Holding the Seven Kingdoms

[Chaircat Meow]

When Europe was more decentralized, this sort of thing happened less often, and on a much smaller scale. Something bad happening in the Balkans could not be expected to cause Germany to invade Belgium.

My point was that a lack of political unity does not lead to the absence of large scale wars involving everybody. If you want to complicate things and say, oh well, that's true for this time but not for another fine.

The idea that there was a bit more disunity in the middle ages than the 1900s, and, moreover, that western europe was not that closely tied into the affairs of the east (and I can think of some important counter examples) seems like nitpicking to me.

And as I said, each of the seven kingdoms seems pretty unified and follows its high lord, mostly, so a system of alliances between them is virtually a certainty.

As an example. Lets say the seven kingdoms are independent and the Tullys make the same marriage alliances they do and the Starks and Baratheons also hook up. A lannister attack on the riverlands, because Tywin wants to expand, or feels some Tully bannermen insulted him, drags in the North and Vale and Stormlands and then potentially Dorne and Highgarden take advantage of the Baratheon's distraction to do some aggrandizing too. General war.

[danm_999]

My point was that a lack of political unity does not lead to the absence of large scale wars involving everybody.

I agree, I just feel it makes them far less common. If most political entities are not bound to a central power, wars are likely to be less frequent because shenanigans in one part of the continent doesn't legally require a response from every other power. If Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1614 instead of 1914, Britain, France and the Holy Roman Empire would likely not care, but in 1914, because Europe is far more centralized and bound up with strong diplomatic alliances, tension anywhere has the potential to cause tension everywhere.

As Apple Martini pointed out, it's a lot easier for the Lannisters to stay out of a Stark-Arryn conflict when there's seven kingdoms, but if there's an Iron Throne, people are kind of forced to take sides.

[danm_999]

As an example. Lets say the seven kingdoms are independent and the Tullys make the same marriage alliances they do and the Starks and Baratheons also hook up. A lannister attack on the riverlands, because Tywin wants to expand, or feels some Tully bannermen insulted him, drags in the North and Vale and Stormlands and then potentially Dorne and Highgarden take advantage of the Baratheon's distraction to do some aggrandizing too. General war.

In this scenario, I don't see the Reach and Dorne's involvement in a conflict in the Riverlands as being as likely as it is when a central authority demands they get involved. Why do Mace Tyrell and Doran Martell care that Tywin Lannister is attacking the Tully's?

[Chaircat Meow]

In this scenario, I don't see the Reach and Dorne's involvement in a conflict in the Riverlands as being as likely as it is when a central authority demands they get involved.

Yeah, I said they attack the Stormlands because they got involved. Standard procedure to secure your borders.

[danm_999]

Yeah, I said they attack the Stormlands because they got involved. Standard procedure to secure your borders.

Why would Dorne and Highgarden need to attack the Stormlands to secure their borders? They're not involved.

[Chaircat Meow]

I agree, I just feel it makes them far less common. If most political entities are not bound to a central power, wars are likely to be less frequent because shenanigans in one part of the continent doesn't legally require a response from every other power. If Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1614 instead of 1914, Britain, France and the Holy Roman Empire would likely not care, but in 1914, because Europe is far more centralized and bound up with strong diplomatic alliances, tension anywhere has the potential to cause tension everywhere.

I'm not trying to say there isn't something in what you're saying and the circumstances of 1914 were extreme. However, in 1620-1 the whole of Europe did virtually go apeshit because of the decision of a german prince elector, Fred of the Palatine to take the throne of Bohemia, and in duly poured the Danes, the Swedes, the English, the Scots, the French, the Transylvanians and every other motherfucker. I actually don't think your conviction Europe was less tied into a system of alliances in the middle ages or early modern period than it was later is that accurate in all honesty.

In 1620 the Count of Olivares, the Spanish first minister (for Philip IV) was making alliances with the Poles to held him block the Dutch Baltic trade. It was all pretty involved.

[danm_999]

I'm not trying to say there isn't something in what you're saying and the circumstances of 1914 were extreme. However, in 1620-1 the whole of Europe did virtually go apeshit because of the decision of a german prince ellector, Fred of the Palatine to take the throne of Bohemia and in duly poured the Danes, the Swedes, the English, the Scots, the French, the Transylvanians and every other motherfucker. I actually don't think you're conviction Europe was less tied into a system of alliances in the middle ages or early modern period than it was later is that accurate in all honesty.

In 1620 the Count of Olivares, the Spanish first minister (for Philip IV) was making alliances with the Poles to held him block the Dutch Baltic trade. It was all pretty involved.

I don't deny it happened, I just think it happened less frequently.

