Rebellion in the Westerlands?

[falcotron]

47 minutes ago, SUPCOM0356 said:

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.

Apologies to you as well. You're not making that argument, but Dorian Martell's son is, and I mixed the two of you up.

I think we do disagree on one minor matter:

54 minutes ago, SUPCOM0356 said:

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.

Yes, but there's almost certainly some kind of limit to what they can do. We don't know what exactly that limit is, but there's no European country where it would be legal to punish the nephews and cousins of a lord for that lord refusing to pay his taxes. Even if you attaint a lord and execute him as a traitor, the "stain of blood" only applies to his children.* So, Tywin taking some action on his father's behalf is one thing; Tywin killing an entire family in revenge or to send a message is another.

But beyond that issue, I think we're in agreement on everything else. We know lieges do have some legal power, not just practical power, even if we don't know the details. We know practically Tywin could have gotten away with what he did, because he did it, and he got away with it. Dorian Martell's son claimed that what Tywin did was "legal justice", and that's why Tywin's vassals respect him. You and I might differ on whether the first half of that is pushing the line or over the line, but I think we agree that the second half is wrong—Tywin's vassals respect him is simply that they know what he'll do if they cross him.

---

* And even then, they usually have a choice to just decide there is no inheritance to claim, rather than claiming it and being executed for it.

 

[falcotron]

52 minutes ago, SUPCOM0356 said:

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.

One thing they might do is just not send any more men when (whoever's in charge of the West this week) demands it. They could probably get away with that without being seen as dishonorable or rebellious. Even if Westeros doesn't have the specific contracts and traditions that, say, 15th century France did, you can't really expect a lord to vassal up more men while his existing obligation is still active, and has been for well over a year.

Under Tywin, there was still a major practical risk to doing anything like that—he was strong enough that he might well compel most of your neighbors to raise troops and then win, after which he'd be very unhappy with the few who didn't comply. It really wouldn't be safe to displease Tywin unless you were willing to go to full-on rebellion in hopes of removing and replacing him.

But if there's nobody like Tywin to succeed him, that's a different story.

[Lord Varys]

59 minutes ago, SUPCOM0356 said:

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.

I don't think another house can hope to seize power in the Rock or Lannisport. There are more than enough adult Lannisters around to manage and control their own holdings. However, it is quite likely that those people won't be able to assert the same kind of authority over the other Lords of the West.

Daven is the Warden of the West but he isn't in the West. And Damion is only castellan of Casterly Rock. That gives him authority over the Rock and its adjacent lands, but not over other Lords of the West.

59 minutes ago, SUPCOM0356 said:

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?

Jaime is missing in action right now and Cersei is, well, not at home right now. Jaime might quickly be considered not only missing but actually dead, and it might take a while until he resurfaces. And if Cersei eventually ends up fleeing KL she might be rumored to be dead, too.

I'm talking about a scenario after Tommen and/or Myrcella's death and after Aegon has taken the Iron Throne. The Lords of the West will then have to decide whether they acknowledge Aegon as their king and bent the knee or continue to oppose him without a pretender/claimant of their own. For those Lords of the West - like, possibly, the Plumms - who only turned against Aerys II because they followed the lead of the great Lord Tywin because at heart they were Targaryen loyalists this would be the moment they can begin to think thoughts of their own.

This wouldn't be them being turncloaks, either. It would them choosing a king of their own while the nominal great house of the region is effectively incapacitated.

A good example would be the situation in the Riverlands and the Reach during the Dance. The Tullys effectively stayed out of the war at first because Elmo Tully defied his lordly grandsire, resulting in the various Riverlords declaring for the Greens and the Blacks as they saw fit. A similar thing happened in the Reach where the Tyrells stayed out of the conflict because Lord Tyrell was still a young boy. There the Hightowers led the Greens while many powerful houses declared for Rhaenyra.

