Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Merling King

What would happen if you removed dragons from The Dance of the Dragons?

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Loyalty is fine but not enough for winning a war. Most Lords change theirs as power of rulers waxes and wanes.

Fair enough.

 

20 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Riverlands also was divided initially - when Brackens and Harrenhall were taken that turned tables, and Houses started joining for Blacks. Tullys' were actually neutral since aging Lord Grover supported Aegon II as a man of principles, Vances of Ataranta also were for Aegon II. 

Well not really. Daemon made clear that they had a lot of supporters, they only needed a place as rallying point. Ie, those lords already supported her. And the only Greens in the Riverlands were those three Houses, everyone else supported the Blacks. 

The reason the Lords of the Trident were so weary was... Well, dragons. 

 

 

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

King's Landing would be difficult to besiege in proximity of Storm's End and if they no longer hold the naval supremacy- without Dragons.

So, the Greens loyalists do stay the same however.  

 

 

20 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Dragons - though significant, were hardly main power of the Greens   whose main power is House Hightower - the real Kingmaker in the story. At the beginning of conflict Martin claims that forces of Black council are inferior to Hightowers "All their hosts combined could not match the power the Hightowers alone could field."

Sure, if Stannis is any measure that's an obvious. Yet the only reason the Hightowers made it so far was Tessarion.

 

 

20 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Greens would had used funds for mercenaries, their losses weren't as significant as those of Blacks, main casualties were death of Important commanders, without dragons as weapons of mass destruction- war would had stalled for longer time. Funds were taken to Casterly Rock, Braavos and Oldtown for safekeeping and they could had finance war for longer then Blacks especially North with issue of Winter.

Without dragons, the Greens don't make it to Tumbleton, the Lannisters are remain as routed and the Stormlords are as defeated. The Greens wouldn't have also no means to keep their own source of direct power, since they on their own could have never subdued the Crownlands, which were also overwhelmingly for Rhaenrya.

 

20 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Dustin and old Wolves who came to die, during Fishfeed he got 2/3rd's of his men killed.  Total casualties came to around 2000 for each side. Butcher's Ball wasn't a battle. He managed to kill Lord Ormund Hightower and Ser Bryndon Hightower - but died to the wounds latter had given him- great warrior - not so much of a commander.

I wont deem myself to consider either bunch of Muppets who came to war late, Crash Bandicoot which seems like he belongs in fairy tale or Pate the trampled as anything meaningful.

Commanders and men present during the Fishfeed, Butcher's Ball and First Tumbleton aren't the same as those in Second Tumbleton and Kingsroad and last battle is mostly success due to failure of Lord Borros Baratheon.

So, people are not commanders nor are they meaningful, even when their accomplishments say otherwise, due your personal taste.

 

 

20 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

If you don't know that you are blinder than Aemond One-Eye. Act of murdering Viserys grandchild alone moved chain of events that costed Rhaenyra her crown, life along with her son and all dragons in her care. 

Aegon I should have never conquered Westeros. That act alone started a chain of events that costed his family its dragons and left them on the verge of extinction.

:rolleyes:

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Betrayers wouldn't settle for anything less than becoming Kings themselves fault wasn't in their rewards but their character:

After they were given lesser prizes they aimed at the top. That and the fact that the fiercest dragons of the war had just died.

 

 

20 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Repeating things  doesn't make them true.

Stannis would had given meaningful and timely support to the Greens, unlike Borros who waited for coast to clear. Hindsight isn't needed. Stannis knows his history and strength of each House in Westeros.

Neither does wishing something not to be true.

Would he?? Stannis would have faced the dragons in a brawl that interesar him in nothing??

The same Stannis who only attacked Renly once he had magic with him and before that left King's Landing and locked himself up in Dragonstone?? Such faith. 

 

 

20 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

If they had won - they would prepare King's Landing for Northern siege- House Hightower still had strength  and mercenaries could had been recruited.  North if defeated wouldn't manage to return for years because of Winter. 

The Hightowers were not going to help them, point well made by Velaryon. The Mercs would not arrive in time.

And i don't see why Winter is any impediment for the North. They have to decide whether freezing to death in the North or plunder in the South.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a better question: what would happen if GRRM did not introduce the dragons and instead went forward with his original idea of pyrokinesis?

Some of you might know that at the dawn of writing ASOIAF, GRRM was not sure about having dragons in the story. Instead, he considered pyrokinesis as the special Targaryen power.

Quote

I did consider in the very early stages not having the dragons in there. I wanted the Targaryen’s symbol to be the dragons, but I did play with the notion that maybe it was like a psionic power, that it was pyrokinesis — that they could conjure up flames with their minds. I went back and forth. My friend and fellow fantasy writer Phyllis Eisenstein actually was the one who convinced me to put the dragons in, and I dedicated the third book to her. And I think it was the right call.

If we replace the dragons with pyrokinesis in the story, what would we gain and what would be lose?

First of all, consider how pyrokinesis would work with Dany's story. We would have a sight similar to what Yennefer did at the Battle of the Sodden Hill.

The benefits of pyrokinesis over the dragons:

  1. Pyrokinesis is much more personal. It is an integral part of a character whereas dragons are no more than just external tools for destruction. It is true that GRRM is trying to mystify the bond between the dragon and the rider but that can never be like pyrokinesis.
  2. Pyrokinesis is much more empowering for the character.
  3. Pyrokinesis should be harder to control than dragons, which plays better to Dany's ending.
  4. In a lot of scenarios, it would be easier to underestimate Dany if she had this latent ability over visible dragons that scream of power. This allows interesting storytelling possibilities. For example, consider the scenario where Dany burns khals to take over the Dothraki. In the books, Dany will do it with Drogon. If pyrokinesis remained, Dany would do it all by herself. Or consider Dany taking over the Unsullied. If Dany conjured fire from her hands to burn the slavers instead of giving a command word to a pet sized dragon, the awe and dedication of the Unsullied would be better grounded. As a matter of fact, her savior-messiah cult would be much better explained if she showed this pyrokinetic ability in a scale far grander than her ancestors instead of being a little girl with big dragons.

Of course, the dragons have their own advantages over pyrokinesis. The most important one would be the nuke metaphor. The ultimate power device that everyone covets would not work with pyrokinesis.

But then again, GRRM picked the dragons and wrote the story accordingly. If he proceeded with pyrokinesis, he would have written new stuff for certain parts.

Share this post


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

I have a better question: what would happen if GRRM did not introduce the dragons and instead went forward with his original idea of pyrokinesis?

Some of you might know that at the dawn of writing ASOIAF, GRRM was not sure about having dragons in the story. Instead, he considered pyrokinesis as the special Targaryen power.

If we replace the dragons with pyrokinesis in the story, what would we gain and what would be lose?

First of all, consider how pyrokinesis would work with Dany's story. We would have a sight similar to what Yennefer did at the Battle of the Sodden Hill.

The benefits of pyrokinesis over the dragons:

  1. Pyrokinesis is much more personal. It is an integral part of a character whereas dragons are no more than just external tools for destruction. It is true that GRRM is trying to mystify the bond between the dragon and the rider but that can never be like pyrokinesis.
  2. Pyrokinesis is much more empowering for the character.
  3. Pyrokinesis should be harder to control than dragons, which plays better to Dany's ending.
  4. In a lot of scenarios, it would be easier to underestimate Dany if she had this latent ability over visible dragons that scream of power. This allows interesting storytelling possibilities. For example, consider the scenario where Dany burns khals to take over the Dothraki. In the books, Dany will do it with Drogon. If pyrokinesis remained, Dany would do it all by herself. Or consider Dany taking over the Unsullied. If Dany conjured fire from her hands to burn the slavers instead of giving a command word to a pet sized dragon, the awe and dedication of the Unsullied would be better grounded. As a matter of fact, her savior-messiah cult would be much better explained if she showed this pyrokinetic ability in a scale far grander than her ancestors instead of being a little girl with big dragons.

Of course, the dragons have their own advantages over pyrokinesis. The most important one would be the nuke metaphor. The ultimate power device that everyone covets would not work with pyrokinesis.

But then again, GRRM picked the dragons and wrote the story accordingly. If he proceeded with pyrokinesis, he would have written new stuff for certain parts.

Pyrokinesis would be more terrifying than dragons, IMHO.  Imagine being able to burn someone alive with a thought.  Aerys II or Aerion Brightflame would have loved to have such powers. Melisandre's powers are not that dissimilar;  she burns Varamyr's eagle alive, almost driving him mad.  Compare, for example, Bayaz, in the First Law, who can burn someone alive, or cause them to explode, with a thought.

WRT the Dothraki, Dany might burn Khal Jhaqo - although it seems rather like a Mexican standoff to me.   But, I think it more likely she has to undergo some form of trial by ordeal at Vaes Dothrak, than we get anything like the show's version.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


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

Well not really. Daemon made clear that they had a lot of supporters, they only needed a place as rallying point. Ie, those lords already supported her. And the only Greens in the Riverlands were those three Houses, everyone else supported the Blacks. 

The reason the Lords of the Trident were so weary was... Well, dragons.

Thing is that victories and success , tend to sway calculating people- You try to describe them as staunchly loyal and one track minded - their primary concern is usually survival. 

Quoting the parts of text - fall of Harrenhal impacted first rallying of knights, men at arms, peasants, Riverlords started joining after feeling where the wind is blowing, even so Tullys remained neutral still. Inaction of Ser Otto Hightower was possibly seen as weakness and many Houses swayed to Black side because of initial victories - given by Daemon on Caraxes. 

