Aegon as a king

[Morte]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't know where exactly Daenerys will land nor where anyone will be by the time that happens - which should be a year from now, if not later. She won't come to Westeros in TWoW. She may not even start her journey in the next book (although that could happen).

I think at best they set sails in the last POV in Essos (by whoever), more likely we leave them with the  decision made to start making preparations for the journey.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Caring more about the children of the people who hate her - as she shows when she imprisons her dragons because one of them might have eaten a child - than her own children, the dragons, is fundamentally wrong. It is against her nature in a very real sense because she abandons who she is as a person - the Mother of Dragons.

And it doesn't get any better with the fact that it appears more unlikely for Drogon to have killed the girl the further we get in the book: The other two dragons are free, but they don't attack any humans beside whose who do attack them/stand in their way. So either is was a really horrible accident, and the girl tried to pet Drogon or something like that, or it was a plot to get the dragons chained from the very beginning and Drogon didn't kill the child.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Her core mistakes are in her very first chapter - taking on unreformed Meereenese as her advisors, compromising with the Green Grace and the slaver elite. The only language those people understand is fire and blood. Crucifying all of them would have resolved her problems. Her delusion was to want to be a just queen for (former) slavers and freed slaves alike. That doesn't work. The former have to be physically destroyed for there to be peace - or at least be given a choice between physical annihilation or consequent and lasting reform. Placating them in any way, giving them a place at the table, allowing them to conclude that you don't mean business, that you won't unleash your dragons should they misbehave was all nonsense.

And she also essentially undermines the position of her freed-men as well as the reformed Mereenese. They all do understand why she does this, but they all agree that it will lead to nothing, because the other side doesn't want to change.

That's not how the clementia caesaris works, and Dany has to learn this.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

the whole freedom in the cities was seen as a poison destroying society as it should be - and it was slowly but surely killing feudalism.

Exactly. The freedom of the city is not part of feudalism, but the reminder of "better times" and the seed for overcoming feudalism again.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The French Revolution

[...]

I did not reply to his paragraph about the French Revolution because what happened then really is nothing one can compare with a Mediaeval society. The French Revolution happened at the end of one process of thought and the beginning of another. Westeros hasn't even started the first process, it firmly (more firmly than our world ever was) believes in the ideals of a perfect ruler who sets everything right.

The Revolution itself was against the whole of the Ancient Regimè with all of it old feudalistic rights and privileges , including the king in the very end, especially after the Revolutionaries learned that we wanted his own people murdered by foreign forces just to keep his crown.

But Martin's World is far, far away from any revolutionary scenario - the people of Westeros will be lucky if someone is working on a botchy and rudimentary version of the Constitutions of Melfi in the epilogue of the very last book.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I really don't like that plotline, either, but I think George very much does. We wouldn't have gotten Beric and Catelyn if this undead/resurrection thing wasn't going to be a big thing in the story as magic becomes more and more prominent. But I'd agree with you that I'd prefer it if he would not go down that route...

So let's hope, because hope dies last.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, but certain crucial military developments spread rather quickly - I'm thinking how the chariots were quickly used in Egypt, how horse and camel domestication spread when the cultures came in contact, etc.

The point in relation to Martinworld simply is that we cannot expect that the high cultures of Essos around/after the Doom of Valyria were in any way, shape, or form behind the barbaric savages of Westeros insofar as military development is concerned. We don't know anything about the Valyrian or Rhoynish military, but the way their clash is depicted indicates that both cultures would have made short work out of the Seven Kingdoms if they had ever clashed - without taking dragonlords or water wizards into account.

And this would also extend to the Sarnori whose martial culture is made evident by their own wars among each other as well as the fact that they served as mercenaries during some of the Ghiscari Wars.

Oh, I did agree with you; just wanted to help with you argument that Bronze and Iron Age do get their name for the metal forged, not from being further developed, nor did the military strategies developed further in the Iron Age, just because some hundred years past. I essentially made it clear with my answer to the Ilias-comment: the Iron Age aristocratic society of Greek doesn't understand the professional and semi-professional armies of the Bronze Age Empires.

And of course you are right here as well: Essentially Essos is further developed than Westeros in most parts from what we know.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, and we see this evident in George's history pieces as well - the smallfolk are the staunchest monarchists/Targaryen loyalists - they cheer Aegon the Conqueror the loudest, a humble commoner is the first to volunteer to fight for Maegor in his Trial of Seven (which I think is a very deliberate choice by the author), the commoners still love Good Queen Alysanne all across the Realm even during the time of series, the Crackclaw Point folk are Targaryen men (because they freed them from the yoke of the Celtigars), and so on.

Another version of that is the idealization of Robert Baratheon by the original Brotherhood without Banners. They see the king as a symbol of justice in whose name they act - even if that king is dead.

Exactly.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think so. I think the point of the Aegon plot is George deconstructing the 'hidden prince' trope - Aegon is like Aragorn, but showing that men like Aragorn would make lousy kings in a realistic scenario.

I, too, think that Aegon is Martin's commentary on Aragon. Why should he be a good king? Because someone told him so? Because somebody educated him? A lot of lousy kings had the best education available, much better than Aegon's. Because he is a good kid? Maybe he is, but a lot of good kids were lousy kings who made everything worse.

I think that Martin wants to show exactly this, Aegon is his own "what was Aragon's tax policy?"-answer.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The issue with Aegon as a failure is also not just that he does some cruel things, but simply that he will fail to pacify the Realm and restore peace to the Seven Kingdoms. He won't make winter go away, won't feed the Riverlands, etc. - instead he has already brought war to the Stormlands and will continue that in the Crownlands and possibly to the Reach and the West as well.

Destroying the food resources the continent has left in his wake, by the way.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But then - perhaps we are miscalculating things. If Stannis - who is also one of those lies from the prophecy - ends up securing his loans and hiring his sellswords he will come big time. In fact, Braavos could also side with him in the coming struggles. We could even see him as a player in this Second Dance thing.

Braavos would be a natural ally for Dany, because of her fight against slavery; we don't know what Braavos would want from Stannis, nor what they know about the situation in Slaver's Bay or the Others, but somehow I have the notion that Braavos is a lot better informed about everything than most of the other players.

Oh, and we can not predict what Stannis himself would do (beside grinding his teeth, that we know), if he knew Dany has just landed and Aegon had already given, say, the Stormlands to someone else.

[Aldarion]

On 6/14/2020 at 3:09 PM, Hodor the Articulate said:

Yeah, I read that part, thanks. I also read all the other chapters which gives the scene context. Up until that point, the whole book is Dany trying improve the lives of her people (the freedmen) by making concessions to their oppresses (the slavers). In her hallucinations she realises how dumb that was when she had the power to enforce her rule. So how does that point to Dany losing it because she doesn't attract allies the minute she lands in Westeros? Where does it even imply she's changed her doubts about Westeros rising up for her?

 

Bolded is relevant. Up until that point. If you have read "ruling" scenes before, you will have also noticed that she is pretty much frustrated the whole time. She is patient, yes, but she is also unhappy with what she sees as a "too little, too slow" progress. She was actually doing a good job, but she doesn't realize it.

And it does imply her reaction to any opposition, or even lack of acceptance. "Dragons plant no trees". No, they don't plant trees, they burn them. When Daenerys goes west, she will not be concerned with ideals and peace. And that also includes diplomacy.

No. You are the blood of the dragon. The whispering was growing fainter, as if Ser Jorah were
falling farther behind. Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were
made to be. Remember your words.
“Fire and Blood,” Daenerys told the swaying grass.

On 6/14/2020 at 3:09 PM, Hodor the Articulate said:

Anyway, that Jorah quote proves the Dothraki are formidable, even if they are useless in sieging (Dany will be having open battles at some point). And that Robert quote puts a dent in your claim that Westeros was going to unite against Dany for having a Dothraki horde.

Puts a dent? Humans in ASoIaF are fallible, and Jorah is far from the most down-to-earth character there is. Up until we actually see Dothraki in action, all we will have is speculation. But going from historical models - Westerosi armies being modelled largely on 14th and 15th century Western European armies (with North going further back, to 11th - 13th century maybe) - Dothraki will prove hopeless.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Dany's entire story in ADwD is her being King Aenys or Neville Chamberlain - always conceding, always compromising, hacking off her own hands and feet to placate the Nazis slavers she is dealing with.

Trying to win the love of people who hate you - and who only understand violence and might - is pointless. Daenerys is destroyed piece by piece by Reznak and the Green Grace and Hizdahr and all those little compromises she makes.

Her core mistakes are in her very first chapter - taking on unreformed Meereenese as her advisors, compromising with the Green Grace and the slaver elite. The only language those people understand is fire and blood. Crucifying all of them would have resolved her problems. Her delusion was to want to be a just queen for (former) slavers and freed slaves alike. That doesn't work. The former have to be physically destroyed for there to be peace - or at least be given a choice between physical annihilation or consequent and lasting reform. Placating them in any way, giving them a place at the table, allowing them to conclude that you don't mean business, that you won't unleash your dragons should they misbehave was all nonsense.

Caring more about the children of the people who hate her - as she shows when she imprisons her dragons because one of them might have eaten a child - than her own children, the dragons, is fundamentally wrong. It is against her nature in a very real sense because she abandons who she is as a person - the Mother of Dragons. This has nothing to do with her family history (which include enlightened women like Alysanne Targaryen or the Daenerys who lived at the Water Gardens and taught the Martells to be the best rulers in Westeros) but her own identity and destiny.

The idea that this kind of conflict comes back in Westeros is ridiculous. It would be her half-conquering Westeros and then deciding to compromise with Aegon or Euron or Cersei or Stannis or whoever else might resist her. There can only be one ruler, just as there can only be one policy in Slaver's Bay - the end of slavery, period.

And as I have already noted, she is likely to swing to another extreme, like a pendulum. In fact, many well-meaning kings screwed up just as hard as outright evil ones. In other words, she used approach she should use in Westeros back in Mereen, and will use approach she should have used in Mereen in Westeros.

And no, crucifying all the slavers will not have solved all her problems. Slavery is too endemic in Slaver's Bay to be quickly solved - this is not Antebellum South, which existed as a part of largely anti-slavery society and in fact had powerful abolitionist movement even before the Civil War. The moment she leaves, her project will start collapsing, and that will not have been prevented by her crucifying the slavers. Look at what happened in Astapor after she left: the old order returned, it was just that previous slavers became slaves while previous slaves became slavers. But nothing fundamentally changed. Same will happen in Mereen and all the other cities she liberates.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned and Robert never even saw a Dothraki, much less fought one. Their expertise on them isn't worth anything.

But of course Robert does not only fear that Viserys III will gain support in Westeros, he also fears the army he will take to Westeros in addition to the traitors who will join him.

And Aegon will be fretting about Dany and her dragons and Dothraki the same Robert did. Especially since Dany doesn't have to conquer Westeros. All she needs to do is to take the Iron Throne and kill Aegon or the other pretenders. Then everybody will fall in line. She doesn't have to conquer anything else, she can afford that her enemies march against her. And then they will be crushed.

Mormont's expertise on anything isn't worth anything.

And no, they are not going to get crushed. You yourself said that dragons are not grown enough yet to make it Aegon's Conquest 2.0, and in any case one or two pretenders may gain dragons of their own, directly or indirectly. So if dragons are not automatic "I win" button for Daenerys, a lot will come down to conventional armies. And there, Daenerys is at definite disadvantage unless she secures enough support in Westeros so as to make her starting armies basically superfluous anyway.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned and Robert never even saw a Dothraki, much less fought one. Their expertise on them isn't worth anything.

But of course Robert does not only fear that Viserys III will gain support in Westeros, he also fears the army he will take to Westeros in addition to the traitors who will join him.

And Aegon will be fretting about Dany and her dragons and Dothraki the same Robert did. Especially since Dany doesn't have to conquer Westeros. All she needs to do is to take the Iron Throne and kill Aegon or the other pretenders. Then everybody will fall in line. She doesn't have to conquer anything else, she can afford that her enemies march against her. And then they will be crushed.

His only advantage over Stannis is his charisma.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Tyrion agreed to grant Thorne some more men, and he later did his best to help convince his father to send more men to the Wall. I'd agree that he should have received Thorne in private and if he had the moving hand certainly would have made an impact on him.

But the fact remains that there is a reason why George had Tyrion see the Wall and befriend Jon Snow. He is going to back Marwyn when he gives Dany his report about the Others and wights especially in light of the fact the source of that is, ultimately, Jon Snow. And he also remembering Thorne's report and going to realize the man was serious back then, taking that as further proof he made a mistake back then ... but is not going to repeat them when talking to Dany.

Yeah, I can see that scenario happening.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Tyrion agreed to grant Thorne some more men, and he later did his best to help convince his father to send more men to the Wall. I'd agree that he should have received Thorne in private and if he had the moving hand certainly would have made an impact on him.

But the fact remains that there is a reason why George had Tyrion see the Wall and befriend Jon Snow. He is going to back Marwyn when he gives Dany his report about the Others and wights especially in light of the fact the source of that is, ultimately, Jon Snow. And he also remembering Thorne's report and going to realize the man was serious back then, taking that as further proof he made a mistake back then ... but is not going to repeat them when talking to Dany.

In reasonable amounts, sure. But I got impression during my reading of her chapters that she spent rather inordinate amount of time worrying about Quaithe's prophecies.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

A proper feudal society did not allow for any social mobility - the medieval ideal was that every man (not to speak of the women) remained where he was born. You did what your father had done before you, period. People breaking free of those shackles were freak accidents. Nobody liked new money, and the whole freedom in the cities was seen as a poison destroying society as it should be - and it was slowly but surely killing feudalism.

