| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - How nature was destroyed in Asia and Europe
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


How nature was destroyed in Asia and Europe

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: How nature was destroyed in Asia and Europe
    Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 03:39
For countries to have large populations and high standard of living, nature must be transformed.
You can sustain small populations very widespread in natural landscapes, living only on hunting and gathering. But when the populations grow, nature is not enough to sustain people, and societies start to depend in agriculture.
Now, agriculture needs water, transportation and a lot of reengineering of the landscapes.

I would like to open this thread to analize how much the landscape of Europe and Asia, particularly China, has changed since 2.000 years B.C. How much biodiversity has been lost. How many roads, channels and infrastructure has been build. How many wild animals had gone extinct, etc.

Just as a clue, a large fraction of today's Netherland, perhaps half, is land recovered from the sea, that didn't exist 2.000 years ago Confused. In China, the Grand Canal, helped to transform that country in the civilization we admire.





Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Feb 2011 at 09:10

Yes, pinguin, just how does one replace the hundreds of "Island fortresses" that used to exist in France, Holland, Belgium, etc., that have today been reconnected to the "MAINLAND", etc.?

Regards,
Ron
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Feb 2011 at 09:16
That was has to do with the destruction of nature? In this moment Europe circa 0,3% of its ancient forests, while countries like Brazil still has around 70%. That's the degree of destruction of the biodiversity that happened in Europe after 30 centuries of "civilization".
Now, if Europe did it why other countries shouldn't?
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Feb 2011 at 11:57
No, you hairless, and thick feathered friend!  Just continue to hudddle togerther!  Smile!
 
What I meant to get from you, was this;
 
During the Middle Ages, there seems to have been almost no major city or crossing of a river withing N. France, or all parts North!, as well as South and East, etcl!  That was not surrounded by water!
 
Thus, almost every imoportant place within this area was set aside as an "Island!"
 
This really means so much, that the entire area became known as otherwise,  "ISLANDS!"  And, as such, do did the area around "Paris!"
 
But, I guess I should assume the "engarde"" stance whilst your sabres or foils are prepared for the onslaught. etc.?
 
Regarde",
Ron


Edited by opuslola - 24 Feb 2011 at 05:38
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Feb 2011 at 12:05
Indeed. During the Middle Ages northern Europe was Third World, with the standard of living and violence of modern Somalia. In those times, the forests were full of wildlife.


Edited by pinguin - 23 Feb 2011 at 12:06
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Feb 2011 at 13:20
NO! My fine featherd friend, I did not mean such!  Wild Life, is the thing that I used to persue whenI was in my 20's, and 30's etc.!
 
What I meant to demonstrate above, was the fact that most all important cities of the Middle
Ages or later, were surrounded by water!

That is they were all "isles" or "islands" by defiintion!
 

Regards,
 

Ron
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Feb 2011 at 20:17
The whole of the earth's land surface is surrounded by water, liquid or frozen. You need to be a bit more precise.
 
Certainly the Ile de France (Europe's wealthiest region) is not surrounded by water. Neither are mos medieval towns, a much more common pattern being a settlement on both sides of a river, or on one side with ferry communications to the other.
 
Waterways were the major 'roads' of the middle ages since water trasnport is much easier than land transport. In general they didn't divide, they joined together. Even the English channel in the middle ages linked Normandy and England into a common culture.
 
Occasonal cities were settlements on islands, as Paris was. But how many others can you name?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Feb 2011 at 05:33
gcle2003, wrote this above;
 
"Occasonal cities were settlements on islands, as Paris was. But how many others can you name?"
 
I am so glad that you asked!
 
Given enough time, I could literally name hundreds! 
 
For example, Italy has one famous city built upon Isles, which we call Venice!
 
But, How about Milan, Italy?  Could it also have been an "Isle" at one time?
 
Take a look at this and tell us what it describes?
 
 
Or, if you prefer, pick another view of the Isle of Milano, from this collection?
 
 
This old map of Flanders shows at  least 16 cities surrounded by water, and thus they were all Isles, etc.
 
 
There is even some contention that Constantinople was also surrounded by a large moat, which would create the "Isle of Constantinople!"
 
France, Germany and probably Luxembourg, all had their share of cities surrounded by flooded moats! 
 
Again, in my very words above;
 
"What I meant to demonstrate above, was the fact that most all important cities of the Middle
Ages or later, were surrounded by water!

That is they were all 'isles' or 'islands' by definition!"
 
It was not a trick question however!
 
