| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
 Posted - 21 May 2016 : 04:01:08
|
I've been trying to reason out Waterdeep's population and how it would be supported, and I thought I'd post it here for anyone's interest. This will be lengthy, and keep in mind I have no background in demographics or agriculture, so take it as you will. A great deal of my calculations were made using Medieval Demographics Made Easy and its associated FAQ. When I'm referring to them below, I'll use MDME.
http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/blueroom/demog.htm
Apologies in advance for skipping around between metric and imperial systems, but I'm from Australia and I personally find metric easier to visualise.
WATERDEEP POPULATION OVERVIEW
For the purposes of this, "CIty of Waterdeep" refers to the population within the walls of the city, "Greater Waterdeep" refers to the population outside the walls (eg. Undercliff in 1479+), and "Agrarian Waterdeep" refers to the population farming the land past Greater Waterdeep.
The FRCS from 3E tells us that there are 132,661 people living in the City of Waterdeep, and up to 663,305 during summer (discussed further below). It also tells us that there are 1,347,840 people living in the region. I'm taking that number as during the winter months, and that it increases with the city population in summer to 1,878,484. Taking away the population in Waterdeep City, this leaves us with the combined population of Greater Waterdeep and Agrarian Waterdeep being 1,215,179. This is assumedly spread over a 30-40 mile radius around Waterdeep, according to the area controlled said to be controlled by Waterdeep in that book on p179.
So, populations are as follows:
City of Waterdeep (winter): 132,661
City of Waterdeep (peak of summer): 663,305
Greater & Agrarian Waterdeep: 1,215,179
Total (winter): 1,347,840
Total (summer): 1,878,484
Note that the summer population neatly rounds off to the 2 million quoted by some sources as the population of Waterdeep.
CITY OF WATERDEEP
3E established the City of Waterdeep as holding 132,661 people during the low season (likely winter while the city is closed up), and 5x that at the peak of summer. I run a 5E game in 1490, but I'm treating the numbers as the same. It's my understanding from my headcanon that the city population increases this much due to nobles returning from their holidays in warmer climates (along with their retinues of course), tourism, everyone wanting to be in Waterdeep because it's the most cosmopolitan city of the world, but not when it's winter, etc etc.
Other topics on Candlekeep have dealt with the size of Waterdeep city, and for the purpose of this I'm going to steal Wooly Rupert's calculation of 4.89 square miles. He does bring in the qualifier of City of the Dead, Mount Waterdeep taking up space in this, but I'll account for this later. This gives us a population density of 27,129 people per square mile in winter, and a population density of 135,645 in the peak of summer. I know this sounds like a lot, but hold on.
The MDME states that the average medieval city had a density of 38,850 people per square mile, and some commentators believe some cities could be 4x that. Google Paris demographics over history, and you'll find Paris far exceeded the average. So, actually 27,129 people/square mile seems pretty spacious! 135,645 is 3.5x the average, but still within the feasible range.
So what does that look like to the average person's living space, I hear you ask? For the purposes of figuring this out, we need to understand the average Waterdeep building. The 2E and 3E Waterdeep books flesh this out nicely. The average building is said to be a Class C building, which probably averages about 2.5 stories high. The bottom of these is probably going to be used solely for business, leaving 1.5 stories on average for domiciles. In the 2E book, it even shows us some example dwellings, and we find that on average a story of a building might hold 4 apartments. That means 6 apartments per building. This is just an average - noble houses will be huge, Dock Ward buildings will have tiny living spaces, but this I'm taking this Class C building as the middle ground.
Looking at the 3E map of Waterdeep, I counted the number of buildings in a 1000 ft x 1000 ft area (0.036 sq miles), and came up with 137. This was in the south of Castle Ward, which I took as a city average, and extrapolated that with the 4.89 miles to be 18,609 buildings. MDME tells us that this is a low number of buildings for a city this size in medieval times, but looking at the 2E building maps, it seems like Waterdeep buildings are just bigger than your average medieval one. Using MDME, I took about 15,000 of these as playing some role as a dwelling (80.6% of them). So that's 15,000 buildings that have some role as homes, with the average being a 2.5 story Class C dwelling, with 6 apartments. So that's an equivalent of 90,000 apartments (not a true number of apartments in Waterdeep, just an average). Still with me?
Now I took the 4.89 square miles, and thought about how much of that is actually taken up by buildings. I decided on 60%, taking into account streets, Mount Waterdeep, City of the Dead, etc. This was just a guess from looking at the map. This gives us 2.93 square miles of building space. Since 80.6% of these have a role as a home, that's 2.36 square miles of building space that serve some role as a home. This hasn't yet taken into account that there are 1.5 stories of dwelling space in the average building - that brings us back to 3.54 square miles of dwelling space.
However, as the buildings are shared and multi-story, some of this will be taken up by stairs, walkways between apartments, etcetera. Looking at the 2E maps, I reckon those shared spaces take up 20% of the building floor space. So that leaves is with 2.83 square miles of actual living space.
Summary of space:
Total City of Waterdeep area: 4.89 square miles (1267 hectares)
Buildings that have homes in them: 2.36 square miles (611 hectares)
Buildings without homes: 0.57 square miles (148 hectares)
Roads, Mount Waterdeep, City of the Dead: 1.96 square miles (508 hectares)
Total home dwelling space: 2.83 square miles (733 hectares)
So, we now have a base population of 132,661 living in 733 hectares of living space. This gives us 0.0081 hectares (81 square metres, 872 square feet) for each of our 90,000 apartments. That's a 9m x 9m space, which is about 1.5x the size of my own apartment I share with my fiance. Putting the people into those apartments, that means in low season there is an average of 1.47 people living in each apartment, and in high season 7.37 people. If you want to split up the apartments into individual living space, not accounting for shared areas in the home etc, that's 55 square metres per person in low season, and 11 square metres per person in high season. The MDME tells us that the average for pre-industrial Europe was 14 square metres, so this is feeling pretty good. The City of Waterdeep is relaxed and spacious during winter, but in summer it gets packed!
