falcotron Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Why would they? Don't they have enough troubles?If you were playing a Planetos mod of Crusader Kings (or Europa Universalis or Total War or even Civilization), after conquering all of Westeros, you wouldn't just sit on it and run out the clock for 300 years, you'd go try to conquer part of Essos, right? Even if that meant a lower net annual income, a higher national revolt risk, more complicated succession problems, etc., it's just too hard to resist. Sometimes it's worth looking at why people don't do that in real life, or in a fictional story, even though it would make sense in a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename: Nymeria Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 If you were playing a Planetos mod of Crusader Kings (or Europa Universalis or Total War or even Civilization), after conquering all of Westeros, you wouldn't just sit on it and run out the clock for 300 years, you'd go try to conquer part of Essos, right? Even if that meant a lower net annual income, a higher national revolt risk, more complicated succession problems, etc., it's just too hard to resist. Sometimes it's worth looking at why people don't do that in real life, or in a fictional story, even though it would make sense in a game. Yeah, but you just have to save it before you decide to attack, and restart if it doesn't work out. Why didn't your precious Westerosi nobles think of that, huh? These are the problems that any not sufficiently advanced societies experience. That said, why are we just assuming Essos would be so easy to conquer? Braavos may be a more moralistic city than most, but if it were possible to control all of Essos, I'd think someone since the Rom...Valyrians would have been able to. There's no more reason (less, actually) for a King of the IT to conquer Westeros than there would be for the (pre-Dany) leaders of places like Mereen. Yunkai or Volantis? I'm also very much looking forward to the revelation that King's Landing was originally a Valyrian settlement named "Caesar's Lugdunum." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcotron Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Yeah, but you just have to save it before you decide to attack, and restart if it doesn't work out. Why didn't your precious Westerosi nobles think of that, huh? These are the problems that any not sufficiently advanced societies experience.In modern societies, you still can't quite get away with that, but you can say, "I was against the war on Iraq from the start" knowing that the only news sources will play the tapes showing you saying the opposite are the ones your potential supporters never watch, and that's good enough, right? (Is it unfair to assume that not everybody making political decisions actually cares about America or about Iraq as much as about their own careers?) That said, why are we just assuming Essos would be so easy to conquer?I'm pretty sure Westeros could conquer Tyrosh, or even all Three Daughters, in a pretty quick war. The problem would be actually occupying them for long enough that they think of themselves as part of the Ten Kingdoms and the rest of the world accepts it.Conquering a country that already has a feudal system and just adding another layer on top is not a big deal. Conquering a group of countries that already have interlocked feudal systems and a mostly homogenous culture that you don't intend to change and merging them all into a single kingdom isn't much worse. Conquering a country run by a council of magistrates or an elected archon or whatever and completely changing their political system and culture is a little harder.Meanwhile, Volantis wouldn't stand for Westeros taking over the Three Daughters any more than Westeros stood for Volantis's attempt. For a long time, Russia and England were both powerful enough to prevent the other from conquering Afghanistan, but not powerful enough to conquer it. And when you consider that the other Free Cities are likely to take an interesting in preventing either side from annexing the Daughters, and are a lot stronger than the other regional powers during the Great Game in our world, that only makes the problems worse for a conqueror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadows and dust Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Meanwhile, Volantis wouldn't stand for Westeros taking over the Three Daughters any more than Westeros stood for Volantis's attempt. For a long time, Russia and England were both powerful enough to prevent the other from conquering Afghanistan, but not powerful enough to conquer it. And when you consider that the other Free Cities are likely to take an interesting in preventing either side from annexing the Daughters, and are a lot stronger than the other regional powers during the Great Game in our world, that only makes the problems worse for a conqueror. That's the answer, pretty much. Conquest is never done in a vaccum. It's not "can I beat X?", it's always "who would support X, who would support me, who would support those supporting those who support X...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caspoi Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Codename: Nymeria@ One of the easiest way for me to know that I have played games way too much is when I start to subconciously think about the savepoints in my life... Anyway you need an ambitious king with a strong, unified realm and nothing else to conquer to even think about a new invasion upon the free cities and all the bother that would ensure and no one has fullfilled all those conditions yet, there has always been some part of the seven kingdoms to be conquered and we haven't really had a conquering king since the young dragon. Plus there have been the Dance of the Dragons, the Blackfyre rebellions and Robert's rebellion to destabilise the realm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename: Nymeria Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Codename: Nymeria@ One of the easiest way for me to know that I have played games way too much is when I start to subconciously think about the savepoints in my life... Yeah, I know that feeling. I've also experimented with attempting to call "time out" a la Zack Morris, but without much success. In modern societies, you still can't quite get away with that, but you can say, "I was against the war on Iraq from the start" knowing that the only news sources will play the tapes showing you saying the opposite are the ones your potential supporters never watch, and that's good enough, right? (Is it unfair to assume that not everybody making political decisions actually cares about America or about Iraq as much as about