If there had been a Stark/Highgarden alliance.....

[KINGpanther]

To an extent, I suppose. Stannis is unlikely to accept a broken Kingdom and the Dornishmen, Ironmen and Valemen are unlikely to accept their authority.

It would of been interesting. Stannis can't go North now with the Northern army intact. Likly he has another go at a Tyrell held Kings Landing and is crushed. With no Red Wedding, Robb brings the battle to the Ironmen so likly the Tyrells are left alone by a tied up Iron Fleet and the Vale will do what they do best, sit on the fence.

Shit hits the fan when Danearys invades though.

[Frey Pie]

It's almost kind of funny how many different kings Randyll Tarly's served. He fought for the Targaryens ably during the rebellion. He immediately and without hesitation followed Mace to Renly's cause. Then abandoned it again on Mace's behalf for Joffrey, who didn't last too long, so now he serves Tommen. I think it would be hilarious if he jumped ship again to Aegon. Aerys, Robert, Renly, Joffrey, Tommen and then Aegon. The man who served six kings?

By all means, I could see him as a closet Targaryen supporter. Certainly the stern, imposing father figure Sam describes doesn't quite match up with the unwavering loyalty to a toady like Mace Tyrell. Especially when he goes taking credit for his victories like at Ashford. I'm not sure if the Tarlys claim descent from the Gardeners like everyone else in the Reach, but it seems he'd have a lot to gain by declaring for Aegon if he won.

Not to mention that he sent the bodies of some disloyal bannermen to Aerys. ...but ya Randylls a bit of a slut alright

[Poodle Pup From Astapor]

It's almost kind of funny how many different kings Randyll Tarly's served. He fought for the Targaryens ably during the rebellion. He immediately and without hesitation followed Mace to Renly's cause. Then abandoned it again on Mace's behalf for Joffrey, who didn't last too long, so now he serves Tommen. I think it would be hilarious if he jumped ship again to Aegon. Aerys, Robert, Renly, Joffrey, Tommen and then Aegon. The man who served six kings?

By all means, I could see him as a closet Targaryen supporter. Certainly the stern, imposing father figure Sam describes doesn't quite match up with the unwavering loyalty to a toady like Mace Tyrell. Especially when he goes taking credit for his victories like at Ashford. I'm not sure if the Tarlys claim descent from the Gardeners like everyone else in the Reach, but it seems he'd have a lot to gain by declaring for Aegon if he won.

He's been loyally serving his direct liege lord, though. If Mace wants to follow 20 kings in his life, then Randyll obliges.

[Colonel Green]

The Tyrells were stewards. They don't have what it takes to declare indendence. And they could take the IT, but they have no claim so they wouldn't be recognized by most of the other Kingdoms. Thats why they needed a Baratheon.

People seriously overrate the "stewards" thing. The Florents whine about it, but they fell in line with the Tyrells until Renly died, and the Tyrells have otherwise had no problem managing their banners in the war. All of the more "prestigious" houses in the Reach are intermarried with the Tyrells, and have a stake in their success. Mace's mother is a Redwyne, and his sister is married to the current Redwyne lord; his wife is a Hightower; and so on.

As to what form a Stark/Tyrell alliance would have taken had Catelyn been in a position to negotiate one, there are basically two forms: the first being that they decide to abandon the separatist movement and make a joint bid for the throne, the second being that the Tyrells accede to Stark/Tully independence in exchange for recognition and support as King in the South, sweetened, perhaps, with getting to claim the Westerlands and all the riches therein for themselves once the Lannisters are defeated.

Regarding the OP, having Sansa was never the key to such an alliance anyway. The Tyrells' #1 demand would have been that Robb marry Margaery.

[Lee-Sensei]

It would of been interesting. Stannis can't go North now with the Northern army intact. Likly he has another go at a Tyrell held Kings Landing and is crushed. With no Red Wedding, Robb brings the battle to the Ironmen so likly the Tyrells are left alone by a tied up Iron Fleet and the Vale will do what they do best, sit on the fence.

Shit hits the fan when Danearys invades though.

Without the Tyrells, Stannis takes Kings Landing.

