Question about the battle of bells

[purple-eyes]

 

Can you explain this? The only reference I can think of that addresses this point is the world book:

It seems fairly clear from this that Rhaegar did not go directly to Harrenhal. It's not even clear he left from King's Landing rather than Dragonstone, he's just stated to have been at neither during the first month of the new year. All we can really conclude from this passage is that early in the new year, Rhaegar and half a dozen of his men set out on a journey, destination(s) unknown, which ended with the abduction in the Riverlands an unknown amount of time later. 

Yeah, I agree. It was quite vague. 

but honestly I doubt it will take that much of time. No matter he visited ghost of high heart, or went to Toj to remodel his honeymoon love nest. 

 

 

 

[Ser Leftwich]

It's just me or this thread just tries to fix the timelines in order for Robert+Lyanna=Jon to be considered as a bon crackpot so called theory?

Agreed.

The idea of the battle of Ashford being after the Battle of the Bells has been coming up for months and months and is complete madness. Born of either incredibly poor reading comprehension or being deliberately obtuse, in order to make things like Robert+Lyanna= Jon work.

[purple-eyes]

I had figured the World Book was describing the battles the rebels won first, the response of the loyalists second, the victory of the loyalists next, and ending with the Trident, the most major battle of them all.

 

Yandel claims that there were victories for the stormlords, but according to Connington (who was actually there), Robert fled to the Stoney Sept alone. Which would seem logical, after having been defeated at Ashford. Why would Robert be alone, and wounded, after having been at Storm's End shortly before?

 

 

Could you perhaps quote the passage you mean?

 

 

We can estimate when, pretty clearly.

 

 

But for Daenerys, her birth occurred nine months after she fled KL, between the Trident and the Sack. That's a timewindow of a fortnight, as Rossart was Hand for a fortnight, and twoiaf only mentions Rossart as a new Hand after Rhaegars death (granted, that one might be for personal interpretation, but take note that Aemond Targaryen marched his army with a normal pace to Harrenhal (not that far from the Trident) in 19 days; Ned, riding somewhat faster, will have taken a little less time, which makes the fortnight makes sense). Nowhere is it stated that Aerys named Rossart the night Chelsted was burned, and as Chelsteds end of office came unsuspectedly, Aerys would probably have taken time to consider who to name next.

Look at Dany's pregnancy in AGOT. She notices the swell on her 14th nameday. That would have been around the middle to end of the second month. Flashforward to the birth. She wakes days afterwards, kills Drogo shortly after that, and burns him, and sights the red comet as the first person, for the first time. That comet appears in 299 AC, and quite a few weeks into 299 AC. According to the nameday's of the characters stated everything since (and including) Catelyn and Robb's visit to the Twins where Robb's bethrotal has been made, takes place in 299 AC, in their storyline, at least. Look at the battles that occurred between that visit and Neds death (he was still alive during the Whispering Wood). It is only after news of Neds death has reached Winterfell, that the red comet first becomes visible for those in Westeros (and during day-light, no longer only during night, as happened for Daenerys).

So if the birth of Rhaego took place in the first month of the year, count back seven months until her fourteenth nameday, and you'll find yourself somewhere in the sixth month.

 

More in detail:

With the dragons born around the end of the first month of the year 299 AC (calculated estimation), Rhaego's birth will have occurred days before. Dany slept 'long', yet no so long as to cause major loss of weight, as Bran did within a fortnight. Placing Rhaego's birth somewhere between the middle and the end of the first month. At his birth, she had not yet been nine months pregnant (her time was near). If she had been pregnant for eight months by then, she would have gotten pregnant in the fifth month of 298 AC. Noticing it would have occured around 1,5 - 2 months, and that creates a problem, as it would place her 14th nameday in seventh month.

Why can't it be in the seventh month? We know Robert died in 298 AC. When Dany arrives in Qarth, it has been half a year since she heard news from Westeros. That's Vaes Dothrak, so we know it has been roughly 6 months since they left. Exactly six months? No, of course not. It could have been, for example, 6,5 months, possibly even 7. But about half a year.

We also know that meeting Mirri, didn't take too long, nor Rhaego's birth and Drogo's death, they followed relatively fast. Yet when Dany arrives in Qarth, she has turned fifteen, and we learn that 'not half a year past' the Cinnamon Wind had been at Oldtown, and that Robert was dead, and Ned arrested. They called in Dorne and Lys, and the saw stuff was brig said. Which shows that either Ned hadn't been executed yet by the time they left Lys, or, more likely, that the news of his traitors death hadn't reached Lys yet. Ned died before the comet appeared.
In addition, we learn that the dragon's are not yet half a year old, a chapter later, when Dany has been in Qarth for a little while.

