DISCUSS: Most Historic City

[prahsharp]

Why not the ancient city's on the silk-route? Samarkand, khiva, bukhara ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukhara

[Bitxofo]

Ancient Egyptian cities like Memphis, the 1st capital on Earth, 6000 years ago!!

[Dezz]

Amsterdam! It has the largest, almost intact, historic centre in the world

[serendib]

Anuradhapura

The number of old landmarks, heritage sites and monuments which are preserved in the city.

UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anuradhapura

First Capital City Of Sri Lanka


"Although according to historical records the city was founded in the 5th century BC, the archaeological data put the date as far back as the 10th century BC."
-
"With this began the great building era in which vast monastery complexes and some of the highest buildings in the old world were built. The Jetavanaramaya dagoba of the city is still the highest brick structure in the world. Large lakes were also constructed by the city's rulers to irrigate paddy lands and also to supply water to the city.
-
"Home of the sacred Sri Maha Bodhi tree, the oldest historical tree in the world, at 2300 years."

[shayan]

For west asia and east europe i would say persepolis This city is the capital of the first civilisation. and it is the capital witch ruled over 90 precent of the known world.

[Marathoner]

For China, I will choose Xian which has more than 3,000 years history, rather than Beijing. And Xian still exists as one of the biggest cities in china.

I think the creteria should be being a big city both in ancient times & now.

I think there are some in the world beside Xian.

[Douly]

Marseilles (france) 2600 years of history

[hkskyline]

Originally Posted by prahsharp

Why not the ancient city's on the silk-route? Samarkand, khiva, bukhara ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukhara

Do Bukhara and Samarkand even have their old architecture today? Weren't they destroyed by the Mongol invaders?

[thoju75]

Originally Posted by Douly

Marseilles (france) 2600 years of history

Yes it's right !!! Marseille existed before the Roman and its developement was due of its exellent place on the mediterranean See

[tpe]

Originally Posted by hkskyline

Do Bukhara and Samarkand even have their old architecture today? Weren't they destroyed by the Mongol invaders?

Bukhara and Samarkand had their glory days during Timur or Tamerlane. He claimed descent from Genghis Khan. The Timurid empire is, in this sense, Mongol.

A lot of the old Timurid architecture remains today. I point you to StormShadow's excellent pictoral thread on Bukhara, Samarkand, and Khiva.

[tpe]

Originally Posted by thoju75

Yes it's right !!! Marseille existed before the Roman and its developement was due of its exellent place on the mediterranean See

The founding of Rome is usually placed in around 700-800 years before Christ.

Marseille can be thought of as a part of Greater Magna Graecia (Magna Graecia normally referring to the Greek colonies of Southern Italy.) Contemporaneous is Etruria, which dominated the great swath of upper Italy and was though to have had some relation as to the founding of Rome (the early Kings of Rome seemingly Etruscan).

Latium and the environs of Rome were inhabited earlier than all this.

So it is not totally correct to say that Marseille existed before the Roman. 'Roman' of course usually refers to the inhabitants of the city founded by the twins.

[thoju75]

Ok you're right I've search and marseille have been founded in -600 by greek's seaman.
and Rome was founded in -753

[tpe]

Originally Posted by thoju75

Ok you're right I've search and marseille have been founded in -600 by greek's seaman.
and Rome was founded in -753

They were both probably inhabited early on in any case. A hundred years or so does not really mean much.

The Mediterranean cities all have exceedingly rich histories by all counts.

[SuperDog]

In the Westren Hemisphere it is without a doubt. Mexico City

[tpe]

Originally Posted by SuperDog

In the Westren Hemisphere it is without a doubt. Mexico City

Not even Cuzco?

Of course, Teotihuacan and the Maya cities are really not functioning cities nowadays. Teotihuacan is of course the mother city of all Mesoamerica.

[kenlau13]

...X'ian

[TO_Joe]

I take "historic" to mean the continuously occupied for the longest and has always had some significance, not necessarily the most treasures architectural or otherwise that still remain today.

Americas
Definitely Mexico City.
Central America / Peru had lots of good stuff that can still be seen today, but the people moved away (e.g., Chichen Itza).
- Not much is left of the settlements of other North American and Brazilian natives, though I know for sure many North American cities are located at trading hubs / gathering places -- e.g., Toronto, Winnipeg.

Middle East and Africa
Baghdad for sure.
Istanbul. Many cities on the Anatolian plateau at different times but they have been abandoned (my favourites include the underground cities of Derinkuyu and Kaymakli though I guess they aren't that old by historical standards (sorry for the spelling)).
Jerusalem.
Luxor. I am sure there are other places in Egypt but I would have to cross-map between the ancient and the modern locations to be sure.

Far East / Central Asia
Xian
Pyongyang
Kyoto
Probably Yogyakarta.
- In many places in the Far East, when the new administrations take over, they move the seat of power (probably not a bad idea to get rid of the pesky old hangers-on plotting revenge). That's why there are historic sites all over the place but many have become pretty marginalized and dumpy -- e.g., Yangzhou in Jiangsu province used to be very wealthy and powerful but it is an unimportant provincial town that now finds itself to be on the wrong side of the Yangtse River; or Angkor Wat where the jungle has now overgrown it.
- Central Asian cities tend to be more intact (e.g., Samarkand, Kashgar, Lhasa). But I think that is because of the arid and cool continental climate -- you can only build near where the water and food is.

