Why moat cailin never rebuilded

[Mrstrategy]

Why was moat Caitlin never rebuilded considering its importance. it controls the only way to enter the north and in enemy hands like in war of five kings it cuts of the north from south and the south from the north.

 

 

[Loose Bolt]

I suspect that Targ kings did not allow rebuilding MC. After all very common thing in Europe was destruction of old castles for political reasons. For instance in here Kuusistonlinna was wiped out 1582. Reason was that castle belong to bishop of Turku and by wiping out that castle king Kustaa Wasa made sure that bishops of Turku would not have any access to any military forces. Or destruction of castles made harder for any potential rebels to resist royal armies.

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

Probably because of the cost of rebuilding it.

[Moiraine Sedai]

4 minutes ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

Probably because of the cost of rebuilding it.

This.  The Starks are not the wealthiest of families. Besides, ruined as it was, it was still effective.  Comfort is not a high priority for a fort.  MC was effective enough as it is.  The crannogmen are used to mean living.  They don't need a castle.

[rotting sea cow]

8 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

This.  The Starks are not the wealthiest of families. Besides, ruined as it was, it was still effective.  Comfort is not a high priority for a fort.  MC was effective enough as it is.  The crannogmen are used to mean living.  They don't need a castle.

The thing is there is a world building issue around MC. If the Twins have such importance for commerce, the traffic up to the Neck should be quite large and since MC is at the other end, they should also collect tolls. Unless the Starks do not charge any toll because that traffic is actually beneficial for the North's economy. Anyway keeping the fortress more or less in shape should be quite important. An indication of this importance is there are hints that MC is directly controlled by the Starks and not by any bannerman in their name, in a similar fashion to the Gates of the Moon in the Vale

I tend to think like @Loose Bolt that either it became unnecessary to have such a stronghold in readiness or they were not allowed by the Crown.

Despite of being semi in ruins, its defensive value is still considerable.

[James Steller]

Honestly it doesn’t quite make sense to me how the fortress was ever built in the first place. One would imagine that it’s a lot more expensive to build a fortress up from scratch than to repair an old one. So how did the First Men build Moat Cailin in its peak condition (1) with less financial resources and a lower population, and (2) on such uneven and hazardous ground. The fortress is basically falling into the swamp, so either the swamp has advanced since the fortress was first built, or we’ve got a Monty Python situation going on here. Maybe the fourth one will stay up?

[Loose Bolt]

3 hours ago, James Steller said:

Honestly it doesn’t quite make sense to me how the fortress was ever built in the first place. One would imagine that it’s a lot more expensive to build a fortress up from scratch than to repair an old one. So how did the First Men build Moat Cailin in its peak condition (1) with less financial resources and a lower population, and (2) on such uneven and hazardous ground. The fortress is basically falling into the swamp, so either the swamp has advanced since the fortress was first built, or we’ve got a Monty Python situation going on here. Maybe the fourth one will stay up?

When MC was build the Neck was totally different and area around MC was not huge swamp. By legend that huge swamp was created when greensee'ers used hammer of the waters.

I assume that during building of the Moat that area could support large population and that area was under control of a petty king who build that castle. My personal theory is that house Towers is somehow connected, bc we know that MC had 20 towers and we also know that house Towers was wiped out by rising house Stark. But alas there are no any real facts  supporting that theory.

[corbon]

8 hours ago, James Steller said:

Honestly it doesn’t quite make sense to me how the fortress was ever built in the first place. One would imagine that it’s a lot more expensive to build a fortress up from scratch than to repair an old one. So how did the First Men build Moat Cailin in its peak condition (1) with less financial resources and a lower population, and (2) on such uneven and hazardous ground. The fortress is basically falling into the swamp, so either the swamp has advanced since the fortress was first built, or we’ve got a Monty Python situation going on here. Maybe the fourth one will stay up?

There are clues that perhaps Moat Cailin was built before the First Men.

The great blocks of Black Basalt seem to be rare and not locally sourced - at least there is no other castle anywhere near with similar stone. 
When wet, the blocks appear to be covered with fine black oil.

A number of other significant ancient sites around the world are made with "oily Black Stone" or "fused Black Stone" and seem to be from an advanced pre-historic civilisation.
ASoIaF wiki Black_stone

Further, legend says that the Children of the Forest gathered at "the Childrens Tower", of Moat Cailin, to cast the Hammer of the Waters and break the Neck. Which kinda suggests it wasn't a First Man castle at that time, since thats who they were opposing.

