| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - NG's Theory on the Downfall of Angkor Wat
  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.


NG's Theory on the Downfall of Angkor Wat

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
rider View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Location: Norwich, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 5520
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: NG's Theory on the Downfall of Angkor Wat
    Posted: 08 Jul 2009 at 04:46

For anyone who has read the July (or is it August) Issue of 2009 NG, you should have met the article on Angkor Wat and why/how it fell.

To bring it up short, the theory says that the Small (or Little) Ice Age of the Middle Ages caused differences in the monsoon season which meant that Angkor couldn't supply itself with water any longer and in sufficient quantities. In addition to that, Angkor's water reservoirs (or one of them) had started to crumble (and I believe that the NG author said that the engineers of Angkor itself destroyed the reservoir in the end).

How likely in your opinion is this theory? Also, I'd suggest reading the full article since I dont' remember every detail of it (despite reading it yesterday Dead).

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 21 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1357
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2009 at 07:01

I watched the video, in which they claimed that the hydrauic infrastructure became ever more sophisticated over the decades, but they depended too much on the constant annual rainfall pattern (90% of the rain falling in moosoon). Once the rainfall didn't meet the quota, the infrastructure no longer worked and the rice fields could no longer be irrigated.

Basically, the engineering system became too rigid, although very sophisticated indeed.
 
It could be a fair theory, more convincing that being attacked by invaders; because if the city could still produce enough wealth, the invaders would have settled there.
 
 
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Location: Norwich, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 5520
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2009 at 07:29
They didn't settle with the invaders theory because the king of Ayuthayya who conquered Angkor (which was in a downgrade already then) gave the city to his son, thereby assuming that he didn't loot the place before turning it over to his son.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  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 0.078 seconds.