How did Aegon conquer westeros with 3 dragons and 1 year but the valyrians took decades to conquer Ghis with hundreds of dragons?

[Tyrosh Lannister]

8 hours ago, Darth Sidious said:

 Daenerys will come with more military resources at her disposal during a time when Westeros is much weaker. 

Provided her Dothraki overcome their fear of the ocean. provided victarion or someone else gives her a fleet. Provided most of the fleet doesn't sink. I think a little over half will make it to westeros but it will be divided with Jon Con , Euron and Cersei battling it out, so easier for her to conquer 

 

[astarkchoice]

19 hours ago, Darth Sidious said:

The main question has been capably answered. Aegon was able to conquer Westeros rather easily with much less because the West is not as powerful as Old Ghis. Daenerys will come with more military resources at her disposal during a time when Westeros is much weaker. 

But he had 3 giant ass dragons....nukes vs no nukes = Walkover

[Pontius Pilate]

How the Targaryens easily conquered westeros with 3 dragons But the Valyrians fought many wars to conquer Ghis with hundreds of dragons?

The answer is obvious to all but to those who just don't like the Targaryens it is a denial.  Westeros has not the strength of the Ghiscari.  The Empire of Ghis was much more powerful compared to Westeros and more advanced.  The Valyrians were certainly better in battle compared to the Targaryens of Dragonstone AND more advanced.  That it took many contested wars to bring down the Ghis Empire is testimony to the effectiveness of its legions.  The legions made up the core of the Ghiscari military.  This is the same legion today as we see them in The Unsullied.  Time has proven their abilities in battle.  Remember Qohor.  The city's defenders and their paid mercenaries could not stop the Dothraki.  The Unsullied did.  

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, Pontius Pilate said:

Westeros has not the strength of the Ghiscari.  The Empire of Ghis was much more powerful compared to Westeros and more advanced. 

Was it really more advanced though? It was ~5000 years ago. Going by the unsullied they were fighting with bronze age weapons and tactics. Meanwhile Westeros is late medieval style. So I don't think they were less advanced then Ghis.

[Corvo the Crow]

.

[Corvo the Crow]

.

[TheLastWolf]

With Hot Pies!

[astarkchoice]

9 hours ago, Pontius Pilate said:

How the Targaryens easily conquered westeros with 3 dragons But the Valyrians fought many wars to conquer Ghis with hundreds of dragons?

The answer is obvious to all but to those who just don't like the Targaryens it is a denial.  Westeros has not the strength of the Ghiscari.  The Empire of Ghis was much more powerful compared to Westeros and more advanced.  The Valyrians were certainly better in battle compared to the Targaryens of Dragonstone AND more advanced.  That it took many contested wars to bring down the Ghis Empire is testimony to the effectiveness of its legions.  The legions made up the core of the Ghiscari military.  This is the same legion today as we see them in The Unsullied.  Time has proven their abilities in battle.  Remember Qohor.  The city's defenders and their paid mercenaries could not stop the Dothraki.  The Unsullied did.  

Id say it had much more to do with the fact varyria was slowly rising and ghis established plus magic and anti dragon tactics more commonplace then, each war becomming less competive as valyria grew strong!

 

Theres 0 evidence ghis was stronger than modern westeros combined , for all the over hype or massively over criticism of the unsullied tyrion probably nails it when he says they are no better or worse than the normal spearmen of westeros just  that they womt ever break.

[Thandros]

I think half the problem with making this argument is that a lot of people here seem to think dragons are these uber magical nuke equivalents. There very much not. They're basically armored planes with nose torrent mounted flamethrowers with exposed pilots which do weird stuff the moment they no longer have a pilot.

The Targaryens don't conquer Westeros by burning it to the ground with waves of dragon fire. They do it by breaking the morale the armies they are facing. The Field of Fire where Aegon has absolutely perfect conditions to wrack up a massive kill count and permanently inspire fear of dragons in all of Westeros for generations. He kills just over four thousand or so with dragon fire with another thousand or so killed by his army. A lot of the rest of the army gets away with mostly relatively minor burns from the middle of what is presented as a massive fire storm. Only some of them have permanent scarring from their burns. If the allied army hadn't lost it's leadership and held together for a charge they'd probably still been able to smash Aegon's army charging beyond the flames. And Visenya get struck by an arrow and wounded when she is described as not evening laying into the main body of the army with dragon fire.

