What were really the chances of success for Viserys or Daenerys if the original plan with Khal Drogo had come to fruition ?

[Angel Eyes]

16 minutes ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

The plot had a very good chance of succeeding.  Much better chances than Robb Stark ever becoming king of anything besides Winterfell's chamber potty.  Viserys had a lot going for him.  He was the King of the Seven Kingdoms.  His identity is known.  He will be backed by a formidable army and financed by Mopatis.  He will end up marrying Arianne and thus have the support of Dorne.  The Riverlands and the Crownlands will support him.  The Reach would have. 

And yet Doran didn't lift a finger to help him in the 12 years he would have been betrothed to Arianne (I fault him for that but that's another story). Plus Viserys would have scarpered the plan by raping Daenerys if he had the opportunity and had no fighting skills, which proved his downfall with the Dothraki.

[CassDarry]

5 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

 Plus Viserys would have scarpered the plan by raping Daenerys if he had the opportunity and had no fighting skills, which proved his downfall with the Dothraki.

This accusation never sat right with me, I’m not sure I believe Illyrio with this. Viserys has plenty of time to rape Dany before and he had every right to reject Illyrio plan to trade her for an army to keep her as his own wife. Also I’m sure he comments how unattractive she is in her first chapter? Which should be more reliable than what Illyrio tells Tyrion, and we know he wasn’t being fully honest in that conversation.

 

Of course maybe Viserys is the kind of person who would raise his sister/possible future bride, then sell her for a crown only to try jeopardise the trade by claiming “what’s his by rights” because he is entitled not because he wants to.

[Aldarion]

1 hour ago, CassDarry said:

This accusation never sat right with me, I’m not sure I believe Illyrio with this. Viserys has plenty of time to rape Dany before and he had every right to reject Illyrio plan to trade her for an army to keep her as his own wife. Also I’m sure he comments how unattractive she is in her first chapter? Which should be more reliable than what Illyrio tells Tyrion, and we know he wasn’t being fully honest in that conversation.

 

Of course maybe Viserys is the kind of person who would raise his sister/possible future bride, then sell her for a crown only to try jeopardise the trade by claiming “what’s his by rights” because he is entitled not because he wants to.

Been a while since I've read these scenes, but it seemed to me as if Viserys saw her as his property. And rape is a common way of establishing such.

[Craving Peaches]

8 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

The plot had a very good chance of succeeding. 

No it didn't.

8 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

Much better chances than Robb Stark ever becoming king of anything besides Winterfell's chamber potty. 

Well that's not true because Robb was recognised King in the North by a good deal of lords until the Freys murdered him. Meanwhile the plan didn't even work, it failed completely when Viserys got himself killed. Since the plan relied on Viserys not being an imbecile I'd say it wasn't going to have a very good chance of succeeding. 

8 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

Viserys had a lot going for him.

Don't make me laugh.

8 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

He was the King of the Seven Kingdoms.  His identity is known.

And yet no one except Varys and Illyrio cared while he was still alive.

8 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

The Riverlands

Why would they support him when they were against his family last time?

8 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

The Reach would have. 

That is not certain. If the incest is revealed then Robert could marry Margaery, so they'd back Robert. If the invasion is during TWotFK they've already backed Renly, no one in their right mind would back Viserys once they've already backed Renly. Unless their Targaryen loyalty reached delusional levels.

[Wm Portnoy]

On 8/20/2022 at 4:30 PM, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

What do you think would have truly happened if the original plan that Viserys Targaryen (in the scenario where he didn't die) or Daenerys (in the scenario where he died but Khal Drogo wasn't wounded) had of crossing the Narrow Sea with Khal Drogo and his entire khalasar had truly happened and that they tried to reconquer the Iron Throne with this dothraki army ?

Westeros would be back under Targaryen rule.  There was nothing the ruling houses of Westeros could have done to stop the Khalasars.  Most of the men under their command are farmers and laborers who are only part-time soldiers.  There are not enough of the knights to slow down a Dothraki attack.  The Dothraki are all fighting men.  Fighting is what they do and it is their occupation.  The lesson from Qohor is it takes dedicated, full-time warriors to stop the Dothraki.  

This same lesson can be seen in the conflicts between the NW and the wildlings.  The NW always wins unless the number is extremely against them.  The wildlings are hunters and gatherers while the black brothers are all full-time warriors.

In conclusion, if your scenario had taken place, Westeros would now be under the thumb of King Viserys, Third of His Name.  He will have Queen Arianne pregnant very soon.  Khaleesi and her Khal would be back in Essos and waiting for their very own Promised Prince(ss), the one who would unite the Dothraki tribes into one people.  No dragons are pulled from the stone in this story.  The Others would attack and Westeros will be wiped out.  

That's not much of a story though.  The one we are reading, with Dragons, is a lot better to me.  

