The release of 4e is the perfect time to change those figures to make a realistic, understandable population.
To account for the differences in population from 3.5 to 4E, I suggest that each of the civilized nations held a census between 998 and 1000, determining each of their respective population figures. This, coupled with a sudden baby boom, could very easily account for the differences in a way I think everyone could be satisfied with.
This discussion was started in the 4E Wish List Thread.
Drastic Population Increase
Aundair
Breland
Karrnath
Mror Holds
Thrane
These regions are all major states that formed the core of Galifar. In virtually all instances they are areas with relatively mild climates, large swathes of arable land, multiple cities, stable governments, etc. In my personal view these areas should receive population increases of either x5 or x10. Thus they would have a population of somewhere between 50+ or 100+ million depending upon which method you chose. Note that this is contingent upon Khoravire maintaining its current size of approximately 5000 miles from the Shadow Marches to the eastern islands of Lhazaar.
Moderate Population Increase
Darguun
Lhazaar Principalities
Valenar
Zilargo
These are minor states with either a history of ancient settlement, stable history, or possessing a population with a prolific birthrate. Each, however, has some flaw which prevents them from equaling the population of the more advanced states. Thusly I would be in favor of increasing their numbers by either x3 or x5 (depending upon which method you went with for the previous regions).
Minor or No Population Increase
Demon Wastes
Droaam
Eldeen Reaches
Mournland
Shadow Marches
Talenta Plains
Q'barra
These areas are all sparsely inhabited, and, in somes cases, incredibly dangerous for civilized folk. Thus, in my opinion, the population changes to these regions should either be very small or non-existent. The Demon Wastes, for example, is a terrifying no-mans-land of ancient terrors, and a place like Q'barra is a jungle wilderness only very recently settled. At the most a few of the more 'docile' areas like the Eldeen Reaches or the Talenta Plains might benefit from a x2 increase to population.
This is generally the way I run it in my games. Your mileage may vary.
First they just had a 100+ year war with devsation that could never be match in real world history(I.E. spells, warforged, undead)
Second maybe people from Eberron just have a lower birthrate.
third having a low population makes the game even more grittier and dark. Imagine the feel of going to New York City or Paris if you remove half the people.
I don't particularly feel that strongly about it one way or the other, but I agree that fixing the scale and increasing population density in the major trade areas probably would make the setting a little more believable. I have a feeling that some authors who were responsible for population numbers based them mostly on the "magic items for sale by city population" tables in the DMG and kept them low purely to cut down on high level magic items. Hopefully there will be a big rebalancing on wealth and magic items and that won't be necessary in 4e.
Having a low population for the contintent just makes sense to me.
First they just had a 100+ year war with devsation that could never be match in real world history(I.E. spells, warforged, undead)
You can't kill that many people who are needed to fill up a continent of that size. There should be about 10x more people in the Five Nations + Riedra.
Second maybe people from Eberron just have a lower birthrate.
Maybe, but then they couldn't have kept fighting for 100 years.
third having a low population makes the game even more grittier and dark. Imagine the feel of going to New York City or Paris if you remove half the people.
it's only weird because you know there should be more people. after all, someone had to build everything.;)
From what i've come to understand, Eberron as a world was originally MUCH smaller (more Krynn sized than Earth sized), and it's the scale of the map, not the population figures that was changed from Hellcow's original world to the WotC one.
Eberron is much more interesting, imho, if it is full of people. That way, the abandoned/ruined areas are scarier, wilder. Moreover, even multiplying the 5N + Riedra population by ten times doesn't even fill up the continent--but it does make it more realistic.
My previous post was in the 4e Eberron Wishlist thread that this discussion got separated from. I just wanted to respond to DarthMidget and say that you actually made a strong case for why the population numbers should be fixed and I now find myself agreeing with you. And you know, since it's such a rarity that any thread on the internet ever involves one person actually admitting they were wrong and ceding an argument, I figured I'd reply. ;)
Thanks! That's a very nice gesture.
First they just had a 100+ year war with devsation that could never be match in real world history(I.E. spells, warforged, undead)
Trust me. As someone who has studied real-life weapons ours are much more terrifying and devastating than magical ones. And no I'm not talking about nukes. ;)
Eberron is much more interesting, imho, if it is full of people. That way, the abandoned/ruined areas are scarier, wilder. Moreover, even multiplying the 5N + Riedra population by ten times doesn't even fill up the continent--but it does make it more realistic.
My thoughts exactly.
Trust me. As someone who has studied real-life weapons ours are much more terrifying and devastating than magical ones. And no I'm not talking about nukes. ;)
Um...well back in a comparitive time period as far as I know we had nothing that could produce the Mournland. (And I think today we'll need a couple of nukes to make a Mournland...though I might be wrong.)
Also we did not have the ability to call down things like earthquake and such.
Am I not disagreeing my knowledge might be more limited then yours...and I do have some interest in the subject so I am asking fort examples more to learn then to argue.
You can't kill that many people who are needed to fill up a continent of that size. There should be about 10x more people in the Five Nations + Riedra.
While I might agree with Riedra I can think of a good example as to why the population is the way it is. The Inspired want to control the amount their population grows so they can keep up in controling it. I got that as very strong feeling from the book.
Maybe, but then they couldn't have kept fighting for 100 years.
That would be why warforged and undead troops were used heavily.
it's only weird because you know there should be more people. after all, someone had to build everything.;)
From what i've come to understand, Eberron as a world was originally MUCH smaller (more Krynn sized than Earth sized), and it's the scale of the map, not the population figures that was changed from Hellcow's original world to the WotC one.
Eberron is much more interesting, imho, if it is full of people. That way, the abandoned/ruined areas are scarier, wilder. Moreover, even multiplying the 5N + Riedra population by ten times doesn't even fill up the continent--but it does make it more realistic.
The cities weren't built after the war...they mostly were built before the war. And also like the NY City example the players should get the feeling that more people should be there but aren't in Sharn and other cities hence the creepy feelings.
I mean I don't know, I took the population figure and made it a part of the world. If you want to increase the populations of your Ebberron go ahead. But I think I stick to my population numbers if they change it in 4th...I like the feel better. Either way it works. I just think there is some justification for the low population numbers.
Um...well back in a comparitive time period as far as I know we had nothing that could produce the Mournland. (And I think today we'll need a couple of nukes to make a Mournland...though I might be wrong.)
Well comparitive time period is the key. Eberron isn't really 'middle ages'. I would put Eberronian magic tech at late 19th and early 20th century. So really you're talking about comparing magical spells to things like machine guns, chlorine gas,howitzers, and airplanes.
Also we did not have the ability to call down things like earthquake and such.
Earthquakes are far less potent than modern weapons.
Am I not disagreeing my knowledge might be more limited then yours...and I do have some interest in the subject so I am asking fort examples more to learn then to argue.
Well my comments were predicated upon the concept of you comparing Eberronian magic tech to modern-day weapons. If, however, you compare them to Medieval era technology then, obviously, Eberronian magic is more dangerous.
My whole point, however, is that simply because Eberron has devastating magical weapons does not mean that their wars would necessarily be more bloody than ours. If you examine military history you find that, in many cases, wars are not bloody, because of the technolog used, but instead because of the resolves.
