goomba

How did The Reach lose?

89 posts in this topic

43 minutes ago, Winterz said:

No bannerman in the Reach would betray House Tyrell for House Lannister and one illegitimate and murderous Queen.

You say that, and yet we explicitly saw that their most powerful and important bannerman, Randyll Tarly, did exactly that. So, obviously, they would.

You can argue that book!Tarly would never do that if he were somehow in the same situation as show!Tarly, or whatever, but that isn't relevant here. If you want to know whether show!Tarly would betray the Tyrells, just watch the episode and see what happens.

Also, remember that every one of these people (well, except for those two minor houses who fought for Stannis but were given pardons) fought for Cersei a few months ago, under orders from Olenna and Mace. So it's not like the idea of being on Cersei's side is unthinkable to them; it's exactly what they were doing until Olenna switched sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Winterz said:

Wrong. The show established House Tyrell as one of the strongest houses. The show's Tyrell soldiers were essential in saving KL, in propping up Renly's army and now they are a bunch of irrelevant weaklings? The Tyrells could easily muster up to 50,000. And why would anyone sway to the side of Cersei?

No bannerman in the Reach would betray House Tyrell for House Lannister and one illegitimate and murderous Queen. And the Lannisters' wasted and empoverished army would never survive entering the Reach, much less conquering Highgarden without any real fight.

Wrong. One banner did. The show has explicetely stated the Stark's and Lannister's had bigger armies.

This isn't the books. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Wrong. One banner did. The show has explicetely stated the Stark's and Lannister's had bigger armies.

This isn't the books. 

Renly's army was 100,000 men in the show, made up of Storm lords and Highgarden.  What happened to them the Tyrell half of the army?  Did they all die at the Blackwater, the battle that they won?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Renly's army was 100,000 men in the show, made up of Storm lords and Highgarden.  What happened to them the Tyrell half of the army?  Did they all die at the Blackwater, the battle that they won?  

Renly's army isn't the Reach. The Storm Lords are not the Reach. The Reach is fractured between Tarly one of the best generals of his day and Olenna whose House and line is pretty much dead 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Renly's army isn't the Reach. The Storm Lords are not the Reach. The Reach is fractured between Tarly one of the best generals of his day and Olenna whose House and line is pretty much dead 

Yes, because the show makes no sense, LOL.  Since there is zero reason that Tarly would fight for the Lannisters.  None.  No reason, it's jut as crazy as LF delivering Sansa to the Boltons for a handshake.  But even conceding all of that...why doesn't OLenna just send a raven to dragonstone to say she's under attack?  Surely Dany could fly down on Drogon to rescue her.....

So, sorry, any way you look at it the destruction of HG in the show is stupid.  I wouldn't expect anything else though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it mind boggling that people can't get their heads around the fact that it's worse to cross your monarch than it is to turn on your lord/lady who is out of favor with the monarch...  Of course Tarly and the other Reach lords sided with Cersei.  They would have been stupid not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tywinelle said:

I find it mind boggling that people can't get their heads around the fact that it's worse to cross your monarch than it is to turn on your lord/lady who is out of favor with the monarch... 

That's generally not true, either in Westeros or in real-world history.

In the Dance of the Dragons, all but one of the Blackfyre Rebellions, the Ninepenny Kings, Robert's Rebellion, and the Greyjoy Rebellion, nobody but the leaders was punished for fighting on the wrong side. The one time it did happen—Daeron attanting all of the minor houses who fought in the first Blackfyre Rebellion—was considered shocking.

Similarly, in England, only the leaders were punished for fighting for Robert Curthose, Edgar Aetheling, Matilda, etc. Stephen even made a point to proclaim that Matilda's barons were not traitors before while he was still fighting her. When Henry VII attainted every gentleman who fought for Richard at Bosworth, that was shocking, and he offered an amnesty almost immediately, and historically his accession is considered the end of feudalism and the middle ages.

So, all else being equal, you're definitely a lot safer following your liege than your monarch. After I swear fealty to you, I am your man, not my own, and you're the one who's responsible for what I do pursuant to that oath, not me, and monarchs usually respect that.

That being said, all else isn't equal here. Tywin stripped titles left and right, and Cersei isn't exactly known for being more reasonable and forgiving than her father. (I think they even made a point of showing that only 2 of the many minor houses who fought for Stannis were forgiven?) So, I wouldn't rise up against Cersei unless I were sure we were going to win.

But that's because she's Cersei, not because of a general principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 3, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Cas Stark said:

Yes, because the show makes no sense, LOL.  Since there is zero reason that Tarly would fight for the Lannisters.  None.  No reason, 

Lord Tarly had two reasons to join the Lannisters. One was to help the Lannisters stop a Dothraki horde from setting his country on fire. Remember, he has xenophobia and hates wildlings, Dothraki, Unsullied and the like. The second reason was the promise of the title Warden of the South.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Tywinelle said:

I find it mind boggling that people can't get their heads around the fact that it's worse to cross your monarch than it is to turn on your lord/lady who is out of favor with the monarch...  Of course Tarly and the other Reach lords sided with Cersei.  They would have been stupid not to.

They backed Renly because of House Tyrell. Just like the bannermen of Robert Baratheon, Ned Stark and Jon Arryn backed their rebel lords and not their king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

Lord Tarly had two reasons to join the Lannisters. One was to help the Lannisters stop a Dothraki horde from setting his country on fire. Remember, he has xenophobia and hates wildlings, Dothraki, Unsullied and the like. The second reason was the promise of the title Warden of the South.

He would be named Warden of the South anyway eventually, by whichever queen wins.  The smart thing to do is ride South with your men and sit it out until you see who is going to win.  And the QOT has more money so she can bribe him also, aside from the point of honor of not serving a kinslaying, incest breeding, husband killing blasphemer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

He would be named Warden of the South anyway eventually, by whichever queen wins.  The smart thing to do is ride South with your men and sit it out until you see who is going to win.  And the QOT has more money so she can bribe him also, aside from the point of honor of not serving a kinslaying, incest breeding, husband killing blasphemer.

You're glossing over Tarly's hatred of the Dothraki savages. No way would he ally himself with Danerys and her foreign army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

They backed Renly because of House Tyrell. Just like the bannermen of Robert Baratheon, Ned Stark and Jon Arryn backed their rebel lords and not their king.

Not all of them. Some River, Vale, and Storm lords fought for the Targaryens during Robert's Rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2017 at 11:08 PM, falcotron said:

Also, remember that every one of these people (well, except for those two minor houses who fought for Stannis but were given pardons) fought for Cersei a few months ago, under orders from Olenna and Mace. So it's not like the idea of being on Cersei's side is unthinkable to them; it's exactly what they were doing until Olenna switched sides.

They didn't fight for Cercei, they fought for Jeoffey,, and the cirmunstances were very different.

It's utter nonsense to make the Lords of the Reach  align with the crazy bitch that just blew up their liege Lord , his heir (as Loras was in the show), and their Queen! And don't tell me they don't know it was Cercei's doing, if Hot Pie knows, everybody knows. It puts Lord Tarly with the likes of Boltons and Freys, It's just absurd..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LucyMormont said:

It's utter nonsense to make the Lords of the Reach  align with the crazy bitch that just blew up their liege Lord , his heir (as Loras was in the show), and their Queen! And don't tell me they don't know it was Cercei's doing, if Hot Pie knows, everybody knows. It puts Lord Tarly with the likes of Boltons and Freys, It's just absurd..

The official story that Cersei has given was that it was a tragic accident. We know this from her conversation with Tycho Nestoris. Of course, that didn't stop rumors from spreading that it was Cersei herself that did it. It was the same with the incest. The official story was that Joffrey and Tommen were Robert's true born sons, whereas rumors spread that they were Jaime's bastards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bothers me is that writers from the show are too lazy to put some small details that will make sense and improve a lot the show and fill plot holes: 

example:

1- Tyrells dislike Dorne and vice e versa. This should be cited to add reasons for Tyrell Bannerman to switch sides.

2- We only saw Lannister colors In Jaime's armies laying a siege in HG. Add some Tarly and other crests to the army.

3- They could have created a character, Tyrell general that was not happy with the fact the Olenna doesn't have an heir and it is allied to dornishmen, dothraki and unsullied. 

4- It would have made much more sense if there was no fight at all! The tyrell army see not just the Lannister, but more importantly, other armies of the reach , lead by Tarly, and then they could have submitted. Similarly as Edmure did with Riverrun.

