Bernie Mac Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 10 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: As evidenced by Field of Fire comment, this is also not the case. The armies became dramatically larger as a consequence of Aegon's megalomania. No, where is the evidence of that? Which armies did Aegon raise that was larger than the field of fire? 10 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: We have no idea about the size of standing armies before or after the Conquest, so there is no reason to assume their reduction. independent nations need larger armies to guard their borders than united realms, this is just a simple fact. 10 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: No. lol what do you mean 'no', of course it is. 10 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: As evidenced by the quotes you so helpfully colored red come on, if you don't like the evidence then prove it is wrong, don't just ignore it because you don't like it. 10 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: in modern Westeros army size is not a result of growth of population or productivity. it is not? Do you have any evidence for this? 10 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: Medieval Europe was far from peaceful place, yet it somehow managed to avoid pan-continental warfare. but did feature constant conflict. better to have one larger war that last a year than multiple wars that last years with no resolution. 10 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: What happened regularly in "united" Westeros never happened in Medieval Europe. Aegon's united Westeros with its "sustained peace" dragged Middle Ages continent into Early Modern warfare. Repeatedly. "And so, year by year, the Watch has dwindled. Their own records prove that this decline has been in progress even before the age of Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters." - WoIaF. There was 10,000 members when Aegon conquered the realm. It is now down to fewer than 1,000. The decline under the Targaryens has been drastic "They kept their pledge. When Aegon slew Black Harren and claimed his kingdom, Harren's brother was Lord Commander on the Wall, with ten thousand swords to hand. He did not march. In the days when the Seven Kingdoms were seven kingdoms, not a generation passed that three or four of them were not at war. The Watch took no part." 10 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: A loss of purpose and prestige meant smaller nights watch - an this is indeed no coincidence. Good Maester complains that even modern Watch is too much for the realm to bear. It had 10,000 men only 300 years ago and its purpose was exactly the same. That is an accelerated drop under the Targs, peace has had a huge impact on their recruitment 10 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: Well, we have army sizes shooting up dramatically without any evidence of corresponding population growth. Daeron I alone loses almost as much people in Dorne as the biggest host before conquest. The increase in army sizes would be the evidence of population growth. 10 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: We have wars that expanded dramatically in their scope - a war involving four Kingdoms would be unthinkable throughout 2000 (6000, 8000) years before Targaryens. There have been conflicts pre Targaryens far more bloody that that. The wars between the Ironborn and the Westerlands were frequent and one such war lasted 5 years and devastated the Iron Islands, the thousand year war between the Vale and the North and the frequent wars between Dorne, the Stormlands and the Reach. 10 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: We have a major city sacked three times as a big thing during the millennia before conquest Only three times? Do you have a citation for that? Thrice in the space of a single century the city was taken and sacked, once by the Dornish king Samwell Dayne (the Starfire), once by Qhored the Cruel and his ironmen, and once by Gyles I Gardener (the Woe), who reportedly sold three-quarters of the city's inhabitants into slavery 10 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: - and we have the same number of sacks of major cities in mere three hundreds of years of supposedly united realm. That is not something we actually know given the world book only comments on the three times Oldtown was sacked in a single century. Not only has there been more peace within Westeros once they were united but they can now they are no longer a target for outside invaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugorfonics Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 Doran really believed in Viserys, otherwise he should have agreed to Oberyns rebellious idea. This (assuming) was Balons line of thinking, if Dorne hates Robert and the Reach, why should the 7 kingdoms remain 1? It's a wonder that Westeros remained so much in tact after the Realms Delights death, let alone after the end of the metaphorical dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mwm Posted June 24, 2018 Author Share Posted June 24, 2018 8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said: It's a wonder that Westeros remained so much in tact after the Realms Delights death, let alone after the end of the metaphorical dragons. So excited to read more about the regency following the Dance in Fire and Blood. Martin said it’s as detailed as the dance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrish Lace Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 23 hours ago, Lord Varys said: The North, the Iron Islands, and Dorne are still somewhat set apart, but even they need really good enough incentives (or mad enough rulers) to go along with a secessionist movement.The Seven Kingdoms are one, and it is a ridiculous idea for anyone in the West, the Stormlands, the