Gunpowder artillery was used in the Wars of the Roses. Not always successfully – Warwick had cannons at the 2nd Battle of St Albans, but dampness meant that the powder wouldn’t fire, which rendered them useless. Likewise, at Northampton, Buckingham had cannons against Warwick, but rain knocked them out of action before the fighting started. 

Even when they weren’t, they usually weren’t the significant factor – Edward IV fired only a single barrage of cannons at Losecoat FIeld, but given that the rebels routed even before his charge could hit home, the battle was decided by their lack of discipline. Cannons were used at Barnet, but Warwick’s cannons overshot their target, the fog rendered artillery ineffective, and the deciding factor was a friendly fire incident that led two different Lancastrian units to attack each other and cause a panic. Cannons were used at Tewksbury, but the main deciding factor of the battle were 200 Yorkist spearmen hidden in the woods who attacked the Lancastrian rear and flank, causing a rout. Cannons were used at Bosworth as well, but the primary factor was the betrayal of the Percys and Stanleys. 

In the field, therefore, I wouldn’t expect cannons to make much of a difference. To me, the main difference would seem to be in sieges. Most of the Westerosi castles aren’t built to withstand cannon fire – Casterly Rock and the Eyrie would be ok, but King’s Landing, Riverrun, etc. would have had their walls smashed open. 

Haven’t seen them yet. 

I’d start with Karl Polayni’s Great Transformation. 

Because he needed to emphasize the sword as making him Aegon IV’s heir. If he’s just a legitimized Targaryen, then Daeron is older. But Daemon’s political argument is that, due to Daeron’s bastardy, House Targaryen’s male line ended with Aegon IV. 

Daemon instead presents himself as the founder of a new dynasty, through being the chosen heir of the previous King and the daughter of Aegon III, the wielder of Aegon the Conqueror’s sword, and as a conqueror. 

Here’s the Ashford Tourney Theory.

I don’t believe it for a couple reasons. 

First, sheer proximity argues for Arianne in the Stormlands marrying Aegon rather than Sansa, all the way up in the Vale. 

Second, in terms of character arcs, Sansa’s is about going back home to Winterfell (hence the snowcastle, hence Baelish’s plan), whereas Arianne and Aegon is about putting paid to the Lannister regime. 

Third, as with the whole Dance of the Dragons is going to repeat itself exactly theory, I think it’s too cute by half. GRRM’s a gardener not an architect. Sure, he likes to drop hints and there’s the threefold revelation thing, but to have the whole plot driven exactly by a short story that the main audience hasn’t necessarily read isn’t good writing because events will seem to come out of nowhere without roots in character. 

Well, there are very, very, very few English noble houses that can trace themselves back to the Anglo-Saxons, especially after William the Conqueror’s Scouring of the North, and I don’t know any that can trace back to pre-Saxon times (although you might find Welsh noble houses that could do so). 

And keep in mind, that was a few hundred years of history. Westerosi houses can trace their lineages back by as much as eight thousand years. 

And I want to explain that my question was because, well, I feel like the Yronwoods wanting the Blackfyre rebellion to succeed in order to have a Paramount Lordship seems pretty meagre compared to them being the once High Kings of Dorne, I understand that, should they have that ambition, they must do it step by step, but even so… seems humilliating, even more than accepting the Rhoynar supremacy.

Also… can you shed certain light of your wonderful mind on the subject of why Daemon the Dead Baby Mocker was such an awful person? It does seem like being a younger brother doesn’t really matter in that behaviour, they didn’t know at the beginning of their lives that their lines would succeed the Iron Throne, though my memory is not that great.

Also, another thing, I see that Stannis survives the series in the books, but… I noted that the Riverlands were starting to take wider worship of R’hllor, due to it being the religion of the people who care about the people, which is a nice parallel to Stannis, and it makes it all the more frustrating should certain theory of yours being true… that Stannis will be trapped in Winterfell all the time until it ends the series and he goes to the Wall after it. I understand that it is the same as Robb explaining his plan to take Moat Cailin then offed by Lord Grumpy Gramps (now that I release, Balon too falls to that category and he was the one who provoked robb to return North so…)

Also, Daenerys is going to become Genghis Khan, but I don’t know how GRRM envisions that, will she give up the mantra of “Dragons plant no trees”? Because ok, I get that she is prophecy-heroine, but sooner or later she should realize that the Targaryens flourished precisely for planting trees. she will give certain cities a “fiery lesson” perhaps Old Volantis, Qarth and Meereen, then the whole of Dorne with his “I am the slayer of lies” but I mean, she should receive some death-epiphany in which she realizes she did it wrong, that Dragons may not plant trees, but they hatch eggs, that grow and grow until they die. No?

