Jump to content
The Wolves

Pros and Cons of 9 Kingdoms

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

Don't know what you call noteworthy...

Some mess that ends with the King dying (like the Peake uprising) or hostage ( Duskendale) seems very noteworthy to me.

Dalton was a bother to at least two other kingdoms, he caused the death of lord Stark and a troublesome sucession. This is not irrelevant.

Your  original point was that in a unified Westeros, wars are still constant  and the toll of lives are much higher, ok. Then don't bring up pretty irrelevant (in context), the Defiance and the Peake uprising etc are minor  events. If so, why don't bring in the mix the Smiling Knight and his gang??

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, frenin said:

Your  original point was that in a unified Westeros, wars are still constant  and the toll of lives are much higher, ok. Then don't bring up pretty irrelevant (in context), the Defiance and the Peake uprising etc are minor  events.

The Dusnkendale defiance ended the line of a noble family and is treated as cleary sigh of Aerys cruelty and madness, seems very clear to me that it was a bloody affair. And we don't have enough information about the Peake Uprising to say it was a minor skirmish, the king literaly died there, if it was a minor problem the Tyrell lord at the time would have dealed with it without dragging the king into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

The Dusnkendale defiance ended the line of a noble family and is treated as cleary sigh of Aerys cruelty and madness, seems very clear to me that it was a bloody affair. And we don't have enough information about the Peake Uprising to say it was a minor skirmish, the king literaly died there, if it was a minor problem the Tyrell lord at the time would have dealed with it without dragging the king into it.

Is the Defiance treated as such?? I don't really see it that way. It ended up in a bloody affair for Aerys.

Or Maekar, a war like King, would like to deal  with it regardless of common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frenin said:

Is the Defiance treated as such?? I don't really see it that way. It ended up in a bloody affair for Aerys.

Or Maekar, a war like King, would like to deal  with it regardless of common sense.

Ned would not call for Robert when he thought of dealing with Mance.

“Is it the wildlings?” she asked.

“Who else?” Ned lifted Ice, looked down the cool steel length of it. “And it will only grow worse. The day may come when I will have no choice but to call the banners and ride north to deal with this King-beyond-the-Wall for good and all.”

“Beyond the Wall?” The thought made Catelyn shudder. Ned saw the dread on her face.

“Mance Rayder is nothing for us to fear.”

And Robert was a war like King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arthur Peres said:

Ned would not call for Robert when he thought of dealing with Mance.

“Is it the wildlings?” she asked.

“Who else?” Ned lifted Ice, looked down the cool steel length of it. “And it will only grow worse. The day may come when I will have no choice but to call the banners and ride north to deal with this King-beyond-the-Wall for good and all.”

“Beyond the Wall?” The thought made Catelyn shudder. Ned saw the dread on her face.

“Mance Rayder is nothing for us to fear.”

And Robert was a war like King

And if Robert ever Heard about his buddy fighting somewhere else, what do you think he would've done?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, frenin said:

And if Robert ever Heard about his buddy fighting somewhere else, what do you think he would've done?? 

I expect him to do nothing, as Ned tried to talk to him, only to be ignored

Ned had his suspicions, but he did not give them voice. “For the joy of my company, surely,” he said lightly. “And there is the Wall. You need to see it, Your Grace, to walk along its battlements and talk to those who man it. The Night’s Watch is a shadow of what it once was. Benjen says—”

“No doubt I will hear what your brother says soon enough,” Robert said. “The Wall has stood for what, eight thousand years? It can keep a few days more. I have more pressing concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

I expect him to do nothing, as Ned tried to talk to him, only to be ignored

Ned had his suspicions, but he did not give them voice. “For the joy of my company, surely,” he said lightly. “And there is the Wall. You need to see it, Your Grace, to walk along its battlements and talk to those who man it. The Night’s Watch is a shadow of what it once was. Benjen says—”

“No doubt I will hear what your brother says soon enough,” Robert said. “The Wall has stood for what, eight thousand years? It can keep a few days more. I have more pressing concerns.

??? "No doubt i'll hear what uour brother says son enough", "I have more pressing concerns". Robert did not ignore Ned, as he said, he would hear Benjen in another moment, that's not to say that he would miss the party if he feels himself invited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, frenin said:

??? "No doubt i'll hear what uour brother says son enough", "I have more pressing concerns". Robert did not ignore Ned, as he said, he would hear Benjen in another moment, that's not to say that he would miss the party if he feels himself invited.

Robert either never talked with Benjen or ignored him... He never took any action against Mance, and went south taking Ned away and letting Robb a 14 years old in charge to deal with it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

Robert either never talked with Benjen or ignored him... He never took any action against Mance, and went south taking Ned away and letting Robb a 14 years old in charge to deal with it...

Just as Ned did, or how many thoughts do you think Ned gave it afterwards?? We were talking about a war scenario, the kind of invasión the Watch later suffers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A united monarch is better for the masses instead of many kingdoms. The Law is better, the Wars are far less and there is stability which brings progress and many times big changes for the better through united revolution of the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very skeptical regarding Maester Yandel's claims praising the benefits of the unified monarchy. Given that he was writing a book addressed to a king on the Iron Throne, and that the Citadel itself has its own biases, I'd take his words with a grain of salt.

For instance, in relation to his claim that the population doubled ruing the Conciliator's reign, one would assume that if that was true the sizes of the armies during the Conquest would be much smaller than during the War of the Five Kings. And that's not the case (Torrhen gathered 30k Northmen, while Robb only raised 20k).

 

On 2/13/2020 at 9:22 AM, frenin said:

the Country spent like 8k years or so in rather constant  war.

I don't think it's fair to present pre-Conquest Westeros as if it was a place where constant major wars were the norm.

Let's take the North as an example (since it's the kingdom we have more info). We know that Moat Cailin has remained as the Southern border since times immemorial. We know that last territorial changes (losing the Three Sisters and gaining Bear Island) were established centuries ago. The last major war that involved the North seems to be the War Across the Water against the Vale, and that took place a thousand years before Aegon.

Therefore, we should assume that in the 700 years before the Conquest, the North was basically in peace except for the occasional raid from the wildlings or the Ironmen.

Post conquest we have also raids from wildlings (Redbeard) and the Ironmen (Dagon, Balon). And we have to add to this the involvement in external conflicts such as the Dance, the Conquest of Dorne, Robert's Rebellion or the Wot5K.

It's hard to me to buy the idea that post-Conquest Westeros was much more peaceful than pre-Conquest Westeros. It seems to me that the level of conflict before the invasion tends to be exaggerated, and that in reality it was mostly a matter of border skirmishes and minor feuds.:fencing:

9 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

That's 5 major wars during a period of 300 years, or one war every 60 years. Given that pre conquest Westeros was probably very similar to Western and Central Europe in the middle ages, trust me a war every 60 years is very good.

I'm not sure about that. To use same place and period George took most of his inspiration from, here's a list of all the wars England was involved in. Looking at 13th, 14th and 15th centuries, and using the same restrictions as you do (only full scale wars in English soil), I only count 5 ~ 7  of what you call "major wars".

Edited by The hairy bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

ere's a list of all the wars England was involved in. Looking at 13th, 14th and 15th centuries, and using the same restrictions as you do (only full scale wars in English soil), I only count 5 ~ 7  of what you call "major wars".

Yes but look at how long they lasted. The shitshows known as the Anarchy, the 2 major scottish wars and the war of the roses all lasted for decades. That is without mentioning the constant state of war with France, known as the 100 years war. Meanwhile Westerosi wars were all rather short, lasting one or 2 years and usually ending in one simple decisive battle. And with the exception of The Dance and the War of the 5 kings, the civilians didn't seem to suffer that much. 

Also, the unification was worth it just for stopping Ironborn conquest and raiding, as well as the implementation of a unified code of laws, and the fact that in a post unification Westeros the church is under clear state control and there seems to be no religious persecution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

I am very skeptical regarding Maester Yandel's claims praising the benefits of the unified monarchy. Given that he was writing a book addressed to a king on the Iron Throne, and that the Citadel itself has its own biases, I'd take his words with a grain of salt.



For instance, in relation to his claim that the population doubled ruing the Conciliator's reign, one would assume that if that was true the sizes of the armies during the Conquest would be much smaller than during the War of the Five Kings. And that's not the case (Torrhen gathered 30k Northmen, while Robb only raised 20k).

They were Glydan's claim.

We know why Robb only raised 20k, he had no time to amass an army and march south

 

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

I don't think it's fair to present pre-Conquest Westeros as if it was a place where constant major wars were the norm.

Let's take the North as an example (since it's the kingdom we have more info). We know that Moat Cailin has remained as the Southern border since times immemorial. We know that last territorial changes (losing the Three Sisters and gaining Bear Island) were established centuries ago. The last major war that involved the North seems to be the War Across the Water against the Vale, and that took place a thousand years before Aegon.

Therefore, we should assume that in the 700 years before the Conquest, the North was basically in peace except for the occasional raid from the wildlings or the Ironmen.

Post conquest we have also raids from wildlings (Redbeard) and the Ironmen (Dagon, Balon). And we have to add to this the involvement in external conflicts such as the Dance, the Conquest of Dorne, Robert's Rebellion or the Wot5K.

It's hard to me to buy the idea that post-Conquest Westeros was much more peaceful than pre-Conquest Westeros. It seems to me that the level of conflict before the invasion tends to be exaggerated, and that in reality it was mostly a matter of border skirmishes and minor feuds.

The thing is that the occasional raids from wildlings or and especially ironmen were nothing but occasional. Actually, the most pacific kingdom should be the Vale, given its natural borders and the fact that they lack of iron assholes. The Ironmen were a constant pain in the ass. And Dorne, the Reach, the Westerlands, the Riverlands and the Stormlands were in constant war. It wouldbe imposible that those kingdoms could pass more tan 2 years without fighting each other for a Petty slight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2020 at 8:20 PM, The Wolves said:

I am in favor of Westeros breaking back into smaller kingdoms. I know there were many wars fought during the time of separation but I think I would like it better as separate. I also wouldn’t mind the great houses keeping their power. The Iron Throne is too much and should be burned to the ground. 
 