The First World War is a perfect example. This was, in effect, the equivalent of Khorvaire's Last War. The First World War used all sorts of relatively new technologies like machine guns, tanks, airplanes, and howitzers. The War, however, was not bloody because of the technology. The War was bloody, because both sides were willing to sacrifice so many lives in their attempts to win. It was the relative parity of the sides involved that made the technology so devastating. If one side had had a clear advantage then the war would not have been so brutal.
For an example of this look no further than the opening days of the Second World War. In the 1940 Western Campaign launched by Germany the situation was very similiar to 1914. In 1914 the British and the French faced off against the Germans. Thus it was in 1940. In 1914 the British and the French possessed about the same number of men, guns, and equipment as the Germans. Thus it was in 1940. The terrain was the same. The main difference is that the Germans had a better airforce, a better strategy than in 1914, a better understanding of how to use armored forces, and a combined arms approach to modern warfare. Thus in these scenarios the opposing sides had virtually the same technology and numbers, but the casualties were wildly disproportionate. The 1914 'battle' would last until 1918. The 1940 battle would be over in a matter of weeks. In 1914 millions would die. In 1940 the dead were less than a few hundred thousand on both sides.
So, my point is that the technological capability of a given society cannot be used to determine how bloody any given conflict maybe.
Also, on a separate issue, every government exists on, at the very least, the tacit approval of the people. No matter what a monarch wanted if any war lasted decade after decade with horrific loss of life (in the millions) the people of said ruler would demand an end to the war. If that war did not end then you would see wholesale revolts among, not just the populace, but the military as well. This was beginning to occur in the French and German armies in 1918 after only 4 years of pointless and horrifically bloody war. If the Last War lasted 100 years then I would argue that it could not have been anywhere near as bloody as 20th century warfare.
Society simply would not accept such a vast number of casualties over such a long period of time. At some point, if enough losses were sustained, society would come to the point at which it would be physically impossible for the war to continue. In 1945 Germany, and even Russia, was, quite literally, running out of men that could fight. No society, no matter how structured, can sustain intense war for a long period of time. The longest period of war in human history, AFAIK, is the Hundred Years War between Britain and France. This, however, was not a long and sustained war. It was actually a series of much smaller and less intense wars spread over a long period of time. Even this tumultuous period killed millions of Frenchmen, and shattered English power on the Continent for centuries.
To Sum Up:
1. The more intense the war then the more damaging it will be to society.
2. The more damaging the war is to society then the less time that society can support it.
3. Once a society can no longer sustain the war the war will end either favorably or unfavorably.
4. The Last War proceeded for 100 years.
5. Since the Last War took so long to conclude we can only surmise that the Last War was not damaging enough to society to completely destroy society's ability to support the Last War. Thus the Last War could not have been as bloody, in terms of percentage of population killed, as any of the major wars that occured in either the 19th or 20th centuries.
6. Since the Last War could not reach this level we must, logically, conclude that the Last War cannot be held as responsible for the low populations of Khorvaire.
Well comparitive time period is the key. Eberron isn't really 'middle ages'. I would put Eberronian magic tech at late 19th and early 20th century. So really you're talking about comparing magical spells to things like machine guns, chlorine gas,howitzers, and airplanes.
Earthquakes are far less potent than modern weapons.
Well my comments were predicated upon the concept of you comparing Eberronian magic tech to modern-day weapons. If, however, you compare them to Medieval era technology then, obviously, Eberronian magic is more dangerous.
My whole point, however, is that simply because Eberron has devastating magical weapons does not mean that their wars would necessarily be more bloody than ours. If you examine military history you find that, in many cases, wars are not bloody, because of the technolog used, but instead because of the resolves.
The First World War is a perfect example. This was, in effect, the equivalent of Khorvaire's Last War. The First World War used all sorts of relatively new technologies like machine guns, tanks, airplanes, and howitzers. The War, however, was not bloody because of the technology. The War was bloody, because both sides were willing to sacrifice so many lives in their attempts to win. It was the relative parity of the sides involved that made the technology so devastating. If one side had had a clear advantage then the war would not have been so brutal.
For an example of this look no further than the opening days of the Second World War. In the 1940 Western Campaign launched by Germany the situation was very similiar to 1914. In 1914 the British and the French faced off against the Germans. Thus it was in 1940. In 1914 the British and the French possessed about the same number of men, guns, and equipment as the Germans. Thus it was in 1940. The terrain was the same. The main difference is that the Germans had a better airforce, a better strategy than in 1914, a better understanding of how to use armored forces, and a combined arms approach to modern warfare. Thus in these scenarios the opposing sides had virtually the same technology and numbers, but the casualties were wildly disproportionate. The 1914 'battle' would last until 1918. The 1940 battle would be over in a matter of weeks. In 1914 millions would die. In 1940 the dead were less than a few hundred thousand on both sides.
So, my point is that the technological capability of a given society cannot be used to determine how bloody any given conflict maybe.
Also, on a separate issue, every government exists on, at the very least, the tacit approval of the people. No matter what a monarch wanted if any war lasted decade after decade with horrific loss of life (in the millions) the people of said ruler would demand an end to the war. If that war did not end then you would see wholesale revolts among, not just the populace, but the military as well. This was beginning to occur in the French and German armies in 1918 after only 4 years of pointless and horrifically bloody war. If the Last War lasted 100 years then I would argue that it could not have been anywhere near as bloody as 20th century warfare.
Society simply would not accept such a vast number of casualties over such a long period of time. At some point, if enough losses were sustained, society would come to the point at which it would be physically impossible for the war to continue. In 1945 Germany, and even Russia, was, quite literally, running out of men that could fight. No society, no matter how structured, can sustain intense war for a long period of time. The longest period of war in human history, AFAIK, is the Hundred Years War between Britain and France. This, however, was not a long and sustained war. It was actually a series of much smaller and less intense wars spread over a long period of time. Even this tumultuous period killed millions of Frenchmen, and shattered English power on the Continent for centuries.
To Sum Up:
1. The more intense the war then the more damaging it will be to society.
2. The more damaging the war is to society then the less time that society can support it.
3. Once a society can no longer sustain the war the war will end either favorably or unfavorably.
4. The Last War proceeded for 100 years.
5. Since the Last War took so long to conclude we can only surmise that the Last War was not damaging enough to society to completely destroy society's ability to support the Last War. Thus the Last War could not have been as bloody, in terms of percentage of population killed, as any of the major wars that occured in either the 19th or 20th centuries.
6. Since the Last War could not reach this level we must, logically, conclude that the Last War cannot be held as responsible for the low populations of Khorvaire.
Thank you I can see you side of the issue a little more clearly now. Though I do have some questions about factors that we we don't have in realy world examples.
1) In truth I always saw The Last War more akin to the 100 year war then say WW1 or 2. But like WW1&2 it involved the whole contintent. What were the population figures of France and Britian after everything was settled.
2) The fact that Warforged and Undead was used to supplement each nations troops (except really Thrane but that society might have the will to carry a war that long due to religious fanaticalism.) I think would have hide the cost to the society to the extent that the war wouldn't degrade it's will much slower then before.
