Borders and populations of countries in Europe each year since 400 BC [video]

[BerislavLopac]

My main gripe is with the concept of "country" which didn't really exist until relatively recently.

[dragonwriter]

> My main gripe is with the concept of "country" which didn't really exist until relatively recently.

Yes, it did. The concept of nation-states as a general norm is relatively recent, but the concept of a country is ancient.

OTOH, the video covers extent of political domains, not countries; the two being treated as near equivalents is a product of the modern nation-state norm.

[goda90]

I'd love to see this in an interactive format where you can drag the time scale, and hover over each population to get more info.

[pm24601]

I love the way the video showed the border fluctuations over time.

Any criticism of "precision" is kind of pointless - even today it is difficult to determine population any many countries or cities. Population is too fluid. What is important is relative size not exact mathematical precision.

[627467]

I'm eagerly waiting for an equivalent timelapse of the density map. I feel we overestimate the value of borders on these historical maps.

[AstralStorm]

Yes, however we lack essential data to run density estimates until late 1800s. Even cities didn't have accurate population counts, much less rural regions.

The census data is quite approximate.

[alex-]

This also really highlights the scale of the population explosion over the last 500-ish years!

[tyfon]

I was expecting a large properly formatted data table but it was a video ;)

I guess the analyst in me wants something else than the general public.. Still quite interesting though.

[sctb]

We've updated the link from http://thesoundingline.com/map-of-the-day-the-population-of-..., which points to this.

[ekianjo]

Erm. in 392 AD, more than 50M people on the map. In 484 AD, less than 35M. How do they account for 15M who are not there anymore? Figures seem frivolous.

[ckarmann]

You can not sum like this the populations on the table, because it does not cover the same things all the time. A couple of problems for example:

- When a kingdom/empire spreads to Africa and Asia, the whole population of the country is counted even though only a part of is in Europe. You can observe that with Muslim caliphates who suddenly appear in the table like Umayyad Caliphate with 29 millions people in 711 when it was not in the table the year before. Between 392 and 484, the Roman Empire lost North Africa and the Middle East, that counts for million of peoples.

- Some populations on the map are not represented in the table when they should have a good amount of people, maybe because we don't have estimates of them? I am thinking of the Kingdom of Soissons and the Alemanni in 484. These places are in the ancient Gauls and were fairly populated.

On top of that, it was the time known as "Migration Period" where a lot of people moved around (some going out of Europe) and a lot of war happened (hence a lot of death). The population of Western Europe was going down already in the 4th century and it accelerated with the breakdown of the Empire and the rule of law, people started to leave cities and move to the countryside, trade plunged and food was scarce.

[lainga]

"One can only assume that the older population figures should be taken as approximations and that the exact determination of what constitutes a vassal state is subjective in some instances."

[Four_Star]

I imagine recording keeping during the fall of the Roman empire wasn't exactly perfect

[Wildgoose]

Plague.

Plagues and crop failures devastated the ancient world at that time.