Why is navy underutilized in Westeros?

[Aldarion]

OK, we know that Westeros is essentially blown-up Britain. It is also known that naval transport is much cheaper than land transport - especially in the age when you have to secure fodder for horses. So why is naval transport and naval warfare apparently rare in Westeros?

When Northern army goes to War of Five Kings, they march south. If they had any ships, it would have been much quicker, safer, less expensive and more practical to sail down to Westerlands, and attack Tywin from the West - or else disembark in Riverlands. Tywin's operations are also primarily land-based. In fact, only Stannis Baratheon and Balon Greyjoy even attempt to utilize the navy in war, if I remember it right. Golden Company also has ships, but apparently they only transported them to Westeros - though attack on Storm's End may have been amphibious, it is hard to tell from released chapters. Robb Stark has no ships - none at all - to oppose the Iron Fleet. Redwyne Fleet is around, but seems to be mostly doing nothing, despite being vassals of Highgarden.

Before the war, IIRC only Crownlands, Iron Islands, Reach had navy. Irony here is that the kingdoms which would be most vulnerable to naval attack due to their geography: North, Dorne - have no navy. Neither do Stormlands, though their name may indicate that they are much safer from seaborne invasion than previous two. But as noted, even those kingdoms with significant naval forces do not appear to have used them in any major way.

Yet shape of Westeros lends itself uniquely to amphibious warfare. It is extremely long and narrow - north-south distance is about 3 000 miles, while West-East distance is no more than 1 500 miles, and usually much less than that. It also has at least several navigable rivers - and an entire region (Riverlands) got name due to a large number of rivers there.

So what the hell is everybody thinking? Fleets should be zipping around, carrying whole armies up and down (and inside) the Westeros, yet they only seem to be utilized for naval combat and amphibious attacks. Crusaders in the Third Crusade (IIRC) utilized navy to carry supplies and protect the flank of the land forces marching at Acre and then Jerusalem. Byzantines mounted several amphibious assaults in their history, and many more amphibious expeditions where army was simply transported and disembarked. Robb Stark should not have had to march south; he should have sailed there. Renly should have had fleet of Reach with him, transporting if not soldiers then at least supplies. And so on.

And best thing is, you do not even need standing navy for that. Due to nature of medieval oceanic combat, which was essentially infantry combat on seaborne platforms, trade ships were not much less effective than warships once ships stopped being of flimsy enough construction that ramming was an effective tactic.

Thoughts?

[The Young Maester]

Dorne dosent have that many trees to build a fleet. And despite the north having the most forests and trees. Northmen can’t swim.

I think the riverlands should have some sort of river fleet, to transport themselves everywhere. I mean they have so many rivers might as well use it for transport.

[Pontius Pilate]

The English navy became key when she started colonialism.  Planetos is not yet at this stage.  Land territorial disputes do not require a navy.  Infantry and cavalry are used instead of the navy.

[The Young Maester]

5 minutes ago, Centurion Piso said:

The English navy became key when she started colonialism.  Planetos is not yet at this stage.  Land territorial disputes do not require a navy.  Infantry and cavalry are used instead of the navy.

Yeah, I agree with this. The middle ages were also too decentralized for kingdoms to raise a proper navy unless it came out of the kings pocket. 

[BlackLightning]

5 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Yeah, I agree with this. The middle ages were also too decentralized for kingdoms to raise a proper navy unless it came out of the kings pocket. 

 

5 hours ago, Centurion Piso said:

The English navy became key when she started colonialism.  Planetos is not yet at this stage.  Land territorial disputes do not require a navy.  Infantry and cavalry are used instead of the navy.

Sure, sea transporation is quicker, safer and cheaper than land transportation. But navies (true warships, not commercial or fishing vessels retrofitted for naval combat) are infinitely more expensive than land armies...particularly as far as this time is concerned.

[Aldarion]

7 hours ago, Centurion Piso said:

The English navy became key when she started colonialism.  Planetos is not yet at this stage.  Land territorial disputes do not require a navy.  Infantry and cavalry are used instead of the navy.

