Tech nology Research Systems and the Non-Europeans

[1alexey]

Europe's urban population increased a lot. But it increased in a way that started to put it on par with the rest of the world, not ahead. It would also be centuries still before Europe developed Megalopolis on the scale of Beijing, Tenochtitlan (Mexico city was in many ways the first modern European city), Cairo or pre-mongol Baghdad.

Even with all their advancements Europe still tended to suffer terrible food shortages on a scale that wouldn't happen in the rest of the world until the early modern era.

And where is the estimate?

Why do you ignore the 2+mil Rome, that existed a thousand of Years before the start of the game?
Mega sities generally acces the size of the country, and almost nothing else.

Basing andvancement of agriculture on food shortages is hilarious, especially considering that wellfare was not the point of European states back than.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

And where is the estimate?

Why do you ignore the 2+mil Rome, that existed a thousand of Years before the start of the game?
Mega sities generally acces the size of the country, and almost nothing else.

I'm ignoring the swamp surrounded Rome that required Egyptian grain shipments to survive that existed a thousand years before the start of the game because its not relevant to the period of the game. According to this website I found through a quick google search, Rome only had a population of around 55000 during the Renaissance.

Compared to, at around 1500 AD:

Above 200,000:
Beijing, largest city in the world
Vijaranagara, the second largest
Cairo, in a lower league but one of the only three cities above 200,000

Around 200,000
Hangzhou and Nanjing in China
Tabriz in Iran
Gaur in India
Tenochitlan in the Mexico valley
Kontantiniyye/Istanbul
Gao, capital of Songhai in Africa (estimated only)
Cusco, capital of the Inca Empire (estimated only)

No European city at the time was even in the same league as any of these cities. The largest European city was Paris and even that one barely came close.

This website seems to go more into estimating the historical sizes of Paris and Rome.

This site disagrees in that it puts Paris above Nanjing but agrees in that only Paris among European cities was anyway near being in the top 10 largest cities of the world in 1500. It also ignores America. It also provides figures for the year 100 AD, when classical Rome was at its height and once again, only one city in Europe makes the top 10 and its way smaller than your "2 mil+". For 1000 AD only Cordoba, also the capital of an Empire including large portions of Africa, in Arabic Spain makes the list.

Basing andvancement of agriculture on food shortages is hilarious

All I'm saying is that improvements to agricultural production should result in an increased availability of food and reduced starvation and malnutrition. Native Americans had much less malnutrition than Europeans and India had little starvation until the British took over it. Therefore I see no real evidence of European superiority in this area what so ever.

especially considering that wellfare was not the point of European states back than.

Except that the theories of political power did have a concept of paternalism towards a nation's subjects and anyway, agricultural reform was done by mainly landowners and has little to do with 'states' until the 19th century.

 

[WeissRaben]

Both Naples and Paris had around 200.000 inhabitants, in 1500, and in 1600 420.000 for Paris and 350.000 for Naples. Not exactly holes in a mountain.

This said? We NEED a modernization mechanic. Why? Because it's a game about changing things. I don't care if no one built universities in Tenochtitlan - if I know HOW to do it, I want to be able to. If I want to kickstart a reform revolution, I want to be able to. Even if it means risking to collapse the whole nation if a single mistake is made.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

Both Naples and Paris had around 200.000 inhabitants, in 1500, and in 1600 420.000 for Paris and 350.000 for Naples.

According to some estimates maybe. But there are massive margins of error and plenty of alternative positions. I've seen estimates for Naples going from 125000 to 200000, there's really no consensus.

This said? We NEED a modernization mechanic. Why? Because it's a game about changing things. I don't care if no one built universities in Tenochtitlan - if I know HOW to do it, I want to be able to. If I want to kickstart a reform revolution, I want to be able to. Even if it means risking to collapse the whole nation if a single mistake is made.

We need ways to reform and improve. We don't necessarily need numbered tech levels and 'westernisation'.

They had schools in Tenochtilan and scholars and poets and stuff. The fact that none of them (nor similar Arabic institutions) are equivalent to a 'university' in game is basically Eurocentrism again where only a 'western' style of school gives a bonus, even centuries before the all important scientific method arose during the enlightenment.

 

[1alexey]

I'm ignoring the swamp surrounded Rome that required Egyptian grain shipments to survive that existed a thousand years before the start of the game because its not relevant to the period of the game. According to this website I found through a quick google search, Rome only had a population of around 55000 during the Renaissance.

So, none of the cities below do not depend on the food shipments from outside the city? OK, prove it.

