Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duke Leto · 07-16-2012, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

population density of NYC: 27k/mile^2; Singapore: 18k/mile^2; Jerusalem: 17k/mile^2

Is that contemporary Singapore and New York or the cities from earlier epochs?

10-20k/mile^2 is not completely out of my ballpark because we are only talking one square mile. outhouse wants us to believe 1m/mile^2, more or less.

outhouse · 07-16-2012, 11:23 AM

dude stop while your still behind

you are embarrassing yourself with ignorance on everything we are talking about.

they had sewage tunnels

what else do you want to fail at?

outhouse · 07-16-2012, 11:32 AM

you also dont understand the running water they had [facepalm]

Iskander · 07-16-2012, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke Leto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Tacitus exaggeration is helpful as a guide in the sense that he seems to have found nothing particularly odd with such a large population of 600000, which suggests that the size of the population of Jerusalem appeared to have been routinely estimated to be about 400000 during festivals.

Roman authors seem to have liked to inflate the size of the armies they had to fight. This tradition dates back to Herodotus and probably as far as Sargon.

If Vespasian/Titus had possessed 10 full strength Legions his army would have been no more than 75,000 tops. 75,000 soldiers, no matter how well armed and trained can not win a stand up battle against 600,000 combatants, no matter how poorly armed. The Jews would just have had to walk around the Romans and attack from all sides. There's no question of them being able to put up a cicumvulation around Jerusalem if the defenders outnumbered them 10 to 1.

The size of Jerusalem is discussed in another thread where I challenged to 400,000 number but I just Googled the area of Jesus' Jerusalem, which was about a square mile or 640 acres. I know Herod Agrippa reinforced the walls but I don't think he extended them. If 600,000 fighting men crammed into that space it would be packed in at a density of 900 per acre. That's nine times the population density of modern Manhattan.

Even if Jerusalem were one continuous three story building 900 per acre leaves virtually no space for food storage or waste disposal, especially if the siege is supposed to last for several months.

MODERN Jerusalem has 800,000 inhabitants and a much larger footprint. It and the rest of Israel strain the freshwater supply so badly that the Dead Sea is drying up since there's no river Jordan to fill it.

The site I got the footprint of Jerusalem from puts the population at 25,000, which is only half the population density of modern Hong Kong. I think 10,000 is a more reasonable upper limit, although another 40-60,000 living outside the walls is not unreasonable.

The Temple Mount was not built to contain a crowd, it was made to inspire awe and make individuals seem insignificant.

Jerusalem was NOT a major city like Alexandria or Antioch. Judea was not a wealthy and prosperous Kingdom/Province. The Emperors never bothered sending Senators to govern it, they sent no-name equestrians like Pilate or even Imperial Freedman like Antonius Felix.

There's probably no hope of keeping the discussion in this thread, but see the other damned one for reference.

Quote:

against 600,000 combatants

Why do you say this? The population of Jerusalem was made up of women, children, elderly, the starving, the sick ... and a peasant male population without military training and without suitable weapons. It is very disappointing to see you writing this unforgivable stuff.

I agree that it is very difficult to be certain about anything in ancient history and I will stop our conversation now.

Duke Leto · 07-16-2012, 12:02 PM

Since I'm systematically ignorant by comparison to your sublime intelligence, which doesn't appear to extend to grammar I must note, please explain how all of my other arguments are incorrect?

It MUST be easy.

Here's another question:

Look at these population figures for Jerusalem between 1000 and 1800:

Does it not strike you as worthy of note that they hovered between 10,000 and 20,000 the whole time? Titus destroyed the city but Hadrian and Constantine rebuilt it with the same infrastructure. Why would the city not have rebounded to a population of 100,000-500,000 given the same surrounding agronomy to support it and an even larger base population (Christendom) to draw pilgrims from year round? It didn't spike up to 200,000 until after the Balfour Declaration.

It seems a lot more logical to suppose that 20,000 was about the largest that the city could grow to with pre-modern technology.

Sarpedon · 07-16-2012, 12:04 PM

The key point is that ancient historians routinely exaggerated sizes of crowds and armies.

What makes you think they haven't in this case given the population of the region?

Note that the Ottoman census in 1914 put the population at around 700,000, which is less than what you are suggesting for the Roman period. Note that at that time the area had enjoyed a time of relative peace and prosperity lasting some centuries. when the Ottomans took over in the 1500s, the population was less than 200,000. This is the population of the entire province.

Iskander · 07-16-2012, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke Leto

Since I'm systematically ignorant by comparison to your sublime intelligence, which doesn't appear to extend to grammar I must note, please explain how all of my other arguments are incorrect?

It MUST be easy.

Here's another question:

Look at these population figures for Jerusalem between 1000 and 1800:

Does it not strike you as worthy of note that they hovered between 10,000 and 20,000 the whole time? Titus destroyed the city but Hadrian and Constantine rebuilt it with the same infrastructure. Why would the city not have rebounded to a population of 100,000-500,000 given the same surrounding agronomy to support it and an even larger base population (Christendom) to draw pilgrims from year round? It didn't spike up to 200,000 until after the Balfour Declaration.

