 2016)

valiant12 said:


> I think this article have too much nitpicking in it.
> I don't think most readers care about the exact size of a fictional continent.



Possibly. I think readers of worldbuilding genres (fantasy, sci fi) tend to care about these things more than readers of other genres. Most readers aren't going to sit down and try to calculate the population density of any fantasy worlds, but then they aren't going to be reading articles about fantasy demographics either. This article is explicitly aimed at the obsessive fans who do care about these things and spend ridiculous amounts of time trying to figure out the minutest details about Westeros. And ASoIaF has a lot of those. It is constantly being held up as an uber realistic fantasy world and an example for anyone who wants to write uber realistic fantasy. So I don't think the author is being too pedantic in pointing out its major faults. 


Very interesting article. Gave me lots of food for thought. The follow up with answers to some reader comments was also very interesting: It?s Okay That Westeros Is Poorly Designed ? In a State of Migration ? Medium


----------



## Ban (Dec 11, 2016)

valiant12 said:


> I think this article have too much nitpicking in it.
> I don't think most readers care about the exact size of a fictional continent.



But some do. Besides, learning stuff is alot more fun when done in the context of a popular fantasy world.


----------



## ascanius (Dec 11, 2016)

I'm one of those readers to about 50%.  I always figured Westeros was more or less the size of Great Briton, which never really made sense now that I think of it. See there are few things that made me think it was this size, and the big one is there is no diversity whatsoever to imply that is larger.  One of the things that always bugged me was these huge population cities without much in-between to make it seem inhabited, I'm talking the books.  It's hard to explain but basically I got the impression that between important cities and town there wasn't really anything.  I understand why i got that impression.

I think that simply being aware of restrictions such as those mentioned help, especially in creating explanations for why things are the way they are.  So if someone wants a huge city that is unrealistic, it gives the opportunity to create/world-build a system for how it is sustained and why it is the way it is.  Are you going to show the reader every single explanation, I hope not, but it sure gives opportunities to your characters and plot.  In another thread someone, Nimue, is talking about a very restrictive world environment.  Things are going to develop differently which also means society and culture are too.  It's going to be an interesting setting IMO.  I'm of the school that the setting is the most important character because it shapes every other character.  

One of the things I really like about this is it naturally leads to ethnic/linguistic/racial/socaial...etc diversity and not token quota characters.  Doesn't mean the reader knows everything only that it gives the author much more material to work with.

As for me I'm not doing to bad.  So far I have around 100 different major linguistic/culture groups, most are just a name on freemind.  A few have very basic information such as rituals, symbols, heroes.  One thing I'm looking forward to, one my history timeline is done, is swapping cultural traits among the cultures through history.  I'm hoping that it will help create vastly different cultures.

I just hope that when all is said and done, my books will inspire such passion in people.  

ps.  The follow up answeres and questions are good too.  Some are downright funny.

also for those interested.  Notes on Medieval Population Geography ? In a State of Migration ? Medium


----------



## FifthView (Dec 11, 2016)

I do think that where this matters is around the fringes, the edges, and the impressions readers receive.

A television show called _Olympus_ comes to mind.  The first time I tried watching it, I just couldn't bring myself to watch the second episode.  I eventually watched the whole thing and ended up liking it by the end but only because I let myself fall into enjoying it as I might enjoy Greek mythology.  The focus is on a handful of key players and that's about it.  Every visit outside a major city is absolute wilderness with no villages, no people, no random travelers, etc., and there's only a smattering of "the common people" as a threadbare backdrop in the population centers.   There's no sense of commerce between cities, and very little to suggest complex political wrangling between power centers.  (The show _The Shannara Chronicles_ is similar in this regard.)  

Compare _Olympus_ to _Merlin_, a show that I absolutely loved, and the difference is obvious:  While also focused on a central location (Camelot), various villages and towns were scenes for some episodes, there were always travelers coming to Camelot from other areas, politics between different kingdoms was depicted, and so forth.  The world actually felt real even if a lot of the exterior world was left vague.

Even if we leave a lot of the demographics vague, we still may need to be aware of the types of impressions (or suggestions) we do give.

Westeros did seem to me to be largely uninhabited between the major power centers, to a degree; but there were always travelers on the move and a lot to suggest that maybe the focus on the power centers and powerful families was merely the particular story being told.  I was only a little troubled not seeing more of Westeros.  In contrast, Easteros always seems more complex demographically and more packed with people.  In _general_, the two continents always left me with a feeling of Greek city states vs Persian Empire.  Not culturally; but with centralized power structures that were interactive but separate (like city states) and more cultural homogeneity in Westeros,  and a more chaotic heterogeneity in Easteros.  

