Daemon Blackfyre won the Battle of Redgrass Field

[Lion of the West]

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

You are not making sense. Any infectious disease is likely to spread. All of Ned's children could still be carried away by measles, influenza, smallpox, and so on. The number of your children is no guarantee that any of them will live through a plague.

Its rather simple. The more children you have, the larger the chance that some of them will survive. If Daeron had only had Baelor, and Baelor only had Valarr, then with the Spring Sickness, House Targaryen would be done for. But as it was, Aerys survived, and down in Summerhall, Maekar and his children survived. Thus there were Targaryens around after the calamity which left House Targaryen to continue. Its not a guarantee, but having several children drastically increases the chances that one or more of them will survive and infectious disease.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Dance has nothing to do with that. The majority of the Andal and First Men lords of Westeros does not thing a daughter comes before an uncle. There was one Queen Regnant in Westeros, a Gardener Queen from the Reach about whom we know nothing besides that. We don't even know whether she was the daughter of a king - she could have been the niece or cousin of a king who died childless and had no male relations alive whatsoever.

Apparently you do not read what I post very well or else you would know my current opinion on this.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

Your idea that the granddaughter of a king should take precedence over a younger son is simply not supported by the text. If this was what law and tradition demanded then all the Andal kingdoms would have had many Queens Regnant, and both Great Councils would have supported the claims of Rhaenys-Laenor and Vaella, not the claims of the males through the male line.

See above.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

A king in a medieval setting is expected to lead his men in battle. He does not have to lead from the front, he can remain at the read, but he should be present, if only as a figurehead/puppet to give some rousing speeches. That was expected even of female monarchs who were too weak mentally and physically (in the mind of the people at the time) to fight.

Many kings did lead their men in battle and its considered a mark in their favor. But many kings did not either. Aenys didn't to my knowledge lead men, nor did Viserys, Aerys I & II or Jaehaerys II. All of them left other men to lead their troops and all of them were considered kings in their own right. As such leading men in batle is not mandatory.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

We see how devastating the effect on the morale was when the coward Joffrey abandoned his men on the city walls and run back to hide behind his mother's skirts.

I recall Joffrey being called back into the Red Keep, but you are correct in that seeing one's leader fall or leave usually means flight.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

We know the boy let himself to be surrounded by Maegor's forces. If you can surround an army it is usually rather small. And if the man thought Quicksilver could defeat Balerion he was an utter fool. It may be that the boy challenged his uncle to a single combat on dragonback or some other foolish notion like Daemon II Blackfyre tried to do with Bloodraven. Maegor would have accepted such a challenge, of course, but it actually might be that his original plan was to not kill the boy but to take him into custody as he had already done with his mother and siblings.

Fool or small army, both are irrelevant to the fact that Prince Aegon seemed to possess all kind of facilities needed to press his claim for his father's crown, if he had been present to do to, and Maegor had not beaten him to it.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

Well, Vaella's claim was dismissed, so that sets a precedent for a lackwit being unfit to rule. Royals suffering from similar afflictions might have been seen as barred from the succession thereafter. It would not be implicit but if a king had an eldest son who was a lackwit he could easily enough cite the Great Council as a precedent as to why pass him over.

I didn't know you took predecents fromt he Great Council very seriously. If that's the case, then I'm afraid that Rhaenyra don't have much of a claim on the Iron Throne, citing predecent from a Great Counci. But I see that predecents are use and discarded by you in an arbitrary manner according to the "I want" principle.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

And had Rhaegar had success in deposing Aerys II because of his madness that could have set a precedent for the Small Council/royal family being allowed to depose a king on the grounds of him being mad and thus incapable to rule.

Your new interest with predecent is rather fascinating to be honest. I wonder how long it will go on.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

Perhaps even not that. You can conquer quite some lands with 10,000 or more professional soldiers. It would depend on the Westerosi to take it back. Perhaps they would have never gotten around to do that. Unlikely with a king like Aegon V, of course, but certainly not impossible.

