4 ms·

*All ancient construction that we've found and called cities had walls

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ch4s3 2y ago
Neither ancient Rome nor Sparta had walls for centuries after their rise to prominence. A number of per-Colombian Andean cities didn't have walls. Tenochtitlan didn't have walls and it doesn't look like Cholula did either. And in the Indus Valley Civilization Harappa and Mohenjo-daro didn't have walls.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Tenochtitlan didn't have walls because it already had natural defenses (water); so that's a particular case.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    Neither of the other city states in the Aztec Triple Alliance had walls either and they weren’t built on islands.[1] They seem to have had some walled precincts to separate sacred spaces from common areas but now broader system of defensive walls. Much like Ancient Rome they had large and well organized armies. [1] https://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/1-CompleteSet/MES-SAA-06.pdf https://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/1-CompleteSet/MES-SAA-0...
  - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
    I'm not sure Tenochtitlan was technically a city. The defining characteristic of a city is that it can't feed itself. (Hence the "urban" vs "rural" dichotomy.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tenochtitlan was a closed system and used to have farms on the lake and the islands.
    - ch4s3 2y ago
      I’m not sure that’s a good definition of a city, and not one I’ve seen elsewhere. I’ve read quite a lot about urban planning and Tenochtitlan would fit right in with English garden cities of the early 20th century. It also had a larger population than almost any city in Europe at the time, and certainly the Spanish called it a city.
wqaatwt 2y ago
Knossos didn’t have any walls and it might have had up to 100k people at its peak. Even if the population was 10x lower it would still have been a major city
saghm 2y ago
That's a good point; how do we know that the cities without walls didn't just get ruined over time to the point that we don't know about them (or assume they were much smaller)?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Neither ancient Rome nor Sparta had walls for centuries after their rise to prominence. A number of per-Colombian Andean cities didn't have walls. Tenochtitlan didn't have walls and it doesn't look like Cholula did either. And in the Indus Valley Civilization Harappa and Mohenjo-daro didn't have walls.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
Tenochtitlan didn't have walls because it already had natural defenses (water); so that's a particular case.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  Neither of the other city states in the Aztec Triple Alliance had walls either and they weren’t built on islands.[1] They seem to have had some walled precincts to separate sacred spaces from common areas but now broader system of defensive walls. Much like Ancient Rome they had large and well organized armies. [1] https://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/1-CompleteSet/MES-SAA-06.pdf https://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/1-CompleteSet/MES-SAA-0...
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago
  I'm not sure Tenochtitlan was technically a city. The defining characteristic of a city is that it can't feed itself. (Hence the "urban" vs "rural" dichotomy.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tenochtitlan was a closed system and used to have farms on the lake and the islands.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    I’m not sure that’s a good definition of a city, and not one I’ve seen elsewhere. I’ve read quite a lot about urban planning and Tenochtitlan would fit right in with English garden cities of the early 20th century. It also had a larger population than almost any city in Europe at the time, and certainly the Spanish called it a city.

wqaatwt 2y ago

Knossos didn’t have any walls and it might have had up to 100k people at its peak. Even if the population was 10x lower it would still have been a major city

saghm 2y ago

That's a good point; how do we know that the cities without walls didn't just get ruined over time to the point that we don't know about them (or assume they were much smaller)?