Tactical Analysis of Theon Stark's Raid on Andalos

[mediterraneo]

@TimJames You are not being fair Tim.

 

To relate the fight with Kingdom of the Vale for the Three Sisters with the Andal's original crusading raids is pretesterous.

To affirm that any policy in the Narrow Sea would have deterred Ironborn actions in the opposite sea is fallacious too.

To relate the Manderly "land for service" submission to the Andal's crusading raids form Andalos is also very out of context. Are the Manderly, the old family taking name from the main river in Gath Greenhand's First Man playground, even ethnically Andals? Even if they were, exchanging a crusade on your lands now with the coming of some faithful vassal in the time needed for the Andals to get to the Reach, integrate themselves there and come back as Westerosi cannot really be dismissed as a failure.

To end things up: the Torrhen thing is really ludicrous. Apart from the fact that no, the Targaryen dragons are not from Andalos, even if they were, what you wrote about the "failure" to prevent that is akin to saying that Alexander Nievskij didn't really beat the Teutonic Order at Lake Peipus because the German Empire got a favorable peace against Russia in World War One.

 

[TimJames]

20 hours ago, Byrnard Sandors said:

I agree that Theon's raid on Andalos was a strategic misstep.  It did not stop the Andals from continuing to raid, nor did it increase the power or resources of the North.  Like many historical mistakes, it was the result of a leader making decisions with their heart instead of their brain.  It did not cost the North anything directly, so it could have been a worse blunder if they were unlucky (e.g. if the North had been invaded from another direction while resources were tied up in Andalos), but the resources would have been better spent elsewhere - as mentioned, building fortifications along the coast, creating a merchant fleet to increase the wealth of the North, or even using the ships for raiding and looting purposes.

Yep, his bloodlust blinded him and could have lead him to ruin. 

The War Across The Water was arguably the direct result of Theon Stark building up a brutal reputation (Matthos II Arryn "would sooner have a pirate than a wolf for his neighbor"), and it could have been much worse for The Hungry Wolf. 

If I was an Ironborn King or a Vale King, then Theon Stark being away in Andalos would have been the perfect opportunity launch an invasion of The North. He's too far away to recieve Ravens, and when he does return his armies will be split up. 

Or if I was King of The Vale I could have risen to Andolas's defense and attacked Theon's Death Squad while he was in Andalos (trapping him there, wiping out a chunk of his army, earning gravitas with The Clergy, embarrassing The North for generations to come). If I took him prisoner, I could demand he hand over some Wolf's Den and a son as hostage to ensure he doesn't try to retake those places. If Theon refuses, then OUTTHEMOONDOOR!

Or if I was an ambitious High Septon, I could have used it as an excuse to call an all-out Holy War against The North. Let's see Theon stand up to an Andal Invasion from Andalos AND Westeros!

Heck, Theon's Death Squad getting ambushed in Andalos and cut to shreds would have been enough to put his rampage to an early end and leave The North destabilized. 

[TimJames]

4 minutes ago, mediterraneo said:

@TimJames You are not being fair Tim.

 

To relate the fight with Kingdom of the Vale for the Three Sisters with the Andal's original crusading raids is pretesterous.

To affirm that any policy in the Narrow Sea would have deterred Ironborn actions in the opposite sea is fallacious too.

To relate the Manderly "land for service" submission to the Andal's crusading raids form Andalos is also very out of context. Are the Manderly, the old family taking name from the main river in Gath Greenhand's First Man playground, even ethnically Andals? Even if they were, exchanging a crusade on your lands now with the coming of some faithful vassal in the time needed for the Andals to get to the Reach, integrate themselves there and come back as Westerosi cannot really be dismissed as a failure.

To end things up: the Torrhen thing is really ludicrous. Apart from the fact that no, the Targaryen dragons are not from Andalos, even if they were, what you wrote about the "failure" to prevent that is akin to saying that Alexander Nievskij didn't really beat the Teutonic Order at Lake Peipus because the German Empire got a favorable peace against Russia in World War One.

 

You said, and I quote, " there weren't subsequent large scale invasions of the North's coast". I pointed out subsequent invasions of the North's coast, and of The North itself.

The Matthos Arryn information the wiki gives us shows that his war against The North was due primarily because he didn't want Northmen at his door (plus The Sistermen asked for him to invade, which they did because of the Nanking-esque actions The Northmen took against them). Not to mention that Theon Stark at some point landed soldiers in The Fingers ... It wasn't mentioned as being in retaliation for anything so I can't find a motive for that apart from "must! kill! Andals!".

I never said that Ageon was an Andal, I only said that he worshiped The Seven. "Andal" and "Seven Worshiper" aren't interchangeable: there were and are Northmen and Ironborn (and even Braavosi) who worship The Seven.

In any case, comparing Theon Stark to Alexander Nievskij would only be correct if Alexander Nievskij sent death-squads to Brandenburg AND if Russia surrendered as soon as Napoleon set foot in his lands AND if Russia remained part of the Napoleonic Empire for three centuries.

Finally, smart-sounding words do not a good argument make. Explain WHY it would be "fallacious" to count the Ironborn assualt on The North among the "large scale invasions of the North's coast". Explain WHY it would be "preposterous" to suggest that Matthos II Arryn invaded The North in response to Theon's Atrocities.

[Jak Scaletongue]

3 minutes ago, TimJames said:

 

Finally, smart-sounding words do not a good argument make. Explain WHY it would be "fallacious" to count the Ironborn assualt on The North among the "large scale invasions of the North's coast". Explain WHY it would be "preposterous" to suggest that Matthos II Arryn invaded The North in response to Theon's Atrocities.

 

That's not what @mediterraneo said. 

"To affirm that any policy in the Narrow Sea would have deterred Ironborn actions in the opposite sea is fallacious too." <- That means that assuming that anything anyone did on the Narrow Sea would have any effect whatsoever on the Ironborn is false.  And it is - even IF the news of the Andalos raid made it to the IB before they launched anything at the North's west coast, the IB would have just assumed the Andals were "weak" and gone ahead and done their raiding anyway.  Theon Stark could have done everything right on the Narrow Sea side, and the IB would have STILL kept raiding the North's west coast.  Nothing has ever successfully stopped Ironborn raiding for more than a generation.  They've barely been successful in preventing the IB from raiding Westeros proper in the last 300 years, and half of that was under threat of dragons. 

They never said anything about it being fallacious to count the Ironborn assaults on the North, just that it's wrong to assume the IB would care what anyone was doing on the Narrow Sea.  Though *I* do think it's fallacious to call the Ironborn raids "invasions" - for the most part they are "hit and run" raids.  Though they do make some attempt at holding *some* of the land, the majority of their attacks are just grab and go, which is why they're as successful as they have been.  Hard to kill people who are already gone when you get there - that's why the English had such a hard time with the early Vikings who were there to grab and go; the big shift from "grab and go" vikings to "I wanna say here" Scandinavians happened mostly during Alfred's reign, and his kids got the worst of the actual invasions - Alfred and his brothers had to deal with "grab and go" which meant it was very difficult to actually do anything productive because by the time you heard about the attack and mustered the troops the vikings were done and gone and likely on there way to attack somewhere else they weren't ready for.

 

I do think you're erroneously assuming that Theon Stark was actively trying to deny any and all Andal access to the North.  I personally think that he was just doing what he's supposed to do and defend his Kingdom from an invasion.  Any invasion.  Doesn't matter if it's First Men from beyond the Wall, Ironborn, Andals, crannogmen or First Men from the Riverlands or Vale.  I do think it's wrong to assume that Theon's ONLY motivation for attacking the Fingers is "kill Andals."  There's a shit ton of political and diplomatic stuff going on behind the scenes that no one ever writes about because it's boring as hell.  If Theon saw the Three Sisters as a part of *his* kingdom, then of course he's going to react when the Three Sisters "revolt" and ask the Vale for help - he's going to try to subjugate a rebellious Lord (or more), and if Matthos Arryn's going to send men to fight, they're gonna die too.  It's JUST as likely that his attacks on the Fingers was in retaliation to the Arryn's encouraging Stark vassals to rebel and join the Vale - I think you're putting too much emphasis on religion.  I don't think Theon Stark was thinking beyond "Who's invading? Where? Let's go kill 'em" - I don't think his or their religions played a part; he was defending his kingdom and people from an invasion from Andals and an invasion from Ironborn and trying to put down a rebellion on the Three Sisters, who had help from an Arryn King, so he gave the Vale King a show of force by a raid into the Fingers (likely hoping to convince Matthos Arryn that his support of the Three Sisters wasn't worth it - apparently Matthos didn't agree).  He's got enemies on three sides and the ever-present threat of a King Beyond the Wall.  He stopped one enemy in their tracks, and took it to their home to ensure the message was received; then he hustles his ass over to the opposite coast to kill some Ironborn; fights to subjugate a rebellious Lord(s) who have help from another Kingdom, so he does (admittedly) horrible things to the rebels and a nice show of force in the Fingers so Matthos knows it's not going to be easy.  But I don't think he was thinking beyond that - Theon Stark was, by no stretch of the imagination, an Alfred the Great.  At least, I certainly didn't get the impression that the man was anything but a warrior-king.  Maybe in a different time when he could have spent more time doing something other than fighting, but through (mostly) no fault of his own he was required to be everywhere at once (the Andals would have come regardless, and the IB will always come - the Three Sisters/Matthos Arryn stuff was partly on him, that likely could have been handled without war. Or at the very least, without a thousand year war).

I do not at all see what the Manderly's have to do with it.  They didn't arrive in the North until LONG after Theon Stark was dead and gone.  But, like I said, I don't think Theon Stark was necessarily anti-Andal, he was just anti-invading my land and killing my people.  But I don't see how a Stark, generations after Theon Stark is dead, allowing a First Man house of the Reach to settle at the mouth of the White Knife can be construed as a "failure" on Theon Stark's scorecard.  It's certainly been beneficial to all the Starks since.  Not to mention, I'm sure if Theon Stark had the chance he would have appreciated a strong House, with a strong castle, at the mouth of the White Knife.  Would have been very beneficial to his war against the Vale.

 

1 hour ago, TimJames said:

Or if I was an ambitious High Septon, I could have used it as an excuse to call an all-out Holy War against The North. Let's see Theon stand up to an Andal Invasion from Andalos AND Westeros!

There was no High Septon during the time of Theon Stark.  And since the Andals were still integrating themselves into a lot of the Southron houses still, there would still be plenty of First Men houses who would not appreciate an all-out Holy War against their peers, and would likely not join the High Septon on his "crusade" (if they didn't just kill him and be done with it).  And the Westerosi would still have to get through the Neck and Moat Cailin.  So, really he'd just be up against Andals from Andalos - and he's already kicked their asses good.  A Holy War would be a lot more trouble for the High Septon and the Andals than it would be worth.  The Andals and the Seven weren't yet the powerhouse in the time of Theon Stark that they would become in later generations.  During this time they'd still be outnumbered by First Men and their old gods.  A Holy War would be crushed before it made it to the Neck.  And even in present time a Holy War is a bad idea - mostly cause they'd still have to get through the Neck and Moat Cailin, but even the radical High Sparrow is smart enough to not make any mention of a Holy War against the North. 

 

 

 

[TimJames]

6 hours ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

That's not what @mediterraneo said. 

"To affirm that any policy in the Narrow Sea would have deterred Ironborn actions in the opposite sea is fallacious too." <- That means that assuming that anything anyone did on the Narrow Sea would have any effect whatsoever on the Ironborn is false.  And it is - even IF the news of the Andalos raid made it to the IB before they launched anything at the North's west coast, the IB would have just assumed the Andals were "weak" and gone ahead and done their raiding anyway.  Theon Stark could have done everything right on the Narrow Sea side, and the IB would have STILL kept raiding the North's west coast.  Nothing has ever successfully stopped Ironborn raiding for more than a generation.  They've barely been successful in preventing the IB from raiding Westeros proper in the last 300 years, and half of that was under threat of dragons. 

They never said anything about it being fallacious to count the Ironborn assaults on the North, just that it's wrong to assume the IB would care what anyone was doing on the Narrow Sea.  Though *I* do think it's fallacious to call the Ironborn raids "invasions" - for the most part they are "hit and run" raids.  Though they do make some attempt at holding *some* of the land, the majority of their attacks are just grab and go, which is why they're as successful as they have been.  Hard to kill people who are already gone when you get there - that's why the English had such a hard time with the early Vikings who were there to grab and go; the big shift from "grab and go" vikings to "I wanna say here" Scandinavians happened mostly during Alfred's reign, and his kids got the worst of the actual invasions - Alfred and his brothers had to deal with "grab and go" which meant it was very difficult to actually do anything productive because by the time you heard about the attack and mustered the troops the vikings were done and gone and likely on there way to attack somewhere else they weren't ready for.

 ... I see your point. The Ironborn wouldn't care what happens in The Narrow Sea. No matter how ruthless a reputation Theon Stark accrued, no matter how many Sistermen children he boiled in pots, the Ironborn would still see it as an exciting challenge. 

But I do think that the Ironborn actions against The North were an invasion, at least a minor one. They held Bear Island at several different points in history, even exterminating House Woodfoot. 

7 hours ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

I do think you're erroneously assuming that Theon Stark was actively trying to deny any and all Andal access to the North.  I personally think that he was just doing what he's supposed to do and defend his Kingdom from an invasion.  Any invasion.  Doesn't matter if it's First Men from beyond the Wall, Ironborn, Andals, crannogmen or First Men from the Riverlands or Vale.  I do think it's wrong to assume that Theon's ONLY motivation for attacking the Fingers is "kill Andals."  There's a shit ton of political and diplomatic stuff going on behind the scenes that no one ever writes about because it's boring as hell.  If Theon saw the Three Sisters as a part of *his* kingdom, then of course he's going to react when the Three Sisters "revolt" and ask the Vale for help - he's going to try to subjugate a rebellious Lord (or more), and if Matthos Arryn's going to send men to fight, they're gonna die too.  It's JUST as likely that his attacks on the Fingers was in retaliation to the Arryn's encouraging Stark vassals to rebel and join the Vale - I think you're putting too much emphasis on religion.  I don't think Theon Stark was thinking beyond "Who's invading? Where? Let's go kill 'em" - I don't think his or their religions played a part; he was defending his kingdom and people from an invasion from Andals and an invasion from Ironborn and trying to put down a rebellion on the Three Sisters, who had help from an Arryn King, so he gave the Vale King a show of force by a raid into the Fingers (likely hoping to convince Matthos Arryn that his support of the Three Sisters wasn't worth it - apparently Matthos didn't agree).  He's got enemies on three sides and the ever-present threat of a King Beyond the Wall.  He stopped one enemy in their tracks, and took it to their home to ensure the message was received; then he hustles his ass over to the opposite coast to kill some Ironborn; fights to subjugate a rebellious Lord(s) who have help from another Kingdom, so he does (admittedly) horrible things to the rebels and a nice show of force in the Fingers so Matthos knows it's not going to be easy.  But I don't think he was thinking beyond that - Theon Stark was, by no stretch of the imagination, an Alfred the Great.  At least, I certainly didn't get the impression that the man was anything but a warrior-king.  Maybe in a different time when he could have spent more time doing something other than fighting, but through (mostly) no fault of his own he was required to be everywhere at once (the Andals would have come regardless, and the IB will always come - the Three Sisters/Matthos Arryn stuff was partly on him, that likely could have been handled without war. Or at the very least, without a thousand year war).

