Most difficult Kingdoms to invade?

[mindchap]

The Lands of Always Winter, worldwide would be the Dothraki.

Not exactly kingdoms tho

[Artos Stark]

The North, Dorne and the Vale.

[Chaircat Meow]

North, Dorne, the Vale

Westerlands (good natural defences but only vs the riverlands)

Reach, riverlands, stormlands (only has one defensible border)

[Lord Reaver]

1. The Iron Islands. It took the combined force of the 7 other regions to even attempt, and they only succeeded because Stannis won the crucial naval battle at Fair Isle. Without the naval force of the Redwynes AND the Royal fleet, you're screwed. You can't take anything if you can't get your soldiers on the ground. Like Loras says you can't walk your soldiers out there to get to them.

2. The North. While the Neck makes it hard, and the climate is harsh, the Ironmen showed that you can bypass it if you have sufficient navy. They were able to take and hold key regions, imagine what would happen if the north tried what Balon did in his rebellion, it would be over in a second with navies coming up on either side of the Neck.

3. Dorne. Almost identical to the North, hostile climate and few well guarded passes makes it hard to attack. But again, with naval forces it can be invaded on two fronts and is smaller than the North, so should be easier to hold.

4. The Vale. Again like 2 and 3, but better climate and smaller makes it easier both to take and hold.

5. Westerlands. Mountaineous and well fortified.

6. Stormlands. Craggy and forested, not ideal terrain for waging lage scale battles, better for guerilla-like tactics.

7. Reach. Flat and ideal terrain for warfare. But at least it's not wide open in all directions...

8 Riverlands. Yeah. There's a reason most wars in Westeros end up being fought here.

[TheCrannogDweller]

1. The Iron Islands. It took the combined force of the 7 other regions to even attempt, and they only succeeded because Stannis won the crucial naval battle at Fair Isle. Without the naval force of the Redwynes AND the Royal fleet, you're screwed. You can't take anything if you can't get your soldiers on the ground. Like Loras says you can't walk your soldiers out there to get to them.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a single dornishman who fought in that war. And while they do have one of the most ferocious fleets, their ships are actually mostly raiding vessels, which don't stack up very good against a real warship, like the ones Stannis' fleet was made of.

ETA: Looking at the wiki article, it seems that the Vale stayed out of the war, too. And I don't think the Reach sent any other forces apart from the Redwyne fleet - the army was mostly comprised of soldiers from the North, the Riverlands, the Westerlands and probably some of the Stormlands.

[Lord Reaver]

Yeah, I would. Because the Dornish don't have a fleet to speak of, making them utterly useless for invading the Islands.

When it comes to the Ironborn and naval force, there are numerous threads where this has been discussed, and the general gist is this: Only the Redwyne fleet with it's 200 warships + 1000 other vessels, or the Royal Fleet even (as it was at it's height) stand a chance against the Ironborn.

The Iron Fleet in particular is not raiding vessels, Its 100 ships are a match for any but the very largest new vessels built by the Iron Throne in the books.

[Djinn]

Two words: andal invasion.

If you want to equate the invasion of a entire people, the Andals, to a military operation, OK the Andals succeeded in taking the Vale, and then proceeded to take Riverlands, West, Reach, Crownlands, Stormlands and Dorne. There's indication of what was the extent of the Andal effort to take the North? But they also didn't take the Iron Islands, so does that mean both are more defensible or that the effort wasn't so significant? Both Arryns and Hoare/Greyjoys actually manage to conquer portions of the North, just not keep them indefinitely.

The Normans conquered England from the Saxons, but most of Wales and Scotland aren't Norman, does that mean that they weren't capable o it or that they weren't that interested in it?

[TheCrannogDweller]

If you want to equate the invasion of a entire people, the Andals, to a military operation, OK the Andals succeeded in taking the Vale, and then proceeded to take Riverlands, West, Reach, Crownlands, Stormlands and Dorne. There's indication of what was the extent of the Andal effort to take the North? But they also didn't take the Iron Islands, so does that mean both are more defensible or that the effort wasn't so significant? Both Arryns and Hoare/Greyjoys actually manage to conquer portions of the North, just not keep them indefinitely.

The Normans conquered England from the Saxons, but most of Wales and Scotland aren't Norman, does that mean that they weren't capable o it or that they weren't that interested in it?

They did try to take the North - unsuccessfully. And seeing how the Vale was their beachhead, I would say that it isn't that easily defensible from the sea.

[Djinn]

They did try to take the North - unsuccessfully. And seeing how the Vale was their beachhead, I would say that it isn't that easily defensible from the sea.

Well, you didn't offer a reply to my questions: what evidence is there that the Andal failure to conquer the North and Iron Islands was due to military difficulties or due to lack of necessary motivation? Both these regions have the worse living conditions of Westeros, and the Andals had just conquered and colonized the most fertile and wealthiest part of the continent, so why would they put a serious effort to take these not so desirable regions?

As for the Vale, it wasn't unified at the time of the Andal invasion and most of these fortifications likely didn't exist either. By the way, how many Andal do you think arrived at the Vale for conquest? Because my impression was of likely hundreds of thousands. It was a mass migration of a culture.

