R+L=J v.142

[Greymoon]

While I don't think that Lyanna ever hated Robert (she was more disappointed about his infidelity) if her love for Rhaegar survived the murders of her father and her brother, he will more likely survive the death of Robert.

Rhaegar is not Aerys. She can love the son and hate the father.

[Greymoon]

Greymoon,

we have no idea what Robert's plan was, nor whether Robert was actually making the tactical and strategic decisions. Jon, Ned, and Hoster were with him, and it seems the rebels had the high ground and lured Rhaegar into a trap - which is nothing Robert would come up with on his own.

You said Rhaegar attacked Robert, and earlier, you posted that he very much wanted to kill Robert. I understood that to mean, that in your opinion, Rhaegar led an attack, while Robert was chilling out on the other bank of the trident, making faces or something, as provocation ;)

That's an assumption. My point was mostly that we don't know what happened at the trident. Whether Rhaegar was tricked or foolishly attacked, whether they spoke beforehand or not. We don't know at what point Rhaegar tried to cross the trident. The wording is vague enough imo, that it can be interpreted in different ways....was it before or during the battle? Was he surrounded, or not? Where was Robert's host, exactly? Were the rebels standing all together, or flanking the royal army on it's side and front?

It's true that we don't know Robert' strategy, but we do know that he intended to ride south, don't we? so Rhaegar rode to intercept Robert, while Robert marched south to KL.

[SFDanny]

No, Rhaegar did not do just fine in his handling of the Trident. He tried to cross the river which is about the rookiest mistake a commander could make.

That sure has interesting implications for future books

There's nothing really being assumed though

Rhaegar tried to cross the Trident. That's a very bad idea when there's an enemy force waiting on the other side for you to do that exact thing. If I was Whent and I'd heard that he'd done that, I'd be angry too, and would probably be saying "Woe to the Usurper if we had been" because I would never have let Rhaegar do such a thing

One would think that there was never in history a victorious army who attacked across a river. Believe me, I concede in general, it gives a a defending army an advantage, but it is not an insurmountable one. I just would like some more information about the battle, the terrain, the disposition of forces on both sides, and much more before I give even my own non-professional opinion. I'm just looking for more information, please.

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

No, Rhaegar did not do just fine in his handling of the Trident. He tried to cross the river which is about the rookiest mistake a commander could make.

Rhaegar tried to cross the Trident. That's a very bad idea when there's an enemy force waiting on the other side for you to do that exact thing. If I was Whent and I'd heard that he'd done that, I'd be angry too, and would probably be saying "Woe to the Usurper if we had been" because I would never have let Rhaegar do such a thing

We are still to learn the full movements of the battle and the timing of those, for both parts... not much, but it's still to be completely detailed

3 KG's were there, including Barristan freaking Selmy, a much better war mind and sword than Oswell Whent, who would not have any saying in the matter unless every other KG was dead... between Aerys's Kingsguard only Gerold Hightower was more experienced than Barristan as a commander...

Oswell's rant is just a desplay of the character's arrogance, pure and simple... then followed by being killed by 7 northmen with 2 KG brothers fighting with him...

[The Missing Crannogman]

We are still to learn the full movements of the battle and the timing of those, for both parts... not much, but it's still to be completely detailed

3 KG's were there, including Barristan freaking Selmy, a much better war mind and sword than Oswell Whent, who would not have any saying in the matter unless every other KG was dead... between Aerys's Kingsguard only Gerold Hightower was more experienced than Barristan as a commander...

Oswell's rant is just a desplay of the character's arrogance, pure and simple... then followed by being killed by 7 northmen with 2 KG brothers fighting with him...

I think the thing that needs to be remembered, is that it's generally probably a poor idea to put Kingsguard as subcommanders under a prince/king that they've sworn to obey and protect. They can object to a plan that they don't agree with, but if Rhaegar tells them that that's what's happening, they have no real ability to object. They literally have to obey his orders, no matter how much they disagree with them. IIRC, during the Dance we see that Aegon II gave the command to his KG and trusted in them, who were more experienced, to lead him through the battles and come out on top. Which he did (he was severely injured because of their plans sure, but the plan worked). That's what Rhaegar should have done when he was given Barristan, Darry, and Lewyn by Aerys.

