Tactical Analysis of Theon Stark's Raid on Andalos

[TimJames]

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. 

[daccu65]

5 hours ago, TimJames said:

I'm going to be completely ignoring the ethical stipulations, and look at Theon's Raid on Andalos from a purely ethical standpoint.

This seems to be a contradictory statement.  Is it your intent to question the ethics, not the effectiveness or question the effectiveness, and not the ethics?

 

[The Mountain That Flies]

16 hours ago, TimJames said:

I'm going to be completely ignoring the ethical stipulations, and look at Theon's Raid on Andalos from a purely ethical 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.

The phrasing in this statement is contradictory, as the first and third bit say this analysis is not from an ethical perspective, but the second does. I'm not uber-strict with this kind of thing on an internet forum, but if you're going to threaten people make sure your parameters are clear.
 

16 hours ago, TimJames said:

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.

We have multiple instances in both the primary series and the expanded World stories of Northmen going off to fight and/or die to cull their region's numbers when winter is approaching (the mountain clans mention this when Stannis rolls through, and Cregan Starks army is explicitly stated to be full of such men. While the timeline is unclear we know there was a harsh winter at some point during Theon Starks' reign, so his army very well could have been made from that. As for the material costs and logistics, Theon was an experienced general who probably knew how to put this kind of thing together.
 

16 hours ago, TimJames said:

"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:

Your example here falls short, as Mathos II was not an Andal from across the Narrow Sea. Precisely zero Andals from that region are ever stated to have tried an invasion of the North again, even though it would have remained a prime target. Mathos fought the North specifically because of the Three Sisters, and what's more never tried a full-blown invasion of the North, just a tactica invasion of the Sisters and the lands near them to build a buffer. So yes, Theon's raid in Adnalos clearly did deter, because no Andals from Andalos tried to invade his realm ever again.
 

16 hours ago, TimJames said:

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. He's potentally alienated all his neighbors, depriving 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).

Your last sentence here contradicts the preceding paragraph. The North didn't give a rat's ass about diplomatic relations to the Andals, and even if they did my prior point stands; Andals from Andalos were not synonymous with the Andals ruling parts of Westeros. They're an ethnic group extremely diverse in geography and political alignments, so the actions taken against one are not going to necessarily alienate others.
 

16 hours ago, TimJames said:

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 vunerable to attack.

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

Again, Theon being an experienced general means he probably left a strong defensive force behind. The Iron Islands lacks the manpower to hold much in North beyond the coast (they did attack during Theon's reign, but it's unclear when and he drove them back in any case), the Riverlands (or whoever is ruling them at this point) couldn't get past Moat Cailin on their best day, and the Vale clearly can't mount much a naval assault since it took them a number of generations just to re-take the Sisters.
 

16 hours ago, TimJames said:

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 

Setting aside the fact your statement here doesn't have an ending, no they don't. Fortifications take resources of their own to build, men to man them, and resources to maintain. You're extending Theon's costs from a few years to multiple decades, which isn't effective considering the broad number of directions his kingdom faced threats from during his lifetime.

[daccu65]

Much as The Mountain stated previously, I don't fully understand the question.  I'm assuming that you're asking if Theon would have been better off building a series of fortifications on his east coast, as opposed to investing the resources, lives and ships into making his raid, I agree with The Mountain That Flies.  I'll add some additional considerations. 

Our own history has shown that tactical fortifications are very useful...fortifying a port, a mountain pass or a river ford is a solid investment, because you know that any attacking force is going to have to come there.  Trying to fortify a long border or coastline generally isn't worth the effort.  Even if you invest significant resources, by the time you stretch these fortifications out to cover the entire coast, they are so thin that an attacking force can concentrate and overwhelm one point.  A real world example is the Atlantic Wall during the second world war.  When the allies tried to raid Dieppe, a port where the Germans had concentrated their defenses, they failed.  On the other hand, the allies were then able to identify a relatively weak point, Normandy, and concentrate forces at that point.  Just as the saying that 'a chain is only as strong as its weakest link' a fortified frontier as only as strong as its weakest point. 

