Re: Most peaceful European city?


VtSkier wrote:
Wylie wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
Wylie wrote:
What European city has had the longest stretch of peace? By peace I
mean no wars, raids, bombardmants, mass riots, etc affecting the city
or it's immediate environs.
As a WAG (wild-ass-guess) I'd say someplace in Scandinavia.
The Norse were much into sending out conquerers but not
much into being conquered. At first thought, Oslo came
to mind, but then Norway was overrun during WWII. I might
say Helsinki, but those dudes had a lot of trouble from
the Russians in the late 30's. How about, then, Stockholm,
as Sweden was neutral during WWII (like Switzerland) and
has a LONG history of relative peace at home.

I might have said some Swiss city, but a lot of the
reformation strife took place in Switzerland and other
central European areas took big hits from the Turks.

No place in GB comes close with many areas being hit
during their Civil War days and the fairly recent
Irish Troubles and constant fighting in N. Ireland
very recently.

I'll stay with Stockholm, or maybe even Reykjavik, if you
consider Iceland a European country.

On third thought, I'll go with Reykjavik.


In a very odd coincidence this question popped into my head while
reading about Icelandic History today (specifically about the intact
medical records stretching back 800 years). My only concern is wether
it could be considered a "city" for all that time.

Good question, but then maybe that could be asked of other cities.
Certainly the only place that could be considered a city in
Iceland. Was it the seat of the parliament (the Althing) for
all that time? If so, then I'd say it was a city.

The seat has been there the entire time, same building even. Claims to
be the oldest (documented) parliment building. But I doubt it was
comparable in size to even a regional center in Europe, but I may be
wrong. Iceland's population held stable around 300,000 from
1100-1800(?).

In a way it's unchallenging to say Reykjavik because even if someone
wanted to loot it, getting there and back is a bitch.

As far as Eurpoean/Mediteraen cities, I think Rome might be an option.
The Pax Romana gave it several hundred years, and after the dark ages I
think it was usually an "open" city when an aggreessive power got too
close. Containing Vatican City probably helped. Of course I may be
wrong, but as a wild guess I assume that's why so many Roman Empire
buildings are left standing.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Most peaceful European city?
    ... mean no wars, raids, bombardmants, mass riots, etc affecting the city ... The Norse were much into sending out conquerers but not ... I might have said some Swiss city, ... Iceland cannot be considered anything but a European country, ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Most peaceful European city?
    ... mean no wars, raids, bombardmants, mass riots, etc affecting the city ... The Norse were much into sending out conquerers but not ... I might have said some Swiss city, ... Iceland does not have intact medical records going back more than a few ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Most peaceful European city?
    ... mean no wars, raids, bombardmants, mass riots, etc affecting the city ... The Norse were much into sending out conquerers but not ... I might have said some Swiss city, ... consider Iceland a European country. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Civ 4 Too Short for Wars?
    ... >>wars is the smaller maps. ... If you have enough XP bonuses at the start, you can have ships begin ... I've used fast units to take cities without bombardment, ... Bombers and Gunships can let you take out city defenses before your ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic)
  • Re: Most peaceful European city?
    ... mean no wars, raids, bombardmants, mass riots, etc affecting the city ... The Norse were much into sending out conquerers but not ... I might have said some Swiss city, ... On third thought, I'll go with Reykjavik. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)