Jump to content

Mathis Rowan and his role in the next book


ironhandbywater

Recommended Posts

1. This, said by you "This is where majority of the troops and wealth will come from....Plotting out the allegiances of the heavy hitters is good way to gauge the support for the respective sides." is *exactly* why some of the heavy hitters had to fight for Daemon, and some of them had to be fairly committed. If half the realm rose for Daemon and few of them were heavy hitters then you're assuming by extension that a huge number of smaller houses went against their own liege lords. Mathematically it's very difficult to make that fit and it doesn't sound very likely. More likely that each side of the conflict had it's share of large and small houses, though clearly the King had the greater share of the large houses.

Surely some of the major lords fought for Daemon or else "half the realm" is really hard to get to. You say yourself that most of the smaller lords don't pack a big punch and you're completely right. It takes a ton of minor lords to equal one Great House, yet as you point out *4* Great Houses fought for the King. So where the heck did Daemon get the rest of his strength? The logical conclusion is that *some* fairly major to major lords joined him.

2. Yes, not necessarily. But no, they weren't "certainly not" as strong as those houses. It's possible House Peake were as strong as some of them. Without knowing what those 3 castles were it is basically possible. But it's clear they were not minor.

3. Master of Coin and Hand do not make his House great, it's true. Add to that the fact that his ancestor was Hand to Aegon IV, and that Aegon IV had a Butterwell mistress, and that he had an incredibly lavish castle, and the case that they were major is pretty strong.

1. Once again, you are wrong. Daemons support came from the Reach, Dorne, West, and Riverlands. Especially considering the Reach, there are more than enough middling to smaller sized houses, petty-lords, and landed knights to create a large enough force to take the realm.

The vast majority of the continents population is located in the South, especially the Reach and Riverlands. Additionally, huge population numbers reside in the cities: King's Landing, Oltdown, Lannisport, and Gulltown. Mathematically, it is more than reasonable to muster half the realm in terms of numbers from the constituents regions that supported Daemon.

Its safe the assume that the Greyjoys took not part in this conflict. I highly doubt House Stark was involved at all, or if so, nominally, due to logistics. If the Starks were involved, it was surely for Daeron.

2. I will give the Peakes middling status, which is not bad.

3. I think it is safe to say that House Butterwell was very wealthy for sure. However, its strength in terms of numbers is tough to gauge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its never the quantity of an argument that is dispositive, its the quality, accuracy, and overall reasoning that wins the day. And you my friend fall short on all counts.

Yes, and typically such things on a message board are judged by the other posters. In this case, there was more support for my idea than yours, yet on we go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. One fighter is not ample evidence of the full support of the entire house. Sorry, not buying it. Every one of the houses mentioned are exceptionally powerful. House Hightower is far stronger and powerful than even House Reyne. Osgrey not mentioning the Reynes is just as likely to mean that the house gave no support to Daemon whatsoever. One younger son of the house branching out on his own does not equal full support of the house.

House Yronwood is the second most powerful house in Dorne, which has the smallest populations of any of the constituent regions. Being the second strongest house in Dorne does not mean being stronger than House Oakheart. House Yronwood may be a bit stronger than House Tarbeck, who was quite strong and influential in the West. Additonally, whatever support given by house Yronwood may have been nominal at best, not really worth mentioning by Osgrey.

3. Well, you are either using something other than the text, or you are simply making some flawed points.

1. not claiming it is "ample evidence", claiming it is likely. How about we place a gentleman's bet on it? If it turns out House Reyne supported Daemon and didn't keep feet in both camps, you can make a post saying I was right. If not, I will make a post saying you were right. (in a new thread, linking to this one).

3. I'm making assumptions you don't like, whether or not they are flawed will be determined when future material is released. It's tiresome to call something flawed without being specific, that gets us nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and typically such things on a message board are judged by the other posters. In this case, there was more support for my idea than yours, yet on we go.

