Brainstorming a Robert's Rebellion Timeline

[StarksInTheNorth]

20 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

That was years ago, no idea where to look for it. Maybe we can ask @Ran to confirm once more that at the time the Worldbook was released GRRM had placed the Battle of Bells after Ashford.

So I went ahead and dug into my last post re Margaery, partially because I realized it could help with this question. First, we have this vague paragraph that suggests Ashford was after:

The Kingsguard were dispatched to recover the remnant of Lord Connington's force, and Prince Rhaegar returned from the south to take command of the new levies being raised in the crownlands. And after a partial victory at Ashford, which led to Robert's withdrawal, the Stormlands were left open to Lord Tyrell. Bringing the might of the Reach to bear, the reachlords swept away all resistance and settled in to besiege Storm's End. Shortly afterward, the host was joined by Lord Paxter Redwyne's mighty fleet from the Arbor, completing the siege by land and sea. That siege wore on until the conclusion of the war.

The narrative is written so the the Battle of the Bells was prior to Rhaegar's return and could be read to say that the partial victory at Ashford was later. But it's vague enough as to mean nothing.

Now, if we look at people's ages, we can try to add it to the timeline. Robb turns sixteen a few days before ACOK, Catelyn VII, while Margaery is "no older than Robb" when she is married to Renly in ACOK, Catelyn II. Margaery is also sixteen by the time she comes to the city after the Blackwater in ASOS, Sansa I. She is still sixteen by AFFC, Cersei VIII. That is the same chapter Dragonstone falls and Loras is on death's door.

Interestingly, as @Mister Smikes has pointed out, JonCon thinks that "seventeen years had come and gone since the Battle of the Bells" in ADWD, The Lost Lord, which is when he is still in Essos with the Golden Company. Based on ASOS, Catelyn I, it's a safe assumption that she married Ned after the Battle of the Bells. Thus at the point of The Lost Lord, Robb should be several months short of 17, instead of 17 himself (Battle of the Bells + time to get to wedding and fortnight after + 8.5-9 months of pregnancy).

Regarding Margaery, there are a few options regarding her birth:

• Margaery conceived in 282, born at any point until 9/283 or 10/283
• Margaery conceived 1/283, born in 9/283 or 10/283
• Margaery conceived in 2/283, born in 10/283 or 11/283
• Margaery conceived in 3/283, born in 11/283 or 12/283
• Margaery conceived in 4/283, born in 12/283

If Ashford was before Battle of the Bells, Margaery should probably have been conceived by the time the battle happened and would be older than Robb. But according to the precise-but-unofficial timeline, The Lost Lord is is about a month after Cersei VIII, and I don't believe there is any indication that Margaery has turned seventeen by Cersei VIII or later.

What all this boils down to is: a universe probably exists where Margaery is conceived after the Battle of the Bells but before Ashford and born very, very late in 283, with Robb born earlier.

This would also make some sense considering Catelyn says that Robb was born while the war was still happening, AGOT, Catelyn X.

I still think it more likely that the order was Margaery is conceived, Battle of Ashford, Siege of Storm's End, Battle of the Bells, Stark-Tully Wedding, Robb Conceived, Battle of the Trident, Margaery born, Robb born, etc. In any timeline, you probably end up with the Southron Ambitions Squad spending a lot of time hanging out in Riverlands, waiting for babies to be conceived and/or quicken. 

[The Wondering Wolf]

If Battle of Bells took place before Ashford, what the hell was Robert doing in Stoney Sept after Summerhall? 

[Mister Smikes]

5 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

If Battle of Bells took place before Ashford, what the hell was Robert doing in Stoney Sept after Summerhall? 

The relevant question is:  What was he doing ALONE and WITHOUT HIS FORCES in Stoney Stept after Summerhall? 

The only answer is:  Unknown.  And that remains true regardless of whether the Battle of the Bells was before or after Ashford.

After Ashford, he had already taken his forces into the Riverlands.  None of those forces participate in the Battle of the Bells.

Hence, your rhetorical question does not support the claim that Ashford was before Bells. 

[The Wondering Wolf]

2 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Hence, your rhetorical question does not support the claim that Ashford was before Bells.

If you assume that Robert was in Stoney Sept without any further support, it just makes no sense at all that he goes there after Summer Hall and then goes back to the Reach. But it makes sense he goes there after the defeat at Ashford. Just because we don't know what happened to his troops does not change that. At least we can assume that some of his troops were shattered and the army wasn't in a good shape, so there can be reasons why he was seperated from his men (he was also wounded, so maybe he wasn't able to leave the town soon enough). I can't think of a single reason why he would have gone to Stoney Sept after Ashford, though.