The French Revolution was not so much a revolution against the monarchy - although the king was eventually overthrown and executed - but against the ridiculous privileges and powers the ancien regime was preserving and enshrining for the (high) nobility and clerics. As far as I recall none of these people even paid taxes at the time, meaning the commons had to pay for everything but had no voice in anything that was done in the state. The 18th century hungered for an enlightened king to do away with all that stuff, but pretty much nobody in 18th century Europe wanted to abolish the monarchy ... as long as the monarch but made some concessions.

In 15th century Hungary, you had feudalism which worked rather well up until the Jagellon dynasty. Reason was what I noted: balance. You had a king who wanted to check high nobility, minor nobility who wanted to check high nobility and the king, and high nobility who wanted to check king and minor nobility. Usually king, minor nobility and cities allied against high nobility, especially during the reign of Matthias Corvinus. Which means that there were rarely, if ever, the abuses of power one sees in either aristocratic monarchies (where king has no power) or absolutist monarchies (where king has all the power), as it was in everybody's interest to check anybody else's abuses of power. The system fell apart when high nobility figured out how to outmaneuver minor nobility and king was not powerful enough to prevent that.

There was also similar system of checks and balances in Byzantine Empire during height of thematic system (7th - 11th centuries), though in that case - not being a feudal society - you had Emperor in Constantinople - people of Constantinople - rich men (dynatoi) of Constantinople (traders etc.) - dynatoi of provinces (large landowners) - people of provinces (meaning thematic troops). A lot more complex system which also worked rather well, and was eventually destroyed by a series of emperors who allied with Constantinople's aristocracy at the expense of provinces (dynatoi and stratioti alike).

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

A proper feudal society did not allow for any social mobility - the medieval ideal was that every man (not to speak of the women) remained where he was born. You did what your father had done before you, period. People breaking free of those shackles were freak accidents. Nobody liked new money, and the whole freedom in the cities was seen as a poison destroying society as it should be - and it was slowly but surely killing feudalism.

The French Revolution was not so much a revolution against the monarchy - although the king was eventually overthrown and executed - but against the ridiculous privileges and powers the ancien regime was preserving and enshrining for the (high) nobility and clerics. As far as I recall none of these people even paid taxes at the time, meaning the commons had to pay for everything but had no voice in anything that was done in the state. The 18th century hungered for an enlightened king to do away with all that stuff, but pretty much nobody in 18th century Europe wanted to abolish the monarchy ... as long as the monarch but made some concessions.

1) What makes you think Aegon will only have a fraction of military potential of Westeros at his disposal? And unless " "fraction" of the military potential" is on the order of 10%, it should be enough to stalemate maybe 100k Dothraki.

2) Where will Daenerys be getting hundreds of thousands of Dothraki and how will she transport and feed them?

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, of course, but for that you need really trained and experienced soldiers - which those Sarnori obviously weren't. Or rather: They were not disciplined enough. They were not prepared for being encircled and didn't figure out in time what to do when it happened.

A realistic element George really likes to use in his battles is the fact that battles can get confusing very quickly, and that a very important way to secure victory is to remain in control of the situation or to follow a battle plan no matter what - adapting to a new situation in the middle of a battle if you no longer have any reserves is pretty much impossible, though.

Actually, you don't. Byzantine square was designed in good part precisely because their infantry was not all that well trained and experienced. Now, they were trained soldiers, true, but they were not full-time professionals. These were all thematic troops (tagmata were exclusively heavy cavalry), and being infantry, they had to work their own land, which limited their training time. So you could say that Byzantine infantry in question consisted of "peasants". But they still drilled. And it is unlikely Westerosi infantry is any worse than Byzantine infantry.

Of course, Byzantine infantry will have been deployed in infantry square from the start. Fact that Sarnori did not do that indicates that they did not really know how to handle Dothraki.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, obviously this means George R. R. Martin thinks the Dothraki are capable to do what you do think they are not able to do - and they will continue to do that in Westeros even against armored knights.

I mean, I laid it out in great detail how I think they will be able to crush knights - simply by means of their superior bows (and there will be as many dragonbone bows as George wants them to have - those bows were introduced for a reason) and their superior mobility and the fact that they can shoot ahorse while the knights and Westerosi archers cannot do that.

It is very easy to imagine how those advantages will play out in a battle. The knights will be crushed by the dragonbone archers, and the infantry will be put to rout and ridden down by the conventional Dothraki archers.

The very idea that the Dothraki could break because a couple of hundred knights charge at them is ridiculous if you think of Qohor - they were willing to get themselves killed in the hundreds and thousands by the Unsullied there, meaning the Dothraki won't stop an attack just because hundreds or thousands of their peers were killed by a charge of knights.

Either that or Sarnori infantry was garbage in ways Westerosi infantry is not.

And no, Dothraki will not be able to crush knights. Many if not most knights in Westeros have barding for horses, which will make them immune to Dothraki horse archers. Mongols, who are (partial) inspiration for Dothraki, won thanks to their combined-arms approach: missile cavalry + heavy cavalry (6 horse archers to 4 lancers) + military engineers + artillery. Dothraki are not Mongols, they are not even Huns.

Let's see comparison:

Dothraki vs Mongols

light melee and missile cavalry vs combined-arms army employing heavy cavalry, missile cavalry, artillery and combat engineers

sabre as primary melee weapon vs heavy lance as primary melee weapon and mace as a secondary melee weapon

exclusively unarmoured cavalry vs heavily armoured horse archers and lancers supported by lightly armoured troops

disdain towards infantry vs extensive utilization of (native) infantry auxilliaries in campaigns

no artillery support vs heavy artillery support, including gunpowder weapons such as early cannons, early hand cannons, stoneware bombs and gunpowder-filled caltrops

tribal political organization vs extremely complex political and diplomatic organization including developed diplomacy, espionage, bribery etc

tribal military organization vs complex military organization including detailed chain of command, logistical arrangements, long-distance and long-term scouting, campaign planning and more

numerical inferiority vs rought numerical parity against European armies at both Legnica and Mohi

invading while continent vs invading a couple of relatively second-class kingdoms

If Mongols had relied solely on horse archers the way you argue Dothraki will they will have gotten stomped into ground by Chinese armies long before they reached Europe (and then they would have gotted wasted in Europe as well). Foot archer will always outshoot a horse archer, even when they are using same equipment - and Westerosi longbows and crossbows should have distinct advantage over Dothraki bows, with possible exception of dragonbone bows (but then, Golden Company has archers wielding goldenheart longbows). Plus, 90% of Westerosi troops have enough armour to just shrug off Dothraki archery until latter run out of arrows (and seeing how Martin noted arrows to be "clanking off armour or finding flesh", arrows in his series do not get to have magical armour-penetrating abilities).

Logically, if anybody routs, it will be Dothraki. Now, as we have agreed, Martin is free to ignore history and logic as he wants. But as I have mentioned before, he is basing things on history - to the point of outright lifting whole battles and using them in his series (siege of Constantinople for Siege of King's Landing, for example, or 300 Spartans for 3 000 of Qohor). This means that likely model for invasion of Westeros will be Mongol invasions of Europe. And in that case, Mongols managed to win initially due to fighting forces which were a) unfamiliar with their way of warfare and b) predominantly lightly armed and armoured. Westeros may check out point a) - though Golden Company at least should be familiar with Dothraki way of war - but it definitely does not check out point b); Westerosi heavy cavalry and even infantry is ridiculously well armed and armoured by 13th century standards, and no steppe army was ever able to do more than raid in strength west of Pannonian basin. In fact, Magyars / Hungarians were forced to abandon steppe nomad tactics because there was not enough forage in Hungary to feed such a force - and Westeros is much less like Russian Steppe and much more like Hungary.

The only things Dothraki can do against a charge of Westerosi knights is either a) avoid it outright or b) get slaughtered. They do not have equipment or training to face it head-on, nor can they damage knights with just archery (though latter depends on how widespread barding is).

And even if they win in the field, Westeros has fortifications that were ridiculous by historical standards - and Mongols were mostly helpless against stone castles when they faced them historically.

So basically, Dothraki will either:

a) Get annihilated in open battle

b) Get destroyed by a series of raids from Westerosi castles

c) lose horses due to lack of forage and turn into purely infantry army or else typical Westerosi army - but they will not remain nomads once they actually settle in Westeros. See what happened to Magyars.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This might be the case in the real world, but we have no idea when saddle and stirrup were invented in Martinworld.

In fact, the impression I get is that those chariots of the Sarnori with their scissors are supposed to be seen as terrible weapons against Dothraki and other cavalry charges because they could actually kill the horses. There is no reason to think of bronze age chariots there - but armored fantasy chariots.

Those would have to be flying fantasy chariots to be of any use against horse archers. Or maybe not: one - sole - advantage of chariots is that they can have archers using infantry bows. But I am not sure how advantageous that would be considering that it is not exactly a stable platform.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is pretty much nothing realistic about the Blackwater battle. Even the setup makes no sense in light of the fact that Stannis captured 10,000+ horse at Storm's End - meaning he had the largest cavalry force in Westeros, ever (after Renly, who had 20,000 horse taken to Storm's End). Where the hell where all those knights and lords at the Blackwater? And where are all those horses?

The idea to rely on the ships to build a bridge is also pretty ridiculous - why the hell didn't Stannis land somewhere north of KL to deploy half his troops there to attack KL from both the front and the rear? Even without the chain a naval battle on the Blackwater was putting his troops in danger, especially since they knew to had to reckon with wildfire attacks. Not to mention the devastating effects a sortie on the landing/bridge-building Stannis troops could have.

I get impression that Martin wanted to have Siege of Constantinople, no matter what. But if he actually studies Mongol invasions of Europe, Dothraki will not prove exactly useful. If.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They will be as useful as loyal and competent and professional soldiers are - and you don't get much of those in this worlds. Knights and sellswords might be professionals, but they are not really loyal.

 

Loyal, yes. Professional, yes. Competent? Not necessarily, at least not in Westerosi context. And infantry deployed at Battle of Green Fork - at both sides - does not really appear any less disciplined and professional than Unsullied. The only difference is that they are not suicidally determined, but a) that can be advantage and disadvantage both and b) Unsullied Daenerys will bring to Westeros are not the Unsullied she bought from the Good Masters.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't expect Daenerys to bother much with besieging castles and cities, and I most definitely don't expect anybody to come to the aid of whoever she ends up besieging - especially since she won't be surprised ever by any such attempts thanks to the fact that she has dragonrider scouts.

 

Not being surprised does not mean much when the only options are to withstand a siege yourself, give up or face the enemy in open. And unless she starts burning things outright with dragons (assuming they will be able to do so), she will have to besiege castles.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is pretty much nothing realistic about the Blackwater battle. Even the setup makes no sense in light of the fact that Stannis captured 10,000+ horse at Storm's End - meaning he had the largest cavalry force in Westeros, ever (after Renly, who had 20,000 horse taken to Storm's End). Where the hell where all those knights and lords at the Blackwater? And where are all those horses?

The idea to rely on the ships to build a bridge is also pretty ridiculous - why the hell didn't Stannis land somewhere north of KL to deploy half his troops there to attack KL from both the front and the rear? Even without the chain a naval battle on the Blackwater was putting his troops in danger, especially since they knew to had to reckon with wildfire attacks. Not to mention the devastating effects a sortie on the landing/bridge-building Stannis troops could have.

Except not. Whenever characters talk about the quality of men it reinforces the notion that infantry are raw recruits. But whenever text itself shows infantry in combat, it is highly disciplined and consists of troops (dismounted men-at-arms, pikemen, longbowmen, crossbowmen) who could not be raw conscripts by any stretch. At worst they are a regular militia, meaning men who do not live from warfare but are still highly trained and disciplined, not much worse than actual professional troops.

Most of the text is POV of nobles, which means that everybody in infantry is a peasant to them - but that is a social descriptor, not indication of quality of those troops.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I know all those descriptions, and I know how expensive mail was in the real middle ages - but that's again a fantasy series, no. As I laid out in the other thread, the idea you can take those careless and imprecise descriptions filtered through the POV in question as 'facts' is a stretch - especially contrasted to the actual talk about the quality of men and how the military system actually worked. And there things like Meribald's speech and the actual depiction of a landed knight raising levies in TSS take precedence.

The best way to make sense of those Frey soldiers in mail is that the Freys either have a lot of money - which they do - or that this is an exaggeration - the POV seeing a bunch of Frey soldiers in mail and then extrapolating that all those men look the same.

The fact just is that those people you talk about and think play a role in the overall narrative structure of the series are just extras and background details - George doesn't care about army structures and the capabilities of the men his heroes use as cannon fodder. They will have what they need to do what the plot demands, not the other way around.

Right now you have dismissed both a) evidence from books and b) real-world context. I do not think that "this is a fantasy series" is a good excuse - you have to prove that these are truly untrained peasants, by showing them behaving as such . 

Bolded part is well and truly ironic, considering that is precisely what you have been doing the whole time: you are giving more weight to careless and imprecise descriptions given by POVs than to actual behaviour of forces in question which show them to be a) well drilled and b) highly disciplined.

You cannot just dismiss evidence because it does not agree with what you believe should be the case. Especially when evidence actually supporting your position is so flimsy.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Because winter usually isn't the season for war.

 

Which doesn't mean they are not capable of it. FIrst Men fought during the Long Night, after all, and fought successfully. Then there is Brandon Ice Eyes, Robert's Rebellion was also during winter, Peake Uprising, Dance of Dragons... all winter.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I know all those descriptions, and I know how expensive mail was in the real middle ages - but that's again a fantasy series, no. As I laid out in the other thread, the idea you can take those careless and imprecise descriptions filtered through the POV in question as 'facts' is a stretch - especially contrasted to the actual talk about the quality of men and how the military system actually worked. And there things like Meribald's speech and the actual depiction of a landed knight raising levies in TSS take precedence.

