[Spoilers] The Princess and the Queen, complete spoilers discussion

[Slender Aimry Hill]

Are we to assume that their fight was a chivalric spar, rather than in earnest...or should we assume nothing of the sort!?

[Veltigar]

Nothing prevents Cregan Stark from being an old man when he fought Aemon... nor does anything prevent the Dragonknight from being, perhaps, somewhat exaggerative about an old man's ability; he was the very soul of courtesy, after all.

:worried: Don't take the one Stark who could be included in the Top 10 best Sword fighters away from us.

[Veltigar]

If you meant the comparison as impact, I guess you have a point, but I think in terms of realpolitick and the story as a whole, a comparison I find more interesting, as in cause for nations to being toppled, than WMD is really a better comparison.

That's probably where our whole difference of opinion stems from, really.

And since an F-18 basically deploys WMD's (in layman's terms) than its a moot comparison anyway.

...Weren't we talking about military applications like this whole time. That's what I find the most interesting, especially since it's military applicability directly correlates to it's use in Realpolitik (especially, when fighting against opponents with a little bit more familiarity with dragons like the Dornish).

Of course in the context of this story the dragons political use comes close to A-bombs (perhaps even outranks it in Targ times since dragons are seen as a sign of legitimacy as well) you have a point there, but the way they are deployed in actual combat resembles the use of fighter jets in our world more than anything else.

1. So its still with their pants down if its four times? And also, the Andals surely knew about dragons before this time...

Westerosi knew of them, but they didn't have any direct contact with them. Aegon attacks caught all of them with their pants down because none of them had given thought about the fact that dragons change the way their wars are usually fought. That's why Harren and the Arryns stayed in their castles, that's why the Gardeners and the Lannisters rode out in force. The only one who knew a bit more about dragons was Torrhen, but by the time he got that intell he had already assembled his armies in the Riverlands (and don't forget Aegon I didn't just have dragons, he also had a big army by then).

The only one who Aegon didn't beat were the Dornish. Because they (probably under influence of their Rhoynish ancestry) had given thought about how to fight a dragon. They were prepared, had adapted their tactics and thus Aegon didn't caught them by surprise. That's why he lost.

2. An asset!?! In GRRM's own words, they are a "miracle." They herald the return of magic. They are the only reason she gains power. She gains control of the Unsullied BECAUSE of her dragons.

Because she pretended to trade a dragon (good old fashioned deceit). If she had enough money she could have achieved the same thing. From a military PoV the Unsullied took the city, that's the only thing that matters in this context.

(FWIW: I believe GRRM was talking about the birth of the dragons as a miracle, seeing that they were extinct before that)

Well, it should be pointed out that the KL mob had thousands of men burnt alive, and that was killing CHAINED dragons who were cornered in caves. Even then, it was bloodbath. (or bbq)

(and a mob would have dismantled an F18 with a lot more ease in similar circumstances)

If you look at it that way I would like to point out that there are a lot more potential F-18 pilots than there are dragon riders; so it's very easy to keep enough men at hand to man the jets at a moments notice and obliterate said mob.

Yet, we don't live in that world. We live in a world where governments are trying to get nuclear capacity to build WMD's. Whole wars have been (wrongfully) started because of it. Which was my point, I guess.

ETA: cut out a lot of stuff, tried to cut out snark as well

And my point was that dragons = jets in military use. Kind of awkward that we both seem to have argued without actually having an argument...

[alguien]

...Weren't we talking about military applications like this whole time. That's what I find the most interesting, especially since it's military applicability directly correlates to it's use in Realpolitik (especially, when fighting against opponents with a little bit more familiarity with dragons like the Dornish).

Yes, we were talking about military applications, but a misapplication of metaphors is where our disagreement came from.

When you said they were militarily like a F18 rather than a WMD, and claimed that war was won by boots on the ground, I thought you were stating that the dragons were akin to F18's today, not WMD's, in that, while useful, they weren't anything special, implying that wars could be won by men without dragons against an army with dragons.

And that's just not true. There are examples in the story of a single dragon driving away entire armies. Yes, a few get killed by a lucky grapnel or the rider, but far, far more often another dragon does the deed.

Running away is not winning. At best you could keep guerrilla warfare up to a stalemate and hope the dragons eventually leave. (which we'll find out more in the world book). And that's the Dornish, whose people, as another posted, are not like most other places.

Metaphorically, a dragon in westeros is akin to a nuclear weapon in our world. An F18 equivalent in Westeros might be heavy calvary, perhaps.

Because she pretended to trade a dragon (good old fashioned deceit). If she had enough money she could have achieved the same thing. From a military PoV the Unsullied took the city, that's the only thing that matters in this context.

(FWIW: I believe GRRM was talking about the birth of the dragons as a miracle, seeing that they were extinct before that)

Exactly, to Astaphor, ONE dragon was worth more than an entire army of the Unsullied. From a military or civilian POV, she needed troops, she obtained these troops (khalasar first, then unsullied) because she owned dragons.

If you look at it that way I would like to point out that there are a lot more potential F-18 pilots than there are dragon riders; so it's very easy to keep enough men at hand to man the jets at a moments notice and obliterate said mob.

Normally, there would have been a lot more dragonriders at hand at the capital, so the point is moot. If a fighter plane was locked away in a cave, or warehouse I guess--I don't think you'd could man them in a moment's notice with a runway, prep team, etc.

Kind of awkward that we both seem to have argued without actually having an argument...

I guess we just approach things from two different points a view. When I've previously read people saying dragon's are Westeros's WMD's, I don't think anyone literally meant that a dragon had the exact destructive power and military application of a nuclear missile or biological weapon. They were using a metaphor and you, in your post, were being literal. Fair enough.

[Veltigar]

Yes, we were talking about military applications, but a misapplication of metaphors is where our disagreement came from.

When you said they were militarily like a F18 rather than a WMD, and claimed that war was won by boots on the ground, I thought you were stating that the dragons were akin to F18's today, not WMD's, in that, while useful, they weren't anything special,

Alright I can agree with this

implying that wars could be won by men without dragons against an army with dragons.

And that's just not true. There are examples in the story of a single dragon driving away entire armies. Yes, a few get killed by a lucky grapnel or the rider, but far, far more often another dragon does the deed.

Running away is not winning. At best you could keep guerrilla warfare up to a stalemate and hope the dragons eventually leave. (which we'll find out more in the world book). And that's the Dornish, whose people, as another posted, are not like most other places.

I still disagree with this. Dragons are not invincible. Even if the Dornish were special, they were still able to defeat the Targaryens (they drove their army off, killed Meraxes etc.).

And I do think there are other examples which TWOIAF might shed some light on, for example the Faith Militant uprising could be interpreted as a Targaryen defeat since it were the Targaryens who offered the truce after Maegor's death (of course this is based on what we know right now. Knowledge from TWOIAF might alter that notion).

And it might show us some other limitations to dragon warfare as well (e.g. IIRC from the sample Balerion was a lot less effective during rain). tPatQ has already lowered my estimate of the toughness of dragons. I never thought for example that a guy with an axe could smash a dragon's skull (even if it was just a younger dragon). I thought dragons could only be killed by lucky shots and poison.

Metaphorically, a dragon in westeros is akin to a nuclear weapon in our world. An F18 equivalent in Westeros might be heavy calvary, perhaps.

As a metaphor yes. When it comes to use no.

Exactly, to Astaphor, ONE dragon was worth more than an entire army of the Unsullied. From a military or civilian POV, she needed troops, she obtained these troops (khalasar first, then unsullied) because she owned dragons.

The point is that the dragons did not play an important part in the actual fight for the city. She used them to buy her fighters, but if she had had enough gold she could have left the dragons at home so to speak.

Normally, there would have been a lot more dragonriders at hand at the capital, so the point is moot. If a fighter plane was locked away in a cave, or warehouse I guess--I don't think you'd could man them in a moment's notice with a runway, prep team, etc.

Yeah, but every dragonrider can only ride his own dragon. Train a bunch of pilots and you could have enough men to stay put next to the plains at all times.

I do believe that they could be quickly assembled. Isn't that one of the main tasks of fighter jets, to offer a quick response to enemy attacks.

[alguien]

I still disagree with this. Dragons are not invincible. Even if the Dornish were special, they were still able to defeat the Targaryens (they drove their army off, killed Meraxes etc.).

Never said they were invincible. And the claim that the Dornish "drove their army off" isn't true, at least according to what I heard GRRM read. (and the wiki entry)

In fact, at that point, the Dornish had a much smaller army of men than Aegon did anyway. The Dornish stayed unconquered by not having a battle.

And, though we know that Meraxes was shot in the eye, we don't know when and how that occurred.

And I do think there are other examples which TWOIAF might shed some light on,

On this, we definitely agree.

As a metaphor yes. When it comes to use no.

