The Seven Kingdoms Least to Most Populous

[Alden Rothack]

Just now, James Arryn said:

Canada is bigger than the US but ~ 10% of it’s population. 

yes and less than 10% of it is usable farm land, the USA has an average density similar to medieval France, peak medieval england or Belgium/Burgundy only because the insanely high density of the populous parts make up for the huge parts (like Alaska) which are basically empty

Scotland and Ireland both reached more than three times as dense as Canada by 1300, England may have been denser than the USA by the same year.

Fun Fact, the Reach with Scotlands density would have slightly under 16 million by its self, 40 plus million if we go by the minimum estimate for england in 1300.

[Alden Rothack]

18 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Even if it is the sparest, the way you calculate sparsity is by taking the whole population, and looking how many people they are per square mile/km, the lower the number, the sparest the population is. So if Dorne is the sparest populated and is not that much bigger then the other regions, then to me it has the smallest population. Also Dorne as only 2 population center's that are of some sort of size, the Shadow City and Planky Town, both seem to be decent size city's but are not on any level close to a population center like King's Landing, that tells me that even if the population is concentrated, it is not concentrated to the point where all the population is in a couple urban centers. I would also had that to me Dorne is only a bit bigger then the Stormlands, but not both the Stormlands and Crownlands, and both are not 75% mountains and desert.

Dorne is over over sixty percent larger than the Stormlands and the Stormlands also lacks any cities

18 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

The Crownlands having the biggest city on the continent and a number of big towns like Duskendale and Hull makes me believe that the population of the region is quite high and is most likely the most densely populated area on the continent, so even with its small size it is most likely above Dorne and the Iron Islands, maybe even the Stormlands. And you might be right about the Iron Island but I would say that they is more on the side of Dorne being less populated then the Iron Island but It could go either way.

The Crownlands are specifically not the most fertile region, they are third after the Reach and the Riverlands, they could have a population density high enough that they edge out Dorne and the Stormlands but I doubt it since that would put the others improbably high

18 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Again you might be right but since it seems like large area of the North is completely empty, even in the south after a long summer (Look at the early chapters of the journey to Kings Landing, Robert comments on that), So while it as a large population I would say that it still not the most populated by some extent.

It is compared to the Crownlands, Riverlands and even the Stormlands however its also really big, Canada like density would put it at 12 million, Irelands medieval density would put it at nearly 20 million

18 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

And I would not be surprised if it actually had it, I mean the West should be full of small mining town, access to the Sea and one the biggest towns in the continent, and its lands are said to be hilly but they could still be farmable and support a big population, like a said population density is population divided by area, and the North is bloody huge, so lets say the North has a population density of lets say 20 people per km that would mean that the West would have around 100, not exactly a huge gap (the modern density of the Scottish Highlands for exemple is between 20 and 100, you cant actually see the difference on a map)

20 people per square mile would be closer and would give the Westerlands about Englands density in 1300 which is possible but unlikely.

18 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Again Im not only looking at the supposed population density but also at the presence of urban centers and how farmable is the land, if you have quite a few town and city's then the chances are that your population is quite high, and out of the 9 regions (7 kingdoms, the Iron Island, the North, the Vale, the Rock, the Reach, the Stormland and Dorne (technically a principality). The you had the Riverlands (traditionnaly its own kingdom but united with the iron island at the time of the conquest) and the Crownlands cut from both the Stormlands and Riverlands in addition to Aegon's original lands) only Dorne, the Stormlands and the Iron Islands dont have a city, the Riverlands get a pass because they have multiples big towns, something the others dont seem to have and more of a Status reason.

The problem with looking at urban centers is the North has one of the five cities despite generally being sparser than the Riverlands or Stormlands which do not, furthermore Kingslanding only exists because Aegon put it there, the larger settlements like Duskendale and Spice Town in the area are perhaps a twentieth the size of Kingslanding.

lastly the Isles have only a single smallish town despite mainitaining a huge fleet and at one time continent spanning empire

[Vaegon the dragonless]

12 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

Dorne is over over sixty percent larger than the Stormlands and the Stormlands also lacks any cities

Can I have a link to the map or figures you are using, because from most the maps I find I would say that Dorne is never more then 25/30% bigger then the Stormlands, also like I said, Dorne is 75% mountain and desert with almost no population so it still would have a small population. The lack of city in the Stormlands would put them in the bottom of the regions wich is what I did.

