If Aegon hadn't...

[KarlDanski]

If Aegon the Conqueror didn't conquer the Seven Kingdoms either by his family being destroyed in the doom of Valyria with the dragons or whatever reason, what would of happened with the 7 kingdoms? Would Harren the Black of been able to hold the Riverlands with his massive castle that was too big to man, and live off of? Would he of conquered the Stormlands like Argilac Durrandon feared? Would a new Conqueror show up, and go on to conquer the rest of the kingdoms or would it of remained 7/8 or so kingdoms. What do you think would of happened if Aegon never conquered?

[Moiraine Sedai]

The land would remain separate and miserable.  The constant fighting between the kingdoms and within the kingdoms would leave little rest for the weary small folk.  Farms, crops, livestock, and homes constantly destroyed.  The kingdom needed a strong central authority and the Targs provided that.  They had no prior allegiances nor loyalty to the other houses and that made them a good choice.  It is easier to be fair when you have some detachment.  That's something that Tywin lacked.  

[KarlDanski]

To be fair, the only kingdom that truly suffered from 7 separate kingdoms was the undefended Riverlands. I don't imagine the North, Westerlands, Reach, Stormlands or Dorne were effected that much by raiding. BTW, you could make the claim that the Seven Kingdoms suffered more so under Targ rule since every kingdom was now involved in any war. Before, the North or Westerlands etc could stay neutral if the Stormlands and Reach went to war, but now since they were united, they had to take a side somewhat.

[Orphalesion]

Yeah with Westeros' fetish for continuity and aversion to any sort of change my best guess is that the woudl still be a divided collection of kingdoms of about the same border with little, if any change. They'd kill each other ceaselessly in pointless wars over some border region or another. I thin Harlan would eventually have been overthrown because in Westeros it takes something like a dragon to bring about a permanent change in rule. 

16 minutes ago, KarlDanski said:

To be fair, the only kingdom that truly suffered from 7 separate kingdoms was the undefended Riverlands. I don't imagine the North, Westerlands, Reach, Stormlands or Dorne were effected that much by raiding. BTW, you could make the claim that the Seven Kingdoms suffered more so under Targ rule since every kingdom was now involved in any war. Before, the North or Westerlands etc could stay neutral if the Stormlands and Reach went to war, but now since they were united, they had to take a side somewhat.

There was also the Crownlands being a weak and ravaged border region that was continuously fought over by the surrounding kingdoms, the Iron Born being free to rape and plunder all along the West Coast, the wars over the Dornish borderlands. People act like the Blackfyre rebellions were frequent (which they weren't by Medieval standards) per-conquest Westeros probably hardly saw a summer without war. 

There was a LOT of fighting going on.

The conquest I would argue actually improved the situation of the kingdoms. It wasn't exactly a vital or necessary improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. It allowed for safer, more unrestricted travel, it made it posible for certain kingdoms to "specialize" more than they could have as independent states and it got rid of borders that in 5 of 8 examples didn't make one lick of sense to begin with.

As to "now everybody has to participate in every war"....not really? Right now the Dronish and the Vale have both managed to stay out of and stay untouched by the WoT5K. Granted that's about to change, but with what's bout to go down, there could be a hundred kingdoms and they'd all be effected still.

And are we really no gonna argue whether it's worse to have one war or three simultaneous ones?

[KarlDanski]

No, what I'm claiming is that the saying, "The bigger the river, the bigger the drought". Now that all Seven Kingdoms are united into one single kingdom under one ruler who where the Targaryens. It offered more trade, and travel obviously, but since everyone had to pick a side or remain neutral, the warfare was bigger. A war that might of just involved the Riverlands and Westerlands now involves the Reach and North. It's suspected that at the minimum, 100,000 people died in the WOT5K, where it may of been just the low thousands. I'm not defending the claim that it's better for separate kingdoms over a united kingdom, I'm just saying that the bigger the kingdom, the bigger the war, the more deaths, etc.

[The Gravepisser]

1 hour ago, KarlDanski said:

If Aegon the Conqueror didn't conquer the Seven Kingdoms either by his family being destroyed in the doom of Valyria with the dragons or whatever reason, what would of happened with the 7 kingdoms? Would Harren the Black of been able to hold the Riverlands with his massive castle that was too big to man, and live off of? Would he of conquered the Stormlands like Argilac Durrandon feared? Would a new Conqueror show up, and go on to conquer the rest of the kingdoms or would it of remained 7/8 or so kingdoms. What do you think would of happened if Aegon never conquered?

Well, one thing is evident: Harrenhall wasn't meant to rule over Riverlands alone.

