What if Aegon didn't conquer Westeros?

[Dorian Martell's son]

The castle? Sure. The Hoare’s riverlands empire? Not so much. Harrenhal is a vanity project and is economically unsustainable on its own. 

It is only unsustainable as the seat of a lordship. As the seat of a kingdom, it is no less viable that a shithole like king's landing 

[falcotron]

1 hour ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

It is only unsustainable as the seat of a lordship. As the seat of a kingdom, it is no less viable that a shithole like king's landing 

There's a huge difference between a city and a castle. And there's a reason kingdoms are mostly seated in palaces or small castles in or just outside London, Aachen, Paris, Stockholm, etc.—or Oldtown, for that matter—rather than giant castles surrounded by farmland.

It's a little strange that Aegon and his sisters managed to turn a fishing village into a huge city in only 9 years, but, given that it was somehow possible, King's Landing is a perfectly sensible place for the seat of royal power. A primate city tends to attract exactly the kinds of people you need to administer a kingdom.

[Dorian Martell's son]

18 minutes ago, falcotron said:

There's a huge difference between a city and a castle.

No.Freaking.Way.Dude

18 minutes ago, falcotron said:

And there's a reason kingdoms are mostly seated in palaces or small castles in or just outside London, Aachen, Paris, Stockholm, etc.—or Oldtown, for that matter—rather than giant castles surrounded by farmland.

Yes, this is true,  because towns and eventually cities spring up around seats of power like castles, not the other way around. Besides, it is a fantasy novel with ice demons, not-eleves, shadow baby assassins and dragons. It also covers below \/

18 minutes ago, falcotron said:

It's a little strange that Aegon and his sisters managed to turn a fishing village into a huge city in only 9 years, but, given that it was somehow possible, King's Landing is a perfectly sensible place for the seat of royal power. A primate city tends to attract exactly the kinds of people you need to administer a kingdom.

[falcotron]

1 hour ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

No.Freaking.Way.Dude

Yes, this is true,  because towns and eventually cities spring up around seats of power like castles, not the other way around. Besides, it is a fantasy novel with ice demons, not-eleves, shadow baby assassins and dragons. It also covers below \/

Great cities don't automatically spring up around castles.

Look at England. London didn't become a great city because there was a big castle there with a king in it; Edward the Confessor moved the court from Winchester to London because London had already become the greatest city in England. It had been growing ever since Alfred the Great settled the border with the Danelaw, and there'd been very little state power there in the intervening time; it was just a great location for a city.

Or France. Clovis put the Frankish capital in Paris because it was a rapidly growing city near the border, because, again, it was a great location for a city. It wasn't until more than 3 centuries later that his successors started building any serious fortifications there.

King's Landing sprung up because Aegon had a vision to make it a great trading city. We're not told exactly what he did to make that happen, but it wasn't just sitting in his fort and hoping people move nearby.

[DominusNovus]

2 hours ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

No.Freaking.Way.Dude

Yes, a city is vastly different than a castle for so many reasons that it beggers belief that they need to be listed. A city is almost invariably built for an economic reason, while a castle is almost invariably built for a strategic reason.

I’m sure someone could come up with a scenario in which Harrenhal is not a massive money pit, but it certainly would require a massive divergence from the canonical Harrenhal. 

[mankytoes]

On 25/09/2017 at 5:51 PM, ChuckPunch said:

Some other descendant Targ would get the bright idea that dragons can OHKO an army and conquer everything in his stead. We'd have Aenys the Conqueror or Maegor the Conqueror.

For sure- but considering their history, it seems more likely they'd go to Essos, not Westeros. That's where Valyria is, that's where the Empire was, and that's where people are used to being ruled by dragonlords. And that would be the interesting alternative history to me- what territory would they seek, would they keep expanding, or just carve out a smaller kingdom and consolidate? Would it even be a kingdom, or another freedhold? Would they take on the Dothraki?

