Population density equivalents: Italy and Japan.

[MorningDew]

I did some number calculations on if Italy had the equivalent population density of japan, but with a special twist.

I didn't do it with the total population density (counting all the land in the countries), I did it with the amount of USABLE land.

So with the numbers I got, If Italy had the population equivalent to Japan, it would be (Roughly):

235 Million.

Considering that the Italian population in the 100-200 a.d. range was something like 10 million, with some surviving Rome wankshit or whatever, do you think that the Italian peninsula could actually get to and support that number of people (With a greater Rome of around 50 million people and a greater Milan of around 35 million, among other things). If not, then what level do you think it could get to?

 

[funnyhat]

It's worth noting that huge numbers of Italians emigrated in the 19th and 20th centuries, whereas a much smaller number of Japanese people did. Switch that around and their population densities would be quite close.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

One important thing to note is that Japan is almost entirely dependent on imports for food and fuel products. In the surviving Rome scenario, I think an Italy with a population of 235 million would be possible, but there would be no way it could support itself. It would depend on the rest of the Empire for basic resources but would be a center of industrialization and technology compared to the relatively agrarian reaches of the Empire.

On the issue of cities, I think the greatest populations would be in the Po Valley - Milan, Verona, Padua, Venice, Parma, Bologna. A Milan with 50 million inhabitants would not be unimaginable in this situation. The rough terrain farther south might limit the ability of the cities themselves to expand very far, so you might end up with at least half of the population concentrated in the north.

 

[dartingfog]

It's worth noting that huge numbers of Italians emigrated in the 19th and 20th centuries, whereas a much smaller number of Japanese people did. Switch that around and their population densities would be quite close.

It looks like the population of Italy in 1870 was about 25 million and the population of Japan in 1873 was 35 million. That's pretty close. There was a wave of Italian emigration from about 1875-1925 on the order of 17 million people (that's not the present population of the Italian diaspora, which would be far higher). Japanese emigration was far lower, with the present Japanese diaspora being only 2.6 million people. If we somehow prevent Italian emigration during the late 19th/early 20th centuries, Italy's current population would probably be about 100 million, assuming growth rates over the past 150 years were similar. If Japan's emigration rates were similar to OTL Italy's, you could end up with similar populations of around 100 million.

 

[Yanez de Gomera]

I shudder at the thought of traffic in a 30 mil+ Turin-Milan conurbation or an equally large Greater Rome!
I don't think it's really possible to have the exact same population density as Japan, but certainly reducing emigration is a key point: you probably need a mix of stronger/earlier industrialisation, requiring a bigger workforce, and better management of the unification process. A radical agrarian reform might be needed, together with avoiding the trade war with France during the eighties. Maybe a stronger backlash against anarchists after a couple successful regicides more than in otl make countries less open to Italian emigration?

We should also look into why people didn't emigrate from Japan, and see if similar solutions can be applied to Italy.

 

[wtw]

You need to go back to the pre-Roman era and stop the destruction of the Med forests, when those trees where cut down and the centuries of intensive agriculture, along with the already dry and arid climate you have a terrible place for large numbers of people.

In the North the Mountains limit where one can live way too much as it is.

 

[Gloss]

Not all land is the same, I don´t think even by limiting emigration you can change the population more than 10 million people at best.

 

[Falecius]

I shudder at the thought of traffic in a 30 mil+ Turin-Milan conurbation or an equally large Greater Rome!
I don't think it's really possible to have the exact same population density as Japan, but certainly reducing emigration is a key point: you probably need a mix of stronger/earlier industrialisation, requiring a bigger workforce, and better management of the unification process. A radical agrarian reform might be needed, together with avoiding the trade war with France during the eighties. Maybe a stronger backlash against anarchists after a couple successful regicides more than in otl make countries less open to Italian emigration?

We should also look into why people didn't emigrate from Japan, and see if similar solutions can be applied to Italy.

You'd get growth rates decline earlier in this case, however.

