The Roman Empire's Powerbase

[Gloss]

The reality is that the agricultural potential of Germany and Gaul is massively higher than Italy, Anatolia and Egypt once they have been deforested and brought into crop production. With continued civilization, I imagine that would probably happen about four or five centuries after Rome fell in OTL.

I don't think it will happen particularly faster, especially not 4-5 centuries faster given it was reliant on climatic patterns like the late antique ice age and medieval warm period, but when it happens it's going to be quite important.

Edit: Also pre-Roman Gaul already had 6+ million people, so I don't think you need continued Roman "civilization" whatever that means.

 

[Socrates]

I don't think it will happen particularly faster, especially not 4-5 centuries faster given it was reliant on climatic patterns like the late antique ice age and medieval warm period, but when it happens it's going to be quite important.

Edit: Also pre-Roman Gaul already had 6+ million people, so I don't think you need continued Roman "civilization" whatever that means.

What will happen faster is the deforestation fro m imperial needs, which then makes it easier to open up the land for pasture.

 

[Gloss]

What will happen faster is the deforestation.

Why?

 

[Avalon]

I mean even during Roman times the populations of Gaul, the Danube region(before I only meant modern southern Germany under Rome, not Pannonia or Austria) and Britain had a population comparable to Roman Anatolia+Levant+Egypt, as time goes on the former will dwarf the later if the trends are the same and frankly I don't think you can blame anything in particular for the stagnation of the middle eastern population, outside the Iraqi situation.

How'd you figure that? Gaul + Germany and the Danube is 13 million while Egypt, Syria and Anatolia are 19 million at the height of the empire and the west was about to have some hard times coming its way first before the east. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire#Population

 

[Gloss]

How'd you figure that? Gaul + Germany and the Danube is 13 million while Egypt, Syria and Anatolia are 19 million at the height of the empire and the west was about to have some hard times coming its way first before the east. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire#Population

Britain I believe had 2-3 million as well. So ultimately they are very close and insofar as the empire doesn't collapse or rather it doesn't see the kind of warfare it saw OTL the West will have a smaller decline in the 5th and 6th century.

 

[Socrates]

Why?

Because Rome was a vast user of timber, for buildings and boats. The longer you have single polity stability, the less war you have within the empire's borders, the more population growth you get, the more timber is used.

 

[Deleted member 160141]

Assuming a surviving and united Roman Empire (the handwavium/PoDs are ambiguous as much as possible), what would be the wealthiest and most important part of the empire in the long run.

I have some ideas in mind, but would love to hear more.

1. The City of Rome: arguable the first city to reach a million inhabitants, capital of the Empire and a powerful location in the Central Mediterranean, Rome could potentially just see its wealth and importance skyrocket should the Emperors choose to concentrate more on the city.

2. Northern France: inevitably became a fertile breadbasket and Europe's foremost population center for centuries before being surpassed by Russia. Easy to grow, easy to exploit,

3. Constantinople: One of the most strategic locations in the world for trade and defense, and historically became Europe's largest and wealthiest city. Nexus of Greek culture.

4. Egypt: home to Alexandria and the immensely fertile Nile River as well the most efficient point of trade with the East

There's a reason Constantinople was chosen IOTL; it was vital for trade, military location and effective government even before the East-West split.

Northern France is on the other side of the Alps from Rome, which immediately puts travel time up. It's not near the center of the empire; in fact, it's all the way at one end. Any further and you'd be living in Britain, which the Romans regarded as a completely barbaric pigsty. A France-centered empire is going to have its practical boundaries set at Italy, Spain and Illyria (in other words, Charlemagne's Frankia), and it'll have problems holding down Italy. Roman Northern France in general is a backwater compared to the wine country in Southern France, and isn't going to be seriously considered for a new imperial center. Remember, Byzantium was an imperial center before it was Constantinopolis.

Egypt is a very limited country to live in due to its position (only a narrow strip around the Nile is livable), and the locals are barbarians who drink beer and don't really know what wine is, which is an unforgivable offense to the average Roman. The Nile may be fertile, but it's also got no defensive geography whatsoever beside the desert, and it's not very vital for trade beyond its position at the end of the Red Sea <-> Indian Ocean network. Really, it's best used as a food colony, useful for producing wheat and nothing else. As Whatifalthist says, Egypt is the most easily-oppressable country in the world and its people haven't had a native ruler since Psamtik.