In general, the same is true of any bannerman. They've sworn themselves to their lord and if their lord tells them that they need to do this, they should do that otherwise there'll be consequences. But bannermen have their own sworn soldiers and therefore have influence with their commander. If someone with enough influence objects, the lord has no choice but to listen/alter the plan as they need that person's soldiers. A KG has no soldiers sworn to him and no influence save for himself and his reputation. If the royal decides not to listen to the KG, there's not much that the KG can do about it. Hence why at least in my mind, it's probably a bad idea to put them under the command of a less experienced member of the royal family

[J. Stargaryen]

JS,

well, my guess above was that Aerys had publicly condemned Rhaegar after the abduction/marriage to Lyanna, and that this was why he had to hide. If that's the case, then Rhaegar would have needed a pardon. Lyanna being Rhaegar's wife doesn't mean that the king will receive her or allow her at court, or not consider her a traitor he is going to burn - say, because she is a Stark, and he is killing Starks now, or because she bewitched his son. And if Rhaegar can't take his wife to court, she not his wife at all, even if he has married her, nor would he remain a prince if his father would no longer see him.

Again, Rhaegar knew about his father's feelings for him (mistrust, paranoia, etc.) even prior to the rebellion. Elia and her children were used as hostages against the Dornish, and if they truly were hostages then they weren't safe in Aerys' care - regardless whether the king wanted to use them against Rhaegar or Doran/Lewyn. I imagine Lewyn was Elia's sworn shield on Dragonstone after her marriage to Rhaegar - he may only have joined the KG as a part of the marriage contract, by the way - but if he was he could apparently not prevent that the king seized Elia and her children and used them as hostages against his own Kingsguard.

Rhaegar chose to leave his two loyal friends and Ser Gerold at the tower instead of taking at least one of them with him to assign them to Elia/Aegon. That would be strange if Aegon's status and safety were on his mind at that time (let alone Elia). That he later failed to appoint his own men to their protection after his return to KL could be a pretty big hint that Aerys did not allow him near them, or at least kept them under his own 'protection'.

And the whole Martell betrayal thing may actually be also connected to harsh reactions from Sunspear following the Lyanna affair - talks about humiliation and rebellion, comparable to what the actually rebels later did (and Lyonel Baratheon did in the past). It may have been necessary to use Elia as a hostage to keep the Martells loyal and to prevent Lewyn and the 10,000 spear men Doran had sent from fighting against Rhaegar.

In regards to the 'doing nothing' thing. The KG at the tower continued to do nothing, and they did not evade Eddard Stark and his companions. Had Rhaegar stayed there, Robert may have been at Ned's side as he would not have been injured at the Trident.

Oh, and actually: I don't think Aerys would have needed Rhaegar had he kept Jon Connington as Hand after the Battle of the Bells. The man had just lost won battle, he certainly could have tried again and could have won at the Trident. Aerys could also have turned to experienced Riverlords or Reach Lords to fill in for Connington. It is not that he only had the likes of Chelsted left.

I don't really think you've raised any new issues here, so I'll just direct you to my previous posts on the matter.

The only part I feel compelled to respond to again is the lack of KG for Aegon argument. Symbolically, the three KG being with Jon is significant and should not be overlooked, I think. (Though that issue is somewhat separate, as this discussion is pitting Aegon vs. Jon.) But in universe the argument that two or three KG > castle walls and soldiers is absurd. How absurd? Seven northerners defeated those three KG. Do you think seven northerners could have sacked KL or laid siege to Dragonstone?

IIRC, there is a quote somewhere along the lines of "the war went wrong for the Targs, so Aerys was finally convinced to send for Rhaegar" - in other words, "we need Rhaegar or we're goners". Whether for hsi charms or for his competence, doesn't really matter. They needed him.

Exactly.

Rhaegar moved north to intercept the rebels. Robert did not plan to camp out there indefinitely. The plan was to march on KL. Who is attacking who, when two armies meet up? The Battle of the Trident wasn't the battle of the Whispering Wood. It wasn't a surprise attack as far as we know. There's that moment in time where the two hosts face each other, and no one is quite certain when, or how, it's going to start.

...Renly and Stannis parley before battle. They even fix a time for when the battle is to start. We don't have enough information on the trident, imo, to know exactly what happened there, and what did or didn't take place before it started.

If Rhaegar planned to kill Robert, in all honesty, I think he could say bye-bye to his relationship with Lyanna, too. She might not have loved Robert as a lover should, but she knew him, he was once her betrothed.