[falcotron]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

For sure- but considering their history, it seems more likely they'd go to Essos, not Westeros. That's where Valyria is, that's where the Empire was, and that's where people are used to being ruled by dragonlords. And that would be the interesting alternative history to me- what territory would they seek, would they keep expanding, or just carve out a smaller kingdom and consolidate? Would it even be a kingdom, or another freedhold? Would they take on the Dothraki?

Well, there's a whole lot we don't know, which makes it pretty hard to come up with a serious alternate history. Even ignoring the political situations we know almost nothing about:

Why did Aegon have only three dragons, while his descendants managed to raise so many more despite doing most of that breeding on Dragonstone? Would they have been able to do the same if they'd conquered the Three Sisters instead of Westeros? Most of the Targaryens seem to be anti-slavery, but then they grew up in King's Landing; would any of them (pre-Dany) have been abolitionists if they grew up in Tyrosh? And so on.

The only thing I think we can guess is that the obvious first targets are the Three Sisters and the Disputed Lands. Plus maybe the Stepstones—put that together with control of the Blackwater and it's as close as you get to owning Gibraltar in this world.

Beyond that, it partly depends on who allies against you, partly on whether you move your capital to Essos, and partly on how long you wait after consolidating before expanding. But ultimately, I think Volantis is the hardest target, while the two inland Free Cities are pretty hard to even march an army to from the coasts, so I might look to Westeros even if I had inherited a Narrow Sea empire. What would the Arryns and Durrandons say about partitioning the Riverlands, giving me most of the east coast and the lower Blackwater Rush while they take everything else? Or join the Hoares and the Gardeners and divide up the Stormlands? That sounds easier than taking on Volantis or Braavos.

As for taking on the Dothraki, I wouldn't do it unless I controlled at least Volantis first. Once the Dothraki are tamed, the interior of western Essos, and possibly most of central Essos, is now probably opened up for resettlement, and Volantis, Norvos and Qohor, Ib, and Qarth would have a huge head start on that, making them harder to compete with later.

Although, if I'd already abolished slavery for some reason, devastating the slave trade might be a good enough reason to take out the Dothraki. Then Volantis probably gets a lot easier to crack.

[TMIFairy]

3 hours ago, falcotron said:

Why did Aegon have only three dragons, while his descendants managed to raise so many more despite doing most of that breeding on Dragonstone?

"Helpful" guesses:

- he only had three dragonriders

- he only had three dragonriders he could trust

- he only had three adult (combat capable size) dragons

[cpg2016]

22 hours ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

It is only unsustainable as the seat of a lordship. As the seat of a kingdom, it is no less viable that a shithole like king's landing 

The point is that it's unsustainable on it's own.  The Hoares cannot survive holed up in Harrenhal if the rest of the Riverlands revolt.  Yes, they can resist a siege for a few years, maybe, but not a decade or something ridiculous like that.  Plus, it's construction has already made the castle a "thin place" so I'm sure it would destroy Harren's line eventually.

But more to the point, I think if Aegon never conquers the Seven Kingdoms, you see the same thing that existed for the previous few thousand years; a total crab-bucket Great Game in which no one wins and everyone is on top at some point, and the bottom later.  The Stormlands probably see a period of real weakness for a few centuries before re-emerging.  Maybe, maybe the Reach gradually aggregates more power to itself, but it's hard to argue against history.

[Dorian Martell's son]

33 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

The point is that it's unsustainable on it's own.  The Hoares cannot survive holed up in Harrenhal if the rest of the Riverlands revolt.  Yes, they can resist a siege for a few years, maybe, but not a decade or something ridiculous like that.  Plus, it's construction has already made the castle a "thin place" so I'm sure it would destroy Harren's line eventually.

