1000 levy too much? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

1000 levy too much?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
Jun 05, 2007 0:24:27 Hi,
I would like to know your thoughts regarding the size of the Dragon levy. I'm thinking that 1000 people per year per SK may be too much. 7000 slaves per year, multiplied by 1000 years is 7,000,000 people. If in a city state there are 30,000 and it is a large population concentration, then this number should have wiped out all of the people long ago. The population just doesn't have time to recooperate.

Maybe 1000 per year is more suitable?

1000 is still much, and will leave villages empty of people, but will not decimate everyone from the planet..
#2
zombiegleemax
Jun 05, 2007 1:05:01
Hi,
I would like to know your thoughts regarding the size of the Dragon levy. I'm thinking that 1000 people per year per SK may be too much. 7000 slaves per year, multiplied by 1000 years is 7,000,000 people. If in a city state there are 30,000 and it is a large population concentration, then this number should have wiped out all of the people long ago. The population just doesn't have time to recooperate.

Maybe 1000 per year is more suitable?

1000 is still much, and will leave villages empty of people, but will not decimate everyone from the planet..

I would think 100 per year per city would be much more realistic, imho.
#3
borys_son
Jun 05, 2007 1:40:39 I agree, but I am sure the birth rates of the wealthy are high, and when 1000 people are snatched up - most slaves. They free up a lot of resources for the rest of the population. It doesn't say they have to be healthy - many are probably old, sick, worn out slaves.
#4
Zardnaar
Jun 05, 2007 3:31:57 Given the population of the citystates and the condition og the surrounding area 1000 per city would seem to high. Wouldn't surprise me if the Dragon diverted a few into the slave pens of Ur Draxa. It was also for 2000 years so 140 mllion pple give or take.

I read somewhere the population of the Tyr region was 1 000 000 which I think is optimistic given the resources.
#5
terminus_vortexa
Jun 05, 2007 5:50:06 The populations of the cities do not include client villages and other lands not directly included in the city walls. There were a LOT more people than just those in the cities and much of the slave population was captured elsewhere. There was apparantly a sufficient amount of non-city people that Tithian managed to pay the levy a few times without getting caught.
#6
Zardnaar
Jun 05, 2007 6:19:35
The populations of the cities do not include client villages and other lands not directly included in the city walls. There were a LOT more people than just those in the cities and much of the slave population was captured elsewhere. There was apparantly a sufficient amount of non-city people that Tithian managed to pay the levy a few times without getting caught.

Even that explaination doesn't make much sese. One would have to conclude the wastes are alot more habitable than the gritty desolate impression DS material gives off. Where did Borys actually cast the spell siphoning off the life energy? One big graveyard
#7
korvar
Jun 05, 2007 13:33:13 In the medieval demographics research I've done (by which I mean, websites I've looked up) the general consensus is that you need 50 people in the countryside to support one person in a city.

In a standard fantasy setting, they would be peasant villages and small towns; for Dark Sun they would be the slaves on the estates of the Nobles, and some client villages. I would claim that the population figures shown are for actual city dwellers, and not this "support" population. That should allow plenty of population growth for 1000 per city per year.
#8
zombiegleemax
Jun 05, 2007 23:31:31 Hi,
I don't think you can deduct from medieval europe on Dark-Sun setting. Athas is far more dangerous.
If you take a look in the veiled alliance handbook, they give you numbers for the population of the cities, hence the 30,000. 50 people to support each of these counts to 1500000 per city...

To me it doesn't look right for dark sun
#9
zombiegleemax
Jun 06, 2007 2:54:30 This was discussed in another topic, but I'll sum up my thoughts again.

Athas, even with a population highly concentrated in to enclaves, is still going to have more people outside of the urban centers than with in them.

I don't think medieval demographics apply here. Athasian is not earth; there are factors that must be considered:

- Cities states on athas are very centralised.
- Even within the city proper, slaves make up a very large portion of the inhabitants.
- The vast majority of people outside the city proper are slaves.
- An efficently worked slave is going to produce much more than what is needed to support him/herself.
- There are few inefficently worked slaves. A slave that does consistently prove to be an asset is killed.
- Athasians are a clever and adaptable lot. They invariably have a better understanding of how to get the most from their land than most medieval humans did and they have no seasonal interuptions to disrupt production.
- Athasians have access to supernatural resources.
- Once again, efficency. Medieval europeans were phenominally wasteful. Athasians cannot afford to be so.

Still, I'd say there are 2-5 times as many people per city-state as is listed in the city population. There are also going to be populations of sentient beings that are not affiliated with a city-state (most non-humans). This is a large amount of people. So what?

The Tyr region is roughly 100,000-150,000 square miles. Even some of the countries with the lowest percentage of arable land in the world still support 10-30 people per square mile. Some might argue that such a figure is high for such a desolate place as Athas. I would disagree. Typically, Athasian life (of all kinds) is proportionatly more hardy than Athas itself is more harsh, when compaired to real world life and extremes.

I think one to two million sentient beings is a good esitmate for the Tyr region. The Levy may have very gradually contributed to a population decline, but it would be sustainable for a very, long time.
#10
zombiegleemax
Jun 06, 2007 8:28:41 Thanks oralpain.

You analysis is very interesting, I need to think about it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Jun 05, 2007 0:24:27	Hi, I would like to know your thoughts regarding the size of the Dragon levy. I'm thinking that 1000 people per year per SK may be too much. 7000 slaves per year, multiplied by 1000 years is 7,000,000 people. If in a city state there are 30,000 and it is a large population concentration, then this number should have wiped out all of the people long ago. The population just doesn't have time to recooperate. Maybe 1000 per year is more suitable? 1000 is still much, and will leave villages empty of people, but will not decimate everyone from the planet..
#2 zombiegleemax Jun 05, 2007 1:05:01	Hi, I would like to know your thoughts regarding the size of the Dragon levy. I'm thinking that 1000 people per year per SK may be too much. 7000 slaves per year, multiplied by 1000 years is 7,000,000 people. If in a city state there are 30,000 and it is a large population concentration, then this number should have wiped out all of the people long ago. The population just doesn't have time to recooperate. Maybe 1000 per year is more suitable? 1000 is still much, and will leave villages empty of people, but will not decimate everyone from the planet.. I would think 100 per year per city would be much more realistic, imho.
#3 borys_son Jun 05, 2007 1:40:39	I agree, but I am sure the birth rates of the wealthy are high, and when 1000 people are snatched up - most slaves. They free up a lot of resources for the rest of the population. It doesn't say they have to be healthy - many are probably old, sick, worn out slaves.
#4 Zardnaar Jun 05, 2007 3:31:57	Given the population of the citystates and the condition og the surrounding area 1000 per city would seem to high. Wouldn't surprise me if the Dragon diverted a few into the slave pens of Ur Draxa. It was also for 2000 years so 140 mllion pple give or take. I read somewhere the population of the Tyr region was 1 000 000 which I think is optimistic given the resources.
#5 terminus_vortexa Jun 05, 2007 5:50:06	The populations of the cities do not include client villages and other lands not directly included in the city walls. There were a LOT more people than just those in the cities and much of the slave population was captured elsewhere. There was apparantly a sufficient amount of non-city people that Tithian managed to pay the levy a few times without getting caught.
#6 Zardnaar Jun 05, 2007 6:19:35	The populations of the cities do not include client villages and other lands not directly included in the city walls. There were a LOT more people than just those in the cities and much of the slave population was captured elsewhere. There was apparantly a sufficient amount of non-city people that Tithian managed to pay the levy a few times without getting caught. Even that explaination doesn't make much sese. One would have to conclude the wastes are alot more habitable than the gritty desolate impression DS material gives off. Where did Borys actually cast the spell siphoning off the life energy? One big graveyard
#7 korvar Jun 05, 2007 13:33:13	In the medieval demographics research I've done (by which I mean, websites I've looked up) the general consensus is that you need 50 people in the countryside to support one person in a city. In a standard fantasy setting, they would be peasant villages and small towns; for Dark Sun they would be the slaves on the estates of the Nobles, and some client villages. I would claim that the population figures shown are for actual city dwellers, and not this "support" population. That should allow plenty of population growth for 1000 per city per year.
#8 zombiegleemax Jun 05, 2007 23:31:31	Hi, I don't think you can deduct from medieval europe on Dark-Sun setting. Athas is far more dangerous. If you take a look in the veiled alliance handbook, they give you numbers for the population of the cities, hence the 30,000. 50 people to support each of these counts to 1500000 per city... To me it doesn't look right for dark sun
#9 zombiegleemax Jun 06, 2007 2:54:30	This was discussed in another topic, but I'll sum up my thoughts again. Athas, even with a population highly concentrated in to enclaves, is still going to have more people outside of the urban centers than with in them. I don't think medieval demographics apply here. Athasian is not earth; there are factors that must be considered: - Cities states on athas are very centralised. - Even within the city proper, slaves make up a very large portion of the inhabitants. - The vast majority of people outside the city proper are slaves. - An efficently worked slave is going to produce much more than what is needed to support him/herself. - There are few inefficently worked slaves. A slave that does consistently prove to be an asset is killed. - Athasians are a clever and adaptable lot. They invariably have a better understanding of how to get the most from their land than most medieval humans did and they have no seasonal interuptions to disrupt production. - Athasians have access to supernatural resources. - Once again, efficency. Medieval europeans were phenominally wasteful. Athasians cannot afford to be so. Still, I'd say there are 2-5 times as many people per city-state as is listed in the city population. There are also going to be populations of sentient beings that are not affiliated with a city-state (most non-humans). This is a large amount of people. So what? The Tyr region is roughly 100,000-150,000 square miles. Even some of the countries with the lowest percentage of arable land in the world still support 10-30 people per square mile. Some might argue that such a figure is high for such a desolate place as Athas. I would disagree. Typically, Athasian life (of all kinds) is proportionatly more hardy than Athas itself is more harsh, when compaired to real world life and extremes. I think one to two million sentient beings is a good esitmate for the Tyr region. The Levy may have very gradually contributed to a population decline, but it would be sustainable for a very, long time.
#10 zombiegleemax Jun 06, 2007 8:28:41	Thanks oralpain. You analysis is very interesting, I need to think about it.