City placement and importance

[Mr. R]

Picture a HUGE inland lake.  It makes the Great Lakes seem small.  650 mi (1040 km) east west and varying from 125 mi (200 km) at its narrowest to 300 mi (450 km) at its widest.  Basically it resembles an hourglass turned on its side.  ALL the rivers flow into this lake (it basically is a huge basin) EXCEPT for one, that flows out at the top left corner.  I would think that this river is Huge, basically a couple of miles from bank to bank.  This river flows upward where it is joined 350 mi (560 km) by another river and both continue up to the northern jungles.

 

Now my questions:

1) I think one Large City (Aerelios) should be at the mouth of the river.  Should the city be on the shore of the lake leading to the city OR more downriver where it can get shelter from the storms?  

 

2) There is a city (Danris) located where the two rivers meet.  It also has an advantage that trade that flows from the north, either along the river OR along the trade corridor that leads to the Northern Plains, has to go by this city.  But Aerelios has access to EVERY city and island in the basin.  So which would be the pre-eminent city of the region.  Basically which would be the Greyhawk, the Constantinople, the Chicago of the region, the city on the lake shore or the city up river.  

 

Note it does appear like one city controls all east west, while the other has more of a grasp of most north south!

[assault]

To what extent does Aerelios politically dominate the other communities around the lake?

If it has an effective empire, it would have the ability to throw its weight around with respect to Danris. So it would be dominant.

[Lord Liaden]

What you're describing is a fairly close match to the Caspian Sea, real modern Earth's largest "lake." Hero's Turakian Age fantasy setting also has a comparable inland sea, Lake Beralka, and the even larger Sea of Mhorec. Some of the precedents from that setting, as well as the real world, have a bearing on the suggestions I can make.

 

First off, it's very unlikely that the outflow of a body of water that large would flow into jungle. It would be much more natural for the jungle to drain into rivers which then feed the lake, while the lake itself would have an outflow to a sea or ocean.

 

Several factors will determine where the optimal location for a major city would be along that river (discounting enough flat land to accommodate it, and sufficient harborage). First, is the river navigable along its entire length? If it is, then the key points would be either where the river begins in the lake, or ends at the sea. If not, then the farthest navigable point would be the waterborne trade terminus, hence a natural spot to urbanize. Also, is the second river connecting to it navigable as well? If it is, and trade flows along it, then their junction would be the best spot to tap into both trade routes.

 

Another factor would be population. What kind of settlement is there around the shores of the lake, or of the sea? Are there enough people for large-scale, widespread trade? How about along the river joining the main one? If there isn't much population, are there valuable resources in any of these areas to make it worth exploiting them?

 

Where the largest number of these factors line up for you would be an appropriate location for your largest city.

 

Just to look at a few examples: in the late Classical period, Constantinople benefited greatly from being on the closest land bridge between Europe and Asia, as well as the strait between the Mediterranean and Black Seas. OTOH Alexandria was not only a deep water port along the East/West Mediterranean coastal trade route, it was the gateway to the cities south on the Nile River.

 

In the fantasy Turakian Age I mentioned previously, Aarn was the world's largest city. It lies at the mouth of a river connecting back to the aforementioned Lake Beralka and the realms along its coast. It's a seacoast city with the only deep-water port over a long stretch of coastline, with other kingdoms around the shore of the sea. And it's close to a mountain pass leading to a rich inland region.

 

Aarn's closest rival is probably Tavrosel, on the coast of the great inland Sea of Mhorec. The region around Tavrosel produces many valuable trade items, and its excellent harbor makes Tavrosel the natural shipment point for those goods, in exchange for the products from across the Sea.

 

I hope that was of some help.

[Mr. R]

35 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

What you're describing is a fairly close match to the Caspian Sea, real modern Earth's largest "lake." Hero's Turakian Age fantasy setting also has a comparable inland sea, Lake Beralka, and the even larger Sea of Mhorec. Some of the precedents from that setting, as well as the real world, have a bearing on the suggestions I can make.

