I fear that this photo transfers above all the "emotions" of a short (too short) focal lens, with its inversion (in this case I would say perversion) of the ontological values. Who has seen Mantua from the lakes, knows that the presence of the town on the opposite shore isn’t like that of the tiny thing that you can see in this shot. The observer gazes at an overwhelming, miraculous fusion of nature and culture, nature and history. In your beautiful shot I find nothing (or very little) of the emotions I felt the first time Mantua appeared to my eyes. In it I find above all the cliché of wide angle photography of lakes and pools (I know well this cliché because I use it often).
Here a literary, but more authentic “description” of what really happens when you see Mantua from the lakes. It is a cliché too, but a Mantua cliché.
“I'm driving across the Ponte Legnano towards Mantua: the long bridge slices through two mist-covered lakes that form a gigantic moat protecting this majestic city. Suddenly, at the edge of the water, the swirling haze is broken by a dramatic skyline of ancient towers, turrets, cupolas and domes. Italian friends tell me that Mantua is known as La Bella Addormentata, a sleeping beauty that hasn't changed since the middle ages.”
http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/mar/29/mantua-italy-sleeping-beauty-city-break
And I fear you are wrong. This image is number VI in a series of 6 images of Mantua, all taken from the other side of the lake; for this image, as I said, the setting of the city is as important as the city itself. The other 5 images are different, some taken with longer lenses, some with wide angle, and they all show different impressions of the city (my impressions, that is, of course).
That said, the fact that when you see "my" image you don't see any of "your" emotions, any of the emotions that "you" felt when you first saw Mantua, is perfectly fine; no problem here whatsoever, in fact is - perhaps - the way it should be, if you already have such a strong opinion of a subject matter and aren't evidently open to a different interpretation of such subject.
The lines in my image drive the viewer's eye from the shore to the city, passing through the boat and the piers, symbolising life on the lake, thus establishing the relation between nature and the city that you mentioned. It does it in a way that doesn't conform to your vision, but it does it nevertheless.
Last, my images are made to be printed, and printed large; when seen printed A2 or A1, the city is very visible (though, of course, the relations between different elements in the image remains the same).
In the end, we all have different ideas and opinions about a subject matter that we know well. The trick is to be open to accept different visions.
Best,
Vieri