The Martells (and the North?) and Asymmetric Warfare

[Dr. Pepper]

Good connection, AM and others, with the weirwood arrows. I wonder if this works on the Others. Or is there a comparative opposite? Is obsidian the only true tool against them or would some other wood, like perhaps ebony, work?

And to be a little on topic, it's understandable why Brandon Snow didn't at least try to shoot down Aegon I's dragon (apart from the plot armor). Killing one dragon would just put the other two on guard. It's just curious why Torrhen took his army south and why he remained there and why he knelt rather than retreating and melting into the Neck. The World reading shows that Aegon communicated with several kingdoms before attacking Westeros. We know that several responded but there doesn't seem to be a response given one way or another from the other ones. I wonder if Torrhen ever responded and if so, what he would have said.

I wonder if recognizing instances of what appears to be plot armor is an effective method picking up clues from the text. Can you think of any other examples, aside from the obvious ones like Dany walking in, and out of a fire, Jon Snow presumably surviving the Ides of Marsh, etc.?

I can't think of any at this moment, but I like this idea!

There was a pretty interesting thread about this very subject. Do you know what happened to it? :)

Whoa, I totally forgot about this. Haha. I had started a brainstorming thread a few months back about this topic. I introduced some crackpots. I meant to think more about it but it seems it fizzled out on my back burner. Maybe I'll put in some effort on the topic in the coming weeks when I finish reading two series I started.

[Batman]

The Targaryens just didnt know how to deal with that type of warfare. Aegon doesnt seem like much of a commander if you take his dragons away.

Its interesting that Quentyn, Barristan and Doran all think that Robert could have destroyed the Martells post rebellion but they were able to hold off Aegon. Did they just assume Robert and Ned would know how best to counter their tactics? I dont have a doubt that they could have out thought Oberyn (he is too hot headed). They did lose 10,000 spears but guerilla tactics are for dealing with this type of numerical difference.

[Pod The Impaler]

Barren doesn't mean empty. Well, okay, it does but not completely. It's not like the North is just a big flat field, there's foothills and rills and small valleys and lakes and woods, indeed much of the North is woods. Perhaps not many places you could hide a large army but that's the point, there'd be hundreds of thousands of places you could hide a dozen men.

The North is pretty poor and pretty empty, there's not a lot to be gained from taking it. Dorne has lots of trade options and the other Kingdoms still need to be consolidated so I'm not surprised the North was low on Aegon's priority list. Doubtless he would've moved on it eventually, he just wasn't in a hurry to do so until Torren forced the issue.

Clearly dragons eat direwolves for breakfast. It is the only logical way to reconcile the vaguely timed departure of one animal with the short term visitation of another.

You are still thinking of this as a conventional fight. It isn't one.

Dragons would have nothing to do with it - you can attack a fixed position or massed army of foes, but you cannot garrison a land with dragons. You cannot collect taxes with dragons. You cannot chase down insurgents, who look just the same as the "loyal" citizens, with dragons. They are useful for two things - overpowering defeats of massed foes in the field, and massively destructive attacks on settlements (from villages to cities).

Solution for the foes of dragons? Target the easy-to-kill people who riding them or those underlings serving the riders. Ambush, assassination, poison, piracy and banditry, warging, black magic, etc. - never present yourself to the enemy long enough to be targeted by their dragons (or their large armies). But make it unsafe for any human enemy to step foot in the North.

And let's not forget the biggest weapon - winter. These aren't like real life winters where it will be over in a several months - it could be several years. The dragons sit idle, the king leaves, the population doesn't lift a finger to keep the invaders alive, the struggle becomes pointless, and morale breaks. And as they desert or become isolated, that's when the northmen strike and entire units are never heard from again.

Every winter, the Iron Throne's southron men who were sent to subjugate the North end up dying like flies, and the whole conquest process has to start all over again. The crown's resources and men get eaten up trying (and failing) to supply their northern armies. On and on it goes without end, should the North choose to out-endure the south. And they will, because the North remembers.

An in-story example ? Winter has not even truly been felt, and already within a few months Stannis' men are trapped and starving - now imagine after being there for years with no let-up in the snow and cold.

I wonder if the terrain in Dorne makes it more favorable for its people to fight a guerilla war against a Targaryen army backed by dragons. Much of the land there is arid and we're told that there were places for the fighters and civilians to retreat to. We don't know that the North is equally invested with such places for prospective fighters, which might have been a concern for a king considering a guerilla campaign. Much of the land in Dorne is essentially unusable, so it makes sense not to worry about its destruction. Yes, they have fields, groves, and farms in Dorne, but they're a much smaller portion of the land than the forests and farms in the North.

