Talk:Classical demography

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Corrected estimates for Greece

The previous low figure for the Greek world seems inexplicable: I've replaced it with Hansens's, indicating that it's higher than earlier estimates. The Athenian figure incorporated numbers that appear unsupported in the modern literature, and have been modified accordingly, along with correcting the erroneous statement that most lived in the city and its port. Precisian (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Took the liberty of adding Beloch's and Russell's estimates

In abbreviated form, of course. I don't know why they weren't already included. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We probably need a subsection, explaining the low count/high count issue

Scheidel has a review of Roman Demography, focusing on this split. Are there analogous issues in other periods of classical demography?

We could use a full section on different methodologies

But I am not an expert on demography. Just someone looking for good data. I can't read Beloch, so I only know that he calculates population density estimates. Russell works from the size of leading cities to the size of regional populations. It looks like Lo Cascio does something similar, but including the smaller cities/towns. That said, Russell is an extreme low counter in most areas, while Lo Cascio is a high counter. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbon's Estimate

In the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon has a long passage where he estimates the population of the Roman Empire. He comes to a total estimate including women children and slaves of up to 150 million. The Wikipedia article on 'List of Largest Empires' says at its peak the population was 40 million. This is so obviously false that it's bordering on the laughable. Similarly, the present article only quotes two people whose estimates are at the very very low end. It briefly mentions that modern estimates are higher (up to 80-120 million) but this does not do enough to convey the situation. The article hasn't canvassed enough scholarly views. Furthermore the notion that 50-60 million is the 'classical' estimate is highly disputable in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leecharleswalker (talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, let's just consider a simple figure. In the census of AD14, there were 4,937,000. Sounds small until you realise that is just Roman citizens. In a period two hundred years before Caracella bestowed citizenry on every person in the empire. Just considering the citizens alone, however... you have to add in the numbers of their wives (double it).... and their children (triple what was already doubled)... you're already sitting on about 30 million actual Romans. Then you've got slaves... easily another 50 million. Then you've got free provincials... same again. You're at 130 million before you know it. These estimates of 40 million total are just plain wrong. Leecharleswalker (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some of the work I've been doing at Roman Empire, I see repeatedly that the standard population estimate is 55–60 million, but "as high as 130 million". I agree with you that the best course, since RS disagree, is to present more sources, and explain why their methodologies produce such varying results. (I could be mistaken, but I think free provincials were counted in the census, because they had certain obligations that differed from those of citizens.) So you are encouraged to move forward with this. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of dispute over census methodology. Scheidel's "Logic of the Debate" and Hin's "Counting Romans" go over this, with Hin presenting a middle count where the later census figures including widows and orphans are between 40% and 57% of the citizen population. Are there any scholars arguing that this was only 17% of the citizen population? And I'm not sure how you are getting from the citizen population to the total population. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this unreferenced high Roman estimate coming from? and what is it based on?

I can't find a source for it, and I can't find region-by-region estimates from high counters, only specific estimates for Italy and Egypt. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find one either. I would rather assume this as a false statement and delete it to avoid further misconceptions. Justice and Equality (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Era style

Just to trace the history of usage, era designation was first introduced to this article in March 2006 as BC/AD. In July 2009, when GunPowder Ma added a substantial bibliography toward developing the article, the era style remained BC/AD, and remained so about a year later. An IP started using BCE/CE in March 2012, but did not change the era consistently throughout the article. Era style remained mixed for a while, but has now been returned to the established style of BC/AD. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]