Westeros divided in 8 kingdoms after Robert's rebellion

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

  A whole cake is better than a slice .This was the decision of Jon Arryn and Eddard Stark.

[BigBoss1]

38 minutes ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

  A whole cake is better than a slice .This was the decision of Jon Arryn and Eddard Stark.

More like jon Arryn coerced them. Robert probably didn't want to be king and Eddard knew he  would make a terribile one. They both were really loyal to Jon Arryn so they just went with it.

[Lee-Sensei]

2 hours ago, BigBoss1 said:

Tywin  took kings landing, not Robert and the second lord that entered kings landing was Ned so as i said the northmen are still there

Tywin took Kings Landing in Roberts name. Again, moving an army that far south with Westerosi infrastructure is a logistic nightmare. We don't know who had the largest army.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Robert didnt even command the entire Stormlands. And those he did command suffered some defeats and losses. Bt the time of the Battle of the Trident it seems barely 5000 of the 35000 Rebel host were Stormlanders. If that. 

[JS97]

@BigBoss1

If Robert was so weak, why didn't the others just become king? It's not like they didn't have the opportunity. As some have said that Eddard, for example, could have taken the throne. There is a reason it was called Robert's Rebellion. Robert was the one rebelling and Eddard Stark, Jon Arryn and Hoster Tully supported him. In the end even Tywin supported Robert's claim when he saw he was winning. If Robert was some small weak leader Tywin would've been the first to take his place don't you think?

[Lee-Sensei]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Robert didnt even command the entire Stormlands. And those he did command suffered some defeats and losses. Bt the time of the Battle of the Trident it seems barely 5000 of the 35000 Rebel host were Stormlanders. If that. 

Neither did the Riverlands or the Vale. Those two regions probably would have contributed the most troops and took the most casualties.

[BigBoss1]

4 hours ago, JS97 said:

@BigBoss1

If Robert was so weak, why didn't the others just become king? It's not like they didn't have the opportunity. As some have said that Eddard, for example, could have taken the throne. There is a reason it was called Robert's Rebellion. Robert was the one rebelling and Eddard Stark, Jon Arryn and Hoster Tully supported him. In the end even Tywin supported Robert's claim when he saw he was winning. If Robert was some small weak leader Tywin would've been the first to take his place don't you think?

Because Robert had the blood of the Targaryens through his grandmother and we all know the importance of blood in westeros. It is called Robert's rebellion because he is the one that took the throne in the end but the one rebelling was Jon Arryn who refused to hand over his wards to Aerys, he  is the one who started the rebellion, not Robert. In the end in lord Arryn's eyes no one was more suited than Robert and no one other than the  Targaryens or the loyalist and more claim to the throne than him.

[BigBoss1]

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

Neither did the Riverlands or the Vale. Those two regions probably would have contributed the most troops and took the most casualties.

The Stormlands probably took more casualties than the vale given how much support the Targaryens had there and how much he fought to get out of the stormlands and meet with his allies.

[Corvo the Crow]

4 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

Neither did the Riverlands or the Vale. Those two regions probably would have contributed the most troops and took the most casualties.

Perhaps, but Stormlands isn't a great military strength to begin with. It is a tiny region having mostly rocky and woodland terrain, populated thinly. To get some idea, Dorne the least populous contributed 10000 men so Stormlands would command above that, but not by much and Robert suffered a big defeat at the start.

[Lee-Sensei]

6 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Perhaps, but Stormlands isn't a great military strength to begin with. It is a tiny region having mostly rocky and woodland terrain, populated thinly. To get some idea, Dorne the least populous contributed 10000 men so Stormlands would command above that, but not by much and Robert suffered a big defeat at the start.

What big defeat was that?

Tyrell’s reputation rested on one indecisive victory over Robert Baratheon at Ashford, in a battle largely won by Lord Tarly’s van before the main host had even arrived.

[Lee-Sensei]

7 hours ago, BigBoss1 said:

The Stormlands probably took more casualties than the vale given how much support the Targaryens had there and how much he fought to get out of the stormlands and meet with his allies.

He fought three middle Tier Houses. fought the Graftons who are one of his two strongest vassals and the Corbrays.

[Free Northman Reborn]

8 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

He fought three middle Tier Houses. fought the Graftons who are one of his two strongest vassals and the Corbrays.

The host sizes during the Rebellion seem curiously small in general. For many of the regions we have direct examples of the type of numbers they could raise in the War of the Five Kings just 15 years later, and for the most part the War of the Five Kings saw at least double the army sizes per region compared to the Rebellion, and in some cases even higher.

We see for example that the combined might of the Riverlands, North, Vale and Stormlands is only around 35k at the Trident. This while we know that even a hastily raised Northern host in the WotFK, saw Robb lead 19500 Northmen into the Riverlands. And at the same time, even after the Riverlands had suffered crushing defeats at the Golden Tooth, at Riverrun, along the Westerland border and had been extensively ravaged by Tywin's forces, they still raise 11000 men in very short order, and that excludes the 5000 or so Frey soldiers.

