Quote Originally Posted by Gumboot View Post
I'm not sure I'd completely agree with this. Villages still existed in dense networks where land was cultivated, there was just less settled land, as you say. The general guides as far as density still applied for the areas that were settled, so you'd tend to get high density areas with wilderness in between, and over time, as populations grew, that wilderness was cleared and cultivated, thus while the average population density of large regions (such as entire states) increased, the local density of cultivated areas remained pretty constant at around 180 people per square mile right through the entire period (the reason being that local population densities are driven more by grain yield). Great Britain's population may have increased significantly through the first half of the middle ages as the heavy mouldboard plough was introduced, but England's didn't increase quite as much as you suggest. There were about a million people there in Roman times (England was one of the empire's biggest grain producers), and this had increased to about 1.5 million by 1000AD and peaked at 3.5 million in 1348 (in other words it tripled over a period of about 1,200 years). The big difference is that by the 14th Century all of the British Isles was equally densely populated, while during the "Dark Ages" only Roman Britain was so densely populated with most of the remainder in wilderness state.
Yes the density was high at some point such as in northern Italy I am sure but the techniques and tool (and climate too) also allowed higher density. So you end up having better yeild. It is said that some places saw a massive increase in population such as Flanders because it used to be wilderness before. Well that was before 1315.

According to my book of history, here are the population number for England (Scotland excluded)

1100 :1.1 million
1250: 2 millions
1350: 4 millions
1400: 2 millions
1550: 3,5 millions

I think it's still a big increase