The Development of Cities

[JDR Dragoon]

Edit: This thread was split off from one of the trivia forums to allow the discussion to continue without interference with the trivia games. sg

Augusta Treverorum (Trier/Treves) is correct. The city walls (including the "Porta Nigra") is from the late 2nd-early 3rd Century AD, so you don´t get the extra points.

As for alleged age: most european towns and cities can sport a Bronze Age (or earlier) settlement within the city limit ;). That would be the same as claiming that the city of New York has existed for as long as native americans used Manhatten for forage and agriculture.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Not completely sure on this JDR but might it not be said that as the Native Americans were in the main nomadic within their tribal lands, your suggestion re NY might be not entirely viable? :chin:

Whereas even in the Bronze Age, due to relative overpopulation, European economically sustainable lands had to be defended hence there were more fortified settlements that later were taken over by Roman/Germanic/Norse invaders, primerily because they were established on 'must defend' or defencible sites.

Fraid I'm not to well up on Danish history so I'll use England as an example; geographically it would be easy to loose England in many of the Native American tribal lands, yet even at the time of the Roman invasion there were several long well established tribal kingdoms based on a fortified town/Hill forts eg Briggantii, Iceanii & Belgii (? all spl?). England and indeed the rest of western europe has always been relitivly overpopulated with regard to economic sustainability and in someways, it has been suggested, the high density of overpopulated Kingdoms in western europe with the many differing physical geographical divisions in a very small landmass, was the very thing that over the 600yrs or so post Roman era drove Europe to become the expansionist force that it became.

Just a thought :soap: :)

All the Best
Peter

[JDR Dragoon]

HiHi

Not completely sure on this JDR but might it not be said that as the Native Americans were in the main nomadic within their tribal lands, your suggestion re NY might be not entirely viable? :chin:

Some were nomads, yes. Especially those who for various reasons preferred an essentially mesolithic hunter-gatherer existence. Quite a few of them were sedentary agriculturalists who didn´t move very far of their own volition (warfare or encroachment, waged by either fellow natives or europeans might be a strong motivation in forcing displacement though)

Whereas even in the Bronze Age, due to relative overpopulation,

England and indeed the rest of western europe has always been relitivly overpopulated with regard to economic sustainability and in someways,

I am not so sure. The notion that pre-modern Europe was overpopulated lacks empirical evidence. Especially given the fact that the breakdown of central government in the western parts of the Roman empire meant, that demographics in some parts of the empire (most notably Britain) went into a tailspin. The notion of a "Migration Theory" induced overpopulation being behind fortified permanent settlements in Europe (but not the Americas) lacks a consistent inner logic that would make the argument acceptable. As far as I can see a settlement is a settlement, whether it is in the Americas or Europe, and for much the same reason.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Brilliant a historical descusion!! it's been sometime since the Blitz actually had one of those

Can I come back to you tomorrow on this please JDR as I've x3 battles on at the moment. If you are game maybe we could even transfer this to the Historical descusion forum and maybe get other folk joining in.

Briefly though yes fully agree, a settlement is a settlement, whether it is in the Americas or Europe, and for much the same reason can I suggest however that there is a diferance between Western europe & the americas, one obviously being size, but more pertinant to europe that of it's phisyical geography and climate, and I would suggest that it's through climate that there is empirical evidence; think the climatic optimum c800-1300 AD and 'the Little Ice Age' of the early Modern period + earlier ones that drove the tribes West into the Roman empire etc, etc.

Having said all that of course you may not wish to get bogged down in an extended discusion, thats OK just say "No" here I wont take offence ... might sulk a bit, but ... :)

In haste.

All the Best
Peter

[Steel God]

Peter/Rune;

I will gladly split this off and move it to the Historical Forum for continued discuss if you like. I may not have the time or ability to contribute to it, but will enjoy reading it.

Just say the word.

Paul

[JDR Dragoon]

Peter/Rune;

I will gladly split this off and move it to the Historical Forum for continued discuss if you like. I may not have the time or ability to contribute to it, but will enjoy reading it.

Just say the word.

Paul

Do whatever is appropriate. :)

[JDR Dragoon]

can I suggest however that there is a diferance between Western europe & the americas, one obviously being size,

Depends on the timeframe and location. The Pre-columbian Americas were a mix of essentially quasi Paleolithic and Neolithic tribes (especially in what is today the USA and Canada) and highly evolved civilizations (Inca, Aztec etc.) to the South. The more evolved civilizations had cities with high populaton densities and overall bigger populations. So I suspect this doesn´t really have a lot to do with any phenomenon unique to Europe. Least of all the climate.

but more pertinant to europe that of it's phisyical geography and climate, and I would suggest that it's through climate that there is empirical evidence;

I sincerely doubt it.

think the climatic optimum c800-1300 AD and 'the Little Ice Age' of the early Modern period + earlier ones that drove the tribes West into the Roman empire etc, etc.

There is no evidence that anything "drove" any tribes anywhere. Least of all into the Roman empire. The barbarians entered the Roman empire for various specific reasons (some of which are today wholly unclear to us), not because they were conditioned to do so by the climate or any racially conditioned "wanderlust"

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Can I backtrack a bit, make sure I’m not barking up the wrong tree (it has been known ).

Rune I’m taking it that your original premise was that many of the European city claims to longevity if not overemphasised then downright lies! and you are citing native American (Iroquois Nation ??) use of Manhattan as a counter.

My premise is that given the physical geographical nature of western Europe it is virtually a guarantee that the majority of the European sites would have been not just occupied but also fortified. Without over generalizing (hopefully!) the sites invariably occupy positions that would control economically sustainable lands/trade routes/strategically important sites etc. Archaeological evidence aside, even the landscape provides clues eg still observable traces of Hill forts and agricultural field shapes.

