Could the Vale really have tipped the scales of the wotfk?

[devilish]

17 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

A - Robb sent repeated letters to Lysa to try and enlist the support of the Vale, he sent Theon as an emissary to try and enlist the support of the Iron Islands, he sent Catelyn as an emissary to forge an alliance with Renly and thus the Reach and he sent Catelyn as an emissary to win the Freys to his cause.  This is all sensible and though the choice of Theon as an emissary is a mistake the choice of Catelyn Tully/Stark, the Lady of Winterfell is not, for all your disparagement that this is a "boy" hiding behind his "mummy".

You insist on incorrectly infantilising him and ignoring the strategic alliances he tried to forge, incorrectly portraying him as a foolish boy who tried to go it alone.  At least acknowledge what he tried to do, as you're being remarkablky one-eyed here.

Given he was looking for an alliance with Renly when he (Robb) was at his peak, all the more reason to bend the knee when the Lannisters are defeated and his prospects much worse.

B - Oh, so everyone in story is stupid, not just Robb.  Come on!  If you take this view at the least consider that they might realise their mistake later and be behind his decision to bend the knee.  And we're back to FFS are we?  Great.....

C - Quite obviously the Grand Council does all the things I've said in my previous posts.  Most notably it removes the need for further conflict by legitimising the most powerful, Renly, as King, and allowing the rest of the nobles to give him their allegiance without it looking like they surrendered or were beaten thus retaining their pride and prestige and avoiding humiliating climbdowns.

D - it seems you will argue about anything and everything.  Warrior aristocrats did not value peace above all else and wars like The Hundred Years War were so named for this very obvious reason that there was an incentive for the nobility to continue or reignite the war to better themselves.  In story the knights of summer do not long for peace and tranquility, they long for combat and glory.  This simply isn't something you can miss or ignore.  Closing the Rose Road does the Tyrells no harm at all.  Controlling land insulates them from the lost profits that would ruin the merchant and trading class.

E -  Ugh.  Your opening statement is contradicted by the ugly tone and misrepresentations in your post.  It's remrakable how many times you called him the boy - are you channeling your inner Tywin!?  I didn't want this to be derailed by you flaming over Robb but it seems that is now the crux of your argument: that "the boy" who diid the terrible thing of executing "family" (no he didn't and it's hard to debate with you when you deliberately distort things) but apparently should have executed his mother (!) was on an ego trip and was attached to his own pride and independence for the sake of his pride above all else. 

Nope.  He wanted to be free from the Lannisters and thought he could form a strong series of alliances.  Without those alliances and with the Lannisters defeated and an acceptable figure in Renly on the throne the Young Wolf, widely admired by his men, would quite easily be able to bend the knee to Renly, as Renly wants no punishment or humiliation, merely loyalty.  Pretty simple really.

 

A-    Sending Theon to the Iron Islands to convince daddy was crazy. The Iron Islanders were pirates and you don’t deal with pirates by sending them the only thing that is preventing them from cutting your throat, especially after daddy was among those responsible to wiping most of their royal family.  Regarding the Vale, if Lysa couldn’t bother sending troops to save her dying father and rescue her brother then I doubt that she would have sent them now that Hoster is dead, Edmure is safe and the boy had put a crown over his head. Regarding Renly

1-    A King/Warden doesn’t send mummy to do his bidding.
2-    Once Robb put a crown on his head, Renly couldn’t (and shouldn’t) offer him anything. First of all, Renly had commitments. 60%-80% of his army wasn’t actually his to start with and it was ‘lent’ to him by Mace with the condition of him becoming King of all Westeros.  He couldn’t give the boy any concessions even if he wanted. Secondly he shouldn’t offer him any concessions in the first place. The Wolf and the lion where ripping each other apart and with such big army at his back Renly could annihilate them both at his earliest convenience.  From Renly’s POW the war was won. He only had to find the right timing to pick the spoils.
Robb didn’t die because he was defeated. What caused Robb’s death was Jamie’s release, his total inexperience in preparing to war (ie by leaving behind an experienced general who could raise more troops and coordinate the North if it ever get attacked) and his inability to understand how diplomacy (which unlike medieval war tactics is much more complicated) worked. That required experience and the Robb didn’t had that because he was a BOY. That is not a criticism, it’s a fact.
In fact my criticism is headed towards the ADULTS who should have protected him by keeping him in line similarly to what Tywin/Tyrion did with Joffrey and Mace/Randyll probably did with Renly. That include his bannermen who supported his idea of leaving the North in the hands of a younger boy, then they hyped him beyond any sense of justice only to finish the job by putting a crown over his head. His mother who undermined him by helping Jamie to flee and Brynden who should have put both boys (Edmure and Robb) in line. Surely they must have known that 20k are just a pebble in a pond, that the North had not enough troops to go solo especially if it also have to protect the Riverlands too and that by putting a crown on Robb’s head  + having him married to a Frey girl they were damaging any diplomatic effort that were vital for their campaign to succeed.

