The Wars of the Roses

[mediocre cheese]

What did they say about charles II? "indemnity for his enemies and oblivion for his friends." To his credit though, as my textbook once said, he would have made a good talkshow host. Not a great king though (unlike his nephew and his neices).

The coolest english king is of course the bastard himself william the tanner's son conqueror.

Edit:

I think certain aspects of Charles II are similar to renly, likeable, well-spoken but ultimately frivolous.

[LordBloodraven]

What did they say about charles II? "indemnity for his enemies and oblivion for his friends." To his credit though, as my textbook once said, he would have made a good talkshow host. Not a great king though (unlike his nephew and his neices).

The coolest english king is of course the bastard himself william the tanner's son conqueror.

Edit:

I think certain aspects of Charles II are similar to renly, likeable, well-spoken but ultimately frivolous.

Charles II would have answered like this: "that's true, for my words are my own, but my actions are those of my ministers"

[Dokomo]

Sorry to bump this, and forgive me if anyone has expresed this before, but to me Tyrion is the perfect analogue for Henry VII.

Let's start with the idea that the Tyrion = Targaryen theory is correct. Henry VII's claim for the throne occurred through a bastard relationship on his mother's side, which would describe a potential Tyrion claim as well. Henry VII left England for Brittany following the total collapse of Henry VI (shortly after the death of the Kingmaker, aka Tywin?) just as Tyrion is now in exile in Essos. But his marriage to Sansa Stark proves that he is destined to sit upon the throne, as only together can they unite the warring North and South. All male Starks are out of the lines of succession right now and will probably remain that way. Sansa is the obvious analogue to Elizabeth of York, the sister of the Princes in the Tower. The marriage between Sansa and Tyrion might never have been consumated, but also it was never dissolved.

In my mind the biggest hurdle to this ending is proving to Westeros that Tyrion is the bastard offspring of Aerys Targaryen. Tywin cannot voice his doubts, nor Kevan Lannister. Such a shameful secret is unlikely to have spread far within the family. The few Targaryens around would not know of this lineage either. But while the path is difficult to see, the strong correlations have convinced me that the conclusion of the series will have Tyrion sitting on the Iron Throne, with Sansa as his strong Elizabethan Queen.

[2minichinz]

This is fascinating -- I just reread Alison Weir's War of the Roses this weekend so I was delighted to see this new topic listed in the forum. Prior to reading this, I confess that I did not know that our favorite epic was loosely based on the War of the Roses. As I reread Ms. Weir's book, I found myself comparing the events, characters and plot threads to A Song of Ice and Fire; I thought I must search the forum at the earliest opportunity to see if this was a reasonable supposition. Imagine my surprise :cool4: ! I am a history cookie monster. I am now reading Alison Weir's Mistress of the Monarchy, her research on Katherine Swynford, the ancestress of the Tudors, Stuarts, Windsors and five US presidents!! I had been aware of her role in this era after reading Anya Seton's wonderful novel Katherine many, many years ago.

I find all your views interesting and intelligent, but I must disagree with the unanimous condemnation of Richard III as the murderer of the young princes in the Tower. I think Henry Tudor (Henry VII) was ultimately responsible for the princes' death. Richard III was painted as a misshapen and hideous ogre by William Shakespeare, and prior to the play that depicted him as such, was never known as a hunchback or an evil man. The play was written in the Tudor era, so it is understandable that nobody was going to criticize Tudors or Lancasters. Henry VII and his fanatically devoted mother, Margaret Beaufort, could have easily managed an intrigue to do away with the princes before Henry Tudor was even crowned. It makes one wonder how much of the history we think is correct really is. At various times of history the Church burned tons of manuscripts and books, and others with their own agendas, twisted the narratives of their eras to suit those agendas. How different do you think the world today would be if the Library of Alexandria had never burned? The sheer vastness of what we have lost due to man's stupidity and selfishness is stunning.

It is indeed a pleasure to read all your views and participate in these forums. :cheers:

[Alester Florent]

For me, Joffrey looks a bit like Richard II. Young, arrogant, entitled, impetuous, violent, alienates those who should be closest to him, ultimately leads to revolt and attempted overthrow. Of course there are differences: Joffrey didn't rule nearly as long as Richard did, nor was Joffrey successfully overthrown.

There's something of Richard in Aerys, too, though, just as Robert looks a bit like both Edward IV and Henry IV.

