The Seven Kingdoms Least to Most Populous

[Gilbert Green]

12 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

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

- Because of the quote from KIng Robert.

- Because Dorne is in the South; the North is in the North; because winter lasts years; and this seriously effect the ability of large populations to survive in Northern climates; and makes mountains and uplands (which get colder the higher you go) especially forbidding.

- Because the fertile parts of Dorne can plausibly hold alot of people; and this balances out the unfertile parts.

- Because Dorne has, on a map of the same scale, more named settlements spread out over one third the area.  Even if we count White Harbor three times, because it's a city, Dorne still wins, on a per-area basis.

- Because, although the evidence suggests the North may possibly be able to muster more troops than Dorne, there is absolutely no indication that it can muster 3 times the troops of Dorne, despite the land area being about 3 times as big

----------------------------------------x

But in spite of all the above, I was not saying that I could prove that the North was less dense than Dorne.  I merely took the humble position that this possibility was left open by the available evidence, since Dorne being "least populous" can mean, and I think does mean, less in absolute number, and not less in population density.

Mine is a very modest position.  I cannot prove my own guess as I readily admit.  If you admit you cannot prove your own competing guess, we will be in (more or less) happy agreement. 

Unfortunately for you, you keep insisting you can prove something that you cannot prove.  And then make illogical arguments.  That's a you problem, not a me problem.

You have made no argument that proves Dorne cannot hold 3 million (or more) people.  And you have made no argument that 4 million (or less) people cannot explain what we know of the North.  And the North would have roughly 3 times the people of Dorne to have a higher population density than Dorne.  Because it has about 3 times the land area.

I don't even demand that you accept the numbers give near the beginning of this thread.  How about 2 million for Dorne and 5 million for the North?  That still would not result in higher density for the North.  How are you going to prove that the fertile areas of Dorne cannot hold 2 million?  How are you going to prove that 5 million cannot explain what we know of the North?

But if you want to postulate (for instance) that Dorne has 2 million people and the North 10 million, I'm not sure how I would prove otherwise on available evidence.  I don't think the few uncertain clues we have tend in that direction, though.

[Craving Peaches]

So Dorne can supposedly raise ~25,000 men, while the North can raise ~45,000 total. Assuming they are calling up the same proportion of their men to fight, that would make the North have slightly less than double the population of Dorne. But we know that the North is more than double the size of Dorne from looking at the map. So from the army figures it would appear Dorne is more densely populated.

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

I would imagine the Iron Island to be the least populated. They are all tiny, even if you combined them all into one landmass I doubt they’d be as large as even the Crownlands. And then add in resource scarcity, and I can’t see them having a very large population.

[Alden Rothack]

10 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

- Because of the quote from KIng Robert.

- Because Dorne is in the South; the North is in the North; because winter lasts years; and this seriously effect the ability of large populations to survive in Northern climates; and makes mountains and uplands (which get colder the higher you go) especially forbidding.

The fact that people live in those places at all in large numbers is impressive however we know they do because settlements and lordships are placed on the map, we also know that the Gift is fertile and the people had to be driven off it by raiding, despite the cold it was good enough land to support the Watch at its height for thousands of years.

10 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

- Because the fertile parts of Dorne can plausibly hold alot of people; and this balances out the unfertile parts.

true enough since if it didn't the population would be several times less than it is.

10 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

- Because Dorne has, on a map of the same scale, more named settlements spread out over one third the area.  Even if we count White Harbor three times, because it's a city, Dorne still wins, on a per-area basis.

We don't know the population of any settlements in Dorne, however definitely wins are having more urbanites

this might mean that they have more people but it might not, given the climate clustering in towns is more attractive.

8 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

So Dorne can supposedly raise ~25,000 men, while the North can raise ~45,000 total. Assuming they are calling up the same proportion of their men to fight, that would make the North have slightly less than double the population of Dorne. But we know that the North is more than double the size of Dorne from looking at the map. So from the army figures it would appear Dorne is more densely populated.

