In a medieval setting, a kingdom had about 50% percent of its population killed (this includes all ages). About 50% of infrastructure was in need of repair, and a separate 25% of infrastructure needed to be rebuilt from the ground up (infrastructure includes bridges, defined roads, and various city buildings). Most damage to the infrastructure was via fire.

10 years after this, with normal and peaceful functions occurring during those years, how much of the population and infrastructure will have been restored? Note that the government, which has a lot of money/resources, wants to repair the country, but they prioritize trade routes, religious temples, and land that the rich own.

Also note that the population of this country was quite large given the medieval period, probably up to a million before being killed (I don't have an exact number), so even though the population was knocked down to about 500,000, the population regrowth wasn't limited by in-breeding. The kingdom also had immigrants in those ten recovering years because although the country was struggling, neighboring countries were oppressive and the cause of the population loss was permanently disposed of. Still, immigrants weren't super enthusiastic to travel to the kingdom.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This looks a lot like a real world question. Specifically, have you done any research into the Black Death --- the great Plague? Pretty much just google Black Death and Europe and you'll find more information than you can possibly use! I'm going to vote to close this a) because of lack of research, but b) because I don't see how this query relates to your fictional world specifically. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Jun 2 at 23:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @lost_not_found Possibly you might want to research the history of a nation which lost at least half oi its population killed in during a few years. There is such a nation - Paraguay. And there are examples of states, such as Indian tribes, that suffered at least half of their population killed in an epidemic, and were hit by several such epidemics in their histories. $\endgroup$ Jun 3 at 4:48
  • $\begingroup$ Upvote tooltip- "This question shows research effort; it is useful and clear" Downvote tooltip- "This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful" The correct response to a lack of research is downvotes, not a closure vote, and lots of questions relate to scenarios which have played out in real life history. $\endgroup$
    – Nepene Nep
    Jun 3 at 8:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @elemtilas The reason using information around the black death doesn't work for my question is that the black death didn't just stop. It started in the mid 1300s but had the last report of an outbreak in 1721. Yes, it certainly subsided, but it didn't stop for a long time, and it stopped due to (from my research) modernization, ending up no longer fitting my medieval era. In my story, half the population is killed, but then normal functions continue. The black plague was damaging for a long time and slowly went away rather than stopping like in my story, therefore preventing recovery. $\endgroup$ Jun 3 at 12:53
  • $\begingroup$ Well, that is a condition you didn't specify in the question. Also, how does that condition change my comment? Hint: you don't have to use the Black Death specifically. Choose a war! Plenty of those as well. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Jun 4 at 4:14

2 Answers 2

  • 500,000 people remain alive, "of all ages". I will also assume "of both sexes".

  • How many children can 250,000 women "of all ages" produce in 10 years? Assuming that about half of the women are of child-bearing age, about 350,000.

  • What was the child mortality in the Middle Ages? About 40% from birth to 10 years of age.

  • How many children remain? About 210,000.

  • How many people have died of old age, disease and so on in those 10 years? About 80,000.

  • The net natural population growth is births minus deaths, or about 130,000.

A note about immigration:

That was not really a big thing in the Middle Ages. Travel was very expensive. I would be very surprised if the kingdom got more than 10,000 immigrants in 10 years.

  • $\begingroup$ You know, when I first read this question, I wondered why the OP couldn't just look at a graph of world population over time and answer the question directly. That's pretty much what you've done (with a great explanation of how). $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 4 at 6:09
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexPI think that you are wrong. Immigration was a thing that happened a lot during middle ages, course it had a different name, "Barbarian invasion." Visgoths, steppe tribesmen, beduins, turks all immigrated to new lands, often as they were pushed out of their old lands by other immigrants. Or the new immigrants could be called "our beloved new overlords" Anglos, Saxons, Normands, Ottomans, Murghal dynasty.... $\endgroup$
    – Questor
    Jun 5 at 17:00
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexP Contemporary estimate is 14k to 150k. Modern estimate is between 5k and 15k. Still an example of a medieval era immigration. My point wasn't about numbers but about the effect of medieval era immigration (subjugation of the previous inhabitants) As to the ottomans.. So technically they were the Kayi Turks... Who took over from the Seljuk Empire (Ruled by a different Turkish tribe) which was an empire forged in blood by a mass migration of Turkish steppe tribesmen. $\endgroup$
    – Questor
    Jun 5 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ Saying that calling the Turks 'Ottomans" is wrong even though that's what the Anglosphere calls them English name for them is a bit Pendantic because we are typing freaking english... And for the average person they will probably know who the Ottomans are but have clue who the Seljuk Empire (THe predecessor I was really refering to) is. So using "Ottoman" does a better job at transfering what region of the world/group of people I was talking to. $\endgroup$
    – Questor
    Jun 5 at 18:51
  • $\begingroup$ TLDR: purpose of communication is to communicate. That you understood who I refereed to because I used the most common (if wrong term) for a group of people means that my communication was successful. $\endgroup$
    – Questor
    Jun 5 at 18:53

It depends on luck and the work of safer areas

No destructive force is ever perfectly fair. Some areas likely had 100% destruction or 90% destruction and some escaped unscathed. The more destroyed areas are likely to have a major social breakdown, with all but some stubborn survivors fleeing to better areas.

As such, it will depend on the local warlords and merchants and powerful people how well they organize a recovery. If they can gather enough skilled people and equipment they can likely recover better, if not they might collapse to a feuding mess of broken districts.

Outsiders may raid them

Slaves, metal goods, gold silver and gems, all sorts of rare things are up for the grabs. Outsiders are likely to send raiding parties and armies to grab whatever they can so that they can get rich and settle in now empty regions.

As such, it depends on luck. They're not just gonna have a straight and easy recovery, that's not believable. It depends on how well they rally and unite and work to fix things, and how strong the external raiders and invaders are.

  • $\begingroup$ Conversely, they may raid outsiders. Fertile females would seem the obvious target. $\endgroup$ Jun 3 at 12:58

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .