Jump to content

The Seven Kingdoms Least to Most Populous


Alden Rothack

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

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.

the Crownlands is pretty small, I mean the Riverlands is twice the size and more fertile

4 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

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.

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if The Riverlands did have twice the population of the Westerlands given that its over a third larger

the Reach has double the population of the Riverlands at the minimum just from the difference in size plus a little bit more fertile lands due to not getting devastated all the time

Which is nuts, the Reach probably has half the people in the Seven Kingdoms in it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

the Crownlands is pretty small, I mean the Riverlands is twice the size and more fertile

Yes the Crownlands are small, but only compared to the other kingdoms, if we compare the Crownlands to Flanders, the modern day Flanders is about ten times smaller then the Crownlands, and modern day Flanders is bigger then historical Flanders, so if the Crownlands has a population density close to that of Flanders its population could be pretty massive.

15 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

I wouldn't be surprised if The Riverlands did have twice the population of the Westerlands given that its over a third larger

the Reach has double the population of the Riverlands at the minimum just from the difference in size plus a little bit more fertile lands due to not getting devastated all the time

Which is nuts, the Reach probably has half the people in the Seven Kingdoms in it.

Yeah the Reach is most likely absolutely massive, and could one alone almost any combination of two other kingdoms, the fact that it is most of the time pretty fractured is at the same time the bane and savior of the King's of Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

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

I don't agree with any of this.

- The North does not "have people everywhere".  It has people some places.  Just like Dorne has.   The North also has vast tracts of empty wilderness.  The only difference is that in Dorne, some of the empty wilderness consists of sandy desert, which is the sort of place where it is extra obvious that people cannot live on a permanent basis.  But even with desert, it may be that desert on a large-scale map may be dotted with oases and wells, where people can indeed live permanently.

- Dorne is not shown to be "mostly empty desert".  Dorne consists of a mix of coastlands, riverlands, mountains, and valleys -- all in a balmy climate -- and yes, some sandy desert as well.  If you exclude the Red Mountains, maybe "most" of the remainder might be desert; but that leaves plenty of room for dense habitation in the habitable areas along coasts and rivers.

- No, it does NOT have to be thinnest peopled to be smallest.   The North has a vastly larger land area.  It can indeed be less densely populated than Dorne, and still have significantly more people overall than Dorne.

- The North can raise significant forces?  So can Dorne.  Even if the North can raise more, and this somehow reflects its population, you still have to account for the North's vastly larger land area.

- On my large-scale map in DANCE, the North has only 16 named settlements, including 3 wall castles.  Dorne has 17 named settlements (excluding the prison island and the Tower of Joy).  This despite the North having a vastly larger land area.   Obviously, there are countless minor settlements and people that a large-scale map does not reflect, but this still gives a general impression of greater population density for Dorne.

I think the North is the least dense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Yes the Crownlands are small, but only compared to the other kingdoms, if we compare the Crownlands to Flanders, the modern day Flanders is about ten times smaller then the Crownlands, and modern day Flanders is bigger then historical Flanders, so if the Crownlands has a population density close to that of Flanders its population could be pretty massive.

It likely ends up in the middle because the Westerlands, Riverlands and Reach are a lot bigger and at least as populated

14 hours ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Yeah the Reach is most likely absolutely massive, and could one alone almost any combination of two other kingdoms, the fact that it is most of the time pretty fractured is at the same time the bane and savior of the King's of Westeros.

Honestly the Tyrells, Hightowers, Redwynes and Marcher Lords have a large enough population to be kingdoms of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I don't agree with any of this.

- The North does not "have people everywhere".  It has people some places.  Just like Dorne has.   The North also has vast tracts of empty wilderness.  The only difference is that in Dorne, some of the empty wilderness consists of sandy desert, which is the sort of place where it is extra obvious that people cannot live on a permanent basis.  But even with desert, it may be that desert on a large-scale map may be dotted with oases and wells, where people can indeed live permanently.

- Dorne is not shown to be "mostly empty desert".  Dorne consists of a mix of coastlands, riverlands, mountains, and valleys -- all in a balmy climate -- and yes, some sandy desert as well.  If you exclude the Red Mountains, maybe "most" of the remainder might be desert; but that leaves plenty of room for dense habitation in the habitable areas along coasts and rivers.

- No, it does NOT have to be thinnest peopled to be smallest.   The North has a vastly larger land area.  It can indeed be less densely populated than Dorne, and still have significantly more people overall than Dorne.