I do not at all see what the Manderly's have to do with it.  They didn't arrive in the North until LONG after Theon Stark was dead and gone.  But, like I said, I don't think Theon Stark was necessarily anti-Andal, he was just anti-invading my land and killing my people.  But I don't see how a Stark, generations after Theon Stark is dead, allowing a First Man house of the Reach to settle at the mouth of the White Knife can be construed as a "failure" on Theon Stark's scorecard.  It's certainly been beneficial to all the Starks since.  Not to mention, I'm sure if Theon Stark had the chance he would have appreciated a strong House, with a strong castle, at the mouth of the White Knife.  Would have been very beneficial to his war against the Vale.

You're right: I do think Theon Stark is fanatically anti-Seven. But I have things I can point to to support this.

The main reason I think this is that he appears to have went above and beyond what was necessary. In Andalos he " took a bloody vengeance, burning scores of villages, capturing three tower houses and a fortified sept putting thousands to the sword in the process". In The Sisters " ... northmen committed numerous atrocities. Supposedly, they killed children and cooked them in pots, disemboweled men and wound their entrails around spits, executed three thousand warriors in a single day at the Headman's Mount, and Belthasar Bolton made a "Pink Pavilion" out of the flayed skins of a hundred Sistermen. Northern accounts of the war do not mention these actions". Most Kings would have just stayed at home on the defensive (where they're the least likely to march into an ambush).

Eddard Stark certianly wouldn't have raided Andalos. I know this because of how appaled he was by Tywin's sack of Kings Landing and by the fact that neither Roose nor Jorah expected their noble blood to save them should Eddard discover their crimes (Roose covered up his rape, and Jorah outright fled the country when Eddard learned of his slave-selling).

But why do you think Theon attacking The Fingers was in part of the Thousand Year War? The wiki page about Theon Stark doesn't mention him being a participant in the War Across The Water, so it is equally possible that it broke out after his death and that he just attacked The Fingers to kill Andals or to rattle his saber or to retaliate against The Vale for slighting him. 

Since we don't know that much about Theon Stark (he's just one of the skeletons in the Winterfell Crypt who did terrible things in life), arguing whether or not he was Anti-Seven will not reach any sort of conclusion. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

7 hours ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

There was no High Septon during the time of Theon Stark.  And since the Andals were still integrating themselves into a lot of the Southron houses still, there would still be plenty of First Men houses who would not appreciate an all-out Holy War against their peers, and would likely not join the High Septon on his "crusade" (if they didn't just kill him and be done with it).  And the Westerosi would still have to get through the Neck and Moat Cailin.  So, really he'd just be up against Andals from Andalos - and he's already kicked their asses good.  A Holy War would be a lot more trouble for the High Septon and the Andals than it would be worth.  The Andals and the Seven weren't yet the powerhouse in the time of Theon Stark that they would become in later generations.  During this time they'd still be outnumbered by First Men and their old gods.  A Holy War would be crushed before it made it to the Neck.  And even in present time a Holy War is a bad idea - mostly cause they'd still have to get through the Neck and Moat Cailin, but even the radical High Sparrow is smart enough to not make any mention of a Holy War against the North. 

Why wouldn't there have been a High Septon at the time? 

There's no information on when The High Septonship was founded, so it is possible that the First High Septon founded The Faith of The Seven (or at the very least, that The First High Septon gained his title before The Andal Invasion).

In any case, A High Septon wouldn't necessarily need the support of Kings or Lords to invade The North. Hedge knights, peasants, and The Faith Militant can all form a potential army. Plus the second and third and twelth sons of the new Andal Lords and the recently converted First Men Lords will appreciate an opportunity to gain land and title. And while Theon's raid was bloody, it wasn't described as being total: there would be some Andals left there and it is reasonable to assume that a number of them would want revenge: if some King from across the sea put my village to the torch and my children to the sword to punish someone named Argos whom I've never met before, then I'd want to stab said king in the throat and would join a war to do so. Especially if the leader of my religion told me to.

If the High Septon timed it right and declared his Northern Crusade at the onset of Spring, then the frigid Northern Winters would not be a problem. 

It'd be risky, but it could still potentially succeed.

[StarkofWinterfell]

10 hours ago, TimJames said:

Yep, his bloodlust blinded him and could have lead him to ruin. 

The War Across The Water was arguably the direct result of Theon Stark building up a brutal reputation (Matthos II Arryn "would sooner have a pirate than a wolf for his neighbor"), and it could have been much worse for The Hungry Wolf. 

If I was an Ironborn King or a Vale King, then Theon Stark being away in Andalos would have been the perfect opportunity launch an invasion of The North. He's too far away to recieve Ravens, and when he does return his armies will be split up. 

Or if I was King of The Vale I could have risen to Andolas's defense and attacked Theon's Death Squad while he was in Andalos (trapping him there, wiping out a chunk of his army, earning gravitas with The Clergy, embarrassing The North for generations to come). If I took him prisoner, I could demand he hand over some Wolf's Den and a son as hostage to ensure he doesn't try to retake those places. If Theon refuses, then OUTTHEMOONDOOR!

Or if I was an ambitious High Septon, I could have used it as an excuse to call an all-out Holy War against The North. Let's see Theon stand up to an Andal Invasion from Andalos AND Westeros!

Heck, Theon's Death Squad getting ambushed in Andalos and cut to shreds would have been enough to put his rampage to an early end and leave The North destabilized. 

Kind of miffed that you haven't yet responded to my post.

But these are all hypothetical. Theon Stark had already defeated the Ironborn and no army has ever been able to cross into the North from the south. Moat Cailin is in a great defensive position and depending on the timeframe, the Faith of the Seven wasn't as widespread in the south yet for a "holy war" to be possible.

The War Across the Water was because Theon had conquered the Three Sisters not because of his "brutal reputation"

Sort of wondering if you've ever read any of the books or other materials.

[StarkofWinterfell]

56 minutes ago, TimJames said:

 ... I see your point. The Ironborn wouldn't care what happens in The Narrow Sea. No matter how ruthless a reputation Theon Stark accrued, no matter how many Sistermen children he boiled in pots, the Ironborn would still see it as an exciting challenge. 

But I do think that the Ironborn actions against The North were an invasion, at least a minor one. They held Bear Island at several different points in history, even exterminating House Woodfoot. 

You're right: I do think Theon Stark is fanatically anti-Seven. But I have things I can point to to support this.

The main reason I think this is that he appears to have went above and beyond what was necessary. In Andalos he " took a bloody vengeance, burning scores of villages, capturing three tower houses and a fortified sept putting thousands to the sword in the process". In The Sisters " ... northmen committed numerous atrocities. Supposedly, they killed children and cooked them in pots, disemboweled men and wound their entrails around spits, executed three thousand warriors in a single day at the Headman's Mount, and Belthasar Bolton made a "Pink Pavilion" out of the flayed skins of a hundred Sistermen. Northern accounts of the war do not mention these actions". Most Kings would have just stayed at home on the defensive (where they're the least likely to march into an ambush).

