Free Cities/Western Essos Geography Speculation

[Werthead]

Okay, the moonsingers and/or the Faceless men hide Braavos from Valyeria. Why didn't Valyeria ever go beyond Dragonstone? Westeros obvoiusly had wealth to be taken why never cross the Narrow sea in force until after the Doom?

Possibly a handy Valyrian prophecy ("Don't go to Westeros, 'tis a silly place,"), internal Valyrian politics, maybe they were thinking of expanding east into Qarth or south to Sothoryos instead? Or maybe their absorbtion/conquest of the Free Cities Region and the Rhoyne over the previous several centuries had overstretched them. They may have feared colonial rulers taking some dragons and setting up their own kingdoms or unleashing civil wars. Maintaining the integrity of the Freehold may have been a top priority and sending some powerful lords, dragons and armies off to conquer a whole new continent thousands of miles away might have been seen as dangerous (shades of the Seanchan invasion situation in WoT, perhaps).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Werthead,

But they already had a presense on the west coast of Essos in and among the "Free cities". I've always gotten the impression the Narrow Sea is well, narrow. Meaning hundereds of miles to cross, not Thousands.

[Padraig]

I wonder how land hungry the Freehold was. It removed the relatively nearby threats (Ghis) and expanded into the Free Cities area. But did it focus on trading over martial power?

With its dragons, it clearly was lethal if it came to war but given that the 7 Kingdoms was little threat to it (given that it was 7 Kingdoms at that time), it may have not bothered with the land.

I have wondered about what a Freehold is also. Is it more like a Roman Republic type arrangement rather than an Empire? IIRC the Roman Republic wasn't as focused on building an even bigger empire.

[Lord Varys]

The Roman Republic expanded much more than the later Empire - the Empire had it's greatest expansion under Hadrian, and there were no great permanent conquests after Augustus.

Actually, the wars between Ghis and Valyria mimics the wars between Carthage and Rome, which took place during the early roman republic.

We don't know yet if the valyrians did not try to get a foot into Westeros in the past. There has probably never been an all-out invasion before Aegon, but it seems that at least Oldtown had connections with Valyria during the height of its might - and we don't know what they supposed to gain by giving the Citadel glass candles.

But in any case, conquering Westeros seems to be pretty ambitious idea even for Valyria. Compare it with Rome trying to conquer South America. The peninsula of was miles and miles away, and that - and the city of Valyria situated there - was where the valyrian might and civilization was concentrated, I suppose. Valyria would be Rome, and the peninsula Italy.

The Free Cities seem to be colonies like the roman colonies. They mimicked the valyrian civilization, but they still were mere provinces.

Then there is Dragonstone. We don't know why the valyrians took Dragonstone. It could have been taken to establish a base for a possible conquest, but it could also only have been a base to keep piracy in the Narrow Sea in line - I doubt that the Stormking cared about valyrian law. It seems that Driftmark, too, was a island controlled by the valyrians. So it's likely that other islandes - the Stepstones, for example - belonged to the valyrians as well.

[broken one]

Maybe they have not been land hungry but what about hunger for slaves? First Men living in the bronze age could have been nice target (or maybe I am mistaken as for periods?)

What Werthead said about limited absorbtion abilities of Valyria reminded me of Etruscs. They were much more advanced on many levels than tribes/peoples they ruled but always were few in numbers and must have lived in constant fear of rebelion. And so their ability to control territory was limited.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

Surely the fact that Dragonstone has an active volcano played a major part in the Valyrian desire for it. The Valyrians seem to have really liked Volcanoes. Beyond that to Westeros...well, I imagine the Irish Sea is even narrower than the Narrow Sea, and Ireland far smaller, yet the Romans never conquered Ireland. Why not? Maybe because sometimes you have to stop biting off more, and take the time to chew what you already have.

[Werthead]

GRRM mentioned that Valyria was controlled by the Lords Freeholder, which suggests they were lords who controlled large stretches of land (freeholdings) in a sort of feudalism-meets-Roman-patriachy kind of thing. Maybe I'm way off there, but it does sound like the Freehold was akin to the Republic with a senate/council of these lords rather than a single emperor or king.

