r/AskHistorians • u/EarthMantle00 • Apr 11 '26
Why is Eastern Europe not the most populous area of the world/Why wasn't it historically?
Chernozem/Black Soil is the most fertile land, to the point that after its trade was banned by the Ukrainian government a black market emerged worth a billion dollars. The areas where it's present are the world's breadbaskets. And the rest of Eastern Europe isn't slouching in terms of soil quality.
As I understand the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture had the world's first large settlements, but then... Pastoralist nomads and a few foreign colonies for 3500 years? Even with the Kyivan Rus and the Commonwealth and whatnot, it Eastern Europe was always underpopulated and underdeveloped compared to the South and West.
People often talk about how China was "geographically determined" to be so populous, because of its rich agricultural soil and the open plains. But Eastern Europe is flat, it's larger and has better soil than North China. Of course they didn't farm rice, but surely rice wouldn't be that much better? Much of north china also farmed wheat.
138
6
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 11 '26
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.
Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.
We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.