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

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

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.

One assumes that there came a lot of positive changes with the Rule of Six, the abolition of the First Night, and the general unification of the Realm. One hopes that Jaehaerys I, Alysanne, and Barth chose the most progressive laws as the new standard for the entire Realm rather than going with the most regressive.

The fact that daughters seem to have come before brothers all across the Realm from then onwards (at least on the lordly level) could be a hint in that direction.

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

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.

The chose to involve themselves in the Dance, and there is no hint that they troubled themselves with Maegor's reign and wars, the Blackfyre Rebellions, or most of the other conflicts. Rickon Stark dying in Dorne doesn't mean the entire North got involved in that war, for instance.

The NW was in decline for a much longer period of time and it is quite clear that the Targaryens, while being unable to stall its decline, did at least their best in that department (at least Jaehaerys and Alysanne did - Aegon IV most likely did not care). It is simply a fact that pretty much nobody in the South wants to join the NW anymore. That's why they send their criminals to take the black.

Dealing with the wildlings should be the task of the Warden of the North, though. The great houses aren't men hiding behind the king's skirts, they are his officials, acting in his name. The Starks have enough men to deal with the wildlings. They just don't seem to be eager to do so. I mean, if Robb can lead 20,000 men into the Riverlands - Ned, Rickard, and all his predecessors could have led the same number beyond the Wall to show the wildlings who was in charge.

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

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)

Lords Stark and Lannister formed an alliance against Dagon, did they not? They were certainly acting in King Aerys' name and with his permission as Wardens of the North and West. Both houses had enough men and resources to deal with the Ironborn by themselves.

In the case of Raymun Redbeard and the Skagos Rebellion we have no idea what actually transpired. The Starks could have asked for and been granted support by the Iron Throne but the vast distances may have made it difficult for them to get there in time - and speaking of that, we still don't know who, in the end, defeated Dagon Greyjoy. The Lannisters and Starks or somebody else?

What we do know is that Aegon V went to great lengths to support the Northmen during the six-year-winter, going so far as risking the ire of his other subjects who felt that the man was doing too much to support the North.

Robb's kingdom was stillborn and doomed not because the North declared its independence. That could have worked, at least for a time. But including the Riverlands into that secessionist kingdom could never work. Robb was surrounded by enemies and had no natural borders to keep them out of his 'kingdom'.

People often forget that more Riverlords than Lords of the North declared Robb king. The only Northmen present at the Riverrun war council where Jon Umber, Rickard Karstark, Maege Mormont, and Galbart Glover. Edmure's Riverlords were Karyl Vance, Marq Piper, Lyman Darry,  Jason Mallister, Stevron Frey, Jonos Bracken, and Tytos Blackwood.

There was no Bolton, no Dustin, no Ryswell, no Manderly, no Tallhart, no Flint, no Locke, etc. among the men who proclaimed Robb king. Sure, some of them took him as their king later on, while others (like Roose or Lady Dustin) most likely only feigned to do so.

However, I'm pretty sure the Manderlys never much liked this idea of independence (and are now secretly happy that it is over). White Harbor would be the first victim in an all-out war against the South, and trade would suffer greatly from the whole thing, especially if the Sistermen were given permission to prey on every ship going to and coming from White Harbor.

[Colonel Green]

7 hours ago, Ser Meryn Frey said:

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?

The point being, the independence thing only occurred to one person, the Greatjon, and only eventually.  It wasn't something that people were thinking about anymore.

[Aetta]

21 hours ago, James Steller said:

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.

True dat.  Whether because we are divine or just creatures of nature (depends on what you believe) human kind is too individualistic....even those that find themselves as part of a collective.  We see that all over the place in this story.  Not just individualism between kingdoms, but between villages, families, persons and sometimes even conflict within one mind.  

At some point you do have to band together if for nothing else than defense of your lands, which I think was the biggest driver of our federalist idea (although federalism in the US is actually a mis-nomer these days) so the question is whether the individual kingdoms could withstand attack on their own or be better off with one Commander in Chief and national military.  If Aegon landed in our current plot, would he still have conquered, vs the way he conquered individual kingdoms (except Dorne?).  Perhaps he would have because he had three flying nukes.

[James Steller]

1 hour ago, Aetta said:

 If Aegon landed in our current plot, would he still have conquered, vs the way he conquered individual kingdoms (except Dorne?).  Perhaps he would have because he had three flying nukes.

