Which is more historically significant?

And why?

It started out of course as an English colony, but just look at that ancetry map, just look at it and tell me the USA wasn't takeover by germans.

Oops wrong thread.
I was going to open another thread where I asked when exactly did the germans takeover the USA, but you can't open more than 5 threads at a time.

Is this even a question...
Rome had 80 times Jerusalem's population, they ruled over like 100 mllion peoples, they brought infrastructure where there wasn't, they greatly improved infrastructure wherever they went, they spread literacy, comforts, connect distant worlds like they were never connected before, it's not even a question, they were the greatest civilization the world had ever seen both for what concern architecture, literature, infrastructure or industrial production/economy, Jerusalem just happened to be the place where the pet religion of the Roman empire happened to form, but without Rome it would've never spread like it did

>being this deluded

Spotted the Arab who's angry Rome overshadowed all his beloved fertile crescent in the spawn of a few centuries

Unironically Jerusalem. Rome itself was irrelevant for most of the Roman Empire.

You're completely retarded

Jerusalem since its religions subsumed the entire world and billions of people

Germans largely interbred with Anglos, and it's a meme in the states to identify with whichever immigrant came last. My mother for example is at best a quarter Irish genetically and nearly half Anglo but that doesn't stop her from filling out Irish on the census

Its religion would have never been spread without the Roman empire

True it was Romanized but you're missing the point that Jerusalem cucked Rome. There's also Pisslam which would still exist

>Rome itself was irrelevant for most of the Roman Empire.

At the time of the Great Schism, the largest Church in the world was located in Baghdad and didn't rely on Romans to be established there let alone be able to spread to China before Britain was fully Christian.

Baghdad was under the control of the Romans tard

Baghdad was built after Arab conquest you mong

And Rome had already spread christianity by then tard

Rome and Jerusalem are two sides of the same coin, one begets the other.

The Jewish and Christian religions would not have spread had it not been for the Pax Romana which put a stop to local hostilities and made it so that missionaries could go from town to town spreading the good news without getting butchered by superstitious locals. The Christian identity eventually became synonymous with Rome itself, and kept the dream of Rome alive even through its decline and fall.

>Rome itself was irrelevant for most of the Roman Empire.

>It's a meme in the states to identify with whichever immigrant came last
I think it's rather about whatever sets you off from the majority most clearly. When the majority is anglo, that part irish ancestry is your most significant difference against the majority. Same reason mulattoes always identify as black and 1/16th indians claim to be native american somehow. Modern snowflake culture is probably (partly) to blame here.

when was jerusalem ever significant other than on the Crusades?

...

>At the time of the Great Schism, the largest Church in the world was located in Baghdad
>what is Hagia Sophia

The Arab-Israeli wars

:V)

Without Rome, would Jerusalem even be significant? The cultural unity brought by pax romana was a key reason for christianity's spread.