City of Waterdeep area: 4.89 square miles (1,266 hectares)
City of Waterdeep population (winter): 132,661
City of Waterdeep population density (winter): 27,129 per square mile
Average apartment size (1.47 people in winter): 81 sq metres (872 sq ft)
Average dwelling space per City of Waterdeep citizen (winter): 55 square metres (592 sq ft)
City of Waterdeep population (peak): 663,305
City of Waterdeep population density (peak): 135,645 per square mile
Average apartment size (7.35 people at peak): 81 sq metres (872 ft)
Average dwelling space per City of Waterdeep citizen (peak): 11 square metres (118 sq ft)
GREATER WATERDEEP
As a forewarning, This secondpart is the most arbitrarily created, and is a "middle ground" between the densely packed City of Waterdeep and the farmland of Agrarian Waterdeep. I actually calculated it following my calculations for the other two. Now, the FRCS states that Waterdeep controls the area for about 30-40 miles around. I'm going to take the immediate 12 miles as being part of a greater city area called Greater Waterdeep. The rest, going from 12 miles out to 40 miles out, is Agrarian Waterdeep. I calculated Greater Waterdeep to hold, taking into account the coastal position, about 288 square miles of land.
Greater Waterdeep holds the vast majority of the population - we've calculated the City population, and the Agrarian population density will be a lot lower by the nature of the work. The non-city based population of Waterdeep is 1,215,179. Taking the agrarian population and the city population into account (as discussed below and above), I came up with a population density for Greater Waterdeep of 3,100 people per square mile. If we take the land possessed by citizens that aren't roads, rivers, etc in that area, I would think that would be about 70%. If you take the average block of land here being lived on by a family of 3, that gives a block of land of 1,054 square metres (11,345 sq ft), or a block about 32m x 32m (106 ft x 106 ft). That's 351 square metres per person, far bigger than the City dwellings. That's a pretty big block of land, and it's likely most of these citizens farm enough vegetables to feed themselves, maybe keep some farm animals, etc - but not enough to feed much more than themselves at a guess.
Greater Waterdeep area: 288 square miles
Greater Waterdeep population: 892,800
Greater Waterdeep population density: 3,100 per square mile
Average family block of land: 1,054 square metres (11,345 sq ft)
Average land per Greater Waterdeep citizen: 351 square metres (3,778 sq ft)
AGRARIAN WATERDEEP
This accounts for the area from 12-40 miles out. I calculated this at 2,912 square miles, again taking the Sea of Swords and other landmarks into account. For this land, I used a population density of 100 people per square mile. I got this figure from:
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/10123/pre-modern-farming-what-percent-of-the-population-is-in-agriculture
I don't know a damn thing about pre-modern farming, or any farming for that matter, so I'm taking their calculations on face value.
Agrarian Waterdeep area: 2,912 square miles (754,208 hectares)
Agrarian Waterdeep population: 291,200
Agrarian Waterdeep population density: 100 per square mile
Average family block of land (family of 4.76 people): 123,284 sq metres (12.3 hectares)
Average land per Agrarian Waterdeep citizen: 25,900 square metres (2.59 hectares)
AGRICULTURE
The reference given in the Agrarian Waterdeep section tells us that one square mile of farmland produces enough food for 180 people. I'm not going to bother questioning this. The farmland of Agrarian Waterdeep gives us enough land to feed 524,160 people. Not nearly enough to feed our 1,878,484 people in the peak months!
This can be tackled in a three ways I can think of. We could argue that the people of Greater Waterdeep are self-sufficient on their blocks of land, which seems a fair argument. That's 892,800 self-sufficient citizens to add to 524,160, giving us a population supported of 1,416,960 - more than enough to get the base population through the year, but not enough for the summertime visitors. The second way is to use magic - for instance the Watchful Order might have spells that make the land especially fertile. The third way is to import it.
Either way, Waterdeep is probably going to have to import some food. The FRCS claims that some of Waterdeep's most important imports are grain and livestock, so this lines up with canon. My personal feeling is that anything more needed would be imported from Goldenfields. It's not far, they produce lots of food, and it probably tastes great with the blessings of Chauntea. It could be argued that Goldenfields couldn't produce enough with it's tiny area, quoted by Volo back in the day as 30 square miles. However, Volo can be wrong, and even the map given in his guide shows Goldenfields looking bigger than that. The 4E FRCS also says that Goldenfields has expanded. In my campaign, Goldenfields farms a 1600 square mile area (approximately a 23 mile radius around the centre). With the blessings of Chauntea which make their land super arable and able to produce more (I would rule 2-3x to make it a really amazing place), these imports could potentially compensate for any deficiency Waterdeep has.
FOOTNOTE
I'm wrecked from writing that, let me know if you spot any inconsistencies or errors. This was pretty much all knocked out last night after midnight, so I wouldn't be incredibly surprised. Hope this helps your campaigns!
|
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 21 May 2016 04:04:53
|
|
|
Rymac
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2016 : 04:50:00
|
| That's a good breakdown. I wonder what the assumption is upon the number of meals a day. From my understanding, the 3 meals a day that we know is a relatively modern conceit. Food scarcity was much more common in the past, with the poor and non-urban getting hit the hardest. |
- Ryan |
 |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2016 : 05:38:36
|
I have done some work on production and consumption. It always depends on many factors.
Factors that matter include:
Yield of crop from seed, this is effected by climate conditions and seed used.
