Aegon should have made the Riverlands part of the Crownlands

[SaffronLady]

2 hours ago, maesternewton said:

"with 2 coasts cut off by land in between" How does that make any sense? Are the coasts supposed to be joined.

One conjoined coast is better, much better, than 2 coasts cut off by land in between. Or you could, you know, replicate the defeat of the Russian Navy during the Russo-Japanese war when they had to deploy the Baltic fleet to fight the Japs after their Pacific fleet was blockaded and sunk. Turns out having fleets separated by great stretches of land and frozen seas is not a good idea.

Besides, with a look at the map (which I am still doubting whether you did), A1gon clearly could not sail his own fleet into Ironman's Bay without crossing waters of the westerlands and the Reach, not to mention Dorne. His only naval defense against the ironmen would be dependant on the western and Reach lords, who also happen to have family members burned to death by his own dragon. Seeds of sedition and sabotage growing strong.

2 hours ago, maesternewton said:

Having a seaboard means you are susceptible to naval invasions, which can transport ships faster.

Yes, however this is still more defensible than the plains which are the legal border of the Reach and the riverlands. Besides, having a seaboard means it is also easier to keep your cities supplied by sea when they are totally surrounded on land.

2 hours ago, maesternewton said:

Sparsely populated regions that still have bigger militaries than the Crownlands?

The Vale have their mountain clans, the stormlands have the Dornish March, the forces they could throw against the crownlands won't be their full strength. I think you want to say "so because they have more men, A1gon should have swallowed the riverlands so he could outgun them both". But here's the thing: the point about being a medieval king is not just about gobbling the most land, consequences be damned. Besides, claiming the riverlands into the crownlands has the quite prominent issue of not being able to outgun the Reach.

2 hours ago, maesternewton said:

A region with a geopolitical pressure that still outguns the Crownlands, that's your points on what makes the Riverlands defensible? Good lord. 

Chucking the riverlands out to be its own thing makes it impossible for them to bring their full strength upon the crownlands due to the pressure they have on every direction, which by implication makes the crownlands more defensible. Good Lord.

2 hours ago, maesternewton said:

I forgot to attend the lessons in which we were told the merit of ideas are determined by popularity, how careless of me.

Welcome to the internet.

2 hours ago, maesternewton said:

As I stated previously, why does it matter if the Riverlands is indefensible? It's a united realm under one King for heaven's sake. That's a simple enough concept to understand that I don't need to beat you over the head for not understanding.

Unity means nothing by default. Or historical kingdoms wouldn't pick defensible capitals, such as Chang'an (in the middle of a basin, surrounded by mountains), Beijing (mountains to the northwest, large river to the southeast), Moscow (surrounded by forests on all sides).

I need to beat you over the head about things like "loss of dragons" and "internal conflicts". The fact that the riverlands is hard to defend makes it reliant on support of the crown, unlike the Reach. Which turns a problem of the most powerful lords in direct conflict with the king into one cushioned by another powerful lord, who shares the legal interests of the lords but the geopolitical interests of the king, a situation that defuses conflicts and ensures the unity is actively upheld by all parties.

In short, the compromise ensures the unity.

2 hours ago, maesternewton said:

This is not pre Conquest, this is post Conquest when the kingdoms are united under one King. The River-Crownlands is royal domain. If it's attacked, it has enough manpower to resist and pushback. And it would also get support from the other regions. 

Say that House Targaryen loses the dragons (they die, they fly off, whatever) just a few years after they decide to follow this setup of yours. How much manpower do they need? How much support would they receive from the other regions?

Most importantly, how many opponents do they have to face? West + Reach almost for sure, maybe stormlands, maybe even Dorne. North and Vale probably do nothing, could also probably help, but with the west + Reach on the same side of conventional warfare, the results are basically set.

Did I mention the Blackwood-Bracken feud yet? The riverlands have their own internal squabbles, and a war to oust A1gon won't rouse them unless the allies decide to do something stupid and take their castles.

3 hours ago, maesternewton said:

The more you blab on, the less sense you make. 

This only serves to demonstrate you aren't thinking more about "what should a ruler without dragons do".

[maesternewton]

On 8/23/2023 at 9:42 PM, SaffronLady said:

One conjoined coast is better, much better, than 2 coasts cut off by land in between. Or you could, you know, replicate the defeat of the Russian Navy during the Russo-Japanese war when they had to deploy the Baltic fleet to fight the Japs after their Pacific fleet was blockaded and sunk. Turns out having fleets separated by great stretches of land and frozen seas is not a good idea.

