The Absent House Arryn

[King Maegor the Cool]

It just seems to me whenever a major event happens in Westeros the Lord Arryn is a children. I mean we get Jon Arryn during the Rebellion, and Jeyne Arryn is present at the end of the Dance, but really does do much. 
 

They are kinda underwhelming as a house

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Prince Rhaegar Targareyen said:

They are kinda underwhelming as a house

Yeah the only one I find interesting is the unhinged sounding one who declared himself king and chucked his brother out the moon door. He also had the guts to rebel against the Targaryens when they still had dragons (although if he was properly loopy maybe guts don't factor in so much...).

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, Prince Rhaegar Targareyen said:

It just seems to me whenever a major event happens in Westeros the Lord Arryn is a children. I mean we get Jon Arryn during the Rebellion, and Jeyne Arryn is present at the end of the Dance, but really does do much. 
 

They are kinda underwhelming as a house

Hey!
 

But another point in your direction; they are one of the houses the Targs intermarry with the most, but I don’t think we ever hear of them leveraging that for any advantage. 

Edited February 5 by James Arryn

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Hey!

Don't worry James, I nominate you for next Lord of the Vale and Warden of the East.

[King Maegor the Cool]

They seriously need an impressive Arryn in the next Fire & Blood

[Floki of the Ironborn]

5 hours ago, Prince Rhaegar Targareyen said:

They seriously need an impressive Arryn in the next Fire & Blood

It’s going to be Donnel Arryn

Also did everyone forget that an Arryn began Robert’s Rebellion??

[King Maegor the Cool]

9 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

It’s going to be Donnel Arryn

Also did everyone forget that an Arryn began Robert’s Rebellion??

I mentioned Jon Arryn. He is literally the only Arryn that does something cool. Even then, all we hear about are Ned and Robert’s victories.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

1 hour ago, Prince Rhaegar Targareyen said:

I mentioned Jon Arryn. He is literally the only Arryn that does something cool. Even then, all we hear about are Ned and Robert’s victories.

My bad.

But I stand by what I said about Donnel Arryn. He led the vanguard at Redgrass Field, nearly died doing it, and saved the Vale from the Spring Sickness. 

Edited February 6 by Floki of the Ironborn

[astarkchoice]

11 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yeah the only one I find interesting is the unhinged sounding one who declared himself king and chucked his brother out the moon door. He also had the guts to rebel against the Targaryens when they still had dragons (although if he was properly loopy maybe guts don't factor in so much...).

The interesting part is in theory the arryns should have one of  the best chances at a rebellion (after thewesterlands)  working vs targs! Their main base is soo insanely high up that like most birds dragons should struggle to climb to that altititude , at least to the point where they are easy targets for a few scorpions as they struggle to climb ! Esp in high winds

Edited February 6 by astarkchoice

[James Arryn]

20 hours ago, Prince Rhaegar Targareyen said:

I mentioned Jon Arryn. He is literally the only Arryn that does something cool. Even then, all we hear about are Ned and Robert’s victories.

I should say, though, that by normal standards Robert’s Rebellion ought to be called Jon Arryn’s Rebellion. He was the one who, well, rebelled, single-handedly and alone. His was the decision to defy Aerys’ commands and protect Robert and Ned, at a time when them even getting back to their lands, let alone raising their banners, was an unlikely proposition. Ned and Robert were in it by default; their alternative was to die. Hostet got involved…I suspect mostly orchestrated by JA…for political gain after the Rebellion had established ~ parity. But Jon Arryn stood alone, and he alone did it for moral/ethical/personal reasons. He makes a different choice, there is no rebellion at all, and that can only be said of him. 
 

That Robert became the figurehead shouldn’t change whose rebellion it actually was. So maybe the proper naming of the event that looms largest over the 7K at the start of the books would go some way to giving the Arryns their due.