3) The problem with comparing magic in warfare to say mordern warfare technology is that in modern warfare every soldier has the machine gun and such and are facing people with machine guns....with magic you can't always have that parity in power. I don't if this clear if you want I can try to explain it better.
4) Also I am not saying that the low population is solely responsible for such a low population (I think it a combinmation of factors with the last war being one of them) but the Last Wars major effect on the whole population would be the creation of the Mournland. Just think of the number of deaths that event caused (also including the aftermath like the Valenar massacre of refugees). True this rates more with a natural disaster that can't be compared to in written history I believe. But what was the casulities from this?
Thank you I can see you side of the issue a little more clearly now. Though I do have some questions about factors that we we don't have in realy world examples.
1) In truth I always saw The Last War more akin to the 100 year war then say WW1 or 2. But like WW1&2 it involved the whole contintent. What were the population figures of France and Britian after everything was settled.
they weren't significantly impacted. certainly not britain, although the french population was hurt. but Germany, which lost almost 4 million in the war (and in the horrific aftermath that's largely disregarded) WAS hurt, and rather seriously. The 20 - 25 million dead soviets certainly put crimp in the USSR's population--half of Belarus was dead, for instance. But we must remember two things:
1) modern weapons and methods are far worse than the ones available to the 5N
2) much of the Last War was not as intense as WW2. Many of the great population centers of Khorvaire were not subject to invasion, quite opposite to that of the USSR and Germany. I would like to think the war was fought more along the lines of the 30 Year's War, which was unorganized, chaotic, and punctuated by moments of exceptional cruelty (and who's casualty figures are also bizarrely overstated).
2) The fact that Warforged and Undead was used to supplement each nations troops (except really Thrane but that society might have the will to carry a war that long due to religious fanaticalism.) I think would have hide the cost to the society to the extent that the war wouldn't degrade it's will much slower then before.
This was what allowed the war to continue for as long as it did. However, the war wasn't fought at a fever pitch the entire time, and the population centers didn't change hands so much, so the 5N were able to fight because they had their stronghold secure and they weren't 100% committed save at brief intervals. Finally, although WF were important supplements, they never constituted the majority of the armies of the 5N.
4) Also I am not saying that the low population is solely responsible for such a low population (I think it a combinmation of factors with the last war being one of them) but the Last Wars major effect on the whole population would be the creation of the Mournland. Just think of the number of deaths that event caused (also including the aftermath like the Valenar massacre of refugees). True this rates more with a natural disaster that can't be compared to in written history I believe. But what was the casulities from this?
IF you remove the mourning from the equation, i would think that the net effect of the Last War would be no more than to stabilize the 5N population--it hasn't grown in 100 years, but it hasn't shrunk either. remember, this is still a relatively prosperous society, so there was never a truly horrific collapse of population across the continent--if there were, the war would have ended, or one of the nations would have collapsed. karrnath may have fewer people than in 898, and breland almost certainly has more, but across the board, it's likely a zero sum situtation. at least, that's my view.
but the population going from a reasonable level to the desert of the ECS? unlikely.
1. We don't know that the Mournlad was actually caused by the Last War. This is implied, but it could have been some sort of weird extra-planar effect or just the Prophecy. No one knows.
2. Even if you suppose that the Mournland was from a Last War weapon it doesn't really matter. The reason is that the Mournland, for all its devastation, is a very localized effect. The Mournland only affected the other 5N in a psychological way.
Take for example nuclear weapons in WWII: they were used and where they were used they were brutally effective. However, their existence did not affect populations in Europe or the US since they were only used in two locations. Thusly, the Mournland, while terrifying, has a zero-sum (nice term, Yak) on populations outside of Cyre.
Now in terms of how many lives were lost in Cyre I would say, going by the numbers from the books I've seen, no more than 2.5 million at the most. This seems to be about the average population of the 5N. Given that we have no reason to believe Cyre's population was exponentially larger than the other nations we can assume that about that number perished. That is alot, but even if you add 2.5 million people back to the Khorvairan population to account for the Mourland the continent still doesn't have a population sufficient to justify itself.
One thing that must always be borne in mind: Society needs a critical mass of population to advance. I have personally never seen a society with a small population that achieved great technological advancements. I think this is simply a matter of economics. The more minds you have working on something, and the greater chance you have of breakthroughs.
Also you are always going to need a finite number of people to engage in a variety of society supporting tasks. R&D is a important, but not essential to society's survival. Which is why R&D always has a very small percentage of the population involved. The smaller your overall population, and the fewer people will be spending time just thinking things up. The smaller the population and the fewer Newtons, Einstens, Galileos, and Oppenheimers available to your society. Thus you could argue that a very small population would have an exceedingly difficult time even getting to the point where Khorvaire now stands with its magical knowledge.
Edit: Just for emphasis let's look at the places on Earth known for their scientific and social advancements: Europe, China, India, and the Middle East. These are areas with large populations. Outside of that you have the Americas, the interior of Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and a smattering of islands throughout SE Asia. Is it any coincidence that the afore-mentioned regions made vastly greater advances in virtually all areas than the latter, and, at the same time, sustained much larger numbers of people?
Thank you I understand your points now. And can agree that the popolation should be higher.
Great! :D And remember, you also don't "lose" anything with higher populations. Khorvaire is truly vast, and given the level of quasi-technology you would see very concentrate population densities. Thus you will have vast tracts of sparsely inhabited or uninhabited regions.
As a side note the modern American tendency and indeed historical American tendency towards urban and even rural sprawl would likely not occur on Khorvaire. Khorvairan cities would likely be tightly backed, and built up or down instead of out. Also the outlying farming communities would have village hubs were the majority of folk lived surrounded by fields, orchards, and grazing lands.
As a side note the modern American tendency and indeed historical American tendency towards urban and even rural sprawl would likely not occur on Khorvaire. Khorvairan cities would likely be tightly backed, and built up or down instead of out. Also the outlying farming communities would have village hubs were the majority of folk lived surrounded by fields, orchards, and grazing lands.
This is especially true when you consider walling a city off is still a viable defense. Walls are expensive, I couldn't see any of the 5 Nations, let alone the periphery nations, tearing large swaths of the wall down every time a new developer comes in and wants to sprawl the city out. Further, with visions of the last war still fresh in everyone's mind, people wouldn't want to have urban sprawl because it puts them farther away from the centralized protection the Army provides.
So yes, building up rather than out and revitalizing down trodden swaths of cities would be very common themes in Khovairian Societies.
Well I don't actually have a huge problem with the scale of the map. I mean it is supposed to be a continent. And remember at one time an empire did stretch from London to Islamabad! ;) That being said I have seen conflicting reports of how big Khorvaire is actually supposed to be. Does anyone know what the the real scale is?
Well, there are scales on the maps, but they aren't necessarily fully consistent. I made roughly that same measurement on the Khorvaire + Aerendal map in the ECS (somewhat difficult, because the cities aren't marked), and on that map's scale that same distance appears to be over 4000 miles. Still, the upshot is that Khorvaire is roughly two-thirds the size of Eurasia. (Edit: in linear dimensions, with therefore something like half the land area.)