15 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

The Crownlands are specifically not the most fertile region, they are third after the Reach and the Riverlands, they could have a population density high enough that they edge out Dorne and the Stormlands but I doubt it since that would put the others improbably high

The Crownlands are really as fertile has the Riverlands since historically it mostly was in the same region. And I would say that yes the Crownlands are clearly more populated then the Stormlands or Dorne, Kings Landing its self is around Half a million, Duskendale is considered a large town and Driftmark can support to decent size towns. So clearly most of the Crownlands are populated and have a good number of town in addition to the largest city on the continent so yeah I would put them up there population wise. Also I think you might be a bit to focus on historical population numbers, G.R.R.M is not really that good with numbers and I doubt he took the time to look at the historical population numbers to make is world (especially in a pre-internet world).

30 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

It is compared to the Crownlands, Riverlands and even the Stormlands however its also really big, Canada like density would put it at 12 million, Irelands medieval density would put it at nearly 20 million

Not only compared to other places, it is full stop, most of the time we see travel in the North it is thru vast empty spaces, and you take the population density of Canada, but that is today where most of the population lives in city, it is not the case for the North, so yeah the North is empty, even along the Kings Road, the major artery to the south we seen very little villages and no town until the Winter Town wich is also empty. Every thing about the North screams that it is almost completely empty, but it is so large that it still has a big population.

34 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

20 people per square mile would be closer and would give the Westerlands about Englands density in 1300 which is possible but unlikely.

Actually the same density population as England for the West is almost perfect, since that is the historical parallel most often used, so yeah I could see that, and that would give the North 4 people per square mile, which when we see how empty it is is actually not that extravagant, so yeah I would still say that the West is a bit more populated then the North.

37 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

The problem with looking at urban centers is the North has one of the five cities despite generally being sparser than the Riverlands or Stormlands which do not, furthermore Kingslanding only exists because Aegon put it there, the larger settlements like Duskendale and Spice Town in the area are perhaps a twentieth the size of Kingslanding.

lastly the Isles have only a single smallish town despite mainitaining a huge fleet and at one time continent spanning empire

Yes but the Riverlands have a huge number of big city's at least compare to the other regions, towns like Maidenpool, Stoney Sept, Fairmarket, Harrentown, Harroway town could have develloped into city if the region was more stable and with a Charter, in opposition the North only has two towns after the city of White Harbour, and one of them is almost empty. Dorne has two and the Stormlands one. And Yes Kings Landing is ridiculously big, but it does not mean that all other towns in the area are glorified villages, they are town in there own right, Newark is still a decent size city even if it is just next to New York, we dont know exactly the size of those towns so they could still have ten's of thousand of people in them. 

The Iron Island have two, Pebbleton and Lordsport, but maintaining a huge fleet and having a huge empire is not really the most relevent of things, after all Belgium controlled the Congo, and I dont think anyone would make the argument that Belgium has a bigger or had a bigger population then the Congo.

[Alden Rothack]

24 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Can I have a link to the map or figures you are using, because from most the maps I find I would say that Dorne is never more then 25/30% bigger then the Stormlands, also like I said, Dorne is 75% mountain and desert with almost no population so it still would have a small population. The lack of city in the Stormlands would put them in the bottom of the regions wich is what I did.

https://atlasoficeandfireblog.wordpress.com/2020/03/28/the-size-of-westeros-revisited/

24 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

The Crownlands are really as fertile has the Riverlands since historically it mostly was in the same region. And I would say that yes the Crownlands are clearly more populated then the Stormlands or Dorne, Kings Landing its self is around Half a million, Duskendale is considered a large town and Driftmark can support to decent size towns. So clearly most of the Crownlands are populated and have a good number of town in addition to the largest city on the continent so yeah I would put them up there population wise. Also I think you might be a bit to focus on historical population numbers, G.R.R.M is not really that good with numbers and I doubt he took the time to look at the historical population numbers to make is world (especially in a pre-internet world).

Not only compared to other places, it is full stop, most of the time we see travel in the North it is thru vast empty spaces, and you take the population density of Canada, but that is today where most of the population lives in city, it is not the case for the North, so yeah the North is empty, even along the Kings Road, the major artery to the south we seen very little villages and no town until the Winter Town wich is also empty. Every thing about the North screams that it is almost completely empty, but it is so large that it still has a big population.

