Cutting the power of regional lords

[Jeo]

If ur were a king in westeros how will cut down the power of the regional lords.militiarily,politically,financially,etc

[King of Winter-ish Stuff]

If ur were a king in westeros how will cut down the power of the regional lords.militiarily,politically,financially,etc

I would take Joffrey's ONE AND ONLY GOOD IDEA. Create a standing army loyal to the crown. Aerys failed in large because his bannermen rebelled. He lost the military support of the North, Vale, Riverlands, and Stormlands. The Westerlands, arguably able to field the second largest army, stayed out of the conflict until late. The Reach committed a large amount of their forces to the siege of Storm's End. And Dorne entered the conflict only to fight on the Ruby Ford. Aerys was relying on loyal houses and the Crownlands. He was outnumbered. A standing royal army would be able to deal with threats that arise. Who cares if your lords are financially powerful if you control a large standing army. In the Targaryens' kingdom, the only thing separating Great Houses from is the title Warden or Lord Paramount. And those titles mostly have to do with the defense of their region or to lead their respective regions when the king calls. Take those powers away and you are left with just regular lords. You can keep Lords Paramount for governance of the regions but if they have no power to control your royal army, they really aren't a threat.

So there's my answer: a standing royal army.

[Pod The Impaler]

I would take Joffrey's ONE AND ONLY GOOD IDEA. Create a standing army loyal to the crown. Aerys failed in large because his bannermen rebelled. He lost the military support of the North, Vale, Riverlands, and Stormlands. The Westerlands, arguably able to field the second largest army, stayed out of the conflict until late. The Reach committed a large amount of their forces to the siege of Storm's End. And Dorne entered the conflict only to fight on the Ruby Ford. Aerys was relying on loyal houses and the Crownlands. He was outnumbered. A standing royal army would be able to deal with threats that arise. Who cares if your lords are financially powerful if you control a large standing army. In the Targaryens' kingdom, the only thing separating Great Houses from is the title Warden or Lord Paramount. And those titles mostly have to do with the defense of their region or to lead their respective regions when the king calls. Take those powers away and you are left with just regular lords. You can keep Lords Paramount for governance of the regions but if they have no power to control your royal army, they really aren't a threat.

So there's my answer: a standing royal army.

(That was only in the show, right?)

It takes a lot to create such an army, perhaps a level of social and industrial development that Westeros has just not achieved.

Armies do not produce, they consume. It takes a lot of food to sustain the men and horses. It takes a lot of wealth to give them arms and armour. And there is a natural attrition to things like morale issues and disease, and so one needs a steady supply of men & training.

So to have a standing army means you would need lands belonging to the crown alone, and certain forms of taxation to make up the rest. The leaders of those lands would essentially be lords themselves. The other lords would be jealous of their power, and feel threatened by your army, so the odds of conflict are high. (Things like the Magna Carta came about because of similar issues in real life, and the desire to limit the power of the monarch.)

But if there is a royal navy, one supposes there could also be a royal army, perhaps garrisoning & controlling certain strategic areas (the Twins, for example), not large enough to defeat any great lord on their own, but enough to make any lord think twice about rebellion.

[Jaak]

There already is pretty well disciplined mostly Westerosi standing army. The Golden Company. The other such standing army is Gold Cloaks... and although they are poorly disciplined, that Joffrey´s 6000 has been somehow paid for. Though I am not sure the losses at Blackwater (down to 4400) have been refilled.

Much of the Golden Company wants to return to various lordships. Not all do. So the logical move would be to keep the Golden Company as a standing army, and use it as an example to train the Gold Cloaks. Basically, merge the Gold Cloaks with Golden Company to fill the vacancies of the Golden Company exiles who want their own lands, and use Golden Company officers to train Gold Cloaks to the standards of the Golden Company.

Now lands and taxes... Pick suitably sited lands of your enemies to forfeit to Crown. And then keep them as Crown demesne.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

The other such standing army is Gold Cloaks... and although they are poorly disciplined, that Joffrey´s 6000 has been somehow paid for. Though I am not sure the losses at Blackwater (down to 4400) have been refilled.

The gold Cloaks swelled to that number because of the War and was a burden on the crowns debt after the war had ended.

It's usual number is 2,000.

The City Guard is needed to guard the city and can not be used as an army outside of the Crownlands as then you have the danger of the City being overwhelmed.

Manderly had to keep a portion of his men to protect his city, the Gold Cloaks stayed at Kings Landing, we hear of no Hightower soldiers marching with Renly or on the Blackwater and the well guarded Lannisport kept their guard to protect the city.

[naseridrl]

I've never understood why when the Targs lost their dragons did they not replace them with a standing army. I suppose that would have been like admitting defeat on the issue of no more dragons but without their biggest weapon of fear they had no way of controlling the population of rebellion did begin. They then had to rely on others to support them, which was always going to be fraught with danger.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

A standing or royal army of substantial can't be sustained with the current level of administration. It's simply not possible

Furthermore, the important Lords would feel threatened (rightfully) and stop that King.

The solution is a slow and ardous proccess of amassing personal holdings due to clever marriage policy and such over many generations, as well as funding innovations in the bureaucracy.

[Jaak]

A standing or royal army of substantial can't be sustained with the current level of administration. It's simply not possible

Furthermore, the important Lords would feel threatened (rightfully) and stop that King.

The solution is a slow and ardous proccess of amassing personal holdings due to clever marriage policy and such over many generations, as well as funding innovations in the bureaucracy.

The standing armies of Europe were often formed quickly - they were mobilized for some war, and then not demobilized. So French army (100 years war), Black Army of Hungary (crusade against Turkey), Spanish army (reconquista of Granada), English army (Great Rebellion).

Could the Golden Company confiscate enough lands or impose enough taxes to pay for itself as a standing army?

If Aegon managed to forfeit the Lannister gold mines to Iron Throne, could he then fund Golden Company as a standing army?

[OldGimletEye]

As mentioned by some people, attempt to start a standing national army, even if small.

Secondly, I would attempt to take away the right of feudal lords to hear certain types of legal cases. This would be a subtle hint about the power of the Crown. And, if I recall correctly, feudal lords were able to generate quite a bit of revenue from the hearing of cases. Along with this, attempt to construct a national legal code.

And also start The Bank of Westeros. Cersei actually had an idea like this. It maybe her only good idea. The Bank of Westeros would be the primary lender to the Crown. It would also would be the place where the Crown kept its funds. Decree that bank notes from the Bank of Westeros could pay off any debt owed to the crown. And I might even decree that only the Bank of Westeros could issue bank notes.

[sleath56]

Centralisation and the creation of a Nation state can come in more ways than just having a standing army, but it is a great point.

Historically, the first modern standing armies oft arose from dramatic events in society. For France, it was the Hundreds Year War; and for England it was the Monarchy Restoration. This was not always the case as the idea of creating standing armies are really a quirk of Feudalism.

Highly centralised states like Rome (and successors), Persia (and successors), and China also had a efficient standing army for a great part.

To create a standing army in Westeros, you need a strong ruler that is able to separate the land-owning (or rather any nobility) nobility and the generalship. Standing armies works when a 'commoner' was in command, or at least before the centralisation of the nobility takes place for it to be long-lasting.

[devilish]

Its normal for nations of that era to rely on the feudal system. It happened everywhere irrespective if its Japan or Europe.

Things change once the industry age starts kicking in. Guns would be too expensive for noblemen to produce which would lead to a more centralized system.

[OldGimletEye]

To create a standing army in Westeros, you need a strong ruler that is able to separate the land-owning (or rather any nobility) nobility and the generalship. Standing armies works when a 'commoner' was in command, or at least before the centralisation of the nobility takes place for it to be long-lasting.

Yes, start the Westeros General Staff School. Equally open to all that show ability.

[devilish]

Centralisation and the creation of a Nation state can come in more ways than just having a standing army, but it is a great point.

Historically, the first modern standing armies oft arose from dramatic events in society. For France, it was the Hundreds Year War; and for England it was the Monarchy Restoration. This was not always the case as the idea of creating standing armies are really a quirk of Feudalism.

Highly centralised states like Rome (and successors), Persia (and successors), and China also had a efficient standing army for a great part.

To create a standing army in Westeros, you need a strong ruler that is able to separate the land-owning (or rather any nobility) nobility and the generalship. Standing armies works when a 'commoner' was in command, or at least before the centralisation of the nobility takes place for it to be long-lasting.

The Roman empire imploded economically which forged the way to the feudal times. It was common for generals and puppet rulers to rebel again the empire especially in its latter days.

The feudal system was actually a smart system to work with especially when resources were low. A nation was broken into areas and assigned to people who would then break the land into more areas etc. Everyone got his cut out of taxes and it was in everyone's interest to keep the king in his place as a new king may appoint new feudal lords.

Everything changed when the industrial age kicked in. Weapons got more expensive (rifles etc) which required a more centralized government to finance it. More resources meant that the gap between the poor and the rich grew bigger and this brought revolts.

[sleath56]

The Roman empire imploded economically which forged the way to the feudal times. It was common for generals and puppet rulers to rebel again the empire especially in its latter days.

I wouldn't cite economic reasons for the 3rd century crisis and the rise of the barrack emperors, but rather a unfortunate line of emperors and bad luck. The first notions of the regions of the limes rebelling in the 3rd century was the overextension such that the emperor was unable to deal personally with the ongoing nature of the migration period. This loyalty to the emperor was diverted to loyalty to the general, a phase that Augustus worked so hard to repeal after the civil war.

The feudal system was actually a smart system to work with especially when resources were low. A nation was broken into areas and assigned to people who would then break the land into more areas etc. Everyone got his cut out of taxes and it was in everyone's interest to keep the king in his place as a new king may appoint new feudal lords.

Everything changed when the industrial age kicked in. Weapons got more expensive (rifles etc) which required a more centralized government to finance it. More resources meant that the gap between the poor and the rich grew bigger and this brought revolts.

A good point to add! However, weaponry did not become so as expensive as standardized. This quirk of Industrialism helped consolidate the centralised army, but is not a primary kickstarter.

[Jaak]

I wouldn't cite economic reasons for the 3rd century crisis and the rise of the barrack emperors, but rather a unfortunate line of emperors and bad luck. The first notions of the regions of the limes rebelling in the 3rd century was the overextension such that the emperor was unable to deal personally with the ongoing nature of the migration period. This loyalty to the emperor was diverted to loyalty to the general, a phase that Augustus worked so hard to repeal after the civil war.

For another matter, the Roman army that was enough in 1st...2nd century was overwhelmed with the increased Persian and German challenges of 3rd century.

[new djinn]

Why not, after a failed rebellion, cut the lands ruled by the rebel Houses?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Why not, after a failed rebellion, cut the lands ruled by the rebel Houses?

That is what's done.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

That is what's done.

Yeah. I think realistically that's the best thing that a Westerosi king could do. Gradually try splitting the most powerful lordships like the Lords Paramount, Oldtown etc into many smaller holdings ruled by different people (or councils of citizens in the case of cities), while also adding more and more land and incomes to his personal domain which is really weak at the moment, the Crownlands are small and the king doesn't even directly rule all of them. The War of the Five Kings could provide a great opportunity for this for the king that finally ends up winning, since there will be many noble houses that he would be justified in "punishing".

[tydides]

I would create a bigger fleet to directly control trade in all port cities. Westeros has a lot of shores, and this is way too important to be left to others. I would also have an army loyal to the throne to add to the crownlands army. Armies would be garrisoned in the narrow sea houses and at the stepstones and soldiers would be taken from each region. Narrow Sea houses and the stepstones are close to the action, but are far away from most regions. The stepstones are close to dorne, but if these soldiers chose to rebel, they would have a hard time in the inhospitable desert in a culture alien to most of them.

[Ser Eric]

Ensure that the Small Council has one important member from each of the 7 big houses. They could act as hostages if the need ever arose. Or is that unrealistic?