Besides, with a look at the map (which I am still doubting whether you did), A1gon clearly could not sail his own fleet into Ironman's Bay without crossing waters of the westerlands and the Reach, not to mention Dorne. His only naval defense against the ironmen would be dependant on the western and Reach lords, who also happen to have family members burned to death by his own dragon. Seeds of sedition and sabotage growing strong.

You are points are getting more confusing as times goes on because you seem to have come up with some weird scenario in your mind that has nothing to do with what I presented or you have a poor understanding of how Westeros works.

During the Dance of the Dragons the Ironman destroyed the Lannister fleet, and after the Dance had ended Alyn was tasked with bringing the Ironborn down, so he had to sail around Westeros to do so. Your poor example of the Russian navy is exactly what happened, the Lannister navy was destroyed, and the Royal fleet was used as reinforcement to put down the ironborn. 

And even after aegon burned down the lords, they still defended westeros from rebellions after he died, so i don't see how that is even remotely relevant...

On 8/23/2023 at 9:42 PM, SaffronLady said:

Yes, however this is still more defensible than the plains which are the legal border of the Reach and the riverlands. Besides, having a seaboard means it is also easier to keep your cities supplied by sea when they are totally surrounded on land.

How is a whole stretch of seaboard more defensible than the plains, are you even listening to yourself? 

On 8/23/2023 at 9:42 PM, SaffronLady said:

The Vale have their mountain clans, the stormlands have the Dornish March, the forces they could throw against the crownlands won't be their full strength. I think you want to say "so because they have more men, A1gon should have swallowed the riverlands so he could outgun them both". But here's the thing: the point about being a medieval king is not just about gobbling the most land, consequences be damned. Besides, claiming the riverlands into the crownlands has the quite prominent issue of not being able to outgun the Reach.

The Vale can raise 45k men, even raising half of that outguns the Crownlands. The Dornish threat is nonexistent as soon as Dorne joins the realm. 

Historically, monarchs who owned small stretches of land were increasingly reliant on their vassals and had weak reigns while as soon as they bigger tracts of land they had more stronger reigns.

Again, It was never about outgunning the Reach because it will never be a 1v1 fight, it's about not having a small royal domain that makes you reliant too much on your vassals. I repeat, this is not independent kingdoms westeros. If the Reach was to rebel, the King doesn't need to call upon to many great houses except one or two to bolster his own strength.

On 8/23/2023 at 9:42 PM, SaffronLady said:

Chucking the riverlands out to be its own thing makes it impossible for them to bring their full strength upon the crownlands due to the pressure they have on every direction, which by implication makes the crownlands more defensible. Good Lord.

And that's what during Robert's Rebellion huh? Everyone was fighting each other instead of 2 kingdoms with the help of the Riverlands being able to match the royalist, which would not be possible if the Riverlands was royal domain.

On 8/23/2023 at 9:42 PM, SaffronLady said:

Welcome to the internet.

Perhaps it's the first time, but that is not how the internet works sweety. Discussions are not popularity contests, what a fallacious point. 

On 8/23/2023 at 9:42 PM, SaffronLady said:

Unity means nothing by default. Or historical kingdoms wouldn't pick defensible capitals, such as Chang'an (in the middle of a basin, surrounded by mountains), Beijing (mountains to the northwest, large river to the southeast), Moscow (surrounded by forests on all sides).

I need to beat you over the head about things like "loss of dragons" and "internal conflicts". The fact that the riverlands is hard to defend makes it reliant on support of the crown, unlike the Reach. Which turns a problem of the most powerful lords in direct conflict with the king into one cushioned by another powerful lord, who shares the legal interests of the lords but the geopolitical interests of the king, a situation that defuses conflicts and ensures the unity is actively upheld by all parties.

In short, the compromise ensures the unity.

What an asinine comment, if unity meant nothing, as soon as the Targaryens lost dragons. The realm would have crumpled but it didn't. When threats popped up increasingly like the Nine Penny Kings and the Blackfyre Rebellions, the crown would had to rely on it's own or the realm would have crumbled. 

And to put this nonsense about the Riverlands being indefensible more so than the Crownlands, and since you think majority opinion is right, here is a thread that talked about how the Riverlands is not indefensible. And the issue with the Riverlands has never been about natural defenses it has always been disunity, which is the same problem that plagues the Reach. Rivers are a natural defenses themselves, since armies can only cross at fords and bridges, which can be defended relatively easily there is a fucking reason a lot of empires built their boundary around rivers.

On 8/23/2023 at 9:42 PM, SaffronLady said:

Say that House Targaryen loses the dragons (they die, they fly off, whatever) just a few years after they decide to follow this setup of yours. How much manpower do they need? How much support would they receive from the other regions?

Most importantly, how many opponents do they have to face? West + Reach almost for sure, maybe stormlands, maybe even Dorne. North and Vale probably do nothing, could also probably help, but with the west + Reach on the same side of conventional warfare, the results are basically set.

Did I mention the Blackwood-Bracken feud yet? The riverlands have their own internal squabbles, and a war to oust A1gon won't rouse them unless the allies decide to do something stupid and take their castles.

Let me give you the example of Robert's Rebellion. With the Riverlands as your royal domain, already you have less enemy to worry about and two kingdoms in rebellion who are out gunned. 

The Riverlands internal squabbles are always an issue because the Tullys have always had a weak hold on the Riverlands. They can raise less men than their vassals which undermines their authority. If it's the Crown ruling over that's not an issue and you have a more united Riverlands.

On 8/23/2023 at 9:42 PM, SaffronLady said:

This only serves to demonstrate you aren't thinking more about "what should a ruler without dragons do".

Canon already tells us what a ruler could do without dragons, and the result is that even if you make alliances your successor can fuck it up which ends up crumbling the dynasty because the crown is weak due to having a weak force of arms if it does not rely on it's vassals. 

All your poor points have demonstrated you have a poor understanding of how Westeros works. This has been such a waste of time that it's best I do not entertain you anymore. 

[SaffronLady]

Look, before I respond to anything you say, I just want you to know I am continuing this discussion in good faith, and genuinely confused about your disregard for balance between lords and king, and political compromises. I know A1gon, having dragons, technically could just gobble up everything up to Pinkmaiden, and I think he parcelled out the riverlands partly as a just-in-case for the scenario where his descendants lose their dragons. You have convinced yourself you are correct and out here to preach, and lashing out at people for not agreeing.

21 minutes ago, maesternewton said:

You are points are getting more confusing as times goes on because you seem to have come up with some weird scenario in your mind that has nothing to do with what I presented or you have a poor understanding of how Westeros works.

No, you just don't look at the map, neither do you dig deep enough into history. While previously mentioned Russia is the most classic example, France with its separated Atlantic and Med fleets to a lesser extent is also useful for analyzing 2 cut-off stretches of coastline. It is a problem, I think, you could find works of French naval historians to learn about.

25 minutes ago, maesternewton said:

During the Dance of the Dragons the Ironman destroyed the Lannister fleet, and after the Dance had ended Alyn was tasked with bringing the Ironborn down, so he had to sail around Westeros to do so. Your poor example of the Russian navy is exactly what happened, the Lannister navy was destroyed, and the Royal fleet was used as reinforcement to put down the ironborn. 

So ... because instead of losing, the royal fleet won, my example regarding Tsushima becomes a bad example, instead of Alyn getting lucky/the ironborn fleet was trash? Are you even listening to yourself? This is actually a little funny.

Alyn's fleet is also a legacy of the Velaryons' golden age, a fleet the Velaryons were never able to field again. Of course, the Velaryon trade empire isn't exactly the crownlands, so it doesn't mean the Iron Throne couldn't try ... something ... if it actually had an independent bureaucracy that was operating.

27 minutes ago, maesternewton said:

Again, It was never about outgunning the Reach because it will never be a 1v1 fight, it's about not having a small royal domain that makes you reliant too much on your vassals. I repeat, this is not independent kingdoms westeros. If the Reach was to rebel, the King doesn't need to call upon to many great houses except one or two to bolster his own strength.

And the king needs to compromise with his lords if he wants to have any of them respond his call to arms (well, again, A1gon has the Black Dread so any possible warfare in his own time becomes mostly up to himself, but if we keep circling back to him this thread would go nowhere), which means it is unwise to make your domain as big as theoretically possible because such an act paints you in a greedy light.

Also, regardless of the whether the riverlands are part of some mega-crownlands or its own thing, its lords would still have especially have a bad impression of foreign conquerors who tax them and rob manpower from them, you know, Harren Hoare. A1gon would want to come off as "I'm not the next Harren the Black", that would restrict the maximum number of troops he could call upon from the riverlands.

40 minutes ago, maesternewton said:

And even after aegon burned down the lords, they still defended westeros from rebellions after he died, so i don't see how that is even remotely relevant...

The Faith Militant rebellion happened only a few years after the conqueror died, and it took Maegor riding out on the conqueror's dragon to put an end to it. Even if they weren't using the FM rebellion as a cover, the lords were more or less watching if the royal house could defend itself. Not to mention the lords who decided to back Aegon the Uncrowned against Maegor at the battle at God's Eye. I know you won't see how it's remotely relevant, though.

