Random Worldbuilding Questions (Biology, Geography, Society, etc.)

[Ksheep]

However crossbows were the mass produced versions of bows. Relatively cheap and easy to make compared to the year or years it might take to make a good bow, and could hold up in rain fine. It also took less skill to use.

I thought crossbows were slightly more labor intensive to make (depending on what style) compared to bows, but were so easy to use that an untrained conscript could use it intuitively, whereas archers required years of training to become any good. And yes, I can see how some types of bow might be more difficult to make (compound bows and composite recurve bows, for instance) but other bows would be fairly straightforward, such as the longbow.

Relevant passage:

Because the longbow can be made from a single piece of wood, it can be crafted relatively easily and quickly. Amateur bowyers today can make a longbow in about ten to twenty hours, while highly skilled bowyers, such as those who produced medieval English longbows, can make wooden longbows in just a few hours.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

I thought crossbows were slightly more labor intensive to make (depending on what style) compared to bows, but were so easy to use that an untrained conscript could use it intuitively, whereas archers required years of training to become any good. And yes, I can see how some types of bow might be more difficult to make (compound bows and composite recurve bows, for instance) but other bows would be fairly straightforward, such as the longbow.

We have the lackering technology to make the right kind of bow, and different materials than what they had. The traditional construction of a longbow consists of drying the yew wood for 1 to 2 years, then slowly working the wood into shape, with the entire process taking up to four years. It was easy to make a bad bow, yes, but it wouldn't last very long, or be extremely accurate. Crossbows also take a bit to make, but not 1 to 4 years.

[Conners]

Weren't crossbows far more expensive to make? I hear their construction is very impressive, involving glue they make out of fish and that sort of thing.

[fusilier]

Electric cars are as old as gasoline powered cars. Use was limited to in city, but they're not much different in terms of mileage compared to most modern pure electric vehicles. However without gasoline engines to compete with them, maybe there would have been more impetus to their development.

Firearms predate the industrial revolution, and I see no particular reason why their development would be stunted. Rifles existed as early as the late 1400s. Guns can be produced in sufficiently large numbers without heavy industry, and were basically made that way until the late 1800s (at which point electrical power could come into play).

[Spiryt]

We have the lackering technology to make the right kind of bow, and different materials than what they had. The traditional construction of a longbow consists of drying the yew wood for 1 to 2 years, then slowly working the wood into shape, with the entire process taking up to four years. It was easy to make a bad bow, yes, but it wouldn't last very long, or be extremely accurate. Crossbows also take a bit to make, but not 1 to 4 years.

I don't really think it's so... People today make excellent selfbow in weeks, not years.

If one is drying the wood for 2 years, it just means he doesn't have proper conditions for drying wood.

They were pretty much mass produced trough the centuries, causing the yew to be pretty endangered tree all over the Europe today.


Crossbow, on the other hand required -

Glues, horn, sinew, good wood, and careful shaping of it's all in case of composite technology

Steel, furnace, forging, quenching, annealing and all other stuff required to make steel prod

Or proper yew/other wood staff if making the prod selfbow, sometimes laminate too. Popular up to the middle of 13th century roughly, before composite and steel had taken over.

And then comes the stock, tying/binding bow to it, release mechanism and so on.

Final price was pretty much always ending being few times greater than that of a bow since ~ 1300

In first half of 14th century in England, bow cost was around 9 pennies, compared to 25 to 50 of crossbow, depending on it's "size". Compared to 24 for pig and 115 for cow, it wasn't all that cheap.

In Poland around the break of 14th and 15th century, bow cost was about 8 grosz'es compared to 60 to 120 of crossbow - and around 140 for cheap visored bascinet.

[Yora]

Weren't crossbows far more expensive to make? I hear their construction is very impressive, involving glue they make out of fish and that sort of thing.

I don't think so. It probably is even easier, since all the really complicated stuff is in the pulling arms. The "rifle stock" really is just a block of wood to keep the other pieces in place, and the trigger can be as simple as a single piece of iron or metal. However, since crossbows have shorter arms than bows, it would be a lot easier to glue 60cm pieces of wood and other materials together without making a mistake, than doing it on 180cm pieces. And even when you make one mistake, you still get two good crowbow arms and have to throw away just one, while on a compoiste bow the whole work was for naught.

