Jump to content
ninewinter

Can Aegon I conquer Europe in the 15th century?

Recommended Posts

Would be hard to tell cause his army won't stand against gun powder however i dont think the armies of Europe could stand against their dragons alot of fleets will be burning. Still this may actually cause Europeans to united with the Ottomans if they see the Targs as demons. Then again Aegon may just even convert to islam and get ottoman help after a few victories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 6:32 AM, Ran said:

Also, 15th century Europe has gunpowder and cannons. I really don't think it would work out.

Aegon would also have gunpowder and cannons.  The same level of technology as his enemies.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

Aegon would also have gunpowder and cannons.  The same level of technology as his enemies.  

The point is that they have three great big dragons that are going to be pretty good targets for medieval culverin. A French culverin of the mid-15th century could throw a 8-16 lbs. projectile. You only need a single hit to ruin a dragon's day, and a volley from a battery is going to be rough. Combined with the fact that to medieval persons the Targaryens are witches and their dragons demons of hell, I think the 15th century is going to be too dangerous an era for the Targaryens to make headway.

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragons lose usefulness sometime from 1910s to 1950s. Seriously. A dragon would not be invincible in 1945 - a fighter plane is faster and better armed - but a dragon does not need a runway to land and take off, and can slink away under a forest clearing the way a plane cannot. And while a dragon needs supplies, meat is standard issue - unlike aviation fuel and spares for airplanes or helicopters. You cannot fight a guerrilla war on an airplane without an airbase you can call your own, the way you could on a dragon.

Until 1910, a side with dragons has aerial reconnaissance against a foe that has none. Plus the command and control advantages of having a few commanders/messengers capable of air travel. Before the limited spread of optical telegraph from 1790s, important news travelled at the speed of changes of horseback couriers. While dragonriders can sustain speeds of about 600 km per day (established speed of Jaehaerys and Alysanne, carrying two passengers as well - about 1800 km King´s Landing to Oldtown in 3 days). Napoleon needed 13 days Smorgon to Paris, 2100 km. Jaehaerys would have done that in three and a half days.

If Napoleon, in 1809, were given a choice between marrying Marie-Louise (and alliance with Austria) or marrying Nettles (getting rides on Sheepstealer for her dowry) - who would he have picked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 9:37 PM, nyser1 said:

If you want to make this a legitimate fight I would break it down from Europe to a smaller region. From there, a specific time period where there is more turbulence.

This. And take it back in time to the 13th or early 14th to take cannons out of the equation.

Can Aegon take England, Wales, Scotland (the Western Isles and Western Highlands under the Lord of the Isles retained a high degree of autonomy through this period and could be considered a separate political entity) and Ireland (controlled by several independent Irish kings, besides the parts carved out by the Anglo-Normans)? This is fairly comparable to the seven kingdoms, though England is disproportionately larger, of course.

Under good leadership, like that of Robert the Bruce or Wallace, most of Scotland could remain independent like Dorne. Yes, the major castles will be razed, but during the entire war of independence, the Scots did not control the main castles in the lowlands anyway. The castle were taken one by one only after decisive victory at Bannockburn. Without GPS, I doubt a Dragonrider could find all the Highland redoubts that easily, and troops can be garrisoned in less remarkable locations anyway, which is I guess what the Dornish did. Of course, this mode of survival is not great for the economy and cannot be sustained indefinitely, but the Scots were in a similar situation in real history ( except for dragons :-) ) and managed for more than a decade. 

The same modus operandi could apply to Wales, Ireland and Northern England for that matter, if the will and leadership were there. If the leadership were inept, of course, like the Scots after Robert Bruce, you choose to waste your army in a pointless set-piece battle and are forced to admit defeat.  What I guess was lacking in Westoros (except in Dorne due to Rhoynar history with Valyrian dragons) was also a strong national identity in most regions to get the population to gear up for sustained guerrilla warfare against a foreign invader.

In any scenario, the cities/towns/ports of Southern England cannot hold out very long economically and would have to submit with or without offering a set piece battle.

So, I guess it comes down to

1) whether Aegon and his Queens are happy with economic control over key parts of England+ the big lowland cities of Scotland  or really want to 'control' every inch of the Isles.

2) the quality/ineptness of the regional leadership elsewhere and how strong the feeling of nationalism is at the time (how much pain are you willing to take). Pragmatic leadership may like Torrhen decide if they can live like before, it may not be worth starving for years. It was Edward's ruthless policies and attempts to completely break Scottish national identity that really aroused such strong patriotic feelings, uniting commoner with Nobles, I think. In Westeros, until religion became an issue, commoners did not seem to care much whom their lord bent his knee to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 12:45 AM, ninewinter said:

Yeah, well I raise the question because the setting of the books seems like early 15th century to me as there are no prevalent gunpowder and as the story of the books is very loosely inspired on the War of Roses. But yeah correct,  500 AD Europe is so ripe after the fall of Western Rome he can conquer half of Europe in his lifetime. He can fight Clovis and I'm sure Clovis will bend the knee in a Torrhen Stark like manner. Britain is divided into dozens of petty kingdoms easy to conquer, and I'm interested if he could make an alliance of convenience with Justinian. 

 

That makes sense. Personally I would say the tech in Westeros falls between the Late 13th-Early 15th century (bits and pieces). Bottomline is that he would not be able to conquer Western Europe. Let alone Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 4:53 PM, Ser Hedge said:

This. And take it back in time to the 13th or early 14th to take cannons out of the equation.

Can Aegon take England, Wales, Scotland (the Western Isles and Western Highlands under the Lord of the Isles retained a high degree of autonomy through this period and could be considered a separate political entity) and Ireland (controlled by several independent Irish kings, besides the parts carved out by the Anglo-Normans)? This is fairly comparable to the seven kingdoms, though England is disproportionately larger, of course.

Under good leadership, like that of Robert the Bruce or Wallace, most of Scotland could remain independent like Dorne. Yes, the major castles will be razed, but during the entire war of independence, the Scots did not control the main castles in the lowlands anyway. The castle were taken one by one only after decisive victory at Bannockburn. Without GPS, I doubt a Dragonrider could find all the Highland redoubts that easily, and troops can be garrisoned in less remarkable locations anyway, which is I guess what the Dornish did. Of course, this mode of survival is not great for the economy and cannot be sustained indefinitely, but the Scots were in a similar situation in real history ( except for dragons :-) ) and managed for more than a decade. 

The same modus operandi could apply to Wales, Ireland and Northern England for that matter, if the will and leadership were there. If the leadership were inept, of course, like the Scots after Robert Bruce, you choose to waste your army in a pointless set-piece battle and are forced to admit defeat.  What I guess was lacking in Westoros (except in Dorne due to Rhoynar history with Valyrian dragons) was also a strong national identity in most regions to get the population to gear up for sustained guerrilla warfare against a foreign invader.

In any scenario, the cities/towns/ports of Southern England cannot hold out very long economically and would have to submit with or without offering a set piece battle.

So, I guess it comes down to

1) whether Aegon and his Queens are happy with economic control over key parts of England+ the big lowland cities of Scotland  or really want to 'control' every inch of the Isles.

2) the quality/ineptness of the regional leadership elsewhere and how strong the feeling of nationalism is at the time (how much pain are you willing to take). Pragmatic leadership may like Torrhen decide if they can live like before, it may not be worth starving for years. It was Edward's ruthless policies and attempts to completely break Scottish national identity that really aroused such strong patriotic feelings, uniting commoner with Nobles, I think. In Westeros, until religion became an issue, commoners did not seem to care much whom their lord bent his knee to.

 

He may be able to subjugate Wales or Scotland but I do not see England. His best bet for England would be to strike during the War of the Roses (say after Towton) WITH ALLIES. You are still looking at a shift towards professionalism and a population with significant war experience (at any point in the century). Make an Alliance with the League of the Public Weal + England against Louis XI? Now THAT would be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, nyser1 said:

He may be able to subjugate Wales or Scotland but I do not see England. His best bet for England would be to strike during the War of the Roses (say after Towton) WITH ALLIES. 

Where Aegon came short against Dorne was nobles and commoners fighting a struggle together and willing to take the pain of a long guerrilla struggle in the wilderness, while all the castles were burnt. The conditions are very similar to the Scots' struggle under Wallace and Bruce and given the favourable terrain, I thought Scotland can hold out by fighting a guerrilla war. They would have to give up Edinburgh, Stirling, Berwick and other Southern cities and castles, yes.

The same tactics can be applied in Cumbria, but southern England and the Midlands don't have terrain for guerrilla warfare. And if the church stays out and does not call on the population to fight a crusade against the invaders, I don't see commoners willingly struggling alongside the nobility for years like the Scots independence war.

Of course, the earls will be able to raise levy armies for short periods of time and the divide and conquer strategy in Westeros (where only the Westerlands and the Reach formed an alliance and everyone else was picked off one by one) does not necessarily apply here as England is technically one nation, but I still think Aegon could do it. The sizes of the armies that could be raised were quite small and he could keep the forces raised by different lords from merging together by picking them off one by one in separate smaller fields of fire. (He has to campaign in summer obviously). He can take enough castles by threatening to burn them down and base his land forces there. A lot of propaganda aimed at the common Saxon population that he is here to overthrow the recently arrived Norman nobility would help a lot as well. 

As you say, during the war of roses it would be even easier, but even Edward I faced rebellious barons during his reign. The divisions during Edward II were even stronger under a weak king.

