# Capital next to river plausible?



## Dreeparn (Jan 29, 2013)

I was thinking of placing one, maybe two capitals right next to a river running through the continent where my story takes place. The position would actually be very good from a trading view and also it would fit well into a world where commerse is very important. The problem is that I know almost nothing of medieval engineering and I want the Capital to have a wall because despite the trading this is not a peaceful world. 

So i wonder if it was possible to constuct a city including walls close to a river using medieval techniques? I also wonder how you would build the city, I've been thinking that the wall would extend around the city and run all the way to the river edge to protect the docks, then it would be another wall that shut the docks from the rest of the city in case of an attack. 

The other thing I was thinking about was how usuall it was to conduct trade via river in medieval times, I guess downstream would be a piece of cake but upstream? If you are hauling any amount of cargo it would require alot of rowers if you are ever going to get anywhere. 

Hope somebody has some time to anwser the questions


----------



## PlotHolio (Jan 29, 2013)

Typically the cities that see the most trade are actually on the ocean, which allows for a specific port construction that would help you. Either way, you're going to want to have the port outside the city, with a wall around the city and not necessarily the port. If your world is not peaceful, the first thing this city's enemies are going to try to do is find a weakness in your defenses, and they would absolutely love it if sailing into your port meant they were already inside your walls.

By no means should your port be defenseless, but it should not be within the city walls and should be more of its own village than a part of the city proper.


----------



## Being Darbo (Jan 29, 2013)

For a real-life analogue, look into the history of London. Lots of information in books and on the internet about its history as the capital of Roman Britain, and later England and the UK; its long status as a centre of commerce based on goods shipped down the Thames; and the challenges involved in defending it.


----------



## Wanara009 (Jan 29, 2013)

Ancient Babylon in the fifth century BC has a river that ran _through_ it (the city was walled, so the river ran through heavy steel grates. Think it like Helm's Deep, only it's not on a mountain and the grates is usually underwater so it can't be breached as easily like Helm's Deep could). It provided the city with an easy access to water, which allow it to grow crop even during a siege. So yes, a city next to a river wouldn't be much of a stretch. In fact, I think the best way for a city inland to grow big is to be near a big river.

Sadly, the city of Babylon fall when an attacking Cyprus of Persia diverted the river away from the city, allowing his men to cut through the steel grates.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 29, 2013)

Not to mention some idiot left the city gates unlocked.


----------



## The Kyngdoms (Jan 29, 2013)

Many of the world's capitals are inland - London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, to name a few - though, of course, they are all built along the banks of important rivers.  I think building walls around around such city opens up lots of interesting options in fantasy worlds.  If your world is magic heavy, you will also need to come up with some defensive solutions against that as well.


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 29, 2013)

Rivers have always been important in the location of cities, towns, etc. A source of water, and food, as well as trade, transport, and to carry sewage from the dwellings.

As for your upriver problem... It is likely the river would have been a tidal river, meaning the water flows out to sea at low tide, but during high tide, water flows upriver. It was a daily occurrence before barrages. The Tidal River Thames Â« River Thames London Boat Blog


----------



## Telemecus (Jan 29, 2013)

Maybe give them a history a bit like St. Petersburg? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly, the city was built on marshland next to a river. None of the foundations stuck, but the czar didn't give up. Eventually, the corpses of 40,000 or so serfs (maybe?) firmed up the ground enough that a city could be built. cheerful, huh?


----------



## Chilari (Jan 30, 2013)

Absolutely it's possible to have river-based trading settlements with walls. Plenty of examples in Shropshire, which was threatened by Welsh princes in the medieval period, and has among others the mighty River Severn. Shrewsbury, Bridgnorth and Ludlow are all walled towns on the rivers. Bridgnorth at the very least was used to river-trade coming up the river. After the stone bridge it gets its name from was built, though, the ships couldn't go any further up, but the quayside was a major part of the town. The defences were higher up, not covering the quay but overlooking it so it was defended, to a degree, and the bridge and river presented a defence too. In the end the attack that destroyed Bridgnorth's defensibility came not from the river side, nor directed at the quay, but from the south where a hill was built to site catapults, while saboteurs dug tunnels under the castle which are still there, to put gunpowder there to blow it up (the defenders surrendered; then the gunpowder was used inside the castle instead, leaving just a corner of the keep leaning at an alarming but perfectly safe angle, where it remains in the middle of the town's Castle Park).

Cities with good trade capacity - on rivers, on the coast with good harbouring, etc - generally grew wealthy very quickly. Corinth was famously wealthy; it controlled two major trade routes, that by land between the Peloponnesus and the mainland, and that by sea from east to west Mediterranean, because traders landed in the Saronic Gulf harbour and the goods were shipped over land to another vessel on the Corinthian Gulf harbour - it saved time and reduced risk compared to going around the Peloponnesus, and made Corinth a hub of trade. In the literature, ancient writers refer to it by the epithet "wealthy Corinth" because of this. It didn't hurt that in the archaic period it also exported pottery because the style was popular at that time, but even after Corinthian pottery was superceded by Attic pottery Corinth was still very wealthy and, because of the huge number of ships in her navy, paid for by her wealth and that of her richest citizens, was one of the most powerful cities in Greece even after Athens and Sparta became the two big names, all because of trade.


