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

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, devilish said:

If the Vale gives their support to Robb, then they are supporting his claim to his crown which goes against the will of any Westerosi king (Joffrey, Stannis or Renly) who condemn Robb’s decision of crowning himself as king. That would be treason. Sure the Vale can declare itself independent, something Robb would probably support. There again, once the dust settles and theking/queen sitting on the iron throne had consolidated power, then rest assured that he will send armies to reconquer the lands lost. Given the choice, Robb would rather defend his own territory then defend an independent Vale. Irrespective of Robb’s decision at the time, the North coalition (NC) could never beat the Southern Kingdom in battle (Reach, Dorne, the Westerlands and the Stormlands) in an open battlefield. They simply lack the numbers to do so.
It would have made sense for the Vale to join the war if

a-    Robb had never declared himself King in the North. That would have given the North Coalition the flexibility to negotiate with the king of their own choosing (Renly or Stannis) better terms in exchange of their support
b-    Other regions would have declared themselves independent and pro Robb (Dorne and the Iron islands). Under such circumstances a set of bilateral treaties could be sealed with the independent regions going into war against anyone trying to breach a region’s independence. If lets say the Iron islands are invaded by King Stannis’s troops then Arryn, Martells, Starks and Tullys will raise their banners to put the IK in place

It makes so much sense for the NC to declare to Renly.  See it from a noblemen’s prospective. War is bad for business and the quicker it ends the better. A change in power is risky as noblemen on the losing side might easily lose their lands.Also they wouldn’t want someone whose incompetent (ie Joffrey) or a zealot who micromanage them (Stannis) because these people would probably drag the land into another war

Renly is young, he’s all in favour of the status quo and he’s got the biggest army in Westeros. Robar Royce is part of his king’s guard which gives the Vale an edge.  If the Vale declared to Renly the tide of war will be heavily stacked into his favour. Renly would crush Stannis easily (ok he died with magic, but that’s something no one can see it coming) while the war between the wolf and the lion will weaken them both enough for him to get rid of the victor quite easily. Lysa might retire from regency knowing her boy will live the rest of her days safe in a world without war. 
 

Nope, to most of the above.

Without Dragons, the realm cannot be forcibly held together.

[the trees have eyes]

3 hours ago, devilish said:

If the Vale gives their support to Robb, then they are supporting his claim to his crown which goes against the will of any Westerosi king (Joffrey, Stannis or Renly) who condemn Robb’s decision of crowning himself as king. That would be treason. Sure the Vale can declare itself independent, something Robb would probably support. There again, once the dust settles and theking/queen sitting on the iron throne had consolidated power, then rest assured that he will send armies to reconquer the lands lost. Given the choice, Robb would rather defend his own territory then defend an independent Vale. Irrespective of Robb’s decision at the time, the North coalition (NC) could never beat the Southern Kingdom in battle (Reach, Dorne, the Westerlands and the Stormlands) in an open battlefield. They simply lack the numbers to do so.
It would have made sense for the Vale to join the war if

a-    Robb had never declared himself King in the North. That would have given the North Coalition the flexibility to negotiate with the king of their own choosing (Renly or Stannis) better terms in exchange of their support
b-    Other regions would have declared themselves independent and pro Robb (Dorne and the Iron islands). Under such circumstances a set of bilateral treaties could be sealed with the independent regions going into war against anyone trying to breach a region’s independence. If lets say the Iron islands are invaded by King Stannis’s troops then Arryn, Martells, Starks and Tullys will raise their banners to put the IK in place

It makes so much sense for the NC to declare to Renly.  See it from a noblemen’s prospective. War is bad for business and the quicker it ends the better. A change in power is risky as noblemen on the losing side might easily lose their lands.Also they wouldn’t want someone whose incompetent (ie Joffrey) or a zealot who micromanage them (Stannis) because these people would probably drag the land into another war

Renly is young, he’s all in favour of the status quo and he’s got the biggest army in Westeros. Robar Royce is part of his king’s guard which gives the Vale an edge.  If the Vale declared to Renly the tide of war will be heavily stacked into his favour. Renly would crush Stannis easily (ok he died with magic, but that’s something no one can see it coming) while the war between the wolf and the lion will weaken them both enough for him to get rid of the victor quite easily. Lysa might retire from regency knowing her boy will live the rest of her days safe in a world without war. 
 

You are overthinking this.  First, we see Renly meet Catelyn in ACOK and Renly is entirely prepared to overlook the whole King in the North episode as long as Robb recognises him as King, something which Catelyn is quite happy to countenance vis-a-vis whichever of the brothers Barratheon is the claimant.  So if Renly does not have any interest in treating Robb as an antagonist and Robb does not have any interest in fighting Renly or any real motivation to actually make himself a king then the issue resovles itself fairly simply, particularly once Joffrey's illegitimiacy is either believed or made de facto by his defeat. 

Second, The Vale supporting Robb is not an act of enmity towards Renly but an act of support for family and friends.   There is no reason for Renly to treat the Vale any different to the Riverlands or North here, i.e. as potential allies and subjects to be brought into the fold by negotiation and diplomacy with the threat of force underneath, just as he showed with Catelyn.  The enemies are the Lannisters.  No one else. Well, maybe Stan but let's not go there....

And I am seeing it from the noblemen's perspective.  We are told in the books that the Vale Lords were growing restless and Bronze Yohn Royce was on the verge of open rebellion at Lysa's refusal to join in the war on the Stark-Tully side.  I don't know why you ignore this and keep asserting they would back Renly.  Maybe this makes more sense to you but it's not what is in the books and I'll take that any day of the week. Who are the "NC" anyway??

Remember what noblemen are.  They are not a merchant class who want peace and profit from trading, they are a feudal warrior aristocracy whose purpose is to keeps household knights and engage in warfare to acquire land, tiles, prestige and glory.  It's what the whole culture and warrior code is based on - see the Knights of Summer or Robert's daydream of being a sellsword king.  This is what they are raised to see as their purpose, it's what they train for from the time they are young children and what some of them long for.

If the Vale decalred for Renly then things would look very good for him, Robb would probably never have decalred himself King in the North and if he had he would have been well advised and most probably would have been prepared to bend the knee to Renly.  However, there is NOTHING in the books that suggests anyone in the Vale ever thought about this so it may be interesting to imagine this scenario for wargame strategies but back in ASOIAF the Vale was linked heavily with the Starks and Tullys and if it had joined in, yes, it would have made all the difference in defeating the Lannisters.  Whether Robb had pressed for independence at that point is a fair question but his aims were to defeat the Lannisters not to become independent.  If the choice was prolonged warfare or putting another Barratheon on the throne common sense is for plumping for Renly, who seems a popular, charismatic and reasonable man.

[devilish]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Nope, to most of the above.

Without Dragons, the realm cannot be forcibly held together.

Well it was held for some century or two didn't it?

[Protagoras]

Of course they could, especially if joining early.

But (despite not being a part of the OP) one has to ask how likely such a move was, and in the end - Vale joining the North, is a fanboy dream. They have as much loyality, if not more, to the Baratheon crown (and Stannis and renly too) as to the northern cause and that the Royces sentiment echoes the Vale stance is a pretty big fandom lie. The Royces are an outlier in this and considering how easy Littlefinger dealt with the Lord declarants as well as Nestors loyalty, its pretty clear that Yohn Royce lack any kind of teeth to push that alliance through.

[the trees have eyes]

23 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Of course they could, especially if joining early.

But (despite not being a part of the OP) one has to ask how likely such a move was, and in the end - Vale joining the North, is a fanboy dream. They have as much loyality, if not more, to the Baratheon crown (and Stannis and renly too) as to the northern cause and that the Royces sentiment echoes the Vale stance is a pretty big fandom lie. The Royces are an outlier in this and considering how easy Littlefinger dealt with the Lord declarants as well as Nestors loyalty, its pretty clear that Yohn Royce lack any kind of teeth to push that alliance through.

It's what is written in the books.

[Protagoras]

7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

It's what is written in the books.

No, it isn´t and therein lies the problem. Its a best an interpretation and a poor one at that.