When Garin the Great faced three dragons on his march south he killed two of them with arrows while they only managed to kill thousands of his huge army which presumably relied on a mix of luck and water wizards trying to disrupt the flight of the dragons to inflict anything like telling blows with simple bows and it worked. Two of them were killed and the third was sent fleeing with it's tail between it's legs wounded while the army they brought with them was seen off.

How did the Ghiscari Empire hold out for five wars. Easy Dragons are less powerful than you seem to think particularly given the Ghiscari armies are described as having excellent morale so aren't going to break from dragon fire half as easily as the Westerosi do and they likely were more aware of the Dragons and their strengths and weaknesses particularly after the first war so were better able to counter them than the Westerosi were who never seemed able to seriously learn all the lessons between battles. Also it's possible the Valyrians in the first wars had only just learned to ride dragons so only had a few weaker ones which were much more vulnerable than older dragons and it was only in the latter wars that the Valyrians had enough old powerful dragons to actually fight and win truly decisive victories. Also the dry ground of Ghiscari would not have been as ideal terrain for the kind of firestorms that proved so devastating in the Reach.

I think an apt comparison is to war elephants who despite being a useful enough weapon that fairly routinely worked very well are thought of as little more than a joke because we only really remember the times they were panicked and turned on their own men and not the times they charged forward and smashed the enemy lines to pieces. Dragons are probably a flying fantasy version of War Elephants used well they are devastating but I half wonder how many times they ended up burning their own armies or descended to eat their own troops after their rider was killed in battle. Clearly the Valyrians didn't keep any records of those embarrassments.

[Darth Sidious]

Dragons are very powerful. They destroyed a castle that no other force in Westeros could, Harrenhal. One dragon defeated Harren, whom no other lord and his army could defeat. The arrogant people of the Vale thought they were safe. One woman and one dragon brought them to their knees.  Old Ghis was many times more powerful than Westeros. Westeros of the Conquest was more powerful than the sorry kingdom that it is now. Thank Robert, Robb, Renly, and Jon Snow for bringing Westeros to such a sorry state. The Westeros of today cannot stop a Dothraki attack. 

[Craving Peaches]

7 minutes ago, Darth Sidious said:

Renly

How is it my man's fault that Westeros is in such a sorry state? He was the only one of the five kings who could have held everything together. Certainly Stannis the Sept Burner could not. Robb and Balon were separatists. Joffrey was a psycho. Renly was the only seemingly nice and competent and reasonable king who still wanted the kingdoms intact. Things only went seriously wrong after Renly was murdered.

7 minutes ago, Darth Sidious said:

Jon Snow

Sans Snowhead things would still look exactly the same or worse for Westeros. If anything he improved things with his valiant defence of the wall against the others.

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, Darth Sidious said:

Dragons are very powerful. They destroyed a castle that no other force in Westeros could, Harrenhal. One dragon defeated Harren, whom no other lord and his army could defeat. The arrogant people of the Vale thought they were safe. One woman and one dragon brought them to their knees.  Old Ghis was many times more powerful than Westeros. Westeros of the Conquest was more powerful than the sorry kingdom that it is now. Thank Robert, Robb, Renly, and Jon Snow for bringing Westeros to such a sorry state. The Westeros of today cannot stop a Dothraki attack. 

We know Targaryen dragons were powerful - after literally centuries of breeding. And even then they were not all-powerful, as @Thandros points out.

We know nothing of early Valyrian dragons. But consider that original horses - steppe horses - were ponies, and they went up to destriers by 15th century. It seems fairly likely that the dragons which Old Ghis faced were far weaker than those faced by Westeros. And it wasn't just dragons that won it for Targaryens, they had a farily sizable army which only increased with each victory.

As for Dothraki, anybody with two brain cells to rub together can stop a Dothraki attack.

[Darth Sidious]

14 hours ago, Aldarion said:

We know Targaryen dragons were powerful - after literally centuries of breeding. And even then they were not all-powerful, as @Thandros points out.

We know nothing of early Valyrian dragons. But consider that original horses - steppe horses - were ponies, and they went up to destriers by 15th century. It seems fairly likely that the dragons which Old Ghis faced were far weaker than those faced by Westeros. And it wasn't just dragons that won it for Targaryens, they had a farily sizable army which only increased with each victory.

As for Dothraki, anybody with two brain cells to rub together can stop a Dothraki attack.

The combined IQ of the ruling families of Westeros would not amount to two brain cells. Just look at the Starks. Perfect example of low IQ there. 
 

Nothing in Westeros can stop the Dothraki. Put the Unsullied in the same army as them and Westeros will lose the battle. 

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Darth Sidious said:

Nothing in Westeros can stop the Dothraki.

Yes it can. For starters they can stop the Dothraki crossing in the first place.

Just now, Darth Sidious said:

Put the Unsullied in the same army as them and Westeros will lose the battle. 

No they won't. If Daenerys fights with only Dothraki and Unsullied she would lose unless she had a million in total or some other number so large that she could just throw them at her opponents.

Just now, Darth Sidious said:

The combined IQ of the ruling families of Westeros would not amount to two brain cells. Just look at the Starks. Perfect example of low IQ there. 

This is completely untrue.

Dothraki and Unsullied alone are not good enough, unless they are given serious reforms, which there is insufficient time to institute.

[Aldarion]

51 minutes ago, Darth Sidious said:

Nothing in Westeros can stop the Dothraki. Put the Unsullied in the same army as them and Westeros will lose the battle. 

Literally everything in Westeros can stop the Dothraki. Or the Unsullied. Hell, the Ironborn, as mentally retarded as they are, shouldn't have issue with the Unsullied at least.

But we already have a thread for that:

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/159789-how-do-yall-think-the-unsullied-and-dothraki-will-perform-in-westeros/

[Jon Fossoway]

The Freehold doesn't appear to be an united entity. Inner conflict was as common as conflict with other powers. For some reason, at some point, the valyrians decided to unite against Garin and he rhoynar were defeated for good. I think the equilibrium inside the Freehold wasn't very secure  so, even having countless of "nukes", they can't properly use 'em if there isn't a centralized order, as the one Aegon, Visenya and Rhaenys imposed around the Iron Throne. Dragons were privative to a couple of families (Targaryens, Velaryons) and the the realm subjects just followed suit. In Aegon's conquest, there was a single iron fiery fist behind the push to unite the continent around Targ rule.

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

On 10/9/2022 at 3:31 PM, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

The previous replies are dancing around and avoiding the answer they know to be true but don't want to give. It is quite simple.  The lock step legions of Old Ghis were very, very good.  They were better than anything the 3 Targaryens faced during their conquest of the Westerosi.  Valyria and its hundreds of dragons took a few hard tries before Ghis was defeated.   Look at the training of the Unsullied from Astapor to see how tough those legions must have been.  The Valyrians were fighting a very professional army who has had the best training possible.  Like Dany's own Unsullied infantry.  Aegon and his sisters were facing a brave but less trained combination of armies.  The field of fire only killed 4000 men and a few more died from their wounds.  So about 5000 and that was enough to force a surrender.  The total casualties were less than a fraction of just one khalasar.  One khalasar.  Westeros is less populated and it is dependent on reserves for most of what it can take to battle.  There is just no comparison to the might of Old Ghis.  Truthfully, Dany could retake Westeros without her dragons.  The Unsullied, a few large khalasars, some sellswords, trained ex-slaves, and allies from among the noble families would be enough.

 

Those hundreds of dragons would have been causing millions of casualties.  Ghis would had to have a population in the millions to be able to absorb those loses.  They were able to regroup, rebuild and reequip between wars.  It says they were very strong and able.  Their legions were better than anything Westeros had. 

[Lord Varys]

The best take on this question is that the ancient Valyrian Freehold was kind of an unwilling empire, with powerful factions among the ruling class favoring a policy of isolationalism and non-interference. After all, if they had wanted to conquer the world, they would have. Nothing could have stood against their united power. This is also supported by the willingness of the Valyrian rulers to allow many a colony city to purchase their independence and rule themselves.