In my opinion the Greatjon, Cat and Brynden are as guilty for the boy’s death as Roose and Walder are. 

B-    It a mix of stupidity and putting their own interest first. The Riverlands Lords (+Brynden) didn’t want to irk the boy because If he decided to turn tail then the Lannisters would come back with a vengeance. They also thought that Robb would be a better leader for them then Edmure (which is also true). Bannermen like the Greatjon probably thought that since he fought for most of his lifetime because of Southern problems, then getting rid of it all, will allow them and their family time to enjoy some peace. Theon probably thought that bending the knee will be enough to be treated by the Starks as family rather than as a ward. No one really cared about the boy and the mess they were putting him into. 

C-    Lets not take their argument further as we’re practically saying the same thing in different words

D-    Look let agree to disagree on that. You think that feudal Lords were itching for the opportunity to have their peasants leaving the harvest to rot just to go to war and die and their children to go to war and either die or be captured and sold back as hostages. I don’t. Also you seem to think that there’s no difference between a powerful feudal Lord whose got more than enough land to be happy with, a nobleman with little or no land who sees war as an opportunity and a simple knight. I do distinguish between all of them. 

E-    I think I explained that in A. However lets repeat some points. Diplomacy is a very complicated matter that has to be taken seriously, especially in times when your army wasn’t really yours but that of your feudal Lords.  If you ask me, Robb should have closed an eye or two regarding Lord Karstark especially since he relied heavily on his men and his mother had also committed treason. Not doing so, would have most certainly infuriated the Karstarks and would put doubts on his rule especially at a time where most Lords were itching to go home and defend their family (oh I almost forget, they don’t care because feudal lords love war and Robb was giving the time of their life)

F-    That is why it’s never wise to put a crown on a boy’s head if you can help it and if you can’t help it then you make sure that you build a structure around that, take the difficult decisions on his behalf until he’s old and wise enough to take those decisions for himself. 
That is what frustrates me. The Lannisters could have been defeated quite easily. All Robb had to do is 
a-    Raise an army
b-    Leave somebody with ample military experience behind to rally the troops if the North is attacked + to build a support army

if it is ever needed
c-    March South and save Edmure
d-    Pledge allegiance to the one with the biggest army

The Kingslayer’s capture and Theon as ward provided Robb with endless possibilities. 

a-    He could have used Jamie as a golden ticket to get his pardon
b-    he could swap Jamie for Sansa who could be then used as a pawn to join to either bring the Vale or the Tyrells on their side (Willas as King with Sansa as his queen would have a nice tune to it. If Mace stressed on that little detail regarding legitimacy, then Robb could convince him to send him emissaries to bring Danny back in exchange of her marrying Loras. The Targs will return to rule (and will be grateful towards the North and the Tyrells for helping them regain the crown),  Mace will have the joy of having a son sitting on the iron throne and Willas will marry Sansa with him extending the favour by allowing Margeary to marry either Robb or Edmure)
c-    Balon could be reminded that his boy was still ward to the Starks. That alone could sway him in aiming his fury elsewhere (the Westerlands?) or else risk of pissing Asha off, whom deep down, loved her brother dearly.
It does sound straightforward to me. Instead the boy was poorly lead and protected from committing childish mistakes (releasing Theon, accepting the crown, Jamie’s release etc). 
 

[the trees have eyes]

On 02/12/2016 at 0:20 PM, devilish said:

A-    Sending Theon to the Iron Islands to convince daddy was crazy. The Iron Islanders were pirates and you don’t deal with pirates by sending them the only thing that is preventing them from cutting your throat, especially after daddy was among those responsible to wiping most of their royal family.  Regarding the Vale, if Lysa couldn’t bother sending troops to save her dying father and rescue her brother then I doubt that she would have sent them now that Hoster is dead, Edmure is safe and the boy had put a crown over his head. Regarding Renly

