Anno Obumbratio: A 16th Century Alternate History

[GrimmJow007]

France has always had a super large population: in 1328 the country had some 13 million people, and by 1500 it had 16 million. It was the most populous country in Europe even into the 18th century, having more people than Russia.

Germany as a whole had maybe a bit more than France—23 million in 1500 and anywhere from 27-34 million in 1600, though obviously it was much less centralized. With the imperial reforms being pushed through in Anno, it makes the empire a formidable rival for France.

Italy was also very populous, easily having over 10 million inhabitants in 1500. It is more impressive when we consider that Italy is geographically smaller than France and Germany, and also more mountainous. If Italy does not stagnate economically after the 16th century, it is very likely that its population will grow faster than OTL, although I think it would grow slower than Germany and France.

In 1820, the states that would make up the future German Empire had 22 million inhabitants, while Italy had 20 million.

Another nation that grew little demographically was Spain, which had the same population as Great Britain in 1700 (around 8.5 million) and in 1820 it had 12 million compared to Great Britain's 20 million.

List of countries by population in 1700 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[DrakeRlugia]

Italy was also very populous, easily having over 10 million inhabitants in 1500. It is more impressive when we consider that Italy is geographically smaller than France and Germany, and also more mountainous. If Italy does not stagnate economically after the 16th century, it is very likely that its population will grow faster than OTL, although I think it would grow slower than Germany and France.

Italy was also very wealthy and economically developed before the destruction and upheavals of the Italian Wars. Much of the northern / central city states relied on the contado, or adjacent rural lands to feed them. As these cities expanded however, these lands weren't always able to meet their needs. Lucca's contados were in primarily mountainous territory, so Lucca's contados in more fertile areas were pushed to produce more. Some peasants could be held in super unjust arrangements. Even the super fertile Po River valley wasn't enough to meet demand for some cities. Florence was only able to supply enough food for about four months out of the whole year. This meant that Mezzogiorno became a major breadbasket and provided food to Florence and likely other cities. Essentially if a city couldn't produce the needed food it required, it was cheaply available to purchase somewhere.

Aside from economic issues (which as has been discussed before by Nuraghe—I dislike to use the word stagnation. Italy continued to develop and wages continued to rise, but not at the rapid levels seen in the Low Countries or Britain). Italy's population practically doubled between 1400 and 1600, from 7 million to 13 million. By 1700, Italy still had around 13 million people and had lost nearly 3 million from 1600-1699 from plagues and also a lack of agriculture to support such a population: of a total of 31 hectares in Italy, only about eight were producing grains; 15 of that were woodlands and plains for cattle; 4 were swamps and another four were lakes and mountains. Southern Italy and Sardinia were major cereal producers, but changes in the climate (Little Ice Age) meant frequent rains that ruined harvests and lower yields. Less grain + more people equaled higher prices and famines, which Italy suffered many during the OTL period. Add in the numerous plagues that 17th century Italy suffered and you have a horrible situation overall. The economic situation limited growth, but there were bigger issues in Italy that limited population growth.

Anyway, interesting stuff to ponder but that will unfortunately occur outside the scope of the TL.

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

Italy was also very wealthy and economically developed before the destruction and upheavals of the Italian Wars. Much of the northern / central city states relied on the contado, or adjacent rural lands to feed them. As these cities expanded however, these lands weren't always able to meet their needs. Lucca's contados were in primarily mountainous territory, so Lucca's contados in more fertile areas were pushed to produce more. Some peasants could be held in super unjust arrangements. Even the super fertile Po River valley wasn't enough to meet demand for some cities. Florence was only able to supply enough food for about four months out of the whole year. This meant that Mezzogiorno became a major breadbasket and provided food to Florence and likely other cities. Essentially if a city couldn't produce the needed food it required, it was cheaply available to purchase somewhere.

Aside from economic issues (which as has been discussed before by Nuraghe—I dislike to use the word stagnation. Italy continued to develop and wages continued to rise, but not at the rapid levels seen in the Low Countries or Britain). Italy's population practically doubled between 1400 and 1600, from 7 million to 13 million. By 1700, Italy still had around 13 million people and had lost nearly 3 million from 1600-1699 from plagues and also a lack of agriculture to support such a population: of a total of 31 hectares in Italy, only about eight were producing grains; 15 of that were woodlands and plains for cattle; 4 were swamps and another four were lakes and mountains. Southern Italy and Sardinia were major cereal producers, but changes in the climate (Little Ice Age) meant frequent rains that ruined harvests and lower yields. Less grain + more people equaled higher prices and famines, which Italy suffered many during the OTL period. Add in the numerous plagues that 17th century Italy suffered and you have a horrible situation overall. The economic situation limited growth, but there were bigger issues in Italy that limited population growth.

Anyway, interesting stuff to ponder but that will unfortunately occur outside the scope of the TL.

Adding to the France discussion is the lack of French Religious War here I think, still the deadliest conflict in France as they lost more people in it than in WW1 for instance and resulted in the utter ruination of the south and middle of France while the north also took hefty causalities on their own. A good example IIRC is the city of La Rochelle that was so brutalized that what was once a major French city only ended up with 5 Thousand people after the wars concluded.

A France that can avoid that will have a much better time demographically I think, as having more than 2 million people around does wonder for population growth, especially in Southern France

 

[DrakeRlugia]

Adding to the France discussion is the lack of French Religious War here I think, still the deadliest conflict in France as they lost more people in it than in WW1 for instance and resulted in the utter ruination of the south and middle of France while the north also took hefty causalities on their own. A good example IIRC is the city of La Rochelle that was so brutalized that what was once a major French city only ended up with 5 Thousand people after the wars concluded.

A France that can avoid that will have a much better time demographically I think, as having more than 2 million people around does wonder for population growth, especially in Southern France

Yes, that's very true. Between two and four million people were killed throughout the entirety of the conflict between 1562-1598. I suppose it also speaks to France's resiliency and their 'excess' population that they were able to suffer such losses in the 16th century and still go on to have good population growth in the 17th century and to see growth by 1700 despite losses from Louis XIV's conflicts.

I think more people is absolutely a plus. France IOTL also suffered numerous famines in the 16th century (1569-1574; 1585-1587; and 1590-1598). These were pan-European famines that effected great portions of Europe from Muscovy all the way west through Germany to include Scandinavia, Italy and France. It's hard to say how much of this was because of the Religious Wars (it likely had a large impact) but some of it was probably also because of changes in weather conditions over the 16th century. Even if you've got more people to farm the arable land, if there's not enough rain or even too much rain and the grain crop is ruined, it just means you have more people who are going to go hungry.

Anyway, interesting stuff!

I am still hard at work on the next chapter, and I am hoping to have it out sooner rather than later. I've gotten bogged down in a bit of a Meereenese knot, as GRRM would say... I'm writing out of it, slowly but surely and attempting to finish up this war.