How large would Ireland's population be?

[PuffyClouds]

By the year 2000;
Following the trend lines for Scotland and Wales, Ireland would have about 11 million. Following the trend line for England, Ireland would have about 44 million. I expect that Ireland would follow its own trend line that would hit 24 million if things went very well. Though I suspect a combination of factors would keep Ireland's population between 17 and 11 million people.

44 million Irish would make a lot of redheads.

 

[Petike]

44 million Irish is an utterly improbable number. That's on the level of Poland and Ukraine. Despite its larger size, Ireland is nowhere near the size of thos countries.

An Ireland of 44 million people would be a country with a very different urbanisation, very different population density and a very different natural environment.

I think an Ireland without a great depopulation would nowadays be around the 7-10 million mark, tops. 40 million is ludicrous.

You have to feed all those people. You can't just import most of the food. The more people in the country, the more intensive agriculture you need to cover at least part of domestic food production. Imagine if an Ireland in the tens-of-millions suffers a WWII era naval blockade and importing food won't be an option. There'll be a mad dash for growing stuff anywhere possible and rationing everything. There'd also be a huge black market due to the blockade shortages and strict rationing. Loads of post-war implications too.

 

[Centralen]

An Ireland with the same population density as England should have 35,794,504 people.

 

[Gloss]

44 million Irish is an utterly improbable number. That's on the level of Poland and Ukraine. Despite its larger size, Ireland is nowhere near the size of thos countries.

An Ireland of 44 million people would be a country with a very different urbanisation, very different population density and a very different natural environment.

I think an Ireland without a great depopulation would nowadays be around the 7-10 million mark, tops. 40 million is ludicrous.

You have to feed all those people. You can't just import most of the food. The more people in the country, the more intensive agriculture you need to cover at least part of domestic food production. Imagine if an Ireland in the tens-of-millions suffers a WWII era naval blockade and importing food won't be an option. There'll be a mad dash for growing stuff anywhere possible and rationing everything. There'd also be a huge black market due to the blockade shortages and strict rationing. Loads of post-war implications too.

7-10 million is a bit too low, Ireland had more population in 1840, if they maintain that population in terms of nutrition while still having emigration, they should at least reach 12 to 15 million by now.

 

[Von Tyrconnell]

44 million Irish is an utterly improbable number. That's on the level of Poland and Ukraine. Despite its larger size, Ireland is nowhere near the size of thos countries.

I agree that an Ireland of 44 million people is a bit unlikely (though 7 - 10 million is a low estimate considering Ireland had 8 million people in 1840) but it should be noted that South Korea is only about 16,000 square kilometres larger than Ireland but has 51 million people.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Currently the island of Ireland has nearly 9 million people. Just over 7 million in the Republic and just under 1.9 million in Northern Ireland. Wider early industrialization could have bumped that up a bit but hear three factors in mind:-
1) The Famine had a relatively minor impact on demographics with around 100,000 people dying out of a population of 8 million. What it did do was force massive emigration as landlords and the government sought to reduce "congestion" and as many marginal and sub- marginal lands were no longer viable without the Lumper potato - which would basically grow anywhere that the heather would. Grain crops and more blight resistant breeds wouldn't.
2) Population comparisons with England and the USA need to bear in mind that both populations would be significantly lower without Irish emigration. In both cases the percentage identifying as of Irish descent will be understated as the Irish protestant emigrants have often assimilated into the local WASP populations. Charlton Heston isn't normally viewed as an Irish American for instance.
3 Comparisons with the likes of South Korea need to reflect that Ireland is on the periphery of Europe whereas SK is wedged between China, Japan and Russia (leaving out the hermit Kingdom of North Korea).

