Why didn’t the kingdoms just split up after Roberts Rebellion?

[Mwm]

I was just thinking after having it brought up that Oberyn was going to raise Dorne after the rebellion.

Is tradition that strong?

I mean:

No one has passed the Bloody Gate of the Vale without an invitation. (Yeah yeah, Visenya landed in Eyrie, but she didn’t pass the freaking gate/and I’m talking about after the Fall of the Dragons)

Moat Cailin threw back any army that came against it.

Dragons couldn’t even manage to conquer Dorne.

 

Robb could’ve been King in the North until Dany arrived if he STAYED in the north!

[Valyrian Lance]

34 minutes ago, Mwm said:

I was just thinking after having it brought up that Oberyn was going to raise Dorne after the rebellion.

Is tradition that strong?

I mean:

No one has passed the Bloody Gate of the Vale without an invitation. (Yeah yeah, Visenya landed in Eyrie, but she didn’t pass the freaking gate/and I’m talking about after the Fall of the Dragons)

Moat Cailin threw back any army that came against it.

Dragons couldn’t even manage to conquer Dorne.

 

Robb could’ve been King in the North until Dany arrived if he STAYED in the north!

He would have had to sacrifice his father and two sisters.

[Mwm]

19 minutes ago, Valyrian Lance said:

He would have had to sacrifice his father and two sisters.

Did he not anyway?

I think he should’ve turned right back around after Ned was executed-maybe false peace with the lannisters to get Sansa back, cross the damn twins, and then fortify the borders. No one could’ve said shit about it!

[Valyrian Lance]

2 minutes ago, Mwm said:

Did he not anyway?

I think he should’ve turned right back around after Ned was executed-maybe false peace with the lannisters to get Sansa back, cross the damn twins, and then fortify the borders. No one could’ve said shit about it!

Now that was a credible option. Vengeance won out.

[Mwm]

10 minutes ago, Valyrian Lance said:

Now that was a credible option. Vengeance won out.

They downplayed this, I’m not sure if the passing reference was the same in the books as the show, but one of the terms was no Lannister can come into the north.

But yeah, your right, often does so it’s realistic just not wise.

If George really wanted him to make a mistake he could’ve let Robb say this; to overplay his hand and say that it was a given that they can’t oppose them should they retreat home. And have Tywin side with the Frey’s to directly prevent this.

[Frey Kings]

Because..

He was anointed and crowned...

Robert of House Baratheon, the First of His Name, King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, and Protector of the Realm.

 

Now bow before your King, bow you shits!!!

[Mwm]

7 minutes ago, Frey Kings said:

Because..

He was anointed and crowned...

Robert of House Baratheon, the First of His Name, King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, and Protector of the Realm.

 

Now bow before your King, bow you shits!!!

Like I said; tradition.

It’s just weird to me Oberyn was the only one who thought of it. 

[Frey Kings]

25 minutes ago, Mwm said:

Like I said; tradition.

It’s just weird to me Oberyn was the only one who thought of it. 

I wish he did. Then the rightful rulers of Dorne: The Yronwoods would rule the kingdom. 

[Bernie Mac]

8 hours ago, Mwm said:

Like I said; tradition.

It is not just tradition, peace and a united kingdom means more trade between realms, it means peace and prosperity. There are plenty of incentives to being part of a united kingdom, independent realms would all need standing armies to protect their borders, navies to protect their coasts. A far greater amount of their population would be made to become soldiers while in peace they become farmers, builders. merchants, artisans etc and help improve the realm.  

The Nights Watch is a clear example of how bad it was before the Targs, the constant mini wars meant that the criminals of the land were around 10k rather than the 1k during the Westeros era. War has diminished. 

8 hours ago, Mwm said:

It’s just weird to me Oberyn was the only one who thought of it. 

He's not, but he is also impulsive and cavalier who does not worry about the consequences of his actions. Him thinking it does not mean it is a good idea. 

[Mwm]

10 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

It is not just tradition, peace and a united kingdom means more trade between realms, it means peace and prosperity. There are plenty of incentives to being part of a united kingdom, independent realms would all need standing armies to protect their borders, navies to protect their coasts. A far greater amount of their population would be made to become soldiers while in peace they become farmers, builders. merchants, artisans etc and help improve the realm.  

The Nights Watch is a clear example of how bad it was before the Targs, the constant mini wars meant that the criminals of the land were around 10k rather than the 1k during the Westeros era. War has diminished. 

He's not, but he is also impulsive and cavalier who does not worry about the consequences of his actions. Him thinking it does not mean it is a good idea. 

If this is the case I am wondering why Dorne held out so long when 99.99 of the rest of the continent had become a united realm, through great strain and difficulty but they did...

Every single lord commands a large host of his own men...I’m interested to hear your view on why you automatically think more soldiers equal less farmers when an army can’t fight without HUGE amounts of food.

[Myrish Lace]

12 hours ago, Mwm said:

I was just thinking after having it brought up that Oberyn was going to raise Dorne after the rebellion.

Robert had a huge advantage: a coalition of four Kingdoms backing him. Lannisters desperately wanted to jump onto his bandwagon and Reachmen agreed with the regime change due to its leniency. Martells were faced with a choice - either to reject Robert and risk devastating war they might no survive or accept Robert's rule. The choice wasn't hard.

So united realm continued on for a time. Not out of tradition, but simply because political chips fell at the right time in a very convenient way.

And then the deck was reshuffled, political climate changed and people started to take their balls and leave the game because it was self-evidently counter-productive to participate in united Westeros. The idea of united Westeris has no economic, political or ideological foundation after all. Dragons (barely) held it together for 1,5 centuries and convenient political climate lasted for another 1,5 centuries. But sooner or later. the luck had to run out. With Robert's death it did just that and the entire house of cards fell apart.

[Bernie Mac]

2 hours ago, Mwm said:

If this is the case I am wondering why Dorne held out so long when 99.99 of the rest of the continent had become a united realm, through great strain and difficulty but they did...

Likely due to the fact that the Martells ancestors were the Rhoynish and the Targs were Valyrian and their shared history was incredibly complicated and  bloody.  

2 hours ago, Mwm said:

Every single lord commands a large host of his own men...I’m interested to hear your view on why you automatically think more soldiers equal less farmers

It is not really a view, it is common sense

"The Greatjon took too many. Half our harvest is gone to seed for want of arms to swing the scythes."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Not well." Alys sighed. "My father took so many of our men south with him that only the women and young boys were left to bring the harvest in. Them, and the men too old or crippled to go off to war. Crops withered in the fields or were pounded into the mud by autumn rains. And now the snows are come. This winter will be hard. Few of the old people will survive it, and many children will perish as well."

So larger standing armies will mean fewer farmers, fewer farmers will mean less food which will slow down on the population increasing, it will mean more money is needed to feed, train and equip the standing army rather than to build better roads and infrastructure any kingdom needs to advance. 

Realms constantly at war do not prosper. 

2 hours ago, Mwm said:

 

when an army can’t fight without HUGE amounts of food.

Agreed. Which puts further strain on the realm as other areas of the society would suffer to feed the standing army, peace means fewer soldiers, more farmers, more merchants, more taxes and allows civilizations to prosper and advance. 

[Myrish Lace]

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

There are plenty of incentives to being part of a united kingdom, independent realms would all need standing armies to protect their borders, navies to protect their coasts.

Well, if this is the supposed incentive, then it obviously failed since constituent regions all maintain their own militaries. In fact, these militaries rose in number after Conquest (see Gardener/Lannister "biggest host yet" vs "modern" Westerosi army sizes), all without much evidence of overall population growth. 

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

peace and a united kingdom means more trade between realms, it means peace and prosperity

The problem is, united Westeros never delivered on peace. At best, Targaryens exchanged limited border warfare pre-Conquest for regular massive, pan-continental massacres the likes of which medieval Europe has never seen.

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Nights Watch is a clear example of how bad it was before the Targs

No, it isn't. Night's Watch is a clear example of what happens to institutions that lose their purpose. With Others passing into legends, there is no reason for people to enlist.

