The "Best" Lands?

 Here's a map that talks about the overall soil performance in the world. The arability of land is by far the most important in growing and maintaining a pre-Industrial population. You need to feed people, and without transport and refrigeration, most of that foodstuff is going to be local.

What's very interesting is the gradient that follows the Middle Ages, and America in the new Middle Ages, is that it's not the best soils to grow crops aren't necessarily the best to grow people. As White has mentioned, Ukraine, the Great Plains, Argentina are breadbaskets in the modern world. It's the areas that have slightly less inky, one might say (fittingly enough) an "army green" that have the densest populations, even those soils tend to be a little fractured. China, India, France, the Mediterranean, and in America, the Great Lakes/Ohio Valley region. (Also, Ethiopia, which was considered the place in Africa to have a social structure similar to Eurasia)

So the best places to look for places in the Post-Colonial (mainly Southern Hemisphere) with the the largest populations most organized, recognizably medieval societies would be in Venezuela (seeping into Colombia), South Africa, Southwestern Australia, Northeast Brazil as well as the Parana River area. Mexico would be particularly interesting as a study as it most ideal soils are actually around the coasts, whereas Mexico is somewhat notorious for having the majority of its population (and the center of the Aztec Empire) in the more inland highlands.

Biggest Countries

 A question one might be inclined to ask is, what are the largest countries in Matthew White's world of 2900, the New Middle Ages, and are any American states up there?

First, let's largely make the assumption the outside of America, and above the 10th parallel, are pretty close to the population of the Old Middle Ages. We can see the biggest nation states at the the beginning of the second millennium, as well as those as the Middle Ages came to a close, and there does appear to be a recurring consistency; We can largely bank on the ruling Chinese dynasty, a Muslim empire or two, a sizeable chunk of India, Japan and France. The Byzantines, Holy Roman Empire, Inca or Ottomans would require some contrivance to bring back, but it's reasonable that we could see some successor states in the mix. The only region of North America that would stand a chance would be Ohio, which at between 8 and 9 million. It's definitely reasonable to suspect it could place in the top ten, but it's no guarantee. 

For the most part, the major population anchors have been consistent throughout history, and it was the Age of Exploration, and then the Industrial Revolution, .created new major masses of society in America, Brazil, and Sub-Saharan Africa (and actually a major extension in Russia). It's probable that the extreme climates and lack of navigable waters could see the populations crunch more than they would in America, though all three have at one point seen sizeable empires pre-Industrialization. (For it's part, Russia would be the only "old world" polity where its population could be twice the size of what it was in the Old Middle Ages)

Actually, another thought experiment might be "2900 population with contemporary borders". Interestingly, the top three would very likely be the top three we have right now. (A "right now" that has been the case for a couple of decades, but is rather temporary) The lowest estimates for China is something like 60 million, and it is believed that it could have been as high as 100 million--and that's covering less territory than it does today. The Indian subcontinent is also believed to have contained roughly 100 million people--current national lines would cut out countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc, but that would still put it up there. And the U.S. of course canonically has 57-58 million people. One might reasonably switch these three around, but logically these would be the firm top three.

There would probably be a major gap between these three and the next major borders--Indonesia is the fourth largest in contemporary times, but the island of Java (where more than half its people live) in pre-industrial society would normally top out at 4 million. I've seen figures that range from six to ten million, so it wouldn't be unfair to go with the high end. Nigeria, Japan, France, and Germany are all estimated to have a low eight figures. Slicing off the part of the Indian subcontinent that makes up Pakistan would probably make it sizeable in its own right (Giving it France's population density would handily make it the fourth most populous at 22 million, That being said, in proportion to the collective population of the Indian Subcontinent, it would probably be much less, probably 12 million), but I don't have exact estimates. Rounding out the "original" would be Mexico, which is was estimated to have something like 15-20 million, and unlike the Andean states, wasn't carved up. 