I think it does help - a harsh climate makes it hard for any outsiders to survive. Same for the North. One needs a great base of knowledge to be able to operate in such places. It is often easier for a solitary person or small group to sustain itself than a large mass of hungry people trying to march somewhere. This is why in history, armies have been utterly ruined by extremes of heat and cold which they've faced. Disease is another mass-killer of armies.

The Targaryens just didnt know how to deal with that type of warfare. Aegon doesnt seem like much of a commander if you take his dragons away.

Its interesting that Quentyn, Barristan and Doran all think that Robert could have destroyed the Martells post rebellion but they were able to hold off Aegon. Did they just assume Robert and Ned would know how best to counter their tactics? I dont have a doubt that they could have out thought Oberyn (he is too hot headed). They did lose 10,000 spears but guerilla tactics are for dealing with this type of numerical difference.

I think the suggestion is Robert would not have thought much of ruling Dorne as much as destroying it in his rage.

Lyanna had just died, and to hear Dorne refused to quite after Rhaegar and Aerys (and Elia and Aegon and Rhaenys) were dead, he would have simply waged a war of destruction. Come from the sea and sack Sunspear, leaving it in ruins and all its people pout to the sword. Do the same with every other notable town or fortress. If the foe retreated to the empty desert, he would not care, but Dorne as a kingdom would be broken and impoverished. Plus wherever Viserys and baby Daenerys went, he'd make sure to have them killed, not to preserve his crown but just out of hatred. Better a depressed and drunken Robert than an angry and wrathful Robert.

[Batman]

I think the suggestion is Robert would not have thought much of ruling Dorne as much as destroying it in his rage.

Lyanna had just died, and to hear Dorne refused to quite after Rhaegar and Aerys (and Elia and Aegon and Rhaenys) were dead, he would have simply waged a war of destruction. Come from the sea and sack Sunspear, leaving it in ruins and all its people pout to the sword. Do the same with every other notable town or fortress. If the foe retreated to the empty desert, he would not care, but Dorne as a kingdom would be broken and impoverished. Plus wherever Viserys and baby Daenerys went, he'd make sure to have them killed, not to preserve his crown but just out of hatred. Better a depressed and drunken Robert than an angry and wrathful Robert.

Hammering to the point of surrender is always an option. Not a great one, but it could work. Jon Arryn, I feel, would be smarter about it. Bribing lords to take the Baratheons side over the Targaryens, promising Yronwood overlordship over Martell the same way Daemon Blackfyre did, increased trade with supporters, offering of positions of power to supporters and economic blockade with the Free Cities are all ways of strangling the Dornish into accepting Baratheon rule.

Give Robert command of an army and Jon Arryn could handle the more political aspects, I think they could deal with Dorne much better than Aegon or Daeron I. The North are much more difficult to deal with in my opinion.

[Old Man Aegon]

I agree that the north could pull off a scorched earth tactic, it worked exellent before the battle of Poltava. around 40.000 men of King Charles XII 60.000 had died before the battle. Starved, they had no choice but to lay seige to the city at which point Tsar Peter shows up with his 40.000 men, wins the day and saves Russia.

[Dimadick]

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.

A simple definition of asymmetric warfare is "conflicts between nations or groups that have [significantly] disparate military capabilities and strategies." This does not just include regular armies versus irregular forces. Key differences in technology and military thought between regular combatants can still be termed asymmetrical war.

"Asymmetrical warfare and Military Thought" (2006) by Adam Lowther uses a 17th-century example on how innovation can lead to what is essentially asymmetrical war. He notes that early in the century the best infantry formation in Europe was still the Spanish tercio. A mixed group of pikemen, musketeers (and sometimes swordsmen). When Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden (1594-1632, reigned 1611-1632) got the idea to increase the number of musketeers in his infantry formations (while also improving their firing accuracy and reload speed) and also invested in development of mobile artillery, his army gained a key advantage in both firepower and maneuverability. Explaining the sudden emergence of Sweden as a major power.

Symmetric warfare, as defined by Donald Snow, is a conflict which "occurs when both sides adopt and fight in the same basic ways".

[Dimadick]

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.

Partly a consequence of the ill-conceived French invasion of Russia (1812). In 1812, the Peninsular War (1808-1814) was still ongoing but Napoleon still chose to withdraw troops from the Iberian Peninsula. A combined British, Portuguese, and Spanish took the initiative to attack. Winning the Battle of Salamanca (July 22, 1812) while Napoleon was on the other side of the continent. They marched all the way to Madrid and held the city for two months (!). With Madrid being being the center of French power in the peninsula.

A French counter-offensive managed to capture Madrid. But the French still had to evacuate Andalusia and Asturias. The French were probably waiting for reinforcements, once their main army returned for Russia. Since said main army mostly perished, no reinforcements arrived. The three allied nations took the initiative again in 1813. A decisive victory in the Battle of Vitoria (June 21, 1813) was the beginning of the end for the French forces.

In the Battle of the Pyrenees (August, 1813), French reinforcements attempting to cross into the Peninsula where stopped and defeated in the mountains. After a months-long siege, the French-held city of San Sebastian fell to a combined British and Portuguese force in September, 1813. It was burned to the ground. Following another months-long siege, a Spanish army captured Pamplona in October, 1813.

With the Iberian Peninsula finally in Spanish, Portuguese, and British hands, the allies next invaded France itself. By December, the three allies had reached the city of Bayonne, in the extreme southwest corner of France. The French kept retreating over the next following months. By April 1814, the allied forces were besieging Toulouse and Bayonne. The sieges ended prematurely when Napoleon chose to abdicate.

A lesson on what can happen if you have multiple open fronts.

[Dimadick]

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.

The tactic is already mentioned as the main reason of the essential failure of the Scythian campaign of Darius I, King of Persia (c. 550-486 BC, reigned 522-486 BC). Darius invaded the areas of the Scythian nomads. "The Scythians evaded Darius's army, using feints and retreating technique eastward while wasting the countryside, by blocking wells, intercepting convoys, destroying pastures and continuous skirmishes against Darius's army. Seeking to fight with the Scythians, Darius's army chased the Scythian army deep into Scythian lands, where there were no cities to conquer and no supplies to forage. In frustration Darius sent a letter to the Scythian ruler Idanthyrsus to fight or surrender. The ruler replied that he would not stand and fight with Darius ... After chasing the Scythians for a month, Darius's army was suffering losses due to fatigue, privation and sickness. In fear of losing more troops, he halted the march at the banks of the Volga River and headed towards Thrace."

At the time the Achaemenid Empire was the most powerful force of the region, but still could not face such tactics effectively. Herodotus (c. 484-425 BC) offers this perspective on the tactics of the Scythians: "We have neither cities nor cultivated land for which we might be willing to fight with you, fearing that they may be taken or ravaged." They have no reason to stand and fight. See: http://books.google.gr/books?id=KanuuVyOfqUC&pg=PA101&dq=Darius+scorched+earth&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HSrTUInEKOOg4gT-s4CgAw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Darius%20scorched%20earth&f=false

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Is there any chance you could tie the history lesson into, you know, the story at hand?

[Dimadick]

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.

The Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136)? By the end of it, Emperor Hadrian (76-138, reigned 117-138) resorted to annihilating the civilian population. Cassius Dio (c. 150-238) estimates 580,000 Jews were killed, 50 fortified towns and 985 villages were razed. It is doubtful that all these people were active combatants.

[Dimadick]

Is there any chance you could tie the history lesson into, you know, the story at hand?

You offered a historic perspective, I noted that such tactics go back to antiquity. If our resistance forces in the North, Dorne, or anywhere else are willing to sacrifice their own settlements, they could probably accomplish similar results.

[Dimadick]

Whereas the North's lack of naval power has always struck me as hugely improbable' given its extensive coastlines and rivers. But, accepting it as fact also means it is very vulnerable to a naval based attack. I agree a naval based invasion would still meet with the kind of defence discussed in the O.P., but if they take a lesson from Harold or the Brits, use the coasts and rivers as highways and take the fight to the enemy where and when you want it....hitting supply bases, forts, etc. and then melting back to the sea, I think you keep the North on the defensive, which is the opposite of a guerrilla campaign's objective.

In concept a good idea, though we can't really be sure if the Last River(for example) is useful for inland navigation. We don't exactly have much details about the conditions in these rivers. If the ships end up stuck in shallow water or grounded in some unmapped rock formation, the invasion force will be in trouble.

[Dimadick]

There has got to be something more to Torrhen bending the knee that what we are being told.

He could be facing internal dissent, supply problems, low morale of his troops, etc. We don't really know what was the situation of this conflict, because we only have a few details about key battles. Not what was were the challenges the various leaders and populations were facing, nor what was their strategic thinking.

