Economic Stagnation?

[balefired-ed2]

This is kind of a tricky topic when comparing The WOTverse and our own. The massive growth of economies in our world is a very recent thing, starting with the trans-atlantic empires, the Industrial Revolution in the UK, and then really taking off with German innovations in technical schooling and American innovations in managerial techniques and public investing. Before that, it was common for states to grow to a point until they could no longer sustain their populations need for food and other material resources, at which time they would collapse due to a variety of reasons, the most common being famine, disease, mass migration, and war, be it civil or a foreign invasion.

 

Before the Industrial Revolution, Western Europe was, despite the Renaissance, coming very close to this point again, with numerous reports on the quality and quantity of food available to the populace being drastically worse than the period of a few centuries after the Black Death.

 

What we are seeing in Randland right now as regards to education and innovation, they might be on the way to pushing the boulder up and over the top of the mountain towards that large growth. Historically speaking, though, the ebb and flow of their population and technology is very in tune with our own.

[Mr Ares]

See the future? See the past? You would think that they wouldn't have cracked the Dark Ones Prison if that was the case.

 

I don't think that the world was more advanced then ours.

 

I think it actually was our world. Just in a future time when we have Aes Sedai. Go ahead and laugh. But the descriptions of some of the Sangreal etc. Elayne found a statue of a hippy from woodstock. There are others as well. Planes and cars. Flashlights = Glowsticks. Tazers = Shock Lances. It's all there.

Our Age is most likely the First Age, the Age Before the Age of Legends - there is evidence of that in the books, such as Thom's stories. The AoL is more advanced that out own Age. Shock lances are directed energy weapons, not just tasers, their vehicles are more environmentally friendly than our own, and they can create a giant research station that floats in the air. That last without the OP.

It seems considerably more likely to me that our age is somewhere between the 5th and 7th ages, as we see in Aviendha's vision in Rhuidean a future of guns, cannons, steam-driven vehicles etc. If we take such a level of technology as the 4th age, which in our calendar would probably have been the late 17th century onwards, then following the logical technological progression from there, it makes sense. That is very much a convergent technological development system.

I don't find the technological argument particularly compelling. If we look to our own history, we see how we got from a tech level similar to that in the series to where we are now. We know who invented steam engines, and where the first railways were. If we accept that this is our immediate past, as opposed to our incredibly ancient and long forgotten past, we are forced to wonder how the historical record got so badly mangled. On the other hand, if we accept that we came before the AoL, then all we need to accept is that more than one person is capable of inventing the steam engine, or gunpowder, or what have you. And given there are historical examples of more than one person inventing the same thing, it is quite plausible. Also, the stories Thom tells, for example, the evidence indicating we are the First Age, is rather more specific than just a general tendency to develop the same things.

 

Where are the populations of the disappeared nations? Why haven't the current nations grown significantly since the Trolloc wars? Even Two Rivers should be bursting (they were mostly left alone). The only countries that should not have grown should have been the borderlands.

The decline in population is most likely Shai'tan's influence.

[Plato]

Here I will prove that because of the non-existance of a UK equivilant in Randland, it would never have developed like Europe did.

 

I argue that the European case is not comparable to Randland, because Europe's arable land is significantly limited compared Randland's. Also Randland doesn't have any close island neighbors like Europe does with the UK. The existance and success of the UK I would argue is the reason Europe as a whole prospered where Asia and Africa and the America's stagnated.

 

What makes the UK special is that it has serverely limited arable land compared to Europe, and a tiny fraction compared to Randland. This has drastic consequences for Briton in the Middle ages when it comes to the question of taxable farm land for the crown. In the European feudal system, the crown taxed his lords for income (as well as started wars for income) and when you wanted more sustainable income, you went out and expanded into your neighbor's land, or converted forests to farms. In places like Germany/France/Austria/Russia, this system of expansion could work for an extremely long time due to large swathes of land. In England, they used up their forests, and had every inch of the island that could be used for farming as a farm very quickly. However, the crown still wanted more income to compete with the Continental kings. England's need to be competative or be destroyed by France/other invaders will be a key feature to its success. One could even argue that the constant war with its neighbors only made it more competative.

