Vaegon the dragonless

Yes I understand more clearly want you where trying to say (and the idea of female line naming connection is interresting) but I still dont agree with the idea of Jonos as part of a pro-andal anti-stark movement. In my mind Jonos is just the instants of a brother trying to usurp another, which we see later with the Dance. The connection with the Riverlands is certainly possible, but I wont be so certain about them being anti-stark. We both agree that the first mention of a Jonos is in the Stark lineage, it is possible that Jonos came into the Riverlands by female descendants of that Jonos, perhaps thrue the Blackwoods. Like you said the only other Sharra is from the Riverlands but she is from the age of heroes and therefore of First men origins, so if Jonos Arryn was giving that name because of is mother this could point to a first man and possibly northern ancestery. In fact it is interesting to point out that another Jonos, Jonos Frey is from the line of the Royce wife of Walder Frey, therefore one could argue that the connection with the first men is quite strong with the name Jonos, especially if Sharra comes from a first man family be it of the Riverlands or somewhere else. That would leave only Jonos Bracken has having strong andal and seven's connection, but then again we know that the Brackens and Blackwood have intermarried quite a bit in there history, so Jonos could come from a far of Jonos Bracken whose mother was a Blackwood. So the idea of the name Jonos showing a strong Andal connection seems not that strong of a idea. Yes but the Sistermen rebellion was mainly against house Arryn, and against the Targaryen at a higher level, yes the Northmen put it down but with Visenya's help. And importantly it was the Manderly's that were the main force behind the putting down of the rebellion, mostly because the Arryn fleet was still not rebuilt. And once the rebellion was ended a hostage was sent to the Arryns and to the Manderly's not to the Starks. So sure some people might have seen the putting down of the rebellion has too close to the war across the Water but that was a few centuries before the conquest, most likely bad sentiment between the two sides would have been less important by that point. It is absolutely possible that the Corbray's where given that match has a incentive to be loyal, but it could also be because they are one of the principal banner men of the Arryn, after all the two other match are with the second most important house of the Reach and Iron Islands respectfully. It could just be part of the Targaryen tactic of uniting the important house of each region to actually build a united kingdom. Again the War across the Water was centuries ago by the time of the conquest so I dont think that a strong anti-stark sentiment would still be present in the Vale, at least not enough to push out a valid heir because he is married to a Stark. Yes or it could be that both family's dont have a real rivalry and have no problem cooperating. It is a simple answer but sometime the simplest is the best. It could also be explained by the fact that Arnold was a squire at Runestone, so he would most likely have a close relationship with the Royce, so it would be in the interest of the Royce's to have him inherit, outside of the fact that he is the closer heir by blood to Jeyne. Is rebellion during the Dance is interesting because it seems that the Royce did not join him at this point even tho they would have cause to oppose Rhaenyra and her husband. I agree that a number of mariage could have been the most likely end of the rebellion. I agree that Rhaena was most likely not popular with the Royce, But I dont agree with the idea that the reason of Daemon's treatment of Gwayne was because of a family connection, Daemon is suppose to be the paramount of knighthood, so him treating a adversary with great respect show more so that Daemon was a true knight and the best king rather then a possible far away blood relationship with Gwayne. They may have, but they may not have. Yes we here of conflict but outside of the Sunderland we dont have any definite or even suspected Blackfyre supporters in the Vale, so we cant say for sure that anyone of the big houses of the Vale where on the Black dragons side. And the fact that Gwayne seemed to have a important role in the battle and possibly a command would indicate to me that he was trusted by Daeron, something that would not be so clear if is family was of dubious loyalty. Yes I completely agree, but I will had that we actually dont know if the whole of house Corbray fought for the Targaryen at the beginning of the rebellion, we know Lyn fought but it is not clear if the rest of is family fought against them, but I agree it is most likely that the Corbray were opponents of the the rebellion at the start of it. And It seems that Ned had high esteem all around the Vale, most likely because of is time there, because if I remember correctly the lords and knights of the Vale pushed Lysa to commit the Vale in favor of Robb, not something that only the Royce could do.