According to Wikipedia, here, Manhattan has over 1.5 million people living in 22.96 square miles.
I couldn't find dimensions for Sharn, but I think Manhattan might be smaller, with loads more people, and with shorter towers (Sharn's towers stretch for, what, half-mile? mile?).
Oh. Don't forget to TALK LIKE A PIRATE TODAY! D'ARRRR!
One thing that's always bothered me is that Sharn is the largest city EV0R (in Khorvaire), and it has 211,000 people.
According to Wikipedia, here, Manhattan has over 1.5 million people living in 22.96 square miles.
I couldn't find dimensions for Sharn, but I think Manhattan might be smaller, with loads more people, and with shorter towers (Sharn's towers stretch for, what, half-mile? mile?).
Oh. Don't forget to TALK LIKE A PIRATE TODAY! D'ARRRR!
I've heard it argued that in the Middle Ages populations were very low because of famine, war, disease, and generally because the Middle Ages sucked...
However, they didn't have magic that essentially emulated modern technology. Cure spells, raise dead, remove poison, remove disease, create food/water... seriously, there ought to be a lot more people surviving to retirement age!
As a side note, people don't seem to have much problem with breeding outside their own species (half-dragon, I'm looking at you) so that ought to count for something!
It wouldn't surprise me if they also had knowledge of irrigation techniques
I would hope so. Considering that we had irrigation before we had a written language of any kind.
You can't kill that many people who are needed to fill up a continent of that size. There should be about 10x more people in the Five Nations + Riedra.
Maybe, but then they couldn't have kept fighting for 100 years.
it's only weird because you know there should be more people. after all, someone had to build everything.;)
From what i've come to understand, Eberron as a world was originally MUCH smaller (more Krynn sized than Earth sized), and it's the scale of the map, not the population figures that was changed from Hellcow's original world to the WotC one.
Eberron is much more interesting, imho, if it is full of people. That way, the abandoned/ruined areas are scarier, wilder. Moreover, even multiplying the 5N + Riedra population by ten times doesn't even fill up the continent--but it does make it more realistic.
It also serves the "points of light" conceit of 4e, particularly if the population centers are mostly towns separated by large tracts of wilderness -- as they pretty much have to be if one leaves the dimensions of the map the same. Regarding distances on the map, I compare the size of Khorvaire to that of Asia rather than of Europe. When one considers the territory ruled by the Mongolian empire under Genghis Khan and his descendants, the size of Galifar isn't outside the bounds of real-world history.
Pretty much Eberron's "tech" level is around early 1900's. Ok they have some really cool stuff goin' on. Now, stop right there, and think of some of the things that happened in the early 1900's. Major wars and conflicts, the ended in the deaths of millions of people.
Ok Eberron, real world, I know, I know, you can't compare the 2, however, when it comes to society and effects on society, maybe you should. This is just considered logical deduction and reasoning.
Now imagine, those wars which stretched maybe a decade for most countries, had actually encompassed the whole "civilized" world at that time, and those nations where remotely close together or land locked.
Now that N.America, Europe, and Asia are all landlocked. We have the bloodiest war in history going on. You all still with me????
Now imagine this war stretching on for 100 years, and not only that, but think that there are no real allies. That the nations that banded together to form the Allies in the real world, never did so. That everyone was killing everyone, and it was no question that all "foriegners" where the enemy.
Then imagine that one of these countries is completely devestated in a single day out of nowheres. This nation utterly devastated and left in ruins, with its people that survived fleing to other nations.
I personally think that the population is a little low, but after thinking about it, there is a reason it is low. Maybe this gives you guys some insight to why. I believe that the population would boom though given the recent treaty. But that would only effect the "civilized" world after 15+ years.
It may not have been full out war, but just look at the numbers of the "peace-time occupation" now going on in Iraq. Look at the death toll there just to give you an example of "peace-time skirmishes".
Also include in other things not factored, disease, famine, monsters, weather. When you think about it, logically there is a prefectly good excuse for why the population is so low.
I would want to point out further, that AFTER the destruction of the Cyre, before the signing of the treaty of Thronehold; that the war broke out even worste, and I think I even read somewheres, that it was probably the bloodiest part of the war.
So take into account all those factors and you will realize that alot of people would've died. It would take a long time for the population to recover from such things.
However I think the population of the main cities/metropolitan areas should be increased more, and maybe a small bump to rural populations. The simple fact is, if your field is burning, and troops march on your home, you're not just gonna run off in a general direction most of the time. Majority will head to the nearest large settlement for protection.
One thing that's always bothered me is that Sharn is the largest city EV0R (in Khorvaire), and it has 211,000 people.
According to Wikipedia, here, Manhattan has over 1.5 million people living in 22.96 square miles.
I couldn't find dimensions for Sharn, but I think Manhattan might be smaller, with loads more people, and with shorter towers (Sharn's towers stretch for, what, half-mile? mile?).
Oh. Don't forget to TALK LIKE A PIRATE TODAY! D'ARRRR!
Remember that the 211,000 people in Sharn are only Adults, the full population might be double that. When you throw in the temporary residents it might even push 500,000.
- With a population density that low, the Last War cannot be similar to WWI, as there are just not enough soldiers to man a front line as large as the nation.
- There were incursion deep into enemy territory. The captial of Karnath was under siege two times IIRC, and the mourning caught several armies (including a Karn one) approaching on Cyre's capital.
- Things like Warforged Titans, which apparently where used in the war, are in effect similar to the tanks of WWI. Tanks made the trench warfare more or less obsolete.
Also, there is little use in making ten thousand people slowly waste away on your border on your payroll when you could instead let them work and pay taxes to buy a single Warforged Titan.
This strongly points to a style of warfare very different from the trench warfare in WWI.
It also serves the "points of light" conceit of 4e, particularly if the population centers are mostly towns separated by large tracts of wilderness -- as they pretty much have to be if one leaves the dimensions of the map the same. Regarding distances on the map, I compare the size of Khorvaire to that of Asia rather than of Europe. When one considers the territory ruled by the Mongolian empire under Genghis Khan and his descendants, the size of Galifar isn't outside the bounds of real-world history.
I don't see Khorvaire as "points of Light"--I see it as "Lines of Light"
The cities are connected by the lightning rails and the trade roads. settlements that are more than a few hours ride from these roads are rare. this makes the wild areas extremely wild and the civilized areas more bustling. it also emphasises the importance of the lyrandar and orien guild networks that sustain the economy.
I'll contribute later, as I don't have much time now. Let me just say that I am all for an increase in population in the civilized areas.
I also don't think that changing the map scale (i.e. making the continents and I suppose, the oceans, smaller) is the way to go. It would be fixing a mistake with another one. As it is, using the maps we have, we can estimate the size of the Eberron planet as Mars-sized, which is already quite small.
More later...
I don't see Khorvaire as "points of Light"--I see it as "Lines of Light"
The cities are connected by the lightning rails and the trade roads. settlements that are more than a few hours ride from these roads are rare. this makes the wild areas extremely wild and the civilized areas more bustling. it also emphasises the importance of the lyrandar and orien guild networks that sustain the economy.
