Canon Claude

Why wouldn't the Rebels consider breaking up the Targaryen kingdom?

73 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

During Robert's Rebellion, there seemed to be no discussion on whether or not to break up the Iron Throne and go back to the way things were before the Targaryens arrived. I'm sure the North would want their independence, given how quick they jump on the opportunity when Ned is killed. And it's safe to say that Ned was done with all the lands south of the Neck by the time the Rebellion was successful. Sure, he'd stay friends with Jon Arryn and Robert Baratheon, and the Stormlands would regain the Crownlands as their own territory. The Dornish and Ironborn would be over the moon to be independent again, I'm positive about that, and I think Mance and Tywin would be fine with the idea of independence too. 

honestly I think it would have solved a lot of trouble if the Iron Throne was just disbanded and the eight kingdoms were reestablished.

Edited by Canon Claude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the Kingdoms were separated it would be a matter of time before some Lord decided to take a neighboring Kingdom and try to conquer it. Two Kingdoms might form an alliance through marriage and take more then one Kingdom. Just the nature of things. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Once the Kingdoms were separated it would be a matter of time before some Lord decided to take a neighboring Kingdom and try to conquer it. Two Kingdoms might form an alliance through marriage and take more then one Kingdom. Just the nature of things. 

 

 

Well you'd already have a four way alliance between the North, Vale, Stormlands, and Riverlands. That's over half of all Westeros. Nobody is going to take on that kind of alliance. 

Looking at the other options, Tywin and Mance will never ally with the Ironborn, or the Dornish. They'd only have each other, and while that is a significant challenge, they'd ultimately lose if they challenged the Quatrumvirate (Bear with me) of Arryn, Baratheon, Stark, and Tully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

Well you'd already have a four way alliance between the North, Vale, Stormlands, and Riverlands. That's over half of all Westeros. Nobody is going to take on that kind of alliance. 

Looking at the other options, Tywin and Mance will never ally with the Ironborn, or the Dornish. They'd only have each other, and while that is a significant challenge, they'd ultimately lose if they challenged the Quatrumvirate (Bear with me) of Arryn, Baratheon, Stark, and Tully.

Yeah but what about a hundred years after the rebellion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Canon Claude said:

During Robert's Rebellion, there seemed to be no discussion on whether or not to break up the Iron Throne and go back to the way things were before the Targaryens arrived. I'm sure the North would want their independence, given how quick they jump on the opportunity when Ned is killed. And it's safe to say that Ned was done with all the lands south of the Neck by the time the Rebellion was successful. Sure, he'd stay friends with Jon Arryn and Robert Baratheon, and the Stormlands would regain the Crownlands as their own territory. The Dornish and Ironborn would be over the moon to be independent again, I'm positive about that, and I think Mance and Tywin would be fine with the idea of independence too. 

honestly I think it would have solved a lot of trouble if the Iron Throne was just disbanded and the eight kingdoms were reestablished.

Breaking up the kingdom would be bad for the vast majority of people.  One kingdom united stands a better chance against the long winter.  The poverty plagued north could never stand on its own.  Where would the food come from in winter?

Separate kingdoms mean constant wars between them.  No peace and no rest for the common folk.  Aegon Targaryen and his sisters were a godsend to the people.  Targaryen rule was more beneficial compared to the many backass little fucks [Argilac, Harren, Thorren, Loren] that considered themselves kings before the conquest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ye Shall Be As Gods said:

Breaking up the kingdom would be bad for the vast majority of people.  One kingdom united stands a better chance against the long winter.  The poverty plagued north could never stand on its own.  Where would the food come from in winter?

Separate kingdoms mean constant wars between them.  No peace and no rest for the common folk.  Aegon Targaryen and his sisters were a godsend to the people.  Targaryen rule was more beneficial compared to the many backass little fucks [Argilac, Harren, Thorren, Loren] that considered themselves kings before the conquest.

The North was doing fine for eight thousand years.

And there'd be lots of opportunity for trade instead of war. 

27 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Yeah but what about a hundred years after the rebellion?

I seriously doubt that things could be worse than they've been in the books. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Canon Claude said:

During Robert's Rebellion, there seemed to be no discussion on whether or not to break up the Iron Throne and go back to the way things were before the Targaryens arrived. I'm sure the North would want their independence, given how quick they jump on the opportunity when Ned is killed. And it's safe to say that Ned was done with all the lands south of the Neck by the time the Rebellion was successful. Sure, he'd stay friends with Jon Arryn and Robert Baratheon, and the Stormlands would regain the Crownlands as their own territory. The Dornish and Ironborn would be over the moon to be independent again, I'm positive about that, and I think Mance and Tywin would be fine with the idea of independence too. 

honestly I think it would have solved a lot of trouble if the Iron Throne was just disbanded and the eight kingdoms were reestablished.

After nearly 300 years, roles and titles had been cemented. Trade, currency and movement of people and a common culture are all big drivers of being static. Plus, no ruler wants to have a potential enemy on a close border 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

The North was doing fine for eight thousand years.

And there'd be lots of opportunity for trade instead of war. 

I seriously doubt that things could be worse than they've been in the books. 

Where they doing fine?  Men go out into the snows under the pretense of taking a piss break and commit suicide during the winters because of food supply shortages.  House Stark was practicing ritualistic human sacrifice in their castle garden.  Noble lords were raping the brides of their common folk at will. 

The Targaryens put a stop to the lord's right to the first night and did what they could to discourage it.  Human sacrifice stopped.  The Targaryens were the only ones who could dominate the Ironborn.  While the ironborn's mischief wasn't completely contained, the Targaryens at least kept the ironborn from dominating the people on the main land.  The targs put the ironborn on the lowest rung of the social and economic ladder.  The dragons cut off one of the kraken's testicles and bruised the one remaining item. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Canon Claude said:

I'm sure the North would want their independence, given how quick they jump on the opportunity when Ned is killed.

They don't really jump on it quickly at all.  They spend quite a long time debating which royal claimant they should back, with Robb ruling out backing Renly because Renly can't come before Stannis and Joffrey is, as far as they know, the legitimate king.  They only arrive at declaring independence as a last resort.  Northern separatism was not a long-simmering issue until that point.

The reason the lords didn't consider it is because it had been almost 300 years.  People were used to it, and Ned, of all people, had strong relationships with the rulers of several of the other kingdoms, by marriage and friendship.

Edited by Colonel Green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the awkward truth that none of them want to openly admit (except maybe Balon's dumb ass) is that being one solid kingdom is much more profitable than being independent. Sure it's fun and patriotic to shout about being independent and ruling yourself in the streets, but once your territory splits, it immediately loses trade, aid, alliances, and becomes a huge lonely target for everybody else to carve up. It's no fun having to pay taxes to the Iron Throne and answering to their king, but the positives outweigh the negatives. Even Dorne learned this over time. The seven independent kingdoms were frail, constantly at war with each other, and nowhere near as powerful as they are when put together. I'm actually surprised none of the big powers in Essos ever tried to conquer them before the Targaryens, because they could have done so easily. 

There's no way people like Tywin or Jon Arryn or Tyrell would willingly split off again. Not even Doran would do that; it's way too risky now. The Ironborn are an exception to this, because they actually profit MORE from being independent (i.e. raiding/pillaging/warring) than they do from following the King's laws. They don't export anything or contribute much legally, so they get a free pass to be stupid over and over again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The North had its problems with the Targaryen rule. Up until the Dance and Cregan Stark's alliance with Rhaenyra and later Aegon III.

By the time of the Rebellion they are an integral part of the Realm, backing a rival Targaryen-Baratheon pretender to Aerys II and Rhaegar.

Still, the idea of independence sort of reawkens in the Northmen during the War of the Five Kings. But it is only there and with the Iron Islands were this idea still holds sway (and it is connected to the end of the Targaryen dynasty in both these cases - Balon rebelled and the Greatjon declared Robb king because the dragons were gone).

But it is pretty much dead in all the other regions. Those have gotten rather tightly knit together by trade, marriages, and other relations that make it essentially impossible to cut them into pieces again. Especially since that would mean the return of a perpetual state of warfare between them, something especially the smallfolk would be completely against. Or think of the Riverlands. Do you think the smallfolk and lords there won't to be surrounded by five kingdoms who might be rather interested in conquering them the next generation? That's ridiculous.

Robb's kingdom was essentially stillborn because he allowed himself to be declared King in the North and King of the Trident. He never had a chance to keep his River kingdom. It was surrounded by enemies and could never hope to prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In essence the status quo of a king in King's Landing did offer a certain amount of stability for all the lords of the realm. Plus who's going to be the first to declare themselves independent of the other six kingdoms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why embrace a bloated, overly powerful, ripe-for-tyranny centralized government when you just freed yourselves from that?  Been wondering that about my country's founders for quite some time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Aetta said:

Why embrace a bloated, overly powerful, ripe-for-tyranny centralized government when you just freed yourselves from that?  Been wondering that about my country's founders for quite some time.

 

You meant that sarcastically, but looking at pretty much all of our history, I think there is some merit to the notion that nobody can truly be trusted to have any kind of power over their fellow human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem is that the Targaryen line had not been completely extinguished. Viserys and Daenerys were still alive, and there were plenty of Targaryen loyalists in many of the kingdoms. Many resented Robert – Dorne for one, Oberyn tried to raise Dorne for Viserys.

A Targaryen restoration attempt would be more likely to succeed if they could pick off or win over the kingdoms one by one, while at the same time gaining the support of loyalists within each new independent kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

18 hours ago, Ye Shall Be As Gods said:

Where they doing fine?  Men go out into the snows under the pretense of taking a piss break and commit suicide during the winters because of food supply shortages.  House Stark was practicing ritualistic human sacrifice in their castle garden.  Noble lords were raping the brides of their common folk at will.

Old men committing suicide in winter still took place under the Targaryen rule. The human sacrifices were abandoned centuries before the arrival of the Targaryens. And the abolition of the first night was just an idea of Alysanne. None of those changes can be attributed to the benefits of being a single kingdom.

Of course the North has received positive things from being part of a united realm. But doubtless, since they do not share the common Andal culture and are geographically isolated, their benefits have been smaller than the ones that have obtained the Southern kingdoms. Meanwhile, we shouldn't forget that there are also negative things: the Watch has been shrunk under Targaryens, the attacks of the wildlings have increased, the Starks were forced to give away the new gift, and they have become involved in conflicts in the South that otherwise they wouldn't have been part of.

It should be mentioned too that, during the three centuries of Targaryen rule, the Iron Throne has a consistent record of not providing help to the North when it was needed. There's no record of any assistance from the South when Dagon Greyjoy raided the North, when Raymund Redbear crossed the Wall or when Skaagos rebelled (all those conflicts costed the life of the ruling lord Stark: Beron, William and Barthogan)

16 hours ago, Renly's Banana said:

Because the awkward truth that none of them want to openly admit (except maybe Balon's dumb ass) is that being one solid kingdom is much more profitable than being independent. Sure it's fun and patriotic to shout about being independent and ruling yourself in the streets, but once your territory splits, it immediately loses trade, aid, alliances, and becomes a huge lonely target for everybody else to carve up. It's no fun having to pay taxes to the Iron Throne and answering to their king, but the positives outweigh the negatives.

That's not as simple as you put it. When the Northmen decided to secede from the Iron Throne, the negatives clearly outweighted the positive. The fact is that no one was able to invade the North for millennia, so the argument that a united kingdom can better defend himself is moot (specially because, as I pointed before, the Iron Throne didn't really defend the North when there was trouble). There're also benefits to having a closer central government, with rulers that are more sensible to the actual needs and demands of the people they are ruling. From the King's Landing court, the North is seen as a backwater dominion of no interest.

Sometimes you'll prefer a bigger kingdom, and sometimes micromanagement works better. And sometimes,  in the same people, different peoples will have different interests. It's a complicated matter.

Edited by The hairy bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Renly's Banana said:

Because the awkward truth that none of them want to openly admit (except maybe Balon's dumb ass) is that being one solid kingdom is much more profitable than being independent. Sure it's fun and patriotic to shout about being independent and ruling yourself in the streets, but once your territory splits, it immediately loses trade, aid, alliances, and becomes a huge lonely target for everybody else to carve up. It's no fun having to pay taxes to the Iron Throne and answering to their king, but the positives outweigh the negatives. Even Dorne learned this over time. The seven independent kingdoms were frail, constantly at war with each other, and nowhere near as powerful as they are when put together. I'm actually surprised none of the big powers in Essos ever tried to conquer them before the Targaryens, because they could have done so easily. 

There's no way people like Tywin or Jon Arryn or Tyrell would willingly split off again. Not even Doran would do that; it's way too risky now. The Ironborn are an exception to this, because they actually profit MORE from being independent (i.e. raiding/pillaging/warring) than they do from following the King's laws. They don't export anything or contribute much legally, so they get a free pass to be stupid over and over again. 

I agree with this..

Because once you have tasted power you don't want it to share with someone else ..no ruler will want to rule one kingdom when he can rule 7 ..and others don't want enemies at their side and constant wars..

 

I think the worst part of this  fandom is that those who worship North as above other regions and people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Another problem is that the Targaryen line had not been completely extinguished. Viserys and Daenerys were still alive, and there were plenty of Targaryen loyalists in many of the kingdoms. Many resented Robert – Dorne for one, Oberyn tried to raise Dorne for Viserys.

 

A Targaryen restoration attempt would be more likely to succeed if they could pick off or win over the kingdoms one by one, while at the same time gaining the support of loyalists within each new independent kingdom.

 

I'm surprised there's only one response pointing this out. Yes, we know the kids were broke and almost totally isolated, but especially in the years before Balon rebelled a fear of them trying to return would have been very real. 

Also, let's review the major leaders of the Rebellion, shall we?

Robert: Way too big an ego to rule only over two kingdoms when he could have them all.

Jon Arryn: Too practical to ignore the threat of the Targ kids, and about to become way more powerful as Hand than he would as just Lord of the Vale.

Hoster Tully: His lands would be a chief target of the Iron Islands if they were independent, and since he had the highest number of lords side with the Targs, stability has to be a chief concern of his.

Ned: Yeah, paying less taxes would be nice, but his best friend and foster father are in charge now. Why stir up trouble, especially when you're the kind of guy who just wants everyone to get along? Also, it sounds like Ned and the North were left to their own devices by Robert outside the Grejoy Tevellion and the start of our series. He was practically independent already.

Tywin: He did not just stain his own name to make his daughter Queen of just the Stormlands. He wants the whole shebang for his grandkids.

Edited by The Mountain That Flies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

They don't really jump on it quickly at all.  They spend quite a long time debating which royal claimant they should back,

That's EXTREMELY fast. In real life, things like this takes years, at best. This was done in a debate. Don't you realize how quick that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

That's not as simple as you put it. When the Northmen decided to secede from the Iron Throne, the negatives clearly outweighted the positive. The fact is that no one was able to invade the North for millennia, so the argument that a united kingdom can better defend himself is moot (specially because, as I pointed before, the Iron Throne didn't really defend the North when there was trouble). There're also benefits to having a closer central government, with rulers that are more sensible to the actual needs and demands of the people they are ruling. From the King's Landing court, the North is seen as a backwater dominion of no interest.

Sometimes you'll prefer a bigger kingdom, and sometimes micromanagement works better. And sometimes,  in the same people, different peoples will have different interests. It's a complicated matter.

To be honest with you, I consider the Northmen to be one step below the Ironborn when it comes to brash stupidity and impulsiveness. When Ned was killed, tensions were high, their blood was boiling, and they wanted to fight back. I think their initial train of thought was a second Hour of the Wolf, when Cregan Stark marched straight into King's Landing and spanked everybody down south before going home. They would never have attempted to crown Robb if it wasn't for Balon, Renly and Stannis doing the same. All of this has to be taken into consideration.

Yes, the North is a land apart with their own customs and economy and culture. Yes, they could perhaps survive being independent for a time like Dorne did. But the fact still stands that they are much weaker now when alone (much more than before Aegon) and they would never last against a unified South. And I think most Northern lords knew this all along. The Night's Watch would immediately die if the north cut ties with the south. White Harbor would become a penniless ghost town with no trade. Moat Cailin can't hold forever; they can invade by sea and take it from both sides. The Ironborn would eat them away from the west while everybody else attacked the east. The Wall would have nobody to stop the Wildlings from spilling over. People like Manderly and Bolton and even Catelyn knew this. Ned Stark knew this, and Rickard Stark especially knew this. Only it was blustering idiots like Greatjon Umber who swayed everybody and crowned Robb. And you start seeing the North and Riverlands regret this almost immediately after things start looking less than perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.