Speculation: Greatest City or Nation that Never Was

1. While I am not a romanticist, Baghdad avoiding its capture by Timur and the various wars following the fall of the Abbasid Khilafah (by this I don't simply mean the end of their state but the end to them being the undisputed force within the Ummah during the late 900s) would've remained the preeminent Arab city in terms of population rather than Cairo (I am referring only to the city, not some grand Iraq, Egypt and or a state owning the eastern provinces will be the dominant state in the Arab world almost definitely).

2. Saljuqs despite creating a large and powerful empire, were quite disappointing crumbling in a short time against the Fatimids and Crusaders. They, had they capitalized on its situation could've reinvigorated the Khilafah of Ahl Sunnah. Also fixing their succession difficulties.

3. The city of New Orleans could've been a far larger city than it is today, in 1860 it ranked as the third largest French speaking city in the world behind Paris and Marsielle, obviously it is nowhere near the top 20 in the U.S and tiny compared to cities like Kinshasa.

4. The Abbasid Khilafah despite all its fame of great intellectualism, was disappointing in its prolonged lifespan and was in a near constant state of religious strife, manpower crisis and ethnic secessionism.

5. The Khwarezmshahs had the makings of a grand Islamic state perhaps with the power to dominate the Islamic political landscape looking forward, however it was dealt an unfortunate hand, as nearly all know.

6. The fate of Eastern Africa could be drastically different without the Islamic invasion with its powebases centered inside Africa rather than looking towards the Middle East. As well, the ability of Ethiopia to recover from the decline of Axum is a plausible outcome without the threat from its north and east.

7. I am not entirely sure on European issues but from what I can gather I would say that:
-Poland-Lithuania
-Italy
-Hungary
-Ireland
-Pisa
Etc all could've done better considering how they ended up.
 
My gander was that if they westernised early on or had a stronger military they could've been a viable colonial state that becomes a much stronger power than OTL.

To be a viable colonial power you need an actual well sized population base, which Oman lacks, Oman proper hadn't even reached a population of 1 million by the 20th century. Further, Oman's empire was based near completely upon slave trading in Zanzibar and surrounding coastline. This type of state with such a small population (in their "imperial" days of the 1800s it is doubtful that Oman proper had a population of 300k (that is a liberal number as well)) is extremely flimsy and weak in comparison to the major powers entering its space. Basically there is very little they could've done to do better.

Further, the reforms put in place by Sultan Qaboos over his reign have been a great success for the nation. It is very stable, facing less terrorism and very politically neutral compared to other Arab states. It's alternative could've been a lot worse had Qaboos not put in place a system allowing for Oman to somewhat open itself to the world in the ways of free trade rather than austere isolationism as his father prescribed to. To make Oman much better than it is now or what it is heading to, is ASB and would require ecological changes to the the land and long history of population growth with a highly urbanized society.
 
For a city I'm inclined to say my hometown of Memphis, Tennessee. Most of this is post-1900, but I'll say it anyway. I think if Martin Luther King hadn't been assassinated here, which flamed up the race conflicts which had actually been not too terrible prior, and if Delta hadn't bought out Northwest and ended all of the Memphis International Airport's direct international flights, Memphis could have been a mid-south shipping giant, probably rivaling Atlanta in size at least. For a pre-1900 Memphis POD, maybe have the Yellow Fever not be as terrible? It killed off a huge portion of the population, and a lot of those who didn't die fled the city.

For a real pre-1900 city, maybe somewhere like Copenhagen? If maybe Scandinavia was unified with Copenhagen as it's capital, it could control the trade into and out of the Baltic and force it all through the city. that would really limit Russia's power. Denmark could also do it by itself if it had strong enough allies to ward off potential allies. I don't know.
 
Galveston, TX; but then this discussion is pre-1900 and therefore the events which stifled the growth of Galveston are but a few years later.

having lived on Galveston (and I spent a lot of time in that county for much of my life) the problem Galveston had, in addition of course to being wiped out by a hurricane, is that it lacks sufficient room to grow much larger as a port. It was going to be eclipsed eventually as Houston has better links to the interior, and more room for facilities, and the ship channel wasn't that expensive relatively speaking.

So after Spindletop I think that ultimately it was going to be overshadowed by Houston anyway
 
Cairo. And no, I'm not talking about the one in Egypt.

I'm talking about the one in Illinois.

By any sort of sense this should have been an incredibly powerful and influential city, coming at the fork of the freaking Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. It goes against all historical geopolitcal sense.

And yet, it never became anything. It boggles the mind.
 
Cairo. And no, I'm not talking about the one in Egypt.

I'm talking about the one in Illinois.

By any sort of sense this should have been an incredibly powerful and influential city, coming at the fork of the freaking Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. It goes against all historical geopolitcal sense.

And yet, it never became anything. It boggles the mind.

Saint Louis has the advantage of being on high ground and thus rarely floods. Cairo doesn't have that advantage. Its position on the junction of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers helps a lot too. River steamers were really important on the Missouri, they could get all they way to North Dakota and Montana during the high water season, and that mattered a lot in the late 19th Century as a lot of cargo and passengers used them before the railroads expanded into that region. With the Corps of Engineers projects in the 20th Century river barge traffic is still very important and again Saint Louis benefits from that Missouri / Mississippi junction.

Its all about the flood years on the Mississippi. Also Saint Louis had a lot of political power in the 19th and early 20th Century (was pro North in the Civil War, which helped a lot)

But you would think that position advantage on the Ohio/Mississippi junction would have helped Cairo rate more than glorified small town status now
 
Yeah, what exactly happened to France's population growth in the late 1800s? America had tons of Germans, Italians, Irish, and Russians immigrate but no French.

