was/is the breakup of the Seven Kingdoms inevitable?--an academic discussion

[J. Stargaryen]

It certainly consitutes an argument. I'm arguing that the Great Lords have no disincentive to commit treason, as the Targaryen's or Robert for that matter didn't have the authority to do anything about it if on their own. Outside of the Greyjoys, who everyone hates, making them an outlier, when an Iron King DID wack out a Lord Paramount for something he thought was treasonous(Rhaegar situation), more of the Great Lords rose up against him than for him. I count the Crownlands as an unofficial Kingdom, so given that, during Robert's Rebellion there were 2 Lord's Paramount, one of which who provided dubious support in Mace Tyrell, and the King. Three Kingdoms. Compare with those that rose up against them. 5, after Tywin Lannister joined. When they stopped being afraid of the Targaryens, and actually bothered to fight, 5 out of 8/ about 2/3rds.

Robert didn't roll like that? Uh, alright. You think he's a nice guy, I think he's smart enough not to make the same mistake his predecessor made (executing a great lord, for any reason) especially when he considered it handed him the keys to the kingdom. I guess I also have to mention Joffrey/the Tyrells. They agreed with Renly, and wait a minute, he claimed Joffrey was an inbred bastard who had no right to sit on the throne! They then proceed, after Renlys death, to side with Joff. Joff does nothing. Because even he isn't that stupid. He'd be fucking himself over and creating more enemies if he tried to press treason, execute the whole family, or revoke the Reach. Just like the Targaryens would have created more enemies.

It goes back to cowardice, not honor. The great lords dealt with the Targs simply because fear held them in line, a theme you'll see often in the history of humanity. It doesn't last forever, though. The only thing that kept these earlier rebellions was that the Targaryens were always lucky enough to have some super badass to clean up their messes(Bloodraven, Tywin for a time) or the fear of dragons stayed the Lords' hands.You can't make the conclusion that they weren't pro independence simply because they didn't openly revolt. They may have simply felt the time wasn't right, were too afraid, or supported a rival claimant and at the time felt it wasn't worth the risk. Aerys' crazy though? Too much for them to take, and the Targ crazy usually increased with each successive generation. Their inbreeding is really paranoia, they practiced agnatic primogeniture after the DoD which pretty much rules out women passing on claims anyway, the avoidiance of which is the point of feudal inbreeding

I also have absolutely no idea whatsoever how showing that honor doesn't mean shit argues against my point that if Robert two different grandparents the realm would have fractured 20 years earlier. They have a very old expression in Westeros: Words are wind. There's a reason that expression is very old, honor and treachery have been around for years. The only thing that kept the Lords in line, again, was cowardice, which was what I said in the first place.

Yet again you make a bunch of declarations, which you then proceed to back up with complete nonsense and bullshit. What's funny about your 'So what?' argument is that the only character who seems to have shared your view is arguably the dumbest individual in the entire story: Balon Greyjoy. My favorite is how you try to justify your 2/3 pro independence argument with Robert's Rebellion. How the hell is going from one king to another 'pro independence'? Do you even know what the word 'independence' means? Let me give you a hint: 'pro independence' lords would necessarily preclude five of them joining together. That's not independence, that's a coalition. An actual example of pro independence would be if Tywin Lannister decided, at the end of RR, that the Westerlands were going to be their own independent kingdom from now on. Get it?

Yes, Robert did not roll like that, to use your words. Robert routinely reconciled with his enemies. This is a fact of Westerosi history. Not an opinion, not something open to debate, but a fact. Not everybody would operate the same way. House Darklyn ring a bell? Now, in some situations lords can get off lightly with treasonous behavior because either: 1) the king is a relatively nice guy like Robert Baratheon or; 2) the crown is not in a position to punish their enemies, which is what occurred between the Tyrells and (faux-Baratheon) Lannisters during the WotFK. This does not in any way support your ridiculous 'pro independence' point.

The bolded part of your third paragraph is hilarious, and will stand on its own as a testament to the absurdity of your arguments.

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. Your entire argument has been based upon a word - independence - for which you apparently do not know the definition.

