# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Italy - Demographics throughout history

## Dorianfinder

There was a question regarding the size of Italy's population during the Lombard invasion in the 6th century. What would you say was the correct figure?

----------


## Etrusco-romano

_From Anthropological Society of Paris__:_ 6 or 8 milions_. 
_

----------


## Dorianfinder

> _From Anthropological Society of Paris__:_ 6 or 8 milions_. 
> _


The difference of 2 million people is 33.3% of 6 million. That is like saying the population of Italy today is 40 to 60 million. I doubt your source went to any considerable lengths in finding this 6 or 8 million figure. It seems unreliable.

----------


## Etrusco-romano

Let's say that in mediaeval times there was a system of census not equal to that of today, so there may be a margin of error and variability. I say 6 or 8 milions because I want to wander between the time of the Goths and Longobards; we think that in the 700 a.d there whose 8 milions, and before, in Gothic age, Italy has about 6 milions people "_Les estimation pour les périodes successives montret una forte eduction. Déjà à l'époque de la venude des Goths, vers 476, on relève una diminution de 20% et estimation est de 6.200.000._" (*La composition ethinique de la population italienne*)

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Let's say that in mediaeval times there was a system of census not equal to that of today, so there may be a margin of error and variability. I say 6 or 8 milions because I want to wander between the time of the Goths and Longobards; we think that in the 700 a.d there whose 8 milions, and before, in Gothic age, Italy has about 6 milions people "_Les estimation pour les périodes successives montret una forte eduction. Déjà à l'époque de la venude des Goths, vers 476, on relève una diminution de 20% et estimation est de 6.200.000._" (*La composition ethinique de la population italienne*)


Your interpretation of 'La composition ethinique de la population italienne' is including many strictly non-Italian regions who were viewed as playing a part in the ethnogenisis of the modern Italian state. This means that areas outside the boundaries of Italy proper during the 6th century such as Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Calabria, Trieste and even regions of Western Greece and Albania and other regions were also included in the study as people from all these regions were arguable part of Italy and contributed to the composition of the Italian ethnic identity later on. 

In the 6th century the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I *re*conquered Italy from the Ostrogoths. Immediately, a new wave of Germanic tribes, the Lombards, reduced the Byzantine presence to the Exarchate of Ravenna and southern Italy. The Lombard reign of northern and central Italy was absorbed into the Frankish Empire by Charlemagne in the late 8th century. The Frankish kings also helped the Popes *to establish a true state* in central Italy, extending *from Rome to Ravenna*, although for most of the Middle Ages they effectively controlled only what is now *Lazio*. 

*590AD*

----------


## Etrusco-romano

Sorry but i don't understand exactly what do you mean. In my numbers are not included Sicilia, Sardegna and Corsica, couse they 
not considered Italy, so if we were to put even these will probably arrive at a population of 7 millions during the Gothic period. This research considers only the continental italy, to Alps from Calabria.

----------


## Taranis

What I would like to add is that there were two major events which are very likely to have drastically reduced the population of Italy:

- the Plague of Justinian in the 6th century AD, which hit the Byzantine Empire in the critical moment as it was trying to reconquer lands in the western Mediterranean.

- the Black Death in the 14th century AD.

----------


## Etrusco-romano

That's right. In fact, in the 8th century AD, the total population of Italy was no more than 5,800,000 habitants, a drastic reduction from previous centuries.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> What I would like to add is that there were two major events which are very likely to have drastically reduced the population of Italy:
> 
> - the Plague of Justinian in the 6th century AD, which hit the Byzantine Empire in the critical moment as it was trying to reconquer lands in the western Mediterranean.
> 
> - the Black Death in the 14th century AD.


Much of Italy was Orthodox and these people left North Italy in swathes following Lombard hostilities, some settled in the Veneto region and others moved to the Ionian and Dalmatian islands, remaining however part of the Greek Orthodox Exarchate of Ravenna. People fleeing Italy would have been registered in Ravenna but living outside Italy. 

The figure of 6.2 million Italians according to Leonardo in my opinion is a guestimate based on a number of arbitrary sources. Byzantine administration of Italy were including Western Greece and Albania, the Exarchate of Ravenna's registry included the church registries of the Eastern Orthodox church along the Dalmatian coast, the Ionian islands, Epirus, Achaia and Crete if I recall.

We know that Rome's population during this time was no more than 50 000 and we know that during the Roman Empire Rome was said to have been the home of between 10 to 25% of the Italian population.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Sorry but i don't understand exactly what do you mean. In my numbers are not included Sicilia, Sardegna and Corsica, couse they 
> not considered Italy, so if we were to put even these will probably arrive at a population of 7 millions during the Gothic period. This research considers only the continental italy, to Alps from Calabria.