The food required to maintain life (It does not matter if one eats once a day or fives times a day) per person and animal supported (farm animals, plow horses, cows, and so on that crops are grown for). While editions sometimes changed this, last I recall only one pound of food was required per day. On Earth it has been reported that Roman Legion troops got 11 bushels (660 pounds) of wheat per year. Alexander the Great troops got 8 bushels (480 pounds) of wheat per year wheat. Both troops did get other foods as well, however those claims of cost clearly indicate Earth consumption is greater then Realms consumption.
As for amount of land to feed a person about 43,000 square food was considered the standard in medieval Europe. This might have included a portion for the plow Oxen or Horse.
The Realms has certain magics that increase crop yields when used, there is also an apparent lowed need of yield to feed each person.
|
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2016 : 18:12:42
|
When they say "Region" they mean like all the way out to Goldenfields, Amphail, Rassalantar, etc.
Also, Goldenfields is a magical "temple farm" that was created with an artifact of Chauntea. So more than likely it has much greater than average crop yields, and many sources state that Goldenfields is the source of much of Waterdeep's food. |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2016 : 03:20:51
|
| I'd have to disagree, in as far as the population for Goldenfields is included in the Sword Coast North section rather than the Waterdeep section of the FRCS. Also, Amphail is three day's ride north of Waterdeep, so out of the 30-40 mile radius of Waterdeep's control mentioned in the FRCS. Rassalantar could be in or out of that classification, but as it's patrolled by Waterdeep guards I'd be inclined to include it in the Agrarian Waterdeep area. An argument could definitely be made for including Amphail in Waterdeep's population, but as far as geography and the FRCS goes I'd be more inclined to include it in the Sword Coast North population. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
|
|
|
Rymac
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2016 : 03:54:17
|
| I think "Greater Waterdeep" constitutes what is called "the environs of Waterdeep", which was a web pdf supplement to Waterdeep: City of Splendors. That does include Amphail, Rassalantar, and Goldenfields, among other locations and landmarks. |
- Ryan |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 23 May 2016 : 07:53:26
|
For those interested, thanks to the above posters I decided to have a further look at this. I had a look at the supplement, and I've made some adjustments accordingly. The towns of Goldenfields, Rassalantar, and Amphail are the only main ones in the region, and they only make up a population of 6,374. This isn't really enough to change any calculations, but it did get me thinking.
I had a look at the Waterdeep region map from Scourge of the Sword Coast, and with the help of the map from the City of Splendors supplement, figured out that the "Waterdeep region" described as having a population of 1,215,179 probably refers to the area between the southern Sword Mountains in the northwest, the Forlorn Hills in the east, the cliffside running north-south between Mount Illefarn & the Forlorn Hills, the Delimbiyr Route, and the Sea of Swords. As the humanoid populations of Ardeep Forest, Stump Bog, and the Rat Hills are minimal (as far as I'm aware, corrections welcome), I took this area out the calculation, and came up with a total of 5,687 square miles making up the Waterdeep Region.
This still gives us a population density for the entire region of 213.7 as an average, which is pretty high for outside major towns and cities. For example, the region around Daggerford probably has a density of between 5 & 1 per square mile as far as I can tell (2000 people spread between the 900 in Daggerford and hamlets up to about 20 miles out).
I decided to take a population density of 1 person per square mile for the areas I guess were less populated in the Waterdeep region, which is a little bit less than the population density of the Duchy of Daggerford, but still holds people. Looking at the map and have a guess at which areas would likely be less populated, I assigned this figure to 3,095 sq miles of the 5,687 (54.4%). This of course means this Wider Region hold 3,095 people.
The more arable areas in the Waterdeep region I figured as spreading out from the lower Dessarin valley and the Ardeep river valley, spreading right up towards, but not quite to, Rassalantar and the Sword Mountains. These areas have a good fresh water source, and they're within range of the 30-40 mile control of Waterdeep mentioned in the FRCS, so I figured they'd be perfect for a higher density of farming. I figured this was about 2520 square miles (44.3%) of the land. This makes up my new Agrarian Waterdeep. The calculations re: space are the same as above, as I put a density of 100 people per square mile here. The population of Agrarian Waterdeep now is 252,000 - a little bit less than it was in the above calculations. This would produce enough food for 453,600 without any magical aid etc, meaning Waterdeep still needs to be import heaps.
This of course leaves a huge population unchecked.
Agrarian Waterdeep 2.0: 252,000
Wider Region: 3,097
Rassalantar: 200
Amphail: 850
Goldenfields: 5,324 (as per the CoS supplement)
Total out of required 1,215,179: 261,471 (21.5%)
This still leaves us with 953,708 people to put somewhere. I decided to stick to my earlier "Greater Waterdeep" idea, representing Undercliff and up to about 72 square miles around the city. This is an area spreading out from Waterdeep in a radius of 6 miles, taking the sea into account.This leaves this area with a population density of 13,246 people per square mile, about half that of the City of Waterdeep during winter. Taking 70% of the land as actual holdings, this gives us 137 square metres of land holdings per person, and so a family of 3 will have a plot of land of about 411 square metres (20 metres x 20 metres, or about 66 x 66 ft), on average.
As far as my above post goes, I think the City of Waterdeep bit still holds up, Greater Waterdeep has packed itself into a smaller area around the city, and Agrarian Waterdeep approximates the same area, building out from the river beds. I'd add to this a "Wider Waterdeep Region" bit for the 3,097 people scattered throughout the rest of the region, and the 6,374 people in Goldenfields, Rassalantar, and Amphail.
As an aside, the offical area of Goldenfields as of 5E I believe is 20 square miles - I would think the blessings of Chauntea would need to make it produce AT LEAST 100x normal to be able to supplement Waterdeep, and more likely about 300x! Chauntea or no Chauntea, I think I'll be enlarging it in my own campaign. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 23 May 2016 08:05:40 |
|
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 24 May 2016 : 02:11:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rymac
I think "Greater Waterdeep" constitutes what is called "the environs of Waterdeep", which was a web pdf supplement to Waterdeep: City of Splendors. That does include Amphail, Rassalantar, and Goldenfields, among other locations and landmarks.
