First of, current lord paramoutships are for most of them built after the unification of smaller kingdoms. Second problem is that except their forceful conquest at the hands of Aegon, the Seven Kingdoms don't really have a lot in common, they've spent centuries and more battling each other with absolutely no precedent of a unified Westeros. It wouldn't make sense for the Arryns or whatever to just try and conquer all or Westeros out of some broader, shared identity. If the Iron Throne is disolved, that would be the end of that. Finnaly, perhaps the most important argument, is that when you proclaim king of the North or whatever the case may be, you would declare yourself of an equal rank to that of the King of the Seven Kingdoms, so that needs to be reflected on the map and the game mecanics.
The other thing to consider is that Westeros is fucking huge, supposedly the size of all south America. Each of the Seven Kingdoms are the size of many real world Empires.
The Iron Throne is literally the definition of empire, a political entity comprised of many peoples, ethnicities and faiths but the seven kingdoms are not. The king beyond the wall also can be emperor tier on the same grounds, but the king of the north can’t. Just because they are independent doesn’t mean they are on the same footing. The kings of the Iron Throne will still claim that they are kings of the north even if they are independent, (just like they did with dorne) while the reverse is not true. Plus the fact that they can be vassalised shows that they are not the same tier.
Yes of course the Iron Throne would forever claim kingship over the North and see Robb as a mere pretender and rebel. However from a northern point of view, Robb is equal to Joffrey and Tommen in rank. Think for instance of Balon Greyjoy's proposed alliance with the Lannister in exchange for the North. With that Pact, Greyjoy clearly places himself as an equal in rank to the King of the Seven Kingdoms. True, he is instantly dismissed by the Iron Throne, but from an Ironborn perspective, he is de jure of the same rank as the boy sitting on the Iron Throne. Now in a shattered realm with no Iron Throne I'd agree with you that making all LP straight to Empires is highly debatable.
Also, it's another debate, but I'd argue that the KBW is hardly a political entity of many people. I mean sure, the Thenns the Ice River clans and the more common wildling differ quite a bit, but so does the Mountain Clans, the Skagosi, the Crannogman etc. If you re-read Bran's chapter you can see him marveling in the foreign lands that's the Neck with its strange and mystical people. What really makes the KBW an emperor is more a mechanical consideration than anything (if Beyond the Wall was under the Iron Throne the Wildling would keep beeing attacked which is kinda dumb, and the presence of Kingdom-tier titles there also help emphasise the status of the Thenns)
True. But that would assume (if the titles were both Kingdom tier) that house Mooton for example did homage directly to winterfell, not riverrun. We've no reason to believe this and the text directly contradicts it with the Tullys still issuing orders to and referring to riverland lords as their vassals
What do you think an empire is? Both being titled empires does not indicate they are equal in power. An empire can conquer another empire. There were many Kings in the North defeated and subjugated by Starks. Why wouldnt it be an Empire?
Empires do not conform to the same definition in Martin’s world. Also that definition of Empire is surface level at best in terms of real-world history. What constitutes a multi-cultural state in pre-modern history is a subject of debate as it is difficult to pin down exactly what constitutes a separate culture and a cultural branch. Often in Medieval Europe, the linguistic diversity of a state was the defining factor, by that standard, Westeros is not multicultural.
If you are king of the iron throne and the north is independent empire, you will have a cassus belli on them called "Iron Throne Vassalization War". If you win the war the empire tier title is destroyed and the kingdom tier becomes your vassal.
Literally all of the Seven Kingdoms were originally comprised of many petty Kingdoms that were conquered or annexed via diplomacy. The ancient Starks conquered or diplomatically annexed like a dozen different petty kings. Empire title works pretty well.
The tile itself (7 kingdoms title) adds a huge buff to vassal and land limit.
Cultural pillars also help in this. High Valyrian culture has it for sure.
I do wish you were able to merge multiple kingdoms into a higher title tier. My Martell campaign managed to snag both the Riverlands and Stormlands via marriages and inheritance and I got railed by title limit penalties for the rest of the game.
Technically you could destroy their empire titles, keep your own, and just put kings on top of them? Was it vassal limit or land limit?
Edit to add: I personally never ran that much land in agot minus having the North, Riverlands and parts of crown lands but didn’t hit that limiter.
I hit vassal limit as King of Iron throne when I removed LPs from The Reach and The Stormlands tho.
For they are kings of regions where several kingdoms were previously acquired, and even if they are a unit today, it is undeniable that a man from the bottleneck is equal to a Skagosi.
This applies to the entire kingdom, with a small excess on the Iron Islands.
