Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Top Ten Empires by Percentage of World Population

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
honeybee View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote honeybee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Top Ten Empires by Percentage of World Population
    Posted: 17-Jun-2010 at 16:39
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba

Well, I guess a case can be made for the Achaemenid Empire considering neither India nor China were unified entities.
 
That only means that the Achaemenid Empire was the most populous polity in the world at its time, but it does not imply that it had near half of the world's population, that would be absurd since both China and India at the time had more people than it separately.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jun-2010 at 11:50
honeybee, it is clear that in the ancient times, people couldn't easily live in the cold or warm lands, and the Middle east was certainly one of the best places to live in all aspects at that time, maybe for this reason the first civilizations were formed there, anyway if you just search for World 500-bc in Google Images, then you will find some good maps.
 
 
 
As you see we just know peoples lived in small regions in the East ans South Asia, so you can't compare them to modern China or India.


Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 18-Jun-2010 at 12:02
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jun-2010 at 13:07
I am hardly confident Achaemenid Empire had the largest percent of world population during Darius І (Dārayawuš) rule. The empire control lands on three continents- Asia, Europe and Africa. This mean Egypt-" the ancient China", part of India and Thrace-Herodotus talking about Thracians as second numerous ancient nation after Indians. Asia Minor also had very big population in Antiquity. In Roman times as much as Italic.
What is really interesting to me is fact that climate in late Antiquity was quite colder then today. Iranian plateau had very big population and seems to look different from modern times. During Sassanid empire several Iranian cities have population over 100 000- Nishapur, Hamadan, Merv (Margiana), Balkh, Esfahan, Estakhr...
I remember one part from book (about life of Alexander The Great) of roman author Quintus Curtius Rufus, but I don`t have enough time to search for qoute. There he wrote about well-forested area around "Persian Gate" during Greek march towards Persepolis. He talk something like: "... the wet air from the sea (Persian Gulf) meet the mountains and make this place one of the most fertile and beautiful in all Asia with very pleasant climate.."   In many other place Rufus talk about rivers, crossed by Greek army. Darius ІІІ was killed near one river in Parthia. In one hard moment Alexander makes a speech in front of his soldiers (mainly from South-East Europe) and says: "... look at the good and fertile land of Persians! This must be your land! We must take it! Do you want to go back to your isolated cold mountains, where the snow shrunk for only a few months?..." In mountains of modern Afghanistan Greek army meet severe storm with a lot of rain and lightnings, caused real disaster. I think that climate of Iranian plateau was more wet than now.  There are also many evidence about colder European weather in late Antiquity. For example olive trees and grape vine were unusual for Po Valley (North Italy) in Etruscan and Celtic times.  
 
 


Edited by Kanas_Krumesis - 18-Jun-2010 at 13:26
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jun-2010 at 14:00
Yes K-K, I agree with a lot of what you wrote above! I especially agree with the weather presentation(s)!

Alexander describing his band of Greeks as being from a land with its.."isolated cold mountains, where the snow shrunk for only a few months?..." Could not describe in any manner the weather now found in Macedonia, or any place nearby!
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jun-2010 at 14:32

Opuslola,

1. Ancient Macedonia situated mainly in modern North Greece, which means lowlands. Alexander`s army took not only from Greeks, but also Ilyrians and Thracians.  

2. Even today climate in mountains of Bulgaria and FYROM is severe with long winter and deep snow. Difference in climate of Bulgaria and Greece is quite abrupt. While snowing during winter in Thessaloniki is true exception, snowfall and under zero temperatures in March is absolute usual to Sofia. My point is about ancient times, where winter snowfall wasn`t unusual even for Athens.
Back to Top
honeybee View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote honeybee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jun-2010 at 16:04
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

honeybee, it is clear that in the ancient times, people couldn't easily live in the cold or warm lands, and the Middle east was certainly one of the best places to live in all aspects at that time, maybe for this reason the first civilizations were formed there, anyway if you just search for World 500-bc in Google Images, then you will find some good maps.
 
