Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Canon Claude

Could the North have pulled a Dornish War?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

The USAF had thousands of dragons and they were unable to make the vietnamese to submit.

The vietnamese were getting everything they needed through the Laos road. How do you think given the White Harbour would inevitably fall and that the closest trade partner is Ib (Braavos wouldn't be stupid enough to mess with dragons) as would Winterfell and basically everything east of the white knife, that the Northmen would feed themselves during winter. They don't have the money to buy the food, Aegon would burn all crops, and even if they did have the money, were would smugglers land? 

7 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

The North is actually accustomed to this kind of suffering. They had thousands of years withstanding harsh winters, so much that when winters arrive the old know they have to go in "suicide mode" if they can give their families any hope to survive winter.

That may work for the first winter. When the second one comes and they still haven't managed to grow anything they would all die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Of course, there is a weak spot: Winterfell. Too important to let it burn.

There are two actually. Winterfell is too important but can be easily Harrenhaled, and White Harbour which unlike the Dornish cities is too big to evacuate the men from there. So those two things alone given Aegon a good chunk of the North's population under his control as well as it's economic heart as well as the strongest castle in the area, night impenetrable by the Northmen, and with huge symbolic importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Look at the map. Look at the mountains, at the vast forests, at the rivers, at the lakes. The area of the North is almost as large as the rest of Westeros and besides White Harbor there are not cities.

I did look and again, there no holes in there, the vast forest are tinder, the lakes are easy to spots atop a dragon, just as the Mountains.

 

19 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Thinking that three dragons alone would be able to burn the Wolfswood, the largest forest in Westeros, is laughable. Specially compared to real world examples as Vietnam. The USAF had thousands of dragons and they were unable to make the vietnamese to submit.

It's not laughable, the Ironborn burnt a good chunk of the wolfswood without dragons, as did the Dornish with the rainswood, dragons not only means destructions, but huge fires that are very very difficult to be put down.

Your analogy is also off, the Vietnamese had a lot of crutial help and so on that made them resist the yankees, even the Dornish would've perished without essosi support. The North stands completely alone, they are going to lose, badly, and depending how stubborn they are, they are facing total anihilation.

 

 

27 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

The North is actually accustomed to this kind of suffering. They had thousands of years withstanding harsh winters, so much that when winters arrive the old know they have to go in "suicide mode" if they can give their families any hope to survive winter.

No they aren't. They use tools to endure winter as everyone else, without those tools, they die as everyone else. The North fares in northen Winter far better than a southron would... But the fact that they know winter, are used to live and fue and fight in Winter≠ They are inmune to Winter.

If Winter comes and the northeners have no roof over their heads and no food, they will all die.

 

 

32 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Do you know how many settlement are in the North. Besides White Harbor, Barrowtown and few others, everything looks pretty rural to me, with lots of villages, making harder to annihilate.

Do you?? Those settlements are easy to spot in a dragon and those settlements are abandoned anyway in Winter, come Winter and people in those settlements go to live under their lords roof. No roof, they all die.

 

35 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Of course, there is a weak spot: Winterfell. Too important to let it burn.

It would be likely occupied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

 They don't have the money to buy the food, Aegon would burn all crops, and even if they did have the money, were would smugglers land? 

The dragons cannot burn all the crops. Do you have a grasp how big is the North. Do you think if I give you three F-16 with unlimited fuel and bombs you will be able to wipe out all farms in Canada for example? No, you won't be able to do that.

You still need to find refuge, you still need to bring armies and supplies to an hostile territory.

 

12 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

That may work for the first winter. When the second one comes and they still haven't managed to grow anything they would all die.

And you think that the rest of Westeros will sit idle whilst Aegon and his sisters get stuck in the North? There is a reason why Aegon didn't get full involved in Dorne. He wanted to make a kingdom not to annihilate them.

 

17 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

There are two actually. Winterfell is too important but can be easily Harrenhaled, and White Harbour which unlike the Dornish cities is too big to evacuate the men from there.

As far as I remember, Aegon nor Rhaenys burned Sunspear nor Planky Town.

No, the North is too hard to conquer and to hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, frenin said:

I did look and again, there no holes in there, the vast forest are tinder, the lakes are easy to spots atop a dragon, just as the Mountains.

Have you ever flown in a airplane?  Specially in cloudy weather? Over a large territory? Think again.

 

1 minute ago, frenin said:

It's not laughable, the Ironborn burnt a good chunk of the wolfswood without dragons

When?

1 minute ago, frenin said:

Your analogy is also off, the Vietnamese had a lot of crutial help and so on that made them resist the yankees, even the Dornish would've perished without essosi support. The North stands completely alone, they are going to lose, badly, and depending how stubborn they are, they are facing total anihilation.

Same with the russian against the germans or Napoleon?

 

1 minute ago, frenin said:

No they aren't. They use tools to endure winter as everyone else, without those tools, they die as everyone else.

Winter is death, the northmen know that and they did die by the thousands before the conquest. In fact, it is likely that the conquest was favourable to them as winters became milder and food was easier to get from the south thanks to an unified kingdom.

 

1 minute ago, frenin said:

Do you?? Those settlements are easy to spot in a dragon and those settlements are abandoned anyway in Winter, come Winter and people in those settlements go to live under their lords roof. No roof, they all die.

Take google maps and fly over Canada, try to make a plan to burn all towns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not just the North that could do that, every kingdom could do it, especially the Vale, the West, and the Stormlands where you have lots of dense forests, mountain valleys, and other place where you can hide.

The Targaryens could burn down the North or any other kingdom with their dragons, but if that didn't make the Dornish bent their knees (and it didn't) then other lords and kings could have refused to yield, either. Those who did where just weaklings and wimps, especially after doing when they just lost one crucial battle against them (or none at all, as Torrhen did).

To make that work in context one has to assume that many lords and kings bent the knee to Aegon because they saw him as a man who could be a great and just king - a man you could take as your king without shaming or dishonoring yourself. If most of the kings and lords who yielded to Aegon felt he was an evil, bloody tyrant it is very odd that none of them ever rebelled or tried to murder him, his dragons, and his heirs.