What are the demographic sources for this figure, does your book describe the registries used or don't you know?

----------


## Taranis

> Much of Italy was Orthodox and these people left North Italy in swathes following Lombard hostilities, some settled in the Veneto region and others moved to the Ionian and Dalmatian islands, remaining however part of the Greek Orthodox Exarchate of Ravenna. People fleeing Italy would have been registered in Ravenna but living outside Italy. 
> 
> The figure of 6.2 million Italians according to Leonardo in my opinion is a guestimate based on a number of arbitrary sources. Byzantine administration of Italy were including Western Greece and Albania, the Exarchate of Ravenna's registry included the church registries of the Eastern Orthodox church along the Dalmatian coast, the Ionian islands, Epirus, Achaia and Crete if I recall.
> 
> We know that Rome's population during this time was no more than 50 000 and we know that during the Roman Empire Rome was said to have been the home of between 10 to 25% of the Italian population.


I'm confused. Which time are you talking about now?

----------


## Dorianfinder

> I'm confused. Which time are you talking about now?


The 6th century to 750AD when the last Exarchate of Ravenna was executed by the Lombards.

If 6th century Rome had 50 000, what is the probability that Italy had 6 million?

----------


## Etrusco-romano

Is' simple. You can not compare two different historical times: in the Roman Empire the center of people whose a city, and so you can try to understand how much people there whose in a nation seeing the people in a city; in the barbar invasion period you can not do the same discourse, couse the people, for escape from invasions and wars, dispersed in the countryside. 
Find the information on Persée, Mario Cappieri, Società Antropologica di Parigi: La composition ethinique de la population italienne. 

Talk about 300/400.000 people in all Italy it's at the border of reality; as we could, in medieval situation of disease, famine and poverty , reaching 14 millions in 1400? I have followed the studies of some Italian regional capitals, and 400,000 is the amount you'd find only in Piedmont at this time

----------


## Dorianfinder

Here we can see the 'Germanic' Kingdom of Italy just before the 6th century, it encompasses these regions to the east because of the Orthodox population there that self-identified as Romans. The next ruler was Theodoric the Great (493-526) Viceroy of the Byzantine Empire. 




*Mausoleum of Theodoric in Ravenna*

----------


## Etrusco-romano

It's truth but this research take in consideration not all the "romans" but the natives of Italy; the analysis does not mention the Reign of Odoacer, but only Italy.

----------


## Etrusco-romano

If from 500 AD to 1400 the Italian population had grown from 400,000 people to 14 trillion there was an increase of 3500%, about 3.8% for year (In Italy the actualy population annual increse is 0.7%, if go all well.)

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Talk about 300/400.000 people in all Italy it's at the border of reality; as we could, in medieval situation of disease, famine and poverty , reaching 14 millions in 1400? I have followed the studies of some Italian regional capitals, and 400,000 is the amount you'd find only in Piedmont at this time


In the 1,200's the medieval population was nothing but a very small fraction of what it is today. Cities which today are important had only a few hundred thousand inhabitants. Paris and London had no more than 30,000 residents each only 800 years ago!

The world's largest cities were Constantinople, Baghdad and surprisingly, Tenochtitlan.

In the year 650AD, only approximately *six million European inhabitants were actually recorded*. This number increased to almost 37 million by the year 1340. The first recorded population census took place in the 19th century. So your estimate is based on guesswork.

Below is a link that suggests that the regions in the south were out of sink with their statistics, similar to today. Just look at the high figures for Iberia, the Balkans and Italy ... no explanation is needed really. These figures are unreliable yet they are accepted for no other figures are available.

In 500AD before the plague, we find a *10x* difference between *the British Isles* (0.5mil) when compared with the above regions of Iberia (5mil), Italy (5mil) and the Balkans (5mil). The British Isles estimate is more accurate if we consider population trends. 

France, West Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium *combined* are estimated to have had 5 million in 500AD and you claim Italy proper had 6 million. 
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.asp

----------


## Dorianfinder

> It's truth but this research take in consideration not all the "romans" but the natives of Italy; the analysis does not mention the Reign of Odoacer, but only Italy.


Old documents _say_ Italy but *refer to more* than what we call Italy today!

