Battle of Bells

[Hugorfonics]

I felt bad about hijacking the small questions thread. So the discussions about the timing of Battle of the Bells in its relation to the marriage of the two Tullys. Referenced here in this confusing, possible typo, twoiaf quote

Quote

The victory sealed the entry of the riverlands into the conflict, following the marriage of Lord Tully's daughters to Lords Arryn and Stark.

@frenin

Quote

I've already answered the Bell's thing.

That Roberts life was in peril? Hes a big guy, he can handle himself. Marrying Catelyn was Neds duty, so he married her. Perhaps the strains that Robert likely was facing was why Ned was so aloof to Catelyn when they first met.

@corbon

Quote

It may be less than nine months between weddings and trident, we need to give plenty of wiggle room.  Robb was born 9 months after the wedding, while Ned was away in the south - so after the Sack most likely, but within a few months of it.

I think it can be pretty much anytime. More or less. All we really know is Sansa is two years younger then Robb, so they have to meet up eventually.

Quote

The weddings happened shortly after the Bells. They (Lysa's at least) were "hastily arranged" (Cat I ASoS). And arranged specifically (Lysa's) because Jon Arryn's heir died in the BotBells and he had no remaining options for a new one expect make a baby.

That wasn’t the specific reason, war was afoot and Hoster made sure hed get his spoils.

 

“Lysa was the price Jon Arryn had to pay for the swords and spears of House Tully." (Cat I asos)

 

And as Petyr tells us

 

Ser Denys left his pregnant Waynwood wife to ride to war. He died during the Battle of the Bells, of an excess of gallantry and an axe. When they told his lady of his death she perished of grief, and her newborn son soon followed. No matter. Jon Arryn had gotten himself a young wife during the war, one he had reason to believe fertile. (Alayne ii affc)

 

As we see Denys, had an heir of his own already. By the time the baby passed Jon was already married. The Bells were not the reason Jon married Lysa

Quote

Sure. And it would have taken months and months to get it set up. Thousands of jars were used and the making of it was much slower than in Tyrion's day, when the return of the dragons seemed to have a magical effect.

Sure, agreed.

Quote

It was, for him.
Word of 'god' doesn't count as word of 'god' from out of a character's mouth, because then its afflicted with the character's own perceptions and biases.

True, but Griff is a seasoned commander, I trust his military mind, as biased as it is. And the way he sees it, its monumental for way more then just him

 

The bells tolled for all of us that day. For Aerys and his queen, for Elia of Dorne and her little daughter, for every true man and honest woman in the Seven Kingdoms. And for my silver prince

Quote

Fair enough. I don't agree, but fair enough.
I'd perhaps compare it more to Granicus. The rebels (Alexander) won a significant battle, putting the Royalists (Persian Empire) on notice that this shit was serious, and it took greater battle(s) later, to actually decide the outcome

Fair enough

Quote

- and if Darius had won Gaugamela and killed Alexander, he would have won the war, just as Rhaegar would have if he'd won at the Trident and killed or captured Robert, I think.

(or JonC at the Bells) Interesting, I don’t. Is Aerys still asking JonA for Neds head? I don’t see Eddard stepping down. Mad Kings got kids, Roberts got younger brothers. JonA coulda made it work

Quote

.We have two incompatible scenarios.
One is one sentence alone, the other is referenced in multiple ways and relevant in several minor plot points. 
Its likely that the one sentence version is a minor error.

I see no absolute reasons why the Bells cant happen before the marriage, thusly im hesitant to chalk it up as a typo in an almost 6 year old book

Quote

You are free to think that. But Griff has a different way of speaking than you (and I) do - less lols and mad sailings and whatevers and stuff.
 

Lol, whatever. Lol

Quote

What '17 years have come and gone' means is that literally the 17th anniversary has past already. If the 18th anniversary had past we'd expect him to say 18 years have come and gone, so we expect that the 18th anniversary has not come and gone. 
Yes, it might be also appropriate to say 'more than 17 years' , or 'nearly 18 years'  or some other phrase, but GRRM gets to choose what he uses to say what he means.

True. I think he likes it ambiguous

[frenin]

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

That Roberts life was in peril? Hes a big guy, he can handle himself. Marrying Catelyn was Neds duty, so he married her. Perhaps the strains that Robert likely was facing was why Ned was so aloof to Catelyn when they first met.

He was a big wounded guy who was being hunted down by a big scary army and was completely alone, whereas one can say that Ned and Cat said the vows spent a night and Ned marched the day after, Ned would simply not wait 14 days to march.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The bells tolled for all of us that day. For Aerys and his queen, for Elia of Dorne and her little daughter, for every true man and honest woman in the Seven Kingdoms. And for my silver prince

 

Because Robert got to live and got to finish them off but Robert's army could've been defeated at the trident. The Tyrells could've sent a lot of troops etc etc etc.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

That Roberts life was in peril? Hes a big guy, he can handle himself. Marrying Catelyn was Neds duty, so he married her. Perhaps the strains that Robert likely was facing was why Ned was so aloof to Catelyn when they first met.

I don't that the war would have ended with Robert's death either, Ned, Jon Arryn and Hoster would be alive, with little reason to back down and hating the royalists more thn ever, they would just rally around other figure and keep the fighting,

 

 

 

 

[corbon]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

I think it can be pretty much anytime. More or less. All we really know is Sansa is two years younger then Robb, so they have to meet up eventually.

Cat says she and Ned spent the first year of their marriage apart.

Ned had a new wife and new child, and land (the north - one that he'd been away from for over a year, to put in order and govern. He had important things to do in the south after accepting the surrender of the Tyrells, but it is extremely unlikely, given Ned's character and demonstrated leadership style, that he would neglect those things any longer than he had too.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

That wasn’t the specific reason, war was afoot and Hoster made sure hed get his spoils.

“Lysa was the price Jon Arryn had to pay for the swords and spears of House Tully." (Cat I asos)

Thats not incompatible with a wedding after the BotBs. 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

And as Petyr tells us

 

Ser Denys left his pregnant Waynwood wife to ride to war. He died during the Battle of the Bells, of an excess of gallantry and an axe. When they told his lady of his death she perished of grief, and her newborn son soon followed. No matter. Jon Arryn had gotten himself a young wife during the war, one he had reason to believe fertile. (Alayne ii affc)

 

As we see Denys, had an heir of his own already. By the time the baby passed Jon was already married. The Bells were not the reason Jon married Lysa

No, but the lack of an heir was. Explicitly.

Ser Denys was already a dubious option, being from a distant branch. He was barely acceptable due to having the name and marrying Jon's nearest relative, a niece. It was a workable solution because beside the name, Denys was of age, had the right skills and was popular - "handsome gallant, brimming with courtesy and a reknown jouster".
Denys' baby is far less acceptable. At that point Jon needs a better heir, as is explicit in the text.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

True, but Griff is a seasoned commander, I trust his military mind, as biased as it is. And the way he sees it, its monumental for way more then just him

He wasn't then. 

