[Information/Sources] Massalia and major western Mediterranean settlements 300BC

[Ibrahim]

Just been doing some quick research on Rome, and it suggests most historians treat the early censuses with disdain. That the numbers were basically made up. I know Rome was smaller than Syracuse, would 50,000 be an outlandish figure? Apparently Greek city states rarely got over 40,000, with 20-30,000 people being the trigger to send people out to form new colonies and relieve overpopulation pressures.

Yes, Massalia was a large town at best, I'd be guessing in the 5,000 region at most (and probably less than 500 that could be called up to military service as hoplites).

didn't know it was this unreliable.

beyond that, I don't know more than you at this point.

[QuintusSertorius]

didn't know it was this unreliable.

beyond that, I don't know more than you at this point.

Sorry if that sounded dismissive, it wasn't meant to be. I was referring to this article I read, suggested there's a whole debate around the population boom in 1st century BC and whether they changed their counting base or something.

From the middle of the third to the end of the second centuries B.C., the adult male population was estimated to have risen from about 200,000 to 400,000 individuals. Those numbers, however, don’t jibe with censuses organized by the first emperor Augustus in the first centuries B.C. and A.D., which showed a population that had increased to about 4 million to 5 million males.

While the granting of citizenship to allies on the Italian peninsula accounts for some of the increase, there is still an estimated unexplained doubling or tripling in the Roman population before the first Augustan census in 28 B.C. Just what accounts for that increase is a matter of intense debate.

One camp explains the discrepancy by suggesting that the Empire began counting women and children in the census. While this would account for the relative increase, it would actually imply an overall decline in the population of Rome and there are no suggestions that the entire populace was counted in historical records.

On the other side of the debate are those who suggest that the population simply boomed. This would mean that the Roman Empire — and other premodern societies — achieved much higher economic output than previously supposed. It would mean that Roman history as it is now understood would have to be rewritten.