Any king who wasn't Aenys would have come around to it, or failing that, a Lord Paramount would have taken matters into his own hands.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

Brynden and Aegor are just children and bastards at that. The idea that these were famous all across Westeros is ridiculous. As is the idea that the world would care about their fates. Daemon might have had some prominence at that point, but even promising young people can die of a sudden illness or suffer mortal accidents.

If it was Aegon IV who was king, sure, but I doubt that Daeron the Good would so such a thing. To much out of character.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

The food will actually be outside those castles, not inside them. At least in spring and summer. In winter things are different, of course, but we are not talking about winter warfare here. And many of those smaller castles should be stormed rather quickly. And the cities should fall even quicker.

The people will bring what food they can take with them inside the castle, or potentially doing a Brynden and ravage the surrounding lands to make a siege harder. Storming cities to haul the people off into slavery is surely something which will prevent capitulation and turn public opinion against the Dothraki's Targaryen masters and so cement the opposition against them.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

And there is no reason why the Dothraki should wage war in some backwater regions like the Kingswood or the Rainwood.

Westeros isn't a cultivated land but to a large degree consists of forests, bogs and the like. Either its lands filled with castles or lands filled with uncultivated lands.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

The royal fleet sits in the harbor of Dragonstone, with Stannis Baratheon basically doing nothing. Viserys III would have known that from Illyrio, so they could actually have attacked Dragonstone first, taking Stannis by surprise. The man was focused on KL, not accepting to be taken from behind. Or they could have ignored him completely. If Stannis hadn't seem them coming they would have been in Westeros before he could have done anything to stop them.

The royal fleet keeps watch, one would suppose, and I doubt that Illyrio would get hold of a fleet large enough to easily destroy Stannis' royal fleet. Because suprise isn't a 100% sure thing, especially when its not against a guy like Stafford. Bypassing Dragonstone entirely would have been much wiser for the Dothraki.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

But again, we are not talking about a naval battle here. We are talking about the Dothraki fighting on Westerosi soil.

To get to Westeros they need to cross the Narrow Sea and to do that, they might well need to fight a fleet as Stanns is unlikely to easily let yet another contender reach the shores.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Sarnori also technically had the advantage over the Dothraki until they hadn't. They were foolish. Who is to say that the Westerosi are not also foolish? And unlike the Sarnori with their chariots the Westerosi have no clue how to fight the Dothraki effectively. 

The Sarnori were fools and what we've seen from the Westerosi is that in military matters, they are not fools. You are right in that the Westerosi probably don't have much exerpeicne with fighting the Dothraki, but then again, the Dothraki don't seem to have much experience with figjhting Westerosi type of armies either.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

Do you doubt that Robb would have added Jaime to Tywin's and Joffrey's head on a spike after he no longer needed him alive?

By judging from his actual behavior, yes. If it was only Lannister blood that mattered then Robb would have pressed to join Renly and so get four Great Houses united against the Lannisters.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Dothraki would just storm the city.

They would try, and most likely pile their dead in great heaps before the city walls.

On 2017-02-11 at 1:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Tyrells and Lannisters combined, of course. But nobody has said that they would face them in pitched battle with their forces combined.

Either Viserys strike before the Blackwater in which case Tywin can move south to either catch the Dothraki between the walls and himself after which they'll need to face Renly's army, or after, by which time Lannister and Tyrell forces are concentrated around King's Landing and so can easily withdraw inside if things would look to dicey for them.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Its rather simple. The more children you have, the larger the chance that some of them will survive. If Daeron had only had Baelor, and Baelor only had Valarr, then with the Spring Sickness, House Targaryen would be done for. But as it was, Aerys survived, and down in Summerhall, Maekar and his children survived. Thus there were Targaryens around after the calamity which left House Targaryen to continue. Its not a guarantee, but having several children drastically increases the chances that one or more of them will survive and infectious disease.

Sure, but having a bunch of young and sickly children is not protection against a plague. It is better than having no heirs or only one child but scarcely a good preparation. The Conqueror had no heir for seven heirs, and only two heirs for the remainder of his reign. The dynasty could easily enough have died before it got started.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Apparently you do not read what I post very well or else you would know my current opinion on this.

