1- Iron production of nearly 1 million tons, as compared with 5,000 - 6,000 tons for Han China.
2- Global power projection and colonial empires streching over 40% of the earth's surface.
I have thoroughly disapproved that here:
http://www.historum.com/asian-history/28104-han-dynasty-iron-production-2.html#post686990
It was a discussion in which you were a part of. Don't make me keep track of the number of times you would just copy/past things that have already been refuted.
However, if the census data is correct, then Han China would have an urban population of about 20 million. A rate of urbanization of over 30%.
The census data did not say that, not even Zhao's estimate approached near that number. You need to stop making things up. Even from your source, the upper tier cities of Europe in 1330 approaches the tenth largest Han city in the list provided.
If the list of European 1330 AD European cities is in any way a reflection of the city distribution of the Han dynasty, then we could add the European/Chinese lists together for the total urban population of the Han dynasty. With a population of ~70 million for both cases, we would add the top ten Han cities which make up 4% of the population(as the upper tier), and the list of 1330AD European cities(assuming they match the size of Han cities of the bottom tier) which would make up ~5-6% of the total population. This results in ~10%, a very believable number. So,
if the assumptions are true, then the Han dynasty would have ~10% of its population residing in cities with over 10,000 people. This is more than the urban ratio of Medieval Europe, but less than the urban ratio of Southern Europe.
Considering the high degree of centralization of Han China as compared with Western Europe: 1 centralized empire in the first case, dozens of states in the second case, it is a consequence that the largest city of Han China probably had a larger proportion of the total urban population of the country and that the largest city was considerably larger than the second larger and third largest cities. The census data is incompatible with that.
I also went over how high degrees of centralization does not equate with low urbanization or mercantile activities in post 22. There were plenty of nations whose capital cities were not drastically higher than the next one, and there are plenty of nations in which its capital cities far outweighs the rest of its urban rivals in population. Rome expanded as a city-state, so the empire would naturally have Rome as a huge metropolis. The Han dynasty was not. Centralization only means that the power was concentrated in the central government instead of local ones. This may just as well reflect higher urban density rather than lower ones. For example, local Han administrators do not have the power to raise taxes without central government approval. On the other hand a decentralized government could very well have local administrators upping taxes to their heart's content. The centralization of the Han dynasty also explains why Chinese dynasties tend to last significantly longer than Roman equivalents. It takes about 2 generations before Roman dynasties were overthrown by coups or military revolts.
So, the difference between the population suggested by the number of families, 404,000 and the actual population measured, 246,000 is probably a product of two different measures. The first may be measuring the total number of families in a district containing Chang'an while the second may be measuring the number of people inside the urban area of the actual city. So 158,000 is perhaps the population of the countryside around the city. If other centers had similar rural populations one can reach a much more realistic distribution of the population among the 10 largest cities.
What did I say about
making numbers up? Do you not realize how small a Han district is? You can't simply just toss a number into the air as you see fit. So far you have
misrepresented both Zhao and Rozman,
repeatedly. It's getting ridiculous. I don't know if you're doing this on purpose, or you feel so strongly about one-uping the non-Westerners that you end up reading what you're trying to find, but it's getting old.
Now lets assume you're right: the population of the Han Chang'an was NOT measuring the population within the city walls, but rather the district population. We do not have the specific number of districts in the Han empire, but a district is part of a Han county. A Han country could have a dozen districts, and the Han empire has 1587 counties. With a population of 60 million people, each county on average would have 37,800 people on average. A district would have a dozen times less, so the chance that the true size of the Han cities and the size given by the census would only have a difference of ~3000 people. But lets go one step further. Lets assume the census was telling us about county population, which is several magnitudes higher than a district. A county has on average 37,800 people. So even if we subtract this number from the size of the list of ten Han cities, they would still all be well over 150,000. Instead of being 4.5% of the population, they would instead be 4% of the population. Note that 37,800 people is already subtracting an unreasonable amount, considering how this number includes urban residents.
Plus, if the discrepancy between Changan's recorded population of 240,000 and family population of 80,800(unlikely average family size of 3) is caused by the census measuring both district and population of people within the city walls, then how do you explain Yanling? Yanling has a recorded population of 261,418 with 49,101 families. That's a very reasonable family size of 5.3.
