Would Rhaegar have been a good king? [POLL]

[Keyser94]

The charismatic writer had married his aunt previously, but after a divorce, he married his cousin.

[Red Tiger]

No

[WhitewolfStark]

Yes, Rhaegar had more cavalry. The rest is fanfiction.

And again, my point in making the post is supposing how Rhaegar could have used that calvary to his advantage and been smart about it, taking The silver dragon's point and demonstrating it further.

He could have done all that. Instead he left it all come down to single combat--which in and of itself fits the mindset of a Medieval warrior:

"War was considered a sort of judicial process (judicium belli) in which the two parties agreed to confront one another on the battlefield to establish who should win. The following remark put into the mouth of Gundovald the Pretender by Gregory of Tours reflects this conception: 'When we meet on the battlefield, God will make it clear whether or not I am King Lothar's son.' Sometimes, instead of two armies, it was the leaders concerned or their champions who entered the lists alone. This practice, also attested by Gregory of Tours, is not, however, limited to the Germanic world.

In 971 a duel was planned between the Byzantine Emperor, John Tzimisces, and the Russian prince, Sviatoslav, in an attempt to settle their quarrel while avoiding the massacre of their peoples. Similar projects, in fact almost always abandoned before they were carried out, are attested throughout the history of the West down to the end of the Middle Ages. Another tradition of Germanic origin was of decisive encounters sometimes fought on the banks of a river, as was the case for the battle of Fontenoy on 25 June 841.

In order to make his victory official and undeniable, the victor had to remain on the battlefield a whole day, or even for three days if it was a question of an 'assigned battle'. This period can be compared with that which governed the appropriation of goods in Old Germanic law. The acquirer of real property had in effect to install himself there for three consecutive days (sessio triduana)." (Contamine, War in the Middle Ages pp 260 - 1)

Thus I can see why GRRM would write it so that Rhaegar would let it all come down to single combat (even if I think it's a rather dumb move), given that it's the backbone of Medieval warfare--especially when the two parties who are "disputing" are facing each other (and GRRM takes this notion and turns it into the Trial by Combat, of which war is a larger scale version of--with the same justification that the Gods will allow those who are righteous to win). It's the backbone of Medieval warfare (look above), and thus the part of the parcel when taking inspiration from Medieval battles in writing about them.

And before you say bringing actual Medieval warfare tactics and looking at their real life origins isn't applicable to a fantasy series:

"Reflections of this time led to the contrasting of two kinds of war, according to the outward bearing of the combatants. In opposition to 'mortal' war, waged with fire and blood (de feu et de sang), where all sorts of 'cruelties, killings and inhumanities' were tolerated, or even systematically prescribed, there was that form of war described as guerroyable: regular war,loyal war, honourable, bonne guerre, fought by 'good fighters' in conformity with the law of arms (droituriere justice d'armes), or according to the 'discipline of chivalry'. (Contamine pp 288-9)

Reminds me of a certain house's words, and likely the origin of the inspiration for them--to be found in Medieval warfare tactics (which labeled a whole branch of warfare with that label (Contamine providing the french term, which coincidentially or not GRRM has for the Targaryen house words).

I don't know why we are having this conversation given we agree Rhaegar could have done better. If you want to point out that I'm posing a what if scenario, I find that a bit redundant. I outright stated it in the first post that I was doing a "what Rhaegar should have done". If you don't like the explanation of a point by illustrating it via a what if scenario (what if he had used that calvary to his advantage--one possibility, he takes a leaf out of the Mongols' book) and wish to be redundant in saying it's supposition when I already in the post said it was supposition via the useage of the word: "should", then I don't know why we are having this conversation in the first place.

If Rhaegar was smarter he would have used that calvary to his advantage IMO (where I am in agreement with the silver dragon), here's how he could have done it. That was the post in summation.

As for your other point about using the death of the commanders as metrics for Rhaegar's inability of command, I disagree with it for one major reason:

That could arguably work, if those commanders were normal lords with vassals, guards, and bannermen sworn to them.

But they're not. They're Kingsguard.

