Tywin's strange notions of hostage negotiations

[devilish]

10 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

1) Yes he is a seasoned general. He can ostensibly raise that 45K, less whatever was lost in the RL and on the way back. At what point is SR going to be leading the Vale to battle? Certainly not before he's reached age of majority, which is 10 years from the time of Ned's execution. Even then, Lysa would likely be leading him by the nose until he proved capable of proving himself. 

2) The recovered RL would not ally with someone who abandoned them to the mercies of Tywin Lannister and the crown. The Vale is not doing anything as long as Lysa is alive. Why do we keep including the Vale?

3) If Ned marches the largest northern host ever assembled south of MC, he has stripped the north of basically every fighting man. Guess who would *love* to invite himself in to that tasty treat? The only difference this time is that Tywin would likely invite Balon to do so and keep what he took. So yes 40K trounces 5K, but Ned isn't going to take that many south. Remember he's the wiser, prudent general. Why would he repeat Robb's mistake*

4) SR can barely count, can't read, is still suckling at his mom's teat, and won't let anyone cut his hair. We have a pretty good idea of what kind of man he'll be. Lysa speaks in his stead. His influence is completely irrelevant until he's 16, which is a decade from AGoT. Even if you find him replicating the feats of Daeron I, it's another 8 years. The timeline doesn't add up and neither does anything we actually read in the book.

If Ned goes back North, he needs to stay there. Coming south is a terrible idea unless he waits a decade, at which point the south will almost certainly have its affairs in order and he'll have lost the RL as allies, either to Tywin or a Baratheon. He either bends the knee to the new/existing ruler or the North gets ruined/razed/et al, but not occupied.

* With Robb I think it's more an issue of leadership than lack of fighting men

1- Those 45k army is from the North alone. Robb could only raise around 15k because he was in a hurry to rescue the Riverland's hide. He can raise way more then that if given time. Regarding SR, he only need to give his consent to war and Royce will do the rest. Having said that, Robb doesn't really care of that either. He's the Warden of the North whose leading a small army that cant defend the Riverlands alone. Considering that the Riverlands can't provide him with the men to do so adequately + they cant convince one of their own to send the knights of the Vale then he's got no business being there. For the Warden of the North perspective North > Riverlands

2- The Riverland's loyalty is a price worth to pay compared to the alternative( a 20k army slaughtered, Robb is killed and most Northern Lords are taken hostage). Once in the North, Robb would be an idiot to invade again unless he had made alliances with the real big guys (not some region who get spanked so easily). If Robb does make such alliances (Tyrells? Arryn?) and he's able to build a solid fleet then they will wipe away the Lannisters from the Riverlands irrespective which side the Riverlands Lords side to. 

3- That will require alot of time to assemble and winter is coming I doubt that Balon would wait so long to go reaving. He would probably aim for easier and wealthier pickings probably either at the Reach or in the Westerlands. 

4- I answered to that in 1. 

If the Northern army go back home then the Rose + Stag will have no choice but to kill the Lion themselves. There are three possibilities in that

a- The Rose and Stag wins. They should be considered as favourites considered that they have a bigger army and the finest general in Westeros at their side.

b- The Rose and Stag loses. The Tyrells either go solo (in that case its worth for the North to try and sealing an alliance with them) or they bend the knee

c- Stannis kill Renly and we continue with the current timeline

In those 3 scenarios the North is better off at home and Robb being single

a- Ned can easily bend the knee to Renly without suffer any consequences whatsoever. 

b- it would be easier for the North to get an alliance with the Reach after that (ie the former still has a solid army to rely on + a son and heir to marry Margaery to)

c- If Lion and Rose join houses then the North is better off being as far away from that horde as possible. 

[Tyg Doggett]

4 hours ago, devilish said:

4- I answered to that in 1. 

If the Northern army go back home then the Rose + Stag will have no choice but to kill the Lion themselves. There are three possibilities in that

a- The Rose and Stag wins. They should be considered as favourites considered that they have a bigger army and the finest general in Westeros at their side.

b- The Rose and Stag loses. The Tyrells either go solo (in that case its worth for the North to try and sealing an alliance with them) or they bend the knee

c- Stannis kill Renly and we continue with the current timeline

In those 3 scenarios the North is better off at home and Robb being single

a- Ned can easily bend the knee to Renly without suffer any consequences whatsoever. 

b- it would be easier for the North to get an alliance with the Reach after that (ie the former still has a solid army to rely on + a son and heir to marry Margaery to)

c- If Lion and Rose join houses then the North is better off being as far away from that horde as possible. 

