Jump to content

Why is KL by far Westeros's crappiest city?


Ocelot

Recommended Posts

I think one major problem is that it seems like every time there is a major war (almost always) people will flee to KL, thinking that the major city and seat of the government will be the safest place. They come in poor and just stick around because their previous homes are gone, making the city poorer


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because youre creating a competing power in the Capital. You could end up with a situation with the House controlling KL holding the King hostage. Not only directly but by controlling access to the palace, food supply, messages etc

Also taxes. That's a huge one. The IT wants (and needs) that money to go directly to them instead of through an intermediary who is then obligated by law to turn in a certain percentage of that money to the crown. If the IT merely puts the customs agents under the authority of someone not named Baelish, ie a local government, they can still demand all of that money save for what they spend on maintaining the customs agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to what others have said King's Landing also has no real infrastructure or government, they probably just built some walls around village that sprouted around the Red Keep, than when that started to grow they tore down the walls and extended them to give more room, then probably did that again two more times.



Then they just left to peasants to do peasanty squalor things like create Flea Bottom.



Most medieval cities, even capitals where the kings and emperors lived, had separate governments that would usually consists of the local guilds, merchants and well-to-do commoners who lived in the city, because cities were often a nexus of trade and trade attracts merchants, artisans and other craftsmen and they like to have guilds, and guilds like to make governments so they can regulate trade, tax and protect their interests.



KL has none of this, they don't even have a lord who rules the city, which is why it has so much squalor, the city kinda just exploded with no real order or planning and it ended up with squalor.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most medieval cities, even capitals where the kings and emperors lived, had separate governments that would usually consists of the local guilds, merchants and well-to-do commoners who lived in the city, because cities were often a nexus of trade and trade attracts merchants, artisans and other craftsmen and they like to have guilds, and guilds like to make governments so they can regulate trade, tax and protect their interests.

KL has none of this, they don't even have a lord who rules the city, which is why it has so much squalor, the city kinda just exploded with no real order or planning and it ended up with squalor.

I'm pretty sure it does - a merchant's guild went to complain to Tyrion at some point during the prep for Blackwater, didn't they? Edit: of course, they probably cropped up when it was too late to do anything, so ignore me :)

Personally, I think it's mainly to do that being what medieval towns were like. And Victorian ones for that matter. A large influx of people exceptionally quickly, with no infrastructure to support growth.

It seems to me that people are mistaking Fleabottom for the whole of KL.

But even really nice places by medieval standards were hellholes: take the Palace of Versailles, for instance. Human excrement was everywhere, even indoors because of the lack of toilet facilities meant people just dropped trou there and then (if I'm not falling prey to some urban myths). The richer places may be bigger/better planned, but they're still filthy. Which makes you feel really really bad for the poor folk of Flea Bottom, if that's what nice places are like :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even really nice places by medieval standards were hellholes: take the Palace of Versailles, for instance. Human excrement was everywhere, even indoors because of the lack of toilet facilities meant people just dropped trou there and then (if I'm not falling prey to some urban myths). The richer places may be bigger/better planned, but they're still filthy. Which makes you feel really really bad for the poor folk of Flea Bottom, if that's what nice places are like :/

Well, that's a hyperbole, and Palace at Versailles was built in the 17th century, it also wasn't dirty.

Most of human history, pre-1900s, was dirty compared to today, but it wasn't some kind of shit filled hellhole, it was just dirty because cleaning products beyond soap and water wouldn't be invented until the late 1800s.

Also it's an urban myth that the Middle Ages were these dirty age of pestilence and filth, it wasn't any more dirty than any other pre-Industrial era of human history (which is to say, it wasn't all that dirty, maybe dusty, but not shit everywhere).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's a hyperbole, and Palace at Versailles was built in the 17th century, it also wasn't dirty.

Most of human history, pre-1900s, was dirty compared to today, but it wasn't some kind of shit filled hellhole, it was just dirty because cleaning products beyond soap and water wouldn't be invented until the late 1800s.

Also it's an urban myth that the Middle Ages were these dirty age of pestilence and filth, it wasn't any more dirty than any other pre-Industrial era of human history (which is to say, it wasn't all that dirty, maybe dusty, but not shit everywhere).

Well, what's life without hyperbole? :D

I shall consign my medieval knowledge to the realm of urban myth in future and do a bit more of this :read: before I assume :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's a hyperbole, and Palace at Versailles was built in the 17th century, it also wasn't dirty.

Most of human history, pre-1900s, was dirty compared to today, but it wasn't some kind of shit filled hellhole, it was just dirty because cleaning products beyond soap and water wouldn't be invented until the late 1800s.

Also it's an urban myth that the Middle Ages were these dirty age of pestilence and filth, it wasn't any more dirty than any other pre-Industrial era of human history (which is to say, it wasn't all that dirty, maybe dusty, but not shit everywhere).

