Question: How many people could populate the 'Fertile crescent'

Hi, I am wondering how many people would be able to live within the 'Fertile Cresent' in modern-day times

93 million Egyptians currently live on the Nile Delta and river system area which is a lot. 9 million live in Israel, 37 million live in Iraq, 21 million in Syria (2010), 10,5 million in Jordan, 6 million in Lebanon, 1,8 million in the Gaza strip and 3.3 million on the West Bank. This totals 181.6 million.

So here are the questions:
  • How many more people can live within the Nile Delta and river system? (93 million people)
  • How many people can live within the Levantine region as a whole? This includes Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Gaza Strip and the West Bank. (51.6 million people)
  • How many people can live within the Mesopotamian region? This includes the Euphrates Delta for which Tigris and Euphrates rivers are apart. (37 million people)
Here is a map of the 'Fertile Cresent' showing the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates rivers with population density maps below.

800px-Map_of_fertile_crescent.png


Western 'Fertile Cresent'.jpg


Egypt_2010_population_density1.png


Here is a link showing the population density of Iraq: https://maps.mapaction.org/dataset/...0-8640-46bf-998e-49fbcd7b766a?inner_span=True
 
Last edited:
Ok I going take a wild guess.

Maximum capacity:

Nile Delta and river system: 2-4 billion people

Levantine: 1 billion people

Euphrates Delta: 5 billion people

Stable and united government which controls the ‘Fertile Crescent’ for the last 100/200 years:

Nile Delta and river system: 200-300 million people

Levantine: 200-500 million people

Euphrates Delta: 200-700 million people

I should have said earlier but this scenario is dependent on 100/200 years of stable development. The Middle East was not really known for being rich or stable. (And still is not stable.) It was only when oil and gas fields were discovered that prosperity flourished.
 
Depends how good their infrastructure is, since water is the crucial element. A lot of water is lost in that region due to human causes. Desalination plants powered by the ample solar energy could help a lot, as could reducing the amount of agriculture and importing more food (or increasing its efficiency). Economically they'd need to draw people to the region rather than be sending out emigrants.

Ok I going take a wild guess.

Maximum capacity:

Nile Delta and river system: 2-4 billion people

Levantine: 1 billion people

Euphrates Delta: 5 billion people
The maximum carrying capacity of Earth is 5-10 trillion people (based on the ability to remove heat from the planet), so using those numbers and the portion of land area this part of the world has we can estimate the true maximum carrying capacity is about 200 billion people (half in Egypt/Sudan and half in Greater Syria). This of course assumes massive construction of arcologies and cheap energy (fusion, space solar power, etc) to power this.
 
Depends how good their infrastructure is, since water is the crucial element. A lot of water is lost in that region due to human causes. Desalination plants powered by the ample solar energy could help a lot, as could reducing the amount of agriculture and importing more food (or increasing its efficiency). Economically they'd need to draw people to the region rather than be sending out emigrants.


The maximum carrying capacity of Earth is 5-10 trillion people (based on the ability to remove heat from the planet), so using those numbers and the portion of land area this part of the world has we can estimate the true maximum carrying capacity is about 200 billion people (half in Egypt/Sudan and half in Greater Syria). This of course assumes massive construction of arcologies and cheap energy (fusion, space solar power, etc) to power this.

That is great. I never thought the maximum capacity would be 200 billion for Egypt and Levantine/Euphrates. That is a lot, wow!

I only ask because I have a scenario where Napoleon conquers Egypt and Syria in 1799 and I was wondering from such a conquest what type of population numbers this part of France could bring over the next two centuries into modern day times. In 1799 Egypt only had 3-4 million population and the Levantine and Euphrates were densely populated.

It would obviously take mass migration of French people but their colonial system was very different and if they have a fast growing population through the discovery of advanced medicine between 1820-1840, this would prevent their stagnating population growth throughout the 19th century. When the 20th century comes they have an extremely large population and continue migrating to the Nile, Levantine and Euphrates. (Plus everywhere else)
 
That is great. I never thought the maximum capacity would be 200 billion for Egypt and Levantine/Euphrates. That is a lot, wow!

I only ask because I have a scenario where Napoleon conquers Egypt and Syria in 1799 and I was wondering from such a conquest what type of population numbers this part of France could bring over the next two centuries into modern day times. In 1799 Egypt only had 3-4 million population and the Levantine and Euphrates were densely populated.

It would obviously take mass migration of French people but their colonial system was very different and if they have a fast growing population through the discovery of advanced medicine between 1820-1840, this would prevent their stagnating population growth throughout the 19th century. When the 20th century comes they have an extremely large population and continue migrating to the Nile, Levantine and Euphrates. (Plus everywhere else)

200 BILLION? and everyone is eating soylent green right? just where is all of the food and fresh water going to come from? there is no where near that on earth now and there are issues.

oh sure lets just terraform Siberia.. ( wait we are.. ) planet gets hotter ..

I just don't see that as self sustaining. I could see an upward max of stable plus realistic as being around a billion to a billion and a half in the region that is described
 
200 BILLION? and everyone is eating soylent green right? just where is all of the food and fresh water going to come from? there is no where near that on earth now and there are issues.

oh sure lets just terraform Siberia.. ( wait we are.. ) planet gets hotter ..