My way to resolve the weird issue of Torrhen's submission is that the man felt allying with the dragons would strengthen his own position in the North. The North was so vast that Stark power could have been little more than nominal in many a region of the North, especially in the lands of the powerful lords. By being able to call on Aegon and his dragons if there were a rebellion Torrhen's position as Warden of the North may have been stronger than he was as King in the North. That could have been one of the reasons why Torrhen agreed to yield during those secret negotiations he had with Aegon. After all, the submission of the North - just as the submission of the Vale - was one including a lot of negotiation.

The Targaryens could also assemble a massive army and navy and conquer the North with brute force - like Daeron I conquered Dorne - but holding it against as stubborn a populace as the Dornish were after Daeron's Conquest would necessitate that this massive army became a constant occupying force which is something nobody has done since the Conquest (the Durrandons had garrisons and forts in the Riverlands after they added the Trident to their kingdom). That would get very tough in winter unless the Targaryens could turn some Northmen against the Starks and join their team. But then - if you conquered in spring and brought sufficient provisions in and killed the entire conquered ruling class and secured the castles against the peasants you could get through winter while the common people outside starved to death unless they submitted and begged you to feed them.

But the key to victory would indeed be a continuous destruction of the North's infrastructure - the North is vast but empty, and a lot of land is either not fertile or not cultivated. The key to force them into submission would be key dragon attacks (and raids of the coastal regions/invasions of the border regions) in autumn after the last harvest before winter has set in. If most or all of the major population centers and their winter provisions are destroyed (which dragons should be able to do easily for the large castles and cities easily enough) the Northmen would suffer horribly in a long winter, especially one lasting for four or five or six years. This is not something they could stomach for long.

The Targaryens would likely need some patience for that, but if they were to do that for five or six seasons they could reduce the Northern population severely, meaning they could no longer resist, even if they wanted to.

Another way to grind them down would be to abolish the NW - or rather refuse to send any men and support to them from the south and send envoys to wildling chieftains to encourage them to raid and burn lands in the North. If the Watch is significantly weakened, they could no longer stop wildling raids, further weakening the Northmen in those regions where it is pointless to use dragons to burn down settlements (because there aren't (m)any).

Dorne had the advantage that invading forces simply cannot cope well with the heat in the Sands, not to mention that it is much easier to poison crucial wells in Dorne than in the North. Not to mention that Dorne is close to the Free Cities and the Stepstones to be able to bring in food and provisions easily enough. The North cannot possibly feed the entire population by importing food by ship. It is too vast for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with three dragons, Aegon wouldn’t be able to hold the North.  The more he destroys, the more enemies he creates. In the face of adversity, some would surrender, but others would just dig deeper trenches.

And Dorne isn’t so different from the North. Both regions are harsh to live in and require supplies and shelter in order for a population to survive. You can’t live in the desert without shelter from the sun or without water. Aegon destroyed settlements all across Dorne for years and it still wasn’t enough. And I don’t recall the Dornish ever relying on Essos for help in their war, because any supplies sent by ship would be vulnerable to dragon attack, just ask Prince “Moron” Martell.

My point is, the fact that Aegon couldn’t break Dorne with his scorched earth policy means that the North would have endured too. Even if Aegon did occupy the capitals and main settlements of the North, the occupying force would be wiped out by a hostile population as soon as the dragons left. And the dragons can’t be everywhere at once. The North would be a long war of attrition which they’d win. I refuse to believe that remote settlements in the North never developed underground stores of food for winter, just look at the Nights Watch. Their supplies would not be accessible to burn unless you knew where they all were hidden.
 

And this would all take a toll on his other subjects. He would need backup and support from the other regions of Westeros. With Dorne, he could rely on the racist views of those in the Reach and the Stormlands to keep them invested. The North has no such animosity with the south, at least not to that degree. And how many southrons are going to want lands in the North? Way too much risk for too few rewards. Not to mention that the more Aegon destroys, the more tyrannical he appears, and we all know how popular Maegor was.

The Starks and their people would suffer badly, true, but Aegon has far more to lose with a war on the North. He might gain a short term victory, but as long as the North holds out, they’d endure. And given their history and their motto, I’d put my money on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

You still need to find refuge, you still need to bring armies and supplies to an hostile territory.

And White Harbor is perfect for all that.

 

52 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

And you think that the rest of Westeros will sit idle whilst Aegon and his sisters get stuck in the North?

They stoodidle whilst Aegon and his sisters were stuck in Dorne.

 

53 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

here is a reason why Aegon didn't get full involved in Dorne. He wanted to make a kingdom not to annihilate them.

There is?? Aegon did razed Dorne.

 

51 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Have you ever flown in a airplane?  Specially in cloudy weather? Over a large territory? Think again.

 

I did, it's feasible, Aegon does not need to fly a kilometer above the clouds.

 

52 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

When?

 

For a time the Stony Shore did fealty to Harrag and his ironmen, swathes of the wolfswood were nothing but ashes, and Bear Island was a base for reaving, ruled by Harrag’s black-hearted son, Ravos the Raper. Though Theon Stark slew Ravos with his own hand, and expelled the ironmen from his shores,

 

1 hour ago, rotting sea cow said:

Same with the russian against the germans or Napoleon?

Again ignoring all the difference between the cases to make a superficial analogy. 

 

1 hour ago, rotting sea cow said:

Winter is death, the northmen know that and they did die by the thousands before the conquest. In fact, it is likely that the conquest was favourable to them as winters became milder and food was easier to get from the south thanks to an unified kingdom.

And when they died by the thousands, they still had a roof and shelter, not so much after Aegon visits them.

I doubt that it was favourable to them, the idea that winters were milder is Arlan's idea, but the winter of the shivers and the winter of 129 AC, were not milder.

A united south means that they can kick the ass of every northern army that dares go down the neck.

 

1 hour ago, rotting sea cow said:

Take google maps and fly over Canada, try to make a plan to burn all towns.

The North is not Canada, the North have a dozen big towns at the very best, Aegon only needs patience and yes, the North will fall. 

 

 

49 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not just the North that could do that, every kingdom could do it, especially the Vale, the West, and the Stormlands where you have lots of dense forests, mountain valleys, and other place where you can hide.

No, not every kingdom could do it, the rainswood burn well, only by the Dornish's hands, the West doesn't really have mountain but hills and it's not like the Valemen don't avoid the Mountains because that's  the clans dominion... 

 

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Targaryens could burn down the North or any other kingdom with their dragons, but if that didn't make the Dornish bent their knees (and it didn't) then other lords and kings could have refused to yield, either. Those who did where just weaklings and wimps, especially after doing when they just lost one crucial battle against them (or none at all, as Torrhen did).

The Dornish had not only the resolves, but the tactics, resources and terrain to "prevail", while the rest of Westeros simply didn't.

Most of those who knelt after one crucial battle, had thrown all their might at Aegon, it's not like they had thousands of men in the reserve.

 

57 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

To make that work in context one has to assume that many lords and kings bent the knee to Aegon because they saw him as a man who could be a great and just king - a man you could take as your king without shaming or dishonoring yourself. If most of the kings and lords who yielded to Aegon felt he was an evil, bloody tyrant it is very odd that none of them ever rebelled or tried to murder him, his dragons, and his heirs.

None would've gone to war against him in that case, Aegon and his dragons put the fear on people.

 

 

57 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Even with three dragons, Aegon wouldn’t be able to hold the North.  The more he destroys, the more enemies he creates. In the face of adversity, some would surrender, but others would just dig deeper trenches.

Who?? By the time the war ended, the North would be in far worse position than Dorne was, Aegon doesn't need to hold it, he just needs to beat them into submission, if the North can't resist even if they want, they are done for.  After that, he can either resettle the North or arrange a deal with the survivor.

 

1 hour ago, James Steller said:

My point is, the fact that Aegon couldn’t break Dorne with his scorched earth policy means that the North would have endured too. Even if Aegon did occupy the capitals and main settlements of the North, the occupying force would be wiped out by a hostile population as soon as the dragons left. And the dragons can’t be everywhere at once. The North would be a long war of attrition which they’d win. I refuse to believe that remote settlements in the North never developed underground stores of food for winter, just look at the Nights Watch. Their supplies would not be accessible to burn unless you knew where they all were hidden.

Except that it's not possible for the North to do that, the North simply can survive winter, let alone many, with a scorched earth policy, that's their doom. 

And no, put 70k soldiers in the White Knife and they are staying, no matter what the hostile population, after winter might say. The problem with the North, is that get to the North and even once you land, get to somewhere relevant is hard as hell, once you're in the North, has a relatively secured base (White Harbor) and supply, is game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

They wouldn't need to. As long as the dragons secure White Harbour and Winterfell and scare off any trade the North would go broke and subsequently starve come Winter. The forests would be burned to crisp and so the North would have no income, no food no nothing. Aegon wouldn't have to do anything just sit and watch the North die of starvation.

He cannot burn an entire landmass that size, with dragons who are afraid of a little rain. His nuke wont work right. You're thinking that these things are perfect weapons when they're actually organic, beasts of burden, that cant operate at maximum capacity at all times. The North are preppers, they know how to handle winter, which basically kills everything living anyway. Dont need fire to help this out, and fire cant reach underground cellars. And if Torrhen is in hiding and doesnt kneel? Its Dorne 2.0

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing is that Targs do not have a standing army. Or their armies cannot spend years occupying some places (like WF or White Harbor). But their warriors would like to return their homes after "short" campaigns. So to fight long wars or occupy hostile kingdoms Targs would need totally different army than they had available during their rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, frenin said:

No, not every kingdom could do it, the rainswood burn well, only by the Dornish's hands, the West doesn't really have mountain but hills and it's not like the Valemen don't avoid the Mountains because that's  the clans dominion... 

There are enough wild places in those regions for there to be the same guerilla resistance going on there than was in Dorne. And nobody ever burned the Rainwood down. It is still there in ASoIaF, right? The Dornish brought fire there and there were some burns, but they did not destroy them. And the West has a lot of secret caves and hidden valleys and that sort of thing going on.

The Lords of the Vale could relocate themselves to those mountains and crush the clansmen there while they are at it.

6 hours ago, frenin said:

The Dornish had not only the resolves, but the tactics, resources and terrain to "prevail", while the rest of Westeros simply didn't.

They could have emulated the Dornish after realizing how they kicked the Dragon's ass in the First Dornish War. Ronnel Arryn, Loren Lannister, Torrhen Stark, etc, could have decided to rise in rebellion while Aegon's ass was whipped by a mere woman. They may not have been able to mimic Meria exactly, but they could have started a rebel movement which could have operated in a similar manner, neutralizing the threats the dragons posed.

And, frankly, the dragons were no threats to Casterly Rock or Castamere or any other cave castles that might be there in the West.

Loren Lannister is nearly as much of a wimp as Sharra Arryn and Torrhen Stark - yielding at a time when not a single enemy soldier had even set a foot on Western soil. It is very hard to swallow that this guy thought it was great to crawl before a foreign barbarian once he was safely back in the West and secure amidst the splendor and power of Casterly Rock. No dragon could harm him there, ever.

6 hours ago, frenin said:

Most of those who knelt after one crucial battle, had thrown all their might at Aegon, it's not like they had thousands of men in the reserve.

That is wrong. Not even King Mern had thrown all his strength at Aegon - the Hightowers didn't send any men to the Field of Fire. Argilac hadn't thrown all his strength against the Targaryens, either, nor King Loren (with Mern bringing half again as many men as Loren the latter couldn't have brought that many if it were only 55,000 men).

Torrhen may have brought his entire strength ... but he never fought nor lost a battle, did he? And the Vale never even lost a battle at all. The Battle of Gulltown seems to have been standoff, with the Targaryens and Arryns both losing a lot of ships (and Aegon his admiral and friend, Daemon Velaryon) but nobody winning anything.

6 hours ago, frenin said:

None would've gone to war against him in that case, Aegon and his dragons put the fear on people.

That fear should have dissipated after the lords went back home ... even more so after Dornish later felled Meraxes. If Aegon had ruled with fear and intimidation there would have been proper rebellions. We see this kind of thing with Balon Greyjoy - the man was crushed once but that didn't stop him from planning another rebellion. The idea that a kingdom is conquered against the will of its people in as short a war as the Conquest really doesn't work well.

To explain why people accepted all that one has to assume the people and even most of the lords were happy with the Targaryen rule. If they hadn't been, Aegon would have been quickly dealt with, especially in old age. He was down to two dragons by 10 AC, and people beyond the age of 60 couldn't possibly spend days and nights on dragonback, not to mention that Aenys didn't have the stomach for dragon warfare and Maegor wasn't even a dragonrider.

Not to mention that Aegon didn't kill that many people during the Conquest. Harrenhal may have killed thousands, true, but the Field of Fire just looked brutal, it didn't kill that many men. Even the slaughtering in the Stormlands ended with Argilac's death in battle. Aegon was a guy who could kill a lot of people with his dragons but the fact is that he never went through with that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There are enough wild places in those regions for there to be the same guerilla resistance going on there than was in Dorne.

Are there?? The only place fit to do some guerrilla warfare are the mountains and the hidden western caves, the Mountains are controlled by the clans, they are not friendly with the Vale men nor they have any reason to prefer them over Aegon. And the western lords were already in Aegon's hands regardless, nor are they familiar with the guerrilla warfare and whether they would be willing to do it it's a big if.

 

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And nobody ever burned the Rainwood down. It is still there in ASoIaF, right? The Dornish brought fire there and there were some burns, but they did not destroy them.

In 8 AC, a very dry year, Dornish raiders crossed the Sea of Dorne on ships provided by a pirate king from the Stepstones, attacking half a dozen towns and villages along the south shore of Cape Wrath and setting fires that spread through half the rainwood. “Fire for fire,” Princess Meria is reported to have said.

 

I did not say that the Rainwood was destroyed, half the Rainwood still burned. Aegon would not have a hard time provoking fires that indeed destroyed the Rainwood if need be.

And trees can be planted and grow again, this was 300 years before the events of Asoiaf.

 

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And the West has a lot of secret caves and hidden valleys and that sort of thing going on.

The west has a lot of hidden caves that's true my bad, that the lords can the same the Dornish did and live as the Dornish did is another matter entirely. 

 

41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Lords of the Vale could relocate themselves to those mountains and crush the clansmen there while they are at it.

I'm pretty sure they could talk the talk, whether they could walk the walk I'm less sure.

The Mountains are the clansmen home and terrain, not the lords's, fighting them in their terrain seems like a very bad idea, the lords are not used to do that, some of them would certainly be too proud to do it and it only takes one pissed off clansmen to guide Aegon for their campaign being useless.

 

 

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They could have emulated the Dornish after realizing how they kicked the Dragon's ass in the First Dornish War. Ronnel Arryn, Loren Lannister, Torrhen Stark, etc, could have decided to rise in rebellion while Aegon's ass was whipped by a mere woman. They may not have been able to mimic Meria exactly, but they could have started a rebel movement which could have operated in a similar manner, neutralizing the threats the dragons posed.

Sure and they could've died quicker than her, not only because the notable differences between them but because to pull a Meria you need total and utter unity, any single crack in the invaded cohesion and they are doomed. I can only put my hand in the fire for the northmen and even then I cannot tell whether the Boltons would behave like the Yronwoods or like Roose.

And by that time Aegon has made sure if having hostages from every high lord in Westeros, their hands were very much tied. It certainly would be a pain in the ass for Aegon to put down every fire but he could and would.

50 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And, frankly, the dragons were no threats to Casterly Rock or Castamere or any other cave castles that might be there in the West.

No they weren't. They were a threat to Lannisport and every other western castle, not without telling that while a dragon might not be able to melt the rock, a dragon can camp outside and siege you and make sure that you don't get supplied. Unless Casterly Rock has infinite food, they are still falling eventually.

 

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Loren Lannister is nearly as much of a wimp as Sharra Arryn and Torrhen Stark - yielding at a time when not a single enemy soldier had even set a foot on Western soil. It is very hard to swallow that this guy thought it was great to crawl before a foreign barbarian once he was safely back in the West and secure amidst the splendor and power of Casterly Rock. No dragon could harm him there, ever.

Sure, he could've immolate himself, just as Torrhen could. Sharra Arryn could've let Visenya, killed/kidnapp her son and King and who knows what that woman might do to the Eyrie, i don't really think it's feasible.

Ever?? That's exactly what Harren and the Castamere thought, Castles are  impenetrable until they suddenly aren't. And Casterly Rock is as weak as any castle when it comes to siege and blocking.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That is wrong. Not even King Mern had thrown all his strength at Aegon - the Hightowers didn't send any men to the Field of Fire. Argilac hadn't thrown all his strength against the Targaryens, either, nor King Loren (with Mern bringing half again as many men as Loren the latter couldn't have brought that many if it were only 55,000 men).

It isn't, the numbers the Kingdoms have now are not the numbers they had 300 years ago.

The Hightowers were on their own, so they can't be counted there.

What manpower are we told this guys had left??

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Torrhen may have brought his entire strength ... but he never fought nor lost a battle, did he? And the Vale never even lost a battle at all. The Battle of Gulltown seems to have been standoff, with the Targaryens and Arryns both losing a lot of ships (and Aegon his admiral and friend, Daemon Velaryon) but nobody winning anything.

Nope but he knew what awaited him if he were to fight the dragons.

The Battle of Gulltown is not a standoff, the Vale navy was destroyed.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That fear should have dissipated after the lords went back home ... even more so after Dornish later felled Meraxes. If Aegon had ruled with fear and intimidation there would have been proper rebellions. We see this kind of thing with Balon Greyjoy - the man was crushed once but that didn't stop him from planning another rebellion. The idea that a kingdom is conquered against the will of its people in as short a war as the Conquest really doesn't work well

I don't know why, dragons inspire fear whenever you're. And Aegon was proner to show his.

No, Aegon didn't rule with fear but the fact that he didn't doesn't mean his subjects were happy with them, they really weren't but they didn't have an answer to Aegon, so they smiled.

Balon is a great example, he thought Robert weak, he was destroyed and he was forced to swallow his hatred until Westeros was weak enough for him to act, people followed the "We're Aegon's men, only a fool would go against Aegon and his dragons" to the letter.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

To explain why people accepted all that one has to assume the people and even most of the lords were happy with the Targaryen rule. If they hadn't been, Aegon would have been quickly dealt with, especially in old age. He was down to two dragons by 10 AC, and people beyond the age of 60 couldn't possibly spend days and nights on dragonback, not to mention that Aenys didn't have the stomach for dragon warfare and Maegor wasn't even a dragonrider.

Yeah but that's simply not true.

