How long had the north wanted independence for?

[SFDanny]

The North remembers!

I don't think there is any doubt the Northern Lords, including the Starks, wanted independence from the moment Torrhen bent his knee. The only real question is what did they do, if any thing, after the dragons died to achieve that goal. Many people think that is exactly what Lord Rickard's "southron ambitions" was all about. Building the ties with southron lords with the same aim.

[The hairy bear]

6 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Not necessarily. Certainly in the modern world, where nations and nationalism are a thing, that's true. As you get further back into the Middle Ages, not always. I'll grant you, particularly in the case of the North, it seems likely.

Group identity has always been "a thing".

You are right that in Middle Ages the whole dynamic would be very different. The opinion of the common men wouldn't matter much, and nobles would prioritize their personal interest that their romantic feelings of homeland.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But that would go for all the Seven Kingdoms, no?

Sure. Although, of course, in the kingdoms with a racial/religious/cultural marked difference with their neighbors, and/or are more geographically isolated, the support for independence will probably be stronger.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

When the time comes to break the shackles of the Dragon only Jonos Arryn has the courage to crown himself - no Lannister and no Stark dares to do that. That implies that nobody important up there dreamed of independence.

I don't interpret it that way. The Baratheons, the Tyrells and the Tullys were not in a position to rebel, as they owed their position to the Targaryen regime.

Lannisters and Stark had bent their knees three decades ago because the Tragaryens had three dragons. Now they had at least double (Quicksilver, Vermithor and Dreamfyre for sure. Perhaps Silverwing too). It would be dumb to rebel on the spur of the moment. Wait and see was much more prudent.

When the ruling family owns dragons, we can't take the fact that people doesn't dare to rebel against them as a prove that they are content with the submission.

[Ser Lepus]

I don't think they cared much for independence until Ned Stark was killed. They live in a feudal system: Commoners are ruled by their lord, and don't care much about the crown. Lords care about their own privileges and quarrels, try to keep their own vassals under control while trying to chip away and steal advantages, privileges and bits of power from their neighbors and from their own lieges...

The Starks probably chafed under the Targaryan rule at times, but they probably were too busy with their own problems to care about the south most of the time...

 

[Lord Varys]

On 9/28/2018 at 8:42 PM, The hairy bear said:

You are right that in Middle Ages the whole dynamic would be very different. The opinion of the common men wouldn't matter much, and nobles would prioritize their personal interest that their romantic feelings of homeland.

I'm not really sure if they identify with a 'homeland' that is the kingdom. For Bolton and Umber men Winterfell isn't their 'home' as such, and they wouldn't have much in common with them.

Keep in mind that the kings of old didn't have dragons - they would have had much more issues with real or de facto independence movements - from people crowning themselves from others going the 'yeah, we bend the knee alright, but we continue to do what we have always done, and nobody can stop us'.

The kingdoms are pretty old, but they borders were never fixed for long, considering that there was apparently a never-ending war between the Seven Kingdoms.

On 9/28/2018 at 8:42 PM, The hairy bear said:

Sure. Although, of course, in the kingdoms with a racial/religious/cultural marked difference with their neighbors, and/or are more geographically isolated, the support for independence will probably be stronger.

I'm not that sure. Loyalty and devotion in a feudal society is personal and dynastic, not to an abstract region. If the Northmen are fine with being Targaryen subjects they don't care that this makes them part of a larger realm they don't interact with that much anyway.

People in as vast a region as the North or the Reach would, perhaps, feel culturally at home in the region from which they are - say, the Oldtown region, or the Arbor, or Bear Island, or the Rills, etc. but not 'the North' as such.

People right now want to avenge the Starks but not defend 'the North' against 'foreign oppression'.

Even Dorne doesn't seem to think in such categories - they just don't want to bent the knee, they don't have issues with being part of a larger realm - especially since this never actually happened.

On 9/28/2018 at 8:42 PM, The hairy bear said:

I don't interpret it that way. The Baratheons, the Tyrells and the Tullys were not in a position to rebel, as they owed their position to the Targaryen regime.

They also don't have the standing to presume to actually rule as kings over their people (except for the Baratheons).

On 9/28/2018 at 8:42 PM, The hairy bear said:

Lannisters and Stark had bent their knees three decades ago because the Tragaryens had three dragons. Now they had at least double (Quicksilver, Vermithor and Dreamfyre for sure. Perhaps Silverwing too). It would be dumb to rebel on the spur of the moment. Wait and see was much more prudent.

But Jonos Arryn did rebel, as did the other rebels. And then the Faith Militant and its lordly supporters. Are you trying to tell us that the Starks, Lannisters, etc. simply lacked the balls to do what they wanted to do?

Casterly Rock could effectively have ignored the dragons. Balerion and Vhagar cannot destroy or trouble the Rock. And any ambitious lord - especially the former kings - with brains would have tried to acquire their own dragons, rather than killing them. And as we see with Tywin and Mace - after the dragons are gone you try to get your own family on the throne, not go back to the middle ages, basically.

On 9/28/2018 at 8:42 PM, The hairy bear said:

When the ruling family owns dragons, we can't take the fact that people doesn't dare to rebel against them as a prove that they are content with the submission.

If they had been discontent the Realm wouldn't have survived Aegon III's and Viserys II's mad descendants.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

I'm still curious about any of the Northern Houses involvement, or lack thereof, in the Blackfyre Rebellions. Do we not hear about it because they happened too fast for any of the Northern Houses to assemble their men and march south? Surely the Crown called upon the North to pledge fealty to the rightful King, Daeron Targaryen, when the rest of the Houses in the realm were choosing sides. Speaking of King Daeron, did the Crown send any aid to Winterfell during the Skagosi rebellion? It did go on for years, long enough for the Crown to send help. The North and it Houses were a factor in the Dance of Dragons, but after that we don't hear about any involvement on their end since that war, at least none that I can recall. Is this because of a disconnect between the North and Targaryens? Or simple a geography issue?  I thought the North fought in the War of the Ninepenny Kings, yet we don't hear about any Northern lords fighting in it like we do with the Lannisters, Baratheon Greyjoys and Tullys.

Edit: It seems Lord Dustin is noted as fighting in the tWotNK.

[Lord Varys]

24 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I'm still curious about any of the Northern Houses involvement, or lack thereof, in the Blackfyre Rebellions.

While, for the most part, they didn't give a rat's ass about Maegor nor the first Daemon Blackfyre (as far as we know) I don't think there is a good reason to assume that they were involved in any of those wars. 

24 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Do we not hear about it because they happened too fast for any of the Northern Houses to assemble their men and march south? Surely the Crown called upon the North to pledge fealty to the rightful King, Daeron Targaryen, when the rest of the Houses in the realm were choosing sides.

Why should that be? Winterfell and the North would have done homage to King Daeron II at his coronation, or in the years after that. There is no reason to believe that Daeron II would call on them twelve years later when some prince was rebelling. Granted, he may have asked for help, but since Cregan came too late during the Dance chances are not that good that Lord Stark showed up in time for the Blackfyre Rebellion(s) which all lasted only for one year.

24 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Speaking of King Daeron, did the Crown send any aid to Winterfell during the Skagosi rebellion? It did go on for years, long enough for the Crown to send help. The North and it Houses were a factor in the Dance of Dragons, but after that we don't hear about any involvement on their end since that war, at least none that I can recall. Is this because of a disconnect between the North and Targaryens? Or simple a geography issue?  I thought the North fought in the War of the Ninepenny Kings, yet we don't hear about any Northern lords fighting in it like we do with the Lannisters, Baratheon Greyjoys and Tullys.

Edit: It seems Lord Dustin is noted as fighting in the tWotNK.

We don't hear anything about that because this era is not worked out in detail.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Why should that be? Winterfell and the North would have done homage to King Daeron II at his coronation, or in the years after that. There is no reason to believe that Daeron II would call on them twelve years later when some prince was rebelling

Would it not be reasonable for Daeron to make sure he still had the loyalty and support of the Northern lords in case he needed them against the Blackfyres?  To make sure he treated with them just in case the Blackfyres tried to sway them to their cause? Similar to the way Rhaenyra Targaryen sent Jacaerys up to confirm and secure her alliances in the North. Daeron couldn't send a dragon and rider but he could have sent ravens. Unless he was 100% confident the conflict would be over by the time any of the Northern lords could make it south.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Granted, he may have asked for help, but since Cregan came too late during the Dance chances are not that good that Lord Stark showed up in time for the Blackfyre Rebellion(s) which all lasted only for one year.

I wasn't talking about the Starks specifically though, that's why I said any of the Northern Houses. The same way the Manderlys and Roderick Dustin came in time for the Dance of Dragons.

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Would it not be reasonable for Daeron to make sure he still had the loyalty and support of the Northern lords in case he needed them against the Blackfyres?  To make sure he treated with them just in case the Blackfyres tried to sway them to their cause? Similar to the way Rhaenyra Targaryen sent Jacaerys up to confirm and secure her alliances in the North. Daeron couldn't send a dragon and rider but he could have sent ravens. Unless he was 100% confident the conflict would be over by the time any of the Northern lords could make it south.

Aegon II and Rhaenyra are a completely different case. Here Rhaenyra challenged Aegon's usurpation immediately, whereas Daeron II ruled for twelve years - and very successfully at that - and then Daemon rebelled against him. The default position is to stand with Daeron II. The man would ask for troops but not demand that do him homage that have already done so, presumably repeatedly.

7 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I wasn't talking about the Starks specifically though, that's why I said any of the Northern Houses. The same way the Manderlys and Roderick Dustin came in time for the Dance of Dragons.

There is certainly a chance that some Northmen showed up in the war, just as Prince Aegon was supported by a bastard of Barrowton, but I don't think the North is going to be play a great role in any of the Blackfyre Rebellions.

[Bowen 747]

On 9/26/2018 at 5:58 PM, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

How Long has the north wanted independence for?

Did most northern lords really want independence for a while and brooded until an opportunity arose or were they just sick of the crown killing starks and the greatjon had a drunken idea?

The lords never wanted to become part of the kingdom.  The small folk, I believe, felt differently and welcomed the arrival of the Targaryens.  If the reception that Queen Allysanne received at White Harbor is an indication, it seems the small folk wanted to become part of the Targaryen kingdom.  We also learned from the book passage (Fire and Blood) that the Starks are not as loved as many assumed they were.  

1. Northern Lords - Never wanted to be part of the kingdom.  
2. Northern Smallfolk - Welcomed the Targaryen control.  

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

On ‎9‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 7:42 PM, The hairy bear said:

Group identity has always been "a thing".

Yes, but nationalism hasn't.

 

[The hairy bear]

3 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Yes, but nationalism hasn't.

I disagree. Unless you restrict the definition of "nationalism" to the "romantic nationalism" that developed by the 19th century.

There are scholars that defend, for instance, that England was already a nation by the 8th century, when Bede wrote his history of the English people. In it, Bede uses the word nation ("historia nostrae nationis") and uses "English" to refer to all the different germanic tribes that lived in Britain (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, but excluding Britons, Scots and Picts). Some years later, an Anglo-Saxon poem praised king Ethelred for defending "their land, the place and the people". In that poem, the Earl of Essex is quoted saying "Shall our people, our nation, bear you to go hence with our gold?"

After the Norman conquest, a chronicler talks about the battle of Hastings saying: "That fatal day for England, the sad destruction of our dear country [dulcis patrie]". He also lamented: "England has become the habitation of outsiders and the dominion of foreigners. Today, no Englishman is earl, bishop, or abbot, and newcomers gnaw away at the riches and very innards of England; nor is there any hope for an end of this misery".

On 9/30/2018 at 1:36 AM, Lord Varys said:

I'm not really sure if they identify with a 'homeland' that is the kingdom. For Bolton and Umber men Winterfell isn't their 'home' as such, and they wouldn't have much in common with them

I see Greatjon's proclamation of Jon as a clear example that there's a feeling of a Northern homeland.

