New capital of the Seven Kingdoms

[Universal Sword Donor]

4 hours ago, pdimmy said:

The Shield Islands would act as a buffer zone and you could supplement the Royal Fleet with the ships from the Lannisters and the Arbor. I think it would be a place to actually discourage insurrections by the Ironborn. Maybe it would help in encouraging them to change their pillaging ways?

A strong grip on the major naval powers of Westeros would make it easier to keep the other regions at check. 

The shield islands are nowhere near CR and CR isn't big enough to hold 500K people. Lannisport is but it is vulnerable to IB as it had been sacked. So had Oldtown for that matter.

20 hours ago, Scorpion92 said:

Easy to invade and defend from who? If Westeros is united, it is perfectly far away from the sea from foreign invasions. And I do not think that there will be Seven Kingdoms in the end of the series, it will be one united Westerosi kingdom.

Westeros hasn't always been united, and without any protection from outlying forts, then there isn't much you can do to protect from naval invasion or raiding.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

On 9/7/2016 at 9:44 AM, pdimmy said:

If you could build a new seat of power anywhere in Westeros, where would the most strategic place be?

Personally, the land adjacent to the Sunset Seat and the Shield Islands, preferably around the Mander, would be a better capital than the area currently occupied by King's Landing,

PROS:

• Easier to protect from foreign invaders from Essos. (Free cities, Blackfyres, Daenarys)
• Much more accessible to the relatively more valuable regions (Reach and Westerlands)

CONS:

• No direct hand in trade with Essos
• Harder to reach the northern territories

What do you guys think?

 

Queen Daenerys should rebuild her new capital city in the present location of King's Landing and name it Queen's Landing.  The location is perfect since it is a warm water port that can allow year-round trade with the Free Cities.  It is quite close to the ancestral seat of House Targaryen, Dragonstone. 

 

[The Commentator]

4 hours ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

 

Queen Daenerys should rebuild her new capital city in the present location of King's Landing and name it Queen's Landing.  The location is perfect since it is a warm water port that can allow year-round trade with the Free Cities.  It is quite close to the ancestral seat of House Targaryen, Dragonstone. 

 

I would name the new city "Valyria" to honor the memory of her family's ancestral homeland. 

[BricksAndSparrows]

I really like the fact that an army must divide it's forces to besiege Riverrun.

[Colonel Green]

Building the capital on or adjacent to the God's Eye would be far less advantageous than where King's Landing is, due to it being far more remote from the sea.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The defence argument is a bit of a red herring - a capital is simply where the central government is. If you're in trouble from external forces, the government can temporarily re-locate. It's a pain, but do-able in emergencies.

Trade is really the key. Seeing as there are multiple trading partners to the East, and none to the West, you want somewhere on the East coast. In short, where King's Landing is at the moment.

 

[Runaway Penguin]

Well, capital city is also usually the best protected in the realm, be it by position or by fortifications (of various type. London for example relied in the modern age more on the "Wooden walls" of fleet).

Capital of Westeros would need both. That being said, once you are talking about city, you do not care much about hills (they rather get in the way) - and you can build strong walls (cue in, say, Avignon) anywhere. Hills AROUND the city are useful as you can buld ring of strong fortifications there, to protect critical approaches and disrupt sieges.

[devilish]

16 hours ago, Runaway Penguin said:

a- evidence? Tyrion has trouble with manning the fortifications, not witht he fortificatins themselves.

b- that is a huge plus. First port of call = fastest trade.

c- Not sure if that applies anymore. For one, the Crownlands include this pretty big city...  They may be weak from military point of view, but economically they have a huge potential.

 

 

In any case, main thing for the capital should be trade, external and internal - so Blackwater or Trident estuaries are probably the best.

A-    Its nowhere near to CR, the Eayrie or Storm’s end
B-    Considering that Essos has brought three successful invasions to Westeros in the past (the first men, the Andals and the Targs) then I wouldn’t be that sure about that being an advantage. 
C-    There is a region which is both rich and defensively sound. 

I think that Aegon acknowledged the Crownlands weaknesses and actually settled there because of them. The Crownlands were the underbelly of Westeros and he believed that dragons would be enough to compensate the geographical and demographical weaknesses of that region. Aegon was so fond about his dragons that he thought that anything else would forever be inferior to them. Hence why he refused Argilac’s offer (which would have boosted his armies significantly) and he resisted the idea of KG until assassins nearly killed him. 

 I think it was a mistake from Aegon’s part. He should have taken the unique occasion that the invasion provided him to secure the richest and most powerful region in Westeros. If Aerys ruled the Westerlands instead of the crownlands then he would probably still be king by now. 
 

[1000th Lord Commander]

Aerys talked about a new city of white marble on the other side of the Blackwater. Maybe Dany will see her father's vision through.

[Lemon of Lemonwood]

King's landing is actually among the best locations to build the capital, perhaps rivalled only by Saltpans:

• It is in the approximate center of Westeros
• It has a river nearby to provide water
• It has forests closeby to provide wood
• The surrounding area can provide food in cases of emergency
• Above all, it is a port and close to Essos, which means both good trade and fish to feed the population.

Concerning the defences of the city, to sustain such a large population, there are not really many other options for a more defencible terain. In fact, by examining the location of the other major cities, they are not that great for defence either. The walls are good enough, the hills offer a good view of the surrounding area, plus Dragonstone and Driftmark protect the bay so, even if a rival fleet could pass, it would not be innoticed.

Why is then King's Landing the poorly defended cesspit we all know and love?

On the poor defences , the real problem is that the Goldcloaks are poorly trainned and equipped. Sure, they are adequate against cutpurses and other petty criminals, but as Tyrion observed only one in four could of use as a soldier.Also, let's keep in mind that the only times the city fell to an enemy force were due to treason within its walls. Plus, Robert was foolish enough to give the very embittered Stannis Dragonstone and control of the fleet, severely crippling the city's defences on the long term (honestly, if Stannis had the Stormlands, I think he might have not rebelled).

On sanitation, while Septon Barth (of course, who else had that good ideas) and Jaehaerys I took care to improove the living conditions with drains,sewers and wells, that was 200 years ago. Also, the area surrounded by the walls was that of the city in the times of the Conqueror, with the current city being packed to bursting with people and a shanty town growing outside the walls.

So, instead of choosing a new capital, after King's Landing burns (and it will surely burn), the next King/Queen must bring the best architects of the Citaddel and rebuild it with an orderly road design.A second set of walls should be added to give further space to the city, while the use of whitewash on the streets ,like in White Harbor, could help to santitize theM. Also, the sewers must be expanded and more clean water must be brought in, possibly by an aqueduct. Finally, establishing an improoved training programm for Goldcloaks and perhaps, relocating their barracks closer to the new walls, will strengthen the defences.

 

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 hours ago, Runaway Penguin said:

1 hour ago, devilish said:

 

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, devilish said:

A-    Its nowhere near to CR, the Eayrie or Storm’s end
B-    Considering that Essos has brought three successful invasions to Westeros in the past (the first men, the Andals and the Targs) then I wouldn’t be that sure about that being an advantage. 
C-    There is a region which is both rich and defensively sound. 

A - The trade routes to CR are a pain, the Eyrie is the most ludicrous castle in Westeros, and Storm's End would need to be completely rebuilt to deal with the expanded population.

B - Britain has been invaded multiple times from the continent (the Romans x2, the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons, and the Normans. Plus William of Orange if you count that). Clearly, by that reasoning London needs to be moved to North Wales for safety.

C - Trade, trade, trade.

[devilish]

21 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

A - The trade routes to CR are a pain, the Eyrie is the most ludicrous castle in Westeros, and Storm's End would need to be completely rebuilt to deal with the expanded population.

B - Britain has been invaded multiple times from the continent (the Romans x2, the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons, and the Normans. Plus William of Orange if you count that). Clearly, by that reasoning London needs to be moved to North Wales for safety.

C - Trade, trade, trade.

I think using UK as a template for Westeros is a bit lame

a- The UK wasn't invaded at once. It took thousands of years to unify the UK, there were multiple rebellions and even today there is rifts within the Union. The Westerlands are rich, powerful and loyal to the Targs. Wales isn't that rich and wasn't always loyal to the English crown. 

b- The Romans developed London because its was a first port of call to Gaul which was part of their empire. If there's a rebellion then support armies from Gaul could quickly cross the channel and bring the city some relief. It was also far from Scotland (which was never really broken by the Romans) and Wales (which weren't that warm to Roman rule). This remained relevant throughout the Anglo-Saxon & Norman rule. Essos is a potential enemy here not part of the empire.

C- Tywin Lannister doesn't seem to find that a problem doesn't he?

 

[Runaway Penguin]

6 hours ago, devilish said:

A-    Its nowhere near to CR, the Eayrie or Storm’s end
B-    Considering that Essos has brought three successful invasions to Westeros in the past (the first men, the Andals and the Targs) then I wouldn’t be that sure about that being an advantage. 
C-    There is a region which is both rich and defensively sound. 

 

A - all those are fortresses, not cities. Quite significant difference. For one, you have far less area to ring by the walls. Neither suitable as a capital city / major hub of the kingdom.