Visenya was pretty old when she torched the Riverlands for her dear boy. And Aegon had sons and grandsons that could claim dragons. The fact that Aegon was not a dragonrider in peace time does not mean that he could not become one if needed be.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Not to mention that Aegon didn't kill that many people during the Conquest. Harrenhal may have killed thousands, true, but the Field of Fire just looked brutal, it didn't kill that many men. Even the slaughtering in the Stormlands ended with Argilac's death in battle. Aegon was a guy who could kill a lot of people with his dragons but the fact is that he never went through with that.

4k men in the day is bloody, Aegon and his conquest did kill a lot of men and did leave a lot of people with resent.

Besides, they simply didn't want him, places like the North and people like the Starks simply ignored the Targs until they came to bother them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, frenin said:

Are there?? The only place fit to do some guerrilla warfare are the mountains and the hidden western caves, the Mountains are controlled by the clans, they are not friendly with the Vale men nor they have any reason to prefer them over Aegon. And the western lords were already in Aegon's hands regardless, nor are they familiar with the guerrilla warfare and whether they would be willing to do it it's a big if.

Well, the Vale doesn't really need guerilla warfare as that. To be threatened in their homes the Targaryens would first have to get armies in their lands - which would be very tough to accomplish against their will. They would have to evade the dragons, of course, but as we saw during the Conquest the Targaryens failed to land their troops in the Vale and lost many ships in the process of their attempt.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

In 8 AC, a very dry year, Dornish raiders crossed the Sea of Dorne on ships provided by a pirate king from the Stepstones, attacking half a dozen towns and villages along the south shore of Cape Wrath and setting fires that spread through half the rainwood. “Fire for fire,” Princess Meria is reported to have said.

Yes, in a very dry year places are vulnerable to fire. That is not a big deal. In a not-so-dry-year the Rainwood should be much more impervious to fire, both dragonfire and normal fire.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

I did not say that the Rainwood was destroyed, half the Rainwood still burned. Aegon would not have a hard time provoking fires that indeed destroyed the Rainwood if need be.

And trees can be planted and grow again, this was 300 years before the events of Asoiaf.

There is no indication that anyone regrow the forest. Nor is there an indication that this many people live in the Rainwood. Arianne crosses it in her sample chapter and she doesn't exactly stumble from village to village.

Guerilla warfare even works very well in the Riverlands, by the way, if you think about the Brotherhood without Banners. You don't even have to have as promising surroundings for that as Dorne or the Stormlands or the West.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

The west has a lot of hidden caves that's true my bad, that the lords can the same the Dornish did and live as the Dornish did is another matter entirely. 

They certainly could try. You don't know they could not do it. It seems they never wanted to try that.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

I'm pretty sure they could talk the talk, whether they could walk the walk I'm less sure.

Meria didn't know she would sort of succeed, either. She also just tried. And it didn't work that well, did it? Dorne is said to have been a burned, blasted wasteland by the time Nymor sued for peace.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

The Mountains are the clansmen home and terrain, not the lords's, fighting them in their terrain seems like a very bad idea, the lords are not used to do that, some of them would certainly be too proud to do it and it only takes one pissed off clansmen to guide Aegon for their campaign being useless.

Well, if they cared for their freedom they would have tried. My point is that obviously none of the kings and lords who bend the knee to Aegon gave two cents about being Targaryen vassals - else they would have fought back some more. Or they would have all risen in rebellion after Aegon's death or in his old age.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

Sure and they could've died quicker than her, not only because the notable differences between them but because to pull a Meria you need total and utter unity, any single crack in the invaded cohesion and they are doomed. I can only put my hand in the fire for the northmen and even then I cannot tell whether the Boltons would behave like the Yronwoods or like Roose.

That is just not true. There is no indication that all Dornishmen stood with Meria. Remember, that Aegon's bounties actually caused quite a lot of Dornish lords being murdered?

The Northmen clearly did not love their freedom more than Torrhen Stark, or else they would have overthrown him and installed a Stark willing to go to war with Aegon after their so-called king knelt without good cause.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

And by that time Aegon has made sure if having hostages from every high lord in Westeros, their hands were very much tied. It certainly would be a pain in the ass for Aegon to put down every fire but he could and would.

You can't afford to be afraid of some spilled milk. Tywin didn't stop his war just because Jaime was a hostage. And there is no indication that Torrhen and the Northmen gave any hostages to Aegon when Torrhen knelt.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

No they weren't. They were a threat to Lannisport and every other western castle, not without telling that while a dragon might not be able to melt the rock, a dragon can camp outside and siege you and make sure that you don't get supplied. Unless Casterly Rock has infinite food, they are still falling eventually.

A dragon cannot camp outside your castle because in the night it would be useless to defend you against attackers. And a dragon with an army won't have the time to starve out a place like Castamere or Casterly Rock - which can be supplied from the sea indefinitely. Long sieges in enemy territory would in general be something that cannot be maintained, either. How the hell should Aegon get the men for that if three or four or all his kingdoms would rise against him in this manner?

13 hours ago, frenin said:

Sure, he could've immolate himself, just as Torrhen could. Sharra Arryn could've let Visenya, killed/kidnapp her son and King and who knows what that woman might do to the Eyrie, i don't really think it's feasible.

No, the way to deal with Visenya was to sweet-talk her, to agree to her demands, to hand over the crowns and sign treaties and such ... and then have your archers should her dead when she returned Ronnel Arryn to the Eyrie. A riderless dragon is no threat.

The way to deal with Aegon would have been to murder him during the negotiations he had with Torrhen Stark. The Reach men and the Westermen were part of his army there ... they could have taken a contingent of determined men - a few dozen, say - to attack his tent while he slept.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

Ever?? That's exactly what Harren and the Castamere thought, Castles are  impenetrable until they suddenly aren't. And Casterly Rock is as weak as any castle when it comes to siege and blocking.

Casterly Rock is the castle in Westeros that's impervious to dragons and truly impregnable.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

It isn't, the numbers the Kingdoms have now are not the numbers they had 300 years ago.

The Hightowers were on their own, so they can't be counted there.

What manpower are we told this guys had left??

The Hightowers are bannermen to Highgarden like any other Reach lord is. If they stayed out the war then the Gardeners didn't have all their strength on the Field of Fire.