As for Colonial/Settlement nations? Well, White doesn't give us any information except for the U.S. and Canada. I've mentioned this before, but using a tactic of reducing a country by is urban proportion, adding its 1900 population, than dividing by two gives us White's figures for the Eastern U.S., Canada, and correlates with the estimates  of Pre-Columbian civilization. I've therefore applied to the rest of the New World, and this would give Brazil 20 million people--leading contender for the fourth most populous. Also, another country I'm treating like a "settle nation" is South Africa. It has a lot of the qualities of places like Canada, Australia, and the Southern Cone; Geographically large, fertile and relatively temperate lands which were under a million before the Industrial Revolution, and settled largely by White Europeans. However, its Afrikaner past might not be reflected in the New Middle Ages. Unlike those other places, Whites never mad a majority, and don't even particularly have a large congruous landmass. The probably ten million of South Africa would largely resemble an extension of the African civilizations of the north. And speaking of such strange Old World hybrids, there's Russia. Russia very much orchestrated a settlement into Siberia, and some 38 million live there now. Applying the same crunch as Canada would still give it something like four or five million. This table of historical populations consider trans/intercontinental countries known as the Commonwealth of Independent States distinct from both Europe and Asia, and for the purposes of the New Middle Ages, we probably should too. I generally want to minimize the difference between the Old Middle Ages and the New Middle Ages outside of America itself, but I think a Muscovite Russia extending into Siberia (and the occasional migration of Central and East Asian peoples) could still be something in excess of ten million. (Of course, there's always a possibility of steppe tribes just wreaking havoc and bringing everything back to factory settings.

But one could ultimately make the order 1) China, 2) India, 3) USA, 4) Brazil, 5) Mexico, 6) France, 7) Russia, 8) Japan, 9) Indonesia and 10) Either Nigeria or South Africa (and have one of those plus Pakistan to round out the top 12) for a somewhat balanced, historically accurate and consistent world-building. Of course, actually, the top five is very "Americas" heavy, (This is largely due to New World nations generally being geographically bigger), but this is definitely what I think the top twelve most populated areas on the Globe, in the White's 2900 would be. 

Getting into South America

As I've stated many times, it's sort of become important to me to maintain the idea that U.S. is as uniquely distinct from its pre-1500 state as possible. Partly to adhere to White's "canon", partly to keep the scenario from getting out of hand (things like Medieval Communists or the like), and partly as a sort of attraction to decolonization. For the most part this very doable with my aforementioned "100 year grace period" rule. For a good deal of places along the 40-30th parallels in the Southern Hemisphere, these places are probably irrevocably "westernized", and will have considerably more people than they did in the modern period, but overall, there would less people in the than modern city of New York, or possibly even the medieval kingdoms of Ohio of Poland. 

But South America certainly raises some questions. For the Andes, much like Mexico, I've found that that dividing the countries by their urbanization almost patly matches the estimated population of the Inca Empire. This largely means having 15 to 20 million so in the western part of the continent, where much of them have maintained the Quechua language, and even their way of life. But what of the continent outside the Realm of Four Parts?

These two maps theorize five cultural divisions of South America. Well, the first has five distinct cultural divisions, the second shares "Indigenous", "European", "Mestizo" and "Plantation" but something of a "non-category" category for areas that are extremely unpopulated. It's also less concerned with keeping things contiguous. 

Comparing this to respective maps of recent population densities, and biomes, calculating de-urbanized effects, and with maybe a little bit of wank, we might have an idea of Medieval South America that's turned back in time as much as possible while still recognizing the mark many people have made on it today.

For the first map, one can likely expand the "read area a little to the east, and quite possibly all the way to the coasts.As mentioned the Indigenous, sustenance-based way of life could potentially absorb the communities that might struggle with the sudden loss of industrialization. (And in places like Bolivia, was making a concentrated effort to reestablish its Pre-Columbian past). The dark green area, which the map calls the "Amazonian Basin", could also expand, mixing with the "unaffiliated" zone of the second map. This would generally be the "wilderness area", and perhaps once again be a haven for the for native people, many living like the uncontacted tribes for today.The tropical plantations would probably remain more or less as they are--slivers across the coast, distinct but so concentrated on growing and selling cash crops they would not expand, and for the most part resembling the Brazil of the middle 16th century.