"Why should they rule over me and mine, from some flowery seat in Highgarden or Dorne? What do they know of the Wall or the wolfswood or the barrows of the First Men? Even their gods are wrong."

The Wall is close to Last Hearth. The Wolfwood is notably far away, but the barrows of the First Men are in the other side of the continent.

The North is the only kingdom where the Old Gods are the majority religion and the First Men are the major ethnicity. They have other unifying factors that set them apart from the rest (geography, effect of the Winters,...)

On 9/30/2018 at 1:36 AM, Lord Varys said:

If they had been discontent the Realm wouldn't have survived Aegon III's and Viserys II's mad descendants.

I'm not saying that all lords Stark or Lannister after the conquest were fervent secessionists. I'm not even saying that the majority opinion on the North (or any other kingdom) was pro-independence.

I'm only saying that, without doubt, there was some people in those kingdoms (not necessarily the Great Lords) that wished to regain independence. Whether they were a lot or a few, we don't know. Of course they were not enough to  make an identifiable impact on the course of history. But the Greatjon would not have made a proclamation like he did, and Maege Mormont would not have shouted "The King of Winter" (the ancient title of the Kings of the North), if the idea of independence had been alien to them before.

I'm not saying I disagree with all you say. In fact, I agree with most of it. In Middle Ages, people's loyalty was mostly directer to their own lord. And, as Jorah says, commoners care more for good harvests and healthy children than about who wins the game of thrones. But that doesn't mean that communities didn't have a larger cultural identities they identified with. And some, preferred to be ruled by someone of that identity.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

I disagree. Unless you restrict the definition of "nationalism" to the "romantic nationalism" that developed by the 19th century.

There are scholars that defend, for instance, that England was already a nation by the 8th century, when Bede wrote his history of the English people. In it, Bede uses the word nation ("historia nostrae nationis") and uses "English" to refer to all the different germanic tribes that lived in Britain (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, but excluding Britons, Scots and Picts). Some years later, an Anglo-Saxon poem praised king Ethelred for defending "their land, the place and the people". In that poem, the Earl of Essex is quoted saying "Shall our people, our nation, bear you to go hence with our gold?"

After the Norman conquest, a chronicler talks about the battle of Hastings saying: "That fatal day for England, the sad destruction of our dear country [dulcis patrie]". He also lamented: "England has become the habitation of outsiders and the dominion of foreigners. Today, no Englishman is earl, bishop, or abbot, and newcomers gnaw away at the riches and very innards of England; nor is there any hope for an end of this misery".

There’s a weird insistence by certain historians to try to project our own values onto the past. The term “nation” may well have preceded the advent of nationalism (of course, the word had to be derived from somewhere), but a cogent, political idea of nation and nationhood did not emerge until the end of the Middle Ages.

There were of course concepts of community, kingdom, region, etc, etc. But the debate really was about your assertion that all conquered regions in history have had some sort of independence movement. That’s certainly not held up by looking at the Middle Ages, as it assumes that the poplace would have viewed themselves as having been occupied from the outside. In the Middle Ages, the feudal tribute would have simply passed from one lord to another, and the idea of national independence would have been alien.

There are, of course, plenty of examples of independence movements of sorts in the Middle Ages, such as Scotland, Wales and France. These were often about a rejection of a foreign king in favour of a native one – a support for their traditional dynasty. That would probably be analogous with any rejection of the Targaryens by the North, but would only really work if a Stark decided that they should be King in the North again. If they didn’t, then I doubt any Northern lord would rebel. What king would they rebel in the name of?

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

On 9/30/2018 at 9:06 PM, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I'm still curious about any of the Northern Houses involvement, or lack thereof, in the Blackfyre Rebellions. Do we not hear about it because they happened too fast for any of the Northern Houses to assemble their men and march south? Surely the Crown called upon the North to pledge fealty to the rightful King, Daeron Targaryen, when the rest of the Houses in the realm were choosing sides. Speaking of King Daeron, did the Crown send any aid to Winterfell during the Skagosi rebellion? It did go on for years, long enough for the Crown to send help. The North and it Houses were a factor in the Dance of Dragons, but after that we don't hear about any involvement on their end since that war, at least none that I can recall. Is this because of a disconnect between the North and Targaryens? Or simple a geography issue?  I thought the North fought in the War of the Ninepenny Kings, yet we don't hear about any Northern lords fighting in it like we do with the Lannisters, Baratheon Greyjoys and Tullys.

Edit: It seems Lord Dustin is noted as fighting in the tWotNK.

Well the only Blackfyre Rebellions the North could've fought in was the 1st or 5th imo. All the other seem to have been fought too quick for a Northern army to gather then make the march south. Do we know when the Skagosi rebellion happened? I can't remember off the top of my head but it could've been the reason the North didn't fight in the 1st Blackfyre rebellion. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

I see Greatjon's proclamation of Jon as a clear example that there's a feeling of a Northern homeland.

"Why should they rule over me and mine, from some flowery seat in Highgarden or Dorne? What do they know of the Wall or the wolfswood or the barrows of the First Men? Even their gods are wrong."

The Wall is close to Last Hearth. The Wolfwood is notably far away, but the barrows of the First Men are in the other side of the continent.

The North is the only kingdom where the Old Gods are the majority religion and the First Men are the major ethnicity. They have other unifying factors that set them apart from the rest (geography, effect of the Winters,...)

But this is an answer to the decline and eventual end (from their point of view) of the unifying power of the Iron Throne. The Targaryens are gone, and the Baratheons simply aren't the dragons. Robert was Ned's friend, but now his son has killed the man.

We don't know whether the Greatjon would have said something like that back in the Targaryen days. Only if we could say that we could say there was a continuous desire of independence.

One would imagine that Torrhen Stark and his predecessors, lacking dragons, had to deal with independence movements, too. And if this were so then back then 'the North' may not have truly existed as proto-nation-like entity. The fact that they suddenly were part of a much larger realm could have greatly contributed to see what they had all in common and what set them apart from the southerners they wouldn't have had that much contact with back before the Conquest.

The Ironborn always kept and preserved their desire for the old way. They are not tamed or changed by people who conquer them. But the Northmen aren't the Ironborn.

In fact, if one looks at the whole thing realistically then the Starks would have been very weak kings if one looks at the entire North. The Skagosi and the Boltons and the Umbers, etc. may have just recognized them nominally as their overlords while effectively continuing to rule their lands the way they did when they were still kings/independent.

By comparison, the control the Arryns had over their lands would have been much stronger considering how small their kingdom is by comparison. The wealth and strength of Casterly Rock would also have mad the Lannisters very powerful kings, and the Gardeners were masterful moderators. Stark power is more likely to have waxed and wane the way the Durrandon power did - in part due to the rebellions and secessions, in part just paying lip service to Stark rule.

1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

I'm only saying that, without doubt, there was some people in those kingdoms (not necessarily the Great Lords) that wished to regain independence. Whether they were a lot or a few, we don't know. Of course they were not enough to  make an identifiable impact on the course of history. But the Greatjon would not have made a proclamation like he did, and Maege Mormont would not have shouted "The King of Winter" (the ancient title of the Kings of the North), if the idea of independence had been alien to them before.

It could have been a spur of the moment thing. And the whole motivation there is more vengeance and payback than a desire for independence. They don't know what to do but they want to hurt the Lannisters and King Joffrey. What better way to actually steal a decent chunk of his kingdoms? Robb has lost his father, Rickard Karstark has lost his sons.

People usually forget that the Riverlords - who technically should have no interest in 'independence' whatsoever - also agree with this idea. In fact, there are more Riverlords there at Riverrun when Robb is proclaimed than there are Northmen. Which has to be considered when looking at this.

1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

I'm not saying I disagree with all you say. In fact, I agree with most of it. In Middle Ages, people's loyalty was mostly directer to their own lord. And, as Jorah says, commoners care more for good harvests and healthy children than about who wins the game of thrones. But that doesn't mean that communities didn't have a larger cultural identities they identified with. And some, preferred to be ruled by someone of that identity.