Edited February 7 by James Arryn

[King Maegor the Cool]

8 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I should say, though, that by normal standards Robert’s Rebellion ought to be called Jon Arryn’s Rebellion. He was the one who, well, rebelled, single-handedly and alone. His was the decision to defy Aerys’ commands and protect Robert and Ned, at a time when them even getting back to their lands, let alone raising their banners, was an unlikely proposition. Ned and Robert were in it by default; their alternative was to die. Hostet got involved…I suspect mostly orchestrated by JA…for political gain after the Rebellion had established ~ parity. But Jon Arryn stood alone, and he alone did it for moral/ethical/personal reasons. He makes a different choice, there is no rebellion at all, and that can only be said of him. 
 

That Robert became the figurehead shouldn’t change whose rebellion it actually was. So maybe the proper naming of the event that looms largest over the 7K at the start of the books would go some way to giving the Arryns their due.

We only really hear about what Ned and Rob do during the rebellion. Rob dueling with Lord Grafton and Rhaegar, hiding during the Battle of the Bells. Ned riding to KL and finding Jaime and the bodies of Elia and her children, and then the fight at the Tower of Joy.

Logically I know Hoster and Jon played a part in the fighting but the lack of info on what they did makes it seem like they just sic’d Robert and Ned on the Targs

[James Steller]

2 hours ago, Prince Rhaegar Targareyen said:

We only really hear about what Ned and Rob do during the rebellion. Rob dueling with Lord Grafton and Rhaegar, hiding during the Battle of the Bells. Ned riding to KL and finding Jaime and the bodies of Elia and her children, and then the fight at the Tower of Joy.

Logically I know Hoster and Jon played a part in the fighting but the lack of info on what they did makes it seem like they just sic’d Robert and Ned on the Targs

Presumably, Hoster and Jon were the primary commanders in terms of strategy. They were presumably veterans of the Ninepenny Kings War, after all. Just like how we hear all about Robb's victories but nobody doubts the important role that Blackfish plays in making them work. Just because you aren't the guy leading the vanguard charge or killing the most important people, doesn't mean that you're not as important. 

Edited February 7 by James Steller

[Alester Florent]

11 hours ago, James Steller said:

Presumably, Hoster and Jon were the primary commanders in terms of strategy. They were presumably veterans of the Ninepenny Kings War, after all. Just like how we hear all about Robb's victories but nobody doubts the important role that Blackfish plays in making them work. Just because you aren't the guy leading the vanguard charge or killing the most important people, doesn't mean that you're not as important. 

In terms of overall strategy, maybe, but we also have things like the Battle(s) of Summerhall, which seems to have been all Bobby. I think it's easy to underestimate Robert as a commander because when we meet him he was a pretty indolent king, but in his prime he was impressive not just as a warrior but as a general. 

Which is not to understate Jon Arryn or Hoster Tully's importance to the war, mind. It was an alliance and it seems like every part of it pulled its weight. 

[James Arryn]

Yes, but I guess I’m not making myself clear: it was Jon Arryn’s Rebellion. His decision made it a rebellion. Without his decision, no rebellion. He stood alone for a time, the only lord raising his banners against the King. We don’t give him the credit for that, we retrospectively add the North, Stormlands and Riverlands as though it’s a given they were alongside, but when it began it was just Jon Arryn and the Vale against the Iron Throne, and a somewhat forlorn hope that Robert and Ned could get through hostile lands or seas to their territory and then raise their banners in time, too. But that was far from a sure thing, and meantime/if they don’t succeed, it remains the Vale alone against the IT. Had Aerys taken it more seriously earlier, they may well have never gotten the chance. And Jon Arryn would have known how Aerys would deal with him if it came to that. He put himself in that position for love or honor, take your pick. 
 

If we thought about it and gave him his due, it would be called Jon Arryn’s rebellion. They call the American Revolution that based on who started it, who actually rebelled. The French may have been more responsible for beating the Brits, but we don’t call it the French Revolution (not that one anyway) because they did more. 

