What was Robb going to do to force the Crown to grant the North independence?

[Victaerys]

The only thing that Robb could have done by this point, was bend the knee. Or die, which he did in our case.

Why would he do that? Surrendering to the murderer of his father would have destroyed his credibility and made him look weak. Retreating North and preventing the Iron Throne from conquering it would have salvaged some of his prestige as King in the North. As I said, there is no way the North could have been beaten conventionally by Lannisters and their allies. Especially not with the winter approaching.

[Istakhr]

Well, this is the Middle Ages, which means

. Battles happen only sporadically. What I mean to say is that if the Riverlands held on long enough, the coming winter would eventually drive off the invading armies. Of course, the Riverlands would be totally devastated and largely depopulated as a result. Also, the rightful Lord of Riverlands would probably have to stay behind to fan the flames of resistance. The question is whether Edmure was willing or capable to do that, even with Blackfish's help.

This is slightly off-topic, but I noticed people on this forum often think about warfare in ASOIAF in quite modern terms, which is IMO very misleading.

You are assuming all northern lords remain loyal to Robb, and that king of seven kingdoms needs a sea born invasion of all north.

They can take white harbor by sea and burn it, weakening Manderly's.

They can also take the Neck by just moving their soldiers a few miles up the coas to the north of Moat Cailin, moving their main army up the Neck at the same time.

When a southern army moves north of the Neck, Boltons, Dustins and some Karstarks join them. With Manderly's weakened and most other loyal northern houses either spent or weakened, Robb is over.

Note even if they can't invade north during Robb's reign, they can use a similar tactic later, as long as south is united. Also Starks can not always depend on the loyalty of all their subject lords. And remember with southern fleets raiding white harbor north starves during winter.

In short while southern kingdom might not be able to militarily invade all the north, they can make sure no Stark king controls it.

[The Last Direwolf]

He was marching back to retake the North, abandoning the Riverlands completely. Ergo, he had already lost. There was really nothing he could have done. He might not have realized this, being rather short sighted, but he had lost.

Abandoning the Riverlands wouldn't have spelled the end of Northern independence had there been no Red Wedding. He could still have retaken Moat Cailin and the North and then taken on the defensive against the Lannisters.

[Victaerys]

You are assuming all northern lords remain loyal to Robb, and that king of seven kingdoms needs a sea born invasion of all north.

And they most likely would have remained loyal to him had there been no Ironborn invasion (which is the premise of this thread). Only when the Starks were so obviously weakened and humiliated by the fall of Winterfell did the Boltons ally secretly with the Lannisters. Karstarks were always far too weak to threaten the Starks directly.

They can take white harbor by sea and burn it, weakening Manderly's.

They can also take the Neck by just moving their soldiers a few miles up the coas to the north of Moat Cailin, moving their main army up the Neck at the same time.

When a southern army moves north of the Neck, Boltons, Dustins and some Karstarks join them. With Manderly's weakened and most other loyal northern houses either spent or weakened, Robb is over.

Idle speculation. GRRM repeatedly said that taking Moat Cailin is incredibly difficult, probably impossible without treachery from within. Even the Targaryens with their dragons never actually conquered the North, they merely scared it enough to bend the knee.

If Robb is back North with most of his forces intact, in possession of Winterfell, those who might have considered rebellion before will quickly forget all about it. Why should they rebel? Robb might have lost Riverlands, but who cares about something that has never really been a part of the North anyway? He returned with a reputation of a fierce and able warrior king (and surely with bags of loot from the Westerlands) and there is no reason for them to risk their necks by betraying him for... whom? Some dandy southern lords? Joffrey, the little blond bastard who killed their much-beloved (or at least respected) Ned? That doesn't sound very appealing, does it?

Note even if they can't invade north during Robb's reign, they can use a similar tactic later, as long as south is united. Also Starks can not always depend on the loyalty of all their subject lords. And remember with southern fleets raiding white harbor north starves during winter.

It doesn't. This is a feudal world, most places are pretty self-sufficient in terms of food production. In medieval Europe, food only needed to be shipped to cities that were too large to sustain themselves from the surrounding countryside. Even if cut off from the rest of the world, the North will survive. Maybe some peasants will starve if the winter is long - tough, but that's part of life in the North.

You also make a big deal of the supposedly abnormally disloyal Northern lords, while ignoring all the open disloyalty of many southern houses to the Lannister regime. Tyrells are only in for the moment because they want Margeary to be the queen. The Vale is neutral and Gods only know what it will do, Dorne is planning to betray the Lannisters at the earliest opportunity, the Riverlands are conquered but full of grudge, the Iron Islands are raiding everybody, and even many Stormlanders probably aren't that loyal to their "I-am-Robert's-blond-son-honestly" king. Oh, did I mention there is a Targaryen/Blackfyre plot to invade Westeros they have to watch out against?

Seems to me the South is in no position to invade the North, and there is no pressing need to do so considering the risks associated with such an undertaking. That's why the Lannisters would most likely let Robb play King in the North and focus on more pressing threats closer to the heart of their power.

In short while southern kingdom might not be able to militarily invade all the north, they can make sure no Stark king controls it.

I don't think you made a convincing argument to that. The Starks have controlled the North for centuries and it was only a series of 3 major treacheries (Ned's execution, Theon's betrayal, and the Red Wedding) which have driven them out of power. In the absence of the latter two, or perhaps just the last, I think Robb would have been more than capable of keeping his crown as well as his head.

[Castel]

Why would he do that? Surrendering to the murderer of his father would have destroyed his credibility and made him look weak. Retreating North and preventing the Iron Throne from conquering it would have salvaged some of his prestige as King in the North. As I said, there is no way the North could have been beaten conventionally by Lannisters and their allies. Especially not with the winter approaching.

His more pragmatic bannermen have already accepted that he's lost. You have to do what you have to do.

They can take white harbor by sea and burn it, weakening Manderly's.

Honestly this is the Lannister's best plan. The rest of the North is basically castles and stretching themselves to siege them when Winterfell can smack them from either side is terribly dangerous. White Harbor though, is the biggest city and only port. And it was fucked. Robb had to deal with the Ironborn, and even if he didn't I doubt that he'd make his stand in such a place, if he lost he would be fucked.

Honestly the best thing Robb has going for him is the coming winter. I think that everyone would just take some time off to deal with Dragonstone and Storm's End. The riverlands are basically fucked anyway, without their Northern masters., it's only a matter of time.

[Victaerys]

His more pragmatic bannermen have already accepted that he's lost. You have to do only what you have to do.

Exactly (the word in bold is mine). That's why he would have retreated, not surrendered. He showed no inclination of giving up his new crown in the book, so he probably meant to do what I said he would have - return North, take back Winterfell, drive off the Ironborn (this isn't really what this thread is about) with full support of most of his subjects who hate them with passion, and then easily fend off any half-arsed attempts by the Southerners to invade his realm.

It would actually be more dangerous for him politically to surrender and renounce the crown his lords had given him. It would make him look as a defeated weakling, and his more rebellious lords would surely take note of that.

[Istakhr]

Exactly (the word in bold is mine). That's why he would have retreated, not surrendered. He showed no inclination of giving up his new crown in the book, so he probably meant to do what I said he would have - return North, take back Winterfell, drive off the Ironborn (this isn't really what this thread is about) with full support of most of his subjects who hate them with passion, and then easily fend off any half-arsed attempts by the Southerners to invade his realm.

It would actually be more dangerous for him politically to surrender and renounce the crown his lords had given him. It would make him look as a defeated weakling, and his more rebellious lords would surely take note of that.

And when bannermen like lady Dustin and Boltons decide not to obey Robb, how is he going to stop them. This is only if we assume they are not going to pull a Ramsay on Robb and slaughter him and whatever army he has left in lieu of loyal bannermen coming to join their lord. The only major source of manpower for Robb is northern clans and Manderly's. Manderly's are incredibly susceptible to an attack from southern navies. Also Robb has to come up with a spare army to put in Moat Cailin.

[Winterfell is Burning]

And which Southern Navy is going to raid White Harbor exactly? The Iron Throne has virtually no navy anymore, Stannis obviously isn't going to help, and the rest is in the west coast...and they'd have to deal with Ironborn pretty soon.

[Ser Hippie]

And which Southern Navy is going to raid White Harbor exactly? The Iron Throne has virtually no navy anymore, Stannis obviously isn't going to help, and the rest is in the west coast...and they'd have to deal with Ironborn pretty soon.

They wouldn't be able to attack right away but with the Redwyne fleet, the Lannisters/Tyrells have vast superiority in naval strength over Robb and (since they can't know the Ironborn are about to attack) Robb would have to assume they will move when ready.

[Sarnius1]

Because he would have gone North to deal with it and left the southern politics to itself. In the end, I do believe that Robb only ever marched south because he believed that his kingdom was relatively safe on it's own. But of course, when he discovered the ironborn invasion he marched back home to deal with it. Now, the ironborn have tiny numbers compared to the wildling host, so it'd be safe to assume that Robb would consider them at least an equal threat as the Greyjoys.

I don't agree with this. I think Robb may have been confident in persuading the Wildings to his cause and that the only obstacles were the Ironmen.

[Victaerys]

And when bannermen like lady Dustin and Boltons decide not to obey Robb, how is he going to stop them.

Are they his only vassals? No. Plus, he probably has most of their levies in his army already, so they can't really betray him - simply because he'd use their own levies to crush them.

This is only if we assume they are not going to pull a Ramsay on Robb and slaughter him and whatever army he has left in lieu of loyal bannermen coming to join their lord.

They already are with him.

The only major source of manpower for Robb is northern clans and Manderly's. Manderly's are incredibly susceptible to an attack from southern navies. Also Robb has to come up with a spare army to put in Moat Cailin.

Southern navies, give me a break - what navies are that? Plus, this is the Middle Ages (equivalent). Navies exist mostly to transport troops from place to place. A single bad storm can destroy a whole fleet, so it can't remain in open sea for long. White Harbour is a walled city, meaning it would have to be besieged and blockaded first. Needless to mention, the force besieging it would be extremely vulnerable to an attack by a relief army from hinterland and the navy blockading it would be susceptible to being blown apart by one of the storms that frequently visit this region. Thus, invasion through there is a non-starter.

Moat Cailin can be held with a small force against many times its numbers. The same goes to other castles in the North (or elsewhere). Warfare in the medieval times was static exactly because defending a well-built caste was bloody difficult. You could literally hold it with a handful of men against thousands, and since you were fewer, your food stockpiles lasted longer, whereas the besieging army had to live off the land, which you can't do indefinitely if you're fixed in one place. Without a secure rear or some sort of a reliable supply train, the besieging army needs to either storm the castle (risking potentially disastrous loss of life) or try to bribe the garrison, either way it has to do it quickly before hunger and disease weakens it and/or a relief force arrives and smashes it.

Now, the North is vast, the distances are great, the climate is unforgiving, the population is by default suspicious of if not outright hostile to Southerners, the countryside is poor - literally everything speaks against the possibility of a successful invasion by the South (or anybody else, even the Ironborn failed miserably eventually). What's left are unconventional means (hordes of the undead, Dragons and such, none of which the South has at its disposal).

So again, assuming RW doesn't happen and Robb lives, why should he surrender to the Lannister snakes? He can simply return home, reasonably safe, and wait till the Southerners are at each others throats again. Then he can perhaps march down again and join some other rebel coalition, or perhaps assist the returning Targaryens.

[Benxz88]

They wouldn't be able to attack right away but with the Redwyne fleet, the Lannisters/Tyrells have vast superiority in naval strength over Robb and (since they can't know the Ironborn are about to attack) Robb would have to assume they will move when ready.

Dragonstone is also an obstacle in their way. The Lannisters/Tyrells would want to destroy Stannis before taking out Robb. The Redwyne fleet would be needed to blockade Dragonstone. The siege would take a long time, probably long enough for the north to prepare and the Ironborn to begin their raids on the Reach. The fleet would then have to come back to the other side of Westeros to deal with the Ironborn. Then winter begins, and the north becomes much harder to invade. The Lannisters cannot take White Harbor without leaving Dragonstone alive and letting the Ironborn have free reign over the western coast.

On a semi-related note, I agree with everything Victaerys has said.

[Ser Hippie]

Even if you assume the royal/Tyrell fleet is unable to immediately move against the North, you're still talking about sacrificing the Riverlands and keeping the Northern lords on (essentially) war footing for years on end for what purpose? Pride?