Werthead,

But they already had a presense on the west coast of Essos in and among the "Free cities". I've always gotten the impression the Narrow Sea is well, narrow. Meaning hundereds of miles to cross, not Thousands.

Yes, but the Free Cities were relatively easy to reach from Valyria. There seems to be a distance between them, but they were connected by land and dragons and men using the Valyrian roads could move relatively quickly to subdue any problems in the Free Cities.

Westeros would be a different situation. Dragons might be able to fly over the Narrow Sea (almost certainly by using the Stepstones as resting points), but any attempt to subdue Westeros or deal with a later colonial rebellion there would involve large ship movements, and we have no idea if Valyria had a significant or powerful navy. If not, the Valyrians may have judged the conquest of Westeros not worth the effort at that time. They'd taken 5,000 years to reach the west coast (or so it appears) and not colonised the later Dothraki sea or Ibben or explored all of Sothoryos or the East (or we have no indication they did) so there was probably no hurry with moving against Westeros. It may have been on their to-do list for a few centuries down the road.

Or to put it more succinctly, we do have enough information to make a call at this time ;) However,

Given that Tyrion muses on it in one of the ADWD spoiler chapters, we can assume GRRM will address this point elsewhere.

[Padraig]

Maybe I'm way off there, but it does sound like the Freehold was akin to the Republic with a senate/council of these lords rather than a single emperor or king.

Makes sense to me. I didn't realise GRRM had confirmed that there were Lord Freeholders.

First Men living in the bronze age could have been nice target (or maybe I am mistaken as for periods?)

Yes. Valyria came after the Andal invasion.

And it was kind of Carthage I was thinking of before. Took several wars before it actually conquered the place. All about absorptions capacity I suppose.

[Werthead]

Makes sense to me. I didn't realise GRRM had confirmed that there were Lord Freeholders.

In the RPG and in the SSM somewhere, I believe.

[Artas]

The Roman Republic expanded much more than the later Empire

True.

- the Empire had it's greatest expansion under Hadrian,

You mean Trajan, his predecessor. Hadrian actually gave up some of Trajan's conquests and consolidated the borders (hence Hadrian's wall).

and there were no great permanent conquests after Augustus.

Seems a bit unfair to Britain.

[Lord Varys]

It was really Trajan? My mistake. Oh, and well, Britain was the last great conquest, but compared to the other provinces taken earlier, it was not that big, was it? And we all should go along bashing Claudius, as history does ;-).

Oh, and the 'high lords' are already mentioned in the Targaryen section of AGoT - as ancestors of the Targaryens:

'The Targaryens are the blood of the dragon, descended from the high lords of the ancient Freehold of Valyria (...)'

This does indicate that the Targaryens actually were once really among the ruling families of Valyria.

[Rhaegar's Rubies]

I always thought of Valyrian conquest of Essos (and non-conquest of Westeros) more in line with Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia (and not west to the still developing Rome). This has always been one of the great what if's of history - what if Alexander had gone west and not east? I presume the reasoning is much the same - the east is richer with a much longer history, and hence much more desirable in terms of conquest. At least as it is portrayed in the series, Essos seems to have a monopoly of finished goods while Westeros is rich in natural resources, mostly agricultural. Perhaps like Alexander, there may have been future plans to eventually go west, but these were still in the planning stages when the Doom occurred (=Alexander dies). Also, there is more prestige in conquering a known historical enemy like Ghis (=Persia) rather than some less well-known, more barbaric culture in Westeros (=Italy).

[Lord Varys]

The anology does not work, I think. Valyria actually expanded much more west than it did east. It subdued Ghis and its vassals, but it never conquered Qarth, if I remember correctly, and distance between Valyria and, for example, Pentos, seem to be much larger than the distance between Qarth and Slaver's Bay - meaning that Qarth would be nearer to Valyria proper and thus likely a nearer and richer target than the barbaric west.

