In the west, I think the fall of the Western Roman Empire was probably a significant hit, and caused a major setback in economic growth in Europe. China had its bloody Three Kingdom period, and later the An Lushan rebellion. There were other plagues too, like the Antonine plague. There was the Muslim conquest of the Mediterranean, Persia and Pakistan, though I don’t know if that was unusually bloody. There also were plenty of Viking raids. These might be small fluctuations in the grand scheme of things or add up to a period of enough turmoil and strife in the most populous regions of the world to slow growth down.
On this topic (and for looking at the causality direction) I think the book “In the Shadow of the Sword” by Tom Holland is quite informative. The book covers the “late antiquity” period, a lot of it involves the origins of islam and a lot of the (Eastern) romans having trouble with it all. From my memory their were either one or two devastating plagues in the Roman empire, which massively depopulated its cities. The non-urban populations (eg. the horse riding nomads) were barely effected by the plague (they were said to be immune, but it was probably just transmission opportunities). The book argues this was an important factor in the Roman Empires defeat by the new Islamic empires, a large fraction of the legionnaires the romans should have had had never been born because their parents had died of plague twenty years earlier. (The were a lot of other factors going on too, but this one stood out in this discussion.) I think that the Persians had the same problem when it was their turn to fight the same arabs, a fraction of their troops had never been born.
I’ve actually written about this subject before, and I agree that the first plague pandemic could have been significant: perhaps killing around 8% of the global population in the four years from 541 to 544. However, it’s also worth noting that our evidence for this decline is rather scant; we know that the death toll was very high in Constantinople but not much about what happened outside the capital, mostly because nobody was there to write it down. So it’s also entirely conceivable that the death toll was much lower than this. The controversy about this continues to this day in the literature, as far as I know.
The hypothesis that the bubonic plague was responsible is interesting, but by itself doesn’t explain the more granular data which suggests the slowdown starts around 200 BC and we already see close to no growth in global population from e.g. 200 AD to 500 AD. HYDE doesn’t have this, but the McEvedy and Jones dataset does.
It’s possible, and perhaps even likely, that the explanation is not monocasual. In this case, the first plague pandemic could have been one of the many factors that dragged population growth down throughout the first millennium.
On this topic (and for looking at the causality direction) I think the book “In the Shadow of the Sword” by Tom Holland is quite informative.
Man, he has time to do such important academic work, at his age, between one Spider-Man movie and another? Talk about a polymath!
(I’m sorry)
From my memory their were either one or two devastating plagues in the Roman empire, which massively depopulated its cities. The non-urban populations (eg. the horse riding nomads) were barely effected by the plague (they were said to be immune, but it was probably just transmission opportunities).
Never underestimate the benefits of living mostly outdoors or in tents with plenty of ventilation. But yeah, I mentioned the Antonine plague but I think I remember there being more. These were pretty destructive events so obviously they’d leave a mark.
In the west, I think the fall of the Western Roman Empire was probably a significant hit, and caused a major setback in economic growth in Europe.
Attribution of causality is tricky with this event, but I would agree if you said the fall coincided with a major slowdown in European economic growth.
China had its bloody Three Kingdom period, and later the An Lushan rebellion.
I think a problem re: China is that a lot of population decline estimates for China are based on the official census, and as far as I know China didn’t have a formal census before the Xin dynasty, and certainly not before unification in the 3rd century BC. So the fact that we don’t see comparable population declines reported may just be an artifact of that measurement issue. We certainly see plenty of them in the second millennium.
There was the Muslim conquest of the Mediterranean, Persia and Pakistan, though I don’t know if that was unusually bloody.
I haven’t seen estimates of this that put it anywhere near the Mongol conquests, so I would assume not particularly bloody relative to what was to come later. I would also guess that the Islamic world probably saw significant population growth around that time.
These might be small fluctuations in the grand scheme of things or add up to a period of enough turmoil and strife in the most populous regions of the world to slow growth down.
Yeah, it’s possible that this is the explanation, but if so it’s rather hard to know because there’s no principled way to compare events like these to analogs in other time periods.
Attribution of causality is tricky with this event, but I would agree if you said the fall coincided with a major slowdown in European economic growth.
Yes, I suppose the arrow could go the other way around—that economic recession caused the fall. Or really, probably just a feedback loop of stuff going to shit. Sorry for the unwarranted implication.