Quote

Ser Kevan wished that he could share his certainty. He had known Jon Connington, slightly—a proud youth, the most headstrong of the gaggle of young lordlings who had gathered around Prince Rhaegar Targaryen, competing for his royal favor. Arrogant, but able and energetic. That, and his skill at arms, was why Mad King Aerys had named him Hand

Able, yes. But proud headstrong and arrogant. Such a character would see his own defeat as the most important factor of the war.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

(or JonC at the Bells) Interesting, I don’t. Is Aerys still asking JonA for Neds head? I don’t see Eddard stepping down. Mad Kings got kids, Roberts got younger brothers. JonA coulda made it work

Based partly on Rhaegar's words to Jaime as he was leaving, I think if Rhaegar had won at the Trident (I'm talking Granicus for Bells, Gaugamela for Trident) than he would have had the power to make peace, and the will to over-rule Aerys. And I think Ned could have been reasoned with, and Jon. Robert's irrational hatred would be the one stumbling block on the rebels side, and if Rhaegar has just captured or killed him and beaten his army....

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

I see no absolute reasons why the Bells cant happen before the marriage, thusly im hesitant to chalk it up as a typo in an almost 6 year old book

Because we are explicitly told that Jon Arryn's marriage to Lysa was hastily arranged (unlike Ned's to Cat), that Jon Arryn needed an heir, that before the battle Jon Arryn had an heir that was workable and we can see that after the battle he does not. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

I don't that the war would have ended with Robert's death either, Ned, Jon Arryn and Hoster would be alive, with little reason to back down and hating the royalists more thn ever, they would just rally around other figure and keep the fighting,

At the Bells, no, I agree. Aerys is still in charge with nothing in the way of his paranoia and madness.
After the Trident? I think Rhaegar could have, and indicates to Jaime that he would have, kept Aerys in check. Ned isn't a hater, Hoster has no reason to hate, and Jon doesn't strike me as a blind hater or an unreasonable man. Peace after a royalist win at the Trident IMO would have been very attainable if you take Aerys and Robert out of the picture - assuming Rhaegar's intent is peace and he offers reasonable terms.

[frenin]

47 minutes ago, corbon said:

After the Trident? I think Rhaegar could have, and indicates to Jaime that he would have, kept Aerys in check.

I don't really think he could've unless some heads were falling and done highlords were wearing the black.

 

47 minutes ago, corbon said:

Ned isn't a hater,

He certainly was enough of a hater to break ties with the Targaryens and being "radicalized" in Martin's words. And he certainly wants the Lannisters destroyed and ditto with Jorah.

Ned having cool off 15 years after the facts says little to nothing to us about what was going on his head then.

 

47 minutes ago, corbon said:

Hoster has no reason to hate

True, but as long as the rebels have a fighting chance and both Ned and Jon don't give up, he doesn't have many reasons to back down.

 

47 minutes ago, corbon said:

and Jon doesn't strike me as a blind hater or an unreasonable man

He certainly loved those two enough to go to war for them, i find odd that he would be in more forgiving mood after someone he considered as his son was killed. That without retelling the rest.

 

47 minutes ago, corbon said:

Peace after a royalist win at the Trident IMO would have been very attainable if you take Aerys and Robert out of the picture - assuming Rhaegar's intent is peace and he offers reasonable terms.

I don't really see that, why exactly?? The rebels were fighting all the Targs by that point, the trio's bond was likely at its highest point, so them just nodding at Robert's death and going home seems very far fetched. The rebels didn't crown Robert just because Robert hated Rhaegar, his hatred for the Targs wasn't known then, the other rebel leaders would have to heavily dislike the Targs and its rule for them to completely renounce their allegiance.

Unless ofc the rebels were completely destroyed , then all bets are off and even then, the Black is likelier than a pardon since it's close to impossible that Rhaegar could even win their love during their lifetimes, better to strike a deal with the next in line. A newborn Robb or Benjen, a one year old Arryn, Stannis or a 7 year old Renly seem a better option that the bitter Ned and Jon Arryn.

[corbon]

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

He certainly was enough of a hater to break ties with the Targaryens and being "radicalized" in Martin's words.

Thats clearly not true. We've been inside his head. He shows no sign of mindless, or even mind-ful, Targ-hate.
Breaking ties does not equate with mindless hate.

Do you have the full quote and context around it for GRRM saying that?
I rather expect what GRRM was meaning was that Aerys' acts forced Ned into the 'radical' act of armed rebellion, not that Aerys' turned Ned into a mindless hater.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

And he certainly wants the Lannisters destroyed and ditto with Jorah.

So much that he's coexisted with them and even let them accrue power for 15 years...
He doesn't like or trust the Lannisters, but he has not been aiming to destroy them. Even after he is convinced of their absolute betrayal of Robert, he still offers Cersei to leave and take her kids. He just wants them out of power, not personally destroyed.

He didn't do anything to 'destroy' Jorah. He just applied the law, as was his responsibility. Jorah fled his reach, and that was the end of it. 

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Ned having cool off 15 years after the facts says little to nothing to us about what was going on his head then.

Robert tells us Ned was always the way he is now.
His characterisation as the quiet wolf, not having the wild blood of his sister and older brother, also tells us something about who he was/is, then and now.
There is no evidence that Ned was different back then than he is now.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

True, but as long as the rebels have a fighting chance and both Ned and Jon don't give up, he doesn't have many reasons to back down.

Sure he does. Peace is better for everyone, if the conditions are acceptable. His family and his people are no longer at risk - and much of the war, as always, is fought over his territory! And will be again if he's just lost at the Trident.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

He certainly loved those two enough to go to war for them, i find odd that he would be in more forgiving mood after someone he considered as his son was killed. That without retelling the rest.

Its not a question of forgiving though, is it? If Rhaegar has just beaten them, then he holds all the cards. And if he offers decent terms and shows them he can back them up (which means contain Aerys) then what exactly are they fighting for?

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't really see that, why exactly?? The rebels were fighting all the Targs by that point, the trio's bond was likely at its highest point, so them just nodding at Robert's death and going home seems very far fetched.

Its not 'just nodding' is it?
They've just lost the major battle (that is the premise, remember - Rhaegar has defeated the rebels at the Trident and captured or killed Robert) with the bulk, if not all, of their power. They don't have armies or manpower in reserve (the royalists do - the Tyrells and probably Tywin). They haven't faced the Reach yet. Tywin hasn't committed to them and likely won't now, will likely even commit against them.
Ned could retreat to the Neck, Jon to the Vale, but Hoster is completely vulnerable and neither the Vale nor the North want to fight the rest of westeros alone, defensively, with no positive end seemingly attainable, unless they have to for survival. 
It must also be remembered that many of their own vassal Lords sided with the Royalists initially. And likely would again if the rebels suffered a major defeat.
If Rhaegar offers them decent terms, and shows them he can contain Aerys somehow, then what choice do they have? What are they actually fighting for?

 

[frenin]

52 minutes ago, corbon said:

Thats clearly not true. We've been inside his head. He shows no sign of mindless, or even mind-ful, Targ-hate.
Breaking ties does not equate with mindless hate.

That's Ned having 15 years to cool off, nor i said that Ned was a "mindless hater" i said that Ned hated the Targs enough to completely break with them.

And he certainly had to have enough grudges to decide to oust the Targ dynasty completely.

 

52 minutes ago, corbon said:

Do you have the full quote and context around it for GRRM saying that?
I rather expect what GRRM was meaning was that Aerys' acts forced Ned into the 'radical' act of armed rebellion, not that Aerys' turned Ned into a mindless hater.

Again, not mindless hater.  

 

 

52 minutes ago, corbon said:

So much that he's coexisted with them and even let them accrue power for 15 years...

What option did he have but coexisting with them?? How could he change the fact that Robert gave them power?? Are you arguing that Ned doesn't hayes the Lannisters nor wants them destroyed??