Reach, the Vale, or the Riverlands that they could become an 'independent kingdom' once again. Armed revolts aimed at independence on Iron Islands, North, Dorne, Stromlands and Riverlands aka more than half of the regions (plus suspicious movements in the Vale) belay that rosy idea. The Seven Kingdoms were only one in Aegon's feverish imagination. The Seven Kingdoms as united kingdom have a fundamental problem: current feudal system can't maintain it without regular Early Modern warfare. There is no ideological ground to bring them all together, there is no economy modern enough to tie in individual Kingdoms, there is no strong monarchy with standing armies and bureaucracy to keep them all in line. Dragons kinda sorta managed to replace the latter for a time, but even that worked to a limited extent. Targaryens managed for a while on sheer exhaustion (Aegon III), exceptional Kings (Daeron I, Baelor, Viserys II). Then they hit jackpot with Blackfyres - Blackfyre rebellion was carried by secondary Houses seeking to challenge their Lords, which drove Great Houses to rally around the Crown. Eventually, Blackfyre threat to GHs petered out and - surprise! - Targaryen rule didn't last much longer. In absence of ideology/economy/bureaucracy, all that remains are attempts by this GH and that GH to dominate other GHs. These attempts are doomed to failure because no single GH has the resources to do so for long, as evidenced by Lannisters. An alternative to single GH dominating the realm is a coalition a la Robert, but as Robert's story demonstrates, such coalitions are too hard to balance and are not sustainable in the long term. Which results in current situation: GHs which are unable to seize power get fed up with others jerking them around, take their ball and leave (North, Iron Islands, Riverlands). Some don't leave but quietly sabotage any attempt to rule them (Dorne, Vale). The remaining GHs are the ones who are either defeated (Tullys) and can't leave or have just enough strength/delusions to think they can eventually dominate the rest (Lannisters, Baratheons, Tyrells). Since they don't have the resources to achieve their aims, its only a matter of time until the latter category is bled dry by their overreach and then say bye-bye to any pretense of united realm. United Westeros will go the same way HRE did and for all the same reasons. 22 hours ago, Lord Varys said: This doesn't mean that not thousands of people died, but it is pretty obvious that many a Westerosi living through the Dance could have shrugged this war off just as the people of the Vale shrug the so-called War of the Five Kings off, claiming that there is peace in the Seven Kingdoms - at least at the part where they are living. People living anywhere but in Oldtown when it was sacked could shrug off and claim there was peace in Seven Kingdoms - with even greater justification! - since there is no evidence there was a concurrent war elsewhere. "But there was a place untouched by war!" is a poor argument for the success of united realm as peace-making enterprise since it equally applies for pre-Conquest Kingdoms. Especially since we have to spread known pre-Conquest conflicts on a 2-6-8 thousands of years of pre-Conquest history like a small piece of butter on a giant piece of bread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 32 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: Armed revolts aimed at independence on Iron Islands, North, Dorne, Stromlands and Riverlands aka more than half of the regions (plus suspicious movements in the Vale) belay that rosy idea. The Seven Kingdoms were only one in Aegon's feverish imagination. There are no such independence movements. Euron Greyjoy wants to sit the Iron Throne, not win independence for his worthless rocks. The kingdom of the North and the Trident did not form out of a desire for independence but out of a war council where people basically didn't know what else to do. The Stormlands have no independence movement whatsoever (Lyonel Baratheon crowned himself, but not for the sake of independence but to get back at his former friend and king for a broken marriage contract), especially not since House Baratheons claims the Iron Throne. And there is no indication whatsoever that the Vale wants to split, and most definitely not Dorne. 32 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: Which results in current situation: GHs which are unable to seize power get fed up with others jerking them around, take their ball and leave (North, Iron Islands, Riverlands). Some don't leave but quietly sabotage any attempt to rule them (Dorne, Vale). The remaining GHs are the ones who are either defeated (Tullys) and can't leave or have just enough strength/delusions to think they can eventually dominate the rest (Lannisters, Baratheons, Tyrells). There is definitely a struggle for power within the framework of the system, but most regions do not want to see their great lords wear crowns. 32 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: People living anywhere but in Oldtown when it was sacked could shrug off and claim there was peace in Seven Kingdoms - with even greater justification! - since there is no evidence there was a concurrent war elsewhere. "But there was a place untouched by war!" is a poor argument for the success of united realm as peace-making enterprise since it equally applies for pre-Conquest Kingdoms. Especially since we have to spread known pre-Conquest conflicts on a 2-6-8 thousands of years of pre-Conquest history like a small piece of butter on a giant piece of bread. We know there was continuous warfare in Westeros prior to the Conquest. There is no way around that. And there is no continuous warfare in Westeros since the Conquest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvo the Crow Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: There are no such