Eberron Demographics Glitch - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Eberron Demographics Glitch

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
silver_sword
Aug 27, 2008 9:51:00 So as part of my process of fleshing out the gaps in between what is set down in the source material to provide a fuller campaign setting for my players, I have discovered a slight issue with the Demographics of Eberron as set forth in the original Dragonshards article.

Even if I were to use maximum population size of the communities as shown on the map in Five Nations along with the published size of other settlements and cities, I come up with a total population of approximately 10% of the listed population for the nation in question (even after adding 40% for non-adults).

For example:

Nation: Karrnath
Listed Population: 2.5 million
Known City Sizes: Korth (85,500), Karrlakton (60,000), Rekkenmark (14,900), Atur (12,600), Fort Bones (400)
Additional Plotted Settlements: Vedykar (LC), Vulyar (LT), Lakeside (ST), Irontown (ST), Bastion (F), Fort Deepdark (F), Fort Zombie (F), Loom Keep (F), Loran Rath (F), Tanar Rath (F), Vom (H), Vurgenslye (H), Brek (T), Lhaz (T), Ice (T), Brom (T), Karnel (T), Senne (T), Trag (T), Jern (T)

At maximum population for their size, we have:
1 Large City (25,000)
2 Large Towns (2x 5,000)
2 Small Towns (2x 2,000)
6 Fort [hamlet] (6x 400)
2 Hamlets (2x 400)
8 Thorps (8x 80)
Subtotal: 42,840
Max Non-Adult: 17,136
Total: 59,976

Subtotal in listed cities: 173,400
Max Non-Adults: 69,360
Total: 242,760

Final Total: 302,736 living in known mapped settlements for a total of 12.1% of total population.

Now, I know that we are dealing with a population largely comprised of farmers and others who would not neccessarily be living in or directly around known settlements, but 12.1% seems to me to be a rather low number to be living in the cities.

Solutions?
1) Multiply all settlement sizes by 5 which would give us roughly 56% living known settlements. This is still somewhat low for me, but would seem to be reasonable.

2) Multiply size of Korth, Karrlakton, Rekkenmark and Atur by 10 and leave the rest alone. This would give us 98.57% population accounted for.

3) Accept that 77.9% of Karrnath are farmers?!
#2
minoritarian
Aug 27, 2008 10:08:31 Not all the hamlets, thorps and villages (and maybe not even all towns) are marked on the map - gives the DM room to make up settlements in areas of the map that they want them. So the population that lives in sizeable settlements will be higher than you figured but I reckon that your option 3 of thinking a very high % of the population are farmers is the closest to the truth. I don't know anything about real world demographics but for a pre-industrial society (and Eberron is still pre-industrial despite the prevalent magical technologies) a high rural to urban population ratio seems okay.
#3
ChrisTheS
Aug 27, 2008 10:11:25 Three things to keep in mind:

1) The nations are considerably larger in terms of land area than a lot of medieval/renaissance kingdoms, so there's more of it to go around.

2) The land area covered by most cities is actually pretty small by comparison to real-world equivalents, mainly because there's very little development outside of defined defensive positions (understandable during a protracted period of warfare).

3) When conducting a long-term war, countries don't want most of their manpower taken out of their food production infrastructure, so the biggest drain would have been on the city-born populations.

So it isn't unreasonable to expect that a huge percentage of the nation's population would be rural. Also bear in mind that the numbers given are supposed to represent official estimates, not defined census figures (as I think of all the nations, only Zilargo really has the bureaucratic infrastructure to keep track of the vast majority of its citizenry - Khorvaire may be all over the place in terms of cultural development, but its bureaucracy is only barely out of the late renaissance).
#4
eehamburg
Aug 27, 2008 12:09:36 Things to keep in mind:
If I remember correctly and I am not saying that I am, but I think that Hellcow has even stated that you could multiply it by 10 to get a better demographics if you wanted.
The continent did just go through a 100 yr war which tends to sufficiently decrease any population by huge amounts.
It is fantasy, not everything has to make sense
#5
silver_sword
Aug 27, 2008 12:14:04 While I agree that most of the population figures are estimates, I would point out that the Karrnathi figures are based on draft records from 994 YK according to Five Nations.

The total area is rather massive, being the same size as the western half of the US from the N. Dakota - S Dakota - Nebraska - Kansas - Oklahoma line westwards (excluding Texas). So I guess I can see there being a huge non metropolitan population, but it still would seem as if there would be a somewhat larger proportion of city dwellers than just 12.1%
#6
minoritarian
Aug 27, 2008 12:19:34 I've always just multiplied the city populations by 5.
#7
eehamburg
Aug 27, 2008 12:20:04 Still same comment ... just because it is printed doesn't mean that you as the DM can't change it.
#8
ChrisTheS
Aug 27, 2008 12:29:16 All the literature points to Karrnath as being an overwhelmingly agrarian population anyway, so that isn't necessarily the best one to look to. If we had good figures on pre-Mourning Cyre, that might give a better indication.

