Ser Arthur Hightower Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Cities and towns-King's Landing: 500,000 (confirmed)-Oldtown: 450,000-Lannisport: 250,000-Gulltown: 200,000-White Harbor: 100,000-Barrowton: 30,000-Lord Harroway's Town: 40,000-Duskendale: 60,000-Ashford: 80,000-Grassy Vale: 40,000 I think we can assume King's Landing is a bit smaller than that, Tyrion did exaggerate a lot on that chapter. I always got the impression that there was a big drop after Oldtown, and another fairly big drop after Lannisport: KL 400-450,000Oldtown 300,000Lannisport 100,000Gulltown and Whiteharbor ~50,000 I really think there is too big a drop after that, I really can't picture all of these other towns being more than 5-10k, if the Ashfords, Meadows, Rootes and Rykkers had that many citizens and maybe ten times as many smallfolk in their lands then they wouldn't be mid-low level houses. There really doesn't seem to be anywhere with a popuation between 15 and 40,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I agree. The North to me seems far more like Medieval Russia than Scandinavia. Applying my earlier figures using Russia this time gives, (((17,840,000/2)/3)*2.8)/2 = 4,162,666. Which makes far more sense to me. What do you think? My problem with this though is 1.4 per km^2 is an extremely small population density spread over a very large area. Less than Mongolia at 1.7km^2 and they're almost all concentrated in one city. I would imagine organized society would struggle to evolve or survive at such low densities. An oversight by Martin? Almost certainly.I didn't follow all your calculations above, but I think you may be using the wrong size for Russia. Medieval Russia was much smaller than today. In fact, all of Siberia was excluded, which took away about 70% of Russia's size, if memory serves.So all of the Russian population was located in only about 30% of its current territory. And that population was higher than pretty much any other European nation, if I recall.So that will push up the density significantly.As for the North - I have always believed in a 6 million population. As a compromise position I have settled on around 4.5 million, but that would mean an incredibly low density of around 4.5 per square mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I think we can assume King's Landing is a bit smaller than that, Tyrion did exaggerate a lot on that chapter. I always got the impression that there was a big drop after Oldtown, and another fairly big drop after Lannisport: KL 400-450,000Oldtown 300,000Lannisport 100,000Gulltown and Whiteharbor ~50,000 I really think there is too big a drop after that, I really can't picture all of these other towns being more than 5-10k, if the Ashfords, Meadows, Rootes and Rykkers had that many citizens and maybe ten times as many smallfolk in their lands then they wouldn't be mid-low level houses. There really doesn't seem to be anywhere with a popuation between 15 and 40,000.Yes, that is pretty much my estimate too. Martin seems to have indicated if I recall, that White Harbor and Gulltown have populations in the multiple tens of thousands, with no other place reaching ten thousand. Towns therefore number in the single digit thousands.Lannisport I would perhaps push to 150k as Martin stated there was a big gap both above and below Lannisport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwasfrozen Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I didn't follow all your calculations above, but I think you may be using the wrong size for Russia. Medieval Russia was much smaller than today. In fact, all of Siberia was excluded, which took away about 70% of Russia's size, if memory serves.So all of the Russian population was located in only about 30% of its current territory. And that population was higher than pretty much any other European nation, if I recall.So that will push up the density significantly.As for the North - I have always believed in a 6 million population. As a compromise position I have settled on around 4.5 million, but that would mean an incredibly low density of around 4.5 per square mile. I'm using data taken from a study I found on medieval population densities in the year 1300. In this paper, page 7. Source: http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Papers/MEDIEVAL_GROWTH.pdf Only European Russia is used in the study and the authors came to the conclusion of 2.8 people per km^2. I find applying the densities given in the paper to Westeros gives an answer inconsistent with what we know about Westeros for example. If we determine the population of Westeros using these figures we get: Area of westeros = roughly 1/2 area of South America = 8,920,000 km^2Pop density of Europe including Russia in 1300 = 9.0 per km^2Pop of Westeros = (8,920,000*9.0) = 80,280,000 Which we know to be incorrect, however I've noticed if we half the pop density