Aegon as a king

[Morte]

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think the fact that his immediate successors pretty much fucked things up chances are that the whole thing was a trial-and-error thing with it working for him because of his personal gravitas and the respect he earned among his peers for what he did - Tiberius didn't have his charisma or the personality to work within that particular framework, and Caligula didn't even try.

Overall, that doesn't really involve that much planning ahead, and it seems that in the long run it was somewhat of a construction flaw to have this kind of dictator guy within/alongside the republic system. That is actually a very weird way to establish a monarchy and one assumes there is a reason why the family name gave the name to that particular office rather than it later being just interpreted as a monarchy.

Well, I don't think Tiberius did fuck it up that much - he left a stable and wealthy empire; he just wasn't very good in the propaganda-department, especially not with the senate... But yes, Caligula didn't even try - one can wonder if it really was due to an illness, or if he simply had the same problem Iulia and her sons had. Actually what I found really interesting and what is seldom hinted to, is the fact how Livia's two boys were the only children (beside the cripple Claudius and Germanicus, so Drusus' sons) who worked out decent and not particularly spoiled because of the family's position.

It was very improvised, yes; working with that was given and under the obligation to never ever announce a monarchy, so it had to be an amalgam of offices, honours and implications culminated into one person. See how they even avoided the office of dictator, as it was too close to a king, and how they kept the collegiality most of the time.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

To a point one can reasonably predict that the North is not going to suddenly reveals some sort of hidden super army, but as the sudden disappearance of Tywin's army in AFfC shows (they are sent back home while the Tyrells troops conveniently remain, which is pretty much plot convenience) the plot drives the action, not logistics or stuff like that.

Exactly. It is very convenient for the Tyrells and completely out of character for the Lannisters, to sent all their troops home while the Tyrells remain in KL.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, if they had felt that Dany would want to fight they wouldn't have betrayed her. That is the overall problem of her approach in ADwD. Her weakness triggers most, if not all the severe resistance she faces. Starting with the Meereenese, but continuing with the Yunkai'i and the betrayal of the sellswords.

I misspelled here, I think. I meant that he did not want to die on the Pale Mare or the Harpy while sitting in Meereen, doing nothing. I, too, think, that had Dany decided to fight, Brown Ben would not have switched sides.

[Lord Varys]

On 6/20/2020 at 8:02 AM, Aldarion said:

Targaryen supporters in Westeros definitely did hate Robert so much. Remember that Aegon and Rhaenys were killed, effectively, under Robert's authority - even if he did not give orders himself. And this is the world in which grudges can be held for centuries over a bloody watermill. The only reason why they did not do anything is because a) Robert had major support and b) they had no figurehead present to rally around. A Targaryen, even a Targaryen leading the Dothraki, would provide such a figurehead.

But as @Hodor the Articulate pointed out, Robert specifically feared Viserys III backed by Dothraki khalasar and later still Daenerys Targaryen's son by Khal Drogo backed by a Dothraki khalasar.

He also generally feared that the Targaryen loyalists would rise for a Targaryen pretender and oust his dynasty, but he specifically feared a Dothraki-backed Targaryen pretender. And that fear is what triggered his command to poison the Targaryens in exile (as well as Khal Drogo), confirming that he feared this combination more than just a Targaryen pretender. How much he feared that can be derived from the fact that he commanded the murders before any concrete evidence about plans for an invasion had reached KL. All he did hear was that 'the whore is pregnant'.

On 6/20/2020 at 8:02 AM, Aldarion said:

Actually it does, because a) Martin was very clear about his inspirations and b) humans in Martinworld are assumed to be same as real humans - so no psychic powers, or genetically inherited martial knowledge. This means that if Martin shows troops acting as professional troops, these troops can be safely assumed to be, in fact, professional troops.

George is clear on general inspirations about plot and stuff, but he doesn't give any indication that he read anything specific about military history - or if he did, I'd be glad if you could point out any such titles.

What I contest is that one can conclude from the depiction of things as given that said men must be real professionals superior to the actual professionals (which would be Dothraki who live for killing, not harvest).

On 6/20/2020 at 8:02 AM, Aldarion said:

According to you, then, Unsullied have absolutely no advantage over Westerosi infantry because training provides absolutely no advantage in the first place, and everything spent training them was just waste of time and money because peasants with sticks can fight just as well.

I see no indication that the discipline and prowess of the Westerosi infantry we saw so far matches the Unsullied in any way, shape, or form.

On 6/20/2020 at 8:02 AM, Aldarion said:

Fact that Westeros has pikemen is by itself enough to show that their armies are highly professional. Pikemen - who, again, have much more complex tactics than Greek phalanx, and we see that in ASoIaF - were always elite troops, even when bows and crossbows were replaced by muskets. Reason is simply that you need time and dedication to train someone to wield the pike effectively. If we were talking about spearmen here, then I might agree - spear is a relatively short weapon and thus is not reliant so much on formation and technique. You can relatively quickly train spearmen (again, Greek hoplites); but pike - long, unwieldy and absolutely dependant on strict maintenance of formation - is a completely different matter.

I'd not bet on those pikemen actually being guys with historical pikes in the sense of them being guys with very long spears. Especially in light of the fact that standard military practice in Westeros still has mounted knights as a powerful force. They are usually breaking through infantry shieldwalls and the like, with the infantry not having developed or discovered tactics to make knights on a whole ineffective or obsolete. Knights are still the backbone of Westerosi warriors and have been since time immemorial - that wouldn't be the case if things like the Battle of Bannockburn happened in Westeros on a regular basis.

George deliberately created a fantasy setting without gunpowder and cannons where various types of weaponry coexist and complement each other without this actually being realistic.

On 6/20/2020 at 8:02 AM, Aldarion said:

And again, point here isn't how professional exactly those troops are, but how trained and disciplined they are. Advantage of professional troops is that they can usually afford to be much more trained and disciplined than militia; but that's it. Militia that is as trained and disciplined as fully professional troops will be able to fight the latter on equal basis. But I use "professional" here as a shorthand for "disciplined, trained and organized".

The point remains that not many such people exist, because we have sufficient textual evidence that men are trained when they are drafted and when a new army is formed - most notably during Robert's Rebellion where Prince Rhaegar himself first trained the new recruits he was eventually leading to the Trident. And that took half a year.

Again, I'm not denying that there are contigents of men who are professional in the sense that they constantly train as archers and crossbowmen and the like - but those would be, for the most part, men who are paid for that kind of thing (i.e. who are permanently in the service of a lord as guardsmen or men-at-arms or who are professional sellswords or freeriders or even hedge knights).

There isn't a class of people who sits at home as sort of half-warrior, half-peasant kind of guy who works on the fields at morning and trains at arms in the afternoon.

On 6/20/2020 at 8:02 AM, Aldarion said:

You are contradicting stuff we are given. Northern shield wall broke under missile barrage followed by charge of heavy, armoured cavalry. Dothraki wear no armour, and have no heavy cavalry from what has been shown so far. Expecting them to be able to break Westerosi shield wall because Westerosi knights managed to do so simply does not compute; like thinking a helium baloon can be used for bowling because it is about as round as a bowling ball.

Literally the only thing knights and Dothraki have in common is that they are both mounted. That's it.

Actually, didn't the Northern host attack Tywin at the Green Fork?

I went back to actually read the scene there, and the men you seem to be basing your claims actually seem to be all Casterly Rock/Lannisport men bolstered by three major houses of the West:

Quote

His uncle would lead the center. Ser Kevan had raised his standards above the kingsroad. Quivers hanging from their belts, the foot archers arrayed themselves into three long lines, to east and west of the road, and stood calmly stringing their bows. Between them, pikemen formed squares; behind were rank on rank of men-at-arms with spear and sword and axe. Three hundred heavy horse surrounded Ser Kevan and the lords bannermen Lefford, Lydden, and Serrett with all their sworn retainers.

If you want those pikemen to be very special men this can easily be done by assuming those are rather special contingents of men only very wealthy lords can train and employ. They are only mentioned/show up in AGoT and ACoK and so far only the Lannisters, the Freys, and the Mallisters are mentioned as employing pikemen.

That is not a category of warrior I'd base many arguments on in relation to the entire arsenal of Westeros.

The Northmen at the Green Fork don't have pikemen and actually do not use pikemen to build shieldwalls, just as Kevan's pikemen do not use their pikes to keep away the essentially no existent Northern cavalry (which is almost completely with Robb).

And when Tywin's reserve comes in there is pretty much nobody left - there is no talk about anybody holding a shieldwall.

On 6/20/2020 at 8:02 AM, Aldarion said:

My point is that vast majority of troops we see used in Westeros are simply not the type of troops which can be taken from fields, given "crash course" and then sent to fight; much less be sent to fight without training, as your emphasis on "peasant soldiers" seems to imply.

The point is that relatively to men whose trade is warfare the Westerosi infantry - and even the Westerosi knights - are not as professional as men who fight for a living. Which sellswords and Dothraki actually do - and in Westeros the Ironborn should be the best warriors compared to the other because they are the ones with the strongest martial culture. Men who are groomed from a very early age to pay the iron price for things they want and play the finger dance are very different from men who do not grow up in such a culture.

[Lord Varys]

On 6/20/2020 at 7:23 PM, Morte said:

Well, I don't think Tiberius did fuck it up that much - he left a stable and wealthy empire; he just wasn't very good in the propaganda-department, especially not with the senate... But yes, Caligula didn't even try - one can wonder if it really was due to an illness, or if he simply had the same problem Iulia and her sons had. Actually what I found really interesting and what is seldom hinted to, is the fact how Livia's two boys were the only children (beside the cripple Claudius and Germanicus, so Drusus' sons) who worked out decent and not particularly spoiled because of the family's position.

I meant that Tiberius fucked up in the sense that he failed to make principate work for him. He didn't emulate Augustus all that well.

Winterling makes a pretty good case that Caligula failed because he did no longer pretend that he wasn't a hellenistic king/military dictator running things all by himself. And I think that definitely makes more sense than the idea that he was the kind of madman he is portrayed - just as Nero was much more popular with the people than the stories about him imply.

On 6/20/2020 at 7:23 PM, Morte said:

It was very improvised, yes; working with that was given and under the obligation to never ever announce a monarchy, so it had to be an amalgam of offices, honours and implications culminated into one person. See how they even avoided the office of dictator, as it was too close to a king, and how they kept the collegiality most of the time.

I'd say the fact that the office was pretty much always 'the guy in charge who ran the army' contributed to the fact that later pretty much everybody could become Caesar - something that may have been different if it had been more conceived as an actual monarchy build on hellenstic examples.

On 6/20/2020 at 7:23 PM, Morte said:

Exactly. It is very convenient for the Tyrells and completely out of character for the Lannisters, to sent all their troops home while the Tyrells remain in KL.

Yeah, that is likely the best hint we have that George really wants Cersei/the Lannisters lose power in KL. If the army had remained, pretty much none of the stuff in AFfC - the rearming of the Faith, Cersei arrest, the theft of the dromonds, etc. - would have been possible. And one is really at a loss to explain why the hell Cersei did that - it is no surprise that it just happens without the author making any attempt to explain it, because it is just something that had to happen to make the later story possible, without there being any (good) reason for it.

On 6/20/2020 at 7:23 PM, Morte said:

I misspelled here, I think. I meant that he did not want to die on the Pale Mare or the Harpy while sitting in Meereen, doing nothing. I, too, think, that had Dany decided to fight, Brown Ben would not have switched sides.

Yeah, he would have gladly attacked the Yunkai'i while they were marching against Astapor, etc.

[Hodor the Articulate]

On 6/20/2020 at 6:02 PM, Aldarion said:

Targaryen supporters in Westeros definitely did hate Robert so much. Remember that Aegon and Rhaenys were killed, effectively, under Robert's authority - even if he did not give orders himself. And this is the world in which grudges can be held for centuries over a bloody watermill. The only reason why they did not do anything is because a) Robert had major support and b) they had no figurehead present to rally around. A Targaryen, even a Targaryen leading the Dothraki, would provide such a figurehead.

