AHC: European population over 1.5 billion.

Industrialization causes rapid population increase, which in Europe happened from the mid-1800's forward. In Asia industrialization happened later and so the population boom started later.
But if you actually look at overall increase, India and Indonesia increased more than most European states did overall, so the difference in time is irrelevant.
 
But if you actually look at overall increase, India and Indonesia increased more than most European states did overall, so the difference in time is irrelevant.

But the point is that you can't make Europe's population continue booming through the 20th and 21st centuries just because Asia's did/does.
 
But the point is that you can't make Europe's population continue booming through the 20th and 21st centuries just because Asia's did/does.
Why not? Looking at modern demographics it's pretty clear there is no magical rule that says that growth through demographic transition can continue only for X amount of years.
 
Why not? Looking at modern demographics it's pretty clear there is no magical rule that says that growth through demographic transition can continue only for X amount of years.

It's not magic, it's just the pattern that population evolution follows. I.e slow growth dependant on local resources until industrialization, followed by an explosive population boom before population stabilizes again or eventually starts to decline.
 
It's not magic, it's just the pattern that population evolution follows. I.e slow growth dependant on local resources until industrialization, followed by an explosive population boom before population stabilizes again or eventually starts to decline.
It's a pattern that often is disproven, compare Pakistan to India, Pakistani population almost quadrupled in the last 50 years while Indian population grew only 2.6 times its 1965 size and yet Pakistan has a fertility rate around 50% higher than India to this day, meaning the gap would grow larger.

I can find dozens more example of this pattern failing to describe what is happening on the ground, it's a really loose thing and you can't use that to say that anything is impossible per se.
 
Last edited:
I'll start with no conquest of Hungary by the Ottomans. The region was largely affected by warfare and is also a graveyard for many soldiers of both sides who foughg there. Hungarian population grows as Hungary prospers and gets closer to the West.

Muscovy goes easy on the Tatars of the Volga during their conquest.

30 years war does not last 30 years. The Dutch manage to beat the Spanish in the Low Lands and drive them away.

French Revolution goes easy without much killings

The Ottomans either keep the Balkans or dissolve like the USSR without large scale genocides as happened when the Serbs and Greeks fought for their independence.

No communist rule in Europe, ESPECIALLY in Russia.

Russia for example could be by 200-250 million per 2019. With Russia I mean within the Russian border.
 
That's mainly because of industrialization, which Europe's already gone through.
The main issue with Europe gaining this is immigration and the population hits of the world wars. The world wars directly or indirectly killed off large numbers of the European population in some way. Add in events caused or related to the wars and this number greatly increases. Multiple Genocides, Spanish Flu, Civil Wars, Revolutions, forced population transfers, dropped birth rates, and economic downturns. This hurt Europe population greatly but can be avoided or greatly reduced without WW1. Europe by itself had 25 or 20 percent of the world population right before 1914. It has 10 now. The other point is immigration which Europe will experience in some way in most pods. When Europe gets too crowded Europeans often have the option to move somewhere over seas. This usually being the Americas or a colony. Few nation in the Western Hemisphere are going to be open to European immigration to their country even if the US isn’t. Asians and Africans did not have that option as open to them due to distance, lacking oversea colonies, and racial restricted immigration policies regarding them coming to those places. Chinese people could have been the majority in many areas of the west coast without restrictions on them coming here. The reason Japan is more crowded then Britain is because Britain had places with open land to send people, willing and unwilling, when the isles got too overpopulated. Japan does not. Even without the world wars and its impacts this will still hold true. Without those wars Europe will get crowded again and see mass emigration even when their home country is strong and stable. Europeans will either move to the Americas, Africa colonies, or British dominions. This is why I asked earlier if this has to be only within Europe or can it be the global European/white population? Europe population will be a good bit bigger without the world wars but a good bit of that population will emigrate overseas or east if Russian causing large demographic changes globally.

One way you could give Europe a population density more like China or India is no Black Death and a much later discovery of America but this runs the chance of prolonging feudalism and slowing down general progress of Europe in every regard which means no industrial population boom. Europe without the Black Death and later discovery of America will be desperately looking to expand. Russia or someone like them would expand east like otl but the rest of Europe will be focusing on the near east and Africa. Spain and Portugal will expand the reconquest into North Africa with the full focus of empire focused on that instead of the Americas. Portugal and the Dutch probably expands more into the rest of Africa. Much of Europe will eventually team up against the Ottomans and other Muslim powers to drive them out of Europe, open up more trade with the east, and end pirate slavers raiding in the Mediterranean which by itself increases the Mediterranean coast lands population. European powers are either going to take over North Africa and the Near East directly or make them Christian kingdoms under some dynasty. But unlike conquest in the new world population movement going to be much more limited due to the presence of already existing large populations of relative technological progress and they aren’t killed off by disease. They probably focus more on conversion or have other Christian sects support to keep the area under control. If Europe somehow still industrializes after this and somehow is unable to colonize America for whatever reason the European population would be much more comparable to China or India in numbers and density.

