How did the Iron Islands hold on to the Riverlands

[Lord Giggles]

So my question is this: once they'd conquered it, how did the ironborn hold on to the riverlands? The riverlands was surrounded by the Gardener kings, Kings of the North, Kings of Hills, Kings of Mountain and Vale and the Storm kings and the ironborn dont do well in land. Why weren't the ironborn immediately turfed out of the riverlands by one of these powers?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Probably the same way the Stormlands held on to the Riverlands despite being surrounded by other powers.

They would have had some Riverlords swear fealty to them, some would have been more in favor of the Ironborn than others.There would also be hostages and probably a few marriage alliances to maintain loyalty.

[Poodle Pup From Astapor]

The main reason is that once you have castles in the medieval world, you are hard to push out. A group of 70 year olds could hold a castle against a group of trained men in their primes, as long as there are enough supplies inside. Ironborn were rich, very well equipped at the time, plus they gained RIverlands resources at that point as well. They weren't weak, they had castles. Those other kings would've most likely lost.

Another reason is that it's a massive continent, so any invasion is hard logistically. Why didn't Habsburgs or Poland conquer Sweden in the XVI century? Sweden had valuable metals and tiny population, weak military at the time. Because it would've been so expensive and hard to send an army there, stay there for years taking castles, then after you conquer it you would have to stay and keep an army there to make sure you hold the region. Plus, your own neighbours won't be happy with you trying to conquer all that land, and they'll probably attack your own territories.

Same with Westeros. Westerlands or the Vale try to conquer Riverlands, they probably go bankrupt sooner or later, and even if they are successful, chances are that they won't be able to hold that territory for long, because other kings will start making alliances against them.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

1. By fighting constantly.

[hortensius]

Harrenhal i think is the answer given in the books they kept them weak building it and then once it was built you'd need a dragon...

More seriously Alfred the great's use of Burhs and the norman use of castles show how effective a strong defensive holding well garrisoned can be either in denying your enemies or cowing your subjects into compliance. as to why other kingdoms didn't act a cursory glance at the world book suggests that most of the Hoare reign was spent fighting other kingdoms so they certainly tried up until the targs rendered the point moot

[GallowsKnight]

As others have mentioned Riverlands Troops, Castles.

The Gardeners, Starks and Lannisters probably tacitly approved as Ironborn busy in the Riverlands meant less raiding for them.

[Crionic]

I think people underestimate the Ironborn. They are natural warriors, fierceless and brutish. The only reason why they don't do well in land is because their armies and levies are not as sophisticated as other Westerosi Kingdoms. It's easy to picture how advanced in military warfare some of the battles are. In that regard, the Ironborn excel in Naval warfare, yet they lack the discipline and land ability to manuver an army on land.

And if you see the Riverlands, which are flooded with rivers, you get the idea. Suden strikes, controlling shit tons of castles. Pretty simple considering that Ironborn are a warmongering people.

[Victor227]

The very fact that Harrenhal was built indicates the Ironborn definitely saw the value in defensive fortifications, and their longboats were good at river-work. So, they control the fortifications, and they have a quick and easy means of moving troops around.

The Riverlords themselves were probably on the verge of rebellion, and heck, had in the past. But the Riverlords have been eternally bad at banding together under a common banner. They didn't have Starks, or Lannisters, or Gardenners. There was no hereditary ruling house for them all to bow to until Aegon raised up the Tullys.

[EastTymor]

Not by sowing, that's for sure.

[Boarsbane]

It's important to remember many of the kingdoms don't like each other anymore than the Ironborn. The Gardener king's have to worry about the Dornish, Lannisters, and Storm king's if they attack the RL, the West has strong borders but so long as the Ironborn are in the RL they are more likely to leave them alone. The Arryns and Starks hate each other and the Starks never showed any real interest in the RL but like the Lannisters they benefit from the Ironborn living off it. The Storm Kings were a fading power and I believe Harren was starting to conquer even more of their territory so I doubt they could have taken the fight to him. Then there is the fact the past 3 Hoare king's were all cruel but devoted to holding on to their conquest, even expanding it. There was no weak link in the chain so to speak.

[Lointain]

Because each Ironborn worth ten men of the green lands.

Also, the riverlanders are notably quarrelsome between themselves, and (almost) incapable of presenting a united front against a common enemy.

[Caspoi]

Huviam@ that only explains how they conquered it, not how they held on to it.

[Smoother Than a Storm]

(Somewhat off topic, I'm not trying to hijack the thread I swear)

It occured to me last night that, from the perspective of the smallfolk of the riverlands, being held by Ironmen might actually be a good thing. If the Ironmen considered the riverlands to be "theirs" then they would be less likely to raid there. So, for farmers etc it would be a more peaceful and safe time. I suppose the king of the Iron Islands might require very high tribute, though. I guess life could be made hard for smallfolk in other ways.

Or would the Ironmen continue to raid the riverlands?

[Fire Eater]

Probably the same way the Stormlands held on to the Riverlands despite being surrounded by other powers.

They would have had some Riverlords swear fealty to them, some would have been more in favor of the Ironborn than others.There would also be hostages and probably a few marriage alliances to maintain loyalty.

That, and the riverlords have been noted to be a divisive lot with political unity being rare, hampering riverlords from leading a united front against the Ironborn.

Even so, the Ironborn's hold over the riverlands was never stable to begin with.