3 ms·
A large city, like London, in the XVI century, would be in the low hundreds of thousand inhabitants range. Two orders of magnitude less than today.
by sergiosgc 7y ago
A large city, like London, in the XVI century, would be in the low hundreds of thousand inhabitants range. Two orders of magnitude less than today.
- icebraining 7y agoIf we're going to use arbitrary points in time, at its peak Ancient Rome had over 1M inhabitants, and Chang'an had almost 2M, all before the IX century. A more apt comparison might be London right before the car became common place, though.
- sergiosgc 7y agoThe moment in time you pick for London does not change the picture. Victorian London still didn't have a million souls. Rome's 1M population is a disputed number. Cities of tens of million inhabitants are all post-industrial and none work solely on mass transit. The car is an essential piece of the equation. Car-less cities are an interesting thought experiment, but none has gone past the implementation barrier. That part of the equation should go into the though experiment.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoPre-war London had a population of 8 million and cars were strictly for the wealthy.
- icebraining 7y ago> Victorian London still didn't have a million souls. Can you provide a link? I'm either confused about what "Victorian" or "London" mean, because it seems to me that metro London definitely had over 1M people in the late 19th century.