Exactly what I said.

[Protagoras]

On 2017-05-12 at 4:55 AM, velo-knight said:

Despite the bluster, countries negotiate with terrorists and other asymmetrical opponents all the time. It may be politically and legally convenient to deny them status as traditional belligerents, but that can't change the facts on the ground, and so prisoner transfers, private ransoms facilitated by governments, and even sometimes ceasefires or peace accords are signed. In the real Middle Ages in Europe, prisoners were captured, held hostage, ransomed, etc., all the time, and for good reasons. The fact that hostage swaps and ransoms exist in so many types of conflict should probably be a sign to us that the typical view of "any negotiation means capitulation" is a fantasy.

Tywin does seem the type to buy in to the myth that credibility is everything in foreign policy - and in a medieval world where politics is so fiercely personal, he might have a point; but at the end of the day you can negotiate while still setting a firm line. You just have to be prepared to actually hold that line and accept the consequences of your decisions, which is something I think Tywin certainly could have managed.

 

The OPs take on the situation was that something was fundamentally wrong with Tywin, that out of human decency and respect for life, his only choice was to accept the demands of the Tarbecks. Despite the obvious signal such a move sends. Or the OP is questioning Tywins way of expressing himself, which is baffling since it is a good choice to make. 

And while you certainly, in theory, can negotiate while still setting a firm line, in practice you are negotiating because you are weak. Those lives on the stake simply means more to you than the goal you are striving at and if such a reasoning is seen as norm, condemming those that think different, then it will be almost impossible to negotiate from a firm line. Because what happens if the negotiations fail - well, then people die and since that is always bad, then it will be on you to see that they do not fail, which means giving up on your firm line. Does this mean negotiations always are bad - no, but this negotiation in particular is all about that firm line.

The facts on the ground is that 3 Lannisters have been captured in an attempt to enforce submission on the Lannisters, to deny them from punishing Walderan. The negotiation is the intended goal here and it basically forces Casterly Rock to back off, to back down from a firm line. Appeasing this, by returning Walderan, means that Ellens gamble worked - that the next time Casterly Rock want to enforce its paramountship, you can just kidnap a couple of lannisters and get out scot-free. In the long run, this humanitarian approach is disasterous. 

And that is the problem here, the reason why the hard-line approach should rule here is that said kidnap is a response to something. And by negotiating you are undermining that something, while other negotiations might not. In this case negotiation IS capitulation. For another case, the negotiation to exchange Martyn Lannister for Robett Glover is not capitulation. Such a negotiation doesn´t really affect the prime objective - the war itself. 

[velo-knight]

7 hours ago, Protagoras said:

The OPs take on the situation was that something was fundamentally wrong with Tywin, that out of human decency and respect for life, his only choice was to accept the demands of the Tarbecks. Despite the obvious signal such a move sends. Or the OP is questioning Tywins way of expressing himself, which is baffling since it is a good choice to make. 

My interpretation of the OP is that Tywin Lannister has a history of undervaluing Lannister hostages; which pays off militarily in the books but has a humanitarian downside and the potential for a political downside. I definitely agree on both counts, because at some point of doing this your enemies just stop taking (or keeping) your people as prisoners at all. 

7 hours ago, Protagoras said:

And while you certainly, in theory, can negotiate while still setting a firm line, in practice you are negotiating because you are weak. Those lives on the stake simply means more to you than the goal you are striving at and if such a reasoning is seen as norm, condemming those that think different, then it will be almost impossible to negotiate from a firm line. Because what happens if the negotiations fail - well, then people die and since that is always bad, then it will be on you to see that they do not fail, which means giving up on your firm line. Does this mean negotiations always are bad - no, but this negotiation in particular is all about that firm line.