 

[HexMachina]

12 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

The thing is there is a world building issue around MC. If the Twins have such importance for commerce, the traffic up to the Neck should be quite large and since MC is at the other end, they should also collect tolls. Unless the Starks do not charge any toll because that traffic is actually beneficial for the North's economy. Anyway keeping the fortress more or less in shape should be quite important. An indication of this importance is there are hints that MC is directly controlled by the Starks and not by any bannerman in their name, in a similar fashion to the Gates of the Moon in the Vale

I tend to think like @Loose Bolt that either it became unnecessary to have such a stronghold in readiness or they were not allowed by the Crown.

Despite of being semi in ruins, its defensive value is still considerable.

I don’t find the Crown forbidding it convincing, if only because it had been a ruin for hundreds of years before the Conquest. Even if the Crown had out down some kind of restriction, that wouldnt really be the reason it wasn’t rebuilt as nobody seemed inclined to rebuild anyway. Imo it was simply practicality and reason. Why waste expense, manpower, and resources that already does the same job just as well in its present state?

 

though it is also part of a larger problem with Westeros in that there seems to be very little in the way of building and rebuilding outside of the odd few projects

[Trigger Warning]

You could sit your army on the end of the causeway and achieve the same thing so why bother with the expense especially when the realm is united under one monarch, also rebuilding it would likely be seen as provocation. Lots of drawbacks, few real benefits especially when the towers still more or less do their jobs anyway. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I don’t find the Crown forbidding it convincing, if only because it had been a ruin for hundreds of years before the Conquest. Even if the Crown had out down some kind of restriction, that wouldnt really be the reason it wasn’t rebuilt as nobody seemed inclined to rebuild anyway. Imo it was simply practicality and reason. Why waste expense, manpower, and resources that already does the same job just as well in its present state?

Jaehaerys put a heavy tax on improving castles and adding crenelations  to existing castles. That along would have prevented it for most of the Targ rule. Add into that the dragons can fly over MC and can fire it from above, and,  exactly,you're not gonna build up an area that already does a damn good job of repelling the enemies.

15 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

An indication of this importance is there are hints that MC is directly controlled by the Starks and not by any bannerman in their name, in a similar fashion to the Gates of the Moon in the Vale 

 

What hints are those? I haven't seen a single one other than Ned directing the Crannogmen to protect the causeway and Glover / Tallhart to put bowmen there. It seems like it sits empty 99.9% of the time. Based on what we know of the area from the POVS of Theon, Catelyn, and Arya, it's unable to support a lordly seat or produce any kind of agriculture.

• Moat is full of lizard lions & large man killing snakes
• land around the causeway is all bog and swamp
• Robb says they can't live off the land easily, though that's a big army to be sure

[frenin]

15 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I don’t find the Crown forbidding it convincing, if only because it had been a ruin for hundreds of years before the Conquest. Even if the Crown had out down some kind of restriction, that wouldnt really be the reason it wasn’t rebuilt as nobody seemed inclined to rebuild anyway. Imo it was simply practicality and reason. Why waste expense, manpower, and resources that already does the same job just as well in its present state?

 

though it is also part of a larger problem with Westeros in that there seems to be very little in the way of building and rebuilding outside of the odd few projects

I think that anyone who sought to rebuild the thing under the Targ, or Robert's rule would have met strong opposition  by the crown, rebuilding a fortress that even in ruins gets thejob done can only be interpreted in one way.

[TheThreeEyedCow]

The castle has no Lord or family there to maintain it. And I think that's wise. It's a strategic piece of defence that should remain under the direct control of the KitN or Warden of the North.

[HexMachina]

8 hours ago, frenin said:

I think that anyone who sought to rebuild the thing under the Targ, or Robert's rule would have met strong opposition  by the crown, rebuilding a fortress that even in ruins gets thejob done can only be interpreted in one way.

Right, true. But this can’t have been the reason for not rebuilding given the lack of any such attempt in all those centuries prior to the conquest

[Seaserpent]

Money and the swamp ground has to be the only reasons. Targs are there only for 300 years, so thats no reason to rebuilt it. Put it under Stark rule is also no reason, because you can put a second heir or somebody from the Cassel family insite.  So Money is the biggest problem i think.