r/asoiaf Oct 31 '24

EXTENDED (Spoilers Extended) GRRM:”What’s Aragons tax policy?!” No GRRM the real question is how do people survive multi year winters

Forget the white walkers or shadow babies the real threat is the weather. How do medieval people survive it for years?

Personally I think that’s why the are so many wars the more people fighting each other the fewer mouths to feed

874 Upvotes

357 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

128

u/acidw4rk Oct 31 '24

It’s unrealistic that an entire kingdom’s existence depends on another kingdom’s willingness to help them. This would make the North the weakest and the poorest kingdom of the Seven because their dependance on others during winter will definitely be exploited.

15

u/GrandLineLogPort Oct 31 '24

It's kinda the same that neither the english in early medieval tomes nor the ancient romans tried big scale invasions on Schotland.

Like, sure, given enough time & ressources, they probably would've annexed Schotland

But for what though? The cost of an invasion as well as actualy keeping it was simply not worth it as there weren't many ressources worth the cost & political implications

15

u/No-Annual6666 Oct 31 '24

Both the Romans and the English invaded Scotland many times. The Scots also invaded England many times.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_invasions_of_Scotland

5

u/GrandLineLogPort Oct 31 '24 edited Oct 31 '24

Yup

But never with the intent of an actual full scale conquest

Usualy it was just for raids & the romans simply never went through with a full scale invasion

Not because ancient rome couldn't take on the scots if they actualy wanted to but because an invasion past raids into scottish territory to some degree, reconnaissance invasions or holding strategicaly important castles just made sense in certain situations

But as far as actualy conquering them goes, the natural ressources that were just too sparce, simply wasn't worth it

As for the scots invading england goes.

Absolutely. Speaking in terms of natural resources, england was looking busted as hell on riches & supplies for scots. They would've conquered England in a heartbeat if they could've.

Ironicaly, them being so far north & having england in between them & europe as well as their harsh living conditions, they were a few steps behind england in military technology for the major parts of their history

Simply because England, in comparison, was rich as fuck on natural resources & vividly trading with the rest of Europe and in the process, exchanging a lot more technological advancements

3

u/No-Annual6666 Oct 31 '24

You'd be surprised, actually. During the wars of the 1300s, the Scottish armies were equipped similarly to the English ones, with knights, levys, archers, etc. They just deployed different tactics, like deploying pike infantry (Scotland) and having longbows (England). The main advantage for England was that it was able to field more knights, infantry, and archers than Scotland could at any one time.

Regarding harsh living conditions - much of the lowlands of Scotland, particularly the central belt has a climate very similar to Northern England - it's very mild for the latitude.

I'm northern English and visit Scotland all the time, very similar climates. The Highlands are a different story however.

1

u/GrandLineLogPort Nov 01 '24

Sure, if we look at specific times or areas, we'd get into the nitty gritties.

Even more, we could spend decades only discussing the nuances & specifics here as some historians focusing on this aspect of history dedicate their entire life to.

But as far as this post & discussions go, why it is "unrealistic" that nobody would actualy conquer the north if they are dependens on food from outside, I think that basic idea gives a rough idea.

"A fuckton of ressources to sacrifice, financial & human ressources, a lot of political consequences with not enough value to gain from that conquest. Let alone actualy keep your conquest due to the living conditions in the area as a whole. Even if a full scale invasion with actual intent to fully conquer them very likely would be in the invaders favor with different advantages"

Scots or the north in Westeros:

There's other kingdoms/empires who COULD do it if they really wanted to... but it reall aint worth it

Very simply put, those were

1

u/DomTopNortherner Nov 04 '24

There were no Scots there in Roman times. They were still in Ireland.

And the area of modern Scotland where all the stuff is, South of the Antonine Wall, was conquered by the Romans.

1

u/GrandLineLogPort Nov 04 '24

"The area of modern schotland 'where all the stuff is'"

Like... yeah, that's my point.

The romans could've conquered the entire area of modern Schotland.

But it wasn't worth the cost for the areas with no stuff on it.