Westerosi civil wars

[aadam13]

Here are the wars I think should be classed as Westerosi civil wars, because I believe they are wars where most to all the lords in Westeros were part of a war between two or more parties in Westeros. The 4 below are the ones I would definitely be classed as a civil war:

• The Dance of the Dragons (129-131 AC), because it involved all the lords in Westeros except for Dorne and the Tyrells (just them not their banner men).
• First Blackfyre Rebellion (195-196 AC), it has literally been said in the Sword Sword that half the realm was for the Black dragon and half for the Red, and we know of nobody who stayed neutral (which has been confirmed).
• Robert's Rebellion (282-283 AC), by 283 AC all the lords of Westeros were part of the war.
• War of the Five Kings (298 AC-present), all the lords except for Dorne and the Vale of Arryn (who seem like they will soon enter) are apart of it.

Possible civil wars:

• The Faith Militant Uprising (41-48 AC), could have split the realm as well as Prince Aegon's (son of Aeny's I) war for the throne (42-43 AC) which had happned during the Uprising, however this is unknown, however some light might be shed on this in the book Fire and Blood.
• The Third Blackfyre Rebellion (219 AC), might have split the realm, being seen as the most successful Blackfyre rebellion after the First, this will probably be seen in a Dunk and Egg book.     

What do you guys think, if I missed any or if you disagree please comment.

[Guest jasonothegreat]

The Greyjoy rebellion is technically a "civil war" as well. In fact any of the wars fought after Aegon's Conquest were technically Civil wars as long as it were between two westerosi states. Although Now I feel as though we're missing a war...

 

[aadam13]

On 9/25/2016 at 8:32 PM, jasonothegreat said:

The Greyjoy rebellion is technically a "civil war" as well. In fact any of the wars fought after Aegon's Conquest were technically Civil wars as long as it were between two westerosi states. Although Now I feel as though we're missing a war...

 

Technically you are correct, however in the medieval times the term  civil war was used when roughly half the country is on either side (or five sides in the war of the five kings), while a rebellion was used when it was a small group of lords rebel. e.g. the Greyjoy Rebellion and the some of the Blackfyre rebellion. However the reason I believe the First and perhaps Third Blackfyre Rebellions are called rebellions is to make them seem smaller than they actually were.

However the only exception for this seems to be Robert's Rebellion, the reason for this could be:

• That Aerys II called it that to make it seem smaller
• That the name stuck since the alternative was the war of the Usurper
• GRRM wanted to make it have alliteration
• Rebellion and civil war mean the same thing in medieval Westeros while they didn't in ours

I the only other wars I could find which could perhaps count as Westerosi civil war is the war between the First men and Children of the Forest because it was two factions fighting for supremacy in Westeros however since the First men were foreigners back then I wouldn't count them and the other war could be the Andal invasion since some houses supported the Andals however the Andals were also foreigner back then so I woudn't count them.

Thank for commenting, hope I helped you remember the war you can't remember. 

[Guest jasonothegreat]

On 9/26/2016 at 4:52 PM, aadam13 said:

I the only other wars I could find which could perhaps count as Westerosi civil war is the war between the First men and Children of the Forest because it was two factions fighting for supremacy in Westeros however since the First men were foreigners back then I wouldn't count them and the other war could be the Andal invasion since some houses supported the Andals however the Andals were also foreigner back then so I woudn't count them.

Thank for commenting, hope I helped you remember the war you can't remember. 

Thanks to you as well as I now feel silly for not noticing these alliterations 

But from a historical stand point I don't think you can count the invasions of Westeros as civil war because I believe they fall under the category of Conquest. I'm also convinced after obsessing over British history for the past four months that the First men invasion is the Saxon invasion of Britain while the Andal invasion is King William the Conqueror's invasion of England. In terms of technology and culture I believe this makes sense, As well, King Arthur with all his magical help (Perhaps the Children of the Forest now in the allegory) was defending against the Saxon Invaders (The First Men) who eventually defeated him (Or at least his dynasty).

Then during William's conquest William failed to Conqueror Scotland (though Scotland also failed at invading England) which can be representation of the Northmen.

