Who Really Rules the Seven Kingdoms?

[Cormac- First of His Name]

The thing that bothers me about Aegon the Conqueror is that his vision, whether selfish or part of some sort of Dragon Dream prophecy, was all about one unified Kingdom. But he basically left all the old kings or installed new ones, and just gave them lesser titles. That might be good politics, but the question is did it mean he and his heirs were never really running the show? Some examples of the weakness of the Iron Throne:

- The King does not control his own army, and is only able to call upon the Great Houses (who in turn call on their bannermen) or the vassals of the Crownlands for military strength. Sure, they had dragons for the first half of the dynasty, but even the Black Dread was backed up by a small land force. It seems like having military strength entirely depended on the loyalty of the Great Houses.

- The Iron Throne has it's own navy, but it is rivaled if not surpassed by the Redwyne and Iron Born fleets,and potentially has a rival in the Lannister fleet too.

- There are three major civil wars under the Targaryen Dynasty. The first two (Dance of Dragons and Blackfyre) seem to see smaller neighboring houses fighting for opposing sides, but that is just about which side of the same family gets power. But in the third, Robert's Rebellion, the lesser houses seem to all pretty much side with the side their Great House tells them to side with. We have some exceptions, like the Connington's under JonCon, but that seems more the exception than the rule.

- Sometimes the Great Houses are actively hostile against the realm. I am thinking particularly of the issues the Targaryens are having with the Iron Born while Bloodraven is focused on the Blackfyre threat. The Greyjoys are pretty much committing treason and acts of war, but never seem to get knocked down a peg.

- In some conflicts the Great Houses seem indifferent, unless they have something invested in one side. Jon Arryn supported the Starks and Baratheons because he was basically their second father, and Hoster Tully supported them because his daughters were married to the heads of House Stark and House Arryn. And Aerys was a uniquely loathe-worthy nemesis. On the other hand, the Martells supported the Targaryens simply because the Crown Prince was married to a Martell. The reasons for the Tyrells supporting the Trags is less clear. But the Lannisters sit the war out until they see the writing on the wall, and the Greyjoys are never really heard from. But other than that, you never really hear about all of these families being involved in conflicts at the same time. For example, I cannot think of any example of the Starks getting involved in Iron Throne/Southern politics until the Mad King viciously murdered their Lord and his heir. And just because all 8 Great Houses supported the Targaryens over the Blackfyres does not mean they were actively involved in the war.

It seems like after the death of the dragons, the Targaryens only managed to stay in power because the Great Houses could not unite around one particular house until Robert's Rebellion. And it is not like the post-dragon kings were that great. All the really noteworthy Targaryens (Aegon the Conqueror, the Jaeherys/Alysanne) had already died, and the actually promising rulers (Baelor Breakspear, Rhaegar) never make it to the throne. Even though it seems like Aegon V was a good and powerful king, he was basically chosen by a council of the other families who either found him least objectionable (better than the children of your dead insane brothers) or because they could not get their first choice (Aemon). When Lyanna and Ned were killed, the whole of the North was livid. Same with Dorne and the death of Prince Oberyn. The Iron Born chose to put House Greyjoy back in command of the Iron Islands. And it seems like at the very least the Lords Declarant nobility class of the Vale loved Jon Arryn and wanted his son to succeed. And while people did seem to love some of the Targaryen kings (the whole thing about the crowd cheering for Tywin more loudly than Aerys but Rhaegar loudest of all) that did not seem to translate into loyalty.

In fact the only times I can think of the Iron Throne exerting control of over the Great Houses was when calling them up for war, and for paying taxes (there has been one or two mentions of taxes if I recall correctly). It seems like the Targaryens won the Iron Throne with dragons and a few great leaders but kept it despite mostly average or subpar kings because the Great Houses were not willing to bow to one of their peers.

[Arthur Dayne's Honor]

The peasents

[WakeTheDragon]

Varys and Illirio.

[BondJamesBond]

Most capital cities have this same issue. How did medieval London or Paris rule their respective countries? It involves keeping enough people loyal to put down a rebellion and also having their own based of power to augment that. It also involves lots of scheming and politics.

[The-Paul-Arron00]

The Starks are really cool

[Burning down the House]

You just described a feudal system. Power is defused and does not reside only with the king.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Its just like in every kingdom, for example lets use the north, Robb has his winter fell army but when the north are at war his banner-men of the north must fight for him, that's the same thing as the IT.