This cleaves the Mestizo zone in two. We would probably have a Columbia and Venezuela that might resemble their earlier colonial counterparts or may, being at crossroads, be something of mix or extension of the Central American and Andean (and perhaps even Caribbean) societies. Then we have Brazil. A considerably large country, already divided into four zones as big as four countries in and of themselves. Outside of North America, and maybe to some extent moreso, this might  have the biggest population boom of the new Middle Ages. Estimates vary, but somewhere between 3 and 11 million lived there in Pre-Columbian times. I've estimated something like 20 million people live there in the year 2900. A couple million live throughout the rainforests in grasslands in villages and communities much like they did before the first Portuguese ships. Something like a half dozen million souls probably live in the fazendas and their ports. And then there are those in the Southern Cone, in part of the same cultural sphere as Uruguay and Argentina. But then there are ten million or so people, particularly around places like Rio and Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais, where we could something truly unique, and hard to imagine, even more hard to imagine than a Medieval United States. So recent in its infrastructure, so various in its ancestry, the core of Brazil would practically be a civilization built from square one.

Then of course, there's the Southern Cone. Its temperate climate, European ancestry, and incredible soil could theoretically create a society that, perhaps out of collective homesickness, goes out of its way to recreate the middle ages in the "cosplay" manner I otherwise try to avoid. Or perhaps its "Gaucho" tradition would assert itself. Or maybe being on the other side of the world would similarly build something new and alien. I'm somewhat impartial to a world that somewhat resembles the late Roman Empire myself.

State Comparisons

Sort of continuing from the last entry, this is a master, master compendium of the population of Medieval America, but divided by contemporary state borders. Of course, I'm only going to count the continental U.S., and I would also italicize any states with a significant nomadic population. I'll also list where it ranks today, and maybe a little about where it stood in the middle of the 19th century.

1) Ohio 4 million  (7)
2 California 3.2 million (1)
3) New York 3.1 million (3)
4) Georgia 3 million  (9)
5) Michigan 2.9 million (8)
6) Alabama 2.7 million (23)
7) Pennsylvania 2.6 million (6)
8) Texas 2.6 million (2)
9) Kentucky 2.5 million (26)
9) Indiana 2.5 million (15)
10) Mississippi 2.4 million (31)
11) North Carolina 2.3 million (11)
12) Virginia 2 million (12)
13) Missouri 2 million (18)
14) Tennessee 1.9 million (16)

15) Illinois 1.9 million (5)
16) Arkansas 1.6 million (32)
17) Wisconsin 1.5 million (20)
18) Louisiana 1.4 million (24)
19) South Carolina 1.3 million (25)
20) Maryland 1 million (19)
21) Washington 1 million (14)
22) Florida .9 million (4)
23) New Jersey .8 million (10)
24) Oregon .8 million (27)
25) Maine .7 million (40)
26) Massachusetts .6 million (13)
27) Idaho .6 million (39)
28) Iowa .6 million  (30)
29) New Mexico .5 million (36)
30) Oklahoma .5 million (28)
30) Montana .5 million (44)
31) Utah .4 million (34)
32) Arizona .4 million (17)
33) Nebraska  .4 million (38)
34) West Virginia 350,000 (37)
35) Connecticut 330,000 (29)
36) New Hampshire 320,000 (41)
37) Minnesota 300,000 (21)
38) Wyoming 300,000 (50)
39) Kansas 300,000 (33)

40) South Dakota 300,000 (46)
40) Nevada 300,000 (35)
41) Colorado 200,000 (22)
41) North Dakota (47)
42) Vermont 150,000 (49)
43) Delaware 120,000 (45)
44) Rhode Island 80,000 (43)



The areas to make out the best would be the area between the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley, with four of those states making up the top ten (and three of them making up the super-kingdom of Ohio in White's world), and the Deep South, with Georgia and Alabama comfortably in the top ten, and Mississippi shooting up the ranks to hover just outside it. However, the deep, deep south doesn't fare as well. Florida has one of the biggest declines. New York and Pennsylvania, as quasi-great lakes states stay pretty much where they are. Even though California has one of the biggest drops in population overall, its sheer size and the fertility of its river valley means the area that fits into the Industrial era borders is still one of the biggest in the country. Interestingly, the core of Mormon Corridor remains more or less where it is, proportion-wise. 

While the region between the Mississippi River and the Appalachians probably fare the best, there's no real monopoly in terms of which region get hit the hardest. The Southwest, the Great Plains, New England, all have states with the steepest declines, all for reasons of their own. Even Great Lakes states like Minnesota and Illinois tumble quite a bit. Texas, like California is simply so big that it still remains in the top ten, but as a combination of desert, grassland, and Gulf, it's also subject to the vulnerabilities that have seen places like Florida and Colorado see heavy declines. 

