If you were sent back in time, would you live in a Capital?

[Q99]

So I was going over some ancient history and I got to thinking- if you were plunked down in some ancient kingdom or empire, totally at random, with your main choice being 'do you want to live in the capital or some other town or city?' which would you pick?


Because on the one hand, the capitals tended to be where the wealth and prosperity flowed, but on the other hand, they seemed to be sacked and burned a loooot, and many of the famous massacres were capitals. Nor was being a powerful empire all that much protection in the long run- we don't even know where Akkard (of the Akkardian Empire) or Washukanni (Mitanni) were!

So sure, if you're lucky you get a Memphis (though even that was sacked and looted on a number of occasions) or Rome that stays around for a long time, but if things go south, things aim right at the capital.


So, your thoughts?

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

Ancient cities were hives of vermin and disease and the streets were covered in horseshit and human waste thrown out in buckets.

Being in a city means a painful death from disease, so I'd be pushing the leaders to implement sewer systems and sterilizing fucking every surface possible. That and producing guns.

I don't know what I'm doing in the past but I'm sure everything will be boiled and I'll be trying to build guns one way or the other, invasion isn't a worry since my city will be the one doing the invading.

 

[Q99]

Ancient cities were hives of vermin and disease and the streets were covered in horseshit and human waste thrown out in buckets.

Being in a city means a painful death from disease, so I'd be pushing the leaders to implement sewer systems and sterilizing fucking every surface possible. That and producing guns.

I don't know what I'm doing in the past but I'm sure everything will be boiled and I'll be trying to build guns one way or the other, invasion isn't a worry since my city will be the one doing the invading.

Click to shrink...

Good point, a lot of them are pretty disease-y, though how much can vary a fair amount.

Which reminds me, if I had to chose one rather than going random, high on the list? Indus River Valley civilization. They had some trade with Sumeria and Babylon, seemed to think, "Wow, those cities are awesome!.... eeeexcept for how gross they smell," and then proceeded to make all their cities with fantastic sewer systems.


(Also this isn't a 'what modern stuff can you add back then,' isekai type thing, just a 'which would you prefer to live'. Assume you live in a past-y type fashion)

 

[SeptimusMagisto]

Capitals are just better remembered for being sacked. Other places got sacked a lot.

 

[Memphet'ran]

IIRC, for most of civilization's history cities were demographic sinks; all those humans crowded together plus primitive sanitation meant disease spread like wildfire, enough that it killed people faster than they reproduced, and cities were sustained by a steady trickle of immigration from the countryside.

So I think if I had to live anytime before 1900 or so I'd rather live in a rural area. Especially if it was a "teleported to some ancient kingdom" scenario where I'd have a naive immune system used to our nice, clean world.

On the other hand, the fact that cities got that significant trickle of immigration that sustained them suggests they had significant "pull" factors that attracted immigrants to them (I imagine roughly the same ones they have now; more opportunities, more fun things to do, and a better chance of meeting like-minded people if you're any kind of nonconformist). Lots of people apparently decided living in a city was worth the additional disease risk. Then again, a lot of those people might not really have been making an informed choice; it's not like ancient kingdoms had publicly posted mortality statistics.

 

[Cosar]

I don't think the statement that capitals got sacked more really holds up. Many famous sacks we're of capitals, but they're famous because sacking a capital/eponymous city is pretty much always noteworthy, usually because it is a culmination of a large campaign and often marks the end of the empire. Meanwhile other cities can be sacked and not be as critical, and being on borders often we're sacked by outside enemies first.

And non-city areas didn't have it better, as devastating them was largely an assumed part of war.

The key is probably to try and be close to the interior of the realm, as those will hopefully see less conflict, but maybe avoid the capital itself due to sanitary concerns. Of course the bigger issue would be providing for yourself, which neither option really seems to help with.

 

[Q99]

I don't think the statement that capitals got sacked more really holds up. Many famous sacks we're of capitals, but they're famous because sacking a capital/eponymous city is pretty much always noteworthy, usually because it is a culmination of a large campaign and often marks the end of the empire. Meanwhile other cities can be sacked and not be as critical, and being on borders often we're sacked by outside enemies first.

And non-city areas didn't have it better, as devastating them was largely an assumed part of war.

The key is probably to try and be close to the interior of the realm, as those will hopefully see less conflict, but maybe avoid the capital itself due to sanitary concerns. Of course the bigger issue would be providing for yourself, which neither option really seems to help with.

Click to shrink...

Yea, selection bias. Though I would expect some bullseye factor too- the enemy is more likely to have specific beef with the king and capital, and then rather than a sacking for plunder you could have full-on vengeance.

Like, border cities probably have it a good deal worse, but I still wouldn't bet on capitals being the best even out of cities.

 

[Cosar]

Yea, selection bias. Though I would expect some bullseye factor too- the enemy is more likely to have specific beef with the king and capital, and then rather than a sacking for plunder you could have full-on vengeance.

Like, border cities probably have it a good deal worse, but I still wouldn't bet on capitals being the best even out of cities.

Click to shrink...

If someone really wants vengeance against a ruler then they're most likely also going to be hitting every town and city on their way to them. They're not going to be able to not ravage the countryside at least, and looting smaller cities on the way is going to be almost impossible to stop.

Now, there are ways around this, say with a large Empire like Rome, but in that case if the center is actively being threatened then things have probably already gotten pretty bad in the periphery: during the Empire period Rome was sacked when there were large armies moving through basically the rest of the possibly territory almost at will. And at that point it doesn't really matter where you are except luck.

 

[Estro]

Depends on the country and time period, honestly. Like, a lot.

 

[Q99]

If someone really wants vengeance against a ruler then they're most likely also going to be hitting every town and city on their way to them. They're not going to be able to not ravage the countryside at least, and looting smaller cities on the way is going to be almost impossible to stop.

Now, there are ways around this, say with a large Empire like Rome, but in that case if the center is actively being threatened then things have probably already gotten pretty bad in the periphery: during the Empire period Rome was sacked when there were large armies moving through basically the rest of the possibly territory almost at will. And at that point it doesn't really matter where you are except luck.

Click to shrink...

There's target priority, though, and once you take the capital the rest often falls in line. The thing that did inspire me to write this is reading a fair amount of Bronze Age history and several occasions where 'and while they were occupied with X, other group came and burned the capital,' or 'after awhile of fighting, X won and made special point of obliterating the capital,' or 'the capital fell, and the rest was conquered.' Sure, they'll hit targets of opportunity on the way, but the capital being the capital, it's where get aimed for and where things are most thorough. It's also the one most likely to be subject to a long siege (in that it can hold out for a time) and the end of a long siege is often when things get bloodiest.

Akkard, Capital of the Akkardian Empire, was destroyed completely and that area was full of city states that were around for millennia plus after, it was singled out for special treatment. Or the time the Hittites went all the way across Mesopotamia to sack Babylon specifically (and if you were further east of Babylon? You were safe). Or Carthage being salted- not the empire, the rest was absorbed, just Carthage the city itself.

Target of opportunity vs 'we beat this particular city and we win. This is the crown. This is the "We win" button. Or at least the place with the best loot'


As has been said, possible selection bias in important enough to write down, but active rivals have a reason to bias targeting them when possible too. Instances of capitals being obliterated outdo the number of instances of entire empires and all their cities being gone. The capital gets to be the object lesson.

It may have been the Bronze Age specifically was a bad time for capitals- smaller empires meant they were more in reach.