We already know some houses are still loyal to the Targs. What you need to prove is your claim that it's this loyalty which makes the equivalent of the wights and others palatable, rather than a Dothraki army not being a problem in the first place. We should probably also address your assumption that lords will be that loyal to a claimant with a highly questionable identity when the undoubtably true Targ with dragons shows up.

You still have to show Dany has a distorted perception of Westerosi lords and thinks they are the same as slavers btw.

On 6/21/2020 at 2:59 AM, Rose of Red Lake said:

I dont think leaving Meereen or using a giant flamethrower is the mature choice, I dont think she can achieve her "goals" that way, and her goals are quite distorted now that she doesnt even think she belongs in Meereen. 

So how would you end slavery in Essoss in her position?

[Aldarion]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But as @Hodor the Articulate pointed out, Robert specifically feared Viserys III backed by Dothraki khalasar and later still Daenerys Targaryen's son by Khal Drogo backed by a Dothraki khalasar.

He also generally feared that the Targaryen loyalists would rise for a Targaryen pretender and oust his dynasty, but he specifically feared a Dothraki-backed Targaryen pretender. And that fear is what triggered his command to poison the Targaryens in exile (as well as Khal Drogo), confirming that he feared this combination more than just a Targaryen pretender. How much he feared that can be derived from the fact that he commanded the murders before any concrete evidence about plans for an invasion had reached KL. All he did hear was that 'the whore is pregnant'.

Question still remains whether he feared Dothraki-backed pretendent or Dothraki themselves? You cannot be a pretendent if you do not have military support, so Dothraki would be important in establishing that Viserys or whoever is making a serious attempt for the throne. But it speaks little of actual combat abilities of Dothraki.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

George is clear on general inspirations about plot and stuff, but he doesn't give any indication that he read anything specific about military history - or if he did, I'd be glad if you could point out any such titles.

 

He actually has a list on his site:

https://georgerrmartin.com/for-fans/faq/

https://grrm.livejournal.com/316785.html

Books he listed that are specifically about military history are as follows:

• Gerry Emblem, John Howe - The Medieval Soldier
• John Clemens - Medieval Swordsmanship
• David Nicolle - The Medieval Warfare Source Book

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What I contest is that one can conclude from the depiction of things as given that said men must be real professionals superior to the actual professionals (which would be Dothraki who live for killing, not harvest).

 

Two things to note...

1) They don't need to be superior on personal level to be superior to Dothraki on systematic level. Even if Dothraki are superior fighters (which is possible, but not guaranteed), or even more professional in general, Westerosi have advantages in:

• combat endurance (heavy cavalry, heavy infantry vs light cavalry)
• shock power (heavy cavalry vs light missile cavalry)
• versatility (heavy + light + missile cavalry, heavy + light + missile infantry vs light missile cavalry - Westeros lacks heavy missile cavalry in the vein of Byzantine kataphraktoi, which is their only disadvantage as Dothraki are certainly superior horse archers - but horse archers alone never won any battle, and they can be countered relatively easily)

So they don't need to be more professional than Dothraki - all they need to be is to not be complete amateurs who break as soon as they see their first cavalry charge. Hungarian armies of late 13th century, after introducing heavy cavalry (they already had light missile cavalry since basically forever) cleaned the clock with Mongol invasion of 1285.-1286.... but you never hear about it because "scary Mongol apocalypse" makes for much better story than "Mongols came, Mongols saw, Mongols got the everloving crap beaten out of them". And Mongol armies were actually, on average, more professional than Hungarian armies they faced, in either first or second invasion, as well as actually being familiar with concepts such as "heavy cavalry", "infantry support", "artillery"... unlike Dothraki, who only ever show light cavalry.

2) All I have ever pointed out is that Westerosi infantry are actually drilled and disciplined force - which automatically implies a certain level of professionalism, but not exactly what level of professionalism we are talking about is not exactly clear. They could be fulltime professionals (certainly knights and men-at-arms, possibly also crossbowmen, longbowmen, pikemen), fulltime militia or part-time professionals (likely crossbowmen, longbowmen, pikemen), part-time militia (everything not listed already) or even just conscripts. But they are not untrained rabble.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

George is clear on general inspirations about plot and stuff, but he doesn't give any indication that he read anything specific about military history - or if he did, I'd be glad if you could point out any such titles.

 

I said it is what your statement implies, not what is the case.

I don't doubt that Unsullied are more disciplined than Westerosi infantry - though that might not be the case by the time they land in Westeros. I just don't think difference is so large as to be decisive, or even have major impact. Everything else - personal initiative, individual combat ability, tactical flexibility, combined-arms operations, equipment quality - is where Westerosi infantry will be superior to Unsullied. Look what happened to Sacred Band of Thebes, or to Romans at Cannae: both were disciplined enough to fight almost to the last man, and Romans actually had numerical superiority, but it did not prevent their defeat against more tactically flexible opponent.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd not bet on those pikemen actually being guys with historical pikes in the sense of them being guys with very long spears. Especially in light of the fact that standard military practice in Westeros still has mounted knights as a powerful force. They are usually breaking through infantry shieldwalls and the like, with the infantry not having developed or discovered tactics to make knights on a whole ineffective or obsolete. Knights are still the backbone of Westerosi warriors and have been since time immemorial - that wouldn't be the case if things like the Battle of Bannockburn happened in Westeros on a regular basis.

George deliberately created a fantasy setting without gunpowder and cannons where various types of weaponry coexist and complement each other without this actually being realistic.

Actually, I am not certain just pikemen would be able to make knights obsolete. I wrote about it in extent, but in short, heavy cavalry actually showed ability to pierce lines of pikemen, when used properly. This usually, but not always, involved a charge at the flank or point of infantry formation. At Crecy in 1346., French reinforcements were routed by mounted men-at-arms. At Roosebeke, French used a combination of pikemen and heavy cavalry charge to break Flemish pikemen. At st.Jakob in 1444., French heavy cavalry actually forced Swiss pikemen to retreat. At Ravenna in 1512., French heavy cavalry overwhelmed Spanish pikemen, partly in thanks to being equipped with barding.

Reason why pikemen were so successful against historical heavy cavalry was that nobles were kinda difficult to actually discipline. Especially French nobles. So their cavalry charges were oftentimes more akin to "rout in advance" than to disciplined charge as executed by e.g. Byzantine cataphracts. Disciplined charge you require to break pike formation was an exception, not the rule. But there were exceptions to this rule, especially during the Crusades, and these exceptions proved highly effective.

And even if you assume that cavalry is undisciplined and lacks tactics to deal with pikemen, it still doesn't make it ineffective, as merely presence of cavalry can cause infantry to bunch up and become vulnerable to missile fire. And on strategic level, cavalry is extremely important for maneuver warfare, scouting and raiding.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The point remains that not many such people exist, because we have sufficient textual evidence that men are trained when they are drafted and when a new army is formed - most notably during Robert's Rebellion where Prince Rhaegar himself first trained the new recruits he was eventually leading to the Trident. And that took half a year.

Again, I'm not denying that there are contigents of men who are professional in the sense that they constantly train as archers and crossbowmen and the like - but those would be, for the most part, men who are paid for that kind of thing (i.e. who are permanently in the service of a lord as guardsmen or men-at-arms or who are professional sellswords or freeriders or even hedge knights).

There isn't a class of people who sits at home as sort of half-warrior, half-peasant kind of guy who works on the fields at morning and trains at arms in the afternoon.

We do see Rhaegar and Lannisters training new troops, but in both cases it seems to be result of losses suffered previously. And in any case, it shows that untrained troops would not stand a chance on Westerosi battlefield.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, didn't the Northern host attack Tywin at the Green Fork?

I went back to actually read the scene there, and the men you seem to be basing your claims actually seem to be all Casterly Rock/Lannisport men bolstered by three major houses of the West:

Strategically, yes. But this is what I am talking about:

Quote

As the horns died away, a hissing filled the air; a vast flight of arrows arched up from his
right, where the archers stood flanking the road. The northerners broke into a run, shouting as
they came, but the Lannister arrows fell on them like hail, hundreds of arrows, thousands, and
shouts turned to screams as men stumbled and went down. By then a second flight was in the air,
and the archers were fitting a third arrow to their bowstrings.

The trumpets blared again, da-DAAA da-DAAA da-DA da-DA da-DAAAAAAA. Ser Gregor
waved his huge sword and bellowed a command, and a thousand other voices screamed back at
him. Tyrion put his spurs to his horse and added one more voice to the cacophony, and the van
surged forward. “The river!” he shouted at his clansmen as they rode. “Remember, hew to the
river.” He was still leading when they broke a canter, until Chella gave a bloodcurdling shriek
and galloped past him, and Shagga howled and followed. The clansmen charged after them,
leaving Tyrion in their dust.

A crescent of enemy spearmen had formed ahead, a double hedgehog bristling with steel,
waiting behind tall oaken shields marked with the sunburst of Karstark. Gregor Clegane was the
first to reach them, leading a wedge of armored veterans. Half the horses shied at the last second,
breaking their charge before the row of spears. The others died, sharp steel points ripping
through their chests. Tyrion saw a dozen men go down. The Mountain’s stallion reared, lashing
out with iron-shod hooves as a barbed spearhead raked across his neck. Maddened, the beast
lunged into the ranks. Spears thrust at him from every side, but the shield wall broke beneath his
weight. The northerners stumbled away from the animal’s death throes. As his horse fell, snorting
blood and biting with his last red breath, the Mountain rose untouched, laying about him with his
two-handed greatsword.

Shagga went bursting through the gap before the shields could close, other Stone Crows
hard behind him. Tyrion shouted, “Burned Men! Moon Brothers! After me!” but most of them
were ahead of him. He glimpsed Timett son of Timett vault free as his mount died under him in
full stride, saw a Moon Brother impaled on a Karstark spear, watched Conn’s horse shatter a
man’s ribs with a kick. A flight of arrows descended on them; where they came from he could not
say, but they fell on Stark and Lannister alike, rattling off armor or finding flesh. Tyrion lifted his
shield and hid beneath it.

The hedgehog was crumbling, the northerners reeling back under the impact of the mounted
assault.

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The point is that relatively to men whose trade is warfare the Westerosi infantry - and even the Westerosi knights - are not as professional as men who fight for a living. Which sellswords and Dothraki actually do - and in Westeros the Ironborn should be the best warriors compared to the other because they are the ones with the strongest martial culture. Men who are groomed from a very early age to pay the iron price for things they want and play the finger dance are very different from men who do not grow up in such a culture.

That much is true. But it still doesn't mean that said sellswords and Dothraki will be superior on the battlefield; I have explained why earlier in this reply. Discipline and martial culture are significant factors, but they are not enough.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

We already know some houses are still loyal to the Targs. What you need to prove is your claim that it's this loyalty which makes the equivalent of the wights and others palatable, rather than a Dothraki army not being a problem in the first place. We should probably also address your assumption that lords will be that loyal to a claimant with a highly questionable identity when the undoubtably true Targ with dragons shows up.

You still have to show Dany has a distorted perception of Westerosi lords and thinks they are the same as slavers btw.

Dothraki are definitely considered savages. They will not be a problem militarily, but are a PR disadvantage to whoever brings them. Which is likely part of reason why Illyrio and Varys wanted Viserys leading Dothraki in retaking Westeros.

And I am not certain loyalty to Targaryens would have made Dothraki palatable. All we know is that Robert thinks as much, seeing how he is concerned about Targaryen loyalists rising up for Viserys.

[Barbrey Dustin]

The Westerosi response to the arrival of the Dothraki khalasars is what Robert predicted.  To run behind their castle walls and pray the Dothraki grow bored and leave.  Only a few will fit inside the castles and provisions will not last long.  Those who remain outside will have little choice but to bend the knees to Viserys.  King Viserys, Third of His Name can then proceed to promise those men the lands and titles of the ones hiding inside their castles.  Viserys will have many loyal best friends in a short amount of time.  New lords will be made and they will fight for him. 

