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

[The hairy bear]

21 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.

You portray the period before the Conquest as a constant parade of warfare, and the Targaryen reign as a peaceful oasis.

But as Universal Sword Donor says, the last evidence of an external war in the North before the Conquest dates from two thousand years ago, when there was war with the Vale. We have absolutely no indication of any other big scale conflict in the last millenia. One would expect that the wildlings were reasonably well contained given that the Wall was very well guarded, and I don't see why we have to assume that the Ironborn were constantly raiding the coast.

Meanwhile, in 300 years of Targaryen reign, there were two full scale invasions of the Ironborn. And Raymund Redbeard. And the Skaagos rebellions. And the times the North was involved in Southern wars.Most of Lords of Winterfell seem to have suffered of violent deaths.

With the information that we have right now, I don't think it's fair to outright state that there was more peace in the North during the Conquest.

7 hours ago, devilish said:

I won’t be delving deep on why the Roman collapsed.

We'll avoid the topic then. It's probably a good thing, because I don't agree with some of your propositions and we don't want to derail the thread too much.

I was only saying that it's not fair to blame the recession of the early Middle Ages to the breakup of the Roman Empire, because the recession had started before the breakup. I would also like to point out that during the crisis of the third century the Roman Empire was united, and the population shrunk, lost of knowledge, plagues, famine and economic depression were also there. As all great empires in history can attest, a big size does not save you from periods of recession.

 

7 hours ago, devilish said:

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, crap hit fan

The Roman Empire or the USA are just one out of many possible examples. The North is comparable in terms of size and climate with the European part of Russia, or thrice the Scandinavian peninsula. History demonstrates that an independent nation such as those, even in medieval times, can rise and prosper.

7 hours ago, devilish said:

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

1) You are forgetting again that the North has been an independent kingdom for millennia. Hundreds of winters have come an go, and the North has endured. Aegon V helping the North in the winter of 235 was a very unusual event due to the extraordinary upbringing of this particular king. During the rest of the hard winters that the North has suffered since the Conquest, Northmen have been on their own. Under the reigns of Stannis, Renly or Joffrey this won't be different.

2) I'd like to see evidence of the Reach regularly providing foot to the North in winter. I don't think there's any. And in any case, they wouldn't be providing it for free. They'd be selling it. So there's no reason to take for granted that trade could not continue as usual. The North would also be free to try to purchase grain to Essos.

[Colonel Green]

8 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

You portray the period before the Conquest as a constant parade of warfare, and the Targaryen reign as a peaceful oasis.

But as Universal Sword Donor says, the last evidence of an external war in the North before the Conquest dates from two thousand years ago, when there was war with the Vale. We have absolutely no indication of any other big scale conflict in the last millenia. One would expect that the wildlings were reasonably well contained given that the Wall was very well guarded, and I don't see why we have to assume that the Ironborn were constantly raiding the coast.

Um, nowhere did I say the Targaryen reign was a peaceful oasis.  I said it was less violent than the preceding period.

We can assume the Ironborn were constantly raiding the coast because that is quite literally what the Ironborn's whole culture is about (and Bear Island's warrior culture is apparently founded on that fact of life).  And the North, alone of the major kingdoms on the western coast of the continent, has no navy.

[The hairy bear]

@Colonel Green

The North had a navy. Theon Stark is said to have built one and used it to sack the coast of Essos. And later on, the invasion of the Three Sisters and subsequent war against the Vale was fought by the Northern fleet.

The Northmen only stopped having a fleet after Brandon the Burner burned it after his father had been lost at the sea. I very much doubt that he would have done that if that fleet had been a key instrument to defend the North against the constant raids of the Ironborn.

I still think that there's no reason to believe that the period immediately before the Conquest was more violent than the Targaryen reign.

[Colonel Green]

48 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

@Colonel Green

The North had a navy. Theon Stark is said to have built one and used it to sack the coast of Essos. And later on, the invasion of the Three Sisters and subsequent war against the Vale was fought by the Northern fleet.

The Northmen only stopped having a fleet after Brandon the Burner burned it after his father had been lost at the sea. I very much doubt that he would have done that if that fleet had been a key instrument to defend the North against the constant raids of the Ironborn.

Yes, as you say, they had a navy.  But not anymore, and that's not because the Ironborn went away (incidentally, the lack of a Northern navy is one of GRRM's less plausible worldbuilding details, precisely for that reason).  The Ironborn are reavers; that's all they do, in fact.  There's no way they were not reaving the North in this era.

[Universal Sword Donor]

On 3/24/2017 at 4:28 AM, devilish said:

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. 

 

There is less than no evidence saying the Vale or Crownlands. We know the vale is "famously fertile" and has the ability to grow wheat, barley, and corn as well as pumpkins and fruit to rival the Reach. The Crownlands feed KL so if they were dependent on the Reach for food, KL would cease to exist. There's no evidence of the Reach ever sending anything to North with any regularity and only a chance they sent food north when Aegon asked them to. There is no harbor for their ships to anchor on the west side of the North. Any food would have to come up the roseroad, which wouldn't work because of the amount of food the oxen/horses need to consume, or around Dorne and up the narrow sea. There is a very real danger of food spoilage in that scenario, and the Vale is less than a week's sale from White Harbor. with places like Maidenpool and Duskendale only another few days sailing away. 

