The Martells (and the North?) and Asymmetric Warfare

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

This ended up at the tail end of the Valyrian thread, which was closed.

http://thewertzone.b...ml?spref=tw&m=1

Above is the full account of the Targaryen family on Dragonstone and the narrative of what happened during the Conquest. (Random off-topic observation: There are no Stark or Arryn swords in the Irone Throne, because they surrendered without fighting [possibly worth a foreshadowing thread on its own]; and Oldtown was the last city to fall.)

The part I'm interested in is Dorne and how the Martells and their people successfully held off Rhaenys Targaryen's attempts to conquer them. Dorne at this time was led by Princess Mariya Martell, a lady in her 80s called the Yellow Toad.

Rhaenys led an army into Dorne. However, the Dornish refused to give battle, instead melting away into the mountains and deserts, returning only to launch guerrilla raids on the army. Rhaenys captured holdfasts to no avail, as their people had already fled, leaving only the elderly and infirm. Frustrated, Rhaenys flew directly to Sunspear to demand Princess Mariya's surrender. Mariya instead informed her that, "This is Dorne. You are not wanted here, return at your peril." Rhaenys replied that she would return with "Fire and blood," but Mariya simply replied, "Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken." The Targaryen army withdrew from Dorne, leaving the country untaken.

Now this has some fun symmetry on its own — Mariya was the Yellow Toad and her descendant Quentyn was called Frog; an elderly lady successfully held off the Targs, and in the current timeline Dany's most successful adversaries are old women (Mirri and the Green Grace). I also think it's hilarious that an ancient old lady had the cajones to tell Rhaenys to screw off (and the Arryn queen regent held out for a fair bit, too), while the men either surrendered outright or got incinerated in an open field.

Significantly though, it shows that the Targaryens, even with dragons, could be held off through asymmetric warfare.

I did quite a bit of reading and research on asymmetric warfare in school. Basically, regular armies lose if they don't win outright. Guerilla fighters win if they don't lose. Researching counterinsurgency, I saw the same thing a lot — Mao in China, Algeria holding off the French, the Viet Cong, etc. In each case the substantially more powerful party (and in the cases of France and the U.S., the foreign invaders) was undone or driven out. The guerilla group resorts to asymmetric tactics precisely because it can't engage in traditional methods of warfare successfully. If the Dornish forces had met Rhaenys' army head on, they'd've been destroyed.

I have to wonder if this precedent will have implications, either for Dorne or the North or both, when the dragons — dragons of less considerable age and size than Aegon's — arrive. I keep seeing people say, basically, "But oh my god they had dragons!" Well, yeah, they did — and Dorne still successfully ejected them. And if Dorne did it once, why couldn't it do it again?

As for the North, I tend to view it and Dorne as sort of two sides of the same coin, kind of a dualist pair. Extreme north and extreme south, both culturally and ethnically different from the middle parts of the country, isolated, with extreme (opposite) weather, etc. And I have to wonder if Dorne's guerilla tactics wouldn't also work in the North. I've said before that I found it curious/convenient that Torrhen Stark not only surrendered, but did so fairly far to the South, well below the Neck. What if he'd taken those 30,000 men, kept them above the Neck and engaged in the sort of guerilla fighting that Dorne did? May have worked, might not have. To definitely say it wouldn't have, though, given what Dorne did, is a reach, in my opinion.

More than anything, the Dornish example show that yes it is possible to stand up successfully to someone with dragons and that they're not necessarily an ironclad trump card. Perhaps the other kingdoms' mistake was meeting Aegon in an open field — perhaps guerilla warfare is and was the answer all along.

[The guy from the Vale]

An interesting concept to consider in this context would be the honor culture of those different regions. The defeated regions (save for the Vale) were heavily chivalric. Meeting on the open battlefield was probably considered good style for them, compared to ambushes or sabotage. The Dornishmen (and, to a lesser degree, the Northmen - or at least the Crannogmen) have far less involvement in this strict hierarchic culture that came with the Andals, and hence also see ambushes and poisoned weapons as fair game.

Of course, the way these two regions arrived at these not so different views of fair warfare arrived from vastly different directions. But they still are eerily similar in that regard.

[Javi Marcos]

The first Guerrilla war was Spain VS Napoleon's France in the XIXth century, just saying. And finally the French Army had to run away.

If Dorne is related to Spain, as some people suggest (a bit isolated, hot place, tasty food, horny woman) I could see it.

