I'm curious to know the fate of many once-great cities in the world. I tried searching the net on the fate of the city of Babylon after Macedonian occupation but not very successfully. Anyone here knows exactly what happened to the Greatest City of the Ancient World?

Petra!!!!!!! a city carved in stone!

Under Alexander, Babylon again flourished as a center of learning and commerce. But following Alexander’s mysterious death in 323 BC in the palace of Nebuchadrezzar, his empire was divided amongst his generals, and decades of fighting soon began, with Babylon once again caught in the middle.

The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet dated 275 BC states that the inhabitants of Babylon were transported to Seleucia, where a palace was built, as well as a temple given the ancient name of E-Saggila. With this deportation, the history of Babylon comes practically to an end, though more than a century later, it was found that sacrifices were still performed in its old sanctuary. By 141 BC, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity.

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

Babylon must had tons culture. Even today, people still remember the city.

Hampi the capital of the Vijaynagar Empire. It was destroyed by a combination of the Deccan Sultnates of Ahmadnagr, Bijapur and Golconda.
It was called "the Rome of Asia"

Memphis, the old capital of Egypt and its greatest city for thousands of years. It was completely abandoned after the Arab Conquests in the 7th Century.

He is not asking people what city was the greatest; read the post ;)

But the question was answered in two posts! Where's the fun in leaving it at that? ;)

bugger all of you, the greatest city on Earth is obviouslly Rome; two thousand eight hundred odd years and still going strong as a major world city, famed destination, capital of culture, religion and politics for a nation state, and one of europes ultimate rip-off tourist traps :smug:

The oldest inhabited city in the world is either Beirut/Berytus or Damascus (I'm not sure) by the way.

I always considered Jericho to be the oldest contiinually-inhabited city in the world.

Why did they have to destroy those awesome ancient cities? It sucks having modern nations build ancient cities in Civilization! Mesopotamian civs were all wiped out!!!! No one speaks the ancient languages, and no one identifies themseves as Babylonians, Sumerians etc. Why did they have to destroy the ancient stuff. Conquest is one thing, but the total annihilation of several entire nations was wrong! Why can't they just leave great things untouched? Thanks jerks! :mad:

Well, in the case of Nineveh the destroying nations had a pretty good reason for annihilating Assyrians.

Agreed, but still, there were lots of undeserving people that were jsut wiped from history! :mad:

Babylon is still around. It is near the Iraqi city of Al-Hillah. Saddam tried to rebuild it and turn it into a tourist attraction. My cousin, in the Marines, sent pictures.

What do you mean Saddam Tried to rebuild? Did he give up? We should try again. REVIVE THE ANCIENT CIVS, CONQUER THE WORLD!!!! :evil: :D

Babylon is still around. It is near the Iraqi city of Al-Hillah. Saddam tried to rebuild it and turn it into a tourist attraction. My cousin, in the Marines, sent pictures.
That's pretty cool. Perhaps the one positive aspect of Saddam. :sad: :crazyeye:

And then the Americans destroyed a lot of the Babylonian ruins by building an airbase on them. :rolleyes:

Saddam also managed to keep looters and thieves away from all archaeological sites, especially those of the Assyrians, Sumerians and Babylonians. He did this because he wanted to found Iraq's culture as a direct successor of these ancient peoples, instead of his professional interest in history and archaeology.

I always considered Jericho to be the oldest contiinually-inhabited city in the world.
Jericho is probably the oldest city in the world, but it's had some periods of abandonment.

The same is probably true for both Damascus and Beirut. Despite what the Syrian and Lebanese governments say. Especially during the genocidal migrational post-Akkadian era and later the Sea Peoples era, cities had a nasty habit of being abandoned and resettled.

The same is probably true for both Damascus and Beirut.

They SAY Damascus goes back 6000 years

And then the Americans destroyed a lot of the Babylonian ruins by building an airbase on them. :rolleyes:

Saddam also managed to keep looters and thieves away from all archaeological sites, especially those of the Assyrians, Sumerians and Babylonians. He did this because he wanted to found Iraq's ure as a direct successor of these ancient peoples, instead of his professional interest in history and archaeology.

Hopefully the new Iraqi governemt will refound it's self as the direct successors of the ancient people. That would be cool. Why would they want to be an Arab country, anyway? That's not a unique identity! An Iraqi could say he is proud to be from an Arab nation, and so could an Egyptian. :p

btw, I once read that the Kurds are the descendants of the Medean people.

Saddam went for the ancient peoples as that was the only culture that was ever consistent in Mesopotamia. It would be cool if the Iraqis did found their culture on the ancients, but I seriously doubt they will. Iraq will eventually break apart, and the new constitution will see the Kurds and Shi'ites form their own identity completely separate from that of the Sunnis.

The Kurds probably do have Mede blood in them, but they are far more ancient. Historically, they were allies of the Assyrians during their Imperial days.

We'll see.

Saddam Hussein in the 1980's attempted to create a new Iraqi national identity based on the old mesopotamian civilizations. The Shah in Iran very much stressed a national identity based on the Persian empire.

