• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Herbert West

Field Marshal
74 Badges
Jul 24, 2006
3.816
20.490
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Darkest Hour
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • BATTLETECH
  • Victoria 2
Reading through @Semper Victor's excellent Sassanian thread, I was stuck by the frequent mention of cities which had been wholly abandoned by ~1000 CE, never to be refounded.

However, a cursory google search reveals that wholly abandoned cities are extremely uncommon in Europe, and are only a thing in the US because they were single-resource boom towns, which never diversified.

How common was if, in the timeframe of lets say 476-2018, for a city (not a village) to be abandoned and never rebuilt, refunded? Is my impression that this is very common in the ME correct, and why?
 
Modern population pressure and physical mobility makes fully abandoning a city in this day and age very unlikely. More likely is a slow economic decay that leaves certain rural areas effectively abandoned, you see that in certain backwaters in the US
 
Cities are a massive investment of time and resources, and they don't decay and lose value quickly enough to warrant complete abandonment.

The black plague left some cities effectively ghost towns, but once the disease ebbed away the existing structures were starting to be repopulated as public order was reestablished.

There has to be a real, consistent and heavy push-factor present, like in the case of Chernobyl, or, as Imgran has mentioned, cessation of all pull-factors.
 
A) As mentioned, single-resource boom towns.
B) Environmental changes. In the ME especially change in rivers, water flow, or otherwise can make a city basically uninhabitable (or at least unable to support it's population) in some cases in Europe land rise or the silting up of rivers can create similar issues for port cities* (though often they aren't entirely abondoned but leave a small village behind)
C) Cities built for a specific purpose, I believe some of the Soviet research cities have been essentially abondoned. The same is true for cities built around military bases that are then closed.

It should be noted we can get into quibbles about definition, eg. is the city refounded a couple of miles towards a different place is that a new city or a continuation of the old one?

* My home city has been moved at least twice because the landrise make the old harbour useless, the original site is now a small clump of a couple of houses, the second site is a small village/satellite located about 4-5 miles from the present centre of the town)
 
Reading through @Semper Victor's excellent Sassanian thread, I was stuck by the frequent mention of cities which had been wholly abandoned by ~1000 CE, never to be refounded.

However, a cursory google search reveals that wholly abandoned cities are extremely uncommon in Europe, and are only a thing in the US because they were single-resource boom towns, which never diversified.

How common was if, in the timeframe of lets say 476-2018, for a city (not a village) to be abandoned and never rebuilt, refunded? Is my impression that this is very common in the ME correct, and why?

Wander through Mesoamerica, they are all over the place. Abandoned cities, lost to history, many waiting to be rediscovered with the miracle of sattelite photography.

Regarding your rather interesting question, I wonder how much water availability, and over-salinization of irrigated fields, has to do with the older cities in question.
 
Last edited:
Reading through @Semper Victor's excellent Sassanian thread, I was stuck by the frequent mention of cities which had been wholly abandoned by ~1000 CE, never to be refounded.

However, a cursory google search reveals that wholly abandoned cities are extremely uncommon in Europe, and are only a thing in the US because they were single-resource boom towns, which never diversified.

How common was if, in the timeframe of lets say 476-2018, for a city (not a village) to be abandoned and never rebuilt, refunded? Is my impression that this is very common in the ME correct, and why?

In the Middle East it's quite common due to environmental, political and economic factors. The ME is an ecologically fragile environment, subject to climatic oscillations that are rare in northern Europe. For example, let's take the heart of the ME, the Mesopotamian plain. This plain is an alluvial plain in its middle and southern parts, created through the input of river sediments from the great mountain chains that exist to its north and east (in this sense, Iranian Khuzestan is just an extension of the Mesopotamian plan further east).

This plain is one of the flattest areas on earth, with a medium incline of 1% towards the sea. On one side, this has historically favored transportation, agriculture and the building of irrigation networks. But it also implies some ecological constraints. The Euphrates and Tigris are alpine currents in the upper courses, and from these parts of their length they carry downstream large amounts of sediments. After it leaves the Anatolian highlands, the Euphrates has no more important tributaries (the Khabur river usually runs dry in summer), but this is not the case of the Tigris, which on its eastern side joins water with several important tributaries (the Great Zab, Lesser Zab and Diyala, among others) which carry down even more sediments from the Zagros mountains.

