Italy - Demographics throughout history

In the first century AD the Italian population was male (the Augustan census) 4,937,000 people, so the total population ranged from 10/12 million. However, according to the demographic department of the CNR (National Research Center), the Italian population has never fallen below the 4 ½ million people, otherwise this day our people would suffer from diseases related incest and the lack of genetic variability, race poverty.
 
I would like to re-iterate a question from earlier (actually, I didn't formulate it as a question, but anyways):

What do you folks think is the before/after population of Italy in regard for the Plague of Justinian (6th century) and the Black Death (14th century)?
 
Etrusco-romano said:
In the first century AD the Italian population was male (the Augustan census) 4,937,000 people, so the total population ranged from 10/12 million.
Click to expand...
From what I gathered, nobody's sure about that. We don't have other surveys surviving till today, right? We don't have names listed in Augustus surveys to figure out if they are men or women, just the numbers, right? Were male slaves included? Were male kids included? How many slaves lived in Italy? Can you answer these questions? Thanks

However, according to the demographic department of the CNR (National Research Center), the Italian population has never fallen below the 4 ½ million people, otherwise this day our people would suffer from diseases related incest and the lack of genetic variability, race poverty.
Click to expand...
Lol, the incest issue was never proved experimentally or on fauna example, just few doctors observations, plus big support of organized religions. How do you explain healthy population living on island of Sardinia? They have the longest life span of all Italian regions. I guess, incestry does miracles for them. :)
And even if you were right, and knowing history of your country, how would you worry about genetic variability? Every year of Roman empire there was fresh blood coming: millions of emigrants, slaves, plus invasions of Phoenicians, gals, huns, germans. The genetic pull was always rich and replenished. No need for 4 million Romans to stay healthy.
 
Taranis said:
I would like to re-iterate a question from earlier (actually, I didn't formulate it as a question, but anyways):

What do you folks think is the before/after population of Italy in regard for the Plague of Justinian (6th century) and the Black Death (14th century)?
Click to expand...

I think this table might specifically address the issues of plagues. Look at time frames.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.asp
 
The speech is a little different. In Sardinia there is great hope of life, it is true, but there are also some diseases found in lesser amounts in the rest of Italy, often due to race poverty (multiple sclerosis, for example).
The talk about slaves, immigrants and invasion is very complex, but overall, they not to attack the Italian gene pool and the demographic question.
In the roman Italy was almost impossible to immigrate, unless they were nobles or slaves, because there were strict laws relating to citizenship and especially because people were afraid to put in the Italian context foreign comunity (Marcus tried tu put in Bologna some Germans settlers, with the result of seeing sacked the city).
The slaves did not fit in Italian lands (unless they were Greeks, the more tolerated), even if released, because the State was afraid of creating a class of poor people ready to respond in arms against the state (seen servile wars).
In Italy we have provided a more documentation regarding the Roman population, and one can perfectly know how many and who were the inhabitants of Italy at the time (Annales us back even to the calculation of slaves sold on the island of Rhodes).
I'm leaving, but as soon as I get back i will put informations.
Although here it seems a crime to quote sources, on my return will post the various scientific publications, university text and research conducted on the issue.
 
Etrusco-romano said:
The speech is a little different. In Sardinia there is great hope of life, it is true, but there are also some diseases found in lesser amounts in the rest of Italy, often due to race poverty (multiple sclerosis, for example).
Click to expand...
Yes, incestry can lead to amplification of few diseases. But for groups bigger than hundreds it's not an issue, and very bad gene's are wheated out in few generations. The issue would be if there is one family or two left to procreate. If they have nasty gene combinations, then it might bring their genetic line to an end. If you have group of thousands or even hundreds, then they are perfectly safe as population. I have completely no idea how Italian researchers could come up at 4 mil for healthy society to avoid problems created by incest relationships. It doesn't make sense.

How do you explain Indian tribes in Amazon jungle. They live in groups of tens or hundreds (the most). How do you explain their existence for thousands of years there? They are the living proof that incest relationships don't lead to demise of population.
 
LeBrok said:
Yes, incestry can lead to amplification of few diseases. But for groups bigger than hundreds it's not an issue, and very bad gene's are wheated out in few generations. The issue would be if there is one family or two left to procreate. If they have nasty gene combinations, then it might bring their genetic line to an end. If you have group of thousands or even hundreds, then they are perfectly safe as population. I have completely no idea how Italian researchers could come up at 4 mil for healthy society to avoid problems created by incest relationships. It doesn't make sense.

How do you explain Indian tribes in Amazon jungle. They live in groups of tens or hundreds (the most). How do you explain their existence for thousands of years there? They are the living proof that incest relationships don't lead to demise of population.
Click to expand...

The 4 million and a half at least have been established not only on the basis of a certain frequency of diseases, but also through the analysis of other factors, such as the tax rate levied in the Esarcato of Italy, archaeological remains, the cognomistica, the statistics based on the production, for example, wheat in a specifical region, etc. .... honestly I have not followed this much research, also because it was a few years ago, but I think I can have full confidence in the staff of the National Research Center.
However it is not incest lead to the destruction of a people, but the increase statistics of certain diseases, by analyzing the frequency of these diseases related to incest in fact, they were able to show a "minimum" population needed just for that frequency of disease. It 'a very complicated mathematic discussion, especially if it has to be explained in another language.
 
