How do you conquer a continent with just 3 Dragons?

[Hirgon]

I don't think wildfire has any place in this conversation.

Wildfire is only made by the Alchemists' Guild, which in Westeros only exists in King's Landing. Since King's Landing did not exist as a city before Aegon, it's doubtful that the Alchemists' Guild existed in Westeros. I find it implausible to think that the Andals had wildfire, and impossible that the First Men who had power in the North had wildfire.

ETA: Spelling errors, grrr.

[Basileus777]

Unfortunately for the Northerners though when they did find out what a dragon looked like they were all gathered in one place, all their fighting men at least

It's kind of bizarre that Torrhen Stark would march south to begin with. Why not sit behind Moat Cailin and wait for the dragons to come to him? I mean that probably wouldn't have worked either, but it's more sensible than marching south with an army to attack Aegon.

[Spring Bass]

Very boring. There's no contest in it all.

There's not supposed to be any contest to it - that's the whole reason why Aegon the Conqueror was able to become ruler of the Seven Kingdoms in the first place. I don't see why you can't accept this, particularly when it's just back-story.

The whole Game of Thrones becomes obsolete. The ingenuity of enemies becomes obsolete. Home ground advantage becomes obsolete. The will of the original inhabitants of whatever area you want to take becomes obsolete.

Don't be ridiculous. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the dragons give a formidable advantage on the battlefield, but they can't be everywhere at once. Aegon's kingdom was also a product of the system he, Maegor the Cruel, and Jaeherys the Conciliator set in place to govern the realm with the threat of dragons to overwhelm any potential military coalition against them.

In no way was the Game of Thrones obsolete, or the will of the original inhabitants obsolete. Look at the Conquest of Dorne, for example, which didn't happen until more than a century after Aegon's Conquest, and which initially fell to pieces because the Young Dragon was as reckless a governor of conquered territory as he was a conqueror.

[Talleyrand]

It's kind of bizarre that Torrhen Stark would march south to begin with. Why not sit behind Moat Cailin and wait for the dragons to come to him? I mean that probably wouldn't have worked either, but it's more sensible than marching south with an army to attack Aegon.

Maybe he was hoping to catch Aegon's army before they managed to recruit the Gardener and Rock men IIRC Aegon's infantry took quite a hit at the Fields of Fire before the Dragons came down

[TheWhiteWolf]

My impression was that the conquest was largely due to Westerosi incompetence; they had wildfire, they had siege engines, they had plenty of poisons and assassins. Basically, if Westerosi generals had gotten past their fear and thought strategically, the dragons would have been dead. They didn't get past their fear though, and so they lost.

If all else failed, they could have done as the Dornish did, and ran for the hills. The Neck would have been perfect for this; swampland isn't very conducive for a massive aerial Barbeque.

All this assumes that Aegon had no tactics as well you seem to portray him as an incompetent but Aegon spent years planning his conquest he even had a replica of Westeros made in dragonstone to (presumably) plan his invasion.

But could you assassinate a dragon? even if you snuck up and stabbed it in the eye it would probably kill you in the death throes so what assasin would take the job? and theres 3 of them to kill remember? as for wildfire well the blood of dragons supposidly fire so i highly doubt they will burn.

Before you try and argue this point go look up what an aurochs was/how big it was as the largest dragon could suppsoidly swallow one whole so if thats how big its throat is then how big do you think the rest of it is?

Your right the lords and knights that had some pride could run into heavily terrained areas but remember the majority of westeros armies are made up of sell swords and drafted peasents and men at arms all of who would bend the knee, why should they care who rules them? they just want to live peaceful lives with friends and family, dreaming of getting rich and powerful with a pretty wife

[Nukelavee]

All in all, those 3 dragons sound like dipladocusesesses with wings and fangs...size wise. which sounds silly sometimes, but so be it.

Much as I hate knowing what an advantage dragons will be for Dany...Like it's been said, they are killable. Nobody got lucky.

One would think dealing with dragons isn't something that's easy to learn, even if you've heard how it was done; Aegon seemed to move fast enough people didn't have time to adapt.

On the other hand, don't assume all dragons are as smart as Smaug was...I don't recall any mention of these dragons being even semi-intelligent.

How do you fight against things like a HiND attack chopper? You hide in the mountains, and shoot it in the eye. The Afganni did it to the Soviets more than a few times.

Go watch Dragonslayer or Rain of Fire to see what a dragon attack run would be like. (BTW, if you watch the show...anybody notice Viserys name Vermithrax from Dragonslayer as one of the Targ dragons?)

last - It took more than horses and gunpowder for the Spaniards to take out the Inca, it took luck, disease, showing up right after a civil war...but, yeah, the right gear at the right time=win.

[Free Northman]

I guess part of the answer is the spineless, unpatriotic nature of the average Westerosi citizen. Martin seems to have created them as people who are happy simply if they have a place to sleep out of the rain, some food to fill their bellies and maybe a woman to warm their beds. In other words, with a rather narrow, self preserving view of life.

Contrast this to the Afghans, for example, who despite living in a semi feudal/tribal society right up to the present day, refused to bow down to the might of the Soviet army. Gunship helicopters and tanks could not overcome them even though they fought on horseback and died by the thousands.

You'd think that if your ancestors have lived in a land for 8000 years you'd have a bit more of a sense of "this belongs to my people" than to just shrug and accept whatever foreign overlord tries to conquer it and just get back to farming sheep.

Martin seems to think people are easily cowed by the basic needs of survival, but many examples around the world show differently.

To this day the Scots resent English rule and are in fact at the point of creating a separate Scottish country, like the Republic of Ireland to regain their independence. Yet Martin would have us believe taht the First Men of the North - after 8000 years of becoming one with their land - just shrugged their shoulders and let a foreign king take over.

If the Westerosi were Afghans, and the Dragons were Russian Hind gunships, the Targaryens would still be fighting for control of the land to this day. In fact, the taxing nature of such a total war would probably have killed off their dragons even earlier than they eventually did die.

And then it would have been all over for them.

Instead, the average Westerosi citizen seems to have not a tenth the sense of belonging to their land that the ancient Germannic or Gallic tribes displayed in their neverending rebellions against the Romans, until the barbarians eventually outlasted the Romans.

Same with the Afghans, who are also from a feudal culture, yet display tremendous solidarity with their land and their unique culture. It's quite something for the Afghans to say they have NEVER been conquered. Not by Alexander the Great, not by Genghis Khan, not by the Russians and not today.

Now, the North was able to say that for 8000 years. You'd think that would lead to some sense of pride similar to that displayed by the brave but ultimately hopelessly outnumber Scots. But no, the King kneels and Bob's your uncle.

I don't buy it.

[Werthead]

We actually don't know the precise circumstances of Aegon's War of Conquest, only very rough generalities. We don't know precisely what the negotiations were with the Starks, we don't even precisely know how the Vale was conquered and so on. We only know that the Seven blessed Aegon's cause when he approached Oldtown after the Field of Fire. We don't know what order the kingdoms fell in (though I get the sense it was Harrenhal and Storm's End first, then the Field of Fire, then Oldtown, then the failed invasion of Dorne, then the Vale and the North, but that might be completely wrong).

So my guess is that there was some tough negotiating going on with the Starks. It may well be that Torrhen realised he could make life hell for the invading Targaryens but ultimately they would have won, or would at the least have killed thousands of his bannermen. For all we know he was an old king who'd already spent a lifetime defending his crown who was weary of war and didn't want to fight any more. Maybe he was an overt coward.

I'm hoping The World of Ice and Fire expands on the precise circumstances of the Conquest and we get the full story.

Here, the case-in-point was Dorne, which was conquered by the Young Dragon (presumably with dragons) but could not be held with dragons.

The dragons died out about 20 years before the Young Dragon invaded Dorne. He invaded, held and lost Dorne with regular troops alone.

