pothos.org

Is there any estimate of the total number of people Alexander subdued? Thanks

Total races, tribes, cities, or actual number of individual persons?Subdued, ruled or slaughtered?Do the slaughtered ones count as subdued, or are you just looking for those that still lived once he'd passed by?:-)All the bestMarcus

this is NOT a scientific calculation but I think that Alexanders empire had about 30,000,000 population. what I am sure is that Asia was much more thickly populated than Europe.

To compare:(These figures come from Cameron's book A Concise Economic History of World. I use them for my lectures about Globalization at our own university.)Before Alexander's time Egypt is believed to have been by far the most populous country of the "old world". (I am not sure that includes China.) It is estimated to have had 5 million people as early as 2500 BC. Nowhere else populations were that large of that dense.The Roman Empire, around the time of Julius Caesar, is believed to have had 30 to 50 million inhanbitants in total. About two centuries later, in 180 BC, as a consequence of the stability of the Pax Romana, the Roman population doubled or tripled to at least 100 million. That was believed to have been at least 20% of the total human population of the earth, certainly not less than 20%.I do not have any figures on Alexander's empire or the Persian empire. Assuming that Persia in its hey days could be compared to the Roman Empire in 50 BC, that is around 30 million people, does not seem such a weird guess to me.Regards -Nick

if I know right Herodotus says the most populated country was India. As they didnt know what is next to India (they found out in Alexanders time) China was not included.

Thinking beter 30 million is underestimation.

40 million? 50 million? More?

I'm looking for the total population subdued, ruled, slaughtered in all regions.

Do you think it could be closer to 40 million? Or 50 million? Or stick with 30 million. Many thanks.

I like this discussion.Let's assume that the estimate of 5 million people in Egypt around 2500 B.C. is the minumum. Then for Alexander's empire I would guess:Egypt - 5 million minimumBabylonia / Mesopotamia - 5 million (about the same as Egypt)Asia Minor - 5 million (also the same as Egypt. We are reported that cities like Sardis, Celaenae, Milete etc. were populous centers)Bactria/Sogdiana - another 5 million (we shouldn't underestimate the importance and wealth of these regions under Persian rule)Phoenicia, Syria and the Levant - populous but not as dense as e.g. Mesopotamia. Something in between 2,5 and 5 million.Indian possessions - depends on how much Alexander actually conquered. Could be anything in between 2,5 or 5 million.Persia & Media - the heartland of old Persia. Not as populous as the other regions. Maybe 2,5 million combined. Including Hycarnia and other neighbouring countries.Greece & Macedonia - I wouldn't estimate this any higher than 2,5 million maximum. But that is just my guess.The rest (Sagartia, Drangiana, Red Sea Peoples, Lybia, Paropamisadae etcetera): maybe 2,5 million in total?This would add up to a minimum population in between 32,5 million or 37,5 million inhabitants. Just my guess. I will look forward to your responses.Regards - Nick

These figures are marvelous and quite illuminating. Many thanks. Where did you get them?Regards,
Richard

Fuller estimates 50 million.
But I can't remember his method of calculation.

I think the greatest difficulty is in estimating ancient populations, and there are various ways in which it can be done. If I recall correctly, one of the most common ways is to work out an (average) urban population, and then to calculate the size of agrarian population required to support it. This isn't always that easy, because soil composition and fecundity changes - for instance, in the fertile parts of Mesopotamia, it has been calculated that the soil could produce *two* harvests a year - so, of course, the population that could be supported is larger than with one crop.On the other hand, I can't see that it's at all possible to estimate the ancient populations in some areas, particularly in Central Asia. I've always understood the populations under Alexander's control to be around 30m too - but at times it seems to high. Fuller's 50m seems way too high to me... but that's just instinct, not science!All the bestMarcus

I like your calculations. what you are calculating is the very minimum in my opinion. thinking it beter I estimate that it has to be between 40 and 70 million.

As I wrote before, the only 'reliable' figures I laid my hand on was an estimate of 5 million for Egypt in 2500 BC and 30 to 50 million for the Roman Empire in 50 BC. Both figures come from Cameron's Economic History of the World.What I did was just assuming there were at least four main regions in Alexander's/Persian Empire that might have matched Egypt's population: Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Bactria/Sogdiana and the Indian possessions. All other regions I supposed, had significantly lower population densities. This is just pure guesswork based on a very few reliable figures. What strikes me is that a rough guess "Persia was about as populous as the early Roman Empire" gives about the same results as a slightly less rough addition of population estimates per area.About Marcus system for calculating city population and then estimating the rural population:In our present day world the balance between rural and urban population can differ widely. In some countries urban population accounts for 70% of the total, in others 20% or less.E.g. Ethiopia - apart from the capital Addis Abeba - lacks cities of major importance, still the Ethiopian rural population is very large and the country's total is estimated somewhere around 50 up to 70 million.E.g. Pakistan has many significantly large cities apart from the capital Islamabad; the total population is 150 million.If one would apply the same system to estimate the population of present day Ethiopia and Pakistan, the outcomes might be entirely different from the real figures.Regards -Nick