TWOIAF only serves to confirm the great flaw of the series

[Ratmancampidori]

Then I guess thats what happened to the Riverlands. Everyone knows that a humans lifeforce is connected to there village, you take out a village and a human automaticcly dies, it's not like they could simply move and build new ones that Targaryen's don't know about. Also the estimation that Aegon and his sister coulds simply fly over every single village in a day and destroy them all is false, mainly due to the fact that when Aegon is high up in the air he's gonna get lost pretty easily due to not knowing the territory, landmarks and most of the landscape looking the same when he's in a damn desert. Finally theres the fact that Aegon wasn't trying to commit a Dornish genocide, he was trying to conquer Dorne something he can't do if there aren't any Dornish in Dorne.

[BitsOfBrains]

The concept to be examined here is limited warfare.

America could just nuke the entire planet and get rid of all of the security threats but then we would have no one to slave away in sweat shops or blame bad things on.

Since they had no population to send out colonizing they had to subdue but not exterminate.

Another concept is air superiority/logistics.

Keep in mind that dragon riders didn't sleep on top of their dragons. Once separated from their dragons they are just people and feasibly killable.

If you torch enough villages you are going to burn one of your guards sisters or something then he is going to cut your throat in your sleep.

Mereen already hates Daenerys and they are only going to get more hateful as her dragons burn and eat randoms.

Dragons are a strength but also a PR liability.

Strictly from like a set piece perspective they are ultimo, but they are kind of a liability between the mass murder/scorched earth business.

[Sword of the Morgan]

Boo hoo

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Then I guess thats what happened to the Riverlands. Everyone knows that a humans lifeforce is connected to there village, you take out a village and a human automaticcly dies, it's not like they could simply move and build new ones that Targaryen's don't know about. Also the estimation that Aegon and his sister coulds simply fly over every single village in a day and destroy them all is false, mainly due to the fact that when Aegon is high up in the air he's gonna get lost pretty easily due to not knowing the territory, landmarks and most of the landscape looking the same when he's in a damn desert. Finally theres the fact that Aegon wasn't trying to commit a Dornish genocide, he was trying to conquer Dorne something he can't do if there aren't any Dornish in Dorne.

Yeah, that is what happened to the Riverlands. Though on a smaller scale, since they were burned by a few thousand raiders rather than three huge dragons. No, a human's life force isn't directly connected to his village. It is, however, directly connected to his food supply. If you burn that which produces that food (the village and fields) then the people depending on it for survival will starve. It isn't very complicated.

Building new villages is possible but it would take time before they could start producing anything, and they wouldn't be of any help to the hundreds of thousands to millions of refugees who would starve to death in a couple of months.

Burning enemy fields and villages was a central part of medieval warfare precisely because it was effective. Aegon's dragons could quickly do this on a vastly larger scale than any historical army.

[TheNiggardlyBastard]

The dragons aren't just all powerful, they have flaws to. They can become unhinged and attack their "masters". And they can only be ridden by the person they are trained by.

[Acnologia Targaryen]

Well i do agree dorne did get lucky with that shot to merexes, but in war you also need s bit of luck. Hmm other than plot dorne didn't get off easy either since aegon and visenya went and burned 95% of it.

[C.T. Phipps]

However much i love this series, the universe created by GRRM is fatally flawed because there is no balance. Dragons are essentially a god weapon that are far too powerful (even when they are killed by now dragon riders, it is essentially a fluke, that happens incredibly rarely). This means that incredibly implausible explanations have to be given to explain why the Dragonlords and Targs don't always win.

To address the original point, I think that's kind of the point. Dragons are a ridiculous gamebreaker and the reasons the Targaryens were able to dominate Westeros.

And why, without them, they fell.

I will also say, you seem to have a misunderstanding of war.

It's not about being fair.

It's about the opposite thereof.

[Lord of the Vale]

Dragons is not OP, you only need 40-50 good archers to take A dragon down.

And even if their are OP just see our own history, the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Nato invasion of Iran and Afghanistan and Vietnam war the invading forces culd have win after A fem years, but the fist of lives and resorses was to hevy

[Ulthosian Stark]

Dragons is not OP, you only need 40-50 good archers to take A dragon down.