[Frey family reunion]

1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

If you assume that Robert was in Stoney Sept without any further support, it just makes no sense at all that he goes there after Summer Hall and then goes back to the Reach. But it makes sense he goes there after the defeat at Ashford. Just because we don't know what happened to his troops does not change that. At least we can assume that some of his troops were shattered and the army wasn't in a good shape, so there can be reasons why he was seperated from his men (he was also wounded, so maybe he wasn't able to leave the town soon enough). I can't think of a single reason why he would have gone to Stoney Sept after Ashford, though.

Yea, I think it’s without any real dispute that the Battle for Ashford took place before the Battle of the Bells.  It seems that Robert was injured at Ashford, and separated from his troops.  My guess is that the majority of Robert’s forces must have retreated back into Storm’s End where they were pursued by the Tarly/Tyrell army.  Robert was too injured to join them (or perhaps was physically separated from them when the Tyrell army arrived) and went into hiding at the Stoney Sept, where “some friends” helped to hide him.  Connington’s army locates Robert, while the Tarly/Tyrell army starts the siege of Storm’s End, leaving it up to Stark and Arryn to rescue Robert in the Stoney Sept.

ETA: looking at the map, it appears that Robert must have decided to try and get to Riverrun perhaps to meet up with Eddard and Arryn, but his injuries may have caused him to stop in the Stoney Sept.

Which is supported by this line:

Quote

Stoney Sept was the biggest town Arya had seen since King’s Landing, and Harwin said her father had won a famous battle here.
“The Mad King’s men had been hunting Robert, trying to catch him before he could rejoin your father,” he told her as they rode toward the gate.

ETA: I guess the problem being is that this scenario doesn’t support the line “Robert’s march to the Riverlands”.  More like Robert’s flight into the Riverlands.  I suppose one explanation is that the Worldbook was written by maesters who knew where their bread was buttered.  Thus Ashford turns into only a “partial victory” by the Reach, and Robert’s flight turns into Robert’s march.  

[Mister Smikes]

2 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

If you assume that Robert was in Stoney Sept without any further support, it just makes no sense at all that he goes there after Summer Hall and then goes back to the Reach. 

It makes sense that he rejoined his troops after Stoney Sept.

We don't know where his troops were at the time he was trapped in Stoney Sept.  

We don't know how or under what circumstances he rejoined them.

Hence, that he returned to the Reach or the Stormlands to rejoin his troops could make as much sense as any other explanation.

2 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

But it makes sense he goes there after the defeat at Ashford.

That could make sense.  Many things could make sense.

2 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Just because we don't know what happened to his troops does not change that.

If we don't know what happened, it means we don't know what happened.  You are arguing from ignorance.

[Mister Smikes]

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Yea, I think it’s without any real dispute that the Battle for Ashford took place before the Battle of the Bells.  

I'm disputing it, since it is evident to me, based on information available, that we don't know one way or another

Quote

It seems that Robert was injured at Ashford, and separated from his troops.  My guess is that the majority of Robert’s forces must have retreated back into Storm’s End where they were pursued by the Tarly/Tyrell army.  Robert was too injured to join them (or perhaps was physically separated from them when the Tyrell army arrived) and went into hiding at the Stoney Sept, where “some friends” helped to hide him.  Connington’s army locates Robert, while the Tarly/Tyrell army starts the siege of Storm’s End, leaving it up to Stark and Arryn to rescue Robert in the Stoney Sept.

Problem with the above is that it is merely a narrative created by you.  I can create narratives too.  But it would be better and more humble to admit we just don't know.

And insofar as the App says Robert was injured at Ashford, I strongly suspect this is merely an inference by Elio & Linda.  

Quote

ETA: looking at the map, it appears that Robert must have decided to try and get to Riverrun perhaps to meet up with Eddard and Arryn, but his injuries may have caused him to stop in the Stoney Sept.

Which is supported by this line:

"Stoney Sept was the biggest town Arya had seen since King’s Landing, and Harwin said her father had won a famous battle here.
“The Mad King’s men had been hunting Robert, trying to catch him before he could rejoin your father,” he told her as they rode toward the gate."

This cannot change that he must later have rejoined with his own forces, which also must have joined with Ned's forces, before the Battle of the Trident.

And the context "men had been hunting Robert", suggests the possibility that Robert had been injured in the course of the hunt.

Quote

ETA: I guess the problem being is that this scenario doesn’t support the line “Robert’s march to the Riverlands”.  

Right.

Quote

More like Robert’s flight into the Riverlands.  I suppose one explanation is that the Worldbook was written by maesters who knew where their bread was buttered.  Thus Ashford turns into only a “partial victory” by the Reach, and Robert’s flight turns into Robert’s march.  

