R+L=J v. 36

[Dragonfish]

We have been told that Robert raised his armies at Storm's End, and then moved west and fought the Battle of Summerhall. Then he moved further west and fought the Battle of Ashford. Robert was wounded and fled north to the Stoney Sept, where Connington went house to house looking for him. Ned arrives just in time to prevent Connington from taking Robert. Then they take their combined armies to the Trident where they fight Rhaegar.

You're assuming that they went straight from the Battle of the Bells to the Trident (relatively speaking, of course), when nothing of the sort is ever said.

The bolded part cannot be true, because the siege of Storm's End is less than one year.

Again, you have to accept the possibility (and in my opinion, the likelihood) that the Battle of the Bells took place just a few months into the war. Three to four months plus seven months equals ten or eleven months, which is just about a year, and conforms exactly to the timeline of the siege of Storm's End.

The wiki can and is wrong about many things.

No one has posted anything from the wiki.

The timeline suggests that Lyanna was abducted before Aegon was born, and this is just not true.

Are you referring to the timeline that Belandra has posted? Because it doesn't say anything of the sort.

[Twinslayer]

Yeah, I find the timeline of the battles hard to reconcile with the other storylines too. I guess the only loophole in the whole timing thing is that it says the siege at SE lasted "roughly" a year, which give or take a month or two, allows enough wiggle-room...?

That's about the same that I come out with but I use Harrenhal and the kids' ages more in figuring out the timeline, as I suspect you do too. The battles are too difficult for me to place in the timeline, and I don't have a huge interest in the details of them. What I'd really like to know is what Rhaegar was up to in the 5-7 months that he was in KL between the Battle of the Bells and the Trident!

Completely agree with you. I thought The Citadel was more reliable than the Wiki but maybe not. I hope it is because I refer to it a lot!

Is it possible that Aegon was born during the bolded period? Or can that be conclusively ruled out?

[Starkley]

This has probably been asked before but I'm pretty new and haven't read the previous thread but is it possible Lyanna had twins? ( I know, I know - it sounds so Star Warsy but I had to ask).

[J. Stargaryen]

This has probably been asked before but I'm pretty new and haven't read the previous thread but is it possible Lyanna had twins? ( I know, I know - it sounds so Star Warsy but I had to ask).

If she did, GRRM apparently didn't leave any clues.

[Belandra Waters]

Is it possible that Aegon was born during the bolded period? Or can that be conclusively ruled out?

If Aegon is around a year old (give or take a turn or two according to GRRM) when he dies during the sack of KL, he couldn't have been born during this time period. His birth must have been occurred shortly before the start of the war.

[MtnLion]

One has to remember that not only the siege of Storm's End last for about a year, just as the war does, but the war and the seige don't start at the same time. The seige starts some time after Robert comes home a fights battles at Summerhall, Ashford, etc. so there has to be a lot of wiggle room in that "about"

One of my references said that the siege at Storm's End was less than a year. Robert must leave Storm's End before the siege starts, and Ned returns to lift it. In between we have Ned raising his armies and coming south, while Robert fights two battles and retreats from the last wounded to the Stoney Sept. Apparently Robert was not too wounded to fight because he fights at the Stoney Sept when Ned has turned the tide. Looking at the map and applying some logic to the movement of the armies, Robert moves a very great distance probably on the order of at least two months travel (using a rough guess of slowest part of the army) before he gets to Ashford. Fleeing north to Stoney Sept for a single mounted rider is probably along the lines of 5-6 weeks. The Battle of the Bells then about a month to the Trident, and a month from the Trident to King's Landing (Ned tried to beat the Lannisters, I'm sure). And, then we need about a month to get to Storm's End. There just is not much slack anywhere. The beginning of the war is when Robert and Ned raise their banners, and Jon Arryn fights against his own bannermen that won't join him.

ETA: If we throw in Hoster, Ned, et al moving back to Riverrun after the Battle of the Bells for a wedding (about 4-6 weeks) and then moving back to the north! side of the Ruby Ford (about 5-7 weeks) there just is not enough time for Catelyn to conceive and deliver before Jon is born. Perhaps it took Ned longer than expected to find the tower, but then we run into issues with Rhaegar being present for conception and with the 8-9 month difference to Daenerys' age. I do not believe that Rhaegar was in King's Landing more than a day or two before taking the armies north to the Trident.