----------


## Etrusco-romano

Sorry, but Italy has always been called Italy, in the classical age and in the modern times. For two centuries it was understood as an entity under the Po, but Croatia, Austria, Slovenia, Bavaria and Albania have never been considered Italy... does not make sense, and so Mario Cappieri ed Beloch, when estimates made ​​on the Italian population in the Middle Ages, did not refer certain to countries of Eastern Europe..... You make another big error: the first censuses were not done in 900 .... go back to classical age (Augustean censues), and later in the Medieval when censuses were based on baptisms, a decision imposed by the *Council of Trent* (1545).
In the site you posted I don't see "Italy, 500 AD : 400,000 habitants", I see *4 million of habitants*; and in the 1450 i don't see 4.5 milion of habitants, i see 7.3 milion. You contradicting yourself. However, is not a number that i support (me and the various classical scholars of demographics t demographics I have quoted as reliable references ) for this age, but but is close to reality.

----------


## LeBrok

Census from 28AD done by Augustus puts population of Italy at 4 mil. The problem is we don't know if it only included male citizens or all the population. If it's the former then adding women, kids and slaves makes it closer to 20 mil.

The best surveys from antiquity come from china. At around year 1AD population of china reached about 60 million people, area 6,000 km2.
Let's extrapolate these numbers on Roman Empire.
First we have to notice that area occupied by China is and was the most fertile land on Earth. Lot's of moisture and rice crops twice a year. 60 mil figure doesn't look like anomaly, because census done a hundred years later confirmed 50 mil people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census
Surely there are always doubts. How accurate the bureaucrats were getting to every part of huge country, how efficient was the system, or how honest were government administrates. For the lack of any proofs of otherwise, let's assume that these surveys were pretty accurate statistically.
Now, Roman Empire covered approximately similar area in it's farthest extent. The nature of land mas was not so fertile though. Half of empire that's desert, semi-desert or mountains, plus crops only once a year. These conditions could probably produce food of 1/3rd of what fertile china could. It means 60/3=20mil, population of Roman Empire.
If we take figure of 4 mil from Augustus census, and assume that this figure includes all the people in area of todays Italy, then it makes sense. It makes sense that one fifth of people of empire lived in it's center, which includes one million in center of a center, Rome.
We have to keep in mind that in agricultural societies ratio of city dwellers to farmers is 1 to 9. It takes 9 farmers to feed their families plus to make extra food for one city family. One could say that if Rome was one million strong plus the rest of Italy's cities and towns, let's say 2 million all together. According to ratio 1 to 9, we would end up with 20 million people in Italy. 
Rome at it's hight was a special place though. People from around empire flocked there to live. Rome was rich and could afford that. Shipments with grain and animals were coming to Rome from all over empire every day.
At the time Lombards arrived, empire was in ruin. Rome sucked few times, people are very poor, and grain shipments stopped coming.
In this case I put population, in area of today's Italy, by year 600AD at around 2 million.
Off course this figure could fluctuate drastically in decades. Two or Three years of drought and we are down to one million. Couple of decades of bumper crops and population doubled to 4.

----------


## Etrusco-romano

In the first century AD the Italian population was male (the Augustan census) 4,937,000 people, so the total population ranged from 10/12 million. However, according to the demographic department of the CNR (National Research Center), the Italian population has never fallen below the 4 ½ million people, otherwise this day our people would suffer from diseases related incest and the lack of genetic variability, race poverty.

----------


## LeBrok

> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.asp


I like these numbers, they might be quite accurate, though I'm still thinking that they are pushing the upper limits.

----------


## Taranis

I would like to re-iterate a question from earlier (actually, I didn't formulate it as a question, but anyways):

What do you folks think is the before/after population of Italy in regard for the Plague of Justinian (6th century) and the Black Death (14th century)?

----------


## LeBrok

> In the first century AD the Italian population was male (the Augustan census) 4,937,000 people, so the total population ranged from 10/12 million.


From what I gathered, nobody's sure about that. We don't have other surveys surviving till today, right? We don't have names listed in Augustus surveys to figure out if they are men or women, just the numbers, right? Were male slaves included? Were male kids included? How many slaves lived in Italy? Can you answer these questions? Thanks




> However, according to the demographic department of the CNR (National Research Center), the Italian population has never fallen below the 4 ½ million people, otherwise this day our people would suffer from diseases related incest and the lack of genetic variability, race poverty.


Lol, the incest issue was never proved experimentally or on fauna example, just few doctors observations, plus big support of organized religions. How do you explain healthy population living on island of Sardinia? They have the longest life span of all Italian regions. I guess, incestry does miracles for them. :)
And even if you were right, and knowing history of your country, how would you worry about genetic variability? Every year of Roman empire there was fresh blood coming: millions of emigrants, slaves, plus invasions of Phoenicians, gals, huns, germans. The genetic pull was always rich and replenished. No need for 4 million Romans to stay healthy.

