Ancient population of Armenians

[Tigranakert]

Does anybody know the size of the Armenian population from ancient times until now? I just can't find it. Was there a time in history when we were more than 10 million? It would be very interesting to know (as we could also predict what our population size would be know if not being massacred numerous times).

It is actualy weird to have a population of 10 million, for such a historical nation...

For example, that of China is;
Historical population

* 2100 BC: 14,000,000
* 2 AD: 60,000,000
* 1000: 40,000,000
* 1500: 103,000,000
* 1650: 123,000,000
* 1750: 260,000,000
* 1850: 412,000,000
* 1950: 552,000,000
* 1960: 648,000,000
* 1970: 820,000,000
* 1975: 924,000,000
* 1980: 984,000,000
* 1990: 1,147,000,000
* 2000: 1,264,587,054

[Davo88]

Re: Ancient population of Armenians

Well, I don't think that there was a census of any sort in historic Armenia, but I just checked an Armenian history book and it is said that the population of Armenia was at its highest point 10 million. In fact, the city of Ani used to be one of the most populous in the Western world.

I doubt that the size of the population has anything to do with having a long history. For example, Greece's population is only 11 million...

[Federate]

Re: Ancient population of Armenians

Wars, assimilation, genocides and becoming subjects to 5 different empires can take its toll on a population.

[ashot24]

Re: Ancient population of Armenians

Well, I don't think that there was a census of any sort in historic Armenia, but I just checked an Armenian history book and it is said that the population of Armenia was at its highest point 10 million. In fact, the city of Ani used to be one of the most populous in the Western world.

I doubt that the size of the population has anything to do with having a long history. For example, Greece's population is only 11 million...

I agree with Davo88, the population of a country has nothing to do with its history. A number of factors play in that percentage.

If all the massacres of Armenians (only in the last century) would have never happened, our population as of today would be a total of about 8 to 12 million, also supposing Armenia's territory would be larger (which means we wouldn't have been part of the USSR), and we would also have to count the minorities living in the land, which would be mostly comprehended by Caucasian Tatars (Azeries) in the Eastern portion and Turks and Kurds in the Western portion.

As I said a number of factors play a role, for instance, China may have tons and tons of population, but you have to take into consideration that ethnic minorities are in abundance in China, and although they are minorities...their number affect the population census.

My point is, our population number would not be as large as you may think. Even if all the factors that diminished our population would have never happened, the numbers of population have to be in accordance with the territory, supposing Armenia would have the territory its rightfully hers, it would still not be enough to support and give adequate conditions to more than 10 million people, and you have to take the number of ethnic minorities and non-Armenian inhabitants, and, taking into consideration the population of Yezidis, Turks, Kurds and CTs (Azeries) that Armenia would have, our numbers would be lesser since those minorities would be considerably large.
As Davo pointed, Greece has only 11 million people but Greece is big compared to Armenia, and in contrast, China and India have the largest populations...but you have to take into consideration that, for example, in India there are Punjabs, Dravidas, Gujaratis, Bengalis...but also India is freaking huge.

Territorial matters play a role in population.

Anyways, I have documents in mainly Soviet encyclopedias and almanaques related to the USSR which count the population in the country, and of course that of Armenia since the 50's. So if anyone's interested I can post them here

[jgk3]

Re: Ancient population of Armenians

Does anybody know the size of the Armenian population from ancient times until now? I just can't find it. Was there a time in history when we were more than 10 million? It would be very interesting to know (as we could also predict what our population size would be know if not being massacred numerous times).

It is actualy weird to have a population of 10 million, for such a historical nation...

For example, that of China is;
Historical population

* 2100 BC: 14,000,000
* 2 AD: 60,000,000
* 1000: 40,000,000
* 1500: 103,000,000
* 1650: 123,000,000
* 1750: 260,000,000
* 1850: 412,000,000
* 1950: 552,000,000
* 1960: 648,000,000
* 1970: 820,000,000
* 1975: 924,000,000
* 1980: 984,000,000
* 1990: 1,147,000,000
* 2000: 1,264,587,054

That is assuming all the Chinese were always of the modern homogeneous "Han" designation they cling to today.