 

Another feature of the feudal system were lords cheating on their taxes, in some cases paying tiny fractions of what they owed to the crown. In England, the kings (and the lords in turn) found that instead of having the surfs farm the land as perpetual slaves (extremely in-efficiently I might add), it was more economical to lease the land directly to the surfs, and have the surfs work the land themselves as part owners. This leads to collecting taxes directly from the surfs, skipping the cheating lords altogether, and increasing wealth for the crown without expansion. It also leads to the surfs motivation to work the land more efficiently in order to increase his own wealth (because he partly owns the land). This in turn increases output for the nation as a whole, as well as taxes for the crown even more.

 

The surfs, their own wealth and livelihood in hand, started demanding fair representation in the judicial system and at court. To better achieve this, reading and writing became a necessity for the common people. As the common people became more educated, they demanded even more rights, taking more and more power away from the crown. Combined with the invention of the printing press, the surf's need to be educated was easier and easier to achieve. This all happened while in France/Germany/Spain, the surfs were still completely dependant to the crown for everything. There was no need to give the surfs some land directly to increase wealth as long as your nieghbor always had land to invade. This sort of social reform in England happened in smaller places like the Netherlands, but only in England did such wide-spread economic and social change take place. Thus England was at the forefront of representation by the people as early as 1215, (with the Magna Carta and the establishment of parliement), education (at Oxford), and invention (Industrial revolution)... all due to limited land and the need to generate wealth through limited means. ie innovation.

 

Seeing and hearing of what was happening in England only galvanized the rest of Europe to catch up socially, and eventually economically. (The Catholic church initially condemning the social reforms that took place in England in the 13, 14, and 1500s.) You can even see, in the European example, the more land a particular nation had (like Russia) the more socially and scientifically behind that nation was.

 

In Randland, there is no England counter part. The expansion-to-increase-wealth feudal system in place could go on for another 1000 years. Thus kings don't need to rely on surfs to increase their wealth, but just goto war with your neighbor... If any social reform happened in Randland, it was short lived. Invention is by accident, instead of due to economic need. War is the food of the day to increase wealth. The Aes Sedai (being the equivilant of the Catholic Church) could at best keep the old traditions in place, ie reading/math, and at worse be the cause of wars and mismanagement of nations.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Plato

[Agitel]

I wonder if we can assume that the higher status of women in Randland has led to lower (on average) fertility rates within the population. It also seems like the population has access to family planning methods as well (heartleaf tea). I think the biggest factor in the decline of civilization in Randland has to do with corruption. Jordan never made a major plot of the corruption issues outside of the White Tower, but the most rational explanation to the stagnation and decline is that most of the political and social institutions in Randland are nearly as infiltrated.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Agitel

[avernite]

Here I will prove that because of the non-existance of a UK equivilant in Randland, it would never have developed like Europe did.

 

I argue that the European case is not comparable to Randland, because Europe's arable land is significantly limited compared Randland's. Also Randland doesn't have any close island neighbors like Europe does with the UK. The existance and success of the UK I would argue is the reason Europe as a whole prospered where Asia and Africa and the America's stagnated.

 

What makes the UK special is that it has serverely limited arable land compared to Europe, and a tiny fraction compared to Randland. This has drastic consequences for Briton in the Middle ages when it comes to the question of taxable farm land for the crown. In the European feudal system, the crown taxed his lords for income (as well as started wars for income) and when you wanted more sustainable income, you went out and expanded into your neighbor's land, or converted forests to farms. In places like Germany/France/Austria/Russia, this system of expansion could work for an extremely long time due to large swathes of land. In England, they used up their forests, and had every inch of the island that could be used for farming as a farm very quickly. However, the crown still wanted more income to compete with the Continental kings. England's need to be competative or be destroyed by France/other invaders will be a key feature to its success. One could even argue that the constant war with its neighbors only made it more competative.

 

Another feature of the feudal system were lords cheating on their taxes, in some cases paying tiny fractions of what they owed to the crown. In England, the kings (and the lords in turn) found that instead of having the surfs farm the land as perpetual slaves (extremely in-efficiently I might add), it was more economical to lease the land directly to the surfs, and have the surfs work the land themselves as part owners. This leads to collecting taxes directly from the surfs, skipping the cheating lords altogether, and increasing wealth for the crown without expansion. It also leads to the surfs motivation to work the land more efficiently in order to increase his own wealth (because he partly owns the land). This in turn increases output for the nation as a whole, as well as taxes for the crown even more.