Combined the forces of the Reach and the West during the series should be able to consist of 160,000 to, possibly, 180,000 men - that is much more than 55,000. Of course the population south of Dorne doubled during the reign of Jaehaerys I, but we don't know whether that new number remained stable after that - the Winter Fever and the Great Spring Sickness and other plagues and long winters could have reduced it some more. In any case, nowhere it is said that the Reach and the West (or any other kingdom but, perhaps, the North) threw all their strength at Aegon.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

Nope but he knew what awaited him if he were to fight the dragons.

The Battle of Gulltown is not a standoff, the Vale navy was destroyed.

Of course it was. The Targaryens lost their admiral, a lot of their ships, and failed to land troops in the Vale.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

I don't know why, dragons inspire fear whenever you're. And Aegon was proner to show his.

No, Aegon didn't rule with fear but the fact that he didn't doesn't mean his subjects were happy with them, they really weren't but they didn't have an answer to Aegon, so they smiled.

Balon is a great example, he thought Robert weak, he was destroyed and he was forced to swallow his hatred until Westeros was weak enough for him to act, people followed the "We're Aegon's men, only a fool would go against Aegon and his dragons" to the letter.

There are more ways to put down a king than open rebellion. You can also murder him, possibly even in a way that it looks like an accident. It wasn't that difficult to murder Joffrey, was it?

Aegon didn't even have his Kingsguard for the first ten years of his reign. Just think how easy it would have been to murder him while he was in Dorne and then blame the Dornishmen for the deed.

Balon didn't learn anything out of his failed rebellion. He just prepared for the next.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

Yeah but that's simply not true.

Visenya was pretty old when she torched the Riverlands for her dear boy. And Aegon had sons and grandsons that could claim dragons. The fact that Aegon was not a dragonrider in peace time does not mean that he could not become one if needed be.

Aegon's grandchildren were still children for the most part during the last decade of his reign. They would have been of no use in war. Visenya was a tough bird, yes, but do you know Aegon was still capable to mount a dragon in old age? We know Alysanne lost the ability to fly years before her death. There is no reason to believe that she was the only who had to deal with such an issue.

One could also imagine that Visenya's death was hastened by the fact she had to fly Vhagar to war in old age. The idea is that neither Aegon nor Visenya could have been able to continuously fly their dragons to war when they were past sixty or seventy. And while they yet lived, none of the children or grandchildren could mount one of their huge dragons.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

4k men in the day is bloody, Aegon and his conquest did kill a lot of men and did leave a lot of people with resent.

5,000 men out of 55,000 is a joke. Loren and the Reach still had 50,000 men in that army to continue the war if they had wanted to.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

Besides, they simply didn't want him, places like the North and people like the Starks simply ignored the Targs until they came to bother them.

That is not true. Torrhen Stark did the bidding of his king like a little trained parrot. He sent ships to deal with the Sistermen and the Ironborn, for instance. He drove those unhappy with the Targaryen reign into exile, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe it all comes down to what is less risky for the Starks position and power.

The dragons are a big game changer. 

Beside the devastion of a war - that nobody likes - if he doesn't bend the knee, in the long run,
how many houses in the North will turn cloak? Nobody knows.

How many chances are there that the Starks may be defeated only to see another house take their place
even if as Warden if the North, only?

Is it possible that he took the chance to keep at least that position and his honor with a travesty?

I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, the Vale doesn't really need guerilla warfare as that. To be threatened in their homes the Targaryens would first have to get armies in their lands - which would be very tough to accomplish against their will. They would have to evade the dragons, of course, but as we saw during the Conquest the Targaryens failed to land their troops in the Vale and lost many ships in the process of their attempt.

They really need them, The Targs only need to land in Gulltown and then it's game, the Valemen already lacked of fleet since their first battle.

 

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, in a very dry year places are vulnerable to fire. That is not a big deal. In a not-so-dry-year the Rainwood should be much more impervious to fire, both dragonfire and normal fire.

Should be?? Dry years are quite natural in  summer, the Rainwood would burn all the same.

 

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no indication that anyone regrow the forest. Nor is there an indication that this many people live in the Rainwood. Arianne crosses it in her sample chapter and she doesn't exactly stumble from village to village.

There is indication that half the Rainwood burned however and when have i said that many people lived there anyway??

 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Guerilla warfare even works very well in the Riverlands, by the way, if you think about the Brotherhood without Banners. You don't even have to have as promising surroundings for that as Dorne or the Stormlands or the West.

The Brotherhood without Banners are a few, not an army, not hundreds of lords with their families and households...

 

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They certainly could try. You don't know they could not do it. It seems they never wanted to try that.

Quoting Euron, perhaps men can fly, they won't know until they take the lip.

The lords did not really believe they could've pulled it off so why even try??

 

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Meria didn't know she would sort of succeed, either. She also just tried. And it didn't work that well, did it? Dorne is said to have been a burned, blasted wasteland by the time Nymor sued for peace.

It worked well, Meria knew what she was against and knew the prize, she simply was ready to kill every last one of her people before the Targs "enslaved" them. 

 

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, if they cared for their freedom they would have tried. My point is that obviously none of the kings and lords who bend the knee to Aegon gave two cents about being Targaryen vassals - else they would have fought back some more. Or they would have all risen in rebellion after Aegon's death or in his old age.

But that's wrong, we're told that many were still pissed at Aegon 40 years after his conquest, many indeed revolted when he died but as Lord Greyjoy put it, only a fool would go against Aegon and his dragons.

They saw no point in resisting so they didn't resist.

 

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is just not true. There is no indication that all Dornishmen stood with Meria. Remember, that Aegon's bounties actually caused quite a lot of Dornish lords being murdered?

Well there is.

The two years that followed were later called the years of the Dragon’s Wroth. Grief-stricken at the death of their beloved sister, King Aegon and Queen Visenya set ablaze every castle, keep, and holdfast in Dorne at least once … save for Sunspear and the shadow city. Why this is so remains a matter of conjecture. In Dorne, it was said the Targaryens feared that Princess Meria had some cunning means of slaying dragons, something she had purchased from Lys. Likelier, however, is Archmaester Timotty’s suggestion in his Conjectures that the Targaryens hoped to turn the rest of the Dornish, who suffered so much destruction, against the Martells, who were spared. If this is true, it may explain the letters dispatched from the marches to the Dornish houses, urging them to surrender and claiming that the Martells had betrayed them by buying their safety from the Targaryens at the expense of the rest of Dorne.

