The City of Melekhir

[Texas Jake]

Wingshaw,

Rereading your comments and I agree my slums may be a bit too ordered in layout. I also wanted to say that you did provide a lot of usual information in your critique which I will be considering. I didn't want to leave the impression with my initial response that I was dismissing the information that you presented. I was merely explaining how I arrived at the decisions I have made in the construction of the map and explaining what I have discovered in my research to led me to my conclusions.

Edit: After rereading I got much more information from your comments. First time I read it was right after I got up and hadn't had my coffee. I went back and forth between the crowded apartments and one story shacks and decided on the shacks. Your suggestion of the crowded apartments is certainly valid and probably the better solution. Still digesting your comments and looking at my map and considering what changes I may make or valid reason things are as they are now. Good food for thought. Thanks again for the critique. I do want to make a map that is plausible.

[Wingshaw]

Well, I must say, your response is quite comprehensive.

I'm glad that you have given so much thought to how your city has come to look the way that it has. I have seen time and time again that map-makers - especially those from America and Australia, like myself - are prone to making cities that resemble the places they are from (low-density suburb- and car-oriented modern metropolises), while aiming to create something that matches the medieval-fantasy idyll of historic Europe. At the end of the day - in my opinion at least - it isn't important whether the city is 'realistic' or not, as long as there's a good reason for the decisions that have been made

As it happens, I have studied the history of cities for many years, worked as an urban planner, and wrote my university dissertation on the uses of space and built form in early-modern London. I fancy I have quite a wide breadth of knowledge on urban history, and I am happy to share my knowledge with city cartographers here on the Guild. If there's anything you want to know, just ask; I'll answer if I'm able

Wingshaw

[Texas Jake]

Wingshaw,

Your comments and critique are most welcome.

[Texas Jake]

Wingshaw,

Something I have been wondering about after doing research of medieval cities and I would be interested in hearing your comments. What we know of European medieval cities is based on maps that have survived from the era, references from writings, archaeological digs and structures/city districts that have survived intact. I have begun to wonder how complete a picture this data gives us of what these cities were like and how much of their true character remains hidden. My reasons for this I will list below.

1) We do not know the accuracy of the maps and how much some of them may lean towards caricature instead of accuracy. Some, of course, are more trustworthy than others.
2) The areas of cities that survive would be the more substantial structures. Certainly the more ramshackle ones would have been demolished as the city matured. This being true, we have limited knowledge of what these lesser quality structures were like and what percent of the city consisted of this structures.
3) The references in writings from the time were limited. the authors were generally writing to an audience who knew the places, so the authors put little effort into detailed descriptions.
4) Archaeological digs are limited to areas you have access to, therefore I would think in most urban areas you would not have a great deal of opportunity to gather data because of lack of access.

I am curious to hear what someone much more knowledgeable than myself on the subject thinks about my assumptions. I am always eager to learn.

[Wingshaw]

Texas Jake, you make some good points, but I think we know more about historic cities than you'd expect.

NOTE: I began writing an essay to answer your question, but I ran out of time so I'm going to make this quick...

The best way to understand a historic city (or, at least, a European one) isn't through historic maps, writings or archaeological work. It's through simple observation of the city as it exists today. The street pattern of medieval towns doesn't tend to change very much, and the general plot boundaries also tend to follow the same patterns as they always did. You're right that some elements may be obscured by the passage of time (slums have a tendency to be cleared away, but then 'slums' weren't really a thing before the Industrial Revolution anyway), but in many towns you can still see the same buildings - ranging from palaces and cathedrals to ordinary housing - as you would have seen 300+ years ago. This isn't quite as true of the UK, it should be noted. British cities have suffered much more from post-Industrial redevelopment than Continental European cities. Even cities that were blown to bits during WWI and WWII have returned to something similar to their pre-war patterns.

Regarding historic maps: maps of cities became popular in the 16th and 17th centuries (eg Braun & Hogenberg's Civitates Orbis Terrarum), and you're right that they range from layout oriented (eg. London) to more illustration-esque (eg. Copenhagen). However, they can still be used to identify features that were present at the time (eg church spires), to see patterns of expansion/growth, and to get a sense of the urban fabric that existed in that period. What matters most with the maps is the extent to which they can reinforce the information being gathered from the current street/plot/building fabric.

Regarding writings of the time: well, on this matter I'm less knowledgeable. I focused my dissertation on the analysis of historic maps, rather than documents. I could mention, however, that historic writings by residents of a city about the city are not the only type of document that can be used. There are also the writings of travellers (eg British travellers in the 18th century wrote about their experiences in Italy and Greece for the enjoyment of the British public, back home), and administrative documents (eg. wills, taxes, diaries).

