Why didn't Rhaenys do a harrenhal on Sunspear?

[Alyn Oakenfist]

So during the conquest Rhaenys famously met with the Yellow Toad at Sunspear, which was completely abandoned. So why didn't she make Sunspear a second Harrenhal after Meria's refusal to bend the knee? She would at least kill a very capable Dornish leader.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Darth Sidious]

Visenya would have.  Rhaenys was not the warrior that her sister was.  Dorne could have been starved.  A blockade of the ports would do the job.  The stubborn would die of starvation and the only ones left are the compliant one.  A winning strategy.  

[HexMachina]

Because she would have made achieved nothing save making Meria a martyr to her cause. The resistance would most likely have continued regardless, perhaps with even more fervour

[Lord Varys]

You have to see Harrenhal in context. Harrenhal was also a sign to show how terrible weapon of war a dragon the size of Balerion was, but it was also a means to simply end a siege Aegon could not have been able to maintain for long. The Riverlands were already his, just Harrenhal still belonged to the Ironborn. The campaign there ended with the destruction of the castle - in Dorne it would have been the start of a war and also a sign of Targaryen impotency.

If you destroy what you want to rule you show weakness.

[frenin]

36 minutes ago, The Way of the Dragon said:

Visenya would have.  Rhaenys was not the warrior that her sister was.  Dorne could have been starved.  A blockade of the ports would do the job.  The stubborn would die of starvation and the only ones left are the compliant one.  A winning strategy.  

Aegon lauched a genocidal campaign against the Dornish and  he still could not get the w.

And unless Dorne is not self sufficient, a blockade is not helping much unless Dorne is completely completely out of food and  desperate to buy.

 

On the topic, why made Meria  a martyr?? By the time Rhaenys came the Dornish were already placed  to fight, killing Meria  would've solved little  and  less.

[The Young Maester]

1 hour ago, The Way of the Dragon said:

Visenya would have.  Rhaenys was not the warrior that her sister was.  Dorne could have been starved.  A blockade of the ports would do the job.  The stubborn would die of starvation and the only ones left are the compliant one.  A winning strategy.  

What about the rivers that pass through Dorne. Dorne is said to be the least populous of the kingdoms, so maybe those rivers are enough to farm food for the entire population. 

[Quoth the raven,]

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So during the conquest Rhaenys famously met with the Yellow Toad at Sunspear, which was completely abandoned. So why didn't she make Sunspear a second Harrenhal after Meria's refusal to bend the knee? She would at least kill a very capable Dornish leader.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good question.  Rhaenys was the weakest of the three Targaryen children.  She was the politician in the family.  Forced arranged marriages are her tools of the trade.  She was not the warrior maiden.  And to fly low enough to expose her dragon to the primitive weapons of the time was a poor tactical choice.  She could have bombarded the Dornish with dragonball flames from above if she had been the tactician that her siblings were.  She was a poor choice to lead the Dornish campaign.  To conquer a brutal people, one must be equally brutal.  I know that's not fashionable to say but it is better than going about the job in a half-ass manner, which she did.  Like the saying goes "Go Big or Go Home" is applicable in this situation.  Rhaenys should have bombarded Sunspear with flames and then send in her troops to clean up the resistance in a way that will work.  A smart torturing of a chosen few survivors will reveal where the men are hiding.  It should be possible to win against guerilla warfare if she was willing to take it as far as it needed to go. 

[Back door hodor]

I agree with whoever said this up thread, but I don't think it was in her personality to do so. Aegon or Visenya maybe, but it was Reanyns and she did not. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

8 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Because she would have made achieved nothing save making Meria a martyr to her cause. The resistance would most likely have continued regardless, perhaps with even more fervour

I'm not so sure. The Yellow Toad was one of the biggest driving forces of the rebellion and with her killed maybe her successor would either bend the knee or be stupid enough to face the Targs in open field. It would also work to demoralize the dornish.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You have to see Harrenhal in context. Harrenhal was also a sign to show how terrible weapon of war a dragon the size of Balerion was, but it was also a means to simply end a siege Aegon could not have been able to maintain for long. The Riverlands were already his, just Harrenhal still belonged to the Ironborn. The campaign there ended with the destruction of the castle - in Dorne it would have been the start of a war and also a sign of Targaryen impotency.