That's exactly what I was trying to say thank you. It's stated numerous places in the canon that Goldenfields and the surrounding areas agriculture directly supports Waterdeep.
So to me while I find your take interesting it's a somewhat pointless discussion to have.
The "Environs of Waterdeep" definitely indicates that the region works together from an economic and agricultural standpoint.
Many other sources make it pretty clear also that most of Waterdeeps food must be imported.
You're also overlooking two important aspects: off shore fishing and sea trade (or trade in general).
The main component to this is understanding that the average diet of the average citizen is generally bland, and made up of easy and cheaply obtainable foods like flour, ale and a few cheap vegetables.
The vast majority of what makes up the average diet can and is shipped long distances both overland and sea.
Everything else, including meat, would mostly be available only for those that could afford it.
So, assuming everyone has (economic) access to fruits, vegetables and meat then no there probably isn't enough agriculture to support that number of people.
However, assuming that the vast majority of those people are lower class, and essentially can only afford basic grains, flour, ale, and some fish, then those numbers you're throwing out become much more realistic.
In my game, much of the land between the coast as far inland as Yartar is in farms of some sort, or grazed by rothe/sheep.
The canon mentions numerous stockyards, grain stores, warehouses and trade hubs in Triboar, Yartar and other smaller settlements.
Well there isn't enough people in the countryside to create a demand for all that meat so of course it's destined for Waterdeep, along with other easily transportable foodstuffs, grains, root vegetables, etc.
So to me there is no question there is more than enough land in production to support Waterdeeps population, most assuredly when paired with off shore fishing, sea trade, and etc.
In my game as well, roof top gardens are pretty ubiquitous given the abundance of water stored in rooftop cisterns which can go a long way in supplementing the food stores of the average family and for free!
Then of course you throw magic into that, and some other factors like the trade angle.
To me at least (I'm NO historian), it seems like in the North in general is MUCH more developed. Trade seems...well easier than what seems to have been the norm in OUR medieval times.
The North is built upon a huge system of caravans, and frankly the only reason many of these places exist is for trade of some sort or to support trade in some way (caravan stop overs etc).
And then you have the topographic factors, with hundreds of miles of generally gentle terrain (not mountainous), massive river valleys (both wide and unrealistically long).
It's been well documented in other areas and times (1800s) that a SINGLE river of that length and size supported ENTIRE INDUSTRIES for food fish and annual production reached nearly A BILLION POUNDS per year, and that was just what was documented. MILLIONS of pounds were thrown away because they "didn't look nice enough" for the markets in the cities.
I realize technology made much of that possible to bring to market, but for me anyway I'm able to explain away that perceived gap due to a) magic and b) the incredible developed and efficient trade networks both land and sea.
This is a very interesting discussion to have in any regard.
To me anything that gets us thinking about how to make the Realms feel more real and lived in is a worthwhile discussion to have.
|
Edited by - Cards77 on 24 May 2016 02:25:04 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 24 May 2016 : 03:57:09
|
Thanks for that take on it Cards! I hadn't thought about a lot of that stuff.
I had always assumed there wouldn't be much a population far away from towns due to the prevalence of monsters, but having more people around definitely makes it easier to explain both the population & the food situation.
Is there any official word on population density outside of towns? Or wandering monster frequency?
Trying to decide for my own campaign whether to go for:
- An area around Waterdeep and the Lower Dessarin Valley averaging about 450/square mile, with the rest of the area sparse at 1-5/square mile due to monster presence
- Or an area as described by Cards77 where farms spread throughout the North, at a guess averaging between 25-100 people per square mile, with minimal monster presence
(If taking the Waterdeep environs population as in the area described in above post, this is about 214/square mile in the Waterdeep reigon, but no doubt far less in the rest of the North) |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 24 May 2016 04:50:55 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 24 May 2016 : 16:14:00
|
I hadn't really thought about trying to put a definite number on population density for the area. If you read closely through Volo's Guide to the North, and some of the other sources, it essentially states that the named settlements are surrounded by outlying farmsteads and ranches. So you could essentially double the population of each named town within a days ride to account for that. Also, there would be farmsteads along each major road. Then it's alluded to in several sources that there are an unknown number of unnamed "thorps" scattered throughout (think Conyberry or Auckney).
There are definitely monsters....everywhere. The sources all state in numerous places that monster attacks are frequent, even on fortified towns. Heck in the winter sometimes even Waterdeep is attacked. |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2016 : 02:21:51
|
The 2E campaign setting mentions that 18 miles around major cities and 6 miles around towns is "civilized". What regions are wilderness and borderlands is unfortunately less well defined as far as I can tell (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), as is the populations of such areas. Somehow I doubt there will be anything much more official out there.
Edit: it does say that borderlands random encounters have a 50/50 chance of being civilized or wilderness (monsters). So maybe 18 miles out of major cities is when the population drops down significantly to the small thorps far apart sort of level. For something like Waterdeep I'd increase the 18 to 30-40 like in the 3E FRCS, and have monster attacks start beyond that.
Edit 2: It seems to me that the 2E "borderlands" is just the literal border between civilized and wilderness areas. This would imply that within 6 miles of a town is civilized, 12 miles might be borderlands (using a 6 mile hex), and beyond 12 miles would be wilderness with thorps and so forth few and far between. That's just my interpretation though! |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 25 May 2016 03:06:26 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2016 : 04:55:09
|
If we go with the option where the vast majority of the population is settled in the 30-40 miles or so around Waterdeep and the Lower Dessarin Valley, and take that population of 450 people per square mile, the English district of South Cambridgeshire makes a pretty good analogue in my opinion. South Cambridgeshire has a population density of 414 people per square mile, which is very close. It also is the sole district surrounding a city of Waterdeep's size - Cambridge has a population of 119,100, and a density of 8,888/square mile (admittedly 1/3rd of the City of Waterdeep, but I'd take this). For the record, I got my stats for this from the Cambridgeshire Land Use Analysis 2010, available online.