I do think that Jon Connington is mistaken. Jon Arryn called the banners, and Ned had a very legitimate reason to rebel. Robert was the 'figure head' of the rebellion, but rebelled they would have, even without him. I doubt they'd have kneeled....

It might not have been quite that simple, but the loss of Robert would have almost certainly doomed the rebellion. His feats were really quite remarkable.

[Shinjuku Thief]

You are taking that line out of context. I agree with you. I have been banging my head against the wall spending way too much time (when I should be getting other work done) writing long responses to LV and others supporting why I believe the KG considered Jon to be King and why the supposed counter evidence is not sufficient to dissuade me from this view that the KG considered Jon to be King.

Now the fact that many people read the conversation differently than you and I do makes me consider the possibility that we are wrong -- and I admit there is that possibility. Maybe GRRM wrote the conversation in a way that is materially misleading (at least from my way of thinking), and he will make all the same arguments that people on this board have made to justify concluding that the KG did not consider Jon to be King (e.g., they were bound to continue to follow Rhaegar's orders or some variation thereof). While I give that possibility a higher likelihood than you do (as I think you give it a 0% probability), I still give it a very low probability (maybe 1% or 2%). As I think you know, I consider your analysis reprinted in you sig to be dead-on, and I will be genuinely befuddled if GRRM is going a different way.

For what it's worth, I agree with your and MtnLion's reading of the conversation. Whilst we're yet to find out the truth of it all, I haven't read any critique of that reading that casts any compelling doubt upon it.

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

I think the thing that needs to be remembered, is that it's generally probably a poor idea to put Kingsguard as subcommanders under a prince/king that they've sworn to obey and protect. They can object to a plan that they don't agree with, but if Rhaegar tells them that that's what's happening, they have no real ability to object. They literally have to obey his orders, no matter how much they disagree with them. IIRC, during the Dance we see that Aegon II gave the command to his KG and trusted in them, who were more experienced, to lead him through the battles and come out on top. Which he did (he was severely injured because of their plans sure, but the plan worked). That's what Rhaegar should have done when he was given Barristan, Darry, and Lewyn by Aerys.

In general, the same is true of any bannerman. They've sworn themselves to their lord and if their lord tells them that they need to do this, they should do that otherwise there'll be consequences. But bannermen have their own sworn soldiers and therefore have influence with their commander. If someone with enough influence objects, the lord has no choice but to listen/alter the plan as they need that person's soldiers. A KG has no soldiers sworn to him and no influence save for himself and his reputation. If the royal decides not to listen to the KG, there's not much that the KG can do about it. Hence why at least in my mind, it's probably a bad idea to put them under the command of a less experienced member of the royal family

And that's what we need to wait grrm to tell (IF he tells) to fully judge Rhaegar at the Trident...

If Rhaegar made strategic and tactical decisions on the Trident all by himself WHILE disregarding Barristan for example, that´s on him...

But if it was a joint decision and not doubted by the KG's there (who were commanding) with Rhaegar... then they did what they could and just lost to the better side (which given Robert's amazing war feats plus Ned/Jon/Hoster is not a bad loss)...

[Kingmonkey]

Ser Oswell Whent didn't think much of Rhaegar's leadership. He thinks that if he was in charge instead of Rhaegar, House Targaryen would have won.

"I looked for you on the Trident," Ned said to them.

"We were not there," Ser Gerold answered.

"Woe to the Usurper if we had been," said Ser Oswell.

I really think you shouldn't be taking this at face value. None of the claims the 3KG make are true. The three of them would not have been enough to turn the tide at the Trident, any more than they could have defeated the Lannister host with just a few gold cloaks to help them, would have stood up to Eddard's army when the Tyrells had surrendered, or would not have "fled" to Dragonstone due to their vows if they'd been in KL at the time and Aerys had ordered them to.

The 3KGs answers are ridiculously boastful, taken at face value. They should not be taken at face value. Essentially their dialogue acts to create a sense of intransigence. There is no common ground between Ned and the 3KG by which they can come to peace.

If they could have saved the king, why didn't they? If they could have won the Trident, why weren't they there? Why were they not with Viserys? Because they were doing something more important. Most people here will agree that the hidden message is that they were guarding Rhaegar's son -- the boasting is a way to raise a flag that they must have had something really important going on at the ToJ to keep them busy through all that.

