Nomads...

[unmerged(181)]

Originally posted by APKicks on 06-06-2000 07:55 PM
yes....but i did re-read it i thought he was making a comment about the indians of today and not of the yesteryear, and if he was talking about back then, it is still not a very kind coment to make, whether it is true or not.

Here's a lesson for you, APKicks. The truth is the truth. It cannot be racist. It doesn't matter if it is ugly or politically incorrect or not believed. It just is. To state otherwise is delusional.

Back on the subject, I am not so sure that alcohol played as big a role with Native Americans as has been claimed here. Certainly, the natives seemed to have a greater weakness for alcohol than the Europeans but disease (mostly unintentional), firearms (very intentional) and a large European population played a much greater role. I am sure that traders would have no qualms trading alcohol to the Indians for money but they traded all sorts of things for money. I do not believe there was ever an active campaign to turn the natives into alcoholics by either the USA or any European power.

I am not sure this can be compared to opium and China. China did not want to trade anything so the UK brought in opium to get Chinese hooked so they would want to trade for it.

BTW, studies show that Native Americans today are more likely to be alcoholics compared to whites. They also use drugs and cigarettes more often.

EDIT: Misread the study...

[This message has been edited by Pole (edited 07-06-2000).]

 

[unmerged(175)]

i can see that Doomdark has the majority of you on his side, so i am just going to nod my head and say he was right, and just walk away.

 

[Tacticon]

As a resident of Arizona (The State with the highest American Indian Population), I can remember when it was illegal to sell alcohol on the Indian Reservations. The situation has changed considerably over the last 12 years though since gambling (slot machines, bingo and poker) was legalized on the reservations. Now our Native American neighbors are selling alcohol and tax-free tobacco back to us Europeans. You can now buy Indian Arts and Crafts (including blankets) at the casino gift shops. Just make sure you remove all the “Made in China” labels. So far no Small Pox, but that new Hanta Virus they discovered on the Navaho-Hopi Reservation is proven fatal to several ranchers and campers that have contracted it.

- Tacticon

 

[Greyshaft]

Originally posted by APKicks on 06-08-2000 06:11 AM
i can see that Doomdark has the majority of you on his side, so i am just going to nod my head and say he was right, and just walk away.

AP,
I believe that you have the right to your views. I also believe you are correct to nod your head and walk away in order to defuse the situation, but I'd hate to think you were saying Doomie was right just because the majority of people weren't agreeing with you.

If you change your mind I believe you should change it because you have reassessed what was written and conceded that you may have misinterpreted it. Saying that Doomie was right merely because another bunch of people think your 'racist ass' comment was inappropriate does you no justice. Being right is not dependant on how many votes you have in the Forum.

Apart from that freewheeling expression of Voltarian philosophy, thanks for gracefully withdrawing from a potentially explosive conversation.

/Graham

PS This message is not meant to be interpreted as endorsing AP's comment. I am merely supporting his right to his opinion.

 

[unmerged(175)]

i should have dropped it sooner though.

 

[unmerged(35)]

I found this little articale about the aztec, i think it could provide some usefull information. Although it doesnt directly state it i belive this can help support my belief as well as those of many historians that the american pop at the time may be close to that of europe. I get this from the fact that it says the capital of the aztec may have been larger than any city in the world. That means larger than London, Paris, Venice, Rome, Seville, or any other important european city. If there were enough people in the empire to have a city that large, then the population of the americas may have rivaled that of europe. http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761593151

 

[unmerged(181)]

Interesting theory.

However, I am not sure that the size of the Aztec capital would indicate the population of the Americas. At the time of the European arrival, the Aztecs and Incas were exceptionally advanced among native civilizations. Most native civilizations were still at a relatively early stage of development and did not have cities or large settlements. Meanwhile, Europe had cities all over the place and was, in general, much more advanced.

 

[unmerged(35)]

However all great cities generally need a large support population. Im sure that their are no truely large cities that do not have other cities nearby. The population of the native americans were huge. Just read how many warriors joined Cortez against the aztecs. That is only a fraction of the military of area and the military was only a fraction of the pop. Also take into account that the area we are talking about is huge. North and South America combined are many times larger than europe and though the pop. is not very concentrated in some areas it was astronomical in others. Besides i heard a guy on the history channel say this.
And you know TV is never wrong.
hahahahahahahahahaha

 

[unmerged(181)]

Yes, the Americas are very large. But a good percentage of the territory is thinly populated (most of Canada and Alaska, the enormous Amazon rain forest, various deserts and mountain ranges). Most of the natives were under tribal forms of government, which do not lend themselves to large populations.

