Aegon I and Dorne

[Eltharion21]

Dorne could have been conquered , especially in the reign of Viserys I, with additional experience of Aegons war.

In comparing Dorne people with Vietnam and Afghanistan underestimate aid of other factors like China or American weaponry. 

Naval factor would also be important in taking Dorne mostly as basis for start of conquest and resupply of troops. capturing water  and food supply, and creating different army formations adaptable to fighting in the desert, combined with air support of Dragons against grouped targets, camps or possible  foreign fleets.

Though would it be sustainable or worth it in the long run, is the question. 

Does Dorne have  invaluable things like "oil", gold in abundance or other valuable resources  or is stepping stone to taking on Iran or China? Or is it matter of having everyone to bend the knee just for the sake of it.

Diplomacy is certainly cheaper and seemingly long term solution.

[Legitimate_Bastard]

3 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Dorne could have been conquered , especially in the reign of Viserys I, with additional experience of Aegons war.

In comparing Dorne people with Vietnam and Afghanistan underestimate aid of other factors like China or American weaponry. 

Naval factor would also be important in taking Dorne mostly as basis for start of conquest and resupply of troops. capturing water  and food supply, and creating different army formations adaptable to fighting in the desert, combined with air support of Dragons against grouped targets, camps or possible  foreign fleets.

Though would it be sustainable or worth it in the long run, is the question. 

Does Dorne have  invaluable things like "oil", gold in abundance or other valuable resources  or is stepping stone to taking on Iran or China? Or is it matter of having everyone to bend the knee just for the sake of it.

Diplomacy is certainly cheaper and seemingly long term solution.

Conquered is such a relative term, though. The British 'conquered' Afghanistan - but never truly defeated the locals - they attacked constantly and came out as soon as the British left. Historical examples a plenty, hell the same thing is going on now. Holding every key town and castle would still not mean that they had broken the will of the Dornish to stop fighting.

Seems that bar committing genocide it just wasn't worth it.

This also seems to also be apparent when you look at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Dornish wars. They were all directly caused by rebels invading one of the Targ domains. After Aegon I initially failed to take Dorne, it seems the Targs only bothered to send forces in response to invasion. Even then Dorne wasn't taken, the rebels were just put down.

Even the Fourth Dornish war - when a Martell prince was behind the invasion - did not end with an assault on Dorne.

Too much to lose too little to gain it seems.

[Loose Bolt]

Westeros does not have standing armies, so only way to keep Dorne occupied would be to find enough local people who would want to work for Iron Throne.  After all any outsider without army would die.

[Legitimate_Bastard]

7 minutes ago, Loose Bolt said:

Westeros does not have standing armies, so only way to keep Dorne occupied would be to find enough local people who would want to work for Iron Throne.  After all any outsider without army would die.

As @Ran pointed out - the other powerful Dornish cared less for the Targs than they did the Martells.

A hard sell.

[Universal Sword Donor]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I'd differ there in the sense that this slaughter was likely more thorough than the average sacking of a castle as large and, presumably, populated as Harrenhal at that time. But then, one can also be rather thorough without steel weapons and torches and men at every gate.

I'm not sure how this is relevant at all to my point.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You take the cart before the horse. The Gardener line dying wasn't intended by Aegon. That turned out to be not unfortunate to his cause - although it could have gone very differently, as could his idea to put the Tyrells in charge - but it wasn't intended. It doesn't strike me as unrealistic to believe that Mern would have bent the knee to Aegon just as Loren did had he lived - or one of Mern's many potential heirs who died with him.

The intent is irrelevant. What actually happened is relevant. No need to put the cart before the horses if both are consumed by dragon flame.

Both the Gardeners and the Hoares opposed Aegon with force and were wiped out.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

A dragon holocaust on Highgarden would just be an atrocity because of the symbol that was destroyed. It is the most beautiful castle in the Seven Kingdoms (unless one buys the Eyrie is more beautiful) and arguably the one of the most glorious history. Destroying such a thing would raise the ire of people because it would be a savage thing to die aside from the people who were killed there, too.