I'm actually not that sure I agree with Jorah there. Commoners usually were great fans of their kings - and are till this day if you take the British as an example - whereas they actually tend to see their immediate lords and princes as closer oppressors (or royal officials) since the monarch is so far away and a symbol of unity and justice at that.

The history pieces have repeatedly shown that the smallfolk are Targaryen men and women in this world, and that seems to include the North. In the North they also love the Starks, and if they have to choose between the dragon and the direwolf they likely would take the wolf.

There is no indication that anyone in the North views the Targaryens as 'evil foreign oppressors' or that they have principal issues with the fact that the North is part of a larger realm. They only have issues with the present day rulers of the Iron Throne and the present royal family.

[The hairy bear]

3 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

There’s a weird insistence by certain historians to try to project our own values onto the past.

In my post I included several quotes written in the Middle Ages that I see as clearly nationalist. There are many other clear examples in the past: a good example is how the independent Greek city states clearly saw themselves as a part of a common people, and when the Persians attacked their brothers in Ionia (Anatolia), they rose to their defense. In the contemporary accounts, this sense of pan-Hellenic feeling is clearly stated.

In the Bible we find another instance of a another group of people who clearly share views that I don't see how could be deemed "non-nationalistic".

Again, I can accept that the mindsets and aspirations of the average man two millenarian ago are quite different than ours. But can't see how can we ignore the nationalistic component in their writings and legacies. And if you dislike the term "nationalism" and prefer any other one, I'm fine with it. Semantics is not my forte. The point is just that people with a common cultural heritage tend to prefer to have as a ruler one of their own.

3 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

There are, of course, plenty of examples of independence movements of sorts in the Middle Ages, such as Scotland, Wales and France. These were often about a rejection of a foreign king in favour of a native one – a support for their traditional dynasty. That would probably be analogous with any rejection of the Targaryens by the North, but would only really work if a Stark decided that they should be King in the North again. If they didn’t, then I doubt any Northern lord would rebel. What king would they rebel in the name of? 

I'm sure that you'll agree that we can't take the fact that at any given time there was no claimant to the Scottish throne as a proof that no one in Scotland would have preferred to have a Scottish king. It's the same with the North.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

One would imagine that Torrhen Stark and his predecessors, lacking dragons, had to deal with independence movements, too. And if this were so then back then 'the North' may not have truly existed as proto-nation-like entity. The fact that they suddenly were part of a much larger realm could have greatly contributed to see what they had all in common and what set them apart from the southerners they wouldn't have had that much contact with back before the Conquest.

The Ironborn always kept and preserved their desire for the old way. They are not tamed or changed by people who conquer them. But the Northmen aren't the Ironborn.

In fact, if one looks at the whole thing realistically then the Starks would have been very weak kings if one looks at the entire North. The Skagosi and the Boltons and the Umbers, etc. may have just recognized them nominally as their overlords while effectively continuing to rule their lands the way they did when they were still kings/independent.

By comparison, the control the Arryns had over their lands would have been much stronger considering how small their kingdom is by comparison. The wealth and strength of Casterly Rock would also have mad the Lannisters very powerful kings, and the Gardeners were masterful moderators. Stark power is more likely to have waxed and wane the way the Durrandon power did - in part due to the rebellions and secessions, in part just paying lip service to Stark rule.

I wholly agree with all that.

The Northmen surely are not Ironborn, but there are hints that the Northmen also view themselves as a cultural unity, and different from the rest. Eddard and other Northeners continuously repeat that they are "the blood of the First Men", and do thinks differently than in the South.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It could have been a spur of the moment thing. And the whole motivation there is more vengeance and payback than a desire for independence. They don't know what to do but they want to hurt the Lannisters and King Joffrey. What better way to actually steal a decent chunk of his kingdoms? Robb has lost his father, Rickard Karstark has lost his sons. 

If vengeance had been the primary motive, they could have joint Stannis or Renly. And Greatjon's speech didn't include a single call to vengeance. I won't say that it didn't play a part, but I struggle to see it as the main reason.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

People usually forget that the Riverlords - who technically should have no interest in 'independence' whatsoever - also agree with this idea. In fact, there are more Riverlords there at Riverrun when Robb is proclaimed than there are Northmen. Which has to be considered when looking at this.

