How do you centralize the 7 kingdoms

[John Doe]

See to it that cities grow in importance and protect them against the interests of the nobility.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Creating a centralized state in Westeros reminiscent of the ones we saw emerging in Europe during the Renaissance is probably not possible to achieve during the reign of a single king, unless he uses dragons to force everyone into submission or something. Otherwise it would probably have to be a gradual process where the monarchy slowly but surely secures more lands and incomes for itself via marriages, purchases or similar, thus growing the territory that is considered the Crownlands, or by passing new taxes. These increased funds could then be invested into growing the royal bureaucracy and starting to set up actual government institutions (run by royal employees) responsible for the justice system, taxation, military matters, public works and so on, rather than having to rely on the whims of feudal lords for those services. As this government bureaucracy grows and the king's power over society is strengthened he would then be in a better position for starting to restrict the rights of the nobility to keep private armies and fight private wars, without getting deposed by them in the process. 

It would probably take a long time though. In real history this process also coincided with the rise of cannons as viable siege weapons that were very effective against castles, and that should probably not be ignored as a contributor to the strengthened role of kings during the period either. Due to how much easier they should have made it to put down rebellions caused by angry castle lords. Since Westeros doesn't have blackpowder such scenarios might complicate things. 

[John Doe]

Gunpowder is not unimportant as well, but those are factors outside of the king's control. Joffs idea of a standing army isn't a bad start though. 

[Orphalesion]

On 29/01/2016 at 6:39 PM, Myself656 said:

Okay, if you seriously wanna centralize the government of landmass the size of South America with at least seven distinct cultural groups with differing values and mores into a top-down managed mono-culture then there's only ONE way to do it that won't lead to endless chaos and rebellions.

Genocide six of the seven cultural groups and let the one remaining group settle the now unoccupied regions.

 

Bull. Crap. Bullcrap with Dornish Lemons on top!

1) South America doesn't work with the travel distances. And a South American Sized Federal Kingdom wouldn't work either the way we've seen it in the books.

2) If you look closely, there's only 4 distinct cultures in Westeros: The North, The iron Born, Dorne, and the Rest. Seriously, anything between the neck and the Dorne has pretty much melted together into one culture. Even between the Four different cultures there is no language barrier. It's just readers with nationalistic fantasies who declare each of the seven kingdoms to be actual nation states. 

3) nobody, absolutely nobody but the Iron Born would profit from shattering the Seven Kingdoms.

4) If you look at early, centralized states, you might fidn out they weren't exactly mono-cultured either, it came over time once people learned you can make money in a safe, centralized state with freedom of commerce and travel.

So really there'd be no cultural or nationalistic obstacle to centralize, at the very least, the Crownlands, the Reach, the Westerlands, the Riverlands and the Vale. Throughout those regions people are not more different from each other than, let's say, the modern inhabitant of New Orleans are from those of New York or California. Or are you suggesting to break up the US as well?

The North can be brought to their knees economically. Even if they can survive on their own, if you close trade with them they will soon clamour for the luxury goods from the south they have gotten used to.

The Iron Islands....are little piles of refuse in the sea populated by some smelly hicks. Who cares about them?

And Dorne...well Dorne might not play ball, but there are worse things then losing a thinly populated strip of desert. We can get Lemons from elsewhere.

[WSmith84]

1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

Bull. Crap. Bullcrap with Dornish Lemons on top!

1) South America doesn't work with the travel distances. And a South American Sized Federal Kingdom wouldn't work either the way we've seen it in the books.

I hate to rain on your parade, as it were, but I believe that George did state that Westeros is roughly the size of South America.

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

The North can be brought to their knees economically. Even if they can survive on their own, if you close trade with them they will soon clamour for the luxury goods from the south they have gotten used to.

Hey man, I'm much as a free trader as the next guy. But, like seriously, "brought to their knees" if the South cuts off trade with them? I doubt it. Sure, if you cut off free trade from the South maybe their ability to consume things shrinks a bit because you lose some of the benefits of specialization.

But, you know, it's not like they didn't survive for hundreds of years without being part of the Seven Kingdoms. And it's not like there aren't other places to trade with.

And of course, I am not sure what the demand for Direwolf pelts are in the South. I don't know, maybe there is like this huge demand for Direwolf Pelts in the South and North is getting all these luxury goods in return for them. Then, again, maybe not.

[Orphalesion]

On 20/06/2016 at 2:26 AM, WSmith84 said:

I hate to rain on your parade, as it were, but I believe that George did state that Westeros is roughly the size of South America.

He also said that was just how he pictured it and that if someone did the math it would turn out to be way smaller. He also admitted he made the wall too big and that he was just overall bad with measurements.

Still a Feudal kingdom as depicted in the books would not work with the seize of South America either, so the "blah blah blah can't centralize due to size" argument remains 100%, undiluted BS

On 20/06/2016 at 2:27 AM, OldGimletEye said:

Hey man, I'm much as a free trader as the next guy. But, like seriously, "brought to their knees" if the South cuts off trade with them? I doubt it. Sure, if you cut off free trade from the South maybe their ability to consume things shrinks a bit because you lose some of the benefits of specialization.

But, you know, it's not like they didn't survive for hundreds of years without being part of the Seven Kingdoms. And it's not like there aren't other places to trade with.

And of course, I am not sure what the demand for Direwolf pelts are in the South. I don't know, maybe there is like this huge demand for Direwolf Pelts in the South and North is getting all these luxury goods in return for them. Then, again, maybe not.

Never said the South demanded anything from the North, just that the Northis a frozen hellhole that can't produce a lot of the things that might not be necessary, but make life for comfortable.

Europe also didn't need all those Eastern Luxuries until they got used to them during the Crusades...then they suddenly needed a safe trade route to India...

The old north might not have needed things because they didn't know they missed them...the current North has profited from the unification of the Seven kingdoms in that way...

Buttom line, even if it isn't that much, the North needs the South more than the South needs the North...

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

He also said that was just how he pictured it and that if someone did the math it would turn out to be way smaller. He also admitted he made the wall too big and that he was just overall bad with measurements.

Still a Feudal kingdom as depicted in the books would not work with the seize of South America either, so the "blah blah blah can't centralize due to size" argument remains 100%, undiluted BS

Never said the South demanded anything from the North, just that the Northis a frozen hellhole that can't produce a lot of the things that might not be necessary, but make life for comfortable.

Europe also didn't need all those Eastern Luxuries until they got used to them during the Crusades...then they suddenly needed a safe trade route to India...

The old north might not have needed things because they didn't know they missed them...the current North has profited from the unification of the Seven kingdoms in that way...

Buttom line, even if it isn't that much, the North needs the South more than the South needs the North...

But your point was, if recall correctly, that they would be "brought to their knees", not that their life might be a bit more difficult. There is just a tad bit of daylight between those assertions.

[Alan of Rosby]

A

6 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

I hate to rain on your parade, as it were, but I believe that George did state that Westeros is roughly the size of South America.

To put this in context Germany was not able to unify until the late nineteenth century. The United States America as a cohesive, fully functional continent spanning centralized nation-state was not possible until the late nineteenth century. A centralized state the size of South America, given Western medieval culture, society and technology, was simply not possible. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

On 2016-06-19 at 0:34 PM, John Doe said:

Gunpowder is not unimportant as well, but those are factors outside of the king's control. Joffs idea of a standing army isn't a bad start though. 

It's a start, true. Though he would have needed to heavily increase the Crown's incomes in order to finance it. At least if he wanted an army large enough to actually threaten the other Lords Paramount. He should also have built or taken over a number of castles spread out across Westeros, and have these run by royal officials and garrisoned with royal soldiers instead of those belonging to the nobles in the area. This way it would become harder for feudal lords to rebel since they would need to first siege these castles before moving out, or else risk getting attacked in the rear so to speak. 

Another way real medieval kings tried to strengthen their powers was to restrict the rights of cities and lords to build or maintain walls. In Norway for example the king managed to prevent all his cities from doing this, by instead building royal castles next to each one of them to act as their "protection". Killing two birds with one stone there, in other words. 

 

[Jaak]

1 hour ago, Alan of Rosby said:

To put this in context Germany was not able to unify until the late nineteenth century. The United States America as a cohesive, fully functional continent spanning centralized nation-state was not possible until the late nineteenth century. A centralized state the size of South America, given Western medieval culture, society and technology, was simply not possible. 

16th century South America was more centralized than 20th century United States: Laws of Indies, written in Madrid, applied from Chiloe to New Mexico, with no such things as State laws or State judges.

[Alan of Rosby]

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

16th century South America was more centralized than 20th century United States: Laws of Indies, written in Madrid, applied from Chiloe to New Mexico, with no such things as State laws or State judges.

Well, I suppose I could quibble with you that the Middle Ages technically terminated at the end of the 15th century. Also, Westeros is arguably High Middle Ages at best when it comes to technology and culture (I'm sure that topic has been done to death in these forums). Also, I suppose we should establish what we mean when we are discussing a centralised state. Are we talking about a state with a powerful central bureaucracy in the capital? I'm not entirely sure the Spanish Empire qualifies in that regard, the laws of the Angevin kings applied throughout the realm and the Angevin Empire certainly was not a centralised state.

 

[Orphalesion]

On 22/06/2016 at 8:55 PM, Alan of Rosby said:

A

To put this in context Germany was not able to unify until the late nineteenth century. The United States America as a cohesive, fully functional continent spanning centralized nation-state was not possible until the late nineteenth century. A centralized state the size of South America, given Western medieval culture, society and technology, was simply not possible. 

AGAIN a Feudal Kingdom the way it is portrayed in the books, with one language that even seems to lak local dialects, all answering to one king, would also be impossible IF it was the siye of bloody South America. Martin admitted that it would be smaller if one was to do the math and this is fantasy, where everything can be bigger, better and shinier than life.

And the lack of a unified Germany had a tiny bit to do with the fact that the different ruling family (especially the Hohenzollern and Habsburgs) squabbled over it. France was unified considerably sooner, as was Spain.

[Alan of Rosby]

1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

AGAIN a Feudal Kingdom the way it is portrayed in the books, with one language that even seems to lak local dialects, all answering to one king, would also be impossible IF it was the siye of bloody South America. Martin admitted that it would be smaller if one was to do the math and this is fantasy, where everything can be bigger, better and shinier than life.

And the lack of a unified Germany had a tiny bit to do with the fact that the different ruling family (especially the Hohenzollern and Habsburgs) squabbled over it. France was unified considerably sooner, as was Spain.

I think we're speaking at cross-purposes here. A feudal state is not a centralized state by definition. Centralized nation-states with standing armies only came into being in the 16th century. A feudal state is a highly decentralized state where power is dispersed among the nobility and the church. I'm not saying a feudal society which spans Westeros could not exist, although it is very unlikely (and ASIOF does show that it is an unstable configuration at best, with 300 years of periodic rebellions which terminated in Robert Baratheon's successful rebellion)

This is a fantasy series which is grounded in historical fiction, most notably the Wars of the Roses. If there is a magical reason why a centralized nation-state can came about in a High Middle Ages feudal society it needs to be established. I hold ASOIAF to a higher standard than Star Wars, where the Force is used as an elaster-plaster to cover any inconvenient plot hole. 

You have to take the squabbling and infighting into account, that's part of the reason why it's so challenging to centralize a feudal society. If a lord or an upstart younger prince acted up and said I want to rebel and start my own kingdom you can only respond as fast as a sail boat or a man on horseback, and the men on horseback go and fight other similarly powered men on horseback. As technology improved it became easier for a king and his central government to keep a superior fighting force and control the populace but my point was that even with railroads, rifles and steam power Germany could not manage it until very late in the day, it is immensely difficult.

France kept vestiges of feudalism right up to the 18th century, that's part of the reason the French revolution was so popular. Spain had a huge empire but I am sceptical about how much control the king and the central government had over the colonies. 

 

[norwaywolf123]

No taxation without representation! There needs to be a house of lords if the feudal system is to be kept. The Faith of the Seven will also be important to unify peoples as it is the majority religon and the organised religon of Westeros.

[Jaak]

18 hours ago, Alan of Rosby said:

I think we're speaking at cross-purposes here. A feudal state is not a centralized state by definition. Centralized nation-states with standing armies only came into being in the 16th century. A feudal state is a highly decentralized state where power is dispersed among the nobility and the church.

In Europe, 16th century but not all states at that time. But standing armies had existed for a long time. Roman Empire had a standing army and was not feudal. In the very 15th century, Ottomans had a modest sized but real standing army of janissaries, and a feudal levy... but the timariots and jagirdars did not have feudal autonomy.

Also, in the feudal states of Europe, church had a large share of power, because the Christian church had a network of bishops and abbots. Bishops were significant landlords and mobilized armies, even if they were required to appoint laymen to command them on battlefield... but the jurisdictions of bishops overlapped that of neighbouring secular lords. Whereas in Westeros, there are the High Septon and Most Devout at King´s Landing... and then there are the poor septons scattered around the countryside. When you see a castle and a lord in Westeros, it´s almost always a dynasty of hereditary lords - never a septon, and hardly ever an appointed castellan of a great lord holding multiple castles and resident elsewhere.

[Alan of Rosby]

On 7/6/2016 at 8:50 PM, Jaak said:

In Europe, 16th century but not all states at that time. But standing armies had existed for a long time. Roman Empire had a standing army and was not feudal. In the very 15th century, Ottomans had a modest sized but real standing army of janissaries, and a feudal levy... but the timariots and jagirdars did not have feudal autonomy.

Also, in the feudal states of Europe, church had a large share of power, because the Christian church had a network of bishops and abbots. Bishops were significant landlords and mobilized armies, even if they were required to appoint laymen to command them on battlefield... but the jurisdictions of bishops overlapped that of neighbouring secular lords. Whereas in Westeros, there are the High Septon and Most Devout at King´s Landing... and then there are the poor septons scattered around the countryside. When you see a castle and a lord in Westeros, it´s almost always a dynasty of hereditary lords - never a septon, and hardly ever an appointed castellan of a great lord holding multiple castles and resident elsewhere.

You are totally correct, standing armies had existed before but those not in feudal societies. Feudalism had to be eroded for this situation to change, you can't just teleport the Roman status quo onto Medieval Europe. And like you say, the Ottomans were somewhere in between, both socially and in terms of the military. And only technically Europe. 

It does look like the church in Westeros has a lot less secular power but we can't say for certain what the situation is. The bishops definitely have a lot of wealth. I'm sure the power of the church waxed and waned in Medieval Europe but I can't say for certain, I'm not an expert.

[Maester of Valyria]

15 hours ago, Alan of Rosby said:

You are totally correct, standing armies had existed before but those not in feudal societies. Feudalism had to be eroded for this situation to change, you can't just teleport the Roman status quo onto Medieval Europe. And like you say, the Ottomans were somewhere in between, both socially and in terms of the military. And only technically Europe. 

It does look like the church in Westeros has a lot less secular power but we can't say for certain what the situation is. The bishops definitely have a lot of wealth. I'm sure the power of the church waxed and waned in Medieval Europe but I can't say for certain, I'm not an expert.

I think the general consensus is that the Faith had a large amount of power until the Targaryen reign, perhaps the same amount as in medieval Europe. However their power was greatly diminished by their war with Maegor and Jaehaerys' conciliation.

[Equilibrium]

Easily, powerful centralized army and another army of bureaucrats, so unless someone discovers that Red Keep is insulated with gold ingots, only option is to empower mercantile class, since they are only ones that benefit from centralization, and then tax the shit out of them. 

[Jaak]

17 hours ago, Equilibrium said:

Easily, powerful centralized army and another army of bureaucrats, so unless someone discovers that Red Keep is insulated with gold ingots, only option is to empower mercantile class, since they are only ones that benefit from centralization, and then tax the shit out of them. 

How about, grasp an opportunity when Lannisters are on a wrong side, and confiscate Casterly Rock?