That's one explanation.  But we know so little that if you must explain some of the little the evidence away in this manner, merely to support a particular hypothesis, it merely admits that the evidence is not entirely in your favor.

[Mister Smikes]

@Frey family reunion:

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

The phrase "indecisive victory" seems to support TWOIAF, at least to the extent of suggesting that Robert's defeat at Ashford was something less than a rout.

[Frey family reunion]

31 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

@Frey family reunion:

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

The phrase "indecisive victory" seems to support TWOIAF, at least to the extent of suggesting that Robert's defeat at Ashford was something less than a rout.

That’s a good catch.  The more I look, the less convinced I am that Robert was separated from his forces at the Battle of Ashford.  Even though the Worldbook seems to contain some back to back discrepancies in their description of the events:

Quote

More victories were to come for Lord Robert and the stormlords as they marched to join forces with Lord Arryn and the Northmen who supported their cause. Rightly famed is Robert’s grand victory at Stoney Sept, also called the Battle of the Bells,

So in this passage, it seems that the plan all along was for Robert and company to march north towards Riverrun to join up with Stark and Arryn.  

But then we have this next paragraph:

Quote

The partial victory at Ashford, which led to Robert’s march to the riverlands, had left the Stormlands open to Lord Tyrell.

So here, it seems to imply that Robert and company only marched to the Riverlands because of their “partial” loss at the Battle at Ashford.  Nor does it explain why Robert and company would have left the Stormlands undefended.  

I suppose you can reconcile the two, in stating that Robert and company were marching to join with Stark and Arryn all along, they just weren’t planning on meeting up in the Riverlands.  At least not until Ashford, which forced Robert to travel further North than he intended.

Or of course, the Worldbook is just putting the best possible spin on the events to Robert’s favor.  And we know that from their description of the Battle of the Bells.  

Quote

Rightly famed is Robert’s grand victory at the Stoney Sept, also called the Battle of the Bells.

 It leaves off the part about Robert hiding in brothels, his hide only being saved when Stark and Tully arrived to save the day.

But yes, I agree Tyrion also called it only a partial victory for the Tyrells.  I would note, however that Stannis and Maester Pylos called it a victory for Tarly without any qualifiers.  Perhaps it was only a partial victory because Robert’s army wasn’t completely destroyed?

But I think based on the telling of events Ashford had to have happened before the Bells.  Ashford occurred before Robert rejoined with Stark and Arryn.  Ashford caused Robert to travel to the Riverlands.  It was in the Riverlands, in Stoney Sept, when Robert finally reunited with Eddard Stark.

 

 

[Ran]

55 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Or of course, the Worldbook is just putting the best possible spin on the events to Robert’s favor.

ETA: As to the earlier query, which I missed responding to, to the best of my recollection George signed off on the basic outline of events for the rebellion. That said, I believe we've noted before that some cuts for space that took place hit this particular section, so some of the ambiguities that have been discussed are, so far as I remember (it's been nearly 8 years, mind, so things fade), due to that. 

[Rondo]

Jon Snow's birth is earlier than what people believe.  He was conceived much earlier.  The possible dads are Ned (Ashara), Brandon (Lyanna), Arthur (Lyanna), and Mance (Lyanna).

[Mister Smikes]

16 hours ago, Rondo said:

Jon Snow's birth is earlier than what people believe.  He was conceived much earlier.  The possible dads are Ned (Ashara), Brandon (Lyanna), Arthur (Lyanna), and Mance (Lyanna).

Jon Snow's birthday, as known at Winterfell, is fairly close to Robb's.  Though there are points to be made on both sides, I think the overall weight of the evidence supports Jon Snow being (in terms said supposed birthday) the older of the two.  The above timeline reflects my opinion on this issue.

You seem to be saying more than this -- maybe that Jon Snow's actual birthday is earlier than it is believed or supposed to be by Jon Snow and others.

But my timeline is not meant to express an opinion on birthday deceptions associated with identity deceptions or baby swaps.

Note that in the above timeline, 26 months elapse between the Tourney of Harrenhal and the TOJ incident, and 23 months elapse between the abduction and the TOJ incident.  That is more than enough time for two separate pregnancies to come to term.  Hence, even if Jon Snow is not the baby born at the time of the TOJ incident, he could still be the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna.  It also potentially allows for any of the other theories you mention.

My timeline is not easy to reconcile with standard versions of R+L=J, in which Jon Snow is the baby born at the TOJ.   I did not do this with any desire to screw over R+L=J advocates.  I just think it would be difficult at best to construct such a timeline.  

 

[Mister Smikes]

On 11/3/2021 at 3:45 AM, The Wondering Wolf said:

The passage in TWOIAF was changed to:

The partial victory at Ashford, which led to Robert's march to the riverlands, had left the Stormlands open to Lord Tyrell.

