Re: Gregor & Tarly trapping the northmen, I’m getting maybe Tarly isn’t quite a military genius, but that seems like obvious tactics. Which do you think is more likely the cause? Gregor charging into the retreat path Tarly would have left out of bloodlust (or Tywin’s vindictive orders), or Tarly being affected by Robert’s successful retreat, maybe taking the lesson that you can’t count on an ally to finish a defeated foe, and not want Glover & Tallheart to rally elsewhere? Or some other factor?

Well, it’s not such obvious tactics, because outside of some of the best premodern armies ever (the Byzantines, the Mongols), people usually went for the complete encirclement. But there are other things that could have happened:

Gregor charging in recklessly is quite in character – his wing of the battle takes the heaviest casualties in the Battle of the Green Fork, he loses half his men at the Battle of the Fords, etc.
It could be that Robett Glover is good enough of a commander that he reacted well enough to a bad situation to make the Lannisters pay dearly for their victory.
Or something else.

How did the Lannister/Tyrell forces at the Battle of Duskendale manage to take heavy casualties given the massive advantages they were given?

Great question!

Sweeping victories in warfare tend to be rather rare, and even more rare without cost. Cannae is deservedly famous in military history as a complete victory, but even that total rout still cost Hannibal more than 10% of his army.

For this very reason, the Byzantine manual of war (hat tip to @warsofasoiaf) advised against completely surrounding one’s enemy, because men who are completely surrounded will often fight like cornered rats and inflict surprisingly heavy casualties. Instead, the Strategikon advised that one should always leave a path of escape for the enemy, because then rather than standing their ground, the enemy was more likely to make a run for it, which would allow one to inflict heavy casualites on a fleeing enemy at a lower cost to oneself.

Indeed, as military historians have pointed out, it was often the retreat from a battle that was the most deadly part of any premodern conflict, because a fleeing enemy couldn’t defend themselves against attacks coming from behind them, and often threw away heavy shields and armor in the process of flight.

My guess is that Randyll Tarly and Gregor Clegane didn’t think about this.

Hey, I’ve been looking up stuff about the finances of the Iron Throne to understand some stuff I didn’t notice on reading, and I see that in a couple of places you refer to a seeming discrepancy in Littlefinger’s success rate with the customs in Gulltown. The 10fold figure comes from Lysa & the 3fold figure comes from Tyrion, in the context of his studies of the ledgers. Doesn’t this basically just suggest hyperbole from a character whose incompetence is one of the 1st things we learn about her?

Here’s why I don’t think it’s just hyperbole: this isn’t the only place where Littlefinger and tenfold increases comes up.

In A Storm of Swords, Tyrion states that while “crown incomes are ten times higher than they were under Aerys… [so] are the crown’s expenses. Robert was as generous with his coin as he was with his cock… the incomes are considerable, but they are barely sufficient to cover the usury on Littlefinger’s loans.”

As I explain in my essay, this claim on its own is suspect, because if incomes have grown by tenfold (highly unlikely on its own) and so have expenditures (likewise highly unlikely), then debt-to-income shouldn’t have grown, but somehow a tenfold increase in income is only sufficient to cover the interest rate, let alone the principal of the loan.

To me, this makes Littlefinger’s claims from Gulltown part of a pattern of behavior, where he makes extravagant claims of increased income, and then takes on much larger levels of debt than would be necessary to meet expenditures. (For example, his practice of not paying back any principal on the debt and taking out new loans to pay the interest, which is accounting malpractice likely covering up fraud.)

How much can Daeron be blamed for the Trial by Seven at Ashford and its disastrous fallout? To be sure, Aerion was the party most responsible, but had Daeron not been a drunk and a craven and had he not accused Dunk of kidnapping Egg, Aerion would have had no pretext for a trial by seven.

Not really.

“Aerion has already filled his father’s ear. And Daeron has not helped you either. To excuse his own cowardice, he told my brother that a huge robber knight, chance met on the road, made off with Aegon. I fear you have been cast as this robber knight, ser. In Daeron’s tale, he has spent all these days pursuing you hither and yon, to win back his brother.”

“But Egg will tell him the truth. Aegon, I mean.

“Egg will tell him, I have no doubt,” said Prince Baelor, “but the boy has been known to lie too, as you have good reason to recall. Which son will my brother believe? As for the matter of these puppeteers, by the time Aerion is done twisting the tale it will be high treason. The dragon is the sigil of the royal House. To portray one being slain, sawdust blood spilling from its neck … well, it was doubtless innocent, but it was far from wise. Aerion calls it a veiled attack on House Targaryen, an incitement to revolt. Maekar will likely agree. My brother has a prickly nature, and he has placed all his best hopes on Aerion, since Daeron has been such a grave disappointment to him.” The prince took a sip of wine, then set the goblet aside. “Whatever my brother believes or fails to believe, one truth is beyond dispute. You laid hands upon the blood of the dragon. For that offense, you must be tried, and judged, and punished.”

“Punished?” Dunk did not like the sound of that.

“Aerion would like your head, with or without teeth. He will not have it, I promise you, but I cannot deny him a trial. As my royal father is hundreds of leagues away, my brother and I must sit in judgment of you, along with Lord Ashford, whose domains these are, and Lord Tyrell of Highgarden, his liege lord. The last time a man was found guilty of striking one of royal blood, it was decreed that he should lose the offending hand.”

(Emphasis mine)

Daeron’s self-serving lie didn’t help matters, but Baelor makes it quite clear: Dunk striking Aerion is a separate legal matter from whether or not Dunk kidnapped Aegon, and there would have had to be a trial by combat.

Making that trial a trial by seven was “my right, I do believe.“ Daeron not having made his contribution would make it somewhat more politically embarrassing for Aerion to claim that right, but he always had the perogative to “insist upon a trial of seven.”

Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis: Jaime III, ASOS

“This was what he was meant for; he never felt so alive as when he was fighting, with death balanced on every stroke. And with my wrists chained together, the wench may even give me a contest for a time.” Synopsis: you’ve got to hand it to Jaime Lannister, he knows when to pick a fight at the worst time. SPOILER WARNING: This chapter analysis, and all following, will contain spoilers for all Song…

View On WordPress

How come widowed Anya Waynwood is still in charge of Ironoaks and her son is still Ser Morton, not Lord Morton. I assume she was a Waynwood by birth, but it still seems like she would lose her status as ruler of Ironoaks as soon as Morton was of age, if her husband died before then. It means she was somehow the lord when her husband was alive, which I thought would be a huge no-no, especially in the stuck-up Vale, unless it was absolutely necessary.

It is an interesting question, and Lady Waynwood is not the only case like this – there’s Barbrey Dustin (albeit without an heir), Arwyn Oakheart (whose youngest son was Ser Arys), the Hornwood Crisis, Delonne Allyrion (who has an adult, and indeed married, son), Larra Blackmont (who has two I think adult children), and so on and so forth.

Trying to reconcile this with what we know of Westerosi succession laws is tricky. In some cases, I would guess that a lot of those situations are ones in which an heiress of a house continues to rule until her death (same as a male lord would do), whereas the widow of the previous lord would normally hand over the title to the lord’s heir (although, as we see with Lady Hornwood and Barbrey Dustin, there are widow’s use–rights in cases where there isn’t a clear heir.

Is Daeron II’s claim to the throne purely de facto? Once Daemon is legitimate, his claim through his mother should precede Daeron’s being the elder son of their father, right? How would such a claim compare to that of the Mortimers vs. the House of Lancaster? If Daemon’s original bastard status still counts, what is the point of legitimization? Why were the Beauforts legitimized if they were excepted from the royal succession?

Let’s say for the sake of argument that, for some reason, a Great Council had been called in 184 to settle the succession. How would the various claims stack out?

Primogeniture: clearly favors Daeron, who was born in 153 AC, whereas Daemon was born in 170 AC. (Among the other Great Bastards, Aegor was born in 172, and Bloodraven in 175). This is one of the reasons why the Blackfyres had to allege that Daeron “Falseborn” was not Aegon IV’s son – if they’re both legitimate, Daeron clearly comes first.
Proximity: now this might favor Daemon. Both men are sons of Aegon IV, but Daeron is the son of Naerys (daughter of Viserys II), and Daemon is the son of Daena (daughter of Aegon III). Since Aegon III came first, that would indicate that Daemon’s claim might be superior. (On the other hand, just as when the Lancastrians pointed to the recency of Henry V and Henry IV as opposed to the Yorkists going back to the sons of Edward III, this could be a contested issue). However, since the Great Council of 101 declared the female line irrelevant for succession purposes, this would probably be a wash.

As to the Wars of the Roses: I would say that Daemon’s claim would be a good bit more proximate than the Mortimer claim, since Edmund Mortimer was the great-grandson of Edward III’s second son Lionel of Antwerp (through the female line) and was only heir presumptive when Richard II was deposed, and by the time you get to Henry VI vs. Richard Duke of York you’ve got a lot of interposing kings. At the same time, the Yorkists also pointed to the direct male claim through Edward III’s fourth son Edmund of Langley.

As for the Beaufort claim, I talked about it here and here.

“If the Starks want gold, they can melt down Jaime’s armor” Would you care to speculate about the probable value of Jaime’s gilded sword & armor, and since he never gets them back, we can assume maybe something like this happened, so would liquidating it have made a dent in the expenses of the Kingdom of the North & the Trident? It’s made clear just what an asset armor is in the parts dealing with tourneys. Also, would a winning jouster get to charge higher ransom for nicer armor, or was it set?

Tyrion was making a joke – gilded armor does not contain a significant amount of gold, the no doubt master-crafted armor would be worth far more in its original state than melted down, and in either case would not have been worth enough to fund the Northern war effort.

And since you’re not the first person to ask me about jousts and ransoming armor:

Were tourney ransoms generally a form of collateral, to ensure prompt payment? In order to be of any use, armour needs to be a perfect fit, so another man’s armour would be of no use to the victor himself and would have very limited resale value.

As we see with the Mystery Knight, ransoming armor is not about being worried that someone else might sell it, although horses are a different matter, obviously, and the armor thing is not 100% (chainmail can be resized and human body shapes aren’t so wildly different that it’s always unusable). Rather, because a knight’s armor and horse are essential tools of their profession and prerequisites of their social class, no knight would willingly forfeit them and thus they are perfect collateral for a debt – the medieval equivalent of leaving your credit card for a deposit.

The other thing to keep in mind is the class expectations of the people involved – as noblemen, knights are supposed to be A. men of their word of honor (so being too pushy about repayment calls that into question), and B. not concerned about money (which means being too pushy about repayment is an issue, but so is not paying your ransoms). At the same time, noblemen also like cash to fund their magnificent lifestyles, so you need to make sure that you get paid.

Ransoming armor or horses, like handing over your sword when you surrender, is a way of resolving this tension: it allows both sides to pretend that this isn’t about money and that everyone trusts everyone else, while making sure that ransoms get paid on time.

Does house Arryn have a look like the lannisters, starks, baratheons, and tullys do?

Yes. We know this from when Sansa meets Harry the Heir:

Ser Harrold Hardyng looked every inch a lord-in-waiting; clean-limbed and handsome, straight as a lance, hard with muscle. Men old enough to have known Jon Arryn in his youth said Ser Harrold had his look, she knew. He had a mop of sandy blond hair, pale blue eyes, an aquiline nose. Joffrey was comely too, though, she reminded herself. A comely monster, that’s what he was. Little Lord Tyrion was kinder, twisted though he was.

Blond hair and blue eyes attest to the Arryns’ Andal heritage, but the aquiline nose I think is the more specific detail, evoking the curved beak of the falcon which the Arryns took for their sigil.

Would powerful nobles have their own courts at their personal castles, like the hightowers or redwynes or reynes would probably, but what about rowans or royces or brackens and blackwoods? what would those be like?

Absolutely. Indeed, we’ve seen examples of much smaller lords with their own courts: think about Lady Rohanne Webber, who has Septon Sefton and three septas, Maester Cerrick, Ser Lucas Inchfield her castellan, Lady Hellicent Uffering her former goodsister, a dozen knights and squires, and various pages. That’s a pretty significant household for a minor noble house.

So for lords of the Rowans or Royces or Brackens or Blackwoods, imagine that but scaled up – add on the relatives of their vassals who might serve as pages, squires, castellans, masters-of-arms, stewards, ladies-in-waiting, add on the households of other noble families who’d married into the family (except much larger households than the occasional septon or unmarried sister, because one of the ways you demonstrate how awesome you are is to have a bigger retinue than anyone else), and so on and so forth.