How did the rumor that Jon Snow’s mother was a fisherman’s daughter start?

[LindsayLohan]

1 hour ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

By Ned himself , travelling with the lovely Ashara  Dayne .

Any textual proof for this claim?

[Frey family reunion]

19 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Let me help you out here because you seem to be tying yourself in knots. The main argument that suggests Jon may be born before Robb rests on Martin's oft quoted remarks about the age difference between Jon and Dany. Dany being born nine moons after the flight to Dragonstone just before the sack, he says that the difference between the two is "eight or nine months or thereabouts." Which suggest that Jon is born about the time Dany is conceived or about a month to a month and a half later. It appears that Robb is born in October or mid-September at the earliest if you want of play with the timing and that would allow for Jon to be older. It also provides a damn good reason for Ned to lie about it if Jon's mother is Lyanna and his father is Rhaegar. If Jon's mother is Wylla and Ned is really Jon's father it doesn't matter a damn if he was born before or after Robb, and Ned has no reason to lie to Catelyn if he was conceived before the marriage. He fathered a bastard before they married? How is that a dishonoring of his marriage vows or a threat to Catelyn's children? It is not. It is a non-issue that a lie makes into a great issue. And lie he does if Jon is born before Robb. 

The idea that Jon is acknowledged before Robb is born is just nonsense.

It's obvious that Cat feels Jon is a threat to her children being able to inherit before hers.  The reason that she feels threatened by Jon, is that Ned acknowledged Jon, and brought him into Winterfell.  The danger was always that Ned could have had Robert legitimize Jon. 

And if Jon was legitimized then there is a real succession threat to Winterfell.  So for Cat, any issue dealing with Jon is a concern.  It's the reason Cat is so upset that Jon looks more like Ned than her sons do, there could always be a claim that it was Jon who was Ned's actual son, not Robb.  So against this backdrop it seems pretty easy to see why Cat would have a vested interest in everyone believing that Robb was born first, even if that meant that Eddard cheated on her after their marriage.

That's why I think Carbon's theory was such an eureka moment for me.  I've been in threads before that have debated the meaning behind what Eddard told Robert.  After all, it seems odd that Eddard would say that he dishonored Cat and himself in the "sight of gods and men".  Because an illicit affair is not something that occurs in the "sight of gods and men", at least not in the sight of men.  If you look at all the places in the text, that uses this phrase, it becomes clear that this phrase is a  public oath or affirmation.  

And for Eddard to say it in this context makes perfect sense.  Because despite the secrets he has to keep, Eddard doesn't like to lie, and he's not really very good at it.  That's probably one of the reasons he never tells Cat anything about Jon's mom, it prevents her from having to lie about the circumstances behind Jon's birth.  So when Eddard tells Cat:

Quote

“Never ask me about Jon,” he said, cold as ice. “He is my blood, and that is all you need to know.”

Eddard can end the discussion without having to lie about the circumstances of Jon's birth, because after all, Jon is related to Eddard.

When Robert makes Eddard tell him the name of Jon's mother, Eddard is forced to lie about it being Wylla.   But when Robert teases Eddard about how she caused him to forget his honor, Ned loses his cool and at this point probably responds truthfully, without giving away the circumstances of Jon's birth:

Quote

“Ned’s mouth tightened in anger. “Nor will I. Leave it be, Robert, for the love you say you bear me. I dishonored myself and I dishonored Catelyn, in the sight of gods and men.”

But what gives it away a bit, is Ned's use of the term in the sight of gods and men.  Eddard did not dishonor himself, or Cat by conceiving Jon, but he did voluntarily dishonor himself and Cat by acknowledging Jon.  And it was the acknowledgment that would have been done in the "sight of gods and men".  It would have been a public affirmation that Jon was Eddard's son. 

Which makes it all the more interesting that Eddard would have dishonored himself and Cat in the "sight of gods and men" while Cat was still carrying Ed's child.  