Colonel Green, on 02 Mar 2015 - 04:34 AM, said:

People seriously overrate the "stewards" thing. The Florents whine about it, but they fell in line with the Tyrells until Renly died, and the Tyrells have otherwise had no problem managing their banners in the war. All of the more "prestigious" houses in the Reach are intermarried with the Tyrells, and have a stake in their success. Mace's mother is a Redwyne, and his sister is married to the current Redwyne lord; his wife is a Hightower; and so on.

As to what form a Stark/Tyrell alliance would have taken had Catelyn been in a position to negotiate one, there are basically two forms: the first being that they decide to abandon the separatist movement and make a joint bid for the throne, the second being that the Tyrells accede to Stark/Tully independence in exchange for recognition and support as King in the South, sweetened, perhaps, with getting to claim the Westerlands and all the riches therein for themselves once the Lannisters are defeated.

[Poodle Pup From Astapor]

People seriously overrate the "stewards" thing. The Florents whine about it, but they fell in line with the Tyrells until Renly died, and the Tyrells have otherwise had no problem managing their banners in the war. All of the more "prestigious" houses in the Reach are intermarried with the Tyrells, and have a stake in their success. Mace's mother is a Redwyne, and his sister is married to the current Redwyne lord; his wife is a Hightower; and so on.

As to what form a Stark/Tyrell alliance would have taken had Catelyn been in a position to negotiate one, there are basically two forms: the first being that they decide to abandon the separatist movement and make a joint bid for the throne, the second being that the Tyrells accede to Stark/Tully independence in exchange for recognition and support as King in the South, sweetened, perhaps, with getting to claim the Westerlands and all the riches therein for themselves once the Lannisters are defeated.

Regarding the OP, having Sansa was never the key to such an alliance anyway. The Tyrells' #1 demand would have been that Robb marry Margaery.

The steward thing is not so important now, since Targaryens / Iron Throne gave them lord paramount status, so they get legitimacy from the Iron Throne. But I think it can become a problem if Tyrells seek to become kings of the Reach. I think independence of the Reach is a risky business for Tyrells.

Trying to just usurp the Iron Throne by force would also make them look like tyrants. I don't think they would hold onto it for long. They don't have dragons (so they don't have overwhelming power advantage), and there's no reason why Stormlands / Westerlands etc would be happy to pay taxes to Tyrells.

If Tyrells want to side with Starks, destroy Lannisters, usurp the Iron Throne AND keep it for longer than a few years, they must make it look legitimate. They'd have to capture Shireen or Myrcella, marry her to Willas or Garlan and declare him king. But they are in the hands of Martells / Stannis at that point. Maybe some more distant Baratheon girl would suffice.

Either way, it's tricky. A Lannister alliance makes more sense to me, that's less ambitious but also way less risky, a stronger ally, more legitimacy.

[Colonel Green]

The steward thing is not so important now, since Targaryens / Iron Throne gave them lord paramount status, so they get legitimacy from the Iron Throne. But I think it can become a problem if Tyrells seek to become kings of the Reach. I think independence of the Reach is a risky business for Tyrells.

Trying to just usurp the Iron Throne by force would also make them look like tyrants. I don't think they would hold onto it for long. They don't have dragons (so they don't have overwhelming power advantage), and there's no reason why Stormlands / Westerlands etc would be happy to pay taxes to Tyrells.

If Tyrells want to side with Starks, destroy Lannisters, usurp the Iron Throne AND keep it for longer than a few years, they must make it look legitimate. They'd have to capture Shireen or Myrcella, marry her to Willas or Garlan and declare him king. But they are in the hands of Martells / Stannis at that point. Maybe some more distant Baratheon girl would suffice.

Either way, it's tricky. A Lannister alliance makes more sense to me, that's less ambitious but also way less risky, a stronger ally, more legitimacy.

The Lannisters aren't the stronger ally at that point, though. Their position is quite weak, and Robb has been winning every battle he's waged.

The Stormlands/Westerlands would pay taxes for the same reason any of the defeated regions would to Renly, etc.: because he's the king and has the military might to back it up. That's the case for anyone seeking to claim the Iron Throne.