 

1 hour ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

The land would remain separate and miserable.  The constant fighting between the kingdoms and within the kingdoms would leave little rest for the weary small folk.  Farms, crops, livestock, and homes constantly destroyed.  The kingdom needed a strong central authority and the Targs provided that.  They had no prior allegiances nor loyalty to the other houses and that made them a good choice.  It is easier to be fair when you have some detachment.  That's something that Tywin lacked.  

A typical excuse by expansionists to justify their aggression. "Oh we do it for their own sake, they can't solve their problems, their smallfolks are suffering ...". 

[YOVMO]

6 minutes ago, The Gravepisser said:

Well, one thing is evident: Harrenhall wasn't meant to rule over Riverlands alone.

 

A typical excuse by expansionists to justify their aggression. "Oh we do it for their own sake, they can't solve their problems, their smallfolks are suffering ...". 

That it is typical doesn't make it either an excuse or untrue. Westeros, pre-conquest, was much as Thomas Hobbes said life without absolute soverign power would be:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

 

There is absolutely no reason to imagine it would be any different or would have in any way changed without central Targaryen leadership.

[KarlDanski]

1 hour ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

The land would remain separate and miserable.  The constant fighting between the kingdoms and within the kingdoms would leave little rest for the weary small folk.  Farms, crops, livestock, and homes constantly destroyed.  The kingdom needed a strong central authority and the Targs provided that.  They had no prior allegiances nor loyalty to the other houses and that made them a good choice.  It is easier to be fair when you have some detachment.  That's something that Tywin lacked.  

You act like that isn't how it is now. Even when the Targaryens ruled, there was constant fighting, just on a much bigger scale, and the small folk suffered just like before, but on a bigger scale, and usually centered in the Riverlands. Also, the Targs were just as detached as Tywin is, which is 0 considering the Targs never integrated themselves besides Egg, and that plan didn't work either.

[Moiraine Sedai]

I meant being detached is good.   Being a family that had no previous blood ties to what became the High Lords helped give the Targs the appearance of impartiality.  To use an extreme case, the Blackwood's on the throne would be perceived as partial and with good reason.  A Blackwood king would have more loyalty to his house and family than to the kingdom.  Jon Snow is a clear example of this.  

[KarlDanski]

And Targaryens were more loyal to their house than the rest of the kingdom, consistent with their lack of integration, and threats of "fire and blood" to any disent. 

[Renly's Banana]

That's actually a pretty fun topic to think about it.
The Ironborn would undoubtedly still rule the Riverlands, yes. And possibly the Crownlands and even parts of the Stormlands. With enough time, they would also have enough numbers and power to attack Casterly Rock and take chunks of the Westerlands, too. They'd be a huge power in their own right, but all the infighting would keep them reasonably constrained.

I actually think it would also be fairly easy for an eastern power to attack Westeros, too. If the Triarchy along with maybe Pentos decided to conquer parts of the Crownlands and Stormlands (maybe even with the help of the Dornish), very little would stop them. Between the Ironborn and an eastern invasion, the Durrandons would lose everything. 

[maudisdottir]

Another Targaryen-bashing thread. We get it, you hate them, but some of us like them and you're not going to change everyone's mind.

[KarlDanski]

What? I'm asking what would happen if Aegon didn't exit, I'm not bashing them. I'm making an assumption that I'm basing on evidence that is given. Are you telling me the Targs did integrate? Are you telling me the Targs didn't threaten any dissenters? Are you telling me that there wasn't rebellions during Targaryen rule? Mainly Skagosi, Peake, Blackfyre, Tarbeck, Reyne, Baratheon, and Ironborn? Are you saying that the wars weren't bigger, because the kingdom was involved with more numbers, and regions? I'll make it clear that I dislike the Targs, but I like some of them. Maekar Targaryen, Daemon Blackfyre, Aemon the Dragonknight, Egg, Rhaegar Targaryen slightly, Aegon the Conqueror, Visenya, and Rhaenys. 

[The Gravepisser]

@YOVMO A huge land like Westeros being divided to 7 different kingdoms doesn't strike me as lack of absolute sovereign power. There was absolute power of Starks over the North with little to threaten it from either north or south. Arryns had absolute power over Eyrie, just like Gardeners in Reach. Even Ironborns had secured their authority over Riverlands.

And interestingly enough, divisions and petty rivalries served Western Europe much better than what unity did to for example China.

[Bael's Bastard]

7 hours ago, KarlDanski said:

considering the Targs never integrated themselves besides Egg, and that plan didn't work either.

That's not accurate. Despite clearly placing themselves above the other families of Westeros, the Targaryens made marriages and betrothals with a variety of Westerosi families.

