Coastal captial bad?

What are some advantages and disadvantages to a city on the coast? How does this change if it is your capital city?

Other urls found in this thread:

orbis.stanford.edu/
thefreedictionary.com/coast
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The ease of water-based trade is one of the main reasons why literally every city of importance in the pre-industrial world was located at the edge of a river, lake, sea, or ocean.

The only disadvantage to having your capital city be on the coast is that people might drown.

Isn't the relative ease of assault from the sea a large factor?

Which countries of note have had a capital city on the shore?

>advantages
- Trade
- Food!
- less area to be protected with a wall
>disadvantages
- Seawater itself is not directly consumable. That's not really a disadvantage, but it means you would profit from also being near a river.
- A city by the sea is probably not in the center of the country. When information travels slowly, your control over your country diminishes the further you get from your capital.
But it's less vulnerable to land attacks. England hasn't had a real invasion since the 11th century. Japan has a similar past.

Advantages? Trade, commerce, transportation for diplomats, etc.

Disadvantages? You've got to have a shit ton of naval and harbour defences or anyone can just sail up and fuck you over.

Constantinople, aka the most impregnable city in Middle Ages.

Then again, you also have had things like the Battle of the Medway; this was solved by improving the defences on the Thames, but still.

>Most impregnable
>Fall repeatedly

>What are some advantages and disadvantages to a city on the coast?
Well, ease of transportation is obviously a massive advantage. Coast means port, port means possibility of great volumes of good being shipped in and out.
Yet, for some reason, most capitals were not actually located directly on the coast, but rather a bit further away: usually on the lower stream of a major river. Hell, even Athens and Knossos were actually build several miles from the coast, connected to their ports by long paved roads.

The explanation may lie in relative vulnerability to attack from sea. Other explanation may be the capriciousness of sea itself: tidal waves, ocean storms etc... might wreak havoc on the cities. Finally, it's simply possible that the coastal regions aren't usually the greatest agrarian lands, as the tidal-region is salty as fuck and poor for growing plants.

Lower flow of the river offers the same (or similar) accessiblity, but seems to be safer and have better access to fertile land to help feeding the city.

But those are just my theories.

Japan

Scandinavian countries

Russia with Saint Petersburg

Brazil before Brazilia

>less vulnerable to land attacks
>Engand, Japan
Those are island kingdoms, they have the protection of that isolation even if they build their cities or capitals inland. I was wondering more about coastal cities where the island isolation factor doesn't come into play.

>Disadvantages? You've got to have a shit ton of naval and harbour defences or anyone can just sail up and fuck you over.
This makes sense to me.

>>Fall repeatedly
Do you have any idea how many sieges the city went through?

>Which countries of note have had a capital city on the shore?
Could you name some countries of note that DON'T have capital cities on the shore?

>England hasn't had a real invasion since the 11th century. Japan has a similar past.
Yet Japan has not build a capital anywhere near the coast until 19th century, dude. England - the same case. Also, how is coastal location less threatened from land? Unless you are on a fucking island, you still have pretty much the same problem.

Oh yeah, and in addition to this: I forgot to mention perhaps the biggest issue: accessiblity of freshwater. You can't exactly easily drill wells into the coast.

>they have the protection of that isolation even if they build their cities or capitals inland.
You are making a mistake if you think that Japan and England were always united as countries.

It felt two times. That's pretty badass.

Also in ancient times water meant... well, water to drink. Directly or not.

Twenty three. Meanwhile it fell three times. That's a nearly. That's a 1 in 7 chance of Constantinople falling if you siege it. There are better ratios out there.

Dude, Edo was actually like 15 miles from coast, it was about as close to sea as London is now.
Or are you trying to tell me that Kyoto or Nara were coastal cities?

>Yet Japan has not build a capital anywhere near the coast until 19th century, dude. England - the same case.
And I wasn't talking about the capitals but about the countries.
>Also, how is coastal location less threatened from land
Because half the city is protected by the sea, so you can focus your defenses on the other half - and on top of that, it's difficult for the besiegers to stop you from resupplying the city with fishing boats.

>Because half the city is protected by the sea, so you can focus your defenses on the other half - and on top of that, it's difficult for the besiegers to stop you from resupplying the city with fishing boats.
You really know fuck all about medieval sieges and city fortifications, don't you?

France, Germany, Russia, Mongolia (of the past), Austria (of the past), Spain, ...

