What City Overall Was Really The Second City Of The British Empire?

I say Philadelphia was the #2 city in the British Empire. I think without the Yellow Fever Outbreaks it stays the major city in America and isn't surpassed by NYC. (At the start of the revolution Philadelphia had a larger poulation than NYC and Boston the 2nd and 3rd biggest US cities combined.) Its still surpassed by Dublin in population however.
 
Before the 17th century its hard to talk of a British Empire.

Whilst in the 17th / early 18th century it is Dublin with a tie between Edinburgh, Bristol and Norwich for runner up (each were roughly the same size at 50k (a twelfth of London and half that of Dublin) and very important centers for different types of trade.

In the industrial era after that you can make various arguments - certainly IMO the North West England urban areas as a community were the second engine of the empire as Dublin experienced massive relative decline, but for single cities its probably Glasgow (bigger and more culturally relevant to the Empire than Calcutta).

No city in the Empire was ever remotely important enough to break London's self absorption of course :p
 
What about Melbourne? The wiki claims that its population was only seconded by London in the late 19th century (probably not true, but still).
 
Without the finance provided by the City of London, directly or indirectly, the Industrial Revolution would never have got off the ground. Britain's financial and commercial predominance which was largely driven by London and other ports was the reason why the Industrial Revolution took off here first.
Yeah, it's possible, even probable that the industrial revolution could've started somewhere else in Britain. But it didn't. It started in Manchester. In the proverbial "sooner or later," Manchester was the sooner.
 
Yeah, it's possible, even probable that the industrial revolution could've started somewhere else in Britain. But it didn't. It started in Manchester. In the proverbial "sooner or later," Manchester was the sooner.
OK, but without the financial and commercial power of the City of London the Industrial Revolution wouldn't have happened in Manchester or anywhere else at all.
 
Without the finance provided by the City of London, directly or indirectly, the Industrial Revolution would never have got off the ground. Britain's financial and commercial predominance which was largely driven by London and other ports was the reason why the Industrial Revolution took off here first.

Not sure about this. Plenty other wealthy trading ports in northern Europe. It was surely a requisite but not sufficient on its own: I'd put a representative, limited government, a centralised administration, the lack of internal tariffs, and the relevant mineral deposits as just as, or more, important. (Plus not having a land neighbour with a large, aggressive neighbour.)
 
*REGIONAL NATIONALISM KLAXON*

I would argue that, within GB, Liverpool probably has the closest claim to being the Empire's Second City; our role as a major port for cotton and the blood-stained byproducts of the Slave Triangle along with the proximity of the natural resources of Lancashire and North Wales gave us a mix of commerce and industry probably unmatched outside London, whilst our role as the major immigration/emigration port between Europe and the Old World until after WWII gave us a cosmopolitan air unmatched by few cities in the world, let along the country.

In terms of the global Empire, it's a bit trickier, and I don't really know enough to comment confidently.

London, Liverpool was Britain's first city.

Fixed that for you. :p
 
Not sure about this. Plenty other wealthy trading ports in northern Europe. It was surely a requisite but not sufficient on its own: I'd put a representative, limited government, a centralised administration, the lack of internal tariffs, and the relevant mineral deposits as just as, or more, important. (Plus not having a land neighbour with a large, aggressive neighbour.)
Part of the reason why we had such policies was because of the commercial and political power of the City of London - of 18th century Britain it could be said that we had a 'financial-military' complex.
 
It changed over time;
Pre-1780 it was probably Dublin, the Industrial Revolution had yet to really kick off, Philadelphia was smaller and had less trade with Britain than Sain Kitts.
1780-1850 Probably Manchester, heartland of the Industrial Revolution, Cottonpolis.
1850-1880 Liverpool, premier port, key centre of industry and big.
1880-1898: Melbourne, 2nd biggest city in the Empire, key port of Oceania, centre of the Gold Boom.
1898-now: Birmingham, 2nd biggest city in the UK, heart of the Black Country, Britain's biggest industrial centre and still Britain's 2nd biggest conurbation.
 
It's actually a very odd thing that nobody outside the UK really ever considers Birmingham to be the biggest city in the UK apart from London, which in population terms it most definitely is!
 
Top