1000 a day, demographics.

[Iranon]

This doesn't seem unreasonable even if we want a stable population.

If we assume 10 children per adult female (not unreasonable; taking into account nonhuman population we may get higher) we can safely sacrifice 8 of them and still have a stable population with considerable reserves for unplanned deaths - we won't need many males.

We can get a good number of adult sacrifices as well with an actively participating death cult (anyone deemed too sick, too old, or convicted), further bolstering our reserve.

Assuming a life expectancy of 40 years - just breeding and culling will struggle to keep a functioning society - that means on average each female that lives to adulthood is good for 1 sacrifice every 2000 days.
2 million of them is enough to sustain this, add a few 100k males.

Total population will be higher if we want to only sacrifice kids once they're old enough to be willing members of our happy death cult.

*

Of course, all of this is moot if the aim is a dead continent (world?) rather than a high sustainable rate of sacrifices.

[The Pilgrim]

10 children per adult (human) female is way too high. Specially if you expect all 10 of them to survive into adulthood.

In pre-industrial societies, a birthrate of 5 to 10 children per female was common. However, a child mortality ratio of 50% or higher was also in the order.

[luc258]

Thousand a day might be a figure of speech for a lot. Or maybe the Giant just got tired of the audience mistaking good mannered but absolutely vile, evil persons for good and neutral, so he went a little overboard with the number.

[Mike Havran]

I think the Giant had planned this part of the story long before the lenghty discussions began.

[Nimrod's Son]

However, a child mortality ratio of 50% or higher was also in the order.
Although that needn't be the case when creating fresh food and water are low-level clerical spells.

[Trixie]

Or, you know, you can maybe read main discussion where numbers were worked out thoroughly as early as page 5? :smallconfused:

[Bulldog Psion]

A thousand a day is quite feasible for an empire that includes an entire continent, in my opinion.

[Iranon]

10 children per adult (human) female is way too high. Specially if you expect all 10 of them to survive into adulthood.

In pre-industrial societies, a birthrate of 5 to 10 children per female was common. However, a child mortality ratio of 50% or higher was also in the order.

If "child mortality" covers everything before adulthood, 50% is at the high end of the realistic estimates for much of history, but fair enough... and not a problem at all for my scenario.
To create such squalor that 50% of newborns die before we can sacrifice them, we need fairly advanced civilisation and/or a medical profession that's doing more harm than good.

Healthcare is pretty decent in a setting where potions and prayers get reliable results.


Or, you know, you can maybe read main discussion where numbers were worked out thoroughly as early as page 5? :smallconfused:

I did. Perhaps I thought there was a reason?

[Trixie]

I did. Perhaps I thought there was a reason?

Reason? What, pray tell? Main thread looked at numbers from far more angles and included real statistical data, life curves, and such, without guessing and society where there simply is not enough labour available to sustain it.

[Winter]

I think the Giant had planned this part of the story long before the lenghty discussions began.

Those discussions started with Belkar way, waaay back. And since then have re-surfaced about basically every evil character in the story besides Xykon.

[sam79]

Reason? What, pray tell?

Perhaps that it is by no means obvious that there is such a discussion on the made thread, and/or it is difficult to find unless you already know where it is? Or that such a discussion on the main thread will inevitably (and understandably) get lost in amongst the more generalised reactions, so it might be worth having a new thread specifically on the topic? I'm sure if anyone wanted to put a link their more detailed and complete demographic discussions, that would be welcome.

[Feddlefew]

If "child mortality" covers everything before adulthood, 50% is at the high end of the realistic estimates for much of history, but fair enough... and not a problem at all for my scenario.
To create such squalor that 50% of newborns die before we can sacrifice them, we need fairly advanced civilisation and/or a medical profession that's doing more harm than good.

Healthcare is pretty decent in a setting where potions and prayers get reliable results.

Cholera and some other diseases common in areas with poor sanitation can kill children very, very quickly. They're also highly virulent, and priests can only cast cure disease so many times in one day.

Although I think diseases in D&D work differently in real life than the do in real life, considering that disease is a broad category.

[sam79]

Cholera and some other diseases common in areas with poor sanitation can kill children very, very quickly.


A good point, but there are some low-level spells (purify food/water is first level, I think) that can help solve sanitation problems before things like cholera can take hold. The presence and wide distribution of reliable anti-disease, prevenative and curative magic makes demographics VERY hard to do, but in a I'd think that we are better looking at modern/early modern models than ancient/medieval ones.

[Feddlefew]

A good point, but there are some low-level spells (purify food/water is first level, I think) that can help solve sanitation problems before things like cholera can take hold. The presence and wide distribution of reliable anti-disease, prevenative and curative magic makes demographics VERY hard to do, but in a I'd think that we are better looking at modern/early modern models than ancient/medieval ones.

The early modern actually had much higher death rates from disease than ancient and medieval. Diseases spread fast in densely populated areas without proper waste-management infrastructure.

Does D&D have a vaccine-like spell?

[sam79]

The early modern actually had much higher death rates from disease than ancient and medieval. Diseases spread fast in densely populated areas without proper waste-management infrastructure.

Does D&D have a vaccine-like spell?

I don't know if D+D has a vaccine-type spell; I rather doubt it, given that healing battle damage and curses is more the type of thing that PC clerics want. But don't take my word for it; my knowledge of the D+D magic system is probably at the same level as my competence in basic demography. :smallwink:

[Feddlefew]

None of the references I have on hand say anything about a vaccination spell. Also the D&D disease list is pitiful. No tetanus, botulism or influenza? Influenza would probably need a table, considering how much variation there can be between strains.

[Iranon]

Better that it doesn't. D&D tends to screw up hilariously when trying to put such things into rules.

In a world with a decent power level (plenty of magic available, PC class levels reasonably common) we can assume that settlements so large that overpopulation would introduce a disease concern, there's something to mitigate that.

Another thing that's been a concern historically: lack of familiarity/built-up immunity; travel and trade were major issues. Given all the interspecies and even interplanar mingling, this is probably less of an issue here.

I'd definitely look into this if some high priest to a plague god was up to something big, but what we have on hand is something different :)

[sam79]

Another thing to throw out there in terms of demography; the assumed gender equality in D+D based worlds. It seems to be a given in OOTS-world, and in D+D generally, that males and females have broadly the same rights in terms of access to professions, chance of progression to high class levels etc. I imagine that this would have some impact on the birth rate.

[Feddlefew]

I think I could probably improvise rules for tetanus and botulism.


... Actually I'd rewrite the disease and poison rules. Botulism acts like a poison, and tetanus is a disease that causes a poison, and the rules can't handle either as written.

[Ozymandias]

Malack could just sacrifice the very elderly or terminally ill with little overall impact on population demographics

[Rorrik]

Another thing to throw out there in terms of demography; the assumed gender equality in D+D based worlds. It seems to be a given in OOTS-world, and in D+D generally, that males and females have broadly the same rights in terms of access to professions, chance of progression to high class levels etc. I imagine that this would have some impact on the birth rate.

It would, but if Malack has taken the continent in the name of Nergal and is using it to churn out sacrifices 1000 a day, I think we can safely assume that he has upset the societal norms of his kingdom.

The OP suggestion of 2 million females and 200k males(pretty good odds for the males, I think :smallwink:) implies that forced breeding is being used to sustain the steady flow of sacrifices. In that case, why not 10 children per woman? And if we're okay sacrificing infant children (8 out of 10 as suggested) then the risk of young death is greatly mitigated.

Another question worth asking is what lizardfolk birth rates look like. Are we seeing a clutch of a dozen eggs every year under a forced breeding program. If so, we could hit the 1000 easily.

Hmm, thinking evil is way more fun than thinking good. How would Malack keep an enslaved population of 2.2 million under control? We'd need maybe another half million devout members (hard to come by I'd guess) to keep them in line. Depending on how large the continent is, and how arable that desert is, it could be hard to keep a population that large alive in the Western continent, that or very easy.

Edit: Get's even harder when at any given time roughly half the population is pregnant.

[Miriel]

In normal situations, population tends to stabilize around the level of food output, and natality adjusts to mortality at a given level to create such stability. Your hypothetical 10 children/woman fertility rate (a very rough estimate would give a birth rate above 100, which is enormous) would mean that there are already massives external checks on population, which means that killing a thousand people a day would be disastrous. So.... yes, but no.

