Maximum potential extent of the Valyrian Freehold?

[The silver dragon]

From TWOIAF, section on Yi Ti: 'wealth that exceeded even that of Valyria at its height and armies of almost unimaginable size'.

This is a pretty clear indication that Yi Ti, like Valyria, was a top-tier civilisation. Note the phrase 'at its height', which indicates that even when Valyria was at its apex Yi Ti was still of comparable power.

However, as I said above, we are postulating a Freehold of much greater power than it ever reached in 'reality'; as it encompasses Westeros, Sarnor, and indeed all of Essos west of the Bones. We can probably assume that Valyria would have overpowered Yi Ti eventually, but only after years of war that would have put the Ghiscari Wars to shame, as it is clear that Yi Ti is far more powerful than the Old Empire of Ghis ever was.

 

Armies rout in fear when put up against dragons.

 

Castles and forts melt when put up against dragons.

 

cavalry bucks and flees when put up against dragons.

 

and ships burn when faced with dragons.

 

 

and on the other hand, the only thing that can consistently and reliably kill a dragon is another dragon.

 

ergo yiti loses.

[DominusNovus]

That, or powerful magic.  The Rhoynar, united, were able to hold their own against armies with dragons.  They were not, however, able to hold their own against hundreds of dragons, which the Valyrians could call upon when needed.

[The silver dragon]

That, or powerful magic.  The Rhoynar, united, were able to hold their own against armies with dragons.  They were not, however, able to hold their own against hundreds of dragons, which the Valyrians could call upon when needed.

 

1.) truly Powerful magic is rare in the world of asoiaf.

 

2.) valyria has powerful sorcerers and blood mages of their own. 

 

ergo Yiti still loses.

[Maester of Valyria]

1. Lord Wraith: Yi Ti was not at its peak during the Valyrian era (that we know of), but it is still clearly more powerful than Ghis was.
2. Caspoi: Wealth often correlates with power. It is hard to fight wars without gold, as Stannis is discovering. Also Valyria was not nothing when facing Ghis; it grew in power with every war, but it could not have won the wars with only dragons. The Freehold expanded out for a bit before coming into conflict with Ghis.
3. The silver dragon: everything you say about the vunerability of conventional forces against dragons is true, but Yi Ti is very populous and can, as I said, field armies of huge size. Dragons can be slain by armies, such as in the Rhoynish wars, when at least two dragons were brought down by archers. Your point about powerful magic being rare is valid, but in a civilisation as ancient as Yi Ti, I think they will have access to some magic.

Please note that nowhere have I said that Yi Ti would win out against Valyria; I'm just saying that it would put up a hell of a fight that would make Ghis look like Omber.

If you read my post on the first page of this topic, on page one, I talk about how Yi Ti is not the only civilisation to worry about! Leng, being an island, presumably has a strong fleet, and taking one or all of the roads through the Bones (essential for delivering an army of the necessary size) would be very difficult, as we don't know if dragons would be capable of flying at the high altitudes in the mountains. I expand on all these themes in my original post, but I believe that if enough civilisations east of the Bones joined against the Valyrians, the final outcome would become a lot less certain.

[The silver dragon]

 

1. Lord Wraith: Yi Ti was not at its peak during the Valyrian era (that we know of), but it is still clearly more powerful than Ghis was.
2. Caspoi: Wealth often correlates with power. It is hard to fight wars without gold, as Stannis is discovering. Also Valyria was not nothing when facing Ghis; it grew in power with every war, but it could not have won the wars with only dragons. The Freehold expanded out for a bit before coming into conflict with Ghis.
3. The silver dragon: everything you say about the vunerability of conventional forces against dragons is true, but Yi Ti is very populous and can, as I said, field armies of huge size. Dragons can be slain by armies, such as in the Rhoynish wars, when at least two dragons were brought down by archers. Your point about powerful magic being rare is valid, but in a civilisation as ancient as Yi Ti, I think they will have access to some magic.

Please note that nowhere have I said that Yi Ti would win out against Valyria; I'm just saying that it would put up a hell of a fight that would make Ghis look like Omber.

If you read my post on the first page of this topic, on page one, I talk about how Yi Ti is not the only civilisation to worry about! Leng, being an island, presumably has a strong fleet, and taking one or all of the roads through the Bones (essential for delivering an army of the necessary size) would be very difficult, as we don't know if dragons would be capable of flying at the high altitudes in the mountains. I expand on all these themes in my original post, but I believe that if enough civilisations east of the Bones joined against the Valyrians, the final outcome would become a lot less certain.

 

Here too he prevailed, though at great cost. Thousands burned, but thousands more sheltered in the shallows of the river, whilst their wizards raised enormous waterspouts against the foe’s dragons. Rhoynish archers brought down two of the dragons, whilst the third fled, wounded. 