[Lord Varys]

The Realm has long been united. The North, the Iron Islands, and Dorne are still somewhat set apart, but even they need really good enough incentives (or mad enough rulers) to go along with a secessionist movement.

The Seven Kingdoms are one, and it is a ridiculous idea for anyone in the West, the Stormlands, the Reach, the Vale, or the Riverlands that they could become an 'independent kingdom' once again. There is no benefit in that whatsoever.

[Mwm]

17 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

Well, if this is the supposed incentive, then it obviously failed since constituent regions all maintain their own militaries. In fact, these militaries rose in number after Conquest (see Gardener/Lannister "biggest host yet" vs "modern" Westerosi army sizes), all without much evidence of overall population growth. 

The problem is, united Westeros never delivered on peace. At best, Targaryens exchanged limited border warfare pre-Conquest for regular massive, pan-continental massacres the likes of which medieval Europe has never seen.

No, it isn't. Night's Watch is a clear example of what happens to institutions that lose their purpose. With Others passing into legends, there is no reason for people to enlist.

[Ylath's Snout]

13 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

Well, if this is the supposed incentive, then it obviously failed since constituent regions all maintain their own militaries. In fact, these militaries rose in number after Conquest (see Gardener/Lannister "biggest host yet" vs "modern" Westerosi army sizes), all without much evidence of overall population growth. 

That is a function of feudal society.

First as a matter of practicality. Troops a raised, trained and maintained locally by landed knights and bannermen. Sending them all to one location wouldn't work with given Westerosi infrastructure. King's Lands couldn't handle all the extra troops from all seven Kingdoms just chilling there on permanent deployment.

Second as a matter of politics. In a medieval feudal state like the Seven Kingdoms the state doesn't hold a monopoly on violence like a modern state does. Local lords are expected to use their troops to fight off bandits, slavers and unruly peasants without some explicit permission by the King. Furthermore it seems as though limited use of military power is seen as just a part of politics. No one is shocked by the idea using levy-troops to settle the conflict between Osgrey and Webber in The Sworn Sword. If New York and New Jersey used their national guards to fight over some bordered dispute in modern times we'd all have our jaws on the floor.

From what I know we don't really have the info to say if Targ rule resulted in more or less people dying in wars over time.

[Bernie Mac]

24 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

Well, if this is the supposed incentive, then it obviously failed since constituent regions all maintain their own militaries.

of course they do, but peace means they are dramatically smaller. Just to be clear, I stated there would be larger armies needed, at no point did I suggest that the military would be completely abandoned. 

24 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

In fact, these militaries rose in number after Conquest (see Gardener/Lannister "biggest host yet" vs "modern" Westerosi army sizes),

again, I was pretty clear on a 'standing army'.  these are not standing armies you are highlighting. 

24 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

all without much evidence of overall population growth. 

surely the size of that army is evidence of a population growth. the fact that three hundred years after  the field of fire the Reach alone can raise a larger army than the combined Reach and Westerlands army suggests quite strongly that the population has infact risen

24 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

The problem is, united Westeros never delivered on peace.

sure they did. peace has not been continuous, you won't find a single civilization over 300 years that has had continuous peace,  but there has been sustained peace. 

24 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

At best, Targaryens exchanged limited border warfare pre-Conquest for regular massive, pan-continental massacres the likes of which medieval Europe has never seen.

a handful of times in three centuries instead of the constant and regular warfare that existed before it. most lords would take that deal.

24 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

No, it isn't. Night's Watch is a clear example of what happens to institutions that lose their purpose. With Others passing into legends, there is no reason for people to enlist.

the nights watch was never about people, especially in the south, enlisting. it was about a place to send prisoners or mouths you could not feed. A united kingdom has meant a smaller nights watch, that is no coincidence. 

There is no more reason that the people living 400 years ago in the South of Westeros had reason to enlist in the watch any more than they do in the current climate. 

the long night was thousands of years ago, the Others have long been forgotten yet the Watch was 10,000 strong just 300 years ago and quickly declined under a united Westeros. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

The problem is, united Westeros never delivered on peace. At best, Targaryens exchanged limited border warfare pre-Conquest for regular massive, pan-continental massacres the likes of which medieval Europe has never seen.

