Ancient/Medieval Europe Population Base

[Stravo]

I read in an article a few days ago that one of the reasons contributing to the prominence of cavalry in the medieval armies is that Medieval Europe did not have the population base that Rome had in order to form large infantry armies. The article explained it partly as a breakdown in agricultural technology and Imperial infrastructure that supported large populations in the Dark Ages.

How true is this? I always assumed absent such factors as the Black Death and such that the European and Mediteranean populations were constantly growing. I know that contemporary texts greatly exagerate the numbers in armies but you routinely have medieval armies (at least the grand ones) numbering in the tens of thousands.

[Zor]

50-150 million is the General Range, being somewhat higher around the End.

Zor

[Frank Hipper]

I don't know how true that is, but I do know that Rome imported a great deal of grain from Egypt.
Enough to support a large, pan-european population? I doubt it, but definetly enough to supplement Italian production comfortably.

[Shortie]

I too was always under the impression that populations were going up. In any case, for a civilised society the actual number of soldiers is normally a pretty small proportion of the total population, what matters is how many workers are required to support them. Since heavy cavalry are much more expensive than infantry you're always giong to have fewer of them. Combine that with the much better organisation of the Roman Empire, the fact that is was one Empire rather than a bunch of squabbling states, and the completely different social structures, and I'm not convinced. THat said, the Dark Ages thing is overstated, there were advances in that time (Better ploughs, horse-collars, windmills and so on).

And anyway, Roman armies were roughly half light infantry and cavalry (granted many were barbarians), and medieval armies were mostly infantry fodder with a small core of cavalry. The arm of decision changed rather than the actual ratio of troops.

[CJvR]

I doubt it. The Roman military was switching from massed infantry to cavalry in the third century when the population of the empire was greater than ever. The feudal society resulting from the collapse of the empire was better suited to a small cavalry force rather than an armed proletariate, what noble ever wanted to arm the peasants. In the dark ages there was efforts to outright ban weapons that could threaten the dominance of the heavy noble cavalry. Also the population in Europe was at an all time high just before the black death struck and at that time the cavalry was still the dominating arm of the military.

[Guardsman Bass]

I also doubt it. Although cavalry did play a more prominent role, this was because it fitted with the types of elites that existed, not the population; the majority of the battles were still fought between mercenaries and/or conscripts from the peasantry on foot.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I read in an article a few days ago that one of the reasons contributing to the prominence of cavalry in the medieval armies is that Medieval Europe did not have the population base that Rome had in order to form large infantry armies. The article explained it partly as a breakdown in agricultural technology and Imperial infrastructure that supported large populations in the Dark Ages.

How true is this? I always assumed absent such factors as the Black Death and such that the European and Mediteranean populations were constantly growing. I know that contemporary texts greatly exagerate the numbers in armies but you routinely have medieval armies (at least the grand ones) numbering in the tens of thousands.

This argument is entirely counterintuitive, since cavalry requires much more acreage to support than infantry. Cavalry may have in fact caused limitations on the population, not the other way around, because the nobility had to reserve massive amounts of farmland to grow food for their horses which could otherwise support more people.

Anyway, the Roman Army for most of the Principate was about 500,000 troops, though it was higher at some points before that and proportionately to population higher in the late Empire when a lot of territory had been lost. The largest medieval European army was certainly that of the Kingdom of Hungary (which controlled most of the modern day Balkans at that time, and Moravia), which fielded up to 120,000 men against the Mongols.

[Montcalm]

50-150 million is the General Range, being somewhat higher around the End.

Zor

If i remember correctly,the Black Plague kille a third of Europes population in the middle ages,so 150 millions seems a little too high

[Axis Kast]

If I remember correctly from my Introduction to Medieval History course, Europe underwent a drastic temperature change around the time of the Empire's final collapse, resulting in widespread desertification throughout the North African provinces, which, along with Egypt, had been the chief source of grains for Rome.

Adding to this problem was the Romans' lack of agricultural innovation; the heavy plough was a European invention. It's hard but to conclude that when the weather turned foul, the number of people in Europe dropped. Especially when one factors in the political mess that the collapse of centralized rule would have imposed.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Adding to this problem was the Romans' lack of agricultural innovation; the heavy plough was a European invention. It's hard but to conclude that when the weather turned foul, the number of people in Europe dropped. Especially when one factors in the political mess that the collapse of centralized rule would have imposed.

Oh, there's no question the population dropped severely in the dark ages, but it started to recover again in the 11th century, so that by the 14th century Europe was at least as populated as it had been in Roman times.

[dragon]

well according to
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.html

pop of europe was about 27mil in 500AD with a nice drop in 650AD about 18mil. Hitting about 70mil in 1300's and dropping to 50mil by mid 1400's. So Europe had several declines in population


While http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/hand ... lation.htm Gives good pop of roman empire around 300 or so AD

WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
TOTAL: 22,000,000
34,000,000
56,000,000

[Straha]

I don't know how true that is, but I do know that Rome imported a great deal of grain from Egypt.

Yeah, but that didn't come about till much later. Up until the First Punic War Rome was entirely Italian based, and even after that it was mainly Sicilian and Italian grain that fed it for a good long time.

[Frank Hipper]

I don't know how true that is, but I do know that Rome imported a great deal of grain from Egypt.

Yeah, but that didn't come about till much later. Up until the First Punic War Rome was entirely Italian based, and even after that it was mainly Sicilian and Italian grain that fed it for a good long time.

Well, Stravo was asking about Imperial times...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

well according to
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.html

pop of europe was about 27mil in 500AD with a nice drop in 650AD about 18mil. Hitting about 70mil in 1300's and dropping to 50mil by mid 1400's. So Europe had several declines in population


While http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/hand ... lation.htm Gives good pop of roman empire around 300 or so AD

WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
TOTAL: 22,000,000
34,000,000
56,000,000

Note that in 300 AD the crisis of the third century had already taken place, including severe plague. So the actual figure of the Imperial population at its height was probably around 70 millions--briefly higher during the occupation of Dacia and Mesopotamia.