View Full Version : Most Fought-Over Place in History?


taillesskangaru
Jul 13, 2007, 08:46 PM
Inspired by this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=231050).

I'm curious as to what is the most fought over place in history. IIRC it was Megiddo (34 battles)

aronnax
Jul 13, 2007, 08:56 PM
Most sieged city, Constantinople. Sieged 24 times

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

The Gonzo
Jul 13, 2007, 09:13 PM
The Holy Land. Goes right back to the Battle of Kadesh and continues today in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

sydhe
Jul 13, 2007, 11:48 PM
There are also some fifteen battles of Adrianople=Edirne (including sieges) from 313 to 1913. It's in a particularly strategic place leading from Greece into the Balkans and from the west to Istanbul.

Belgium, southern Netherlands and the region of France just west of it have been famously fought over. Crecy, Courtrai, Agincourt, Ypres, Waterloo, the Downs, Sluys, Dunkirk, Calais, Tournai, Mons, Malplaquet, Lille, Oudenaarde, and many more, and that's only the western half of the region.

Verbose
Jul 14, 2007, 01:41 AM
To the ancients there was a place that was synonymous of war. It's in the bible as "Harmageddon". Historically it was the fortified city of Megiddo, in Syria. Anyone campaigning up or down that piece of coast along the Med. would pass it by, and usually there would be a fight.

The much-fought-over places tend to crop up at intersections between major powers for very long stretches of history. Megiddo for the pre-classical ancients. Flanders for western Europe. There are others, in other parts of the world obviously.

pat4
Jul 14, 2007, 04:56 AM
I'd have to say what is today known as Israel. It's is at least the most coveted place in history.

LightSpectra
Jul 14, 2007, 05:37 AM
Yeah, probably Jerusalem.

Jan H
Jul 14, 2007, 11:51 AM
I was always thought that in the last 1000 years, Belgium (or the Southern Netherlands) has been the "Battlefield of Europe". The region was ruled by the Romans, the Franks, the Burgundians, the Spanish, the Austrians, the French, the Dutch and invaded by Germany two times. Besides that, several battles between European powers were fought in the Southern Netherlands (the most famous being Waterloo of course)

Godwynn
Jul 14, 2007, 12:48 PM
At first glance I would have said Alsace-Lorraine, but after reading through this thread I would have to change it to the land now known as Israel.

civverguy
Jul 14, 2007, 01:21 PM
There were a lot of battles for places in Israel.

SeleucusNicator
Jul 14, 2007, 06:05 PM
Mesopotamia is probably not that far behind Israel.

Mirc
Jul 14, 2007, 06:08 PM
I'd say Israel, but I'm not sure. :)

The Yankee
Jul 14, 2007, 06:17 PM
Given that Israel/Palestine has had periods where they were a part of one empire or another, I'd venture out and say Mesopotamia may have seen more fighting than the Holy Land.

TheLastOne36
Jul 14, 2007, 06:21 PM
Israel Mesopotamia and Belgium are high on my list.

Here's a nice question. Which sea area do you think has been fought over the most?

Mirc
Jul 14, 2007, 06:33 PM
Israel Mesopotamia and Belgium are high on my list.

Here's a nice question. Which sea area do you think has been fought over the most?

Bosphorus strait, I'm (almost) sure.

TheLastOne36
Jul 14, 2007, 06:42 PM
Strait of Gibraltor for me.

Gilder
Jul 14, 2007, 07:57 PM
Either the Bosphorus, or the Mediterranean.
.

ParkCungHee
Jul 14, 2007, 09:34 PM
Either the Bosphorus, or the Mediterranean.
.
I would definately say the Bosphorus. Control of it was an issue in Just about every general European conflict, (Crimean, WWI, etc. etc.)

dutchking
Jul 14, 2007, 10:25 PM
Israel/Palestine...ALL THE WAY...my mom said when I was younger, "All this !@#% over a stupid little piece of dirt!" She was angry at the moment...I don't think she actually believes whatever...Just adding spice to the convo! :lol: Don't take offense anyone, just to let you know my father's Jewish. :lol: Please, really don't take offense.