 
 
 
I'm not comparing ancient India and China with modern India and China. Ancient India and China already had the largest population in the world starting from the second half of the 1st mellenium BC. Ancient China always had a productive advantage because of the presence of loess, allowing for multiple harvests. This was coupled by many low labor efficient agricultural tools such as seed drills and breast collar. According to Zhongguo Renkou TongKao, the most authoritative source on the history of Chinese population, the first period of rapid population expansion in Chinese history began during the Eastern Zhou (8th century BC- 3rd century BC). The population hit a high just before 300 BC at around 30 million people. This can be broken down into 4 million people in the state of Qi, 3.5 million people in the state of Wei, 4 million people in the state of Qin, 2 million people in the state of Yan, 1.5 million people in the state of Han, 3 million people in the state of Zhao, 5.5 million people in the state of Chu, 1 million people in the state of Yue, and over 4 million in the rest of China.
India similarly reached around 30 million by the end of the Mauryan rule in 200 BC. However, since records in India are so scarce, and demographic studies of the region is still immature, this number is subject to a very wide range of estimation.
The population of the Persian Empire can be broken down roughly by 7 million in Persia (including Iraq and Iran),  3 million in Asia minor, 1 million in Canaan region, 3.5 million in Egypt, 1 million in Afghanistan, 1.5 million in India, 0.5 million in Central Asia, 0.5 million in Armenia(The detail of the break down can be found in McEvdy and Jones, a source that is much more minutely studied than the wholesome numbers thrown around by the none-demographic historians wiki threw around). Even allowing a slight stretch, the population of Achaemenid Empire was probably no more than 20 million.
 
 
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

 
 
As you see we just know peoples lived in small regions in the East ans South Asia, so you can't compare them to modern China or India.
 
This map can be very misleading when determining population size. Aside from the fact that it does not break down the details of population distribution, Southern India almost entered the Chola dynasty at the time and although it was not the largest kingdom, it nevertheless had a population at least over a million. Similarly, the Sichuan region of China was under the Ba and Shu, which also have near a million people. Although these figures might not be large, they are far more populous than Western Central Asia, which barely had half a million people at the time, yet the map in question had the whole region in blue color, a size that was as large as the Chinese states combined.


Edited by honeybee - 18-Jun-2010 at 16:33
Back to Top
DreamWeaver View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 02-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 555
  Quote DreamWeaver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jun-2010 at 17:57
Originally posted by honeybee


This map can be very misleading when determining population size. Aside from the fact that it does not break down the details of population distribution, Southern India almost entered the Chola dynasty at the time and although it was not the largest kingdom, it nevertheless had a population at least over a million. Similarly, the Sichuan region of China was under the Ba and Shu, which also have near a million people. Although these figures might not be large, they are far more populous than Western Central Asia, which barely had half a million people at the time, yet the map in question had the whole region in blue color, a size that was as large as the Chinese states combined.



A large area may be relatively empty of population despite its size. Likewise a small area may be very densly populated.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jun-2010 at 22:33

It is interesting to mention that the whole population of Iraq in the eraly 20th century was just 2 million: http://www.populstat.info/Asia/iraqc.htm

But as you read here, just a small region in the south of this country was almost four times more populated in the ancient times!

Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon By T. Boiy (Peeters Publishers, 2004 - History - 385 pages):



Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 18-Jun-2010 at 22:37
Back to Top
honeybee View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote honeybee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2010 at 00:34
You are using ancient historian's estimate of Babylonia's population based on tax as authentic source? While its true that Iraq might have had a slightly greater population in he middle ages, it wasn't significant enough and certainly no where near as large as it was today.
Take a look at population layout of the world in this graph. Although some periods are in heavy descrepancy, it is a general view of the world.
 
