Jump to content
The Merling King

How could the Kingdom of the North, Vale & Riverland be possible or sustainable?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Could this be possible and sustainable under either Rob Stark or Sansa Stark and Harold Hardying? I don’t think the Vale would bend the knee for Rob (KITN), even if Lysa and Little-finger are killed off prior to clash unless he takes the iron throne. The Vale could declare support for Rob or independence until the right candidate takes the iron throne.

Sansa and Harry/Sweetrobin is a little more realistic in my opinion, assuming they both have clear paths to inheriting Winterfell and the Eyrie. Dragons and Daenerys are a game changer but could this Triarchy kingdom be sustainable with Stannis or Faegon sitting on the throne?

The Riverlands is the least defendable out of the three kingdoms and shares borders with every kingdom except Dorne. It would be tough to defend the Riverlands from any two kingdom alliance or coalition even if you had the support of the fractious Riverlords and controlled Riverrun and Harenhall. Would the Riverlords bend the knee to a Stark/Arryn even if the had Tully blood? I think the claim to the Riverlands would only last a few generations and then it would rejoin the iron throne and southern Westeros. So that leaves the North and the Vale with no land border and only ocean access to each other. How does this work militarily or administratively? I would suggest looking at historical examples of the kings of England who were also Dukes of Normandy/Gascony and Scottish Kings who were also Earls of Northumbria/Huntington. Could a child of Sansa and Harry be the independent king of the North and the lord paramount of the Vale paying homage to the iron throne?

Edited by The Merling King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends mostly on the political situation after that kingdom is established. There are multiple examples of kingdoms and empires surviving despite apparently indefensible borders. You don't need natural ones if you have a good defending strategy.

Of course an alliance between the Westerlands and the Reach is hard to defeat, but it's possible to make them pay a hefty price in case of any attempt following the strategy that Edmure usdd during the Battle of the Fords. A river navy would be also of help in that scheme. So a river like the Blackwater Rush, the Western Hills and the Red Fork would suffice.  Of course, King's Landing and the Crowlands will have to go. otherwise that front will be forever open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Depends mostly on the political situation after that kingdom is established. There are multiple examples of kingdoms and empires surviving despite apparently indefensible borders. You don't need natural ones if you have a good defending strategy.

Of course an alliance between the Westerlands and the Reach is hard to defeat, but it's possible to make them pay a hefty price in case of any attempt following the strategy that Edmure usdd during the Battle of the Fords. A river navy would be also of help in that scheme. So a river like the Blackwater Rush, the Western Hills and the Red Fork would suffice.  Of course, King's Landing and the Crowlands will have to go. otherwise that front will be forever open.

This. Also, it would depend on how much of the Riverlands (and where) the final political borders are drawn as the security at the border will depend on the geography.

 

For example, if it is the North + Vale + area East of the Green Fork with the Twins, Saltpans, and Lord Harroway's Town as the border - that is quite defendable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Probably, if you're willing to put up with constant border wars.

The Targaryens were a blessing to the people of Westeros because they lessened the constant forever wars between the not-so-great houses.  Independent kingdoms will stroke the egos of Baelish, Sansa, and the North but it will not help them during the Long Night.  It may happen and those fools will soon regret it.  

By the way, I do not think the Martells want independence anymore.  At least not if House Targaryen is back in power.  The North and the Vale deserve to get destroyed by the white walkers if they choose independence over unity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Jeeves said:

The Targaryens were a blessing to the people of Westeros because they lessened the constant forever wars between the not-so-great houses.  Independent kingdoms will stroke the egos of Baelish, Sansa, and the North but it will not help them during the Long Night.  It may happen and those fools will soon regret it.  

By the way, I do not think the Martells want independence anymore.  At least not if House Targaryen is back in power.  The North and the Vale deserve to get destroyed by the white walkers if they choose independence over unity.  

Firstly, the OP asked if a 'Northern' Kingdom consisting of the North, Riverlands and Vale. The implication there is that the other regions remain unified as the Southern kingdom. Which means there likely wouldn't be proper wars between the two kingdoms anyway, merely skirmishes between minor houses on the border like what we see between Osgrey and Webber in The Sworn Sword.

Secondly, what have the Targaryen's done for the North or Vale, really? Of the three regions  mentioned by the OP, the only one who benefited was the Riverlands and even then they got f***** over by a whole bunch of wars fought predominantly in their kingdom anyway (Aegon the Uncrowned's rebellion, the Dance, Robert's Rebellion and the Wo5K all saw both the most and the worst of the fighting in the Riverlands).

Finally, even if those three kingdoms declare independence, the remaining southern kingdoms would still have to go help them against the Other's because they otherwise risk the Others invading their kingdoms with an even larger army than before.
 