Etrusco-romano said:
However it is not incest lead to the destruction of a people, but the increase statistics of certain diseases, by analyzing the frequency of these diseases related to incest in fact, they were able to show a "minimum" population needed just for that frequency of disease. It 'a very complicated mathematic discussion, especially if it has to be explained in another language.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I know what you meant now. It makes sense.
I know how complicated the calculations could be, especially if there are not very precise variables. For example how much population were in villages in certain time, because their genes mixed slower with surrounding area. In cities genes exchange is more vibrant, but by what factor compared to villages? How many emigrants and slaves introduced their genes to the Italian pool, and how many came? What was an effect of invasions, how many of them staid and mixed? Even these variables change from century to century.
There are too many imprecise variables to be able to be sure about the number. Probably at the end of a day you will get a range for the answer from 1 million to 10 million and not a firm number of 4 million.
I'm still thinking that the main reason why Italian researchers got higher numbers than foreign researchers is of their nationalistic bias. It is a human nature to give a better picture of your own country. Nationalistic variable included in calculations.
I still stand by my 2 million for 600AD. ;)
 
I can pass a "variable nationalist" of 500,000 units, but not 2 and a half million, also because, as far as I know, this project was also attended by many foreigners, as some Italian-American oriundo professors natives.

Even from 600 to 2000 there would be a total increase of 2900%, representing an annual population growth of 2.1%: unrealistic for the period from 600 until 1800 (i say 1800 becouse in this time the lquality of life began to improve) , where, in a really good situation, you up to 1% in the positive relationship between birth rate and death rate.

Speaking instead of 5 million, up from 600 to 2000 have increased by 1100%, equal to a very realistic annual growth of 0.78%.
 
Speaking instead of 5 million, up from 600 to 2000 have increased by 1100%, equal to a very realistic annual growth of 0.78%
Click to expand...
Nope, if population grows 0.78% annually you will have 60 million citizens by year 920, roughly in 300 years. Remember compounded interest classes?
To go from 5 million - year 600 to 60mill-year 2000 you need only 0.18% growth.
Now to achieve 60 mil from 2 million year 600, you need 0.25% annual growth. What is more realistic?

Besides, population growth through history, as we know it, was anything but linear. Fast growth, slow, decline fast and slow. Plus one agricultural/pastoral and one technological revolution that increased population growth by factor of 10 through decades. Throw few wars and little ice age and your linear prediction is nothing more than garbage.
Look at recent chart for population growth in Italy for last decade:


indexmundi_ex24.jpg


http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=it&v=24


What the heck happened in year 2010?
 
LeBrok said:
Nope, if population grows 0.78% annually you will have 60 million citizens by year 920, roughly in 300 years. Remember compounded interest classes?
To go from 5 million - year 600 to 60mill-year 2000 you need only 0.18% growth.
Now to achieve 60 mil from 2 million year 600, you need 0.25% annual growth. What is more realistic?

Besides, population growth through history, as we know it, was anything but linear. Fast growth, slow, decline fast and slow. Plus one agricultural/pastoral and one technological revolution that increased population growth by factor of 10 through decades. Throw few wars and little ice age and your linear prediction is nothing more than garbage.
Look at recent chart for population growth in Italy for last decade:




View attachment 5111


http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=it&v=24


What the heck happened in year 2010?
Click to expand...

We suppose that, if the population in the 600 a.d were 5 milions, it pass in the 2000 to 60 milions, and the total increse is 1100%
From 600 AD to 2000 pass 1400 years, and dividing the total increase (1100%) for 1400 years, the result is 0.78% on average.

2000 (years) - 600 (years) = 1400 (years)

1100 (percentage) /1400 (numbers of pass years) = 0,78% in 1 year


PS: in the 2010 happen that the people no longer wanted to have children because there were no job opportunities, and therefore the families, in perspective, would not be able to accompany their children until the age of 30 years (we are very close to the family :rolleyes:)
 
Here is a simple example to make it clear. Let's say there is hypothetical village of 100 people. During 10 years population grew to 200 people, 100%. According to your math the annual growth was 100% divided by 10 years = 10% per year. Right?

Now let's use 10% growth for every year to confirm your calculations:


picture001.jpg
With your method, using 10% annual growth rate you would end up with 259 people after 10 year and not 200.

Here is the real annual growth rate to achieve 100% in ten years:

picture002.jpg
The true yearly growth rate is 7.16% to arrive at 100% growth for 10 years.
 
Effectively It is true. I have calculated it based on the percentages final numbers without taking into account individual factors.
Anyway, back to the original calculation, I think a more realistic growth rate of 0.18 than 0.28% in that, considering the fact that, in some age cases, it can be varied from 0.5 to -0.5 (hypothesized), since the conditions of life and hope I do not think they were excellent, so it's difficolut to hypothiz that from 600 to 1600 the percentage were improve, but after 1600 and until 1800 the question changes. We must also consider that, apart from nationalism, the studies on Italy middle ages were based especially of information from various local issues such as "taxes", "imports", "food production" and "enrollment" (very important). I'll take an example: the town of Florence, in agreement with the "Tuscany Region" and the other provincial capitals of Tuscany, a few years ago he conducted a very thorough demographic study, which led to the conclusion that between 500 and 600 AD in Tuscany alone there were about 350,000 people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 29894 times.

Back
Top