 

First off, it's very unlikely that the outflow of a body of water that large would flow into jungle. It would be much more natural for the jungle to drain into rivers which then feed the lake, while the lake itself would have an outflow to a sea or ocean.

 

 

 

Sorry if I was not clear, but the river flows north to a set of bays that lead to the ocean ( think a James Bay, leading to a barely larger Husdon's Bay, leading to a similar sized Unknown Bay [and all three bays are about the same size] that finally leads to the ocean).  The closest RW example would be the MacKenzie River that starts at Great Slave Lake and goes all the way north to the Beaufort Delta.  

 

Oh I am using Turakian Age as some of my inspiration.

 

1 hour ago, assault said:

To what extent does Aerelios politically dominate the other communities around the lake?

If it has an effective empire, it would have the ability to throw its weight around with respect to Danris. So it would be dominant.

 

 

That is something I am thinking about.  I am torn with 1) making it the capital of its own country that controls the only outflow to the basin.  At which point Danris is a rival for control of the river or 2) making it a city state ( as would most of the nations surrounding this Sea) , but the richest and most powerful (it gets its army the old fashioned way, it buys them)

[Sundog]

On a pure trade basis, a city at the mouth of the outlet river would be sitting pretty. If it also has naval resources sufficient to require all trade vessels passing from the lake to the major river to pay a transit tax, it's pure location would make it rich. Of course, wealth has it's own problems - sprawl as people come to the wealthy city for opportunity, and rivals jealous of it's location. And any large nations nearby would find it desirable to take such a city under their own "protection".

[Mr. R]

1 hour ago, Sundog said:

On a pure trade basis, a city at the mouth of the outlet river would be sitting pretty. If it also has naval resources sufficient to require all trade vessels passing from the lake to the major river to pay a transit tax, it's pure location would make it rich. Of course, wealth has it's own problems - sprawl as people come to the wealthy city for opportunity, and rivals jealous of it's location. And any large nations nearby would find it desirable to take such a city under their own "protection".

 

!

True

[Alcamtar]

Lakeside is a pretty good spot. It will benefit from trade along the river, but will also benefit from coastal ships that are following the shoreline. Lakeside has the advantage of being a fishing port; it is also a haven when storms blow up on the lake. It's more likely to benefit from milder weather than one inland on the river. But lakeside city can also protect the river against invasion cleats from the lake.

 

One benefit of being upriver could be if that's a natural place where trade routes across the river, particularly if there is an island or bridge. If there are extensive marshes along the lake, it would be more difficult to build a city there, also to be fair that didn't stop Venice.

[assault]

28 minutes ago, Alcamtar said:

If there are extensive marshes along the lake, it would be more difficult to build a city there, also to be fair that didn't stop Venice.

 

Or Tenochtitlan.

[Lord Liaden]

Geopolitical factors are just as important to the growth of a city as location and resources. For example, Antioch was a major stop along the Silk Road trading with the Orient until the Mongol conquests, which established a more secure trade route from Europe farther north. Babylon declined after Seleucus, one of Alexander's successors, built his own capital city of Seleucia not far from it.

 

From all that you've described, there's no overwhelming reason why either Aerelios or Danris should be larger or more prestigious, other than your desire.

[Mr. R]

28 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Geopolitical factors are just as important to the growth of a city as location and resources. For example, Antioch was a major stop along the Silk Road trading with the Orient until the Mongol conquests, which established a more secure trade route from Europe farther north. Babylon declined after Seleucus, one of Alexander's successors, built his own capital city of Seleucia not far from it.

 

From all that you've described, there's no overwhelming reason why either Aerelios or Danris should be larger or more prestigious, other than your desire.

 

 

Good point!

[assault]

I'd probably make them relatively evenly matched, so they can be each other's Big Bad. And major trading partner.

[Lord Liaden]

Honestly, that would have been my preference too. A more evenly-matched rivalry makes for a more interesting variety of conflicts IMO, although you can still say that one city is "ahead" by your preferred metric.

