Jump to content

Why not disband the Iron Throne after RR?


Recommended Posts

Instead of trying to rule the seven kingdoms (something Robert or Ned never wanted to do anyway), why not wipe out the symbol of Targaryen rule by disbanding the empire of Aegon the Conqueror? The North, Vale, Riverlands and Stormlands all have alliances with each other, Dorne and the Iron Islands would probably prefer neutrality anyway, the Crownlands would be reincorporated into the Stormlands, and the Great Houses can be monarchs again. 

Sure it might lead to instability with ambitious regions trying to conquer each other, but they've had three hundred years of unity which means they've had a taste of trade being better than conquest. Plus there's the four way alliance I mentioned earlier to protect half the kingdoms from being attacked. The only one that would for sure start attacking people would be the Ironborn and that means the Westerlands and the Reach will be distracted by this threat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with power and influence is that individuals often always want more of it. Since the Seven Kingdoms were made into one and have existed as one for 300 years, other individuals would try to repeat that forced unification again.

Also, as one realm, the people both highborn and small have seen more peace during those 300 years than if Westeros had just remained 7 individual kingdoms, 2 or 3 of which being constantly at war with one another. I don't think anyone wants to go back to those days.

The North and Dorne are the only regions best-suited to become their own kingdoms, because their ways of life are so different and because they've existed independently from the rest of Westeros for so long before that they could probably succeed at doing so again. Iron Islands could never be their own kingdom, because they are constantly having to invade/raid the mainland for resources. The rest of the realm wouldn't tolerate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ned probably could have had the North secede from the Seven Kingdoms if he'd wanted to take up the mantle of the Winter Kings, but he didn't. And Dorne could have declared independence and Robert would have been unable to do anything about it without a long and arduous war which likely would result in a defeat.

But the Riverlands would never agree to separating the regions, because they'd be the first ones to get attacked and invaded, as history proved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Seven Kingdoms were united when a conqueror demonstrated that he had weapons of mass destruction (huge dragons) and that he was willing to use them (Harrenhal, Field of Fire).  Part of why Robert's Rebellion was even possible was that the Iron Throne no longer had the clear military upper hand.  That rebellion ended with Robert assuming the Iron Throne and the continued rule of the Seven Kingdoms, but it could just as easily have lead to the return of regional rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Mertyns said:

Robert could also have taken action against many who opposed him, but chose to forgive them and win their friendship. In the end, the goal was to settle things quickly back into peace.

But Robert didn't want to be king. And peace was assured for four kingdoms due to marriages and allegiance. Two other regions would prefer to be neutral and the other two were equal in ambitions and so would never team up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the best solution would have been 5 kingdoms plus an independent North and an independent Dorne due to cultural differences. However there wasn't enough taught for this to happen mainly because the leaders of Robert's Rebellion, (Robert, Ned, Blackfish) were warriors not politicians so they didn't had enough vision to come with a radical new solution for the future of Westeros so they just accepted the status quo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Instead of trying to rule the seven kingdoms (something Robert or Ned never wanted to do anyway), why not wipe out the symbol of Targaryen rule by disbanding the empire of Aegon the Conqueror? The North, Vale, Riverlands and Stormlands all have alliances with each other, Dorne and the Iron Islands would probably prefer neutrality anyway, the Crownlands would be reincorporated into the Stormlands, and the Great Houses can be monarchs again. 

Sure it might lead to instability with ambitious regions trying to conquer each other, but they've had three hundred years of unity which means they've had a taste of trade being better than conquest. Plus there's the four way alliance I mentioned earlier to protect half the kingdoms from being attacked. The only one that would for sure start attacking people would be the Ironborn and that means the Westerlands and the Reach will be distracted by this threat. 

Problem is that Robert wouldn't get away from ruling as he would still have to rule Storm's End and the alliance you suggest would at best only hold for this generation, and in the best of times partially hold for the next generation. After that all bets are off. And as an example of how screwed the idea of balance between strong powers to preserve peace, take a look at Europe after Napoleon and how it would turn out: a return to the Centuries of Blood. If peace survived for two generations I'd be shocked as the tradition of a divided Westeros is for various kings and lords to get at each other and tear each other to pieces.

So no, the fact that the Iron Throne was kept showed that the rebels had some kind of sense and that they were not itching to get to fight each other in a generation or so.