 

I disagree.  What's good for the great houses is not what's good for the majority of people.  Most of whom are not highborn.  Separate kingdoms meant constant fighting among themselves.  Westeros needed the Targaryens to force the great houses and bring them under their rule.  Think how savage places like the North and the Iron Islands would continue to be were it not for the Targaryens.  Those buttheads would still openly practice the right of the first night, and sacrificing people to their damned weir woods.  If Westeros is likened to the body, the north is the poop chute of the continent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 11:25 PM, frenin said:

]

We know why Robb only raised 20k, he had no time to amass an army and march south

No, that is not true. Robb raised the army, at no point does he claim he did not have more time.

He has the entire war to call for reinforcements, he never does. When news of Winterfell is took he eventually marches home taking his entire Northern army with him and still counting on the Freys to support him taking Moat Cailin. The North itself was pretty tapped out, with many regions only having grey beards and green boys to call on.

With 20k gone the North was stretched thin, taking even more would have been even more disastrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 6:50 AM, frenin said:

Your  original point was that in a unified Westeros, wars are still constant  and the toll of lives are much higher, ok. Then don't bring up pretty irrelevant (in context), the Defiance and the Peake uprising etc are minor  events. If so, why don't bring in the mix the Smiling Knight and his gang??

GRRM has stated on multiple occasions that there are large scale events he hasnt touched on. Look at Aegon the Uncrowned. For the longest time, we thought Maegor just took the throne with no opposition, then we find out he has the Battle beneath the God's Eye which involves 20,000 men and 2 dragons. 

If the Peake's were as powerful as they seem, that could have been a huge battle that the author just hasnt touched on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

GRRM has stated on multiple occasions that there are large scale events he hasnt touched on. Look at Aegon the Uncrowned. For the longest time, we thought Maegor just took the throne with no opposition, then we find out he has the Battle beneath the God's Eye which involves 20,000 men and 2 dragons. 

If the Peake's were as powerful as they seem, that could have been a huge battle that the author just hasnt touched on. 

Here's the thing though, the Pekes were basically only duches. If we look at the power of other secondary houses and exclude the Hightowers as they are a completely different thing, we never see a small house have a higher army then say 5k men. In Westeros standards that's really small.

Also there doesn't seem like there could be any more major wars we don't know about. The Throne passed smoothly from Viserys II to Aerys II, with only the first Blackfyre rebellion happening between. So besides the Blackfyres there were no other succession wars. We know basically all that happened until Aegon III, we know that him and Baelor didn't wage any wars. So that leaves us with Daeron I. We known very well the war he had. So I don't think we are going to find any new wars in F&B 2 (that is presuming it ever escapes GRRM's prison were he keeps all his books constantly perfecting them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not a middle of the road solution similar to our modern Western situation? Dispense with Kings/Queens and go for Councils. Have small councils in each state (kingdom) and a great council with representatives from each state (kingdom). The kingdoms would be granted some autonomy by having their own council and be afforded to adjust the general law a little depending on their culture (similar to how our laws can be different from one state to another despite being the in same country). But the big decisions, general law etc. would still be decided by a great council made of representatives from each kingdom. This way it keeps the kingdoms together but allows for some autonomy in each individual kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mystical said:

Why not a middle of the road solution similar to our modern Western situation? Dispense with Kings/Queens and go for Councils. Have small councils in each state (kingdom) and a great council with representatives from each state (kingdom). The kingdoms would be granted some autonomy by having their own council and be afforded to adjust the general law a little depending on their culture (similar to how our laws can be different from one state to another despite being the in same country). But the big decisions, general law etc. would still be decided by a great council made of representatives from each kingdom. This way it keeps the kingdoms together but allows for some autonomy in each individual kingdom.

Mate Westeros is a feudal society. The absolute best you could hope form would for it, after all this bloodshed, to transform into some kind of constitutional monarchy. What you're proposing is federalization, which in Europe only happened in very small, highly urbanized mercantile small states (basically the Netherlands and Northern Italy) near that time, and wasn't implemented in bigger countries till the 19th century. It's like proposing making Westeros into a republic. Sure great idea and it could solve a lot of problems, but it's impossible to realize in such a society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Mate Westeros is a feudal society. The absolute best you could hope form would for it, after all this bloodshed, to transform into some kind of constitutional monarchy. What you're proposing is federalization, which in Europe only happened in very small, highly urbanized mercantile small states (basically the Netherlands and Northern Italy) near that time, and wasn't implemented in bigger countries till the 19th century. It's like proposing making Westeros into a republic. Sure great idea and it could solve a lot of problems, but it's impossible to realize in such a society.

Yes, because GRRM wants to write a story where after all is said and done, nothing changes and the same system stays in place and everything works just like before. Then what's the point? Unless of course his ending is the all seeing, all knowing tree wizard on the throne because humans don't change so shouldn't be trusted with anything.

My main point is that Westeros needs to get rid of the 'one ruler' system. Even if you don't go for a 2 tier system of state and country, then just go for a ruling council comprised of representatives from all kingdoms instead of having one monarch to ruler over all.

Edited by Mystical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×