I said nothing about them attacking Highgarden. I'm talking about what actually happened. Hypotheticals and potential head canon are great but irrelevant to the points you made. He eliminated two ruling lines with dragon fire (and spear/bow) and neither one was lamented or fought back for by the bannermen after if happened.

It's bears resemblance to what Mace did after the sack of KL when he didn't really have anything left to fight for.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Compare that to Harrenhal. It was a new castle with no history, and it was a symbol of cruel oppression. Destroying it was part of Aegon freeing the Riverlanders from the yoke of the Ironborn. It also showed what Aegon could do with his dragons, of course, but burning Harrenhal wasn't something anyone outside the Iron Islands would consider a bad thing.

Yes Aegon's primary goal was freeing the Riverlanders from being under the tyrannical yoke of IB oppression, not conquer them himself. We know he offered the IB lordship over themselves but do not know if they would have kept the RL. Showing the realm what dragons could do had already been done and he had to show them again at the Field of Fire.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

The intent is irrelevant. What actually happened is relevant. No need to put the cart before the horses if both are consumed by dragon flame.

Sure it is relevant. It is relevant whether the king you bend the knee to is a cruel jerk who actually extinguishes noble and royal bloodlines left and right to show how great and powerful his dragon is, or whether such a line was just wiped out in a battle your side wanted to fight, too.

It is also relevant whether the royal line you extinguish along with their giant castle is that of a well-loved and popular king, who had ruled over his subjects since time immemorial, or whether he is a despised foreigner basically everybody hates and/or fears.

Doing the latter is a heroic act which might win you love and praise, doing the former not so much.

If Rhaenys had made Storm's End another Harrenhal, or Visenya the Eyrie, this wouldn't have helped the Targaryen cause. It would have likely ended the Conquest then and there.

And this is likely also the true reason why Sunspear was spared the dragonflame. Not propaganda, not secret weapons, nothing of that sort - simply the realization that doing that would basically ensure that the Dornish would never submit. This would also be the reason why Rhaenys targeted the Planky Town rather than Sunspear upon her return to Dorne. Harrenhal was destroyed because it was the seat of Black Harren, specifically, not because it was one of many castles that opposed Aegon the Conqueror.

3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I said nothing about them attacking Highgarden. I'm talking about what actually happened. Hypotheticals and potential head canon are great but irrelevant to the points you made. He eliminated two ruling lines with dragon fire (and spear/bow) and neither one was lamented or fought back for by the bannermen after if happened.

But that is what I talked about when you chose to reply. I pointed out the difference of meaning in making an example of Harrenhal of all places. The Gardeners only died because they were stupid enough to all be in that army. People die in war. Everybody accepts that.

Had Aegon targeted the Gardeners the way he dealt with the Hoares it would have been different, both because of the insidiousness of such an attack and because of what Highgarden represented. Everybody in the Reach would have been horrified over that - as would have been all Westeros had the Targaryens ever burned Oldtown to the ground - and that wouldn't have made them inclined to bend the knee.

But after the Field of Fire the Gardeners are dead, and those lords who survived and captured were offered good terms and bent the knee.

3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

It's bears resemblance to what Mace did after the sack of KL when he didn't really have anything left to fight for.

Yeah, but unlike Aerys II and his grandchildren the Gardeners were not killed by foul treason or cooked in their own castle while they were utterly defenseless. The Two Kings challenged Aegon and his dragons knowing that he and his sisters were dragonlords.

3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Yes Aegon's primary goal was freeing the Riverlanders from being under the tyrannical yoke of IB oppression, not conquer them himself. We know he offered the IB lordship over themselves but do not know if they would have kept the RL. Showing the realm what dragons could do had already been done and he had to show them again at the Field of Fire.

