Aegon as a king

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

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

I'm sorry, how does that invalidate her achievements using soft power? 

Each choice has its consequences.

She can use dragons -  the easy option - but the cost will be killing far more people than is necessary and they will run wild, destroying people at sporting events or eating children. There will also be a personal risk of being corrupted by so much power, and she won't necessarily challenge the image that she's no different than any other monstrous Valyrians in Essos.

Or

The harder option: She can lock up dragons, use traditional forces to defend the city, but she has to make some concessions, which won't be perfect but it will be better than Astapor. <-- that's the difficult road which she rejected.

12 minutes ago, SeanF said:

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

You dont want to wrestle with any of these major interior character movements, where a major decision was made?

GRRM: "Nevermind about all that 'Fire and Blood' nonsense. Dany is a perfect mix of mhysa and dragon, she was just dehydrated!"

/great writing

[Rose of Red Lake]

37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

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.

Wait - just saw this? What are you talking about?

Quote

“Dany flushed. “Your friend is being paid with food and shelter. I cannot give him back his wealth. Meereen needs beans more than it needs rare spices, and beans require water.”

She took away his wealth and is only paying him with food and shelter. That's slavery.

[SeanF]

22 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Wait - just saw this? What are you talking about?

She took away his wealth and is only paying him with food and shelter. That's slavery.

Daenerys did not compensate the slave owners for the loss of their slaves.  The text says as much.  She also ruled against a man who tried to claim a share of his ex-slaves' earnings.  There is an argument that the slavers ought to have been compensated, but I expect most readers would strongly disagree. On the day that Meereen fell, many slaves stole from their masters.   Xaro's friend lost out as a result of this social change - but, tough.

Instead of adapting to the new order, making the best of the situation, and thanking the gods that they weren't torn apart by the freedmen, the slavers started murdering "uppity" freedmen, who wished to join guilds, weave cloth, play the harp etc. F*ck them.

[SeanF]

41 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I'm sorry, how does that invalidate her achievements using soft power? 

Each choice has its consequences.

She can use dragons -  the easy option - but the cost will be killing far more people than is necessary and they will run wild, destroying people at sporting events or eating children. There will also be a personal risk of being corrupted by so much power, and she won't necessarily challenge the image that she's no different than any other monstrous Valyrians in Essos.

Or

The harder option: She can lock up dragons, use traditional forces to defend the city, but she has to make some concessions, which won't be perfect but it will be better than Astapor. <-- that's the difficult road which she rejected.

You dont want to wrestle with any of these major interior character movements, where a major decision was made?

GRRM: "Nevermind about all that 'Fire and Blood' nonsense. Dany is a perfect mix of mhysa and dragon, she was just dehydrated!"

/great writing

Option 3.  Daenerys's allies and supporters wipe out the slave coalition besieging Meereen, and the Volantene Tiger soldiers rebel.  What's not to like?s

[Rose of Red Lake]

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Daenerys did not compensate the slave owners for the loss of their slaves.  The text says as much.  She also ruled against a man who tried to claim a share of his ex-slaves' earnings.  There is an argument that the slavers ought to have been compensated, but I expect most readers would strongly disagree. On the day that Meereen fell, many slaves stole from their masters.   Xaro's friend lost out as a result of this social change - but, tough.

Instead of adapting to the new order, making the best of the situation, and thanking the gods that they weren't torn apart by the freedmen, the slavers started murdering "uppity" freedmen, who wished to join guilds, weave cloth, play the harp etc. F*ck them.

Just pay the guy a wage for his work, no matter who he is. If she had many of the former masters are doing that, then she didn't really end slavery. Again...you are unable to handle the contradictions.

[Rose of Red Lake]

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Option 3.  Daenerys's allies and supporters wipe out the slave coalition besieging Meereen, and the Volantene Tiger soldiers rebel.  What's not to like?s

Wow, amazing, so easy! Of course Dany being so amazing and the bestest ruler ever, should be allowed to escape all the hard choices. That way, she can just skip over all the consequences.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Just pay the guy a wage for his work, no matter who he is. If she had many of the former masters are doing that, then she didn't really end slavery. Again...you are unable to handle the contradictions.

Here's the thing.  He was treated like one of the unemployed in any Western country, prior to the 1950's.  Harsh if you think you're one of the lords of society, entitled to a high standard of living on the backs of your slaves. but enlightened by the standards of a medieval world.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Wow, amazing, so easy! Of course Dany being so amazing and the bestest ruler ever, should be allowed to escape all the hard choices. That way, she can just skip over all the consequences.

Nope.  Just Dany's supporters and allies getting rid of the local oppressors.  Again, what is your problem with that?  Why is the well-being of the Masters so important to you?

[Lord Varys]

This thing here is getting ridiculous. It isn't slavery that there are different classes of free men - unless we are talking a communist or anarchist society (which don't exist in Martinworld the last time I looked) - exploiting each other.

And Dany left the slavers the means to turn the former slaves into wage slaves - she could and should taken their wealth and property, too, so they couldn't do that.

Societal change doesn't work if the revolution only goes half the way.

In a very real sense Dany's failure is Lincoln's failure - the US is so fucked up till this day because the slaves there didn't get the chance to actually kill the slaver class. It isn't emancipation if you have to beg for it. And that's what the former slaves do - they have to beg that the former slaves employ them, have to beg that the Sons of the Harpy don't butcher them, etc.

 

[Lord Varys]

On 6/22/2020 at 8:00 AM, 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.

You seem to be deflecting here - we could only consider that question if there were a scenario in the books where the Dothraki on their own threaten to invade the Seven Kingdoms. That isn't a scenario we are presented with.

But in combination with the Targaryens it is the Dothraki they are concerned about first and foremost - with traitors in Westeros being a lesser concern since, again, the reason the Targaryens are to be assassinated is that Daenerys Targaryen is pregnant by Khal Drogo.

Quote

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

Well, now I look pretty dumb ;-). I remember even reading that stuff years ago.

Have you taken a look at those? If you are interested in finding genuine influences/parallels then going there would be the place to start.

Quote

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)

That may be so ... or not. The point is that this is a fantasy series, and you make it as if all those superior Westerosi guys were preparing for a Dothraki invasion and/or had actually fought the Dothraki before and knew how to counter them.

That is not so.

I mean, the very fact that the Dothraki will all be mounted - and thus number in the thousands or tens of thousands while a Westerosi will at best have a couple hundreds of heavily armored knights with the majority of the army being infantry puts that into perspective.

Westerosi infantry are trained and prepare for an attack by a limited number of armored cavalry, and for cavalry who do not also shoot at them while mounted.

This is the psychological angle. German Sturzkampfbomber had a stupid, pointless design. It makes no sense to drop bombs while you plummet down if you can also do it while flying straight - but it sure as hell terrifies the enemy if you do that again and again and again.

You just delude yourself when you imagine that the bulk of the Westerosi will stand firm against thousands or tens of thousands of Dothraki and not break.

Quote

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.

Nobody said that nobody would be able to mount resistance against the Dothraki - just that they cannot/will not win in the end. There certainly will be veterans from some of the coming battles still be alive when Dany arrives, but there is no indication it will be enough for all the Dothraki.

Especially since we have a pretty good reason to assume that, if all your speculation there turned out to be true, that the Dothraki would be told about the advantages of the Westerosi and would prepare and equip themselves properly to counter that advantage. They are not going to teleport to Westeros, and they will be trained and advised by people who know how the Westerosi fight.

Unlike, I might add, the Westerosi. Because even the Golden Company has not gone on record so far as having fought and defeated a Dothraki khalasar. There are no Dothraki advisors among the Westerosi.

Quote

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.

Can you point out any instance were 'personal initiative or individual combat ability or tactical flexibility' decided a Westerosi battle? Where initiative and equipment and abilities of the rank-and-file men are credited with a victory?

That's not the story George tells. The Westerosi peasant and the Dothraki rider won't decide any battle, their commanders and general will. Daenerys will win battles, not the men fighting and dying in her name. Robb came up with the ploys to win his battles, too, etc.

If you are counting on the quality of the men as such then you will be disappointed - there are very broad strokes like wildlings not being disciplined and having poor weapons, but nobody ever said Dothraki had poor discipline or bad weapons, nor, I might add, has anybody in-universe ever downplayed the Unsullied in comparison to the average Westerosi infantryman.

Quote

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.

I just wanted to point out that Westeros is a static military environment - there aren't technological or strategic advances made that make certain types of fighters obsolete or put them at a disadvantage. It is a working mix - one that might not be prepared to deal with the Dothraki, or to be more exact, the Dothraki in combination with Dany's other troops.

And a mix that relies completely on the knights and lords - they ran the show in Westeros, there is independent martial culture in existence, there are no armed peasants in Westeros, no peasants wars, no uprisings against the nobility of any kind.

Quote

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.

I never said men would be completely untrained, I said they are raised by their lords and forced into service and are then trained for war either before the campaign or in the process of it. That is the picture we get.

Rhaegar had more but less experienced troops, while the rebels had more veterans (presumably men from the Gulltown battle and the Battle of the Bells and perhaps some from Summerhall and Ashford, too, although Robert seems to have lost entire army on the way to Stoney Sept).

But the deciding factor at the Trident was Rhaegar's death - that's when the battle was lost.

Quote

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

Oh, well, those would have been elite Karstark troops in the Northern army. Roose wouldn't have put the rank-and-file in the frontlines. You also see that Clegane's men are described as 'armored veterans' there (possibly from the 'great Lannister victory' at King's Landing), indicating that Gregor also took competent, battle-hardened men with him for this attack on the shieldwall.

But that isn't representative of the entire wing - a wing Tywin deliberately set up to break to lure Robb into a trap, nor the entire army.

Quote

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 is actually no intention that the Dothraki being seen as savages is seen as a problem in the propaganda department. Robert doesn't think Viserys III will suffer from his support by the Dothraki savages but will think the Targaryen loyalists will join them.

And our case here is that the dragons and the Dothraki and the other forces will have a similar effect on the Targaryen loyalists and other lords joining Aegon for now when they are in a position where they have to choose between Aegon and Dany.

The Dothraki and the Golden Company were to fight together in the name of Viserys III as per Tristan Rivers during the war council in ADwD. It seems that the Golden Company (and possibly even Aegon, although that's not confirmed) were to be part of the Dothraki invasion.

Thus it seems that nobody wanted to make Viserys III appear an incompetent or evil 'Dothraki-backed' king - but rather as the original figurehead of the Targaryen restoration who would, after the war was won, would then suffer an accident after he acknowledged Prince Aegon as his presumptive heir.

