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

[Mladen]

And she could have roasted her alive right there but didn't for some reason it's unknown why but she should have and dorne would have won I garunte Ageon would gone all Harren hall on her that would have that.

She could have killed her, but she was alone, and Rhaenys knew she could be easily killed. And then we have 150 years of failures. You would think they could conquer Dorne so easily, if they controlled all the armies of Westeros. Well they didn`t.

[Aleksandar]

Agreed. The IT by itself isn't strong enough to genuinely unite the 7K. You need a dragon for that.

And Dany has three

[Perfidious Algernon]

And Dany has three

which, given what we know about GRRM, I take as a clear sign that two of them will be stolen. we're not allowed to have nice things.

[King of Winters]

And Dany has three

Except when she lands in Westeros half of the South will have already declared for (F)Aegon. And they won't just follow Dany because she has dragons, when they believe they are following the true Targ heir. That will in turn create a second Dance of Dragons.

[Perfidious Algernon]

Except when she lands in Westeros half of the South will have already declared for (F)Aegon. And they won't just follow Dany because she has dragons, when they believe they are following the true Targ heir. That will in turn create a second Dance of Dragons.

It'll be an awful short dance if he doesn't find a dragon of his own somewhere

[The Red Pope]

A few big conflicts actually causes fewer deaths and less destruction than many small ones, not the other way round.

http://www.guillaumeerard.com/images/stories/aikido/articles/violence/Keeley.jpg

Percentage of men who died in war in some tribal societies compared to the US in the 20th century.

[Aleksandar]

Read up - the faith militant rebellion was all out war. There were bloody battles between the crown and the faith, not some random burnings. The battle of bitterbridge, the battle of the great fork are just 2 such examples(of huge battles) and they took place in the first year of Maegors rule - first year out of 6 years of his rule in which the entire continent was in a continuous state of war.

Have you read the books?? 160 years of peace?? As soon as Aegon died in 37 AL, the faith rebellion started and went on for the next 11 years. After that we have the long rule Jaehaerys which was mainly peaceful but then again around 120AL the Dance of dragons began which lasted for 2 years. Then another 30 years later the conquest of Dorne takes place - in which Daeron loses 10k men to take Dorne, another 50k to hold it and as soon as he dies - Dorne goes back to being independent(hence the unsuccessful campaign)

Dagon GreyJoy's reaving was far worse than Balon's - it lasted years with the IT doing absolutely nothing to stop him. Also why the fuck should the Lannisters and Starks send taxes and men to fight for the IT when the IT does not even defend it's subjects from pirates and reavers like Dagon or the wildlings.

What do I expect from the King when one of his kingdoms is being attacked by a foreign body?? I expect him to send soldiers to defeat the invasion instead of sitting on his iron chair and saying that the Northmen will defend themselves. If a king cannot be bothered to go and defend his own kingdom then he is no king.

The point was to show that even with Targs on the throne the petty disputes did not stop but were now joined by Large, continent wide wars.

Learn how to count.

Ok......first 4 or 5 years i;m not sure Aenys was king.....and he was week.....Faith in those years gathered strenght....yelling agenst Targ's while Aenys read poetry.....Last year of war....Maegor came....well and ended rebellion very quickly....

My point was No More faith militant....

OMG just read my quote......I said 2 major rebellion's were DwD and Blackfyre....

Peace lasted 100 years during 60 years of Jhaerys and 40 of Viserys I....Before Daeron I there were NO WAR's whit Dorna(BC you had constant wars between Dorna Reach and Stormlands).....so yea there was 160 year's of peace whit Dorna.....Stop twisting my words....And campagin was successful....he conquered Dorna.....then they rebelled....and then again during Daeron II rule they finally Joined the 7K...so yes it was Success!

As i said read Dunk&Egg novels!!!.......

So tell me Rymund Redbeard crosed wall and killed sleeping Dzek in Castle black by that time raven got to Winterfall...By the time Reymund Redbeard got to long lake Raven arrived to King's landing....By the day King on IT assembled the small council to respond and aid Lord Stark Reymund was dead.