Now go back to the timeline.  If GRRM is lining up Jon's birth around the time of Dany's conception, than I think we're looking at the time between the Battle of the Bells and the Battle of the Trident.  Because when Dany was conceived, Jaime Lannister was standing guard with Jon Darry, who had yet to leave to fight the Battle of the Trident.

Then turn to this conversation between Robert and Eddard:

Quote

“The king touched her cheek, his fingers brushing across the rough stone as gently as if it were living flesh. “I vowed to kill Rhaegar for what he did to her.”

“You did,” Ned reminded him.”

So Robert seems to know what Rhaegar did to Lyanna before the Battle of the Trident.

And what Robert thinks Rhaegar did to Lyanna is to rape her:

Quote

“And Rhaegar … how many times do you think he raped your sister? How many hundreds of times?”

So why would Robert jump to the conclusion that Rhaegar raped Lyanna before the Battle of the Trident.  The only thing that really makes sense is that they knew about Lyanna's "circumstance" before the Battle of the Trident.  Which also explains this line:

Quote

“The Others take your honor!” Robert swore. “What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon’s honor!”
“You avenged Lyanna at the Trident,” Ned said, halting beside the king. ”

Interestingly enough there does not appear to be any talk of trying to rescue Lyanna at the time of the Trident.  Or even searching for Lyanna at King's Landing.  

 

 

[corbon]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

So why would Robert jump to the conclusion that Rhaegar raped Lyanna before the Battle of the Trident.  The only thing that really makes sense is that they knew about Lyanna's "circumstance" before the Battle of the Trident.  

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Robert claims Rhaegar 'fell on Lyanna' and raped her 100s of times. Its not necessary that there be a child for him to make that assumption.
Robert also believes that Rhaegar has Lyanna now, even in death. Deep down Robert knows that although his story is Rhaegar "fell on her" and "raped her 100s of times" that it was voluntary on Lyanna's part, and R+L were lovers, even if he won't admit it. Again, no child is necessary for this. Its the natural assumption for Robert after Rhaegar honoured her at Harrenhal then abducted her, that he 'wanted' her and 'took' her.
ETA: You don't 'carry off' a noble maiden and disappear together without having the hots for her...

I'm fairly sure Robert has no clue Lyanna ever had a child.
It would just be too coincidental, Lyanna being pregnant then Ned coming home with her bones and a baby...

[SFDanny]

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

It's obvious that Cat feels Jon is a threat to her children being able to inherit before hers.  The reason that she feels threatened by Jon, is that Ned acknowledged Jon, and brought him into Winterfell.  The danger was always that Ned could have had Robert legitimize Jon.

There was never any danger of  this and Cat knows it. First, place the discussion between Catelyn and Robb in context. Robert is dead. Ned is dead. She and Robb think Bran and Rickon are dead. They both don't know for sure, but they both think Ayra is dead as well. They both agree that Sansa, married as she is to Tyrion, cannot be allowed to inherit Winterfell. Catelyn even raises the question of distant relatives in the Vale that could be Robb's heir until he and Jeyne can have a child of their own. This is never about a fear for what Robert might do if Ned asked him because that ship had long ago sailed.

Also, Ned never raises this as a threat, and he makes it quite clear who his heir is - Robb. Nor is it likely Robert would tell Ned he would legitimize Jon even if he had asked him. There are bastards and then there are bastards. Children born out of wedlock, or on the wrong side of the blanket I think is the phrase that is used in the books, but of noble parents on both sides have a much greater social standing and acceptance than bastards conceived with commoners. Think of the difference between Edric Storm and Mya Stone. One is treated as acceptable for noble company the other is allowed to tend the mules. That Ned would have made such a request for Jon, who is believed to be born of a common woman chance met on campaign, would be looked at as shocking by Robert as well as the rest of his court. It would be looked at as shocking by most of the northern lords as well. The only thing that changes this last part at all is the obvious history of Ned treating Jon as his son. The fact Robb is now a king himself and the choice between Sansa and Tyrion controlling the North or Jon inheriting it from his beloved brother are what makes this possible.

What is clear in this conversation is that Cat threatens Robb with what Jon's descendants might do in some unspecified future after Robb and Jeyne have their own children. She is raising the old fear of bastards as untrustworthy and grasping. She is doing so because the idea of Jon inheriting is her personal nightmare come true. This has everything to do with her fear of Jon's mother's relationship to Ned. A cruel fear that Ned has fed with his silence, for whatever reasons good or bad, and what Cat sees as his abnormal relationship with his bastard son.

Catelyn has had to live her almost whole married life with Jon as a reminder that Ned may have loved someone else more than he does her. That is what is going on in this scene. Not a rational discussion of why Jon shouldn't be trusted to rule as Robb's heir if the worst takes place. It brings her fears that Ned's love was a lie front and center as she grabs for somehow to convince Robb that an unknown distant relative in the Vale is his best choice to carry on his legacy.

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

And if Jon was legitimized then there is a real succession threat to Winterfell.  So for Cat, any issue dealing with Jon is a concern.  It's the reason Cat is so upset that Jon looks more like Ned than her sons do, there could always be a claim that it was Jon who was Ned's actual son, not Robb.  So against this backdrop it seems pretty easy to see why Cat would have a vested interest in everyone believing that Robb was born first, even if that meant that Eddard cheated on her after their marriage.

If Jon is legitimized there is indeed a succession threat. Not between Jon and his heirs versus Robb's future children with Jeyne, or between Robb and Jon. The threat is if Sansa has any children and she or they claim Winterfell. But both Robb and Catelyn agree they can't have Sansa's claim prevail. Which is the entire reason for Robb's proposal to legitimize Jon.

As I've shown in the other thread, Catelyn's belief that Robb is the older of the two is not just some feigned ploy to give Robb an advantage. It is what she believes is true. I know that there is a lot of Catelyn hatred in the fandom, but Catelyn is anything but stupid. She hasn't lived the last fourteen plus years of her life seeing Jon celebrate his namday first every year and not put two and two together. She believes Robb is older than Jon and that can only be because that is how they have lived their lives. It is Robb who celebrates his nameday first, not Jon. That is only possible if that is not only what Catelyn believes, but what Ned tells the world, just as he tells Robert. Both things have to be true, even if Ned has lied about this.

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

That's why I think Carbon's theory was such an eureka moment for me.  I've been in threads before that have debated the meaning behind what Eddard told Robert.  After all, it seems odd that Eddard would say that he dishonored Cat and himself in the "sight of gods and men".  Because an illicit affair is not something that occurs in the "sight of gods and men", at least not in the sight of men.  If you look at all the places in the text, that uses this phrase, it becomes clear that this phrase is a  public oath or affirmation.

Please. The phrase "the sight of gods and men" as nothing to do with whether or not an affair is public or not. Some are and some are not. It has everything to do with the judgements of gods and men. As in Ned has dishonored himself and Catelyn by violating the laws and customs of the gods and of men by having a sexual affair outside his marriage. It's really that simple. But once again we have to ask ourselves if Ned is lying and why would he lie to Robert about a dishonorable act he did not commit.

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

And for Eddard to say it in this context makes perfect sense.  Because despite the secrets he has to keep, Eddard doesn't like to lie, and he's not really very good at it.  That's probably one of the reasons he never tells Cat anything about Jon's mom, it prevents her from having to lie about the circumstances behind Jon's birth.  So when Eddard tells Cat:

Eddard can end the discussion without having to lie about the circumstances of Jon's birth, because after all, Jon is related to Eddard.

When Robert makes Eddard tell him the name of Jon's mother, Eddard is forced to lie about it being Wylla.   But when Robert teases Eddard about how she caused him to forget his honor, Ned loses his cool and at this point probably responds truthfully, without giving away the circumstances of Jon's birth:

But what gives it away a bit, is Ned's use of the term in the sight of gods and men.  Eddard did not dishonor himself, or Cat by conceiving Jon, but he did voluntarily dishonor himself and Cat by acknowledging Jon.  And it was the acknowledgment that would have been done in the "sight of gods and men".  It would have been a public affirmation that Jon was Eddard's son. 