 

[Avalon]

Britain I believe had 2-3 million as well. So ultimately they are very close and insofar as the empire doesn't collapse or rather it doesn't see the kind of warfare it saw OTL the West will have a smaller decline in the 5th and 6th century.

If you're adding in Britain you can do the same with Africa for another 6.5 million Easily which is far more tied to the Med basin than over the Alps. And you can't just say the West will do better and ignore the East's own population depressions as shown from my previous post where I pointed out even in 1000 the "East" was more populous than the West with the figures from the 1300 incorporation the absolute devastations of the Mongols, Turks and Crusades in terms of population depression. This is all aside from the economic sphere of which the east absolutely dominated up till the 1600s in OTL. I just don't see the power base not being the Med area for most of it with most likely with a centre on Italy as the half-way point at best.

 

[Gloss]

If you're adding in Britain you can do the same with Africa for another 6.5 million Easily which is far more tied to the Med basin than over the Alps.

Well this is arbitrary, but my point is that the northern sector of the empire was already demographically strong and the trend long term was going toward total dominance there.

And you can't just say the West will do better and ignore the East's own population depressions as shown from my previous post where I pointed out even in 1000 the "East" was more populous than the West

Which population depression in the East?

with the figures from the 1300 incorporation the absolute devastations of the Mongols, Turks and Crusades in terms of population depression.

You can take peak figures for each region at any point in time from Roman times to 1350 and Gaul, Germany and Brittan would still dwarf North Africa and East Med Near East.

This is all aside from the economic sphere of which the east absolutely dominated up till the 1600s in OTL.

No they didn't, by 1300 NW Europe was extremely urbanized and densely populated, Paris had 250-300k people at its peak and the urban network was also dense and economies integrated WITHOUT the need of political unity. During this time Baghdad was destroyed, Constantinople was recovering from the sack and political instability too and Anatolia was divided too.

You would have to include in the "East" Italy and Iberia too, but that's a ridiculous comparison, you might as well define southern France as "East" too then.

I just don't see the power base not being the Med area for most of it with most likely with a centre on Italy as the half-way point at best.

The "Med" is not a useful region to distinguish, there is nothing special about the Mediterranean that some makes it a uniquely integrated economic or cultural region from one extreme to the other, that's just a poorly thought idea or an arbitrary category, insofar as regions like Northern Italy, Gaul, Iberia and Germany develop and grow further the economic centre of the empire would lean more heavily on the Western Mediterranean and the Rhone-Seine or Rhone-Rhine axis.

 

[Gloss]

Because Rome was a vast user of timber, for buildings and boats. The longer you have single polity stability, the less war you have within the empire's borders, the more population growth you get, the more timber is used.

You can have stability without single polities and instability with a single polity so it really depends on what is happening here, plus the idea that political division was universally a relevant factor behind population decline seems to me to not be proven and relying too much on "common sense" that is anything but.

If somehow Rome unified by means of the Byzantines repeating what they did in Italy in Iberia and Gaul you would hardly see super fast growth, the population decline and devastation would be enormous, even if you end up with some sort of unity over the ashes. Plus Rome could harldly work against global/European climatic patterns, the fact the crisis hit when they did shows that.

In any case I don't see why deforestation is a particularly necessary thing for growth to happen, if anything you argue the opposite, growth precedes deforestation or at least happens concurrently, cutting down forests once is not the challenge, effectively exploiting any given region in a stable manner so that forests don't grow back is.

 

[Avalon]

Well this is arbitrary, but my point is that the northern sector of the empire was already demographically strong and the trend long term was going toward total dominance there.


Which population depression in the East?


You can take peak figures for each region at any point in time from Roman times to 1350 and Gaul, Germany and Brittan would still dwarf North Africa and East Med Near East.


No they didn't, by 1300 NW Europe was extremely urbanized and densely populated, Paris had 250-300k people at its peak and the urban network was also dense and economies integrated WITHOUT the need of political unity. During this time Baghdad was destroyed, Constantinople was recovering from the sack and political instability too and Anatolia was divided too.

You would have to include in the "East" Italy and Iberia too, but that's a ridiculous comparison, you might as well define southern France as "East" too then.