If you destroy what you want to rule you show weakness.

Sunspear isn't necessary to rule. Yronwood would work just as well. Which leads me to another question. Why didn't the Targ try to aquire the Yronwoods to their cause. We know from the Blackfyre rebellion that they're no exactly loyal to the Martells, and they are very powerful. So why not use them. Offer them the lord paramount of Dorne in exchange or their loyalty and boom, you just acquired a third of Dorne.

[SeanF]

Of the three, Rhaenys was the least ruthless.  She would rather not do such a thing.

[frenin]

I don't understand why people say the woman was the least ruthless, is because Visenya was a tomboy?? Visenya went tothe Eyrie and got them to bend the jnee by charming little Ronnel and a velied threat, Rhaenys went to Sunspear and started ramblling about Fire & Blood, Rhaenys  seems actually the more bloodthirsty but it appears that Meria scared her.

[rotting sea cow]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You have to see Harrenhal in context. Harrenhal was also a sign to show how terrible weapon of war a dragon the size of Balerion was, but it was also a means to simply end a siege Aegon could not have been able to maintain for long. The Riverlands were already his, just Harrenhal still belonged to the Ironborn. The campaign there ended with the destruction of the castle - in Dorne it would have been the start of a war and also a sign of Targaryen impotency.

If you destroy what you want to rule you show weakness.

This is the correct answer.

Sunspear wasn't hated by the Dornish as the Harrenhal rulers were by the rivermen. 

Also, the Targaryens made a hundred of mini Harrenhalls and that didn't bend the will of the Dornish

[Texas Hold Em]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You have to see Harrenhal in context. Harrenhal was also a sign to show how terrible weapon of war a dragon the size of Balerion was, but it was also a means to simply end a siege Aegon could not have been able to maintain for long. The Riverlands were already his, just Harrenhal still belonged to the Ironborn. The campaign there ended with the destruction of the castle - in Dorne it would have been the start of a war and also a sign of Targaryen impotency.

If you destroy what you want to rule you show weakness.

Not necessarily.  Destroy the people and take the land.  Give them a chance to submit, which is not a bad deal for the regular people, and the ones who do get to live.  Conquest in this context is simply a change in rulers.  The cultural stuff can be adjusted for.  It is somewhat like the arrival of the Andals forcing change on the First Men.  The Targaryens enforced very reasonable laws and outlawed barbaric rights like the lord's priviledge of taking the bride.  It is not weakness to destroy a stubborn and resistant people in order to claim their lands.

[Texas Hold Em]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Of the three, Rhaenys was the least ruthless.  She would rather not do such a thing.

That was the problem.  The Starks didn't conquer the north by avoiding violence.  No they did not.  The Starks were very ruthless and served a violent religion.  Remember what they did to the warg king and his sons.  Harren Hoare didn't conquer the river lands by being passive.  Medieval isn't modern.   Rhaenys was used to people doing what was commanded and wrongly assumed the Dornish are the same way.  She needed time in the school of hard knocks to learn street smarts. 

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, Back door hodor said:

I agree with whoever said this up thread, but I don't think it was in her personality to do so. Aegon or Visenya maybe, but it was Reanyns and she did not. 

 

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Of the three, Rhaenys was the least ruthless.  She would rather not do such a thing.

This makes no sense in context. Rhaenys burned the Planky Town, we even got an illustration for that (although one that's not exactly accurate), and Rhaenys burned many other castles before she died herself in battle.