Which makes it all the more interesting that Eddard would have dishonored himself and Cat in the "sight of gods and men" while Cat was still carrying Ed's child.  

We will have to disagree about Ned's skills as a liar. I think he is excellent at it. He follows rule number one for great liars - don't lie when you don't have to. Yet he has his best friend saying he never could lie, even though we know he has lied to him for over a decade and a half. Ned hides his lies in silences and his feigned shame around an affair that never happened. He is very good at it. If the great scandal of Ned's life is a supposed affair he can hardly be dragged into discussing because it causes him so much shame, then the questions of lying to your king and best friend or treason isn't likely to come up. All of which are dishonorable in the "sight of gods and men."

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Now go back to the timeline.  If GRRM is lining up Jon's birth around the time of Dany's conception, than I think we're looking at the time between the Battle of the Bells and the Battle of the Trident.  Because when Dany was conceived, Jaime Lannister was standing guard with Jon Darry, who had yet to leave to fight the Battle of the Trident.

You're reading the text incorrectly. Dany's birth is "nine moons" after the flight to Dragonstone, not from the night she is conceived which is indeed before the Trident. Given Martin's "eight or nine months or thereabouts" difference in Dany's and Jon's name days, it is far more likely Jon's birth is from between the Battle of the Trident and the sack of King's Landing to a month to a month and a half after the sack. Not before the Trident and certainly nowhere near the Battle of the Bells. A nameday for Jon during the Battle of the Trident or before places the difference between Dany and Jon in the 10 plus month range.

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

IThen turn to this conversation between Robert and Eddard:

So Robert seems to know what Rhaegar did to Lyanna before the Battle of the Trident.

And what Robert thinks Rhaegar did to Lyanna is to rape her:

So why would Robert jump to the conclusion that Rhaegar raped Lyanna before the Battle of the Trident.  The only thing that really makes sense is that they knew about Lyanna's "circumstance" before the Battle of the Trident.  Which also explains this line:

Interestingly enough there does not appear to be any talk of trying to rescue Lyanna at the time of the Trident.  Or even searching for Lyanna at King's Landing.  

I'm at a loss to understand where you are going with this. Of course Robert knew about Lyanna's "circumstance" before the Trident. Lyanna was kidnapped in early 282 and is Rhaegar's company from that time until after the Battle of the Bells (very late 282 to early 283.) Robert assumes Rhaegar has been "raping" her for hundreds of times during this period. Of course, for Robert, "raping" looks to have more to do with Rhaegar having sex with a woman Robert "rightfully owns" rather than whether or not it was consensual.

As to a rescue of Lyanna, we simply don't know when, where, or how Ned finds out where Lyanna is. Somewhere between the sack of King's Landing and the lifting of the siege of Storm's End is likely when Ned finds out. That Robert doesn't know is very likely given he doesn't go charging off to the Tower of Joy to take hold of Lyanna and kill her "captors." Varys could have been the source, but then it begs the question of why he would only tell Ned and why if that was the case it wouldn't be reflected in Ned's interaction with him fifteen years later. My bet is that Ned learns the news at Storm's End from someone in the surrendering forces. Who there would know this information is an open question.

[cpg2016]

On 10/12/2018 at 6:17 PM, SFDanny said:

Oh, really? Ok, I'm willing to be educated. Tell me how you reach this conclusion?

No, Robb is conceived AFTER the Battle of the Bells. How do we know this for sure?

These are Cat's own private thoughts. She has no reason to lie about any of this. Ser Denys Arryn died at Stony Sept during the Battle of the Bells.

