2 ms·

Even in cities they have had animals, mostly poultry, some horses, some sheeps etc cities of the past have not much in common with modern cities. Transports in

by kkfx 5y ago

Even in cities they have had animals, mostly poultry, some horses, some sheeps etc cities of the past have not much in common with modern cities. Transports in the past were far different than today and while long range commerce were the norm they where very different than today. Cities in the past were just polluted agglomerates of people living nearby for defense, services, communications, ancient Rome can be seen in modern terms like a set of colonial houses with some "central" buildings for social life, nothing like a modern city. Also at that time earth was far more fertile than now, at least we can deduct that from the common and ease of hunting: they do not have any "long range" weapons and still they hunt much just around, enough to even nourish a moving army, food in the past was not that abundant of course but enormously more abundant than now.

rsynnott 5y ago
Normal people in Rome lived in these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insula_(building) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insula_(building). Typically 6 to 9 stories. Getting the horses and sheep up the stairs would perhaps be challenging. > they do not have any "long range" weapons and still they hunt much just around, enough to even nourish a moving army Wait, are you suggesting that Roman armies fed themselves by _hunting_? Where are you getting that from? A big part of the reason that Roman armies were so effective in general was their (for the time) excellent supply logistics.
- kkfx 5y ago
  Also, yes. Roman armies were more builders, farmers, hunters than soldiers in the classical sense: they made roads, they move goods, and they hunt while slowly moving around the earth, mostly by feet, war at that time were not modern wars, borders at that time were not borders like today. Many think that the gladio was not only a short sword but a multi-usage tool for various purpose just as an examples. Insula's in Rome were just houses for the people serving the wealthy, for commerce etc again they were not apartments, they might appear that to us, but they were just places where people rest upstairs and work downstairs, animals were common in internal courts. And that's was just a very small fraction of the population, most do not live in cities at that time. A classic sign of how they live is considered the fact that even poor houses around the territory do have roofs with shingles while after the Empire most poor roofs is believed they were straw and similar materials. People often forget that Rome is damn ancient not "just a bit more than the '700 or '600". Society have changed much since then.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    Eh? Practically everyone in Rome (the city) lived in insulae. Essentially the upper middle class on down. And the empire was pretty urbanised, particularly in Italy; out of about 14 million people in Italy in Diocletian’s time about a million lives in Rome. There were other large cities, too, with insulae; indeed contemporary commentary sometimes notes that the insulae in other cities were larger than in Rome (presumably because the height limits that were imposed for safety reasons usually only applied to Rome itself).
    - kkfx 5y ago
      Honestly I'm from Italy, living in France and I do see many Roman's ruin, that do not correspond with such description at all, so the history I know does not state that, I do not really know where it came from... European "modern-city like" development arrive far after the Romans...
      - monocasa 5y ago
        I think you're being affected by survivorship bias here. As the insulae clustered in urban environments, they were much more likely to be replaced than rural buildings since the value of the land they're on is so much higher. And depending on what you mean, "modern-city like" development is a concept that re-arrived in the early renaissance having disappeared after the fall of Rome. Rome itself had a population of over a million during the heydays of the empire, and some interpretations of that number have it as a million citizens, as the empire didn't really care to keep track of non-citizens except in the vaguest of terms.
        kkfx 5y ago
        For modern-city like I intend the renaissance movement where new town born en-masse and poor's flee the poor countryside to the rich city. At Roman time city was not really rich: they host some rich but most of it's population was poor, only commerce give a bit of wealth in cities. Roman's was more traders and peasants with everything gravitating around the army than "citizens". Probably a modern-city comparison can be for the USA the "west" vs the "est", where in the west surely there was cities, witch in reality are "villages" for our modern lingo and people live more on trade and peasant's activities than else while the "east" was already a urban-centric civilization. I hope that's clarify a bit my view. About urban replacement: honestly in the past "replacement" was far different than today, they build piled rock buildings, replacement happen after a war or in case of big incomes using the same rock and adding some. That does not really change the cities, that change was more addictive and slow rebuilding...

by kkfx 5y ago

rsynnott 5y ago

Normal people in Rome lived in these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insula_(building) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insula_(building). Typically 6 to 9 stories. Getting the horses and sheep up the stairs would perhaps be challenging. > they do not have any "long range" weapons and still they hunt much just around, enough to even nourish a moving army Wait, are you suggesting that Roman armies fed themselves by _hunting_? Where are you getting that from? A big part of the reason that Roman armies were so effective in general was their (for the time) excellent supply logistics.

kkfx 5y ago
Also, yes. Roman armies were more builders, farmers, hunters than soldiers in the classical sense: they made roads, they move goods, and they hunt while slowly moving around the earth, mostly by feet, war at that time were not modern wars, borders at that time were not borders like today. Many think that the gladio was not only a short sword but a multi-usage tool for various purpose just as an examples. Insula's in Rome were just houses for the people serving the wealthy, for commerce etc again they were not apartments, they might appear that to us, but they were just places where people rest upstairs and work downstairs, animals were common in internal courts. And that's was just a very small fraction of the population, most do not live in cities at that time. A classic sign of how they live is considered the fact that even poor houses around the territory do have roofs with shingles while after the Empire most poor roofs is believed they were straw and similar materials. People often forget that Rome is damn ancient not "just a bit more than the '700 or '600". Society have changed much since then.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  Eh? Practically everyone in Rome (the city) lived in insulae. Essentially the upper middle class on down. And the empire was pretty urbanised, particularly in Italy; out of about 14 million people in Italy in Diocletian’s time about a million lives in Rome. There were other large cities, too, with insulae; indeed contemporary commentary sometimes notes that the insulae in other cities were larger than in Rome (presumably because the height limits that were imposed for safety reasons usually only applied to Rome itself).
  - kkfx 5y ago
    Honestly I'm from Italy, living in France and I do see many Roman's ruin, that do not correspond with such description at all, so the history I know does not state that, I do not really know where it came from... European "modern-city like" development arrive far after the Romans...
    - monocasa 5y ago
      I think you're being affected by survivorship bias here. As the insulae clustered in urban environments, they were much more likely to be replaced than rural buildings since the value of the land they're on is so much higher. And depending on what you mean, "modern-city like" development is a concept that re-arrived in the early renaissance having disappeared after the fall of Rome. Rome itself had a population of over a million during the heydays of the empire, and some interpretations of that number have it as a million citizens, as the empire didn't really care to keep track of non-citizens except in the vaguest of terms.
      - kkfx 5y ago
        For modern-city like I intend the renaissance movement where new town born en-masse and poor's flee the poor countryside to the rich city. At Roman time city was not really rich: they host some rich but most of it's population was poor, only commerce give a bit of wealth in cities. Roman's was more traders and peasants with everything gravitating around the army than "citizens". Probably a modern-city comparison can be for the USA the "west" vs the "est", where in the west surely there was cities, witch in reality are "villages" for our modern lingo and people live more on trade and peasant's activities than else while the "east" was already a urban-centric civilization. I hope that's clarify a bit my view. About urban replacement: honestly in the past "replacement" was far different than today, they build piled rock buildings, replacement happen after a war or in case of big incomes using the same rock and adding some. That does not really change the cities, that change was more addictive and slow rebuilding...