Chat

WanderingJester said:
So, just speculating that Daemon does not turn a blind eye to those who played both sides during the war:

  • Targaryen replaced by Blackfyre (obviously)
  • Tully replaced by Bracken, with Butterwell taking Blackwood due to their two-sided support during the war.
  • Lothson replaced by Bittersteel, because why not.
  • Reach is difficult, but I see it like this: Tyrells gets replaced by Osgrey and Peake, however Highgarden is given to Hightower as a peace offering after stripping half the bannerman from under Oldtown's rulers to give to House Costayne (due to Hightower's dubious loyalty during the war). The Reach is turned into two lesser kingdoms under Peake and Osgrey, splitting down the middle roughly. Oakheart only gets Red Lake due to dubious loyalties as well.
  • Arryn replaced by Sunderland, if they ever managed to pull the remaining loyalists from the Eyrie (assuming major members of the family are all dead from the war).
  • Lannister gets replaced by Reynes, with Tarbeck getting only Lannisport due to dubious loyalties (Reynes would get the Rock, with the same situation as the Eyrie as well as Golden Tooth).
  • Martells replaced by Yronwood.
  • Since I'm not sure exactly where Shawney and Stickland are seated, I'll assume the former as the southeastern part of the Riverlands, and the latter in the Crownlands. Crownlands would be in direct control of the Blackfyres, but the two houses above would be the day to day stewards (with proper authority and compensation of course) of those lands. So think of each Lord/Lady of the house being the Hand of the King, but only for like half of the Crownlands.
  • Stormland lacks changes outside of a few executions and banished/sent to the wall/executed houses, as Baratheons abstained mostly from the war.

Quick and rough estimation given what I could remember off the top of my head and looking at the map. If you want more details, you're going to have to ask for them (and gimme more time :P )
Click to expand...
I would've given the Riverlands to House Bittersteel, and then formed a cadet branch of Bracken in Ravenfree hall.
 
Hypnos said:
WanderingJester WanderingJester I'm interested in your thoughts on this: an alternate scenario where Daemon Blackfyre wins the first Blackfyre Rebellion. How should Daemon reward his supporters and prevent people from rebelling.

TAC's Map:
Newww.jpg
Click to expand...
What is this for?
 
Hypnos said:
I would've given the Riverlands to House Bittersteel, and then formed a cadet branch of Bracken in Ravenfree hall.
Click to expand...

Eh, Brackens would likely whine about it too much. If it's any consolation to Bittersteel (aside from Harrenhal), they'll likely hold the Hand of the King position so long as their/the Blackfyre line endures, even if they're not Lord Paramounts themselves.
 
Lannisters get the Southern half of the West.

Reynes the North.

I still say you make the Neck its own region and give Moat Cailin to the authority of the Frey.

The Red Mountains are split between the Hightowers (Lord Paramounts of 1/3 of the Reach), the March Lords, and Dorne.
 
WanderingJester said:
Eh, Brackens would likely whine about it too much. If it's any consolation to Bittersteel (aside from Harrenhal), they'll likely hold the Hand of the King position so long as their/the Blackfyre line endures, even if they're not Lord Paramounts themselves.
Click to expand...
Bittersteel was half Bracken, I'd like to think they'd take it as a compliment.
 
TheAncientCenturion said:
Lannisters get the Southern half of the West.

Reynes the North.

I still say you make the Neck its own region and give Moat Cailin to the authority of the Frey.

The Red Mountains are split between the Hightowers (Lord Paramounts of 1/3 of the Reach), the March Lords, and Dorne.
Click to expand...

Nah, Lannisters would be stripped of their land and given to the Reynes.

Frey wasn't even around back then were they?

Nah. Hightowers would've had much less of a reward due to their two face ness, like many other houses.

Then again though, Daemon was the forgiving type, so who knows *shrug*

Hypnos said:
Bittersteel was half Bracken, I'd like to think they'd take it as a compliment.
Click to expand...

Regardless, main Bracken house as Lords of the Riverland, Bittersteel as Hand and all of his sons/maybe daughters as well.
 
WanderingJester said:
Nah, Lannisters would be stripped of their land and given to the Reynes.

Frey wasn't even around back then were they?

Nah. Hightowers would've had much less of a reward due to their two face ness, like many other houses.

Then again though, Daemon was the forgiving type, so who knows *shrug*



Regardless, main Bracken house as Lords of the Riverland, Bittersteel as Hand and all of his sons/maybe daughters as well.
Click to expand...
Peake as LP of the Dornish Marches (Including the bits that used to be in the Stormlands)
Hightower as LP of the Honeywine
Osgrey as LP of the Northmarch
 
The Frey's were around, I'm pretty sure. They were around not a generation after.