The only big-name book that has left me feeling disappointed in this regard, that I can readily remember, is the first _Mistborn_ trilogy.  Weirdly, although I stormed through the three novels, loving them, now years later I hardly remember much.  I vaguely recall a plantation setting early in the first book (I think), and I remember feeling that the whole world in which it takes place was rather vague, undeveloped, and it had an unreal feel.  But I did enjoy the trilogy.


----------



## valiant12 (Dec 11, 2016)

Mythopoet said:


> Possibly. I think readers of worldbuilding genres (fantasy, sci fi) tend to care about these things more than readers of other genres. Most readers aren't going to sit down and try to calculate the population density of any fantasy worlds, but then they aren't going to be reading articles about fantasy demographics either. This article is explicitly aimed at the obsessive fans who do care about these things and spend ridiculous amounts of time trying to figure out the minutest details about Westeros. And ASoIaF has a lot of those. It is constantly being held up as an uber realistic fantasy world and an example for anyone who wants to write uber realistic fantasy. So I don't think the author is being too pedantic in pointing out its major faults.
> 
> 
> Very interesting article. Gave me lots of food for thought. The follow up with answers to some reader comments was also very interesting: It?s Okay That Westeros Is Poorly Designed ? In a State of Migration ? Medium



Who exactly consider Westeros uber realistic  ? 
By the way in my imagination Westeros is a  very culturalaly diverse place . 



> There's no sense of commerce between cities, and very little to suggest complex political wrangling between power centers.


I haven't watched that show , but Greece in real live is very mountainous country. Cities with weak navy and landlocked cities don't traded much.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 11, 2016)

The problem with Olympus is that a handful of characters would flit from large, empty set piece to large, empty set piece without encountering much indication that there might be whole societies and life occurring in the land or even in the handful of cities or population centers.

I would also make a distinction between "what was" — i.e., historical reality — and the sort of impressions that an artistic representation can give.   My focus is more on the artistic representation and whether we can suggest a vibrant, living world and human populations rather than merely move from convenient set piece to convenient set piece.  Even if we do not represent the world _in toto_, or are vague, we can still create a sense of a real world in which the story happens.

Edit:  One general impression I had of Olympus, and one that is fairly common in the television medium, is that a limited budget may sometimes force the creators' hands.  I wondered if this was part of the problem with _The Shannara Chronicles_ as well.  A limited budget for creating sets, special effects, and hiring lots of extras can lead to a less realistic "world."  But this cause should play no role in the medium of written fiction.


----------



## Russ (Dec 11, 2016)

I haven't got a chance to check his math, but I found at least of couple of places in his "critique" where he was historically selective or narrow minded, or perhaps even ill informed.

Take this one for example:



> Why? Simple. In pre-modern societies, most people didn’t migrate. Ever.



Well anyone who knows their history nows this assertion is patently untrue.  Take a look at the Huns, Lombards, Vikings, Jews, Muslims, Mongols, etc who are all pre-modern groups.  There were lots of historical migrations in the pre-modern period.  Just ask the Spanish, Romans, Germans and Byzantines if they would agree with his conclusions.

He also bitches about the length and stability of the dynasties:



> Consider the Targaryen dynasty. They lasted 283 years on the Iron Throne, with 17 rules, for an average of 17 years of reign per ruler. That is incredibly implausible, even with fire-breathing dragons. Consider the Roman Empire, a similarly vast political entity: no dynasty ever lasted more than 15 rulers, and no direct descendant dynasty lasted more than eight rulers. The longest-lived dynasty were either the Julio-Claudians or the Nerva-Antonines, both of whom used adoption extensively, neither of whom lasted even 100 years. But their average reigns were 19 and 14 years, so that makes 17-year-average sound reasonable.



Now this is just cherry picking.  There were long lasting dynasties that originated in the middle ages.  Take for instance, the Habsburgs, who ruled Austria from 1278-1918 and also led the Holy Roman empire for more than 400 years...and they don't even make this list:

The Language Journal: Top 10 Dynasties in the World That Ruled the Longest

Now I don't have the time to check some of this other assumptions but his historical analysis (as opposed to demographic) does not stand up to scrutiny.

There is also the problem of his underlying assumption, that the parameters of a fantasy world should be constrained by our historical experience.  Westeros is not Western Europe.  Overall his analysis did not impress me.