Land territorial disputes do not require a navy, but that does not change the fact that strong navy provides advantage to any country with access to waterways - not even the sea, just waterways. Matthias Corvinus maintained a strong river fleet on Danube. Ottomans used ships when besieging Belgrade as well, as did Christian relief efforts (you have good video here)).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary#Improving_the_river_fleet

Quote

In 1479, he had a mixed fleet of 360 vessels, a crew of 2600 sailors, and a capacity of 10,000 soldiers on board.

360 ships, 2600 sailors and 10000 soldiers on a river fleet. Riverlands should have been a naval superpower.

Take a look at what I wrote here. Notice how much food animals require? You need animals to pull wagons with supplies over all but shortest distances, but animals also consume those supplies. As a result, army that relies on overland logistics has maximum upper operational range/radius: no matter how many animals you have, at some point you simply won't be able to go any further because all food will be required to get animals to that point. Hence why raiding, chevauchee and plundering were so important in medieval warfare: they allowed you to live off enemy's resources and thus extend your stay in the field (which also meant that offensive warfare was actually preferable - better to damage enemy's economy than your own). But there are problems with that. First, you had to get to the enemy territory. Second, raiding parties were vulnerable to attack and defeat in detail: hence why Fabian strategy was so effective.

But when you have ships, everything changes. Ships do not require fodder. They need food for the crews, but their carrying capacity relative to number of the crew is so massively greater than any overland effort (with possible exception of galleys) that such concerns could be pretty much ignored. As a result, army with access to water transport - maritime or riverine - had massive mobility advantage. As I mentioned, Crusaders on their march to Acre and later Jerusalem kept to the shore, with their fleet - carrying supplies - just offshore, keeping pace with ground troops.

8 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Dorne dosent have that many trees to build a fleet. And despite the north having the most forests and trees. Northmen can’t swim.

I think the riverlands should have some sort of river fleet, to transport themselves everywhere. I mean they have so many rivers might as well use it for transport.

Kinda my point.

7 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Yeah, I agree with this. The middle ages were also too decentralized for kingdoms to raise a proper navy unless it came out of the kings pocket. 

 

1 hour ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Sure, sea transporation is quicker, safer and cheaper than land transportation. But navies (true warships, not commercial or fishing vessels retrofitted for naval combat) are infinitely more expensive than land armies...particularly as far as this time is concerned.

Standing navy of Byzantine war galleys, yes. But medieval naval combat in the Atlantic - and remember, Westeros is bloody oversized Britain - was basically infantry combat AT SEA! In such circumstances, transport and trade ships were perfectly adequate warships - just add towers to them, and you are ready to go. And at any rate, my main problem is that we do not see ships utilized for logistical purposes, for which civilian transports are perfectly suitable.

Read these:

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/medieval/brutal-reality-naval-warfare-hundred-years-war.html

http://www.medievalarchives.com/2015/06/22/map-battle-of-sluys/

http://deremilitari.org/2014/03/god-leadership-flemings-and-archery-contemporary-perspectives-of-victory-and-defeat-at-the-battle-of-sluys-1340/

[frenin]

11 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Dorne dosent have that many trees to build a fleet. And despite the north having the most forests and trees. Northmen can’t swim.

??? 

[The Young Maester]

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

??? 

I’m just trying to say that northmen are too isolated, and old fashioned to try something new like sailing. 

[frenin]

1 minute ago, The Young Maester said:

I’m just trying to say that northmen are too isolated, and old fashioned to try something new like sailing. 

The Northmen  had navy for most of their history, Theon Stark had apparently a mighty one and  Brandon The Shipwright one even bigger, we don't really know the reason why the North just gave up.

[Arthur Peres]

7 hours ago, frenin said:

The Northmen  had navy for most of their history, Theon Stark had apparently a mighty one and  Brandon The Shipwright one even bigger, we don't really know the reason why the North just gave up.

From fire and blood.

"Thousands of years before the Conquest, when the Kings of Winter still reigned in the North, Brandon the Shipwright had built an entire fleet of ships to cross the Sunset Sea. He took them west himself, never to return. His son and heir, another Brandon, burned the yards where they were built, and was known as Brandon the Burner forevermore.

[nyser1]

15 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

 

Sure, sea transporation is quicker, safer and cheaper than land transportation. But navies (true warships, not commercial or fishing vessels retrofitted for naval combat) are infinitely more expensive than land armies...particularly as far as this time is concerned.