As a matter of fact, a fertility rate of 10 children per woman is quite high, even for pre-industrial societies. As I recall, a slight increase in population (checked by periodic epidemics) was achieved with 6-7 children per woman in Late Medieval/Early Modern Europe. That was with half the children dying before reaching the age of 5. In the end, those 6-7 children would give a little more that 2 adults that would actually reproduce.

We cannot really know what is the actual demographic situation of the Western Continent. Sure, the general technological level looks like that of a pre-industrial society, but I think it's not unreasonnable to say that healing magic would have major consequences. If that holds, we cannot just state that the curve is a typical pre-industrial one, with high natality and child mortality and low life exspectancy. Obviously, that depends on the availability of divine spellcasters in the general population, but it could be much closer to our situation than you (or anyone in the main thread, as I recall), suppose.

One point that gets forgotten, however, is that if Malack succeeds at unifying the continent, there would be no more wars. That takes care of one rather important check to population growth. If wars take off 365,000 people a year, then maybe, but that is quite unlikely. It helps, though.

It is also possible that the efficient mass murders would create an upward trend in natality, to compensate. Our efficient lizardfolk could create some laws to that effect, even.

The bottom line is: "1000 deaths a year" just means "a lot of deaths". The number has a literary, not descriptive, value. Malack will kill a lot of people every day, that's all.

[SaintRidley]

There's no real need to have a population capable of sustaining itself against the sacrifices. Erasing all life from the continent might well be the goal, the ultimate tribute to Nergal.

[Winter]

I think we can make an even more simple estimation:

If you want to sacrifice 1000 people per day, you need at least 1000 people to get born each day. Assuming no other deaths due to disease or crime, you get a stable population.

The oots-world does not seem to be full of families that have 10 children, having one to four seems to be the norm from what we saw. As average over all humanoids (those live in Malack's empire) this number does not seem that bad. So let us assume an average of two children per couple. Which is convenient, as two people making two other people gives us a "just stable" population. This means: one child for every person in the empire.

To estimate the minimum population we assume the Empire is smart: They sacrifice only adult people who already have raised their children. That way, they get a new citizen and can throw away the old one. Furthermore, we assume that children are conceived when the parents are "of age", which happens when they are 15 and sacrificed when their children are "of age", meaning 15. This means, you get sacrificed when you are 30.
Given that some humanoids in that empire do not live as long as humans, this average seems not that bad (as goblinoid you're on the altar when you are 20, as human maybe when you are 40 or 50).

This means we need 1000 births per day for 30 years (one full generation got children - and replaced themselves with them). That's roughly a population of 10 million.

You need a higher population if you want it to grow, if you want to be able afford other deaths (military for offense and defense, crime, disease, peoples without offspring), if you want to let your citizens live longer than the time they barely need to reproduce themselves, or if you do not want the rule that you only sacrifice people who already have a child.
You need a lower population if you can somehow convince your citizens to make more children.

If you want to erase everyone on the continent over a while, you're can do so by encouraging people to have less children.

Given I ignored most other causes of death in the estimate above and that Malack could easily encourage his citizens to have more children or go on military expeditions to get people he can sacrifice in the elven lands or on the other continents or from rebel-countries in his empire, I think the 10 million number isn't that far from a "decent estimate".
A population of 10 million for the continent seem also possible.

Also note that my number isn't that far from the one of the OP. If you scale down the number of children everyone has (2 instead of 10) you're arriving at roughly my number.

But please note this: The above number is one that makes everyone to 100% a sacrifice sooner or later. I doubt that would be a stable society, so I think you need at least ten times the number of population so you can afford to sacrifice <10% (which gives everyone a reasonable hope of not getting send to Nergal but be left in peace).
Thus, we're looking at 100+ million Malack would need in his empire.

This does not seem entirely believable anymore. Whatever he wants, he won't get a stable, non-rebelling empire unless he manages to convince nearly everyone to get killed on Nergal's Altar when they hit 35.

[Bulldog Psion]

10 million is less than medieval France had. And an entire continent is a lot bigger than that. Granted, a lot of it is desert, but still, I'd be surprised if there were less than 40 to 50 million people and other sapients on the continent, at a minimum.

Fantasy games tend to vastly underestimate the number of people in pre-industrial societies. I mean, ancient Egypt -- a tiny sliver of fertile land along a river, with extremely low technological levels -- had 2 million people in it. Yet I see far more advanced nations in some fantasy settings, with rich, temperate landscapes capable of supporting extensive farming, with a few hundred thousand people in them. :smallconfused:

It seems like fiction writers think small. Galactic empires have fleets of 300 ships to patrol millions of worlds. Fantasy nations with access to healing and anti-disease magic have populations less than some large medieval cities on plague-ridden Earth.

[Winter]

10 million is less than medieval France had. And an entire continent is a lot bigger than that. Granted, a lot of it is desert, but still, I'd be surprised if there were less than 40 to 50 million people and other sapients on the continent, at a minimum.

Yes, I pondered that as well but did not want to clog the post with it. A lot of these empires are are desert, while medival france (surely smaller than the Western Continent) is of a much better climate. But 10 to 50 million seem possible, 100+ (without the elven lands)... not so much.
But Malack does not need 100+ when he can live with a "not so stable" empire, it just should not go below 50 million (sacrificing 50% of your population sooner or later). He can also easily adjust by just sending 500 people to Nergal every day should go things badly for the empire. ;)


Fantasy games tend to vastly underestimate the number of people in pre-industrial societies. I mean, ancient Egypt -- a tiny sliver of fertile land along a river, with extremely low technological levels -- had 2 million people in it. Yet I see far more advanced nations in some fantasy settings, with rich, temperate landscapes capable of supporting extensive farming, with a few hundred thousand people in them. :smallconfused:

I always had the impression at least the Forgotten Realms got it pretty right. You have "big cities" with some 10k inhabitants, hamlets etc are much smaller. If I look at the FR map and see what cities have how many inhabitants, I think that is not too far from the truth.
What is to be considered is that most land in medival times was actually inhabited. Those "large areas full of no settlements" we have in fantasy are actually unrealistic.
Medival France, Germany or England were not always "Village next to Village", but many areas were and those that were lighter populated were far from empty. This might the reason we never had massive gathering of orcish tribes that no one knew about before they hit in RL. :smallbiggrin:


It seems like fiction writers think small. Galactic empires have fleets of 300 ships to patrol millions of worlds. Fantasy nations with access to healing and anti-disease magic have populations less than some large medieval cities on plague-ridden Earth.

While that is surely something we could discuss, I want to point out that the Western Continent is full of warfare. Whatever benefits the high standard of education, civilization and magic they have in OotS (they do!) they totally make up again with "constant warfare". This should put a massive dent into the population curve.

[Miriel]

10 million is less than medieval France had. And an entire continent is a lot bigger than that. Granted, a lot of it is desert, but still, I'd be surprised if there were less than 40 to 50 million people and other sapients on the continent, at a minimum.
It's plausible.

Map of the Western continent (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html)

We know that Azure city has 530,000 population (in the tourist guide at the back of War and XPs). Here is a shot of the Empire of Blood's capital (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0717.html) which tells us that it has about the same scale as Azure City, though it might be less densely populated. So let's assume that it is in the 200k-500k range. There are five major cities on the Western Continent (excluding Elven Lands, which are off limits for Tarquin and Malack). Let's say they are all in this range. This means the five largest cities have a combined population of 1-2.5M. I would incline for a 1.5M estimate.

As a matter of comparison, ancient Rome may have reached 1M, Alexandria, maybe as much, and Antioch, 200k. A few other huge cities are in this range. Of course, the Roman Empire was probably larger and richer than the (Southern part of) the Western Continent.

On the map, there are a dozen smaller dots, + Sandsedge, with an intermediate dot. Let's say that Sandsedge has 150k, and the smaller cities, 100k in average. This means there are 1.2M (rounded up) people living in large cities. We could imagine smaller towns as well: let's say that there are 30 smaller cities (guesstimate made by filling holes in the map), of 40k in average (which is plausible, with a Roman Empire comparison). We now have an extra 1.2M. Total urban population : about 4M.

In pre-industrial societies, at least 90% of the population lived in rural areas. This would give us a very rough estimate of 40M total population for the Western Continent.

EDIT : I have absolutely no idea of the demographics of the Muslim medieval world, on which the Western Continent is based, thus the Roman comparison. Both were relatively close to each other, as I understand it, but I'm no expert in either (I'm more into the Middle Ages). Obviously, those numbers do not fit standard Western European medieval city demographics.

