Jump to content

Who would win in an allout war between Westeros and the Free Cities?


Doc Tor Do

Recommended Posts

Still, a warship a day for Braavos is 365 a year, and thats not including the other free cities! Manderly is relatively rich (I think?) and there aren't that many lords around his wealth (I think?) so even with the few billionaires, it would be quite a challenge

My point is, Westeros doesn't have as large a fleet as the Free Cities, because it doesn't need it.

Tywin Lannister has 30-40 warships, not because that is all he can afford, but because that is all he needs. That could become 300-400 warships in a year, if he so chose. Add the thousand ships of the Ironborn, and the Redwynne's 200 warships, get the Stormlands, Vale, Reach, Riverlands and North to build ships as well and you would soon have a much bigger fleet than can practically be utilized.

More than large enough to serve whatever strategic purpose the King on the Iron Throne desires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is, Westeros doesn't have as large a fleet as the Free Cities, because it doesn't need it.

Tywin Lannister has 30-40 warships, not because that is all he can afford, but because that is all he needs. That could become 300-400 warships in a year, if he so chose. Add the thousand ships of the Ironborn, and the Redwynne's 200 warships, get the Stormlands. Vale, Riverlands and North to build ships as well and you would soon have a much bigger fleet than can practically be utilized.

More than large enough to serve whatever strategic purpose the King on the Iron Throne desires.

^ true dat, I think you've convinced me here ^^ Won't be easy, but definitely possible. With regards to troops, I think the soldiers of the free cities are more skilled than the mostly peasant recruited army of westeros, but they need to be paid which is the issue i guess, so westeros could easily steal them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ true dat, I think you've convinced me here ^^ Won't be easy, but definitely possible. With regards to troops, I think the soldiers of the free cities are more skilled than the mostly peasant recruited army of westeros, but they need to be paid which is the issue i guess, so westeros could easily steal them

Don't be fooled into thinking that Aegon's Golden Company is the representation of the average Free City sellsword company. Martin said they vary in quality drastically, ranging from the Golden Company right at the top, to the Brave Companions right at the bottom.

So maybe 10% of the Free City army would consist of Golden Company type soldiers, while at the same time a good number will be no better than Vargo Hoat or Shagwell the Fool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the Free Cities keep standing armies as well as hiring sellsword companies?

Very small ones, I believe for the most part - Braavos and Volantis perhaps excluded.

But when there's fighting in the Disputed Lands or Dothraki threats on the horizon it appears to be sellswords doing almost all of the fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, new member here ^_^

I realise this thread has already been done, but I was wondering what allies each side would have and how this would affect the outcome of the battle - which side (if any) would the Dothraki, Slaver's Bay, Yi Ti, Summer Isles, the various wildling and skagosi forces, Asshai .etc join?

If it ended up as a free-for-all between all the factions we know about (apart from "magical" ones), who do you think would end up as the victor?

Could the Seven Kingdoms or the Free Cities even manage to stay as united factions?

Hello and welcome to the forums :cheers:

This question is an interesting one. Let us begin by working under the assumption that both attack as one coordinated force and remain that way for the duration of the war.

I would say that whoever is defending their own territory would end up winning. Here are a few reasons why:

1. I doubt that the armies of the free cities would be equipped to fight in the North or in winter (advantage Westeros)

2. It is mentioned that the entire combined navy of the seven kingdoms may not be enough to defeat the naval defenses of Braavos (advantage free cities).

3. Westerosi towns are basically build for war and we don't know how many weapons of siege the free cities have (advantage Westeros)

4. The distance between the Free cities and the land around them would make conquest difficult for an army of armored knights and pikemen and crossbowmen (advantage free cities).

Good first thread! Hope to read you soon again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the starting point would be to arrive at an accurate assessment of the comparative population numbers of the two areas.

This introductory sentence - from you! :rofl: Please take no offense, I like your analysis when it comes to such topics, but in my eyes this has comical value! :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be fooled into thinking that Aegon's Golden Company is the representation of the average Free City sellsword company. Martin said they vary in quality drastically, ranging from the Golden Company right at the top, to the Brave Companions right at the bottom.

So maybe 10% of the Free City army would consist of Golden Company type soldiers, while at the same time a good number will be no better than Vargo Hoat or Shagwell the Fool.

True, but what if they could hire Unsullied? As long as they bought them first, a large unsullied army would pwn in a straight battle (imo) unless Westeros had dragons or wildfire or sth.

Hello and welcome to the forums :cheers:

This question is an interesting one. Let us begin by working under the assumption that both attack as one coordinated force and remain that way for the duration of the war.

I would say that whoever is defending their own territory would end up winning. Here are a few reasons why:

1. I doubt that the armies of the free cities would be equipped to fight in the North or in winter (advantage Westeros)

2. It is mentioned that the entire combined navy of the seven kingdoms may not be enough to defeat the naval defenses of Braavos (advantage free cities).

3. Westerosi towns are basically build for war and we don't know how many weapons of siege the free cities have (advantage Westeros)

4. The distance between the Free cities and the land around them would make conquest difficult for an army of armored knights and pikemen and crossbowmen (advantage free cities).

Good first thread! Hope to read you soon again!

Thanks a lot ^_^ With regards to the North, I don't think they pose a great threat (excepting White Walkers and wights) as long as they control all other parts of the seven kingdoms - Dorne for example would not be shielded by their deserts due to similar climates, and the other more temperate regions would fare no better. With only the north and the nights watch (and the wildlings) remaining, they would not cope so well I think (especially far down south).

I think it would be hard to conquer the cities of westeros, unless they had Dany's dragons or wildfire or maybe using some magicians from Asshai :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And opens a whole new page of history with stoneborn Kings of Westeros and Essos.

Trust me, all events in ASOIAF revolve around the Skagossi and their evil king, Patchface:

1. Their unicorns had telepathic abilities that made Aerys mad.

2. Their unicorn horns are sharper than Valyrian Steel, they cut through dragon skin as if they were made of cake!

3. Rhaegar didn't kidnap Lyanna, Patchface kidnapped them both, raped them, and then gave birth to Jon (and Joffrey. and Hodor).

4. The Skagossi caused the doom of Valyria.

5. Hardhome was caused by an angry Skagossi unicorn.

6. The White Walkers are golems created from frozen unicorn tears.

7. Its where GRRM was born.

8. Unicorn is suspiciously similar to Unicron.

'Nuff said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another way to look at it is to think about how each of the regions in isolation would compare in power to a single Free City.



In other words: Is the Prince of Dorne more powerful than the Ruler of Myr?



Would the Storm King defeat Lys in an all out war if no other regions or cities intervened?



We see in Dance that Volantis appears quite concerned about a Dothraki Khalasar smaller than Drogos - probably around 20,000 warriors therefore - moving into the region, and there was talk of burning some bridges on the Rhoyne to stop them from advancing further. Well, the King of the Reach can send 100,000 men against Volantis. Who would win in a war between the Reach and Volantis? My money is on the Reach.



Of course, most of these wars are impossible, given that most men are lost in transit over the ocean, making a long lasting campaign against either enemy almost impossible. The best sailors in the world - the Ironborn - lost half their ships crossing from Westeros to Slavers Bay.



So the physical barrier of the ocean makes these wars almost impossible to fight.



But in sheer power terms, I think each of the Westerosi regions - of which their happens to be Nine as well, are more powerful than comparative Free Cities individually. Braavos being the only exception because of their highly defensible location.



If Robert Baratheon as Lord of the Stormlands waged war against Lorath or Tyrosh, for example, I think the Stormlands would be the more powerful of the two sides.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another way to look at it is to think about how each of the regions in isolation would compare in power to a single Free City.

In other words: Is the Prince of Dorne more powerful than the Ruler of Myr?

Would the Storm King defeat Lys in an all out war if no other regions or cities intervened?

We see in Dance that Volantis appears quite concerned about a Dothraki Khalasar smaller than Drogos - probably around 20,000 warriors therefore - moving into the region, and there was talk of burning some bridges on the Rhoyne to stop them from advancing further. Well, the King of the Reach can send 100,000 men against Volantis. Who would win in a war between the Reach and Volantis? My money is on the Reach.

Of course, most of these wars are impossible, given that most men are lost in transit over the ocean, making a long lasting campaign against either enemy almost impossible. The best sailors in the world - the Ironborn - lost half their ships crossing from Westeros to Slavers Bay.

So the physical barrier of the ocean makes these wars almost impossible to fight.

But in sheer power terms, I think each of the Westerosi regions - of which their happens to be Nine as well, are more powerful than comparative Free Cities individually. Braavos being the only exception because of their highly defensible location.

If Robert Baratheon as Lord of the Stormlands waged war against Lorath or Tyrosh, for example, I think the Stormlands would be the more powerful of the two sides.