 

That's what I had to say about those wars, 

 

 

[Bironic]

7 hours ago, jasonothegreat said:

Thanks to you as well as I now feel silly for not noticing these alliterations 

But from a historical stand point I don't think you can count the invasions of Westeros as civil war because I believe they fall under the category of Conquest. I'm also convinced after obsessing over British history for the past four months that the First men invasion is the Saxon invasion of Britain while the Andal invasion is King William the Conqueror's invasion of England. In terms of technology and culture I believe this makes sense, As well, King Arthur with all his magical help (Perhaps the Children of the Forest now in the allegory) was defending against the Saxon Invaders (The First Men) who eventually defeated him (Or at least his dynasty).

Then during William's conquest William failed to Conqueror Scotland (though Scotland also failed at invading England) which can be representation of the Northmen.

 

That's what I had to say about those wars, 

 

 

Nice idea about King Arthur and Children of the Forest.

I think GRRM mixed the real invasions of the British Isles and created his own versions of it, by mixing aspects of them and other methods.

Overall I think though that the First Men invasion is the equivalent of Celtic Invasion, The Andal invasion is Anglo-Saxon invasion and Aegon "the Conqueror" invasion is "William the Conqueror" invasion.

The Andals built 5 of the Seven kingdoms, the Anglosaxons created 7 Kingdoms as well, the Celts however didn't nor did the First men.

AFAIK the anglosaxons never conquered Scotland or wales, so that would fit in well with northern and Dornish independence from the andals.

I also think that the name Andal comes from VAndal, a germanic tribe that conquered northern africa with the help of ships, and unlike the Anglosaxons they were christians(arian christians to be clear) when they invaded. Which is similiar to the Andals who followed the Faith of seven, while the Anglosaxon religion is more similar to First Men religions.

[Guest jasonothegreat]

8 hours ago, Bironic said:

Nice idea about King Arthur and Children of the Forest.

I think GRRM mixed the real invasions of the British Isles and created his own versions of it, by mixing aspects of them and other methods.

Overall I think though that the First Men invasion is the equivalent of Celtic Invasion, The Andal invasion is Anglo-Saxon invasion and Aegon "the Conqueror" invasion is "William the Conqueror" invasion.

The Andals built 5 of the Seven kingdoms, the Anglosaxons created 7 Kingdoms as well, the Celts however didn't nor did the First men.

AFAIK the anglosaxons never conquered Scotland or wales, so that would fit in well with northern and Dornish independence from the andals.

I also think that the name Andal comes from VAndal, a germanic tribe that conquered northern africa with the help of ships, and unlike the Anglosaxons they were christians(arian christians to be clear) when they invaded. Which is similiar to the Andals who followed the Faith of seven, while the Anglosaxon religion is more similar to First Men religions.

That also would make a lot of sense except that at least from my knowledge, you can't really call the Celtics invaders, as it was more of them colonizing and settling in the land. I guess I have to look more into Ancient British history . I also considered aligning William the Conqueror with Aegon the Conqueror, but then I read about King Cnut the Great. Who from Denmark (A peninsula/island sorta like Dragonstone) conquered the England and Norway uniting the North Sea (Though to be fair his Empire didn't last long)

[Bironic]

12 hours ago, jasonothegreat said:

That also would make a lot of sense except that at least from my knowledge, you can't really call the Celtics invaders, as it was more of them colonizing and settling in the land. I guess I have to look more into Ancient British history . I also considered aligning William the Conqueror with Aegon the Conqueror, but then I read about King Cnut the Great. Who from Denmark (A peninsula/island sorta like Dragonstone) conquered the England and Norway uniting the North Sea (Though to be fair his Empire didn't last long)

There were inhabitants in England before the Celtics though... So the settlement wasn't totally peaceful probably, since those who already lived there might have been pissed about the newcomers.

[John Doe]

Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of a missed opportunity that there is no land bridge between Westeros and Essos anymore? Reading about westerosi wars in the east would be interesting. The civil wars are nice, and I guess they make sense since Westeros is largely based on Britain, but in my opinion they get a bit boring after a while. 