Also remember that Tenochtitlán was a huge city by Native American standards. It was 5 square miles in size and held 140K people. Plus it had all sorts of surrounding settlements that pushed the metro area into the 400K range. It was unique for pre-European America.

Then again, I need more information here. What exactly was the population of Europe around 1500AD? What was the population of Europe's largest cities? How many large cities did Europe have compared to America?

 

[unmerged(35)]

I dont know. However that fact does not decrease the likelyhood of either of our postions. Also the Incas were one of the great Native American Peoples, however their empire was almost entirely in the Andes mountain range. Also the cliff dwellers(sp im horrible at spelling) lived in cliffs in the middle of the South western united states. The lay of the land did influence the pops of the native americans, but i truely believe that they adapted better to the terain than the europeans would have if they lived in the area. After all the capital of the aztecs and one of the if not the largest city in the world at the time was build on a lake.

 

[unmerged(177)]

Hi Pole and Hacksaw

I can help you for the population of Europe.
In 1483, Europe had about 73 millions people.
France 13, Holy Empire 13, italian peninsula 10, Balkans 10, Poland 7, Spain 7, British Iles 4.5, Russia 3, Low countries 2.5, Scandinavia 2, others 1. There were 5 cities in Europe that had between 80 000 et 120 000 inhabitants, I don't know the exact numbers : Paris, Milano, Venice, Napoli and Istanbul ; 10 cities between 50 000 et 70 000 inhabitants : London, Rouen, Gand, Antwerpen, Genoa, Bologna, Florencia, Roma, Palerma and Moscow.
Note also that only 2.5% of the Europeans were townsmen in 1483, except in northern Italy and Netherlands where there were 10% of townsmen.

I must says that every number here is taken from one book, and that these numbers can be contested of course. But this can give you an idea of the sizes.

Best regards

Raf

 

[unmerged(175)]

well if you have a city of that size, you must have a very large farmer base, and since there were no modern farming techniques or horses during before europeans arrived, the population within 100miles of the 'suburbs' must have been huge, the farming comunity and trading population would have been extremely high, and not to mention fishing and such...

 

[unmerged(35)]

Yep, but my point is that the aztecs had a huge empire as shown by the size of their capital with many millions of subjects. As did the Incas and then there were the plethora of other indian tribes to add to the equation.
thanks raph. If we had such numbers for the americas it could be settled, but o well.

 

[unmerged(65)]

Quote

'There were 5 cities in Europe that had between 80 000 et 120 000 inhabitants'

Forgot Lisbon

 

[Greyshaft]

Originally posted by Henrique Duarte on 06-11-2000 12:28 PM
Quote

'There were 5 cities in Europe that had between 80 000 et 120 000 inhabitants'

Forgot Lisbon

What was the population after the great earthquake?

/Graham

 

[unmerged(175)]

Lisbon Portugal?

 

[Greyshaft]

Originally posted by APKicks on 06-13-2000 06:59 AM
Lisbon Portugal?

Yes. What was the population of Lisbon, Portugal after the Great Earthquake?

/Graham

 

[unmerged(184)]

Originally posted by Graham Dodge on 06-13-2000 11:51 PM

Yes. What was the population of Lisbon, Portugal after the Great Earthquake?

/Graham

Err... but did not this earthquake happen in 1752 or somewhere around this date? Gentlemen, remember that the relative importance of Portugal as an European major power was much higher during the 15th and 16th centuries than during the 17th or the 18th centuries. I wonder if EU has taken into consideration the variations in the size and population of cities during those 300 years of European history.

Kind regards to all.

Martin

 

[unmerged(199)]

Martin - I doubt it; I think they have just implemented a 'standard' growth algorithm. You can't simulate history in any case, and it wouldn't make sense to try (after all, the game is supposed to be able to diverge from history, right?) But probably one of the beta-testers can confirm this for you - I'm just speaking from my own experience at developing this kind of game.

 

[unmerged(65)]

What was the population of Lisbon, Portugal after the Great Earthquake?

/Graham

Sorry for the delay (haven´t been around lately)

well from the top of my head:

some 30.000 people died in the 1755 earthquake - which were supposed to be ~1/5 to 1/10 of total population of the city so count at least 150.000 habitants, probably ~200.000

Anyway for the mid 16th cent population was also arround 100.000 to 150.000 (I read this one from a source that stated that slave population in lisbon was over 10.000 and were less than 10% of the total)

I´ll try and check other sources