155 replies to this topic

[SFDanny]

Chanur, on 10 November 2010 - 12:39 PM, said:

I am glad you mentioned this because it is a double edged sword. Regardless of guilt or what Cat thinks, what did she expect to happen when she seized someone of equal or greater station? The ONLY appropriate forum she had to get justice would be through the king. Doing ANYTHING else is an act of treason. Tyrion at this time is the son of a Warden, brother to the Queen, he is also in line to inherit the rock and become a great lord of his own, as far as everyone knows. She had no authority to arrest him at all.

I think your sword metaphor inapt, but, if you insist on using it, I'd say you are cutting yourself with the same edge here. First, you criticize Catelyn for taking Tyrion when he is innocent, even though all the evidence she has points to the guilt of the man, and now you assume the expected result of seizing Tyrion must be what happened after she captured him and Catelyn should have known it at the time. Nonsense. What Catelyn does is her best in a difficult situation to bring someone she believes guilty of terrible crimes to justice. That it doesn't work out that way is not only because Tyrion is, unbeknownst to her, innocent, but primarily because she is betrayed and has been betrayed by her sister and Littlefinger. None of which is known to Catelyn. You, in effect, assume Catelyn should know that Petyr is lying when he tells her that the knife is Tyrion's, and that she should know that Littlefinger and Lysa killed Jon Arryn and sent a note to Catelyn blaming the Lannisters for the crime in order to start a war. Given the evidence at hand, including Jon Arryn's suspicious death and Bran's attempted murder, it makes sense for Catelyn and Ned to believe them. What they set out to do to counter these crimes is to try to uncover evidence they can present to the King to bring the Lannisters responsible to justice. That is their plan, and that is what Catelyn tries to do. Oh, and, yes, as a noble woman she has every right to accuse Tyrion of the crime, and as the Lady of Winterfell she has every right to hold him for the King's justice. She has no right to try him herself, which she does not do, or to kill him outright.

Quote

She certainly did not object every step of the way. It is sort of like condemning shooting a prisoner as you load the executioners gun for them. Words mean little, when your actions are saying plenty.

Catelyn goes to her sister for help in exposing the Lannisters and safeguarding her prisoner, and instead is surprised to find an seemingly irrational woman who uses her power to take Tyrion away from Cat's custody and to put on a truly "farce of a trial." From the very beginning she objects to Lysa's conduct and handling of the matter. She openly defies her before her own men and demands Lysa remember that Tyrion is her prisoner, not Lysa's. She tries to reason with her sister, but nothing works. Why? Because, of course, Lysa, as the real guilty party, has her very own private agenda that has nothing to do with exposing the guilty parties to her husband's murder. What else should Catelyn have done? The few armed men she has that would remain loyal to her would do her no good against the orders of the Lady of the Vale. In her case, the words she uses are all she really has at her disposal. Your reading of this, and your take on this, are just so far from the reality the Martin presents us that I can't help but think you've read a different version of the story, but I know that's not possible. I'd suggest rereading the chapters.

[Lord Varys]

We should keep in mind that Lord Robert Arryn of the Vale of Arryn (and in his stead his mother as his Regent) certainly were allowed to dispatch the King's Justice. The King ruled through his Lords, especially through his great lords, and thus Lord Arryn had any right he needed to convict an accused criminal. The rules do still apply regardless of the fact that he was the Queen's sister and a Great Lord's son and heir. Technically, Robert would have had to send an order to the Eyrie to release and/or send Tyrion to KL. Defying such an order would be technically treason. But without such an order (and without the King even knowing of the trial) things would technically legal, I think. And Lord Tywin could technically do nothing at all about this, as he was not involved. He was neither witness nor involved in the accused crime, he was just Tyrion's father.

The fact that this trial and Tyrion's execution would be politically unwise, is obvious as well. But that does not make both of them illegal.

[SFDanny]

Lord Varys, on 12 November 2010 - 08:00 AM, said:

The fact that this trial and Tyrion's execution would be politically unwise, is obvious as well.

A fact Catelyn states quite loudly and clearly in the text. All of which goes to the point that Catelyn's biggest mistake is not seizing Tyrion so much as it is trusting her sister.

[Chanur]

Lord Varys, on 12 November 2010 - 08:00 AM, said:

We should keep in mind that Lord Robert Arryn of the Vale of Arryn (and in his stead his mother as his Regent) certainly were allowed to dispatch the King's Justice. The King ruled through his Lords, especially through his great lords, and thus Lord Arryn had any right he needed to convict an accused criminal. The rules do still apply regardless of the fact that he was the Queen's sister and a Great Lord's son and heir. Technically, Robert would have had to send an order to the Eyrie to release and/or send Tyrion to KL. Defying such an order would be technically treason. But without such an order (and without the King even knowing of the trial) things would technically legal, I think. And Lord Tywin could technically do nothing at all about this, as he was not involved. He was neither witness nor involved in the accused crime, he was just Tyrion's father.

The fact that this trial and Tyrion's execution would be politically unwise, is obvious as well. But that does not make both of them illegal.

I am pretty sure you cannot execute people of equal station, or there would be chaos. Tyrion is not some minor lord under the banner of Little Robert. He is the heir to Warden of the West. Also the crime was not committed in the Vales territory, so I do not see how it falls under her jurisdiction. Regardless seizing Tyrion and taking him to the Vale was plainly retarded as the destruction of her house shows.

One last thing SFDanny, you cannot sit there with a straight face and tell me Cat did not know how the infamous Lord Tywin would react to one of his children being seized. His reputation is far and wide, and known especially to Cat.

Edited by Chanur, 12 November 2010 - 11:13 AM.

[Alexia]

Chanur, on 12 November 2010 - 11:11 AM, said:

Tyrion is not some minor lord under the banner of Little Robert. He is the heir to Warden of the West.

According to Ned Stark, Robert Baratheon, and the AGOT appendix, Ser Jaime Lannister was the heir to the Warden of the West.

[Chanur]

Except for that whole being a kings guard and not able to inherit. On its face Tyrion was next in line, we know better through POV, but that was not the case to the rest of the world.

[Alexia]

Chanur, on 12 November 2010 - 01:00 PM, said:

Except for that whole being a kings guard and not able to inherit. On its face Tyrion was next in line, we know better through POV, but that was not the case to the rest of the world.

We do know better through POV.  And one of those POVs who has informed us of this is married to Catelyn Stark.  Therefore, Catelyn (not being the rest of the world) could be reasonably expected to be fully aware that Tyrion was not Lord Tywin's heir.  Maybe All-for-Joffrey and Bella are not aware of this but Catelyn is not All-for-Joffrey or Bella and can reasonably be expected to know who is the heir to one of the seven greatest lordships in the kingdom.

[cravenravenkeeper]

Alexia, on 12 November 2010 - 01:05 PM, said:

We do know better through POV.  And one of those POVs who has informed us of this is married to Catelyn Stark.  Therefore, Catelyn (not being the rest of the world) could be reasonably expected to be fully aware that Tyrion was not Lord Tywin's heir.  Maybe All-for-Joffrey and Bella are not aware of this but Catelyn is not All-for-Joffrey or Bella and can reasonably be expected to know who is the heir to one of the seven greatest lordships in the kingdom.

Honestly this always bothered me. The Kings Guard forswear all lands and women, so logically Jamie shouldn't be able top inherit the titles/lands. The Wardenship I could see, since that I understand that to be a battle command thing-but the Lordship would logically flow to Tyrion.

The major problem of course being that Lord Trywin doesn't want that, and so it always looked to me (and the characters of the books) Like the Lannister holdings would go to anyone but Tyrion.

[Lady Blackfish]

Okay, let's see if I can get caught up ...

Lord Varys, on 08 November 2010 - 07:43 AM, said:

I only said that it seems as if she was aiming for war.

Okay, so you're talking about how it would've appeared to Tywin, then?  Apologies for misunderstanding.  I must say, I think the difference between Riverrun and Eyrie is going to seem pretty minimal to him.  Sure the Eyrie is more heavily fortified, but I have a hard time seeing that making a difference to Tywin.  She might have gotten the support from there that she could have used to escort her safely to King's Landing, but I think the reason she goes to the Eyrie is simply this:

Quote

There she would find her sister ... and, perhaps, some of the answers Ned sought. Surely Lysa knew more than she had dared to put in her letter. She might have the very proof that Ned needed to bring the Lannisters to ruin, and if it came to war, they would need the Arryns and the eastern lords who owed them service.

It would seem to me that once she is spotted, she is trying to compensate for the situational disadvantage she perceives, and acts in such a way that shows her motives are as legitimate as they could be.  She goes to the Eyrie simply because the answers are there.

Cat's presence at the Eyrie was no particular secret, as I recall?  Edmure wrote to her there telling her that he demanded Tywin to reveal his intentions.  The news took a while to reach King's Landing, and Ned benefited from Yoren speeding the news to him personally before Robert and Cersei heard about it.  She wouldn't have to make an impact on things down in KL until they got the news anyway, right?  

Also, I must be forgetting something, could you remind me what Cat would have to hear about Robert, Ned and Tywin?

I agree that the dagger is critical evidence, I don't believe I indicated otherwise (I hope not, I admit I'm too lazy and in a rush to go back and reread), and I think it's a nonissue anyway since Ned has the dagger all this time.

Perhaps I read their relationship differently than you did, but I don't think Robert really ever believes what Cersei says.  For example, he knows his son was lying about the Mycah incident. The point isn't that Cersei convinces him, the point is that Robert caves into Cersei without believing her at all.  But I don't think he could get away with punishing Ned the way he could punish Lady, nor would he be willing to, certainly not without a little bit of investigating (which could be all it takes, given your point about Littlefinger and the dagger).

Tywin being able to get away with bad justice is different because at that point there's nobody around to challenge House Lannister.  Ned might attempt to do a similar thing, but I simply was arguing that Cersei would not let him (and she doesn't need to rely on Robert for this, she can arrange accidents).  If Ned was around to challenge Tywin I believe he would, it is in line with his values as displayed in his conversations with Robert about one family having too much power and his general fairly evolved concepts of justice.





To state for the record: I too think Cat's motivations were merely to avoid ambush on the road, and as well she chose the Eyrie in particular because of the answers she believed her sister held, because Cat truly and honestly does want answers (she does not take it upon herself to execute Tyrion either, so there's little use arguing that she thought it was her position to do that).  Her sister does not need to do anything except talk.  I can see validity in some of the points Lord Varys makes about the Riverrun option, the road is easier as Catelyn knows full well, and Hoster would have been much more likely to give Cat safe escort to KL rather than Lysa, though Cat cannot know how uncooperative Lysa would be, and in any case she cannot get more evidence from Hoster like she thinks she can get from Lysa.  This all goes back, as it always does in arguments about this plot point, to how predictable Tywin's retaliation was.  Cat obviously expects trouble, but trouble directed at her individual person and not at riverland civilians.  

I think this business about Cat wanting a kangaroo trial in Winterfell is hogwash.  It is clearly indicated in the text that the Winterfell option was only a lie tossed around to deter pursuit, and that she was against the trial that did occur.  Given what is there in the text, it adds the least amount of fiction to the situation to merely assign her motivations thusly.

The idea that Catelyn would conduct torture to extort information goes against everything that has been established by the author about her character.  This strikes me as an unworthy potshot, and doesn't speak well for the argument.  There's also no reason why she would be less willing to consider Tyrion's protestations of innocence in Winterfell than she was on the way to the Eyrie, and she is shown to have doubts about the accusation.

Edited by Lady Blackfish, 13 November 2010 - 01:43 AM.

[FatCatOberyn]

It's not right to say that it's Edmure's fault that Stannis lost the battle of Blackwater. Robb's orders were very unclear. He told Edmure to defend the Riverlands, and Edmure did just that. Had he told him to stay in Riverrun, things would have been different. And Edmure's mistake wasn't half as deadly for the Stark cause as Robb's utter stupidity - choosing to take Jeyne Westerling as his wife.

Concerning the Lannister inheritance, I think it's safe to say that Jaime always had special privileges as a member of the Kingsguard due to the extreme influence of his father, and the fact that Tywin would rather kill himself on a toilet than let Tyrion inherit. I don't think that any nobles of the realm ever expected that Tywin would let Tyrion inherit.

Catelyn's kidnapping of Tyrion was a great mistake, more so because Catelyn, as part of the ruling class, was fully aware how Tywin would react. Tywin didn't give a shit about Tyrion, but she gave him "legal grounds" to attack the Riverlands. Not to mention that she had no real evidence that Tyrion was behind the attempt on Bran's life, other than the word of Littlefinger.

[SFDanny]

Catelyn's action of taking Tyrion does not give a legal reason for Tywin to attack the Riverlands. Note that Tywin has his soldiers fight under false colors because he knows this is not the case.

Chanur, on 12 November 2010 - 11:11 AM, said:

One last thing SFDanny, you cannot sit there with a straight face and tell me Cat did not know how the infamous Lord Tywin would react to one of his children being seized. His reputation is far and wide, and known especially to Cat.

Of course not. Catelyn knows very well the dangers of taking on the Lannisters. She knows they tried to kill her seven-year-old son because he saw or heard something they didn't want him to know (true,) and she thinks she knows they sent an assassin to try to kill him in his coma in order to prevent him from every waking up (not the Lannisters who she thinks did the deed, but Joffrey counts as a Lannister loyalist,) and she thinks they killed the King's Hand, Jon Arryn, in order to grasp more power to themselves (not true, but they do plot to kill Robert and are constantly trying to gain more power,) and she absolutely knows Tywin's history in the war of rebellion (betrayal and murder) and his brutal suppression of his disloyal or wavering vassals. We can agree that she is aware of all of this and probably much more, but what we disagree about is that in trying to fight them she and Ned (why does Ned always get left out of these criticisms?,) are making a fundamental mistake by trying to do so. They plan out a resistance, including safeguarding the North, and they try to build the evidence to expose the Lannisters for what they are. What the heck is wrong with any of that? They make some missteps; trusting in Catelyn's sister and foster brother being the most glaring, but doing nothing would have been the greatest mistake of all. In that overall context, Catelyn's action in taking Tyrion is not only understandable, but not a bad decision based on what she thinks she knows. When we and she find out that much of what she thought was true and sure is not, it is easy to say it was a mistake. A fair estimate based on putting oneself in Cat's shoes would not be so harsh to her. It would especially not overlook all the things done by people who ARE out to do the Starks harm and lay all the Stark's troubles at Cat's door.

Edited by SFDanny, 13 November 2010 - 11:33 PM.

[Natsu]

Huh? What about Edmure? I don't see why Edmure is such a fool. He did what he was ordered to do, and then Robb and Brynden got angry because that wasn't what they'd planned? Hello? Next time you want someone to not win a battle, tell him, but don't blame him for successfully doing what you told him to do. Edmure also was willing to marry a Frey he didn't know anything about to make amends for Robb's blunder with Jeyne. So far he's alive, he managed to get the Blackfish alive, and his pretty wife is pregnant. I don't think he did things that badly. He did his part right, everyone else commited mortal mistakes, but that wasn't Edmure's fault. He might be less "cool" or fearless than others, but he's managed to do his duty well, which is more than you can say of Robb or Cat.

And the Tyrells are great. They are good and gallant, and ruthless if need be. Garlan Tyrell is the only guy who ever scolds Joff on being an asshole. Margaery Tyrell has all of Sansa Stark elegance and manners without actually believing she lives in a fairytale. They are good and generous when they need to, and dangerous when they need to. The gay Tyrell kid is one of the best jousters in Westeros, and a great warrior. Loras himself says Garlan is better with the sword and he trains against three or four men at once. Willas still is on good terms with Oberyn Martell, the man who crippled him. Mediocre, the Tyrells? So far they are the house with less crazy people, less murderous intentions and less idiocy. They are kind whenever it's possible and ruthless whenever it's needed and never more than that (unlike the Lannisters, who go way too far in their ruthlessness).

All houses have a good character, and Brynden and Edmure aren't that bad at all. But the Tyrells... the less smart one is Mace, and the rest are cultured badasses. I don't see what's mediocre about them.

Edited by Natsu, 05 March 2011 - 07:31 PM.

[Whatever]

I can't understand why there are so many edmure haters. come on, he's not that stupid - he's just one who takes everything easy.
And about the tyrells.. i used to dislike them, but lately i think im changing my mind. Marg is smart, and garlan is better than more others (i'd even say better than any other knight in KL). Loras is a kind of young jaime - haughty and self convinced to be invincible, but he's 17, he's cool, awesome, handsome, everything. He can afford to be arrogant (i'm not saying i like that, im just saying it's normal).
I think mace is stupid - more than edmure, thats for sure, but nevermind. I cannot stand that horrible mother of his - shes awesome, but also the reason why tyrion is condamed, after all. I'm not a big imp-fan, but i just don't like her, period. I just love seeing her handling cersei (and i do like cersei.. or i should say that i love hating her. Yes, i know, im confused )

[Horza]

Edmure's an ordinary, middling guy who's saddled with taking over the family business. Only the family business isn't a shoe store but an edifice of repression and exploitation that can only be defended by cunning and ruthlessness and he's a bit low on both.

[AvengingAryaFan]

SFDanny, on 11 November 2010 - 10:29 PM, said:

I think your sword metaphor inapt, but, if you insist on using it, I'd say you are cutting yourself with the same edge here. First, you criticize Catelyn for taking Tyrion when he is innocent, even though all the evidence she has points to the guilt of the man, and now you assume the expected result of seizing Tyrion must be what happened after she captured him and Catelyn should have known it at the time. Nonsense. What Catelyn does is her best in a difficult situation to bring someone she believes guilty of terrible crimes to justice. That it doesn't work out that way is not only because Tyrion is, unbeknownst to her, innocent, but primarily because she is betrayed and has been betrayed by her sister and Littlefinger. None of which is known to Catelyn. You, in effect, assume Catelyn should know that Petyr is lying when he tells her that the knife is Tyrion's, and that she should know that Littlefinger and Lysa killed Jon Arryn and sent a note to Catelyn blaming the Lannisters for the crime in order to start a war. Given the evidence at hand, including Jon Arryn's suspicious death and Bran's attempted murder, it makes sense for Catelyn and Ned to believe them. What they set out to do to counter these crimes is to try to uncover evidence they can present to the King to bring the Lannisters responsible to justice. That is their plan, and that is what Catelyn tries to do. Oh, and, yes, as a noble woman she has every right to accuse Tyrion of the crime, and as the Lady of Winterfell she has every right to hold him for the King's justice. She has no right to try him herself, which she does not do, or to kill him outright.

Ah, SFDanny!  I always hold your posts in such high esteem, finding them evenhanded and well reasoned.  I suppose it's a little schadenfreude that I'm not really unhappy to find you taking this position - because I think, for once, it is NOT evenhanded and well reasoned.

The criticism of Cat is, or should be, for two reasons: one, she had no authority to arrest Tyrion, regardless of his guilt or innocence.  Eddard papered over this by approving it after the fact, but at the time it was illegal.  

More crucially, it was incredibly unwise.  Cat knew Tywin Lannister extremely well.  Stories of the devastation he visited on the Tarbecks and Reynes for challenging his authority are literally legend in his own time.  His reprisals, when his House is disrespected, is NOT thoughtful, proportional, and rational; it is brutal, and vastly disproportionate to the crime.  These things were common knowledge, and Cat MUST have been aware of them.

Moreover, in her last discussion with Eddard b/f leaving KL, it was clear that she knew that the kingdom was a powderkeg waiting for a spark - that war was an imminent possibility, and that it would be devastating for the Starks. "It must not come to that" was their comment.  At a time like that, a diplomat doesn't murder the heir to the Austro-Hungarian, er, I mean, arrest the heir to the Lannister, empire.  Again, even if she had airtight evidence of Tyrion's guilt, she should have let Tyrion go for the sake of peace in the realm.  It's not as though he'd be difficult to find if a grand jury found him worth charging in a crime!

But to make matters worse, her evidence for Tyrion's guilt was little more than a general suspicion of the Lannisters, plus LF's claim about the ownership of the knife.  Sheesh, even if the knife had been Tyrion's, which it wasn't, that wouldn't be proof of his guilt!  And of course, as we know, LF's "evidence" was false.  I don't fault her for believing LF, but I fault her for not demanding corroboration, convincing proof of Tyrion's guilt, before even charging Tyrion; and for failing to follow the law in arresting him, so that the Crown, rather than Houses Stark or Tully, would be seen responsible for any actions taken against Tyrion.  Even aside from the issues of proof and proper procedure, I fault her for taking such an incredibly inflammatory action at a time when even a far less inflammatory action might have plunged the realm into civil war, against a House ruled by a man known to never suffer insults lightly, but to respond with disproportionate brutality.

I liked Cat prior to the RW; I know she tried to do the right thing.  But this was a FAIL of epic proportions - done cleverly, but unwisely (maximum understatement).

ETA: I always wondered why the Three Stooges made an appearance at that Inn - now I think I know!

Edited by AvengingAryaFan, 07 March 2011 - 09:07 AM.

[Horza]

Siding with AAF here. Catelyn doesn't have anywhere near enough evidence to seize Tyrion, she doesn't have the organised political backing in place to make evidence stick, good or bad, and she well knows who she's messing with.

It was a spur-of-the-moment decision with appalling consequences.

[AvengingAryaFan]

SFDanny, on 13 November 2010 - 07:49 PM, said:

Catelyn's action of taking Tyrion does not give a legal reason for Tywin to attack the Riverlands. Note that Tywin has his soldiers fight under false colors because he knows this is not the case.

True but unhelpful. Sacking KL wasn't legal either. Do you suggest Cat could reasonably rely on Tywin limiting himself to legal recourse - particularly given that her provocation was itself illegal?

SFDanny, on 13 November 2010 - 07:49 PM, said:

... We can agree that she is aware of all of this and probably much more, but what we disagree about is that in trying to fight them she and Ned (why does Ned always get left out of these criticisms?,) are making a fundamental mistake by trying to do so. They plan out a resistance, including safeguarding the North, and they try to build the evidence to expose the Lannisters for what they are. What the heck is wrong with any of that?
... They make some missteps; trusting in Catelyn's sister and foster brother being the most glaring, but doing nothing would have been the greatest mistake of all.

Ever obliging, I'll cheerfully include Ned in the criticisms: what is wrong with their plans for resistance and safeguarding the North is that they, particularly Ned, didn't actually DO anything.  Ned didn't put his men on defensive high alert, or nail down additional swords on which he could rely (he turned Renly down!!!).  He should have been establishing more power that he could personally rely on; instead, he grudgingly accepted the Gold Cloaks that LF treacherously offered.  His failure to take personal action to ensure their security persisted even after Tyrion was "arrested" and Robert died, when the extent of their exposure to Lannister attack should have been abundantly obvious.

The only things they DID - warning Cersei of their intentions, and "arresting" Tyrion - were strategically disastrous.  Relying almost exclusively on LF when the very survival of your House is on the line was both passive and foolish.

