2007-01-18 06:08:50 · 9 answers · asked by paolobossio 1 in Travel ➔ United States ➔ Boston
Boston definitely.
2007-01-21 06:33:29 · answer #1 · answered by Lauren 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In terms of the role they played in history, I would have to say they are equal.
However, Boston has many more historical attractions for tourists. Boston has the Freedom Trail, Paul Revere's house, the Boston Tea Party ship (it's closed as a museum but you can still visit the site, and I think it's going to open again soon) the Common, the Old North Church, the USS Constitution, the John F. Kennedy museum, and much more. If you go outside Boston proper and explore the 'burbs, you can see John Adams' house in Quincy, the battlefields in Lexington and Concord, plus the homes of Emerson, Thoreau, Alcott, and Hawthorne in Concord, the Witch Museum and the House of Seven Gables in Salem, and Plymouth Rock and a historical reenactment of the Pilgrim's village in Plymouth. In addition, Boston has a beautiful harbor and offers many harbor cruises. If you go in the summer, you can take a cruise to several of the Harbor Islands and enjoy a picnic under the trees and hike on the trails. George's Island also has a Civil War fort.
Philadelphia's historical tourist attractions include Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, several museums and Benjamin Franklin's grave. And while there's nothing really historical about cheese steaks, no trip to Philly is complete without them!
Philadelphia is much easier to get around that Boston. The streets in Philly are laid out in a grid, where there is no rhyme or reason to the layout of Boston's streets. Philly has a much better public transportation system as well.
Hope this helps!
2007-01-20 14:25:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's pretty close but I'd say Boston. Boston has history from before the revolutionary war, starting in the 1600's...but Philly really doesn't. Boston was also a bigger city for a long time, and a cultural, musical, educational, and economic center for years (New York became big once Boston was ravaged by a horrible fire).
Philly is definitely full of history, although they seem to mostly focus on Ben Franklin, to me (he was born in Boston, don't forget!). Nice place to visit, although there's definitely more historical sites to see in the greater Boston area vs. the greater Philadelphia area.
2007-01-18 15:51:50 · answer #3 · answered by stopspucks88 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
really about the same history wise. They both played critical roles in the revolutionary war time in america in the 1700s. So they both have tons of historic value.
Boston is all about Paul Revere, Boston Tea Party, Salem Witch town near by, access to lexington, concord and all of the war battle grounds. Philadelphia is more the center of the government stuff that was happening in that time period. Declaration of Independence and Constitution were both signed there. At one time in the mid 1700's Boston was the largest most wealthy city in the new colonies.
I personally prefer Boston. As I love the surrounding areas. But I have been to boston a lot more than Philly.
2007-01-18 14:34:49 · answer #4 · answered by Lisa H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Naturally Philladelphia. It was the original capital of USA when it gained independence in 1776.
2007-01-18 14:28:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Boston. We have many more things that are historic.
2007-01-18 18:56:53 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. Girl Liker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd say it is a tossup, especially if you consider history at nearby areas.
2007-01-18 14:36:35 · answer #7 · answered by Hank 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably about equal really.
2007-01-18 17:19:17 · answer #8 · answered by ShouldBeWorking 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Overall.... I'd say they are about the same
2007-01-21 11:55:23 · answer #9 · answered by Mike R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