I have already made clear two other reasons why the Han census most likely did NOT county people outside the city. Here is the link:
http://www.historum.com/asian-history/37128-historic-urban-population-china.html#post905011
I have given my reasons why their calculation of city family population is accurate, as it's hard to miscount the number of houses in a city by even 10 percent, especially considering that Han cities are planned in a grid. There are 160 residential wards in Chang'an, and it has a census population of 80,800 families. What's the chance that 80,800 is divisible by 160? 1 out of 160, so there's a 99.375% chance that this is no coincidence. If the Han census miscalculated, the chance that they were inaccurate by an exact multiplier of 160 is pretty low.
I also mentioned texts in which 4 million hu of grain/year where recorded to be shipped to Chang'an, and 6 million hu/year a hundred years later. Considering that the average person consumes ~ 360 liters of grain each year, 4 million hu would feed 222,222 people whereas 6 million hu would feed 333,333 people (~400,000 if you include the grain from the surrounding countryside). This matches well with the census data.
Neither of these was addressed. Also,the possibility of a miscount is very small, because Han cities are
planned in a grid, separated by wards with specific number of houses per ward (probably no more than just 200 wards in the largest city). As long as they know multiplication, they're fine. The only real chance of a miscount is in counting the family size, as that depends on the honesty of the people involved. They may have also undercounted the people in the countryside, as those were not organized in a grid. But the chance of miscounting the number of families (equivalent to the number of houses) is slight.
Notice the similarity between this raking and my ranking of Roman city population? That's because I based my Roman ranking on the statistical properties of urban systems as well as in the direct evidence.
Comparing two urban ratios set 2000 years apart is not direct evidence, nor does it match any semblance of basic statistical standards. You are also misrepresenting the data. You chose 1800 as a representative for urban ratios 1000 years ago, yet what about the year 1200-1500? The population distribution for these years matches Han city distributions very well, yet you chose 1800. You provided the data, so you should know. Again, you choose to resort to sampling bias.
From Guaporense' own source, here is the list of European cities in 1330(measured by population size in thousands):
Granada---150
Paris------150
Venice----110
Genoa----100
Milan-----100
Florence---95
Seville-----90
Cordova---60
Naples----60
Cologne---54
Here is the number of families of 10 Han cities:
1) Chang'an: 80,800
2) Chengdu: 76,256
3) Maoling: 61,087
4) Luoyang: 52,839
5) Lu: 52,000
6) Changling: 50,057
7) Yanling: 49,101
8) Wan: 47,547
9) Yangdi: 41,650
10) Pengcheng: 40,196
So even though you have data showing cases where city distribution were more equalized, you pick a specific time period where it's not in order to prove the impossibility of such a scenario. This is despite the fact that the same source shows that such a thing is possible. This is selective sampling based on preconceived opinion.
Here is the size of Warring states cities from archeological excavations:
Xiadu: 32 square kilometers, 320,000 people (largest excavated city of the era)
Shouchun: 26.35 square kilometers, which gives 263,600 people
Jinan: 16.2 square kilometers, 162,000 people.
Linzi: 16 square kilometers, 160,000 people (though records indicate a family size of 70,000 and that it's impossible to walk the streets without brushing shoulders, so the people per hectare should be much higher)
Zhouyuan: 15 square kilometers, 150,000 people
Eastern Zheng city: 14.79 square kilometers, 147,900.
Yong city: 10 square kilometers, which gives 100,000 people
Yueyang city: 4 square kilometers. That gives 40,000 people
Yan: 3 square kilometers, 30,000 people
The population was found by measuring the walled area and extrapolating it with an urban density rate of 100 people per hectare(this is the rate that Guaporense insisted on). So as we can see, Warring States cities were large as compared to Greek ones. There are several cities with a 6 digit population, while for classical Greece the only city with a 6 digit number is Athens. It's reasonable to say that Warring States upper tier cities were larger than the classical Greek equivalent. Thus to have an average population of 50,000 for the top 36 cities sounds reasonable, for out of the 9 excavated cities shown above, 7 of them have 100,000 people or over.