The best way to make sense of those Frey soldiers in mail is that the Freys either have a lot of money - which they do - or that this is an exaggeration - the POV seeing a bunch of Frey soldiers in mail and then extrapolating that all those men look the same.

The fact just is that those people you talk about and think play a role in the overall narrative structure of the series are just extras and background details - George doesn't care about army structures and the capabilities of the men his heroes use as cannon fodder. They will have what they need to do what the plot demands, not the other way around.

It is a possibility, but not very likely. I do not think Martin will have been building Mace's overinflated opinion of himself as a commander with no payoff.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope, they had to conquer the actual castles - which should have been pretty well defended in light of the fact that they are likely not pretty large and thus don't need a large garrison to be actually defended.

They also defeated them at sea, to be sure, but the whole thing be a surprise attack means the Shield Islanders didn't get their entire fleet at sea and did not lost all their men there.

Fact that they defeated them at sea also means that they might not have had to actually assault castles at all.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It was well-defended the first time around, and no longer that well-defended the second time since the Tallharts had sent men to Rodrik. But Ramsay did not kill all of them, nor is there are a chance that the Tallharts emptied out Torrhen's Square the way Ser Rodrik emptied out Winterfell - that would be foolish after Rodrik had just lost Winterfell because of that.

The lesson you can draw from that is that the Ironborn definitely know how to take pretty strong castles.

Torrhen's square was actually nearly undefended first time around since most men were either at Winterfell at Harvest Feast or south with Robb. It was also nearly undefended second time around.

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We did see them crush the Stormlanders at Fairmarket in TWoIaF. And we saw how Harren's Ironborn fought Aegon until they were defeated.

 

We did not "see them". We know it happened and that it involved some kind of operational maneuver by longboats, but that's it.

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are minor rebellions here and there, but those are not wars. Hunting outlaws and robber knights doesn't prepare you to fight pitched battles.

 

Castles + no gunpowder weapons = no need to fight pitched battles. And even from what we have seen so far, Westerosi armies are much more tactically flexible and sophisticated than either Unsullied or Dothraki (even though for latter we only have legends), so they don't need to fear pitched battles anyway.

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

See above. Stannis sucks as a leader and king due to his personality ... Euron does not.

 

He doesn't suck as a leader (maybe; well, we know he doesn't suck as an orator), but as a strategist? Greyjoy Rebellion was truly a masterpeace of a failure, and his current strategy is akin to what Free People did in Lord of the Rings - placing all their hopes on a MacGuffin - except they had no other choice.

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It was well-defended the first time around, and no longer that well-defended the second time since the Tallharts had sent men to Rodrik. But Ramsay did not kill all of them, nor is there are a chance that the Tallharts emptied out Torrhen's Square the way Ser Rodrik emptied out Winterfell - that would be foolish after Rodrik had just lost Winterfell because of that.

The lesson you can draw from that is that the Ironborn definitely know how to take pretty strong castles.

Have you read the discussion at all? All they were doing is a) presenting arguments for why they needed Daenerys and her dragons and b) explaining why they cannot go to Daenerys. There was literally no option presented other than sit tight and wait for Daenerys until Aegon spoke up. All other options were considered and discarded before Aegon spoke; if he hadn't said anything, they would have either remained exactly where and how they were, or abandoned any thought of doing anything at all and gone back to being mercenaries in Essos. And after so many disappointments in Varys and his plans, latter was far more likely.

[Tyrion1991]

19 hours ago, Mithras said:

That is the same way GRRM provided her dragons. Are you complaining about them as well?

 

The character had passed under the shadow and endured the necessary sacrifices. It was not a dues ex machina that her dragons showed up.

Thats not the same as a character being bombarded with Cthulhu insanity points. Dany isn’t choosing to get visitations by Quiathe and for some weird reason takes her seriously. Plus not having an axe to grind with mages despite Miri. I would not trust any mage on principle after that. 

[Tyrion1991]

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, you have no idea where exactly Cersei and Euron and other factions will be when Dany finally shows up. Aegon might sit the Iron Throne in TWoW before Daenerys has even secured the allegiance of the Dothraki. And once he has won the throne, he will be a target for all his enemies, long before Dany shows up.

There is no indication George wants to put the Starks on a pedastal - nor is that, if he wanted to do it, contradictory with Aegon becoming a tyrant. I don't expect the Starks to be a faction unaffiliated with the Targaryens. In fact, I'm pretty sure Arya is going to end up in camp Dany in the books. She is not going to take Catelyn's revenge plot.

As for the common people - Aegon should lose his standing with them as soon as he starts to make mistakes and turns into a tyrant. He is the guy who could be the Rhaenyra of the story - hailed and cheered when he bloodlessly takes the city, but cursed and jeered when he is hounded out of the city because he failed to deliver. They even face the same issues - the treasury is empty right now, Aegon, like Rhaenyra, will have to raise taxes once he takes the throne. He might even start a war with the West to get access to the gold of Casterly Rock.

Daenerys won't get the same story she got in the shit show because George already has a mad queen in Cersei - a woman who is truly mad and unhinged and cruel and paranoid - as well as a bad Targaryen in Aegon. He won't make Dany a version/amalgmation of those two characters. That wouldn't work.

But it wasn't about anything. George had Aegon and Rhaenys there for a reason, he told us years ago that Aegon looked Targaryen, he even had the germ of that entire plot in AGoT with Varys/Illyrio not being confirmed/die-heard loyalits of Viserys III.

For that it would have to be a different scenario - one where people could actually believe in this Aegon fellow to be the real deal and him having the time and the means to actually restore peace and prosperity to the Realm - which just won't happen. He doesn't have the means to do any of that, all he can do is make matters worse.

We don't know where exactly Daenerys will land nor where anyone will be by the time that happens - which should be a year from now, if not later. She won't come to Westeros in TWoW. She may not even start her journey in the next book (although that could happen).

That makes no sense as such - sure, some people will believe in him, but people's minds are fickle, and Daenerys is the better dragon. She is the one with the actual dragons and the one whose ancestry is as solid as stone. Aegon is a man pretending to be a prince everybody knows died years ago as an infant. People certainly want to believe a Targaryen is going to save them - but that will only fly as long as he is saving them, which Aegon simply won't, in the end.

And the idea that nobody is going to care whether he is the real deal or not once there is a real alternative in Daenerys makes no sense. Aegon might be male, but he might also be a whoreson without a single drop of royal blood.

If you are a guy like Aegon in this world you have to have constant success. You cannot make any mistake, cannot show any weakness ... because your case is, in the end, built on sand. Which is why Varys/Illyrio and Strickland wanted him to have Dany and the dragons. That would have given him legitimacy. Without that he can only fail ... at least against Daenerys. And possibly even against Euron and Cersei.

The issue with Aegon as a failure is also not just that he does some cruel things, but simply that he will fail to pacify the Realm and restore peace to the Seven Kingdoms. He won't make winter go away, won't feed the Riverlands, etc. - instead he has already brought war to the Stormlands and will continue that in the Crownlands and possibly to the Reach and the West as well.

The idea that the people are going to blame Dany for problems Aegon caused while she wasn't even in Westeros really makes no sense.

I don't think so. I think the point of the Aegon plot is George deconstructing the 'hidden prince' trope - Aegon is like Aragorn, but showing that men like Aragorn would make lousy kings in a realistic scenario.

Dany's story isn't 'Westeros turning against her', but her role in relation to a prophecy about a promised prince saving the world. That is her job, along with the other guy who is going to figure into that, Jon Snow. Her story is not, in the end, about conquest and popularity and queenship - just as Jon Snow's story is not about kingship. Both of those crucial characters might end up having the powers of kings and queens, but they will only be used as a means to an end - to save the world and mankind from the Others.

Especially if both of them were not to survive the final confrontation.

 

Its a pretty reasonable bet she’ll land on that side of Westeros. I’d like a Wildcard showdown at Oldtown but it’s not likely.

You can’t do a second Dance if Euron or Cersei are the ones to ruin Aegons day. So any conflict with them is going to play second fiddle.

You mean the Starks lie to Dany and use her before stabbing her in the back? Yes I imagine they will use her to get what they want. Why wouldn’t a pack of barbarians do that?

Dany is more likely to be like Rhaenyra in the Dance. That story is very blunt foreshadowing of how things will go for Dany unless she graciously gives up her claim to the throne. Rhaenys could have just waited for her son to inherit the throne and theDance was this pointless. George is definitely going to make the same point with Dany. He’s going to frame Barristan as being right that Dany only had to wait.

Aegons problems become Danys once she takes over. So she’d be left holding the bill and taking the blame. It doesn’t matter if he’s a failure, he’s going Tim Ben popular and it will be too easy to make him a martyr. It’s too easy for Dany if everyone screams “the throne rejects him!” and go full 1660 restoration. 

Bran is Azor Ahai because he’s the mystical chosen one of the Children. Dany is a red herring in regards to that prophecy. There will be a build up o people thinking she’s the saviour and then it will be revealed that SHOCK it’s actually the most generic and boring one dimensional character in the series.

How can George be deconstructing the hidden prince trope when he’s asking us to take Jon seriously? Was there too much polish on Aegons silver spoon?

Which would be the easy way out if Dany dies saving the world to wash away her sins. George will do what creates the most conflict and drama. Which is Dany survives and wants her claim but is broken and yes, Westeros turns on her. I can’t quite understand how George will rationalise an ungrateful people murdering their Queen; but he’s getting started on the ground work for that. Aegon is a key part of Danys downfall. 

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Morte said:

I think at best they set sails in the last POV in Essos (by whoever), more likely we leave them with the  decision made to start making preparations for the journey.

That could be the case - although I'd think it more likely that all of 'team Dany' have (independently) reached the conclusion that they should get going now, without having spoken to each other or made any concrete plans.

There is an awful lot of plot to be dealt with in Slaver's Bay alone before they can go, much less what's going to happen with the Dothraki in the meantime. This cannot be a good story if Dany had them all as their military in just 2-3 chapters. There has to be more there - more conflict, more persuasion, more explanation, character-building, etc.

Starting with the mere fact that Dany may not even have the intention to take them all over. Perhaps she just intended to gain the allegiance of the khalasar that found her - which is not going to happen because it is Jhaqo's.

1 hour ago, Morte said:

And it doesn't get any better with the fact that it appears more unlikely for Drogon to have killed the girl the further we get in the book: The other two dragons are free, but they don't attack any humans beside whose who do attack them/stand in their way. So either is was a really horrible accident, and the girl tried to pet Drogon or something like that, or it was a plot to get the dragons chained from the very beginning and Drogon didn't kill the child.

Yeah, that's not unlikely, although I give them the benefit of the doubt in light of the fact that Drogon is wilder than the others - but then, in the Pit he also first targeted the boar, not the people, so the best guess if he killed the child is that it was an accident and the girl was, perhaps, too close to a sheep Drogon attacked.

But to be sure - it makes sense that this was a first test of the Green Grace to figure out what Daenerys would do if she believed her dragons were killing children.

1 hour ago, Morte said:

And she also essentially undermines the position of her freed-men as well as the reformed Mereenese. They all do understand why she does this, but they all agree that it will lead to nothing, because the other side doesn't want to change.

Yeah, and that's the thing that's there right in the first chapter - she tries to be just to both sides but that doesn't make anybody happy. Not the freedmen and certainly not the former slavers - but the former have no other choice but to stand with her, the latter can try to destroy them.

1 hour ago, Morte said:

Oh, I did agree with you; just wanted to help with you argument that Bronze and Iron Age do get their name for the metal forged, not from being further developed, nor did the military strategies developed further in the Iron Age, just because some hundred years past. I essentially made it clear with my answer to the Ilias-comment: the Iron Age aristocratic society of Greek doesn't understand the professional and semi-professional armies of the Bronze Age Empires.

Yeah, from what I know the term would be used pretty loosely anyway, since various bronze age/iron age cultures would be very different, especially if they weren't exactly in close contact.

1 hour ago, Morte said:

I, too, think that Aegon is Martin's commentary on Aragon. Why should he be a good king? Because someone told him so? Because somebody educated him? A lot of lousy kings had the best education available, much better than Aegon's. Because he is a good kid? Maybe he is, but a lot of good kids were lousy kings who made everything worse.

I think that Martin wants to show exactly this, Aegon is his own "what was Aragon's tax policy?"-answer.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. We are not going to get that kind of story from one of the actual main characters because their stories will be more individual stories, better connected to the overall plot and less about a theme or a plot point. But that's not what Aegon is there for. George also used Robert and Viserys and Stannis and Renly and Robb, etc. to explore various aspects of kingship, but the core characters are really three-dimensional characters - we won't see Dany or Jon or Tyrion or Sansa make the kind of silly mistakes that killed Robb - nor would have Robb gone down the way he did if he had been a POV. Then his story would have been broader and more detailed in scope and he would have played a bigger role in the overall story.

1 hour ago, Morte said:

Destroying the food resources the continent has left in his wake, by the way.

Yeah, he will contribute to that himself, but also in concert with the people he fights, and he will be unable to give the people what they actually need, even if he tries.

1 hour ago, Morte said:

Braavos would be a natural ally for Dany, because of her fight against slavery; we don't know what Braavos would want from Stannis, nor what they know about the situation in Slaver's Bay or the Others, but somehow I have the notion that Braavos is a lot better informed about everything than most of the other players.

Technically, yes, one should think that. But I don't think that's the plan. There are some hints that the Braavosi know certain things, yes, but those hints indicate they are not dragon friendly. We do have Tycho not taking kindly to jokes about dragons - meaning their first or second take on Dany is not going to be their fanboys. And then there is Jaqen's mission to Oldtown which most likely revolves around that 'how to kill dragons' book.

I think the Faceless Men will charge with going to Vaes Dothrak or Slaver's Bay or wherever Daenerys at the time of Jaqen's return to Braavos to kill her and/or the dragons - and it will be that hypocrisy that's going to cause Arya to turn around and fight for life and future and hope and not death and indifference (while she retained her own identity so far, she did certainly started to buy into 'death is a gift' and 'death comes to everybody'. For her to make a difference for better or worse she has to change that view.

It is still possible that the Braavosi as a people eventually come round and support Dany once they realize that her anti-slavery movement is genuine, but with Stannis getting massive loans from the Iron Bank I certainly can see the new Sea Lord doing more than just assuring Stannis of his moral support.

I also expect the Pentoshi to support Aegon with in money issues, with Illyrio ensuring he gets some loans, just as I can see the Three Daughters side with Euron against Daenerys. George won't be able to just ignore the Free Cities when they are pretty much stuck between two converging big power blocs, namely Daenerys and her people eventually coming west, and the Westerosi starting to look east (which began with AFfC and ADwD the Braavosi and Volantis stories, as well as the Iron Bank plot).

1 hour ago, Morte said:

Oh, and we can not predict what Stannis himself would do (beside grinding his teeth, that we know), if he knew Dany has just landed and Aegon had already given, say, the Stormlands to someone else.

I don't think Stannis himself will march down south soon, but others could come up north and he certainly could have half his sellswords or so attack KL or some other crucial place down south.

[Hodor the Articulate]

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Bolded is relevant. Up until that point. If you have read "ruling" scenes before, you will have also noticed that she is pretty much frustrated the whole time. She is patient, yes, but she is also unhappy with what she sees as a "too little, too slow" progress. She was actually doing a good job, but she doesn't realize it.

And it does imply her reaction to any opposition, or even lack of acceptance. "Dragons plant no trees". No, they don't plant trees, they burn them. When Daenerys goes west, she will not be concerned with ideals and peace. And that also includes diplomacy.

No. You are the blood of the dragon. The whispering was growing fainter, as if Ser Jorah were
falling farther behind. Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were
made to be. Remember your words.
“Fire and Blood,” Daenerys told the swaying grass.

Oh no, is this Meereenese Blot nonsense again? I don't understand the logic behind "slow progress" in Meereen. Like, what does that mean? Dany keeps giving in to the demands of the Great Masters? Tempered slavery is still slavery. It's a regression from Dany's total abolishment at the start of the book.

Unlike Dany, the Great Masters understand that in order to achieve their goals, they need to remove the obstructing power with violence. Hence the poisoning attempt. Dany realises this too, which is is what "fire and blood" is all about. Planting trees didn't symbolise peace or diplomacy; it was giving up:

"I was tired, Jorah. I was weary of war. I wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. I am only a young girl."

People always bring up "dragons plant no trees" but leave out this part, and the fact that her war against slavery was far from over when she decided to settle.

So what this development means for her time in Westeros is... she's not going to give in to her enemies or abandon her ideals? Well, this certainly points to her losing it when she has to work to gain support, even though that's what she'd always expected she'd have to do.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Puts a dent? Humans in ASoIaF are fallible, and Jorah is far from the most down-to-earth character there is. Up until we actually see Dothraki in action, all we will have is speculation. But going from historical models - Westerosi armies being modelled largely on 14th and 15th century Western European armies (with North going further back, to 11th - 13th century maybe) - Dothraki will prove hopeless.

Jorah, a skilled and experienced knight, used to think the Dothraki were going to be rubbish against knights but having seen them up close, he now thinks they're a deadly force. It was a pretty objective assessment imo.

Robert thinks many houses will declare for Viserys/Dany's son if they come to Westeros with a Dothraki horde at their back, which goes against your claim that a Dothraki army is a deal breaker for lords. Bobby B isn't omniscient ofcourse, but we can it take to mean he, as a Westerosi lord, wouldn't turn away a contender just because of their "barbarian" army. Further evidence is Tywin having no qualms about using mountain clans.

You can pull up whatever history you want. I'm just going to ignore it because it's totally irrelevant in a world where battles can be won with shadow babies and dragons and magical wolves.

[Aldarion]

9 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Oh no, is this Meereenese Blot nonsense again? I don't understand the logic behind "slow progress" in Meereen. Like, what does that mean? Dany keeps giving in to the demands of the Great Masters? Tempered slavery is still slavery. It's a regression from Dany's total abolishment at the start of the book.

Unlike Dany, the Great Masters understand that in order to achieve their goals, they need to remove the obstructing power with violence. Hence the poisoning attempt. Dany realises this too, which is is what "fire and blood" is all about. Planting trees didn't symbolise peace or diplomacy; it was giving up:

"I was tired, Jorah. I was weary of war. I wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. I am only a young girl."

People always bring up "dragons plant no trees" but leave out this part, and the fact that her war against slavery was far from over when she decided to settle.

So what this development means for her time in Westeros is... she's not going to give in to her enemies or abandon her ideals? Well, this certainly points to her losing it when she has to work to gain support, even though that's what she'd always expected she'd have to do.

I already explained what it means for Westeros. She will apply lessons learned in Slaver's Bay to Westeros - which will be a mistake. Westerosi society is not comparable to that of Slaver's Bay.

Basically, she will end up having used Westeros-appropriate approach in Slaver's Bay and Slaver's Bay-appropriate approach in Westeros.

9 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Jorah, a skilled and experienced knight, used to think the Dothraki were going to be rubbish against knights but having seen them up close, he now thinks they're a deadly force. It was a pretty objective assessment imo.

Robert thinks many houses will declare for Viserys/Dany's son if they come to Westeros with a Dothraki horde at their back, which goes against your claim that a Dothraki army is a deal breaker for lords. Bobby B isn't omniscient ofcourse, but we can it take to mean he, as a Westerosi lord, wouldn't turn away a contender just because of their "barbarian" army. Further evidence is Tywin having no qualms about using mountain clans.

You can pull up whatever history you want. I'm just going to ignore it because it's totally irrelevant in a world where battles can be won with shadow babies and dragons and magical wolves.

I would really like to know what he is basing that on. There is simply no logical basis on which Dothraki will be a massive threat - or a threat at all - to Westeros. And Jorah is hardly a realist himself. I think what changed his opinion of Dothraki is not that he saw them up close, but that he fell in love with Daenerys, and since Daenerys has Dothraki in her army...

Dothraki would not be a deal breaker in a clash between Robert and Daenerys, simply because Targaryen with Dothraki > Baratheon, for Targaryen loyalists. But if she faces Aegon, they may well be.

And impact of magic in Westeros is overrated. To quote George Martin himself:

"When I started writing Game of Thrones, one of the things I did was to look at Lord of the Rings and see what Tolkien did and tried to take some lessons from it. A big lesson was his handling of magic," Martin said. "You know, I think a lot of epic fantasy has too much magic. But Middle-earth is suffused with a sense of magic, it's always on the peripheral and it's used to set the stage. Gandalf is a wizard, but when Orcs attack, he draws a sword and fights them. He doesn't just magically disappear them away, like what happens in so many other stories."

This means that, no, history is not irrelevant in "a world where battles can be won with shadow babies and dragons and magical wolves". In fact, with the exception of dragons, none of these fundametally change battlefield. Knight is still a knight, and both shadow babies and magical wolves replicate the roles which actually existed historically - assassins and scouts (such as Roman speculatores and exploratores), albeit with added magical twist.

"Magic makes history irrelevant" may work for Codex Alera where good furycrafter (read: Gaius Sextus) can wipe out armies on his own. But A Song of Ice and Fire is not such a work. In fact, it has only little more magic than Lord of the Rings, and that means that tactics and strategies which work in our world should work in Westeros - and likewise, that ones which did not work in our world should not work in Westeros. Stannis did not lose Blackwater because enemy had too much magic, he lost it because he got blindsided and caught in the rear while attacking a city.

The only magic in ASoIaF which can make history irrelevant is called "author fiat".

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And as I have already noted, she is likely to swing to another extreme, like a pendulum. In fact, many well-meaning kings screwed up just as hard as outright evil ones. In other words, she used approach she should use in Westeros back in Mereen, and will use approach she should have used in Mereen in Westeros.

There is just no basis for any of that in the actual text, nor are the situations comparable - yes, Daenerys should crush rebels and pretenders trying to stop her rise to the Iron Throne. That is why there will be a war. But there is nothing wrong with that, nor will she be special in this regard. Aegon is not going to win the Iron Throne by 'diplomacy' or at the 'negotiating table' - he will have to win it by defeating and deposing the other pretenders (and his Hand looks forward to actually murder Robert's descendants and other kin).

In Westeros Dany's only challenge will be getting rid of rival pretenders, she won't have to fight the people or force them to change their policies.

The approach she should have used in Meereen is killing all her enemies and eradicating/forcefully reeducate a populace whose ideas are no longer in accord with the new status quo.

And the same approach she also has to use in Westeros insofar as her enemies have to go. She cannot compromise with other people who want her throne - but there won't be any issues with people who don't want her throne. They don't have to be crushed or executed or destroyed. And they won't resist her the way the Meereenese tried to do. Why should they?

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And no, crucifying all the slavers will not have solved all her problems. Slavery is too endemic in Slaver's Bay to be quickly solved - this is not Antebellum South, which existed as a part of largely anti-slavery society and in fact had powerful abolitionist movement even before the Civil War. The moment she leaves, her project will start collapsing, and that will not have been prevented by her crucifying the slavers. Look at what happened in Astapor after she left: the old order returned, it was just that previous slavers became slaves while previous slaves became slavers. But nothing fundamentally changed. Same will happen in Mereen and all the other cities she liberates.

Last time I looked slavery sort of survived until the present day in the US, if you consider the effect the prison system still has on the black population. But that aside - killing all slavers certainly would have helped change things. It would of course also mean she has to remain there and rule over the former slaves to ensure that nobody reinvents slavery, etc. But if she had killed all the Astapori slavers - and not just only those her Unsulled and the rebelling slaves could lay their hands on during the sack - then the men she left in charge couldn't have plotted to restore the power to the Good Masters (because they would have all been dead) nor could King Cleon have enslaved the former slavers.

And to be sure - former slaves enslaving their masters I'd not view more as poetic justice than something I'd point my finger on. I've no issue with former slaves hurting, torturing, enslaving, or murdering their former masters.

Dany is shortsighted in the idea that her freeing the slaves is healing all the wounds/making everything better. That is her core mistake in Meereen. She didn't go far enough.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Mormont's expertise on anything isn't worth anything.

And no, they are not going to get crushed. You yourself said that dragons are not grown enough yet to make it Aegon's Conquest 2.0, and in any case one or two pretenders may gain dragons of their own, directly or indirectly. So if dragons are not automatic "I win" button for Daenerys, a lot will come down to conventional armies. And there, Daenerys is at definite disadvantage unless she secures enough support in Westeros so as to make her starting armies basically superfluous anyway.

I'm not talking about the dragons, I'm talking about her numbers. It is not just the Dothraki and the Unsullied, it is them and her freedmen, her Ironborn, her Volantene contingent, her sellswords, etc. Nobody in Westeros is going to stand against such an army.

She will also be at a huge advantage because Westeros will be still split between multiple factions - factions who will hate each other much more than they will ever fear or hate her.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

In reasonable amounts, sure. But I got impression during my reading of her chapters that she spent rather inordinate amount of time worrying about Quaithe's prophecies.

Read again. She thinks too little about those. I'd have dismissed/executed Reznak at once. Better safe than sorry. Aside from the perfumed seneschal pretty much nothing there is worrisome. She should think more about the House of the Undying but that doesn't come up all that often.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

In 15th century Hungary, you had feudalism which worked rather well up until the Jagellon dynasty. Reason was what I noted: balance. You had a king who wanted to check high nobility, minor nobility who wanted to check high nobility and the king, and high nobility who wanted to check king and minor nobility. Usually king, minor nobility and cities allied against high nobility, especially during the reign of Matthias Corvinus. Which means that there were rarely, if ever, the abuses of power one sees in either aristocratic monarchies (where king has no power) or absolutist monarchies (where king has all the power), as it was in everybody's interest to check anybody else's abuses of power. The system fell apart when high nobility figured out how to outmaneuver minor nobility and king was not powerful enough to prevent that.

Well, if you only care about the noble class, this may have been 'balance', if not, then it is a fucked-up system that didn't work for most of the population.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

There was also similar system of checks and balances in Byzantine Empire during height of thematic system (7th - 11th centuries), though in that case - not being a feudal society - you had Emperor in Constantinople - people of Constantinople - rich men (dynatoi) of Constantinople (traders etc.) - dynatoi of provinces (large landowners) - people of provinces (meaning thematic troops). A lot more complex system which also worked rather well, and was eventually destroyed by a series of emperors who allied with Constantinople's aristocracy at the expense of provinces (dynatoi and stratioti alike).

The Byzantine Empire has pretty much nothing to do with anything that happens in Martinworld, aside from, perhaps, the inspiration for wildfire.

It also makes no sense to compare the Westerosi situation to that since the Byzantines were essentially fighting for their survival for centuries and their military developed under that constant strain for war - Westeros, on the other hand, never had to fear a powerful neighbor trying to steal territory since the Targaryen Conquest.

Compared to professional soldiers/a society constantly fighting to keep what they have or enlarge the empire a little bit the Westerosi are lazy and decadent amateurs. And that pretty much shows in the way they never did away with the minor nuisances they had to deal with - no powerful campaign was ever launched against clansmen of the Mountains of the Moon to eradicate them, nor did any Targaryen or Stark king ever try to conquer lands beyond the Wall to create some sort of protected zone between the Wall and the wildling territory.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

1) What makes you think Aegon will only have a fraction of military potential of Westeros at his disposal? And unless " "fraction" of the military potential" is on the order of 10%, it should be enough to stalemate maybe 100k Dothraki.

LOL, right - because Aegon won't rule all of Westeros, nor will all the lords he technically rules give him their support nor will all those lords still have their original military strength at that time.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

2) Where will Daenerys be getting hundreds of thousands of Dothraki and how will she transport and feed them?

With the food of Essos and the ships of Essos. That will all be pretty easy.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Actually, you don't. Byzantine square was designed in good part precisely because their infantry was not all that well trained and experienced. Now, they were trained soldiers, true, but they were not full-time professionals. These were all thematic troops (tagmata were exclusively heavy cavalry), and being infantry, they had to work their own land, which limited their training time. So you could say that Byzantine infantry in question consisted of "peasants". But they still drilled. And it is unlikely Westerosi infantry is any worse than Byzantine infantry.

Of course it is very likely they are much worse than Byzantine infantry because Byzantium was an actualy state, not some kind of feudal medieval nonsense crap. As I said, they had to deal with outside enemies since, well, forever, and it only got worse overtime, not better. They had to remain sharp or lose everything they had.

But there is no inclination that anybody in Westeros bothers to train his peasants at war unless somebody actually calls the banners - which happens, perhaps three or four times a century.

Even trained professionals like the Roman legions weren't 'professional soldiers' - Rome didn't have a standing army, but men who got drafted and recruited for specific campaigns and purposes. They were originally a free army of landowners who marched to war. Even when Augustus changed things, he didn't create a standing army but defined 'provinces which are not secured yet', so that legions needed to be stationed there permanently.

All that implies that the idea of George that amateurs could be decent enough soldiers after a short training period actually makes sense - the Roman legions wouldn't have gone through years of drilling before they went to war, no? Your idea that you have to have some special training and experience to serve as an infantry sheep in one of the great armies doesn't convince me.

But there is a contrast between the average Westerosi peasant - who doesn't go to war often - and men whose livelihood is fighting and war. Thus the sellswords, the Dothraki, the Ironborn - any culture which is actually martial and clings to martial ideals not only among the lordly elite, but throughout the entire male population - is superior to the rank-and-file of the Westerosi smallfolk.

How much the Westerosi commoners suck at warfare can be illustrated by the Faith Militant Uprising, for instance. The Poor Fellows were basically a smallfolk movement, bolstered by a couple of knights and lords. And they were slaughtered by Maegor and his lords without all that much problems - because they were not professional warriors, unable to stand against charging knights.

If we were to assume that the bulk of the Westerosi infantry is drawn from the very same men who rose against King Maegor - and that's to be expected - then those men should have known and been able to build shield walls and hold their ground, etc. against knights, especially if they had the numerical advantage - which they had in all the battles. But they didn't.

The Vulture Hunt is a similar example, where you see very few knights crush pretty large armies.

Bottom line is - there is a very small elite of professional warriors in Westeros. The men serving/living at castles - and they make the difference. The rest - who are the main part of any army - pretty much suck or only are adequate if they fight under those professional and are supported by them.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Of course, Byzantine infantry will have been deployed in infantry square from the start. Fact that Sarnori did not do that indicates that they did not really know how to handle Dothraki.

It is good that you do. I mean, seriously, the context is that the Sarnori were the neighbors of the Dothraki for thousands of years who could handle them very well until they were defeated. The idea that they had no clue how to do that but did it anyway just makes no sense.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And no, Dothraki will not be able to crush knights. Many if not most knights in Westeros have barding for horses, which will make them immune to Dothraki horse archers. Mongols, who are (partial) inspiration for Dothraki, won thanks to their combined-arms approach: missile cavalry + heavy cavalry (6 horse archers to 4 lancers) + military engineers + artillery. Dothraki are not Mongols, they are not even Huns.

Those magical dragonbone bows will go through plate. Neither the knights nor their horses will be able to protect them from those.

It is irrelevant how the real world Mongols or Huns or anybody conquered anything if the author doesn't want to replicate or even knows or cares about any of this. He can and will do it the way he wants - and that's not having a bunch of spent knights crushing tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of Dothraki.

 

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Loyal, yes. Professional, yes. Competent? Not necessarily, at least not in Westerosi context. And infantry deployed at Battle of Green Fork - at both sides - does not really appear any less disciplined and professional than Unsullied. The only difference is that they are not suicidally determined, but a) that can be advantage and disadvantage both and b) Unsullied Daenerys will bring to Westeros are not the Unsullied she bought from the Good Masters.

That is just nonsense, since we know there are light years between the training of an Unsullied and some peasant marching with Robb's army.

And Daenerys doesn't have to conquer castles. Go back and read the history of the Dance of the other succession wars. The point is to take the throne and kill the other pretender(s), not conquer every castle. Nobody is going to continue the fighting once the succession struggle is over.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Except not. Whenever characters talk about the quality of men it reinforces the notion that infantry are raw recruits. But whenever text itself shows infantry in combat, it is highly disciplined and consists of troops (dismounted men-at-arms, pikemen, longbowmen, crossbowmen) who could not be raw conscripts by any stretch. At worst they are a regular militia, meaning men who do not live from warfare but are still highly trained and disciplined, not much worse than actual professional troops.

Most of the text is POV of nobles, which means that everybody in infantry is a peasant to them - but that is a social descriptor, not indication of quality of those troops.

No, that is what you apparently want to see there, it is nowhere depicted that those men are 'highly disciplined' nor is there any confirmation that men carrying certain types of weapons are experts with those. Even most of the knights we see never fought in more than one war. Even those aren't proper veterans or experienced soldiers.

It is ridiculous to assume that men who never fought in a war know what they are doing when they do it the first time.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Right now you have dismissed both a) evidence from books and b) real-world context. I do not think that "this is a fantasy series" is a good excuse - you have to prove that these are truly untrained peasants, by showing them behaving as such . 

No, I'm confident enough that the people saying they are know what they know. Because, again, the peasant isn't exactly more than an extra in those stories.

But you can go to TSS if you want to know how landed knights and petty lords rise their troops. Even Lady Webber doesn't have that many trained warriors - and she pretty much took her entire garrison to her near-battle with Ser Eustace.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Bolded part is well and truly ironic, considering that is precisely what you have been doing the whole time: you are giving more weight to careless and imprecise descriptions given by POVs than to actual behaviour of forces in question which show them to be a) well drilled and b) highly disciplined.

There is no actual behavior there - just a glancing impression by some of those POVs, most of which are no trained warriors themselves. Tyrion has very little experience with battles, for instance.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

You cannot just dismiss evidence because it does not agree with what you believe should be the case. Especially when evidence actually supporting your position is so flimsy.

There is nothing flimsy there. It is only in your head that people behaving in a certain manner have to behave that way because they are trained professionals.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Which doesn't mean they are not capable of it. FIrst Men fought during the Long Night, after all, and fought successfully. Then there is Brandon Ice Eyes, Robert's Rebellion was also during winter, Peake Uprising, Dance of Dragons... all winter.

Rare occasions, and not the winter that's coming now, after a devastation civil war. Also, winter isn't the same in the Reach than the North or the Riverlands.

Robert's Rebellion wasn't fought in winter as far as we know. It was likely already spring by that time.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is a possibility, but not very likely. I do not think Martin will have been building Mace's overinflated opinion of himself as a commander with no payoff.

But that could be happening later, no? Mace doesn't have to die soon. He could lean a bunch of knights against the Dothraki to get himself killed there.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Fact that they defeated them at sea also means that they might not have had to actually assault castles at all.

They took castles, so they assaulted and took them.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Torrhen's square was actually nearly undefended first time around since most men were either at Winterfell at Harvest Feast or south with Robb. It was also nearly undefended second time around.

Nope, the whole thing was ruse. Cleftjaw was wary attacking Torrhen's Square and only agreed because Theon had his ruse in place which worked. Yet he took the castle in the end which means he knew how to do it. That's not that hard to understand. Dagmer didn't have that many men, and there would have been some men in the castle, just as Theon had a couple of men in Winterfell and could have made Rodrik bleed a lot if he had to storm the castle.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

We did not "see them". We know it happened and that it involved some kind of operational maneuver by longboats, but that's it.

We have a pretty good description of that battle.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

He doesn't suck as a leader (maybe; well, we know he doesn't suck as an orator), but as a strategist? Greyjoy Rebellion was truly a masterpeace of a failure, and his current strategy is akin to what Free People did in Lord of the Rings - placing all their hopes on a MacGuffin - except they had no other choice.

You seem to be confusing Balon and Euron there.

19 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Have you read the discussion at all? All they were doing is a) presenting arguments for why they needed Daenerys and her dragons and b) explaining why they cannot go to Daenerys. There was literally no option presented other than sit tight and wait for Daenerys until Aegon spoke up. All other options were considered and discarded before Aegon spoke; if he hadn't said anything, they would have either remained exactly where and how they were, or abandoned any thought of doing anything at all and gone back to being mercenaries in Essos. And after so many disappointments in Varys and his plans, latter was far more likely.

They are wary about going to Meereen, yes, but they certainly do not consider going to Westeros alone before Aegon makes that suggestion. Yes, perhaps they would have decided not to back Aegon at all, but I'd expect that they would have instead decided to go with the 'let us get hired by the Yunkai'i' idea - the Windblown did the same thing, after all.

Not to mention that a short time later still they would have had the chance to allow themselves getting hired by the Volantenes who also go to war against Daenerys.

[Alexis-something-Rose]

On 5/27/2020 at 4:23 PM, Mithras said:

fAegon won't take King's Landing and he won't ride a dragon.

I don't know about the dragon riding, but he can take King's Landing without too much bloodshed. He can take the Red Keep without breaking a sweat. He can go through the sewers. Varys knows the way. Once the Red Keep has fallen, the rest of the city should follow. 

[Morte]

18 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Bran is Azor Ahai because he’s the mystical chosen one of the Children. Dany is a red herring in regards to that prophecy. There will be a build up o people thinking she’s the saviour and then it will be revealed that SHOCK it’s actually the most generic and boring one dimensional character in the series.

Nobody is Azor Ahai; Azor Ahai just tells how the dragons were born, back then, in a very crude and idiotic fairy tale way. Nobody is the Last Hero; this is just the same stupid way to tell us how in the end the humans and the children stood together and that someone (most likely: many someones) went somewhere to do something. The Stallion-story tells us that literary everybody and their mother fought in the Long Night... And we have yet to get a glimpse that part of the whole thing is covered in the TPWP-story.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, that's not unlikely, although I give them the benefit of the doubt in light of the fact that Drogon is wilder than the others - but then, in the Pit he also first targeted the boar, not the people, so the best guess if he killed the child is that it was an accident and the girl was, perhaps, too close to a sheep Drogon attacked.

But to be sure - it makes sense that this was a first test of the Green Grace to figure out what Daenerys would do if she believed her dragons were killing children.

Yes. exactly.

On the dragons: I always had the notion that Rhaegal was the mean one, while Drogon was simply the big brother, also the one more eager/able to do what he was told, in short: mommy's good boy, with Viserion being the nice and social one of the three.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, that's pretty much it. We are not going to get that kind of story from one of the actual main characters because their stories will be more individual stories, better connected to the overall plot and less about a theme or a plot point. But that's not what Aegon is there for. George also used Robert and Viserys and Stannis and Renly and Robb, etc. to explore various aspects of kingship, but the core characters are really three-dimensional characters - we won't see Dany or Jon or Tyrion or Sansa make the kind of silly mistakes that killed Robb - nor would have Robb gone down the way he did if he had been a POV. Then his story would have been broader and more detailed in scope and he would have played a bigger role in the overall story.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think the Faceless Men will charge with going to Vaes Dothrak or Slaver's Bay or wherever Daenerys at the time of Jaqen's return to Braavos to kill her and/or the dragons - and it will be that hypocrisy that's going to cause Arya to turn around and fight for life and future and hope and not death and indifference (while she retained her own identity so far, she did certainly started to buy into 'death is a gift' and 'death comes to everybody'. For her to make a difference for better or worse she has to change that view.

That would indeed be very in-character for the pre-trauma-Arya and a good sign for her having turned to her former self.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I also expect the Pentoshi to support Aegon with in money issues, with Illyrio ensuring he gets some loans, just as I can see the Three Daughters side with Euron against Daenerys. George won't be able to just ignore the Free Cities when they are pretty much stuck between two converging big power blocs, namely Daenerys and her people eventually coming west, and the Westerosi starting to look east (which began with AFfC and ADwD the Braavosi and Volantis stories, as well as the Iron Bank plot).

Oh, the Free Cities will play an important role, if they want or not. I'm not sure if Pentos and Volantis will be able to do this; however, if my theory is true, than the Tattered Prince doesn't simply want Pentos; it might be something he wants too, but that wouldn't be something he has to discuss with the queen and only her herself (as you too have pointed out on more than just one occasion).

And Volantis is important not only for the anti-slavery-movement (I don't think Dany will leave without at least Volantis and Tyrosh freed - Tyrosh, well... it was Tyros which was magdeburgerised), but also because it is the First Daughter, so it has to "come home".

16 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Unlike Dany, the Great Masters understand that in order to achieve their goals, they need to remove the obstructing power with violence. Hence the poisoning attempt. Dany realises this too, which is is what "fire and blood" is all about. Planting trees didn't symbolise peace or diplomacy; it was giving up:

"I was tired, Jorah. I was weary of war. I wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. I am only a young girl."

People always bring up "dragons plant no trees" but leave out this part, and the fact that her war against slavery was far from over when she decided to settle.

Very good observation. She gave up, first she wanted to make Meereen work, but then she gave up and lost more and more of her accomplishments just to maintain a tainted pseudo-peace on the cost of her people and supporters within Meereen.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But that aside - killing all slavers certainly would have helped change things.

Because I am tired of that discussion about the poor slavers (as most people seem to believe they have the rights they have because somebody asked nicely... Ha!), but still want to come to aid ( ), I will help to make your point here with something a wiser man than both of us said:

“THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.” - Mark Twain, on the presumed horrors of the Terreur, compared to the horrors of feudalism in it's manifestation as the Ancient Regimè.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, from what I know the term would be used pretty loosely anyway, since various bronze age/iron age cultures would be very different, especially if they weren't exactly in close contact.

They also run simultaneously for different cultures even in a geographic region as small as Europe. Also, because it can't be repeated too often: Working iron doesn't make you the more advanced culture. Especially than we take into account that bronze can be hardened up to the level of low quality iron; that's why even if they could work iron quite early (I will drop the iron dagger of Tutankhamun here), a lot of cultures did stick with bronze for longer periods, as it was available in better quality and easier to work for mass production.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Even trained professionals like the Roman legions weren't 'professional soldiers' - Rome didn't have a standing army, but men who got drafted and recruited for specific campaigns and purposes. They were originally a free army of landowners who marched to war. Even when Augustus changed things, he didn't create a standing army but defined 'provinces which are not secured yet', so that legions needed to be stationed there permanently.

Here I must disagree. Don't make the same mistake and discuss wild across the centuries.

After the reform of Marius the Legions did change into professional soldiers, a standing army - but not with the reform as itself from one moment to another, it still was a long process, but in the end (Early Principate) the Legions were a standing army (including the auxilia, who were also granted citizenship after their period of service).

Of course they weren't stationed everywhere, but, as you said, in the border-provinces and in Egypt. And because they were there and were already paid, they also were used a lot for building campaigns (roads...) in peace.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Quote

Which doesn't mean they are not capable of it. FIrst Men fought during the Long Night, after all, and fought successfully. Then there is Brandon Ice Eyes, Robert's Rebellion was also during winter, Peake Uprising, Dance of Dragons... all winter.

Rare occasions, and not the winter that's coming now, after a devastation civil war. Also, winter isn't the same in the Reach than the North or the Riverlands.

Just want to add: In the Long Night they were loosing, horribly, even though everybody was there and fought on the same side. It took some big mojo and some tricks (and maybe a lot of talk) to get out of this alive. We still don't have the real story of that happened, might we never get it but have to reconstruct it out of the things happening in the current version of this particular conflict.

[Lord Varys]

22 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Its a pretty reasonable bet she’ll land on that side of Westeros. I’d like a Wildcard showdown at Oldtown but it’s not likely.

It is not just where Dany will land, but also where people who might be her enemies are at that particular time. They will have to fight their own battles in the meantime.

22 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

You can’t do a second Dance if Euron or Cersei are the ones to ruin Aegons day. So any conflict with them is going to play second fiddle.

The War of the Five Kings and the First Dance of the Dragons also did include more important and less important pretenders. What has Renly done to deserve to be one of the five kings in that name? He didn't even fight a single battle.

Chances are not that good that Aegon and Daenerys will be even remotely in similar positions as Rhaenyra and Aegon II.

4 hours ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

I don't know about the dragon riding, but he can take King's Landing without too much bloodshed. He can take the Red Keep without breaking a sweat. He can go through the sewers. Varys knows the way. Once the Red Keep has fallen, the rest of the city should follow. 

Nobody is going to defend KL if a Targaryen comes knocking at the door. There won't be any need for guile or deception there.

3 hours ago, Morte said:

Nobody is Azor Ahai; Azor Ahai just tells how the dragons were born, back then, in a very crude and idiotic fairy tale way. Nobody is the Last Hero; this is just the same stupid way to tell us how in the end the humans and the children stood together and that someone (most likely: many someones) went somewhere to do something. The Stallion-story tells us that literary everybody and their mother fought in the Long Night... And we have yet to get a glimpse that part of the whole thing is covered in the TPWP-story.

Well, I laid out my rather complex take on those heroes years ago when TWoIaF came out, but the bottom line is that there was indeed no single great hero - especially not in Essos. Azor Ahai, Eldric Shadowchaser, Yin Tar, Hyrkoon the Hero, etc. are all mythical or, to a point, actually existing heroes and leaders of their particular regions who were accidentally credited with bringing back light and warmth when nothing what they did most likely made a difference.

After all, the Others are in Westeros, not somewhere in Asshai or Yi Ti or the Patrimony of Hyrkoon or the Sarnori city states.

And this isn't a story of one mythical hero who acquired different names, but many people who were wrongly fused into a single heroic figure.

The story of the Last Hero seems to be separate from the eastern traditions, but since we have no clue how this story goes or how the Others were supposedly defeated, we really have no basis to judge that one. I imagine that Old Nan's version contains the most truth about the actual cause of the Long Night (the Others) and perhaps even some good guesses at what they want and perhaps even some germs about how they were defeated.

But the best story/hint in that direction clearly is the Rhoynish version of the story - even though the Rhoynar themselves didn't contribute anything to the end of the Long Night, either, their story seems to reflect the accurate take as how it may have been done - and how people might be able to do it in the future.

My gut feeling though is that the Long Night didn't exactly end in a mundane battle - at that time the First Men don't seem to have been in the shape to fight any battles - but rather that the Children intervened on their behalf with the Others (or the power(s) behind the Others, i.e. other Children of the Forest) to stop what they were doing. At least for the time being - which would also explain why they later helped to build the Wall and why there was a need for a Wall.

3 hours ago, Morte said:

On the dragons: I always had the notion that Rhaegal was the mean one, while Drogon was simply the big brother, also the one more eager/able to do what he was told, in short: mommy's good boy, with Viserion being the nice and social one of the three.

Yeah, Rhaegal seems to like quarrel a little bit, but we really don't know how dragons behave when they are older and how well behaved they are around humans, etc. Although the fact that nobody complains that Balerion and Vhagar ate scores of grooms and stableboys every fortnight we have to assume that dragons being raised by humans do not see the latter as their prey.

And to be sure, even the wild dragons on Dragonstone did not - Grey Ghost ate fish, Sheepstealer sheep, and the Cannibal other dragons.

3 hours ago, Morte said:

That would indeed be very in-character for the pre-trauma-Arya and a good sign for her having turned to her former self.

I cannot see any other reason why she would be in Braavos. Her story must continue in Essos. She can eventually return to Westeros, but as a person with an agenda, not some sort of revenge machine.

3 hours ago, Morte said:

Oh, the Free Cities will play an important role, if they want or not. I'm not sure if Pentos and Volantis will be able to do this; however, if my theory is true, than the Tattered Prince doesn't simply want Pentos; it might be something he wants too, but that wouldn't be something he has to discuss with the queen and only her herself (as you too have pointed out on more than just one occasion).

Oh, I think Pentos' days are sort of numbered, but there will be enough time before the Dothraki come knocking at the door for Illyrio to arrange that some money and men flow in Aegon's direction. One could even see such shortlived funds as part of Aegon's brief popularity - him getting a lot of gold from Illyrio and the other magisters which he throws out the window in great feasts and great tourneys and his great wedding, only to have to raise the taxes a couple of weeks later.

3 hours ago, Morte said:

And Volantis is important not only for the anti-slavery-movement (I don't think Dany will leave without at least Volantis and Tyrosh freed - Tyrosh, well... it was Tyros which was magdeburgerised), but also because it is the First Daughter, so it has to "come home".

What do you mean there with Tyrosh? Volantis is the First Daughter of Valyria, not Tyrosh.

3 hours ago, Morte said:

Here I must disagree. Don't make the same mistake and discuss wild across the centuries.

Oh, well, I just read that in Pabst's Augustus biography you suggested earlier ;-). But the overall point I was trying to make there is that if the Roman legions while they were not yet a proper standing army - if one wants to call them this way - could conquer vast territories while being, perhaps, a tidbit better 'professional amateur soldiers' than the average Westerosi peasant (due to the fact that they went to war pretty much every season over a pretty long period of time) then I really see no reason to believe that those drafted men in Westeros have to be imagined as being 'professional soldiers' to demonstrate whatever discipline and professionalism they allegedly demonstrate in the books.

But the actual professional soldiers in Martinworld stand apart from those, of course. Men whose trade is killing are better in that trade than amateurs. And we cannot even say that the trade of the average Westerosi knight is 'killing' considering there are very few wars in Westeros. Or rather: Proper warfare is not their trade, hunting down outlaws and robber knights and the like might be, even in peace times.

[Morte]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But the best story/hint in that direction clearly is the Rhoynish version of the story - even though the Rhoynar themselves didn't contribute anything to the end of the Long Night, either, their story seems to reflect the accurate take as how it may have been done - and how people might be able to do it in the future.

I don't know enough about that version... Do you mean their story about how magical beings "chanted" and ended the Night? Well, it at least doesn't reduce complex magical rituals into an one-hero-story.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, Rhaegal seems to like quarrel a little bit, but we really don't know how dragons behave when they are older and how well behaved they are around humans, etc. Although the fact that nobody complains that Balerion and Vhagar ate scores of grooms and stableboys every fortnight we have to assume that dragons being raised by humans do not see the latter as their prey.

And to be sure, even the wild dragons on Dragonstone did not - Grey Ghost ate fish, Sheepstealer sheep, and the Cannibal other dragons.

Exactly. What complains we have in regard of the dragons of Dragonstone are essentially "they ate my sheep!"; it doesn't seem like the the people lived in constant fear of being plugged into the air and eaten alive.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What do you mean there with Tyrosh?

Oh, Tyrosh is in this just because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(332_BC)

And of course Volantis is the First Daughter, that's why I said that her fall to Dany is as much symbolic, as it is important for the anti-slavery-movement.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, well, I just read that in Pabst's Augustus biography you suggested earlier ;-).

And? How did you like it?
 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

could conquer vast territories while being, perhaps, a tidbit better 'professional amateur soldiers' than the average Westerosi peasant (due to the fact that they went to war pretty much every season over a pretty long period of time) then I really see no reason to believe that those drafted men in Westeros have to be imagined as being 'professional soldiers' to demonstrate whatever discipline and professionalism they allegedly demonstrate in the books.

Ah, okay. Well, beside the "conquering large territories" (a too large can of worms to open it here) and the fact that I do think they really were better than the average Westerosi peasant (we also have to keep in mind that for examples Caesar's veterans can't be compared to freshly and newly raised Legions after a long time of peace - which did not occur in the Republic, the doors to the Temple of Ianus were open for almost two hundred years then Augustus closed them after Actium), you are right of course.

We can imagine the drafted men also being at least a little trained into formation, as well as told what to do. The question is how they fare during the battle and if they are able to hold their ground. Merribald tells us: not that well. Beside that we don't have many account on that the foot-"soldiers" are doing and how they fare: Tyrion does tell us that his Mountain Clans have fared well (I'm not surprised) but is conveniently unconscious for most time in his first battle; the Battle of the Blackwater only shows us the side of the navy and city militia (so professionals and at least "semi-professionals") and also tells us that Stannis' foot-men broke. Hm.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But the actual professional soldiers in Martinworld stand apart from those, of course. Men whose trade is killing are better in that trade than amateurs. And we cannot even say that the trade of the average Westerosi knight is 'killing' considering there are very few wars in Westeros. Or rather: Proper warfare is not their trade, hunting down outlaws and robber knights and the like might be, even in peace times.

Exactly. And most of them served in Essos at least some time.

We see this with Bronn, who is also not that un-confident to be able to win against the Mountain (and he wouldn't have made the Viper's mistake), he just doesn't want to take the risk.

The fight in the Eyrie essentially shows us how a knight fares against a professional soldier - not so good. And while Tyrion is still quite sure his brother would have been able the defeat Bronn, I'm not. The sellswords of Essos and the Dothraki are essentially armies of Bronns - ruthless, battle-hardened with real "shit for honour" in Westeroi's eyes. That's why watching Westerosi knights preparing to fight against the GC, or Dany's hordes, is like watching a bunny hopping into a buzzsaw.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Morte said:

I don't know enough about that version... Do you mean their story about how magical beings "chanted" and ended the Night? Well, it at least doesn't reduce complex magical rituals into an one-hero-story.

I meant the tidbit about all the Rhoynish gods having to work together to sing a song - that is how they will have to do it, sort of, in the main series, too.

9 hours ago, Morte said:

Oh, Tyrosh is in this just because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(332_BC)

Oh, right ;-).

9 hours ago, Morte said:

And? How did you like it?

I'm in the last chapter right now, and it is pretty good.

9 hours ago, Morte said:

Ah, okay. Well, beside the "conquering large territories" (a too large can of worms to open it here) and the fact that I do think they really were better than the average Westerosi peasant (we also have to keep in mind that for examples Caesar's veterans can't be compared to freshly and newly raised Legions after a long time of peace - which did not occur in the Republic, the doors to the Temple of Ianus were open for almost two hundred years then Augustus closed them after Actium), you are right of course.

Of course I also expect that the Roman legions would be better than the Westerosi infantry - but I think it makes sense to assume that whatever cursory training they get when they are drafted can be seen as enough for them to perform as 'professionally' as @Aldarion thinks they performed at the Green Fork and the other battles. I don't think there is a reason to assume that the performance of those men entails the idea that they are by any means professional soldiers by any real world standard - especially not in light of the fact that most of them couldn't have had much battle experiences (some Northmen might be veterans of the Greyjoy and Robert's Rebellion, but likely not all of them).

