Would the Targaryens have won against Robert if Mace Tyrell had been at the Trident?

[Fat Trell]

I think that is a shallow mischaracterizarion as Rhaegar wasn't described as weak, but by all accounts, a good warrior. Rhaegar seriously wounded Robert to the point that Robert couldn't ride to Kl but had to give someone else command. Rhaegar also managed to knock Robert off his horse in their fight. If Rhaegar had not decided to dismount, he could have killed Robert.

Being defeated doesn't make someone a bad warrior. There is always someone better.

Link?

And considering Robert was well enough to decide Barristan's fate, send his personal(meaning his alone) maester to heal him, and defend his decision to spare him immediately following the battle, I would hardly consider Robert's wound serious. More likely it was a nagging injury that made riding for long periods of time uncomfortable or dangerous.

[Universal Sword Donor]

Link?

And considering Robert was well enough to decide Barristan's fate, send his personal(meaning his alone) maester to heal him, and defend his decision to spare him immediately following the battle, I would hardly consider Robert's wound serious. More likely it was a nagging injury that made riding for long periods of time uncomfortable or dangerous.

If there is some indication Robert was knocked off his horse, it would be a first for me, and I've probably read the series and novellas an unhealthy number of times. Robert's wounds might have been serious, but they clearly weren't life threatening. I'd agree with you that they were likely some nagging injuries which might have been aggravated or more seriously re-injured on the Trident. If he been in dire straits, he'd have been more worried about his brothers in arms or his ride across the river.

[averde]

The Reach is so ridiculously overpowered between the massive host, multiple decent battle commanders, Redwyne fleet, and being one of the wealthiest regions. It's confusing how they seem to usually play such a minor role now and throughout Westeros history besides that's George RR Martins plot decisions.

It is pretty clearly stated that Stannis with minimal amount of men at Storms End was besieged by everything the Reach could muster both in manpower and naval power, the reasoning behind that when there's an entire war going on makes zero sense strategically. Aerys or Rhaegar or any of Aerys various hands throughout the war just had to send a raven saying leave the minimal amount of men necessary to besiege SE under some minor lord and everyone else get up here. The only reason that didn't happen and the Targs didn't win was plot.

[Universal Sword Donor]

The Reach is so ridiculously overpowered between the massive host, multiple decent battle commanders, Redwyne fleet, and being one of the wealthiest regions. It's confusing how they seem to usually play such a minor role now and throughout Westeros history besides that's George RR Martins plot decisions.

It is pretty clearly stated that Stannis with minimal amount of men at Storms End was besieged by everything the Reach could muster both in manpower and naval power, the reasoning behind that when there's an entire war going on makes zero sense strategically. Aerys or Rhaegar or any of Aerys various hands throughout the war just had to send a raven saying leave the minimal amount of men necessary to besiege SE under some minor lord and everyone else get up here. The only reason that didn't happen and the Targs didn't win was plot.

I won't even say they are overpowered. As the most populous, richest region, they kinda have those advantages in hand and aren't unexpected. The whole strategy with the siege makes *no sense* unless Mace is hedging his bets, not unlike Roose in the Wo5K (who is more ruthlessly ambitious).

[Fire Eater]

Link?

And considering Robert was well enough to decide Barristan's fate, send his personal(meaning his alone) maester to heal him, and defend his decision to spare him immediately following the battle, I would hardly consider Robert's wound serious. More likely it was a nagging injury that made riding for long periods of time uncomfortable or dangerous.

Link

Ned said their destriers circled and clashed, and in Dany's vision Rhaegar sank to his knees after the mortal blow dealt him by Robert. Rhaegar and Robert were both knights, and would naturally be mounted, and if Rhaegar sank to his knees then they were likely dismounted.

It would have to serious if Robert couldn't travel a great distance, and he had other maesters to tend to him and his maester could have healed him and Barristan both.

[averde]

I won't even say they are overpowered. As the most populous, richest region, they kinda have those advantages in hand and aren't unexpected. The whole strategy with the siege makes *no sense* unless Mace is hedging his bets, not unlike Roose in the Wo5K (who is more ruthlessly ambitious).

Mace called his banners for the loyalist cause, in doing so he reaffirmed his loyalty and servitude to the king and became a subordinate of the loyalist army. Any of Aerys various Hands during the war, Rhaegar, even Aerys himself could have commanded Mace to actually get involved more actively in the war, which would have been the beyond obvious thing to do, but it seems to be that no one ever even thought of it. Odd.

[Fat Trell]

Link

Ned said their destriers circled and clashed, and in Dany's vision Rhaegar sank to his knees after the mortal blow dealt him by Robert. Rhaegar and Robert were both knights, and would naturally be mounted, and if Rhaegar sank to his knees then they were likely dismounted.