Edited February 7 by James Arryn

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Yes, but I guess I’m not making myself clear: it was Jon Arryn’s Rebellion. His decision made it a rebellion. Without his decision, no rebellion. He stood alone for a time, the only lord raising his banners against the King. We don’t give him the credit for that, we retrospectively add the North, Stormlands and Riverlands as though it’s a given they were alongside, but when it began it was just Jon Arryn and the Vale against the Iron Throne, and a somewhat forlorn hope that Robert and Ned could get through hostile lands or seas to their territory and then raise their banners in time, too. But that was far from a sure thing, and meantime/if they don’t succeed, it remains the Vale alone against the IT. Had Aerys taken it more seriously earlier, they may well have never gotten the chance. And Jon Arryn would have known how Aerys would deal with him if it came to that. He put himself in that position for love or honor, take your pick.

I agree. Greatest lord ever?

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

If we thought about it and gave him his due, it would be called Jon Arryn’s rebellion. They call the American Revolution that based on who started it, who actually rebelled. The French may have been more responsible for beating the Brits, but we don’t call it the French Revolution (not that one anyway) because they did more. 

I disagree. (About France too, I mean, invaluable in the war, so was Spain and the Netherlands but they don't even touch the French in terms of the effort. Still, the American army beat the British) The war was clearly for the benefit of America and Robert. Did Jon and France eat nicely? (Well, no actually lol but Louis thought they would) Sure, but Jons not king.

Like Napoleons coup. It was all Talleyrand and that other dude, in fact that other dude was supposed to be at the head of the table but since it wound up being Bonaparte I don't even remember that dudes name.

Jon was a legend. Took out the dragon like the Angel Michael. He should go down in history, but I think this history should still be called Roberts Rebellion.

Edited February 7 by Hugorfonics

[James Arryn]

25 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I agree. Greatest lord ever?

I disagree. (About France too, I mean, invaluable in the war, so was Spain and the Netherlands but they don't even touch the French in terms of the effort. Still, the American army beat the British) The war was clearly for the benefit of America and Robert. Did Jon and France eat nicely? (Well, no actually lol but Louis thought they would) Sure, but Jons not king.

Like Napoleons coup. It was all Talleyrand and that other dude, in fact that other dude was supposed to be at the head of the table but since it wound up being Bonaparte I don't even remember that dudes name.

Jon was a legend. Took out the dragon like the Angel Michael. He should go down in history, but I think this history should still be called Roberts Rebellion.

On America, re: Yorktown

 

1) The Americans and French had roughly the same number of troops at Yorktown (and almost all the cannon and all the crucial ships were French )but almost half of the American contingent were militia who saw no action; this was a battle for regulars. I’d say both countries played their part, but the final British breakout that almost succeeded was repulsed by the French, after which they surrendered(to the French, remember.) There were more French involved at the decisive battle of the American Revolution than American. 

2. But even that is largely incidental. The very fact that there was a decisive battle in the first place was entirely due to the French fleet. Before Yorktown Cornwallis was conducting a winning/not-losing war according what would become the British formula for Colonial Wars; using their naval supremacy to overcome numerical disadvantage by choosing when and where to fight and when and where to not fight. Hit them where they ain’t, etc. and then using superiority of line troops to dominate at the moments of their choosing. The Brits would go on to do this for centuries and build the largest empire the world has known because, provided naval supremacy, it was virtually unbeatable. It did not necessarily always provide immediate victory…it could take time…but it made defeat almost impossible. 
 

Until they got to Yorktown, expecting to be able to disembark if the situation were disadvantageous, and lo and behold, a French fleet blockaded them and their entire strategy was turned on it’s head. Without that fleet the Brits only fight at Yorktown if they feel they have the advantage, and/or bunker down provided supply/reinforcements/withdrawal were available and they wanted to Americans to bleed themselves in the siege, while being pounded from the sea. Instead they were trapped, unsupplied, and they were the ones being bombarded. Complete reversal of fortunes, contingent 100% on the French fleet.

Edited February 7 by James Arryn

[Hugorfonics]

10 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

1) The Americans and French had roughly the same number of troops at Yorktown (and almost all the cannon and all the crucial ships were French )but almost half of the American contingent were militia who saw no action; this was a battle for regulars. I’d say both countries played their part, but the final British breakout that almost succeeded was repulsed by the French, after which they surrendered(to the French, remember.) There were more French involved at the decisive battle of the American Revolution than American

(How can I forget! Lmao I love it. So petty. Such a perfect caricature of the stereotypical snobbish Brit)

For sure, although idk if I'd call Yorktown the most decisive battle, although, why not? But it was more the pin that broke the camels back.. idk, alright fine. I guess I'll retract my statement and say in terms of military battles alone the French were more responsible (still don't feel great about that lol), but war is more then random battles in the south.

17 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

2. But even that is largely incidental. The very fact that there was a decisive battle in the first place was entirely due to the French fleet. Before Yorktown Cornwallis was conducting a winning/not-losing war according what would become the British formula for Colonial Wars; using their naval supremacy to overcome numerical disadvantage by choosing when and where to fight and when and where to not fight. Hit them where they ain’t, etc. and then using superiority of line troops to dominate at the moments of their choosing. The Brits would go on to do this for centuries and build the largest empire the world has known because, provided naval supremacy, it was virtually unbeatable. It did not necessarily always provide immediate victory…it could take time…but it made defeat almost impossible. 

It's a great southern strategy, and if war could last forever then it may have worked. But politics and the economy also played a part, as the Americans knew it would. It's a game of time.

Also, the north was lost. I mean they held NY for some reason, but that's not really the north anyway. Like, Burgoyne never surrendered to a Frenchman.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

(How can I forget! Lmao I love it. So petty. Such a perfect caricature of the stereotypical snobbish Brit)

For sure, although idk if I'd call Yorktown the most decisive battle, although, why not? But it was more the pin that broke the camels back.. idk, alright fine. I guess I'll retract my statement and say in terms of military battles alone the French were more responsible (still don't feel great about that lol), but war is more then random battles in the south.

It's a great southern strategy, and if war could last forever then it may have worked. But politics and the economy also played a part, as the Americans knew it would. It's a game of time.

Also, the north was lost. I mean they held NY for some reason, but that's not really the north anyway. Like, Burgoyne never surrendered to a Frenchman.

The offer to surrender to the French has certainly been played up as snobbery, but what if it was an honest assessment of the victory? It’s not like the Brits enjoyed surrendering to their, by a mile, most hated adversary.
 

But in terms of economics, there too: France bankrolled the Revolution, over two million in actual funds, plus the vast majority of supplies and munitions. Gates stated that at Saratoga 90% of American troops used French arms and 100% used French powder, and this was by and large true throughout the war. Again, I don’t think there is a non ad-hom way to argue against the French being the decisive factor. And then add in the training and ‘vacationing French commanders’ who used their *cough* leave to lead American troops with such frequency that Washington petitioned congress for French interpreters as a ‘necessity of victory’ and people like Adams complained that an army largely commanded by foreign officers was a problem for morale and for national identity. (He voiced similar motivations for the beginnings of what became systemic downplaying of the French role in the Revolution years later.) Even von Steuben was introduced by the French. Washington also had reservations about the ‘adventurer’ nature of French volunteer troops…who came in ‘waves and shoals’ in his words…and turned them away at a much higher rate than with officers. 
 

edit: in terms of the north/NY, that’s the thing about the British method of warfare; so long as they held naval superiority nowhere near the sea was ever wholly not theirs if they wanted it, they just chose where and when they took it and where and when they held it or slipped away. All the advantages lay in their hands. That (and playing off sections against one another which did not really come into play here) was literally the imperial formula. They could move much, much faster by sea than anyone could respond by land, and they did it from floating batteries. 
 

edit: btw, can we take a second to appreciate the sheer magnitude of the tangent we (mostly me) are enacting, not to mention irony. House Arryn, the forum for arguing about nothing related to Westeros. 