[Twinslayer]

If Aegon is around a year old (give or take a turn or two according to GRRM) when he dies during the sack of KL, he couldn't have been born during this time period. His birth must have been occurred shortly before the start of the war.

That makes sense. Thanks.

[Bear Island Bruiser]

Do you understand the difference between de facto and de jure rulership? A person can be the "true" ruler of a country without actually controlling the territory he claims to rule over. This has happened plenty of times throughout history. Even today, the government of Taiwan claims control over all mainland China, despite the fact that they actually control none of it. The point being, it is never the case that a king ceases to be king simply because he is not actually sitting over the throne he claims to hold, at least not in the eyes of his supporters.

ETA--Moreover, Barristan believes that he is absolutely duty-bound to guard the last Targaryens, and his failure to do so over the previous fifteen years is a constant source of shame for him.

Yes I fully understand the difference between de facto and de jure. You have to follow the concept that there is a difference between the King, the man, and the king, the institution. The KG there are sworn to the Targaryen monarchy. That monarchy no longer exists.

Now any real world example is thrown into question by this being based in Westeros and not the real world but if you take the example of say the Stewart dynasty they end up being pretenders to the thrones of England and Scotland. They have no control over it and are not in any real sense the Monarchs of that country. In the same way Viserys ends up a pretender to the throne of Westeros. He can claim it all he likes but he's not really the King hence the Kings Guard vows do not apply,

Barristan is hardly a great example to use in this case as he bent the knee to Robert something the others never would have done. As he has acted differently to the way these three did in this case his actions can not be considered the standard to go by.

[corbon]

One of my references said that the siege at Storm's End was less than a year.

Say 11 months then?

Robert leaves more or less immediately, say a couple of weeks to gather some of his banners.

Robert must leave Storm's End before the siege starts, and Ned returns to lift it. In between we have Ned raising his armies and coming south, while Robert fights two battles and retreats from the last wounded to the Stoney Sept. Apparently Robert was not too wounded to fight because he fights at the Stoney Sept when Ned has turned the tide. Looking at the map and applying some logic to the movement of the armies, Robert moves a very great distance probably on the order of at least two months travel (using a rough guess of slowest part of the army) before he gets to Ashford.

Note that Robert is famous for lightning moves, strategically. But two months is fine.

Fleeing north to Stoney Sept for a single mounted rider is probably along the lines of 5-6 weeks.

Lets say a total of 3.5 months so far then. Make it 4 months including the time Robert spent preparing before he marched.

The Battle of the Bells then about a month to the Trident,

No, lots of time to the Trident. 6-7 months or so to the Trident, bring us to 10-11 months in to the war.

and a month from the Trident to King's Landing (Ned tried to beat the Lannisters, I'm sure).

More like a week I believe, maybe 2. Ned only took along an advance guard, probably all mounted and with light supplies., Robert followed with the main army after some recovery time - Robert's army probably took a month.

Thats gives us 11-12 months of war (about a year), with 6-7 months between Bells and Trident.

And, then we need about a month to get to Storm's End.

Again, Ned didn't need to take a whole army, just enough of a force to deter bandits and move fast. Storm's End isn't relieved militarily, its relieved diplomatically. The war is over.

There just is not much slack anywhere. The beginning of the war is when Robert and Ned raise their banners, and Jon Arryn fights against his own bannermen that won't join him.

And with 6-7 months between Bells and Trident (by your own accountings of times per distance, give or take a few weeks), everything fits, if a bit tightly here and there. The war lasts around a year. The seige of Storm's End lasts just under a year (remembering that it starts some time after Robert left, be that a few weeks or a month or two), and there is 8 months or so between Bells and the end of the war. So if Robb is conceived a few weeks to a month or so after Bells, then he's born 1-2 months after the war ends, and Jon is supposedly born around 1 month after the war ends, putting the two of them close enough to the same age for Robb to be acceptably considered the elder when they meet in a few months time.

ETA: If we throw in Hoster, Ned, et al moving back to Riverrun after the Battle of the Bells for a wedding (about 4-6 weeks) and then moving back to the north! side of the Ruby Ford (about 5-7 weeks) there just is not enough time for Catelyn to conceive and deliver before Jon is born. Perhaps it took Ned longer than expected to find the tower, but then we run into issues with Rhaegar being present for conception and with the 8-9 month difference to Daenerys' age. I do not believe that Rhaegar was in King's Landing more than a day or two before taking the armies north to the Trident.