Just raise underwater chains over entrance to the port, and shoot at any naval attacker stupid enough to try it.

What's the third time? If you're talking about its reconquest in 1260, that doesn't count.

WHAT?! Did you misread the question?

Edo has been the capital since the 17th century actually. And yes, it bordered the sea.

Interestingly, it has
a) rivers (pretty wide at least for Japan's standards)
b) an easidly defendable (and I guess relatively less prone to storms) bay

As in?

1261. And it does count; if the defences don't keep out the guy you want to keep out, the city falls.

Apparently so. I thought you were still going by OP's sea shore.

It doesn't count if the people inside open the damn gates for you.

Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Spain, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, China, Brazil, India, South Africa.
Just to name a few. Also every landlocked country.

>Japan
Island. Kyoto's not even on the coast.
>Scandinavian countries
Copenhagen: island. Oslo: on the tip of a deep fjord. Stockholm: over 30 km from open sea, surrounded by land broken up with water.
>Russia
St. Petersburg: at the tip of another deep inlet.

What I'm seeing here is that usually it will only happen if you have an extremely defensible geographic feature to take advantage of. Rio de Janeiro is a good exception.

What is the reason for this exception? Tech levels (which tech makes the difference)? Relative peace?

England, Italy, the US (although only because they made a random city their capital and not their biggest), India, China...
In fact of the top ten richest countries by national economy, Japan is the only one with a coastal capital.

I don't think that, I just think that the advantages of accessibility by sea are less if you already have relatively easy accessibility by land. And as I've said elsewhere, Kyoto isn't on the coast at all.

>Edo has been the capital since the 17th century actually. And yes, it bordered the sea.
Which is less than one fourth of the history of the country, and NO, IT FUCKING DID NOT YOU RETARD. It actually only reached the sea in early 19th century, with industrialization and massive influx of people into cities. Historical Edo was between the banks of Sumidagawa and the Ueno hills. That is like what - 30, 40 km from where the original furthest point of Tokyo Bay was? Jesus. Study a historical map for a fucking change. Fucking Athens were close to sea than Tokyo was. Why the everliving FUCK do you think first thing they did with rails was connecting Tokyo to Yokohama, genius? You think it was for the cool amusement parks?

>early 19th century
that was supposed to be 20th century.

Kart-Hadasht with its fucking awesome harbor.

>england
>tokyo
>manila
>rabat
>canberra
>lisbon

I don't see any island qualification. Also, talking about modern times if not specified otehrwise.

Sea is sea. If anything Rio's bay was pretty "secure" as the others were, I guess nothing like... I dunno, LA or Hong Kong, to talk about some modern cities.

Rome was ANYTHING but random tough.

>industrialization

> early 1800s Japan

kek

Also, see pic and note the date. I admit I'm not totally sure it reached the sea in the 1600s, but it's a good 300+ years.

By the way, Carthage must be destroyed.

Funny how it never occurred to me that 'Carthage' is actually a Roman name.

>I don't see any island qualification.
See .

>Sea is sea.
I disagree. Being 75% or more surrounded by land, and to land in the city you had to expose yourself to both vision and interception pretty heavily on both sides for an extended time.

I do think that those countries benefited much more from the protection from harsh sea condition afforded to their vessels than the direct defensibility, but it was a factor nonetheless.

Ostia is best port.

>palace a full fucking league from the shore

No defenses at all?
I guess this was built after the Romans turned the Mediterranean Sea into their Mare Nostrum.

>the princess enjoys long walks at the beach, alongside burly, half-naked seamen

I know user, I know. They could have let the harbor though, not like Rome wouldn't benefit from it. Grand engineering was their thing even.

Oceanic trading, raiding and pirating were what brought wealth to the many austronesian thalassocracies. They even neglected their island's interiors.

...

Point is, it seems EVERY great city on the sea had this, if the were made in pre-industrial times.

Did you expect the Hagia Sophia to be a beach as well, user? You simply were wrong, deal with it.

It has a fuck huge moat and likely its own garrison

That's just the port. The actual city of Ostia is a bit to the south and does have proper defenses.

The port is creatively named Portus, btw.

Please keep in mind I am not arguing for or against coastal cities or capitals, just seeking to understand their uses and limitations.

Post moar coastal cities.

Me too. I'd just suggest that in fantasy you might as well throw in some cliffs or a lagoon to defend the city.