It seems a lot more logical to suppose that 20,000 was about the largest that the city could grow to with pre-modern technology.

Quote:

Since I'm systematically ignorant by comparison to your sublime intelligence

Why do you behave like this?

Iskander · 07-16-2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

The key point is that ancient historians routinely exaggerated sizes of crowds and armies.

What makes you think they haven't in this case given the population of the region?

Note that the Ottoman census in 1914 put the population at around 700,000, which is less than what you are suggesting for the Roman period. Note that at that time the area had enjoyed a time of relative peace and prosperity lasting some centuries. when the Ottomans took over in the 1500s, the population was less than 200,000. This is the population of the entire province.

I have already said that the figure of 600000 is an exageration in the post where I introduced Tacitus. see #17 and #13 in which I say that rome had a population of well over a million.

Horatio Parker · 07-16-2012, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke Leto

If Vespasian/Titus had possessed 10 full strength Legions his army would have been no more than 75,000 tops. 75,000 soldiers, no matter how well armed and trained can not win a stand up battle against 600,000 combatants, no matter how poorly armed. The Jews would just have had to walk around the Romans and attack from all sides. There's no question of them being able to put up a cicumvulation around Jerusalem if the defenders outnumbered them 10 to 1.

This is an interesting topic, but this point is off in the weeds.

At Cajamarca, the Spanish were outnumbered by the Inka 50 to 1.

The 14th century revolt of the Jacquerie, armed peasantry, was suppressed by a handful of armored knights defending a bridge.

The Romans at Cannae were slaughtered because they were packed so tightly by the Carthaginian double envelopment they couldn't lift their arms to defend themselves.

There many other variables than numbers to consider.

Sarpedon · 07-16-2012, 12:23 PM

Yes I see that. You still say that 400,000 is reasonable in Jerusalem during feast times, which vastly outnumbers the population of the entire province 1500 years later. I am a bit skeptical of this.

I of course agree that Rome had a populaton of over a million. I have studied Rome well. Now rome at its peak was surrounded by the so called aurellian walls, being 12 miles in length, enclosing around 5 square miles. If Jerusalem had one square mile (within the Herodian walls) and a similar population density, it could have a population of 250,000. However, there is no reason to think it did have such a density, as archeological evidence points to a considerable amount of area inside the walls being undeveloped (however, it could be used to house festival goers). I don't think it particularly unreasonable to think the city could house 250,000 people or more for such events, but the question is, where would they come from? I don't find the 1,000,000 population figure for the entire province credible, given the ottoman statistics. I think 200,000 is pushing the limits of credibility.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2012, 11:23 AM	#32
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	dude stop while your still behind you are embarrassing yourself with ignorance on everything we are talking about. they had sewage tunnels what else do you want to fail at?

07-16-2012, 11:32 AM	#33
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	you also dont understand the running water they had [facepalm]

07-16-2012, 12:02 PM	#35
Duke Leto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3,387	Since I'm systematically ignorant by comparison to your sublime intelligence, which doesn't appear to extend to grammar I must note, please explain how all of my other arguments are incorrect? It MUST be easy. Here's another question: Look at these population figures for Jerusalem between 1000 and 1800: Does it not strike you as worthy of note that they hovered between 10,000 and 20,000 the whole time? Titus destroyed the city but Hadrian and Constantine rebuilt it with the same infrastructure. Why would the city not have rebounded to a population of 100,000-500,000 given the same surrounding agronomy to support it and an even larger base population (Christendom) to draw pilgrims from year round? It didn't spike up to 200,000 until after the Balfour Declaration. It seems a lot more logical to suppose that 20,000 was about the largest that the city could grow to with pre-modern technology.

07-16-2012, 12:04 PM	#36
Sarpedon Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le Posts: 8,446	The key point is that ancient historians routinely exaggerated sizes of crowds and armies. What makes you think they haven't in this case given the population of the region? Note that the Ottoman census in 1914 put the population at around 700,000, which is less than what you are suggesting for the Roman period. Note that at that time the area had enjoyed a time of relative peace and prosperity lasting some centuries. when the Ottomans took over in the 1500s, the population was less than 200,000. This is the population of the entire province.

07-16-2012, 12:23 PM	#40
Sarpedon Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le Posts: 8,446	Yes I see that. You still say that 400,000 is reasonable in Jerusalem during feast times, which vastly outnumbers the population of the entire province 1500 years later. I am a bit skeptical of this. I of course agree that Rome had a populaton of over a million. I have studied Rome well. Now rome at its peak was surrounded by the so called aurellian walls, being 12 miles in length, enclosing around 5 square miles. If Jerusalem had one square mile (within the Herodian walls) and a similar population density, it could have a population of 250,000. However, there is no reason to think it did have such a density, as archeological evidence points to a considerable amount of area inside the walls being undeveloped (however, it could be used to house festival goers). I don't think it particularly unreasonable to think the city could house 250,000 people or more for such events, but the question is, where would they come from? I don't find the 1,000,000 population figure for the entire province credible, given the ottoman statistics. I think 200,000 is pushing the limits of credibility.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.