As to the North being in shambles, well we just have to disagree there. MC has clearly been a ruin far longer than the Targs have been in charge. We know the keep rotted away a 1000 years ago, yet the north hasn't been invaded at any point through it. In fact MC was strong enough to throw back a much larger Northern force under the Ryswells and Dustins 3 times, and Theon thought they would kill another 3x their number in a battle, despite starving and being under siege for months. The NW being a shadow of itself is not ideal but WF never required the entire North to put down an invasion. If the NW hadn't been completely gutted by the great ranging, it's highly unlikely mance would have even gotten close to breaching the wall. The North not having a fleet would be an issue, but we see WH built a fleet of nearly 50 boats inside a year.

[Lord Varys]

On 23.3.2017 at 6:37 PM, 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.

The help clearly was exceptional but I certainly would say that trade would have become more easier (less taxes, no trade wars, no tolls being collected by trade within the Targaryen Realm, etc.) after the Conquest, also benefiting the North.

If they declare themselves independent the Iron Throne has a large and united Realm standing against them that can easily break them both economically and militarily. They have essentially nothing to gain from such an enterprise in the long run. Short-term during an all-out civil war like the War of the Five Kings they have a chance to get away with it, for a time. But not for long.

On 23.3.2017 at 6:37 PM, The hairy bear said:

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...

Those are nobility matters. If the Northmen are too lazy or have no interest in attending tourneys in the south that's their problem. But we have no reason to believe that trade did not benefit from a united realm, a clear tax and toll policy, and a long period of stable peace.

On 23.3.2017 at 6:37 PM, The hairy bear said:

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).

If they stand against the Iron Throne and its subjects (which they inevitably would) they would be worse off. Especially in winter. Part of the Iron Throne's politics could then be to forbid any Westerosi to ship any food up North, and for all we know the North always was dependent on food imports in winter.

On 23.3.2017 at 6:37 PM, The hairy bear said:

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.

That is too positive a scenario for my taste. They wanted to stand with the Tullys and Starks, yes, but nothing indicates anybody there wanted to take Robb as king. 

On 23.3.2017 at 6:37 PM, The hairy bear said:

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.

Sure, but they were mistaken there. And certainly could not demand or even hope that they would join the Riverlands in choosing a new king. The Vale and the North had warred for a thousand years in the past, after all.

On 23.3.2017 at 6:37 PM, The hairy bear said:

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.

They might prefer the Stark king solution to a Lannister-controlled regime, and they might be still somewhat skeptical about Stannis, but we don't know what they would think about a Targaryen monarch.

On 23.3.2017 at 6:37 PM, The hairy bear said:

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!

But one wonders whether the Targaryens had anything to do with that and not a general trend among the nobility and people. If nobody volunteers for the Watch it dies. Some lords continue to send criminals to the Wall but definitely not all of them. Tywin doesn't really care about the Watch, for instance.

It seems more likely to me that the growing influence of the Citadel across the Realm had something to do with the decline of the NW, simply because less and less people believed in the Others.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

The Targaryen kingdom? Westeros didn't belong to the Targs heck they were not even Westerosi. 

[devilish]

On 23/03/2017 at 4:44 PM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

[devilish]

3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

There is less than no evidence saying the Vale or Crownlands. We know the vale is "famously fertile" and has the ability to grow wheat, barley, and corn as well as pumpkins and fruit to rival the Reach. The Crownlands feed KL so if they were dependent on the Reach for food, KL would cease to exist. There's no evidence of the Reach ever sending anything to North with any regularity and only a chance they sent food north when Aegon asked them to. There is no harbor for their ships to anchor on the west side of the North. Any food would have to come up the roseroad, which wouldn't work because of the amount of food the oxen/horses need to consume, or around Dorne and up the narrow sea. There is a very real danger of food spoilage in that scenario, and the Vale is less than a week's sale from White Harbor. with places like Maidenpool and Duskendale only another few days sailing away. 

As to the North being in shambles, well we just have to disagree there. MC has clearly been a ruin far longer than the Targs have been in charge. We know the keep rotted away a 1000 years ago, yet the north hasn't been invaded at any point through it. In fact MC was strong enough to throw back a much larger Northern force under the Ryswells and Dustins 3 times, and Theon thought they would kill another 3x their number in a battle, despite starving and being under siege for months. The NW being a shadow of itself is not ideal but WF never required the entire North to put down an invasion. If the NW hadn't been completely gutted by the great ranging, it's highly unlikely mance would have even gotten close to breaching the wall. The North not having a fleet would be an issue, but we see WH built a fleet of nearly 50 boats inside a year.

KL relies massively on trade and food supplies outside the crownlands to survive. When Mace blockaded it, they suffered from starvation. Winter is particularly harsh in the North, with elderly people leaving camp to die in the cold. Aegon V sent massive supplies North during a long winter that lasted for 6 years. A famine made a havoc on the iron islands. All this, improved when Westeros became united. Enemies and competitors aren't fed in time of need. Loyal Subjects ruled by a central king do.

And the North is in shambles. Think about it. There is 3 ways how to attack the North ie by sea, from the Riverlands and by assaulting the wall. The North has no fleet, Moat Cailin is in ruins and the NW are a shadow of its former self. The North is also vulnerable to famines with Aegon V having to take over to feed the Northerners on Stark behalf. Which is kind of ridiculous considering that the shivering sea (especially around Skagos) has some of the richest fishing ground in the known world. 

It wasn't within Robert (ruler of the tiniest region in Westeros), Hoster (LP of the punching ball of Westeros) and Eddard (a mismanaged waste who needs help to feed its people in time of need) to carve an independent kingdom of their own

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, devilish said:

KL relies massively on trade and food supplies outside the crownlands to survive. When Mace blockaded it, they suffered from starvation. Winter is particularly harsh in the North, with elderly people leaving camp to die in the cold. Aegon V sent massive supplies North during a long winter that lasted for 6 years. A famine made a havoc on the iron islands. All this, improved when Westeros became united. Enemies and competitors aren't fed in time of need. Loyal Subjects ruled by a central king do.