[Istakhr]

Are they his only vassals? No. Plus, he probably has most of their levies in his army already, so they can't really betray him - simply because he'd use their own levies to crush them.

They already are with him.

Both Boltons and Dustins have a significant part of their armies in the north. There is absolutely nothing stopping Ramsay to repeat what he did to Rodrick Cassel.

While betrayals of the type if RW and Ramsay were not the norm in our history, soldiers suddenly switching sides immediately before the start of battles or killing guests were not common practice there are many examples of them even in in Battle of Bosworth Field or Black Dinner.

As long as Robb doesn't know they plan to betray him, he can do exactly nothing to stop such an event.

And a lord's levies obeys him not his liege lord. Even GRRM has shown it both in RW and Siege of Winterfel.

I am not even going to discuss how unrealistic it is for Robb to be able to fight, siege and conquer lands of Ryswells, Dustins, Karstarks and Boltons with the armies of the other half.

Southern navies, give me a break - what navies are that? Plus, this is the Middle Ages (equivalent). Navies exist mostly to transport troops from place to place. A single bad storm can destroy a whole fleet, so it can't remain in open sea for long. White Harbour is a walled city, meaning it would have to be besieged and blockaded first. Needless to mention, the force besieging it would be extremely vulnerable to an attack by a relief army from hinterland and the navy blockading it would be susceptible to being blown apart by one of the storms that frequently visit this region. Thus, invasion through there is a non-starter.

Many walled ports, and cities have been effectively stormed and raided throughout all history. Static nature of Medieval wars was because of existence a high density of numerous castles. Siege against a castle is much harder than a walled city, GRRM knows this and has shown it in siege of KL. Remember I never talked about a blockade.

Moat Cailin can be held with a small force against many times its numbers. The same goes to other castles in the North (or elsewhere). Warfare in the medieval times was static exactly because defending a well-built caste was bloody difficult. You could literally hold it with a handful of men against thousands, and since you were fewer, your food stockpiles lasted longer, whereas the besieging army had to live off the land, which you can't do indefinitely if you're fixed in one place. Without a secure rear or some sort of a reliable supply train, the besieging army needs to either storm the castle (risking potentially disastrous loss of life) or try to bribe the garrison, either way it has to do it quickly before hunger and disease weakens it and/or a relief force arrives and smashes it.

We have been repeatedly told that Moat Cailin is vulnerable from north. If Robb tries to defend it with a small army, it can be easily taken by transporting soldiers to the north of it as Victarian has already proved.

Now, the North is vast, the distances are great, the climate is unforgiving, the population is by default suspicious of if not outright hostile to Southerners, the countryside is poor - literally everything speaks against the possibility of a successful invasion by the South (or anybody else, even the Ironborn failed miserably eventually). What's left are unconventional means (hordes of the undead, Dragons and such, none of which the South has at its disposal).

Most of this argument also applies to Robb as reason for failing to control the north. Look up Boltons, Ryswells, Dustins, Karstarks , their lands and their remaining men.

Fear of retribution has always been part of what binds vassals to their lieges. Robb has already lost that, because he simply can not waste his resources on trying to invade another northern lord.

Everyone that is still with him, is there because of loyalty to him and Stark name, but that is not enough to be an independent king.

So again, assuming RW doesn't happen and Robb lives, why should he surrender to the Lannister snakes? He can simply return home, reasonably safe, and wait till the Southerners are at each others throats again. Then he can perhaps march down again and join some other rebel coalition, or perhaps assist the returning Targaryens.

There is no reason for Robb to surrender. Even if he tries to bend the knee he will still be killed one way or another.

Robb is not a fool. He has made some mistakes like sending away Theon and marrying Jeyne. But I don't believe any of these determined his untimely death, these just determined his manner of death.

Robb Stark's tragedy is that the Young Wolf was doomed by circumstances that were simply out of his control. He couldn't remain true to himself and live.

[Benxz88]

Even if you assume the royal/Tyrell fleet is unable to immediately move against the North, you're still talking about sacrificing the Riverlands and keeping the Northern lords on (essentially) war footing for years on end for what purpose? Pride?