Of course you had idiot lords all the time.....Imagine idiocy to imprison king because you don't want to pay taxes wich lord Darklyn did.....imagine idiocy>?...

And there will always be a idiot lord who thinks he is better then his liege lord(like Raynes).....

[NorthRemembers]

3 of the 5 kings in the Wo5K wanted the IT and the IT won it so clearly they did

You mean like at the start of the WOT5K when only 1 out of the six kingdoms payed any attention to the orders coming off the IT, and that was only because they were the ones that control it?

[Citadel_acolyte]

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

Yes, and each Kingdom to be ruled by a "Dragon" (though not necessarily a Targ) = the three headed dragon

[Perfidious Algernon]

A few big conflicts actually causes fewer deaths and less destruction than many small ones, not the other way round.

http://www.guillaume...ence/Keeley.jpg

Percentage of men who died in war in some tribal societies compared to the US in the 20th century.

that is a kickass graph, confirms something I sorta suspected already . permission to steal it shamelessly in future threads?

[Jasta11]

A few big conflicts actually causes fewer deaths and less destruction than many small ones, not the other way round.

http://www.guillaume...ence/Keeley.jpg

Percentage of men who died in war in some tribal societies compared to the US in the 20th century.

Good thing this is about Westeros, and not about small tribes in the real world, then. This graph is pretty much completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I mean, in actual Westeros history, the last rebellion in the North of any note was 700 years ago. Many families, from the Starks to the Lannisters to the Arryns, Martells and Gardeners, have ruled for thousands of years, more than any dynasty on Earth, ever. So clearly direct comparisons are very faulty at best, and Westeros was nowhere near an unstable war-torn hellhole before Aegon showed up.

[The Red Pope]

that is a kickass graph, confirms something I sorta suspected already . permission to steal it shamelessly in future threads?

Sure, how do you think I got it? Trolls do not sow. ;)

Good thing this is about Westeros, and not about small tribes in the real world, then. This graph is pretty much completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I mean, in actual Westeros history, the last rebellion in the North of any note was 700 years ago. Many families, from the Starks to the Lannisters to the Arryns, Martells and Gardeners, have ruled for thousands of years, more than any dynasty on Earth, ever. So clearly direct comparisons are very faulty at best, and Westeros was nowhere near an unstable war-torn hellhole before Aegon showed up.

This graph shows two extremes, a common way to illustrate a phenomenon which true for most situations. The small raids and disputes of tribal peoples seem quite harmless when compared to the massive battles of WW1 and 2, but once you add up the numbers the truth turns out to be otherwise because with large wars you have long periods of peace in between.

That's pure bullshit, that was only the latest Bolton rebellion. And then there was the never ending struggle for the Riverlands, the Ironborn who had pillaged nonstop since the dawn of time and all the border regions which per definition are lawless and fair game for raiding parties from both sides even in peacetime.

[Perfidious Algernon]

Good thing this is about Westeros, and not about small tribes in the real world, then. This graph is pretty much completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I mean, in actual Westeros history, the last rebellion in the North of any note was 700 years ago. Many families, from the Starks to the Lannisters to the Arryns, Martells and Gardeners, have ruled for thousands of years, more than any dynasty on Earth, ever. So clearly direct comparisons are very faulty at best, and Westeros was nowhere near an unstable war-torn hellhole before Aegon showed up.

The Starks and the Arryns maintained a 1000 year war for control of the Sisters, so uniting the North didn't usher in peace.

Also stability in the highest tier of society doesn't necessarily translate into a secure way of life for the smallfolk. Permanent, lower intensity warfare means your home is always under threat and your sons are always likely to be carried off in a levy. Good for the kings and landed nobles, very bad for the lower classes.

[The Red Pope]

Many families, from the Starks to the Lannisters to the Arryns, Martells and Gardeners, have ruled for thousands of years, more than any dynasty on Earth, ever.

With their kings who ruled for hundreds of years in the Age of Heroes and married to mermaids.

The first kings of the Sumerians ruled for thousands of years each, if you believe their own accounts.

[Jasta11]

The Starks and the Arryns maintained a 1000 year war for control of the Sisters, so uniting the North didn't usher in peace.

Also stability in the highest tier of society doesn't necessarily translate into a secure way of life for the smallfolk. Permanent, lower intensity warfare means your home is always under threat and your sons are always likely to be carried off in a levy. Good for the kings and landed nobles, very bad for the lower classes.

What proof do you have that there actually was constant low intensity warfare, or that said constant warfare stopped under IT rule? It sure as hell didn't stop rebellions like the Reyne's and Tarbeck's. Martin is not a type of author to skimp on the details; we would most probably know about it.

And even said (theoretical) low intensity warfare is certainly miles better than the likes of Gregor raping the Riverlands, or massive 20K men armies living off the land. Again, it's not like wars for the IT were sporadic. 7 major wars in 300 years is a lot of high intensity warfare, worse than, say, what happened in Europe during the medieval ages.

As for that graph, I'll need more than that. Sources? Where do the numbers come from? How is it calculated? backed by who? You can't just throw a random graph and claim it's the end-all of any argument.

With their kings who ruled for hundreds of years in the Age of Heroes and married to mermaids.

The first kings of the Sumerians ruled for thousands of years each, if you believe their own accounts.

Cute, but the caveat is that the Starks, for example, can actually trace their lineage. Maybe they didn't rule for 8000 years, but they have ruled a very long time indeed, again more than any Earth dynasty. This certainly suggests a good amount of stability, much more than the Iron Throne's that's for certain. No it doesn't mean things were sunshine and roses pre-Aegon, but nothing proves the Iron Throne actually improved things either, quite the contrary.

[The Red Pope]

The Mountain raping the Riverlands is exactly the kind of thing that would have gone on in all the small wars. Or whenever there was an opportunity for it such as when a kingdom was weakened due to famine, sickness or war on other fronts. In fact this was the base of the Ironborns' way of life and the reason why they shrunk back into a bunch of bitter nostalgics after Aegon came.

Tywin was the warden of the West remember? The crown had appointed him to keep peace there. Which he did, quick and decisively if the revolt had dragged on however Aerys would have sent an army of his own to end it. The king doesn't get involved unless the warden can't handle the situation or it involves more than one region.

And the reason the armies were smaller back then was that the periods of peace were too short for their numbers to rise to the levels of the Targaryen era. War, especially during long periods means a drop in population.

[Persicaria]

I find it odd that most people believe there will be peace if there were seven kingdoms, or more appropriately "More peace". I don't think there will be, it can be dissolved much like the great Greek empire, but don't forget the Romans came after. They already know it is possible to unify westeros, and while there were dragons, dragons are nothing without sound military strategy. Even if they are dissolved it will not be long where one lord will have ambitions of unifying the empire once again with the new King's landing in the "North," "west," "south, what have you. Everyoen is making presumptions too about what it was like before the Targ's. I find it strnge that most are saying there were o major conflicts and then jumping at others for assuming otherwise and saying there is nothing about it in the text. If there is nothing about it in the text you cannot assume that there were no wars. Because frankly, the wars of a thousand years ago have no real bearing in the story (what we need to know about is the other's , the children, and other magical items). Therefore, the wars of men are of little importance to the narrative, and therefore have no page time. It doesn't mean that it didn't happenNow let us look at history, human history, if we shall. The world was built on war and even when a hundred different tribes existed there was also a few douches who saw Grunts tribe had nicer caves and decided to fight off/rape/murder Grunt's family for his cave. The Greek city states, small in size, were in constant conflict for land and prestige and almost always behaving badly to their neighbors. Interesting fact, there were greek city states that actually fought for the Persians against the Spartans because they distrusted their neighbors more, article can be found here : http://allempires.co...?q=the_spartans . Yes, we did not have millions dying in ancient times, because we did not have the same population density in those days. Considering the time of the children ended right before or right with Targ's there was probably a much less dense human population as well. Of course, with how things are going we will likely see a large loss of population due to war, disease, and famine.

[Lord Reaver]

The point is that with no data on wars before Aegon, all assumptions will be equally invalid. So assuming that there was constant war with high losses is just as silly as assuming there was no war.

But one has to put the burden of proof on the people who are presenting a claim. In this thread the claim is that having a unified Westeros is somehow better. The only argument I have seen for this is that there is supposedly 'more peace', which is practically impossible to prove due to the aforementioned lack of information about the situation prior to Aegon's conquest.

I, on the other hand have provided arguments that does NOT deal with number of people killed, but rather with other important aspects of civilization which seem to be encouraged in a situation with several smaller states, rather than one big empire. I have so far seen no attempt to argue against this, or even present any other argument than "under the IT, less people will get killed in war".

[Penguin king]

What proof do you have that there actually was constant low intensity warfare, or that said constant warfare stopped under IT rule? It sure as hell didn't stop rebellions like the Reyne's and Tarbeck's. Martin is not a type of author to skimp on the details; we would most probably know about it.

And even said (theoretical) low intensity warfare is certainly miles better than the likes of Gregor raping the Riverlands, or massive 20K men armies living off the land. Again, it's not like wars for the IT were sporadic. 7 major wars in 300 years is a lot of high intensity warfare, worse than, say, what happened in Europe during the medieval ages.

Wikipedia's list of wars in Europe from the 14th to 16th centuries:

14th century

• 1302 Battle of the Golden Spurs
  
• 1307 Battle of Lucka
  
• 1311–1312 Rebellion of wójt Albert
  
• 1312 Battle of Rozgony
  
• 1321–1322 Despenser War
  
• 1321–1328 Byzantine civil war of 1321–1328
  
• 1323–1328 Peasant revolt in Flanders
  
• 1324 War of Saint-Sardos
  
• 1326–1332 Polish–Teutonic War
  
• 1333–1338 Burke Civil War
  
• 1337–1453 Hundred Years' War
  
• 1340–1392 Galicia–Volhynia Wars
  
• 1340–1396 Bulgarian–Ottoman Wars
  
• 1341–1347 Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347
  
• 1342–1350 Zealot's Rebellion
  
• 1343–1345 St. George's Night Uprising
  
• 1347–1352 Neapolitan campaigns of Louis the Great
  
• 1350–1498 Wars of the Vetkopers and Schieringers
  
• 1356–1358 Jacquerie
  
• 1356–1375 War of the Two Peters
  
• 1362 Battle of Helsingborg
  
• 1362–1457 War of the Bands
  
• 1366–1369 Castilian Civil War
  
• 1366–1526 Ottoman–Hungarian Wars
  
• 1369–1370 First Ferdinand War
  
• 1371 Battle of Baesweiler
  
• 1371–1379 War of the Succession of Guelders
  
• 1371–1381 War of Chioggia
  
• 1372–1373 Second Ferdinand War
  
• 1373–1379 Byzantine civil war of 1373–1379
  
• 1375 Gugler War
  
• 1375–1378 War of the Eight Saints
  
• 1381 Peasants' Revolt
  
• 1381–1382 Third Ferdinand War
  
• 1381–1384 Lithuanian Civil War
  
• 1382 Harelle and Maillotins Revolt
  
• 1381–1404 Second Georgian-Mongol War
  
• 1389 Battle of Kosovo
  
• 1389–1392 Lithuanian Civil War
  
• 1395 Battle of Nicopolis
  

15th century

• 1400–1415 Glyndŵr Rising
  
• 1401–1429 Appenzell Wars
  
• 1407–1468 Georgian-Turkoman War
  
• 1409–1411 Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War
  
• 1410–1435 War of Slesvig
  
• 1414 Hunger War
  
• 1419–1434 Hussite Wars
  
• 1422 Gollub War
  
• 1422 Battle of Arbedo
  
• 1425–1454 Wars in Lombardy
  