The North is not almost completely empty, it has villages of people up as far as Skagos, Bear Island and Last Health as opposed to Dorne where most of it really is empty of any settlements at all

24 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Actually the same density population as England for the West is almost perfect, since that is the historical parallel most often used, so yeah I could see that, and that would give the North 4 people per square mile, which when we see how empty it is is actually not that extravagant, so yeah I would still say that the West is a bit more populated then the North.

The North has about 20, the Westerlands would therefore have about a 100 which matches England at its medieval peak

24 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Yes but the Riverlands have a huge number of big city's at least compare to the other regions, towns like Maidenpool, Stoney Sept, Fairmarket, Harrentown, Harroway town could have develloped into city if the region was more stable and with a Charter, in opposition the North only has two towns after the city of White Harbour, and one of them is almost empty. Dorne has two and the Stormlands one. And Yes Kings Landing is ridiculously big, but it does not mean that all other towns in the area are glorified villages, they are town in there own right, Newark is still a decent size city even if it is just next to New York, we dont know exactly the size of those towns so they could still have ten's of thousand of people in them. 

They could but I don't think they do, ten thousand is fairly sizable and the majority of people don't live in the towns

24 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

The Iron Island have two, Pebbleton and Lordsport, but maintaining a huge fleet and having a huge empire is not really the most relevent of things, after all Belgium controlled the Congo, and I dont think anyone would make the argument that Belgium has a bigger or had a bigger population then the Congo.

having enough people to build and man the huge fleet but not many they starve before they can do so is relevant

The Iron Islands either has more land or a denser population than most of the other regions and the latter is easier to explain

[Vaegon the dragonless]

Thanks for the map, the ones I saw made it seem like the Stormlands was bigger, but if we go by yours I can see that Dorne is in fact bigger, but that it also has a lot less farmable land then the Stormlands, so I would still maintain that the Stormlands as a bigger population, also the Crownlands are all farmable lands except Cracklaw point so I would still say they have quite a few argument for high population.

25 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

The North is not almost completely empty, it has villages of people up as far as Skagos, Bear Island and Last Health as opposed to Dorne where most of it really is empty of any settlements at all

Yes there are some villages, but we see barely any of them during the extensive travels we see in the North, so even if you have a village every thousand miles, that would still be mainly empty, in contrast when Brienne travels the Crownlands it seem that not a day pass with out her seing a settlement, so yeah I would still say the North is virtually empty.

33 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

The North has about 20, the Westerlands would therefore have about a 100 which matches England at its medieval peak

It does not really change my point, if it is possible for medieval England it is most likely possible for the West. Heck it could be more since Lannisport is supposedly bigger then London was in 1300

37 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

They could but I don't think they do, ten thousand is fairly sizable and the majority of people don't live in the towns

I agree that tens of thousands is most likely too much for Duskendale, I was exagerating, but something in the low ten thousands would seem alright to me, and I agree most of the population is not in towns, that indicates that they are even more people outside of those that we dont see, but a big number of towns gives us  a idea of how well populated is a region.

39 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

having enough people to build and man the huge fleet but not many they starve before they can do so is relevant

The Iron Islands either has more land or a denser population than most of the other regions and the latter is easier to explain

Again the problem is G.R.R.M and numbers, he seem to do what he really wants to with the numbers of army's and population, I mean the number of people required to maintain a fleet like the Redwyne fleet or the Royal Fleet makes them almost impossible, same for the Ironborn, so I dont think it is really useful to use military numbers to look for population numbers, at least not on there own.

[Alden Rothack]

3 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Thanks for the map, the ones I saw made it seem like the Stormlands was bigger, but if we go by yours I can see that Dorne is in fact bigger, but that it also has a lot less farmable land then the Stormlands, so I would still maintain that the Stormlands as a bigger population, also the Crownlands are all farmable lands except Cracklaw point so I would still say they have quite a few argument for high population.

Yes there are some villages, but we see barely any of them during the extensive travels we see in the North, so even if you have a village every thousand miles, that would still be mainly empty, in contrast when Brienne travels the Crownlands it seem that not a day pass with out her seing a settlement, so yeah I would still say the North is virtually empty.