The Lords of the North are very proud, stubborn and loyal. They were the ones who made Robb King in the first place. They must want their independence. And there won't be constant battles. The war will go on pause for the winter, as the Northern snows make pitched battles impossible. Only Moat Cailin has the potential to be under siege, and I can't see the Reeds turning to the Lannisters. After the winter, the fighting may start again, but there will have been a few years, tempers will have cooled (no pun intended) and if the Lannisters want to continue the fight, the North will be ready.

[Ser Hippie]

Considering (even ignoring the RW) Bolton has already turned on Robb, Lady Dustin withheld support, Karstark has turned, etc., why do you think the "proud, stubborn and loyal" northern lords have that much interest in a prolonged war against the South, especially since the river lords would have been crushed in the meantime?

[Gurkhal]

Yes, do that, and try to occupy territory as big, if not bigger, than the rest of the realm, facing General Winter (even in the summer they have snows) and a population mostly extremely loyal to the enemy.

Who said anything about occupying all of it? We just need to use our naval superiority to capture and either hold or destroy the castles by one body of water of another and use these for raiding inlands or denying them to the Northmen. And if nothing else works we can use the scourched earth policy and when winter approach we just burn and level the castles and retreats south and lets you deal with General Winter. Next spring we’ll be back to start kicking on you again.

For my part I would think that White Harbor would make an excellent staging point or at the worse a pretty bonfire to watch when winter arrives.

And again, Dorne managed to do that. And facing dragons.

Dorne is Dorne and the North is the North.

Unless the rest of Westeros also starts splitting away from the Iron Throne, in which case Robb's chances are much better. Hence letting entropy do it's work.

And how will “entropy” do its work? Because for them to abandon their realm you’ll need to convince them that they can have it so much better in independence that its better for them to go through the mess of a war with the Iron Throne, above making changes within the realm? To break the realm of Westeros you need to actually kill an idea and that’s something that can’t be done by Robb over a few months of campaigning – especially when he can’t attack the major centers within reach and would be fighting on the defensive.

Robb might not live to see the day, but if enough kingdoms split away from the Iron Throne frequently enough, like they did in the War of the Five Kings, the Iron Throne will not be able to unify Westeros against single targets.

Maybe IF that happens. But how exactly would that happen and who have expressed an interest in independence except the Northmen?

No, infrastructure is much the same. Roads and ravens existed before Aegon's conquest, and you never had fewer than seven distinct entities. The logistical problem with a power in the South requiring enough manpower to hold the North, the Iron Islands, Dorne, the Vale, and anybody else who causes trouble is immense. That's why it never happened before Aegon, because it was too difficult without dragons.

I’m pretty sure it’s the Targaryens who have built the fancy roads.

In regards to the reason that Westeros hasn’t been unified before its nothing to do with dragons and everything to do with balance of power. When one kingdom became too powerful the others would smash down on the leader and thus make sure that no one can came out on top.

Nor is the Kingsroad a silver bullet against political disunity, because it's actually a fairly limited road except for its main section from King's Landing to the Trident and Moat Caitlin, so it really doesn't help someone in say, the Crownlands, get anywhere but the Trident. Moat Cailin blocks it off from the North proper, and it doesn't touch Dorne, the Reach, the Westerlands or the Iron Islands.

Well there are other roads like the Goldroad, the Roseroad etc. that can help to move troops to hotspots. The Kingsroad was just and example.

There's a reason nobody united Westeros in the 12000 years before Aegon, because it can't be done without dragons.

It can’t be done because the system of balance of power between the kingdoms prevented anyone from taking to much.

Because Kings are forced to try and take things they have no logical or strategic need for. That's the problem with the Iron Throne; to be legitimised on it you need to control all Westeros, but the tools to do this (dragons) are long gone. There's no doctrine from the Iron Throne of "what can I hold, and what do I need", a realpolitick approach, there's only absolutism. A King must have everything.

When you are the king of Westeros you need to have what you claim to be king of. There’s a vast difference between realpolitik and defeatism. The king on the Iron Throne has a fair shot at taking all of Westeros so why wouldn’t he make a try at it?

For example, the Reach and the Stormlands don't need the North, and vice versa, because they have their own territorial integrity and self sustaining economies.

They do not of course but likewise White Harbor don’t need Winterfell, nor does Karhold or the Dreadfort need Barrowtown, yet imagine the rage among the Starks if these would go for independence. In fact most villages don’t need more than the villages in the absolute vicinity to live the lives as they want it. Just because you don’t obviously need something right now is no reason why you can’t possible accept to be in the same political thing as these parts.