^ I think it comes down to which faction can garner the most unity. I think the Seven Kingdoms are generally more stable (we have never seen the free cities unified unless Valyria counts) so I think the Seven kingdoms has the advantage from a general point of view.

If we take the situation as it currently stands in a DwD, then it might be more balanced, as the SKs aren't exactly in the most stable of states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating question, though not one to become an actual occurence. But you never know!



Population and fleets and standing armies aside, there are a few other considerations. If the war occurred while the White Walkers go on the attack south of the Wall: advantage Essos.



If it takes place in the present as of the end of ADwD, the many armies of Westeros are currently armed and active. Westeros has been a united kingdom, and if an interim king who is also a warrior were named commander-in-chief, these armies might unite in a way the diverse and competitive Free Cities would not. Moreover, Westeros is currently being enveloped by a long and very nasty Winter, which the Essosi don't seem to have experience with: advantage Westeros.



The Wiki says that wildfire is the solely made by the Alchemists Guild, which is Westerosi. I find it hard to believe that Essos does not also manufacture wildfire, but I cannot recall specifically hearing that. So, assuming only Westerosi can make and use wildfire: advantage Westeros.



A huge wild card is Dany. Her heart yearns for Westeros, but most of her followers are of Essos and many are ex-slaves who would probably prefer to ally with the Free Cities. Even if she wants to join the Westerosi forces, she is still in deepest Essos. So if she can persuade her troops and find a way of transporting them at least to the Free Cities and maybe beyond to Westeros itself, then she could help the Westerosi cause either by mounting a rearguard action against the Free Cities and/or attacking their fleets, or joining the Westerosi in repelling the invaders. The logistics of such would be nigh impossible in RL, but not in ASoIF. After all, Dany goes east to go west, etc. Maybe she'll go west to deal with the east. Who knows? But I think Dany would try something along those lines, not least because she;d have a better shot at being queen: probably advantage Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main concern of mine would be the food shortages that are happening in Westeros. Far too much farmland has been destroyed during the war. If you can't feed your soldiers you definitely can't field an army.

IIRC, Thirty Years War was a particularly clear evidence of that. It was won by those who arranged better logistics, in addition to better battle orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Westeros. Because of the population advantage and a more unifed sense of purpose.



But it also depends on who is invading who. Both of which I think would be won by the Westerosi. If


they were invaded, every person in Westeros could be mobilized and they know the land.



Westeros has the numbers to launch a somewhat simultaneous attack on all the Free Cities at once.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one. The distances are too vast, neither side could hold any territory for long.

^ true dat, I think you've convinced me here ^^ Won't be easy, but definitely possible. With regards to troops, I think the soldiers of the free cities are more skilled than the mostly peasant recruited army of westeros, but they need to be paid which is the issue i guess, so westeros could easily steal them

The Westerosi army aren't peasants. Not at all, beyond the camp followers. They are highly trained professionals.

Furthermore, see below.

Don't be fooled into thinking that Aegon's Golden Company is the representation of the average Free City sellsword company. Martin said they vary in quality drastically, ranging from the Golden Company right at the top, to the Brave Companions right at the bottom.

So maybe 10% of the Free City army would consist of Golden Company type soldiers, while at the same time a good number will be no better than Vargo Hoat or Shagwell the Fool.

An interesting fact about the sellsword companies of Essos: To a large part they are Westerosi. Especially the good ones, or at least the officers. The Golden Company is just one example, but Oberyn Martell, Rodrik Stark, the Second Sons, the Ragged Standard, even the Windblown to a certain extent.

And small wonder, Westeros got the supreme military training not available elsewhere.

True, but what if they could hire Unsullied? As long as they bought them first, a large unsullied army would pwn in a straight battle (imo) unless Westeros had dragons or wildfire or sth.

Thanks a lot ^_^ With regards to the North, I don't think they pose a great threat (excepting White Walkers and wights) as long as they control all other parts of the seven kingdoms - Dorne for example would not be shielded by their deserts due to similar climates, and the other more temperate regions would fare no better. With only the north and the nights watch (and the wildlings) remaining, they would not cope so well I think (especially far down south).

I think it would be hard to conquer the cities of westeros, unless they had Dany's dragons or wildfire or maybe using some magicians from Asshai :P

The Unsullied are overrated. Their hype is built on a single battle four centuries ago, against the worst warriors ever. Correction: against the best suicide candidates ever.

But they are outdated, by close to two thousand years. They would fare against the Westerosi like a Sopwith Camel against an F-22.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...