50 minutes ago, maesternewton said:

And that's what during Robert's Rebellion huh? Everyone was fighting each other instead of 2 kingdoms with the help of the Riverlands being able to match the royalist, which would not be possible if the Riverlands was royal domain.

The chain of logic is not connecting your words in this comment. Robert's Rebellion was Reach + Dorne + crownlands against STAB, even with the Lannisters who stayed out of most of the war it was still 2 big blocs fighting, what "everyone fighting each other" nonsense are you talking about?

53 minutes ago, maesternewton said:

How is a whole stretch of seaboard more defensible than the plains, are you even listening to yourself? 

You gave me no reasons nor counterpoints to refute, so I could only let this one slide, chum.

54 minutes ago, maesternewton said:

What an asinine comment, if unity meant nothing, as soon as the Targaryens lost dragons. The realm would have crumpled but it didn't. When threats popped up increasingly like the Nine Penny Kings and the Blackfyre Rebellions, the crown would had to rely on it's own or the realm would have crumbled.

A1gon compromised with the lords and built a rudimentary bureaucracy that allowed any lord who entered his service to project power over lands much further than his holdings, and this compromise was what kept the unity existent after the Targs lost their dragons. If A1gon was just another run-of-the-mill greedy conqueror or he died before getting his bureaucracy operational, the realm would have crumpled.

Besides, if the realm crumbled the Blackfyre rebellions wouldn't even be a big affair because the Iron Throne rules over only the crownlands, which greatly limits the number of people playing for the IT. Daemon might not even be interested in pressing such a paltry claim compared to making a name for himself in Essos.

It's ok though, I know you don't understand.

1 hour ago, maesternewton said:

And to put this nonsense about the Riverlands being indefensible more so than the Crownlands, and since you think majority opinion is right, here is a thread that talked about how the Riverlands is not indefensible. And the issue with the Riverlands has never been about natural defenses it has always been disunity, which is the same problem that plagues the Reach. Rivers are a natural defenses themselves, since armies can only cross at fords and bridges, which can be defended relatively easily there is a fucking reason a lot of empires built their boundary around rivers.

Sigh.

The riverlands is more indefensible than the crownlands. If crossing just a river is so risky, what about the risks of crossing open ocean? Defensibility isn't a bool value, it's a numeral value.

Also, after reading the thread, I don't understand why you think this makes you more in the right when it says "the riverlands is not indefensible just because it lacks chokepoints so long as you have enough allies and win enough battles" because that still doesn't change the fact the riverlands is open to attack from 3 directions, and because the same sentence applies also to the Reach and the stormlands perfectly. 

And the crownlands, too.

1 hour ago, maesternewton said:

Let me give you the example of Robert's Rebellion. With the Riverlands as your royal domain, already you have less enemy to worry about and two kingdoms in rebellion who are out gunned. 

Robert's Rebellion is almost 300 years after A1gon was supposed to take or not take any decision, but for the sake of analysis I'll bite.

Hoster Tully would probably not have married his daughters to Ned and Jon Arryn given in this scenario he isn't a Lord Paramount, and his support wouldn't have mattered much since he cannot rally more or less all of the riverlords. So that brings STAB down to SAB. The mega-crownlands alone is a match for North + Vale, and Bobby has to rally the stormlands since it's torn between Targ and Bobby loyalists. So in this scenario, the westerlands or the Reach are the deciding factors since Dorne, if it joins the war, would probably join on the Targ side.

1 hour ago, maesternewton said:

They can raise less men than their vassals which undermines their authority. If it's the Crown ruling over that's not an issue and you have a more united Riverlands.

And how many men could the Targs raise again? From their own holdings, not in toto.

1 hour ago, maesternewton said:

Canon already tells us what a ruler could do without dragons, and the result is that even if you make alliances your successor can fuck it up which ends up crumbling the dynasty because the crown is weak due to having a weak force of arms if it does not rely on it's vassals.

Which is a feature of medieval and monarchial politics around the world. The scenario you're describing is one where rulers with powerful armies have failed to handle well because successors have always been a risk factor.

As for rulers relying on their vassals,

1 hour ago, maesternewton said:

All your poor points have demonstrated you have a poor understanding of how Westeros works. This has been such a waste of time that it's best I do not entertain you anymore.