Actually it does because its larger than the Stormlands or the Vale by over half therefore it cannot be the smallest without being the thinnest peopled or near enough that even Measters cannot tell otherwise,

8 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

- The North can raise significant forces?  So can Dorne.  Even if the North can raise more, and this somehow reflects its population, you still have to account for the North's vastly larger land area.

- On my large-scale map in DANCE, the North has only 16 named settlements, including 3 wall castles.  Dorne has 17 named settlements (excluding the prison island and the Tower of Joy).  This despite the North having a vastly larger land area.   Obviously, there are countless minor settlements and people that a large-scale map does not reflect, but this still gives a general impression of greater population density for Dorne.

I think the North is the least dense

The North has fairly large populations as far north as Last Hearth and Bear Island, on the other hand Sandstone is the only castle on the map which isn't next to either the coast or a river, in the centre of a area as large as some of the regions by itself

Dorne being the least dense fits both the information and the statement of it being the least populous, the North having significantly fewer than Dorne puts them too low or Dorne too high, The Stormlands and the Vale still have to have more to fit either meaning of populous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

Actually it does because its larger than the Stormlands or the Vale by over half therefore it cannot be the smallest without being the thinnest peopled or near enough that even Measters cannot tell otherwise,

You are making no sense.  You cannot cannot prove Dorne is less dense than the North, by arguing that it is less dense than the Vale and the Stormlands.   I agree it is less dense than the Vale and the Stormlands.    What about the North?

23 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

The North has fairly large populations as far north as Last Hearth and Bear Island, on the other hand Sandstone is the only castle on the map which isn't next to either the coast or a river, in the centre of a area as large as some of the regions by itself

We have no information that the Last Hearth population is larger than that of Standstone.

That Dorne even has settlements in the desert does not prove it is more sparsely populated than the North.

Meanwhile, the North has resource-rich areas, such as Sea Dragon Point, that are virtually empty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gilbert Green said:

You are making no sense.  You cannot cannot prove Dorne is less dense than the North, by arguing that it is less dense than the Vale and the Stormlands.   I agree it is less dense than the Vale and the Stormlands.    What about the North?

It is stated to be the least populous, in order for this to be the case it has to have fewer people than the much smaller kingdoms, given that its the third largest this requires a low density, pushing the North even lower than Dorne isn't feasible given that the majority of The Norths population is in the southern half and it still has three major lords plus the Skagosi and the Mountain clans which are located in the 'empty' parts of the northern half

1 hour ago, Gilbert Green said:

We have no information that the Last Hearth population is larger than that of Standstone.

We know that they are major lords despite being the closest mainland house to the wall and losing a large chunk of land to the New Gift, even the Gift is described as good farmland which is not the case with the deserts of Dorne

1 hour ago, Gilbert Green said:

That Dorne even has settlements in the desert does not prove it is more sparsely populated than the North.

Meanwhile, the North has resource-rich areas, such as Sea Dragon Point, that are virtually empty.

but the empty parts of the north are much smaller in relative terms

sea dragonpoint is much smaller than the desert around Sandstone but located in a kingdom near three times the size

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

It is stated to be the least populous, in order for this to be the case it has to have fewer people than the much smaller kingdoms,

If "least populous" means fewer people overall, then yes, fewer people means fewer people.  I agree that Dorne has the fewest people.  But I think that the North, while having signficiantly more people, is also significantly less dense.

11 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

given that its the third largest this requires a low density,

Dorne being third largest in size only requires it to be less dense than the smaller kingdoms.  This logic does not apply to the North, which is vastly larger in size.  It can have a larger population and STILL be less dense. 

11 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

pushing the North even lower than Dorne isn't feasible given that the majority of The Norths population is in the southern half

Even the southern half is almost empty.  Remember this line? 

"Bogs and forests and fields, and scarcely a decent inn north of the Neck. I've never seen such a vast emptiness.  Where are all your people?"

And that's in the South.  What do you think it's like further north, where things are even emptier?  And that's what it's like along the Kingsroad.  What do you think it is like when you leave the Kingsroad?

11 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

and it still has three major lords plus the Skagosi and the Mountain clans which are located in the 'empty' parts of the northern half

What is the point of mentioning Skagos?  Skagos only adds more land area to the North.  And what is the population density of Skagos?  Much less than that of Dorne, I'm sure. Cold and icy mountains instead of balmy, sunny mountains.   If the population density of the North were even close to being as high as that of Dorne, including Skagos would only reduce it.