Eddard Stark certianly wouldn't have raided Andalos. I know this because of how appaled he was by Tywin's sack of Kings Landing and by the fact that neither Roose nor Jorah expected their noble blood to save them should Eddard discover their crimes (Roose covered up his rape, and Jorah outright fled the country when Eddard learned of his slave-selling).

But why do you think Theon attacking The Fingers was in part of the Thousand Year War? The wiki page about Theon Stark doesn't mention him being a participant in the War Across The Water, so it is equally possible that it broke out after his death and that he just attacked The Fingers to kill Andals or to rattle his saber or to retaliate against The Vale for slighting him. 

Since we don't know that much about Theon Stark (he's just one of the skeletons in the Winterfell Crypt who did terrible things in life), arguing whether or not he was Anti-Seven will not reach any sort of conclusion. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Why wouldn't there have been a High Septon at the time? 

There's no information on when The High Septonship was founded, so it is possible that the First High Septon founded The Faith of The Seven (or at the very least, that The First High Septon gained his title before The Andal Invasion).

In any case, A High Septon wouldn't necessarily need the support of Kings or Lords to invade The North. Hedge knights, peasants, and The Faith Militant can all form a potential army. Plus the second and third and twelth sons of the new Andal Lords and the recently converted First Men Lords will appreciate an opportunity to gain land and title. And while Theon's raid was bloody, it wasn't described as being total: there would be some Andals left there and it is reasonable to assume that a number of them would want revenge: if some King from across the sea put my village to the torch and my children to the sword to punish someone named Argos whom I've never met before, then I'd want to stab said king in the throat and would join a war to do so. Especially if the leader of my religion told me to.

If the High Septon timed it right and declared his Northern Crusade at the onset of Spring, then the frigid Northern Winters would not be a problem. 

It'd be risky, but it could still potentially succeed.

"Cooking kids in pots"

"Disemboweling men"

"Tent made out of 100 flayed skins"

These accounts are of course exaggerated and seem more like tales you tell your children at night. Since Northern accounts don't mention any of this, it is most likely old Andal propaganda.

As for there not being a High Septon, we simply don't know. This was in the midst of the Andal invasion so the Faith of the Seven wasn't the dominant religion yet. There were still First Men kingdoms in Westeros. Plus, no army was going to pass through Moat Cailin.

 

[mediterraneo]

@Jak Scaletongue Thanks!
I'm still out of the thread though.

[Dorian Martell]

On 3/20/2016 at 3:00 PM, TimJames said:

I'm going to be completely ignoring the ethical stipulations, and look at Theon's Raid on Andalos from a purely tactical standpoint. I repeat: the purpose of this thread is NOT to discuss whether or not Theon Stark was just in leading death-squads to Andalos for a retaliatory pogrom. I WILL report posters who try derailing this away from the topic at hand. Don't be dicks.

Good? Ok then, now that the disclaimer is out of the way I can begin the tactical analysis. I'll underline the main points. 

Here is how the Wiki describes Theon Stark's raid on Andalos.

"Andals made landings in the North just as they did the south, but wherever they put ashore the Starks or their bannermen fell upon them and drove them back into the sea. King Theon turned back the greatest of these threats, making common cause with the Boltons to smash the Andal warlord Argos Sevenstar at the Battle of the Weeping Water. In the aftermath of his victory King Theon raised his own fleet and crossed the narrow sea to the shores of Andalos, with Argos's corpse lashed to the prow of his flagship. There he took a bloody vengeance, burning scores of villages, capturing three tower houses and a fortified sept putting thousands to the sword in the process. The heads of the slain the Hungry Wolf claimed as prizes, carrying them back to Westeros and planting them on spikes along his own coasts as a warning to other would be conquerors."

This paragraph suggests that the primary goals of Theon's Raid on Andalos was to kill a large number of Andals so as to strike enough fear into that culture group to ensure Andals never declare war against The North again. So from a purely tactical standpoint, it's a sound decision right?

No. 

Immediate Costs

The most obvious problem is that Theon's Raid used up resources and manpower that could otherwise have been used for more constructive purposes. To conduct this raid Theon Stark would need ships (The Narrow Sea isn't Narrow enough for a bridge), sailors (to manage the ships), soldiers, weapons, and money to pay for all those things. Plus there is the human cost: even if Theon Stark doesn't consider The Andals to be humans, the fact remains that some of the Northmen he'll be bringing with him will end up dying. There is a chance of Theon losing all or most of his men in this raid too: if his army suffers a major defeat, a disease spreads through The Host, if they come unprepared, if a storm destroys their ships, or if anything else goes wrong then Theon Stark will lose more men than he can afford to and might even lose his life.

Economic Opportunity Costs

The resources and manpower isn't the only cost: there is also Opportunity Cost. In using these soldiers and resources, on a raid against Andalos, he forfeits the ability to use them for constructive purposes. The Northmen Theon Stark took on his Raid won't be in the Northern Labor Force until they get back (and they might not get back for months or years, or ever if they get hit by dysentery or an Andal Arrow). The metal and wood that went into the weapons can't be used for plowshares or buildings or peaceful consumer goods. The resources lost in Theon Stark's decision to raid Andalos could have been spent on economic projects or even defensive structures.

Low Prospect of Economic Returns

Now, not all raids are economic losses for the raiders. Sometimes they can result in the Raiders returning home with more wealth then it cost them to go on the raid. For example, the Dothraki regularly gain windfalls by extortion, slave trading, and plundering.

But nothing about Theon Stark's raid on Andalos suggests that this is one of those cases. Andalos has never been described as particularly wealthy, and the fact that so many Andals are migrating to Westeros suggests that it is economically poor. Likewise, no mention is made in the description above of Theon Stark bringing back piles of gold or other valuables. 

Now, there is one resource that Andalos might have in abundance: manpower. While not explicitly confirmed (or disproven), it can be argued that The Andal Invasion was spurred by a Youth Bulge in Andalos. Gunnar Heinsohn argued that real world catastrophic events lacking enviromental factors can be attributed to youth bulge, and listed European Colonialism as an example. Likewise, some scholars attribute the real world Viking Expansion to a Youth Bulge (if the first son inherits, then the second and third and ninth son have to look across the seas for opportunity). If Theon Stark and his Raiders enslaved Andals captured in the raid, then it is possible that he could have turned this raid into a financial gain by putting them to work building The North or selling them to Slave Markets in Southern Essos. But he probably didn't do this: the purpose of Theon Stark's raid was to Kill Andals so he probably wouldn't have any interest in taking them alive. Additionally, The North has not been shown to participate in The Slave Trade. 

. . . . . 

So Theon Stark lost money on Raiding Andalos, but his raid was never about making money. His goals were to get revenge for Andal Invasions into The North and to make them too afraid to ever declare war on The North Again.

Well, if that's the case than Theon Stark failed on both accounts. 

Misdirected Wrath

The Andals living in Andalos, by definition, are not the ones who sailed west to conquer the kingdoms of The First Men. If they did, then they wouldn't be in Andalos anymore. The description of the raid never said that those lands belonged to Argos Sevenstar's family or to his supporters, nor did it say that those lands belonged to families of prominent Andal Conquerors. 

