What if the Arryns called their banners?

[UFT]

after robb loses karstarks, the vale lords see they can wait no longer and finally ride to the aid of their king, after a short coup on lysa. this mighty cavalry charge smashes tywin's host in the rear.

what happens in this new timeline?

[Free Northman Reborn]

That is too late in the game, unfortunately. For Robb to win the War, it needs to be before Theon's betrayal.

[Adam Yozza]

Complete game changer, obviously. 20/30k of fresh troops would probably be enough to defeat Randyll Tarly's force at Duskendale/Maidenpool. But similar to what Free Northman said at that point in time all it would do is drag the war out. Eventually, the fresh and far more numerous Reach troops, combined with the 20k Lannister's at KL would eventually win.

However, I do disagree with Free Northman that it would have to be before Theon's betrayal. Anytime before the Battle of the Blackwater would probably bring victory to Robb. For example, if the Vale mustered their armies and marched about the same time as Tywin left Harrenhal, then they'd end up bumping into each other as Tywin tried to turn around to save KL. If Tywin was defeated there, then the Tyrell's wouldn't march to KL; they wouldn't go without Tywin and without them the city falls. No idea what would happen after that, but it would be very different to canon.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

Robb was never "their King."  The North/Riverland alliance might have had a chance to get the Vale to their side if Ned Stark was still held prisoner in King's Landing because of all the relationships Ned had with the Vale Lords during his time there fostering. Or perhaps after Ned was executed the Vale might have rallied to Robb. However if they didn't by that time they weren't going to do it that late in the game. 

[The Sunland Lord]

Lysa didn't care and Robyn still needed her milk.

[devilish]

It was too late at that point. Robb's army was demoralised, his no 2 was already betraying them and Robb had put a crown on his head which ruined any possible alliances he could bring to team Robb. The Vale can raise a strong army but it cant go toe to toe with the 2 major powerhouses alone

[Adam Yozza]

3 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Robb was never "their King."  The North/Riverland alliance might have had a chance to get the Vale to their side if Ned Stark was still held prisoner in King's Landing because of all the relationships Ned had with the Vale Lords during his time there fostering. Or perhaps after Ned was executed the Vale might have rallied to Robb. However if they didn't by that time they weren't going to do it that late in the game. 

Except we know that right up until the word of the Red Wedding reached them, half the major houses in the Vale, led by Bronze Yohn, were badgering Lysa to join the war on Robb's behalf.

[The hairy bear]

If the Vale lords had joined Robb after Karstark's murder, things would have turned out very differently. Of course, it wouldn't have been enough to defeat the combined Tyrell-Lannister force. But at the very least he could have maintained his status as a relevant player until the arrival of the Others and Dany.

I'm sure Bolton and Frey wouldn't have dared to go one with the Red Wedding if the Vale had been with Robb. In this scenario, the Ironmen would have been expelled from the North relatively quick. From here on, it's very difficult to predict. Would the Tyrells have poisoned Joffrey with Robb still alive? Would Stannis go to the North with Robb there? Hard to say.

4 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Robb was never "their King."  The North/Riverland alliance might have had a chance to get the Vale to their side if Ned Stark was still held prisoner in King's Landing because of all the relationships Ned had with the Vale Lords during his time there fostering.

The riverlords had never been sworn to Winterfell, yet all of them declared for Robb. The lords from the Vale could have easily done the same, and we know some of them wanted to. The alliance between the Vale and the North wasn't limited to Ned Stark: there were some family ties (Lysa and little Robert, the Royces,..), and they were on the same side on the Rebellion. Surely many friendships between both kingdoms and the Riverlands were born back then.

 

[Dorian Martell's son]

8 hours ago, UFT said:

after robb loses karstarks, the vale lords see they can wait no longer and finally ride to the aid of their king, after a short coup on lysa. this mighty cavalry charge smashes tywin's host in the rear.

what happens in this new timeline?

there would need to be some disaster that would take the vale levies out of the war so the story would continue as written. No coup, no smashing Tywin. Otherwise, you are just writing fan fic 

[snow is the man]

in reality if rob had managed to slow down tywin from getting to kings landing in time  to fight stannis and keep him from taking the city then rob would have essentially forced tywin to either give the north peace in order to fight stannis or pretty much lose it all. If stannis had taken kings landing it would have hurt tywin lannister horribly. The fear people had of him would be diminished to a great degree and while he would likely beat stannis he would have to make peace with the north or he would be unable to do it because rob could have taken casterly rock while tywin was fighting stannis. As for the vale joining. If it was  before blackwater then tywin would have lost. The tyrells would have likely tried to make a deal with rob and in return for him keeping the vale,the north,and the riverlands while the tyrells would have gotten everything else. And even if they didn't it would still have been a brutal fight that might have ended in a stalemate. But the vale riding in with fresh troops that were well equipped and done it a bit before the red wedding was planned then it would have been a game changer. Also you have to factor in that the dornish people hated both the tyrells and the lannisters and would have done something to spark a war if there was truly a chance of winning. I imagine someone would have killed marcella to spark that war. In my opinion the vale marching in would have been a game changer