Another interesting thing to look at is the 1850 census. This was a little bit before the Civil War before the Industrial Revolution, and where a sense of American culture was truly coalescing. New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Virginia (this was before West Virginia was split off) are pretty close to their Medieval American populations. The only states to be significantly more populated in size are Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont. This is definitely understandable in the case of the first two--the two states are among the geographically smallest and were the first places in the entire country to industrialize--Medieval Providence would effectively have to be a Venice-sized City State to match it, but it's interesting that Vermont circa 1850 is twice my estimated medieval population (Which I may have lowballed, but according to White's population map, it would max out at 20 people per square mile). 

North and South

 

I stumbled upon these videos, that take the census of the country in the years 1790 and 1860. Something he talks about is the how much more urban the North is, and that despite Virginia being the most populated state at the end of the Colonial Era, had very little in the way of a large metropolitan area, or even what we would consider a small town today, and at the dawn of the Industrial Era, right before the Civil War, only two sizeable urban areas existed in the entire south. Much of their populations existed in plantations, which in many ways, resemble the feudal structure that make up most of the denizens of Medieval America. I decided to look into what the stats looked like in White's World. 

What should count for Northern or Southern, or be included at all, involved a couple of executive calls on my part. Firstly, I did not include Canada in the stats (Or at least Eastern Canada--the cities of Western Canada being too integrated with the entire west coast, and it probably wouldn't move the needle much anyways). I did include Maine and northern New England as part of the North's population, even though there are no major cities beyond Boston. I did not include any populations west of the Mississippi and north of Little Rock. Besides Missouri being a historically tough to categorize as North or South, in White's world the timeline has the area periodically razed by Barbarian hordes and resettled anyways. The inclusion of Louisiana is very significant, however, as we'll see later. Then we get to the border states--Slave States that did not secede during the Civil War; Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. The latter two I included as Northern--the Maritime Unite States Empire seems to operate much more culturally and economically both today and in White's world, and the video seems to count them as such. (And of course, by "them" I mean mostly mean Maryland). It is still widely considered Southern, some may Kentucky is by far the trickiest to make a call on. Climate-wise, it's Southern--a tobacco growing region. However, like Maryland, it did not secede from the Union. And in White's maps, he includes it as part of the Midwest. However, I will consider it Southern for the purposes of this piece, but with a caveat that will also be significant later.

Ultimately, the North (the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and Great Lakes States) in area of 500,000 square miles, and a population of 21 million, has an urban population of roughly 1 million (at least from the data I've mined). The urban population is something like 4%, upwards of 5%. The South, as I've reckoned with, with an area of 652,000 square miles, and a population of 23 million has an urban population of 915,000. Its population is something like 3.9%, and I think I will round it up to 4%. So roughly a 1% difference between the two. The North still remains more urban than the South, even with the diminishing of industry, and especially trans-continental trade, but it seems Jeffersonian distinction between the two has certainly waned. But some interesting things to consider. In the site of the old colonies, the urban population is something like 600,000 (Two thirds of the North's urban population, really), versus the South's 250,000. It's really once we get into the post-Revolutionary War territories that the South really starts to play catch-up. Also of note is there are three main "chains" of urban areas: The Eastern Seaboard, the Ohio River Valley, and the area where the Red River and Mississippi sort of meet, and all of them have urban populations of around 300,000. It is interesting that taking the entire state of Louisiana, which is relatively small and most of lying west of the Mississippi, would take a huge chunk of the South's urban population. Meanwhile, a few of the South's other bigger cities are located on the Ohio River, which directly border historically Northern states. So overall, much of the South's biggest urban aggregate lie in regions that are sort of sketchy on categorization. The combined states of Mississippi and Alabama, as well as the Piedmont, probably best mbody of the dream of a robustly populated, but not particularly urban society, in addition to, interestingly enough, the area between the Ohio Valley and the Great Lakes.Unlike the Old South, these areas probably don't grow cash crops, but hearty, wholesome grain. A grain based plantation would probably be the sight to see.

For those interested, Western America has something like a 13% urbanization population, comparable to contemporary Papa, New Guinea, and only less than 5% less than Sri Lanka, a nation with an influential hip hop culture. Of course, Western America covers an incredibly wide, almost empty swath of land, but most of its people do live in cities.

Scrooged

 Sometime things can remain resonant despite changing mores, even surviving a complete reversal.