[Stanmore]

Apple, you and I are totally on the same page on this one.

Most readers take the notion Targaryen rule means peace for the realm based on Maester Aemon's comment that every generation three or four kingdoms were at war when there were Seven Kingdoms. It was a bad time, and then the dragons came and made things better. On the first read, that all seems pretty straightforward.

But then you engage your critical thinking skills, and realize, HOLD ON, under Targaryen rule, all Seven kingdoms are often going to war several times a generation, sometimes because of causes non-indigenous to Westeros (the War of the Ninepenny Kings for example).

The idea a decentalized continent is more stable becomes less objective and more propagandistic.

If decentralisation leads to smaller wars and less deaths, why not take it one step further? Complete Balkanization of Westeros. Split each of the kingdoms into independent duchies. Bolton can War on Manderly, and Umber and Stark won't need to get involved. It'd be (relative) peace in our time :P

[Chaircat Meow]

Why would Dorne and Highgarden need to attack the Stormlands to secure their borders? They're not involved.

It was what people do when you live in separate kingdoms in the middle ages. You try and take territory. Are you really positing the Dornish, men of the Reach and Stormlords will have no border disputes, despite us being told they have been fighting for thousands of years. A war in one region, if it distracts a long standing antagonist gives a perfect opportunity to settle old scores.

Remember my Dark Age example. Justinian I invades Italy, so the Persian king invades Byzantium, not because he gave a shit about Italy but because the Roman army was away and fighting jolly little wars is what kings are inclined to do.

[Chaircat Meow]

If decentralisation leads to smaller wars and less deaths, why not take it one step further? Complete Balkanization of Westeros. Split each of the kingdoms into independent duchies. Bolton can War on Manderly, and Umber and Stark won't need to get involved. It'd be (relative) peace in our time :P

Exactly.

[danm_999]

It's was what people do when you live in separate kingdoms in the middle ages. You try and take territory. Are you really positing the Dornish, men of the Reach and Stormlords will have no border disputes, despite us being told they have been fighting for thousands of years. A war in one region, if it distracts a long standing antagonist gives a perfect opportunity to settle old scores.

Remember my Dark Age example. Justinian I invades Italy, so the Persian king invades Byzantium, not because he gave a shit about Italy but because the Roman army was away and fighting jolly little wars is what kings are inclined to do.

What I'm saying is, Mace Tyrell and Doran Martell have the option not to get involved which they really don't have to the same extent when there's an Iron Throne, so there has to be a strong reason to do so.

If I was Mace Tyrell or Doran Martell, I'd honestly wait until the fighting was done before I make the decision to attack or not. Because if the North, Riverlands, Stormlands and Vale crush Tywin, and I've just antagonised them needlessly, and I'm not a very clever lord.

[Stanmore]

Reunited? Hate to break it to you, but while as you noted many came close Europe has never been united even for a single day to begin with, least of all in ancient times. The Romans ruled the lands around the Mediterranean, not Europe. Admittedly for the most part they were reaching fairly substantially inland and had some significant outliers in the east (and most of the Celtic lands of the day), but while that may add up in size to an area approaching Europe in size, that doesn't change that most of Europe has never been under Roman rule.

You're getting hung up on the details. The exact geographical boarders aren't important, the main point is the Romans started an idea of a united empire within europe that has lasted through the centuries. The Byzantines, the HRE, Napoleon, the Nazis they all saw themselves as heirs to the Romans in one way or another, and all attempted to forge European empires of their own.

[danm_999]

If decentralisation leads to smaller wars and less deaths, why not take it one step further? Complete Balkanization of Westeros. Split each of the kingdoms into independent duchies. Bolton can War on Manderly, and Umber and Stark won't need to get involved. It'd be (relative) peace in our time :P

I'm not arguing for complete decentralisation either. Obviously, both extremes have their issues.

[Chaircat Meow]

What I'm saying is, Mace Tyrell and Doran Martell have the option not to get involved which they really don't have to the same extent when there's an Iron Throne, so there has to be a strong reason to do so.

If I was Mace Tyrell or Doran Martell, I'd honestly wait until the fighting was done before I make the decision to attack or not. Because if the North, Riverlands, Stormlands and Vale crush Tywin, and I've just antagonised them needlessly, and I'm not a very clever lord.

Its all hairsplitting though. Lots of medieval kings would look on the engagement of their foes elsewhere as a good reason to take advantage.

Or Mace might offer himself as an arbiter in the riverlands conflict, to exert his power.

And kings do love to make other states tributary to them and win glory in battles. So there are always plenty of reasons to get involved in conflicts. Think Robert.

And lets not forget, Tywin, Lysa and Doran have all decided to stay out of conflicts before, even in a united kingdom.

And the funny thing is, your reason for Mace not getting involved has to do with being over awed by a superior power. Kind of like saying the peace is only kept by a powerful alliance. Or a powerful king, no.

[danm_999]

Its all hairsplitting though. Lots of medieval kings would look on the engagement of their foes elsewhere as a good reason to take advantage.

That's very true, Mace may well attack. My point is that he has the agency to not attack, and to determine what his response will be, to an extent he does not if an Iron Throne is in play.

[Chaircat Meow]

That's very true, Mace may well attack. My point is that he has the agency to not attack, and to determine what his response will be, to an extent he does not if an Iron Throne is in play.

I guess we just disagree that this makes a particularly significant difference. And as I pointed out, people have sat out war in a united westeros before.

Also, sometimes the expectation everyone will get involved actually preserves peace. And that's kind of the point of the king. If Tywin attacks the riverlands and Robert is actually still respected, Tywin knows the king can, in theory, turn all the other six kingdoms on him and he may be less inclined to take the risk. So it really works both ways.

Another very good example of kings going to war, simply because there is another war going on, the material issue of which is no concern of their own, is the auld alliance between France and Scotland. The scottish king is usually encouraged and sometimes paid to invade England while English forces are in France, like in the Flodden campaign (1513) in the reign of Henry VIII. James IV has no interest in why Henry wants to prat around in France, but he hopes to win glory, make money, earn respect and secure the goodwill of France by invading in Henry's absence.

[danm_999]

I guess we just disagree that this makes a particularly significant difference. And as I pointed out, people have sat out war in a united westeros before.

Also, sometimes the expectation everyone will get involved actually preserves peace. And that's kind of the point of the king. If Tywin attacks the riverlands and Robert is actually still respected, Tywin knows the king can, in theory, turn all the other six kingdoms on him and he may be less inclined to take the risk. So it really works both ways.

Another very good example of kings going to war, simply because there is another war going on, the material issue of which is no concern of their own, is the auld alliance between France and Scotland. The scottish king is usually encouraged and sometimes paid to invade England while English forces are in France, like in the Flodden campaign (1513) in the reign of Henry VIII. James IV has no interest in why Henry wants to prat around in France, but he hopes to win glory, make money, earn respect and secure the goodwill of France by invading in Henry's absence.

They don't tend to however abstain however, because in a unified system where you are sworn to a central power, if you renege on your duties, you'll likely to have to "pay the piper" when the fighting's over.

[Rheagar Prime]

i want to beileve what everyone thinks that there will be separated kingdoms again but i just don't see it the targs already changed the game when they united the kingdoms and kings have to be greed (except robb) everyone who will be king will want a united kingdom no independence and war will rage until the end of time till that happens. Maybe thats the bitter sweet ending the kingdoms constantly at war, i don't see why people keep on insisting on separate kingdoms when no one witha claim and an army will want that. So it either thru marriages all the kingdoms united and a new system takes place at court with a larger council, consisting of people from the different kingdoms to discuss the ruling of the nation.

[Gurkhal]

i want to beileve what everyone thinks that there will be separated kingdoms again but i just don't see it the targs already changed the game when they united the kingdoms and kings have to be greed (except robb) everyone who will be king will want a united kingdom no independence and war will rage until the end of time till that happens. Maybe thats the bitter sweet ending the kingdoms constantly at war, i don't see why people keep on insisting on separate kingdoms when no one witha claim and an army will want that. So it either thru marriages all the kingdoms united and a new system takes place at court with a larger council, consisting of people from the different kingdoms to discuss the ruling of the nation.

I think this is a central point. The idea of many kingdoms seems to be dead and the idea that lives is the one of a unified kingdom covering the entire Westeros landmass. Untill that idea dies or a sufficient number of people want that idea to ide its going to be a unified kingdom, and I have a hard time seeing anyone in the South wanting to break up the kingdom, and hence the core of the kingdom will remain unitied and thus capable of putting down attempts for separate kingdoms elsewhere.

[Last of the Darklyns]

Uniting the power of two of the Seven Kingdoms through marriage would be the way. For example, say Stannis dies and Shireen is the last Baratheon. She is married to Willas Tyrell and the Stormlands are combined with Highgarden. The Crownlands are added on. In that case, they'd probably be able to raise a vassal army of around 125,000 soldiers, probably almost half of the total power of Westeros. To truly have the people see themselves as combined would take longer, but could happen, and hopefully the nobles would be enough. It would help that the house would be ruled from KL, a more neutral area.