It would have to serious if Robert couldn't travel a great distance, and he had other maesters to tend to him and his maester could have healed him and Barristan both.

A link to a post full of conjecture based upon visions that may or may not be reliable depictions of actual events or may or may not be representative of greater events(i.e. the cloth dragon representing a false Targaryen, not necessarily being an actual event.). Hardly convincing.

Regardless of this pure conjecture based on shoddy at best evidence, we have seen that being mounted doesn't guarantee victory in single combat.

And no, an injury preventing prolonged riding doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be serious. A badly rolled ankle or a shallow cut along the instep or thigh could make riding too uncomfortable or dangerous to ride. Hardly serious.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Probably not, for one simple reason: 40,000 men were already stretching the available supplies to their fullest extent. Another 40,000 men would have likely simply starved to death.

If there is some indication Robert was knocked off his horse, it would be a first for me, and I've probably read the series and novellas an unhealthy number of times. Robert's wounds might have been serious, but they clearly weren't life threatening. I'd agree with you that they were likely some nagging injuries which might have been aggravated or more seriously re-injured on the Trident. If he been in dire straits, he'd have been more worried about his brothers in arms or his ride across the river.

I'd like to see this as well.

The impression of Robert and Rhaegar duking it out on foot comes probably from Amoka's painting of the scene, but that's not from the books.

[joluoto2]

I think that is a shallow mischaracterizarion as Rhaegar wasn't described as weak, but by all accounts, a good warrior. Rhaegar seriously wounded Robert to the point that Robert couldn't ride to Kl but had to give someone else command. Rhaegar also managed to knock Robert off his horse in their fight. If Rhaegar had not decided to dismount, he could have killed Robert.

Being defeated doesn't make someone a bad warrior. There is always someone better.

If he was such a Great Warrior he would have been smart enbough to not try to beat a man with plate armor with a sword.

[C0bR]

Link

Ned said their destriers circled and clashed, and in Dany's vision Rhaegar sank to his knees after the mortal blow dealt him by Robert. Rhaegar and Robert were both knights, and would naturally be mounted, and if Rhaegar sank to his knees then they were likely dismounted.

It would have to serious if Robert couldn't travel a great distance, and he had other maesters to tend to him and his maester could have healed him and Barristan both.

Lol, I knew some people would start using this ridiculous piece of Rhaegy fanfic as an actual fact.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I believe that the battle would had include a Robert Prime/Rhaegar fought and Robert would had won so I do believe that after Rhaegar death the royalist would had been scattered.

[Weddingcrasher Reborn]

It seems that people don't realize how big an army of 30k men is for medieval times. I think it's about as many men as you could have supplied and effectively commanded as a single host. Surely the Rebels had more then 30k men under their command, and there were reasons why they all couldn't be at the Trident, just as the Tyrells wouldn't be able to.
The (first) Battle of the Trident would probably still be won by the Rebels. But the Tyrells, if they weren't far away at SE, would be able to prolong the war, possibly attacking the bloodied rebels. Rhaegar would have an option to fall back, and thus wouldn't risk his assault on Robert, which I think was his last resort, once he saw that things weren't going his way.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Interesting question. However, I think the 100000 was the combined force of the Tyrells' and Renly's Stormlands army, the Tyrells are not that strong alone.

True, but you have to consider that the Tyrells' most powerful bannermen didn't send any soldiers to Renly's army. The Hightowers and the Redwynes could levy 20 000 men between them - which is roughly the size of the Stormlanders' contingent in Renly's host. So it's a wash.

With the Lannisters siting out, and the North, the Riverlands, the Stormlands and the Vale allied against the crown. The loyalist forces were the Crownlands, the Reach, and Dorne. That's it. Unless you think Rhaegar's forces were made of only Dornish and Crownland troops, there is no way the entire force of the Reach were with Mace.

It's not that simple. The Vale, the Riverlands and the Stormlands weren't fighting as a united force. Those three regions' armies were split between the Loyalists and the Rebels.

To recap the composition of the armies from the wiki:

The Rebel army was about 35 000 men. At least half of those were Northmen. The rest were from the Vale and the Riverlands, with a minor contribution from Robert (probably around a 1000 men).

The Loyalist army was about 40 000 men. 10 000 of those were from Dorne. The other 30 000 were a mixture of the survivors from the Bells (made up of loyal Riverlands, Stormlands and Vale lords) and the levies from the Crownlands, with a pinch of Reachmen thrown into the mix (a few hundred).

The funny thing is, I strongly suspect that despite Robert's charisma and battle prowess, there were more Stormland troops on the loyalist side, than on the Rebels'.

The wiki states only several hundred Reach levies were at the Trident. I see no reason to disagree with this.

And that the Stormlanders Robert brought with himself were around the same number.

