5 ms·

According to Wikipedia, Teotihuacan had an estimated population of 125,000 or more, "making it at least the sixth-largest city in the world during its epoch at

According to Wikipedia, Teotihuacan had an estimated population of 125,000 or more, "making it at least the sixth-largest city in the world during its epoch at its zenith", which is thought to be no later than 550 CE. Rome is estimated to have had 1,000,000 inhabitants around 0 CE. Certainly the Europeans had much greater population and density. How could they not be carrying around more virulent parasites?

chrisco255 4y ago
https://www.jetpunk.com/users/quizmaster/charts/population-of-rome-over-time https://www.jetpunk.com/users/quizmaster/charts/population-o... Rome's population collapsed dramatically after the fall of the empire, by the medieval period, Rome's population was 20,000. Even London didn't exceed 100,000 until the 17th century and most European towns were small villages with a few hundred to a few thousand at most. By my reading of history, the Americas were relatively better off than Europe for much of the dark and middle ages, in average health, height and even lifespan. They were probably at least as populous as Europe if not moreso. Teotihuacan was one of the largest cities in the world for much of the last 2000 years. Modern day Mexico City (25 mi from where Teotihuacan was) has 9 million to this day. There are also massive ruins of cities in the Amazon for which we know very little about from this era. The biodiversity is also incredible in the Amazon, so there could feasibly be many zoonotic diseases in those jungles. I'm partly playing devil's advocate here, I do think the racial diversity and intercontinental exchange in the old world contributed to it.
- mcculley 4y ago
  I am aware that Rome’s population decreased. My reasoning is that a population that was larger and denser in the past is carrying around more parasites. Rome is just one example. By 1492, Europe had many large cities and lots of travel between them, enormously more population and travel than the Americas. They had a more fertile environment for parasites.

chrisco255 4y ago

https://www.jetpunk.com/users/quizmaster/charts/population-of-rome-over-time https://www.jetpunk.com/users/quizmaster/charts/population-o... Rome's population collapsed dramatically after the fall of the empire, by the medieval period, Rome's population was 20,000. Even London didn't exceed 100,000 until the 17th century and most European towns were small villages with a few hundred to a few thousand at most. By my reading of history, the Americas were relatively better off than Europe for much of the dark and middle ages, in average health, height and even lifespan. They were probably at least as populous as Europe if not moreso. Teotihuacan was one of the largest cities in the world for much of the last 2000 years. Modern day Mexico City (25 mi from where Teotihuacan was) has 9 million to this day. There are also massive ruins of cities in the Amazon for which we know very little about from this era. The biodiversity is also incredible in the Amazon, so there could feasibly be many zoonotic diseases in those jungles. I'm partly playing devil's advocate here, I do think the racial diversity and intercontinental exchange in the old world contributed to it.

mcculley 4y ago
I am aware that Rome’s population decreased. My reasoning is that a population that was larger and denser in the past is carrying around more parasites. Rome is just one example. By 1492, Europe had many large cities and lots of travel between them, enormously more population and travel than the Americas. They had a more fertile environment for parasites.