Jump to content

Could the Riverlands had rivaled the Reach if united


Mrstrategy

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Mrstrategy said:

Could the Riverlands had rivaled the Reach in terms of men or wealth if it was united like The North or Western lands under a strong leader and more centralize doubling the size of men able to be called up to 60-80k at least?

Looking at more like 40k still. Fertile and good location for commerce in a unified entity but not in a divided continent (battleground).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

The Riverlands are always going to be vulnerable. They are divided internally by geography and rival factions. They're also surrounded by enemies who exploit the internal strife to carve out more territory for themselves.

They were in fact pretty stable under the Justmans, who managed to get the loyalty of all the riverlords for centuries, greatest feat in this books. It was when the Justmans fell the Riverlands truly fell hard.

To OP, no they could never rival the Reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mrstrategy said:

Could the Riverlands had rivaled the Reach in terms of men or wealth if it was united like The North or Western lands under a strong leader and more centralize doubling the size of men able to be called up to 60-80k at least?

In terms of population, perhaps. Wealth, no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in theory united and well run Riverlands could compete with Westerlands bc RL is larger and more fertile than WL but never with the Reach. Reason is that RL is both smaller and less fertile than Reach. In fact I assume that Reach is so large, fertile and has enough people that it could call at arms more soldiers that combined armies of RL and WL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...