What is the point of mentioning Mountain Clans?  As their name implies, they live in mountains.  Dorne has lots of mountains too, the difference being, once again, that Dornish mountains are warmer, sunnier, and friendlier to human life.  Again, I am sure the Dornish mountains have greater propulation density than the icy mountains of the Far North.

11 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

We know that they are major lords despite being the closest mainland house to the wall and losing a large chunk of land to the New Gift,

The large scale maps show the castles of the major lords and other castles of significance.  There is no space for the minor lords.  Sandstone and Last Hearth are both major castles of major lords.  Is Umber more major?  Probably.  Can he marshall more troops?  Probably.  But he also controls a vastly larger territory.  And that territory may be less dense, even if it ultimately amounts to more people.

If the vast Umber territories are on the whole less dense than Dorne, then once again, mentioning the Umbers adds nothing to your argument.

Last Hearth is called Last Hearth for a reason.  There is little if anything north of it.  It is positioned where it is for a reason, to protect its lands to the South from wildling raiders.

11 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

even the Gift is described as good farmland which is not the case with the deserts of Dorne

The Gift is virtually empty, having been depopulated by wildling raids.  And the wildlings don't live there either.  It adds nothing to your argument.

11 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

but the empty parts of the north are much smaller in relative terms

sea dragonpoint is much smaller than the desert around Sandstone but located in a kingdom near three times the size

Sandstone territory is not empty.  It contains, at the very least, Sandstone itself, and no doubt other settlements as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

If "least populous" means fewer people overall, then yes, fewer people means fewer people.  I agree that Dorne has the fewest people.  But I think that the North, while having signficiantly more people, is also significantly less dense.

Dorne being third largest in size only requires it to be less dense than the smaller kingdoms.  This logic does not apply to the North, which is vastly larger in size.  It can have a larger population and STILL be less dense. 

Yes and enough fewer that the smaller kingdoms still have fewer overall

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Even the southern half is almost empty.  Remember this line? 

"Bogs and forests and fields, and scarcely a decent inn north of the Neck. I've never seen such a vast emptiness.  Where are all your people?"

And that's in the South.  What do you think it's like further north, where things are even emptier?  And that's what it's like along the Kingsroad.  What do you think it is like when you leave the Kingsroad?

Firstly probably nowhere near as empty as Robert or you suppose since the areas in question hold the lands of some of the major lords of the north, of the three densest parts of the north two are nowhere near the kingsroad because it was built centuries later and may well have been built through largely empty land on purpose to cut down on descruption.

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

 

 

What is the point of mentioning Skagos?  Skagos only adds more land area to the North.  And what is the population density of Skagos?  Much less than that of Dorne, I'm sure. Cold and icy mountains instead of balmy, sunny mountains.   If the population density of the North were even close to being as high as that of Dorne, including Skagos would only reduce it.

Because its an island in the worst parts of the north what still has a large enough population to require calling the banners to suppress them when they rebelled.

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

What is the point of mentioning Mountain Clans?  As their name implies, they live in mountains.  Dorne has lots of mountains too, the difference being, once again, that Dornish mountains are warmer, sunnier, and friendlier to human life.  Again, I am sure the Dornish mountains have greater propulation density than the icy mountains of the Far North.

The large scale maps show the castles of the major lords and other castles of significance.  There is no space for the minor lords.  Sandstone and Last Hearth are both major castles of major lords.  Is Umber more major?  Probably.  Can he marshall more troops?  Probably.  But he also controls a vastly larger territory.  And that territory may be less dense, even if it ultimately amounts to more people.

Based on the map thats not true, Sandstone is in the centre of a space covering a large of Dorne thats otherwise empty, Last Hearth is not

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

If the vast Umber territories are on the whole less dense than Dorne, then once again, mentioning the Umbers adds nothing to your argument.

Last Hearth is called Last Hearth for a reason.  There is little if anything north of it.  It is positioned where it is for a reason, to protect its lands to the South from wildling raiders.

The Gift is virtually empty, having been depopulated by wildling raids.  And the wildlings don't live there either.  It adds nothing to your argument.

Sandstone territory is not empty.  It contains, at the very least, Sandstone itself, and no doubt other settlements as well.

Sandstone is alone in the middle of a huge desert, a comparable area in the north would cover as much territory as the whole of Dorne and no such empty space on the map exists, the largest empty area are comparatively three or four times smaller in the North.

I have repeatedly pointed out the evidence that Dorne is comparatively emptier than the North, including the fact that only a single major lord is away from either river or coast on the map surrounded by a third of the country of nothing else on the map.