 

The surfs, their own wealth and livelihood in hand, started demanding fair representation in the judicial system and at court. To better achieve this, reading and writing became a necessity for the common people. As the common people became more educated, they demanded even more rights, taking more and more power away from the crown. Combined with the invention of the printing press, the surf's need to be educated was easier and easier to achieve. This all happened while in France/Germany/Spain, the surfs were still completely dependant to the crown for everything. There was no need to give the surfs some land directly to increase wealth as long as your nieghbor always had land to invade. This sort of social reform in England happened in smaller places like the Netherlands, but only in England did such wide-spread economic and social change take place. Thus England was at the forefront of representation by the people as early as 1215, (with the Magna Carta and the establishment of parliement), education (at Oxford), and invention (Industrial revolution)... all due to limited land and the need to generate wealth through limited means. ie innovation.

 

Seeing and hearing of what was happening in England only galvanized the rest of Europe to catch up socially, and eventually economically. (The Catholic church initially condemning the social reforms that took place in England in the 13, 14, and 1500s.) You can even see, in the European example, the more land a particular nation had (like Russia) the more socially and scientifically behind that nation was.

 

In Randland, there is no England counter part. The expansion-to-increase-wealth feudal system in place could go on for another 1000 years. Thus kings don't need to rely on surfs to increase their wealth, but just goto war with your neighbor... If any social reform happened in Randland, it was short lived. Invention is by accident, instead of due to economic need. War is the food of the day to increase wealth. The Aes Sedai (being the equivilant of the Catholic Church) could at best keep the old traditions in place, ie reading/math, and at worse be the cause of wars and mismanagement of nations.

 

Your analysis of England's position seems a bit odd.

 

The Venetian republic, arguably the epitome of succesful medieval 'democracy', was effectively isolated from England save for some very rare cases. The Magna Carta was essentially the victory of the lords you claim do not stand between the serfs and king in England; while eventually its protections came to cover the farmers and labourers, the Carta was only for the Barons.

 

And the Netherlands were so small that most European trade was monopolized by the Republic for a few decades, and its population density was vastly higher than the English leading to such innovations as draining swamps and lakes to create extra farmland. This is not to say England wasn't important in the push into the industrial revolution, but at that point the specifics of serf-lord-king interactions were already spread all over the place between the old city states of Italy, the Dutch republic, absolutist France, and Tsarist Russia.

 

More interestingly, Randland has no major mercantile powers save the Seafolk, who have no military power at all. Where the Venetians/Genoese/Pisans, then Portuguese-Spanish, then Dutch-English-French took over large parts of European and worldwide trade and gladly intervened to ensure the flow of trade in their favour, no such power exists in Randland. The riches from such trade propelled advances much further, with the Italians establishing the first modernistic finances, the Portuguese especially getting great advances in shipbuilding, and then the more northern Europeans getting all the precision engineering and metallurgy in place (for armaments, windmills, sawmills) that the industrial revolution could take off.

 

The Seanchan seem much more the essence of the European powers that took over the world to create the demographic explosion Randland would want: an efficient administration outside the classic nobility, naval capabilities to rapidly transport goods, and the will to use power to ensure its dominance. Aviendha's vision almost seems to confirm this, so the only real oddity is that noone in Randland has done this, but perhaps the Forsaken did indeed do it (even then, 1000 years since the war of the hundred years seems plenty to recover and gain expansionist tendencies again).

[Maleshub]

I wonder if we can assume that the higher status of women in Randland has led to lower (on average) fertility rates within the population. It also seems like the population has access to family planning methods as well (heartleaf tea). I think the biggest factor in the decline of civilization in Randland has to do with corruption. Jordan never made a major plot of the corruption issues outside of the White Tower, but the most rational explanation to the stagnation and decline is that most of the political and social institutions in Randland are nearly as infiltrated.

 

Overall, the fertility rate seems to be healthy in Randland. Most societies are agricultural or militarized, both requiring high fertility rates. As to corruption, it definitely plays a role in hindering progress. But it is a far less important factor that scientific/power advancement. Randland has been in limbo vis-a-vis technology for over 2000 years. That set society at a constant level of production. There are no agricultural or mechanical, or OP-driven discoveries to change how society functions, keeping productivity at the same level.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Theodril

[jsbrads]

with healthy birth mortality, we should have seen a population growth, but instead it declined.