It appears that Theon Stark sailed to Andalos and killed the first thousand Andals he saw, deciding that the entire ethnic group was guilty. This does nothing to hurt the people who actually invaded The North: if Theon Stark wanted revenge, he should have either targeted Argos Sevenstar's lands specifically (assuming he actually had land, which he probably didn't) or he should have targeted Andal Kingdoms in Westeros (like The Vale or The Riverlands). 

What Theon Stark did is the equivalent of a man shooting his neighbor for having the same first name of his wife's killer.

"Setting An Example" Of Enemies Doesn't Deter

If Theon Stark hoped that Raiding Andalos would prevent Andals from making war against The North, then he couldn't be more wrong. Either during his lifetime or shortly after his passing, one very powerful Andal King named Mathos II Arryn declared war on The North so as to liberate The Sistermen.

Here's how The Wiki describes Mathos II Arryn:

"During the Rape of the Three Sisters, the name by which the Northern conquest of the isles is best known, the atrocities done by the Kings of Winter were horrible enough, that the remaining lords of the Three Sisters asked King Mathos II for his help, help he gladly gave. The help came, provided upon the condition that the Three Sisters agreed to do fealty to him and House Arryn and acknowledge the right of the Eyrie to rule them.

His wife questioned the wisdom of fighting this War Across the Water, but he replied "that he would sooner have a pirate than a wolf for his neighbor".

He set sail for Sisterton with a hundred warships but he never returned. His sons carried on the war after him."

The underlined part of that quote suggest that Mathos II Arryn wasn't just hoping to add three islands to The Vale. It says that he "gave help gladly" and that "he didn't want a wolf for his neighbor". This suggests either that Mathos II was disgusted enough by Theon Stark's atrocities to want to put an end to them, that he wanted to avenge Andals killed during Theon's raid of Andalos, or that Mathos II was so afraid of The Northmen that he didn't want them having a base to launch further attacks on The Vale.

You see, fear causes people to react one of two ways. While it does inspire the flight reflex, it can also inspire the fight reflex. 

The War Across The Water supposidly lasted a thousand years, during which Wolf's Den was burned by Oswin Arryn and countless Northmen died off. Not only did Theon's Raids against Andalos and The Fingers not deter Andals from attacking The North, it might have actually caused one of the worst wars in Northern History.

Additionally the Andals living in The Trident assaulted The North Overland multiple times, even after Theon Stark's raid of Andalos. While we don't hear of Andals sailing directly from Andalos to The North, we do know that even after Theon Stark's Pogrom there were Andals migrating to The Vale and The Riverlands. This means that Andals Knights who lived in Andalos during Theon Stark's raids would be in the courts of The Trident Kings and The Storm Kings and The Vale Kings, present to add their input and make suggestions when their kings are deciding what their foreign policies will be. 

. . . . . 

So Theon Stark's decision to Raid Andalos looks like it might have done The North more harm than good. But there are still more consequences. Remember our friend from earlier; Opportunity Costs? Well, here's where he really comes into play. 

Lost Diplomatic Opportunities

In launching a pogrom the cultural center of The Andals, Theon Stark made it clear that he wanted nothing to do with them ... not the wisest decision when the rest of The Realm is populated by Andals. As religious tensions still run high in this era, he's potentially alienated all his neighbors. This potentally deprived The North of Trade Routes, Alliances, and Foreign Technological Advances. 

By the looks of it, The North only broke from this isolation in recent times (the Stark Tully Marriage appears to be their first intermarriage with Andals).

Vulnerability During Raid

Here's a fun brain-teaser: if you were a Westerosi King planning an invasion of The North, when would be the best conditions to attack. If you picked "while the King of Winter is across The Sea with a big chunk of his army", then you win. 

If The Vale or The Riverlands or The Iron Islands attacked The North while Theon Stark was raiding Andalos, then he'd be too far away to command a defense and The Northern Army would be divided. 

Best case scenario is he has to fight a costly defensive war over several years because he left The North vulnerable to attack.

Worst case scenario is he comes back to find Arryns in Winterfell.

. . . . . 

In summery, it would have been smarter if Theon Stark just built a line of fortresses along the eastern coast of The North and called it a day. Fortifications make better defensive structures than heads-on-posts, and as The North is a fuedal society Theon Stark can potentially grant lordship over those forts to his sons or his allies. Also due to The North being a feudal society, those fortresses can be peopled and the lands around them cultivated. Now you have new population centers that double as defensive structures. 

Or, if Theon Stark had been really open to new ideas, he could have taken a Greenhand approach. Welcome in some of the more peaceful Andals, and use their military technologies to make The North difficult for violent Andals to conquer. One of Theon Stark's descendants actually tried this by welcoming and granting land to House Manderly; as a result The North gained a new economic hub. 

All this is good and interesting and you have put a ton of effort and time into it, but are you EVER going to talk about the the tactical aspects of the invasion? You mentioned literally everything else that would be impacted, economics, national morale, future diplomatic options and scenarios, continental military threats, ect. but what about the actual invasion? 

[Dorian Martell]

Nevermind. I Just realized you got Strategic, Economic and Diplomatic all confused with Tactical. 

[Jak Scaletongue]

15 hours ago, TimJames said:

 ... I see your point. The Ironborn wouldn't care what happens in The Narrow Sea. No matter how ruthless a reputation Theon Stark accrued, no matter how many Sistermen children he boiled in pots, the Ironborn would still see it as an exciting challenge. 

But I do think that the Ironborn actions against The North were an invasion, at least a minor one. They held Bear Island at several different points in history, even exterminating House Woodfoot. 

You're right: I do think Theon Stark is fanatically anti-Seven. But I have things I can point to to support this.

The main reason I think this is that he appears to have went above and beyond what was necessary. In Andalos he " took a bloody vengeance, burning scores of villages, capturing three tower houses and a fortified sept putting thousands to the sword in the process". In The Sisters " ... northmen committed numerous atrocities. Supposedly, they killed children and cooked them in pots, disemboweled men and wound their entrails around spits, executed three thousand warriors in a single day at the Headman's Mount, and Belthasar Bolton made a "Pink Pavilion" out of the flayed skins of a hundred Sistermen. Northern accounts of the war do not mention these actions". Most Kings would have just stayed at home on the defensive (where they're the least likely to march into an ambush).

Eddard Stark certianly wouldn't have raided Andalos. I know this because of how appaled he was by Tywin's sack of Kings Landing and by the fact that neither Roose nor Jorah expected their noble blood to save them should Eddard discover their crimes (Roose covered up his rape, and Jorah outright fled the country when Eddard learned of his slave-selling).

But why do you think Theon attacking The Fingers was in part of the Thousand Year War? The wiki page about Theon Stark doesn't mention him being a participant in the War Across The Water, so it is equally possible that it broke out after his death and that he just attacked The Fingers to kill Andals or to rattle his saber or to retaliate against The Vale for slighting him. 

Since we don't know that much about Theon Stark (he's just one of the skeletons in the Winterfell Crypt who did terrible things in life), arguing whether or not he was Anti-Seven will not reach any sort of conclusion. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've always understood the bolded part as more of a....deterrent...while he's got to turn his back on the east and fight the Ironborn on the west.  It's not just that they're Andals and of a different religion, its more of trying to ensure that these guys aren't going to try to invade the east coast again, especially while he's going to be on the west coast dealing with the IB.  Basically, I get the impression that regardless of *who* was invading his east coast (Andals, First Men from the Vale, whoever), he wants to make sure he breaks them long enough that they'll leave him the hell alone.  Admittedly, I have no doubt he used the religious and cultural differences to his advantage when convincing his lords that this raid was a good idea, but I personally never got the impression that the religion/culture was the basis for his anger, just a handy device to use to make sure everyone's *really* against them.  But that's my impression.

As for the Sistermen - well, they weren't Andals or Seven-worshippers.  Not at this point, anyway. In a thousand years, when the war over the Three Sisters is finished and the Vale is their undisputed overlord - then the Seven starts making some inroads.  But at this point (from what I gather, anyway), they had their own kings and their own religion (Lady of the Waves and Lord of the Skies).  It's because of Theon Stark's raids that the Kings on the Sister's have to bend the knee to get some help from the Vale.  It's not until after Theon Stark's time that the Seven begins to spread onto the islands.  Now, there was likely some sort of missionary septons wandering and trying to convert people (and even succeeding in some places), but I don't get the impression that the Seven are their dominant religion before or during Theon Stark's life.  Continuously being attacked by the northmen for a 1000 years and needing as much help as they did from the Vale is exactly the environment that a new religion would prosper, and it sounds like it did, but *after* Theon Stark's reign. 

As for the Fingers, well I certainly don't know for sure, but it's possible it was in retaliation for Matthos Arryn supporting the Sistermen.  The Three Sister's were almost destined to be fought over, given their location between the Vale and the North, along with valuable harbours and a trade network (that likely included Andals in Andalos, Lorathi, Ibbenese, even Valyrians and "natives" in Pentos).  Given their location and valuable assets, an attack on the Sister's by either the North or the Vale was inevitable, regardless of their religion, culture, kings, people, etc.  They might not have a lot to offer in the way of natural resources beyond fish, but their trade connections are invaluable.  So I think it's very likely Theon was just pissed off that Matthos was trying to play "good cop" to his "bad cop" when trying to get the Sister's under the North's banner (clearly the "good cop" won that round!).

And yes, you're right - agree to disagree!  Everyone understands thing differently, using a different framework to come to our conclusions!  It's not so much that I'm trying to convince you you're wrong, I'm just trying to explain how I understand stuff.  If nothing else, it's always good to take a second look with a new perspective!  I certainly like understanding how others see the world, it might not be how I see it and I might not agree, but it's always a good thing to learn to see something from a different perspective!

 

15 hours ago, TimJames said:

Why wouldn't there have been a High Septon at the time? 

There's no information on when The High Septonship was founded, so it is possible that the First High Septon founded The Faith of The Seven (or at the very least, that The First High Septon gained his title before The Andal Invasion).

In any case, A High Septon wouldn't necessarily need the support of Kings or Lords to invade The North. Hedge knights, peasants, and The Faith Militant can all form a potential army. Plus the second and third and twelth sons of the new Andal Lords and the recently converted First Men Lords will appreciate an opportunity to gain land and title. And while Theon's raid was bloody, it wasn't described as being total: there would be some Andals left there and it is reasonable to assume that a number of them would want revenge: if some King from across the sea put my village to the torch and my children to the sword to punish someone named Argos whom I've never met before, then I'd want to stab said king in the throat and would join a war to do so. Especially if the leader of my religion told me to.

If the High Septon timed it right and declared his Northern Crusade at the onset of Spring, then the frigid Northern Winters would not be a problem. 

It'd be risky, but it could still potentially succeed.

As for the High Septon - can we figure out if the Starry Sept had been built yet?  That seems like the best place to start.  

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Starry_Sept

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Triston_Hightower

So, the Starry Sept page said the Starry Sept was the seat of the High Septon's for a thousand years before Aegon's Conquest.  And the Triston Hightower page says his former regent, a Septon Robeson, was the first High Septon (and the Starry Sept was built for him).

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Bolton

Now, I had to dig around a bit to try to determine when-ish Theon Stark lived.  Not as easy as figuring out the first High Septon!  Had to go looking under "Boltons" for some reason - anyway: "The Chronicles of Longsister state that during the Rape of the Three Sisters by the Kings of Winter, which occurred two thousand years ago, Belthasar Bolton had a Pink Pavilion made from the the flayed skins of a hundred Sistermen." So according to the (admittedly muddled) timeline, the war over the Three Sister's that Theon Stark started was finishing around the time the first High Septon was appointed.  So there was no High Septon to call a "holy war" until 500-1000 years after Theon Stark died.  If there aren't enough Seven-converts to require a "head" then there isn't enough Seven-converts to start (let alone win) a "holy war" against the old gods (who were still the dominant religion in Westeros during Theon Stark's time).  So no, not only do I think it wouldn't succeed, I don't even think it would have got past the "drunken fools planning foolish things" phase!  There just weren't enough converts during Theon Stark's time, and during Theon's time there wasn't even a High Septon to organize a "crusade".  Not in Westeros, anyway.  And if there was one in Andalos, well they clearly advised their fellows to leave the North alone cause no Andal tried it again until they were the clear majority in the south (and even then they failed, again and again, because they couldn't get past Moat Cailin and the crannogmen).

And as for the bolded part - well, we're just going to have to disagree on that.  I, for one, don't give a shit what the Pope tells me I should and shouldn't do!  It goes for birth control and it goes for holy wars!  Argos Whathisface should have left well enough alone - why the hell was he over there in the first place? If you don't want retaliation, or aren't ready for it, don't invade in the first place!  Never, never assume you'll win - always plan for the worst case scenario!  While I certainly wouldn't be thrilled that some asshat from across the water came and killed my friends and family, I'd be just as pissed at the other asshat who brought this on us in the first place!  But then again, I'm the type who thinks Trump sounds like Hitler, so maybe it's just me.

 

14 hours ago, StarkofWinterfell said:

"Cooking kids in pots"

"Disemboweling men"

"Tent made out of 100 flayed skins"

These accounts are of course exaggerated and seem more like tales you tell your children at night. Since Northern accounts don't mention any of this, it is most likely old Andal propaganda.

As for there not being a High Septon, we simply don't know. This was in the midst of the Andal invasion so the Faith of the Seven wasn't the dominant religion yet. There were still First Men kingdoms in Westeros. Plus, no army was going to pass through Moat Cailin.

 

I've always found that the truth is generally somewhere in the middle.  You've got the Northern accounts that say nothing of this sort, and you've got Sistermen/Andal/Vale accounts stated these horrible, horrible things were done - it's a pretty good bet that what *really* happened was somewhere in the middle.  Kids likely died, but I highly doubt they were cooked (a dead kid probably fell into a pot that was over a fire - and BAM! There's your horror story).  Men were probably disemboweled, but they were likely also stabbed, slashed, and sliced over various parts of their body - just like any battle.  War is horrible, and I doubt this particular war was any worse than any other war where men got disemboweled on the battle field and children died.  The flaying part I'm torn about - I love believing the worst of the Boltons, though!  So yeah, Bolton probably flayed a few people (cause that's what Boltons apparently do) but I highly doubt he had the time to flay enough for a tent.  Highly impractical - and Roose, at least, is eminently practical.  Maybe there was more Ramsay and less Roose in some of the ancestors though!

And I think I figured out the High Septon stuff.  Take a look and let me know what both of you think about that.  Thanks!