This is why the Point of Light is more Eberron then people think... and is really why the population Numbers don't need to be changed... otherwise a large part of the Dragonmark Houses lose their Economic Strong Hold...
and don't forget the Sivis Speakers Guild...
The Mark of Hospitality means less if people didn't need shelter on long travels between these Points of Light where the Lightning Rails don't connect...
House Deneith i am sure makes more money on protecting people on these outer villages and towns then they do on protecting a small building in a big city that has a well established watch and guard...
House Kundarkak having a network of banks is less important if people never leave town... the ability to get your wealth out of any House Kundarkak Bank is key to this Distance...
these are just some things i thought about... Population should be low... the world may be claimed but its not controlled...
This is why the Point of Light is more Eberron then people think... and is really why the population Numbers don't need to be changed... otherwise a large part of the Dragonmark Houses lose their Economic Strong Hold...
and don't forget the Sivis Speakers Guild...
The Mark of Hospitality means less if people didn't need shelter on long travels between these Points of Light where the Lightning Rails don't connect...
House Deneith i am sure makes more money on protecting people on these outer villages and towns then they do on protecting a small building in a big city that has a well established watch and guard...
House Kundarkak having a network of banks is less important if people never leave town... the ability to get your wealth out of any House Kundarkak Bank is key to this Distance...
these are just some things i thought about... Population should be low... the world may be claimed but its not controlled...
Who says there would have to be hundreds of new settlements in regions far from the 'Lines of Light'? Increasing the population means the big cities become even bigger, meaning there's more work for all of the Guilds. I mean who do you want to throw you daughter's sixteenth birthday party - some dude whose ad you saw in the paper or House Ghallanda? That's a no brainer, really. More settlements along the Trade Routs means more trade is done, which inevitably draws the lustful eyes of bandits and monsters. Which then draws the various guilds to the area which generates more money and more trade which makes the area an even bigger target.
With all that happening, the outlying villages are still that - Outlying villages. They still need the traditional PC Heroes to stop the *insert threat here*. With the Population increased, more opportunities for Adventuring become possible and all the while ruins nothing of the core Eberron Feel.
Who says there would have to be hundreds of new settlements in regions far from the 'Lines of Light'? Increasing the population means the big cities become even bigger, meaning there's more work for all of the Guilds. I mean who do you want to throw you daughter's sixteenth birthday party - some dude whose ad you saw in the paper or House Ghallanda? That's a no brainer, really. More settlements along the Trade Routs means more trade is done, which inevitably draws the lustful eyes of bandits and monsters. Which then draws the various guilds to the area which generates more money and more trade which makes the area an even bigger target.
With all that happening, the outlying villages are still that - Outlying villages. They still need the traditional PC Heroes to stop the *insert threat here*. With the Population increased, more opportunities for Adventuring become possible and all the while ruins nothing of the core Eberron Feel.
but keeping the numbers where they are ruins nothing about Eberron... when i think about the world of eberron i think of a people who with the aid of magic where able to spread across the land with little fear... but taming the land was out of the picture... why do you think Aundair lost Control of Eldeen reaches, why Doraam revolted against Breland and why the Talenta Plains and Valenar Split from the 5 nations...
Making the Larger City larger? that doesn't make any sense to me... Sharn is a 2/3 the size of the the City i live in... and thats the biggest in my state... and i don't see how making the biggest Cities bigger means anything? i don't know but i just don't understand the argument for the change to the population...
but keeping the numbers where they are ruins nothing about Eberron... when i think about the world of eberron i think of a people who with the aid of magic where able to spread across the land with little fear... but taming the land was out of the picture... why do you think Aundair lost Control of Eldeen reaches, why Doraam revolted against Breland and why the Talenta Plains and Valenar Split from the 5 nations...
Making the Larger City larger? that doesn't make any sense to me... Sharn is a 2/3 the size of the the City i live in... and thats the biggest in my state... and i don't see how making the biggest Cities bigger means anything? i don't know but i just don't understand the argument for the change to the population...
200,000 people is a TINY metropolitan city. Heck the metropolitan area I live in has 290,000+.
At any rate, lets compare some population figures.
According to this site London had the following population in the following years:
YEAR ----- Pop.
1650 ----- Est 350,000
1700 ----- 700,000
1801 ----- 958,863
1821 ----- 1,378,947
1841 ----- 1,948,417
1861 ----- 2,803,989
1881 ----- 3,815,544 (or Greater London 4,776,661)
According to this site Paris had the following population in the following years:
YEAR ----- Pop.
1634 ---- 420,000
1700 ---- 515,000
1750 ---- 565,000
1801 ---- 546,856 (note this is post French Revolution)
1817 ---- 718,966
1841 ---- 935,261
1861 ---- 1,696,141
1881 ---- 2,269,023
According to this site New York had the following population in the following years:
YEAR ----- Pop.
1790 ---- 33,131
1850 ---- 696,490
1900 ---- 3,437,202
200,000 people is a small number for a metropolis that is supposed to be the LARGEST city on the face of Khovaire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Once again, even if the total continental population were doubled, from 20 million to 40 million, the continent would still be sparsely populated for its size. Seriously, take everyone who lives in New York and California, roughly 52 million people and try to populate Asia, which is 43 million square Kilometers. Guess what happens? You still have VAST areas of undiscovered, untamed land.
To put this in perspective, California and New York have a total area of 212,822 square km. Meaning California and New York are roughly .4% the size of Asia (which is the size of Khovaire). .4%?! That's rediculous.
I think one of the problems people have is that they don't understand just how big Khovaire is in comparison to its population (which includes monsters). The population figures are unrealistic and need to be changed. Why? Because Eberron billed itself as a more realistic setting, and it is in all ways except for this.
Even then, really, the continent is empty--Khorvaire is GIGANTIC.
so there is a lot of extra space? at least the Largest City is comparatively the right size too all the other cities...
and Paris and London and New York are bad picks to chose...
London has always been big purly because of how it came about as a Roman Outpost in the Isle... and because of the limited space of England... Paris is a Center of Culture... Sharn isn't... its just the biggest and that’s purely because of commercial Trade... if it wasn't for Stormreach Trade, Sharn would be meaningless... and New York is as big as it was because it was a funnel of immigrants and most people who came didn't have the means to leave...
and its worth nothing something... for the Largest City... its only 5% of the Population of Breland... 200k of 3.7 million....
So it would seem more people don’t live in the Cities as the next biggest is under 100k and ever city there after is slightly smaller… Farms and Villages! these are the places where Adventures are found… these are what make Classic D&D : ] Eberron or Not… it’s the drive of a young man or women to break out of the life style of his father and mother and drives him to explore the world abroad…
As it is the features are way out of proportion. Lake Galifar dwarfs Lake Superior and the bridge of Thaliost is like 40 miles long, which is longer than the longest bridge on Earth with all its modern engineering. The Ironroot Mountain chain is longer than the Appalachians. The Shadow Marches make the Everglades look tiny.
