Targaryens - Not Fit To Rule v.2

[E-Ro]

“Even an E-Ro knows 1/4 an onion from 1/2. You are short a quarter, my lady.”

Stannis gave a snort of laughter. “He has you there, my lady. 1/4 is not 1/2.”

^See? thats straight out of storm.

[Ingelheim]

Targaryens had 9k men, and they knew not much about dragons. Why would they call more men? 55k is an enormous number and almost to big to handle.

When Robert fielded 50k men at the trident, do you asume those were all the men the Storm Lands, Vale, North and River Lands could call?

Four things wrong here:

-First: Robert fielded 35,000. 1000 of them were from the Stormlands. And, of course, no. But they were not defending, but attacking. In the first situation, you use all your forces. In the second, no.

-Second: Aegon had already conquered the Vale, Iron Islands, Riverlands, and Stormlands. Do you think they thought Aegon wasn't dangerous? Then those kings were dumb as fuck.

-Third: the argument: "Hey, that dude has three dragons and has conquered half of the kingdoms. LETS RAISE 50% OF OUR ARMIES AND LEAVE THE OTHER HALF SLEEPING IN THEIR HOUSES" is nonsense

-Fourth: the Reach and the Westerlands had a year to raise their armies. A single year since Aegon started his Conquest. Enough time to raise them all. If they didn't do it until two or three weeks before the battle, then again, they were dumd as fuck.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Four things wrong here:

-First: Robert fielded 35,000. 1000 of them were from the Stormlands

-Second: Aegon had already conquered the Vale, Iron Islands, Riverlands, and Stormlands. Do you think they thought Aegon wasn't dangerous?

-Third: the argument: "Hey, that dude has three dragons and has conquered half of the kingdoms. LETS RAISE 50% OF OUR ARMIES AND LEAVE THE OTHER HALF SLEEPING IN THEIR HOUSES" is nonsense

-Fourth: the Reach and the Westerlands had a year to raise their armies. A single year. Enough time to raise them all.

Well, as a matter of facts, Robert having 35k only makes the point clearer. You wont reason from there, that 35 k is the full power of Tullies, Starks and Arryns, so why you do that with Lannisters and Gardeners?

The same could be said about the 10k Tywin took to "aid" Aerys.

An medieval army larger than 50-60 just dont works in terms of logistics. You just cant assume from there that was their whole power. As you said, they had an year....could they feed lets say 80k men for an year?

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

About Robb and Torrhen's armies, Torrhen probably had more time than Robb to gather his forces. The conquest took some time and the North was one of the last regions to kneel. Torrhen wasn't fussed about his fellow Westerosi falling to Aegon, while Robb had to rush to save his father.

[Ingelheim]

Well, as a matter of facts, Robert having 35k only makes the point clearer. You wont reason from there, that 35 k is the full power of Tullies, Starks and Arryns, so why you do that with Lannisters and Gardeners?

The same could be said about the 10k Tywin took to "aid" Aerys.

An medieval army larger than 50-60 just dont works in terms of logistics. You just cant assume from there that was their whole power.

I've already answered that: Robert was attacking them. When you attack, you use part of your strength, but you leave part of your army behind you, in case you lose the battle, so they can defend the counterattack. However, when defending, as Rhaegar did, you use most of your strength, if not full. That's why when they were defeated, Robert had free way to KL.

EDIT: And yes, medieval armies larger than 60k are impossible. Yet Renly had nearly 100k. Ask Martin.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

I've already answered that: Robert was attacking them. When you attack, you use part of your strength, but you leave part of your army behind you, in case you lose the battle, so they can defend the counterattack. However, when defending, as Rhaegar did, you use most of your strength, if not full. That's why when they were defeated, Robert had free way to KL.

EDIT: And yes, medieval armies larger than 60k are impossible. Yet Renly had nearly 100k. Ask Martin.

Martells sent only 10k men to "deffend" their sister, and future half martell king....I wont say 10k is even half of the dornish power dought.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

As a matter of facts, the reason the war was lost lies in Rhaegar daying. Martells and Tyrells

had still huge numbers and KL only felt because of treason.

[Ingelheim]

Martells sent only 10k men to "deffend" their sister, and future half martell king....I wont say 10k is even half of the dornish power dought.

Exactly. Do you know how Elia ended, don't you? And Lewyn, too. Both dead.