You still seem to insist that granddaughters have to come before uncles despite that this actually never happened in the Targaryen succession.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Many kings did lead their men in battle and its considered a mark in their favor. But many kings did not either. Aenys didn't to my knowledge lead men, nor did Viserys, Aerys I & II or Jaehaerys II. All of them left other men to lead their troops and all of them were considered kings in their own right. As such leading men in batle is not mandatory.

All those kings were considered to be at least physically weak. Viserys I never had to lead men into battle but one assumes he would have done so if he had too. Just as Jaehaerys I would have (the man never seems to have ridden to war, either, as far as we know). And the consensus of the martial men of the Realm is that those peace-loving men were all weaklings, not just the mentally/physically weak kings like Aenys, Aerys I, or Jaehaerys II, but also actually charismatic and successful kings like Baelor and Daeron II.

A king sitting at home all day while the Realm burns around him is seen as weak.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I recall Joffrey being called back into the Red Keep, but you are correct in that seeing one's leader fall or leave usually means flight.

Joffrey could have ignored his mother's wishes. His Hand was urging him to stay.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Fool or small army, both are irrelevant to the fact that Prince Aegon seemed to possess all kind of facilities needed to press his claim for his father's crown, if he had been present to do to, and Maegor had not beaten him to it.

I don't see that. I see a stupid boy who tried to play at war. A smarter man would have bided his time and actually shown up with a real army to challenge his uncle.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I didn't know you took predecents fromt he Great Council very seriously. If that's the case, then I'm afraid that Rhaenyra don't have much of a claim on the Iron Throne, citing predecent from a Great Counci. But I see that predecents are use and discarded by you in an arbitrary manner according to the "I want" principle.

Precedents have to be accepted as such. As king Viserys I had any right to ignore the precedents set by Jaehaerys I. But just as some lords then decided to use the precedents as pretexts to challenge his decrees upon his death other lords could have decided to ignore the fact that some later king left his crown to some lackwit heir. A lackwit or real madman (not just a narcissist like Trump or Aerys II upon his coronation) could not possibly press a claim all by himself. Such persons are easily pushed aside, and since it has been done with Vaella already people would be more than happy to point that thing out as precedents. Even kings would favorable look on that whole thing - a sane king would not want an heir being stupid enough to ruin the dynasty and the kingdom. Aegon V and Jaehaerys II most definitely would have excluded Aerys II from the succession had they known how he would turn out at the age of forty.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Any king who wasn't Aenys would have come around to it, or failing that, a Lord Paramount would have taken matters into his own hands.

That would depend on the situation in the Realm. Right now the Realm is certainly weak enough for some adventurer with a large enough army to conquer the Vale or Dorne, or some other portion of Westeros. The same could have worked during the Dance, or a Blackfyre Rebellion, or perhaps even during the reign of Aegon V when the man was occupied with all those rebellious lords.

There is no natural law stipulating that the Seven Kingdoms have to remain a united political unit forever.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

If it was Aegon IV who was king, sure, but I doubt that Daeron the Good would so such a thing. To much out of character.

I was not talking about his character, I was talking about a means to prevent the Blackfyre Rebellion before it happened. And he didn't have to kill anyone. He could have 'banished' Daemon to Tyrosh, married Aegor to Shiera to secure his loyalty and eternal friendship and sent Fireball to the Wall. That way there would never have been a great bastards crisis.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

The people will bring what food they can take with them inside the castle, or potentially doing a Brynden and ravage the surrounding lands to make a siege harder. Storming cities to haul the people off into slavery is surely something which will prevent capitulation and turn public opinion against the Dothraki's Targaryen masters and so cement the opposition against them.

If they only attack the rebels not doing homage to their rightful king then this shouldn't be that much a problem. Many people would find the option of acknowledging Viserys III as their king much more promising than actually see the Dothraki ravage their lands.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Westeros isn't a cultivated land but to a large degree consists of forests, bogs and the like. Either its lands filled with castles or lands filled with uncultivated lands.

Yeah, just as the Dothraki Sea is. The Dothraki survive there just fine.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

The royal fleet keeps watch, one would suppose, and I doubt that Illyrio would get hold of a fleet large enough to easily destroy Stannis' royal fleet. Because suprise isn't a 100% sure thing, especially when its not against a guy like Stafford. Bypassing Dragonstone entirely would have been much wiser for the Dothraki.

The royal fleet didn't keep any sort of watch. Stannis was focused on KL and had his ships at the harbor of Dragonstone, not at sea.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

To get to Westeros they need to cross the Narrow Sea and to do that, they might well need to fight a fleet as Stanns is unlikely to easily let yet another contender reach the shores.

Well, a fleet carrying tens of thousands of Dothraki would have crushed Stannis' fleet. The ships would probably have been burned at anchor just as Tywin's were when the fool failed to watch his coasts.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

The Sarnori were fools and what we've seen from the Westerosi is that in military matters, they are not fools. You are right in that the Westerosi probably don't have much exerpeicne with fighting the Dothraki, but then again, the Dothraki don't seem to have much experience with figjhting Westerosi type of armies either.

The kings of the Seven Kingdoms also failed to prepare for Aegon's Conquest. A khal certainly could repeat his success, although it would most likely take much longer.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

By judging from his actual behavior, yes. If it was only Lannister blood that mattered then Robb would have pressed to join Renly and so get four Great Houses united against the Lannisters.

You know why he did not do that.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

They would try, and most likely pile their dead in great heaps before the city walls.

Why so? Don't you think they would know how to break the gates?

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Either Viserys strike before the Blackwater in which case Tywin can move south to either catch the Dothraki between the walls and himself after which they'll need to face Renly's army, or after, by which time Lannister and Tyrell forces are concentrated around King's Landing and so can easily withdraw inside if things would look to dicey for them.

Tywin's men wouldn't be that much of a challenge for Drogo's 40,000 riders. The same goes for Renly's people. The Dothraki archers alone could have killed all the knights if they are as effective as they seem to be.

And no infantry in Westeros has the stamina of the Unsullied. It was Dothraki stupidity/honor which prevented them from making short work out of the Unsullied at Qohor. However, the average Westerosi pike man does know both fear and pain. If 40,000 Dothraki screamers are racing towards him he will break and run.

[Ser Joe of Generic Hall]

Daemon would probably declare himself a Targaryen. That would solidify his claim and make sense because he claimed Daeron was a bastard and he was the true son of Aegon iv.

Daeron and his immediate supporters (Bloodraven, Baelor, Maekar, etc.) would be executed. Add Valar and Matarys to that list. Non-inheriting sons such as Aerion would take the black or be sent to the citadel (Aemon, egg, et.). 

All of Daeron's female descendants would be given to his seven sons as wives in order to unite the dynasty and produce pureblood Targaryen heirs.

[Lion of the West]

On 2017-02-13 at 1:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but having a bunch of young and sickly children is not protection against a plague. It is better than having no heirs or only one child but scarcely a good preparation. The Conqueror had no heir for seven heirs, and only two heirs for the remainder of his reign. The dynasty could easily enough have died before it got started.

Its obviously not fool proof, but having several children drastically increases the chances for the House's survival. And I agree that the Targaryens were in a bad place for a time after the Dragon's death. As such its about the best protection and preparation most rulers can have.

Quote

You still seem to insist that granddaughters have to come before uncles despite that this actually never happened in the Targaryen succession.

And you still seem to insist that women should take a backseat to men, unless a man will say that she shouldn't. Because things is is that sons of the ruler have come before the uncles fo the ruler, and thus I seen reason as to why daughters of the ruler should come after the uncles, unless the king specifies that they should.

Quote

All those kings were considered to be at least physically weak. Viserys I never had to lead men into battle but one assumes he would have done so if he had too. Just as Jaehaerys I would have (the man never seems to have ridden to war, either, as far as we know). And the consensus of the martial men of the Realm is that those peace-loving men were all weaklings, not just the mentally/physically weak kings like Aenys, Aerys I, or Jaehaerys II, but also actually charismatic and successful kings like Baelor and Daeron II.