A surviving Roman Empire that follows similar trends as the Chinese dynasties could also be a possible option. After Rome secures the most defensible borders possible they set up client states all along most of its border areas as buffers zones between them and any possible invading barbarians. The only exception are places where the terrain already makes a safe natural border and the border between Rome and Persia. Rome population slowly builds up to Chinese levels. If industrialization hits Rome the Roman population due to its urban nature will see a large population boom within Europe and will probably make empire more stable. Slaves can do all the mining, farming, and rural labor and freemen and citizens work in factories or urban labor. The assimilation policy of Rome also makes settler colonization less vital then the colonial powers later on. If Rome colonize land in the new world especially early on the European population might be less likely to leave or at least decrease. The new world crops and industrialization would cause a population boom within the empire but due to the lack of a disease advantage over Native Americans less Europeans move to the Americas. The Romans would also try to assimilate Native Americans the same way they try to Romanize tribal Europeans. This means higher Native American population and less Europeans there. If mass emigration from Roman Europe does happen it could be balance by the mass importing of slave labor or immigration from poor parts of the empire. The importing of possible rebellious people as slave labor to core areas of the empire while Roman citizens go settle in their lands could be part of a Romanization program and increase the European population. Rome biggest advantage in this pod is the lack of the religious and racial conflicts that effected the later colonial powers. Judaism is probably the only Abrahamic religion and might get wiped out eventually if the Romans went a little father in punishing them. The others faiths and religion will probably lack the dogmatic nature of the Abrahamic faiths that breed extremist. Rome didn’t really have a modern concept of race outside of individual ethnicity at most. This means Africans, Asians, and Native Americans can be considered Roman as long as they act like one and identify as one. This means a large number of possible immigrants and slaves to Roman Europe that OTL Europeans would have never done or allowed.
 
Just flip the histories of Europe/India. It's asb, but the theoretical math makes having a Europe with double current population not only easy, but possible with multiple pods.

Going off numbers alone this is achievable with an asb in the 1940s that just raises the tfr of all of *europe (with or without greater Russia/Soviet union) up to 4.3 or so and and slowly level out to 2.2 or so by the 2010s. Theoretically (NOT practically, as either asbs or deep societal changes need to be made well in advance), it's really quite easy.

What I find more interesting, though, are the knock on effects. Forests will cover much less of Europe, and potatoes will probably be grown more than wheat. I wonder if extensive terracing could be used to stop the inevitable erosion effects?

Maybe north *europe could look like north/northeast China (both are too cold for rice, traditionally subsided on wheat, and harvest only one crop a year). Italy, Greece, and Spain have the weather required for double cropping (I think?), So with the right water management parts of those places could potentially do two crops a year, which drastically increases carrying capacity, so they might be closer to Guangdong, Vietnam, Luzon, or Java. Po plain with 100mil+, anyone?
 
Just did calculations, if the po plain had the same population density as uttar Pradesh (1000 per square km), it would have around 53 mil. people. Less than I thought, but easily doable with an Italy that maintains a high fertility rate.
 
Europe has around 800 Billion people OTL. So you need to double for this ATL. Let's see. More developed Russia and Eastern Europe could help? No World Wars in OTL intensity could also help.
If that figure was accurate I think Malthusian ideas might actually hold water.
 
To be honest, less rights for women. The more patriarchal the society, the higher the birthrate, probably part of the reason that societies became patriarchal in the first place. Either way, if there were no world wars to help extend the franchise, if there was higher religiosity, and if it would be possible in general to have industrialization without the enlightenment it might have happened
 
Just did calculations, if the po plain had the same population density as uttar Pradesh (1000 per square km), it would have around 53 mil. people. Less than I thought, but easily doable with an Italy that maintains a high fertility rate.
If it had the same density as Bangladesh it would be even higher.
 

Marc

Donor
And how much, pray tell, would women and the environment suffer for the sake of a mega-population?
Seriously, demographics have consequences far beyond body count.
 
Bit of a weird one, but my suggestion would be an islamic Europe.

That isn't to say the old "they breed more!" idea, but that an Islamic Europe which is still the center of the colonial global order is a Europe that is very attractive for migration from the east and could serve as a base for future population increases.
 
Bit of a weird one, but my suggestion would be an islamic Europe.

That isn't to say the old "they breed more!" idea, but that an Islamic Europe which is still the center of the colonial global order is a Europe that is very attractive for migration from the east and could serve as a base for future population increases.

I think there is a limit to how much growth you can get from immigration. People in general don't like a lot of immigration in their countries, regardless of where it comes from. There is a lot of attention on Muslim immigration to Europe, but immigration from countries like Poland and Romania to Western Europe is also controversial for a lot of people.

I think the easier one is to discourage emigration from Europe.
 
I think there is a limit to how much growth you can get from immigration. People in general don't like a lot of immigration in their countries, regardless of where it comes from. There is a lot of attention on Muslim immigration to Europe, but immigration from countries like Poland and Romania to Western Europe is also controversial for a lot of people.

I think the easier one is to discourage emigration from Europe.
A lot of the modern ideas of immigration arent so much truisms earlier in history.
The regions surrounding the Steppes suffered regular depopulations followed by mass immigration from multiple peoples repopulating those areas. Urgench went from being sacked for instance to being noted for just how populous it was (untill Timur of course). The resistence to immigration and absorption of immigrant populations is a side effect of nationalism, which may be averted given the right POD.
 
Top