What good can come from the North gaining its independence?

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Well, it seems that some people have never heard of Europe. You know, about the possibility of different countries existing in the same continent.

 

[Corvo the Crow]

1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

Are you aware of the time when the Iron Born conquered a junk of the North, including taking Moat Cailin, right? Now imagine what a fleet drawn from the strength of the Seven Kingdoms could do, particularly at the onset of spring.

A small chunk on the coastal regions, when Northman weren't there. And now they are losing it fast.

Are YOU aware of the time that in response to not one but two different seafaring would be invaders, Northman crossed the sea and defeated them on their home turf? Well that's the North for you.

[TheThreeEyedCow]

41 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Well, it seems that some people have never heard of Europe. You know, about the possibility of different countries existing in the same continent.

 

Yeah. I feel like maybe the topic is drawing posters who regard the North with disdain.

I do think it's possible! But there are so many aspects of the North that simply do not exist IRL for us to make positive speculations. George has mixed things up enough for the North to be both familiar and alien all at once. It's a weird combination of English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh prior to Britain.   

If anything the Riverlands are by far the most vulnerable which is highlighted in both the story and the world book. 

The North does have magic. If we could see a Stark lord/king actually using his/her powers to rule and warging/greenseeing for political and military advantages then perhaps the North really could stand alone as it did before the Targaryens arrived. Robs use of Grey Wind was definitely an advantage his enemies couldn't directly address. It's the same with Stannis and Mel at SE. 

We need to see them mobilizing as a region before we can even speculate on how they would handle the running of a country. They've not had to for 300 years. 

What we do have is an example of a Stark ordering his vassals to work together to build a navy. However, instead of giving us confidence, it actually suggests how far behind they are. Houses working together to build navies and trade ships, siege engines etc should of already been a thing. If it were, Rob could of crossed via Sisterton and perhaps convinced his aunt to ally and not the Freys. Or he could of engaged the Lannisters directly. 

If you play the GOGOT board game as the Starks, the first thing you realise is that you must immediately address their defensive concerns before you can look at the Vale or Neck. It takes a few moves to protect yourself from the Southern navies. It's a pain.  

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Are you aware of the time when the Iron Born conquered a junk of the North, including taking Moat Cailin, right? Now imagine what a fleet drawn from the strength of the Seven Kingdoms could do, particularly at the onset of spring.

Yes. Most of the northern army rode south to intervene in southern-driver affairs. And somehow the ironborn are still losing. Both living heirs to the crown were caught and are being kept as prisoner!

Quote

The only advantages the North has 1)Winter, which leaves them vulnerable for years on end whenever summer comes, at best an independent Northern ruler might be a "Winter King" 2) The space is an advantage yes, but a lot of it is wilderness, which causes problems 3) Aside from the prestige that comes from the Iron Throne being able to claim all of Westeros, there isn't really anything north of the neck anybody in the Seven Kingdoms desperately wants or needs or would miss if the North pretends to be independent, so there might be less interest in re-conquering it. 

Look at Stannis' march through the North in winter as evidence of what would happen. Who is dying in droves? Who lost one person to a fight over thievery?

The space is a huge advantage and they know land and have support of the locals. But please tell me what problems the "wilderness" is inflicting on the northerners? Must be pretty awful problems if they've only been able to live through it for 8000 years. More importantly I'd like you to walk through how the space helps the invaders maintain supply and communication lines. 
 

Exactly why fight hard and long for something you won't be able to hold?

Quote

Doesn't change the fact that the North will only be "free" of those "ebil, nasty" southern plots for as long as the South allows them to be, not matter how "independent" they claim themselves to be.

The 8000 years they were independent says otherwise. The dragons disagreed with that notion but there's no one in westeros with dragons now are there?

[cpg2016]

5 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Are you aware of the time when the Iron Born conquered a junk of the North, including taking Moat Cailin, right? Now imagine what a fleet drawn from the strength of the Seven Kingdoms could do, particularly at the onset of spring.