Percentages of World Population by Area and Date:
date
China
India
Other
Europe
Africa
other
Asia
400 BC
27
24
21
18
7
3
200 BC
28
21
23
18
7
3
0
30
21
18
18
10
3
200 AD
32
22
15
19
9
3
400 AD
27
25
17
17
10
4
600 AD
23
26
24
13
10
4
800 AD
23
29
18
13
13
4
1000
23
30
17
14
12
4
1100
31
26
14
14
11
4
1200
32
24
14
16
11
3
1300
23
25
15
22
11
4
1400
21
28
18
17
12
4
1500
23
25
18
19
11
4
1600
28
25
17
18
10
2
1700
25
27
16
20
10
2
1750
30
24
15
19
9
3
1800
35
21
13
20
8
3
1850
35
19
12
22
7
5
1900
28
18
14
24
7
9
1950
21
18
19
21
8
13
1975
18
20
21
16
10
15
1997
21
21
18
13
13
14
 


Edited by honeybee - 20-Jun-2010 at 00:35
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2010 at 12:09
Ok, according to your numbers that I assume to be based on an accurate census in the ancient times, not the analyzation of historical data, like tax and other things, it can be still said that the poplation of the Persian empire was more than 40 percent of the world, because the most populated parts of of three continents belonged to this empire, especially the Sindh region which was the centre of Indian civilization.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2010 at 16:22
Can one not comprend that there is no doubt that the Indus / Tigris /Euphates area, including modern Syria, and Palestine, and the other adjacent areas were once "graced" with much better weather than these same areas have enjoyed for the last ?thousand years!

European history offers all of us some idea of just what a violent change in weather can to to just one part of Europe!

But, just what if the weather reports for Syria, and points North, South, and East, were also afficted? That is "promoeted by God~!"

Has anyone ever drawn any co-confrantertinerties that seems to promote that "Bad or cold weather in Europe", especially in N. Western Europe,might have had some effect in other parts of the world!

Would such weather related problems have not promoted, "Crusaderism?"
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
honeybee View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote honeybee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 16:16
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Ok, according to your numbers that I assume to be based on an accurate census in the ancient times, not the analyzation of historical data, like tax and other things, it can be still said that the poplation of the Persian empire was more than 40 percent of the world, because the most populated parts of of three continents belonged to this empire, especially the Sindh region which was the centre of Indian civilization.
 
 
 
Although estimates of the past are sketchy at best, the source above estimate that in 400 BC, China had 27% of the world's population, India had 24%, while Europe had 18%, Persia did not have large parts of any of these regions, and these regions already made up 69% of the world's population. This is not even including large parts of Asia that are not under Persian control. So there is no way that Achaemenid had even close to 40%, in fact its hard to imagine that it could even have 30%. 


Edited by honeybee - 22-Jun-2010 at 16:17
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 16:52
You all are merely playing craps with loaded dice!
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 22:43
Originally posted by honeybee

Although estimates of the past are sketchy at best, the source above estimate that in 400 BC, China had 27% of the world's population, India had 24%, while Europe had 18%, Persia did not have large parts of any of these regions, and these regions already made up 69% of the world's population. This is not even including large parts of Asia that are not under Persian control. So there is no way that Achaemenid had even close to 40%, in fact its hard to imagine that it could even have 30%. 
 
Except China, the most populated parts of all other ones belonged to the Persian empire, for example as Kanas_Krumesis said above, we know Thracians were the second numerous ancient nation after Indians, and Persians had conquered Thrace, also about Indians, even we know a large number of Indians served in the Persian armies.
Back to Top
honeybee View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote honeybee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2010 at 06:30
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Originally posted by honeybee

Although estimates of the past are sketchy at best, the source above estimate that in 400 BC, China had 27% of the world's population, India had 24%, while Europe had 18%, Persia did not have large parts of any of these regions, and these regions already made up 69% of the world's population. This is not even including large parts of Asia that are not under Persian control. So there is no way that Achaemenid had even close to 40%, in fact its hard to imagine that it could even have 30%. 
 
Except China, the most populated parts of all other ones belonged to the Persian empire, for example as Kanas_Krumesis said above, we know Thracians were the second numerous ancient nation after Indians, and Persians had conquered Thrace, also about Indians, even we know a large number of Indians served in the Persian armies.
 