The Westerosi do not have the advantage of combat endurance because they are part-time soldiers.  Training is not what they do in a typical week.  They are farmers and laborers.  Most of them will break and run when arrows start coming down like rain drops.  It only takes a few to break formation for the whole defense to collapse.  The ten percent who are knights will be left all alone in the field.  They have the advantage in defense because of their iron armor while the Dothraki will have superior numbers.  The knight will have the advantage if the combat were to have a one to one format.  Otherwise, they will never be able to chase down the faster Dothraki.  The latter will be able to send arrows their way from a safe distance.  The arrows may not go through the armor but they will take their toll on the man inside.  Ser Knight will be on foot very soon because Ser's horse is not fully armored. 

Viserys would not have had the services of The Unsullied that his little sister has.  But he would have had the Dothraki khalasars as well as mercenaries.  Little sister has a tiny khalasar but Viserys would have had Drogo's entire khalasar as well as any other khalasar who might be inclined to join.  The success of Viserys would depend on how many he can bring to Westeros as well as the number of families who will support him on the other side.  Daenerys, if she were to start the restoration, will bring along a smaller khalasar but she will have more mercenaries, loyal freedmen-turned-soldiers, three dragons, the Iron Fleet, and The Unsullied.  She will have a smaller force but her armies will be more complete.  The Freedmen and The Unsullied will have had a lot of combat experience when this rescue takes place.  Thousands of Freedmen from Volantis will almost certainly join the fight to put Mhysa on her father's throne.  I think it is very realistic to expect a significant number of people in Westeros to immediately flock to the dragon banner.  They are weary from the high lords dragging them to war.  They will just want peace and the return of a Targaryen to set things right.  The reigns of Robert, Joffrey, and Tommen are making the people long for a return to the days of House Targaryen.  But of course they will only flock to the dragon banner if the Targaryen has a reasonable chance of success.  The Targaryen must arrive looking very strong.  What better way than to arrive on a dragon.  So yes, I think Daenerys can take back her throne.  Viserys would have had a more difficult time.  It won't be for lack of resources but because he is not the effective leader she is. 

[Hodor the Articulate]

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Question still remains whether he feared Dothraki-backed pretendent or Dothraki themselves? You cannot be a pretendent if you do not have military support, so Dothraki would be important in establishing that Viserys or whoever is making a serious attempt for the throne. But it speaks little of actual combat abilities of Dothraki.

If Viserys had amassed an army of 3 year olds, would Robert have been just as freaked out and ordered him assassinated?

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Dothraki are definitely considered savages. They will not be a problem militarily, but are a PR disadvantage to whoever brings them. Which is likely part of reason why Illyrio and Varys wanted Viserys leading Dothraki in retaking Westeros.

There are Dothraki in the Brave Companions. How much PR damage did Tywin receive for using them or for the Mountain Clans?

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And I am not certain loyalty to Targaryens would have made Dothraki palatable. All we know is that Robert thinks as much, seeing how he is concerned about Targaryen loyalists rising up for Viserys.

Why assume Robert's opinion is unrepresentative? Ned reassures him by pointing out the unlikelihood of the Dothraki crossing the sea, but never pushes back on Robert's concern that houses will rise for a returning Targ.

Don't think I haven't noticed you haven't answered my request for evidence for Dany having a distorted perception of Westerosi lords and thinking they are the same as slavers.

[Aldarion]

On 6/22/2020 at 10:31 AM, Hodor the Articulate said:

If Viserys had amassed an army of 3 year olds, would Robert have been just as freaked out and ordered him assassinated?

 

Quite likely yes.

On 6/22/2020 at 10:31 AM, Hodor the Articulate said:

There are Dothraki in the Brave Companions. How much PR damage did Tywin receive for using them or for the Mountain Clans?

 

We don't know. But he relied on fear to rule - essentially he was a tyrant - so he may not have cared.

On 6/22/2020 at 10:31 AM, Hodor the Articulate said:

Why assume Robert's opinion is unrepresentative? Ned reassures him by pointing out the unlikelihood of the Dothraki crossing the sea, but never pushes back on Robert's concern that houses will rise for a returning Targ.

Don't think I haven't noticed you haven't answered my request for evidence for Dany having a distorted perception of Westerosi lords and thinking they are the same as slavers.

Ned also reassured him that they will throw Dothraki back into the sea if they cross.

I have not found exact quotes yet, and I can't exactly cite them from memory. But the impression I had of Daenerys throughout the books, and especially in Mereen, is that she has black-and-white view of the world. She refuses to acknowledge any good in rebels who overthrew Aerys, and whenever Barristan brings up Aerys' crimes, she changes the topic. She also has trouble dealing with Meereenese diplomatically (though I admit that she at least tries). Basically, she is running away from anything that might challenge that black-and-white narrative.

[Rose of Red Lake]

I can easily see Dany collapsing slavers with the nobility. At least three houses are "usurpers dogs" in her mind who are all the same. She has already killed people by social class. And, if the Lords are seen as impeding her ability to take the throne - which she could propagandize as "impeding progress" - then she'd use the same logic in Westeros as she did in Essos. She can just throw some words like "freedom" and "liberation" around and the Lords become targets now. Meereen was her test for being able to rule a city with divisive factions and class differences. The masters were no longer masters - they were nobles. If she can't learn how to handle them without class genocide then she's a poor candidate for Westeros. 

On 6/21/2020 at 7:48 PM, Hodor the Articulate said:

So how would you end slavery in Essoss in her position?

Well if I was on tiny baby ruling training wheels like Daenerys I would stick with one city and not overextend myself. Continue to keep Meereen free by defending it from invaders. Rule one city and rule it well. That would involve Dany doing what she was doing, staying on the path to being like Daeron II, using marriage to reconcile the nobles. Using a carrot and stick, give and take, smart deterrence - playing politics to win freedoms. I would also give up on Westeros and give up on expanding my empire. I'd undercut the slave trade by making Meereen a beacon of freedom (like the North and the free states) that slaves can escape to. Develop a flourishing, civil society in one city so that I'd know that if I have to invade the other cities to end slavery, I would know how to FUCKING REBUILD THEM.

[Finley McLeod]

3 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I can easily see Dany collapsing slavers with the nobility. At least three houses are "usurpers dogs" in her mind who are all the same. She has already killed people by social class. And, if the Lords are seen as impeding her ability to take the throne - which she could propagandize as "impeding progress" - then she'd use the same logic in Westeros as she did in Essos. She can just throw some words like "freedom" and "liberation" around and the Lords become targets now. Meereen was her test for being able to rule a city with divisive factions and class differences. The masters were no longer masters - they were nobles. If she can't learn how to handle them without class genocide then she's a poor candidate for Westeros. 

Well if I was on tiny baby ruling training wheels like Daenerys I would stick with one city and not overextend myself. Continue to keep Meereen free by defending it from invaders. Rule one city and rule it well. That would involve Dany doing what she was doing, staying on the path to being like Daeron II, using marriage to reconcile the nobles. Using a carrot and stick, give and take, smart deterrence - playing politics to win freedoms. I would also give up on Westeros and give up on expanding my empire. I'd undercut the slave trade by making Meereen a beacon of freedom (like the North and the free states) that slaves can escape to. Develop a flourishing, civil society in one city so that I'd know that if I have to invade the other cities to end slavery, I would know how to FUCKING REBUILD THEM.

The Usurper's dogs destroyed Westeros.  It was never this bad under Targaryen rule.  So I can understand if she decides to battle the Starks, Lannisters, and Baratheons.  Those fools are responsible for the suffering of the people, common and noble.  Aegon the Conqueror killed thousands in order to bring the great houses to heel and build a kingdom.  The second conquest will be easier and will be met with less resistance.  The resistance will come from those families I mentioned above, none of whom I really like.  But besides that, those families need to cooperate in order to make Westeros whole again.  It would be better if they cooperate willingly but if it must be done on the battlefield then so be it.  

Staying in Astapor was never an option because that city cannot be defended because the infrastructure was so bad.  Meereen is the only one which can be defended against a larger force.  She knows how to rebuild.  That is not the problem.  The problem is the resistance from the former slave masters who want a return to the old ways of enslaving the weak.  Their terrorists group, the Harpy, is impeding progress.  They should have embraced the change and freed their slaves instead of nailing children on crosses.  What they are doing and have been doing for thousands of years is the worst crime against other people in Planetos.  They needed to be stopped.  

[Rose of Red Lake]

27 minutes ago, Finley McLeod said:

The Usurper's dogs destroyed Westeros.  It was never this bad under Targaryen rule.  So I can understand if she decides to battle the Starks, Lannisters, and Baratheons.  Those fools are responsible for the suffering of the people, common and noble.  Aegon the Conqueror killed thousands in order to bring the great houses to heel and build a kingdom.  The second conquest will be easier and will be met with less resistance.  The resistance will come from those families I mentioned above, none of whom I really like.  But besides that, those families need to cooperate in order to make Westeros whole again.  It would be better if they cooperate willingly but if it must be done on the battlefield then so be it.  

Look up the list of all the wars the Targaryens started and get back to me. The war of the five kings was a desire by Stannis, Renly, and Joffrey to sit on the throne the Targaryens built. Cersei and Jaime - practically acting like Targaryens. Stannis - wishes he had a dragon. It's as much as their legacy as the rest of their spotty history. So in my view, Westeros doesn't need to be "whole" - its too large of a land mass (It's the size of South America). The empire needs to contract because the larger it gets the more tyranny is likely needed to maintain it. People should be able to choose their own rulers if they wish. To me, that's progress - not your version.

Quote

 She knows how to rebuild.  That is not the problem.  

She concluded that she's not supposed to be planting trees because dragons don't do stuff like that - and that she's a queen in Westeros, not in Meereen. These aren't the thoughts of someone who is serious about rebuilding (or ruling for that matter), or someone who is experienced at it. This was basically her thinking that, rebuilding a city is WEAK and isn't what "Targaryens do." They're supposed to just, burn shit.

Quote

Their terrorists group, the Harpy, is impeding progress.  They should have embraced the change and freed their slaves instead of nailing children on crosses.  What they are doing and have been doing for thousands of years is the worst crime against other people in Planetos.  They needed to be stopped.  

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The masters in Meereen gave up their slaves. Former slaves are now being paid a wage instead. There was a big to-do about Dany needing to stop the Harpy by reconciling the city through marriage - that was what she had to do to keep Meereen free and peaceful. Dany had to show them that she would be a queen for everyone, not just the freedmen. Unless you're Cleon and just want to make masters into the new slaves?

 

[Hodor the Articulate]

7 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Quite likely yes.

"This Khal Drool is said to have a hundred thousand toddlers in his horde. If the beggar king crosses with a toddler horde at his back, the traitors will join him!"

"Your Grace, they're only babies."

7 hours ago, Aldarion said:

We don't know. But he relied on fear to rule - essentially he was a tyrant - so he may not have cared.

Seems like no one else cared either, because he had no trouble making alliances. So here is another piece of evidence that goes against  your claim that Westerosi lords reject an alliance because of "savages" in an army.

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Well if I was on tiny baby ruling training wheels like Daenerys I would stick with one city and not overextend myself. Continue to keep Meereen free by defending it from invaders. Rule one city and rule it well. That would involve Dany doing what she was doing, staying on the path to being like Daeron II, using marriage to reconcile the nobles. Using a carrot and stick, give and take, smart deterrence - playing politics to win freedoms. I would also give up on Westeros and give up on expanding my empire. I'd undercut the slave trade by making Meereen a beacon of freedom (like the North and the free states) that slaves can escape to. Develop a flourishing, civil society in one city so that I'd know that if I have to invade the other cities to end slavery, I would know how to FUCKING REBUILD THEM.

So even in your plan, you require the conquering of a slaver city. Or did you manage to be queen on Meereen by negotiating?

But okay, let's assume you somehow managed to take Meereen bloodlessly. How do you plan to stave off never ending attacks from Meereen's invaders, i.e. every other slaving city in Essos? What exactly are these brilliant political maneuvers you're making that create more freedoms for the freed slaves in Meereen? Why are the slavers capitulating when your death means everything goes back to normal? What are you rebuilding if not slavery?

You keep giving these vague proposals but don't ever explain how and why they would work. Basically, you're underpants gnome-ing abolition. Phase 1- be politically astute. Phase 2- ??? Phase 3- Freedom!