Still no issues. I agree Rhaegar was maybe not in KL for long (maybe more than a few days, but probably not more than a few weeks) before he left for the Trident - Selmy and Darry had been re-organising forces already.

From Battle of Bells, news has to reach Aerys, then Aerys has to get over his rage and call for Rhaegar. Then Rhaegar has to actually get that call, way down in ToJ without the benefit of Raven post. So Hightower goes down there (1-2 months), Rahegarcomes back (1-2 months) and takes command and finishes reorganising the forces. Then he has to march to Trident, on a war footing with all his foot (ie at least a month) Between Bells and Trident therefore fits perfectly at around 6-7 months.

How on earth you propose the news of Bells got to Aerys, he got over himself and called for Rhaegar, Rhaegar got the message and returned to KL and then marched the Royal army to the Trident all within one month, I have no idea at all?

PS. Its also worth remembering GRRM does not have all this plotted out and does not have accurate distances and timings. All his stuff is about as rough as ours is here, so its worth considering that when we expext something to take 6 weeks based on distance, he may have considered 2 weeks or 4 weeks enough. You could probably throw in another 2-3 months +/- in there due to that fudge factor on all travel times.

That said, its still clearly around 6-7 months between Bells and Trident, and that number fits for everything.

[corbon]

Yes I fully understand the difference between de facto and de jure. You have to follow the concept that there is a difference between the King, the man, and the king, the institution. The KG there are sworn to the Targaryen monarchy. That monarchy no longer exists.

You fail here.

Yes, it does exist. Just because it is no longer in de jure power, does not remove it from existence.

Actually, you might even fail a bit earlier. We don;t know exactly what the KG are sworn to. The Targaryen Dynasty?

[Twinslayer]

We have the occasion of the king's death, when Robert dies, and the Kingsguard's Lord Commander tells Ned, "my place is with Joffrey." Does that sound like he is following orders of any kind? No, his place is with the new king. In the case of Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon dying, who is next in succession? Viserys, unless Jon is a legitimate son of Rhaegar. That is what we see in the conversation at the tower.

I have always thought it was interesting that when Barristan (LC of the KG) tells Ned (Hand of the King) that his place is with Joffrey, Ned orders Barristan to stay and Barristan obeys Ned's order.

But on another note, a quick question about Aegon. Poking around in ADWD just now, I noticed that "Aegon's" followers refer to him as "Prince Aegon." That is interesting. Whether he is real or fake, Connington and friends think he is real and they believe that when Aerys died, he was the heir. I would have thought their position would be that Aegon became king the moment Aerys died. So why aren't they calling him "King Aegon"? And is this relevant to the de facto/de jure issue that was discussed today?

[wolfmaid7]

Again, psychology/we don't really know him/blah blah.

I don't think he would. I think he MIGHT and that honestly it would come down to how drunk he was at the moment someone asked him* "what shall we do with this...dragonspawn?" Sure he hated Rheagar, but he loved Lyanna and the child was part of both of them. (Yes I realized any memory of this union would upset him.) He also had Ned there to temper his....temper. He might have wanted to murder Jon, but once Ned said something about "You'd murder my sister's son" I think he would have restrained himself and done one of two things.

1) send the child north with Ned "to never be spoken of again" / join the watch eventually

2) Kept the child close as a page and then a squire. He likely would have have treated him with contempt, or who knows he might have ended up loving him more than "his own" children.

Either way he would have kept the child a secret and maintained that Lyanna loved only him and was raped for his own pride's sake.

*I made a similar point recently in a thread asking "what if Robert had come back from his boar hunt." I could see Robert killing Cersei, I could see him killing Joffery. (the kid vivisected a pregnant cat.) I could not see him murdering Mycella and to a lesser extent Tommen in cold blood. But again I think it would come down to how drunk he was at the time.

Robert dreamed of killing Rheagar every night in his dream.There is no way he would have let Jon see his first name day. Sorry Robert is totally irrational.Ned specifically remembers Robert turning his face away when Ageon and Rheneys were killed. They were babes i'm pretty sure that image never left Ned's mind at what Robert could do.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

I loved the bolded orange part. I always wondered about Wylla.

Was she already at the TOJ or was she picked up when Ned visited the Daynes? "They" is used for finding Ned with a dead Lyanna still in his arms. Howland + someone found him.

Did Wylla make the journey North with Jon? (Cat remembers finding Jon and his wetnurse installed in Winterfell when she arrives with Robb.)

Ned remembers "making up" with Robert after Lyanna's death. Did he swing by King's Landing with Jon and Wylla in tow or did he just give Robert some info on his movements since they parted bitterly earlier?

I don't think the text ever says if she is still alive. She was alive ~10 years earlier because she nursed Ned Dayne.

Now I am going to go back and read the rest of the thread. That post just hopped out at me.

Not specifically, but Ned Dayne's phrasing indicates present tense.

I have always thought it was interesting that when Barristan (LC of the KG) tells Ned (Hand of the King) that his place is with Joffrey, Ned orders Barristan to stay and Barristan obeys Ned's order.

But on another note, a quick question about Aegon. Poking around in ADWD just now, I noticed that "Aegon's" followers refer to him as "Prince Aegon." That is interesting. Whether he is real or fake, Connington and friends think he is real and they believe that when Aerys died, he was the heir. I would have thought their position would be that Aegon became king the moment Aerys died. So why aren't they calling him "King Aegon"? And is this relevant to the de facto/de jure issue that was discussed today?

Because he hasn't been crowned yet.

[Dragonfish]

Yes I fully understand the difference between de facto and de jure. You have to follow the concept that there is a difference between the King, the man, and the king, the institution. The KG there are sworn to the Targaryen monarchy. That monarchy no longer exists.

Yes, it does. That's what you're not getting, again and again. The monarchy still exists as the sole de jure ruler of Westeros, whether or not it actually controls the territory of Westeros. That's what Ser Willem Darry believed when he protected Dany and Viserys; that's what the Golden Company did when they served the Blackfyre line. Again and again, in real history and in Westerosi history, we see that those who are loyal to a particular dynasty continue to serve that dynasty even in exile. There's no reason to think the Kingsguard are a special case in this instance.

Barristan is hardly a great example to use in this case as he bent the knee to Robert something the others never would have done. As he has acted differently to the way these three did in this case his actions can not be considered the standard to go by.

His actions in the beginning are not an indication of what a loyal Kingsguard knight would do, but his actions later on, when he realizes his mistake, are such an indication.

[Twinslayer]

<snip>

Because he hasn't been crowned yet.

I think you are correct, and I would take it a step further. As Bear Island Bruiser said, the Targaryen monarchy ceased to exist when Robert conquered the Targaryens. When that happened, Aegon was still a prince, so he gets to keep that title in exile. The reason his supporters have not crowned him yet is that they recognize that he is not a king until he establishes his right to rule by re-conquering the 7 kingdoms.

So at the moment (if, as Connington believes, he is real), Aegon is a de jure prince (not a king), and a de facto claimant.

This is in contrast to Viserys, who called himself a king and who was ridiculed for it.

[Bear Island Bruiser]

Yes, it does. That's what you're not getting, again and again. The monarchy still exists as the sole de jure ruler of Westeros, whether or not it actually controls the territory of Westeros. That's what Ser Willem Darry believed when he protected Dany and Viserys; that's what the Golden Company did when they served the Blackfyre line. Again and again, in real history and in Westerosi history, we see that those who are loyal to a particular dynasty continue to serve that dynasty even in exile. There's no reason to think the Kingsguard are a special case in this instance.

Sorry I'm obviously not explaining the concept of a fall of a dynasty and a pretender to the throne. I can't think of any other ways to put it and obviously I can't explain it in a way you can understand. Do some research out there on it and you'll see how, whilst it wasn't exactly a common practice, it's not that rare in history. I really suggest you start with the Stuart line from Britain. It's a fairly good comparison to what's happened in Westeros. Sorry if I can't explain it well enough. Check up on it and I'm confident you'll see my point.

Though I would add you seem to be a bit confused about de jure and de facto. In de jure rule it's the person who technically rules by law where as de facto means the person who actually rules. So to apply it to Westeros you get a de jure ruler in Joffrey and Tommen but the de facto ruler there is Cersei/Kevan. Equally Taiwan would be a pretender to the 'throne' of China but neither the de facto or de jure ruler. If you want a real world comparison you'd probably best off to look at the rule of Egypt around the 19th Century. The ruling family strictly speaking were ostensibly the rulers, the de jure rulers, but to all extents and purposes were ruled by the British Empire, de facto rulers. The concept doesn't really apply to Viserys, Aegon and Dany as by any stretch of the imagination they are not the rulers of Westeros. As they've lost the throne by right of conquest, in the same way that Aegon the Conqueror took the 7 kingdoms by right of conquest.

[Twinslayer]

Sorry I'm obviously not explaining the concept of a fall of a dynasty and a pretender to the throne. I can't think of any other ways to put it and obviously I can't explain it in a way you can understand. Do some research out there on it and you'll see how, whilst it wasn't exactly a common practice, it's not that rare in history. I really suggest you start with the Stuart line from Britain. It's a fairly good comparison to what's happened in Westeros. Sorry if I can't explain it well enough. Check up on it and I'm confident you'll see my point.

Though I would add you seem to be a bit confused about de jure and de facto. In de jure rule it's the person who technically rules by law where as de facto means the person who actually rules. So to apply it to Westeros you get a de jure ruler in Joffrey and Tommen but the de facto ruler there is Cersei/Kevan. Equally Taiwan would be a pretender to the 'throne' of China but neither the de facto or de jure ruler. If you want a real world comparison you'd probably best off to look at the rule of Egypt around the 19th Century. The ruling family strictly speaking were ostensibly the rulers, the de jure rulers, but to all extents and purposes were ruled by the British Empire, de facto rulers. The concept doesn't really apply to Viserys, Aegon and Dany as by any stretch of the imagination they are not the rulers of Westeros. As they've lost the throne by right of conquest, in the same way that Aegon the Conqueror took the 7 kingdoms by right of conquest.

Bingo!

If folks are interested, here is a recent thread discussing the parrallels between the fall of the Stuarts and the fall of the Targaryens.

http://asoiaf.wester...he-iron-throne/

[Gi_Varotti]

If Aegon is around a year old (give or take a turn or two according to GRRM) when he dies during the sack of KL, he couldn't have been born during this time period. His birth must have been occurred shortly before the start of the war.

Is it possible that Aegon was born during the bolded period? Or can that be conclusively ruled out?

The wiki says Aegon was born in 282AL, so before the war :)

I really like the discussing of the character's ages but I just can't follow it, lol. This morning I was trying to figure out if Jon was older/the same age/younger than Robb and my brain almost turned into strawberry jelly! It's too much of a vague thing for me to see that certain person was born in 283AL without knowing if it was at the start of the year, at the middle or at its end!

I know it's not the place to ask but is there a specific topic for discussing the ages in the forum? I'm new here and I haven't read them all.

[Ygrain]

I'm sure that the Stuart parallels might be very interesting but the Stuart case is not the only one in history when a dynasty lost its throne and hardly can work as a precedens when the social order of that time already moved away from that of the time of chivalry as presented in ASOIAF, and above all, there is no textual reference in the books that would validate such a comparison, rather the contrary - if Viserys' claim was perceived as void, Doran would hardly plot to marry Arianne to him or send Quentyn to Dany when the first option was no longer available. And the fact that Doran plans this and is ready to send Dorne's support means another thing: that he expects to find allies to support the claim, as Dorne itself is not strong enough to fight the joint strength of the remaining kingdom.

Just ask yourself this: if Doran thinks that Viserys' claim still holds, how probable is it that the knights who were bound by their lives and honour to the Targaryen kings would perceive that claim as void?

[MtnLion]

Say 11 months then?

Robert leaves more or less immediately, say a couple of weeks to gather some of his banners.

{snip}

Well, given time I will create a timeline in the next week or so. What are your thoughts about when Brandon dueled with Littlefinger, the winter after Harrenhal, and when Lyanna was "abducted"?

ETA: Sieging forces were from the battle of Ashford, so it is possible that the war lasted longer than a year. Little things like this I want to get onto a timeline, because it is becoming so complex. I do think that GRRM does have a very specific timeline for the war of the rebellion, he just may not reference it that same way that we do, and making corrections is not an easy matter.