Jump to content

Talk:List of countries by population in 1800

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Note

[edit]

Remember that this is a list of countries in 1800 ranked by their populations. It is not a list of modern countries and what their populations were in 1800. A lot of references have the second rather than the first. For example, many places will have "Population of Germany in 1800 (or 1806)". This takes the borders of Germany (established in 1871), rolls back the clock, and counts how many people are there. This is useful, but not applicable to our list. In 1800, there was no Germany. There was a Holy Roman Empire, german-speaking people, and a general sense of a german "realm". Just be careful when doing research. We are looking for the political entities that existed in 1800 and what their populations were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlr3001 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"British Empire"

[edit]

India at this time was ruled by the East India Company and not the British government. Funnyhat (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Added note to British Empire to reflect this. Jlr3001 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A country is not the same as an empire; suggest two different lists if this is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one may want to add all the countries of Europe to find the population of Europe in 1800; the populations of India and the Dutch East Indies should not be counted then as part of Britain and Netherlands. Ttulinsky (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha and British Empire

[edit]

For some reason it includes Bombay Presidency and a few Maratha confederate states under the British Empire, those territories were won after the Second Anglo-Maratha War, which occured between 1803-1805. This is supposed to be for 1800, not 1805 so the Maratha and British Empires populations are wrong. Bajirao1007 (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've got the following dates for each of the Indian States accession to the British Empire/British East India Company. If you've got a source that disagrees, please feel free to edit the list and add the new source.

  • Bengal Presidency - 1765
  • Madras Presidency - 1652
  • Bombay Presidency - 1618
  • Kingdom of Mysore - 1799
  • Hyderabad State - 1798
  • Oudh State - 1732
  • Gwalior State - 1731
  • Baroda State - 1721

For the Mudhol State, I've removed it from the list (1819). Jlr3001 (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gwalior and Baroda state were established in the dates you mentioned, they weren't part of the British empire until the Second Anglo-Maratha war, both Bombay and Madras were established at the dates you posted but they didn't control a large territory in 1800(at least for Bombay presidency, I'm not sure for Madras). I'm getting everything I've said from Wikipedia itself. Bajirao1007 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made the changes. Much appreciated. Jlr3001 (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping

[edit]

This list is problematic. Some entries overlap each other.Examples: #2 stands for British Empire and #10 for United Kingdom. #8 stands for Spanish Empire and #11 for Spain.#7 stands for Austrian Empire and #12 for Hungary (in 1800s Hungary was a part of Austrian Empire). Rest of the list (below #16) is even more confusing. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I based most of the list on the list of countries by population in 1900 list. That one had the larger political unions with some of their constituent parts (i.e. The British Empire, then the United Kingdom and India). I continued this trend. They can, however, be removed. If they are removed (i.e. take out Great Britain, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and just leave the British Empire, Spanish Empire, etc.), then I would still recommend keeping the Holy Roman States as separate since the HRE was less unified than it had been. As far as the nations after Luxembourg, they did exist as independent entities, I just have not found the population data for them. Jlr3001 (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I moved all of the constituent nations under their respective empires. Also, I added question marks to those nations for whom I don't have data. Jlr3001 (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


So, I put the Maratha Empire's population at 75,000,000. This is a very rough estimate. The figures I have place the entire population of the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) at around 125,000-150,000. I tried to then use figures for the areas not controlled by the Maratha Confederacy (i.e. areas controlled by the British East India Trading Company, the Sikh Empire, Bengal, etc.). Thus, the figure of around 75,000,000 people, or a little over half of the population of the region. Please fell free to debate & discuss or update with more accurate information. Jlr3001 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the Maratha Empire go?

[edit]

Did someone vandalize or remove them from the list? Bajirao1007 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added Maratha Empire

[edit]