Yet kings they were. As I recall saying, it was a mark in favor to lead men in battle, but it wasn't mandatory as they were still considered kings by lots of people with only Daeron II and Aerys I actually having some kind of problem from this, and even then it don't seem to have been the sole factor behind those problems. And in both cases many people rallied also to a king who didn't lead men in battle.

Quote

A king sitting at home all day while the Realm burns around him is seen as weak.

Very likely, yes. But for all it seems, a powerful reponse by a strong Hand would reflect well on said king.

Quote

Joffrey could have ignored his mother's wishes. His Hand was urging him to stay.

I agree and he should have. Its rather clear how great Cersei's influence over Joffrey was and that she did indeed raise him to be a mommy's boy.

Quote

I don't see that. I see a stupid boy who tried to play at war. A smarter man would have bided his time and actually shown up with a real army to challenge his uncle.

And I see a brave young man ready to fight to press his birth right. Waiting might not have been an option since no one knew that Maegor's realm would unravel so quickly and we don't know what part his death had in breaking appart Maegor's relation with the rest of the Targaryens.

Quote

Precedents have to be accepted as such. As king Viserys I had any right to ignore the precedents set by Jaehaerys I. But just as some lords then decided to use the precedents as pretexts to challenge his decrees upon his death other lords could have decided to ignore the fact that some later king left his crown to some lackwit heir. A lackwit or real madman (not just a narcissist like Trump or Aerys II upon his coronation) could not possibly press a claim all by himself. Such persons are easily pushed aside, and since it has been done with Vaella already people would be more than happy to point that thing out as precedents. Even kings would favorable look on that whole thing - a sane king would not want an heir being stupid enough to ruin the dynasty and the kingdom. Aegon V and Jaehaerys II most definitely would have excluded Aerys II from the succession had they known how he would turn out at the age of forty.

Thus predecents are meaningless and hollow and you can't follow through on any principle stand about them. Either predecents are valuable and should be followed and only in new territory can we talk about the ruler making a new stance or predecents are useless and not worth the papper they are recorded on.

Quote

That would depend on the situation in the Realm. Right now the Realm is certainly weak enough for some adventurer with a large enough army to conquer the Vale or Dorne, or some other portion of Westeros. The same could have worked during the Dance, or a Blackfyre Rebellion, or perhaps even during the reign of Aegon V when the man was occupied with all those rebellious lords.

Could be. The problem I see is however that they would need a very large army since they couldn't rely on strong Westerosi support. The closest we have to this scenario is Hugh Hammer, and we know the Greens could take care of him and his pretensions.

Quote

There is no natural law stipulating that the Seven Kingdoms have to remain a united political unit forever.

No, but there is a political sense and the fact that at no point has political regression been successful in Westeros. If was, the Iron Islands wouldn't have been smashed down time and again.

Quote

I was not talking about his character, I was talking about a means to prevent the Blackfyre Rebellion before it happened. And he didn't have to kill anyone. He could have 'banished' Daemon to Tyrosh, married Aegor to Shiera to secure his loyalty and eternal friendship and sent Fireball to the Wall. That way there would never have been a great bastards crisis.

Except that's not what you implied and most people save Aegor who got rewarded, would see it for the punishments it was, and Bloodraven could have a grudge in that Aegor got the girl, so to speak.

Quote

If they only attack the rebels not doing homage to their rightful king then this shouldn't be that much a problem. Many people would find the option of acknowledging Viserys III as their king much more promising than actually see the Dothraki ravage their lands.

Problem is that there would be strong enemy armies around and thus many people are likely to support whoever happens to be present and then switch their cloaks again when a new army arrives. Not to mention that Dothraki or Westerosi ravaging the lands, the result will be kind of the same. But sure, some undoubtefull will yield, just as some won't.

Quote

Yeah, just as the Dothraki Sea is. The Dothraki survive there just fine.

The Dothraki Sea is made up of grasslands, Westeros seems to be made up by woodlands. Big difference when it comes to keeping massive numbers of horses around.

Quote

The royal fleet didn't keep any sort of watch. Stannis was focused on KL and had his ships at the harbor of Dragonstone, not at sea.

When a whole fleet comes sailing, odds are that Stannis will hear about it.