Edited by Adam Yozza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably is a bit too big to manage for the long term, just like all 7 kingdoms was for the Targaryens. 

21 hours ago, Jeeves said:

The North and the Vale deserve to get destroyed by the white walkers if they choose independence over unity.  

Independence has nothing to do with fighting the Others. Both can exist. 

They'll probably just declare independence again after the Others (white walkers?) are defeated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, nyser1 said:

This. Also, it would depend on how much of the Riverlands (and where) the final political borders are drawn as the security at the border will depend on the geography.

 

For example, if it is the North + Vale + area East of the Green Fork with the Twins, Saltpans, and Lord Harroway's Town as the border - that is quite defendable. 

This is probably the best case scenario though I think that you could make an argument for the Blue fork with a few defensive fortifications built. Either way Horroway's town and saltpans should be ready for a lot of burning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

This is probably the best case scenario though I think that you could make an argument for the Blue fork with a few defensive fortifications built. Either way Horroway's town and saltpans should be ready for a lot of burning.

Indeed. One might say that should a game of thrones arise in this region that their could be a clash of kings and a storm of swords, followed by a feast for the crows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nyser1 said:

Indeed. One might say that should a game of thrones arise in this region that their could be a clash of kings and a storm of swords, followed by a feast for the crows. 

To be honest, I'd have only expected the first three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vale wasn’t part of Robb’s Kingdom. Theoretically, a Vale and North Kingdom could be maintained under Harold and Sansa, if Robert Arryn dies. Although, I doubt that the North would want to be ruled by the Arryns and the Riverlands would be incredibly hard to defend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a kingdom would be sustainable under normal circumstances.  But it will need better leaders.  Petyr and Sansa are not up to the task.  The smallfolk will suffer.  It won't be long before the Riverlands complain about the north and vice versa.  Same between the Vale and the north. 

The people of Westeros are better off under one ruler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Such a kingdom would be sustainable under normal circumstances.  But it will need better leaders.  Petyr and Sansa are not up to the task.  The smallfolk will suffer.  It won't be long before the Riverlands complain about the north and vice versa.  Same between the Vale and the north. 

The people of Westeros are better off under one ruler. 

The People of the Seven Kingdoms you mean? The Far North was never part of the Kingdoms. Why should the continent have to be under one ruler?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short term? Yes it would be pretty easy to hold, the Riverlands are pretty good for defensive if you have a decent army and don't do anything stupid (like I dunno dispersing your forces and putting the remainder of your army in an open field).

Long term?? No bloody way. The kingdom would succumb to internal strife very quickly, with the Vale and the North being the 2 poles of power. Their problems would be:

- different religions

- different cultures

- different power classes as we can see the Vale has an ever growing and ever more powerful merchant class.

It only takes one of them getting pissed off at the other and declaring independence. Both the Moat and the Gate are impassible, if they want to be independent they will be.

So my guess is that long term such a kingdom would split in 2, with the North and the Vale becoming independent and splitting and later fighting over the Riverlands.

Share this post


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

Short term? Yes it would be pretty easy to hold, the Riverlands are pretty good for defensive if you have a decent army and don't do anything stupid (like I dunno dispersing your forces and putting the remainder of your army in an open field).

Long term?? No bloody way. The kingdom would succumb to internal strife very quickly, with the Vale and the North being the 2 poles of power. Their problems would be:

- different religions

- different cultures

- different power classes as we can see the Vale has an ever growing and ever more powerful merchant class.

It only takes one of them getting pissed off at the other and declaring independence. Both the Moat and the Gate are impassible, if they want to be independent they will be.

So my guess is that long term such a kingdom would split in 2, with the North and the Vale becoming independent and splitting and later fighting over the Riverlands.

Religion really hasn't driven much of an issue in Westeros tbh. There are houses in the north and RL that honor each other's gods, and those same houses plus others proudly bear the First Men / Andal traditions in their homes with no issue.

The merchants at Gullstown are only even mentionable because they are distantly related to the Arryns. It's no different than the Starks:

"There are probably some descendants of offshoot branches from the family tree floating around the north, most likely in White Harbor and Barrowton."

And as for a power base, both kingdoms are capable of raising navies in short order and are roughly equal in power per GRRMIt all depends on the feudal structure in Westeros but it could be pretty feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

One ruler will decrease the constant warfare among the nobles.  

Or it could precisely ignite the fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

One ruler will decrease the constant warfare among the nobles.  

 

9 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

It worked for Sauron

It worked for three centuries.  Under Targaryen rule.  Robert's fam didn't even last two decades and they messed up Westeros. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...