How big is the cities when the game starts? (historically?)

[Christian Strand]

I was wondering, when the game starts, how big in terms of population was the cities and which one is the biggest? Rome? Byzantium(Istanbul) ? or maybe Alexandria?

I have no idea about this..

Can anyone recommend a good site for information about the population of every city at the time?

Edit, just saw this
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201b.htm

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201a.htm

[Larkin]

It's pretty hard to know these things as most didn't have a good means of taking a census (though you can probably google "census in 200BC/AD" or whatever and find some.

I know that Rome's population at the height of the Empire hovered around 1 million with Ostia and other neighbouring suburbs included. I think Constantinople was at 3 million when it was sacked by Venice.

I would assume that most cities would vary between 200,000 and 600,000 in size. Towns would obviously be a lot smaller.

[Julio-Claudian]

I was thinking about that. Wondering how, if the cities are going to be individually designed based on how they historically looked, how the growth of the cities will be shown.

[krisslanza]

I was thinking about that. Wondering how, if the cities are going to be individually designed based on how they historically looked, how the growth of the cities will be shown.

I'd imagine it would be have be a case of gameplay/realism segregation. Because if every settlement starts at the "historical" level, you'd probably already have a few max-level cities to start with.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Until Augustus i was surely Alexandria for the mediterran region. In the late roman empire it was different from time to time. Alexandria, Antiochia, Byzantium and Carthago were the largest cities and on a special Point Rome must reach the 1 Million. I don't remember well but i beleave we have a census in the augustian era, but i don't know if Slaves and Foreigners were in this statistic.

To the Medieval Times Paris was one of the largest and bigger than London. Byzanz and Antiochia did'nd survive the sacks of the "crusades" so they could'nt challenge Paris.

But if you comparing cities, you find a lot larger cities specially in China, Persia or South and Middleamercia.

[STELLover]

Remember, London during the High Middle Ages, which was considered one of the larger cities during the time, never surpassed 100,000 population, Paris and Frankfurt, maybe around there- sure, the urban population dwindled after the fall of the Roman Empire.

I think, around the time of Augustus, you could broadly estimate size of towns/small cities to be several thousand ~ 10,000. Major settlements such as Carthage, Narbo, Syracuse, Thebes, Alexandria, Capua, would have many tens of thousands and even couple hundred..

The thing is, the economical society from the ancient ages to even past the late medieval ages was mainly agricultural. Urbanization and formation of many cities or oppidums, just started with the Roman Empire, so you wouldn't expect such high numbers in population.

[Lethe1]

Remember, London during the High Middle Ages, which was considered one of the larger cities during the time, never surpassed 100,000 population, Paris and Frankfurt, maybe around there- sure, the urban population dwindled after the fall of the Roman Empire.

I think, around the time of Augustus, you could broadly estimate size of towns/small cities to be several thousand ~ 10,000. Major settlements such as Carthage, Narbo, Syracuse, Thebes, Alexandria, Capua, would have many tens of thousands and even couple hundred..

Populations were much lower during the Middle Ages due to continuous plagues and more frequent wars. Many cities can easily prove this by their surface:
the Roman colony of Arelate was rather small, but the medieval populace of Arles was able to live just inside the arena. Another example would be Trier, where the surface of the modern day city has only some 100 years ago expanded up to the outskirts of the Roman Augusta Treverorum. Even today, the arena (which was part of the city walls) still lies between vineyards.
You can do the same research for just about any city (except Paris/Lutetia and Byzantium) and you will find the same results (except for newly founded cities obviously).
Just comparing the surface does create a bias: population density would be higher in Roman cities due to the construction of insulae (apartment blocks) for the plebs, whereas medieval houses usually were for just 1 or 2 families (the medieval towers in Italian cities were only for prestige, they were not used for housing).
Secondly: smaller cities in the Roman era were larger than your estimate: the small but prosperous city of Aphrodisias already had a capacity of 30000 in the stadium (which indicates a population well above your estimates).

[RexImperator]

A hundred thousand to a few hundred thousand would probably be a really big city. These would be Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage, Syracuse, Rome, Pella, Pergamon, Ephesus, Athens possibly Massilia and Cyrene, a few others. These would be the main ones on the Mediterranean anyway as cities like Babylon and Seleucia on the Tigris also had very large populations.

It also varies from year to year based on who sacks who, earthquakes, ravaging of countrysides, changing geography and weather conditions, plague etc etc.

[Drtad]

Generally the East had more large cities than Western Europe- Antioch, Seleucia on the Tigris, Alexandria, etc.

Byzantium was definitely not very populous at this time.

[RandarKal]

Don't recall the source on this, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that during the classical period of Greece, Athens had a population estimated around 250,000...including slaves, with probably about 30,000 who could vote.

(Note that a rough estimate on Athens' military as I remember it would give it about 10,000 Hoplites and 40,000 men for its fleet)

[spanish_emperor]

Alexandria: around 600.000

Carthage: Don't know but probably around 500.000

Most major cities ould be around that, probably smaller. It was rare for a city to have 1 million inhabitants and even in the medieval ages this did not last long. Even the population of Constantinople decreased below 500,000 on some occasions. The higher the population in those times, the more unstable it became because many would migrate for work opportunities and all this depended on trade. Plus, diseases spiraled out of control the larger the population and the population rose mainly in poor neighborhoods where the homes were smaller and where many were probably renting. Historically, trade created job opportunities in the cities since very little was actually manufactured and economies were based on agriculture. Thus, the east was always more populous because the trade was much more vibrant and more developed.

