KraytKing wrote: ↑2019-04-10 10:14amThe war can't last longer than the book war.
Never underestimate Westeros's ability to find a way to fuck you over.
Railroad mobility and guns will see to that. And the effect on the smallfolk might be reduced since food can be easily shipped in to sustain an army. They'll still loot enemy towns, but at least the number of wolves butchering Riverlanders will be reduced.
The Rail's ability to transport food is definitely an advantage over canon, but one that depends on your ability to protect the trackways from getting torn up by raiders.
Also, its more the crops not being harvested because too many people have been conscripted, or being actively destroyed or seized by raiders, than mainly worries me. Will the regions away from the front lines be able to feed the entire realm, even with the Rail?
But I as an individual can benefit. The globe did not benefit from the world wars, but the United States gained quite a bit. In this case, more power for me translates into better odds for Westeros. I'm sure at some point there is a trade-off, where my single will and depleting foreknowledge is outweighed by the economic destruction. But I don't expect that point will be reached in two or three years of fighting.
Sure, from a very cynical perspective, a nation or individual can benefit from prolonged war. But...
The US benefited from World War II because it forced the US to mobilize its vast economic potential, and crucially because it crippled their main competitors, while very little of the war was actually fought on US territory. No US cities were subjected to strategic bombing. Millions of US civilians weren't killed. No large or crucial piece of US territory was occupied.
Whereas your power base in this scenario is Westeros, particularly the central region of the Realm where the most intense fighting is likely to be. You might very well benefit from a long war that was contained to the Westerlands, for example, or a long war in Essos that crippled economic rivals. But a Westerosi civil war will be being fought on your home soil, destroying your infrastructure and bleeding your resources and manpower base.
That's fair. My reasoning is that if there are property holders other than lords, the lords will lose power. This could lead to a class war, which will also probably lead to more social development. People not beholden to lords can only be a good thing for moving past monarchy and aristocracy.
Well, that's certainly a goal I can get behind. Although I can't help but feel that your plan is likely to end up mostly just replacing lords with lords in all but name.
I don't see how I would alienate the Faith. Much as I hate and fear religion, I want to tread carefully around them. Lords, on the other hand, need to die. My end goal, once the White Walkers are gone, is a class war that ends with all the lords dead.
Any actions which substantially go against prevailing Westrosi values could alienate the Faith. You'll have to engage in some such acts, but unless you want to fight a religious war, you should choose which ones very carefully.
I mean, guns are like dragons. How many armies are going to mowed down before everyone else bends the knee, so to speak? Aegon was able to bring Westeros to heel without killing everyone, just burning a couple of armies.
How long are you going to maintain a monopoly on guns? Another reason to seek a short war and quickly consolidate your position.
Renly, in particular, I can see adopting fire arms, as he seems less tradition-bound in his outlook than a lot of Westerosi nobility. Stannis will too, of course, since he is incredibly ruthless when it comes to grasping anything that will give him an advantage in taking the throne.
You do raise good points, of course. Crops could be problematic. But I think it's written somewhere that most of the food in the realm comes from the Reach, so if I can keep the fighting to other areas I should be able to at least get by, especially as my infrastructure improves efficiency. And if some people starve, well, oh well. There are enough people, especially if industry can arm them all and get them all north quickly.
That's a big if, especially since if you are fighting Renly, your main opposition will likely be based out of the Reach.
Yeah, I don't like Stannis either, but he's the most likely to be supported by Ned, and he's the only one I know will resort to magic if he loses. I don't want to die to a shadow by supporting Renly and the Reach, even though the Reach is far more powerful the North and Riverlands. North, Riverlands, and Stormlands together should be able to crush Lannisters pretty quickly, and that would be better than losing Ned, then losing Stormlands when Renly dies, and then having just the Reach to take one Lannister, Stark, and Baratheon.
Pretty much, yeah.
Stannis with Melisandra is sufficiently dangerous that your options are pretty much to make him a friend, or try and assassinate him and pray that it succeeds and doesn't get traced back to you.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver
"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.
I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.