Which is only because all the northern fighters are... south of the Neck, which they wouldn't be in the case of Northern independence, so it wouldn't be a problem.

We don't have one single example of the Kingdom of the North invading the Southern kingdoms through the Neck. 

You also VASTLY overstate the ease by which the Seven Kingdoms can carry out naval operations.  It would be nearly impossible to ferry, equip, and supply the tens of thousands of men needed to conquer the North.  Even in the Dornish wars, most of the soldiery invades through the Red Mountains, and is not ferried via ship (Aegon IV's failed invasion fleet displays the peril of this). 

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

With the exception of The Iron Isles , the North had little influence on the things done in the rest of the Seven Kingdoms , and the only thing the north gained was peace between them and the Vale . The only reason that I could see for keeping the North is , if the North left the Seven Kingdoms others might follow suit .

[cpg2016]

6 minutes ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

With the exception of The Iron Isles , the North had little influence on the things done in the rest of the Seven Kingdoms , and the only thing the north gained was peace between them and the Vale . The only reason that I could see for keeping the North is , if the North left the Seven Kingdoms others might follow suit .

They don't participate in the "Great Game" of Southern politics, but that doesn't mean they have "little influence" on the rest of the Seven Kingdoms.  As we know, they squabble endlessly with the Vale.  Presumably, the Riverlands or whoever holds them needs to be somewhat concerned about diplomatic relations with the North, as it's easy to picture an army coming south through the Neck.

But more than that, the North trades with the southern kingdoms, and presumably has diplomats in those courts, so there is clearly contact.  For example, they give shelter to the Manderlys, which if passive is still a majorly important geopolitical move.  Plus, the tradition of the Winter Wolves we see in the Dance is probably one left over from pre-Targaryen times; not hard to imagine lots of Northerners coming south in Winter to sell their sword.  So clearly there is cultural contact and the other Kingdoms are "aware" of the North, and how it impacts their own politics.

[Sourjapes]

Well it would mean northmen ruling themselves and I see no reason why they shouldn't be free to do that. Any people who want to rule themselves have that right in my opinion. I don't really see that there is any downside to this, either. The Iron Throne might lose some tax revenue? The northern Kingdom wills till be useful to them as an extra buffer against anything coming from beyond the wall and the ironborn can be given free reign to loot the north rather than having to sail all the way around Westoros.

[Bernie Mac]

On 25/12/2017 at 7:09 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

300 years ago they were willing to send 30000 northmen into battle to preserve their kingdom. Why should they feel any different today?

300 years ago they may have been scared about the unknown Targs changing their language, their culture or their religion. Being ruled from the Iron Throne meant very little change, all it meant was the Starks were having to share the taxes they generated. For the majority of people in the North who had no relationship with the Starks I doubt it matters which person rules them. 

 

It is the same with Dorne, I doubt very much that the people of the land would suffer the same way they did as they will have seen that being ruled from the Iron Throne is not actually that bad, that the advantages may well out weigh the negatives. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

19 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

300 years ago they may have been scared about the unknown Targs changing their language, their culture or their religion. Being ruled from the Iron Throne meant very little change, all it meant was the Starks were having to share the taxes they generated. For the majority of people in the North who had no relationship with the Starks I doubt it matters which person rules them. 

The majority of the North doesn't make those decisions. The nobles, specifically the great houses, do. Yes sharing the taxes and having to split off the new gift from their property is pretty shitty and ultimately useless. The current generation of Starks (and Snows) rebelled against the IT. Pretty effing certain that they don't really want to stay.

19 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

It is the same with Dorne, I doubt very much that the people of the land would suffer the same way they did as they will have seen that being ruled from the Iron Throne is not actually that bad, that the advantages may well out weigh the negatives. 

Well let's take a look at what's happened in the last 150 years. I go there so we can see how the Targs have acted when they didn't have dragons.

1) Daeron I invades with army and navy, minimum of 50000 people die. Those are the non dornish casualties. Prolly just as high or higher for Dorne and its smallfolk. Daeron I killed at parley.

2) Crazy Baelor forgives Dorne, releases hostages, dies because he's a moron.

3) Aegon IV plans over two decades to invade Dorne. Twice.

4) Daeron II brings Dorne into the realm. One of a few proximate causes for the Blackfyre rebellion.

5) More blackfyre rebellions (6)

6) Marry into royal family again, used as hostages, murdered (and raped) because of the crazy Targ king and his usurper

7) Oberyn tries to rebel against the iron throne, gets his shit shut down and is banished

8) Sign secret pact to restore Targs, sees heir to Dorne killed by dragon.

Don't get me wrong if Dorne gets sufficient concessions, they could be persuaded to stay and probably will. But there has been a helluva lot of negatives and the positives have a 50% chance of getting murdered.

[Bernie Mac]

18 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

The majority of the North doesn't make those decisions. The nobles, specifically the great houses, do. Yes sharing the taxes and having to split off the new gift from their property is pretty shitty and ultimately useless. The current generation of Starks (and Snows) rebelled against the IT. Pretty effing certain that they don't really want to stay.

Wait till winter kicks in and see how popular fighting an unwinnable war against the South is. Robb was declared King after two great victories, when moral was high and the North safe and still in the midst of summer. Fast forward a year and half of the Northmen at the Red Wedding were against King Robb, the North invaded and all of a sudden houses like the Umbers and Karstarks are worrying about food. 

 

18 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

Don't get me wrong if Dorne gets sufficient concessions, they could be persuaded to stay and probably will. But there has been a helluva lot of negatives and the positives have a 50% chance of getting murdered.

We have seen that the Yronwoods were willing to split from the Martells and fight for the Blackfyres, something that must have been inconceivable when Dorne was united against the South. 

The Dornish have had a taste of being ruled by the South and for the most part there is few negatives, likely a fair few positives. The smallfolk are unlikely to sacrifice themselves like they initially did knowing that they are suffering just so the Martells would not have to share the taxes they make from them. 

[Orphalesion]

On 12/26/2017 at 7:36 PM, cpg2016 said:

Which is only because all the northern fighters are... south of the Neck, which they wouldn't be in the case of Northern independence, so it wouldn't be a problem.

We don't have one single example of the Kingdom of the North invading the Southern kingdoms through the Neck. 

You also VASTLY overstate the ease by which the Seven Kingdoms can carry out naval operations.  It would be nearly impossible to ferry, equip, and supply the tens of thousands of men needed to conquer the North.  Even in the Dornish wars, most of the soldiery invades through the Red Mountains, and is not ferried via ship (Aegon IV's failed invasion fleet displays the peril of this). 

1) Remember the "untapped Northern reserves" that supposedly are hiding out around that frozen wasteland.

2) What does the absence any example of the Northern Kingdom invading the south have to do with anything?

3)The North is not Dorne. In the North all you really have to do is ship some soldiers north of the neck and let them live off the settlements and the land there.

4) In the end it doesn't matter whether a invasion from the south would be successful. In fact, no invasion is even necessary. The fact stands that being independent won't save the Northerners from being impacted and involved with whatever happens a few miles south of them, which was the original point I contested. Whatever happens to the rest of Westeros, will still impact the North, since the neck is not a magical barrier that holds all the "nasty ebil" southern influence at bay.The North isn't Gondolin or Lothlorien. It's not even Braavos. The North is an ordinary country that is simply not capable to completely cut itself off from the rest of the world.

The very next generation of Northern Kings might already involve themselves into Southern politics on their own accords. In fact the only reason  they have their current problems is because that boy lord of theirs chose to involve himself into events that were going on outside of his domain. Nobody forced his hand in going south of the neck - nobody except his boisterous, war-hungry bannermen.

5)The point also stands that the North's biggest defense is that it has nothing at all to offer to the southern kingdoms. It's Siberia without the natural resources. All the Seven Kingdoms would lose is that glorified border patrol/penal colony at the wall, and chances are the North, unable to man that ridiculous structure themselves, would still accept the Seven Kingdoms sending men there.
The North is Westeros oversized appendix. Kinda okay to have it, the process of losing it would pose some risks, but once it's gone nobody would even notice the difference. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

1) Remember the "untapped Northern reserves" that supposedly are hiding out around that frozen wasteland.

2) What does the absence any example of the Northern Kingdom invading the south have to do with anything?

3)The North is not Dorne. In the North all you really have to do is ship some soldiers north of the neck and let them live off the settlements and the land there.

4) In the end it doesn't matter whether a invasion from the south would be successful. In fact, no invasion is even necessary. The fact stands that being independent won't save the Northerners from being impacted and involved with whatever happens a few miles south of them, which was the original point I contested. Whatever happens to the rest of Westeros, will still impact the North, since the neck is not a magical barrier that holds all the "nasty ebil" southern influence at bay.The North isn't Gondolin or Lothlorien. It's not even Braavos. The North is an ordinary country that is simply not capable to completely cut itself off from the rest of the world.

The very next generation of Northern Kings might already involve themselves into Southern politics on their own accords. In fact the only reason  they have their current problems is because that boy lord of theirs chose to involve himself into events that were going on outside of his domain. Nobody forced his hand in going south of the neck - nobody except his boisterous, war-hungry bannermen.

5)The point also stands that the North's biggest defense is that it has nothing at all to offer to the southern kingdoms. It's Siberia without the natural resources. All the Seven Kingdoms would lose is that glorified border patrol/penal colony at the wall, and chances are the North, unable to man that ridiculous structure themselves, would still accept the Seven Kingdoms sending men there.
The North is Westeros oversized appendix. Kinda okay to have it, the process of losing it would pose some risks, but once it's gone nobody would even notice the difference. 

Laughable post.

[Orphalesion]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Laughable post.

Name one thing that would make the North worth any effort spent re-conquering it, one single thing that anybody would want.

[Free Northman Reborn]

12 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

Name one thing that would make the North worth any effort spent re-conquering it, one single thing that anybody would want.

Not my argument. I am on record as saying that the cost benefit calculation of a southron conquest of the North comes out negative for any southron King.

But that is simply the equation of potential gains vs potential losses of a planned campaign. This equation exists for the attempted conquest of any realm, and is a function of both sides of the calculation, with a different result in each individual case. Meaning if the cost of the conquest is high enough, no gain will make it worthwhile.

In the case of the North I would say it offers as much as a conquest of Dorne or the Stormlands or perhaps the Vale, but at far higher potential cost.

Hence, the result of the equation is a negative.

[Rob Storm]

The answer the question in the OP is autonomy in religion, culture and in our main story, they loved Ned.

It would be better for the north to have southern allies or overlords who may allow for an extended "stay-cation" when (more normal) winters come.  

[Universal Sword Donor]

10 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Wait till winter kicks in and see how popular fighting an unwinnable war against the South is. Robb was declared King after two great victories, when moral was high and the North safe and still in the midst of summer. Fast forward a year and half of the Northmen at the Red Wedding were against King Robb, the North invaded and all of a sudden houses like the Umbers and Karstarks are worrying about food. 

People are lining up to kill Boltons and Freys. I don't think the Starks will remain or become independent but the South will have control.

 

10 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

We have seen that the Yronwoods were willing to split from the Martells and fight for the Blackfyres, something that must have been inconceivable when Dorne was united against the South. 

The Dornish have had a taste of being ruled by the South and for the most part there is few negatives, likely a fair few positives. The smallfolk are unlikely to sacrifice themselves like they initially did knowing that they are suffering just so the Martells would not have to share the taxes they make from them. 

The smallfolk resisted dragons when the nobles bent the knee. If they can be independent again, they will. However they stand to gain much by allying with Dany (or Aegon)

[The Wolves]

On 12/25/2017 at 9:39 AM, Orphalesion said:

There's a "magical" new invention called ships. But I guess Northerners have never heard of it :-P

They did with the Ironborn and Andal invasion where they have never been conquered by either through land or sea.