rotting sea cow

Rebellion in the Westerlands?

39 posts in this topic

Will the Westerlands rebel against the Lannisters?

Think about it. The people and lords of the Westerlands have fought and died for the Lannisters. Thousands have died in the big battles of the Camps (Riverrun), Oxcross and Blackwater. Many others have died in minor engagements. The Westerlands have bled considerably. I'm sure no one is happy when the gain is not that clear and even less now that winter has arrived.

Now Tywin Lannister is dead, the Kingslayer is maimed, the Imp is fled.

Also Kevan Lannister is dead and we can be reasonably sure that Devan Lannister and aunt Genna will die in the Riverlands along with a good fraction of the armies accompanying them.

The Lannisters are a spent force (quoting Lady Dustin)

What are the lords with some blood ties to the Reynes and Tarbecks thinking now? What is that 'truculent' lord Farman of Faircastle planning now? Will the Westerlands respond to Cersei call for additional forces?

Discuss

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

we can be reasonably sure that Devan Lannister and aunt Genna will die in the Riverlands along with a good fraction of the armies accompanying them.

 

You are putting as a fact for your theory that these two "will die". Care to explain more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, King Merrett I Frey said:

You are putting as a fact for your theory that these two "will die". Care to explain more?

Because the circumstantial evidence of the Red Wedding v.2 is pretty convincing, and those two are going to the next Red Wedding?  Devan, in fact, is the center of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Because the circumstantial evidence of the Red Wedding v.2 is pretty convincing, and those two are going to the next Red Wedding?  Devan, in fact, is the center of it.

The main family protagonists being dead, injured, displaced or fled are reasonable facts to support the OPs claim. Daven's "all evidence points to this" is not. 

As for the topic, I can't recall any House that may want to rival for supremacy in the region. There may be none. I can be wrong, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the Westerlands rebel against the Lannisters? It’s definitely possible but I just can’t see why they would at this point. Jaime is still alive and even if he is maimed I think he’s still Tywin’s son and respected by the Westermen, and they’d likely follow Cersei out of duty at least for the time being. The Westerlands are still the region that Tywin built and I can’t imagine they’d turn their cloaks that easily. We don’t know the full implications of Kevan’s demise yet but I guess some smart, rebellious house might have just been biding their time until there was some weakness to strike. And even if Genna died, she’s been with the Frey’s for some time so I’m not sure her death would even be relevant to what happened in the Westerlands except for the Westermen seeking revenge if she was assassinated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SUPCOM0356 said:

Why would the Westerlands rebel against the Lannisters? It’s definitely possible but I just can’t see why they would at this point. Jaime is still alive and even if he is maimed I think he’s still Tywin’s son and respected by the Westermen, and they’d likely follow Cersei out of duty at least for the time being. The Westerlands are still the region that Tywin built and I can’t imagine they’d turn their cloaks that easily. We don’t know the full implications of Kevan’s demise yet but I guess some smart, rebellious house might have just been biding their time until there was some weakness to strike. And even if Genna died, she’s been with the Frey’s for some time so I’m not sure her death would even be relevant to what happened in the Westerlands except for the Westermen seeking revenge if she was assassinated. 

What?  The Westerlands are explicitly not the "realm Tywin built".  Admittedly, there is a massive loyalty to the Lannisters in the region, similar to the Starks and Arryns in their kingdoms.  That being said, Tywin may be the guy who has undone all that name brand loyalty, with his ruthless purging of possible rivals.  And while Jaime is a viable heir (if he were willing, which he isn't), Tyrion is explicitly not.  

As for the why - again, Tywin wasn't loved but feared, and his actions towards the Reynes and Tarbecks are the kinds of central overreach that breed resentment.  Additionally, tens of thousands of Westermen have been dying to support Tywin's royal ambitions, and as a kingdom they are likely a spent force for the time being.  Doubtful that anyone "rebels" against the Lannisters, but I could absolutely see some ambitious lord making himself regent or marrying himself into the family and ruling behind the scenes (much like the Reynes did).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

Will the Westerlands rebel against the Lannisters?

not a chance. they were attacked, defeated, then through Tywin's leadership they prevailed. 