Quote

Well, a fleet carrying tens of thousands of Dothraki would have crushed Stannis' fleet. The ships would probably have been burned at anchor just as Tywin's were when the fool failed to watch his coasts.

Thing is that I doubt the Dothraki makes for good marines given their absolute lack of knowledge in regards to fighting at sea and I doubt that there would enough warships, as opposed to transports, to easily crush Stannis' fleet as that would make the endeavor even most costly.

Quote

The kings of the Seven Kingdoms also failed to prepare for Aegon's Conquest. A khal certainly could repeat his success, although it would most likely take much longer.

I doubt it. Its clear to me that the Conquest was only possible because of the dragons as otherwise its doubtful that Aegon could have taken more than the Stormlands and perhaps Crownlands and maybe the Riverlands. After that, it would have either grounded to a halt, or Aegon would have been driven into the sea.

Quote

You know why he did not do that.

Yes, I know. Because killing Lannisters in itself was not his goal.

Quote

Why so? Don't you think they would know how to break the gates?

I don't know to be honest. When was the last time the Dothraki attacked a major city? Has Drogo ever attacked a major city? With the Free Cities paying off the Dothraki, I don't know if the Dothraki still maintain knowledge and skills related to siegecraft. After all if you don't use a skill, you often lose it fairly fast, and that can go for whole cultures. Most people's ancestors were farmers but today I don't know how many urban folks can manage an agricultural enterprize the way their ancestors did.

Quote

Tywin's men wouldn't be that much of a challenge for Drogo's 40,000 riders. The same goes for Renly's people. The Dothraki archers alone could have killed all the knights if they are as effective as they seem to be.

Considering that the most likely situation is that Tywin would find some defensive position and let the Dothraki come at him, I don't think you should count out Lord Lannister so easily. I see no reason so war to think that the Dothraki are as skilled and powerful as the Mongols, and for a reminder, settled communities have beaten nomadic armies pleny of times in history. So there's no reason to thinkt that the Dothraki would be invincible.

Quote

And no infantry in Westeros has the stamina of the Unsullied. It was Dothraki stupidity/honor which prevented them from making short work out of the Unsullied at Qohor. However, the average Westerosi pike man does know both fear and pain. If 40,000 Dothraki screamers are racing towards him he will break and run.

I agree that they wouldn't have stamina or espit de corps of the Unsullied, but they would have armor and in many cases better equipment. For example they would have both melee infantry and archers and crossbowmen, among them the fabled, if often overestimated, longbowmen. If 40 000 Dothraki screams races towards a pike wall supported by crossbowmen or archers and with cavalry and men-at-arms on foot for a counter attack or reinforcements, then we'll see who wins the day.

Also do we know that Drogo, or other Dothraki that are brought across, are not infected with the same kind of stubborness that lead the Unsullied at Qohor to carry the day? Even if Viserys III would say otherwise, its clear that his character is such that the Dothraki would listen to him and I don't know how the Dothraki tend to view sellswords and if they would listen to advice from the Golden Company's men.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Its obviously not fool proof, but having several children drastically increases the chances for the House's survival. And I agree that the Targaryens were in a bad place for a time after the Dragon's death. As such its about the best protection and preparation most rulers can have.

That is irrelevant. The point is that a lord having a bunch of young children as the only heirs of his body could certainly look for a spare in some cousin or brother just in case some illness kills them all in the cradle, or leaves them cripples or lackwits.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

And you still seem to insist that women should take a backseat to men, unless a man will say that she shouldn't. Because things is is that sons of the ruler have come before the uncles fo the ruler, and thus I seen reason as to why daughters of the ruler should come after the uncles, unless the king specifies that they should.

Those are the rules for the Iron Throne. I did not make them. Aside from Viserys I nobody really wanted a female heir, neither the kings nor the lords of the Realm. There is no precedent for this a daughter becomes before on uncle thing on the royal level. And there is only one precedent for a Queen Regnant in the Reach. There is no reason to believe that anybody in the other kingdoms was especially eager to accept the rule of a woman.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Yet kings they were. As I recall saying, it was a mark in favor to lead men in battle, but it wasn't mandatory as they were still considered kings by lots of people with only Daeron II and Aerys I actually having some kind of problem from this, and even then it don't seem to have been the sole factor behind those problems. And in both cases many people rallied also to a king who didn't lead men in battle.