So, I will suppose that you will settle for the few examples I did give above and not demand that I list hundreds more?Cool
 
Actually I could contend that the area of France called "Ile de France", was originally coined to suggest that it was only within those confines that Church, and Education were under the same controlling authorities! 
 
Regards,
 
Ron
 
 


Edited by opuslola - 24 Feb 2011 at 05:34
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Feb 2011 at 07:10
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

gcle2003, wrote this above;
 
"Occasonal cities were settlements on islands, as Paris was. But how many others can you name?"
 
I am so glad that you asked!
 
Given enough time, I could literally name hundreds! 
 
For example, Italy has one famous city built upon Isles, which we call Venice!
Venice is a network of connected islands yes. But it isn't completely surrounded by water.
 
I'll throw in Hong-Kong for you, but they're rare.
Quote
 
But, How about Milan, Italy?  Could it also have been an "Isle" at one time?
 
Take a look at this and tell us what it describes?
A fortress with an artifical moat built around most of the perimeter.
Quote  
 
Or, if you prefer, pick another view of the Isle of Milano, from this collection?
 
 
This old map of Flanders shows at  least 16 cities surrounded by water, and thus they were all Isles, etc.
 
The map is too small scale to show anything. Tell me the sixteen cities, I'll check if I know any and I'll look up the others.
 
If one of them is Bruges or Brussels or Louvain then they aren't islands (though Bruges is built around canals - the town surrounds the canals rather than the canals the town, and when it was first settled there were no canals anyway.
Quote
 
There is even some contention that Constantinople was also surrounded by a large moat, which would create the "Isle of Constantinople!"
 
France, Germany and probably Luxembourg, all had their share of cities surrounded by flooded moats! 
When you started this you were talking about natural geographical features, not an artificial island created for defensive purposes. Generally speaking such fortifications do not surround the entire city anyway.
 
I'm not aware of anywhere in Luxembourg where there is a town or city surrounded by water. There are a few partly-moated fortresses but not towns or cities. Germany I can't be so sure of since I haven't covered anything like all of it. But none of the towsn I've worked or stayed in were surrounded by water. There are many many more walled cities and towns, but rarely do they have moats. (I already gave you Paris as an island settlement.)
 
Quote
Again, in my very words above;
 
"What I meant to demonstrate above, was the fact that most all important cities of the Middle
Ages or later, were surrounded by water!

That is they were all 'isles' or 'islands' by definition!"
 
It was not a trick question however!
 
So, I will suppose that you will settle for the few examples I did give above and not demand that I list hundreds more?Cool
Not at all. I don't think you've made any case at all for towns being settled on islands. One or even two swallows don't make a summer, and in this context moated fortresses are not swallows.
Quote  
Actually I could contend that the area of France called "Ile de France", was originally coined to suggest that it was only within those confines that Church, and Education were under the same controlling authorities! 
And why would anyone take notice if you did? In any case, to use your own approach, there is even a suggestion that 'Ile de France' - especially "L'isle de France" as you say you prefer - is merely a corruption of the Frankish for 'little Francia'. But I grant you if you take a squint at it in the right light and from the right angle, there is a kind of hint of an island about it. But it isn't surrounded by water except in the sense the Eurasian-African land mass is surroounded by water.
 
If you want to claim every building in Eurasia and Africa is built on an island, since you canpt get to America without crossing water, feel free. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Feb 2011 at 09:08
Indeed, Europe is prenty of rivers, but I don't see the relation of it with the historical destruction of nature there.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Feb 2011 at 11:15
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Indeed, Europe is prenty of rivers, but I don't see the relation of it with the historical destruction of nature there.
 
Well in the case of the Low Countries, swamps were drained, dams and levees built, land re-claimed from the Ocean, etc.!
 
But, it was an "historical destruction of nature!"
 
Regards,
 
Ron
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Feb 2011 at 11:25
And perhaps gcle2003, you again did not read my words!
 
""What I meant to demonstrate above, was the fact that most all important cities of the Middle
Ages or later, were surrounded by water!

That is they were all 'isles' or 'islands' by definition!""
 
Note, I wrote clearly the words "most all important..", and not as you have later characterized my statement as you wrote in your own words; 
 
"I don't think you've made any case at all for towns being settled on islands. One or even two swallows don't make a summer, and in this context moated fortresses are not swallows."
 
Certainly there has existed; "moated Castles", "moated fortresses" and "moated friars settlements", etc., but when entire cities are protected by a moat, such as you should have seen in the representations of Milan, then it is an entirely different story!
 
