Are New World cities on average, actually older than Old World ones?

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by JManc

I'm confused. Are we talking about when these cities in their present form were established and then built up?

I was kind of alluding to whether or not the current residents of the present city inhabit an area with continuity with a former old city, regardless of if the age of first settlement by people itself may be older. It would be the age of the current city that has uninterrupted connection to the first settlements/foundation that are still standing.

So for example, if a city was destroyed completely, as by disaster, wartime bombing, or by intentionally plowing over the old villages that stood before and re-building in time, you could argue it no longer has continuity to the old. Whereas if the inhabitants of the new city still incorporate and live in some older infrastructure (say, roads, if not buildings) and the parts of the old settlement are not lost, you could still argue they're living in the old city in a sense.

If you considered the percentage of people living in "Old World" cities versus "New World" ones who inhabit a current location with continuity to an older settlement (that has not been destroyed by the newer growth), I wonder which one would be greater.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I was kind of alluding to whether or not the current residents of the present city inhabit an area with continuity with a former old city, regardless of if the age of first settlement by people itself may be older. It would be the age of the current city that has uninterrupted connection to the first settlements/foundation that are still standing.

So for example, if a city was destroyed completely, as by disaster, wartime bombing, or by intentionally plowing over the old villages that stood before and re-building in time, you could argue it no longer has continuity to the old. Whereas if the inhabitants of the new city still incorporate and live in some older infrastructure (say, roads, if not buildings) and the parts of the old settlement are not lost, you could still argue they're living in the old city in a sense.

If you considered the percentage of people living in "Old World" cities versus "New World" ones who inhabit a current location with continuity to an older settlement (that has not been destroyed by the newer growth), I wonder which one would be greater.

I think as time goes on, cities around the world will be more or less the same age (the built environment) despite ancient structures and history of
Asian and European cities going back much earlier than their American counterparts. Most European cities have long since replaced pre-19th century buildings with 19th century and newer as did other cities which is why NY really doesn't feel that much newer than London despite a 1,500 year age difference.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I doubt this is true. What American cities were larger than those of Europe at the time?

Cahokia, approximately where East St. Louis is today, had a population of 15,000 in 700 A.D. This was the dark ages in Europe. I'm sure there were European cities that are quite large now but had fewer than 15,000 residents then. Some of them were just a village clustered around a castle or cathedral.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by JManc

Most European cities have long since replaced pre-19th century buildings with 19th century and newer as did other cities which is why NY really doesn't feel that much newer than London despite a 1,500 year age difference.

I believe I recently read that Paris is almost alone among northern European cities for not having been largely destroyed in WW II. No matter how ancient most of those other cities appear, much of them is newer than the core of North American cities.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

Most European cities have long since replaced pre-19th century buildings with 19th century and newer as did other cities which is why NY really doesn't feel that much newer than London despite a 1,500 year age difference.

Well, yeah, but London isn't particularly old for European standards (at least in terms of when it became a major city), and NYC is particularly old for American standards.

London became a global city maybe 100 years before NYC, so not a giant difference in historical terms. Paris really dominated Europe in the 1600's and 1700's and then probably Amsterdam.

And London was badly damaged by WW2. That's the main reason London has so much modernist stuff. So it basically takes a newer European city to be destroyed by war to feel almost as new as one of the oldest cities in the Americas.

German cities feel even newer than NYC or Boston or Philly, but that's expected. When 95% of housing stock is obliterated, obviously the city will be new. London never had that kind of universal destruction.

[ue]

^ No, but many smaller English cities did. Both English and German cities have a lot of rather hideous post-war CBDs.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ue

^ No, but many smaller English cities did. Both English and German cities have a lot of rather hideous post-war CBDs.

Yeah, but I think Germany takes the cake on ugly. Germany has beautiful small towns and villages, but the big cities are (IMO) the ugliest in Western Europe.

I understand that the country was in shambles, but I still think Germany could have done better with postwar restoration. Strasbourg was obliterated by WW2 bombing yet France did a fantastic job restoring the city center.

Strasbourg is basically the nicest-looking "German" major city, because it was lucky enough to be put under French rule following WW2. If it were still a German city it would probably have a hideous city center like Mannheim or Essen.

[JManc]

^ A lot of English cities decimated their urban centers with urban renewal and postwar reconstruction with hideous master planned and sterile housing developments

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I believe I recently read that Paris is almost alone among northern European cities for not having been largely destroyed in WW II. No matter how ancient most of those other cities appear, much of them is newer than the core of North American cities.

I think you can partially thank Dietrich von Choltitz's defiance for that.

Well, yeah, but London isn't particularly old for European standards (at least in terms of when it became a major city), and NYC is particularly old for American standards.

But London has been a major city for at least 500 years so it had/ has structures from well before the founding and establishment of New York and even New York is around 350 years old but the average age of both cities typical "old" buildings are around 80-120 years old which is more or less the same as most major European cities despite them being thousands of years old.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by JManc

I think you can partially thank Dietrich von Choltitz's defiance for that.