People were speculating a lot about Varys/Illyrio creating a rift between the Targaryen factions, but the way ADwD presents it the first time anybody seriously considered not working with Viserys/Dany was when Tyrion fed Aegon that idea, and he repeated it at the council.

Quote

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.

He is more concerned about the Dothraki than such people - if he had been afraid as much of certain lords than he was of the pregnant whore then he would have commanded the murder of those lords, not the pregnant girl, her brother, and, by extension, her Dothraki husband.

[Hodor the Articulate]

On 6/24/2020 at 6:39 AM, Aldarion said:

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.

It's not wrong to say Dany has a tendency towards black-and-white thinking. But her moments of naivety are due to her age and lack of info/experience, not because of some immutable personality flaw. She accepts Barristan very easily, even though he served "the Usurper". When he first hints at her dad's insanity, she asks him "do I want to hear this now?" and tells him "one day you must tell me all. The good and the bad", which she does follow up on in ADWD (though they're interrupted before Barristan could go into detail). She spends the rest of the series wondering if she inherited "the taint", so she obviously isn't delusional about her family, nor is she rigid in her judgement of people.

But what does this have to do with her view of Westerosi lords? You might be able to make a case for her desire to crush "the Usurper and his dogs" but they're all dead. What is the evidence she has beef with the remaining people of Westeros, and what reason has she to equate them with the slavers?

19 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.

But the Dothraki aren't the basis of her army, nor is there any reason to assume they're colonizing Westeros. She has Unsullied, freedmen, sellswords (some of whom are Westerosi), as well as whatever houses she'll pick up when she arrives in Westeros.

On 6/24/2020 at 6:39 AM, Aldarion said:

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

And says nothing to challenge Robert's view that people will rise for a Targ with a Dothraki army at their back.

[Hodor the Articulate]

  Maybe we should move this Dany discussion to its own thread....

13 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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. 

I asked you what you'd abolish slavery in Meereen. You seem to be always criticising Dany for using violence, but here you accept military force in necessary to achieve that goal, at least to begin with.

13 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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. 

The fighting pits are re-opened. They paraded slaves in front of Dany for the event. Slave markets are opened right outside the city walls. What's next? The only thing I see being rebuilt is the slave trade.

And here you are again, being vague. What political pressures?

What are you doing about the other slaver cities bringing war to you?

14 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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. 

We've already seen that violence and military action (and the threat of) is effective. It's how Dany managed to free slaves in the first place, how Westerosi houses gained and held onto their lands, how Aegon united the kingdoms... it's also how the Masters got Dany to bend. "Be politically astute" is far more vague and needs a whole lot more explanation.

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

Nope.  Just Dany's supporters and allies getting rid of the local oppressors.  Again, what is your problem with that?  Why is the well-being of the Masters so important to you?

That is the #1 question.

[Aldarion]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You seem to be deflecting here - we could only consider that question if there were a scenario in the books where the Dothraki on their own threaten to invade the Seven Kingdoms. That isn't a scenario we are presented with.

But in combination with the Targaryens it is the Dothraki they are concerned about first and foremost - with traitors in Westeros being a lesser concern since, again, the reason the Targaryens are to be assassinated is that Daenerys Targaryen is pregnant by Khal Drogo.

I recall it mentioned also that there are many lords who would rise up for Targaryens should they make an attempt.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You seem to be deflecting here - we could only consider that question if there were a scenario in the books where the Dothraki on their own threaten to invade the Seven Kingdoms. That isn't a scenario we are presented with.

But in combination with the Targaryens it is the Dothraki they are concerned about first and foremost - with traitors in Westeros being a lesser concern since, again, the reason the Targaryens are to be assassinated is that Daenerys Targaryen is pregnant by Khal Drogo.

No, I have not. I might have read one of those - titles do look familiar - but if so, it was quite a while ago. Most of my literature is about Ottoman wars and Byzantine Empire (hence my constant references to Hungarian, Ottoman and Byzantine armies).

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That may be so ... or not. The point is that this is a fantasy series, and you make it as if all those superior Westerosi guys were preparing for a Dothraki invasion and/or had actually fought the Dothraki before and knew how to counter them.

That is not so.

I mean, the very fact that the Dothraki will all be mounted - and thus number in the thousands or tens of thousands while a Westerosi will at best have a couple hundreds of heavily armored knights with the majority of the army being infantry puts that into perspective.

Westerosi infantry are trained and prepare for an attack by a limited number of armored cavalry, and for cavalry who do not also shoot at them while mounted.

This is the psychological angle. German Sturzkampfbomber had a stupid, pointless design. It makes no sense to drop bombs while you plummet down if you can also do it while flying straight - but it sure as hell terrifies the enemy if you do that again and again and again.

You just delude yourself when you imagine that the bulk of the Westerosi will stand firm against thousands or tens of thousands of Dothraki and not break.

OK, where to start...

1) You are talking as if knights are the only mounted force Westerosi have. Which is just not so. In reality you have (see this again):

• knights
• heavy cavalry who are not knights (men-at-arms, though Martin does not use the term)
• mounted archers
• freeriders

I have already written about it before, but generally you can assume that around 1/4 to 1/3 of any Westerosi army will be mounted (Stannis' troops being a notable exception). This means that while an army of 100 000 might have only 10 000 knights, it would have 25 000 - 30 000 mounted troops. And those would have much greater combat endurance than Dothraki force thanks to their armour.