[King of Nowhere]

there are a few ways to make the sacrifices sustainable over the long scale.
The simpler is, only sacrifice the elders. they will not make childrens anymore, and so you won't lose much of population. so you could make a law that anyone is sacrificed on his 60th birthday.
Another way is to sacrifice newborn children; tghat way you get around the problem of children mortality completely.
A third way would be to only sacrifice males, and introduce polygamy. A small number of males would be enough to impregnate a large number of women and grant demographic stability.
There are many ways to make rough calculations, but I will attempt one. Assuming demographic stability, we know that every person will make exatly one children that will have descendants. We need 1000 people to be born every day if we want to sacrifice them. Assuming an average lifespan of 50 years (reasonable estimate for a medioeval society, without taking into account child mortality), we'd need (50*365*1000) 18 million people. With 18 million people and an average lifespan of 50 years, we can sacrifice anyone when they get old and get the 1000 per day. Or, we could sacrifice a son in every family and still get a constant population. after all, that son would have probably died of deseadse of malnutrition anyway, and the family can easily make another.
Any calculation is necessarily rough, but that rate of sacrificing seems sustainable starting from a population of 10 millions. With a population over 50 millions there's no doubt anymore.
As the continent is mostly desert, I think 10 to 30 million people is also a reasonable estimate of its population. So, malack probably has already done all the math.

As for what a population can accept without rebelling, you'd be surprised. the human mind is very flexible, and it tends to think of the situation it has always known as the "rightful" one. After all, we all know we're going to die sooner or later, yet we carry on with our lives anyway.
I could explain it with only with real world examples, as I read some documents on it that, if they appeared in fiction, would never be believed. except that I already got a warning for using real life example. But I should still be allowed to say that among slaver societies, captured slaves were likely to rebel or escape given the chance; they knew freedom, considered it the natural way of things, and revolted against slavery. But people born slaves, an brought up to think of themselves as slaves, very rarely tried to escape even when they were not guarded. because in their mind being slaves was the rightful way of things. they would often rebel against anyone who tried to free them.
So, if you can make the 1000 sacrifices a day going on for a generation, the people will see it as part of the normal scheme of things and acccept it. they may even rebel against anyone suggesting that routine be stopped, since it would lose the favor of nergal.

[Iranon]

Malack could just sacrifice the very elderly or terminally ill with little overall impact on population demographics

Sure, but a "kinder and gentler death cult" that does only that needs a much larger population.

If we just sacrifice people shortly after they reach the median age of death (which would mean late seventies in most developed countries. D&D usually assumes generous life expectancies and low mortality to what we'd consider natural causes so this may not be far off in a well-run empire that just happens to be big on sacrifices), we need a stable population of 50 million.
Note that in this case the median age of death isn't affected by the sacrifices.

If we have good triage in emergencies and fully incorporate this into our legal system (we don't need to go overboard with immediate death penalties, "you're sentenced to be sacrificed 5 years early" works) we can get a functional society on less.

This agrees quite well with other estimates.

2 million+: Breed to sacrifice kids.
10 million+: Ritual culling of expendables.
50 million+: May work better than a society without the custom.

[The Pilgrim]

EDIT : I have absolutely no idea of the demographics of the Muslim medieval world, on which the Western Continent is based, thus the Roman comparison. Both were relatively close to each other, as I understand it, but I'm no expert in either (I'm more into the Middle Ages). Obviously, those numbers do not fit standard Western European medieval city demographics.

You have made some great points and a rather professional approach. Congratz. :smallsmile:

However, in my opinion you made also some overstimations.

Alexandria at his peak was about 500k, and that was before roman conquest, when Alexandria was the Capital of the powerful ptolemaic Empire. Rome (then still the Republic of Rome) was about 500k by then, and Antioch may have reached at that period as much as 400k. By the time the Roman Empire was stablished, Rome reaches 1M but cities like Alexandria or Antioch were down to about 200k. Perhaps half a dozen cities in the Empire reached the 100k-200k range - Carthage and Ephesus come to mind, maybe 1 or 2 more.

Medieval cities in Christian Europe where far less populated. Constantinople started at 500k, struggled around 300k at year 1000, and steadly declined to reach 100k after the infamous 4th Crusade. In the west proper, no city reached the 100k mark until about the XIII Century, and by then we have Paris, Venice, Genoa, Florence, Milan, and most of those are probably over-estimated. Then came the Black Plage, so things really didn't improve until much later.

In the islamic world, things were not much better. The jewel is, of course, Baghdad, who at the peak of the Abbasid Caliphate is said to have reached 2M (through the real number was probably under 1M). By the times of the Crusades it had fell to around 150k-250k. Other important cities were in the 200k range: Cordoba, Cairo (reaching 400k in the later middle ages), Fez and Marrakech (both during the Almoravid and Almohade empires - XII-XIII centuries), maybe Damascus (maybe), and that's about it.

China and India can add a handful more cities in the 100k-500k range - most at the 100k-200k.

If we come then to Stickworld Demographics, we have Azure City with 500k, which is an important trade city, former capital of an empire, and probably the largest city in the world. She is equiparable in size, trade, and cultural relevance with real-world Constantinople.

By my estimation, Bloodingham, the capital of the EOB, is probably much smaller, 100k-200k range at most. It's not a first-rate trade center, it's not the capital of a continental-scale empire, and it's not even the capital of an stable nation (life expectancy of a nation there, 2-3 years). As you correctly point, there are 4 other cities at his range. Cities that big must be the center of large, stable empires, or stable first-order trade centers. But stability is not really a thing in the Western Continent.

Then we have Sandsedge who I estimate at the 50k-100k range (probably closer to 50k, it's a city made of tents after all) and 10 dots whose ranges I'd bet at 10k-50k (probably closer to 10k).

That leaves us with an estimation of (big) urban population of about 1M-1.5M at most. You add an estimation of 30 cities or so, who under my estimations would be at 1k-5k at most 10k range. They don't really make a difference.

Now you correctly point out that 90% of the pop was rural. But totally blow it when you just x10 the pop estimated as "urban". Let me show you what happens to historical Medieval Europe if I apply the same calculations: I listed 5 or 6 cities, at most, with more than 100k inhabitants. If we add a chunk of cities about 10k-100k, we may come to a total urban pop of 2M, most. Then applying the 90% formula we would obtain an estimation of 20M pop for medieval europe at his peak, when in fact the historical estimate is around 100M.

The problem here is that the 10% "urban" population is a lot more than what we are numbering as dwellers of the Big Ones. Because any settlement of about 1k, or even less, could be considered a "city" in the Middle Ages. So if I apply that correction to my estimations, then I estimate [1-1.5M urban pop, x10 (90% rural estimation) x5 (corrective variable)] = 50-75 Million People, assuming a late-medieval cultural level (ie: relatively stable political entities, intercontinental trade routes) for the Western Continent. However, given the high unstability of the area, it's possible that we should assume an early-medieval level (ie: unstable political entities, land ravaged by frecuent foreign invasions, trade mostly interrupted beyond local regional level), which would mean dividing the result by 3, for an estimation of 15-25 million people.

Of course, that would be at the current political climate. Once Tarquin and his gang unify the continent, with the stability the pop would increase back to the 50M-75M mark by the time Tarquin kicks the bucket and Malack inherits it all.

So, in the end, funny fact, I made an estimation of urban pop much lower than yours, but end up with a total higher pop estimation. :smalleek:

(Of course, all my numbers and calculations are probably crap anyway).

[Iranon]

Interesting estimates about historic population spreads. We have rather little information about the western continent... but even outside the large desert most seems hot and dry (contrast the Elven Lands on the map) and most recorded cities are near rivers (hardly surprising).

Enough to make me assume that we'll have sharply limited fertile land, with high population densities around the major cities and a lot of barren wilderness. We also have at least 3 major empires that put on a big show, probably all with decent-sized capitals.

This would also make the constant wars more sustainable - cities are real prizes, and the populations can recover more easily than on a continent where life in many small spread-out settlements can break down when there's a high death toll.

[Geordnet]

Or, you know, you can maybe read main discussion where numbers were worked out thoroughly as early as page 5? :smallconfused:
You expect everyone to dig through that much text? :smallconfused:

Seriously, 9 full pages were posted within three hours. That's an average of three posts every two minutes. There's barely any room for actual discussion on the comic itself, let alone a minor detail of it.



Thousand a day might be a figure of speech for a lot. Or maybe the Giant just got tired of the audience mistaking good mannered but absolutely vile, evil persons for good and neutral, so he went a little overboard with the number.
"A Thousand a Day" is absolutely a figure of speech, but that doesn't mean Malack doesn't plan to sacrifice that many if he can.