Eran of Arcadia
Jul 14, 2007, 10:36 PM
Actually, I don't think that Palestine has seen significantly more warfare than a lot of other places, it is just that what it does see tends to be better documented.

aronnax
Jul 14, 2007, 11:00 PM
Egyptian takeover, Persian Captures, Alexander Invades, Roman and Byzantium Rule, Arab conquest, Nine Crusades, Saladin's recapture, Mongol Attacks, Ottoman Assault. British Advance, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, 6 day war, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Two invasions of Lebanon and much more

Yep the Holy Land is full of blood

Eran of Arcadia
Jul 14, 2007, 11:16 PM
You'll find an awful lot of the world is like that.

sydhe
Jul 15, 2007, 12:21 AM
Israel Mesopotamia and Belgium are high on my list.

Here's a nice question. Which sea area do you think has been fought over the most?

Presumable the Bosphorus and Dardenelles. There have been four battles at Lepanto/Naupactus, which lies at the mouth of the Gulf of Corinth. The first was in 423 BC and is called the Battle of Naupactus, part of the Pelopennesian War. The second and Third were in 1499 and 1500 and won by the Ottomans over the Venetians. The fourth battle is THE Battle of Lepanto.

Actium was fought at the next bay up, about 50 miles away.

SeleucusNicator
Jul 15, 2007, 12:35 AM
The thing about Mesopotamia though is that there were stretches of hundreds of years where it was just kicked back and forth between two empires like a soccer ball.

Seleucids/Parthians, Rome/Parthians, Byzantium/Sassanids, Sassanids/Arabs, Mongols/Arabs, Ottomans/Safavids, etc.

It saw a lot of obscure campaigns and nameless wars.

SeleucusNicator
Jul 15, 2007, 12:35 AM
And, of course, there was a long stretch of thousands of years where people in Mesopotamia were fighting each other, and people everywhere else weren't yet organized enough to fight proper wars.

ParkCungHee
Jul 15, 2007, 01:21 AM
Actually, I don't think that Palestine has seen significantly more warfare than a lot of other places, it is just that what it does see tends to be better documented.
I would agree. There was essentially an unbroken time from the ninth Crusade 1272, to the British advance during WWI 1918, where the was no fighting in the Holy Land. Even longer if you discount the advance during WWI because there was no effective resistance. Still thats, 646 straight years with no fighting at all. Not many places can say that.

pat4
Jul 15, 2007, 05:49 AM
I was just thinking that there have been almost unbroken rebellions in Ireland apart from after the famine. It's been going on for the last 800 years. Before that the vikings were killing the celts and before that the celts were killing the gaels and before that the gaels were killing the stone-age settlers. And when the invaders weren't killing the old people, the people were killing each other. Our monks even started killing the invaders.

aronnax
Jul 15, 2007, 06:01 AM
I was just thinking that there have been almost unbroken rebellions in Ireland apart from after the famine. It's been going on for the last 800 years. Before that the vikings were killing the celts and before that the celts were killing the gaels and before that the gaels were killing the stone-age settlers. And when the invaders weren't killing the old people, the people were killing each other. Our monks even started killing the invaders.

Im never going to Ireland.....

Mirc
Jul 15, 2007, 06:49 AM
Well, most of Europe would score pretty high in "places fought over a lot". :)

My opinion still hasn't changed though: Jerusalem (and the whole Holy Lands), and in second probably Istanbul (Constantinopole, Byzantium).

Iran is another option, but lower than those two IMHO.

The Yankee
Jul 15, 2007, 08:21 AM
And, of course, there was a long stretch of thousands of years where people in Mesopotamia were fighting each other, and people everywhere else weren't yet organized enough to fight proper wars.

The thing about Mesopotamia though is that there were stretches of hundreds of years where it was just kicked back and forth between two empires like a soccer ball.

Seleucids/Parthians, Rome/Parthians, Byzantium/Sassanids, Sassanids/Arabs, Mongols/Arabs, Ottomans/Safavids, etc.

