Jump to content

Why no Westerosi conquest of Free cities?


DominusNovus

Recommended Posts

It occurs to me that King's Landing, in many ways, is a better capital to rule over some of the nearer Free Cities than it is to rule over mich of Westeros itself. Sea access makes cities like Pentos far closer in terms of cost and time than places like Casterly Rock. In other words, the Narrow Sea, supposed to be an equivalent of the Med Sea, could make a very good Mare Nostrum.

So, when the Targaryen were at their height, why did nobody ever try to take the massive armies of Westeros and whatever dragons were alive and pounce on one or more of the cities? They could wait for one of the many conflicts that erupted, possibly playing up the "we hate slaves too" to get Braavos on their side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Braavos historically doesn't like Valyria, so it's doubtful they'd back a Targaryen war of imperialism.

Another note, the logistics won't allow it. Dragon riders may fly and cause some havoc, but technology doesn't allow for long term occupation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same reason Brttain didn't get conquered that often (and could not keep its possessions in France for long) a large enough stretch of sea is a difficult barrier to overcome for a society at Westeros' technological level. I have however wondered about the Stepping Stones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why GRRM didn't create his world with Westerosi conquest attempts in Essos is an interesting question. He didn't, though. The War of the Roses background of his story definitely doesn't have a Hundred Year's War history in its background. He could have easily enough worked in a disputed succession claim by a Targaryen king based on his lineage from a Westeros/Essos royal marriage, that ended up with Westerosi armies fighting in the east, like the English did in France. Perhaps the Blackfyre Rebellions serve this purpose in his historiography, i.e. a big war after the Conquest (William the Conqueror/Aegon I) and the first civil war (Stephen I/Empress Matilda / Aegon II/Rhaenyra), and the major dynastic dispute (War of the Roses/War of the Five Kings).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same reason Brttain didn't get conquered that often (and could not keep its possessions in France for long) a large enough stretch of sea is a difficult barrier to overcome for a society at Westeros' technological level. I have however wondered about the Stepping Stones.


Daemon Targaryen did conquer the Step Stones and crowned himself king over them despite Myr, Tyrosh and Lys and Dorne fighting against him. Having Caraxes, one of the largest dragons alive at that point sealed the deal.

Then Daemon got distracted and left and the Step Stones became pirate land after a few years.

The Targaryens and their dragons could have undoubtedly conquered the Free Cities- but they didn't have time for that. Aegon I was busy building up Westeros, the next two kings also faced massive internal problems, Jaehaerys didn't have any interest in conquests. Then came the half hearted attempts during the reign of Viserys I which did prove a partial success but were cut short by the Dance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same reason Brttain didn't get conquered that often (and could not keep its possessions in France for long) a large enough stretch of sea is a difficult barrier to overcome for a society at Westeros' technological level. I have however wondered about the Stepping Stones.

 

Actually, the opposite is true in case of Britain.

Britain did get conquered or close enough to make no matter:

-Romans

-Saxons

-Vikings

-Normans

Hell, even the Dutch did a conquest on invitation sort of thing. Sorta. 

 

Early navies weren't always mobile enough to defend an entire coastline and landing wasn't a problem, there were not nearly enough men to guard an entire coastline either. 

 

During the second world war, the channel was much more of an obstacle, to both sides. 

 

To the question, this seems the reasonable answer:

Daemon Targaryen did conquer the Step Stones and crowned himself king over them despite Myr, Tyrosh and Lys and Dorne fighting against him. Having Caraxes, one of the largest dragons alive at that point sealed the deal.

Then Daemon got distracted and left and the Step Stones became pirate land after a few years.

The Targaryens and their dragons could have undoubtedly conquered the Free Cities- but they didn't have time for that. Aegon I was busy building up Westeros, the next two kings also faced massive internal problems, Jaehaerys didn't have any interest in conquests. Then came the half hearted attempts during the reign of Viserys I which did prove a partial success but were cut short by the Dance.

 

 

Without dragons however, the cities are probably too powerful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would bankrupt westeros- of men, power, and wealth. The north wouldn't want to get involved. They would do their duty as long as a stark commands them but it would be a very tenous thing. The lannisters wouldn't want to spend the money. The Baratheons and the Tyrells would be in but it would be a very strained effort for both houses. The vale... Idk. I haven'read AWOIAF yet so I can't come up with a logical conclusion on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one since Valyria has been able to corral all of the free cities, not even Volantis. Valyia had multiple dragon-riding families and hundreds if not thousands of dragons to maintain control. Even at their height, the Targs had control of maybe a dozen or so dragons at any one time, and some of those were puny. 

 

Also, at the beginning of the dynasty, they had all they could handle just keeping the newly conquered houses in line, and they still didn't have Dorne, without which any incursion across the Narrow Sea would be problematic. Once Dorne came into the fold, well, the dragons were gone and shortly after that all the Blackfyre trouble began.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that they conquer the entirety of them all at once.  Start off with retaking the Stepstones again, and use that as a springboard to threaten Myr/Lys/Tyrosh, and maybe Pentos.  The rest of the Free Cities are either way out of range for any potential control from King's Landing, or are Braavos, which is best left to its own devices.  Volantis could be a useful ally, as well.  Offer to give them back the Disputed Lands if they help take out the Three Daughters.

 

I just know enough of how relatively safer and quicker sea travel is that they really seem like better targets for a capital that is right on the Narrow Sea than the North, the Iron Islands, and the the Westerlands.  The Reach would be just as remote if it weren't for the Mander.  The rest of Westeros is relatively conveniently located for King's Landing.  Riverlands are just up the coastline and along the Trident.  Easy.  The Vale and the Stormlands are just up and down the coast, as well (admittedly, the Vale's capital is very inconvenient, logistically).  And Dorne's just a tad further down the coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, the opposite is true in case of Britain.

Britain did get conquered or close enough to make no matter:

-Romans

-Saxons

-Vikings

-Normans

Hell, even the Dutch did a conquest on invitation sort of thing. Sorta. 

Four times in 2000 years is not exactly often, especially if you compare it with many places in mainland Europe. As you go further east you find situations during the Middle Ages borders could shift dramatically and multiple times within a single persons life time. If it wasn't the mongols or the Huns or some horde spawned by them it was Germanic tribes on the run from them, or the Germans trying to expand their sphere of influence, or the Russians trying to expand their sphere of influence, or the Cossacks or the neighboring kingdom or the Osman Empire or crusaders running over you on their way to the Holy Land or crusaders invading you because you don't belong to the right sub-set of Christianity, or crusaders invading you because they can't get to the Holy Land and dammit; if they have come so far they have to kill someone.

 

Being surrounded by water helps, incredibly.

 

And with the Dutch I suppose you mean the Glorious Revolution? I wouldn't really call that a conquest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was a historian/maester I´d probably theorize this was exactly what the Targaryens would have inevitably done after the reign of Jaeharys if not for the Dance. Daemon demonstrated how easily the stepping stones could be conquered. The cities would ally against Westeros so it´d not be an easy war, let´s not forget the other side has faceless men, the Iron bank as well as various other assasins, possibility of hiring Dothraki and sellswords, buying unsullied and gathering massive fleets. It´d be a costly war.

But inevitably it´d happen.

 

Even Aegon V, a rather unstable Targ-king could invade Essos and wreak havoc if we are to believe the war of the nine-penny kings-stories. (Or was it a free-cities invasion of Westeros?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four times in 2000 years is not exactly often, especially if you compare it with many places in mainland Europe. As you go further east you find situations during the Middle Ages borders could shift dramatically and multiple times within a single persons life time. If it wasn't the mongols or the Huns or some horde spawned by them it was Germanic tribes on the run from them, or the Germans trying to expand their sphere of influence, or the Russians trying to expand their sphere of influence, or the Cossacks or the neighboring kingdom or the Osman Empire or crusaders running over you on their way to the Holy Land or crusaders invading you because you don't belong to the right sub-set of Christianity, or crusaders invading you because they can't get to the Holy Land and dammit; if they have come so far they have to kill someone.
 
Being surrounded by water helps, incredibly.
 
And with the Dutch I suppose you mean the Glorious Revolution? I wouldn't really call that a conquest.


4 times in 2000 years actually is pretty high for an island. France, right smack in the middle of Europe, got conquered twice in the last two millennia. Once by the Franks, and once by the Nazis (we'll ignore that Germany ultimate is a successor to the Frankish empire in its own right).

Spain has the Visigoths and their buddies (Suevi), then the Arabs, then the Almoravids, then the Almohads, before the Christian kings pushed them all out. Thats four right there (the Christian kings were in Spain the whole time) and Spanis history is largely all about reconquering the land from invaders. Of course, you have to add in Napoleon, so Spain does edge out Britain.

