Peaceful Cities

[Dhrizzle]

im not sure but anglesey in walse has never been conquered and it has a couple of citys

Anglesey was invaded by the Romans supposedly to demoralise the British Celts (Anglesey is/was one of the most important sites for the druids). It's been occupied by Irish and Scotts as well as being raided by the various Saxon, Viking and Norman invaders who carved up Britain in the middle ages, before finally being taken by the English.

[Zhangfei]

Anyway, the reason that Japan advanced so quickly is because a vastly more advanced outside entity forced the technology upon them. The decadence can be seen in the way the emperor and nobility lived. The apathy, evident in their self-imposed isolation, and intentional halt of technological progress (and it was, by their own account, intentional).

No it wasn't at all - why would the European(and ised) powers bother? Did we do it everywhere?

The Meiji Restoration was brutal and violent but almost entirely Japanese-driven.

It was a society where time had stopped.

Orientalism is a particularly ugly historical approach. No culture has ever stagnated. Japan was still having wars, writing new philosophies, advancing their art, inventing new things etc. before the Europeans and Americans got involved. They were quite prepared for any war based on what they had experienced in East Asia.

[Reeve]

There have been Native American cities that lasted that long but died out because of disease and subsequent instability, but not violence.

Cahokia comes to mind. It used to be the largest Native American city in North America for a long while, and functioned as a neutral trade/commerce hub. From wikipedia..

Cahokia had a huge wooden palisade, suggesting it did have to deal with attacks.

---------- Post added 2013-02-07 at 07:10 PM ----------

Iceland might count, if you don't include infighting or sending troops/supplies to other nations. Greenland as well, and Greenland is probably a more solid choice.

How long have the settlements on Greenland been large enough to be considered "cities?" I know the term "city" is kind of amorphous and vague, but let's say having an urbanized population greater than 2,000 (smaller than my high school) with paved (or cobbled) roadways and other communal infrastructure, such as sanitation systems.

Edit: Greenland's largest city was "properly founded" in 1728, though there had been tiny settlements there for thousands of years before.

[Zhangfei]

If it's over 2000 and never seen war, then the number gets bumped up big time. Plenty of tiny regional centres would have avoided military battles etc, never seen particular violence?

[Rukentuts]

How long have the settlements on Greenland been large enough to be considered "cities?" I know the term "city" is kind of amorphous and vague, but let's say having an urbanized population greater than 2,000 (smaller than my high school) with paved (or cobbled) roadways and other communal infrastructure, such as sanitation systems.

Especially a thousand years ago a city of 2000+ was quite a target.

I'd wager the number is very small in Europe if not zero. Asia I'm not familiar enough with the culture to guess.

[Deleted]

Greenland counts if you don't include supplies during world war II, I believe.

Greenland is a part of Denmark.

[Reeve]

Especially a thousand years ago a city of 2000+ was quite a target.

Not really. Caracalla famously killed 20,000 people in Alexandria because he was pissed about a theater play, and there were still plenty of people left over. There were tons of cities with populations greater than 2,000 in the ancient and medieval world.

[Rukentuts]

Not really. Caracalla famously killed 20,000 people in Alexandria because he was pissed about a theater play, and there were still plenty of people left over. There were tons of cities with populations greater than 2,000 in the ancient and medieval world.

There are exceptions, but look at this link.

[Reeve]

There are exceptions, but look at this link.

That strikes me as a faily large number for an area the size of England, which, by the way, was still nowhere near the center of any kind of world power at the time. It was in fact one of the least populated parts of the western world.

Here's the Roman/Former Roman world between 400 AD and 1500 AD: http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/h...Population.htm

[Rukentuts]

However, one can still point to pretty much any of those cities in my England link and still have it involved in a battle of some kind. If towns of a few thousand are being involved in wars, it stands to reason there's probably no city with hundreds of thousands that was not.

[Ave07]

There is no peace, thanks humans!

Im pretty sure animals fight for territory, just take a look at my goose avatar sticking its tongue out to warn you to stay away!

[Rukentuts]

Im pretty sure animals fight for territory, just take a look at me goose avatar sticking his tongue out to warn you to stay away!

Wolf packs will kill each other over territory.

[semaphore]

I love this habit that so many people here have

I love how your ignored how your argument is completely fallacious. How about you actually address my counterarguments instead of whining about me saying you are absolutely, completely, wrong?

