If Aegon was smart and starved king Harren out.........

[JonSnow4President]

Actually, the Red Keep DID fall. Jamie killed Aerys literally milliseconds before rebel troops burst in (that's why Jamie couldn't wipe his fingerprints off the hilt of his sword and put it in the Kings hand).

On the subject of siege, Kings Landing is made vulnerable by its costal location. If the Capitol was in Harrenhal than Stannis wouldn't have been able to sail that far up the Blackwater.

While an overland route is slow, it is still not as slow as a sailor in Lannisport having to sail around the entire continent just to get to Kings Landing (where as a canal could probably have been built connecting Ironman bay with the Trident.

And most important of all, Ageon could have had both!

But why would he want a logistical nightmare? By destroying it, he gets a massive PR boone, he takes out a powerful enemy without real cost to himself, and most importantly, he gets to move on. For the rest of his life, his son's life, his grandson's life, his great grandson's life, etc., Harrenhall will stand as a (still usable) message that his dynasty is not to be fucked with.

Kings Landing falls because of treachery. It still has not actually been taken by pure military action. It's defensible with MUCH fewer resources. And, while it does allow for Naval invasions (which is a minor meh at best unless you just completely leave your sea side undefended), it also allows for infinitely easier trade and travel, which is the majority of the purpose after the conquest is over.

Sitting and starving out Harrenhall is about the dumbest thing he could possible do, short of ordering a full on traditional ground assault. I promise you, you are not the one person through 60 responses that is seeing it clearly while everyone else is wrong.

[EastTymor]

Actually, the Red Keep DID fall. Jamie killed Aerys literally milliseconds before rebel troops burst in (that's why Jamie couldn't wipe his fingerprints off the hilt of his sword and put it in the Kings hand).

On the subject of siege, Kings Landing is made vulnerable by its costal location. If the Capitol was in Harrenhal than Stannis wouldn't have been able to sail that far up the Blackwater.

While an overland route is slow, it is still not as slow as a sailor in Lannisport having to sail around the entire continent just to get to Kings Landing (where as a canal could probably have been built connecting Ironman bay with the Trident.

And most important of all, Ageon could have had both!

The context of my statement was clearly the Wo5k. Since you introduced the events of Robert's Rebellion, I'll point out that Aerys has the gates to King's Landing opened for Tywin and Jaime betrayed Aerys. No castle in the world can defend against stupidity or treason, much less both at once.

King's Landing is not made vulnerable by its coastal location- amphibious assaults are difficult. Note that Stannis' biggest challenge was getting soldiers on the right side of the water, and once they were there it was only the sudden arrival of the cavalry that saved the city. If the capital was at Harrenhal Stannis would have made an unopposed landing and attacked Harrenhal in good order with his full strength, which he was never able to bring to bear against King's Landing, much less the Red Keep.

A merchant in Lannisport can't sail to Harrenhal either. Also, as thelittledragonthatcould pointed out earlier in the thread, King's Landing is closer to Lannisport than Harrenhal is. How exactly would this canal work? Locks are probably beyond Westerosi engineering capabilities and there is definitely higher ground between all of the Trident's forks and the Sunset sea or else they would not flow eastward.

Aegon had both- in fact he had the whole Seven Kingdoms (minus Dorne). He chose to give Harrenhal away, because it was less valuable as a second capital than it would be as the seat of a loyal lord.

[TimJames]

Aegon had both- in fact he had the whole Seven Kingdoms (minus Dorne). He chose to give Harrenhal away, because it was less valuable as a second capital than it would be as the seat of a loyal lord.

Ageon did not have both, because he turned the bigger of the two into a pile of rubble. If he left it in tact and fully garrisoned/supplied it than nothing would be able to dislodge the Targaryens from the fortress.

On another note, I see a lot of people saying that destroying Harrenhal proved to Westros that the Targaryens weren't to be messed with. Not true: literally one generation later there was an uprising against the crown. In fact, there were multiple uprisings against the Targaryens. This could be because that message he sent at Harrenhal was completely undone at Dorne when a well aimed catapult killed his sister and her dragon; there's a reason the Martell words are "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken".

Ageon lacked imagination. But then again, having no imagination is what happens when your tactical knowledge begins and ends with "Dragons + Battle = I Win"

[JonSnow4President]

Ageon did not have both, because he turned the bigger of the two into a pile of rubble. If he left it in tact and fully garrisoned/supplied it than nothing would be able to dislodge the Targaryens from the fortress.

On another note, I see a lot of people saying that destroying Harrenhal proved to Westros that the Targaryens weren't to be messed with. Not true: literally one generation later there was an uprising against the crown. In fact, there were multiple uprisings against the Targaryens. This could be because that message he sent at Harrenhal was completely undone at Dorne when a well aimed catapult killed his sister and her dragon; there's a reason the Martell words are "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken".

Ageon lacked imagination. But then again, having no imagination is what happens when your tactical knowledge begins and ends with "Dragons + Battle = I Win"

The red is your problem. It's not worth the hassle.

And, as we've found in the current events of the books, it is still livable, and still usable as a military stronghold.

[TimJames]

The red is your problem. It's not worth the hassle.

And, as we've found in the current events of the books, it is still livable, and still usable as a military stronghold.

Sorry, I still feel like Ageon burning Harrenhal was the equivalent of tearing down the pyramid of Giza.

[JonSnow4President]

Sorry, I still feel like Ageon burning Harrenhal was the equivalent of tearing down the pyramid of Giza.

It's more the equivalent of tearing down the Great Wall when invading China.

[EastTymor]

Sorry, I still feel like Ageon burning Harrenhal was the equivalent of tearing down the pyramid of Giza.