Taking a quick look as a Westeros map, it appears that the coastline between Eastwatch and the Neck is roughly ten times the length of the Wall.  If you go with the Wall being 300 miles long, that's 3000 miles of coastline to be defended.  Just off the top of my head, I'd want some sort of outpost, with horses and riders, every 40 miles or so and a major garrison fort every 300 miles or so.  That means ten major garrison forts and another 65 outposts!

Building these fortifications is going to be more difficult than building ships.  Ships can be relocated once constructed.  That means you can find a location with access to timber, dock space, skilled workmen and other resources and build your ships there.  When you build fortifications, you essentially have to move your infrastructure to the building location.  Some of these locations aren't going to have the resources you need, such as timber and/or suitable stone.  This means that transportation is a bigger issue. 

Another item is execution.  Once you've executed your raid, your done for good or ill.  You can bring the survivors home and try to recoup a fraction of your expenditures by either selling or utilizing your ships.  On the other hand, once you've built your fortifications, you're going to garrison them and wait....and wait....and wait.  Okay, you're going to be drilling your men, maintaining patrols and keeping them in repair, but you've just conceded the initiative to the other guy; he's going to hit you when he feels like it, not when you're ready.  How many years without an attack will go by before the money you have to spend on wages and maintenance starts to look like wasted money?  I wonder if these fortifications will eventually be abandoned.  Hmmm, does the ASoIaF series have any references to large, defensive formations that have been allowed to go unmanned and fall into disrepair?

Still another factor is motivation.  When Theon prepared his raid, he had just repelled an Andal invasion.  All of the other northern houses were behind him due to both is great victory and the perceived outside threat.  They stayed with him long enough to prepare for and execute his raid.  Would they have stayed with him long enough to build his fortifications? 

Finally, what about your west coast?  Sure, the Boltons, Karstarks and other east coast families might be glad to have the fortifications, but the west coast and interior families aren't going to be happy that their taxes are paying for someone else's protection.  Again, they might not be all that angry initially, but as the years of construction and maintenance go by, the resentment is going to be there. 

Some parting thoughts about your original post.  I'd like to point out that I agree with the points that The Mountain made, I'm just adding to them.

7 hours ago, TimJames said:

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

Those resources are just as thrown away on fortifications.  A quick quiz, just how much of the Atlantic Wall is currently making a profitable return?  The answer is none of it.  The metal and wood that went into the weapons for the raid would also need to be used to equip men manning fortifications.  The stone and wood in the fortifications is just as "out of the economy" as the resources and labor that went into building the ships. 

 

7 hours ago, TimJames said:

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. 

Or, I could wait until the King of Winter is on the East Coast with most of his manpower, constructing fortifications.  In fact, I have plenty of time to marshal my forces, since the King of Winter is going to be years building these fortifications on the east coast.  If I'm going to attack while he's across the sea, I have to organize my forces, make some form of truce with other, potentially hostile Kings, then attack before he gets back.  Granted, he's farther away when he's in Andalos, but he's only making the one raid.  If I miss it, I've missed my opportunity.  On the other hand, if he's committed to a massive building program on his East Coast, he's going to be at it for years, allowing me to bide my time. 

In summary, all military expenditures are illogical.  If everyone would agree not to have a military, we would all save a great deal of money and effort.  Unfortunately, it only takes one party to break the deal before it all goes south for everyone.  Our own history has proven that at the strategic level, it's better to be on the offensive than the defensive.  I'm pretty sure it's the same way in Planetos, as well. 

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

2 hours ago, daccu65 said:

This seems to be a contradictory statement.  Is it your intent to question the ethics, not the effectiveness or question the effectiveness, and not the ethics?

 

I think it was a typo/brain fart.  I am almost certain the second "ethical" should be "tactical" though what he is talking about is more strategic than tactical.

[TimJames]

14 minutes ago, Byrnard Sandors said:

I think it was a typo/brain fart.  I am almost certain the second "ethical" should be "tactical" though what he is talking about is more strategic than tactical.

Yes, it was a typo. People make typos; that's part of life.

I meant to say "tactical", as anyone who actually read my title would know.

Thanks for acknowledging that possibility instead of pretending that I made a contradictory statement on purpose. 

[PrinceHenryris]

I don't see a problem from a tactical standpoint.

Argos was an invader from across the Narrow Sea.  He lost, why not crush his home base so none of his people could try to invade the North again?

