The thread about formerly important places got me thinking about places that were important cities in the ancient world and are still important today.
Some of the obvious ones are Rome, Athens, Istanbul, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Damascus is even older. I'm not as familiar with Chinese or Indian archeology though--are there rivals? Am I missing something obvious?

I think Rome is the city thats been important for the longest period of time without breaks. Though Athens, Jerusalem and others were important before Rome, they had a break in time when they weren't important.

China and India have often had changing capitals, so I don't really think that there is any good candidates there.

Jerusalem was never not important to the Jews and the Christians.So Jerusalem I say!

Jerusalem! Also Mecca, can;t think of any others right now, but will work on it.

Jerusalem > Rome > Athens > Byzantium > London > Mecca > Paris > Vienna

Mexico City. 18 million people can't be wrong.

Isn't Mexico city located on the capital of the Aztecs? You might have a case there.

Tenochtitlan was founded in 1325. Not eactly ancient.

Guangzhou has been an important international trade port since like 100 BC, although it's politically less important.

Beijing has been around for like 2500 years, but have been the capital for only about 800 years.

Bagdad, pretty important in the old days, always on the news now

delhi area, been important since the mughals and before

Rome; jeruslam cant compaire as it languished for very long periods from the tiem of the Egyptian hegemony over the region righ up to the Roman conquest and beyond; more or less, whil eits been important Jew, Christians and musliam, for a very long time none of those denominations were very large, and the christians themselves can be argued to have actually favored Rome as a realistic center of importance, and Jersulem as a center of the spirit- important, but not as important as where the seat of the church was staying.

By contrast from Romes earliest days its strategic importance made it well known amounst the natives of the itallic peninisula, and its gradual domination fo first italy, and then the western world assured it so; its transfer to the seat of the Papal "christian monarchy" so to speak has so ensured its continuous importance for about 2,600 years.

Thessalonike (Thessalonica/ Salonica) should be in the list too; it has continiously existed for over 2300 years, and was continiously important and populous. (capital of Macedonia after alexander the great's death, and up to conquest by Rome/two epistoles in the new testament adressed to the citizents of Thessalonike/ capital of 1/4 of the roman empire under the system of the tetrarchies/ 2nd most important city in the byzantine and ottoman empires/ a city of over 1 million people today)
It has more reason to be there than for example Constantinople, which was nothing much before the 4rth century AD.

Moreover, although it isnt that important today, i do not see how you would value importance today for a city; in globalisation it seems that most big cities are not that different from one another in current importance.

How is Jerusalem important, except in a spiritual sense?

Alexandria was important in antiquity, and is important now, but it spent a long time in the middle being not very important.

Rome probably has the best case, as it's been very important in all its history, but is less important now. It has combined political and spiritual importance in a way that few other cities have.

Much as I hate to say it, though, I'd still nominate London... It may not actually have been founded by refugees from the Trojan War, as Geoffrey of Monmouth claimed (although they do still say that Brutus, founder of London, is still buried on Tower Hill and his spirit guards the city...), but even before the Romans, Trinovantum, land of the Cockaignes, was considered the leading "civitas" in Britannia... And it's been that way ever since, while in the nineteenth century it became not only the world's greatest megalopolis but picked up the world's largest empire while it was at it. Today, London may no longer rule an empire, but it is still the destination of choice for those who were once under its sway - which is why it seems to be populated almost entirely by Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and Nigerians today. There are more Kiwis in London than in any town in New Zealand apart from Auckland!

How is Jerusalem important, except in a spiritual sense?

Alexandria was important in antiquity, and is important now, but it spent a long time in the middle being not very important.

Rome probably has the best case, as it's been very important in all its history, but is less important now. It has combined political and spiritual importance in a way that few other cities have.

Much as I hate to say it, though, I'd still nominate London... It may not actually have been founded by refugees from the Trojan War, as Geoffrey of Monmouth claimed (although they do still say that Brutus, founder of London, is still buried on Tower Hill and his spirit guards the city...), but even before the Romans, Trinovantum, land of the Cockaignes, was considered the leading "civitas" in Britannia... And it's been that way ever since, while in the nineteenth century it became not only the world's greatest megalopolis but picked up the world's largest empire while it was at it. Today, London may no longer rule an empire, but it is still the destination of choice for those who were once under its sway - which is why it seems to be populated almost entirely by Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and Nigerians today. There are more Kiwis in London than in any town in New Zealand apart from Auckland!

I must ask how London was actually important in any fashion even in the Roman era- the provincial capital of a relitive backwater? That dosent classify as "Important" to anyone except the locals, and the Politicans in Rome, and by all accounts, neither of them number very large- London dosent really come to any particuler importance that I know of until after the Hundred years war.

Jerusalem, Washington DC (Superpower Capital of the World), or Istanbul.

Though DC has only been around for a few hundred years.

Londinium was a major city. It had the largest basilica of any northern Roman city.

Following its loss of power after the fall of Rome, London rose again to dominate the whole of Britain. By the high Middle Ages it was the premier mercantile city of northern Europe, and it's basically continued like that ever since. It was certainly important well before the Hundred Years War.

Jerusalem didnt matter before christianity & London started to matter too late. Late middle ages are far from ancient.

Oh come on, give me your vote :lol:

:)

Delhi and the various Delhis that were built on top of it.

I must ask how London was actually important in any fashion even in the Roman era- the provincial capital of a relitive backwater?

London and Britain itself wasn't just a 'relative backwater', there was plenty here the Romans wanted which is probably why most of the elite were in the country at some point. Also London comanded the Thames which was a vital logistics route for the continuing Roman Invasion.

The continuing roman invasion to the treasures of the magnificent and illustrious empires of...Scotland and Ireland? :confused:

The continuing roman invasion to the treasures of the magnificent and illustrious empires of...Scotland and Ireland? :confused:

No, the rest of England. London is in the south. Scotland and Ireland were left alone.

I knew of the roman wall between england and scotland, and i think that there was some roman territory in the north of Scotland too (there was a similar wall there iirc), but my point was that those areas were not important by any means for the empire. England became important more than a thousant years later.

They may not have been important for the Empire but the conquest of Britain was vitally important for the political survival of Emperor Claudius. This is shown in the number of resources devoted to the invasion.

If England was important to the Emperor, it must follow that London was important given it's position.

It is actually a bit of a myth to say Scotland and Ireland were left alone. Roman forces occupied what is now Lowland Scotland all the way up to the river Clyde and the Firth of Forth for a good fifty years. Severan later campaigned all the way up to the Grampians and the Moray Firth. His camp at Durno was a massive 143 acres. Remains of Roman trading posts have even been found in Eire which rather upsets a lot of anti-Roman Celtic fanatics.

The importance accorded Britannia can be seen in the number of legions stationed there. Under Hadrian the most active Rhine frontier defences were defended by 4 Legions. Africa and Egypt by only one legion each while Britannia had three legions.

In all six legions served in Britannia:
II Adiutrix
II Augusta
VI Victrix
IX Hispania
XIV Gemina Martia Victrix
XX Valeria Victrix

Obviously Britannia was a pointless backwater to have received so much attention.....

Egypt had no borders with enemy nations/territories, and probably was easily defendable in the south due to the terrain. Africa (do you mean Lybia or Mauretania?) had absolutely no border at all with anything that wasnt Rome. Compare for example with the number of american troops in Vietnam during the war; this didnt mean that Vietnam was an important globally country; simply that at that time the usa was active militarily in the region. Granted the analogy isnt perfect, however an important facet of it is revealing here.

The point is, if England was an insignificant backwater, why defend it at all?

1)the largeness of a Basilica isnt an indication of Importance in any regard; in Britian alone cities that were important to the Roman can be summed up more by strategic importance at sites such as Deva, rather then the provincial capital; by any stretch of the Imaginiation, London was even on a top 10 of cities Important to the empire, and in comparison to cities such as Rome itself, Alexandria, Antioch and Mediolanum, it fully pales in comparison- Londinium is only regarded as important by todays schoalrs because Britian rose to primacy in later years, if it handnt, it woudl be just as reltivlly unkown as Aquincum, another town that dwarfed Londimum in every respect, that would go on to be modern day Vienna, Austria.

2)as far as the defenc eof Britian goes, you must remember that even before the intial invasion of Britian Roman citizens were living thier as merchants, and once the invasion got underway; spawned by the political need of claudius to pick out an easy target of invasion to prove himself, and the real need to make sure to quel any indipendence movement the Britianic celts might spawn on the mainland, a good government like that run by the principate is going to have a very hard time trying to justify the invasion, and susquent abandoment of a hige investature of money and lives- once the Romans got to britian and conqored it, it would be a hige sign fo weakness to abandon it.

3)you lis tof legions is skewed at most only 3 legions ever served in britian outside the intial invasion at once, unless it was for a specifric campaign, and and the Danube frontir for instance dwarfs it in terms of military importance, and the numbe rof active legions stationed it bears this out.

London wasnt an important center, unless you consider importance to the locals a real credential to saying a city is of international and lasting importance; by Contrast Rome from its earilest days was in contest between local powers, and relitivlly quicklly after its indipendence was making international treaties with the like sof the Carthaginians.

Jerusalem didnt matter before christianity & London started to matter too late. Late middle ages are far from ancient.

Oh come on, give me your vote :lol:

:)


Jerusalam was the center of the Israeli Kingdom for 150 years, before being conquered by Babylon and Persia. Jerusalam and Palastine had been a center of trade and highly contested in the area between all the powers. The Romans had to besiege the city and destroy the 2nd Temple in order to try and pacify the area from the Jewish rebellion.

Jerusalam hasn't been important only because of Christianity and Mr. Urban's declaration to take it back.

Kyoto became the Japanese imperial capital in 794 AD and is still a sizable city although it has been eclipsed by Tokyo.

Nanjing dates back to 500 BC, has been a capital on a number of occasions, including the center of Wu in the Three Kingdoms period, the capital of the Ming Dynasty, and also Sun Yat-sen's and Chiang Kai-shek's capital. During other periods it often functioned as the southern capital. It's currently a city of six million people.

Rome, Byzantium (Constaninople, Istanbul), Jeruslum, Baghdad, Mecca, Cairo,

I'd say Mexico City, although the aztecs didn't build it that long ago, the city they built was built on toltec ruins.

I would have to say Rome. It has been massively important during it's prime, and still quite important centuries before and for millenia afterwards.
London certainly can't compete in sheer time.

You'd have to closely consider Nanjing and Kyoto.

Depending on what you think is important, Athens must be put on that list---it's true though that it wasn't very important for awhile after the ancient times.

Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world so that needs to be on the list perhaps. You'd have to look at Cairo, I'd say.

Jerusalem, perhaps, but it had not been that politically important for awhile (although spirtual importance might take it up the list).

Byzantium is a good call---that just might be it. I think Rome is a good call but Byzantium was important before Rome (perhaps not as important as Rome once Rome got running but nonetheless imprtant)---I'm going with Constantinople!

City that is definitely not on the list: Newark

Byzantium wasnt important until after COnstaine made it the eastern capital, and seems to have chosen it for its defensive position, then preexiting importance, as at the time, other cities, such as Nicea were far more important in the area.

Vatican City, from what I understand their is something important about that city some major guy...

Vatican city is neither ancient nor a city :)

Xen- Come back to NESing!

As for cities, I think Moscow is a good call. Though a somewhat late bloomer, once the Muscovites freed themselves of the Mongols, Moscow remained important to this day. Not the best choice, but deffinately a city to be put on the list.

Vatican city is neither ancient nor a city :)


I googled it heres genuine proof: http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/proof.JPG
its from the encyclopedia of 1337ness, it must be true :)

Egypt had no borders with enemy nations/territories, and probably was easily defendable in the south due to the terrain. Africa (do you mean Lybia or Mauretania?) had absolutely no border at all with anything that wasnt Rome. Compare for example with the number of american troops in Vietnam during the war; this didnt mean that Vietnam was an important globally country; simply that at that time the usa was active militarily in the region. Granted the analogy isnt perfect, however an important facet of it is revealing here.

I don't think anyone can argue Egypt is easy to defend - it's huge! It is not simply about defending imaginary borders from an enemy attack but also occupation duties, which means ensuring the populace doesn't revolt. (BTW Roman "Africa" stretched from Libya all the way to Mauretania.) I could just as easily have included Iberia or Dacia in my list, both of which were defended by only one legion, or for contrast the Orient which was defended by 8 legions.

[...]
3)you lis tof legions is skewed at most only 3 legions ever served in britian outside the intial invasion at once, unless it was for a specifric campaign, and and the Danube frontir for instance dwarfs it in terms of military importance, and the numbe rof active legions stationed it bears this out.
[...]
I think you'll find I said only three legions were ever active at one time in Britain. Obviously the Danube was well defended but the comparison is still valid, 4 legions were in Pannonia and 5 were in Moesia stretched along a huge frontier from Singidunum to Troesmis. If Britannia were unimportant why bother stationing so many troops and rotating fresh troops at regular intervals?

Londinium was a major city. It had the largest basilica of any northern Roman city.

Following its loss of power after the fall of Rome, London rose again to dominate the whole of Britain. By the high Middle Ages it was the premier mercantile city of northern Europe, and it's basically continued like that ever since. It was certainly important well before the Hundred Years War.
Already prior to the high Middle Age, London had a huge economical influence.

Scandinavian kings in the Viking age looked at it, knew a good thing when they saw it, and decided to try to build something like it back home. (Never really pulled it off though.)

The Danes could extract tons of minted silver from the Anglosaxons at spear-point, and still there always seemed to be more to be had in London.

So the logical conclusion was to try to get one of these money-making machines for themselves, so they wouldn't have to go through the hassle of nicking it.

Hm...canidate cities in China (besides Guangzhou).

1) Cheng Du was the capital of Shu in the Three Kingdoms era, and of Shu in the Warring States era (for a time at least), and is the political and culutral centre of Southwestern China.

2) Xi'an (Chang An), Chang An was the capital of over ten dynasties, and is one of the tenth largest cities in the nation. The city is almost as old as China it self (Xi'an is 3,100 years old) and is the capital of Shaanxi province.

3) Luo Yand, capital of the Later Han, the Wei, and the Jin, Luo Yang dates back to the Zhou dynasty. The White Horse Temple, which is the first Buddhist temple founded in China, was established in Luo Yang. For several centuries, Luo Yang was the center of Chinese culture and civilization.

Rome has my vote!

I think you'll find I said only three legions were ever active at one time in Britain. Obviously the Danube was well defended but the comparison is still valid, 4 legions were in Pannonia and 5 were in Moesia stretched along a huge frontier from Singidunum to Troesmis. If Britannia were unimportant why bother stationing so many troops and rotating fresh troops at regular intervals?

1)9 legions along the border alone is over 45,000 soldires alone, combine this with a similer numbe rof auxilliaries, and you have 90,000 troops- take in the style of Roman deployment along this frontir, and it dwarfs in every respect the 30,000 troops total that Britian may have had

2)again, the importance of britian was primarilly political; Claudius needed as easy conquest to buffer his reputation with the army, and to win the love of the people- an adventure to the mysterous islands of the west, last bastion of the Celts was the perfect target- the peoples in it werent particuarly hard to fight, the Roman army already having adapted to such tactics, it had justifacation, and it had the bonus of being able to do what Julius caesar didnt- however, once you break it, you buy it, and the politics in Rome didnt support a weak leader- and no sign of weakness would be greater then giving up a Roman conquest, and its born out as until the last centuries of Roman rule, after the Government of the principate had long falled (the principate refers to the government of the early empire, and how it was essentially a constitutional monarchy, for the observers of the thread) that only the Emperors most popular with the army that got away doing this (IE; Hadrian and Aurelian) Once it was conqored, it would have been political suicide to give it up, and thier was no particuler reason to do so- true Britian wasnt the most important of provinces, but if thier was pressing need to consider giving up an unimportant province, then why consider it- and Hadrian sealed the comitiment of Rome to keep all the provinces that existed, even those backwaters like Britian.

As I understand it Rome has been quite unimportant at times.
"My Lord, barbarians have ransacked our city!"

I don't know how old Timbuktu is, but it's been quite important for most of it's time, am I right?

I thought about Timbuktu, but it was only important from app. 1325 (when Mansa Musa set himself to furthering Timbuktu as a trade center) to 1468 (when it was captured by Sunni Ali, who diverted trade eastward to Gao, which happened naturally anyway since that was where the new gold mines were). While a century and twenty years give or take is good, it is not enough. Now adays it is nothing more than a tourists destination with a glorious past. Shame, isn't it?

As I understand it Rome has been quite unimportant at times.
"My Lord, barbarians have ransacked our city!"


you must be forgetting the Papacy then, which was important through the entire extent of that period ;)

Damascus seems like the best one listed so far.

Baghdad would be one, as it was built on top of the ruins of the capitol of the sassanid empire

you must be forgetting the Papacy then, which was important through the entire extent of that period ;)
How important was the Papacy when the French kidnapped the popes and forced them to live in Avignon? ;)

The French didn't "kidnap" the Popes! Clement V *was* French and he didn't like Italy (there was considerable tension between the French and Italian contingents within the church at this time) so he chose to move to Avignon. Those of his successors who tried to move back to Rome were thwarted by hostility from the Romans, not machinations on the part of the French.

Every city was somewhat of importance to their respective countries. And for long times might I add.

Athens, hands down. Beats the crap of every other city

Athens, hands down. Beats the crap of every other city

Why?

10 chars

Tenochitlan, aka Mexico City. not even close, next question

The French didn't "kidnap" the Popes! Clement V *was* French and he didn't like Italy (there was considerable tension between the French and Italian contingents within the church at this time) so he chose to move to Avignon. Those of his successors who tried to move back to Rome were thwarted by hostility from the Romans, not machinations on the part of the French.
Don't try to confuse me with the facts! :D
Let me rephrase then: The French, in the person of their spiritual leader, kidnapped the name and moved to France. Happy now? :mischief:

Athens, hands down. Beats the crap of every other city

In all fairness Athens wasn't exactly a vitally important city for it's entire history. It spent a fair few centuries as little more than a provincial town/small city. By the time of the war of independence it had barely 5000 people living in it - compare that to more than a million living in London at the same time, or over 300,000 in ancient times and you get some idea of just how small the city had become.

Changan of China was capital of a WHOLE LOT of dynasties, and is still an important city (in china).
EDIT: whoops, already posted

Ah. Wikipedia says that it Chang'an has been the capital of 17 dynasties and for a total of over 1200 years. During the Tang dynasty it was THE biggest, baddest city on the blue marble like face of the Earth.
Oh yeah baby. :beer:

I dont know why my bid was met with such apathy :P
In my view it is a serious candidate though, since it has:
a) capital city status in the past (capital of ancient Macedonia, hellenistic era/ then again for a very short period in the 13th century)
b) continious major city status (hellenistic/roman/byzantine/ottoman/modern)
c) other: 2 epistles in the bible adressed to its citizents/ ww1 ally stronghold and organization center in southeastern Europe.
d) reasonably important today; over 1 million citizents.

Probably the fact that i live here makes the bid seem less positive, but it shouldnt be so much a factor ;)

1)9 legions along the border alone is over 45,000 soldires alone, combine this with a similer numbe rof auxilliaries, and you have 90,000 troops- take in the style of Roman deployment along this frontir, and it dwarfs in every respect the 30,000 troops total that Britian may have had

2)again, the importance of britian was primarilly political; Claudius needed as easy conquest to buffer his reputation with the army, and to win the love of the people- an adventure to the mysterous islands of the west, last bastion of the Celts was the perfect target- the peoples in it werent particuarly hard to fight, the Roman army already having adapted to such tactics, it had justifacation, and it had the bonus of being able to do what Julius caesar didnt- however, once you break it, you buy it, and the politics in Rome didnt support a weak leader- and no sign of weakness would be greater then giving up a Roman conquest, and its born out as until the last centuries of Roman rule, after the Government of the principate had long falled (the principate refers to the government of the early empire, and how it was essentially a constitutional monarchy, for the observers of the thread) that only the Emperors most popular with the army that got away doing this (IE; Hadrian and Aurelian) Once it was conqored, it would have been political suicide to give it up, and thier was no particuler reason to do so- true Britian wasnt the most important of provinces, but if thier was pressing need to consider giving up an unimportant province, then why consider it- and Hadrian sealed the comitiment of Rome to keep all the provinces that existed, even those backwaters like Britian.

This is getting a little OT as I'm not really defending the importance of London but your bias against Britannia is really quite amusing. You appear to agree that the size of the army deployed is a measure of a regions importance and yet 3 legions and 50+ auxiliary units (at its peak up to 40,000 men-at-arms) is somehow not 'impressive enough'. Even though when comparing geographical surface area and population of particular provinces, Britannia had one of the largest garrisons per head of population anywhere in the empire. As a military posting, Britannia was considered second in military status only to Syria.

Claudius needed as easy conquest to buffer his reputation with the army Although true to a certain extent, don't believe everything Suetonius writes! ;)

As for: the peoples weren't particuallarly hard to fight

Hah! The first invasion was withdrawn with only minimal tribute demanded and the Claudian invasion didn't subdue what is now England and Wales for 40 years (and actually never did subdue it completely). Not forgetting of course that these "easily defeated" barbarians managed to sack London, Camulodunum and Verulamium, burn them to the ground and massacre 70,000 Romano-British. :p

But Britain was in the northern edge of the empire; it is not as if it was situated next to Ravenna. I doubt that the emperors cared much whether or not those islands remained long-term roman or not, although some attention would be given so as to avoid any sort of contra-conquest war by the celts. Definately the focus would be in romanising the core provinces (eg Greece, France, Egypt etc) as much as possible, and even that seemed to be a neverending task.

Distance from Rome doesn't translate to importance, though - Syria and Egypt weren't exactly next door to Italy.

Asclepius versus Xen on Roman history. Who's going to win? This is exciting!

Rome
Chang'an and other ancient Chinese cities
Instanbul
Kyoto
Alexandria
London
Lyon
Thessalonica
Marseilles
Mexico City

Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world so that needs to be on the list perhaps.

What are you talking about !!!!
The city of Jericho is the oldest most inhabited ... look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

I am tempted to say that Rome is one of the cities that remained important in history but that is not exactly true:
First of all it's importance in late ancient times can't be argued but as soon as the barbarian migrations started the city declined , i mean it wasn't even the capital anymore (for example when the vandals sacked Rome the capital was Milano).
Second , now you will all say that it's spiritual importance is even greater . Well not everyone is catholic you know !
Frankly i just don't see how Rome was sooo important in the Middle Ages (because it is obvious that after the middle ages Rome became even less important because of the protestant church).

And about London ... no way, not even close; waaaay to modern.

I would have to say Jerusalem because even "the great" Rome wanted it, even the english (King Richard - example) - it may have more spiritual importance but religion shapes history and the spiritual imp is greater than the political one ...

When reading these answers, I get the feeling that we're talking about the most important for one country, because Mexico City hasn't had that big of an effect on the world. Most of these cities haven't. That Chang'an city might be important for China but for world history, what has it done.

I would have to say that Rome is the most important city because of the papacy statying there. They have had a great effect on the history of the world.

Actually, to be more correct, you are not talking about what is more important in the world but what is important in your Western-only centric version of the world. In fact, your citing of Rome just makes your statement more ridiculous as one of the most important things about Chang'an is its millenium long connection with Rome.

What was important about Chang'an. Well, I think you'd agree that the China has been one of the most important civilizations/empires/countries throughout the entire history of mankind. Actually the Han Chang'an and the Tang Chang'an were in slightly different geographical locations - 5km away. Does that mean it counts as a different city? "Chang'an" (either the Han one or the Tang one) was the capital of more than 10 dynasties including the famous Han where the "Han identity" was consolidated. The First Emperor's tomb and capital are also close by. Later on vital elements of this such as Confucianism was propagated to Japan, Vietnam and Korea. It also formed one end of the Silk Road which was vitally important in transmitting technology and other stuff from China to the West such as not very important things like paper, gunpowder and the compass. Marco Polo visited the city. Not to mention that Buddhism entered China (and then Korea, Japan etc.) through the Silk Road. It was where Xuan Zang lived - the Buddhist monk whose journey to India to bring back the Buddhist Scriptures formed the basis of the book "Journey to the West" (Monkey Magic). The pagoda that was built to house the Scriptures he brought back that formed the foundation of Buddhism in China (and later Japan and Korea) are still housed in the Big Goose Pagoda in the city. He also spent years translating them into Chinese. Japanese and Korean Buddhist monks came to study in Chang'an as the centre of Chinese Buddhism before going back to their own countries to spread the knowledge. Also, the Silk Road had a "civilizing" effect on barbarian tribes along it who settled down and started forming countries.
Also:

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

The disappearance of the Silk Road following the end of the Mongols was one of the main factors that stimulated the Europeans to reach the prosperous Chinese empire through another route, especially by the sea. Tremendous profits were to be obtained for anyone who could achieve a direct trade connection with Asia.

When he went West in 1492, Christopher Columbus reportedly wished to create yet another Silk Route to China. It was allegedly one of the great disappointments of western nations to have found a continent "in-between" before recognizing the potential of a "New World."

The wish to trade directly with China was also the main drive behind the expansion of the Portuguese beyond Africa after 1480, followed by the powers of the Netherlands and Great Britain from the 17th century.

Basically, Chang'an formed the centre of Chinese culture (which heavily influenced E. Asian culture in Japan, Korea etc.), and the route by which East and West were connected for centuries.

I mean representing the basis of the culture of E. Asia and one of the most important links between E. and West in pre-modern times through which Buddhism entered E. Asia and things like paper, gunpowder and the compass was transmitted to the West - it's not really important because it doesn't (directly) involve America - though Christopher Columbus did only end up in America because he was trying to find an alternative route to the Silk Road (which led to Chang'an). No Chang'an - no Silk Road - no Christopher Columbus trying to find a route and accidentally landing on the damn continent blocking his way. Besides, he wouldn't have paper to write on, there would no guns (no gunpowder) and he wouldn't be able to find his way (no compass).

Here's a map of the Silk Road with Rome at one end and Chang'an (modern name Xi'an) at the other:

http://www.travelchinaguide.com/silkroad/

Other things about Xi'an:

http://www.travelchinaguide.com/cityguides/xian.htm

The cultural and historical significance of the area, as well as the abundant relics and sites, help Xian enjoy the laudatory title of "Natural History Museum". The Museum of Terra Cotta Warriors and Horses is praised as "the eighth major miracle of the world", Mausoleum of Emperor Qin Shi Huang is listed on the World Heritage List, and the City Wall of the Ming Dynasty is the largest and most intact Ming Dynasty castle in the world. In the city, there is the 3000 year old Banpo Village Remains from the Neolithic Age, and the Forest of Stone Steles that holds 3,000 stone steles of different periods from the Han Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty. Around Xi'an, the Famen Temple enjoys the reputation of being the "forefather of pagodas and temples in Central Shaanxi," because it holds the finger bones of Sakyamuni--the founder of Buddhism. The natural landscape around Xian is also marvelous. Mt. Huashan, as one of the five best-known mountains in China, is famous for its breath-taking cliffs and its unique characteristics.

Basically the city (area) has been continuously occupied since the late Neolithic. As a city it has 3100 years of history. What else was going on around 1000BC? David captures Jerusalem. The Assyrian Empire. What would later be known as the city of Rome starts forming. Dorians invade Greece. So as a city, Chang'an is about as old as Rome. One could even consider Chang'an to be almost Rome's parallel in the East in terms of size and influence and general timing. It also helps that they bookend the Silk Road. Also, Rome later on became the centre of Christianity and Chang'an became the centre of E. Asian Buddhism (Japanese and Korean monks would come to the "Holy City" to study the religious scriptures). Though as a more cosmopolitan city it was also the centre of Islam in China as shown by the Great Mosque in the city and I guess as the capital the centre of Confucianism.

On a more modern note it was in Xi'an that the Communist Party and Kuomingtang met to forged a truce so that they could concentrate on fighting the Japanese. I seem to remember WWII Pacific Arena affecting quite a lot of people. I think even America participated in that little event. It is still an important city that contains some of the best universities in China after Beijing and Shanghai.

Other miscellaneous influences - The original grid layout of Kyoto was fashioned after the city of Chang'an. The Japanese were so impressed by the stories about Chang'an brought back by returning Buddhist monks who had studied there that they attempted to emulate the city - giving rise to the 1000 year capital, Kyoto. Similarly, ancient Korean capitals attempted to emulate the layout of Chang'an. When entire other countries think that it would a smashing idea to try to build a capital that is the replica of one city that it's pretty influential.

I guess we could say that Chang'an was to E. Asia what Rome was to Europe.

"That Chang'an city" indeed...

When reading these answers, I get the feeling that we're talking about the most important for one country, because Mexico City hasn't had that big of an effect on the world. Most of these cities haven't. That Chang'an city might be important for China but for world history, what has it done.

I would have to say that Rome is the most important city because of the papacy statying there. They have had a great effect on the history of the world.

Jerusalem. Important to the three biblical faiths and it is as ancient as you get.

I think Rome is the city thats been important for the longest period of time without breaks..

You mean that big break between 500 AD and the late Middle Ages doesn't count?

Jerusalem, Washington DC (Superpower Capital of the World), or Istanbul.

Though DC has only been around for a few hundred years.'

Washington DC? It was only founded 216 years ago, burnt to the ground 192 years ago, and wasn't a major player until the 20th century.

Istanbul aka Constantinople aka Byzentinium would have to be the most important. It is the only place overseas I have been so I may be a little short-sighted. While not in the city a few hours away is Canakale the site of Troy which was very significant for the entire region. When the Greek armies returned home from Troy they found their old enemies to the North had occupied their palaces and had their way with the women folk. Back to the city. Firstly it is the worlds only inter-continental city spanning the gap between Europe and Asia. As its original Constantinople it outlived its Western counterpart (Rome) by over a thousand years ensuring that not all knowledge of the Classical Age was lost during the Dark Age. It was the major stop on the trade routs to Asia such as the Silk Road. Its port situated on the Bospherous served as a dock on the sea rout from the Black Sea to the Aegean.

Because of its significance 'mother England' sent Australian (I'm from Australia) and New Zealand troops to Gallipoli during WW1 so they could give Istanbul to the Russians.

Today it serves as a bridge between the West and the Middle East.

You know, I'm actually quite suprised no one has nominated Mecca. Previous to Islam, it was already an important trading city, but the rise of Islam made it really, really, really take off. Mecca is THE center of the Islamic faith, and every day, a billion Muslims pray in the direction of Mecca, five times a day. It's the place that houses the artifacts most holy and central to this major world religion, and every year, during the Hajj, millions of pilgrims from all over the world unite in their singular purpose of making the pilgrimage to Mecca. And apparently, for many Muslims, it's a life-changing experience. For example, Malcolm X preached a doctrine of black seperatism, and was part of a deviant cult of Islam that preached that whites were evil, but after journeying to Mecca and seeing people of all races and ethnicities uniting together to pray, his views radically changed and he began preaching tolerance and brotherhood (which, unfortunately, led to his assassination).

Like or hate Islam, Mecca is quite an important city that has been a important for over a millenia of Islamic civilization.

looks like it's Rome at one end, Chang'an at the other, and Istanbul in the middle.probbably three of the most important cities ever, no one should doubt that now.

London also had a big effect on the rest of the world, but like others have said, it's global effect is too modern compared to the others.

There aren't that many cities which have remained powerful from the Ancient Time untill today.

Among those I have enough information to mention I would name :
- Rome
- Jerusalem
- Istanbul
- Xi'an

In the Middle East, it's true that Damascus is a good contender. About Baghdad, well, it became really something noticeable in the early Middle Age as far as I know. The problem about Athens is that it's been eclipsed by Constantinople, that's why I wouldn't name it. Mexico City is with no doubt the oldest important city in the Americas, but it's been founded only around the 13th/14 century.

Now about London, I don't want to hurt British feeling but that's a joke. London really became a really important city in the 15th/16th century, not before. Londinium has never really been a city of 1st importance in the Roman Empire.

Most European cities from the Ancient times became insignificant during the early Middle Age, London has even been totally abandonned during 150 years (from 450 to 600 AD). Later in the Middle Age, Britain became some kind of French colony which turned bad. During the 100 years war, France counted 20 million people when England counted only 4 million people.

Even a city like Paris has a longer Historical record than London. During the Roman Empire, Lutetia (Paris) was only a provincial town but still a lot more important than Londinium which wasn't really more than a fortified town at the borders of the Empire. Lutetia has been conqueered in 52 BC, and Romans organized it as a true Roman city, with its "cardo" (main street) being today's rue Saint-Jacques. A Colosseum of 17,000 seats have been built in Lutetia. Today, we can still see standing in the heart of Paris an Ancient Roman thermae and a Roman arena. We can't find anything in London from the Roman era outside an old wall. However, the most important Roman city in what is today's France was Lugdunum (Lyon) which is often refered as the capital of the Gauls.

And by the way, Brits should calm down a bit. It's not because we say that London cannot be compared with Rome or Jerusalem historically speaking that it means we are necessarily a "British hater".