So, four times in two millennia isnt all that grand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four times in 2000 years is not exactly often, especially if you compare it with many places in mainland Europe. As you go further east you find situations during the Middle Ages borders could shift dramatically and multiple times within a single persons life time. If it wasn't the mongols or the Huns or some horde spawned by them it was Germanic tribes on the run from them, or the Germans trying to expand their sphere of influence, or the Russians trying to expand their sphere of influence, or the Cossacks or the neighboring kingdom or the Osman Empire or crusaders running over you on their way to the Holy Land or crusaders invading you because you don't belong to the right sub-set of Christianity, or crusaders invading you because they can't get to the Holy Land and dammit; if they have come so far they have to kill someone.

 

 

 

Being surrounded by water helps, incredibly.

 

 

I was more pointing on the fact that in modern warfare amphibious landings are more problematic than in older times. The technology - island immunity correlation is the other way round. In older warfare water is less of an issue, potentially even helpful, while in more modern warfare it can become a real obstacle. You could simply land an army somewhere and you are good in ancient times. As long as you have decent enough boats to survive whatever crossing you need to cross you are good. In more modern times the coastline is a more defensible object, supply lines matter more and naval combat is better suited to stop invaders. 

I'd think perhaps the Napoleon wars was the first time that bit of water truly mattered to anyone with a bit of a mind, though this is speculation on my part. 

I'm not making any claims about Britain comparative war record. Partly because it all becomes messy since you have to define what is internal conquest and what isn't for the countries or regions that are not in Britain. 

 

And with the Dutch I suppose you mean the Glorious Revolution? I wouldn't really call that a conquest.

 

 

Well, I did add a lot of qualifiers to it. ^_^  But the points is, the Steward did land an army an marched it across Britain, proving the bit of water wasn't a significant obstacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same reason Brttain didn't get conquered that often (and could not keep its possessions in France for long)

Except for a brief time during John's reign, and a few brief times when the kingdom was split in two by a rebellion, the English crown held Normandy from 1066 to 1453, and most of Aquitaine from 1154-1453. Sure, Brittany, Anjou, and Calais only lasted for under a century, and the union with Flanders and hegemony over Tolouse even less, but still, owning a sizable chunk of the French coast for nearly 4 centuries is nothing to sneeze at. (And if you look at the map, Pentos and the Three Daughters actually match up pretty well with Normandy and Aquitaine.)

I think the big difference is that France and England had closely related and very similar feudal systems. To a merchant in Tyrosh, there's a huge difference between the King of Westeros and the Archon of Tyrosh or the Tetrach of the Three Daughters. To a merchant in Bordeaux, who cares whether the ultimate feudal overlord is the King of England or the King of France? Even someone higher up like the chain, like the Lord Mayor of Bordeaux, the Baron of Artagnan, or even the Count of Gascony has little reason to care. Maybe it makes a difference in which side asks him for a few dozen men for this decade's campaign in Tolouse, but that's about it.

Also, Westeros has gotten involved in the Free Cities, they just haven't tried to conquer them. Aegon fought alongside Myr, Lys, and Tyrosh only a few years before the conquest, helping them (along with the Storm King) fend off Volantis's attempt to establish a new Valyrian Freehold. Daemon Targaryen later took the Stepstones away from the Three Sisters. It's implied that Westeros at least directly supported the Braavosi/Pentoshi/Lorathi alliance against the Three Sisters that led to them splitting apart. And of course there are living characters who were involved in the War of the Ninepenny Kings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, remember that Westeros can play the 'slave liberator' card that is working to some degree for Dany. It would probably work better if you already had a continent to rely on.

I think it would be a pretty bad idea.

As we've seen, a crusade to abolish slavery gets all of the slaver nations to ally against Dany. The last thing Westeros (or Braavos) would want is to push the Three Daughters from their deep mistrust of Volantis into an alliance with them.

Also: Braavos and Lorath failed to get Norvos to abolish slavery while they were allies. After Braavos defeated Pentos and forced them to abandon slavery, they apparently just effectively renamed it so they can continue owning slaves while technically not doing so. Yunkai restored the slave trade as soon as Dany left. Astapor worked a bit longer because Dany basically killed the entire ruling class, but not long after she left, the city fell apart, then Yunkai invaded and restored slavery. So, it's really only worked in one place, Meereen, where Dany has settled down with a permanent occupation army.

Finally, unlike the cities of Slaver's Bay, where almost everyone but the masters are slaves, in Myr, Lys, and Tyrosh, a quarter of the population are free, and there are ways that slaves can purchase their freedom. This makes it a lot harder to count on a slave rebellion to win a war. (I don't think we have numbers for Pentos, but if anything it's probably even less extreme than in the Three Daughters.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...