 

I also find it more interesting if the two states are fundamentally different in some way, even philosophically opposed. Mr. R, since you're familiar with the Turakian Age, you must know of Talarshand, the aggressive city-state whose society and economy is based on slavery; and its rival Eltirian, founded by slaves who rebelled against and escaped Talarshand, and where slavery is completely banned. Over the centuries Talarshand has repeatedly gone to war with Eltirian to "recapture" the "escaped slaves."

 

That is of course an extreme example, but Aerelios and Danaris having some religious, ethnic, or historical point of dispute adds a dimension of personal antipathy to their interactions.

[SCUBA Hero]

22 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Several factors will determine where the optimal location for a major city would be along that river (discounting enough flat land to accommodate it, and sufficient harborage). First, is the river navigable along its entire length? If it is, then the key points would be either where the river begins in the lake, or ends at the sea. If not, then the farthest navigable point would be the waterborne trade terminus, hence a natural spot to urbanize. Also, is the second river connecting to it navigable as well? If it is, and trade flows along it, then their junction would be the best spot to tap into both trade routes.

 

+1 to this.  On Earth, major cities were often founded at the farthest navigable point on a river.

[assault]

Their ruling classes should be heavily intermarried. That way, every war is a family feud.

[indy523]

On 4/4/2022 at 9:01 PM, Mr. R said:

  Should the city be on the shore of the lake leading to the city OR more downriver where it can get shelter from the storms?  

 

 

The Answer to that question is not where in relation to the lake the city is, either downriver or at the mouth of the lake flowing out but rather what is the elevation of the land both in the inland lake and downriver.

 

If your lake is a lake and not a sea i.e. it is fresh water than the basin of the lake must be elevated fairly high above sea level, like at least 200 feet or so otherwise the water near sea level would flow out like it does in New Orleans and much of it would be brackish.    If that is the case you have an enormous amount of water sitting at an elevated height, even if it is only 200 ft 67m this is still a great quantity of water sitting on a lot of potential energy.  If there are massive amounts of rains that affect the land around the lake or feed into the lake over an extended time and the elevated levels start to rise rapidly you only have one natural artery by which that excess water can flow out.

 

So this means in that case you either have flooding along a huge plain that would be devastating or a river that becomes a raging torrent of water overflowing along its banks.  Any city on a low lying flood plain would eventually be destroyed.

 

So how high is the topography of the lake  is this an elevated height with many waterfalls miles downstream that breach the heights or is it one continuous slow moving river.  This will affect trade and safety.  Any city would be best built where there are very high banks and elevated mesa on one side. 

[Mr. R]

12 minutes ago, indy523 said:

The Answer to that question is not where in relation to the lake the city is, either downriver or at the mouth of the lake flowing out but rather what is the elevation of the land both in the inland lake and downriver.

 

If your lake is a lake and not a sea i.e. it is fresh water than the basin of the lake must be elevated fairly high above sea level, like at least 200 feet or so otherwise the water near sea level would flow out like it does in New Orleans and much of it would be brackish.    If that is the case you have an enormous amount of water sitting at an elevated height, even if it is only 200 ft 67m this is still a great quantity of water sitting on a lot of potential energy.  If there are massive amounts of rains that affect the land around the lake or feed into the lake over an extended time and the elevated levels start to rise rapidly you only have one natural artery by which that excess water can flow out.

 

So this means in that case you either have flooding along a huge plain that would be devastating or a river that becomes a raging torrent of water overflowing along its banks.  Any city on a low lying flood plain would eventually be destroyed.

 

So how high is the topography of the lake  is this an elevated height with many waterfalls miles downstream that breach the heights or is it one continuous slow moving river.  This will affect trade and safety.  Any city would be best built where there are very high banks and elevated mesa on one side. 

 

 

It is an inland lake as it is separated from the ocean on the west by a bout 1500 km of land.  The eastern side is much closer to the ocean by about 500 km of land.  The sea itself is a HUGE Basin with hill or mountains on all sides.  

 

But you are right, flooding would be a constant problem for coastal regions.

 

The river as drawn seems to be that WIDE slow moving type!

[assault]

It seems likely that the area along the river would be fairly heavily populated too.

