PC/WI: Venice has its lagoon dammed and polderized as punishment by a conquering state?

[GauchoBadger]

The Republic of Venice had its capital territory inside the Venetian Lagoon, a half-enclosed body of water at the northern edge of the Adriatic Sea that provided the city with protection from invaders, easy access to the sea, and economic sustenance.
But let's assume some power (Visconti Lombardy, Ottoman Turkey, Napoleonic France, Austria, whoever have you) or more manages to conquer and occupy the territory of the Venetian state, choking off its trade, drowning the Doge in the water, stealing the marble off St. Mark's Basilica, etc. after a few conspiracies and revolts from destitute Venetians, the occupying power decides to end the marble city's glory for good and builds dykes across the lagoon, causing it to dry and removing its defensive advantage. Couod this be possible? How would it transform the area in the long term?

 

[RedSword12]

Dykes require maintenance. I don't see the Venetians spending the money to keep the thing up after whoever put it there is gone. Not to mention the economic value of Venice outweighs the benefits of destroying it if you already have it in the bag.

 

[Whiteshore]

I could see this being something a Byzantine Empire/Rhomania which bounced back after 1204 could do to Venice as revenge.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Dykes require maintenance. I don't see the Venetians spending the money to keep the thing up after whoever put it there is gone. Not to mention the economic value of Venice outweighs the benefits of destroying it if you already have it in the bag.

If you settle enough people onto the polder, you have an automatic constituency who will be rather opposed to any flooding of their land.

 

[RedSword12]

If you settle enough people onto the polder, you have an automatic constituency who will be rather opposed to any flooding of their land.

Too expensive. And do you really think people would be that eager to start farming in super-salty soil? The expenses and time involved make such a punitive measure unrealistic. If you conquer Venice, it's more beneficial to leech off its economic productivity than to destroy it completely. The only reason you'd want to destroy its economic productivity is if you fear losing it soon, which doesn't provide the time to put up dykes in the first place.

 

[cmakk1012]

I could see this being something a Byzantine Empire/Rhomania which bounced back after 1204 could do to Venice as revenge.

In a similar vein, a massively wanked rival merchant republic might try and do the same to assert dominance over Italian trade or something.

 

[Frrf]

Also, the tides in the lagoon are pretty strong. It'd be hard to actually dam it up before like the 19th Century, by which point Venice no longer existed as an independant state and was widely admired for its beauty by the upper classes of Europe, who would absolutely object. Even now just controlling the flooding is almost beyond us.

 

[Maeglin]

I could see this being something a Byzantine Empire/Rhomania which bounced back after 1204 could do to Venice as revenge.

"The Horses of St Mark? We'll take those back, thanks."

 

[Nyegosh]

You don't actually have to do it.

Just utterly destroy the city, and with nobody to keep dredging it, the lagoon would fill itself up with dirt and sediment, as should have happened naturally, Venetians would dredge it to keep being separate from the mainland for security reasons

 

[RedSword12]

You don't actually have to do it.

Just utterly destroy the city, and with nobody to keep dredging it, the lagoon would fill itself up with dirt and sediment, as should have happened naturally, Venetians would dredge it to keep being separate from the mainland for security reasons

Again, a terrible economic waste, involving such an atrocity that all of Europe would be disgusted.

 

[Nyegosh]

Again, a terrible economic waste, involving such an atrocity that all of Europe would be disgusted.

Not really, it doesn't require one to really do much in the first place.

Venice, is a very labor-intensive place to maintain. A simple, proper siege would basically end it immediately, and all the economic activity would disperse, primarily to Trieste and Rijeka, probably. See, the entire place is held up by these big giant logs stuck into the mud. A siege, with the ensuing fighting, even if it isn't particularly violent, could lead to explosions which could expose these. And they would then rot instantly, cause buildings to lean and tip over and expose more and more and basically trigger a chain reaction.

Hence why the Venetians did everything in their power to avoid sieges.

Heck, a plague at an inopportune time, and it's "welp, i guess we have to build proper walls now"

The economic damage would really be minimal this way. They still have the coast, it's just that the strategic value is lower. On the other hand, nothing beats having the city actually be on land, like nature intended.

 

[RedSword12]

Not really, it doesn't require one to really do much in the first place.

Venice, is a very labor-intensive place to maintain. A simple, proper siege would basically end it immediately, and all the economic activity would disperse, primarily to Trieste and Rijeka, probably. See, the entire place is held up by these big giant logs stuck into the mud. A siege, with the ensuing fighting, even if it isn't particularly violent, could lead to explosions which could expose these. And they would then rot instantly, cause buildings to lean and tip over and expose more and more and basically trigger a chain reaction.

Hence why the Venetians did everything in their power to avoid sieges.

Heck, a plague at an inopportune time, and it's "welp, i guess we have to build proper walls now"

The economic damage would really be minimal this way. They still have the coast, it's just that the strategic value is lower. On the other hand, nothing beats having the city actually be on land, like nature intended.

You would be hard-pressed to find anybody in Europe who would condone such a thing. Totally destroying a city like you suggested is just not done.

 

[Nyegosh]

Well, who really cares at any time it would be done? They'd complain about it for a year, make a bunch of inflammatory works and then quickly go back to exactly how they were before (slaughtering each other over stupid things), just like how they complained over the fall of Constantinople, the ensuing ludicrous taxes that screwed it's position over completely. They just explored, colonized half the world, and really stopped caring about it pretty quickly.

"Oh look, Venice is now just a standard run off the mill northern Italian town. Whelp, Genoa it is!"

 

[RedSword12]

Well, who really cares at any time it would be done? They'd complain about it for a year, make a bunch of inflammatory works and then quickly go back to exactly how they were before (slaughtering each other over stupid things), just like how they complained over the fall of Constantinople, the ensuing ludicrous taxes that screwed it's position over completely. They just explored, colonized half the world, and really stopped caring about it pretty quickly.

"Oh look, Venice is now just a standard run off the mill northern Italian town. Whelp, Genoa it is!"

A little thing you forget is that the crusaders didn't destroy Constantinople, not by a long shot. You propose not just going an extra mile with Venice, but a light-year. Even the most brutal sacks in European history before 1900 didn't manage to destroy a city the way you propose. Arguably the closest was the sack of Magdeburg, whose population was nearly annihilated, and even then the city recovered. Not only that, but the sack was used effectively by the Protestants to give the Imperials bad publicity. Fully destroying a city is no small thing, and people WOULD make a big deal of it if you managed to achieve it.

 

[Prince de Pringondani]

A little thing you forget is that the crusaders didn't destroy Constantinople, not by a long shot. You propose not just going an extra mile with Venice, but a light-year. Even the most brutal sacks in European history before 1900 didn't manage to destroy a city the way you propose. Arguably the closest was the sack of Magdeburg, whose population was nearly annihilated, and even then the city recovered. Not only that, but the sack was used effectively by the Protestants to give the Imperials bad publicity. Fully destroying a city is no small thing, and people WOULD make a big deal of it if you managed to achieve it.

Charles V did it with Therouanne in Northern France,

 

[RedSword12]

Charles V did it with Therouanne in Northern France,

I was talking about physical destruction of a city and the extermination of its inhabitants to prevent reconstruction (which Nyegosh implied in his suggestion about how to prevent the Venetian lagoon from being re-dredged). Charles V just did the former, and prevented the reconstruction and resettlement of Therouanne by the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis.

Regardless, destroying Venice doesn't make economic sense for the reasons I stated earlier.

 

[Tanc49]

Imagine a bunch of mercenaries, unhappy about not being paid, attack the city, sacking it completely.

Buildings burn, boats are sunk, gold is taken.

Why keep going to Venice? Go to Marseilles or Trieste. If it happens after 1550, the main source of Venitian wealth, spices, goes through Portugal. The whole Levant trade can be done by countless other cities.

The city might be abandoned afterwards