Well, I understand that but also for 5 years before there was a relationship between de Gaulle and his Free French in London (and after 6/6/1944 in France) and Churchill not to subject Paris to the same treatment as other occupied cities. Churchill himself was a Francophile.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don't consider Africa to be "the Old World" aside from the Maghreb and Egypt. And yes Australia and New Zealand are always considered the New World.

Timbuktu, Mali was 5x the size of London in the 14th century, so your assessment is wrong. Kano, Nigeria was also a relatively large city when European exploration began.

[dc_denizen]

Rome had a million people 2000 years ago.

Alexandria, Seleucia, and Babylon had 250,000 to 500,000 people 2500 years ago.

Ur, Iraq had 25000 people 5000 years ago

Cahokia is more like ur. Actually, the Aztec cities were like Ur. Cahokia is at the level of what was before ur, 10000 years ago.

Advantage:old world.

That said Chicago had -around 6 million people 100 years ago. New York was the biggest city in the world.

The us has gigantic 19th and early 20th century streetscapes compared to places like Scandinavia

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by 10023

Revisionist anti-"ethnocentric" history.

You forgot the quotes around "history"

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Cahokia, approximately where East St. Louis is today, had a population of 15,000 in 700 A.D. This was the dark ages in Europe. I'm sure there were European cities that are quite large now but had fewer than 15,000 residents then. Some of them were just a village clustered around a castle or cathedral.

There has been a myth that has been propagated that Africa outside of the Mediterranean countries, and North America had no urban settlements before European colonialism. The problem with this assertion is that there are dozens of accounts of Portuguese and Arab explorers that documented urban areas that were just as if not more complex than their European counterparts in many parts of Africa. Ethiopia is Africa's oldest nation (it's in the bible for god's sake) and the Niger River Valley has very wealthy civilizations before the African slave trade. One of richest men in recorded history was from Mali his name was Mansa Musa, he lived in an urban area in like 1200 and was known across the Western World, which I think qualifies as old world.

[dc_denizen]

Citations?

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Cahokia, approximately where East St. Louis is today, had a population of 15,000 in 700 A.D. This was the dark ages in Europe. I'm sure there were European cities that are quite large now but had fewer than 15,000 residents then. Some of them were just a village clustered around a castle or cathedral.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Rome had a million people 2000 years ago.

Alexandria, Seleucia, and Babylon had 250,000 to 500,000 people 2500 years ago.

Ur, Iraq had 25000 people 5000 years ago

Cahokia is more like ur. Actually, the Aztec cities were like Ur. Cahokia is at the level of what was before ur, 10000 years ago.

Advantage:old world.

That said Chicago had -around 6 million people 100 years ago. New York was the biggest city in the world.

The us has gigantic 19th and early 20th century streetscapes compared to places like Scandinavia

With the Old World, according to historians I believe I've read, Rome, Baghdad and maybe a couple Chinese cities had broken the million people mark before the Industrial era. Large Medieval European cities (apart from Constantinople) seemed to have ranged around the tens of thousands to around 100-200 000 at the higher end.

The largest pre-European colonization New World cities didn't break the million mark like Rome, but did compare favorably with the largest Medieval European cities. For the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan, which Mexico City was later built on, I've seen various estimates at 200,000, 300, 000 or so at the time of Spanish conquest. Chan Chan in Peru, contemporary to Medieval Europe I think I've seen estimates of the upper range of tens of thousands to 100 000 or more. Cahokia would be the largest in North America north of Mesoamerica at 10-20,000 people.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by 10023

Revisionist anti-"ethnocentric" history.

??? Did Pre-Columbian cities and countries not exist? Were the Aztec censuses on the 3 plagues (smallpox and 'Cocolitzli' - a mix of smallpox, dengue and European flu) a hoax?

For comparison UK had a population of 2.35 million in 1520.

[mrnyc]

the answer is most definately not. native st louis cahokia or mex city are outliers. just because the natives stopped and put up teepees once in awhile, or even had well worn trails, does not make for cities. while there are examples of cities in the americas, these were far and away mostly nomadic societies. europe was too crowded to have as much of that, so it makes sense there were more and longer settled areas over there. guns, germs and steel is the go to book about this kind of topic.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

With the Old World, according to historians I believe I've read, Rome, Baghdad and maybe a couple Chinese cities had broken the million people mark before the Industrial era. Large Medieval European cities (apart from Constantinople) seemed to have ranged around the tens of thousands to around 100-200 000 at the higher end.

The largest pre-European colonization New World cities didn't break the million mark like Rome, but did compare favorably with the largest Medieval European cities. For the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan, which Mexico City was later built on, I've seen various estimates at 200,000, 300, 000 or so at the time of Spanish conquest. Chan Chan in Peru, contemporary to Medieval Europe I think I've seen estimates of the upper range of tens of thousands to 100 000 or more. Cahokia would be the largest in North America north of Mesoamerica at 10-20,000 people.