We never here from any of the Vale Lords directly that they were keen, eager and willing to enter the war. We only hear speculation from Cats (Blackfish I think it was) chapters, which is hardly the most neutral source on this. If you can find a better source and quote, then please do - I would love a quote (from a Vale lord that is), yet I havnt spotted anything about it - either personally or from this forum.

In addition, GRRM say this:

Flayed Man: finally (i know you are busy and all) as of your personally thinking the lords of vale they are friendly to starks and tullys as if they are brothers and there are lords who are "itching" to get pieace of lannisters and want to help robb. Also tell me how friendly are they with robb right now (how the lords of vale feel about robb).

GeoRR: The lords of the Vale are numerous. As with any large group, their views vary.

GeoRR: "Brothers" overstates the case, but certainly Ned made friends during his years in the Eyrie... so did Robert, however, so some of the Vale houses would be just as well disposed toward Baratheon as toward Stark.

GeoRR: Do some of the them want to join Robb? Certainly. Most notably Bronze Yohn Royce. Others, however, want no part of the war, and some may even favor the other contenders.

So, yes - it is a fanboy case overly inflated by the opinions of the few and assuming Royces opinion is a popular one. Yet nothing points in that direction and again, the lord declarants actions apart from Royce is very telling. Disliking the Lannisters is not the same thing as willingness to participate in a civil war. And why fanboy? Because it is always the same side (Starks) that somehow have much more support than seen on paper, yet due to one nefarious reason after another never seem to manifest. Strange that. And as said above, even Royce has his son joining Renly. Not liking the Lannisters gives you at least 2 more candidates apart from Robb to support.

[the trees have eyes]

1 hour ago, Protagoras said:

No, it isn´t and therein lies the problem. Its a best an interpretation and a poor one at that.

We never here from any of the Vale Lords directly that they were keen, eager and willing to enter the war. We only hear speculation from Cats (Blackfish I think it was) chapters, which is hardly the most neutral source on this. If you can find a better source and quote, then please do - I would love a quote (from a Vale lord that is), yet I havnt spotted anything about it - either personally or from this forum.

In addition, GRRM say this:

Flayed Man: finally (i know you are busy and all) as of your personally thinking the lords of vale they are friendly to starks and tullys as if they are brothers and there are lords who are "itching" to get pieace of lannisters and want to help robb. Also tell me how friendly are they with robb right now (how the lords of vale feel about robb).

GeoRR: The lords of the Vale are numerous. As with any large group, their views vary.

GeoRR: "Brothers" overstates the case, but certainly Ned made friends during his years in the Eyrie... so did Robert, however, so some of the Vale houses would be just as well disposed toward Baratheon as toward Stark.

GeoRR: Do some of the them want to join Robb? Certainly. Most notably Bronze Yohn Royce. Others, however, want no part of the war, and some may even favor the other contenders.

So, yes - it is a fanboy case overly inflated by the opinions of the few and assuming Royces opinion is a popular one. Yet nothing points in that direction and again, the lord declarants actions apart from Royce is very telling. Disliking the Lannisters is not the same thing as willingness to participate in a civil war. And why fanboy? Because it is always the same side (Starks) that somehow have much more support than seen on paper, yet due to one nefarious reason after another never seem to manifest. Strange that. And as said above, even Royce has his son joining Renly. Not liking the Lannisters gives you at least 2 more candidates apart from Robb to support.

But it is written in the books.  You reference the passages yourself above though acknowledge you don't find them convincing. 

If you arrive all hot under the collar about "Stark fanboys" and proceed to generalise that about anyone who references those passages then it looks like the problem is with you.  Personally I absolutley hate it when people apply labels so carelessly and you seem to have a thing about one group of people so kindly don't project those issues and frustrations on to me.

You don't believe the Blackfish or the Royces. Fair enough.  You even quote GRRM as saying that some were in favour of joining in but dismiss it as a "fanboy dream".  That's a bit contradictory and a bit insulting.  Fact remains that the Vale is conencted to the Tullys by Lysa's marriage to Jon Arryn and to the Starks at one remove by Catelyn's marraige to Ned while the Royces are also connected to the Starks by marriage.  In contrast there are no connections to House Barratheon so the obvious alliance was the Stark-Tully-Arryn alliance triangle, interlinked  by marriage.  That said there is still no reason for any of these Houses to fight either Barratheon brother and diplomacy and peaceful resolutions were far more likely once the Lannisters were defeated with another Barratheon taking the throne.  No one is crowning Robb Overlord of the 7K here so so I don't know what's got you so bent out of shape.

 

[Protagoras]

8 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

But it is written in the books.  You reference the passages yourself above though acknowledge you don't find them convincing. 

If you arrive all hot under the collar about "Stark fanboys" and proceed to generalise that about anyone who references those passages then it looks like the problem is with you.  Personally I absolutley hate it when people apply labels so carelessly and you seem to have a thing about one group of people so kindly don't project those issues and frustrations on to me.

You don't believe the Blackfish or the Royces. Fair enough.  You even quote GRRM as saying that some were in favour of joining in but dismiss it as a "fanboy dream".  That's a bit contradictory and a bit insulting.  Fact remains that the Vale is conencted to the Tullys by Lysa's marriage to Jon Arryn and to the Starks at one remove by Catelyn's marraige to Ned while the Royces are also connected to the Starks by marriage.  In contrast there are no connections to House Barratheon so the obvious alliance was the Stark-Tully-Arryn alliance triangle, interlinked  by marriage.  That said there is still no reason for any of these Houses to fight either Barratheon brother and diplomacy and peaceful resolutions were far more likely once the Lannisters were defeated with another Barratheon taking the throne.  No one is crowning Robb Overlord of the 7K here so so I don't know what's got you so bent out of shape.

 

I don´t really care how obvious you think it is, because the answer is right there...in the quote. Their views varies (note - this word "varies" means: no clear majority either way). Some want to join Robb, some do not, some want to join another side. There is no Vale majority in favor if joining the Starks. There are at best a minority opinion, shared with other minority opinions. And that is not the same as saying "Vale lords were really very close of joining Robb/They all wanted to join Robb if not for evil Lysa" which I have seen written in this forum before and which more often is sometimes just outright assumed in a very lazy way - because we must cheer for the home team, right?. But it is a gross lie. Referencing passages doesn´t really help if those passages have some clear flaws, and they have - which has been pointed out. Yet GRRM words that opinions are divided are brushed away in order to sell the idea that Vale only failed to join because of evil Lysa despite the whole of Vale begging her to go to war...yeah, right. 

And you decided to comment my post and have an issue with my term Stark fanboys (of which there are many) so it is certainly YOUR problem (since you are the one reacting after all). I didn´t project anything on you nor called you personally a fanboy, but you decided to react to it just because "you hate labels". Protip: if you respond to a post, you are the one starting the discussion and then can´t really say "don´t take it out on me". If you don´t want the discussion, then you shouldn´t respond. But (again) if you want to convince me that there is indeed more than fanboyism to this, then please enlighten me. I would again love a quote from a Vale lord. But if you are trying to sell me that the Vale are pro-Stark because the Stark and their allies say they are, and refusing to comment on the obvious problem with doing so, then I will stick with my labels.

I think the issue here is that you don´t get that "written in the books" is not the same thing as "the truth", especially since we only hear people talk about the Vales supposed loyalty. Again, we never here from any of the Vale Lords directly that they were keen, eager and willing to enter the war. We only hear that from the Starks and their allies and you fail to understand why this is not a great reference on their loyalties. And you don´t seem to get that perspective matter either - If we see Ramsey kill someone from Theons eyes we can be pretty sure that person is indeed dead. If we however hear someone saying "Oh that Ramsay kid killed someone recently again. Bad Ramsay!" we can´t. Like GRRM did with Davos in AFfC. Its like asking Donald Trump if he thinks he is doing a great job. Of course he will answer yes - which is why you shouldn´t ask him but other people. And if you decide to go that route, taking Trumps word for it and refuses to get that maybe you should check with other people too, well, then I think you deserve to be called biased. 

[Yukle]

The Vale would join the war out of self-interest, if it came to that. Suppose that Stannis had won at Blackwater and then defended the city against the Lannister / Tyrell forces afterwards.