23 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

What?  The Westerlands are explicitly not the "realm Tywin built".  

Raines of what? Tywin is why the west is powerful. /thread 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

not a chance. they were attacked, defeated, then through Tywin's leadership they prevailed. 

Raines of what? Tywin is why the west is powerful. /thread 

No, the massive gold and other mineral deposits scattered all over the place are why Tywin is powerful.  It is more correct to say that Tytos was a weak lord and because of that, the Westerlands punched below their weight because of the internal dissension and jockeying.  Much like the Riverlands seems to have fewer men than they should, because the Tully's don't have the tradition of being the ruling House, or how the Reach fractures more notably than the other realms when rebellions occur, because the Tyrell's have relatively little internal clout.

I suggest you.. well, read anything in the lore.  The Westerlands have been an extremely powerful force in Westerosi politics for thousands of years; one of the many reasons they defeat the Andals where the Arryns and Mudd's don't is because they have a strong, unified central polity based on Lannister kingship.

The only reason Tywin's defeat of the Reynes was so incredible is because he did it without the support of Lannister troops (read: it was all highly illegal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

No, the massive gold and other mineral deposits scattered all over the place are why Tywin is powerful.  It is more correct to say that Tytos was a weak lord and because of that, the Westerlands punched below their weight because of the internal dissension and jockeying.  

No, Tywin's ruthlessness is why he has access to the gold of the riverlands. Tytos was weak, and took his kingdom down with him, letting the Reynes assert themselves. The Lannisters rule the west uncontested because of Tywin, and nobody else 

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

 Much like the Riverlands seems to have fewer men than they should, because the Tully's don't have the tradition of being the ruling House, or how the Reach fractures more notably than the other realms when rebellions occur, because the Tyrell's have relatively little internal clout.

 how many men should they have then? And no, the Tully's  have 300 years of being the ruling house of the kingdom of the riverlands. 300 years is plenty of time for a tradition to set. Now, when did the reach fracture? 

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

I suggest you.. well, read anything in the lore.  The Westerlands have been an extremely powerful force in Westerosi politics for thousands of years; one of the many reasons they defeat the Andals where the Arryns and Mudd's don't is because they have a strong, unified central polity based on Lannister kingship.

I suggest you read the lore.
First: The Lannisters married into the invaders, as opposed to the Mudds who defeated the invaders time and time again, until they didn't and were killed off.   
Second: The Arryns WERE ANDALS! They were the invaders and it was Artys Arryn, the first of his name and crowned king of the mountain and vale who defeated the myriad of kings in the vale, even after they had united under the Royces. 

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

The only reason Tywin's defeat of the Reynes was so incredible is because he did it without the support of Lannister troops (read: it was all highly illegal).

Seriously, who do you think did the fighting? Tywin and Kevan? Alone, riding through the Reyne  lands killing everyone they came across, driving them single handedly into their mines, and them while Kevan watched the entrance Tywin with a pick and shovel dug up and redirected an entire river by himself? :rofl:
Seriously,  please, read the books. They contain relevant information to the discussion ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dorian Martell's son said:
1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

The only reason Tywin's defeat of the Reynes was so incredible is because he did it without the support of Lannister troops (read: it was all highly illegal).

Seriously, who do you think did the fighting? Tywin and Kevan? Alone, riding through the Reyne  lands killing everyone they came across, driving them single handedly into their mines, and them while Kevan watched the entrance Tywin with a pick and shovel dug up and redirected an entire river by himself? :rofl:

  Ok, now  that is a funny image!! Would make for a great montage sequence.

 

 I'm pretty sure cpg2016 meant "without the Lannister bannermen", but I like your version better  LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

The Lannisters are a spent force (quoting Lady Dustin)

But that's because the West as a whole are a spent force. Tywin called the banners, and they're still off fighting. Of course all those thousands who died increase the motivation to rebel, but at the same time they decrease the capacity to do so. Even if Jaime sends the armies home, the ones who haven't died have long fulfilled their oaths, and won't be as easy to call back up as soon as they get home.