And even if their are OP just see our own history, the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Nato invasion of Iran and Afghanistan and Vietnam war the invading forces culd have win after A fem years, but the fist of lives and resorses was to hevy

I agree with the latter, but the former, 50 archers wouldn't of been able to take down Balerion, in any case.

It all would depend on the bows and arrows used, young dragons sure normal steel-penetrating setups would work, but at a certain point I think you *need* a ballista, or maybe those summer island bows with the 3 foot shafts, or magically enhanced weirwood

[kav2001c]

There were no guerrilla bands hiding in deserts and taking down whole kingdoms during the crusades.

Of course there were

The Sarceans who took down entire principalities (eg Antioch) jumps to mind

At the start of the uprising they were a small nationless group, most of the Christians ignored them because at the time they were fighting stronger foes

Actually very strong parallels to groups like ISIS today as foreigners joined them they got much stronger until they had a true standing army

[kav2001c]

Why didn't Valryia conquer westros?

My thought is its similar to why china didn't colonize the world before the europeans did. They could have if they wanted to, but they didn't. Maybe colonization is cultural, or based on profitable trade, or religious. Maybe westros was an unrulable backwater they wanted no part of?

I think this has something to do with the overall world balance

The fact they were destroyed by fire & Westros was (almost) destroyed by ice in same era written in a book called a Song of Ice and Fire seems a huge clue

[djc27]

Dragons is not OP, you only need 40-50 good archers to take A dragon down.

And even if their are OP just see our own history, the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Nato invasion of Iran and Afghanistan and Vietnam war the invading forces culd have win after A fem years, but the fist of lives and resorses was to hevy

How do we know this?

[Ulthosian Stark]

How do we know this?

We don't, 50 archers couldn't take Balerion or Vhagar plenty of times. And they ended up crispy. Or eaten. Or traumatized at least haha

All depends on the size of the dragon. If your not talking relative to size you might as well say oh anyone can kill a dragon with a hammer! (Which is true when they're really small)

See what I mean?

[239JMFL34109]

we have seen in world of ice and fire that one or even a few dragons are not god weapons. We have yet really to see how the rest of the series plays out the fact that the children could sink the neck and destroy the arm of dorne and even the doom says to me that there is a balance in the series.

[Chaircat Meow]

Of course there were

The Sarceans who took down entire principalities (eg Antioch) jumps to mind

At the start of the uprising they were a small nationless group, most of the Christians ignored them because at the time they were fighting stronger foes

Actually very strong parallels to groups like ISIS today as foreigners joined them they got much stronger until they had a true standing army

The Fatimids had a standing army when the crusaders arrived, it was just shit. So did the Turks.

[Locke081]

Why does there have to be balance? Why can't one side be vastly more powerful than the others? How is that a flaw?

I agree about GrrM's Dornish resistance being BS though.

I don't; not at all! If anything, I like how Dorne seems to compare to the Middle/Far East of our history (and present!): tons of superpowers that should be able to wipe the desert-and-rock dwellers off the face of the map with ease, but these Afghanis hide, and throw rocks, or strap bombs to themselves, and fight in ways we're ultimately incapable of dealing with. Dorne's a freakin desert with oases here and there, which also reminds me of Persian lands. Toss in strange cultures (polygamy, stuff I won't talk about here), Dorne's a good ME!

Somewhere I read tonight that Aegon's dragons could flap about firing up sand all day and not harm a Dornishman (not sure if World, which I was reading tonight, or post about World) — yes, it absolutely reminds me of everyone from the Crusaders' invasions to NATO's carpetbombing Syria, Afghanistan, etc, and what a waste of resources that proved out to be. And that those actions may have even empowered "the terrorists" against the West further.

And as others have pointed out, Aegon the Conqueror's favorite wife died there, needlessly, in a place Aegon was hardly itching to gain. Next man in just married up to make Dorne an ally, and they're apparently an ally to this day. (Note, "apparently"). That uneasy alliance puts me in mind our the West's alliances with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the smattering of other Arab/Persians nations who are "uneasy friends" (except in the highest echelons, where our leaders hob-nob with their leaders).

tl/dr: Dorne really reminds me more of Iraq/Afghanistan/Persia (rich histories; strange cultures that don't fit in with the West; proven unconquerable), especially knowing that Russia cautioned the U.S. not to follow their 10+ year "war in Afghanistan" folly, which ultimately helped bankrupt the then-Soviets. It may not have been what GRRM had in mind, but I see Dorne=ME and appreciate it for that. :cheers:

Pisser: didn't get past your pg 1 post and see people talking about the Crusaders, so this is probably a rehash. Sorry!