So to me, it seems that Dany was closer to the nine months pregnant when Rhaego was born, 8,5, placing the conception around the start of the fifth month of 298 AC, and her birthday, some 1,5 months later, at the end of the sixth month. (support for the 8,5 months of pregnancy, or something close enough to that, could come from the fact that not once does Dany consider the birth to have been too early, when it begins, despite the fact that it doesn't sound she has been pregnant the full 9 months already).

 

Dany needed to have been pregnant for a little while to notice that she's pregnant, without having a pregnancy test, and while the timeline as I've written here could be off by a few weeks, everything that we have places her birth in the middle of the year.

 

Which would place the Sack a few months before the year 283 AC ended.

wiki said rhaego was born in 298. 

And I agree red comet seems to be in the very early of 299. 

If so, dany's name day was likely in the early half of the year. 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

wiki said rhaego was born in 298. 

Without reason, so I've corrected for that.

There is no way to proof in which year that chapter took place, until we get further information regarding that.

And I agree red comet seems to be in the very early of 299. 

If so, dany's name day was likely in the early half of the year. 

In the first half, yes. But towards the end of that first half. That, to me, seems clear.

[purple-eyes]

Without reason, so I've corrected for that.

There is no way to proof in which year that chapter took place, until we get further information regarding that.

In the first half, yes. But towards the end of that first half. That, to me, seems clear.

not that this important, but I have a feeling grrm set the red comet on the first day of 299. 

He seems to love putting some important events or birthdays in the last or first day of the year. 

I believe drogo and rhaego both died in late 298. Then the dragons were born on the first day of new year. 

 

[aryagonnakill#2]

Without looking into the timeline at all, purely speaking about logic, it makes no sense for the Rebels to pause for a wedding after their victory at the battle of the bells, the logical thing to do is march on the capital immediately.

[purple-eyes]

Without looking into the timeline at all, purely speaking about logic, it makes no sense for the Rebels to pause for a wedding after their victory at the battle of the bells, the logical thing to do is march on the capital immediately.

I guess they wanted. But loyalists did not lose a lot of army and rhaegar came back soon after that and he started to gather more army. 

So loyalists still managed to control the rebellion army in the north of the trident. (North, vale and tully army)

That is why they had a final battle at trident. 

Bonus detail: 

App said: for unknown reason, rhaegar pressed his army across the river, in stead of staying on the southern side waiting for robert to cross the water. 

I do not know what this means, but interesting. 

 

 

[Ser Leftwich]

Without looking into the timeline at all, purely speaking about logic, it makes no sense for the Rebels to pause for a wedding after their victory at the battle of the bells, the logical thing to do is march on the capital immediately.

Tactically, that is a bad idea. With a huge loyalist force at SE and both Tywin/Westerlands and all the loyalist Riverlords behind you, going to KL would be a very bad idea.

They did all the right things: Going back to Riverrun, consolidate your forces, turn people to your side, punish loyalist Riverlords, find out what Tywin/Westerlands is doing, and propagandize that Aerys's forces lost, you won, and that Aerys is bad.

[purple-eyes]

Tactically, that is a bad idea. With a huge loyalist force at SE and both Tywin/Westerlands and all the loyalist Riverlords behind you, going to KL would be a very bad idea.

They did all the right things: Going back to Riverrun, consolidate your forces, turn people to your side, punish loyalist Riverlords, find out what Tywin/Westerlands is doing, and propagandize that Aerys's forces lost, you won, and that Aerys is bad.

another thing is that hoster must require them to have weddings with cat and lysa (in riverrun) before he gives all his help and summon all his vassals. He is smarter than Frey. 

So they had to go north firstly. 

 

[John Suburbs]

I had figured the World Book was describing the battles the rebels won first, the response of the loyalists second, the victory of the loyalists next, and ending with the Trident, the most major battle of them all.

 

Yandel claims that there were victories for the stormlords, but according to Connington (who was actually there), Robert fled to the Stoney Sept alone. Which would seem logical, after having been defeated at Ashford. Why would Robert be alone, and wounded, after having been at Storm's End shortly before?

