Holding the Seven Kingdoms

[RedBean]

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.

I don't recall exact dates either, but that's hardly the point is it? It doesn't matter how long they ruled with dragons. All that matters is how long they ruled *without* dragons, which was not long at all.

And it's a good point about the Targs going crazy, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. The Starks *know* the North. They live in the land they rule, so they know the way of life of the Northmen. What I'm trying to say is that it's hard to rule an entire continent like Westeros when everyone in it is so different. If you have a Lannister on the throne, they'll put Lannister interests first, and enrage all the other houses. If you put a Tyrell on the throne, then ditto. Same for the other Lords. It's not like people are perfect. Unless we have a benevolent tyrant ruler like Vetinari from Discworld, there won't be fairness in the treatment of all the kingdoms, and people are always going to feel slighted and want to take action. Even in real life, empires always fall, because the needs of the people are never fairly met.

[Aemrys]

It's a different story holding the North, and holding the Seven Kingdoms, which is over twice the size of the North. Again, the Starks held the North through ancient vows and alliances, friendship, honor and shared beliefs and religion, and of course through being a powerful house. Almost none of that applies if e.g. Dany would come and conquer the Seven Kingdoms. There would be no ancient honorable alliance and vow between the Targs and House Umber. There would be no friendship that made the loyalty automatic between House Targaryen and House Manderly. And there would be no shared religion between the south and north.

[RedBean]

It's a different story holding the North, and holding the Seven Kingdoms, which is over twice the size of the North. Again, the Starks held the North through ancient vows and alliances, friendship, honor and shared beliefs and religion, and of course through being a powerful house. Almost none of that applies if e.g. Dany would come and conquer the Seven Kingdoms. There would be no ancient honorable alliance and vow between the Targs and House Umber. There would be no friendship that made the loyalty automatic between House Targaryen and House Manderly. And there would be no shared religion between the south and north.

Not to mention that the Northmen have similar styles of life, and similar beliefs and notions of honour etc. The lands down south are very different from the North and also very different from each other. Why should all these different people bow down to one ruler? They would probably be happier choosing to live their own way of life without having any hassles of paying taxes or anything like that.

[Booknerd2]

Gah! I don't think it is going to be the 7 kingdoms as we know it. With the Others coming and I believe the North will never come back in the fold.

It should be the Starks. Not saying it will, but it should be. I think they would be happy being Kings in the North, being left alone, as long as there is peace and understanding and better rule south. Do they even have to be so heavily based in KL. KL has nowhere else to go but up. Things are really bad there now.

Change the capitol then?

I don't think money, banners, and connections will be much of an issue.

I don't know. But I don't think Lannister or Tyrell. I can count them out for sure.

[Chaircat Meow]

It's a different story holding the North, and holding the Seven Kingdoms, which is over twice the size of the North. Again, the Starks held the North through ancient vows and alliances, friendship, honor and shared beliefs and religion, and of course through being a powerful house. Almost none of that applies if e.g. Dany would come and conquer the Seven Kingdoms. There would be no ancient honorable alliance and vow between the Targs and House Umber. There would be no friendship that made the loyalty automatic between House Targaryen and House Manderly. And there would be no shared religion between the south and north.

I wasn't talking about Dany's chances of uniting Westeros.

Religion isn't all that important. Lots of riverlords who kept the seven promised to serve Robb. The Westerosi are quite tolerant about religion until someone like Mel comes along.

The Greatjon's comment in GoT that it was the dragons we knelt to and the dragons (meaning Targaryens) are all dead does show a sense that the old dynasty was owed respect and loyalty.

[Stanmore]

Not to mention that the Northmen have similar styles of life, and similar beliefs and notions of honour etc. The lands down south are very different from the North and also very different from each other. Why should all these different people bow down to one ruler? They would probably be happier choosing to live their own way of life without having any hassles of paying taxes or anything like that.

I disagree with all of that. Dorne, The North, the Iron Islands are the only places in westeros with any signs of an individual culture. The people of the Riverlands, Crownlands Reach, Vale. and Stormlands are all pretty much interchangeable. They speak the same language, worship the same gods, and share the same customs.. they've all been assimilated into the greater westerosi melting pot.

Secondly 99% of westeros's population are peasants with absolutely no say in who rules over them or how their lives are run. It makes no difference to them weather their king sits in King's landing or in Winterfell. They'll still spend most of their lives toiling in the mud trying to prepare for winter.

Thirdly, the Targareans didn't invent taxes. The Nobles will still have to pay taxes and raise levies whether they're subjects of a unified throne or not. All that will change is who they're paying taxes to.

[Chaircat Meow]

I don't recall exact dates either, but that's hardly the point is it? It doesn't matter how long they ruled with dragons. All that matters is how long they ruled *without* dragons, which was not long at all.

And it's a good point about the Targs going crazy, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. The Starks *know* the North. They live in the land they rule, so they know the way of life of the Northmen. What I'm trying to say is that it's hard to rule an entire continent like Westeros when everyone in it is so different. If you have a Lannister on the throne, they'll put Lannister interests first, and enrage all the other houses. If you put a Tyrell on the throne, then ditto. Same for the other Lords. It's not like people are perfect. Unless we have a benevolent tyrant ruler like Vetinari from Discworld, there won't be fairness in the treatment of all the kingdoms, and people are always going to feel slighted and want to take action. Even in real life, empires always fall, because the needs of the people are never fairly met.

If you are capable of ruling a colossal kingdom for over a hundred years without dragons it stands to reason you can do it for another hundred. The situation for the Targs didn't notably worsen during this time. They fall because of one king's unreasonable actions. There isn't anything to suggest their power in the long term was not stable.

100 years or more is a decent run for a dynasty in English history, its about the length of the Tudor regimes if you add them up.

I'm sure some of the old Targ monarchs knew Westeros quite well.

Also, Starks are likely to put Stark interests in the North above Bolton or Umber interests so there is no advantage here. If a Stark can rule the north effectively a Targ should be able to rule the seven kingdoms effectively. And look, the north is really really big, nearly the same size as the rest of the realm. Are you really trying to claim its perfectly natural for this area to stay together under the same rulers for 8,000 years but that a realm twice as large can't stick it together for more than a hundred years, all things being equal (which they weren't)?

[Chaircat Meow]

I disagree with all of that. Dorne, The North, the Iron Islands are the only places in westeros with any signs of an individual culture. The people of the Riverlands, Crownlands Reach, Vale. and Stormlands are all pretty much interchangeable. They speak the same language, worship the same gods, and share the same customs.. they've all been assimilated into the greater westerosi melting pot.

Secondly 99% of westeros's population are peasants with absolutely no say in who rules over them or how their lives are run. It makes no difference to them weather their king sits in King's landing or in Winterfell. They'll still spend most of their lives toiling in the mud trying to prepare for winter.

Thirdly, the Targareans didn't invent taxes. The Nobles will still have to pay taxes and raise levies whether they're subjects of a unified throne or not. All that will change is who they're paying taxes to.

Yeah I agree with this. There is little evidence of any sort of cultural differences in the main body of the realm, that is the Vale, Riverlands, Westerlands, Stormlands and Reach.

[Lord of Castamere]

If we would look into possible united Westeros from the perspective of World history.It would quite likely go in a way of cultural unification.

Westeros has three distinctive cultures and fourth which is bit shady at least for me.

First Men: The North, mostly.

Andals: Reach,Stormlands, Westlands, Crownlands, Riverlands and The Vale.

Rhoynar influenced Dorne.

Ironborn: First men? Andals? In any case unique culture based on relative isolation.

If we accept these cultures.Most likely at some point, unified Andal Kingdom would have emerged. With its relative strength and size.It could have eventually absorbed the other cultures, if they possessed anything worth the value. Or the other cultures being at extreme North, South and one being sea born, might have survived at their extreme locations.

In any case the books are far beyond such scenario as the Targaryeans have introduced already concept of unified Kingdom which have at least in some level has been accepted by all the petty Kingdoms. So if i had to speculate, which is mainly just fun as we are dealing with fiction. I think at least continuous efforts to reunite the unified Kingdom should happen in longer time spam. :cool4:

[Booknerd2]

Maybe even Dorn becomes independent again too. They are very different also.

[MagnusPrime]

Well you are leaving out one thing for why the Targs were able to rule for so long despite not having dragons. Loyalty and importance of vows/oaths for certain cultures.

The Targs defeated the certain kings in battle and replaced them with those of their choosing or forced them to bend the knee. Lannisters were forced to submit, gardners killed and replaced with Tyrells, Baratheon king was killed but Aegon's bastard brother married the princess therefore creating a link between the two houses, Harren thrown down Tullys renewed to their old seat of power with pledges of fealty, Ironborn forced to submit and elect new leaders in the Greyjoys. All these houses owe loyalty to the Targs for their positions of power.

The North submitted of its own volition which would make the oath of fealty given by Torrhen of his own free will extra binding.

Dorne never submitted and was only brought in through marraige so again there is blood binding a house with the Targs.

What was the deal with the Vale and Arryns can anyone recall? Where they at the field of fire or not?

Every house that owed its position to the Targs would not rebel out of loyalty. And those who submitted willingly would not rebel for being seen as an oath breaker. And those with blood ties would not want to be seen as kinslayers.

It took Aerys breaking his part of the deal to cause a rebellion.

Of course only the crazy ass Greyjoys have ever tried so secede from the thrones authority. And the Blackfyre rebllions was about seating the iron throne not secession.

[TheWanderer]

If a Stark can rule the north effectively a Targ should be able to rule the seven kingdoms effectively.

Feudal kingdoms don't scale up like that though. At a certain point it becomes bloated, overblown and uncontrollable. Clearly the North is within that limit, equally clearly the entirety of Westeros isn't. The Starks have 8,000 years to build the fanatical loyalty they enjoy from most of their populace and I have no doubt that they earned it through mutual assistance and respect. The Starks are Kings in the North because the other families want them to be, because they respect and revere the family to an incredible degree. The Targaryeans on the other hand are Kings because they forced everyone else to bend to them. They are cultural outsiders and quite commonly disliked and once they lost the means to control the Kingdoms through force it was only a matter of time before they no longer controlled them. And in many respects even when they were nominally in control the Targs had very little actual control over many regions, most notably the North, the Iron Islands and Dorne.

[Lord of Castamere]

Well you are leaving out one thing for why the Targs were able to rule for so long despite not having dragons. Loyalty and importance of vows/oaths for certain cultures.

The Targs defeated the certain kings in ba

If you refer to my post.I left the whole feudal structure of the seven Kingdoms out on purpose, as from what i have read.It only tends to deteriorate the discussion each time it has been brought up.

For example if we look at Capetian France, The whole of France could at the time maybe rise 20 - 30k feudal levies. The Capetian King maybe only 2 or 3 thousand from Royal lands. In fact, most of the time the Southern Dukes of Aquitaine and Toulouse were stronger then King individually and Duke of Burgundy and Northern Dukes of Normandy and Flanders at least at same standing as the King if not stronger.

In such setting we get to the same obvious question that has been made also in this discussion before. Why would not the other Dukes just gang up against the King or remain independent? Similar questions are constantly being made about the Seven Kingdoms and also concerning the large houses of Westeros in general. There are certain answers in our historical example.

In Capetian France. The King´s power base was build largely on number of weaker Dukedoms around Ile de France and also to their key ally , namely Burgundy. Which at the time was also ruled by Kings own relatives. Still even with that force they could not likely match the power of Southern and Northern Dukes. So what kept those Dukes tearing France apart? The answer is quite simple.They neutered each other, which the King could use to his advantage by supporting what ever side he deemed the best from his central location.

This is how feudalism works. The one who is at best position to rule, will rule, as long as he has enough advantages on his side. A continuous war between everyone, just does not profit anyone in the long run. Of course such can be the case for very long time, like we have witnessed with medieval and Renaissance Italy, but then the matter becomes just bit more complicated as we have to take in account also exterior powers, whom might have thought it benefiting for them to support such situation.

[Chaircat Meow]

Feudal kingdoms don't scale up like that though. At a certain point it becomes bloated, overblown and uncontrollable. Clearly the North is within that limit, equally clearly the entirety of Westeros isn't. The Starks have 8,000 years to build the fanatical loyalty they enjoy from most of their populace and I have no doubt that they earned it through mutual assistance and respect. The Starks are Kings in the North because the other families want them to be, because they respect and revere the family to an incredible degree. The Targaryeans on the other hand are Kings because they forced everyone else to bend to them. They are cultural outsiders and quite commonly disliked and once they lost the means to control the Kingdoms through force it was only a matter of time before they no longer controlled them. And in many respects even when they were nominally in control the Targs had very little actual control over many regions, most notably the North, the Iron Islands and Dorne.

Its a fair point that given the political realities of a feudal state there might be a certain optimum size.

But the Targs seem to rule just fine for a hundred years over all westeros, sans dragons, until Aerys comes along. And the lords who fought against Aerys were not struggling to free themselves from central control for the sake of it but to save their skins because he was mad. So there is no evidence the seven kingdoms as a whole are outside that limit in Martin's world. What would the Bolton's and Umbers do if one of the Starks went crazy and starting feeding their relatives to wolves.

Personally, I think the North is also too big for a real life feudal state actually. I don't find an 8,000 year Stark rule there that realistic. I think its a fantasy number. People say it plausible because they want Westeros to be seven kingdoms again but if you apply the same criteria to some of these realms as you do to the realm as a whole things aren't much better. Martin posits a remarkable continuity of dynasties over vast areas over long stretches of time a lot.