[The hairy bear]

5 hours ago, John Doe said:

Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of a missed opportunity that there is no land bridge between Westeros and Essos anymore?

The fact that there isn't a land bridge does not preclude the existence of fights between Westeros and Essos, precisely when the sea between the see between the two continents is... well, Narrow.

The Stormking and Aegon Targaryen fought against Volantis at the end of the century of blood. Braavos helped the Kigndom of the Vale during the Wars of Conquest. Myrish pirates conquered Tarth during the reign of the Old King. Daemon Targaryen defeated Lys, Myr and Tyrosh and proclaimed himself King of the Stepstones and the Narrow Sea, and then the Triarchy took part in the Dance of Dragons siding with the greens. And he War of the Ninepenny Kings, that took place just a generation before the current events, was basically a war of Westeros against Essos (we can't no longer call it a civil war, since there was no Westerosi lord that we know of that sided with the Band of Nine).

I'd say there are plenty of opportunities for a Westeros/Essos war if the plot demands it

 

[TheSovereignGrave]

On 10/18/2016 at 7:57 AM, Bironic said:

AFAIK the anglosaxons never conquered Scotland or wales, so that would fit in well with northern and Dornish independence from the andals.

But there were quite a few Andal warlords who conquered and settled in Dorne, setting up their own petty kingdoms. Heck, House Martell was founded by an Andal.

[Bironic]

1 hour ago, TheSovereignGrave said:

But there were quite a few Andal warlords who conquered and settled in Dorne, setting up their own petty kingdoms. Heck, House Martell was founded by an Andal.

Point taken.

I meant more they weren't able to unite or pacify Dorne.

It is strange that sometimes there are mentions that Andal influence in Dorne wasn't as big as it was in other regions, but if you look at the number of Andal houses you come to the conclusion that Dorne has as many andal houses than the more andal regions such as the Vale or Riverlands.

Andal houses in the Vale: Arryn, Templeton, Corbray, Grafton, Tollett, Ruthermont

In Dorne: Martell, Uller, Qorgyle, Vaith, Allyrion, Jordayne, Santagar,

Riverlands: Vypren, Vance, Mallister, Frey?,

 

6 hours ago, John Doe said:

Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of a missed opportunity that there is no land bridge between Westeros and Essos anymore? Reading about westerosi wars in the east would be interesting. The civil wars are nice, and I guess they make sense since Westeros is largely based on Britain, but in my opinion they get a bit boring after a while. 

Especially if you look at Britain as Westeros and Essos as "eurasia", than there should be more warfare between those continents. The hundred years war was one of the influences on ASOIAF, and it was mostly fought in France. Never once a Targ king (or before the  vale, storm etc. kings), tried to subdue at least one of the free cities, never tried the free cities to conquer at least one of the Seven Kingdoms. It's odd.

[John Doe]

2 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

The fact that there isn't a land bridge does not preclude the existence of fights between Westeros and Essos, precisely when the sea between the see between the two continents is... well, Narrow.

The Stormking and Aegon Targaryen fought against Volantis at the end of the century of blood. Braavos helped the Kigndom of the Vale during the Wars of Conquest. Myrish pirates conquered Tarth during the reign of the Old King. Daemon Targaryen defeated Lys, Myr and Tyrosh and proclaimed himself King of the Stepstones and the Narrow Sea, and then the Triarchy took part in the Dance of Dragons siding with the greens. And he War of the Ninepenny Kings, that took place just a generation before the current events, was basically a war of Westeros against Essos (we can't no longer call it a civil war, since there was no Westerosi lord that we know of that sided with the Band of Nine).

I'd say there are plenty of opportunities for a Westeros/Essos war if the plot demands it

 

But most of those wars were pretty indirect. I mean, we never see Braavos directly attacking the Stormlands or anything like that. The only thing that comes close to that is the fight against Volantis you mentioned. 

[TheSovereignGrave]

6 hours ago, Bironic said:

Point taken.

I meant more they weren't able to unite or pacify Dorne.