 

 

52 minutes ago, corbon said:

He doesn't like or trust the Lannisters, but he has not been aiming to destroy them. Even after he is convinced of their absolute betrayal of Robert, he still offers Cersei to leave and take her kids. He just wants them out of power, not personally destroyed.

You' re indeed.

 

Quote

This was the boy he had grown up with, he thought; this was the Robert Baratheon he'd known and loved. If he could prove that the Lannisters were behind the attack on Bran, prove that they had murdered Jon Arryn, this man would listen. Then Cersei would fall, and the Kingslayer with her, and if Lord Tywin dared to rouse the west, Robert would smash him as he had smashed Rhaegar Targaryen on the Trident. He could see it all so clearly.

He wants them destroyed, the only reason he offes Cersei the chance to leave are the children.

 

 

52 minutes ago, corbon said:

He didn't do anything to 'destroy' Jorah. He just applied the law, as was his responsibility. Jorah fled his reach, and that was the end of it. 

 

Quote

"Do you remember Ser Jorah Mormont?"
"Would that I might forget him," Ned said bluntly. The Mormonts of Bear Island were an old house, proud and honorable, but their lands were cold and distant and poor. Ser Jorah had tried to swell the family coffers by selling some poachers to a Tyroshi slaver. As the Mormonts were bannermen to the Starks, his crime had dishonored the north. Ned had made the long journey west to Bear Island, only to find when he arrived that Jorah had taken ship beyond the reach of Ice and the king's justice. Five years had passed since then.
"Ser Jorah is now in Pentos, anxious to earn a royal pardon that would allow him to return from exile," Robert explained. "Lord Varys makes good use of him.""So the slaver has become a spy," Ned said with distaste. He handed the letter back. "I would rather he become a corpse."
"Varys tells me that spies are more useful than corpses," Robert said. "Jorah aside, what do you make of his report?"

 

He wants him dead and still hates the fact that he isn't dead.

 

52 minutes ago, corbon said:

Robert tells us Ned was always the way he is now.

Regarding women yes.

 

52 minutes ago, corbon said:

His characterisation as the quiet wolf, not having the wild blood of his sister and older brother, also tells us something about who he was/is, then and now.
There is no evidence that Ned was different back then than he is now.

What has the fact that Ned does not have "the wolf blood" with the statement that Ned hated people back in the day and time has cooled off said hatred??

Are quiet people unable to feel rage and hate and also unable to let things go??

 

52 minutes ago, corbon said:

Sure he does. Peace is better for everyone, if the conditions are acceptable. His family and his people are no longer at risk - and much of the war, as always, is fought over his territory! And will be again if he's just lost at the Trident.

If peace was better for everyone, he shouldn't have entered in the war at all and once his daughter are married to the rebels he doesn't have many choices.

Peace is better for everyone that is true, but rebel peace is certainly better for him.

 

 

52 minutes ago, corbon said:

His characterisation as the quiet wolf, not having the wild blood of his sister and older brother, also tells us something about who he was/is, then and now.
There is no evidence that Ned was different back then than he is now.

Beateing them doesn't mean that the rebels are hopeless without options, just as beating Robert in Ashford or having killed Robert at the Bells wouldn't have ended the conflict.  What is holding them to just march home and just secede?? Invading the North and the Vale, even spent sounds like a pain in the ass.

They would be fighting for the same thing they were fighting at the Trident, ousting the Targs.

52 minutes ago, corbon said:

They've just lost the major battle

But the Trident wasn't a major battle until Rhaegar died and the loyalists became pretty much leaderless after the deaths of Darry, Lewyn and soon enough Barri B. 

Unless the rebels were crushed beyond reason, the Trident would not be a major battle and the war would just continue.

 

52 minutes ago, corbon said:

(that is the premise, remember - Rhaegar has defeated the rebels at the Trident and captured or killed Robert) with the bulk, if not all, of their power. They don't have armies or manpower in reserve (the royalists do - the Tyrells and probably Tywin). They haven't faced the Reach yet. Tywin hasn't committed to them and likely won't now, will likely even commit against them.

If the question is that Rhaegar just beats the rebels into submission, then Robert's death or capture is simply irrelevant, even if Robert is free and healthy he is not going to fight without an army. Why is Robert's hatred a problem if Robert has no army to be a problem?? If the argument is, no matter how they felt they would be poweless to do anything...

 

52 minutes ago, corbon said:

Ned could retreat to the Neck, Jon to the Vale, but Hoster is completely vulnerable and neither the Vale nor the North want to fight the rest of westeros alone, defensively, with no positive end seemingly attainable, unless they have to for survival. 
It must also be remembered that many of their own vassal Lords sided with the Royalists initially. And likely would again if the rebels suffered a major defeat.

Only two of, or one and the Lyn just happened to be fostered there, turned against the Arryns and the North completely fall in line behind Ned, if Ned and Jon decide to resist, subduing them would be as easy as taking and holding Dorne.

But sure, if the rebels are completely powerless, all bets are off.

 

52 minutes ago, corbon said:

If Rhaegar offers them decent terms, and shows them he can contain Aerys somehow, then what choice do they have? What are they actually fighting for?

Oust the Targs, Aerys and or Rhaegar had been the problem, Viserys and or Aegon would've been kings.

[corbon]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

That's Ned having 15 years to cool off, nor i said that Ned was a "mindless hater" i said that Ned hated the Targs enough to completely break with them.

Where is the evidence for hate?
If he wanted to keep his head, he had to break. Hate is a whole other thing.
Robert demonstrates hate, Ned doesn't now and there is no evidence he did then.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

And he certainly had to have enough grudges to decide to oust the Targ dynasty completely.

Maybe he did have reasons, but that doesn't mean its who he was. He was disgusted and enraged by Robert's acceptance of Tywin's treatment of the baby Targs. Ousting their dynasty from power is not the same thing as hating them.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

What option did he have but coexisting with them?? How could he change the fact that Robert gave them power?? Are you arguing that Ned doesn't hayes the Lannisters nor wants them destroyed??

Yes.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

He wants them destroyed, the only reason he offes Cersei the chance to leave are the children.

He wants them out of power, thats not the same as destroying them (though in their mind it means the same thing).

1 hour ago, frenin said:

He wants him dead and still hates the fact that he isn't dead.

The quote doesn't show that.
He despises him, as a slaver and now a spy, and thinks the world would be better off without Jorah than with it in, but there is no indication of hate there.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Regarding women yes.

Regarding honour, regarding 'fun', regarding drunkeness. Its not explicitly tied to just women, but to his attitudes in general vs Robert's.

Its up to you to show any change. you can't.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

What has the fact that Ned does not have "the wolf blood" with the statement that Ned hated people back in the day and time has cooled off said hatred??

Are quiet people unable to feel rage and hate and also unable to let things go??

Not unable, no. But it shows his character then was much as his character now. If you want to posit changes from then to now you need to show some evidence.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Beateing them doesn't mean that the rebels are hopeless without options, just as beating Robert in Ashford or having killed Robert at the Bells wouldn't have ended the conflict.  What is holding them to just march home and just secede?? Invading the North and the Vale, even spent sounds like a pain in the ass.

Not without options, necessarily, but without many options and without good ones. They've just been beaten with their full forces and they haven't even faced the Reach yet, nor the uncommitted West. And Rhaegar has his army and has beaten them.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

They would be fighting for the same thing they were fighting at the Trident, ousting the Targs.