1-    A King/Warden doesn’t send mummy to do his bidding.
2-    Once Robb put a crown on his head, Renly couldn’t (and shouldn’t) offer him anything. First of all, Renly had commitments. 60%-80% of his army wasn’t actually his to start with and it was ‘lent’ to him by Mace with the condition of him becoming King of all Westeros.  He couldn’t give the boy any concessions even if he wanted. Secondly he shouldn’t offer him any concessions in the first place. The Wolf and the lion where ripping each other apart and with such big army at his back Renly could annihilate them both at his earliest convenience.  From Renly’s POW the war was won. He only had to find the right timing to pick the spoils.
Robb didn’t die because he was defeated. What caused Robb’s death was Jamie’s release, his total inexperience in preparing to war (ie by leaving behind an experienced general who could raise more troops and coordinate the North if it ever get attacked) and his inability to understand how diplomacy (which unlike medieval war tactics is much more complicated) worked. That required experience and the Robb didn’t had that because he was a BOY. That is not a criticism, it’s a fact.
In fact my criticism is headed towards the ADULTS who should have protected him by keeping him in line similarly to what Tywin/Tyrion did with Joffrey and Mace/Randyll probably did with Renly. That include his bannermen who supported his idea of leaving the North in the hands of a younger boy, then they hyped him beyond any sense of justice only to finish the job by putting a crown over his head. His mother who undermined him by helping Jamie to flee and Brynden who should have put both boys (Edmure and Robb) in line. Surely they must have known that 20k are just a pebble in a pond, that the North had not enough troops to go solo especially if it also have to protect the Riverlands too and that by putting a crown on Robb’s head  + having him married to a Frey girl they were damaging any diplomatic effort that were vital for their campaign to succeed.

In my opinion the Greatjon, Cat and Brynden are as guilty for the boy’s death as Roose and Walder are. 

B-    It a mix of stupidity and putting their own interest first. The Riverlands Lords (+Brynden) didn’t want to irk the boy because If he decided to turn tail then the Lannisters would come back with a vengeance. They also thought that Robb would be a better leader for them then Edmure (which is also true). Bannermen like the Greatjon probably thought that since he fought for most of his lifetime because of Southern problems, then getting rid of it all, will allow them and their family time to enjoy some peace. Theon probably thought that bending the knee will be enough to be treated by the Starks as family rather than as a ward. No one really cared about the boy and the mess they were putting him into. 

C-    Lets not take their argument further as we’re practically saying the same thing in different words

D-    Look let agree to disagree on that. You think that feudal Lords were itching for the opportunity to have their peasants leaving the harvest to rot just to go to war and die and their children to go to war and either die or be captured and sold back as hostages. I don’t. Also you seem to think that there’s no difference between a powerful feudal Lord whose got more than enough land to be happy with, a nobleman with little or no land who sees war as an opportunity and a simple knight. I do distinguish between all of them. 

E-    I think I explained that in A. However lets repeat some points. Diplomacy is a very complicated matter that has to be taken seriously, especially in times when your army wasn’t really yours but that of your feudal Lords.  If you ask me, Robb should have closed an eye or two regarding Lord Karstark especially since he relied heavily on his men and his mother had also committed treason. Not doing so, would have most certainly infuriated the Karstarks and would put doubts on his rule especially at a time where most Lords were itching to go home and defend their family (oh I almost forget, they don’t care because feudal lords love war and Robb was giving the time of their life)

F-    That is why it’s never wise to put a crown on a boy’s head if you can help it and if you can’t help it then you make sure that you build a structure around that, take the difficult decisions on his behalf until he’s old and wise enough to take those decisions for himself. 
That is what frustrates me. The Lannisters could have been defeated quite easily. All Robb had to do is 
a-    Raise an army
b-    Leave somebody with ample military experience behind to rally the troops if the North is attacked + to build a support army

if it is ever needed
c-    March South and save Edmure
d-    Pledge allegiance to the one with the biggest army

The Kingslayer’s capture and Theon as ward provided Robb with endless possibilities. 

a-    He could have used Jamie as a golden ticket to get his pardon
b-    he could swap Jamie for Sansa who could be then used as a pawn to join to either bring the Vale or the Tyrells on their side (Willas as King with Sansa as his queen would have a nice tune to it. If Mace stressed on that little detail regarding legitimacy, then Robb could convince him to send him emissaries to bring Danny back in exchange of her marrying Loras. The Targs will return to rule (and will be grateful towards the North and the Tyrells for helping them regain the crown),  Mace will have the joy of having a son sitting on the iron throne and Willas will marry Sansa with him extending the favour by allowing Margeary to marry either Robb or Edmure)
c-    Balon could be reminded that his boy was still ward to the Starks. That alone could sway him in aiming his fury elsewhere (the Westerlands?) or else risk of pissing Asha off, whom deep down, loved her brother dearly.
It does sound straightforward to me. Instead the boy was poorly lead and protected from committing childish mistakes (releasing Theon, accepting the crown, Jamie’s release etc). 
 

A - Sending Theon was a mistake.  Theon wanted to act as Robb's ambassador in good faith but Balon was far more ruthless than either Robb or Theon anticipated.  Roob would have done well to listen to Catelyn here. The larger point is still that Robb was looking to make alliances to fight the Lannisters, including with Renly: with the Lannisters defeated (hypothetially), Renly in the box seat in the 7K and all of those alliances failing to materialise, it seems a simple choice to back down rather than fight a pointless war.  I'll repeat: with Ned avenged, the  Lannisters defeated and Joffrey off the throne, Robb ruling in Winterfell and Edmure in Riverrun all war aims are met.  It seems really simple to make a peace and bend the knee to Renly.

Renly did offer Robb a complete pardon and confirmation in all his lands and titles in return for recognising him as King.  It's a fairly easy deal to take and gets both of them what they want.

It's a fact that he's a youth, the rest is fairly tendentious opinion.  His campaign strategy - trickingTywin, capturing Jaime and relieving Riverrun, campaigning in the West and preparing to draw Tywin away from KL and defeat him is sound; there are a number of Northern Lords including Manderly and Leobald Tallhart and of course Rodrik Cassell as Castellan of Winterfell who are able to do exactly what you demand but they are betrayed by Bolton.  He campaigned successfully and tried to build alliances but primarily due to betrayal - Bolton, Frey, Lysa and Theon's bizarre capture of Winterfell which was never Balon's plan - those victories turned into a larger defeat.

Bear in mind that Alexander the Great was conquering the known world as a young man.  In the medieval period Edward the Black Prince and Henry Lancaster both held commnads in their teens.  It's this that GRRM is playing on with his "Young Wolf" beloved by his bannermen take on Robb's character.  If you act like he should be wearing diapers or the Blackfish should smack his bottom you're really missing out on the character and the story.  I'd hate to have to suffer through you giving a similar take on either Jon or Dany so please for the love of god don't start...

B - Right, it's a matter of common sense and self interest.  No need to fight Renly then or campaign for independence no one wants.  The North has hardly been under KL's thumb for the last 300 years and it won't be after Renly becomes king either.

C - I don't know if we are.  The key point is there is no reason for Robb and Renly to fight and a Great Council provides a formal framework to come to a peaceful resolution of the different kingships and a restoration of the 7K.

D - if you say that in order to understand their motivations and think like a nobleman I should realise that their prime concern was to restore peace as soon as possile in order to continue production and profit-making then yeah, we will disagree on that.  You might read the story and try and use that to make your point or talk me through the whole chivalric code and institution of knighthood and how many men a vassal lord was supposed to provide his overlord with but whatever, let's disagree.

E -  Your original point was hateful.  (That he executed family?  Karstark is not family......  That he should have executed his mother!?!  Karstark murdered two prisoners, one of whom was a Frey, and also murdered several Tully guards in the process and Catelyn "did the same"? ) What are you saying here?   I don' see any reason that Robb would have fought Renly out of pride or any real argument from you that he would have, just an insistence that he was a boy and some black proppaganda to try and support the assertion.

F - Monarchy doesn't work like that.  Either there is a regent - as Cersei is for Joffrey and then Tommen - or Robb rules.  At the very start when Catelyn finds him at Moat Caillin she briefly considers sending him back as he is technically a minor (14/15) but she decides correctly this would undermine him in his bannermen's eyes.  The decision to send Theon to Pyke and the disastrous marriage to Jeyne Westerling are Robb's two mistakes.  The fact that Bolton betrayed him, Edmure unwittingly ruined his plan to defeat Tywin, Mel killed Renly before the Blackwater, Ramsay sacked WF instead of Manderly-Cerwyn-Tallhart retaking it or that Lysa was in LF's pocket all along are not things that can be laid at his feet.

I think you go a bit too far in trying to rewrite the story with "what you would have done in person X's place".  That is always easy with hindsight and of course none of us will ever write the same story or imagine the same characters as the author so it's ultimately pointless.  Robb, the North and the Riverlands rejected Joffrey and declared independence.  That might have lasted a year or a hundred depending on how events later played out but there is no reason that if the Vale had helped defeat the Lannisters (or if it didn't) the 7K could not coalesce under Barratheon rule once again without a major conflict with the north.

[velo-knight]

On 12/2/2016 at 7:20 AM, devilish said:

 

1-    A King/Warden doesn’t send mummy to do his bidding.

Why, and where do you draw this on? Catelyn's mission seems exactly like the kind of thing a very high-status widow in a feudal society might do: while she wields no formal power, everyone's comfortable with her as a faithful representative of her son's interests and intent, she herself commands respect as the daughter of one Lord Paramount and the widow of another. It's not just that she can do this, but it's a good use of her experience, reputation, and social status, and saves you from spending someone else. What is Robb supposed to have Catelyn do, needlework?

Even when she fails with Stannis and Renly, it's notable that she leaves unharmed and with a capable warrior now pledged to her service. That says a lot to me about the level of respect Catelyn Stark commanded in an extremely unstable, violent time.

 

[devilish]

2 hours ago, velo-knight said:

Why, and where do you draw this on? Catelyn's mission seems exactly like the kind of thing a very high-status widow in a feudal society might do: while she wields no formal power, everyone's comfortable with her as a faithful representative of her son's interests and intent, she herself commands respect as the daughter of one Lord Paramount and the widow of another. It's not just that she can do this, but it's a good use of her experience, reputation, and social status, and saves you from spending someone else. What is Robb supposed to have Catelyn do, needlework?

Even when she fails with Stannis and Renly, it's notable that she leaves unharmed and with a capable warrior now pledged to her service. That says a lot to me about the level of respect Catelyn Stark commanded in an extremely unstable, violent time.

 

Its a male dominating world and men do not send women (let alone mummy) to deal on his behalf. No one would ever take him serious for doing that. Sure you can counter to that my saying that Mace pretty much do the same thing. There again, who truly respect Mace and we're talking here about the head of the second richest house in Westeros with an army that is much bigger than anything Lannisters or Starks could ever raise. 

Cat role should have been at back, giving the boy advice when no one is seeing it. First of all because she's a woman in a male dominating world. Secondly she makes Robb look bad (its already tough for bannermen and equals to respect a boy who placed a crown over his head after winning a fight) and thirdly because she's too emotionally involved. Her aim is not to win the war but to get her family back. 

Neither Robb nor Cat is to blame really. The boy needed support and Cat did her best. I blame his bannermen (and people like Brynden Tully) whose both battlehardened and should know better. They basically killed the boy by putting a crown on this head. 

[velo-knight]

6 hours ago, devilish said:

Its a male dominating world and men do not send women (let alone mummy) to deal on his behalf. No one would ever take him serious for doing that. Sure you can counter to that my saying that Mace pretty much do the same thing. There again, who truly respect Mace and we're talking here about the head of the second richest house in Westeros with an army that is much bigger than anything Lannisters or Starks could ever raise. 

Cat role should have been at back, giving the boy advice when no one is seeing it. First of all because she's a woman in a male dominating world. Secondly she makes Robb look bad (its already tough for bannermen and equals to respect a boy who placed a crown over his head after winning a fight) and thirdly because she's too emotionally involved. Her aim is not to win the war but to get her family back. 

Neither Robb nor Cat is to blame really. The boy needed support and Cat did her best. I blame his bannermen (and people like Brynden Tully) whose both battlehardened and should know better. They basically killed the boy by putting a crown on this head. 

I'm sorry, but it seems like you're admitting you have nothing to base this on at all and are just relying on an image of a little kid sending his mom out.

I don't remember a single character looking askance - not in Robb's court, not in Renly's, not in Stannis', not even on the Iron Throne at Catelyn operating as a diplomat. AFAIK, it's a role that perfectly fits a high-status widow in this society. Plenty of these people have been happy to mention when they think women have overstepped their bounds (see: Brienne) in society, and plenty of characters reflect on the Young Wolf's mistakes. Nobody thinks of this.

Anyone with a good knowledge of medieval history and culture know whether high-status women could act as emissaries or diplomats for their sons / husbands / fathers?

[devilish]

12 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

 

[devilish]

1 hour ago, velo-knight said:

I'm sorry, but it seems like you're admitting you have nothing to base this on at all and are just relying on an image of a little kid sending his mom out.

I don't remember a single character looking askance - not in Robb's court, not in Renly's, not in Stannis', not even on the Iron Throne at Catelyn operating as a diplomat. AFAIK, it's a role that perfectly fits a high-status widow in this society. Plenty of these people have been happy to mention when they think women have overstepped their bounds (see: Brienne) in society, and plenty of characters reflect on the Young Wolf's mistakes. Nobody thinks of this.

Anyone with a good knowledge of medieval history and culture know whether high-status women could act as emissaries or diplomats for their sons / husbands / fathers?

There are instances of powerful women in medieval times, Queen Elisabeth I, Mathilda of Tuscany and Margaret of Anjou to mention a few. However they were rare and they merely stepped in because no men were available or the men were just too weak or mad to do the job themselves. They usually ended up in misery too. There’s a reason why Henry Tudor was obsessed of having a male descendent to inherit his crown. Till that time, no English queen was able to maintain the crown for long.

That doesn’t mean that women were just breeders (although most of the time they were). In a time when kings had absolute power the closer you are too the king the more powerful you become and what’s more powerful than sharing the king’s bed? Women played an important role to make families rich (ex the Boleyns), in cover up scandals (queens would hire their husband’s courtesans as their lady in waiting to avoid rumours spreading in court) and a particularly influential woman could get people killed or even create a schism. 

There again, most of the women’s influence started and ended in close quarters, hidden from the very eyes of other men.  Noblemen or kings would avoid having his lovers or wives dictating things on his behalf as that would make him look weak. Also it was a time of great superstition and powerful women walked a very tight rope between being the fertile ground on which royal babes (ie children chosen by god to rule) sprout and the very descendents of Eve, the temptress that forced Adam to sin. A particularly feasty or dominant woman who was seen as too involved in manly matters could risk of being accused of being a witch whose keeping her own husband under spell. There's rumours surrounding Anne Boleyn being a witch which still exist to this very day.  
 

[velo-knight]

24 minutes ago, devilish said:

There are instances of powerful women in medieval times, Queen Elisabeth I, Mathilda of Tuscany and Margaret of Anjou to mention a few. However they were rare and they merely stepped in because no men were available or the men were just too weak or mad to do the job themselves. They usually ended up in misery too. There’s a reason why Henry Tudor was obsessed of having a male descendent to inherit his crown. Till that time, no English queen was able to maintain the crown for long.

I'm not talking about female rulers, I'm talking about something far more basic: whether in realistic medieval setting, Catelyn acting as an envoy for Robb would raise eyebrows. I don't think this answers that at all. What I have in my mind was the claim that Elizabeth Woodville negotiated with Margaret Beaufort (or maybe it was Jasper Tudor? I can't remember, but this is why I'm hoping for someone with a firmer grasp of history) after the Princes were locked in the tower by Richard III, ultimately encouraging Henry Tudor to make his invasion and then marry Elizabeth of York, her daughter.

At the risk of being pedantic, Henry Tudor usually refers to Henry VII - while I guess Henry VIII is also a Henry Tudor, I was confused for a moment since the senior had no problems getting an heir and a spare.

I'd accept Westeros being a little more patriarchal - after all, compare the Dance of the Dragons to The Anarchy and it's much more brutal in the end - but I just don't see any evidence from either Martin's world or this one that Catelyn's presence as a diplomat undermined Robb's cause in any way, or constituted some sort of blunder.

[Whitering]

There are so many posts about this already, but really if Twyin was in the thick of it, and not winning quite so much, it's very probably Doran would have joined Dorne to either Stannis or Robb. Let's not forget that Stannis wanted to execute Jaime, Gregor and everyone else basically for the Sack. If Doran could remember that, it's likely he would back Stannis how is a massive justice monger, no matter the consequences to his rule.

[Colonel Green]

19 hours ago, devilish said:

Its a male dominating world and men do not send women (let alone mummy) to deal on his behalf. No one would ever take him serious for doing that. 

And yet, Catelyn was taken seriously everywhere she went.  She successfully negotiated an alliance with Walder Frey at a point where it is objectively not a sensible decision for Walder to side with them, meaning she succeeded in persuading him against his own best interests.  

[velo-knight]

1 hour ago, Colonel Green said:

And yet, Catelyn was taken seriously everywhere she went.  She successfully negotiated an alliance with Walder Frey at a point where it is objectively not a sensible decision for Walder to side with them, meaning she succeeded in persuading him against his own best interests.  

Good point. Here's another one: as far as we know, Tywin's secret moon tea deal was with Lady Sybell directly, not Rolph Spicer or any other man. Tywin - a conservative, status-oriented and relatively misogynistic character - had no problem negotiating some of his most important intrigues with a woman. Also, though the Dornish have different customs, obviously Doran Martell doesn't think sending Arianne is an especially unusual diplomatic move to find out about YG, beyond the dangers of her own personality. I think there's lots of evidence that suggests that, whatever the case in the real world, highborn women are readily accepted in a diplomatic capacity as both messengers and recipients in the Seven Kingdoms.

[devilish]

16 hours ago, velo-knight said:

I'm not talking about female rulers, I'm talking about something far more basic: whether in realistic medieval setting, Catelyn acting as an envoy for Robb would raise eyebrows. I don't think this answers that at all. What I have in my mind was the claim that Elizabeth Woodville negotiated with Margaret Beaufort (or maybe it was Jasper Tudor? I can't remember, but this is why I'm hoping for someone with a firmer grasp of history) after the Princes were locked in the tower by Richard III, ultimately encouraging Henry Tudor to make his invasion and then marry Elizabeth of York, her daughter.