I don't know where your getting this from? The medieval age is considered dirty due to an influx of people into towns and cities with poor infrastructure resulting in crammed spaces, poor sewage and garbage plans, etc. There were some eras that were undoubtedly "dirtier" like the early industrial era but that doesn't make the medieval era not a very dirty place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are many reasons:



First, its size: KL has 500,000 inhabitants, Old town about 100,000, and Lannisport, White Harbor and Gulltown have around 50,000 each.



Since there aren't big cities in Westeros, they know crap about how to build, maintain and rule one. Probably there isn't planning besides "The castle on top of a hill, a wall descending from the castle enveloping the rest of the town, a square for the market, a septry in that square, avenues connecting the gates and the castle to the square and smaller streets sprouting either from the square or from the avenues", and that's all. Which works for villages and small towns, but not for cities or big towns.



The Westerosi just don't have a clue about how to build a big city, period.



Then, There is the fact that westerosi cities and towns are ruled by feudal lords, not by city councils or majors. The lords live in their castles, isolated from the rest of the city, and focus their efforts on making their castles pretty and comfortable. The town or city is smelly, noisy, ugly, chaotic...etc.? Well, that's commoners for you, that baseborn riff-raff likes it that way, just look at their houses...what? expending my money on bettering their living conditions? Well that's just crazy, they like living in huts made of earth and branches, surrounded by shit everywhere, why change it?



Add that KL grew too fast, so it probably started as a chaotic, massive shanty town from the beginning, while the other Westerosi cities slowly grew from villages or small towns during centuries. It would have required a decisive, prolonged effort to turn KL into a clean, orderly city, but it was ruled by people who didn't know crap about urban planning and didn't care that much about commoners' living conditions.



Another point is that the other Westerosi cities are ruled by their own lords, the Hightowers, Manderlys, the Graftons. Those lordly houses are special in that they get most of their revenues and reputation from their cities, not from their farming lands, so they care for those, because those aren't just places next to their castles where the commoners live, they are the best and richest part of their fiefdoms. The Hightowers, Manderlys, Graftons have taken care of their cities as they grew during the centuries, making them clean, pretty and orderly, because those cities are the jewels of their fiefdoms.



The Targayren, on the other hand, were kings of the whole continent, and saw KL as just a tiny and ugly part of their possessions, more an inconvenience than anything else...if they could just keep their massive fortress and the port manned without a city, they would probably have it, but those commoners, you know, they apparently need a place to sleep and prepare their food and keep their pups, and when they build those, more commoners come, attracted to the settlement, and end making everything a mess...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are many reasons:

First, its size: KL has 500,000 inhabitants, Old town about 100,000, and Lannisport, White Harbor and Gulltown have around 50,000 each.

Since there aren't big cities in Westeros, they know crap about how to build, maintain and rule one. Probably there isn't planning besides "The castle on top of a hill, a wall descending from the castle enveloping the rest of the town, a square for the market, a septry in that square, avenues connecting the gates and the castle to the square and smaller streets sprouting either from the square or from the avenues", and that's all. Which works for villages and small towns, but not for cities or big towns.

The Westerosi just don't have a clue about how to build a big city, period.

Then, There is the fact that westerosi cities and towns are ruled by feudal lords, not by city councils or majors. The lords live in their castles, isolated from the rest of the city, and focus their efforts on making their castles pretty and comfortable. The town or city is smelly, noisy, ugly, chaotic...etc.? Well, that's commoners for you, that baseborn riff-raff likes it that way, just look at their houses...what? expending my money on bettering their living conditions? Well that's just crazy, they like living in huts made of earth and branches, surrounded by shit everywhere, why change it?

Add that KL grew too fast, so it probably started as a chaotic, massive shanty town from the beginning, while the other Westerosi cities slowly grew from villages or small towns during centuries. It would have required a decisive effort to turn KL into a clean, orderly city, but it was ruled by people who didn't knew crap about urban planning and didn't care that much about commoners' living conditions.

Another point is that the other Westerosi cities are ruled by their own lords, the Hightowers, Manderlys, the Graftons. Those lordly houses are special in that they get most of their revenues and reputation from their cities, not from their farming lands, so they care for those, because those aren't just places next to their castles where the commoners live, they are the best and richest part of their fiefdoms. The Hightowers, Manderlys, Graftons have taken care of their cities as they grew during the centuries, making them clean, pretty and orderly, because those cities are the jewels of their fiefdoms.

The Targayren, on the other hand, were kings of the whole continents, and saw KL as just a tiny and ugly part of their possessions, more an inconvenience than anything else...if they could just keep their massive fortress and the port manned without a city, they would probably have it, but those commoners, you know, they apparently need a place to sleep and prepare their food and keep their pups, and when they build those, more commoners come, attracted to the settlement, and end making everything a mess...

Seems reasonable. I think the most important factor might be the quick growth. There is a documentary about late medieval London, which King's Landing seems to be partially inspired by, which seems to say that was the mains reason for it being so very filthy. Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC0mKHoHvYY . That city's population grew by five times while still being contained within the same walls...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's a hyperbole, and Palace at Versailles was built in the 17th century, it also wasn't dirty.