----------



## ThinkerX (Dec 11, 2016)

Hmmm...

Ok, principle country of the principle world is Solaria, which is very roughly 2500 x 1200 miles, with around a third of that taken up by a central sea.  Solaria is a sort of rough clone of the roman empire that took its own course of development.  

Multiple dynasties, though not all of the old ones are extinct.  (Owes to raw power politics combined with a Senate that can depose or establish lineages.)  Current one has been on the throne for about 130 years, eight rulers, a couple of whom lasted a long time (three decades plus).  

Four or five cities in the half million population range, and I try to make it clear these cities suck up a giant chunk of resources.  This becomes rather crucial in one of my stories.  A couple, owing to wartime migration, have their populations pushed to the one million mark - with a corresponding decline in the number of peasants working the fields elsewhere.

Ethnic groups - lessee...Solarian's proper (Roman), Kheffian's (Egyptian), Avar (kind of sort of Celtic), Kitrin (no real parallel), Carbone (Greek), Gotlander (Norse), Marfak (desert nomad), each with appropriate subdivisions.  The Empire imposes a common language overall (Solarian), though in the west, a sort of 'Trade Tongue' is more useful.  There are a couple of story episodes where language becomes crucial. ('wretched provincials don't speak common.')

Armed forces - I went with the old roman legion model: ten (actually eleven) legions, each with five thousand rank and file troops, plus officers, scouts, and whatnot.  Fully mobilized, each legion 'twins' - officers and senior troopers serve as the backbone for hastily recruited a Gemini legion.  So, 100,000 troops total there.  The church also had its own troops, patterned after the legion model, though nowhere near as well trained and equipped (and usually around half legion size).  Seven church legions, on the order of 50,000 troops, essentially a deployable militia.  Plus around ten thousand knights, squires, and whatnot.   Except even at the height of the fighting, the Solarian Empire never had more than 120,000 troops in the main theater (other borders), and keeping that many troops deployed over decades almost crashed the country.


----------



## Alyssa (Dec 11, 2016)

Based on rome your numbers work out quite well, without warfare (which I'm not sure how to calculate properly and will vary with scorched earth tactics, refugees, etc, as well as distance of cities from borders) the country if sticking with normal percentages of arable land is self sufficient and does not need to import food. Your country could easily have 1, maybe even 2 cities over or at the 1 million mark and still produce food, although doing so would make them more prone to starvation during an invasion. Also with a central sea, seafood is also available and this I haven't even factored in.
Armies also work well, fitting nicely (and with a gap) in between the farming and city dwelling percentages. And many may be levied from peasant stock during wartime, particularly for church armies.
All in all, your demographics and population estimates for cities and armies are spot on.


ThinkerX said:


> Ok, principle country of the principle world is Solaria, which is very roughly 2500 x 1200 miles, with around a third of that taken up by a central sea.  Solaria is a sort of rough clone of the roman empire that took its own course of development.


2,500 x 1,200 = 3,000,000 sq mi
3,000,000 x (2/3) [this is your land minus the central sea] = 2,000,000 sq mi
approx 5,200,000 sq km
population density of roman empire was 16 persons per sq km
your maximum population will be:
5,200,000 x 16 = 83,200,000 people in Solaria (60-70 million was the population of the roman empire)




ThinkerX said:


> Multiple dynasties, though not all of the old ones are extinct.  (Owes to raw power politics combined with a Senate that can depose or establish lineages.)  Current one has been on the throne for about 130 years, eight rulers, a couple of whom lasted a long time (three decades plus).


130 / 8 = 16.25 years per ruler
assuming two lived for 30 years each
70/6 = approx 11.5 years for  the shorter lived ones
assuming three lived for 30 years each
40/5 = 8 years per ruler



ThinkerX said:


> Four or five cities in the half million population range, and I try to make it clear these cities suck up a giant chunk of resources.  This becomes rather crucial in one of my stories.  A couple, owing to wartime migration, have their populations pushed to the one million mark - with a corresponding decline in the number of peasants working the fields elsewhere.