Is that what was important? 
Ousting Aerys was, sure. Ending the abuses of power etc. And Robert was irrational about all Targs. Where is the evidence Ned was, or Jon, or Hoster?
What about Lyanna? Rhaegar still had her at that stage. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

But the Trident wasn't a major battle until Rhaegar died

Sure it was. It was substantially larger than any of the earlier battles and involved virtually all of the rebel forces.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

and the loyalists became pretty much leaderless after the deaths of Darry, Lewyn and soon enough Barri B. 

The posit here is that Rhaegar won. The loyalists are far from leaderless.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Oust the Targs, Aerys and or Rhaegar had been the problem, Viserys and or Aegon would've been kings.

Is there any evidence Rhaegar was actually a problem for anyone except Robert and Brandon?

No. 

[frenin]

9 hours ago, corbon said:

Where is the evidence for hate?
If he wanted to keep his head, he had to break. Hate is a whole other thing.
Robert demonstrates hate, Ned doesn't now and there is no evidence he did then.

Where is the evidence that he hated Aerys then?? 

Why is a whole other thing?? Hatred doesn't mean that you can't break, Doran did, he still hates.

Robert demonstrates hates now, Ned doesn't and it's surprised and worried that his hatred is still fresh 15 years later but we know that Ned disliked the Targs enough to agree to oust them, you can call that emotion what you like, it's not positive.

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

Maybe he did have reasons, but that doesn't mean its who he was. He was disgusted and enraged by Robert's acceptance of Tywin's treatment of the baby Targs. Ousting their dynasty from power is not the same thing as hating them.

??? Doran is also disgusted and enraged with Myrcella's fate and he does want to oust and destroy the Lannisters. 

Wanting to oust a dynasty is the same as having deeply personal grudges against them, that doesn't mean you want to kill innocent children.

 

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

He wants them out of power, thats not the same as destroying them (though in their mind it means the same thing).

The wording is clear, if Ned proves their treason they would fall, and that's a pretty obvious euphemism for death. And je pretty much enjoyes the idea of Tywin being smashed as Rhaegar was, that doesn't sound very peaceful.

 

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

The quote doesn't show that.
He despises him, as a slaver and now a spy, and thinks the world would be better off without Jorah than with it in, but there is no indication of hate there.

The quote does show that.

: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury

b: extreme dislike or disgust : ANTIPATHY, LOATHINGhad a great hate of hard work

 

Which Ned has.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

Regarding honour, regarding 'fun', regarding drunkeness. Its not explicitly tied to just women, but to his attitudes in general vs Robert's.

Its up to you to show any change. you can't.

There is no need for change, because last time i noticed, quiet people aren't unable of feeling hatred, distaste, anger or rage. So the idea that Ned would feel differently because he is quiet is absurd.

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

Not unable, no. But it shows his character then was much as his character now. If you want to posit changes from then to now you need to show some evidence.

Again, there is no correlation between feeling anger or hatred and being quiet and Ned does feel anger and argues a lot with Robert, both then and now, he still expresses hatred against Tywin and Jorah etc.

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

Regarding honour, regarding 'fun', regarding drunkeness. Its not explicitly tied to just women, but to his attitudes in general vs Robert's.

Its up to you to show any change. you can't.

Unless they were spent they could have kept the fight going on and the Reach was still auto trapped in the Stormlands.

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

Is that what was important? 

Sure it was, otherwise they would not have been ousted.

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

Ousting Aerys was, sure. Ending the abuses of power etc. And Robert was irrational about all Targs. Where is the evidence Ned was, or Jon, or Hoster?

Do you think that Robert happened to take the throne by accident?? Because if your answer is no, the rest of the rebels were on board with the idea, if said idea didn't start with them and judging Robert's words it very well have.

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

What about Lyanna? Rhaegar still had her at that stage. 

What about Sansa?? What about Arya?? What about Jaime?? Their familes went to war regardless of them being hostages, in fact Lyanna herself was not a deterrent to the rebels either.

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

Sure it was. It was substantially larger than any of the earlier battles and involved virtually all of the rebel forces.

No it wasn't.

We don't know the forces at the Bells, we don't know if the rebels had all their troops with them.

 

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

Ousting Aerys was, sure. Ending the abuses of power etc. And Robert was irrational about all Targs. Where is the evidence Ned was, or Jon, or Hoster?

Someone to rally them?? Sure, a true leader in battle is trickier.

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

Is there any evidence Rhaegar was actually a problem for anyone except Robert and Brandon?

No. 

Yep, that the rebels decide to oust the Targaryen dynasty.  Not dethrone Aerys and crown Rhaegar, not kill both Rhaegar and Aerys and be regents fot the children but ending the dynasty altogether. 

Robert was one of the three rebel leaders and the one with the less troops overall, if Ned and Jon didn't agree with the idea of crowning Robert, again assuming that said idea didn't start with one of them, then a Targ would've followed Aerys, Ned has no problem to makd his voice heard and Robert can't force his will on them. The three agreed that the Targs had to go, so whatever you think the non Robert rebel leaders felt about him, one thing was clear, they didn't want him to rule over them and that wouldn't suddenly change with Robert dead, it would intensify actually, or with them defeated, that wouldn't even change with then defeated into submission, what it'd change is their capacity of response.

Again, you're free to call it however you like, Rhaegar was not an  option, good or otherwise, for the rebels.

[corbon]

57 minutes ago, frenin said:

Where is the evidence that he hated Aerys then?? 

There isn't any. Ned seems more pitying than hating of Aerys.

Quote

Ned did not need Littlefinger to tell him that. He was thinking back to the day Arya had been found, to the look on the queen's face when she said, We have a wolf, so soft and quiet. He was thinking of the boy Mycah, of Jon Arryn's sudden death, of Bran's fall, of old mad Aerys Targaryen dying on the floor of his throne room while his life's blood dried on a gilded blade. "My lady," he said, turning to Catelyn, "there is nothing more you can do here. I want you to return to Winterfell at once. If there was one assassin, there could be others. Whoever ordered Bran's death will learn soon enough that the boy still lives."

 

57 minutes ago, frenin said:

Why is a whole other thing?? Hatred doesn't mean that you can't break, Doran did, he still hates.

Thats the opposite way of looking at it to what we are talking though. Sure, hatred can mean break,, like Robert, or not break, like Doran.
the poin is nwhy did Ned break? No evidence of hate. He broke because he had two choices - rebel or send his head.

57 minutes ago, frenin said:

Robert demonstrates hates now, Ned doesn't and it's surprised and worried that his hatred is still fresh 15 years later but we know that Ned disliked the Targs enough to agree to oust them, you can call that emotion what you like, it's not positive.

I didn't call it positive. I didn't even assign it as an emotion. Its not, its a decision. Emotion may or may not be behind the decision, but that needs to be addressed as its own thing, not tied as tightly as you want to. 

Separating decision making from feelings is one of the marks of a responsible adult (heck, a responsible pre-adult even). Ned was not a 3 year old, to make all his decisions based solely on his current mood. Heck, thats a large part of the problem with Aerys!
In Ned's case there is no evidence then or now that the decision was emotionally driven, by hate.

57 minutes ago, frenin said:

??? Doran is also disgusted and enraged with Myrcella's fate and he does want to oust and destroy the Lannisters. 

Yes, Doran hates. Deeply.

57 minutes ago, frenin said:

Wanting to oust a dynasty is the same as having deeply personal grudges against them

Thats as stupid a statement as saying that wanting to vote for one party is the same as wanting to destroy everything connected in any way to every other party. Mind you, you do seem to be in touch with modern thought!
Wanting to oust a dynasty means wanting to oust them. That wasn't even Ned's goal.

