> That doesn't make any sense, with a larger population you can just grow more food as long as there's space. A smaller population only lives in the most prod

> That doesn't make any sense, with a larger population you can just grow more food as long as there's space. A smaller population only lives in the most productive parts of their living space. A larger population has a lot more people living in the marginal parts, and if growing food is more difficult in them, the people on the margins will be doing more work all-in-all. Meanwhile, in the more productive parts, some king, despot, warlord, or relative thereof will happily steal all the surplus. > One person has been able to farm far more food than they could eat from the early bronze age onwards Until textile production was mechanized around by the industrial revolution, you also needed something like 3,000 hours of manual labour a year to clothe a family. You needed someone to go do all the work of collecting firewood (As it turns out, all the easily-accessible-to-your-community firewood has been cut down a long, long time ago, so you'll be walking a fair ways to get it.) Oh, and that king, despot and warlord? He will happily take every surplus penny, shirt, and turnip that you have. And the one across the river will happily take what's left.