I'm pretty sure that Malack's planning to basically do one of two things:
Enforce an indefinite, sustained regime of sacrifice.
Wipe out civilization in a tide of blood.

If he's trying to do the former, he'll sacrifice as many as he can without destabilizing the population. If that number happens to be more or less than exactly one thousand, he'll sacrifice more or less than one thousand.

Of course, if he's trying to do the former he'll kill off everyone as fast as he can without evoking a do-or-die desperation revolt from everyone on the continent, including his minions when they realize what happens once their job is finished...

[Raineh Daze]

Do you think he would earn XP for wiping out all life on a continent? :smallconfused:

[skim172]

Supporting a large city requires a fairly well-developed and stable society that extends well beyond the borders of the city. There are numerous reasons for that, but a big one is food surplus. City inhabitants can't feed themselves - the surrounding farming areas must be able to produce enough surplus, transport it to the city, and distribute it to the population.

The territory of the Empire of Blood is primarily desert. And while not all deserts are the barren wastelands of the Sahara, we can still expect that the agricultural output of much of the territory is barely or below subsistence level for just the local inhabitants.

Additionally, we're told that the Continent has been fought over and constantly conquered and reconquered every few years for the past five centuries. This does not speak to stability. A lot of young people dying early, before their children are grown. And probably a lot of civilian massacres, too. Instability also portends bad things in terms of health and sanitation, food and water supplies, economy, and strong communities.

All in all, I think the Empire of Blood probably has a very high mortality rate. Infant mortality is pretty high in most pre-modern societies, and that's especially so in societies in flux. High death due to violence for young military-aged men. A high rate of death in childbirth for women. Birth rate is also reduced, due to constant war.

And it's a desert. The Elves control the arable northern half of the continent and the others fight over "livable scraps" in the south. Even today, with all our modern advances, only about 4 million people live in the Sahara, a land mass slightly smaller than the continent of Europe.

All in all, I would doubt the populations is very high in the Empire of Blood. 365,000 deaths a year be devastating.

Of course, this might all be negated by the presence of magic. Stabbed in the gut? Gangrenous wounds? Bubonic plague? Kuru? Why, just take a potion! All good.

Or in case of mass famine, summon a fiendish octopus and make calamari.

[The Pilgrim]

Although that needn't be the case when creating fresh food and water are low-level clerical spells.

Child mortality was mainly due to disease, rather than famine. Most of them died while still lactant, in fact.

Which bring us to...


Healthcare is pretty decent in a setting where potions and prayers get reliable results.

First of all, most children who fall to disease, die all of a shudden, with little time to attend even a priest.

Second of all, I don't think the level of access of the general population to a 5th level cleric is widespread. At the town where Elan, Haley and V were captured by Enor and Ganji, 2nd Level Spells where a challenge for the Wizard Guild. And Cure Disease is 3rd Level.

And, third...


A good point, but there are some low-level spells (purify food/water is first level, I think) that can help solve sanitation problems before things like cholera can take hold. The presence and wide distribution of reliable anti-disease, prevenative and curative magic makes demographics VERY hard to do, but in a I'd think that we are better looking at modern/early modern models than ancient/medieval ones.

You know, the problem is that for every spell out there that cures and helps against diseases, there is a good bunch of spells that provoke disease and other harmful effects.

For every good-aligned cleric out there willing to help, there is an evil-aligned one serving a God of death, destruction, and general bad karma. Guess to wich side Malack belongs.

Because, you know, I don't think that the High Priest of Nergal has a vested interest in building a solid healthcare system to prevent people dying like flies to easy-preventable diseases. Much like the contrary.

[Feddlefew]

So apparently the remove disease spell allows you to get reinfected immediately after being cured. It's basically useless for fighting off pandemics. I take that back, it's actually worse than doing nothing, since one of the major limiting factors on the lethality of a disease is that it's host needs to be able to spread it before dieing, and any exceptionally virulent strains eventually run out of unexposed hosts. You'd let the disease bounce around the population until everyone has had it once or it gets to the point that most people die before they're cured.

Considering that outbreaks of certain diseases can spread through an entire settlement very quickly (water and air born pathogens) and can kill people in less than 24 hours (some strains of Cholera and influenza) after the first symptoms show up, I think there is a good reason why D&D cities rarely reach 50K. :smalleek:

[The Pilgrim]

The territory of the Empire of Blood is primarily desert. And while not all deserts are the barren wastelands of the Sahara, we can still expect that the agricultural output of much of the territory is barely or below subsistence level for just the local inhabitants.

Egypt was the main grain producer for the Roman Empire. Carthage (modern-day Tunicia) was number #2. And, just for the record, agriculture was invented around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in modern-day Irak.

Tarquin's three empires are set on the course of a quite big river there, which holds three of the five main cities of the Continent. The remaining two are located in the basins of some big rivers, too.

The Great Barren Desert, ok, that's wasteland. The rest? they look near enough the coast or/and a decent-sized river to be ok.

After all, Nale said that Tarquin could conquer the World if he had the guts to release the resources he has now. And while that's probably an overestimated remark, it nonetheless gives the indication than the land under the Three Empires is a lot richer than just three barren wastelands.

[Miriel]

Alexandria at his peak was about 500k, and that was before roman conquest, when Alexandria was the Capital of the powerful ptolemaic Empire. Rome (then still the Republic of Rome) was about 500k by then, and Antioch may have reached at that period as much as 400k. By the time the Roman Empire was stablished, Rome reaches 1M but cities like Alexandria or Antioch were down to about 200k. Perhaps half a dozen cities in the Empire reached the 100k-200k range - Carthage and Ephesus come to mind, maybe 1 or 2 more.

I thought Alexandria was 500k too, but I checked it out, and it might have reached 1M. According to the same source, Antioch was around 200k, nearby Apamea, 400-500k. All this is at unspecified moments. (Lafon, Marc and Sartre, Histoire de l'Europe urbaine : La ville antique.)


By my estimation, Bloodingham, the capital of the EOB, is probably much smaller, 100k-200k range at most. It's not a first-rate trade center, it's not the capital of a continental-scale empire, and it's not even the capital of an stable nation (life expectancy of a nation there, 2-3 years). As you correctly point, there are 4 other cities at his range. Cities that big must be the center of large, stable empires, or stable first-order trade centers. But stability is not really a thing in the Western Continent.

Then we have Sandsedge who I estimate at the 50k-100k range (probably closer to 50k, it's a city made of tents after all) and 10 dots whose ranges I'd bet at 10k-50k (probably closer to 10k).

That leaves us with an estimation of (big) urban population of about 1M-1.5M at most. You add an estimation of 30 cities or so, who under my estimations would be at 1k-5k at most 10k range. They don't really make a difference.
I accept the lower estimate for Bloodingham. However, we don't know anything about the other 4. The Free City of Doom might be much larger, since it was capable of holding by itself (and, presumably, as some kind of city-state). The Northwestern large city is near Elven Lands, on a river and near the sea, and might be rather prosperous. However, we don't know anything about them, so.. yeah.


Now you correctly point out that 90% of the pop was rural. But totally blow it when you just x10 the pop estimated as "urban". Let me show you what happens to historical Medieval Europe if I apply the same calculations: I listed 5 or 6 cities, at most, with more than 100k inhabitants. If we add a chunk of cities about 10k-100k, we may come to a total urban pop of 2M, most. Then applying the 90% formula we would obtain an estimation of 20M pop for medieval europe at his peak, when in fact the historical estimate is around 100M.

The problem here is that the 10% "urban" population is a lot more than what we are numbering as dwellers of the Big Ones. Because any settlement of about 1k, or even less, could be considered a "city" in the Middle Ages. So if I apply that correction to my estimations, then I estimate [1-1.5M urban pop, x10 (90% rural estimation) x5 (corrective variable)] = 50-75 Million People, assuming a late-medieval cultural level (ie: relatively stable political entities, intercontinental trade routes) for the Western Continent. However, given the high unstability of the area, it's possible that we should assume an early-medieval level (ie: unstable political entities, land ravaged by frecuent foreign invasions, trade mostly interrupted beyond local regional level), which would mean dividing the result by 3, for an estimation of 15-25 million people.

Of course, that would be at the current political climate. Once Tarquin and his gang unify the continent, with the stability the pop would increase back to the 50M-75M mark by the time Tarquin kicks the bucket and Malack inherits it all.