I have not suggested that "Ile" meant "isle", but it well could have?  I think the idea that it was or is, "merely a corruption of the Frankish for 'little Francia'", is pure speculation!
 
As Wikipedia specifically states;
 
"Although the modern name "Île-de-France" clearly means "Isle of France", the etymology is in fact unclear. The "isle" may refer to the land between the Oise, Marne & Seine rivers. "Isle of France" may also have been a reference to the Île de la Cité, in which case "Isle of France" was originally a pars pro toto or perhaps a metonym.

However the modern term may well be a corruption of a proposed Frankish language term "Liddle Franke" meaning "Little France" (or "little Frankish land") and the modern reference to an "isle" may therefore be coincidental. However, this theory may perhaps be anachronistic, since the name "L'Île-de-France;" (its old spelling) is not documented prior to 1387."

 
But, we will let that go!Cool
 
Regards,
 
Ron


Edited by opuslola - 24 Feb 2011 at 11:29
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Feb 2011 at 21:42
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

And perhaps gcle2003, you again did not read my words!
 
""What I meant to demonstrate above, was the fact that most all important cities of the Middle
Ages or later, were surrounded by water!

That is they were all 'isles' or 'islands' by definition!""
 
Note, I wrote clearly the words "most all important..", and not as you have later characterized my statement as you wrote in your own words; 
What on earth do you mean by 'most all'. 'All'? 'Nearly all'? 'All I can think of'? Paleface speak with split tongue so that you can claim you meant 'most' and act as if you had said 'all'?
 
In fact both 'most' and 'all' are wrong. 'Many' might do it, but 'some would be better'. So far I've come up with more and better examples thn you have - I'll throw in New York too if you like. But these are exceptions, not the rule.
Quote
 
"I don't think you've made any case at all for towns being settled on islands. One or even two swallows don't make a summer, and in this context moated fortresses are not swallows."
 
Certainly there has existed; "moated Castles", "moated fortresses" and "moated friars settlements", etc., but when entire cities are protected by a moat, such as you should have seen in the representations of Milan, then it is an entirely different story!
No it isn't.Saying that the fact that Milan was (mostly) moated for a while some two millenia after it was founded indicates any tendency to found cities where they were surrounded by water is at nutty as saying the fact that it - or any other town - was walled is an indication that cities were founded where they were surrounded by walls.
 
The town comes first, then the walls and then the moat (which incidentally is relatively rare), whereas walls are commonplace. .
Quote
 
I have not suggested that "Ile" meant "isle", but it well could have?  I think the idea that it was or is, "merely a corruption of the Frankish for 'little Francia'", is pure speculation!
 
As Wikipedia specifically states;
 
"Although the modern name "Île-de-France" clearly means "Isle of France", the etymology is in fact unclear. The "isle" may refer to the land between the Oise, Marne & Seine rivers. "Isle of France" may also have been a reference to the Île de la Cité, in which case "Isle of France" was originally a pars pro toto or perhaps a metonym.

However the modern term may well be a corruption of a proposed Frankish language term "Liddle Franke" meaning "Little France" (or "little Frankish land") and the modern reference to an "isle" may therefore be coincidental. However, this theory may perhaps be anachronistic, since the name "L'Île-de-France;" (its old spelling) is not documented prior to 1387."

 
But, we will let that go!Cool
What else could you do? Insofar as wikipedia is an authoritative source, it says themeaning is unclear.
The important thing is that the Ile de France is not actually an island in the sense that the Ile de la Cité is an island (Paris being admittedly one of the relatively rare cities actually founded on an island).
 
Oh, and while I think of it you can have Lagos too.
 
Regards,
 
Ron
[/QUOTE]
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Feb 2011 at 23:33
gcle2003!
 
 
"1. Abbr. Isl. or Is. or I. A land mass, especially one smaller than a continent, entirely surrounded by water."
 
You must have noticed just how many times I used the words "by definition" in my statements above?
 
"Word History: It may seem hard to believe, but Latin aqua, "water," is related to island, which originally meant "watery land." Aqua comes almost unchanged from Indo-European *akw-, "water." *Akw- became *ahw- in Germanic by Grimm's Law and other sound changes. To this was built the adjective *ahwj-, "watery." This then evolved to *awwj- or *auwi-, which in pre-English became *aj-, and finally g or eg in Old English. Island, spelled iland, first appears in Old English in King Alfred's translation of Boethius about a.d. 888; the spellings igland and ealond appear in contemporary documents. The s in island is due to a mistaken etymology, confusing the etymologically correct English iland with French isle. Isle comes ultimately from Latin nsula "island," a component of paennsula, "almost-island," whence our peninsula."
 