[straits]

I think the North is where guerilla warfare would work better. It is a huge area, and assuming that the populace does not get harassed by the wildlings from the north as well as by invasion from the south and from the seas, a resistance could last for quite a while. The Targaryens had no loyal ground forces to speak of, and would not be able to invade the North in substantial numbers. I don't think they would be able to coerce other great Houses to invade the North on their behalf because their nuclear threat would be stretched too thin for everyone to obey. Basically, the dragons won't be effective if there is nobody to burn. And there is no guarantee of how they would bear the extreme cold further up north, around Winterfell and beyond.

The only obvious problem I see is the White Harbor. It's the biggest city in the North, the biggest port of commerce and naval strength. And not likely to be evacuated. So it could be taken over by air and used as a center for invasion, if the Targs acquire a sort of army. Aside from that, having the dragons sit in the North where game is relatively scarce, and the cold inevitably creeps in, is a process of slow defeat. Once winter kicks in, any attempt to subdue the northerners beyond Winterfell will fail.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The only obvious problem I see is the White Harbor. It's the biggest city in the North, the biggest port of commerce and naval strength. And not likely to be evacuated. So it could be taken over by air and used as a center for invasion, if the Targs acquire a sort of army.

In that situation, have to wonder if they'd do a scorched-earth policy with White Harbor — strip it of resources, evacuate and then burn that mother to the ground. Moscow-style. Keeping with Napoleon, it wasn't really the Russian people who did him in, it was the winter. Also, not to Godwin this, but the Danes destroyed their own navy so the Nazis couldn't co-opt it. There's definitely a real-world history of people destroying their own resources so the enemy can't have it.

[Frey Pie]

I think the North is where guerilla warfare would work better. It is a huge area, and assuming that the populace does not get harassed by the wildlings from the north as well as by invasion from the south and from the seas, a resistance could last for quite a while. The Targaryens had no loyal ground forces to speak of, and would not be able to invade the North in substantial numbers. I don't think they would be able to coerce other great Houses to invade the North on their behalf because their nuclear threat would be stretched too thin for everyone to obey. Basically, the dragons won't be effective if there is nobody to burn. And there is no guarantee of how they would bear the extreme cold further up north, around Winterfell and beyond.

The only obvious problem I see is the White Harbor. It's the biggest city in the North, the biggest port of commerce and naval strength. And not likely to be evacuated. So it could be taken over by air and used as a center for invasion, if the Targs acquire a sort of army. Aside from that, having the dragons sit in the North where game is relatively scarce, and the cold inevitably creeps in, is a process of slow defeat. Once winter kicks in, any attempt to subdue the northerners beyond Winterfell will fail.

I agree. The reason why what worked for Dorne didnt happen in the North is because Torrhen marched south. On seeing the large army and dragons he couldnt retreat in good order and hope to continue fighting. He would have been picked apart

[straits]

I agree, and re-supplying a shell of a castle would be quite tedious. Especially if the fertile grounds around it have been razed and cleared of resources. I guess that the Starks bent knee because they did not want to engage in a war of attrition, which I applaud them for. But unless the Targs could make clear that they could have more dragons after the ones they landed with die, they would have lost, and not to the North. There would not be enough time to establish a proper rule south of the Neck and still take over the North in one go.

A smart move for the Targs is to leave the North be, and work towards unifying everything in the south. Then a few generations down the line, most great Houses would come a'knocking to take over the North. It would still be a war of attrition unless they got lucky (and smart) and started an invasion during a spring.

A smart move for the Starks would be to send an envoy lying about them bending knee and still continuing their total rule upwards of the North. If they should ever be caught with their pants down, make concessions and bend knee. Everybody loves concessions.

[The Mother of The Others]

Man, we just got white harbor. Don't go wrecking it already. Let me enjoy a brief honeymoon with the new locations before you demand their ruination. Also, Martini, it's as if you're trying to educate us. Is that like your charitable cause, some kind of tax writeoff? I'll try not to resist the learning. Also, do you get migranes from all the after-hours hours of reading after spending the 9-5 hours reading too? Because that happened yesterday.

Ummmmm, got nothing to say about the Martells. I like em, basically. It's cute that the hot heads are all duking it out in the cold while the geographically hot nation is keeping its cool. Their Dornish warfare will be spicy and provide us with a slight change of pace hopefully, like one of those green peppers at Togo's which really bring the whole sandwich together with their distinctive tastiness.

[TheGreyKraken]

I think Torrhen Stark could have actually held back the Targaryen invaders for a long time if he stayed in the North and resorted to guerilla warfare.

When we look at Asha's chapters in ADwD we see how the men of Stannis are affected by the winter and it is literally killing their army while the northern tribesmen don't seem to be affected. Most of Aegon's army consisted of people from Westeros and the massive army he attained after the Field of Fire (Contributed to Torrhen Stark bending the knee) consisted of people from The Reach and The Westerlands. This is all about adaptation and these people were not adapted to two places:

The North

Dorne

We already know how much hell the Targaryens had with Dorne and its hot sun so can you imagine how they would feel in The North?Especially during winter.These people would have to win alot of the northerners if they wanted to combat a Northern King using guerilla tactics.

[Guest]

Interesting idea. Theoretically it could work but you never know. They could do it like the Romans in the second Jewish revolt. Use small groups of men to find isolated bases then wipe them out with dragons or forces at hand.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Man, we just got white harbor. Don't go wrecking it already. Let me enjoy a brief honeymoon with the new locations before you demand their ruination. Also, Martini, it's as if you're trying to educate us. Is that like your charitable cause, some kind of tax writeoff? I'll try not to resist the learning. Also, do you get migranes from all the after-hours hours of reading after spending the 9-5 hours reading too? Because that happened yesterday.

My educational tax rebate is paying for a new Kate Spade bag, yo. B)

And yeah I literally read for a living. It's fun. :P

[Lord Damian]

Apple, I love your writting on this and it leads me to asking this question. Why, since the Targs seemed to all but mop up Westeros, did they not invade the lands above the wall in an effort to control the whole Continent? i know that Dorne holding out may have been part of a reason but if they were so successful, why stop?

[Guest]

Apple, I love your writting on this and it leads me to asking this question. Why, since the Targs seemed to all but mop up Westeros, did they not invade the lands above the wall in an effort to control the whole Continent? i know that Dorne holding out may have been part of a reason but if they were so successful, why stop?

I would think they stopped because they seem to be a pretty haughty bunch. They probably scoffed at the idea of those barbarians and figured it had nothing to offer them.

[Mace Cooterian]

As for the North, I tend to view it and Dorne as sort of two sides of the same coin, kind of a dualist pair. Extreme north and extreme south, both culturally and ethnically different from the middle parts of the country, isolated, with extreme (opposite) weather, etc. And I have to wonder if Dorne's guerilla tactics wouldn't also work in the North. I've said before that I found it curious/convenient that Torrhen Stark not only surrendered, but did so fairly far to the South, well below the Neck. What if he'd taken those 30,000 men, kept them above the Neck and engaged in the sort of guerilla fighting that Dorne did? May have worked, might not have. To definitely say it wouldn't have, though, given what Dorne did, is a reach, in my opinion.

it does sound like guerrila warfare is effective at holding off or at least combating dragons. As to the "why" would Torrhen Stark bend the knee, there are other posts and theories about the Stark family and it's importance to the realm, not just Wintefell. As they are descendants of the First Men, there is speculation that they were figured into the original compact between the CoTF and the FM. Not that they were on the Battleship Missouri signing the treaty papers with the Japanese, but in the end there were required (cursed is another word) to occupy or man Winterfell.

Perhpas Torrhen did not want to risk killing alot of Starks and thus bent the knee to insure that the Starks legacy would continue.

Also, a second thought on defeating dragons.....would appear that the Maester's at Oldtown know how to defeat dragon's. Maybe it's guerrila warefare, weirwood arrows, etc. Anyone have thoughts on this?

[straits]

it does sound like guerrila warfare is effective at holding off or at least combating dragons. As to the "why" would Torrhen Stark bend the knee, there are other posts and theories about the Stark family and it's importance to the realm, not just Wintefell. As they are descendants of the First Men, there is speculation that they were figured into the original compact between the CoTF and the FM. Not that they were on the Battleship Missouri signing the treaty papers with the Japanese, but in the end there were required (cursed is another word) to occupy or man Winterfell.

Perhpas Torrhen did not want to risk killing alot of Starks and thus bent the knee to insure that the Starks legacy would continue.

Also, a second thought on defeating dragons.....would appear that the Maester's at Oldtown know how to defeat dragon's. Maybe it's guerrila warefare, weirwood arrows, etc. Anyone have thoughts on this?

Actually defeating dragons is not a requirement though - if that is possible, it would be best for lone assassins to apply whatever works for them while they are out of combat. The key to victory, aside from resorting to questionable supernatural means to get rid of the weapon, would be to make the weapon both ineffective and a drain of resources.

[Mace Cooterian]

Actually defeating dragons is not a requirement though - if that is possible, it would be best for lone assassins to apply whatever works for them while they are out of combat. The key to victory, aside from resorting to questionable supernatural means to get rid of the weapon, would be to make the weapon both ineffective and a drain of resources.

@straits.