[Lee-Sensei]

The Lannisters aren't the stronger ally at that point, though. Their position is quite weak, and Robb has been winning every battle he's waged.

The Stormlands/Westerlands would pay taxes for the same reason any of the defeated regions would to Renly, etc.: because he's the king and has the military might to back it up. That's the case for anyone seeking to claim the Iron Throne.

It's still a big loss. Why settle for only part of the realm, if they can have it all?

[Poodle Pup From Astapor]

The Lannisters aren't the stronger ally at that point, though. Their position is quite weak, and Robb has been winning every battle he's waged.

The Stormlands/Westerlands would pay taxes for the same reason any of the defeated regions would to Renly, etc.: because he's the king and has the military might to back it up. That's the case for anyone seeking to claim the Iron Throne.

I don't think Tyrells have the military might to back it up. Gardeners would've ruled Stormlands and Westerlands long before the conquest, if that was feasible. The 7 kingdoms were united because of dragons, and now they are held together merely by tradition and by consent from lords paramount. If Tyrells openly take over and all they have are the Reach bannermen behind them (and even that's uncertain), they might hold onto it for a few years, but it's a matter of time before it all falls apart.

The reality is that it's a massive medieval feudal territory with strong regional identities. If you don't have an overwhelming force (dragons), or multiple lords paramount strongly on your side, it's not a feasible long term entity. At some point the next lords paramount of the Westerlands and the Stormlands will talk to each other and ask, why the heck are we paying taxes to these Tyrell tyrants, they can't really rule us by force, and they'll be correct.

As to Lannisters, they still have Westerlands, part of Riverlands, Crownlands, a lot of financial power. Despite winning some battles, Robb still can't project all that many men south, due to distances and logistics. Tywin is also a more proven, cunning politician, and Lannisters offer more legitimacy, since they have actual claimants to the Iron Throne.

[Charles Calthrop]

Why would the Tyrells bow down to the Starks? Neither have a claim to the Iron Throne, why would Mace not make himself the King and offer to marry Sansa Stark to Willas, his heir?

First, the Starks were one of (if not the) oldest houses in Westeros. The King in the North was an actual ruling title held by the Starks for thousands of years. The King of the Reach was a title that was much more short-lived, and was held by a different house. Further, various of the Tyrell's bannermen had better claims to being the successor of that house than the Tyrells. That's from the 'claim' side - and it matters in a class-based society.

Secondly, if you don't have claim through history, you claim by right of conquest. Mace Tyrell had the levies - but he was a shit commander, and despite his claims, I think deep down he knows that if he 'wins', he's further in Randyll Tarly's debt. (And Randyll may be one of those houses that think they're closer to the Gardener succession). That's more than potentially problematic.

On the other hand, Robb had proven his abilities on the battlefield and was already acknowledged as the suzerain of 2 of the 7 kingdoms.

[Lee-Sensei]

First, the Starks were one of (if not the) oldest houses in Westeros. The King in the North was an actual ruling title held by the Starks for thousands of years. The King of the Reach was a title that was much more short-lived, and was held by a different house. Further, various of the Tyrell's bannermen had better claims to being the successor of that house than the Tyrells. That's from the 'claim' side - and it matters in a class-based society.

Secondly, if you don't have claim through history, you claim by right of conquest. Mace Tyrell had the levies - but he was a shit commander, and despite his claims, I think deep down he knows that if he 'wins', he's further in Randyll Tarly's debt. (And Randyll may be one of those houses that think they're closer to the Gardener succession). That's more than potentially problematic.

On the other hand, Robb had proven his abilities on the battlefield and was already acknowledged as the suzerain of 2 of the 7 kingdoms.

Those two Kingdoms are at best miitaeily equal to the Reach and possibely poorer.

[Charles Calthrop]

There's some gross over-rating of the Reach's military might here. They had a huge host when the Tyrells were combined with the bulk of the stormlands. Most of those defected to Stannis post Renlycide. Additionally, the Reach ends up being a non-factor to ancillary player at best (much like their allegory - France) in the history of Westero's wars - despite their strength on paper. (War of the Ninepenny Kings, their actions in Robert's Rebellion, Greyjoy Rebellion, etc.) On the other hand, the Lannisters and Starks are kind of the 'U.S.' and the 'U.K.' whenever they need to put together a coalition.