So, in the end, funny fact, I made an estimation of urban pop much lower than yours, but end up with a total higher pop estimation. :smalleek:
What constitutes a city obviously varies (in medieval Scandinavia, some units have only a few hundred population), but there isn't really much room for an infinite number of small cities or even agro-towns. Also, instability would first reduce the population of the larger centers (which we "know"), so your 15-25M estimate would not work. But in the end, whether we argue about the details or not, we can expect that the population is around 50M.

Another approach would be to estimate the area of the (Southern) Western Continent and multiply by a given density. Back to our map (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html).

Travel between Sandsedge and the red star, apparently (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0690.html), takes "several weeks" on foot and "several hours" on giant worm. I multiplied a bunch of number by another bunch of numbers, but it should be somewhere between 500 km and 1000 km. Let's call this distance 1 wormride.

The Eastern part of the continent slightly less than 1 wormride by half a wormride, so it's 0.5 square-wormride. The Southern peninsula is about half this area, so 0.25 square-wormride. The Northern area is more than 1 wormride by less about 0.2 wormride, so it's 0.2 square-wormride. So the whole inhabitable area is about 1 square-wormride. This is an area between 250,000 km² and 1,000,000 km², depending on the value of the wormride. We can use the geometric average of 500,000 km².

The 50M population estimate would give us a density of 10/km², which seems plausible. To be honest, I know strictly nothing about historical densities. But yeah. There is probably around 50M people

(I tried to compare the wormride with the distance between Blueriver Fort and Azure City, using this map (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html), that in the tourist guide to Azure City and the "about a week" estimate in 320a, but it's hard to compare a goblin army on solid ground in forced march with a group of adventurer on sand, and with very different distances involved.)

[Winter]

The estimates for medival city population are too high. Without going into specifics, the "main" metropoles of large empires could reach a few 100k to a million, sometimes a bit higher, but never above 2 million. This is, for example, the class of Rome or Angkor Wat at the height of their empires.

All other cities we consider to be large and that would be large in the campaign settings are much smaller. We're talking about 5k to 25k for most "important" cities here. The medival age in central Europe was full of important cities (military, politically, culturally) that was in the range above. Most other towns or cities we'd find on our maps are "a few k up to ten-ish".

For example in West- and Middle-Europe we had:
Pop (Year): 9m (500), 5,5m (650), 12m (1000), 35m (1340), 22m (1450)

These are only rough estimates. Given how the western continent looks, I think that "around 50 million" isn't such a bad estimate.

[SinsI]

It depends on the speed a common sacrifice can earn XP, as well as their Diamond Dust (a.k.a. charcoal) production capabilities.

If you can make each sacrifice reach level 2 in a day, and Raise them back from the dead afterwards, you can reuse the same thousand over and over again...



The estimates for medival city population are too high. Without going into specifics, the "main" metropoles of large empires could reach a few 100k to a million, sometimes a bit higher, but never above 2 million. This is, for example, the class of Rome or Angkor Wat at the height of their empires.

Cities don't matter for that purpose, only countryside does - before the invention of modern medicine in 20th century, every city had a negative birth rate, being a net population sink.

[Winter]

If you can make each sacrifice reach level 2 in a day, and Raise them back from the dead afterwards, you can reuse the same thousand over and over again...

Let me ask you something: Assume you are a god. You have a head-cleric that is in charge of your sacrifices and he now has a very smart idea.
He puts 10 goldpieces, no, 100.000 goldpieces!, into the bowl on the altar every day, then in the evening, he takes them out again and sacrifices those again on the next morning. What would you say to that?

A "sacrifice" is only one when you give something up. Without being able to take it back. Else it is no sacrifice at all.

[SinsI]

Let me ask you something: Assume you are a god. You have a head-cleric that is in charge of your sacrifices and he now has a very smart idea.
He puts 10 goldpieces, no, 100.000 goldpieces!, into the bowl on the altar every day, then in the evening, he takes them out again and sacrifices those again on the next morning. What would you say to that?

A "sacrifice" is only one when you give something up. Without being able to take it back. Else it is no sacrifice at all.

Depends on what you actually want. If you want the feeling of "extra coins falling into the bowl", instead of actual coins - that you have no use for - such solution is perfectly fine. "It's the feelings that count". The coins are important to your greedy and corrupt clergy, not yo you.

The effort and time spent on the sacrifice, their feelings and willingness to go with it as well as the reinforcement of their belief in me, are the real sacrifice.

[Winter]

Depends on what you actually want.

No. If you do not permanently give it up, it's no sacrifice at all.

[Miriel]

The estimates for medival city population are too high. Without going into specifics, the "main" metropoles of large empires could reach a few 100k to a million, sometimes a bit higher, but never above 2 million. This is, for example, the class of Rome or Angkor Wat at the height of their empires.

All other cities we consider to be large and that would be large in the campaign settings are much smaller. We're talking about 5k to 25k for most "important" cities here. The medival age in central Europe was full of important cities (military, politically, culturally) that was in the range above. Most other towns or cities we'd find on our maps are "a few k up to ten-ish".

For example in West- and Middle-Europe we had:
Pop (Year): 9m (500), 5,5m (650), 12m (1000), 35m (1340), 22m (1450)

These are only rough estimates. Given how the western continent looks, I think that "around 50 million" isn't such a bad estimate.
The point is: this is not Western Europe. The Western Continent has a Middle Eastern theme. And the Middle East had larger cities. Also, the numbers involved are wild guesses based in-comic information (Azure City's population and rapid look at Bloodingham's enclosed area), not strictly by comparison with the Middle Ages.

Also, don't be pessimistic with city sizes. While some major cities could have a small population yet be important (none of the Hanseatic cities were in the 100k, and Cologne and Lübeck, the largest, were around 50k, IIRC), there were 100k cities in Europe (Venice, Milan, Paris, maybe Florence and Genoa, Naples). Outside the Latinitas, Constantinople reached 500k at its peak, and several Muslim cities were also very large, as was stated earlier. (This is not necessarily all at the same time, city population data are hard to come by. Anyway, even the most scientific are basically informed guesses. Obviously, cities become larger as time goes.)

In a given area, the nearest city may have been 1-10k or smaller, or may have actually been an agro-town more than an actual city, but that doesn't mean that the major cities, on a continental scale, were in the 5-25k range.

[King of Nowhere]

raising people from dead requires at least 5k gp in diamonds. I seriously doubt the empire cold afford 5 million gp every day to raise people. much less have enough clerics.

About population density, it all depends on the kind of land. on desert it's rarely more than 1 inhabitant per square km. On the other hand, the land around rivers is among the most fertile and populated. So we can safely assume that most of the population is concentrated in the few floodlands close to river. I mean, look at egypt. Look by satellite, the nile valley is a green line barely seen. But of its 80 million inhabitants, 30 live there. 50 live in the nile delta, which is a small green spot on the map. the desert is practically uninhabited.

Looking at the map of the western continent, I see the norhern part is forest, then there are mountains and desert. That implies that the prevailing winds comes from north, and the mountains separating elven lands from the rest are projecting a rain shadow over the continent. Most of the rain falling on the continent will fall on the mountains. And how much of that will go on which side is determined by the position of the watershed. Either way, a significant amount of that water is going to drain on the southern portion of the continent, that will thus contain several fertile floodlands along a barren desert. Such floodlands could easily accomodate a population of millions in a negligible area of the continent. So the population could be as low as 1 million or as high as 50, depending on how much floodland rich decides the continent have. It makes all of our speculation moot.

P.S. I wonder if rich actually knew some stuff about climate and rain shadows when he made the map or if it just ended up in a consistent way by chance.

P.P.S. I'm not even sure "floodland" is an english word, but in civilization 4 there is a kind of land called floodlands aong player that is the richest and most productive of all (except for those spots containing strategic resources).

[Winter]

The point is: this is not Western Europe. The Western Continent has a Middle Eastern theme. And the Middle East had larger cities.

A) Citation needed.
B) They probably also had a different distribution/density of villages and towns.


Also, don't be pessimistic with city sizes. While some major cities could have a small population yet be important (none of the Hanseatic cities were in the 100k, and Cologne and Lübeck, the largest, were around 50k, IIRC), there were 100k cities in Europe (Venice, Milan, Paris, maybe Florence and Genoa, Naples).

Not in the medival ages. 50+k is something that happens during the Renaissance. Up to the 1300s, we're not seeing those numbers (and beyond 1300, Venice etc surely are not the Middle Ages anymore).