Regarding archaeology: yes, this is insanely difficult and expensive. But, unless the city has had periods without any occupation, urban archaeology isn't especially important for understanding the city's layout - especially considering that urban archaeology tends to look at one site, rather than an entire urban area. Urban archaeology, when conducted, is great at giving insights into how people lived, but it isn't the best way to understand how the city came to be shaped.

Hope that helps to answer some of your questions.

Wingshaw

[Texas Jake]

Thank you for the reply, Wingshaw.

I have been re-looking at old maps and at present day Rothenburg as I consider how I want to revise and proceed with my map. My courtyards tend to be larger than what I am seeing in Rothenburg, though some of the old maps have larger courtyard spaces comparable to my map. My layout tends toward order more than the loosely-ordered, chaotic nature I am seeing in most cities. Form my study of maps, I see a pattern of the inclusion of farming land inside the walls along the perimeter of many walled cities. This seems to becomes less common as we approach the 1700s.

Where I am in my thought process:
-Even though the city is relatively old, it is far from at the end stages of urbanization. The massive expansion during the reign of King Melek and wars and plagues that have kept population growth in check have prevented the city from reaching the crowding levels of cities like Jerusalem or London in the later stages of the middle ages.
-I plan on tweaking what I have done to add a little more chaotic nature to the construction and replace some of the single family/lower class housing with multifamily structures. The slum areas will be a mix of single and multi-family units with the majority being the larger buildings. I also want to insert a major dose of chaos into the layout of these areas, retaining more of a sense of order in the more upscale districts.
-I am still considering how and to what degree the influence of King Melek had on the development of the city. The fire that destroyed much of the city had a great impact on him. He was fourteen years old at the time and very impressionable combined with the uninhibited nature of youth which caused him to consider and do things that an older, King would not. Much of the city was rebuilt and he closely monitored this rebuilding. He was determined to do all he could to prevent another such calamity. This certainly would influence how the city developed during his long (close to 100 year) reign in the early-middle period of the city.

[Wingshaw]

Sounds like you've got a lot of promising ideas in there, Jake. If I may, I'd urge a small amount of caution in some regards:

- I like that you are including intra-mural farmland. As you have correctly noticed, many cities include this on their outer edges. This is because most houses in a medieval European town would have had a backyard that was used for small-scale farming, workshop, or both. As the land became more valuable, those would be converted into rental houses/shops with increasing frequency (I think I wrote this down in my earlier comment, too). Naturally, the central parts of town are the more valuable real estate, so they would convert their yards first.
- you want to add more chaos to the poorer districts: I'd recommend you steer clear of 'spaghetti' streets. It's a common mistake in city mapping, and it is neither historically realistic or (in my opinion, at least) visually appealing. Instead, I'd advise you to add chaos in the form of narrower streets, courtyards and backyards with more buildings in them etc. Going for right-angled dogleg streets is also a better solution than 'spaghetti'.
- regarding Melek's reconstruction, I'll just point out that many rulers in real-world history sought to redesign cities, and pretty much all of them stuck to the same formula: wide, straight avenues that link prominent landmarks and monuments, formal arrangements and layouts, etc. (eg Baron Haussman's design of Paris, Pope Sixtus' designs of Rome, Wren's designs for London - not all of these were ultimately realised).
- lastly, some of the grand plans of some of the above rulers were for practical reasons, too: Haussman's redesigns of Paris were post-Revolution, and he was building a city that would allow the government to fire cannons down the boulevards (or that's the version I've heard, at least). You could consider that when thinking about fire prevention measures.

Wingshaw

[Texas Jake]

The chaos it was planning to injecting was in the form of more haphazard building, concentration on the structures and not so much the streets. More odd angle ubutments and things like that.

[Rochnan]

- lastly, some of the grand plans of some of the above rulers were for practical reasons, too: Haussman's redesigns of Paris were post-Revolution, and he was building a city that would allow the government to fire cannons down the boulevards (or that's the version I've heard, at least). You could consider that when thinking about fire prevention measures.

Basically, it boils down to needs that are attempted to be met, doesn't it? That's the thing I'm taking away from your (excellent and well-informed) advice.

[Falconius]

Not assuming that all of the big buildings are rich folks I have to assume that some of them are, and what I don't get is why they seem to be building cramped, but those with less means have a fair amount of green space? For instance why wouldn't one of those guys with a mansion just buy up a bunch of the smaller properties and build a big place with a bunch of land around it? The neighborhoods seem too stark in the differences from just across the road to another, there's no blending one would expect to see.

I do like how its coming along.