 

[Avalon]

Currently the island of Ireland has nearly 9 million people. Just over 7 million in the Republic and just under 1.9 million in Northern Ireland. Wider early industrialization could have bumped that up a bit but hear three factors in mind:-
1) The Famine had a relatively minor impact on demographics with around 100,000 people dying out of a population of 8 million. What it did do was force massive emigration as landlords and the government sought to reduce "congestion" and as many marginal and sub-marginal lands were no longer viable without the Lumper potato - which would basically grow anywhere that the heather would. Grain crops and more blight-resistant breeds wouldn't.
2) Population comparisons with England and the USA need to bear in mind that both populations would be significantly lower without Irish emigration. In both cases, the percentage identifying as of Irish descent will be understated as the Irish Protestant emigrants have often assimilated into the local WASP populations. Charlton Heston isn't normally viewed as an Irish American for instance.
3 Comparisons with the likes of South Korea need to reflect that Ireland is on the periphery of Europe whereas SK is wedged between China, Japan and Russia (leaving out the Hermit Kingdom of North Korea).

The population of the republic is around 4.75 million so in total on the island, there's 6.6 million.
1) A lot more than 100,000 people died due to the famine with most estimates putting the figure at 1 million deaths in total due to starvation and famine-related diseases with about the same number emigrating.

2) I agree with not using emigrated populations and their descendants as a basis for possible population growth but I must say one has to factor in social atavism into the population discussions. For many people, the famine would have hit home the dangers of reaching any kind of 'limit' in population keeping family numbers, while not small, low especially compared to pre-famine even 100 years after said incident. People simply had it subconsciously instilled that a lot of children would be dangerous. I'm not sure of this but I my English teacher in secondary school told us that that same atavism is the reason why Irish parents tend to freak out when their kids don't finish meals.

3)I pretty sure I agree with this but could you explain the reflection more clearly?

 

[PuffyClouds]

2) Population comparisons with England and the USA need to bear in mind that both populations would be significantly lower without Irish emigration. In both cases the percentage identifying as of Irish descent will be understated as the Irish protestant emigrants have often assimilated into the local WASP populations. Charlton Heston isn't normally viewed as an Irish American for instance.

I don't know about England, but I suspect the USA's population won't have a 1:1 decline in population, American families (and Canadiens IIRC) tended to be very big before the Irish and German immigration wave. I think they would keep growing at a large rate (or only slightly reduced) if they didn't have the impetus from Irish immigration affecting the labor market, and housing prices.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

The population of the republic is around 4.75 million so in total on the island, there's 6.6 million.
1) A lot more than 100,000 people died due to the famine with most estimates putting the figure at 1 million deaths in total due to starvation and famine-related diseases with about the same number emigrating.

2) I agree with not using emigrated populations and their descendants as a basis for possible population growth but I must say one has to factor in social atavism into the population discussions. For many people, the famine would have hit home the dangers of reaching any kind of 'limit' in population keeping family numbers, while not small, low especially compared to pre-famine even 100 years after said incident. People simply had it subconsciously instilled that a lot of children would be dangerous. I'm not sure of this but I my English teacher in secondary school told us that that same atavism is the reason why Irish parents tend to freak out when their kids don't finish meals.

3)I pretty sure I agree with this but could you explain the reflection more clearly?

