Why are the Rivermen so weak??

[cpg2016]

18 hours ago, Livesundersink said:

There's also the rivers that run through the kingdom hence the name Riverlands, they serve as a strength and weakness. It's hard for enemies to invade but makes it equally hard to defend.

Seriously?

[cpg2016]

The answer isn't fully geographic.  In the WOT5K, they suffer from some not-great generalship from Edmure, who (admirably) wants to defend every vassal and peasant, and thus splits his forces quite widely, and also from the fact that he's a bit of a gloryhound (like all young nobles).

Geographically, the Tully's aren't well situated to defend from attacks from the Westerlands; the rivers are a defensive force multiplier, but most of them are in the eastern portions of the Riverlands.  Additionally, it seems that Westerosi nobles are poorly positioned to react to chevauchee type raids that Clegane and Tywin conduct in the first place.

But most importantly, the Tully's are weak Lords Paramount in general.  They don't exercise strong control over their vassals for the same reason that no Riverland dynasty has ever had real long-term success.  But even more than that, they are uniquely poorly positioned even among previous overlords of the Riverlands.  They have to deal with the Bracken/Blackwood feud, of course, which is a constantly destabilizing element to Riverland politics.  They have a vassal in Harrenhal that may well be wealthier than the Tully's are themselves, and who don't really answer to Riverrun in the first place; their first loyalty is to Kings Landing.  Furthermore, with Hoster incapacitated, it further hurts the ability of the Tully's to demand full levies.

[Lion of the West]

I don't think that the Rivermen are particularly weak. In the Dance of the Dragons the Rivermen almost single-handidly won the war for the Blacks under Tully leadership. In the present series its rather a question of inexperienced leadership together with facing very dangerous foes.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

At the beginning of the war Riverrun was effectively Blitzkrieged. I don’t know if GRRM had this in mind, but it is similar to Germany’s invasion of France in 1941. The French were spread out too thinly, and the Germans just concentrated their forces and punched through. Others have pointed out the geographical problems and Edmure’s weak generalship, but those were probably decisive early on. Tywin was by far a superior general, with a far superior army, and the Riverlands were vulnerable geographically.

I think the problem of the Riverlands was the fundamental flaw in the whole King in the North experiment. The North alone may have stood a chance of independence, being naturally defensible and culturally cohesive, but adding the Riverlands meant giving themselves hundreds of miles of indefensible borders with four of the 7K.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

At the beginning of the war Riverrun was effectively Blitzkrieged. I don’t know if GRRM had this in mind, but it is similar to Germany’s invasion of France in 1941. The French were spread out too thinly, and the Germans just concentrated their forces and punched through. Others have pointed out the geographical problems and Edmure’s weak generalship, but those were probably decisive early on. Tywin was by far a superior general, with a far superior army, and the Riverlands were vulnerable geographically.

I think the problem of the Riverlands was the fundamental flaw in the whole King in the North experiment. The North alone may have stood a chance of independence, being naturally defensible and culturally cohesive, but adding the Riverlands meant giving themselves hundreds of miles of indefensible borders with four of the 7K.

It wasn't unrealistic if the Vale joined with them (as was the reasonable expectation), and if the sensible appeal for an alliance with Balon paid off.

In that case the border would only have been with the West and the South, which changes the equation significantly.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It wasn't unrealistic if the Vale joined with them (as was the reasonable expectation), and if the sensible appeal for an alliance with Balon paid off.

In that case the border would only have been with the West and the South, which changes the equation significantly.

True. Still, both big assumptions that didn’t come to pass.

I wasn’t really criticizing the decision, as it was a decision that was kind of thrust upon Robb. The North (led by Greatjon) called for independence, and the Riverlords joined in. All that he could do (once he accepted) was aim to fight and win the war and form alliances (with the Vale, with Greyjoy, with Renly). My point was though, that the inclusion of the Riverlands in the kingdom made it much less likely to succeed.

Robb couldn’t have just declared independence and marched away leaving the Riverlords to fend for themselves though.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

3 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

True. Still, both big assumptions that didn’t come to pass.

I wasn’t really criticizing the decision, as it was a decision that was kind of thrust upon Robb. The North (led by Greatjon) called for independence, and the Riverlords joined in. All that he could do (once he accepted) was aim to fight and win the war and form alliances (with the Vale, with Greyjoy, with Renly). My point was though, that the inclusion of the Riverlands in the kingdom made it much less likely to succeed.

Robb couldn’t have just declared independence and marched away leaving the Riverlords to fend for themselves though.

What Robb should have done was decisively declare for Stannis before the Greatjon had a chance to open his big mouth. Then they would have openly been able to work with Stannis and trap Tywin properly so he couldn’t reinforce King’s Landing.

[Adam Yozza]

3 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

What Robb should have done was decisively declare for Stannis before the Greatjon had a chance to open his big mouth. Then they would have openly been able to work with Stannis and trap Tywin properly so he couldn’t reinforce King’s Landing.