Now, I reiterate, I did not ever suggest that most cities were founded because the land was an island, I clearly stated that these "most important" cities (where conditions allowed) were mostly eventually created to act as islands, etc.!  What part of this do you not understand?
 
Just how could I make my statements more easily understood by you?
 
The names of some other cities that eventually became "by definition" islands, include Brugges / Bruges, St. Pol (St. Paul), Amsterdam, Lille, St. Malo, Dunkirk, etc.!  This was, of course very simple to do in the Low Countries!
 
Here is one in Italy!
 
 
And a few others;
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OH heck, just look at the entire site, here;
 
 
I will send other connections later if you still have need of them!
 
Regards,
 
Ron
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 00:52
It has been written:
 
What I meant to demonstrate above, was the fact that most all important cities of the Middle
Ages or later, were surrounded by water!
 
Of course, the appeal to linguistic etymology was a hoot and I was surprised that the old Latin name for single dwellings with multiple residences, insula, was not marshalled in defense of this watery posit. But I would have loved a link to the actual source of the "spliced" info. Anyway, after noting the fact that humans and access to water have a rather well-known relationship, why bother moving into the symbolism of "cities" acting as islands so on and so forth ad infinitum
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 01:07
Oh...how absent-minded of me the topic is the "destruction" of Nature in Asia and Europe, but then why bother over a misnomer. We all know the Penguin is fascinated by the destructuring of anything in order to posit America redux (in suitable Amerind drag that is)--
 
Chumash anyone?
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 01:08
It is called "decronstruction", doctor.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 01:19
No, Penguin, it is not and you should know better than to challenge the old DOC on terminology and usage specially when you come up with a mispelled lolapaloozza:  "decronstruction" . 
 
We are in the Age of the Computer so you had best get with it and free yourself from youtube and other childish fancies and go for the gut of matters...
 
 
So go ahead and lisp all over that!
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 25 Feb 2011 at 01:22
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 01:23
Shut up, doctor. Stop behaving like a naughty boy.
You are heavier than a barrel of lead, but your oppinions weight least than a popcorn packet. What a contradiction.


Edited by pinguin - 25 Feb 2011 at 01:25
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 01:35
Tsk tsk reduced to cheap insults when "caught out"...oh well whatever allows you to maintain "disequilibrium".
 
Seriously, however, you should get help for your DDS. As for "nature" and its "destruction" just remember that there is no conservation once isolation ceases [physical wordplay?].
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 01:41
The point in this thread is that very little nature is left in Europe. That continent was transformed to human needs, and that is one reason why it is prosperous. The same happened in China, and in all developed countries.

So, if you can't follow a topic like in this thread, go to show your histrionic skill to Broadway.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 02:42
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

gcle2003!
 
 
"1. Abbr. Isl. or Is. or I. A land mass, especially one smaller than a continent, entirely surrounded by water."
 
You must have noticed just how many times I used the words "by definition" in my statements above?
 
"Word History: It may seem hard to believe, but Latin aqua, "water," is related to island, which originally meant "watery land." Aqua comes almost unchanged from Indo-European *akw-, "water." *Akw- became *ahw- in Germanic by Grimm's Law and other sound changes. To this was built the adjective *ahwj-, "watery." This then evolved to *awwj- or *auwi-, which in pre-English became *aj-, and finally g or eg in Old English. Island, spelled iland, first appears in Old English in King Alfred's translation of Boethius about a.d. 888; the spellings igland and ealond appear in contemporary documents. The s in island is due to a mistaken etymology, confusing the etymologically correct English iland with French isle. Isle comes ultimately from Latin nsula "island," a component of paennsula, "almost-island," whence our peninsula."
 
Now, I reiterate, I did not ever suggest that most cities were founded because the land was an island, I clearly stated that these "most important" cities (where conditions allowed) were mostly eventually created to act as islands, etc.!  What part of this do you not understand?
First of all you did NOT write "most important", and then your original claim was that they were founded because the area was surrounded by water; nor did you suggest the 'islands' woud be artifical ones. So it would be easier to understand if you stuck to the same point, instead of shifting around.
 
