Holding the Seven Kingdoms

[danm_999]

Ah, well, at least we understand each other.

But as far as Greece goes I'm not sure they did as the Romans tried to encourage the foundation of city states in the manner of Greece in other parts of the Empire, although admittedly stripped of military power. But regardless, there might be differences, but the point I was making was that just because you have a certain political landscape for a period, it doesn't mean there is a kind of natural tendency to always revert to it, no matter how long it has lasted, as people come to conceive of politics in different ways.

My suspicion is, in the case of Westeros, the size of political entities isn't a measure of ambition, but of practicality. Westeros wasn't unified because it's too big, it's too hard to police, and you can't even rely on basic advantages like spring campaigning that we do on Earth, because every generation or so you get a really nasty, unpredictable winter that knocks most places down to survival level.

I believe in 12,000 years (an astonishing amount of time in human history honestly) if dominion over an entire area could be achieved, it would have been.

PS: I apologise if you feel I'm deliberately attempting to misunderstood you. I'm not.

[Chaircat Meow]

My suspicion is, in the case of Westeros, the size of political entities isn't a measure of ambition, but of practicality. Westeros wasn't unified because it's too big, it's too hard to police, and you can't even rely on basic advantages like spring campaigning that we do on Earth, because every generation or so you get a really nasty, unpredictable winter that knocks most places down to survival level.

I believe in 12,000 years (an astonishing amount of time in human history honestly) if dominion over an entire area could be achieved, it would have been.

PS: I apologise if you feel I'm deliberately attempting to misunderstood you. I'm not.

Ah, no worries, I wasn't being very clear in places.

As for size, I tend to think the same of all the regions really. They display an astonishing level of unity given their size, so I find it all a bit unrealistic. Which is why I think less of it as an important factor than you do.

[Chaircat Meow]

Your point is that Westeros won't become politically fragmented again because it didn't happen in England and Greece.

It's a bad comparison, because neither of these countries are a tenth of the size of Westeros (which is roughly South America's size), and because both these countries actually did revert many, many times to decentralized and disunified control. In Greece's case, it has not since achieved the unity it had under Alexander, and has many times been held between two or more major powers.

This is inaccurate.

England suffers from two civil wars and various bouts of feudal anarchy, the reign of Stephen for instance (sometimes also called a civil war) and then brief periods of war under John, Henry III and so on (quite a few more).

Obviously this means the king didn't control some of the country all the time.

But its not about England flying apart. These barons in most cases want to put someone else on the throne (the one throne) and a division of the kingdom is never contemplated. Moreover, no long lasting 'fragmented' political structures arise out of this, new mini-kingdoms are never created or anything like that. In Westerosi terms its a bit like comparing the original division between the seven kingdoms to the Blackfrye rebellion and saying, look, fragmentation!

Its a total misunderstanding of the political goals of everyone involved and of the way people think about politics.

Edit: As for Greece again, the result of foreign invasion, not a desire among its people to revert to their old, hundred year old previous political structures.

[Stanmore]

I believe in 12,000 years (an astonishing amount of time in human history honestly) if dominion over an entire area could be achieved, it would have been.

So The roman empire could never have existed because humans had been living in europe for around 40 thousand years without forming any sort of unified political structure. Surely if it were posible it would have happened before then....

[Chaircat Meow]

The Targaryens are effectively a parasite, and Westeros the host (though I don't necessarily mean that to be derogatory), in that without dragons they don't control the continents wealth, infrastructure, navy, or the vast bulk of its military forces. To sustain control over so large a place with so little leverage with such basic technological tools, it's just going to be near impossible in the long run. The Roman Empire (the truly analogous political entity to Westeros in scope we SHOULD have been discussing) was the best, most competant attempt in our history, and even it failed after a few hundred years.

To be honest, I think this just leaves out that Targ control is just perfectly standard for a feudal state. The king has no standing army, little fleet, little infrastructure and just has to rely on his vassals to do their duty by him. As do all the great houses in their own territories. The North is pretty big, Ned had no army, didn't have the bulk of the wealth or the military power either but the Starks have ruled the place for 8,000 years! I think if size bothers you, you're just going to have to accept that Westeros is presented as displayed unusual levels of political unity throughout its history, in places at least.

[Aeneys]

Interesting topic.

In your opinion, do you think it’s a good idea to keep Westeros as one kingdom anyways?

The way the political system works, as most Medieval feudal systems, is naturally incompatible with large empires. Not to say that it hasn’t been done, but small lordships with conflicting interests is not conducive to stability in large geographical areas. I don’t think a United States of Westeros is very likely.

Do you think Westeros would benefit from the more modern structure of nation-states? Is that a possibility in the books?

[RedBean]

Only the Targaryens could have managed it, and even that's was only because they had dragons.The kingdoms are so different from each other, and have feuds dating back many hundreds or thousands of years. There's no real way to keep them together except through brute force.

[Chaircat Meow]

Only the Targaryens could have managed it, and even that's was only because they had dragons.The kingdoms are so different from each other, and have feuds dating back many hundreds or thousands of years. There's no real way to keep them together except through brute force.

Which is what the Targs did in those 100 or so years since the dragons died. Hmm.

[Stanmore]

Only the Targaryens could have managed it, and even that's was only because they had dragons.The kingdoms are so different from each other, and have feuds dating back many hundreds or thousands of years. There's no real way to keep them together except through brute force.

So how has anyone ever managed to build an empire on this planet? We've never had Dragons yet our history is full of examples of disparate cultures being forced together under a single banner. Do you think the Britons and the palastinians had much in common when the romans ruled them both?

When you think about it, Westeros is amazingy unified culturally. They all speak the same language. For the most part they all worship the same gods. Aside from Dorne the North and the Iron Islands is there really any cultural differences between the kingdoms at all? How do the cultural traditions of the Westerlands really differ from the Reach or the Vale? Are the Riverlanders really any different from the Stormlanders?

Compare that to the diverse cultures of the Roman empire or the Mongol or the British, and Westeros looks pretty homogeneous.

[Ruissimo]

My answer is... NO. No one family can hold all of Westeros for an extended period of time (say, multiple generations).

I think the only way to keep the peace would be for one ruler (like Danny) to split the continent into...

THE TEN KINGDOMS OF THE WEST

1. Dorne - Prince Doran Nymeros Martell (as is tradition in Dorne to have princes/princesses, not kings/queens)
   
2. The Stormlands - King Stannis Baratheon
   
3. The Easterlands - Queen Daenerys Targaryen (this kingdom was formerly known as the Crownlands)
   
4. The Reach - King Mace Tyrell
   
5. The Westerlands - King Tyrion Lannister
   
6. The Riverlands - King Brynden "The Blackfish" Tully OR King Petyr Baelish (see "The Vale", below)
   
7. The Vale - King Robert Arryn OR King Harrold Hardyng OR King Petyr Baelish (who shall prevail in the Vale?)
   
8. The Iron Islands - King Theon Greyjoy
   
9. The North - King Jon Stark/Targaryen (formerly Jon Snow, depending on his true parents)
   
10. Beyond the Wall - King Brandon Stark
    

Of course, eventually, one of these doughheads would try to expand his own kingdom, and then it would be back to the drawing board again.

[TheWanderer]

So how has anyone ever managed to build an empire on this planet? We've never had Dragons yet our history is full of examples of disparate cultures being forced together under a single banner.

You can only build an empire the size of what Alexander, the Romans or the Targaryeans did by changing the way the game is played. The Targaryeans did it by introducing aerial combat and f*cking dragons. Alexander and the Romans did it more subtly, but they still drastically changed the game and that's why they were successful. The Romans did not fight the way the barbarian tribes did, that's why they could conquer all that land and the tribes couldn't. The Targaryeans had dragons, that's why they could conquer the seven kingdoms when the kingdoms themselves couldn't. Now its fully possible that some other group (or even one of the kingdoms themselves) could develop another game-changer and conquer the others, it needn't be dragons after all. However it is quite clear from Westeros' history that the game, as they played it throughout their history, was not structured in such a way that one family could rule all of Westeros. The Targ's changed the game but their game-changer is gone now, so its safe to say without a new one being introduced no one will be able to hold all of Westeros. And that's whats happened. It may have taken a hundred years or so but the Seven Kingdoms are re-asserting themselves. The Iron Islands are fully independent, the North will be once a Stark is returned to the throne (possibly taking the Riverlands with them), the Vale has basically asserted independence if only by refusing to help anybody with anything, as has Dorne (though Dorne appears to be still moving towards control of the Iron Throne rather than independence). Only the Westerlands, the Reach and the Storm Lands continue to play the Game of Thrones as the Targ's created and without natural borders these three would probably be involved in pretty similar contests without the Iron Throne.