 

until very recently DO's influence on the world was very minimal. All the DF in the world could not change the simple fact that population was growing, they had neither the man-power nor the will. We don't see DO's dfriends killing babies to suppress the population, most murder seems to be very small scale.

 

UK never used all of their land (though I don't know what percent was wild during that time period, far later in WWII as people left the cities for the country, they would get on trains and spend hours on the train traveling at a speed unheard of before the industrial age, through primarily, wilderness.)

[bsmnt23]

with healthy birth mortality, we should have seen a population growth, but instead it declined.

 

until very recently DO's influence on the world was very minimal. All the DF in the world could not change the simple fact that population was growing, they had neither the man-power nor the will. We don't see DO's dfriends killing babies to suppress the population, most murder seems to be very small scale.

 

 

The DO himself was unable to effect Randland directly, no, but the history of the place was inteligently directed by Ishamael since the Breaking. He gets 40 years to do whatever he wants completly unopposed and when he is running the Black Ajah directly he effectivaly has the weight of the most powerful organization in Randland to execute his will.

 

With Ishamael wispering in ears for the thousand years after the Breaking he prevented the Ten Nations from forming even closer aliances to withstand the Trolloc Wars. The Wars lasted 300+ years and the Nations actualy did fracture as well as deplete a very significant percetage of the population before the Trollocs were finaly defeated. It took centuries for the remaining nations to recover and when they Hawkwing's death brought about another century of warfare. European history shows us that no nation survives that easily. When you add in (or subtract?) the huge armies and accompanying logistical support (which must have numbered in several hundred thousands) to both the Seanchan contanent and Shara (on the advice of his trusted advisor Ishamael) when Hawkwings empire crumbled that was another huge dent to human population Randland.

 

Even in contemporary times the nations of Randland are only just recovering from an enormus war against the Aiel invasion. Lamman's Sin isnt called out as a plot by Ishamael, but it bears all the halmarks of it.

 

Left to itself there is no doubt that with the overall health the peoples of Randland enjoy and the abundant food available that they would be able to recover from the Breaking easily. It seems every thousand years they are about to almost reach the previous pinical of the previous civilization, but were prevented from advancing as a society because they were constantly reeling from disaster to disaster like a drunk stumbling from bar to bar. This was intended, planed, and executed by the Shadow for obvious reasons to weaken the will and the arms of the peoples and nations of Randland.

[Maleshub]

How much did WWI and WWII hinder Europe's population growth?

 

Wars are nasty and hundreds of thousands die in prolonged ones; but they don't impact fertility rates or population growth unless the wars are extermination wars. An example of how war doesn't affect population growth in WoT are the Aiel. In Rand's PoV's they were a few thousand at the start. Now the Aiel, a constantly at war society, fields armies of at least half a million spears - professional soldiers - (meaning their total population is over 3 million).

Edited June 13, 2012 by Theodril

[TristanWebb]

The world wars were very civilized though, atleast in Europe (discounting the Holocaust which was horrific, but not really an act of war per se, the Nazis would of done it without the war). Europeans have had centuries of wars with each other, they know what to leave behind so that the country can survive to pay reparations.

 

The trolloc wars were about extermination which would of destroyed food production for decades afterwards, the war of a hundred years was the falling of an empire, which always results in mass starvations as markets collapse. It took Europe centuries to recover after the fall of Rome, and has only really survived since the renaissance because of Nationalism which means collapses don't take everyone with it.

 

There are certain technologies that are required for significant growth; fire, the wheel, crops, roads are important ones, but without mechanical travel your potential markets are tiny. Booms always happen when new forms of transportation (the Internet is essentially transportation for the service economy) are discovered which opens up new markets.

 

Randland has been reliant on horses since the breaking, with barriers against exploration beyond current markets being almost unpassable. The Aiel killing anyone who goes one way, the sea folk monopolizing sea travel by having potential customers killing off merchants, seas that are impassable because seafaring technology is useless because the close things kill you.

 

A market with reach equilibrium fairly quickly, so to have growth you either need new markets, either from accessing different physically located markets or by using technology to upset the equilibrium. It is a lot harder to make new things and without the conception that growth is an expected phenomenon the drive to do so will not exist. Historically, people were content making a set amount of profit each year, not like today where a company is in crisis if it fails to make three percent more than it did last quarter.

[Maleshub]

The world wars were very civilized though, atleast in Europe (discounting the Holocaust which was horrific, but not really an act of war per se, the Nazis would of done it without the war). Europeans have had centuries of wars with each other, they know what to leave behind so that the country can survive to pay reparations.

 

The trolloc wars were about extermination which would of destroyed food production for decades afterwards, the war of a hundred years was the falling of an empire, which always results in mass starvations as markets collapse. It took Europe centuries to recover after the fall of Rome, and has only really survived since the renaissance because of Nationalism which means collapses don't take everyone with it.

 

WWII claimed 60-70 million lives in 5 years. And I think we can debate how civilized it was for quite a while. Carpet-bombing of civilian centers, two nuclear bombs, the Holocaust, and other war crimes. Of the 60-70 million killed, nearly 70% (40-48 million) were civilians. Only 30-33% of deaths were military deaths.

 

In general, military deaths caused by war over the last 2K years have not hindered human population growth. The single most devastating event in European history with regards to human casualties is the Black Plague. That one mowed down one third of the continent. No war has done that.

 

The thing with WoT is that we're talking about 100 generations covering 2500-3000 years. If we apply that to estimates of our world's population statistics, the world had about 50 million in 1000 BC, 100 million in 500 BC, 200 million in 1 AD, 310 million at 1000 AD, and 791 million in 1750 AD. This is the equivalent time of WoT's world, so I'll stop there. The statistics show that the world's population multiplied 16 times despite the history of war, bloodshed, famine, disease, and lack of adequate health services during the times.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Theodril

[bsmnt23]

How much did WWI and WWII hinder Europe's population growth?

 

Wars are nasty and hundreds of thousands die in prolonged ones; but they don't impact fertility rates or population growth unless the wars are extermination wars. An example of how war doesn't affect population growth in WoT are the Aiel. In Rand's PoV's they were a few thousand at the start. Now the Aiel, a constantly at war society, fields armies of at least half a million spears - professional soldiers - (meaning their total population is over 3 million).

 

Theodril, what are you talking about? Technological diferences asside, the Trolloc Wars were probably worse than our WW1, and The Great War had millions of casualties, estimates are between 15 million and 65 million (though that includes the spanish flue pandemic) which was ~3% of the population of the world at the time. The lowest estimate of WW2 was 40 million casualties, and I dont think that even includes the Holocaust (which itself was just a bare fraction of the bodycounts of the Stalin and Mao tse Tung regimes). These wars lasted respectivaly 4 and 6 years; the Trolloc Wars lasted 350, and the War of Hundred years...well you know.

 

I doubt the fall of Hawkwings empire was anywhere near as bad, but you can look at Europe's own Hundred Year's War for a real-world comparison, and it reduced France's population to about half. The fall of Hawkwings empire brought about a total breakdown in scociety which more than implies a full stop to trade, which brings with it famine. There is a reason that the Four Horsemen are always depicted togother: where one goes so go the others. It took hundreds of years for society to rebuild from the ashes of the Hundred Years war; thats never a pretty thing.

 

In Randland, obvioulsy the Trolloc Wars decimated the total population, look at all the abandond swaths of land, the abandoned ruins of cities; look at Manetheren. It was wiped off the map and all that survived was three villages in the middle of nowhere who didnt even remember who they once were. Six of the Ten Nations were smashed beyond rebuilding and whole cites lost forever.

 

The Southern nations tend to rebuild faster because they have a higher industrial base and actualy werent as affected by the Trolloc Wars as the mid-lands. The Boarderlands didnt get as involved in the politcs of the southern states so both north and south were each spared the devistation of at least one of the devistations. The center nations were hit hard by both the Trolloc Wars and the 100 years war, though they rose from the fall of Hawkwing's empire stronger then they had been since before the trolloc Wars.

[Maleshub]

How much did WWI and WWII hinder Europe's population growth?

 

Wars are nasty and hundreds of thousands die in prolonged ones; but they don't impact fertility rates or population growth unless the wars are extermination wars. An example of how war doesn't affect population growth in WoT are the Aiel. In Rand's PoV's they were a few thousand at the start. Now the Aiel, a constantly at war society, fields armies of at least half a million spears - professional soldiers - (meaning their total population is over 3 million).

