What keeps two kingdoms in Westeros from going to war with one another?

[Rohirrim]

The form of government in Westeros doesn't seem all that clear. Because there is no standing army under one banner and they operate off a feudal system, it doesn't seem like the king would have much power to quell infighting among the kingdoms. Lets say for instance that two kingdoms in Westeros that had no family ties to the iron thrown were to go to war with one another for whatever reason. Say if during Robert Baratheon's reign, that for whatever reason, Dorne went to war with the Iron Islands. Unless there is some clear offense by one party or the next, realistically the King could probably couldn't call banners from other kingdoms to participate in something like this or quell the fighting. He may be able to get a handful of troops from each kingdom (equally), but no one kingdom would commit to weaken their armies to fight on some mistaken peace keeping mission. The reality for the kingdom is that the infighting would weaken his overall fighting force as they keep one another off, and disrupt the balance off power. The Iron Islanders or whoever won this war, and continued to pledge loyalty to the king but wanted to strengthen his position within the kingdom by attacking the Eyrie and before the King knows someone has formed an empire within his own and became ripe for rebellion.

[ThirdUnsulliedFromTheLeft]

Great point and this is so weird, i have only just written a post about the Targaryens being doomed to fail after the last dragon died. I think the balance of power in Westeros is seven separate kingdoms and not one ruling house. You could see the Iron throne as an anomaly.

[F The King]

If King Robert did not want fighting between Dorne and the Iron Islands, he can say so. He can accuse both kingdoms of rebellion, strip lords of titles, seize their lands and make it the crown's, and eliminate their influence throughout the kingdoms. He's not going to just sit there and say "They've got big armies. Oh well, let them have at it."

Plus, the kingdoms respect the crown's authority. Or at least, make it look like they do. It's engrained in Westerosi society to respect the King's power and demands,

[Mammoth Slayer]

The Crown lands are of moderate size compared to the Seven Kingdoms, so the King could only raise a moderate army himself. He would need to rule in consultation with the Kingdoms and would rely upon their support if he was to go to war. It seems strange to me that each Kingdom does not keep an ambassador at King's Landing. During Robert's reign, apart from the Westerlands, they seem rather aloof from what happens at the Capital.

[Leonardo]

Put it this way

If you disobey your liege and violation of the feudal system, who's to say your own lords will obey you? There's also a lot of profit to be made being apart of one kingdom and helping to quell incidents like the one you described.

Aegon forged a kingdom when he forged the throne, though I agree the Targs were steadily declining in power and influence as time went on. There are also always young lords and knights who want to earn glory for themselves ready to ride to war.

[Rohirrim]

Yes he can certainly say no. And likely would for the aforementioned reasons of it weakening his standing army by infighting and by upsetting the balance of power. So he strips them legally of their titles and lands. Let's go back to my earlier example. Who enforces this in Dorn and on the Iron Islands? It doesn't seem very ingrained on the Iron Islands who have rebelled twice now. More than likely you won't find these disgruntled kingdoms dethroning their lords. With no standing army what does Robert do? Strip them legally and now they don't have to pay taxes? Hardly sounds like a punishment. If you're the victor in this situation then you have seceded and made annexed more land in one event.

Say he gathers a certain percentage from the remaining kingdom or even all of the armies. He can legally demand this but what's realistic, will Northmen call their banners to break up fighting between Dorn and the Iron Islands? How will the King be perceived after?

Again we are assuming there is no clear moral actor in this war that the rest of the kingdom can get behind.

Does he send his own house to war? Perhaps.

It doesn't seem likely to me that Robert could go to say, the Vale and demand their armies quell this rebellion and call their banners with virtually no incentive to do so.

And what does getting involved militarily really benefit? Furthering weakening of the kingdom with now 3 sides warring.

I'm not saying one way or the other. The point being that the Iron Thrown, without a standing army or dragons, is very precarious.

[King of the Rock]

Simple, you attack the Ironborn. It's always their fault.

[Kienn]

The same thing that stops minor houses within a single kingdom from fighting amongst themselves.

Nominally, all disputes are supposed to be settled by the ruler.

Between peasants? Landed knight handles it.

Between holdfasts? Minor lord handles it.

