What conditions need to develop city-states, and how to keep them?

Oceano

Banned
This is not actually a alternate but Future History question for a TL I plan one day, but the conditions might seem similar so I'm rolling with it.

So, I have this setting where:

- There's a oil peak collapse followed by a "dim age" from the late 21th century until the early 23th century. That's another story, actually.
- The "Dim Age" is followed by a "Atom Age" where the world is powered by atomic power of all sorts and human presence in the solar system is far greater than today.
- After that, NBC (mostly BC these days) war after a great conventional war. World is destroyed and shattered, your usual sci-fi post-apoc fare.
- In the brazilian amazon, surviving settlements use their remaining technology and industry to create riverine and maritime city-states. Many exist in the site of pre-war cities (different but recognizable evolutions of current day cities like Belém, Barcarena, Manaus, etc), others in new sites.
- Destruction of transportation infraestructure and increasing danger in the countryside means thatt ransportation is mainly done in the traditional way - Fluvial and maritime transportation through barges and boats. Between the cities, abandoned smaller towns, small settlements paying tribute to the bigger ones for protection, outlaws, farms, the jungle coming back, rivers, swamps, floodplains, etc.


My setting is pretty much envisaged as "post-apoc futuristic schizo-tech ancient greece in the brazilian amazon".

Anyway, my question is:

What conditions favour the development of city-states over other alternatives, and how to keep them that way for as long as possible?
 
This is not actually a alternate but Future History question for a TL I plan one day, but the conditions might seem similar so I'm rolling with it.

So, I have this setting where:

- There's a oil peak collapse followed by a "dim age" from the late 21th century until the early 23th century. That's another story, actually.
- The "Dim Age" is followed by a "Atom Age" where the world is powered by atomic power of all sorts and human presence in the solar system is far greater than today.
- After that, NBC (mostly BC these days) war after a great conventional war. World is destroyed and shattered, your usual sci-fi post-apoc fare.
- In the brazilian amazon, surviving settlements use their remaining technology and industry to create riverine and maritime city-states. Many exist in the site of pre-war cities (different but recognizable evolutions of current day cities like Belém, Barcarena, Manaus, etc), others in new sites.
- Destruction of transportation infraestructure and increasing danger in the countryside means thatt ransportation is mainly done in the traditional way - Fluvial and maritime transportation through barges and boats. Between the cities, abandoned smaller towns, small settlements paying tribute to the bigger ones for protection, outlaws, farms, the jungle coming back, rivers, swamps, floodplains, etc.


My setting is pretty much envisaged as "post-apoc futuristic schizo-tech ancient greece in the brazilian amazon".

Anyway, my question is:

What conditions favour the development of city-states over other alternatives, and how to keep them that way for as long as possible?

Venice being the obvious exception, city states have tended (almost exclusively) to flourish around certain geo-strategic patterns, principally defensive hilltop communities in lands with discrete fertile lands (usually in scarcity, Italy being obvious exception but still discrete) separated by either mountains/ranges or otherwise inhospitable lands with choke points.

Hilltops seem like a simple concept, replaceable by any alternative 'defensible' position except that forgets 2 things; farmers and eyesight. Hilltops don't just act as a citadel, they also allow those communities to spread out into the fertile lands, work them, and still be able to see/warn the workers about impending raiders. If you want more than subsistence level, you'll need to work those fields AND protect those workers, and barring technological advances that means hilltops.

So, then the pockets of fertile land tend to be dominated by individual communities (not always cities; Scottish highland/Japanese clans or alpine cantons can also evolve along similar lines) and the inhospitable lands between those areas discourages sustainable hegemonic expansions and arguably makes the juice not worth the squeeze. So, diverse communities, diverse social/political structures tends to reinforce a median level political identity which then also tends to add to the difficulty in expansions. So self-perpetuating reinforcements.

And lastly, while some areas are naturally going to be more fertile or more defensible or more easily incorporated with others, there's a general levelled playing field meaning that although human nature means some states will seek to become expansive, those will generally be localized and ephemeral...though the attempts will be naturally constant, thus developing a decisive (almost exclusively infantry based) martial culture and the only real long term existential threats will be external, leading to the last part of the pattern; constant but largely inconclusive warfare when not facing external threat but unification in the face of those significant enough.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
absence of unified large plain / river valley civilization nearby ?

large plain / river valley usually unified if there are strong leader, presence of such civilization nearby could suppress/destroy nearby independent settlements.

massive advantage in defensive technologies ?
decline in transportation / logistics tech ?
low maintenance maritime tech that encourage piracy ?
 

