Chiang Mai, A Cheap Copy Of Angkor?

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Specifically, Angkor Thom? Chiang Mai was founded when Angkor was in its hayday. It does look like the basic city layout as a moated square with entry gates in the middle on all sides was inspired by Angkor.

Of course Chiang Mai has outlasted Angkor by a big margin now, even considering it wasn't continuously inhabited.

I also wonder if Chiang Mai is the only surviving city in the region with a square moated layout? Phrae and Lamphun / Haripunchai of course have moats, but are irregular shaped, not an intentional square.

[binjalin]

doubt it... there are 1000s of 'square' moated cities in the world

[hellodolly]

I don't recall more than one gate at Angkor Wat. Inside the moat and wall there is mostly vacant property surrounding the biggest religious building in the world.

On the subject of size. I have been told by a friend with a GPR that the moat is one mile on each side.

Seemed like A strange measurement considering the age of the moat and it's location here in Asia.

Has any one got a GPS that could verify these measurements.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

doubt it... there are 1000s of 'square' moated cities in the world

Name 5. In the wider region, I found Beijing.

And of course Sukhothai, which isn't in use as a city anymore. (Well, looking at Google Earth, the Eastern-most quarter of the old city is inhabited; the national park doesn't cover that area but it's clearly visible as a village.)

It rather looks like Chiang Mai, and Angkor in the layout. I think it's interesting to live in a modern town that's (almost) every bit as old as ruins like Ankor and Sukhothai.

Here's Sukhothai:

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I don't recall more than one gate at Angkor Wat. Inside the moat and wall there is mostly vacant property surrounding the biggest religious building in the world.

There are gates on every side; look at the map of Angkor Thom.

Seemed like A strange measurement considering the age of the moat and it's location here in Asia.

Who knows what units they used at the time; wouldn't have been miles or kilometers.

On the subject of size. I have been told by a friend with a GPR that the moat is one mile on each side. Has any one got a GPS that could verify these measurements.

You can reasily see it with any odometer. Or any map. Like so, for example (not super accurate, but you get the idea) :

EDIT: Ack.. I'm stupid; Google Maps has a distance measuring tool built right in. Should be as accurate (or actually more accurate) than most GPS's. Like so:

Edited August 24, 2012 by WinnieTheKhwai

[uptheos]

I don't recall more than one gate at Angkor Wat. Inside the moat and wall there is mostly vacant property surrounding the biggest religious building in the world.

Borobudur Buddhist temple in Java, Indonesia, is larger than any one temple in Angkor Wat, which is the largest complex.

[kaptainrob]

A similar design to Angkor Thom at a similar (slightly later) time in history. Not a copy by any stretch. Construction of AT/AW was laterite and sandstone block quarried miles away and transported by boat and elephant, intricately carved and the various sites all had extensive, engineered irrigation systems. A 1,000 years ago, CM and AW were a whole World apart ... literally!

Far as I know, CM was largely built from brick and timber ... eg: Wat Suan Dok - extensive timber. Chedi Luang - brick. The moat and city water supply was fed by a stream that ran along what is now Huay Kaew Road. Nothing as elaborate as Angkor Wat's swimming pools with in-built plumbing systems >

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Far as I know, CM was largely built from brick and timber ... eg: Wat Suan Dok - extensive timber. Chedi Luang - brick. The moat and city water supply was fed by a stream that ran along what is now Huay Kaew Road. Nothing as elaborate as Angkor Wat's swimming pools with in-built plumbing systems

Well, I did say 'cheap copy' in the title.

[Thighlander]

North and West sides are 2 KM, the E and W sides are 1.8 KM...It's not a perfect square. You can walk the whole perimeter of the moat in an hour.

[realthaideal]

Not a fan of the title Whinnie, but there's undoubtedly some borrowing of ideas going on. The more erudite answers will come from the likes of types like K. Orang37 who's quite well read on the history of the area. I know there are several other scholars on Thailand, the North, and SE Asia as a region who will do this idea a better service.

I can only point out that of course, with all the interaction between the cultures whether through trade, warfare, or intermarriage of the peasant and the noble classes, that food, dress, dance, language, and the architecture would have had reasonable amounts of exchange, fusion, borrowing, and evolution.

You've got me thinking now... I just recently learned that in the US they've got a lifesize modern replica of the Acropolis - cool but odd where it is. And of course there are videos that take us into the living n breathing 3-D video animation recreations of Greek, Roman, and Aztec civilizations and cities. Wondering if there might be one where Angkor can be seen resurrected in color.... next Google time-wasting break will have to take a look.

[harrry]

Not a fan of the title Whinnie, but there's undoubtedly some borrowing of ideas going on. The more erudite answers will come from the likes of types like K. Orang37 who's quite well read on the history of the area. I know there are several other scholars on Thailand, the North, and SE Asia as a region who will do this idea a better service.

I can only point out that of course, with all the interaction between the cultures whether through trade, warfare, or intermarriage of the peasant and the noble classes, that food, dress, dance, language, and the architecture would have had reasonable amounts of exchange, fusion, borrowing, and evolution.

