Why No Lord of the Causeway?

[Relon]

While the strategic value of Moat Cailin is well-known and acknowledged in the books, it does not seem that it has had a proper lord ruling over it since the Starks won it over from the Marsh Kings.  Does anyone know, or have a good theory, why this is?  True, it's a bit of a fixer-upper, but disrepair hasn't really stopped Harrenhal or other strongholds being given over to vassals to hold (bonus: no curse - that we know of!)  Plus, wouldn't it be good to get a House in there to take on the time, energy, and cost of repairing it?

[Euron III Greyjoy]

I have no idea, it seems like it would be a good castle for a second born son. If things went well Bran would have preferred to be a knight over a Lord, but Rickon could have had it when he was older. 

[Rufus Snow]

The land available around it for a fief is too poor to support a castle, financially; it is also too wet to support a castle, physically. The whole thng is slowly sinking, that's why its walls are gone and only two and a half towers are still standing out of twenty. It's beyond fixing up.

If it was worth having, someone would have taken it by now.

[Bernie Mac]

3 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

The land available around it for a fief is too poor to support a castle, financially; it is also too wet to support a castle, physically. The whole thng is slowly sinking, that's why its walls are gone and only two and a half towers are still standing out of twenty. It's beyond fixing up.

If it was worth having, someone would have taken it by now.

Pretty much this, it would not be a true Lordship, it would be subsidized by Winterfell and the taxes of the North, those funds can be better used elsewhere than a vanity Lordship. 

Perhaps in the past, when the realm was fragmented and constantly at war such a position existed, but in a united realm it is pointless especially given it is a few hundred miles from the Riverlands border, there should be ample time to raise a garrison when news reaches them of enemies advancing. 

[Loose Bolt]

One of the houses that Starks wiped out was house Towers and we also know that Moat Cailin had 20 towers. But to my knowledge we do not know where they lived and why Starks killed them. So there is a possibility that Towers were either petty kings or just rebellious bannermen and MC was their castle.

So it is possible that ruins of MC were Starks way to remind people what happens to anyone who makes them angry.

[rotting sea cow]

Simple. Moat Cailin has such strategic value that leaving it to bannermen, even loyal ones, could prove disastrous, so it is ruled directly from Winterfell.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

7 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Moat Cailin has such strategic value that leaving it to bannermen, even loyal ones, could prove disastrous, so it is ruled directly from Winterfell.

That's an interesting idea. The Golden Tooth is held by Lord Lefford though, and the Bloody Gate is controlled by the Knight of the Bloody Gate. The fear of betrayal by a bannerman doesn't seem to concern the Lannisters or the Arryn's. Still, just because others do things one way, it doesn't mean the Starks should I guess.

However, the risk of a betraying bannerman taking control the Neck is already there. The Manderlys, for example, could simply seize it long before the Starks could do anything about it. Having a permanent garrison and a lord or appointee such as the Knight of the Bloody Gate in a proper castle would help prevent that eventuality. It would have prevented the Ironmen capturing it in clash for that matter (thinking about it, I’m surprised that the Ironmen didn’t do it all the time, given the ease with which Victarion took it).

14 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

The land available around it for a fief is too poor to support a castle, financially

Is it? The Manderly lands aren’t far off, and they seem to do alright. Given enough land to the north of Moat Calin a lord could probably sustain it.

14 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

The whole thng is slowly sinking

Very slowly, around ten thousand years and counting?

37 minutes ago, Loose Bolt said:

One of the houses that Starks wiped out was house Towers and we also know that Moat Cailin had 20 towers. But to my knowledge we do not know where they lived and why Starks killed them. So there is a possibility that Towers were either petty kings or just rebellious bannermen and MC was their castle.

The World book says it was held by the Marsh Kings.

I suspect the Moat Cailin was permanently occupied in one way or another before the Conquest, and that it fell into disuse after that, as there seemed little point in maintaining a permanent garrison, as there was no longer constant war.

[Relon]

14 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

The land available around it for a fief is too poor to support a castle, financially; it is also too wet to support a castle, physically. The whole thng is slowly sinking, that's why its walls are gone and only two and a half towers are still standing out of twenty. It's beyond fixing up.

If it was worth having, someone would have taken it by now.

Living in the the southern part of the U.S. near the Mississippi River, which is basically nothing but marshland, I feel like I can quibble a bit about the poorness of the surrounding land from an agrarian perspective. As for being too wet to support a castle, that definitely has some truth to it.  That's a problem we have, but it never stopped the construction of stone forts during the colonial period, several of which still exist more or less intact.  Of course, I'm no expert in medieval architecture so this is certainly a fair point.  

11 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Pretty much this, it would not be a true Lordship, it would be subsidized by Winterfell and the taxes of the North, those funds can be better used elsewhere than a vanity Lordship. 