10 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

- Because, although the evidence suggests the North may possibly be able to muster more troops than Dorne, there is absolutely no indication that it can muster 3 times the troops of Dorne, despite the land area being about 3 times as big

We don't know they can't either, Dorne is wealthier and trrops have to travel a fraction of the distance

10 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

----------------------------------------x

But in spite of all the above, I was not saying that I could prove that the North was less dense than Dorne.  I merely took the humble position that this possibility was left open by the available evidence, since Dorne being "least populous" can mean, and I think does mean, less in absolute number, and not less in population density.

yes Dorne could have the least in absolute numbers of the kingdoms

 

10 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Mine is a very modest position.  I cannot prove my own guess as I readily admit.  If you admit you cannot prove your own competing guess, we will be in (more or less) happy agreement. 

I cannot prove it, I merely think my position is logical and have explained in some depth why

10 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Unfortunately for you, you keep insisting you can prove something that you cannot prove.  And then make illogical arguments.  That's a you problem, not a me problem.

You have made no argument that proves Dorne cannot hold 3 million (or more) people.  And you have made no argument that 4 million (or less) people cannot explain what we know of the North.  And the North would have roughly 3 times the people of Dorne to have a higher population than Dorne.  Because it has about 3 times the land area.

I don't think Dorne doesn't 3 million people, I simply believe that what we know of the North allows it could have more than 3 times as many as Dorne. thats not remotely difficult and the contrary particularly that the North has only 4-5 million isn't credible given given the available information

10 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I don't even demand that you accept the numbers give near the beginning of this thread.  How about 2 million for Dorne and 5 million for the North?  That still would not result in higher density for the North.  How are you going to prove that the fertile areas of Dorne cannot hold 2 million?  How are you going to prove that 5 million cannot explain what we know of the North?

Because 5 million is still too low, at that density the northern half would be comparable to medieval Norway or Mongolia and lower than Dark Ages Scotland

Because its not a prefeudal tribal nation or an icy hell

[Alden Rothack]

8 hours ago, Prince Rhaegar Targareyen said:

I would imagine the Iron Island to be the least populated. They are all tiny, even if you combined them all into one landmass I doubt they’d be as large as even the Crownlands. And then add in resource scarcity, and I can’t see them having a very large population.

The Iron Islands on the map are less than a tenth the size of the crownlands

[Gilbert Green]

14 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

Because 5 million is still too low, at that density the northern half would be comparable to medieval Norway or Mongolia and lower than Dark Ages Scotland

Because its not a prefeudal tribal nation or an icy hell

I see no problem whatsoever with the North being lower in density than Dark Ages Scotland.  That's what it is largely based on after all.  And yes, those winters are icy hells, or quickly become them.  I don't think you are considering the implications of a winter not lasting a mere 3 months.

Because the winters last years, the only way to survive is to store food, and have the military might to defend that food.  That naturally tends toward a feudal structure, with population tending to concentrate around mighty castles which can protect both the food and the people.

[Alden Rothack]

Just now, Gilbert Green said:

I see no problem whatsoever with the North being lower in density than Dark Ages Scotland.  That's what it is largely based o after all.  And yes, those winters are icy hells, or quickly become them.  I don't think you are considering the implications of a winter not lasting a mere 3 months.

Because the winters last years, the only way to survive is to store food, and have the military might to defend that food.  That naturally tends toward a feudal structure, with population tending to concentrate around mighty castles which can protect both the food and the people.

Except iits not, its based on the feudal not tribal Scotland of three centuries to five centuries later that had four to seven times as many people, armies of thousands not warbands of a hundred or less, heavy shock cavalry and a thousand other things that are impossible for scattered tribal kingdoms under the circumstances.

I admit I don't how they have a population of any mumber of millions in the North given year long winters but clearly they do and across most of the Norths area.

[Gilbert Green]

13 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

I admit I don't how they have a population of any number of millions in the North given year long winters but clearly they do and across most of the Norths area.

Yeah, I don't get it.  How can you say, in one breath, that you don't know how the North can possibly support so large a population given the long winters, and at the same time insist that "clearly" they do?