You could have done this without changing too much the story line and filling a plot hole

 

Edited by King Louis II (KLII)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, King Louis II (KLII) said:

You could have done this without changing too much the story line and filling a plot hole

It wasn't a plot hole, so there's nothing to fill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your opinion, which is not shared by most of the people here (however you opinion should be respected). 

Any people that pay attention of medieval warfare lnows that you need to have an a much higher number of troops to assault a castle, So if the Lannisters took the castle (HG) they must had done after a really bloody battle , or the tyrrell army would have submitted. THERE is no logic that will support you taking a castle of a house that is preparing herself to war the way they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, King Louis II (KLII) said:

In your opinion, which is not shared by most of the people here (however you opinion should be respected). 

It's not an opinion. A plot hole is a specific criticism and is defined as an inconsistency that contradicts the logic already presented in the story where there can be no rational explanation. We don't know how many Tyrells were defending the castle, we don't know by how much the Lannister/Tarly army outnumbered them, we don't know how bloody the battle was, and we don't know how effective of a strong hold Highgarden is. You can criticize them for not giving a detailed explanation of the fall of Highgarden and you can disagree with the Reach lords' reasoning for turning on Olenna. That's where opinions come in. But it's not a plot hole. Think of it this way: all plot holes are bad writing but not all bad writing are plot holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, King Louis II (KLII) said:

What bothers me is that writers from the show are too lazy to put some small details that will make sense and improve a lot the show and fill plot holes: 

Without getting into the argument about whether this constitutes actual plot holes, or just things that make S7 weaker than it could be, and than previous seasons have been:

I agree that so far there's been a general lack of explanations, that could have been given in 30 seconds, that takes away a lot of the power of what we see. It's just stuff happening after other stuff, unless we know why it happened or what the consequences will be while we're watching it.

As for your specifics, I mostly agree, but two nitpicks:

1. I don't think the show has the same Dorne-Reach enmity that the books have, just a Martell-Tyrell family feud. Sure, they could establish that enmity now before using it, but aren't barbarian horse lords, fanatical slave soldiers, and a blood-and-fire Targaryen Mad Queen enough reason without "and also Dornishmen"?

3. I don't think they needed another character here. We saw Reach Lords listening to those arguments, we saw Randyll Tarly being convinced by them, seeing some guy we've never heard of being convinced in the exact same way… meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/08/2017 at 6:11 AM, falcotron said:

That's generally not true, either in Westeros or in real-world history.

In the Dance of the Dragons, all but one of the Blackfyre Rebellions, the Ninepenny Kings, Robert's Rebellion, and the Greyjoy Rebellion, nobody but the leaders was punished for fighting on the wrong side. The one time it did happen—Daeron attanting all of the minor houses who fought in the first Blackfyre Rebellion—was considered shocking.

Similarly, in England, only the leaders were punished for fighting for Robert Curthose, Edgar Aetheling, Matilda, etc. Stephen even made a point to proclaim that Matilda's barons were not traitors before while he was still fighting her. When Henry VII attainted every gentleman who fought for Richard at Bosworth, that was shocking, and he offered an amnesty almost immediately, and historically his accession is considered the end of feudalism and the middle ages.

So, all else being equal, you're definitely a lot safer following your liege than your monarch. After I swear fealty to you, I am your man, not my own, and you're the one who's responsible for what I do pursuant to that oath, not me, and monarchs usually respect that.

That being said, all else isn't equal here. Tywin stripped titles left and right, and Cersei isn't exactly known for being more reasonable and forgiving than her father. (I think they even made a point of showing that only 2 of the many minor houses who fought for Stannis were forgiven?) So, I wouldn't rise up against Cersei unless I were sure we were going to win.

But that's because she's Cersei, not because of a general principle.

All your examples actually support my admittedly very general comment, and that is, the ultimate power rests with the monarch.  The monarch has the authority to offer amnesty.  The monarch has the power to punish or forgive.  The monarch has the ability to appoint you and your family members should you have ambitions to rise higher in the hierarchy.  Therefore, it makes more sense to back the monarch not the lady who is nearing the end of her days, plans to threaten the stability of the region and entire country with her allegiances and has suffered debilitating losses when her entire immediate family was wiped out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now