River Borders

This is a tricky little bit I've been seeing. Natural borders are great, and rivers (which are so conveniently shown on so many of our basemaps) are the greatest of them all. But, of course, some have cities plonked down on them in a manner which makes it entirely unfeasible for a border to ever be located there (for example, the St Lawrence). I'm not too familiar with some rivers in my native US, let alone the rest of the world - pray tell, what are rivers (erm, on this basemap?) that work as borders.

*I'msorrybutpleasehelpmehereI'mtrulyanignorantswine
 
In the united states I can only see the Colorado and Columbia rivers being GOOD natural borders, all the other big rivers have too many big cities on them. Rivers suck as borders overall though.
 
Last edited:
In the united states I can only see the Colorado and Columbia rivers being GOOD natural borders, all the other big rivers have too many big cities on them.

Portland's pretty big, but otherwise, yeah.

I personally find the concept of natural borders to be utterly silly.

Maybe today, with our improved transportation, but do you want to cross hell and high water every day to get from one half of your state/country/whatever in the 1800s?
 
It worked out OK For Kansas City, and I suspect it works OK for absolutely every major city on a river. Also, rivers flood, which historically has cut off access between the two sides of the river, so it's practical for the two sides of the river to have their own governments.
 
Maybe today, with our improved transportation, but do you want to cross hell and high water every day to get from one half of your state/country/whatever in the 1800s?

The other side of the coin; of course, is that because rivers in the past (and still so today) are major conduits of transportation, controlling both sides of a river is necessary rather than just one half.
 
It worked out OK For Kansas City, and I suspect it works OK for absolutely every major city on a river. Also, rivers flood, which historically has cut off access between the two sides of the river, so it's practical for the two sides of the river to have their own governments.

Maybe I worded it wrong.

For example, the St Lawrence could never be a border because if you can't cross it, the guns of Montreal and Quebec will beat you back, and if you do cross it, there's nothing to stop your from moving further.
 
Portland's pretty big, but otherwise, yeah.



Maybe today, with our improved transportation, but do you want to cross hell and high water every day to get from one half of your state/country/whatever in the 1800s?

Well Portland isn't exactly a metropolis and its the only large city on that river so I thought they could survive being on a border. Considering that they're already on one, just not an international one.
 
In the united states I can only see the Colorado and Columbia rivers being GOOD natural borders, all the other big rivers have too many big cities on them. Rivers suck as borders overall though.
Big cities still tend to be on only one side of a river.
 
Big cities still tend to be on only one side of a river.

Really? Off the top of my head I can think of London, Paris, New York, Melbourne and plenty of smaller cities which are on both sides of a river. Heck, Istanbul is on both sides of the sea! It really depends on the nature of the waterway as to how the city is located. There's no general rule.
 
Really? Off the top of my head I can think of London, Paris, New York, Melbourne and plenty of smaller cities which are on both sides of a river. Heck, Istanbul is on both sides of the sea! It really depends on the nature of the waterway as to how the city is located. There's no general rule.
And off the top of my head I can think of Cincinnati, Saint Louis, Memphis, Vienna until the 20th century, Lisbon, Seville, Portland as previously mentioned, Buda and Pest, and Toledo that stopped at their respective rivers. Not to mention that IIRC Southwark wasn't part of London until the 1600s, New York and Brooklyn were separate cities up until 1898, and that Istanbul did not in fact extend across the Bosphorus until recently.

EDIT: Forgot about a lot of the cities on the Rhine too.
 
Last edited:
And off the top of my head I can think of Cincinnati, Saint Louis, Memphis, Vienna until the 20th century, Lisbon, Seville, Portland as previously mentioned, Buda and Pest, and Toledo that stopped at their respective rivers. Not to mention that IIRC Southwark wasn't part of London until the 1600s, New York and Brooklyn were separate cities up until 1898, and that Istanbul did not in fact extend across the Bosphorus until recently.

EDIT: Forgot about a lot of the cities on the Rhine too.

Fair enough, I didn't say that cities had to form on both sides of rivers, only that there's no rule forcing them to do one or another. Again, depends on the body of water in question. True though, in modern times it is more possible for cities to form on both sides. Depends on the time of history in question as to the relative number of such cities.
 
Big cities still tend to be on only one side of a river.

New York, London, and Paris would like to have a word with you.

Many cities are only on one side of a river because of political boundaries, the actual cityscape continues on both sides of the river (like Boston and Cambridge or st.Louis and East st. Louis)
 
New York, London, and Paris would like to have a word with you.

Many cities are only on one side of a river because of political boundaries, the actual cityscape continues on both sides of the river (like Boston and Cambridge or st.Louis and East st. Louis)
See my above post for New York and London. Paris as well as Montreal are special cases since the city centers began on islands in the rivers.

However, while the cityscape does usually develop on both sides of a river, one side almost always dominates. East Saint Louis, for example, has a population of 27,000 compared to Saint Louis's 318,000. Vienna grew into one of the largest cities in the world by 1900, but Wiener Neustadt on the left bank of the Danube was only built up during the 1920s. To give an example on the Rhine, Cologne was a major city for millennia, but Deutz on the other side of the Rhine remained very small in comparison despite a longstanding bridge over the river. London, again, was for most of its history concentrated on the north side of the Thames though London Bridge existed in some form since Roman times. Almost always, whichever side the fortification or the riverside docks are built on first is the side that grows, because it's more defensible and before the 19th century, sailing ships meant that bridges over the river would impede shipping. Heck, even Montreal grew way faster on the north bank than Longeuil did on the south. One of the big reasons the Saint Lawrence wouldn't make a good border beyond where it already is one is because Montreal, Trois Rivieres and Quebec are all on the north side of the river so there's no point in just going up to the south bank.
 
This is a tricky little bit I've been seeing. Natural borders are great, and rivers (which are so conveniently shown on so many of our basemaps) are the greatest of them all. But, of course, some have cities plonked down on them in a manner which makes it entirely unfeasible for a border to ever be located there (for example, the St Lawrence). I'm not too familiar with some rivers in my native US, let alone the rest of the world - pray tell, what are rivers (erm, on this basemap?) that work as borders.

*I'msorrybutpleasehelpmehereI'mtrulyanignorantswine

The thing is, navigable rivers don't always act as natural borders because they tend to act as arteries of communication with the people on both sides of a navigable river sharing a similar culture and so forth. Consider the Rhine which doesn't act as the border between French and German speaking areas but rather as the spine of a German speaking area stretching from the Alps to the Low Countries.

Rivers being imposed as borders tends to be an act of artificial border imposition, not natural borders that develop organically.
 
The thing is, navigable rivers don't always act as natural borders because they tend to act as arteries of communication with the people on both sides of a navigable river sharing a similar culture and so forth. Consider the Rhine which doesn't act as the border between French and German speaking areas but rather as the spine of a German speaking area stretching from the Alps to the Low Countries.

Rivers being imposed as borders tends to be an act of artificial border imposition, not natural borders that develop organically.

Rivers are just as artificial but they look much prettier.
 
Rivers are just as artificial but they look much prettier.

Until the river shifts and the border no longer matches the waterway:

Kaskaskia_IL_and_vicinity_USGS_topo_map.jpg


The western border of Illinois was drawn to the Mississippi River, but then its course changed, and now the border differs from the river. The small town of Kaskaskia is west of the Mississippi but in Illinois, despite having no way to get to the rest of Illinois except by going through Missouri or getting wet.
 
Top