[Alden Rothack]

1 minute ago, Gilbert Green said:

Yeah, I don't get it.  How can you say, in one breath, that you don't know how the North can possibly support so large a population given the long winters, and at the same time insist that "clearly" they do?

 Because The North must have millions of people, therefore it must be possible even if we don't know why

[Alden Rothack]

9 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

So Dorne can supposedly raise ~25,000 men, while the North can raise ~45,000 total. Assuming they are calling up the same proportion of their men to fight, that would make the North have slightly less than double the population of Dorne. But we know that the North is more than double the size of Dorne from looking at the map. So from the army figures it would appear Dorne is more densely populated.

assuming they are calling up the same proportion of their people yes, however several things including Dorne being smaller and wealthier means this probably isn't the case, Torhen Stark for example had months to muster men and took 30,000 and later Cregan Stark also took a considerable time and less than the full amount

[Alden Rothack]

9 hours ago, Prince Rhaegar Targareyen said:

I would imagine the Iron Island to be the least populated. They are all tiny, even if you combined them all into one landmass I doubt they’d be as large as even the Crownlands. And then add in resource scarcity, and I can’t see them having a very large population.

compared to who, given its tiny size its got a very large comparative population to have any meanful population at all

[James Arryn]

14 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Yeah, I don't get it.  How can you say, in one breath, that you don't know how the North can possibly support so large a population given the long winters, and at the same time insist that "clearly" they do?

He’s saying it’s impractical but ‘true’, like the wall being a kajillion miles high or being able to see the Wall from the Hightower, etc. Actually imo the most implausible part of the North is being relatively stable for millennia (already pretty fantastical) with endless miles of coast, arterial rivers and no navy. That…just should not work. You should be being raided pretty relentlessly, invaded every so often, etc. You should also be more heavily reliant on cavalry. But the books say it’s true so it must be true. 

[Alden Rothack]

24 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

He’s saying it’s impractical but ‘true’, like the wall being a kajillion miles high or being able to see the Wall from the Hightower, etc. Actually imo the most implausible part of the North is being relatively stable for millennia (already pretty fantastical) with endless miles of coast, arterial rivers and no navy. That…just should not work. You should be being raided pretty relentlessly, invaded every so often, etc. You should also be more heavily reliant on cavalry. But the books say it’s true so it must be true. 

pretty much, I would have said highy implausible rather than impractical

The North leaving the free folk out there only makes sense before the raiding managed to drive people off the Gift

[BlackLightning]

I'm sorry but there is no reason for Dorne to be the kingdom with the lowest population and the lowest population density.

• Sunspear should be a full-fledged city equivalent to White Harbor...at the very least. Planky Town and Lemonwood should be a large towns equivalent to Duskendale or Maidenpool.
• A lot of people should be living in towns and villages near castles commanded by the Daynes, the Blackmonts and the Yronwoods. Where are these towns and villages?
• There should be lots of towns and villages along the Greenblood, Vaith and Scourge Rivers

The Iron Islands should have the highest population density out of all of the kingdoms.

[Alden Rothack]

2 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

I'm sorry but there is no reason for Dorne to be the kingdom with the lowest population and the lowest population density.

• Sunspear should be a full-fledged city equivalent to White Harbor...at the very least. Planky Town and Lemonwood should be a large towns equivalent to Duskendale or Maidenpool.
• A lot of people should be living in towns and villages near castles commanded by the Daynes, the Blackmonts and the Yronwoods. Where are these towns and villages?
• There should be lots of towns and villages along the Greenblood, Vaith and Scourge Rivers

There are several reasons why which are covered previously, the main one being very large chunks of it are desert with nothing on the map for hundreds of miles in every direction, the settlements along the coast and rivers can only do so much to to offset the rest of it

 

2 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

The Iron Islands should have the highest population density out of all of the kingdoms.

Why, its described as rocky with poor soil across most of the Islands

[BlackLightning]

6 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

Why, its described as rocky with poor soil across most of the Islands

Because of how small it is.

Otherwise, the Iron Islands should be utterly incapable of fielding as many soldiers. It is they who should be the weakest kingdom, not Dorne.