Perhaps in the past, when the realm was fragmented and constantly at war such a position existed, but in a united realm it is pointless especially given it is a few hundred miles from the Riverlands border, there should be ample time to raise a garrison when news reaches them of enemies advancing. 

I'm not so sure about these arguments.  The Moat controls the only serviceable road into the North.  Why not simply charge a toll (even in peace) like House Frey and use those funds to maintain and support the Moat and it's lord?  If there is extra then all the better for the Stark coffers.  Plus, why take the risk of relying on knowing an enemy is coming with enough time to gather men and march them down when you could have a small but sufficient garrison there at all times?

Regarding the betrayal comment, I agree with Shouldve Taken the Black.

[rotting sea cow]

20 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

That's an interesting idea. The Golden Tooth is held by Lord Lefford though, and the Bloody Gate is controlled by the Knight of the Bloody Gate. The fear of betrayal by a bannerman doesn't seem to concern the Lannisters or the Arryn's. Still, just because others do things one way, it doesn't mean the Starks should I guess.

However, the risk of a betraying bannerman taking control the Neck is already there. The Manderlys, for example, could simply seize it long before the Starks could do anything about it. Having a permanent garrison and a lord or appointee such as the Knight of the Bloody Gate in a proper castle would help prevent that eventuality. It would have prevented the Ironmen capturing it in clash for that matter (thinking about it, I’m surprised that the Ironmen didn’t do it all the time, given the ease with which Victarion took it).

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that the Knight of the Bloody Gate is directly appointed by the Lord of the Eyrie and has the command of a garrison.  I would expect a similar position of whomever has the command of the Moat. 

It is very likely that the Moat has a permanent (albeit smallish) garrison with a commander appointed directly by the Lord of Winterfell.

Regarding, why is was easy for Victarion to capture it, you need to remember that despite Robb leaving a strong-ish garrison there, they were attacked from the rear and given the best part of the Northern armies were south with Robb, they were unable to respond in a timely manner. Also, the fall of Winterfell prevented any coordinated effort from those north of the Neck. If Balon had done the same during a period of peace, the ironmen could have captured the Moat only to be smashed by the Northmen a fortnight after. The same applies to any house attempting to seize the Moat.

[Unacosamedarisa]

1 hour ago, rotting sea cow said:

Moat Cailin has such strategic value that leaving it to bannermen, even loyal ones, could prove disastrous, so it is ruled directly from Winterfell.

This is how I've always seen it. You can, perhaps, guarantee the loyalty and fealty of a second son, or some other individual, and grant them the fief. But, you can't guarantee the loyalty of their sons, and their sons, and their sons, and so on. Thus, granting them the door to the North (as Moat Cailin is) could be catastrophic in the future.

I think it's the same reason the Knight of the Bloody Gate and Keeper of the Gates of the Moon in the Vale are honorary titles, and not hereditary.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

4 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that the Knight of the Bloody Gate is directly appointed by the Lord of the Eyrie and has the command of a garrison.  I would expect a similar position of whomever has the command of the Moat. 

Agreed. That certainly makes more sense than making it hereditary, as any numpty could end up in charge of the defence of the North.

5 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Regarding, why is was easy for Victarion to capture it, you need to remember that despite Robb leaving a strong-ish garrison there, they were attacked from the rear and given the best part of the Northern armies were south with Robb, they were unable to respond in a timely manner. Also, the fall of Winterfell prevented any coordinated effort from those north of the Neck. If Balon had done the same during a period of peace, the ironmen could have captured the Moat only to be smashed by the Northmen a fortnight after. The same applies to any house attempting to seize the Moat.

That's a fair point.

[Legitimate_Bastard]

Perhaps because Greywater Watch is close enough for the crannogmen to be dispatched in the event of an attack on Moat Cailin. Both are located in the neck so to garrison/invest Moat Cailin with a separate house would be unnecessary and could cause strife with House Reed.

[Rufus Snow]

4 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

14 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

The land available around it for a fief is too poor to support a castle, financially

Is it? The Manderly lands aren’t far off, and they seem to do alright. Given enough land to the north of Moat Calin a lord could probably sustain it.

The Manderly lands are vast, lie across a river, blessed with silver mines and contain the main trading port for the whole North. With all these advantages, they should do 'alright'. MC can never compete.

But the main question is, given enough of whose land? Without drilling down to minor bannermen, the main contenders here would be Dustin and Manderly northwards, and Reed southwards. Which House do you most want to upset by taking away their land? Or do you propose extending the fief of one of those Houses, thereby depriving the other of access to the Kingsroad? Relations between Dustin and Manderly don't seem to be great as it is, without stirring things with a big stick.

 

10 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

14 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

The whole thng is slowly sinking

Very slowly, around ten thousand years and counting?