Quote

The sudden, bloodless fall of Black Harren’s seat was counted a great victory for Queen Rhaenyra and her blacks. It served as a sharp reminder of the martial prowess of Prince Daemon and the power of Caraxes, the Blood Wyrm, and gave the queen a stronghold in the heart of Westeros, to which her supporters could rally…and Rhaenyra had many such in the lands watered by the Trident.
...
 When Prince Daemon sent forth his call to arms, they rose up all along the rivers, knights and men-at-arms and humble peasants who yet remembered the Realm’s Delight, so beloved of her father, and the way she smiled and charmed them as she made her progress through the riverlands in her youth.
...
The lords of the Trident, having more to lose, were not so quick to move, but soon enough they too began to throw their lots in with the queen.
...
The fall of Harrenhal to Prince Daemon came as a great shock to His Grace, Munkun tells us. Until that moment, Aegon II had believed his half-sister’s cause to be hopeless. Harrenhal left His Grace feeling vulnerable for the first time. The subsequent defeats at the Burning Mill and Stone Hedge came as further blows, and made the king realize that his situation was more perilous than it had seemed. These fears deepened as ravens returned from the Reach, where the greens had believed themselves strongest. House Hightower and Oldtown were solidly behind King Aegon, and His Grace had the Arbor too…but elsewhere in the south, other lords were declaring for Rhaenyra, amongst them Lord Costayne of Three Towers, Lord Mullendore of Uplands

If Lord of Trident were weary because of dragons as Yourself claim - then Blacks should had more influence on them as they had much more of them. So Greens certainly benefit more if there are dragons out of the picture.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Without dragons, the Greens don't make it to Tumbleton, the Lannisters are remain as routed and the Stormlords are as defeated. The Greens wouldn't have also no means to keep their own source of direct power, since they on their own could have never subdued the Crownlands, which were also overwhelmingly for Rhaenrya.

At Honeywine Greens might be defeated, though it is question if all of those Houses ( Beesbury, Tarly, Rowan, Caswell and Costayne) would join instantly as there would be no fast Black victories in Riverlands to motivate them.

Even if loosing that army they could muster more, even after the fall of King's Landing this is said of their power:

Quote

The wealthiest of the great houses that had rallied to King Aegon II, the Hightowers remained in some ways the most dangerous, for they were capable of raising large new armies quickly from the streets of Oldtown, and with their own warships and those of their close kin, the Redwynes of the Arbor, they could float a significant fleet as well. Moreover, one-quarter of the Crown’s gold still rested in deep vaults beneath the Hightower, gold that could easily have been used to buy new alliances and hire sellsword companies. Oldtown had the power to renew the war; all that was lacking was the will.

If Harenhall isn't taken by the Daemon with help of Caraxes - then Lannister might not even launch campaign toward that city and foolhardy plan of Aemond to take it wouldn't necessarily happen.  Directions of maneuvers would change, focusing on  mainland houses  - with main threat being House Velaryon naval holdings - for which they had to use aid of Triarchy.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

So, people are not commanders nor are they meaningful, even when their accomplishments say otherwise, due your personal taste.

Their accomplishments are due to failure of other men , not their own exceeding worth. It is no matter of preference, it is a fact. They are also celebrated more since they are victors , as things usually are in histories.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Aegon I should have never conquered Westeros. That act alone started a chain of events that costed his family its dragons and left them on the verge of extinction.

No, since it happened many generations after, something he couldn't had prevented. He created great basis for a united kingdom, made new capital that was turning to the east in connection to the Essos, people still behold Iron Throne he made as a symbol of their realm, royal processions are practiced still, accepting most popular religion to appease population, Lords Paramount that he gave chance to bend the knee still give some structure to the realm stability unlike many wars before the conquest, right of first night...

Daemon is mostly responsible - of the people in that period for the fall of dynasty -  through his machinations, scheming and bad decisions, his one plan led to death of Aemond, himself, Vhagar and Caraxes, antagonizing Triarchy and abandoning Stepstones without definitive defeat of his adversary - caused them to return and surprise Velaryons with huge losses, list could go on.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

After they were given lesser prizes they aimed at the top. That and the fact that the fiercest dragons of the war had just died.

Daemon's idea was to destroy Houses Lannister and Baratheon,  give their realms to two betrayers, which would only dissolve entirety of feudal structure, disintegrate realm - turning it  to Iron Isles with dragonlords and give more support to betrayers who would turn unfaithful as soon as they could.  That was worst idea ever in history of bad ideas by Westeros lordlings.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Neither does wishing something not to be true.

Would he?? Stannis would have faced the dragons in a brawl that interesar him in nothing??

The same Stannis who only attacked Renly once he had magic with him and before that left King's Landing and locked himself up in Dragonstone?? Such faith. 

No, written evidence does.

I don't understand what you mean and especially word "interesar"?

Stannis fought often in battles with weaker force, there is bravery and stupidity, he had to be dragged off the battlefield of Blackwater- man is no craven , but cautious and realistic.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

The Hightowers were not going to help them, point well made by Velaryon. The Mercs would not arrive in time.

And i don't see why Winter is any impediment for the North. They have to decide whether freezing to death in the North or plunder in the South.

Hightowers had manpower, funds  to continue waging war - they lacked  only will - as quoted before.

If Aegon II accepted to send pardons to lord who bent the knee, it would reduce number of his enemies , and North isn't as secure in alliance with Southerners- so they cold exploit that discord, to deal with them individually.

North brought 20.000- 8.000 men depending of estimate - due to the Cregan Stark's "diplomatic" personality it is likely he would irritate his allies and might had even fight against them if war lasted bit longer - which it certainly would without dragons.

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


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

Pyrokinesis would be more terrifying than dragons, IMHO.  Imagine being able to burn someone alive with a thought.  Aerys II or Aerion Brightflame would have loved to have such powers. Melisandre's powers are not that dissimilar;  she burns Varamyr's eagle alive, almost driving him mad.  Compare, for example, Bayaz, in the First Law, who can burn someone alive, or cause them to explode, with a thought.

WRT the Dothraki, Dany might burn Khal Jhaqo - although it seems rather like a Mexican standoff to me.   But, I think it more likely she has to undergo some form of trial by ordeal at Vaes Dothrak, than we get anything like the show's version.

I don't think GRRM would give pyrokinesis to all the Targaryens, just like he didn't make all of them dragonriders. Also I expect this ability to come in different capacities. Some Targaryens would only conjure simple sparkles whereas some would burn hundreds by hand like Yennefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mithras said:

But then again, GRRM picked the dragons and wrote the story accordingly. If he proceeded with pyrokinesis, he would have written new stuff for certain parts.

I do agree with him that having dragons was the right call.  I'm curious, How do you think the Targs would have lost their powers in the Dance ?? By angering the gods?? Genetic curse/disease?? 

 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Thing is that victories and success , tend to sway calculating people- You try to describe them as staunchly loyal and one track minded - their primary concern is usually survival. 

Quoting the parts of text - fall of Harrenhal impacted first rallying of knights, men at arms, peasants, Riverlords started joining after feeling where the wind is blowing, even so Tullys remained neutral still. Inaction of Ser Otto Hightower was possibly seen as weakness and many Houses swayed to Black side because of initial victories - given by Daemon on Caraxes. 

?? Where do i say they are staunchly loyal or one track minded?? I'm only talking about where their support leaned to from the get go. Whether that support remains or not is a different thing,  as the Tullys proved, but that's not to say such support does not exist. And honestly. i do not know if you read your quotes.

 

Quote

“Storm’s End will stand with us,” Princess Rhaenys said. She herself was of that blood on her mother’s side, and the late Lord Boremund had always been the staunchest of friends. Prince Daemon had good reason to hope that the Maid of the Vale might bring the Eyrie to their side as well. Aegon would surely seek the support of Pyke, he judged; only with the support of the Iron Islands could Aegon hope to surpass the strength of House Velaryon at sea. But the ironmen were notoriously fickle, and Dalton Greyjoy loved blood and battle; he might easily be persuaded to support the princess. The North was too remote to be of much import in the fight, the council judged; by the time the Starks gathered their banners and marched south, the war might well be over. Which left only the riverlords, a notoriously quarrelsome lot ruled over, in name at least, by House Tully of Riverrun. “We have friends in the riverlands,” the prince said, “though not all of them dare show their colors yet. We need a place where they can gather, a toehold on the mainland large enough to house a sizable host, and strong enough to hold against whatever forces the usurper can send against us.” He showed the lords a map. “Here. Harrenhal.”

 

Quote

The sudden, bloodless fall of Black Harren’s seat was counted a great victory for Queen Rhaenyra and her blacks. It served as a sharp reminder of the martial prowess of Prince Daemon and the power of Caraxes, the Blood Wyrm, and gave the queen a stronghold in the heart of Westeros, to which her supporters could rally…and Rhaenyra had many such in the lands watered by the Trident. When Prince Daemon sent forth his call to arms, they rose up all along the rivers, knights and men-at-arms and humble peasants who yet remembered the Realm’s Delight, so beloved of her father, and the way she smiled and charmed them as she made her progress through the riverlands in her youth. Hundreds and then thousands buckled on their swordbelts and donned their mail, or grabbed a pitchfork or a hoe and a crude wooden shield, and began to make their way to Harrenhal to fight for Viserys’s little girl. The lords of the Trident, having more to lose, were not so quick to move, but soon enough they too began to throw their lots in with the queen. From the Twins rode Ser Forrest Frey, the very same “Fool Frey” who had once begged for Rhaenyra’s hand, now grown into a most puissant knight. Lord Samwell Blackwood, who had once lost a duel for her favor, raised her banners over Raventree. (Ser Amos Bracken, who had won that duel, followed his lord father when House Bracken declared for Aegon.) The Mootons of Maidenpool, the Pipers of Pinkmaiden Castle, the Rootes of Harroway, the Darrys of Darry, the Mallisters of Seagard, and the Vances of Wayfarer’s Rest all announced their support for Rhaenyra. (The Vances of Atranta took the other path, and trumpeted their allegiance to the young king.) Petyr Piper, the grizzled Lord of Pinkmaiden, spoke for many when he said, “I swore her my sword. I’m older now, but not so old that I’ve forgotten the words I said, and it happens I still have the sword.”