It saw a lot of obscure campaigns and nameless wars.
Precisely why I think Mesopotamia has been more violent.

TheLastOne36
Jul 15, 2007, 10:09 AM
Well for the most faught over place in the world during the 17th-20th centuries has to be Poland.

Following the alliance between Austria-Prussia-Russia Poland was split apart by the 3. And then there was a major resistance almost every decade. so i'm quite proud of my ancestors. then there was the fighting in WW1 and 2.

But i'm not sure if it counts. It wasn't really fought over 2 different states. it was usually 1 state takes poland, and then huge resistance followed.

Junglecutter
Jul 15, 2007, 10:24 AM
Israel is on the top of my list.

Mirc
Jul 15, 2007, 10:26 AM
Well for the most faught over place in the world during the 17th-20th centuries has to be Poland.

Following the alliance between Austria-Prussia-Russia Poland was split apart by the 3. And then there was a major resistance almost every decade. so i'm quite proud of my ancestors. then there was the fighting in WW1 and 2.

But i'm not sure if it counts. It wasn't really fought over 2 different states. it was usually 1 state takes poland, and then huge resistance followed.

More than Belgium or Alsace-Lorraine?

TheLastOne36
Jul 15, 2007, 10:31 AM
ok forgot about Belgium...

But still. I don't know if Poland counts as i said, it wasn't fought over by different people, just the Germans and Russians. (The germans to the north, South and west. :D ) (austria, Prussia, Germany.)

Mirc
Jul 15, 2007, 10:33 AM
I could say that my area was fought over by Austrians, Hungarians, Russians and Ottomans, in exactly those centuries you were talking about. So what? I don't think that's what makes an area "fought over", but a long history of many, many different people battling and shifting authority over the place, during thousands of years.

TheLastOne36
Jul 15, 2007, 10:36 AM
Except that didn't happen to poland. :D

It got split by an alliance of strong states cause the resistance would be to hard for 1 state to do so, then ounce that happened, Poles were giving loads of resistance.

^of course that's my extremely Nationalistic view. so this post is worth the :joke: smiley.

firecoder
Jul 16, 2007, 08:09 AM
Jerusalem for me........and i suppose arronax is going to TRY not to prove me wrong

carmen510
Jul 16, 2007, 01:50 PM
The Middle East in general is at the top, but Israel is the most heavily engulfed in war. In Europe, I think the most warfare is in Belgium, or the Low Countries in general. In America, Central-South America. In Asia, India, in Australia, Australia, and in Africa, north Africa. On the other extreme, the least conflicts have been fought in Antarctica. :p

So when the world is engulfed in war, Antarctica will be the safest place, for no former conflicts, except if global warming melts Antarctica, but by that time, you will not care because you're either dead, drowning, or on another planet. :p

Provolution
Jul 16, 2007, 01:55 PM
fighting over the area of Megiddo and its like, I do not understand. What are the fruits of victory?

Lazy workers
Insubordinate workers
Non-innovative region
Poor soil
No naturally defensible border
rough climate

and so on.

I think conquering this place must have been more a burden than blessing.

Plotinus
Jul 16, 2007, 10:24 PM
Often it's not the place itself but its location. Somewhere like Megiddo - and there are many other places like it in that part of the world, such as Armenia, or Nisibis, or Israel - was valuable because it represented a potential buffer against an enemy. For example, the reason the Holy Land was important to the Roman empire was that it was a buffer against Persia, and so the Romans were prepared to keep it, protect it, and if necessary fight for it, simply because of that, even though the place itself didn't provide very much and was a lot of trouble (it is possible, though not certain, that the empire effectively lost money on the Holy Land overall, contrary to the traditional picture of ruthless tax collectors bleeding it dry). Similarly, Armenia had the bad fortune to be stuck in between Rome and Persia, which meant it spent much of antiquity hosting various battles and wars between the two.