I just don't see that as self sustaining. I could see an upward max of stable plus realistic as being around a billion to a billion and a half in the region that is described

[laughing hard]

That was only maximum capacity.

[laughing harder]

So... 1.5 billion French people is within reach in the Middle East. That makes French the most used language on the planet.

200 billion, that is Warhammer 40,000 population numbers.

Thanks for making me laugh.
 
[laughing hard]

That was only maximum capacity.

[laughing harder]

So... 1.5 billion French people is within reach in the Middle East. That makes French the most used language on the planet.

200 billion, that is Warhammer 40,000 population numbers.

Thanks for making me laugh.
I believe you are agreeing … its fanciful to envision that many people even on earth let along just in that region.

could you imagine the numbers in china, india, USA, france, germany and England would be paved parking lots from border to border.

200 billion humans and not much else I guess ;)

unless we get really good at turning salt water into purified potable and irrigatable water on scales that we can not achieve today. also turning the Sahara green again. it would be a massive toilet of a planet to live on
 
I believe you are agreeing … its fanciful to envision that many people even on earth let along just in that region.

could you imagine the numbers in china, india, USA, france, germany and England would be paved parking lots from border to border.

200 billion humans and not much else I guess ;)

unless we get really good at turning salt water into purified potable and irrigatable water on scales that we can not achieve today. also turning the Sahara green again. it would be a massive toilet of a planet to live on

To have a human population between 5-10 Trillion is incomprehensible and unimaginable. This scenario was just looking at Middle East population if the region was French for 200 years.

Having said that we are talking 10,000 or 20,000 years into the future in regards to having a Trillion population. I think it’s possible but you need a united human race and a universal monarchy or what you would call a ‘God-emperor’ to precipitate this level of human population.

Napoleon came close to a universal monarchy but centred it on Europe. Conquest of all of Europe is simply not enough. Dominating Europe and incorporating the Middle East is also simply not enough.

You would need Australia, North America, Central America, India, South America, Africa and Oceania. Plus the Middle East is a start.

Maybe from there would these numbers be possible in 10,000 or 20,000 AD.

Can you imagine the Francization of India?
 
I only ask because I have a scenario where Napoleon conquers Egypt and Syria in 1799 and I was wondering from such a conquest what type of population numbers this part of France could bring over the next two centuries into modern day times. In 1799 Egypt only had 3-4 million population and the Levantine and Euphrates were densely populated.

It would obviously take mass migration of French people but their colonial system was very different and if they have a fast growing population through the discovery of advanced medicine between 1820-1840, this would prevent their stagnating population growth throughout the 19th century. When the 20th century comes they have an extremely large population and continue migrating to the Nile, Levantine and Euphrates. (Plus everywhere else)
That's not really the cause of French population stagnation in the 19th century, IIRC it had more to do with France's land use. I'd expect most of these emigrants to go to Lebanon and Syria, specifically the parts not desert. Egypt and most of Iraq would be a bit too "tropical". Algeria/Tunisia would still be a good acquisition for France since its so close, has good land, and is also economically tied to France

200 BILLION? and everyone is eating soylent green right? just where is all of the food and fresh water going to come from? there is no where near that on earth now and there are issues.

oh sure lets just terraform Siberia.. ( wait we are.. ) planet gets hotter ..

I just don't see that as self sustaining. I could see an upward max of stable plus realistic as being around a billion to a billion and a half in the region that is described
Not if you build arcologies which by definition are self-sustaining. Current farming is very inefficient compared to what we can already get now out of hydroponics/aquaponics, let alone in the future. Artificial meat is also becoming a thing. Water can be imported from space along with most resources although in a pinch water could be manufactured (mixing hydrogen and oxygen of course) or a sort of desalination could be used and the entire oceans used like we use rivers now (we'd balance the salt content of the desalination).

I believe you are agreeing … its fanciful to envision that many people even on earth let along just in that region.

could you imagine the numbers in china, india, USA, france, germany and England would be paved parking lots from border to border.

200 billion humans and not much else I guess ;)

unless we get really good at turning salt water into purified potable and irrigatable water on scales that we can not achieve today. also turning the Sahara green again. it would be a massive toilet of a planet to live on
It would probably be a very nice place actually since you'd be building vertically and also likely underground and into the Mediterranean (seasteads or more arcologies). The population density is about 53,000/km2 using just land. Modern cities are not built to handle this sort of density, but easily could be. In fact, the Middle East could easily lead the way on arcologies since Egypt has ample energy and also a need to move people out of the Nile valley. One arcology tower would be like a large town of a few thousand people while a collection of arcologies could form a city. The only downside is lack of personal houses, but since each arcology home would be at least the equivalent of a small family home (some may be bigger) no one would be lacking for personal space. Conditions are certainly better than most of the people in that area live in now.

Although "Megacity Middle East" resembling a city with that population density (Manila, Dhaka) over every square inch of land is an interesting setting (imagine the social and political commentary to be made) it isn't really realistic for reasons you've noted.