But more to the point, I think if Aegon never conquers the Seven Kingdoms, you see the same thing that existed for the previous few thousand years; a total crab-bucket Great Game in which no one wins and everyone is on top at some point, and the bottom later.  The Stormlands probably see a period of real weakness for a few centuries before re-emerging.  Maybe, maybe the Reach gradually aggregates more power to itself, but it's hard to argue against history.

but it wasn't unsustainable. It was awesome until dragon's came along 

[cpg2016]

38 minutes ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

but it wasn't unsustainable. It was awesome until dragon's came along 

It wasn't, at all.  The whole point of Aegon's conquest of the Riverlands is that the Hoares were universally hated and were going down anyway; that is why Martin has both the Blackwoods AND the Brackens declare for the Targs so early - every instance of Riverland history has the Brackens and Blackwoods on opposite sides, near enough - the only reason the Hoares conquer the Riverlands is because the Brackens invite them in to depose the more pro-Blackwood Storm Kings (and the only reason they intervene is to support said Blackwoods).  Any time they act in unison, it's meant to reflect a strong general sentiment among the Riverlanders.

[Dorian Martell's son]

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

It wasn't, at all.  The whole point of Aegon's conquest of the Riverlands is that the Hoares were universally hated and were going down anyway; that is why Martin has both the Blackwoods AND the Brackens declare for the Targs so early - every instance of Riverland history has the Brackens and Blackwoods on opposite sides, near enough - the only reason the Hoares conquer the Riverlands is because the Brackens invite them in to depose the more pro-Blackwood Storm Kings (and the only reason they intervene is to support said Blackwoods).  Any time they act in unison, it's meant to reflect a strong general sentiment among the Riverlanders.

why do you assume they were going down? They had just finished a castle that could survive any siege. They had secured the riverlands, fought off the storm king and were waiting to expand their kingdom. Again, the only reason why anyone "declared" early is that word spread of one man on a dragon taking a castle in a single night.  Houses do not last long when they pick the losing side. all the river houses chose wisely  

[falcotron]

13 hours ago, TMIFairy said:

"Helpful" guesses:

- he only had three dragonriders

- he only had three dragonriders he could trust

- he only had three adult (combat capable size) dragons

Sure, but the question is, would, say, Viserys I still have had more dragons than he knew what to do with, as he did historically, or would he have still only had around 3 usable dragons if his ancestors hadn't conquered Westeros? If we can't answer that question, that casts a lot of doubt on any theorizing about what he could or couldn't have accomplished as Viserys the Conqueror.

[TMIFairy]

8 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Sure, but the question is, would, say, Viserys I still have had more dragons than he knew what to do with, as he did historically, or would he have still only had around 3 usable dragons if his ancestors hadn't conquered Westeros? If we can't answer that question, that casts a lot of doubt on any theorizing about what he could or couldn't have accomplished as Viserys the Conqueror.

Oh, OK - I focused on the first part of the question.

As to the 2nd - I see no reasons for the Targs NOT to have more dragons 100 years later. They can't eat THAT much as to make it impossible for Targs - holding only three small islands - to support several dozen dragons?

[BalerionTheCat]

Same as the 7700 years before. The Targaryens are a drop in Westeros history. But they would still have their dragons, probably. There would have been some marriages between Targaryens  and Westeros. Maybe one young Stark maid would have fled with the married son of the Dragonstone's lord.

[TMIFairy]

46 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Maybe one young Stark maid would have fled with the married son of the Dragonstone's lord.

Abducted.

 

[cpg2016]

1 hour ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

why do you assume they were going down? They had just finished a castle that could survive any siege. They had secured the riverlands, fought off the storm king and were waiting to expand their kingdom. Again, the only reason why anyone "declared" early is that word spread of one man on a dragon taking a castle in a single night.  Houses do not last long when they pick the losing side. all the river houses chose wisely  

Because the hallmarks of every single failed kingdom were evident in their regime?  They lost a ton of men assaulting the Bloody Gate.  Then they created so much ill will in their creation of Harrenhal that the entire region, notoriously fractious, was willing to rise up to overthrow them.  The crab bucket nature of the Great Game also dictated that anyone getting too powerful or aggressive was due for a smackdown, which describes the Hoare dynasty to a tee as they started pushing back at the Stormlands.