[Conners]

What about Spiryt's point about prices?

[TheWombatOfDoom]

I don't really think it's so... People today make excellent selfbow in weeks, not years.

If one is drying the wood for 2 years, it just means he doesn't have proper conditions for drying wood.

They were pretty much mass produced trough the centuries, causing the yew to be pretty endangered tree all over the Europe today.


Crossbow, on the other hand required -

Glues, horn, sinew, good wood, and careful shaping of it's all in case of composite technology

Steel, furnace, forging, quenching, annealing and all other stuff required to make steel prod

Or proper yew/other wood staff if making the prod selfbow, sometimes laminate too. Popular up to the middle of 13th century roughly, before composite and steel had taken over.

And then comes the stock, tying/binding bow to it, release mechanism and so on.

Final price was pretty much always ending being few times greater than that of a bow since ~ 1300

In first half of 14th century in England, bow cost was around 9 pennies, compared to 25 to 50 of crossbow, depending on it's "size". Compared to 24 for pig and 115 for cow, it wasn't all that cheap.

In Poland around the break of 14th and 15th century, bow cost was about 8 grosz'es compared to 60 to 120 of crossbow - and around 140 for cheap visored bascinet.

Self bows and english longbows are completely different things. Self bows are quick and easy to make. If you're good enough you could make it in a day or two. To have a better range it had to be the height of the archer, or rather - have a long draw. The thing to look for here is grain going along the bow and straight, and denser the wood the better, because it can make the bow thinner and be less effort to use. Woods like hickory, ash, elm and oak would qualify for this. Bows like this would generally be used by infantry.

Composite bows were made from horn, sinew and laminated wood. This combination allowed for more energy, thus making the shot stronger than the selfbow, and the range farther. However, these ingrediants are sensative to moisture and the laminating process took time to make (several months). Due to its smaller size, these bows were often used by more mobile troops such as scouts or mounted units.

Longbows are made from yew and boxwood, and are the ones that take drying the wood (which bow makers would have had a store of) for a year or two. Quickly dried wood could make the bow weaker. The shaping the wood takes a long process, as I mentioned earlier. The process itself makes the bow stronger than the self bow, and is able to be drawn farther back without damage to the bow. This causes it to have a farther range, thus giving the bow its name - long (can shoot up to 400 yards). Long bows are also difficult to master due to the hardness of drawing it back and firing acurately, and must be continually practiced. It can cause an arrow to pierce light armor, though full plate could defeat it (though full plate was costly and so, rare in the common soldier). To weather proof the long bow, they covered it in wax.

Crossbows depended on size for many things. The smaller the cheaper/easier to make/easier to use.

Heavy crossbows were the most expensive of the crossbows, as they had metal in place of wood to reinforce it, and usually required a mechanism to reload as they were too heavily strung to pull by hand. However hand crossbows were cheap to make (as they weren't composited like their heavier brothers), and could be placed in anyone's hands, even a peasant's. In fact, there are accounts of wagon forts that were used as defensive positions that they filled full of peasants with handcrossbows that were highly effective. Crossbows had many parts to them, sure, but the process to put them together was fairly simple once you had them. Often the individual parts were mass produced and then put together by an individual to save time, where as all the elements were made by one specialist with bows. Just because more elements were involved doesn't mean it was necessarily more expensive. Self bows were usually cheaper, but hand crossbows likely were less costly than self. I can't quote numbers (not sure where you got yours, and I'm not really keen on researching more than I know at the moment) so I'll have to differ to you on that. But I'd still say that longbows were more expensive than the average crossbow. Short bows less. Composite somewhere inbetween.

Rate of fire between the two weapons are something to note as well. It was recommended that rate of fire for a bow was six arrows per minute so as not to wear out a bow. Crossbows would have been less than that, but for different reasons - loading the weapon too longer. Often there would be teams of two with heavy crossbows - one to load while the other fired, and then switch the weapons out each shot.

[Spiryt]

*snip*

Crossbows depended on size for many things. The smaller the cheaper/easier to make/easier to use.

I'm not sure what's the point of it all.