Why didn't the British Empire conquered Iceland? Was Iceland that defensible?

[Usrnmhsnomning]

why would they put a serious effort to take these not so desirable regions?

Because ol' George said so.

[Batman]

There was already an extensive thread a couple months ago related to this topic, essentially it came down to two groups of people arguing between the north and dorne. It was essentially agreed that the north was impossible to invade by anyone in the winter, though not so bad in the summer; whereas dorne is just extremely difficult all of the time. So it depends on what variables you want to use but if weather is a factor then it is the north, otherwise Dorne wins.

My search function was not working, give me a break!

[Stormkith]

If you were okay with just burning everything to the ground and slaughtering the people, Dorne would fall pretty quickly. The North would be difficult as well, but it's really hard to consider "the North" as one problem when there are so many major castles/cities in the region.

Frankly, the Vale would be the most difficult. The Eyrie, with enough supplies, could pretty much ignore a siege for years. But even if you manage to invade the Vale and lay siege, your supply lines are going to be constantly harassed by the Hill Tribes, you're in hostile terrain that is difficult to traverse, and the area isn't rich in the resources needed to maintain a long siege. While it doesn't have the harsh weather of the North, it's just not a particularly hospitable place.

[Dagon Greyjoy]

The Vale, the Iron Islands, Dorne and the North, in that order.

The Andals did invade and take over the Iron Islands, but they failed to implant their culture: Instead, Andal settlers were assimilated by the Ironborn First Men.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I think Dorne and the North are the obvious top two, because of terrain, the weather extremities and guerilla warfare. In the North you also have Moat Cailin, which has never been successfully taken from the south. Even if an enemy does gain a foothold in the North, like the ironborn did, the country is too big and too wild to hold.

I also agree that the Vale would be difficult, given the terrain and the mountain clans lurking about, plus the fortress of the Eyrie. Then there are the Iron Islands that are, uh, islands.

The Stormlands seem kind of desolate, meaning it'd probably be hard to keep an army supplied. The Westerlands and the Reach seem to have easy-ish terrain (apart from the Westerlands' rockiness), but they also have larger armies with which to defend themselves.

And at the bottom of the list is the Riverlands, which as we've seen in both the past and present is like the bicycle seat of Westeros.

That. But the difference between 3 & 4 is huge. (And imo, Dorne above the North, b/c heat, logistics, Daeron.)

But just bring a dragon, fly over their defenses, and make 'em kneel.

Just pointing out that this exact strategy didn't work the first time in Dorne, so why would it work now?

[Sir Noone Sword Of The Day]

I'm not sure why everyone is saying the North?? Sure its almost impossible to take from the south but it is so big that you can land troops all over the region...

For me Dorne is the toughest region to invade. The main reason is because even Aegon the Conqueror couldn't invade dorne... He took the North however...

So in order for Regions hardest to invade I would number it;

1: Dorne

2: North

3: Vale

4: Stormlands

5: Westerlands

6: Iron Islands

7: Reach

8: Riverlands

[Chaircat Meow]

The westerlands have a very defensible border with the riverlands so I don't know why they come so low down people's lists.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm not sure why everyone is saying the North?? Sure its almost impossible to take from the south but it is so big that you can land troops all over the region...

For me Dorne is the toughest region to invade. The main reason is because even Aegon the Conqueror couldn't invade dorne... He took the North however...

So in order for Regions hardest to invade I would number it;

1: Dorne

2: North

3: Vale

4: Stormlands

5: Westerlands

6: Iron Islands

7: Reach

8: Riverlands

This is wrong, he did not "take the North." Torrhen Stark marched all the way to the Riverlands with his army, and then kneeled when he saw the dragons. Not only did Aegon not take the North militarily, he never even stepped foot in it during his campaign. Frankly I'd love to have seen him try to take the North, but alas, Torrhen did the work for him.

As you said, the North is "so big." It's so big that it's impossible to hold. That's the point.

The westerlands have a very defensible border with the riverlands so I don't know why they come so low down people's lists.

It's not that the Westerlands are "easy," it's that there are other kingdoms that are obviously "harder."

[Chaircat Meow]

It's not that the Westerlands are "easy," it's that there are other kingdoms that are obviously "harder."

They should be above the stormlands as they are not as exposed.

[Dagon Greyjoy]

What puzzles me is why people tend to rank the Iron Islands that low: They're bloody islands with a hardy and warlike population who happen to control the largest, biggest and baddest single individual fleet in Westeros. It took the whole fucking country to bring them to their knees, and only because Stannis (commanding both the Royal, Dragonstone and Redwyne Fleets as Master of Ships) crushed the Iron Fleet at Faircastle.

[Chaircat Meow]

What puzzles me is why people tend to rank the Iron Islands that low: They're bloody islands with a hardy and warlike population who happen to control the largest, biggest and baddest single individual fleet in Westeros. It took the whole fucking country to bring them to their knees, and only because Stannis (commanding both the Royal, Dragonstone and Redwyne Fleets as Master of Ships) crushed the Iron Fleet at Faircastle.

nvm.