Plausibility Check: More Populous Iceland

[Avitus]

How populous can a pre-industrial era Iceland realistically get if the Danish government decided to put effort into developing it? I literally have no idea beyond knowing that modern Iceland houses around 300,000 people. Could it even support that many before industrialization, or is it a matter of nobody ever putting effort into it, and the island could go higher with said effort even without industrialism?

Ideally I'm looking for half a million by around 1700, though if we can get it up to a million by then that would be awesome.

 

[katchen]

Not very. Iceland not only took it on the chin from the Little Ice Age, (which literally drove it's population down to 50,000 by 1700), the remaining Icelanders almost starved to death in the 1780s when one of Iceland's volcanoes had a massive eruption that covered the populated areas with volcanic ash, just as eruptions are doing now in some places. Many Icelanders DID starve to death and the Danish government seriously considered evacuating the entire population back to Denmark.
Frankly, the best chance for a higher population for Iceland would have probably have been a sale of the island to Great Britain. Iceland would have been more productive producing wool and it's population would likely have increased due to immigration from England and Scotland, particularly during WWII. Perhaps the UK would have sent some convicts there too, ala Australia if Denmark sold Iceland to the UK at the turn of the 19th Century.

 

[EvolvedSaurian]

Not very. Iceland not only took it on the chin from the Little Ice Age, (which literally drove it's population down to 50,000 by 1700), the remaining Icelanders almost starved to death in the 1780s when one of Iceland's volcanoes had a massive eruption that covered the populated areas with volcanic ash, just as eruptions are doing now in some places. Many Icelanders DID starve to death and the Danish government seriously considered evacuating the entire population back to Denmark.
Frankly, the best chance for a higher population for Iceland would have probably have been a sale of the island to Great Britain. Iceland would have been more productive producing wool and it's population would likely have increased due to immigration from England and Scotland, particularly during WWII. Perhaps the UK would have sent some convicts there too, ala Australia if Denmark sold Iceland to the UK at the turn of the 19th Century.

That's what Scottish Highlands lairds and Irish landlords thought too, with attendant encouragement of 'excess' population to emigrate elsewhere, to make more room for sheep runs. I'd say that would be the worst way to increase Iceland's population.

 

[Dominic]

That's what Scottish Highlands lairds and Irish landlords thought too, with attendant encouragement of excess population to emigrate emigrate elsewhere, to make more room for sheep runs. I'd say that would be the worst way to increase Iceland's population.

Indeed, sheeps runs are not particularly effective in encouraging population growth. Australia's grew chiefly thanks to mining, not sheep, and in a tiny place relatively speaking such as Iceland sheep runs aren't going to be all that useful.

 

[katchen]

There certainly dosen't seem to be much to mine on Iceland. Greenland yes, but not Iceland.

 

[Devvy]

Sorry for the late post on this; just come back from being in Reykjavik myself!

Indeed, sheeps runs are not particularly effective in encouraging population growth. Australia's grew chiefly thanks to mining, not sheep, and in a tiny place relatively speaking such as Iceland sheep runs aren't going to be all that useful.

In an amusing twist, sheep farming is one of the few things Iceland can do well; the sheep are left to run free across the country for most of the months of the year. No pollution in the air or food, and literally thousands of square kilometres for them to roam free in.

Although granted it does bugger all to help popualation growth.

There certainly dosen't seem to be much to mine on Iceland. Greenland yes, but not Iceland.

That's because there is nothing to mine in Iceland. I don't think I've ever seen a mine in Iceland. The only thing they have in abundance is "free" energy in the form of hydroelectric and geothermal, which what makes it such a good place for aluminium processing and the like.

I would say the best bet is for the British to buy it in the 19th century, develop it a little bit in the 19th century, then hope the *Cold War comes around which gives the Brits a reason to develop it much more as a military base, and later further invest in industries which require significant amounts of electricity/energy (aluminium obviously, and I think glass & arc steel are also up there but I'm not sure - not really my area of expertise!) when hydroelectricity and geothermal power is readily deployable. People would migrate in to fill up the jobs, as there would probably be a lack of workforce initially in such a small country.

 

[Le Gwen]

The problem is that there is not much to eat on Iceland. Most lands are volcanic wastelands and the rest is very poor, and of course there is the Laki disaster.

One can, however, get rid of the disasters and the mismanagement of the XVII and XVIIIth centuries.

1. No Turkish raids
2. No Laki eruption
3. No smallpox epidemics
4. No danish monopoly on trade.

This would surely help