 

That's another reason for both being large and powerful.

[Lord Liaden]

6 hours ago, Mr. R said:

 

 

It is an inland lake as it is separated from the ocean on the west by a bout 1500 km of land.  The eastern side is much closer to the ocean by about 500 km of land.  The sea itself is a HUGE Basin with hill or mountains on all sides.  

 

But you are right, flooding would be a constant problem for coastal regions.

 

The river as drawn seems to be that WIDE slow moving type!

 

The example of Quebec City might be inspirational. The main part of the city is built on a plateau overlooking the (quite broad and slow moving) St. Lawrence River. This helps insulate much of the city from flooding, as well as making the site much more defensible (you can still see the original cliff top defensive wall).

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

7 hours ago, indy523 said:

The Answer to that question is not where in relation to the lake the city is, either downriver or at the mouth of the lake flowing out but rather what is the elevation of the land both in the inland lake and downriver.

 

If your lake is a lake and not a sea i.e. it is fresh water than the basin of the lake must be elevated fairly high above sea level, like at least 200 feet or so otherwise the water near sea level would flow out like it does in New Orleans and much of it would be brackish.    If that is the case you have an enormous amount of water sitting at an elevated height, even if it is only 200 ft 67m this is still a great quantity of water sitting on a lot of potential energy.  If there are massive amounts of rains that affect the land around the lake or feed into the lake over an extended time and the elevated levels start to rise rapidly you only have one natural artery by which that excess water can flow out.

 

So this means in that case you either have flooding along a huge plain that would be devastating or a river that becomes a raging torrent of water overflowing along its banks.  Any city on a low lying flood plain would eventually be destroyed.

 

So how high is the topography of the lake  is this an elevated height with many waterfalls miles downstream that breach the heights or is it one continuous slow moving river.  This will affect trade and safety.  Any city would be best built where there are very high banks and elevated mesa on one side. 

 

It's possible that this lake actually has no outflow at all. The Caspian Sea is like that, emptying only through evaporation. It's a closed water system independent of the action of the world's oceans; in fact its surface is an average of 27 meters below sea level. Its main inflow is the Volga River, Europe's longest, but 130 other rivers of varying size also empty into it. The Volga has been of great economic and cultural importance to Russia for many centuries.

 

How this could translate to Mr. R's proposed setting, is that Aerelios and Danris could both be built at the mouths of rivers emptying into the lake, perhaps at opposite ends, making them important points of transit for traders going between the lake lands and other regions. Mind you, if one city is built at the delta of a more important river, that would probably work to its advantage.

 

 

[Killer Shrike]

I would do it procedurally, starting at the first regional settlement(s) in antiquity and walking forward in time introducing various events (wars, famines, new technologies, natural disasters such as floods, rivers changing course and / or getting damned and / or bridged (etc), over / under population, trade imbalances, and so on). Layer it up over time, to attain verisimilitude.

 

Also, it's useful to remember that contrary to common belief rivers flow downhill, not toward the equator, not toward a particular cardinal direction, and not in arbitrary directions. Thus the topography (particularly in regards to relative elevation) of the region should be carefully considered. If you have a giant lake with a bunch of rivers flowing into it, then it would logically need to be at a lower overall elevation to the areas the rivers are flowing to it from. If there is one river flowing out of it, then that outbound river would need to be flowing towards an even lower elevation, and there would need to be some barrier between that even lower elevation area and the adjacent areas or else some of the rivers flowing into the lake would actually flow towards that even lower elevation area instead.

[Lord Liaden]

The flow pattern Killer Shrike ably describes above applies to North America's Great Lakes when taken as a whole. Each lake, except Michigan and Huron which are hydrologically one lake, is at a different elevation and flow into each other: water flows from Lakes Superior and Michigan to Huron, then through the Detroit River to Lake Erie, then over Niagara Falls to Lake Ontario, and finally down the St. Lawrence River to the Atlantic Ocean, ultimately the only outflow for all the Lakes.