I imagine a similar thing to happen now all across the Realm - there must be Targaryen loyalists everywhere. We know they are in the Riverlands and the Reach - not to mention Dorne - but to smaller degrees there must be some in the West, the Stormlands, the Vale, and even the North. I don't expect any Northmen rallying to Aegon's banner but when he sends forth his ravens from Storm's End many lords and knights all across the Realm will join him. Rhaegar's son returning from death and defeating his enemies in the field is too great a miracle to be ignored, especially in those stressing times.

[falcotron]

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm talking about a scenario after Tommen and/or Myrcella's death and after Aegon has taken the Iron Throne. The Lords of the West will then have to decide whether they acknowledge Aegon as their king and bent the knee or continue to oppose him without a pretender/claimant of their own.

Yeah, after Aegon has won, and especially if House Lannister is in abeyance (that is, nobody can find a valid heir to the house), there's barely even an option anymore.

Of course it's not impossible to fight on even when you have no pretender, no claim to independence, and no interest even in forming a republic, but you need something pretty compelling to keep people fighting when the end goal is "When we beat him… well, he's still the only possible rightful king, but hopefully he'll have learned his lesson, damnit". (The most obvious example of something sufficiently compelling is making him sign the Magna Carta as part of a peace treaty.)

But if Dany shows up before they've all sworn to Aegon and whoever he appoints as the new Lord Paramount, then we easily could see people fighting on both sides. After all, GRRM did say there will be "something like a Dance 2.0".

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Yeah, after Aegon has won, and especially if House Lannister is in abeyance (that is, nobody can find a valid heir to the house), there's barely even an option anymore.

Oh, I think Cersei will eventually get back to the West with Euron's help and set things right there, but that's likely going to happen in the more distant future. And it is not that unlikely that most of the Lords of the West stay out of the coming struggles. They have bled enough, after all. But some lords positively inclined to the Targaryens might bestir themselves. The Plumms first among those. There must be a reason why we got some of them in AFfC.

12 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Of course it's not impossible to fight on even when you have no pretender, no claim to independence, and no interest even in forming a republic, but you need something pretty compelling to keep people fighting when the end goal is "When we beat him… well, he's still the only possible rightful king, but hopefully he'll have learned his lesson, damnit". (The most obvious example of something sufficiently compelling is making him sign the Magna Carta as part of a peace treaty.)

Yeah, that's the reason why it is quite likely that the end of Tommen/Myrcella - or perhaps even the public revelation of their true parentage - is likely going to be a crushing blow to Lannister ambition. They might still participate in the war but no longer as a leading power with royal aspirations.

12 minutes ago, falcotron said:

But if Dany shows up before they've all sworn to Aegon and whoever he appoints as the new Lord Paramount, then we easily could see people fighting on both sides. After all, GRRM did say there will be "something like a Dance 2.0".

Oh, when Dany comes many people could defect from Aegon to Daenerys. She has dragons, after all. But for the whole thing to make sense we first have to have essentially all or at least most of the Realm rediscover their Targaryen loyalties. And Aegon will be helping with that.

People usually oversee or ignore how many people loved and adored Rhaegar. Afterwards, the Targaryens were gone but people didn't hate or forget them. And the very idea that one of them - Rhaegar's son, no less - might still be alive is going to open mental floodgates in the minds of many people.

Aegon should essentially sit the Iron Throne a few weeks after he takes Storm's End.

[SUPCOM0356]

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

Yes, but there's almost certainly some kind of limit to what they can do. We don't know what exactly that limit is, but there's no European country where it would be legal to punish the nephews and cousins of a lord for that lord refusing to pay his taxes. Even if you attaint a lord and execute him as a traitor, the "stain of blood" only applies to his children.* So, Tywin taking some action on his father's behalf is one thing; Tywin killing an entire family in revenge or to send a message is another.

Actually i dont think we really disagree then. I’d personally say you’re probably right that the killing of the entire family probably goes well beyond the letter of the law (and that’s probably true in almost any case). But there’s definitely a legal framework for, as you said, some kind of action even if what Tywin did was unreasonable he still was likely in the right of taking some action initially and it wasn’t completely the liege House just doing whatever they wanted. And its Tywin’s pushing the letter of the law that made him dangerous because even if he went beyond the letter of the law he still had some basis in the legal framework of the realm. Which, i think, would be in keeping with his character: twisting the legal framework to suit his will while at the same time asserting it to protect himself against that same legal framework.

 

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

But if there's nobody like Tywin to succeed him, that's a different story.

Absolutely true. I’d say them being cautious and not immediately responding to whoever claims to be the “Lord of the Week” could actually be likely, and perhaps if this is what’s meant be “rebellion” then I could surely see that as a realistic possibility.

[SUPCOM0356]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm talking about a scenario after Tommen and/or Myrcella's death and after Aegon has taken the Iron Throne. The Lords of the West will then have to decide whether they acknowledge Aegon as their king and bent the knee or continue to oppose him without a pretender/claimant of their own. For those Lords of the West - like, possibly, the Plumms - who only turned against Aerys II because they followed the lead of the great Lord Tywin because at heart they were Targaryen loyalists this would be the moment they can begin to think thoughts of their own.

Here’s a question: do we actually think Aegon will manage to take the Iron Throne? Supposing he does rally lords to his banner, which is likely since I’m sure most were not disloyal to House Targaryen necessarily, everyone just knew the Mad King was...well Mad...and supported Robert 1) due to his claim to the throne being tied to having some Targaryen blood and 2) the realm probably preferred peace with the Baratheon king to more war. Do we think that Aegon will be able to claim the Iron Throne before Dany returns to Westeros? Or will he even be successful in gaining enough support to take it at all in the first place? He certainly does have some obstacles to overcome. Though I must admit on a personal note, the prospect of a Dance of Dragons 2.0 does seem rather exciting (much more so than the horrendous tailspin that the TV show has taken the end of the series down in, at any rate)! 

[Lord Varys]

40 minutes ago, SUPCOM0356 said:

Here’s a question: do we actually think Aegon will manage to take the Iron Throne? Supposing he does rally lords to his banner, which is likely since I’m sure most were not disloyal to House Targaryen necessarily, everyone just knew the Mad King was...well Mad...and supported Robert 1) due to his claim to the throne being tied to having some Targaryen blood and 2) the realm probably preferred peace with the Baratheon king to more war.

Well, half the Realm fought the Targaryens until the Trident - and even afterwards Aerys II still had thousands of loyalists with him in KL. Once Rhaegar and Aerys II died the war sort of ended but the Targaryen loyalists in Westeros were just biding their time, just as the Blackfyre loyalists did after the Redgrass Field.

40 minutes ago, SUPCOM0356 said:

Do we think that Aegon will be able to claim the Iron Throne before Dany returns to Westeros? Or will he even be successful in gaining enough support to take it at all in the first place? He certainly does have some obstacles to overcome. Though I must admit on a personal note, the prospect of a Dance of Dragons 2.0 does seem rather exciting (much more so than the horrendous tailspin that the TV show has taken the end of the series down in, at any rate)! 

I'm pretty sure Aegon is going to take the Iron Throne. How large a portion of the Realm he'll effectively control by the time Dany arrives is impossible to say at this point, but I assume it is a pretty good guess that he'll have the largest chunk of the south. The North will remain Stannis' or whoever succeeds him while Euron/Cersei might end up controlling the seas, coastal regions, and possibly the West. Euron should become the main threat Aegon has to face prior to Dany's arrival.

The fact that a Second Dance is supposed to happen is the best hint indicating that Aegon must take the Iron Throne. There must be a reason why Aegon and Dany cannot make common cause, and a good reason for that would be that Aegon simply doesn't need Dany's help because he more or less already controls the Realm.

[Reekazoid]

On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 9:43 PM, falcotron said:

* 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.

Would the Faith of the Seven holding  trials not count as an independent justice system?  

Especially post Wot5K, with the High Sparrow, and the Faith Militant, and the Poor Fellows.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Reekazoid said:

Would the Faith of the Seven holding  trials not count as an independent justice system?  

Especially post Wot5K, with the High Sparrow, and the Faith Militant, and the Poor Fellows.

Nope, that's a justice system controlled by the Faith, and thus just as corrupt as the justice system controlled by the nobles and royals. Taking judiciary power away from the Faith actually was an improvement.

[rotting sea cow]

On 10/6/2017 at 2:23 AM, SUPCOM0356 said:

Here’s a question: do we actually think Aegon will manage to take the Iron Throne?

"A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd"

Prophesies in the HOTU

[rotting sea cow]

On 10/5/2017 at 11:58 PM, Lord Varys said:

I don't think another house can hope to seize power in the Rock or Lannisport. There are more than enough adult Lannisters around to manage and control their own holdings. However, it is quite likely that those people won't be able to assert the same kind of authority over the other Lords of the West.

Are all Lannisters (including those in Lannisport) completely loyal to Tywin's legacy. Isn't there maybe an ambitious distant cousin wanting to replace those arrogant Lannisters at CR?

On 10/5/2017 at 11:58 PM, Lord Varys said:

I imagine a similar thing to happen now all across the Realm - there must be Targaryen loyalists everywhere. We know they are in the Riverlands and the Reach - not to mention Dorne - but to smaller degrees there must be some in the West, the Stormlands, the Vale, and even the North. I don't expect any Northmen rallying to Aegon's banner but when he sends forth his ravens from Storm's End many lords and knights all across the Realm will join him. Rhaegar's son returning from death and defeating his enemies in the field is too great a miracle to be ignored, especially in those stressing times.

The scenario I have in mind is that they simply refuse to provide Cersei with additional troops (this is rebellion) and then they go full Lords Declarant and seek the approval of Aegon to install a puppet at CR. This certainly will help Aegon's cause as he will face less enemies.

We see how complicated can be balancing power among lords in the different regions, why the Westerlands will be so different and follow the Lannisters blindly? If a Stark is restored in Winterfell and tell the northern lords to go fight again in the Riverlands, will they follow?

 

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, rotting sea cow said:

Are all Lannisters (including those in Lannisport) completely loyal to Tywin's legacy. Isn't there maybe an ambitious distant cousin wanting to replace those arrogant Lannisters at CR?

There is no indication that any such Lannisters have enough authority or power to do so. Note that there are a lot of Lannisters of Casterly Rock left - not just Kevan's children and Genna's descendants, but also Damon and Ella Lannister's - who themselves might still be alive, by the way - son Damion (who is now castellan of Casterly Rock) and his two children Lucion and Lanna Lannister. And then there is Stafford's branch - Daven Lannister and his sisters Myrielle and Cerenna Lannister.

The chances that some Lannisters of Lannisport are going to wrest away the Rock from those Lannisters of Casterly Rock we know of is very unlikely.

Especially in light of the fact that Kevan seems to have a residence in Lannisport, too. In the Epilogue he recalls that his wife Dorna Swyft lives there. That indicates that Tywin and Kevan kept a very tight leash on their cousins in the city. It might even be that Kevan was overseeing Lannisport in Tywin's name.

1 hour ago, rotting sea cow said:

The scenario I have in mind is that they simply refuse to provide Cersei with additional troops (this is rebellion) and then they go full Lords Declarant and seek the approval of Aegon to install a puppet at CR. This certainly will help Aegon's cause as he will face less enemies.

I'm not sure that's going fit well together in regards to the time line. News about Aegon are likely to reach the West long before Cersei can get there and try to marshal a new army. And I doubt the Lords of the West are going to back down while Tommen/Myrcella are still alive. The Lannisters were their kings for millennia and now Cersei's children sit the Iron Throne. Turning against them would be completely against their interest.