One of the most well known stories is "A Christmas Carol", about an old miser who learns the value of generosity and compassion to his fellow man, and to celebrate the holiday season. One would think the moral of the story is downright progressive, and might be considered incendiary to be told around medieval hearths. But it is not completely out of whack with a pre-Industrial value system. One might even interpret a Christmas Carol a romantic rebuke of England's industrialization in the vein of Tolkien. In any case, Ebenezer Scrooge is not exactly a landed gentry to call about, but very clearly a much of the merchant class, a class distrusted by all sides of the social hierarchy until the early modern period. (And in Feudal Japan, considered the lowest of the low) And moreso, Scrooge does not really produce or trade in actual good, but engaged in money-lending, which, under Christian practices, was taboo in the Middle Ages. This is why banking was largely a profession of Jews, and there would unfortunately be a good chance that retellings of a Christmas Carol might have anti-sematic leanings. 

There would also be an impetus for aristocratic class, particularly royalty, to encourage stories of festive charity. In the Middle Ages, money was meant to be spent, not hoarded to accumulate more wealth. Displays of conspicuous consumption were meant to project the image that all was well, and . It was also in the interests for feudal lords to make sure their vassals weren't holding on to some secret stash that could make them more autonomous--even a potential threat. Guilting the nobles into holding Christmas parties and feeding the poor accomplishes the dual purposes of draining other warlords and also maybe placating the commoners.

Perhaps the second most well known fantasy Christmas story is It's a Wonderful Life. Some argue the movie has bleaker connotation, but it may be more reassuring in a rougher medieval period. George Bailey is similarly a money lender, and the sentiment that everyone should have their own home is perhaps not the quite the sentiment medieval lords like to push, but the Bedford Falls Savings and Loans was not exactly the for-profit institution that has people quaking in their boots. In fact, the contrast to the more overtly usurious Mr. Potter  definitely places George in a purer context. (And there's that old time abelism to boot) The economics of "It's a Wonderful Life" is ultimately aside to a story of self-sacrifice, family, and staying in one's place for the greater good.

Mummies and Zombies

The Mummy is a curious addition to monster lore. Unlike vampires of werewolves, mummies are not a piece of organic folk traditions, at least truly indigenous. The idea mummies rising from the tomb to terrorize the living is an invention of Victorian literature, and more importantly, Hollywood. However, it quickly become just as iconic, because the Egyptian locale allowed it to distinguish itself from the usual gothic or Transylvanian settings. The bandaged look was a also very simple yet recognizable, and artists in the new Middle Ages are quite adapt at depicting them no matter what tools are at their disposal.

Perhaps the second most well known mummies, after the Egyptian ones, are those found in Peru, where places like the Tacoma, similarly arid, allowed a an efficient form of mummifications, and which were the subject of veneration in the Incan empire. They did not use the sophisticated embalming methods of Ancient Egypt, and were not bandaged, but interestingly enough, drawings of South American mummies, by Medieval American, depict them as such. In fact, in many illustrations and stories, Mummies in Peru are treated as indistinguishable from those of the Pharaohs.

This is for several reasons. One is it's quite simply hard to have precise geographical knowledge to your medieval denizens--one end of the world is as good as another. A huge contributing factor can also be found with the kingdom of New Mexico--there are definitely echoes of Neo Egtyptianism in God King of the American desert, and in the New Age religion they follow. Many have in fact, deliberately sought to combine the aesthetics and customs of both Mesoamerica, and Ancient Egypt, and the rulers often build pyramids to house their tombs in fashions that have made it very blurry for much of more Anglo-American types, and they figure everything south of New Mexico also strongly resembles it. Also as a result, they think South America is often plagued by Mummies in the Karloffian mode.

Or at least the drier. Zombies have strongly been reinvented since the Romero days, and are treated effectively like a metaphor for widespread epidemics, but have their roots in Voodoo, and were not widespread hordes that spread their infection through biting, but a more intimate form of sorcery, where the walking dead are not walking viruses, but thralls. The way Voodoo has flowered in the Caribbean and Gulf Coast of Medieval America, and that the culture of the 30th century is something like a "back to basics", or peeling off a newer layer of paint, means that Zombies have in some respects, returned to their Haitian roots, and sort of serve as the shambling, mystically imbued, but not endless, tropical counterpart to the desert dwelling mummies.