This always interested me? China has a very specific and unique culture, but it seems that ever since the beginnings China had a great number of people. 10 million armies where infantry men were not even given a weapon, mass murder of children in especially "fertile" years are the worst (IMO) consequences from the number of Chinese population. I was wondering how was it possible that China was so populated so early in history? All other centers of civilization are or were as not populted as China. What is the reason behind this? I was hoping some reali Chinese will help me understand....

Warned, trolling. Murder of children? :rolleyes:

It probably has to do with many fertile soils, rice as a main foodstuff (which is amazingly productive), etc.

Also because China has such a long history. One of the earliest carbon datings for a fire pit are from China.

Well, China, much like India, does cover a very large, and very rich and fertile area, with a long history of civilisation. So it's not really all that surprising when you think about it.

I think it has to do with rice.

Rice is funny. Dry cultivation of rice gives yields much like any cereal. Wet cultivation males fantastically productive in relation to the are cultivated. The flip side is that wet rice cultivation is also extremely labour intensive.

I know anthroplogists can't quite work that equation out. If a population shifts to wet rice, more people can be supported on the same land, but everyone has to work harder as well. From the individuals point of view, there is no really clear incentive.

Still, at some point the Chinese went for wet rice cultivation where applicable. (Which is far from everywhere in a big, geographically and climatically varied place like that.)

As far as I know, rice is primarily grown in significant quantities in the more southern regions of modern China were the climate is subtropical or tropical. The north has more soybeans and cereals because of the drier and colder climate. Since the north is where Chinese civilization began (Wei & Yellow Rivers, loess), so I can't see a connection between lots of Chinese and growing rice.

Everybody else has pretty much pointed out the fertile soil but you also have to look at the physical size. Think of China or India (pre partition) as you see Europe.

I think it's fair to say there would be a lot fewer Chinese without the expansion into south China (completed around the Tang dynasty or so?), and without wet rice cultivation.

I don't see why the original heartland should be given special status for explaining Chinese demographic success in the last 1000 years or so? :)

Advanced agricultural technologies, an advanced and effective state bureaucracy, long periods of peace within China proper, an inclusive non-religion-based social philosophy (Confucianism) to integrate barbarians, powerful appeal of Chinese culture.

I think it has to do with rice.

Rice is funny. Dry cultivation of rice gives yields much like any cereal. Wet cultivation males fantastically productive in relation to the are cultivated. The flip side is that wet rice cultivation is also extremely labour intensive.

I know anthroplogists can't quite work that equation out. If a population shifts to wet rice, more people can be supported on the same land, but everyone has to work harder as well. From the individuals point of view, there is no really clear incentive.

Still, at some point the Chinese went for wet rice cultivation where applicable. (Which is far from everywhere in a big, geographically and climatically varied place like that.)One of the reasons for the huge demographic expansion later on. Esp when the Champa (S Vietnam) variety of rice was introduced. 3 harvests a year anyone?

Advanced agricultural technologies, an advanced and effective state bureaucracy, long periods of peace within China proper, an inclusive non-religion-based social philosophy (Confucianism) to integrate barbarians, powerful appeal of Chinese culture.To get an idea of just how advanced Chinese argricultural techniques were, read up on the agricultural revolution in 16, 17, 18th centuries Europe (or thereabouts), as European travellers brought back Chinese know-how and the farmers of Europe quadruapled (or more) the population of Europe.

For more reading, look up the encyclopedia on Chinese science and technology by Christopher Needham and his group at Oxford. A bit old, but still the authority in this genre.

Thank you all for your input.

To get an idea of just how advanced Chinese argricultural techniques were, read up on the agricultural revolution in 16, 17, 18th centuries Europe (or thereabouts), as European travellers brought back Chinese know-how and the farmers of Europe quadruapled (or more) the population of Europe.
We prolly should conclude that the Chinese demographic success is a fairly recent phenomenon.

The Chinese empire contemporary with the Roman has census figures indicating empire with roughly equal size populations. A lot of people sure, but nothing really indicates that Chinese demographics was already exceptional.

Any real reason for Chinese numbers should prolly be sought in the last four centuries or so.

We prolly should conclude that the Chinese demographic success is a fairly recent phenomenon.

The Chinese empire contemporary with the Roman has census figures indicating empire with roughly equal size populations. A lot of people sure, but nothing really indicates that Chinese demographics was already exceptional.

Any real reason for Chinese numbers should prolly be sought in the last four centuries or so.Even in the Warring Ages (pre-Empire, before 221 BCE), the Warring States could mobilize conscript armies in the hundreds of thousands, each. Some of the Chinese agricultural techniques were already quite old.