And the North is in shambles. Think about it. There is 3 ways how to attack the North ie by sea, from the Riverlands and by assaulting the wall. The North has no fleet, Moat Cailin is in ruins and the NW are a shadow of its former self. The North is also vulnerable to famines with Aegon V having to take over to feed the Northerners on Stark behalf. Which is kind of ridiculous considering that the shivering sea (especially around Skagos) has some of the richest fishing ground in the known world. 

It wasn't within Robert (ruler of the tiniest region in Westeros), Hoster (LP of the punching ball of Westeros) and Eddard (a mismanaged waste who needs help to feed its people in time of need) to carve an independent kingdom of their own

I never said KL didn't rely on trade or didn't use outside food. Your example of them starving also coincides with a freaking 5 way war. The Riverlands are being burnt up, Stannis has blockaded all trade coming into KL, and Renly has blocked food from the reach. So at worst, you've got 1/4 of your normal food supply coming from the crownlands. Rosby and Stokeworth alone were enough to provide food for most of KL. Granted there was a riot solely about food, but that's partly due to Joffrey's governance (or lack thereof).  

You're just repeating yourself with the North being in shambles. They are, as I agreed, open to an invasion from either coast. The RL invasion route has never worked for anyone, and frankly the wall isn't much to worry about. The Starks have never even had to call more than A bannerman to help deal with the incursions. The North has also had some success in repelling naval invasions during the Andal period, though I can't imagine they would replicate that against the royal navy. That particular winter is the only winter in the history of the Targaryen rule where winter lasted more than 3 years. It's definitely the only time where the North received any substantive aid from the crown. 

I'm not saying the North is going to be able to withstand 6 other kingdoms trying to invade, but they managed just fine for thousands of years as an independent kingdom. The north wouldn't be able to withstand 3-4 regions allying against them, but no one would frankly. That's a strawman or false proposition if there ever was one.

[Lord Varys]

The North did reasonably fine before the Conquest because it has pretty good natural defenses against invasions from the south as well as because only the more adventurous Andal kings would ever have tried to conquer it.

But we know there is a longstanding enmity between the Vale and the North (resulting in the marriage between Ronnel Arryn and one of Torrhen's daughters being rejected by Torrhen's sons) and we also know there were constant wars between the Seven Kingdoms before the Conquest. There is a pretty good chance there was no war with the Riverlands during the era of the Ironborn rule there (with the Hoares being more occupied with securing their gains and building Harrenhal) but we don't know about the Vale or the West in those days. Casterly Rock could certainly have tried to gain a foothold on Cape Kraken for some reasons, as could the River Kings in the past.

And in general, we just know too little about the effects the Conquest had on the smallfolk and general trade in the North. Both could have profited even if the nobles were not all that happy.

The betrothal between Lord Manderly and Princess Viserra Targaryen strongly suggests that White Harbor and the Manderlys actually profited rather greatly from the Targaryen reign. Jaehaerys I would not have betrothed one of his daughter to a man for no reason.

[Free Northman Reborn]

This thread seems to have stumbled around a bit over its three pages to date.

At first there seems to have been a fleeting attempt to paint the North as being dependent on the South for survival during Winter, until it was pointed out that the North existed as an independent kingdom just fine for thousands of years, over the course of hundreds of Winters, both long and short. In fact, the North not only existed during this long period, but proved so strong that it alone of all the kingdoms proved unconquerable for any outsiders.

Next an attempt was made to argue that even if the North was not dependent on the generosity of the South, it no doubt relied heavily on food imports from the South for its survival, and that the cutting off of such supplies would no doubt cripple it. Well, this argument is problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the overland bulk transport network is basically non-existent in Westeros. Prior to the arrival of the Targaryens, even the Kingsroad does not seem to have existed, and even that is a muddy track in many areas above the Neck. As for ocean transport, prior to 1000 years ago the North did not even have White Harbor, and therefore no major sea port that could have served as a point of bulk grain imports. Not to mention that for a thousand years they were at war with the Vale, during a time when Braavos did not exist yet, and neither did King's Landing. So from which city exactly would the North have been importing vast quantities of food during Long Winters? Pentos would seem to be the closest major port during that era, other than Gulltown, which was an enemy of the North for most of the thousand years prior to White Harbor being established.

In any case, one need only look at this very War Across the Water to note that the North, despite facing Wildling incursions, Ironborn invasions and probably the ocassional attempt to assault Moat Cailin from the South during this period, was nevertheless able to match the Vale's naval resources and capabilities in a thousand year war for the Sisters. Something that would not have been possible without the necessary resources to sustain such an effort.

So the answer to any question regarding the North's resource base prior to the Targaryen conquest -is that, it pretty much matched that of the Vale. So if you believe the North could not support itself, then by your definition neither could the Vale during that time period.

In short, I think this is an argument that has been comprehensively dismissed and a case that can be closed.

[Lord Varys]

30 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This thread seems to have stumbled around a bit over its three pages to date.

This thread is actually about breaking the Seven Kingdoms apart, not the North.

30 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

At first there seems to have been a fleeting attempt to paint the North as being dependent on the South for survival during Winter, until it was pointed out that the North existed as an independent kingdom just fine for thousands of years, over the course of hundreds of Winters, both long and short. In fact, the North not only existed during this long period, but proved so strong that it alone of all the kingdoms proved unconquerable for any outsiders.

But it may have grown dependent on the trade and support it routinely got during the long winters during the unity of the Realm. Basic economics and population growth tell us that people have more offspring and thus need more food if there are more prosperous times. And if the Targaryens/people in the South helped the Northmen to survive in winter then those food imports would have become crucial for the survival of a growing percentage of the overall population.

Those people could easily be sacrificed on the altar of wrong policy of independence.

30 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Next an attempt was made to argue that even if the North was not dependent on the generosity of the South, it no doubt relied heavily on food imports from the South for its survival, and that the cutting off of such supplies would no doubt cripple it. Well, this argument is problematic for a number of reasons.

We know that Aegon V shipped food up North during the six-year-winter in the 230s. It was done. And we know that Jon Snow intends to buy food from the Vale. One assumes that the North would have done something like that, and we can be reasonably sure that this would essentially be over if the North thought it was independent again because then laws might be in effect forbidding the subjects of the Iron Throne to sell food to rebels and traitors.

30 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Firstly, the overland bulk transport network is basically non-existent in Westeros. Prior to the arrival of the Targaryens, even the Kingsroad does not seem to have existed, and even that is a muddy track in many areas above the Neck. As for ocean transport, prior to 1000 years ago the North did not even have White Harbor, and therefore no major sea port that could have served as a point of bulk grain imports. Not to mention that for a thousand years they were at war with the Vale, during a time when Braavos did not exist yet, and neither did King's Landing. So from which city exactly would the North have been importing vast quantities of food during Long Winters? Pentos would seem to be the closest major port during that era, other than Gulltown, which was an enemy of the North for most of the thousand years prior to White Harbor being established.

The North was not always the same. It developed over the years. Again, that is basic economics. If the population reaches a certain peak point it needs food imports. And we can reasonably assume that the Targaryen Conquest helped them reach that level. The continuous warfare stopped and people everywhere would have gotten through winter much better than in days they were all on their own.

That is also pretty basic. A regional drought, bad harvest, plague of pests destroying the crops, etc. could be compensated by shipping in grain from a region (the Vale, say) where this plague had not struck. Back during the days of the Seven Kingdoms there is no reason to believe the Westermen would have felt any responsibility to help the Riverlanders, Stormlanders, or Northmen in such a crisis. In a united Realm such a spirit would have arisen, over time.

And during the times the North was at war with the Vale it could have shipped in food in winter (under worse conditions, to be sure) from the Riverlands or the West.

But we don't have to assume that the North was as dependent on food imports in its early days.

30 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In any case, one need only look at this very War Across the Water to note that the North, despite facing Wildling incursions, Ironborn invasions and probably the ocassional attempt to assault Moat Cailin from the South during this period, was nevertheless able to match the Vale's naval resources and capabilities in a thousand year war for the Sisters. Something that would not have been possible without the necessary resources to sustain such an effort.

Sure, but what does enable you to assume that both the Vale and the North had the same resources available back then than they do now? That is not a given. You can fight a long war with 80,000 or 800,000 soldiers. It is a war in both cases.

30 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So the answer to any question regarding the North's resource base prior to the Targaryen conquest -is that, it pretty much matched that of the Vale. So if you believe the North could not support itself, then by your definition neither could the Vale during that time period.

That is a fallacy since we don't know that the North had the same amount of people back then as it has now.

Rome was once also able to feed its population just off the surrounding. But guess what - when it became the capital of an empire it was heavily dependent on grain imports from Egypt.

When you cut New York off from all trade the city is likely going to starve in a few days (after people have eaten everything at home and in their stores there is nothing left).

There certainly would be regions in the North that are still living completely off the land but places like White Harbor and other regions where they do (international) trade would not.

[Lion of the West]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But we know there is a longstanding enmity between the Vale and the North (resulting in the marriage between Ronnel Arryn and one of Torrhen's daughters being rejected by Torrhen's sons) and we also know there were constant wars between the Seven Kingdoms before the Conquest. There is a pretty good chance there was no war with the Riverlands during the era of the Ironborn rule there (with the Hoares being more occupied with securing their gains and building Harrenhal) but we don't know about the Vale or the West in those days. Casterly Rock could certainly have tried to gain a foothold on Cape Kraken for some reasons, as could the River Kings in the past.

I hope you don't mind if I join in for a short post. Forgive me if I'm nitpicking but I don't find it very likely that the Lannisters would have attempted to make a go at Cape Kraken. To sustain a conquest there all support would have to travel by sea straight past the Iron Islands and given how the Gardeners and Ironmen seems to have been the Lannisters' traditional enemies in those times I don't find this very likely to have been the case.

48 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This thread seems to have stumbled around a bit over its three pages to date.

At first there seems to have been a fleeting attempt to paint the North as being dependent on the South for survival during Winter, until it was pointed out that the North existed as an independent kingdom just fine for thousands of years, over the course of hundreds of Winters, both long and short. In fact, the North not only existed during this long period, but proved so strong that it alone of all the kingdoms proved unconquerable for any outsiders.

Next an attempt was made to argue that even if the North was not dependent on the generosity of the South, it no doubt relied heavily on food imports from the South for its survival, and that the cutting off of such supplies would no doubt cripple it. Well, this argument is problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the overland bulk transport network is basically non-existent in Westeros. Prior to the arrival of the Targaryens, even the Kingsroad does not seem to have existed, and even that is a muddy track in many areas above the Neck. As for ocean transport, prior to 1000 years ago the North did not even have White Harbor, and therefore no major sea port that could have served as a point of bulk grain imports. Not to mention that for a thousand years they were at war with the Vale, during a time when Braavos did not exist yet, and neither did King's Landing. So from which city exactly would the North have been importing vast quantities of food during Long Winters? Pentos would seem to be the closest major port during that era, other than Gulltown, which was an enemy of the North for most of the thousand years prior to White Harbor being established.

In any case, one need only look at this very War Across the Water to note that the North, despite facing Wildling incursions, Ironborn invasions and probably the ocassional attempt to assault Moat Cailin from the South during this period, was nevertheless able to match the Vale's naval resources and capabilities in a thousand year war for the Sisters. Something that would not have been possible without the necessary resources to sustain such an effort.

So the answer to any question regarding the North's resource base prior to the Targaryen conquest -is that, it pretty much matched that of the Vale. So if you believe the North could not support itself, then by your definition neither could the Vale during that time period.

In short, I think this is an argument that has been comprehensively dismissed and a case that can be closed.

Forgive me for my interference.

The main thing with the war against the Vale is that in the end the North did surrender the prize to the Arryns and the Arryns were able to force landings on northern shores and score victories there, just like the Northmen could do the same. And so given the result and flow of the war the resources of the North and the Vale seems to have been about even with them going back and forth.

Also note that for most of their history the Ironborn were focused to the east and south in their conquests and don't appear to have fought all that fiercly to attack the the North, unlike the Riverlands and even earlier in the case of the Reach. Not that the North didn't get to fight the Ironmen, only that the Ironmen don't seem to have been so invested in attacking the North as they were in attacking further south.

And against the Wildlings the North had the Wall and the Watch to aid them, and for most of those times the Watch would have been fairly strong. As well as that Wildlings don't seem to be all that terrific warriors either, metalless cultures don't make for impressive foes against medieval armies.

[Free Northman Reborn]

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This thread is actually about breaking the Seven Kingdoms apart, not the North.

But it may have grown dependent on the trade and support it routinely got during the long winters during the unity of the Realm. Basic economics and population growth tell us that people have more offspring and thus need more food if there are more prosperous times. And if the Targaryens/people in the South helped the Northmen to survive in winter then those food imports would have become crucial for the survival of a growing percentage of the overall population.

Those people could easily be sacrificed on the altar of wrong policy of independence.

We know that Aegon V shipped food up North during the six-year-winter in the 230s. It was done. And we know that Jon Snow intends to buy food from the Vale. One assumes that the North would have done something like that, and we can be reasonably sure that this would essentially be over if the North thought it was independent again because then laws might be in effect forbidding the subjects of the Iron Throne to sell food to rebels and traitors.

The North was not always the same. It developed over the years. Again, that is basic economics. If the population reaches a certain peak point it needs food imports. And we can reasonably assume that the Targaryen Conquest helped them reach that level. The continuous warfare stopped and people everywhere would have gotten through winter much better than in days they were all on their own.

That is also pretty basic. A regional drought, bad harvest, plague of pests destroying the crops, etc. could be compensated by shipping in grain from a region (the Vale, say) where this plague had not struck. Back during the days of the Seven Kingdoms there is no reason to believe the Westermen would have felt any responsibility to help the Riverlanders, Stormlanders, or Northmen in such a crisis. In a united Realm such a spirit would have arisen, over time.

And during the times the North was at war with the Vale it could have shipped in food in winter (under worse conditions, to be sure) from the Riverlands or the West.

But we don't have to assume that the North was as dependent on food imports in its early days.

Sure, but what does enable you to assume that both the Vale and the North had the same resources available back then than they do now? That is not a given. You can fight a long war with 80,000 or 800,000 soldiers. It is a war in both cases.

That is a fallacy since we don't know that the North had the same amount of people back then as it has now.

Rome was once also able to feed its population just off the surrounding. But guess what - when it became the capital of an empire it was heavily dependent on grain imports from Egypt.

When you cut New York off from all trade the city is likely going to starve in a few days (after people have eaten everything at home and in their stores there is nothing left).

There certainly would be regions in the North that are still living completely off the land but places like White Harbor and other regions where they do (international) trade would not.

Firstly, I question your understanding of "basic food economics",  as you refer to it.

Equilibrium would be reached in terms of resource production and population - over the long term, that is. That would not preclude periodic fluctuations that occurred pretty much everywhere when famine, pestilence or war struck a population. So this equilibrium would fluctuate over time.

But for the North to import more food from the South, it would need to produce resources with which to purchase that food. So its resource production would always be in equilibrium with its population size, else people would die off to bring back that equilibrium. Note that with all the unused land in the North, more people would in turn mean more food being produced, as more manpower is available to clear woodlands, cultivate land and harvest crops. So one would go hand in hand with the other.

In any case, your argument seems to directly contradict an earlier position of yours, which suited another of your agendas. When Torhenn Stark's 30,000 men were raised before as a sign of the North's potential at the time, your argument was that for various reasons the North might have a lower population now than in Torhenn's time. I'm afraid it can be both. You can't argue it both ways, to suit your chosen outcome of the day.

Another thing you seem to base your argument on is that some kind of trade blackmail is somehow a praiseworthy position for the South to take in the case of Northern independence. Why? Why not embrace the chance to trade with the North, since trade is advantageous to both parties?

And why prevent the North from then trading with Braavos, to fulfill any hypothetical shortfalls in food that they might want to fill by imports from the Free Cities? Why not just take the position of, well, if the North wants to be independent, then so be it, let them fend for themselves. Which means you deal with them just like with any other foreign nation. By trading with them for profit. Just like with Braavos or Pentos or the Summer Isles.

You seem to be inherently biased, in viewing a quest for Northern independence as worthy of condemnation and punishment, going so far as trade embargoes and food blackmail, while a quest by the South to dominate and rule over the North is in your eyes seen as a just cause, worthy of punishing any kingdom that does not eagerly accept such domination.

Your position is utterly one sided. If at the end of Robert's Rebellion the North chose to go their own way, the relationship would have been one of friendly neighbours, with normal trade conditions existing between Ned's North and Robert's South. Perfectly sustainable and feasible.

[Free Northman Reborn]

6 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I hope you don't mind if I join in for a short post. Forgive me if I'm nitpicking but I don't find it very likely that the Lannisters would have attempted to make a go at Cape Kraken. To sustain a conquest there all support would have to travel by sea straight past the Iron Islands and given how the Gardeners and Ironmen seems to have been the Lannisters' traditional enemies in those times I don't find this very likely to have been the case.

Forgive me for my interference.

The main thing with the war against the Vale is that in the end the North did surrender the prize to the Arryns and the Arryns were able to force landings on northern shores and score victories there, just like the Northmen could do the same. And so given the result and flow of the war the resources of the North and the Vale seems to have been about even with them going back and forth.

Also note that for most of their history the Ironborn were focused to the east and south in their conquests and don't appear to have fought all that fiercly to attack the the North, unlike the Riverlands and even earlier in the case of the Reach. Not that the North didn't get to fight the Ironmen, only that the Ironmen don't seem to have been so invested in attacking the North as they were in attacking further south.

And against the Wildlings the North had the Wall and the Watch to aid them, and for most of those times the Watch would have been fairly strong. As well as that Wildlings don't seem to be all that terrific warriors either, metalless cultures don't make for impressive foes against medieval armies.

It seems we largely agree. The North and the Vale were roughly equal during the War Across the Water in terms of the forces and resources they could project into a foreign war theatre roughly equidistant between the two kingdoms. My reference to the wildlings, Ironborn and attempts to assault Moat Cailin was merely to point out that the North, during this period, was not able to focus all of its attention on this war with the Vale. Unlike the Vale, it was also exposed to Wildling invasions in the North, Ironborn invasions in the West and the ocassional Andal invasion from the South. In fact, If Theon Stark was the one who started the War across the Water as seems likely, then the North was also still subject to Andal invasions from Andalos during this period.

By contrast, the Vale do not face Ironborn threats, and seem largely secured behind the Bloody Gate against any invaders from mainland Westeros. And since they were already ruled by the Andals at the time, it seems unlikely that they faced any major Andal invasions either anymore.

Hence, the North was able to match the Vale's war effort for the Three Sisters, while still having to deal with other threats on other fronts of their vast kingdom as well. Making it even more impressive that the War Across the Water was effectively a stalemate. And suggesting that the North was fighting this war with only part of their overall strength, while the Vale could dedicate most or even all of their strength to it.

In short, surplus resources are required for warfare. And this means the North had surplus resources to sustain such a foreign war effort. And consistently so, over a period of many centuries.

Making them at least the equal of the Vale, in this regard.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Equilibrium would be reached in terms of resource production and population - over the long term, that is. That would not preclude periodic fluctuations that occurred pretty much everywhere when famine, pestilence or war struck a population. So this equilibrium would fluctuate over time.

Plagues and bad harvests were very common in the real middle ages even without freak seasons that could last for years (with the people having no means to calculate how many years, exactly). That in itself would cause major fluctuations in very grand scales.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But for the North to import more food from the South, it would need to produce resources with which to purchase that food. So its resource production would always be in equilibrium with its population size, else people would die off to bring back that equilibrium. Note that with all the unused land in the North, more people would in turn mean more food being produced, as more manpower is available to clear woodlands, cultivate land and harvest crops. So one would go hand in hand with the other.

Surplus food could actually be shipped north without making a profit. I'm pretty sure that's what Aegon V during the long winter, and it would be also what made people angry. They most likely thought Northmen who cannot afford food should not eat and instead quietly die.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In any case, your argument seems to directly contradict an earlier position of yours, which suited another of your agendas. When Torhenn Stark's 30,000 men were raised before as a sign of the North's potential at the time, your argument was that for various reasons the North might have a lower population now than in Torhenn's time. I'm afraid it can be both. You can't argue it both ways, to suit your chosen outcome of the day.

There is no contradiction there. I maintain that the North might have had a larger population at the time of the Conquest (due to perhaps very mild winters for a couple of generations) as well as during peace with both the Ironborn-controlled Riverlands for about a century as well as no recent wars with the Vale.

That assumption is not contradicting the idea that the North slowly developed overtime before that nor with it losing a lot of men during the harsh winters during the Targaryen reign, the Great Spring Sickness, and the many wars in the last century.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Another thing you seem to base your argument on is that some kind of trade blackmail is somehow a praiseworthy position for the South to take in the case of Northern independence. Why? Why not embrace the chance to trade with the North, since trade is advantageous to both parties?

The Iron Throne makes the politics, and it can afford to cut its trade with the North for much longer than the other way around. The South can trade with the entire world. The North has no large trading fleet (nor the warships to protect it from the royal fleet).

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And why prevent the North from then trading with Braavos, to fulfill any hypothetical shortfalls in food that they might want to fill by imports from the Free Cities? Why not just take the position of, well, if the North wants to be independent, then so be it, let them fend for themselves. Which means you deal with them just like with any other foreign nation. By trading with them for profit. Just like with Braavos or Pentos or the Summer Isles.

Because this a united Realm and the people charge had a vested interest that in remain so.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You seem to be inherently biased, in viewing a quest for Northern independence as worthy of condemnation and punishment, going so far as trade embargoes and food blackmail, while a quest by the South to dominate and rule over the North is in your eyes seen as a just cause, worthy of punishing any kingdom that does not eagerly accept such domination.

I see this land a unity now. Do you think Missouri or Vermont should become independent again?

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Your position is utterly one sided. If at the end of Robert's Rebellion the North chose to go their own way, the relationship would have been one of friendly neighbours, with normal trade conditions existing between Ned's North and Robert's South. Perfectly sustainable and feasible.

Just as things were when the southern states seceded?

[devilish]

16 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I never said KL didn't rely on trade or didn't use outside food. Your example of them starving also coincides with a freaking 5 way war. The Riverlands are being burnt up, Stannis has blockaded all trade coming into KL, and Renly has blocked food from the reach. So at worst, you've got 1/4 of your normal food supply coming from the crownlands. Rosby and Stokeworth alone were enough to provide food for most of KL. Granted there was a riot solely about food, but that's partly due to Joffrey's governance (or lack thereof).  

You're just repeating yourself with the North being in shambles. They are, as I agreed, open to an invasion from either coast. The RL invasion route has never worked for anyone, and frankly the wall isn't much to worry about. The Starks have never even had to call more than A bannerman to help deal with the incursions. The North has also had some success in repelling naval invasions during the Andal period, though I can't imagine they would replicate that against the royal navy. That particular winter is the only winter in the history of the Targaryen rule where winter lasted more than 3 years. It's definitely the only time where the North received any substantive aid from the crown. 

I'm not saying the North is going to be able to withstand 6 other kingdoms trying to invade, but they managed just fine for thousands of years as an independent kingdom. The north wouldn't be able to withstand 3-4 regions allying against them, but no one would frankly. That's a strawman or false proposition if there ever was one.

If the kingdoms break then no one will be obliged into feeding the other and considering how xenophobic and close minded the medieval world was then rest assured that those who have food would rather keep it rather then give it to its neighbour, especially if the neighbour can barely afford to buy it. A poorly fed neighbour is weaker, it is more vulnerable to invasion and can raise less troops against its neighbours. 

The North is in shambles. All signs lead to it. I come from a country which, during the medieval times was poor and it was surrounded by pirates. However key fortresses were maintained and there was some sort of fleet to ward off enemies and to give some sort of payback to those who dared assaulting the country. The North doesn't have that.

As said, the rebels were leaders of lands which were mostly militaristic and poor. Individual kingdoms would have weakened them rather then strengthening their hand.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Plagues and bad harvests were very common in the real middle ages even without freak seasons that could last for years (with the people having no means to calculate how many years, exactly). That in itself would cause major fluctuations in very grand scales.

Surplus food could actually be shipped north without making a profit. I'm pretty sure that's what Aegon V during the long winter, and it would be also what made people angry. They most likely thought Northmen who cannot afford food should not eat and instead quietly die.

There is no contradiction there. I maintain that the North might have had a larger population at the time of the Conquest (due to perhaps very mild winters for a couple of generations) as well as during peace with both the Ironborn-controlled Riverlands for about a century as well as no recent wars with the Vale.

That assumption is not contradicting the idea that the North slowly developed overtime before that nor with it losing a lot of men during the harsh winters during the Targaryen reign, the Great Spring Sickness, and the many wars in the last century.

The Iron Throne makes the politics, and it can afford to cut its trade with the North for much longer than the other way around. The South can trade with the entire world. The North has no large trading fleet (nor the warships to protect it from the royal fleet).

Because this a united Realm and the people charge had a vested interest that in remain so.

I see this land a unity now. Do you think Missouri or Vermont should become independent again?

Just as things were when the southern states seceded?

Firstly, yes exactly. The equillibrium population I'm referring to is the equilibrium at any given time. It fluctuates drastically, as we saw in Europe in the Middle Ages.

As for the food being shipped without profit. We were discussing the Northern ability to survive as an independent kingdom for millenia, without any charity from the southron realms. During that time, no food would be shipped "for no profit". And yet they thrived as a kingdom through hundreds of Winters, long and short, and was strong enough to match the Vale in projecting military resources into a foreign war theatre across the ocean, and consistently so for centuries. Any food imported during these centuries - and the millenia preceding it - would have been purchased with locally produced resources. It would not have been given to them by charity.

Clearly the North was quite capable of maintaining a Vale level resource base for millenia, through Winters long and short, without any donations from the South. The harsh winters during the Targaryen reign were not unprecedented. The North would have endured dozens or scores such Winters over the millenia. The same would be true for diseases and wars.

They did just fine for 7700 years (using the official timeline for the moment, before you start disputing date estimates again).

In any case, the question was why the realm did not break up after Robert's rebellion. So it is at that point that the scenario should be assessed. And at that point, an amicable break up would have been easily achievable. The real answer to the question, is that Eddard lacked ambition for it. Whereas a stronger Northern leader would have done so with little difficulty.

As for your references to various states in the US breaking away. Why not use more apt comparisons. Of realms that have existed as independent entities for centuries, which is more similar to what Westeros represents. Meaning Europe. And the kind of breakaway movements we see even now, going from Ireland gaining independence, to Scotland pushing for it, to Britain Brexiting from the EU.

Westeros is a far more primitive land, with logistics, communications and technology presenting far greater practical barriers to some kind of continent spanning single Realm. Independence for the individual realms makes far more sense there than it does even in our current real world.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Firstly, yes exactly. The equillibrium population I'm referring to is the equilibrium at any given time. It fluctuates drastically, as we saw in Europe in the Middle Ages.

Exactly. And the easier availability of food - be it via charity or because it cheaper to buy - was messing with the equilibrium as it was, more or less, established before the Conquest. The freak seasons remained, but warfare was greatly reduced, and the trade increased.

I'm not saying this affected all the regions of the North in the same way. But the coastal areas, the population centers (wherever they are aside from White Harbor and Barrowton) would have profited from that, and for they and their people independence would likely not be desirable. At least unless it is not done on friendly terms with no effect on trade and warfare.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for the food being shipped without profit. We were discussing the Northern ability to survive as an independent kingdom for millenia, without any charity from the southron realms. During that time, no food would be shipped "for no profit". And yet they thrived as a kingdom through hundreds of Winters, long and short, and was strong enough to match the Vale in projecting military resources into a foreign war theatre across the ocean, and consistently so for centuries. Any food imported during these centuries - and the millenia preceding it - would have been purchased with locally produced resources. It would not have been given to them by charity.

I'm with you there. But I was trying to tell you that we have no idea how the population in the North, on average was in the 6th century BC in comparison to the 3th century AC. That the North and the Vale were able to have an on-off war for hundreds of years doesn't have anything to do with that.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Clearly the North was quite capable of maintaining a Vale level resource base for millenia, through Winters long and short, without any donations from the South. The harsh winters during the Targaryen reign were not unprecedented. The North would have endured dozens or scores such Winters over the millenia. The same would be true for diseases and wars.

Rebellions and civil wars were apparently commonplace in the North. And the Vale may have wage two wars at the same time while warring with the North. Many kings and lords tried to invade the Vale, they had the problems with their clansmen, and the Arryns were occasionally hungry for conquest in the Riverlands themselves.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

They did just fine for 7700 years (using the official timeline for the moment, before you start disputing date estimates again).

I never said they didn't.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In any case, the question was why the realm did not break up after Robert's rebellion. So it is at that point that the scenario should be assessed. And at that point, an amicable break up would have been easily achievable. The real answer to the question, is that Eddard lacked ambition for it. Whereas a stronger Northern leader would have done so with little difficulty.

Honestly, how do you think that would have worked? Fighting alongside a rebel pretender who was your friend and then stabbing the man in the back?

I agree that it could have worked if the Starks had stayed out of the war but as it happened they can count themselves lucky that they survived their involvement with the Targaryens. Brandon and Rickard died and it is the weakness of House Stark that grew out of that tragedy that emboldened men like Roose Bolton during the series.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for your references to various states in the US breaking away. Why not use more apt comparisons. Of realms that have existed as independent entities for centuries, which is more similar to what Westeros represents. Meaning Europe. And the kind of breakaway movements we see even now, going from Ireland gaining independence, to Scotland pushing for it, to Britain Brexiting from the EU.

The EU is a loose confederacy of states amidst the very home of nationalism (we invented and exported that). That was never a union like the US (full of European settlers making up the ruling class, keeping the other cultures and races in line and establishing a single language, English, to talk to each other). Unlike you people across the pond we can't get easily news from neighboring countries who speak Polish, French, Hungary, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, etc. unless we actually have learned to speak those languages. You can sit down and watch and read news not only from the US territories and Canada but also the UK, Australia, and a bunch of other countries.

There is not even the semblance of a feel of a union or common 'European identity' here, unlike in the US (at least to my knowledge - I mean you people have the feeling you are all Americans, right, having the same rights, etc.), aside from the feeling that we are not likely to have another great war to rip ourselves apart again if we actually talk to each other more and establish a lasting peace.

The Seven Kingdoms may be a continent and pseudo medieval world but they are utter unrealistic in the sense that everybody speaks the same language. That in itself made them pretty much one long before they were unified with blood and fire.

The North and Dorne are somewhat apart from the rest insofar as culture and religion are concerned but that is no big deal. The commoners live alike in most of those places.

Aside from Dorne there is no sense of a, let's say, proto-nationalism, in any of those lands. The Dornishmen (and women) are patriots that were fiercely proud of their independence. Many Northmen are loyal to their overlords, the Starks, but that is a personal loyalty as befit a feudal medieval society.

We can safely say that nobody in Westeros really wants the days of the independent Seven Kingdoms back.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Westeros is a far more primitive land, with logistics, communications and technology presenting far greater practical barriers to some kind of continent spanning single Realm. Independence for the individual realms makes far more sense there than it does even in our current real world.

In light of the threat of the Others I beg to differ.

By the way, I recently had a rather heated discussion with @LionoftheWest and @The Grey Wolf in that thread about Daeron I and Dorne. You may want to look into that one to see me actually show some Northern patriotism.

I actually don't think that the Targaryens ever conquered the North. I think Torrhen joined Aegon's realm of his own free will, via peaceful submission, and I also think that the North could have provided the Targaryens with as many problems as the Dornish did during the First Dornish War (and then later during Daeron's Conquest).

I think that dragon warfare, used to its most devastating effects (burning White Harbor, destroying every major castle and settlement - Barrowton is build of wood -, burning as many winter provisions as possible in late autumn) in combination with the fleet attacking and preventing the North from continuing any major trade with the Free Cities would have eventually broken them.

But I'm pretty sure that the Targaryens would have never been able to ever pacify and hold Dorne the way they tried to hold Dorne with an occupying force. If that didn't work with Dorne then it is essentially impossible to hold a land as vast as the North without doing some serious relocation and genocide.

The North is essentially a land like Russia. It is essentially impossible to conquer it with an invading army.

However, since this a feudal world all your really need to do is to come to agreement with the ruling class, the lords. And that the Targaryens did. Hence the submission of Torrhen Stark.

I hope you see this a sign that I can have an objective view of the North. But I'd also like you to look a little more across the border.

Read those Dunk & Egg stories.