----------


## LeBrok

> I would like to re-iterate a question from earlier (actually, I didn't formulate it as a question, but anyways):
> 
> What do you folks think is the before/after population of Italy in regard for the Plague of Justinian (6th century) and the Black Death (14th century)?


I think this table might specifically address the issues of plagues. Look at time frames.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.asp

----------


## Etrusco-romano

The speech is a little different. In Sardinia there is great hope of life, it is true, but there are also some diseases found in lesser amounts in the rest of Italy, often due to race poverty (multiple sclerosis, for example).
The talk about slaves, immigrants and invasion is very complex, but overall, they not to attack the Italian gene pool and the demographic question. 
In the roman Italy was almost impossible to immigrate, unless they were nobles or slaves, because there were strict laws relating to citizenship and especially because people were afraid to put in the Italian context foreign comunity (Marcus tried tu put in Bologna some Germans settlers, with the result of seeing sacked the city). 
The slaves did not fit in Italian lands (unless they were Greeks, the more tolerated), even if released, because the State was afraid of creating a class of poor people ready to respond in arms against the state (seen servile wars).
In Italy we have provided a more documentation regarding the Roman population, and one can perfectly know how many and who were the inhabitants of Italy at the time (Annales us back even to the calculation of slaves sold on the island of Rhodes).
I'm leaving, but as soon as I get back i will put informations. 
Although here it seems a crime to quote sources, on my return will post the various scientific publications, university text and research conducted on the issue.

----------


## LeBrok

> The speech is a little different. In Sardinia there is great hope of life, it is true, but there are also some diseases found in lesser amounts in the rest of Italy, often due to race poverty (multiple sclerosis, for example).


Yes, incestry can lead to amplification of few diseases. But for groups bigger than hundreds it's not an issue, and very bad gene's are wheated out in few generations. The issue would be if there is one family or two left to procreate. If they have nasty gene combinations, then it might bring their genetic line to an end. If you have group of thousands or even hundreds, then they are perfectly safe as population. I have completely no idea how Italian researchers could come up at 4 mil for healthy society to avoid problems created by incest relationships. It doesn't make sense.

How do you explain Indian tribes in Amazon jungle. They live in groups of tens or hundreds (the most). How do you explain their existence for thousands of years there? They are the living proof that incest relationships don't lead to demise of population.

----------


## Etrusco-romano

> Yes, incestry can lead to amplification of few diseases. But for groups bigger than hundreds it's not an issue, and very bad gene's are wheated out in few generations. The issue would be if there is one family or two left to procreate. If they have nasty gene combinations, then it might bring their genetic line to an end. If you have group of thousands or even hundreds, then they are perfectly safe as population. I have completely no idea how Italian researchers could come up at 4 mil for healthy society to avoid problems created by incest relationships. It doesn't make sense.
> 
> How do you explain Indian tribes in Amazon jungle. They live in groups of tens or hundreds (the most). How do you explain their existence for thousands of years there? They are the living proof that incest relationships don't lead to demise of population.


The 4 million and a half at least have been established not only on the basis of a certain frequency of diseases, but also through the analysis of other factors, such as the tax rate levied in the Esarcato of Italy, archaeological remains, the cognomistica, the statistics based on the production, for example, wheat in a specifical region, etc. .... honestly I have not followed this much research, also because it was a few years ago, but I think I can have full confidence in the staff of the National Research Center.
However it is not incest lead to the destruction of a people, but the increase statistics of certain diseases, by analyzing the frequency of these diseases related to incest in fact, they were able to show a "minimum" population needed just for that frequency of disease. It 'a very complicated mathematic discussion, especially if it has to be explained in another language.

----------


## LeBrok

> However it is not incest lead to the destruction of a people, but the increase statistics of certain diseases, by analyzing the frequency of these diseases related to incest in fact, they were able to show a "minimum" population needed just for that frequency of disease. It 'a very complicated mathematic discussion, especially if it has to be explained in another language.