Its not that empty, though a village every thousand miles still gives you twelve thousand in the north

3 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

It does not really change my point, if it is possible for medieval England it is most likely possible for the West. Heck it could be more since Lannisport is supposedly bigger then London was in 1300

My only concern is that the Riverlands and Reach are likely even higher in that case

3 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

I agree that tens of thousands is most likely too much for Duskendale, I was exagerating, but something in the low ten thousands would seem alright to me, and I agree most of the population is not in towns, that indicates that they are even more people outside of those that we dont see, but a big number of towns gives us  a idea of how well populated is a region.

ten thousand on average sounds about right to me, 

3 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Again the problem is G.R.R.M and numbers, he seem to do what he really wants to with the numbers of army's and population, I mean the number of people required to maintain a fleet like the Redwyne fleet or the Royal Fleet makes them almost impossible, same for the Ironborn, so I dont think it is really useful to use military numbers to look for population numbers, at least not on there own.

The Royal Fleet has the Crownlands and Stormlands to recruit from, the Redwyne Fleet has the Arbour and the wider Reach.

the Iron Fleet has a cluster of rocks,

[Vaegon the dragonless]

1 hour ago, Alden Rothack said:

Its not that empty, though a village every thousand miles still gives you twelve thousand in the north

And it would still make most of the lands empty, especially if they are small village of a 100 or less.

1 hour ago, Alden Rothack said:

My only concern is that the Riverlands and Reach are likely even higher in that case

I mean yeah, they live in better lands, I would say that them having a population density like the ones of northen Italy or the low-country's would be about right, and since both of them have more land even if they had the same density they would still have more people.

1 hour ago, Alden Rothack said:

The Royal Fleet has the Crownlands and Stormlands to recruit from, the Redwyne Fleet has the Arbour and the wider Reach.

the Iron Fleet has a cluster of rocks,

That could explain the royal fleet but the Arbour is not that big tho, and I dont think they would recruit from the rest of the Reach because well, the Hightower's have they're own fleet and the Shield also have another fleet, so outside of the Arbour the recruiting pools seem already used by other navy's. And yeah again the Iron Island dont make any sense, forget about the people that man the ships, there is no wood on these island pretty damn hard to built ships without wood, and since the places that they could buy wood from are the same that they would raid...

[Gilbert Green]

I don't imagine Westeros as being well populated even by standards of medieval England.

I imagine isolated islands of civilization in the form of castles and their surrounding farmlands, tied together across much distance by a system of ancient roads, and by a raven network, and with wild people and wild animals in between.

I think the long winters help keep the population low.

And I think GRRM deliberately set out to make a medieval landscape so vast and wild that he could hide anything anywhere.

[Alden Rothack]

9 hours ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

And it would still make most of the lands empty, especially if they are small village of a 100 or less.

I mean yeah, they live in better lands, I would say that them having a population density like the ones of northen Italy or the low-country's would be about right, and since both of them have more land even if they had the same density they would still have more people.

That could explain the royal fleet but the Arbour is not that big tho, and I dont think they would recruit from the rest of the Reach because well, the Hightower's have they're own fleet and the Shield also have another fleet, so outside of the Arbour the recruiting pools seem already used by other navy's. And yeah again the Iron Island dont make any sense, forget about the people that man the ships, there is no wood on these island pretty damn hard to built ships without wood, and since the places that they could buy wood from are the same that they would raid...

the Arbour likely has a very percentage of its people in maritime professions, this was typical for the trading empires of europe and worked because trade made them incredibly wealthy and the islands in question were incredibly fertile, they probably get some people from further inland down the rivers but not the majority

its also in the reach so a very high population density and wealth is a given

the ironborn on the other hand must breed like rabbits to not only man the ships but replace losses, even if we assume they manage 10% despite lacking the stupendous wealth or incredibly rich farmland that places like the Arbour have then they would still to be as dense as the Stormlands or the Vale, if its 5% then they need double the density

There is absolutely ne way they have more than a million people and half a million would be overcrowded to the point where large scale piracy would be explained as necessary to stop them imploding (Ireland had half a million in three times the land and fought each other constantly)

[Gilbert Green]

On 2/8/2023 at 12:56 AM, Alden Rothack said:

Dorne has the sparest population not the lowest in absolute terms,

I'm just asking for a source for this claim. 