But who argued otherwise? Before reading TPatQ, were there seriously people claiming that dragons had the exact devastating effect and military application of a nuclear missle or biohazard weapon?

The point is that the dragons did not play an important part in the actual fight for the city. She used them to buy her fighters, but if she had had enough gold she could have left the dragons at home so to speak.

In point of fact, they did take part in the fighting and set fire all over the place. Even as babies, their flame was devastating.

And the whole catalyst for her gaining an army was the dragons. They sort of are the point of her entire story.

Yeah, but every dragonrider can only ride his own dragon. Train a bunch of pilots and you could have enough men to stay put next to the plains at all times.

I do believe that they could be quickly assembled. Isn't that one of the main tasks of fighter jets, to offer a quick response to enemy attacks.

Not quick enough to thwart a mob, and they'd certainly be more useless if they lost their pilots.

[Veltigar]

Never said they were invincible. And the claim that the Dornish "drove their army off" isn't true, at least according to what I heard GRRM read. (and the wiki entry)

In fact, at that point, the Dornish had a much smaller army of men than Aegon did anyway. The Dornish stayed unconquered by not having a battle.

Drove off was a wrong choice of words. Just read that as the Targs lost.

About Meraxes are you implying that the dragon committed suicide? :P

But who argued otherwise? Before reading TPatQ, were there seriously people claiming that dragons had the exact devastating effect and military application of a nuclear missle or biohazard weapon?

There are still people on this board who refuse to believe in R+L=J

Not everyone sees the obvious :(

In point of fact, they did take part in the fighting and set fire all over the place. Even as babies, their flame was devastating.

And yet their part in the battle itself was marginal. I never said that they didn't participate, just that it wasn't really a battle changing contribution. The dragons could have been left out and the Unsullied would have taken the city with the same amount of ease.

Not quick enough to thwart a mob, and they'd certainly be more useless if they lost their pilots.

They would certainly be quicker than the KL mob. Don't forget that the mob didn't enter immediatly + these fighter plains should be able to enter the fray swiftly when called upon (e.g. when your aircraft carrier is under attack, the plain need to get in the air as quickly as possible).

[Stallion That Mounts Texas]

This was a great piece of reading. It was more satisfying from a historical and backstory point of view than it was from an entertainment point of view. After reading through the thread, pretty much everything has already been said or discussed. I just wanted to voice a few points/observations.

1. For once the Hightowers actually moved in great force. Of course they had much invested given Queen Alicent and her children, but it was still quite refreshing to see them flex some of their muscle. I have always felt it was time for them to make a huge impact in the present series. This gives me hope that they will do so.

2. Once again GRRM was pretty slim on the troop numbers, but from the figures that we do have, the sizes of the armies and engagements were pretty small. While it is disappointing, it does make sense from a certain point of view. The major houses would be very cautious in a situation like this, and would likely try to keep a foot in both camps if possible. Also, most of the great battles were said to be at sea.

I saw no mention of the Tullys or the Martells? The Starks sent a small force and the ironmen obviously would not involve themselves in the conflict. I will check again, but I also saw no mention of the Tyrells or the Lannisters, aside from Ser Tyland. It seems the Lord Paramounts were generally willing to leave the fighting to their lesser houses.

3. What became of the 3/4’s of the royal treasury that Ser Tyland split up? Did the Lannisters, Hightowers, and Iron Bank all keep their shares of royal money?

4. House Verlaryon was quite a powerhouse at this time. At some point they must have had their power reduced greatly. Was it after Rhaenyra’s death? But it would seem that Aegon III would have restored it upon his gaining the throne?

5. I would wager that house Targaryen also truly outlawed the first night on Drgagonstone as well. The presence of so many Targ bastards was just too dangerous.

[alguien]

About Meraxes are you implying that the dragon committed suicide? :P

Hah! Nah. Just that we don't know exactly what happened. It could have been a battle, a trap. I'm actually fairly interested to read about it. It seems like if she actually were killed by the Dornish, then Aegon would have razed Dorne to the ground.

And yet their part in the battle itself was marginal. I never said that they didn't participate, just that it wasn't really a battle changing contribution. The dragons could have been left out and the Unsullied would have taken the city with the same amount of ease.

You said they didn't play an "important part in the actual fight for the city" yet one dragon was the reason she gained command of her troops.

I don't think there was enough money in the world for the Astapori to trade their entire army. Only a dragon would tempt them to make the deal.

They would certainly be quicker than the KL mob. Don't forget that the mob didn't enter immediatly + these fighter plains should be able to enter the fray swiftly when called upon (e.g. when your aircraft carrier is under attack, the plain need to get in the air as quickly as possible).

Aircraft carrier =/= caverns and being chained up, with most of the guards dead or gone, and most of the riders offsite.

[Mr Hodor]

why compare dragons to f-18? closer comparison would be helicopter with flamethrowers.

[CameandWhent]

I agree that it did seem like a bit of an infodump, but it gives much for us to speculate about

until the next book comes out.

[Lion of the West]

This was a great piece of reading. It was more satisfying from a historical and backstory point of view than it was from an entertainment point of view. After reading through the thread, pretty much everything has already been said or discussed. I just wanted to voice a few points/observations.

1. For once the Hightowers actually moved in great force. Of course they had much invested given Queen Alicent and her children, but it was still quite refreshing to see them flex some of their muscle. I have always felt it was time for them to make a huge impact in the present series. This gives me hope that they will do so.

2. Once again GRRM was pretty slim on the troop numbers, but from the figures that we do have, the sizes of the armies and engagements were pretty small. While it is disappointing, it does make sense from a certain point of view. The major houses would be very cautious in a situation like this, and would likely try to keep a foot in both camps if possible. Also, most of the great battles were said to be at sea.

I saw no mention of the Tullys or the Martells? The Starks sent a small force and the ironmen obviously would not involve themselves in the conflict. I will check again, but I also saw no mention of the Tyrells or the Lannisters, aside from Ser Tyland. It seems the Lord Paramounts were generally willing to leave the fighting to their lesser houses.

3. What became of the 3/4’s of the royal treasury that Ser Tyland split up? Did the Lannisters, Hightowers, and Iron Bank all keep their shares of royal money?

4. House Verlaryon was quite a powerhouse at this time. At some point they must have had their power reduced greatly. Was it after Rhaenyra’s death? But it would seem that Aegon III would have restored it upon his gaining the throne?

5. I would wager that house Targaryen also truly outlawed the first night on Drgagonstone as well. The presence of so many Targ bastards was just too dangerous.

1. I agree with this.

2. Don't seem impossibly but then again we have several Houses who makes their allegiance well known. For example the Houses Lannister, Baratheon and Hightower were pretty much firmly into Aegon's camp while there's little doubt that the Houses Stark and Manderly were in Rhaenyra's. To me the low troop numbers don't really make sense as it seems that few new troops are raised when the ones sent out are defeated. Which would've been possible if they held back.

Dorne was not part of the realm at this point and the Lannisters did take part, primarily to be butchered like sheep in the opening phases of the war which cost them most of their chivalry and lord Jaston Lannister's life and knocked them out of the war.

3. Supposedly they did or they were used in the last half-year to hire a load of sellswords to fight for Aegon.

4. I think its mentioned that Driftmark was ravished by the Essosi and that threw the Velyrons to the situation that they have today.

5. Maybe or maybe not. Men are men.

[History of Westeros]

No you were not, I thought they should have tried to have their dragons roast the riders on the opposing dragons instead of the just the dragons themselves. At the Battle of Rook's Rest, Criston Cole was the only one showing this sentiment in telling his archers to "Aim for the rider" and not the dragon.

I think the logistics of breathing fire while flying at reasonably high speeds (quite possibly not much range or intensity due to wind etc) plus the fact that the only one who can decide *when* the dragon breathes flame is the dragon itself accounts for this.

Voice commands are an interesting possibility but those might be more difficult in mid-air.

[History of Westeros]

This was a great piece of reading. It was more satisfying from a historical and backstory point of view than it was from an entertainment point of view. After reading through the thread, pretty much everything has already been said or discussed. I just wanted to voice a few points/observations.

1. For once the Hightowers actually moved in great force. Of course they had much invested given Queen Alicent and her children, but it was still quite refreshing to see them flex some of their muscle. I have always felt it was time for them to make a huge impact in the present series. This gives me hope that they will do so.

2. Once again GRRM was pretty slim on the troop numbers, but from the figures that we do have, the sizes of the armies and engagements were pretty small. While it is disappointing, it does make sense from a certain point of view. The major houses would be very cautious in a situation like this, and would likely try to keep a foot in both camps if possible. Also, most of the great battles were said to be at sea.