I think northern England must be fairly high on the list, given that it was the scene of battles between Romans and Picts, Saxons and Picts, Vikings and Saxons, Lancastrians and Yorkshiremen, Parliamentarians and Royalists, etc etc... In fact you could probably say something similar for southern England too.

Provolution
Jul 17, 2007, 02:02 AM
For Europe, the most fought for places, top 5, would be these:

Northeastern France (Border to Belgium)
Serbia
Poland/Eastern Prussia
Thrace/Istanbul
Sicily

Remember, demographics matter, even though Denmark and Sweden had hectic wars.

Heretic_Cata
Jul 19, 2007, 07:57 AM
I am curious, which non-european & non-middleEastern place is the most fought-over place ?

pat4
Jul 19, 2007, 08:46 AM
I think northern England must be fairly high on the list, given that it was the scene of battles between Romans and Picts, Saxons and Picts, Vikings and Saxons, Lancastrians and Yorkshiremen, Parliamentarians and Royalists, etc etc... In fact you could probably say something similar for southern England too.

I don't agree with that. There havn't been any battles on British shores for a long time. Not since the union of Scotland and England at least.

Eran of Arcadia
Jul 19, 2007, 08:49 AM
The Battle of Culloden in 1746 was the last land battle on British soil.

(When I took a course on historiography in college, we covered this in some depth - about 1/3 of the course focused on it.)

Plotinus
Jul 19, 2007, 10:13 AM
I don't agree with that. There havn't been any battles on British shores for a long time. Not since the union of Scotland and England at least.

Culloden? Prestonpans?

In any case, battles on British soil were practically incessant for much of the period before then; bear in mind that England had three civil wars over the past millennium (counting the Wars of the Roses and the Jacobite wars as civil wars) not to mention various usurpations and rebellions - and that's just since the Conquest. It's been pointed out that even the Levant has enjoyed centuries-long periods of peace in the past, but it still counts as one of the most fought-over places in the world.

Besides, there's always the Battle of Britain, which was fought above Britain. Not in the north, though, of course.

[EDIT] Crosspost with Eran there.

sydhe
Jul 19, 2007, 05:23 PM
I am curious, which non-european & non-middleEastern place is the most fought-over place ?

Kabul must be right up there. It's on several major trade routes and the Khyber Pass leads you there from India. Actually, the Khyber Pass itself gets fought over a lot.

There were three major battles of Panipat, which is about 50 miles NW of Delhi. About 35 miles NW of that is Taraori, where Muhammad of Ghor fought a couple of battles.

Heretic_Cata
Jul 20, 2007, 02:29 AM
Kabul must be right up there. It's on several major trade routes and the Khyber Pass leads you there from India. Actually, the Khyber Pass itself gets fought over a lot.

There were three major battles of Panipat, which is about 50 miles NW of Delhi. About 35 miles NW of that is Taraori, where Muhammad of Ghor fought a couple of battles.
Intresting - thanks. :)

FriendlyFire
Jul 20, 2007, 03:20 AM
The Holy Land. Goes right back to the Battle of Kadesh and continues today in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Hell yeah right in the middle of like great superpowers since the time of civlization. Invaded by everyone from the Egyptions, hittiates, Persians, greeks, romans, turks, Byzatine, Cursaders and on and on and on.

sabo
Jul 20, 2007, 12:04 PM
Actually I the Watts in Los Angelos has 'em ALL beat ;)

privatehudson
Jul 20, 2007, 04:51 PM
Besides, there's always the Battle of Britain, which was fought above Britain. Not in the north, though, of course

Its probably worth adding however that although the Battle of Britain primarily concentrated on the south of England the North did see its own share of bombing raids with the night fighting actions and all that entails. The most heavily bombed British area outside of London during the war after all was Liverpool.

Hmmm... might do a thread on that one day, I have tons of photos of the city during the blitz lying around on my hard drive.

joycem10
Jul 27, 2007, 09:45 AM
I was reading 'What If' last night and an intro to the battle of Adrianople (now known as Edirne) stated that it was the most fought over site in the history of the world. The author stated that over 15 major battles have occurred there.

