The population figures for Alphatia are given as 5,800,000 (which is about how many are given in the Dawn of the Emperor products and later products). There is a footnote, however that says these are just "official numbers published by the Imperial Council; suspected actual figures are three times greater according to Thyatian observers."
There have been numerous threads (here and on the MML) about population figures of Alphatia seeming too low, so I thought this was kind of a cute acknowledgement of that.
(Of course, those same tables have a "King Hutapanca" as the leader of the Monarchy of Atruaghin, so what do they really mean? ;)
you would think someone would calcuate the total square mile surface area of a country, establish a target number of something other than 1 person per square mile, and then figure out how many people need to be present to make the math correct.
Well, you have to take into consideration that there is actually a LOT of unpopulated wilderness and sparsely populated borderland in the Known World. So some areas can still be densely populated while others are practically unsettled still...
:-) Jesper
As for the population thing, I'm leaning Spellweaver's way on this. I like the idea of smaller populations overall; high density in towns and cities with small villages and homesteads in likely areas and next to nobody in vast areas (except monsters and humanoids, of course). Nobody wants to live in the middle of nowhere surrounded by hordes of orcs so why would they go there.
Nobody wants to live in the middle of nowhere surrounded by hordes of orcs so why would they go there.
Wha da ya mean nobodee wants ta liv 'ere? We ORCS liv 'ere. We daserv ta be counted same as yu.
I have yet to see a population number in any TSR/WOTC product which wasn't suspect. In general, population numbers are way too low. Even Eberron has that problem, you would think someone would calcuate the total square mile surface area of a country, establish a target number of something other than 1 person per square mile, and then figure out how many people need to be present to make the math correct.
Interestingly, I've always heard the opposite from people who study medieval history and culture ... that most DnD products OVERestimate the number of people that would actually exist in large settlements.
Interestingly, I've always heard the opposite from people who study medieval history and culture ... that most DnD products OVERestimate the number of people that would actually exist in large settlements.
I think that sentiment mostly comes from the urban populations being too large to be supported by the rural populations - not from the population numbers in general being too high.
:-) Jesper
Interestingly, I've always heard the opposite from people who study medieval history and culture ... that most DnD products OVERestimate the number of people that would actually exist in large settlements.
I'm talking about total populations rather than those of the cities. In Eberron the numbers are so low you could walk hundreds of miles and never see another human being(or demi-human).
On a related note, I find some cases where the historians are the most likely to get things wrong. I continually read in history books abysmally low population numbers in England in the Middle Ages. Checking sources, most historians take the census counts from those time periods as gospel. No way, I don't buy it. Those census counts weren't counting everybody. Probably just heads of households or the ones who pay taxes.
This puts me in the minority(last I checked.) So be it. If the historians want to insist on being wrong, let them.
I'm talking about total populations rather than those of the cities. In Eberron the numbers are so low you could walk hundreds of miles and never see another human being(or demi-human).
Personally, I don't find that hard to believe or envision. I live in southern Ontario, Canada and if I travel north for just a couple of hours, there are stretches of wilderness similar to what you describe. I think Canada has about 7 people per square kilometer (IIRC) so even spread out evenly it would be very easy to travel a long way and not meet anybody if just simply because you'd miss them. Couldn't tell you what Europe in the middle-ages was like though.
On a related note, I find some cases where the historians are the most likely to get things wrong. I continually read in history books abysmally low population numbers in England in the Middle Ages. Checking sources, most historians take the census counts from those time periods as gospel. No way, I don't buy it. Those census counts weren't counting everybody. Probably just heads of households or the ones who pay taxes.
This puts me in the minority(last I checked.) So be it. If the historians want to insist on being wrong, let them.
You could very well be right, but I'd image that a census would be made to be as accurate as they could make it, especially when those numbers were used in determining taxes. LOW numbers meant LESS revenue, something any ruler would not be happy about.
In addition, there would be a tremendous number of very small villages and homesteads spread around any of the hex-maps that are meant to be placed by the DM when and where needed. Even so, evil needs places of vacancy to build their forces. :D