“Is it really true that European cities were bigger than cities in China, Egypt

–“Is it really true that European cities were bigger than cities in China, Egypt and India?”–

Yes, though it might be ‘a city’ instead of ‘cities’. But the reason is obvious.

The neolithic land could support more people in the fertility of Europe’s ecology until the river valley peoples invented and (quickly) shared flood river irrigation, and which place the land could support more people (and still does) than any other until the age of petroleum. At which point the fertility of greater arable surface area surpassed the fertility of land with close proximity to irrigation. Egypt, despite its borders, for example, is really just x-distance from the banks of the Nile.

Secondly, flood river valleys are basically highways, so trade accelerates, and the concentration of productive capital allows cheap and easy conquest and taxation. Taxation and trade lead to urban development, and out of necessity of the complexity, the development of writing to manage inventory, trade, and taxation – and the beginnings of the debt-credit cycle which allows greater agrarian risk and survival.

At which point the combination of climate, transport cost and speed, trade volume, policing, government and taxation – especially given the proximity of egypt, levant, Mesopotamia, and Indus (and finally ganges and yellow river) created the opportunity for overland and coastal sea trade that held the advantage until the european Mediterranean age of good government, and then finally the european age of sail, and the european age of industrial and scientific revolution.

Thanks for the rare intellectual honesty and interesting interaction. 😉

Cheers

Reply addressees: @WernerVonBurner @Dosadian @chedetofficial