If you could change anything about ASOIAF's worldbuilding, what would it be?

[Northern Sword]

22 hours ago, Ivashanko said:

 

This would require well organised governments with complex bureaucracies and very advanced storage and preservation technology. And it would be outrageously expensive. I'm not sure a system like this could organically come into being.

Or just a bunch of peasant farmers....lol. Granted the construction of food storage and a southern destination would require a little more work. In a world where we have the Wall, I don't think it is too outrageous of a plan.  Considering the less lives lost to winter every season would over time allow for more lords and a larger tax base and a larger army. I'm sure Brandon the builder could figure it out

[Ivashanko]

On 11/5/2021 at 7:16 PM, Northern Sword said:

Or just a bunch of peasant farmers....lol. Granted the construction of food storage and a southern destination would require a little more work. In a world where we have the Wall, I don't think it is too outrageous of a plan.  Considering the less lives lost to winter every season would over time allow for more lords and a larger tax base and a larger army. I'm sure Brandon the builder could figure it out

Peasant farmers couldn't function in these environments without a complex system backing them up. Heck, even with a complex system they probably couldn't succeed. See my last posts for some- but not all- of the troubles that they'd face.

There is a reason why in our world every group that lives above a certain latitude has traditionally been hunter/gatherers or tribal/semi-tribal fishermen. And in our world people have the good fortune of having a rough idea when summer will start!

As for the Wall, it is clearly magical. If magical storehouses or Westerosi crops that grow in winter also exist then, well... but I don't think either exist in GRRM's universe.

[Groo]

3 minutes ago, Ivashanko said:

Peasant farmers couldn't function in these environments without a complex system backing them up.

I *told* you! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We're taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week but all the decisions *of* that officer 'ave to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major . . .

[Willam Stark]

1 hour ago, Ivashanko said:

I think you're underestimating the difficulties. I'll list some, but I want to make it clear that the following list is by no means all of the challenges that the North would face <...>

Thanks for the explanation, we should stick to a temperate climate all over the Seven Kingdom.

Now that I think about it, the language problem can be easily solved if Westeros had been a centralized monarchy for 200-300 years under the rule of the Targaryens, then the Dance of Dragons comes a few years later, after which Westeros becomes the feudal society that we know. Without dragons, Targaryens should have intermarried with lords paramounts to keep the Seven Kingdoms united, not Houses of lower rank such as Dondarrion, Penrose, Pruhn, Dayne, Blackwood...

[Ivashanko]

2 hours ago, Willam Stark said:

Thanks for the explanation, we should stick to a temperate climate all over the Seven Kingdom.

Now that I think about it, the language problem can be easily solved if Westeros had been a centralized monarchy for 200-300 years under the rule of the Targaryens, then the Dance of Dragons comes a few years later, after which Westeros becomes the feudal society that we know. Without dragons, Targaryens should have intermarried with lords paramounts to keep the Seven Kingdoms united, not Houses of lower rank such as Dondarrion, Penrose, Pruhn, Dayne, Blackwood...

 

Even pretty centralised nations had dialects and languages and etc. Only 1\4th of Napoleon's French troops actually spoke French, for example. Mass literacy and, later, radios and TVs did more to establish common languages than anything else the government could do.

Centralised governments are also difficult to establish and extremely expensive to maintain. Decentralised governments were and are not made up of stupid people: there are solid, difficult to change reasons why some nations and groups remain fairly decentralised.

That being said, I am a historical materialist, though not if the Marxist variety, so you can take some of what I say with a grain of salt if you don't agree with my view of historical forces and processes.

[Willam Stark]

19 minutes ago, Ivashanko said:

Even pretty centralised nations had dialects and languages and etc. Only 1\th of Napoleon's French troops actually spoke French, for example.

I know that pretty well since I'm French, Napoleon's empire didn't last more than 10 years, absolutely not enough to establish a Common Tongue that's why I propose a few hundred years it would be enough I think.

26 minutes ago, Ivashanko said:

Centralised governments are also difficult to establish and extremely expensive to maintain.

Roman Empire lasted 400 years unified, 200-300 years for an equivalent is not far-fetched I think.

In my vision, the Dance of Dragons would put an end to the centralized monarchy and turn it into a feudal society.

[The Young Maester]

On 5/2/2021 at 1:56 AM, Lord Varys said:

More languages, more diversity in titles - best would actually be an emperor at the top, since the Seven Kingdoms clearly a multi-ethnic, multi-national empire, but it could also work with a king and dukes and marquesses and earls and counts and barons and lords. One could also use such a system to differentiate between Andal and First Men houses with the latter using French titles whereas the First Men stuck with English titles.

I'd reduce the overall time span that passed since the Dawn Age to roughly 5,000 years, I think, while increasing the Targaryen to 500-1,000 years to better balance them with the ridiculously long reign of the other houses.

Possibly I'd do away with houses lasting thousands of years by having multiple dynasties in each kingdom ... or at least multiple branches of a particular house in charge, like it was with the Capets turning into the Valois turning into the Bourbons.

On the mid-tier level there would have been much more up and downs - new men coming into power with a new dynasty, while old and proud houses fall into obscurity.

Big cities are mainly at the mouth of big rivers, especially the Trident and the Mander.

Oh, and yes: The freak seasons would need a completely different society system, one culturally, economically and religious revolved exclusively around surviving the next winter.

This right here, is literally exactly what i want. This shit is gold. Someone page this to martin so he can rub his beard whilst he contemplates about it.

