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

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

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!'

I don't think there's enough evidence to claim that the majority of the Nobles, and especially the Smallfolk, were pro-Targaryen to such a degree. We see one man in the Riverlands voice support for Aerys, given that he was likely removed from King's Landing it's unlikely he was aware of Aerys atrocities. There are a few nobles who are very pro-Targaryen but quite a lot of them seem ambivalent. Houses like Darry seemed to be the ones benefitting the most from the Targaryen rule, so no wonder they supported them.

I'm sure that Aegon/Daenerys could gather a lot of support, but I think in most cases that would be because lords believed they would benefit more from having them in charge than whoever was currently on the throne, not because of any special loyalty to the Targaryens per se.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

nor did the common people feel oppressed by the Targaryens.

I don't think they felt oppressed by the Targaryens, but I don't think they all loved them either. I don't think the Smallfolk care at all that much, as long as their left in peace. It was just another rung on the feudal ladder.

I believe it would be more accurate to say that the nobles and smallfolk viewed the Targaryen regime as bringing more advantages than disadvantages, or that overthrowing them would be more trouble than it was worth, than that they all generally agreed that the Targaryens were the Gods' Gift to Westeros.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

The Faith Militant uprising was quite significant but it ended because the Targaryens had Dragons. After the Dragons were gone however...

[Rondo]

The fighting forces of Westeros are not very good in comparison.  Dany would be able to give them a shortcut to their dead ancestors without having to resort to the use of dragons.  She can save the field of fire for the Wights and the Stark led Wildlings in the battle of the Trident.  

[TheLastWolf]

4 hours ago, Rondo said:

The fighting forces of Westeros are not very good in comparison.  Dany would be able to give them a shortcut to their dead ancestors without having to resort to the use of dragons.  She can save the field of fire for the Wights and the Stark led Wildlings in the battle of the Trident.  

[Aldarion]

10 hours ago, Rondo said:

The fighting forces of Westeros are not very good in comparison.  Dany would be able to give them a shortcut to their dead ancestors without having to resort to the use of dragons.  She can save the field of fire for the Wights and the Stark led Wildlings in the battle of the Trident.  

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2020/03/11/tactical-overview-the-unsullied/

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2020/08/01/tactical-overview-dothraki/

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2020/08/11/tactical-overview-golden-company/

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2020/08/21/proof-that-westerosi-armies-are-professionals/

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2020/10/01/clash-of-empires-dothraki-vs-westeros/

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2020/08/16/clash-of-empires-daenerys-vs-westeros-conventional-forces/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/11/18/why-1241-mongol-invasion-of-hungary-failed-part-1-overview-of-the-invasion/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/11/21/why-1241-mongol-invasion-of-hungary-failed-part-2-reasons-for-mongol-withdrawal/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/12/09/mongol-siege-of-klis-fortress/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/12/16/how-mongol-invasion-shaped-hungarys-defense-strategy/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/09/19/sumerian-phalanx/

https://historyandwar.org/2022/08/28/chivalry-in-croatia/

https://acoup.blog/2021/01/08/collections-that-dothraki-horde-part-iv-screamers-and-howlers/

https://acoup.blog/2019/05/05/new-acquisitions-unsullied-kit-review/

https://acoup.blog/2019/05/28/new-acquisitions-not-how-it-was-game-of-thrones-and-the-middle-ages-part-i/

[Lord Varys]

21 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't think there's enough evidence to claim that the majority of the Nobles, and especially the Smallfolk, were pro-Targaryen to such a degree. We see one man in the Riverlands voice support for Aerys, given that he was likely removed from King's Landing it's unlikely he was aware of Aerys atrocities. There are a few nobles who are very pro-Targaryen but quite a lot of them seem ambivalent. Houses like Darry seemed to be the ones benefitting the most from the Targaryen rule, so no wonder they supported them.

That is 300 years later and due to the atrocities/general behavior of a king who was known as Aerys the Mad. Robert's Rebellion wasn't an anti-Targaryen movement as such, it affirmed not only the rule of the King on the Iron Throne but you can even view it as a Targaryen civil war similar to the Dance of the Blackfyre Rebellions since Robert Baratheon is effectively a Targaryen through the female line.