Of course if you follow the logic, that suggests that they considered their duty at the ToJ more important not only than Viserys (proclamation known or not) but also Aerys and Rhaegar. We have yet to know what exactly changed in Rhaegar's understanding of Prophecy after Aegon's birth. Probably something connected to his unexplained "...journey that would ultimately lead him back to the Riverlands" (visiting the Ghost of High Heart is my guess). Perhaps he'd shared something with those 3KG that persuaded even Hightower that what was at the ToJ was the most important thing for them protect.

[corbon]

From here

Ned's bitter about the fight, and considers it a bad omen that he's just had this dream again.

There is no indication at all that Ned is angry about the fight. The fight is a bitter memory because he lost 5 close friends that day, including Jory's father.

Note that when he wakes, his first thought is his how long as he been out, his second is to summon Jory his captain of the guard and begin dealing with the current situation as shown by his third, updating current events, his fourth, his daughters, his fifth, his dead (including Jory). Thats not 'angry about the fight at the ToJ'.

Its only when he reflects on dealing with Jory's death that he remembers the bitter memory that includes burying his friends (including Jory's father) at ToJ. Still no anger, just the pain of loss. That is what 'a bitter memory' is, a memory that causes hurt, grief, pain etc not actual right-now bitterness or anger.

As to your next response to me (sorry can't multi quote from my phone), I definitely agree that the Kingsguard would make perfect sense to have been at Storm's End acting as commanders or what not. I'm simply saying that the interpretation that the KG must protect the king and assure his safety, above all other vows, can't possibly be how Ned personally views the KG vows as some suggest. Otherwise he'd never expect them to be at Storm's End with Rhaegar, Aerys, and Aegon all dead, and Viserys fled to Dragonstone. He'd be expecting them at Dragonstone, or on route to there if he thought that they needed the king protected at all times and above all prior orders. As far as Ned knows before he finds Lyanna and Jon, the only Targaryens left are Rhaella amd Viserys, so Viserys would be their king in his mind and they'd be required to make some effort to get to him, instead of continuing the siege (which Mace was perfectly capable of).

So for Ned to think that they'd still be at the siege of Storm's End after all the Targaryens, as far as Ned at that time knew, we're dead but for Viserys and Rhaella, means that Ned must think that there is no paramount Kingsguard vow

As Ygraine noted, you seems to be thinking that Westeros is a modern, highly connected society. Its not. It takes time (sometimes lots of time) for news to reach places (and the besiegers at Storms End would not be on the Raven Network (for receiving at least) and could not abandon the siege merely at the word of the besieged that 'its all over, your side lost'.

Ned has gone straight from KL and the sack to Storm's End. Remember he fell out with Robert when the Targaryen kiddies were presented (so within a day or two of the Sack itself) and left almost immediately. There would probably be very little, if any, opportunity for news to reach the royalists there before Ned himself appeared, given they cannot receive raven news (ravens fly to the castle where they were raised, so an army encamped in enemy territory has no incoming mail, only possible outgoing, just like the NW at the FotFM).

Your assertion that Kingsguard can only take roles as commanders, diplomats, etc. when at least one of them is guarding the king is another fairy-tale, by the way. We don't have textual evidence that this is the case,

Way to twist into a different, older, argument.

The fact remains that there are many examples of the KG being on detached missions that do not directly involve the royal family.The implication was made that Ned's expectation of them possibly being at Storms End was nonsensical because there was no royal family there.

And in every case we know of, those missions are assigned when there is another KG with the king, fulfilling their first duty. A few special snowflake scenarios where the injured King was trying to hide and deceive his enemies as to his whereabouts, and dragon-riding royals, don't change that. Still, when KG were assigned independent missions there was always one with the king at the time.

One would think that there was never in history a victorious army who attacked across a river. Believe me, I concede in general, it gives a a defending army an advantage, but it is not an insurmountable one. I just would like some more information about the battle, the terrain, the disposition of forces on both sides, and much more before I give even my own non-professional opinion. I'm just looking for more information, please.

No, no Ser! The given thing around here is to insist that one's non-professional opinion, lacking important details and context, is enough to soundly condemn experienced and lauded warriors. It is not acceptable to ask for more data in which to form an opinion.

[The Missing Crannogman]

There is no indication at all that Ned is angry about the fight. The fight is a bitter memory because he lost 5 close friends that day, including Jory's father.

Note that when he wakes, his first thought is his how long as he been out, his second is to summon Jory his captain of the guard and begin dealing with the current situation as shown by his third, updating current events, his fourth, his daughters, his fifth, his dead (including Jory). Thats not 'angry about the fight at the ToJ'.