Outside the Latinitas, Constantinople reached 500k at its peak, and several Muslim cities were also very large, as was stated earlier.

Yes, those are the few exceptional capitals. You cannot judge from them how the average (even important) city looked. No one doubts the main metropolis in a fantasy setting can have 1+ million. The issue is that's surely not the norm.



In a given area, the nearest city may have been 1-10k or smaller, or may have actually been an agro-town more than an actual city, but that doesn't mean that the major cities, on a continental scale, were in the 5-25k range.

No one said that all major cities on a continental scale are 5-25k. Those are the "normal" big cities, obviously, some bigger ones are possible but those are far from the norm.
12th century Paris had like 30-50k. I doubt it looked much different in Akkon or something (which today has barely 50k).

[Miriel]

P.S. I wonder if rich actually knew some stuff about climate and rain shadows when he made the map or if it just ended up in a consistent way by chance.
I think he did. He knew about it here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/xO3dVM8EDKJPlKxmVoG.html), as I recall.

EDIT: OK, he didn't mention it there. Nevermind. But I don't think it's random anyway.


A) Citation needed.
B) They probably also had a different distribution/density of villages and towns.
A) I'm not an expert on the Middle East. I can't give precise citations on this, which is why I said only a general statement. However, I haven't seen the little I've said contradicted anywhere (for the Middle Ages).

If you really want, I can give you precise references for just about everything else. I don't intend to because I'm lazy, but yeah.
B) Very probably. Or they had larger total populations. I know very little about the Middle Eastern world, as I've said. However, you didn't contest The Pilgrim's statement, which matches what I know.


Not in the medival ages. 50+k is something that happens during the Renaissance. Up to the 1300s, we're not seeing those numbers (and beyond 1300, Venice etc surely are not the Middle Ages anymore).

1) What is "unmedieval" about Venice? Read on. Venice is kind of my speciality (as in "I'm planning a master's thesis on medieval Venice"). Also, Venice was already in the 100k range in the 13th century. I don't know about the 12th.
2) Define what you mean by "Renaissance".
3) Standard periodization cuts the Middle Ages around 1500, so there are 200 years of "still Middle Ages" left. However debatable these things are, I'm more a proponent of "No global cut between the 3rd-4th century and the Industrial Revolution, there is no such thing as the Early Modern Era" than "1300 is already Early Modern".
4) As I've alluded to, historical comparison are useful, in this context, only as global analogies based on in-comic content, not as complete translation. There were no rapiers and little plate armor in the actual Middle Ages, but Elan and Durkon can use the one and the other. We know that Azure City was 500k and that Bloodingham has a huge enclosed area, although possibly sparsely populated. Those are in-comic facts. The rest is pure speculation, within the general limits of pre-industrial demographics. We can only use general parametres, not precise data.


Yes, those are the few exceptional capitals. You cannot judge from them how the average (even important) city looked. No one doubts the main metropolis in a fantasy setting can have 1+ million. The issue is that's surely not the norm.

But we are not talking about average city. We are talking about the capitals. Those are the only cities for which we have the least amount of data in-comic.


12th century Paris had like 30-50k. I doubt it looked much different in Akkon or something (which today has barely 50k).
I've seen estimates for Paris everywhere between that and 300k. The most sensible statement I've seen was something like: "We don't know, but it probably was more than 100k." I don't know if that was about the 12th century.

[Gift Jeraff]

Who's to say that the sacrifices wouldn't include the occasional animal? I know the Giant said that the sacrifices would also provide food for the vampire ruling class, who presumably need to feed on the blood of sapient beings, but still.

[Winter]

Who's to say that the sacrifices wouldn't include the occasional animal?

Malack does not appear to be a vegan vampire hippie. :smallwink:

[Feddlefew]

Malack does not appear to be a vegan vampire hippie. :smallwink:

Neither does Nurgal.

Oh no. So that offering Malack had finished burning before we just met him was...? :smalleek:

[Tragak]

Neither does Nurgal.

Oh no. So that offering Malack had finished burning before we just met him was...? :smalleek:

Certainly convicted of something. :smalltongue:

[The Pilgrim]

Possibly the best source of information to estimate the pop of Bleedingham and it's hinterland, is the first panel of comic #775 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0775.html)

It has a shot of the city, but most importantly, a shot of the Arena. If someone feels like counting heads and that (also check other snapsots around all the arena-fight story arc) a rather precise estimation of the capacity of the Arena could be done, and by that a rather decent estimation of the city population.

For referece, the Colosseum of ancient Rome had a 50k capacity for an around 1M population. Capacity of modern-day stadiums could also serve as reference.

[hamishspence]

Eight sections, each with 11 rows, with about 30 people in the bottom row and 40 people in the top row- maybe around 3000 people total- or a bit over.

EDIT
On rechecking- the section with the VIP box has slightly more per row than I guessed on eyeballing it- but the neighbouring sections have quite a bit less per row.

"On the order of 3000" total though- extrapolated for the whole thing.

[The Pilgrim]

Who's to say that the sacrifices wouldn't include the occasional animal? I know the Giant said that the sacrifices would also provide food for the vampire ruling class, who presumably need to feed on the blood of sapient beings, but still.

That comment from the Giant struck me as odd. Because when you sacrifice something to your God, you aren't supposed to feed on it. You are supposed to let the corpse go to waste at the altar - it belongs to you God, now.

So either the "religious sacriffice" part is just propaganda to hide what's really just a vampire feeding scheme... or Nergal has a sharing nature very uncommon for an Evil deity.

[Feddlefew]

That comment from the Giant struck me as odd. Because when you sacrifice something to your God, you aren't supposed to feed on it. You are supposed to let the corpse go to waste at the altar - it belongs to you God, now.

So either the "religious sacriffice" part is just propaganda to hide what's really just a vampire feeding scheme... or Nergal has a sharing nature very uncommon for an Evil deity.

Warhamer 40K Nergal is known as "Papa Nergal" by his followers, and is generally described like a jolly santa, from what I've read.
If santa gave horrific, mutating diseases that leave the victims sacks of rotting-yet-still-living contagion.

So this Nergal could be generous and sharing, just with death and corpses instead of something sane people would want.

[King of Nowhere]

I don't think we can count the people on the stadium to get a reliable information on the population of bleedingham. ball and stick art can only be that much accurate.

[hamishspence]

Warhamer 40K Nergal is known as "Papa Nergal" by his followers, and is generally described like a jolly santa, from what I've read.
If santa gave horrific, mutating diseases that leave the victims sacks of rotting-yet-still-living contagion.

And is spelled Nurgle.

[SaintRidley]

That comment from the Giant struck me as odd. Because when you sacrifice something to your God, you aren't supposed to feed on it. You are supposed to let the corpse go to waste at the altar - it belongs to you God, now.

So either the "religious sacriffice" part is just propaganda to hide what's really just a vampire feeding scheme... or Nergal has a sharing nature very uncommon for an Evil deity.

The death itself is the sacrifice in this case.

[The Pilgrim]

Eight sections, each with 11 rows, with about 30 people in the bottom row and 40 people in the top row- maybe around 3000 people total- or a bit over.

EDIT
On rechecking- the section with the VIP box has slightly more per row than I guessed on eyeballing it- but the neighbouring sections have quite a bit less per row.

"On the order of 3000" total though- extrapolated for the whole thing.

You are my hero now. :redface:

Through looking at flight of the Bounty Hunters (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0785.html) (wich gives us a closer look of a section from top to bottom), I'd double the number of rows. So my estimation of capacity would be around 6.000 spectators.

That's in range for the stadium of a modern-day city of about 100k. In ancient times, any decent roman amphiteatre had around 15k-20k capacity for regional capitals (well under 100k pop). But of course, back then, most of the population lived in the rural area, so the installations need to have enough capacity for a good score of rural visitors into the city for the celebrations.

[hamishspence]

Through looking at flight of the Bounty Hunters (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0785.html) (wich gives us a closer look of a section from top to bottom), I'd double the number of rows. So my estimation of capacity would be around 6.000 spectators.


The rows seem to have a lot of up-and-down- maybe from people leaning forward or back, in the first pic. Enough to be compatible with the second.

EDIT: And there don't seem to be many rows when Roy is hurled into the crowd here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html

[Miriel]

I don't think we can count the people on the stadium to get a reliable information on the population of bleedingham. ball and stick art can only be that much accurate.
The space between people in the VIP box compared to that in the rest of the crowd is consistent with what we see elsewhere. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0776.html), for example.