 So, first we have the Battle of the Bells where Jon Arryn's heir dies by the hand of Lord Jon Connington, then we have the dual wedding with Cat marrying Ned and Lysa marrying Jon Arryn, then we have a short honeymoon in which we have Robb conceived, and then we have Ned going off to war again, leaving Catelyn pregnant with Robb. Only then is it that Ned is supposed to have cheated on his new bride and soon to be mother of his first born child. This is the timing that is confirmed in the days Robb and Jon celebrate their namedays. It is confirmed by both Catelyn's private thoughts and in Ned's declaration of his shaming of Catelyn by cheating on his pregnant wife.

@cpg2016 this stuff is basic timeline 101. I see where @corbon is also trying to help you, so instead of going over and over already firmly established ground, let me leave it here for now. Perhaps we need to post a sticky thread on some of this as a resource to newer posters, but some of this is dealt with in the Citadel. I would recommend it.

Are you for real?  You are right, I was wrong about timing, but this actually supports my argument.  We're not arguing how old Catelyn thinks Jon is - we know she thinks he's a few weeks/months younger.  She has to for her own sanity.  But we know in reality he's older.  Even in-universe characters should have a suspicion, if they think the fisherman's daughter is the mother.

There is only one way in which I can be wrong about this (and I admit it's possible, I don't know the timeline down to the day), and that is if the Battle of the Bells occurs at least 8 months before the Tower of Joy, giving some lead time in there for early birth, etc.  We know when Jon is born, which means we know to within 9 months when he was conceived.  I have just seen this  timeline, and shows that that is the case (which is crazy) but also has some wonky things going on which we know are wrong, so I'm not sure.

Long story short, I could well be wrong.  But that puts some weird chronological mess into the timeline of the Rebellion, so who knows.

[SFDanny]

5 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Are you for real?

I believe so. 

5 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

You are right, I was wrong about timing, but this actually supports my argument. 

That's a good start. Acknowledging a mistake is always good. We all make them.

5 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

We're not arguing how old Catelyn thinks Jon is - we know she thinks he's a few weeks/months younger.  She has to for her own sanity.

Ahh ... but I was arguing how old Catelyn thinks Jon is. I made that fairly clear in the post you quoted and then you made some fairly bold assertions. Many that are just factually incorrect. Or my knowledge and experience in discussions on these questions over the last decade plus on these boards tell me they are incorrect. But, as I stated, I'm always ready to educated. Just back up your arguments.

5 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

But we know in reality he's older.  Even in-universe characters should have a suspicion, if they think the fisherman's daughter is the mother.

But we don't know in reality he's older. We have reason to believe it is possible that Jon is older. The best reason to suspect this is possible is Martin's remarks that the age difference between Jon and Dany is "eight or nine months or thereabouts" which would make it possible that Jon is older than Robb. It doesn't make it a sure thing that he is, but the range we are dealing with from this quote makes it possible that Jon is either older or younger than Robb. That's very important because it directly introduces a possibility  that contradicts the information in the books themselves.

You are right that with the introduction of Lord Godric's "fisherman's daughter" tale we have another bit of evidence that runs counter to the rest of the information in the books. This would make it certain, if true, that Jon is older than Robb. Is it your assertion that this story is true? If so, why do you believe it? I made my position very clear in my first post in this thread I believe it is not true and is in fact a cover story for what really happened. 

5 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

There is only one way in which I can be wrong about this (and I admit it's possible, I don't know the timeline down to the day), and that is if the Battle of the Bells occurs at least 8 months before the Tower of Joy, giving some lead time in there for early birth, etc.  We know when Jon is born, which means we know to within 9 months when he was conceived.  I have just seen this  timeline, and shows that that is the case (which is crazy) but also has some wonky things going on which we know are wrong, so I'm not sure.

Long story short, I could well be wrong.  But that puts some weird chronological mess into the timeline of the Rebellion, so who knows.

First, it is extremely possible that there is at least 8 months between the Battle of the Bells and the Tower of Joy. To my best estimate the Tower of Joy puts the fight at the Tower in early to mid October and the Battle of the Bells takes place in December of the previous year or January of 283. Second, we don't know when Jon was born. We only know that his nameday is celebrated after Bran's and Robb's and before Margaery's. We have some clues that might point to this being a false date for his nameday that could make him older.

