We might have had a bigger population in the past compare to today.

originally posted by: makemap

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Most human population lives on the coast lines.

I'd like to see evidence of this assertion.

Note that said evidence should also indicate that "most human population" lives close enough to the coast to be inundated over a period of centuries but for whatever reason would choose not to move up out of the flooded area.

Harte

Atlantis,

Nonexistent.

India sunken city

Sank due to still occurring tectonic activity during Europe's Medieval period. Sea level rise not involved.

Japans sunken city,

Nonexistent.

China underwater lost city,

Nonexistent.

Alexandria,

Partially submerged due to local tectonics and no sea level rise involved.

etc. It goes on.

No, you go on.

You need water to grow food.

Salt water doesn't grow food.

You need ports for faster routes around the mountain

Not if you live on a river.

and island trade routes.

"Island Trade?" New claim? Show evidence for island trade prior to the end of the last Ice Age.

What? You thinking everyone is going to live in land or on mountains? If you want food you are going to have to live near water in order to farm, this includes lakes. Most of Egyptian population was living near Nile River and it used to flood like crazy.

Yes, but it's not "living on the coast," is it.

Hint:
Your claim was that the majority of the population lived (lives) on the coast. I asked for evidence supporting the claim.

Are you going to post it or not?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Most human population lives on the coast lines.

I'd like to see evidence of this assertion.

Note that said evidence should also indicate that "most human population" lives close enough to the coast to be inundated over a period of centuries but for whatever reason would choose not to move up out of the flooded area.

Harte

Didn't say the people died under the waves but you implied it to make the idea you oppose look silly, their dwellings remains would be there though. Whose to say the higher land nearby was suited for building, or they would have built there in the first place. Migration to the best suited coastal lands would cause dispersals of populations from older areas no longer suitable for settling.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Most human population lives on the coast lines. The Coast lines of the ancient past are all under the oceans. We have not studied any of it.

Some human population pre agriculture lived along the coast and rivers because they needed fish to sustain them
There were still plenty of nomadic pastoralists living inland relying on their animals and limited cereals
Post agriculture populations moved inland as agriculture became widespread, with the innovation of crop rotation farming spread. This can be clearly seen in Mesopotamia where coastal cities were abandoned in favour of cities which had larger agricultural areas inland. As the rivers Tigris and Euphrates continued to deposit silt at the ocean, the coastal cities became landlocked and today are up to 100 miles inland. So the coast lines aren't underwater where it counts

a reply to: makemap

Did literally ANY historic research go into making this OP? Because it seems counterintuitive to everything we know about history.

a reply to: makemap

In the post I was replying to, you were using modern day populations, so I assumed you were speaking about the modern day..... Maybe you should make yourself clearer?

And wind your neck in - don't call me an idiot again.

Anyhoo, your idea that any nation, past or present, could mobilise the entirety of their population is just plain daft - even in ancient times, men were needed to do other tasks and you can only really use a small proportion of your available manpower as many won't be fit for fighting.

As for your "Everyone that started the revolution were mostly peasants and farmers who were tired of the British Empire" comment is rubbish too... All of the Founding Fathers were filthy rich landowners getting pissy about paying tax - and not to the "British Empire" as such a thing didn't even exist until the 19th century. Only around 1/3rd of the population of the 13 colonies actually supported and fought, another 1/3rd actually fought for the British - bet you didn't know that, did you?

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: Syyth007

It's quite possible, but a long long time ago.

Think on some of these things like Super Volcanoes. I think one went off like 100,000 years ago. Apparently humans got down to about 1,000 or 10,000 humans left because of it because food was too hard to grow and find in the "nuclear" winter after it. Disaster events like that super volcanoes bury civilizations under huge amounts of ash/dirt worldwide. Then add on another 100,000 years... They would be buried very deep.

Seventy thousand years. And there is evidence that the Toba event didn't actually have a major effect on the human population at large. I'll dig more later, if asked, but here is something from the BBC I pulled up in just a couple minutes of looking: Toba Event "Dismissed" - BBC

a reply to: obscurepanda

Ahh an excellent read. Thank you. Ye the toba event was the one i was talking about.

Not only would pre-industrial societies of greater size then those of the present day not be able to realistically sustain themselves, but I'm not sure the very earth we live on would be able to (at least not to an extent that there would still be resources for us to live on it today). Without modern techniques animals would be hunted to extinction, the soil would be drained of its fertility, and there would be evidence of far more wars and ethnic squabbles as there probably would not be enough room for these mega societies (and therefore much competition over said animals and fertile land).

I just cannot feasiblly see this as being true, but I certainly think there are many civilizations and empires that we don't even know existed yet.