As far as economics are concerned, why is there necessarily lost opportunity.  As others have pointed out, the North regularly has a group of men who are landless and or ready to go off to fight and possibly die.  The chance for plunder and possibly a reward from Theon probably sounds good to a second+ son or a landless peasant.

Given the nature of the times, it seems pretty sound to me.

[TOM of the North]

13 hours ago, 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. 

1. Learn what tactical  and strategical means.

2. If you don't want an ethical discussion, don't make ethical statements. 

3. Don't be a dick. 

[StarkofWinterfell]

15 hours ago, TimJames said:

<snip>

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. 

If you compare it to when the Romans invaded Carthage, did that not prevent further wars? Sounds like a sound tactical decision. But let's entertain your post for a second.

 

Quote

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.

This part makes a lot of assumptions. First off, you overlook the immediate boom to the shipbuilding business in the North and the creation of perhaps hundreds, or thousands of jobs that would be needed to construct these ships to cross the Narrow Sea. However, since the account of this invasion isn't too detailed, we only have the description of it from the Wiki to go off of. More assumptions and liberties are taken here.

 

Quote

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.

While it is true that the Northmen that accompanied Theon wouldn't be in the labor force, we're also talking about a small percentage of the population. He's not taking every man of fighting age across the Narrow Sea. You also have the sworn swords, knights, and other household fighters that would've accompanied Theon and their lords across.

Assuming I am wrong and you're completely right, if you look at ASOIAF for an example, Westeros hasn't been with its entire labor force for the entirety of the War of Five Kings! But lets not assume the North is the equivalent of a modernized industrial nation with a full-time labor force. "Economic projects," whatever you mean by that were not the focus of feudal societies.

Moving on.

 

Quote

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. 

We can't say for sure whether Theon "lost money" during the raid. As stated before, the building of the fleet that Theon would've needed would generate economic prosperity in the port towns and create hundreds, and maybe thousands of jobs. 

Also, the Andal invasion of Westeros wasn't due to Andalos being "economically poor." It is debated between either escaping the Valyrians or the Andals' religion stating that they were promised kingdoms in a foreign land. Their invasion could then be seen as a genocidal one, where they interpreted these "foreign lands" to be Westeros and thus invaded and forcibly removed the native First Men through bloody wars. 

 

Quote

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.

The description of the war says that Argos wasn't the only invader. There were other landings that the Starks or their bannerman drove back into the sea. I never heard of Andalos being a collection of different kingdoms, but rather one kingdom, thus making Argos their king. This would mean that he would of course have lands and a lot of them, specifically. 

 

Quote

"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. 

The Andals weren't deterred from anything, but after Theon's raid, they never once invaded the North again. They tried to cross over Moat Cailin but were defeated and turned back everytime. The Andals were invading Westeros before Theon Stark and would after Theon Stark because they believe it their birth-right to conquer people they feel are inferior.

 

Quote

. . . . . 

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.

Lost diplomatic opportunities do not matter. The Andals only interest was conquering and driving out or massacring the First Men. Diplomatic opportunities come after a kingdom is conquered. (i.e. bend the knee or die)

That was how feudal societies worked. There were no diplomats or the United Nations.

Quote

. . . . . 

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. 

This was a fun exercise but in the end, a lot of assumptions were made over one paragraph. We don't really know for sure the entire story but it's important to note that when examining historical accounts, we should look at ALL evidence and remain objective.

 

[StarkofWinterfell]

double post

[The Mountain That Flies]

8 hours ago, TimJames said:

Yes, it was a typo. People make typos; that's part of life.

I meant to say "tactical", as anyone who actually read my title would know.

Thanks for acknowledging that possibility instead of pretending that I made a contradictory statement on purpose. 

None of us said you made a typo on purpose. What I personally said was if you're going to start a post by threatening to report people who don't conform to your specific debate rules, your own grammar and sentence structure should be beyond reproach. To do otherwise implies you are holding the rest of us to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

[TimJames]

42 minutes ago, The Mountain That Flies said:

None of us said you made a typo on purpose. What I personally said was if you're going to start a post by threatening to report people who don't conform to your specific debate rules, your own grammar and sentence structure should be beyond reproach. To do otherwise implies you are holding the rest of us to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

I never demanded that others have impeccable grammar, nor do I normally correct others for grammar errors. 

