3 ms·
It's an interesting article but I dislike the lead-in: > Cities are fragile things. They can burn: Rome in 64 AD (possibly thanks to the Emperor Nero); Constan
by oska 10y ago
It's an interesting article but I dislike the lead-in:
> Cities are fragile things. They can burn: Rome in 64 AD (possibly thanks to the Emperor Nero); Constantinople in 1203 (courtesy of the Fourth Crusade); Lisbon in 1755 (because of the earthquake); Moscow in 1812 (thanks to Napoleon); Hamburg in 1842; Chicago in 1871; San Francisco in 1906… But in terms of devastation, few urban conflagrations can compare with the Great Fire of London, whose 350th anniversary is being marked this year.
How about the fire-bombing of Tokyo and nearly all other major Japanese cities during WWII? The fire-bombing of Tokyo is considered the greatest urban conflagration in history with the US Strategic Bombing Survey conservatively estimating one million homes destroyed. Or the fire in Tokyo after the Great Kantō earthquake in 1923? Or, contemporaneous with the event described, the Great Fire of Meireki in 1657, which destroyed 60-70% of Tokyo and is estimated to have claimed 100,000 lives. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Meireki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Meireki
- prawn 10y agoTo be fair, the article says "few urban conflagrations can compare" and then you compared a few. Seems reasonable.
- M_Grey 10y agoExcept you could then add a few more, Dresden, Berlin, etc... and then a few more. And a few more. The article is chock-full of sophistry, and the lead-in just sets up the mindset.
- dredmorbius 10y agoThe resilience of cities is much commented on. They do withstand fires, and earthquakes, and hurricanes, and floods, and plagues. They're considerably more resilient than businesses and corporations. What will kill a city, though, and rapidly, is a loss of economic foundations. Detroit, Pittsburgh, Manchester, St. Louis, Flint, Youngstown, Scranton, Dayton, .... But that's more a case of the fire going out.