Again, ransoms and prisoner exchanges are a real and fairly common feature of both "legal" and "illegal" wars since time immemorial. The idea that you are willing to negotiate for some price for the return of your people does not mean you can be extorted to any price, and if it did, these ransoms wouldn't happen. It just looks weak domestically, so countries take a hard verbal line, especially in a democratic age where Monday-morning quarterbacking and foreign-policy-analysis-by-analogy is the norm. Also, while war is a generally zero-sum game, wars can also be ended diplomatically, and diplomacy is definitely not zero-sum: prisoner swaps can form the basis for mutual trust which in turn can lead to diplomatic and political achievement of each side's aims. The fact that it didn't in the Tarbeck Rebellion is arguably as much because the hardline, militaristic leader (Tywin) and the diplomatic leader (Tytos) refused to work together, having ultimately different objectives despite belonging to the same belligerent.

Twin himself tells Joffrey that you must show mercy to surrendering foes, clearly recognizing that it's valuable to not close off political and diplomatic resolutions to a conflict - but his hostage policy doesn't always match well with this.

7 hours ago, Protagoras said:

The facts on the ground is that 3 Lannisters have been captured in an attempt to enforce submission on the Lannisters, to deny them from punishing Walderan. The negotiation is the intended goal here and it basically forces Casterly Rock to back off, to back down from a firm line. Appeasing this, by returning Walderan, means that Ellens gamble worked - that the next time Casterly Rock want to enforce its paramountship, you can just kidnap a couple of lannisters and get out scot-free. In the long run, this humanitarian approach is disasterous. 

I was wondering when the "a" word would come out. 

Suppose Tytos and Tywin worked together, and responded to Ellyn not with a release or a butchery, but with "Walderan will be returned with the Lannisters provided the following conditions are met: (some combination of fines, lands returned to those it had been "bought" from, down payments on the Tarbeck debt). Sure, you've "capitulated" to the lawbreaker by negotiating - but in that time you can prepare for whatever response, and yet you alleviate the fear (which I'm sure motivated Lady Tarbeck) that her husband is going to be summarily killed and her house attacked. If the negotiation still doesn't work, you've now got causus belli and good PR to begin your campaign. Tarbeck Hall simply does not have the long-term resources to beat the Lannisters, and at some point Ellyn Reyne will realize that and become desperate to negotiate.

I apologize if I am too passionate or aggressive in this: dovish attitudes towards war are often stereotyped as weak and impractical, but I believe that "give peace a chance" is actually very sturdy foreign policy when in tandem with appropriate, modest use of force. Focus on Ellyn getting what she wants re: bringing Lannisters to the table ignores that she might have multiple reasons to want that, and some of them could lead to a long-term settlement. In the real world, talking tough has not proven an effective response to asymmetrical warfare - but understanding the internal politics and varying motivations of the other combatant has.

[Universal Sword Donor]

On 5/13/2017 at 1:47 AM, devilish said:

He needs the Crossing to cross back home. Once the Northern army is in their lands he doesn't need them anymore. If Robb marries the Frey girl then would be bound by blood to protect the twins from Lannister invasion. The North simply doesn't have the men to do so especially if the Lannisters and the Tyrells join forces. However, without such burden around his noose, Robb has as much obligations towards the Riverlands as House Arryn has. If the Tullys aren't able to convince the latter to join the war then they cant expect the North to do so by themselves

I am aware that this plan makes a return to the South more difficult. But who cares? Robb is the Warden of the North and he is bound to defend his land. Ideally he would defend the Riverlands but he simply lack the army to do so and he has no obligations to do so either (he's not LP of the Riverlands). Under such circumstances he's better off at home were he can raise more troops, he can use the climate, terrain and Moat Cailin to his advantage and he can make solid plans (new alliances, a fleet etc)

As said before no one is mad enough to launch a full blown invasion of the North during Winter which gives Robb time to prepare. Time is also at his side.Tywin is old and his children are mostly incompetent. When he dies all his work will die with him. 

 

The whole point of retreating now is to regroup and defeat the Lannisters later right? Well then everyone involved should care. If he stays in the north, it's not really that much of an issue but it does hand the RL to the throne, be it Tywin or a Baratheon, and sets the precedent that Robb will abandon his allies. Not ideal I think we can all agree.