The text is proving you wrong and you keep misquoting. Those lords who responded slowly already supported Rhaenrya.

 

 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

If Lord of Trident were weary because of dragons as Yourself claim - then Blacks should had more influence on them as they had much more of them. So Greens certainly benefit more if there are dragons out of the picture.

Sure, the Tullys would have no reason to choose neutrality or the Blacks, that would be their gain however, the rest would not change, unless ofc you believe that people like Frey or Piper were faking it. The only House in the Riverlands who chose the Blacks coerced were the Tullys.

If there is no dragons there is no reason to believe that support would disappear, what would disappear however would their only reason of concern,

 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

At Honeywine Greens might be defeated, though it is question if all of those Houses ( Beesbury, Tarly, Rowan, Caswell and Costayne) would join instantly as there would be no fast Black victories in Riverlands to motivate them.

Even if loosing that army they could muster more, even after the fall of King's Landing this is said of their power:

It is your question, since at no point we're told that those events were correlated and that they were motivated by such victories. 

I don't know how were they going to muster another army if Ormund Hightower were to be captured, if not they would be led by a child and the Tyrells still had one of the Higtowers as ward. With all the major leaders in the Reach either captured or killed... how well do you think that campaign would've gone??

 

 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

If Harenhall isn't taken by the Daemon with help of Caraxes - then Lannister might not even launch campaign toward that city and foolhardy plan of Aemond to take it wouldn't necessarily happen.  Directions of maneuvers would change, focusing on  mainland houses  - with main threat being House Velaryon naval holdings - for which they had to use aid of Triarchy.

Might, might not.  The reason Aemond had the strenght to think of that plan were the dragons he used to subdue the Crownlands. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Their accomplishments are due to failure of other men , not their own exceeding worth. It is no matter of preference, it is a fact. They are also celebrated more since they are victors , as things usually are in histories.

Most of militarily victories are due to failure of other men, so it is a matter of preference. Given that the same armies would remain, leading by the same men without the context of dragons, the outcome would by logic be the same, especially if your believe that Martin depicted the Green leadership as unbelievably idiots is somewhat true.

 

 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

No, since it happened many generations after, something he couldn't had prevented. He created great basis for a united kingdom, made new capital that was turning to the east in connection to the Essos, people still behold Iron Throne he made as a symbol of their realm, royal processions are practiced still, accepting most popular religion to appease population, Lords Paramount that he gave chance to bend the knee still give some structure to the realm stability unlike many wars before the conquest, right of first night...

Daemon is mostly responsible - of the people in that period for the fall of dynasty -  through his machinations, scheming and bad decisions, his one plan led to death of Aemond, himself, Vhagar and Caraxes, antagonizing Triarchy and abandoning Stepstones without definitive defeat of his adversary - caused them to return and surprise Velaryons with huge losses, list could go on.

I amazed that you're so capable of dismissing and then using the same fallacy. Daemon is responsoble for events beyond his control, yet Aegon is not.

 

 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Daemon's idea was to destroy Houses Lannister and Baratheon,  give their realms to two betrayers, which would only dissolve entirety of feudal structure, disintegrate realm - turning it  to Iron Isles with dragonlords and give more support to betrayers who would turn unfaithful as soon as they could.  That was worst idea ever in history of bad ideas by Westeros lordlings.

Giving Storm's End to the Baratheons dissolved the entire feudal society, disintegrate the realm and would later plunge the Realm in war, such a slippery slope :rolleyes:

The two betrayers already had inmense power, they had already two of the biggest dragons at the time. Better to keep them close.

 

 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

No, written evidence does.

I don't understand what you mean and especially word "interesar"?

Stannis fought often in battles with weaker force, there is bravery and stupidity, he had to be dragged off the battlefield of Blackwater- man is no craven , but cautious and realistic.

If they disprove you, i doubt so.

Sorry, I was asking you if Stannis would have faced the dragons if he gained so little.

The only battle Stannis has fought with a weaker force was at the Wall, and most of his enemies were camp followers. His famous victory at Fair Island was with him leading the Royal fleet and the Redwyne  fleet. And he had the superior force at the Blackwater.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Hightowers had manpower, funds  to continue waging war - they lacked  only will - as quoted before.

If Aegon II accepted to send pardons to lord who bent the knee, it would reduce number of his enemies , and North isn't as secure in alliance with Southerners- so they cold exploit that discord, to deal with them individually.

North brought 20.000- 8.000 men depending of estimate - due to the Cregan Stark's "diplomatic" personality it is likely he would irritate his allies and might had even fight against them if war lasted bit longer - which it certainly would without dragons.

Which is the same as "Hightowers would no longer help Aegon".

Aegon would not have accepted such thing, that's literally going against his character. 

 

15 minutes ago, Mithras said:

I don't think GRRM would give pyrokinesis to all the Targaryens, just like he didn't make all of them dragonriders. Also I expect this ability to come in different capacities. Some Targaryens would only conjure simple sparkles whereas some would burn hundreds by hand like Yennefer.

Yet they would still be undefeated. Besides it's harder to justify isn't it?? Wouldn't the Targs be viewed as warlocks and witches?? Being able to tame a creature as fearsome as a dragon and commanding it at your will gives you some gravitas. Burning people with your mind howevwer...

Edited by frenin

Share this post


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

I do agree with him that having dragons was the right call.  I'm curious, How do you think the Targs would have lost their powers in the Dance ?? By angering the gods?? Genetic curse/disease?? 

Well, they would still kill each other in the Dance just the same. After that, either because of excessive incest or not enough of it. But even before the Dance, not all the Targaryens would be "firebenders" and not all of them would bend it at the same skill level.  

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Yet they would still be undefeated. Besides it's harder to justify isn't it?? Wouldn't the Targs be viewed as warlocks and witches?? Being able to tame a creature as fearsome as a dragon and commanding it at your will gives you some gravitas. Burning people with your mind howevwer...

As GRRM said, the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords depended on their dragons. As long as the Targaryens could consistently burn masses with their minds, people wouldn't mind them being incestous warlocks and witches.

Edited by Mithras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2021 at 3:29 PM, frenin said:

?? Where do i say they are staunchly loyal or one track minded?? I'm only talking about where their support leaned to from the get go. Whether that support remains or not is a different thing,  as the Tullys proved, but that's not to say such support does not exist. And honestly. i do not know if you read your quotes.

In this thread you often repeat that loyalty of Black lords, especially Riverlanders and their supposed outstanding command skills would be enough to remedy exclusion of Dragons. Which clearly isn't enough.

I always try to support my arguments with quotes, trying to not repeat myself, check grammar and even try to understand your arguments, foolhardy as it gets.

On 1/22/2021 at 3:29 PM, frenin said:

The text is proving you wrong and you keep misquoting. Those lords who responded slowly already supported Rhaenrya.

Text is explicitly showing me right , without dragons Blacks couldn't take Harrenhall so easily that was held by Greens and use it for rallying, which would delay their gathering and sway some lords to other side. Lords had much more to loose than smallfolk, they would delay their actions when faced with uncertain outcome, as often in history.

Quote

We have friends in the riverlands,” the prince said, “though not all of them dare show their colors yet. We need a place where they can gather, a toehold on the mainland large enough to house a sizable host, and strong enough to hold against whatever forces the usurper can send against us.” He showed the lords a map. “Here. Harrenhal.”


It served as a sharp reminder of the martial prowess of Prince Daemon and the power of Caraxes, the Blood Wyrm, and gave the queen a stronghold in the heart of Westeros, to which her supporters could rally…and Rhaenyra had many such in the lands watered by the Trident.
The lords of the Trident, having more to lose, were not so quick to move, but soon enough they too began to throw their lots in with the queen. From the Twins rode Ser Forrest Frey, the very same “Fool Frey” who had once begged for Rhaenyra’s hand, now grown into a most puissant knight.

Lord Samwell Blackwood, who had once lost a duel for her favor, raised her banners over Raventree.
Petyr Piper, the grizzled Lord of Pinkmaiden, spoke for many when he said, “I swore her my sword. I’m older now, but not so old that I’ve forgotten the words I said, and it happens I still have the sword.”

 

On 1/22/2021 at 3:29 PM, frenin said:

Sure, the Tullys would have no reason to choose neutrality or the Blacks, that would be their gain however, the rest would not change, unless ofc you believe that people like Frey or Piper were faking it. The only House in the Riverlands who chose the Blacks coerced were the Tullys.

If there is no dragons there is no reason to believe that support would disappear, what would disappear however would their only reason of concern,

Dragons are main advantage of black side - therefore it would create ripple effect on everything especially on support of Lords, especially in Riverlands- which was chosen for first battlefield to converge and rally Rhaenyra's allies in one location. 

On 1/22/2021 at 3:29 PM, frenin said:

It is your question, since at no point we're told that those events were correlated and that they were motivated by such victories. 

I don't know how were they going to muster another army if Ormund Hightower were to be captured, if not they would be led by a child and the Tyrells still had one of the Higtowers as ward. With all the major leaders in the Reach either captured or killed... how well do you think that campaign would've gone??

They were certainly influenced by those victories, if not they would declare their support sooner. Hightowers would continue, if Otto Hightower still lived which he would.