Just wanting to confirm what you meant by requirement. Did you mean that the Maester's @ Oldtown were able to defeat (or kill) the dragons's without a war or battle?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Apple, I love your writting on this and it leads me to asking this question. Why, since the Targs seemed to all but mop up Westeros, did they not invade the lands above the wall in an effort to control the whole Continent? i know that Dorne holding out may have been part of a reason but if they were so successful, why stop?

Interesting question. You'd think they'd view the Wall as a challenge (or like, try to melt it or something?).

[straits]

@straits.

Just wanting to confirm what you meant by requirement. Did you mean that the Maester's @ Oldtown were able to defeat (or kill) the dragons's without a war or battle?

I mean that an invasion by the Targs could be thwarted despite the dragons, without killing the dragons. In the North.

[Pod The Impaler]

"Asymmetric" warfare has always existed. Indeed, war being "symmertical" is the exception, not the rule.

War is not a sport, it is a fight to the death. Even in the rare case where there are some rules to keep things clean, there has never been any obligation to make things fair.

Those with an advantage (in men, in terrain, in supply, in technology, in morale/ discipline - whatever) will always use it. You always try to fight on terms that are to your advantage, never on terms that favour your enemy. Therefore, those who find themselves at a disadvantage in one respect will seek to change the terms they engage battle on, to one that is more advantageous to them.

That is all assymetric warfare is - fighting using "unconventional" means, because fighting conventionally, you are at a disadvantage and will lose. ("Symmetric" only happens when the advantage in open / conventional warfare isn't clear, when both sides figure they still have a chance to win it that way.)

I hate to use modern-day examples, because it is so politically contentious, but examine groups who resort to unconventional means, those who go up against a clearly larger or more powerful military in what is called assymetric warfare. These groups have variously been called insurgents, revolutionaries, militias, terrorists, partisans, brigands, irregulars, resistance or "freedom" fighters, etc. - inevitably the naming is done by both the group itself (which says it is good and righteous) or by their foes which are more conventionally powerful (which says it is evil and lawless). Regrdless of what they are called, they fight using the best means they have available, and are not going to fight in the open until they think they can win that way. Believe me, if insurgents had things like orbital survellance or main battle tanks or carrier battle groups, they'd be glad to use them. Likewise, if their foes were reduced down to nothing but a rifle and a pair of sandals, they'd be doing things like sniping then hiding, laying IEDs and sending fanatics in with suicide bomb vests.

A lot of the time assymetric warfare is not a matter of a group proving that they can prevent an enemy force from invading territory, but making them pay a constant price in blood and fear for trying to hold it. Such undercutting tactics cannot really be used to rule, but they are used to make it impossible for someone else to rule. It is a very powerful strategy if done right - and if the response by the great power is ham-handed and brutal, the local population will back you up and join your cause, enabling you to continue fighting indefinitely. (And after that, the only thing the great power can do is annihilate everyone, which negates the point of them ruling at all.) At some point, one side or the other (or both) must ask is it really worth it to go on ? At some point the cost of the conflict will exceed whatever one side or the other would have gotten out of winning it.

So on to ASOIAF:

What Dornish history proves is that they managed to find a way around the overwhelming firepower of the dragons - don't even fight them. Kill their (human, very mortal) Targaryen kings. Or failing that, kill their lords. Or failing that, their knights. No, not in open battle, because then come the massive armies standing as one, and as a last resort behind that, dragons. No, kill them in small bands out in the desert. Ambush them on the roads and rivers. Kill them as they eat and as they sleep. Make it so they never feel safe, and will always have to watch their back. Make them ask if ruling was worth what it was costing them. In response, the Targaryens could only leave, really - the Dornish could be conquered by force but not ruled without their consent. To subjugate them they would have had to slaughter them down to the last man, woman, and child. Later, marriage did for the Targaryens what force could not - it made Dorne willing to be ruled. And afterwards, the Iron Throne did noit act as odiously as it had the first time around.

As for the North and the Vale, they probably could have done much the same, if they had chosen to. The cost, of course, would have been appalling to both sides. That probably dissuaded them, plus I'm sure there were some guarantees made with respect to their rights as lords, and their unique cultures as a people. The North continued to be led by Starks, the blood of the First Men. If there had been some religious conversion insisted on, they probably would have fought on. (Plus they may have been able to kill dragons, some suggest.)

[Lord Damian]

Interesting question. You'd think they'd view the Wall as a challenge (or like, try to melt it or something?).

i am surprised they did not approach the Nights Watch, which was probably #ing in the thousands at the time of conquest, on invading north of the Wall, The Lord of Winterfell would have joined them out of fealty. It is curious, is it not?