6 hours ago, The Wolves said:

Because the rebels were greedy and stupid. 

No, because they were not as greedy and stupid as later separatists. In fact I'd put Daemon Blackfyre and his merry men above Robb Stark and his gallant separatists in regards to their mental capabilities. The realm is one under the Iron Throne just like the North has become one under the Starks, despite the nostalgic, and highely selective, dreams of various malcontents and reactionaries.

2 hours ago, Michael Mertyns said:

Robert could also have taken action against many who opposed him, but chose to forgive them and win their friendship. In the end, the goal was to settle things quickly back into peace.

I agree. A peace in where the losers are brought into the fold is much preferable to one with constant rebellions, skirmishes and instability. Just look at what happened during Robert and his death. At no point did the lords sent out men to invite Daenerys or Viserys back into the Seven KIngdoms and as such Robert managed to settle that issue even better than the Targaryens handled the Blackfyres. Only Cersei's incompetence seems to have been able to engineer a situation in which the Targaryens could return to power, despite ferocious dynastic in-fighting among the Baratheons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like it has been stated before, the country would of become ravaged by even more war if the kingdoms all became independent again.

This is a what-if scenerio i thought up here but still it could have happened.

Dorne was very pissed about what happened to Elia and her children and if left to do their own thing, they probably would either have declared war on the Westerlands immediately (Though their forces were messed up badly from RRs so they might of waited about maybe a decade while they consolidated their strength but a Lannister-Martell conflict would of arisen sooner or later if both Kingdoms were left to do their own thing) or they would of kept the exiled Viserys and Dany with them until they could gather enough support and try to launch an Aegon's Conquest 2.0. The Ironborn would of just started raiding the western coasts of Westeros, most likely the Westerlands and/or the Riverlands and even the North. (The Ironborn already started raiding the Reach DURING Robert's Rebellion when they decided to side with the Rebels, if they were made independent again they would of just kept going)

So the Lannisters would be getting attacked by Dorne from the south and/or getting raided from the North by the Ironborn. In other words The Lannisters would be fucked unless Tywin still married Cersei to Robert to form an alliance with the Stormlands. And with the IT gone and the Kingsguard disbanded as well Jaime would be Tywin's true heir once again and he probably would of married him to a Tyrell or something along those lines to be allied with the Reach as well.

So you'd have a Westerlands, Reach (possibly), Stormlands vs Dorne war right away with the Ironborn also being thrown in as well being hostile to both sides along with bringing in the Riverlands and possibly the North due to them raiding there as well after the Kingdoms are made independent once again. So all in all Westeros would be engulfed in wars for years after deposing of the Targaryens and disbanding the IT. Even more people would of died had they not kept the 7 Kingdoms united.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This didn't happen because it is a completely stupid idea. We see how 'lasting' Robert's own marriage alliance with House Lannister is, and the idea that a bunch of independent kings and their kingdoms could have kept the peace doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Perhaps Dorne or the North could have played the secessionist card, but not the other kingdoms. They have no interest to do so, in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Instead of trying to rule the seven kingdoms (something Robert or Ned never wanted to do anyway), why not wipe out the symbol of Targaryen rule by disbanding the empire of Aegon the Conqueror? The North, Vale, Riverlands and Stormlands all have alliances with each other, Dorne and the Iron Islands would probably prefer neutrality anyway, the Crownlands would be reincorporated into the Stormlands, and the Great Houses can be monarchs again. 

Sure it might lead to instability with ambitious regions trying to conquer each other, but they've had three hundred years of unity which means they've had a taste of trade being better than conquest. Plus there's the four way alliance I mentioned earlier to protect half the kingdoms from being attacked. The only one that would for sure start attacking people would be the Ironborn and that means the Westerlands and the Reach will be distracted by this threat. 

Plot mostly. The title of the first book would mean nothing if all the kingdoms went their seperate ways. No theon, no dorne, no reach and no westerlands 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Political centralization and unification (and expansion) of territorial units is one of the main driving forces shaping politics in Europe during and after medieval times. Larger territories and states, more troops, more revenue, more political and fiscal concentration of power in one individual/center of power was a necessary result of repeated war and conquest -- bigger and more centralized states were more competitive in territorial war. Given GRRM's focus on western civ, ASOIAF basically continues this trend.