I think a problem re: China is that a lot of population decline estimates for China are based on the official census, and as far as I know China didn’t have a formal census before the Xin dynasty, and certainly not before unification in the 3rd century BC. So the fact that we don’t see comparable population declines reported may just be an artifact of that measurement issue. We certainly see plenty of them in the second millennium.
Yeah, just suggesting possible sources. But also, any estimates of population growth in the 1-1000 AD range must account for China, so if we can’t trust the census, are you sure your figures too aren’t affected by this fundamental problem?
Anyway, this looks like an interesting history problem—first, figuring out if the effect is real, and then, if it is, what caused it. But there’s probably enough research for a PhD, or even a whole career, in such a wide field. It’s a super complex question.
In the west, I think the fall of the Western Roman Empire was probably a significant hit, and caused a major setback in economic growth in Europe. China had its bloody Three Kingdom period, and later the An Lushan rebellion. There were other plagues too, like the Antonine plague. There was the Muslim conquest of the Mediterranean, Persia and Pakistan, though I don’t know if that was unusually bloody. There also were plenty of Viking raids. These might be small fluctuations in the grand scheme of things or add up to a period of enough turmoil and strife in the most populous regions of the world to slow growth down.
On this topic (and for looking at the causality direction) I think the book “In the Shadow of the Sword” by Tom Holland is quite informative. The book covers the “late antiquity” period, a lot of it involves the origins of islam and a lot of the (Eastern) romans having trouble with it all. From my memory their were either one or two devastating plagues in the Roman empire, which massively depopulated its cities. The non-urban populations (eg. the horse riding nomads) were barely effected by the plague (they were said to be immune, but it was probably just transmission opportunities). The book argues this was an important factor in the Roman Empires defeat by the new Islamic empires, a large fraction of the legionnaires the romans should have had had never been born because their parents had died of plague twenty years earlier. (The were a lot of other factors going on too, but this one stood out in this discussion.) I think that the Persians had the same problem when it was their turn to fight the same arabs, a fraction of their troops had never been born.
I’ve actually written about this subject before, and I agree that the first plague pandemic could have been significant: perhaps killing around 8% of the global population in the four years from 541 to 544. However, it’s also worth noting that our evidence for this decline is rather scant; we know that the death toll was very high in Constantinople but not much about what happened outside the capital, mostly because nobody was there to write it down. So it’s also entirely conceivable that the death toll was much lower than this. The controversy about this continues to this day in the literature, as far as I know.
The hypothesis that the bubonic plague was responsible is interesting, but by itself doesn’t explain the more granular data which suggests the slowdown starts around 200 BC and we already see close to no growth in global population from e.g. 200 AD to 500 AD. HYDE doesn’t have this, but the McEvedy and Jones dataset does.
It’s possible, and perhaps even likely, that the explanation is not monocasual. In this case, the first plague pandemic could have been one of the many factors that dragged population growth down throughout the first millennium.
Man, he has time to do such important academic work, at his age, between one Spider-Man movie and another? Talk about a polymath!
(I’m sorry)
Never underestimate the benefits of living mostly outdoors or in tents with plenty of ventilation. But yeah, I mentioned the Antonine plague but I think I remember there being more. These were pretty destructive events so obviously they’d leave a mark.
Attribution of causality is tricky with this event, but I would agree if you said the fall coincided with a major slowdown in European economic growth.
I think a problem re: China is that a lot of population decline estimates for China are based on the official census, and as far as I know China didn’t have a formal census before the Xin dynasty, and certainly not before unification in the 3rd century BC. So the fact that we don’t see comparable population declines reported may just be an artifact of that measurement issue. We certainly see plenty of them in the second millennium.
I haven’t seen estimates of this that put it anywhere near the Mongol conquests, so I would assume not particularly bloody relative to what was to come later. I would also guess that the Islamic world probably saw significant population growth around that time.
Yeah, it’s possible that this is the explanation, but if so it’s rather hard to know because there’s no principled way to compare events like these to analogs in other time periods.
Yes, I suppose the arrow could go the other way around—that economic recession caused the fall. Or really, probably just a feedback loop of stuff going to shit. Sorry for the unwarranted implication.
Yeah, just suggesting possible sources. But also, any estimates of population growth in the 1-1000 AD range must account for China, so if we can’t trust the census, are you sure your figures too aren’t affected by this fundamental problem?
Anyway, this looks like an interesting history problem—first, figuring out if the effect is real, and then, if it is, what caused it. But there’s probably enough research for a PhD, or even a whole career, in such a wide field. It’s a super complex question.