And killing an old, blind woman would just be bad style. They didn't know how long she would live, and how much resolve and determination she would have at that age. Not to mention they still thought they could get Dorne by way of negotiation.

7 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Sunspear isn't necessary to rule. Yronwood would work just as well. Which leads me to another question. Why didn't the Targ try to aquire the Yronwoods to their cause. We know from the Blackfyre rebellion that they're no exactly loyal to the Martells, and they are very powerful. So why not use them. Offer them the lord paramount of Dorne in exchange or their loyalty and boom, you just acquired a third of Dorne.

That is an interesting question, but destroying Sunspear at this point - when they still hoped/intended for the Martells to submit - would make no sense.

The fact that the Yronwoods never defected to the Targaryens likely means that while they are not the greatest fans of the Martells, they shared the view of their Princes that Dorne should not be ruled by outsiders. They only made common cause with the Blackfyres after the union - at a point when they had accepted the rule of the Iron Throne and were likely trying expand their power in Dorne. Selling out Dorne to a foreign invader is apparently not something you can try to get away with.

42 minutes ago, Texas Hold Em said:

Not necessarily.  Destroy the people and take the land.  Give them a chance to submit, which is not a bad deal for the regular people, and the ones who do get to live.  Conquest in this context is simply a change in rulers.  The cultural stuff can be adjusted for.  It is somewhat like the arrival of the Andals forcing change on the First Men.  The Targaryens enforced very reasonable laws and outlawed barbaric rights like the lord's priviledge of taking the bride.  It is not weakness to destroy a stubborn and resistant people in order to claim their lands.

See above. Aegon and his sisters were not butchers. They used surgical strikes and intimidation and even negotiation to 'conquer' the Seven Kingdoms (they got the entire North without so much as killing a single Northmen, just as they got the Vale without much bloodshed). They had no intention to march an army to Dorne if they could prevent that.

The time to use the dragons was when they had tried all other means.

And the idea that they ever wanted to destroy the people and repopulate the land is completely without basis. Those are megalomaniacal dreams of modern Bond villains. They thought in feudal categories.

[nyser1]

Destroying Sunspear alone will not destroy Dornish resistance, destroying Harrenhal ended house Hoare.

 

While houses Hoare and Gardner (field of fire) were all in one place at one time, the theme of the Dornish (Martell included) is that they are scattered and will hide in the desert or mountains.

[Pontius Pilate]

On 11/2/2019 at 5:08 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So during the conquest Rhaenys famously met with the Yellow Toad at Sunspear, which was completely abandoned. So why didn't she make Sunspear a second Harrenhal after Meria's refusal to bend the knee? She would at least kill a very capable Dornish leader.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We will never know what was going on in her mind but the decision was a bad one.  The Dornish are a strong people but it will not take the complete slaughter of them all to bend their knees.  A strategic burning of the major castles and the wise selection of whom to execute, whom to bribe, would go towards beating down the Dornish. 

[The Young Maester]

4 hours ago, Centurion Piso said:

We will never know what was going on in her mind but the decision was a bad one.  The Dornish are a strong people but it will not take the complete slaughter of them all to bend their knees.  A strategic burning of the major castles and the wise selection of whom to execute, whom to bribe, would go towards beating down the Dornish. 

Seizing it’s important rivers and blockading the kingdom could starve it into submission. 
The Dornish are more than happy with leaving their lands and hiding within the mountains and vast deserts. Why not send your soldiers to patrol the beautiful and fertile lands near the bountiful and drinkable rivers.

[Darth Sidious]

On 11/2/2019 at 8:06 PM, The Young Maester said:

What about the rivers that pass through Dorne. Dorne is said to be the least populous of the kingdoms, so maybe those rivers are enough to farm food for the entire population. 

Maybe they could fish.  But what are the nobles going to do without their silks and servants?  The poor commoners will get tired of serving lords who can offer them nothing but hardship.  They will turn on their lords and sell them to the Targaryens in exchange for peace.