The distances in Khorvaire are so vast they are simply not traversable. Given the proportionally tiny population figures, there is no way a war could have been fought. The armies would have a hard time finding each other, let alone sustaining themselves in the vast uninhabited wilderness.
Check out the wikipedia entry on Medieval demography. It gives some insight into what figures constitute what degree of population.
How do you feel about the scale of Khorvaire being reduced?
As it is the features are way out of proportion. Lake Galifar dwarfs Lake Superior and the bridge of Thaliost is like 40 miles long, which is longer than the longest bridge on Earth with all its modern engineering. The Ironroot Mountain chain is longer than the Appalachians. The Shadow Marches make the Everglades look tiny.
The distances in Khorvaire are so vast they are simply not traversable. Given the proportionally tiny population figures, there is no way a war could have been fought. The armies would have a hard time finding each other, let alone sustaining themselves in the vast uninhabited wilderness.
I think the huge size makes Eberron all the more epic. Especially the vast wastelands on the east and west of Khorvaire--it's wild out there... there could be whole nations in the wilderness.
I especially like the immensity of Xen'drik and Argonessen--these places are big and savage--Xen'drik is larger than Eurasia and there is ONE 'civilized' city on the very tip... imagine the only human city in Eurasia sitting right on the southernmost tip of India!
I think the huge size makes Eberron all the more epic. Especially the vast wastelands on the east and west of Khorvaire--it's wild out there... there could be whole nations in the wilderness.
It is still "wild out there" when Khorvaire is the size of Europe and has a population of 30 million. I see a difference between epic big and silly big. Khorvaire definitely approaches silly big. Being able to lose a country the size of France in a swamp belies believability.
I think it actually takes away from some of the mystique of Eberron to have Khorvaire be as large as it is. It makes Xen'drick and Argonessen seem less impressive than they should be. Why bother going to Xen'drick when there are still places in your own country no one has seen in centuries. It makes the imperial claims of Galifar and Dhakaani seem boastful and unfounded since they ruled nothing but wilderness. It was an epic endeavor to build the transcontinental railroad, but Khorvaire is littered with rail lines just as long making what should be an impressive feat seem trite.
Realism and Fantasy
At the end of the day, D&D worlds and economies (including Eberron) aren't so much about realism as they are about having a basic backdrop for the party and NPCs (including BBEGs) to interact with. They are not supposed to be realistic beyond a very elementary level.
If you really want consistent statistical realism for populations, distance scales, and economies in your world, your DM's going to need to spend at least a few weeks, if not months, making it because WotC has only provided some primitive tools for DMs to work with for world building.
I know this because I'm currently working on it, and have been for months for my homebrew world called Bloodlands.
The Tools
The DMG has some basic tools for world-building from pgs 135-143. WotC also released an enhanced guide to city-building here. That's about it beyond fluff-stuff for guilds, houses, governments, and whatnot found in various splatbooks. There are NO 3rd party tools for world-building.
Death by Massive Damage
Or, how to suck the soul out of a DM. According to the DMG p137, for every person living in a small town or larger, there are 10-15 people living in settlements of a village or smaller. For simplicity's sake, I made the ratio 9:1. So, for a realistic "Euro world" with 50 million people (see here: http://www.fordham.edu), there'd be 45 million people living in villages or smaller, and 5 million people living in small towns or larger.
Checking the charts on p137, the average settlement sizes for villages are 650 people, hamlets are 240 people, and thorps are 50 people.
In a "best" case scenario, your DM will need to create a world map and put 45 million people in villages at about 650 a pop, or roughly 69,000 villages. Good luck placing 69,000 village "dots" on a map, and then coming up with a village name, important NPCs, and government type for each one. Although, I'd love to see an Eberron PDF map with that level of detail.
In a "realistic" world scenario where village, hamlet and thorp populations are equal (15 million each, for a total of 45 million), your DM will need to create 23,000 villages, 62,000 hamlets, and 300,000 thorps.
Princess Bride
To quote Vizzini from this movie: "Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?"
Even after your DMs create the world, they'll still need to create each city according to the city-building guide listed above, and list each geographic region in his world according to the geography types listed in the DMG. The DM will also need to create everything else, for each area, listed from pages 59-95 in the DMG (see page 3 of the DMG for the index). That includes lost buildings, savage tribes, dragon nests, varying CR monsters and animals, the thousands of people who live in no settlement at all (and their NPC levels), and much more.
Stop
Forget the "realistic" world for either homebrew or Eberron adventures. It's a pipe dream unless you're willing to spend months breaking out the fine details that "realism" requires.
For Bloodlands, after doing the math, I said f*ck it. I decided to create an extremely dangerous Points of Light world where the main metropolis of Exile has 400,000 people spread across many square miles inside city walls, and where people who try to leave the city (even when defended by level 5+ spellcasters and fighters/rangers) to build a new settlement are routinely massacred. Thus, the city keeps growing outward, but it'll take PCs to enable a new settlement build outside city walls.
It's not realistic, but I hope you'll agree it's more fun.
Peace,
Chuck
It is still "wild out there" when Khorvaire is the size of Europe and has a population of 30 million. I see a difference between epic big and silly big. Khorvaire definitely approaches silly big. Being able to lose a country the size of France in a swamp belies believability.
I think it actually takes away from some of the mystique of Eberron to have Khorvaire be as large as it is. It makes Xen'drick and Argonessen seem less impressive than they should be. Why bother going to Xen'drick when there are still places in your own country no one has seen in centuries. It makes the imperial claims of Galifar and Dhakaani seem boastful and unfounded since they ruled nothing but wilderness. It was an epic endeavor to build the transcontinental railroad, but Khorvaire is littered with rail lines just as long making what should be an impressive feat seem trite.
I don't like the 30 million at all. It just doesn't feel right--after all, if we keep the continent size the same, then 30 million people is ridiculous given the level of 'technology' present on the continent.
On the other hand, scaling the land down requires scaling the world down, and I have a problem with that as well. It's rather more personal, but I like the idea of an earth-sized world, if just for gravity's sake (i know, in an existence where there are dragons and giant space hamsters... it's a bit silly to worry about gravity.)
So I return to my argument for jacking up the population significantly, by 10x or more especially in the 5N, Riedra, Lhazar, Mror, etc.. Doing so keeps the epic scale of the world, makes it more believable that it has been 'filled in', and provides large enough populations for the backdrop to be suitably grand.
I also like the larger world because it keeps Xen'drik and Argonessen absolutely gigantic, as I mentioned before. Xen'drik shrunk down to fit on the moon kind of misses the point... it's so huge that no one could ever imagine exploring more than the tiniest fraction of it.
I don't like the 30 million at all. It just doesn't feel right--after all, if we keep the continent size the same, then 30 million people is ridiculous given the level of 'technology' present on the continent.
IMO, thousands of villages, hamlets, and thorps that make up 90% of Eberron's population (per the DMG) doesn't make an area grand, it's the metropolises and large cities that do.
So, as DM, why not just either A) create a few more metropolises and cities in each Eberron area, or B) enlarge the cities that are already listed there?
Why is all that effort necessary to make the world realistic? Such is needed to make the world detailed, but that is a separate matter. They can just map out the major metropolises and otherwise significant locations and leave the rest blank. There just needs to be a reasonable population size to fill the space.