In fact, looking at Tywin's army, it had 6 800 heavy cavalry and 4 000 light cavalry (Tyrion's division). Remaining 9 000 would be infantry. In proportions, you have 35% heavy cavalry, 20% light cavalry and 45% infantry. In other words, more than half of Tywin's army was cavalry.

OTOH, other armies apparently have much fewer cavalry. Jamie Lannister had 12 000 infantry and 2 000 - 3 000 cavalry (14-20% cavalry); this would place total Lannister force at - if we round up - 15 000 cavalry and 20 000 infantry, so total 43% cavalry. Robb Stark had only 4 500 cavalry out of 20 000 troops in total (22% cavalry), which later increased to 22 500 men of which 5 500 cavalry (24% cavalry). Edmure has 3 000 cavalry and 8 000 infantry (27% cavalry). Tyrell-Baratheon army at Bitterbridge had 60 000 infantry and 20 000 cavalry (25% cavalry). So it might be simply that Martin got confused and intended for Tywin too to have 25% cavalry; but that is not what is in the text. At Blackwater, relief force is estimated as 56 000 of which 13 000 mounted (23%).

All and all, Westeros had some 235 000 ground troops in the beginning. This would mean that they had some 50 000 - 60 000 cavalry. In fact, they would have 65 000 cavalry from description of Tywin's army. Even assuming 25% losses so far would still leave them 40 000 - 45 000 cavalry.

Westeros thus has 40 000 cavalry at least, and 65 000 cavalry at most, with total army of 175 000 - 235 000 (so 135 000 - 185 000 infantry). Around 2/3 of those would be heavy cavalry - meaning 25 000 to 45 000 heavy cavalry. Where did you get the idea that Westeros "will at best have a couple hundreds of heavily armored knights with the majority of the army being infantry" I have no clue, because it contradicts literally everything we have seen in the books. FFS, Night's Watch alone likely has several hundred cavalry (we see them at Battle at the Wall), though it is unlikely these are heavy armoured cavalry.

2) For infantry, resisting mounted archers is much easier than resisting heavy cavalry. Mounted archers alone cannot do much damage to a proper infantry force (or to barded knights - though they are dangerous to heavy cavalry on unarmoured horses). Infantry is typically better protected, has better ranged weapons and easier time maintaining formation. What made Huns and Mongols so dangerous was not mounted archers, but rather combined-arms approach. They combined mounted archers with heavy cavalry, and also fielded heavy infantry, missile infantry, field artillery and combat engineers - one third of Mongol horse were heavy cavalry. And note that Huns were crushed by enfeebled, falling-apart Western Roman Empire, while Mongols were likewise crushed by Western European style armies in both first and second invasions.

You also have to consider that Westerosi combination of stone castles, heavy cavalry, pike infantry and longbowmen/crossbowmen is the exact setup which Poland and Hungary adopted post-first Mongol Invasion. Result? They crushed Mongols in their second invasion, so hard that said invasion is barely remembered today. If Dothraki turn out to be anything but a joke in Westeros, it will mean that Martin has not studied history of Mongol invasions at all.

3) German Sturtzkampfbomber design was anything but pointless, and psychological aspect of its design was incidental. It was a dive bomber, which was the most dangerous type of bomber available. High-altitude level bombers such as B-17, He-177, etc. were extremely inefficient for destruction of tactical or even strategic targets, being incapable of hitting any target much smaller than a city. They were only useful for terror bombing - and terror bombing failed at its primary objective (which is breaking the will of the enemy to resist). Half a million civillians killed in Germany, Japan and USSR each, and none of them surrendered until their military capability was destroyed in the field. On the other hand, dive bombers such as Stuka as well as other ground attack aircraft were crucial in German maneuver warfare, being used as scouts, raiders, to destroy bridges, individual targets, and provide close air support for ground forces. Allies were no different: US used Republic P-47 in those same roles, British had Hawker Typhoon and deHavilland Mosquito, and Soviets had Ilyushin Il-2. In the end, only neutralization of armed forces (often but not always their destruction) can lead to victory on any timescale much shorter than several decades. Look at Croatian-Ottoman wars: terror, terror and more terror, yet Ottomans had to conquer every inch of territory they gained. Nobody surrendered for as long as resisting was physically possible. Devastation of countryside helped reduce ability of frontier forces to resist (logistics!), but in the end fortresses and cities still had to be physically taken.

Overall, the only logical outcome is Dothraki getting destroyed - either in the field or because they cannot feed the horses while enemy is in the castles. Anything else is delusional. Which of course does not mean Martin will not do it; but if he wants to do it properly, without ending all cheesy, he does not have much maneuver room.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody said that nobody would be able to mount resistance against the Dothraki - just that they cannot/will not win in the end. There certainly will be veterans from some of the coming battles still be alive when Dany arrives, but there is no indication it will be enough for all the Dothraki.

Especially since we have a pretty good reason to assume that, if all your speculation there turned out to be true, that the Dothraki would be told about the advantages of the Westerosi and would prepare and equip themselves properly to counter that advantage. They are not going to teleport to Westeros, and they will be trained and advised by people who know how the Westerosi fight.

Unlike, I might add, the Westerosi. Because even the Golden Company has not gone on record so far as having fought and defeated a Dothraki khalasar. There are no Dothraki advisors among the Westerosi.

Dothraki being told about advantages of Westerosi would not be useful to them. Mongols knew all the advantages of Western European armies - their intelligence network was excellent - yet when they went up against Western European-type armies consisting of heavy cavalry, heavy infantry and crossbowmen, they still got crushed. 

Dothraki alone are no threat at all. What they can do is act as a support for a larger army - as scouts and raiders primarily, and possibly also advance screen. But in a field battle, they will be of rather limited utility.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Can you point out any instance were 'personal initiative or individual combat ability or tactical flexibility' decided a Westerosi battle? Where initiative and equipment and abilities of the rank-and-file men are credited with a victory?

That's not the story George tells. The Westerosi peasant and the Dothraki rider won't decide any battle, their commanders and general will. Daenerys will win battles, not the men fighting and dying in her name. Robb came up with the ploys to win his battles, too, etc.

If you are counting on the quality of the men as such then you will be disappointed - there are very broad strokes like wildlings not being disciplined and having poor weapons, but nobody ever said Dothraki had poor discipline or bad weapons, nor, I might add, has anybody in-universe ever downplayed the Unsullied in comparison to the average Westerosi infantryman.

Westerosi battles are Westerosi armies fighting Westerosi armies. It is completely irrelevant to combat against Unsullied. In Westerosi internal wars, individual initiative simply wouldn't be enough, because other side also has it. Look at Tyrion's charge into Northern pikemen: Northern lines break (to an extent), but soldiers still continue fighting as individuals even where lines have broken. Further, we do not (often) see it because we are looking at everything from the lords' perspective.

You are constantly forgetting that discipline is not the only aspect of quality of troops, nor is it the only thing which wins battles. Romans had the most disciplined infantry of their time, yet they lost battles on a fairly regular basis. Matthias' Black Army was the most disciplined army in whole of Europe outside Ottoman Empire, yet it has less-than-perfect record: 52 victories and 12 defeats during reign of king Matthias, yet only 2 victories and 3 defeats after his death - when they fought against other Hungarian forces. And both of these were far more tactically flexible than Daenerys' army, let alone Unsullied alone. Unsullied are much closer to Janissaries - but Janissaries a) were far superior to Unsullied, b) were archers, and c) were supported by cavalry. Ottoman armies were typically 2/3 cavalry, and most of that was heavy cavalry (so some 50% heavy cavalry).

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I just wanted to point out that Westeros is a static military environment - there aren't technological or strategic advances made that make certain types of fighters obsolete or put them at a disadvantage. It is a working mix - one that might not be prepared to deal with the Dothraki, or to be more exact, the Dothraki in combination with Dany's other troops.

And a mix that relies completely on the knights and lords - they ran the show in Westeros, there is independent martial culture in existence, there are no armed peasants in Westeros, no peasants wars, no uprisings against the nobility of any kind.

Problem is that Essos is also a static military environment - and one that is, with the exception of its westernmost coast, a couple thousand years behind Westeros. Westeros already has perfect mix of troops and military doctrine for countering Dothraki, and one which should also work quite well - if not as well - against Daenerys' army as a whole - unless she builds an army that is essentially "Westerosi army lite with Dothraki added".

Also, you first claim that Westerosi infantry are armed peasants, and then you claim there are no armed peasants in Westeros? Which is it?

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I never said men would be completely untrained, I said they are raised by their lords and forced into service and are then trained for war either before the campaign or in the process of it. That is the picture we get.

Rhaegar had more but less experienced troops, while the rebels had more veterans (presumably men from the Gulltown battle and the Battle of the Bells and perhaps some from Summerhall and Ashford, too, although Robert seems to have lost entire army on the way to Stoney Sept).

But the deciding factor at the Trident was Rhaegar's death - that's when the battle was lost.

That is the picture we get after armies had already suffered significant losses. But when we see initial muster - specifically, Robb's muster - we do not see any "crash course" training. Likewise, Renly's army is engaged in what would be fairly normal activities for any medieval army - though he turns it into fun and games. No indication of hasty training of untrained peasants anywhere - at least not in ASoIaF itself.

As for Rhaegar's death, that is true - but such an event would be deciding factor in almost every premodern army. Even Roman and Byzantine armies oftentimes (though not always) collapsed when their commander died (or appeared to have died - see Manzikert).

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, well, those would have been elite Karstark troops in the Northern army. Roose wouldn't have put the rank-and-file in the frontlines. You also see that Clegane's men are described as 'armored veterans' there (possibly from the 'great Lannister victory' at King's Landing), indicating that Gregor also took competent, battle-hardened men with him for this attack on the shieldwall.

But that isn't representative of the entire wing - a wing Tywin deliberately set up to break to lure Robb into a trap, nor the entire army.

Actually, Gregor's wing as a whole was the worst part of Tywin's army - literally everything other than Gregor's own knights (who are, as you note, described as veterans) was bottom-of-the-barrel scrap. And why do you think Karstark troops would have been "elite" in the Northern army?

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is actually no intention that the Dothraki being seen as savages is seen as a problem in the propaganda department. Robert doesn't think Viserys III will suffer from his support by the Dothraki savages but will think the Targaryen loyalists will join them.

And our case here is that the dragons and the Dothraki and the other forces will have a similar effect on the Targaryen loyalists and other lords joining Aegon for now when they are in a position where they have to choose between Aegon and Dany.

The Dothraki and the Golden Company were to fight together in the name of Viserys III as per Tristan Rivers during the war council in ADwD. It seems that the Golden Company (and possibly even Aegon, although that's not confirmed) were to be part of the Dothraki invasion.

Thus it seems that nobody wanted to make Viserys III appear an incompetent or evil 'Dothraki-backed' king - but rather as the original figurehead of the Targaryen restoration who would, after the war was won, would then suffer an accident after he acknowledged Prince Aegon as his presumptive heir.

People were speculating a lot about Varys/Illyrio creating a rift between the Targaryen factions, but the way ADwD presents it the first time anybody seriously considered not working with Viserys/Dany was when Tyrion fed Aegon that idea, and he repeated it at the council.

Robert doesn't think so, yes, but he is pretty much imagining the worst-case scenario. As for what Tristan Rivers says, we do not know the exact details - all we know is that Dothraki and Golden Company were to invade Westeros together. But again, no details - and it is unlikely Varys wanted Viserys on the Iron Throne, in which case having Viserys with Dothraki would serve well as it would make him less preferable candidate for the throne.

Viserys, I think, was to serve as a bait or contrast, to make Aegon look all that better.

12 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

But what does this have to do with her view of Westerosi lords? You might be able to make a case for her desire to crush "the Usurper and his dogs" but they're all dead. What is the evidence she has beef with the remaining people of Westeros, and what reason has she to equate them with the slavers?

 

Again, I am talking about where previous tendencies might take her when exaggerated - as for why they would be, see her last chapters - hallucinations she has in the Dothraki Sea.

12 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

There is actually no intention that the Dothraki being seen as savages is seen as a problem in the propaganda department. Robert doesn't think Viserys III will suffer from his support by the Dothraki savages but will think the Targaryen loyalists will join them.

And our case here is that the dragons and the Dothraki and the other forces will have a similar effect on the Targaryen loyalists and other lords joining Aegon for now when they are in a position where they have to choose between Aegon and Dany.

The Dothraki and the Golden Company were to fight together in the name of Viserys III as per Tristan Rivers during the war council in ADwD. It seems that the Golden Company (and possibly even Aegon, although that's not confirmed) were to be part of the Dothraki invasion.

Thus it seems that nobody wanted to make Viserys III appear an incompetent or evil 'Dothraki-backed' king - but rather as the original figurehead of the Targaryen restoration who would, after the war was won, would then suffer an accident after he acknowledged Prince Aegon as his presumptive heir.

People were speculating a lot about Varys/Illyrio creating a rift between the Targaryen factions, but the way ADwD presents it the first time anybody seriously considered not working with Viserys/Dany was when Tyrion fed Aegon that idea, and he repeated it at the council.

If she truly brings 100 000 Dothraki with her, they may well be.

12 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

And says nothing to challenge Robert's view that people will rise for a Targ with a Dothraki army at their back.

True. But that was when there was no Targaryen already in Westeros.

 

[Hodor the Articulate]

9 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Again, I am talking about where previous tendencies might take her when exaggerated - as for why they would be, see her last chapters - hallucinations she has in the Dothraki Sea.

Dany last chapter in ADWD is about her finding the strength to keep fighting the slavers. It has nothing to do with exaggerating her tendencies. And as I just said, her moments of black-and-white thinking are borne out of her age and lack of knowledge & experience. I see no connection between this and her equating Westerosi to the Masters.

If you're trying say she'll refuse to see Westerosi lords who don't immediately flock to her as anything but evil, well that's just bunk. I gave you Barristan as one example of a "traitor" she almost immediately forgives and trusts because she gets to know him. She would have given Jorah the same had he not demanded she forgive him in front of her court, and he was spying her on for "the Usurper"! There's also her hostages, who she refuses to harm because they're innocent of their fathers' crimes.

9 hours ago, Aldarion said:

If she truly brings 100 000 Dothraki with her, they may well be.

Why?

9 hours ago, Aldarion said:

True. But that was when there was no Targaryen already in Westeros.

No, we're doing this again. I asked you to address this very thing here but you deflected and said "I am not certain loyalty to Targaryens would have made Dothraki palatable".

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Dany last chapter in ADWD is about her finding the strength to keep fighting the slavers. It has nothing to do with exaggerating her tendencies. And as I just said, her moments of black-and-white thinking are borne out of her age and lack of knowledge & experience. I see no connection between this and her equating Westerosi to the Masters.

It doesn't matter where her moments of black-and-white thinking are borne out of. Fact is that they exist.

Quote

“You have no lack of enemies, Your Grace. You can see their
pyramids from your terrace. Zhak, Hazkar, Ghazeen, Merreq,
Loraq, all the old slaving families. Pahl. Pahl, most of all. A house
of women now. Bitter old women with a taste for blood. Women do
not forget. Women do not forgive.”
No, Dany thought, and the Usurper’s dogs will learn that, when I return to Westeros.

Quote

“Never. That was Lannister work, Your Grace.”
“Lannister or Stark, what difference? Viserys used to call them
the Usurper’s dogs. If a child is set upon by a pack of hounds, does it matter which one tears out
his throat? All the dogs are just as guilty.