This plus logistics and the nature of the feudalism here. You also need to consider the fact that the geography of a bunch of regions (North, Stormlands, Westerlands, and Vale at the very least) does not serve well for the developments of navies for INTERNAL strife.

[Rufus Snow]

On 10/13/2019 at 8:07 AM, Aldarion said:

But when you have ships, everything changes. Ships do not require fodder. They need food for the crews, but their carrying capacity relative to number of the crew is so massively greater than any overland effort (with possible exception of galleys) that such concerns could be pretty much ignored. As a result, army with access to water transport - maritime or riverine - had massive mobility advantage. As I mentioned, Crusaders on their march to Acre and later Jerusalem kept to the shore, with their fleet - carrying supplies - just offshore, keeping pace with ground troops. 

Take a close look at the east coast of Westeros, could this method really be feasible in, say, taking an army from the North to KL, or even Storm's End? (or vice versa for that matter...) The army would need to march maybe four times the distance to follow the coast instead of using the Kingsroad, so the benefit of ship supply is much less valuable, IMHO.

Movement east/west would also be more efficient by land, as the only sea option is to go all the way round, passing through the (usually) pirate-infested Stepstones on the way, then skirt the inhospitable south coast of Dorne with its lack of landing places for rewatering and resupply.

To my mind, the lack of integration of naval and land forces boils down to a couple of major themes. Firstly, keeping a standing navy is expensive (not for nothing is it said that a boat is just 'a hole in the water for throwing money into'), and since the Targs unified the 7K then the regions have had no real need for separate navies. Secondly, as I think the English invasions of France showed in the 100 Years War (and others), naval invasions take a huge administrative effort - which I think is beyond most of the regions in Westeros. There were times when English armies just kicked their heels in Southampton for a whole year (on full pay) waiting for the ships to be all organised and victualled. And that ws just to cross twenty miles of sea. And to add a thirdly, the weather. The Narrow Sea seems even stormier than the Channel and North Sea around Britain, and the weather there put paid to many an invasion, in each direction, over the centuries.

So the tl;dr version: too uncertain, too expensive; too much hassle

[Trigger Warning]

Maintaining fleets is mad expensive and if you're going to do it you need a consistent reason to do so not just that you might occasionally need it to move an army to campaign away from home, cheaper to just hire mercenary ships as needed if you don't need a fleet to constantly protect shipping lanes and project power. All the lords that have ships rule over maritime towns, the need for ships goes without saying. 

[John Suburbs]

On 10/12/2019 at 12:42 PM, Aldarion said:

snip

If you look at history, there's been plenty of naval action. Even the Conqueror used navies as part of his army.

More recently, navies played crucial roles. The Redwyne fleet sealed off the harbor at Storms End while the Tyrell army held the ground. Stannis used a navy or sorts to attack King's Landing, and led naval battles in Greyjoy's rebellion as well.

It would not have been wise for Robb to transport his troops to the Riverlands by sea. In the first place, that would leave him open to invasion from the south. In the second place, his entry into war came in stages: when Ned was take captive, he called his banners and marched to Moat Caillen; when Ned was executed and Jaime invested Riverrun, he cut a deal with the Freys and lifted the siege; when Tywin moved east, Robb went west. This allows him to lean forward into the theater of battle while still maintaining supply lines and communications all the way to Winterfell, until the ironmen took MC, that is. If he hopped on a bunch of ships and sailed to, say, Saltpans, his army would be isolated with its back to the sea; easy pickings for Tywin.

But you are right about the riverlands. The Tullys should know from experience that to rule the riverlands, one has to rule the rivers, but they don't seem to have taken any initiative in this area.

[Aldarion]

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

If you look at history, there's been plenty of naval action. Even the Conqueror used navies as part of his army.

 More recently, navies played crucial roles. The Redwyne fleet sealed off the harbor at Storms End while the Tyrell army held the ground. Stannis used a navy or sorts to attack King's Landing, and led naval battles in Greyjoy's rebellion as well.