5 x 0.5 = 2.5 million in cities
2,500,000 / 83,200,000 x 100 = roughly  3 % big city dwellers during peace 
maybe 5% during war (4,000,000 total )

5,200,000 sq km of land
10% will probably be arable
520,000 sq km of arable land

utilizing the roman two tier crop rotation system my best estimates would be that about 1 sq km of land would produce food for 200-250 people, using the lowest estimates.
520,000 x 200 = 104,000,000 persons able to be fed (roughly 20,000,000 surplus for the population, but some of this will rot given improper storage and less might exist if livestock are kept for meat - also, only a small percentage of this will be available to nearby cities if the farms are more isolated) (if using 250 for average production, then you will have an even greater surplus)
assuming 85% (70,500,000 people) of the population (a number I have pulled out of thin air but seems about right compared to 1850s estimates of farmers in the US - about 65-70%) are involved in agriculture
5,200,000 sq km non urban (area of cities is negligible - ancient rome was approximately 14 sq km and housed approx 1 million people, pop density = 70,000 / sq km,  estimates here may be way off, anywhere between 40,000 to 80,000)

81,000,000 (83,200,000 x .97 [% non big city dwellers])   / 5,200,000 = 15.5 persons per sq km living in farmsteads, villages, towns and small cities under .5 million. (155 if they live only in arable land, many will do so)



ThinkerX said:


> Ethnic groups - lessee...Solarian's proper (Roman), Kheffian's (Egyptian), Avar (kind of sort of Celtic), Kitrin (no real parallel), Carbone (Greek), Gotlander (Norse), Marfak (desert nomad), each with appropriate subdivisions.  The Empire imposes a common language overall (Solarian), though in the west, a sort of 'Trade Tongue' is more useful.  There are a couple of story episodes where language becomes crucial. ('wretched provincials don't speak common.')
> 
> Armed forces - I went with the old roman legion model: ten (actually eleven) legions, each with five thousand rank and file troops, plus officers, scouts, and whatnot.  Fully mobilized, each legion 'twins' - officers and senior troopers serve as the backbone for hastily recruited a Gemini legion.  So, 100,000 troops total there.  The church also had its own troops, patterned after the legion model, though nowhere near as well trained and equipped (and usually around half legion size).  Seven church legions, on the order of 50,000 troops, essentially a deployable militia.  Plus around ten thousand knights, squires, and whatnot.   Except even at the height of the fighting, the Solarian Empire never had more than 120,000 troops in the main theater (other borders), and keeping that many troops deployed over decades almost crashed the country.


----------



## ThinkerX (Dec 11, 2016)

> Based on rome your numbers work out quite well, without warfare (which I'm not sure how to calculate properly and will vary with scorched earth tactics, refugees, etc, as well as distance of cities from borders) the country if sticking with normal percentages of arable land is self sufficient and does not need to import food. Your country could easily have 1, maybe even 2 cities over or at the 1 million mark and still produce food, although doing so would make them more prone to starvation during an invasion. Also with a central sea, seafood is also available and this I haven't even factored in.
> Armies also work well, fitting nicely (and with a gap) in between the farming and city dwelling percentages. And many may be levied from peasant stock during wartime, particularly for church armies.
> All in all, your demographics and population estimates for cities and armies are spot on.



Thank you for that more detailed assessment.

Main difference is I put the core total populace at around 40 million...because a fair chunk of the land is desert (which you need to pass through to get to more desirable places.)  Because its an Empire, though, with subject vassal kingdoms that sometimes gained true independence...that 40 million figure jumps up and down. Might have been 50-60 million...a few times. (Rome's borders fluctuated quite a bit.)

Another thing happening is technological development.  A couple hundred years ago, the then reigning dynasty set up a series of semaphore towers to improve communications.  One province, Equitant, took to manufacturing and exporting vastly improved (compared to medieval) farming equipment: more food, fewer peasants, and attendant social disruption.  There is a major clash between the old line 'Estate' nobles (dependent on large numbers of slaves/peasants) and those employing technology.  

The War, or rather its legacy (most stories are post war), is the biggie.  Solaria's foe in this conflict was Traag, once part of Kitrin, a Solarian vassal state.  Traag allied with another former vassal (Conon) and the remnants of ancient Agba, a collection of far distant city states, plus assorted barbarians and whatnot.  Whole thing under the sway of a psychopathic cult with zero tolerance for dissent and apocalyptic plans.  In practice...very crudely comparable to Alexander the Greats realm or that of the Mongols, as far as geographic extent and permanence.  Traag and Conon both had populations close to the million mark, which put immense strain on the surrounding farm country, and made selling the war a lot easier. The cult originated in Agba, and took that part of the world over first.  When Traag invaded, they basically waged a war of extermination against the local Solarian populace (Unfortunately, there are multiple real world parallels to this.)