The Robert-Joffrey-Tommen succession looks most like Edward IV -> Edward V, but with Richard II sandwiched in between. In this narrative presumably Stannis would be the Duke of Gloucester to Renly's Duke of Clarence.

The Richard II/Edward V scenario looks quite similar both in real life and in Westeros, so it's difficult to pick them apart, and I suspect GRRM took some inspiration from both. Using Richard II as the basis, Stannis would be John of Gaunt, Renly Edmund of Langley, and Ned (as a surrogate brother) the unfortunate Thomas of Woodstock. In this narrative, though, Joffrey's "cousin" (Robb/Henry of Bolingbroke) fails to make an alliance with his "uncle" (Edmund/Renly) in time, fails in his rebellion and is killed (by, I guess, "Northumberland"). A bit tenuous, but who cares?

Tywin's family reminds me of Henry V and his brothers. Tywin is the very competent, but rather rigid eldest brother (Henry), Tygett the family's real warrior (Thomas), Kevan the undervalued administrator (John) and Gerion the irresponsible adventurer (Humphrey). Tywin's apparent eagerness to succeed is also slightly reminiscent of the Shakespearean version.

I find all your views interesting and intelligent, but I must disagree with the unanimous condemnation of Richard III as the murderer of the young princes in the Tower.

I'm a Richard III apologist. At the time, taking the throne looked like the best thing for the realm. Moreover, the legal situation is genuinely open to debate. It seems to me like there was a genuine question over the legal legitimacy of the princes, any evidence of which Henry VII had an interest in destroying for a number of reasons.

In any case I think that, if Richard III didn't do the princes in (I'm 50/50 on it, but not too bothered about whether he did or not), Henry VII certainly would have/did. He made a point of butchering as many of the Plantagenet heirs as he could legitimately get his hands on, and the sons of the previous legitimate king.

(fwiw, I also rate Charles II very highly. He wasn't terribly effective, but I think that was basically the point. His artful incompetence (and occasional good judgment) was pretty much exactly what the realm needed at the time, where his rather more impressive brother made a terrible hash of things very quickly).

[Malpka]

I am not sure about the princes. I like him, so I hope he didn't do them, however he had reasons to do so.

Also he was demonized by Shakespeare (for obvious reasons) and death of princess helped with that.

I always though that Tyrion was best fitting for Richard III.

Reasons:

As I remember his description (may be wrong about it; think I took it from Walter Scott but not sure) he was short and with a hump (apparently hump may be not true).

Very inteligent, good politician, good general - fits Tyrion too.

Legitymacy of his brother children.

Oddly enough I would associate other characters with different events from history than War of the Roses (despite G.R.R.M statement).

[nothatso]

snip

I actually think it's just as likely that Sansa is a Jane Grey-inspired figure. i.e. A girl caught up in a power struggle that she has little control in, eventually placed on a throne she doesn't want, and then pays the price for the maneuvers made by those who put her there.

[Kzamll]

Yorkshire, so i'm told is Winterfell

and.. Lannisport is Lancashire!

the war of the roses!!

[Alester Florent]

The geography of Yorkshire and Lancashire wasn't really relevant to the WotR, mind; it was just that those (or rather York and Lancaster) were the titles held by the ancestors of the rival parties. The actual population of both counties tended to be on the same side much of the time (usually Yorkist). The Yorkshire/Lancashire rivalry has developed since as a cultural recollection of the war. Just like the rose symbol was only actually used by Lancastrians. Shakespeare has a lot to answer for.

It's funny the way these things are remembered: the Yorkists claimed descent from the Duke of Clarence , which was actually a senior title to both York and Lancaster at the time. The roles of the various Dukes of Gloucester, all of whom were active participants in the wars and one of whom ultimately became king, haven't been mythologised in the same way. Maybe it's just because they don't have a rose (they have a daffodil, although I'd have thought that should be Welsh...)

Oddly enough I would associate other characters with different events from history than War of the Roses (despite G.R.R.M statement).

I'm inclined to agree with that. There's clearly a lot of inspiration in there, even if the WotR form the basis. The Armagnac-Burgundian Wars provide an interesting comparison, too.

As I remember his description (may be wrong about it; think I took it from Walter Scott but not sure) he was short and with a hump (apparently hump may be not true).

Well, Walter Scott isn't always the most credible source for anything. One of the reason his historical epics were so entertaining and popular is that he made most of them up. I think the modern consensus is that Richard III wasn't physically deformed; his prowess as a warrior certainly suggests otherwise in any case.

