total peoples conquered?

[marcus]

Nick,You're absolutely right, and I'm sure there are many calculations that are done to reach 'accurate' end figures. Your example of Ethiopia is quite right - and the system I detailed presupposes an urban culture existing in the first place.All this is partially remembered from a long time ago - if I recall, some of the details and techniques are explained in Fernand Braudel's "Mediterranean World in the Time of Philip II", which is a fantastic (old) book. Most of what Braudel talks about deals with the Medieval world, too, which of course makes a difference.All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

Hi all,probably a bit off the subject but may relate anyhow, I remember reading N.G.L Hammonds 'Philip of Macedon' where he states the population of Macedon trebled between the years c.359-355BC.The actual figures he gives are a footnote from some earlier book of his. I've pulled it out of storage and found the section relating.' In HM 1.16ff. I reported the population figures in 1961. These were 990,510 for approximately the old kingdom, 853,221 for approximately Upper Macedonia, 692,741 for approximately Paeonia, and 681,015 for approximately East Macedonia. The total of 3,217,528, even if one reduces it by a third for the time of Philip, opens our eyes to the difference in scale between the Macedonian kingdom and the largest mainland city-state, Athens which I estimate at some 400,000 including resident aliens and slaves c.360 (HG 528).'Not sure how he arrives at these figures, guess you need to cite his book 1961,. I have no idea of the science behind these kind of figures, but interesting anyway.
cheers!

[nick]

Hi Smitty -I find the estimates of Hammond interesting too - but I can hardly believe his estimate of 3 million plus for Macedonia alone...I checked Cameron once more. Some new figures:Egypt had 5 million inhabitants from 2500 BC on and is estimated to have reached 7.5 million in the 1st century AD. That would imply that in Alexander's days the population of the relatively small kingdom of Macedonia was approx. half of that of entire Egypt?Cameron quotes figures for Gaul ('France') too: probably 5 million at the time of Roman conquest (50 BC), rising to over 10 million during the zenith days of the Roman empire a few centuries later.Now what we consider Gaul has a land surface of over 500.000 sq kms. The present FYROM-state (ex-Yugoslavian Macedonia) is only 25.000 sq kms. If we assume that ancient Macedonia, including the parts now in Greece, was at least twice, probably three times the size of what is now FYROM, that is still only something like 15% of the land area of Gaul.If we would assume Macedonia in Alexander's time was about as densely populated as the florishing Roman province of Gaul at its peak, that would only allow for some 1,5 million inhabitants. If Hammond is correct, we must accept that Macedonia was at least twice as densely populated as Gaul. I would expect that the 'peasant' economy of Macedonia in Alexander's time could not bear this burden.One last remark: Cameron says that the population growth in the Roman Empire happened nearly exclusively in the West, as the Eastern possessions of Rome were already densely populated before Roman conquest. (Note the relatively slow population growth of Egypt over more than twenty centuries.) Cameron's statement might support my comparison between Alexander's Macedonia and Gaul in its bloom.Best regards -Nick

[nick]

Another estimate (just for the fun of it). Let's assume that in the Ancient World an economically vibrant area was about as densely populated as Roman Gaul in its prime. That would mean 10 million people on 500.000 sq kms of land area = 20 persons per sq km.A not-so-lively economic area - or one including many deserts & the like - would reach a maximum like 'savage' Gaul before Roman conquest, that is 5 million on the same surface area = 10 persons per sq km.Now take the present land surface of modern states included in what was Alexander's empire and multiply:Alexander's European foothold (Greece, FYROM & Bulgaria): 265,000 sq km * 20 = 5.3 million.Egypt (we have Camerons estimate) = 7.5 million maximum.Turkey: 780,000 sq km * 20 = 15.6 millionLevant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel): 215,000 sq km * 20 = 4.3 millionIraq (Mesopotamia): 437,000 sq km * 20 = 8.6 millionIran: 1,640,000 sq km * 10 = 16.4 millionAfghanistan: 647.000 sq km * 10 = 6.4 millionCentral Asia (Tadjikistan & Uzbekistan): 590,000 sq km * 10 = 5.9 millionPakistan (including Makran desert): 800,000 sq km * 10 = 8.0 millionNow this adds up to 78 million people in Alexander's entire empire.Comments?Regards -Nick

[marcus]

Hi Nick,The 3 million estimate was for 1961, though, and Hammond suggested reducing it for Philip's time. Admittedly he reduced it by a third to around 2 million...All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

I like your style, Nick.For areas like the Makran desert, here's more to throw into the mix - it's estimated that the area of Pakistan roughly corresponding to Gedrosia nowadays contains about 2.5% of Pakistan's population. So for the desert regions one could very possibly assume far fewer than 10 persons per sq.km.I still think some of the numbers sound rather high, but it does seem as if something like 70 million isn't too far off the mark.If only we had a better idea of the situation in India, because that seems to have been a highly populous area and we don't really know exactly how many Indians Alexander slaughtered on his journey south.All the bestMarcus