independence movements. Euron Greyjoy wants to sit the Iron Throne, not win independence for his worthless rocks. The kingdom of the North and the Trident did not form out of a desire for independence but out of a war council where people basically didn't know what else to do. The Stormlands have no independence movement whatsoever (Lyonel Baratheon crowned himself, but not for the sake of independence but to get back at his former friend and king for a broken marriage contract), especially not since House Baratheons claims the Iron Throne. And there is no indication whatsoever that the Vale wants to split, and most definitely not Dorne. There is definitely a struggle for power within the framework of the system, but most regions do not want to see their great lords wear crowns. We know there was continuous warfare in Westeros prior to the Conquest. There is no way around that. And there is no continuous warfare in Westeros since the Conquest. We had two great wars within just 15 years and one rebellion. If we go back some 50 years there are problems in the West that affected neifgbouring regions that lasted for years, and ended in open rebellion. Going back for the 100 years period, there have been several Blackfye rebellions... There isn't a generation passed without a war since Aegon's conquest and unlike pre conquest, it involves most/all the regions. During the first 50 years alone we see at least 3 major wars and rebellions and some smaller ones. And it doesn't get top much better after that. Pax Targanyca is a lie. There may be more years between the wars in continent but then again, when it comes to war it is much more bloodier. NW losing strength could very well be caused by more people dying in wars. Before conquest, the continent's norm could very well be some small scale war happens with fewer deaths than AC, losers go to war and then 5 years later another war, again not so many dead, losers go to NW, eventually swelling it's numbers with the numerous survivors of these small scale wars. Now it is more like major war breaks out leaving many dead on either side and fewer people left to go to NW, some 20 years again happens the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 30 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said: Going back for the 100 years period, there have been several Blackfye rebellions... 4 Blackfyre Rebellions. And only around 100 Westerosi men died in the combined rebellions of two and four. 30 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said: There isn't a generation passed without a war since Aegon's conquest and unlike pre conquest, it involves most/all the regions. pre conquest it was just as bad In the days when the Seven Kingdoms were seven kingdoms, not a generation passed that three or four of them were not at war. 30 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said: During the first 50 years alone we see at least 3 major wars and rebellions and some smaller ones. And it doesn't get top much better after that. Well the loss of the Targs has had a pretty significant effect. 30 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said: Pax Targanyca is a lie. There may be more years between the wars in continent but then again, when it comes to war it is much more bloodier. If it is a lie then why has there been so little independent movements in the last three centuries? It's really a case of Occam's Razor, the lack movements means that the majority of the realm has been happier being united than they were before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 38 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said: We had two great wars within just 15 years and one rebellion. If we go back some 50 years there are problems in the West that affected neifgbouring regions that lasted for years, and ended in open rebellion. Going back for the 100 years period, there have been several Blackfye rebellions... Robert's Rebellion was no rebellion against the Iron Throne as such, neither were the Blackfyre Rebellions (and of those only one is confirmed to have been a major thing, the First, and even that only last about a year). 38 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said: There isn't a generation passed without a war since Aegon's conquest and unlike pre conquest, it involves most/all the regions. Nope, there were no wars of significance throughout the reigns of Jaehaerys I and Viserys I. And as I said above, even the huge bloodletting of the Dance didn't involve most/all regions - there was no war in the Vale, no war in the North, no war in Dorne, no war in the Stormlands that we know of, and no war in most of the Reach, and most of the West. Most of the war took place in the Riverlands, the Crownlands, and the along the march line of the Hightower army. That doesn't mean the Dance didn't affect the Realm at large due to trade being disrupted, etc. but vast regions got completely unscathed out of that war. And that was the most devastating war in Westerosi history (at least supposedly). By comparison the Blackfyre Rebellion, issues with the Vulture Kings, etc. were milder affairs. Daeron's Conquest was another huge war, to be sure, but even that one mostly affected Dorne (and the other regions only in the sense that men went to war and never came back - but war and destruction didn't come to their lands). 