So, nobody likely has enough of his own men and his vassals' available to pull off a solo coup. And a conspiracy among multiple houses is a lot harder to accomplish. Not impossible, but I don't think it's that likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Reekazoid said:

  Ok, now  that is a funny image!! Would make for a great montage sequence.

 

 I'm pretty sure cpg2016 meant "without the Lannister bannermen", but I like your version better  LOL.

Either way, the heir of the lord paramount is enforcing justice in his kingdom. With bannermen or personal troops, it was legal, because the lord paramount is the law, unless the king intervenes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

Either way, the heir of the lord paramount is enforcing justice in his kingdom. With bannermen or personal troops, it was legal, because the lord paramount is the law, unless the king intervenes 

You're mixing up legality with practicality.

Murdering your vassals isn't legal justice. You can hold a trial and execute them, you can kill them in battle if they're rebelling, and maybe you can kill them if they're caught red-handed at banditry or something. But you can't just kill whoever you want because you're unhappy with them even though your father didn't try and convict them.

Practically, of course, the law doesn't matter, and a lord can do whatever he wants to his vassals unless his own liege intervenes (which is rare). But that's not because the law says so, it's because the law doesn't really matter. You can put your vassals on trial, but you can't put your liege on trial,* even if he's breaking his oaths or whatever other legal standards exist. The only thing you can do is stop paying taxes, or refuse to levy men when requested, or, of course, rise up in rebellion. And you can, practically, do those exact same things when the lord hasn't done anything wrong and you just want to get something out of him, so that doesn't count as a legal recourse.

So, Tywin could definitely get away with what he did. But that's in spite of the law, not because of it.

More to the point, nobody cares that it's legal. His bannermen are afraid to cross him because they knows what he will do, and that he can get away with it. Not because they think it's legal and that's what matters to them. 

---

* Especially in Westeros, where, unlike any real-world medieval country, there is absolutely no independent justice system, so the only person who could hear that trial would be the defendant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

What?  The Westerlands are explicitly not the "realm Tywin built".  Admittedly, there is a massive loyalty to the Lannisters in the region, similar to the Starks and Arryns in their kingdoms.  That being said, Tywin may be the guy who has undone all that name brand loyalty, with his ruthless purging of possible rivals.  And while Jaime is a viable heir (if he were willing, which he isn't), Tyrion is explicitly not.  

As for the why - again, Tywin wasn't loved but feared, and his actions towards the Reynes and Tarbecks are the kinds of central overreach that breed resentment.  Additionally, tens of thousands of Westermen have been dying to support Tywin's royal ambitions, and as a kingdom they are likely a spent force for the time being.  Doubtful that anyone "rebels" against the Lannisters, but I could absolutely see some ambitious lord making himself regent or marrying himself into the family and ruling behind the scenes (much like the Reynes did).

It most surely is still the region Tywin built. Just because the wars may have weakened them, as they have the entire realm except maybe Dorne, doesn’t mean its not still the Westerlands Tywin re-established after his father’s mismanagement. And an ambitious lord taking advantage of the current weakness to marry into the Lannister family to be the “power behind the throne” so to speak is not the same thing as the Westerlands rebelling. Something like that might actually be cause for rebellion. And Tywin might have been feared but he was also respected. It’s not like he just went around killing his bannerman. And Jaime’s willingness to be the heir wouldn’t necessarily prevent the Westerlands from remaining loyal to him and Cersei (especially in military matters). That’s not to say things couldn’t change, my point is simply that based on my own interpretation i dont see it happening at the moment.

And i don’t recall reading anything that would lead me to think that the Westermen think anything more of the various wars than it being their duty to their liege lord and his house. And the “Rains of Castamere” events might well have bred resentment but it doesn’t seem like that is something that’d be an issue for most of his bannerman that have benefited from their lord’s success/prestige (I mean unless there are descendants of the Reynes or Tarbecks floating around out there). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, falcotron said:

You're mixing up legality with practicality.

