Jump to content

Holding the Seven Kingdoms


Batman

Recommended Posts

Winning a throne is one thing but holding it is quite another. The Storm Kings supposedly got the closest ruling from the mountains of Dorne to Moat Cailin but were then slowly brought back to ruling only the Stormlands.

Is there one great house that has the power to rule the Seven Kingdoms?

Is there a strategy that could be used to help this occur? Taking larger amounts of lands under your control for example? The Crownlands are relatively small and can only raise 15,000-30,000 men depending on your opinion.

For all intents and purposes the Crownlands and the Stormalnds were essentially one kingdom after Robert took the throne. They would all fight for House Baratheon should the Martells or Tyrells choose to rebel. Is that power enough to hold the kingdoms? Would they even be anywhere near as powerful as the Westerlands or the Reach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Targs were on borrowed time from the moment their last dragon died. I don't think you'll see a united Westeros again, under anyone.

I anticipate an eventual set of three or four kingdoms:

North/Vale/Riverlands, held by the Starks/Tullys through marriage

The Iron Islands, held by the Greyjoys, with a possible annexation into the North

Dorne, held by the Martells

Westerlands/Reach/Stormlands/Crownlands, held by ... whoever can hold them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Targs were on borrowed time from the moment their last dragon died.

Exactly. This is why it was so important for them to breed more dragons. They knew quite well that sometime, somewhere, some great lord would rebel and when that happened, it would provoke a chain reaction. Aerys II madness only accelerated the unavoidable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all intents and purposes the Crownlands and the Stormalnds were essentially one kingdom after Robert took the throne. They would all fight for House Baratheon should the Martells or Tyrells choose to rebel. Is that power enough to hold the kingdoms? Would they even be anywhere near as powerful as the Westerlands or the Reach?

But Robert also had the Vale for as long as Jon Arryn was alive, and the North and Riverlands through Ned&Cat, not to mention Westerlands through Cersei. Robert, for the majority of his reign, had the North, Riverlands, Vale, Crownlands, Stormlands, Westerlands and Dragonstone backing him. That's alot.

Even after Robert's death (had things gone normally) the throne would have had all of the above excepts the Vale through Sansa-Joffrey marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Robert also had the Vale for as long as Jon Arryn was alive, and the North and Riverlands through Ned&Cat, not to mention Westerlands through Cersei. Robert, for the majority of his reign, had the North, Riverlands, Vale, Crownlands, Stormlands, Westerlands and Dragonstone backing him. That's alot.

Even after Robert's death (had things gone normally) the throne would have had all of the above excepts the Vale through Sansa-Joffrey marriage.

Strong allies can keep the throne that is true. If Robert had actually had true born sons they would have done well to keep a Baratheon/Lannister/Stark alliance in place. I think that would have been enough to deal with the other kingdoms should they choose to rebel. So what you are saying is that only a coalition can hold the Seven Kingdoms, it cant be held by a single Kingdom like the Westerlands or Sotrmalnds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recorded history of man in Westeros spans about 12,000 years.

Westeros has been under a single authority for about 130 years (not 300, because Dorne only comes in during Baelor's reign).

I'm not really sure how someone looking at those figures should reasonably expect that it's possible to keep the continent unified without dragons, since there have been frequent rebellions and secessions since the death of dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strong allies can keep the throne that is true. If Robert had actually had true born sons they would have done well to keep a Baratheon/Lannister/Stark alliance in place. I think that would have been enough to deal with the other kingdoms should they choose to rebel. So what you are saying is that only a coalition can hold the Seven Kingdoms, it cant be held by a single Kingdom like the Westerlands or Stormlands.

Yeah, no one kingdom can hold it all. Eventually something would go wrong, anything from people allying against you or your successor turns out to be an incompetent fool or something along those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recorded history of man in Westeros spans about 12,000 years.

Westeros has been under a single authority for about 130 years (not 300, because Dorne only comes in during Baelor's reign).

I'm not really sure how someone looking at those figures should reasonably expect that it's possible to keep the continent unified without dragons, since there have been frequent rebellions and secessions since the death of dragons.

Just beacuse the targs united Westeros using dragons that doesn't mean Westeros can only be united with dragons.

