Assuming growth is constant in all locations (which I know it's not), I don't see why China and India are so populous. Europe has a slightly larger land area than China, but it's population is practically double that of Europe. India's population density is even worse. What's the reason?

  • 7
  • 4
    Welcome to HistorySE, @Chris! What has your research shown you so far? Where have you already searched? Please help us to help you. You might find it helpful to review the site tour and help center. You may improve your question to comply with site guidelines with an edit and the help of How to Ask. Thanks! – Mark C. Wallace Sep 5 '19 at 15:50
  • 6
    Not sure I could provide enough links to make this an answer, but China and India both have more of their land area in climate zones where Bronze Age technology could support highly productive agriculture. Europe has a very high arable acreage in total, but that portion of it that is north of the Alps really required Iron Age technology (or higher) to be properly exploited. That gave China and India a demographic head start measured in millennia. – tbrookside Sep 5 '19 at 16:11
  • 1
    To add to the previous comment: even with Iron Age technology, the agricultural output as much smaller in Europe. The average amount of wheat that can be produced per square km in NorthAfrica, India or China is several times bigger than in most Europe due to much more sunlight . This was a great advantage even in Middle Ages. – Greg Sep 5 '19 at 17:53
  • I don't think I agree with @NuclearWang that its a dup of that question, however, I think someone could take the approach Pieter took in his answer there, apply it to China's Yellow and Yangtze river valleys, and have an answer here. So its not really too broad to answer either. – T.E.D. Sep 6 '19 at 15:20

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.