 

 

Could you perhaps quote the passage you mean?

 

This is how the World Book has it:

Robert wins three battles at Summerhall, and then:

More victories were to come for Lord Robert and the stormlords as they marched to join forces with Lord Arryn and the Northmen who supported their cause. Rightly famed is Robert's grand victory at Stoney Sept, also called the Battle of the Bells, where he slew the famous Ser Myles Mooten -- once Prince Rhaegar's squire -- and five men besides, and might well have killed the new hand, Lord Connington, had the battle brought them together. The victory sealed the entry of the riverlands into the conflict, following the marriage of Lord Tully's daughters to Lords Arryn and Stark.

The royalist forces were left reeling and scattered by such victories though they did their best to rally. The Kingsguard were dispatched to recover the remnants of Lord Connington's force, and Prince Rhaegar returned from the south to take command of the new levies being raised in the crownlands. And after a partial victory at Ashford, which led to Robert's withdrawal, the Stormlands were left open to Lord Tyrell.

So the wording is a bit funny, I admit, but it would seem odd that Yandel would follow a strict timeline from the Dawn of Days to the crowning of King Tommen, and yet put this one battle out of chronological order. As he says, though, there were multiple actions in the stormlands and reach following Summerhall, so Robert must have been wounded and separated during one of them. In any event, Ashord happened after the KG was sent to recover JonCon's forces, which were defeated at Stoney Sept.

[John Suburbs]

Agreed.

The idea of the battle of Ashford being after the Battle of the Bells has been coming up for months and months and is complete madness. Born of either incredibly poor reading comprehension or being deliberately obtuse, in order to make things like Robert+Lyanna= Jon work.

It's what the World Book says. Take it up with Yandel.

 

[WhitewolfStark]

We have one serious touchstone for when the Battle of the Bells happened: Bella. Bella came 9 months later (no matter if she's actually Robert's son or not, she was born 9 months afterwards--after all, she could just be exaggerating the tale in order to get more customers, or it could have actually happened--that's left ambiguous--though her having the same hair as Gendry seems to indicate her story is likely true). So take Bella as your touchstone for the Battle of the Bells, and compare her age with Gendry's.

[John Suburbs]

Without looking into the timeline at all, purely speaking about logic, it makes no sense for the Rebels to pause for a wedding after their victory at the battle of the bells, the logical thing to do is march on the capital immediately.

They needed the wedding to cement the Tully's entrance to the war.

But try this one: If Robb was conceived within two weeks of the wedding, but is supposed to be a few weeks older than Jon, who, according to SSM, was born on or about the Sack of KL, that puts a good nine months between the wedding and the sack.

So here we have Ned and Robert marching their armies to the Trident two weeks after the wedding, which is at worst a two-month march Why, then, did they just hang around the Trident for the remaining six or seven months while Rhaegal amassed his army?

The only logical answer is that they didn't. They marched south into the Reach to prevent the Tyrell's from marching into the Stormlands. When that failed at Ashford, they retreated north to take up a defensive position on the Trident. But that means that, as the World Book says, Ashford happened after Stoney Sept and the wedding, not before. 

[WhitewolfStark]

 

App said: for unknown reason, rhaegar pressed his army across the river, in stead of staying on the southern side waiting for robert to cross the water. 

I do not know what this means, but interesting. 

 

 

 

It means he made a tactical error. Whenever you have forces divided by a river, you always want to force the other guy to have to cross--because the act of crossing will put them into a weaker position:
 

 

• Limiting a force to a small number of crossing sites.
• Splitting the force's combat power on separate banks.
• Exposing the force to fires while on the water.
• A river is a significant obstacle that slows and stops units, thus impeding their ability to maneuver.
• The longer the force takes to cross, the less likely it will succeed, as the enemy will defeat, in detail, the elements split by the river. Speed is so important to crossing success that extraordinary measures are justified to maintain it.
  
  http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-13/ch1.htm

So make a successful River crossing, an element of surprise is needed, along with speed, traffic control, organization, a flexible plan, and extensive preparation.

However in that situation, IMO as long as you maintain the high ground, Rhaegar should have waited it out and had Robert's impatience defeat himself and forced Robert to cross. Taking the battle to Robert takes Rhaegar's advantage of a larger army and throws it away rather foolishly IMO. He splits his forces by the river, making them far easier to defeat. He puts them into the lowest point on the battle field where all the archers can rain arrows and bolts down from the sky, etc.