When the Han empire dissolved and the northern barbarians poured in, in effect it affected a massive expansion of the Chinese base as large masses of Chinese fled south and really began to develop the Yangzi regions and beyond. ;)

XIII you wouldnt happen to know how many harvest the chinese were able to haverst per year from Yellow and Yanzi rivers ?

To my knowledge: Nile was 3 crops, Mekong Delta was 4
(Which is simply amazing)

Even in the Warring Ages (pre-Empire, before 221 BCE), the Warring States could mobilize conscript armies in the hundreds of thousands, each. Some of the Chinese agricultural techniques were already quite old.
Yes, but the operative word here seems to be 'conscript'.
In that case it would seem to testify to the administrative strength and skill already of the Warring States period, but not necessarily of exceptional numbers.:goodjob:

The Persians could also muster conscript armies at around 200.000...

And certain tribes beaten by Ceasar numbered + 100.000 warriors too. But as usually, conscript can be beaten by small professional armies.

the revolt of Budiccia is known to have had between 100,000 and 250,000 tribal warriors in it (the Romans themselves claimed it was around 800,000!) big armies are hardley unique to china; its small, effieicent armies that are unique to the west.

Yeah, its possible we are talking about a world were the bacteriological preassure on humans wasn't quite as severe as it later became — thus large populations, in China and Europe both one would think.

I've French archaeologists assess the pre-Roman conquest population of Gaul to 15 million. 10 million for the Italian peninsula.

I'd expect larger of the Italian peninisula; durign the middle ages it had a larger population then france, according to a few books of mine.

Rice really is an amazing crop. The main thing is that it responds to intensive cultivation. Put more work into it, with labor, water, fertlizer, weeding, etc, and you get more rice out of it, simple as that. You can get twice the amount of rice by working the same land twice as much. There are limits to how far this can go, of course, but it shows how amazing of a crop rice is. It can produce more calories per acre than any other crop. This may also explain the old Chinese bias for male children, because of the amount of labor required for farming.

Another factor is that China is largely an agricultural civilization. The Roman empire, for example, got most of its wealth through trade and commerce. The Han dynasty though, got most of its income from agriculture. It's amazing how much of the land in China is devoted to growing food. There was a time when more exotic species like hippos, rhinos, and elephants lived in parts of China. They're all gone now because the land has been subsequently cleared for food growing. When they run out of land, they move into the hills, and you can see parts of China were even the hills are terraced to allow for irrigation and rice growing.

Oh, and other reasons for the high population are the large land area and the relative power of the Chinese Empire. The population REALLY started to take off once the areas of the Yangzi and south started being settled, as those were rich farmlands. Places like Guangzhou can have three or four crops of rice a year. After a time, the population reached 100 million or so, and then leveled off. Once contact with Europeans brought new crops like potatoes, corn, and others, population started skyrocketing again, reaching 400 million.

I'd expect larger of the Italian peninisula; durign the middle ages it had a larger population then france, according to a few books of mine.
Italy is a bit smaller than France.;)

As far as I know Italys pop reached a peak in the late 13th c. (before the Black Death) with approx. 11 million, and more than France at the time. Especially northern Italy was ahead of the game. But then every scrap of land that could be cultivated was and a larger pop. couldn't be supported. The part of the rural population forced out on the worst pieces of land were rather poor as well.
Somewhere around 10 million seems to have been Italy's max capacity without the later inventions in agriculture.

The black death was pretty hard on Italy in particular, if I remember. I think Milan lost three quarters of it's population or something similarly disastorous.

Well, both India and China have 1 billion population, and I think both countries have geographical features working in their favor.

1 - India has the ocean to their east, west and south, with a huge mountain range to the north. Not too hard to defend that type of land.

2 - China has a broad section of land in a huge continent (Several Asian countries are huge. China was lucky enough to be the ones to expand. As they did, other cultures were able to move around throughout Asia, since there wasn't any ocean, or mountains to stop them. One such group (the Huns) were pushed out by China, and headed west until they bumped into the Romans, and the northern European coast. Such competition limited places like Europe.

Evem Japan had a huge population for a land area the size of Britain or New Zealand (4000000 and it seems pretty cramped)

Well, both India and China have 1 billion population, and I think both countries have geographical features working in their favor.

1 - India has the ocean to their east, west and south, with a huge mountain range to the north. Not too hard to defend that type of land.

Yet India has been invaded a number of times. Anyway I don't conquests and wars have a huge impact on overall population trends. It is got to do far more with the soil and climate.

The black death was pretty hard on Italy in particular, if I remember. I think Milan lost three quarters of it's population or something similarly disastorous.