[TimJames]

8 hours ago, PrinceHenryris said:

I don't see a problem from a tactical standpoint.

Argos was an invader from across the Narrow Sea.  He lost, why not crush his home base so none of his people could try to invade the North again?

As far as economics are concerned, why is there necessarily lost opportunity.  As others have pointed out, the North regularly has a group of men who are landless and or ready to go off to fight and possibly die.  The chance for plunder and possibly a reward from Theon probably sounds good to a second+ son or a landless peasant.

Given the nature of the times, it seems pretty sound to me.

Those men could have been used more profitably. Subjugating the Lands Beyond The Wall, starting an economic or defensive building project, etc.

Heck, if Theon Stark's assualt on Andalos had been a conquest or a slave raid then he could have sated his bloodlust AND gained a lot of wealth.

[Jak Scaletongue]

7 minutes ago, TimJames said:

Those men could have been used more profitably. Subjugating the Lands Beyond The Wall, starting an economic or defensive building project, etc.

Heck, if Theon Stark's assualt on Andalos had been a conquest or a slave raid then he could have sated his bloodlust AND gained a lot of wealth.

It would all depend on the season - if it's early, mid or late winter no one is building anything, defensive or economic.  If it's winter they're all just trying to survive - no one's going to subjugate* the Lands Beyond the Wall in winter, and it's quite difficult to build anything when there's a foot or more of snow and freezing temperatures that cause frostbite in minutes.  But if it's winter, taking a good chunk of the fighting men away from the North is the smartest thing he can do - he's preserving food and resources for the women and children, and as the mountain clans have made explicitly clear, most of those fighting men would rather die from an Andal arrow or even dysentry than starving to death in the freezing cold while they're out "hunting."  If he pulled a Robb and took all his fighting men out of the North during autumn harvest, leaving the grain rotting in the fields - then yes, it's a loss.  If it's spring and he pulls his fighting men from spring planting - I'd say it's not a big loss, they've got odd seasons and more than a few months to get stuff planted so in spring he's got some wiggle room; same with summer, once it's planted there's nothing the men are desperately needed for - if they're around, great! Go hoe a row.  If they're off fighting, the women and older children are capable too.  And really, from the sounds of it, the men were either on the East coast fighting the Andals or on the West coast fighting the Ironborn, so the women were doing most of the economic duties anyway.  One measly raid where he takes to the fight to them - barely a blip, economically.  But if it was winter - probably a pretty smart idea. Preserves resources for the women and children, and all the men that went with him are eating Andal food instead of Northern food, comes back with fewer men (from what I can tell, that's the point...especially in winter).  If it's a winter raid all the economic and defensive things he "could have done" really couldn't have been done, not at that time, and waiting until spring to start his defenses of the coast wouldn't deter the Andals from trying again, and again, throughout the winter.  But taking his men out of the North for a winter campaign elsewhere seems like standard procedure for the Kings of Winter during winter.  The men die in battle instead of from starvation - which, according to Big Bucket Wull, is vastly preferred.

(*No one's going to subjugate the lands beyond the Wall.  The Wall is there, and is a perfectly rational and logical border for the Starks.  How would you rule a portion of people who are literally cut off from you?  Not just the Wall, but the Gift as well cuts them off from the rest of the Starks holdings.  Not to mention the people who live on the other side are notoriously against any form of centralized government, who can also just keep slipping further North into land that would be unreasonable for any Stark to hold from Winterfell with a huge Wall bisecting their holdings north of the Wall from the North proper.  I don't see how subjugating the lands beyond the Wall would be feasible for the Starks, with the Gift not theirs and the Wall in their way.  The Night's Watch would be better off taking a "Gift" from the north side of the Wall, than the Starks.)

[TimJames]

2 minutes ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

(*No one's going to subjugate the lands beyond the Wall.  The Wall is there, and is a perfectly rational and logical border for the Starks.  How would you rule a portion of people who are literally cut off from you?  Not just the Wall, but the Gift as well cuts them off from the rest of the Starks holdings.  Not to mention the people who live on the other side are notoriously against any form of centralized government, who can also just keep slipping further North into land that would be unreasonable for any Stark to hold from Winterfell with a huge Wall bisecting their holdings north of the Wall from the North proper.  I don't see how subjugating the lands beyond the Wall would be feasible for the Starks, with the Gift not theirs and the Wall in their way.  The Night's Watch would be better off taking a "Gift" from the north side of the Wall, than the Starks.)