[StarkofWinterfell]

2 hours ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

I've always understood the bolded part as more of a....deterrent...while he's got to turn his back on the east and fight the Ironborn on the west.  It's not just that they're Andals and of a different religion, its more of trying to ensure that these guys aren't going to try to invade the east coast again, especially while he's going to be on the west coast dealing with the IB.  Basically, I get the impression that regardless of *who* was invading his east coast (Andals, First Men from the Vale, whoever), he wants to make sure he breaks them long enough that they'll leave him the hell alone.  Admittedly, I have no doubt he used the religious and cultural differences to his advantage when convincing his lords that this raid was a good idea, but I personally never got the impression that the religion/culture was the basis for his anger, just a handy device to use to make sure everyone's *really* against them.  But that's my impression.

As for the Sistermen - well, they weren't Andals or Seven-worshippers.  Not at this point, anyway. In a thousand years, when the war over the Three Sisters is finished and the Vale is their undisputed overlord - then the Seven starts making some inroads.  But at this point (from what I gather, anyway), they had their own kings and their own religion (Lady of the Waves and Lord of the Skies).  It's because of Theon Stark's raids that the Kings on the Sister's have to bend the knee to get some help from the Vale.  It's not until after Theon Stark's time that the Seven begins to spread onto the islands.  Now, there was likely some sort of missionary septons wandering and trying to convert people (and even succeeding in some places), but I don't get the impression that the Seven are their dominant religion before or during Theon Stark's life.  Continuously being attacked by the northmen for a 1000 years and needing as much help as they did from the Vale is exactly the environment that a new religion would prosper, and it sounds like it did, but *after* Theon Stark's reign. 

As for the Fingers, well I certainly don't know for sure, but it's possible it was in retaliation for Matthos Arryn supporting the Sistermen.  The Three Sister's were almost destined to be fought over, given their location between the Vale and the North, along with valuable harbours and a trade network (that likely included Andals in Andalos, Lorathi, Ibbenese, even Valyrians and "natives" in Pentos).  Given their location and valuable assets, an attack on the Sister's by either the North or the Vale was inevitable, regardless of their religion, culture, kings, people, etc.  They might not have a lot to offer in the way of natural resources beyond fish, but their trade connections are invaluable.  So I think it's very likely Theon was just pissed off that Matthos was trying to play "good cop" to his "bad cop" when trying to get the Sister's under the North's banner (clearly the "good cop" won that round!).

And yes, you're right - agree to disagree!  Everyone understands thing differently, using a different framework to come to our conclusions!  It's not so much that I'm trying to convince you you're wrong, I'm just trying to explain how I understand stuff.  If nothing else, it's always good to take a second look with a new perspective!  I certainly like understanding how others see the world, it might not be how I see it and I might not agree, but it's always a good thing to learn to see something from a different perspective!

 

As for the High Septon - can we figure out if the Starry Sept had been built yet?  That seems like the best place to start.  

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Starry_Sept

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Triston_Hightower

So, the Starry Sept page said the Starry Sept was the seat of the High Septon's for a thousand years before Aegon's Conquest.  And the Triston Hightower page says his former regent, a Septon Robeson, was the first High Septon (and the Starry Sept was built for him).

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Bolton

Now, I had to dig around a bit to try to determine when-ish Theon Stark lived.  Not as easy as figuring out the first High Septon!  Had to go looking under "Boltons" for some reason - anyway: "The Chronicles of Longsister state that during the Rape of the Three Sisters by the Kings of Winter, which occurred two thousand years ago, Belthasar Bolton had a Pink Pavilion made from the the flayed skins of a hundred Sistermen." So according to the (admittedly muddled) timeline, the war over the Three Sister's that Theon Stark started was finishing around the time the first High Septon was appointed.  So there was no High Septon to call a "holy war" until 500-1000 years after Theon Stark died.  If there aren't enough Seven-converts to require a "head" then there isn't enough Seven-converts to start (let alone win) a "holy war" against the old gods (who were still the dominant religion in Westeros during Theon Stark's time).  So no, not only do I think it wouldn't succeed, I don't even think it would have got past the "drunken fools planning foolish things" phase!  There just weren't enough converts during Theon Stark's time, and during Theon's time there wasn't even a High Septon to organize a "crusade".  Not in Westeros, anyway.  And if there was one in Andalos, well they clearly advised their fellows to leave the North alone cause no Andal tried it again until they were the clear majority in the south (and even then they failed, again and again, because they couldn't get past Moat Cailin and the crannogmen).

And as for the bolded part - well, we're just going to have to disagree on that.  I, for one, don't give a shit what the Pope tells me I should and shouldn't do!  It goes for birth control and it goes for holy wars!  Argos Whathisface should have left well enough alone - why the hell was he over there in the first place? If you don't want retaliation, or aren't ready for it, don't invade in the first place!  Never, never assume you'll win - always plan for the worst case scenario!  While I certainly wouldn't be thrilled that some asshat from across the water came and killed my friends and family, I'd be just as pissed at the other asshat who brought this on us in the first place!  But then again, I'm the type who thinks Trump sounds like Hitler, so maybe it's just me.

 

I've always found that the truth is generally somewhere in the middle.  You've got the Northern accounts that say nothing of this sort, and you've got Sistermen/Andal/Vale accounts stated these horrible, horrible things were done - it's a pretty good bet that what *really* happened was somewhere in the middle.  Kids likely died, but I highly doubt they were cooked (a dead kid probably fell into a pot that was over a fire - and BAM! There's your horror story).  Men were probably disemboweled, but they were likely also stabbed, slashed, and sliced over various parts of their body - just like any battle.  War is horrible, and I doubt this particular war was any worse than any other war where men got disemboweled on the battle field and children died.  The flaying part I'm torn about - I love believing the worst of the Boltons, though!  So yeah, Bolton probably flayed a few people (cause that's what Boltons apparently do) but I highly doubt he had the time to flay enough for a tent.  Highly impractical - and Roose, at least, is eminently practical.  Maybe there was more Ramsay and less Roose in some of the ancestors though!

And I think I figured out the High Septon stuff.  Take a look and let me know what both of you think about that.  Thanks!

Great find about the High Septon @Jak Scaletongue. So there wouldn't have been one to engage in a "holy war." And good points about Argos too.

The accounts are probably somewhere in-between, of course exaggerated over the ages to become more tall-tale than fact. I think the fact that the North has very different accounts of that war is very telling. And we still don't know of anything the Andals did to the Northmen.

[Nittanian]

2 hours ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

So, the Starry Sept page said the Starry Sept was the seat of the High Septon's for a thousand years before Aegon's Conquest.  And the Triston Hightower page says his former regent, a Septon Robeson, was the first High Septon (and the Starry Sept was built for him).

GRRM suggests here that phrases like "a thousand years ago" shouldn't necessarily be taken literally, but merely that something happened long, long ago. The AGOT Appendix, for instance, says that the Tullys have held Riverrun for a thousand years, but TWOIAF reveals they built Riverrun during the Andals' conquest of the riverlands (which occurred more than one thousand years ago).

Quote

Mormont's dialogue -- and the dialogue and thoughts of other characters, for that matter -- needs to be understood =as= dialogue. When we talk, we tend to be imprecise about such things, saying something happened "in the sixties" or "at the turn of the century," or that World War II was "fifty years ago." It's no different in the Seven Kingdoms.

And that goes for distances as well as dates. A phrase like "a thousand leagues" is not meant to be a precise measure of distance, only the equivilent of "a million miles away," ie, "a very long way."