The real challenge is getting to 200 billion people, but assuming constant fertility rates slightly above replacement (2.3-2.5) this could be done given a few thousand years. But given demographics this would likely take a post-scarcity economy since the current economies of developed countries needed to produce this constant growth crater fertility rates as seen in Europe, Japan, etc. Although Wahhabist Islam and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism counteract this somewhat in developed Saudi Arabia and Israel respectively.
 
That's not really the cause of French population stagnation in the 19th century, IIRC it had more to do with France's land use. I'd expect most of these emigrants to go to Lebanon and Syria, specifically the parts not desert. Egypt and most of Iraq would be a bit too "tropical". Algeria/Tunisia would still be a good acquisition for France since its so close, has good land, and is also economically tied to France.

I am open to different views but it does depend on how one perceives it. I would think the prevention of diseases and deaths would help a stagnating French population and make it grow. I am talking about simple and complicated stuff here like a cold and gangrene but not cancer. (That is too complicated.)

I did a bit of research. Apparently "The birth rate in France diminished much earlier than in the rest of Europe in part because inheritance laws dictated distribution of estates whereas in the UK wealth could be passed to the eldest son or child."

How exactly does that result in a stagnating French population over 100 years? You would think with the distribution of wealth to each individual child would give them a good shot at life. There is definitely more than meets eye in that statement. In does say "in part" though, meaning there are more "parts" to the problem.

Don't dampen it. The Assimilation of the Egyptians would occur first. They are actually a francophone country now, willingly accepting Francization. Yea, going off your opinion it would not be French first choice but if you can get an extremely high emigration rate it will eventually occur. The Nile Delta and River is one of the most fertile places on earth as well. I was actually thinking of a mass (none forced or forced) migration of people Egypt by Napoleon.
 
Last edited:
I am open to different views but it does depend on how one perceives it. I would think the prevention of diseases and deaths would help a stagnating French population and make it grow. I am talking about simple and complicated stuff here like a cold and gangrene but not cancer. (That is too complicated.)
The reason I'd question this is because what the French scientists achieve in disease reduction is going to spread to Britain, the German states, etc. before long, negating any French demographic advantage in that regards while not tackling a lot of the underlying issues. Although anything that makes 19th century cities less pits of disease and death is good.
Don't dampen it. The Assimilation of the Egyptians would occur first. They are actually a francophone country now, willingly accepting Francization. Yea, going off your opinion it would not be French first choice but if you can get an extremely high emigration rate it will eventually occur. The Nile Delta and River is one of the most fertile places on earth as well. I was actually thinking of a mass (none forced or forced) migration of people Egypt by Napoleon.
The Copts would be very westernized but the Copts were only a minority, and I don't see why they'd just up and adopt French and neglect to learn Arabic. And Egyptian Muslims are still the dominant majority, they definitely wouldn't take this lying down. Not without a genocide at least, but even Russia couldn't push out all the Muslims from the Caucasus.

The conditions are still similar to Algeria but made worse by the climate--hot and often humid and a lot more disease than the Algerian coast where the majority of Pied-Noirs lived. Algeria and Tunisia would be more likely choices. And if France really has that many emigrants available, I'd think a lot would go to the US or even Quebec unlike OTL, although a lot of their colonial settlers were Italian immigrants or Jews.
 
The reason I'd question this is because what the French scientists achieve in disease reduction is going to spread to Britain, the German states, etc. before long, negating any French demographic advantage in that regards while not tackling a lot of the underlying issues. Although anything that makes 19th century cities less pits of disease and death is good.

The Copts would be very westernized but the Copts were only a minority, and I don't see why they'd just up and adopt French and neglect to learn Arabic. And Egyptian Muslims are still the dominant majority, they definitely wouldn't take this lying down. Not without a genocide at least, but even Russia couldn't push out all the Muslims from the Caucasus.

The conditions are still similar to Algeria but made worse by the climate--hot and often humid and a lot more disease than the Algerian coast where the majority of Pied-Noirs lived. Algeria and Tunisia would be more likely choices. And if France really has that many emigrants available, I'd think a lot would go to the US or even Quebec unlike OTL, although a lot of their colonial settlers were Italian immigrants or Jews.

So medicine would only be the tip of population growth with critical underlying issues still needed to be solved. That is one specific literature project. Great.

I did think about the migration of Jews as well. If the entire European Jewish population can be assimilated into French culture they could be used to migrate abroad. The same could be said for Italians because Napoleon dominated and annexed most of the Italian peninsula.

I think it’s all possible but in all honesty extremely difficult. If Napoleon can act like a domestic politician and international statesman instead of a warmonger all the time you could see it happening. (He is a true force of nature.)

Maybe all the more reason why France had so many problems after his downfall.

Interesting ideas about megacities. Still, think you need to unite a large landmass of Earth. Universal monarchy, French assimilation, Franciaztion and an extremely high emigration rate is one of the only methods of achieving that. French Egypt and Syria is just a foundation for achieving that.

To put it bluntly, we just kill each other too much. It's in our nature. I’d obviously pick have Napoleon over Hitler any day.
 
Last edited:
Top