Jaime led one army. Tywin led the largest Lannister army and Robb won all his battles, but was losing the war.

Nothing indicates that Tarly's overrated.

There is not a chance that the North beats the Reach in warfare, even with the Riverlands supporting them.

[Charles Calthrop]

Summer Knights? Randyll Tarly, Paxter Redwyne, Loras Tyrell, Garlan Tyrell...

And that's the best the reach can offer - with Redwyne's strength really being naval, Loras really being a tournament knight, and little enough known about Garlan beyond reputation.

The north had a host of battle-hardened leaders - the Umbers, the Glovers, the Tallharts, etc. That's having excluded the Boltons, Karstarks, and the Riverlords, as well as various lords who they didn't even call on - Flints, Reeds, etc.

[Lee-Sensei]

There's some gross over-rating of the Reach's military might here. They had a huge host when the Tyrells were combined with the bulk of the stormlands. Most of those defected to Stannis post Renlycide. Additionally, the Reach ends up being a non-factor to ancillary player at best (much like their allegory - France) in the history of Westero's wars - despite their strength on paper. (War of the Ninepenny Kings, their actions in Robert's Rebellion, Greyjoy Rebellion, etc.) On the other hand, the Lannisters and Starks are kind of the 'U.S.' and the 'U.K.' whenever they need to put together a coalition.

20,000 from the Stormlands and 60,000 from the Reach. That's not counting the Hightowers amd Redwynes.

Also, I don't know why you think France is a paper tiger. That's true of WW2, but for most of it's history it's been one of if not the dominant power in Europe. The Lannisters and Tyrells on their own are stronger than the Starks. The Baratheons are too, if united. House Stark is about as strong as House Arryn and House Tully.

^"A fanfare of trumpets greeted each of the heroes as he stepped between the great oaken doors. Heralds cried his name and deeds for all to hear..."

The Tyrells are given pride of place. Are the heralds recounting deeds on the battlefield of the Blackwater or something more general ('knighted at 15, defeated the Kingslayer in the final tilt on Joffrey's nameday, etc.')? This has to do with the whole Renly's ghost thing, I admit, but if Loras and Garlan both have an arm-long list of deeds from the battle recited as they enter the hall...

The Knight of Flowers fought gloriously on the Blackwater, and I have no doubt that the heralds mentioned that, but his other martial accompishments were also mentioned, no doubt.

Loras and Garlan are among the greatest warriors in Westeros. The North and the Riverlands have good warriors too, but they aren't better.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

First, the Starks were one of (if not the) oldest houses in Westeros. The King in the North was an actual ruling title held by the Starks for thousands of years. The King of the Reach was a title that was much more short-lived, and was held by a different house. Further, various of the Tyrell's bannermen had better claims to being the successor of that house than the Tyrells. That's from the 'claim' side - and it matters in a class-based society.

No one gives a shit about how old a house is. You are crazy if you think a vastly more powerful House would bow down to another just because they are older. You dont see the rest of the European countries bowing down to Greece just because they are older or America following Englands lead because it is older.

If that was the case the Tyrells would have sworn fealty to the Hightowers long ago.

Secondly, if you don't have claim through history, you claim by right of conquest. Mace Tyrell had the levies - but he was a shit commander, and despite his claims, I think deep down he knows that if he 'wins', he's further in Randyll Tarly's debt. (And Randyll may be one of those houses that think they're closer to the Gardener succession). That's more than potentially problematic.

This is a pitiful argument. That Mace, who is described as arrogant, would be intimidated by a teenager.

That rather rely on Tarly and become King himself he will swear fealty to a poorer kingdom with a fraction of his military. Really?

On the other hand, Robb had proven his abilities on the battlefield and was already acknowledged as the suzerain of 2 of the 7 kingdoms.

Robb had lost his own kingdom and was hardly doing a shit hot job of defending the Riverlands as it was crawling with bandits. Settlements such as Maidenpool, Darry and others were not under his command.