Sorry, no. Even, the Dance, supposedly the most devastating war in Westerosi history, was a relative bloodless affair as far as we know. Sure, there was a lot of fighting in the Riverlands, in the Crownlands, in the Gullet, and in the Reach along the marching line of the Hightower army - but that's it, as far as we know. Dorne, most of the Reach, most of the West (the Ironborn only ravaged the coasts), the entire North, the entire Vale, and the Stormlands were not affected by the fighting.

This doesn't mean that not thousands of people died, but it is pretty obvious that many a Westerosi living through the Dance could have shrugged this war off just as the people of the Vale shrug the so-called War of the Five Kings off, claiming that there is peace in the Seven Kingdoms - at least at the part where they are living.

And the Blackfyre rebellions all seem to have been shorter and more bloodless affairs than the Dance.

[Pikachu101]

Because no one wanted to.

• The North: they were fighting for Robert, and even if someone offered the crown to Ned he would have refused
• The Vale: same as the North, even now Vale lords aren't suggesting to crown Robert they wanted to support Robb
• The Riverlands: the Tullys were never kings so they have no rights to declare a kingship
• The Reach: same issue as the Riverlands so they supported Aerys
• The Westerlands: Tywin's too rational to do something like that, he was simply waiting for a clear winner he could marry Cersei to
• The Stormlands: Robert was aiming to be King of Westeros
• Dorne: Elia's married to Rhaegar, so their fealty is to House Targaryen

Minus the Iron Islands you were either fighting for Robert or Aerys the issue of independence didn't emerge until after the Baratheon dynasty began to collapse. 

[Myrish Lace]

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

of course they do, but peace means they are dramatically smaller

As evidenced by Field of Fire comment, this is also not the case. The armies became dramatically larger as a consequence of Aegon's megalomania.

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

again, I was pretty clear on a 'standing army'.  these are not standing armies you are highlighting. 

We have no idea about the size of standing armies before or after the Conquest, so there is no reason to assume their reduction. If anything, larger wartime armies would require larger bulk of professionals to position the fodder around.

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

surely the size of that army is evidence of a population growth

No. As evidenced by the quotes you so helpfully colored red, in modern Westeros army size is not a result of growth of population or productivity. After ten years of summer, in a region most acutely aware of necessity to store supplies, raising "post Conquest"-sized army threatens to starve the population. If there is any evidence, it's the evidence that post-Conquest politics have resulted in such surge of violence and demand for cannon fodder that the Lords are forced to raise unsustainable armies, come what may after or even during the war.

In fact, Littlefinger banks on this unsustainability in Alayne chapter when he rejects "more than fair prices".

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

but there has been sustained peace.  

Medieval Europe was far from peaceful place, yet it somehow managed to avoid pan-continental warfare. What happened regularly in "united" Westeros never happened in Medieval Europe. Aegon's united Westeros with its "sustained peace" dragged Middle Ages continent into Early Modern warfare. Repeatedly.

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

A united kingdom has meant a smaller nights watch, that is no coincidence. 

"And so, year by year, the Watch has dwindled. Their own records prove that this decline has been in progress even before the age of Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters." - WoIaF.

A loss of purpose and prestige meant smaller nights watch - an this is indeed no coincidence. Good Maester complains that even modern Watch is too much for the realm to bear.

5 hours ago, Ylath's Snout said:

From what I know we don't really have the info to say if Targ rule resulted in more or less people dying in wars over time. 

Well, we have army sizes shooting up dramatically without any evidence of corresponding population growth. Daeron I alone loses almost as much people in Dorne as the biggest host before conquest.  We have wars that expanded dramatically in their scope - a war involving four Kingdoms would be unthinkable throughout 2000 (6000, 8000) years before Targaryens. We have a major city sacked three times as a big thing during the millennia before conquest - and we have the same number of sacks of major cities in mere three hundreds of years of supposedly united realm. 

It seems to me that the entire "let's start Early Modern pan-continental warfare in Middle Ages" stick doesn't work our for Westeros and results in more murder per time unit.