The North has settlements marked across around ninety percent of its territory, Dorne doesn't and minor settlements can be presumed to exist in both spaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

Firstly probably nowhere near as empty as Robert or you suppose

Invented facts are not evidence. 

6 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

of the three densest parts of the north two are nowhere near the kingsroad

Made up facts are not evidence. 

6 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

may well have been built through largely empty land on purpose to cut down on descruption.

"May have been" is not evidence.

6 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

Because its an island in the worst parts of the north what still has a large enough population to require calling the banners to suppress them when they rebelled.

How to you make the giant leap to "it has people on it" to "it is more densely populated than Dorne"?

The Skagosi built some ships and began raiding.  The Starks showed up with their own ships and destroyed the Skagosi ships, and said, in effect, no ships for you or we'll be back.  Meanwhile, Dorne resisted Aegon the conqueror.

Sure, Skagos seems to have more than a small handful of people.  But it also has more than a small handful of square mile.  Most of it icy inhospitable mountains. 

6 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

Based on the map thats not true, Sandstone is in the centre of a space covering a large of Dorne thats otherwise empty, Last Hearth is not

How does this prove that the Dorne is less sparsely populated than the North?

6 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

Sandstone is alone in the middle of a huge desert,

We don't know that Sandstone is "alone".  There may be other settlements in that "huge desert".  As well as fertile areas along the coast.  But even if what you said was true, you need to show that Dorne is less densely populated than the North.   Even if there were nobody at all IN Standstone, or for 50 leagues around it, that would have only a minor effect on the population density of Dorne.

Maybe the wells at Sandstone support 50,000 people  And maybe another 10,000 eke out an existence in the desert.  And maybe another 200,000 dwell in the fertile areas along the coast.  And maybe the Umbers have the same number of subjects, but spread out over a larger territory.

6 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

a comparable area in the north would cover as much territory as the whole of Dorne and no such empty space on the map exists,

Lots of such empty spaces exist.  You just want to assume, without proving, that significant numbers of people live in those areas, as well as

6 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

the largest empty area are comparatively three or four times smaller in the North.

I have repeatedly pointed out the evidence that Dorne is comparatively emptier than the North,

The only thing you have demonstrated is your inability to reason logically.

6 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

including the fact that only a single major lord is away from either river or coast

What is this supposed to prove?  Umber is where he is to guard the lands further south from Wildling raiders.

6 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

The North has settlements marked across around ninety percent of its territory, Dorne doesn't

As already noted, Dorne has a greater number of marked "major" settlements than the North has, over a smaller area.

Where did you get that 90% figure?  Seems to me you pulled it out of your backside.

6 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

and minor settlements can be presumed to exist in both spaces.

Certainly, but how does this prove your case? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alden Rothack

At the beginning of this thread, certain population figures were cited for the 7 Kiingdoms and other parts of Westeros.  They included 3 million for Dorne and 4 mullion for the North.

Obviously, if these figures are true, then it means the North has a lower population density.

I don't necessarily assume those figures are correct, or come from a canon source.  But not a single one of your arguments proves them wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Invented facts are not evidence. 

Made up facts are not evidence. 

Whats made up of the fact that two of the three largest settlements in the north aren't near the Kingsroad,

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

"May have been" is not evidence.

How to you make the giant leap to "it has people on it" to "it is more densely populated than Dorne"?

The Skagosi built some ships and began raiding.  The Starks showed up with their own ships and destroyed the Skagosi ships, and said, in effect, no ships for you or we'll be back.  Meanwhile, Dorne resisted Aegon the conqueror.

Sure, Skagos seems to have more than a small handful of people.  But it also has more than a small handful of square mile.  Most of it icy inhospitable mountains. 

How does this prove that the Dorne is less sparsely populated than the North?

We don't know that Sandstone is "alone".  There may be other settlements in that "huge desert".  As well as fertile areas along the coast.  But even if what you said was true, you need to show that Dorne is less densely populated than the North.   Even if there were nobody at all IN Standstone, or for 50 leagues around it, that would have only a minor effect on the population density of Dorne.

the blank spot around Sandstone covers around a third of Dorne, how can you say it has a monor effect on the population density?

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Maybe the wells at Sandstone support 50,000 people  And maybe another 10,000 eke out an existence in the desert.  And maybe another 200,000 dwell in the fertile areas along the coast.  And maybe the Umbers have the same number of subjects, but spread out over a larger territory.

Lots of such empty spaces exist.  You just want to assume, without proving, that significant numbers of people live in those areas, as well as

You mean like you just did with Dorne

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

The only thing you have demonstrated is your inability to reason logically.