Well, the pyramids at Giza have been around for thousands of years at this point. Harrenhal was new made- the Hoares only moved in the same day as Aegon's landing. Something like Trajan's Bridge might be the better comparison, although that at least made it through a couple of decades before being destroyed.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

While an overland route is slow, it is still not as slow as a sailor in Lannisport having to sail around the entire continent just to get to Kings Landing (where as a canal could probably have been built connecting Ironman bay with the Trident.

It would take a merchant from Lannisport longer to reach Harrenhall than it would Kings Landing.

[Lord Damian]

Harrenhal was to Aegon what Alderan was to Grand Mof Tarkin in Star Wars, a useful example of what will happen to those who do not comply.

[The Prince Not Promised]

I do agree that Aegon should have considered keeping Harrenhal, but it's really just too damn big and located too far from the sea to make your capital. The Eyrie is impregnable as well but it's not even remotely useful as a base of operations. If you go by population King's Landing is really almost dead center by latitude, though it would be significantly farther West if you tried to go dead center by population longitudinally. You seem to consider the sea being more of a disadvantage than an advantage, and that's really confusing to me.

Edit: Oh, and besieging it would have taken way too long the conventional way. It sent the message and made the greatest show of force. Casterly Rock from what I've gathered seems to have much of its structure located deep within the rock too. I'm not sure even dragon fire would have touched its deepest levels.

[TimJames]

Harrenhal was to Aegon what Alderan was to Grand Mof Tarkin in Star Wars, a useful example of what will happen to those who do not comply.

Actually a good comparison, but for different reasons. In Star Wars, Alderan was an important planet with huge cultural and economic significance.

[The Prince Not Promised]

Actually a good comparison, but for different reasons. In Star Wars, Alderan was an important planet with huge cultural and economic significance.

I could maybe see the cultural significance, but Harrenhal wasn't even completed long enough to begin garnering much serious trade. It was only completed for like a year at most before Aegon set out from Dragonstone.

[TheSovereignGrave]

Sorry, I still feel like Ageon burning Harrenhal was the equivalent of tearing down the pyramid of Giza.

The Great Pyramid of Giza is the oldest of the Seven Wonders of the World. It has tremendous cultural and historical value. Harrenhal was just a really big (and new) castle and probably a symbol of Ironborn oppression for most of the Riverlanders.

[TimJames]

Harrenhal was ... probably a symbol of Ironborn oppression for most of the Riverlanders.

All the more reason to keep it.

Let's be honest, Ageon wasn't liberating the Riverlands; it was more a case of "under new management". He wasn't setting up a democracy or an elective monarchy, he was setting up his own family as the new head honcho. Might as well be honest about it.

If I was Ageon I know I would have kept Harrenhal in tact to use as a Capitol. While it might not be easy to fully supply and garrison, if you actually do then the investment will easily be repaid in being immune to any and all sieges.

[the storm king returns]

Also if Aegon made harrenhal his capital he would require a full time standing rmy which IMO is a good idea

[EastTymor]

A full time standing army is great idea (good on you, show-Joffrey!). Its also absurdly expensive. The Iron Throne has neither the legitimacy to impose sufficiently high taxes (see Ser Kevan's epilogue) nor the institutions to collect them and organize the standing army. Just look at the pathetic state of the gold cloaks, who only need to be able to adequately police and defend one city.

[Jasta11]

PR wise I'm pretty sure Harrenhall was tainted, in the Riverlands at least. Martin notes a few times that Harren used quasi slave labor and stripped his dominion to the bone to build it.

[TimJames]

A full time standing army is great idea (good on you, show-Joffrey!). Its also absurdly expensive. The Iron Throne has neither the legitimacy to impose sufficiently high taxes (see Ser Kevan's epilogue) nor the institutions to collect them and organize the standing army. Just look at the pathetic state of the gold cloaks, who only need to be able to adequately police and defend one city.

If a king with a dragon set his mind to it, he could have built up the infrastructure necessary to raise up and maintain a standing army. In fact, if said king (who shall remain nameless) didn't burn Harrenhal than part of the infrastructure would already be present (specifically the part where the soldiers are garrisoned in).

Destroying Harrenhal inadvertently ruined Ageon's chances of having a standing army, which doomed his dragonless descendants to be reliant on capricious vassals for soldiers.

[Veloknight]

Let's be honest, Ageon wasn't liberating the Riverlands; it was more a case of "under new management". He wasn't setting up a democracy or an elective monarchy, he was setting up his own family as the new head honcho. Might as well be honest about it.

.... Why? You have a hated dynasty you're displacing with the support of the local gentry. Why on earth would you want to remind them that you mean to supplant their overlords with a different, even greater tyranny? As opposed to keeping the embodiment of their oppression nearby and functional, but ruined in an awesome display of the futility of relying on a castle to protect you from a dragon? Conveniently given to the first riverlord you like, and eventually to whichever new riverlord house is in vogue, helping further cement the loyalty of the riverlords to you by giving one of their own control over this symbol of their suffering?

"Might as well be honest about it" can be used for good comedic effect by a clever politician among subjects in person, but it's not effective as a propaganda coup for the masses, where it just seems tone-deaf.

[TimJames]

.... Why? You have a hated dynasty you're displacing with the support of the local gentry. Why on earth would you want to remind them that you mean to supplant their overlords with a different, even greater tyranny?

When Robert took the Iron Throne, he didn't tear down the Red Keep. He didn't even destroy the dragon skulls. By your logic he should have had that castle torn down and built a castle of lesser quality nearby to live in.

I'm not calling Robert a tyrant, I'm just saying that having an bad 'aura' is not a good enough reason to tear down a building.

Ageon just didn't like to think too far ahead.