Quote

"Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?"

Ned rose to put an end to the murder of children - by which he means the irresponsible and brutal and unjust exercise of power in general.
That can be achieved without the ouster of Targaryens. Just the ouster of Aerys.
It can also be achieved by the ouster of Targaryens. Thats not a problem for Ned either, I'm not suggesting it was (only the murder of children, or any other brutal and unjust exercise of power).
It can also fail utterly despite the ouster of Targaryens. The one is not the other, even if they may go hand in glove.

57 minutes ago, frenin said:

The wording is clear, if Ned proves their treason they would fall, and that's a pretty obvious euphemism for death. And je pretty much enjoyes the idea of Tywin being smashed as Rhaegar was, that doesn't sound very peaceful.

No, its not. Fall means be removed from power, not be dead.
Ned's willingness to let even Cersei live, so long as she was gone from power, proves that her death was not his goal.

57 minutes ago, frenin said:

The quote does show that.

: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury

b: extreme dislike or disgust : ANTIPATHY, LOATHINGhad a great hate of hard work

 

Which Ned has.

I see no particular intensity or extremism from Ned.
Aversion, dislike and disgust, sure. Hate though is more, stronger.

57 minutes ago, frenin said:

There is no need for change, because last time i noticed, quiet people aren't unable of feeling hatred, distaste, anger or rage. So the idea that Ned would feel differently because he is quiet is absurd.

Again, there is no correlation between feeling anger or hatred and being quiet and Ned does feel anger and argues a lot with Robert, both then and now, he still expresses hatred against Tywin and Jorah etc.

Thats your absurd straw man, not my idea. I never said Ned was unable to feel those things, nor that quiet people in general are unable.
It is clear he doesn't feel hate now, hence you need to show evidence of change. But the evidence we have of Ned then vs Ned now all points to no change in character or attitudes.

Quiet people (character, as opposed to noise level) are less prone to extremes of emotion than wild people. Thats practically the definition. Hate is an extreme emotion, and you need to show some evidence of it. You have not. You don't seem to understand what it is in fact, not even following your own quoted definitions.

Ned does not express hatred against anyone that I recall. Now or then.

57 minutes ago, frenin said:

Do you think that Robert happened to take the throne by accident?? Because if your answer is no, the rest of the rebels were on board with the idea, if said idea didn't start with them and judging Robert's words it very well have.

Being on board with an idea doesn't make it their absolute goal.

57 minutes ago, frenin said:

What about Sansa?? What about Arya?? What about Jaime?? Their familes went to war regardless of them being hostages, in fact Lyanna herself was not a deterrent to the rebels either.

I wasn't talking about a deterrent. Clearly.
But also clearly, Lyanna's fate was one of Ned's concerns. Rhaegar could assuage that concern. (that might cause more problems later if she dies in childbirth before Ned gets to see her!)

57 minutes ago, frenin said:

No it wasn't.

We don't know the forces at the Bells, we don't know if the rebels had all their troops with them.

So, you don't know it wasn't, but you are prepared to state it wasn't. 

The BotBells started with Robert in hiding - not with any significant forces then - and JonCon's men searching for him house to house.
Stoney Sept is not a large city.  Its walled, but JonCon did not have enough men to both hold the walls and search house to house, and Ned and Hoster's men went over the walls.
Ned and Hoster arrived and defeated JonCon's forces - Jon Arryn wasn't there which suggests that most of his forces weren't there either.
The battle is also relatively early in the war (suggested 3-6 months) and it is likely that the full levies had not yet been gathered, trained, and marched to the front.
Some men would likely also still be assigned to securing lines of supply etc and internal controls - remember many lords even within the North, Vale, Stormlands and Riverlands chose the Royalists over the rebels.
Aerys still considered this rebellion to be more of a case of an outlaw lord (per Jaime) than anything really serious. So JonCon would not have had 20,000 (I personally would be surprised if he had much more than 5000 if even that) plus men, let alone the 40,000 men Rhaegar had.

At the Trident Rhaegar had 40,000 men, around 4000 of them knights and the Rebels fewer, but more experienced, maybe 30k or 35K?

70,000 men is a full scale field battle, not a brawl through a market town.

Clearly the rebels did not have their full forces, from all four regions, at the Battle of the Bells, and clearly neither did the royalists.

So, yes, its pretty safe to say that the Battle of the Bells was smaller, most likely a lot smaller, than the Battle of the Trident.

[frenin]

21 hours ago, corbon said:

There isn't any. Ned seems more pitying than hating of Aerys.

And yet Ned did have to feel strong about him not only to fight him but to decide to oust him and his family from power.

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

Thats the opposite way of looking at it to what we are talking though. Sure, hatred can mean break,, like Robert, or not break, like Doran.
the poin is nwhy did Ned break? No evidence of hate. He broke because he had two choices - rebel or send his head.

Yet again, that alone doesn't explain his support of Robert's ascension. Even after he becomes deeply dissatisfied with Robert's rule and the overall in Baratheons, he still doesn't think about a restoration. That alone doesn't explain why any of the rebels ever thought about dethroning the Targs.

Whatever you may believe Ned felt towards them, It must've been strong enough to break with the Targs forever and never look back.

 

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

I didn't call it positive. I didn't even assign it as an emotion. Its not, its a decision. Emotion may or may not be behind the decision, but that needs to be addressed as its own thing, not tied as tightly as you want to.

Separating decision making from feelings is one of the marks of a responsible adult (heck, a responsible pre-adult even). Ned was not a 3 year old, to make all his decisions based solely on his current mood. Heck, thats a large part of the problem with Aerys!
In Ned's case there is no evidence then or now that the decision was emotionally driven, by hate.

Most of our decisions are based on emotions, especially the strong ones. Ned himself made a stupid blunder because he was blinded by mercy and fear for Cersei's kids lives, ditto with Cat and with almost every character.

Martin himself says that his family's execution radicalized Ned, which again means no good.

 

As i said, you can call it whatever you makes you feel better. It doesn't change the fact that they no longer wanted any them in power.

 

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

Yes, Doran hates. Deeply.

And he still doesn't want to see babies killed and little girls losing half their faces... 

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

Thats as stupid a statement as saying that wanting to vote for one party is the same as wanting to destroy everything connected in any way to every other party. Mind you, you do seem to be in touch with modern thought!
Wanting to oust a dynasty means wanting to oust them. That wasn't even Ned's goal.

Talking about ludicrous statements, violently depose a dynasty is as similar as wanting to vote one party so other stops ruling look as alike as Tyrion and Gregor.

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

Ned rose to put an end to the murder of children - by which he means the irresponsible and brutal and unjust exercise of power in general.
That can be achieved without the ouster of Targaryens. Just the ouster of Aerys.
It can also be achieved by the ouster of Targaryens. Thats not a problem for Ned either, I'm not suggesting it was (only the murder of children, or any other brutal and unjust exercise of power).
It can also fail utterly despite the ouster of Targaryens. The one is not the other, even if they may go hand in glove.

Hmm yes, he rose against Aerys for that, he didn't rise against House Targaryen, he especifically had a reason to target  the rest of the Targaryens, who weren't part of the problem.

Ned is a very traditional person, he as his sons usually sticks by normal and lawful inheritance procedures, Robb wasn't really thinking on supporting Renly and Stannis, he still believed the Throne was Joffrey's, he wanted to kill him but that didn't mean he thought the Baratheons had to go.