You can't hold Japan up as an example of "peace = bad" when (1) Japan was no worse than any other countries that did not experience peace and (2) Japan was far more successful than any other one of those countries. Unless you can address those two points, your claims still has zero merit whatsoever.

Anyway, the reason that Japan advanced so quickly is because a vastly more advanced outside entity forced the technology upon them.

Wrong. The Japanese government took the initiative to modernise their country. And again, why didn't this happen in any other country? It's sad that you don't even seem capable of realising how logically invalid your argument is.

The decadence can be seen in the way the emperor and nobility lived.

And how, exactly, do you see this "decadence" in the way they lived that's supposedly caused by the peace?

The apathy, evident in their self-imposed isolation

And how, exactly, is this evident in that isolation and how is it caused by the peace?

and intentional halt of technological progress

Your completely ignorance is showing. This is factually wrong. Throughout the Sakoku period, Japanese scholars made a concerted effort to keep abreast of European advances by importing and studying Dutch scientific and technical texts.

Also, you remarked their unpreparedness for an attack like it's something that is perfectly acceptable.

No, I remarked on their unpreparedness like it's exactly the same as every other country. When you want to claim that Japan proves peace is bad, you have to actually show how peace put Japan in a worse position than a country that has not had the same peace. You have not done that. And that's why your argument is garbage.

[semaphore]

Not sure what you two are arguing about, but Japan had a "head start" so to speak from the Western Intervention. They were sort of forced to comply.

I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no "Western Intervention" that forced Japan to modernise. It simply forced Japan to open its markets - like what it did to pretty much every other country.

We're arguing over whether having peace made Japan "decadent, apathetic and only consume". I'm arguing that the fact that Japan was no worse than all the other states and later became more successful says it's he's wrong. He' saying that peace is bad just because.

[Reeve]

I love how your ignored how your argument is completely fallacious. How about you actually address my counterarguments instead of whining about me saying you are absolutely, completely, wrong?

You can't hold Japan up as an example of "peace = bad" when (1) Japan was no worse than any other countries that did not experience peace and (2) Japan was far more successful than any other one of those countries. Unless you can address those two points, your claims still has zero merit whatsoever.


Wrong. The Japanese government took the initiative to modernise their country. And again, why didn't this happen in any other country? It's sad that you don't even seem capable of realising how logically invalid your argument is.


And how, exactly, do you see this "decadence" in the way they lived that's supposedly caused by the peace?


And how, exactly, is this evident in that isolation and how is it caused by the peace?


Your completely ignorance is showing. This is factually wrong. Throughout the Sakoku period, Japanese scholars made a concerted effort to keep abreast of European advances by importing and studying Dutch scientific and technical texts.


No, I remarked on their unpreparedness like it's exactly the same as every other country. When you want to claim that Japan proves peace is bad, you have to actually show how peace put Japan in a worse position than a country that has not had the same peace. You have not done that. And that's why your argument is garbage.

And let's not forget that Japan didn't have peace either. They had tons of civil wars.

[Chrispotter]

Hmm Paris, or perhaps Berlin? DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

[Fortera]

If the best "evidence" you have is something this piss poor than you really don't have any case whatsoever. The Japanese were no more behind than any other non-European nation - nations that has been at war. There was no "global arms race", there was western military superiority. You are cherry picking data to make hasty generalisations because they suit your argument, even though it actually ignores reality. Your argument is quite simply fallacious and rather laughable.


And here you're massively moving the goal post from "peace makes civilisation decay and ruins humans" to "they were unprepared for war". No shit. Of course they were unprepared for something that they weren't preparing for. That's completely besides the point. Where's your evidence that the Japanese became "decadent ... only want to consume, and not create ... universally apathetic"? Because that was your claim, and that's what's ridiculous.

The real fact is, of all the nations in the world, Japan is the only non-Western country to successfully modernise prior to the ~1990s or so. Most the others were certainly involved in many conflicts both internal and external - China being a good nearby example. And yet none of them were remotely close to as successful as Japan was. So why is the country that, according to you, should have been "decadent, only consume, universally apathetic" due to peace so much more successful?

Clearly your claims are refuted by your own "best evidence".

Rage much?

Infracted: Please post more constructively. If you don't have anything to add to the topic, don't post.

[semaphore]

Rage much?

Unconstructive much?

I don't suppose you have any actual counterargument to what I said. No, of course not.

[Zhangfei]

Unconstructive much?

I don't suppose you have any actual counterargument to what I said. No, of course not.

Don't engage. Just report him for trolling.

[Titan2k10]

Easter Island?