If I remember rightly, he did look different to Edward IV and was quite a bit shorter, but it was Edward who was unusual rather than Richard. All three of Edward's brothers, and his father, were apparently (relatively) short and dark, where he was tall and blond. It led to suggestions of the illegitimacy of Edward himself, let alone his children.

[Darth Rivers]

Richard III is Stannis. I don't think he'll ever seize the Iron Throne, but he bases his claim on Edward, oops, I mean, Joffrey, not being legit. Richard III was also a good fighter and general. I think Stannis will die fighting whoever Henry Tudor is. Either Aegon, for being a Blackfyre which is a legitimized branch of Targs just as Tudors are of Lancasters, or Jon Snow, for being Welsh/Northern.

[greygnarl]

Not sure if this is said but the only prediction I can make because I don't know that much about the War of the Roses is Jon=Henry Tudor.

[Malpka]

Well, Walter Scott isn't always the most credible source for anything. One of the reason his historical epics were so entertaining and popular is that he made most of them up. I think the modern consensus is that Richard III wasn't physically deformed; his prowess as a warrior certainly suggests otherwise in any case.

If I remember rightly, he did look different to Edward IV and was quite a bit shorter, but it was Edward who was unusual rather than Richard. All three of Edward's brothers, and his father, were apparently (relatively) short and dark, where he was tall and blond. It led to suggestions of the illegitimacy of Edward himself, let alone his children.

Sorry about that but, by Walter Scott I meant also appendixes (??) (not sure of correct term - I mean when in book you have, for example, historical person marked with star or number and then at the end (annoyingly) or the bottom of the page (nicely) explanation), by that time (before internet in common use - yeah I am that old) it use to be quite reliable source of information. I certainly didn't took fictional part of the actual book for granted. Also I believe hump is being questioned recently only, while his shortness (lol pun not intended) is rather often mentioned. Also I have somewhat imprinted his image with hump and despite knowing now that hump is rather fabrication, I cant help it.

[Lady Sansa Stark]

What about the Tyrells?

Is it coincidence their sigil is a golden rose? I know absolutely nothing about English history (Alright, Henry III with his six wives, I know that story at least), but could there be an explanation for this?

[PatrickStormborn]

Richard III is Stannis. I don't think he'll ever seize the Iron Throne, but he bases his claim on Edward, oops, I mean, Joffrey, not being legit. Richard III was also a good fighter and general. I think Stannis will die fighting whoever Henry Tudor is. Either Aegon, for being a Blackfyre which is a legitimized branch of Targs just as Tudors are of Lancasters, or Jon Snow, for being Welsh/Northern.

I think Dany or Jon are most likely to be Henry VII (Dany in particular as she returns from exile -- I'd imagine Jon would be her Elizabeth of York), with Aegon being Perkin Warbeck. It fits nicely if Stannis is Richard III, as we know that Dany will come into conflict with Stannis and Aegon ("slayer of lies") when she lands in Westeros.

[danm_999]

I think Dany or Jon are most likely to be Henry VII (Dany in particular as she returns from exile -- I'd imagine Jon would be her Elizabeth of York), with Aegon being Perkin Warbeck. It fits nicely if Stannis is Richard III, as we know that Dany will come into conflict with Stannis and Aegon ("slayer of lies") when she lands in Westeros.

The Aegon as Perkin Warbeck really hit me like a truck when I first read ADWD.

[Rheagar Prime]

I've read a crap-ton about the Wars of the Roses. Here's my take:

House Baratheon: House York

House Targaryen: House Lancaster

Robert Baratheon: Edward IV

Cersei Lannister: Elizabeth Woodville crossed with Margaret of Anjou (personality)

Jaime and Tyrion Lannister: Anthony Woodville, split (Jaime being the knight, Tyrion being the scholar)

Joffrey Baratheon: Edward V (position) crossed with Edward of Lancaster (personality)

Aerys II Targaryen: Henry VI

Eddard Stark: A better-behaved, more honorable but equally doomed William Hastings

Renly Baratheon: George, Duke of Clarence

Stannis Baratheon: Richard III, minus the murdering of his nephews; Stannis' self-imposed exile on Dragonstone and the Wall is very similar to Richard leaving for York

Tywin Lannister and Mace Tyrell: Warwick the Kingmaker

Real Aegon, Rhaenys: A nod to the princes in the tower

Fake Aegon: Perkin Warbeck

Dany/Jon/whoever wins in the end: Henry VII

Myrcella and Tommen Baratheon: Similar to Richard, Duke of York and Elizabeth of York, personality-wise and somewhat position-wise

