Most major US cities not originally British or US

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,531
Japan
Thanks for the clarification.



And who are those two missionaries?

The Jesuits build several churches there in the 16th century and beginning of the 17th, not sure if they were French. Most of the Jesuits on the Portuguese Empire were or Portuguese, or from the other kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula (Saint Francis Xavier was from Navarra) or Italians. There weren’t many French. I don’t even know if we can identify most of the places, since all were destroyed with the persecutions in the 17th century.

The Dominicans and the Franciscans arrived somewhat later, mostly sponsored by Castile, and I think that they also build churches.

Unless you are referring to a church built in the 19th century: Basilica of the Twenty-Six Holy Martyrs of Japan (Nagasaki) - Wikipedia

that can be the oldest still existing, since the others were destroyed, but it was far from being the oldest being erected.
You miss the point my friend.
Nagasaki is a Japanese founded city.
The Portuguese may have built the first church there. But the oldest church there is currently the one you linked to. The missionaries who built that were French.

I was highlighting the false logic the betgo was using.
Ie.
The oldest church in Philadelphia is Swedish. So it must be a Swedish City.
Which makes no sense when applied as a rule ... because using that logic Nagasaki would be French. Which we all agree is silly.
Likewise assuming just because they built a church there (or paid the English colonists too) after the cities foundation Philadelphia must be Swedish, ignoring other churches that may no longer exist OR the fact that Quaker’s didn’t need churches. It’s a mistaken line of thought.
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,531
Japan
I didn't mean to start a big argument with possible agendas. I just thought it interesting that Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis etc were not originally English or US.
Just the cut and thrust of lively debate.
It might be a bit sharp, but I think it’s been fairly civil if a little passionate.
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,531
Japan
How many Spanish or French population inhabited in North area in North America in 1790? or in 1810?

In 1801... not even one North American City was between the three biggest cities on America... New York was a little village to compare with Ciudad de Mexico, Lima, Havana, Rio de Janeiro...

So.. If what you want to say Spaniards had not power to built a Big city in North America.. I discover your hidden agenda... Spaniards that had lot of small cities... forts, Missions, trade post, roads etc in North America, they have not a big city because their population didn´t migrate to North America.. not other issue.

If Ciudad de Mexico or Lima were not Spanish... you can be sure.. how big it would have been Los Angeles, San Francisco, Tucson, San Antonio, San Agustin, San José etc etc!!!!

In 1801..Ciudad de México had 112,926 inhabitants in the city and 1.162.856 inhabitants with the villages around Ciudad de Mexico...So if you say Spaniards didn´t built big City.. you are very very very wrong... New York was a little village in 1810.. when Ciudad de México had one million! (with the areas around).

Source: Humboldt, Baron Alexander von (1827) [1811]. Ensayo político sobre la Nueva España, Volumen I.

If not 300.000 spaniards between Florida and California was not because Apache or Comanche... it was because Spaniards prefered to live in Southern areas in New Spain and Viceroy of El Piru... but if Mexico or Peru would have been Czechoslovakian for example.. they would have emigrated to Florida, Arizona, Nuevo Mexico, Texas etc... and so you would have been seen how bit it was the Spanish Cities in California and Texas.

Oh my god.. to say Spaniards didn´t built big and huge cities in America!!!
But we are talking about the origin of major cities in the USA. Spanish cities in Central and Southern America’s are not pertinent to the debate.
Neither is Spanish exploring a place first. Which has not been contested.
Neither is their being a large Spanish/Mexican population.
Or settlements nearby ...,

We talk about the origin of major US cities, which is overwhelmingly American. I only include British as the OP lumped them with the Americans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iraq Bruin

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
But we are talking about the origin of major cities in the USA. Spanish cities in Central and Southern America’s are not pertinent to the debate.
Neither is Spanish exploring a place first. Which has not been contested.
Neither is their being a large Spanish/Mexican population.
Or settlements nearby ...,

We talk about the origin of major US cities, which is overwhelmingly American. I only include British as the OP lumped them with the Americans.
And that is the key. Most major cities came after the formation of the U.S. A fort, mission or or even a village in relativity proximity, does not equate to the actual creation of the cities, as the OP framed things.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,630
If London was founded by the Romans, then forgive my ignorance, I shouldn’t be talking about things that I don’t know, since I had the idea that the place was inhabited since the Neolithic. I even had the idea that there is archaeological data, if so it wouldn’t be a question of probability. But that is out of my league. Not my department.