South Cambridgeshire's population is admittedly only 143,600, and it's area is only 348 square miles, but it does have the population density of the area that would be required if the vast majority of the population was within the area of Waterdeep's control. But enlarge the population and area by about 8x, you get an approximation of the population and area I described in the first option above, with an equivalent density. So it's an equivalent of South Cambridgeshire, 8x bigger.
According to the report, 81% of South Cambridgeshire is allocated to agriculture. In the terms we were describing earlier (180 people fed by 1 square mile of agricultural land), that's 367,380 people fed by 2,041 square miles of agricultural land. Admittedly, these are different standards, as if we are still going by the "only 100 people would live on a square mile of agricultural land" rule defined in one of the earlier post's reference, that would only give us 204,100 people on that 81% of land, still leaving 1,001,608 people for the remaining 19% of land (479 square miles). So although the population density overall would be around 450, the agricultural population is 100/square mile, and the town/village population density is 2,091 per square mile.
This could be acceptable in some ways... I'm back off to work but this required more thought. As a simplistic break down it's like having each 1 square mile of dense town surrounded by 4 square miles of farmland. Maybe this would work... but right now I gotta go.
Edit: This might just be able to suit the Option 1 interpretation... with the average settlement being a town of 2,091, 1 square mile. This surrounded by 4 square miles of farmland. The closest town on average would be two miles away, which I think fits ok with medieval villages...These would be averages too... maybe most villages are 1/4 the size at 500 people, with there being bigger ones dotted here and there... Ok now I really gotta go. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 25 May 2016 05:08:04 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2016 : 11:18:30
|
Decided to split it up in a different way, still trying to reason out "Option 1".
The 1,205,710 people in that 2520 square miles of Waterdeep region, is 478 people/square mile. That gives the average medieval family of 4.5 a 2.4 hectare plot of land. Not enough for a substantial farm (average medieval plot of land per family was 12.3 hectares according to above sources). But let's say 1 family possesses the 85% of the land of 6 families - this gives us the 12.3 hectare block for that 1 family, and the remaining 5 families share 2.2 hectares. But, we need some land for roads and public spaces, so let's take away 0.7 hectares of that (5% of land), leaving the 5 families with 0.3 hectares each - still a 55 x 55 metre block (180 x 180 feet), making up 10% of the available land.
So the land is broken up by 85% farms, 10% urban, 5% other.
The urban areas I'd assign into small villages of about 450 (100 families) dotted throughout the region. 100 urban families live on a total of 30 hectares - the approximate size of a village. At a ratio of 1 farming family : 5 urban families, this gives us 20 farms around each village. So that's 30 hectares of village surrounded by 246 hectares of farm, intersected by 14 hectares of roads and other misc spaces. This overall space is 290 hectares (1.12 sq mi), and holds 540 people, giving us the population density we need.
If we're doing it this way, this means the region (2,520 square miles) holds 2,250 of these village/farm blocks of 540 people. The distance between each village would be just over a mile, about a 20 minute walk. Admittedly this is really close, but I can't think of a better way to fit all these people into this space without having far bigger settlements.
An alternative for longer spaces between settlements could be with 4,500 people a settlement (1000 families), and thereby 200 farms, 5400 people, over 2900 hectares (11.2 square miles). These "large towns" would be 3.3 miles apart, about an hours walk. Which method you prefer depends on your vision for the region I guess.
You could also do a combination of the two. The 3E DMG implies the ratio of people living in villages and smaller compared to towns is about 10:1 - this leaves us with:
24 towns of 4500 (one every 105 square miles, a little over 10 miles away from each other)
1993 villages of 450 (about a mile away from each other)
44,660 farms of 4.5 people
This makes up our total population, approximately.
As far as agriculture goes, 1 family of farmers works the 12.3 hectare plot to produce enough food for 9 people by the 1 square mile = 180 people fed rule. That's their family fed, plus one other. So that means 2/3rds of families rely on other sources of food, eg. imports, fishing, magical enhancement, etc. The City of Waterdeep people are in the same position.
Anyway, I'm acutely aware that the above won't suit a lot of people (I'm not even sure it suits me), but it's the best explanation I can come up with for the population in the Waterdeep area, especially while maintaining the wider region as being only lightly populated. It's what I'll be using in my campaign, I think. Hope this helps someone out there!
Edit: If you're not the type to count children in your census, this all could go out. I'd take them into the total region count (the 1,347,840 referred to), but (possibly?) not count them in town and village populations for the purposes of describing to players. So the villages of 450 suddenly become villages of 200-300 or so, and the towns drop down to about 2,000 - 3,000 - suddenly a lot less intimidating. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 25 May 2016 11:28:55 |
|
|
|
Starshade
Learned Scribe
Norway
279 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2016 : 13:26:48
|
| Real life Rome did not have enough food resources in its vicinity to sustain itself. The romans imported food trough trade. Waterdeep easily could import some. |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2016 : 07:45:59
|
For those interested, or whom stumble across this scroll in the future doing their own research, I found this deep in the Questions for Ed 2010 scroll (page 34), courtesy of the esteemed Blueblade.
quote:
...several lore sources speak of the land immediately around the city being kept as open meadows for caravans to camp/assemble/disassemble, and for the nobles to hawk in, and citizens to walk and eat (picnic) lunches in (see the CITY OF SPLENDORS novel, the Environs of Waterdeep DRAGON article, VOLO'S GUIDE TO THE SWORD COAST, and Ed's "New Adventures of Volo" column in DRAGON, specifically the instalment about the maid they chase).
We know that a day's ride out from the walls that there are villages and hamlets on the roads (with stables for Waterdeep's patrols to secure remounts in) and that from there outwards there are indeed noble "country holds," usually centered around a walled mansion or keep. And yes, it's verdant farmland/grassland (ranching land).
I very much doubt Waterdeep is going to welcome strangers arriving and building full-sized castles anywhere near the city, though...and castles take a LONG time to build, so they'll have ample opportunity to halt construction or just have Watchful Order magists blast the a-building stonework to rubble (again and again, until the builder gets the message).
I'm not trying to horn in and speak for THO or Ed here, it's just that this is a topic that came up repeatedly at GenCon seminars (I'm thinking a lot of players wanted to establish "adventurers' bases" for their PCs outside the city's reach, for Waterdeep-focused campaigns), and I've heard Ed give answers to it many a time...hence all the stuff I've said above.
So, as Ed would say, hope this is of help.
BB
With this in mind, until further information comes to light I think I'll pack in my attempts to justify the larger population figures for the region. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
|
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2016 : 15:41:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by KanzenAU
For those interested, or whom stumble across this scroll in the future doing their own research, I found this deep in the Questions for Ed 2010 scroll (page 34), courtesy of the esteemed Blueblade.
quote:
...several lore sources speak of the land immediately around the city being kept as open meadows for caravans to camp/assemble/disassemble, and for the nobles to hawk in, and citizens to walk and eat (picnic) lunches in (see the CITY OF SPLENDORS novel, the Environs of Waterdeep DRAGON article, VOLO'S GUIDE TO THE SWORD COAST, and Ed's "New Adventures of Volo" column in DRAGON, specifically the instalment about the maid they chase).
We know that a day's ride out from the walls that there are villages and hamlets on the roads (with stables for Waterdeep's patrols to secure remounts in) and that from there outwards there are indeed noble "country holds," usually centered around a walled mansion or keep. And yes, it's verdant farmland/grassland (ranching land).
I very much doubt Waterdeep is going to welcome strangers arriving and building full-sized castles anywhere near the city, though...and castles take a LONG time to build, so they'll have ample opportunity to halt construction or just have Watchful Order magists blast the a-building stonework to rubble (again and again, until the builder gets the message).
I'm not trying to horn in and speak for THO or Ed here, it's just that this is a topic that came up repeatedly at GenCon seminars (I'm thinking a lot of players wanted to establish "adventurers' bases" for their PCs outside the city's reach, for Waterdeep-focused campaigns), and I've heard Ed give answers to it many a time...hence all the stuff I've said above.
So, as Ed would say, hope this is of help.
BB
With this in mind, until further information comes to light I think I'll pack in my attempts to justify the larger population figures for the region.
I don't think that's germane to what exactly you're trying to do. What he said is Waterdeep would not allow powerful PCs or other "rogue" groups to build fortified structures near the city (typically within a few miles).
This makes sense because the Lords wouldn't exactly want a bunch of powerful adventurers with their own fortifications and minions on Waterdeeps doorstep. Though, ironically the city itself is home to numerous VERY powerful "rogue" NPCs.
What he said does not in any way mean there can't be farmsteads and market farms within a days or more ride of Waterdeep.
There is no "agricultural exclusion zone" around Waterdeep. Woodlots, hedge rows and overgrown fields are perfect for hawking and hunting. Just look at rural England or Ireland.
I think what you're on to is much more realistic than just "oh there's a bunch of grass all around Waterdeep and nothing else"
|
|
|
|
moonbeast
Senior Scribe
USA
522 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2016 : 19:47:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rymac
I think "Greater Waterdeep" constitutes what is called "the environs of Waterdeep", which was a web pdf supplement to Waterdeep: City of Splendors. That does include Amphail, Rassalantar, and Goldenfields, among other locations and landmarks.
Ah I see.
The term "Greater Waterdeep" is somewhat misleading, since it implies territorial and/or political control of those outlying areas by Waterdeep itself.
IMHO, it's quite difficult for a single city-state to exert control (or influence) on towns/villages that are more than 1-2 days ride out. That's "day's ride" as in a courier horse ride.
Exertion of control would be different if it had been a true feudal monarchy. As a theoretical example, if Waterdeep had been a kingdom, the King of Waterdeep might exert nominal control on territories more than 100 miles away. It would be possible if there had been Dukes/Barons that governed the faraway towns and territories, assuming those Dukes remain loyal and continue to serve on behalf of a Waterdhavian King. |
Edited by - moonbeast on 19 Jun 2016 19:49:07 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2016 : 20:11:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Given that waterdeep is the largest centre of commerce for a few hundred miles, and the other major power is the predatory city of luskan, i think its easy for waterdeep to exert control beyond a days ride.
They could use pure monetary power to exert control (through bribes), they could offer protection to those that cooperate, they could cut off access to trade markets.
And thats just the lords. The nobles themselves are powerful and own lands throughout the region, they could easily manipulate surrounding settlements by buying property their and maintaining a presence there.
Agreed, and lets not mistake "control" for "presence". Waterdeep has a "presence" almost all the way to Calling Horns. However, no one is going to claim they control any area more than 1 days ride from the city.
First and foremost, Waterdeep and the Lords are MOST concerned with trade and financial stability. A large area with productive farms that trade or create goods bound for Waterdeep is very much in their best interests and something they strive greatly for.
Just as in England and other countries, those that can afford it have rural estates for their hunting/hawking needs.
|
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2016 : 09:05:12
|
My main problem with trying to work this out is reconciling the 1,215,179 people mentioned for the Waterdeep area outside the city in the 3E FRCS, with the area I can calculate for that region, going on the locations described by the Waterdeep Environs supplement. However, I've decided to try a different tack and use different source maps to see if they give different area calculations.