1.) yes dragons can be slain by tens of thousands of archers. but here is the thing, your archers will not Retain formation against those dragons unless you got serve magic protection.

 

hence what i said was accurate, under normal circumstances armies will rout when put against a dragon.

 

 

2.) visenya  flew all the way up to Eyrie.

 

the Eyrie being about as high attitude you could conceivable make a fortress that is still functional. hence Dragons can deal with high altitudes.

[Maester of Valyria]

1.) yes dragons can be slain by tens of thousands of archers. but here is the thing, your archers will not Retain formation against those dragons unless you got serve magic protection.

 

hence what i said was accurate, under normal circumstances armies will rout when put against a dragon.

 

 

2.) visenya  flew all the way up to Eyrie.

 

the Eyrie being about as high attitude you could conceivable make a fortress that is still functional. hence Dragons can deal with high altitudes.

1. We don't know how many archers the Rhoynish had, and you're ignoring my point about Yi Ti having magic, which could be turned to the protection of ground troops. However, I do agree with the principle that dragons generally can beat large numbers of footsoldiers, although for complete destruction of the enemy soldiers of your own will be necessary.
2. A cursory glance at the world map will show you that the Bones are much higher than the Mountains of the Moon. Even though, as you rightly imply, the fortresses are in the foothills of the Bones, you would still need to fly the dragons over the Bones to get to them in the first place. Because dragons cannot fly through rock, they would need to go up and over many of the mountains. There, both they and their riders would suffer from oxygen deprivation, extreme weather (as the recent film Everest shows), and the cold (although admittedly we don't know how dragons respond to extreme low temperatures).

[DominusNovus]

Also, the Yi Ti would probably have many more archers than the Rhoynar did.

That said, I imagine the Bone mountains would be flown around rather than over.

[falcotron]

I don't mean Imperial in the sense of having an Emperor.  I mean Imperial in the sense of having an Empire.  The Valyrians ruled over a vast, multi-ethnic domain, in which it seems that only the property holders of Valyria (either the city or the peninsula) had any actual say in government.  In other words the exact same scenario as faced the Roman Republic.  And, when you have a city-state government and all its features, with factions within that have all the resources of a vast empire beyond the city-state, then you have a recipe for instability.

Where do you get the idea that the territory outside the peninsula was ruled by the imperial families? That's not how any of the Free Cities, except maybe Volantis, were ruled. The northern cities were founded by religious dissident puritans; the western cities were founded and/or conquered by independent merchants and adventurers. Only Volantis was really like an extension of the Freehold, and even Volantis was largely independent--they fought a long series of wars with the Rhoynar before calling in Valyria to win the final victory for them.

They're more like satellites or client states than imperial states. They presumably all pay lip service to the Freehold, give nice banquets to any of the 40 families who show up on vacation, and probably send a bit of tribute back every year, but they manage their own affairs. We don't know about the smaller colonies, but my guess is that most of them were ruled locally, either by a single family that moved there (as with Dragonstone) or, more often, by cults, traders, or adventurers, just like the Free Cities.

Assume that the Doom never occurred.  How far could Valyria expand before it just could not maintain its rule?

They actually don't seem very expansionist. It took them millennia to expand across western Essos. The Freehold was established over 5000 years ago, and it wasn't until 1000 years ago that they finally drove the Rhoynar, the remaining Andals, and whoever else was around off the continent. And, in the other direction, almost 5000 years after destroying the Ghiscari Empire, they only had a few colonies on the edges of the territory.

So, unless you can explain why it took them 5000 years to pull off only that amount of expansion, and why things are different in the last few centuries, it seems likely it would be another 5000 years before they even filled in the rest of Western Essos and Ghiscar, much less conquered the world.

Could they have conquered and held Westeros?

Given that Aegon did it without the rest of Valyria behind him, obviously yes.

But, more likely, it would have still been just Aegon. The same way that some unnamed adventurer conquered Myr in the name of Valyria. But, being both more powerful and more distant, he'd probably be even more independent. While he surely would have acknowledged Valyria as technically his masters (after all, he's still a member of one of the 40 families), he'd probably treat them more like a distant ally (and, at times, maybe rival) and run Westeros as his own kingdom. (This would make him even more like William I, who owed fealty to the King of France, and also recognized the Holy Roman Empire as the successor of Rome, who theoretically owned Britannia.)

There would be some minor differences. Maybe the dragons wouldn't have died out because there would have been other dragons to breed them with. The handful of wars Westeros got pulled into among the Free Cities would probably not have happened (or, if they did, would be between Valyrian colonies rather than independent countries). Maybe some of the colonies would have helped the Targaryens take Dorne. But that's about it.