Untrue...but if you want to claim some sort of victory on the singular point of Lord Randyll sending a head to his monarch, knock yourself out. Have some champagne why you're at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. not claiming it is "ample evidence", claiming it is likely. How about we place a gentleman's bet on it? If it turns out House Reyne supported Daemon and didn't keep feet in both camps, you can make a post saying I was right. If not, I will make a post saying you were right. (in a new thread, linking to this one).

3. I'm making assumptions you don't like, whether or not they are flawed will be determined when future material is released. It's tiresome to call something flawed without being specific, that gets us nowhere.

1. Sure, if I'm wrong on this point, or any other, I have no trouble admitting it.

3. I have been very specific in all of my previous posts. It get tiresome going into specifics when you continually make points based upon the same speculation.

Happy to leave this specific debate here to keep from bogging down this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Once again, you are wrong. Daemons support came from the Reach, Dorne, West, and Riverlands. Especially considering the Reach, there are more than enough middling to smaller sized houses, petty-lords, and landed knights to create a large enough force to take the realm.

The vast majority of the continents population is located in the South, especially the Reach and Riverlands. Additionally, huge population numbers reside in the cities: King's Landing, Oltdown, Lannisport, and Gulltown. Mathematically, it is more than reasonable to muster half the realm in terms of numbers from the constituents regions that supported Daemon.

Its safe the assume that the Greyjoys took not part in this conflict. I highly doubt House Stark was involved at all, or if so, nominally, due to logistics. If the Starks were involved, it was surely for Daeron.

1. Once again, you're calling me "wrong" on something that neither of us actually has the facts to check on. What you mean is that, "once again, I disagree".

For me to be wrong, you'd have to actually know for certain which houses rose for Daemon (again, we know less than 25 out of hundreds). I can safely assume you don't have an advance copy of the WOIAF.

I agree that House Stark and House Greyjoy seemed to be uninvolved.

But let's look at your claim regarding cities. King's Landing? Seems to have been for Daeron. Oldtown? Split loyalties, as we know. Lannisport? For Daeron. Gulltown? Unknown (iirc).

2.5 cities for Daeron, .5 for Daemon and 1 unknown. So the cities are not likely to have been a major source of manpower for Daemon. That question remains largely unanswered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Sure, if I'm wrong on this point, or any other, I have no trouble admitting it.

3. I have been very specific in all of my previous posts. It get tiresome going into specifics when you continually make points based upon the same speculation.

Happy to leave this specific debate here to keep from bogging down this thread.

3. No, you've been vague sometimes, like I have. That's the nature of discussing material we have extremely limited information on.

That's why calling me, and others, wrong, with great frequency is pointless. You can disagree all day long, but calling people wrong on guesswork when you don't have the real story to back up your "claim of wrongness" is not a friendly debate tactic, and is frankly a bit dishonest as well un-fun.

People like to make guesses and they like to speculate, that's a huge part of why people come to these boards in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Once again, you're calling me "wrong" on something that neither of us actually has the facts to check on. What you mean is that, "once again, I disagree".

For me to be wrong, you'd have to actually know for certain which houses rose for Daemon (again, we know less than 25 out of hundreds). I can safely assume you don't have an advance copy of the WOIAF.

I agree that House Stark and House Greyjoy seemed to be uninvolved.

But let's look at your claim regarding cities. King's Landing? Seems to have been for Daeron. Oldtown? Split loyalties, as we know. Lannisport? For Daeron. Gulltown? Unknown (iirc).

2.5 cities for Daeron, .5 for Daemon and 1 unknown. So the cities are not likely to have been a major source of manpower for Daemon. That question remains largely unanswered.

When you look to the cities, you are looking at the small folk/common people. Daemon was highly popular for his marital skill and seen as the natural alternative for those opposed to the bookish and Dornish influenced Daeron. It is said he made friends easily and women were drawn to him. He waited twelve years to rebel, building up tons of goodwill. This seems like a man the smallfolk would choose.

Lets examine your claim about the cities. You have no idea whom the city folk supported and at what rate. You have no idea how Oldtown was split. All you know is that House Hightower provided some kind of support to both sides of the conflict. That could be as little as sending one of their younger sons to each side.