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

No, its not. Fall means be removed from power, not be dead.
Ned's willingness to let even Cersei live, so long as she was gone from power, proves that her death was not his goal.

Yes, It is, being removed from power after a charge of treason (killing the Hand of the King) means death, there is no other option than that. And Ned intended to charge them with that. What other way do you think they are going to be handled??

Ned wanted to let Cersei leave, quite literally because he knew the children would follow, he changed his mind only because of the children.

 

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

I see no particular intensity or extremism from Ned.
Aversion, dislike and disgust, sure. Hate though is more, stronger

You need to reread again because Ned does express particular intensity or ectremism in his words and thoughts about the Lannisters and Jorah.

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

Thats your absurd straw man, not my idea. I never said Ned was unable to feel those things, nor that quiet people in general are unable.

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

Quiet people (character, as opposed to noise level) are less prone to extremes of emotion than wild people. Thats practically the definition. Hate is an extreme emotion, and you need to show some evidence of it. You have not. You don't seem to understand what it is in fact, not even following your own quoted definitions.

You say it's an strawman and right after that you doubled down the bet.

No, quiet people aren't less prone to extreme emotions, they are less prone to show said emotions.  

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

Being on board with an idea doesn't make it their absolute goal.

Except that defeat the Targs and oust them was quite literally their absolute goal.

The only question is when they decided the Targs had to go?? Shortly before the Trident?? After the weddings at Riverrun?? Or was it always their endgame??

 

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

I wasn't talking about a deterrent. Clearly.
But also clearly, Lyanna's fate was one of Ned's concerns. Rhaegar could assuage that concern. (that might cause more problems later if she dies in childbirth before Ned gets to see her!)

Sansa's fate was also one of Robb's concern, so was Jaime's for Tywin, that didn't change either their determination or the ideals. So i fail to understand why Ned would be any different.

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

So, you don't know it wasn't, but you are prepared to state it wasn't. 

No, I don't know the context surrounding the Trident but sizes of the armies alone doesn't imply anything. Major battles are defined by the battle itself, the context of the batte and the consequences that battle has.

Rhaegar could've crushed the rebels, that would mean indeed that the battle was a major one and decisive one.

Rhaegar could've not have crushed the the rebels but the rebel leaders died in the fight, which would made it again major and decisive.

Rhaegar could have defeated the rebels but them suffering  light casualties and retreating in good order. Which would not change much. (Kinda like Ashford)

Rhaegar could've inflincted light casualties to the rebels but one of the key rebel leaders, say Ned, died in the fighting, which would've made the battle a major one by default.

Etc etc etc, each of everyone of this outcomes have different effects and provoke different reactions in the neutral leaders.  So no, the Trident by itself wasn't aimed to be a major battle (partly true since Rhaegar did expect a victory so definitive that would let him with free hands to deal with his father),nor the lords were expecting to see what happened at the trident to pick a side. the fact the outcome had every royalist leader falling and the royal army being routed made the battle a major one and decisive.

 

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

The BotBells started with Robert in hiding - not with any significant forces then - and JonCon's men searching for him house to house.
Stoney Sept is not a large city.  Its walled, but JonCon did not have enough men to both hold the walls and search house to house, and Ned and Hoster's men went over the walls.
Ned and Hoster arrived and defeated JonCon's forces - Jon Arryn wasn't there which suggests that most of his forces weren't there either.
The battle is also relatively early in the war (suggested 3-6 months) and it is likely that the full levies had not yet been gathered, trained, and marched to the front.
Some men would likely also still be assigned to securing lines of supply etc and internal controls - remember many lords even within the North, Vale, Stormlands and Riverlands chose the Royalists over the rebels.
Aerys still considered this rebellion to be more of a case of an outlaw lord (per Jaime) than anything really serious. So JonCon would not have had 20,000 (I personally would be surprised if he had much more than 5000 if even that) plus men, let alone the 40,000 men Rhaegar had.

Stoney sept is not a large city but it's a big enough town and JonCon was young and reckless, in his drive to pursue Robert he could perfectly have made mistakes.

Jon Arryn wasn't there, he could've been weak, sick or wounded for whatever reason and the command passed to Denys.

 

No man within the North chose the royalist cause and by the time the Vale reached the Riverlands, any opposition would've been put down nor we know that many Valelords chose the royalist cause, Robb gathered 20k swords in short time and the forces of the Vale are far more concentrated and quicker to gather than that of the North.

 

Aerys didn't consider the rebellion serious but JonCon was eager for Glory, he would've mustered whatever he thought needed and the more the better.

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

70,000 men is a full scale field battle, not a brawl through a market town.

Ditto, a brawl with considerable armies is a perfectly good battle.

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

Clearly the rebels did not have their full forces, from all four regions, at the Battle of the Bells, and clearly neither did the royalists.

Not clearly, just your assumption.

 

21 hours ago, corbon said:

So, yes, its pretty safe to say that the Battle of the Bells was smaller, most likely a lot smaller, than the Battle of the Trident.

No it isn't. It's only if one goes by your assumption and even if it was, the Bells was a major battle while the Trident could still go from an Ashford to a Trident.

[Hugorfonics]

On 7/7/2020 at 3:17 PM, frenin said:

He was a big wounded guy who was being hunted down by a big scary army and was completely alone, whereas one can say that Ned and Cat said the vows spent a night and Ned marched the day after, Ned would simply not wait 14 days to march.

Its a bit peculiar considering his bromance, but so is spending one night with Cat and then asking for cab fare in the morning. Dudes a honeymooner, let em enjoy.

On 7/7/2020 at 3:17 PM, frenin said:

Because Robert got to live and got to finish them off but Robert's army could've been defeated at the trident. The Tyrells could've sent a lot of troops etc etc etc.

Or the Bells, or Tywin could have reinforced KL instead of sacking it, or Aerys could have burnt them all etc etc

On 7/7/2020 at 5:32 PM, corbon said:

Ned had a new wife and new child, and land (the north - one that he'd been away from for over a year, to put in order and govern. He had important things to do in the south after accepting the surrender of the Tyrells, but it is extremely unlikely, given Ned's character and demonstrated leadership style, that he would neglect those things any longer than he had too.

Idk about that. Dragonspawn was why Ned sulked his way back north. Perhaps if Robert wasn't such a mad king Ned would have stayed in the south longer

(Eta. Actually, i think Dragonspawn happend before Lyanna. So, never mind. My mistake)

On 7/7/2020 at 5:32 PM, corbon said:

Thats not incompatible with a wedding after the BotBs. 

I never said it was. I said it is compatible with the weddings before the Bells

On 7/7/2020 at 5:32 PM, corbon said:

No, but the lack of an heir was. Explicitly.

Ser Denys was already a dubious option, being from a distant branch. He was barely acceptable due to having the name and marrying Jon's nearest relative, a niece. It was a workable solution because beside the name, Denys was of age, had the right skills and was popular - "handsome gallant, brimming with courtesy and a reknown jouster".
Denys' baby is far less acceptable. At that point Jon needs a better heir, as is explicit in the text.

Jon needed reliable heirs, sure. In the long term, if Jon were to die house Arryn would fall. 

In the short term however, Jon is public enemy #1. If his war fails his life and house would likely fall as well. That's why he needed Tullys swords.

 

Tullys son and grandson were aghast when Walder insisted on a wedding in the midst of war. As Frey pointed out though, words are wind, which is why the Tully boy agreed to marriage.

This is exactly why papa Tully had the weddings done hastily and simultaneously, to guarantee Tullys reward of contribution and only then to get back to war

On 7/7/2020 at 5:32 PM, corbon said:

. Able, yes. But proud headstrong and arrogant. Such a character would see his own defeat as the most important factor of the war.

Proud, headstrong and arrogant. Thats him alright lol. Still, despite his flaws I agree with his assessment. Specifically because it was the same assessment that mad Aerys had, whom isnt the most credible character, but whatever

On 7/7/2020 at 5:32 PM, corbon said:

Because we are explicitly told that Jon Arryn's marriage to Lysa was hastily arranged (unlike Ned's to Cat),

They were married the same day. If Lysas marraige was rushed then so was Cats. 

Which it totally was. Like Brandon just died and little bros just gonna swoop in like that? I mean, I guess. Whatever Hosters swords want

 

Eta.

Correction

[corbon]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

I never said it was. I said it is compatible with the weddings before the Bells

Yes, agreed. I was just pointing out the opposite is also true.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

They were married the same day. If Lysas marraige was rushed then so was Cats. 

Thats not a logical corollary.
Cats was probably arranged much earlier - Brandon died at least 3-4 months before Ned and Cat's wedding, and as it was a political match, then Ned would likely have stepped up to the plate, especially as the political need was all the greater now.
Its even possible that Rickard discussed it or wrote of it with/to Hoster or Ned as an option before he went to KL, should things go badly for Brandon there.

Even if it wasn't arranged that early, its still likely to have been arranged well before the BotBells. 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Which it totally was. Like Brandon just died and little bros just gonna swoop in like that?

3-4 moths is not the same as a couple of weeks, in terms of hastily arranged marriages!

 

[Hugorfonics]

16 minutes ago, corbon said:

Its even possible that Rickard discussed it or wrote of it with/to Hoster or Ned as an option before he went to KL, should things go badly for Brandon there.

Very doubtful.

16 minutes ago, corbon said:

Cats was probably arranged much earlier - Brandon died at least 3-4 months before Ned and Cat's wedding, and as it was a political match, then Ned would likely have stepped up to the plate, especially as the political need was all the greater now.

By whom? Jon, right?

So it stands to reason that Lysas marriage was also arranged around Brandons death.

16 minutes ago, corbon said:

Even if it wasn't arranged that early, its still likely to have been arranged well before the BotBells. 

3-4 moths is not the same as a couple of weeks, in terms of hastily arranged marriages!

Any marriage in midst of war is hastily arranged.

Tully swords were needed now. If these Riverlords wanna be stubborn and demand marriage now, bet. The second cousins can watch the video when its uploaded later, but the wedding (2 weddings!) Is happening now and then its back to the battlefield 

[corbon]

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Very doubtful.

Just a possibility. Rickard had to be aware, when summoned to answer for Brandon's crime, that there was a decent chance Brandon would not be making it out of this thing. And even that he himself might not. The alliance he was forming would then be all the more important for Ned and the north.
If I was Rickard, I'd certainly have sent Hoster and Ned word proposing this course of action in the eventuality Rockard and Brandon both died or remained imprisoned.

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

By whom? Jon, right?

More likely by Ned and Hoster. Maybe Jon, 

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

So it stands to reason that Lysas marriage was also arranged around Brandons death.

No it doesn't. Jon didn't need a wife or heir then. And the Tully's were already being brought in by Ned's marriage. 
Hoster just saw a chance after the BotBells to use Jon Arryn's heir situation to leverage a deal for Lysa.

Thats what we are told and it makes sense.

 

[frenin]

3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Its a bit peculiar considering his bromance, but so is spending one night with Cat and then asking for cab fare in the morning. Dudes a honeymooner, let em enjoy.

Not only the bromance but the fact that without Robert, the rebellion becomes even harder. Dude can have the honeymoon after rescuing Robert, in fact i'd say that 14 days of leisure in the middle of a civil war is a luxury.

 

3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Or the Bells, or Tywin could have reinforced KL instead of sacking it, or Aerys could have burnt them all etc etc

It happened how it happened however, the decisive engage was the Trident, the royalists became leaderless, their army ceased to exist and everyone understood it was game over, it was game on after the Bells however.

[corbon]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Any marriage in midst of war is hastily arranged.

Noticed something else while researching for another thread.

Quote

"He [Petyr] wrote to me at Riverrun after Brandon was killed, but I burned the letter unread. By then I knew that Ned would marry me in his brother's place."

Thats another indication that Cat's marriage to Ned was arranged fairly early after Brandon was killed. Not definitive but pretty clear,

[Hugorfonics]

3 hours ago, corbon said:

If I was Rickard, I'd certainly have sent Hoster and Ned word proposing this course of action in the eventuality Rockard and Brandon both died or remained imprisoned.

Ahh, but your not a stubborn Stark who has a tendency of feeling invincible

Its a possibility I suppose. It plays heavy into the northern conspiracy, which I somewhat subscribe to

4 hours ago, corbon said:

No it doesn't. Jon didn't need a wife or heir then. And the Tully's were already being brought in by Ned's marriage. 
Hoster just saw a chance after the BotBells to use Jon Arryn's heir situation to leverage a deal for Lysa.

Thats what we are told and it makes sense.

It does not make sense, and we're told all sorts of things.

Jon always needed a wife and heir. Denys was like a fifth cousin three times removed, might as well have been a Hardying.

But the sonless father had two boys. He waged a war for them, priorities.

Hoster would be giving up an incredible amount of leverage if he didnt marry off Lysa. Because once the Bells ended, Hoster was a traitor and part of the rebel alliance. Like the quote says

On 7/7/2020 at 2:49 PM, Hugorfonics said:

The victory sealed the entry of the riverlands into the conflict

Why would Jon marry Lysa if Hosters already an ally? Theres plenty of fish in the sea. It doesnt make sense, what does and is what we're told is it was all leverage on a heinous scale because thats the type of piece of shit Hoster Tully was

Quote

"Father," she said, "Father, I know what you did." She was no longer an innocent bride with a head full of dreams. She was a widow, a traitor, a grieving mother, and wise, wise in the ways of the world. "You made him take her," she whispered. "Lysa was the price Jon Arryn had to pay for the swords and spears of House Tully."

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Noticed something else while researching for another thread.

Thats another indication that Cat's marriage to Ned was arranged fairly early after Brandon was killed. Not definitive but pretty clear,

Eh, maybe not. "By then" seems to suggest a decent amount of time has passed

 

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Dude can have the honeymoon after rescuing Robert

Thats not romantic

3 hours ago, frenin said:

It happened how it happened however, the decisive engage was the Trident, the royalists became leaderless, their army ceased to exist and everyone understood it was game over, it was game on after the Bells however.

Ned raced to KL because he feared Tywin might join Aerys. The Tyrell army was still in the field and Stormsend looked likely to fall. The game was over when Jaime Lannister decided it to be over.

[corbon]

11 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Its a possibility I suppose. It plays heavy into the northern conspiracy, which I somewhat subscribe to

Like you, I 'somewhat' subscribe to it.
I don;t think this plays heavily into it. WHatever reasons Rockard put Brandon and Cat together for, wold be equally valid if Brandon is gone, and in fact very much more pressing, if Rickard and Brandon were both and young, unprepared, Ned now leading House Stark.

11 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

It does not make sense,

Sure it does. You even explain it below.

11 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Jon always needed a wife and heir. Denys was like a fifth cousin three times removed, might as well have been a Hardying.

