Who would win in an allout war between Westeros and the Free Cities?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Westerosi army would be far larger (sort of, the Rhoynar raised an army much bigger than any Westerosi army), but the free cities are far more technologically advanced.

...and that particular account is about as reliable as the Illiad. Read: Divide everything by one thousand and you may get in the right category of size.

 

Furthermore, the technological advantage of the Free Cities does not extent to military matters. There, it's the other way round.

 

Let's change the equation to this:

 

(Knights + Conscripted Regular Folk + Wildlings) vs. (Mercenaries + Slaves + Dothraki)

 

= a win for Essos

Hell, no. The Dothraki are a very sorry joke.

[Stannis broatheon]

Westeros should have more resources, and would work better together than the Free cities. Add to this an army that is not based on mercenaries and slaves and you hot a winner

[Lynx of Wolfswood]

I - like many others - think that the war would be dominated by the Braavosi. Just look at the map, and consider logistics and the skills needed for naval warfare. It does not matter that the Westerosi might have the ability to build a fleet which in size would be comparable to the Braavosi fleet (I think they couldn't, but it does not matter.) A real-world comparison can be found in the battle of Lepanto (1571). The Ottoman Empire lost there, but it took them very little time to rebuild their fleet... it was the sailors and archers they used on their warships that were irreplaceable - and thus the Ottoman naval power declined considerably. The Braavosi I would assume have the edge when it comes to these skills. So, assuming the Braavosi won't be lured into a Blackwater scenario, their navy will be stronger for many years.

I would also like to point out that the major sea power of Westeros has specialized in the kind of naval warfare the Vikings mastered: move fast to target and take the fight to unexpecting land targets. It is a rather different game trying to bring down a ship full of soldiers. The IB did not - after all - manage against the other Westerosi naval power, when they took the fight away from their coasts.

The Free Cities are also much more into trade. That translates to having a good supply of merchants, captains, and the know-how associated with these professions. Now consider the way the Westerosi organize their armies: they gather around nobles, who then try to take the fight - or rather their host of thousands of mouths to feed - to the enemy territory. They don't have the skills a merchant has when it comes to supply and demand, which means that the armies must forage and coerce supplies from civilians. This effectively means that the Westerosi have a hard time concentrating forces to any one location for a prolonged period of time.

Many have spoken about the conscripted peasants vs. mercenaries. In case of an invasion, I would posit that the mercs make the better choice. It is not that they are professional soldiers and the peasants are not. In this case, the thing that matters is that their motivation to fight is not tied to the geographical location. Lannister soldiers could defend their homes, or take the fight to the people they can be made to believe are their rivals, enemies, or a threat to their existence in some other way. They could probably be convinced to participate on a campaign to relieve King's Landing, but what if they are ordered to do so every 12 months or so? The Free cities - just like the IB - can launch a campaign against any coastal target, and return short after. And just like the IB, they can often select their fights. If they discover that their intended target is garrisoned with 20000 soldiers, the same ships that brought them there can with a good likelihood carry them to the next target, or back home. It takes the Westerosi more effort marching and supplying their garrisoned troops.

I would imagine that the Westerosi would develop answers to these problems, and they would over time come up with a solution to safeguard their coasts. They could simply abandon the places they do not find safe (as was done in the Baltics to protect against the Viking menace). It is not like they need to commit their forces to a fight they can't win. I do not believe they could overcome the Braavosi naval power, however. But if they could, they wouldn't be as good in landing troops to Essos as their enemies are at invading Westeros - this is where the know-how of organizing naval activities in peace time factors in. Even if the Westerosi experts in these matters somehow survive the beginning of war without perishing in attempted resistance against the enemy fleets, it would take a lot more than a crash course to deliver these skills to other people. So all in all, I do not think the Westerosi could take the fight to the Free Cities.

This would probably lead to a victory for the Free Cities. I think they could use their naval dominance and force a war of attrition on the noble houses of Westeros. They do, after all, rely on scoring quick victories in their military strategy. Of course, every reader here wants to see massive land battles where the mercenaries get run down by knights of the Reach. But that is just the thing: the Westerosi bag of tricks isn't stocked with something to force the Free Cities to accept a battle of this kind. If they had the limited scouting abilities the Author granted to Robb's host, or even the less impressive ones the Lannisters had, it would be a shock to me if the Westerosi could surprise the mercenaries. Presuming this, I would imagine that the mercenaries could be used as a force which applies pressure to the coastal regions, and especially on their lords.