All of Tywin's men likely fought in no war at all so far. We don't hear much about the Westermen's involvement in the Greyjoy Rebellion aside from Tywin's fleet being burned, and the only 'battle' they fought in during Robert's Rebellion was the Sack of King's Landing which wasn't a battle but butchery. Prior to that you would have to go back to the War of the Nine Penny Kings - and the veterans of that war would be about as old as Tywin himself. Which wouldn't exactly be the majority of the men in his army. Especially since we have it that Tytos Lannister only sent 1,000 knights and 10,000 men-at-arms to fight in that war - which would only be a fraction of the two armies Tywin raised to fight in the Riverlands in AGoT.

The Reyne/Tarbeck involved even fewer men, and most of them were directly beholden to Casterly Rock and the Reynes/Tarbecks.

9 hours ago, Morte said:

We can imagine the drafted men also being at least a little trained into formation, as well as told what to do. The question is how they fare during the battle and if they are able to hold their ground. Merribald tells us: not that well. Beside that we don't have many account on that the foot-"soldiers" are doing and how they fare: Tyrion does tell us that his Mountain Clans have fared well (I'm not surprised) but is conveniently unconscious for most time in his first battle; the Battle of the Blackwater only shows us the side of the navy and city militia (so professionals and at least "semi-professionals") and also tells us that Stannis' foot-men broke. Hm.

Yeah, that is also why I brought up how the Poor Fellows and the Vulture King's rabble didn't fare all that well historically - most of those infantry men the Faith Militant and the Vulture King could count upon were no match for Westerosi cavalry. Which effectively confirms they don't really know how to stand their ground against a cavalry attack of armored knights. But if they were truly professionals they would have been trained for that, and they would not need lords or knights to command them to win a victory.

9 hours ago, Morte said:

Exactly. And most of them served in Essos at least some time.

We see this with Bronn, who is also not that un-confident to be able to win against the Mountain (and he wouldn't have made the Viper's mistake), he just doesn't want to take the risk.

The fight in the Eyrie essentially shows us how a knight fares against a professional soldier - not so good. And while Tyrion is still quite sure his brother would have been able the defeat Bronn, I'm not. The sellswords of Essos and the Dothraki are essentially armies of Bronns - ruthless, battle-hardened with real "shit for honour" in Westeroi's eyes. That's why watching Westerosi knights preparing to fight against the GC, or Dany's hordes, is like watching a bunny hopping into a buzzsaw.

I'm not so sure about Jaime there, either, since I think Bronn is really an exceptionally good fighter as his confidence to defeat Gregor if he had to shows, and Vardis Egen was no longer a young knight. But I don't think we can go as far as assume all the sellswords are Bronns. Many would be, but the more important point is that they are much better rank-and-file men than those in Westerosi armies, and that the Golden Company horse are most likely much better knights/squires in proper battles than the average Westerosi knight who has either seen no battle at all so far, or only 1-2 in his entire lifetime, whereas the Golden Company men might fight multiple battles each year, and dozens or scores in their entire career, depending how old they are.

[Aldarion]

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, that is also why I brought up how the Poor Fellows and the Vulture King's rabble didn't fare all that well historically - most of those infantry men the Faith Militant and the Vulture King could count upon were no match for Westerosi cavalry. Which effectively confirms they don't really know how to stand their ground against a cavalry attack of armored knights. But if they were truly professionals they would have been trained for that, and they would not need lords or knights to command them to win a victory.

 

Why do you think they would have been professionals? Population of Westeros is generally accepted to be 40 million people (but could be as much as twice that*), which - going by normal feudal society - would produce at least 400 000 professional troops, and possibly more. Sheer size of Westeros and campaign distances also support that calculation. But neither Poor Fellows nor Vulture King's rabble would have been among them, so they do not indicate how actual feudal armies will have performed.

That is like saying that because Matija Gubec's peasants were easily broken by Croatian army, pikemen serving in said army were wholly useless against a cavalry charge.

* I did an estimate here: https://militaryfantasy.home.blog/2020/04/21/population-of-westeros/

[Aldarion]

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

There is just no basis for any of that in the actual text, nor are the situations comparable - yes, Daenerys should crush rebels and pretenders trying to stop her rise to the Iron Throne. That is why there will be a war. But there is nothing wrong with that, nor will she be special in this regard. Aegon is not going to win the Iron Throne by 'diplomacy' or at the 'negotiating table' - he will have to win it by defeating and deposing the other pretenders (and his Hand looks forward to actually murder Robert's descendants and other kin).

In Westeros Dany's only challenge will be getting rid of rival pretenders, she won't have to fight the people or force them to change their policies.

The approach she should have used in Meereen is killing all her enemies and eradicating/forcefully reeducate a populace whose ideas are no longer in accord with the new status quo.

And the same approach she also has to use in Westeros insofar as her enemies have to go. She cannot compromise with other people who want her throne - but there won't be any issues with people who don't want her throne. They don't have to be crushed or executed or destroyed. And they won't resist her the way the Meereenese tried to do. Why should they?

Except enemies do not necessarily need to be destroyed. Aegon I. did not destroy all his enemies. And question here isn't just what she will do but also how will she do it.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

Last time I looked slavery sort of survived until the present day in the US, if you consider the effect the prison system still has on the black population. But that aside - killing all slavers certainly would have helped change things. It would of course also mean she has to remain there and rule over the former slaves to ensure that nobody reinvents slavery, etc. But if she had killed all the Astapori slavers - and not just only those her Unsulled and the rebelling slaves could lay their hands on during the sack - then the men she left in charge couldn't have plotted to restore the power to the Good Masters (because they would have all been dead) nor could King Cleon have enslaved the former slavers.

And to be sure - former slaves enslaving their masters I'd not view more as poetic justice than something I'd point my finger on. I've no issue with former slaves hurting, torturing, enslaving, or murdering their former masters.

Dany is shortsighted in the idea that her freeing the slaves is healing all the wounds/making everything better. That is her core mistake in Meereen. She didn't go far enough.

Again, take a look at what happened in Astapor - former slaves turned into slavers. Removing a political caste is not enough when problem is mentality of whole society. In such conditions, if you remove a group, new people will just move in to reform said group. Even if she had killed all the slavers, slavery will have reformed in Astapor soon after she left - as it will reform in Mereen when she leaves.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

I'm not talking about the dragons, I'm talking about her numbers. It is not just the Dothraki and the Unsullied, it is them and her freedmen, her Ironborn, her Volantene contingent, her sellswords, etc. Nobody in Westeros is going to stand against such an army.

She will also be at a huge advantage because Westeros will be still split between multiple factions - factions who will hate each other much more than they will ever fear or hate her.

What numbers? 

10 000 Unsullied who are mostly useless against Westerosi armies

3 000 sellswords who are maybe on par with Westerosi armies

~7 500 Ironborn who are only useful at sea and maybe amphibious warfare

20 000 Dothraki who are at best only useful as raiders

100 000 freedmen who are only useful as arrow fodder (see: Wildlings vs Stannis)

You don't even need full Westerosi military potential to destroy such a force. Hell, Dorne alone could stalemate them by playing guerilla warfare, and when it comes to open-field battle, combination of any two of kingdoms should be able to defeat Daenerys' army. And that is being generous towards the latter, seeing how important discipline and tactics are in medieval warfare.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

I'm not talking about the dragons, I'm talking about her numbers. It is not just the Dothraki and the Unsullied, it is them and her freedmen, her Ironborn, her Volantene contingent, her sellswords, etc. Nobody in Westeros is going to stand against such an army.

She will also be at a huge advantage because Westeros will be still split between multiple factions - factions who will hate each other much more than they will ever fear or hate her.

It is balance which works. You are basically saying that they should have had modern-day democracy in a premodern context, where it takes messages days to arrive and administration is limited. There is a reason why democracy only appeared in city-states until relatively recently. Even Roman Republic was aristocratic system - and was also a city-state, just one which ruled other city-states, so it doesn't really count.

That is like saying that modern society is useless because not everybody has an interstellar Orion startship. Nobody is obliged to do the impossible. Take a look at what you had to have to actually have political influence in medieval kingdom:

1) Enough property to spend time at centre of power (here Buda - where king was elected and ruled)

2) Enough time to actually devote yourself to political pursuits

Neither is possible for average person. Not on kingdom's scale, and Westeros does not have independent cities and stuff which goes with it (such as local democracy, burgeoaise etc.). So you are saying that Westerosi political system is guilty of not doing the impossible. Hungary did have independent cities (royal cities), and many of these were somewhat democratically ruled (most famously Dubrovnik), but that is the extent of what was possible.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Byzantine Empire has pretty much nothing to do with anything that happens in Martinworld, aside from, perhaps, the inspiration for wildfire.

It also makes no sense to compare the Westerosi situation to that since the Byzantines were essentially fighting for their survival for centuries and their military developed under that constant strain for war - Westeros, on the other hand, never had to fear a powerful neighbor trying to steal territory since the Targaryen Conquest.

Compared to professional soldiers/a society constantly fighting to keep what they have or enlarge the empire a little bit the Westerosi are lazy and decadent amateurs. And that pretty much shows in the way they never did away with the minor nuisances they had to deal with - no powerful campaign was ever launched against clansmen of the Mountains of the Moon to eradicate them, nor did any Targaryen or Stark king ever try to conquer lands beyond the Wall to create some sort of protected zone between the Wall and the wildling territory.

I only brought it up for comparison. But yes, there is little chance of Westeros moving into Byzantine direction - though I should note that Westerosi soldiers are actually part-time professionals, even though overall military organization is inferior to Byzantine one.

As for second paragraph - why would Westerosi ever do something like that? Mountain clansmen were basically bandits, not a major threat requiring such an operation, and protected zone between the Wall and the wildling territory would have been more trouble than it is worth, especially since a) Wall was already serving purpose of protection, b) there was a "protected zone" south of the wall (the Gift) and c) northern parts of North would have been more sparsely populated than the south.

 

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Byzantine Empire has pretty much nothing to do with anything that happens in Martinworld, aside from, perhaps, the inspiration for wildfire.

It also makes no sense to compare the Westerosi situation to that since the Byzantines were essentially fighting for their survival for centuries and their military developed under that constant strain for war - Westeros, on the other hand, never had to fear a powerful neighbor trying to steal territory since the Targaryen Conquest.

Compared to professional soldiers/a society constantly fighting to keep what they have or enlarge the empire a little bit the Westerosi are lazy and decadent amateurs. And that pretty much shows in the way they never did away with the minor nuisances they had to deal with - no powerful campaign was ever launched against clansmen of the Mountains of the Moon to eradicate them, nor did any Targaryen or Stark king ever try to conquer lands beyond the Wall to create some sort of protected zone between the Wall and the wildling territory.

Let's say that Daenerys gets 200 000 Dothraki. Considering the context of your statement, these would be soldiers - so no women and children. Let us further assume that women and children are not taken along.

Each Mongol soldier maintained 3 to 4 horses. This means that 200 000 Dothraki means 600 000 horses. Now, these would be steppe ponies. Feeding requirements would be 1 - 1,5 pounds of hay per 100 pounds of body weight per day, or else 1-2% of body weight per day. Mongol horses weighted 500 - 600 lbs, so that would be 5 - 9 lbs of hay per day per horse. This then gives 3 000 000 to 5 400 000 lbs of fodder per day. Crossing just Narrow Sea would take 3-5 days at minimum, but for a fleet more like 5 - 10 days. So that is 15 000 000 - 54 000 000 lbs of fodder just for horses. Then there is water: about 4 times as much as food for horses, so 20 - 36 lbs of water per day (horses need 20 litres minimum, but these are ponies so it checks out). This means 12 000 000 - 21 600 000 lbs of water per day total. Again, 5 - 10 days means 60 000 000 - 216 000 000 lbs of water in total.

So if we up my above numbers, Daenerys would have 10 000 Unsullied, 3 000 sellswords, 7 500 Ironborn, 100 000 Dothraki (soldiers + civilians maybe?) and 100 000 freedmen, for a total of 220 000 men. Each of them would require 4,5 lbs of food and 4,5 lbs of water per day; food may be rationed but water not really. So if we reduce this to 3 lbs of food and 4,5 lbs of water, you get additional 660 000 lbs of food and 990 000 lbs of water per day. And for 5 - 10 days, this means a total of 3 300 000 - 6 600 000 lbs of food and 4 950 000 - 9 900 000 lbs of water per day.

So in total she will need 83 250 000 - 286 500 000 lbs of supplies. And that is just food and water - no weapons, nothing else. Assuming all ships are very large carracks capable of carrying 2 000 000 lbs per ship, that is between 42 and 143 ships of just supplies - and that is not counting dragons. To this you need ships to carry troops. Large carrack may be capable of carrying some 750 troops per ship, in addition to its normal complement of sailors and men-at-arms (some 75 men-at-arms IIRC). So let's assume 800 troops per carrack. 210 000 troops Daenerys has with her outside the Ironborn would thus require 262 carracks. This in turn means a fleet of 304 to 405 ships in total.

For comparison, Spanish Armada had 130 ships, 8 000 sailors and 18 000 soldiers. Which means that 210 000 troops by Daenerys would require 1 500 ships and 93 000 sailors, which would bring total manpower up to 300 000. This in turn means that numbers I had noted above are woefully understated.

Ships may be available, but even if they are immediately on hand, organizing transport of such force will be anything but easy. Chances are good portion of her force will get lost en route, especially since she will be arriving in winter. Even Golden Company, a much smaller force, had many of its ships scattered on arrival. Expecting Daenerys' much larger fleet to fare better is ludicrous.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

Of course it is very likely they are much worse than Byzantine infantry because Byzantium was an actualy state, not some kind of feudal medieval nonsense crap. As I said, they had to deal with outside enemies since, well, forever, and it only got worse overtime, not better. They had to remain sharp or lose everything they had.