My claim is that it is more than possible, mathematically, for Daemon to have gathered half the realm from many middling, small, and petty lords that populate the Southern regions of Westeros. My point about the cities was to hammer home the population advantage that the South has. Stop confusing the argument.

I have no trouble saying you are wrong when you make absolute arguments that I strongly feel are not correct. Given the the houses and regions that stayed loyal to Daeron, I can pretty much gauge what houses stayed loyal to Daeron. I don't need advance copies of future writings when I can you use what GRRM has already given me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. No, you've been vague sometimes, like I have. That's the nature of discussing material we have extremely limited information on.

That's why calling me, and others, wrong, with great frequency is pointless. You can disagree all day long, but calling people wrong on guesswork when you don't have the real story to back up your "claim of wrongness" is not a friendly debate tactic, and is frankly a bit dishonest as well un-fun.

People like to make guesses and they like to speculate, that's a huge part of why people come to these boards in the first place.

Well, I disagree that I have been vague. I have filled in the holes using the available information and made what I feel are valid and strong assertions. If they turn out to be wrong....so be it. I have been wrong before and I will be wrong again.

If you are guessing, you don't make assertions and absolute arguments. Now thats unfriendly, dishonest, and not fun.

However, I will temper my language in all future discussions, so as to promote the spirit and goodwill of honest debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Stumbled on this on a re-read and it reminded me of this thread.



This quote should help clear up why Lord Randyll sent the head to Aerys:



My father sat where I sit now when Lord Eddard came to Sisterton. Our maester urged us to send Stark’s head to Aerys, to prove our loyalty. It would have meant a rich reward. The Mad King was open-handed with them as pleased him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stumbled on this on a re-read and it reminded me of this thread.

This quote should help clear up why Lord Randyll sent the head to Aerys:

My father sat where I sit now when Lord Eddard came to Sisterton. Our maester urged us to send Stark’s head to Aerys, to prove our loyalty. It would have meant a rich reward. The Mad King was open-handed with them as pleased him.

I don't want to restart this again, but Lord Eddard's head is in a whole different category than that of Lord Cafferon. Sorry, but this does nothing to the previous discussion.

1. Aerys openly demanded the heads of Ned and Robert due to the danger they presented.

2. Lord Cafferon was a minor lord who first sided with Aerys and then with Robert after he was defeated.

3. Eddard was a key to the rebellion as Lord Paramount of the North. He could raise a host of 20,000+ men. Lord Cafferon would be lucky to raise maybe 500.

4. Benjen Stark was to young to go to war. Eliminate Ned and the North would likely not have been a threat.

5. Lord Arryn and the Vale were in open rebellion. House Tyrell and the Reach were loyal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to restart this again, but Lord Eddard's head is in a whole different category than that of Lord Cafferon. Sorry, but this does nothing to the previous discussion.

1. Aerys openly demanded the heads of Ned and Robert due to the danger they presented.

2. Lord Cafferon was a minor lord who first sided with Aerys and then with Robert after he was defeated.

3. Eddard was a key to the rebellion as Lord Paramount of the North. He could raise a host of 20,000+ men. Lord Cafferon would be lucky to raise maybe 500.

4. Benjen Stark was to young to go to war. Eliminate Ned and the North would likely not have been a threat.

5. Lord Arryn and the Vale were in open rebellion. House Tyrell and the Reach were loyal.

1. As well as anyone who sided with them.

2. Which makes him no less a traitor.

3. I agree, so Tarly should expect a much smaller reward, not nothing. If you killed a traitor lord during a rebellion and knew the king was "open handed", sending the head in hopes of getting a reward is an incredibly obvious thing to do.

4. That's true, but irrelevant, as Tarly could still expect a reward.

5. Which doesn't refute that Tarly would want and expect a small reward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. As well as anyone who sided with them.

2. Which makes him no less a traitor.

3. I agree, so Tarly should expect a much smaller reward, not nothing. If you killed a traitor lord during a rebellion and knew the king was "open handed", sending the head in hopes of getting a reward is an incredibly obvious thing to do.