Could they have conquered and held Essos to the Bone Mountains?  There weren't any major powers between them and the mountains, and Qarth was yet to reach its current zenith.  The Dothraki would be little threat to aerial raids, even if they were united.

Where do you get this from?

Qarth was yet to reach its current zenith because it was still a minor colony of Qaath, which had been a major power for millennia, and still was until after the Doom. And, north of them, there's Sarnor. Both Sarnor and Qaath had been able to hold their own against Ghiscar, which means that if Valyria wanted to take them out, presumably it would have been as large an undertaking as the Ghiscari Wars.

Could they have won? Sure; they beat Ghiscar, so I don't know why they couldn't have beaten Sarnor and Qaath. But what reason would they have to spend that much money and force? They didn't seem to want most of Ghiscar (presumably they only destroyed them because, after five wars, there was no other way to achieve the peace they wanted); why would they want the lands and people beyond them? The fact that we have 4000 years where they could have attacked them and didn't makes it seem pretty unlikely that they'd do so in the near future.

And, as for holding it... Well, they could hold it the same way they did western Essos and western Ghiscar: utterly destroy the civilizations, and then wait a few millennia for religious nuts, adventurers, or merchant companies to gradually fill the lands with client states. Or maybe they'd come up with the idea of saying, "OK, you're conquered, so keep running things your way, but you have to send us some token tribute and kiss the asses of any members of the 40 families who show up on vacation". Does either of those count as conquering and holding it to you?

Could they have conquered and held the Summer Islands?

Again, why would they bother? Some independent trade company or pirate king from Valyria might want to do so for their own enrichment or power, in which case they'd presumably become part of the Freehold in the same way that Myr or Lorath were, but again, it hasn't happened yet, so why is it likely to happen in the near future?

Could they have conquered and held beyond the Bone Mountains?  Yi Ti, Leng, and Asshai?

Imagine how much more costly it would be to send an army over the mountains than it was to send one to the Rhoyne. It's a lot easier to defend your borders if your borders are three high mountain passes and you've build big forts in the passes and even bigger ones down where they open up. Probably still doable for Valyria, but even less worth doing.

Also, given that they didn't even try to hold the upper Rhoyne, or Ghiscar, or northern Sothyros, or most of the other areas around them, there's no reason to believe they could hold an even more far-flung empire, or that they'd try. Again, if you count just destroying civilizations and then spending a few millennia recolonizing their land, or accepting token fealty, then sure, maybe they could do that.

[DominusNovus]

Where do you get the idea that the territory outside the peninsula was ruled by the imperial families? That's not how any of the Free Cities, except maybe Volantis, were ruled. The northern cities were founded by religious dissident puritans; the western cities were founded and/or conquered by independent merchants and adventurers. Only Volantis was really like an extension of the Freehold, and even Volantis was largely independent--they fought a long series of wars with the Rhoynar before calling in Valyria to win the final victory for them.

They're more like satellites or client states than imperial states. They presumably all pay lip service to the Freehold, give nice banquets to any of the 40 families who show up on vacation, and probably send a bit of tribute back every year, but they manage their own affairs. We don't know about the smaller colonies, but my guess is that most of them were ruled locally, either by a single family that moved there (as with Dragonstone) or, more often, by cults, traders, or adventurers, just like the Free Cities.

They actually don't seem very expansionist. It took them millennia to expand across western Essos. The Freehold was established over 5000 years ago, and it wasn't until 1000 years ago that they finally drove the Rhoynar, the remaining Andals, and whoever else was around off the continent. And, in the other direction, almost 5000 years after destroying the Ghiscari Empire, they only had a few colonies on the edges of the territory.

So, unless you can explain why it took them 5000 years to pull off only that amount of expansion, and why things are different in the last few centuries, it seems likely it would be another 5000 years before they even filled in the rest of Western Essos and Ghiscar, much less conquered the world.

 

I've pretty much said the same thing you're saying here, so I'm not sure where you think I'm disagreeing with you.  Clearly, the Free Cities were very autonomous, even conducting their own foreign policy to a limited extent.  When I say that the Freehold had dominion over them, its that they couldn't really go against Valyria, and we have no indication that they ever tried.  And I agree that they were quite non-expansionist for the level of power they had, and I make the exact point you do about that.  However, given how long it had been since the last time they had one of their expansionist bursts, it would not be unreasonable to think they were due for another one in the centuries after the Doom ended up happening.

 

Given that Aegon did it without the rest of Valyria behind him, obviously yes.

But, more likely, it would have still been just Aegon. The same way that some unnamed adventurer conquered Myr in the name of Valyria. But, being both more powerful and more distant, he'd probably be even more independent. While he surely would have acknowledged Valyria as technically his masters (after all, he's still a member of one of the 40 families), he'd probably treat them more like a distant ally (and, at times, maybe rival) and run Westeros as his own kingdom. (This would make him even more like William I, who owed fealty to the King of France, and also recognized the Holy Roman Empire as the successor of Rome, who theoretically owned Britannia.)

There would be some minor differences. Maybe the dragons wouldn't have died out because there would have been other dragons to breed them with. The handful of wars Westeros got pulled into among the Free Cities would probably not have happened (or, if they did, would be between Valyrian colonies rather than independent countries). Maybe some of the colonies would have helped the Targaryens take Dorne. But that's about it.

 

Well, if it was just an adventurer, then it likely wouldn't be done in one fell swoop.  Probably some Free City founded along the Blackwater, and then that grows to dominate the region, and some copycats found some other Free Cities of their own, and then the locals are subdued and assimilated.  But I have to think that Valyria would have more power projection than the King of France or Holy Roman Emperor vs the Normans.

Where do you get this from?

Qarth was yet to reach its current zenith because it was still a minor colony of Qaath, which had been a major power for millennia, and still was until after the Doom. And, north of them, there's Sarnor. Both Sarnor and Qaath had been able to hold their own against Ghiscar, which means that if Valyria wanted to take them out, presumably it would have been as large an undertaking as the Ghiscari Wars.

Could they have won? Sure; they beat Ghiscar, so I don't know why they couldn't have beaten Sarnor and Qaath. But what reason would they have to spend that much money and force? They didn't seem to want most of Ghiscar (presumably they only destroyed them because, after five wars, there was no other way to achieve the peace they wanted); why would they want the lands and people beyond them? The fact that we have 4000 years where they could have attacked them and didn't makes it seem pretty unlikely that they'd do so in the near future.

And, as for holding it... Well, they could hold it the same way they did western Essos and western Ghiscar: utterly destroy the civilizations, and then wait a few millennia for religious nuts, adventurers, or merchant companies to gradually fill the lands with client states. Or maybe they'd come up with the idea of saying, "OK, you're conquered, so keep running things your way, but you have to send us some token tribute and kiss the asses of any members of the 40 families who show up on vacation". Does either of those count as conquering and holding it to you?

 

 

The Qaathi were being pushed out of their homeland by the Sarnori, who themselves got wiped out by the Dothraki with relative ease.  Given the constant conflict between the Qaathi and the Sarnori, I don't think either would present Ghiscari-level difficulty for Valyria (not to mention that Valyria beat the Ghiscari when the Freehold was younger and weaker).

 

As for the firmness of rule over the region, we have plenty of examples of the Valyrians being pretty relaxed when it came to direct control, so I think paying tribute and respect to the families would satisfy the Valyrians.

Again, why would they bother? Some independent trade company or pirate king from Valyria might want to do so for their own enrichment or power, in which case they'd presumably become part of the Freehold in the same way that Myr or Lorath were, but again, it hasn't happened yet, so why is it likely to happen in the near future?

Imagine how much more costly it would be to send an army over the mountains than it was to send one to the Rhoyne. It's a lot easier to defend your borders if your borders are three high mountain passes and you've build big forts in the passes and even bigger ones down where they open up. Probably still doable for Valyria, but even less worth doing.

Also, given that they didn't even try to hold the upper Rhoyne, or Ghiscar, or northern Sothyros, or most of the other areas around them, there's no reason to believe they could hold an even more far-flung empire, or that they'd try. Again, if you count just destroying civilizations and then spending a few millennia recolonizing their land, or accepting token fealty, then sure, maybe they could do that.

 

 

Agreed with your points about the Bone Mountains in general.  However, I do disagree with your assessment of the ability to hold the territory.  Valyria seemed to have no trouble whatsoever in holding territory, and the glass candles are almost certainly a large part of that.

[falcotron]

I've pretty much said the same thing you're saying here, so I'm not sure where you think I'm disagreeing with you.

What you said is:

I mean Imperial in the sense of having an Empire. The Valyrians ruled over a vast, multi-ethnic domain, in which it seems that only the property holders of Valyria (either the city or the peninsula) had any actual say in government

I disagree with that very strongly. The Valyrians didn't rule over a vast, multi-ethnic domain in which only Valyrian property holders had a say in government; they ruled over a small, single-ethnic republic in which only the property holders of Valyria had a say in government. They also had a vast, multi-ethnic patchwork of client states, but they didn't rule them. There's no evidence of even the kind of central bureaucracy of early classical empires (Achaemenid, Gupta, Han, etc.), much less a Roman-like universal military mandate. They're only an empire in the figurative sense that people use when referring to America, Sony, or Rupert Murdoch.