She also often chooses easier path out. When she nailed Masters to crosses, she did not even try to find out which of them had been guilty of the crime she punished them for. And then she tries to cooperate with them - because she has to, but it was apparently not something she considered earlier. She wants to rule Mereen and "help the people", yet at every-other turn she thinks how she despises Mereeneese, their customs and so on.

As I have already pointed out, she actually is not doing that bad of a job in Mereen - but she doesn't see it that way. All changes that are happening come too slow for her taste.

Quote

Dany scarce touched a bite. This is peace, she told herself. This is what I wanted, what I worked
for, this is why I married Hizdahr. So why does it taste so much like defeat?
“It is only for a little while more, my love,” Hizdahr had assured
her. “The Yunkai’i will soon be gone, and their allies and hirelings
with them. We shall have all we desired. Peace, food, trade. Our port is open once again, and
ships are being permitted to come and go.”
“They are permitting that, yes,” she had replied, “but their warships remain. They can close their
fingers around our throat
again whenever they wish. They have opened a slave market within sight of my walls! ”
“Outside our walls, sweet queen. That was a condition of the peace, that Yunkai would be free to
trade in slaves as before, unmolested.”

Quote

All of the entertainers were slaves. That had been part of the peace, that slaveowners be allowed
the right to bring their chattels into Meereen without fear of having them freed. In return the
Yunkai’i had promised to respect the rights and liberties of the former slaves that Dany had freed.
A fair bargain, Hizdahr said, but
the taste it left in the queen’s mouth was foul. She drank another cup of wine to wash it out.

And she is also getting paranoid:

Quote

The tumblers who came next failed to move her either, even when
they formed a human pyramid nine levels high, with a naked little girl on top. Is that meant to
represent my pyramid? the queen wondered. Is the girl on top meant to be me?

Now, considering who exactly she is dealing with, it is not that weird. But once you establish yourself in a pattern of thinking, it is hard to change. And she will almost certainly brought way of thinking she formed in Mereen to Westeros.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

The tumblers who came next failed to move her either, even when
they formed a human pyramid nine levels high, with a naked little girl on top. Is that meant to
represent my pyramid? the queen wondered. Is the girl on top meant to be me?

Again, you are conflating Daenerys as she is - or rather was, before Meereen - with Daenerys which has started appearing in her last few chapters. Those are not the same personalities.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

No, we're doing this again. I asked you to address this very thing here but you deflected and said "I am not certain loyalty to Targaryens would have made Dothraki palatable".

And again, that is what Robert and possibly Ned believed. We do not know whether it would happen that way, since Viserys' invasion did not happen.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It doesn't matter where her moments of black-and-white thinking are borne out of. Fact is that they exist.

She also often chooses easier path out. When she nailed Masters to crosses, she did not even try to find out which of them had been guilty of the crime she punished them for. And then she tries to cooperate with them - because she has to, but it was apparently not something she considered earlier. She wants to rule Mereen and "help the people", yet at every-other turn she thinks how she despises Mereeneese, their customs and so on.

As I have already pointed out, she actually is not doing that bad of a job in Mereen - but she doesn't see it that way. All changes that are happening come too slow for her taste.

And she is also getting paranoid:

Now, considering who exactly she is dealing with, it is not that weird. But once you establish yourself in a pattern of thinking, it is hard to change. And she will almost certainly brought way of thinking she formed in Mereen to Westeros.

 

Again, you are conflating Daenerys as she is - or rather was, before Meereen - with Daenerys which has started appearing in her last few chapters. Those are not the same personalities.

And again, that is what Robert and possibly Ned believed. We do not know whether it would happen that way, since Viserys' invasion did not happen.

What she despises is enslavement and making people fight to the death.  And yes, to an extent, that is "their customs" but I think there are limits to moral relativism. 

The thing is no Great Master would consider that the crucifixion of a slave child is a crime.  There is no evidence of any party of abolitionists or people standing up for the rights of slave children in Slavers Bay.  They view their slaves in much the same light as a West Indian planation owner in the 18th century would - as property - and one can do as one pleases with property. To a Great Master, every one of the 163 was innocent, for the destruction of one's own property is no crime. Nobody is arguing along the lines of "well, that one was guilty, so he deserved to die, but that other one had nothing to do with it."

Aside from the fact, that our notions of individual guilt or innocence are very modern, and very Western, constructs.  Historically, and still through much of the world, people took the view that if your group does something bad, your group pays the price.

As I see it, she had a treaty with Yunkai in ASOS, which prohibited them from engaging in the slave trade.  As a result of military pressure, she had to concede that the Yunkish masters could resume slave-trading, and that Astapor would resume slave-trading as well.  She was forced to tolerate a slave market outside Meereen, and to permit slaves to be brought in and out of the city.  She also had to compensate the Yunkish for the slaves which she liberated.  The direction of travel is all in the direction of reinstating slavery.  I don't see how any reader could really conclude that those are positive developments.   Sooner or later, the Green Grace and Hizdahr would be demanding the restoration of slavery in Meereen (perhaps they'd call it something like "indentured service."). She had begun to rule like Aenys I, when she needs to be Aegon I, or Jaehaerys I.

[Rose of Red Lake]

4 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Dany last chapter in ADWD is about her finding the strength to keep fighting the slavers

Are you sure thats right? She doesnt think at all about them, or slavery in that dialogue she has with herself. 