I re-added the Maratha Empire and I fixed up the math for the British Empire, the population I got for the Maratha Empire is based on the population given in the book with in the citation I provided which shows the population of India in 1800, I then subtracted the British Empire's and Sikh Empire's population from that to get the Maratha population(there doesn't seem to be any major state in India in 1800 besides those three plus Hyderabad and Mysore, Hyderabad and Mysore however are included in the British India population). I also deleted Bombay presidency from the British Empire since almost all of Bombay Presidency was made up of Maratha held territories, won after the Second and Third Anglo-Maratha wars(both of which are post 1800). If there are any objections to my changes please notify me, thanks.Bajirao1007 (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bajirao1007: See Wikipedia:No original research. You need to find a source that explicitly states these figures. utcursch | talk 12:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Utcursch: So the Maratha Empire and most of India's population will not be included at all despite it the second most populated? I can't find one source on the Maratha Empire's population in 1800 hence why I used an estimate, by subtracting British and Sikh shares, one should assume the rest of India lived in the Maratha Empire. Also by your logic I should delete the Qing Empire from the list since its source has no explicit figure, if the Maratha Empire isn't added for that reason, I will delete the Qing empire for you. Bajirao1007 (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bajirao1007: The Maratha empire will be added when an acceptable source is found. Wikipedia is a work in progress.
Your estimate is your original research. If you publish your estimate in a peer-reviewed journal, it can be added to the article as source.
Of course, you can delete Qing Empire, if you find that the cited source doesn't explicitly support the assertion. utcursch | talk 01:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Batavian Republic (today: ~ Kingdom of the Netherlands)

[edit]

Was an independent Republic (at least formally) 1795 - 1806 - pop. 2 Million. Souce: Wikipedia "Batavian Republic"

Nuremberg - Angel.Garcia2001 62.156.34.142 (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I debated on this one. Reading into it, it looks like it was independent only in the technical sense. In reality, the dutch did nothing that the French didn't want them too. I believe it was more of a puppet government. Thoughts? Jlr3001 (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Empire

[edit]

I believe it should be listed as "Dutch Empire" with the "Batavian Republic" as a constituent. This shows that the dutch controlled more than just the republic itself. Thoughts? Jlr3001 (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Order

[edit]

I believe that we should list constituents in population order, regardless of who they are. However, it's been proposed that the leading constituent be placed first. For example, the British Empire would list the UK first, even though it does not have the highest population in the Empire. I disagree, but discussion? Jlr3001 (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needed Stats

[edit]

The following were countries in 1800. If you find statistics (and a source!) please add it to the list and remove it from this one:

Jlr3001 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Empire figures

[edit]

The table claims 118 million people in the British Empire, but the listed constituent areas only add up to about 56 million. 2602:306:CFEA:170:1567:5CE9:6F00:6869 (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources lists the total population for the empire in 1800 as 100,000,000 people not in the home territories (i.e., Great Britain and Ireland). With those added, it is about 115,000,000. It's general practice to use the total figure and add the constituents as they can be found. If there is no total figure, that's when adding up the constituents is used. Jlr3001 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source which claims that it was 100,000,000 is from a newspaper piece in 1900. Very likely its a hyperbolic claim. Bajirao1007 (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The currently listed constituents already make up nearly the entire British Empire at the time, the only things missing are some Caribbean islands, some occupied regions like the Cape Colony, and the missing numbers of already listed places (which all together would just be a couple million at most). Furthermore it also doesn't add up with the claimed percentage, as 11.8% of the listed global population would be 86,000,000 (although the accuracy of the percentages also seems dubious). Either way it's obvious that the listed total number is completely false, a difference of 30 to 60 million compared to all the other sources isn't something that can simply be ignored, and a modification of the number seems long overdue. --Sergeant O'Brien (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage

[edit]

Im no expert on this site, so I do not know which should exactly be fixed, but the Qing share of the world population is incorrect. If my assumptions are right it should be 40.4%. 81.205.206.161 (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing countries

[edit]
  • Andorra (it's included in France, but should be separated)
  • Bhutan (independent since 1634)
  • Brunei Empire (independent since 1425)
  • Japanese Shoganate (Never subjugated) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.158.190 (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nepal (independent since 1768)
  • Piombino (independent since 1398)
  • Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro (independent since 1516)
  • San Marino (independent since 301)
  • Siam (independent since 1351)

12qwas (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting British Empire statistics need correcting

[edit]

The listed figures for the British empire's territories including its most populous (India, Britain, Ireland) add up to just under 57 million but a figure taken from a dubious 1900 newspaper article is cited for a total population of 115 million. This needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiringthepot (talk • contribs) 02:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to make the correction myself as I have noticed this issue has been brought up before and nothing was done. I've used a rounded up total of the populations listed for the territories. Here's the link to the dubious newspaper article I've removed. Newspaper articles should not be used as a citation source for such matters. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiringthepot (talk • contribs) 22:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The British Empire: 1800-1900". 1900.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_population_in_1800&oldid=1211100900"