Margaery Tyrell: Anne and Isabel Neville

Aegon II and Rhaenyra: King Stephen and Empress Matilda (English history, but not Wars of the Roses)

Battle of the Trident: Battles of Towton (first "final" Yorkist victory) and Tewkesbury (final "final" Yorkist victory)

Battle of the Bells: First Battle of St. Albans

Battle of Ashford: Second Battle of St. Albans

Rhaegar Targaryen: Edward of Lancaster (in terms of the manner of his death and position, not his personality; Edward was Henry VI's heir, killed at Tewkesbury)

Some of these are very, very close — Robert is a dead ringer for Edward IV. By far the most obvious of the bunch. I'd also say that Aerys II as Henry VI is extremely close. Henry VI was also "mad," just not violently so.

Some of them are much looser but still recognizable — Stannis as Richard III, Ned as William Hastings.

Some of them are an amalgamation — Cersei's position is most like Elizabeth Woodville's, but her style and personality are much like Margaret's. Or, working backwards, a real person split into two characters, like Anthony Woodville (Jaime and Tyrion) and Warwick (Tywin and Mace).

Others resemble historical figures on their own but not so much in conjunction with other characters — Myrcella, as the consumate princess and daughter of the Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville parallels, strongly resembles Elizabeth of York, but that doesn't mean I think she'll marry the Henry VII parallel.

Then there are those who resemble a real-world person on one side, but are on the opposite "side" in ASOIAF — Joffrey's personality is much like Edward of Lancaster (he once ordered two surrendered knights to be beheaded in front of him), but within ASOIAF, his position is that of a "Yorkist."

Some fit the position but not the personality — Rhaegar is very much like Edward of Lancaster in that he was the crown prince who ultimately died in a battle that finalized the opposing side's victory. But in terms of personality, they're extremely different.

Still others rely on how the story unfolds — Young Griff could be either Henry VII or Perkin Warbeck, depending on his veracity and how successful he is.

ETA: If you look at the Targaryen succession history vs. the Lancastrian succession history, you can see that they resemble each other somewhat going back to Aegon V/Henry IV. Henry IV was the son of a younger son of the king (John of Gaunt, a son of Edward III, from whom both the Yorks and Lancasters descended), similar to how Aegon V was the son of a younger son of the king (Maekar being a younger son of Daeron II). Unlike Maekar, John of Gaunt never became king, but he wielded enough political power that he more or less was. Each house had a "shift" in the dynasty at roughly the same point (Henry IV overthrowing Richard II, the Great Council declaring Aegon V king). It just happens that the Targaryen shift was peaceful and the Lancastrian shift ... wasn't.

Richard did it.

i agree although i don't think aegon is fake

[Queen Sansa Stark]

I have been recently wondering just how close ASOIAF is to the war of the roses. Is there a good site ore book that explains very good stuff about the war of roses? Plus I have a year ago came across a livejournal page about which characters of ASOIAF where similar to historical counterparts. Perhaps it could be useful to you guys :)

http://excellentnoti....com/33714.html

[Greatjoe]

It occurs to me that Martin, in using the War of the Roses, subverts what actually happened in an ironic way so that much of what happens in ASOIAF creates an ironic mirror opposite to what happened in the War of the Roses. Before I go on, the following is a summary of where I see the parallels:

House Targaryen – Plantagenets/ House of Lancaster/ House of Tudor

Mad King Aerys – Henry V & Henry VI

Daenerys/Viserys – Henry Tudor (Henry VII)

Aegon/Jon Snow? – The Princes in the Tower (Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, children of Edward IV)

House Baratheon/House Stark – House of York

House Lannister – The Nevilles, The Woodvilles

Robert Baratheon – Edward IV

Ned Stark – Richard III

Cersei Lannister – Elizabeth Woodville & Margaret of Anjou

Joffrey Baratheon – Edward of Lancaster, Edward V

Tywin Lannister – Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, ‘Warwick the Kingmaker’

This is far from a comprehensive list but it’s a start.

The Plantagenets were the line which had already ruled for several hundred years. The claims of the houses of York, Lancaster, and by extension Tudor were all derived from relation to this line. Supposedly there were legends saying the Plantagenets had demonic origins, paralleled in the dragon link in ASOIAF, and they also came to England across the sea.