It also depends on the era. Aerys I could afford handing the Realm to Bloodraven. Aenys I could not. His indecisiveness nearly ruined the entire dynasty. Had he been somewhat more martial the Faith might not even have rebelled against his rule.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Very likely, yes. But for all it seems, a powerful reponse by a strong Hand would reflect well on said king.

Not in the times when people still expected their king to lead them. The Hand began as just a royal official among many. Later on it became the Prime Minister office with a lot of authority. That wasn't the case in the early days.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

And I see a brave young man ready to fight to press his birth right. Waiting might not have been an option since no one knew that Maegor's realm would unravel so quickly and we don't know what part his death had in breaking appart Maegor's relation with the rest of the Targaryens.

That doesn't make any sense. Alyssa, Viserys, and the other children were in Maegor's custody. Aegon risked the lives of his family with his stupid rebellion. Things only began to unravel after Visenya died and Alyssa and the younger children got away.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Thus predecents are meaningless and hollow and you can't follow through on any principle stand about them. Either predecents are valuable and should be followed and only in new territory can we talk about the ruler making a new stance or predecents are useless and not worth the papper they are recorded on.

Precedents aren't recorded or established as such. Especially not such succession precedents. Legal stuff happens, and then later on people look back in time on the things that happened in their fathers' days and pick the stuff they like and call it legal precedents for this or that. Stuff they don't like they ignore and it is forgotten.

Depending on the society you are living in people will be inclined to stick to the traditions of the fathers to a stronger or lesser degree. But the Targaryen reign seemed overall to be rather progressive, with Queen Rhaenys and Queen Alysanne actually changing long established law.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Could be. The problem I see is however that they would need a very large army since they couldn't rely on strong Westerosi support. The closest we have to this scenario is Hugh Hammer, and we know the Greens could take care of him and his pretensions.

No, I'm not talking about stuff like that, I'm basically talking about foreign invasions. Places like Dorne and the Vale (and even the Stormlands) are pretty isolated by geography. If a foreign invader conquers those lands in a moment of weakness then the larger Realm might be rather powerless to stop that.

For instance, if the Braavosi conquered the Vale in autumn then the Iron Throne could only try to reconquer it by challenging the Braavosi at the sea. They can't march an army across the mountains in such a season. And if the Lords of the Vale decide they prefer the Sealord to the Iron Throne then it should be pretty difficult to take it back.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Except that's not what you implied and most people save Aegor who got rewarded, would see it for the punishments it was, and Bloodraven could have a grudge in that Aegor got the girl, so to speak.

No, people don't have to see through either murders, accidents, or exiles. We have no reason to believe that the Realm cared all that much about Daemon Blackfyre and the other bastards in 184 AC. 

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Problem is that there would be strong enemy armies around and thus many people are likely to support whoever happens to be present and then switch their cloaks again when a new army arrives. Not to mention that Dothraki or Westerosi ravaging the lands, the result will be kind of the same. But sure, some undoubtefull will yield, just as some won't.

That doesn't happen all that often.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

The Dothraki Sea is made up of grasslands, Westeros seems to be made up by woodlands. Big difference when it comes to keeping massive numbers of horses around.

Nope, the huge forests of Westeros are actually visible on the maps. Can you point those out to me who are in the Riverlands, the West, the Vale, or the Reach. There is the Kingswood, the Wolfswood, the forest around Karhold, and that's about it. There might be other smaller forests in the various regions, to be sure, but we are not talking about all the Dothraki coming to Westeros at once so don't be silly there. And if they want more open land they can just burn (or cut) down the trees.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

When a whole fleet comes sailing, odds are that Stannis will hear about it.

Just as Tywin did? 

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Thing is that I doubt the Dothraki makes for good marines given their absolute lack of knowledge in regards to fighting at sea and I doubt that there would enough warships, as opposed to transports, to easily crush Stannis' fleet as that would make the endeavor even most costly.

