Jump to content
goomba

How did The Reach lose?

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, falcotron said:

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.

both points understood, but as you said, throwing some Tarly and other bannerman flags, and making the Tyrells surrender without put a fight would make way more sense, and make much better story.

The essence of Martin's work is to  combine fantasy (dragons, WW, direwolfs, etc) and realistic medieval scenario + attention for details.  That's why the laziness of the writers bothers me so much.

 

Another example of this laziness was done with Arya when she was stabbed >3 times  and twist and was jumping between buildings in the next episode. Really, just make one stab.... for christ sake,, it will make much more real...

Share this post


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

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.

Your liege has the authority to punish you or grant amnesty, if you fight against them and lose, just as much as your monarch does. And historically (both in Westeros and in the real world), it's well established that monarchs grant amnesty far more often than direct lieges do. Which would usually massively outweigh the fact that the rewards a Lord Paramount can offer are more limited (although still very substantial).

Also, beyond the pragmatic issue, there's the fact that many Lords take their oaths at least somewhat seriously, and it's a pretty well-established precedent that your oath to your liege trumps everything else.

Again, these are both "all things being equal" arguments, and there are times when it makes more sense to rebel against your liege in favor of your monarch, and this may well be one of them. I think you're stacking the deck by pointing out that Olenna is an old lady with no heirs who's threatening the stability of the realm and who suffered debilitating losses when her entire immediate family was wiped out, given that Cersei is a middle-aged lady with no heirs who's also threatening the stability of the realm and who also suffered debilitating losses when her entire immediate family except her brother was wiped out, many of them by Cersei herself. But even taking things fairly, I can accept that Tarly made the right choice. It's just that it's the right choice because of the very unusual circumstances here, not because it's what Lords normally do, or should do.

Share this post


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

both points understood, but as you said, throwing some Tarly and other bannerman flags, and making the Tyrells surrender without put a fight would make way more sense, and make much better story.

The essence of Martin's work is to  combine fantasy (dragons, WW, direwolfs, etc) and realistic medieval scenario + attention for details.  That's why the laziness of the writers bothers me so much.

Yeah, as I said, these were nitpicks, and I agree with you overall.

I'm not sure it's really laziness, so much as the fact that they do have to rush the story, and they failed to anticipate the need for that, so they're making some bad choices on what to gloss over. I wish that at some point (once they realized GRRM wasn't going to finish the novels in time), they'd sat down and sketched out a plan for the rest of the series, so when they came to write each season they'd know what the problems are going to be in advance. I think they'd do a lot better.

But of course I could be wrong, and it really doesn't matter why there are these gaps in explanation that dampen the dramatic effect of the show, they're there regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, falcotron said:

Your liege has the authority to punish you or grant amnesty, if you fight against them and lose, just as much as your monarch does.

I'm not a historian but I doubt that a monarch would look favorably upon lords who backed someone that was in open rebellion against the crown.  It doesn't just come down to whether the rebels received amnesty or not.  I'm pretty sure those on the losing side and their children wouldn't prosper if they were known to have backed a traitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Reach lost because D&D want to start cutting loose threads. They had no more use for the Reach once the Tyrells were exterminated, so they got rid of it...

Realistically speaking, there is no way the Lannisters could beat the Reach on their own...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's understandable that the showrunners want to make Cersei a credible threat. Unfortunately, they don't really succeed at this, since the blowing up of the sept and with it an important part of the Reach nobility  (including the head of House Tyrell) ought hardly to be easily laughed off by the rest of the Reach nobility, and even if the Tyrells are weaker than the Lannisters, that would hardly make them a walkover, surely (and it's hard to believe they're extinct).

I fear it's a repeat of Ramsay, where (I assume) in order to make him a plausible threat they made him almost invincible until the Plot willed that he could be defeated. The Plot willeth and it happeneth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2017 at 7:06 AM, StraightFromAsshai said:

There's no Reach mentioned...ever. 

The term "Reach" has been used this season. "The other lords of the Reach look to you for guidance, now more than ever.", "It's a long ride back to the Reach, Ser Jaime."

On 7/31/2017 at 6:48 AM, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

In the books, maybe. In the show, the Reach is an established weakass.

And yet their forces saved King's Landing from Stannis.

Edited by Noneofyourbusiness

Share this post


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

And yet their forces saved King's Landing from Stannis.

I think it happened only because GRRM himself wrote that ep.

In following episodes, some dialogue was devoted to explaining how the weak Reach needed the mighty Lannisters' protection, lest some bigger boy take their lunch money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Reach forces were destroyed in the show because according to D&D logic, if you have a Rose for a Sigil, your army doesn't know how to fight. Who cares that the Tyrells commanded the largest military force in Westeros. Who cares that even Stannis, the greatest military commander in Westeros thought that there is no way he can beat his brother on the field because he had the Tyrell army on his side. Who cares that Jaime had a smaller force when he was marching on Highgarden, it's not like the Tyrell forces had the option to just wait inside the Castle, let Jaime and Randyll try to storm the castle and then kill thousands of their men using their archers and high walls to protect their own men. It's not like Lady Olenna had enough food supplies for a 2-3 year long siege and Jaime had to defeat her armies, take her castle, steal her gold and march back to KL as fast as humanly possible in order to avoid an ambush from Daenerys and her Dothraki savages... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in contrast to the books the Lannisters are supposed to have the most powerful army in the world of the series. Still, I don’t get how Highgarden could fall so fast...

Olenna was there, and she was forewarned. Cersei blew up her family, you remember? So, the very moment she arrives back home (if not earlier via raven), the entire Reach should be in a state of war.

That means: sentries at all borders, while the remaining loyal lords call their banners - and, of course, garrison their castles!

 

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

×