Why are historical estimations so terrible?

[sleeperul]

So I was reading about the spanish flu and it estimated it killed between 50 million and 100 millions people. So that is either 50 million or its double that or in between.
So how are these estimations so terrible it was 100 years ago only an population censuses existed over 1000 years ago.
The same with how many the mongols killed, the black death, Timurid, The 2 World Wars and many others.
Why are there such terrible estimations when population censuses existed for so so so so so so long?

 

[Geriander]

So I was reading about the spanish flu and it estimated it killed between 50 million and 100 millions people. So that is either 50 million or its double that or in between.
So how are these estimations so terrible it was 100 years ago only an population censuses existed over 1000 years ago.
The same with how many the mongols killed, the black death, Timurid, The 2 World Wars and many others.
Why are there such terrible estimations when population censuses existed for so so so so so so long?

There weren’t accurate population censuses everywhere in the world during the spanish flu, much less so during the earlier events you mention. For example there wasn’t a census for Britain prior to 1800 that counted anything but land owners like the Doomsday book did. Even when censuses were done they don’t always survive.

Even when there are accurate population counts, unless we can get records of cause of death it is going to be speculative. In the case of the spanish flu there was widespread starvation going on at the same time. A death at that time may be due to natural causes, the flu or malnutrition. If all we have is a census from before and after there may even be deaths in the war in there.

 

[sleeperul]

There weren’t accurate population censuses everywhere in the world during the spanish flu, much less so during the earlier events you mention. For example there wasn’t a census for Britain prior to 1800 that counted anything but land owners like the Doomsday book did. Even when censuses were done they don’t always survive.

Even when there are accurate population counts, unless we can get records of cause of death it is going to be speculative. In the case of the spanish flu there was widespread starvation going on at the same time. A death at that time may be due to natural causes, the flu or malnutrition. If all we have is a census from before and after there may even be deaths in the war in there.

How inaccurate are we talking about where the population censuses during the spanish flu? Like only property holders but not their spouses an children or their spouses an children? Where there no birth records or death certificates?

 

[Geriander]

How inaccurate are we talking about where the population censuses during the spanish flu? Like only property holders but not their spouses an children or their spouses an children? Where there no birth records or death certificates?

In what country? Most western nations had very accurate censuses but less so for their colonies. The revolution and civil war in Russia may also have screwed up their census for the relevant years.

This site has done a good job compiling census data per country: http://www.populstat.info

Looking at Russia during the civil war or practically any African nation for the period you will find large gaps or estimates instead of real numbers.

 

[sleeperul]

In what country? Most western nations had very accurate censuses but less so for their colonies. The revolution and civil war in Russia may also have screwed up their census for the relevant years.

This site has done a good job compiling census data per country: http://www.populstat.info

Looking at Russia during the civil war or practically any African nation for the period you will find large gaps or estimates instead of real numbers.

I realize that doing an census during an civil war (not an regular war its useful then very useful to do an census) is hard but doubt Russia took most of the death from the Spanish flu. But about the colonies are you telling me people there did not had birth certificates and death certificates. Nobody recorded their birth and their death?

 

[Arilou]

I realize that doing an census during an civil war (not an regular war its useful then very useful to do an census) is hard but doubt Russia took most of the death from the Spanish flu. But about the colonies are you telling me people there did not had birth certificates and death certificates. Nobody recorded their birth and their death?

For some people? Yes. Colonial governments were run on the cheap, they didnt want to waste money counting natives.

They might have been recorded somewhere, but the records have been destroyed or lost, or recorded in a way that is innaccessible.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

For some people? Yes. Colonial governments were run on the cheap, they didnt want to waste money counting natives.

They might have been recorded somewhere, but the records have been destroyed or lost, or recorded in a way that is innaccessible.

Yeah. And while deaths are usually recorded by the authorities (and with there being official tallies of "cause of death" in some places, particularly urban areas in Europe and North America), the actual practices of storing the information and diagnosing the cause of death were a bit uneven.

And in the case of the Spanish Flu, you have the bigger issues of relatively weak states (colonial or otherwise) in Africa and Asia, the collapse of most European governmental structures east of France, massive population movements, and a huge pandemic that overwhelmed the medical authorities. So accurate and consistent counting wasn't really possible on an international level.

 

[Geriander]

I realize that doing an census during an civil war (not an regular war its useful then very useful to do an census) is hard but doubt Russia took most of the death from the Spanish flu. But about the colonies are you telling me people there did not had birth certificates and death certificates. Nobody recorded their birth and their death?

Even in the cases when there were such records, compiling them was a nightmare. The British Empire managed to produce one unified census during its whole history (1906). Producing a total count of dead from the flu would be as big of a project.

 

[Arilou]

And it should be noted Spanish Flu is modern, There is census data. Try estimating the population of medieval Sweden sometime.

 

[sleeperul]

And it should be noted Spanish Flu is modern, There is census data. Try estimating the population of medieval Sweden sometime.

I do that censuses where done before there was even an Sweded or the medieval age maybe as I recall the Romans did that what stopped Sweden or anya other medieval country?

 

[Geriander]

I do that censuses where done before there was even an Sweded or the medieval age maybe as I recall the Romans did that what stopped Sweden or anya other medieval country?

With the exception of counting male Roman citizens for the purpose of voting and military service, I doubt that a Roman empire wide census was more detailed than the Doomsday book: an account of significant taxable assets. None survive so we don’t know for sure.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

With the exception of counting male Roman citizens for the purpose of voting and military service, I doubt that a Roman empire wide census was more detailed than the Doomsday book: an account of significant taxable assets. None survive so we don’t know for sure.

Roman empire had a poll tax on non-citizen peoples. Numbers were a taxable asset.

