Egypt is a weird case. Their population hovered in the 3-4 million range for over a thousand years. Its possible that they hit 5 million at some point B.C.
Edit: This source estimates a population of 4.9 million in 150 B.C.
As an Egyptian, I was under the impression that Egypt exceeded 10 million at some point during the height of the dynastic period. Perhaps I am influenced by old wives' tales and the populist media in my country?
Ancient population figures vary wildly and are extremely hard to pin down. Primary sources almost always exaggerate, sometimes by orders of magnitude, making ancient demography a very inexact science.
Nobody really thought back then to keep count of people, so any census data is inaccurate. As long as the population was stable, the civilisation would flourish.
According to wikipedia the whole Holy Roman Empire had 5 million at about 1200. But probably only a third of its population was then living in modern German territory. So if there has not been a plague between 1100 and 1200, wikipedia and your source are far from matching. Just said.
And now that I've taken the quiz "Most populous countries in 1800 AD" which claims that Indonesia had 16m people in 1800 AD, while this quiz claims it had fewer than 5m in 1600 AD - either there's big inconsistency here or that's a LOT of immigration (or intensive sex) in just 200 years!
Yes, but the quiz is asking for the modern-day countries whose territory first reached 5 million people in history. For example, the area now known as Bangladesh first reached 5 million people in 600, even though it was not an independent country at that point.
There's only one country on this entire list that was a country on the date given (the United Kingdom). There was a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1600. There was a dynastic federation called "Rus" (centered in Kiev, Ukraine) in 1200. None of the others even come close.
Whatever. I was trying to be generous in my definition of national continuity. I am usually more stingy on this subject. If you want to discount the UK/England, too, that's fine with me.
Seeing as the borders of present-day Britain encompass a significantly larger area than England did in 1600, I think it's fair. Then again, even today 84% of Brits live in England, so the date by which Britain as a whole passed five million inhabitants will not have been too much earlier than the date at which England passed five million.
The arrival of Europeans and more importantly their diseases did some major damage to the total population numbers, but their plentiful food sources and domestication of various crops and animals could sustain a very large number of people.
Peru and Mexico were respectively at the southern and northern ends of the 'Empire Belt' of the pre-Columbian Americas. The Aztecs and culturally related states, the Maya, the Muisca and the Inca were responsible for the bulk of the Americas' population before European colonisation, at which point their population density started to count against their ability to fight off Old World diseases brought over by Europeans. The importance of those areas would remain though; it's not without reason that Spain's original two viceroyalties in the Americas had their capitals at Mexico City (ruling over North and Central America) and Lima (ruling over South America).
yes. Ethiopia is a very poor country with a very high birth rate and extremely fast population growth. did it surprise you that countries that don't have a western standard of living often have issues that you are very unlikely to encounter in every day life. maybe you'd like to complain about the foreign aid western countries send too
Wow... you've really launched to some big conclusions & harsh judgements there mate, and with zero evidence. If you look at the dates for the quiz, it has nothing to do with the socio-economic conditions of modern countries. I would have assumed Capistrano's surprise would have been due to how long Ethiopia has been settled by humans, and the empires there in antiquity and the middle-ages.
Brazil had native tribes, but they werent' as populous as the incas or aztecas. That is because of the two rainforests (Amazonia and Mata Atlantica).
Also, the brazilian population started to grow after Portugal started to bring slaves from their african colonies. However, it wasn't until the mid-1800s, with imigrations and late industrialization, that the population increased substantially.
What does this mean? In 200 BC, there were 5 million people living within the limits of modern Turkey, so it's on this quiz. Who lived there is completely irrelevant.
Edit: This source estimates a population of 4.9 million in 150 B.C.
That is a very interesting map you've used to source the data
(Unless you remove all the trees, of course!)
Also, the brazilian population started to grow after Portugal started to bring slaves from their african colonies. However, it wasn't until the mid-1800s, with imigrations and late industrialization, that the population increased substantially.
?
thanz for the info
Peru because of the Incas
Mexico because Aztecs/lots of civilizations settled there
Most of mainland Europe has something to do with the Romans
Missed congo japan and peru. was in the middle of typing congo, japan makes sense, and would not have gotten peru.
(Funnily, apparently I have taken the quiz before, no recollection but seem to have nearly ended up with the same, only got japan and missed mexico.)