This is simply false…. In the early Roman imperial period, for example, the biggest cities in the world were Rome, Alexandria, Seleucia and Luoyang…. The same pattern holds later in history also; for example, at the height of the Abbasid Caliphate Baghdad was the biggest city in the world, at the height of the Ottoman Empire Constantinople was the biggest city in the world and so on.
I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong. Do you have more precise numbers?
There’s no evidence for the claim that technology regressed after the fall of Western Rome. There were not as many big cities in Europe as there were in the time of Western Rome, but where do you get the impression that technology went backwards in this period?
Roman concrete fell out of use after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It is my impression that not many aqueducts were built either.
My reference point for technological regression after the fall of the Western Roman Empire comes from science rather than technology. My understanding of the Renaissance (from reading Destiny Disrupted) is that much of European philosophy (including science) only survived because it was preserved by the Arabic-speaking world.
In most cases the reason European armies were able to defeat local armies was not that the locals lacked the equipment the Europeans had; indeed they could buy that equipment from Europeans on the open market!
I agree. This is why Europeans choosing the terms of engagement was so important. They won when the Mughal and Qing empires were at their weakest.
I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong. Do you have more precise numbers?
There’s obviously quite a bit of uncertainty when it comes to ancient city populations, but Wikipedia has a nice aggregation of three different sources which list the largest city in the world at various times in history. Estimates of city populations can vary by a factor of 2 or more across different sources, but the overall picture is that sometimes the largest city in the world was Chinese and sometimes it was not.
My reference point for technological regression after the fall of the Western Roman Empire comes from science rather than technology. My understanding of the Renaissance (from reading Destiny Disrupted) is that much of European philosophy (including science) only survived because it was preserved by the Arabic-speaking world.
I’m not an expert on the subject but this has always appeared highly implausible to me. I’d need to see strong evidence, ideally from multiple different sources, to be convinced that this really happened.
I agree. This is why Europeans choosing the terms of engagement was so important. They won when the Mughal and Qing empires were at their weakest.
I’m not sure why we should think the Qing empire was especially weak in 1839 compared to, say, 1789. On paper they look stronger: China’s population was bigger in 1839 than it was in 1789. If the criterion for judging whether China is weak or not whether they lose in wars against foreign countries, then tautologically whenever China is doing badly it will be because they are “at their weakest”.
What I think actually happened is that the Qing dynasty of 1839 was either about as strong as the Qing dynasty of 1789 or even slightly more so, but the Europeans were much more so. The Europeans also had a greater ability to project power at a long distance in 1839 than they did in 1789. If the Qing dynasty had to fight the armies of the Napoleonic era in 1789, it’s clear to me that the Qing dynasty would have been massacred, and I don’t think the reason would have much to do with technology.
Thank you for the link. I’m curious what the table would look like if we examined the top 10 or 20 cities instead of just those tied for the top position.
If the Qing dynasty had to fight the armies of the Napoleonic era in 1789, it’s clear to me that they would have been massacred, and I don’t think the reason would have much to do with technology.
Who does “they” refer to in this sentence? It could mean two very different things.
Thank you for the link. I’m curious what the table would look like if we examined the top 10 or 20 cities instead of just those tied for the top position.
I think this is quite a tall order for ancient times, but a source I’ve found useful is this video by Ollie Bye on YouTube. It’s possible to move his estimates around by factors of 2 or so at various points, but I think they are correct when it comes to the order of magnitude of historical city populations.
Who does “they” refer to in this sentence? It could mean two very different things.
Edited the parent comment to make it clearer. “They” refers to the Qing dynasty.
It is my impression that not many aqueducts were built either.
My understanding is that not many were built because they didn’t have much need for them (since they didn’t have the huge cities that needed water imported). They did eventually lose the specific knowledge of building aqueducts, much like we today have lost the knowledge of how to make Dhaka muslin, but it represents a single datapoint not an overall regression.
Cathedrals are an example of a engineering project that was possible in medieval Europe but not in Roman Europe.
Europe 1300 A.D. was more advanced both technologically and scientifically than the Roman empire in a lot of ways. Europe 1000 AD is more debatable and Europe 700 AD surely was not more advanced.
I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong. Do you have more precise numbers?
Roman concrete fell out of use after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It is my impression that not many aqueducts were built either.
My reference point for technological regression after the fall of the Western Roman Empire comes from science rather than technology. My understanding of the Renaissance (from reading Destiny Disrupted) is that much of European philosophy (including science) only survived because it was preserved by the Arabic-speaking world.
I agree. This is why Europeans choosing the terms of engagement was so important. They won when the Mughal and Qing empires were at their weakest.
There’s obviously quite a bit of uncertainty when it comes to ancient city populations, but Wikipedia has a nice aggregation of three different sources which list the largest city in the world at various times in history. Estimates of city populations can vary by a factor of 2 or more across different sources, but the overall picture is that sometimes the largest city in the world was Chinese and sometimes it was not.
I’m not an expert on the subject but this has always appeared highly implausible to me. I’d need to see strong evidence, ideally from multiple different sources, to be convinced that this really happened.
I’m not sure why we should think the Qing empire was especially weak in 1839 compared to, say, 1789. On paper they look stronger: China’s population was bigger in 1839 than it was in 1789. If the criterion for judging whether China is weak or not whether they lose in wars against foreign countries, then tautologically whenever China is doing badly it will be because they are “at their weakest”.
What I think actually happened is that the Qing dynasty of 1839 was either about as strong as the Qing dynasty of 1789 or even slightly more so, but the Europeans were much more so. The Europeans also had a greater ability to project power at a long distance in 1839 than they did in 1789. If the Qing dynasty had to fight the armies of the Napoleonic era in 1789, it’s clear to me that the Qing dynasty would have been massacred, and I don’t think the reason would have much to do with technology.
Thank you for the link. I’m curious what the table would look like if we examined the top 10 or 20 cities instead of just those tied for the top position.
Who does “they” refer to in this sentence? It could mean two very different things.
I think this is quite a tall order for ancient times, but a source I’ve found useful is this video by Ollie Bye on YouTube. It’s possible to move his estimates around by factors of 2 or so at various points, but I think they are correct when it comes to the order of magnitude of historical city populations.
Edited the parent comment to make it clearer. “They” refers to the Qing dynasty.
My understanding is that not many were built because they didn’t have much need for them (since they didn’t have the huge cities that needed water imported). They did eventually lose the specific knowledge of building aqueducts, much like we today have lost the knowledge of how to make Dhaka muslin, but it represents a single datapoint not an overall regression.
Cathedrals are an example of a engineering project that was possible in medieval Europe but not in Roman Europe.
Europe 1300 A.D. was more advanced both technologically and scientifically than the Roman empire in a lot of ways. Europe 1000 AD is more debatable and Europe 700 AD surely was not more advanced.