And I agree that they were quite non-expansionist for the level of power they had, and I make the exact point you do about that.  However, given how long it had been since the last time they had one of their expansionist bursts, it would not be unreasonable to think they were due for another one in the centuries after the Doom ended up happening.

Why? Even assuming their expansion goes in bursts, the only bursts we know about are about 5000 years ago and about 1000 years ago, which means the next burst is due in about 3000 years.

But I think it's more likely that their expansion was gradual, and there were no big bursts of expansion. Even the two huge climactic wars we know about, against Ghis and against the Rhoynar, didn't coincide with any rapid expansion--it took 600 years to expand as far up the Rhoyne as Selhorys.

Well, if it was just an adventurer, then it likely wouldn't be done in one fell swoop.

Why not? Again, we saw that Aegon did it in one fell swoop with nothing behind him; why would it be harder or less likely if he (at least technically) had Valyria behind him?

But I have to think that Valyria would have more power projection than the King of France or Holy Roman Emperor vs the Normans.

Based on what? Valyria didn't seem to have more power projection over Myr than Norway or France did over Normandy and Flanders; why would they have more power projection over Westeros than France did over England?

The Qaathi were being pushed out of their homeland by the Sarnori, who themselves got wiped out by the Dothraki with relative ease.

The Qaathi were pushed out gradually over the course of 5000 years where they lost the majority of the wars. They were clearly in the same league as Sarnor or they would have lost all of the wars and been defeated in a generation. The reason they fell apart wasn't a crushing defeat by their enemies, but their lands turning to desert. Either that happened because of the Doom, in which case it wouldn't happen in your scenario, or it was happening naturally, in which case their lands are uninhabitable, and nobody was able to hold a useless foreign desert until the 18th century or so in our world.

As for the Sarnori, they only got wiped out by the Dothraki because they invited the Dothraki into their civil war. It's unlikely they'd do the same with an expansionist Valyria. Meanwhile, we're told that they were Ghis's chief rival before Valyria, with a history of thousands of years in back and forth fighting, which implies that they're in the same ballpark as far as power goes.

Given the constant conflict between the Qaathi and the Sarnori, I don't think either would present Ghiscari-level difficulty for Valyria (not to mention that Valyria beat the Ghiscari when the Freehold was younger and weaker).

Yes, Valyria beat Ghis, over five costly wars. So, as I said, they could also beat Sarnor and Qaath in a series of costly wars. Maybe not even as costly (although I'm not sure why you assume that Valyria progressed over 5000 years but everyone else didn't). But it would still be costly, and for no benefit. Again, the reason the Valyrians fought Ghiscar was not to conquer their territory, but because Ghiscar kept attacking them--and, even after winning, they didn't take over that territory, but allowed the remnants of the Ghiscari civilization to rebuild as smaller independent powers.

As for the firmness of rule over the region, we have plenty of examples of the Valyrians being pretty relaxed when it came to direct control, so I think paying tribute and respect to the families would satisfy the Valyrians.

Yes, and that's exactly my point: They weren't an empire in any meaningful sense, and therefore they couldn't expand their empire.

Put it another way: if all they're after is for Hyrkoon to not attack them and to treat them nicely when they come for a visit, they've already got that without having to invade Hyrkoon. Why waste hundreds of thousands of men, dozens of dragons, and tons of food/money/etc. fighting unless you actually plan to use the land, resources, or power?¹
 

Agreed with your points about the Bone Mountains in general.  However, I do disagree with your assessment of the ability to hold the territory.  Valyria seemed to have no trouble whatsoever in holding territory, and the glass candles are almost certainly a large part of that.

It's pretty easy to "hold territory" if you're not actually ruling people, taking the resources, etc.; no glass candles are necessary. But it's not really your territory, either. The Freehold wasn't trying to maximize their points in some grand strategy computer game.

¹ Obviously there are other reasons to fight, from religious disputes to ending border raids to worrying that someone else will conquer them and threaten you. But none of those reasons seem to apply to a war between Valyria and Hyrkoon or Leng either.

[DominusNovus]

What you said is:
I disagree with that very strongly. The Valyrians didn't rule over a vast, multi-ethnic domain in which only Valyrian property holders had a say in government; they ruled over a small, single-ethnic republic in which only the property holders of Valyria had a say in government. They also had a vast, multi-ethnic patchwork of client states, but they didn't rule them. There's no evidence of even the kind of central bureaucracy of early classical empires (Achaemenid, Gupta, Han, etc.), much less a Roman-like universal military mandate. They're only an empire in the figurative sense that people use when referring to America, Sony, or Rupert Murdoch.

Why? Even assuming their expansion goes in bursts, the only bursts we know about are about 5000 years ago and about 1000 years ago, which means the next burst is due in about 3000 years.

