northwesterner Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Asha Greyjoy is basically implying that Westeros is unconquerable unless you have Westerosi version of nukes? Basically, whether it fAegon, Euron, or the Lannisters, they will never have complete control over the Seven Kingdoms, that the break up that the War of the Five Kings is either permanent or semi permanent, we are not going to have a united Seven Kingdoms unless dragons are involved. Do you guys agree with Asha's statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Urgandy Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Nope, and Big Bob Baratheon would certainly take issue with that statement. Conquering for the Ironborn without Dragons would be impossible, since apparently they don't like land, don't fight like organised infantry and aren't a big fan of castles not accessible by boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrannogDweller Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Pretty much. Unless all the kingdoms choose to hold up the oaths they swore to Aegon I, there is no way to force them into a single entity. Especially regions like the North, the Vale and Dorne. They are protected by their respective geography. Of course, all of that is moot if someone tries to reconquer them with dragons, like Euron supposedly intends to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwesterner Posted May 19, 2014 Author Share Posted May 19, 2014 Well, with Robert, wasn't his grandmother a Targaryen, so he claimed semi-legitimacy from that. Ned even confirms that I believe. It seems the only person who can unite the Seven Kingdoms is the person with dragons i.e. Dany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrannogDweller Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Nope, and Big Bob Baratheon would certainly take issue with that statement. Conquering for the Ironborn without Dragons would be impossible, since apparently they don't like land, don't fight like organised infantry and aren't a big fan of castles not accessible by boat. Bob didn't conquer all the kingdoms. He merely usurped the Targaryen throne with the help of half of them. And even if an argument can be made that he was a conquer, he was actively backed by 3 of the other kingdoms - two of which happen to be the most unconquerable regions of Westeros. The story would've gone much differently if he had to conquer the North and the Vale by force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Trell Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 As an invading force with no major allies, yes. So from the Ironborn perspective, yes. Robert clearly showed it was possible to rule through force of personality and strategic marriage alliance though. Tywin(and Kevan, to a lesser extent) was well on his way to replicating this through Joffrey and later Tommen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KING-OF-WINTERFELL Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Yep, maybe one kingdom would be dominant and have a Bretwalda as their king like they had in anglo-saxon England I could see the reach or even the North fulfilling that role. Or maybe large sums dominated or control over other kingdoms by one kingdom, done properly and if the North had a fleet with alliances I could have seen the north conquered the westerlands and use its geography against them. Together with an with his aunt in the vale and his mother ties to the riverlands robb could have potentially controlled or be king of the entire westeros north of the blackwater. But that's in a perfect world where everything is in robbs favour. Or an independent reach may be able to conquer the stormlands and riverlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Thornhart Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Plot armor is better than literal armor, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Yes and no. Dragons conquered most, but lasting peace with the Faith and bringing Dorne into the kingdoms took diplomacy and marriages. Dragons alone will not win and keep Westeros, though they can get a lot of the job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwesterner Posted May 19, 2014 Author Share Posted May 19, 2014 Bob didn't conquer all the kingdoms. He merely usurped the Targaryen throne with the help of half of them. And even if an argument can be made that he was a conquer, he was actively backed by 3 of the other kingdoms - two of which happen to be the most unconquerable regions of Westeros. The story would've gone much differently if he had to conquer the North and the Vale by force. Yeah, this probably what Asha meant, some regions are simply unconquerable unless you have dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blizzardborn Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Asha's words can be taken both literally and figuratively. She could have just been pointing out that the odds were weighed heavily in Aegon's favor, and that to conquer seven kingdoms requires some kind of huge advantage no one seems to have (particularly the Ironborn). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.