Quote
Just how could I make my statements more easily understood by you?
Don't keep changing them and don't fill up space with a wastegae of irrelevant quotations.
Quote
The names of some other cities that eventually became "by definition" islands, include Brugges / Bruges, St. Pol (St. Paul), Amsterdam, Lille, St. Malo, Dunkirk, etc.!  This was, of course very simple to do in the Low Countries!
Bruges is not surrounded by water. Amsterdam was never surrounded by water either. Lille as I remember is mostly surrounded by ring roads. St Malo is an enchantibngly restored walled down, but it isn't surrounded by water. Which St Pol are you talking about?
Quote  
Here is one in Italy!
 
 
And a few others;
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OH heck, just look at the entire site, here;
 
 
I will send other connections later if you still have need of them!
It seems very difficult to get simple concepts through to you. Yes there are many fortified cities walled and moated at some point in their history. There are even quite a few that were deliberately built on existing islands.  But 'walled and moated' doesn't mean the entire city was walled and moated, just part of it. Luxembourg centre was partly walled, and partly defended by massive cliffs. But most of even medieval Luxembourg was outside the walls, and the same is true of moated cities in general - look again at the map of Leeuwarden for instance.
 
But you were claiming that 'most all important' cities were surrounded by water, and that isn't true for most, all, or important (most of the examples you quoted above are insignificant places, including Palmanova, which, as a civilian establishment, is more of a village than a town).
 
You also claimed that 'most all important' cities were founded in places surrounded by water, which is even less true and completely misleading with regard to the history of towns anywhere, not just in Europe.
 
Now you seem to have backtracked on that and are merely claiming that some towns were provided with moats as well as walls. No-one's disputing that.
 
But on everything else you were wrong, and it now seems delberately misleading for the sake of effect.  


Edited by gcle2003 - 25 Feb 2011 at 02:44
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 03:57
Palmanova was designed to be an enclosed city, etc.!  Just what you might determine as a city today does not describe any of them in the 16th century or earlier!
 
If you desire to agree that Amsterdam was surrounded by canals/moats, then you could deny that the sun rose today!
 
Perhaps I should have been more specific and listed Aigues-Mortes and/or Naarden?
 
And, I again did repeat a look at Leewarden!  And I still see 98% of the homes or buildings existed behind the moats and walls!  Certainly there were a few homes, or manors located near to their fields, etc., but nothing of importance!
 
To quote you, my dear sir, it seems that it is you who "it seems (are) delberately misleading for the sake of effect."?
 
I feel that for the most part, I have made my original words become obviously true to any reader of them, other than it seems, yourself!
 
Of course only "some towns were provided with moats as well as walls!"  It is as obvious as the nose on your face!  Usually only places with some importance, such as located at a shallow crossing, roads, and/or defenceble hillocks, etc.
 
Again, I stand by this definition of Isle, etc.;  "1. Abbr. Isl. or Is. or I. A land mass, especially one smaller than a continent, entirely surrounded by water."
 
Whilst some of the examples I suggested above may not fit your ideas to a "T", does it not make most of them fit the definition! They were towns (cities) surrounded by water; "streams', "rivers" or "moats" filled with water!
 
Such a place can only be described as an "Isle", at least by the best definition I could present!
 
And, your suggestion that not all of the town/city was walled and moated, is not correct!  In some of these places one can see that the leaders, actually expanded the walls and moats, as the city grew!
 
Regarde' vous! 
 
Touche', mais ami!
 
I have enjoyed the banter (reparte"?) most of all!
 
Hope you enjoyed the sites presented?
 
P. S., how about this famous city?
 


Edited by opuslola - 25 Feb 2011 at 05:20
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 04:26
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

Palmanova was designed to be an enclosed city, etc.!  Just what you might determine as a city today does not describe any of them in the 16th century or earlier!
 
If you desire to agree that Amsterdam was surrounded by canals/moats, then you could deny that the sun rose today!
 
Perhaps I should have been more specific and listed Aigues-Mortes and/or Naarden?
 
And, I again did repeat a look at Leewarden!  And I still see 98% of the homes or buildings existed behind the moats and walls!  Certainly there were a few homes, or maynors located near to their fields, etc., but nothing of importance!
So now you're withdrawing even further - all you're claiming is that a relatively few towns had moats around some part of them. I've already agreed that. But boy did you have to dig deep to find those trivial examples.
 