@Yakman
Why would Xen'drik and Argonnessen have to scale down with Khorvaire? Xen'drik can keep its Amazonian forests, Saharan deserts, and the like.
I would recommend a split approach. Scale down Khorvaire, so the features become a reasonable size (i.e. no Thronehold on an island as big as Rhodes). Increase the population so Eberron felt more metropolitan, like 17th-century Earth rather than more decimated than Europe after the Plague of Justinian.
@anonicon
Why is all that effort necessary to make the world realistic? Such is needed to make the world detailed, but that is a separate matter.
I agree, after all, it's virtually impossible to make the world as realistic as the DMG would call for. That's why I chose to go the One Big Metropolis route until I fill my world with other (unknown to PCs) large cities.
They can just map out the major metropolises and otherwise significant locations and leave the rest blank.
That's a good tip. I'll think about it while expanding my world.
IMO, thousands of villages, hamlets, and thorps that make up 90% of Eberron's population (per the DMG) doesn't make an area grand, it's the metropolises and large cities that do.
So, as DM, why not just either A) create a few more metropolises and cities in each Eberron area, or B) enlarge the cities that are already listed there?
The DMG is postulated on a Greyhawk-style, traditional fantasy world. Khorvaire, as is shown in the more relevant ECS, has a much greater level of development--40% of the population are upper- and middle-class. This speaks of a much greater level of urbanization than the DMG presents--after all, hamlets, villages, and thorps don't generate the amount of capital needed to support such income levels.
There are certainly many settlements that are not listed on the map even without population addition, after all, Sharn's listed popultion of 200k is only 5% of Breland's population and as I mentioned, we need many, many cities to generate the amounts of income clearly stated in the ECS. I would imagine the Dagger is full of mid- and minor-cities between Wroat and Sharn, and it is in these cities and their environs where the bulk of Breland's population resides.
As far as enlarging the city populations as percentages of national populations, I'm all for it.
@Yakman
Why would Xen'drik and Argonnessen have to scale down with Khorvaire? Xen'drik can keep its Amazonian forests, Saharan deserts, and the like.
I would recommend a split approach. Scale down Khorvaire, so the features become a reasonable size (i.e. no Thronehold on an island as big as Rhodes). Increase the population so Eberron felt more metropolitan, like 17th-century Earth rather than more decimated than Europe after the Plague of Justinian.
Khorvaire being scaled down requires a simultaneous scale down of Xen'drik and Argonessen for the simple reason that there's these nice world maps Ebberon that show the relative positions and sizes of the continents. And if we accept the description of northern khorvaire as colder and southern khorvaire as semi-tropic, we have a continent that occupies a significant amount of latitude. Likewise, Xen'drik, to Khorvaire's immediate south ranges from the equator to the southern polar reaches. so the two have relatively set proportions if we accept the maps and the descriptions. the world size can fluctuate as much or as little as we want, but the relative sizes of the continents must remain constant unless we want to throw the map, and/or the descriptions out the window (for instance, Khorvaire might be a much smaller landmass, but Xen'drik remain the same size--Khorvaire would have a much more uniform continent as a result of not occupying so much latitude).
As far as Thronehold being on an island the size of Rhodes, what is the problem? Rhodes isn't a very large island...
i personally like the large world, but want much larger populations.
Khorvaire being scaled down requires a simultaneous scale down of Xen'drik and Argonessen for the simple reason that there's these nice world maps Ebberon that show the relative positions and sizes of the continents. And if we accept the description of northern khorvaire as colder and southern khorvaire as semi-tropic, we have a continent that occupies a significant amount of latitude. Likewise, Xen'drik, to Khorvaire's immediate south ranges from the equator to the southern polar reaches. so the two have relatively set proportions if we accept the maps and the descriptions. the world size can fluctuate as much or as little as we want, but the relative sizes of the continents must remain constant unless we want to throw the map, and/or the descriptions out the window (for instance, Khorvaire might be a much smaller landmass, but Xen'drik remain the same size--Khorvaire would have a much more uniform continent as a result of not occupying so much latitude).
As far as Thronehold being on an island the size of Rhodes, what is the problem? Rhodes isn't a very large island...
i personally like the large world, but want much larger populations.
I personally don't see the reason to keep the map if it causes problems. Unless there is a nice poster map of Eberron that I am unaware of, there is no real investment in Khorvaire maintaining its relative size and position to Xen'drick and the other continents. Prevailing oceanic and air currents can have more impact on climate than latitude, so I don't see climatic variance as an issue. After all isn't Norway plenty cold and Spain very warm with a much smaller difference in latitude than Khorvaire's north and south.
Rhodes has a population of over 100,000. It was its own state in Greece, and has had a full-blown city on it for thousands of years. It is more than some dinky outpost island.
I think you may be suffering from the modern American view of scale. Khorvaire can be plenty big at a quarter its current size. Keep in mind that the Five Nations were populated before the invention of the lightning rail or airship, so distances weren't always as traversable as they are currently. Having hundreds of miles between major cities is simply implausible in that context. Trade and government wouldn't work in a landmass that size.
I personally don't see the reason to keep the map if it causes problems. Unless there is a nice poster map of Eberron that I am unaware of, there is no real investment in Khorvaire maintaining its relative size and position to Xen'drick and the other continents.
The only Poster I know of is the one that came with the Eberron Dungeon Screen, but its just a giant map of Khovaire. So yeah, to my knowledge (as well there) is no poster-sized, detailed map of Eberron (the planet).
Rhodes has a population of over 100,000. It was its own state in Greece, and has had a full-blown city on it for thousands of years. It is more than some dinky outpost island.
I think you may be suffering from the modern American view of scale. Khorvaire can be plenty big at a quarter its current size. Keep in mind that the Five Nations were populated before the invention of the lightning rail or airship, so distances weren't always as traversable as they are currently. Having hundreds of miles between major cities is simply implausible in that context. Trade and government wouldn't work in a landmass that size.
All I can say is,
!I think you may be suffering from the modern American view of scale. Khorvaire can be plenty big at a quarter its current size. Keep in mind that the Five Nations were populated before the invention of the lightning rail or airship, so distances weren't always as traversable as they are currently. Having hundreds of miles between major cities is simply implausible in that context. Trade and government wouldn't work in a landmass that size.
Rome administered such an empire in the real world. It won't work without fixing the population figures, but if you fix those then the space issue isn't nearly as much of a problem; most of the major cities are near waterways anyway IIRC. Not that I have a problem with increasing the population and shrinking the world, I just don't think the shrink is necessary.
Rome administered such an empire in the real world. It won't work without fixing the population figures, but if you fix those then the space issue isn't nearly as much of a problem; most of the major cities are near waterways anyway IIRC. Not that I have a problem with increasing the population and shrinking the world, I just don't think the shrink is necessary.
Most of the major cities are connected to waterways, but many of them would still require sailing all to way around the continent to get to. Rome had the convenience of the Mediterranean that readily connected the disparate parts of its empire, and was still smaller than Khorvaire.