Although the DMG figures do underestimate the population average of townships a fair bit. Reasonably they could be anywhere up to double that, with a capital city or prominent trade center easily being up to ten times.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 silver_sword Aug 27, 2008 9:51:00	So as part of my process of fleshing out the gaps in between what is set down in the source material to provide a fuller campaign setting for my players, I have discovered a slight issue with the Demographics of Eberron as set forth in the original Dragonshards article. Even if I were to use maximum population size of the communities as shown on the map in Five Nations along with the published size of other settlements and cities, I come up with a total population of approximately 10% of the listed population for the nation in question (even after adding 40% for non-adults). For example: Nation: Karrnath Listed Population: 2.5 million Known City Sizes: Korth (85,500), Karrlakton (60,000), Rekkenmark (14,900), Atur (12,600), Fort Bones (400) Additional Plotted Settlements: Vedykar (LC), Vulyar (LT), Lakeside (ST), Irontown (ST), Bastion (F), Fort Deepdark (F), Fort Zombie (F), Loom Keep (F), Loran Rath (F), Tanar Rath (F), Vom (H), Vurgenslye (H), Brek (T), Lhaz (T), Ice (T), Brom (T), Karnel (T), Senne (T), Trag (T), Jern (T) At maximum population for their size, we have: 1 Large City (25,000) 2 Large Towns (2x 5,000) 2 Small Towns (2x 2,000) 6 Fort [hamlet] (6x 400) 2 Hamlets (2x 400) 8 Thorps (8x 80) Subtotal: 42,840 Max Non-Adult: 17,136 Total: 59,976 Subtotal in listed cities: 173,400 Max Non-Adults: 69,360 Total: 242,760 Final Total: 302,736 living in known mapped settlements for a total of 12.1% of total population. Now, I know that we are dealing with a population largely comprised of farmers and others who would not neccessarily be living in or directly around known settlements, but 12.1% seems to me to be a rather low number to be living in the cities. Solutions? 1) Multiply all settlement sizes by 5 which would give us roughly 56% living known settlements. This is still somewhat low for me, but would seem to be reasonable. 2) Multiply size of Korth, Karrlakton, Rekkenmark and Atur by 10 and leave the rest alone. This would give us 98.57% population accounted for. 3) Accept that 77.9% of Karrnath are farmers?!
#2 minoritarian Aug 27, 2008 10:08:31	Not all the hamlets, thorps and villages (and maybe not even all towns) are marked on the map - gives the DM room to make up settlements in areas of the map that they want them. So the population that lives in sizeable settlements will be higher than you figured but I reckon that your option 3 of thinking a very high % of the population are farmers is the closest to the truth. I don't know anything about real world demographics but for a pre-industrial society (and Eberron is still pre-industrial despite the prevalent magical technologies) a high rural to urban population ratio seems okay.
#3 ChrisTheS Aug 27, 2008 10:11:25	Three things to keep in mind: 1) The nations are considerably larger in terms of land area than a lot of medieval/renaissance kingdoms, so there's more of it to go around. 2) The land area covered by most cities is actually pretty small by comparison to real-world equivalents, mainly because there's very little development outside of defined defensive positions (understandable during a protracted period of warfare). 3) When conducting a long-term war, countries don't want most of their manpower taken out of their food production infrastructure, so the biggest drain would have been on the city-born populations. So it isn't unreasonable to expect that a huge percentage of the nation's population would be rural. Also bear in mind that the numbers given are supposed to represent official estimates, not defined census figures (as I think of all the nations, only Zilargo really has the bureaucratic infrastructure to keep track of the vast majority of its citizenry - Khorvaire may be all over the place in terms of cultural development, but its bureaucracy is only barely out of the late renaissance).
#4 eehamburg Aug 27, 2008 12:09:36	Things to keep in mind: If I remember correctly and I am not saying that I am, but I think that Hellcow has even stated that you could multiply it by 10 to get a better demographics if you wanted. The continent did just go through a 100 yr war which tends to sufficiently decrease any population by huge amounts. It is fantasy, not everything has to make sense
#5 silver_sword Aug 27, 2008 12:14:04	While I agree that most of the population figures are estimates, I would point out that the Karrnathi figures are based on draft records from 994 YK according to Five Nations. The total area is rather massive, being the same size as the western half of the US from the N. Dakota - S Dakota - Nebraska - Kansas - Oklahoma line westwards (excluding Texas). So I guess I can see there being a huge non metropolitan population, but it still would seem as if there would be a somewhat larger proportion of city dwellers than just 12.1%
#6 minoritarian Aug 27, 2008 12:19:34	I've always just multiplied the city populations by 5.
#7 eehamburg Aug 27, 2008 12:20:04	Still same comment ... just because it is printed doesn't mean that you as the DM can't change it.
#8 ChrisTheS Aug 27, 2008 12:29:16	All the literature points to Karrnath as being an overwhelmingly agrarian population anyway, so that isn't necessarily the best one to look to. If we had good figures on pre-Mourning Cyre, that might give a better indication. Although the DMG figures do underestimate the population average of townships a fair bit. Reasonably they could be anywhere up to double that, with a capital city or prominent trade center easily being up to ten times.