- This topic has 18 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In another thread, Donnie mentioned the following:
The only thing that can keep the term relevant is the fact that Europe was restructuring in the aftermath of Rome's fall. Though technology progressed, the height of culture as seen in Rome, was no where near matched. So in comparison to the shining glory that was Rome, early Medieval Europe was indeed a dim flicker.
That made me think - if a city comparable to Rome in its grandeur did not develop for at least 600 years after it fell, when did a comparable city develop? I'd like to know. A case could be made for Florence ~1450 A.D., London ~1590 A.D., Paris ~1750 A.D., ~1805 A.D., ~1880 A.D., New York ~1915 A.D., ~1950 A.D.So, what do you think? What was the next city after Rome to be comparable to Rome?
I like London and New York. For 500 years these two cities have been the focal point of the world. For most of those years it has been London, but now I believe New York Is present day Rome.
I was rather surprised that you did not mention Constantiople (Istabal). A magnificient city during the Byzantine era, made even more beautiful by the Ottomans.
I was rather surprised that you did not mention Constantiople (Istabal). A magnificient city during the Byzantine era, made even more beautiful by the Ottomans.
Definitely another good choice.
I was rather surprised that you did not mention Constantiople (Istabal). A magnificient city during the Byzantine era, made even more beautiful by the Ottomans.
Perhaps made more beautiful, though the two days of plunder after the sacking of the city in the 15th Century probably destroyed some things. However, I agree - Constantinople/Byzantium must have been a magnificent city during its hey day.
No one city has ever reached the dominance that Rome achieved at the height of its power. Babylon preceded it, but paled in comparison. Carthage rivaled it but lost in its titanic struggle for Mediterannean supremacy. London came the closest historically, but I think America has become London's greatest legacy rather than the city itself. Constantinople was designed to replace Rome, but it fell decidedly short and never fully enjoyed the dominance Rome did during the Pax Romana especially during the reign of the Five Good Emperors Vespasian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Trajan, and Hadrian. Yet in the end, Rome's opulence became its undoing as opulence turned into decadence, and from decadence to decay, and in 476A.D. decay led to destruction.
I would have to agree with Hobilar that Constantiople (Istabal) was.
True...perhaps Constantinople under Justinian ~530 A.D.? I have heard that London around 1500 or so also rivaled Rome. Of course, there are so many aspects of Rome when we refer to it that our usage of "rival" must be taken within a certain context.
I think that modern New York rivals Rome in a sense. But in Rome's day, I imagine there were far fewer large cities in general, so there was less to compete with. Now we have dozens upon dozens of cities with populations over 1 million people. I have heard that Rome's population peaked at around 1 million back in its hey day (interestingly enough, this number dropped to some 35,000 some time….I believe during or after the Renaissance period).
Maybe with all the competition being a great city in these modern times makes it an even greater feat.
No one city has ever reached the dominance that Rome achieved at the height of its power. Babylon preceded it, but paled in comparison. Carthage rivaled it but lost in its titanic struggle for Mediterannean supremacy. London came the closest historically, but I think America has become London's greatest legacy rather than the city itself. Constantinople was designed to replace Rome, but it fell decidedly short and never fully enjoyed the dominance Rome did during the Pax Romana especially during the reign of the Five Good Emperors Vespasian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Trajan, and Hadrian. Yet in the end, Rome's opulence became its undoing as opulence turned into decadence, and from decadence to decay, and in 476A.D. decay led to destruction.
For a city that survived as the Easten Roman capital until 1453 AD, Constaninople (Istanbul) did it quite well through centuries.
I would have to go with Constantinople as well. It retained its greatness for almost a thousand years as a Christian city and then for a long time under the Ottomans and is still a great city although no longer the capital city of an Empire. I would say that in some ways it even outshines Rome.
I would have to go with Constantinople as well. It reatined its greatness for almost a thousand years as a christian city and then for longer under the Ottomans and is still a great city although no longer the capital city of an Empire. I would say that in some ways it even outshines Rome.
Agreed.The fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD is also considered as one of the most important facts sparking the Renaissance : scientists, artists, philosophers, and other "recipients" of the Greco-Roman heritage fled to Florence, Genoa, Venice and other important cities in the Italian peninsula
The fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD is also considered as one of the most important facts sparking the Renaissance : scientists, artists, philosophers, and other "recipients" of the Greco-Roman heritage fled to Florence, Genoa, Venice and other important cities in the Italian peninsula
I have heard this before and in theory it makes limited sense. I say "limited" because Renaissance art, and even humanist thought (e.g. Petrarch) clearly had their beginnings prior to 1453 (at least in Italy). I will have to find out the extent to which Eastern migration did influence Italian culture.