So while you might be right in the abstract that there should be a kind of size limit I don't buy that in Martin's world this is shown as applying to the whole realm but not each kingdom.

I also think that although Dany is a cultural outsider a lot of the Targ dynasty would not have been seen as so, particularly in its latter periods.

Just to repeat, Robert's rebellion is not about regional independence because, drum roll, the realm doesn't break up when the Targs fall. Everyone is still focused on the Iron Throne.

[Stanmore]

Personally, I think the North is also too big for a real life feudal state actually. I don't find an 8,000 year Stark rule there that realistic. I think its a fantasy number. People say it plausible because they want Westeros to be seven kingdoms again but if you apply the same criteria to some of these realms as you do to the realm as a whole things aren't much better. Martin posits a remarkable continuity of dynasties over vast areas over long stretches of time a lot.

To be fair there some in universe debate over the truth of commonly held Westerosi history. Certain maesters believe that much of what is taken as fact is actually myth and legend.

Given what I know of history, and how realistically GRRM handles the people of his world, I'd be very surprised if houses such as the Starks and the Lannisters have really been ruling as long as the accepted figures would suggest.

[Chaircat Meow]

To be fair there some in universe debate over the truth of commonly held Westerosi history. Certain maesters believe that much of what is taken as fact is actually myth and legend.

Given what I know of history, and how realistically GRRM handles the people of his world, I'd be very surprised if houses such as the Starks and the Lannisters have really been ruling as long as the accepted figures would suggest.

To be honest, even if its an eighth of that figure it would still strain credulity.

Edit: And I was aware of this but people were using it as an example.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

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

Until you remember that the Starks, Daynes, Hightowers, Lannisters, Arryns, etc. have held onto their positions for thousands of years, even if the 8K-12K thing ends up being exaggerated. Saying 100+ years is a big deal in Westerosi time is like taking a piss and calling it Niagara Falls. :P

[Chaircat Meow]

Until you remember that the Starks, Daynes, Hightowers, Lannisters, Arryns, etc. have held onto their positions for thousands of years, even if the 8K-12K thing ends up being exagerrated. Saying 100+ years is a big deal in Westerosi time is like taking a piss and calling it Niagara Falls. :P

But they don't seem to have additional difficulties after the loss of the dragons and the power structure is really no different to any other Great House, just on a larger scale.

The Targs get thrown out because Aerys was bonkers and crapped over all feudal law and custom. The Starks could go the same way if they bred insaniacs too.

It's not a testimony to some underlying political reality that makes the seven kingdoms an unsustainable political creation. As I pointed out, there is no separation on the fall of the Targs.

I've said all this anyway.

Edit: Spelling.

[Lady of Long Lake]

Feudal kingdoms don't scale up like that though. At a certain point it becomes bloated, overblown and uncontrollable. Clearly the North is within that limit, equally clearly the entirety of Westeros isn't. The Starks have 8,000 years to build the fanatical loyalty they enjoy from most of their populace and I have no doubt that they earned it through mutual assistance and respect. The Starks are Kings in the North because the other families want them to be, because they respect and revere the family to an incredible degree. The Targaryeans on the other hand are Kings because they forced everyone else to bend to them. They are cultural outsiders and quite commonly disliked and once they lost the means to control the Kingdoms through force it was only a matter of time before they no longer controlled them. And in many respects even when they were nominally in control the Targs had very little actual control over many regions, most notably the North, the Iron Islands and Dorne.

Well said and I agree.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

But they don't seem to have additional difficulties after the loss of the dragons and the power structure is really no different to any other Great House, just on a larger scale.

And to be honest I find that almost unbelievable, that at least some regional leaders (besides Dagon Greyjoy, I guess?) didn't make any attempts at devolution when the dragons died. I could see if it were during the reigns of Jaehaerys I or Viserys I, and the general leadership was good. But following Aegon III, you have Daeron I, Baelor I, Viserys II and, especially, Aegon IV. Daeron II was good, but he came after four kings who, in order, lost 40,000 men in Dorne, was a religious fanatic, was quietly accused of murder and was just a giant asshole. I have a VERY hard time believing that, say, the Starks or Lannisters didn't think, "Why are we part of this country, again?" during those fiascos. I can sort of see why the houses who were lifted up by the Targs (Tully, Tyrell) or who were connected by marriage/family ties (Arryn, Baratheon, eventually the Martells) sucked it up, but I think the North, the Iron Islands and the Westerlands at least had a good case for getting the hell out.

And yes I still think that the days of the Seven Kingdoms as a single political entity are over.