When a river carrying large amounts of sediments enters a plain as flat as the Mesopotamian plain, what happens is that the waters slow down so much that sediments begin to precipitate onto the riverbed, which then begins to rise. As a consequence, whenever the water levels of the river rise, they become more and more prone to cause ever more dangerous floods. Usually, settled riverine communities try to control this development building dams (which becomes a race between nature and humans) or with artificial canals that divert part of the water flow through other beds in order to lessen the danger of a catastrophic flood. This phenomenon is not unique to Mesopotamia, it can also be observed in the Mississipi delta or in its most extreme case in the North China Plain.

But Mesopotamia is also an area (unlike northern Europe) geologically active. The Arabian tectonic plaque is pushing in a northeast diection, which is the geological cause behind the formation of the Iranian plateau, the Zagros mountains and the eastern Anatolian highlands (the Iranian plateau and the Zagros are still slowly rising due to this), so from time to time there are earthquakes, which historically have had catastrophic results. Nowadays, archaeologists acknowledge that the Euphrates and especially the Tigris have undergone drastic riverbed changes through the times. The decadence and disparition of Seleucia after the II century CE was due not only to the several Roman lootings it suffered, but the most important factor was that the course of the Tigris moved east and the city lost its river port; and then the population began moving to the neighboring cities of Vologesias, Veh-Ardashir and Ctesiphon. And its current riverbed is again different from the one it had in Sasanian times, which is the reason why a large part of these cities' remains are either underwater of have been washed out by the periodical riverbed changes and catastrophical floods caused by the Tigris.

Also, a cursory look at reconstructed maps of lower Mesopotamia in ancient times will reveal how much the coast of the Persian Gulf has receded since the times of the Sumerian civilization, a progress accelerated by human activities and especially by deforestation in the eastern Anatolian and Zagros mountains, which have caused an increase in erosion and in the amount of sediments carried by the two rivers. In the third millenium BCE, Ur was probably a coastal city, and today the great trade emporium of Arsacid times that was the city of Spasinou Charax lies well inland from the coast.

Another factor that has affected human life in Mesopotamia is salinization. Mesopotamia was a shallow sea not long ago, and so a layer of salt lies underground not far from the surface. Intensive irrigation by inundation (which is the way irrigation has been universally done until the XX century) causes underground salt to migrate to the surface by capillary action. Climate scientists believe that these processes have happened periodically in Mesopotamia: large increases in population led to an increase in the intensity of irrigation and the extension of irrigated lands, which caused the salinization of cultivated land, which could then not sustain the population, which led to population drops and abandonment of lands, which over time (due to wind and floods) lost that surface salt, and then the cycle began again.

Other areas of the Middle East have different environments, but these boom-and-boost cycles have been historically ever-present in the Middle East. Some examples of abandoned cities for the time period you have quoted:
  • Ctesiphon (Iraq).
  • Veh-Ardashir (Iraq).
  • Peroz-Shapur / Anbar (Iraq).
  • Samarra (Iraq).
  • Jerash (ancient Gerasa, Jordan).
  • Apamea (Syria).
  • Sebaste (ancient Samaria, Palestine).
  • Estakhr (Iran).
  • Bishapur (Iran).
  • Ephesus (Turkey).
  • Aphrodisias (Turkey).
  • Ani (Turkey).
  • Aspendos (Turkey).
  • Ganzak (Iran).
  • Qumis (ancient Hekatompylos, Iran).
  • Gor (founded as Ardashir-Kwarrah, Iran).
  • Caesarea (Israel).
  • Resafa (later Sergiopolis, Syria).
  • Cyrrhus (Syria).
Also, for a fascinating example of an area that was once densely popualated and filled with prosperous villages and towns and which later became largelly abandoned you can take a look at the Dead Cities of Syria.
 