[Ivashanko]

1 hour ago, Willam Stark said:

I know that pretty well since I'm French, Napoleon's empire didn't last more than 10 years, absolutely not enough to establish a Common Tongue that's why I propose a few hundred years it would be enough I think.

Roman Empire lasted 400 years unified, 200-300 years for an equivalent is not far-fetched I think.

In my vision, the Dance of Dragons would put an end to the centralized monarchy and turn it into a feudal society.

The Roman Empire was decisively not a strongly centralised state, unless your definition of centralised differs entirely from modern socio-political theorists.

And I mentioned Napoleon because the France that proceeded him was one of the more centralised states on the planet*, and even they didn't have a common language.

Without semi-rapid communication maintaining centralised systems is more-or-less impossible. Decentralisation was a necessity. There is a reason why of the over 200 wars fought in the Victorian Era over 3/4th were started by colonials without the explicit agreement** of London.

^{*Which is still to say that it was very decentralised compared to states today, but that is just because the bar has risen so high.}

^{**Heck, some of those wars started despite London ordering the colonials to back down.}

[Willam Stark]

28 minutes ago, Ivashanko said:

The Roman Empire was decisively not a centralised state, unless your definition of centralised differs entirely from modern socio-political theorists.

What is your definition?

28 minutes ago, Ivashanko said:

And I mentioned Napoleon because the France that proceeded him was one of the more centralised states on the planet*, and even they didn't have a common language.

Before the Third Republic, no government has imposed a common language in France, this is why it didn't happen.

37 minutes ago, Ivashanko said:

Without semi-rapid communication maintaining centralised systems is more-or-less impossible.

Glass candles can be used for that.

[Ivashanko]

23 minutes ago, Willam Stark said:

What is your definition?

Before the Third Republic, no government has imposed a common language in France, this is why it didn't happen.

Glass candles can be used for that.

1) I went back and changed my post. I committed a cardinal sin: I tried to sum up over 1500 years of history within a single sentence. Roman imperial history stretches from, what, the destruction of the Latin League roughly 300 years before the birth of Christ until at least the Fourth Crusade. I don't know nearly enough about some of those periods to speculate.

2) Even the few countries that did implement common languages had spotty success. See: Russification in Central Asia, Sinicization in... well, even modern day China has plenty of differing dialects and languages, and as a speaker of standard Mandarin I can tell you many of them are not mutually understandable with the common tongue, etc.

3) True. Magic does change the nature of the game quite significantly.

[WhatAnArtist!]

8 hours ago, Willam Stark said:

Now that I think about it, the language problem can be easily solved if Westeros had been a centralized monarchy for 200-300 years under the rule of the Targaryens, then the Dance of Dragons comes a few years later, after which Westeros becomes the feudal society that we know.

This is a great idea, and would have made a lot of sense. It'd be reasonable to assume that the Targaryens would establish some sort of centralised system of government considering they were descended from the more sophisticated Valyria, and only after their overthrow does the kingdom fracture into smaller, feudal regions, just like Western Europe after the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire. I can see some very light similarities between Theodoric the Great and Robert Baratheon.

[Shagwell the mad jester]

I agree with quite a few things that have been adressed here. I also feel, that much of the story makes more sense when we imagine Westeros (at least south of the wall) having roughly the size of Britain. This would make sense since Westeros is clearly modeled on late-medieval England.

The lands are too big and some the islands are too small. Not only the Iron Isles, also the Stepstones (all those pirates hiding in those smallish freckles - do they never step on each other's toes?). The Summer Islands seem to have the right size... until you learn that there are 10 or so Kingdoms on them.

Something that always strikes me as completely absurd are the settlement patterns. The problem was already adressed with Winterfell, which is situated far from any river (and it's not only the castle, there is Winter Town as well). But it is rather the rule than the exception that cities are built away from big rivers or other possible trade routes. Take River Royne. Okay, parts of it are cursed. But still: it's propably the biggest river in Essos and holds only one sizeable city (Volantis). The same in Westeros: the biggest river ist the Mander. What do we have there? Highgarden - a castle with maybe a village of unknown size around it. And basically nothing else. As far as I can see there are only three bigger towns that are situated in a geographically logical position: White Harbour (why the heck don't the Rulers of the North reside there? Okay, Winterfell is magical and so on - but it still makes no sense somehow), King's Landing and Oldtown.

[HoodedCrow]

I travelled in England. They all understood me( Telly?)But if they got rolling in their dialects, I couldn’t understand it.) People from France may not be able to talk to their French Canadian cousins. Chinese is not one language. High German is manufactured to solve spelling and dialect problems( and the dialects remain). Yiddish has yummy words, but it is not Hebrew. I’m very rhotic, but French R…well, I try:)

[Willam Stark]

18 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

People from France may not be able to talk to their French Canadian cousins.

We understand each other pretty well actually, those who are not fluent in French are English speakers or people from recent immigration. 

19 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

I’m very rhotic, but French R…well, I try:)

Yeah, it is very difficult to pronounce if you don't do it in your native language, keep practicing. 

Well, it seems like the Common Tongue cannot be widely spoken in Westeros in a realistic way, dialects are needed.

[HoodedCrow]

French guy from the Versailles area complained to us about not being able to communicate in Quebec. I told him that I could not say “ rose”! And then , people ask me about how I must be fluent. I certainly can read cereal boxes:)