[Ichon]

Thebes or Athens were the largest cities of the early Roman eras on the Mediterranean but as others have pointed out some cities in the east were likely larger. Rome and Antioch were likely the next largest with Rome becoming the largest by the end of the 3rd Punic war if not earlier(146 BC). Athens, Carthage, Thebes all lost significant population with Thebes replaced by Alexandria but Thebes likely to still have nearly 300,000 in 300 BC and only entered serious decline with the rise of Rome where Alexandria was an important port and the ancient Egyptian religions lost power slowly under Greek and Roman influence Ephesus and Seleucia are the other large cities of the era though I've read some other cities in Italy achieved very large populations by 1 AD.

I've never seen estimates for Carthage get near 500,000 but between 100-200,000 seems likely. The surrounding regions of Carthage were also quite populated.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Thebes or Athens were the largest cities of the early Roman eras on the Mediterranean but as others have pointed out some cities in the east were likely larger. Rome and Antioch were likely the next largest with Rome becoming the largest by the end of the 3rd Punic war if not earlier(146 BC). Athens, Carthage, Thebes all lost significant population with Thebes replaced by Alexandria but Thebes likely to still have nearly 300,000 in 300 BC and only entered serious decline with the rise of Rome where Alexandria was an important port and the ancient Egyptian religions lost power slowly under Greek and Roman influence Ephesus and Seleucia are the other large cities of the era though I've read some other cities in Italy achieved very large populations by 1 AD.

I've never seen estimates for Carthage get near 500,000 but between 100-200,000 seems likely. The surrounding regions of Carthage were also quite populated.

In the late republik Alexandria was probably bigger than Rome and had a higher population than rome but it depens on what you count as population. A lot of people in Alexandria were long distance merchands or foreigners in general.

If you take Carthage than 100-200,000 are not enough. It is difficult to give ancient cities a correct number of population but in the case of Carthage we have a few hints. We know the lenght of the citywalls and have a good image which parts of the punic town had buildings so they must be a lot more people. Minimum 300.000.

[Christian Strand]

I dont know if we can trust this source 100% but according to wikipedia, Carthage had 150 000 in 200 BC,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...ommunity_sizes

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

I know the source, but the book they quoted is 25 years old and there was a lot of diggings in Tunis since this time.

[Ichon]

It depends a lot when the start data is because I wouldn't see 300,000 as unreasonable for Carthage before losing 1st Punic war but there are statements during the second war about declines in population of the city but either way not 500,000. Alexandria outgrew Rome as Thebes declined and Rome recovered from some troubles but at some point Rome passed Alexandria again. It's difficult to know.for.sure as we are talking in estimates based on walls circumferenc, house density in digs, likely agrarian yield to feed a population etc. Personally I think ancient cities were usually higher than the median estimates due to.crowding of the poor/slaves but saying 500,000 for Carthage is higher than any estimate I've seen in academic.source. The digs in Tunisia do.show that area around Carthage was quite populated though, perhaps even more than around Rome as in that era climate was better and Carthage had very good agriculture technologies giving relatively high yields as well easy access to Sicilian grain imports.

[Princeps]

cities with more than 200 000 people were almost certainly subsidized: i.e. they receiving cheap grain at the cost of the rural population around it or at the cost of a colony elsewhere in the Mediterranean.

stable self-sufficient cities probably wouldn't have populations higher than a 80 000.

Why were some cities subsidized? I think its just an imperial prestige thing: cities like Alexandria, Antioch and Rome were centers of great empires and administration. Rulers wanted to have a large city as a capital. It was probably not a good thing: as it impoverished the countryside.

[Barbarossa66]

Wish I could remember which book I got this from, but I think it was Polybius' Histories. About 150 BC the Roman Republic instituted laws that gave every person in Rome free food if they needed it. This was not just grain, but included cured fish and dried fruits. Now I can't remember exactly why this happened, but I am sure it was likely some Consul or Tribune that required the full support of the mob. Still a very interesting piece of information when considering the capitalist nature of the great city.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Wish I could remember which book I got this from, but I think it was Polybius' Histories. About 150 BC the Roman Republic instituted laws that gave every person in Rome free food if they needed it. This was not just grain, but included cured fish and dried fruits. Now I can't remember exactly why this happened, but I am sure it was likely some Consul or Tribune that required the full support of the mob. Still a very interesting piece of information when considering the capitalist nature of the great city.

Don't know it exactly to, but i allways thought free grain is a thing that Caesar promised for the citizens in the Urbs?

[Ichon]

I thought it started as a tradition before celebratory events like games, triumphs, elections, etc the distribution of food/gifts and some political figures began promising it all the time. Part of the tension in Rome was due to the patronage system and the results of the Social wars which gave Roman citizenship to other tribes but those men had to seek patronage and without Senatorial support many offices were nearly impossible to win until 'new men' appealed to the masses who did have some voting rights. Even established senators sometimes did this tactic when not having enough votes- Caesar was from a distinguished family but was opposed by other old families so he simply bypassed the traditional patronage systems which he was opposed as those held him back and appealed to the masses which were much larger and not as tied in to the traditional Roman patronage system after the Social wars when Roman citizenship expanded hugely. It was tactic of appealing to the masses rather than using the normal patronage systems which took time to cultivate that distinguished the 'new men' from the older established families.