At one time... the land of modern day China was seen by those who lived within its realm as say... 90% of the world. They distinguished themselves as different ethnic groups which by being "Chinese" only share the fact that they live in this realm, much like "Europeans" find their identity for geographical reasons rather than ethnic ones... Pay attention to their different provinces.



Traditionally, they are all culturally distinct, and only through rather recent events such as the "Cultural Revolution" of the Chinese Communist Party have these differences been publicly shunned and oppressed, not by the actual inhabitants but by the government, in favour of a homogeneous, Atheist Chinese identity that we are taking for granted when we think of the vast Chinese population compared to that of Armenia. The damage has been done, but now that China is effectively a politically united country with a bustling economy, the government over the past 20 years has allowed this traditional culturally diversity of China room to breathe again, after decades of suffocation. This is being done especially by allowing countless Buddhist and Taoist temples to be reopened, allowing Chinese villages the freedom to participate in their traditional cultural activities again.

It is true that China has throughout history often been under the control of large empires able to rule over several provinces, but it is rare to find one that rules practically all of them, such as the Han, Tang or Manchu Dynasties did at their height of power, or as the modern People's Republic of China does. In effect, China was much like its own continent, as Europe is, with several different populations all experiencing rule by some warlord or emperor, but the conception of being Chinese vs. non-Chinese only arose when dealing with people clearly outside of their realm, such as Tibetans, or Mongolians, Indians, Arabs, Persians, Japanese, Europeans, etc....

For familiar examples in Europe, think of the Roman Empire. Is it logical to call the Roman empire ethnically Roman? No, it is absurd... But people considered themselves Roman citizens, learned to speak Latin, and accepted this nominal distinction as differentiating them from barbarian peoples, such as Germanic tribes to the north, or Persians to the east.

in the case of China, imagine something akin to the Roman empire occurring periodically over its many different lands, which even though could be united under a single ruler, were always culturally and ethnically distinct.

The conception of the Chinese being some kind of common ethnic identity, is akin to saying modern "European" is a single ethnic identity, whereas in reality, such broad designations arise only when its members want to distinguish themselves from ethnic groups that are considered outside of its self-conceived boundaries. But as soon as there is no Asia, or Africa for Europe to contrast itself with, you'll start to see its "homogeneity" fall apart very fast, because culturally and ethnically, its people are quite distinct. The same is so for China. The things that unite them are their religions and their political leadership, similar to how Europe has historically been a Christian realm, experiencing political leadership over large expanses of its domain by the Holy Roman Empire, the Frankish empire, etc...

[Tigranakert]

Re: Ancient population of Armenians

Ofcourse, it has to due with a lot of factors, but I have never seen any kind of research about ancient Armenian populations. Only vague numbers, like ''100.000 people lived in Ani''.

If the genocide did not happen, we would have been even more than 12 million. There are 10-15 million Armenians worldwide now. The population of Turkey was 13 million, which 2 million were Armenians. We also had a lot of Armenians living in Russian and Iranian territories.

The Ottoman Armenians would at least be 12-15 million today and if Armenians from Persia would emigrate to (Russian) Armenia (with a larger territory) we would easily be over 20 million.

20 milllion Armenians... that would mean we would be a super-power in the middle east.... (20 million is equivalent to 150 million Turks, or 200 million Arabs)

[jgk3]

Re: Ancient population of Armenians

are Kurds a super power in the middle east? They're over 30 million and are split between 4 countries.

Super powers exist because of shrewd political leaders knowing how to use and manage their numbers effectively, not due to any inherent value in the numbers themselves.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Ancient population of Armenians

are Kurds a super power in the middle east? They're over 30 million and are split between 4 countries.

Super powers exist because of shrewd political leaders knowing how to use and manage their numbers effectively, not due to any inherent value in the numbers themselves.