I saw no mention of the Tullys or the Martells? The Starks sent a small force and the ironmen obviously would not involve themselves in the conflict. I will check again, but I also saw no mention of the Tyrells or the Lannisters, aside from Ser Tyland. It seems the Lord Paramounts were generally willing to leave the fighting to their lesser houses.

3. What became of the 3/4’s of the royal treasury that Ser Tyland split up? Did the Lannisters, Hightowers, and Iron Bank all keep their shares of royal money?

4. House Verlaryon was quite a powerhouse at this time. At some point they must have had their power reduced greatly. Was it after Rhaenyra’s death? But it would seem that Aegon III would have restored it upon his gaining the throne?

5. I would wager that house Targaryen also truly outlawed the first night on Drgagonstone as well. The presence of so many Targ bastards was just too dangerous.

1. Me too!

2. Good points. I think another main reason is that battles like the Field of Fire showed that large armies are not a good idea when dragons are roaming around. Another is that so many regions were divided, making the logistics of combining forces difficulty. Many of the kingdoms fought each other or their neighbors, it seems. Ser Tyland's twin Jason, Lord of Casterly Rock, is mentioned casually after the fact. He dies in some offscreen battle early in the war. I don't think there's any reason for the Martells to get involved.

4. I think the near-simultaneous loss of close family with dragons, massive loss of ships, loss of city (Spicetown was never rebuilt) and loss of castle (probably not destroyed but quite severely damaged and completely depleted of wealth) is enough to explain their fall from a top 10 power to a lesser House. It does seem like Aegon III would do something for them, but perhaps the loss of the treasury and cost of the war made it difficult to give them a lot.

5. At the time, there were a decent number of Targs, and they pretty much all had dragons. I don't think anyone was worried about bastards before the law nor after (until they started getting dragons, obviously). Without a dragon, even a guy like Hard Hugh had zero chance to become anything noteworthy. As long as the Targs had a lockdown on dragons, no bastard would ever be a threat, I think.

[Stallion That Mounts Texas]

1. I agree with this.

2. Don't seem impossibly but then again we have several Houses who makes their allegiance well known. For example the Houses Lannister, Baratheon and Hightower were pretty much firmly into Aegon's camp while there's little doubt that the Houses Stark and Manderly were in Rhaenyra's. To me the low troop numbers don't really make sense as it seems that few new troops are raised when the ones sent out are defeated. Which would've been possible if they held back.

Dorne was not part of the realm at this point and the Lannisters did take part, primarily to be butchered like sheep in the opening phases of the war which cost them most of their chivalry and lord Jaston Lannister's life and knocked them out of the war.

3. Supposedly they did or they were used in the last half-year to hire a load of sellswords to fight for Aegon.

4. I think its mentioned that Driftmark was ravished by the Essosi and that threw the Velyrons to the situation that they have today.

5. Maybe or maybe not. Men are men.

2. Which lends to my theory of the houses being overly cautious given the situation. Low levels of troops being sent out and not replaced. This could also be due to the Field of Fire and the presence of dragons. The goal is likely to prevent the dragons from burning huge groups of men.

I know Dorne was not part of the realm at this time, but it would seem prudent for one of the factions to seek them out and offer rewards for their service.

3. Tyland Lannister spilt it four ways. 1/4 was used for bribes and sellswords, but is unknown if the other three parts were returned. Ser Tyland was tortured before he was killed, but never divulged the location of the other parts of the royal treasury.

[Stallion That Mounts Texas]

1. Me too!

2. Good points. I think another main reason is that battles like the Field of Fire showed that large armies are not a good idea when dragons are roaming around. Another is that so many regions were divided, making the logistics of combining forces difficulty. Many of the kingdoms fought each other or their neighbors, it seems. Ser Tyland's twin Jason, Lord of Casterly Rock, is mentioned casually after the fact. He dies in some offscreen battle early in the war. I don't think there's any reason for the Martells to get involved.

4. I think the near-simultaneous loss of close family with dragons, massive loss of ships, loss of city (Spicetown was never rebuilt) and loss of castle (probably not destroyed but quite severely damaged and completely depleted of wealth) is enough to explain their fall from a top 10 power to a lesser House. It does seem like Aegon III would do something for them, but perhaps the loss of the treasury and cost of the war made it difficult to give them a lot.

5. At the time, there were a decent number of Targs, and they pretty much all had dragons. I don't think anyone was worried about bastards before the law nor after (until they started getting dragons, obviously). Without a dragon, even a guy like Hard Hugh had zero chance to become anything noteworthy. As long as the Targs had a lockdown on dragons, no bastard would ever be a threat, I think.