Since the battle happens before Fishfeed, Butcher's Ball or Kingsroad - their allies would still be in good shape - Lannisters, Aegon's Crownlands, Baratheons and there would be will to wage war still.
Your argument is just repeating and falsely corelating their reaction in the end of Dance and devastation , there is no reason that sensible person would believe their choice would be the same after one early defeat.

On 1/22/2021 at 3:29 PM, frenin said:

Might, might not.  The reason Aemond had the strenght to think of that plan were the dragons he used to subdue the Crownlands. 

Aemond subdued diddly-squat, It was Ser Criston Cole's plan and leadership that got them to bounce back after initial defeats. Aemond was fierce, dangerous, yet both his plan for Harrenhall and burning of Riverlands while leaving his force were huge failures.

Greens had only 2 dragons at disposal near King's Landing - soon only Vhagar remained, who was real threat and it could be only in one place at time. Blacks could had far better utilized their advantage in spreading their dragon forces.

On 1/22/2021 at 3:29 PM, frenin said:

Most of militarily victories are due to failure of other men, so it is a matter of preference. Given that the same armies would remain, leading by the same men without the context of dragons, the outcome would by logic be the same, especially if your believe that Martin depicted the Green leadership as unbelievably idiots is somewhat true.

It is huge difference in opponent blundering on his own and guiding him to that fate. 
You would never say that  if you were familiar with deeds of great military minds like : Hannibal Barca, Flavius Belisarius, Robert E. Lee ( Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson), Napoleon, Frederick the Great and others.

There were idiots on both side of war, on Black side those were Daemon and Rhaenyra - in their political  decisions, which is more than enough for their side to loose if not for Corlys Velaryon.

On 1/22/2021 at 3:29 PM, frenin said:

I amazed that you're so capable of dismissing and then using the same fallacy. Daemon is responsoble for events beyond his control, yet Aegon is not.

Only fallacy besides your spelling is your logic.

Daemon influenced the fall of Targaryen dynasty through scheming since the time of Great Council 101 Ac until his own death - ordering death of Viserys grandchild for vengeance,  starting war with Triarchy and abandoning it, giving Mysaria, betrayers and corrupt Goldcloaks  positions of power, seducing Rhaenyra at young age and later marrying her without king's consent, up to his own timely death causing the death of two great dragons .

Aegon I conquered seven kingdoms and forged them in one, he couldn't have been responsible for things far after his death. Even his son Aenys had a chance to prove himself as a king, before Visenya and Maegor replaced him.

On 1/22/2021 at 3:29 PM, frenin said:

Giving Storm's End to the Baratheons dissolved the entire feudal society, disintegrate the realm and would later plunge the Realm in war, such a slippery slope :rolleyes:

The two betrayers already had inmense power, they had already two of the biggest dragons at the time. Better to keep them close.

No, Orys Baratheon married Aggrilac Durrandon's daughter, he took sigil, words and it was continuation of Storm Kings line by other name.  Targaryens didn't slaughter them all as was Daemon's plan during the Dance. :closedeyes:
Betrayers wanted it all.

On 1/22/2021 at 3:29 PM, frenin said:

If they disprove you, i doubt so.

Sorry, I was asking you if Stannis would have faced the dragons if he gained so little.

The only battle Stannis has fought with a weaker force was at the Wall, and most of his enemies were camp followers. His famous victory at Fair Island was with him leading the Royal fleet and the Redwyne  fleet. And he had the superior force at the Blackwater.

No sane commander would face dragons directly without means to deal with them. That is why Dance was characterized by smaller numbers of armies. 
 If  Stannis swore to Greens, he wouldn't have choice but to give them support, unlike Borros who had idea to join when dust settled and was far overconfident he could win war alone - charging uphill to defended positions.  Stormland forces would be of aid to their allies Lannisters and in King's Landing earlier. 


Stannis was outnumbered during Storm's End siege, Blackwater - combined forces of Lannisters with Tyrell relief force outnumbered his own, in incoming Battle of Ice he has fewer men than Bolton/Frey alliance.

On 1/22/2021 at 3:29 PM, frenin said:

Which is the same as "Hightowers would no longer help Aegon".

Aegon would not have accepted such thing, that's literally going against his character. 

Aegon II was dead when their status is quoted, they lost the will to fight, only his young daughter was alive at the time. 
Accepting peace wasn't in Aegon, Daemon, Aemond and also Rhaenyra's character, thank god for Corlys wisdom, pardons and peace deal that made Aegon III his uncle's heir.

This thread is "What would happen if you removed dragons from The Dance of the Dragons? " I consider it answered for my part.  Greens would find it more advantageous as  explicitly stated.

Since you wish to have some fanboyish argument "How my side is morally superior, smarter, better smelling, or whatever" feel free to make different thread, otherwise stick to the topic.

 

 

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pyrokensis vs. dragons - my take is that it would still result in hubris. They wanted to be exceptional. Consequences for that is falling exceptionally hard on their asses.

It might be interesting to remove all of their powers. Maybe readers would be able to see more clearly how they work to set themselves apart like white supremacists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2021 at 5:14 PM, Mithras said:

Well, they would still kill each other in the Dance just the same. After that, either because of excessive incest or not enough of it. But even before the Dance, not all the Targaryens would be "firebenders" and not all of them would bend it at the same skill level.  

Fair enough.

 

On 1/22/2021 at 5:14 PM, Mithras said:

As GRRM said, the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords depended on their dragons. As long as the Targaryens could consistently burn masses with their minds, people wouldn't mind them being incestous warlocks and witches.

Wouldn't do anything about it, but people did mind them being incestous and all, adding sorcery seems a little over the top. Not that they could do anything about it anyway but...

 

 

1 hour ago, Eltharion21 said:

In this thread you often repeat that loyalty of Black lords, especially Riverlanders and their supposed outstanding command skills would be enough to remedy exclusion of Dragons. Which clearly isn't enough.

I always try to support my arguments with quotes, trying to not repeat myself, check grammar and even try to understand your arguments, foolhardy as it gets.

I've already told you that support is not the same as action. And aren't you the one calling the greens incopetents?? I've not say a word about the Blacks being outstanding, even tho if that makes you happy i'll take it. I've stated they are better than the greens tho. 

About the later. That's nice.

 

 

1 hour ago, Eltharion21 said:

Text is explicitly showing me right , without dragons Blacks couldn't take Harrenhall so easily that was held by Greens and use it for rallying, which would delay their gathering and sway some lords to other side. Lords had much more to loose than smallfolk, they would delay their actions when faced with uncertain outcome, as often in history.

Hmm, no it isn't. The only reason they would not appear so soon is because of the dragons, you take that out of the equation and they have no impediment to show their colours. Yet when they do come, we're told who were they supporting and why.

 

Quote

 “We have friends in the riverlands,” the prince said, “though not all of them dare show their colors yet. We need a place where they can gather, a toehold on the mainland large enough to house a sizable host, and strong enough to hold against whatever forces the usurper can send against us.” He showed the lords a map. “Here. Harrenhal.”

 

Quote

The sudden, bloodless fall of Black Harren’s seat was counted a great victory for Queen Rhaenyra and her blacks. It served as a sharp reminder of the martial prowess of Prince Daemon and the power of Caraxes, the Blood Wyrm, and gave the queen a stronghold in the heart of Westeros, to which her supporters could rally…and Rhaenyra had many such in the lands watered by the Trident. 

 

Quote

The lords of the Trident, having more to lose, were not so quick to move, but soon enough they too began to throw their lots in with the queen. From the Twins rode Ser Forrest Frey, the very same “Fool Frey” who had once begged for Rhaenyra’s hand, now grown into a most puissant knight.Lord Samwell Blackwood, who had once lost a duel for her favor, raised her banners over Raventree.
Petyr Piper, the grizzled Lord of Pinkmaiden, spoke for many when he said, “I swore her my sword. I’m older now, but not so old that I’ve forgotten the words I said, and it happens I still have the sword.”

This apparently do not seem to you like a declaration of intentions. Those lords and knights already supported Rhaenrya.

Why would those lords be swayed to the other side without an apparent reason??

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Eltharion21 said:

The lords of the Trident, having more to lose, were not so quick to move, but soon enough they too began to throw their lots in with the queen. From the Twins rode Ser Forrest Frey, the very same “Fool Frey” who had once begged for Rhaenyra’s hand, now grown into a most puissant knight.Lord Samwell Blackwood, who had once lost a duel for her favor, raised her banners over Raventree.
Petyr Piper, the grizzled Lord of Pinkmaiden, spoke for many when he said, “I swore her my sword. I’m older now, but not so old that I’ve forgotten the words I said, and it happens I still have the sword.”

And i would believe you, if the lords that supported Rhaenrya were not counted as likely supporters from the get go. We're told when dragons affected the lords and we're told when they did not. 

 

1 hour ago, Eltharion21 said:

They were certainly influenced by those victories, if not they would declare their support sooner. Hightowers would continue, if Otto Hightower still lived which he would.

Since the battle happens before Fishfeed, Butcher's Ball or Kingsroad - their allies would still be in good shape - Lannisters, Aegon's Crownlands, Baratheons and there would be will to wage war still.
Your argument is just repeating and falsely corelating their reaction in the end of Dance and devastation , there is no reason that sensible person would believe their choice would be the same after one early defeat.

Sooner than what?? They declared their support once it was clear there was war. Otto Hightower is not the head of House Hightower, Ormund Hightower had three kids.

What Aegon's crownslands?? Only the Thornes supported him.

And weren't you the one arguing about Green incompetence?? I'm not saying the war would unfold as it did, i'm stating that Blacks had numerical advantage and better commanders. As such the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

 

 

1 hour ago, Eltharion21 said:

Aemond subdued diddly-squat, It was Ser Criston Cole's plan and leadership that got them to bounce back after initial defeats. Aemond was fierce, dangerous, yet both his plan for Harrenhall and burning of Riverlands while leaving his force were huge failures.

Greens had only 2 dragons at disposal near King's Landing - soon only Vhagar remained, who was real threat and it could be only in one place at time. Blacks could had far better utilized their advantage in spreading their dragon forces.

Sure, then there would have been no war.

 

 

1 hour ago, Eltharion21 said:

It is huge difference in opponent blundering on his own and guiding him to that fate. 
You would never say that  if you were familiar with deeds of great military minds like : Hannibal Barca, Flavius Belisarius, Robert E. Lee ( Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson), Napoleon, Frederick the Great and others.

There were idiots on both side of war, on Black side those were Daemon and Rhaenyra - in their political  decisions, which is more than enough for their side to loose if not for Corlys Velaryon.

It certainly is but more often than not it is a  mix of both with more of the former than of the latter.

Such as Hannibal and Varro at Cannae or Lee and Mcclellan. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Only fallacy besides your spelling is your logic.

Daemon influenced the fall of Targaryen dynasty through scheming since the time of Great Council 101 Ac until his own death - ordering death of Viserys grandchild for vengeance,  starting war with Triarchy and abandoning it, giving Mysaria, betrayers and corrupt Goldcloaks  positions of power, seducing Rhaenyra at young age and later marrying her without king's consent, up to his own timely death causing the death of two great dragons .

Aegon I conquered seven kingdoms and forged them in one, he couldn't have been responsible for things far after his death. Even his son Aenys had a chance to prove himself as a king, before Visenya and Maegor replaced him.

The spelling can't be a fallacy.

Aegon had two wives and a children with each, yet he didn't write a succesion law, nor he set a law about incest and from then on chaos.  You see how absurd it is?? Ofc you don't.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Only fallacy besides your spelling is your logic.

Daemon influenced the fall of Targaryen dynasty through scheming since the time of Great Council 101 Ac until his own death - ordering death of Viserys grandchild for vengeance,  starting war with Triarchy and abandoning it, giving Mysaria, betrayers and corrupt Goldcloaks  positions of power, seducing Rhaenyra at young age and later marrying her without king's consent, up to his own timely death causing the death of two great dragons .

Aegon I conquered seven kingdoms and forged them in one, he couldn't have been responsible for things far after his death. Even his son Aenys had a chance to prove himself as a king, before Visenya and Maegor replaced him.

No one cared that they were a continuation of the Storm Kings by other name, but what Orys did do was slaughter the stormlanders into submission and then took the castle without opposition. Nor did Daemon argued to slaughter them all. The Hoares were indeed exterminated and their incomes and lands passed to the Qoherys... And the world collapsed.

 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

No sane commander would face dragons directly without means to deal with them. That is why Dance was characterized by smaller numbers of armies. 
 If  Stannis swore to Greens, he wouldn't have choice but to give them support, unlike Borros who had idea to join when dust settled and was far overconfident he could win war alone - charging uphill to defended positions.  Stormland forces would be of aid to their allies Lannisters and in King's Landing earlier. 


Stannis was outnumbered during Storm's End siege, Blackwater - combined forces of Lannisters with Tyrell relief force outnumbered his own, in incoming Battle of Ice he has fewer men than Bolton/Frey alliance.

Yet you're assuming that Stannis would freely go to face the flames that Borros did not want to, because he would haveno choice but to do it...

Storm's End siege is not a battle and he fought most of the Blackwater having the numerical advantage and blew it and let's not get ahead of ourselves shall we?? 

 

 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Aegon II was dead when their status is quoted, they lost the will to fight, only his young daughter was alive at the time. 
Accepting peace wasn't in Aegon, Daemon, Aemond and also Rhaenyra's character, thank god for Corlys wisdom, pardons and peace deal that made Aegon III his uncle's heir.

This thread is "What would happen if you removed dragons from The Dance of the Dragons? " I consider it answered for my part.  Greens would find it more advantageous as  explicitly stated.

Aegon 2 was not dead when their status was quoted. The quote was directly to Aegon. Rhaenrya did want to accept peace, she did not want to pardon her brothers however.

The rest, well projection.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2021 at 4:57 PM, Lord Varys said:

It would be just boring without the dragons.

The novella wouldn't sell.  :D

On 1/20/2021 at 2:56 PM, The Merling King said:

What would happen if you removed dragons from The Dance of the Dragons? Who would benefit more, the greens or the blacks? Would the blacks even have a chance or without dragons would it be more drawn out like the anarchy and turn into a slow war of attrition and siege-craft?

The greens would benefit more.  But the fight would still be even because over half of the kingdom supported Rhaenyra's claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Unit A2 said:

The greens would benefit more.  But the fight would still be even because over half of the kingdom supported Rhaenyra's claim.

Actually Rhaenyra would definitely win. Keep in mind, outside of the Reach, none of the major battles in the war had dragons. The only things that would change would be the Reach and the taking of King's Landing.

In the Reach, the Hightowers would get pommeled at the Honeywine, almost like they were before Tessarion swooped in. After that the Reach would rally for the Blacks. With the West being slaughtered at the Fishfeed and the remnants fighting the Red Kraken, all the Greens would really have would be the Baratheons. Not nearly enough.

Edited by Alyn Oakenfist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Actually Rhaenys would definitely win. Keep in mind, outside of the Reach, none of the major battles in the war had dragons. The only things that would change would be the Reach and the taking of King's Landing.

In the Reach, the Hightowers would get pommeled at the Honeywine, almost like they were before Tessarion swooped in. After that the Reach would rally for the Blacks. With the West being slaughtered at the Fishfeed and the remnants fighting the Red Kraken, all the Greens would really have would be the Baratheons. Not nearly enough.

Battle of the Gullet - Blacks destroyed fleet of Triarchy only thanks to five dragons, without them Velaryon sea supremacy would be destroyed in surprise attack, they did loose 1/3rd of ships, Driftmark, Hightide and Spice town were burned.

 

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Battle of the Gullet - Blacks destroyed fleet of Triarchy only thanks to five dragons, without them Velaryon sea supremacy would be destroyed in surprise attack, they did loose 1/3rd of ships, Driftmark, Hightide and Spice town were burned.

I mean at this point you have to consider that had there been no dragons, the Conquest of the Stepstones wouldn't have happened and thus the Triarchy likely wouldn't have gotten involved.

Share this post


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

I mean at this point you have to consider that had there been no dragons, the Conquest of the Stepstones wouldn't have happened and thus the Triarchy likely wouldn't have gotten involved.

I am not sure that would happen since Daemon would be adventurous and troubling on court , Velaryons  wealth would be under threat from Pirates in Stepstones, conflict was almost inevitable, instead of Dragon - Daemon would bring mercenary companies and other pirates likely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2021 at 6:09 PM, frenin said:

I've already told you that support is not the same as action. And aren't you the one calling the greens incopetents?? I've not say a word about the Blacks being outstanding, even tho if that makes you happy i'll take it. I've stated they are better than the greens tho. 

About the later. That's nice.

I am not calling them incompetent. I don’t generalize like you do.
Some like Aemond, Borros Baratheon had made huge blunders, Cole was capable, Orrmund Hightower was decent commander, Ser Adrian Tarbeck showed some promise, Otto Hightower was good politician, though not all his plans were fruitful, Daeron was great dragonrider, Tyland Lannister had great plan and even greater will.

Greens generally have unconventional skill set- they might be considered all more as roguish collection of characters using unfair advantage when they are underdog ( Arryk Cargyl, Sir Jon Roxton the Bold, Hobert Hightower, Aegon II on Dragonstone, Larys Strong though he played for both teams likely).

On 1/23/2021 at 6:09 PM, frenin said:

Hmm, no it isn't. The only reason they would not appear so soon is because of the dragons, you take that out of the equation and they have no impediment to show their colours. Yet when they do come, we're told who were they supporting and why.

Without dragons, balance of power in initial stages of war would be on side of Greens. Blacks would need to take Harrenhall first, without dragons it wouldn’t be so easy or fast. Tullys, Brackens, Vances and King’s Landing might join to relief of Harrenhall siege.

On 1/23/2021 at 6:09 PM, frenin said:

This apparently do not seem to you like a declaration of intentions. Those lords and knights already supported Rhaenrya.

Why would those lords be swayed to the other side without an apparent reason??

Because: The lords of the Trident, having more to lose, were not so quick to move they waited for a rallying call – capture of Harrenhall and eventual rise of Riverlands common rabble.
They wouldn’t be necessary swayed to other side until forced as were Brackens, but swayed to inaction in fear other side would prevail- without dragons it would seem as such.

On 1/23/2021 at 6:09 PM, frenin said:

And i would believe you, if the lords that supported Rhaenrya were not counted as likely supporters from the get go. We're told when dragons affected the lords and we're told when they did not. 

You need to get your arguments in order quoting you in the same reply;

Quote

 

"Hmm, no it isn't. The only reason they would not appear so soon is because of the dragons, you take that out of the equation and they have no impediment to show their colours."

- Talking about Riverland Blacks fearing dragons of Greens.

"And i would believe you, if the lords that supported Rhaenrya were not counted as likely supporters from the get go. We're told when dragons affected the lords and we're told when they did not."

- Existence of Green dragons influences them in fear yet disappearance of Black dragons as their aid - doesn't influence them or their morale.

 That is extremely flawed logic.