Palace of Versailles WAS dirty. One major reason being no toilets - whatsoever.

The human waste was supposed to be handled by chamberpots and by servants emptying them. The problem is, with the large number of nobles crammed in, even the servants did not bother to do the job to the satisfaction of the nobles.

The other reason was that the nobles themselves were dirty - they very rarely washed.

That was NOT because it was preindustrial. Bringing water and firewood and heating water cost labour and money, but it could be done. The rich could afford to have their servants heat baths and offer baths to their guests, while the middle classes made a market for public bathhouses in towns and cities.

But sometime in 16th...17th century bathing went out of fashion in Europe: bathing was claimed to be harmful for health, the rich gave up bathing and the public bathhouses were closed as health and moral hazards.

In Westeros we do see some bathtub scenes. Red Keep, like many medieval castles and unlike Palace of Versailles possesses inbuilt privies (Tywin was found there) and also uses chamberpots (Aegon´s chamberpot, full, was one of the things found in his bedroom - the other was his bed, empty).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palace of Versailles WAS dirty. One major reason being no toilets - whatsoever.

The human waste was supposed to be handled by chamberpots and by servants emptying them. The problem is, with the large number of nobles crammed in, even the servants did not bother to do the job to the satisfaction of the nobles.

The other reason was that the nobles themselves were dirty - they very rarely washed.

That was NOT because it was preindustrial. Bringing water and firewood and heating water cost labour and money, but it could be done. The rich could afford to have their servants heat baths and offer baths to their guests, while the middle classes made a market for public bathhouses in towns and cities.

But sometime in 16th...17th century bathing went out of fashion in Europe: bathing was claimed to be harmful for health, the rich gave up bathing and the public bathhouses were closed as health and moral hazards.

In Westeros we do see some bathtub scenes. Red Keep, like many medieval castles and unlike Palace of Versailles possesses inbuilt privies (Tywin was found there) and also uses chamberpots (Aegon´s chamberpot, full, was one of the things found in his bedroom - the other was his bed, empty).

Most of that stuff came after the time period ASoIaF is loosely based on (though I wouldn't be surprised if the court itself was written with absolutistic monarchy in mind - at some point Cersei even fantasises about building a new castle away from the putrid pile of KL and removing the court from the capital). The issues with King's Landing were the usual charms of medieval city (too many people and animals, minus a proper sewage and street culture) exacerbated by unnaturally quick growth and the lack of proper governance and planning. Plus the symobolic purpose of mirroring the Deadly Decadent Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are many reasons:

First, its size: KL has 500,000 inhabitants, Old town about 100,000, and Lannisport, White Harbor and Gulltown have around 50,000 each.

Where do you get the Oldtown number from?

500 000 is quoted by Tyrion. Likely true - but not the number of inhabitants. King´s Landing is crammed with Tyrell-Lannister army, about 100 000 men, and large amounts of refugees. I suspect that the normal peacetime population was more like 300 000.

And my impression also is that Oldtown was smaller, but not much smaller. Maybe like 200 000, for the 300 000 of King´s Landing.

The Targayren, on the other hand, were kings of the whole continent, and saw KL as just a tiny and ugly part of their possessions, more an inconvenience than anything else...if they could just keep their massive fortress and the port manned without a city, they would probably have it,

Riverrun, Eyrie, Storm´s End all are kept manned without a city.

but those commoners, you know, they apparently need a place to sleep and prepare their food and keep their pups, and when they build those, more commoners come, attracted to the settlement, and end making everything a mess...

Winterfell´s winter town and Sunspear´s town are tolerated, but not provided with fortifications.

On practical side: if someone could spare the masons and stone to build a wall, say, 3 m thick and 6 m high, then a similar amount of stone could be used to pave 10 times longer stretches of streets 6 m wide and 30 cm thick.

Hightowers of Oldtown do. Targaryens don´t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you get the Oldtown number from?

500 000 is quoted by Tyrion. Likely true - but not the number of inhabitants. King´s Landing is crammed with Tyrell-Lannister army, about 100 000 men, and large amounts of refugees. I suspect that the normal peacetime population was more like 300 000.

Jamie provides a quote of 500K when he tells Qyburn or Brienne how many people he saved from Aerys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm the one who started this topic and I have some comments. First of all, I'm pretty sure that KL is not that much larger than Oldtown, and it's almost certainly smaller than Braavos. So population size is no explanation for its crappiness. The suggestion that it's so crappy because it sprang up virtually overnight, on the other hand, does make a lot of sense. So does the apparent fact that it has no real local government to run it properly like the Hightowers run Oldtown, the Lannisters run Lannisport, the Manderlys run White Harbor, etc. Still, since the king and his government have to actually live there you might think that they would at least try to make it cleaner and safer, if only for their own sakes. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...