Perhaps Rhaegar felt he needed to prove himself or something, but crossing the river wasn't the best move he could have made in that scenario and IMO was likely the worst decision he could make.

[Universal Sword Donor]

 

 

It means he made a tactical error. Whenever you have forces divided by a river, you always want to force the other guy to have to cross--because the act of crossing will put them into a weaker position:
 

 

So make a successful River crossing, an element of surprise is needed, along with speed, traffic control, organization, a flexible plan, and extensive preparation.

However in that situation, IMO as long as you maintain the high ground, Rhaegar should have waited it out and had Robert's impatience defeat himself and forced Robert to cross. Taking the battle to Robert takes Rhaegar's advantage of a larger army and throws it away rather foolishly IMO. He splits his forces by the river, making them far easier to defeat. He puts them into the lowest point on the battle field where all the archers can rain arrows and bolts down from the sky, etc.

Perhaps Rhaegar felt he needed to prove himself or something, but crossing the river wasn't the best move he could have made in that scenario and IMO was likely the worst decision he could make.

He either made a mistake or he was committing his reserve to provide cover for his army to retreat *across* the river. I do not remember who brought that up as an option, but it makes sense given that one flank was routed and his commanders were dead or incapacitated by the time he fought Robert (at least as far as we can tell).

[purple-eyes]

 

 

It means he made a tactical error. Whenever you have forces divided by a river, you always want to force the other guy to have to cross--because the act of crossing will put them into a weaker position:
 

 

So make a successful River crossing, an element of surprise is needed, along with speed, traffic control, organization, a flexible plan, and extensive preparation.

However in that situation, IMO as long as you maintain the high ground, Rhaegar should have waited it out and had Robert's impatience defeat himself and forced Robert to cross. Taking the battle to Robert takes Rhaegar's advantage of a larger army and throws it away rather foolishly IMO. He splits his forces by the river, making them far easier to defeat. He puts them into the lowest point on the battle field where all the archers can rain arrows and bolts down from the sky, etc.

Perhaps Rhaegar felt he needed to prove himself or something, but crossing the river wasn't the best move he could have made in that scenario and IMO was likely the worst decision he could make.

this "unknown reason" is probably his confidence that since he had the promised prince, then he would surely win. Or he had 5000 more men do he decided he would surely win? 

[purple-eyes]

And ashford was surely before the battle of bells. app confirmed. 

[John Suburbs]

Well, app or no app, the World Book has it after: Stoney Sept, marriages at RR, then Ashford. Look it up if you don't believe me. Is the app considered canon?

 

[purple-eyes]

Well, app or no app, the World Book has it after: Stoney Sept, marriages at RR, then Ashford. Look it up if you don't believe me. Is the app considered canon?

 

actually in word book, it looks like it was not in a timely order. Just a vague writing. 

i am not sure if app is canon, maybe semi canon. 

But it made sense that tarly defeated Robert, forced him to flee north, then reach army got chance to beige the storm end. 

 

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Catelyn and Lysa married after the Battle of the Bells, and Catelyn's had been arranged before Lysa's.

I'm not sure that is true. Not only do we have Cat tell us that the marriage was price for the Tullys involvement in the war but we are also told in the world book.

More victories were to come for Lord Robert and the stormlords as they marched to join forces with Lord Arryn and the Northmen who supported their cause. Rightly famed is Roberts grand victory at Stoney Sept, also called the Battle of the Bells, where he slew the famous Ser Myles Mooton once Prince Rhaegars squire and five men besides, and might well have killed the new Hand, Lord Connington, had the battle brought them together. The victory sealed the entry of the riverlands into the conflict, following the marriage of Lord Tullys daughters to Lords Arryn and Stark.

The quote says that victory came after the marriage.

Lysa’s match with Lord Arryn had been hastily arranged, and Jon was an old man even then, older than their father. An old man without an heir. His first two wives had left him childless, his brother’s son had been murdered with Brandon Stark in King’s Landing, his gallant cousin had died in the Battle of the Bells. He needed a young wife if House Arryn was to continue... a young wife known to be fertile.

This is a decent quote but does not really confirm when the marriages and battles took place. Elbert Arryn also died with Brandon, there was need for more Arryn heirs.

Hoster fought House Targaryen, but on his own soil, and for only one battle.

We have no idea if that is true. GRRM mentioned that all the battles of this war have not been mentioned.