[Stanmore]

You can only build an empire the size of what Alexander, the Romans or the Targaryeans did by changing the way the game is played. The Targaryeans did it by introducing aerial combat and f*cking dragons. Alexander and the Romans did it more subtly, but they still drastically changed the game and that's why they were successful. The Romans did not fight the way the barbarian tribes did, that's why they could conquer all that land and the tribes couldn't. The Targaryeans had dragons, that's why they could conquer the seven kingdoms when the kingdoms themselves couldn't. Now its fully possible that some other group (or even one of the kingdoms themselves) could develop another game-changer and conquer the others, it needn't be dragons after all. However it is quite clear from Westeros' history that the game, as they played it throughout their history, was not structured in such a way that one family could rule all of Westeros. The Targ's changed the game but their game-changer is gone now, so its safe to say without a new one being introduced no one will be able to hold all of Westeros. And that's whats happened. It may have taken a hundred years or so but the Seven Kingdoms are re-asserting themselves. The Iron Islands are fully independent, the North will be once a Stark is returned to the throne (possibly taking the Riverlands with them), the Vale has basically asserted independence if only by refusing to help anybody with anything, as has Dorne (though Dorne appears to be still moving towards control of the Iron Throne rather than independence). Only the Westerlands, the Reach and the Storm Lands continue to play the Game of Thrones as the Targ's created and without natural borders these three would probably be involved in pretty similar contests without the Iron Throne.

The thing is, the idea of a unified Westeros exists now. People have seen it can be done so they're going to keep trying. It took 40 thousand years for the Roman empire to appear, but how many more attempts at a unified europe have there been in the last 1600?

Justinian and his attempts to reconquer the west, Charlemagne's kingdom of the franks, The Holy roman empire, Napoleon, WW2 germany, the european union.... Now ultimately none of these have been as succesful as the Romans, but they could have been. If history had gone a little differently any of these could have lead to a europe reunited.

I'm not saying it will be easy to reunite Westeros If the kingdoms splinter, but it's not going to be imposible. Whether any new empire will last as long as the Targs did is a different story. Empires aren't easy things to hold together after all.

[Chaircat Meow]

You can only build an empire the size of what Alexander, the Romans or the Targaryeans did by changing the way the game is played. The Targaryeans did it by introducing aerial combat and f*cking dragons. Alexander and the Romans did it more subtly, but they still drastically changed the game and that's why they were successful. The Romans did not fight the way the barbarian tribes did, that's why they could conquer all that land and the tribes couldn't. The Targaryeans had dragons, that's why they could conquer the seven kingdoms when the kingdoms themselves couldn't. Now its fully possible that some other group (or even one of the kingdoms themselves) could develop another game-changer and conquer the others, it needn't be dragons after all. However it is quite clear from Westeros' history that the game, as they played it throughout their history, was not structured in such a way that one family could rule all of Westeros. The Targ's changed the game but their game-changer is gone now, so its safe to say without a new one being introduced no one will be able to hold all of Westeros. And that's whats happened. It may have taken a hundred years or so but the Seven Kingdoms are re-asserting themselves. The Iron Islands are fully independent, the North will be once a Stark is returned to the throne (possibly taking the Riverlands with them), the Vale has basically asserted independence if only by refusing to help anybody with anything, as has Dorne (though Dorne appears to be still moving towards control of the Iron Throne rather than independence). Only the Westerlands, the Reach and the Storm Lands continue to play the Game of Thrones as the Targ's created and without natural borders these three would probably be involved in pretty similar contests without the Iron Throne.

Rome wasn't held together purely by force though. All the cities and tribes that were conquered came to see the Empire as their political home and most further political efforts were focused on furthering their position within it. Rome itself became increasingly powerless as a city, the Emperors even moved away, but the Empire moved on, because political structures are very much a product of attitudes and loyalties, they are not just the products of brute force.

The same applies for Westeros. I think both the Vale and Dorne do see themselves as being part of the seven kingdoms of the Iron Throne. Their rulers are playing the game in those terms.

[Aemrys]

With alliances and without so many sinister high ranking individuals and manipulators, it'd be perfectly possible. If not for Cersei and Jaime's twincest, the peace would still be ongoing.

Through power, no. Basically because the kingdom is too damn huge. Perhaps a short peace would be possible, but never a lasting one. Eventually e.g. Greyjoys would get sick of a distant alien ruler messing with their shit, and they'd rebel for better or worse. Chances are distant kingdoms would be more eager to be independent, exactly because being ruled from a far off place is bullshit when different beliefs, religions etc exist between the kingdoms. Oh, and only Targaryens would be able to stand a shred of chance of ruling via power because of dragons. Anything else would fail. Robert only ruled so long because he had a brother in Ned with incredible loyalty. We saw what happened when people got pissed.