----------



## D. Gray Warrior (Dec 11, 2016)

I rarely give definite numbers, I prefer approximate numbers. Since population is always increasing and declining, I think it's best not to have a definite number.

I have one fictional culture set in our world that has a predominantly English majority because they're pirates.

Another world is vaguely European, but they are olive skinned and their language is a mixture of Japanese and Nahuatl.


----------



## caters (Dec 12, 2016)

I don't give many numbers in my books unless they are important(like the number of people to be on board a generation ship or teleported from a nearby planet). The only exception to that rule is Math World where I have numbers as characters and indirectly refer to math throughout the book. Like for example in this phrase that pi said to 3:

"You know I was about to see what your house of triangles is like?"

Right there I am referring to a shape, a triangle, not in the same way a math teacher would but still that is math right there and unless you have a mind like a math teacher or a physics teacher, you probably wouldn't realize that this was math, you would probably just realize that it is a shape.


----------



## Drakevarg (Dec 18, 2016)

I'd have to admit I'm patently terrible at realistic demographics. My setting has a lot of cultural isolation that I blame mostly on factors like predation (humans are patently not the top of the food chain and as such tend towards urbanization for protection) and geographical isolation (one of the three continents is an archipelago, and the other two are respectively mostly a frozen wasteland and about 50% dense rainforest).

Of course, the real answer is that I've never done any research on the subject and haven't the foggiest idea how the conditions of my setting would actually influence human development.


----------



## buyjupiter (Dec 20, 2016)

I'd assume that the troll (avg pop density) would be about on par with what a Bengal tiger's is. Especially considering how closely tiger habitats butt up against human settlements. Tho there is a lot of regard for tigers in India & rehab programs set up specially for them.

I don't think humans in any fantasy world would try to resettle the trolls farther away from human civ.


----------



## D. Gray Warrior (Dec 21, 2016)

I'm trying to create ethnolinguistic groups for my conworld. The particular region I'm currently working on will either be temperate or subtropical. What physical traits are ideal for those climates?


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 22, 2016)

The more "realistic" your world is supposed to be, the greater the scrutiny leveled at it. In the case of ASOIAF it is more GRRM's fault for hyping it as such.

This is essentially why I'm using our world as a basis for my fantasy novel. Plenty of examples of how these processes play out that have been studied and documented.

One of the problems with Westeros is that it's so damn big.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 25, 2016)

I'm just not even sure why anyone would think Westeros is realistic... yes, there is urination, defecation, rape, sex, murder, political intrigue... which seems to be about the only realistic parts, I mean seriously, the ice wall is physics defying in size and that's just the beginning to the lack of reality. The politics and backstabbing, the grit in the culture, are what feel "real" not the world.



Miskatonic said:


> The more "realistic" your world is supposed to be, the greater the scrutiny leveled at it. In the case of ASOIAF it is more GRRM's fault for hyping it as such.
> 
> This is essentially why I'm using our world as a basis for my fantasy novel. Plenty of examples of how these processes play out that have been studied and documented.
> 
> One of the problems with Westeros is that it's so damn big.


----------



## ThinkerX (Dec 25, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I'm just not even sure why anyone would think Westeros is realistic... yes, there is urination, defecation, rape, sex, murder, political intrigue... which seems to be about the only realistic parts, I mean seriously, the ice wall is physics defying in size and that's just the beginning to the lack of reality. The politics and backstabbing, the grit in the culture, are what feel "real" not the world.



Story goes GRRM drew the map for Westeros in half an hour, almost as an afterthought.  While he has put a fair bit of attention into the history and background since then, that still shows through.  Where he excels is 'deep characterization.'

I get the impression (from the books, not the show) that Westeros is a feudal realm superimposed on feuding tribes of savages.  My main critique is the stasis: it seems like this state of affairs has persisted unaltered for millennia, when realistically, there would be at least some technological advancement and groups pressing for social change.  And eventually, there would be some advancements and social change.  But in Westeros, everything is 'stalled.'


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 25, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I'm just not even sure why anyone would think Westeros is realistic... yes, there is urination, defecation, rape, sex, murder, political intrigue... which seems to be about the only realistic parts, I mean seriously, the ice wall is physics defying in size and that's just the beginning to the lack of reality. The politics and backstabbing, the grit in the culture, are what feel "real" not the world.



The thing with Westeros isn't that its realistic as compared with real history but compared with most other fantasy settings I dare say its pretty realistic especially when compared with older classics, like Eddings, Tolkien or some such author from "back in the day".