• 1431–1435 Polish–Teutonic War
  
• 1434–1436 Engelbrekt rebellion
  
• 1437 Budai Nagy Antal Revolt
  
• 1438–1556 Russo-Kazan Wars
  
• 1440–1446 Old Zürich War
  
• 1443–1444 Long campaign
  
• 1445 First Battle of Olmedo
  
• 1447–1448 Albanian–Venetian War
  
• 1449–1450 First Margrave War
  
• 1449 Battle of Castione
  
• 1449–1453 Revolt of Ghent
  
• 1450 Cade's Rebellion
  
• 1451–1455 Navarrese Civil War
  
• 1453–1454 Morea revolt
  
• 1454–1466 Thirteen Years' War
  
• 1455–1485 Wars of the Roses
  
• 1462–1485 Rebellion of the Remences
  
• 1462–1472 Catalonian Civil War
  
• 1463–1479 Ottoman–Venetian War
  
• 1465 Battle of Montlhéry
  
• 1465–1468 Liège Wars
  
• 1466–1469 Irmandiño Wars
  
• 1467 Second Battle of Olmedo
  
• 1467–1479 War of the Priests
  
• 1468 Waldshut War
  
• 1468–1478 Bohemian War
  
• 1470–1471 Dano-Swedish War
  
• 1470–1474 Anglo-Hanseatic War
  
• 1475–1479 War of the Castilian Succession
  
• 1477–1488 Austrian-Hungarian War (1477–1488)
  
• 1478 Carinthian peasant revolt
  
• 1478 Battle of Giornico
  
• 1479 Battle of Guinegate
  
• 1482–1484 War of Ferrara
  
• 1484 Battle of Lochmaben Fair
  
• 1485–1488 Mad War
  
• 1487 Battle of Crevola
  
• 1487 War of Rovereto
  
• 1488 Battle of Sauchieburn
  
• 1492–1583 Muscovite–Lithuanian Wars
  
• 1494–1498 Italian War of 1494–1498
  
• 1495–1497 Russo-Swedish War
  
• 1497 Cornish Rebellion of 1497
  
• 1497 Battle of Rotebro
  
• 1499 Swabian War
  
• 1499–1504 Italian War of 1499–1504
  

16th century

• c. 1500–1854 Lekianoba
  
• 1502–1543 Guelderian Wars
  
• 1503–1505 Landshut War of Succession
  
• 1508–1516 War of the League of Cambrai
  
• 1509–1510 Polish–Moldavian War
  
• 1514 Poor Conrad's Rebellion
  
• 1514 Dózsa rebellion
  
• 1514–1517 Saxon feud
  
• 1515 Slovenian peasant revolt
  
• 1515–1523 Frisian peasant rebellion
  
• 1519–1521 Polish–Teutonic War
  
• 1520–1521 Revolt of the Comuneros
  
• 1521–1523 Revolt of the Brotherhoods
  
• 1521–1523 Swedish War of Liberation
  
• 1521–1718 Ottoman-Habsburg wars
  
• 1522–1523 Knights' Revolt
  
• 1522–1559 Habsburg-Valois Wars
  
• 1524–1525 German Peasants' War
  
• 1526 Revolt of Espadán
  
• 1529 First War of Kappel
  
• 1531 Second War of Kappel
  
• 1534 Silken Thomas Rebellion
  
• 1534–1535 Münster Rebellion
  
• 1534–1536 Count's Feud
  
• 1536–1537 Pilgrimage of Grace
  
• 1540 Salt War
  
• 1542–1543 Dacke War
  
• 1543–1550 War of the Rough Wooing
  
• 1546–1547 Schmalkaldic War
  
• 1549 Kett's Rebellion
  
• 1549 Prayer Book Rebellion
  
• 1550 Battle of Sauðafell
  
• 1552–1555 Second Margrave War
  
• 1554 Wyatt's rebellion
  
• 1554–1557 Russo-Swedish War
  
• 1558–1583 Livonian War
  
• 1560 Siege of Leith
  
• 1562–1598 French Wars of Religion
  
• 1563–1570 Northern Seven Years' War
  
• 1568–1570 Morisco Revolt
  
• 1568–1648 Eighty Years' War
  
• 1569–1570 Rising of the North
  
• 1569–1573 First Desmond Rebellion
  
• 1573 Croatian–Slovenian peasant revolt
  
• 1578 Georgian-Ottoman War
  
• 1579–1583 Second Desmond Rebellion
  
• 1580–1583 War of the Portuguese Succession
  
• 1583–1588 Cologne War
  
• 1585–1604 Anglo-Spanish War
  
• 1587–1588 War of the Polish Succession
  
• 1590–1595 Russo-Swedish War
  
• 1593–1606 Long War
  
• 1593–1617 Moldavian Magnate Wars
  
• 1594–1603 Nine Years' War (Ireland)
  