 

The St. Lawrence and its region may be relevant examples for how circumstances might have influenced the evolution of Mr. R's cities. Upthread I already mentioned Quebec City, the capital of the province, built overlooking the St. Lawrence; but Montreal, farther upriver, is a far larger and more economically important city. It's built on an island in the middle of the river, so river traffic almost has to stop at it (and could easily be forced to if naval power was applied). Montreal is also near the point where the Gatineau River, Quebec's longest, joins with the St. Lawrence. Thanks to the St. Lawrence Seaway, the river is the sole route for deep-water shipping between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic, and Montreal is smack in the middle of it. In this case the benefits of location outweigh those of being a government center.

 

That weight also shows in comparing Montreal to Ottawa, capital of Canada. Ottawa is built at the juncture of the Gatineau River and the Ottawa, another major river and traditional trade route. The incorporated city of Ottawa is over a million population, and its whole urban region adds to that by nearly 50%; but the city of Montreal is more than half again as large as Ottawa, and its urban region almost triple that of Ottawa's. (The city and urban region of Quebec City are close to 550,000 and 800,000+, respectively.) Ottawa and Montreal are around 100 miles/160 kilometers from each other, and while water travel between them is rare today, road, rail, and air travel is extensive.

[Mr. R]

6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

The example of Quebec City might be inspirational. The main part of the city is built on a plateau overlooking the (quite broad and slow moving) St. Lawrence River. This helps insulate much of the city from flooding, as well as making the site much more defensible (you can still see the original cliff top defensive wall).

 

 

 

 

Been to Quebec City a few times.  Never fails to impress.  This also reminds me of a city from the old Fantast Hero "Western Shores" campaign.... Wyrmcliff.  It is a plateau on which a city is built. (Overcrowding is a bit of a problem.  

 

Thanks for the ideas!

[Scott Ruggels]

Killer Shrike has the right Idea, but I generally take a much further back approach, by starting with the geology. Until you get to some sort of industrial revolution, water traffic is going to be the primary source of movement of bulk items to that city. So work out the flow pattern and the traffic on that river. Because of that river, as well, farms and docks along that river will be how farms, ranches, and mines will move the enormous amount of resources needed to feed and clothe the inhabitants of that city.  Putting the city near the lake outflow is logical, but so it putting it near multiple water sources at the other end of the lake. But work out the geology and topography of the area and the site will make itself known. I never start a fantasy game until I have mapped it out. Is the northern sea north enough to be ice bound or not, as that will effect trade quitye often if there are seasonal stoppages.

[Mr. R]

On 4/6/2022 at 8:20 AM, Killer Shrike said:

I would do it procedurally, starting at the first regional settlement(s) in antiquity and walking forward in time introducing various events (wars, famines, new technologies, natural disasters such as floods, rivers changing course and / or getting damned and / or bridged (etc), over / under population, trade imbalances, and so on). Layer it up over time, to attain verisimilitude.

 

 

 

I am indeed planning to do just that.  The history they give has 1) a major war 2) plague that kills 50% of the population 3) invasion by goblyns that lead to 400 years of occupation 4) drought 5) one country forging the rest into an empire 6) 600 years of peace 7) second goblyne invasion 😎 second plague 9) breakdown of empire.....

 

 

All this over a time span of 6000 years AND all the old cities and borders go right back to where they started.  Also my friend an I realized borders will follow drainage paths.  Countries will want to control the river (food/transport) and will place borders along hills and mountains.  So I will try to come up with possibly multiple versions of Aerelios and Danris.  (destroyed/ rebuilt/ abandoned/ repopulated)  

 

What will be fun is coming up with all new cities in the Northern Jungles.  For years the Basin states would send "catch parties" to get northern jungle people as slaves (can we say leaves a bad taste in my mouth).  Wanna a bet some of them will decide to get organized (Slavery illegal here) and develop their own cities.  Also the people of the Northern Plains.  

 

Yeah I have a bit to do!

[Hermit]

Depending on your setting's rules of magic etc, don't neglect leylines or sacred sites that might have tangible (at least to those that have access to spellcasting) benefits.