I am reminded that Zionist colonization of Palestine involved in fermentation of land transfer to new colonists on the condition that the said land was 'empty' and that the colonists would improve it by utilizing new agricultural technology.
I am reminded that Zionist colonization of Palestine involved in fermentation of land transfer to new colonists on the condition that the said land was 'empty' and that the colonists would improve it by utilizing new agricultural technology.
Now, you don't actually need new agricultural technology in order to improve this "vacant" land. This land was the historic grazing territory of Arab nomads which had become as such following the conquest in the 7th century. The importation of nomadism across North Africa and the Levant had devastating ecological impacts on what had previously been some of the most fertile farmland in the world. Overgrazing resulted in monoculture for grasses which depleted soil nutrition and led to erosion and desertification. The land which fed the city of Rome became incapable of feeding even itself, as nomads required significantly more land to produce adequate foodstuffs for themselves. To revert the land back into agriculturally productive territory required an absence of grazing animals in order to allow local plant life to regrow. Several years of agricultural activity in sustainable methods that can return nitrates to the soil and allow it to retain moisture are all that was really needed, although modern land transfers in the 20th century utilized new irrigation and fertilizer technology of the time which sped up and enhanced the process so the Zionists quite literally made the desert bloom surprisingly quickly.
With the depopulation of the Levant and its replacement by sedentary and agriculturally minded Greeks it is entirely possible that the population density of this part of the world will dramatically increase. The Levant could hold a deceptively large quantity of people that I am uncertain the total number of due to lack of historic examples from this time period but would undoubtedly be significant. In several decades it is entirely possible at the population of the Levant will actually be higher that was before this ethnic cleansing and still with plenty of room to grow
To expand on this thought some. I believe at this point the coastline is more or less Greek as are select cities; Damascus comes to mind; while the hinterland is still almost 100% Muslim and at this point under Ottoman control.
Assuming the next war goes how we all think it will and Rome remains in their brutalist phase which is almost 100% Rome will inherit more or less modern day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Northern Iraq and the Palestinian Territories. In OTL in 1600 these territories had an estimated population of about 2.3 million. Figure the area still under Roman control is about 300,000 and the rest halve the population due to repeated wars and incursions. Which means next war Rome will inherit an area of approximately 1.1 million Sunni Arabs that it will promptly (likely) deport, enslave, or massacre.
Now how do you go about repopulating this area. Well we know that the Aegean provinces are amongst the most densely populated areas outside China and India right now so that seems to be the best source of manpower in addition to immigrants from the Orthodox world. If we assume 50,000/year total taking into account fertility the area should be back up to pre-war levels within 20years ago.
But taking into account that the population will be a sedentary culture rather than a nomadic one what happens than. Well 20years of a lot of areas lying fallow will do wonders to replenish fertility in the soil. So now you have 1.1 million people who are irrigating and reforesting the land, similar to what is being done throughout Anatolia currently. It would not be outside the realm of possibility to see the area able to support a population perhaps 2x as much as historical. So a population of 30+ million by 1800 in the Roman Empire proper seems entirely doable with another 10 million in the despotates. It will also be an area that would be the same ethnicity/religious grouping as the dominant group in the empire so rather than being neglected would remain a priority.
There is also the religious aspect to consider. Jerusalem, Bethlehem and other cities of early Christianity will undoubtedly get government largesse and large numbers of pilgrims in an area that is now considered secure by the government and populace. How that would affect the economy I can only begin to speculate but it will be a part of the Roman Empire that will by circumstance be relatively cosmopolitan culturally. I can’t see any but the most xenophobic government denying entry to Catholic and Bohamanist pilgrims and inevitably some of them will stay. Jerusalem and other cities may be culturally Greek but it would be a more open identity towards other Christian sects than what would be found in the Aegean as they will interact with them far more on a day to day basis.
One other thing I’d like to mention on Roman culture. What is likely going to happen to these areas bares some resemblance to what happened in US and Canada’s push westwards in the 19th century with the extermination and displacement of the natives followed by their replacement with citizens. Though the area is much smaller and consequently the era it takes place in much shorter I do wonder if Rome will develop something akin to the Wild West mentality in those territories and how that might influence the Roman state. At this point for all the different ethnicities the accepted groups within Rome are fairly homogenous; how might a large group that is almost exclusively Greek Orthodox but “different” be handled by the Roman state and how would they influence it as well.