Moving on a bit; my reasoning behind Europe having virtually always been inherently overpopulated is based to a certain extent on what you call a "Migration Theory" both from external inward flow of peoples and from, what were often climatically induced, internal overpopulation problems due to economic unsustainability. I’m not talking so much population density per mile here but rather the ability of ‘the Land’ to support its human population. That, too my way of thinking is a major, if not the major driving force behind Western European Global expansionism.

Oooops, just reread the original posts, was the very thing that over the 600yrs or so post Roman era drove Europe to become the expansionist force that it became. Err sorry Rune, that should have read 1600yrs or so, maths was never my strong point :rolleyes: That slip of mine may well of course have altered your perspective on what we were talking about so as I have no wish to Shanghai you into a debate on a false premise do we still have a debatable subject? maybe for eg ‘European expansion was in the main population driven’ or somesuch, your call.

If so then yes please Paul transfer it to Historical Discussions, game on.

If not then apologies Rune for wasting your time, Sheeee! I really should read more carefully what I’m writing :( ... (Exit Peter stage left muttering angrily to himself).

All the best
Peter

[JDR Dragoon]

Rune I’m taking it that your original premise was that many of the European city claims to longevity if not overemphasised then downright lies! and you are citing native American (Iroquois Nation ??) use of Manhattan as a counter.

Basically yes. If you want to put it another way: I am arguing that settlement continuity on a given location does not constitute a "city/town". The dating of a given named locations age can only objectively be achieved by looking at when the location received its legal charter and juridic recognition as a "city/town". In the case of Trier, the town received itc charter as a city during the 1st century AD. In the case of New York, it was with the arrival of the Dutch and the founding of New Amsterdam (and in the case of Mexico City it was Tenochtitlan etc. etc.). This of course leaves us with a lot of potential "holes". For instance Trier might have had legal status as a "city/town" among the tribe (the Treverii) who inhabited (and continued to inhabit) the area untill the Romans showed up. But we have no way of knowing about it since they have left no written record describing the status of the settlement that would be the Roman Augusta Treverorum.

My premise is that given the physical geographical nature of western Europe it is virtually a guarantee that the majority of the European sites would have been not just occupied but also fortified.

I am not so sure about that. In any event it depends on what period of (pre)history we are talking about.

Without over generalizing (hopefully!) the sites invariably occupy positions that would control economically sustainable lands/trade routes/strategically important sites etc. Archaeological evidence aside, even the landscape provides clues eg still observable traces of Hill forts and agricultural field shapes.

Yup. And funnily enough the situation is about the same in the Americas (overall speaking of course).

Moving on a bit; my reasoning behind Europe having virtually always been inherently overpopulated is based to a certain extent on what you call a "Migration Theory" both from external inward flow of peoples and from, what were often climatically induced, internal overpopulation problems due to economic unsustainability. I’m not talking so much population density per mile here but rather the ability of ‘the Land’ to support its human population. That, too my way of thinking is a major, if not the major driving force behind Western European Global expansionism.

Perhaps in post-mideval times (although this can be debated). But I sincerely doubt that the above scenario was the case beforehand. When people move, they usually have a specific reason for doing so, they ususally don´t move very far, and they don´t do so in large numbers.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Eeek!!! I've been bounced.

Sorry Rune just got some sort of answer to an earlier point you raised yesterday (see below) and found the above waiting for me, fraid will have to come back on that tomorrow; but I would seriously question When people move, they usually have a specific reason for doing so, they ususally don´t move very far, and they don´t do so in large numbers., I'll try and free up more time tomorrow to answer your points.
======================
HiHi

There is no evidence that anything "drove" any tribes anywhere. Least of all into the Roman empire. The barbarians entered the Roman empire for various specific reasons (some of which are today wholly unclear to us), not because they were conditioned to do so by the climate or any racially conditioned "wanderlust" Sheee, there’s a lot to deal with there so I’m gonna have to simplify it rather drastically.

c5000BC the last interglacial period ended, the grass lands of the Steppe started to diminish, the Steppe tribes were Pastoral nomads who depended on grass to feed their herds, as population levels rose greater demands were placed on steadily diminishing resources.
The lifestyle of pastoral Nomads is often supplemented by raiding settled agricultural lands, as the fear of Nomadic incursions increase this can be turned from simple raiding for booty into a more sophisticated settlement whereby tribute is paid to avoid Nomad incursions.

The problem for the Steppe dwellers is that as their numbers increase and the local Economic sustainability of their lands decreases they need more & more external wealth to maintain their lifestyle. When overtime the established settled Agriculture based communities were weakened by raiding & tribute the Steppe tribes could (and did) move in and colonise (a similar pattern can be seen with the Germanic invasions of Celtic Britain), in effect, temporally relieving the overpopulation in the Steppe homelands, but, given humanities predisposition to breed then in time the Steppe population would again reach critical mass and if a strong enough leader came to the fore the whole process would begin again.
As far as the Roman empire is concerned once the Danube river line was breached (308AD ?) then a sort of domino effect could be said to have taken place, with succeeding waves of Gothic/Germanic/Hun/Avans etc etc moving in, some admittedly as Federatii, others as conquerors.

I know the above is a somewhat glib rendition of several thousand years worth of History, and the process would have been either slowed of hastened by local shorter term climatic changes in the Steppe lands however we do have empirical evidence for it in that it is what happened, not just to the Roman empire, but to China & India all of which experienced Hun incursions, to name just one. In some cases we have written records other egs include linguistics clues or battlefield sites or in the case of China a recently discovered Hun city.

Dunno if you can lay your hands on ‘The Times, Atlas of World History’ or somesuch but it’s a fascinating read, the movements of the tribes pictorially laid out with dates etc.

Nuff for now.

All the Best
Peter