Originally posted by Sonny
My guess would be that tax income would be derived from keeping the burghers happy. The happier they are the more trade they conduct, the more tax is collected. Not really sure if resources would play a part in that.
Well sure. But not all merchants were equal. The wool trade of England formed the basis of its kings' wealth. It was exported to Flanders and Brabant, where it fueled the lucrative cloth industry that made these regions rich & populous.
The dominance of the Saxon emperors and the strategic position of Saxony was directly dependent on the Harz mines, the major center of silver, iron, & copper in the Empire. They made the Ottos vastly more wealthy than the other dukes. The Salians fought to control them, and the direct result was several Saxon revolts. Henry the Lion wanted them back so bad he refused to help Frederick I in Italy unless he got them; this contributed to Barbarossa's defeat at Legnano and the breakup of Saxony itself. So they were very influential in German politics, as were the wines of the Rhine and the iron in Franconia that fueled its famous arms industry.
The spices, dyes, glass, silk, cotton, & sugar of the east directly fed the rise of Italian cities like Genoa, Venice, Milan, etc. Without resources, how & why would the Hanseatic League even form? One city has salt, the other productive fisheries; they join up, and that salt turns those fish into a very lucrative export. Novgorod was important mainly because of its trade in furs, hides, honey, and wax.
I agree we dont need an intricate system to capture all this; but it should be modelled somehow, if for no other reason than to make certain regions more strategically & economically important that others.