Last edited:
Europe doesn’t have many of them because Europe was practically uninhabited until a few thousand years ago. It’s history of dense human habitation is simply too short to have built up very large amounts of ancient cities. The climate and ancient regional construction materials also make survival of human settlement traces less likely.
 
If we understand abandonded as all meaningful economic activity ceasing and the population dwindling with no natural increase I would argue a few examples: Gamla Uppsala, Birka.
I would also move that many Towns (Tun, Köpingar) should be understood as disappeared as their formative and main economic activity ceased and while a town or village exists in the same spot it is not the same village or town that existed before. Köpingsvik, Uppåkra, Berga for example.
Arguably places like Harg and Gamleby were indeed abandonded, Harg being a works village but Gamleby being an actual town which saw no economic progress until 400-years after its forced evacuation (that story has 7 twists to it though.)
 
There are quite a few abandoned cities in Europe, the two that spring to mind immediately are; Dorestad (former capital of the Frisian Kingdom) and Dommoc (former capital of the Kingdom of East Anglia). Rindoon is an abandoned Anglo-Norman walled town in Ireland.

My own city of Dublin was apparently completely abandoned between 902 and 917 AD, as the Irish kings defeated and expelled the Vikings and burned the city to ashes. The Norse returned and rebuilt the city on a larger scale 15 years later.
 
Pripyat.jpg
 
The Bronze Age cities of Knossos and Mycenae come to mind..
 
Well, "cities" ... what's not been mentioned so far (I think) are those that were abandoned because of a) mining, b) dams, or c) falling into a military area. Couldn't put a number of them though. "A bunch", I guess ;)
 
Well, "cities" ... what's not been mentioned so far (I think) are those that were abandoned because of a) mining, b) dams, or c) falling into a military area. Couldn't put a number of them though. "A bunch", I guess ;)

There's also a few examples of the foundation of a new city leading to decrees that other cities be abondoned and their citizens move to the new location.
 
A number of cities were royal foundings (Alexander did this a lot). If the cities thus founded had no organic reason to remain they were often abandoned. There were strenuous efforts by some of Daidochi to prevent their Greek citizens from abandoning their settlements. Many of the various Alexandrias thus founded have disappeared, largely because they had no real organic reason for their existence.

There are plenty of recorded cities founded by various monarchs that no longer exist, and I suspect this is simply because they did not actually have sufficient reason to exist in that location.
 
In Europe there should be quite a few Golden Horde cities that were never rebuilt after being razed, the capital Sarai being the most obvious example.
 
My suspicion is that some places were abandoned due to disease, and those who returned a few years later managed to pick up the dormant bacteria. The places were probably considered "haunted", as anyone who went there was taking a risk of dying. Cahokia was probably abandoned due to disease.

Nineveh was sacked, torn down, and abandoned, and by 200 years later it was all but forgotten except for a few Biblical references to it. Carthage and Veii both shared a similar fate, being destroyed and the sites abandoned, and in the case of Veii, erased to the point where we can't even locate the city center, only a few outlying districts such as the city cemetery.
 
Many cities in Europe that were prominent in the Roman era either no longer exist, or were totally destroyed and then later on some other city was founded on or near the original site.
 
Carthage and Veii both shared a similar fate, being destroyed and the sites abandoned, and in the case of Veii, erased to the point where we can't even locate the city center, only a few outlying districts such as the city cemetery.

Yet Carthage was rebuilt on the same site and became one of the most important cities in the Roman Empire. Cities that have good organic reasons to exist (fertile land and a superb harbour in the case of Carthage) tend to rebound from disaster, sacking and plague. Those that lose their primary reason for existence may continue to exist due to administrative functions, tradition and inertia but they become vulnerable to abandonment. Once they are sacked or depopulated it is usually better and easier to rebuild on a new site. When the location remains useful they will be rebuilt on the same site.
 
My suspicion is that some places were abandoned due to disease, and those who returned a few years later managed to pick up the dormant bacteria. The places were probably considered "haunted", as anyone who went there was taking a risk of dying. Cahokia was probably abandoned due to disease.

That's not how bacteria or disease usually works, so your suspicion is likely way off.