But don't let the fact you don't "know the timeline down to the day" discourage you from investigating this stuff. NO ONE knows the timeline down to the day. If they tell you they do, they are lying.

[corbon]

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

There is only one way in which I can be wrong about this (and I admit it's possible, I don't know the timeline down to the day), and that is if the Battle of the Bells occurs at least 8 months before the Tower of Joy, giving some lead time in there for early birth, etc.  We know when Jon is born, which means we know to within 9 months when he was conceived.  I have just seen this  timeline, and shows that that is the case (which is crazy) but also has some wonky things going on which we know are wrong, so I'm not sure.

Long story short, I could well be wrong.  But that puts some weird chronological mess into the timeline of the Rebellion, so who knows.

Its not a weird chronological mess.
Lots of things happened quite quickly at the start of the Rebellion (with mostly relatively small armies I think), then there is a big gap, then things happen suddenly at the end.

But this fits in lots of ways.
We know the war lasted almost a year and Cat and Ned were apart for a year. We know that Robb was conceived almost immediately after they wed (Cat thinks on their wedding night actually), after the Battle of the Bells. Also, Robb and Jon are clearly close in age, since Jon is passed off as younger, and Jon is clearly born within a month or so of the end of the war. So Robb must also be born within a month or so of the end of the war, putting his conception 3-4 months into the war and BotBells is before that.

That also makes a fair bit of sense. It takes time for full armies to be mustered, and the Rebels also need time to clear their own areas of Targ loyalists and secure their logistics. They also need time to bring up their full armies, which take much longer to muster and train (see the 2nd D&E novella), then more time to march, to have any chance of taking KL.
The early battles are largely fought. I believe, with relatively small forces that consist mostly of the households of the many Lords under the great Lords that lead them. then after the BotBells, the Rebels need time to secure their territories and logistics, and bring up their full musters before they can move on KL. The Loyalists are secure in KL but need time to reform their army and complete their own musters (10,00 Dornish for example), not to mention boths sides trying to commit the Lannisters and Greyjoys no doubt.
When Rhaegar is ready, he marches on the rebels, not the other way round. Clearly they weren't ready to take on KL just yet, at least not without defeating the Loyalist main field army first.
Even then, the only way they got into KL was Tywin's treachery. 


 

[Khal Rhaego Targaryen]

I think it's Ashara Dayne disguised as the fisherman's daughter.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

11 hours ago, Nina DarkSister said:

I think it's Ashara Dayne disguised as the fisherman's daughter.

I think it was Euron in a wig.

[cpg2016]

On 10/15/2018 at 8:26 PM, corbon said:

Its not a weird chronological mess.
Lots of things happened quite quickly at the start of the Rebellion (with mostly relatively small armies I think), then there is a big gap, then things happen suddenly at the end.

Sure, but...

On 10/15/2018 at 8:26 PM, corbon said:

We know the war lasted almost a year and Cat and Ned were apart for a year. We know that Robb was conceived almost immediately after they wed (Cat thinks on their wedding night actually), after the Battle of the Bells. Also, Robb and Jon are clearly close in age, since Jon is passed off as younger, and Jon is clearly born within a month or so of the end of the war. So Robb must also be born within a month or so of the end of the war, putting his conception 3-4 months into the war and BotBells is before that.

The war starts with Ned in the Vale.  He needs to get home, muster troops, and march them south.  Even if you assume the North is organizing for war, it still requires him to march sail from Gulltown to White Harbor, link up with his armies, and then march them south.  I have a hard time believing that takes less than a couple of months, given the pace of the travel and logistics in feudal societies.  If it's a year from the Battle of Gulltown to the Sack of Kings Landing, it would either mean that Robert is fighting essentially a battle every couple of days in the South in the beginning of the war, while it takes 9 months from the Battle of the Bells til the Sack of Kings Landing.  In other words, it goes from impossibly rapid transit and battle to whole armies just chilling for months at a time.