Longbows in Europe were selfbows pretty much by definition, particularly no mentions of english bows being laminate of some woods.

Self bows and english longbows are completely different thing

This is complete nonsense, sorry - no way to put it differently.

English warbows were longbows - by modern definition "long" full compass, D-sectioned self bows - so risen from one piece of wood.

Something that is a selfbow cannot be "completely different" thing than.... selfbow.

This causes it to have a farther range, thus giving the bow its name - long (can shoot up to 400 yards). Long bows are also difficult to master due to the hardness of drawing it back and firing acurately, and must be continually practiced. It can cause an arrow to pierce light armor, though full plate could defeat it (though full plate was costly and so, rare in the common soldier).

This is mostly English bow mythology.

English bows were selfbows, as mentioned, "strength" depends on bow draw weight, draw lenght, and careful construction as much in English longbow, like in any other longbow, flatbow, or generally selfbows everywhere and anytime.

never heard of medieval bows out of boxwood too, although I guess that some Victorian era one could be easily made out of it. English people had easy access to interesting timber from all around the globe, from obvious reasons.

Quickly dried wood could make the bow weaker. The shaping the wood takes a long process, as I mentioned earlier.

There's no such effect at all.

Quickly drying the bow, and shaping it too violently/quickly or with improper humidity could cause it to take too much set/snap and generally get ruined.

If drying and general 'teaching' the bow it's shape is done correctly bow will be as strong as intended.

It's the same story with longbow, any other bow and crossbow as well.

There's no need for it to take 2 years, and there was nothing special about English longbows compared to any other weapons.

Clunky bows could in fact happen more often, due to sheer demand of English archers (thousands and thousands of them, and bows get damaged/lost and so on).

However hand crossbows were cheap to make (as they weren't composited like their heavier brothers), and could be placed in anyone's hands, even a peasant's. In fact, there are accounts of wagon forts that were used as defensive positions that they filled full of peasants with handcrossbows that were highly effective. Crossbows had many parts to them, sure, but the process to put them together was fairly simple once you had them. Often the individual parts were mass produced and then put together by an individual to save time, where as all the elements were made by one specialist with bows. Just because more elements were involved doesn't mean it was necessarily more expensive. Self bows were usually cheaper, but hand crossbows likely were less costly than self. I can't quote numbers (not sure where you got yours, and I'm not really keen on researching more than I know at the moment) so I'll have to differ to you on that. But I'd still say that longbows were more expensive than the average crossbow. Short bows less. Composite somewhere inbetween.

And those "hand" crossbows were mentioned in sources as "one foot crossbows" and were still relatively expensive.

Mass produced or not, simple or not, it was still rather expensive.

You need some sources that state that were some 'light' bows (spanned by belt claw or similar thing, I guess?) that were particularly cheap from some reason.

as they weren't composited like their heavier brothers)

I'm not really aware of any post ~ 1300 crossbows that weren't composite or steel, regardless of weight. Any examples? Yew or other woods were popular before, but not after.

This causes it to have a farther range, thus giving the bow its name - long (can shoot up to 400 yards).

The name of the bow is due to it's lenght, not any sort of range...

Modern record is 370 yards, for reference, although with flight arrow, most probably not suitable for battlefield.

Long bows are also difficult to master due to the hardness of drawing it back and firing acurately, and must be continually practiced.

Just like any heavy bow out there. Be it longbow, turkish composite, or whatever else.

Crossbows depended on size for many things. The smaller the cheaper/easier to make/easier to use.

There's no simple equation here like that at all.

Bigger crossbow with windlass or cranequin would could be generally way easier to use, as mounting the hooks and rolling the winch doesn't take any real effort, compared to actually generating a lot of dynamic force to span the bow with belt and hook, goat's foot or some other simple lever, and so on.

I don't think so. It probably is even easier, since all the really complicated stuff is in the pulling arms. The "rifle stock" really is just a block of wood to keep the other pieces in place, and the trigger can be as simple as a single piece of iron or metal.

Stocks weren't really all that easy, and even 'single piece of metal' must be quite carefully placed and constructed.

Mounting the bow on the end of the stock is also very important, because without symmetrical and secure mounting there's no way to achieve accurate shooting.

Furthermore, comparing composite crossbow to composite bows would even the prices quite considerably - but those bows weren't really popular in Europe, at least in medieval and Renaissance.

However, since crossbows have shorter arms than bows, it would be a lot easier to glue 60cm pieces of wood and other materials together without making a mistake, than doing it on 180cm pieces. And even when you make one mistake, you still get two good crowbow arms and have to throw away just one, while on a compoiste bow the whole work was for naught.

In making composite bows, lenght of material in general is really the last concern as far as "difficulty" goes. The were rarely 180 cm long, anyway.

If you make a mistake, the whole 'cost' of time, effort, materials etc. wasted is anyway much greater than wasting one piece of wood.

Other than that, raising 3 good staves out of one 6' piece of wood is highly improbable, one needs piece longer than final product - out of this staff, final bow will be carefully "excavated"

Crossbow staves have to be thicker for given lenght as well, and endure bigger stress.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Thanks for the information, spiryt.

Question of my own: If a creature has dark vision or low light vision, and they were in a lighted area, would they be able to see into a hooded cloak with no problem?

[Ksheep]

Thanks for the information, spiryt.

Question of my own: If a creature has dark vision or low light vision, and they were in a lighted area, would they be able to see into a hooded cloak with no problem?

That would depend on how it works. If they are able to "see" infrared via pit sensors (see: pit vipers), then they would probably be able to see just fine, depending on ambient temperature. However, if it was merely using a set of sensitive rods in the eye, then it probably wouldn't work, as the pupils would be contracted to adjust for ambient light levels.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

That would depend on how it works. If they are able to "see" infrared via pit sensors (see: pit vipers), then they would probably be able to see just fine, depending on ambient temperature. However, if it was merely using a set of sensitive rods in the eye, then it probably wouldn't work, as the pupils would be contracted to adjust for ambient light levels.

Thought so. It was the later. Thanks.

[Ksheep]

Actually, now that I think about it, I usually hear it described as dark vision being infrared and low-light being superb night vision, so you could base the decision on that. Of course, that doesn't take into account magical enhancements to vision, which could be just about anything depending on setting.

[Salbazier]

What kind of things need to be considered when building a city? To give better image, this is about a story/setting about a city founded in the middle of a desert as an exercise in power. The city would be filled with magically conjured water. I have blue lands in Ravnica for asthetic inspiration. Perhaps something like Venetia but with lake water for IRL reference.

What kind infrastructure needed to build in the beginning? What kind of people/human resource that would be most critical? What kind of trade/business/production it should build.

[Kalmageddon]

What kind of things need to be considered when building a city? To give better image, this is about a story/setting about a city founded in the middle of a desert as an exercise in power. The city would be filled with magically conjured water. I have blue lands in Ravnica for asthetic inspiration. Perhaps something like Venetia but with lake water for IRL reference.

What kind infrastructure needed to build in the beginning? What kind of people/human resource that would be most critical? What kind of trade/business/production it should build.

Well, Venice (my hometown) is built on water, literally. It doesn't have true fundations, instead it rests on sets of big wooden poles planted in the mud underneath. In a desert, assuming it's mostly sand, if you add lots of water it could create a similar circumstance, so you could use the same idea, making it rest on top of rows of tree trunks planted in the now-muddy desert.

[Beleriphon]

What kind of things need to be considered when building a city? To give better image, this is about a story/setting about a city founded in the middle of a desert as an exercise in power. The city would be filled with magically conjured water. I have blue lands in Ravnica for asthetic inspiration. Perhaps something like Venetia but with lake water for IRL reference.

What kind infrastructure needed to build in the beginning? What kind of people/human resource that would be most critical? What kind of trade/business/production it should build.

If you're going with a trade hub in the middle of desert running on an artificial oasis then all you need to do is look to any of the dozens of trade hubs along the Silk Road that ran through the Middle East for centuries. As generalities you're looking at some kind of guards for the town, places for caravans to hold over for a few days to resupply, store houses, and probably some kind of market place for trade.