Take a battle more familiar to us: The Battle of the Fist of the First Men. Say, we have a POV describing how 300 men marched bravely to their doom. The person saying it would have no idea about their internal squabbles, an ongoing conspiracy against Jeor Mormont in the ranks, or that most of them were scared before meeting the enemy. We would have a very flawed picture.

This is essentially the problem whenever our "modern" characters remember their historic ancestors. They have only the foggiest notion of events and are all too eager to villify or hero-worship certain individuals. We don't get clear perspectives on these people. Just their reputations.

[Dimadick]

Every winter, the Iron Throne's southron men who were sent to subjugate the North end up dying like flies, and the whole conquest process has to start all over again. The crown's resources and men get eaten up trying (and failing) to supply their northern armies. On and on it goes without end, should the North choose to out-endure the south. And they will, because the North remembers.

From another perspective, significant losses of life in campaigns tend to produce negative effects in the population back home. The first couple of years of World War I produced quite a stream of eager volunteers. Once that stream dried out and certain governments tried to use "enforced conscription", the result was mass protests, strikes, riots, and (in Ireland) an uprising.

If Targaryens keep sending Westermen to die in the North, how long until the Westerlands become internally unstable. The same goes for other regions that see mass casualties in their own population.

[Shane the Llama]

From another perspective, significant losses of life in campaigns tend to produce negative effects in the population back home. The first couple of years of World War I produced quite a stream of eager volunteers. Once that stream dried out and certain governments tried to use "enforced conscription", the result was mass protests, strikes, riots, and (in Ireland) an uprising.

If Targaryens keep sending Westermen to die in the North, how long until the Westerlands become internally unstable. The same goes for other regions that see mass casualties in their own population.

It is important to remember that the percentage of the population which could be levied/deployed was much higher by the early 20th century than it would be in a 14th/15th century analogue. Similar problems could still present themselves, but they would either be through the actions of the nobility (devastated noble families plotting against the monarch) or through less direct causes (food riots when the military supply begins cutting into that of the civilians).

[Gurkhal]

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.

Considering how it seems that the Targaryens lacked any real will to dominate Dorne I would say that a northern gerilla campaign would be hugely successful. It kind of gives me the impression that if the Targaryens faced real opposition that didn't just line themselves up for their dragons then the Targaryens would just throw a fit and say. "I didn't want it in the first place." and go home to sulk. They could've have easily taken hostages, including the princess herself, but they just couldn't be bothered when facing opposition. When I read this it gives a clear break to the almost mythic image of Aegon and his sisters.

[Buried Treasure]

The North has only one land route, that is guarded by the Neck and Moat Cailin. The Neck allows crannogmen to fire poisoned arrows concealed, and it's hard to start a fire in a wetland. Moat Cailin could hold off Aegon's army, but not his dragons. All he would need to do is fly Balerion over Moat Cailin and roast the towers.

After Aegon's forces are out of the Neck, in winter they would have a better chance of asymmetric warfare against a Southron army as was shown with Stannis's army. They would have to hide in the woods as the North is mostly flatland around Winterfell. If King Torrhen Stark followed Myriah Martell's example and evacuated all the keeps along the way to Winterfell, then he would have a better chance. The Northmen are known to be good horsemen with mounts that can survive well in winter, and the Northmen could conduct skirmishes and raids against Aegon's forces. There could be a situation akin to Russian invasions with harsh winters, no food and a high casualty rate that follows if the Northmen follow a scorched earth policy.

The war was taking place to Aegons timetable, he spent years in the planning. Even with our normal winters historically wars have been timed for summers and I don't doubt Aegon gave himself at least a couple of years of Summer to complete his conquest. Even with occasional summer snows I expect the trees of the northern forests would get quite flammable during summer, far more so than the deserts of Dorne. The area the dragons could cover and set alight, with the fires then spreading further by themselves, could destroy the timber wealth of the north and devastate northern hiding places, it wouldn't be necessary for Aegon to commit a land army. Aegon demonstrated at the Field of Fire that he was averse to massive scale destruction an Torrhen may have realised that the instant he defied Aegon he could have lost everything, without it being a long and drawn out process.

Brandon Snow (who I'm about 98% sure is the guy Bran sees in his vision making weirwood weapons)

I really like this part of the idea. I tend to be very sceptical of thoughts in the vein of the Starks retaining special wisdom for approx 7 1/2 millenia then forgetting it in the last 300 years so I doubt Brandon Snow would know if Weirwood works against dragons - maybe he choose that wood for his arrows because it was a prayer that he could kill the dragons - but it is a great guess of the identity of that person.

[Alia of the knife]

Looking for something else, and found this again.

Great discussion.