Unless they actually have something akin to Mare Nostrum and didn't really need much fortifications to begin with, why not.

>actually I think the roman empire as a geographical state would be a refreshing idea for yer olde fantasy empire, but I digress

>Point is, it seems EVERY great city on the sea had this, if the were made in pre-industrial times.
This leads me to believe that there were at least perceived vulnerabilities (disadvantages) that these conditions mitigated, and that cities that did not have these especial defensive conditions either did not flourish and survive, or were not founded in the first place.

>I'd just suggest that in fantasy you might as well throw in some cliffs or a lagoon to defend the city.
I think it would be more interesting to think about how a coastal city without these defensive features would be punished in practice, for not having them.

>Mare Nostrum and didn't really need much fortifications
Care to say a few words about how the Mediterranean obviated the need for fortifications?

>Care to say a few words about how the Mediterranean obviated the need for fortifications?
They had conquered the whole coastline. Mare Nostrum means "OUR sea".

Oh, you meant that their dominance of the Mediterranean made it impractical for an enemy to use it as an attack vector. Understood.

Yes, I'm an idiot and doing too many things at once.

I think you're reading too much into it. You could name other major cities straight up on the coat without much protection from the sea, Constantinople again being the obvious example.

Further questions: How is a capital on the coast better than having the equivalent city on the coast and simply naming one of your large inland cities declared capital? All the same benefits accrued to your civilization, without the coastal exposure of your capital. Is it a purely political consideration? How does this change with quality of road and transportation technology?

Byzantium actually was VERY secure from the sea. All that tide thing going on.

Do you think it was a coincidence that it was so much attacked and the lack of obvious geographical defenses?

In fact, the only Pre-Industrial World Power city I can think of not on a coast is Rome.

>How is a capital on the coast better than having the equivalent city on the coast and simply naming one of your large inland cities declared capital?
It isn't. I am pretty sure that having your capital inland and a different city directly at the sea is better.
>How does this change with quality of road and transportation technology?
Like what? Most wares were transported at the speed of walking. Most information was transported at the speed of horse+rests.
The quality of the road just made these two things more reliable. These two values didn't change for most of history. When Europe suddenly developed wide-spread technologies to speed these two things up, they took over the world.

What is Spain?
What is France?

It was the most geostrategically important city in, like, Eurasia. Of course everyone and their grandma would try to conquer it.

River/sea transport is TERRIBLY cheaper than roads (and roads are actually costly to mantain) in the pre-industrialized world. Often even the fastest.

A fun widget to see how much it would've cost/lasted to go from A to B during the empire is here: orbis.stanford.edu/

Hell, it's actually true now, to a lesser extent.

>How is a capital on the coast better than having the equivalent city on the coast and simply naming one of your large inland cities declared capital
You enemy needs to have both an army and a navy to effectively besiege your capital. The Athenians laughed at Sparta during the Peloponnesian wars because the Spartans could only sit outside the city walls impotently while inside the city's business and supply went on uninterrupted.

>What is France?
*sails up your Seine*

thefreedictionary.com/coast

Basically any big city not on a coast was on a largish river, I don't see your point.

If roads and transportation are better, mobility is increased and the benefits of the coastal city can percolate more freely within your territory, changing the dynamic between your cities and lessening the downsides of having your seat of political power distant from your seat of economic power.

>River/sea transport is TERRIBLY cheaper than roads
And often faster, too. But can only transport over the water, which domain is limited.

Either you must also field both an army and a navy (upfront costs and upkeep costs), or a navy will be sufficient to either hamper trade or land from the sea side and sack the city, no? In the first case, the disadvantage of having to field both applies to both sides; in the second cases it's mostly even with incidental advantages to the attacker.

Well, duh. But this is the funny thing: your enemy will prefer sea/river transport too. Better to have THOSE routes in check before anything.

*diverts the tiber*
Not so fast barbarian scum!

Did you just connect the Tiber and the Seine?
That's some major engineering work. As expected of a Roman.

You think so? Depending on how landlocked and encircled with enemies you are, I think this changes. If there are no significant naval enemies, it makes sense to solidify internal trade before trying to "rule" the seas. Ditto for if you have no particular abundance of naval trade partners.

Not arguing against the obvious advantages of naval force projection and trade, just questioning the idea that they must necessarily come before other more basic kinds of force projection or trade.