[Vaegon the dragonless]

5 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

the Arbour likely has a very percentage of its people in maritime professions, this was typical for the trading empires of europe and worked because trade made them incredibly wealthy and the islands in question were incredibly fertile, they probably get some people from further inland down the rivers but not the majority

its also in the reach so a very high population density and wealth is a given

the ironborn on the other hand must breed like rabbits to not only man the ships but replace losses, even if we assume they manage 10% despite lacking the stupendous wealth or incredibly rich farmland that places like the Arbour have then they would still to be as dense as the Stormlands or the Vale, if its 5% then they need double the density

There is absolutely ne way they have more than a million people and half a million would be overcrowded to the point where large scale piracy would be explained as necessary to stop them imploding (Ireland had half a million in three times the land and fought each other constantly)

The problem with the Arbour is that its main product, wine, is a very labour intensive industry, so for them to have that industry in addition to a navy, well the population on that island must be absolutly massive, to the point where they would have to import almost all they're food, it just does not really work, sure they most likely have the money but still hard to believe, at least for me. And sure it would have high density but to have that population on that small island then it should have at least one city the size of White Arbour but it does not seem so.

Again I agree that the Iron Islands is a problem, and again i would say that even if ot does not work the iron island has that kind of population because Georges said so. Even if does not make sense, after all decades long winter's are also impossible but we can accept those.

[Alden Rothack]

8 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

I'm just asking for a source for this claim. 

Dorne is stated to be the least populous

which could mean smallest in absolute terms, sparsest population or botn

its mostly empty so i would say its sparsest with a good chance of also being the smallest in absolute terms

[Alden Rothack]

2 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

The problem with the Arbour is that its main product, wine, is a very labour intensive industry, so for them to have that industry in addition to a navy, well the population on that island must be absolutly massive, to the point where they would have to import almost all they're food, it just does not really work, sure they most likely have the money but still hard to believe, at least for me. And sure it would have high density but to have that population on that small island then it should have at least one city the size of White Arbour but it does not seem so.

they might not have the room for cities, cities require large amounts of excess agriculture to exist.

Belgium had one of the highest densities in medieval europe despite no major settlements just a shit ton of farms

Venice and Genoa both managed to grow enough food to export it to the Byzantines despite being islands barely visible on the map and man 300 odd war galleys in the process

its possible to have silly high populations if you have metric fuck tons of gold.

2 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Again I agree that the Iron Islands is a problem, and again i would say that even if ot does not work the iron island has that kind of population because Georges said so. Even if does not make sense, after all decades long winter's are also impossible but we can accept those.

 

[Gilbert Green]

9 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

Dorne is stated to be the least populous

which could mean smallest in absolute terms, sparsest population or botn

its mostly empty so i would say its sparsest with a good chance of also being the smallest in absolute terms

If we are both just guessing, then my guess would be different from yours.  I think it is least populous in absolute terms.  I think the North has a larger population, but a sparser one spread out over a larger area.

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.  I just need a reason.  But if we're both just guessing, then that's fine.

[Alden Rothack]

1 minute ago, Gilbert Green said:

If we are both just guessing, then my guess would be different from yours.  I think it is least populous in absolute terms.  I think the North has a larger population, but a sparser one spread out over a larger area.

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.  I just need a reason.  But if we're both just guessing, then that's fine.

I think differently because the North has people everywhere even if not that many, enough that even the northen most parts can raise significant forces. this isn't possible if the average density is lower than Dorne

Dorne on the other hand is mostly empty desert, in order to be the smallest in absolute terms it has to be the thinnest people as well because its the third biggest

[Vaegon the dragonless]

13 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

they might not have the room for cities, cities require large amounts of excess agriculture to exist.

Belgium had one of the highest densities in medieval europe despite no major settlements just a shit ton of farms

Venice and Genoa both managed to grow enough food to export it to the Byzantines despite being islands barely visible on the map and man 300 odd war galleys in the process

its possible to have silly high populations if you have metric fuck tons of gold.

 

I well then comes the problem of where does all the people that work in the vineyards and industry's of wine ? And those mariners ? So the Arbour would at least need a few very large town that put together would at least equal one of the three great city's of Westeros.

I disagree with your idea that Belgium had no great city's in the medieval ages, I live nearby and from the top of my head Bruges, Ypres, Tournai, Lille, Antwerp, Courtrai or Gent where all pretty important urban centers, in fact the flemish city's are hugely important in french, english and germans history because of they're importance.

Venice and Genoa both add large interlands and imported food too, they where traders, and most of the time people turn to trade when farming is not sufficient because the lands are not good enought. They also produced food and not a particular kind of crop that needs a lot of work but cant actually feed that people easely. And both those city's imported food too, as well as trading it, so I dont think the two situation are comparable.