B - Three invasions in how long? It would seem that the advantage of easy trade outweighs the disadvantages - and with the Blackwater Bay closed off by Dragonstone, not bad even there.

C - Which one?

4 hours ago, devilish said:

I think using UK as a template for Westeros is a bit lame

a- The UK wasn't invaded at once. It took thousands of years to unify the UK, there were multiple rebellions and even today there is rifts within the Union. The Westerlands are rich, powerful and loyal to the Targs. Wales isn't that rich and wasn't always loyal to the English crown. 

b- The Romans developed London because its was a first port of call to Gaul which was part of their empire. If there's a rebellion then support armies from Gaul could quickly cross the channel and bring the city some relief. It was also far from Scotland (which was never really broken by the Romans) and Wales (which weren't that warm to Roman rule). This remained relevant throughout the Anglo-Saxon & Norman rule. Essos is a potential enemy here not part of the empire.

C- Tywin Lannister doesn't seem to find that a problem doesn't he?

 

and...

A - same applies to the Andal and First Men invasions you quoted. Crownlands are quite rich thanks to the King's Landing being present.

I may point that the US of A keeps capital in the District of Columbia - even after it HAD been occupied and sacked by an enemy army

B - If we went by your reasoning, London is irrelevant - center of Albert's Englaland was in Wessex, the furthest away from invaders and the best protected, Londinium was a trading port, but visited by Danes / occupied by them. Yet after London was retaken and incorporated to England, it became capital pretty quickly - because of trade.

C - Lannister wealth does not stand on trade, it stands on raw materials. Their trade center gets repeatedly sacked by Ironborn. It is rather short-sighted stance.That is not something you necessarily want in a capital of huge kingdom. Generally all capitals in the world (and definitely in Europe) became so by the way of trade connection.

In any case, significantly longer sea route limit partly perishable goods, increase risks etc.

[pdimmy]

6 hours ago, devilish said:

A-    Its nowhere near to CR, the Eayrie or Storm’s end
B-    Considering that Essos has brought three successful invasions to Westeros in the past (the first men, the Andals and the Targs) then I wouldn’t be that sure about that being an advantage. 
C-    There is a region which is both rich and defensively sound. 

I think that Aegon acknowledged the Crownlands weaknesses and actually settled there because of them. The Crownlands were the underbelly of Westeros and he believed that dragons would be enough to compensate the geographical and demographical weaknesses of that region. Aegon was so fond about his dragons that he thought that anything else would forever be inferior to them. Hence why he refused Argilac’s offer (which would have boosted his armies significantly) and he resisted the idea of KG until assassins nearly killed him. 

 I think it was a mistake from Aegon’s part. He should have taken the unique occasion that the invasion provided him to secure the richest and most powerful region in Westeros. If Aerys ruled the Westerlands instead of the crownlands then he would probably still be king by now. 
 

I agree.

Westeros is still primarily an agricultural economy. 

I think Aegon the Conqueror should have foreseen future Targaryen rulers without dragons. An area between the Reach and the Westerlands as the Crownlands would undoubtedly strengthen their hold over the Seven Kingdoms by having a monopoly over the gold and the grain

[Mander]

But it would also mean more, harder and continuous resistance by the established Lords and former Kings. The Crownlands were chosen wisely by Aegon. That area was always disputed and it never was a core land of any kingdom. It is easier to accept if it's taken from a third party which never was involved in the constant quarrel of the former kingdoms.

Of course, Aegon could have fought and destroyed all resistance with his dragons, but what would have been left to rule over? Burned land, fields of dead peasants and lords as well as a reputation of a foreign monster instead of a wise ruler who spared the 7 Kingdoms more destruction than necessary and brought peace and prosperity to Westeros.

[devilish]

27 minutes ago, Runaway Penguin said:

A - all those are fortresses, not cities. Quite significant difference. For one, you have far less area to ring by the walls. Neither suitable as a capital city / major hub of the kingdom.

B - Three invasions in how long? It would seem that the advantage of easy trade outweighs the disadvantages - and with the Blackwater Bay closed off by Dragonstone, not bad even there.

C - Which one?

and...

A - same applies to the Andal and First Men invasions you quoted. Crownlands are quite rich thanks to the King's Landing being present.

I may point that the US of A keeps capital in the District of Columbia - even after it HAD been occupied and sacked by an enemy army

B - If we went by your reasoning, London is irrelevant - center of Albert's Englaland was in Wessex, the furthest away from invaders and the best protected, Londinium was a trading port, but visited by Danes / occupied by them. Yet after London was retaken and incorporated to England, it became capital pretty quickly - because of trade.

