Exactly. Goes against common sense, does it?
That may be true but wether it is in books or movies, the facts never get in the way of a good story. Just look at a Cecil B. DeMille epic and you’ll see how a story can be both well researched and at the same time completely historically inaccurate.
Basic rule: if it doesn’t have footnotes, it isn’t science. (With the exception of Terry Pratchett)
The source you quote says 1 million. No-one has yet cited a reliable source for more than that.
Actually, that’s not the case for good histroical novelists. And many of them may not cite everything on the page, but it’s well-researched and very accurate to the best of our knowledge.
In any event, history is never science.
OK ,here- page 10
“Justus Lipsius, for instance, among others, estimates the population of ancient
Rome at about four millions>”
Note that there are others with figures under 1 million.
here’s another cite:
That sez more about the population of the entire empire.
Oh? And why not?
Well, Lipsius has been dead for a long time. In fact, he died in 1606. As you can imagine a lot has happened since then. We know have much more literary and archaelogical evidence as well as new techniques and demographical theories than he had. Long story short, there’s no point in using 16th century estimates.
Eh, I am not willing to credit historical novellists with much in the way of accuracy, in particular amateur researchers. I suppose a properly trained historian but they seem to rarely be good fiction writers.
I would agree, but critical professional history is also not mere fiction.
Doubtless as it possesses virtually none of the aspects of science, which is to say falsifiability. Looking at anything before the modern era, the historian (unless they’re focused on physical history - that is really are more archaeologists) faces significant hurdles relative to data (both its existence and reliability).
Except that his estimates were considered so well done, *they are still being cited in recent works. *
Yea, but that doesn’t really mean that much. You don’t know classical historians. They’ll cite anybody.
Even novelists?
No, not novelists. 
But what I mean is, lets say somebody is writing a paper or a book or whatever about the population of the city of Rome under Augustus. They’ll start with a literature review, saying something like, “There is no clear consensus on the population of the city of Rome, and there have been multiple estimates. Author X has suggested in his book Y that the city of Rome never actually existed. On the other extreme, 16th century Dutch humanist Justus Libsius estimated there were as many as four and a half million people in the city. Using my technique of counting every ancient Roman’s feet and dividing by two, I will show there were 1.6 million people in the city when Augustus came to power.”
So? I’d bet that at least a quarter of Pittsburghers live in Pittsburgh.
Probably, but the difference is, the City of Rome controlled a lot of territory outside the city of Rome (like pretty much all of modern Italy, France, North Africa, Greece, Turkey, and the Middle East). Pittsburgh doesn’t have control over a substantial amount of land outside the city.
However, in this case, the numbers are correct, except that many are looking at the wrong numbers. About 1/4 of the Citizens of Rome live in Rome, but less than 10% of the *population of the Roman Empire *lived there. Roman *Citizenship *was very hard to get unless you were born very close to the actual city of Rome, or born to citizens thereof.
So what did citizenship do for you? Could you get married off to wannabe immigrants for large sums of money?
You could vote in elections, you could enter into contracts, you could own property, you could hold public office, you could marry a citizen, you could sue people, you couldn’t be locked up or executed without trial, you couldn’t be tortured, and a bunch of other things.
Basically, if you were a citizen, you had rights. If you weren’t a citizen, you didn’t. It was better to be a citizen.
You had to be a citizen to engage in economic activity? That doesn’t sound right. Rome didn’t become an economic powerhouse for undermining the business dealings of its people.
You didn’t need to be a citizen to engage in economic activity, but you needed to be a citizen (or a holder of the Latin Rights during the Republic, or fit in one of a few other categories) to have the rights of ius commercii, which was the right to enter into binding contracts, to own res mancipi (land, horses, cattle, slaves, stuff like that), to trade, and so on.
This didn’t mean that people without the ius commercii didn’t enter into contracts, own land, horses, cattle, and slaves, or trade, but they did it at their own risk. If you had the rights of ius commercii, and I entered into a contract with you, and I swindled you or didn’t hold up my end of the deal, you could sue me and get your money back. But if you didn’t have the rights of ius commercii and I swindled you, you couldn’t do anything legally, because a Roman court or magistrate wouldn’t recognize the contract.
You have to understand, if you were under Roman administration and you weren’t a Roman citizen, your job was basically to pay the taxes imposed on you and shut up. If you did that, the Roman government didn’t really pay any attention to you. If you lived, if you died, if you were happy, if you were unhappy, the Roman government didn’t really care. In practice, that was usually true for most citizens too, but at least in theory, the Roman government was made up of the Senate and People of Rome, and had a paternal duty to protect its citizens from mistreatment.
That’s because it is a unique branch of science. It isn’t falsiable because it isn’t repeatable. But I haven’t seen anyone repeat the holocene, the big bang or the evolution of species either. So it archaeology, but it’s actually closer to sociology (possibly anthropology) except that the subjects are dead.
True, but that’s not actually citing in a corroborating evidence type of way. That’s more a kind of “history of the subject, or: what famous classicists have done so far (oh look how smart I am that I know all these guys)”.
It is not a unique branch of sciences, as it is not a science. An academic discipline it is, and often if not always rigourous, but that does not make it science.
As for holocene, Big Bang or evolution, there are falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested against data (in some instances by actual experimentation). Historical analysis can not do that. Never mind that the actual data - aside from the limited example of physical history - is of the shakiest nature relative to say the physical data demonstrating the holocene, or evolution.
I believe this is overstated. Certainly in going up against a Roman citizen, but as I recall Roman practice had work-arounds and in addition, contracts between non-citizens could follow own law, if memory serves.
History is based on data, too. Except that probably all data is biased or even corrupt.