• 1595–1621 Magnate wars in Moldavia
  
• 1596–1597 Cudgel War
  
• 1598–1599 War against Sigismund
  

Cute, but the caveat is that the Starks, for example, can actually trace their lineage. Maybe they didn't rule for 8000 years, but they have ruled a very long time indeed, again more than any Earth dynasty. This certainly suggests a good amount of stability, much more than the Iron Throne's that's for certain. No it doesn't mean things were sunshine and roses pre-Aegon, but nothing proves the Iron Throne actually improved things either, quite the contrary.

The Japanese imperial family can supposedly trace their lineage back over 2600 years, but how true the accounts actually are is dificult to say. Even with modern practices and record keeping history is not an exact science. When you look at the way information is passed on in westeros, with few being able to read and write, and information having to be copied down by hand or passed on orally, and little in the way of archological research conducted, I'd be weary of putting too much faith into the histories we're presented with.

[Jasta11]

1. The Mountain raping the Riverlands is exactly the kind of thing that would have gone on in all the small wars. Or whenever there was an opportunity for it such as when a kingdom was weakened due to famine, sickness or war on other fronts. In fact this was the base of the Ironborns' way of life and the reason why they shrunk back into a bunch of bitter nostalgics after Aegon came.

2. Tywin was the warden of the West remember? The crown had appointed him to keep peace there. Which he did, quick and decisively if the revolt had dragged on however Aerys would have sent an army of his own to end it. The king doesn't get involved unless the warden can't handle the situation or it involves more than one region.

3. And the reason the armies were smaller back then was that the periods of peace were too short for their numbers to rise to the levels of the Targaryen era. War, especially during long periods means a drop in population.

1. Proof?

2. And the revolt happened because Tywin's father was weak. As in, the Reynes/Tarbecks didn't much care about the Iron Throne, what was important is that the Lord Paramount was weak enough to give in. It seems to indicate that such things are local matters with which the IT has little say unless it blows completely out of proportion.

3. Bold claim. Where's your proof?

To me, it seems like the Lord Paramounts are still very powerful in their holdings (which kinda negates the ''strenght in unity'' argument) but also that everyone wants to be on the Iron Throne and uses any means necessary to obtain this, including continent-wide civil war (thus negating the ''less people die under the Iron Throne'' argument). I've also seen no one dispute that the same bloke ruling the North, Dorne, the Iron Islands and the central regions isin't such a great thing; too many different cultures and interests.

Like Lord Reaver says, it seems the main argument in favor of the IT is that less people die because of it, which is pretty much impossible to prove.

EDIT:

Lots of dates

And how many of those were continent-spanning mega-conflicts? Or how many were wars in name only? Or small conflicts with very little impact? Meanwhile, we know those 6 (soon to be 7) wars had a tremendous impact on Westeros and claimed tens of thousands of lives each. Most importantly, Europe does not have to face devastating winters whose effects are certainly multiplied by big wars rather than small ones. But anyway, that's real-life and I shouldn't have brought that up.

The Japanese imperial family can supposedly trace their lineage back over 2600 years, but how true the accounts actually are is dificult to say. Even with modern practices and record keeping history is not an exact science. When you look at the way information is passed on in westeros, with few being able to read and write, and information having to be copied down by hand or passed on orally, and little in the way of archological research conducted, I'd be weary of putting too much faith into the histories we're presented with.

I'm not saying we should blindly trust all their claims (like the mermaid stuff, or the 8000 years which does seem very far fetched). But we do know some parts of Westeros's hostory, including the ruling families, and they have very rarely changed (for however how long they truly ruled). This suggests a fair degree of stability, is all I'm saying. Again, I'm not saying all was sunshine and roses before Aegon landed. But I fail to see how the Iron Throne has made things any better, in fact IMO it made things worst by introducing all those massive civil wars. Remember, this is Westeros. I'm pretty sure it's much better off with smaller conflicts that are less devastating, than a big war that leaves the land depleted and the Lord's authority shaky just as winter comes.