 

[sleeperul]

With the exception of counting male Roman citizens for the purpose of voting and military service, I doubt that a Roman empire wide census was more detailed than the Doomsday book: an account of significant taxable assets. None survive so we don’t know for sure.

Yes I get it they where burned or got degraded with centuries but we ignore something here the church. They had an certain census on married and baptized people they where recorded so they knew who was married with who how many children they had with who they had so forth.
Oh and also record death's also.

 

[Geriander]

Roman empire had a poll tax on non-citizen peoples. Numbers were a taxable asset.

Is it recorded who was legible for the poll tax? Every man, woman and child, every free person, every free person with property? I just don’t see the Roman tax farmer counting every beggar in the streets.

Yes I get it they where burned or got degraded with centuries but we ignore something here the church. They had an certain census on married and baptized people they where recorded so they knew who was married with who how many children they had with who they had so forth.
Oh and also record death's also.

Parish records is mostly a post 16th century thing and even then there are alot of cases of them degrading or being lost in fires. There are some older ones but it was only in the 16th century that keeping them was made mandatory in England and France. Sweden did so in the 1670s.

 

[sleeperul]

Is it recorded who was legible for the poll tax? Every man, woman and child, every free person, every free person with property? I just don’t see the Roman tax farmer counting every beggar in the streets.



Parish records is mostly a post 16th century thing and even then there are alot of cases of them degrading or being lost in fires. There are some older ones but it was only in the 16th century that keeping them was made mandatory in England and France. Sweden did so in the 1670s.

So an merchant could have wives in every city he traded it and nobody will know? Also all his children will be legitimate as an result?
But more on topic how did lords or nobles or whatever you wanna call dealt without an census so they know how much to tax that family or that family how many to conscript where that one live or that one who is dead to take what he has or not expect taxes from an dead person.

 

[pharaomatic]

I actually did some work like this, back when I wrote my master thesis, although on a quite smaller scale.

I wrote about Danishminded POWs in Russia during World War 1, a group of approximately 300 people and obviously some of them died in captivity, but it wasn't possible for me to reach a figure closer than between 10 and 50.

Why?

Main reason is that in history, unlike in archeology, dead men usually tell no tales. They don't leave any letters or sources, they just stop at some point. And obviously not everyone are regular writers at all.

I also restricted myself to using only Danish archives, as I could piece a quite good puzzle together using the archives from a POW veteran organisation and a charitable organisation devoted to helping the POWs. Both had a list over prisoners and by crosschecking and adding a bit, I could figure out a pretty accurate estimate over the total number of POWs. The lists of both organisations where around 220-230 and in total it was around 250 positively identified.

Both organisations noted down the number of prisoners who they positively knew died in captivity, but it was a quite low number, around ten. from reading general literature on POWs, I could figure out that if the deathrate of Danish POWs were equal to German or Austrian, the number should have been higher, around 50. This doesn't necessarily need to be the case, as Danish POWs had the chance to go to special treatment camps, but only around half ended up there. The rest went to regular camps, some of them real typhoid traps.

I could probably have reached a more accurate figure, if I had used German and Russian archives as well, but since I wasn't writing a book, I didn't think it would be worth the effort. Archival work can be pretty exhausting, even if it's "just" in your own language. Also, German army archives burned after being bombed in WW2, so the most likely place for me to look in Germany doesn't exist anymore.

With regards to the Spanish Flu, I imagine that one of the main reasons for the inaccurate numbers, is the problem with compiling all the data. Before the internet, it was actually quite hard to get info like this from other countries. A good university library was a necessity. Also, I'm pretty sure that most European countries would have relatively reliable figures or it should be possible to reach them, but since it was a global pandemic, it must be hard to estimate for the rest of the world.

If anyone is looking for a subject for a paper, thesis or maybe even a ph.d. tho, imho this is definitely not the worst place to look.

 

[Arilou]

So an merchant could have wives in every city he traded it and nobody will know? Also all his children will be legitimate as an result?

Unless someone found out? Yes. There are actually a few historical examples.

 

[Geriander]

So an merchant could have wives in every city he traded it and nobody will know? Also all his children will be legitimate as an result?
But more on topic how did lords or nobles or whatever you wanna call dealt without an census so they know how much to tax that family or that family how many to conscript where that one live or that one who is dead to take what he has or not expect taxes from an dead person.

Yes a merchant could do that. Even after parish records began to be kept they didn’t send copies to a central location to be compiled and searched for multiple marriages. It was a serious crime though so he had better hope no one finds out.

A landed knight probably knew how many tenant families he had. He may owe service to his liege lord for a certain number of men and it was up to him to round them up. None of this really required written records and certainly not ones compiled on a national scale.

When large scale conscription became more common this changed. The first modern censuses pretty much happen for the very purpose of raising the larger armies of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Edit: Found these two estimates of population per continent in 1929. Considering the uncertainty for the population of Europe it is no wonder that estimates for deaths in the flu or world wars are uncertain.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census#/media/File:1929_world_population_estimate.png

 

[Arilou]

I do that censuses where done before there was even an Sweded or the medieval age maybe as I recall the Romans did that what stopped Sweden or anya other medieval country?

It's not just a matter of censuses being done as censuses being preserved. From the 16th century on or so we have quite good parish records (though even then some gaps, for periods there are basically no records becuase of fires, for instance) and even then "quite good records" doesen't mean perfect ones: We are always reliant on the actual collection of data, and we don't know how accurate they were (and for various reasons, we know of at least some innaccuracies, IE: We don't generally have birth records, we have baptismal records. So that obviously leaves out children who died before baptism)

 

[Arilou]

Roman empire had a poll tax on non-citizen peoples. Numbers were a taxable asset.

The problem with taxation records of course is that people have a very direct interest in not being taxed, and so will try to avoid it when they can.