If Robert only had to worry about the Stormlands (plus the Crownlands, then I imagine he (A) wouldn't have been given Cersei as a bride, and (B) he would have probably just abandoned his responsibilities to go fight in Essos like he mentioned to Ned. He was never going to be a good ruler. Also, Stannis wouldn't have gotten Selyse as a bride either. More likely he would have gotten a Crownlands noblewoman, like Falyse Stokeworth, or a Stormlady like Mylenda Caron or Ravella Swann. He also would likely have become ruler after Robert either died young or left to do something else.
Which means that without Aegon's dragons, his small army would face a united front of Crownlands and Stormlands led by Stannis. Or hell, Robert leading that front would have been enough to drive Aegon back too, if it weren't for those dragons. That's the only reason Aegon got anywhere beyond Dragonstone.

[devilish]

A-    A divided Westeros was always Essos punching bag, from the first men, to the andals right to the Targs. A unified Westeros was able to repel any invasions since and there were times when they could even add new lands to its portfolio (ex the step stones) 
B-    Some regions can’t function alone. The North has no fleet and it depends on trade coming from South. They would be easy prey to raids (ie they can’t answer back) and if the Riverlands close the trade route, well, they are isolated from the rest of the world. The Riverlands on the other hand has too many borders to maintain.
C-    The creation of Westeros was a success story. The LPs and wardens were kings of their region in all but name and after dragons died out the so called king was nothing more than a glorified regulator, who needed the consensus of the majority of LPs/Wardens to act. That was evident during Egg’s administration.
 

[Lion of the West]

Given the kind of extreme situations and people involved to get the North and the Riverlands on the separatist wagon I don't see anything similar close to happen at any other time period. And like mentioned, it wasn't a simmer thing but something that kind of went off from out of the blue.

[Orphalesion]

On 20/03/2017 at 7:12 PM, 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.

What would be the point of breaking the Seven Kingdoms up?

They aren't separated by any language barrier, their cultural barriers are in most cases either non-existant (everything between the Neck and Dorne) or negligible. A unified land offers greater mobility and safety for trade. The Dornish were already making plans to restore the Targaryen dynasty and the Ironborn don't deserve to be independent. They need to be kept under the heel so they don't start raping and plundering the entire western coast again.

Also what trouble would be "solved"? First you have the Ironborn on the loose again, and look at Euron to see what a "good" idea that is by itself, then you'll have several parties fight over the Crownlands, then the old border disputes between Dorne and the Stormlands/the reach flare up again. Tywin might move into the Riverlands, maybe into the Reach, because he most definitely would not be "fine" with having his power base ruined. The Tyrell's meanwhile are interested in safety not power, and without any sort of Crown authority backing those upjumped Stewards I can see several of the Reach houses rebelling in a heartbeat, plunging the whole region in civil war and making it easy fodder for the surrounding kingdoms. 

Congratulations! You have just started six mayor flashpoints. What trouble was "solved"?

I really don't get where people get this nonsense idea that the Westeros would be better off being split up...

Well...I suppose the only trouble that would be "solved" would be that the Dornish would have an easier time with their Targaryen restoration. They might be able to host Viserys, Daenerys and Rhaegar (if he is genuine) and start their reconquest sooner. Which of course means no Dragons for the War for the Dawn.

Congratulations, you might have just doomed humanity.

[The hairy bear]

On 21/3/2017 at 8:32 PM, Renly's Banana said:

 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.

Robb was crowned before Balon and Stannis had proclaimed themselves kings, so I don't think that we can accuse them of being copycats. Reading the chapter of the proclamation, it seems clear to me that specially among the first to propose it (Umber, Karstark, Mormont and Glover, who happen to be the northenmost Northern lords) are expressing a long held wish and it's not something they improvised on the spur of the moment.

On 21/3/2017 at 8:32 PM, Renly's Banana said:

 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..

The argument that smaller kingdoms are weaker makes little sense. Of course a bigger entity has more manpower, but if the central government is not of your liking, what's the point? The USA was "stronger" when part of the British Empire. The Baltic republics were "stronger" when part of the Soviet Union. Algeria was "stronger" when it was part of France. Portugal was stronger when it was part of Spain. Yet all these countries (and countless more) decided that they were better on their own, and once they took the decision they never regretted it.

Similarly, a unified South could certainly defeat the North. But would it be in their interest? Would it we worth the cost? Could they hold a land as vast as the North full of hostile population? A wise king would probably leave them to their own devices.

