-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Cities that have remained important for the longest times
- Thread starter magritte
- Start date
PrinceOfLeigh
Wigan, England
varwnos said:The continuing roman invasion to the treasures of the magnificent and illustrious empires of...Scotland and Ireland?
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.
PrinceOfLeigh
Wigan, England
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.
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.....
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.
PrinceOfLeigh
Wigan, England
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.
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.
varwnos said: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
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.
sydhe
King of Kongs
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.
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.
silver 2039
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,208
Rome, Byzantium (Constaninople, Istanbul), Jeruslum, Baghdad, Mecca, Cairo,
Pyrite
Emperor
I'd say Mexico City, although the aztecs didn't build it that long ago, the city they built was built on toltec ruins.
~Corsair#01~
Deity
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.
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
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.
Israelite9191
You should be reading
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.
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.
varwnos said:
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.
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?Xen said:
Similar threads