Between minor lords? Major lord handles it.

Between major lords? Lord paramount handles it.

Between lords paramount? King handles it.

Handling it may mean calling the banners and using force. If you're not the one the ruler sides with, that force is against you.

So it is the threat of force that prevents wars.

[Half Of Tormunds Member]

The same thing that stops minor houses within a single kingdom from fighting amongst themselves.

Nominally, all disputes are supposed to be settled by the ruler.

Between peasants? Landed knight handles it.

Between holdfasts? Minor lord handles it.

Between minor lords? Major lord handles it.

Between major lords? Lord paramount handles it.

Between lords paramount? King handles it.

Handling it may mean calling the banners and using force. If you're not the one the ruler sides with, that force is against you.

So it is the threat of force that prevents wars.

This.

[Archmaester Drew]

The same thing that stops minor houses within a single kingdom from fighting amongst themselves.

Nominally, all disputes are supposed to be settled by the ruler.

Between peasants? Landed knight handles it.

Between holdfasts? Minor lord handles it.

Between minor lords? Major lord handles it.

Between major lords? Lord paramount handles it.

Between lords paramount? King handles it.

Handling it may mean calling the banners and using force. If you're not the one the ruler sides with, that force is against you.

So it is the threat of force that prevents wars.

This. But also, the atainted Lord's lands and titles would be bestowed on another who would then have a vested interest in taking it with the King's authority. This is a fragile system, however, which is why it breaks down in time after the dragons are no longer around to enforce the will of the King. :)

[Kienn]

This. But also, the atainted Lord's lands and titles would be bestowed on another who would then have a vested interest in taking it with the King's authority. This is a fragile system, however, which is why it breaks down in time after the dragons are no longer around to enforce the will of the King. :)

The North has done the same for 8000 years without dragons, does doubling the area actually make it so much less stable?

(Can't actually argue against you though since of course feudalism is unstable IRL, but within the story... The Starks have seemed to pull it off).

[Archmaester Drew]

The North has done the same for 8000 years without dragons, does doubling the area actually make it so much less stable?

(Can't actually argue against you though since of course feudalism is unstable IRL, but within the story... The Starks have seemed to pull it off).

The North is a naturally circumscribed area with a similar culture and somewhat isolated. Even so, the Starks did not achieve primacy until only about 1000 years ago. Before that there were ongoing rivalries with several other houses that claimed petty kingship (Boltons, Rhyswells, Blackwoods, etc.). :)

[The Reckoner]

Fear of Stannaerys Tarbaratheogaryeon, the perfect hermaphrodite created from the alchemical fusion of Stannis the Mannis and Kelly C. by Marwyn in Oldtown.

[The Academic Wolf]

The North is a naturally circumscribed area with a similar culture and somewhat isolated. Even so, the Starks did not achieve primacy until only about 1000 years ago. Before that there were ongoing rivalries with several other houses that claimed petty kingship (Boltons, Rhyswells, Blackwoods, etc.). :)

The North is a naturally circumscribed area with a similar culture and somewhat isolated. Even so, the Starks did not achieve primacy until only about 1000 years ago. Before that there were ongoing rivalries with several other houses that claimed petty kingship (Boltons, Rhyswells, Blackwoods, etc.). :)

More like six thousand years ago (traditional timeline)- the Boltons and the Cranogmen bent the knee just as the Andals were coming across the Narrow Sea. Granted, the Starks had to keep on reconquering areas such as Cape Kraken (which the Ironborn kept on taking), as well as the Boltons causing trouble every now and then, but on the whole, the Starks have ruled the North since the arrival of the Andals.

But aside from that minor quibble, an excellent point.

[Kienn]

The North is a naturally circumscribed area with a similar culture and somewhat isolated. Even so, the Starks did not achieve primacy until only about 1000 years ago. Before that there were ongoing rivalries with several other houses that claimed petty kingship (Boltons, Rhyswells, Blackwoods, etc.). :)

Other than then Ironborn I'd say all of Westeros is similarly circumscribed with a similar culture as well.

1000 is still significantly longer than 150, and as above, depending on what timeline you believe it's more like 4000 or 6000.

[John Doe]

Fear of Stannaerys Tarbaratheogaryeon, the perfect hermaphrodite created from the alchemical fusion of Stannis the Mannis and Kelly C. by Marwyn in Oldtown.

How can he be perfect with some Dany in it. Stannis baratheon aleady is perfect. Ston Starkatheon, Stannos Baraworth and Stactarion Greytheon would be nice I must admit.

[Jimmy is not No One]

What would happen if two kingdoms started fighting? King bob could call the banners of the other 5 kingdoms and put an end to it pretty quickly. Look what happened when one of the houses rebelled (hint: greyjoy rebellion).

[Archmaester Drew]

More like six thousand years ago (traditional timeline)- the Boltons and the Cranogmen bent the knee just as the Andals were coming across the Narrow Sea. Granted, the Starks had to keep on reconquering areas such as Cape Kraken (which the Ironborn kept on taking), as well as the Boltons causing trouble every now and then, but on the whole, the Starks have ruled the North since the arrival of the Andals.

But aside from that minor quibble, an excellent point.

Thanks! :)

From the wiki:

Approximately a thousand years ago, the Boltons bent their knees to Winterfell and agreed to abandon their practice of flaying their enemies.

Synopsis: Chapter 50 ACOK (wiki):

Theon considers what he knows of the Boltons, that their lords used to wear cloaks made from the skins of their enemies, and several Starks ‘ended thus’. Supposedly, that stopped a thousand years ago when the Boltons bent the knee to Winterfell.

The Starks were most powerful of the Northern Kings, but did not consolidate rule of the North until 1000 years ago. :)

[Pod The Impaler]

The form of government in Westeros doesn't seem all that clear. Because there is no standing army under one banner and they operate off a feudal system, it doesn't seem like the king would have much power to quell infighting among the kingdoms. Lets say for instance that two kingdoms in Westeros that had no family ties to the iron thrown were to go to war with one another for whatever reason. Say if during Robert Baratheon's reign, that for whatever reason, Dorne went to war with the Iron Islands. Unless there is some clear offense by one party or the next, realistically the King could probably couldn't call banners from other kingdoms to participate in something like this or quell the fighting. He may be able to get a handful of troops from each kingdom (equally), but no one kingdom would commit to weaken their armies to fight on some mistaken peace keeping mission. The reality for the kingdom is that the infighting would weaken his overall fighting force as they keep one another off, and disrupt the balance off power. The Iron Islanders or whoever won this war, and continued to pledge loyalty to the king but wanted to strengthen his position within the kingdom by attacking the Eyrie and before the King knows someone has formed an empire within his own and became ripe for rebellion.

It is not simply a matter of military numbers. The king is still The King.Within the realm, the king is the ultimate arbiter of all disputes, the source of all law, the commander of all commanders, and all people are their subjects. If the King demands you stop fighting, and you don't, you have disobeyed a direct order from the King, which is treason. If the King wants, he can summon both the Lords involved to the capitol, and like being called in to a meeting by your mafia boss, saying "no" is a sign of disobedience / disrespect, so do you really dare say no? That would be treason too. Kings are not told "no" by their subjects.

As well, remember that each of these major lords has a large number of ambitious minor lords - any of whom can defy you in the midst of the conflict and pledge their men to "restore the king's peace", probably expecting the king's gratitude / reward when they dump your trussed-up body at the foot of the throne. I hate to use the mafia analogy again, but it's very true: these are all ambitious men, and whatever "code" they adhere to is just a means of regulating their potential for treachery and violence.

This does not mean a king is omnipotent, just that he has a lot of very real power, should he be willing and able to use it. This doesn't mean their decision to use it (or not use it) will necessarily be a wise one, or a just one.

However, to openly disregard or disobey the king is a whole other dimension of conflict, and past a certain point, you will end up either being punished for it or rebelling against the crown.

[Archmaester Drew]

Other than then Ironborn I'd say all of Westeros is similarly circumscribed with a similar culture as well.

1000 is still significantly longer than 150, and as above, depending on what timeline you believe it's more like 4000 or 6000.

Not really, south of the Neck is a mix of First Men and Andal, as well as Rhoynar in the south. It has several natural regions that make up the core areas of the kingdoms pre-conquest. It is also much more greatly populated than the North. :)