On 10/15/2018 at 8:26 PM, corbon said:

That also makes a fair bit of sense. It takes time for full armies to be mustered, and the Rebels also need time to clear their own areas of Targ loyalists and secure their logistics. They also need time to bring up their full armies, which take much longer to muster and train (see the 2nd D&E novella), then more time to march, to have any chance of taking KL.

Agreed.  And yet, if we take this as a baseline assumption, it means that Ned Stark reaches Winterfell, calls his banners, has them march to Winterfell, and then marches southwards to reach Riverrun in a maximum of three months.  Because Robb was conceived right after the Battle of the Bells, and since he's born right after the war, which is a year long, it means that the Battle of the Bells was fought no less than nine months before the Sack of Kings Landing (give or take a couple weeks).

In other words, the Battle of Gulltown, the Battles at Summerhall, the Battle of Ashford, and the Battle of the Bells must take place within 3-4 months of the opening of the war.  And then 9 months or so elapse while, what?  Robert marches his already mustered army to the Trident, wins, and then "hurries" his vanguard south to Kings Landing.  This makes no sense, chronologically.  If you want to make the case that battles are tiring and people need rest, or that marching long distances with large numbers of men takes time, I accept that.  It makes it impossible for the pre-Battle of the Bells timeline to make sense.   Politically speaking, the time after the Battle of the Bells is when Robert should be hurrying, before the Dornish enter the fray or Storm's End succumbs.  Moreover, it can't be THAT long between Ned's marriage and the Trident, because Walder Frey arrives "close" to on time.  Honestly, it's probably just an issue with GRRMs plotting, but still. 

On 10/15/2018 at 8:26 PM, corbon said:

The early battles are largely fought. I believe, with relatively small forces that consist mostly of the households of the many Lords under the great Lords that lead them. then after the BotBells, the Rebels need time to secure their territories and logistics, and bring up their full musters before they can move on KL. The Loyalists are secure in KL but need time to reform their army and complete their own musters (10,00 Dornish for example), not to mention boths sides trying to commit the Lannisters and Greyjoys no doubt.

This is explicitly not true.  Perhaps the Battle of Gulltown and the Battles at Summerhall, but we know that Randyll Tarly is leading the "vanguard" of the Tyrell forces at Ashford, and that since Robert was forced to withdraw despite and inconclusive battle, it makes sense that the main force of the Tyrell's was not far behind.  Thus, we can assume that by the Battle of Ashford, most levies had been fully assembled.  

The Dornish are an exceptional case because Aerys doesn't actually call them up (or rather, they refuse to serve) until after the Battle of the Bells.  It's hard to imagine Doran has his full force mobilized and waiting despite being a non-participant to date, while the rebels have neglected this.

It's also pretty clear the royalist forces were not safe in Kings Landing.  A full quarter of the royalist forces at the Trident are Dornish, which means Robert has numerical superiority and would have the ability to raid and sack castles and towns in the Crownlands, with the Crown outnumbered and outsoldiered without reinforcements.

Look, maybe Jon is supposed to be younger than Robb.  If that's authorial intent, that's fine, but it means that the plotting and pacing of Robert's Rebellion is seriously fucked up in many places, in order for that to be true.  I understand if GRRM wasn't super focused on that, I'm just pointing out that logically, Jon should have been born well before Robb (like a matter of months, not years, obviously), and that GRRM is playing fast and loose with chronology and actual pace of travel to make that so.

[corbon]

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

In other words, the Battle of Gulltown, the Battles at Summerhall, the Battle of Ashford, and the Battle of the Bells must take place within 3-4 months of the opening of the war.  And then 9 months or so elapse while, what?  Robert marches his already mustered army to the Trident, wins, and then "hurries" his vanguard south to Kings Landing. 

No, not "already mustered armies", but the first, quickly gathered forces largely consisting of the household troops of various nobles. Probably in the high hundreds or low thousands at the most.