The Targaryens wed their princes and princesses to houses as diverse as Arryn, Baratheon, Martell, Blackwood, Dayne, Hightower, Royce, Velaryon, Corbray, Dondarrion, Penrose, Plumm, and Manwoody, and made marriage pacts or betrothals with Starks, Tyrells, Tullys, Manderlys, and Redwynes.

That means they married with families from the Vale, Storm Lands, Riverlands, Westerlands, Reach, Dorne, and Crownlands, and made agreements with at least two families in the North: The betrothal of a daughter of Jaehaerys I and Alysanne to Lord Manderly before the princess died in an accident, and the pact to wed a Targ princess to Cregan Stark before he set his sights on marrying Black Aly Blackwood.

I would be surprised if any great house comes close to having so many marriages to houses from so many regions over the last three hundred years as the Targs did.

It was easier for them, because they were the royal family. But they absolutely spread Targ ancestry to the houses of Westeros, and brought the ancestry of the houses of Westeros into their royal line.

The last Targ king alone, grandson of the fourth son of a fourth son, was descended from Arryn, Blackwood, Dayne, Martell, and Velaryon ladies.

[Yucef Menaerys]

14 hours ago, KarlDanski said:

No, what I'm claiming is that the saying, "The bigger the river, the bigger the drought". Now that all Seven Kingdoms are united into one single kingdom under one ruler who where the Targaryens. It offered more trade, and travel obviously, but since everyone had to pick a side or remain neutral, the warfare was bigger. A war that might of just involved the Riverlands and Westerlands now involves the Reach and North. It's suspected that at the minimum, 100,000 people died in the WOT5K, where it may of been just the low thousands. I'm not defending the claim that it's better for separate kingdoms over a united kingdom, I'm just saying that the bigger the kingdom, the bigger the war, the more deaths, etc.

You don't always have to pick a side, dorne didn't pick a side during the dance of the dragons, the Vale didn't pick a side during the war of the five kings, a region could stay out of a war if they wanted to except for perhaps the riverlands since they have no natural defence

[Yucef Menaerys]

8 hours ago, KarlDanski said:

What? I'm asking what would happen if Aegon didn't exit, I'm not bashing them. I'm making an assumption that I'm basing on evidence that is given. Are you telling me the Targs did integrate? Are you telling me the Targs didn't threaten any dissenters? Are you telling me that there wasn't rebellions during Targaryen rule? Mainly Skagosi, Peake, Blackfyre, Tarbeck, Reyne, Baratheon, and Ironborn? Are you saying that the wars weren't bigger, because the kingdom was involved with more numbers, and regions? I'll make it clear that I dislike the Targs, but I like some of them. Maekar Targaryen, Daemon Blackfyre, Aemon the Dragonknight, Egg, Rhaegar Targaryen slightly, Aegon the Conqueror, Visenya, and Rhaenys. 

The targs did integrate into westerosi society, they forsook their gods and converted to the faith of the seven, they accepted the language of westeros even though if they wanted they could've continued using valyrian and make it the official language just like the Normans did in England. So rebellions happening is because of targaryen failure as leaders? Are you serious?  There will be rebellions and wars regardless of who were the rulers, Daeron II did all he could to prevent the first blackfyre rebellion but he still didn't succeed. Please don't let your hate on the targs blind you of their posoitve achievements. 

[Yucef Menaerys]

10 hours ago, KarlDanski said:

And Targaryens were more loyal to their house than the rest of the kingdom, consistent with their lack of integration, and threats of "fire and blood" to any disent. 

That's how leaders have always acted throughout history,  even the houses you like in asoiaf act this way,  it's not unique to the targs.

 

9 hours ago, maudisdottir said:

Another Targaryen-bashing thread. We get it, you hate them, but some of us like them and you're not going to change everyone's mind.

Honestly I'm rather getting tired of these anti-targs threads as well

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

15 hours ago, KarlDanski said:

If Aegon the Conqueror didn't conquer the Seven Kingdoms either by his family being destroyed in the doom of Valyria with the dragons or whatever reason, what would of happened with the 7 kingdoms? Would Harren the Black of been able to hold the Riverlands with his massive castle that was too big to man, and live off of? Would he of conquered the Stormlands like Argilac Durrandon feared? Would a new Conqueror show up, and go on to conquer the rest of the kingdoms or would it of remained 7/8 or so kingdoms. What do you think would of happened if Aegon never conquered?

Harren the Black would eventually exceed his grasp , until a coalition of kingdoms would put him in his place .

[khal drogon]

More and more wars would have happened. As every kingdom will be seperate there will be no meaningful long lasting alliances. Any expansionist king will throw the regions into chaos.