Well, it is pretty obvious that Aegon was both a much better and more loved king of the Riverlanders than Black Harren and his ilk. They essentially were his men before he even set a foot into the Riverlands...

The Field of Fire was not a demonstration as was Harrenhal, it was also a fight for the survival of the Targaryens. They had to win there or they would lose everything. But the way Aegon won actually seems to have saved more men that would have been killed in a conventional battle. Even more so, it killed the right men - the lordly and knightly elite making up that 'iron fist' of Mern's. They are the ones who attacked the Targaryen army, and they are the ones who ended up being surrounded by fire.

Considering the continuous absence of rain and the dry land around the armies Aegon certainly could have come up with a plan to burn them all.

[Universal Sword Donor]

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure it is relevant. It is relevant whether the king you bend the knee to is a cruel jerk who actually extinguishes noble and royal bloodlines left and right to show how great and powerful his dragon is, or whether such a line was just wiped out in a battle your side wanted to fight, too.

It's absolutely not. Both kings were opposing him by force of arms regardless of whether or not they were burnt alive in a castle or on the field of battle.

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is also relevant whether the royal line you extinguish along with their giant castle is that of a well-loved and popular king, who had ruled over his subjects since time immemorial, or whether he is a despised foreigner basically everybody hates and/or fears.

He didn't, so you can stop bringing this up.

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Doing the latter is a heroic act which might win you love and praise, doing the former not so much.

If Rhaenys had made Storm's End another Harrenhal, or Visenya the Eyrie, this wouldn't have helped the Targaryen cause. It would have likely ended the Conquest then and there.

She didn't have the option, so again this is irrelevant. Twice over irrelevant, actually, since Argilac met them outside SE and the SE garrison seized Argella and opened the gates.

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And this is likely also the true reason why Sunspear was spared the dragonflame. Not propaganda, not secret weapons, nothing of that sort - simply the realization that doing that would basically ensure that the Dornish would never submit. This would also be the reason why Rhaenys targeted the Planky Town rather than Sunspear upon her return to Dorne. Harrenhal was destroyed because it was the seat of Black Harren, specifically, not because it was one of many castles that opposed Aegon the Conqueror.

Completely and utter supposition flying in the face of

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But that is what I talked about when you chose to reply. I pointed out the difference of meaning in making an example of Harrenhal of all places. The Gardeners only died because they were stupid enough to all be in that army. People die in war. Everybody accepts that.

Aegon only made an example of it because he locked himself in HH. It wasn't like Aegon locked him inside himself. So again this is irrelevant. HH was war or are we going to ignore all the scorpions and crossbowmen who were promised Tully's maiden daughters for bringing down dragons?

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Had Aegon targeted the Gardeners the way he dealt with the Hoares it would have been different, both because of the insidiousness of such an attack and because of what Highgarden represented. Everybody in the Reach would have been horrified over that - as would have been all Westeros had the Targaryens ever burned Oldtown to the ground - and that wouldn't have made them inclined to bend the knee.

That is entirely your head canon.

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But after the Field of Fire the Gardeners are dead, and those lords who survived and captured were offered good terms and bent the knee.

Right and after Aegon braved scorpion and crossbow bolts to burn the Kingspyre tower, the IB bent the knee as well.

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, but unlike Aerys II and his grandchildren the Gardeners were not killed by foul treason or cooked in their own castle while they were utterly defenseless. The Two Kings challenged Aegon and his dragons knowing that he and his sisters were dragonlords.

You can't say HH was utterly defenseless. It was defended and we know that Meraxes died from a scorpion bolt in the eye launched by castle defenders. Are you under the impression that Harren wasn't aware they were dragonlords? It would make his statement about stone burning all the more confusing.

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it is pretty obvious that Aegon was both a much better and more loved king of the Riverlanders than Black Harren and his ilk. They essentially were his men before he even set a foot into the Riverlands...