I know Robb has a of fanboys but in univirse he was being judged as the King who lost the North.

[Charles Calthrop]

20,000 from the Stormlands and 60,000 from the Reach. That's not counting the Hightowers amd Redwynes.

Also, I don't know why you think France is a paper tiger. That's true of WW2, but for most of it's history it's been one of if not the dominant power in Europe. The Lannisters and Tyrells on their own are stronger than the Starks. The Baratheons are too, if united. House Stark is about as strong as House Arryn and House Tully.

^"A fanfare of trumpets greeted each of the heroes as he stepped between the great oaken doors. Heralds cried his name and deeds for all to hear..."

The Tyrells are given pride of place. Are the heralds recounting deeds on the battlefield of the Blackwater or something more general ('knighted at 15, defeated the Kingslayer in the final tilt on Joffrey's nameday, etc.')? This has to do with the whole Renly's ghost thing, I admit, but if Loras and Garlan both have an arm-long list of deeds from the battle recited as they enter the hall...

The Knight of Flowers fought gloriously on the Blackwater, and I have no doubt that the heralds mentioned that, but his other martial accompishments were also mentioned, no doubt.

I'm going off their track record in the various wars, and a quote by Tywin in one of the earlier books rating the North as the second most militarily powerful region after his own. (Admittedly, I might have too much cognitive bias on that one.) The Tyrells absolutely have numbers, but they seem to talk a big game, yet not produce a lot in the way of actual results - including all the stuff about they heralds singing songs of their deeds and whatnot. (Like France, very big on the chivalric tradition, singing, etc.) This also ties in with the number of 'knights'in the south in general vs. in the North (where the seven are not followed and knighthoods are just not sought after the same way. The northerners don't do a great job talking about it - they just do it. But this is stuff that's hard for us to 'debate' as the novels are hardly a 'complete' view.

France was a power for a good long while, but the dominant power for basically the reign of Louis XIV. (And even then, the unification of France as a nation, shifting away from a collection of feudal duchies took till the end of the 1500s - so not long before Louis took power in the 1660s.) Militarily, they've got a fairly damning record in wars. Even Louis XIV was 1-2-1, with the Dutch War counted as a 'victory' you could argue the record to 2-2.

I'm a francophile and love many, many things about France and the French, but they didn't have the greatest performance in wars.

[Charles Calthrop]

I only brought up the 'old' thing because someone else brought up the 'claim' thing. Ultimately all that matters is 'right of conquest'. A house would bow down to another house IF they thought that other house could deliver a decisive victory (something the Tyrells can't do solo). The 'old house' thing is mostly window dressing.

But you're clearly raised in the Good Ol' US of A if you think house prestige doesn't matter at all. In a medieval, classist context, it certainly counts for something. Nothing by itself - the Hightowers had prestige, but no one was going to swear loyalty to them as kings (or the Daynes for that matter), but on the other hand the Tyrells would have a hard time without a very decisive victory. (Which is why Mace wants his daughter and ultimately grandson on the throne, not one of his sons).

Mace is super-ambitious, perhaps even greedy, but he didn't really strike me as proud/arrogant. And as for intimidated - he was intimidated by his own mom. A teenager with a telepathic ferocious beast and a host of smelly, bearded men (think bikers, not hipsters) at his back might. Also, I wasn't saying he WOULD follow Robb. I was talking about what hypotheticals an alliance might have revolved around - e.g. before Robb had 'lost the North'.

Geez, with the heated defense here, one would think you were a Mace/Tyrell fanboy.

No one gives a shit about how old a house is. You are crazy if you think a vastly more powerful House would bow down to another just because they are older. You dont see the rest of the European countries bowing down to Greece just because they are older or America following Englands lead because it is older.

If that was the case the Tyrells would have sworn fealty to the Hightowers long ago.

This is a pitiful argument. That Mace, who is described as arrogant, would be intimidated by a teenager.

That rather rely on Tarly and become King himself he will swear fealty to a poorer kingdom with a fraction of his military. Really?

Robb had lost his own kingdom and was hardly doing a shit hot job of defending the Riverlands as it was crawling with bandits. Settlements such as Maidenpool, Darry and others were not under his command.

I know Robb has a of fanboys but in univirse he was being judged as the King who lost the North.

[Lee-Sensei]

I'm going off their track record in the various wars, and a quote by Tywin in one of the earlier books rating the North as the second most militarily powerful region after his own. (Admittedly, I might have too much cognitive bias on that one.) The Tyrells absolutely have numbers, but they seem to talk a big game, yet not produce a lot in the way of actual results - including all the stuff about they heralds singing songs of their deeds and whatnot. (Like France, very big on the chivalric tradition, singing, etc.) This also ties in with the number of 'knights'in the south in general vs. in the North (where the seven are not followed and knighthoods are just not sought after the same way. The northerners don't do a great job talking about it - they just do it. But this is stuff that's hard for us to 'debate' as the novels are hardly a 'complete' view.

France was a power for a good long while, but the dominant power for basically the reign of Louis XIV. (And even then, the unification of France as a nation, shifting away from a collection of feudal duchies took till the end of the 1500s - so not long before Louis took power in the 1660s.) Militarily, they've got a fairly damning record in wars. Even Louis XIV was 1-2-1, with the Dutch War counted as a 'victory' you could argue the record to 2-2.

I'm a francophile and love many, many things about France and the French, but they didn't have the greatest performance in wars.

1) Do you have the quote? I don't remember it, but if it exists I may have to concede.

2) No doubt the North has great warriors, but that doesn't mean they're better than the Reach. We don't know much about their wars. Only that they're the military juggernaut of the continent.

3) France has a glorious military record. Even into the modern age. All of the Great Powers of Europe had to unite to beat Napoleon and in World War 1, France did the bulk of the fighting. They're certainly not bad when the countries it's being compared to are the US and the UK. The US being a great military power is a fairly recent thing, where as the British had a tendency to fund wars against continental rivals rather than face them directly. All three had their military successes and faiures, but France being a paper tiger is a myth based on their lackluster performance in WW2.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

I only brought up the 'old' thing because someone else brought up the 'claim' thing. Ultimately all that matters is 'right of conquest'. A house would bow down to another house IF they thought that other house could deliver a decisive victory (something the Tyrells can't do solo). The 'old house' thing is mostly window dressing.

The Starks cant deliver a decisive victory either? Robb Stark would need Mace Tyrell more than the other way round.

But you're clearly raised in the Good Ol' US of A if you think house prestige doesn't matter at all. In a medieval, classist context, it certainly counts for something. Nothing by itself - the Hightowers had prestige, but no one was going to swear loyalty to them as kings (or the Daynes for that matter), but on the other hand the Tyrells would have a hard time without a very decisive victory. (Which is why Mace wants his daughter and ultimately grandson on the throne, not one of his sons).

Nope. I'm English, from Cumbria which pretty much looks like the North on the show.

You keep coming back to the Tyrells having a hard time winning a decisive victory, how does that argument not apply to Robb Stark?

Mace is super-ambitious, perhaps even greedy, but he didn't really strike me as proud/arrogant. And as for intimidated - he was intimidated by his own mom. A teenager with a telepathic ferocious beast and a host of smelly, bearded men (think bikers, not hipsters) at his back might. Also, I wasn't saying he WOULD follow Robb. I was talking about what hypotheticals an alliance might have revolved around - e.g. before Robb had 'lost the North'.

Well I think your understanding of the character is flawed. He is hardly greedy, as he freely uses his wealth and is certainly proud and arrogant as his own mother refers to him as "Lord Puff Fish".

Provide evidence that he was intimidated by his own mom? Pretty sure that never happens in the books. Not that it matters, many men are a little intimidated by their own mom, Robb was scared that Cat was going to send him home at the start of the war.

There is simply no reason for the Andal worshipping Tyrells, with a richer more populous kingdom to bow down to the Starks. Robb has no claim to the Crown, like Reny and Joffrey.

[KINGpanther]

I'll take back everything I said about Robb winning with house Hightower behind the Tyrells.