 

On 21/3/2017 at 8:32 PM, Renly's Banana said:

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.

The Night's Watch had his most glorious times while the North was an independent kingdom. White Harbor was already a rich city while the North was an independent kingdom. Moat Cailin repelled all invasions from the South while the North was an independent kingdom. The Northmen hold their own against the Ironborn while the North was an independent kingdom...

I would like to specifically dismiss the absurd (but usually repeated) idea that an independent kingdom implies "no trade". That's nonsense. As if Westeros wasn't full of Myrish carpets, Volantene glasses and Pentoshi spices, all of them financed by Braavosi loans.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The NW was in decline for a much longer period of time and it is quite clear that the Targaryens, while being unable to stall its decline, did at least their best in that department (at least Jaehaerys and Alysanne did - Aegon IV most likely did not care). It is simply a fact that pretty much nobody in the South wants to join the NW anymore. That's why they send their criminals to take the black.

Lord Commander Hoare is mentioned to have 10 thousand swords at his command when Aegon landed. I think that shows the decline of the Wall clearly started in the Targaryen reign. And while Jaehaerys and Alysanne were prowatch, that tendency change with the following monarchs. The fact that the Wall was seen as a place to send criminals instead of a key defence of the realm shows that the Southerners cared little about the matters of the North.

You are right that as wardens of the North were responsible too of defending the North. But my point was precisely that the Iron Throne always abandoned the North to their own luck. Why do you need to be a part of a bigger realm if it does not provide help when you need it?

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robb's kingdom was stillborn and doomed not because the North declared its independence. That could have worked, at least for a time. But including the Riverlands into that secessionist kingdom could never work. Robb was surrounded by enemies and had no natural borders to keep them out of his 'kingdom'.

I agree that the inclusion of the Riverlands make the borders of Robb's kingdom unmanageable. It has to be said, though, that at the time it was expected that the Vale would join them (and that expectation was somehow reasonable). That North+Rivers+Vale realm was more likely to function, specially if Dorne and the Iron Islands seceded as well, and the Reach+Stormlands kingdom was busy for some time fighting the Westerlands.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

People often forget that more Riverlords than Lords of the North declared Robb king. The only Northmen present at the Riverrun war council where Jon Umber, Rickard Karstark, Maege Mormont, and Galbart Glover. Edmure's Riverlords were Karyl Vance, Marq Piper, Lyman Darry,  Jason Mallister, Stevron Frey, Jonos Bracken, and Tytos Blackwood.

There was no Bolton, no Dustin, no Ryswell, no Manderly, no Tallhart, no Flint, no Locke, etc. among the men who proclaimed Robb king. Sure, some of them took him as their king later on, while others (like Roose or Lady Dustin) most likely only feigned to do so.

However, I'm pretty sure the Manderlys never much liked this idea of independence (and are now secretly happy that it is over). White Harbor would be the first victim in an all-out war against the South, and trade would suffer greatly from the whole thing, especially if the Sistermen were given permission to prey on every ship going to and coming from White Harbor.

I agree with the idea that in the northernmost part of the North, the independence sentiment is stronger. As I mentioned before, the lords that first declared Robb as their king came from the upper North. Probably this could be explained due to being less Andal immigration and less contact via trade with the South. All that said, there's this exchange in ADWD:

• Davos: “If it is justice that you want, my lord, look to King Stannis. No man is more just.”
• Glover: “Your loyalty does you honor, my lord, but Stannis Baratheon remains your king, not our own.”
• Davos: “Your own king is dead,, murdered at the Red Wedding beside Lord Wyman’s son.”
• Manderly: “The Young Wolf is dead, but that brave boy was not Lord Eddard’s only son."

It seems clear that lord Manderly is not only about vengeance here, and also fully embraces the idea of an independent North. Otherwise, his easier approach would be to declare for Stannis and forget about a boy he hasn't even been able to find. He is not looking for an easy way out from the independence issue. Quite the opposite.

8 hours ago, devilish said:

A-    A divided Westeros was always Essos punching bag, from the first men, to the andals right to the Targs. A unified Westeros was able to repel any invasions since and there were times when they could even add new lands to its portfolio (ex the step stones) 
 

So in the past 10,000 years Westeros has been invaded exactly twice. Is that a bad record? Should a divided Westeros be particularly worried about the menace of nine divided Free Cities?