Also the Stormlands could muster only 20 000 from what we learnt at Blackwater and that is is combined with Florent forces that numbered 2000.

The whole force of the Stormlands is around 30 - 35 000.

Any of Aerys various Hands during the war, Rhaegar, even Aerys himself could have commanded Mace to actually get involved more actively in the war, which would have been the beyond obvious thing to do, but it seems to be that no one ever even thought of it. Odd.

Why would they? We get an inkling into the Loyalists High Command's way of thinking in one of Jaime's chapters, when he remembers his last conversation with Rhaegar. The Prince clearly states that King Aerys is more afraid of Tywin, rather than Robert.

The Loyalists' host at the Trident was pretty evenly matched with the Rebels'. They were commanded by the Crown Prince and 3 White Swords and were a mix of fresh levies (the 10 000 dornishmen) and veterans (the Riverlands/Stormlands/Vale loyalists, previously under the command of Jon Connington). My point is, the Targaryen army wasn't weak.

On the other hand, capturing Storm's End was an important objective. We see what happens when a King loses his seat - the fall of Winterfell forced Robb to go back North and abandon his campaign in the Riverlands. Had Mace successfully captured the Baratheon seat, he would've dealt a huge blow to the Rebel cause, as far as prestige was concerned.

That being said, I agree with the predominant opinion that Mace was hedging his bets. To me, the strongest clue for that is the way he sieged Storm's End. However, the reason he didn't send more troops to the Trident was simply because he wasn't ordered to.

Edit: In the end, Mace wasn't the one who decided the outcome of the war - it was Tywin. Had the Lion chosen to support the Targaryens, the Rebels' cause was doomed - even after Rhaegar's death at the Trident.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Edit: In the end, Mace wasn't the one who decided the outcome of the war - it was Tywin. Had the Lion chosen to support the Targaryens, the Rebels' cause was doomed - even after Rhaegar's death at the Trident.

I disagree. It would have prolongued the war, and earlier shifted the balance a bit, but in no way would it have made the rebels losing a foregone conclusion.

[TheCrannogDweller]

I disagree. It would have prolongued the war, and earlier shifted the balance a bit, but in no way would it have made the rebels losing a foregone conclusion.

It would've made toppling the Targaryen dynasty nigh impossible though. I'm not saying the Rebels would've lost immediately - I'm just saying that their chances of winning would've suddenly evaporated. They still had ample reserves to continue fighting - just not enough to win.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Agree to disagree then.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Agree to disagree then.

Very well, but I just want to clarify my point a little.

Prolonguing the war would've meant a loss for the Rebels. It would've given Mace enough time to starve Storm's End. Once the Baratheons' castle had fallen, the Stormlands would've soon followed suit.

With the Lannisters joining the Loyalists, the Riverlands would've also fallen soon. They would've been surrounded by Targaryen-affiliated troops on three sides. I think that Tywin would've also flipped the Freys - so Hoster and his host would've been locked on the wrong side of the Trident, while the Lannisters and the Freys took the Riverlands castles one by one.

The Vale and the North would've held out the longest (thanks to their natural defenses) but they couldn't hope to win the war. They might've seceded, but they wouldn't have been able to beat the Iron Throne.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

That's a possible outcome. I'd just doubt that the loyalists would have thrown so many men into the meatgrinder.

Furthermore in the case of Tywin joining after the Trident, with Rhaegar dead and only Tywin's small army (about a third the size of the rebels at the Trident) standing between the rebels and KL, they'd have simply curbstomped him and proceeded according to plan.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Furthermore in the case of Tywin joining after the Trident, with Rhaegar dead and only Tywin's small army (about a third the size of the rebels at the Trident) standing between the rebels and KL, they'd have simply curbstomped him and proceeded according to plan.

Tywin's army wouldn't have been standing in the field though. Aerys would've opened the gates for them and they would've reinforced the capital, preparing it for a siege. All it takes after that is another Lannister host to assemble under Kevan and smash the Rebels against the walls of King's Landing - that is, if Jon and Hoster had fallen for that trap. That Lannister host could've easily been at least 20 000 men.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Tywin's army wouldn't have been standing in the field though. Aerys would've opened the gates for them and they would've reinforced the capital, preparing it for a siege. All it takes after that is another Lannister host to assemble under Kevan and smash the Rebels against the walls of King's Landing - that is, if Jon and Hoster had fallen for that trap. That Lannister host could've easily been at least 20 000 men.

Another host who'd need several months to arrive at Kings Landing. Kevan was in KL as well, by the way. Furthermore Ned was at KL only hours, maybe just thirty minutes, after Tywin. Remember, he'd rode through the gates of KL at the same time as the Mountain and Ser Armory Lorch scaled the walls of the Red Keep.