What happened? The Shah was overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists, and when push came to shove, Saddam quickly switched to Islam as a way of inspiring nationalistic attitudes.

It's unrealistic to think that pagan history can, in the forseeable future, replace current national identities and current religious identities.

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

Babylon must had tons culture. Even today, people still remember the city.

I don't mean to toot my own horn, but Seleucia itself went on to have a history. The pattern of "conqueror invades, founds new city, forces residents of conquered capital into new city" continues afterwards, with the Parthians building Ctestiphon [sic?] across the river from Seleucia.

There was one Parthian (or was it Sanassid?) ruler who once conquered a Roman city and moved its inhabitants, by force, to a city named "Better than <name of conquered city>". One of the more amusing moments of history.

Saddam went for the ancient peoples as that was the only culture that was ever consistent in Mesopotamia. It would be cool if the Iraqis did found their culture on the ancients, but I seriously doubt they will. Iraq will eventually break apart, and the new constitution will see the Kurds and Shi'ites form their own identity completely separate from that of the Sunnis.

The Kurds probably do have Mede blood in them, but they are far more ancient. Historically, they were allies of the Assyrians during their Imperial days.

Don't be so pessimistic.

My theory: a person calling himself Nebuchadnezzar VII will rose in Iraq and unite the whole Middle Eastern region and brought peace. This will happen in around AD84041. Nebuchadnezzr VII will be an archaeologist from Sirius who uncovered the remains of an advance civilization that once inhabited the planet known in those times as Earth.

They SAY Damascus goes back 6000 years
6000 years seems a little long. How about Alexandria, home of two great wonders of the Ancient World, the Great Library, and the Great Lighthouse.

I wish I had Seleucus Nicator (the real one) here to explain what he did to Babylon after he murdered his rival and seize power, because frankly I still don't understand.

Alexandria was founded in 332 BCE or something. That's about 3-4 thousands years after Jericho, Ur, and other ancient cities in the region.

- Alexandria is fairly young, built around 332BC as Taillesskangaru said.
- You left off how the Arabs emptied and destroyed Ctesiphon (as well as looted Seleucia-on-the-Tigris and Babylon) to build Baghdad.
- Sure Nebuchadnezzar VII could conquer the world and rebuild Iraq's culture in that of the ancient powers, but you can bet Nebuchadnezzar III, Nebuchadnezzar IV, Nebuchadnezzar V and Nebuchadnezzar VI before him would fail ;)

And I can be pessimistic if I want to be :gripe: :smug:

I wish I had Seleucus Nicator (the real one) here to explain what he did to Babylon after he murdered his rival and seize power, because frankly I still don't understand.


It's true that Seleucus Nicator built two new capitals that replaced Babylon, but if Babylon had been abandoned in 275, then SN would have been dead, and you can take your case to Antiochus I, his son.

Virtually all of the Hellenistic rulers who were not constrained by space (i.e., in Greece) founded their own city, usually named after themselves, as a capital. Ptolemy did not do this, but Alexandria was new enough so that he and his successors could firmly place their stamp on it.

The Hellenistic Era was one in which rulers exalted themselves in a near ridiculous fashion. Look at the titles that Hellenistic rulers gave themselves. "The Conqueror", "The Taker of Cities", "The Savior", "The God". Few came close to living up to their titles.

Can you imagine placing your own stamp on a city as old as Babylon, with so much history? Living up to the legacy of the great men who ruled it before?

The god? which epigonos named himself "the god"? :) I know of 'Poliorcetes' (taker of cities, well besieger at any rate), and 'Soter' (saviour). God=Theos in greek, and i do not remember someone from the epigonoi who named himself that/ i bet he would seem ridiculous if he did anyway :)

Actually, several claimed godhood in their lives. Off the top of my head, one of the Ptolemaic princesses which married into the Seleucid dynasty claimed the title "the Goddess". And Antiochus the Great of the Seleucid Empire went further than anyone else I can think of in having himself deified. It's not as ridiculous as it seems.

Few of the Hellenistic kings ever gave themselves the title they were known by. Often, some petty Greek city did that for whatever reason. For example, if they were a "Besieger", they besieged some city like Athens once to the joy of other cities. Or if they were a saviour, they rescued an Ionian city from its' tyrant. Or if they were a Philhellene, they aided with a Greek city against a Gallic warband. Or if they were a "Sidenus", they spent their childhood in Side. And so forth.

The Kurds probably do have Mede blood in them, but they are far more ancient. Historically, they were allies of the Assyrians during their Imperial days.
The claim I've seen is that their ancestors were the original stumbling block for Assyrian expansion. It was a deadlock that lasted a couple of centuries.