Its only when he reflects on dealing with Jory's death that he remembers the bitter memory that includes burying his friends (including Jory's father) at ToJ. Still no anger, just the pain of loss. That is what 'a bitter memory' is, a memory that causes hurt, grief, pain etc not actual right-now bitterness or anger.

That's a rather selective interpretation

bit·ter

ˈbidər/

adjective

1. 1.

   having a sharp, pungent taste or smell; not sweet.

   "the raw berries have an intensely bitter flavor"

   synonyms:

   sharp, acid, acidic, acrid, tart, sour, biting, unsweetened, vinegary;

   technicalacerbic

   "a bitter aftertaste"

2.

(of people or their feelings or behavior) angry, hurt, or resentful because of one's bad experiences or a sense of unjust treatment.

You think it means the memory hurts, I think it means it makes him angry. You don't just get to say though that only your interpretation is correct

As Ygraine noted, you seems to be thinking that Westeros is a modern, highly connected society. Its not. It takes time (sometimes lots of time) for news to reach places (and the besiegers at Storms End would not be on the Raven Network (for receiving at least) and could not abandon the siege merely at the word of the besieged that 'its all over, your side lost'.

Ned has gone straight from KL and the sack to Storm's End. Remember he fell out with Robert when the Targaryen kiddies were presented (so within a day or two of the Sack itself) and left almost immediately. There would probably be very little, if any, opportunity for news to reach the royalists there before Ned himself appeared, given they cannot receive raven news (ravens fly to the castle where they were raised, so an army encamped in enemy territory has no incoming mail, only possible outgoing, just like the NW at the FotFM).

If from Jon Arryn calling his banners to the Sack of King's Landing is one year, and the Battle of Ashford to the end of the Siege of Storm's End is a year as well, then you're looking at at least 1-2 months between the Sack and the Siege. That's plenty of time for word to reach anybody at Storm's End

And no, we don't know that Ned went straight from King's Landing to Storm's End. Ned simply says that he marched south to go fight the last battles of the war. We know that he showed up at Storm's End before he showed up at the Tower of Joy, but we don't know that he didn't go anywhere in between King's Landing and Storm's End. The timeline certainly seems to indicate that he did go elsewhere, otherwise he could have gotten to Storm's End faster.

Way to twist into a different, older, argument.

The fact remains that there are many examples of the KG being on detached missions that do not directly involve the royal family.The implication was made that Ned's expectation of them possibly being at Storms End was nonsensical because there was no royal family there.

No it wasn't. The implication was that if Ned Stark believed that the Kingsguard MUST protect the king/members of the royal family, ABOVE all orders to do anything else, based on having seen Jaime's investiture and oath, as many posters in these threads suggest when discussing the "vow" that the 3 KG reference, then he never should have expected to find any Kingsguard at Storm's End, when the only members of the royal family left had fled to Dragonstone. If Ned thought that they had to stop whatever they're doing to protect the king, they wouldn't be at Storm's End.

Besides, it's a silly argument to suggest that Ned thinks that KG have to protect the king above obeying him anyways

“It shall be as you command, my lord.” Ser Barristan seemed old beyond his years. “I have failed my sacred trust.”

“Even the truest knight cannot protect a king against himself,” Ned said. “Robert loved to hunt boar. I have seen him take a thousand of them.” He would stand his ground without flinching, his legs braced, the great spear in his hands, and as often as not he would curse the boar as it charged, and wait until the last possible second, until it was almost on him, before he killed it with a single sure and savage thrust. “No one could know this one would be his death.”

“You are kind to say so, Lord Eddard.”

“The king himself said as much. He blamed the wine.”

The white-haired knight gave a weary nod. “His Grace was reeling in his saddle by the time we flushed the boar from his lair, yet he commanded us all to stand aside.”

Ned thinks that Barristan did his job by obeying Robert's command to let him take on a boar drunk. Which clearly would be at odds with the interpretation that Ned thinks that the KG need to protect the king at all times

[corbon]

I really think you shouldn't be taking this at face value. None of the claims the 3KG make are true. The three of them would not have been enough to turn the tide at the Trident, any more than they could have defeated the Lannister host with just a few gold cloaks to help them, would have stood up to Eddard's army when the Tyrells had surrendered, or would not have "fled" to Dragonstone due to their vows if they'd been in KL at the time and Aerys had ordered them to.

Wouldn't they?

The royalists were winning at the Trident and the tide turned when Corbray killed the wounded Martell. If Martel had Whent or Hightower at his side 2KG on each wing and 2 in the centre, could that have changed the battle? Could Arthur Dayne have fought and killed Robert during the battle?

Would Tywin have betrayed Aerys if Jaime was just one amongst 4KG in the Red Keep?

Would the KG bent the knee easily at Storms End?

I don't know what the answers to these questions are. I tend towards the answer being that three men amongst 80,000 (40,000 per side) probably don't change a battle result, but its possible that the right men in the right place could.

The 3KGs answers are ridiculously boastful, taken at face value. They should not be taken at face value. Essentially their dialogue acts to create a sense of intransigence. There is no common ground between Ned and the 3KG by which they can come to peace.

I don't disagree about the intransigence and no common ground part. However, while the answers are boastful, I don't know that they are entirely ridiculous (as above).

I certainly wouldn't put them in the class of the "who could have slain all five of you with his left hand while he was taking a piss with the right" sort of over the top boast.

If they could have saved the king, why didn't they? If they could have won the Trident, why weren't they there? Why were they not with Viserys? Because they were doing something more important. Most people here will agree that the hidden message is that they were guarding Rhaegar's son -- the boasting is a way to raise a flag that they must have had something really important going on at the ToJ to keep them busy through all that.

They weren't there and didn't save the day because they had other duties assigned to them at the time.

As to 'importance', that is hindsight at best. The Royalists didn't fight the Trident expecting to lose just because those three KG weren't there, nor did Aerys consider these guys' absence as a reason not to open the gates to Tywin's army.

[corbon]

That's a rather selective interpretation

You think it means the memory hurts, I think it means it makes him angry. You don't just get to say though that only your interpretation is correct

I do get to give a detailed explanation why your interpretation doesn't align with the text.

Its not just selective either, though thats an interesting choice of description on your part. You pull up one dictionary definition (is that amerikun? phonetically saying tt = d?, really?) of bitter that includes the word angry among several possibilities, yet the page I checked has 6, 5 and 7 options for adjectives, not one of which include the word anger.

Bitterness is associated commonly with cost, harshness, pain, hurt, unpleasantness, difficulty, grief, etc, all of which fit with "bitter memory" and only rarely with anger, which is not usually associated without additional reference by the phrase "bitter memory".

You said "Upon waking however he's angry when he thinks about the fight that took place there" and "Those are wildly different emotions that what he experiences in the dream. If things went down exactly like they did in the dream, why doesn't he feel the same emotions when he consciously thinks about the event after the dream?"

In the dream he was sad.

I showed that he is not angry when he wakes. He does a bunch of stuff and down the line a bit one of those things has a direct reminder of the events after the dream, which reminder is a bitter memory. He's dealing with burying Jory, just as he buried Jory's father. Sadness. Perhaps bitterness even (though its the memory thats bitter, not necessarily his current feeling). No suggestion of anger though.

In addition, you make the point that he should experience the same feelings in the dream as the memory brings back, but you have a time and detail misalignment. His 'bitter memory' comes from after the fight, which is itself after the dream. In the dream (before the fight) he's sad, after the fight he has a bitter memory because of the results - he lost 5 close friends. He shouldn't be feeling the results in the dream before they happen in the dream.

Yes, you get to claim "interpretation" and can't be conclusively disproved (maybe). Not all interpretations are equal though.

If from Jon Arryn calling his banners to the Sack of King's Landing is one year, and the Battle of Ashford to the end of the Siege of Storm's End is a year as well, then you're looking at at least 1-2 months between the Sack and the Siege. That's plenty of time for word to reach anybody at Storm's End

And no, we don't know that Ned went straight from King's Landing to Storm's End. Ned simply says that he marched south to go fight the last battles of the war. We know that he showed up at Storm's End before he showed up at the Tower of Joy, but we don't know that he didn't go anywhere in between King's Landing and Storm's End. The timeline certainly seems to indicate that he did go elsewhere, otherwise he could have gotten to Storm's End faster.

Yes, there could have been time. I think your estimate of 1-2 months minimum is overly large, but certainly it would have been at least a week, possibly several weeks.

But your argument relies on the besiegers definitely having gotten the news, detailed news, well before Ned arrives. And while that might be the case, it isn't necessarily so. And thus Ned has a fair reason to expect the KG to have possibly still been there, if thats where they were before.