People were living in the americas for tens of thousand of years before the spanish came and conqured them. That doesn't mean that only people from Iberia, or only christians or only men with guns had any chance of uniting that land under one banner. And just because the Spanish lost their empire that doesn't mean that their lands in the Americas will never be united again.

Empires rise and fall, that's just the nature of them. 300 years is actually a pretty long time when you think about it. It's only when compared to the impossibly long reigns of some of the great houses that it starts to look insignificant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible through alliances, but they hold 1-3 generations tops. Then it's renegotiations. How volatile that whole system is you can read in Bran's second or so chapter of Clash of Kings (which I just passed on my reread ;)). Everyone has claims everywhere (through some channels) and the Big Houses themselves have to keep their own lands together, which isn't that easy, see the Boltons, Freys, Hightowers, Florents, Yronwoods, Castameres, etc. ...

So, no, not with the technology that exists there. And I'm not talking (only) about military technology. It's more the advent of a modern state with a bureaucratic class, tax collectors and so on that is needed. But that means either incorporating the nobility or dispatching them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get maesters to research cloning. Then clone an army of Mountains. Hell, why hasn't Tywin bred Gregor to a bunch of fertile whores and kept all bastards as his personal army.

The Hound would be better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its perfectly possible with the right system of alliances between houses.

Lannister-Tyrell-Baratheon, essentially the situation at present (until the end of Feast anyway) seems a potent enough combination.

Also, we've seen no sign anyone in the south covets independence, rather they are all focused on the Iron Throne. Admittedly some riverlords go along with Robb's break away kingdom but those were odd circumstances and the impetus came from Northmen. Moreover, of all the realms, the riverlands seems least likely to gain much from independence.

It is very weird that the Targs didn't have a larger royal domain than the Crownlands and Dragonstone.

But I think loyalty to the crown can undercut the influence of great lords in a lot of regions, especially if they are near to KL and a lot depends on the personality of the king and his great lords. We know some reach lords support Stannis after the death of Renly for instance, even though Mace didn't commit himself. Also, the riverlands were divided in support for Aerys and Robert during the rebellion and this was when there was a king who was clearly nuts.

Think of France in the 11-12th centuries. You have a very small royal domain and lots of very independent dukes and counts in the other regions. This causes lots of problems but never quite gets to the point of dividing the place between different royal authorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just beacuse the targs united Westeros using dragons that doesn't mean Westeros can only be united with dragons.

While possible, the fact that 11,870 years out of 12,000 Westeros is decentralised suggests you do need dragons.

That or some kind of industrial or technological revolution that's centuries away. Hell, Europe was never unified under a single authority, and Europe is smaller than Westeros.

People were living in the americas for tens of thousand of years before the spanish came and conqured them. That doesn't mean that only people from Iberia, or only christians or only men with guns had any chance of uniting that land under one banner. And just because the Spanish lost their empire that doesn't mean that their lands in the Americas will never be united again.

The Americas haven't ever been united under a single authority, Spanish or otherwise.

Hell, neither North nor South America have ever been united under a single authority.

Empires rise and fall, that's just the nature of them. 300 years is actually a pretty long time when you think about it. It's only when compared to the impossibly long reigns of some of the great houses that it starts to look insignificant.

It's about context, and in context, 130 years of unity is nothing compared to almost 12,000 years of disunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recorded history of man in Westeros spans about 12,000 years.

Westeros has been under a single authority for about 130 years (not 300, because Dorne only comes in during Baelor's reign).

I'm not really sure how someone looking at those figures should reasonably expect that it's possible to keep the continent unified without dragons, since there have been frequent rebellions and secessions since the death of dragons.

I wasn't aware anyone had tried to break the realm up since the death of the dragons.

The rebellions are focused on control of the Iron Throne.

What's interesting is that the years of Targaryen rule have created a political culture that values the Iron Throne and sees it as the natural centre of politics in the seven kingdoms.

If the north had really wanted to separate before Robb Stark they could probably have done so. We don't even know how necessary it was for Torrhen to kneel actually, given the whole skinchanger issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about context, and in context, 130 years of unity is nothing compared to almost 12,000 years of disunity.

Well, England for instance suffered about 500 years of disunity since the fall of the Roman Empire and then never faced serious disunity again. Things can just change like that, in RL.

Or how about Greece. Never united until the days of Alexander and then rarely ever broken up into separate units again (granted, it tended to be occupied by one power or another).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...