The Lannisters are large and famous. The West is also a powerful entity in its raw materials and man power. Split it, give the Reyne's more power than they imagined they'd have and reduce Lannister capability. You now have two Crownland sized kingdoms that will work against each others interests. I.E. Less unity to pressure future kings.
 
Hypnos said:
Peake as LP of the Dornish Marches (Including the bits that used to be in the Stormlands)
Hightower as LP of the Honeywine
Osgrey as LP of the Northmarch
Click to expand...

Hightower would probably only get Highgarden imo, though that in and of itself would give them a lot of legitimacy if they want to challenge for undisputed LP of Reach later. Osgrey as LP of North Reach, Peake as LP of South Reach. Costayne would be up there too with half of the Hightower's former Bannermen under them.

TheAncientCenturion said:
The Frey's were around, I'm pretty sure. They were around not a generation after.

The Lannisters are large and famous. The West is also a powerful entity in its raw materials and man power. Split it, give the Reyne's more power than they imagined they'd have and reduce Lannister capability. You now have two Crownland sized kingdoms that will work against each others interests. I.E. Less unity to pressure future kings.
Click to expand...

Nah, it would be unsound to punish all of the LPs that supported the Red Dragons by stripping them of seat, titles and exile/execution/sent to wall but leave the Lannisters with theirs. No need to worry about the unity of the West. Tarbeck would more likely than not take offense at their lack of "proper" reward and make a lot of trouble for the Reynes. That will be enough to deny unification against the new Black Dragons on the Iron Throne.
 
WanderingJester said:
Hightower would probably only get Highgarden imo, though that in and of itself would give them a lot of legitimacy if they want to challenge for undisputed LP of Reach later. Osgrey as LP of North Reach, Peake as LP of South Reach. Costayne would be up there too with half of the Hightower's former Bannermen under them.



Nah, it would be unsound to punish all of the LPs that supported the Red Dragons by stripping them of seat, titles and exile/execution/sent to wall but leave the Lannisters with theirs. No need to worry about the unity of the West. Tarbeck would more likely than not take offense at their lack of "proper" reward and make a lot of trouble for the Reynes. That will be enough to deny unification against the new Black Dragons on the Iron Throne.
Click to expand...
It's the fact that of the seven kingdoms thus far, you need one of two powers on your side to win the war.

The West
The Reach

I'd of split the West and Reach to prevent those powers from remaining. Make it hard for any individual lord or group of lords, rogue prince or what have you, from forming alliances with these all powerful lord paramounts and standing a chance against the Crown.
 
TheAncientCenturion said:
It's the fact that of the seven kingdoms thus far, you need one of two powers on your side to win the war.

The West
The Reach

I'd of split the West and Reach to prevent those powers from remaining. Make it hard for any individual lord or group of lords, rogue prince or what have you, from forming alliances with these all powerful lord paramounts and standing a chance against the Crown.
Click to expand...

You don't need to officially split the West if it's already practically split. There would be a lot of opposition to the Reynes already, given the Tarbeck dissension and Lannister loyalists. Leaving the Lannisters in power not only jeopardize the trust in the fairness of the new king, but also sow the seeds of rebellion in the future, even if they only have half of the West now. In reality, both of those Kingdoms are already fragmented, it's just that one is "official" and the other's not.
 
WanderingJester said:
You don't need to officially split the West if it's already practically split. There would be a lot of opposition to the Reynes already, given the Tarbeck dissension and Lannister loyalists. Leaving the Lannisters in power not only jeopardize the trust in the fairness of the new king, but also sow the seeds of rebellion in the future, even if they only have half of the West now. In reality, both of those Kingdoms are already fragmented, it's just that one is "official" and the other's not.
Click to expand...
I think we're looking at this through two different perspectives.

The West will be split. . for maybe two generations. Could be more. But it is still a coherent force on paper and is certainly going to fix old wounds eventually. Thus, it poses a threat. Maybe not for the next five kings. Or the next six. But that seventh? He'll have to tread carefully.

If the West is split into two rival houses with a now established embitterment between them and are almost equal in might. That means they are likely going to be fighting against each other and neutralizing the others effects in a war. It takes the West out of any future uprising or war by having one side promised to always side against the other - unless conditions permit for the two to ally. It's certainly going to create a longer lasting divide.

And the issue with the West, as we saw in the War of the Five Kings, it's very powerful. Even when it has half decent commanders and is losing battles. It managed to ravage the Riverlands and push them back significantly. It fought a war of attrition against greater numbers and Robb was winning.

The West has men. It has a marshal history fierce enough to make it formidable among other kingdoms. And it has Gold. Split it. You split any threat of having an ambitious Lannister/Western Lord from siding with the enemy and leaning favor against you. Heavily.

The second - a way to gain. . A reputation as not a bloodthirsty usurper, is to show some clemency. Aegon the Conqueror did this. Sparing a plethora of his enemies, Lannisters included. Want to mold yourself in that image? Be harsh but not enough so to inspire only terror. The Lannisters keep their ancestral homeland and half of their country. A few heads roll, but a small price to pay for rebellion.
 
TheAncientCenturion said:
I think we're looking at this through two different perspectives.

The West will be split. . for maybe two generations. Could be more. But it is still a coherent force on paper and is certainly going to fix old wounds eventually. Thus, it poses a threat. Maybe not for the next five kings. Or the next six. But that seventh? He'll have to tread carefully.

If the West is split into two rival houses with a now established embitterment between them and are almost equal in might. That means they are likely going to be fighting against each other and neutralizing the others effects in a war. It takes the West out of any future uprising or war by having one side promised to always side against the other - unless conditions permit for the two to ally. It's certainly going to create a longer lasting divide.

And the issue with the West, as we saw in the War of the Five Kings, it's very powerful. Even when it has half decent commanders and is losing battles. It managed to ravage the Riverlands and push them back significantly. It fought a war of attrition against greater numbers and Robb was winning.

The West has men. It has a marshal history fierce enough to make it formidable among other kingdoms. And it has Gold. Split it. You split any threat of having an ambitious Lannister/Western Lord from siding with the enemy and leaning favor against you. Heavily.

The second - a way to gain. . A reputation as not a bloodthirsty usurper, is to show some clemency. Aegon the Conqueror did this. Sparing a plethora of his enemies, Lannisters included. Want to mold yourself in that image? Be harsh but not enough so to inspire only terror. The Lannisters keep their ancestral homeland and half of their country. A few heads roll, but a small price to pay for rebellion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we're looking at it from different views here.

Going with your scenario. I would say then it's fair to say that even split officially and politically, the West could still be a unified force, just like Reach could be, if they use the claim system. Whoever holds the Rock could just as easily say "he who holds the Rock is the one that rules under the King on the Iron Throne." If it's a Lannister, then reunification could happen within three generation with a bloody civil war then, maybe even two. I agree that the West is one of the few Kingdoms that have both the troops and the money to fund a war and win it, but I feel that with enough Lannister Loyalist scattered on the Reynes side, without intervention by the Iron Throne the red lions would go down relatively quickly. With intervention however, well that's a different story.

I feel like Daemon would, in fact, go the Aegon way. However, that would also mean that many of the old LPs would get to keep their seat at the very least, if not their rule. I'm going with the more "loyalty will be rewarded, treachery will be punished model" where all the LPs against Daemon are replaced and territories fractured for loyal allies during the war. Practical for a Kingdom? Probably not (logistics and taxation would be a nightmare) but realistic enough in regards to matching Daemon's personality that he would actually do it? I think so.
 
Civil War wouldn't be acceptable though. They are sovereign realms.

Just because the Iron islands once controlled the Riverlands doesn't mean they can invade and use history as an excuse to justify it. The Crown would step in and crush whoever the aggressor was.

The lannisters can say whatever they want. It wouldn't change the fact their power is greatly diminished and likely weaker than the North, Stormlands, and the Vale.
 
TheAncientCenturion said:
Civil War wouldn't be acceptable though. They are sovereign realms.

Just because the Iron islands once controlled the Riverlands doesn't mean they can invade and use history as an excuse to justify it. The Crown would step in and crush whoever the aggressor was.

The lannisters can say whatever they want. It wouldn't change the fact their power is greatly diminished and likely weaker than the North, Stormlands, and the Vale.
Click to expand...

Might not be open war. I wouldn't be surprised if a Tywin comes along later and orchestrate something like the Red Wedding to wipe out the Reynes with one of their bannermen, with the bannerman then taking over Castamere and then swearing fealty to the Lannisters. No civil war, one unified West.

Still, like I said, with intervention it would be a different story altogether. I'm just going with the no intervention route atm (either the Crown's busy with something bigger or something or another reason). I agree that they would be much weaker though, at least on paper.
 
WanderingJester said:
Might not be open war. I wouldn't be surprised if a Tywin comes along later and orchestrate something like the Red Wedding to wipe out the Reynes with one of their bannermen, with the bannerman then taking over Castamere and then swearing fealty to the Lannisters. No civil war, one unified West.

Still, like I said, with intervention it would be a different story altogether. I'm just going with the no intervention route atm (either the Crown's busy with something bigger or something or another reason). I agree that they would be much weaker though, at least on paper.
Click to expand...
Well. Again.

Why would the Crown tolerate this behavior? Assassinating your feudal lord? Swearing fealty to a rival? No intervention for something so serious is not really something I see possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Back
Top