She’s not mentioned as being present, so I would guess no. 

No, Dornish cavalry are light lancers and javelin throwers, much more akin to the Numidian cavalry that were the glory and the downfall of Hannibal. 

Northern cavalry are basically heavy armored cavalry akin to knights, but historically quite ferocious if Roddy the Ruin is any example. 

“Lord Gylbert began to speak. He told of a wondrous land beyond the Sunset Sea, a land without winter or want, where death had no dominion. “Make me your king, and I shall lead you there,” he cried. “We will build ten thousand ships as Nymeria once did and take sail with all our people to the land beyond the sunset. There every man shall be a king and every wife a queen.”

If Aegon V’s kids went through with their arranged marriages, how would that have changed things? Would he have been more successful with his reforms? Even if the great lords went along with the reforms, there would still be widespread discontent with lower lords losing rights. Would there be a great threat of many lords turning to the Blackfyre cause?

Given that there was widespread discontent without the support of the Great Houses in OTL, it’s pretty much axiomatic that the situation would be improved in this timeline – fewer political opponents, more political allies, an improved reputation, and militarily, your potentially rebellious lord is going to think twice about bucking a king who had the Baratheons, Tyrells, Tullys, and Redwynes backing their play, if only for purely pragmatic reasons. 

Because she’s probably the first person to be kind and empathetic to him since he was a child?

goodqueenaly:

racefortheironthrone:

Good question!

Here’s what GRRM has to say about powerful landed knights:

“As I see it, the title “lord” – when used formally, and not simply as an honorific –conveys not only prestige, but certain legal rights as well. The right of pit and gallows, as they were once called, for instance – i.e. authority to hang people and toss them into dungeons. A landed knight has rather less prestige – a lord outranks a knight at feasts and tourneys, for instance – and also somewhat lesser rights.But certain landed knights, of ancient houses, with extensive lands, and large strong castles, may be lords in all but name. These uber-knights may actually be more powerful than many smaller lordlings, so there’s an overlap. Their peculiar status if often reflected by taking a style that incorporates the name of their castle, such as the Knight of Ninestars.“

So I would guess that those “lords in all but name,” might well have a petty lord or two as part of their affinity, but it would probably be a very rare situation. House Templeton with their thousand swords, the Swyfts who are both landed knights and a principal house of the Westerlands, the numerous and powerful green-apple Fossoways, would probably be among those corner cases. But your Eustace Osgreys, your Lorches, your Cleganes, I doubt it. 

As you and I were discussing, historical context probably matters quite a bit as to who would get vassal lords and who would not. House Glover, for instance, was a royal family in the days before the Starks totally consolidated power in the North, and it would have been a matter of course for them to have lords sworn to them; if they, like the Royces, were allowed to keep some or all of their royal bannermen, they might well still have lords sworn to Deepwood Motte, even if they themselves are only masters. The head of House Templeton or House Swyft, though a landed knight, is going to carry a lot more historical prestige with the family name – and potential to have vassal lords – than, as you point out, the head of House Clegane. If I’m right and the green-apple Fossoways became landed knights after the Third Blackfyre Rebellion – when a grateful crown, carving up the seats of attained Blackfyre reacher loyalists, gave Ser Raymun and his heirs a portion of that land – then maybe vassal lords came with New Barrel, in a feudal version of the “came with the frame family”.

Just remembered: the Glovers absolutely have vassals. The Woods, Boles, and Branches, and of course the Forresters. They might be a bit more “hill clannish” than your typical southern lord, given the way that Asha refers to them as clans, but in the North the clan chiefs are still considered petty lords. 

opinions-about-tiaras:

racefortheironthrone:

opinions-about-tiaras:

racefortheironthrone:

opinions-about-tiaras:

You have to wonder… what would the coalition have done if the Baratheons had not had an oh-so-convenient connection to Aegon V just a couple generations back?

There seems to be something of a broad consensus among the Westerosi nobility that if a king is cruel and unjust, you can make a moral, if not legal, case to rise against them and that this can be deemed acceptable. (It seems to hinge on whether or not the king can be successfully painted as abrogating their reciprocal oaths of justice and protection.)

But even people who take that tack often work to uphold the feudal order in other ways. Cregan Stark might have risen for the blacks, but he refused to countenance the poisoning of Aegon II even though that probably saved a lot of lives, because establishing the precedent that you can totally murder a king by stealth as opposed to honorable combat on the field of battle is not something you want to do.

But the Robert’s Rebellion coalition was founded with an explicit and ongoing case of Targaryen exterminationism in its platform by the guy it was named after, who just so happened to be able to put a fig-leaf cover over this by (rather hypocritically) being able to claim descent from another Targaryen only three generations back.

Would Robert have simply had to pull a Renly, and make an explicit claim of “I have the most swords so now I get to be king?” I mean, he already sort of is doing that; Viserys is the rightful heir to the throne and there can be no case made he ever committed any crimes against anyone in Westeros, but the Baratheon regime has declared him an exile and his life forfeit purely on the basis of “because I said so.”

Or would they have placed someone else on the throne to make a clean break from the Targaryens without even pretending to maintain continuity?

Or would the coalition have fractured once Aerys was dead?

“
But the Robert’s Rebellion coalition was founded with an explicit and ongoing case of Targaryen exterminationism in its platform”

Ned Stark begs to differ.

And Robert, for whom the rebellion is named and who got to wear the crown, would differ right back at him. 🙂

More seriously, that’s a damn good point, Steven, but… well, I mean, Ned got “lucky” to an extent, didn’t he? Tywin presented him and Robert with a fait accompli in a way that allowed a later reconciliation and for Ned to offload his blame onto a third party.

Ned was never put in the entirely possible position of having Elia and Rhaegar’s children under his power when Robert rode up and demanded they be handed over, or of asking after their fates and having Robert say “don’t worry about it” and Ned looks into his best friends eyes and knows that Robert had a couple infants killed.

I am of the opinion that Robert was going to have those kids killed no matter what; even fifteen years later he is willing to murder women and children, and that’s after his rage has had time to cool. Targaryen exterminationsm is an ongoing and non-negotiable plank of his bid for the throne and also governing policy once he assumes it. He will not bend on this plank even at the behest of his best friend; it takes Robert being gored to death to back down on it. Ned Stark is opposed to this policy… but through fortuitous turns of events Ned never needs to be be opposed enough to this policy to actually break the coalition over it.

I mean… the entire basis of Ned needing to hide Jon is Ned knowing that Robert is not going to compromise when it comes to putting every Targaryen he can find to death, yes? No?

racefortheironthrone:

Well, it got the Baratheons enough prestige to be acclaimed Kings of Westeros by the Tullys, Arryns, Starks, and Lannisters…

“Targaryen exterminationsm is an ongoing and non-negotiable plank of his bid for the throne and also governing policy once he assumes it.”

I’m sorry, but this is just not accurate – hence Jon Arryn successfully vetoing assassination attempts against Viserys and Daenerys for his entire tenure as Hand. 

Hmm. Another damn fine point. Robert did seem to care enough about what Jon thought to temper this point, didn’t he?

Would you accept the removal of “non-negotiable” from the statement? You’re absolutely correct; I overstated my case. But the fact that Jon Arryn did have to veto Robert’s desire to have them killed, and that Ned has to deal with Robert’s continued attempts to implement that as policy once Jon is dead and he is hand, does seem to indicate that this is a very strongly held belief of Robert’s, with great continuity, and that it will take an awful lot to dissuade him from it?

Yeah, I think that’s fair – it’s definitely his default, knee-jerk, gut reaction, but it’s one that someone he respects could eventually get him to back down on if they badgered him enough. 

Good question!

Here’s what GRRM has to say about powerful landed knights:

“As I see it, the title “lord” – when used formally, and not simply as an honorific –conveys not only prestige, but certain legal rights as well. The right of pit and gallows, as they were once called, for instance – i.e. authority to hang people and toss them into dungeons. A landed knight has rather less prestige – a lord outranks a knight at feasts and tourneys, for instance – and also somewhat lesser rights.But certain landed knights, of ancient houses, with extensive lands, and large strong castles, may be lords in all but name. These uber-knights may actually be more powerful than many smaller lordlings, so there’s an overlap. Their peculiar status if often reflected by taking a style that incorporates the name of their castle, such as the Knight of Ninestars.“

So I would guess that those “lords in all but name,” might well have a petty lord or two as part of their affinity, but it would probably be a very rare situation. House Templeton with their thousand swords, the Swyfts who are both landed knights and a principal house of the Westerlands, the numerous and powerful green-apple Fossoways, would probably be among those corner cases. But your Eustace Osgreys, your Lorches, your Cleganes, I doubt it. 

opinions-about-tiaras:

racefortheironthrone:

opinions-about-tiaras:

You have to wonder… what would the coalition have done if the Baratheons had not had an oh-so-convenient connection to Aegon V just a couple generations back?

There seems to be something of a broad consensus among the Westerosi nobility that if a king is cruel and unjust, you can make a moral, if not legal, case to rise against them and that this can be deemed acceptable. (It seems to hinge on whether or not the king can be successfully painted as abrogating their reciprocal oaths of justice and protection.)

But even people who take that tack often work to uphold the feudal order in other ways. Cregan Stark might have risen for the blacks, but he refused to countenance the poisoning of Aegon II even though that probably saved a lot of lives, because establishing the precedent that you can totally murder a king by stealth as opposed to honorable combat on the field of battle is not something you want to do.

But the Robert’s Rebellion coalition was founded with an explicit and ongoing case of Targaryen exterminationism in its platform by the guy it was named after, who just so happened to be able to put a fig-leaf cover over this by (rather hypocritically) being able to claim descent from another Targaryen only three generations back.

Would Robert have simply had to pull a Renly, and make an explicit claim of “I have the most swords so now I get to be king?” I mean, he already sort of is doing that; Viserys is the rightful heir to the throne and there can be no case made he ever committed any crimes against anyone in Westeros, but the Baratheon regime has declared him an exile and his life forfeit purely on the basis of “because I said so.”

Or would they have placed someone else on the throne to make a clean break from the Targaryens without even pretending to maintain continuity?

Or would the coalition have fractured once Aerys was dead?

“
But the Robert’s Rebellion coalition was founded with an explicit and ongoing case of Targaryen exterminationism in its platform”

Ned Stark begs to differ.

And Robert, for whom the rebellion is named and who got to wear the crown, would differ right back at him. 🙂

More seriously, that’s a damn good point, Steven, but… well, I mean, Ned got “lucky” to an extent, didn’t he? Tywin presented him and Robert with a fait accompli in a way that allowed a later reconciliation and for Ned to offload his blame onto a third party.

Ned was never put in the entirely possible position of having Elia and Rhaegar’s children under his power when Robert rode up and demanded they be handed over, or of asking after their fates and having Robert say “don’t worry about it” and Ned looks into his best friends eyes and knows that Robert had a couple infants killed.

I am of the opinion that Robert was going to have those kids killed no matter what; even fifteen years later he is willing to murder women and children, and that’s after his rage has had time to cool. Targaryen exterminationsm is an ongoing and non-negotiable plank of his bid for the throne and also governing policy once he assumes it. He will not bend on this plank even at the behest of his best friend; it takes Robert being gored to death to back down on it. Ned Stark is opposed to this policy… but through fortuitous turns of events Ned never needs to be be opposed enough to this policy to actually break the coalition over it.

I mean… the entire basis of Ned needing to hide Jon is Ned knowing that Robert is not going to compromise when it comes to putting every Targaryen he can find to death, yes? No?

racefortheironthrone:

Well, it got the Baratheons enough prestige to be acclaimed Kings of Westeros by the Tullys, Arryns, Starks, and Lannisters…

“Targaryen exterminationsm is an ongoing and non-negotiable plank of his bid for the throne and also governing policy once he assumes it.”

I’m sorry, but this is just not accurate – hence Jon Arryn successfully vetoing assassination attempts against Viserys and Daenerys for his entire tenure as Hand. 

opinions-about-tiaras:

You have to wonder… what would the coalition have done if the Baratheons had not had an oh-so-convenient connection to Aegon V just a couple generations back?

There seems to be something of a broad consensus among the Westerosi nobility that if a king is cruel and unjust, you can make a moral, if not legal, case to rise against them and that this can be deemed acceptable. (It seems to hinge on whether or not the king can be successfully painted as abrogating their reciprocal oaths of justice and protection.)

But even people who take that tack often work to uphold the feudal order in other ways. Cregan Stark might have risen for the blacks, but he refused to countenance the poisoning of Aegon II even though that probably saved a lot of lives, because establishing the precedent that you can totally murder a king by stealth as opposed to honorable combat on the field of battle is not something you want to do.

But the Robert’s Rebellion coalition was founded with an explicit and ongoing case of Targaryen exterminationism in its platform by the guy it was named after, who just so happened to be able to put a fig-leaf cover over this by (rather hypocritically) being able to claim descent from another Targaryen only three generations back.

Would Robert have simply had to pull a Renly, and make an explicit claim of “I have the most swords so now I get to be king?” I mean, he already sort of is doing that; Viserys is the rightful heir to the throne and there can be no case made he ever committed any crimes against anyone in Westeros, but the Baratheon regime has declared him an exile and his life forfeit purely on the basis of “because I said so.”

Or would they have placed someone else on the throne to make a clean break from the Targaryens without even pretending to maintain continuity?

Or would the coalition have fractured once Aerys was dead?

racefortheironthrone:

Well, it got the Baratheons enough prestige to be acclaimed Kings of Westeros by the Tullys, Arryns, Starks, and Lannisters…

“
But the Robert’s Rebellion coalition was founded with an explicit and ongoing case of Targaryen exterminationism in its platform”

Ned Stark begs to differ.