----------



## CupofJoe (Jan 30, 2013)

Rivers can be secured with huge chains that can be raised and lowered as needed.
If the technology for siege weapons such as Trebuchet and the like exists, they can be used too to repel attacks.
As for going up-stream if the winds are right, then sail up, and if they aren't then horse on a rope to pull boats...


----------



## Dreeparn (Jan 31, 2013)

Thank for all the great answers to my question! I also have an other question, would it be possible for a big lake to give birth to two rivers traveling in oppissit directions? The lake will be at a great mountain range and would be supplied with water from a spring. I'm not aware that anything like this exists in our world but I would think actually work. I plan to use that in my story as the site of one of the mightiest cities because it would have great advantages in trading considering that they could controll trade via the river and the river runs through most of the continent.


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 31, 2013)

Sounds like what you are describing is more of an inland sea, like the Caspian Sea.


----------



## Dreeparn (Jan 31, 2013)

Butterfly said:


> Sounds like what you are describing is more of an inland sea, like the Caspian Sea.



Well possibly but I was rather thinking of a sweet water lake but i guess i might have to adapt it if it's going to be a believable world. Problem is that i don't want it to be too large because i want it to be controllable by one city.


----------



## DTowne (Feb 3, 2013)

I don't see why you couldn't have two sweet water rivers assuming both rivers started off in the same direction. Say they both flowed east but one was more southeast the land could concieveably have enough of an incline where the southwest river curved back to head west while the other stayed its course.


----------



## Saigonnus (Feb 3, 2013)

Many medieval walled cities were centered around water, where the coast wasn't a viable option or already used by another city. Water is important not only to medieval cities, but life in general, without it, such a place would die off even with trade. No water, no life plain and simple. Paris, France was a walled city on a river; a couple I think actually, as was the city of Rome, Italy. Just that there should tell you it's perfectly reasonable to have a capital city on a river, ESPECIALLY if trade is an important aspect since goods are more easily moved over the water or in straight lines where possible.

I think a realistic approach would be to look at your world and create perhaps a dozen trade routes (over land) taking into account geography, ease of getting around, presence of communities in need of supplies etc.

To have sucessful trade you need a good infrastructure; these will include:

Barges/ships with crews
Wagons/carts with merchants
docks/piers along the rivers at certain points (often near villages or towns)
Warehouses for dry goods (usually at the stopping points)
Roads for those communities not accessible by water, usually linking a stopping point


----------



## wordwalker (Feb 3, 2013)

Honestly, I think almost ALL significant cities were founded at harbors, river convergences, and other junction points of water with water (or water with land) routes. There are only a few reasons to put them anywhere else, like control of a really vital overland route like a mountain pass or a rich mine. Even then, if it needs protecting but not complex trade, a fort makes more sense than a city anyway.


----------



## SeverinR (Feb 4, 2013)

CupofJoe said:


> Rivers can be secured with huge chains that can be raised and lowered as needed.
> If the technology for siege weapons such as Trebuchet and the like exists, they can be used too to repel attacks.
> As for going up-stream if the winds are right, then sail up, and if they aren't then horse on a rope to pull boats...



Chains and other river obstacles were used, but were the Trebuchet and catapults really accurate enough to use on ships?
Giant crossbows, definately, but ships move and catapults were slow to load and aim.  You could use aiming points to know when to fire, but ammo varied, so range was not exact.  I guess if you have enough catapults firing in the same direction and aiming point it at least one would hit.


----------



## Dreeparn (Feb 4, 2013)

Thanks for all the information, I will put it to good use in my novel!


----------



## Epaminondas (Feb 8, 2013)

My geology knowledge is decent but limited so I may be wrong but I really don't think that you can have two rivers coming from the same lake. If I remember correctly, if you have two outflow rivers from the same lake one of the two (the one with the softest soil) will erode away over time and the entire flow will eventually spill out the single lowest point. 
If you need two rivers coming out of a lake in two directions for your story you could always have one be an inflow from up river and the second one the outflow to the sea.


----------



## mbartelsm (Feb 16, 2013)

Investigate a bit about ancient carthage, it's pre medieval but it surely had one of the most defended ports in history, the romans had to deal with the land walls because they were unable to break trough the port, I should mention that breaking trough by land wasn't anywhere near easy, carthage had a three wall system that took a few years for the romans to destroy.







Here's a reconstructed pic of carthage's port, the rest of the coast was walled up.








> My geology knowledge is decent but limited so I may be wrong but I really don't think that you can have two rivers coming from the same lake. If I remember correctly, if you have two outflow rivers from the same lake one of the two (the one with the softest soil) will erode away over time and the entire flow will eventually spill out the single lowest point.
> If you need two rivers coming out of a lake in two directions for your story you could always have one be an inflow from up river and the second one the outflow to the sea.


That's true, while you can have two rivers coming out of a lake, they will probably last a few months before one of the two dissapears


----------



## Geldor (Feb 17, 2013)

Many cities are located on the banks of rivers in fiction and history, for example London is on the banks of the Thames and Riverrun in Game of Thrones. The fact that they are on a river does not affect them in any way. The port however should be considered you may wish to have the port inside the walls of the city and use that in the story, enemy troops could sneak in and attack the city from within but if you want the city to remain free then I would have the port in a separate wall, think of it as a town outside the city.


----------