I'm not sure there was a significant imbalance. Catleyn counts five Riverlords (Blackwood, Bracken, Mallister, Darry and Vance, and four Northern lords (Umber, Karstark, Mormont and Glover).

In any case, the idea of declaring independence is clearly a Northern thing: First the Greatjon, then Rickard, then Maege. It's not a coincidence, I'm convinced, that they are three of the Northernmost lords, where they'd be more isolated and with minimal Andal influence. Only after them, the riverlords bandwagon in.

[Bernie Mac]

On 9/27/2018 at 8:27 AM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

If there was a strong movement for independence, then there would likely have been at least some attempt to realise it, particularly after the last of the dragons died out. It appears the Starks were happy enough by that point to remain loyal to the Iron Throne. Three hundred years is a long time, and fealty became a habit.

I agree with this, obviously there will have been some lords (even Starks) who will have wanted independence in the last 3 centuries and there will even be some Northern lords who will have wanted to return to a time when they themselves were independent of the Starks but clearly not enough support for such a rebellion has ever materialized. 

Some of the fandom confuse the North in the books with Braveheart (the historically inaccurate film rather than the actual man) and see the North as this powder keg of rebellion when, from what we know this far, it is simply not the case. 

 

 

 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

7 hours ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

Well the only Blackfyre Rebellions the North could've fought in was the 1st or 5th imo. All the other seem to have been fought too quick for a Northern army to gather then make the march south. Do we know when the Skagosi rebellion happened? I can't remember off the top of my head but it could've been the reason the North didn't fight in the 1st Blackfyre rebellion. 

I believe the Skagosi rebellion did in fact happen during the reign of Daeron II, who was king during the first Blackfyre rebellion. So what you said could very well be the case. It seems the Skagosi rebellion went for longer than the first Blackfyre rebellion. It would be pretty interesting if the Skagosi and Blackfyre rebellions were happening at the same time. I hope we find out more about the Skagosi rebellion, possibly with the Rickon Stark plot line. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

14 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

There are many other clear examples in the past: a good example is how the independent Greek city states clearly saw themselves as a part of a common people, and when the Persians attacked their brothers in Ionia (Anatolia), they rose to their defense. In the contemporary accounts, this sense of pan-Hellenic feeling is clearly stated.

In the Bible we find another instance of a another group of people who clearly share views that I don't see how could be deemed "non-nationalistic".

Sorry, but you're confusing a sense of community or affinity with nationalism. You could point to any number of examples where people from the same area or political body or culture share a sense of unity. The roots of nationalism are in this, but it's not nationalism properly speaking.

14 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

The point is just that people with a common cultural heritage tend to prefer to have as a ruler one of their own.

Yes, but there's more to it than where the monarch happens to be from. Lineage was important. Often medieval people would prefer someone from the dynasty, even if they had never set foot in the country in question, rather than a native ruler with no claim.

14 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

I'm sure that you'll agree that we can't take the fact that at any given time there was no claimant to the Scottish throne as a proof that no one in Scotland would have preferred to have a Scottish king. It's the same with the North.

When was this? If we're talking about in the reign of Edward I, there were several claimants, and actually the Scottish nobility would change sides depending on who the main claimant was. The Bruce fought on the side of Edward I when Baliol was the main claimant, and the Comyns supported the English when Bruce was. Lineage was seen as more important than national affinity.

 

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

20 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I believe the Skagosi rebellion did in fact happen during the reign of Daeron II, who was king during the first Blackfyre rebellion. So what you said could very well be the case. It seems the Skagosi rebellion went for longer than the first Blackfyre rebellion. It would be pretty interesting if the Skagosi and Blackfyre rebellions were happening at the same time. I hope we find out more about the Skagosi rebellion, possibly with the Rickon Stark plot line. 

We'll either find out about the Skagosi rebellion from the Rickon and Davos plot line or FaB volume 2, I would think. I do like the idea that the Skagosi rebellion was going on at the same time as the 1st Blackfyre rebellion.