8 hours ago, devilish said:

B-    Some regions can’t function alone. The North has no fleet and it depends on trade coming from South. They would be easy prey to raids (ie they can’t answer back) and if the Riverlands close the trade route, well, they are isolated from the rest of the world. The Riverlands on the other hand has too many borders to maintain.

Come on! Did trade stopped in the Mediterranean after the collapse of the Roman Empire? Did the existence of piracy stopped the trade with the new world?

Again, the idea that borders make trade impossible is absurd. It should also be remembered that trade benefits both parts of the deal. The South's best interests would be in maintaining the trade with the North too!

8 hours ago, devilish said:

C-    The creation of Westeros was a success story. The LPs and wardens were kings of their region in all but name and after dragons died out the so called king was nothing more than a glorified regulator, who needed the consensus of the majority of LPs/Wardens to act. That was evident during Egg’s administration.
 

I think that the overall balance of a united Westeros is positive, specially in the Andal kingdoms. But I wouldn't call a success story at all: the Conquest, the war of the Faith, the Dance, the conquest of Dorne, five Blackfyre rebellions,the Ironborn raids, Robert's rebellion, the war of the five kings,...All this in 300 hundred years. Besides the reigns of Jaehaerys I+Viserys, there hasn't been a generation that hasn't known war.

[Lord Varys]

20 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Lord Commander Hoare is mentioned to have 10 thousand swords at his command when Aegon landed. I think that shows the decline of the Wall clearly started in the Targaryen reign. And while Jaehaerys and Alysanne were prowatch, that tendency change with the following monarchs. The fact that the Wall was seen as a place to send criminals instead of a key defence of the realm shows that the Southerners cared little about the matters of the North.

Unfortunately we have no data how many men the Watch had, say, a thousand years ago, but the tendency to ship men to the Watch who do not exactly hear that calling without some outside pressure is seen, for instance, when Princess Nymeria sends six Dornish kings to the Wall. Those men clearly would have rather kept their crowns and kingdoms.

We also don't know whether there was a quick or a slow decline in the NW during the Targaryen days. The Winter Fever and the Great Spring Sickness could have killed a lot of people up there, as could have the severe six-year-winters.

20 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

You are right that as wardens of the North were responsible too of defending the North. But my point was precisely that the Iron Throne always abandoned the North to their own luck. Why do you need to be a part of a bigger realm if it does not provide help when you need it?

Well, they get some help, like the crucial supplies of food Aegon V sent up north. This was never a confederation, though. And the Iron Throne never had a standing army it could send to defend the Northmen from the wildlings, the Skagosi, or even the Ironborn. There are only so much levies in the Crownlands.

20 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

I agree that the inclusion of the Riverlands make the borders of Robb's kingdom unmanageable. It has to be said, though, that at the time it was expected that the Vale would join them (and that expectation was somehow reasonable). That North+Rivers+Vale realm was more likely to function, specially if Dorne and the Iron Islands seceded as well, and the Reach+Stormlands kingdom was busy for some time fighting the Westerlands.

Renly and Stannis were both claiming the throne of a united Realm. The Vale standing with Robb could have helped but they might have just been allies of King Robb, not his subjects, complicating things even further. Lysa and her lords could then forge a peace with Stannis, Renly, or Joffrey much easier than Robb.

And Dorne never had any intention to secede. It doesn't haven't to. It is still pretty independent in comparison to the other regions.

20 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

I agree with the idea that in the southernmost part of the North, the independence sentiment is not as strong. As I mentioned before, the lords that first declared Robb as their king came from the upper North. Probably there are more Andal immigration (aside from the Manderlys) in the South. That said, in ADWD, there's this exchange:

• Davos: “If it is justice that you want, my lord, look to King Stannis. No man is more just.”
• Glover: “Your loyalty does you honor, my lord, but Stannis Baratheon remains your king, not our own.”
• Davos: “Your own king is dead,, murdered at the Red Wedding beside Lord Wyman’s son.”
• Manderly: “The Young Wolf is dead, but that brave boy was not Lord Eddard’s only son."

It seems clear that lord Manderly is not only about vengeance here, and also fully embraces the idea of an independent North. Otherwise, his easier approach would be to declare for Stannis and forget about a boy he hasn't even been able to find.