Ned thinks that Barristan did his job by obeying Robert's command to let him take on a boar drunk. Which clearly would be at odds with the interpretation that Ned thinks that the KG need to protect the king at all times

No, it isn't. You can't entirely protect the King from himself, since he's the one guy that has override on the KG. In fact Ned specifically counsels Ser Barristan that after the fact.

You might think of it like Darry and Jaime protecting Rhaella. Their job is to protect her, but not from him (Aerys). Similarly, Barristan was there at the time, protecting Robert, just not from himself.

[Ygrain]

Wouldn't they?

The royalists were winning at the Trident and the tide turned when Corbray killed the wounded Martell. If Martel had Whent or Hightower at his side 2KG on each wing and 2 in the centre, could that have changed the battle? Could Arthur Dayne have fought and killed Robert during the battle?

Would Tywin have betrayed Aerys if Jaime was just one amongst 4KG in the Red Keep?

Would the KG bent the knee easily at Storms End?

I don't know what the answers to these questions are. I tend towards the answer being that three men amongst 80,000 (40,000 per side) probably don't change a battle result, but its possible that the right men in the right place could.

I don't disagree about the intransigence and no common ground part. However, while the answers are boastful, I don't know that they are entirely ridiculous (as above).

I certainly wouldn't put them in the class of the "who could have slain all five of you with his left hand while he was taking a piss with the right" sort of over the top boast.

They weren't there and didn't save the day because they had other duties assigned to them at the time.

As to 'importance', that is hindsight at best. The Royalists didn't fight the Trident expecting to lose just because those three KG weren't there, nor did Aerys consider these guys' absence as a reason not to open the gates to Tywin's army.

Couldn't agree more. Three KG are certainly not enough to send a host of enemies fleeing, but at the right time and place, they indeed could have made a difference, namely protecting their own leaders or offing the enemy leaders. The death of a leader is always detrimental for the morale of his troops and a boost for the enemy. If Dayne managed to kill Robert before he could engage Rhaegar, the battle could have gone very differently.

[Lord Wraith]

Couldn't agree more. Three KG are certainly not enough to send a host of enemies fleeing, but at the right time and place, they indeed could have made a difference, namely protecting their own leaders or offing the enemy leaders. The death of a leader is always detrimental for the morale of his troops and a boost for the enemy. If Dayne managed to kill Robert before he could engage Rhaegar, the battle could have gone very differently.

Strike the shepard and the sheep scatter. Seems to be the case with Lewyn and Rhaegar.

[Black Crow]

One would think that there was never in history a victorious army who attacked across a river. Believe me, I concede in general, it gives a a defending army an advantage, but it is not an insurmountable one. I just would like some more information about the battle, the terrain, the disposition of forces on both sides, and much more before I give even my own non-professional opinion. I'm just looking for more information, please.

Its worth noting in this context that Robert and Rhaegar fought in the river and that when Rhaegar fell he didn't drown. Whatever he really whispered as he died, unless it was a total fabrication he evidently wasn't blowing bubbles. Likewise after or even as he died the soldiers were scrabbling about trying to pick up his rubies. All of that suggests that the river at that point was shallow with a firm bottom and therefore not a significant military obstacle.

[Lord Varys]

Laughing Storm Reborn,

not sure what you mean about Oswell. We don't know how old that man is. My guess is that Arthur Dayne was somewhat close® in age to Rhaegar since they were such great friends but that does not need to be the case. Oswell is the younger brother of Lord Walter Whent, and we don't know how many siblings he had. Oswell could have been as old as Barristan Selmy or Gerold Hightower, and could very well have been a Stepstones veteran (if we was somewhat younger than as a squire or young knight, like Aerys and Tywin).

JS,

I get what you are saying in regards to symbolism there. Any idea what it may mean symbolically that the Northmen killed all the Kingsguard at the tower? Does this mean the child will never be king? That Jon Snow's 'northern side' will prevail and he'll outright reject any notion of claiming the Iron Throne?

TMC,

Kingsguard can actually be good commanders, and vassals can't really enforce their own views and opinions on their lieges just because they bring levies. They are obliged to do so - all they can do is offer their opinions. If they threaten to march their men home this can have very severe consequences for them.

corbon,

the point is that you have no textual evidence for the claim that one KG has always be with the king to protect him. That was what I'm saying. A king can assign the Kingsguard to anyone and choose to have himself protected by somebody else. Aegon II proves as much.