When you first pointed this out, I could not much see your point.  But now that I look at the text again, I see that the "Robert's march to the riverlands" language, seems to more closely match, and plausibly refer back to, the march referenced in the prior paragraph ("Lord Robert and the stormlords as they marched to join forces with Lord Arryn and the Northmen").  If such a connection is made, the text does in fact seem to more strongly support Ashford coming first, and I think I am now inclined to place Ashford first should I redo the timeline.

@Ran Thanks for the input.  If I understand you, you are merely vouching for the text, and we remain more or less where we were in terms of discussing it's ambiguities.

[GOTSeriesfan]

On 11/2/2021 at 3:05 AM, Frey family reunion said:

This is me giving a big shrug.  Of course they're inhumans, they're the royal Targaryen family.  And considering that one of my primary theories is that Rhaegar planned on burning some infant King's Blood to bring back the dragons, something like that kind of pales in comparison.

Of course, it also goes without saying, that there are many theories out there that envision, just such a scenario, that Elia's baby boy is taken from her in an elaborate switcheroo.

ETA: If you're uncomfortable with laying the blame with Rhaegar, just assume that Aerys is the asshole.  After all, if Aerys wanted to see what his grandkid looked like, do you think he would have given a fuck if Elia was well enough to travel?  

Rhaegar wasn't such a lunatic that he'd do kinslaying just because he wanted to revive dragons and Aerys only had the idea of him being a dragon within

[GOTSeriesfan]

On 11/6/2021 at 1:42 AM, Frey family reunion said:

That’s a good catch.  The more I look, the less convinced I am that Robert was separated from his forces at the Battle of Ashford.  Even though the Worldbook seems to contain some back to back discrepancies in their description of the events:

So in this passage, it seems that the plan all along was for Robert and company to march north towards Riverrun to join up with Stark and Arryn.  

But then we have this next paragraph:

So here, it seems to imply that Robert and company only marched to the Riverlands because of their “partial” loss at the Battle at Ashford.  Nor does it explain why Robert and company would have left the Stormlands undefended.  

I suppose you can reconcile the two, in stating that Robert and company were marching to join with Stark and Arryn all along, they just weren’t planning on meeting up in the Riverlands.  At least not until Ashford, which forced Robert to travel further North than he intended.

Or of course, the Worldbook is just putting the best possible spin on the events to Robert’s favor.  And we know that from their description of the Battle of the Bells.  

 It leaves off the part about Robert hiding in brothels, his hide only being saved when Stark and Tully arrived to save the day.

But yes, I agree Tyrion also called it only a partial victory for the Tyrells.  I would note, however that Stannis and Maester Pylos called it a victory for Tarly without any qualifiers.  Perhaps it was only a partial victory because Robert’s army wasn’t completely destroyed?

But I think based on the telling of events Ashford had to have happened before the Bells.  Ashford occurred before Robert rejoined with Stark and Arryn.  Ashford caused Robert to travel to the Riverlands.  It was in the Riverlands, in Stoney Sept, when Robert finally reunited with Eddard Stark.

 

 

Yeah, but it was Robert's only defeat in the war, and that's something cause Robert had a good mind for warfare

[Angel Eyes]

5 hours ago, GOTSeriesfan said:

Rhaegar wasn't such a lunatic that he'd do kinslaying just because he wanted to revive dragons and Aerys only had the idea of him being a dragon within

He was a bit of an idiot though when it came to actual tactics.

[EggBlue]

24 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

He was a bit of an idiot though when it came to actual tactics.

and a bit of a jerk when it came to leaving his wife and children for a girl he met at a party

[GOTSeriesfan]

18 hours ago, EggBlue said:

and a bit of a jerk when it came to leaving his wife and children for a girl he met at a party

His marriage to Elia was arranged. Part of him felt discontent with it, maybe that's why he eloped with Lyanna

[EggBlue]

50 minutes ago, GOTSeriesfan said:

His marriage to Elia was arranged. Part of him felt discontent with it, maybe that's why he eloped with Lyanna

arranged or not , doesn't change what he did . the fact that they had 2 kids in 2 years during which time Elia was bedridden for half a year , suggests that he wasn't so miserable with her . of course , that on its own doesn't mean much but it definitely shows his situation wasn't like Stannis's who apparently despises his wife .  at the very least , one could say he was "dutiful" as a husband , but what suddenly happened to his dutiful nature?!  running away from an arranged marriage doesn't make him a monster , but it does make him a terrible husband (note that Elia didn't have the luxury of being able to taking a paramour like he did) , a neglectful father , an irresponsible prince and , yes, a bit of a jerk.