[Charerg]

I agree that Dorne's resistance and dragons in general are a logical flaw in the history of the universe. Considering that Aegon was able to subdue the rest of Westeros with relative ease, he should've had an easy time of conquering Dorne. He had the resources of a continent to back him up, along with 3 enormously powerful super-weapons that are capable of destroying any organised resistance.

In real life and real history, "guerilla warfare" has its limits. In a situation like Afghanistan it works, since this isn't necessarily a war of conquest in the first place, and the attacker only deploys limited resources with limited goals. But even so there is no reason why US and the other western powers couldn't have stayed in Afghanistan for a 100 years if they chose. Yes, the campaign caused losses, both in human life and economical, but even so these losses weren't so large as to be unsustainable. Heck, US under Bush even invaded Iraq after Afghanistan, so was basically involved in two different wars. And they definitely did conquer both countries succesfully, however here the direct rule of these regions was never the aim. Also, modern armies do attempt to minimize civilian casualties, "terror tactics" such as the Ancient Romans or various Medieval powers (the Mongols) used wasn't really an option.

It is also worth considering that terrorist groups today probably don't emerge "out of the dunes", they have their bases and rely on local support. Logicstical matters are a huge concern for such organisations, and they have their sources of funding as well.

With Dorne the situation is very different from modern "asymmetric warfare". Here, we have only one massive superpower with every advantage on its side against a completely isolated nation that is small both in terms of resources and geographical size. And you just don't win wars with guerilla warfare alone in the ancient world, a great many peoples such as the Iberian tribes, the Jews and the Illyrians attempted rebellion against Roman rule, and while these rebellions were destructive and caused the Romans great trouble, they were ultimately unsuccesful.

Just as Balon Greyjoy's rebellion was unsuccesful against Robert.

And the situation with Dorne is little different from the Iron Islands. An arid, isolated region with its own culture and great pride. The key to conquering the region is control of the vital resources (in other words, any oasis, arable lands, herds, the major passes and the few waterways). Basically any guerilla force that still remained after the key resources had fallen to the conqueror (or been given up) would be so poorly supplied that they would scatter to the winds and remain a minor nuisance at most.

EDIT: Also, even if we take it as granted that the conquest of the entirety of Dorne was a too ambitious goal, why did the border remain immutable through the centuries? Is there some weird rule that "the border has to run here". The Targaryens could have simply expanded their domains to take control of the Red Mountains, and castles such as Starfall and Yronwood, and left the desert for the Dornish.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

I agree that Dorne's resistance and dragons in general are a logical flaw in the history of the universe. Considering that Aegon was able to subdue the rest of Westeros with relative ease, he should've had an easy time of conquering Dorne. He had the resources of a continent to back him up, along with 3 enormously powerful super-weapons that are capable of destroying any organised resistance.

In real life and real history, "guerilla warfare" has its limits. In a situation like Afghanistan it works, since this isn't necessarily a war of conquest in the first place, and the attacker only deploys limited resources with limited goals. But even so there is no reason why US and the other western powers couldn't have stayed in Afghanistan for a 100 years if they chose. Yes, the campaign caused losses, both in human life and economical, but even so these losses weren't so large as to be unsustainable. Heck, US under Bush even invaded Iraq after Afghanistan, so was basically involved in two different wars. And they definitely did conquer both countries succesfully, however here the direct rule of these regions was never the aim. Also, modern armies do attempt to minimize civilian casualties, "terror tactics" such as the Ancient Romans or various Medieval powers (the Mongols) used wasn't really an option.

It is also worth considering that terrorist groups today probably don't emerge "out of the dunes", they have their bases and rely on local support. Logicstical matters are a huge concern for such organisations, and they have their sources of funding as well.

With Dorne the situation is very different from modern "asymmetric warfare". Here, we have only one massive superpower with every advantage on its side against a completely isolated nation that is small both in terms of resources and geographical size. And you just don't win wars with guerilla warfare alone in the ancient world, a great many peoples such as the Iberian tribes, the Jews and the Illyrians attempted rebellion against Roman rule, and while these rebellions were destructive and caused the Romans great trouble, they were ultimately unsuccesful.