we get an answer much more in line with our rough knowledge of the continent. In this case pop of westeros = 40,140,000 Which makes much more sense. Applying this logic to the North: Area of the North = 1/3 of Westeros = 1/6 of South America = 2,973,333 km^2Pop density of Russia in 1300 = 2.8Half pop density of Russia in 1300 = 1.4Pop of the North = ( 2,973,333)*1.4 = 4,162,666 Which also fits in with the general consensus of the population of the North being between 4 and 5 million people. If I knew the area of the other kingdoms I could make approximations of their populations too. It's just a matter of saying well Reach is similar to France, Westerlands similar to England, Spain similar to Dorne, Riverlands similar to Balkans, Crownlands similar to Northern Italy, Stomrlands similar to Grmany etc. Overall though I think the North is much more similar to Russia than Scandanavia, both culturally and geographically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennis of the Brown Shield Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I always considered the North to have a population density similar to medival Scndanavia though culturally much closer toTsarist Russia. According to this paper the density of Scandanavia was 2.1 in 1300. Source: http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Papers/MEDIEVAL_GROWTH.pdf page 7 We also know that Westeros is roughly 1/2 the size of South America and the North is roughy 1/3 the size of Westeros so 1/6*area of South America is 2,973,333 km^2 pretty massive but not the largest country that has even existed. If we apply the 2.1 pop per km^2 to this we get 6,243,999 which seems high to me, what do you guys think? Actually I've been playing around with the numbers and if you half the population densities given in the article and apply them to westerosi kingdoms they begin to fit the more established consensous among fans. So for example Westeros as a whole would be ((17,840,000/2)*9)/2 = 40,140,000And the North would be 3,122,000 Which makes much more sense and leads me to conclude Martin seriously under populated Westeros by about a factor of two, intentionally or oversight? To me Westeros seems dangerously underpopulated, especially in the North, to the extent where I would imagine organized society would struggle to evolve or maintain itself in reality. How is the North "culturally much closer to Tsarist Russia" exactly? I struggle to see any comparison at all, to be honest. I don't think it is much like Scandinavia either, or any other historical medieval country for that matter. But definitely not Tsarist Russia. Yes. The Westerlands can raise a higher percentage of troops than virtually any other kingdom, due to their wealth. This makes people overestimate their population.So, with around 45k troops raised to date - inclusive of untrained dregs, and foreign mercenaries - if you go with a 2% mobilization figure for them this gives them around 2.5m people.Let's say they can raise 50k total. And their mobilization rate is only 1.75%. This still only gives them around 3m people.Then we take the North in contrast. They probably struggle to reach even a 1% mobilization rate. And if they can raise 40k-45k men, that takes their population to 4m-4.5m - spread over a very large area though.And once again. The North is not Scandinavia. The Lands Beyond the Wall are Scandinavia. Scandinavia does not have good medieval farmland at its northernmost extremity. The North does. Nor does Scandinavia have 600 miles of heavy forest beyond its Northern border. The North does.I also highly doubt that Scandinavia had a city of tens of thousands of people in the Middle Ages. Which the North does.White Harbor is as big as London was in the Middle Ages.This is not true. Scandinavia had good Iron Age farmland at its -almost- northernmost extremity. For example the largest Viking Age longhouse excavated to date (about 270 feet long) was from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lofoten ,and shows that even an area this far north could be a significant power base for a petty king of some sort. As for the forest it goes up pretty far north too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Inarihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Inari#mediaviewer/File:Inari_lake.jpglooks pretty forested to me. White Harbour being as big as medieval London is pure conjecture, its size is never stated nor even implied in the books or by GRRM, beyond being stated to be very small compared to King's Landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwasfrozen Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 How is the North "culturally much closer to Tsarist Russia" exactly? I struggle to see any comparison at all, to be honest. I don't think it is much like Scandinavia either, or any other historical medieval country for that matter. But definitely not Tsarist Russia. You serious? A vast and sparsely populated land, most of the population residing in ports, long harsh winters, almost impossible to invade, last part of the continent to leave the old religion and convert to the new, religiously and culturally separate from the rest of the continent, capital situated in the middle of a giant landmass days from the nearest port, animal pelts are main export, a history of vicious autocratic rulers who rule with an iron fist and lords who have much more power than lords in smaller kingdoms due to the difficulty in communicating over such large distances. Now am I talking about Tsarist Russia or the North? Like it or not it's obvious the North was based on Russia... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennis of the Brown Shield Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 You serious? A vast and sparsely populated land, most of the population residing in ports, long harsh winters, almost impossible to invade, last part of the continent to leave the old religion and convert to the new, religiously and culturally separate from the rest of the continent, capital situated in the middle of a giant landmass days from the nearest port, animal pelts are main export, a history of vicious autocratic rulers who rule with an iron fist and lords who have much more power than lords in smaller kingdoms due to the difficulty in communicating over such large distances. Now am I talking about Tsarist Russia or the North? Like it or not it's obvious the North was based on Russia... * The Tsardom of Russia barely had any seaports at all, and most of its population definitely didn't reside there. * Neither the Slavs, Huns, Varangians, Mongols, or a bunch of different Turkic peoples, found the country almost impossible to invade. * It was not the last part of Europe to convert to Christianity, hell Lithuania even had a significant Pagan population into the 17th century. Besides the North hasn't converted to the Southern religion anyway, and doesn't seem likely to. * Religiously and culturally it was influenced a lot by the Byzantine Empire, which is where their Orthodox Christianity comes from. It was certainly very different from Western Europe, but not all of Europe. *The capital being situated days from the nearest port isn't particularly strange when there are barely any ports. * Animal pelts were exported from a lot of Northern Europe, not just Russia. * How do autocratic rulers and powerful vassal lords even go together? Besides the Starks seem to be pretty normal feudal-esque lords. They don't seem any more autocratic than other great houses. You are right that Russia was sparsely populated and is cold during winters. That's hardly uniquely Russian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwasfrozen Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 * The Tsardom of Russia barely had any seaports at all, and most of its population definitely didn't reside there. * Neither the Slavs, Huns, Varangians, Mongols, or a bunch of different Turkic peoples, found the country almost impossible to invade. * It was not the last part of Europe to convert to Christianity, hell Lithuania even had a significant Pagan population into the 17th century. Besides the North hasn't converted to the Southern religion anyway, and doesn't seem likely to. * Religiously and culturally it was influenced a lot by the Byzantine Empire, which is where their Orthodox Christianity comes from. It was certainly very different from Western Europe, but not all of Europe. *The capital being situated days from the nearest port isn't particularly strange when there are barely any ports. * Animal pelts were exported from a lot of Northern Europe, not just Russia. * How do autocratic rulers and powerful vassal lords even go together? Besides the Starks seem to be pretty normal feudal-esque lords. They don't seem any more autocratic than other great houses. You are right that Russia was sparsely populated and is cold during winters. That's hardly uniquely Russian. Granted highly populated ports came after the Tsardom, but when Russia got them they made sure to populate them. St Petersburg, Novorussiya, Crimea. None of those peoples invaded from Western Europe, Western/non Russian Europe being the real life equivalent of Southern Westeros. It wasn't but it was one of the last parts of Europe. It was also religiously and culturally distinct from the rest of Europe who until the reformation were almost entirely Roman Catholic. Roman Catholic being the real life equivalent to the Seven. The Capital being situated in the middle of a vast landmass so far from any port is very peculiar and in real life is a phenomenon left over from the Mongols. Russia was the largest exporter. Also I don't see how other countries exporting animal pelts invalidates my comparison. How do they go together? Russian history, that's how. Seriously tough the two aren't mutually exclusive concepts, the lords exercise greater than average control over their lands as long as they don't threaten the power of their lord who would respond in horrific butchery. The Starks as they are now are pretty normal fuedal lords, similar to Southern lords but it's heavily implied in the books, story of the wolf's den, Bran's weir visions, the faces of the lords in Winterfell crypt, that the Starks of old were autocratic and sometimes vicious lords who ruled with an iron fist. Note I'm not trying to say the North = Russia, they obviously aren't exactly the same but geographically the North is more close to Russia than any other medieval country and certainly seems to be based on it. Well, it and Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennis of the Brown Shield Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Granted highly populated ports came after the Tsardom, but when Russia got them they made sure to populate them. St Petersburg, Novorussiya, Crimea. None of those peoples invaded from Western Europe, Western/non Russian Europe being the real life equivalent of Southern Westeros. It wasn't but it was one of the last parts of Europe. It was also religiously and culturally distinct from the rest of Europe who until the reformation were almost entirely Roman Catholic. Roman Catholic being the real life equivalent to the Seven. The Capital being situated in the middle of a vast landmass so far from any port is very peculiar and in real life is a phenomenon left over from the Mongols. Russia was the largest exporter. Also I don't see how other countries exporting animal pelts invalidates my comparison. How do they go together? Russian history, that's how. Seriously tough the two aren't mutually exclusive concepts, the lords exercise greater than average control over their lands as long as they don't threaten the power of their lord who would respond in horrific butchery. The Starks as they are now are pretty normal fuedal lords, similar to Southern lords but it's heavily implied in the books, story of the wolf's den, Bran's weir visions, the faces of the lords in Winterfell crypt, that the Starks of old were autocratic and sometimes vicious lords who ruled with an iron fist. Note I'm not trying to say the North = Russia, they obviously aren't exactly the same but geographically the North is more close to Russia than any other medieval country and certainly seems to be based on it. Well, it and Scotland. *That was in the 1700-1800s though. Really different from where the North is at. *How many Western Europeans have actually tried invading Russia though? Napoleon and Hitler, can't think of anyone else. *Yeah, but so were the Balkans, Greece, etc. *Winterfell is not very much of a capital either, just a castle. While Moscow on the other hand was placed far inland (along with basically all of Russia at the time) it was still connected to an important river, it wasn't just out in the middle of nowhere. *Well because fur exports from the North doesn't make it inspired by Russia if very many people other than Russians also exported fur. Also the Russian dominance of the fur trade came after they started colonizing Siberia, which they didn't do during the medieval period. *You can find harsh or vicious rulers throughout history basically anywhere. Besides, nothing the old Starks did sounds particularly out of the ordinary compared to early medieval and earlier history. They didn't have any totally crazy Ivan the Terrible characters either as far as I know. In terms of clothes, military technology, architecture etc it doesn't really seem similar either. I don't think the Stark cavalry is supposed to look like this http://kachi-snimka.info/images/bfi1291590435q.jpg Geographically it might be a bit similar, I don't know, but culturally it really isn't. Your arguments in support for that are very general and could be applied just as well to many other countries. If you want to do a real comparison there then it is Scotland, as you say, but with a heavy dose of some sort of ancient Celtic stuff and a bunch of assorted fantasy mixed in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Arthur Hightower Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Free cities, because why not. Volantis ~1,000,000-800,000BraavosPentosMyrTyroshLysNorvosQohorLorath <200,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennis of the Brown Shield Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Free cities, because why not. Volantis ~1,000,000-800,000 Braavos Pentos Myr Tyrosh Lys Norvos Qohor Lorath <200,000 Volantis was once the most populated of the Free Cities, but the Tyrion chapters make it clear that it has declined heavily in population and wealth since then. With entire parts of the city being deserted. Braavos is probably the largest as of ASOIAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.