Why didn't Westeros ever invade outwards?

[Alyn Oakenfist]

So here's a fun fact. Most middle aged Kingdoms participated in a lot of invasions for the purposes of pacifying their nobles. After 1096 the crusades became the principal means of doing it. The idea was that the most war hungry, and ambitious people would no longer divert their attention towards fucking up the realm, but rather towards crusading. And think about, just the rebellion. Would it really have happened had the Brandon Starks and Robert Baratheons of the world been away crusading? Similarly, this idea is what made England embark on the 100 years war, with there being a tacit agreement between King and nobility that the nobility stays put and in exchange they're granted war, spoils and lands in France. It is no surprise that as soon as the 100 years war was over, the removal of that pressure valve led to the War of the Roses.

So given how many war hawks Westeros seems to have, why hasn't anybody tried say, I dunno, crusading into Andalos?

[Daeron the Daring]

The only logical invasion outwards would be the Stepstones. Simply because anything else would be too much for them, but even this, for some simple reasons:

-The Seven Kingdoms is sistematically not built up for conquering. They are territorycally very divided, the crown has no actual standing army to do anything alone, it always has to rely on its vassals.

-The pirates. The Stepstones are home to pirates. They would always be a problem.

-The Free Cities. Since the Narrow Sea is home to 5 Free Cities, trading is an essential thing on the Narrow Sea. The IT ruling over the Stepstones would make a great harm on the influence of these Free Cities. It would be good to noone but the IT (maybe not even for them).

There was an actual good time for conquering the Stepstones, tho. The late reign of Jaehaerys I and the reign of Viserys I. At that time Braavos was not as strong aa it is now (thanks to ruling over Pentos), and any power on sea would been no mstch for dragons. Just look at the case of Daemon. He easily conquered the Stepstones, but later decided to give a damn about it. But it was a great idea, tho. It would been good for the IT too. Conquering the Stepstones, and making Lord of Storm's end their liege, or even the Crown itself, or directly ruling over it, making the place a major port, an outpost and other things too. Or even making them swear for Dragonstone, so that it would be a duty of thr Prince of Dragonstone to take care of it, with the help of its own vassals (that includes the Velaryons).

However, that time passed, pirates are back, Braavos is stronger than it ever was, the Sisters would also have a word against such a conquest. 

Either way, the first step of invading outwards would be the Stepstones, and altough it's not confirmed, I think Andalos is seen as a doomed land to the believers of the Faith.

[Canon Claude]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So here's a fun fact. Most middle aged Kingdoms participated in a lot of invasions for the purposes of pacifying their nobles. After 1096 the crusades became the principal means of doing it. The idea was that the most war hungry, and ambitious people would no longer divert their attention towards fucking up the realm, but rather towards crusading. And think about, just the rebellion. Would it really have happened had the Brandon Starks and Robert Baratheons of the world been away crusading? Similarly, this idea is what made England embark on the 100 years war, with there being a tacit agreement between King and nobility that the nobility stays put and in exchange they're granted war, spoils and lands in France. It is no surprise that as soon as the 100 years war was over, the removal of that pressure valve led to the War of the Roses.

So given how many war hawks Westeros seems to have, why hasn't anybody tried say, I dunno, crusading into Andalos?

The War of the Ninepenny kings did just that. If you read GRRM’s extended take on the Westerlands, Tytos’s time as lord was pretty much anarchic and chaotic until the war happened, and all the ambitious warriors went abroad to fight.

[Roswell]

@Alyn Oakenfist  You have to look back at what Westeros was like before the Targaryens.  It was a loose collection of regional leaders who thought of themselves as the kings of his territory.  They lacked the power to project their will overseas.  The Targaryens brought order and unification to Westeros.  The Targaryens could have invaded the lands across the Narrow Sea if they had wanted to.  But the Targaryens are the good guys in this series of novels.  They honestly wanted to keep their eye on Westeros and improve the life for the common folks.  The Targaryens, unlike the other families who simply wanted to expand their power and line their pockets, were not greedy.  At least most of them were not.  I will repeat this for you, though you may not like it, the Targaryens are the protagonists of the novels. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, Roswell said:

You have to look back at what Westeros was like before the Targaryens.  It was a loose collection of regional leaders who thought of themselves as the kings of his territory.  They lacked the power to project their will overseas.

True, but that's not really relevant. By the time Jaehaerys I died, with the exception of the North, the Iron isles and Dorne, who were separated by culture and geography, there already existed the concept of Westeros as a single nation in the popular and noble minds. So the fragmentation before that was hardly relevant.