But if they vie for the Iron Throne, they're forced to try and covet places irrelevant to their power base, and places that if they try to capture, they actually over-extend themselves. They're forced to commit their forces to attack or defend these regions where diplomacy would serve better. They have to do this, because the philosophy of the Iron Throne is absolutist. A King has to control everything in Westeros, whether it's wise to or not, or they're no true King. The only exception to this rule is beyond the Wall, but that's for supernatural reasons, not political.

Its true that a king who cannot back up his claim in reality isn’t much of a king.

The Renly-Robb or Robb-Stannis alliance is a no-brainer in A Clash of Kings, but it doesn't happen because the ideology of the Iron Throne is so utterly unpragmatic (ie; I must have everything, I cannot allow any other King to exist, is effectively the answer both Renly and Stannis give Cat).

It’s a no brainer for Robb but not for the Baratheons as their interests aren’t the same as Robb’s.

[Gurkhal]

Westeros was more peaceful before Aegon's Landing.

No it was far more violent.

Why? Because the Iron Throne causes frequent continental wars, wars in which most regions in Westeros into something they have no stake in. Wars which have causes that start in the Reach, easily spread to the North, or vice versa, because of fealty obligations Great Houses owe to a single authority. This doesn't happen pre-Aegon.

Frequent? Isn’t that a rather big exaggeration? There have been four major continent wars in 300 years – Faith Rebellion, Dance of Dragons, Blackfyre Rebellion and War of the Usuprer with the others being small scale affairs.

Pre-Aegon, regional wars were incredibly common, but only one continental war (the Andal invasion) occured between humans in Westeros in the 12000 years before Aegon's Landing. Because before Aegon, a King in the Reach, or in Dorne, or in the Vale, could acknowledge, ignore or deal with other Kings, and their legitimacy was not destroyed by other Kings existing.

For the first thing the Andal invasion was not a major war but a migration over at least several hundreds of years, not a war like the war of Five Kings or something like that. Also I’m pretty sure that near constant mid-level war is as bad or worse than a major war a little more often than once a century.

Post-conquest, if even one other King exists, it undermines the Iron Throne. Post-Aegon, we have more continental wars (Aegon's invasion itself, the Dance of the Dragons, the Blackfyre Rebellion, the War of the Ninepenny Kings and Robert's Rebellion) in 300 years than we do in the previous 12000.

That’s wrong as far as we can tell. There have most likely been fewer wars in the last 300 years than in the 300 years before that.

That's because of the Iron Throne. We also know the Iron Throne does not stop regional war in Westeros (the Faith Militant Uprising, Raymun Redbeard, the Defiance of Duskendale, wars in Dorne, Dagon Greyjoy, Balon's Rebellion).

It actually does stop regional wars as the lords and lord paramount can beat each other up at will without someone telling them to back down. In the good ‘ol days they could go to war against each other at will but that isn’t possible anymore. So yes you still get wars from time to time but I’m positively sure that those wars are a lot more scarce than what used to be.

They might feel differently if they understood their history.

I doubt that they lack any understanding for their history but they live in the present and not in the past.

Let me give you an example; Septon Meribald and his village are conscripted to fight on the Stepstones in the War of the Ninepenny Kings, even though that conflict is utterly irrelevant to their liege lord.

So you think it makes a differences for them if they die in a ditch because the King in King’s Landing ordered them as opposed to the King in Highgarden? The Band of Nine would sooner or later turn upon Westeros and thus it was pre-emptive strike that prevented suffering in Westeros. Normally I’m against pre-emptive strikes but in this regards everything seems to point towards that it was correct.

The only reason they do it is because their liege lord is bound to the Iron Throne, which cannot accept someone else calling themselves King, even if they're not on the same continent! It's utter madness, and in the pre-Aegon age, you'd never, ever have the majority of Westerosi peasants conscripted to fight a continental conflict for a cause over in Essos. But you do under the Iron Throne.

I doubt that there were all that many conscripts sent over to the Stepstones. Further more no king can allow people within this proclaimed kingdom to declare themselves kings as it would ruin for them. If the Boltons declared themselves kings the Starks would not be cool with that, so this basic principle works no matter the seize of the king’s domain.