Another strategy would be to ally with the Scots, Welsh and Irish against the English, but then you lose the northern English lords whose gripe with Edward I was they had to bring disproportionate resources to his wars with Scotland and their lands suffered the most in revenge raids, so there are downsides to this Celtic strategy. The Saxon angle is probably better and once you have England, treat Wales and Scotland better than they were by the English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah

But it depends on how many men he has. If he's to conquer Europe with only his two sisters, their half-brother, their three dragons and the men he had at the beginning of the Conquest, then it's going to be a long, ugly war. If he's to conquer Europe with his brother and sisters, three dragons and all of the men Daenerys is going to have going into The Winds of Winter, then yeah, he could take over the world if he wanted to.

In any case, he'll need a powerful foothold on the mainland in order to do so. The quicker he dealt with the Vatican, the better his chances of succeeding are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would have a shot if they land in Scandinavia, which at that point still had a very large population of people following pagan ways.

They would re-ignite the viking age. Then it will all come down to how they integrate their newly conquered lands into their new kingdom. Their best bet i think is to promise to remake the old Roman Empire, honey and money for everyone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MagicPen said:

They would have a shot if they land in Scandinavia, which at that point still had a very large population of people following pagan ways.

They would re-ignite the viking age. Then it will all come down to how they integrate their newly conquered lands into their new kingdom. Their best bet i think is to promise to remake the old Roman Empire, honey and money for everyone.

 

No. Middle-Age Scandinavia was united under a single monarch, and it was completely christianized.

And what makes you think people of the 15th century had nostalgia for the Roman Empire????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

No. Middle-Age Scandinavia was united under a single monarch, and it was completely christianized.

And what makes you think people of the 15th century had nostalgia for the Roman Empire????

Renaissance. They certainly disputed the status quo and offered various alternatives.

Providing Aegon with a copy of Machiavelli´s Prince - who should he pick as allies?

Kalmar Union Scandinavia was not stable. Like the rebellions of Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson, or Sture.

So who could be likely allies for three dragons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Aegon can conquer Westeros with many many times more population and army than England, then I'm sure he can conquer the entirety of British Isles or the Kingdom of France and kingdoms in HRE within his lifetime. 

Remember he defeated a 50k army in the Field of fire. How many kingdoms in the middle ages can field such a large army? Some can, but what are their capabilities to fight in another day after that? 

The main problem would be yes, the Catholic Church but, Aegon can accept Christianity as he did with the Seven, he didn't care.But the problem is there's a real thinking IRL that dragons are evil and connected with the devil, not in the case with Westeros. Also there's no Valyria, so the people of Europe would probably think of them as aliens really. 

 

It would have been great if Aegon can have a copy of the Prince. Much better if Machiavelli would help him as a King's hand. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MagicPen said:

You claimed 14th century Scandinavia was full of pagans, and that's what @Nowy Tends was responding to. Your Wikipedia article says that Scandinavia was pretty much entirely christianized by the 12th century. There was no "very large" pagan population, as you claimed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ninewinter said:

It would have been great if Aegon can have a copy of the Prince. Much better if Machiavelli would help him as a King's hand. :)

Prince was published in manuscript form in 1513 (printed in 1532). Machiavelli was born in 1469, and got job in chancery of Florence in 1498.

Italy post-1494 would fit definition of "15th century", And contain both political players desperate enough to ally with a bunch of incestuous dragonlords, and intellectuals ambitious and irreligious enough to do so. In Westeros, Aegon was said to employ 3 maesters for conquest. In Italy? Like, if Aegon employs Machiavelli, Leonardo da Vinci... who´d be the third?

Lucrezia Borgia was believed to commit incest with her brother Cesare. Contemporary accusation. On evidence, untrue, but widely circulated. Aegon´s sisters are avowedly incestuous...

Not Christian? But neither are Turks. And Aegon is more tolerant than Turks. While Turks did tolerate Christianity, there was big no-no of converting to Christianity, frequent forced conversions...

Aegon´s very lack of big army is an asset. His prospective allies don´t need to worry about sharing so much with his existing army, the way they´d need to if they defected to Turks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2019 at 8:10 PM, Jabar of House Titan said:

Yeah

But it depends on how many men he has. If he's to conquer Europe with only his two sisters, their half-brother, their three dragons and the men he had at the beginning of the Conquest, then it's going to be a long, ugly war. If he's to conquer Europe with his brother and sisters, three dragons and all of the men Daenerys is going to have going into The Winds of Winter, then yeah, he could take over the world if he wanted to.

In any case, he'll need a powerful foothold on the mainland in order to do so. The quicker he dealt with the Vatican, the better his chances of succeeding are.

So true but how would he deal with the pope because if he roasts them them they may just cause a united crusade against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Destiny Arrives said:

So true but how would he deal with the pope because if he roasts them them they may just cause a united crusade against him.

That's why I say he'd have to start with the Vatican first and Rome second. He would have to kill the pope and burn Rome. The fires would make Nero blush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×