The enigma of Hoster Tully, what's your take?

[Ramsay Gimp]

What BR was long before anyone was born (except Walder Frey). The Defiance and Reynes are recent. And why wouldn't Ned have said anything? He did it to his King, twice. Why not his Father-in-Law? If Ned thinks he's right, he'll say it. I think that's one thing he has proven.

Ned would have given his opinion, but he would have respected Hoster's right to punish his vassals as he saw fit. His blowouts with Robert were when he was Hand of the King, and was being asked to actually facilitate the nasty deeds

[new djinn]

A good politician(marriages alliances, joinning the winning side), a not so good head of the family( quarrel with Brynden, breach with Lysa, no marriage to Edmure, distance from Catelyn). Not as bad as Tywin or Randyl but not as good as Mace or Anders.

[juanml82]

That is possible but after killing the whole village (according to JQC's assessment) it still makes no sense to let the heir stay alive. In fact it makes even less sense. Kid not being there makes him even more likely to grow up wanting to avenge what he was not there to stop.

But, at the same time, negates him any power to enact that revenge. If the kid lives and inherits a land without income, how is he going to even purchase his own armor, let alone pay retainers, trainers, maesters, etc? The kid would be lucky to become a hedge knight.

[Ramsay Gimp]

But, at the same time, negates him any power to enact that revenge. If the kid lives and inherits a land without income, how is he going to even purchase his own armor, let alone pay retainers, trainers, maesters, etc? The kid would be lucky to become a hedge knight.

But that's another problem with destroying villages in your region for the actions of their lords - you're denying yourself future income, not just the local House. A charred village can't pay taxes - a better method would be to punish the political rulers but keep the economic base intact. It is also incredibly unjust to slaughter people who had nothing to do with the treason and then pardon the actual traitors

Now if you're an invader, like Tywin in the Riverlands or Robb in the West, burn and loot away. But not if you're dealing with your own people

[Lady Blizzardborn]

But that's another problem with destroying villages in your region for the actions of their lords - you're denying yourself future income, not just the local House. A charred village can't pay taxes - a better method would be to punish the political rulers but keep the economic base intact. It is also incredibly unjust to slaughter people who had nothing to do with the treason and then pardon the actual traitors

Now if you're an invader, like Tywin in the Riverlands or Robb in the West, burn and loot away. But not if you're dealing with your own people

Which is exactly why I'm arguing that he didn't kill everyone. Burned homes can be rebuilt. Smallfolk do not spontaneously regenerate. And there is no text to support the idea that he slaughtered the whole village.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

But, at the same time, negates him any power to enact that revenge. If the kid lives and inherits a land without income, how is he going to even purchase his own armor, let alone pay retainers, trainers, maesters, etc? The kid would be lucky to become a hedge knight.

There's nothing to indicate that he would have no income. A village was burned, not the keep, not the crops, not the farmers who didn't live in the village and more than likely were the ones whose labors actually provided the Goodbrooks most of their income. House Goodbrook might have more than one village on their lands as well. It's a huge assumption to say the heir would be impoverished over this action. And he would not have been likely to make peace with Hoster if that had been the case.

[Catastrophe]

Where did people get the idea that Hoster had the smallfolk executed for Lord Goodbrook's crimes? That's not the impression that I got from the book.

“When Riverrun declared for Robert, Goodbrook stayed loyal to the king, so Lord Tully came down on him with fire and sword."

"Came down on him with fire and sword" meaning that Hoster went after Lord Goodbrook himself, not the smallfolk. It's not like Lord Goodbrook was defenseless, he would've had his own soldiers fighting against Hoster's forces. It was a battle, and unfortunately battles tend to cause a lot of collateral damage. The village was burned down, and there's no doubt that innocent people died, but that's the nature of war. It was a tragedy, but it wasn't a war crime, even by modern standards. It's not like Hoster ordered his men to round up all the villagers and have them put to death. It's hardly comparable to Tywin sending his forces to the Riverlands with no strategic objective other than destroying everything in their path, just to send a message to the Starks.

[TheCrannogDweller]

It's hardly comparable to Tywin sending his forces to the Riverlands with no strategic objective other than destroying everything in their path, just to send a message to the Starks.

Yeah, that wasn't his finest hour.

"I want to see the Riverlands afire from the God's Eye to the Red Fork" sounds eerily similar to "let Robert be king over charred bones and cooked meat".

[juanml82]

There's nothing to indicate that he would have no income. A village was burned, not the keep, not the crops, not the farmers who didn't live in the village and more than likely were the ones whose labors actually provided the Goodbrooks most of their income. House Goodbrook might have more than one village on their lands as well. It's a huge assumption to say the heir would be impoverished over this action. And he would not have been likely to make peace with Hoster if that had been the case.

I'm not sure about what makes more money, if towns or farms, or if there even is a general rule about that, but you do have a point.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

I'm not sure about what makes more money, if towns or farms, or if there even is a general rule about that, but you do have a point.

I'm actually not sure about what makes more money either, but you can't eat gold. After a war food is scarce, so whatever they could grow locally might be the only food they could get. The farmers are really important at that point because the nobles and a good share of the villagers will be ill-prepared to work in the dirt themselves.

[Boarsbane]

Yeah, that wasn't his finest hour.

"I want to see the Riverlands afire from the God's Eye to the Red Fork" sounds eerily similar to "let Robert be king over charred bones and cooked meat".

You are both wrong, he sent Gregor to raid and pillage to draw Eddard Stark out to capture him and to get Edmure to spread his forces out to make the Riverlands more prone to invasion. It half worked.

[TheCrannogDweller]

You are both wrong, he sent Gregor to raid and pillage to draw Eddard Stark out to capture him and to get Edmure to spread his forces out to make the Riverlands more prone to invasion. It half worked.

No, you're wrong. That line comes after the capture of Jaime and the death of Eddard. There is nothing strategic about it, it's pure vengeance.