It would not have been wise for Robb to transport his troops to the Riverlands by sea. In the first place, that would leave him open to invasion from the south. In the second place, his entry into war came in stages: when Ned was take captive, he called his banners and marched to Moat Caillen; when Ned was executed and Jaime invested Riverrun, he cut a deal with the Freys and lifted the siege; when Tywin moved east, Robb went west. This allows him to lean forward into the theater of battle while still maintaining supply lines and communications all the way to Winterfell, until the ironmen took MC, that is. If he hopped on a bunch of ships and sailed to, say, Saltpans, his army would be isolated with its back to the sea; easy pickings for Tywin.

 But you are right about the riverlands. The Tullys should know from experience that to rule the riverlands, one has to rule the rivers, but they don't seem to have taken any initiative in this area.

But what you described is precisely what I am complaining about: navies have played combat role (I am aware of that), but everybody seems to be utilizing them only for that. Yet historically, navies were - especially for land power, which everyone except Ironborn is, in Westeros - far more important for a) logistics and b) strategic maneuver, than they were for naval combat and sieges (though of course they were utilized for that as well).

Tywin knew Robb Stark had no navy. Assuming that he had a navy, or at least a merchant fleet, he could have bypassed Robb's army and threatened Riverlands, or even Winterfell. As it was, Bumbling Greyjoy dropped him a coup in the lap - not something Tywin expected, I think. If Robb had a navy, he would have had no need to kiss Old Frey's backside - he could have gone south without needing to come anywhere near the Twins. And no, transporting army by sea would not have left him open to invasion by the south. Navies typically move much more quickly than armies, and in Westeros they have somewhat reliable communications in form of ravens. Merely leaving scouts in Riverlands and the Neck would have meant that he would be able to cut off any enemy advance in that direction.

[Ivan Tsarevich]

On 10/12/2019 at 7:42 PM, Aldarion said:

So why is naval transport and naval warfare apparently rare in Westeros?

It's not, you see it frequently.

On 10/12/2019 at 7:42 PM, Aldarion said:

When Northern army goes to War of Five Kings, they march south. If they had any ships, it would have been much quicker, safer, less expensive and more practical to sail down to Westerlands, and attack Tywin from the West - or else disembark in Riverlands.

There are no large ports in northern West Coast that I'm aware of (though I admit Brandon the Shipwright had to keep his ships somewhere.) I think most logical way to mobilize troops all over the North is to make heavy use of the Kingsroad. Or go East.

On 10/12/2019 at 7:42 PM, Aldarion said:

Tywin's operations are also primarily land-based.

At the start of war, Tywin does not have large navy at his disposal. He could in theory send a task force to seize Moat Cailin as Balon later does. They'd fail, either finding or keeping it.

He could also seize merchant ships to increase the size of his navy... for what? We later see how his enemies surround him from South (Renly and Tyrells), East (Stannis, and Robert would've been here), northeast (Rivermen), and from sea (Ironborn). Not committing to risky seaborne operation and keeping your forces close at hand is the proper course of action.

His strategy to attack enemies immediately neighbouring him overland and leave his small navy to do it's job, guard the coast, strikes far more practical to me.

On 10/12/2019 at 7:42 PM, Aldarion said:

Golden Company also has ships, but apparently they only transported them to Westeros - though attack on Storm's End may have been amphibious, it is hard to tell from released chapters.

Not originally, they get a ride from Volantenes.

On 10/12/2019 at 7:42 PM, Aldarion said:

Redwyne Fleet is around, but seems to be mostly doing nothing, despite being vassals of Highgarden.

They do act when they can. I point out in paragraph below why they do not support Renly. They later participate and make possible the siege of Dragonstone, and at current state of the story are moving towards Euron.

On 10/12/2019 at 7:42 PM, Aldarion said:

Renly should have had fleet of Reach with him, transporting if not soldiers then at least supplies.

Lord Redwyne did not join Renly, his sons were hostages in King's Landing.

But I sure agree that if you have to supply the army the size of Renly's, you use all tools you have. There should be watercraft running up and down the Mander carrying food et cetera. Do we have reason to believe this is not the case?

On 10/12/2019 at 7:42 PM, Aldarion said:

And best thing is, you do not even need standing navy for that. Due to nature of medieval oceanic combat, which was essentially infantry combat on seaborne platforms, trade ships were not much less effective than warships once ships stopped being of flimsy enough construction that ramming was an effective tactic.

Ships still ram in Westeros.