However, the roles of York and Lancaster are subverted. It was Henry IV, of the legitimised bastard John of Gaunt line, who usurped the throne of Richard II and ignored the better claim of the then Earl of March, Edmund Mortimer, from whom the Yorkists (including Edward IV) descend. The Yorkist Edward IV – on whom Robert is based (as others have identified) – was reclaiming what historically should have been his birthright. So while in ASOIF the Baratheons are the usurpers and the Targaryens the ‘rightful’ monarchs, with Robert’s claim partly derived from bastard Targaryen blood; in the Wars of the Roses the Yorkists can be thought of as the ‘true’ line while the Lancasters were the usurpers.

There are also some parallels with the Tudors, who would inherit the Lancastrian claim after the victories of Edward IV. Daenerys’ role as the young heir to the Targaryen growing up in a foreign land with a view to one day taking the crown is paralleled in the story of Henry Tudor (Henry VII) who grew up in Wales as heir to the Lancastrian claim before coming to England to take the throne from Richard III. Moreover, while he is famous for later taking the Red and White Rose as his sigil to signify peace between Lancaster and York, it was the Dragon which appeared on his standard as he set forth for the battle of Bosworth Field. Ironically, while Henry VII is seen by historians as representing the end of the old Plantagenet dynasty; Daenerys represents the revival of the old Targaryen dynasyty.

Mad King Aerys is a cruel opposite of Henry VI. Henry VI was mad, but mostly because of his being uncomfortable with wielding power, and he was often criticised for having a nature too gentle for being a king – in Aerys we see an opposite madness of bloodthirstiness and obsession with violence. The fire obsession may also be a reference to Henry V, Henry VI’s more martial father with whom he was often unfavourabley compared, who is famous for saying that ‘war without fire is like sausages without mustard’.

Robert Baratheon has obvious parallels with Edward IV – a big, strong man who led an army to take his throne and was known for womanising during his reign, had two younger brothers (actually three for Edward IV, but one died early in proceedings, and we can perhaps think of Ned as a third brother), went to fat in old age, and died early leaving the kingdom in turmoil – even his warhammer parallels Edward’s preference for the pollaxe (usually essentially a two-handed warhammer, if it had an axe blade it was usually secondary to the hammerhead). Again, however, there are several ironic parallels. I have already explained the subversion of the usurper role, but also in particular there is his marriage and his relationship with the major magnate of the time, as well as the issues arround his heirs. To explore this we first have to draw out his relationship with the Lannisters.

Tywin Lannister parallels Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, ‘Warwick the Kingmaker’. Like Tywin, Warwick was the most powerful magnate (lord) in the realm and was crucial in securing the throne of Edward IV. Again, however, there are a number of ironies. Tywin is famous for the sack of King’s Landing and his utter ruthlessness. Warwick, in contrast, won popular support with exhortations to ‘spare the commons’ in battles including a crucial break of a seige (which was secured by a betrayal within Lancastrian ranks – perhaps paralleled in Tywin’s betrayal at King’s Landing or indeed in the Red Wedding betrayal). Even the Lannister sigil, the Lion, is an irony – the lion was the sigil of the Nevilles’ mortal enemies, the Percys.

But the ironies go deeper than that. Tywin betrays Aerys at least partly because of the refusal of a marriage match between Cersei and Rhaegar in favour of an alliance with Dorne (representative of France), and Robert secures his ties to the Lannisters with a marriage to Cersei, with whom he seems to share a mutual loathing. By contrast, Warwick had supported Edward early on, but would later betray him at least partly because Edward married a commoner for love (Elizabeth Woodville) against the express interests of Warwick who had been trying to secure a marriage alliance with France.

Elizabeth Woodville was Edward IV’s wife and it was known that she used this position to gain inordinate power for herself and her family – in the she parallels Cersei. Again, however, irony: Edward IV married Elizabeth for love and spurned the opportunity for alliances; Robert married Cersei for an alliance knowing there would never be love; Elizabeth was from a family of commoners while Cersei is from the most powerful non-monarch House in the Realm. Both Elizabeth Woodville and Cersei had their children (both heirs to the throne) accused of being illegitimate – in Elizabeth’s case it probably wasn’t true but the lie prevailed; in Cersei’s case it certainly was true but the lie again prevailed. Cersei’s going to extraordinary lengths to protect the ascendancy of her evil son also parallels Margaret of Anjou (whose son Edward of Lancaster was also accused of being illegitimate), but while the latter was the wife of the Lancastrian Henry IV and lead armies; Cersei is the wife of Robert (the Yorkist Edward) and prefers to use manipulation and promises of sexual favours to get what she wants.