Just as Balon Greyjoy's rebellion was unsuccesful against Robert.

And the situation with Dorne is little different from the Iron Islands. An arid, isolated region with its own culture and great pride. The key to conquering the region is control of the vital resources (in other words, any oasis, arable lands, herds, the major passes and the few waterways). Basically any guerilla force that still remained after the key resources had fallen to the conqueror (or been given up) would be so poorly supplied that they would scatter to the winds and remain a minor nuisance at most.

Agreed. Plus, if the Romans also had had three huge dragons then those rebellions would have been even smaller problems. If they happened at all.

[Chaircat Meow]

I agree that Dorne's resistance and dragons in general are a logical flaw in the history of the universe. Considering that Aegon was able to subdue the rest of Westeros with relative ease, he should've had an easy time of conquering Dorne. He had the resources of a continent to back him up, along with 3 enormously powerful super-weapons that are capable of destroying any organised resistance.

In real life and real history, "guerilla warfare" has its limits. In a situation like Afghanistan it works, since this isn't necessarily a war of conquest in the first place, and the attacker only deploys limited resources with limited goals. But even so there is no reason why US and the other western powers couldn't have stayed in Afghanistan for a 100 years if they chose. Yes, the campaign caused losses, both in human life and economical, but even so these losses weren't so large as to be unsustainable. Heck, US under Bush even invaded Iraq after Afghanistan, so was basically involved in two different wars. And they definitely did conquer both countries succesfully, however here the direct rule of these regions was never the aim. Also, modern armies do attempt to minimize civilian casualties, "terror tactics" such as the Ancient Romans or various Medieval powers (the Mongols) used wasn't really an option.

It is also worth considering that terrorist groups today probably don't emerge "out of the dunes", they have their bases and rely on local support. Logicstical matters are a huge concern for such organisations, and they have their sources of funding as well.

With Dorne the situation is very different from modern "asymmetric warfare". Here, we have only one massive superpower with every advantage on its side against a completely isolated nation that is small both in terms of resources and geographical size. And you just don't win wars with guerilla warfare alone in the ancient world, a great many peoples such as the Iberian tribes, the Jews and the Illyrians attempted rebellion against Roman rule, and while these rebellions were destructive and caused the Romans great trouble, they were ultimately unsuccesful.

Just as Balon Greyjoy's rebellion was unsuccesful against Robert.

And the situation with Dorne is little different from the Iron Islands. An arid, isolated region with its own culture and great pride. The key to conquering the region is control of the vital resources (in other words, any oasis, arable lands, herds, the major passes and the few waterways). Basically any guerilla force that still remained after the key resources had fallen to the conqueror (or been given up) would be so poorly supplied that they would scatter to the winds and remain a minor nuisance at most.

EDIT: Also, even if we take it as granted that the conquest of the entirety of Dorne was a too ambitious goal, why did the border remain immutable through the centuries? Is there some weird rule that "the border has to run here". The Targaryens could have simply expanded their domains to take control of the Red Mountains, and castles such as Starfall and Yronwood, and left the desert for the Dornish.

Very good post.

[Marakesh]

The main issue I had with the books is the chapter wherein Dany gets the Undying. It was such a gimmick to get a super army and immediately become a conqueror / player in world politics. She instantly jumped from refugee to queen in one chapter. I guess I find the novels themselves realistic except for that one point, so, I'm surprised some of the stuff other people worry about.

The dragons we see growing up, we know some history of their great potential, but as the books read, I never thought they were a guarantee of victory. For one thing, its no sure thing she will keep or be able to control them. More importantly, I didn't think much about their use against human armies since I've assumed since reading the first 3 books that Dany isn't joining the game of thrones, she's not returning to Westeros until the Others are the main enemy. Any fantasy history this long, you will be able to declare unlikely if you work at it long enough. I mean questions like "why didn't Valyria conquer the whole world?" Really? Why didn't the United States conquer the whole world, or at least keep going all the way to Moscow like Patton wanted to, after WWII. We could've just nuked out way to victory for several years at that point. That doesn't even include questions of whether you could hold territory after military victories, and whether it was profitable and/or advantageous to hold onto barbarian wildlands.