But I think it's more likely that their expansion was gradual, and there were no big bursts of expansion. Even the two huge climactic wars we know about, against Ghis and against the Rhoynar, didn't coincide with any rapid expansion--it took 600 years to expand as far up the Rhoyne as Selhorys.

Why not? Again, we saw that Aegon did it in one fell swoop with nothing behind him; why would it be harder or less likely if he (at least technically) had Valyria behind him?

Based on what? Valyria didn't seem to have more power projection over Myr than Norway or France did over Normandy and Flanders; why would they have more power projection over Westeros than France did over England?

The Qaathi were pushed out gradually over the course of 5000 years where they lost the majority of the wars. They were clearly in the same league as Sarnor or they would have lost all of the wars and been defeated in a generation. The reason they fell apart wasn't a crushing defeat by their enemies, but their lands turning to desert. Either that happened because of the Doom, in which case it wouldn't happen in your scenario, or it was happening naturally, in which case their lands are uninhabitable, and nobody was able to hold a useless foreign desert until the 18th century or so in our world.

As for the Sarnori, they only got wiped out by the Dothraki because they invited the Dothraki into their civil war. It's unlikely they'd do the same with an expansionist Valyria. Meanwhile, we're told that they were Ghis's chief rival before Valyria, with a history of thousands of years in back and forth fighting, which implies that they're in the same ballpark as far as power goes.

Yes, Valyria beat Ghis, over five costly wars. So, as I said, they could also beat Sarnor and Qaath in a series of costly wars. Maybe not even as costly (although I'm not sure why you assume that Valyria progressed over 5000 years but everyone else didn't). But it would still be costly, and for no benefit. Again, the reason the Valyrians fought Ghiscar was not to conquer their territory, but because Ghiscar kept attacking them--and, even after winning, they didn't take over that territory, but allowed the remnants of the Ghiscari civilization to rebuild as smaller independent powers.

Yes, and that's exactly my point: They weren't an empire in any meaningful sense, and therefore they couldn't expand their empire.

Put it another way: if all they're after is for Hyrkoon to not attack them and to treat them nicely when they come for a visit, they've already got that without having to invade Hyrkoon. Why waste hundreds of thousands of men, dozens of dragons, and tons of food/money/etc. fighting unless you actually plan to use the land, resources, or power?¹
 
It's pretty easy to "hold territory" if you're not actually ruling people, taking the resources, etc.; no glass candles are necessary. But it's not really your territory, either. The Freehold wasn't trying to maximize their points in some grand strategy computer game.

¹ Obviously there are other reasons to fight, from religious disputes to ending border raids to worrying that someone else will conquer them and threaten you. But none of those reasons seem to apply to a war between Valyria and Hyrkoon or Leng either.

 

- I disagree with the idea that client states don't count as part of an Empire (again, using it to mean territory, not government form).  Looking at history, we see that much of what we consider part of the Roman Republic's Empire (ie, its territories outside of Italy) were client states that simply paid tribute to Rome.  Hell, if we're going to say that because Valyria did not appoint governors and control local policy, those areas weren't part of its Empire, than most of Italy was not part of Rome's Empire during most of the Republic.  The various cities were just allies of Rome's with troop commitments.  They have virtually no other obligations to Rome.

 

- If Valyria's expansion is gradual, then they could *gradually* expand into Westeros.  I don't think Aegon would conquer the entirety of Westeros as he did historically, because he would have a more 'Valyrian' outlook on the matter.  We just spent all this time talking about how Valyria is not expansionist, so that would weigh on him.  As would the politics of it.  One Dragonlord controlling the wealth of an entire continent would destabilize things drastically.  If he goes full Aegon the Conqueror as the canon knows him, then other Dragonlords are going to have to do the same thing to maintain the balance of the Freehold.

 

- Valyria would have more power projection over its outlying territories than medieval France had over Normandy because

 * Medieval France was one of the poster children for decentralized feudalism with impotent rulers (and the Holy Roman Empire is the the other one).

 * Medieval France did not have dragons (IIRC, neither did the Holy Roman Empire).

 * Medieval France did not have long range instant telecommunications.

 

- It doesn't matter that the Qaathi are in the same league as the Sarnori.  Or, at least, its not a bad thing for Valyria.  If the Freehold wanted to expand in that direction, they just establish settlements in both regions, and, if either gives them any trouble, ally with the other.  Or, if they want to push the issue, ally with whichever power looks weaker at the time.  In either scenario, you just keep playing them off each other.  Given that the Sarnori never unified even in the face of the Dothraki wiping them out, its unlikely the Sarnori and Qaathi will put aside their grievances against each other to fight the Freehold together.  Even if you assume that each power was on the same level as Old Ghis, Old Ghis was not in a millennia-long struggle with another power at the same time they were fighting the Freehold.