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

This makes no sense, chronologically.  If you want to make the case that battles are tiring and people need rest, or that marching long distances with large numbers of men takes time, I accept that.  It makes it impossible for the pre-Battle of the Bells timeline to make sense.   Politically speaking, the time after the Battle of the Bells is when Robert should be hurrying, before the Dornish enter the fray or Storm's End succumbs.  Moreover, it can't be THAT long between Ned's marriage and the Trident, because Walder Frey arrives "close" to on time.  Honestly, it's probably just an issue with GRRMs plotting, but still. 

I think its more productive to try an understand a way that makes sense with GRRMs plotting, than just decide he's screwed it up terribly.

The Rebels (Robert) can't hurry then (and look what Robert's hurry already got him). The forces at hand for the rebels are just too small. They don't have the strength to take KL, and they don't have the logistics secured to move large bodies of troops anyway. They still have to deal with the internal loyalists to secure logistics, and wait for their musters to arrive before they have the numbers

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

This is explicitly not true.  Perhaps the Battle of Gulltown and the Battles at Summerhall, but we know that Randyll Tarly is leading the "vanguard" of the Tyrell forces at Ashford, and that since Robert was forced to withdraw despite and inconclusive battle, it makes sense that the main force of the Tyrell's was not far behind.  Thus, we can assume that by the Battle of Ashford, most levies had been fully assembled.  

No, we can't assume that.
We've seen in the current war that the Reach has vastly more "knights" and the like than other areas. Its also a better area for mustering and logistics. I would suggest that Robert's forces were still not fully mustered, but he aggressively went with what he had once he learned of the Tyrell advance.

The Tyrell forces could well easily outnumber Roberts without being fully mustered, even just their van. They don't have the issue of Lords choosing between High Lord and King, or even just being deliberately slow to muster as they see how things pan out, so they can raise a higher percentage of their greater forces faster.

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

It's also pretty clear the royalist forces were not safe in Kings Landing.  A full quarter of the royalist forces at the Trident are Dornish, which means Robert has numerical superiority and would have the ability to raid and sack castles and towns in the Crownlands, with the Crown outnumbered and outsoldiered without reinforcements.

I don't think your analysis is sound here. I prefer to match the analysis to what did happen, not what I think should have happened.

Not only do the rebels need to secure their rear/logistics from the many loyalists we are told there were scattered throughout their lands, and bring their full musters up, which they clearly couldn't have done so for the first phase of the war, but even then, it still wasn;t them that moved next, it was Rhaegar.

Clearly the Rebels didn't have the forces to take KL, or they would have tried - doing so ends the war after all - and they didn't try. Apparently raiding the crownlands wasn't a good option. I rather think the threat of a Westlands army in their rear as they tried, might have been a significant part of that. 
I think they underestimated the effect the Battle of the Bells had, and were uncertain of Westlands, Ironborn and Dornish intentions, and were stuck without a good strategic option.
We saw Robb in a similar circumstance, except he outwitted Tywin and struck west, laying a trap (trying to). But then, his main enemy was the Lannisters. Ned and Robert's was the Targaryen's in KL, with the Lannisters not yet declared.

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

Look, maybe Jon is supposed to be younger than Robb.  If that's authorial intent, that's fine, but it means that the plotting and pacing of Robert's Rebellion is seriously fucked up in many places, in order for that to be true.  I understand if GRRM wasn't super focused on that, I'm just pointing out that logically, Jon should have been born well before Robb (like a matter of months, not years, obviously), and that GRRM is playing fast and loose with chronology and actual pace of travel to make that so.

I agree that GRRM has played fast and loose with the pacing and chronology in a few places - thats why he's warned us not to pay too close attention to this stuff. But I also think that there are ways of understanding that its not quite so bad as you make out.
I also think that its very clear that Jon and Robb were born relatively close together, not multiple months apart, within the narrative, and fiddling with the story areas GRRM has admitted are weak in order to prove differently is not a wise route.