And lastly, do you think that Aegon will die burned or… stoned? If Ashford tourney theory holds true, Aegon would not get the chance to marry certain… well, it is known. Also, if she marries that lady and Arianne, alluding to polygamy, he would be repeating his (f)father pattern, hell, even the order of those marriages.

1. I don’t think a Lord Paramouncy is meager at all. In one step, they rise from a minor House to a Great House, overthrow the Martells, and take their place next to the Arryns, the Starks, and the Lannisters, some of the most ancient Houses in Westeros. 

2. I’ve discussed Daemon in some detail here. 

3. I don’t know that R’hllorism is spreading in the Riverlands. Certainly it has among the Brotherhood, but given that a large number of the Sparrows are Riverlanders, I’d need to see more proof of popular sentiment.

4. I think Dany’s future is rather aimed at realizing she’s fighting the wrong enemies. Aegon is a human rival, the Others are the existential threat she’s been having visions about.

5. I don’t believe in the Ashford Tourney theory. 

It might or it might not. It’s possible that Jojen, as a greenseer, might be considered outside of the line of succession as his future career is as a devotee of the Old Gods rather than the future lord. 

So part of the issue here is the strange problem with the Riverland’s military numbers (are they 20k strong? Are they 40k strong? Are they 11k strong?). 

(Btw, just to correct something that seems to be cropping up in the fandom: “it had been at Edmure’s insistence that Robb had given the river lords leave to depart after his crowning, each to defend his own lands” – not Robb’s idea)

To me, the main issue is that the dispersal of the Riverlords gives Robb fewer forces he can use to accomplish his objective, which is a big part of the reason why he decides to take his cavalry to the Westerlands where he can do more with less, rather than engaging directly with Tywin. 

Now, obviously attacking Tywin directly is a mistake – Harrenhal gives huge defensive multipliers that would make an assault a bloodbath, and it leaves Robb’s rear open for Stafford’s army (which was Tywin’s initial plan). However, if it were me in Robb’s place I would have had the Riverlords swear an oath that they will liberate the Riverlands collectively before any man returns home to his own. Then I would have sent the Riverlords and their 20k men (minus a solid garrison at Riverrun) sweeping west to east to push Tywin’s reavers back to Harrenhal, preventing further damage to the Riverlands. (I would have also demanded that Roose occupy the crossroads and the Ruby Ford to prevent raiding over the Ruby Ford.)

I would have then ordered them and Roose to cut Tywin off from supply, and prepare ambushes if he tries to break out to the Westerlands – in other words, rather than trying to stop his march, turn it to something more like the guerrilla campaigns waged against the greens during the Dance. In the meantime, I would have taken the additional 5,000 cavalry available to me (assuming that the Riverlands = 20,000 men and 25% are cavalry as per norm) to mount a more aggressive campaign in the Westerlands.

And with 11,000 fresh and victorious cavalry under my command, I would have attacked Tywin’s exhausted army and attempt to destroy Tywin outright. 

Well, the first problem they would have faced is that everyone in the Westerlands has just seen that it’s possible to overthrow the rulers of Casterly Rock, so they’re going to get rebellions from rivals from other significant Westerlands Houses so think that they can repeat the effort. Even if they don’t try to grab Casterly Rock, you’re going to get separatist movements especially in outlying Houses far from the Rock. Fair Isle is already acting independently of the Rock, so they’re going to keep building up a navy big enough to defy the mainland; the Banefort and the Crag might decide that they’re remote enough to ignore Casterly Rock and get away with it. 

Then they’d have the problem that other Kingdoms are going to pounce on the disorder – the Tyrells are going to keep looking for potential converts from lords and landed knights on the borders, the Tullys are definitely going to want to grab the Golden Tooth if they can, the Greyjoys would definitely be interested in Fair Isle or some of the coastal castles. 

And then there’s the problem of royal disfavor. Aegon V has already had to come over to the Westerlands three times, so there’s already an understanding at court that the Westerlands are a problem area. Now they’re dealing with a bunch of usurpers, and the Targaryens don’t want people to get the idea that just anyone can make themselves a Lord Paramount without their say-so. So King’s Landing is going to respond with increased central government at the very least (more royal tax collectors, more inspectors and auditors, more royal justicars) and may go as far as declaring them rebels and outlaws and naming another house to replace them.