On a practical level, Westeros does not face any major enemies/threats of war from Essos that we know of, so it might not be so eager to remain a unified state after RR. But its 7 kingdoms and various actors in RR probably also recognized that decentralization would lead to more and continued war, chaos, and petty bickering between smaller states. Plus if Ned, Jon Arryn and Robert gave up the Iron Throne, Tywin Lannister would probably take it -- and I don't think they found that option appealing given the sack of KL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 6:43 PM, LionoftheWest said:

No, because they were not as greedy and stupid as later separatists

you are a member of the rebel alliance and a traitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 7:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

This didn't happen because it is a completely stupid idea. We see how 'lasting' Robert's own marriage alliance with House Lannister is, and the idea that a bunch of independent kings and their kingdoms could have kept the peace doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Perhaps Dorne or the North could have played the secessionist card, but not the other kingdoms. They have no interest to do so, in any case.

Correct. The west might also have been able to pull it off, but only because of Tywin's reputation. After he died the westerlands would have fallen apart. The ironborn would just go back to being reevers. The riverlands pretty much only exists because of the Crown's protection. The Dornish and the marcher lords in the storm lands would be killing each other in a month. The Tyrell's would have a hand full of people who wanted to break off from them. And what about the crownlands. This is the biggest city, a huge hub, the (or at least one of the) biggest ports and it doesn't belong to any of the kingdoms. Just the war over the crownlands would be devastating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YOVMO said:

Correct. The west might also have been able to pull it off, but only because of Tywin's reputation. After he died the westerlands would have fallen apart. The ironborn would just go back to being reevers. The riverlands pretty much only exists because of the Crown's protection. The Dornish and the marcher lords in the storm lands would be killing each other in a month. The Tyrell's would have a hand full of people who wanted to break off from them. And what about the crownlands. This is the biggest city, a huge hub, the (or at least one of the) biggest ports and it doesn't belong to any of the kingdoms. Just the war over the crownlands would be devastating.

The thing is, I don't think there is any reason to believe that the Vale, the Riverlands, the West, the Reach, and the Stormlands ever had any inclination to secede or become independent again. Why should they want to do that?

Your point about the Crownlands is well made. It would be interesting to see whether they people there would actually be able to conquer parts of the Riverlands and Stormlands. The combined strength of the Crownlands and the lands controlled by Dragonstone isn't exactly all that small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

The thing is, I don't think there is any reason to believe that the Vale, the Riverlands, the West, the Reach, and the Stormlands ever had any inclination to secede or become independent again. Why should they want to do that?

Your point about the Crownlands is well made. It would be interesting to see whether they people there would actually be able to conquer parts of the Riverlands and Stormlands. The combined strength of the Crownlands and the lands controlled by Dragonstone isn't exactly all that small.

Absolutely I agree. There is no incentive for the Vale or the Reach. The crown has too much debt for the west to want to let it disappear and the riverlands would be extinct.

The crownlands is also an interesting culture in that they do not have a history taking them back to the age of heros. Their hero is Aegon I. A lot like America, I feel there is no national cultural identity in the way that the IRish are Irish and the French are French and the Japanese are Japanese. The entire crownlands sprung up around the crown. It would be very interesting to see what would happen there and in the riverlands and stormlands if the IT was melted down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, YOVMO said:

Absolutely I agree. There is no incentive for the Vale or the Reach. The crown has too much debt for the west to want to let it disappear and the riverlands would be extinct.

The crownlands is also an interesting culture in that they do not have a history taking them back to the age of heros. Their hero is Aegon I. A lot like America, I feel there is no national cultural identity in the way that the IRish are Irish and the French are French and the Japanese are Japanese. The entire crownlands sprung up around the crown. It would be very interesting to see what would happen there and in the riverlands and stormlands if the IT was melted down.

At the conclusion of Robert's rebellion the Iron Throne had no debts and a treasury overflowing with dragons. 

The crownlands was originally apart of the Stormlands and Riverlands. One thing Robert and Hoster could have done is divide the territory among their kingdoms with the Stormlands getting Kingslanding. Kingslanding could become Robert's seat Renly or Stannis gets Stormsend and Dragonstone be given to the Targs. Don't forget that if Robert is not king there is no reason to kill Dany and Visyres. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...