What if the Arryns called their banners?

[devilish]

By the time Robb lost the Karstarks, his fate was sealed. It wouldn’t make sense for the Vale Lords to bail out this boy king who lost the North especially since they would be the ones making most of the dirty work.

The Vale would have made great impact if they answered to Edmure call for help immediately.  This alternative scenario would change everything

-    The Vale would make sure that the Lannisters won’t be able to inflict a lot of damage to the Riverlands. Instead of routing, the Riverlands Lords will opt for a strategic retreat only to join Brynden Tully and the Vale army later on
-    Robb will have less urgency to reach the Riverlands. That means he won’t agree to Walder’s deal. With the Vale taking control over the Riverlands, the Freys would finally relent (they cant afford a siege on both sides) allowing Robb to pass. 
-    The Lannisters will have to leave the Riverlands quickly or else risk being caught between two fires (North and the Vale). I cant see Tywin taking head on the Vale’s army knowing that Robb can hit him at the rear at any moment.
-    There will be no king of the North nonsense. Royce will set up a war council with Brynden acting on behalf of the Riverlands and Robb being a junior member
-    Royce will probably sway the vote towards declaring for Renly (Robar Royce had already declared for Renly). A message will be sent to the Baratheon king urging him to attack KL. Meanwhile The Northern coalition will keep the Lannisters holed in the Westerlands
-    If Stannis kill Renly before he’s able to take the IT then I can’t see Loras killing Robar Royce. That would be a very stupid thing to do, considering that the Northern coalition has enough men to go toe to toe against them. Instead the Tyrells would probably use the confusion to their favour by storming KL themselves. Stannis would be forced to flee and the royal family (+ Sansa) will end up under Tyrell custody. 
-    At that point it will be a matter of negotiating. The Tyrells will have both the NC and the Lannisters by the ****. The NC would probably be given first option. Are they ready to bend the knee with Willas being declared king, Sansa becoming queen, Margaery being married off to Robin/Robb/Edmure, Garlan ending LP of the Stormlands and the royal family ending up executed? Or should they take Tywin’s offer instead who would see the royal family freed, the rose and the lion joining houses through marriage and the NC being crushed for good?

[The hairy bear]

 

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Because the Baratheons had a claim on the Iron Throne, an institution that has existed for 300+ years and seen as default. It would in other words mean no change in structure.

I don't share that view. Regardless of the blood ties between Robert and the Targaryens, little was done to present Robert as the continuation of the Targaryen legacy. He didn't change his name, he never used the three-headed dragon banner, he took the dragon skulls away from the Throne Room... it was purposefully a change of dynasty.  Besides, Viserys and Daenerys were alive and with a greater claim, so crowning Robert could only be justified by rights of conquest.

The Iron Throne seen as default? The Greyjoys have contested this at every opportunity. When the Greatjon introduces the idea of seceding from the Iron Throne, he presents elaborate arguments that suggest that it's an idea that is not unusual in the North, and then many others join the proclamation passionately.

300 years is not that long a time, compared to thousands of years of history as an independent kingdom. If Jon, Eddard and Robert hadn't been in such good terms or had been a little more ambitious, the end of the Targaryen dynasty may have lead to the dissolution of the realm. I'm convinced that there were many people in each realm (specially in the North) that were pushing for this.

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

this is further enforced by Robar Royce presence at Renlys camp. If the Royces are befind becoming vassals to Robb, why send him? Unless the assumption is that the war with the Lannisters is what matters and that Robb will give up his crown to Renly, a person who the Royces seem to be behind.

One thing is to send a second son in Renly's camp to play politics and have one member of the family on his side. If it goes wrong and Renly has a traitor's end, you can blame Robar's youth and say that he went for adventure against the wishes of his father. But Yohn Royce actually calling his banners and fighting for Robb is a commitment on a completely different level.

That said, it would be possible to assume that the Royces initially rooted for Renly, and only after his death (and Robar's), decided that the second best option was joining Robb.

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

 Presenting Robb as charismatic also look very biased. Why would he been seen as that?

He's a fourteen year old boy who managed to call his father's banners and, on his own, lead an army to free him. He rides with a domesticated direwolf at his side. He gets to get proclaimed king by Northmen and Riverlords. He begins a series of campaigns and doesn't lose a single battle... You didn't need to meet him to admire the kid. There were people shouting his name even in the streets of King's Landing!

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

First, 6000 men is only a fraction of Vales power (closer to 45000). Nor is it a majority of the Vale in houses. Not even close. Yes, they can mobilize more. But not a majority.

This is like saying that Stark, Lannister, Tully, Arryn, Baratheon, Tyrell, Martell and Greyjoy are only eight houses and their join statements have little weight because they do not repesent the entirety of Westeros.

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Secondly, they failed with their imposing, which is what matters. Otherwise, I can claim that I "impose conditions on president Trump" if I write him a demanding letter, regardless of response.

They failed only because Lyn Corbray shamed them by unsheathing a sword during a parley. The important thing here is that those lords had enough strength to impose conditions to the Lord Protector. Their undecisiveness, taboos about guest rights or lack of cunning are not relevant to the point.

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

The Vale swearing fealty is a delusion. A delusion because of Stark bias and wishful thinking. And a delusion that is intensified by projecting the feelings of some, few houses on the entire Vale and dishonestly running with it, then try to establish is as a fact that "half the major houses in the Vale" wanted Robb and to be a part of his new kingdom.

I think that you take your statement far too far. You may find unlikely, or even extremely improbable, but delusional? Which is the delusional part? That people can swear allegiance to a king from a house that they never had been vassals of? The Riverlords swore fealty to Robb without even pausing to ask Hoster's or Edmure's opinion. If Blackwoods, Brackens and Mallisters were fine with it, why it's "dishonest" to suggest that some of the lords of the Vale had similar feelings?

[Protagoras]

2 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

 

I don't share that view. Regardless of the blood ties between Robert and the Targaryens, little was done to present Robert as the continuation of the Targaryen legacy. He didn't change his name, he never used the three-headed dragon banner, he took the dragon skulls away from the Throne Room... it was purposefully a change of dynasty.  Besides, Viserys and Daenerys were alive and with a greater claim, so crowning Robert could only be justified by rights of conquest.

Not really. Robert still ruled from the same place. He ruled the exact same areas. He held the same titles. He ruled with the same laws. And when a lord paramount stepped up and questioned this, he was easily beatened down by a unified realm. In short, the change of dynasty didn´t mean the change of the monarchy, the Targaryen institution.

A "right of conquest" (I reality there is no such thing, but that is a topic for another time) doesn´t mean old traditions instantly die. And while Robert certainly had the possibility to do changes, he didn´t - maybe because those 300 years of unification and the advantage of less war was seen as advantagous? Or maybe not. But the end result was - Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss

Quote

The Iron Throne seen as default? The Greyjoys have contested this at every opportunity.

They have also been beatened with every opportunity.

Quote

When the Greatjon introduces the idea of seceding from the Iron Throne, he presents elaborate arguments that suggest that it's an idea that is not unusual in the North, and then many others join the proclamation passionately.

I would argue that it is highly unusual and that circumstances more or less forced them to take that rote.

Remember, Robb and his bannermen didn't know that Joffrey was a (Lannister) bastard and in their eyes he was the rightful king. For obvious reasons they couldn't bend the knee to him. It left only Stannis and Renly, but joining them would make Robb a dishonorable traitor, because he thought they didn't have a right to the throne. And peace was never really an option at this point since both sides were too entrenched in their thinking at this point.

So, Greatjon gives a speech that more or less is a traditionalists wet dream and it works due to the circumstances. But I doubt it would have worked otherwise. In general, I think people read too much into it.

Quote

300 years is not that long a time, compared to thousands of years of history as an independent kingdom. If Jon, Eddard and Robert hadn't been in such good terms or had been a little more ambitious, the end of the Targaryen dynasty may have lead to the dissolution of the realm. I'm convinced that there were many people in each realm (specially in the North) that were pushing for this.