No one disputed this. Not even sure why this is being brought up

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Field of Fire was not a demonstration as was Harrenhal, it was also a fight for the survival of the Targaryens. They had to win there or they would lose everything. But the way Aegon won actually seems to have saved more men that would have been killed in a conventional battle. Even more so, it killed the right men - the lordly and knightly elite making up that 'iron fist' of Mern's. They are the ones who attacked the Targaryen army, and they are the ones who ended up being surrounded by fire.

Considering the continuous absence of rain and the dry land around the armies Aegon certainly could have come up with a plan to burn them all.

Why are you even bringing this up? No one but yourself has broached this lien of debate, let alone myself.

You're treating a heavily defended HH and its burning as magically different than a heavily contested battle where another king and his line were burned to death. They simply aren't appreciably different and neither were the reactions of the populations they ruled.

[Ran]

On 2/20/2019 at 12:02 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

As did the cowardly rulers of the other 6 kingdoms.

1) The Dornish have a nascent national identity that the rest of the Seven Kingdoms doesn't quite have, save the North.

2) Unlike everyone else, the Dornish are descended from people who lost everything to the Valyrians and their dragons. Their high culture was destroyed and enslaved, thousands sent into years of wandering to find refuge. 

For many in the riverlands, the Vale, the Reach, the stormlands -- they were just replacing one king with another, and felt no great pride in having a Durrandon, a Lannister, an Arryn, etc. as their suzerain. It's interesting that the majority of the troubles after Aegon's death have to do with the Faith's anti-Targaryen stance and sort of edge cases of internal instability within a region where there's nothing especially anti-Targaryen about it.

The North is a case where everything said that they, too, had more of a national identity where the replacement of a Stark with a Tagaryen was a big thing. All I can see is that Torrhen Stark clearly carried a lot of weight with his people, and when he saw no value in resistance, they more or less fell in line.

[Three-Fingered Pete]

Ignorant question here, but how close was the approach of winter after the Conquest? Between their losses and the need to prepare for the weather, the northern kings, now lords, may have felt that survival was better than fighting at that juncture. Dorne would be better suited to surviving and fighting during winter, especially if they were going to go all Viet Cong on the Targaryens.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I maintain Torrhen had a weirwood vision the night before his surrender, showing him some future benefit of surrendering. Like a child of Ice and Fire one day being born as a result, to save the world from the Others.

And most likely Bran will be shown to send that vision back in time in a future book, much like he went back to observe Brandon Snow picking the three weirwood arrows intended to assassinate Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes.

[Lord Varys]

On 2/21/2019 at 12:48 AM, Universal Sword Donor said:

It's absolutely not. Both kings were opposing him by force of arms regardless of whether or not they were burnt alive in a castle or on the field of battle.

To cut this off.

There is a factual difference between destroying somebody intentionally by burning down his house, and killing somebody in the course of a battle where you do not specifically target all the members of a particular family - especially when you do not even know that all members of a family actually fight in that battle personally.

This is not something up to debate, it is just a fact.

Just as it is a fact that there is an obvious difference between killing a cruel tyrant and burning his castle and doing the same to a well-loved and well-liked king and a major castle which has been the capital of a large kingdom for millennia.

This has nothing to do with head canon or anything, only with common sense.

And it is a basic foundation of politics. You don't pointlessly (and especially not: openly) murder/assassinate/butcher popular people. You subvert them, win them over, seduce them, give them reason to respect you. If you kill them you create martyrs. There certainly were some martyrs created on the Field of Fire, but not enough to cause a problem for Aegon. But there was essentially no martyr created by burning Harrenhal. Nobody gave a damn, not the Riverlords and certainly not the Ironborn.

But it is quite clear that this wouldn't have been the case had Visenya tried to conquer the Vale by flying up the Giant's Lance burning the Eyrie to the ground along with all the Arryns in there. That would have had the opposite effect. People who witnessed Harrenhal and saw the ruins later knew what Aegon could do. They understood that the defiance could come with a high price indeed. But fear and terror alone don't make you a great king.

Even as cruel and bad a king as Maegor understood that they could not possibly burn down Oldtown.

All Aegon had was a couple of thousands people from his islands, three dragons, two sister-wives. And he had no heirs. His reign wouldn't have lasted a day had a majority of the people seen him as a cruel guy who wanted to inspire fear.

The Dornish strategy is not difficult to repeat. Any of the great houses in Westeros could have done, especially the remoter, wilder regions. And they would have done that had they seen the Targaryens as evil invaders. They may not all have been happy with what had happened, but they were not furious, humiliated, tortured enough to continue a total war that could very easily be very costly - and would likely cause them to lose everything they cherished.

Those lords all love their castles, riches, food, and the other things that come with being a rich nobleman. Bran can say that Winterfell was burned but not broken after Ramsay ravaged it, but if Balerion had paid Winterfell a visit it would have been broken for good.

He wanted to project strength, and that he did. But he also showed that he was who he said he would be - a just king for all.

On 2/21/2019 at 12:48 AM, Universal Sword Donor said:

Right and after Aegon braved scorpion and crossbow bolts to burn the Kingspyre tower, the IB bent the knee as well.

They actually did not. They continued fighting amongst themselves until Aegon came to their islands and defeated them and their pretenders.

On 2/21/2019 at 12:48 AM, Universal Sword Donor said:

You can't say HH was utterly defenseless. It was defended and we know that Meraxes died from a scorpion bolt in the eye launched by castle defenders. Are you under the impression that Harren wasn't aware they were dragonlords? It would make his statement about stone burning all the more confusing.

I didn't say it was utterly defenseless. I said Harren basically had little other choice but to hole up in his castle. Dragon vs. castle is not fair fight, even if somebody can fire scorpion bolts. Meraxes' death was a lucky shot, one in a million (or Rhaenys' or the beast's stupidity), a feat not easily repeated, especially if the dragon attacks in the night, breathing black fire. When do you think the defenders could make out Balerion? When his black fire turned normal while consuming them? Or only when the towers started to glow?

We don't know. But aiming on a black dragon breathing black fire in the middle of the night sounds doesn't strike as me as something that has a chance of being very successful.

9 hours ago, Ran said:

For many in the riverlands, the Vale, the Reach, the stormlands -- they were just replacing one king with another, and felt no great pride in having a Durrandon, a Lannister, an Arryn, etc. as their suzerain. It's interesting that the majority of the troubles after Aegon's death have to do with the Faith's anti-Targaryen stance and sort of edge cases of internal instability within a region where there's nothing especially anti-Targaryen about it.

Do we really have a reason to believe that they were that different? I'd say the West and the Vale would be in about the same league as the North in that capacity. The Arryns, Lannisters, and Starks seem to equally great in the prominence they have in their lands and the power/authority they wield. Casterly Rock overshadows all, and so does the power of House Lannister in the West, the Arrnys gave their Vale their own name, and the Starks are the Starks.

9 hours ago, Ran said:

The North is a case where everything said that they, too, had more of a national identity where the replacement of a Stark with a Tagaryen was a big thing. All I can see is that Torrhen Stark clearly carried a lot of weight with his people, and when he saw no value in resistance, they more or less fell in line.

One has to keep in mind that Torrhen (and, perhaps, Queen Sharra, too, since the Arryns and the Targaryens also didn't have that great a conflict nor was the Vale ever invaded or defeated in a major land battle) got the sweetest deals when they bent the knee. Torrhen did not take up arms against the Dragon and his sisters. He was about to, but he did not. That must have had some impact on whatever terms were part of Torrhen's submission agreement. There is a reason why it is stressed that the swords of the Northmen were not melted or broken or twisted when they were given to Aegon. King Loren, on the other hand, was Aegon's prisoner when he submitted. He would have had much less leeway in his negotiations with Aegon.