 

Theodril, what are you talking about? Technological diferences asside, the Trolloc Wars were probably worse than our WW1, and The Great War had millions of casualties, estimates are between 15 million and 65 million (though that includes the spanish flue pandemic) which was ~3% of the population of the world at the time. The lowest estimate of WW2 was 40 million casualties, and I dont think that even includes the Holocaust (which itself was just a bare fraction of the bodycounts of the Stalin and Mao tse Tung regimes). These wars lasted respectivaly 4 and 6 years; the Trolloc Wars lasted 350, and the War of Hundred years...well you know.

 

I doubt the fall of Hawkwings empire was anywhere near as bad, but you can look at Europe's own Hundred Year's War for a real-world comparison, and it reduced France's population to about half. The fall of Hawkwings empire brought about a total breakdown in scociety which more than implies a full stop to trade, which brings with it famine. There is a reason that the Four Horsemen are always depicted togother: where one goes so go the others. It took hundreds of years for society to rebuild from the ashes of the Hundred Years war; thats never a pretty thing.

 

In Randland, obvioulsy the Trolloc Wars decimated the total population, look at all the abandond swaths of land, the abandoned ruins of cities; look at Manetheren. It was wiped off the map and all that survived was three villages in the middle of nowhere who didnt even remember who they once were. Six of the Ten Nations were smashed beyond rebuilding and whole cites lost forever.

 

The Southern nations tend to rebuild faster because they have a higher industrial base and actualy werent as affected by the Trolloc Wars as the mid-lands. The Boarderlands didnt get as involved in the politcs of the southern states so both north and south were each spared the devistation of at least one of the devistations. The center nations were hit hard by both the Trolloc Wars and the 100 years war, though they rose from the fall of Hawkwing's empire stronger then they had been since before the trolloc Wars.

 

Europe's population at the start of WWI = 300 - 350 million

Europe's population at the start of WWII = 450 - 500 million

(I tried to find an accurate reference; and would appreciate any help)

Europe's population in 2000 = 700 million

 

The stats show that WWI and WWII did not reduce Europe's population for an extended period of time. The population rebounded with significant increases.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Theodril

[bsmnt23]

Your stats are great and do back up your argument, but the situations of Europe and Randland are diferent. I compared the Trolloc Wars to WW1 because the abount of comparative devistation and lives lost, but not as a direct comparison. I dont think the ratios mix.

 

This is a thread from back when talking about the population density of Randland in the modern era. http://www.dragonmount.com/forums/topic/67408-census-randland-996ne/page__st__60__hl__population?do=findComment&comment=2203585

 

I think the consensus was between 30 million to 50 million living in Randland right now. The population in Europe in 1919 was anywhere between 350-400 million, which is a huge diference to Randland. A population of 350 mil losing 65mil can rebound much faster than a population of 30mil-50mil losing ~10mil or even less; its a proportion issue.

[Maleshub]

Your stats are great and do back up your argument, but the situations of Europe and Randland are diferent. I compared the Trolloc Wars to WW1 because the abount of comparative devistation and lives lost, but not as a direct comparison. I dont think the ratios mix.

 

This is a thread from back when talking about the population density of Randland in the modern era. http://www.dragonmou...on#entry2203585

 

I think the consensus was between 30 million to 50 million living in Randland right now. The population in Europe in 1919 was anywhere between 350-400 million, which is a huge diference to Randland. A population of 350 mil losing 65mil can rebound much faster than a population of 30mil-50mil losing ~10mil or even less; its a proportion issue.

 

True; but you're taking the last bit of my argument about the impact of battles and wars on population. I started with the stats at 1000 BC when the world was at 50 million and ended at 1750 AD when the population was about 791 million. Over 2500 years of lack of modern technology, of constant war, of famine, lack of adequate healtcare, etc. Even then the population steadily increased every few generations.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Theodril

[jsbrads]

Of course the trolloc wars, though really a series of wars, had the biggest impact on populations since the breaking.

but the trolloc wars ended hundreds of years ago, since that time nations continue to collapse and populations decline.

[Maleshub]

Of course the trolloc wars, though really a series of wars, had the biggest impact on populations since the breaking.

but the trolloc wars ended hundreds of years ago, since that time nations continue to collapse and populations decline.

