Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 14th, 2012, 11:35 PM   #1
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 189
Did Rome really have a million people: evidences and criticisms


As far as I know, most respected media sources (BBC, National Gegraphic, Discovery Channel) all quote the ~1 million figure of Roman population at its height. However, it is less clear that why there seems to be a consensus among most historians that the 1 million population is feasible and how they arrive at this conclusion. Now I would like to briefly summarize the evidences for and against it.

Positive evidence:
water supply, which can be accurately estimated
Large scale public buildings (multiple amphitheaters, hippodromes) support the city has a large population at least more than those buildings can hold
Definition of a city: modern definition of a city's population include commuters (ie. senators living in Rome's suburbs)
Huge infrastructures in Ostia: concrete port, huge warehouse, as many as 10-50k people working just for maintaining constant supply of goods to the capital
Reference: Ian Morris


Criticisms:
grain supply: assuming a lot of unknown variables, adding numbers hundreds of years apart, assume constant grain consumption per capita
number of people who get free bread: unreliable
Size of the city too small, modern cities with similar size (Copenhagen core, Stockholm core) do not hold as many as 1 million people
1 million population in capital will translate to unrealistically high urbanization rate in Italian peninsula
40k-50k insulae figure: definition of insulae unknown
population density approach suffer from unknown average living area and development plot ratio
Only vague statistics on citizens, not a slightest clue about no. of slaves and freedmen
Reference: JE Pecker, W Scheidel

So there seems to be a lot of disagreements among scholars. Estimation range from 400k to above a million. However I really don't know why the academic consensus is somewhere ~1 million. Let's start a thread and discuss about this.
h6wq9rjk is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 15th, 2012, 12:48 AM   #2
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Welcome to Historum, h6wq9rjk; a exceptional first post indeed.

A million thanks for sharing with us such a valuable material; it's literally pure gold.

I was already aware of the research of Scheidel but not of Pecker.

It's naturally an extremely complex issue and it deserves some truly careful review.

A priori, it seems prudent to assume that the larger the figure the more cautious one should be.

Last edited by sylla1; November 15th, 2012 at 12:55 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 01:49 AM   #3
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 189

An interesting comparison

By using the same reason, I am not sure whether the case for "Southern Song capital Lian'an had over a million people" has more ground than the Roman one
to be fair we just compare the walled area, the two cities one in East and one in West, remarkably similar.
Click the image to open in full size.

Both cities have similar walled area. Note that in Song China apartment buildings with 4-5+ floors is NOT common. Best evidence: the remarkably well preserved and hugely popular "Along the River During the Qingming Festival" picture. Although it realistically depicts the Northern Song's capital Kaifeng, but due to the cultural similarity and similar technology of building, we can reasonably assume the development density in Lian'an resembles that of Kaifeng.

Click the image to open in full size.

We can see most buildings within the city wall are 1-2 floors tall, with one exception called "Main Shop(正店)" which is 3 floors tall. However "Main Shop" is a large restaurant and cannot represent normal dwellings and apartments in the city. If we take into account the fact that 4-5/f buildings are common in imperial Rome and most Lian'an buildings are 1-3/f tall, and consider density constraint, Lian'an like Rome cannot support 1 million people within its city wall as well.

Last edited by h6wq9rjk; November 15th, 2012 at 02:56 AM.
h6wq9rjk is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 06:18 AM   #4
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,513

An important question is also WHEN is Rome supposed to have held that high a number of inhabitants,,, as well as within which area....obviously the bigger the area, the larger the potential number of inhabitants
tomar is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 06:49 AM   #5

SNascimento's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 131

I never really found a big criticism to the 1 million number in Rome. Pretty much every book or article I read agree with this number. In the minimum say that there were 800.000 people.
.
So I never see any reason to question those numbers.
SNascimento is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 09:05 PM   #6
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,513

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNascimento View Post
I never really found a big criticism to the 1 million number in Rome. Pretty much every book or article I read agree with this number. In the minimum say that there were 800.000 people.
.
So I never see any reason to question those numbers.
Well, 1 million is a big round number that sounds nice (why not 1.1 mio or 0.9 mio ?)....