The important consideration is what does the town/city do? Is it a stop over on a caravan trail? If so all it really needs is a supply of water, and some shelter for the caravans. If its a trading hub that means that many caravans coming from different destinations meet there and trade goods. If you want a good example of what those cities were check out any of the following from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_along_the_Silk_Road

As an aside Constantinople was in theory a big city in a desert like area. Sure it was on the ocean, but if you can magically conjure water it amounts to the same thing. So you might want to look at the history of Constantinople; or even Damascus as another trade city, this time situated on a major river.

Some of the first building to go up in a city are going to be homes and ways to protect resources. So you'd be looking at some kind of minimalist fortification around your water source. If its magic spells then you protect the guys that make water, if its an item you lock that way or otherwise protect that item.

If you have a massive water source in the middle of a desert then that's the trade item right there. All trade will ultimately spring (ha pun!) from that resource. You'll have potters making pots to carry water, you'll have innkeepers putting up travelers, and of course guards to protect the water sources.

[Zale]

So, I was looking into Fast Twitch Muscle Fibers.

What sort of ramifications would there be if a species had a more Fast Twitch than Slow Twitch Fibers?

Rather fast, but easily exhausted? Difficulties with sustained exertion?

[Wyntonian]

So, I was looking into Fast Twitch Muscle Fibers.

What sort of ramifications would there be if a species had a more Fast Twitch than Slow Twitch Fibers?

Rather fast, but easily exhausted? Difficulties with sustained exertion?

Better sprinting capabilities, probably more scary in close combat. They would be more likely to be either an ambush predator like a tiger or a non-herd herbivore, like a rabbit. They're less likely to be a herd animal like buffalo, or endurance predators like humans.

[Spiryt]

So, I was looking into Fast Twitch Muscle Fibers.

What sort of ramifications would there be if a species had a more Fast Twitch than Slow Twitch Fibers?

Rather fast, but easily exhausted? Difficulties with sustained exertion?

Pretty much.

You can compare different athletes - apart from all other preparations and adaptations, proportion of fast and slow fibers makes great difference.

[HeadlessMermaid]

As an aside Constantinople was in theory a big city in a desert like area. Sure it was on the ocean, but if you can magically conjure water it amounts to the same thing. So you might want to look at the history of Constantinople

There was never anything remotely desert-like around Constantinople. The area has a Mediterranean climate, but with a lot of humidity and a lot of rain. Hence, a whole lot of greenery. It's a very fertile region. (Also, it's on the Sea of Marmara, effectively connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, but it's not near any actual ocean. )

[Zale]

Pretty much.

You can compare different athletes - apart from all other preparations and adaptations, proportion of fast and slow fibers makes great difference.

Better sprinting capabilities, probably more scary in close combat. They would be more likely to be either an ambush predator like a tiger or a non-herd herbivore, like a rabbit. They're less likely to be a herd animal like buffalo, or endurance predators like humans.

Thanks. Now I just have to figure out how to convert that to D&D..

It'd be easier for something like GURPs. Striking ST.

[Salbazier]

@Kalmaggeddon

Ohh, that's sounds like a fantastic image. City on on top trees growing over lake in the middle of the desert. Not what I first though but this worth thinking over. Thanks.

@Beleriphon
Lots of good advice there. Thank you . Somehow it haven't occured to me to look up tohse desert cities.

[Beleriphon]

There was never anything remotely desert-like around Constantinople. The area has a Mediterranean climate, but with a lot of humidity and a lot of rain. Hence, a whole lot of greenery. It's a very fertile region. (Also, it's on the Sea of Marmara, effectively connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, but it's not near any actual ocean. )

Okay, fine Constantinople was a poor example, but there are plenty of other cities. Baghdad is in the middle of a desert, it just happens to sit in between the Euphrates and the Tigris as well. This is probably a better example of what a desert city can look like with an ample supply of water.

If you want to move outside of the Middle East you can look at Timbuktu.

[Conners]

Come to think of it, how much has the cost of weapons and armour changed throughout history, compared to the standard lower-class income?

This thread mentions the prices of several arms: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=26168

The question is... how much would a Frankish peasant, labourer, or serf make?

[Salbazier]

Hmm, any chance constantly conjuring a lakefull water in the middle of the desert affecting local climate somehow? What if the water is ice-cold?

Camel is the the best beast of burden for desert travel but how other animals like horse would fare?

