Jump to content

Which kingdom would you let secede if you were king?


Varysblackfyre321

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12.03.2018 at 0:12 PM, HelmHammerhand said:

I would let the Iron Islands go - and then send Stannis back to finish the job he started during the Greyjoy Rebellion.  Let whatever is left behind to be ruled by a house from the Riverlands (like the Mallisters).  

My sentiment exactly :)

In order of preference:

- North

- Dorne

- Iron Islands, after not leaving a stone standing and hauling off the whole population.

But the North is prime candidate.

Already explained by others - these three realms are outliers of the Westerosi core. The core being the Crownlands, Riverlands and the Reach.

Even the core's peripherals could be let go - Vale, Westerlands and Stormlands.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2018 at 10:12 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Note: you have to pick one. Dorne or the II I'd say-they're the poorest and their cultural mores aren't really similar to that of the rest of the kingdoms. 

Trick question. A true king will never let a part of the kingdom leave unless they are feeble minded or weak or both 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/25/2018 at 0:17 PM, Dorian Martell's son said:

Trick question. A true king will never let a part of the kingdom leave unless they are feeble minded or weak or both 

True.

But if i have to pick, I would pick Dorne.  They have been the most contentious of the kingdoms. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/03/2018 at 2:54 PM, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

I have to pick one.  Might be I pick the north.  They rebelled twice in the last seventeen years.  Best to rid myself of that troubled region.

Honesty, it's not a good idea to let one secede.  You set a dangerous example that others will exploit. 

 

10 hours ago, goldenmaps said:

But if i have to pick, I would pick Dorne.  They have been the most contentious of the kingdoms. 

The problem is that the more contentious they are, the least you want to let them go. Dorne joining the kingdoms stopped (or at least greatly alleviated) centuries of border raids and wars. Similarly, while the Iron Islands occasionally rebelled post-conquest, they were much less a threat than if you allowed them to return to the Old Way. You'd be invading them every generation or two.

The North aren't really the same, in that regard, but if the reward for rebellion and contentiousness is independence, then expect every region to become contentious and rebellious. One of the reasons empires and countries will often expend huge resources to keep difficult and unprofitable regions is exactly because they don't want everyone else to see that it works. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Aegon1FanBoy said:

The North other than lumber i see no purpose in keeping it to be honest

I don't know where this idea that the North supplies wood to everyone on a big scale comes from, I don't think the 7K economy really works that way.

The reason to keep the North is the same reason all the 7K would need to be kept - it will pay taxes, and an independent kingdom on your borders increases the chances of war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Westerlands, Riverlands, Crownlands and Stormlands seemingly don't even have real names for themselves, not like the Reach, Vale and Dorne, but they can all be one kingdom under one king.

The trouble is Dorne and the Iron Islands; they are culturally different and they both have a history of being a pain for others (Dorne to the Reach and Stormlands, and everyone dislikes the Iron Islands). I personally wouldn't really like to have them in my kingdom, but their bad habits would make me feel forced to have them just so I could have a little bit of control over them and maybe change them a little bit.

I think I'd let the North go; the North is huge and you can fit all the southern kingdoms in it and they're historically known to just do their thing with relatively little trouble. Compared to the other kingdoms, the North has seemingly never attacked any of the southern kingdoms unprovoked. The only recorded time they've ever attacked any one of the southern kingdoms were the Three Sisters but their motivation for doing so was because they were tired of the Sistermen pirating and pillaging their shores, so you can argue that they were provoked and thusly kind of justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frey Kings said:

Instead I'd rather have the Yronwoods rule Dorne, maybe the Freys in the North and somebody with sanity in the Iron Islands.

Yronwoods or Daynes in Dorne, the Harlaws or Blacktydes on the Iron Islands and the Starks continue to be in the North. Must ask what possesed you to think they Freys should bein the North? They hate each other, especially after the Red Wedding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...