3 ms·
Right, agreed entirely, this is higher than the numbers I recall from reading, but same order of magnitude. It was the flippant reference to Spain regarding chr
by voz_ 5y ago
Right, agreed entirely, this is higher than the numbers I recall from reading, but same order of magnitude. It was the flippant reference to Spain regarding chronology that I took umbrage with. Thats ~700 years after the area of Spain was named Spain (Latin Hispaniola in the Roman empire, iirc).
I always find the slightly emotional charge discussions (and subsequent downvotes) odd. There seems to be a very strong interest in certain groups to downplay or deride either the colonized, or colonizing side on measurements such as perceived development.
- nl 5y ago> It was the flippant reference to Spain regarding chronology that I took umbrage with. Thats ~700 years after the area of Spain was named Spain (Latin Hispaniola in the Roman empire, iirc). Obviously the land area of Spain has "always" existed. I think referring to "Spain's existence" as the socio-political entity established during the Reconquista is a reasonable position for a throw-away line during a HN discussion.
- AlotOfReading 5y agoIt's true even if we're very pedantic. Mesoamerica has had urbanization and high population densities for quite a long time. Michael Smith has pointed out pretty high urbanization rates (approaching 20%) even in the terminal formative period. Typical numbers I've seen are somewhere in the 8-12+ish people/km^2 range. That's roughly comparable to the western Roman empire at the time. But yes, I did mean the kingdom, not a separate term in another language for a peninsula that doesn't really correspond to the modern area.