What kind of food and textile crops can be planted? Wheat, palms, flax, maybe olive. Any other crops that good with desert climate?

[HeadlessMermaid]

Hmm, any chance constantly conjuring a lakefull water in the middle of the desert affecting local climate somehow? What if the water is ice-cold?

Well, I know that large bodies of water certainly affect micro-climate in their vicinity. Humidity rises, and the temperature usually drops a few degrees. I suppose you need winds to carry the vapors around and make a difference - but winds are nothing new in the desert. Other than that, I'm not sure what would happen.

But I know what wouldn't happen: gardens. The wettest sand can't support serious plant life, you need appropriate soil for that. Rivers work, because they carry along sediment (dirt and nutrients) from afar, and eventually you get fertile land around them. As is the case with the Nile, Tigris & Euphrates, or the-river-which-passes-through-Nigeria-and-the-forum-filter-mistakes-for-a-slur. () But pure water, without ingredients, wouldn't do the trick.


Also. Not sure if it fits your concept, but I've once used a "magnificent city, drenched in water, in the middle of the desert" by making it underground. Beneath the sand there was stone, and this stone was carved to make a huge, HUGE cave. Inside the cave there were springs of fresh water (lakes, canals and everything), and the stone is sculpted to form bridges, mansions, bazaars, supporting structure, air shafts, the works. In some places, soil had been dumped on the stone, and there were Hanging Gardens all over. And there was an elaborate water cycle - some water was magically conjured, but there was a lot of engineering, draining and recycling involved, too.

It was very handy, because it was very flexible. At any point, you could introduce strange tunnels, a previously unknown entrance/exit, or an entire secret level underneath. It was a metropolis, a dungeon, a labyrinth and Hogwarts at the same time.

If you like that idea, I'll gladly expand on it.

Camel is the the best beast of burden for desert travel but how other animals like horse would fare?

Not at all unheard of. ("The Arabian [horse] developed in a desert climate and was prized by the nomadic Bedouin people", sayeth Wikipedia.) Mules and donkeys also fit.

What kind of food and textile crops can be planted? Wheat, palms, flax, maybe olive. Any other crops that good with desert climate?

If you have fertile marshland, quite a lot: rice, wheat, corn, hemp, the works. But you can't have that with just water and sand, you need the soil. (Typically from a river. You can handwave that, of course.) Olives fare better in a Mediterranean climate - but they are quite common near deserts (in the Middle East and North Africa), where the climate is, well, Mediterranean.

[Yora]

But I know what wouldn't happen: gardens. The wettest sand can't support serious plant life, you need appropriate soil for that. Rivers work, because they carry along sediment (dirt and nutrients) from afar, and eventually you get fertile land around them. As is the case with the Nile, Tigris & Euphrates, or the-river-which-passes-through-Nigeria-and-the-forum-filter-mistakes-for-a-slur. () But pure water, without ingredients, wouldn't do the trick.

That's not exactly true.

Plant life arrives on newly created volcanic islands quite rapidly and the first ones can live almost just on material carried by the wind. And bird droppings seem to be a major contributing factor as well. With a lake in the middle of the desert, animals would come there to drink and also bring dung and carcases from any animals killed by predators while drinking.
And in addition, many plant are able to grow on dirt poor soil. I know at least here in germany, birches and pines can grow in the cracks of abandoned buildings and dust that gatheres in the corners. Then you also have all kinds of lichens and swamp plants, that really just need wet sand. And of course algae that only need water and no soil at all.
The bigest problem is to get the seeds of the plants to the place, but they can be carried by wind for thousands of kilometers and the same goes for insects. And the greatest thing about plants is, that they can create plant matter out of air. Plants also need a bit more than just water, air, and sunlight, but those elements could easily be gained from animal carcasses and dead insects.

[Salbazier]

Well, I know that large bodies of water certainly affect micro-climate in their vicinity. Humidity rises, and the temperature usually drops a few degrees. I suppose you need winds to carry the vapors around and make a difference - but winds are nothing new in the desert. Other than that, I'm not sure what would happen.