In the end, though, one shouldn't delude oneself into believing that even those proud royal houses didn't see the benefits of having an outsider coming in as king. They would have never suffered one of their own as their overlord, but an outsider is a different thing. He is impartial. You can work with such a guy.

Torrhen, for instance, would have gotten an end to southern aggression in exchange to his submission. No longer any Sistermen and Vale men praying on traders and Manderly ships in the Bite, no longer any Ironborn raiding, no attempts by the Riverlanders and others to invade the North, etc.

The Starks could focus on their internal affairs, and would henceforth only have to keep an eye on the northern border. Trade would increase and one could buy food in the south much easier than one would have been able to do that in the era of continuous warfare. And when winter came the new king might send food up from the south - something that could really profit his people.

In a sense, Torrhen's submission is not much different from that of Lymond Hightower to Garland II. They gave up their crown but they kept everything else, and no longer had to fight as fiercely to keep it than they had before.

Since the day Torrhen Stark bent his knee any rebellion against House Stark is, by extension, also a rebellion against the Iron Throne. 

9 hours ago, Three-Fingered Pete said:

Ignorant question here, but how close was the approach of winter after the Conquest? Between their losses and the need to prepare for the weather, the northern kings, now lords, may have felt that survival was better than fighting at that juncture. Dorne would be better suited to surviving and fighting during winter, especially if they were going to go all Viet Cong on the Targaryens.

Unclear. But summer was still in high bloom during the Field of Fire, so that's that.

When the Dornish War starts in 4 AC it is the second year of autumn, I think, so one assumes this is the autumn following the summer of the Conquest.

And by the way - winter doesn't seem to affect the heat of Dorne at all, at least not under normal circumstances. They think autumn and eventual winter would have an effect on the heat there, but it did not.

But the seasons pass rather quickly, at times, in FaB, granting credibility to the claim that winters grew longer and crueler after the death of the last dragon. Even the cruel winter of the Shivers only lasted two years.

And we also have to differentiate between official length of a season and actually good/bad weather. The winter of the Dance and Regency era was declared on Maiden's Day of 130 AC, but the majority of Westeros did not feel it until two years later, in 132 AC. In the North, though, there were supposedly strong autumn storms already when Jacaerys Velaryon showed up there early in 129 AC.

9 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I maintain Torrhen had a weirwood vision the night before his surrender, showing him some future benefit of surrendering. Like a child of Ice and Fire one day being born as a result, to save the world from the Others.

I doubt Torrhen gave a rat's ass about the Others. The Starks are not some sages that preserve ancient wisdom. They have forgotten everything.

But if he did, he could have just thought of the dragons and how effective they might be against the Others. Jon Snow thinks the same thing in ADwD.

If he had some ice-and-fire sex fantasy, he should have offered his daughter to Aegon as a third wife.

[Rose of Red Lake]

Dorne under Aegon may be foreshadowing for the North in the future, I fear. I think Arya's connection to anti-dragonlord sentiment through her direwolf's name and Braavos is going to be very interesting in the future. Add in the North and that's three locations that would be downright sick of dragons and ready to end their line for good. 

On 2/21/2019 at 7:23 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

much like he went back to observe Brandon Snow picking the three weirwood arrows intended to assassinate Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes

How dare GRRM include such a badass moment and then have it go nowhere. Arya better make up for it. 

[Black Dragons]

I am mix on Maria (aka The Toad of Dorne) she beat back Aegon I and his sisters and never gave in the whole of Westeros mock Dornish Courage that they DIDN"T face them in Army form, but used Guerrilla War Fare tactics to fight off Aegon and his army.  They win in the end and got peace terms without gave up their Independence in the end Dorne was plague with Famine and Burning Down Castles and Deaths.  Thousands of people in Dorne died.