Stormking902 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 We know the Tyrells have ambitions for seeing there blood on the IT, doesnt it make more sense to join Robert on the terms of him marrying a Tyrell? With the Tyrells backing the rebels it would be a for sure win and Tywin would have joined the rebels far sooner as well. The Tyrells could have requested two spots on the small council as well for Reachmen, Robert would agree obviously. By supporting Aerys they put themselves at risk of losing the war which they did anyways also there was no guarentee Robert would be so forgiving as well. The Tyrells gambled heavy supporting Aerys with little to no benefit at all. Imagine Robert granted the Hightowers the position of great lord over the Tyrells, do the Tyrells continue the war against the North, Riverlands, Vale, Stormlands, Westernlands?? I think not it would be suicide afterall and the Reach lords would be fractured some suppprting Hightowers some supporting Tyrells. Most would be team hightower since they are of better blood not up jumped stewards like the Tyrells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orphalesion Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 The Tyrell's grasp on the reach depended, to some extend, on the Targaryens who had given them that lordship. They were only Stewards and other lords of the Reach have far greater legacies. So at least symbolically they were only the LPs of the Reach because they served at the Targaryen King's pleasure. In a feudal system with constant power struggle and were people continuously look for even the most flimsy of reasons to justify their hold to this title or that, being given lordship at the pleasure of a royal house that no longer exists is a bad situation. It pretty much invites all those other powerful houses to dust off those older and greater claims and look for a way to press them. So the Tyrells were very interested in the continued existence of the Targaryen dynasty. The only reason they are so interested in creating a blood connection to the throne is so that they can have a connection to this new royal line as well so that their claim on the Reach is backed by King's Landing. Plus it was not clear that Robert would win at the start of the rebellion and if Tywin hadn't changed sides he might not have. The Tyrells thought they were on the winning side and it was the side that had for centuries secured their power. Further it was not obvious at the start of the rebellion that it would lead to the fall of the targaryens, even if the rebels won. From the tyrell's POV it might have ended like Hour of the Wolf with the rebel lords deposing Aerys, punsishing whomever they deemed guilty for what happened and then putting Viserys (or Aegon) on the throne before buggering off. Then the Tyrells would still have preserved their loyalty to the Targaryens and proven how much more worthy they are of support than all those rebel houses. Plus you could argue that the Tyrells were holding up their options during the Rebellion and waiting to see which side would come out on top. All they did was besieging Storm's End They didn't march with Rhaegar (irrc) not to defend King's Landing. They were (mostly) keeping out of the heat and biding their time to decide whom tey might support more actively. When they heard of the fall of King's Landing they very quickly backed down, because they knew the cause wasn't worht it any more and they needed to look for new support from the crown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hoare Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Robert wanted to marry Lyanna, not some Tyrell girl. Robert probably didn't even knew he would be King until the tides of the war had already changed. Also, there was no reason for Robert to put a Hightower as LP of the Reach, since they didn't supported him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Suburbs Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Hindsight is always 20/20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orphalesion Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 3 hours ago, The Hoare said: Robert probably didn't even knew he would be King until the tides of the war had already changed. Yep, as I said, considering historical precedence, most of Westeros probably expected another Hour of the Wolf, ("Hour of the Wolf, Stag. Eagle and Fish"?) and then a regency under child king Viserys III/Aegon VI. The whole idea to crown Robert was only cooked up by Rickard and Jon during the latter parts of the rebellion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormking902 Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 5 hours ago, Orphalesion said: The Tyrell's grasp on the reach depended, to some extend, on the Targaryens who had given them that lordship. They were only Stewards and other lords of the Reach have far greater legacies. So at least symbolically they were only the LPs of the Reach because they served at the Targaryen King's pleasure. In a feudal system with constant power struggle and were people continuously look for even the most flimsy of reasons to justify their hold to this title or that, being given lordship at the pleasure of a royal house that no longer exists is a bad situation. It pretty much invites all those other powerful houses to dust off those older and greater claims and look for a way to press them. So the Tyrells were very interested in the continued existence of the Targaryen dynasty. The only reason they are so interested in creating a blood connection to the throne is so that they can have a connection to this new royal line as well so that their claim on the Reach is backed by King's Landing. Plus it was not clear that Robert would win at the start of the rebellion and if Tywin hadn't changed sides he might not have. The