But there is no inclination that anybody in Westeros bothers to train his peasants at war unless somebody actually calls the banners - which happens, perhaps three or four times a century.

Except that is not what we see. Behaviour of Westerosi infantry in battle clearly shows relatively high degree of discipline and drill.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

But there is a contrast between the average Westerosi peasant - who doesn't go to war often - and men whose livelihood is fighting and war. Thus the sellswords, the Dothraki, the Ironborn - any culture which is actually martial and clings to martial ideals not only among the lordly elite, but throughout the entire male population - is superior to the rank-and-file of the Westerosi smallfolk.

How much the Westerosi commoners suck at warfare can be illustrated by the Faith Militant Uprising, for instance. The Poor Fellows were basically a smallfolk movement, bolstered by a couple of knights and lords. And they were slaughtered by Maegor and his lords without all that much problems - because they were not professional warriors, unable to stand against charging knights.

If we were to assume that the bulk of the Westerosi infantry is drawn from the very same men who rose against King Maegor - and that's to be expected - then those men should have known and been able to build shield walls and hold their ground, etc. against knights, especially if they had the numerical advantage - which they had in all the battles. But they didn't.

Bolded part is where your entire argument falls apart. Westerosi infantry is not the same men who rose against King Maegor. Westerosi infantry:

• utilizes longbowmen
• utilizes pikemen
• deploys pikemen in ordered squares
• has concept of combined-arms deployment of pikemen and longbowmen
• actually stands against cavalry charge

However you define "professional", Westerosi infantry are clearly well-drilled force.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

But there is a contrast between the average Westerosi peasant - who doesn't go to war often - and men whose livelihood is fighting and war. Thus the sellswords, the Dothraki, the Ironborn - any culture which is actually martial and clings to martial ideals not only among the lordly elite, but throughout the entire male population - is superior to the rank-and-file of the Westerosi smallfolk.

How much the Westerosi commoners suck at warfare can be illustrated by the Faith Militant Uprising, for instance. The Poor Fellows were basically a smallfolk movement, bolstered by a couple of knights and lords. And they were slaughtered by Maegor and his lords without all that much problems - because they were not professional warriors, unable to stand against charging knights.

If we were to assume that the bulk of the Westerosi infantry is drawn from the very same men who rose against King Maegor - and that's to be expected - then those men should have known and been able to build shield walls and hold their ground, etc. against knights, especially if they had the numerical advantage - which they had in all the battles. But they didn't.

What they did shows that they had no clue how to handle Dothraki.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

Those magical dragonbone bows will go through plate. Neither the knights nor their horses will be able to protect them from those.

It is irrelevant how the real world Mongols or Huns or anybody conquered anything if the author doesn't want to replicate or even knows or cares about any of this. He can and will do it the way he wants - and that's not having a bunch of spent knights crushing tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of Dothraki.

Those magical dragonbone bows are about as common as dragon eggs. And it is not clear they will go through armour.

And why do you think Martin "definitely" does not envision a bunch of spent knights crushing tens of thousands of Dothraki? Look at what happened in Daznak's Pit: Dothraki get crushed by dismounted knights... which utilized shields and longswords. And you even get "no true Scotsman" by Jhiqui.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

That is just nonsense, since we know there are light years between the training of an Unsullied and some peasant marching with Robb's army.

And Daenerys doesn't have to conquer castles. Go back and read the history of the Dance of the other succession wars. The point is to take the throne and kill the other pretender(s), not conquer every castle. Nobody is going to continue the fighting once the succession struggle is over.

Do we? Difficult training does not necessarily equate good troops.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

No, that is what you apparently want to see there, it is nowhere depicted that those men are 'highly disciplined' nor is there any confirmation that men carrying certain types of weapons are experts with those. Even most of the knights we see never fought in more than one war. Even those aren't proper veterans or experienced soldiers.

It is ridiculous to assume that men who never fought in a war know what they are doing when they do it the first time.

It is depicted in the very first book, and very first field battle we get in the series. And my point wasn't that they were "experts" with weapons they were carrying, but that weapons they were carrying required training and discipline to be used at all.

No, it is not ridiculous to "assume that men who never fought in a war know what they are doing when they do it the first time". There is that thing called "training", you know. Tywin trains his conscripts before he throws them into battle, because he is aware that untrained peasants will not stand a chance against Northern infantry. Which clearly shows that even Westerosi infantry is expected to be trained and disciplined.

Westerosi infantrymen may be peasants in social terms, but they are not untrained conscripts. Conscripts, maybe, but trained and disciplined ones.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

No, I'm confident enough that the people saying they are know what they know. Because, again, the peasant isn't exactly more than an extra in those stories.

But you can go to TSS if you want to know how landed knights and petty lords rise their troops. Even Lady Webber doesn't have that many trained warriors - and she pretty much took her entire garrison to her near-battle with Ser Eustace.

And again, in Westeros, peasant is a social class. Since apparently there are only nobility and peasants there, a "peasant" can easily be a full-time professional soldier, let alone a part-time militia. And by "professional" I also include soldiers who may have job in peacetime, but are still drilled and trained regularly - so like Byzantine thematic forces, or US National Guard.

Do we know how many trained warriors Lady Webber has relative to total population of her lands? Because that might answer us how many of ~400 000 troops Westeros has should be trained soldiers according to that tidbit.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

There is no actual behavior there - just a glancing impression by some of those POVs, most of which are no trained warriors themselves. Tyrion has very little experience with battles, for instance.

 

These are not glancing impressions, these are descriptions of battles which any character with eyes could provide. You cannot really mistake "soldiers holding their ground" to "soldiers routing", even if you have no military experience at all.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

No, I'm confident enough that the people saying they are know what they know. Because, again, the peasant isn't exactly more than an extra in those stories.

But you can go to TSS if you want to know how landed knights and petty lords rise their troops. Even Lady Webber doesn't have that many trained warriors - and she pretty much took her entire garrison to her near-battle with Ser Eustace.

Except that is pretty much the case. If every peasant with a stick acted like Westerosi troops typically do during War of the Five Kings, there would be no point in training troops at all.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

Rare occasions, and not the winter that's coming now, after a devastation civil war. Also, winter isn't the same in the Reach than the North or the Riverlands.

Robert's Rebellion wasn't fought in winter as far as we know. It was likely already spring by that time.

First part of Robert's Rebellion was in winter IIRC, though at the tail end of it.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

Rare occasions, and not the winter that's coming now, after a devastation civil war. Also, winter isn't the same in the Reach than the North or the Riverlands.

Robert's Rebellion wasn't fought in winter as far as we know. It was likely already spring by that time.

Unlikely. He already declared that he will crush Golden Company himself. And he is pretty much underestimating them:

Quote

 “… as for Connington,” Tyrell repeated, “what victories has he
ever won that we should fear him? He could have ended Robert’s Rebellion at Stoney Sept. He failed.
Just as the Golden Company has always failed. Some may rush to join them, aye. The realm is well rid of
such fools.”

Quote

“On that we can agree,” Ser Kevan said, “but the girl is of the blood of Aegon the Conqueror,
and I do not think she will be content to remain in Meereen forever. If she should reach these shores
and join her strength to Lord Connington and this prince of his, feigned or no … we must destroy
Connington and his pretender now, before Daenerys Stormborn can come west.”
Mace Tyrell crossed his arms. “I mean to do just that, ser. After the trials.”

When we combine this with Mace's known military prowess, he already has "dead man" written all across his forehead.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

“On that we can agree,” Ser Kevan said, “but the girl is of the blood of Aegon the Conqueror,
and I do not think she will be content to remain in Meereen forever. If she should reach these shores
and join her strength to Lord Connington and this prince of his, feigned or no … we must destroy
Connington and his pretender now, before Daenerys Stormborn can come west.”
Mace Tyrell crossed his arms. “I mean to do just that, ser. After the trials.”

Most castles were not taken by assault historically. So no, we do not know how many, if any, castles the Ironborn assaulted.

For all we know, they could have bought them (unlikely, yes, but point is, we don't know anything).

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

Nope, the whole thing was ruse. Cleftjaw was wary attacking Torrhen's Square and only agreed because Theon had his ruse in place which worked. Yet he took the castle in the end which means he knew how to do it. That's not that hard to understand. Dagmer didn't have that many men, and there would have been some men in the castle, just as Theon had a couple of men in Winterfell and could have made Rodrik bleed a lot if he had to storm the castle.

Which doesn't negate the fact that castle was much more weakly held than usual.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

Nope, the whole thing was ruse. Cleftjaw was wary attacking Torrhen's Square and only agreed because Theon had his ruse in place which worked. Yet he took the castle in the end which means he knew how to do it. That's not that hard to understand. Dagmer didn't have that many men, and there would have been some men in the castle, just as Theon had a couple of men in Winterfell and could have made Rodrik bleed a lot if he had to storm the castle.

Euron was already important during Greyjoy Rebellion, and seeing how he kept his status, he likely pretty much agreed with Balon.

On 6/16/2020 at 6:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

They are wary about going to Meereen, yes, but they certainly do not consider going to Westeros alone before Aegon makes that suggestion. Yes, perhaps they would have decided not to back Aegon at all, but I'd expect that they would have instead decided to go with the 'let us get hired by the Yunkai'i' idea - the Windblown did the same thing, after all.

Not to mention that a short time later still they would have had the chance to allow themselves getting hired by the Volantenes who also go to war against Daenerys.

Getting hired was considered and rejected. It is what I would have done, but fact is, they - that is, Golden Company's leadership - rejected that option. Until Aegon made suggestion of going to Westeros, the only option they seriously considered was giving up.

 

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 5/27/2020 at 2:20 PM, Adam Yozza said:

There'd be no point introducing him at this point in the story if he wasn't going to be a major player, at least in the short term.

Who says anyone has to be a major player? Ned Stark was killed in the first book and Quentyn was introduced, then died, in the same story. Subvert those fantasy expectations. 

Quote

 Likewise, I can't see the point of introducing Aegon and JonCon, giving him a strong army and having him conquer the Stormlands just to have Mace Tyrell and Randyll Tarly crush him

I think Dany would crush him and will do it while he's in Dorne, not in King's Landing. I dont think GRRM will have Dany assault KL until the very end.

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 6/14/2020 at 6:21 AM, Tyrion1991 said:

IMO I think another Targaryen claimant pulling the rug out under Danys story is an absurd and contrived plot twist to railroad Dany into being the villain. It came out of nowhere and it completely undermines the integrity of the story. 

She'd go down that path with our without Aegon. "You don't want to wake the dragon do you" is repeated like 423908 times and implies that she will. There are about a billion things that could set her off.

"You are a queen. In Westeros" is her thoughts that she believes that's where she belongs and feels that hanging out in Meereen trying to rebuild the city is beneath her, because she has convinced herself that she's moving away from "who she is and who she was made to be." She is trying to remember Viserys words, goals, ideals, ect.

[Adam Yozza]

37 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Who says anyone has to be a major player? Ned Stark was killed in the first book and Quentyn was introduced, then died, in the same story. Subvert those fantasy expectations.

Major doesn't necessarily mean long-term. I'd say Ned was a pretty major character and Quentyn's death will have massive implications for Dany.

37 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think Dany would crush him and will do it while he's in Dorne, not in King's Landing. I dont think GRRM will have Dany assault KL until the very end.

But when will he be in Dorne? And why? If he defeats the Tyrell's then he's on K.L's doorstep with no one to stop him. Why wouldn't he take it? Who could stop him? And why would he then go to Dorne, who will probably already be onside by then, afterwards instead of the Reach or Riverlands (where there will be heavy unrest and fighting against the Ironborn and Frey's respectively.) or the Westerlands (who will likely rise up with Cersei)

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Again, take a look at what happened in Astapor - former slaves turned into slavers. Removing a political caste is not enough when problem is mentality of whole society. In such conditions, if you remove a group, new people will just move in to reform said group. Even if she had killed all the slavers, slavery will have reformed in Astapor soon after she left - as it will reform in Mereen when she leaves.

 

Exactly. The hard answer that no one wants to face is that Dany has to stay there and rule, if she wants to do anything worthwhile. She can't solve this problem by burn-them-all. It makes her just as bad as them if she takes that approach. Imagine if people protesting police brutality right now were seriously pushing for "eye for an eye" justice to an entire social group. No trials. Just kill everyone wearing a police uniform. 

Dany's impulses just lead to barbarism. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 minute ago, Adam Yozza said:

Major doesn't necessarily mean long-term. I'd say Ned was a pretty major character and Quentyn's death will have massive implications for Dany.

 

I guess we just conceive major player differently because he just seems to be there as a plot device to make Dany do something. He's toast in the next book.

3 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

But when will he be in Dorne? And why? If he defeats the Tyrell's then he's on K.L's doorstep with no one to stop him. Why wouldn't he take it? Who could stop him? And why would he then go to Dorne, who will probably already be onside by then, afterwards instead of the Reach or Riverlands (where there will be heavy unrest and fighting against the Ironborn and Frey's respectively.) or the Westerlands (who will likely rise up with Cersei)

My own theory is that he pulls a wildcard like he did in ADWD.

Nymella wonders if House Toland is at risk of invasion from pirates and Ironborn raiding from the Stepstones. Some are even invading Cape Wrath through Sea of Dorne. She says it's dangerous for Arianne to travel by ship. I think that's a Chekov's gun. To win Dorne's loyalty, Arianne will challenge him to defend her homeland against these invaders and he will get bogged down in these battles. Meanwhile, Dany gets wind of a pretender valiantly defending Westeros against invaders and this infuriates her. I dont think he will win hearts and minds if he just attacks KL again like all the rest.