Lord Reaver Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 I don't think so. You had four big players allied together through marriage ties and what not. Starks, baratheons, tullys and arryns. These would remain together and I don't see anyone standing up to them If the desire for independence was so great, why would they remain together ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Daly Posted August 17, 2014 Author Share Posted August 17, 2014 If the desire for independence was so great, why would they remain together ?I'd say independence was wanted after RR. Like the greyjoy rebellion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 What on earth are you talking about? Some one said they wanted to see the "South burn" and you put a :devil: under a quote of that text. From that I draw that you would also like to see the world burn, and from your avatar I took it that the intention was that Northmen would burn the South of Westeros. And since the Vale and Riverlands are part of the South I ask what they done that warrents them being burned by vengeful Northmen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of Winters Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 You get a free pass for being a member of this board :thumbsup:Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of Winters Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Extra points for Benedict Cumberbatch! Now you can bring him with you. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pod The Impaler Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 One cannot really think that Dany would just return with 1 or more dragons and sit herself down on the Iron Throne and rule. It is not like the Dance of Dragons or the Blackfyre Rebellion. This is happening in the context of an apocalyptic event, the next Long Night, in which cold and darkness may snuff out all life. Assuming dragons & magic even make it possible for some to survive that, the whole "Seven Kingdoms, One Realm" concept will be next to meaningless. This isn't like asking "the UK or England, Scotland,Wales, etc." - this is disaster like in the movie Threads, followed by a 20 year nuclear winter. When it's done, the population will be cavemen, lucky if they can scratch out their agonizing tales on the wall of some cave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Daly Posted August 17, 2014 Author Share Posted August 17, 2014 One cannot really think that Dany would just return with 1 or more dragons and sit herself down on the Iron Throne and rule. It is not like the Dance of Dragons or the Blackfyre Rebellion. This is happening in the context of an apocalyptic event, the next Long Night, in which cold and darkness may snuff out all life. Assuming dragons & magic even make it possible for some to survive that, the whole "Seven Kingdoms, One Realm" concept will be next to meaningless. This isn't like asking "the UK or England, Scotland,Wales, etc." - this is disaster like in the movie Threads, followed by a 20 year nuclear winter. When it's done, the population will be cavemen, lucky if they can scratch out their agonizing tales on the wall of some cave.The others didn't even enter my mind, I assume she will be over before all that comes into play. Perhaps, another war between those who support her and those who don't, and then the others coming down amid it all. Then westeros having to accept her just to be united Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Ravens Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Westeros is ancient with a history that goes back thousands of years in some families. It was made up of independent kingdoms until the relatively recent Conquest 300 years ago. Aegon was able to unite the 7 kingdoms because he and his sisters had overwhelming military power in the form of large, mature dragons. The might of the Targaryens has faded since Aegon died and now we are back to the natural order of things in Westeros. I don't think dragons and the potential military advantage they bring with them will survive these books and even if they do, they are younger and far less powerful than Balerion (destroyer of Harrenhall), Vhagar and Meraxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Daly Posted August 17, 2014 Author Share Posted August 17, 2014 Westeros is ancient with a history that goes back thousands of years in some families. It was made up of independent kingdoms until the relatively recent Conquest 300 years ago. Aegon was able to unite the 7 kingdoms because he and his sisters had overwhelming military power in the form of large, mature dragons. The might of the Targaryens has faded since Aegon died and now we are back to the natural order of things in Westeros. I don't think dragons and the potential military advantage they bring with them will survive these books and even if they do, they are younger and far less powerful than Balerion (destroyer of Harrenhall), Vhagar and Meraxes.What point are you getting to? Sorry, just can't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pod The Impaler Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Westeros is ancient with a history that goes back thousands of years in some families. It was made up of independent kingdoms until the relatively recent Conquest 300 years ago. Aegon was able to unite the 7 kingdoms because he and his sisters had overwhelming military power in the form of large, mature dragons. The might of the Targaryens has faded since Aegon died and now we are back to the natural order of things in Westeros. I don't think dragons and the potential military advantage they bring with them will survive these books and even if they do, they are younger and far less powerful than Balerion (destroyer of Harrenhall), Vhagar and Meraxes. What point are you getting to? Sorry, just can't see it. 300 years is not too much time compared to 10000, especially considering it comes basically as the end times approach. The Targaryens themselves may have not understood the prophecies why they needed to escape the doom and go to Westeros with their dragons - the fight against the Others. They interpreted it as power & kingship. Perhaps they spent themselves too early, and got too caught up in internecine strife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 The North doesnt need the IT. And it would be in its best interest to show them Southrons a big FU ;). It's different though for the rest of Westeros (virtually constant warfare between the different kingdoms of old).But the IT cannot let the North leave in peace, bad precedent and whatnot. That's basically the only reason why the IT and the rest of the bunch objected Balon's independence movement. No one actually needs the IB anyway ;). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 The North doesnt need the IT. And it would be in its best interest to show them Southrons a big FU ;). It's different though for the rest of Westeros (virtually constant warfare between the different kingdoms of old).But the IT cannot let the North leave in peace, bad precedent and whatnot. That's basically the only reason why the IT and the rest of the bunch objected Balon's independence movement. No one actually needs the IB anyway ;).No change under Targaryen rule. Actually, it got worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon88 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 This is idiotic. There has been no independent movement. To general people Westeros is seen as one large nation. Only the Iron Islands were problematic because they have the culture of attacking and pillaging. Rest of Westeros sees itself as one nation. North went with the king of the North because of the mess in the KL and a rare occurrence. To most of Westeros its one nation. Now granted at max, North could want independence if it feels like it wants to continue the legacy of Robb Stark but I see the ruler of Westeros make peace with the North and North accepts the concept of one Westeros. And one nation helps because it makes it more peaceful and more unity instead of the 7 nations warring with each other, which was the main reason Aegon conquered Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Daly Posted August 17, 2014 Author Share Posted August 17, 2014 This is idiotic. There has been no independent movement. To general people Westeros is seen as one large nation. Only the Iron Islands were problematic because they have the culture of attacking and pillaging. Rest of Westeros sees itself as one nation. North went with the king of the North because of the mess in the KL and a rare occurrence. To most of Westeros its one nation. Now granted at max, North could want independence if it feels like it wants to continue the legacy of Robb Stark but I see the ruler of Westeros make peace with the North and North accepts the concept of one Westeros. And one nation helps because it makes it more peaceful and more unity instead of the 7 nations warring with each other, which was the main reason Aegon conquered Westeros.Aegon conquered because the storm king cut the hands of his diplomat and refused to marry his daughter to oerys baratheon. Nothing to do with warring nations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Aegon conquered because the storm king cut the hands of his diplomat and refused to marry his daughter to oerys baratheon. Nothing to do with warring nations ...which was a planned provocation. Planned by Aegon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 No change under Targaryen rule. Actually, it got worse.Come one, there were quite a lot of peaceful periods under Targaryen rule. Major Westerosi civil war conflicts in 283 years of Targaryen rule:1) Faith Uprising2) Dance3) first Blackfyre Rebellion4) RR All of those wars were quite short as well (no Info wrt Faith uprising). I mean I dont like the Targaryens at all but mostly they did an OK job in the South. They were not that bad in that regard. Give the North independence, the rest can be ruled by the IT for all I care ;).Of course it might very well be that without a "demi-god" dynasty on the IT we would see major conflicts all "couple of years" from now on which refutes the "pacifying aspect" (that's even my assumption). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Reaver Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 All of those wars were quite short as well (no Info wrt Faith uprising). On the contrary, we know the Faith Militant uprising lasted all the rule of Aenys I and Maegor I, a total of 11 years at the least. We don't know how long into Jaehaerys' reign it lasted before he offered the amnesty, so it's 11 years of all-encompassing war at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Nah, that's Targ propaganda. According to Maester Aemon, pre-Aegon Westeros "hardly had a generation where two or three regions weren't at war". Now under Targaryen rule all wars involving at least three regions: 1. Conquest2. War against Dorne3. Faith Uprising4. Maegor's civil war against his nephew/niece5. Dance of Dragons6. Conquest of Dorne.7. Aegon IV's war against Dorne.8. Blackfyre I9. Dagon Greyjoy10. Blackfyre III11, Blackfyre IV12. Blackfyre V13. Blackfyre VI or Wot9PK14. Robert's Rebellion15. Greyjoy Rebellion16. Wot5K 16 major wars involving at least three regions and a whole bunch of smaller ones. In 300 years. How many generations are those again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 On the contrary, we know the Faith Militant uprising lasted all the rule of Aenys I and Maegor I, a total of 11 years at the least. We don't know how long into Jaehaerys' reign it lasted before he offered the amnesty, so it's 11 years of all-encompassing war at the very least.Yeah I was more referring to the Dance/BR/RR but thanks for info wrt the Faith Militant Uprising. Didnt have that in mind anymore. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Daly Posted August 17, 2014 Author Share Posted August 17, 2014 Nah, that's Targ propaganda. According to Maester Aemon, pre-Aegon Westeros "hardly had a generation where two or three regions weren't at war". Now under Targaryen rule all wars involving at least three regions: 1. Conquest2. War against Dorne3. Faith Uprising4. Maegor's civil war against his nephew/niece5. Dance of Dragons6. Conquest of Dorne.7. Aegon IV's war against Dorne.8. Blackfyre I9. Dagon Greyjoy10. Blackfyre III11, Blackfyre IV12. Blackfyre V13. Blackfyre VI or Wot9PK14. Robert's Rebellion15. Greyjoy Rebellion16. Wot5K 16 major wars involving at least three regions and a whole bunch of smaller ones. In 300 years. How many generations are those again?The last two can be struck off because they wernt under targ rule. It will all depend on the others at the end anyway. Maybe they'll take the north or the cotf will accomplish splitting westeros in two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.