You've got me thinking now... I just recently learned that in the US they've got a lifesize modern replica of the Acropolis - cool but odd where it is. And of course there are videos that take us into the living n breathing 3-D video animation recreations of Greek, Roman, and Aztec civilizations and cities. Wondering if there might be one where Angkor can be seen resurrected in color.... next Google time-wasting break will have to take a look.

http://archive.cyark.org/3d-model-of-angkor-wat-temple-3dviewer

lots of others too.

[Maejo Man]

North and West sides are 2 KM, the E and W sides are 1.8 KM...It's not a perfect square. You can walk the whole perimeter of the moat in an hour.

It's actually 1.6Km by 1.62Km Measure it on Google, take a pedometer, or even drive round it. The sides are parallel, with two of the sides very slightly longer.

[DaamNaam]

doubt it... there are 1000s of 'square' moated cities in the world

The first of them being Solomans temple. Almost identical to Chiang Mai's layout.

[dru2]

Not cheap... lesser - Mandalay, but much more recent.

[hellodolly]

North and West sides are 2 KM, the E and W sides are 1.8 KM...It's not a perfect square. You can walk the whole perimeter of the moat in an hour.

It's actually 1.6Km by 1.62Km Measure it on Google, take a pedometer, or even drive round it. The sides are parallel, with two of the sides very slightly longer.

Several things

First than you Maego Man. That sounds about rite a touch over a mile in each side.

Also I don't really consider the area inside the moat a city.

Finally I am not familiar with Angkor Thom Is that the same as Angkor Wat. I know when people talk about Angkor Wat they are generally talking about the big temple. But I believe the term was originally used to describe the whole area which I believe is 70 square kilometers and was said to have a population of 1,000,000 people at the time London had 50,000. Seems like a pretty high number to me. But who really knows there is so much Asian history that we are not very aware of if we were educated in the Western World.

Even here in Asia I wonder how much is general knowledge such as the Crusades in the west Napolian etc.. I would imagine scholars in the collages would be the ones with that information.

[Thighlander]

http://www.asiaexplorers.com/thailand/history-of-chiangmai.htm

1.8 x 2 going corner to corner. You're saying the long sides are only 20 m longer, while they are actually 200m longer.

[Tywais]

It's actually 1.6Km by 1.62Km Measure it on Google, take a pedometer, or even drive round it. The sides are parallel, with two of the sides very slightly longer.

That is correct. An old topic on this subject - Length of the Moat and an even older one here - The Moat in CM

[binjalin]

doubt it... there are 1000s of 'square' moated cities in the world

The first of them being Solomans temple. Almost identical to Chiang Mai's layout.

AHHH that's it! Chiang Mai was copied from the City Four Square and so we are really living in the New Jerusalem? which means after the 2012 December 21st gig we will be the only one's saved right? just us Chiang Mai'ers

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Yes, when looking at people at Olde Bell or Mad Dog I can't escape the thought that we must be the chosen ones.

[Thighlander]

It's actually 1.6Km by 1.62Km Measure it on Google, take a pedometer, or even drive round it. The sides are parallel, with two of the sides very slightly longer.

That is correct. An old topic on this subject - Length of the Moat and an even older one here - The Moat in CM

There was even more misiformation than usual on the first one, didn't bother with the second one. It really should be measured from corner to corner, as I don't think the roads were built simultaneously. 2 x 1.8, I've walked the whole thing 50 times, and have walked along the North side even more. It's 200 meters longer, which is even visible to the eye...takes about 2 minutes longer to walk the long sides.

[mic6ard]

The OP obviously chose the title to get some reaction, and it did. Unfortunately, it also shows how he/she thinks.

To say CM's a cheap copy is utterly & totally outrageous. CM was a wooden based city, while Ankor, is a stone based structure. Stone obviously more stable and longer lasting than wood and bricks.

Square moat is obviously the easiest to build and control.

[DaamNaam]

doubt it... there are 1000s of 'square' moated cities in the world

The first of them being Solomans temple. Almost identical to Chiang Mai's layout.

AHHH that's it! Chiang Mai was copied from the City Four Square and so we are really living in the New Jerusalem? which means after the 2012 December 21st gig we will be the only one's saved right? just us Chiang Mai'ers

Bingo.

Chiang mai does mean "new city"...555

[DaamNaam]

Yes, when looking at people at Olde Bell or Mad Dog I can't escape the thought that we must be the chosen ones.

The prophecy didn't say old farang piss tanks.

[Maejo Man]

It's actually 1.6Km by 1.62Km Measure it on Google, take a pedometer, or even drive round it. The sides are parallel, with two of the sides very slightly longer.

That is correct. An old topic on this subject - Length of the Moat and an even older one here - The Moat in CM

There was even more misiformation than usual on the first one, didn't bother with the second one. It really should be measured from corner to corner, as I don't think the roads were built simultaneously. 2 x 1.8, I've walked the whole thing 50 times, and have walked along the North side even more. It's 200 meters longer, which is even visible to the eye...takes about 2 minutes longer to walk the long sides.