[Glow]

Dragons died out, eventually, growing weaker generation after generation, so after all there was some way to weaken them/eliminate them -I don't think they went out naturally. If that was the way they were ruled out then maybe there wasn't another strategy available -that was my guess when I first read the books.

Having a dragon -or three- during battle doesn't protect you from conspiracy or assassination in your own bed, apparently Targaryens were good enough to keep themselves alive and avoid getting hang. One thing which is certain is that ruling is not something happening in a battlefield, you might unify a continent by sheer force but to keep it together you need some skills in which having a dragon won't be a convincing argument anymore.

Personally I always thought I'd like to know more about Dorne and why Targaryens where getting their wives over there -when not inbreeding. Just curious, though I never thought of Dorne as being "conquered", more like "associated" so to speak.

Anyway here is late, I've been working for twenty hours and it's been a lifetime since I got to read the books the last time.

[Talleyrand]

We actually don't know the precise circumstances of Aegon's War of Conquest, only very rough generalities. We don't know precisely what the negotiations were with the Starks, we don't even precisely know how the Vale was conquered and so on. We only know that the Seven blessed Aegon's cause when he approached Oldtown after the Field of Fire. We don't know what order the kingdoms fell in (though I get the sense it was Harrenhal and Storm's End first, then the Field of Fire, then Oldtown, then the failed invasion of Dorne, then the Vale and the North, but that might be completely wrong).

So my guess is that there was some tough negotiating going on with the Starks. It may well be that Torrhen realised he could make life hell for the invading Targaryens but ultimately they would have won, or would at the least have killed thousands of his bannermen. For all we know he was an old king who'd already spent a lifetime defending his crown who was weary of war and didn't want to fight any more. Maybe he was an overt coward.

I'm hoping The World of Ice and Fire expands on the precise circumstances of the Conquest and we get the full story.

As far as i'm aware the only things we know about the conquest is Burning of Harrenhall, Fields of Fire, Orys Baratheon killing the last Storm King and Torrhen bending the knee.

I hope Torrhen tried to get a good bargin a good deal and Aegon just said soemthing along the lines of:

"I have dragons. Dragons shoot fire. You have a face. Faces are flammable. So do we have a deal?"

[Kalbear]

I really wonder how the Dornish really remained independent. What was stopping Aegon from burning Sunspear and every major castle in Dorne Harrenhal style until they submitted? How does guerrilla warfare work for feudal Lords when their castles and lands are being burned?

Dorne is a lot more spread out and they don't have a lot of cities. They're already fairly low-pop. And at the time the Targs didn't want to raze everything to death.

To this day the Scots resent English rule and are in fact at the point of creating a separate Scottish country, like the Republic of Ireland to regain their independence. Yet Martin would have us believe taht the First Men of the North - after 8000 years of becoming one with their land - just shrugged their shoulders and let a foreign king take over.

You haven't actually read the books, have you?

The Targs have ruled Westeros for 300 years. In that time there were many, many open rebellions and civil wars. Westeros itself wasn't 'westeros' - it was the 7 KINGDOMS of Westeros - which meant that peasants had a lot greater tie of nationality to their region than the overall realm, and for most people that didn't change.

But as to nationality - the Northerners pretty much left as soon as they had a chance to. You know, that whole wacky 'king in the north' part. Other nations changed completely; the Tullys and Tyrells are in charge because the Greyjoys and the Gardeners fought, and they hated those others.

[TheWhiteWolf]

I guess part of the answer is the spineless, unpatriotic nature of the average Westerosi citizen. Martin seems to have created them as people who are happy simply if they have a place to sleep out of the rain, some food to fill their bellies and maybe a woman to warm their beds. In other words, with a rather narrow, self preserving view of life.

Contrast this to the Afghans, for example, who despite living in a semi feudal/tribal society right up to the present day, refused to bow down to the might of the Soviet army. Gunship helicopters and tanks could not overcome them even though they fought on horseback and died by the thousands.

