Why does it sometimes seem in the dialogue in aSoI&F as if breaking lances is a good thing? I thought the aim was to knock the other guy off his horse. Does the lance need to break for it to happen?

opinions-about-tiaras:

Also too: in the cultural context of Westeros, “breaking lances” can be shorthand for “is unexpectedly badass.” Like, take Ser Arlan in The Hedge Knight:

racefortheironthrone:

Well, a tourney lance is made to shatter rather than impale your opponent, because tourneys are supposed to be nonlethal. So breaking a lance meant that you scored a good direct hit against your opponent’s shield or armor. 

See, the thing is that while knocking the other guy off your horse was a clear victory, jousting didn’t always require it. There were quite a few victory conditions, depending on the style of joust – knocking off the crest of your opponent, causing a spring-loaded shield to detach, or simply winning on points. 

To use a modern analogy, winning a boxing match by K.O is very straightforward, but a lot of matches are decided on points. So breaking a lance would be like landiing a hard and clean shot which will contribute to the judges scoring a round in your favor. 

Ser Arlan had not ridden a tilt since the day he had been unhorsed by the Prince of Dragonstone in a tourney at Storm’s End, many years before. “It is not every man who can boast that he broke seven lances against the finest knight in the Seven Kingdoms,” he would say. “I could never hope to do better, so why should I try?”

In this context, and in many other places besides in the books, “broke lances” means “I rode a tilt against a very skilled, dangerous opponent, and broke my lance against him, and was not defeated in that pass. And then I did it six more times!”

So when someone refers to “breaking their lance” in a positive sense, they often mean “I was not defeated and also acquitted myself well.”

Yep, think of it like Rocky saying he “went the distance” against Apollo Creed. 

On a somewhat related note, the idiom of breaking one’s lance was used more broadly than merely jousting. For example, it was noted (in a letter to the Pope no less!) that at his wedding, Cesare Borgia “has broken four lances more than he, two before supper and six at night, since it is the custom there to consummate the marriage by day.”

Why does it sometimes seem in the dialogue in aSoI&F as if breaking lances is a good thing? I thought the aim was to knock the other guy off his horse. Does the lance need to break for it to happen?

Well, a tourney lance is made to shatter rather than impale your opponent, because tourneys are supposed to be nonlethal. So breaking a lance meant that you scored a good direct hit against your opponent’s shield or armor. 

See, the thing is that while knocking the other guy off your horse was a clear victory, jousting didn’t always require it. There were quite a few victory conditions, depending on the style of joust – knocking off the crest of your opponent, causing a spring-loaded shield to detach, or simply winning on points. 

To use a modern analogy, winning a boxing match by K.O is very straightforward, but a lot of matches are decided on points. So breaking a lance would be like landiing a hard and clean shot which will contribute to the judges scoring a round in your favor. 

Then it depends on such time as when Robert was proclaimed king in general, but from all indications from GRRM himself Robert only told Ned and Jon Arryn his intention to take the throne before the Trident, not that had been declared King yet, so until such time as such a legal proclamation was made everyone wouldn’t have sworn an official oath of loyalty to him yet, wouldn’t you say? Also wasn’t Richard II recognized as the official heir of his grandfather after his father’ death?

I don’t think that’s what GRRM has indicated.

Indeed, the politics cut absolutely the other way. After the Battle of the Bells, you have all of the rebel houses gathered together for the first time. And you’re already in the process of solidifying ties between them – hence the decision to marry Ned to Catelyn and Jon Arryn to Lysa to secure Hoster Tully’s support. 

Rather, you’d want as public a ceremony as possible with as many participants as possible, because you want everyone confirming their loyalties to Robert ahead of a major battle against the enemy, just in case anyone gets cold feet about going up against a royal army. And this was a real worry: at the Battle of Ludford Bridge in 1459, Richard Duke of York and Richard Neville the Kingmaker had to flee because Henry VI appeared in person on the battlefield for the first time, announced a pardon to anyone who would change sides, and a significant number of Yorkists defected during the night. 

Wouldn’t the timing of Robert’s elevation and official crowning be everything in determing the legality of any fealty sworn to him and his successors though? While he put forth his intent to make a claim before the Trident Robery wasn’t officially coronated until King’s Landing. In my own fanfiction Wolf’s Reign I had Robert die before said coronation, so wouldn’t a stickler for the law like Stannis see his own elevation as unlawful and revert to his previous oath to House Targaryen instead?

It’s way more complicated than dating from the coronation ceremony; to give a historical example of how tricky this could get, Henry VII had Parliament declare the beginning of his reign to be the day before the Battle of Bosworth Field, so that he could declare men guilty of treason for supporting Richard III, despite the fact that at the time Richard had been named King of England by Parliament in 1484 and thus was the legal monarch of England. To put a further point to it, Richard III was crowned King on July 6th 1483 but not declared King by Parliament until January of 1484. Similarly, Edward IV proclaimed himself King in March 1461, but wasn’t crowned until the end of June. 

So the coronation isn’t the main legal factor, as we can see from examples where kings inherit the throne from fathers who never held the throne themselves because they died young – Richard II, for example, became King of England despite the fact that his father, Edward the Black Prince, had died before his grandfather King Edward III. 

In this case, Stannis is Robert’s heir, and the oath of fealty would have been sworn to Robert’s heir(s) as well as to Robert personally. 

The truth would legitimize Jon automatically and Rhaegar’s abduction of Lyanna though, because we both know at least are 99% sure they married. And I feel like you’re not taking account the personalities. Do you honestly see Hoster, whose tied to Ned by marriage, Jon Arryn who raised Ned like his son, and Stannis who had conflicting loyalties regarding House Targaryen and his brother, who would be out of the picture in this scenario, really challenging Ned if he proclaims Jon king?

Legitimize Jon, maybe (depends on how legitimate the marriage would have been considered. As we saw with Tyrion and Tysha, marriages can undone if deemed unlawful). Legitimize Rhaegar’s abduction, not so much. As much as it conflicts with our own values, Westeros is an extremely patriarchal feudal culture, and Lyanna had been betrothed by her father to another man and was not free to be married to Rhaegar (even if the very much married Rhaegar was allowed to marry her). As I’ve said before, accepting Rhaegar’s actions sets a dangerous precedent for every lord and landed knight in Westeros, that their ability to make dynastic alliances, and to decide the inheritance of their lands, could be countermanded at any time. 

Also, the personalities are more complicated than you’re giving them credit for: Hoster Tully had his daughter’s betrothed and his bannerman Jeffory Mallister murdered by Aerys II, and Jon Arryn lost two heirs Elbert and Denys Arryn to Aerys and Aerys’ armies respectively. And while Stannis did indeed have conflicting loyalites w/r/t to Robert, the legal situation is different now, because the rebel alliance swore a binding oath to support Robert and his heirs, and Stannis is Robert’s heir.