And whether a castle can withstand a siege is immaterial, in this case, because the ironborn don't have the loyalty of the Riverlanders in any case.  Sieges are universally more expensive for the besieger than the besieged, because the castle is a massive defensive multiplier.  But in this instance, the ironborn won't actually control anything outside Harrenhal; they will effectively be under continual siege despite not having an army outside the gates, because they don't actually the numbers to fight a united Riverlands.  Again, they only succeeded in the first place because the Brackens invited them in!  And they ruled for the next century by a constant campaign of rapine and pillage, which we see in Harren's case, ends up causing the universal hatred of the Riverlands.  The question isn't if the Hoares would be driven out, but when.

[falcotron]

21 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Because the hallmarks of every single failed kingdom were evident in their regime?

Agreed. But I think the even bigger problem for the Hoares is that they just weren't getting most the benefits of owning the Riverlands. Namely:

1. If you encourage and protect trade, this can make you rich. But if you instead become an even bigger drain on it than the bandits, all you get is the same short-term profits you would have gotten as an outside raider.
2. A large population with fertile lands can sustain lots of troops if you can keep them happy. But if you can't keep them happy, they instead only sustain rebels you have to fight.

The Riverlands are very expensive to hold. If you're paying that cost, and not getting the benefits that go with it, that's not a good trajectory to be on

As DominusNovus suggested earlier, the only way they could have survived and prospered long-term is if they abandoned their old ways and started to think like River Kings. That's not impossible (if the Red Kraken can have Quellon as a descendent, there's no reason Harren can't have someone similar, right?), but it's not like the Riverlands are England or China or Ankh-Morpork where this is such an obviously compelling path that almost anyone will eventually get there no matter what their intentions. So I think your outcome is more likely.

[Dorian Martell's son]

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Because the hallmarks of every single failed kingdom were evident in their regime?  They lost a ton of men assaulting the Bloody Gate.  Then they created so much ill will in their creation of Harrenhal that the entire region, notoriously fractious, was willing to rise up to overthrow them.  The crab bucket nature of the Great Game also dictated that anyone getting too powerful or aggressive was due for a smackdown, which describes the Hoare dynasty to a tee as they started pushing back at the Stormlands.

And whether a castle can withstand a siege is immaterial, in this case, because the ironborn don't have the loyalty of the Riverlanders in any case.  Sieges are universally more expensive for the besieger than the besieged, because the castle is a massive defensive multiplier.  But in this instance, the ironborn won't actually control anything outside Harrenhal; they will effectively be under continual siege despite not having an army outside the gates, because they don't actually the numbers to fight a united Riverlands.  Again, they only succeeded in the first place because the Brackens invited them in!  And they ruled for the next century by a constant campaign of rapine and pillage, which we see in Harren's case, ends up causing the universal hatred of the Riverlands.  The question isn't if the Hoares would be driven out, but when.

I know, no line lasts forever, but if the Hoares were so weak and about to fall, why did it take a dragon to inspire the riverlords to revolt? 

[SorcererOfAsshai]

Sooner or later the Free Cities would make their apperance. Perhaps the Bravoosi Iron Bank would see the financial profit from turning an expedition West against seven unstable, seperated fragile kingdoms & would make deals with mercenary groups to conquer lands.  

Tyrosh, Lys, Myr & even Volantis would have much to earn from tearing pieces of Westeros apart. The Stormlands, our fresh Crownlands would be in much danger. The two kingdoms who most likely would remain intact from invaders would have been the Vale of the Arryn & Dorne. Also we shouldnt exclude the possibility that one or two of those seven kingdoms could grow stronger & absord regions to their dominion so Westeros could become a 2 or 3 kingdoms business.