If the mission (that is usually a settlement) means nothing, and the presidio means nothing, for you, so be it.



I didn’t mention the origin of Richardson, or the 38/50, just the origins of the mentioned settlement previous to Richardson.
The site that London lies on had probably been used by the Britons for centuries before the Romans showed up and decided it would be a good spot for a city. Remains of some pre-Roman structures have been found (a bridge and a wooden building), but nothing that would qualify as a major urban settlement existed there before the Romans. For that reason the Romans are usually credited with founding London.

In that London isn't really unique as the factors that make a location attractive for city-builders, usually mean that people have been making use of the site long before an urban settlement was placed there. Getting back to North America, that is often the case with cities in the New World.

Philadelphia for instance was the site of a Lenni Lenape (Delaware) town known as Sakimauchheen Ing (Anglicized to Shackmaxon by the British colonists) before any Swedes or Brits turned up. That settlement was still in existence when William Penn arrived, as Swedish colonization had been light and they hadn't founded anything that could be classed a city. In fact Penn's treaty with the natives supposedly was conducted there. There were probably more natives as well within the borders of what is now the city than Swedish homesteaders when the British arrived, so the founding of the city is (rightly, IMO) credited to William Penn rather than the Swedish colonists.
 
Feb 2018
34
Texas
The Province of Nuevo Mexico, a province in New Spain, was stablished in 1598 by Don Juan de Oñate (Panuco, Zacatecas, New Spain, 1550 - Gudadalcana, Kingdom of Sevilla, Castille, Spain, 1626)... However, a village was stablished by Don Juan Martinez Montoya in 1607 and officially founded by Don Pedro Peralta in 1610 as La Villa Real de la Santa Fé de San Francisco de Asís.
Of course, there were indians in the area as in New York or in Manhattan.. but Indians were not stablished Santa Fé as not Nieuw Amsterdam. According what I read the first man speaking English arrived to Santa Fe was general Kearny in 1846 but he was not a British...but a yankee from New Jersey.

Regards
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,154
Portugal
The site that London lies on had probably been used by the Britons for centuries before the Romans showed up and decided it would be a good spot for a city. Remains of some pre-Roman structures have been found (a bridge and a wooden building), but nothing that would qualify as a major urban settlement existed there before the Romans. For that reason the Romans are usually credited with founding London.


In that London isn't really unique as the factors that make a location attractive for city-builders, usually mean that people have been making use of the site long before an urban settlement was placed there. Getting back to North America, that is often the case with cities in the New World.
Off topic, but with this parallel discussion I found that it seems a bit of discussion in the academic world about the origins of the town, and its development in the pre-Roman Iron Age, hence my confusion:

https://www.mola.org.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/The archaeology of Greater London an assessment of archaeological evidence for human presence in the area now covered by Greater London_Part1.pdf

For instance, Page 102: “Within a century of the Roman conquest, London as a planted urban centre appears to have been nationally pre-eminent in political, economic and possibly cultural terms, with a status arguably similar to that enjoyed by the city since the Middle Ages. In this context, researchers have often imagined London in the Iron Age to have been an embryonic city and capital.[…]”

While others, such as Nick Merriman (Nick Merriman - Wikipedia, author of “Prehistoric London”) seem more inclined to the traditional view that it was founded by the Romans.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,523
Isn't San Jose the capital of Costa Rica?
It is but also a city near San Francisco and Silicon Valley. The Spanish named a lot of things saint this or that and Joseph was regarded as a prime saint.

Jose' and Maria are extremely common Spanish American names after the Holy family. Jesus is also fairly common. Jesus is not used in British origin North America and many other places, as it is considered arrogant there. Also Juan, Pablo, and Pedro are common Spanish names after the disciples.
 
Last edited: