Which city has changed hands the most times?

[RedRalph]

I was just wondering this... if I had to guess I'd say it would be somewhere in western Germany, India or northern Italy... anyone know?

 

[holy king]

the balkans arent a bad tip either i think.

 

[RedRalph]

the balkans arent a bad tip either i think.

That crossed my mind, but much of it was held down by the OE for so long...

 

[Verbose]

Jerusalem, perhaps?

But there is actually a place which has "most conquered" as a tourist slogan:
http://www.seepalermo.com/

 

[RedRalph]

Jerusalem, perhaps?

But there is actually a place which has "most conquered" as a tourist slogan:
http://www.seepalermo.com/

Hmm, interesting (though tourist bord slogans are very unreliable)... I think we can probably rule out any city that was part of a big empire for a long time though. The Romans and Ottmans both held Jerusalem for a good long while, did they not?

 

[Verbose]

Hmm, interesting (though tourist bord slogans are very unreliable)... I think we can probably rule out any city that was part of a big empire for a long time though. The Romans and Ottmans both held Jerusalem for a good long while, did they not?

Except we also need to factor in sheer age. Jerusalem might have been quiet for long stretches of time, but it is also hoary with age. Already the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt kept a garrison there, and it is located in one of the most marched through areas in world history.

Generally that's probably where one should look - someplace really old located in a very long standing contested border area.

 

[RedRalph]

Except we also need to factor in sheer age. Jerusalem might have been quiet for long stretches of time, but it is also hoary with age. Already the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt kept a garrison there, and it is located in one of the most marched through areas in world history.

Generally that's probably where one should look - someplace really old located in a very long standing contested border area.

Good point. It was around long before almost anything in Europe. I'm still not 100% convinced though... what about India as I suggested in the OP? I know little about India's history but it would seem to have all the ingredients - ancient cities, a fragmented and frequently warring continent, etc?

 

[Verbose]

Good point. It was around long before almost anything in Europe. I'm still not 100% convinced though... what about India as I suggested in the OP? I know little about India's history but it would seem to have all the ingredients - ancient cities, a fragmented and frequently warring continent, etc?

Sure they do.
I actually wouldn't want to call this one, so Jerusalem is more up for discussion than probably the answer.

But longevity would matter. Lots of important places have been conquered, once, and that was it. Some, like Jerusalem, gets rebuilt...

Afaik the oldest contionously inhabited Indian city is Varanasi, since about 1200 BC; Xi'an from around 1100 BC takes the cake in China. There certainly would seem to be a LOT older places in the ME, and even Europe. Though it is a truism that our datings of things archeological tends to mirror where and what we've so far been looking for, so surprises should be expected. So I'm pinning my hopes on the archaeologists of places like India and China.

 

[Tee Kay]

I'll just list all the rulers of Jerusalem, in order:

Jebusite (biblical)
Kingdom of Israel (Davidian) and Kingdom of Judah
Babylonian Empire
Achaemenid Persia
Macedonian Empire
Ptolemaic Egypt
Seleucid Empire
Kingdom of Israel (Hasmonean and Herodian)
Roman Empire
Palmyran Empire
Roman Empire (Restored)
Sassanid Persia
Roman Empire (Restored)
Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates
Abbasid Caliphate
Fatimid Caliphate
Seljuk Empire
Kingdom of Jerusalem
Ayyubid Sultanate
Kingdom of Jerusalem (Restored)
Ayyubid Sultanate (Restored)
Mameluke Sultanate
Ottoman Empire
British Empire
State of Israel (West) / Kingdom of Jordan (East)
State of Israel (entire city)

 

[Lord Baal]

Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. It seems like a decent bet. Samarkand is on the Silk Road and the oldest continuously inhabited city in Central Asia, so it also seems like a safe bet. I'd be willing to bet on a Middle Eastern or Central Asian city in this category. For now I'll go with Damascus based solely on its longevity, though Jerusalem seems like a damn good choice as well.

 

[RedRalph]

Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. It seems like a decent bet. Samarkand is on the Silk Road and the oldest continuously inhabited city in Central Asia, so it also seems like a safe bet. I'd be willing to bet on a Middle Eastern or Central Asian city in this category. For now I'll go with Damascus based solely on its longevity, though Jerusalem seems like a damn good choice as well.

The reason I don't lean towards these is that they have been within two of the longest-lived Empires in history for a long, long time. I was thinking western Germany because of the myriad little states that used to be part of the HRE (which had regularly shifting borders), they came and went from the Roman Empire, the various post 1800-states that existed there etc...

 

[trader/warrior]

Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. It seems like a decent bet. Samarkand is on the Silk Road and the oldest continuously inhabited city in Central Asia, so it also seems like a safe bet. I'd be willing to bet on a Middle Eastern or Central Asian city in this category. For now I'll go with Damascus based solely on its longevity, though Jerusalem seems like a damn good choice as well.

I would rather bet on Jericho than Damascus, as it has about the same age and there is proof that it's been razed and rebuilt many many times. And it also had the first stone walls in the world proving it was under constant threat of attack.

 

[BCLG100]

Perhaps one of the old Italian city states if not one of the cities already mentioned, factions were run out of town on a yearly basis but whether this constiutes a 'changing hands' i wouldn't know.

 

[GinandTonic]

I would have thought one of the Italian or German city statelets. Some town that was nominally independent but so insignificant as to be forever under the wing of stronger states. As irrelevant as Schleswig and Holstein once were.

 

[Traitorfish]

Berwick-Upon-Tweed used to change hands between the English and the Scots on a fairly regular basis. It was practically an annual tradition until the Union of the Crowns.

 

[GinandTonic]

True. It was like the trophy for the annual punch-up.

 

[BCLG100]

In addition to Italian states, perhaps Vatican city- sure nominally everyone was Catholic but that doesn't mean everyone was on the same side at all.

 

[Traitorfish]

In addition to Italian states, perhaps Vatican city- sure nominally everyone was Catholic but that doesn't mean everyone was on the same side at all.

Nah, that's pretty much been under the control of the Church since the Early Middle Ages. Certainly, it's changed hands less times than Rome itself.

 

[madviking]

I'm pretty sure that Strausbourg has changed hands between the French and Germans at least like seven times.

 

[citedon]

How about Messina? I think this list is right, but correct me if I am wrong. I just thought that it deserved mentioning. The area was colonized by the Greeks in the 8th century BCE. I feel sure that there would have been indigenous people who felt that they were being conquered at that time. After that the list of conquerors includes the Carthaginians, Syracuse, Mamertines, Romans, Goths, Byzantines, Bourbons, Arabs, Normans, the English under Richard I, and various Italian city states, Napoleon (?), the Spaniards, Garibaldi (?), the Germans and the Americans in WW2. Not all of these are in the proper order. I just typed them as they came to mind.