I am not. It had been 300 years of relative peace. There were clear advantages with the united kingdom. Fewer wars and conflicts. The Ironborn was no longer a threat due to the consequences it world have for them to face a united realm. Less risk of a Essos attack. And of course, it would only be a matter of time until someone would try to unite it again.

Quote

One thing is to send a second son in Renly's camp to play politics and have one member of the family on his side. If it goes wrong and Renly has a traitor's end, you can blame Robar's youth and say that he went for adventure against the wishes of his father. But Yohn Royce actually calling his banners and fighting for Robb is a commitment on a completely different level.

That said, it would be possible to assume that the Royces initially rooted for Renly, and only after his death (and Robar's), decided that the second best option was joining Robb.

Regardless, my point has been made. The Vale nor the Royces wasn´t throwing themselves over to becoming Robbs vassal. At best, they wanted to join a war against an opponent they disliked.

Quote

He's a fourteen year old boy who managed to call his father's banners and, on his own, lead an army to free him. He rides with a domesticated direwolf at his side. He gets to get proclaimed king by Northmen and Riverlords. He begins a series of campaigns and doesn't lose a single battle... You didn't need to meet him to admire the kid. There were people shouting his name even in the streets of King's Landing!

And that is simply not enough for a vassalage. In addition to Riverlands fractional history and the fact that Robb is the grandson of Lord Hoster we also have the fact that he saved their asses. He came down and beat the shit of their common enemy. Three very, very strong reasons the Riverlords might consider such a move. And I doubt that decision was seen as positive by all.

To compare, we have 5 houses out of 35 who have done something slightly similiar in the Vale. Even if they are willing to throw themselves at Robbs feet (I doubt it), they are still a minority by far.

Quote

This is like saying that Stark, Lannister, Tully, Arryn, Baratheon, Tyrell, Martell and Greyjoy are only eight houses and their join statements have little weight because they do not repesent the entirety of Westeros.

Well, they certainly do not represent the interests of Rowan, Hightower, Mallister, Dustin, Swann, Florent, Celtigar, Yronwood, Redwyne, Marbrand, Crakehall, Rosby, Hunter, Frey, Bracken and all other hundreds of houses.

Not is your example great, since none of the lords declarents are overlords and the only one close to that powerlevel are the Royces. One house. One good example of a house that might think Robb could be their king - maybe, maybe. The rest doesn´t look as invested.

Quote

They failed only because Lyn Corbray shamed them by unsheathing a sword during a parley. The important thing here is that those lords had enough strength to impose conditions to the Lord Protector. Their undecisiveness, taboos about guest rights or lack of cunning are not relevant to the point.

It is.

Because, while Littlefinger won the day on guile, what is a book later left of that alliance? Nothing. Only Royce. He is the person that matters here and the other lords seems to sort of follow his lead. But as soon as they get a better offer, they switch sides easily. That is not the way of someone emotionally invested in Robb as king nor invested in really, really removing Littlefinger. Now, 3 out of 6 of their number looks to be bought by Littlefinger.

So the lesson here is not only about how effective they were, but also how motivated. And they fail hard on that account. On that basis, I draw the conclusion that supporting Robb, maybe as a vassal was as halfheartedly as their attempt to fight Littlefinger tooth and claw. Sounds reasonable, no?

Quote

I think that you take your statement far too far. You may find unlikely, or even extremely improbable, but delusional? Which is the delusional part? That people can swear allegiance to a king from a house that they never had been vassals of? The Riverlords swore fealty to Robb without even pausing to ask Hoster's or Edmure's opinion. If Blackwoods, Brackens and Mallisters were fine with it, why it's "dishonest" to suggest that some of the lords of the Vale had similar feelings?

Delusional comes from that I think (maybe wrongly in some cases, but I have had too many debates about this to not see a pattern) that due to bias, people argue this in bad faith. They think the Starks are so super-awesome that they twist things in order for it to better fit with their superhero narrative of a family that everyone just have to think is so super-awesome as they do. That is dishonest and delusional (because people doesn´t really believe this when forced to think logically on it - they ignore their logic in order to fit their Stark bias. And gets angry when confronted about it, like an alcoholic that refuses to stop drinking and claim everyone else is wrong in pointing it out). Certainly, this doesn´t apply to all posters but if you really think this is about stating their true unbiased opinion, then I have a bridge to sell you.