But once their kingdom had been successfully dealt with by Assyria there was kind of a "ketchup effect".;)

Interesting, but i really wanted to find out if someone really had the title of god in his name :)
I can remember Poliorcetes, Soter, Epiphanes (majestic) as the more impressive ones :)

I'll have a looksie for you Varwnos...

let's see...
- The Ptolemaic Princess was Cleopatra Thea, and she was Seleucid Empress (or Ruler more or less since she didn't actually have the title Empress) from 125BC until her untimely death 5 years later.
- Antiochus II Theos of the Seleucid Empire (261 - 246BC)
- Antiochus I Theos Dikaios Epiphanes Philorhomaios Philhellene of Commagene (86 - 38BC)

There are probably more.

- Antiochus I Theos Dikaios Epiphanes Philorhomaios Philhellene of Commagene (86 - 38BC)


:lol: :lol: :lol:
That was magnificent!
Antiochos I God Just Magnificent Romanophile Philhellene of Commagene

I guess translated fully it would be "Antiochus I, Just and magnificent God, friend of the Romans and Greeks, of Commagene"

Probably the titles Just, God, and Magnificent were given to him at different stages, so they wouldnt be parts of a phrase :)

Spaeking of Seleucia, what's the status of that site today? Does it exist? Is it buried under an expanding Bagdad (I heard Bagdad and Seleucia sites are very close to each other)?

I actually think Antiochus I Theos Dikaios Epiphanes Philorhomaios Philhellene of Commagene gained the Philorhomaios and Philhellene titles after Theos, Dikais and Epiphanes. He was a direct decendant of both Alexander the Great of Macedon and Darius III the Doomed of Persia (the Persian emperor Alexander beat the **** out of).

Alexandria was founded in 332 BCE or something. That's about 3-4 thousands years after Jericho, Ur, and other ancient cities in the region.

I am not denying this, I am just saying that this is a once, and somewhat still great city. The thread's title doesn't say anything about when the city was founded.

Another good city for this would be Megiddo, conquered countless times, spanning in time from the Ancient Egyptians all the way through to World War I. Of course it's no longer inhabited. This is also the site named in the Bible where "the Great Armies of the World" will gather their forces for the Final Battle. For Jerusalem of course.

Speaking of the Bible, the Walls of Jericho weren't destoyed by man, they were destroyed by an earthquake quite awhile before what's his name ever got there with the rest of the Israelites.

Fox McCloud: I would have though you would choose Jerusalem (the Heart of 3 of the World's Major Religions), because I have noticed you are a fairly religious person.

Fox McCloud: I would have though you would choose Jerusalem (the Heart of 3 of the World's Major Religions), because I have noticed you are a fairly religious person.

I wouldn't say Jerusalem is the heart of Islam, an maybe it's also a little hyperbolic to call it the heart of Christianity, at least to some sects of it.

Hampi the capital of the Vijaynagar Empire. It was destroyed by a combination of the Deccan Sultnates of Ahmadnagr, Bijapur and Golconda.
It was called "the Rome of Asia"Man this is the second time I've caught you getting this wrong. Hampi was the ancient city, whereas Vijayanagara was the city between the 14th and 16th centuries when Vijayanagara as an Empire existed.

Hampi - old city, ruined at the time of Vijayanagara.
Vijayanagara - Actual name of the empire's capital. This was built around the temple at Hampi but was an altogether different city, as Hampi was no longer operating as a city.

I would listen to Ram, he knows what hes talking about.

Yeah so would I!

Man this is the second time I've caught you getting this wrong. Hampi was the ancient city, whereas Vijayanagara was the city between the 14th and 16th centuries when Vijayanagara as an Empire existed.

Hampi - old city, ruined at the time of Vijayanagara.
Vijayanagara - Actual name of the empire's capital. This was built around the temple at Hampi but was an altogether different city, as Hampi was no longer operating as a city.

:blush: Ah yeah I knew that. Just testing:p

The thread title is "End of the Greatest City on Earth", but Babylon was already spoken for. I guess that leaves only room for possible contenders.

PERSEPOLIS

Once the heart of ancient Persia, this site has the remains of a number of great buildings and monuments, among them the 100-column palace where the Great King's treasury was kept. After Alexander and his army came through and torched the place (the least of their "war crimes"), I guess the survivors couldn't be blamed for not wanting to rebuild it.

SAMARKAND

At one time the richest of the Silk Road cities at the heart of the ancient country once known as Bactria, this one fell to Mongol hordes and was virtually ruined. Even an attempt to revive the city by Timur (a Mongol with a soft spot for the city) never really worked out.

It's a curious thing when so many people decide at some point to just abandon a city, but still retain the memories of its past glory. More so in ancient times than now, I guess, if someplace gets destroyed to such a degree or its inhabitants abandon old traditions associated with that site for new ones, keeping the old place isn't so important any more. I guess a similar thing could be said if someone were to nuclear bomb Philadelphia (a US city not far from where I live, the former capital and the place where the Continental Congress wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution); the city is already in decline, and people would just have a better reason not to rebuild it then.

Pfft. What are you guys talking about. San Diego is clearly the greatest city the world has ever known.

Pfft. What are you guys talking about. San Diego is clearly the greatest city the world has ever known.
Honestly, I have never heard of San Diego before. It must be the greatest city ever then, even better than Winchestertonfieldville :smug: