Which Westerosi war was the best written?

[The Bard of Banefort]

I've seen a lot of critiques of the Westerosi wars over the years, and whether they were written in a way that was believable: there was no reason for the Reach to support Aerys, the Greens were chumps compared to the Blacks, the Blackfyres never truly had enough strength to take on the Targaryens, etc. In your opinion, which Westerosi war was the most believable, from start to finish? 

[Floki of the Ironborn]

22 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I've seen a lot of critiques of the Westerosi wars over the years, and whether they were written in a way that was believable: there was no reason for the Reach to support Aerys, the Greens were chumps compared to the Blacks, the Blackfyres never truly had enough strength to take on the Targaryens, etc. In your opinion, which Westerosi war was the most believable, from start to finish? 

Personally, I don't think the Dance of the Dragons was badly written at all. I thought the Black and the Green leaders had unique personalities and believable motivations for doing what they were doing. The battles made sense for the most part, and the twists and turns of the war were also fun to read about. There's only one glaringly obvious flaw: I don't buy the supposedly infamous Fishfeed only resulting in 2000 casualties on both sides. This is supposedly the battle which breaks the back of the Westerlands' armies, so I ignore the claim the 2000 number. 

[Loose Bolt]

5 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Personally, I don't think the Dance of the Dragons was badly written at all. I thought the Black and the Green leaders had unique personalities and believable motivations for doing what they were doing. The battles made sense for the most part, and the twists and turns of the war were also fun to read about. There's only one glaringly obvious flaw: I don't buy the supposedly infamous Fishfeed only resulting in 2000 casualties on both sides. This is supposedly the battle which breaks the back of the Westerlands' armies, so I ignore the claim the 2000 number. 

If among those 2000 casualties were enough nobles like members of major houses and landed knights then it would make sense that why westerlanders lost their will and ability to fight anymore. After all some people are always more equal than others and so losing too many members of their ruling class might have been terrible lost for that kingdom. 

[Floki of the Ironborn]

1 hour ago, Loose Bolt said:

If among those 2000 casualties were enough nobles like members of major houses and landed knights then it would make sense that why westerlanders lost their will and ability to fight anymore. After all some people are always more equal than others and so losing too many members of their ruling class might have been terrible lost for that kingdom. 

Based on the descriptions of the Dance, it's implied that the Westerlands' strength was so spent that they couldn't defend themselves from the Red Kraken. I refuse to believe that a place which could raise tens of thousands of men before and after the Dance would be wiped out after just 2000 casualties.

It's also more than just that. It just makes no sense in relation to the nature of the other battles of the war. Tens of thousands of men were supposed to have died during the war, and if the Fishfeed is supposed to be the bloodiest battle, with 2000 dead, you really can't make the numbers match up to the description. Just look at the Butcher's Ball, where a whole army numbering just under 4000 was supposedly massacred, and the Battles of Tumbleton, which clearly resulted in casualties which exceed the Fishfeed. Someone also made a post on this forum about how if you looked at the way GRRM describes the Fishfeed, the casualties make no sense. The implication of the 2000-mark is that the majority of the dead would be Winter Wolves, while virtually none of their allies would have suffered any casualties whatsoever. I see it as a goof on GRRM's part, nothing more. And honestly, it's not a big deal, nor does it diminish the rest of the Dance. 

[Canon Claude]

I like the First Blackfyre Rebellion, but I feel like we don’t know the full story at all. I’d love to get a big Dance treatment of the battles fought during that rebellion, since it took place across Westeros, and it didn’t have any dragons so that means larger armies than the Dance used. And it seemed like a damn near thing, given that Daemon was only defeated by archery. 

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

8 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I've seen a lot of critiques of the Westerosi wars over the years, and whether they were written in a way that was believable: there was no reason for the Reach to support Aerys, the Greens were chumps compared to the Blacks, the Blackfyres never truly had enough strength to take on the Targaryens, etc. In your opinion, which Westerosi war was the most believable, from start to finish? 

The conquest of Westeros by Aegon i ,

[Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe]

8 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Personally, I don't think the Dance of the Dragons was badly written at all. I thought the Black and the Green leaders had unique personalities and believable motivations for doing what they were doing. The battles made sense for the most part, and the twists and turns of the war were also fun to read about. There's only one glaringly obvious flaw: I don't buy the supposedly infamous Fishfeed only resulting in 2000 casualties on both sides. This is supposedly the battle which breaks the back of the Westerlands' armies, so I ignore the claim the 2000 number. 

I still have questions for what was going on in the Westerlands. If you notice a discrepancy in the recorded history, it’s usually a hidden plot line. Martin makes no mistakes.

like Aegon the conqueror started out as a mercenary/sellsword. Have dragon will ride kinda dude. Never a Targaryen wanted anything from the West, just Eastern ambitions. So was he just hired to kill a few kings for someone and then decided to just keep it all for himself?

[Canon Claude]

14 minutes ago, Eliscat said:

Martin makes no mistakes.

Even GRRM would disagree with that.

[Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe]

8 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

Even GRRM would disagree with that.

Martin lies! He’s to humble to admit his infallibility. His statements are a deception, a ruse, just to throw us off the scent. I for one shall not be thrown off the trail of truth! Tally-ho~! Onward to the undiscovered territory!