Thanks, I know what you meant now. It makes sense.
I know how complicated the calculations could be, especially if there are not very precise variables. For example how much population were in villages in certain time, because their genes mixed slower with surrounding area. In cities genes exchange is more vibrant, but by what factor compared to villages? How many emigrants and slaves introduced their genes to the Italian pool, and how many came? What was an effect of invasions, how many of them staid and mixed? Even these variables change from century to century.
There are too many imprecise variables to be able to be sure about the number. Probably at the end of a day you will get a range for the answer from 1 million to 10 million and not a firm number of 4 million.
I'm still thinking that the main reason why Italian researchers got higher numbers than foreign researchers is of their nationalistic bias. It is a human nature to give a better picture of your own country. Nationalistic variable included in calculations.
I still stand by my 2 million for 600AD. ;)

----------


## Etrusco-romano

I can pass a "variable nationalist" of 500,000 units, but not 2 and a half million, also because, as far as I know, this project was also attended by many foreigners, as some Italian-American oriundo professors natives.

Even from 600 to 2000 there would be a total increase of 2900%, representing an annual population growth of 2.1%: unrealistic for the period from 600 until 1800 (i say 1800 becouse in this time the lquality of life began to improve) , where, in a really good situation, you up to 1% in the positive relationship between birth rate and death rate. 

Speaking instead of 5 million, up from 600 to 2000 have increased by 1100%, equal to a very realistic annual growth of 0.78%.

----------


## LeBrok

> Speaking instead of 5 million, up from 600 to 2000 have increased by 1100%, equal to a very realistic annual growth of 0.78%


Nope, if population grows 0.78% annually you will have 60 million citizens by year 920, roughly in 300 years. Remember compounded interest classes?
To go from 5 million - year 600 to 60mill-year 2000 you need only 0.18% growth.
Now to achieve 60 mil from 2 million year 600, you need 0.25% annual growth. What is more realistic?

Besides, population growth through history, as we know it, was anything but linear. Fast growth, slow, decline fast and slow. Plus one agricultural/pastoral and one technological revolution that increased population growth by factor of 10 through decades. Throw few wars and little ice age and your linear prediction is nothing more than garbage.
Look at recent chart for population growth in Italy for last decade:


indexmundi_ex24.jpg


http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=it&v=24


What the heck happened in year 2010?

----------


## Etrusco-romano

> Nope, if population grows 0.78% annually you will have 60 million citizens by year 920, roughly in 300 years. Remember compounded interest classes?
> To go from 5 million - year 600 to 60mill-year 2000 you need only 0.18% growth.
> Now to achieve 60 mil from 2 million year 600, you need 0.25% annual growth. What is more realistic?
> 
> Besides, population growth through history, as we know it, was anything but linear. Fast growth, slow, decline fast and slow. Plus one agricultural/pastoral and one technological revolution that increased population growth by factor of 10 through decades. Throw few wars and little ice age and your linear prediction is nothing more than garbage.
> Look at recent chart for population growth in Italy for last decade:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We suppose that, if the population in the 600 a.d were 5 milions, it pass in the 2000 to 60 milions, and the total increse is 1100%
From 600 AD to 2000 pass 1400 years, and dividing the total increase (1100%) for 1400 years, the result is 0.78% on average.

2000 (years) - 600 (years) = 1400 (years)

1100 (percentage) /1400 (numbers of pass years) = 0,78% in 1 year


PS: in the 2010 happen that the people no longer wanted to have children because there were no job opportunities, and therefore the families, in perspective, would not be able to accompany their children until the age of 30 years (we are very close to the family  :Rolleyes: )

----------


## LeBrok

Here is a simple example to make it clear. Let's say there is hypothetical village of 100 people. During 10 years population grew to 200 people, 100%. According to your math the annual growth was 100% divided by 10 years = 10% per year. Right?

Now let's use 10% growth for every year to confirm your calculations:


picture001.jpg 
With your method, using 10% annual growth rate you would end up with 259 people after 10 year and not 200.

Here is the real annual growth rate to achieve 100% in ten years:

picture002.jpg 
The true yearly growth rate is 7.16% to arrive at 100% growth for 10 years.

----------


## Etrusco-romano

Effectively It is true. I have calculated it based on the percentages final numbers without taking into account individual factors. 
Anyway, back to the original calculation, I think a more realistic growth rate of 0.18 than 0.28% in that, considering the fact that, in some age cases, it can be varied from 0.5 to -0.5 (hypothesized), since the conditions of life and hope I do not think they were excellent, so it's difficolut to hypothiz that from 600 to 1600 the percentage were improve, but after 1600 and until 1800 the question changes. We must also consider that, apart from nationalism, the studies on Italy middle ages were based especially of information from various local issues such as "taxes", "imports", "food production" and "enrollment" (very important). I'll take an example: the town of Florence, in agreement with the "Tuscany Region" and the other provincial capitals of Tuscany, a few years ago he conducted a very thorough demographic study, which led to the conclusion that between 500 and 600 AD in Tuscany alone there were about 350,000 people.

----------