Also note that Westeros is a pretty streamlined world. The focus of the story are on feudal politics and magic and thus these areas are mostly developed while the rest are either left out or only exists as far as the importance of their support and importance goes in regards to the feudal politics and the magic storylines.


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 25, 2016)

D. Gray Warrior said:


> I'm trying to create ethnolinguistic groups for my conworld. The particular region I'm currently working on will either be temperate or subtropical. What physical traits are ideal for those climates?



The way I see it, I wouldn't worry to much about ideal physical traits. If all creatures have opted physics then I dare say they have no need for tools and so won't develop the kind of civilization we see humans develop in our world.


----------



## SergeiMeranov (Dec 27, 2016)

Since this article doesn't seem to have been posted, I think it's a good resource for stuff like this.  For medieval fantasy worlds at least.

Article on Medieval Demographics

This is incorporated into a random kingdom generator here.  It's the medieval demographics calculator.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jan 1, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I'm just not even sure why anyone would think Westeros is realistic... yes, there is urination, defecation, rape, sex, murder, political intrigue... which seems to be about the only realistic parts, I mean seriously, the ice wall is physics defying in size and that's just the beginning to the lack of reality. The politics and backstabbing, the grit in the culture, are what feel "real" not the world.



Because the author tends to pass himself off as an expert of sorts on the period in history the books are based on. He also tends to complain about the unrealistic aspects of fantasy works, such as LOTR, when it comes to the finer details about how human civilizations operate.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jan 1, 2017)

If you are in the ballpark when it comes to being realistic, you are probably in OK shape. Population size is probably one of the biggest issues where realism is concerned.


----------



## Tandrel (Jan 4, 2017)

I adore the nerd-level on this article! 

His/her writing made me think of something important in my world. I'm going to make it a little bit more scarcely populated outside the cities, and think of the population in the cities before I write them. After all a hundred thousand or a million is quite different.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jan 4, 2017)

Tandrel said:


> I adore the nerd-level on this article!
> 
> His/her writing made me think of something important in my world. I'm going to make it a little bit more scarcely populated outside the cities, and think of the population in the cities before I write them. After all a hundred thousand or a million is quite different.



I concur. I like how the author is actually dealing with the concept of being "realistic" in a way that shows that there is more to it than merely violence, sex, and a grittier depiction of human life.

I have distance markers on my map, I just need to figure out population density and adjust it based on a few factors.


----------



## SergeiMeranov (Jan 4, 2017)

One thing I'd add is that while mental exercises into realism and accuracy in world building are all great, you shouldn't become overly focused on what is probably going to be at best a window dressing to your story.

As someone that's spent way too long coming up with the ins and outs of a world's geography and reasoning out why people in the world live where they do and what the climate and geography have done to mold their culture I can say that it's easy to get lost in the weeds.  Is it accurate to have a cities of millions of people in a supposedly realistic medieval world?  No.  Would changing the number of people from 1,000,000 go 100,000 have any meaningful impact on the story?  Probably not.

I was reading through a list of quotes regarding writing and there was one from an author, Madeleine L'Engle, who was taking a course in Chaucer's writing.  On the final the professor was asking why Chaucer used certain phrases and had characters behaving in certain ways and her response was "I don't think Chaucer thought about any of that"  I think that line of reasoning holds true in world building as well.  As writers, and more accurately as critics, we have a tendency to focus on the nuanced details of a story and see if they're exactly correct because there is this feeling that getting tiny details correct makes the world more fully real and fully realized.  In reality though, a lot of that stuff is fun to think about but doesn't really impact the story in a meaningful way.

To illustrate my point, if I'm writing a story about a small town person going to the capital.  The distance, in miles or kilometers, he travels isn't as important as whether the journey was long or short.  If he is supposed to be marveling at the size of the city compared to his small town then it doesn't matter if his town has 10,000 people and the capital has 1,000,000 or the figures turn out to be 1,000 and 100,000 because the real thing that's important to the story is that it's a town that's bigger than he ever imagined possible.

This is ending up longer than I'd intended, but the larger point I'm trying to make here is that when you wade into things like correct demographics and the finer points of world-building you should make sure that it's going to ultimately have some sort of impact on the way your story plays out and not just be a backstory that is never really addressed.  In my own experience, getting to deep into world building just becomes a way to avoid writing the story.  Not saying it's the case with you at all, but it's just something to bear in mind.


----------

