Jump to content

Why Not Kill Jamie!!!


House Beaudreau

Recommended Posts

When Ned Stark is Beheaded, if Rob and the Northerns were willing to trade Jamie for his sisters why would you not kill Jamie Instantly. Blood for Blood right? I was Rob i would think that them killing Sansa would be 50/50. She would still be a great bargaining chip later in the war. Yea she would probably get it a lot worse than she did.

Please give me some reasons why this doesn't makes sense and you shouldn't do it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once you've killed Jamie you can't unkill him later if you would need him. While if you keep him alive you can always kill him later. Thus its more prudent to not kill Jamie not to mention that as you mention killing Jamie would likely have cut off any chance to make any kind of peace that isn't total annhiliation with the Lannisters as well as bring on further retribution. If Robb had been willing to negotiate after the Blackwater having Jamie as a bargin chip wouldc make his chances much better.

 

And while I think that Robb is a fool he's not an asshole who leaves his own sister(s) out to dry due to him throwing a tantrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, House Beaudreau said:

When Ned Stark is Beheaded, if Rob and the Northerns were willing to trade Jamie for his sisters why would you not kill Jamie Instantly. Blood for Blood right? I was Rob i would think that them killing Sansa would be 50/50. She would still be a great bargaining chip later in the war. Yea she would probably get it a lot worse than she did.

Please give me some reasons why this doesn't makes sense and you shouldn't do it.  

Because unlike Lord Karstark Robb isn't a complete idiot who thinks only in the most basic of animal instincts "blood for blood" Robb, like Ned, believed in a sense of honour that didn't exactly include murdering his POWs.

1) Jaime was a noble Prisoner of War, executing him as a simple act of revenge would cause loss of prestige and make future parleys with enemies much harder ("Why should we do what you say? Who says you won't murder whenever it strikes yoru fancy?") He already had propaganda about him turning into a wolf and devouring his victims running around. Why play into those rumours? 

2)Murdering a Noble POW would basically hand the Lannister side a carte blanche for doing the exact same thing, future ones and those they already have. Bye-bye Sansa, bye-bye (as far as they know/suspect) Arya. Her being a bargain chip for Jaime was a big reason why Sansa was kept alive and treated reasonably well(for a hostage/POW)

3) Jaime is a bargaining chip, and a valuable one at that; Tywin Lannister's Golden Boy, the favorite of the Queen Regent and (though I don't think the Starks would have known that) also beloved by Tyrion. Jaime was too valuable to kill him.

4) Robb places value in the lives of his sisters. Why throw away two more family members for something as imaginary and useless as "revenge" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

1) Jaime was a noble Prisoner of War, executing him as a simple act of revenge would cause loss of prestige and make future parleys with enemies much harder ("Why should we do what you say? Who says you won't murder whenever it strikes yoru fancy?") He already had propaganda about him turning into a wolf and devouring his victims running around. Why play into those rumours?

wouldn't taking Jamies head and sending it to Tywin accomplish much more than just revenge? By killing Jamie you not only appease your own bannermen like the Karstarks but others as well, but this act would also deter any of your bannermen going over to the Lannisters. By killing you would basically ensure that you wouldn't be betrayed which is his ultimate downfall. Tywin would not get into bed with the Freys or Roose Bolton after Jamie was dead. Jamie is Tywins weak spot and killing him would make him Reckless. Killing the kingslayer is a strategic move. It keeps the Boltons loyal, it keeps the Freys in the fray, it makes the Karstarks Loyal.  

 

8 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

2)Murdering a Noble POW would basically hand the Lannister side a carte blanche for doing the exact same thing, future ones and those they already have. Bye-bye Sansa, bye-bye (as far as they know/suspect) Arya. Her being a bargain chip for Jaime was a big reason why Sansa was kept alive and treated reasonably well(for a hostage/POW

It is easier for Rebels in the field to excute Pow than the Crown in the Capital. Like I said it would pretty much be 50/50 if they kill her or not. But if youre not willing to trade Jamie for her isn't it better to kill him and not risk him escaping or be stolen and traded to Tywin by one of your bannermen. I guess I would hope for the best with Sansa and that cooler heads would prevail in Kings Landing and even after the death of Jamie, hopefully the crown would realize the value of Sansa. Joffery is a monster but would he be willing to kill his favorite plaything just because his "uncle" died. Sansa would need to be protected from Cersi and thats about it. Tywin wasn't in the capital, Tyrion was in the Capital.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, House Beaudreau said:

wouldn't taking Jamies head and sending it to Tywin accomplish much more than just revenge? By killing Jamie you not only appease your own bannermen like the Karstarks but others as well, but this act would also deter any of your bannermen going over to the Lannisters. By killing you would basically ensure that you wouldn't be betrayed which is his ultimate downfall. Tywin would not get into bed with the Freys or Roose Bolton after Jamie was dead. Jamie is Tywins weak spot and killing him would make him Reckless. Killing the kingslayer is a strategic move. It keeps the Boltons loyal, it keeps the Freys in the fray, it makes the Karstarks Loyal.  

 

It is easier for Rebels in the field to excute Pow than the Crown in the Capital. Like I said it would pretty much be 50/50 if they kill her or not. But if youre not willing to trade Jamie for her isn't it better to kill him and not risk him escaping or be stolen and traded to Tywin by one of your bannermen. I guess I would hope for the best with Sansa and that cooler heads would prevail in Kings Landing and even after the death of Jamie, hopefully the crown would realize the value of Sansa. Joffery is a monster but would he be willing to kill his favorite plaything just because his "uncle" died. Sansa would need to be protected from Cersi and thats about it. Tywin wasn't in the capital, Tyrion was in the Capital.  

1) You'd only appease old Lord Karstark. And that honourless cretin doesn't deserve to be appeased. The Freys betrayed Robb because Robb chose Jeyne over a Frey daughter and Bolton betrayed him because Lord Bolton is smart, ruthless and saw the writing on the wall. Robb's days were numbered (despite his early victories, he eventually ended up in avery bad spot) and Roose stood to prosper more from an alliance with Tywin. Neither of these points had anything to do with Robb not executing Jaime. Killing Jaime would have pissed Tywin off, but I doubt it would have made him reckless. But with his living son you can hope to bait and parley with him.

It would have been a bad strategic move., plus it would make seem Robb weak if he caves in to every unreasonable request one of his bannermen growls into his direction.

2) Cersei is in the capital. That's all that's needed. Sansa has fallen out of favour with the entire court at this point, she has no allies and no friends and the only reason Cersei doesn't send an assassin to her bedside is Jaime. Tyrion can't protect her 24/7, nor would he really have a reason to once she can't be traded for Jaime anymore (except maybe to piss off Cersei) Where did I say anything about Tywin being at the capital? 

There is just no way Cersei would not have taken out Jaime's dead on Sansa (and remember they still thought Arya is there too, so we are talking both sisters, the only other remaining members of Robb's family) Where

Buttomline is that Jaime was too valuable to kill (and too valuable to be traded for two maidens, as stated on text and why Cat had to betray Robb) and Robb wanted to rule in the spirit of his father, which didn't include his prisoners. Karstark was different because Karstark broke the King's commands (and committed a war crime)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have siblings? Even if the 1st guy got me I would take on an entire army for my sisters. 

Jamie is the only only only chance for a trade for Robb's sisters save tywin himself. (bc they are the only ones in open field)

I think it's more or less other mistakes Robb (and Ned) made that made it impossible to execute Jamie 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

1) You'd only appease old Lord Karstark. And that honourless cretin doesn't deserve to be appeased. The Freys betrayed Robb because Robb chose Jeyne over a Frey daughter and Bolton betrayed him because Lord Bolton is smart, ruthless and saw the writing on the wall. Robb's days were numbered (despite his early victories, he eventually ended up in avery bad spot) and Roose stood to prosper more from an alliance with Tywin. Neither of these points had anything to do with Robb not executing Jaime. Killing Jaime would have pissed Tywin off, but I doubt it would have made him reckless. But with his living son you can hope to bait and parley with him.

It would have been a bad strategic move., plus it would make seem Robb weak if he caves in to every unreasonable request one of his bannermen growls into his direction.

you appease Lord Karstark and i understand the reason why the Freys and Boltons betray but If Rob were to have Killed Jamie Tywin would take no deal from anyone from the Northern cause, Tywin would want everyone to pay. Like I said, Jamie really is Tywins weakness. I am arguing that killing Jamie is a strategic. I definitely dont think it makes Rob look weak.  The more brutal you are the harder it is for your own to betray you. Would Rob take in the Mountain or Lorch or even the Hound? probably not because they believe they must answer for their wrong doings. 

 

9 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

2) Cersei is in the capital. That's all that's needed. Sansa has fallen out of favour with the entire court at this point, she has no allies and no friends and the only reason Cersei doesn't send an assassin to her bedside is Jaime. Tyrion can't protect her 24/7, nor would he really have a reason to once she can't be traded for Jaime anymore (except maybe to piss off Cersei) Where did I say anything about Tywin being at the capital? 

My point was that Tywin isn't at the capital, Tyrion isn't at the capital. their is really only three people who would want Sansa and Arya dead if Jamie were to die. Two of them are not in the capital which makes the decision easier, I think 

 

5 hours ago, One-eyed Misbehavin said:

Do you have siblings? Even if the 1st guy got me I would take on an entire army for my sisters. 

Jamie is the only only only chance for a trade for Robb's sisters save tywin himself. (bc they are the only ones in open field)

I think it's more or less other mistakes Robb (and Ned) made that made it impossible to execute Jamie

I guess this topic is really more to get a feel for how people feel on the matter, since were constantly talking about the mistakes Rob makes. I always wonder if he got this right or wrong in peoples mind. I do have siblings but in the setting and being king and fighting a war is there a point where you make a decision in the best interest of the cause not personally or for you families. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Jaime was caught by Robb's men, Theon did suggest to execute him.

 

Quote

"Kill him, Robb," Theon Greyjoy urged. "Take his head off."

 

"No," her son answered, peeling off his bloody glove. "He's more use alive than dead. And my lord father never condoned the murder of prisoners after a battle."

Yet Robb knew that Jaime was a valuable prisoner.

 

In COK Robb asks Cleos to deliver a message to Cersei, according to which:

Quote

 "First, the queen must release my sisters and provide them with transport by sea from King's Landing to White Harbor. It is to be understood that Sansa's betrothal to Joffrey Baratheon is at an end. When I receive word from my castellan that my sisters have returned unharmed to Winterfell, I will release the queen's cousins, the squire Willem Lannister and your brother Tion Frey, and give them safe escort to Casterly Rock or wheresoever she desires them delivered."

The return of his sisters and an exchange between the Lannisters-apart from Jaime, was his main priority. It should be noted that Robb demanded to end Sansa's betrothal. 

Quote

"Secondly, my lord father's bones will be returned to us, so he may rest beside his brother and sisterin the crypts beneath Winterfell, as he would have wished. The remains of the men of his household guard who died in his service at King's Landing must also be returned."

He also demanded the return of the bones of Ned Stark and his men. This is not necessarily a political act, but rather a desire to honour his father.

Quote

"Third, my father's greatsword Ice will be delivered to my hand, here at Riverrun."

Again, for symbolic reasons, Robb merely asks what is his, the ancestral sword of his House.

 

So up to this point, Robb is wiling to exchange his sisters for two highborn Lannister hostages and he only wants Ice and his father's bones.

His fourth demand is interesting:

 

Quote

"Fourth, the queen will command her father Lord Tywin to release those knights and lords bannermen of mine that he took captive in the battle on the Green Fork of the Trident. Once he does so, I shall release my own captives taken in the Whispering Wood and the Battle of the Camps, save Jaime Lannister alone, who will remain my hostage for his father's good behavior."

Robb is willing to release his captives as long as Tywin does the same, apart from Jaime, who will remain a prisoner in order to ensure that Tywin will be a nice boy.

 

Had Robb executed Jaime at the beginning of SOS, no doubt that Tywin would have ordered the execution of the Northern prisoners, which would have infuriated his bannermen. 

After the aforementioned battle on the Green Fork, among the people who fought for Robb and are imprisoned by the Lannisters, are:

 

  • Ser Wylis Manderly, Lord Wyman's heir. It should be noted that not only Wyman is one of the wealthiest of Robb's bannermen but had refused Tywin's offer to return his heir to him, without ransom, as long as he ceased to support Robb.
  • Medger Cerwyn, the head of the House, a loyal supporter of the Starks.
  • Harrion Karstark, Lord Rickard's heir and a distant relative of Robb.
  • Ser Donnel Locke
  • Ser Jared Frey
  • Ser Hosteen Frey
  • Ser Danwell Frey
  • Ronel Rivers

At the same battle Lord Hornwood and his heir was killed in the Whispering Wood by Jaime. The Hornwood succession crisis caused many problems to Robb. I cannot imagine the problems that Robb would have to confront back home if Tywin in retaliation had executed his highborn hostages.

Executing Jaime Lannister would have created a domino effect, with devastating consequences for House Stark.

 

Also at that point, the Lannisters kept attacking the lands of the riverlords, some had even lost their castles to Tywin's men.

The war was unpredictable and Jaime Lannister as hostage caused problems to Robb.

Catelyn told her son that his terms were too harsh for the Lannisters.

Quote

"Cersei Lannister will never consent to trade your sisters for a pair of cousins. It's her brother she'll want, as you know full well." She had told him as much before, but Catelyn was finding that kings do not listen half so attentively as sons.

"I can't release the Kingslayer, not even if I wanted to. My lords would never abide it."

"Your lords made you their king."

"And can unmake me just as easy."

 

 

Even if Robb managed to trade Jaime for Sansa and Arya-which logically also means that the betrothal to Joffrey is annuled, he would have to face the wrath of his lords.

His mother is adamant and she would prefer her daughters back, even if that meant that Jaime Lannister would be back in the battlefield.

And how Robb did react?

 

Quote

"If your crown is the price we must pay to have Arya and Sansa returned safe, we should pay it willingly. Half your lords would like to murder Lannister in his cell. If he should die while he's your prisoner, men will say—"

 

"—that he well deserved it," Robb finished.

 

"And your sisters?" Catelyn asked sharply. "Will they deserve their deaths as well? I promise you, if any harm comes to her brother, Cersei will pay us back blood for blood—"

 

"Lannister won't die," Robb said. "No one so much as speaks to him without my warrant. He has food, water, clean straw, more comfort than he has any right to. But I won't free him, not even for Arya and Sansa."

 

Up to this point, Robb knows that a captive Jaime Lannister is a mixed blessing.

Yes, the most formidable knight in the realm and the second most important member of House Lannister, is his prisoner. But if Robb kills him, there is no way back and he will have to face the rage of Tywin, Cersei and Tyrion Lannister. Perhaps for the first time in their lives, all three of them would be united for a common cause, to avenge Jaime.

If any of his bannermen kills him, Robb would not only lose his status as a noble king but he would seem incapable of exerting power over his men.

And of course the Lannisters would gladly send him the heads of his sisters along with the bones of his father...

And if he releases the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard...

 

Quote

"Are you afraid to have Jaime Lannister in the field again, is that the truth of it?" 

Grey Wind growled, as if he sensed Robb's anger, and Edmure Tully put a brotherly hand on Catelyn's shoulder. "Cat, don't. The boy has the right of this."

 

"Don't call me the boy," Robb said, rounding on his uncle, his anger spilling out all at once on poor Edmure, who had only meant to support him. "I'm almost a man grown, and a king—your king, ser. And I don't fear Jaime Lannister. I defeated him once, I'll defeat him again if I must, only . . . " He pushed a fall of hair out of his eyes and gave a shake of the head. "I might have been able to trade the Kingslayer for Father, but . . . "

 

 

The truth is that the situation was so complicated in regards to Jaime's captivity, that the only thing that Robb could do was to ensure that the Kingslayer remained alive and imprisoned. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, House Beaudreau said:

you appease Lord Karstark and i understand the reason why the Freys and Boltons betray but If Rob were to have Killed Jamie Tywin would take no deal from anyone from the Northern cause, Tywin would want everyone to pay. Like I said, Jamie really is Tywins weakness. I am arguing that killing Jamie is a strategic. I definitely dont think it makes Rob look weak.  The more brutal you are the harder it is for your own to betray you. Would Rob take in the Mountain or Lorch or even the Hound? probably not because they believe they must answer for their wrong doings. 

 

My point was that Tywin isn't at the capital, Tyrion isn't at the capital. their is really only three people who would want Sansa and Arya dead if Jamie were to die. Two of them are not in the capital which makes the decision easier, I think 

 

I guess this topic is really more to get a feel for how people feel on the matter, since were constantly talking about the mistakes Rob makes. I always wonder if he got this right or wrong in peoples mind. I do have siblings but in the setting and being king and fighting a war is there a point where you make a decision in the best interest of the cause not personally or for you families. 

 Yes yes but Robb's cause was to win the war and try to get his sisters back (and the Ned's head deal) not kill Lannisters. You would think they would be one in the same but… 

There were many northerners in captivity and Tywin would kill them all. Robb's Lords would not be happy whatsoever, it's kill 1 save a thousand not kill 1 and watch hundreds of your men die for it just bc Jamie could fight better than a 14-16? yr old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everyone who argued killing Jamie would have not been a good option for Robb, mostly because 1) honor is one of his defining traits and why the North rallied behind him and 2) the consequences.

Still, I think doing nothing with Jamie was maybe an ever worse option. I felt that the killing of Ned, the head of house Stark, by the Lannisters while the same Starks hold a member of their family should have had some consequences. Otherwise, what's the point of having a hostage at all? Having Jamie should have meant they can't touch Ned, and since they did, an answer was required. Killing would have been too much IMHO, but a hand or even an ear could have sent a message to KL that harming Starks means harming Jamie. I think this would have made KL safer for Sansa, not more dangerous. As it played out, we never see any of the Lannisters overly worried that Joffrey's aggression towards Sansa could mean retribution on Jamie - and they seem to be right, having already executed Ned without paying for it.

While mutilation isn't overly full of honor, one could argue that mercy was still served by not killing him for Ned, and they would have created more of a need in the Lannister camp to get Jamie back. Tywin just writes Jamie off as soon as he's captured (to the disgust of Tyrion), but strategically, he thus devalues Jamie's worth as a hostage tremendously. Robb basically gets zero return for capturing him. Dangling parts of Jamie before the court would make Tywin's neglect for him much more visible, and thus serve to undermine his rule. If your lord just casts aside a son as soon as he's captured, what will he do for you when you need him?

tldr; don't kill Jamie but send the court a part of him as a revenge for killing Ned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, littleRickon said:

I agree with everyone who argued killing Jamie would have not been a good option for Robb, mostly because 1) honor is one of his defining traits and why the North rallied behind him and 2) the consequences.

Still, I think doing nothing with Jamie was maybe an ever worse option. I felt that the killing of Ned, the head of house Stark, by the Lannisters while the same Starks hold a member of their family should have had some consequences. Otherwise, what's the point of having a hostage at all? Having Jamie should have meant they can't touch Ned, and since they did, an answer was required. Killing would have been too much IMHO, but a hand or even an ear could have sent a message to KL that harming Starks means harming Jamie. I think this would have made KL safer for Sansa, not more dangerous. As it played out, we never see any of the Lannisters overly worried that Joffrey's aggression towards Sansa could mean retribution on Jamie - and they seem to be right, having already executed Ned without paying for it.

While mutilation isn't overly full of honor, one could argue that mercy was still served by not killing him for Ned, and they would have created more of a need in the Lannister camp to get Jamie back. Tywin just writes Jamie off as soon as he's captured (to the disgust of Tyrion), but strategically, he thus devalues Jamie's worth as a hostage tremendously. Robb basically gets zero return for capturing him. Dangling parts of Jamie before the court would make Tywin's neglect for him much more visible, and thus serve to undermine his rule. If your lord just casts aside a son as soon as he's captured, what will he do for you when you need him?

tldr; don't kill Jamie but send the court a part of him as a revenge for killing Ned

I agree with u fully.rob should have cut the sword hand of jaime and send it as a warning.that might have stayed the hand of tywin and cercie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think Robb should have executed him immediately without anyone seeing, and then had everyone spread the word far and wide that Theon killed him in single combat.  That could have had a fantastic result for Robb.  Without even the benefit of hindsight anyone would think an alliance between the Greyjoys and Lannisters would be much harder, and Theon would have a lot more respect on the Iron Islands if Robb still intended to send him back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because like everything else with Momma's Boy's arc, Cat is the one who did not want him to kill Jamie.

if she gave the word, Baby Wolf would have done the deed with no problem.

the only original thought Robb had and only time he did not listen to mommy, got his a*s and most of his banner killed.

kinda funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killing Jamie would not bring Ned back and would not be justice for Ned's execution. The reason Robb is king is because the North remembers and the royal family is proving to lack any sense of honor or justice.

Jamie has a reputation that precedes him and a naturally abrasive demeanor. The "Kingslayer" is easy to hate. But his only true (proveable) crime at the time of his imprisonment is being the commander of an opposing force. They cannot justifiably execute him because his nephew (...) is a terrible king who commanded Ned's execution. They have no honorable reason to kill him. That doesn't mean there are not strategic pros to Jamie's execution.

Killing Jamie would strike a blow to the Lannisters, imagine the family dynamic as Tywin tries to accept that Tyrion is his only son. But killing Jamie would also show that Robb is a malevolent king who lacks honor and may be (propagandaly speaking) a bit of a mad king himself. Nobody would rush to join him and his people would have reason to doubt his justice. 

On top of that, the North isn't the only place where people remember slights. To the point where Robb captures Jamie he has been on a defensible and justifiable side. If he kills Jamie without an honorable cause then he crosses a 'point of no return' that means this war can never (at least in the foreseeable future) be resolved without the eradication of either the lions or the wolves. Or both.

I don't especially like defending Robb, he made his share of mistakes. But he was in a no-win situation when Jamie was captured alive. And I think keeping him alive was the lesser of two evils, and ultimately the right call.

 

I also think the argument that "two of the three" decision makers aren't in KL makes it the right time is flawed because that only leaves Cersei and Joffrey within range of the Stark girls to react. The same two who ran the Ned confession show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the point that Robb killing Jaime would make Tywin so angry that he would not treat with Bolton and Frey I think is wrong. Killing Jaime would have been against custom and have been seen as lacking honor. It would give Bolton and Frey an even better excuse to treat with Tywin. They did not make the decision to kill him and if they could tell Tywin they did not agree and now regret backing Robb - who doesn't know or respect the rules of war - then Tywin is not going to turn that down. (not that they needed an excuse to back Tywin, but this is an entirely believable excuse to be a tipping point to turn against Robb)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

A dead hostage is useless .

yeah, but so was an alive Jamie. The question is was there a third option Robb didn't see. How is it that Robb captured the son and heir (at least in Tywin's view) of his opponent and gets exactly zero benefit out of it? How is it the Starks are afraid of retribution against Sansa if they harm their hostage, yet Lannisters got zero retribution for killing Ned? What's the point of a hostage when the other side plainly just ignores the fact that he even exists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/12/2016 at 0:31 PM, littleRickon said:

As it played out, we never see any of the Lannisters overly worried that Joffrey's aggression towards Sansa could mean retribution on Jamie - and they seem to be right, having already executed Ned without paying for it.

I think they are clearly worried on several occasions. Not got a book to hand, but when Sansa gets lost in the riot Tyrion is under the distinct apprehension that if she turns up dead Jaime will be killed next. Clearly, the deal is, if Robb kills Jaime in retaliation for Ned's death, then Sansa goes too; and if the Lannisters kill Sansa Jaime dies. To me, it doesn't appear that the Lannisters have any good reason to kill Sansa, unless Robb kills Jaime. If Robb does that, Cersei will kill her in a heartbeat. Tyrion probably wouldn't want to, but given how much he loves Jaime even that's not 100% certain. 

Keeping him hostage was the only decision that made any real sense. It ensured Sansa wasn't killed, and kept open other possibilities for the future. At the beginning of ACOK, there is no clear advantage to either killing or exchanging Jaime. Circumstances change though. If Robb won to the point that the Lannisters were willing to cut a deal, then Jaime could be part of that deal, either keeping him hostage as surety on good behaviour, or in an exchange for Sansa once peace had been agreed. Or, he could end up on such a losing streak that exchanging or releasing Jaime is part of the terms of his surrender - e.g. he becomes on of the few bargaining chips he has left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...