And as for some of the lords of the Vale had similar feelings - I think i have explained the differences there. And even if we look generously on the text here, it only looks to be one house who might mean it for real. House Royce. And even them have sent double-signals with Robar. So, a gigantic mess with alot of wishful thinking. And it becomes so obvious when you switch the question if the Starks would submit to the Arryns. They you hear speeches about northern nationalism and that no Stark would or should bend etc, etc - completely ignoring that other regions might have similiar thoughts and that the North and the Starks are not special little snowflakes in everything.

Nor does it help when people take this submission for granted, writing biased stories about the Vale more or less being one big place of HUUUUUGE Stark support, who want to bask in the Stark glory, kissing northern feet and only evil Lysa stopped it from happening. It is a problematic narrative which is seldom questioned. Then this story is "improved" by other biased individuals and suddely at least half, no - a large majority want the Starks. For an example in this thread - Adam Yozza writes: "Except we know that right up until the word of the Red Wedding reached them, half the major houses in the Vale, led by Bronze Yohn, were badgering Lysa to join the war on Robb's behalf". This is 100% BS, we certainly not know that and at best we have 5 houses saying something that maybe, maybe can be interpreted that way. And he expressed himself carefully at least when it came to join the northern kingdoms. Others do not. You certainly just took it for granted.

So if you take offence of my harsh words, then maybe it´s time to clean up some Stark bias first? If you can say that some Valelords wants to swear fealty to Robb, then certainly I can call that delusional. I mean, when we are on the topic "taking a statement too far".

[Bernie Mac]

3 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

 

 

I think that you take your statement far too far. You may find unlikely, or even extremely improbable, but delusional? Which is the delusional part? That people can swear allegiance to a king from a house that they never had been vassals of? The Riverlords swore fealty to Robb without even pausing to ask Hoster's or Edmure's opinion. If Blackwoods, Brackens and Mallisters were fine with it, why it's "dishonest" to suggest that some of the lords of the Vale had similar feelings?

Robb was 50% Tully, he was betrothed to a lady from the Riverlands and had just saved Riverrun and many Riverlords, and he also had a rather large army loyal to him. There are a lot of reasons why he was declared King of the Riverlands, reasons which don't really apply to the Vale. A kingdom that has historically been a rival of the North does not seem like it is likely to swear featly to a kingdom it likely sees as inferior. 

What were the options for the Riverlords at Riverrun who did not want to accept Robb as their King? Or the ones who were not present? Robb had a larger Northern army than the Riverlands had and the Frey's were likely very supportive of him being King. 

[HouseVelaryon]

There is no textual evidence at all to support the fact that the Lords of the Vale would have accepted Robb Stark as their liege. Their main purpose for wanting to go to war with the Lannisters had practically nothing to do with Ned's death. It was, as has been pointed out by @Protagoras, the death of their liege at the rumored hands of the Lannisters that made them want to go to war. The Vale was way more likely to side with Renly. Lord Yohn Royce's son was with Renly. They wanted to aid the Starks because they knew between the Vale and the Starks the Lannisters would be trapped given the current placement of all the armies at that point. If they had to choose between Robb and Renly, there is (a little) evidence they would support Renly but no evidence they would support Robb. The Lords of the Vale, who are portrayed to be a quite proud bunch, would not go into supporting Robb as their liege but as their equal. 

This whole thing about everyone being loyal to the starks is way overblown as well. Even the Lords of the Riverlands were pretty much just roped into it out of necessity. Edmure himself didn't seem too happy about having to answer to his nephew. The only reason he had too was because he didn't really have much of an army left and the Frey's, who were at that point the strongest house in the Riverlands, were all too happy to swear to the Starks since they were operating under the assumption that Robb would marry one of them. Brynden Blackfish, I feel, enjoyed Robb being King cause it allowed him to undermine his nephew who should have been his Lord at that point. Had Catelyn not made the stupid decision to kidnap Tyrion which forced Tywin to make war on the Riverlands, I doubt they would have risen in favor of Robb at all even if Ned was executed.