That is how Westeros works, lords paramount rely on their vassal lords, vassal lords rely on smaller vassal lords and landed knights. The Targs don't build an ERE-style career army despite sitting on the largest city in Westeros along the richest trade route in the world, which should generate the income they need for such a project, because that is how Westeros works. You, on the other hand, seem to believe something will fundamentally change if the Targs ... had more vassal lords, who still have the authority and connections to make an upending rebellion like the Tullys did against the Hoares possible.

And as I have demonstrated you are more or less misguided and delusional. Still, I am willing to entertain you.

[Lee-Sensei]

On 8/18/2023 at 5:34 PM, maesternewton said:

I believe one of Aegon's mistakes was believing that the dragons would last forever, and we see in canon when dragons were gone Targaryens had a small royal domain and were increasingly reliant on the great houses for military strength. 

The Crownlands plus the Riverlands would be the size of the Reach, with 60k strong military strength, more income, and more control over the 2nd breakbasket of Westeros. It would come with a bit more administration and hassle due to bickering river lords, but the pros outweigh the cons. 

The mistake of the Targaryens wasn't that they gave the Riverlands independence. It's that they didn't seem to think the Westerosi were good enough to intermarry with. Aegon V had the right idea.

[Lady Ella]

I agree completely with the OP. For someone who decided he was going to conquer the entire continent in one go, Aegon put remarkably little thought into it. So many of his most important decisions were made on a whim. He didn't think at all about the structure and power balance of the kingdom, probably because he simply didn't understand such concepts. The Targaryens had zero experience playing the game of thrones, after all.

Making the Tullys Lords Paramount of the Riverlands was a completely arbitary decision. As the OP pointed out, they were not the most powerful house in the Riverlands in terms of land, army size, wealth or prestige. These things matter. They were never going to be able to assert their power over the whole of the Riverlands, making them a weak link in the fedual system and meaning that the Riverlands was always going to cause problems for the Crown. Think of the role the Blackwood-Bracken feud played in the Blackfyre Rebellions.

Take away the dragons, and the Targaryens only had the Crownlands, making them incredibly weak. The Riverlands are at the heart of the realm; making them part of the Crownlands would have made it easier for the Targs to assert their power over the Iron Islands and the North as they would have been closer. Those saying the Riverlands are indefensible are missing the point. The more land you rule, the more powerful you are because the harder it is for your enemies to seize and hold all of your land.

Having said all of that, I don't think the Targs would have been able to assert their power over the Riverlands post-dragons anyway. Am I right in thinking that the only land the Targs ruled directly on the mainland was King's Landing itself or did they rule land around it? If it was only KL, then they were weaker even than the lords of the Crownlands. In other words, Aegon the Conqueror made a real mess of a kingdom, which is the ultimate root cause of the War of Five Kings.

[SaffronLady]

1 hour ago, Lady Ella said:

Making the Tullys Lords Paramount of the Riverlands was a completely arbitary decision. As the OP pointed out, they were not the most powerful house in the Riverlands in terms of land, army size, wealth or prestige. These things matter. They were never going to be able to assert their power over the whole of the Riverlands, making them a weak link in the fedual system and meaning that the Riverlands was always going to cause problems for the Crown. Think of the role the Blackwood-Bracken feud played in the Blackfyre Rebellions.

The Tyrells: well, I guess people don't feel bothered by us growing strong here.

Divisions in the Reach were a plot point during the Dance of the Dragons though, so there is a parallel here.

1 hour ago, Lady Ella said:

The more land you rule, the more powerful you are because the harder it is for your enemies to seize and hold all of your land.

I have tried playing Crusader Kings: North Korea mode. Let's just say it took me a long time to understand why the real world doesn't work that way.

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, Lady Ella said:

The more land you rule, the more powerful you are because the harder it is for your enemies to seize and hold all of your land.

It doesn't always work that way though, especially in earlier periods of history. The more land you rule, the more prone to internal squabbling you are as well, you have more land to defend, more vassals to deal with, etc. Emperor of China ruled loads of land yet on more than one occasion the Emperor was just a puppet. Same with Roman emperors. And you can rule loads of land but it could be sparsely populated, have nothing good to trade, just be deserts etc. You could own loads of empty, indefensible plains or a few well-fortified cities. Which would be harder to take?

Edited August 27, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[SaffronLady]

5 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

And you can rule loads of land but it could be sparsely populated, have nothing good to trade, just be deserts etc.

French colonies in the Sahara, basically.

2 hours ago, Lady Ella said:

In other words, Aegon the Conqueror made a real mess of a kingdom, which is the ultimate root cause of the War of Five Kings.

And this I fullheartedly agree with. If the Aegon's Dream theory becomes book-confirmed, it would make A1gon look rather funny.