 

 

On 1/23/2021 at 6:09 PM, frenin said:

Sooner than what?? They declared their support once it was clear there was war. Otto Hightower is not the head of House Hightower, Ormund Hightower had three kids.

What Aegon's crownslands?? Only the Thornes supported him.

And weren't you the one arguing about Green incompetence?? I'm not saying the war would unfold as it did, i'm stating that Blacks had numerical advantage and better commanders. As such the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

"Sooner" as in not waiting for Black victories, taking of Harrenhall and defeat of Brackens all the while Greens were yet to make military moves. 

Otto Hightower would be political strength and his grandchildren – Aegon, Aemond, Dareon would all be rallying point even if Ormund Hightower died. King’s Landing had effective strength to take over the Crownland forces- which was delayed due to Otto Hightower’s attempts to win war with diplomacy.

Quote

With a hundred knights and five hundred men-at-arms of the royal household, augmented by three times as many hardened sellswords, Ser Criston marched on Rosby and Stokeworth, whose lords had only recently repented of their allegiance to the queen, commanding them to prove their loyalty by adding their power to his own. Thus augmented, Cole’s host advanced upon the walled harbor town of Duskendale, where they took the defenders by surprise. The town was sacked, the ships in the harbor set afire, Lord Darklyn beheaded. His household knights and garrison were given the choice between swearing their swords to King Aegon or sharing their lord’s fate. Most chose the former.

I don’t argue for Green incompetence, only in battle of Kingsroad by Borros, his delaying and Aemonds campaign it is present. 
Likewise it is present on Black side in most of Rhaenyra’s and Daemon’s decisions.


Blacks had neither numerical advantage especially in the early stages of war, nor better commanders – as both side had very frequent deaths of commanders for any to become exceptionally important. Their main strengths were dragons, experience, martial skill of Daemon Targaryen was great asset  early on but also detriment due his bad life choices, enemies and friends he has made.

Nothing is forgone. Outcome of war was pyrrhic victory for the Blacks despite many dragons they had. Without them potential outcome would be far different and in favor of Greens likely – which is actual topic of this thread.

On 1/23/2021 at 6:09 PM, frenin said:

Aegon had two wives and a children with each, yet he didn't write a succesion law, nor he set a law about incest and from then on chaos.  You see how absurd it is?? Ofc you don't.

Aegon had important things like conquering seven kingdoms, war against Dorne, making powerful basis which would enable other Targaryen kings to waste their inheritance. He accepted deal with Oldtown and Faith of the Seven to pacify his subjects, created tradition of royal processions to strengthen his support among smallfolk .


Kings who had extremely long and stable rules haven’t done it either. Jaehaerys I by deciding to summon Great Council on matter of succession was the one closest to making rule of sucession with all Lords in the land gathering and voting 20:1 in favor of Viserys for many reasons. Viserys I managed to ruin that possibility by choosing his heir despite the ruling of Great Council of 101 Ac and allowing his scummy brother to live.

On 1/23/2021 at 6:09 PM, frenin said:

No one cared that they were a continuation of the Storm Kings by other name, but what Orys did do was slaughter the stormlanders into submission and then took the castle without opposition. Nor did Daemon argued to slaughter them all. The Hoares were indeed exterminated and their incomes and lands passed to the Qoherys... And the world collapsed.

It is likely Houses that were sworn to Durrandons for ages since there are more than 30 Storm Kings, especially Marcher lords cared as they were loyal to new Lord Paramount and protected the Stormlands.
Moreover Orys Baratheon was Aegon I’s closest friend and person he intimately knew who he would trust his life and kingdom. In contrast Ulf and Hugh were betrayers.


You would need to read "The World of Ice and Fire" since you lack important knowledge for discussions. House Hoare were Ironborn invaders to Riverlands  with only three or four generations present there, they caused many atrocities especially in their building of Harrenhal. Likely Aegon was celebrated by Rivermen in destroying them – despite it all he gave them chance to bend the knee.


In same passage you claim that destroying a Lord Paramount House wouldn’t make a difference, than you claim Daemon didn’t want to slaughter them. Get a grip what you are trying to say first.


Daemon explicitly proposed that:

Quote

Prince Daemon echoed the queen’s misgivings. Giving pardons to rebels and traitors only sowed the seeds for fresh rebellions, he insisted. “The war will end when the heads of the traitors are mounted on spikes above the King’s Gate, and not before.” Aegon II would be found in time, “hiding under some rock,” but they could and should bring the war to Aemond and Daeron. The Lannisters and Baratheons should be destroyed as well, so their lands and castles might be given to men who had proved more loyal. Grant Storm’s End to Ulf White and Casterly Rock to Hard Hugh Hammer, the prince proposed…to the horror of the Sea Snake. “Half the lords of Westeros will turn against us if we are so cruel as to destroy two such ancient and noble houses,” Lord Corlys said.

 

On 1/23/2021 at 6:09 PM, frenin said:

Yet you're assuming that Stannis would freely go to face the flames that Borros did not want to, because he would haveno choice but to do it...

Storm's End siege is not a battle and he fought most of the Blackwater having the numerical advantage and blew it and let's not get ahead of ourselves shall we?? 

Stannis is currently facing bigger threats – especially in the North. He also isn't afraid of getting burned:

Quote

I know the cost! Last night, gazing into that hearth, I saw things in the flames as well. I saw a king, a crown of fire on his brows, burning… burning, Davos. His own crown consumed his flesh and turned him into ash. Do you think I need Melisandre to tell me what that means? Or you?

Storm’s End Siege is counted twice as a battle in wiki: https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Category:Battles 

Both times he was underdog and he managed to win, with help of relief force or by assassination of his brother by a shadow/telepathic/magic drone/projection. 

Stannis didn’t have numerical advantage always since he couldn’t land his troops, he had naval supremacy through Imry Florent which was nullified fast – losing most of his forces through Tyrion’s trap. Than his troops tried to cross bridge of burning ships but couldn’t all mass on the other side. 
Stannis Force on land:~16,400 cavalry
Stannis Fleet:  around 200 ships with 4.600 infantry
VS
King's Landing garrison: 7,000-8,000
Lannister navy: 57+ ships 
Add to Lannister strength their defensive position, Vale clans aiding in Kingswood, walls and Wildfire and relief force of Tywin/Tyrells with 70.000- 90.000 men.

On 1/23/2021 at 6:09 PM, frenin said:

Aegon 2 was not dead when their status was quoted. The quote was directly to Aegon. Rhaenrya did want to accept peace, she did not want to pardon her brothers however.

The rest, well projection.

This quote regarding strength status of House Hightower is found in chapter Hour of the Wolf after Cregan Stark arrives to Winterfell and Aegon II, Aemond and Daeron’s deaths.

Quote

Last to respond was Oldtown. The wealthiest of the great houses that had rallied to King Aegon II, the Hightowers remained in some ways the most dangerous, for they were capable of raising large new armies quickly from the streets of Oldtown, and with their own warships and those of their close kin, the Redwynes of the Arbor, they could float a significant fleet as well. Moreover, one-quarter of the Crown’s gold still rested in deep vaults beneath the Hightower, gold that could easily have been used to buy new alliances and hire sellsword companies. Oldtown had the power to renew the war; all that was lacking was the will.

Rhaenyra didn’t send pardons to all her foes, just some of them and only conditionally after she killed her half-brothers and their dragons.

Quote

Cognizant of all these threats, Queen Rhaenyra’s Hand, old Lord Corlys Velaryon, suggested to Her Grace that the time had come to talk.He urged the queen to offer pardons to Lords Baratheon, Hightower, and Lannister if they would bend their knees, swear fealty, and offer hostages to the Iron Throne.

Quote

It fell to the queen herself to choose between her consort and her Hand. Rhaenyra decided to steer a middle course. She would send envoys to Storm’s End and Casterly Rock, offering fair terms and pardonsafter she had put an end to the usurper’s brothers, who were in the field against her. “Once they are dead, the rest will bend the knee. Slay their dragons, that I might mount their heads upon the walls of my throne room. Let men look upon them in the years to come, that they might know the cost of treason.”

Only projections I see are your own.
 

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

I am not calling them incompetent. I don’t generalize like you do.
Some like Aemond, Borros Baratheon had made huge blunders, Cole was capable, Orrmund Hightower was decent commander, Ser Adrian Tarbeck showed some promise, Otto Hightower was good politician, though not all his plans were fruitful, Daeron was great dragonrider, Tyland Lannister had great plan and even greater will.

Greens generally have unconventional skill set- they might be considered all more as roguish collection of characters using unfair advantage when they are underdog ( Arryk Cargyl, Sir Jon Roxton the Bold, Hobert Hightower, Aegon II on Dragonstone, Larys Strong though he played for both teams likely).

But you did tho, you literally said that neither side had very capable commanders.  

 

 

9 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Without dragons, balance of power in initial stages of war would be on side of Greens. Blacks would need to take Harrenhall first, without dragons it wouldn’t be so easy or fast. Tullys, Brackens, Vances and King’s Landing might join to relief of Harrenhall siege.

Sure but it would be irrelevant if people started supporting Rhaenyra, without dragons  lords would have a reason to do so. Then your Harrenhall may become anything, from a random Riverlord supporting her to the Eyrie doing so.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Because: The lords of the Trident, having more to lose, were not so quick to move they waited for a rallying call – capture of Harrenhall and eventual rise of Riverlands common rabble.
They wouldn’t be necessary swayed to other side until forced as were Brackens, but swayed to inaction in fear other side would prevail- without dragons it would seem as such.

Yet they are literally called friends. The lords of the Trident may or may not support her, just as the rest may or may not support the Greens. 

Nor without dragons it would seem as such since the Velaryons and the Arryns stood with her.