The "Med" is not a useful region to distinguish, there is nothing special about the Mediterranean that some makes it a uniquely integrated economic or cultural region from one extreme to the other, that's just a poorly thought idea or an arbitrary category, insofar as regions like Northern Italy, Gaul, Iberia and Germany develop and grow further the economic centre of the empire would lean more heavily on the Western Mediterranean and the Rhone-Seine or Rhone-Rhine axis.

Gloss you're really not reading anything I'm sending are you. I've literally posted Roman population estimates and they literally debunk your claim of western Europe being more populated. Actually, add up the numbers please don't just say it would be. In regards to economics I'd hesitate once again to use pop numbers for anything and quite simply I'll chose to go with common opinion for this one.

 

[EvilJam]

Which is why I choose 1000 ad as such was before several major disturbances from the Turks to the Mongols. And such is barely true for France and Western and Southern Germany which is a wide area from Brest to Vienna bridging Lugdunensis to Pannonia. Lapping them together to get 20 million is silly and 20 million is about it. At the same time if we're doing the same for the far more economically contiguous east from Anatolia to Egypt totals around 15 million after said invasions, destruction and chaos of the past 400 years. These figures are from the 1500s by the way. Finally, England had at most about 3 million in 1500 very likely closer to 2 million. Also, my point about the Gothic wars was about Italy, not the East which was a typo sorry.

You also picked 1000AD because it comes just before the start of the medieval warm period, which caused a population explosion.

It is accepted that at it's pre-Black death peak France had 17-20million people.

Why on Earth would you pick Eastern figures from the 1500s to compare to Western figures from the 1300s.

Why would England's 1500 population matter in this discussion - very convenient time to pick by the way, as that was a particularly bad period for plague flare ups. Also, it is 3million - not 2million.

Did you literally just complain that Germany is too big so it isn't fair? What a ridiculous statement, Rome would likely own all that land - and you can't just exclude it anyhow.

What an incompetent post.

 

[EvilJam]

If you're adding in Britain you can do the same with Africa for another 6.5 million Easily which is far more tied to the Med basin than over the Alps. And you can't just say the West will do better and ignore the East's own population depressions as shown from my previous post where I pointed out even in 1000 the "East" was more populous than the West with the figures from the 1300 incorporation the absolute devastations of the Mongols, Turks and Crusades in terms of population depression. This is all aside from the economic sphere of which the east absolutely dominated up till the 1600s in OTL. I just don't see the power base not being the Med area for most of it with most likely with a centre on Italy as the half-way point at best.

I mean, no. Africa is clearly not a part of the middle/near east which you were talking about - whereas Britain is always included as part of the North West

 

[Avalon]

You also picked 1000AD because it comes just before the start of the medieval warm period, which caused a population explosion.

It is accepted that at it's pre-Black death peak France had 17-20million people.

Why on Earth would you pick Eastern figures from the 1500s to compare to Western figures from the 1300s.

Why would England's 1500 population matter in this discussion - very convenient time to pick by the way, as that was a particularly bad period for plague flare ups. Also, it is 3million - not 2million.

Did you literally just complain that Germany is too big so it isn't fair? What a ridiculous statement, Rome would likely own all that land - and you can't just exclude it anyhow.

What an incompetent post.

I picked 1000AD as it was one of the easiest to find online with a lot of countries of the time. Don't read into intent that quite simply isn't there and cast aspersion that's misplaced.

And I never did compare the 1500s to the 1300s Gloss brought up the 1300s and used their figures I brought up the 1500s and used their figures. Neither of us compared over the wrong dates.

No, it's 2 million you can find the dates yourself with a simple Wikipedia search on historical demography from the 1500s. 2.1 million to be exact on what it says. And again I choose a variety of dates to make the general point outside of various possible population depressions.

I have no idea what you're talking about with Germany tbh and Gloss literally says he was talking about things under the Danube. OP never gave any enlargements of land as necessary so anyone can and, as people have been doing, will conjecture based on what they think.

I mean, no. Africa is clearly not a part of the middle/near east which you were talking about - whereas Britain is always included as part of the North West

I never made it part of the near east I literally called it an integral part of the Med basin which due to the superiority and capabilities of see transport and communications it would be far more tied to compared to a Britain to a far more nebulous North-West especially one that sees expansion into Germania and the rest of Britannia and the inherent divergences of interests that entails.

