Metro area not proper the tax structure and laws system today mean that suburbs (functionaly an extention of the city they orbit and cannot exist without the city proper) are counted as a separate city where as in the ancient city structure the rual outskirts of the city state was counted among the population
I am actually very impressed by Athens size in the classical era! So even 500 y after its heyday, during which the world population had grew to a great extend, its 4-5th century BC population would be enough to put in the second place, had it been the same in the 100s
Doesn't Teotihuacan also deserve an honorable mention? It was the largest city in the Americas at that time, with a population of well over 100,000 persons.
It is really tough to say which cities were truly the biggest since all numbers are just historic estimations ... China, in particular, had many ancient that was close in size to Luoyang :)
Idk, but maybe China india had fewer big cities because their Land was way more fertile and thus a higher percentage lived across the countryside in contrast to middle east and europe.
@@ldubt4494if anything i think that you would expect the opposite. More fertile land, leading to more food available per farmer should mean a greater percentage of the population living in urban centres as they are no longer required for food production.
others on the other hand believe Rome reached the 3,5 Million mark in that time, there are many different theories and estimations but I believe that Rome having about 1 Mil inhabitants is a relatively popular estimation :)
We know that 200.000 (male!) citizens received free grain rations. Not included are: women, children, the middle class, the rich, slaves, foreigners, non-citizens. 1 million population is conservative.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
The fact that these ancient cities were smaller than Springfield Missouri
No. Springfield has only 170,000 people.
Metro area not proper the tax structure and laws system today mean that suburbs (functionaly an extention of the city they orbit and cannot exist without the city proper) are counted as a separate city where as in the ancient city structure the rual outskirts of the city state was counted among the population
Who?
Short but interesting topic. Especially for a city planner like me :)
incredibly well done video, straight to the point and informative. subbed!
I am actually very impressed by Athens size in the classical era! So even 500 y after its heyday, during which the world population had grew to a great extend, its 4-5th century BC population would be enough to put in the second place, had it been the same in the 100s
Pretty nice video but id consider you to low a little bit the sound effects of transition, have a nice day
thanks for the adivce, I always struggle with finding the right volume so that really helps!
@@p0mp3y73 it's just a little bit loud, but is still a great video nice job!
cool
I like the video! Nice job.
Cool video!
Doesn't Teotihuacan also deserve an honorable mention? It was the largest city in the Americas at that time, with a population of well over 100,000 persons.
nice job!
i feel like there should be some indian cities here. since well at that time the indian subcontinent was the 2nd most populated.
It’s pronounced SelUkid not seleucid, great video tho
It’s pronounced si-loo-sid, not si-loi-sed.
thanks, English isn't my first language so I only looked at the phonetic spelling 😅
Very hard to believe that all of India and China had no large cities in the period (apart from Luoyang)
It is really tough to say which cities were truly the biggest since all numbers are just historic estimations ... China, in particular, had many ancient that was close in size to Luoyang :)
Idk, but maybe China india had fewer big cities because their Land was way more fertile and thus a higher percentage lived across the countryside in contrast to middle east and europe.
@@ldubt4494if anything i think that you would expect the opposite. More fertile land, leading to more food available per farmer should mean a greater percentage of the population living in urban centres as they are no longer required for food production.
great video. hope you earn more subs
Many historian disagree with rome reaching 1 million population
others on the other hand believe Rome reached the 3,5 Million mark in that time, there are many different theories and estimations but I believe that Rome having about 1 Mil inhabitants is a relatively popular estimation :)
But even more agree with it. And its rather plausible.
We know that 200.000 (male!) citizens received free grain rations. Not included are: women, children, the middle class, the rich, slaves, foreigners, non-citizens. 1 million population is conservative.