 

Dorne was a blighted, burning ruin by this time, and still the Dornish hid and fought from the shadows, refusing to surrender. Even the smallfolk refused to yield, and the toll in lives was uncountable.

Besides being common sense, do you think the Dornish could've resisted if when Aegon and his sisters asked "where the Dornish lords", instead of everyone of them saying away or denying any knowledge whatsoever, they folk betrayed them??

We are told that killers killed the Dornish lords, killers, not dornish turncloaks, which would be very relevant since Aegon desperately tried to get the dornish to actually betray Meria. If Aegon could get the dornishmen to betray themselves with gold, he would've gotten the lords hideouts in a forthnight.

 

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Northmen clearly did not love their freedom more than Torrhen Stark, or else they would have overthrown him and installed a Stark willing to go to war with Aegon after their so-called king knelt without good cause.

A false dilemma, they understood that there was a lost cause, it made no sense died for that.

 

52 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You can't afford to be afraid of some spilled milk. Tywin didn't stop his war just because Jaime was a hostage. And there is no indication that Torrhen and the Northmen gave any hostages to Aegon when Torrhen knelt.

You very much can, if not hostages would not be as valuable and demanded.

 

The reconciliation of the Seven Kingdoms to Targaryen rule was the keystone of Aegon I’s policies as king. To this end, he made great efforts to include men (and even a few women) from every part of the realm in his court and councils. His former foes were encouraged to send their children (chiefly younger sons and daughters, as most great lords desired to keep their heirs close to home) to court, where the boys served as pages, cupbearers, and squires, the girls as handmaidens and companions to Aegon’s queens. In King’s Landing, they witnessed the king’s justice at first hand, and were urged to think of themselves as leal subjects of one great realm, not as westermen or stormlanders or northmen.

 

 

57 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You can't afford to be afraid of some spilled milk. Tywin didn't stop his war just because Jaime was a hostage. And there is no indication that Torrhen and the Northmen gave any hostages to Aegon when Torrhen knelt.

Dragons camped outside Harrenhall, besides Aegon can kick in Lannisport indefinitely, a dragon with an army can very much starved out the Rock, let alone Castamere, block the Rock, sink or burned every ship that tries to supply them, if there are people bold enough to face dragons for no good reason really. Casterly Rock can be sieged just fine.

I very much doubt about the tenacity of the  Western folk and Aegon can indeed afford to wait. And by the time the Lannisters starved, the West would have long fallen.

Aegon would have a rather powerful base of his own, the riverlanders have no reason to feel anything but gratitude and devotion towards him, ditto with the Tyrells, the Hightowers pledged themselves and while the rest of the Reach would not be to happy with the man, they have really no other options. The Baratheons married the Durrandon heir so that should've smoothered things a lot... Besides the aforementioned hostage situation. All in all Aegon and Visenya should have enough strenght to split and make submit each kingdom one by one.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, the way to deal with Visenya was to sweet-talk her, to agree to her demands, to hand over the crowns and sign treaties and such ... and then have your archers should her dead when she returned Ronnel Arryn to the Eyrie. A riderless dragon is no threat.

The way to deal with Aegon would have been to murder him during the negotiations he had with Torrhen Stark. The Reach men and the Westermen were part of his army there ... they could have taken a contingent of determined men - a few dozen, say - to attack his tent while he slept.

And the way to deal with Robb Stark was butchering him under guest right...

This a society that takes vows seriously, once you have pledged yourself is settled, a riderless dragon that senses that its rider has been killed can go feral, as the second battle of tumbleton proves, and for peopl who live in a castle atop a mountain, that's a pretty risky bet.

 

I'm pretty sure that Aegon slept surrounded by his dragons and loyal partisans, at the end of the day, the man was not stupid.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, the way to deal with Visenya was to sweet-talk her, to agree to her demands, to hand over the crowns and sign treaties and such ... and then have your archers should her dead when she returned Ronnel Arryn to the Eyrie. A riderless dragon is no threat.

The way to deal with Aegon would have been to murder him during the negotiations he had with Torrhen Stark. The Reach men and the Westermen were part of his army there ... they could have taken a contingent of determined men - a few dozen, say - to attack his tent while he slept.

Until it falls, it's moot point anyway, since Casterly Rock can be besieged just as Storm's End was.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The Hightowers are bannermen to Highgarden like any other Reach lord is. If they stayed out the war then the Gardeners didn't have all their strength on the Field of Fire.

Combined the forces of the Reach and the West during the series should be able to consist of 160,000 to, possibly, 180,000 men - that is much more than 55,000. Of course the population south of Dorne doubled during the reign of Jaehaerys I, but we don't know whether that new number remained stable after that - the Winter Fever and the Great Spring Sickness and other plagues and long winters could have reduced it some more. In any case, nowhere it is said that the Reach and the West (or any other kingdom but, perhaps, the North) threw all their strength at Aegon.

They have all their strenght available.

Combined in the current their manpower varies from 105k from 150k. The Westerlands can't field 60k men.

That is much more than the 55k but population grew, less wars, more farming etc etc etc, long winters don't really affect the Reach or West anyway.  You're right that we're not told that they threw all their strenght at Aegon however.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Hightowers are bannermen to Highgarden like any other Reach lord is. If they stayed out the war then the Gardeners didn't have all their strength on the Field of Fire.

Combined the forces of the Reach and the West during the series should be able to consist of 160,000 to, possibly, 180,000 men - that is much more than 55,000. Of course the population south of Dorne doubled during the reign of Jaehaerys I, but we don't know whether that new number remained stable after that - the Winter Fever and the Great Spring Sickness and other plagues and long winters could have reduced it some more. In any case, nowhere it is said that the Reach and the West (or any other kingdom but, perhaps, the North) threw all their strength at Aegon.

And yet they destroyed the Vale fleets, the Targs lost 2/3 of their fleets but they defeated the Vale and we're not told that they failed at landing troops, Visenya simply flew to the Eyrie.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are more ways to put down a king than open rebellion. You can also murder him, possibly even in a way that it looks like an accident. It wasn't that difficult to murder Joffrey, was it?

Aegon didn't even have his Kingsguard for the first ten years of his reign. Just think how easy it would have been to murder him while he was in Dorne and then blame the Dornishmen for the deed.

Balon didn't learn anything out of his failed rebellion. He just prepared for the next.