There are gates in The Wall that allow people to cross from one side to the other. And given the power imbalance, I doubt The Watch would try to prevent The North from invading The Lands Beyond The Wall.

But you still didn't explain why Theon Stark couldn't have enslaved or outright conquered Andalos. 

[StarkofWinterfell]

47 minutes ago, TimJames said:

There are gates in The Wall that allow people to cross from one side to the other. And given the power imbalance, I doubt The Watch would try to prevent The North from invading The Lands Beyond The Wall.

But you still didn't explain why Theon Stark couldn't have enslaved or outright conquered Andalos. 

Once you conquer beyond the Wall and settle those lands, then the Wall becomes useless. What purpose would it serve if your kingdom is separated by a giant 700 ft wall in the middle?

Conquering Andalos simply wasn't Theon Stark's purpose. He probably didn't arrive with an army large enough or was prepared for a prolonged campaign. This is just stating the obvious though, but also applying logic to nonexistent information.

We simply don't know.

[Jak Scaletongue]

57 minutes ago, TimJames said:

There are gates in The Wall that allow people to cross from one side to the other. And given the power imbalance, I doubt The Watch would try to prevent The North from invading The Lands Beyond The Wall.

But you still didn't explain why Theon Stark couldn't have enslaved or outright conquered Andalos. 

The slavery part is easy enough - Westeros, minus the IB, didn't have a slave trade or use slaves.  And even the IB didn't have "slaves" (bought and paid for, for life or born into it) they had "thralls" (who couldn't be bought, sold or born into thralldom) - yes, it's a technicality but sometimes technicalities are important. And the difference between a thrall and slave is an important distinction.  Even if King Theon didn't care for the technicalities, or understand them, he wouldn't want to be associating himself with IB tactics of taking slaves/thralls - he was fighting IB on the other coast too, he doesn't need his smallfolk on the West coast hearing about the Andal slaves and thinking "Well, he's not any better than these asshole Ironborn."  Would *all* think that - no, of course not; would *some* think that - yes of course, there's always people who assume the worst.

He didn't conquer Andalos because he didn't have the time.  He had the Ironborn breathing down his neck on the West coast - he dealt decisively with the Andals, enough to ensure that they'd leave him the hell alone while he's got his back turned and dealt with the Ironborn.  Which is likely all he was going for.  The Ironborn have been and will continue to be the thorn in the North's side for millenia - and Theon knew perfectly well that he'd have no chance of raiding the Iron Islands the same way he did Andalos.  The IB are far more sophisticated ship builders than either the North or Andalos.  The Andals were a thorn in his side when he needed to be fighting the IB - take out the Andals at home as best he can so he can deal with the perennial pains in the ass, the Ironborn - a group he doesn't have the capabilities of being able to take the fight to their homes.  Whether he would have conquered and incorporated them if he did have the time - I don't think so; they were too different, culturally and religiously that successfully conquering them would have been about as effective as conquering the Iron Islands.  Seeing as how spectacularly the Andals failed at conquering the Iron Islands (they went native - or died) I can't see the North doing any better - the Northern culture and religion is as foreign to the IB as the Andal culture and religion was to the IB. 

So there you go - no slaves cause the North had no need of slaves, culturally; and no conquest cause his ass was getting bitten by the IB and he had to get back to the North and to the West coast to deal with that.  No use for slaves and no time for conquest.

And the Watch was a much better manned operation during the time of the Kings of Winter than it is now.  The power imbalance may not have been as imbalanced as it is now, the Watch may very well have been on a more equal footing with the Starks prior to the Targ Conquest.  We don't know exactly, of course, but it has been implied in the books more than once that the degradation of the Night's Watch drastically increased once the 7 kingdoms were united under the Targaryens.  Prior to the conquest the Watch was an honoured institution that no one, least of all the Starks, was willing to mess with regardless of their seeming lack of power.  And given a much more balanced power imbalance, would you (as King) rely on a separate institution that maintains neutrality to allow you to pass beneath their Wall when you need to help (or put down) your subjects? 

