tcarve:
racefortheironthrone:
tcarve:
racefortheironthrone:
Master of Coins. Build a canal linking the Mander to the Blackwater and the Trident to Ironman’s Bay. Charge 10 gold a ship, that’ll put a significant dent in the debt.
I can think of several problems with that.
- The crown is already waist deep in debt at the start of the series. Where is the initial capital for this mammoth undertaking coming from?
- Per your analysis of the series the Westerosi monarchy is pretty weak. How would you convince the lords upon whose land these canals will be dug to cooperate? Would you allow them to tax shipping too?
- Connecting the Trident to Ironman’s Bay seems likely to meet with a lot of resistance from the Riverlords. Is it really a good idea to provide the Ironborn with easy access to the Trident? There would probably still be memories of Ironborn rule in the Riverlands, and I doubt anyone’s trusting the Greyjoys not to exploit such a strategic weakness when Balon’s first rebellion was only nine years previous.
1. That’s a fair point. My only argument would be that the true state of the crown’s debt and income is highly uncertain, as Littlefinger cooked the books hardcore.
2. Yeah, they’d get a share. And they’d benefit from the improvements to their local economy – as their smallfolk get richer, they get richer.
3. You can more easily close off a canal than a river, and the Ironborn can already get from IB to the Trident by portaging their boats – as Harwyn Hoare did when he conquered the Riverlands.
I agree with you that Littlefinger is seriously gaming the crown’s finances, but there is no uncertainty about the debts to the Lannisters, the Faith, the Iron Bank, etcetera. They might not be willing to support such a venture, especially after Aerys’ talk of ludicrous public works projects might have soured general opinion on the concept.
I’m not sure that a canal would be a boost to the economy it’s dug through. As it facilitates faster travel the merchants would take fewer stops along the way and (presumably) thus spend less money. Not to mention the businesses (for want of a better word) along the Rose Road, who would suffer as their customers change to the canal route. Like I said I’m not really sure of this though.
It may be that the Ironborn can already portage into the Trident, but I’d imagine such a manoeuvre to be vulnerable and necessitate the neutralisation of Seagard. If a canal is built, and the Ironborn can capture the Bay end, then they are much less vulnerable as they enter the Riverlands. Raising a sufficiently defensive structure there is going to add significantly to your initial costs, and who’s going to take responsibility for garrisoning it?
I guess I just can’t see the Mallisters being as cavalier about the potential weakness.
1. The debts are real. On the other hand, if I can get my hands on Littlefinger’s assets, cancel the crown’s debts to the Lannisters once their treason is made known, and actually start paying the debts down instead of essentially taking out iterative mortgages to pay the interests, I think I’d be on steady enough footing.
2. A couple hundred years of world history says you’re wrong about canals. Faster travel means more and cheaper goods sold, leading to a big increase in economic growth and living standards; canals also allow Westerosi farmers and manufacturers to sell their goods to a wider market, improving their lot as well. Likewise, it also means more travelers, making up for the loss of income per traveler. You’re still going to get plenty of travel along the Royal Roads – canals make sense for certain kinds of goods, not others – especially if you set up a Royal Mail and a consumer coach service.
3. If the canal terminates at Seagard, there’s literally no difference. Both require neutralizing Seagard. And if anything a canal is more secure than a river, because canals can have locks built into them to halt progress. And I think the Mallisters would like it very much if Seagard became as big and rich and Lannisport, which it would.
RFTIT Tumblr Backup 