It is strange that sometimes there are mentions that Andal influence in Dorne wasn't as big as it was in other regions, but if you look at the number of Andal houses you come to the conclusion that Dorne has as many andal houses than the more andal regions such as the Vale or Riverlands.

Well, Andal influence is probably smaller because of the later Rhoynish influence. Aside from the Stony Dornish, they seem to have far more influence from the Rhoynar then either the Andals or First Men.

[Shireen Purratheon]

On 10/24/2016 at 2:55 PM, Bironic said:

Especially if you look at Britain as Westeros and Essos as "eurasia", than there should be more warfare between those continents. The hundred years war was one of the influences on ASOIAF, and it was mostly fought in France. Never once a Targ king (or before the  vale, storm etc. kings), tried to subdue at least one of the free cities, never tried the free cities to conquer at least one of the Seven Kingdoms. It's odd.

Presumably, a partial reason for that is because prior to the Century of Blood, the Free Cities were under Valyrian control, and there's no way the Arryns or the Durrandons could hold on to territory in a direct challenge to the Valyrians.

[Bironic]

3 minutes ago, Shireen Purratheon said:

Presumably, a partial reason for that is because prior to the Century of Blood, the Free Cities were under Valyrian control, and there's no way the Arryns or the Durrandons could hold on to territory in a direct challenge to the Valyrians.

Actually they weren't. That's why they are called the Free cities, as opposed to cities like Mantarys, tolos or Elyria who were under Valyrian control.

They only looked for Valyria in times of crisis. The only known occurence of this is when Volantis asked valyria for help against the Rhoynar.

And somehow I don't think that the Valyrians would help all the Free cities in the same way they helped the Volantenes. Why should they help the escaped slaves of Braavos? Why should they help the religious fanatics of Lorath, Qohor or Norvos?

Volantis, Lys and probably Tyrosh are ruled by noblemen of Valyrian descent, in Myr and especially Pentos the amount of Valyrian blood is way smaller so less reason to help them.

And even during and after the century of blood there are only a few wars between the Free Cities and Westeros. And never was a side able to hold significant lands for some time.

[Shireen Purratheon]

6 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Actually they weren't. That's why they are called the Free cities, as opposed to cities like Mantarys, tolos or Elyria who were under Valyrian control.

They only looked for Valyria in times of crisis. The only known occurence of this is when Volantis asked valyria for help against the Rhoynar.

And somehow I don't think that the Valyrians would help all the Free cities in the same way they helped the Volantenes. Why should they help the escaped slaves of Braavos? Why should they help the religious fanatics of Lorath, Qohor or Norvos?

Volantis, Lys and probably Tyrosh are ruled by noblemen of Valyrian descent, in Myr and especially Pentos the amount of Valyrian blood is way smaller so less reason to help them.

And even during and after the century of blood there are only a few wars between the Free Cities and Westeros. And never was a side able to hold significant lands for some time.

Braavos was never a part of the Freehold, they wouldn't have the same deal.

Presumably, Westerosi invasion would be that sort of crisis, because it is still a challenge to Valyrian influence.

I can see the Valyrians not wanting to help Lorath, Qohor, or Norvos, but a Westerosi king wouldn't go after those places anyway. They're too far away to practically invade and hold onto. Volantis is definitely out of the question, being the favored daughter, and far away.

That leaves Pentos, Myr, Lys, and Tyrosh, all of which I believe the Freehold would come to the aid of. And the Arryns, Martells, and Storm Kings would know that. And that Westerosi king would also have to claim the land around it in order to have any chance of holding on to it. They would already be spreading their foreign invasion force thin before the Freehold's army came for them.

It doesn't seem practical. The Storm kings would have had the best shot, probably, and they were more focused on expansion within the continent. The North doesn't have any ships. The Lannisters and Gardeners didn't have east coast outlets and would be completely removed from their conquest. The Hoares were also preoccupied with Westerosi expansion. The Arryns might have had a shot at Braavos, but I can't see the Valyrians letting some Westerosi hold on to Pentos. I don't have an excuse for Dorne not having more of a history in the Stepstones.

[Bironic]

1 hour ago, Shireen Purratheon said:

Braavos was never a part of the Freehold, they wouldn't have the same deal.