But London reached that number only by 1810 (at that point total pop in the UK was estimated at 12 mio) and Paris in 1850 (total French population 36 mio)

19th century technology was significantly ahead of Roman tech (agriculture was more productive, trade had vastly increased with ocean going ships, by 1850 there were railroads in France, there were steam engines etc...).....

So it is at the very least questionnable that Romans were able to support such a large city population without even 19th century tech, whilst advanced European countries had to wait until the 19th century to be able to support such highly populated cities.
tomar is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 09:19 PM   #7

TheBlessedTraitor's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2010
From: Aedes Iovis Optimi Maximi Capitolini
Posts: 159

1 million seems to be the accepted figure, and i've never heard anyone decisively disprove that figure.

Then again, I've never heard anyone decisively prove it either, lol.
TheBlessedTraitor is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 03:07 AM   #8

Lors's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,704
Blog Entries: 2

1 million is clearly out of then sanitation capabilities. Rome had to be wiped out by many diseases considering the status of the capital and how many outlanders were there on daily basis.
Lors is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 07:19 AM   #9

Frank81's Avatar
Guanarteme
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Canary Islands-Spain
Posts: 2,546

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
Well, 1 million is a big round number that sounds nice (why not 1.1 mio or 0.9 mio ?)....

But London reached that number only by 1810 (at that point total pop in the UK was estimated at 12 mio) and Paris in 1850 (total French population 36 mio)

19th century technology was significantly ahead of Roman tech (agriculture was more productive, trade had vastly increased with ocean going ships, by 1850 there were railroads in France, there were steam engines etc...).....

So it is at the very least questionnable that Romans were able to support such a large city population without even 19th century tech, whilst advanced European countries had to wait until the 19th century to be able to support such highly populated cities.
This analysis is not correct. Human evolution isn't linear, but in the past economic, social and technological factors could be present to get different results. According to your line of argumentation, an Empire of the size of Rome was impossible, because it was not surpassed in Europe until Napoleonic age.

And that's wrong. Because the Empire worked in a different way than modern states. Consider that the capital, and most of the cities on the western half of the empire, were heavilly dependant of the countryside, and also of the richness of the eastern half of the Roman world. In many ways, were parasites, and this is the reason that they fell so low after the imperial collapse. The Empire was a form of resources redistribution, inequal and irrational distribution in fact. The Urbs got these resources from elsewhere, without providing nothing in change. It could be sustained with different parameters than modern cities.

And this is true for many ancient megacities in China and the Middle East.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
1 million is clearly out of then sanitation capabilities. Rome had to be wiped out by many diseases considering the status of the capital and how many outlanders were there on daily basis.

Rome was so unhealthy, that was considered by its contemporaries the most dangerous place on Earth. Estimations on death rate in Rome points clearly toward a deadly place, a city that had to attract people from the country in order to not decrease.
Frank81 is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 12:41 PM   #10

Gudenrath's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Denmark
Posts: 2,537
Blog Entries: 1

The Roman Empire was in essence a city state that gained an empire, and even long after it had gained it it still behaved liked a city state in many aspects, giving Rome a much more crucial role than London had in the 18th century.

Also by comparison with Copenhagen or Stockholm, Rome by all accounts had a far larger concentration of 4+ story buildings than even these cities and probably had more residents per home than these (and Copenhagen had Europes highest population density in the early 19th century due to the city walls).

That being said, it doesn't necessarily amount to 1 million. This figure cannot be more than an estimate, and we simply won't know the exact figure, but I do think it was extraordinarily high even for Hellenistic period standards exactly because the City had a special place and function in the Roman empire that cannot really be matched by later empires that had a more even spread of large populated towns and cities.
Gudenrath is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
criticisms, evidences, million, rome


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why do people talk about the Greek influence on Rome, but not Egypt's on Greece SW412 Ancient History 53 June 9th, 2013 03:40 PM
Rome could muster a million men under arms? Earl_of_Rochester Ancient History 30 September 12th, 2012 11:06 AM
Most Famous People from Ancient Rome/Greece/Egypt crows2 Ancient History 12 January 5th, 2012 03:40 AM
Fall of Rome - same year as Earthquake in Rome? Inc European History 9 November 28th, 2011 06:53 PM
Medieval people and Rome Isoroku295 Medieval and Byzantine History 14 August 18th, 2011 02:15 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.