Yes it is, but since you dint seem convince that the Westerlands, who live on that shit ton of gold, would have a big population I tought you would not think of it a justification but that could be a reason.

[Alden Rothack]

3 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

I well then comes the problem of where does all the people that work in the vineyards and industry's of wine ? And those mariners ? So the Arbour would at least need a few very large town that put together would at least equal one of the three great city's of Westeros.

I disagree with your idea that Belgium had no great city's in the medieval ages, I live nearby and from the top of my head Bruges, Ypres, Tournai, Lille, Antwerp, Courtrai or Gent where all pretty important urban centers, in fact the flemish city's are hugely important in french, english and germans history because of they're importance.

very important yes but not very big

3 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Venice and Genoa both add large interlands and imported food too, they where traders, and most of the time people turn to trade when farming is not sufficient because the lands are not good enought. They also produced food and not a particular kind of crop that needs a lot of work but cant actually feed that people easely. And both those city's imported food too, as well as trading it, so I dont think the two situation are comparable.

fair enough, its still much comparable than the Ironborn

3 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Yes it is, but since you dint seem convince that the Westerlands, who live on that shit ton of gold, would have a big population I tought you would not think of it a justification but that could be a reason.

I do think the Westerlands has a high population both in density and absolute terms I just think the Reach and Riverlands are higher

[Vaegon the dragonless]

6 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

very important yes but not very big

Oh they where also quite big, especially for northen europe, London had around 80 000 people in the fourteenth century, Ghent had 60 000, Bruges 45 000 and at least 8 other city's where around 10 000 people. Venice had around 100 000 people in the 15th century and Genoa was about 85 000, so clearly the flemish city's were not small, sure they were bigger city's but that many big to medium sized city's in a small area is important, in fact almost 45% of the population of Flanders was urban in the 14th century.

18 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

fair enough, its still much comparable than the Ironborn

Yes and no, I mean both city's were absolutly part of the international system of trade, the ironborn in contrast are at the extreme fringe of it, that makes a big difference.

20 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

I do think the Westerlands has a high population both in density and absolute terms I just think the Reach and Riverlands are higher

Yes we agreed on that, the point about it was that you put the North has having a bigger population then the Westerlands, but the Westerlands are behind the Reach and Riverlands for sure.

[Alden Rothack]

2 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Oh they where also quite big, especially for northen europe, London had around 80 000 people in the fourteenth century, Ghent had 60 000, Bruges 45 000 and at least 8 other city's where around 10 000 people. Venice had around 100 000 people in the 15th century and Genoa was about 85 000, so clearly the flemish city's were not small, sure they were bigger city's but that many big to medium sized city's in a small area is important, in fact almost 45% of the population of Flanders was urban in the 14th century.

thats crazy, I wonder if the Crownlands is similar in that respect

2 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Yes and no, I mean both city's were absolutly part of the international system of trade, the ironborn in contrast are at the extreme fringe of it, that makes a big difference.

Yes we agreed on that, the point about it was that you put the North has having a bigger population then the Westerlands, but the Westerlands are behind the Reach and Riverlands for sure.

The Westerlands might have more, I don't think so though I am convinced that the Westerlands has the third densest, its just the North is so big it might still have more over all. I'm not as sure of that as I was however

How much higher do you think the Reach or Riverlands are?

[Vaegon the dragonless]

15 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

thats crazy, I wonder if the Crownlands is similar in that respect

Yeah the importance of Flanders was in trade but also in population, thats how they managed to play all three main powers of the time against each other, in fact two of the groups part of the crusades where from the broader low lands region, 1 from Flanders it self. And I think that is also the fact for the Crownlands, tho at a lesser extent, that is why I put the Crownlands so far up my list and migth actually be higher in my mind.

15 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

The Westerlands might have more, I don't think so though I am convinced that the Westerlands has the third densest, its just the North is so big it might still have more over all. I'm not as sure of that as I was however

Like I said, I think the North is just that much more empty then you think it is, but that is only a point of view.

15 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

How much higher do you think the Reach or Riverlands are?

I believe that both are quite a bit more populated then the Westerlands, I would say maybe the Riverlands have only a little more population density but they are quite put down by the fact they are in the middle of conflicts, but after a long period of peace and in summer I would say that the Riverlands have maybe 1,5 to 2 times the population of the Westerlands. The Reach is most likely absolutly massive, I mean to field 80 000 men, the base population must be pretty massive, I would say that the Reach as at least 2 times the population of the Riverlands.