I don't find it surprising that most of the leadership on Rhaegar's side died, nor remarkable enough to blame him for it and tack it on to his faults as a commander in that specific battle. Consider that the leadership you mention are all (except for Rhaegar) Kingsguard. They're traveling around in armaments which advertise who they are (the Kingsguard, who are the bulk of who you listed, especially--as they are the guys in white armor, they're going to stand out on the battlefield--there's no missing them). They are charged with protecting the life of the Royal Family (in this case Rhaegar)--and I'm not surprised that they either had to die or be converted post-battle (narratively speaking from an authorial POV). Their vows state that they would protect the Royal Family to their deaths (isn't that part of the backbone argument of most R+L=J arguments after all?), so in order for Robert to meet Rhaegar in battle alone, of course those three have to be out of the way somehow. That Robert was able to meet Rhaegar alone in battle says more about their failure to protect Rhaegar than Rhaegar's failure to protect them via guards and such (guards for the Kingsguard?!). They have the duty to see Rhaegar's protected, not the other way around. And they are either going to be getting in the way of the battle (save Prince Lewyn who was specifically assigned to command the Dornishmen we know) or throwing themselves into the thick of it (presumably to protect Rhaegar). That's the very nature of their job. The fact that Rhaegar was able to meet Robert in single combat during battle either means that they screwed the pooch and failed to do their job, Rhaegar told them not to concern themselves with him (as he was ai), or it was for some other possibility not speculated here (note that word, speculated). That they die or are made incapacitated is what makes Rhaegar and Robert facing each other head to head in the battle possible. And again, these are guys walking around in white armor--they're walking target signs on the battlefield to anyone gutsy enough to face them (a la Ser Lyn Corbray). Rhaegar's leadership are walking target signs with an obligation to protect Rhaegar's life or die in the attempt. Of course they're going to die--how else do you get Rhaegar vs Robert in single combat (beyond Rhaegar commanding it that they let him face Robert in single combat that is)? So I don't blame Rhaegar for their deaths or think their deaths are indicative of how much of a curbstomping it was (we're arguing metrics... I can't believe we're arguing metrics like this), and if I were a Rhaegar defender (which I'm not), I'd point out that they failed Rhaegar, not the other way around.

[Lord Sapna]

It's funny how people insist on giving him credit despite clear evidence to the contrary because he looked good.

This times 1000 nobody would doubt the kidnapping if Rhaegar was fat and ugly.

[WhitewolfStark]

i think that the 10,00 led by lewyn martell was mostly a light Calvary division's.

as dorne is know for their use of light Cavalry.

that being said charging Robert though a ford, gives Robert and Company a large terrain advantage.

if he had waited in the crown lands puppy guarding king's landing and waited for Robert to come to him*. he would have been able to put the flanking Cavalry to much better use in the in the flat land's of the crown.

(* Robert would have to or risk the possibility of reach reinforcement)

I thought someone mentioned somewhere that Lewyn lead 10,000 Dornish spears? I might be mistaken (as the wiki doesn't confirm that), but I seem to remember someone somewhere making a big deal out of Dornish spears being there at the battle, but I fully admit I might be misremembering. Anyone have a quote on them?

Agreed that drawing Robert to him (that Mongol tactic I mentioned before would have worked beautifully in such a scenario) would have been a smart way to go about it. Although, to play devil's advocate, in Rhaegar's defense the Riverlands were quite divided on the issue of the rebellion (especially considering House Frey, the second most powerful house in the region had yet to comit either way)--it was no more rebel territory than loyalist it was so divided so I don't think supplies would have 100% been an issue any more than it was for Robert. But overall I agree Rhaegar should have lured Robert into a trap somewhere not near a ford.

[Cat from The Canals]

I want to say yes. He seemed to have had all the good Targaryen traits and maybe only mildly crazy because of the abduction and all the visions. However, he may have been truly a man with accurate visions and his actions at the tourney of Harrenhall, later with Leanna, and maybe even his demise at the Trident were things he knew had to happen for a bigger cause. Idk.... Short answer is YES.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

snip

We currently discuss the Battle of the Trident in a parallel thread. You're welcome to join in. Let's keep this poll reasonably clear.

[Brienne Lannister]

Yes

[Gibzit]

Yes.

1. He wasn't a religious maniac like Baelor

2. Wasn't a womanizer like Robert and Aegon IV

3. Wasn't a drunk like Robert

4. Was not too fond of tourneys, so he probably wouldn't have spent half the realm's money right before the winter on some champion's purse

5. Wasn't cruel like Maegor and Joffrey

Everybody who ever knew him seemed to think he was a genius, and probably had the popularity and charisma it took to make people love him, why else do you think Aerys' minions were so keen on disinheriting him?

Other kings being bad dosen't make Rhaegar good

[Ser Lepus]

Yes.

1. He wasn't a religious maniac like Baelor

2. Wasn't a womanizer like Robert and Aegon IV

3. Wasn't a drunk like Robert

4. Was not too fond of tourneys, so he probably wouldn't have spent half the realm's money right before the winter on some champion's purse

5. Wasn't cruel like Maegor and Joffrey

Everybody who ever knew him seemed to think he was a genius, and probably had the popularity and charisma it took to make people love him, why else do you think Aerys' minions were so keen on disinheriting him?

Lord Tytos Lannister wasn't a religious maniac, a womanizer (he only kept two mistresses after his wife's death, that we know about), he wasn't a drunk, he wasn't fond of tourneys and he certainly wasn't cruel. He still was an awful ruler.

Lacking those five flaws isn't enought to be a good ruler.

[James Arryn]

In answer to the OP question, it's impossible to be certain, but from a reductionist POV he had the best ingredients of anyone we've seen in ASOIAF as far as we know.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Other kings being bad dosen't make Rhaegar good

This. The entire argument for Rhaegar being good is "Robert was an awful King, therefore Rhaegar would be awesome!".

Lord Tytos Lannister wasn't a religious maniac, a womanizer (he only kept two mistresses after his wife's death, that we know about), he wasn't a drunk, he wasn't fond of tourneys and he certainly wasn't cruel. He still was an awful ruler.