Sorry for delay in responding, spent yesterday enjoying the beautiful sunshine on Portstewart Strand!
Re the Republic's population I was startled to find that you are quite right! I had always assumed that we in Norn Iron represented around 25% of the island's population, not 38%. Which does support the view that industrialisation would have raised the population even higher. Even OTL, this would have huge implications if the island even re-unites and would totally overturn the existing political culture and electoral demographics. If you thiink things are East coast centric already...
Re 1) Wikipedia would agree with you (1 million dead, 1 million emigrated) but, if you go to primary sources, such as "Blue books" on statistics, the death rate is noted at around 160,000 people (admittedly that won't include those who died on "coffin" ships). But the 1851 census clearly found that the population had declined by 1.6 million since the Famine. Now there would have been population growth in the three fifths of Ireland not hugely affected by the Famine and that would cover a lot of the deaths, but emigration figures show that in 1845 50,000 people emigrated, in 1846, 100,000 and in 1847 250,000 and then an average of 200,000 people per annum over the next five years. So by 1851 one million people had emigrated (not counting the year 1851 itself where probably at least another 50,000 had left by the time of the census). And the emigration figures don't include people moving to England and Scotland (by the 1870s there are more Liverpool Irish than Dublin Irish) as, at that time, that didn't constitute "emigration". I have never studied that in detail but do know that there was sizeable Irish immigration to Great Britain in the Famine years to (among others) Newport, Whitehaven, Sunderland, Jarrow, Middlesbrough, Manchester, Bradford, Gateshead, Halifax, Leeds, Keighley, Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Glasgow. So, unless you postulate around a million people in Ireland who weren't detected by either the 1841 census or the tax authorities, it is a bit difficult to see where the one million deaths come from. Not trying to be a Famine denier, but I posted an extract from a primary source (which typically I can't now find, I can only see my posts back to around mid 2017 -if you poke about earlier threads on Ireland's economy you may come across it) which put the deaths at under 200,000. Which is still an immense human tragedy of course.
2) I would attribute the freaking out more to the "hungry thirties" than to memories of the 1840s. I remember my father telling me (he had me fairly late in life) about a neighbour man being killed in a mill in Bundoran (whether flour, feed or textile I never learned) in the mid 1930s. He left a widow and several dependent children and the local community quickly organised a collection for them. Although money was scarce no-one was prepared to admit to the fact and everyone gave generously. As my father said very matter of factly. "And that meant we couldn't have meat for two weeks and it would have been three if [his brother] hadn't shot a couple of rabbits". The older generation might not have been enlightened by our standards but they knew tough times and had their virtues as well as vices!
3) A number of factors here including a more calorie efficient rice based diet whereas Irish land is manly best for pasture; also SK is close to Japan (with a population greater than the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands combined, to Russia (with a larger population than Spain, Portugal, Denmark, France and Scandinavia combined) and China (with a larger population than the entire EU) so has a larger potential market for goods and services in its immediate neighbours; moreover SK is a military ally of the USA and has a substantial US military presence; relatively close to the remainder of the Pacific Rim also. Not that Ireland is badly located between Europe and America.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

I don't know about England, but I suspect the USA's population won't have a 1:1 decline in population, American families (and Canadiens IIRC) tended to be very big before the Irish and German immigration wave. I think they would keep growing at a large rate (or only slightly reduced) if they didn't have the impetus from Irish immigration affecting the labor market, and housing prices.

Fair point, but also factor in improved medical care (which has an immediate population boosting effect but over the longer term reduces the demand for larger families as survival rates get better), the move from the country to more urban environments (child raising gets a lot more expensive when they can't contribute labour) and improved family planning technologies.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Unfortunately the burning of the Four Courts in 1922 destroyed the returns for the 1851 census but:-

"From Thom's Almanac and Official Directory, 1862

Decline of the population in Ireland.—The people of Ireland in 1851 proved to be 1,622,739 less numerous than in 1841, a diminution commonly attributed to the famine consequent on the potato failure in 1845 and subsequent years. The mortality of that period having been concentrated in workhouses and temporary hospitals, and having ravaged some portions of the country, in which disease prevailed with extraordinary virulence, the great loss of population has been usually accounted for by estimating the deaths generally according to their extent in the severely visited localities; but the Mortality Returns, founded on the Census of 1851, show that the deaths from 1841 were not, in the aggregate, excessive. In the emigration to America, migration to Great Britain, and the decrease of births, the causes of decline are to be found.

Of the children living in 1841 and 1851, the Census of each period supplies the following totals of the number born within twelve months preceding :—

1841 1851
Leinster 46,348 34,451
Munster 61,389 34,653
Ulster 57,466 42,875
Connaught 37,263 20,613
TOTAL 202,466 132,592"

FOUND IT!