Murdering your vassals isn't legal justice. You can hold a trial and execute them, you can kill them in battle if they're rebelling, and maybe you can kill them if they're caught red-handed at banditry or something. But you can't just kill whoever you want because you're unhappy with them even though your father didn't try and convict them.

Practically, of course, the law doesn't matter, and a lord can do whatever he wants to his vassals unless his own liege intervenes (which is rare). But that's not because the law says so, it's because the law doesn't really matter. You can put your vassals on trial, but you can't put your liege on trial,* even if he's breaking his oaths or whatever other legal standards exist. The only thing you can do is stop paying taxes, or refuse to levy men when requested, or, of course, rise up in rebellion. And you can, practically, do those exact same things when the lord hasn't done anything wrong and you just want to get something out of him, so that doesn't count as a legal recourse.

So, Tywin could definitely get away with what he did. But that's in spite of the law, not because of it.

More to the point, nobody cares that it's legal. His bannermen are afraid to cross him because they knows what he will do, and that he can get away with it. Not because they think it's legal and that's what matters to them. 

---

* Especially in Westeros, where, unlike any real-world medieval country, there is absolutely no independent justice system, so the only person who could hear that trial would be the defendant.

Is the action actually “illegal” though? In the feudal society that they function in, when the liege House makes a request of a vassal house they are “legally” obligated to comply (at least I believe so, but don’t quote me on that). Both the Reynes and Tarbecks willingly chose not to comply (though Tywin knew full well they would not) and thus could have been considered to be rebellious even if they were not technically in an open rebellion. 

Does Westerosi law actually require a trial for such discipline by liege lord against vassal? Or is there some rule that the punishment should fit the crime? Ultimately it seems like just about anything a liege lord says goes in his own realm as long as it doesn’t directly contradict some edict or ruling from the Iron Throne. With the King being the only one able to say ultimately if i liege lord’s decision was just or unjust in the end. In this case, highly unlikely the king would have objected even if it was “illegal” since Tywin and Aerys were friends and it was this very incident that helped get him his position as Hand of the King. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SUPCOM0356 said:

Is the action actually “illegal” though? In the feudal society that they function in, when the liege House makes a request of a vassal house they are “legally” obligated to comply (at least I believe so, but don’t quote me on that).

Obviously we don't know the substance of Westerosi oaths and precedents, but I would be very surprised if they were legally obligated to comply with any request at all from the liege. If there were, there'd be no point in vassalage in the first place. 

In real-life feudal societies, there are specific things that a liege can demand of his vassals. It's a contract, and there are either legal codes or (in England) precedents that govern such contracts.

Of course beyond what they're obliged to do, he can request anything he wants, but that's just a request, with no more legal force than a request from some random guy. Obviously there's a power imbalance, and a relationship to play on where they each expect to get things out of each other in the future, and so on, so people are obviously more likely to respond to a request from their liege than from some random guy, but that's pragmatic, not legal.

2 hours ago, SUPCOM0356 said:

Both the Reynes and Tarbecks willingly chose not to comply (though Tywin knew full well they would not) and thus could have been considered to be rebellious even if they were not technically in an open rebellion.

Their actual liege, Tytos, obviously didn't think they were in open rebellion.

2 hours ago, SUPCOM0356 said:

Ultimately it seems like just about anything a liege lord says goes in his own realm as long as it doesn’t directly contradict some edict or ruling from the Iron Throne. With the King being the only one able to say ultimately if i liege lord’s decision was just or unjust in the end. In this case, highly unlikely the king would have objected even if it was “illegal” since Tywin and Aerys were friends and it was this very incident that helped get him his position as Hand of the King. 

This is just an argument that lords can get away with whatever they want even if it's against the law, not that nothing they do is against the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lannisters are too numerous to be really challenged by any of their vassals. Remember, even back in Tytos' day the Reynes did not dare presume to usurp the power of Casterly Rock. In the end they rebelled against their liege lord and tried to set themselves up as 'independent lords' but the Red Lion never laid claim to Casterly Rock or Lannisport.

With Cersei and Kevan effectively out of the picture there could break out some sort of struggle for effective control of the West among the Lannister branches in the West. When Tommen and Myrcella are dead and assuming that Daven and Genna never return to the West, there could be some struggle between Damion the castellan and Daven's sisters, say, or somebody could use Kevan's eldest surviving son to set himself as effective ruler of Casterly Rock.

I doubt this kind of thing would last, though. I'm pretty sure Cersei is going to return to Casterly Rock eventually and a raise an army there to crush her enemies. That's the only chance she has got. And if she gets there with Euron's forces she could very well restore order quickly and effectively.

What might happen, though, is that a significant portion of the Lords of the West rediscover their allegiance to House Targaryen in the days and weeks to come. Such men are not likely to rebel against the Lannisters but rather rise hosts of their own to join Aegon's forces in the Riverlands, Stormlands, or Crownlands, thus depleting the Lannisters of strength they might need in the wars to come. With no strong Lannister representative in the West who could command the allegiance of all the lords there would be no one to stop them. Just think of the Plumms who effectively are an unofficial Targaryen cadet branch.

Tywin was a man who controlled the entire West with an iron fist. But he and Kevan are gone. Now the Lords of the West might start think for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, falcotron said:

You're mixing up legality with practicality.

you are failing to understand that the lord paramount is the law. 

14 hours ago, falcotron said:

Murdering your vassals isn't legal justice. You can hold a trial and execute them, you can kill them in battle if they're rebelling, and maybe you can kill them if they're caught red-handed at banditry or something. But you can't just kill whoever you want because you're unhappy with them even though your father didn't try and convict them.

Killing your vassals who kidnap and refuse to repay loans is within the authority of the lord, and the lord is the law 

14 hours ago, falcotron said:

Practically, of course, the law doesn't matter, and a lord can do whatever he wants to his vassals unless his own liege intervenes (which is rare). But that's not because the law says so, it's because the law doesn't really matter. You can put your vassals on trial, but you can't put your liege on trial,* even if he's breaking his oaths or whatever other legal standards exist. The only thing you can do is stop paying taxes, or refuse to levy men when requested, or, of course, rise up in rebellion. And you can, practically, do those exact same things when the lord hasn't done anything wrong and you just want to get something out of him, so that doesn't count as a legal recourse.

The legal recourse would be petitioning the liege of Tywin, which would be the king 

14 hours ago, falcotron said:

So, Tywin could definitely get away with what he did. But that's in spite of the law, not because of it.

again. he is the law 

14 hours ago, falcotron said:

More to the point, nobody cares that it's legal. His bannermen are afraid to cross him because they knows what he will do, and that he can get away with it. Not because they think it's legal and that's what matters to them. 

---

* Especially in Westeros, where, unlike any real-world medieval country, there is absolutely no independent justice system, so the only person who could hear that trial would be the defendant.

also this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, falcotron said:

Obviously we don't know the substance of Westerosi oaths and precedents, but I would be very surprised if they were legally obligated to comply with any request at all from the liege. If there were, there'd be no point in vassalage in the first place. 

In real-life feudal societies, there are specific things that a liege can demand of his vassals. It's a contract, and there are either legal codes or (in England) precedents that govern such contracts.

Of course beyond what they're obliged to do, he can request anything he wants, but that's just a request, with no more legal force than a request from some random guy. Obviously there's a power imbalance, and a relationship to play on where they each expect to get things out of each other in the future, and so on, so people are obviously more likely to respond to a request from their liege than from some random guy, but that's pragmatic, not legal.

