Would it have been better to make Harrenhal the Capital?

[maesternewton]

If Aegon the Conqueror was able to obtain Harrenhal and depose Harren without burning it, or even decide to rebuild it. Would it have been a better decision to make Harrenhal the Capital while merging the Riverlands with the Crownlands?

[Alester Florent]

The real question is: what would he gain by doing so? Even leaving aside that successive lords of Harrenhal have struggled with the place, what advantages would it offer over King's Landing?

Sure, he could take a bigger slice of land and associate it with the crown, but there's nothing to stop him doing that while keeping the capital in King's Landing.

[astarkchoice]

Dunno medieval economy wise itd probably nees to be a port city to hve enough trade to even support such a big population!

 

Harrenhall would need to have  no small fortune spent on it to restore it too

[SaffronLady]

3 hours ago, maesternewton said:

merging the Riverlands with the Crownlands?

Going by the map I have on hand, while it may be feasible to incorporate the God's Eye lake and surrounding lands into the crownlands, road conditions of A1gon's period don't really support him making his domain stretch as far as Pinkmaiden, Seagard and the Twins.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

If there was an alternate capital to King's Landing, I think it should have been Oldtown. It was already an established and thriving city, and the center of both learning and the faith in Westeros. Harrenhall doesn't really make much strategic sense. King's Landing was....probably the right move though, as it's centrally located and allowed the new regime to be completely associated with the new center of commerce in Westeros. Honestly, if there was someone who should have moved the capital, it should have been Robert, to lesson his association with the Targaryens...but Robert did basically nothing to distance himself/separate his regime from Targaryen rule, and he basically used his grandmother to usurp the line, but essentially keep the same line as the Targaryens. I personally think this was kind of a foolish decision. New regimes normally do a lot of separate themselves and establish their own dynasty rather than be too over-reliant on the previous dynasty. It's also why I think we'll see Aegon F Targaryen gain lots of popular support and possibly Daenerys after him, as Robert's line never really established itself, and ....everyone sees Tommen probably the same we see him, a Lannister puppet King (as they did Joffrey before him). Wow, I got way way off topic here. Well, I hope you all are forced down this ADHD filled rant that is only loosely related to the topic at hand, lol

[Nevets]

Historically, most capitals have been along coastlines or major waterways.  This makes access, and hence administration, easier.  This is true with most of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros.  Casterly Rock, Storms End, and Sunspear are along the coast, Highgarden is on the Mander, and Riverrun is along the Trident.  Winterfell is an exception probably because the North is too spread out to be administered from its edge.  The Eyrie is an outlier built for defense.

Harrenhal is neither on a coast or river so too difficult to get to or from, making it a poor choice for capital.  Kings Landing is a nice, safe harbor with ready access to most of Westeros, and a commercial center as well.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Nevets

[maesternewton]

7 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

The real question is: what would he gain by doing so? Even leaving aside that successive lords of Harrenhal have struggled with the place, what advantages would it offer over King's Landing?

Sure, he could take a bigger slice of land and associate it with the crown, but there's nothing to stop him doing that while keeping the capital in King's Landing.

Harrenhal is a big castle that can only be efficiently controlled by a King. 

But you make a valid point that he can incorporate the Riverlands into the Crownlands while still making King's Landing the Capital. Harrenhal is centrally located though and Aegon would not need to build the Redkeep, he would have a big castle already built.

9 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Dunno medieval economy wise itd probably nees to be a port city to hve enough trade to even support such a big population!

 

Harrenhall would need to have  no small fortune spent on it to restore it too

Good point. It does seem like most of the big cities are coastal ones. 

8 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Going by the map I have on hand, while it may be feasible to incorporate the God's Eye lake and surrounding lands into the crownlands, road conditions of A1gon's period don't really support him making his domain stretch as far as Pinkmaiden, Seagard and the Twins.

Westeros didn't have much roads when Aegon conquered. All the roads that connected King's Landing to all the important castles were built by Jaehaerys I. The is nothing stopping any King from building the roads necessary to connect the River-Crownlands to his capital, and it is much easier to do so if the capital is Harrenhal.

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

If there was an alternate capital to King's Landing, I think it should have been Oldtown. It was already an established and thriving city, and the center of both learning and the faith in Westeros. Harrenhall doesn't really make much strategic sense. King's Landing was....probably the right move though, as it's centrally located and allowed the new regime to be completely associated with the new center of commerce in Westeros.

Harrenhal is centrally located in the Riverlands and Westeros. Those things that make Oldtown the center of the faith and learning can be changed, by building a grand sept and a new citadel in Harrenhal or even King's Landing, which is what Baelor did by building the Grand sept. 

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

Historically, most capitals have been along coastlines or major waterways.  This makes access, and hence administration, easier.  This is true with most of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros.  Casterly Rock, Storms End, and Sunspear are along the coast, Highgarden is on the Mander, and Riverrun is along the Trident.  Winterfell is an exception probably because the North is too spread out to be administered from its edge.  The Eyrie is an outlier built for defense.

Harrenhal is neither on a coast or river so too difficult to get to or from, making it a poor choice for capital.  Kings Landing is a nice, safe harbor with ready access to most of Westeros, and a commercial center as well.

That's a good point. On merging the Riverlands with the Crownlands?

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

1 minute ago, maesternewton said:

Harrenhal is centrally located in the Riverlands and Westeros. Those things that make Oldtown the center of the faith and learning can be changed, by building a grand sept and a new citadel in Harrenhal or even King's Landing, which is what Baelor did by building the Grand sept. 

Except that is not true. It isn't all that centrally located. The Crossroads Inn is, so if you wanted to build in the Riverlands, I guess building around the Crossroads Inn (also near river commerce) would be a better location. Harrenhall is toward the southern part of the Riverlands and more importantly, all of the major houses are essentially North or West of it (with the exception being Maidenpool, but post Targaryen take over, I think Maidenpool majorly waned in power as compared to the other Riverlands large houses). King's Landing is much more centrally located from a Westeros point of view. Just to add to reasons why Harrenhall would be a poor choice, the Riverlands is famous for being easily invaded (and has been invaded repeatedly just in the history we have). In comparison, although King's Landing is not the strongest castle in Westeros, it has a large harbor, so as long as ships are not cut off, they can get food even if they are cut off land. Also, it is difficult to completely cut off King's Landing from Land since there is the Reach, the Stormlands, and the Riverlands all connected (so all 3 kingdoms would have to be rebelling to be cut off from food, while as if the capital was in Harrenhall, ONLY the Riverlands has to rebel). Harrenhall is also repeatedly mentioned to being built too large and difficult to maintain. 

So to summarize : King's Landing is more centrally located in Westeros then Harrenhall is. It is a port city, allowing for it to be a center of trade. As well it is between three major Kingdoms again allowing for commerce to flow through it. Harrenhall is non-centrally located in one of the weakest Kingdoms. It has no major connections to any of the other Kingdoms and is neither a port nor located on a river to allow for ship carried trade. Harrenhalll is also built at a large scale that makes it extremely difficult to manage and it can easily be cut off from the outside via a blockade, while as King's Landing is much harder to cut off completely (you have to block it from 3 different sides + the ocean, all of which could be controlled by different Lords/powers). 

[SaffronLady]

1 hour ago, maesternewton said:

The is nothing stopping any King from building the roads necessary to connect the River-Crownlands to his capital, and it is much easier to do so if the capital is Harrenhal.

Yes, but Ja1 happens to ascend to the throne half a century after A1gon's conquest, hence why I mentioned the thing about roads.

[SaffronLady]

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Harrenhall is non-centrally located in one of the weakest Kingdoms. It has no major connections to any of the other Kingdoms and is neither a port nor located on a river to allow for ship carried trade.

Harrenhal is located on a lakeside though, so river barge trade can go up the Blackwater into the God's Eye lake. It's still not as good as KL despite of this, I would say.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

1 hour ago, SaffronLady said:

Harrenhal is located on a lakeside though, so river barge trade can go up the Blackwater into the God's Eye lake. It's still not as good as KL despite of this, I would say.

I mean, lake side is not all that helpful toward trade. I cannot even really think of a city that used a lake as a major trade route, and the lake would have to be significantly bigger than the God's Eye...and have significantly more ....ports I guess lol, to have this effect. As far as I'm aware, Harrenhall is basically the only major city/castle on the God's Eye. 

[SaffronLady]

2 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I mean, lake side is not all that helpful toward trade. I cannot even really think of a city that used a lake as a major trade route, and the lake would have to be significantly bigger than the God's Eye...and have significantly more ....ports I guess lol, to have this effect. As far as I'm aware, Harrenhall is basically the only major city/castle on the God's Eye. 

Sometimes I just empty my mind regarding real-life geography and economics when trying to analyze how the society of Westeros was supposed to work.

Still, Harrenhal could become a good waystation for trade between the Blackwater and the Trident if a king finally did that favorite thing of “uplifting” fics - digging a canal (between God's Eye and the Trident, in this case).

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

1 minute ago, SaffronLady said:

Sometimes I just empty my mind regarding real-life geography and economics when trying to analyze how the society of Westeros was supposed to work.

Still, Harrenhal could become a good waystation for trade between the Blackwater and the Trident if a king finally did that favorite thing of “uplifting” fics - digging a canal (between God's Eye and the Trident, in this case).

Or we could just relocate Harrenhal. Hear me out..

A few options where they could have moved Harrenhal to the location of KL:

• Mount Harrenhal onto a wagon (or a few) and drive it to KL like a mobile home trailer.
• Tie a bunch of ropes around Harrenhal and then secure the ropes to Balerion and have him fly it to KL. Like transferring large cargo via chinook.
• Tear Harrenhal down and start an assembly line that goes all the way to KL and rebuild it there.
• Hire an Amish community to rebuild it and it will be done it 2 days.

[BlackLightning]

It's my prediction that King's Landing will be an uninhabitable ruin, and that all of the Targaryens will perish or be banished by the end of the series. When that happens, Bran will become the King of Westeros and his seat will be on the Isle of Faces with Harrenhal being the new capital.

After all, with Lady Shella Whent most likely dead, Bran is the rightful Lord of Harrenhal.

On 8/18/2023 at 7:36 AM, Nevets said:

Historically, most capitals have been along coastlines or major waterways.  This makes access, and hence administration, easier.  This is true with most of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros.  Casterly Rock, Storms End, and Sunspear are along the coast, Highgarden is on the Mander, and Riverrun is along the Trident.  Winterfell is an exception probably because the North is too spread out to be administered from its edge.  The Eyrie is an outlier built for defense.

Harrenhal is neither on a coast or river so too difficult to get to or from, making it a poor choice for capital.  Kings Landing is a nice, safe harbor with ready access to most of Westeros, and a commercial center as well.

Actually, the Eyrie is the only true exception. And it's more of a palace than a true fortified military installation. That privilege belongs to the Gates of the Moon.

Winterfell is located at the headwaters of the White Knife. You should be able to use barges and ferries to travel from Winterfell to White Harbor and the Bite.

On 8/18/2023 at 11:44 AM, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I mean, lake side is not all that helpful toward trade. I cannot even really think of a city that used a lake as a major trade route, and the lake would have to be significantly bigger than the God's Eye...and have significantly more ....ports I guess lol, to have this effect. As far as I'm aware, Harrenhall is basically the only major city/castle on the God's Eye. 

Let's see...there's Kiev, the cities of Chicago, Detroit and Toronto, the entire Crimean Peninsula, Geneva and maybe Constantinople/Istanbul

Edited October 12, 2023 by BlackLightning

[Alester Florent]

5 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I mean, lake side is not all that helpful toward trade. I cannot even really think of a city that used a lake as a major trade route, and the lake would have to be significantly bigger than the God's Eye...and have significantly more ....ports I guess lol, to have this effect. As far as I'm aware, Harrenhall is basically the only major city/castle on the God's Eye. 

Detroit, Chicago, Toronto and Millwaukee are all on lakes and have done ok... but that lake complex is really more like an inland sea. Kampala is a pretty modern city on a lake.

In the old world, the most obvious example may be Geneva. Which did fine, but it was never a massively important trade hub. Almaty might be a better example. Tashkent... kind of?

There certainly aren't many.

[sifth]

Old Town seems like it would have been the more logical choice. Being an already established city and with a port.

[Alester Florent]

I feel like Oldtown is in the wrong place to serve as capital for the whole of the 7K. Notwithstanding its sea connections, it's just too far away from anywhere. It's not even the political centre of the Reach.

If choosing an established settlement for the capital of the 7K, then my first thought was Duskendale. But although it's got a good position on the coast, its landward situation isn't great, as it's not on any major rivers.

The only other established place I think is worth seriously considering would be Maidenpool, which has good sea and river access: arguably better river access than KL. But KL has arguably two major advantages that Maidenpool doesn't. Firstly, it's much closer to the headwaters of the Mander. Although the Blackwater Rush doesn't offer the same direct access as the Trident, it's only a relatively short overland stint from it to the Mander, which takes you all the way down to Highgarden and eventually the coast. Northwards, you have the same relatively short trek from Harrenhal to Darry to join up with the Trident.

Secondly, it provides easier access to what remained at that time the Targaryens' reliable powerbase in the Gullet (including the lair of their dragons, to which they would want convenient access). To reach Maidenpool, the ships of the Gullet have to sail around Crackclaw Point, which is not very attractive. With bases in Dragonstone, Driftmark and King's Landing the Targs are in a position to completely control Blackwater Bay and quickly and easily reinforce each other if necessary.

Easy access to Dragonstone is another reason why anywhere much further afield than the current Crownlands would be an unattractive capital.

Indeed, King's Landing is arguably almost perfectly situated for what the Targs need it for. Perhaps not that surprising, since GRRM probably drew the map with that in mind!

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

8 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Detroit, Chicago, Toronto and Millwaukee are all on lakes and have done ok... but that lake complex is really more like an inland sea. Kampala is a pretty modern city on a lake.

In the old world, the most obvious example may be Geneva. Which did fine, but it was never a massively important trade hub. Almaty might be a better example. Tashkent... kind of?

There certainly aren't many.

Chicago has connection to the Mississipi River I believe and that was what made it a major trade hub during the Steamboat era of American history. Detroit was famous for manufacturing rather than being a trade hub. Toronto, according to google (cause I had no idea) sits on three major rivers (which probably influenced trade). Again according to Wikipedia I think it is confirming what I thought for both Chicago and Toronto, which seem tohave had more trade via river than lake, especially Chicago (and the Mississippi River connection)

Edit ; I realized I ignored Milwaukee, and now I am doubling down on forgetting it because Milwaukee is not a major anything lol. Sorry, not sorry Milwaukeeans, lol. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Lord of Raventree Hall

[SaffronLady]

9 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Chicago has connection to the Mississipi River I believe and that was what made it a major trade hub during the Steamboat era of American history. Detroit was famous for manufacturing rather than being a trade hub. Toronto, according to google (cause I had no idea) sits on three major rivers (which probably influenced trade). Again according to Wikipedia I think it is confirming what I thought for both Chicago and Toronto, which seem tohave had more trade via river than lake, especially Chicago (and the Mississippi River connection)

Edit ; I realized I ignored Milwaukee, and now I am doubling down on forgetting it because Milwaukee is not a major anything lol. Sorry, not sorry Milwaukeeans, lol. 

I think we should essentially treat lakes as an extension of rivers, especially major rivers, a sort of buffer zone against floods and droughts, analyzing associated economic activity accordingly. 

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

12 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

I think we should essentially treat lakes as an extension of rivers, especially major rivers, a sort of buffer zone against floods and droughts, analyzing associated economic activity accordingly. 

But it is the river and not the lake that makes it a viable trade route. God’s Eye doesn’t connect to a river system as far as I’m aware. But I get what you mean and I believe the things you saif about flooding and storms would be why the safer harbor on the lake would make sense as compared to along the river whicy is less predictable. Since I live on the Han River, I do know in the past it MAJORLY flooded yearly (dams and barriers have been built in modern times to prevent that) which I assume was a yearly inconvenience that cities like Chicago or Toronto probably don’t have to deal with as much.