[Aline de Gavrillac]

The Vale calling its banners to support Robb would be the worst possible event for the people of Westeros.  It would prolong the war and the Tyrell-Lannister team would eventually win.  The cost to win would take an enormous human toll in terms of death and suffering.  It was best to end Robb's war as soon as possible and with comparatively little bloodshed.  Tywin accomplished just that with the help of the Freys and the Boltons.  What is good for Robb and the Starks is not necessarily what is good for the people.

[Ser Frasier of House Crane]

On 5/12/2017 at 7:37 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

That is too late in the game, unfortunately. For Robb to win the War, it needs to be before Theon's betrayal.

This. Even so, I don't really think that the Valemen would do anything except remain neutral even if they did overthrow Lysa. I mean, what's in it for them?

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

The fall of Casterly Rock .

[Lord Wraith]

After losing Karstark and the Kingslayer its already too late. He's already lost the North and everyone can which the way the Winds blowing.

If Baelish had been successful in kidnapping Sansa during the Bread Riots. He could have helped forged an alliance between the Starks and Tyrells. Then he brings in the Vale and we have a much different story.

[Protagoras]

On 2017-05-12 at 1:35 PM, UFT said:

after robb loses karstarks, the vale lords see they can wait no longer and finally ride to the aid of their king, after a short coup on lysa. this mighty cavalry charge smashes tywin's host in the rear.

what happens in this new timeline?

Aid of their king? Robb is not their king. Robb will never be their king. The Vale does in no shape or form see themselves like they are subservient to Winterfell and that they have an obligation. The riverlands might be a region with poor unity, but the Vale is the home of the Andals, has warred against the North in the past and is a kingdom of old, just like them. Vale swearing fealty to the North is in short a delusion. So, let´s looks at the text

The senior branch of House Royce was close to open revolt over her aunt’s failure to aid Robb in his war, and the Waynwoods, Redforts, Belmores, and Templetons were giving them every support

“Sweet Petyr, I’ve missed you so, you don’t know, you can’t know. Yohn Royce has been stirring up all sorts of trouble, demanding that I call my banners and go to war"

My take on this is that if somehow all those that think the Royces are so unfaithful to the Arryns that they are willing to forsake their fealty to the Arryns, to forswear his vows to House Arryn, to be willing to swear oaths to the Starks and to ignore their Lord paramounts call for neutrality, are right, then the Royces should be destroyed root and stem due to their lack of honor. But I doubt they are. Willingness to war is not the same as submission of Robbs rule. It is more likely that they wanted an alliance between equal partners, installing Stannis or Renly and seeing the "independent North" as a bargaining tactic. But accepting Robb as their king has no support in the text. Indeed, Robert was also fostered in the Vale and Jon Arryn had recently been hand. So, their support to the Baratheons (Stannis and/or Renly) should be as high. And this is something always missed. Robb and the Starks arenot the only one supported - they are not unique. 

My take on this is also that these 5 houses does not represent the Vale proper nor that they are making a strong statement - it is almost the same group as the Lords declarents, sans Hunter and they showed their inefficiency at that time. Waynwoods (bought), Tempeltons (befriended), Belmore (corrupt and old) and Redfort (Old). should simply not be taken at face-value. We KNOW what "giving them every support" means for these guys. Nor have we taken the rest of the Vale in considerance. Hunters, Graftons, Coldwaters etc. We have ~35 Noble houses in the Vale if we count the Sistermen and Landed/Knightly houses (like Templeton), 5 is far, far from a majority.

Finally, my take on this is that the Vale doesn´t want to submit to northern rule as much as they want to fight the Lannisters. The Lannisters who stripped them of Warden of the East, who poisoned Jon Arryn (according to rumor and Tyrions trial) and Stannis letter. Robb do look (until Blackwater) to be the only one who actually fight. But that doesn´t stop Yohn to send a son to Renly, so clearly he was not really THAT invested in the Starks as a whole - just that the Lannisters was taken down.

[Protagoras]

On 2017-05-12 at 8:32 PM, The hairy bear said:

The riverlords had never been sworn to Winterfell, yet all of them declared for Robb. The lords from the Vale could have easily done the same, and we know some of them wanted to. The alliance between the Vale and the North wasn't limited to Ned Stark: there were some family ties (Lysa and little Robert, the Royces,..), and they were on the same side on the Rebellion. Surely many friendships between both kingdoms and the Riverlands were born back then.

 

Do you have a source on that some nobles of the Vale were willing to swear fealty to Robb as their king?

[Livesundersink]

On 13/05/2017 at 4:32 AM, The hairy bear said:

Would the Tyrells have poisoned Joffrey with Robb still alive?

More than likely, Joffrey was wild and unpredictable. As we are shown in the meeting after the Red Wedding, he wants all the Riverlords who bent the knee to the IT executed and the same for their families and subjects, indeed the whole war is a cause of his insatiable appetite for bloodlust. We are later shown that Tommen is far more malleable and shaped by those around him. Given what Sansa told the Tyrells about Joffrey it is unlikely he would be allowed to live, sure we see him being nice to Margaery but then again he was nice to Sansa in the beginning and we see during the courtship that he was bored with her (like when he leaves her by herself after the Hand's tourney) so it's probably safe to say that if he ever got bored with Margaery or if she ever stopped being useful to him, he'd probably start abusing her.

[Coolbeard the Exile]

On 2017-05-12 at 1:35 PM, UFT said:

after robb loses karstarks, the vale lords see they can wait no longer and finally ride to the aid of their king, after a short coup on lysa. this mighty cavalry charge smashes tywin's host in the rear.

what happens in this new timeline?

By the time the karstarks leave robb tywin is in kings landing. 

[The hairy bear]

 

20 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Do you have a source on that some nobles of the Vale were willing to swear fealty to Robb as their king?

The quote you mention in your post is enough to satisfy me ("House Royce was close to open revolt over her aunt’s failure to aid Robb in his war"). Even if it's not said explicitly, I think it's the logical assumption by default. Robb was one of five different claimants, and "aiding" him means fighting the other four.

20 hours ago, Protagoras said:

 The riverlands might be a region with poor unity, but the Vale is the home of the Andals, has warred against the North in the past and is a kingdom of old, just like them. Vale swearing fealty to the North is in short a delusion.

The Vale swore fealty to the Robert not so long ago. Why it would be a delusion to accept a Stark king and not a Baratheon one?

The Riverlords are also Andals, have also warred against the North, and their houses are as old as the Vale ones. The Vale has also shown lots of disunity and internal fighting. I don't think you are portraying them realistically. The Vale and the Riverlands are not that different.

20 hours ago, Protagoras said:

It is more likely that they wanted an alliance between equal partners, installing Stannis or Renly and seeing the "independent North" as a bargaining tactic. But accepting Robb as their king has no support in the text.

Westeros hasn't invented "republics" yet. An "alliance between equal partners" would require proclaiming Robert Arryn the King of the Vale, and then negotiate a treaty with the King of the Trident.

Supporting Robb in the war would be seen by any independent observant as the Vale renouncing their ties with the Iron Throne. That would be seen as rebellion by Joffrey, Stannis and Renly.

20 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Indeed, Robert was also fostered in the Vale and Jon Arryn had recently been hand. So, their support to the Baratheons (Stannis and/or Renly) should be as high.

But it wasn't. Stannis and Renly were problematic candidates. Stannis was unpopular, uncompromising and had no male heir. Renly was young and had no sustainable claim. Any of them had any ties with the Vale.

Meanhwile, Robb was young and charismatic, Lysa was his aunt and Robert his cousin. There were family ties with the Royces and other houses in the Vale too.

20 hours ago, Protagoras said:

My take on this is also that these 5 houses does not represent the Vale proper nor that they are making a strong statement - it is almost the same group as the Lords declarents, sans Hunter and they showed their inefficiency at that time. Waynwoods (bought), Tempeltons (befriended), Belmore (corrupt and old) and Redfort (Old). should simply not be taken at face-value. We KNOW what "giving them every support" means for these guys. Nor have we taken the rest of the Vale in considerance. Hunters, Graftons, Coldwaters etc. We have ~35 Noble houses in the Vale if we count the Sistermen and Landed/Knightly houses (like Templeton), 5 is far, far from a majority.

We know the Lords Declarant were strong enough to besiege the Eyrie with six thousand men and impose conditions. The fact that they failed because of their naivete and lack of coordination doesn't take away the fact that they were strong enough to impose conditions.

If together they do not represent half of the strength of the Vale, it's certainly close enough. Their opinion, though, has a lot of weight. Note that they're not only 5, as have many vassals on their own (The Royces have the Coldwaters, the Shetts and the Tollets).

