Northern Independence vs Bend the Knee

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Incorrect.

The main doubt expressed about the Long Night relates to whether it was 8,000 or 6,000 years ago. No record places it more recently than that, even from the ancient civilizations of the East, which actually have written records going back to that time.

There is considerable doubt about all that expressed in TWoIaF. We don't even know when exactly the Andals arrived. 2,000 years ago? 4,000 years ago? 6,000 years ago? It is unclear. We can make a sort of garbled sequence of events. But we don't have any correct numbers. And we don't have any written sources stretching back to the days prior to the arrival of the Andals because the ancient First Men only left some runes and their tales and songs - which may contain truth, but which most certainly exaggerated numbers - both where time and the sizes of armies were concerned.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So point one, we know a minimum age for the Long Night, and it is 6,000 years ago. We also have ample evidence for the founding of the Wolf's Den, which predates the Andal arrival by centuries. And we in turn have ample corroborating evidence that the Andal arrival was anything from 2500 - 3500 years ago.

We don't really know any of that. There are conflicting sources there. It is not that easy. And it is not supposed to be that easy. The Andals could have arrived only 2,000 years ago.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So, since we can work back from the Andal arrival (when the Boltons knelt to the Starks), we can work out very nicely that the Starks gradually conquered the North over thousands of years before that, back to the Long Night.

That doesn't mean the Stark rule was secure from that point on. Obviously they had problems with the Boltons and other rebellious lords until the days after the Targaryen conquest.

But the issue here is just that the very idea of the Starks controlling such a vast land and exerting any real and immediate influence on the territories they nominally ruled in a world that is as harsh and unbending as the North doesn't make any sense in a realistic setting.

That is the point. It is also true for the Gardeners, the Lannisters, the Durrandons (whose rule actually was diminished greatly during their reign) but the Starks should have the largest issue with that kind of thing.

In a realistic medieval setting a nobleman would essentially take possession of his land, ruling them in his own right, as soon as the king turned his back on him.

And how often do you think were the Starks around to remind the Umbers and Boltons - or the Sea Dragon Point folk - that they were their rulers? Most likely not all that often. Or rather - that's how it would have been in a realistic setting. There is also little reason to assume that the Umbers would have thought it was their business to help the Starks subdue the Boltons, right?

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for the Starks versus Targs. Don't make me laugh. The Starks united their realm for far longer than the Targs managed to do, and did so without Dragons. The Starks are part of the North's founding myth, with Bran the Builder building the Wall after the Long Night. There won't be a peasant in the North who didn't grow up with some Stark related stories learnt from his wetnurse as part of his upbringing, shaping his very identity.

The time is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The Targaryens had flying super weapons that allowed them to keep their subjects in line.

That makes it more believable that they could keep such a vast kingdom in line than the idea the Starks - or any of the other kings - could keep their kingdoms in line with nothing but clubs and swords their lords had also access to.

In a territory as vast and undeveloped as the North the good old saying about Russia would be appropriate:

The North is vast, and Winterfell is very far away. [Russia is vast, and the Tsar is very far away.]

The real power in such a 'kingdom' would not lie in the hands of the guy with the crown but the local lords. Especially if there is no royal bureaucracy, no standing military, no independent royal power base around.

The very fact that the Starks allowed many of their defeated enemies to keep their castles and domains makes it clear that it would have taken a very long time until houses like the Umbers, Boltons, etc. truly accepted the fact that they no longer wore crowns in their own right.

[cpg2016]

On 10/20/2017 at 5:23 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

What I was going to say is that the Watch was actually much stronger BEFORE the Iron Throne existed. It numbered 10,000 men, in fact, when Aegon burned Harrenhal. The North in general appears to have been more prosperous and powerful before the existence of the Iron Throne. They did just fine for 7700 years, in fact.

Except the Watch's strength is completely separate from the North as a political entity.  

The Night's Watch was extremely strong in the past because the Seven Kingdoms were constantly at war, which means there were constantly knights and lords (not to mention smallfolk) being captured in battle who were unable to meet their ransom, or not allowed a chance at one, and therefore were sent off to the Wall (e.g. Nymeria and the various kings she sent off in golden chains).  With the advent of the Targaryen dynasty, internecine fighting dies down a LOT, so the Watch enters a death spiral where they get fewer recruits, which makes them a less honorable institution for political exiles or dynastically unimportant sons, which makes them weaker, which makes them less prestigious, etc etc.

At the end of the day, the Night's Watch for the last several thousand years is the safety valve of Westeros.  It is what allows the martial elite of Westeros to have what amounts to an honorable discharge, rather than execution or becoming a pirate/mercenary.  In fact, I'd also argue the downfall of Valyria indirectly hurts the Watch.  Now, going across the Narrow Sea and joining a mercenary company is a relatively socially acceptable way for the warrior aristocracy of Westeros to go into effective exile.  During the Valyrian Years, there was just a monolith in Essos, and not one that even remotely needed a sellsword company.  So where else would a captured knight go?