Which brings us to perhaps the deepest irony of all, Ned Stark, whom I think represents Richard III. Richard of Gloucester (as he was then known) became Edward’s most important ally after Warwick’s defection, and was named Protector on Edward’s death bed. After Edward’s death, however, he usurped the throne from Edward’s heirs and justified his kingship based on spurious claims about their legitimacy. He is widely believed to have had the Princes in the Tower – Edward’s sons – murdered to consolidate his throne. Richard III was also known to take pains to make himself seem an honourable and pious man when he seems to have shown himself to be the opposite. Ned Stark, by contrast, finds clear and compelling evidence of the Baratheon childrens’ illegitimacy but attempts to parley with Cersei before making it public to ensure the childrens’ safety – and loses his head for being so damned honourable.

In personality, Joffrey clearly resembles Edward of Lancaster, son of Margaret of Anjou and Henry IV, a sadist said to be obsessed with beheadings and who, like Joffrey, spurned calls for mercy by his fellows in favour of execution. Edward of Lancaster also faced rumour questioning his legitimacy. Again, however, irony – Joffrey is the Baratheon (York) heir, while Edward was the Lancaster heir. In terms of his position, Joffrey in this way has obvious parralel to Edward V, one of the Princes in the Tower; except for the fact that he is ACTUALLY illegitimate.

Which brings us to my more speculative opinion of Aegon Targaryen and Jon Snow. For years after the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, rumours abounded that they had not been killed at all but spirited away for safe keeping. This was likely nonsense, but this didn’t stop a raft of imposters from coming forth with spurious claims. Aegon, similarly, was believed killed as a child – but was in fact spirited away (again ironically – the son of a Targaryen/Lancaster vs the son of York) and protected. Is Jon Snow the other prince? And might Rhaegar and Lyanna be an ironic twist to the Tudor/York marriage of the red and white rose? We’ll just have to see.

There are others – including Stannis (whom I always felt was a harder version of Ned and have only had this reinforced in seeing that he represents other elements of Richard III) and Renly (George of Clarence) – but I think I’ve made my point. Thoughts anyone?

[Currawong]

I agree with some aspects, but I query how you can suggest that House Targaryan somehow equals "Plantagenets/ House of Lancaster / House of Tudor". If there was one thing that Henry Tudor (Henry VII) did very efficiently it was to get rid of every single possible Plantagenet heir or pretender, whether they be Yorkist or Lancastrian. He married Elizabeth, Edward IV's eldest daughter, and he made very sure that her siblings were safely married off to Tudor supporters. All the other key supporters of either York or Lancaster who might have objected to him, were also taken care of in various ways. On that basis, I don't like the chances of Aegon or Jon if you are suggesting that they somehow parallel pretenders such as Perkin Warbeck, as Henry dealt with them all pretty ruthlessly. :D

[MrsManderly]

I am not as versed in English history as some others on this great thread, but here's my take (and going a bit beyond the War of the Roses - sorry got carried away):

Targaryens and also Robert Baratheon as the incumbent king at the start = Plantagenets

Lannisters = Lancasters

Starks = Yorks (the latter two even sound like Lancaster and York)

Richard III = Tyrion perhaps (accused of murder, worse remembered than actually was)

Aegon VI, particularly if a Blackfyre being a junior branch of Targs = Henry VII, the first Tudor king

Sansa, whom I predict to end up married to Aegon VI to seal the peace = Elisabeth of York married to Henry VII to seal the peace

Tyrells/Reach = the French

Martells/Dorne = Spain

Iron islands = Vikings, once powerful raiders but now on the wane (with periodic late "flarings")

Free Cities Lys and Qohor = various German states

Bravos = Venice

Pentos, Myr, Tyrosh, Volantis = various Mediteranean city states, Arab califates and the Ottoman Empire (Rhoynish influence in Dorne = Moors in Spain)

former Valyrian stronghold = ancient Rome and its remnants, the Holy Roman Empire (overlapping with medieval Germany, loosely)

the Dothraki Sea = Russia and the Mongols (Drogo is clearly an aborted Ghengis Khan figure)

Qarth and Slavers Bay = India and Indochina

Ashai = China

Summer Isles = Canaries

Sothyros = Africa

Dragons = dynamite and "hot" war weapons, originating losely from Ashai/China

Others =....... there I'm stumped!

Obviously you could poke massive holes in all of the above, and it's just as easy to see Sansa as a Jane Grey figure or any number of other suggestions made by others in this thread.

But it's fun anyway!