On 8/20/2022 at 4:30 PM, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

 

 

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, Wm Portnoy said:

There was nothing the ruling houses of Westeros could have done to stop the Khalasars.

They could have stopped them crossing in the first place. They could have lured them into unfamiliar territory and disadvantageous terrain and ambushed them. They could have sheltered in their castles and burned the fodder around them and left the Dothraki to starve. They could have had Khal Drogo assassinated, leaving his khalasar to splinter into smaller groups which they then could have picked off piecemeal. And there is only one khalasar, Drogo's.

6 minutes ago, Wm Portnoy said:

There are not enough of the knights to slow down a Dothraki attack.

The Reach and Stormlands alone have at least 20,000 knights. Obviously the number the Dothraki will be facing at once depends on when the invasion occurred but I think the realm as a whole would definitely have enough knights to at least equal Drogo's khalasar. And they don't necessarily have to be knights. Any well trained man in plate armour will pose a challenge for Dothraki.

8 minutes ago, Wm Portnoy said:

In conclusion, if your scenario had taken place, Westeros would now be under the thumb of King Viserys, Third of His Name.

No it wouldn't because he would most likely do something stupid just like he did in the books and get himself killed. If he managed to stay alive longer people would resist. Viserys is an awful leader and no-one would like him. The only people I can see even tolerating him are Dorne due to the secret marriage pact and their desire for vengeance.

12 minutes ago, Wm Portnoy said:

The Dothraki are all fighting men.  Fighting is what they do and it is their occupation.

Fighting against Essosi tactics and military. They have little experience fighting Westerosi style, and none fighting in Westeros itself.

13 minutes ago, Wm Portnoy said:

The lesson from Qohor is it takes dedicated, full-time warriors to stop the Dothraki.  

It shows the Dothraki siege things by charging at them. It shows they can be beaten by much smaller numbers who are defending and have sufficient discipline.

14 minutes ago, Wm Portnoy said:

black brothers are all full-time warriors.

This isn't true because not every brother is a ranger. And again the greatest advantage the NW has, in my opinion, is not that they are all warriors, but that they have an advantageous position and are defending against the Wildlings. Much like the people of Westeros will have against the Dothraki horde.

[Aldarion]

5 hours ago, Wm Portnoy said:

Westeros would be back under Targaryen rule.  There was nothing the ruling houses of Westeros could have done to stop the Khalasars.  Most of the men under their command are farmers and laborers who are only part-time soldiers.  There are not enough of the knights to slow down a Dothraki attack.  The Dothraki are all fighting men.  Fighting is what they do and it is their occupation.  The lesson from Qohor is it takes dedicated, full-time warriors to stop the Dothraki.  

This same lesson can be seen in the conflicts between the NW and the wildlings.  The NW always wins unless the number is extremely against them.  The wildlings are hunters and gatherers while the black brothers are all full-time warriors.

In conclusion, if your scenario had taken place, Westeros would now be under the thumb of King Viserys, Third of His Name.  He will have Queen Arianne pregnant very soon.  Khaleesi and her Khal would be back in Essos and waiting for their very own Promised Prince(ss), the one who would unite the Dothraki tribes into one people.  No dragons are pulled from the stone in this story.  The Others would attack and Westeros will be wiped out.  

That's not much of a story though.  The one we are reading, with Dragons, is a lot better to me.  

 

Mongols had ALL the advantages Dothraki allegedly have, and more (their armor was better in some ways than European equivalents), and as many warriors as a large-ish khalasar, and yet they still got beaten in their invasions by forces that were in terms of tactics and equipment similar but inferior to what Westeros fields.

There is nothing ruling houses of Westeros could have done to stop the Khalasars? More like, there is nothing they would need to do. A single khalasar, or even two of them, would hardly be a threat that would warrant a full-scale mobilization. War against them could be safely left to whichever Lord Paramount had the misfortune of having khalasars land in his kingdom.

Not that the war would last long. From what we have seen of Dothraki, they would underestimate the Westerosi (on the account of them not being nomadic horsemen), accept the pitched battle which Westerosi specialize in, and get slaughtered. At this point in the story, Daenerys hardly has the respect she would need to stop them from suiciding themselves against Westerosi knights.

And even if they acted smart - avoiding pitched battle, and instead raiding etc. - guess what? Westeros is almost perfectly suited to counter that. In fact, castles exist to counter such style of combat, and sooner or later Dothraki would get forced into a pitched battle and wiped out. Much like what happened to Mongols in their 1285 invasion of Hungary.

[BalerionTheCat]

Viserys and Drogo were one part of the plan. fAegon was the real objective. The Dothrakis were only to create disorder and facilitate fAegon support by the lords and small folks. But the Lannisters, Barathon and Starks did that splendidly without the Dothrakis. By the end, fAegon and the 7K behind him, would have gotten rid of the invaders. Viserys would have died or submitted to the "legitimate" heir somewhere along the plan. But the dragons were the surprise effect and Dany never did what Illrio expected.