2. You beat me to the punch regarding the dragons. The logistics given the division also makes a ton of sense. Good points.

4. Yea, the sack of Spicetown was about as brutal as its gets. And the greens put High Tide to the torch, burning all of Lord Corlys’ great wealth with it. This would likely be enough to break most houses.

However, it was my impression that the Velaryon fleet and its troops remained intact, as they abandoned the blacks after Lord Corlys was imprisoned by Rhaenyra.

[Stallion That Mounts Texas]

I would also like to throw out one final observation:

The possibility of a future invasion from Essos. This was one of the most interesting parts of the reading...Essos launching a huge fleet to enter into a Westerosi conflict. We know Essos will strike again in the form of the War of the Ninepenny Kings.

A scenario that I think many are overlooking is the possibility of Essos moving on Westeros again should the war with the Others leave the realm in utter and complete devastation. Dany has already turned life on Essos on its head. Should she and her dragons die, the Essosi may look to return favor. This would mirror historical invasions by the Turkish and Persian empires.

[History of Westeros]

The sack of Spicetown accounted for a loss of a third of their fleet, it's said. Perhaps they got back in the war and lost even more ships, or maybe it was a later event.

Good point about the Essos invasion. The Triarchy's 90 ships was enough to do some major damage, but the Volantene fleet heading to Slaver's Bay is supposedly 300-500 ships and won't be facing 5 adult dragons. That's some major potential.

[Lion of the West]

2. Which lends to my theory of the houses being overly cautious given the situation. Low levels of troops being sent out and not replaced. This could also be due to the Field of Fire and the presence of dragons. The goal is likely to prevent the dragons from burning huge groups of men.

I know Dorne was not part of the realm at this time, but it would seem prudent for one of the factions to seek them out and offer rewards for their service.

3. Tyland Lannister spilt it four ways. 1/4 was used for bribes and sellswords, but is unknown if the other three parts were returned. Ser Tyland was tortured before he was killed, but never divulged the location of the other parts of the royal treasury.

2. Except that this is incorrect. We are mostly told that there are a great deal of lords and knights present in these battles. "By nightfall two thousand men were dead, amongst them many notables, including Lord Frey, Lord Lefford, Lord Bigglestone, Lord Charlton, Lord Swyft, Lord Reyne, Ser Claren Crakehall, and Ser Tyler Hill, the bastard of Lannisport." So if lords like these are falling it would be odd for them to "hold back".

In regards to the Martells I would think that pride and cautiousness would make both Aegon and Rhaenyra think twice before putting themselves into debt to a foreign power.

3. in regards to the treasury I would think that the parts that were not initially set for sellswords were in truth put to that use after Aegon started to run out of everything but enemies.

I would also like to throw out one final observation:

The possibility of a future invasion from Essos. This was one of the most interesting parts of the reading...Essos launching a huge fleet to enter into a Westerosi conflict. We know Essos will strike again in the form of the War of the Ninepenny Kings.

A scenario that I think many are overlooking is the possibility of Essos moving on Westeros again should the war with the Others leave the realm in utter and complete devastation. Dany has already turned life on Essos on its head. Should she and her dragons die, the Essosi may look to return favor. This would mirror historical invasions by the Turkish and Persian empires.

While this is a possibility we should remember that there's no such thing as a political thing called Essos. Westerosi is united under the Iron throne while Essos is not. This it would be more relevant to talk about what parts of Essos are going to invade Westeros rather than talk of the whole continent.

[Stallion That Mounts Texas]

The sack of Spicetown accounted for a loss of a third of their fleet, it's said. Perhaps they got back in the war and lost even more ships, or maybe it was a later event.

Good point about the Essos invasion. The Triarchy's 90 ships was enough to do some major damage, but the Volantene fleet heading to Slaver's Bay is supposedly 300-500 ships and won't be facing 5 adult dragons. That's some major potential.

Yea, the sack of Spicetown and the burning of High Tide all but cleaned them out. I agree. It stands to reason why houses like the Freys, Hightowers, and Swanns are so very cautious. It may not be the most honorable thing, but a great house can be knocked down a peg or two really quickly if it chooses wrong.

1. Loss of a very important settlement and with it 1/3 of your fleet and likely a great portion of your population.

2. The burning of your castle/capital and with it all of your gold and treasure.

3. The loss of more troops and ships in the war itself.

4. The loss of the Lord and many close relations.

This would indeed explain why house Velaryon is so weak now.