 

- I don't think that Valyria was the only power to progress.  But:

 * we know that the Qaathi were being pushed southward, which is not a hallmark of a growing society.

 * dragons.  Unless we posit that other powers had dragons or comparable magic (that we have yet to hear about), then Valyria holds the upper hand no matter what the economy and manpower of any given foe is.

[falcotron]

- I disagree with the idea that client states don't count as part of an Empire (again, using it to mean territory, not government form).  Looking at history, we see that much of what we consider part of the Roman Republic's Empire (ie, its territories outside of Italy) were client states that simply paid tribute to Rome.  Hell, if we're going to say that because Valyria did not appoint governors and control local policy, those areas weren't part of its Empire, than most of Italy was not part of Rome's Empire during most of the Republic.  The various cities were just allies of Rome's with troop commitments.  They have virtually no other obligations to Rome.

If you're trying to argue that Valyria was like early-republic era Rome, before the idea of the Imperium Romanum, then yes, it was-and that's why, unlike late-republic (and Augustan) Rome, it isn't an empire.

The foundational idea of the Imperium Romanum was the two mandates: war, meaning Rome maintains an army drawn from around the empire and has the sole authority to make war, and law, meaning Rome has the authority to create and execute laws for the entire empire. And the mandates grew out of praetors having complete military and administrative authority (in particular, over coercion) over any local leadership; Valyria doesn't seem to have that. There was a huge and clear difference between, say, Attalid Pergamon, which only had an obligation to join Rome in any wars within Greece, and post-bequest Pergamon, which was actually under Roman law. And the Free Cities are clearly like the former, not the latter.

You can even see the same distinction in earlier empires--e.g., states that were part of the Achaemenid Empire were those ruled by a satrap subject to the central bureaucracy, and whose military was part of the Persian army. Again, this is clearly not the case for the Free Cities--even Volantis, the closest of them, had its own laws, government, and army, and waged its own wars, only calling on Valyria for help once.

- If Valyria's expansion is gradual, then they could *gradually* expand into Westeros. I don't think Aegon would conquer the entirety of Westeros as he did historically, because he would have a more 'Valyrian' outlook on the matter.  We just spent all this time talking about how Valyria is not expansionist, so that would weigh on him.  As would the politics of it.  One Dragonlord controlling the wealth of an entire continent would destabilize things drastically.  If he goes full Aegon the Conqueror as the canon knows him, then other Dragonlords are going to have to do the same thing to maintain the balance of the Freehold.

Sure, it's not impossible that they could have gradually expanded into Westeros, but not impossible is not the same thing as likely.

And what makes you think the other Dragonlords would do anything to stop Aegon? Nobody in our world tried to stop Ivar the Boneless from conquering England, or the Teutonic Knights from conquering eastern Europe, or Duke Godfrey from taking the Kingdom of Jerusalem, etc., despite the imbalances in power they created in Denmark, the HRE, and France. Of course the reasons are different in each case, but the point is that that there are many cases like them, and very few cases where some conquering adventurer was restrained for fear of a power imbalance. And we don't have any reason to believe that Valyria was different from every pre-modern historical country. Those kinds of considerations belong to the 18th century, not to the classical or medieval era.

- Valyria would have more power projection over its outlying territories than medieval France had over Normandy because
 * Medieval France was one of the poster children for decentralized feudalism with impotent rulers (and the Holy Roman Empire is the the other one).

And you think Valyria was more centralized? France may have had problems enforcing its laws at the outer reaches of the kingdom, or getting its dukes to fully support its wars, etc., but at least they had those laws; Burgundy and Aquitaine weren't following their own completely different system of government with full local authority.

* Medieval France did not have dragons (IIRC, neither did the Holy Roman Empire).

Which means that Valyria doesn't need to rule other territories--which is probably a good part of the reason they don't try to. When they decided to help Volantis fight the Rhoynar, they didn't call on the armies of Myr, Lys, Tyrosh, Pentos, and Dragonstone; they just sent scores of dragons and won the war.

* Medieval France did not have long range instant telecommunications.

But what did Valyria do with that instant telecommunication? There's no evidence that they used it to coordinate a central bureaucracy, or any form of direct imperial rule.

Just because you have the technology to theoretically create a new social order doesn't mean you automatically do so. After all, there are plenty of people who had the same kind of road-building technology as the Romans and the Mongols without building the same kind of trade networks they did.

- It doesn't matter that the Qaathi are in the same league as the Sarnori.  Or, at least, its not a bad thing for Valyria.  If the Freehold wanted to expand in that direction, they just establish settlements in both regions, and, if either gives them any trouble, ally with the other.  Or, if they want to push the issue, ally with whichever power looks weaker at the time.  In either scenario, you just keep playing them off each other.  Given that the Sarnori never unified even in the face of the Dothraki wiping them out, its unlikely the Sarnori and Qaathi will put aside their grievances against each other to fight the Freehold together.  Even if you assume that each power was on the same level as Old Ghis, Old Ghis was not in a millennia-long struggle with another power at the same time they were fighting the Freehold.