Milan will never have 50 million people - it won't be "Milan" anymore. These numbers assume an almost completely urbanized Padan Plain - essentially a continuous V-shaped megalopolis from Turin to Venice and Rimini, possibly stretching further more diffusely along the shore. Another major conurbation would stretch the mid-Tyrrhenian coastal plains- possibly encompassing Rome and Naples.
There is no way this thing can feed itself - even if the hilly areas will certainly be heavily terraced and the Appennines more populated than now (the spine of the peninsula has been losing people for decades IOTL, there's a lot of room) the loss of agricultural ground in the plains makes it sure.

 

[Falecius]

You need to go back to the pre-Roman era and stop the destruction of the Med forests, when those trees where cut down and the centuries of intensive agriculture, along with the already dry and arid climate you have a terrible place for large numbers of people.

In the North the Mountains limit where one can live way too much as it is.

Venetians would be surprised to learn they live in a "dry and arid" climate.

 

[Yanez de Gomera]

You'd get growth rates decline earlier in this case, however.

Milan will never have 50 million people - it won't be "Milan" anymore. These numbers assume an almost completely urbanized Padan Plain - essentially a continuous V-shaped megalopolis from Turin to Venice and Rimini, possibly stretching further more diffusely along the shore. Another major conurbation would stretch the mid-Tyrrhenian coastal plains- possibly encompassing Rome and Naples.
There is no way this thing can feed itself - even if the hilly areas will certainly be heavily terraced and the Appennines more populated than now (the spine of the peninsula has been losing people for decades IOTL, there's a lot of room) the loss of agricultural ground in the plains makes it sure.

Re: declining growth rates: that's true but I don't think that the same as in France would happen, not fast enough to offset the reduction in emigration that I had in mind.


Your megalopolis are monstous and would cover with concrete the most fertile areas, much more than in otl. Not a particularly brilliant idea imho... Today the pianura padana has a population density of 355 ab./km2, per 41.850 km2, resulting in a population of 14.850.000 ab. (from Treccani online encyclopedia).

Wikipedia says that the Rhine-Ruhr area has a population density of 1,422/km2, with a surface of 7,110 km2 and a total populace of 11,316,429. If we raise the padan population density to Ruhrgebiet levels we get, rounding by defect, 56.000.000 people living in an highly urbanized area, including two megalopolis (Turin and Milan) and several big conglomerates, like Verona-Vicenza-Padova or Novara-Asti-Alessandria or Brescia-Bergamo.
This would not be an hive city and imho quite liveable, although likely heavily polluted, due to the geography of the area (surrounded by mountains on three sides). I suppose that this Italy would have a total of 100-130 mil people, so more or less on par with Japan today.

It would certainly be a food importer, but its manufacturing capacity would be impressive. The lack of natural resources hasn't stopped Japan, as far as I know...

The problem is that the semiarid climate of the big isles and large parts of the south is not offset by access to particularly important fisheries, but as others have pointed out it seems like the Italian and Japanese populations only started to greatly diverge at the end of the xix century.

Having 230.000.000 people would very likely be unsustainable, maybe the OP exaggerated the quantity of usable land in Italy?

 

[Falecius]

snip

Oh, I agree it is unsustainable, and pretty ugly too. Italy with a population range close to modern Japan is possible, although it probably takes more than stopping emigration to get there. Italy with 235 million (more than Brazil!) seems borderline ASB to me, although maybe you can get there with a global-spanning industrial Roman Empire... That removes most food concerns and gives you big conglomerations of cities that act as huge service and burecracy centers (even more than manufacturing). Strains plausibility, but it is not against the laws of physics I guess.

 

[MorningDew]

Oh, I agree it is unsustainable, and pretty ugly too. Italy with a population range close to modern Japan is possible, although it probably takes more than stopping emigration to get there. Italy with 235 million (more than Brazil!) seems borderline ASB to me, although maybe you can get there with a global-spanning industrial Roman Empire... That removes most food concerns and gives you big conglomerations of cities that act as huge service and burecracy centers (even more than manufacturing). Strains plausibility, but it is not against the laws of physics I guess.

Of course it would be implausible. That's why the only way I think it could work is in a surviving roman empire scenario (In something like I'm imagining, Roman Europe probably has at least 2 times the population of otl). I do think Italy could have a population about the same as japan's otl, but I was more going for the roman thing.

Would y'all like to have some number on how this alternate empire would look like?

 

[MorningDew]

Re: declining growth rates: that's true but I don't think that the same as in France would happen, not fast enough to offset the reduction in emigration that I had in mind.


Your megalopolis are monstous and would cover with concrete the most fertile areas, much more than in otl. Not a particularly brilliant idea imho... Today the pianura padana has a population density of 355 ab./km2, per 41.850 km2, resulting in a population of 14.850.000 ab. (from Treccani online encyclopedia).

Wikipedia says that the Rhine-Ruhr area has a population density of 1,422/km2, with a surface of 7,110 km2 and a total populace of 11,316,429. If we raise the padan population density to Ruhrgebiet levels we get, rounding by defect, 56.000.000 people living in an highly urbanized area, including two megalopolis (Turin and Milan) and several big conglomerates, like Verona-Vicenza-Padova or Novara-Asti-Alessandria or Brescia-Bergamo.
This would not be an hive city and imho quite liveable, although likely heavily polluted, due to the geography of the area (surrounded by mountains on three sides). I suppose that this Italy would have a total of 100-130 mil people, so more or less on par with Japan today.

It would certainly be a food importer, but its manufacturing capacity would be impressive. The lack of natural resources hasn't stopped Japan, as far as I know...

The problem is that the semiarid climate of the big isles and large parts of the south is not offset by access to particularly important fisheries, but as others have pointed out it seems like the Italian and Japanese populations only started to greatly diverge at the end of the xix century.

Having 230.000.000 people would very likely be unsustainable, maybe the OP exaggerated the quantity of usable land in Italy?

For that, I took the total amount of "usable land" (land that is either farmland or urban land) for both countries, found the population density of japan (which is all concentrated on the urban land), and applied that to Italy. Like I said, I don't think it's plausible at all without a surviving Rome but that's the core numbers if you wanted an Italy with a population equivalent to japan considering usable land.

 

[Yanez de Gomera]

Would y'all like to have some number on how this alternate empire would look like?

Colour me interested! Only caveat is that maybe the "center" of the empire could shift away from Italy during the course of time.

 

[MorningDew]

Colour me interested! Only caveat is that maybe the "center" of the empire could shift away from Italy during the course of time.

As far as I know, the center would probably shift to north Italy, but not beyond the alps considering that this surviving Rome (This scenario is probably VERY IMPLAUSIBLE) will still have the entire Mediterranean, and thus that entire network is unchanged. The po valley plain will be the empire's "Tokyo", but Rome and the Tiber basin will remain the empire's "Osaka". However, considering the other parts of the empire, there will be many, many more "Osakas" (Carthage, "Constantinople", the otl Ranstadt and Rein-Ruhr, otl Cairo, ect).

 

[wtw]

Venetians would be surprised to learn they live in a "dry and arid" climate.

Try Naples and south have you even seen southern Italy? It is an example of ecological devastation from deforestation and surface soil loss, must of the immigrants that came to the US came from that southern third, bet you didn't know that

 

[Falecius]

Try Naples and south have you even seen southern Italy? It is an example of ecological devastation from deforestation and surface soil loss, must of the immigrants that came to the US came from that southern third, bet you didn't know that

I am Italian. Of course I visited Naples. And while I am not from the south, my family had emigrants to the US.

 

[wtw]

I am Italian. Of course I visited Naples. And while I am not from the south, my family had emigrants to the US.

Sorry I did not know that I apologize, but southern Italy is not the best for large population growth

 

[MorningDew]

Sorry I did not know that I apologize, but southern Italy is not the best for large population growth

Most of south Italy is not good for large population growth (that's why the ttl Italy would have 125 million out of 235 in the po plains), but the apulian plain and the Naples area are good for agriculture (the apulian plain is actually quite large), so south Italy will still be rather densely populated.

 

[wtw]

Most of south Italy is not good for large population growth (that's why the ttl Italy would have 125 million out of 235 in the po plains), but the apulian plain and the Naples area are good for agriculture (the apulian plain is actually quite large), so south Italy will still be rather densely populated.

yes of course one can hope, assuming Italy can solve its economic/political issues