And if she really felt like she needed to pump herself up to fight slavers, why is she thinking she's a queen who belongs in Westeros? If you're interpretation is true, wouldnt she be resolving herself to stay and fight by ruling in Essos for like, as long as necessaryto protect her people?

I think most of that chapter is a justification in her head for why she had to stay in Meereen vs. why she has to leave there. Its like Smeagol arguing with Gollum in the way it is written. The prestige of being a Targaryen ruling in Westeros and exacting her revenge on the dogs is like her One Ring, and she's chosen that. 

The "you must not forget who you are"  part is exactly the same line she had when she thought about staying in the khalasar as Drogo's wife, and when she thought about building a city in Vaes Tolerro. 

She thinks sticking around in Essos being a queen who rules differently through soft power (because that IS different than whatever Essos has seen) means, forgetting what Viserys wanted and what he taught her.

[SeanF]

WRT Dothraki fighting abilities, it's the rule of cool.  If the author says that they can overwhelm the average Westerosi army in the field, they can do.

So, the defenders would have to adopt similar tactics to the French, between 1370-1380.  Avoid battle, rely on your strongholds, and harass the enemy, who can't supply themselves for ever.

 

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

What she despises is enslavement and making people fight to the death.  And yes, to an extent, that is "their customs" but I think there are limits to moral relativism. 

The thing is no Great Master would consider that the crucifixion of a slave child is a crime.  There is no evidence of any party of abolitionists or people standing up for the rights of slave children in Slavers Bay.  They view their slaves in much the same light as a West Indian planation owner in the 18th century would - as property - and one can do as one pleases with property. To a Great Master, every one of the 163 was innocent, for the destruction of one's own property is no crime. Nobody is arguing along the lines of "well, that one was guilty, so he deserved to die, but that other one had nothing to do with it."

Aside from the fact, that our notions of individual guilt or innocence are very modern, and very Western, constructs.  Historically, and still through much of the world, people took the view that if your group does something bad, your group pays the price.

As I see it, she had a treaty with Yunkai in ASOS, which prohibited them from engaging in the slave trade.  As a result of military pressure, she had to concede that the Yunkish masters could resume slave-trading, and that Astapor would resume slave-trading as well.  She was forced to tolerate a slave market outside Meereen, and to permit slaves to be brought in and out of the city.  She also had to compensate the Yunkish for the slaves which she liberated.  The direction of travel is all in the direction of reinstating slavery.  I don't see how any reader could really conclude that those are positive developments.   Sooner or later, the Green Grace and Hizdahr would be demanding the restoration of slavery in Meereen (perhaps they'd call it something like "indentured service."). She had begun to rule like Aenys I, when she needs to be Aegon I, or Jaehaerys I.

What I am talking about here is not whether changes should be made, but how changes should be made. It is an old adage about cooking the frog. She is trying to achieve too much too quickly, and even despite that, she still has no patience for it. That is why I believe her efforts in Slaver's Bay will collapse the moment she leaves: she has engaged into something that takes lifetimes, yet all the breakneck progress she has made so far is still not enough for her.

RE: individual guilt, I would like to point out that Roman law - and later Byzantine law - considers guilt a personal thing. It actually appears quite early in history, so while it may be "Western", it is far from "modern". Ancient (and medieval) people were lot more advanced than many today think; if anything, we are in many ways degenerate compared to them.

Personally, I believe that rather than freeing all the slaves - as she did - she should have tried to introduce something akin to colonate. That way, Masters would not have lost their servants, but slaves would no longer be slaves and would achieve a measurable improvement in their conditions.

[SeanF]

38 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

What I am talking about here is not whether changes should be made, but how changes should be made. It is an old adage about cooking the frog. She is trying to achieve too much too quickly, and even despite that, she still has no patience for it. That is why I believe her efforts in Slaver's Bay will collapse the moment she leaves: she has engaged into something that takes lifetimes, yet all the breakneck progress she has made so far is still not enough for her.

RE: individual guilt, I would like to point out that Roman law - and later Byzantine law - considers guilt a personal thing. It actually appears quite early in history, so while it may be "Western", it is far from "modern". Ancient (and medieval) people were lot more advanced than many today think; if anything, we are in many ways degenerate compared to them.

Personally, I believe that rather than freeing all the slaves - as she did - she should have tried to introduce something akin to colonate. That way, Masters would not have lost their servants, but slaves would no longer be slaves and would achieve a measurable improvement in their conditions.

The Romans, and medieval leaders, frequently imposed collective punishments on defeated tribes, and cities.

WRT your suggestion, that implies that the masters have an entitlement to the labour of their serfs, which I do not accept.   It also gives them complete economic dominance over them.  The serfs would be bound to their masters' estates, subject to their jurisdiction, require their permission to marry, be subject to corporal punishment or required to wear chains, and require their permission to pursue other trades.   In essence, their masters could do anything to them except kill or permanently maim them.  I don't consider that to be in any way just towards people who have been kidnapped, or else born into slavery.

My own view is that over the course of several centuries, the masters of Slavers Bay, have proved their unfitness to rule, through their exercise of extreme cruelty, and their kidnapping of free people.  Nor are they needed.  Skilled and professional occupations are largely practised by the slaves and freedmen.  The masters are essentially parasitical.