38 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said: During the first 50 years alone we see at least 3 major wars and rebellions and some smaller ones. And it doesn't get top much better after that. There are the Wars of Conquest (pretty bloodless affairs, if you look at them in detail), and then the First Dornish War. That's it. Maegor fought smaller campaigns against the Faith, but that wasn't a proper war. More like slaughtering rabble, and Prince Aegon never had the chance to fight a proper war, either. A single battle isn't a war. 38 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said: Pax Targanyca is a lie. There may be more years between the wars in continent but then again, when it comes to war it is much more bloodier. How do you know that? Do you know how bloody the wars between the Seven Kingdoms prior to the Conquest were? Or how long some of those wars lasted? The wars under the Targaryens were all pretty short affairs. And, you know, rebellions and wars of successions would have been common in the Seven Kingdoms in addition to the continuous warfare among those kingdoms. Or do you think no Stark, Lannister, Gardener, Arryn, Durrandon, etc. ever challenged the succession at sword point? Not to mention great lords in the border regions betraying their lords to other kings, etc. 38 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said: Now it is more like major war breaks out leaving many dead on either side and fewer people left to go to NW, some 20 years again happens the same. That isn't the case. Most men don't die in war. This is medieval warfare. People clash and when the lines break one side is going to win. The victor doesn't butcher thousands of men in the enemy army. Men fighting in wars don't take the black. Why should they? Victors send, perhaps, defeated lords and rebels to the Wall, but not common men. They go home to their farms and fields and families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 Why would they be interested in splitting apart? Doing so would mean more war (especially if you're the only one who wants to, a lack of trade, and, in the case of the victors, the destruction of existing alliances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvo the Crow Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said: f it is a lie then why has there been so little independent movements in the last three centuries? It's really a case of Occam's Razor, the lack movements means that the majority of the realm has been happier being united than they were before. Could be because of economic reasons, could be that a major war every 20 years is preferrable to a smaller one every 5 years for this reason or that. Could be that lords are happier with major wars killing off more mouths that will be a burden in Winter. Dance happened near Winter, no? So did Wot5K. Robert's was after false spring so is that Winter also? Not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvo the Crow Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 4 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Robert's Rebellion was no rebellion against the Iron Throne as such, Wot5K, RR and Greyjoy R. I could have been clearer. 4 hours ago, Lord Varys said: ow do you know that? Do you know how bloody the wars between the Seven Kingdoms prior to the Conquest were? Or how long some of those wars lasted? The wars under the Targaryens were all pretty short affairs. They are fought between two regions or three. There weren't armies from all the regions rolling around Riverlands or Reach or wherever. 4 hours ago, Lord Varys said: That isn't the case. Most men don't die in war. This is medieval warfare. People clash and when the lines break one side is going to win. The victor doesn't butcher thousands of men in the enemy army. Tell that to men from Roose's army. Tywin only stopped giving chase because news from Jaime's host. 4 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Men fighting in wars don't take the black. Why should they? Victors send, perhaps, defeated lords and rebels to the Wall, but not common men. They go home to their farms and fields and families. And that's what I meant. We know it happens from Bywater and Thorne. If there is a war every so often with different regions with fewer losses, petty lords that get sent to wall alone may number in hundreds within a couple of decades. Also I'm not saying common men get sent to Watch after a war, but them not getting sent to Watch kinda negates what Bernie proposed above. If Targaryen peace didn't cause the recruitment drop, what did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euron III Greyjoy Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 The North, The Riverlands, The Vale, The Stormlands and The Westerlands all put Robert on the throne, it would be weird if they just decided to split off from him. The only one of those five that I could see doing that is Tywin, but his daughter was made Queen, and seven kingdoms is better then one. The Stormlands obviously wouldn't because Robert was King. Ned Stark and Jon Arryn were pretty much Robert's family. The Riverlands where connected to both Ned and Jon through marriage, and even if they where stupid enough to split off, The Riverlands are basically just an open field with no protection from anything, just look how Gregor Clegane and a few men waltzed into The Riverlands and started destroying everything, just imagine what an army could do. That leaves Dorne and The Reach, and they didn't have enough men to take on all five of the others. They were already in the crowns shit list due to being on the loosing side of the war, and they would never consider teaming up due to House Martell and House Tyrell hating each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 On 6/24/2018 at 7:54 PM, Corvo the Crow said: They are fought between two regions or three. There weren't armies from all the regions rolling around Riverlands or Reach or wherever. No, the wording is that there was seldom a time when not two or three of the Seven Kingdoms were at war, not there were no times when four, five, six, or all the Seven Kingdoms (or more, in older times) were at war. I mean, if the Reach and the Riverlands were at war for some reason, then this would be the ideal situation for all the other kingdoms to declare war on them to bite a chunk of land out of them. And that should have happened all