[Protagoras]

4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

 

The quote you mention in your post is enough to satisfy me ("House Royce was close to open revolt over her aunt’s failure to aid Robb in his war"). Even if it's not said explicitly, I think it's the logical assumption by default. Robb was one of five different claimants, and "aiding" him means fighting the other four.

You are mixing apples and pears here. The logical assumption by default is to assume he will fight the Lannisters aka the people he has fought battles against. There is (as was my point) no evidence that Aid Robb in his war = submit to his rule and add Vale to his kingdom. Yohn Royces own action points at this, with Robars presence at Renlys host.

4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

The Vale swore fealty to the Robert not so long ago. Why it would be a delusion to accept a Stark king and not a Baratheon one?

The Riverlords are also Andals, have also warred against the North, and their houses are as old as the Vale ones. The Vale has also shown lots of disunity and internal fighting. I don't think you are portraying them realistically. The Vale and the Riverlands are not that different.

Because the Baratheons had a claim on the Iron Throne, an institution that has existeed for 300+ years and seen as default. It would in other words mean no change in structure. 

Also, the Starks have no claim on the Vale. The Targaryens did defeat them however in the past in order to unite the realm. To turn this question, why can´t the Starks swear fealty to a Arryn king instead? 

4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Westeros hasn't invented "republics" yet. An "alliance between equal partners" would require proclaiming Robert Arryn the King of the Vale, and then negotiate a treaty with the King of the Trident.

Well, maybe Yohn Royce pushed for that. Certainly more logical than becoming a realm within Robbs kingdom. Then again, I don´t think they took his declaration so seriously about a new realm. 

4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Supporting Robb in the war would be seen by any independent observant as the Vale renouncing their ties with the Iron Throne. That would be seen as rebellion by Joffrey, Stannis and Renly.

Nope, and again this is further enforced by Robar Royce presence at Renlys camp. If the Royces are befind becoming vassals to Robb, why send him? Unless the assumption is that the war with the Lannisters is what matters and that Robb will give up his crown to Renly, a person who the Royces seem to be behind.

And everything can happen in a war. Nor did Renly see it that way. The only one who seemed to take it at face value was Stannis. Also, these things are chaotic and I doubt Yohn Royce read Robbs full declaration. He took a stand against the Lannisters after his fathers "unjust" execution and for him, it was enough. 

I think I also need to point out that the last time the North renounced their ties with the Iron Throne, they most certainly stayed within the Realm. They might not have planned to do so if Robert had been killed, but it was the end result.

4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

But it wasn't. Stannis and Renly were problematic candidates. Stannis was unpopular, uncompromising and had no male heir. Renly was young and had no sustainable claim. Any of them had any ties with the Vale.

And again, we know this Stannis/Renly problem to be false. Robar Royce, representing the Royces (even if they deny it later, it certainly looks that way when a member of their house is in Renlys rainbow guard), was with Renly

4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Meanhwile, Robb was young and charismatic, Lysa was his aunt and Robert his cousin. There were family ties with the Royces and other houses in the Vale too.

Stannis, Robb and Renly lived of the reputation on Ned and Roberts legacy. Presenting Robb as charismatic also look very biased. Why would he been seen as that? Have they met him? Nor have Robb any particular ties with the Vale. Most people tend to be related in this setting so cousins are not very close. 

4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

We know the Lords Declarant were strong enough to besiege the Eyrie with six thousand men and impose conditions. The fact that they failed because of their naivete and lack of coordination doesn't take away the fact that they were strong enough to impose conditions.

If together they do not represent half of the strength of the Vale, it's certainly close enough. Their opinion, though, has a lot of weight. Note that they're not only 5, as have many vassals on their own (The Royces have the Coldwaters, the Shetts and the Tollets).

First, 6000 men is only a fraction of Vales power (closer to 45000). Nor is it a majority of the Vale in houses. Not even close. Yes, they can mobilize more. But not a majority. 

Secondly, they failed with their imposing, which is what matters. Otherwise, I can claim that I "impose conditions on president Trump" if I write him a demanding letter, regardless of response. 

Third, while they have Vassals who are forced to act in a certain way, doesn´t mean those vassas really support it. They just have to.

So my point stand. The Vale swearing fealty is a delusion. A delusion because of Stark bias and wishful thinking. And a delusion that is intensified by projecting the feelings of some, few houses on the entire Vale and dishonestly running with it, then try to establish is as a fact that "half the major houses in the Vale" wanted Robb and to be a part of his new kingdom. At best, there are some support for the idea from a few houses that can be interpretated that way. At worst, it is outright lying.