Even as late in the war as that, this would tip the scales if the Vale joined in. It would make sense for them - two of their neighbours have effectively seceded. With the southern areas in chaos, the streak of independence flaring up in the Iron Islands, North and the Riverlands, it's entirely possible that they'd see more benefit in declaring for themselves than for the Baratheons.

In such an eventuality, it'd be prudent to provide some support for the North and Riverlands - not out of any loyalty, but to shore up the alliances they'd need if they wanted to remain independent.

Failing that, they might have simply used a diplomatic strategy: perhaps a stern appeal to the Iron Throne about relaxing conditions and taxes or the like. They'd point out that their food supplies and armies are now hot property due to their warring neighbours. If the Iron Throne doesn't offer great prices, these goods will go to their enemies.

If the Vale joined the war early, even small reinforcements to the Riverlands would make a difference. They'd be idiotic to join the early war on the side of the Iron Throne due to the marriage alliances between their lords and the Riverlands' lords, making it unlikely their lords will fight their relatives. Plus, early on the North appeared to be in a much more comfortable position.

[WSmith84]

I reckon Lysa could have gotten the Vale to side with either Robb or Renly without too much trouble. They're both fighting the Lannisters (whom many in the Vale believe murdered Jon Arryn) and siding with one does not necessarily mean siding against the other; an alliance of sorts was possible between Robb and Renly, the other Kings not so much. There might have been some disgruntled Houses, but I think most would have fallen in line.

[John Doe]

This thread is not about whether the Vale would have joined, that's a useless question since it's evident they didn't. It's about how big of an impact they would have made if they did join the northern side, or any other side of the war really. 

But I can think of a view possible ways the Vale would have joined, like Lysa dying and leaving the regency to someone who is in favor of going to war, or Tyrion loosing his trial by combat, which would result in his death and very directly put the Valemen at odds with the Lannisters, or just plainly Lysa or Petyr chaning their minds about the war for some reason and deciding to grant the Vale's support to the northern cause. Or imagine that Sweetrobin dies and Harry is just a strong Stark supporter for some reason. A marriage alliance maybe, or something of that sort. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

59 minutes ago, John Doe said:

This thread is not about whether the Vale would have joined, that's a useless question since it's evident they didn't. It's about how big of an impact they would have made if they did join the northern side, or any other side of the war really. 

But I can think of a view possible ways the Vale would have joined, like Lysa dying and leaving the regency to someone who is in favor of going to war, or Tyrion loosing his trial by combat, which would result in his death and very directly put the Valemen at odds with the Lannisters, or just plainly Lysa or Petyr chaning their minds about the war for some reason and deciding to grant the Vale's support to the northern cause. Or imagine that Sweetrobin dies and Harry is just a strong Stark supporter for some reason. A marriage alliance maybe, or something of that sort. 

Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Someone has posted several reasons why it wouldn't happen. We can't just assume a hypothetical scenario could happen. It didn't happen in the book! That's blasphemy

[devilish]

On 25/11/2016 at 3:03 PM, the trees have eyes said:

You are overthinking this.  First, we see Renly meet Catelyn in ACOK and Renly is entirely prepared to overlook the whole King in the North episode as long as Robb recognises him as King, something which Catelyn is quite happy to countenance vis-a-vis whichever of the brothers Barratheon is the claimant.  So if Renly does not have any interest in treating Robb as an antagonist and Robb does not have any interest in fighting Renly or any real motivation to actually make himself a king then the issue resovles itself fairly simply, particularly once Joffrey's illegitimiacy is either believed or made de facto by his defeat. 

Second, The Vale supporting Robb is not an act of enmity towards Renly but an act of support for family and friends.   There is no reason for Renly to treat the Vale any different to the Riverlands or North here, i.e. as potential allies and subjects to be brought into the fold by negotiation and diplomacy with the threat of force underneath, just as he showed with Catelyn.  The enemies are the Lannisters.  No one else. Well, maybe Stan but let's not go there....

And I am seeing it from the noblemen's perspective.  We are told in the books that the Vale Lords were growing restless and Bronze Yohn Royce was on the verge of open rebellion at Lysa's refusal to join in the war on the Stark-Tully side.  I don't know why you ignore this and keep asserting they would back Renly.  Maybe this makes more sense to you but it's not what is in the books and I'll take that any day of the week. Who are the "NC" anyway??

Remember what noblemen are.  They are not a merchant class who want peace and profit from trading, they are a feudal warrior aristocracy whose purpose is to keeps household knights and engage in warfare to acquire land, tiles, prestige and glory.  It's what the whole culture and warrior code is based on - see the Knights of Summer or Robert's daydream of being a sellsword king.  This is what they are raised to see as their purpose, it's what they train for from the time they are young children and what some of them long for.

If the Vale decalred for Renly then things would look very good for him, Robb would probably never have decalred himself King in the North and if he had he would have been well advised and most probably would have been prepared to bend the knee to Renly.  However, there is NOTHING in the books that suggests anyone in the Vale ever thought about this so it may be interesting to imagine this scenario for wargame strategies but back in ASOIAF the Vale was linked heavily with the Starks and Tullys and if it had joined in, yes, it would have made all the difference in defeating the Lannisters.  Whether Robb had pressed for independence at that point is a fair question but his aims were to defeat the Lannisters not to become independent.  If the choice was prolonged warfare or putting another Barratheon on the throne common sense is for plumping for Renly, who seems a popular, charismatic and reasonable man.

A-    Correct me if I am wrong but what Renly offered was in similar terms to Dorne. Robb would still call himself King or Prince but he would still have to pledge allegiance to Renly. That would have proven an elegant way out for Robb. There again, I doubt the boy who was on an ego trip would have accepted that. 

B-    Loyalty towards the King > loyalty towards family.  Tywin was invading the Riverlands on the king’s orders. Therefore if Lysa ordered the Knights of the Vale to defend her father then SHE was automatically going against the crown. In theory she could still defend her family and not burning any bridges with the Baratheon brothers. However that would mean that her troops had to feck back to the Vale once Edmure and Hoster were safe and everyone started bending the knee to King Robb.

C-    The Vale Lords were honourable and therefore expected Lysa to give them the mandate to defend her father and fight alongside Robb in bringing justice to the realm. However they didn’t anticipate Robb putting a crown over his head. That changed the political scene altogether. 

D-    The feudal Lords gain their prosperity from peace. Their army is mostly made up of militia ie farmers who train in the art of war during a set period of the year (usually winter). The more the war drags on, the more they are going to suffer in recouping the necessary money to make any profit. Sure there’s a slight chance for them to gain more wealth through looting the pace or keeping other noblemen as hostage. However there’s also a chance of them ending up losing their lives and their lands.

E-    If I was Lysa I would have given my mandate to Royce and Brynden to lead the armies of the Vale in the Riverlands and engage in war with Tywin. That would steal the shine from the young pup and would give the Vale a big say on the negotiating table. Once the Riverlands are free from the Lannisters I would push for Renly’s claim. Renly has more troops than anybody, Robar Royce is part of his kingsguard which gives me an edge in terms of diplomacy with the new king + Stark, Tully, Arryn, Baratheon, Tyrell combination is so strong that the war would have ended up pretty quickly. If Renly dies before he became king then I would use the fact that I am the gangleader of the Northern Coalition (Vale, Riverlands, Starks) to secure a deal between Stannis and Mace. Loras could always marry Shireen + Stannis wife is a bit old and is not producing any children. Surely Stannis would contemplate divorcing her in exchange of a young, more fertile, Margaery especially if that means getting his hands on a horde. 
 

[the trees have eyes]

2 hours ago, devilish said:

A-    Correct me if I am wrong but what Renly offered was in similar terms to Dorne. Robb would still call himself King or Prince but he would still have to pledge allegiance to Renly. That would have proven an elegant way out for Robb. There again, I doubt the boy who was on an ego trip would have accepted that. 

B-    Loyalty towards the King > loyalty towards family.  Tywin was invading the Riverlands on the king’s orders. Therefore if Lysa ordered the Knights of the Vale to defend her father then SHE was automatically going against the crown. In theory she could still defend her family and not burning any bridges with the Baratheon brothers. However that would mean that her troops had to feck back to the Vale once Edmure and Hoster were safe and everyone started bending the knee to King Robb.

C-    The Vale Lords were honourable and therefore expected Lysa to give them the mandate to defend her father and fight alongside Robb in bringing justice to the realm. However they didn’t anticipate Robb putting a crown over his head. That changed the political scene altogether. 

D-    The feudal Lords gain their prosperity from peace. Their army is mostly made up of militia ie farmers who train in the art of war during a set period of the year (usually winter). The more the war drags on, the more they are going to suffer in recouping the necessary money to make any profit. Sure there’s a slight chance for them to gain more wealth through looting the pace or keeping other noblemen as hostage. However there’s also a chance of them ending up losing their lives and their lands.

E-    If I was Lysa I would have given my mandate to Royce and Brynden to lead the armies of the Vale in the Riverlands and engage in war with Tywin. That would steal the shine from the young pup and would give the Vale a big say on the negotiating table. Once the Riverlands are free from the Lannisters I would push for Renly’s claim. Renly has more troops than anybody, Robar Royce is part of his kingsguard which gives me an edge in terms of diplomacy with the new king + Stark, Tully, Arryn, Baratheon, Tyrell combination is so strong that the war would have ended up pretty quickly. If Renly dies before he became king then I would use the fact that I am the gangleader of the Northern Coalition (Vale, Riverlands, Starks) to secure a deal between Stannis and Mace. Loras could always marry Shireen + Stannis wife is a bit old and is not producing any children. Surely Stannis would contemplate divorcing her in exchange of a young, more fertile, Margaery especially if that means getting his hands on a horde. 
 

A - Renly didn't really care to be fair, just as long as Robb acknowledged him as King of all the 7K.  Since Robb's primary goal is vengeance for Ned then defeating the Lannisters results in either an uneasy stand-off with Renly and Robb being the second Stark King that knelt or in a messy war that Robb has no interest in and the already ravaged riverlands surely have no appetite for.  I don't think Robb goes to war for pride or ego, I think he acknowledges a Barratheon monarch like his father did and goes home happy and rules from Winterfell while watching his children by Jeyne grow up.

B - Gregor Clegane was ravaging the riverlands as an act or rebellion so declared by Ned Stark, hand of the king.  Tywin invaded the riverlands and technically this was on King Joffrey's "orders" but as neither Robb nor Renly(/Stannis) recognise Joffrey the Vale coming to the aid of the riverlands creates no issue between Lysa/ the Vale and Renly.  Once Robb declares himself king in the north and the riverlands the Vale would be in a awkward position but as Renly shows no grievance toward Robb or Edmure it's reasonable he would not towards Lysa either.  The Vale did not secede from the 7K and all they really did was come to the aid of their family and help defeat Renly's enemies.  It's not a difficult situation to resolve via diplomacy.

C - Yes, it did, but the presumption is that the Vale entered the war long before this.  If not, there is still no reasaon for supporting Robb against the Lannisters to turn into seceding from the 7K themselves or supporting Robb against Renly.  Once the Lannisters are defeated a Great Council to resolve the kingship is the most sensible course of action and neither Robb, Edmure nor the Vale have any reason to want a war to secure their secession.  Renly is well placed to gain the crown without any further conflict.

D - The Feudal system was based on a miltary aristocracy whose entire purpose was to hold lands in return for providing their overlords with troops in times of conflict.  Each nobleman is expected to be a military leader and an astute campaign tactician and battlefield commader.  The armies Tywin, Renly and Robb unleash in ACOK are not peasants with pitchforks but well trained, armed and armoured soldiers with large numbers of heavy cavalry, archers and spearmen trained to form battle lines and hedgehogs.

Merchants and businessmen want peace for trade and profit, large hereditary landowners who are part of a feudal aristocracy are insulated from these concerns as their wealth is in the land and people they control.  The smallfolk cry out for peace, the warrior aristocracy revel in warfare and the opportunities it gives them.  You can argue that GRRM did not incorporate an historically accurate and working model of feudalism into his story but it's largely there to be seen and the one thing the likes of Tywin Lannister or Balon Greyjoy don't particularly want is the return of peace as soon as possible because they and their houses do not derive their prosperity from peace.  One might ask Garlan Tyrell whether peace suited his prospects better: without warfare he does not acquire Brightwater Keep and all it's lands, estates, incomes and smallfolk.

E - This all seems reasonable enough though I don't particularly see why you have Renly and Robb on a collision course.  Catelyn herself saw the stupididty of that and for all his strategic mistakes in the war of the 5 kings Robb simply has no reason to fight Renly once the Lannisters are defeated.

[devilish]

39 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

A - Renly didn't really care to be fair, just as long as Robb acknowledged him as King of all the 7K.  Since Robb's primary goal is vengeance for Ned then defeating the Lannisters results in either an uneasy stand-off with Renly and Robb being the second Stark King that knelt or in a messy war that Robb has no interest in and the already ravaged riverlands surely have no appetite for.  I don't think Robb goes to war for pride or ego, I think he acknowledges a Barratheon monarch like his father did and goes home happy and rules from Winterfell while watching his children by Jeyne grow up.

B - Gregor Clegane was ravaging the riverlands as an act or rebellion so declared by Ned Stark, hand of the king.  Tywin invaded the riverlands and technically this was on King Joffrey's "orders" but as neither Robb nor Renly(/Stannis) recognise Joffrey the Vale coming to the aid of the riverlands creates no issue between Lysa/ the Vale and Renly.  Once Robb declares himself king in the north and the riverlands the Vale would be in a awkward position but as Renly shows no grievance toward Robb or Edmure it's reasonable he would not towards Lysa either.  The Vale did not secede from the 7K and all they really did was come to the aid of their family and help defeat Renly's enemies.  It's not a difficult situation to resolve via diplomacy.

C - Yes, it did, but the presumption is that the Vale entered the war long before this.  If not, there is still no reasaon for supporting Robb against the Lannisters to turn into seceding from the 7K themselves or supporting Robb against Renly.  Once the Lannisters are defeated a Great Council to resolve the kingship is the most sensible course of action and neither Robb, Edmure nor the Vale have any reason to want a war to secure their secession.  Renly is well placed to gain the crown without any further conflict.

D - The Feudal system was based on a miltary aristocracy whose entire purpose was to hold lands in return for providing their overlords with troops in times of conflict.  Each nobleman is expected to be a military leader and an astute campaign tactician and battlefield commader.  The armies Tywin, Renly and Robb unleash in ACOK are not peasants with pitchforks but well trained, armed and armoured soldiers with large numbers of heavy cavalry, archers and spearmen trained to form battle lines and hedgehogs.

Merchants and businessmen want peace for trade and profit, large hereditary landowners who are part of a feudal aristocracy are insulated from these concerns as their wealth is in the land and people they control.  The smallfolk cry out for peace, the warrior aristocracy revel in warfare and the opportunities it gives them.  You can argue that GRRM did not incorporate an historically accurate and working model of feudalism into his story but it's largely there to be seen and the one thing the likes of Tywin Lannister or Balon Greyjoy don't particularly want is the return of peace as soon as possible because they and their houses do not derive their prosperity from peace.  One might ask Garlan Tyrell whether peace suited his prospects better: without warfare he does not acquire Brightwater Keep and all it's lands, estates, incomes and smallfolk.

E - This all seems reasonable enough though I don't particularly see why you have Renly and Robb on a collision course.  Catelyn herself saw the stupididty of that and for all his strategic mistakes in the war of the 5 kings Robb simply has no reason to fight Renly once the Lannisters are defeated.

A-    Can a king in the North pledge allegiance to another king? Would he remain king? What Renly offered to Robb was a way out and that shows how good Renly would have been as king of Westeros. Having said that, it would have been messy, the xenophobic Northerners would moan like bitches about it (some would even turn tail and return home) and Robb would make a fool of himself. Its difficult to convince a spoilt boy (most Noble teens are) to bend the knee especially at a time when they are winning and the big men are bending the knee to them and hailing them as king

B-    As said if Lysa defended her father then she would have committed treason to the crown (ie Joffrey Baratheon). If her forces stayed after Robb coronation then she would commit treason against the Baratheon’s brothers too. We can debate (and I’ll agree) that if the Vale Lords were around then probably Robb won’t be the hero and no one will contemplate making him the King in the North. There again, if Robb does manage to convince the Vale Lords to bend their knee to him then Lysa would lose her army and, in time, her head as well

C-    The Great council is a toothless lion, same as the so called birth right. What really matter is how many troops the king can master and how many friends he has. Viserys was innocent and had a greater claim to the crown then Robert had. Guess what? Robert became king and if Viserys remained in dragonstone then he would have ended up mincemeat like his nephew did. The best course of action was always that of declaring to Renly. Robb failed to do that and he ended up killed. Stannis failed to do that and he’ll probably end up killed too. Considering that the Vale and Dorne had remained neutral and the iron islands had invaded the North then the rebels only hope lied in not allowing the Tyrells and the Lannisters to join houses. 

D-    Not really. The Feudal Lord was still accountable to his king and to his own pockets. If he owe the king, let’s say 100 gold coins per year then the rest will go in his own pocket. Its within his interest to squeeze as much money as possible and wars disrupt production.  If a Lord fail to pay his tithe then there’s a chance of him losing the land. Ok kings would probably be sympathetic to his Lord considering that there’s a war going on. However wars do cost money and that money must come from somewhere.  Balon Greyjoy is a pirate not a king so peace is not good for him.  Garlan is a second son with no lands to call for his own. War gave him the opportunity to get the land he wanted. None of them were bannermen at the start of a war. 

E-    Renly didn’t need Robb to win. He had the biggest army in Westeros + the lion and the wolf were busy ripping each other apart. All he had to do is to wait and then move to collect the spoils. Robb on the other hand was on an ego trip having won some battles and having captured the king slayer. He became such a stuck up that he insulted his own uncle and he showed the middle finger to some of his most important bannermen. Renly offered the boy a way out from this madness but that would have been all. Renly doesn’t need Robb and Robb thought he could do it without Renly’s intervention.
 

[the trees have eyes]

11 minutes ago, devilish said:

A-    Can a king in the North pledge allegiance to another king? Would he remain king? What Renly offered to Robb was a way out and that shows how good Renly would have been as king of Westeros. Having said that, it would have been messy, the xenophobic Northerners would moan like bitches about it (some would even turn tail and return home) and Robb would make a fool of himself. Its difficult to convince a spoilt boy (most Noble teens are) to bend the knee especially at a time when they are winning and the big men are bending the knee to them and hailing them as king

B-    As said if Lysa defended her father then she would have committed treason to the crown (ie Joffrey Baratheon). If her forces stayed after Robb coronation then she would commit treason against the Baratheon’s brothers too. We can debate (and I’ll agree) that if the Vale Lords were around then probably Robb won’t be the hero and no one will contemplate making him the King in the North. There again, if Robb does manage to convince the Vale Lords to bend their knee to him then Lysa would lose her army and, in time, her head as well

C-    The Great council is a toothless lion, same as the so called birth right. What really matter is how many troops the king can master and how many friends he has. Viserys was innocent and had a greater claim to the crown then Robert had. Guess what? Robert became king and if Viserys remained in dragonstone then he would have ended up mincemeat like his nephew did. The best course of action was always that of declaring to Renly. Robb failed to do that and he ended up killed. Stannis failed to do that and he’ll probably end up killed too. Considering that the Vale and Dorne had remained neutral and the iron islands had invaded the North then the rebels only hope lied in not allowing the Tyrells and the Lannisters to join houses. 

D-    Not really. The Feudal Lord was still accountable to his king and to his own pockets. If he owe the king, let’s say 100 gold coins per year then the rest will go in his own pocket. Its within his interest to squeeze as much money as possible and wars disrupt production.  If a Lord fail to pay his tithe then there’s a chance of him losing the land. Ok kings would probably be sympathetic to his Lord considering that there’s a war going on. However wars do cost money and that money must come from somewhere.  Balon Greyjoy is a pirate not a king so peace is not good for him.  Garlan is a second son with no lands to call for his own. War gave him the opportunity to get the land he wanted. None of them were bannermen at the start of a war. 

E-    Renly didn’t need Robb to win. He had the biggest army in Westeros + the lion and the wolf were busy ripping each other apart. All he had to do is to wait and then move to collect the spoils. Robb on the other hand was on an ego trip having won some battles and having captured the king slayer. He became such a stuck up that he insulted his own uncle and he showed the middle finger to some of his most important bannermen. Renly offered the boy a way out from this madness but that would have been all. Renly doesn’t need Robb and Robb thought he could do it without Renly’s intervention.
 

A - Sure he can.  A lot of empires worked this way.  The Prince of Dorne is a king with another title.  Renly himself said he didn't care what Robb called himself as long as he acknowledged he owed fealty to Renly.  The "xenophobic" Northerners follow Robb Stark and, just as their forebears followed Torrhen when he knelt to Aegon and Ned when he knelt to Robert, this lot will follow Robb when he kneels to Robert's brother.  That's not an issue.  Robb is not at war or king out of pride, he is at war becuase his father was murdered and he is king because he refused to acknowledge his father's murderer as king.  He rejected Stannis and Renly as opportunists but with the news of Joffrey's infidelity the brothers Barratheon become the legitimate claimants: given no one is backing Stannis why would Robb not acknowledge Renly rather than face another and this time a pointless war?

B - Renly is prepared to forgive Robb for putting on a crown.  He will be therefore be preapred to forgive the "treason" of the Vale Lords helping defeat his enemies the Lannisters, whether they were encouraging Robb to put on a crown or kept enitrely silent on the KITN matter.  The Vale has no reason to recognise Robb as King and there is no reason for Renly to be on poor relations with them as he is an arch diplomat who will be quite happy to demand their fealty while thanking them for fighting the horrible Lannisters on his behalf.

C - The Great Council works precisely because it is an act of politics where the great lords acknowledge that Renly has the strongest position so has the "best claim" and will make the "best king", not because anyone argued for Viserys over Robert or will argue for Stannis.  You are agreeing with me but managing to make it look like you are arguing which I find weird.

D - Yes , really.  You may think feudalism ought to have worked like this under the operation of market forces but it didn't and a desire for peace is not what created or perpetuated a warrior aristocracy for a few centuries....

E - Renly did not need Robb to win but neither of them had a reason to fight each other. I also think you mischaracterise Robb completely.  Robb was tactically astute and angry with Edmure for ruining his tactical plan to defeat the Lannisters not on an ego trip or descending into "madness".  He expected Stannis to defeat Joffrey and take KL while he held and defeated Tywin in the west.  Thus he did not need Renly.  Not only is this a reasonable assessment of things (until Edmure and Melisandre cock things up) but it also shows how neither Robb nor Renly have any reason to fight each other.  If you think Robb is William Wallace who will fight to the death to maintain "FREEEEDOM" then you may see a conflict coming but the North have spent three centuries as part of the 7K withhout that changing them one little bit.  If that's the case and with a Stark in Winterfell what would they be fighting for and what woul they be fighting against?

[devilish]

17 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

A - Sure he can.  A lot of empires worked this way.  The Prince of Dorne is a king with another title.  Renly himself said he didn't care what Robb called himself as long as he acknowledged he owed fealty to Renly.  The "xenophobic" Northerners follow Robb Stark and, just as their forebears followed Torrhen when he knelt to Aegon and Ned when he knelt to Robert, this lot will follow Robb when he kneels to Robert's brother.  That's not an issue.  Robb is not at war or king out of pride, he is at war becuase his father was murdered and he is king because he refused to acknowledge his father's murderer as king.  He rejected Stannis and Renly as opportunists but with the news of Joffrey's infidelity the brothers Barratheon become the legitimate claimants: given no one is backing Stannis why would Robb not acknowledge Renly rather than face another and this time a pointless war?

B - Renly is prepared to forgive Robb for putting on a crown.  He will be therefore be preapred to forgive the "treason" of the Vale Lords helping defeat his enemies the Lannisters, whether they were encouraging Robb to put on a crown or kept enitrely silent on the KITN matter.  The Vale has no reason to recognise Robb as King and there is no reason for Renly to be on poor relations with them as he is an arch diplomat who will be quite happy to demand their fealty while thanking them for fighting the horrible Lannisters on his behalf.

C - The Great Council works precisely because it is an act of politics where the great lords acknowledge that Renly has the strongest position so has the "best claim" and will make the "best king", not because anyone argued for Viserys over Robert or will argue for Stannis.  You are agreeing with me but managing to make it look like you are arguing which I find weird.

D - Yes , really.  You may think feudalism ought to have worked like this under the operation of market forces but it didn't and a desire for peace is not what created or perpetuated a warrior aristocracy for a few centuries....

E - Renly did not need Robb to win but neither of them had a reason to fight each other. I also think you mischaracterise Robb completely.  Robb was tactically astute and angry with Edmure for ruining his tactical plan to defeat the Lannisters not on an ego trip or descending into "madness".  He expected Stannis to defeat Joffrey and take KL while he held and defeated Tywin in the west.  Thus he did not need Renly.  Not only is this a reasonable assessment of things (until Edmure and Melisandre cock things up) but it also shows how neither Robb nor Renly have any reason to fight each other.  If you think Robb is William Wallace who will fight to the death to maintain "FREEEEDOM" then you may see a conflict coming but the North have spent three centuries as part of the 7K withhout that changing them one little bit.  If that's the case and with a Stark in Winterfell what would they be fighting for and what woul they be fighting against?

A-    The difference is that Torrhen was an adult who could think for himself and who bend the knee to save his own people. He saved the North and not lost it. Sure the proud and xenophobic Northern men would probably argue that they could defeat Aegon’s horde + 3 dragons. But deep down they must have had enough IQ to know that it’s not the case and that Torrhen had done what was best to save their skin. 

Robb is a boy, who sends mummy to deal with the nasty Freys and Renly and his ward to deal with his daddy. The latter decision had costed him the North. He is also on an ego trip because he won a fight or two.  He’s a man with no honour (he broke his promise with the Freys), no respect towards his elders (he insults his uncle) and with no integrity (he executes Lord Karstark for treason but he refuses to do the same with his own mum who freed the kingslayer), who ended up losing the North.

If you ask me Renly was kind with the boy, certainly kinder than Stannis or Joffrey would have been. He offered him a way out from the hole he dug himself into, which made sense diplomatic wise (less wars, more soldiers, no chance of spending time in that cold wasteland the Northerners call home) but whom he had no obligations to do so. The Lion and the wolf were ripping each other apart and the boy couldn’t even escape to his home again. All Renly had to do is to wait and collect the spoils.

Unfortunately I doubt that the stuck up boy would have accepted and if he did, I doubt his bannermen will ever respect him for it. The boy lost the North, he put a crown on his head only to bend the knee few weeks later and he broke every single code of honour the Northerners believe in. If I was Robb and I would have done all that, I would be very careful what I’d eat or drink because there’s a big chance of ending up dead. Honestly I think he would be better off abdicating and move to the wall, leaving Bran as Warden of the North.

B-    As said, as long the Vale army leave before Robb declare himself King of the North and the Riverlands then there shouldn’t be any issue with the Baratheon brothers. The Vale army can return home and let the Northerners doing their thing. Things get complicated if they pledge allegiance to Robb especially if Lysa doesn’t give her consent. That would cause a massive diplomatic rift between the Arryns and their bannermen something Renly or Stannis will have plenty of headaches to sort. How would they tackle it? Will he forgive the Vale Lords knowing that he’ll irk the Arryns by doing so? Will he declare them as enemy knowing he’ll lose an army which varies between 20k-45k? Will he trust them knowing that these guys have betrayed both their warden (Sweet Robin) and their king (Robb)?

C-    The Grand council will rubber stamp over whatever the winner decide that need to be rubber stamped. Else it risks of having their lands invaded and their heads ending up on spikes. If Joffrey wins then they will consider any claims of incest as absurd and will condemn Renly/Stannis as traitors. If Renly wins then they will support his claim claiming that Joffrey is not Robert’s son and Stannis is mentally insane. If Stannis win then they will declare him king. 

D-    I come from a country who was part of feudalism for centuries, who rebelled against it, got independence from it, fought to death to keep such independence only to end up, once more part of a feudal system once more.  Feudalism is basically an elegant word for extortion.  The king gives its feudal Lord complete control on a piece of land (and anything living above it) and then he sets an annual fee. Anything that the Lord is able to collect above that set price is his. It’s within his interest to encourage as much production as possible as it makes him richer and wars disrupts productivity. My country had one of the best fleets in the area but the feudal Lord was able to weasel its way from its commitment to the Spanish king which saved the fleet from participating to the disastrous invasion of England.

 
E-    It’s a clash of egos though and the commitment given to their own bannermen. TBF Renly seem to be cool with it. He’s an adult and his supporters happen to be people who do not care about the desolate wasteland the Northerners insist they call home. As long as the boy bends the knee he can call himself Arch Maester of Wallonia for all it matters.  The issue here is Robb. He’s just a boy, whose in one hell of an ego trip and he thinks he can break vows, insult his elders (Edmure), free wards which end up invading the North and be biased by executing a Karstark Lord for treason but not his own mummy for doing the same thing. The Northern Lords sort of accepted it because he gave them what they wanted (ie being lead by a Northern king) + he was able to extend his domain (to the Riverlands). What would happen if he also strips that away from them too? Seriously, if he does then he really should watch his back. 
 

[the trees have eyes]

7 hours ago, devilish said:

A-    The difference is that Torrhen was an adult who could think for himself and who bend the knee to save his own people. He saved the North and not lost it. Sure the proud and xenophobic Northern men would probably argue that they could defeat Aegon’s horde + 3 dragons. But deep down they must have had enough IQ to know that it’s not the case and that Torrhen had done what was best to save their skin. 

Robb is a boy, who sends mummy to deal with the nasty Freys and Renly and his ward to deal with his daddy. The latter decision had costed him the North. He is also on an ego trip because he won a fight or two.  He’s a man with no honour (he broke his promise with the Freys), no respect towards his elders (he insults his uncle) and with no integrity (he executes Lord Karstark for treason but he refuses to do the same with his own mum who freed the kingslayer), who ended up losing the North.

If you ask me Renly was kind with the boy, certainly kinder than Stannis or Joffrey would have been. He offered him a way out from the hole he dug himself into, which made sense diplomatic wise (less wars, more soldiers, no chance of spending time in that cold wasteland the Northerners call home) but whom he had no obligations to do so. The Lion and the wolf were ripping each other apart and the boy couldn’t even escape to his home again. All Renly had to do is to wait and collect the spoils.

Unfortunately I doubt that the stuck up boy would have accepted and if he did, I doubt his bannermen will ever respect him for it. The boy lost the North, he put a crown on his head only to bend the knee few weeks later and he broke every single code of honour the Northerners believe in. If I was Robb and I would have done all that, I would be very careful what I’d eat or drink because there’s a big chance of ending up dead. Honestly I think he would be better off abdicating and move to the wall, leaving Bran as Warden of the North.

B-    As said, as long the Vale army leave before Robb declare himself King of the North and the Riverlands then there shouldn’t be any issue with the Baratheon brothers. The Vale army can return home and let the Northerners doing their thing. Things get complicated if they pledge allegiance to Robb especially if Lysa doesn’t give her consent. That would cause a massive diplomatic rift between the Arryns and their bannermen something Renly or Stannis will have plenty of headaches to sort. How would they tackle it? Will he forgive the Vale Lords knowing that he’ll irk the Arryns by doing so? Will he declare them as enemy knowing he’ll lose an army which varies between 20k-45k? Will he trust them knowing that these guys have betrayed both their warden (Sweet Robin) and their king (Robb)?

C-    The Grand council will rubber stamp over whatever the winner decide that need to be rubber stamped. Else it risks of having their lands invaded and their heads ending up on spikes. If Joffrey wins then they will consider any claims of incest as absurd and will condemn Renly/Stannis as traitors. If Renly wins then they will support his claim claiming that Joffrey is not Robert’s son and Stannis is mentally insane. If Stannis win then they will declare him king. 

D-    I come from a country who was part of feudalism for centuries, who rebelled against it, got independence from it, fought to death to keep such independence only to end up, once more part of a feudal system once more.  Feudalism is basically an elegant word for extortion.  The king gives its feudal Lord complete control on a piece of land (and anything living above it) and then he sets an annual fee. Anything that the Lord is able to collect above that set price is his. It’s within his interest to encourage as much production as possible as it makes him richer and wars disrupts productivity. My country had one of the best fleets in the area but the feudal Lord was able to weasel its way from its commitment to the Spanish king which saved the fleet from participating to the disastrous invasion of England.

 
E-    It’s a clash of egos though and the commitment given to their own bannermen. TBF Renly seem to be cool with it. He’s an adult and his supporters happen to be people who do not care about the desolate wasteland the Northerners insist they call home. As long as the boy bends the knee he can call himself Arch Maester of Wallonia for all it matters.  The issue here is Robb. He’s just a boy, whose in one hell of an ego trip and he thinks he can break vows, insult his elders (Edmure), free wards which end up invading the North and be biased by executing a Karstark Lord for treason but not his own mummy for doing the same thing. The Northern Lords sort of accepted it because he gave them what they wanted (ie being lead by a Northern king) + he was able to extend his domain (to the Riverlands). What would happen if he also strips that away from them too? Seriously, if he does then he really should watch his back. 
 

A - Robb is not an idiot or an infant despite your best attempts to paint him as such.  In fact reading your assessment of Robb it's hard to see that you are being objective here.  If you insist on seeing him as a cretin bent on self destruction then, sure, he would fight Renly to the death.  This is not the character I see in the books and his mistakes - marrying Jeyne for honour and sending Theon as ambasador - are hardly indicative of a delusional and destructive personality.

It's worth remembering that for all your character assassination the Northern Lords were fiercely loyal to and proud of their young wolf.  Are you more interested in argument for argument''s sake or analysing things clearly?

B - Why does the only sceanrio have to be the one you keep playing out?  I have never seen any reason for the Vale Lords to pledge loyalty to Robb and repeatedly said that they would not.  This is just a strawman you keep trotting out. 

C - The Grand Council will decide in favour of whoever is strongest and can gather the most support among the Lords comprising the Council.  In this case it is clearly Renly.  There is no need for any fighting in the first place!  And why would Renly call a council if he had already won?  The Council is a way of avoiding further conflict just as when it was called to appoint Robert, a foregone conclusion but a legitimisation of the obvivous.  It would be just the same for Renly - a tool to legitimise his taking of power, a means of gaining consent and minimising oppostion from any other factions and a way of avoiding unnecessary conflict.  Seems fairly straightforward and they did this a mere 15 years ago.

D - I'm well aware what feudalism is.  I'm sorry but if you think feudal nobility were captains of industry running commercial enterprises who wished for and demanded peace as much as possible for trade and profit then you are misinformed.  Feudalism operated in slightly differnent forms in a large number of places over a long period of time but essentially feudal nobles were warrior aristocrats who were expected to raise troops and encouraged to see warfare as an opportunity to seek lands and titles and riches for themselves and their familes.  The Hundred Years War between France and England is a great example of this as are the Wars of the Roses (on which this story is loosely based) or even the Crusades, the popularity of which were the prospects of plunder, land, titles and glory more than religious fervour: peace was not the priority for a warrior aristocracy.

E - It's not a clash of egos.  Renly is confident in his position, inclined to diplomacy and prepared to be pragmatic as he knows that the smart game is to give Robb room and time to back down rather than forcing him into a corner.  Your rather hateful characterisation of Robb seems designed to try and portray him as a proud fool who would let the North and Riverlands burn rather than be pragmatic and concede but that's an extreme and unfounded view.  He would not put off his crown for Joffrey, the man who murdered his father but Renly is not his enemy so there is no reason not to.  If The Northern Lords had the IQ to see Torrhen bending the knee to Aegon was necessary (and wow, let's not assume that everyone in story is dumb, shall we?) they would see the necessity of bending the knee to Renly.  Again, Renly is not their enemy, they have not fought against or suffered at his hands, they will lose nothing by remaining part of the 7K with Robb as their Lord rather than their King.  Nothing changes, nothing is stripped away from them.  It's a no brainer.

I'll try not to let this get derailed by your pot shots at Robb but it's worth pointing out that: as for "insulting his elders" Edmure had ruined his plan and the Blackfish was just as critical of Edmure as Robb; Karstark murdered two prisoners, both squires and children, Catelyn quite obviously did not; and Catelyn is a noblewoman and the Lady of Winterfell who can be expected to act as an ambassador.  None of these things is actually a mistake or a character flaw in Robb.

[devilish]

5 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

A - Robb is not an idiot or an infant despite your best attempts to paint him as such.  In fact reading your assessment of Robb it's hard to see that you are being objective here.  If you insist on seeing him as a cretin bent on self destruction then, sure, he would fight Renly to the death.  This is not the character I see in the books and his mistakes - marrying Jeyne for honour and sending Theon as ambasador - are hardly indicative of a delusional and destructive personality.

It's worth remembering that for all your character assassination the Northern Lords were fiercely loyal to and proud of their young wolf.  Are you more interested in argument for argument''s sake or analysing things clearly?

B - Why does the only sceanrio have to be the one you keep playing out?  I have never seen any reason for the Vale Lords to pledge loyalty to Robb and repeatedly said that they would not.  This is just a strawman you keep trotting out. 

C - The Grand Council will decide in favour of whoever is strongest and can gather the most support among the Lords comprising the Council.  In this case it is clearly Renly.  There is no need for any fighting in the first place!  And why would Renly call a council if he had already won?  The Council is a way of avoiding further conflict just as when it was called to appoint Robert, a foregone conclusion but a legitimisation of the obvivous.  It would be just the same for Renly - a tool to legitimise his taking of power, a means of gaining consent and minimising oppostion from any other factions and a way of avoiding unnecessary conflict.  Seems fairly straightforward and they did this a mere 15 years ago.

D - I'm well aware what feudalism is.  I'm sorry but if you think feudal nobility were captains of industry running commercial enterprises who wished for and demanded peace as much as possible for trade and profit then you are misinformed.  Feudalism operated in slightly differnent forms in a large number of places over a long period of time but essentially feudal nobles were warrior aristocrats who were expected to raise troops and encouraged to see warfare as an opportunity to seek lands and titles and riches for themselves and their familes.  The Hundred Years War between France and England is a great example of this as are the Wars of the Roses (on which this story is loosely based) or even the Crusades, the popularity of which were the prospects of plunder, land, titles and glory more than religious fervour: peace was not the priority for a warrior aristocracy.

E - It's not a clash of egos.  Renly is confident in his position, inclined to diplomacy and prepared to be pragmatic as he knows that the smart game is to give Robb room and time to back down rather than forcing him into a corner.  Your rather hateful characterisation of Robb seems designed to try and portray him as a proud fool who would let the North and Riverlands burn rather than be pragmatic and concede but that's an extreme and unfounded view.  He would not put off his crown for Joffrey, the man who murdered his father but Renly is not his enemy so there is no reason not to.  If The Northern Lords had the IQ to see Torrhen bending the knee to Aegon was necessary (and wow, let's not assume that everyone in story is dumb, shall we?) they would see the necessity of bending the knee to Renly.  Again, Renly is not their enemy, they have not fought against or suffered at his hands, they will lose nothing by remaining part of the 7K with Robb as their Lord rather than their King.  Nothing changes, nothing is stripped away from them.  It's a no brainer.

I'll try not to let this get derailed by your pot shots at Robb but it's worth pointing out that: as for "insulting his elders" Edmure had ruined his plan and the Blackfish was just as critical of Edmure as Robb; Karstark murdered two prisoners, both squires and children, Catelyn quite obviously did not; and Catelyn is a noblewoman and the Lady of Winterfell who can be expected to act as an ambassador.  None of these things is actually a mistake or a character flaw in Robb.