Edited February 7 by James Arryn

[Hugorfonics]

18 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

The offer to surrender to the French has certainly been played up as snobbery, but what if it was an honest assessment of the victory? It’s not like the Brits enjoyed surrendering to their, by a mile, most hated adversary.

It's both. 

And exactly, or if America was like Prussian or Austrian or whatever and the French auxillary force still won the day I think the surrender should still go to the commander in chief. Like that's why Washington is there, for this exact photo op. I feel though that if they were Irishmen or some other colony then England would punk them. Idk.

It's an overblown event to be sure, but it's also a funny one.

25 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

But in terms of economics, there too: France bankrolled the Revolution, over two million in actual funds, plus the vast majority of supplies and munitions. Gates stated that at Saratoga 90% of American troops used French arms and 100% used French powder, and this was by and large true throughout the war.

(Lol what a percentage! Unfortunately for comedy, who the hell believes Gates?)

(And it literally tanked the Bourbons)

Ok, but, are proxy wars wars? Like, is the U.S majorly responsible for the surprising Ukrainian defense? I'd say no, I mean, Germany and them are sending tanks and such but not manning them. (And before Saratoga it was a secretive proxy wars with like pirates of the caribbean, but I don't really think that should make a difference so never mind lol)

The Sun King decided that France needs more guns, like 100 years later and France still has mad guns. It kinda makes sense that the bulk of army stuff comes from the super house. And with just moneys, the Dutch and Spanish gave plenty.

35 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

And then add in the training and ‘vacationing French commanders’ who used their *cough* leave to lead American troops with such frequency that Washington petitioned congress for French interpreters as a ‘necessity of victory’

Lol, but Washington was very dramatic and loved complaining 

36 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

and people like Adams complained that an army largely commanded by foreign officers was a problem for morale and for national identity. (He voiced similar motivations for the beginnings of what became systemic downplaying of the French role in the Revolution years later.)

(Yeah, maybe it stuck. Like how Jefferson convinced everyone that writing the draft of the Declaration of Independent was a big deal... although of course it is)

Which is true, although Adams was also dramatic and loved complaining. Colonists hated the French and Catholics just as much, if not more, as their Englishmen back home, none of this is good for morale. Plus, who knows what's in the mind of Louis.

40 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Even von Steuben was introduced by the French.

Lol this is very proxy. Sellswords go to warlord lands all the time to look for work. It was really Franklin and his web of lies who made the introduction to Congress.

42 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Washington also had reservations about the ‘adventurer’ nature of French volunteer troops…who came in ‘waves and shoals’ in his words…and turned them away at a much higher rate than with officers. 

But this has to do with politics, making sure all 13 feel accounted for. Everyone was jealous of each other and promoting Frenchmen really could lower morale. Plus some of the early French "officers" proved as green as the colonists.

 

 

45 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Again, I don’t think there is a non ad-hom way to argue against the French being the decisive factor.

I mean, aside from guns and stuff (probably) I think the Americans were destined for victory, too far away. Too rebellious. I can't picture anything short of NY style martial law to apprehend Boston. And then that's gotta be for years.

I also see America splitting as inevitable. It didn't have to be violent like how Canada went but it did have to be much sooner. No taxation without representative. How can the colonists have equal representation when New England itself is bigger then England?

[frenin]

It is entirely because Martin doesn't really care about them, most Arryns should be legitimately badasses and they have always been on the winning side of every conflict, always playing first fiddle. It's only in this current war when they don't do much and still Lysa can afford to tell Tywin and the IT to fuck off and receive no punishment whatsoever because they are absolutely critical.

They are the opposite of House Lannister really, who always had minor and or unceremonious roles in the past wars of the continent but the last one.

 

But Martin just doesn't really care to write them tho. It really is astonishing how little developed he is for how big or a role he plays in the downfall of the Targaryen.