Azkonus
Jul 27, 2007, 04:05 PM
If you look at current position of Edirne, it might be the next battleground for the potential Greek-Turkish war. Place is some what holy to us since it contains the worlds most beatiful mosque.

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

Mind you the dome stands still even though Bulgarians attacked it with artillery.

Dachs
Jul 27, 2007, 06:37 PM
I like how Wiki got the date of the bombardment horribly wrong. :lol:

[insert inflammatory comment about Hagia Sophia and minarets here]

Che Guava
Aug 01, 2007, 10:47 AM
Any places in central asia that might make the cut? THe silk trail must have been an area ripe for conflict for centuries...! How about the CIty of Samarkand, or Bactra?

luiz
Aug 01, 2007, 01:16 PM
In South America I'd say the Missions region (in the Triple Border of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay) was the most disputed. First disputed between the Spanish and the Portuguese, scenario of the portuguese wars against the guarani indians and the jesuits, and later also the scenario of clashes between Brazil and Argentina and also of course of the tremendous bloodbath of the Triple Alliance War.


Though of course it pales in comparisson to disputed regions of other continents that have many more centuries of history.

Bast
Aug 06, 2007, 01:37 AM
Maybe Israel but Belgium is the battleground of all Europe.

wurkwurk
Aug 06, 2007, 02:40 PM
The Palestine area, for sure. Israelites, Phillistines, and Cannanites, Akkadians, Pharonic Egyptians, Hittites (who fought the first well documented Battle of Kadesh here), Babylonians, Persians, Macedonians, Selucids, Parthians, Romans (and all the famous Jewish rebellions), Palmyrans, Sassanian Persians, Byzantines, The Muslim conquest, the Seljuk Turks, NINE HUGE ASS CRUSADES, Saladin and the Mamluk Reconquest, the Ottoman conquest, Napoleon's invasion (and Ottoman and British kicking them out), British conquest in WWI, the first battles for the nation of Israel, the 1956 Suez crisis, the 1967 war, Yom Kippur War, and monstrous amounts of continuous conflict them then to now.

Can anything REALLY beat that? Of course the Low Countries in western Europe is constnantly fought over...since the middle ages. But stuff in the Middle East started occuring almost 4000 years before that time.

Mirc
Aug 06, 2007, 02:43 PM
Maybe Israel but Belgium is the battleground of all Europe.

In Europe, don't forget Istanbul too (or rather, on the border of Europe, but still in Europe partially).

Phlegmak
Aug 06, 2007, 02:58 PM
I'm sure parts of India have seen plenty of wars. I'm mentioning those only to find some place outside of Europe and the Middle East.

ohcrapitsnico
Aug 06, 2007, 09:40 PM
Any places in central asia that might make the cut? THe silk trail must have been an area ripe for conflict for centuries...! How about the CIty of Samarkand, or Bactra?

Well transoxania is the land link between the middle east and china, this is always the place where the middle eastern invaders come from, timur, genghis, hulagu, seljuks, etc. I would say though that after genghis this area was utterly demolished. Lets remember in Persia alone 90% of the pop of persia was eliminated by the mongols, and timur razed the million plus tatar cities on the russian steppe like sarai berke and sarai batu to the point they never existed past that point. I would also say the passage to India is hotly contested, Badakhshan and the cities of lahore, qandahar, and kabul.

dwaxe
Sep 01, 2007, 10:03 PM
The Middle East.

It was fought over starting from the first Mesopotamian battles circa 3000 BCE and continuing until now, the most recent major campaign being Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Whatever, Mango, I'll just say Iraq. That is the most in the middle east...

RE Lee
Sep 01, 2007, 10:15 PM
Meggido (Armageddon), or the holy land in general. 34 battles, the closest is the Bosphorus (Constantinople or Istanbul) with 24.

Mango
Sep 03, 2007, 01:08 AM
The Middle East.

It was fought over starting from the first Mesopotamian battles circa 3000 BCE and continuing until now, the most recent major campaign being Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The Middle-East? That's like saying Europe.

challenger
Sep 03, 2007, 01:16 PM
Parts of the Balkans certainly have to go to this hall of shame of human history. From what I gather, the region has hardly seen a decade of peace after the collapse of Roman predominance there.
Also, the region between the Iranian plateau and the Central Asian steppes has seen a ridiculous amount of fighting since the dawn of history. Horse Nomads from Central Asia (Iranian, Hun, Turko-Mongol and much more) just kept coming, against local resistance, until the advent of gunpowder could keep them away permanently.

But then, what do we know about Central America or Sub-Equatorial Africa?

Hornblower
Sep 04, 2007, 08:02 AM
Well there is a waterhole in Olduvai Gorge.....

germanicus12
Sep 05, 2007, 08:48 PM
I think the Iraq area has seen the most conflict in the history of war. Especially modern history, more than Isreal has seen so far.

As for most fought over piece of sea.... I would say the Mediternean, it is a matter of trading rights back in Ancient times, whoever controls the sea controls trade. The Romans definetly grew rich once they conquered the Mediternean.

Shaihulud
Sep 06, 2007, 11:35 AM
If we can count China as a whole i would bet that its seen more wars and battles. Big place, hundreds of different tribes, long history, it didn't get so big because everyone decides to join together you know. There isn't a time when there isn't some war taking place somewhere and there always hostile barbarians up North, Hsing Nu, Khitan, Mongols etc hostile barbarians down south too, but they were pretty much tidied up quickly. Each fall in dynasty precipitaes another long war and so on.

holy king
Sep 06, 2007, 11:55 AM
well, the question is what a "place" is...
saying china is like saying the middle east and both is almost like saying europe...

Louis XXIV
Sep 07, 2007, 12:29 AM
The thing about Mesopotamia though is that there were stretches of hundreds of years where it was just kicked back and forth between two empires like a soccer ball.

Seleucids/Parthians, Rome/Parthians, Byzantium/Sassanids, Sassanids/Arabs, Mongols/Arabs, Ottomans/Safavids, etc.

It saw a lot of obscure campaigns and nameless wars.

Yep. Let's throw in Assyrian campaigns to control the Middle East, Babylonian campaigns, Akkadian campaigns, etc (and there were a lot of powers that fought to control it that never succeeded who I haven't mentioned). Lets not forget Alexander vs. Darius. Also, different Arab groups fought each other over the region.

After the Safavids, let's mention the British in World War I. If Kuwait counts as part of it, add the first Gulf War. Add our current war to the list. I guess the Iran-Iraq War doesn't count, since that was about control of western Iran (maybe the Zagros mountains is as close to mesopotamia as you can get). Still, that's 70 years of peace. Historically speaking, that's not very much. When Israel became a backwoods part of the Ottoman Empire, you'd have centuries of peace (hell, even when the Ottomans weren't fighting the Safavids over Mesopotamia, they'd fight the local population in an attempt to control it).

Of course, Mesopotamia is very generalized. Its an entire region, not a specific battle site.

JohnRM
Sep 07, 2007, 05:33 PM
Yeah, probably Jerusalem.

That is what I am going with.

Provolution
Sep 07, 2007, 05:34 PM
I would say Jericho, to some extent.

Shibbyman
Sep 08, 2007, 09:46 AM
I'm going to agree with what everyone else has said and say either the Levant (including Meggido) or Flanders and the Low Countries. Also, if your going to name an area try not to be too vague about; if you can give a location like Europe or the Middle East you can just as easily give the the Old World, the Americas or Earth.

Mirc
Sep 08, 2007, 11:54 AM
I'm going to agree with what everyone else has said and say either the Levant (including Meggido) or Flanders and the Low Countries.

Actually, not everyone agrees with that. I think Istanbul has seen a lot more battles than the Low Countries... the Low Countries are recent history compared to what Byzantium/Constantinopole/Tsarigrad/Istanbul has seen. :)

Defiance
Sep 08, 2007, 01:13 PM
When has Africa not been in a constant state of bloodshed..

holy king
Sep 10, 2007, 03:12 AM
when hasnt europe been?