But he also promises Davos that he would declare for Stannis if he, Davos, gets Rickon - his liege lord, not king - back from Skagos. Manderly makes it clear that he is still a Stark man and does not jump ship from King Robb to King Stannis, but nothing indicates that he has plan to make Rickon another King in the North. Whatever goals they might have indicate some sort of cooperation, and he later pledges all his support to King Stannis if Davos meets his price and saves Rickon. He could be lying there, of course, but I doubt he is.

At this point it would be madness and suicide to make another stint at independence. Fight the Lannisters, Boltons, and Freys and avenge the dead of the Red Wedding, sure, but for that Manderly is gladly willing to work with allies from the south.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

18 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Lord Commander Hoare is mentioned to have 10 thousand swords at his command when Aegon landed. I think that shows the decline of the Wall clearly started in the Targaryen reign.

The WOIAF states clearly that the decline of the Nights Watch started before the Conquest. 

[Colonel Green]

21 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

I think that the overall balance of a united Westeros is positive, specially in the Andal kingdoms. But I wouldn't call a success story at all: the Conquest, the war of the Faith, the Dance, the conquest of Dorne, five Blackfyre rebellions,the Ironborn raids, Robert's rebellion, the war of the five kings,...All this in 300 hundred years. Besides the reigns of Jaehaerys I+Viserys, there hasn't been a generation that hasn't known war.

If the overall balance is positive, how is that not a success story?  If we define success as meaning that there's no war, sure, but a net reduction in war (and, seemingly, major population growth, given the differences in army size in many areas) is a success.

[devilish]

21 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

 

So in the past 10,000 years Westeros has been invaded exactly twice. Is that a bad record? Should a divided Westeros be particularly worried about the menace of nine divided Free Cities?

Come on! Did trade stopped in the Mediterranean after the collapse of the Roman Empire? Did the existence of piracy stopped the trade with the new world?

Again, the idea that borders make trade impossible is absurd. It should also be remembered that trade benefits both parts of the deal. The South's best interests would be in maintaining the trade with the North too!

I think that the overall balance of a united Westeros is positive, specially in the Andal kingdoms. But I wouldn't call a success story at all: the Conquest, the war of the Faith, the Dance, the conquest of Dorne, five Blackfyre rebellions,the Ironborn raids, Robert's rebellion, the war of the five kings,...All this in 300 hundred years. Besides the reigns of Jaehaerys I+Viserys, there hasn't been a generation that hasn't known war.

A- Prior to the Targs, all Essosi invasions of Westeros were a success

B- Trade reduced significantly, there were famine, loss of knowledge and rise in ignorance. Europe would later on recover, but we will never see a Southern European powerhouse again ever. I know the medieval times very well, as I come from a country whose located at the center of the Mediterranean Sea

C- Not really. Even in today's world something like Brexit can limit trade, let alone the medieval world mindset

It was within the Robert-Ned-Hoster-Jon interest to keep things as they are. Else they would have lost out on the wealth of the Reach and the Westerlands.

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

2 minutes ago, devilish said:

A- Prior to the Targs, all Essosi invasions of Westeros were a success

These were before the formation of the 7k though weren't they? (Doesn't completely undercut your point, but I think it's an important distinction). 

[Jaak]

On 20.3.2017 at 8:12 PM, Canon Claude said:

During Robert's Rebellion, there seemed to be no discussion on whether or not to break up the Iron Throne

We don´t actually hear what was or was not discussed, by whom and when.

[The hairy bear]

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, they get some help, like the crucial supplies of food Aegon V sent up north. This was never a confederation, though. And the Iron Throne never had a standing army it could send to defend the Northmen from the wildlings, the Skagosi, or even the Ironborn. There are only so much levies in the Crownlands.

Aegon V's supplies are a good example of the South providing help to the North. My feeling is that it was something exceptional. In the Northmen more recent memory there's probably the murders of Rickard and Brandon,

Of all the seven kingdoms, the North is clearly the one that obtained less benefits from the union. Due to their geographical isolation, different culture and their specificities, the North has been less involved than others in the governance of the Iron Throne. There are not connected to the court, they do not attend the tourneys...

I'm just saying that it should not be a foregone conclusion that the North would not be better alone (specially if there's a mediocre or bad king in the Iron Throne)

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Renly and Stannis were both claiming the throne of a united Realm. The Vale standing with Robb could have helped but they might have just been allies of King Robb, not his subjects, complicating things even further. Lysa and her lords could then forge a peace with Stannis, Renly, or Joffrey much easier than Robb.