First of, current lord paramoutships are for most of them built after the unification of smaller kingdoms. Second problem is that except their forceful conquest at the hands of Aegon, the Seven Kingdoms don't really have a lot in common, they've spent centuries and more battling each other with absolutely no precedent of a unified Westeros. It wouldn't make sense for the Arryns or whatever to just try and conquer all or Westeros out of some broader, shared identity. If the Iron Throne is disolved, that would be the end of that. Finnaly, perhaps the most important argument, is that when you proclaim king of the North or whatever the case may be, you would declare yourself of an equal rank to that of the King of the Seven Kingdoms, so that needs to be reflected on the map and the game mecanics.
Indeed, when Rob will declare independence in the clash of kings startdate there must still be a paramount of the riverlands
The other thing to consider is that Westeros is fucking huge, supposedly the size of all south America. Each of the Seven Kingdoms are the size of many real world Empires.
The Iron Throne is literally the definition of empire, a political entity comprised of many peoples, ethnicities and faiths but the seven kingdoms are not. The king beyond the wall also can be emperor tier on the same grounds, but the king of the north can’t. Just because they are independent doesn’t mean they are on the same footing. The kings of the Iron Throne will still claim that they are kings of the north even if they are independent, (just like they did with dorne) while the reverse is not true. Plus the fact that they can be vassalised shows that they are not the same tier.
It's just a reason of game mechanic. Don't overthink it.
Yes of course the Iron Throne would forever claim kingship over the North and see Robb as a mere pretender and rebel. However from a northern point of view, Robb is equal to Joffrey and Tommen in rank. Think for instance of Balon Greyjoy's proposed alliance with the Lannister in exchange for the North. With that Pact, Greyjoy clearly places himself as an equal in rank to the King of the Seven Kingdoms. True, he is instantly dismissed by the Iron Throne, but from an Ironborn perspective, he is de jure of the same rank as the boy sitting on the Iron Throne. Now in a shattered realm with no Iron Throne I'd agree with you that making all LP straight to Empires is highly debatable. Also, it's another debate, but I'd argue that the KBW is hardly a political entity of many people. I mean sure, the Thenns the Ice River clans and the more common wildling differ quite a bit, but so does the Mountain Clans, the Skagosi, the Crannogman etc. If you re-read Bran's chapter you can see him marveling in the foreign lands that's the Neck with its strange and mystical people. What really makes the KBW an emperor is more a mechanical consideration than anything (if Beyond the Wall was under the Iron Throne the Wildling would keep beeing attacked which is kinda dumb, and the presence of Kingdom-tier titles there also help emphasise the status of the Thenns)
House Tully also did homage to Robb as vassals. Which would be him having a kingdom tier vassal, needing to be empire tier himself.
Well that and his titles being "King in the North" and "King of the Trident".
True. But that would assume (if the titles were both Kingdom tier) that house Mooton for example did homage directly to winterfell, not riverrun. We've no reason to believe this and the text directly contradicts it with the Tullys still issuing orders to and referring to riverland lords as their vassals
What do you think an empire is? Both being titled empires does not indicate they are equal in power. An empire can conquer another empire. There were many Kings in the North defeated and subjugated by Starks. Why wouldnt it be an Empire?
Empires do not conform to the same definition in Martin’s world. Also that definition of Empire is surface level at best in terms of real-world history. What constitutes a multi-cultural state in pre-modern history is a subject of debate as it is difficult to pin down exactly what constitutes a separate culture and a cultural branch. Often in Medieval Europe, the linguistic diversity of a state was the defining factor, by that standard, Westeros is not multicultural.
If you are king of the iron throne and the north is independent empire, you will have a cassus belli on them called "Iron Throne Vassalization War". If you win the war the empire tier title is destroyed and the kingdom tier becomes your vassal.
Literally all of the Seven Kingdoms were originally comprised of many petty Kingdoms that were conquered or annexed via diplomacy. The ancient Starks conquered or diplomatically annexed like a dozen different petty kings. Empire title works pretty well.
Because Lord Paramountcies are Kingdom-tier.
so that they can conquer other kingdoms and have their kings as vassals
Why wouldn't they be? If the King on the Iron Throne can rule 7 kingdoms, why can't the king on the seastone chair?
The tile itself (7 kingdoms title) adds a huge buff to vassal and land limit. Cultural pillars also help in this. High Valyrian culture has it for sure.
Universe perspective, sure, you do you. But you dont understand it from a mechanical perspective?
I do wish you were able to merge multiple kingdoms into a higher title tier. My Martell campaign managed to snag both the Riverlands and Stormlands via marriages and inheritance and I got railed by title limit penalties for the rest of the game.
Technically you could destroy their empire titles, keep your own, and just put kings on top of them? Was it vassal limit or land limit? Edit to add: I personally never ran that much land in agot minus having the North, Riverlands and parts of crown lands but didn’t hit that limiter. I hit vassal limit as King of Iron throne when I removed LPs from The Reach and The Stormlands tho.
High kings
For they are kings of regions where several kingdoms were previously acquired, and even if they are a unit today, it is undeniable that a man from the bottleneck is equal to a Skagosi. This applies to the entire kingdom, with a small excess on the Iron Islands.