Tyrells thought they were on the winning side and it was the side that had for centuries secured their power. Further it was not obvious at the start of the rebellion that it would lead to the fall of the targaryens, even if the rebels won. From the tyrell's POV it might have ended like Hour of the Wolf with the rebel lords deposing Aerys, punsishing whomever they deemed guilty for what happened and then putting Viserys (or Aegon) on the throne before buggering off. Then the Tyrells would still have preserved their loyalty to the Targaryens and proven how much more worthy they are of support than all those rebel houses. Plus you could argue that the Tyrells were holding up their options during the Rebellion and waiting to see which side would come out on top. All they did was besieging Storm's End They didn't march with Rhaegar (irrc) not to defend King's Landing. They were (mostly) keeping out of the heat and biding their time to decide whom tey might support more actively. When they heard of the fall of King's Landing they very quickly backed down, because they knew the cause wasn't worht it any more and they needed to look for new support from the crown. The Tyrells hold on HG didnt depend on the Targaryans at all as proven when Robert Ursurperd the throne and didnt remove them even though they were his enemies, also if the Tyrells joined Robert who if they won would be king how would there hold on HG be weaker if anything it would be stronger since the new dynasty is in debt to the Tyrells. Like I said if Robert decided to make the Hightowers the new Lord protector of the Reach he could easily remove the Tyrells from HG and install someone with a better claim. The hightowers stayed neutral in the rebellion so Robert rewarding them isnt out of place and the Hightowers are the strongest house in the Reach anyways id put them even with Tyrells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxxine Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Sometimes it's not all about what you can gain but just about loyalty. The Tyrells are nothing without the Targs. So it's possible they would just always go pre-Targ. Also at the beginning of the war there's no reason to think Robert was going to win. Just as Robert could've been unforgiving, but so could Aerys had the war went the other way. And the fact is Robert was the rebel and the Targs had always overcome rebellions. So it's understandable that they would be pro-targ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Green Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 4 hours ago, Orphalesion said: Yep, as I said, considering historical precedence, most of Westeros probably expected another Hour of the Wolf, ("Hour of the Wolf, Stag. Eagle and Fish"?) and then a regency under child king Viserys III/Aegon VI. The whole idea to crown Robert was only cooked up by Rickard and Jon during the latter parts of the rebellion. The Blacks crowned Aegon, who was of the Black camp. I don't think anybody would ever have been expecting the rebels, if they won, to seat an enemy on the throne and just hope he wouldn't try to pay them back later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orphalesion Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 On 09/02/2017 at 3:21 AM, Colonel Green said: The Blacks crowned Aegon, who was of the Black camp. I don't think anybody would ever have been expecting the rebels, if they won, to seat an enemy on the throne and just hope he wouldn't try to pay them back later. If you look at Medieval RL history not every successful rebellion ended with the ruling dynasty deposed. Sometimes the lords of any given realm just rebelled until the king made the concessions they asked for. The demands in this case were: 1) Don't unfairly execute two of your LP for things they haven't done 2) Give Lyanna back 3) Do away with the Mad King. All three demands would have been met by making either Viserys or Aegon king and appointing one of the four leaders of the rebellion as regent. Viserys could still have been molded into understanding that his father had to be removed, particularly if Rhaella had cooperated in said endeavor. I still think the objective of replacing the Targaryens was created during the rebellion by Jon and Hoster and that it went quite unexpected by other houses like the Tyrells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormking902 Posted February 11, 2017 Author Share Posted February 11, 2017 On 08/02/2017 at 10:21 PM, Colonel Green said: The Blacks crowned Aegon, who was of the Black camp. I don't think anybody would ever have been expecting the rebels, if they won, to seat an enemy on the throne and just hope he wouldn't try to pay them back later. This....... You arnt gonna put the son (viserys) or grandson (Aegon) on the throne and pray he doesnt take revenge when there older is a risk I wouldnt want to make to say the least. Especially Viserys who grew up with his father and loves him. Usually when a dynasty is overthrown they take the old kings daughter and marry her to the the new king which you could either have Robert marry Aerys wife I forget her name but she is still a Targ or wait a long ass time for Daenarys to come of age, they would wait though blood is everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheYellowAppleFossoway Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 The Tyrells played it perfectly. They stayed loyal, but sacrificed nothing for that loyalty. They played it super safe and would be no worse if the Targs won or lost. Loyalists and rebels from many other houses fought battles and lost many good men while the Tyrell's held up an easy siege and wined and dined the entire time. Tyrell's high rolled the war of the usurper. The only person they pissed off was Stannis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.