But I know what wouldn't happen: gardens. The wettest sand can't support serious plant life, you need appropriate soil for that. Rivers work, because they carry along sediment (dirt and nutrients) from afar, and eventually you get fertile land around them. As is the case with the Nile, Tigris & Euphrates, or the-river-which-passes-through-Nigeria-and-the-forum-filter-mistakes-for-a-slur. () But pure water, without ingredients, wouldn't do the trick.

I think the city can import (or conjure) organic stuffs for fertilizer for its initial founding and making fertilizer from recycling the city waste afterward.

Also. Not sure if it fits your concept, but I've once used a "magnificent city, drenched in water, in the middle of the desert" by making it underground. Beneath the sand there was stone, and this stone was carved to make a huge, HUGE cave. Inside the cave there were springs of fresh water (lakes, canals and everything), and the stone is sculpted to form bridges, mansions, bazaars, supporting structure, air shafts, the works. In some places, soil had been dumped on the stone, and there were Hanging Gardens all over. And there was an elaborate water cycle - some water was magically conjured, but there was a lot of engineering, draining and recycling involved, too.

It was very handy, because it was very flexible. At any point, you could introduce strange tunnels, a previously unknown entrance/exit, or an entire secret level underneath. It was a metropolis, a dungeon, a labyrinth and Hogwarts at the same time.

If you like that idea, I'll gladly expand on it.

That actually quite close to my initial idea. Except for the underground part for the part. Although I also plan to have significant undercity as well. Like said my image of the city come from the Island cards from Ravnica expansion in Magic The Gathering.

Bad internet give problem with uploading images so I can only give you links instead.

http://www.martiniere.com/shop/images/products/large_100_Ravnica_Island.jpg
http://depaulcapstone10.pbworks.com/f/1266393037/Ravnica_Island_9944242.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/mtgcom/fcpics/features/284_swampart.jpg
http://magiccards.info/query?q=%2B%2Be%3Arav%2Fen&s=issue&v=scan&p=20

At any rate I appreciate any ideas or suggestion, so please elaborate.

Not at all unheard of. ("The Arabian [horse] developed in a desert climate and was prized by the nomadic Bedouin people", sayeth Wikipedia.) Mules and donkeys also fit.

Oh, right. Mules. They are fitter choice for cargo job than horses. (at least I think so)

If you have fertile marshland, quite a lot: rice, wheat, corn, hemp, the works. But you can't have that with just water and sand, you need the soil. (Typically from a river. You can handwave that, of course.) Olives fare better in a Mediterranean climate - but they are quite common near deserts (in the Middle East and North Africa), where the climate is, well, Mediterranean.

I see. I got olives from looking at agricultue products of various desert countries but I guess I forgot that those countris have mediterranian coast. Rice can grow in the desert? That's news for me.

I guess the problem its not water or temperature. Water is a given with the premise and lots of tropical plants can endure high temperature. It would be whether or not the crop can endure growing in poor soil, since fertilizer will be a bit lacking at first. Though magic can help.

I missed this in the my first post but the concept was this is an endeavour by a single (but absurdly powerful) mage (with a lot of mundane or low magic followers). The idea was that magic, epic magic even, will be used to found the city important infrastrucutres (especially things like water cycling facilities, grand tower and domes ect that too hard or time consuming to do with mundane engineering) and sustain some vital resource like its water but the city should be able to develop and procure/produce resource other than the most vital by less magical means after the founding.

@Yora
Hmm, algae and lichen farms sounds quite novel. Although its not exactly the most nutritious/tradeable goods ...unless it was magical algae/lichen. Now that sounds like an interesting idea.

[Yora]

That's just a starting point to get organic material to gather in the location of the water. When these plants die, they leave behind the basic ingedients from which soil will come into existance.
And even in natural conditions, that happens quite fast, in the space of a few decades. With magical assistance and import of fertilizers, this process probably could be sped up considerably to just a few years, before you can start with introducing larger grasses, reeds, and brushes.

[Sampi]

Hmm, any chance constantly conjuring a lakefull water in the middle of the desert affecting local climate somehow? What if the water is ice-cold?

Camel is the the best beast of burden for desert travel but how other animals like horse would fare?

What kind of food and textile crops can be planted? Wheat, palms, flax, maybe olive. Any other crops that good with desert climate?

Maybe take a page from the real world? Oases do exist, you know.