You are my hero now. :redface:

Through looking at flight of the Bounty Hunters (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0785.html) (wich gives us a closer look of a section from top to bottom), I'd double the number of rows. So my estimation of capacity would be around 6.000 spectators.
The spots might represent not heads, but colours. I think the other one is more reliable.


That's in range for the stadium of a modern-day city of about 100k. In ancient times, any decent roman amphiteatre had around 15k-20k capacity for regional capitals (well under 100k pop). But of course, back then, most of the population lived in the rural area, so the installations need to have enough capacity for a good score of rural visitors into the city for the celebrations.
Since the amphitheatre is outside the actual city, it might have filled a similar purpose.

I think it's fair to say that Bleedingham must have a smaller population than estimated earlier. If we compare to 717 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0717.html) (not entirely consistent, but anyway), we learn that we see all of the city in 775 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0775.html), since there is nothin on the other side of the hill. This would point to a population very much smaller, perhaps 25k.

Since the population of this city was the sole quantitative data we had, this drastically reduces our estimate of ~50M.

If we give the 5 major cities a reduced population of 40k (on average -- this is assuming that Bleedingham is the smallest of the five cities, which I deem plausible), the 10 others, 10k, and the hypothetical 30 others, 2k, we arrive at a urban population of ~350k. If we also assume a more rural population (given the small size of the cities), say 95%, this would give a total population of around 7M. I think this is a bit low, so given the totally arbitrary nature of all numbers, we could increase this a bit say that the Western Continent has a population of around 10M, based on this evidence.

[The Pilgrim]

I think it's fair to say that Bleedingham must have a smaller population than estimated earlier. If we compare to 717 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0717.html) (not entirely consistent, but anyway), we learn that we see all of the city in 775 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0775.html), since there is nothin on the other side of the hill. This would point to a population very much smaller, perhaps 25k.

Since the population of this city was the sole quantitative data we had, this drastically reduces our estimate of ~50M.

If we give the 5 major cities a reduced population of 40k (on average -- this is assuming that Bleedingham is the smallest of the five cities, which I deem plausible), the 10 others, 10k, and the hypothetical 30 others, 2k, we arrive at a urban population of ~350k. If we also assume a more rural population (given the small size of the cities), say 95%, this would give a total population of around 7M. I think this is a bit low, so given the totally arbitrary nature of all numbers, we could increase this a bit say that the Western Continent has a population of around 10M, based on this evidence.

Looks like my earlier lower estimation of 15M-25M seems more plausible now. The Western Continent is very unstable, and populations that needed to rely on widespread irrigation works (like historical egiptian and middle-eastern) were very vulnerable to inestability, and thus the destruction of those irrigation works. (That also "helped" those populations to be so prone to strong, central, "authoritarian" type of regimes... but that's another story).

[dps]

For referece, the Colosseum of ancient Rome had a 50k capacity for an around 1M population. Capacity of modern-day stadiums could also serve as reference.

There's seem to be no clear pattern. Michigan Stadium has a capacity of over 109,000 in a city of about 113,000 while Fenway Park has a capacity of c. 38,000 in a city of 625,000 or so.

[Miriel]

There's seem to be no clear pattern. Michigan Stadium has a capacity of over 109,000 in a city of about 113,000 while Fenway Park has a capacity of c. 38,000 in a city of 625,000 or so.
Modern stadiums are strictly entertainment venue. Not so with ancient amphitheatres: while games were showed there, it was normally intended that the whole voting population could fit in, since popular assemblies took place there. So a stadium with 25k seats means that there were approximately 25k male adults. (As The Pilgrim said, this includes some of the countryside, presumably.)

[sam79]

Modern stadiums are strictly entertainment venue. Not so with ancient amphitheatres: while games were showed there, it was normally intended that the whole voting population could fit in, since popular assemblies took place there. So a stadium with 25k seats means that there were approximately 25k male adults. (As The Pilgrim said, this includes some of the countryside, presumably.)

Even if this is true, it would mean only 25k free, citizen adult males with voting rights. Not slaves, freedmen, immigrants, citizens under the age of (often) 30.

The demographic conclusions that can be drawn from (for example) theatres and amphitheatres in the ancient world are not all that solid. Even for an overtly political venue like the Pnyx at Athens (the meeting place for the democractic Assembly) there is no good evidence to suppose that it was built to accommodate all potential participants.

[snikrept]

Do you think he would earn XP for wiping out all life on a continent? :smallconfused:

The thought occurs to me that if his goal is truly wiping everyone and everything out, he might realize the Snarl is more of an accelerator for his own scheme than for anyone else's. Malack may be the first character we've seen who genuinely desires Redcloak's airplane to pancake in the worst possible way.

[Miriel]

Even if this is true, it would mean only 25k free, citizen adult males with voting rights. Not slaves, freedmen, immigrants, citizens under the age of (often) 30.

The demographic conclusions that can be drawn from (for example) theatres and amphitheatres in the ancient world are not all that solid. Even for an overtly political venue like the Pnyx at Athens (the meeting place for the democractic Assembly) there is no good evidence to suppose that it was built to accommodate all potential participants.
Well, since we rarely have anything like census data, one must do with what one has. It's about as (un)reliable as enclosed space, but at least, it allows informed guesses.

My point was that it is globally more reliable than modern stadiums for these things, not that it's a perfect source.

[sam79]

My point was that it is globally more reliable than modern stadiums for these things, not that it's a perfect source.

Point taken, though I'd prefer "slightly less unreliable" as a formulation! Even modern demographics involves a lot more guesswork than one might imagine. Ancient/medieval/early modern is so full of unknown variables as to make the exercise difficult in the extreme. And demographics of a fictional world based (loosely) on the medieval world, but with even more unknown variables...well, I applaud the efforts of the people on this thread who have devoted time and effort to the calculations; you are braver and more optimistic than me!

[King of Nowhere]

I want to make an ulterior consideration about the concept of what constitutes a big city.
It is not just something of the time, but also of the location. In a scarcely inhabited place like siberia or the sahara, 5k people are a big city, even today. In a highly populated region like the nile delta or some chinese districts, 50k people is still considered a rural town. And also in ancient times, cities of that size were not uncommon.

The fact that those cities are shown on a map means nothing on their size, only that they are big for their location. I've seen a world map with plenty of "cities" shown across northern siberia, then I went to google maps and found out that most had a few thousands inhabitants each. They still served as regional administration centers, and thus shown on a map. Instead, even a moderately detailed map of europe won't show my native city, even if it is well over 100k inhabitants, because it lies in one of the most densely populated places in europe and it has at least half a dozen bigger cities in a 100 km radius.
So, what we see on the map tells us nothing about the size of cities.

How that translates to the western continent? Depends.
If we assume my idea of densely populated floodlands along with barren regions, then those floodlands will have plenty of fair-sized cities. In this hypotesys, the main cities may well be up to 500k population.
If we instead assume a widespread barren steppe, with low population density everywhere, then 50k people for the bigger cities makes a reasonable estimation.
That again brings us to estimation ranging from 10 to 50 millions, and I don't think it is possible to be more specific until we have more informations on the continent. Just knowing the population of bleedingham would probably suffice.

[pendell]

Out of curiosity, I looked up just how many livestock are butchered in the US. Answer: 100,000 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_cows_are_slaughtered_per_day_in_the_US) per day.


How many cattle are there in the US? Answer: 34. 1 million head (http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/statistics-information.aspx) .

So if we divide all those numbers by 100, it means you need a population of about 300,000 to support a death rate of 1000/day.

I think this is the fundamental issue: To Vampires, humans are cattle . Rich Burlew has already floated the idea of "Vampire ruling class". In such a society , vampires are the real "humans" and mortals occupy the same niche cows do in ours. So we shouldn't assume that humans in such a society would have lives anything like what they have in modern society. They might be kept in pens, and even deliberately bred for greater yield and domesticity. Breeding might have nothing to do with "love" as we know it, simply artificial insemination of females to achieve maximum yield possible, without regard to the damage suffered by those females save as it may impact their future reproductive capacity. The angry, bony, thin Roys and Ians will be eliminated from the population. People like the Empress will be bred to create a docile population which does as it is told, much as modern pigs were bred from ferocious boars.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Friv]

The thought occurs to me that if his goal is truly wiping everyone and everything out, he might realize the Snarl is more of an accelerator for his own scheme than for anyone else's. Malack may be the first character we've seen who genuinely desires Redcloak's airplane to pancake in the worst possible way.

Unlikely - the Snarl doesn't kill people, it unmakes them utterly. Thus no benefit to the God of Death from their vanishing.

[King of Nowhere]

Out of curiosity, I looked up just how many livestock are butchered in the US. Answer: 100,000 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_cows_are_slaughtered_per_day_in_the_US) per day.


How many cattle are there in the US? Answer: 34. 1 million head (http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/statistics-information.aspx) .

So if we divide all those numbers by 100, it means you need a population of about 300,000 to support a death rate of 1000/day.


You are forgetting one fundamental thing: a newborn cow needs 15 months to reach sexual maturity. A human female 15 years. 12, if you really stretch it, but becoming pregnant at that age is more likely to cause negative repercussion on the future fertility.
Anyway, that data seems strange. 300k population to support 1000 deaths per day would mean that every single individual would have to make an heir every 300 days, including males and those too little to have reached sexual maturity yet. That could only be achieved with multigeminal childbirthing (I don't know very well words for referring to cattle breeding, so probably I am using wrong ones), but cattle generally make one child at a time, like humans.

[Winter]

Out of curiosity, I looked up just how many livestock are butchered in the US. Answer: 100,000 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_cows_are_slaughtered_per_day_in_the_US) per day.

How many cattle are there in the US? Answer: 34. 1 million head (http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/statistics-information.aspx) .

In addition to the other point mentioned above that you missed, you also missed that cows grow their children much faster and, I think this is pretty important, are kept breeding as much as possible -> asap made pregnant again for more meat. Something which is unlikely to happen in any Empire.

[Miriel]

I want to make an ulterior consideration about the concept of what constitutes a big city.
It is not just something of the time, but also of the location. In a scarcely inhabited place like siberia or the sahara, 5k people are a big city, even today. In a highly populated region like the nile delta or some chinese districts, 50k people is still considered a rural town. And also in ancient times, cities of that size were not uncommon.

The fact that those cities are shown on a map means nothing on their size, only that they are big for their location. I've seen a world map with plenty of "cities" shown across northern siberia, then I went to google maps and found out that most had a few thousands inhabitants each. They still served as regional administration centers, and thus shown on a map. Instead, even a moderately detailed map of europe won't show my native city, even if it is well over 100k inhabitants, because it lies in one of the most densely populated places in europe and it has at least half a dozen bigger cities in a 100 km radius.
So, what we see on the map tells us nothing about the size of cities.
There are several "major cities" very near each other. Several states have no city whatsoever, while the Empire of Blood has 4. This, to me, means the cities on the map were not chosen strictly for their administrative significance. More likely, the five larger cities are the most important of the continent, in absolute terms, and that the smaller ones are on the second level of importance. Obviously, it's relative in the sense that importance is measured in the scale of the Western Continent, but the cities are not just regional capitals.

I said "importance", not "population", because we don't know if they know or care about the population of their cities at all (most likely not). Importance and population are two different things, but they tend to be linked with each other: a large city tends to become important, and an important city tends to become populous -- St. Petersburg being a great example of the latter case. There is some level of subjectivity involved, but I think it is relatively safe to say that the 5 large cities have the largest population and that the 10 smaller ones are larger than those not shown at all.

[Umberhulk]

10 children per adult (human) female is way too high. Specially if you expect all 10 of them to survive into adulthood.


Why would a vampire need them to be adults? I apologize to those offending by the profiling of vampires.

[King of Nowhere]

Out of curiosity, I looked up just how many livestock are butchered in the US. Answer: 100,000 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_cows_are_slaughtered_per_day_in_the_US) per day.


How many cattle are there in the US? Answer: 34. 1 million head (http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/statistics-information.aspx) .



I took a look at your link, I don't see any 34 millions heads. What i see is

Cattle inventory

January 1, 2003:
U.S.--96.1 million, down from 1996 peak of 103.5 million
Other numbers for other years, but always above 90 millions.
Which translates to one new head per individual every 3 years. On the same line, you'd need 1 million people to sacrifice 1000 a day. fertile females are ingravidated every year, one fertile female is grown up to replace her, 90% of males is sacrificed young, rest of males kept for breeding, everyone else sacrificed young.
This, however, would DEFINITELY spark a rebellion. on a population of 10 millions instead you may be able to make them accept the sacrifices.

[TheYell]

Without knowing the answer, there is a possible ambiguity between total ursine beings in the US, including dairy and draw oxen, and head of "cattle" as figured by the meatpacking industry.

Also like I said in another thread, the Western Continent has Bugfolk, so a thousand sentients a day is probably quite manageable.

And without discussing specific historic examples, it's known that Iron age cities could lose 1/3 of their population in a plague year, and still function as a society.

[hamishspence]

Without knowing the answer, there is a possible ambiguity between total ursine beings in the US, including dairy and draw oxen, and head of "cattle" as figured by the meatpacking industry.

I think Ursine is bears- bovine is cows etc.

[TheYell]

I think Ursine is bears- bovine is cows etc.

Hmm...that explains why the boullion is off

[hamishspence]

I'll try and remember the big list of terms:

Equine: horse
Porcine: pig
Bovine: cow
Lupine: wolf
Vulpine: fox
Feline: cat
Ursine: bear
Canine: dog
Ovine: chicken sheep

what was sheep?

EDIT: sheep are ovine- chickens are something else.

[pendell]

Hmm...that explains why the boullion is off

Thread won.



This, however, would DEFINITELY spark a rebellion. on a population of 10 millions instead you may be able to make them accept the sacrifices.


Not necessarily. Consider how difficult it would be to lead millions of cows to slaughter yearly if they put in any concerted effort to resist.

MOOOOOOOOO!! (Which roughly translates to: Rise up my bovine brethren! Statehood not Steakhood!)

You couldn't do anything like that in the Empire of Blood as it now stands, since it is human-dominated. In order for such a thing to happen you would need a large vampire ruling class using Dominate Person and all the other magical and psychological means of crowd control to keep the cattle docile.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[snikrept]

Unlikely - the Snarl doesn't kill people, it unmakes them utterly. Thus no benefit to the God of Death from their vanishing.

But the worst endgame scenario is that the Gods are forced to take action, unmake the world and re-form it into a more secure prison. If the Snarl is seriously threatening things without the gods' being able to stop it then Redcloak's blackmail plan has succeeded.

[ZerglingOne]

Offer goblins and kobolds incentives to move to the western continent. Birth/death rate problems solved.

It's fairly well established that kobolds don't even really care all that much about their individual young. A few go missing? They just make more.

[Caex]

I am really enjoying this demographic discussion, as the subject in general fascinates me and the particular issues of the strangely understated populations of fantasy settings is a pet peeve of mine. So, thanks guys.


That comment from the Giant struck me as odd. Because when you sacrifice something to your God, you aren't supposed to feed on it. You are supposed to let the corpse go to waste at the altar - it belongs to you God, now.

So either the "religious sacriffice" part is just propaganda to hide what's really just a vampire feeding scheme... or Nergal has a sharing nature very uncommon for an Evil deity.

Actually, there have been a number of contexts in which priests were expected to eat a portion of the sacrifice. The lengthy instructions on proper sacrifices in Leviticus includes instructions on which portions the priests are to eat, and of course modern day sacrifices of money to religious institutions in part support the clergy. Assuming these vampire overlords are clergy for Nergal in some capacity, it would be quite reasonable that they would be supported by the sacrifices to him. Well, as reasonable as human sacrifice, especially on such a scale, can be.

[The Pilgrim]

Actually, there have been a number of contexts in which priests were expected to eat a portion of the sacrifice. The lengthy instructions on proper sacrifices in Leviticus includes instructions on which portions the priests are to eat, and of course modern day sacrifices of money to religious institutions in part support the clergy. Assuming these vampire overlords are clergy for Nergal in some capacity, it would be quite reasonable that they would be supported by the sacrifices to him. Well, as reasonable as human sacrifice, especially on such a scale, can be.

That's a good point, actually.

[Kirgoth]

It is also quite feasable that Malak intends to sacrifice 1000 people per day to his god and have them become undead, some sentient, possibly others not all under control ultimately of his god. Given a population of 10 million for a continent he would take him 27 years to convert the entire population. Bar Humbug to stable population levels. Ten million extra worshippers sounds pretty sweet.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Do you think he would earn XP for wiping out all life on a continent? :smallconfused:

No, each kill wouldn't be worth experience points. They wouldn't aggregate into one lot.