their own careers? Just because the United States I create on Civilization is advanced enough to do this doesn't mean the actual, reality-based one is. You can also say, "I never said Iraq had WMDs," and trust that anyone listening to you in the first place has drunk so much Kool-Aid they won't bother to think it through. And if anyone argues with you, then you shoot them in the face during a "hunting trip." Meanwhile, Volantis wouldn't stand for Westeros taking over the Three Daughters any more than Westeros stood for Volantis's attempt. For a long time, Russia and England were both powerful enough to prevent the other from conquering Afghanistan, but not powerful enough to conquer it. And when you consider that the other Free Cities are likely to take an interesting in preventing either side from annexing the Daughters, and are a lot stronger than the other regional powers during the Great Game in our world, that only makes the problems worse for a conqueror. Has anyone ever been powerful enough to conquer Afghanistan? It's the Bermuda Triangle of geopolitical politics. Clearly, the best thing to do is arm the side you agree with now, in the knowledge it will never come back to bite you in the end. That said, I think the better analogy would be Russia itself. As numerous would-be conquerors including Napoleon and Hitler found out, it's one thing to militarily overwhelm vast swaths of land, but actually holding that land is an entirely different ballgame. The Mongol hordes had some success when Russia was not as well organized, but once a sense of nationalist pride starts to exist, maintaining military gains becomes exponentially more difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marsyao Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 It occurs to me that King's Landing, in many ways, is a better capital to rule over some of the nearer Free Cities than it is to rule over mich of Westeros itself. Sea access makes cities like Pentos far closer in terms of cost and time than places like Casterly Rock. In other words, the Narrow Sea, supposed to be an equivalent of the Med Sea, could make a very good Mare Nostrum. So, when the Targaryen were at their height, why did nobody ever try to take the massive armies of Westeros and whatever dragons were alive and pounce on one or more of the cities? They could wait for one of the many conflicts that erupted, possibly playing up the "we hate slaves too" to get Braavos on their side. Navy, it is all about navy, you also can ask why France never conquer England? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Arthur Hightower Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 I think it is a bit of a weakness in the worldbuilding that no Westerosi monarch ever tried to, not that they would necessarily hold onto what they took for long, but I find it hard to believe 300 years of feudal monarchs never tried to expand their control across the Narrow Sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby b's bobby Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Navy, it is all about navy, you also can ask why France never conquer England? It kind of did well not all of France just a single motivated duke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marsyao Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 It kind of did well not all of France just a single motivated duke. And when England had no navy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marsyao Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 I think it is a bit of a weakness in the worldbuilding that no Westerosi monarch ever tried to, not that they would necessarily hold onto what they took for long, but I find it hard to believe 300 years of feudal monarchs never tried to expand their control across the Narrow Sea. If the history could tell us anything, Westero lost every single war against force from Essos, from Giant and childrens lost to First men in the ancient time to Seven Kingdoms lost to Targaryns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caspoi Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Marsyao@ the Stormlands and Dragonstone were in the alliance that beat Volantis and Daemon conquered the Stepstones from the Three Daughters. And if we go back fourther the Starks drove out the people of Wolf's Den. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominusNovus Posted September 4, 2015 Author Share Posted September 4, 2015 Navy, it is all about navy, you also can ask why France never conquer England? Yet they rule over the Iron Islands, off the opposite side of the continent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby b's bobby Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 And when England had no navy You sure on that? England had navies back when Alfred the great was fighting the great heathen army. I'm not sure if the English crown had a navy in 1066 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marsyao Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Marsyao@ the Stormlands and Dragonstone were in the alliance that beat Volantis and Daemon conquered the Stepstones from the Three Daughters. And if we go back fourther the Starks drove out the people of Wolf's Den. Did Daemon eventually lost the war in the east? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marsyao Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 You sure on that? England had navies back when Alfred the great was fighting the great heathen army. I'm not sure if the English crown had a navy in 1066 though. Let's begin with renaissance era, shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caspoi Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 ;arsyao@ It is a bit hazy but it seems as if he just decided to go back to Kingslanding and renounce his crown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marsyao Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 ;arsyao@ It is a bit hazy but it seems as if he just decided to go back to Kingslanding and renounce his crown. It was also because his eastern adventure come to nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby b's bobby Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 It was also because his eastern adventure come to nothing What about the golden company smashing the unsullied and sacking the city that refused to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marsyao Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 What about the golden company smashing the unsullied and sacking the city that refused to pay. There are many east men in the golden company too, besides it does not change a fact that Westero never win a war against the Essso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.