Also Alexandria reached the same population a century earlier than Rome, in 100 BC. Other cities pre-industrial that the historians actually agree on is Baghdad, Chang'An,
Kaifeng, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Angkor, Beijing, Ayutthaya (a canal boat city in Thailand) and possibly Jinling (near Nanjing) in 1400, and Edo (Tokyo) in 1720 as over a million.


There have been so many numerous, massive cities through time. Who would have thought Gurganj, Turkmenistan (vying with nearby Merv) with 600,000 people in 1220,
would have been the world's largest city?

All that remains of it (part of its outer wall):


https://supermouse.blog

Or Polonnaruwa in 1180 Sri Lanka


www.mysrilankaholidays.com


https://findingbeyond.com


Abbasid Baghdad and its giant palace, the crossroads of the world before its million+ citizens (and their cats and dogs) were beheaded by the Mongols and a vast pyramid of
skulls made outside the walls in 1258.




https://i1.wp.com/thestrangecontinent.com


As mentioned before the 'floating' city of Ayuthhaya, Thailand, whose million residents lived on moored barges on the canals


www.ayutthaya-history.com



www.hi-fi.ru


Autthaya was destroyed by the Burmese, whose rival empire was centred on Bagan. Bagan today is an abandoned valley where 2,200 stone temples (out of 10,000 gilded
temples, 1000 towering stupas and 3,000 monasteries in its heyday) survive. Bagan and its city site, 8x larger than Rome, was also destroyed by the Mongols in 1287.


www.PanARMENIAN.Net


https://beartales.me/2013/12/16/gall...burma-myanmar/



Likewise other jungle cities....

Angkor was the worlds largest pre-industrial city, it wasn't just population but scale, the size of Inner London today, at over 1,000 sq km, with new 'suburbs' still being
discovered. It was over 80x the size of ancient Rome.

All that remains are the stone built temples and vast baray canals (for scale, Angkor Wat at the bottom is the world's largest religious structure, covering 4x the Vatican City and twice the Forbidden City):


www.mappery.com

Satellite data is uncovering the buildings that once stood on the empty fields today.






Tikal, Guatemala was the second largest ancient site (3,000 structures survive over a city once 576 sq km in area, that's still being discovered, with a population up to 300,000 in 682 AD):

Its central political-religious complex alone was larger than Rome, at 16 sq km (Rome was only 14.86 sq km).


http://files.abovetopsecret.com

http://medieval.mrugala.net

http://medieval.mrugala.net

They were in turn taken over by the Teotihuacan, a smaller yet still huge city to the north

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Well, yeah, but London isn't particularly old for European standards (at least in terms of when it became a major city), and NYC is particularly old for American standards.

London became a global city maybe 100 years before NYC, so not a giant difference in historical terms. Paris really dominated Europe in the 1600's and 1700's and then probably Amsterdam.

And London was badly damaged by WW2. That's the main reason London has so much modernist stuff. So it basically takes a newer European city to be destroyed by war to feel almost as new as one of the oldest cities in the Americas.

German cities feel even newer than NYC or Boston or Philly, but that's expected. When 95% of housing stock is obliterated, obviously the city will be new. London never had that kind of universal destruction.

No matter how much London was bombarded, the war didn't change its street grids, with narrow and twisting streets that give it an old world feeling that New York can't have with its mainly straight, very North American street grid (except for a small district downtown). It's not just about buildings.

[muppet]

El Mirador, www.ancient-wisdom.com

These were the largest ancient buildings ever built, with pyramids at El Mirador, Guatemala being larger in volume than the Great Pyramid of Cheops in Egypt, and the ones in Teotihuacan on a similar scale. The largest cannot be seen - the Cholula Pyramid in Mexico, at 1,300 ft x 1,300 ft being nearly twice in volume of Egypt's largest, and currently buried (with a church on top).


www.ancient-code.com


The largest building structure was in Persepolis, Iran, a huge terrace which held the fabled palaces on top (all that's left are the 65ft tall columns)



The terrace alone, covering 1.3 million sq ft, is about 4x larger in volume than the Great Pyramid of Cheops, and its blocks average about 45 tons a piece (the Pyramid has only 2.3 tons a piece, or 20x lighter).



www.cais-soas.com, www.livius.org

http://noisebreak.com



The largest structure ever made were the Walls of Benin, in today's Nigeria. They took 650 years to create, and were 4x longer than the Great Wall(s) of China, at 16,000 km, enclosing 2,500 sq km of community land. It consumed a hundred times more material than the Great Pyramid of Cheops. They took an estimated 150 million hours of digging to construct, and are perhaps the largest single archaeological phenomenon on the planet, but were destroyed by the British in the Punitive Expedition of 1897.


www.nigeriagalleria.com, https://splendidculture.wikispaces.com, www.guardianco.uk


The fall of Benin City 1897



Subsaharan Africa also had its empires and cities. Congo's empire was ruled from Loango city:


www.contramare.net