Presumably, Westerosi invasion would be that sort of crisis, because it is still a challenge to Valyrian influence.

I can see the Valyrians not wanting to help Lorath, Qohor, or Norvos, but a Westerosi king wouldn't go after those places anyway. They're too far away to practically invade and hold onto. Volantis is definitely out of the question, being the favored daughter, and far away.

That leaves Pentos, Myr, Lys, and Tyrosh, all of which I believe the Freehold would come to the aid of. And the Arryns, Martells, and Storm Kings would know that. And that Westerosi king would also have to claim the land around it in order to have any chance of holding on to it. They would already be spreading their foreign invasion force thin before the Freehold's army came for them.

It doesn't seem practical. The Storm kings would have had the best shot, probably, and they were more focused on expansion within the continent. The North doesn't have any ships. The Lannisters and Gardeners didn't have east coast outlets and would be completely removed from their conquest. The Hoares were also preoccupied with Westerosi expansion. The Arryns might have had a shot at Braavos, but I can't see the Valyrians letting some Westerosi hold on to Pentos. I don't have an excuse for Dorne not having more of a history in the Stepstones.

Arryns could have tried both Braavos and Lorath, Lorath isn't much further away from Westeros than Lys or Myr.

I don't think that the ties between Myr & Pentos and Valyria were that strong. So an attack of Stormlands(or Dorne or Riverlands) onto one of these might not have triggered an immediate Valyrian response. Although I agree that it would have been very risky and no sane king should have actually considered it, but not all kings are mentally sane.

And even after Valyria fell, there were no conquests, nor did the Targs (as sole surviving Dragonlords and thus "heirs" of Valyria) ever claim parts of Essos.

And it's true the other way around as well: None of the Free cities nor Valyria itself ever tried to take parts of Westeros (Valyria at least had a prophecy against them). The riverlands and the crownlands (or Dorne before Nymeria) were often in a state of anarchy, which enhances chances of invasion, the Vale of Arryn is easily attacked by sea as the andals proved, the Reach has not many natural protections and the North lacks a fleet to defend its coastline. An ambitious or crazy Archon/Sealord/Magister/Triarch could have very well tried to carve out parts of Westeros.

[Jaak]

On 29.10.2016 at 8:50 PM, Bironic said:

And somehow I don't think that the Valyrians would help all the Free cities in the same way they helped the Volantenes. Why should they help the escaped slaves of Braavos? Why should they help the religious fanatics of Lorath, Qohor or Norvos?

They DID help Norvos - and Scoured Lorath in process.

But precisely when did Valyrians conquer Lys, Tyrosh, Myr and Pentos, respectively?

[Bironic]

On 2.11.2016 at 7:53 PM, Jaak said:

They DID help Norvos - and Scoured Lorath in process.

But precisely when did Valyrians conquer Lys, Tyrosh, Myr and Pentos, respectively?

I never said that the Valyrians conquered these cities. AFAIK the Valyrians founded these cities, or in the case of Pentos and Myr greatly improved already established settlements.

Forgot about the Norvos-Andal conflict, point taken.

So the Valyrians helped the Free Cities at least twice in ancient times:

Once when the Andals threatened Norvos, and once when the Rhoynar threatened Volantis.

 

 

But that leaves the question why there were so few conquests/wars between Essos and Westeros after Valyria fell. And I mean from both sides.

Why didn't the sealords of Braavos never conquer the Sisters, the other islands off the Vale, Skagos, Skane ? Why didn't the Targs attempt to conquer parts of Essos when they were the only Dargonlords left? Why haven't the 7 kingdoms of old never tried to seize one or more of the Free Cities?

[Jaak]

1 hour ago, Bironic said:

I never said that the Valyrians conquered these cities. AFAIK the Valyrians founded these cities, or in the case of Pentos and Myr greatly improved already established settlements.

At Pentos and Myr, we specifically hear that they were Andal towns before Valyrian conquest. In case of Tyrosh and Lys, we don´t hear the story of their founding at all. But even if the actual nucleated settlement was newbuilt by Valyrians, some people must have been living in the general area before Valyrians came.