4. That's true, but irrelevant, as Tarly could still expect a reward.

5. Which doesn't refute that Tarly would want and expect a small reward.

1. No. Don't try and rewrite things. Aerys demanded the heads of Ned and Robert from Lord Arryn specifically and for specific reasons. He wanted to kill any chance of a rebellion before it began.

2. So...your point is what?

3. Lord Tarly was not acting for small monetary reward. You can try and make that point all you like, but it fails. He described time and again as fiercely loyal.

4. No irrelevant. Pretty foolish to think so. It goes to Aerys' motive for calling for Ned's head.

5. It explains for why the house Graffton maester advised sending Aerys Ned's head, and the root of the quote you dug up to try and restart this argument.

You are reaching and grabbing at shadows to argue for arguments sake. You have failed time and again but continue on. I have been baited in too many times, which is my fault.

Whatever you decide to write will be the last word. I've made my position clear and am more than satisfied with the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. No. Don't try and rewrite things. Aerys demanded the heads of Ned and Robert from Lord Arryn specifically and for specific reasons. He wanted to kill any chance of a rebellion before it began.

2. So...your point is what?

3. Lord Tarly was not acting for small monetary reward. You can try and make that point all you like, but it fails. He described time and again as fiercely loyal.

4. No irrelevant. Pretty foolish to think so. It goes to Aerys' motive for calling for Ned's head.

5. It explains for why the house Graffton maester advised sending Aerys Ned's head, and the root of the quote you dug up to try and restart this argument.

You are reaching and grabbing at shadows to argue for arguments sake. You have failed time and again but continue on. I have been baited in too many times, which is my fault.

Whatever you decide to write will be the last word. I've made my position clear and am more than satisfied with the results.

1. No re-writing here, Aerys was calling for heads and killing or exiling his own people left and right. The rebellion had already started by then anyway. At the point the quote is referring to, Jon Arryn had already taken Gulltown.

2. That his head has value.

3. Who said smaller means monetary? Money is a possible reward, but getting in good with the King is it's own reward, and you do this by making sure your "good deeds" are noticed, especially when Mace Tyrell is grabbing your glory.

4. Catelyn told Robb it was perfectly legit to let Greatjon or Bolton lead the armies after Ned's imprisonment. Benjen could easily do the same. He'd stay in Winterfell as the (only) "Stark in Winterfell" while someone else led the Northern host. Simple and normal enough.

5. Didn't dig it up, you're ignoring the first thing I said when I posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Mathis Rowan will bend knee to Aegon. Renly did not take his advice and died. Cersei screwed him once more by appointing Harys Swift as the Hand over him. He despises Lannisters. Mace Tyrell left him and returned to KL. The conditions for him to bend knee to Aegon are very suitable.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

I stand by my assertion that House Targaryen could count on the Reach.

1. Daemon Blackfyre rallied half the realm to his cause, but I doubt he got many of the major lords to join him. I highly doubt the Tyrells, Tarlys, Hightowers, Redwynes, Rowans or Oakhearts joined in.

2. The same goes for Stannis. He got the Florents and some of the Fossawys, but none of the true heavy hitters.

3. The region has been incredibly loyal to the Tyrells considering that Aegon I raised well above their station. Only the Florents fought the Tyrells on the point.

The Hightowers and Oakhearts, according to Eustance Osgrey, had people on both sides, overall the Reach seemed to be the region with the most support from Daemon. The fact that Peake says "friends in the reach" and excludes the other regions is likely because almost all of the exiles are from the reach.

Plus if Stannis is anything to judge by, the major lords of the reach can declare so you and you will still have the majority of their forces: Renly's 20,000 horse; pressumably 4-6,000 Stormlanders, who join Stannis, and 10-12,000 reachmen who join Stannis, with the remaining 4,000 being Hightowers, Tarlys, Rowans, Tyrells and Oakhearts who leave with Loras.

The levies sworn directly to Highgarden and 4 of their top bannermen (assuming the Hightowers don't field their total strength) make up less than 1/3rd of the reach horse with Renly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...