>Ditto for if you have no particular abundance of naval trade partners.
You are forgetting your most important trading partner: your own country.

Well, thinking about Rome, I'd say it more or less went this way. Interestingly enough, they didn't really use that of a navy at first, but the certainly were more concerned about coasts.

I think there should be a difference of big city and capital city.
There's a shitload of big cities on shores but it seems like capital cities are mostly placed on riversides.

Not all countries have much coastline, much less established cities on the coast to trade with. If the rest of your country is inland, so is the rest of your internal trade.

...

I can believe that. The question is, why do you think that is? How could you overcome these factors, either in attack or in creating a setting where this is not true?

>Either you must also field both an army and a navy
Not necessarily. You CAN just wall the city all the way up to the beaches and put towers and chains on the mouths of your ports. That's not as great as having your own navy, but it's quite enough to make your basic fleet reconsider.

>or a navy will be sufficient to either hamper trade
Trade is fucked either way if the city is attacked. Basic resupplying however, is perfectly feasible through any corridor the enemy does not control.

It's more difficult to attack over a river than from the sea. Any naval power can move their ships to your seaport. But to move them up a river is more of a challenge (though as points out, the Vikings did reach Paris by boat).
Big cities by the sea develop naturally, from good trade. Designated capitals and strongholds are built next to rivers (or even on a river, like Paris).

technically its around 40+, but most of those were armies arriving and going fuck this we're leaving, that shits too hard to break down. Also, I'd like you to list places with better ratios. And none of them faced the level of siege Constantinople faced.

Stolen for city ideas

and some river cities are pseudo-coastal in that seafaring ships can easily sail up to their harbor causing the river to become more akin to a protected bay

Antwerp is a great example of this, it's a fair bit inland but managed to at one point be the largest harbor in europe and even to this day maintains one of the largest ports on the continent

Why the fuck does the citadel point inward as well?

>Big cities by the sea develop naturally, from good trade. Designated capitals and strongholds are built next to rivers (or even on a river, like Paris).
Paris has been inhabited for eight thousand years before it became a capital. It wasn't a designated anything. I imagine you'd find that to be the case with most river cities. Rivers are just really nice places to settle down near.

In case invaders have already entered the city and are attacking it from that direction?

Or maybe just to protect from angry citizens who thought Bastille was inspirational.

But neither of those threats would come with big cannons that would justify angled citadel walls. A "normal" wall should suffice.

A chained port hinders your own activities, not just the invaders'. The enemy only had to field one kind of force (navy), while you had to build great walls and chain mechanisms, AND cripple your economic engine just to reach a stalemate state of siege.

here's a map of it's distance to the sea, It's a good 70km or so inland, but in most aspects (reliance on trade, capacity to host and deploy a navy etc) it can be considered coastal
Invaders that breached the city walls and successfully entered it could set up their guns in the city limits to try and take the fort, as well as defense against naval fire coming from the river as even the largest warships were more than capable of sailing up it

It's because fresh water.
Setlements and civilizations mostly started on riverside or lakeside because of the abundance and easy to access fresh water. Shores only have salt water.
When the civilization expands, then they will look for the foremost easy access / transportation to the capital which means along the riverside until they reach shorelines.

You bring up a good point. Most cities aren't founded as capitals, but as cities. They grow and are later declared or become de facto capitals over decades of use or in political or military moves.

What sorts of pros and cons would an emperor's advisors argue both in favour and against naming a coastal city the new capital? Assume the existence of comparable inland cities and that assigning a new capital is a forgone conclusion for whatever reason.

>Why armor the back? Only a coward runs from battle!
Look out folks, we've got a military genius on our hands.

If the Empire is sufficiently large and fertile it's population isn't entirely centered around the coastline a more inland city would serve better in an administrative role
another reason is that generally speaking kings enjoyed a great degree of control over their capitals, and while this control would already be present in the current location, any coastal city large enough to justify naming the capital would also be under control of either a powerful vassal or else a well established merchant community, neither of which would be willing to give it up

It would be much less a hassle to just keep raking in the taxes and instead develop your inland city.

What might the opposing political faction argue?

that their goose, their golden eggs and damn right they're gonna defend it
and now you're at war with your most powerful vassal and all his riches which leaves you vulnerable to outside invasions
and even if you win the war you've already caused significant damage to the trade communities which may pack up and move to another city defeating the purpose of trying to move your capital in the first place