If you were to create a Marmara-centered state, where would you put its capital?

(Bonus Poll) Where would you put your capital?

  • Dardanelles

    Votes: 8 14.5%
  • Bosphorus

    Votes: 42 76.4%
  • Inside the Marmara Sea

    Votes: 3 5.5%
  • None of them is of priority, all are equally effective

    Votes: 2 3.6%

  • Total voters
    55
This is one question that has been plaguing my head for quite a while. Suppose that the Marmara area which connects Europe to Asia Minor is uninhabited, and you are tasked with choosing the capital of a state centered in this location. The question is, which of these two straits is more feasible for placing the capital of a byzantine-like state to be created from scratch, in terms of defensability and strategic commercial positioning? Would you choose the Dardanelles or the Bosphorus? Or would you choose a city right in the middle of the inner Marmara sea?
39cfc9939412b944f7865d0d28c1ab49.jpg
 
I personally would go for Bursa or
Tekirdağ having the capital away from the ports of Constantinople/Istanbul or Dardanelles.
 
How much do enemy states count here?
I guess that, if this Marmara State's biggest enemy(ies) is a Russia-like state centered on the other side of the Black Sea, then it'd be feasible to move the capital to the dardanelles for defensive purposes.
If the Marmara State's biggest enemy(ies) is located in the Mediterranean, then the bosphorus may be better, unless the aegean archipelagos have enough forward listening bases to warn the capital.
Or maybe moving it to the inside of the Marmara Sea would be a good idea, so long as there are defensive fortifications on both the dardanelles and the bosphorus. Albeit it would be more vulnerable to land armies this way.
 
Last edited:
Have you not heard of Constantinople? It remained unconquered for 874 years.
Though there were times were it could easily fall. In most occasions, i attribute Constantinople's survival to sheer luck (many huge armies could break the siege and capture the city, but internal complications prevented that), and its fall to sheer bad luck (that guy having let the gates open in 1453).
 

Deleted member 97083

Though there were times were it could easily fall. In most occasions, i attribute Constantinople's survival to sheer luck (many huge armies could break the siege and capture the city, but internal complications prevented that), and its fall to sheer bad luck (that guy having let the gates open in 1453).
Yeah, but ultimately what happened happened, and what didn't happen, didn't happen. Hannibal could have marched on Rome but he didn't. Constantinople could have fallen before 1204 (the actual first time it fell) but it didn't, and proved defensible enough to survive almost nine centuries. It's also possible that some of the 'miraculous' events of the defenses of Constantinople were exaggerated at the time due to the spiritual and political importance of the city.

Since the Turkish conquest in 1453, Istanbul has survived 563 years unconquered.

I challenge you to come up with an example of a city that has survived longer than 874 years unconquered, or from 1142 to now (or any nine-century period). London perhaps, but that has an entire defensible island to protect it, and actually fell without a fight during the Glorious Revolution.

It would have survived longer if it was just a port rather than the home of government and monarchy
A capital city receives more investment making it more well-protected. It is very rare for a capital city to fall before the rest of a country unless the government has already collapsed.
 
If the long wall fortifying Gallipoli is maintained, thats a pretty good chunk of land you can put to use. You could build a wall inder 3 miles, if you wanted.
 
Last edited:
I'm supporting those saying Constantinople, as the city today only exists because it was such a good location for one. As mentioned above, it was nearly impossible to take, even when the attackers had every advantage known (cannons, weak defenders, huge numerical superiority, the entire ERE being conquered already, no outside help for ERE etc.), the Ottomans still struggled. No other city survived so many 'attempts on its life', at least that I know of.

- BNC
 
I'm supporting those saying Constantinople, as the city today only exists because it was such a good location for one. As mentioned above, it was nearly impossible to take, even when the attackers had every advantage known (cannons, weak defenders, huge numerical superiority, the entire ERE being conquered already, no outside help for ERE etc.), the Ottomans still struggled. No other city survived so many 'attempts on its life', at least that I know of.

- BNC

Is there actually any city which in a more defensible location? Maybe New York but most of it is on islands, albeit riverine ones...

teg
 
First I'd like to understand the mindset for choosing the site, first known as Lygos. then Byzantium and then briefly renamed Augusta Antonina. Then Nova Roma or Roma Constantinopolitana under Constantine.
Secondly, Id like to see/ understand the geography around the sea of Mamara. Different times, different perspectives. Although today I cant imagine (Constantinople) Istanbul anywhere else , I have to ask historically, could it have been elsewhere geographically around the sea of Mamara, and be as long lasting ?
 
Top