And prep? Robb can pretty much only build warships during the winter. The climate is harsh enough that they can't stockpile their food (they are eating it), they can't grow anything, and construction seems highly impractical, though maybe not impossible. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

On 5/13/2017 at 2:16 AM, devilish said:

1- Those 45k army is from the North alone. Robb could only raise around 15k because he was in a hurry to rescue the Riverland's hide. He can raise way more then that if given time. Regarding SR, he only need to give his consent to war and Royce will do the rest. Having said that, Robb doesn't really care of that either. He's the Warden of the North whose leading a small army that cant defend the Riverlands alone. Considering that the Riverlands can't provide him with the men to do so adequately + they cant convince one of their own to send the knights of the Vale then he's got no business being there. For the Warden of the North perspective North > Riverlands

2- The Riverland's loyalty is a price worth to pay compared to the alternative( a 20k army slaughtered, Robb is killed and most Northern Lords are taken hostage). Once in the North, Robb would be an idiot to invade again unless he had made alliances with the real big guys (not some region who get spanked so easily). If Robb does make such alliances (Tyrells? Arryn?) and he's able to build a solid fleet then they will wipe away the Lannisters from the Riverlands irrespective which side the Riverlands Lords side to. 

3- That will require alot of time to assemble and winter is coming I doubt that Balon would wait so long to go reaving. He would probably aim for easier and wealthier pickings probably either at the Reach or in the Westerlands. 

4- I answered to that in 1. 

If the Northern army go back home then the Rose + Stag will have no choice but to kill the Lion themselves. There are three possibilities in that

a- The Rose and Stag wins. They should be considered as favourites considered that they have a bigger army and the finest general in Westeros at their side.

b- The Rose and Stag loses. The Tyrells either go solo (in that case its worth for the North to try and sealing an alliance with them) or they bend the knee

c- Stannis kill Renly and we continue with the current timeline

In those 3 scenarios the North is better off at home and Robb being single

a- Ned can easily bend the knee to Renly without suffer any consequences whatsoever. 

b- it would be easier for the North to get an alliance with the Reach after that (ie the former still has a solid army to rely on + a son and heir to marry Margaery to)

c- If Lion and Rose join houses then the North is better off being as far away from that horde as possible. 

1) Yes and if Robb raises the full 45K he leaves his entire kingdom/region undefended and is somehow able to march them all together, which is highly unlikely given logistical issues of marching more than 20K or so men together -- Jaime and Tywin split their forces for a reason.

2) Except that the RL being their enemy instead of ally gives the enemy more men and a very close staging spot in Seagard. Robb doesn't *have* to march north at the point in time we're talking about. He's actually fairly well matched with Tywin's army until the Tyrells join him.

3) Balon's forces are already assembled by the time Ned would be going north, and frankly he doesn't send many people actually reaving. It's what, fewer than 50 ships total? I had totally forgotten to account for the IB who held Moat Cailin. Robb is most likely going to have to fight his way through the entire Iron Fleet contingent. 

4) You wrote an answer. You didn't actually address the issue at hand, which is that SR has neither the power nor the ability to let Royce run the campaign and Lysa is in charge.

[Protagoras]

6 hours ago, velo-knight said:

Snip

And at this point of the discussion we need to acknowledge that Tytos was not a "diplomatic leader". Nor was he a leader who could present the issue in a less hostile way, earning diplomatic points due to greater presentation technique. What Tytos was, was a pure weak, cowardly leader - a leader who was afraid of conflict and went to any length to avoid it. A leader who vassals defied, not returning loans, laughing at him behind his back. Because it is easy to win friends and get peace if you and only you are the one that ends up giving ground at every time, until the point you are but a slave to others will. Because everyone wants peace if they can decide about the issues in question. I am certain that North Korea wishes for peace. And so do Israel. The question is - is that peace worth it and do those countries deserve it? Is really peace a gift if it means South Korea will be forced together under northern leadership? Or if israeli settles end up annexing more and more palestinian land, driving the people who lived there away, without consequences? And for me the answer is a resounding NO - better to fight and kill until they surrender or act more reasonable. The same is true in the Westerland example - Tywin might be brutal but he has a working strategy. Tytos doesnt.

