What are the best places for a capital city?

What are the best places for a capital city?

Would it be monotonous if all kingdoms had their capital city on the sea?

>What are the best places for a capital city?
On a river or some other body of water, so that shipping food for the inhabitants to buy isn't exorbitantly expensive.

Most capital cities are either by the sea or a river.

Turns out water and wind is a great way to carry heavy shit.

On top of a very tall inhospitable mountain for no discernible reason other than maybe defensibly.

>Would it be monotonous if all kingdoms had their capital city on the sea?
Probably. Just put some of them on rivers a few miles inland, with major port cities at the actual mouth of the river (Paris and Le Havre on the Seine, Rome and Ostia on the Tiber, Beijing and Tianjin on the Northern Canal...).

Always near a major river/s, if possible.

Wherever three or four major trade lanes intersect. One of those trade lanes should be the ocean or a river.

Somewhere near the sea, preferably at least a few miles inland, close to at least one river which is capable of moving large numbers of goods and people.
Aside from that it will probably be located in a relatively fertile, densely populated area of the territory it governs, because those resources will facilitate the political power of the people who rule from the capital.

coastal tend to be the best bet for trade and military reasons

The patron god of your civ wanted it there because of mysterious circumstances.

Or it likes the view and wants a temple there.

What about confluences?

>very tall inhospitable mountain
>winter comes
>everyone freezes to death in their homes
>try to go outside
>slip on ice, slide down the mountain to your death
Terrible idea.

That said, I quite like the idea of a country that has extreme weather, so you spend summer up the mountain to avoid the heat and winter in the valley where it's warmer.

Madrid was chosen as a capital because it was smack in the middle of spain. or so i heard anyway.

Wherever the founding race saw an eagle eating a snake and concluded it was a sign from god to found their city there.

The castles in Dark Souls didn't make a lick of sense

They're mostly made for and by god-beings. Anor Londo is literally the home of several gods.

Most major cities in general are located on the sea or by rivers and lakes. Whether it's for trading purposes or for access to freshwater for drinking/irrigating/sewage, cities need close access to water. If you look at maps of major inland cities, I guarantee you'll find a river (or what used to be a river) running through the city.

There are exceptions, such as Atlanta, which was built at the crossroads for several major railways. But even Atlanta isn't too far from the nearest river.

One of these might be on the sea like Venice. Many may or should be at the seaside since capitals are usually places of trade. Most others should be on navigable rivers.

>exceptions, such as Atlanta, which was built at the crossroads for several major railways

And there you have it. Transportation. Cities grow in locations that are integral to transportation because people have a reason to go there / pass through, and it facilitates trade. Historically that means bodies of water or major overland roads like the Silk Road. In more recent times we've seen cities grow on railroads, like Atlanta and Denver, an at key points in highway systems, like Indianapolis.

On a high plateau atop rich veins of GOLD.

Pull a Chicago and put them on an inland lake with a canal that leads to a river that leads to the ocean as its means of trade. Gives the kingdom a reason to fiddle around be in the politics of the kingdom closest to or in which resides the canal or the river mouth.

Not on the coast, but upriver from the coast. That way your smaller, coastal, city can guard against invasions or raids without risking your capital.

Also, drinking water and irrigation.

This, and often times modern transportation systems just developed over existing routes,
and even game trails and animal migration routes if you go back far enough.

As an option similar to one bandied about in the thread, remember that a nation's metropolis doesn't need to be their capital as well.

To use the ongoing US State examples, Washington, California, and New York all have cities that are much larger than their capitals.

This can be because trade routes changed over the years, so the other city became an easier destination; due to religious/traditional reasons, a defensive measure (why make the city an even more valuable military target) or simply an economic/practical one. (Maybe the larger city is in a better position for international travel, but the capital is better located to serve the people of the nation.)

In a illusionary mountain siting on a mine of vibranium

To continue the US examples even more, Washington DC is where it is because the previous capital just wasn't a great place for a capital to be, and because they were able to come to an agreement to split the physical land of DC to not be in any particular state and therefore show favoritism. DC is its own special district with its own special laws separate from all of the states.
Many other political systems had similar setups, where the king was also the baron or duke of the area the capital was located in.

>To use the ongoing US State examples, Washington, California, and New York all have cities that are much larger than their capitals.
Also Nevada.
I think California's mismatch was a case of the takeover from Mexico. Sacramento was the US capital while LA was still in another country.

>capital
center of growth, really, but pretty much. With the Russians all over the northern parts of the eventual State, and the Mexicans in the south, somewhere near the middle was the US stronghold as the Mexican rancheros of the central valley were overwhelmed.

If the wells don't run dry, remote mountain tops can work. Those wells may not be easy to dig, though.

bodies of water are a requirement for basically any city or larger form of settlement.
Even cities at the Sea are usually at the mouths of rivers.
A Capital usually just happens to be one of the larger cities.

Large cities tend to be on the coast, or riverside. Capitals don't have to be large cities.

>Washington DC

It's an artificial city chosen as a capital to not piss off the early states of the US. Some presidents even died of dysentery because of contaminated water by human feces.

It isnt unheard of to build a capital "artificially".

The capital of The Mongol Empire, Karakorum, is an example of a city built expressely for the purpose of being a political seat.

A terrible idea since it didn't last. It's also not an agrarian culture.

All agrarian cultures revolved around agricultural irrigation. If you cannot irrigate your fields, then you cannot support a large city, let alone a capital.

The best place for a capital city is the most centralized area of the country, by that I mean the heart of your country. Don't take that as literally having to be in the dead center of the country, just easily accessible. A place that naturally draws in the people of your nation where authority can most easily be projected throughout the region.
Believe it or not, capitals are generally not coastal.

Sorry to rez a dying thread to clarify, but Washington STATE.

The Capital in Washington is Olympia, despite Seattle being almost 15 times larger, because at the time of the state's founding, Olympia had been more established and associated with regional governance.

>It isnt unheard of to build a capital "artificially".
No, but it's virtually unheard off for such capital to actually last very long. Karakorum or Brazilia City are a pretty good examples.
One of the few rare examples of such cities lasting for considerable longer time are in Japan with both Nara and Kyoto (though neither remained capital today). And who ever has ever been to Kyoto will confirm - that was the shittiest city placement anyone could ever fucking chose, PERIOD.

Yeah, slipping on ice. That is the problem with mountain-top capitals.
Not the fact that there is not going to be any arable land around, or the fact that mountain tops aren't exactly rich on stable water sources, or that it might be a bit difficult to get fuel and building materials up there, or just plan fucking lack of space.

Freezing and slipping is the main challenge.

Canberra comes to mind.

The climate in Kyoto is barely less shit than in Tokyo tho.

Whats the setting?
A capital city in a high-magic D&D-esque setting is different from a low-fantasy antiquity-inspired capital is different from a sci-fi confederations seat of power.