the time, really. On 6/24/2018 at 7:54 PM, Corvo the Crow said: Tell that to men from Roose's army. Tywin only stopped giving chase because news from Jaime's host. Sure, but even if a couple of thousands died that's still not much if we are talking about an army containing 10,000 or more men. And even if you ride down or chase a breaking army, you still don't kill *all* of the men unless you drive them into a fire or a lake or the sea or down a chasm, etc. That's not the rule in a battle. When the lines break men run away, and they don't run all in one direction. On 6/24/2018 at 7:54 PM, Corvo the Crow said: And that's what I meant. We know it happens from Bywater and Thorne. If there is a war every so often with different regions with fewer losses, petty lords that get sent to wall alone may number in hundreds within a couple of decades. There is still no reason to believe that POW were sent to the Wall on a large scale, nor that such men made up the bulk of the NW in ancient days. Back then men were taking the black of their own free will, and they were sent there because they were criminals. But there are rules for war. If the Lannisters and the Gardeners fought a war over some land then they would eventually agree to a peace. And then their lords and noblemen would be ransomed and return to their castles. Rebels and traitors go to the Wall. But they are criminals. Nymeria sending kings to the Wall seems to be the exception. On 6/24/2018 at 7:54 PM, Corvo the Crow said: Also I'm not saying common men get sent to Watch after a war, but them not getting sent to Watch kinda negates what Bernie proposed above. If Targaryen peace didn't cause the recruitment drop, what did? Difficult to say. I'd say it dropped continuously and accelerated because pretty much nobody thinks taking the black was a good career choice, not to mention that they didn't have a real purpose anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sunland Lord Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 On 6/22/2018 at 9:16 PM, Mwm said: I was just thinking after having it brought up that Oberyn was going to raise Dorne after the rebellion. Is tradition that strong? I mean: No one has passed the Bloody Gate of the Vale without an invitation. (Yeah yeah, Visenya landed in Eyrie, but she didn’t pass the freaking gate/and I’m talking about after the Fall of the Dragons) Moat Cailin threw back any army that came against it. Dragons couldn’t even manage to conquer Dorne. Robb could’ve been King in the North until Dany arrived if he STAYED in the north! Exactly the Vale and North rebelled together with Robert. The purpose wasn't secession, but a new king. Robert became a King because he had Targ blood, otherwise he wouldn't even become one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee-Sensei Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 On 6/23/2018 at 8:19 AM, Pikachu101 said: Because no one wanted to. The North: they were fighting for Robert, and even if someone offered the crown to Ned he would have refused The Vale: same as the North, even now Vale lords aren't suggesting to crown Robert they wanted to support Robb The Riverlands: the Tullys were never kings so they have no rights to declare a kingship The Reach: same issue as the Riverlands so they supported Aerys The Westerlands: Tywin's too rational to do something like that, he was simply waiting for a clear winner he could marry Cersei to The Stormlands: Robert was aiming to be King of Westeros Dorne: Elia's married to Rhaegar, so their fealty is to House Targaryen Minus the Iron Islands you were either fighting for Robert or Aerys the issue of independence didn't emerge until after the Baratheon dynasty began to collapse. Feelings in the Vale were mixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Martell's son Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 On 6/22/2018 at 12:16 PM, Mwm said: I was just thinking after having it brought up that Oberyn was going to raise Dorne after the rebellion. Is tradition that strong? I mean: No one has passed the Bloody Gate of the Vale without an invitation. (Yeah yeah, Visenya landed in Eyrie, but she didn’t pass the freaking gate/and I’m talking about after the Fall of the Dragons) Moat Cailin threw back any army that came against it. Dragons couldn’t even manage to conquer Dorne. Robb could’ve been King in the North until Dany arrived if he STAYED in the north! Why do you want to make the book boring? On 6/22/2018 at 1:13 PM, Mwm said: Did he not anyway? I think he should’ve turned right back around after Ned was executed-maybe false peace with the lannisters to get Sansa back, cross the damn twins, and then fortify the borders. No one could’ve said shit about it! Seriously, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu101 Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 10 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said: Feelings in the Vale were mixed. About supporting Robert Baratheon or Robb Stark? Doesn't matter anyway, Jon Arryn would have turned down the offer to be king and Robert Arryn's too weak to be considered for kingship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee-Sensei Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 3 hours ago, Pikachu101 said: About supporting Robert Baratheon or Robb Stark? Doesn't matter anyway, Jon Arryn would have turned down the offer to be king and Robert Arryn's too weak to be considered for kingship. For Robb and they didn't want him to be their King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu101 Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 8 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said: For Robb and they didn't want him to be their King. A few Vale lords did want to fight for him and Littlefinger's certain that they'll raise their banners for Sansa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.