The economic strenght of the Free Cities could also be used to curry favor. They would simply need to buy supplies from Westerosi locals: a ship here and there to visit coastal villages would be enough to start a prosess where the smallfolk would gladly sell their goods to anyone else but the local levies. In time, the lords would realize that they lack the means to stop the Free City raiding parties sent to cause harm not to the small folk, but to the ruler's own worldly possessions. This would come with the understanding that the lords deep in land do not need to bare this. How long would it take for these lords to feel that they too want a share of the Free City cake? I would imagine that not too long, and that the much celebrated Westerosi unity over that of the Free Cities would be one of the first advantages they have that can be stripped away.

I would imagine that the greatest defeats to the allied Free Cities would be caused by the potential disloyalty factor of the mercenaries. However, I do not think that a Tywin Lannister could play this trick a dozen times. The Free Cities have the upper hand here: the Westerosi need to make contact with the mercs in order to renegotiate their allegiance. This can easily be countered with hit-and-run tactics, and with infusion of newly formed merc companies to replace the operational gap caused by one disloyal company.

Well, I have to say that I still do not believe that the result would be an annexation of Westeros. The Free Cities would probably take all the trade rights from the noble houses for themselves, and perhaps the Westerosi nobles would start to emulate the styles of the Free City elites. Yet I do not think that the rule of law or the every day life in Westeros would really change. I know the OP speaks of an all-out-war scenario, but I have a hard time understanding why the Free Cities would want to bring down the systems of rule and governance in their enemies' lands. Probably they would install merc-leaders and second houses to rule instead of the old great houses, but again I would not imagine this to be a drastic change - the Westerosi would just marry into these new families, and soon they too would play the game of thrones. I think the Free Cities would be happy with having a say of what will be produced and where, and they would probably pay only a nominal price to the Westerosi for these goods. They of course could be senseless idiots, and force such a bad deal down the Westerosi throats that they would have to fight a rebellion every month or so, but I think this would not be the case.

So, in a scenario where the houses and cities are to remain loyal to their leaders, it is the Westerosi who would lose. They can't score a quick victory unless their enemies luck out big time, which causes a logistical nightmare to them. If we don't send the mercs to the hooves of Westerosi knights, the mobility provided by what is likely to be a complete naval superiority allows the Free Cities ultimately to 'divide and conquer', which would force the great houses to peace talks. The result would in the long run reinforce Free City economical superiority, and weaken the noble houses themselves - although I believe that the arrangement could actually be a boon to Westerosi producers.

[raegal_targaryen]

The Free Cities never get along and always fight over trivial pieces of land, so if the Kingdoms played it smart and took one city down at a time, or took out Braavos and Volantis first simultaneously they'd have a good chance.

 

The Free Cities regularly hire mercenaries to fight for them, and the majority of the free cities population is composed of slaves who would rebel at the best chance possible unless they got stockholm syndrome. 50,000 well trained, disciplined troops will trump 100,000 undisciplined rabble, imo.

 

That and the biggest sellsword company we know of is the GC who field just around 10,000, not enough to make a difference.

 

Braavos has a incredibly powerful naval fleet? The Iron Fleet says hello and if given the orders to reave everywhere along the Essos coast and keep what they plunder they'd do it with glee.

 

Actually Braavos wouldn't even care because slave city states would be taken out and would jump for joy and maybe even help out Westeros. I think only Slavers Bay poses a real challenge because of the Unsullied and their unmatched discipline.

Gimme a good numer of heavey horse with lances and i show u what the unsullied are made...... pancakes nothing more nothing less

[hodorisfaclessman]

The free cities begin with a naval advantage in numbers and bravos production being years ahead  which is hard to see overcome in any way not to mention the major naval powers of westeros (iron islands and the arbour) are on the other side of westeros (so is the oldtowns fleet, shield islands and the westerlands fleets too ) meaning any hostilites need westeros to have already been prepping otherwise they get shut out quickly 

 

Forces wise we know they have standing professional defence forces, about 50-60k professional mercs floating around the vast disputed lands etc ( the vast majority essosi born and bred) as well as volantis tiger  slave force + cavalry which doesnt seem to be like the poor recently raised slavers bay mass rather more reliable professionals  like the  mamluks were in our world.

Volantis seems awash  with actual elephants so is likely to have some for military use, their outer towns can resemble westeros cities so have have considerable manpower ,

the dothraki khalassars if they show up could be an important asset to field too, a bribed khals forces would make an excellent light mobile force to scout shores and repel amphibious landings with. 

Then theres unknowns about how much manpower the smaller cities can field ..or what is bravos land force etc 

logistics wise the massive merchant fleets mean men and cavalry etc can be landed in westeros en masse 

 

Overall the miliary power is there should westeros be threatening enough to push them to unite