 

[Avalon]

1) Wikipedia would agree with you (1 million dead, 1 million emigrated) but, if you go to primary sources, such as "Blue books" on statistics, the death rate is noted at around 160,000 people (admittedly that won't include those who died on "coffin" ships). But the 1851 census clearly found that the population had declined by 1.6 million since the Famine. Now there would have been population growth in the three fifths of Ireland not hugely affected by the Famine and that would cover a lot of the deaths, but emigration figures show that in 1845 50,000 people emigrated, in 1846, 100,000 and in 1847 250,000 and then an average of 200,000 people per annum over the next five years. So by 1851 one million people had emigrated (not counting the year 1851 itself where probably at least another 50,000 had left by the time of the census). And the emigration figures don't include people moving to England and Scotland (by the 1870s there are more Liverpool Irish than Dublin Irish) as, at that time, that didn't constitute "emigration". I have never studied that in detail but do know that there was sizeable Irish immigration to Great Britain in the Famine years to (among others) Newport, Whitehaven, Sunderland, Jarrow, Middlesbrough, Manchester, Bradford, Gateshead, Halifax, Leeds, Keighley, Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Glasgow. So, unless you postulate around a million people in Ireland who weren't detected by either the 1841 census or the tax authorities, it is a bit difficult to see where the one million deaths come from. Not trying to be a Famine denier, but I posted an extract from a primary source (which typically I can't now find, I can only see my posts back to around mid 2017 -if you poke about earlier threads on Ireland's economy you may come across it) which put the deaths at under 200,000. Which is still an immense human tragedy of course.

Admittedly I do get most of this information from Wikipedia but it really doesn't deserve the reputation it seems to have especially amongst older generations (not saying you're old). That said from the page on Wikipedia on the subject those same famine officials went around recording deaths in each family in 1851 and they got this -

In 1851, the census commissioners collected information on the number who died in each family since 1841, and the cause, season, and year of death. They recorded 21,770 total deaths from starvation in the previous decade and 400,720 deaths from disease. Listed diseases were fever, diphtheria, dysentery, cholera, smallpox, and influenza, with the first two being the main killers (222,021 and 93,232). The commissioners acknowledged that their figures were incomplete and that the true number of deaths was probably higher:

The greater the amount of destitution of mortality ... the less will be the number of recorded deaths derived through any household form; – for not only were whole families swept away by disease ... but whole villages were effaced from off the land.

The other sources and references in the article all go on to agree the number was most likely higher.

Later historians agree that the 1851 death tables "were flawed and probably under-estimated the level of mortality". The combination of institutional and figures provided by individuals gives "an incomplete and biased count" of fatalities during the famine.

It seems that your figures may be from causes directly from the famine i.e. starvation and hunger-related diseases eg kwashiorkor. These sources and I all seem to be taking all famine-related ailments and diseases that were caused due to a lack of food and the weakened immune systems arising from such -

However, the greatest mortality was not from nutritional deficiency diseases, but from famine-induced ailments. The malnourished are very vulnerable to infections; therefore, these were more severe when they occurred. Measles, diphtheria, diarrhoea, tuberculosis, most respiratory infections, whooping cough, many intestinal parasites, and cholera were all strongly conditioned by nutritional status. Potentially lethal diseases, such as smallpox and influenza, were so virulent that their spread was independent of nutrition. The best example of this phenomenon was fever, which exacted the greatest death toll. In the popular mind, as well as medical opinion, fever and famine were closely related. Social dislocation—the congregation of the hungry at soup kitchens, food depots, and overcrowded workhouses—created conditions that were ideal for spreading infectious diseases such as typhus, typhoid, and relapsing fever.

Here's the article itself to make it easier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Death_toll

Taking all ailments and issues caused by an event is why I prefer to use the 81 million and 21 million deaths caused by WW2 and WW1 respectively as while not all of those people would have died directly from active danger in war the hunger, disease etc caused by the wars lead to their deaths and if they didn't happen they most likely wouldn't have died.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Thats where it gets difficult as the death levels from diptheria, cholera, typhus and TB were pretty high even in a "normal" year. Obviously these will get worse in a famine year as hunger lowers resistance to disease and medical care was rudimentary during the period. l But my problem is a mathematical one really. The census figures are official government ones and may have been subject to judicious massage. But we know that the official population was 1.6million people lower than 1851 and we know that probably slightly more (as I say at least 50,000 should have embarked in 1851 before the census took place) than a million people emigrated (left the UK which included Ireland at that point) and we also know (or can infer) from the population change in Glasgow, Durham, Tyneside, London and the West Midlands and the percentages of the population there that claimed Irish descent in the 1861 and 1871 censuses and the rising number of communicants in the English RC Church that at least 350-400,000 must have gone to England, Scotland or Wales. Now some deaths will have been concealed by the birth rate no question there. But can we really postulate a million deaths when at least 7.97 million of the anticipated 9 million are accounted for (6.575 million in Ireland, 1.05 million emigrated and at least 350,000 in Great Britain) and some of the subtracted growth rate would have been from their children and some from the generally lower birth rate? And at a time when English gangmasters were over actively recruiting navvies for the railroads and London Underground? And with some efforts being made at famine relief? I would put the upper limit on deaths at 500,000 and that would be including every disease case on the island 1845-1851.

 

[Vuu]

Ireland has a soil problem - like all lands that were glacially rekt at some point, the topsoil might not be so good for massive yields to support a huge population

 

[Marc]

Passing along a question: How do you all think the women of Ireland would feel about all this? Seriously.

And, more generally, why is that whenever population growth is discussed the role of the child-bearers gets short shrift?
Yeah, yeah, we just have to go with tradition (cue Fiddler on the Roof in the background - Tradition, tradition tradition!).
Except when we want to change behaviors and/or attitudes to fit our alternate construct...

 

[PuffyClouds]

How do you all think the women of Ireland would feel about all this? Seriously.

They would probably be happy to not have a bunch of people dying from starvation, the economy impoverished, and their friends & family forced to leave the country... for starters.

 

[The Professor]

And, more generally, why is that whenever population growth is discussed the role of the child-bearers gets short shrift?

Perhaps you can point out where in this thread that happens or where child-sirers are getting an easy side?

 

[Marc]

Perhaps you can point out where in this thread that happens or where child-sirers are getting an easy side?

My point exactly, we ignore the personal for the abstract, routinely.

And when, if men played Russian roulette every time they fathered a child, then they would be worth having a conversation about.

 

[The Professor]

My point exactly, we ignore the personal for the abstract, routinely.

And when, if men played Russian roulette every time they fathered a child, then they would be worth having a conversation about.

So you don't actually have a relevant complaint about the discussion in this thread then, you just wanted to moan about misogyny in general?
This thread is about Ireland's population in the abstract under AR/IR conditions similar to England not about any screed on misogyny. There's a whole chat forum to complain about that in.

 

[Avalon]

Thats where it gets difficult as the death levels from diphtheria, cholera, typhus and TB were pretty high even in a "normal" year. Obviously, these will get worse in a famine year as hunger lowers resistance to disease and medical care was rudimentary during the period. l But my problem is a mathematical one really. The census figures are official government ones and may have been subject to judicious massage. But we know that the official population was 1.6million people lower than 1851 and we know that probably slightly more (as I say at least 50,000 should have embarked in 1851 before the census took place) than a million people emigrated (left the UK which included Ireland at that point) and we also know (or can infer) from the population change in Glasgow, Durham, Tyneside, London and the West Midlands and the percentages of the population there that claimed Irish descent in the 1861 and 1871 censuses and the rising number of communicants in the English RC Church that at least 350-400,000 must have gone to England, Scotland or Wales. Now some deaths will have been concealed by the birth rate no question there. But can we really postulate a million deaths when at least 7.97 million of the anticipated 9 million are accounted for (6.575 million in Ireland, 1.05 million emigrated and at least 350,000 in Great Britain) and some of the subtracted growth rates would have been from their children and some from the generally lower birth rate? And at a time when English gangmasters were over actively recruiting navvies for the railroads and London Underground? And with some efforts being made at famine relief? I would put the upper limit on deaths at 500,000 and that would be including every disease case on the island 1845-1851.

Except it dropped from 8,175,124 to 6,552,385 exactly which is 1,622,739 missing people exactly. When you count the famine started in '45 and it didn't really get awful until the next year and the fact it ended in '52 a year after the census you can easily get your missing people especially with the fact that the census takers where fully expecting 9 million people by '51 with the rates estimated from '42-'44. The actual population of Ireland at the famine would have been 8.3-8.6 million people from which you could get the missing dead easily.