Your highlight of the Starks' extreme (and partly correct) distrust of the Lannisters underscores how egregiously negligent Ned was to fail to take extreme defensive precautions - rather than waving a red cape at the Lannister bull, as he did with Cersei!

Doing nothing would have been far better, at least until they had their defensive ducks in a row.

SFDanny, on 13 November 2010 - 07:49 PM, said:

In that overall context, Catelyn's action in taking Tyrion is not only understandable, but not a bad decision based on what she thinks she knows. When we and she find out that much of what she thought was true and sure is not, it is easy to say it was a mistake. A fair estimate based on putting oneself in Cat's shoes would not be so harsh to her. It would especially not overlook all the things done by people who ARE out to do the Starks harm and lay all the Stark's troubles at Cat's door.

Putting myself in Cat's shoes is precisely how I began to realize the magnitude of her blunder - when I grasped all that she knew, or should have known.  Suspecting the Lannisters are inimical to them is HARDLY a reason to provoke them! Knowing that most of your House is exposed to hostile forces within the Red Keep is reason to establish a defense, NOT to give away the extent of your threat to those hostile forces!  

Far from exonerating the Starks, the known presence of people who would do them harm is reason to take extreme defensive actions and avoid provocations.  In that dangerous situation, Ned and Cat did the opposite.

George makes Ned and Cersei personally good people; it's a tribute to his sympathetic treatment of them that some readers still do not realize that he also made all of the adults - Ned, Cat and Robb - blundering fools, each in their own crucial respect.

I love the Starks, even Cat, which is why I feel rather like Arya, when she kicked the dead Stark guardsman who had claimed that every Northern sword was worth ten of the southern swords.  If Ned hadn't shared that guardsman's hubris, they'd still be alive. They might have survived even Cat's blunder and the resulting war, had Ned made his household secure.  But he simply didn't take the threat seriously.

BTW, the reason Ned had been left out of the criticism thus far is that the OP's theory lays the blame on the Tullys - primarily Cat. @Natsu, many people agree Robb failed to be sufficiently explicit to a commander he was relying on, particularly a man of questionable wisdom.  I'm disappointed in the Blackfish, whom I'd have expected to recognize and own the failure of Robb's leadership, but IIRC he was the first to castigate Edmure for his zeal.

[Talleyrand]

The main reason i believe that like the OP that the Tullys killed Robb is that Edmure ordered Ser Tallhart to join Roose. (Tallhart was left at the Twins with a garrison of Northmen to ensure the Freys loyalty) And i believe yhat if Tallhart was still there then Walder would not have started scheming. Added to this Tallhart was then sent to Duskendale with his men by Roose, were he died, depriving Robb of some valuable men

Edited by Lothbrok, 26 March 2011 - 12:50 PM.

[Ealasaid]

Errant Bard, on 30 July 2010 - 01:27 AM, said:

I think I can play this game:

If there's a House that i HATE, its the Starks- i mean- they're bloody idiots! First time i read the books, i liked them, i pitied because they were a little dim but well meaning and I pitied the kids for being left alone in the world but thinking about it I realised that they actually really did kill their own men and ruin their own house.

*and truly I can't bring myself to do it

Ah hahaahahhaahha...O my goodnes...gasping for breath from stitch in side from laughing. Ah. Very good.

[Danyl Stark]

Lady Blackfish, on 29 July 2010 - 10:21 PM, said:

Killing someone with no justification is called murder, and it's a bad thing.  Newsflash: Tywin is not a role model.

The only quality that I like about Lord Tywin, good on him for destroying his enemies, if you don't stop them at the beginning, you're gonna get fucked over, as we see from the Freys & Boltons. I think that the Tullys would be perfectly within their rights to get rid of Walder, he's their sworn bannerman & should answer their call to arms immediately, for those who would say they are also sworn to the throne, them not letting Robb past had nothing to do with that (also, did they ever swear fealty to Inbred Joffrey Barathelannister).