Once again, as I said, they could definitely beat them. But that's not the same as it being easy, cheap, or quick to do so. There would be large costs, and if those costs outweigh the benefits, it's not going to happen.

- I don't think that Valyria was the only power to progress.  But:
 * we know that the Qaathi were being pushed southward, which is not a hallmark of a growing society.

By that token, the fact that they were being pushed southward by Sarnor means that Sarnor is a growing society, so that's not a very good argument.

* dragons.  Unless we posit that other powers had dragons or comparable magic (that we have yet to hear about), then Valyria holds the upper hand no matter what the economy and manpower of any given foe is.

Which means that your notion of Valyrian progress is both wrong and irrelevant. Your argument was that it would be easier for Valyria to beat Sarnor now than it was for Valyria to defeat Ghis, because Valyria has progressed over the intervening 5000 years. But they're not any more powerful. Valyria defeated Ghis because they had a monopoly on nigh-unstoppable dragons. Thousands of years later, they defeated the Rhoynar in exactly the same way. And if they fought Sarnor, it would be the same. What progress do you see from having an unstoppable air force to having the exact same unstoppable air force?

[Caspoi]

Maester of Valyria@ they still have enough wealth of their own, and I still hold that dragons are a trumps-everything-card, especially if you have them in large numbers. The Rhoynar, who had magic of great use when combating dragons, and who where a great Power of their own right, with some of the best steel and such were absolutely annialated by the Freehold.

[Liz Stark-Targaryen]

Wasn't there a theory going around that the Valyrians couldn't conquer Westeros because of the presence of wargs/skinchangers/greenseers who could mess with their dragons' minds? Or was that just determined to be crackpot?

 

We don't have the full history of Valyria, there may have been many inter family conflicts.  Given how disastrous it is for the family though, they probably learned that any 2 families that fought would wind up at the bottom of the 40 families when all their dragons were dead.  So they switched to assassinations.

 

Agreed. The political structure of Valyria was completely different than the feudal Westeros. Seems much more analogous to the Roman Republic.

[Caspoi]

Liz Stark-Targaryen@ I don't know about anyone else but I consider that crackpot, skinchanging has not been truly weaponised since the age of heroes and there are no documented cases of them ever having skinchanged into a dragon.

[DominusNovus]

To the point about skinchanging and other general magical concerns: We know there is a correlation between *when* dragons exist and the power of magic in the world.  Has there been any demonstration of a correlation between *where* they exist and magical power?  Does magic all around Planetos grow at the same rate, or does proximity to dragons (or Others or anything inherently magical) matter?

 

If location does matter, then we could see some concerns in Westeros, at least in the North.

[The silver dragon]

Wasn't there a theory going around that the Valyrians couldn't conquer Westeros because of the presence of wargs/skinchangers/greenseers who could mess with their dragons' minds? Or was that just determined to be crackpot?

 

 

Agreed. The political structure of Valyria was completely different than the feudal Westeros. Seems much more analogous to the Roman Republic.

 

By the time Valyria was formed, the first men had already landed and killed off most the green-seers. by the time Valyria had expanded over western essos,Westeros green seeing and warging was lost south of the wall.

 

there info about Westeros had to have been horribly outdated if that was their problem.

[TimJames]

By the time Valyria was formed, the first men had already landed and killed off most the green-seers. by the time Valyria had expanded over western essos,Westeros green seeing and warging was lost south of the wall.
 
there info about Westeros had to have been horribly outdated if that was their problem.

Gotta agree with Longjon Silver on this: Westeros was a fruit ripe for the conquering. If the Valyrians conquered the place before the Doom, their civilization might have survived.

[falcotron]

Gotta agree with Longjon Silver on this: Westeros was a fruit ripe for the conquering. If the Valyrians conquered the place before the Doom, their civilization might have survived.

Why do you think a Westeros conquered by Valyria would count more as a survival of Valyrian civilization? Would you expect it to be more Valyrian in culture than Volantis? Or even Myr or Pentos? Or, for that matter, the Westeros conquered by a single Valyrian family that we see in the story?

[Lord Varys]

Only the Nine Free Cities were independent colonies, the other cities founded by the Valyrians were ruled by archons appointed by the Freehold.

 

Valyria had no interest to conquer the whole world. If they could smash the Rhoynar, they could have smashed anyone in the field, but I very much doubt they had the numbers to hold vast portions of lands like Yi Ti or Sothoryos.