If you are happy getting an extra 0.4 Km out of your walk, thats great. When you have finished walking all those extra meters, sit down and drop an e-mail to Google telling them that their maps are completely wrong. Also get a mail off to GT Rider telling him that his latest map of Chiangmai is inaccurate, and let us know what they say

[Tywais]

It's actually 1.6Km by 1.62Km Measure it on Google, take a pedometer, or even drive round it. The sides are parallel, with two of the sides very slightly longer.

That is correct. An old topic on this subject - Length of the Moat and an even older one here - The Moat in CM

There was even more misiformation than usual on the first one, didn't bother with the second one. It really should be measured from corner to corner, as I don't think the roads were built simultaneously. 2 x 1.8, I've walked the whole thing 50 times, and have walked along the North side even more. It's 200 meters longer, which is even visible to the eye...takes about 2 minutes longer to walk the long sides.

If you are happy getting an extra 0.4 Km out of your walk, thats great. When you have finished walking all those extra meters, sit down and drop an e-mail to Google telling them that their maps are completely wrong. Also get a mail off to GT Rider telling him that his latest map of Chiangmai is inaccurate, and let us know what they say

Don't forget to remind those who used GPS that theirs are broken.

[uptheos]

It's

It's actually 1.6Km by 1.62Km Measure it on Google, take a pedometer, or even drive round it. The sides are parallel, with two of the sides very slightly longer.

That is correct. An old topic on this subject - Length of the Moat and an even older one here - The Moat in CM

There was even more misiformation than usual on the first one, didn't bother with the second one. It really should be measured from corner to corner, as I don't think the roads were built simultaneously. 2 x 1.8, I've walked the whole thing 50 times, and have walked along the North side even more. It's 200 meters longer, which is even visible to the eye...takes about 2 minutes longer to walk the long sides.

If you are happy getting an extra 0.4 Km out of your walk, thats great. When you have finished walking all those extra meters, sit down and drop an e-mail to Google telling them that their maps are completely wrong. Also get a mail off to GT Rider telling him that his latest map of Chiangmai is inaccurate, and let us know what they say

It's 200 metres longer because you can't walk in a straight line, you have to zig zag obstacles, walk around trucks, cross the road because it's dug up etc etc. I can see how 0.4 Km can be added when walking.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

It's actually 1.6Km by 1.62Km Measure it on Google, take a pedometer, or even drive round it. The sides are parallel, with two of the sides very slightly longer.

That is correct. An old topic on this subject - Length of the Moat and an even older one here - The Moat in CM

There was even more misiformation than usual on the first one, didn't bother with the second one. It really should be measured from corner to corner, as I don't think the roads were built simultaneously. 2 x 1.8, I've walked the whole thing 50 times, and have walked along the North side even more. It's 200 meters longer, which is even visible to the eye...takes about 2 minutes longer to walk the long sides.

Wait.. so you're saying your own perception is more accurate than a satellite image, with measuring software? Or absolutely any map ever made of Chiang Mai?

It's very possible that it takes a bit longer to walk in a certain direction as it's not flat. There is a noticeable down-slope if you start at Hua Rin corner (North-West) and walk down Maneenopparat road towards Sriphoom Corner. (There would have to be because the moat fills up from there)

Edited August 25, 2012 by WinnieTheKhwai

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Square moat is obviously the easiest to build and control.

Though most European cities that have a moat tend to have circular ones, or follow natural features.

The OP obviously chose the title to get some reaction, and it did. Unfortunately, it also shows how he/she thinks. To say CM's a cheap copy is utterly & totally outrageous.

Well hello, the subject matter is 'history'. Those topics don't take off all by themselves.

Edited August 25, 2012 by WinnieTheKhwai

[happysanook]

The OP obviously chose the title to get some reaction, and it did. Unfortunately, it also shows how he/she thinks.

To say CM's a cheap copy is utterly & totally outrageous. CM was a wooden based city, while Ankor, is a stone based structure. Stone obviously more stable and longer lasting than wood and bricks.

Square moat is obviously the easiest to build and control.

hence the title "cheap copy"... you're not exactly helping your side of the argument here.

though i'll have to agree and say: i doubt it....just because it's a square moated city with an entrances on each side... doesn't hold much water...pardon the pun. maybe some other theories to pull it together would help sway...

Edited August 25, 2012 by happysanook

[hellodolly]

The OP obviously chose the title to get some reaction, and it did. Unfortunately, it also shows how he/she thinks.

To say CM's a cheap copy is utterly & totally outrageous. CM was a wooden based city, while Ankor, is a stone based structure. Stone obviously more stable and longer lasting than wood and bricks.

Square moat is obviously the easiest to build and control.

hence the title "cheap copy"... you're not exactly helping your side of the argument here.

though i'll have to agree and say: i doubt it....just because it's a square moated city with an entrances on each side... doesn't hold much water...pardon the pun. maybe some other theories to pull it together would help sway...

Personally I don't see where it would be any harder to build a round moat and passably easier to defend.

Of course it was cheap. The moat around Angkor Wat is 89 meters wide.