 

[StarkofWinterfell]

1 minute ago, Nittanian said:

GRRM suggests here that phrases like "a thousand years ago" shouldn't necessarily be taken literally, but merely that something happened long, long ago. The AGOT Appendix, for instance, says that the Tullys have held Riverrun for a thousand years, but TWOIAF reveals they built Riverrun during the Andals' conquest of the riverlands (which occurred more than one thousand years ago).

 

To be fair, no one knows exactly when the Andals invaded. There are debates between 6,000, 4,000, and 2,000 years ago. If the Tullys had built Riverrun when the Andals came,  and we take 6,000 years to be the timeframe, then that would place Riverrun at 6,000 years old. Same thing with 4,000 years ago 2,000 years ago.

My point being, the timeframe gets very blurry and starts to contradict itself. TWOIAF isn't exactly known for its accuracy, being from an unreliable narrator to quote a recent thread title, i.e. Maester Yandel.

[Jak Scaletongue]

11 minutes ago, Nittanian said:

GRRM suggests here that phrases like "a thousand years ago" shouldn't necessarily be taken literally, but merely that something happened long, long ago. The AGOT Appendix, for instance, says that the Tullys have held Riverrun for a thousand years, but TWOIAF reveals they built Riverrun during the Andals' conquest of the riverlands (which occurred more than one thousand years ago).

 

It's all estimates anyway, so I'm sticking to the rough estimate of a thousand years.  Zeros are easier to do math with!  And even then, the Rape of the Three Sister's started approximately 2000 years ago, with the Starry Sept being built for the first High Septon approximately 1000 years ago.  Even by adding a long word like "approximately" (which gets very annoying to type), it doesn't really change the timeline.  You'll also note that I did acknowledge that the timeline is wonky (a couple of times), but I clearly said " 500-1000 years after Theon Stark died" - the 1000 being the extreme end of the timeline, IF the 1000 years and 2000 years are taken at face value; the 500 years allowing for some wiggle room for the timeline to be inaccurate (which it clearly is, and I pointed out a few times in my initial post), and including all the years in between 1000 and 500 years ago.  Maybe it was 823 years ago.  I'm not taking it literally.  What part of "admittedly muddled timeline" makes you think I am taking it literally?

TL;DR - I'm well aware the timeline's wonky.  I pointed it out more than once.  But what other numbers should I use?  The ones given to me, inaccurate as they are? Or make up my own, which are likely to be even more inaccurate that what we *do* have?

[Nittanian]

Quote

My point being, the timeframe gets very blurry and starts to contradict itself.

It's all estimates anyway

Yep, GRRM doesn't make it easy for us!

[The Skinner]

I really hope Belthasar Bolton had a pink pavilion.

But aside from that, this OP doesn't seem to conform to his own rules. You want it to be about the tactical aspect of Theon's raid and have the nerve to threaten others if they bring ethics into the discussion, yet you have done all but discuss the actual raid. Your argument is based almost solely on assumptions and you refute any evidence or perspective that is out of line with your own. 

For example, instead of raiding Andalos, you say he should have built a series of fortifications along the eastern coastline of the largest kingdom in Westeros because it would be cheaper, how? Building castles along a huge coast, manning them, and maintaining them in the event of an incursion would be way more expensive than a fleet to do some raids. And those ships wouldn't be useless afterwards. It's really only a waste if he does nothing with them, he can use them however he wants. 

But why even bother with idea of all these new castles, it's not like Argos won? The existing castles and lords did their jobs and stopped him at the Weeping Water with their King. That's not far from the coast and it is not stated that Argos' invasion did too much damage anyway, it might have but we don't know. So what's the point of massive defense projects if the existing defenses completely worked and did what they were supposed to?

Argos came to Theon's house and shit on his lawn, so he went to Argos' home and tore up his.  

 

[Jak Scaletongue]

1 hour ago, The Skinner said:

Argos came to Theon's house and shit on his lawn, so he went to Argos' home and tore up his.  

O god that's perfect!  LOL!

[TimJames]

7 hours ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

And as for the bolded part - well, we're just going to have to disagree on that.  I, for one, don't give a shit what the Pope tells me I should and shouldn't do!  It goes for birth control and it goes for holy wars!  Argos Whathisface should have left well enough alone - why the hell was he over there in the first place? If you don't want retaliation, or aren't ready for it, don't invade in the first place!  Never, never assume you'll win - always plan for the worst case scenario!  While I certainly wouldn't be thrilled that some asshat from across the water came and killed my friends and family, I'd be just as pissed at the other asshat who brought this on us in the first place!  But then again, I'm the type who thinks Trump sounds like Hitler, so maybe it's just me.

Jac Scaletongue, you make some pretty good points on the other things you said in your post. Even if we disagree on things, you're able to articulate your thoughts well and it is a better discussion than I honestly expected (all the other times I tried talking about Theon Stark, everyone claimed he did nothing evil or otherwise reprehensible in killing civilians as a way of sending a message). 

However, it appears in the part that I quoted that you're confusing what I said (or at least what I meant).

In the first underlined part, I wasn't saying that I would drop everything to march blindly off to war if The Pope says to. What I was trying to say is that if someone offered me an opportunity to fight against ruler whose death squads killed my family then I would jump on the opportunity to put the murderous brutes in the ground - especially if the person offering the opportunity framed it in a way that made the crusade seem heroic and righteous.

The best parallel I can think of is a British Jew joining the Allied Army after leaning that his German Parents were murdered during the Night of Broken Glass. 

For the second underlined part, I only talked about taking revenge on the guilty. If I was a peasant whose children were killed by Theon Stark's pogrom, then I'd want to stab Theon Stark in the throat or the eye. But I would NOT want to do the same to his children, nor would I want to harm the children living in Wintertown. If someone uses dishonorable methods to peruse an honorable cause, then he's becomes a hypocrite and loses the right to outrage. 

I also disagree with Trump's "go after their family" sentiment, and I am of the opinion that anyone who kills civilians (whether in retaliation for something their King did, in an attempt to garnish a fearsome reputation, or out of plain race-hatred) deserves to be hanged. I don't care if it's Theon Stark or if it's Khal Mengo. I normally don't support Capitol Punishment, but I make an exception for those who commit Crimes Against Humanity and Crimes Of War. 

[StarkofWinterfell]

4 hours ago, The Skinner said:

I really hope Belthasar Bolton had a pink pavilion.

But aside from that, this OP doesn't seem to conform to his own rules. You want it to be about the tactical aspect of Theon's raid and have the nerve to threaten others if they bring ethics into the discussion, yet you have done all but discuss the actual raid. Your argument is based almost solely on assumptions and you refute any evidence or perspective that is out of line with your own. 

For example, instead of raiding Andalos, you say he should have built a series of fortifications along the eastern coastline of the largest kingdom in Westeros because it would be cheaper, how? Building castles along a huge coast, manning them, and maintaining them in the event of an incursion would be way more expensive than a fleet to do some raids. And those ships wouldn't be useless afterwards. It's really only a waste if he does nothing with them, he can use them however he wants. 

But why even bother with idea of all these new castles, it's not like Argos won? The existing castles and lords did their jobs and stopped him at the Weeping Water with their King. That's not far from the coast and it is not stated that Argos' invasion did too much damage anyway, it might have but we don't know. So what's the point of massive defense projects if the existing defenses completely worked and did what they were supposed to?

Argos came to Theon's house and shit on his lawn, so he went to Argos' home and tore up his.  

 

These are all good points. I can't believe I didn't even see this myself. Of course it'd be way more expensive to build walls, fortifications, and man them with soldiers full-time.

Interested in seeing what @TimJames has to say.