Avalatis Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 The thought occured to me that the rebels didn't really have a plan for taking King's Landing or at least they don't talk about it at all. So say Tywin wasn't a backtstabber but decided he owed Aerys nothing and continued to remain nuetral in the war. What were the Rebels going to do when Ned took KL? They obviously didn't plan on killing all the Targarens. I imagine they would have held a trial for the Mad King and executed him? Would Robert still assume the throne or would he have become Lord Regent and raised Aegon? If he had assumed the throne what would they have done with Elia's children? It just feels like kind of a plot hole that the rebels didn't have a concrete plan for what they were going to do when they won. I know it's kind of pointless after Tywin killed them all with his betrayal, but Ned at least should have reflected on it at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregor Clegane's head Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Robert would of massacred every Targ he could get his hands on, dude hated Targs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Trial and execution for Aerys, Aegon goes to the Wall, Elia and Rhaenys become Silent Sisters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steller Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Robert would of massacred every Targ he could get his hands on, dude hated Targs.Easy for you to say, Gregor.But anyway, I think if the Lannisters didn't sack King's Landing then the rebels would have ultimately lost. Because they would have to dig in and besiege the city. And then the Reach forces would have abandoned their own siege of Storm's End to save the capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis's Lawyer Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Easy for you to say, Gregor.But anyway, I think if the Lannisters didn't sack King's Landing then the rebels would have ultimately lost. Because they would have to dig in and besiege the city. And then the Reach forces would have abandoned their own siege of Storm's End to save the capital.Mace was about as loyal to Aerys as a pancake. Once Rhaegar died, Mace would have no real reason to save the Mad King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steller Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Mace was about as loyal to Aerys as a pancake. Once Rhaegar died, Mace would have no real reason to save the Mad King.Then why would he continue the siege of Storm's End? By your logic he would have just gone home the moment he heard that Rhaegar was dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avalatis Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Then why continue the siege of storms end by that logic? To feign loyalty to the crown? I got the impression that Mace wasn't trying really hard to support the Targarens. The siege of Storm's end was a means of them not to really dirty themselves with the war while also showing that they helped out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 This is easy. Kings Landing gets burned down. The Rebels probably could have taken Kings Landing, but they weren't going to be as quick about it as Tywin who got the door opened for him. If Aery's didn't burn it down already, he'd have time once the castles defenses started to buckle and he could make the order. And without Aery's ordering Jamie for Tywin's head I don't see a kingslayer moment coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avalatis Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Robert would of massacred every Targ he could get his hands on, dude hated Targs. They were his cousins right? He hated Rhaegar for taking his future wife and he hated Aerys for many reasons. Doesn't mean he would have killed them. And since Ned was the one performing the siege of KL, when he took the city I doubt he would have killed them or sacked the city. That means Robert would have to kill them in cold blood after the war was over. They also act as hostages against Dorne, kind of valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis's Lawyer Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Then why would he continue the siege of Storm's End? By your logic he would have just gone home the moment he heard that Rhaegar was dead. Because they wanted to annoy Stannis :cool4: Seriously, it's probably because they did not get the raven fast enough, and then it was no longer necessary to end the siege as Ned was coming anyways and a mass surrender at SE is preferable to Ned wandering around the Reach. And by your logic, why did Mace not declare for Viserys and kill Ned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avalatis Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 This is easy. Kings Landing gets burned down. The Rebels probably could have taken Kings Landing, but they weren't going to be as quick about it as Tywin who got the door opened for him. If Aery's didn't burn it down already, he'd have time once the castles defenses started to buckle and he could make the order. And without Aery's ordering Jamie for Tywin's head I don't see a kingslayer moment coming. That's probably the outcome. But what I'm looking for is what the Rebels were planning. As after the battle of the Trident they probably thought they were in good standing to win the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Easy for you to say, Gregor.But anyway, I think if the Lannisters didn't sack King's Landing then the rebels would have ultimately lost. Because they would have to dig in and besiege the city. And then the Reach forces would have abandoned their own siege of Storm's End to save the capital.And lost. Inferior forces, inferior commanders, no true loyalty to the Targs. Seriously, it's probably because they did not get the raven fast enough, and then it was no longer necessary to end the siege as Ned was coming anyways and a mass surrender at SE is preferable to Ned wandering around the Reach. They couldn't even get a raven. Ravens only fly to rookeries, not to armies in the field. The next rookery was inside Storms End. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingelheim Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Easy for you to say, Gregor.But anyway, I think if the Lannisters didn't sack King's Landing then the rebels would have ultimately lost. Because they would have to dig in and besiege the city. And then the Reach forces would have abandoned their own siege of Storm's End to save the capital. Not a chance the Tyrells could have defeated the Starks, Arryns, Baratheon and Tullys. Not a single chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Well I think after Trident the next and only move was to relentlessly go after KL with any and all force they could muster. Killing Aery's would have been the quickest way to end. I don't think they ever get the chance to do this, but had they captured Aery's they would have done one of two things. Killed him immediately, whether that is a farce trial that he has no chance in, or just an outright execution. OR and this is questionable, they might be willing to spare him for Lyanna's safe return and Aery's being banished to the wall or at best for him, tossed too Dragonstone with almost no banners or riches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 The thought occured to me that the rebels didn't really have a plan for taking King's Landing or at least they don't talk about it at all. So say Tywin wasn't a backtstabber but decided he owed Aerys nothing and continued to remain nuetral in the war. What were the Rebels going to do when Ned took KL? They obviously didn't plan on killing all the Targarens. I imagine they would have held a trial for the Mad King and executed him? Would Robert still assume the throne or would he have become Lord Regent and raised Aegon? If he had assumed the throne what would they have done with Elia's children? It just feels like kind of a plot hole that the rebels didn't have a concrete plan for what they were going to do when they won. I know it's kind of pointless after Tywin killed them all with his betrayal, but Ned at least should have reflected on it at some point. I think Tywin's sack of King's Landing probably saved more lives than a protracted, "honourable" war. The Tyrells still had a host at Storm's End, and could probably have raised another army at Highgarden, not to mention that Dorne had only sent 10,000 men to the capital. Robert and Jon would probably have besieged King's Landing while Ned/Hoster rushed south to fight the Tyrells, or at least stop them from saving King's Landing. The war would still probably have ended in Rebel-favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Aerys probably burns the city to ashes when Robert's army arrives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Green Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 And without Aery's ordering Jamie for Tywin's head I don't see a kingslayer moment coming. I'm skeptical that Jaime would ultimately have allowed him to burn down the city. Trial and execution for Aerys, Aegon goes to the Wall, Elia and Rhaenys become Silent Sisters. Elia is harmless on her own, and could be returned to Sunspear. The most politic thing to do with Rhaenys would have been to keep her and ultimately marry to to Joffrey, but I'm not sure Robert would have tolerated that, so either the Silent Sisterhood or a lifetime as a hostage is likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steller Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 And by your logic, why did Mace not declare for Viserys and kill Ned?Well, by that point, not only is Rhaegar dead, but so is Aerys, not to mention the fact that Kings Landing is taken and ravaged. Robert is now king and has the support of Lannister, Stark, Arryn, and Tully. And Viserys is a boy stranded on Dragonstone.I'd say it was a bit more one sided by that point as opposed to the battle of the Trident's aftermath. Even with Rhaegar dead, Robert was wounded, King's Landing was secure and Tywin was still neutral. I think with the numbers of the Reach and Randyll's leadership, Aerys could have survived for at least another month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell Resident Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 There probably wouldn't be A Song of Ice and Fire series. It would probably just be called "A Song of Protecting our Butts from the Others" :cool4: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valyrian Lance Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Siege, then kill Targs (this part would have been moot since Aerys would have burned the city). In other news: Cersei never marries Robert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.