In general, the smallfolk continues to view the rule of the Targaryen dynasty as a golden era. Individual kings might suck, but the dynasty is great.

21 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'm sure that Aegon/Daenerys could gather a lot of support, but I think in most cases that would be because lords believed they would benefit more from having them in charge than whoever was currently on the throne, not because of any special loyalty to the Targaryens per se.

If you want to consider the future then even the nobility were brought up to be in awe about the Targaryens and their semi-divine heritage. They did not grow up in a vacuum and half the Realm stood with Rhaegar at the Trident.

However, our topic here is Aegon conquering Westeros in record time, with minimal bloodshed and no major rebellions following the end of the war. This only makes sense if the conquered peoples were happy being conquered. No other explanation works. If they had been unhappy they would have found ways to rid themselves of Aegon and his sisters and their dragons. There were just three of them them, and then only two.

The only talk about assassination attempts we get is Dornish assassins - no hint that, say, the Lannisters or Starks ever plotted to murder their king and his queens to regain their status as kings, no hint that a bunch of lords banded together Caltrops style to murder Aegon during this or that royal progress.

21 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't think they felt oppressed by the Targaryens, but I don't think they all loved them either. I don't think the Smallfolk care at all that much, as long as their left in peace. It was just another rung on the feudal ladder.

The fast growth of KL indicates it was much more for many of the smallfolk. It was freedom from the yoke of the lords, almost constant peace, and an end to private feuds among the lords.

21 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I believe it would be more accurate to say that the nobles and smallfolk viewed the Targaryen regime as bringing more advantages than disadvantages, or that overthrowing them would be more trouble than it was worth, than that they all generally agreed that the Targaryens were the Gods' Gift to Westeros.

Well, obviously, any really ambitious family would have dreamed about becoming Targaryens themselves. To marry into the family and either share in their rule or claim or usurp the Iron Throne. That was real power now, ultimate power, not the little power even the former royal houses as rulers of their relatively small domains (compared to all the Seven Kingdoms sans Dorne).

That is why we see the Hightowers and the Lannisters aiming at this high price from the start rather than, you know, plot regain their petty crowns which would only invite trouble.

But this kind of attitude only works, of course, if they are all more or less fine with a king ruling them all. If the Targaryens had been viewed as oppressors and tyrants the Realm their rule would have quickly collapsed.

21 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

The Faith Militant uprising was quite significant but it ended because the Targaryens had Dragons. After the Dragons were gone however...

The siginificant thing there is that after Dorne showed that defiance against the dragons were possible literally no great house (openly) backed the Faith's crusade against the Targaryens. It were minor houses and the fanatics among the smallfolk.

Once the dragons were gone, Targaryen rule continued as before. We see no signs that they had greater authority with dragons than without dragons ... although this should be the case. Granted, Aegon V's reforms would have likely worked better with dragons than without, but a king like Aegon IV and even Aerys II seemed to have all the absolute power - or even more of it - as Maegor or Jaehaerys I had.

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In general, the smallfolk continues to view the rule of the Targaryen dynasty as a golden era. Individual kings might suck, but the dynasty is great.

Are there any quotations to evidence this? The only pro-Targaryen smallfolk quote I am aware of is the old man in the Riverlands.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you want to consider the future then even the nobility were brought up to be in awe about the Targaryens and their semi-divine heritage.

Are there any quotes for this? In the main series and not F&B? I have not had the books on me for a while.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They did not grow up in a vacuum and half the Realm stood with Rhaegar at the Trident.

I'm not sure about this. The Martells were there, but they had marriage ties and Aerys was keeping Elia hostage (and Lewyn may have been a hostage as well). The Tyrells were not with Rhaegar. In terms of the Great Houses, only two of eight were with the Targaryens. Lannister was neutral and Arryn, Baratheon, Stark, Tully and Greyjoy were all against them.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

However, our topic here is Aegon conquering Westeros in record time, with minimal bloodshed and no major rebellions following the end of the war. This only makes sense if the conquered peoples were happy being conquered. No other explanation works. If they had been unhappy they would have found ways to rid themselves of Aegon and his sisters and their dragons. There were just three of them them, and then only two.

Well they'd already tried to be rid of them the first time. It didn't work because of the dragons. When Aegon died and Maegor was in charge they tried to get rid of him. It didn't work because dragons.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The fast growth of KL indicates it was much more for many of the smallfolk. It was freedom from the yoke of the lords, almost constant peace, and an end to private feuds among the lords.

It's not really freedom from the lords though. All they are doing is switching their local lord for a Targaryen one. They're all still part of the feudal structure, having to be subservient to the king.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If the Targaryens had been viewed as oppressors and tyrants the Realm their rule would have quickly collapsed.

But this is what we see with Maegor. People think he's a tyrant and try to overthrow him, only it doesn't work because Dragons.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Once the dragons were gone, Targaryen rule continued as before. We see no signs that they had greater authority with dragons than without dragons ... although this should be the case. Granted, Aegon V's reforms would have likely worked better with dragons than without, but a king like Aegon IV and even Aerys II seemed to have all the absolute power - or even more of it - as Maegor or Jaehaerys I had.

It looks like the number of non-Targaryen matches increase and the number of incestuous marriages decrease though...

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Are there any quotations to evidence this? The only pro-Targaryen smallfolk quote I am aware of is the old man in the Riverlands.

We also have folks caring about the murder of the Targaryen children. Even the whores in White Harbor talk Targaryens as their rightful rulers as late as ADwD.

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Are there any quotes for this? In the main series and not F&B? I have not had the books on me for a while.

I meant that most nobility were born during the reign of Aerys II, growing up viewing the Targaryens as their rightful rulers.

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'm not sure about this. The Martells were there, but they had marriage ties and Aerys was keeping Elia hostage (and Lewyn may have been a hostage as well). The Tyrells were not with Rhaegar. In terms of the Great Houses, only two of eight were with the Targaryens. Lannister was neutral and Arryn, Baratheon, Stark, Tully and Greyjoy were all against them.

We know Rhaegar had more men than Robert. And most of the regions were split, with Targaryen loyalists being in the Stormlands, the Vale, and the Riverlands.

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Well they'd already tried to be rid of them the first time. It didn't work because of the dragons. When Aegon died and Maegor was in charge they tried to get rid of him. It didn't work because dragons.

They didn't try to topple Aegon for 37 years. And afterwards only a bunch of morons and religious fanatics rebelled, no major house of the Realm.

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It's not really freedom from the lords though. All they are doing is switching their local lord for a Targaryen one. They're all still part of the feudal structure, having to be subservient to the king.

Living in a city means greater freedom compared to country life in a medieval setting. There is little to no feudalism in a city.

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

But this is what we see with Maegor. People think he's a tyrant and try to overthrow him, only it doesn't work because Dragons.

They actually kind of toppled him despite the fact that he had dragons, no? Jaehaerys was a boy on a small dragon - he would have been no match for Balerion even with the help of Dreamfyre and Silverwing.

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It looks like the number of non-Targaryen matches increase and the number of incestuous marriages decrease though...

Not really. Only Aegon V tries to abandon the incest policy. The sons of Daeron II lack sisters to marry - if that's the case then other matches are usually made. And we can assume that some of those women were cousins on the Targaryen side (which is confirmed for Aelinor Penrose, the wife of Aerys I).

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Lord Varys said:

We also have folks caring about the murder of the Targaryen children. Even the whores in White Harbor talk Targaryens as their rightful rulers as late as ADwD.

Are there quotes? I'd like to look at them but I lack the books just now.

I think caring about the murder of the children is a bit different to being a Targaryen loyalist. Ned cares about it but he's not a Targaryen loyalist. People care about it because it's a heinous crime.

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

I meant that most nobility were born during the reign of Aerys II, growing up viewing the Targaryens as their rightful rulers.

That's a bit different from being 'in awe of their semi-divine heritage' though.

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We know Rhaegar had more men than Robert. And most of the regions were split, with Targaryen loyalists being in the Stormlands, the Vale, and the Riverlands.