C - Lannister wealth does not stand on trade, it stands on raw materials. Their trade center gets repeatedly sacked by Ironborn. It is rather short-sighted stance.That is not something you necessarily want in a capital of huge kingdom. Generally all capitals in the world (and definitely in Europe) became so by the way of trade connection.

In any case, significantly longer sea route limit partly perishable goods, increase risks etc.

1- A King doesn't need a city to live in. If the Lannisters can become filthy rich by living in a fortress and away from the trade routes then so can Aegon. Dont forget that Westeros is a continent by itself and trading is still rudimentary (no fast ships, no trains, no planes). We're talking about the equivalent of medieval Europe here not North Korea in 2016.

 2- That's irrelevant. Westeros biggest threat always came from Essos. The First men, the Andals, the Targs. Essos is independent, its wealthy, its powerful and they haven't bent the knee to the Targs and never will. They also have more experience with dragons than anybody else. If a surprise attack ever occurs than the Targs would be better off out of sight, possibly in a place were they can regroup and with enough human/financial resources at hand to devise an effective plan. The Westerlands provides that security.

3- I gave you the origins of London, why it was founded and why it grew to the city it was. The UK dominated history after the medieval times (ie the British empire) but prior to that it had hardly any prominence. The Romans saw it as a cost centre, the backdrop of their empire. In medieval times the English crown was plagued into civil war and rebellions. Occasionally they will gain fertile lands in a fragmented France but they were kicked back once France got united. You can't compare a relatively small nation with poor land and an insignificant population to a rich and diverse continent. 

4- I wish to see the Ironborn trying to sack the Crownlands (Westerlands) with dragons watching across the sea and Aegon being able to call the entire Westerosi force to war against them. The Westerlands (whose heavily fortified) will provide a safe place were dragons can sleep on land (ie when they are vulnerable) and its fortifications makes it difficult for the ironborn to make any sort of conquest on land. If needs be Aegon can go there and wipe those islands clean. No one will miss them.

5- Aegon could take the Westerlands (ie gold) and part of the Reach (ie fertile fields). Let other Lords make money by trading with Essos, which as said is hardly crucial as Westeros is a continent by itself

 

 

 

 

[devilish]

5 minutes ago, Mander said:

But it would also mean more, harder and continuous resistance by the established Lords and former Kings. The Crownlands were chosen wisely by Aegon. That area was always disputed and it never was a core land of any kingdom. It is easier to accept if it's taken from a third party which never was involved in the constant quarrel of the former kingdoms.

Of course, Aegon could have fought and destroyed all resistance with his dragons, but what would have been left to rule over? Burned land, fields of dead peasants and lords as well as a reputation of a foreign monster instead of a wise ruler who spared the 7 Kingdoms more destruction than necessary and brought peace and prosperity to Westeros.

 

Nah

Lets say Aegon takes the Westerlands and part of the Reach.

- The Tyrells won't complain. They were given Highgarden and they had been appointed Lord Paramount of most of the reach. The rest of the Lords will keep their lands and will either serve the Tyrells (ie one of them) or the king they bent their knee to.

- The Westerland bannermen...welll....Good luck for the Lannisters in convincing them to face dragons again especially since the alternative would be to bend the knee, retain their lands and serve a king whose dragons could bring the remaining Westeros on its knees and can keep the ironborn at bay. Not everyone can hide in CR.

[pdimmy]

27 minutes ago, devilish said:

Nah

Lets say Aegon takes the Westerlands and part of the Reach.

- The Tyrells won't complain. They were given Highgarden and they had been appointed Lord Paramount of most of the reach. The rest of the Lords will keep their lands and will either serve the Tyrells (ie one of them) or the king they bent their knee to.

- The Westerland bannermen...welll....Good luck for the Lannisters in convincing them to face dragons again especially since the alternative would be to bend the knee, retain their lands and serve a king whose dragons could bring the remaining Westeros on its knees and can keep the ironborn at bay. Not everyone can hide in CR.

The Gardener line dying out was the best chance for the Targaryens to take the Reach for their own Crownlands. 

Heck maybe the presence of the Targaryens as overlords of the Reach would make it easier to improve relations with Dorne

 

[Universal Sword Donor]

48 minutes ago, pdimmy said:

The Gardener line dying out was the best chance for the Targaryens to take the Reach for their own Crownlands. 

Heck maybe the presence of the Targaryens as overlords of the Reach would make it easier to improve relations with Dorne

 

The same Dorne they tried to conquer with scorched earth tactics and brutal warfare? Sure. Let's go with that.