[Jon Icefyre]

Well Aegon l was only able to unify the kingdoms(with the execption of Dorne who's allegiance came later) because he had three Dragons, no one really stood a chance against him. After that, the Targs kept their grip over the realm with dragons until the "Dragonbane" became king. After that I think they kept power strictly from tradition, money, and the power/godly reputation they had already gained pre "Dragonbane". People were just used to Targs ruling and didn't really have the will/courage/conviction to challenge them. I think because the Targs did have dragons at some point in Westeros the vast majority of people in the realm saw the Targs in an almost godly light(thus the whole tolerating/being okay with the Targ's incest and polygamy thing), people always described the Targs as having "inhuman beauty" so it seemed they should always be the royal family. Once Robert took the throne I think the realm came back down to eath and saw it was just a normal man ruling over them, so the realm started to rely more on realistic things to gain power like currency and military strength(which the Lannisters dominate in both). Once Robert died all bets were off and I think we will see the realm keep that mindset unitl they are exposed to dragons again aka Dany and her three dragons.

I think the way the realm is headed at the moment it seems the seven kingdoms will be divided but that will easily change once Dany arrives with her dragons. If she pulls a Aegon l then expect the realm to have the same response to her as they had to him. But even then I can't help but think that Jon Snow (as a Targ/stark) will lead the north to independece from the seven kingdoms regardless of Dany and the dagons. But you never know so I guess we just have to wait and see.

[Castel]

Yet again you make a bunch of declarations, which you then proceed to back up with complete nonsense and bullshit. What's funny about your 'So what?' argument is that the only character who seems to have shared your view is arguably the dumbest individual in the entire story: Balon Greyjoy. My favorite is how you try to justify your 2/3 pro independence argument with Robert's Rebellion. How the hell is going from one king to another 'pro independence'? Do you even know what the word 'independence' means? Let me give you a hint: 'pro independence' lords would necessarily preclude five of them joining together. That's not independence, that's a coalition. An actual example of pro independence would be if Tywin Lannister decided, at the end of RR, that the Westerlands were going to be their own independent kingdom from now on. Get it?

Yes, Robert did not roll like that, to use your words. Robert routinely reconciled with his enemies. This is a fact of Westerosi history. Not an opinion, not something open to debate, but a fact. Not everybody would operate the same way. House Darklyn ring a bell? Now, in some situations lords can get off lightly with treasonous behavior because either: 1) the king is a relatively nice guy like Robert Baratheon or; 2) the crown is not in a position to punish their enemies, which is what occurred between the Tyrells and (faux-Baratheon) Lannisters during the WotFK. This does not in any way support your ridiculous 'pro independence' point.

The bolded part of your third paragraph is hilarious, and will stand on its own as a testament to the absurdity of your arguments.

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. Your entire argument has been based upon a word - independence - for which you apparently do not know the definition.

I think his problem is that he assumes that everyone wants to be free for the sake of it. A modern view he then projects out unto the rest of the world.

As for the Great Lords having no disincentive to commit treason, someone doesn't understand the basic problem with rebellion.I've tried to explain it but apparently I failed.

I will also add that Robert forgave people because A- he didn't want to continue fighting to revoke their titles and B- he was the rebel it was to his benefit to show himself as merciful, it's kinda douchey to rebel and punish people for being loyal.

[J. Stargaryen]

I think his problem is that he assumes that everyone wants to be free for the sake of it. A modern view he then projects out unto the rest of the world.

As for the Great Lords having no disincentive to commit treason, someone doesn't understand the basic problem with rebellion.I've tried to explain it but apparently I failed.

I will also add that Robert forgave people because A- he didn't want to continue fighting to revoke their titles and B- he was the rebel it was to his benefit to show himself as merciful, it's kinda douchey to rebel and punish people for being loyal.

Well said. I am in complete agreement.

[warble]

snip

snip

I don't mind a little passion, it's expected even. The books have been out for so long, and loyalties have existed for so long, that when you basically call the Targaryens a family of inbred Huns with dragons, it's a bit like a Manchester City fan telling a Manchester United fan that his team is bad and doomed to go bankrupt. I take no offense and try to give none.

First of all, in the case of House Darklyn, they weren't great lords. A great lord to me is someone who rules one of the Seven Kingdoms. We seem to have a difference in exactly what great lord means. When has the title of one of the Seven Kings been revoked? Sure it's happened to House Darklyn, who ruled what to me is a duchy in Duskendale. We've seen that in the case of House Darklyn, Toyne, Castemere, and Reyne. Still unaware of a great lords title being revoked, as again, the lines of House Durrandon, Hoare, and Gardener were all extinguished through combat in Aegon's the Conquerer's wars.

In the case of Robert's Rebellion, if nothing else, they wanted independence from the Targaryens. I'm also in a state of amused shock that you believe it to be impossible for a number of great lords to form a coalition with the stated goal of independence from the Iron Throne. If you truly believe that lords, by definition, cannot form a coalition for independence that's such a benignly amusingly view it's hard to take seriously. Fight together, rule independently from one another/any overlord when the fighting's been won, seems pretty simple. If you're saying that Robert's Rebellion wasn't an independence rebellion, of course it wasn't. What I was arguing was that it easily could have been, as could any of the other civil wars in Westerosi history. I'm not sure if you're saying the possibility doesn't exist, or that they(RR, BF, DOD) weren't independence rebellions. Of course they weren't independence rebellions, but to deny the possibility they could have been is completely hilarious and absurd. Of course, if it is even possible for an independence rebellion to occur, and it clearly is, illustrated by the North/Iron Isles proclaiming their independence, and if it is possible for them to win, and it is, time will see to it that such a rebellion eventually does occur and that it eventually does succeed. After that, it only becomes a question of probabilities as to when it will occur and probabilities as to if the formerly rebellious great lords/now kings can be pulled back into the Iron Throne by force, and even this assumes that the great lords in Andal regions stay loyal which is also a highly questionable issue, an issue that is something that could very easily end the Iron Throne as a political entity. That's what I thought the thread was about, you see, debating the future possibility of a collapse. When doing so you look at events in the past to predict the probabilities of events in the future, something which I've done.

You seem to expect loyalty, duty and honor to carry the day when the King calls his banners - and imply that various oathtakers/lords of all standing have any combination of the three - something I find utterly laughable and absurd, given what I've read of Westerosi history, and especially when presented as a sacred unquestionable fact. Of course Joffrey doesn't revoke the Tyrell's title when he's in a bad position, but right there lies the issue I've been bringing up that you keep ignoring. The King has never been in a good position, because for all of the Iron Throne's existence, the King has never held more than a tiny fraction of power. The great lords have nearly all of it, and thus, everytime the King tries to crush one, it's extremely plausible to believe that the others would rally to the great lords defense, not the kings, because it's in ALL the great lords best interests to keep the balance of power firmly in their favor. Robert's Rebellion shows us this. I also find it questionable that you lump the Tyrells, who joined in with a man who alledged Joff to be an inbred bastard with no claim as "light treason".

You amusingly site the Greyjoys as a supposedly illuminating example where the various oaths the great lords have taken carried the day, making absolutely no account of any other factors such as the fact that the Greyjoys have ruled over the most hated people in Westeros for thousands of years.

Robert routinely reconciled with his enemies, something you say is a fact and isn't open to debate. It's a good thing you perhaps chose those words carefully, because he completely voided this policy in one glaring instance. I seem to recall him trying to send an assassin after a pregnant teenage Targaryen girl, hardly an action taken by a routinely reconciliatory man. Indeed, did he ever even forgive the Targs in his own mind? Eddard didn't think so. You'll note Eddard recalling how heated his friends blood got at the slightest mention of Rhaegar and his family in the Winterfell crypts, if memory serves. Again, precisely how is it impossible for me to look at his sparing of Balon Greyjoy and consider that other factors went into his decision? Specifically that his more powerful vassals may not agree with his decision, and consider him as yet another tyrant who may need to be deposed, despite Balons complete lack of populatity??

If I'm understanding you correctly, you also claim that my last paragraph will serve as a testament to the absurdity of my argument. That's fine for you to think that. I, on the other hand, believe I was simply pointing out that if the circumstances are mildly tweaked, in that if the man - Robert - has two different grandparents, that an independence rebellion on the part of Robert and his allies was entirely possible and perhaps probable, just as was possible in the other civil conflicts of Westeros.

The most obvious and largest flaw in both your arguments is clearly that you both believe Nationalist sentiment to be something that's unique to modern times - something that is absurdly and ridiculously uniformed or misinformed and hilariously mistaken. While it's true that Nationalist sentiment was undoubtedly strengthened by the printing press/availability of media there is no single idea in existence today that an ancient Egyptian didn't think or feel passionately about, all whilst eating his dinner. I'm not projecting Nationalist sentiment onto the peoples of Westeros, it's already there, "What do they know of the Godswood, of the Wall, of the Wolfswood?!". I can give examples if you like, the independence revolts of the North/IronIsles in aGoT and from the physical world we live in. The Moskva revolt against the Tatar yoke comes to mind very quickly. Even in ancient times, many of the Iberian tribes refused to submit to Rome even after many massacres and rebelled time and time again despite Rome's brutality. They were eager and willing to die for their tribe/nation's independence, and willing to risk the lives of their wives and children, people that Rome killed when the men avoided open battle, looking to fight another day. They'd be very amused if told they and their families were dying for an idea that didn't really exist during their time but one that only we today feel strongly about.

You've failed to explain one of the basic points of rebellion, Castel, yes that much is true. You didn't fail because you didn't explain it accurately, or because I just can't understand it, you failed because it's something that I've already known for years. I understand the principle of not wishing to rebel alone against your overlord, it's just that I don't believe that this principle is nearly enough to hold the Throne together. I wonder if you fail to realize if that that same principle also works against Kings, as everyone with a grudge/ambition/greed considers joining in if someone rebels at all, and if the rebels show even a hint of success the loyalists are the ones that don't want to be left out in the cold. An easy example is Tywin joining Robert's Rebellion when it looked as though Robert was heading to victory.

Perhaps you meant that they have nothing to gain by rebellion, because the feudal contract imposed by the Targaryens wasn't severe enough to warrant one? The feudal contract, protection from your enemies in exchange for troops. The problem with this line of thought is that these same Great Lords don't need anyone's protection, shown by their ruling of their lands for thousands of years(link to the timeline on wiki below). Consider that the great lords are the ones supplying the troops that are fighting to bring yet another enemy of house Targaryen, or in Joffs case, house Lannister/Baratheon back into line. Here's how it works: the great lords who rule a respective kingdom of the seven spend their troops lives furthering the Kings glory, and in exchange, they're protected from enemies they don't need protection from. The Greyjoys/Ironborn simply aren't a great enough threat to me to warrant seeking protection from a greater power. The only thing that I could see possibly threatening their position in their own lands is a massive movement of an entire people, but wait, don't we see that the Andals/Rhoynar both were fleeing from encroaching Valyrians? The largely extinct people that aren't pushing people around with dragons en masse anymore. I don't know enough about the Others yet to determine the threat they pose, so I fail to see how the Iron Thrones protection is more beneficial than harmful and why they shouldn't break free from its rule.

A: Robert didn't continue fighting to revoke their titles to avoid further bloodshed. Yep, ok, that probably went into his motives. B: yep, so did that. However it's still completely plausible for me to believe that he simply didn't feel the need to risk causing the same stir his deposed predecessor did by executing a defeated Balon, as Aerys did with Ned's brother/father.

In short: to me it's impossible to make the case that the Iron Throne will stay together because of the inevitable rebellions caused by cultural and religious differences between the various peoples. I've simply read for too much history that shows people will forget just how much their lives are worth and go to war on what seems like absurdly small and petty differences between themselves and their nations, in both Westeros and Earth. The only way I see it staying together is if these cultural and religious differences cease to exist, and it simply isn't possible to assimiliate a people fast enough without schools/modern media. With the progression of technology in Westeros, who knows if they'll ever even get close to the level we enjoy today. Given that, it's far too likely that it breaks down before it assimiliates into a common enough identity.