It doesn't matter how slowly the walls are crumbling, the ground is still too boggy for agriculture - and by the same token, if it's falling down so slowly, then it must have been in a parlous state for thousands of years already. There's no evidence for any occupation since the demise of the Marsh Kings.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

8 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

MC can never compete.

It doesn't need to compete with the Manderlys, just sustain itself.

8 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

But the main question is, given enough of whose land? Without drilling down to minor bannermen, the main contenders here would be Dustin and Manderly northwards, and Reed southwards. Which House do you most want to upset by taking away their land? Or do you propose extending the fief of one of those Houses, thereby depriving the other of access to the Kingsroad? Relations between Dustin and Manderly don't seem to be great as it is, without stirring things with a big stick.

Well, I'm not proposing to do anything. Do you think I'm drafting a planning application to Roose or something? :-)

The question is why isn't Moat Cailin controlled by a bannerman, not how I personally would organise such an arrangement now.

MC became part of the Northern kingdom after the Marsh king was defeated. At that stage the Stark could pretty much have carved things up how he liked. My history is a bit hazy, but I think that was before the Manderlys turned up anyway.

8 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

There's no evidence for any occupation since the demise of the Marsh Kings.

It had a wooden keep that rotted away a "thousand" years ago according to Catelyn. That could mean a thousand years, or could mean a long time ago. We don't know when it ceased to be occupied, but given the constant warring of the kingdoms pre-Conquest, I would be it was occupied for long stretches of time at the very least during that period.

 

[Rufus Snow]

4 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Well, I'm not proposing to do anything. Do you think I'm drafting a planning application to Roose or something? :-)

Oh, shoot, I'm never going to look at the local planning officers in the same light ever again, now

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

1 minute ago, Rufus Snow said:

Oh, shoot, I'm never going to look at the local planning officers in the same light ever again, now

Working in local government, I can assure you that many of our officers are more Frey-like than Bolton.

[Chris Mormont]

You would think that prior to the Conquest, the North would have or should have built a replacement for the Moat.  Obviously it is not good enough to control the causeway, but you must be able to defend your rear.  Whether a Lordship would have been granted or a honorary position is irrelevant, the Moat should have been repaired or rebuilt.

 

[Stormking902]

5 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

That's an interesting idea. The Golden Tooth is held by Lord Lefford though, and the Bloody Gate is controlled by the Knight of the Bloody Gate. The fear of betrayal by a bannerman doesn't seem to concern the Lannisters or the Arryn's. Still, just because others do things one way, it doesn't mean the Starks should I guess.

However, the risk of a betraying bannerman taking control the Neck is already there. The Manderlys, for example, could simply seize it long before the Starks could do anything about it. Having a permanent garrison and a lord or appointee such as the Knight of the Bloody Gate in a proper castle would help prevent that eventuality. It would have prevented the Ironmen capturing it in clash for that matter (thinking about it, I’m surprised that the Ironmen didn’t do it all the time, given the ease with which Victarion took it).

Is it? The Manderly lands aren’t far off, and they seem to do alright. Given enough land to the north of Moat Calin a lord could probably sustain it.

Very slowly, around ten thousand years and counting?

The World book says it was held by the Marsh Kings.

I suspect the Moat Cailin was permanently occupied in one way or another before the Conquest, and that it fell into disuse after that, as there seemed little point in maintaining a permanent garrison, as there was no longer constant war.

The bloody gate WAS house Arryns property until LF schemed it away to Nester Royce creating house Royce of the bloody gate, Nester has been the Castallan of the Bloody gate(Castle) for over 20 plus years while Brandon Tully was the Knight of the bloody gate so IMO it was never held by one family other then the Arryns historically. Also the Marsh kings are the Reeds of Greywater watch so they did control MC hundreds of years ago but as the swamp waters continued to raise up and literally swollow 17/20 Towers the Reeds probably decided to leave the land to mother nature since repairing it would cost to much money and the waters would only swallow them up again. 

[Sigella]

7 minutes ago, Stormking902 said:

The bloody gate WAS house Arryns property until LF schemed it away to Nester Royce creating house Royce of the bloody gate, Nester has been the Castallan of the Bloody gate(Castle) for over 20 plus years while Brandon Tully was the Knight of the bloody gate so IMO it was never held by one family other then the Arryns historically. Also the Marsh kings are the Reeds of Greywater watch so they did control MC hundreds of years ago but as the swamp waters continued to raise up and literally swollow 17/20 Towers the Reeds probably decided to leave the land to mother nature since repairing it would cost to much money and the waters would only swallow them up again. 

Um, think you're confusing the Gates of the Moon and the Bloody Gate?

[Stormking902]

4 minutes ago, Sigella said:

Um, think you're confusing the Gates of the Moon and the Bloody Gate?

So I am