 

But the Aiel didn't decline. They grew and prospered from few thousand to few million as a nation (all 13 clans combined).

 

Is there any reference where it says that the WoT population is in decline since the Breaking?

[Thrasymachus]

There's plenty of dispute about how much France's population declined during the Hundred Years War, estimates range from between a third to a half. Moreover, France was being hit by the Black Plague at the time, and most of that population decline can be attributed to that. Actual battlefield losses for both sides through the whole 116 years of the Hundred Years War were less than 200,000. It's impossible to accurately estimate the impact of the Hundred Years War on the population of France because of the Black Death, however, because estimates of its effect on population range from between 1/3 and 1/2 of the population killed. Further, such plagues have been unknown in the Third Age, even when accompanied by war and famine. The Age of Legends pretty much eliminated all of the serious diseases.

 

If we try to factor out the effects of the Black Plague on the deaths during the Hundred Years War for France, then we can get a range of between 3 or 4 hundred thousand to 3.3 million non-military deaths attributable to the Hundred Years War, and with a population that started out at 20 million, that's between 2% and 16.5% of the initial population. However, if we start at 20 million and figure a 1.5% population growth average as a default growth rate, it only takes a bit more than 10 years to "grow" the 3.3 million high end estimated casualties of the Hundred Years War. 3.3 million people spread out over 116 years is an average of 28 and a half thousand people killed per year, or only 0.15% of the population in the first year.

 

In WWII, Poland saw the highest percentage loss of its population, with about 16.7% of its population killed over the course of the war. That's an average of 3.5% per year over the 5 years of the European conflict. The total 70 million people estimated to have been killed in WWII means an average of 14 million people per year killed during the war. The total world population of 2.3 billion in 1939 and an average default growth rate of 1% means that at the end of WWII there's still about 50 million more people than at the beginning of it, instead of a bit more than 100 million more. In other words, the wars by themselves are not enough to explain any decline in population.

 

For myself, I don't tend to think that the population of Randland has declined over the course of 3000 years. Rather, I reckon the population immediately after the Breaking was far lower than most people can fathom. If there were only about 25 million people left worldwide, and an average population growth of only .25%, then the population would have been about 2 billion after roughly 2000 years, which sounds about right and is, if anything, a bit high.

[master]

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the trolloc wars involved genocide in captured territories, but I doubt that would have much effect on current populations.

[Durinax]

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the trolloc wars involved genocide in captured territories, but I doubt that would have much effect on current populations.

I am pretty sure the trollocs followed a 100% kill mentality, the issues with trollocs would be to turn their ferocity onto armed targets to smash them before taking out the weak

[DaoineSidhe]

I think the biggest issue is probably the imperfectly sealed bore. One wonder that if Ishy could get out from time to time, was there other leakage? Something that prevented population growth to occur? Maybe affecting weather in a slight enough way that famines occurred on a more regular basis, requiring more stockpiling of food when you did gather food, and not allowing for the primary advantage of agriculture (grow more food than people need, so you can support more people being born with less work), was negated?

 

Or, it could just be something that we need to "suspend disbelief" on, because there is no good rational explanation for this, it is just an invention of the author's mind to suit the story.

[SuperFade]

Or, it could just be something that we need to "suspend disbelief" on, because there is no good rational explanation for this, it is just an invention of the author's mind to suit the story.

 

It's probably less this and more RJ simply not being able to wrap his mind around very large numbers and how complicated economics and population growth truly is. Which is a problem that every single author has to some degree.

[Mr Ares]

with healthy birth mortality, we should have seen a population growth, but instead it declined.

 

until very recently DO's influence on the world was very minimal. All the DF in the world could not change the simple fact that population was growing, they had neither the man-power nor the will. We don't see DO's dfriends killing babies to suppress the population, most murder seems to be very small scale.

The DO himself was unable to effect Randland directly, no, but the history of the place was inteligently directed by Ishamael since the Breaking. He gets 40 years to do whatever he wants completly unopposed and when he is running the Black Ajah directly he effectivaly has the weight of the most powerful organization in Randland to execute his will.

