10-05-2012, 09:32 PM
A lot to think about.
Would you consider the Hansen book a must-read? I picked up the Bowman and Wilson book [Quantifying the Roman economy] and the Manning and Morris book [The Ancient Economy: Evidence and Models] some time back, but unfortunately, don't have the econ background to follow most of the arguments in either volume. It's made me skittish about ordering either economics or demographics books.
I generally tend to divide the Roman world into several agricultural zones:
1. Egypt, shaped by the Nile River
2. Mesopotamia
3. The Mediterranean Coasts, including peninsular Italia and Achaea
4. The Anatolian Highlands
5. The Atlantic Fringe
6. Central Europe, including cisalpine Gallia
7. The Steppes
I know the focus on agriculture is most often associated with the carrying-capacity approach. I'm not sure about that approach, but I'm sure it makes sense to try to keep population estimates within each zone broadly proportionate to each other, while population estimates between zones can be disproportionate to each other,
In Egypt, the population went from about 2½ million to 10 million in the 19th century. I get the first impression that other factors overwhelm any 'carrying capacity,' inherent stability or inherent growth trends there. I don't see how to decide between a low count of about 4 million and a high count of about 8 million, or dramatic population changes within the period. But are there any reasons a low count in Egypt should contradict a high count in Italia or vice-versa?
In the Steppes, there seems to be as much instability, probably due to the shifting balance between agriculture and pastoralism. This sometimes results in outward migration, culture collapse, etc.
Would you consider the Hansen book a must-read? I picked up the Bowman and Wilson book [Quantifying the Roman economy] and the Manning and Morris book [The Ancient Economy: Evidence and Models] some time back, but unfortunately, don't have the econ background to follow most of the arguments in either volume. It's made me skittish about ordering either economics or demographics books.
I generally tend to divide the Roman world into several agricultural zones:
1. Egypt, shaped by the Nile River
2. Mesopotamia
3. The Mediterranean Coasts, including peninsular Italia and Achaea
4. The Anatolian Highlands
5. The Atlantic Fringe
6. Central Europe, including cisalpine Gallia
7. The Steppes
I know the focus on agriculture is most often associated with the carrying-capacity approach. I'm not sure about that approach, but I'm sure it makes sense to try to keep population estimates within each zone broadly proportionate to each other, while population estimates between zones can be disproportionate to each other,
In Egypt, the population went from about 2½ million to 10 million in the 19th century. I get the first impression that other factors overwhelm any 'carrying capacity,' inherent stability or inherent growth trends there. I don't see how to decide between a low count of about 4 million and a high count of about 8 million, or dramatic population changes within the period. But are there any reasons a low count in Egypt should contradict a high count in Italia or vice-versa?
In the Steppes, there seems to be as much instability, probably due to the shifting balance between agriculture and pastoralism. This sometimes results in outward migration, culture collapse, etc.