Oceano

Banned
Venice being the obvious exception, city states have tended (almost exclusively) to flourish around certain geo-strategic patterns, principally defensive hilltop communities in lands with discrete fertile lands (usually in scarcity, Italy being obvious exception but still discrete) separated by either mountains/ranges or otherwise inhospitable lands with choke points.

Hmmm... I need to study the local geography, then.
I know for a fact that Belém has hill-areas, althrough the original city was built in a low area, it expanded into a small hill, and then again into the low riverside areas and swamps.
Ground here is pretty level as rule, but that might be perception bias.

(heh, but the Belém site off-the-tables for a while. I want it to be a big ruin beset by gangs of scavs with a few settlements in strategic places, for a good while)

Could islands and/or jungles substitute the mountains and hills? Top of a big forest tree seems like a good place for watching from afar, especially if the forest eventually ends into a plain or the like? There are also lots of islands here, big and small.

Hilltops seem like a simple concept, replaceable by any alternative 'defensible' position except that forgets 2 things; farmers and eyesight. Hilltops don't just act as a citadel, they also allow those communities to spread out into the fertile lands, work them, and still be able to see/warn the workers about impending raiders. If you want more than subsistence level, you'll need to work those fields AND protect those workers, and barring technological advances that means hilltops.

Interesting!

So, then the pockets of fertile land tend to be dominated by individual communities (not always cities; Scottish highland/Japanese clans or alpine cantons can also evolve along similar lines) and the inhospitable lands between those areas discourages sustainable hegemonic expansions and arguably makes the juice not worth the squeeze. So, diverse communities, diverse social/political structures tends to reinforce a median level political identity which then also tends to add to the difficulty in expansions. So self-perpetuating reinforcements.

So my scenario of city-states in the shore surrounded by jungle, water and smaller towns, with the hinterland being dominated by tribes, nomads and coroneis is plausible?

And lastly, while some areas are naturally going to be more fertile or more defensible or more easily incorporated with others, there's a general levelled playing field meaning that although human nature means some states will seek to become expansive, those will generally be localized and ephemeral...though the attempts will be naturally constant, thus developing a decisive (almost exclusively infantry based) martial culture and the only real long term existential threats will be external, leading to the last part of the pattern; constant but largely inconclusive warfare when not facing external threat but unification in the face of those significant enough

So big conqueror states will tend to collapse?
Why infantry-based? City-states aren't good for cavalry?

absence of unified large plain / river valley civilization nearby ?

large plain / river valley usually unified if there are strong leader, presence of such civilization nearby could suppress/destroy nearby independent settlements.

massive advantage in defensive technologies ?
decline in transportation / logistics tech ?
low maintenance maritime tech that encourage piracy ?

Hmmmm... I need to check my docs, but seems yes.

Piracy is good for city-states?
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Not always good, the question is how 'expensive' building a fleet or securing certain sea line.

If it is 'too expensive', only major state with good port, large forest for lumber, iron mine and large population dominate the sea. In such condition, major state will control the sea and trade, forcing city states to join for trade and protection.

If it is 'too cheap', any small village of several hundred people could build ship for piracy and raiding, sea lane would be extremely unsafe, thus city-state size would be limited by nearby food producing region and no profit could be gathered for trade.

Ideally, you want that only 'city' sized states could build and equip good fleet, thus make trade, alliance and war between city-states possible, while making it difficult for any one to become 'conqueror' and dominating sea lane.
 

Oceano

Banned
My original plans included a lot of naval and fluvial combat and such. Of course, fleet is relative - indian canoes, galleys, sailships, biofuel-powered motorboats, with the biggest ships built by the most powerful city-states eventually being something like those:

maxresdefault.jpg

But transporting angry dudes with axes, machates, crossbows and guns instead. Or with metal armor and machineguns instead of windows.

I can see early fluvial/naval combat being a lot like medieval naval combat - pretty much transport, and boarding. Land Battle in the Waters!