He had more men than Robert, but that doesn't mean half the realm supported him. And the Targaryen loyalists in other regions weren't loyalists for very long, save perhaps House Darry.

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They didn't try to topple Aegon for 37 years.

Yes, because they tried to stop him when he first came, and it didn't work because of the dragons. 

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And afterwards only a bunch of morons and religious fanatics rebelled, no major house of the Realm.

Still, it was quite a lot of people, especially smallfolk, who evidently weren't happy with the Targaryen rule.

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They actually kind of toppled him despite the fact that he had dragons, no? Jaehaerys was a boy on a small dragon - he would have been no match for Balerion even with the help of Dreamfyre and Silverwing.

Well he died under mysterious circumstances, so I don't know if they toppled him or not. Certainly lots of people had switched allegiance to Jaehaerys by then. But they rebelled against him and lost before. They never got the chance to fight him again because he died. And rather then rebelling outright they backed another Targaryen.

[Lord Varys]

18 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Are there quotes? I'd like to look at them but I lack the books just now.

The whole thing about the whores and the Targaryens is from Davos' White Harbor chapter. You could also think about Mathis Rowan being pissed about the murder of Elia's children, the Brotherhood without Banners caring about it, the acolytes in Pate's Prologue toasting Daenerys as their rightful queen, etc.

18 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I think caring about the murder of the children is a bit different to being a Targaryen loyalist. Ned cares about it but he's not a Targaryen loyalist. People care about it because it's a heinous crime.

Ned also cares about them because they are royal/noble children. Ned also kind of cares about Mycah, but certainly not enough to go to war over that.

18 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

That's a bit different from being 'in awe of their semi-divine heritage' though.

The point is that people universally view the Targaryens as the rightful royal dynasty. Nobody says they lost their claim because a mad king lost a war.

18 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

He had more men than Robert, but that doesn't mean half the realm supported him. And the Targaryen loyalists in other regions weren't loyalists for very long, save perhaps House Darry.

Some of them were beaten, but that doesn't cause them to disappear. I mean, Rhaegar having more men at the Trident despite the fact that four great lords supported Robert's claim is kind of telling. Obviously only a fraction of the levies of the North, Vale, Riverlands, and Stormlands fought on Robert's side at the Trident or else Rhaegar would have been completely outmatched.

18 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yes, because they tried to stop him when he first came, and it didn't work because of the dragons.

If they had valued their independence then they would have continued the war. It is as simple as that. Neither the North nor the West were actually conquered. The Targaryens never even set a foot in those lands during the war.

18 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Still, it was quite a lot of people, especially smallfolk, who evidently weren't happy with the Targaryen rule.

Only the religious fanatics - and that was not so much because of the Targaryens as such but because of their abominable marriage customs. Had they stopped those, the Faith wouldn't have rebelled.

18 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Well he died under mysterious circumstances, so I don't know if they toppled him or not. Certainly lots of people had switched allegiance to Jaehaerys by then. But they rebelled against him and lost before. They never got the chance to fight him again because he died. And rather then rebelling outright they backed another Targaryen.

When Maegor died, he was done to a pitiful retinue of Crownlanders supporting him. Everybody else either declared for Jaehaerys or stayed out of the conflict. That's literal proof there that the largest dragon in the world is of no use to you if people just don't care.

The ability to destroy cities and castles is just that - it cannot force others to actually do your bidding or support you. The Targaryens only prevailed because people wanted to fight and die for the dragons - not because the dragons had the ability to destroy them. After all, they also had Westerosi fight other Westerosi on behalf of the Targaryens.

The Faith would have crushed Maegor if the lords and knights and smallfolk had decided to not support Maegor at all.

[Pontius Pilate]

On 10/17/2022 at 9:21 AM, astarkchoice said:

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.

There are plenty of evidence.  The size of the cities in the East is evidence of a large population.  The 5 Forts and the 3 Pyramids of Meereen tell a story of large cities.  Ghis had their awesome legions.  Valyria had hundreds of dragons.  Aegon only had three.  Those legions were the reason why the Valyrians could not easily defeat the Ghis.  Westeros do not have armies of comparable quality.  The legions were better.