I belive that was Venice; Milan was actually sparred from the plague, or at most lightlly affected by it; Italy wasnt as hard hit as other areas of europe (for instance, england) because that italian cities still retianed better sanitation then most other cities [in the world] at the time.

Italy is a bit smaller than France.;)

As far as I know Italys pop reached a peak in the late 13th c. (before the Black Death) with approx. 11 million, and more than France at the time. Especially northern Italy was ahead of the game. But then every scrap of land that could be cultivated was and a larger pop. couldn't be supported. The part of the rural population forced out on the worst pieces of land were rather poor as well.
Somewhere around 10 million seems to have been Italy's max capacity without the later inventions in agriculture.

remember; durign Roman times, Italy was beign supplimented by vast shipment sof grain from egypt, allowing the city of Rome itself to have over a million citizens within its walls alone.

besides, italy is biogger then Flanders, the only other are ain europe at the time where you expect to see large population centers in great numbers :p

Yet India has been invaded a number of times. Anyway I don't conquests and wars have a huge impact on overall population trends. It is got to do far more with the soil and climate.

I know - didn't mention it though. But, the conquests of India didn't seem to last too long (Persians, Greeks - don't know who else, excluding British colonies).

Mughals invaded India...

I know - didn't mention it though. But, the conquests of India didn't seem to last too long (Persians, Greeks - don't know who else, excluding British colonies).
Persians and Greeks hardly got into India. They managed to get into Punjab, sometimes across the Indus which in many ways is the western extent of civilized lands in India. The Persians and Pathans did manage to sack Delhi at different times throughout history but even Delhi is relatively close to the western extent. Some groups, mainly Turks and Afghans pretty much settled down and created empires like the Mughals. There were also ancient invasions by the Scythians and several other Indo-European nomads that permenantly settled down and were integrated into Indian society.

Not quite true on the Greeks. Alexander himself didn't get anywhere, but the Bactrian Greeks invaded India later, and controlled most of northern India for a short while.

Well, both India and China have 1 billion population, and I think both countries have geographical features working in their favor.

1 - India has the ocean to their east, west and south, with a huge mountain range to the north. Not too hard to defend that type of land.

2 - China has a broad section of land in a huge continent (Several Asian countries are huge. China was lucky enough to be the ones to expand. As they did, other cultures were able to move around throughout Asia, since there wasn't any ocean, or mountains to stop them. One such group (the Huns) were pushed out by China, and headed west until they bumped into the Romans, and the northern European coast. Such competition limited places like Europe.Geographical features are hardly the answer. There're formidable mountain ranges subdividing China, esp in the south. Like Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou. Much more formidable than anything in Europe.

the revolt of Budiccia is known to have had between 100,000 and 250,000 tribal warriors in it (the Romans themselves claimed it was around 800,000!) big armies are hardley unique to china; its small, effieicent armies that are unique to the west.Who says the big conscript armies of China were inefficient?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103345

:p

Close this thread please....

Who says the big conscript armies of China were inefficient?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103345

:p

I've donte quite a bit reserch since that old thread; and have found that even [i]Pentagon strategic analyisists give thier kudus to Rome, dear XIII, and the military orginization -particuraley when combined with the forign policy goals of Rome are amoungst some of the best in history; if Rome had had a more stable internal government, thier no tellign how logn the empire woudl have lasted :p

Geographical features are hardly the answer. There're formidable mountain ranges subdividing China, esp in the south. Like Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou. Much more formidable than anything in Europe.

Would you send an army over the Himylanians? :) (Then again, I think of Mt. Everest when I think of that mountain range)...

Would you send an army over the Himylanians? :) (Then again, I think of Mt. Everest when I think of that mountain range)...You would probably go around, through the jungle, wouldn't you?

Who says the big conscript armies of China were inefficient?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103345

:p

Gotta love the Chinese empire and their ability to regularly raise million-man armies. :P

You would probably go around, through the jungle, wouldn't you?
I believe the most commonly used route was the Khyber Pass, a mountain pass which lies between modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan. Armies could walk through with relative ease. Ofcourse to get this far one would have to subjugate the warlike Afghan tribes in the region. The British (if not the only) were one of the few not to come through mountain passes in the north and west but rather from the ocean. In the end they never managed to fully conquer the mountainous regions west of Pubjab and remained at war or constant alert through most of its over India.

Not quite true on the Greeks. Alexander himself didn't get anywhere, but the Bactrian Greeks invaded India later, and controlled most of northern India for a short while.
True by the time they took northern India they were probably made up of far more locals than Greeks but mantained parts of the Greek cultural heritage.

Who says the big conscript armies of China were inefficient?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103345

:p

i wish Khaghan would contribute more often, his posts are always breathtaking :king: