What was the first city to reach 1 million people?

[Randall]

Those who heard the answer please don't reply. Will post answer later this morning.

[skylive5]

My first guess would be London.... but I think that it may be Rome instead.

[dabuffbills]

Rome

[darin3]

 

Yeah, why post the answer later when it's a pretty simple one?

[Randall]

Yeah, why post the answer later when it's a pretty simple one?

 

 

You think a million people living in Rome 133 BC is obvious? I don't. I thought it be 1000 years later and in Europe.

[dabuffbills]

You think a million people living in Rome 133 BC is obvious? I don't. I thought it be 1000 years later and in Europe.

I thought it was kind of obvious

[CarryTheRock]

Baghdad

[darin3]

You think a million people living in Rome 133 BC is obvious? I don't. I thought it be 1000 years later and in Europe.

 

I thought it was kind of obvious

+1, except the part...

[Randall]

Only 9 US cities have a population of over 1 million people.

 

Rome was very advanced but the infrastructure necessary to house that many people is extensive. That's why I was surprised they had that many. End of story.

[MrTed46]

I would guess NYc

[Savage Beatings]

Wow... I didn't know San Antonio was that large.

[MikesVikes]

Green Bay comes in at 228.

[Ursa Majoris]

Only 9 US cities have a population of over 1 million people.

Meaningless. These depend entirely on how cities were set up and where the city limits were placed decades, even centuries, ago. Minneapolis is only just over 300,000, for example, and completely surrounded by other cities. However, the metro is 3,000,000 and that's what really counts.

[I Like Soup]

Easy, Rome.

[I Like Soup]

One other interesting point, even with that population and the "antiquity" of their engineering, Roman citizens had more water/person available than today's citizens.

[Perchoutofwater]

Baghdad

 

+1

 

The next city to reach that was London

[Ursa Majoris]

Are there census records remaining from these periods? I have a very hard time believing any of these figures from antiquity e.g. Xerxes army of over 2,000,000, the 300,000 dead in the Battle of Chalons and so on. These are nonsense numbers.

[Caveman_Nick]

Rome was my first guess...

[MikesVikes]

Meaningless. These depend entirely on how cities were set up and where the city limits were placed decades, even centuries, ago. Minneapolis is only just over 300,000, for example, and completely surrounded by other cities. However, the metro is 3,000,000 and that's what really counts.

 

You're right. It's not easy to compare metro areas from this.

[I Like Soup]

Are there census records remaining from these periods? I have a very hard time believing any of these figures from antiquity e.g. Xerxes army of over 2,000,000, the 300,000 dead in the Battle of Chalons and so on. These are nonsense numbers.

Well, I can certainly see why there would be some inaccuracies in troop amounts as there could be something gained for making it look like you stood up to a superior force (i.e. to give your people confidence, to increase your value as a general or public figure, etc.). But as far as a city's population goes, what is there to gain by reporting inaccurate figures? I'm not sure how the numbers were reported, but it is generally accepted that Rome was the first city of over a million people. The infrastructure was there in spades.

[Sturphy]

Beijing?

[Ursa Majoris]

it is generally accepted that Rome was the first city of over a million people.

I don't think it is and that's the point. I think Baghdad has an equally valid claim. However, what can be done to validate claims and are there records remaining?

[I Like Soup]

I don't think it is and that's the point. I think Baghdad has an equally valid claim. However, what can be done to validate claims and are there records remaining?

Uh oh...Ursa and Soup buttin' heads on history...maybe I'll get some google backup...