And Dorne never had any intention to secede. It doesn't haven't to. It is still pretty independent in comparison to the other regions.

The Vale could have accepted Robb as his king. Lysa was Cat's brother and Hoster's daughter, and the main lords of the Vale were supportive of the Vale. They where actually pushing to fight for Robb! There were a lot of friendships and alliances made during Robert's Rebellion. It could have worked if not for Lysa+Littlefinger.

From the Northmen perspective, it was impos to envision an alliance of the Vale with the Lannisters (Lysa had accused them of murdering Jon Arryn), and when Robb was crowned Stannis had not claimed the throne yet.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 At this point it would be madness and suicide to make another stint at independence. Fight the Lannisters, Boltons, and Freys and avenge the dead of the Red Wedding, sure, but for that Manderly is gladly willing to work with allies from the south.

Agreed. My point is not about what the Manderlys can do. Is about what they would like to do. And it seems clear to me that they would like to remain an independent kingdom under a Stark. I was only trying to rebate the idea that they had never been pro-independence and that they were happy they had an opportunity to abandon the cause.

3 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

The WOIAF states clearly that the decline of the Nights Watch started before the Conquest. 

The exact quote is "Their own records prove that this decline has been in progress even before the age of Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters." The "even" is particularly telling, I think. It suggests that this is something that before was not as marked or as fast. The figures speak for themselves: from 10,000 to 800 members in 300 years!

48 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

If the overall balance is positive, how is that not a success story?  If we define success as meaning that there's no war, sure, but a net reduction in war (and, seemingly, major population growth, given the differences in army size in many areas) is a success.

IMHO it's a reduced success, at most. As I said, the six Southern kingdoms enjoyed more benefits. The North? I'm not so sure.

Specially if we only take into account the experience in the past 40 years (which is what people is going to base their decisions on)

24 minutes ago, devilish said:

B- Trade reduced significantly, there were famine, loss of knowledge and rise in ignorance. Europe would later on recover, but we will never see a Southern European powerhouse again ever. I know the medieval times very well, as I come from a country whose located at the center of the Mediterranean Sea

C- Not really. Even in today's world something like Brexit can limit trade, let alone the medieval world mindset

If you know medieval times well you'll certainly be aware that the Roman Empire was a mess way before it broke down to pieces.

In your opinion: did the USA took a bad decision when they decided to secede from the British Empire? Did they suffer a significant reduction of trade?

Can you tell me of a single country in the world that has gained independence and later regretted it?

 

[Colonel Green]

1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

IMHO it's a reduced success, at most. As I said, the six Southern kingdoms enjoyed more benefits. The North? I'm not so sure.

The Iron Throne-enforced peace, in the form of reduced and/or non-existent Ironborn raiding would be the most obvious benefit for the North over most of the period.

[Jaak]

There WAS a bad precedent within these 300 years.

Laughing Storm.

Lord Lyonel Baratheon declared himself Storm King - the last so far that we know of.

He... well, did cease to be King, but...

He did not lose his head. Nor did Aegon´s "mercy" to him mean packing him off to Wall in golden chains. Nor was he stripped naked and delivered to King by his own men, like the previous Storm Queen had been.

Rather, the Targaryen King disinherited his eldest son and heir, and promptly delivered up his daughter Rhaelle to the (ex)Storm King as captive/hostage.

Sounds like Storm King won, after all.

Overthrowing Aerys and Targaryen Dynasty to make Baratheons Dynasty on Iron Throne, as eventually happened, were not the only options. There were obvious precedents as alternatives. Imposing a humiliating surrender on King Aerys, as had been done with Aegon. Or making Robert an independent Storm King, as Lyonel had claimed.

Certainly if mere cancelling an engagement on demand of the engaged boy justified rebellion and declaration of kingdom, then kidnapping the fiancee (Lyanna certainly was not openly advertising the affair as a consensual elopement) was more of a justification, and calling for Lord´s head for no cause, just as a precaution, much more so!

[Universal Sword Donor]

7 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

The Iron Throne-enforced peace, in the form of reduced and/or non-existent Ironborn raiding would be the most obvious benefit for the North over most of the period.

When did the North suffer from invasions? Sure the Greyjoys had harried the coast for a while, but they continued to do that after the Targs took power. The North and the Vale fought over the Sisters but that ended ~700 years before Aegon's Conquest. 

[Colonel Green]

Just now, Universal Sword Donor said:

When did the North suffer from invasions? Sure the Greyjoys had harried the coast for a while, but they continued to do that after the Targs took power.

The Ironborn were always raiding the North in the pre-Targaryen period.  There were raids at various points in post-unification history, in the post-dragons period when royal authority frayed, but that's still a considerable improvement overall.

[devilish]

15 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Aegon V's supplies are a good example of the South providing help to the North. My feeling is that it was something exceptional. In the Northmen more recent memory there's probably the murders of Rickard and Brandon,

Of all the seven kingdoms, the North is clearly the one that obtained less benefits from the union. Due to their geographical isolation, different culture and their specificities, the North has been less involved than others in the governance of the Iron Throne. There are not connected to the court, they do not attend the tourneys...

I'm just saying that it should not be a foregone conclusion that the North would not be better alone (specially if there's a mediocre or bad king in the Iron Throne)

The Vale could have accepted Robb as his king. Lysa was Cat's brother and Hoster's daughter, and the main lords of the Vale were supportive of the Vale. They where actually pushing to fight for Robb! There were a lot of friendships and alliances made during Robert's Rebellion. It could have worked if not for Lysa+Littlefinger.

From the Northmen perspective, it was impos to envision an alliance of the Vale with the Lannisters (Lysa had accused them of murdering Jon Arryn), and when Robb was crowned Stannis had not claimed the throne yet.

Agreed. My point is not about what the Manderlys can do. Is about what they would like to do. And it seems clear to me that they would like to remain an independent kingdom under a Stark. I was only trying to rebate the idea that they had never been pro-independence and that they were happy they had an opportunity to abandon the cause.

The exact quote is "Their own records prove that this decline has been in progress even before the age of Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters." The "even" is particularly telling, I think. It suggests that this is something that before was not as marked or as fast. The figures speak for themselves: from 10,000 to 800 members in 300 years!

IMHO it's a reduced success, at most. As I said, the six Southern kingdoms enjoyed more benefits. The North? I'm not so sure.

Specially if we only take into account the experience in the past 40 years (which is what people is going to base their decisions on)

If you know medieval times well you'll certainly be aware that the Roman Empire was a mess way before it broke down to pieces.

In your opinion: did the USA took a bad decision when they decided to secede from the British Empire? Did they suffer a significant reduction of trade?

Can you tell me of a single country in the world that has gained independence and later regretted it?

 

I won’t be delving deep on why the Roman collapsed. However the main 2 causes were bad management AND a ridiculous increase in immigration. The latter part is quite significant. People weren’t escaped from ‘this mess’ they were actually banging the doors, very hard, to go in. A big chunk of these so called barbarians didn’t want to bring the Roman Empire down. They wanted to be part of it.

So yes, the Roman Empire was in a mess, but this mess was 

a-    mainly not self-inflicted (there were others things as well, like a change in ideology from the typical Roman one who pledged allegiance to secularism and the state to the Christian one who pledged allegiance to God and saw the state as a corrupt institution to destroy)
b-    It was a heaven on earth compared to the rest of the world

In medieval times, the population shrunk, most of Roman/Greek knowledge was lost, plagues and famine became a common thing. Piracy increased and raids became a common thing. It’s unfair to label all the medieval period as bad, but the early part of it was.

The US fought for independence much later on in history. The technology and society as a whole was different to that of medieval times. Also the US colonies were rich, with plenty of space to expand and natural resources to exploit. You can’t say the same thing about early medieval Europe. The agriculture was still very basic, which rendered most of Northern Europe fields unsuitable to feed its huge populations. Basically Europe was pretty much dependent on Northern Africa to supply most of the food. Once that was lost to the Vandals, well, craap hit fan

Doesn't that ring a bell?  The Reach provides Westeros with most of the food with the Vale, Crownlands and North being very dependent to them especially in winter. That means, that if the Reach becomes independent, all it has to do is find 1-2 great allies (Lannister & Baratheon?) and wait. Soon enough King Ned and King Jon will come begging for food, which will be given to them, if….they bend the knee. That would lead to either 1 of two scenarios. Either another war which they would probably lose or Jon/Ned would simply comply. 

Not to forget that the North was in shambles . The NW was a shadow of its former self, the North had no fleet and Moat Cailin was in ruins. Those would be issues the Starks would have to tackle if they ever become independent. Surely they can’t expect an independent nation to lend them a fleet. It was within Stark interest to keep things that way.