[Cormac- First of His Name]

I agree with the comparisons to feudalism, and obviously power could not be incredibly centralized since Westeros is supposedly the size of South America. But to my original point, what was the point for Aegon then? It seems sort of disappointing to think of him as someone who just seized power for the spoils of the throne. I imagine it has more to do with some sort of vision of the future related to the Prince Who Was Promised/the conflict with the Others, in the same way Aegon V or Rhaegar believed there was a destined role for the Targaryen Dynasty in this conflict.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

I agree with the comparisons to feudalism, and obviously power could not be incredibly centralized since Westeros is supposedly the size of South America. But to my original point, what was the point for Aegon then? It seems sort of disappointing to think of him as someone who just seized power for the spoils of the throne. I imagine it has more to do with some sort of vision of the future related to the Prince Who Was Promised/the conflict with the Others, in the same way Aegon V or Rhaegar believed there was a destined role for the Targaryen Dynasty in this conflict.

I think Aegon conquered because House Targaryen was a lesser house in Old Valyria, say this was his chance to become a king, also I am sure they were sick of living on Dragonstone

[Pod The Impaler]

The overwhelming force represented by their dragons is what made their dynasty possible, and the loss of the dragons set off its inevitable decay. With the advantage of dragons and Valyrian magic, the Targaryens were supreme of all houses, able to defeat any of them - all of them. The size of armies and strength of fortresses ceased to matter. Without dragons, they are just another ambitious house, conquering through good fortune and lasting until their luck runs out. It was only a matter of time until some coalition of rivals took them down, and some other house replaced them. Aerys' tyranny was the last straw for many - he created the conditons where peoples' tolerance of his house was nearly at an end. Rhaegar's actions just nudged it over that red line. Yet later, as strong as Robert was in warfare along with his allies, in peacetime the realm almost had to succumb to the stresses of one throne ruling such a vast area. Robert's mismanagement alone might not be the whole cause - indeed, it may have been impossible for Westeros to ever be one realm without the dragons as a giant burning sword of damocles over everyone's head.

Sure this sounds bleak, and societies are held together by the realms of economics, social tradition, trade, patronage, religion, etc. - but force is always the ultimate trump card backing it all up. Control of the legitimate use of violence forms the backbone of every known form of government. Even where government does not formally exist, the use of violence to settle matters still does, and what you get is chaos - the war of all against all. This is seen most clearly at the beginning and end of regimes.

Force forms much of this legitimacy in the public's mind. Maybe not just force actually used, but potential force available - force that can protect the nation and punish wrongdoers, force that is stronger than even the strongest single man can be. Perhaps this is a bit Hobbesian, but people need to believe their government (whatever form it takes) is justified as something more than something than just a lucky collection of mortal and fallible people like themselves, easily defeated like themselves. If it isn't, well ...

Men are meat, and any mortal man may kill another - even a king. And like those who rule it, the moment an empire is born it begins its inevitable march towards death. Valar morghulis.

[blood of the dragoon]

Who really runs the show is a good question in all societies. Who runs the show in, let's say 2013 America?

[Ser Greg of House House]

Ooh! Ooh! I know this one!

It's GRRM!

[Magnar Of Winterfell]

Aegon had the dragons and wanted to carve out a kingdom from him, he saw Westeros as his big change because it had independent kings and lords, meaning he can divide and conquer Westeros.

And other than that, Westeros is a medieval society and run under system of feudalism.

People consider vows , honors and oaths not only sacred but everything. So you are not suppose to be disobey the king.

Or kill him, you are suppose to listen to your liege lord and accept his commands.

So after the dragons the Targaryens stayed in power because of the fact they were king of westeros as a nation, united under Targaryens.

But not everybody always honors their vows and keep their oaths and we get rebellions and king who are very bad at their job.

So nation divided , nation decays , Dynasties dies out.

[Big Finger]

Westeros shows shows the weaknesses of most, almost all feudal states. The King relies on his great lords to fight for him, who in turn rely on their lesser who in turn rely on their knights who in turn rely on their peasants to do them duty. However, what I find interesting is that Westeros collectively never seems to wage war on another country. In Medieval times, feudal states such as England or France still attacked one another even though their kings were never able to bring their vassal lords completely to heel. In Westeros it seems that Lord's sons receive training at arms purely to be able to attack or defend against other Westerosi houses.

PS. However, I think it is important to note that we are viewing this through the very 19th-21st century concept of nation states where the state is largely unified under one banner, which was rather rare in medieval times