What would you have done as lord of the Vale?

[Barrick Eddon]

Do what Lyssa did obviously.

One person from the Vale even says

Myranda Royce said that , and that was sarcasm she used .

[Barrick Eddon]

Ups not Myranda , but Sansa said that

“Lady Lysa was so wise, to keep us out of it.”
Myranda gave her a shrewd little smile. “Yes, she was the very soul of wisdom, that good
lady.”

[Lord Lannister]

I was talking about the part where you'd wait until the majority of the fighting was done, then join the assumed winner. Which sounds exactly like Walder Frey's M.O.

Which may be the right thing to do, as long as you own up to who you get your tactics from.

Refusing to join the war altogether because you have no stake in it... that's fair enough, I suppose. But that's not what was proposed.

There's a rather large difference between not showing up to the battle over some perceived slight by your liege lord and not entering a fight in which your people have no stake. The OP was you are liege lord of the Vale at the beginning of ACOK. That's it. Sure calling your banners and marching off to join Rob or Stannis is all heroic, but gains the Vale virtually nothing except the dead who enter those battles and a target on your back to get invaded. But hey what do I know... oh by the way my cousin's getting married next weekend, want to come?

[Mikkel]

There's a rather large difference between not showing up to the battle over some perceived slight by your liege lord and not entering a fight in which your people have no stake. The OP was you are liege lord of the Vale at the beginning of ACOK. That's it. Sure calling your banners and marching off to join Rob or Stannis is all heroic, but gains the Vale virtually nothing except the dead who enter those battles and a target on your back to get invaded. But hey what do I know... oh by the way my cousin's getting married next weekend, want to come?

Again, I'm not talking about the merits of joining the fight or not, I'm talking about letting other people fight, then joining the winner. It may be "smart", but it's also "Walder Frey-ish", That's it.

Thanks for the invite, but I have a crossbow to oil. A hooded man that in no way resembled Lord Varys was very insistent that it be in peak condition.

[Cat of the Rivers]

I certainly wouldn't pledge fealty to Stannis (the weakest contender) or Robb (no claim on the Vale).

Seriously, for what possible reason would Robin Arryn pledge fealty to Stannis? They've never met, and Stannis offers no proof of his accusations, making him look like a doomed pretender. And the Arrys have just as much royal blood as the Starks, so the alliance should be one of equality and not a vassal-overlord relationship

I would either keep my troops home while offering other forms of assistance to Robb/Edmure, or I'd declare myself King in the Vale and ride out to fight the Lannisters

:agree:

Again, I'm not talking about the merits of joining the fight or not, I'm talking about letting other people fight, then joining the winner. It may be "smart", but it's also "Walder Frey-ish", That's it.

Thanks for the invite, but I have a crossbow to oil. A hooded man that in no way resembled Lord Varys was very insistent that it be in peak condition.

Technically wouldn't it be Tywin Lannister-ish? Minus the Sack of KL though.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Myranda Royce said that , and that was sarcasm she used .

No, she was smiling over the circumstances that Lyssa died in and how Sansa could be connected to it.

"Not from your father, no, but we've had other birds. The war goes on, everywhere but here. Riverrun has yielded, but Dragonstone and Storm's End still hold for Lord Stannis."

"Lady Lysa was so wise, to keep us out of it."

Or do you think she genuinely regrets the Vale not suffering like everywhere else?

[Barrick Eddon]

No, she was smiling over the circumstances that Lyssa died in and how Sansa could be connected to it.

Or do you think she genuinely regrets the Vale not suffering like everywhere else?

Why would the Vale suffer ???

Let me quote you again

“Lady Lysa was so wise, to keep us out of it.” ( Sansa )

Myranda gave her a shrewd little smile. “Yes, she was the very soul of wisdom, that good

lady.”(Myranda)

She mocks Lysa for not going to war .

[John Doe]

Thanks for the invite, but I have a crossbow to oil. A hooded man that in no way resembled Lord Varys was very insistent that it be in peak condition.

:bowdown:

[John Doe]

She mocks Lysa for not going to war .

No, she simply does not think that Lysa was a wise women. Her decision however was good.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Why would the Vale suffer ???

Let me quote you again

She mocks Lysa for not going to war .

No, she highlights what war has done everywhere else.

Her personality is very mocking and it seems she is teasing Alayne/Sansa either about how Lysa died or about Sansa's identity. Everything she says is said in the same way but its not all sarcastic.

[Faydra]

Can you prove the leeches did anything without using a logical fallacy?

Can you prove they did not?

That argument is futile. It's true that the events you listed were planned long ago (at least the RW; of the other three we aren't certain), but their succes was far from granted.

[Lord Lannister]

Can you prove they did not?

That argument is futile. It's true that the events you listed were planned long ago (at least the RW; of the other three we aren't certain), but their succes was far from granted.

Well everyone died. It could be just Melisandre saw it in the flames and put Stannis up to it to show her "power" or something.

[Faydra]

Well everyone died. It could be just Melisandre saw it in the flames and put Stannis up to it to show her "power" or something.

That's your theory. It's possible, but it's a theory and you shouldn't feed it with a ladle to everyone.

[Lord Lannister]

That's your theory. It's possible, but it's a theory and you shouldn't feed it with a ladle to everyone.

So I shouldn't say things you don't approve of? Or you just don't like theorizing altogether because if that's the case you're in the wrong place. My speculation there was rather tame compared to a lot of the stuff that comes out. :P

[Trickrs]

If I say "BY THE POWER OF THE PINK INVISIBLE UNICORN, TURN THE TV ON" and touch the remote button, it was the pink invisible unicorn's work?

[Blackfish Tully]

No, she simply does not think that Lysa was a wise women. Her decision however was good.

In the short term maybe but what happens when the Vale is in trouble and they send to the North or the Riverlands for help? Why would either of them even think about helping the Vale?

the whole point of making and supporting alliances is that you have somebody to help you when you need it , But if you fail to support your allies then you will not have anybody to help you when it's your time to be invaded.

[Bryanfury]

Can you prove they did not?

Yes, yes I can. I already did; the machinations behind the murders were already under way before the leech burnings. There is textual evidence that outright tells us that Tywin and Roose were planning to murder Robb, and Littlefinger literally says that he arranged Joffs murder, long before the leeches burn. That is literal proof. It's like me putting a pot on the stove. Some moron next door burning insects and saying "Your water will boil!" has no effect on the fact that I have already put a pot of water on an element and turned it on. Same thing applies here. Those leeches are burned after the non-magical plans for murder are underway. That is just fact and your refusal to accept it doesn't change it.

And it's not a "theory" that Mel saw visions of the deaths and used the leeches as a show of power. The "theory" is that the leeches did anything more than burn a pretty colour. You need to actually prove that the burning leeches affected the deaths in anyway. You cannot. All you can do is say "well, she burned them, then they died!" which is the correlation-causation logical fallacy. You literally cannot prove your claims whereas the claim that the leeches did nothing is outright supported in the text. And arguing that the success of the deaths wasn't guaranteed is weak; you again fail to show any textual evidence of the leech burnings affecting the murders or the plans, and fall on "they burned, they died". You might as well say that the sun sets every night because you breathe everyday. If you don't wanna accept the truth, fine, but don't presume to order us not to talk about the textual evidence that proves your ignorance.

[Mikkel]

Yes, yes I can. I already did; the machinations behind the murders were already under way before the leech burnings. There is textual evidence that outright tells us that Tywin and Roose were planning to murder Robb, and Littlefinger literally says that he arranged Joffs murder, long before the leeches burn. That is literal proof. It's like me putting a pot on the stove. Some moron next door burning insects and saying "Your water will boil!" has no effect on the fact that I have already put a pot of water on an element and turned it on. Same thing applies here. Those leeches are burned after the non-magical plans for murder are underway. That is just fact and your refusal to accept it doesn't change it.

And it's not a "theory" that Mel saw visions of the deaths and used the leeches as a show of power. The "theory" is that the leeches did anything more than burn a pretty colour. You need to actually prove that the burning leeches affected the deaths in anyway. You cannot. All you can do is say "well, she burned them, then they died!" which is the correlation-causation logical fallacy. You literally cannot prove your claims whereas the claim that the leeches did nothing is outright supported in the text.

:agree:

[thelittledragonthatcould]

In the short term maybe but what happens when the Vale is in trouble and they send to the North or the Riverlands for help? Why would either of them even think about helping the Vale?

the whole point of making and supporting alliances is that you have somebody to help you when you need it , But if you fail to support your allies then you will not have anybody to help you when it's your time to be invaded.

The relationships between Lords and regions in Westeros is very fluid. Hoster is putting Goodbrook villages to the torch and 18 years later Lord Lymond Goodbrook is one Edmures closest friends.

It is a bad policy for the Vale to be relying on the Norths or the Riverlands help in the future, especially if doing so means weakening themselves in the present.

[Blackfish Tully]

The relationships between Lords and regions in Westeros is very fluid. Hoster is putting Goodbrook villages to the torch and 18 years later Lord Lymond Goodbrook is one Edmures closest friends.

It is a bad policy for the Vale to be relying on the Norths or the Riverlands help in the future, especially if doing so means weakening themselves in the present.

Why is it bad policy to be relying on somebodies help? If you isolate yourself from the other Kingdoms you will make yourselves an easy target. What happens if somebody invades the Vale ? who are they going to call for help?