That, and I don't see how the Watch would maintain their neutrality with a Northern kingdom on both sides of the Wall.  They'd be solely the King of Winter's Night Watch then, no longer the neutral organization they've always been.  Which, in turn, would likely cause the degradation of the Night's Watch much sooner than the Targ Conquest.  Once the Wall isn't controlled by a neutral entity, why would the other kingdoms continue to send men to the Wall?  Why would Nymeria have sent the Dornish Kings to the North if she knew that those Dornish Kings would now be under the command of the King of Winter?  Why would any kingdom send any men to the Wall if they knew they'd be at the King of Winter's command?  Would Yohn Royce have sent Waymar to the Watch if the Watch was controlled by the Starks?  Yes, he was friends with Ned, but why send your youngest son to the Lord Paramount of the North when you could send him to the Lord Paramount of the Vale who is your own liege lord?

At best, any ruling Stark would be better off helping the Watch subjugate some of the lands on the north side of the Wall for the Watch as another "gift" and maybe manage to eke out some of Brandon's Gift for themselves out of the deal.  Strategically and tactically, the Starks are better off keeping their kingdom on the south side of the Wall.  If they can get more land for the Watch north of the Wall, they might be able to get some of the Watch's lands south of the Wall back. But having your kingdom literally bisected by Brandon's Gift and a Wall of ice is in no way an advantage to the Starks.  It would be far more trouble than it's worth.  Certainly far more trouble than building some ships to raid Andalos.  Even conquering Andalos would make more sense than conquering north of the Wall - there isn't a whole lot worth having north of the Wall, certainly not enough to make the hassle with the Night's Watch worth it. 

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

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.

[mediterraneo]

Well, I have other things to say, but more or less they have been in some way touched by other posters.
 

One thing I didn't read about is the size of the raid. The story is told by a Maester, which reports a westerosi tradition. In Westeros, probably, it was sold as a great oversea victory. We don't have sources from Andalos, but the fact that the winner claims to have "destroyed three towerhouses and a fortified sept" we could also interpret it as the sack of a single village with its outlying fortifications system.

A raid like this, destroying the inmediate port from which the attack came, or some other unsuspecting port, totally unrelated to the previous attack, is fast and cheap to organize. With some booty ends up producing some wealth for the survivors, on indidvidual level.

In any case, it put the Northern kingdom into the map as a raider's palce and not as a raided's place.

Also, it made cleat that Blton alone had problems defending from raids, while the Stark North was able to guarantee safety to his subjects, furthering integration of the Realm in the unitary North we know now.

Above all: as others have said, it worked. there weren't subsequent large scale invasions of the North's coast.

[TimJames]

20 hours ago, mediterraneo said:

One thing I didn't read about is the size of the raid. The story is told by a Maester, which reports a westerosi tradition. In Westeros, probably, it was sold as a great oversea victory. We don't have sources from Andalos, but the fact that the winner claims to have "destroyed three towerhouses and a fortified sept" we could also interpret it as the sack of a single village with its outlying fortifications system.

A raid like this, destroying the inmediate port from which the attack came, or some other unsuspecting port, totally unrelated to the previous attack, is fast and cheap to organize. With some booty ends up producing some wealth for the survivors, on indidvidual level.

The quote I listed also states that thousands were put to the sword in the process. Granted, that would also be possible if the port Theon massacred had the population of Gulltown.

20 hours ago, mediterraneo said:

There weren't subsequent large scale invasions of the North's coast.

Actually, there were.

The War Across The Water was a thousand year war in which The Vale took over The Sisters and Burned Wolf's Den to the ground.

Plus The Ironborn took Bear Island in Theon Stark's lifetime and held onto it for a long time after his death. 

And there is nothing that says "Argos Sevenstar was the last Andal to attempt to conquer The North". It only said he was the most important one: there might have been smaller invasions directly from Andalos.

Finally, Theon Stark utterly failed to keep Andals out of The North because he never counted on his descendants being more honorable than him. One of The Hungry Wolf's descendants welcomed Andals into his lands (House Manderly), another bent the knee to a Seven-Worshiping Conqueror (Ageon Targaryen), and another married an Andal Maiden (Catelyn Tully) and built a sept for her IN WINTERFELL.

So no, he didn't prevent future invasions.