I can reason just fine, you are the one who fails to effectively argue your point

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

What is this supposed to prove?  Umber is where he is to guard the lands further south from Wildling raiders.

As already noted, Dorne has a greater number of marked "major" settlements than the North has, over a smaller area.

Where did you get that 90% figure?  Seems to me you pulled it out of your backside.

The only two areas actually known to be empty are the Gift and Sea Dragon Point, everywhere else in the north lords on it

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Certainly, but how does this prove your case? 

It cedrtainly doesn't prove yours

 

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

@Alden Rothack

At the beginning of this thread, certain population figures were cited for the 7 Kiingdoms and other parts of Westeros.  They included 3 million for Dorne and 4 mullion for the North.

you misspelled million the second time

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Obviously, if these figures are true, then it means the North has a lower population density.

I don't necessarily assume those figures are correct, or come from a canon source.  But not a single one of your arguments proves them wrong.

 

Because there are multiple problems with them including but not limited to the fact that the Norths population is much too low, the Nort is not Canada or Norway where the majority is the country is wasteland.

the Reach is stated to be the most fertile, these figures would have the Westerlands as denser than the Reach

Dorne is stated to be the least populous of the Seven kingdoms, these figures give the North lower density and the Stormlands lower total population,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The numbers seem OK to me.  The North is about one million square miles, so 4 million gives it roughly the density of Wyoming or Montana circa 1980. That sounds about right; lots of empty space with settlements scattered about with a few good sized towns mixed in.

Stormlands numbers look a bit low.  It's roughly the same size as Dorne but appears to have more inhabitable land.  I'd give it closer to 3.5-4 million.  Riverlands I think would be closer to 5 million.  It seems pretty fertile and dense.

Three million for Dorne gives you the density of Idaho or New Mexico around that time.  (Densities are higher now because the main cities have gotten a lot bigger).  Dorne's mountains seem to have quite a bit of settlements.  Three million still makes it the least populous kingdom; Iron Islands and Crownlands aren't among the seven kingdoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Nevets said:

The numbers seem OK to me.  The North is about one million square miles, so 4 million gives it roughly the density of Wyoming or Montana circa 1980. That sounds about right; lots of empty space with settlements scattered about with a few good sized towns mixed in.

Stormlands numbers look a bit low.  It's roughly the same size as Dorne but appears to have more inhabitable land.  I'd give it closer to 3.5-4 million.  Riverlands I think would be closer to 5 million.  It seems pretty fertile and dense.

Three million for Dorne gives you the density of Idaho or New Mexico around that time.  (Densities are higher now because the main cities have gotten a lot bigger).  Dorne's mountains seem to have quite a bit of settlements.  Three million still makes it the least populous kingdom; Iron Islands and Crownlands aren't among the seven kingdoms.

It seems to assume a lord can raise land forces equal to about 1% of his population.  I don't know.

Frog, BTW, tells Dany in Dance that Dorne has 50,000 spears.  Which is more than the 30,000 given in these estimates.  But maybe Frog was exaggerating to impress her, the oily cad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

It seems to assume a lord can raise land forces equal to about 1% of his population.  I don't know.

Frog, BTW, tells Dany in Dance that Dorne has 50,000 spears.  Which is more than the 30,000 given in these estimates.  But maybe Frog was exaggerating to impress her, the oily cad.

GRRM has mentioned in interviews that numbers of forces can vary depending on who is doing the counting or telling.  Just like in real life.  Force counts in medieval sources can vary widely I gather 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Nevets said:

GRRM has mentioned in interviews that numbers of forces can vary depending on who is doing the counting or telling.  Just like in real life.  Force counts in medieval sources can vary widely I gather 

No doubt.  Also, GRRM does not want to be nailed down, and I don't particularly want him to be nailed down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

Whats made up of the fact that two of the three largest settlements in the north aren't near the Kingsroad,

Dude.  That's not what you said. 

Anyhow, this conversation has ceased to be productive.  I never claimed I could prove that the North was less dense than Dorne. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

 

Anyhow, this conversation has ceased to be productive.  I never claimed I could prove that the North was less dense than Dorne. 

thats two things you've said which I agree with

to summarize for any late arrivals

Dorne is a desert, the north is not

the North has major lordships across the majority of its territory, Dorne does not.

The North has a city, Dorne does not.

I cannot think of a single reason why Dorne would not have a smaller population density, if someone can think of one I want to know what

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...