On an unrelated note, one of the most blaringly unrealistic things about the entire aGoT series that always irks me is the Common Tongue. In the real world, languages and cultures diverge when the same people are cut off and isolated from the larger society as a whole for an extended period of time. In periods as short as 2000 years, cultures, traditions and languages change quite dramatically, and no such effect is present in Westeros. For a good example, see the divergence of the proto-Germanic language into many modern languages, including the one we're speaking right now. If you apply this effect, the Andals wouldn't have anywhere near the same homogenous level they enjoy and the Iron Throne would be complete toast. Here's a timeline of Westeros showing more than enough time needed for these changes to occur in Andal culture if this effect were present: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Timeline_of_major_events

long post yeah yeah

[AdXRoss]

On an unrelated note, one of the most blaringly unrealistic things about the entire aGoT series that always irks me is the Common Tongue. In the real world, languages and cultures diverge when the same people are cut off and isolated from the larger society as a whole for an extended period of time. In periods as short as 2000 years, cultures, traditions and languages change quite dramatically, and no such effect is present in Westeros. For a good example, see the divergence of the proto-Germanic language into many modern languages, including the one we're speaking right now. If you apply this effect, the Andals wouldn't have anywhere near the same homogenous level they enjoy and the Iron Throne would be complete toast. Here's a timeline of Westeros showing more than enough time needed for these changes to occur in Andal culture if this effect were present: http://awoiaf.wester...of_major_events

long post yeah yeah

This is an interesting point and one that's struck me a little, going slightly off-topic - the peoples of Westeros are alarmingly homogeneous for such a large territory (getting on for South America sized) that has been settled for such a long time (10,000 years plus), seen at least three major foreign invasions and runs through geographical areas as diverse as equivilents southern Spain to northern Russia; that on top of all this has pre-modern methods of travel and communication (even if raven-mail is very efficient).

In contrast, modern Britain, an area tiny in contrast to fictional Westeros, with modern infrastructure and technology, has an incredibly diverse set of strong regional identities, and emerging more and more, a sort of cultural split between the the south-south-east, and the north/Celtic fringe. Many other nations too make Britain look completely homogeneous.

[Naathi Prince]

This is an interesting point and one that's struck me a little, going slightly off-topic - the peoples of Westeros are alarmingly homogeneous for such a large territory (getting on for South America sized) that has been settled for such a long time (10,000 years plus), seen at least three major foreign invasions and runs through geographical areas as diverse as equivilents southern Spain to northern Russia; that on top of all this has pre-modern methods of travel and communication (even if raven-mail is very efficient).

In contrast, modern Britain, an area tiny in contrast to fictional Westeros, with modern infrastructure and technology, has an incredibly diverse set of strong regional identities, and emerging more and more, a sort of cultural split between the the south-south-east, and the north/Celtic fringe. Many other nations too make Britain look completely homogeneous.

Look at South America, though. There are only two languages, for the most part, in South America, nearly everyone is or was Catholic, etc.

[Axrendale]

On an unrelated note, one of the most blaringly unrealistic things about the entire aGoT series that always irks me is the Common Tongue. In the real world, languages and cultures diverge when the same people are cut off and isolated from the larger society as a whole for an extended period of time. In periods as short as 2000 years, cultures, traditions and languages change quite dramatically, and no such effect is present in Westeros. For a good example, see the divergence of the proto-Germanic language into many modern languages, including the one we're speaking right now. If you apply this effect, the Andals wouldn't have anywhere near the same homogenous level they enjoy and the Iron Throne would be complete toast. Here's a timeline of Westeros showing more than enough time needed for these changes to occur in Andal culture if this effect were present: http://awoiaf.wester...of_major_events

The existence of a universally known "common tongue" that enables characters from diverse regions to communicate with each other, is something that I chalk up as being a literary device meant to facilitate the story rather than enhance the "realistic" tone of Martin's world-building. It's a trope that is as common in fantasy as (for example) the existence of technology enabling faster-than-the-speed-of-light space travel is in science fiction.

[Castel]

The existence of a universally known "common tongue" that enables characters from diverse regions to communicate with each other, is something that I chalk up as being a literary device meant to facilitate the story rather than enhance the "realistic" tone of Martin's world-building. It's a trope that is as common in fantasy as (for example) the existence of technology enabling faster-than-the-speed-of-light space travel is in science fiction.

Pretty much. And like with FTL, the writer generally gets a pass.

Regardless, we have to use it here, and it's beneficial to a central power.