That being said, I have zero belief in the series ending with an united kingdom. I see them splitting into the original seven again, like a more modern model of a continent. Westeros is simply too divided in many aspects, and too big to be ruled by one government. They should rather form a small council with one representative from each kingdom to maintain peace and good relations.

[RedBean]

Which is what the Targs did in those 100 or so years since the dragons died. Hmm.

They didn't manage to "keep" the realm for long, though. Eventually, the other nations got sick of their antics and threw them out. They conquered it with dragons, but when the dragons died, they became vulnerable again. They didn't keep their position for long after that.

So how has anyone ever managed to build an empire on this planet? We've never had Dragons yet our history is full of examples of disparate cultures being forced together under a single banner. Do you think the Britons and the palastinians had much in common when the romans ruled them both?

That's the point. Disparate cultures are "forced" under a banner. It required force to get nations that are different to accept each other, and to rule over them. Unless you have a surefire way of keeping the peace, there's no point in conquering Westeros. You might be able to conquer it, but you won't be able to keep it, not unless you have a deus ex machina that you can use everytime someone threatens to rise up against you. The Targs had dragons, which at the time was like introducing nuclear weaponry into a medieval society. But after the dragons died, everyone was on more equal footing with them, and an alliance of a few nations was enough to throw them out.

[Chaircat Meow]

They didn't manage to "keep" the realm for long, though. Eventually, the other nations got sick of their antics and threw them out. They conquered it with dragons, but when the dragons died, they became vulnerable again. They didn't keep their position for long after that.

They held it for over a hundred years without dragons. Sounds like a long time to me.

Also, the other nations didn't throw them out, not really, at least not in the sense that they asserted their independence from the Iron Throne. No one expressed discontent with the idea of a united Westeros. The war was because the king was mad and to find a replacement for him. Robert ruled over a united realm too.

[Aemrys]

The Targs ruled for 150 years without dragons because of good relations and a nice "golden age" when the other kingdoms were satisfied and used to the situation they were in. Basically there was no point in rebelling. A peace through alliances and stability is always more lasting and stronger than one through force. As soon as their king became too much of a moron, they overthrew him.

[Ser Areo Mace]

Rhaegar would have held the lands together.

If the Targaryens would have not been so "keep the blood lines pure we better then everyone" thing I thing they could have held it longer and more stabled. All that incest is we made them crazy.

Robert was in a good situation with his close relationships to the ruling Lords of the North and the Vale but there were three marriages that ruined his reign. Jon Arryn's to Lysa, Stannis's to Selyse, and his own to Cersei. Those three marriages would have allowed him and his true born to rule for a long time, but instead are the reason he failed. He did had two potential marriages that would have made his reign very strong: a true born son like Gendry to Sansa and Renly to Margaery. Marrying Renly to Margaery would have made a very strong alliance(and Renly and Loras could have kept on he would just need to veer to her every once in while to get some heirs) to the Reach.

[RedBean]

They held it for over a hundred years without dragons. Sounds like a long time to me.

Also, the other nations didn't throw them out, not really, at least not in the sense that they asserted their independence from the Iron Throne. No one expressed discontent with the idea of a united Westeros. The war was because the king was mad and to find a replacement for him. Robert ruled over a united realm too.

A few generations isn't really a long time, IMO, not if you're thinking of ruling a kingdom. The Starks have been ruling the North for thousands of years. That's a long time.

And the other nations did throw the Targaryens out, which shows that not one family can really rule the kingdoms for very long. Even after Robert died, trouble started cropping up again. There are always going to be some people that want to grab power. No family is safe on the Iron Throne, unless they have a great amount of strength.

[Chaircat Meow]

A few generations isn't really a long time, IMO, not if you're thinking of ruling a kingdom. The Starks have been ruling the North for thousands of years. That's a long time.

And the other nations did throw the Targaryens out, which shows that not one family can really rule the kingdoms for very long. Even after Robert died, trouble started cropping up again. There are always going to be some people that want to grab power. No family is safe on the Iron Throne, unless they have a great amount of strength.

I can't recall the exact dates but they don't occupy the throne for that much more time with dragons than without and it could even be the other way around. And they are driven out because one of their kings goes nuts and starts burning people. They seem as stable a dynasty as any that has ruled any other feudal kingdom. They do ultimately depend on the support of their nobles, but so does every other great house.

And to be honest, the idea the Starks have ruled the north for 8,000 years kind of gives the game away. That's pretty unrealistic seeing as they are in the same position as the Targs, they are the equivalent of feudal kings and need the consent of their lords to remain in power. So the Starks actually support the idea the Targs were basically capable of holding the seven kingdoms if Aerys wasn't a nutter.