In that sense, we can assume that most Ghiscari Wars were not, in fact, wars to conquer Ghis, but rather wars about certain territories and colonies which didn't develop into a war to conquer Ghis (although the final wars would have, one assumes).

Also, one would imagine that the First and Second Ghiscari War might have been started by Ghis trying to conquer Valyria and/or certain territories in the Lands of Long Summer. Those would then have taken place long before Valyria started to conquer territories abroad.

Also, of course, the Westerosi savages were falling over themselves to accept the Targaryen yoke. Most lords and 'kings' didn't offer serious resistance, and the smallfolk were glad that the Targaryens came. For them, they weren't oppressors but liberators.

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Also, of course, the Westerosi savages were falling over themselves to accept the Targaryen yoke. Most lords and 'kings' didn't offer serious resistance, and the smallfolk were glad that the Targaryens came. For them, they weren't oppressors but liberators.

The Westerosi are not 'savages', at least not in comparison to Aegon. The only advantage Aegon had over them was dragons. His armies were the same/worse. He had the same religion as most of Westerosi. And the same level of technology. Unless you are arguing that his enlightened Valyrian way of incest makes his culture superior.

To say that they were 'falling over themselves' is inaccurate in my view. The kings gave up after losing multiple battles and having their soldiers burned alive, or being threatened with Dragons. The only region that accepted Aegon as king with no sort of coercion was the Riverlands, to kick out the Ironborn.

I don't think the Smallfolk cared about the Targaryens, at least not at the time of the conquest. Their wish is to be left in piece. The Targaryens didn't 'liberate' anyone when they invaded Westeros. They kept the exact same feudal structure in place, just with themselves at the top and former kingdoms as vassals instead. Hardly a liberation for the Smallfolk. 

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

The Westerosi are not 'savages', at least not in comparison to Aegon. The only advantage Aegon had over them was dragons. His armies were the same/worse. He had the same religion as most of Westerosi. And the same level of technology. Unless you are arguing that his enlightened Valyrian way of incest makes his culture superior.

To say that they were 'falling over themselves' is inaccurate in my view. The kings gave up after losing multiple battles and having their soldiers burned alive, or being threatened with Dragons. The only region that accepted Aegon as king with no sort of coercion was the Riverlands, to kick out the Ironborn.

I don't think the Smallfolk cared about the Targaryens, at least not at the time of the conquest. Their wish is to be left in piece. The Targaryens didn't 'liberate' anyone when they invaded Westeros. They kept the exact same feudal structure in place, just with themselves at the top and former kingdoms as vassals instead. Hardly a liberation for the Smallfolk. 

I was being somewhat sarcastic there.

The point I wanted to get across is that the Westerosi (sans Dorne) really were not passionately opposed to Targaryen rule. Nor did the royal houses (a freak Arryn traitor excluded) ever try to regain their royal status, nor did the noble houses push for independence nor did the common people feel oppressed by the Targaryens. We see that the Westerosi did loathe certain types of foreign rule, namely the Ironborn rule over the coastlands in the early times, and, especially, the Durrandon and Hoare rule over the Riverlands (and to a lesser degree even the Teague rule over the Riverlands). The Targaryens never faced such problems, meaning the consensus among the nobility and the smallfolk must have been 'The Targaryens are great and we want them to rule over us!'

Aegon conquering Westeros in but two years is like Germany (or better Switzerland) conquering all of Russia in but two years. This only makes sense in a scenario where the new subjects welcome the new regime. Anything else would have meant constant rebellions, guerillia warfare, feigned submissions, constant assassination attempts, etc.

Aegon had but three dragons, was then down to two for a time, reaching four in his last years (when Rhaena mounted Dreamfyre). And the majority of his dragonriders were women.

If but a handful of lords had been determined to get rid of the Targaryens, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to off them. Just look how the Caltrops got rid of the Two Betrayers. Poison is always queen, but you can also do it by way of a suicide attack.

The Targaryens own resources were a joke, they were completely dependent on their Westerosi subjects remaining loyal to them. If lots of people were unhappy with their reign then it the smallest rebellion should have quickly turned into a universal uprising casting the Targaryens down. But not even the High Septon could trigger such an upraising. Most lords remained either loyal to the Targaryens or did at least not support the rebels.