You'd think that if your ancestors have lived in a land for 8000 years you'd have a bit more of a sense of "this belongs to my people" than to just shrug and accept whatever foreign overlord tries to conquer it and just get back to farming sheep.

Martin seems to think people are easily cowed by the basic needs of survival, but many examples around the world show differently.

To this day the Scots resent English rule and are in fact at the point of creating a separate Scottish country, like the Republic of Ireland to regain their independence. Yet Martin would have us believe taht the First Men of the North - after 8000 years of becoming one with their land - just shrugged their shoulders and let a foreign king take over.

If the Westerosi were Afghans, and the Dragons were Russian Hind gunships, the Targaryens would still be fighting for control of the land to this day. In fact, the taxing nature of such a total war would probably have killed off their dragons even earlier than they eventually did die.

And then it would have been all over for them.

Instead, the average Westerosi citizen seems to have not a tenth the sense of belonging to their land that the ancient Germannic or Gallic tribes displayed in their neverending rebellions against the Romans, until the barbarians eventually outlasted the Romans.

Same with the Afghans, who are also from a feudal culture, yet display tremendous solidarity with their land and their unique culture. It's quite something for the Afghans to say they have NEVER been conquered. Not by Alexander the Great, not by Genghis Khan, not by the Russians and not today.

Now, the North was able to say that for 8000 years. You'd think that would lead to some sense of pride similar to that displayed by the brave but ultimately hopelessly outnumber Scots. But no, the King kneels and Bob's your uncle.

I don't buy it.

But you bought the book :P

The Afghans are a great example as are the Vietcong of a resistance movement people of a determined people defending their native homeland with pride against ruthless aggressors as were the Spanish guerrillas during the Napoleonic period.

However these kind of resistances only happen when brutality, foul play and oppression are the case.

The people of westeros were not of one mind remember they were 7 kingdoms who had been at war WITH EACH OTHER for hundreds if not thousands of years so yes Aegon may be called the conqueror but he actually unified the 7(6) kingdoms and gave people peace dont judge your opinion of Targaryen rule on people like Aerys the mad king or Maegor the cruel most kings brought peace, prosperity, justice for people, they respected the local gods (The 7 and the old gods in the north) and when Kings stood against him (such as the iron-men the gardeners) Aegon allowed them to elect their own leaders amongst themselves he did not thrust one of his generals on them as a reward to that general (a mistake Napoleon made often).

So ask yoursef now, why should the people take to the hills and fight the Guerrilla's war? You call the people of Westeros spineless but I call them sensible

[Icebreaker]

Somebody also mentioned riders - Aegon and his sisters. Without them the war would've been over, and they surely are more vulnerable than their rides. I can't imagine they would remain unharmed by thousands of arrows shot by the archers. Anyways, Dorne managed to remain unconquered, so if other kingdoms resorted to the same tactics his dragons wouldn't do much for him.

[Talleyrand]

To this day the Scots resent English rule and are in fact at the point of creating a separate Scottish country, like the Republic of Ireland to regain their independence.

I'm not sure were you got this image from. We don't all dress up like braveheart and attack English people when they cross the border. Most of the friction i've ever experienced against England is from Rugby. And it's not really on the point of creating a separate country. Yes SNP got a majority but not every one of their supporters want separation. Most just want slightly more responsiblilty and rights to be given to Holyrood.

[Talleyrand]

Somebody also mentioned riders - Aegon and his sisters. Without them the war would've been over, and they surely are more vulnerable than their rides. I can't imagine they would remain unharmed by thousands of arrows shot by the archers. Anyways, Dorne managed to remain unconquered, so if other kingdoms resorted to the same tactics his dragons wouldn't do much for him.

Other regions aren't as sparsely populated as Dorne and only the Vale has the mountains to hide in like Dorne. Also how do these archers get a shot at Aegon? He's on top of the dragon and presumably wearing armour

[Hirgon]

I'm pretty sure England never conquered Scotland militarily. The Scots knelt, because it was worth more to them to bow to a monarch far away in England than to fight.