Further, your idea of a "good cop, bad cop cooperation" is based on a possible misread on personality and especially alot of undeserved goodwill towards Tytos and diplomatic, dovish strategies. Dovish attitudes towards war might certainly be stereotyped as weak and impractical BUT there is a reason for that, since those approaches seldon comes from a choice of strategy, but a wish to get along regardless of cost. It certainly doesn´t have to be and a dovish attitude can be useful, IF you know whay you do and have a strategy for it. Because, otherwise - like Dorans so-called "waiting strategy", you simply comes of as a person unwilling to give his 100% and use all tools in the box to gain a certain result. And this is the kind of person Tytos is.

Also, diplomacy has limits. Severe limits. It is simply HARD to convince people, so hard that it is almost a myth. And while threats might not win you friends nor popularity, you can get out more out from them than words ever could and has a more efficent way of dealing with problems due to the threats involved - you simply get longer with a nice word and a gun than you do with only a nice word. I would for example argue that Europe´s choice of universal suffrage in the 20s was not due to convincing arguments about everyones equal worth to a vote, but the fear of USSR and revolutions being seen as a solution and implemented in other countries. To take a less violent example, the online piracy certainly did help the producers to create innovating solutions like Steam, Youtube and Spotify. Because if people hadn´t acted illegally - pirating the shit out of the industry, they would have never turned toward selfimprovement and still sold those CDs for 20$. Certainly, you can´t always use force - sometimes you need to talk, to cut a deal. But only acknowledging that final diplomatic argeement without mentioning the violence before is to lie. No one want to acknowledge that the violence and socetial disrupt MLK and the civil movement cause nor Mandela and ANCs violent struggle. We want to acknowledge their ways of peace, of understanding and convincing by words alone because that is a prettier picture and gives us a nice, fuzzy feeling and then we can teach the generations after us that these men won by words alone and that violence is not the way. Ptttth. Its like the story of God pushing a cow in the water, getting the owner to curse the devil and then when the devil drags the cow up the owner praises God. Diplomacy is overly praised.

So to cut this short, you are really underselling Tywin, as well as his ways - while overestimating the peaceful solution in general and Tytos in particular.

[velo-knight]

33 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

And at this point of the discussion we need to acknowledge that Tytos was not a "diplomatic leader". Nor was he a leader who could present the issue in a less hostile way, earning diplomatic points due to greater presentation technique. What Tytos was, was a pure weak, cowardly leader - a leader who was afraid of conflict and went to any length to avoid it. A leader who vassals defied, not returning loans, laughing at him behind his back. Because it is easy to win friends and get peace if you and only you are the one that ends up giving ground at every time, until the point you are but a slave to others will.

Sure, I agree there. But hardliners like Tywin could've tried to grapple with Tytos's concerns, advising him that they would not love him for his generosity if they felt entitled to it, that it was sure to always come.

33 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Because everyone wants peace if they can decide about the issues in question. I am certain that North Korea wishes for peace. And so do Israel. The question is - is that peace worth it and do those countries deserve it? Is really peace a gift if it means South Korea will be forced together under northern leadership? Or if israeli settles end up annexing more and more palestinian land, driving the people who lived there away, without consequences? And for me the answer is a resounding NO - better to fight and kill until they surrender or act more reasonable. The same is true in the Westerland example - Tywin might be brutal but he has a working strategy. Tytos doesnt.

I think you've missed the point, a bit. There is no "North Korea" anymore than there is an "Israel" or a "United States" or a "Sweden". Countries are made up of many people with many different aspirations and which will always, regardless of political structure, have multiple lobbies, factions, agendas, and interests. The Dove Strategy is to acknowledge this, both because it is the right thing to do and because it allows effective policy. Hardliners know this too, which is why conservatives who oppose a rapprochment between two former enemies will suddenly make common cause to undermine such rapprochment. It's produced some pretty strange bedfellows in the past. That doesn't mean diplomacy always works - the political structure of North Korea is unstable and based around the interests of military elites, so building strong relations with them is basically impossible unless there's a mutual opponent or serious reform - but it does mean one can't take every outrage as proof a whole country or enemy faction is irreconcilable.