Lacking those five flaws isn't enought to be a good ruler.

:agree: Great example.

[Lion of the West]

I think he'd been a good king. Not a Jaehaerys but certainly not his blessed namesake or some of the other maniacs. Was far from flawless though, but being flawed is not the same as totally useless.

[Pigeon Pie]

Other kings being bad dosen't make Rhaegar good

I never said he'd be good because they were bad, I said he'd be good because he doesn't have what made them bad.

Lord Tytos Lannister wasn't a religious maniac, a womanizer (he only kept two mistresses after his wife's death, that we know about), he wasn't a drunk, he wasn't fond of tourneys and he certainly wasn't cruel. He still was an awful ruler.

Lacking those five flaws isn't enought to be a good ruler.

He was stated by many to be intelligent, and from TWOIAF, he was probably pretty politically savvy, and feared by those who advised Aerys because they knew he would crush them.

[Mal Malenkirk]

Rhaegar proved to be a poor politician and a poor military commander so he wouldn't have been a great a king.

As long as he reigned in a period of peace he'd have done all right I guess (but then so did his father) but he proved he couldn't handle a crisis.

ETA: For the sake of the poll; NO.

[Winterfell is Burning]

and from TWOIAF, he was probably pretty politically savvy,

You mean the man that disappeared with the daughter of a Lord Paramount,, who has a brother (known to be very temperamental) betrothed to the daughter of another LP, and that girl being betrothed to another LP (himself very temperamental), who was fostered by another Lord Paramount, while he himself is married to the sister of a LP (who has a very temperamental brother), leaving his mad father, who already made an enemy of the richest man in the realm, to deal with the fallout?

Yeah, that clearly shows he's pretty politically savvy.

[Pigeon Pie]

You mean the man that disappeared with the daughter of a Lord Paramount,, who has a brother (known to be very temperamental) betrothed to the daughter of another LP, and that girl being betrothed to another LP (himself very temperamental), who was fostered by another Lord Paramount, while he himself is married to the sister of a LP (who has a very temperamental brother), leaving his mad father, who already made an enemy of the richest man in the realm, to deal with the fallout?

Yeah, that clearly shows he's pretty politically savvy.

The kidnapping/escape/whatever is something that could be a political move, to marry Lyanna and bring the North into Rhaegar's side against Aerys and this theory perfectly matches Lyanna's personality who would want to make independent political and marital choices other than her family's, that is one possibility, and I'm going to use it, seeing as the Rhaegar haters always find no problem using the "He-liked-a-girl-and-didn't-care-what-it-would-do-to-his-family" argument even though they, too, don't know why Rhaegar did it.

But hey, shouldn't we stop talking about the thing we don't know why he did or how he planned for it to go, and start talking about the things we know he did, please? And we have plenty of those, like locating his family on Dragonstone, holding the HH tourney to prove himself to the lords of Westeros as a good king, planning to depose Aerys (and the fact that he was late doesn't necessarily mean he didn't care about being early, it could simply mean that he didn't have the power to do it any earlier because of his father's minions) and being the only one to actually give a shit about the prophecy that could save the world?

[King Jon Targaryen I]

I will say it for the last time NO ONE KNOWS IF RHAEGAR EVEN KNEW THE REPERCUSSIONS!!! We dont even know how all that went down so the fact that Rhaegar is blamed for events he was not apart of is very common one used against people who don't like a certain president because of such and such. Has if Rhaegar is are lord and savior Jesus Christ so he must of known EVERY SINGLE EVENT IN ROBERT'S REBELLION!!! Wow didn't :bs: know Rhaegar became the supreme being overnight.

[Wmarshal]

He was stated by many to be intelligent, and from TWOIAF, he was probably pretty politically savvy, and feared by those who advised Aerys because they knew he would crush them.

He wasted a prefect chance to remove his father and alienated his chief supports the dornish as well in raging The must powerful men in the realm.

[Wmarshal]

The kidnapping/escape/whatever is something that could be a political move, to marry Lyanna and bring the North into Rhaegar's side against Aerys and this theory perfectly matches Lyanna's personality who would want to make independent political and marital choices other than her family's, that is one possibility, and I'm going to use it, seeing as the Rhaegar haters always find no problem using the "He-liked-a-girl-and-didn't-care-what-it-would-do-to-his-family" argument even though they, too, don't know why Rhaegar did it.

But hey, shouldn't we stop talking about the thing we don't know why he did or how he planned for it to go, and start talking about the things we know he did, please? And we have plenty of those, like locating his family on Dragonstone, holding the HH tourney to prove himself to the lords of Westeros as a good king, planning to depose Aerys (and the fact that he was late doesn't necessarily mean he didn't care about being early, it could simply mean that he didn't have the power to do it any earlier because of his father's minions) and being the only one to actually give a shit about the prophecy that could save the world?

How is kidnapping and hiding for a year any time of smart political move. This make them look more stupid then smart.

Like messing up the chance to remove Aerys? Or not removing family when Aerys took them? Or pissing of Lyonel's rebirth?