That is not completely true tho, and more importantly does not exclusively apply to the Corbray and Royces. The conquest of the Andal saw the Royces fight with almost all the other named andal house like Grafton, Templeton and yes Corbray but mainly against the Arryn's. The next time the Vale see a conflict it is the Jonos usurpation and fratricide, we only know that the Royce put it down with support from the Crown we dont know of any house supporting Jonos and it is implied he did not have wide support and not from any important house. Next conflict is the Dance and the Vale is always spoken has a block not has individual lords so we must assume that it was united during the Dance. After the Dance there is the succession crisis of 134 and yes the Corbray and Royce are on different sides but so are the Graftons. Next time we here of conflict is the Blackfyre rebellion, again the Vale is talked about as a unit, we know that the Sunderlands were Black supporters and that the Vale was not completely united but since no other house of the Vale are told to be Black supporters we just dont know, but since the Corbray have a important character in the battle I would assume that they were with the knights of the Vale, and the Royce are too big to not be mentioned has black supporter's if they were. Finally the last conflict that we know of is Robert's Rebellion, there the Corbray's and Graftons both side with the Targaryen originally before changing sides, and the Royce seem to have been with Jon. So to summit up it seems like there is no real pattern of a Corbray/Royce rivalry, at least not one particularly important, since we have has much cause for a Royce/Grafton rivalry (which could be stronger since they are neighbors and the whole Shett situation). Yes we dont know that much about the internal politics of the Vale but that could be said with all the internal kingdoms and from what we know it seems to me that it is a reach to see a Royce/Corbray rivalry because they have been on the same side just as much as they been on opposing sides. I dont get what you are trying to say or imply there, because like a said Jonos is also a name found in the Stark lineage. So we find the name across 3 regions, at different times, in both first men and andal houses. I just dont see what the name Jonos has to do with a possible Corbray/Royce rivalry linked with the Bracken/Blackwood rivalry.

Yes they was conflict between the Royce and Corbray in the past and I did say so, But the first instance is from the Andal conquest, so a very very long time ago and then they dont have any conflict until 134, that is not really a pattern that would suggest rivalry more profound then 2 important house protecting their interest. Especially compare to the Bracken/Blackwood conflict of which we have at least 5 instance of conflict all after the andal invasion (Stormlord invasion, Ironborn invasion, Dance of the Dragons, First Blackfyre rebellion, Post Robb conflict, with a possible conflit when Otho inherited) . Also to note in 134 the Blackwood's were on the royalist side with the Corbray against the Royce backed claimant so a traditionnal Royce/Blackwood vs Corbray/Bracken seem further away. And Im sorry but there is absolutely no suggestion that the Corbray sided with Jonos, you in fact say it is unlikely. And as far as important Andal house that would oppose the Royce that could House Grafton or House Templeton could also fill that role, in fact we know that the Shett have a strong connection with the Royce and claim Gulltown from the Grafton's so the Grafton's being the biggest opponent of the Royce seems more likely then Corbray's. In actuality we dont even know if Jonos actually had supporter's, since no lord or family is named it is likely that only the garnison of the Eyries supported Jonos but no actual lord. I would also like to add that the name Jonos is also appear in the North, one of the Stark King is named Jonos.

1. Yeah I agree with that part. 2. Well not really, they were in conflict before the Vale was united but since then with exception of the 134 AC succession dispute they seem like they were on the same side more then against, both where Blacks, then Targaryen loyalist and eventually both would support Robert (the Corbray's might have tried to play both sides but its not sure), would not call them natural ennemies like the Brackens and Blackwoods, or the Yronwoods and Martells. 3. Yes, but to me it is more to do with the fact that the Royce and Blackwoods have strong first men connection and are both in the South, after all both house also intermarried with the North, so rather then a Corbray/Bracken vs Royce/Blackwood we have a Royce/Blackwood/Stark connection because of First men blood. Also important to note that the Corbray fit into the that since a Corbray married the daughter of a Royce/Stark match, so that supposed Royce Corbray seems quite slime. 4. Like I said the Corbray/Royce rivalry does not seem to hold up to me, so the Brackens trying to find allies in the Vale would not automatically mean a Corbray connection, furthermore we actually dont know any of the Bracken marriages so they could be from any number of origin, and since most of the blacks seem to come from the Reach, this is were I would guess the Brackens would try to find matchs, that is after looking around them, after all why would the Brackens care that the Blackwoods are allied to the ROyce on the other side of the mountains if the Brackens are allied with the Vance or Mallisters on the good side of the Moon mountains to help them straight away. 5. Like I said just above we have no information about Bracken mariages, but the fact that we know about so much Blackwood mariages seems to me that GRRM has a bias for the Blackwoods (I made a thread about that a while back asking about that) but I dont believe that it is because like that GRRM can pull out connections between houses 6 books in from nowhere and them having a big impact on the overarching story.

Yes but only to a extent, and we dont have complete history's so sure we can find some clues but realistically the fact that the Mooton married the Moore at the time of Jahaerys does not mean anything to the story now. And like I said earlier part of your theories are too much conjecture, you talked of a link between Brackens and Corbray because the Corbray arrived late at the Redgrass field, but they most likely didnt and even if they did why would they have a family connection to the Brackens and not to one or the others Blackfyre associated house like the Strikeland or Sunderland ? But I dont think we will convince each other so lets agree to disagree

I dont think we are going to agree on that, I just dont think that GRRM actually thinks that much about all the lines of succession, other wise we would have family's around since thousands of years, I also remember that GRRM stated that at the start of the series he made a few of mistakes and mix ups that the founder of the site helped to correct in the world book, so if the information is not important to the main story then it most likely just does not exist, and the person third in line to the Arryn throne is really not important as long has one and two survive and have heirs. Futhermore if Harry and Robert both die the chance that it happens in the chaos of the long night and potential second dance of the dragons would mean that the new ruler of Westeros could put who he would want. For all we know Bronn could end up in the Eyries by the end of the books.

I mean yeah it is possible but Littlefinger's scheme are not always has good as he want to make us think they are, Littlefinger thrives in chaos he is not a long term planner he is more of a opportunist then anything so him having a back up to a back up to control the Vale is not really likely, at least to me. And the thing is GRRM as not giving us alot to go on as far as family trees go, for exemple we have no idea who would inherit the North should Ned and all is children die who is the true heir to the North ? I mean a northern Harry the heir should be somewhere and could and should be a rallying call to the Anti-Bolton North but it just does not happen, same with the Stormlands, with Roberts children illegitimate, Stannis only having one daughter and Renly having no heir, who will inherit the Stormlands, we have some indication that it could be a Estremont but that is not clear, so it seems to me that GRRM most likely did not put as much thoughts on the succession lines of the great houses as we the readers on this forum put it to it.

Well on the reason I believe Harry came so late in the story is the same one for why the Stark are reduced to one family at the time of the books, GRRM is a "gardener" not a "planner" so he dint think about the Vale succession at the start of the books, then when the Vale became more important then he needed someone in the Vale to be a Arryn other then Sweet Robin, so the son of the sister of the previous heir before Sweet Robin being born comes in, it is quite a far connection when you think about it and to me it is a good excuse for not learning about him before (but the reality is that GRRM just did not think about that when he introduced the Arryn's). And I doubt it will be someone we already know because other wise why was that not mentioned before hand ? Being 3rd in line to the Arryn throne is not like inheriting a small cabin from a far removed cousin or uncle it is the sort of thing you would know about, especially in the feudal context. After all Harry seems to have been at least partially groomed to be a lord, the next guy might not be but he would certainly know is place in the succession and so would we. But again the lack of information of the Arryn family tree means that either of us are equally correct. And yes I am very aware that the Redgrass field was long before Roberts rebellion but like I said it was not a Corbray that was leading them it was Donnel Arryn, a Arryn not a Corbray, in fact I cant find anything indicating that the Corbray's were late, the Knights of the Vale were in the Vanguard were Lord Donnel died as well as a Templeton and Waynwood, and Gwayne Corbray was part of that Van, other then him I cant find any mention of other Corbray's at the Redgrass Field, so I would assume that if there where more then they would with the rest of the Vale in the Targaryen Vanguard, and not late to the battle.

The problem with the Vale sucession line is that we simply have not enough information, and that is true about quite a few of the main house but yeah we just dont know. Your Theory @Hippocras is as good as any other, I would say it relies too much on conjecture, for exemple the arrival of the Knigth of the Vale (not just the Corbray's) a little late to the Redgrass field could be because of a big number of reason outside of the Corbray being on the fence, actually the Vale forces where commanded by the Lord Arryn, but the Corbray's mentionned was on the kingsguard so most likely the Corbray were strongly on the Targaryen side wich would be confirmed by the Corbray's still being somewhat loyal to the Targaryen in the early moments of Robert Rebellion before changing sides. And for the Arryn-Tully alliances we know why it happened, Jon was getting old, he had just lost one of is heirs and needed a son ASAP, Lysa was damaged goods in Hoster eyes and he wanted her married ASAP too. So Jon getting a wife that he know is fertile and could be popping baby Arryns very soon is good for him since he does not know how long he still has, and Hoster is getting is daugther married to one of the greatest lord of the realm even after the Littlefinger affair wich would have been a relief for him. There is no need for a stronger connection other then a match was possible there and then and each party wanted it to happen quickly. So to go back to the Vale sucession, we only here about Harry the Heir quite late, in fact Sansa had never heard of him even tho he should be one of the more important person in the realm, being 3rd in line for one of the Kingdom behind a very old man (who ends up dying at the begining of the books) and a very sickly child who most people would not see living very long. Harry seems to be barely know of outside of the Vale, so in all likelyhood Harry's own heir could litteraly be anyone in the Vale, it could be one of Dolorous Edd brothers for all we know, or it could be a very distant cousin that will just appear from the mountains if Sweet Robin and Harry both die.

Like a few people already said the problem is that the Riverlands are too divided, but that is because of lack of leadership, at least of respectable leadership, all other kingdoms use to be independant with a ruling dynasty, and except for the Reach they all are still ruled by that dynasty. The Reach as the advantage that it is just too big and too populous but the Tyrells are also very good at the mariage game, something that the Tully's are actually not that good at. If the Riverlands had a ruling house from old royal stock like a Mudd, a Justman or even a Teague then it would most likely be more prosperous and united. As so far for the cities the problem is not of population but of number of disunited cities, Saltpans is so small because it has to compete with Lord's Harroway's Town upstream from it and close to where all the branch of the Trident merge, and Maidenpool is also not very far and before being sacked 3 times was most likely the biggest town in the riverlands.

If I recall correctly Victarion does burn alive a few slaves girls has a sacrifice to R'hollor, and my guess is that Moqorro is the one that gives the idea of burning them alive, I could be wrong but it does seem so. So we have 2 Red Priest who do it and if I recall Thoros was by is own admittance a bad priest so there is a good chance he was not exactly very devoted. So it could be a niche practice that only some factions of the follower of R'hollor actually practice, but that the majority don't.

Well the North does have few knights mainly under the Manderly's, but interestingly the North also has "Masters", the Glovers and Tallhart notably, and will it is not clear if they are equivalent to landed knights but they could be, making them the hierarchical equivalent to a big landed knight like Templeton's. Well in this particular case the Clearances did not help, while it is true that the Highlands cant maintain a huge population they still had a greater share of the population they have today, in fact in 1851 the population of the Highlands was roughly equivalent to today population of the Highlands but the rest of Scotland double in population.

I agree that Flint's Finger is kinda weird, I mean it is the southern most part of the North and from the map it seems like the biggest peninsula in Westeros, it should be some of the best farmland in the North and with it size the Lord of the Finger should be one of the most important banner men of the Starks, but we hear nothing about them, I can see that they are no Harbours because the coast is mostly cliffs but the hinterland should be prime real estate in the North, and the Lord of the Finger closer to the Manderly, Boltons, Dustin or Karstark, and not just one branch of the Flints (not even the most important one !)