Look, your point is that the Reach and Westerlands armies weren't smaller 300 years ago. But your argument (time, not knowing about dragons) are not true.

They did know how Harren died, burnt alive. They did know the Vale, Stormlands, Iron Islands and Riverlands were already conquered by Aegon. The did have a year to raise their armies.

It doesn't make sense that they used 40-45% of their armies. That's nonsense. Unless they were stupid, or their armies were, in fact, 55k men.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Well, as a matter of facts, Robert having 35k only makes the point clearer. You wont reason from there, that 35 k is the full power of Tullies, Starks and Arryns, so why you do that with Lannisters and Gardeners?

The whole comparison between the Conquest and Robert's Rebellion is pretty pointless. It's quite clear that none of the leaders of the Rebellion brought his entire army - not even Ned.

The same could be said about the 10k Tywin took to "aid" Aerys.

12 000. Seriously, if you're going to argue numbers, at least KNOW numbers.

Martells sent only 10k men to "deffend" their sister, and future half martell king....I wont say 10k is even half of the dornish power dought.

Actually, 10 000 men are about 40% of Dorne's forces.

Which is probably around the same portion of the Northern army that marched with Ned.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

The whole comparison between the Conquest and Robert's Rebellion is pretty pointless. It's quite clear that none of the leaders of the Rebellion brought his entire army - not even Ned.

12 000. Seriously, if you're going to argue numbers, at least KNOW numbers.

Actually, 10 000 men are about 40% of Dorne's forces.

Which is probably around the same portion of the Northern army that marched with Ned.

oh shit! I said 10k and it was 12k....I embarassed myself. Im banning myself for a week. Bye.

[Darth Visenya]

Nictarion said-

Ummm, yeah, because those are 2 really different numbers. Half of something is more then a fourth of something.

You've been using getting me suspended for that Deadwood quote as an opportunity to slander the Targs without challenge, I'm back now though :D, did you have a good weekend?.

[TheCrannogDweller]

oh shit! I said 10k and it was 12k....I embarassed myself. Im banning myself for a week. Bye.

"oh, damn, I was caught spewing bullshit and now I will resort to sarcasm. that'll teach them."

[Dragon Roast]

After Aegon I, the Targaryens had that "right to rule by conquest" mandate. And like any hereditary dynasty, some Targ rulers were good, some bad and a few were really horrible.

i'm not sure how that record of good/average/bad/horrible rulers for the Targs is all that different from any other House. I think that the very notion that blood lines make you fit or unfit requires a greater belief in fantasy than acceptance of all the magical elements of ASoIaF would require. None of the Houses of Westeros are fit or unfit to rule on the basis of their blood lines. The dice is tossed for them all and ability to rule (anything from self to holdfast to region to Kingdom) is based on the individual in question far more than on their House or blood.

As rulers any given Targ was better that some, worse than others and pretty average for a medieval society that believes blood lines matter.

[Nictarion]

Nictarion said-

Ummm, yeah, because those are 2 really different numbers. Half of something is more then a fourth of something.

Stannis is still part Targ, saying Jon is unfit to rule due to being part Targ, but not Stannis is ridiculous.

[Castel]

After Aegon I, the Targaryens had that "right to rule by conquest" mandate. And like any hereditary dynasty, some Targ rulers were good, some bad and a few were really horrible.

i'm not sure how that record of good/average/bad/horrible rulers for the Targs is all that different from any other House. I think that the very notion that blood lines make you fit or unfit requires a greater belief in fantasy than acceptance of all the magical elements of ASoIaF would require. None of the Houses of Westeros are fit or unfit to rule on the basis of their blood lines. The dice is tossed for them all and ability to rule (anything from self to holdfast to region to Kingdom) is based on the individual in question far more than on their House or blood.

As rulers any given Targ was better that some, worse than others and pretty average for a medieval society that believes blood lines matter.

The main argument Westerosi use against the Targs is pretty self-serving too. It sounds vaguely realistic to modern ears but when you look at it it looks suspiciously like the whole:"bastards are treacherous" thing; a superstition that serves the purposes of the land-holding nobility who have something to lose come inheritance time. The Targs may or may not have been fucked up by in-breeding but I wouldn't trust the propaganda machine here; we haven't had overwhelming evidence of their ineffectiveness.