 
Persia only had the Pontus region of India, which only had around 1.5 million people according to McEvdy and Jones. We really have no basis at all for estimating ancient population, but from the census and archeology that we do have, its highly unlikely that Persia had over 40% of the world's population.
Back to Top
Garfed View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 08-Apr-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5
  Quote Garfed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 20:38
I doubt that Iran and Rome to have more people than China, even India - forever. The two may dominate the list of most of human history. In the East, for example, including hundreds of thousands of troops in combat, whereas the fighting in the West is relatively small, including the often less than men million, and fewer cases tens of thousands of men...
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 20:56
First I am happy to see you as a new poster on the forum.
 
However, solicitation sites are prohibited in you signature line... unless you recieve prior permission from the administration. If not... your posts are subject to editing by staff. Which I have just done.We do this as forum standard procedure to reduce spamming. And hope you understand and will comply.
 
If this has not been completed in a timely fashion or you refuse to do so... then you are subject to further action by staff which might include blocking of your IP...  de-activation of your account and deletion of your posts.
 
To obtain permission..... PM our administrator Red Clay as soon as possible.
 
Thank you for your cooperation.


Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 08-Apr-2011 at 20:59
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
gpturner0924 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 10-Apr-2011
Location: Germantown, MD
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote gpturner0924 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2011 at 21:49
The population is a great way to rate world empires, but check out the top 5 SUCCESSFUL world empires in history:


Enjoy!
Back to Top
Pellaeon View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Mar-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 73
  Quote Pellaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Apr-2011 at 11:58
Correction. Population difference. Sassanid lands would be much different after a religious conquest. And no not all of the Sassanids were conquered, their population center survived.
Back to Top
Guaporense View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 16-Jul-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14
  Quote Guaporense Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2011 at 22:21
The estimates that put Persian population at 18 million are very conservative. They base their estimates on the distribution of the modern world population and they regress modern numbers to the ancient dates, assuming a certain world population. For instance, China is though to have 20-25% of the world population in many points in history, so they assume that China had 30 million people right in 300 BCE, when the world had 150 million people.

However the distribution of the world population 2400 years ago was very different. For example, Greece was much more densely populated in classical times than in the early 20th century. In 350 BCE it has been estimated that the region of Boeotia in central Greece had 200,000 inhabitants, while in the 1889 census the same region had 42,000 inhabitants and today it has 130,000 inhabitants. Greece as a whole had 9 million people in 350 BCE (counting Magna Graecia, Greece proper, Western Asia minor and the greek colonies spread throughout the mediterranean), or about 6% of the world's population at the time. We know that because Mogens Herman Hansen has used modern methods for estimating the population of Greece using the walled area of cities and knowing that as a city state culture, most greeks lived in cities.

Classical Greece depended on imported grain and the heavy use of fertilizers to maintain their high population density. Their economy was very advanced, probably much more advanced than China and India at the time.

Polen data shows that agricultural production in the eastern mediterranean peaked in the period from 500 BCE to 200 BCE. So at the time of Alexander his part of the world was very densely populated. So the Persian Empire probably had a bigger proportion of the world population than suggested by the 18 million figure. Egypt alone had at least 5 million people and probably 7-8 million, not 3.5 million and the Persian Empire had probably 35 million people. About 25% of the world's population. Also, with a territory of 7-8 million square kilometers, a population of 18 million would be too small to allow a population density for this empire to effectively rule over their domain.

They probably didn't have 40%, much less the Sassanids, when agricultural production in the eastern mediterranean had dropped from classical times and they didn't control Egypt, Asia Minor and the Levant, which were the most densely populated areas of the old Persian Empire. The Sassanids probably had around 10 million inhabitants. They were only a shadow of the former Persian Empire.

The Roman Empire probably had 70 million people, but estimates vary from 60 million to well over 100 million. Considering that Greece achieved 9 million people, the whole Roman Empire could have acheived over 100 million. So they are a serious candidate for an empire with more than 40% of the world's population inside their borders.

In demographic terms the Roman Empire was much more densely populated than the Persian Empire.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.093 seconds.