[Aldarion]

1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Based on the descriptions of the Dance, it's implied that the Westerlands' strength was so spent that they couldn't defend themselves from the Red Kraken. I refuse to believe that a place which could raise tens of thousands of men before and after the Dance would be wiped out after just 2000 casualties.

It's also more than just that. It just makes no sense in relation to the nature of the other battles of the war. Tens of thousands of men were supposed to have died during the war, and if the Fishfeed is supposed to be the bloodiest battle, with 2000 dead, you really can't make the numbers match up to the description. Just look at the Butcher's Ball, where a whole army numbering just under 4000 was supposedly massacred, and the Battles of Tumbleton, which clearly resulted in casualties which exceed the Fishfeed. Someone also made a post on this forum about how if you looked at the way GRRM describes the Fishfeed, the casualties make no sense. The implication of the 2000-mark is that the majority of the dead would be Winter Wolves, while virtually none of their allies would have suffered any casualties whatsoever. I see it as a goof on GRRM's part, nothing more. And honestly, it's not a big deal, nor does it diminish the rest of the Dance. 

Actually, nature of feudal system makes such a scenario possible, if not necessarily likely. When Ottomans attacked Belgrade in 1456., there was basically nobody to oppose them except for John Hunyadi, some papal troops, some minor nobility and a peasant army. But no major organized force the likes of which were fielded at Varna and Kosovo. Reason for this was the Battle of Kosovo itself: majority of Hungarian magnates were wiped out, and minor nobility suffered serious casualties as well. Since nobility made up administrative apparatus of a feudal state, such as it was, this meant that even those troops that were available were in no position to be raised.

So if Westerlands nobility, for some reason, suffered disproportionate casualties to an extent that it prevented the efficient mobilization, then it is possible than they wouldn't have been able to defend themselves despite casualties being relatively minor in absolute terms.

But yeah, Martin does not really care for numbers, logistics or logic in general that much. Which drives me crazy, but his strengths are characterization and storytelling.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

None, they all have quite glaring problems

[Eltharion21]

Personally I believe War of the Five Kings has most of the effort invested in to it, following by Robert's Rebellion.

Huge problem with the Dance is that it was added after the "main lore", so it had to cover the fall of the Dragonriding Targaryen dynasty, but also houses that were on either side - still remained powerful despite supposed huge losses .

Hightower, Lannister, Baratheon mostly, only major house that has truly declined were the Velaryons, though immediately after the war they still were major naval power in Westeros.

Then we also have Riverlands who should have been devastated, yet despite huge losses they were almost exclusively involved in all the battles Black side waged and won most of them, which is disbelieving at best, Martin could at least added some Vale forces as aid in later stages of war.

 

[Loose Bolt]

3 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Based on the descriptions of the Dance, it's implied that the Westerlands' strength was so spent that they couldn't defend themselves from the Red Kraken. I refuse to believe that a place which could raise tens of thousands of men before and after the Dance would be wiped out after just 2000 casualties

Just in theory some super ninjas could practically lobotomize USA by killing 2000 people. Both sitting and elected (vice)presidents 4, senators 100, congress(man/woman) 435, Supreme Court 9, Governors 50, 5 Territorial governors and about 1400 another VIPs in USA.

[Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe]

18 minutes ago, Loose Bolt said:

Just in theory some super ninjas could practically lobotomize USA by killing 2000 people. Both sitting and elected (vice)presidents 4, senators 100, congress(man/woman) 435, Supreme Court 9, Governors 50, 5 Territorial governors and about 1400 another VIPs in USA.

Super ninjas. Ya never see them coming

[Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe]

5 kings is my vote. All that blood spilled because of a fallen boy. Pride, ego, and the want of holding power. Just a few people, committing  a single action, gives birth to war, over an entire world. And this one we get to see most of.

[SeanF]

I think the War of the Five Kings is described the best.  An utterly futile contest really.  A group of dynasts destroying each other and themselves, similar in its way to the power struggle that followed the death of Alexander the Great.

[TheLastWolf]

The War between Cersei and Robert? 

[Quoth the raven,]

17 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I've seen a lot of critiques of the Westerosi wars over the years, and whether they were written in a way that was believable: there was no reason for the Reach to support Aerys, the Greens were chumps compared to the Blacks, the Blackfyres never truly had enough strength to take on the Targaryens, etc. In your opinion, which Westerosi war was the most believable, from start to finish? 

Believable?  This is fantasy.  Exaggerations are expected and worked into the story itself.  The ones which are most like real life conflicts during a medieval period are the constant fighting between the kingdoms before the Conquest.  Family loyalty and arrogance caused a setting in which these great houses are forever fighting.  Which in turn made life hell for the people below them. 

[Lion of the West]

12 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

If among those 2000 casualties were enough nobles like members of major houses and landed knights then it would make sense that why westerlanders lost their will and ability to fight anymore. After all some people are always more equal than others and so losing too many members of their ruling class might have been terrible lost for that kingdom. 

I feel that this don't make much sense. There are always more commoner soldiers around to fight and die than there are nobles. To quote a series on the medieval period about a civil war in my country in the 12th century.

"Noble men dies last in war." Which means if so many nobles are falling, there have been even more dramatic losses among the commoner soldiers.

[The Young Maester]

There are faults in almost every war in Westeros. The only one so far would be the Greyjoy rebellion. But that’s because we don’t have that much detail on it. Especially compared with the war of five kings and the dance.