A- He had been trained well and given the time he would have probably become a better general then both his father and Robert combined but yes he's still a boy. It became more and more evident as the war got nastier and decision making got more difficult. He shouldn't have allowed mummy to negotiate with neither Walder, Renly nor Balon as that made him look weak. He should have never accepted the crown and he should have never allowed Theon to leave his side. He also gave too much power to Cat, who was passing from an emotional breakdown herself, having lost her father, her husband and her two children in a very short period. An adult would have kept his eyes on the target, he would have gone past the adulation from his bannermen and he would have acknowledged his limitations. An army of 20k could never win the war without allies and that the kingdom of the North and the Riverlands would have never survived past a generation because whoever got the iron throne would have marched his horde on the Riverlands and Robb will have to leave his safe kingdom at the other side of Moat Cailin to defend it. Ah I almost forgot, he wouldnt have pissed the Freys as he did. Those were at boiling point already thanks to Hoster Tully and the last thing they needed was a snotty boy making them look silly again. Unfortunately the boy got carried away, something boys tend to do when they are winning. I am not treating him as some idiot. I am merely stating a fact ie h's a boy 

The young wolf died betrayed by one of his strongest banners soon after pissing off another strong bannerman of his who happen to share blood with him. Don't forget that

B- I agree, the Vale Lords would probably not had pledged allegiance to Robb. However a lot of silly things happened that night so I can't really exclude anything. You'll expect an experienced warrior like the Greatjon to acknowledge the North's limitations and not suggest something as stupid as the King of the North,. You'll expect the Riverlands Lords would never bend the knee to this madness and acknowledge that the North simply lacked the men to defend them and if they bend the knee to him then it would mean years of civil wars, who will probably end up bad for the North and worse for them (the wars would probably been fought on their lands). You'll also expect the Black Fish to beat some sense in the boy but he seem to only be good in chastising his nephew. You see, Robb was a boy. However he was a bright boy who was raised well. All he needed was a bit of guidance from a firm hand to put him in place when he went off tangent. FFS if Robb was Tywin's grandson then the Song of ice and fire would have ended up in the second book.

C- I don't know why you mentioned the Grand Council in the first place. Its role is to rubber stamp the will of the strongest

D- Feudalism was a system that ensured the king will get his money. It was far from perfect but it avoided with some difficulty (ex in France) to bring loyalty into the kingdom something the Romans struggled with in their last years.Peace was valued by the Feudal Lords as that mean that the status quo will be maintained (no one risked losing its land), productivity will be maintained and they would capitalise on any profit (war cost money). On the other hand war was encouraged by people who were close to the king but who held not enough land as a way to get more land. Rich Feudal Lords never liked neither war nor a volatile king as they might end up losing their lands and titles through defeat or/and the king waking up at the wrong side of his bed

E- I don't hate Robb. I am only saying that he's a boy and as a boy who won stuff and had been told so many times how good he is he's in one hell of an ego trip and thinks he's unbeatable. He also committed some childish mistakes too (cause he's a boy) by accepting a crown whom he lack the men to defend, he broke his promise with the Freys, he allowed his mate to return home only for his mate to return with an army that invaded the North and he has executed the Karstark Lord despite his very mother had just committed treason. That means that 

a- its going to be very hard for him to bend the knee especially since he won every battle. The boy thinks he's invincible.
b- its going to be harder for his bannermen to accept the fact that he bend the knee to a Southern King again. These are honourable men whose very houses are being threatened because the boy decided that the only way to win his war was to allow his playmate to talk with his daddy. He had since, broken his promise (to the Freys), he executed family (ie the Karstarks) because of some squires and his mummy had allowed the kingslayer to flee. If Robb bends the knee. They are close to boiling point. If Robb decides to bend the knee to Renly then he will break his promise to them too (ie of being independent from Southern Rule). Seriously it would be better off for him to just abdicate and ask Renly to just give him a lift to the wall so that he can become a member of the Night's watch

PS A decent general would communicate his orders so that his subordinates would be able to follow them. Only a kid would think people are able to 'read minds' (ie read Piaget Cognitive theory)

 

 

 

 

[the trees have eyes]

17 hours ago, devilish said:

A- He had been trained well and given the time he would have probably become a better general then both his father and Robert combined but yes he's still a boy. It became more and more evident as the war got nastier and decision making got more difficult. He shouldn't have allowed mummy to negotiate with neither Walder, Renly nor Balon as that made him look weak. He should have never accepted the crown and he should have never allowed Theon to leave his side. He also gave too much power to Cat, who was passing from an emotional breakdown herself, having lost her father, her husband and her two children in a very short period. An adult would have kept his eyes on the target, he would have gone past the adulation from his bannermen and he would have acknowledged his limitations. An army of 20k could never win the war without allies and that the kingdom of the North and the Riverlands would have never survived past a generation because whoever got the iron throne would have marched his horde on the Riverlands and Robb will have to leave his safe kingdom at the other side of Moat Cailin to defend it. Ah I almost forgot, he wouldnt have pissed the Freys as he did. Those were at boiling point already thanks to Hoster Tully and the last thing they needed was a snotty boy making them look silly again. Unfortunately the boy got carried away, something boys tend to do when they are winning. I am not treating him as some idiot. I am merely stating a fact ie h's a boy 

The young wolf died betrayed by one of his strongest banners soon after pissing off another strong bannerman of his who happen to share blood with him. Don't forget that

B- I agree, the Vale Lords would probably not had pledged allegiance to Robb. However a lot of silly things happened that night so I can't really exclude anything. You'll expect an experienced warrior like the Greatjon to acknowledge the North's limitations and not suggest something as stupid as the King of the North,. You'll expect the Riverlands Lords would never bend the knee to this madness and acknowledge that the North simply lacked the men to defend them and if they bend the knee to him then it would mean years of civil wars, who will probably end up bad for the North and worse for them (the wars would probably been fought on their lands). You'll also expect the Black Fish to beat some sense in the boy but he seem to only be good in chastising his nephew. You see, Robb was a boy. However he was a bright boy who was raised well. All he needed was a bit of guidance from a firm hand to put him in place when he went off tangent. FFS if Robb was Tywin's grandson then the Song of ice and fire would have ended up in the second book.

C- I don't know why you mentioned the Grand Council in the first place. Its role is to rubber stamp the will of the strongest

D- Feudalism was a system that ensured the king will get his money. It was far from perfect but it avoided with some difficulty (ex in France) to bring loyalty into the kingdom something the Romans struggled with in their last years.Peace was valued by the Feudal Lords as that mean that the status quo will be maintained (no one risked losing its land), productivity will be maintained and they would capitalise on any profit (war cost money). On the other hand war was encouraged by people who were close to the king but who held not enough land as a way to get more land. Rich Feudal Lords never liked neither war nor a volatile king as they might end up losing their lands and titles through defeat or/and the king waking up at the wrong side of his bed

E- I don't hate Robb. I am only saying that he's a boy and as a boy who won stuff and had been told so many times how good he is he's in one hell of an ego trip and thinks he's unbeatable. He also committed some childish mistakes too (cause he's a boy) by accepting a crown whom he lack the men to defend, he broke his promise with the Freys, he allowed his mate to return home only for his mate to return with an army that invaded the North and he has executed the Karstark Lord despite his very mother had just committed treason. That means that 

a- its going to be very hard for him to bend the knee especially since he won every battle. The boy thinks he's invincible.
b- its going to be harder for his bannermen to accept the fact that he bend the knee to a Southern King again. These are honourable men whose very houses are being threatened because the boy decided that the only way to win his war was to allow his playmate to talk with his daddy. He had since, broken his promise (to the Freys), he executed family (ie the Karstarks) because of some squires and his mummy had allowed the kingslayer to flee. If Robb bends the knee. They are close to boiling point. If Robb decides to bend the knee to Renly then he will break his promise to them too (ie of being independent from Southern Rule). Seriously it would be better off for him to just abdicate and ask Renly to just give him a lift to the wall so that he can become a member of the Night's watch

PS A decent general would communicate his orders so that his subordinates would be able to follow them. Only a kid would think people are able to 'read minds' (ie read Piaget Cognitive theory)

 

 

 

 

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.