At the risk of being pedantic, Henry Tudor usually refers to Henry VII - while I guess Henry VIII is also a Henry Tudor, I was confused for a moment since the senior had no problems getting an heir and a spare.

I'd accept Westeros being a little more patriarchal - after all, compare the Dance of the Dragons to The Anarchy and it's much more brutal in the end - but I just don't see any evidence from either Martin's world or this one that Catelyn's presence as a diplomat undermined Robb's cause in any way, or constituted some sort of blunder.

Women did negotiated and there were instances that they were more powerful then their husband the king. The English schism pushed by Henry Tudor was basically the Vatican reluctance to burn bridges with a much stronger empire than England who could have made the pope's life a living hell. Catherine of Aragon's nephew was in fact the Emperor of the Holy Roman empire, the biggest empire in Europe at the time and with lands in neighbouring Germany and Italy.  If Henry Tudor was married to a princess of some minor kingdom or a duke's son, then the pope would have probably given him what he wanted.

However every negotiation was done hush hush, away from the court and under strict survelliance. Extreme care were made to avoid making the dominating man look ridiculous or weak. We're stressing on the medieval male chauvenism which was prevalent in Medieval times. However we're underrating another important issue here ie chastity. With no paternity tests around, the king relied heavily on making sure that his female siblings (mother if young enough, wives and daughters) were kept pure. In a god fearing society were everything was linked to the forces of good and evil, Kings were considered chosen by god. Infedelity on the other hand was the biggest of sins as sin was made flesh in the child. Royalty had to be very careful on that because the slightest of doubt surrounding the crown prince/princess could cause a revolution. Not even the queen/princess family members were trusted. Hence why Anne Boleyn closeness to her own brother was used by the court to accuse her of incest. These same accusations would be used a generation later as a pretest by the King of Spain to launch his crusade against England.

I can't think of any instances of medieval European noble women barging into a foreign camp to deal on her husband/son's behalf. 

 

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

Absolutely. It would have made Tywin's situation all the more desperate. In my mind the only reason the Tyrells side with the Lannister's is because they see them ultimately keeping the throne. If that was seriously in doubt no way would they choose The Lannister's. Maybe they don't take either side and sit things out, although I doubt that. If Jeyne isn't in the picture, I can see them choosing The Starks. Robb was lacking political skill, something they have oodles of. A Margaery Robb marriage would have been a perfect fit, had he beaten the Lannister's into submission no way she doesn't talk him into sitting the Iron Throne.

[velo-knight]

8 hours ago, devilish said:

Women did negotiated and there were instances that they were more powerful then their husband the king. The English schism pushed by Henry Tudor was basically the Vatican reluctance to burn bridges with a much stronger empire than England who could have made the pope's life a living hell. Catherine of Aragon's nephew was in fact the Emperor of the Holy Roman empire, the biggest empire in Europe at the time and with lands in neighbouring Germany and Italy.  If Henry Tudor was married to a princess of some minor kingdom or a duke's son, then the pope would have probably given him what he wanted.

I'm aware of this, but what's the point? If anything, it reinforces that Catherine of Aragon was able to use her social standing and family connections to achieve a diplomatic and political objective - the Papacy blocking Henry VIII's divorce.

Also, the blockage probably still wouldn't have succeeded if the Emperor hadn't held the Pope as a hostage and had several armies in Italy.

8 hours ago, devilish said:

However every negotiation was done hush hush, away from the court and under strict survelliance. Extreme care were made to avoid making the dominating man look ridiculous or weak. We're stressing on the medieval male chauvenism which was prevalent in Medieval times. However we're underrating another important issue here ie chastity. With no paternity tests around, the king relied heavily on making sure that his female siblings (mother if young enough, wives and daughters) were kept pure. In a god fearing society were everything was linked to the forces of good and evil, Kings were considered chosen by god. Infedelity on the other hand was the biggest of sins as sin was made flesh in the child. Royalty had to be very careful on that because the slightest of doubt surrounding the crown prince/princess could cause a revolution. Not even the queen/princess family members were trusted. Hence why Anne Boleyn closeness to her own brother was used by the court to accuse her of incest. These same accusations would be used a generation later as a pretest by the King of Spain to launch his crusade against England.

I can't think of any instances of medieval European noble women barging into a foreign camp to deal on her husband/son's behalf. 

At the risk of again being too technical, isn't the the Tudor period (certainly Henry VIII) post-medieval? Henry wasn't just any English king, he was pretty much the closest England came to a true absolute monarch. The powers of even the greatest lords had been sharply curtailed, and the King's person was therefore much more powerful - and by that token more important - than ever. Though the plot of ASoIaF borrows from elements of the Wars of the Roses, it's definitely a feudal arrangement with a very weak central monarch. (Given how the culmination of the Wars of the Roses helped end feudalism in England, I'm surprised there aren't more theories about a post-feudal Westerosi monarchy floating around).

I'm looking for more ca. 900 - 1499 issues here, which I think better approximates the Westerosi system. Again, this is where a real historian could be helpful - some parts of Westeros seem relatively advanced (fighting with longswords [aka 'bastard swords' - the 'longsword' of most video games is in fact an arming sword] and polearms, the sciences of the Maesters) - while others seem quite primitive (armor, political sophistication, burgher-noble relations, banking). A real historian might be able to give us a rough approximation of the time periods to look at for real-world parallels to the Seven Kingdoms in different areas.

I don't think Catelyn is 'barging' anywhere, and as Colonel Green mentioned, if anyone thought it was out of place in-universe, I'm fairly sure the likes of Randyll Tarly, Walder Frey  or Tywin Lannister would have mentioned it at some point. Two of those two are notable sexual conservatives, and Walder is constantly complaining of anything that could be seen as a slight or insult to his house. AFAIK, none of them ever make a fuss about Lady Catelyn.

[John Doe]

There were tons of influential medieval women. A pretty interesting one is Isabella, She-Wolf of France. 

[Colonel Green]

Also, there are other examples in the books of women serving as ambassadors.  Rhaenys and Visenya were emissaries during the Wars of Conquest, for instance.

[the trees have eyes]

On 07/12/2016 at 8:43 PM, John Doe said:

There were tons of influential medieval women. A pretty interesting one is Isabella, She-Wolf of France. 

My favourite is Eleanor of Aquitaine.  That is quite a formidable character!

[Whitering]

Jaime was dead if he was kept at Riverrun, Karstark would have ended him. Basically you can't say it was his release that caused Robb's downfall, because if Jaime died the net result is the same. You have to go back earlier, there are two things, crowning and the marrying of Jeyne.

Those two things got him killed. If he was not crowned he could have gone and promised himself to Stannis (let's be honest, he's too honourable to join a usurper), and could have spent his time pinning Tywin down while Stannis seized King's Landing. Nope the crown prevented that.

He probably still might have lived, even if Jaime was dead by this point had he not married Jeyne, I don't see the Freys pulling the same move.

He probably should have taken Karstarks on his western march as well, the keep your enemies close thing.

[the trees have eyes]

6 hours ago, Whitering said:

Jaime was dead if he was kept at Riverrun, Karstark would have ended him. Basically you can't say it was his release that caused Robb's downfall, because if Jaime died the net result is the same. You have to go back earlier, there are two things, crowning and the marrying of Jeyne.

Those two things got him killed. If he was not crowned he could have gone and promised himself to Stannis (let's be honest, he's too honourable to join a usurper), and could have spent his time pinning Tywin down while Stannis seized King's Landing. Nope the crown prevented that.

He probably still might have lived, even if Jaime was dead by this point had he not married Jeyne, I don't see the Freys pulling the same move.

He probably should have taken Karstarks on his western march as well, the keep your enemies close thing.

Stannis losing on the Blackwater is the thing that sinks Robb.  He's in a pretty decent position int the Riverlands, is waiting to deal with Tywin in the west and expecting Stannis to take out Cersei, Tyrion and Joffrey.  If that happens neither Frey nor Bolton have a partner or an opportunity for betrayal and with Stannis in power and claiming Tommen and Myrcella's illegitiimacy it looks fairly easy for Robb to bend the knee to Stannis and go and cook Balon's goose.

[Whitering]

On 12/9/2016 at 7:12 PM, the trees have eyes said:

Stannis losing on the Blackwater is the thing that sinks Robb.  He's in a pretty decent position int the Riverlands, is waiting to deal with Tywin in the west and expecting Stannis to take out Cersei, Tyrion and Joffrey.  If that happens neither Frey nor Bolton have a partner or an opportunity for betrayal and with Stannis in power and claiming Tommen and Myrcella's illegitiimacy it looks fairly easy for Robb to bend the knee to Stannis and go and cook Balon's goose.

Stannis may not have lost on Blackwater had Cat joined Robb to Stannis, which she could have, and maybe would have done had Robb not been named King. She might well have left before the whole Renly snafu and not been privy to that. As others have said Robb may have been able to pin Twyin in Harrenhall as Robb had already destroyed the backup army being put together in the Westerlands.