Trident:

Well, Rhaegar obviously tried to cross the river at a ford - which is since called the Ruby Ford, and due to the season the water was relatively shallow. But this does not change the fact that the ford would have been narrow, crippling the loyalists' forces capabilities to attack the enemy on a broader front, or use their flanks to circumvent their vanguard to attack them from the sides or the rear. If the rebels had prepared their position they could easily draw the enemy in - say, by luring Rhaegar's vanguard and centre to cross the river, only to encircle them and throw them back into the river. If that's what they did then Rhaegar may actually not have been one of the first men to cross the river.

[Black Crow]

Trident:

Well, Rhaegar obviously tried to cross the river at a ford - which is since called the Ruby Ford, and due to the season the water was relatively shallow. But this does not change the fact that the ford would have been narrow, crippling the loyalists' forces capabilities to attack the enemy on a broader front, or use their flanks to circumvent their vanguard to attack them from the sides or the rear. If the rebels had prepared their position they could easily draw the enemy in - say, by luring Rhaegar's vanguard and centre to cross the river, only to encircle them and throw them back into the river. If that's what they did then Rhaegar may actually not have been one of the first men to cross the river.

Not necessarily, fords can be ve very broad and while we actually know very little about the battle on the Trident other than its outcomes I don't recall any account suggesting a trap of the kind you suggest and that is the sort of thing which would have been mentioned if it happened since it would at once reflect well on Robert's generalship and conversely disparage that of Rhaegar. The fact that the pro-Robert accounts we have don't mention this suggest that the battle was straightforward and that the river wasn't significant.

[Lord Varys]

Well, a ford usually isn't as broad as some land that isn't cut in two by a river. I'm not saying the rebels lured Rhaegar into a trap, I'm saying he could have done that, and that Rhaegar was at a disadvantage as he was trying to cross the Trident while the rebels were holding the other side of the river. Rhaegar's men outnumbered the rebels yet he may not have been able to use that to his advantage if the ford crippled his ability to deploy as many men as he would have liked to throw against Robert. Or not. It is difficult to say, but we can reasonably assume that the rebels chose the battlefield and Rhaegar was at a disadvantage.

[The Twinslayer]

I really think you shouldn't be taking this at face value. None of the claims the 3KG make are true. The three of them would not have been enough to turn the tide at the Trident, any more than they could have defeated the Lannister host with just a few gold cloaks to help them, would have stood up to Eddard's army when the Tyrells had surrendered, or would not have "fled" to Dragonstone due to their vows if they'd been in KL at the time and Aerys had ordered them to.

The 3KGs answers are ridiculously boastful, taken at face value. They should not be taken at face value. Essentially their dialogue acts to create a sense of intransigence. There is no common ground between Ned and the 3KG by which they can come to peace.

If they could have saved the king, why didn't they? If they could have won the Trident, why weren't they there? Why were they not with Viserys? Because they were doing something more important. Most people here will agree that the hidden message is that they were guarding Rhaegar's son -- the boasting is a way to raise a flag that they must have had something really important going on at the ToJ to keep them busy through all that.

Of course if you follow the logic, that suggests that they considered their duty at the ToJ more important not only than Viserys (proclamation known or not) but also Aerys and Rhaegar. We have yet to know what exactly changed in Rhaegar's understanding of Prophecy after Aegon's birth. Probably something connected to his unexplained "...journey that would ultimately lead him back to the Riverlands" (visiting the Ghost of High Heart is my guess). Perhaps he'd shared something with those 3KG that persuaded even Hightower that what was at the ToJ was the most important thing for them protect.

I agree that the 3KGs are boasting. But I don't think they are saying that they had something more important to do than fight with Rhaegar at the Trident or save the King's life in King's Landing.

My read is that they are very frustrated that they were forced to stay at the toj -- doing something much less important -- while the Targaryen regime fell. In effect, they are saying, we wish we had been at the Trident or at King's Landing, because Robert would be dead and Aerys would be alive. We would not have gone to Dragonstone with Aerys' heir after the Trident because we would have stayed in King's Landing. And we would not have been stupid enough to open the gates for Tywin. And if we had been at Storm's End with Mace Tyrell, we would not have surrendered to you. We would have marched the Tyrell army up to King's Landing and stopped you and Tywin before you could sack the city. We are full of regret for the fact that we have been sitting on the sidelines for the past year . . . but now our chance to get into the fight begins.