Yeah, it's not like the westerosi don't despise poison or deceptive murder...

Aegon was mostly atop Balerion in Dorne and, anyway. Nor i think that Aegon was alone in Dorne and didn't have anyone he could trust.

Balon learnt much, that's why he stayed quiet until a brutal civil war erupted.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon's grandchildren were still children for the most part during the last decade of his reign. They would have been of no use in war. Visenya was a tough bird, yes, but do you know Aegon was still capable to mount a dragon in old age? We know Alysanne lost the ability to fly years before her death. There is no reason to believe that she was the only who had to deal with such an issue.

One could also imagine that Visenya's death was hastened by the fact she had to fly Vhagar to war in old age. The idea is that neither Aegon nor Visenya could have been able to continuously fly their dragons to war when they were past sixty or seventy. And while they yet lived, none of the children or grandchildren could mount one of their huge dragons.

Children can fly regardless, certainly both Rhaena and Aegon could. Do you know Aegon couldn't?? We are not told that Aegon had such problems and Visenya could torch just fine.

Visenya died at what, her ¿early 70s?  that's a lot of time, i don't know why the dragons would hasten anything, she was past her time.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon's grandchildren were still children for the most part during the last decade of his reign. They would have been of no use in war. Visenya was a tough bird, yes, but do you know Aegon was still capable to mount a dragon in old age? We know Alysanne lost the ability to fly years before her death. There is no reason to believe that she was the only who had to deal with such an issue.

One could also imagine that Visenya's death was hastened by the fact she had to fly Vhagar to war in old age. The idea is that neither Aegon nor Visenya could have been able to continuously fly their dragons to war when they were past sixty or seventy. And while they yet lived, none of the children or grandchildren could mount one of their huge dragons.

Not in that time no.

The Reach and Loren had two options, submit or be torched, they chose the first one. Betraying their word not would only mean perjury but that once Aegon got them, especially the Reach lords since they cannot really hide, he would end them.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not true. Torrhen Stark did the bidding of his king like a little trained parrot. He sent ships to deal with the Sistermen and the Ironborn, for instance. He drove those unhappy with the Targaryen reign into exile, etc.

It is true. When Targs bothered the Starks, the Starks answered, otherwise they ignored the Targs, they sulked and brooded.  The Starks did not want the Targs and were not happy under their yoke but they still had to put with them. 

Share this post


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

Or maybe it all comes down to what is less risky for the Starks position and power.

The dragons are a big game changer. 

Beside the devastion of a war - that nobody likes - if he doesn't bend the knee, in the long run,
how many houses in the North will turn cloak? Nobody knows.

How many chances are there that the Starks may be defeated only to see another house take their place
even if as Warden if the North, only?

Is it possible that he took the chance to keep at least that position and his honor with a travesty?

I think so.

My idea is that the Starks as Aegon's Warden of the North got a boost of authority from that thing - they cannot have been kings who ruled with an iron fist before considering the vastness of their kingdom and the lack of dragons or a standing army.

Torrhen and Sharra Arryn would have gotten the best deal from Aegon since they were not really defeated in battle. Torrhen may have gotten the best deal since he and Aegon never even fought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.  The North could have held out indefinitely.

But, Torrhen judged that it was not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SeanF said:

Yes.  The North could have held out indefinitely.

But, Torrhen judged that it was not worth it.

No it couldn't. The only kingdoms that might have held were the Vale, the Stormlands and Dorne due to their small distance to the free cities or the summer isles, and thus being able to smuggle food. Dragons can destroy all agriculture, as they did with Dorne, so the only choice left is to import/smuggle it. The North was neither rich enough nor close enough to Essos to get food via that way. It would have starved. And before you say burning all the crops is impossible kindly remember Aemond did it to the Riverlands with just one dragon. Aegon could have did it to the North with 3. Soon enough the North would starve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

My idea is that the Starks as Aegon's Warden of the North got a boost of authority from that thing - they cannot have been kings who ruled with an iron fist before considering the vastness of their kingdom and the lack of dragons or a standing army.

But they did rule with an iron fist and they did smash every rebellion. There was no difference between pre Aegon and post Aegon since the North remained isolated and minding their own business. What boost of authority they could have since they smashed any rebellion with their own levies and Aegon left them on their own??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to assemble all my points let's look why Dorne could hold and see how the same could not have happened to the North.

- small population. Dorne has the smallest population of all the kingdoms. There for not a lot of food is required to feed the populace. The North has a higher population

- rich people. Despite being a desert kingdom Dorne is surprisingly rich from all the spices and other luxury things they grow. The North is the poorest kingdom

- Access to the free cities and the Stepstones. The step stones are rife with both pirates and smugglers. the closest thing to the North is Braavos, which of all the free cities is the one most afraid of dragons. The closest thing that has smugglers is also the Stepstone which are a bit too far away don't you think?

- Short distances to the sea. Due to the sausage shape of Dorne you can probably each the sea from anywhere in a matter of days. This mean say it with me, you can get food from the sea.

- Yeah the point of these ones is that smuggling food for the people is possible in Dorne. Not in the North. Because the dragons can and will burns everything that isn't fixed in place and that includes crops. Both in the Dornish wars and the Dance dragons showed how effective they were in devastating the agriculture. Nothing be it the Wolfswood or any field would survive the burning. The North would starve very quickly. Hell they nearly starved several times without dragon related help. But there's more

- Dorne has no major population centers. Everything can be evacuated. White Harbour cannot.

- Dorne has no crucial castles. The Yellow Toad could easily recapture Sunspear when she reappeared. Were Aegon to garrison Winterfell with 300 knights and men at arms, the Northmen could never take it.

- So we can also see how Aegon can easily get two points form were to cling to the North. One of the big problems the Targs had with Dorne is that they had nothing to cling to. The Dornish turned it into a war for the desert by evacuating and ignoring the cities. The Starks couldn't do that.

- Better land then the North in hiding places. The North only has the Barrows and the north-west mountains as passable places for guerrilla. The Dornish could hide within 20km of every important place. The Northmen could only hide in places so isolated Aegon could just ignore them. Everything east of the White Knife could be easily controlled by Aegon and that's the areas that matter.

So all in all the North would starve, Aegon could easily take and hold the most important places, and the only places that could have continuous resistance are so far from anything that they wouldn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...