Also, I think your posts aren't taking into account that in a feudal system, peasants who have no rights anyway don't really care who is in power. They march where a lord tells them to march, and can't do much about it. Nothing changed for the peasants after Aegon's conquest. This is consistent with history: lords go to war, and peasants follow because they are ordered to, but otherwise nothing changes. It's only in the past couple of centuries or so that the common folk have started to think of rights.

[Werthead]

To this day the Scots resent English rule and are in fact at the point of creating a separate Scottish country, like the Republic of Ireland to regain their independence.

Repeated opinion polls in Scotland over the years continue to show that support for Scottish independence is notably lower than the 50% threshold needed to make it happen, so this is not really the case. The general view in Scotland appears to be that independence should be sought only if it doesn't result in a reduction in Scotland's standard of living, which is possible (a few years ago Scotland seemed keener on independence if they could get the same kind of financial benefits that Ireland used to get from the EU, massively enriching it, but that seems less likely now).

Actually, that ties in with the books as well. The Starks may have been offered all manner of trade concessions and opportunities that they didn't previously enjoy. The economics of the Seven Kingdoms is not something hugely dealt with in the books, but it's clear that there is significant trade between the North and South, which in a single country with a streamlined tax system, is much more cost-effective than between separate realms who might be war at any moment.

[Spring Bass]

Contrast this to the Afghans, for example, who despite living in a semi feudal/tribal society right up to the present day, refused to bow down to the might of the Soviet army. Gunship helicopters and tanks could not overcome them even though they fought on horseback and died by the thousands.

A small minority of Afghans fought. Most stayed put, or fled into other countries (particularly Pakistan) by the thousands.

And the Afghans had access to far more advanced technology than the Westerosi, as well as a more developed civilization, and some degree of nationalism.

Instead, the average Westerosi citizen seems to have not a tenth the sense of belonging to their land that the ancient Germannic or Gallic tribes displayed in their neverending rebellions against the Romans, until the barbarians eventually outlasted the Romans.

They weren't the same Germanic tribesmen. The ones that overwhelmed the western Roman Empire were part of later waves in a great mass migration near the end of the 4th century CE.

Now, the North was able to say that for 8000 years. You'd think that would lead to some sense of pride similar to that displayed by the brave but ultimately hopelessly outnumber Scots. But no, the King kneels and Bob's your uncle.

They kneeled in the face of a far superior opponent, who was willing to let them keep their ancient privileges and most of their rights.

As for "pride", what do you think Robb's Rebellion was about? His banner-men basically said "Screw this Lannister/Baratheon brat, we're not going to kneel to him".

The economics of the Seven Kingdoms is not something hugely dealt with in the books, but it's clear that there is significant trade between the North and South, which in a single country with a streamlined tax system, is much more cost-effective than between separate realms who might be war at any moment.

Realm-wide peace in of itself would be hugely beneficial to trade and the overall economy of Westeros.

[Icebreaker]

Other regions aren't as sparsely populated as Dorne and only the Vale has the mountains to hide in like Dorne. Also how do these archers get a shot at Aegon? He's on top of the dragon and presumably wearing armour

Yeah, and that's why the bastards in the Westerlands are named Hill. How do the archers get a shot at Aegon? Well, by not standing directly below the dragon.

[Ranzadule]

After hearing what has happened, exaggerated no doubt, who would want to face the dragons? Loren Lannister, that's who. He and Mern gathered 50,000 troops and 5,000 knights and marched against Aegon. The host had been overstretched and weakened, with too high a percentage of conscripts and battle weary troops. His army was only 10,000. The initial engagement scattered Aegon's forces, but then he brought in all three dragons. The dragons killed a few thousand troops and King Mern on what would be known as "The Field of Fire." Everyone pretty much got with the program after that and who could blame them?

The Dornish said no. Their terrain and raiding tactics made conquest, in the estimation of Aegon, not worth the trouble, so he gave up an left them to their kingdom.