So both the North and the Riverlands are not close to their full strength during the WotFK and despite this they have 30,000 men between them already. We know the Vale is at a similar level of strength to the North, meaning 30,000 men should be fairly easily achievable for them, without pushing into their dregs.

So without even counting the Stormlands, we see that even 50% of the North, Vale and Riverlands’ easily accessible  forces should have produced around 45,000 troops quite easily, while a full muster of those regions should yield 90,000 or more.

And the same applies to the Lannisters. Even more so, in fact. Tywin raises 12,000 men in the Rebellion compared to 35,000 in the current war.

Anyway, it would seem that the Rebel force at the Trident likely consisted of something like 15,000 Northmen (Robb raised more than that in a great hurry so given the North's level of unity and the grievous events leading up to the war Ned should arguably have had no difficulty in matching Robb's numbers fairly easily), maybe 10,000 Valemen, perhaps something like 7000 Rivermen and maybe as little as 3000 or so Stormland troops.

The Vale and Riverlands both faced divided loyalties during this war, as did the Stormlands, but the Stormland forces had already suffered losses in the South and Robert seems to have arrived with a rather small force at the final battle.

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The host sizes during the Rebellion seem curiously small in general.

We see for example that the combined might of the Riverlands, North, Vale and Stormlands is only around 35k at the Trident.

Of course, this is a year into the war. there is a huge difference between the sizes of the Northern, Westerland and Riverland armies between AGOT and ADWD. 

Plus the war started during winter, this will likely have affected the size of the armies each region could feed, especially the longer the war goes on. 

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

This while we know that even a hastily raised Northern host in the WotFK, saw Robb lead 19500 Northmen into the Riverlands.

We have no idea who was more hasty between Ned and Robb when it came to raising the North's host, but I would imagine that Ned was more cautious when it came to leaving enough men to defend itself from the Ironborn. Robb had Theon, I don't think he ever saw them as a real threat. 

 

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

On 6/3/2018 at 1:26 AM, BigBoss1 said:

The Tyrells definitly would have problems as they have a lot of ambitious vassal houses related to the gardeners. The Tullys could go either way as i don't think there has ever been a united riverlands under a native ruler. 

Unmm, the Blackwoods were kings, as well as the backstabbing Brackens. The Justman Kings were half Blackwood/half Bracken, and the Mudds were Rivermen as well. There have been countless unified Riverland Kingdoms ruled by rivermen and actually its only in relatively recent history that the Riverlands was ruled by foriegn rulers. 

[Corvo the Crow]

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Unmm, the Blackwoods were kings, as well as the backstabbing Brackens. The Justman Kings were half Blackwood/half Bracken, and the Mudds were Rivermen as well. There have been countless unified Riverland Kingdoms ruled by rivermen and actually its only in relatively recent history that the Riverlands was ruled by foriegn rulers. 

None of these houses ever ruled more than a few centuries though and often they lost their power due to betrayal from their own vassals.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

21 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

None of these houses ever ruled more than a few centuries though and often they lost their power due to betrayal from their own vassals.

A few centuries.... You realize in actual history most dynasties/kingdoms lasted only that long right? Also, in Universe, the Targayens only ruled for a few centuries...

[Mordred]

On 6/1/2018 at 10:15 PM, BigBoss1 said:

Why didn't anyone think of dismembering westeros after the rebellion? I'm sure the north would have agreed to the idea and Dorne wouldn't be so pissed off as they would retain their lost Independence. The crownlands would be annexed by the stormlands and the riverlands would take the bay of claws. I figured that an united westeros was a Targaryen creation so Robert would feel satisfaction at destroying it. Anyways a Westeros with eight kingdoms would see many more wars than an united one.

Robert didn't want to break up the kingdom.  He wanted to rule the kingdom.  

[BigBoss1]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

Robert didn't want to break up the kingdom.  He wanted to rule the kingdom.  

But did he? Everythings in the books proves he hated ruling but loved war and whores why would he be content with something as tedious as ruling the seven kingdoms

[Ylath's Snout]

29 minutes ago, BigBoss1 said:

But did he? Everythings in the books proves he hated ruling but loved war and whores why would he be content with something as tedious as ruling the seven kingdoms

Obligation, he might have been happier as a sellsword but he and those around him wouldn't just let him run off after breaking a kingdom. Out of the major rebel leaders he is the only one that vaugle fit the bill:

Ned, from the cold end of the kingdom with weird gods and no real claim beyond conquest.

Arryn, likely had better skills but no good claim and his age/problems procreating would make for dynastic troubles.

Hoster, didn't join for the start, no claim and lacks the credibility of House Baratheon, Stark and Arryn.

Tywin, sure he might have done a good job but come-on he waited longer than the Late Lord Frey to get into the fighting.

Just like Dany is learning Robert was taught the lesson that "Conquering is easy, keeping a land is hard."

[Mordred]

On 6/4/2018 at 11:21 AM, BigBoss1 said:

But did he? Everythings in the books proves he hated ruling but loved war and whores why would he be content with something as tedious as ruling the seven kingdoms

I guess you don't believe in the Southron Conspiracy.  I do.