2 minutes ago, Roswell said:

The Targaryens brought order and unification to Westeros.  The Targaryens could have invaded the lands across the Narrow Sea if they had wanted to.

See, the thing is, the two are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary. Having a valve for the war hawks, second sons and ambitious nobles actually improves the stability of the realm. And there's no better valve then a controlled foreign war like a crusade or a foreign invasion, as France and England in the middle Ages taught us. The trick is to make sure there are never any actual gains. Yeah, I know sounds kinda 1984-ish, but it is a sane concept as long as the war eats very little resources.

4 minutes ago, Roswell said:

But the Targaryens are the good guys in this series of novels.  They honestly wanted to keep their eye on Westeros and improve the life for the common folks.  The Targaryens, unlike the other families who simply wanted to expand their power and line their pockets, were not greedy. 

By the Targs do you mean Maegor? The Rogue Prince? Maybe Aegon II? Rhaenyra? Aemond? Daeron I? Aegon IV? I know, Aerys!!!!

6 minutes ago, Roswell said:

At least most of them were not.  I will repeat this for you, though you may not like it, the Targaryens are the protagonists of the novels. 

The Targs are protagonists, I agree, I just don't agree that they are THE protagonists. Even if you put Jon solely as a Targ, the Starks still have more POVs, while Tyrion is the character with the most POVs in the story.

Now, leaving the endless praise for House Targaryen, the issue is not really about the Houses, more about how the state worked. It seems Westeros had a war every few generations when people forgot about the horrors of the last one. So given the undeniable problems of ambitious lords, greedy second sons, idealistic fools and so on, something like a crusade into Andalos (a strategically irrelevant, but very hard to maintain place) would have done wonders for Westeros's peace and stability.

[SkagosHead]

23 minutes ago, Roswell said:

@Alyn Oakenfist  But the Targaryens are the good guys in this series of novels. 

Lol they conquered an entire continent with fire and blood, were previously nobility in a vast slave empire, had numerous internal power struggles causing untold death and destruction in Westeros, and a fair portion of them are power-mad bloodthirsty psychopaths. How can you possibly describe them as the 'good guys'?

[Rose of Red Lake]

Stalin fought Hitler!!! What a good guy.

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Now, leaving the endless praise for House Targaryen, the issue is not really about the Houses, more about how the state worked. It seems Westeros had a war every few generations when people forgot about the horrors of the last one. So given the undeniable problems of ambitious lords, greedy second sons, idealistic fools and so on, something like a crusade into Andalos (a strategically irrelevant, but very hard to maintain place) would have done wonders for Westeros's peace and stability.

Tourneys and brothels could help as well. 

Our closest ape relatives bonobos settle all of their disputes with sex. Instead of war, like chimps.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Tourneys and brothels could help as well. 

Tourneys are already a way, clearly, but obviously not enough.

[Lady_Qohor]

We don't really know that they didn't.

We have a rough history for 300 years of Targeryen rule but we don't know much about what happened in the thousands of years before that. For all we know the Starks could have invaded and temporarily occupied Lorath, the Arryns might have spent two hundred years warring and sieging Braavos, the Dornish might have attempted to capture Lys as a colony or even launched some crusades to try and take back the Rhoyne.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

10 minutes ago, Lady_Qohor said:

We don't really know that they didn't.

We have a rough history for 300 years of Targeryen rule but we don't know much about what happened in the thousands of years before that. For all we know the Starks could have invaded and temporarily occupied Lorath, the Arryns might have spent two hundred years warring and sieging Braavos, the Dornish might have attempted to capture Lys as a colony or even launched some crusades to try and take back the Rhoyne.

I'm talking about the Targs here. They had only two outwards moves, both against the Stepstones, one with Daemon, and one with the Ninepenny Kings.

Both, we are told had a dramatic effect in reducing tensions, the first with the tensions at court, the second with allowing the Westerlands some space to breathe.

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 1/30/2021 at 11:48 AM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Tourneys are already a way, clearly, but obviously not enough.

They had an average of six a year since the conquest. Seems kinda low.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

They had an average of six a year since the conquest. Seems kinda low.

That's another problem. Tourneys are expensive as hell. As I said, creating a volunteer only crusading force actually is a pretty good, and relatively bloodless way to avoid civil wars, as the High Middle ages proved

[Hugorfonics]

On 1/30/2021 at 3:34 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I'm talking about the Targs here. They had only two outwards moves, both against the Stepstones, one with Daemon, and one with the Ninepenny Kings.

Sunset lords dont get along, why should they march together just so Targaryen gets more land? Kinda a lose lose situation.

Plus the world wouldnt like it. Why would the world allow Westeros to conquer all those Lemon Trees in Braavos