Well I guess it depends on if Dany goes to every slaver City before she goes to Westeros but also if she comes back to Essos. If she only goes to lets say Volantis, then I dont expect Norvos, Qohor or even the Three sisters to stop slavery immediately but a anti-slavery campaign from both Braavos and Volantis could eventually root out slavery in western Essos. And a coalition could fail especially if Dany stays or die in Westeros. If she comes back and actually reigns in Essos then slavery could be stomped out, but only in the same way as in Pentos, officially they would be no slaves but my guess would be that significant number of "indentured" servants or farmhands would magically appear, because Danny would not be able to be everywhere all of the time. So I guess that in the short terms Dany could make it so that at least a good chuck of slaves become free, but I expect that it would take a long time before slavery actually goes out of fashion. I also suspect that places like Slaver's bay will collapse and become a backward and dangerous place at least for a few decades if Dany wins and leaves with slavery coming back in some places but not in others with each side fighting each other. The question of the Dothraki is a interesting one, because a few people talked about how nomads typically become a ruling class in settled cities, but we know that that is not the case for the Dothraki, because they did it once, they did not settle has a ruling class once they conquered Sarnor, they enslaved and destroyed the cities turning back profitable farmlands to prairie, so I dont see them changing that, but if Dany takes over the rest of Essos with the helps of the Dothraki they might enjoy a upper status and some sort of privileged "freedom" but a newly unified Essos will certainly resent them and sooner or later a genocidal campaign against them seem probable, if it would succeed or not is another topic tho.

Was it even really a alliance ? I get that people see it that way but to me it just does not look like a real alliance. Sure marrying into a family technically means that you are allied, but that did not stop the Frey's to go to the Stark when they were married to the Lannister's, so the idea that just by being married to a house you where bound to hit completely is not exactly true (but maybe mostly). But even then, when you look a it, before the death of half the Starks, they are to be allied with the Tully's and the Baratheon's in mariaged and that is all. The Arryn are only in the picture du to personnal affinity between the Jon, Ned and Robert. Ned is not suppose to inherit and Jon is already quit old, we dont know how the relations where with Jon's heir but most likely not that close, so the Arryn's would be out (since Jon only marries Lysa after the events in King's Landing). So in reality it is more of a STB alliance originaly, but then again, the Tully's and Baratheon are not suppose to have any link between the two of them, exept that they are both "allied" with the Stark's. So it is really just after the fact that the STAB alliance seems to happen, you know when Jon refuse to kill both Ned and Robert because the paranoid tyran on the thrones decided that killing (ok technically "executing") on of is main lords and heir was not enougth, and that he should also have the next in line and the fiance of the girl is son kidnapped who also happen to be one of the main lords of the realm. At that point a SAB alliance is de facto created, only latter the Tully are added by a double mariage. Only the ineptitude of the ruling king created the alliance, it was just a bunch of mariage before that, sure the mariages could be dangerous but since they could have been balanced by a Lannister/Targaryen/Martell bloc with the Tully's actually being in both bloc's well all of a sudden it is no longuer a major threat. So to answer the question, I dont even think the STAB alliance was even a real thing until the war started, so it was not benevolent or malicious, and marriage or not the mad king would have add most of the realm against him anyway.

Well in Tywin's mind he would have to demonstrate some power at least by marching army's near or in the Riverlands, at the same time asking Robert to deal with this or the return of all the loans would make sure Tyrion was returned quickly. The army would be a show of force proving that the Lannister would go to war even for the less respected of them all, but he would not break the Kings peace. Because I completely agree taht breaking the Kings peace by attacking the Riverlands is utterly stupid since both the North and Vale would likely come to aid, Tywin was lucky that Robert die and Lysa was completely out of her mind because he would have been crushed other wise.

It could be that Tywin was just not sure of the loyalty of the men from the Crownlands and King's Landing in particular, the Lannister had just brutally sacked the city not long ago after all, he then just never bothered to call them back, since they added the benefit of showing the power of house Lannister. And for Robert he has the Gold Cloaks, a force of 2 000 men including at least a few knights and they are supposed to be loyal directly to him, sure they are disloyal in Agot but that does seem that it is because the succession is not clear, I would assume that the Gold Cloaks were kingmen's. And just to add a bit, Renly seems to have a hundred men in King's Landing, it would most likely not just is own guards but it would seem that any one of importance has its own retinue even in the capital.