Agreed, more or less. Denys is not ideal. But he's got all the right qualities to be an acceptable wartime option when there are none others available. He has the name to rally others behind, he's married to the nearest kin, he's full-grown, martial, politic and popular. 

11 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Hoster would be giving up an incredible amount of leverage if he didnt marry off Lysa. Because once the Bells ended, Hoster was a traitor and part of the rebel alliance.

He's already tarred wit that brush, just not so deeply. He was marrying Cat to Brandon remember?

11 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Why would Jon marry Lysa if Hosters already an ally? Theres plenty of fish in the sea. It doesnt make sense, what does and is what we're told is it was all leverage on a heinous scale because thats the type of piece of shit Hoster Tully was

Exactly. Thats actually an argument for my side. It was an enormous piece of leverage by Hoster. Jon did need those swords. But before Denys Arryn died, Jon was already getting those swords. We know that. Hoster was marrying Cat to Ned in Brandon's place, and had been marrying her to Brandon since years back.

What changed, was suddenly Jon Arryn needed more than just the swords. He needed an heir as well. And that gave Hoster double leverage. He has a soiled, but proven fertile, young and beautiful daughter he needs to find a husband for. And suddenly Jon's need for a fertile wife right now  (he's already old, at war, and suddenly has no suitable heir, especially for wartime) has gone up exponentially.

11 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Eh, maybe not. "By then" seems to suggest a decent amount of time has passed

Its not definitive, sure. But the only suggestion time-wise is that it was after her marriage had been re-agreed once Brandon was dead. We would expect it to take a few weeks or so. All of Hoster. Ned and Petyr need to get the word of Brandon's death, then Petyr needs to send the letter.
Petyr surely would have sent the letter without delay, its just how long it took him to get the word of Brandon's death from KL, and how long it took for the letter to come, assuming it was not by Raven.
Aside from Petyr's obvious haste in the matter, his letter arguably could have come any time from 0.5 months or so after Brandon's death right up to the the wedding day. Thats maybe 3-4 months of timeline option? Maybe more? Forcing that into the last week or two, with no other indication than 'its not ruled out', just to make it work with your unsubstantiated claim that Cat's wedding was 'in haste' the same as Lysa's is a bit unlikely. Your threads tying this together are getting pretty thin...

11 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Ned raced to KL because he feared Tywin might join Aerys. The Tyrell army was still in the field and Stormsend looked likely to fall. The game was over when Jaime Lannister decided it to be over.

Agreed. Or rather, when Tywin decided to sack KL instead of defend it. Which created Jaime's decision.

I believe it was the Trident and/or the death of Rhaegar, that caused Tywin to commit for the rebels. Not necessarily just to be on the winning side.  With Rhaegar's death he no longer had any prospect of advancement under Targaryen rule. No great prince for Cersei (Elia may not last forever and Rhaegar did not love her, Visery was too young and already showing signs of issues) and no prospect of Aerys, who jealously hated and belittled him, being replaced by someone less irrationally against him.

[frenin]

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Thats not romantic

Well, if they lost Robert, their life as a married couple seem to be sharing a pike... 

Without Robert they lose an army, one if the leaders of the rebellions and the most visible rallying figure, the war effort would continue but their chances lower.

 

 

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Ned raced to KL because he feared Tywin might join Aerys

No.

Quote

“You took a wound from Rhaegar,” Ned reminded him. “So when the Targaryen host broke and ran, you gave the pursuit into my hands. The remnants of Rhaegar’s army fled back to King’s Landing. We followed. Aerys was in the Red Keep with several thousand loyalists. I expected to find the gates closed to us.”

Tywin didn't factor in the equation.

 

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

The Tyrell army was still in the field

Yep and they weren't about to fight for mad kings and toddlers.

 

Quote

and Stormsend looked likely to fall.

Like the first day, besides, by that time Davos had already given the castle provisions, Storm's End wasn't falling.

 

 

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

The game was over when Jaime Lannister decided it to be over.

When Jaime decided to kill Aerys, Tywin's men were 5 minutes from the Throne room. The Sack  annihilated any pretension of further resistance to the rebels. It was a moot point however, when the Trident ended, even the Ironborn understood that there was a new King in Westeros, either Ned took King's Landing or Tywin would, anyway the outcome was the same, Aerys dead

Ned didn't have any intention of letting him live either...

 

[Hugorfonics]

14 hours ago, corbon said:

Like you, I 'somewhat' subscribe to it.
I don;t think this plays heavily into it. WHatever reasons Rockard put Brandon and Cat together for, wold be equally valid if Brandon is gone, and in fact very much more pressing, if Rickard and Brandon were both and young, unprepared, Ned now leading House Stark.

If Rickard were to have told Jon or Hoster to plan for Roberts Rebellion then it reinforces the theory that Rickard was colluding the entire time

14 hours ago, corbon said:

He's already tarred wit that brush, just not so deeply. He was marrying Cat to Brandon remember?

Exactly. Thats actually an argument for my side. It was an enormous piece of leverage by Hoster. Jon did need those swords. But before Denys Arryn died, Jon was already getting those swords. We know that. Hoster was marrying Cat to Ned in Brandon's place, and had been marrying her to Brandon since years back.

But Brandon died and the marriage could have easily died with it. Theres no guarantee that Hoster wont back out of the Tully Stark alliance if Arryn wasnt part of it, the fact that both wedding were held simultaneously exemplifies this point.

It's not like its difficult to back out of a betrothal with traitors

Quote

Joffrey raised a hand. "I would like to heed the wishes of my people, Mother, but I took a holy vow."

The High Septon stepped forward. "Your Grace, the gods hold bethrothal solemn, but your father, King Robert of blessed memory, made this pact before the Starks of Winterfell had revealed their falseness. Their crimes against the realm have freed you from any promise you might have made

 

14 hours ago, corbon said:

What changed, was suddenly Jon Arryn needed more than just the swords. He needed an heir as well. And that gave Hoster double leverage. He has a soiled, but proven fertile, young and beautiful daughter he needs to find a husband for. And suddenly Jon's need for a fertile wife right now  (he's already old, at war, and suddenly has no suitable heir, especially for wartime) has gone up exponentially.

Jon did not need an heir, he had the soon to be dead baby as heir. Is he the ideal heir, no, but neither was his father.

The fact remains though that Jon never seemed to care about fathering an heir as he already had two boys whom he dotted on.

And there are other fish in the sea, Jon could marry anyone. If Tully was already sworn to the cause then Jon should have married elsewhere to strengthen their numbers.

But thats not what happend. Cat says Hoster made Jon take Lysa. She says Lysa was the price for Hoster swords. 

8 hours ago, frenin said:

Tywin didn't factor in the equation.

My mistake

8 hours ago, frenin said:

Yep and they weren't about to fight for mad kings and toddlers.

Like Joffrey and Tommen?

8 hours ago, frenin said:

Like the first day, besides, by that time Davos had already given the castle provisions, Storm's End wasn't falling.

It looked like it would though

8 hours ago, frenin said:

When Jaime decided to kill Aerys, Tywin's men were 5 minutes from the Throne room. The Sack  annihilated any pretension of further resistance to the rebels. It was a moot point however, when the Trident ended, even the Ironborn understood that there was a new King in Westeros, either Ned took King's Landing or Tywin would, anyway the outcome was the same, Aerys dead

The Kingsguard could have done his duty, or even not kingslayed. Perhaps even crown Viserys.

The outcome was not set in stone with the trident (very likely sure. Where as Bells was just likely. But before that the war was in Aerys' favor)