That's a cache 22; you need all of Westeros to hold all of Westeros. The best we've ever seen anybody do is Aegon, which lasted 300 years (an insignificant amount of time in terms of the scale of Westerosi history), and he did that with something that is no longer available in Westeros.

Since they did manage to hold on to Westeros for at least a hundred years without any dragons I’m not sure that you must have dragons to hold on, and there seems to have been a fair number of Houses who didn’t see any problem with continued Targaryen rule.

That's not the big picture. Of course any one region is going to get absorbed by the other six. The point I'm making is, when that unity is eroded, nobody can keep six other kingdoms under their heels without dragons.

But first you need to erode unity and so far little has been made to erode that unity. That some Northmen scream in the periphery makes little difference for the grand picture.

It really comes to the symbols of power. With Valyria gone, free cities which were Valyrian culturally (except Braavos) didn't remain united even though Braavos was and is a threat to their way of life.

I agree.

Without dragons and with Targaryan's gone the last symbol of unity in seven kingdom's is KL and the Iron Trone. Note how Renly, Stannis and Lannisters all mainly wanted to control it. That;s why if KL is destroyed seven kingdom will fall apart.

I think that’s incorrect. The thing is that we are talking about an idea which has symbols tied to it, like the Iron Throne, but its not about the Iron Throne in the end. Destroying the Iron Throne or King’s Landing won’t destroy the idea. It’s would be like to say that if the White House and the US Senate would be destroyed then the US would fracture into its different states and no longer be a single country. Needless to say that’s hardly how it would go down.

[Winterfell is Burning]

They wouldn't be able to attack right away but with the Redwyne fleet, the Lannisters/Tyrells have vast superiority in naval strength over Robb and (since they can't know the Ironborn are about to attack) Robb would have to assume they will move when ready.

Ironborn raids are always a threat, so they can't take all the Redwyne fleet that far North- specially considering doing so leaves the area unprotected. Plus, Manderly was building his own fleet, and they would never see it coming.

Who said anything about occupying all of it? We just need to use our naval superiority to capture and either hold or destroy the castles by one body of water of another and use these for raiding inlands or denying them to the Northmen. And if nothing else works we can use the scourched earth policy and when winter approach we just burn and level the castles and retreats south and lets you deal with General Winter. Next spring we’ll be back to start kicking on you again.

Who is "we"? The fact that you're identifying that much with the Lannisters seems to indicate a lack of objectivity there, if I may say.

For my part I would think that White Harbor would make an excellent staging point or at the worse a pretty bonfire to watch when winter arrives.

Not possible, for some of the reasons already stated in this thread- having to take Dragonstone and Storm's End before, too far away, navy wasn't as developed in medieval times and used mostly for transport troops, take too much of the fleet leaves them at risk of Ironborn attacks, and so on.

Dorne is Dorne and the North is the North.

And...Dorne is much smaller and has a much smaller population. Aegon tried a similar approach you suggest above with dragons and failed. You also seem to ignore the North during summer is already too cold for Southern troops.

[Istakhr]

I think that’s incorrect. The thing is that we are talking about an idea which has symbols tied to it, like the Iron Throne, but its not about the Iron Throne in the end. Destroying the Iron Throne or King’s Landing won’t destroy the idea. It’s would be like to say that if the White House and the US Senate would be destroyed then the US would fracture into its different states and no longer be a single country. Needless to say that’s hardly how it would go down.

I disagree. US is a nation state and the idea that holds it together is the concept of nation.

This concept has not yet been fully developed in Westeros, similar to the medieval germany.

These were what legitimized the idea of 7 kingdoms in my opinion in order of importance:

Dragons>Targaryan Blood>KL+iron Throne

Dragons are gone. The blood relation to Targaryan (reason for Robert becoming king) is almost now irrelevant. The only things that can keep the 7 kingdoms is the idea that the legitimate king which is tied to mainly KL plus Iron Throne and loosely to blood.

Even right now you can see that nothing is keeping remains of the 7 kingdoms together anymore, everyone is either planning to take it or simply doesn't care about it anymore. Without KL do you think Tyrell's accept a king in the Rock or Lannister's a king in Highgarden?