Once they are dead or deposed or declared bastards things might change, though. Defending a king or queen is one thing, trying to avenge - or pointlessly fight a rebellion against a new one with a better claim - is another.

In that sense I'd not be surprised if Damion is actually going to marshal another army in Tommen's name when the news about Cersei's walk and Kevan's death, etc. arrive - only to then not really do anything with that army when the news about the deaths of the children and Cersei's alleged dead/disappearance/whatever arrive. A pretty big portion of the Westermen should be tired of war, and another portion might end up declaring for Aegon.

1 hour ago, rotting sea cow said:

We see how complicated can be balancing power among lords in the different regions, why the Westerlands will be so different and follow the Lannisters blindly? If a Stark is restored in Winterfell and tell the northern lords to go fight again in the Riverlands, will they follow?

This treason theme gets both predictable and boring when it is repeated too often. That is why I find the idea that Tarly is going to 'pull a Roose or Walder on Mace' a very tiresome idea - or that Yronwoods are going to backstab Arianne and Doran, etc. There should also be some loyal and honest people in this world.

I can see a strong pro-Targaryen movement caused by actual loyalty and fueled by the excitement over Aegon's miraculous return. But that wouldn't then be treason or rebellion but rather, let's say, a popular movement which could also include the great houses - or certain branches of them. The Lannisters and Tyrells are prime candidates for that. Perhaps Mace and Margaery and Loras are going to die. But Garlan and Willas will make different choice - not to mention all those other Tyrells out there. And Margot Lannister and her husband Titus Peake are very likely to join Aegon. They could draw not only other Lords of the Reach but also some Westermen - and perhaps even some Lannisters - to Aegon's banner.

[cpg2016]

On 10/4/2017 at 8:16 PM, Dorian Martell's son said:

o, 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

OK, lets dissect this.  First off, the Riverlands HAS no gold.  Or, rather, I'm sure it does, but the Westerlands is the place with the obscene mineral deposits.  Second, the Lannisters (and Casterlys before them) built their power on the fact that the Rock is a giant gold mine, basically Potosi on steroids (and gold, not silver).

The Reynes asserted themselves by taking advantage of several excellent dynastic marriages (the War of the Wombs) and then exploiting Tytos Lannister's good nature to assert themselves at court.  The same as probably happened a dozen times over the course of the Kingdom of the Rock; weak feudal rulers invite strong vassals to monopolize offices, honors, etc - kind of like Cersei (and Tywin) with Robert Baratheon.

On 10/4/2017 at 8:16 PM, Dorian Martell's son said:

 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? 

They should have about 40,000, based on semi-canon sources and inferring from the numbers given in canon text.  Except it's stated they can only raise ~20,000.  The Freys are stated to be one of the more powerful bannermen in the Riverlands (probably an authorial error) and command 4,000 levies.  Harrenhal is considered one of the richest fiefs in the Seven Kingdoms, not just the Riverlands, which means it should be able to raise at least that many, and likely significantly more.  But lets call it 4,000.  The Tully's shouldn't be raising fewer troops then their bannermen, which means they should be commanding at minimum 5,000 swords.  You are already pushing 12-13,000 men, counting conservatively, and you've barely covered a fraction of the Riverlands.  This is either a massive, massive oversight on the part of GRRM (possible, of course), or there is some structural reason the Riverlands doesn't punch their weight.  A lack of loyalty to the Tully's, and their inability to command that loyalty through wealth or strength of arms or long tradition, would be a good reason.  Maybe the Brackens and Blackwoods always keep some of their levies at home to protect against each other.  Maybe the Mallisters don't because they want to protect against ironborn.  Long story short, the stated army size of the Riverlands is demographically too small, so either chalk it up to the author being wrong and refusing to change it over the decades, or there being some in-story reason.  Political disunity fits the theme of the Riverlands and it's recent history.

The Reach fractures during almost every single major rebellion, and moreso than other regions, excepting Robert's.  Moreover, it is essentially outright stated that most of fAegon's support is coming from the Reach, whose Houses are actively in contact with the Golden Company.  It's also mentioned at least once that the Tyrells are constantly facing down challenges to their supremacy from other Houses who claim a better blood claim to Highgarden (e.g. the Florents).  So yeah, I'll take the textual evidence that even the Tyrells think their claim is "a bit dodgy" and have trouble compelling the same institutional loyalty as the Arryns, Lannisters, and Starks do.

On 10/4/2017 at 8:16 PM, Dorian Martell's son said:

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.   

Right... "one of the reasons".  The WOIAF is explicit that while marriage and the general exhaustion of the Andal push were contributing factors, so was the fact that the Reach and the Rock both had organized central governments (for feudal societies) that were capable of defeating the invaders in battle and then making intelligent peace, marrying their bannermen off (and sometimes their own kids) in order to seal said peace.  Something the noble houses of the Vale (which I should have said instead of "Arryn's") and Riverlands did not have the central authority in place to do.

 

On 10/4/2017 at 8:16 PM, Dorian Martell's son said:

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? 
Seriously,  please, read the books. They contain relevant information to the discussion 

Again, I worded that poorly.  The point I was trying to get across is that what Tywin did was extremely illegal; he called "the banners" without acting asking his father.  The strong implication I got was that the knights that ride with Tywin are the same quasi-legal mercenary company Tywin raises and threatens all his father's vassals with, seeing as he forms a company of 500 knights and is oh-so-conveniently said to ride out against the Reynes and Tarbecks with exactly that same number.

The point being, Tywin didn't build the West.  The Westerlands were there, with all its extreme mineral wealth, long before him.  One weak ruler does not make for the end of a dynasty, as we see.  Tywin had the money before becoming Lord of Casterly Rock, when you claim the Lannisters were powerless and broke to form a truly gigantic mercenary company; the Golden Company itself only boasts 500 knights.  So it's patently impossible that he seized all that money from wealthy vassals; he had it to begin with, and he had it before becoming titular head of House Lannister.

[cpg2016]

On 10/4/2017 at 11:56 PM, SUPCOM0356 said:

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.

Well this is an interesting point.  First off, Lannister dominance is built off the gold of Casterly Rock, which was there before Tywin and will be after.  All he did was stop giving it away like his father did and taking a firm stand.  But more importantly, if Tywin gets credit for "rebuilding" the central government of the Westerlands (obviously the Lannisters exercised power before and still does after his death), shouldn't he get the blame for the devastating war which is wrecking-again the power of the West?  Think about how many lives have been lost for the Westerlands lords; it far outstrips ANY other region, even including the North.  Which means the actual ability of the Lannisters to project force across Westeros has been crippled, which we see because the Lannister/Baratheon regime in Kings Landing is entirely reliant on Tyrell hosts to finish up their war.  Tywin's brutal, ruthless, highly illegal actions may have restored Lannister prestige and finances after Tytos' mismanagement, but his brutal, ruthless, highly illegal actions in precipitating the WOT5K has done equally as much as wreck Lannister fortunes - even in Tytos' day, the West could easily send 10,000 men and 1,000 knights to fight in the War of the Ninepenny Kings; it is highly debatable whether there are 11,000 Westermen bannermen floating around anymore.

On 10/4/2017 at 11:56 PM, SUPCOM0356 said:

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.

So why are you giving Tywin credit for "building" the Westerlands?  If no one was rebelling, and the Lannisters were in charge, what was there to rebuild?

On 10/4/2017 at 11:56 PM, SUPCOM0356 said:

It’s not like he just went around killing his bannerman.

Uh, this is precisely what he did to the Reynes and Tarbecks.  He had zero legal authority to take action against them, which is made explicit in several places, and moreover, the extent of his response was considered excessive.  Moreover, he does it again at the Red Wedding, where he orders at least one Westerling (his bannermen) murdered along with the Northern/Riverlord guests.