 

With Ishamael wispering in ears for the thousand years after the Breaking he prevented the Ten Nations from forming even closer aliances to withstand the Trolloc Wars. The Wars lasted 300+ years and the Nations actualy did fracture as well as deplete a very significant percetage of the population before the Trollocs were finaly defeated. It took centuries for the remaining nations to recover and when they Hawkwing's death brought about another century of warfare. European history shows us that no nation survives that easily. When you add in (or subtract?) the huge armies and accompanying logistical support (which must have numbered in several hundred thousands) to both the Seanchan contanent and Shara (on the advice of his trusted advisor Ishamael) when Hawkwings empire crumbled that was another huge dent to human population Randland.

 

Even in contemporary times the nations of Randland are only just recovering from an enormus war against the Aiel invasion. Lamman's Sin isnt called out as a plot by Ishamael, but it bears all the halmarks of it.

 

Left to itself there is no doubt that with the overall health the peoples of Randland enjoy and the abundant food available that they would be able to recover from the Breaking easily. It seems every thousand years they are about to almost reach the previous pinical of the previous civilization, but were prevented from advancing as a society because they were constantly reeling from disaster to disaster like a drunk stumbling from bar to bar. This was intended, planed, and executed by the Shadow for obvious reasons to weaken the will and the arms of the peoples and nations of Randland.

This is wrong. The people of Randland havehad ample opprtunity to increase their population. They don't. Since the end of the War of a Hundred Years, the population of the Westlands has been in decline. We see evidence of it everywhere - just look at the map, at all the empty space that is unoccupied, unclaimed. And we have no good explanation for that other than Shai'tan's direct influence. By rights, the population should be on the increase - their isn't sufficient war, famine, plague or other disaster to stop it. But it isn't. Further, this doesn't appear to be a problem in Seanchan (if they had the same problems as the Westlands, it's doubtful they could have carried out the Return).

[avernite]

Indeed, the most significant description of the decline, to me, seems to be during TGH: the area between Shienar and Cairhien held a nation after the hundred years' war. This nation collapsed and was usurped by Shienar and Cairhien. So far so good. However, subsequently not only their control was reduced, but the population itself went down ever further leaving only a few scattered villages when the Hunt passes there.

 

Now, this is a single example which could be explained by a shifting climate, but still. Mesoamerica had a population collapse at some point, however, before the Europeans arrived (IIRC the essential end of Maya civilization) so maybe that's what RJ based his ideas on. Not sure why that collapse was again, though.

[Thrasymachus]

The people of the Third Age are the remnants of a people who possessed a much higher standard of living than even the wealthiest people of our time. One thing we know about populations that attain high standards of living is that their birth rate drops off precipitously compared to populations that suffer under basic lifestyle insecurities such as a lack of sufficient food, health or security. The Third Age is basically what Jordan supposed happens when you take a bunch of First World folks and make 'em live like Third World folks. They maintain their habits of low birth rates, and because the death rates have increased, overall population growth is stagnant or even negative. They don't tend to have as many or more kids than they can support, and it takes some time for that habit to yield to the need for more people. The need for more people isn't something that directly effects birth rates at all, it depends on how the culture reacts to the need. It makes some sense that overall population growth would have been very low compared to stages in our history, and that birth rates in Randland would be lower than birthrates in current Second or Third World populations. We grew out of poverty into wealth. They fell from wealth into poverty. That's a big difference.

 

The Native American collapse was a result of diseases introduced by the very first European explorers. It's actually a decent analog of the devastation caused by the Breaking, in that the cocktail of European and Asian diseases introduced into the Americas is estimated to have killed off more than 90% of the population over the course of about 200 years. By the time Spanish Conquistadors started conquering Mexico and Middle and South America, a large part of the damage of the diseases had been done. The Inca were defeated relatively easily because they'd just lost their Emperor and all his heirs to the Plague, and they were in the midst of a succession crisis. The Aztecs were similarly devastated by the time Cortez showed up. And when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, they chose the site because it was the location of an already extant Native American village, one which happened to have been recently abandoned because nearly everybody that lived there had died to European diseases. Squanto, the Indian famous for showing the English how to plant corn with fish and survive the New England winters, was a native of that village who had been kidnapped by Spanish raiders, sold into slavery, escaped, and made his way back home on a Dutch trading ship, and found his home abandoned. He was pretty much the only native survivor of the village the Pilgrims moved into. Luckily for those refugees from the horrors of politically imposed religious tolerance, he was apparently a pretty forgiving individual.