[Aldarion]

4 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Seems like no one else cared either, because he had no trouble making alliances. So here is another piece of evidence that goes against  your claim that Westerosi lords reject an alliance because of "savages" in an army.

 

Difference is that Brave Companions are a mercenary group. There is a difference between using mercenaries who include savages, and having savages as a basis of your essentially standing army - and moreover, bringing them over to essentially colonize.

 

[Wall Flower]

7 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Look up the list of all the wars the Targaryens started and get back to me. The war of the five kings was a desire by Stannis, Renly, and Joffrey to sit on the throne the Targaryens built. Cersei and Jaime - practically acting like Targaryens. Stannis - wishes he had a dragon. It's as much as their legacy as the rest of their spotty history. So in my view, Westeros doesn't need to be "whole" - its too large of a land mass (It's the size of South America). The empire needs to contract because the larger it gets the more tyranny is likely needed to maintain it. People should be able to choose their own rulers if they wish. To me, that's progress - not your version.

She concluded that she's not supposed to be planting trees because dragons don't do stuff like that - and that she's a queen in Westeros, not in Meereen. These aren't the thoughts of someone who is serious about rebuilding (or ruling for that matter), or someone who is experienced at it. This was basically her thinking that, rebuilding a city is WEAK and isn't what "Targaryens do." They're supposed to just, burn shit.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The masters in Meereen gave up their slaves. Former slaves are now being paid a wage instead. There was a big to-do about Dany needing to stop the Harpy by reconciling the city through marriage - that was what she had to do to keep Meereen free and peaceful. Dany had to show them that she would be a queen for everyone, not just the freedmen. Unless you're Cleon and just want to make masters into the new slaves?

 

You seem to be blaming the Targaryens not only for stuff that happened during their rule but for the actions of the nobility after the Targaryens were deposed and/or killed. The victorious rebels chose to retain the Iron Throne, keep the Seven Kingdoms intact and fight each other after Robert's death. At some point, they became responsible for their own choices and actions.

The masters didn't 'give up' their slaves. They greeted Dany with 163 crucified slave children and scorched the surrounding area. They were forced to give up their slaves when Dany took the city and later when Dany's Dothraki freed slaves on the hillside estates. Even so, a lot of the wealth and power still resides in the hands of the former masters who have pushed Dany into making more and more compromises in the name of peace. Personally, I think the peace was alway illusory and the masters have never acted in good faith. 

[SeanF]

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Look up the list of all the wars the Targaryens started and get back to me. The war of the five kings was a desire by Stannis, Renly, and Joffrey to sit on the throne the Targaryens built. Cersei and Jaime - practically acting like Targaryens. Stannis - wishes he had a dragon. It's as much as their legacy as the rest of their spotty history. So in my view, Westeros doesn't need to be "whole" - its too large of a land mass (It's the size of South America). The empire needs to contract because the larger it gets the more tyranny is likely needed to maintain it. People should be able to choose their own rulers if they wish. To me, that's progress - not your version.

She concluded that she's not supposed to be planting trees because dragons don't do stuff like that - and that she's a queen in Westeros, not in Meereen. These aren't the thoughts of someone who is serious about rebuilding (or ruling for that matter), or someone who is experienced at it. This was basically her thinking that, rebuilding a city is WEAK and isn't what "Targaryens do." They're supposed to just, burn shit.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The masters in Meereen gave up their slaves. Former slaves are now being paid a wage instead. There was a big to-do about Dany needing to stop the Harpy by reconciling the city through marriage - that was what she had to do to keep Meereen free and peaceful. Dany had to show them that she would be a queen for everyone, not just the freedmen. Unless you're Cleon and just want to make masters into the new slaves?

 

1. Good luck with that in Westeros.  Every House rules by the sword.  Nobody is a democrat.

2.  A good ruler is both dragon and mhysa.

3. The masters were compelled to give up their slaves.  There was nothing voluntary about it.  There was no need to make the masters into slaves.  Just asset-strip them, and redistribute their property to the freedmen.  Meereen cannot be a beacon of freedom, if there is slave market outside its walls, and slave owners are allowed to take their slaves in and out of the city.  The events of ADWD show that slave and free cannot co-exist.  One side has to defeat the other.  The Yunkish and Volantenes are quite clear-sighted about this. They know that a Free Meereen threatens them with revolution.  Therefore, they want to end Free Meereen.

Things being as they are, as at the start of TWOW,  the freedmen have no choice but to make an end of the Masters, who have brought their fate on themselves.  The Sons of the Harpy chose to murder Meereenese freedmen;  the Yunkish lords chose to fight a war to reinstate slavery.  No one compelled them, in either case.

[Rose of Red Lake]

11 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

So even in your plan, you require the conquering of a slaver city. Or did you manage to be queen on Meereen by negotiating?

She had already conquered Meereen. It's her city. She broke it, she bought it. Her negotiations to keep it free were, largely, successful. Now she has to defend it AND continue, to rebuild it. After war, politics - which means staying there for the rest of her life and being vigilant against any threats there. But she's not going to do that because she has to go to Westeros, apparently. 

Quote

What exactly are these brilliant political maneuvers you're making that create more freedoms for the freed slaves in Meereen? Why are the slavers capitulating when your death means everything goes back to normal? What are you rebuilding if not slavery?

They are already free - the reforms I'm talking about involve making sure they don't end up with a Jim Crow, free in name only. That doesn't involve going to war constantly, that involves political pressures. If you're talking about keeping them free in Astapor and Yunkai, that means having to rebuild 3 cities all at once, when she doesn't even have the patience or motivation to rebuild ONE, so I see that as unlikely. 

Quote

You keep giving these vague proposals but don't ever explain how and why they would work. Basically, you're underpants gnome-ing abolition. Phase 1- be politically astute. Phase 2- ??? Phase 3- Freedom!

Isn't that what you're doing? All I've ever seen people propose is genocide on these forums, and just using nukes to solve all problems. I'm talking about defending cities using SOFT and HARD power. Not just hitting things with a stick then running away. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

8 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Difference is that Brave Companions are a mercenary group. There is a difference between using mercenaries who include savages, and having savages as a basis of your essentially standing army - and moreover, bringing them over to essentially colonize.

And wasn't there like, one Dothraki in the BC? It's so random and hardly representative of who they are on the whole.

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

1. Good luck with that in Westeros.  Every House rules by the sword.  Nobody is a democrat.

They don't rule ONLY by the sword, which fits with GRRM's statements about the limitations of hard power.

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

2.  A good ruler is both dragon and mhysa.

But she's not both. Dany concludes, in the the end, that being a person who tries to protect her people from starvation using soft power, was weakness. That's pretty fucked up. She concluded that a person who wants to pause, to rebuild after war, was weakness. That's the wrong conclusion to make as well. She concluded that she doesnt want to be a queen in Meereen. Which is bonkers.  She made all the wrong conclusions.

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

3. The masters were compelled to give up their slaves.  There was nothing voluntary about it.  There was no need to make the masters into slaves.  Just asset-strip them, and redistribute their property to the freedmen.  

She went further than reparations though, she's making the former masters plow the fields without a wage. That's what the Harpy is afraid she'll do to them. They aren't necessarily fighting for "their slaves" back.

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

Meereen cannot be a beacon of freedom, if there is slave market outside its walls, and slave owners are allowed to take their slaves in and out of the city.  

Outside the walls means...its' free. And Hizdahr gives reasonable advice, that they are just taunting her and will go away soon, and they can build a fruit market there in its place. He's offering more rebuilding opportunities than Dany is, herself. Taking slaves in and out of the city, is something she can easily fix, without burning the whole goddamn city down. I think you're underplaying what she had accomplished in Meereen using soft power.

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

They know that a Free Meereen threatens them with revolution.  Therefore, they want to end Free Meereen.

They are also afraid of dragons, and have been in the past, so I think she will most likely use firepower that is unnecessary and excessive because she doesn't know the history of Valryia/Volantis or how to apply those kinds of deterrence pressures. But she can't solve slavery with dragons by itself anyway. "Burn all the slavers" is pretty stupid if you dont have a rule of law and a governance structure set up to enforce anything. If she flies all over the place to burn people in tokars, the more she's in a quagmire geographically and culturally. And, she's not really learning anything much about ruling, just learning that she likes riding dragons and nuking things, which is dangerous for Westeros.

 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

And wasn't there like, one Dothraki in the BC? It's so random and hardly representative of who they are on the whole.

They don't rule ONLY by the sword, which fits with GRRM's statements about the limitations of hard power.

But she's not both. Dany concludes, in the the end, that being a person who tries to protect her people from starvation using soft power, was weakness. That's pretty fucked up. She concluded that a person who wants to pause, to rebuild after war, was weakness. That's the wrong conclusion to make as well. She concluded that she doesnt want to be a queen in Meereen. Which is bonkers.  She made all the wrong conclusions.

She went further than reparations though, she's making the former masters plow the fields without a wage. That's what the Harpy is afraid she'll do to them. They aren't necessarily fighting for "their slaves" back.

Outside the walls means...its' free. And Hizdahr gives reasonable advice, that they are just taunting her and will go away soon, and they can build a fruit market there in its place. He's offering more rebuilding opportunities than Dany is, herself. Taking slaves in and out of the city, is something she can easily fix, without burning the whole goddamn city down. I think you're underplaying what she had accomplished in Meereen using soft power.

They are also afraid of dragons, and have been in the past, so I think she will most likely use firepower that is unnecessary and excessive because she doesn't know the history of Valryia/Volantis or how to apply those kinds of deterrence pressures. But she can't solve slavery with dragons by itself anyway. "Burn all the slavers" is pretty stupid if you dont have a rule of law and a governance structure set up to enforce anything. If she flies all over the place to burn people in tokars, the more she's in a quagmire geographically and culturally. And, she's not really learning anything much about ruling, just learning that she likes riding dragons and nuking things, which is dangerous for Westeros.

 

If your enemies are starving your people, the best course is to kill those enemies, in order to protect your people.  She doesn't need to use dragons.  She can use conventional methods to break the slavers.  In fact, it seems that her supporters and allies are doing just that, at the start of TWOW.  None of that requires Meereen to be burned down, or the use of dragon fire.  

You wish her to make the masters concession after concession, until there's nothing left to concede.  What's the point?  The slavers have nothing to offer the vast majority of Meereen's population.  The occupations which we would consider to be middle class/professional, are largely performed by slaves and freedmen, such as healers, priests, musicians, scribes, factors, accountants etc.  The slavers are parasites. All that they offer the majority is to refrain from murdering freedmen, so long as their demands are met.

If she was making the masters plough the fields, that would only be justice.  Unfortunately, she left the masters with most of their (non-slave) property intact. People like Xaro's friend, who lost his slaves, and got no compensation for them, had to take the only work that was on offer.  She was being too generous at the outset, by allowing the slavers to retain their lives, liberty, and (non-slave) property.  They took advantage of that generosity.

 

[Rose of Red Lake]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If your enemies are starving your people, the best course is to kill those enemies, in order to protect your people.  She doesn't need to use dragons.  She can use conventional methods to break the slavers.  

Right, she found a way to reject Xaro's offer to leave, to keep her dragons from destroying civilians, to keep peace inside the city, AND to end the blockade. She can't have everything she wants so she had to compromise for the time being. That's normal. 

The point is will Dany realize how soft power was useful, and that dragon's weren't necessary? I dont think so...

Quote

None of that requires Meereen to be burned down. 

It would be nice if Dany knew that. As far as she knows the peace is still holding in Meereen and she STILL wants to use nukes? Her thoughts are just bizarre.

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Right, she found a way to reject Xaro's offer to leave, to keep her dragons from destroying civilians, to keep peace inside the city, AND to end the blockade. She can't have everything she wants so she had to compromise for the time being. That's normal. 

The point is will Dany realize how soft power was useful, and that dragon's weren't necessary? I dont think so...

It would be nice if Dany knew that. As far as she knows the peace is still holding in Meereen and she STILL wants to use nukes? Her thoughts are just bizarre.

1. The besieging armies were not going away.  They were waiting for the reinforcements from Volantis.

2. Thoughts tend to be, when one is delirious.