Using the SotSC map (as above), I came up with 5,687 square miles (213 people/square mile).
I tried using the new Mike Schley SCAG map in the hope the area would be bigger, but that only got me 2,600 square miles for the same region (467 people/square mile).
Unfortunately neither of these really fit for me with the imagery that Blueblade quoted Ed describing, just feels too packed.
However, I've just now done this with the map that came with the 3E FRCS, and the scale is actually much more favourable. I was able to get a figure of 14,800 square miles for the region, which gets us to 82 people per square mile - a lot more amenable to the picture Ed painted.
The Fonstad map too, got me to 11,000 square miles (110 people / sq mile).
These two could actually easily fit with an agricultural picture for the region!
It seems to me at the end of the day this may be a map issue, they're just very different. I probably should have used the 3E population figures with the 3E maps from the start, rookie error - I just didn't think there would be this much discrepancy! I think someone quotable has said at one point that the maps are not to be taken as gospel, they're just to give a vague idea of where things are, and that the Fonstad maps are the most accurate distance wise.
In summary, I think my best interpretation of the regional population figures as it stands has to rely on Cards77's idea of the population being all the way through the Waterdeep environs area, not just in the 30-40 miles around Waterdeep. This spread over the Fonstad or the 3E campaign setting map works out to a rural population that seems to work. Of course, this means the entire area between the coast and the Forlorn Hills, and Goldenfields and the Delimbiyr route is populated (minus Ardeep forest, Stump Bog), but I think that's perfectly workable. 82 or 110 people per square mile is an average anyway, and could be packed up to 140 per square mile around the Lower Dessarin valley, with less people being in the area east of Ardeep forest.
Edit: typos, grammar 
Edit 2: When I say I used the Fonstad map, I actually used the Interactive Atlas. I don't know if this is Fonstad or not actually, I may be confusing it with the other Atlas product. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 20 Jun 2016 09:19:22 |
|
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2016 : 15:44:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by KanzenAU
My main problem with trying to work this out is reconciling the 1,215,179 people mentioned for the Waterdeep area outside the city in the 3E FRCS, with the area I can calculate for that region, going on the locations described by the Waterdeep Environs supplement. However, I've decided to try a different tack and use different source maps to see if they give different area calculations.
Using the SotSC map (as above), I came up with 5,687 square miles (213 people/square mile).
I tried using the new Mike Schley SCAG map in the hope the area would be bigger, but that only got me 2,600 square miles for the same region (467 people/square mile).
Unfortunately neither of these really fit for me with the imagery that Blueblade quoted Ed describing, just feels too packed.
However, I've just now done this with the map that came with the 3E FRCS, and the scale is actually much more favourable. I was able to get a figure of 14,800 square miles for the region, which gets us to 82 people per square mile - a lot more amenable to the picture Ed painted.
The Fonstad map too, got me to 11,000 square miles (110 people / sq mile).
These two could actually easily fit with an agricultural picture for the region!
It seems to me at the end of the day this may be a map issue, they're just very different. I probably should have used the 3E population figures with the 3E maps from the start, rookie error - I just didn't think there would be this much discrepancy! I think someone quotable has said at one point that the maps are not to be taken as gospel, they're just to give a vague idea of where things are, and that the Fonstad maps are the most accurate distance wise.
In summary, I think my best interpretation of the regional population figures as it stands has to rely on Cards77's idea of the population being all the way through the Waterdeep environs area, not just in the 30-40 miles around Waterdeep. This spread over the Fonstad or the 3E campaign setting map works out to a rural population that seems to work. Of course, this means the entire area between the coast and the Forlorn Hills, and Goldenfields and the Delimbiyr route is populated (minus Ardeep forest, Stump Bog), but I think that's perfectly workable. 82 or 110 people per square mile is an average anyway, and could be packed up to 140 per square mile around the Lower Dessarin valley, with less people being in the area east of Ardeep forest.
Edit: typos, grammar
Edit 2: When I say I used the Fonstad map, I actually used the Interactive Atlas. I don't know if this is Fonstad or not actually, I may be confusing it with the other Atlas product.
I agree with your assessment. It's no secret that the maps have gradually been shrinking with each subsequent edition. That may explain why the older maps seem to cover much more area (because they do). An even older map may be even larger, I don't recall.
What I do recall is several locations being "cropped out" all together, namely the Westwood, and several settlements and landmarks. |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2016 : 05:19:53
|
I made a mistake with my calculations with the Schley SCAG map, and did it quite the injustice. It actually is pretty accurate compared to the old maps, and comes to just under 11,000 square miles (110 people/square mile)! Gave the Fonstad map from the Atlas the same treatment - it also came to about 11,000 square miles. This is consistent with the Interactive Atlas, the SCAG map, and on relooking at the 3E map, taking into account things like the Westwood, I think it's the most appropriate number.
Regional populations
For my own game, I'm going to loosely divide this area into three equally sized regions, by how densely I think they would be populated. So each is assigned 33.3% of the land area, or 3,667 square miles. This is all based on Eric L Boyd's Environs of Waterdeep. Density figures, as always, are averages. The following areas don't factor into this equation, as they have a far lower population density:
Ardeep forest, Forlorn Hills, Mere of Death Men, Rat Hills, Sword Mountains, Stump Bog.
Most densely populated: Lower Dessarin Vale (from Goldenfields down to Waterdeep, including Amphail, Rassalantar). (141 people/square mile, pop: 518,849)
Medium density: "Delimbiyran" region (north of Delimbyr route), Northern Coast, Southern Coast. (110 people/square mile, pop: 403,370)
Lower density: "Elembar" region. (80 people/square mile, pop: 293,360)
So, all these areas are well populated and densely farmed, just in certain regions that's denser than others.
I think this lines up just fine with the description Blueblade overheard Ed give.