Yeah but Kurds were nomads up until modern days, although there are many highly educated ones among them today..

What Tigranakert meant to say is that we are the type of nation to have the potential to become a regional super power, if we were given the chance. The fact that we have survived despite our low numbers and infinite amount of hostile neighbors in history, and still somewhat prosper today, is the proof of this.

But time doesn't have much to do with population growth. If our fertility rate is 2, then the population will remain the same (2 individuals giving birth to a total of 2 individuals during their lifetime as a couple doesn't help a population grow, but keeps it as is). A fertility rate of 2.1 is the minimum for a stable growing population. That means that every couple has to have 2 children, at least, with 1 couple on 10 having 3 children, in the technical sense. If Armenians, throughout history, had a fertility rate of less than 2.1, then it either declined or stayed somewhat stable until today. If it's true that our current population is the most we have ever been in history, then we need to learn something from rabbits.

In the ancient world, especially, population did make a huge difference. We know mongoloid nations made babies like rabbits, so it's no surprise that Turks became a dominating nation. We also know that they were dominant not through intelligence, but brute manpower

[jgk3]

Re: Ancient population of Armenians

What Tigranakert meant to say is that we are the type of nation to have the potential to become a regional super power, if we were given the chance. The fact that we have survived despite our low numbers and infinite amount of hostile neighbors in history, and still somewhat prosper today, is the proof of this.

There's no excuse for our failure to become a super power. If you can't deal with hostile neighbours, its a sign of your own lack of cunning, lack of keen awareness for the currents of the world around you.

If it's true that our current population is the most we have ever been in history, then we need to learn something from rabbits.

Once upon a time, sex and procreation were more often synonymous than not. It seems the Azeris still live in that once upon a time, but we're too modern for that.

We also know that they were dominant not through intelligence, but brute manpower

Rather, when the "civilized" nations of the Near East were crippled by their endless wars and could not support their standing armies anymore, the waves of Turks entering Asia Minor essentially pulled off what the Germanic (Barbarian) tribes did to the Roman Empire during its collapse. Thus, I'd call it, the dynamics of geopolitics, warrior leaders seizing opportunities when they present themselves. Intelligence or manpower? Maybe it's more about ambition, hunger for productive land and captive slaves being an overwhelming urge for conquest if the prey can't defend itself properly.

The Turks came united in spirit to the Near East... they shared a common bond, the desire to plunder and take slaves. Our common bond was to survive. Well we did, but the more aggressive shared bond will come out on top in the end.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Ancient population of Armenians

There's no excuse for our failure to become a super power. If you can't deal with hostile neighbours, its a sign of your own lack of cunning, lack of keen awareness for the currents of the world around you.

It is an excuse. If that wasn't the case, the Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire, or heck, the Ottoman Empire would still exist today. The reason why the Ottoman Empire fell is because of the union of Western forces, not because the Ottomans weren't cunning enough to be a super power. If hostile neighbors unite and fight against a super power, then it will make a difference. Armenia was always a small nation, yet it always survived, despite being in the middle of huge empires with a larger population.

Once upon a time, sex and procreation were more often synonymous than not. It seems the Azeris still live in that once upon a time, but we're too modern for that.

Well, we can't really know what the culture of Armenians with sex was, but you're right, in the past, procreation was more common than today. Nevertheless, people in civilizations often procreated less than barbarians.

Rather, when the "civilized" nations of the Near East were crippled by their endless wars and could not support their standing armies anymore, the waves of Turks entering Asia Minor essentially pulled off what the Germanic (Barbarian) tribes did to the Roman Empire during its collapse. Thus, I'd call it, the dynamics of geopolitics, warrior leaders seizing opportunities when they present themselves. Intelligence or manpower? Maybe it's more about ambition, hunger for productive land and captive slaves being an overwhelming urge for conquest if the prey can't defend itself properly.

True, but it still doesn't change the fact that one of the most important reasons why they were victorious was their large hordes, no matter their motives. If they were a small nation, they couldn't even dream of taking over the Middle East.