South Asia
Mathura, India for sure.
It's actually harder to say than I thought -- because "India" (using the British India definition here) has always consisted of decentralized kingdoms, so the prominence of the cities goes up and down depending on their power. Certainly the Moghul cities like Lahore, Jaipur are like that. Delhi seemed to have attracted wave after wave of civilizations but I think the Moghuls built much of it and created the prominence. Hindu temple towns like Khajuraho and Kanchipuram now stand in the middle of rice paddies. As with Moenjodaro that is now 50 km away from the nearest big town in a dry, dusty northern Sindh in Pakistan.

Europe
Athens
Rome -- even then, there was a big dark period when the lights went off (though I think it always retained some prominence)
- I think many of the big towns can trace their history back at least to the Roman era -- including London and Paris.


Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize that this is a very hard question.

It is a lot easier to answer the question "which major city has the most archaeological treasures today".

[tpe]

Originally Posted by TO_Joe

I take "historic" to mean the continuously occupied for the longest and has always had some significance, not necessarily the most treasures architectural or otherwise that still remain today.

Americas
Definitely Mexico City.
Central America / Peru had lots of good stuff that can still be seen today, but the people moved away (e.g., Chichen Itza).
- Not much is left of the settlements of other North American and Brazilian natives, though I know for sure many North American cities are located at trading hubs / gathering places -- e.g., Toronto, Winnipeg.

Middle East and Africa
Baghdad for sure.
Istanbul. Many cities on the Anatolian plateau at different times but they have been abandoned (my favourites include the underground cities of Derinkuyu and Kaymakli though I guess they aren't that old by historical standards (sorry for the spelling)).
Jerusalem.
Luxor. I am sure there are other places in Egypt but I would have to cross-map between the ancient and the modern locations to be sure.

Far East / Central Asia
Xian
Pyongyang
Kyoto
Probably Yogyakarta.
- In many places in the Far East, when the new administrations take over, they move the seat of power (probably not a bad idea to get rid of the pesky old hangers-on plotting revenge). That's why there are historic sites all over the place but many have become pretty marginalized and dumpy -- e.g., Yangzhou in Jiangsu province used to be very wealthy and powerful but it is an unimportant provincial town that now finds itself to be on the wrong side of the Yangtse River; or Angkor Wat where the jungle has now overgrown it.
- Central Asian cities tend to be more intact (e.g., Samarkand, Kashgar, Lhasa). But I think that is because of the arid and cool continental climate -- you can only build near where the water and food is.

South Asia
Mathura, India for sure.
It's actually harder to say than I thought -- because "India" (using the British India definition here) has always consisted of decentralized kingdoms, so the prominence of the cities goes up and down depending on their power. Certainly the Moghul cities like Lahore, Jaipur are like that. Delhi seemed to have attracted wave after wave of civilizations but I think the Moghuls built much of it and created the prominence. Hindu temple towns like Khajuraho and Kanchipuram now stand in the middle of rice paddies. As with Moenjodaro that is now 50 km away from the nearest big town in a dry, dusty northern Sindh in Pakistan.

Europe
Athens
Rome -- even then, there was a big dark period when the lights went off (though I think it always retained some prominence)
- I think many of the big towns can trace their history back at least to the Roman era -- including London and Paris.


Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize that this is a very hard question.

It is a lot easier to answer the question "which major city has the most archaeological treasures today".

Very nice writeup.

Your comment on Rome got me thinking. A lot of people in this forum do seem to think that Rome became insignificant after the fall of the West Roman Empire. In population, it certainly dwindled up until the 15th century. As for historic importance, I think this is the furthest from the truth.

First, let us not forget that Rome centralized Western Christianity into a form that is now recognized as the Western or Roman usage. Since Christianity was the one remaining link with Late Antiquity, it was, naturally, THE instrument of propagating and maintaining Greco-Roman civilization to the west. The conversions of Britain and Germany into Roman Usage were all done at the instigation of the great Roman Popes of the early Middle Ages.

Second, Rome remained stongly linked to Byzantium during the early part of the Middle Ages. This made it eminently more civilized than the rest of Europe.

Third, the power of the Popes was both political as well as spiritual. The Frankish-Papal alliance on the 8th-9th centuries demostrates this. The long series of Crusades instigated by the agents of Rome throughout Europe is another example. Lastly, in the great conflicts between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Popes, Rome certainly won quite a few matches (witness the brutal execution of Conradin and the extinction of the House of Frederick II).

Fourth, even with the decline of Papal power from the 15th century onward, Rome was still the preeminent city of artistic patronage and creativity. Every English noble of the 18th century headed to Rome as the apogee of his educational upbringing. The numerous collections of antique art in the UK, indeed, the core collection of the British Museum, were collected and exported via Roman agents and Cardinals.

Roman history after 500 AD is richer in significance than the histories of entire European countries. It is absolutely incorrect to say that Rome was a nonentity after that date.

[LSyd]

Jerusalem.

-

[seattlehawk]

Originally Posted by .::G!oRgOs::.

well then tell me why the other civilisations dont come to mind first?

Because Athens is the BEGINING of the western world.....were Democracy was started, were Freedom was invented. There is a reason for it coming to mind first you know....

The reason it comes to mind first is because, unfortunately, our western information media does not teach us much about non-western civilizations. As far as it is concerned, and therefore as far as most of us in the west know, the world begins and ends in the west. The truth is that all civilizations have collectively contributed to the world that we know of today. To think otherwise is a sign of arrogance.