Enforcement
We know that Waterdeep "controls" the 30-40 miles around the city, with guards patrolling up to about 15 miles past Amphail as far as the Long Road is concerned, but only as far as Zundbridge to the south. The rest of the region, the vast majority of it, is presumably defended by local militias, with Waterdeep's Guard only coming out to deal with larger threats. Elembar would probably be entirely self-policing, being outside the 40 mile radius of control.
Agriculture, again
As far as the agriculture and food produced, we have 11,000 square miles of land to deal with: I'm going to arbitrarily decide that 10,000 of this (90.9%) is arable and farmed. The Lower Dessarin Valley alone (3,667 square miles, 3,333 of it arable) will produce enough food for 599,940 people - it's own population, + an extra 81,091 people. This is without taking the extra producing power of Goldenfields into account.
The rest of the Waterdeep environs (middle and lower density areas) would provide enough food for another 1,119,880 people, feeding their own areas, with enough to feed an extra 503,150 people.
503,150 + 81,091 is 584,241 people fed: more than enough to feed the City of Waterdeep during the low season. The high season city population numbers (663,305) only requires extra food for 79,064 people -> this could potentially be provided for by the extra producing power of Goldenfields, and could easily be accounted for by imports.
I think this works... feedback encouraged!
Edit: added little bit more into enforcement |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 21 Jun 2016 05:26:48 |
|
|
|
xaviera
Learned Scribe
Canada
149 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2016 : 17:15:12
|
| 'Create Food and Water' spells (if these exist beyond 2e) may go some way toward alleviating starvation/undernourishment in poorer areas, allowing them to support larger populations. Druidic blessings of fields may also significantly increase crop yields (and possibly provide opportunities for economic blackmail if done on a contractual basis). |
Writings on Sharess: Thoughts & Prayers by Xaviera ~ High Priestess of Sharess |
|
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2016 : 15:26:57
|
I thought about this some more. I think the real question here is: where does all the fuel that Waterdeep needs to cook and keep warm come from? Wood and coal. Where are all the coal mines? Where does the coal come from? Where does all the wood come from? Say in a difficult winter the average Waterdeep tall house needs 7-9 cords of wood or ??? lbs of coal. How many trees is that? Wouldn't the entire area around Waterdeep be totally devoid of trees? I don't know of any coal mines in the North.
And......lets just not even talk about salt shall we? |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2016 : 00:00:14
|
I thought about some of this myself a while back, and here's what I found about coal:
I stumbled on a post by The Hooded One in Qs for Ed on the 1st of August, 2010. This is an excerpt, but the general gist is that coal isn't really used on the surface, except in certain places.
quote:
Coal is used in dwarven and gnome forges in the Underdark, and for cooking fires down there, but only used in a few rare spots on the surface world, where veins of soft coal are readily worked from the surface. Charcoal, which anyone can get and make (cover your fire with turf so that it chars the wood slowly, and you have charcoal), is used instead.
Another post by THO circa 15/7/13 tells us that the easy to access coal veins in the Spine of the World have been worked out by dwarves long ago.
So I don't think we need to think about coal mines... but the amount of trees needed for that much charcoal seems to me to be quite astronomical (having very little knowledge on the subject). Definitely food for thought. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 24 Aug 2016 00:02:17 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2016 : 00:03:43
|
And here's a couple notes I dug up on salt:
Quoting THO 22/9/10:
quote:
From Realmsplay I do recall, off the top of my aging head, that salt is a valuable food preservative as it was in the real-world European Middle Ages, but that it's not as expensive in the Realms as in the real world back then, because it's not as scarce and as difficult to get.
And 30/9/10:
quote:
I ran down one of my notes from play: there's abundant salt to be had in the northern Shaar, in surface mines in Estagund (ancient sea deposits), and in a tidal bay in Unther, among other places. So salt is (relatively) plentiful, and carried via caravans throughout the Heartlands. It's about as expensive as good meat is, in real-world North American supermarkets, today: expensive, but not wildly so.
Of course, this doesn't tell us where they get it from in the North exactly, but it's a start. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2016 : 02:19:20
|
Another thought I had about this, regarding wood as a source of charcoal... a far greater portion of the North used to be covered in forests. The map in Lost Empires of Faerun dating to -626 DR shows far greater forest coverage, and I'm assuming most of this has been cut away by humans over the following 2000 or so years. Each century following, the forests got a little smaller, until we have what's left on the maps of the 1300s and 1400s.
The forests of the North might at this point be a very precious resource. I'm not aware of any specific lore on logging of the large forests, but I imagine there's limited amounts going on in certain areas of most of them. Due to the forest's diminished nature, these logging areas are probably frequently attacked by those wishing to defend their forest homes, probably increasing the cost of wood. In the Hoard of the Dragon Queen adventure, there was a merchant travelling to Waterdeep importing Chultian wood, and perhaps Chult is a source of a lot of imported wood?
Just some thoughts while they occur to me. Going to think on this, great query Cards77! |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
|
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2016 : 15:23:37
|
I'm pretty certain if we crunched the numbers we'd find that having enough wood for Waterdeep is going to be impossible. I have access to realistic data on tree per acre and other metrics. If we knew what the area of the forests are near Waterdeep I could take a stab at figuring out how many trees per acre it could support, and how much fuelwood the average tree could provide. That could give us an idea of this is even in the realm of realism. My guess is we'll need a healthy does of Suspension of Disbelief for the fuel wood part of FR life. Making charcoal requires more wood than simply burning wood, though it would be necessary for smithing work, etc.
Also there is cost: average cord of wood in my area is about $120, with 6-7 cord necessary for a normal winter if wood is your sole source of heat. That would be a substantial cost for most normal FR folk, my guess is probably not doable (which would explain why several families may share a tallhouse etc). |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Waterdeep Population, Density, & Agriculture