I do believe the liege lord has the ability to levy taxes from their vassals (both on behalf of the King as well as themselves). I'd have to imagine that the liege House would have some legal recourse if a vassal was indebted to them financially in some way. And I'd also add that even if there wasn't a law or edict by the Iron Throne, I'd bet the Westerlands definitely would have some edicts or at least precedents on borrowing/repaying funds since that's how the Lannisters maintain their power and prestige. As you pointed out, there's an inherent power imbalance and the vassal would likely respond to any request from the liege regardless of legality but I'd be very shocked if there wasn't some legal framework or basis for collecting on debts owed. Now the nature and severity of the punishment (in this case destroying whole Houses) might be up for debate.

13 hours ago, falcotron said:

Their actual liege, Tytos, obviously didn't think they were in open rebellion.

He obviously did not, but he also wasn't given an opportunity to object to Tywin's actions, and in the absence of explicit direction from the liege lord, his son acting as a representative of his House carried out what I'd assume was a "lawful" act in punishing their House's vassals for open defiance of their liege House including not repaying their debts. Now one could probably argue that this was not legal, but I'm not sure it'd be "illegal" either.

13 hours ago, falcotron said:

This is just an argument that lords can get away with whatever they want even if it's against the law, not that nothing they do is against the law.

Apologies if I was misunderstood, I definitely wasn't trying to argue that liege lords or their Houses were above the law and could do what they wanted. I simply was trying to point to the fact that where there is any gray area in the law, liege lords and their Houses seem to have a lot of latitude in terms of enforcement of "law" within their own realm. If there is a debate as to whether a liege lord is in the right, I'd assume it'd rise to the Iron Throne to determine the dispute. Specifically in the case of the "Rains of Castamere," right or wrong, I just couldn't see the King ruling against Tywin at the time (now if it happened 20 years later, then the King definitely might have ruled against Tywin but then the whole story would be in a much different place haha) and him taking action against defiant vassals does seem within the rights of House Lannister. What might be debatable is his choosing to wipe the defiant house out completely, which could be seen as overkill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

With Cersei and Kevan effectively out of the picture there could break out some sort of struggle for effective control of the West among the Lannister branches in the West. When Tommen and Myrcella are dead and assuming that Daven and Genna never return to the West, there could be some struggle between Damion the castellan and Daven's sisters, say, or somebody could use Kevan's eldest surviving son to set himself as effective ruler of Casterly Rock.

I think some variation of this is far more plausible than the Westermen out right attempting to rebel against House Lannister. I could definitely see some vassals houses or a cadet branch of the family try to assert some degree of control over them. With Tywin and Kevan gone, and us not knowing for sure what role Cersei will play now that the Tyrell's control King's Landing, I would imagine that it'd be plausible that some internal political struggles take place within the Westerlands and House Lannister itself, but rebellion I find to be unlikely.

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What might happen, though, is that a significant portion of the Lords of the West rediscover their allegiance to House Targaryen in the days and weeks to come. Such men are not likely to rebel against the Lannisters but rather rise hosts of their own to join Aegon's forces in the Riverlands, Stormlands, or Crownlands, thus depleting the Lannisters of strength they might need in the wars to come. With no strong Lannister representative in the West who could command the allegiance of all the lords there would be no one to stop them. Just think of the Plumms who effectively are an unofficial Targaryen cadet branch.

Tywin was a man who controlled the entire West with an iron fist. But he and Kevan are gone. Now the Lords of the West might start think for themselves.

Do you really think this could happen? With Cersei and Jaime still alive I find it hard to believe that the Westermen would turn their cloaks that easily. Yes, Jaime is a maimed member of the Kingsguard but he's still Tywin's son and is now basically the only Lannister left with any clout. Now, if Daenerys has time to unleash dragons on any part of Westeros, then it might be possible. I'm still not quite sold on open rebellion from Westerlands lesser houses just yet though. If nothing else, I'd think that the growing strength of the Tyrells, the murder of Tywin and Kevan in King's Landing (both supposedly at the hands of Tyrion), and if Tyrion shows up helping the Targaryens, I'd think the Westerlands would be more likely to unite in hatred over their precarious position which is mostly due to "the Imp," at least in their minds. No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now