16 replies to this topic

[total1402]

This is something I didn't understand. Jon Con is presented as the young man who messed up because he was unproven and let his morals get in the way; Tywin would have burnt the town to the ground. So it clearly invokes the sort of logic and themes GRR Martin loves. But, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Tully and Stark were coming to fight. Aerys was not going to forgive these people and they wanted vengence for the murder of the Stark Lord. They had already sworn with Jon Arryn to put Robert on the Iron Throne. With Stannis holding Storms End, if Robert died, they would naturally turn to backing Stannis as King and would just have rolled right into attacking JonCons army. Stannis was clearly with his brother and would never have dipped his banners even if the MadKing had been willing to forgive him. Likewise, the Battle of the Trident was decided by other people present at the battle and its not really implied that the loyalists would have won if Rhaegar hadn't been killed by Robert. IMO anyone could have done the deed and met the same result. It was always a very one sided war and Robert had other battle commanders like Ned, Stannis, Arryn and others who were just as good. So JC's POV and other characters making this conclusion that it was a missed opportunity doesn't make much sense. It wouldn't have made a difference if Robert had been killed at this stage; the rebellion had gone too far. Its a bit much to make a moral point that JC might have ended the revolt when his success wouldn't have made a big difference to the end result.

Edited by total1402, 12 December 2012 - 12:51 PM.

[Gurkhal]

total1402, on 12 December 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

This is something I didn't understand. Jon Con is presented as the young man who messed up because he was unproven and let his morals get in the way; Tywin would have burnt the town to the ground. So it clearly invokes the sort of logic and themes GRR Martin loves. But, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Tully and Stark were coming to fight. Aerys was not going to forgive these people and they wanted vengence for the murder of the Stark Lord. They had already sworn with Jon Arryn to put Robert on the Iron Throne. With Stannis holding Storms End, if Robert died, they would naturally turn to backing Stannis as King and would just have rolled right into attacking JonCons army. Stannis was clearly with his brother and would never have dipped his banners even if the MadKing had been willing to forgive him. Likewise, the Battle of the Trident was decided by other people present at the battle and its not really implied that the loyalists would have won if Rhaegar hadn't been killed by Robert. IMO anyone could have done the deed and met the same result. It was always a very one sided war and Robert had other battle commanders like Ned, Stannis, Arryn and others who were just as good. So JC's POV and other characters making this conclusion that it was a missed opportunity doesn't make much sense. It wouldn't have made a difference if Robert had been killed at this stage; the rebellion had gone too far. Its a bit much to make a moral point that JC might have ended the revolt when his success wouldn't have made a big difference to the end result.

To put it short, the war would not have ended because Robert got killed. What I would have done is given the loyalists an advantage in that a charismatic leader would've been removed from the rebels' cause and that they would not have anyone as good to crown as their own candidate for the throne against the Targaryens. So I think it is mostly Connington reading recent history backward and fooling himself on the issue. A strong hand could "maybe" have forced Aerys to grant pardons and kept him under control but I'm not sure it would have been posssible at that point. Even if they had burned the town they would still need to face the Stark-Arryn-Tully army coming down on them, although they might have been able to face that enemy under better circumstances.

Also I wouldn't call the war one-sided. While it is true that the rebels won all the major engagements they still suffered many losses and that includes many nobles, like Jon Arryn's heir and Mors Umber's sons.

[total1402]

Gurkhal, on 12 December 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

To put it short, the war would not have ended because Robert got killed. What I would have done is given the loyalists an advantage in that a charismatic leader would've been removed from the rebels' cause and that they would not have anyone as good to crown as their own candidate for the throne against the Targaryens. So I think it is mostly Connington reading recent history backward and fooling himself on the issue. A strong hand could "maybe" have forced Aerys to grant pardons and kept him under control but I'm not sure it would have been posssible at that point. Even if they had burned the town they would still need to face the Stark-Arryn-Tully army coming down on them, although they might have been able to face that enemy under better circumstances.

Also I wouldn't call the war one-sided. While it is true that the rebels won all the major engagements they still suffered many losses and that includes many nobles, like Jon Arryn's heir and Mors Umber's sons.

Doesn't Jamie Lannister or another POV character, maybe Tyrion, make a similar judgement about the Battle of the Bells and JC?

Winning all the engagements of the war except for one indecisive battle is pretty much the definition of one sided. If you compare it to Robbs battle with the Riverlands there were many times when the Lannisters might have turned it around and they always seemed to be checking eachothers power. Robb may have won battles but it was always in the balance and his cause on a knife edge. In comparison the rebellion begins and has an unstoppable snowball effect. 4 major houses against 2, the bulk of whose forces are kept away from the decisive engagement. It is portrayed as a one sided conflict since Martin is very good at presently his fights as dynamic and always far from certain. The usurper war really is more like a force fo nature that was only going to go one way. Just compare the number of "greats" on the Usurper side to those on the Loyalist side. You have Rhaegar, Tarly, maybe Redwyne and the Kingsguard; only Tarly is later considered a veteran of this conflict. Then the usurpers have Robert, Rob Arryn, Brynden Tully, Ned Stark, Stannis, Tywin Lannister and plenty of other minor lords whom Cat later advises Rob to consider for command.

Edited by total1402, 12 December 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[TyrionsFlagon]

I don't know if Robert was even a good general. He just wanted to swing his hammer around and smash heads.

With him dead I think that the other generals hang around, Tully Aryn Stark and Stannis Baratheon, but you lose a lot of the smallfolk. They find out that their superhero-leader is dead and they lose hope. Then your armies diminish, and who knows.

Renly's war ended with Renly. The Tyrells could have tried to name Margery Queen Regent, but didn't.

[TheGriffonReborn]

I think the important thing to remember here is that this is coming from Connington, he blames himself for the downfall of Rhaegar and the Targaryen dynasty, that's why he see the Battle Of The Bells as the be all end all of the war. He had a chance to have a huge positive impact on the war for his side, and he screwed up(according to Aerys and himself.)

[Bright Blue Eyes]

That statement by and large is JC blaming himself for Rhaegar's death. Yes, there was a chance that Jon Arryn, Ned Stark and Hoster Tully would piss their breeches and bend the knee when they saw Roberts head on a pike, but it was a small one.
By and large, the Stormlords were the weakest party of all four to start with and Bob lost control over his own land pretty quickly. After Tarly beat him, he provided charism and a Targaryen blood connection, nothing more. His soldiers at this point were dead or scattered, he had only a handful with him in the Battle of the Bells or later at the Trident. The other Houses pulled him through.

[Septon Meribald]

The war doesn't end with the death of Robert, but the favor does start to swing back to the Targaryens. Without Robert there's a good chance the rebels lose a number of the Stormlords who will see the victory of Connington as reason to give up their liege lord and go to the king's side or who simply wouldn't be of a mind to follow Stannis. The Trident wasn't won by one man but the battle did pretty much stop once Robert killed Rhaegar. In a protracted battle, without Robert as a rallying point, with the possibility of some Stormlanders on the other side there's no guaranty the rebels still win. Tywin might also take a cue from Roberts death and go to the Targaryen's side. And if the Lannister forces march to the Trident instead of King's Landing the battle can easily go the other way. Alternatively if they still march to King's Landing but defend it rather than sack it then Ned's got a difficult siege on his hands and the strong possibility that Mace Tyrell comes up the King's Road to support Tywin.

Killing Robert doesn't end the rebellion right away, but it certainly lessens their chances of victory.

[Kanon]

Without Robbert, Rhaegar could have made an agreement with Ned (assuming Lyanna ran off on her own choice) and they would depose Aerys. I think the war would've ended.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I agree with Septon. It could have changed since the Lannisters and the Freys (a pretty powerful Riverlands House) had not joined the war yet. Losing Robert could have changed that. Then again, burning the town could have been considered one more atrocity on the Targeryon dynasty and be used to rally people even more. Worse, it could have made Robert a martyr. So, really, it could have gone either way.

[Septon Meribald]

Lord Bronn Stokeworth, on 12 December 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

I agree with Septon. It could have changed since the Lannisters and the Freys (a pretty powerful Riverlands House) had not joined the war yet. Losing Robert could have changed that. Then again, burning the town could have been considered one more atrocity on the Targeryon dynasty and be used to rally people even more. Worse, it could have made Robert a martyr. So, really, it could have gone either way.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I doubt burning a town that is knowingly hiding a rebellious lord would be the act that makes people think the Targaryens have gone too far.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

Septon Meribald, on 12 December 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I doubt burning a town that is knowingly hiding a rebellious lord would be the act that makes people think the Targaryens have gone too far.

I do too. It really depends on how they played up Robert's death and if they made him a martyr. I'm just saying it is a possibility. Not a likelihood.

[Know Face Man]

Ned's father got cooked and his brother was forced to kill himself. Do you honestly think Ned would have stopped fighting. Hell No

Jon Con just like to think that way. Ned would have hitch smacked that fruit cake back to Griffins Roost

[MagnusPrime]

The North would not stop and could not stop fighting after what had been done to their countrymen. The Tullys and Arryns would fall in line. The Stormlands troops should want revenge as well. The war goes on but Tywin's decision is hard to figure out. Does he still seek to repay aerys for his slights? And the Freys are insignificant.

It would be interesting to see how Rheagar responds to the news of Robert's death and that Ned is still out for blood. Does he try to contact the leaders and explain his actions? Does he promise Ned justice for the North according to the North and the Old Gods for their countrymen? What happens to Lyanna? Elia and the children? The Wildfyre plot?

[Djinn]

Connington thinks that killing Robert at the Bells would end the rebellion. It's his opinion and it's wrong. Ned, Hoster and Jon aren't going to surrender and Tywin, Walder and even Mace are hedging their bets in this.

Edited by a13506, 12 December 2012 - 07:56 PM.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

MagnusPrime, on 12 December 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

The North would not stop and could not stop fighting after what had been done to their countrymen. The Tullys and Arryns would fall in line. The Stormlands troops should want revenge as well. The war goes on but Tywin's decision is hard to figure out. Does he still seek to repay aerys for his slights? And the Freys are insignificant.

It would be interesting to see how Rheagar responds to the news of Robert's death and that Ned is still out for blood. Does he try to contact the leaders and explain his actions? Does he promise Ned justice for the North according to the North and the Old Gods for their countrymen? What happens to Lyanna? Elia and the children? The Wildfyre plot?

The Freys are pretty damn powerful. They control a vital crossing. And Walter Frey has made it a big house to ensure they have plenty of bodies and alliances.

I'm not saying they are as powerful as the Lannisters or any of the Great Houses. But they are not insignificant.

[Batman]

How up himself was Jon to think he could take down Robert?

[TheGriffonReborn]

Batman, on 15 December 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

How up himself was Jon to think he could take down Robert?

Robert was wounded and hiding.