 

 

 

Quote

"Hmm, no it isn't. The only reason they would not appear so soon is because of the dragons, you take that out of the equation and they have no impediment to show their colours."

- Talking about Riverland Blacks fearing dragons of Greens.

"And i would believe you, if the lords that supported Rhaenrya were not counted as likely supporters from the get go. We're told when dragons affected the lords and we're told when they did not."

- Existence of Green dragons influences them in fear yet disappearance of Black dragons as their aid - doesn't influence them or their morale.

 That is extremely flawed logic.

You sure?? If i want to support B from the get go, the fact that A can come to my castle and burn me  and my kin to death is a powerful deterrent (Tullys). That B also can come to my aid is good but doesn't mean that  A can come in a moment B isn't around. 

If neither A nor B have any weapons of mass destruction i can act more freely, and if i wanted to support B from the get go, there's little reason that would change.

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

"Sooner" as in not waiting for Black victories, taking of Harrenhall and defeat of Brackens all the while Greens were yet to make military moves. 

Otto Hightower would be political strength and his grandchildren – Aegon, Aemond, Dareon would all be rallying point even if Ormund Hightower died. King’s Landing had effective strength to take over the Crownland forces- which was delayed due to Otto Hightower’s attempts to win war with diplomacy.

They were not waiting for Black victories so far we can tell, this you have made up.

A rallying point for what?? Neither Otto Hightower, nor his grandchildren can command the Hightower forces, which is the very reason why no Hightower came to help his nephew Aegon before the Kingsroad even when he ordered it.

King's Landing had the strenght to take over the Crownlands piece a meal not as whole... And as long none of the Velaryons, Celtigars and co did not join their forces to those supporters of the mainland.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

I don’t argue for Green incompetence, only in battle of Kingsroad by Borros, his delaying and Aemonds campaign it is present. 
Likewise it is present on Black side in most of Rhaenyra’s and Daemon’s decisions.


Blacks had neither numerical advantage especially in the early stages of war, nor better commanders – as both side had very frequent deaths of commanders for any to become exceptionally important. Their main strengths were dragons, experience, martial skill of Daemon Targaryen was great asset  early on but also detriment due his bad life choices, enemies and friends he has made.

Nothing is forgone. Outcome of war was pyric victory for the Blacks even with many dragons they had. Without them potential outcome would be far different and in favor of Greens likely – which is actual topic of this thread.

Sure you didn't.

I mean you only need to count the Houses, i'd say that Blackwood, Grey,  Longleaf and the such were around long enough or their accomplishments were sound enough to count them as such.

Sure the outcome was a pyrrhic victorie, the two betrayers happened. I know what it the topic of the thread, i disagree with it being in favor of the greens.

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Aegon had important things like conquering seven kingdoms, war against Dorne, making powerful basis which would enable other Targaryen kings to waste their inheritance. He accepted deal with Oldtown and Faith of the Seven to pacify his subjects, created tradition of royal processions to strengthen his support among smallfolk .


Kings who had extremely long and stable rules haven’t done it either. Jaehaerys I by deciding to summon Great Council on matter of succession was the one closest to making rule of sucession with all Lords in the land gathering and voting 20:1 in favor of Viserys for many reasons. Viserys I managed to ruin that possibility by choosing his heir despite the ruling of Great Council of 101 Ac and allowing his scummy brother to live.

Sure, you can add them on the list. You were blaming other's people actions in Daemon. Yet don't seem so eager to that with others.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

It is likely Houses that were sworn to Durrandons for ages since there are more than 30 Storm Kings, especially Marcher lords cared as they were loyal to new Lord Paramount and protected the Stormlands.
Moreover Orys Baratheon was Aegon I’s closest friend and person he intimately knew who he would trust his life and kingdom. In contrast Ulf and Hugh were betrayers.


You would need to read "The World of Ice and Fire" since you lack important knowledge for discussions. House Hoare were Ironborn invaders to Riverlands  with only three or four generations present there, they caused many atrocities especially in their building of Harrenhal. Likely Aegon was celebrated by Rivermen in destroying them – despite it all he gave them chance to bend the knee.


In same passage you claim that destroying a Lord Paramount House wouldn’t make a difference, than you claim Daemon didn’t want to slaughter them. Get a grip what you are trying to say first.


Daemon explicitly proposed that:

 

It is likely they didn't. As they were being subjected by force and their last leader died fighting them.

Contrary to Orys Baratheon, the betrayers had two huge dragons.

You were arguing that ending ancient Houses and giving their lands and titles to nobodies would destroy Feudalism, yet that happens and feudalism is still intact. Whether the Rivermen considered the Hoares the devil is completely irrelevant to the topic since feudalism isn't only practiced in the Riverlands.

I don't know what you can't understand but Daemon does not contradict my words.

 

44 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Stannis is currently facing bigger threats – especially in the North. He also isn't afraid of getting burned:

Sure, either he does or he comits suicide, he has come too far.

 

 

45 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Storm’s End Siege is counted twice as a battle in wiki: https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Category:Battles 

Both times he was underdog and he managed to win, with help of relief force or by assassination of his brother by a shadow/telepathic/magic drone/projection. 

Stannis didn’t have numerical advantage always since he couldn’t land his troops, he had naval supremacy through Imry Florent which was nullified fast – losing most of his forces through Tyrion’s trap. Than his troops tried to cross bridge of burning ships but couldn’t all mass on the other side. 
Stannis Force on land:~16,400 cavalry
Stannis Fleet:  around 200 ships with 4.600 infantry
VS
King's Landing garrison: 7,000-8,000
Lannister navy: 57+ ships 
Add to Lannister strength their defensive position, Vale clans aiding in Kingswood, walls and Wildfire and relief force of Tywin/Tyrells with 70.000- 90.000 men.

And in both battles Stannis doesn't fight, shockingly enough.

He sure had numerical advantage at the Blackwater, that Tyrion negated most of it is inmaterial, the other side plays too.

 

 

47 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

This quote regarding strength status of House Hightower is found in chapter Hour of the Wolf after Cregan Stark arrives to Winterfell and Aegon II, Aemond and Daeron’s deaths.

How does that factor in the fact that they were not going to fight anymore??

 

 

49 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Rhaenyra didn’t send pardons to all her foes, just some of them and only conditionally after she killed her half-brothers and their dragons.

They were talking about the Lannisters and Baratheons specifically. :rolleyes:

 

 

From this on, you're right, well you likely would not but i've not responding again so...:agree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2021 at 11:26 PM, frenin said:

But you did tho, you literally said that neither side had very capable commanders

Not very capable isn’t same as incompetent, there are no Aegon I, Daeron II, Young Wolf or Stannis there, Alyn Velaryion would become great admiral but only after the Dance.  War was fast and brutal and many died before they had a chance to shine, or to have more experience. Daemon lived most and had collected most of military renown in that period( Stepstones and Riverlands) . Mostly unfair advantage like in some mmos  when high level character destroys most of the noobs. Yet anyway he caused most of downfalls of his faction by political decisions and vileness.

On 1/24/2021 at 11:26 PM, frenin said:

Sure but it would be irrelevant if people started supporting Rhaenyra, without dragons  lords would have a reason to do so. Then your Harrenhall may become anything, from a random Riverlord supporting her to the Eyrie doing so.

Harenhall was important because it is found in middle of the kingdom – on mainland as Rhaenyra main support was island based. It can also converge forces from Riverlands, North and Vale – without need for dangerous amphibious assaults.

"We need a place where they can gather, a toehold on the mainland large enough to house a sizable host, and strong enough to hold against whatever forces the usurper can send against us.”

We are presented nominal strengths of each alliance in chapter “The Blacks and The Greens” where Rhaenyra’s side is present as underdog at outset of the war. To digress, personally I feel the Greens were underdog throughout the novel as they never had full support of Reach nor House Hightower – who could had aided Westerland defense of Ironborn due to proximity, or Baratheons who arrived when their allies were bloodied. Without their most powerful asset the dragons Blacks would seem even weaker and that would make lords question their support.

On 1/24/2021 at 11:26 PM, frenin said:

Yet they are literally called friends. The lords of the Trident may or may not support her, just as the rest may or may not support the Greens. 

Nor without dragons it would seem as such since the Velaryons and the Arryns stood with her.

They use that quote quite often, I am not sure that they or you know what it means:

Quote

“Storm’s End will stand with us,” Princess Rhaenys said. She herself was of that blood on her mother’s side, and the late Lord Boremund had always been the staunchest of friends. 

...
Lords Rosby and Stokeworth, blacks who had gone green to avoid the dungeons, attempted to turn black again, but the queen declared that faithless friends were worse than foes and ordered their “lying tongues” be removed before their executions.

Dragons were also  important for gathering support since claims of her children being bastards, Blacks might have not support they needed from the all Houses if not for Jace's trip through Vale and North.
Dragons will win the lords over quicker than ravens.” His brother Lucerys agreed, insisting that he and Jace were men, or near enough to make no matter. “Our uncle calls us Strongs, but when the lords see us on dragonback they will know that for a lie. Only Targaryens ride dragons.”

On 1/24/2021 at 11:26 PM, frenin said:

You sure?? If i want to support B from the get go, the fact that A can come to my castle and burn me  and my kin to death is a powerful deterrent (Tullys). That B also can come to my aid is good but doesn't mean that  A can come in a moment B isn't around. 

If neither A nor B have any weapons of mass destruction i can act more freely, and if i wanted to support B from the get go, there's little reason that would change.