33 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Further, your idea of a "good cop, bad cop cooperation" is based on a possible misread on personality and especially alot of undeserved goodwill towards Tytos and diplomatic, dovish strategies. Dovish attitudes towards war might certainly be stereotyped as weak and impractical BUT there is a reason for that, since those approaches seldon comes from a choice of strategy, but a wish to get along regardless of cost.

Prove it. You're acknowledging the stereotype, and then simply repeating it uncritically.

33 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

It certainly doesn´t have to be and a dovish attitude can be useful, IF you know whay you do and have a strategy for it. Because, otherwise - like Dorans so-called "waiting strategy", you simply comes of as a person unwilling to give his 100% and use all tools in the box to gain a certain result. And this is the kind of person Tytos is.

I agree with you that any effective statesman - whether dove or hawk - must use all the tools of statecraft to at least some extent or they lose their power; and I definitely don't think Tytos was effective. I do think the Walderan idea was dangerous, and as the heir and the leading Lannister hawk, Tywin had an obligation to try and work with the head of his house and his feudal lord.

33 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Also, diplomacy has limits. Severe limits. It is simply HARD to convince people, so hard that it is almost a myth. And while threats might not win you friends nor popularity, you can get out more out from them than words ever could and has a more efficent way of dealing with problems due to the threats involved - you simply get longer with a nice word and a gun than you do with only a nice word. I would for example argue that Europe´s choice of universal suffrage in the 20s was not due to convincing arguments about everyones equal worth to a vote, but the fear of USSR and revolutions being seen as a solution and implemented in other countries.

That isn't diplomacy.

33 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

To take a less violent example, the online piracy certainly did help the producers to create innovating solutions like Steam, Youtube and Spotify. Because if people hadn´t acted illegally - pirating the shit out of the industry, they would have never turned toward selfimprovement and still sold those CDs for 20$. Certainly, you can´t always use force - sometimes you need to talk, to cut a deal. But only acknowledging that final diplomatic argeement without mentioning the violence before is to lie. No one want to acknowledge that the violence and socetial disrupt MLK and the civil movement cause nor Mandela and ANCs violent struggle. We want to acknowledge their ways of peace, of understanding and convincing by words alone because that is a prettier picture and gives us a nice, fuzzy feeling and then we can teach the generations after us that these men won by words alone and that violence is not the way. Ptttth. Its like the story of God pushing a cow in the water, getting the owner to curse the devil and then when the devil drags the cow up the owner praises God. Diplomacy is overly praised.

I don't think you understand what diplomacy is - it has very little relationship to pacifism, and is a basic tool of statecraft. The state, of course, is founded on a monopoly on violence - so it's hard to not acknowledge the violence inherent in any interstate (or inter-house, in a feudal context) agreement. That does not take away from the importance of diplomacy, and certainly doesn't mean diplomacy is over-praised. I'd even argue that Tywin Lannister, a man who largely lost his military campaigns against the Young Wolf, won the war with diplomacy.

33 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

So to cut this short, you are really underselling Tywin, as well as his ways - while overestimating the peaceful solution in general and Tytos in particular.

No, I'm saying that for a man who otherwise seems quite capable of using the tools of diplomacy and war, Tywin tends to undervalue his hostages.

[devilish]

10 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

1) Yes and if Robb raises the full 45K he leaves his entire kingdom/region undefended and is somehow able to march them all together, which is highly unlikely given logistical issues of marching more than 20K or so men together -- Jaime and Tywin split their forces for a reason.

2) Except that the RL being their enemy instead of ally gives the enemy more men and a very close staging spot in Seagard. Robb doesn't *have* to march north at the point in time we're talking about. He's actually fairly well matched with Tywin's army until the Tyrells join him.

3) Balon's forces are already assembled by the time Ned would be going north, and frankly he doesn't send many people actually reaving. It's what, fewer than 50 ships total? I had totally forgotten to account for the IB who held Moat Cailin. Robb is most likely going to have to fight his way through the entire Iron Fleet contingent. 

4) You wrote an answer. You didn't actually address the issue at hand, which is that SR has neither the power nor the ability to let Royce run the campaign and Lysa is in charge.