Incidenrtally have you ever been to Amsterdam? It's never been moated, the canals are mainly radial with connections rather like a spider's web.  So parts of the city are surrounded by canals, but the whole of it is not so surrounded.
Quote  
To quote you, my dear sir, it seems that it is you who "it seems (are) delberately misleading for the sake of effect."
What's with the 'my dear sir'? I simply responded to your outrageous claim. If you want some towns and cities that are not and never were surrounded by water, then take London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Luxembourg, Cologne, Trier, Monaco, Rome, Florence, Moscow, St Petersburg, Warsaw, Naples, Madrid, Bilbao, Barcelona, Seville, Vienna, Berlin... just straight off the top of my head till I got bored. 
Quote  
I feel that for the most part, I have made my original words become obviously true to any reader of them, other than it seems, yourself!
 
Of course only "some towns were provided with moats as well as walls!"  It is as obvious as the nose on your face!
 
Again, I stand by this definition of Isle, etc.;  "1. Abbr. Isl. or Is. or I. A land mass, especially one smaller than a continent, entirely surrounded by water."
Nothing wrong with the definition of 'Isle'. However it is completely untrue that 'most' or 'all' important towns were islands.
Quote  
Whilst some of the examples I suggested above may not fit your ideas to a "T", does it not make most of them fit the definition! They were towns (cities) surrounded by water "streams', "rivers" or "moats" filled with water!
 
Such a place can only be described as an "Isle", at least by the best definition I could present!
There are such places, yes. But not very many of them compared to the huge number that were never so surrounded.
 
Quote
Regarde' vous! 
 
Touche', my friend!
 
I have enjoyed the banter most of all!
Is that keyboard trouble you have or inability to write French correctly?
Quote  
Hope you enjoyed the sites presented?
I didn't see anything new in them.


Edited by gcle2003 - 25 Feb 2011 at 04:28
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 05:05
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The point in this thread is that very little nature is left in Europe. That continent was transformed to human needs, and that is one reason why it is prosperous. The same happened in China, and in all developed countries.

So, if you can't follow a topic like in this thread, go to show your histrionic skill to Broadway.
Is it about Asia and Europe or just Europe (and why not the entire planet, since the question is relevant everywhere). The reason "Europe was transformed to human needs" were as I see it above all it was possible, and easier than in most other places. The domesticated animals and plants needed were or became at disposal. Relatively intense contact with especially North Africa and the Middle East gave many cultural and technological inputs. Not least the landscape were inviting to "transformation" Since most is relatively low, very much is coastal, with relatively good supplies of water, fertile soil, navigable rivers and shallow coastal weaters. So it is as much about natural cirkumstances as about choices. And Europe is in no way  "uniform" , let alone Asia and Europe (or "Eurasia").
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 05:32
An example of the extreme differences between human population and "transformation" of different parts of "Eurasia": The size of contemporary Russia is about the same as South America but it is far less populated. The average population density of the rest of "Eurasia" much higher than the rest of the world.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 05:55
Yes, my French sucks!  Thanks for reminding me!
 
But, pray tell, just what do you consider the difference between a "moat", a "ditch" and a "canal?"
 
 
The "ring roads" surrounding Lille, are the remains of old moats, and walls, etc.!
 
Amstel is full of man made ditches, or canals, or moats!  Are you stating that they had no defensive part in the defense of the city?
 
I also made my point clear above where I wrote;
 
"Now, I reiterate, I did not ever suggest that most cities were founded because the land was an island, I clearly stated that these "most important" cities (where conditions allowed) were mostly eventually created to act as islands, etc.!  What part of this do you not understand?"
 
Certainly, if the "conditions did not allow for the use of water-filled moats", then they were not built!  Perhaps I could have been more clear in my first mention, but it is again as "obvious as the nose upon your face!"  Which might well now be growing larger?Wink
 
Sorry, I could not control my typing fingers!  But, concerning your mention of the city of Cologne, the following map, seems to show extant city walls with a large moat, at least up until the 19th century!
 
 
As well as these?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
And even Moscow, it seems;
 
 
And those were "just off the top of my head!"
 
Please excuse me?  But, I do think that we have hashed out our little disagreement, especially as it was or is related to this specfic thread!
 
Prosit!
 
Ron 


Edited by opuslola - 25 Feb 2011 at 06:49
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Teaman to the Society of Dilettanti

Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Lindalino
Status: Offline
Points: 2765
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 06:21
I've never read such staccato sentences. It's mildly unnerving.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 06:29
Is "unnatural" the word you are searching for, Dolphin?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Teaman to the Society of Dilettanti

Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Lindalino
Status: Offline
Points: 2765
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2011 at 06:43
I could have used 'unnatural' but I feel a pressure to gloss my language a little. 

I'm sure you know the feeling Wink

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.