On 10/4/2017 at 11:56 PM, SUPCOM0356 said:

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). 

Well here's the thing; IRL, feudal obligations have a fixed term of service.  This is obviously something that has been more or less thrown aside in ASOIAF for logistical reasons, but even so, tens of thousands of productive people have died in Tywin's wars, and the West was the subject of a brief chevauchee by Robb.  So no matter how long his men are required to serve, there is no question that the constant warring is eroding the economic base of the West.  As for prestige - what prestige?  Tywin and his men are fought off their feet in nearly every battle of the WOT5K, leading to the exact opposite of success/prestige.  They only win said war because Tywin is party to violating the most important custom in all of Westeros.  Tywin's military effort, and therefore that of his bannermen, isn't exactly covering itself in glory.

More importantly, I think, is that you see the power of Tywin's legacy when you compare it to Ned.  Ned's vassals are all willing to fight and die, probably hopelessly, to restore his family to their ancestral seat.  You get relatively little of that in the West; who do we see actively campaigning for the Lannister cause, besides Lannisters?  Strongboar, I suppose.  Addam Marbrand.  But most of those lords go home and leave Cersei alone to rule.  Harys Swyft, a toady, is left, I guess.

[Zorg1000]

I don't imagine any type of large scale rebellion happening in the Westerlands, but with Tywin & Kevan dead, Jaime MIA, Daven & Genna potentially dying at a Red Wedding 2.0, Cercei's power taken at the moment, plus crops/livestock/gold taken during Robb's western campaign & winter here, it seems as though the West lacks strong leadership and will be hard to act as a unified force.

[falcotron]

On 10/7/2017 at 9:42 AM, Reekazoid said:

Would the Faith of the Seven holding  trials not count as an independent justice system?  

Especially post Wot5K, with the High Sparrow, and the Faith Militant, and the Poor Fellows.

Not really. The Faith—even under the High Sparrow—doesn't seem to be dealing with contract disputes or burglary accusations or anything like that.

In medieval western Europe, the Catholic Church had authority over canon law, while each kingdom had authority over secular law. But both systems had laws (or precedents) and courts to hear them, so most cases didn't have to go to the local lord or bishop (or above his head to the king or pope). And this isn't just a matter of fairness and justice; it's just ridiculously inefficient for a society of millions of people to handle justice the same way an early iron age society of thousands did, and feudalism's hierarchy really isn't sufficient to solve the problem.

Even if the High Sparrow's ultimate goal is to create a pure theocracy (or a quasi-theocratic commonwealth or something), he'd still need something like the judges and muftis in the Islamic Caliphates for it to count as an independent justice system.

[Endymion I Targaryen]

During FFC and DWD Westermen don't seem to be tired by war and treat Jaime well. In their eyes their lords are the royal family who have the claim to the IT, Starks and Stannis are rebels and Tyrells murdered Lannisters to get the throne.

I think in Winds, Lannister bannermen will show signs of exhaust from the war. A childless Cersei will return to the Rock after Aegon takes King's Landing and proclaim herself Lion queen. The Westerlands will be a kingdom again and ignore calls from Aegon and Daenerys. Respect and fear for house Lannister is still high.

[Castellan]

I think that the Westerland forces must have been weakened by Loras' most recent reckless action which resulted in loss of Lannister forces (according to Aurane's account) and by the preceding battles. What we see of them are by and large still loyal. I would think rebellions would most likely occur in situations of rising wealth and aspirations of some bannerman combined with weak ruling houses, as happened with Tytos. Westeros does seem headed for a tragic chaos but Westerland rebellion doesn't seem a likely part. Warring factions of Lannisters seems the most likely way that sort of trouble would occur.

I have always thought Tyrion and/or Jaime would take over the house forces and neatly deliver them to Dany, if she is smart enough to deal with Lannisters and not seek their heads.