Compared to, at around 1500 AD:

Above 200,000:
Beijing, largest city in the world
Vijaranagara, the second largest
Cairo, in a lower league but one of the only three cities above 200,000

Around 200,000
Hangzhou and Nanjing in China
Tabriz in Iran
Gaur in India
Tenochitlan in the Mexico valley
Kontantiniyye/Istanbul
Gao, capital of Songhai in Africa (estimated only)
Cusco, capital of the Inca Empire (estimated only)

No European city at the time was even in the same league as any of these cities. The largest European city was Paris and even that one barely came close.

This website seems to go more into estimating the historical sizes of Paris and Rome.

This site disagrees in that it puts Paris above Nanjing but agrees in that only Paris among European cities was anyway near being in the top 10 largest cities of the world in 1500. It also ignores America. It also provides figures for the year 100 AD, when classical Rome was at its height and once again, only one city in Europe makes the top 10 and its way smaller than your "2 mil+". For 1000 AD only Cordoba, also the capital of an Empire including large portions of Africa, in Arabic Spain makes the list.

Why do you viev the size of a single city rather than total urban population?

The size of a single city only shows it`s own logistical capacity.
Rome could transfer large amounts of food by sea, so it was really big, and it`s example proves my point, about the largest cities.

All I'm saying is that improvements to agricultural production should result in an increased availability of food and reduced starvation and malnutrition. Native Americans had much less malnutrition than Europeans and India had little starvation until the British took over it. Therefore I see no real evidence of European superiority in this area what so ever.

:rofl:
So instead of vieving agricultural efficency as am amount of people a single farmer can feed, you wiev it as the stability of food supply?

What does it have to do with urban population?

Except that the theories of political power did have a concept of paternalism towards a nation's subjects and anyway, agricultural reform was done by mainly landowners and has little to do with 'states' until the 19th century.

So, was the purpose of European states of the age too feed, close, and home every of it`s inhabitants?
If no, why does this ability metters?


Again, all what you seem to have to say, can be called the cherry picking to "prove" the point, that is set before the reserch was ever done.

This said? We NEED a modernization mechanic. Why? Because it's a game about changing things. I don't care if no one built universities in Tenochtitlan - if I know HOW to do it, I want to be able to.

You can build whatever you want. University is just a big house or a set of those.

What really metters are the teachers, books and students, that are things that allow to accumulate and transfer knowlege from one people, to other.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

So, none of the cities below do not depend on the food shipments from outside the city? OK, prove it.

I can't, because I never claimed that and it would be ridiculous to do so. But most cities got their food from the surrounding countryside, not another continent entirely. Paris had massive problems with importing food the moment it started to become the largest city in Europe.

Why do you viev the size of a single city rather than total urban population?

I was only talking about megalopolis, which screw over trying to estimate average city sizes.

I couldn't find total urban population. If you can then feel free to use it to prove or disprove what I was saying.

The size of a single city only shows it`s own logistical capacity.
Rome could transfer large amounts of food by sea, so it was really big, and it`s example proves my point, about the largest cities.

What? That they need to be the capital of a large over-seas empire? Except that's doesn't explain all those Chinese and Indian cities.

So instead of vieving agricultural efficency as am amount of people a single farmer can feed, you wiev it as the stability of food supply?

So? No need to laugh about it. That just shows you prefer ridicule to actually backing up your points with arguments.

The idea that 'bigger yields' are more important than stability basically lead to the Irish Potato famine. Its a valid but also limited idea of 'efficiency'. Stability directly effects 'average food production' so its not really irrelevant to 'how many people 1 farmer can feed'. A massive production potential that never materialises is just poor production

So, was the purpose of European states of the age too feed, close, and home every of it`s inhabitants?

Depends who you ask. European states didn't have 'a purpose'. They just existed by accident to fill the void left by the retreating Roman Empire.

Again, all what you seem to have to say, can be called the cherry picking to "prove" the point, that is set before the reserch was ever done.

Oh? How so?

If I'm trying to support an already existing argument its only because its a second hand argument that I can't explain as well as those who originated it.

You can build whatever you want. University is just a big house or a set of those.

What really metters are the teachers, books and students, that are things that allow to accumulate and transfer knowlege from one people, to other.

So basically your saying that they didn't need places to meet at all? Really? You might as well say that they didn't need light to read those books by either. You can't have people without ground to stand on either.

A university is not a building. Its a charter that encourages teachers to teach and students to study. That's pretty important. Even if the students and the teachers do the work its the university that creates them.

 

[icedt729]

So, 1alexey... what's your point exactly?