Would returning to seven independent kingdoms be such a good idea?

[BlackStark]

This's a huge improvement compared to the situation before this, when practically every year there was a war.

Military conflicts can't be eliminated in a feudal society - the ruling warrior class should justify its existence somehow.

I don't necessarily see it as a huge improvement, rather than having small scale conflicts that may encompass specific regions instead you have replaced them with large scale conflicts that because of fealty to the IT require all regions to contribute either manpower or treasure to wage.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

A key thing that people miss about the Iron Throne existing, is that it didn't stop wars and petty squabbles. Even excluding the Blackfyre rebellions, there were a few rebellions that occurred, particularly in more recent times albeit. The Greyjoys reaved, Skagos rebelled, the Reynes/Tarbeck issue happened, the Webber-Chequey conflict occurred etc. About the only thing you might be able to argue is that there was a reduction in the cases of whole kingdoms fighting each other, but there was still war, fighting, and conflicts all over the show. And for all we know, there could be a lot more of the same happening; it was definitely enough to give hedge knights across the realm plenty of work.

[NorthRemembers]

We have fewer border wars since Westeros ia all one big happy kingdom, but when there is a war, EVERYONE gets involved. I'm not sure this is a massive step up. Trying to mess diverse political and ethnic groups into one homogenous government is always a recipe for conflict. Best to let each region self-determinate. Their might be more conflicts outside the Kingdoms, but inside you will more peace between the peoples.

This si even ignoring the moral rights of people to choose their own leadership, even if it is simply a king of their choosing.

[Morienthar]

delete

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

I think there will be a split, thinking it will be the end result is not the same as thinking its what would be best btw. Its just thinking that is how things will be at the end of ADOS.

I think its probably going to be 3 kingdoms. Possibly two if Dorne and the South are in Targ hands at the end.

[Frozentree]

We have fewer border wars since Westeros ia all one big happy kingdom, but when there is a war, EVERYONE gets involved. I'm not sure this is a massive step up. Trying to mess diverse political and ethnic groups into one homogenous government is always a recipe for conflict. Best to let each region self-determinate. Their might be more conflicts outside the Kingdoms, but inside you will more peace between the peoples.

Not everyone is involved. Yes, knights from entire kingdom come to fight, but not entire kingdom is a battlefield. If there were separate kingdoms, one could devastate one with ease and the pillage and destroyed fields would cause great famine. Now the "kingdoms" mutually help to protect each other and provide ready supply of food because it is not destroyed completely. Also, bigger army discourages these wars from happening in the first place. It is said there were wars more often than not before conquest, do not be fooled by the fact they did not stop happening altogether.

This si even ignoring the moral rights of people to choose their own leadership, even if it is simply a king of their choosing.

Ehm, "choose" their own leadership? King is a king, it is aristocratic title inherited by the oldest son of previous king. That the king rules only certain portion of ground instead of whole continent does not make him more caring or benevolent towards the people. there is no "choice" for the people, unless you bring democracy, which can work in 1 big kingdom just as well as in 9 small ones.

[danm_999]

Probably. The Iron Throne seems to have intensified the scale and frequency of warfare in Westeros by both tethering everybody politically to a single entity, and upping the stakes to the game of thrones and internicine warfare.

Before Aegon's Conquest, there was a system of de facto neutrality Westerosi kingdoms could practice. For example, the Riverlands can happily sit out of a war between Dorne and the Reach. Post-Conquest, not so much; Riverrun/Harrenhall would be forced to provide support, or face future censure, meaning it's far more difficult, and in some instances impossible, to remain truly neutral.

In many cases, an incident anywhere in Westeros can kick off a continental war everywhere in Westeros, especially when the root cause is a feud in the royal dynasty who is supposed to have dominion over everybody. That's when you get ridiculous cases like Septon Meribald and his entire village, a village of peasant from the Riverlands, fighting in a war over political coalitions being formed in Essos.

[Djinn]

Every time i read about the Northmen(first men, old gods believers) ruling over the Vale(andal, seven believers), i immediately assume that this isn't about ASOIF but some other setting. The Andal cultural influence isn't going back, no mather how much snow you inhale.

[TalalOfDorne]

I have always gone for 3 or maybe 4 kingdoms at the end.

Option 1 :

Northern kingdom : the north, upper half of the riverlands, iron isles, beyond the wall, the wall.

Middle kingdom : Lannister, lower half of the riverlands, vale, king's landing.

Southern kingdom : Dorne, reach, stormlands

Option 2 :

Northern kingdom : the north, upper half of the riverlands, iron isles, beyond the wall, the wall.

Middle kingdom : Lannister, lower half of the riverlands, vale

south-west kingdom : dorne, reach

Eastern kingdom : Storm lands, king's landing

The problem is that some of the kingdoms you want to unite wouldnt agree to do so. Dorne and the Reach alone will never happen, and neither will Dorne-Reach-Stormalnds. These regions fought border wars with each other, and have a lot of enmity between them.

And the Ironborn want independence. They were deprived of so many of their customs when the Targaryens came, and I dont think they would swaer fealty to anyone now that they are independent again.

[TalalOfDorne]

I think the ending would be: An independent North. Independent Iron Islands. An independent Dorne.

The rest of the kingdoms I have no idea.

[locke and key]

I think, it would definitely make things a whole lot harder for the people of the riverlands, as an independent kingdom they would be open to attack from kingdoms by land and one other by sea, they wouldn't survive

[GreatjonUnchained]

Another thing I think we have to look at is where Long Night 2.0 fits in.

Westeros has to be somewhat united in their efforts to defeat the Others. Will one King have to unite them or will several kings unite to end the Long Night?

If its the latter, it does present some more risk. For example: King A lets Kings B and C fight the Others while he hangs back. He would see it as a way to gain the upper hand over the other two when the war is settled. It seems a little risky if you ask me.

[Fat Mac]

Once again, I express complaint with people who assume the Vale will be ruled by a King in the North. The Arryns might as well have been around as long as the Starks, the the people in the Vale want no other ruler than an Arryn. You can see this in their vicious defense of a seven year old sickly boy.

The Vale might temporarily be allied with the North, even through marriage, but a long standing fealty to them would make no sense on the part of the Vale. The Vale relies on chivalry, faith in the Seven, and loyalty to the Arryns. The North runs an entirely different way.

That little rant being done, I can see seven kingdoms arising again. I surely wouldn't mind it. Riverlands can be part of the North or Vale, or split up entirely between bordering regions. Combine Crownlands with the Stormlands and boom, you have your seven Kingdoms.

[NorthRemembers]

Ehm, "choose" their own leadership? King is a king, it is aristocratic title inherited by the oldest son of previous king. That the king rules only certain portion of ground instead of whole continent does not make him more caring or benevolent towards the people. there is no "choice" for the people, unless you bring democracy, which can work in 1 big kingdom just as well as in 9 small ones.

.....You missed my point. I think it is fair to assume that everyone knows what a King is. To repeat, any group of people have the right to decide how they should govern themselves, even if that choice is a monarchy. The North choose independance under a Stark king. As did the Riverlands. That was their choice. The other six and the IT have no legitimate moral right to deny them this.

Granted, it was the nobles choosing, not the people themselves, and as such far flung from a democracy, but this Roverlands/Northern Kingsmoot as it were was morally legitimate.

[NorthRemembers]

Once again, I express complaint with people who assume the Vale will be ruled by a King in the North. The Arryns might as well have been around as long as the Starks, the the people in the Vale want no other ruler than an Arryn. You can see this in their vicious defense of a seven year old sickly boy.

The Vale might temporarily be allied with the North, even through marriage, but a long standing fealty to them would make no sense on the part of the Vale. The Vale relies on chivalry, faith in the Seven, and loyalty to the Arryns. The North runs an entirely different way.

Normally I woulf agree, but most of this could also apply to thr Tullys and Riverlanders as a whole. Minus the blackwoods, your comments apply just as well to the Riverlands as to the Vale, barring a loftier sense of it all in the Vale and perhaps purer Andal blood.

That said, Starks in positions of power tend to do queer things, including insane spurts of loyalty. Robb won over the Riverlanders perfectly well, beyond all expectations. This includes several Freys who were ready to betray their house for him. Theon, and Ironborn, was loyal until the utmost preassure was put on him. He won over a Westerlands house, or at least portions of it. Raynald and Jeyne without a doubt which is astounding since they were at war and Robb had just sacked their keep.

Now Sansa is in the Vale preparing to marry the next Arryn heir. I don;t doubt she may have inherited her Brother's way with loyalty once she learns a bit more, and combined with many lord strong inclinations to fight with the North anyway, I don't don't see it as simple cut and dry. Not guarranteed, but not out of bounds either.

[Lord Reaver]

Theon, and Ironborn, was loyal until the utmost preassure was put on him.

Whether Theon ever was Ironborn is debatable, due to him being raised by the Starks.

[Rodrik Storm]

Don't forget* the Vale used to be independent under the Mountain King which the arryns adopted, it wasn't until the heir to the kingdom wanted to ride a dragon that they bent their knee.

[Barty]

7 separate kingdoms would be better off. We would see lots more smaller wars but hardly ever a large one like the wot5k or blackfyre rebellion or Dance of dragons.

Most battles fought before were small scale as can be verified from the fact that the army of reach lannister union at the field of fire (55k) was the biggest ever in the entire history of westeros. Now we see armies nearly twice that size - by logic, the larger the army the more destruction it will cause. Most wars were over small areas - like the wolf's den or the sisters - these wars would be limited in geography and intensity. In a united westeros the wars are over control of the entire continent as opposed to small parts and thus are far more widespread in their destruction.

[Humble Hedge Knight]

One of the most common theories about the series' ending is that the Iron Throne will be dissolved and the seven kingdoms will become independent again. But is it really such a good idea? Wouldn't that eventually cause the same sort of feudalistic conflict and disunity

The "union" of the seven kingdoms under the Iron Throne did not stop feudalistic conflict and disunity; the real power remained (and remains) with each of the seven Lords of Westeros. The only thing the Targaryens had were the dragons, and once they were gone it is easy to see just how dependent they became on the Lords for their power (see Robert's Rebellion, etc.).

Even with the Iron Throne technically uniting the Seven Kingdoms, the royal authority itself is powerless without a preponderance of Lordly support below. If greater than half of the Lords do not agree with the Iron Throne, the Iron Throne loses. The royal power in and of itself is nothing.

[Frey Pie]

The problem is that some of the kingdoms you want to unite wouldnt agree to do so. Dorne and the Reach alone will never happen, and neither will Dorne-Reach-Stormalnds. These regions fought border wars with each other, and have a lot of enmity between them.

And the Ironborn want independence. They were deprived of so many of their customs when the Targaryens came, and I dont think they would swaer fealty to anyone now that they are independent again.

If the IB dont change their ways and progress culturally then they will eventually become a shadow of what they are now. They need leaders like Asha and Rodrik the Reader, and less of the Balons