Not actually KorbenDallas
- Sep 22, 2020
- Reaction score
I skimmed through the pub, and besides the abnormal use of the word "ancient" I did not find anything tremendously interesting. May be you will.
The book was published in 1850. The city of Annapolis was founded in 1649, and incorporated in 1708. Essentially, we are dealing with 150-200 years at the most. This hardly qualifies Annapolis for being ancient. So, why do they call it "ancient?" In the books they play with words like Ancient Metropolis, ancient city, ancient records, etc.
There are plenty of similar, or older age cities in the North America (South America, Europe, or wherever.) Nobody called them ancient, at least it appears nobody did. What's up with Annapolis?
Note: Archived SH.org replies to this OP: The City of Annapolis: why they called it Ancient?