No one knows why their demographics collapsed. Some say a malaise after losing the Napoleonic wars, some say the equitable distribution of farmland to peasants somehow made them breed less in order keep from breaking up their property. No one really knows but Britain tripled, Germany doubled despite vastly higher rates of emigration. France went up 30 percent in 100 years. No one can explain the gap.
 
- Vienna.
- Baghdad (if Muslim) or Ctesiphon (if pre-Islam).
- Incas.
- Dublin (used to be second only to London in terms of population in the UK).
- Egypt in general.
- Medieval Southern Italy/Sicily (one of the wealthiest realms in all Europe).
- Hungary under Corvinus.
- Kiev.
 
- Vienna.
- Baghdad (if Muslim) or Ctesiphon (if pre-Islam).

I just wanted to add that Ctesiphon and Baghdad are and were entirely different cities ( just in case anyone thought it was a simple name change like Istanbul or Iskandariya). But yeah that Tigris/Euphrates sweet spot is just asking for great cities.
 
- Antwerp: Before the closing of the Scheldt and the flight of many protestant and jewish craftsmen and financiers to Amsterdam after its capture by the Spanish the city was the wealthiest in the prosperous Low Countries.

- Hedeby/ Haithabu: once the largest Danish cities, center of trade and bishopric. Completely razed by Harald Hardrada and never rebuilt.

- Antioch: from major port an religious centre to insignificant village.
 
London and Paris are both about the size of Los Angeles. Berlin is closer to the size of Philadelphia, less than half as big, basically. Considering Germany's bigger than Britain or France, I feel like they got screwed by the wars.
 

Deleted member 67076

Late Medieval/Renaissance Italy. Two trading powers in Venice and Genoa. Protected by mountains from the north and great strategic position in the Med for both military matters and trade.

Doh! Ninja'd.

Adding on to this, Southern Italy. It used to be on par with the north for quite a long time, until ending up having its economy wrecked by the HRE, divided, and later on ruled by the Spanish.
 
having lived on Galveston (and I spent a lot of time in that county for much of my life) the problem Galveston had, in addition of course to being wiped out by a hurricane, is that it lacks sufficient room to grow much larger as a port. It was going to be eclipsed eventually as Houston has better links to the interior, and more room for facilities, and the ship channel wasn't that expensive relatively speaking.

So after Spindletop I think that ultimately it was going to be overshadowed by Houston anyway

Yeah, and there's also the fact that there's going to be more hurricanes with greater threats to Galveston than Houston.

Though I'm speaking with Houstonian bias ;)
 
London and Paris are both about the size of Los Angeles. Berlin is closer to the size of Philadelphia, less than half as big, basically. Considering Germany's bigger than Britain or France, I feel like they got screwed by the wars.

er...what? Do you mean physically? Because France is far larger than Germany physically.

Or do you mean population wise? Because London is far larger than Paris population wise. It's the size of New York.
 
Saint Louis has the advantage of being on high ground and thus rarely floods. Cairo doesn't have that advantage. Its position on the junction of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers helps a lot too. River steamers were really important on the Missouri, they could get all they way to North Dakota and Montana during the high water season, and that mattered a lot in the late 19th Century as a lot of cargo and passengers used them before the railroads expanded into that region. With the Corps of Engineers projects in the 20th Century river barge traffic is still very important and again Saint Louis benefits from that Missouri / Mississippi junction.

Its all about the flood years on the Mississippi. Also Saint Louis had a lot of political power in the 19th and early 20th Century (was pro North in the Civil War, which helped a lot)

But you would think that position advantage on the Ohio/Mississippi junction would have helped Cairo rate more than glorified small town status now

Both lost because- penultimate- Chicago. Caused by the primary action of- Railroads. St Louis was a city in a slave state, both were hoping for the Mississsippi trade, one up the Missouri, the other up the Ohio. Even with steamboats (first commercially successful one went up the Hudson River in 1809 NYC to Albany), you have the problem of the Mississippi Basin trade still being primarily one direction, downstream to New Orleans. Erie Canal is built in 1825, allowing the Great Lakes to not have to ship south to the feeders of the Ohio and Mississippi and instead more directly out and in from NYC. Almost immediately thereafter the Mohawk and Hudson RR connected Albany to Schenectady (NY) (1831) and begins to supplement and then supplant the canal, the corresponding RRs along the route from NYC to Albany and then west to Chicago mostly started by Erastus Corning and other early RR barons is then united by JP Morgan as one behemoth. Death to St Louis and Cairo. North wins. South loses. If the South had unified RR gauges, corporations, money interests, and large scale RR building as the north did they could have utilized the Cumberland Gap and had a RR stretching from Norfolk to St Louis (or Cairo even) and either could have made either ATL version of Chicago and Norfolk the ATL version of NYC. HOWEVER, in addition to a South that had Hamiltonian ideas you'd have to have a POD that completely eliminates or delays by 50 years any reason to have an Erie Canal and you'd have to basically have a a geographic ASB that eliminates the Mohawk Valley for that. Once Chicago is established as being the inevitable second largest city to NYC there's no way for St Louis or Cairo to compete (same thing holds Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Columbus, and Cleveland down below their "natural geography" for being a "Great city"; too close to Chicago's sphere, like a Jupiter in the Sun's gravity).
 

Glen

Moderator
Top three places would be somewhere in Southern Australia, Southern Africa, or the Crimea.

Can you guess why?:D
 
Or do you mean population wise? Because London is far larger than Paris population wise. It's the size of New York.

It depends how you measure it.

If it's about administrative measurement, then
London : 8,538,689
Paris : 2,240,621

If it's about metropolitain zone
London : 13,879,757
Paris : 12,341,418

You have to keep in mind that the city of Paris is only a part of Paris as a city, and really smaller compared to Greater London, which explains why (for comparable populations) Paris have greater densities.
 
Top