To call other people incompetent without actually deeply reading what they say and to utterly mischaracterize arguments on top of that is utterly irresponsible so I suggest you ponder on your own shortcomings instead of lashing out at others.

 

[CalBear]

You also picked 1000AD because it comes just before the start of the medieval warm period, which caused a population explosion.

It is accepted that at it's pre-Black death peak France had 17-20million people.

Why on Earth would you pick Eastern figures from the 1500s to compare to Western figures from the 1300s.

Why would England's 1500 population matter in this discussion - very convenient time to pick by the way, as that was a particularly bad period for plague flare ups. Also, it is 3million - not 2million.

Did you literally just complain that Germany is too big so it isn't fair? What a ridiculous statement, Rome would likely own all that land - and you can't just exclude it anyhow.

What an incompetent post.

Don't throw out accusations without evidence.

 

[EvilJam]

Don't throw out accusations without evidence.

I mean this isn't a court, I don't need to come in with a file of evidence - it is literally impossible to prove online what someone's intentions were. I simply stated my opinions.

 

[Coluber]

I assume that there are good reasons for Carthage to not be a contender...

Roman Carthage I mean. You probably know that, but just in case someone misunderstands me...

 

[RousseauX]

Assuming a surviving and united Roman Empire (the handwavium/PoDs are ambiguous as much as possible), what would be the wealthiest and most important part of the empire in the long run.

define "long run"

Egypt was the richest part of the mediterrenean world until fairly recently. The answer would be different if this is assuming Rome surviving to 1200 AD or 1700 AD for instance.

 

[NotAMyth]

I think determinism will always play a big role in any opinion given here. Trick is managing it, without discounting the possibility of how different things actually can be.

Roman empire was a Mediterranean based empire right from the get go. Any version of a stable, prosperous and politically united empire, recognizable as the same entity from centuries ago, SPQR would still be Mediterranean based. Like any Chinese Empire, which was culturally Han Chinese, would have the Yangtze as the center of it's economy/population/culture. Same for North Indian empires and the Gangetic plains.

In our timeline for example, it was the Carolingian age from about 500 CE to 800 CE which saw intensive deforestation of Germania and increase in northern European population density due to the northward shift of political power. I reckon this would have created a cyclical effect where as feudal power centers multiply and grow, so does their demand, turning the former gallic provinces into a much larger producer of grain, further increasing population sustenance capacity.

I would argue that the early medieval (relative) political isolation and the late roman breakdown of the urban Mediterranean economy, was a major factor why Northern France emerged as such a demographic powerhouse. If the Imperium survives in a recognizable form, I'd say chances are that Constantinople and the Bosporus retains it's economic hegemony, politically domination by Rome-based Nobility, and Egypt is maintained as the perennial cash cow.

 

[Gloss]

Roman empire was a Mediterranean based empire right from the get go.

That doesn't mean anything, the "Mediterranean region" is such a large region, you might as well say that Rome was a Afro-Eurasiatic empire, it's just as helpful.

Any version of a stable, prosperous and politically united empire, recognizable as the same entity from centuries ago, SPQR would still be Mediterranean based. Like any Chinese Empire, which was culturally Han Chinese, would have the Yangtze as the center of it's economy/population/culture. Same for North Indian empires and the Gangetic plains.

The economic center of chinese empires moved from time to time, it was never permanently on the Yangtze.

In our timeline for example, it was the Carolingian age from about 500 CE to 800 CE which saw intensive deforestation of Germania and increase in northern European population density due to the northward shift of political power.

This doubly wrong, not only the bulk of the population growth happened from 1000 CE onwards, there is also no reason to say that it was political power that decided things, literally no reason.

I reckon this would have created a cyclical effect where as feudal power centers multiply and grow, so does their demand, turning the former gallic provinces into a much larger producer of grain, further increasing population sustenance capacity.

Northern France was not subsidized by a large empire contrary to Roman peninsular Italy. Also the mechanism here doesn't work until one explains what "feudal power" means and why it would increase food production.

I would argue that the early medieval (relative) political isolation and the late roman breakdown of the urban Mediterranean economy, was a major factor why Northern France emerged as such a demographic powerhouse.

Except there was no such isolation ever and the demographic growth happened centuries after the collapse of Rome.