I don't necessarily see administration as the biggest hurdle to Khorvaire's size. It might be improbable, but that doesn't make it impossible. It is the weirdly proportioned terrain that makes Khorvaire seem like it should be smaller. The Blade Desert and Shadow Marches are nigh uncrossable at their current size. The various lakes are ludicrously big.
Rome administered such an empire in the real world. It won't work without fixing the population figures, but if you fix those then the space issue isn't nearly as much of a problem; most of the major cities are near waterways anyway IIRC. Not that I have a problem with increasing the population and shrinking the world, I just don't think the shrink is necessary.
Rome was actualy pretty small, only 5 million square km. That's a little over half the size of the USA and only 10% the size of Khorvaire.
Also note that Rome had a population of 88 million people filing up an empire 10% the size of Khovaire. We can all agree that Rome was Points of Light. The roads were still dangerous and there were vast stretches of wilderness yet untamed by Empire. Not only were Mythical creatures believed to abound in those stretches but Bandits, rebels and barbarians lurked there as well.
Just wanted to add a note. That even if the war continued in skirmishes, it never says that peace continued in any one nation for any extended length of time.
It may not have been full out war, but just look at the numbers of the "peace-time occupation" now going on in Iraq. Look at the death toll there just to give you an example of "peace-time skirmishes".
Also include in other things not factored, disease, famine, monsters, weather. When you think about it, logically there is a prefectly good excuse for why the population is so low.
I would want to point out further, that AFTER the destruction of the Cyre, before the signing of the treaty of Thronehold; that the war broke out even worste, and I think I even read somewheres, that it was probably the bloodiest part of the war.
So take into account all those factors and you will realize that alot of people would've died. It would take a long time for the population to recover from such things.
However I think the population of the main cities/metropolitan areas should be increased more, and maybe a small bump to rural populations. The simple fact is, if your field is burning, and troops march on your home, you're not just gonna run off in a general direction most of the time. Majority will head to the nearest large settlement for protection.
It is understandable why the population could be that low, but the problem is that no one has officially come up with a good official explanation as to why it is that low. There is no mention of epidemics or rampant diseases. Also why is the Mror population so low? They did not fight in the war other than by sending mercenaries and dwarves are very resistant to diseases and are wealthy enough to afford proper medical care. Lets not mention the "low birthrate" thing either. That is a cop-out as I don't recall anything in the Eberron book that mentions the dwarves having a low birthrate.
Also, if a lot of the rural population fled to the cities why are they not mentioned in those population listings? Note also that none of the city entries refer to these cities as being teeming with refugees either. Also it has been 2 years since the war ended, why haven't they gone back to their fields? Hell, Khorvaire is so low on population, why haven't they just gone and claimed different fields?
It isn't just the urban population, where are the farmers of Khorvaire? The problem is the population is unreasonably low for such a vast landmass and there is no good official explanation anywhere as to why this is, particularly in the core areas of the continent.
Tzarevitch
Personally, I reduce the distance by 1/3 and triple the population. For reference, this is about the size of Canada with about 50% more people (which I think is justifiable given the more mild climate). That’s still low, but its “vast stretches of wilderness” low as opposed to “Apocalyptic wasteland” low.
but keeping the numbers where they are ruins nothing about Eberron...
I agree. I know the idea is deeply unpopular with many, but I like the idea of saying that civilised Khorvaire exists only around the major settlements and along the roads and lightning rails. The population density for civilised Khorvaire is thus actually quite high. The rest of Khorvaire is barely populated at all because no farmer can deal with dire wolves, wyverns and bulettes. Each of the five nations has the military resources to keep its civilised areas relatively safe, but nowhere near enough resources to keep all their territory safe. Uncivilised Khorvaire (including most of the territory of every nation) is visited only by occasional military patrols and the odd extremely well-armed merchant caravan. There are very few settlements out there in uncivilised Khorvaire, and those that do exist are often there only because they are near some very valuable resource that makes the terrible danger worthwhile (and also helps pay for mercenaries, weapons, armour and fortifications).
This has always been my preferred Eberron--one with wilderness adventures and mysterious ruins right on your doorstep (as soon as you venture more than a hundred miles or so from a major settlement or 30 miles or so from a major road), rather than thousands of miles away in Droaam or Xendrik. However, if most fans don't like this (and I think they don't), I'm fine with upping the numbers.
In a "realistic" world scenario where village, hamlet and thorp populations are equal (15 million each, for a total of 45 million), your DM will need to create 23,000 villages, 62,000 hamlets, and 300,000 thorps.
[Original reply deleted--much snarkier than intended when writing it.]
I don't think that this is quite correct. A basic tenet of fiction-writing (whether for RPG worlds, for movies or for anything else) is that all unecessary detail should be cut (see for example Sol Stein, Jack Bickham or Barnaby Conrad's books on fiction writing). So, for example, if I'm writing a short-story and a bad guy appears, I might describe his walk very briefly and perhaps a twitch he's got in order to give an idea of his character, but I won't describe each button on his clothing, each fingernail on each hand, etc. Of course, my reader understands that the bad guy does have buttons on his clothes and fingernails on his hands, but the reader just takes those for granted, without me needing to describe them.
It's the same with a typical RPG medieval nation. I might expect such a nation to have 1 city, circa 500 towns and about 6000 villages, but when I describe only the most important/interesting settlements, I expect my reader to understand that I am leaving the other settlements out not because they don't exist in the game world, but because it would be boring for the readers/players to have all 600 towns and 6000 villages detailed. So, to get a realistic nation based on medieval England, I as the DM would need to create one city, 10 or 11 of the largest towns and the starting village of the PCs. The other 490 towns and 5,999 villages I will only create as they become necessary to the story. Otherwise, I expect PCs to just take my word for it that they are there (which is very realistic: in the real middle ages, maps would show only the most important settlements, leaving the other 99% of settlements off the map).
I theorize that any D&D world will have much lower population density than the medieval average due to the presence of extremely dangerous creatures. I've always wanted to set up a computer simulation using a large-scale predator-prey model (trying to take into account alliances and such) to see how a D&D Monster Manual ecosystem might pan out, to see if I can find a sustainable set of initial populations and coefficients for each climate/terrain combination.
I theorize that any D&D world will have much lower population density than the medieval average due to the presence of extremely dangerous creatures. I've always wanted to set up a computer simulation using a large-scale predator-prey model (trying to take into account alliances and such) to see how a D&D Monster Manual ecosystem might pan out, to see if I can find a sustainable set of initial populations and coefficients for each climate/terrain combination.
That would be AWESOME. If I ever get rich, I'll fund your research. ;)
Edit: I agree that the populations figures are too low, and the physical size of Khorvaire is just right.
If you include revolutions among the warring countries militaries and civilian populations, starvation, and plaques...the populations still don't make a lot of sense, but they look a little better.
My next thought was the Points of Light idea with most areas simply not being filled up people. That only works if the areas were once habited and have been abandoned, though. Societies don't spread out to cover an entire continent when there are areas of fertile land still around.
That leads me to another thought, and because I am currently reading Collapse, What if parts of this land is not capable of sustaining the human populations? That would probably get too complicated.
Easier to adjust the populations or size.