Westeros likely was too far away. If the Targaryens first established the outpost on Dragonstone, the valyrians only held Dragonstone 100 years before the Doom, and if the holdings at the coast of Essos and on the isles were not yet thought secure - and with Braavos still out there, unconquered - an invasion of Westeros would simply be too much. The Targaryens could do it, because they were ready to become Westerosi themselves, but the valyrians likely only conquered to exploit and enslave their subjects, and to accomplish that they would have needed to establish many outposts in Westeros proper, and then been forced to maintain them, to move dragons there permanently - which would likely have drawn to much valyrian forces out of the Freeholf itself.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

The anology does not work, I think. Valyria actually expanded much more west than it did east. It subdued Ghis and its vassals, but it never conquered Qarth, if I remember correctly

I don't believe we're ever outright told such a thing, but it's an interesting question. I could easily see Qarth as a tributary client state of Valyria's. In any case, Dany's POV gives the impression of a place who's greatest glories are long past, to me at least.

[Datepalm]

Werthead,

But they already had a presense on the west coast of Essos in and among the "Free cities". I've always gotten the impression the Narrow Sea is well, narrow. Meaning hundereds of miles to cross, not Thousands.

Does anyone know anything about medieval sailing technology? I remember hearing that even in Roman times the mediterranean could be crossed in 4 days, but this sounds absurd. In any case, my impression of Aryas journey was that it lasted more than a week, maybe over two, rather than just a few days.

[Crow's Eye]

If we assume that the Lord Freeholders ruled Valyria as a senate/council, it may be that only the most important conquests or actions could garner the support of enough Lords to be accomplished. So while subduing Ghis may have been a high priority, geographic expansion might not have been desirable to the point where enough Lords would have signed on.

Which means the Targaryen outpost on Dragonstone could have been just that - an expansion of Targaryen lands in the name of Valyria. It's possible that without the support of enough other Lords, the Targaryens were unwilling to push this expansion on their own, possibly because they weren't certain they could hold the territory. On the other hand, even if that were the case, establishing a Dragonstone outpost could have been like plainting a flag - i.e., if the Freehold were to ever expand to Westeros, it will be under the Targaryen banner, and not another Lord's. Or the Targaryens could have simply been biding their time, knowning that bringing in other Lords to assist in conquering/governing would require splitting up the spoils, while conquering it themselves (albeit slowly) would have been much more profitable.

[Werthead]

Does anyone know anything about medieval sailing technology? I remember hearing that even in Roman times the mediterranean could be crossed in 4 days, but this sounds absurd. In any case, my impression of Aryas journey was that it lasted more than a week, maybe over two, rather than just a few days.

I think the idea is that the Narrow Sea is 'narrow', otherwise there's not much point to calling it that. That to me suggests the westernmost point of Essos and the easternmost point of Westeros are not far apart, whilst the Stepstones are only supposed to consist of a few big islands linking the Broken Arm to the Disputed Lands (I'm guessing).

Arya's journey took a reasonable amount of time because her ship also had to sail north a little way as well as straight across the sea (Braavos is east of the Vale, maybe even east of the Bite, whilst Arya was rescued from Saltpans), and it's possible tides and currents and winds played a role in delaying the sailing.

[Acid Rainbow]

I think it's right that the Narrow Sea is about the width of the Mediterranean. It's never referred to as "an ocean", and it seems like the Free Cities use galleys to cross it instead of ocean-going ships.

To the guy who asked about medieval sailing technology - early ocean-going ships (like those Columbus used) had not been invented yet in medieval Europe.

[Guinevere Seaworth]

I think it's right that the Narrow Sea is about the width of the Mediterranean. It's never referred to as "an ocean", and it seems like the Free Cities use galleys to cross it instead of ocean-going ships.

To the guy who asked about medieval sailing technology - early ocean-going ships (like those Columbus used) had not been invented yet in medieval Europe.

Don't forget, the Vikings built ocean going sailing ships. Heck, they even reached Canada in those things. They did prefer to hug coastlines, but they did cross large expanses of ocean. So did the Polynesians.

[Datepalm]

Don't forget, the Vikings built ocean going sailing ships. Heck, they even reached Canada in those things. They did prefer to hug coastlines, but they did cross large expanses of ocean. So did the Polynesians.

The ironmen do seem to be the fastest fleet around, possibly with the exception of the Summer Island Swan Ships, but those are described as huge trading vessels, so i'm assuming they're only fast relative to other trading ships, rather than to the much smaller longships. (though they seem to be considerably nicer than real viking ships. Vicatarion has a cabin.)

I was wondering at speed though. How long would it have taken to cross the mediteranean, say from Constantinople to Alexandria, in medieval times?