The Dothraki wouldn't command or steer those ships. They would be shipped across the Narrow Sea just as the Golden Company was.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I doubt it. Its clear to me that the Conquest was only possible because of the dragons as otherwise its doubtful that Aegon could have taken more than the Stormlands and perhaps Crownlands and maybe the Riverlands. After that, it would have either grounded to a halt, or Aegon would have been driven into the sea.

If Aegon had had an army of 100,000 Dothraki he sure as hell could have conquered Westeros, too.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I don't know to be honest. When was the last time the Dothraki attacked a major city? Has Drogo ever attacked a major city?

It is established in AGoT that the Dothraki destroyed a lot of major cities in their time (all those idols have to come from somewhere, right) and you know the maps, presumably, so you know how many Valyrian, Ghiscari, Sarnori, Ibbenese, and Qaathi cities they destroyed.

And you also know that Drogo originally intended to raid the lands in the East after he presented Dany to the dosh khaleen. He wouldn't have done that if he thought his people were incapable of storming the walls of cities like Pentos (which he has seen).

If you have read ADwD you also know that the Dothraki are feared along the Rhoyne, and are occasionally testing the defenses of the Volantenes.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

With the Free Cities paying off the Dothraki, I don't know if the Dothraki still maintain knowledge and skills related to siegecraft. After all if you don't use a skill, you often lose it fairly fast, and that can go for whole cultures. Most people's ancestors were farmers but today I don't know how many urban folks can manage an agricultural enterprize the way their ancestors did.

Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. 

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Considering that the most likely situation is that Tywin would find some defensive position and let the Dothraki come at him, I don't think you should count out Lord Lannister so easily. I see no reason so war to think that the Dothraki are as skilled and powerful as the Mongols, and for a reminder, settled communities have beaten nomadic armies pleny of times in history. So there's no reason to thinkt that the Dothraki would be invincible.

Again, the bows of the Dothraki are made of dragonbone, and thus vastly superior to the longbows of the Westerosi. The Dothraki could make camp outside the reach of the Westerosi bowmen and harrow them with arrows. Tywin could do nothing against that aside from hiding beneath some shield.

I'm not saying they are invincible, I'm just saying they have the better bows and the better horsemen.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I agree that they wouldn't have stamina or espit de corps of the Unsullied, but they would have armor and in many cases better equipment.

The footmen? Not really. Some of them might have armor, but that doesn't help you when you are ridden down or pierced with arrows.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

For example they would have both melee infantry and archers and crossbowmen, among them the fabled, if often overestimated, longbowmen.

There are no fabled longbow men in Westeros I'm aware of.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

If 40 000 Dothraki screams races towards a pike wall supported by crossbowmen or archers and with cavalry and men-at-arms on foot for a counter attack or reinforcements, then we'll see who wins the day.

The Dothraki. Because they arrows will have taken care of those people long before they actually arrive there.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Also do we know that Drogo, or other Dothraki that are brought across, are not infected with the same kind of stubborness that lead the Unsullied at Qohor to carry the day? Even if Viserys III would say otherwise, its clear that his character is such that the Dothraki would listen to him and I don't know how the Dothraki tend to view sellswords and if they would listen to advice from the Golden Company's men.

Drogo was unconventional. He married a dragon princess, remember? And no, the average Westerosi infantry men would not not stand fast like the Unsullied did. Remember how many Unsullied died that die? The Westerosi infantry men would break as soon as a tenth of their numbers lay dead on the field.

[LIVIA]

On 15.02.2017 at 1:30 PM, Lord Varys said:

That is irrelevant. The point is that a lord having a bunch of young children as the only heirs of his body could certainly look for a spare in some cousin or brother just in case some illness kills them all in the cradle, or leaves them cripples or lackwits.

That's Biology. That's one of two biological strategies of breeding: to produce 1-2 children, but strong, well-cared and protected OR to leave as many offsprings as possible and let them struggle for life in agressive environment. And though human strategy is naturally the first one, till 19th century - due to permanent wars, high rate of deliquency, ineffective medicine and insanitariness - wifes had to bear 6-8 children so to 1-2 of them could reach majority.