I actually want some piracy, because to this day we have problems with Ratos D'Agua (literally "Water Rats"), pirates who rob ships and attack coastal villages.

As for tech, I was thinking a mix of pre and gunpowder weapons. The staple is Machete & Crossbow, but spears, indian bows, slings, spear-throwners, air guns, pistols and rifles, and even some science-fictional stuff are used, depending on the tech and wealth level of the locale. Machineguns and explosives are rare and worth their weight in gold. Even in gunpowder-using places, bullets run out, so melee combat is common, especially deep in the jungle.

Cannon might eventually become used, mainly for naval combat and city-combat. But it will probably take a century or two, at least. Are cannon the city-state killer or the stuff I heard around here overstated?
 
Last edited:

PhilippeO

Banned
building factory to maintain supply of powder might be difficult, it can be done, several city in Germany famous for their guns production and in Japan Sakai near Osaka, but it generally favor bigger state who can maintain larger factory. one of European advantage in Asia is that asian states prefer to buy gunpowder. one of TL here also has discussion about early US difficulty in maintaining powder supply during wars. One of Oda Nobunaga long war with Azai-Azakura is about controlling gunpowder factory if i not misremembered.

widespread crossbows use, which need iron/steel foundry and many blacksmith might make smaller pirate village outcompeted.

Cannon effectively make city/castle wall useless, if you want neo-medieval TL then no cannon. Like gunpowder factory, cannon production might favor bigger states.

I advocate Exalted RPG solution, there are natural firepowder who can be mined. This make its mining not factory production.
 

Oceano

Banned
What about guncotton? Maranhão nearby is a good producer of cotton.

No cannon? Damn, the image was cool. Maybe it wastes too much powder? Aren't there fortifications able to withstand cannon attacks, like Star Fortresses?
What about catapults, ballista and rockets?
 
If you look at historical 'city states', they're beholden to their neighbours thinking they're TOO USEFUL, TOO EXPENSIVE or TOO RICH to grab. Former fits those ancient Adriatic ports until the 'Young Turks' pulled an 'Ethnic Cleanse' and drove the non-Turks out, along with their little fishing boats and nimble trading ships. The many hill-top city-states scattered across what's now Italy were untouchable barring betrayal or artillery. Latter fits Venice, who could afford good soldiers and a scary navy...

Hong Kong is a modern example, complete with Chinese take-over. I'm not sure how Singapore fits into my gross simplification...

Where would you put such in a future, post-apocalyptic South America ??

Well, I'd start by looking at Tepuis, aka 'Islands in the Sky'...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tepui
Technically, they're mega-mesas, riddled by caves with assorted natural defences including perpetual streams, sink-holes etc. You could literally lose a Medieval army into their sub-storey...
 
A bit aspect to look into is the typical requirements of a civilisation, but for a city state specifically, you want to look at an area that is easy to defend with a small number of people (relatively), but protects just enough land for the city itself. Hinterland isn't always defensible (looking at you Thessaly). It the land that is easily protected is too large, the city state becomes more like the Roman Republic, or Macedonia than any League.

If you're looking at the Amazon, you have the best thing in the world, islands. Medium sized islands could be the heart of a number of city states - easily defended by a few boats, limited space so it doesn't become more than a city state, and good resources.

Alternatively, river bends and cliffs will also do the job. The idea of a Amazonian Acropolis that has a harbor bolted to the base of the cliff is a fun image.

But yeah, take a look at Greece, Italy, the Pueblo, Phoenicians, Arabs, the Mayans (actually, probably the best to look at with reference to Jungle-based city states), and the Mexica.

Just a brief run of some obvious examples

Mexica - Lake Tenochtitlan anyone?
Pueblo - Literally had cities in the cliffs, like the Nabatean Arabs in Petra (re-purposing collapsed infrastructure could work the same way, especially if there had been skyscrapers previously).
Carthage was basically a peninsula like Byzantion/Constantinople.
Greece - Narrow valley after narrow valley after narrow valley. These are a city-states friend.

But all of them create different character.

They key thing is as mentioned by others, make it easy to become wealthy, but hard to overpower another city state. Coalitions/Leagues over empires. River trade is a perfect example, especially if you have "river gates"
 
Top