1) He might not be raising 45k but 35k is very realistic figure especially if JS let the Wildlings in. If Ned is still alive there would be 2 Starks leading the troops ie a war veteran and a much more experienced Robb. A reasonably big fleet would make logistics a tad better

2) Let me repeat what I said. The North has no business down South unless it has solid and powerful allies to rely upon. It simply lack the men to invade the South + its not worth risking Sansa's life for a failed rebellion. If the North manages to persuade either the Arryns or the Tyrells to join forces with them than the Riverland's opposition mean very little. There's no way the Riverlands can hold to an invasion from the North AND another one from either the South or the East. 

3) Balon's fleet was able to inflict so much damage because half the North was South. If Ned is back with the Northern army at his back then its really not worth the effort. The Reavers would be forced to stick to the shores as they risk being caught either by the Northerners or by Winter and the booty for them would be insignificant. You need to think in the same way a pirate does which means loads of wealth for minimum effort.

4) Once SR grows into an adult he won't need a regent anymore. Instead he would be facing a group of battlehardened Lords whom, although loyal to him, are itching for war. That's quite intimidating for a boy who would probably suck his mum's tits till he's age 15. The temptation to allow the big mean guy to do whatever he wants is quite significant. We've seen that happening already with Brynden/Edmure. Irrespective of what SR does 2 still applies. Robb/Ned has no business down South without a solid & powerful ally to rely upon

  

[devilish]

15 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

The whole point of retreating now is to regroup and defeat the Lannisters later right? Well then everyone involved should care. If he stays in the north, it's not really that much of an issue but it does hand the RL to the throne, be it Tywin or a Baratheon, and sets the precedent that Robb will abandon his allies. Not ideal I think we can all agree.

And prep? Robb can pretty much only build warships during the winter. The climate is harsh enough that they can't stockpile their food (they are eating it), they can't grow anything, and construction seems highly impractical, though maybe not impossible. 

Robb invaded the Riverlands because

a-    His grandfather’s and uncle’s lives were at stake
b-    He needed to release his Father and sisters
That aim was achieved when Robb was able to break the Riverrun’s siege. Edmure and Hoster were free to decide their fate (ie stay in Riverrun, go to Winterfell etc) + thanks to Jamie, the Starks had that golden hostage needed to swap with Sansa/Ned or both.

Now let’s return to the little list above. A is quite significant. The Starks are bound by blood to protect Hoster and Edmure not their lands and titles. In matter of fact the last time I checked the Starks were Wardens of the North not the baby sitters of the Riverlands. The Riverlands is in fact an independent region who has got nothing to do with the North and should be able to defend its own borders on their own. They made that quite obvious when Robb was stopped at the twins and he had to pay a very high toll for quick access to the Riverlands

Don’t take me wrong ideally he would do both. There again ideally
a-    The Riverlands were able to stop the invasion by themselves and could provide at least 30k to the mix
b-    Robb didn’t have to beg his way inside the Riverlands. After all the Northerners were only trying to save their skin. 
c-    Lysa Tully answers to her own father’s call. Bringing another 30k-40k to the mix
d-    The North coalition could raise a respectable 60k-70k army not a 20k army.

You’re making it sound that the Stark access to the remaining Westeros is of high importance. It is not. The North is an independent region with its own set of rules and customs. It’s a strong region which is too vast, cold and wild to tame without dragons. 

On the long run the Riverlands are better off without the Starks too. The Northerners may be invincible in their own land but they simply lack the man power to hold the Riverlands on their own. Under present circumstances the Riverlands would have been reduced into a war zone with Southern Kings waging war there in the hope of luring Robb out of his nest and force him to bend the knee. Kudos for Robb who allowed the Riverlands the time needed to regroup. However after that the Riverland Lords were better off either mending bridges with the Lannisters or bend the knee to Renly.
 

So here is the plan

a- Robb negotiate the release of Sansa & Ned/Ned bones by exchanging them with Jamie and all his hostages
b- he stay in the Riverlands for long enough for them to seal an alliance with anyone they want (Lannisters or Tyrells)
c- he returns home with or without the Tullys (they decide their own fate)

Now if Renly or the Tyrells want to go for the top prize themselves and want the Starks in the mix then they better come out with a good deal (which also include a free pass for the Starks to invade the remaining Westeros)

[Protagoras]

13 hours ago, velo-knight said:

Sure, I agree there. But hardliners like Tywin could've tried to grapple with Tytos's concerns, advising him that they would not love him for his generosity if they felt entitled to it, that it was sure to always come.

