The Development of Cities

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Not completely sure on this JDR but might it not be said that as the Native Americans were in the main nomadic within their tribal lands, your suggestion re NY might be not entirely viable? :chin:

Whereas even in the Bronze Age, due to relative overpopulation, European economically sustainable lands had to be defended hence there were more fortified settlements that later were taken over by Roman/Germanic/Norse invaders, primerily because they were established on 'must defend' or defencible sites.

Fraid I'm not to well up on Danish history so I'll use England as an example; geographically it would be easy to loose England in many of the Native American tribal lands, yet even at the time of the Roman invasion there were several long well established tribal kingdoms based on a fortified town/Hill forts eg Briggantii, Iceanii & Belgii (? all spl?). England and indeed the rest of western europe has always been relitivly overpopulated with regard to economic sustainability and in someways, it has been suggested, the high density of overpopulated Kingdoms in western europe with the many differing physical geographical divisions in a very small landmass, was the very thing that over the 600yrs or so post Roman era drove Europe to become the expansionist force that it became.

Just a thought :soap: :)

All the Best
Peter