7 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

There are several reasons why which are covered previously, the main one being very large chunks of it are desert with nothing on the map for hundreds of miles in every direction, the settlements along the coast and rivers can only do so much to to offset the rest of it

You can say just about the same thing for the North. Except the North has one city and it can raise an army of 40,000.

Sunspear had been independent of the Iron Throne for almost 200 years after its creation.

Sunspear should be a major commercial powerhouse. Not only by virtue of having much closer cultural and diplomatic relations with the Free Cities (especially the southern ones) but also in the sense that is much closer to the Free Cities and Slaver's Bay than Lannisport, Oldtown and the Arbor. It's much more convenient.

To get to King's Landing and Gulltown (much less White Harbor) from any part of Essos that isn't the western seaboard, one would need to traverse the entirety of the ever-problematic Stepstones.

The fact that Sunspear should be a major trade hub, it should also be a much larger city.

The same applies to Planky Town, Lemonwood, Yronwood and Starfall but on a much smaller scale.

[Gilbert Green]

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

He’s saying it’s impractical but ‘true’, like the wall being a kajillion miles high or being able to see the Wall from the Hightower, etc. Actually imo the most implausible part of the North is being relatively stable for millennia (already pretty fantastical) with endless miles of coast, arterial rivers and no navy. That…just should not work. You should be being raided pretty relentlessly, invaded every so often, etc. You should also be more heavily reliant on cavalry. But the books say it’s true so it must be true. 

I get that.  So why cannot the North have (for instance) 4 million people?  And why cannot Dorne have 3 million people?  If "impractical but true" is what we are saying, then all we can do is ask GRRM.  And he has not told us yet.

I'm not convinced those numbers are impractical, but never mind.

[Alden Rothack]

10 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Because of how small it is.

Otherwise, the Iron Islands should be utterly incapable of fielding as many soldiers. It is they who should be the weakest kingdom, not Dorne.

The Iron Island could have the highest density and it would still have fewer people than Dorne, they simply muster more of the population, maritime empires have a habit of doing that

10 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

You can say just about the same thing for the North. Except the North has one city and it can raise an army of 40,000.

The North has people across most of its territory and fertile land all the way to the wall, the map of Dorne suggests the majority of it is sand and without major habitation

10 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Sunspear had been independent of the Iron Throne for almost 200 years after its creation.

Sunspear should be a major commercial powerhouse. Not only by virtue of having much closer cultural and diplomatic relations with the Free Cities (especially the southern ones) but also in the sense that is much closer to the Free Cities and Slaver's Bay than Lannisport, Oldtown and the Arbor. It's much more convenient.

Its likely White Harbour does most of its trade with Bravos, the ironically named Free Cities are full of dirty rotten slavers end of story.

10 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

To get to King's Landing and Gulltown (much less White Harbor) from any part of Essos that isn't the western seaboard, one would need to traverse the entirety of the ever-problematic Stepstones.

The fact that Sunspear should be a major trade hub, it should also be a much larger city.

Not necessarily and even if it is that doesn't nrecessary mean they have a lot of people in the rest of the country, the flemish trade cities had nearly half the population of flanders despite being surrounded lush farmland not burning desert

Dorne is the third largest of the Kingdoms, theres a lot of empty land for the cities to offset.

10 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

The same applies to Planky Town, Lemonwood, Yronwood and Starfall but on a much smaller scale.

they likely get some trade but might not be that big, the english side of the wool trade was enormously profitable but centred on cities that were still pretty small.

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

I have always felt that the title belongs to the Iron Islands, with it just happening that a greater portion of the Ironborn taking arms than in the mainland and still being below Dorne in terms of numbers of soldiers.

[Alden Rothack]

2 hours ago, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

I have always felt that the title belongs to the Iron Islands, with it just happening that a greater portion of the Ironborn taking arms than in the mainland and still being below Dorne in terms of numbers of soldiers.

the iron islands absolutely has the smallest population because they are so tiny that they could be ten times the size and they would still have fewer people than the next smallest

but they don't have the lowest density