A is more powerful conventionally and on land– it has some aerial weapons of mass destruction , yet B has great navy and many aerial weapons of mass destruction.
Poof. All of those weapons disappear- who is more powerful then?
Your attempt at analogy doesn’t hold water, from examples in the novel or real life history when Cold War powers used other countries as a battlefield-Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuban Air Missle Crisis etc. Everything counts not only fear.

On 1/24/2021 at 11:26 PM, frenin said:

They were not waiting for Black victories so far we can tell, this you have made up.

A rallying point for what?? Neither Otto Hightower, nor his grandchildren can command the Hightower forces, which is the very reason why no Hightower came to help his nephew Aegon before the Kingsroad even when he ordered it.

King's Landing had the strenght to take over the Crownlands piece a meal not as whole... And as long none of the Velaryons, Celtigars and co did not join their forces to those supporters of the mainland.

There is a thing called chronology of events. Read it up and refresh your memory. Initial clashes started in Riverlands with initiative of Daemon on Caraxes- taking of Harrenhall, rally of Riverlanders, defeat of Brackens. Which sparked more Houses joining the Blacks especially in the Reach.

King commands his subjects, sons of Viserys were rightfully considered his heirs and they were half Hightower, reason enough to believe they would take over command, or it would be given to likes of Unwin Peake. Hightowers would be last house to surrender as most prominent supporters of Aegon II.

Kingsroad happened before House Hightower managed to arrive. Though personally I find lack of story in explaining that Green houses stopped fighting, after lesser losses than their opponents or Hightowers supporting Lannisters in defense against Ironborn due to their proximity.

All the while Riverlands fought in Battles of Burning Mill, Stone Hedge, Red Fork, Acorn Hall, Fishfeed, Butcher’s ball, Aemonds burninating, First Tumbleton, Second Tumbleton and Kingsroad with huge losses.  It is likely caused that Dance had to be added retroactively in existing canon- Green houses had to lose yet remain still very powerful in current age.

King’s Landing did take over Crownlands it is a fact, Blacks had to send their dragon Maelys to try and stop the impunity. Narrow Sea Houses strength lies at sea, not on land, even in taking of King’s Landing they were primary used to ferry troops in amphibious operations.

On 1/24/2021 at 11:26 PM, frenin said:

Sure you didn't.

I mean you only need to count the Houses, i'd say that Blackwood, Grey,  Longleaf and the such were around long enough or their accomplishments were sound enough to count them as such.

Sure the outcome was a pyrrhic victorie, the two betrayers happened. I know what it the topic of the thread, i disagree with it being in favor of the greens.

Blackwoods are "House fanservice", one of the most unrealistic representations of regional conflict in Westeros- likely coming from Lord Tytos Blackwood ravenfeather cloak and some cliques that frequent authors conventions. He mentioned them in connection with Boba Fett effect. They are especially annoying during the Dance with characters like Crash Bandicoot – who is a tool to mope around the battlefield and cry about dead his forces murdered , and  "Black alley" deus ex vagina.

House Grey has only one member Ser Garibald – present in Lakeshore yet many Lords present on RIverlord side would mean he wasn’t commander nor done anything of note. In Butcher’s ball he orders murder of Ser Criston Cole and slaughter leftovers of Green forces – who were fracked by Aemond and Martin turning Riverlands suddenly into Nam.

Pate of Longleaf had more achievements in killing Lord Jason Lannister in combat and leading survivors from previous conflicts to Lakeshore. He was also present in Butcher’s ball – butchery not a battle. He might had more renown if he lived – falls in category “shows promise”.

Garibald and Pate both died ignominiously along with all forces that were involved in Lakeshore and Butcher’s Ball. When Daeron on Tessarion attacked, Pate was knocked from horse and trampled, while Garibald was hit by crossbow bolt and burned by dragonfire. Daeron effectively avenged Sir Cole.

Two Betrayers happened to Greens too, they created rift in their army effectively disintegrating it in various factions more intent on raping, burning and pillaging after the death of Ormund Hightower and their presence with two extremely powerful dragons that Blacks gave them. Greens also had to deal with betrayers in assassinating them which was one of their better achievements.

On 1/24/2021 at 11:26 PM, frenin said:

Sure, you can add them on the list. You were blaming other's people actions in Daemon. Yet don't seem so eager to that with others.

Daemon is guilty for things doing himself during his life: seducing/corrupting his underage niece – which caused her loose support in the court, making enemy of Otto Hightower who saw him as new Maegor the Cruel due to his actions in small council and city guard,  starting a war in Stepstones and getting bored of it, promoting people like Mysaria, Goldcloaks and two betrayers, ordering blood&cheese – all actions that brought short term gain and ultimately defeat to his side , if it weren’t for Corlys Velaryon to fix their shit.

With Aegon the Conqueror things were happening after his death despite his achievements, Aenys his son was of age and his was task to continue ruling and hopefully improving Westeros. Daemon influenced crappy things during his life. Their effect isn't analogous.

On 1/24/2021 at 11:26 PM, frenin said:

It is likely they didn't. As they were being subjected by force and their last leader died fighting them.

Contrary to Orys Baratheon, the betrayers had two huge dragons.

You were arguing that ending ancient Houses and giving their lands and titles to nobodies would destroy Feudalism, yet that happens and feudalism is still intact. Whether the Rivermen considered the Hoares the devil is completely irrelevant to the topic since feudalism isn't only practiced in the Riverlands.

I don't know what you can't understand but Daemon does not contradict my words.

I believe you underestimate loyalty of Houses to their Lord Paramounts/Kings when it suits your arguments. If they thought Targaryen conquerors had committed unjust atrocity they wouldn’t remain loyal to lord they placed – like in Dorne and beds of scorpions.

Giving two powerful dragons to people whose character and loyalty you aren’t sure of is recipe for disaster as evident from the story, Orys Baratheon made a House that remained for hundreds of years as vital ally to Kings of the Iron Throne until Robert’s Rebellion.

Uproar of population didn't happen Hoares were invaders and tyrants in the region they controlled,  Hoares weren’t liked by Drowned God priesthood either which considered them ungodly  and false kings since they mingled with Andals, I numbered around 14 of the Iron Kings from Hoare dynasty out of them 7 were opposed by Drowned Priests.


Destroying Ancient Houses would have insurmountable effect: “Half the lords of Westeros will turn against us if we are so cruel as to destroy two such ancient and noble houses,” Lord Corlys said.
By giving dragons to two persons of dubious morals, character and loyalty and giving them huge regions to control , it would create certain free-for all scenario- where Warlords would wage battle unconstrained by any forms of law, tradition and bonds. Only in this case Warlords would have dragons. Here is an excerpt reminiscent of Euron's pillaging of Shield Islands in Asoiaf:

Quote

Yet the worst crimes were those committed by the Two Betrayers, the baseborn dragonriders Hugh Hammer and Ulf White. Ser Ulf gave himself over entirely to drunkenness, “drowning himself in wine and flesh.” Mushroom says he raped three maidens every night. Those who failed to please were fed to his dragon. The knighthood that Queen Rhaenyra had conferred on him did not suffice. Nor was he surfeit when Prince Daeron named him Lord of Bitterbridge. White had a greater prize in mind: he desired no less a seat than Highgarden, declaring that the Tyrells had played no part in the Dance, and therefore should be attainted as traitors.

...
            Ser Ulf’s ambitions must be accounted modest when compared to those of his fellow turncloak, Hugh Hammer. The son of a common blacksmith, Hammer was a huge man, with hands so strong that he was said to be able to twist steel bars into torcs. Though largely untrained in the art of war, his size and strength made him a fearsome foe. His weapon of choice was the warhammer, with which he delivered crushing, killing blows. In battle he rode Vermithor, once the mount of the Old King himself; of all the dragons in Westeros, only Vhagar was older or larger
        For all these reasons, Lord Hammer (as he now styled himself) began to dream of crowns.

You mean: 
“The Lannisters and Baratheons should be destroyed as well, so their lands and castles might be given to men who had proved more loyal.” doesn’t contradict “Nor did Daemon argued to slaughter them all.” 
Yeah right…

On 1/24/2021 at 11:26 PM, frenin said:

Sure, either he does or he comits suicide, he has come too far.

It is “commits” and his fate and legacy,  as the rest of story remains to be seen.

On 1/24/2021 at 11:26 PM, frenin said:

And in both battles Stannis doesn't fight, shockingly enough.

He sure had numerical advantage at the Blackwater, that Tyrion negated most of it is inmaterial, the other side plays too.

"Some battles are won with swords and spears, others with quills and ravens". Some with iron will, shadows and smugglers. 

If Tyrel and Lannister relief force is part of the same battle, we can say he was certainly underdog.

On 1/24/2021 at 11:26 PM, frenin said:

How does that factor in the fact that they were not going to fight anymore??

Seriously? You have been proven to be wrong multiple times. That quote relates that despite all the losses and deaths of all from Hightower/Targaryen branch they still had the strength to continue fighting. 
Potential defeat of Ormund Hightower at Honeywine without aid of Tessarion, wouldn’t stop Hightower from continuing war, like many defeats in Riverlands by Robb Stark didn’t stop Lannisters- they would make new armies.

On 1/24/2021 at 11:26 PM, frenin said:

They were talking about the Lannisters and Baratheons specifically. :rolleyes:

From this on, you're right, well you likely would not but i've not responding again so...:agree:

Corlys specifically mentioned Oltdtown who were main supporters of Greens, which Rhaenyra ignored in sending the terms and adds condition of pardons being effective only after all her half-brothers and dragons were killed. Devil is in the details.

Yeah I doubt anyone else reads this. Replying almost counts as side job, Maybe try to enforce some sort of Kavalar "code duello" (yes i have read the dying of the light just now) in replies with limiting them in two per person or something.

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...