I don´t think Tytos would have listen. And his concerns were simply unaviodable. He wanted people to like him. If he didn´t do what they wanted, they didn´t like him. Hard to go around. 

13 hours ago, velo-knight said:

I think you've missed the point, a bit. There is no "North Korea" anymore than there is an "Israel" or a "United States" or a "Sweden". Countries are made up of many people with many different aspirations and which will always, regardless of political structure, have multiple lobbies, factions, agendas, and interests. The Dove Strategy is to acknowledge this, both because it is the right thing to do and because it allows effective policy. Hardliners know this too, which is why conservatives who oppose a rapprochment between two former enemies will suddenly make common cause to undermine such rapprochment. It's produced some pretty strange bedfellows in the past. That doesn't mean diplomacy always works - the political structure of North Korea is unstable and based around the interests of military elites, so building strong relations with them is basically impossible unless there's a mutual opponent or serious reform - but it does mean one can't take every outrage as proof a whole country or enemy faction is irreconcilable.

Problem is that we don´t see any Reyne and Tarbeck differencies nor anyone willing to make peace, but a group of more or less common intent to take the Lannisters down. A established alliance if you will. 

Both my examples points to two countries that are unwilling to change, to be affected by a dovish strategy, since there is no force behind it. No one is going to take up arms about it if they don´t adapt, especially in the israeli case. So the willingness to cut a deal is zero. 

Yes, there are different groups, but that doesn´t mean that they hold real power. 

13 hours ago, velo-knight said:

Prove it. You're acknowledging the stereotype, and then simply repeating it uncritically.

I have exemplified my position with several historical examples already, as well as mentioned different ASoIaF-characters symbolizing those effects. Doran Martell is an exellent example. North Korea and Israel other examples. 

And certainly, few dovish persons would describe their strategy as weak. But I am not interested in their word. I am interested in their end results. Results that usually are lacking. 

13 hours ago, velo-knight said:

I agree with you that any effective statesman - whether dove or hawk - must use all the tools of statecraft to at least some extent or they lose their power; and I definitely don't think Tytos was effective. I do think the Walderan idea was dangerous, and as the heir and the leading Lannister hawk, Tywin had an obligation to try and work with the head of his house and his feudal lord.

Tywin certainly did have that obligation, but decided to try and save his house instead. As for danger, I don´t see it. The situation has already escalated and we also have the Reyne attack on Lord Denys Marbrand,when he rode to Tarbeck Hall far earlier. People have already died over this. So why blame Tywins counter-response to an already lethal situation?

13 hours ago, velo-knight said:

That isn't diplomacy.

I don't think you understand what diplomacy is - it has very little relationship to pacifism, and is a basic tool of statecraft. The state, of course, is founded on a monopoly on violence - so it's hard to not acknowledge the violence inherent in any interstate (or inter-house, in a feudal context) agreement. That does not take away from the importance of diplomacy, and certainly doesn't mean diplomacy is over-praised. I'd even argue that Tywin Lannister, a man who largely lost his military campaigns against the Young Wolf, won the war with diplomacy.

All this is certainly about diplomacy, but we might have different definitions. 

Diplomacy is the act of telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip. Its about convincing without threats and violence. And it usually doesn´t work as well. Because people have different moviations and interest. So, not only is it hard to convince people, you also have to do it when their interestes are not aligned with yours.

But, you are partly right - my examples were primary about examples where a hard-line approach worked. And that said hard-line approach never gets the credit for it. 

13 hours ago, velo-knight said:

No, I'm saying that for a man who otherwise seems quite capable of using the tools of diplomacy and war, Tywin tends to undervalue his hostages.

He didn´t undervalue. He wanted to use Walderan for exactly the value he had. As a signal to others. In the long run, Walderans death could have mean that no one else needed to die. 

[Aegon1FanBoy]

To be honest i thought it was somethign to be done i mean in those times if a debt isn't paid then a hostage had to be taken. They Tarbeks were lucky Tywin never reported them to the King in that regard they were risking war. I always thought Lady Tarbeck was foolish for this.