The Latest News
Connect with Us
Notable Releases
1 FREE Audiobook RISK-FREE from Audible
From the Store
Game of Thrones Targaryen House Banner
House Targaryen Wall Plaque
HBO US
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


You don't belong here.


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#141 Cruella_Da_Oz

Cruella_Da_Oz

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts

Posted 05 January 2008 - 10:00 PM

Quote

Jaime is a decisive factor in the war, as his almost legendary skill with his sword is a great encouragement for the troops he leads and frightens his opponents.
What Happy Ent said.

Yes, Tywin cared about Jaime. But he woulnd't let sentimentality hurt his cause. If Jaime stayed  inprisoned, Robb still wouldn't be able to use him, he'd be simply released after Lannister victory. Or perhaps killed by someone desperate as last payback, which, while somewhat satisfying, wouldn't really help Robb any.
It makes total sense that Catelyn would value life of her two of three remaining children more than hope to annoy stone cold Tywin.

ETA: to put the thread more on topic, I do in fact think less of Catelyn the person because of her reaction to Jon and I think it is possible to put some blame on her. But it is none the less common reaction that doesn't make her a bad person.

Edited by Cruella_Da_Oz, 05 January 2008 - 10:30 PM.


#142 The Scabbard Of the Morning

The Scabbard Of the Morning

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,577 posts

Posted 05 January 2008 - 10:47 PM

View PostCruella_Da_Oz, on Jan 5 2008, 23.00, said:

What Happy Ent said.

Yes, Tywin cared about Jaime. But he woulnd't let sentimentality hurt his cause. If Jaime stayed  inprisoned, Robb still wouldn't be able to use him, he'd be simply released after Lannister victory. Or perhaps killed by someone desperate as last payback, which, while somewhat satisfying, wouldn't really help Robb any.
It makes total sense that Catelyn would value life of her two of three remaining children more than hope to annoy stone cold Tywin.

Which makes her a good mother and a terrible war adviser.

#143 Lady Blackfish

Lady Blackfish

    Are they made from real Girl Scouts?

  • Board Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,392 posts

Posted 05 January 2008 - 10:59 PM

No, it means she had to make a choice between two important goals.  She was probably neither a brilliant nor an incompetent military advisor.

#144 suffix

suffix

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 321 posts

Posted 05 January 2008 - 11:31 PM

Im with the Catelyn haters but we all should just thank her.
If Jon wasnt at the wall he would be certainly dead at the Twins with his brother.

#145 The Scabbard Of the Morning

The Scabbard Of the Morning

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,577 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 12:28 AM

I'm not a Catelyn hater. In fact I like her quite a bit. But that doesn't mean I'm blind to her faults.  

It seems her haters think she's completely worthless and in turn her defenders decide they have to defend/justify her every action, even those that aren't really defensible.  Her freeing Jaime was understandable to me because she's a grieving mother.  But tactically it is not defensible as a positive or even neutral move. It was a terrible move. It lost Robb his biggest bargaining chip, and even more importantly it killed the morale of Robb's troops and sowed dissension among his bannermen, things which a king at war simply cannot afford.
And if  Jon was with Robb, a lot of things might have happened differently. Jon would have probably advised against sending Theon to meet with Balon.

#146 Lady Blackfish

Lady Blackfish

    Are they made from real Girl Scouts?

  • Board Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,392 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 12:40 AM

View PostThe Scabbard Of the Morning, on Jan 5 2008, 23.28, said:

I'm not a Catelyn hater. In fact I like her quite a bit. But that doesn't mean I'm blind to her faults.  

It seems her haters think she's completely worthless and in turn her defenders decide they have to defend/justify her every action, even those that aren't really defensible.

There's a lot of confounds in that conclusion.  Usually the conversation goes: "Catelyn did the worstest worst things in the books" then "No, there are mitigating factors."  It's what you said it is, a defense, to explain why it's understandable.  I apologize, but this kind of drives me up the wall about these threads.  Nobody thinks that her actions didn't have repercussions, but that's often not the premise of the threads.

And there is a reason a lot of the people who like her say they like flawed and real characters.

#147 Cruella_Da_Oz

Cruella_Da_Oz

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 08:27 AM

Sometimes the hatred and accusations against  Catelyn are so ridiculous, that, even though I for one don't even find her remotely likable as a character or possessing some of the qualities I value the most in people, I do feel like defending her and I suspect it goes for some other people (and some others just genuinly like her). She's not a monster, not the sole cause of Westeros problems, and probably made less stupid mistakes than Robb.

Jaime wasn't most important bargaining chip, there was no bargaining going on, just out and out war, Robb wouldn't bend knee and Lannisters wouldn't accept his separationist move (and rightly so, frankly). Tywin no more indended to be swayed than that knight of Starks (damn, I am horrible with names!) who had his daughter as Theon's hostage. You'd think she would be important bargaining chip too, but her father was going to do what his duty tells him regardless. Anyway, if Starks killed Jaime, Cersei could skin Sansa or something, so at best Starks had a stalemate here.  
Sure Catelyn's action didn't help situation, but Robb made it all the worse. He should have publically denounce his mother, threaten to execute her, and then coldly announce that he will spare her life but she will be imprisoned till the end of her days, and that she is no longer his mother and blah blah blah. He could always do about-face later when Kastarks aren't so important and forgive her. And he shouldn't have execute Kastark. Sure, it was a "right" thing to do but most important directive for man in his position is to take care of his family and people who depend on him, IMO.

#148 Maia

Maia

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,144 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 08:31 AM

View PostThe Scabbard Of the Morning, on Jan 6 2008, 00.28, said:

Her freeing Jaime was understandable to me because she's a grieving mother.  But tactically it is not defensible as a positive or even neutral move. It was a terrible move. It lost Robb his biggest bargaining chip, and even more importantly it killed the morale of Robb's troops and sowed dissension among his bannermen, things which a king at war simply cannot afford.

No, the terrible move was Robb marrying Jeyne Westerling - it killed the morale, sowed dissension and made Robb's strategical situation very doubtful, as well as propelled the Freys into Bolton's and Tywin's arms. _And_ he did it quite by himself. And none of his other advisers, who some people consider superior to Cat by the virtue of their maleness alone, managed to prevent that disaster!

Anyway, it made sense to try to get Sansa back ASAP once they got news that Rickon and Bran were "dead". She was now  Robb's only heir and as such was worth 3 of Jaimes. Or do you forget how the Lannisters intended to exploit that fact? So, yes, Catelyn may have been a grieving mother, but she also was far more astute politically than any of Robb's loyal lords except for possibly the Blackfish. But she didn't have any direct power, so she had to arrange the exchange in such a half-cocked manner.
And the window of opportunity was closing - Catelyn understood Cersei's character enough to foresee that Sansa was unlikely to survive fall of KL to Stannis.  Whereas, if Lannisters managed to win at KL against all expectations, they would have hung on to Sansa at all costs.

In fact, it only highlights Robb's other mistake - he moved out of communication range and in any case was far too occupied with the war to tend to his realm politically. Yet he appointed nobody to do it for him either and therefore the Starks couldn't quickly react  to political changes, make diplomatic overtures, seize chances that presented themselves, etc.

Quote

And if  Jon was with Robb, a lot of things might have happened differently. Jon would have probably advised against sending Theon to meet with Balon.

Who is to say that Robb would have listened to Jon? Jon never liked Theon, but Robb and Theon were bossom friends nevertheless. Nor do I think that Robb could have afforded to give Jon the status some here feel she should have had. Robb depended on the River lords for large part of his support and he was a boy striving to earn the respect of men. As such, making another boy and his bastard half-brother whose very existence offended sensibilities of his allies, his closest adviser, could only damage his own position, IMHO.

#149 mormont

mormont

    Officially Not Scary

  • Board Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,489 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 09:53 AM

View PostdrunkenJedi, on Jan 5 2008, 23.41, said:

Besides, the fact that there were no peace negotiations doesn't mean that there would never be. Had the Red Wedding not happened, Robb would have likely made some sort of peace with the Lannisters, and having Jaime would have certainly improved his position.

I think Robb was quite clear that he was thoroughly opposed to any suggestion of making peace with the Lannisters, at any stage. So were most of his advisers and allies. And the feeling seemed to be mutual: I cannot recall any suggestion that Tywin would have contemplated peace with the Starks, or ever considered it a viable option. In fact it seems that he was planning the RW before Jaime was freed. And at the same stage, Robb was making plans for war, not peace.

So where exactly do you draw this conclusion from? It seems utterly unsupported by anything.

View PostThe Scabbard Of the Morning, on Jan 6 2008, 05.28, said:

And if  Jon was with Robb, a lot of things might have happened differently. Jon would have probably advised against sending Theon to meet with Balon.

And, as maia says, Robb would probably have ignored him. Besides, you can play the 'hypothetical' game any way you want. If Jon had been with Robb, for example, might Robb not have given Jon rather than Roose the job of fighting Tywin on the Green Fork? In which case Jon wouldn't have been around to object to Theon being sent to Balon, would he?

#150 Mezeh

Mezeh

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 10:00 AM

IMO this thread is by far too long.

The reason Catelyn disliked Jon is very simple and very clear as well. She was jealous to Jon’s mother since by Ned’s attitude to Jon she concluded that he loved Jon’s mother and still loved her in him. She may be right in that too. All the rest was her truing to justify her own attitude to Jon since she knew deep inside that she to wrong to threat him that way.

#151 Jon Targaryen

Jon Targaryen

    Crouching Direwolf, Hidden Dragon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,399 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 10:11 AM

View PostMezeh, on Jan 6 2008, 07.00, said:

All the rest was her truing to justify her own attitude to Jon since she knew deep inside that she to wrong to threat him that way.
There is some truth to that, imo. Catelyn was not one for self-deception and denying the truth. The issue of Jon was one of the few exceptions. Stannis, unlike Catelyn, put the blame where it belonged when Robert fathered a bastard in Stannis's marriage bed. Granted, the situations are different. It is not Selyse that has the bastard. But people kept on telling Stannis that Edric had cursed his marriage when they wanted to sacrifice Edric.

We can see Catelyn felt a little guilty when she say Mya Stone at the Eyrie. I think that her recognizing deep down that she should have some of the attitude of Stannis instead of entirely blaming Jon.

But I don't think "all the rest" is Catelyn trying to justify her view of Jon. She has a good point with Jon usurping the rights of Robb. Probably not with Jon actually, but definitely with Jon's descendants going after Robb's descendants.

#152 Gigei

Gigei

    Queen of Love and Beauty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,305 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 11:20 PM

I seem to recall that Cat's fears actually did come true and Jon was named heir over Cat's own true-born children.  When Robb was alive and they were talking about his heirs, Arya was gone and he refused to consider Sansa because of her marriage to Tyrion, Cat was naming various people but Robb said something like "I am not my father's only livin son (referring to Jon because everyone thinks Theon killed Bran and Rickon)."

So in a way, her fears were justified. Raising Jon up the same as the other non-bastards would make Jon a potential heir because he gets the same training and is acknowledged by Ned. Despite being a bastard, a boy like Jon who could lead his men in battle would be considered more desirable than Sansa, even if she hadn't been married to Tyrion.

Edited by Gigei, 06 January 2008 - 11:23 PM.


#153 The Scabbard Of the Morning

The Scabbard Of the Morning

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,577 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 11:55 PM

View PostMaia, on Jan 6 2008, 09.31, said:

No, the terrible move was Robb marrying Jeyne Westerling - it killed the morale, sowed dissension and made Robb's strategical situation very doubtful, as well as propelled the Freys into Bolton's and Tywin's arms. _And_ he did it quite by himself. And none of his other advisers, who some people consider superior to Cat by the virtue of their maleness alone, managed to prevent that disaster!

Yes, Robb marrying Jeyne Westerling was a terrible move, that doesn't change the fact Catelyn freeing Jaime is also a terrible move.  There is a reason why Robb won every battle and lost the war, because there was a series of errors and mistakes off the battlefield.  Him reneging on his deal with the Freys was one such move.  Catelyn  freeing Jaime was another.

#154 Mezeh

Mezeh

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 07 January 2008 - 01:30 AM

View PostJon Targaryen, on Jan 6 2008, 10.11, said:

But I don't think "all the rest" is Catelyn trying to justify her view of Jon. She has a good point with Jon usurping the rights of Robb. Probably not with Jon actually, but definitely with Jon's descendants going after Robb's descendants.


Not really. Robb was talking of legitimizing Jon and making him his “heir presumable”, not “heir apparent”. If Robb would have any children they would be first in the line and Jon’s potential descendants would be no more dangerous then any second son’s descendants. Besides Jon is bound to the Wall and it was very unlikely that his oath would be revoked in other case than he would need to take the Crown of the North.
Robb definitely was right  - a son of Ned Stark would be able to lead the North and some distant relatives from the Vale Catelyn was talked about – not. So the real alternative was either Jon or Tyrion and Catelyn knew it.

#155 Jon Targaryen

Jon Targaryen

    Crouching Direwolf, Hidden Dragon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,399 posts

Posted 07 January 2008 - 01:46 AM

View PostMezeh, on Jan 6 2008, 22.30, said:

Not really. Robb was talking of legitimizing Jon and making him his “heir presumable”, not “heir apparent”. If Robb would have any children they would be first in the line and Jon’s potential descendants would be no more dangerous then any second son’s descendants. Besides Jon is bound to the Wall and it was very unlikely that his oath would be revoked in other case than he would need to take the Crown of the North.
Yes, Robb was only making Jon heir presumable/presumptive. Robb was still alive and could father heirs that would displace Jon's order in the succession. Catelyn's fear of Jon's descendants may come from the irrational, yet not without reason, fear of bastards and their descendants. After all, there was the Blackfyre Rebellion and Blackfyre's descendants that troubled the realm for 5 generations.

It is true that it is unlikely that Jon would be released from his vows and father children.

#156 Mezeh

Mezeh

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 07 January 2008 - 03:56 AM

View PostJon Targaryen, on Jan 7 2008, 01.46, said:

After all, there was the Blackfyre Rebellion and Blackfyre's descendants that troubled the realm for 5 generations.

It is true that it is unlikely that Jon would be released from his vows and father children.


Blackfyre Rebellion came from uncertainly who was the rightful heir. There was nothing like this in Robb’s case.

#157 Errant Bard

Errant Bard

    precursor of bad business

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,660 posts

Posted 07 January 2008 - 04:11 AM

View PostMezeh, on Jan 7 2008, 09.56, said:

Blackfyre Rebellion came from uncertainly who was the rightful heir. There was nothing like this in Robb’s case.
There could have been. That's the crux. At Jon's age, Even though his father doted on him, Daemon wasn't legitimized either. Either way, since there are precedents, being afraid of that eventuality is reasonable.

#158 Mezeh

Mezeh

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 07 January 2008 - 04:26 AM

View PostErrant Bard, on Jan 7 2008, 04.11, said:

There could have been. That's the crux. At Jon's age, Even though his father doted on him, Daemon wasn't legitimized either. Either way, since there are precedents, being afraid of that eventuality is reasonable.

Aegon III legitimized all of his bastards on his deathbed. Catelyn still was unreasonable here. Jon have chosen the Wall by his own will and showed no ambition to become the Lord of Winterfell and she knew it.
She refused to see Robb’s reasons and they were solid. Either Lannisters either distant relatives Northern lords would not follow or Ned’s own son and Robb’s brother. None of Catelyn children shared her sentiments towards Jon not even Sansa.

#159 Errant Bard

Errant Bard

    precursor of bad business

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,660 posts

Posted 07 January 2008 - 04:54 AM

She knew it? Jon himself shows us he wanted Winterfell in one of his chapters. Cat didn't read that chapter, but she had many historical examples to support her reasoning. Her fears are grounded. People do change.

Beside, Robb also presumably named Jon heir just before his death, and it will be ugly if Jon received and accepted the responsibility, considering that the real heirs are not dead. If Jon starts leading and one guy comes forward with Rickon, it will be another civil war between the two factions.

Though, I agree she was a bit extreme when she argued against Robb naming Jon his heir, but Robb also put his trust in Theon Greyjoy before, as she said. Robb's reasons to use Theon were the same "solid" ones, and look at how it turned out. That Jon could never do something even as extreme as usurping his brothers and sisters for what he percieves is the greater good strikes me as awfully naive after that baby-swap and rants about wanting Winterfell. Surely, if he has enough reasons to break his NW vows, he won't let go of the power that easily.

#160 Maia

Maia

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,144 posts

Posted 07 January 2008 - 05:12 AM

View PostMezeh, on Jan 7 2008, 03.56, said:

Blackfyre Rebellion came from uncertainly who was the rightful heir. There was nothing like this in Robb’s case.

"Uncertainty" that was manufactured for the occasion. The king had a legitimate son, who was years older than Daemon. So, of course to give his claim even a shade of respectability, Daemon had to accuse his older brother of bastardy. An evil Jon could have just done the same. After all he looks like his father, Robb and most of his siblings don't.

And we really don't know whether people would have followed Jon. As you yourself pointed out, he chose the Wall and swore a vow and one part of it was "to wear no crowns". For people who didn't want to continue the war, he'd remain an oath-breaker and a deserter. His followers would be the ones who'd want to continue the war with the south at any cost. Basically, if Jon succeeded Robb, it would have opened its own can of worms. His opponents would have had a good cause to rebel both against him and against his descendants ("I will father no children"). And that such a possibility was even considered shows that Catelyn's fears were all too accurate. Jon did come close to displacing his half-siblings from their rightful inheritance, even from the Wall.

Re: Jaime's exchange,  as I pointed out above it had far more rational reasons going for it than  Robb's Westerling marriage did, nor is there any evidence that it affected the Red Wedding in any way. Tywin hinted at his plans in that direction to Tyrion before Jaime was released. The only reason it didn't work as envisioned was that Cat didn't have the power to arrange it in the customary manner.
Again, it was Robb's fault for completely ignoring politics. He should have offered the exchange himself the moment he got news about the fall of WF and "deaths" of his brothers. But he just didn't think the things through, except in the military matters.  However, one cannot achieve a lasting victory with the sword alone.

Edited by Maia, 07 January 2008 - 05:14 AM.