Except Robb himself was undecided on that. He wanted to declare for Stannis, but at that point in time Stannis hadn't claimed the Throne and the only alternative was Renly; who's claim was extraordinarily weak.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

22 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Except Robb himself was undecided on that. He wanted to declare for Stannis, but at that point in time Stannis hadn't claimed the Throne and the only alternative was Renly; who's claim was extraordinarily weak.

Eddard was prepared to declare for Stannis without hearing anything from the man regarding his intentions. Robb could have made the first move and put the North and Riverlands into Stannis’s hands. Maybe he would have decided not to depend so much on Melisandre if that had happened.

[Pukisbaisals]

On 2017-12-14 at 2:58 AM, Traverys said:

A World of Ice and Fire tries to address this.

"No other land in the seven kingdoms have seen so many battles, no so many petty kings and royal houses rising and falling. The causes of this are clear: Rich and fertile, the Riverlands border on every other realm in the Seven Kingdoms save Dorne, yet have few natural boundaries to deter invasion."

I agree.

And Tullys were never the Kings in contrary to Starks, Lannisters, Arryns. They ruled Riverlands only as vassals under Targaryens. So in the War of the five kings Tully's also were  followers, not leaders  - they only chose to follow Stark King instead of Lannisters. It seems that riverlords don't support Tullys as fervently as western lords support Lannisters or northmen Starks.

BTW, Tyrells were in similar position, only Reach was spared by war, so their weakness as  rulers of Reach was never revealed.

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

On 15/12/2017 at 3:04 PM, Floki of the Ironborn said:

What Robb should have done was decisively declare for Stannis before the Greatjon had a chance to open his big mouth. Then they would have openly been able to work with Stannis and trap Tywin properly so he couldn’t reinforce King’s Landing.

That argument makes sense, knowing what we know, but at the time it would have been a very strange move. 

Robb didn’t think Stannis had a legitimate claim to the throne. He still thought Joffery and Tommen were Robert’s sons. He wanted to punish Joffery for murdering Ned, but wasn't convinced of the legitimacy of wiping out the entire dynasty.

Even if Robb's calculations were to be purely pragmatic, rather than based upon the legitimacy of all the candidates, Stannis would not have seemed like the best option. Renly had the larger army.

On 15/12/2017 at 6:29 PM, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Eddard was prepared to declare for Stannis without hearing anything from the man regarding his intentions. Robb could have made the first move and put the North and Riverlands into Stannis’s hands. Maybe he would have decided not to depend so much on Melisandre if that had happened.

Yes, but only because he knew Stannis was the legitimate heir. Robb didn't know that.

To have declared for Stannis at that juncture would have been to declare for the weakest candidate, with little more legitimacy than Renly and less than Joffery/Tommen. It's only now we know that Stannis would have defeated Renly and become the strongest, and it's only because we have a reader's overview that we know he had a legitimate claim to the throne.

Supporting Stannis would have been a brilliant move, in retrospect.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

On 15/12/2017 at 6:59 PM, Pukisbaisals said:

It seems that riverlords don't support Tullys as fervently as western lords support Lannisters or northmen Starks.

There's not a huge amount of evidence for this. True, the Freys betrayed the Tullys, but then the Boltons betrayed the Starks. We see no evidence that the Riverlords were less keen on following the Tullys during the war. Most only bend the knee after Robb and his bannermen are slaughtered. Most Northern houses did the same. 

[direpupy]

On 12/14/2017 at 1:58 AM, Traverys said:

Edmure is kind of a controversial person to discuss. I think it boils down to that he's an admirable, nice guy, but not particularly gifted with a strategic mind. Spurred on by thoughts of battle glory, he took a liberal interpretation of Robb's instructions at the behest of his advisors. Like you said, repelling Tywin seems like a victory on his part but really a tragic mistake. This allowed Tywin to avoid Robb's trap in the Westerlands and instead redirect his army to King's Landing where he crushed Stannis. I didn't pick up on all of this until reading Race for the Iron Throne's chapter-by-chapter political analysis on my last reread. Up until that I really liked Edmure... now I don't hate him but I kinda face palm. But what I like about it is that the mistakes fits with his character. We see from the beginning that he doesn't make the most sound decisions regarding strategy when he gives peasants refuge in Riverrun. So I feel like the mistake at least ties into his characterization.

Robb's instructions where vague and in truth the mistake was made by Robb and the Blackfish by not informing Edmure of there planned trap.

It actually led to me viewing both Robb and the Blackfish in a negative light because they blamed Edmure for there own mistake, a sign of petty childishness on Robb's part and weakness of character on the part of the Blackfish.

[Bullrout]

The Freys are not weak.  They fought bravely for Robb.

[Adam Yozza]

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

Robb's instructions where vague and in truth the mistake was made by Robb and the Blackfish by not informing Edmure of there planned trap.

It actually led to me viewing both Robb and the Blackfish in a negative light because they blamed Edmure for there own mistake, a sign of petty childishness on Robb's part and weakness of character on the part of the Blackfish.

Except that the trap wasn't planned until they were already in the west. They didn't have come up with that plan until after Oxcross. So how exactly could they inform Edmure of the plan? A raven or rider carried the risk of being intercepted and the plan exposed so they couldn't risk it, not when the plan was already risky as hell anyway. So Robb told Edmure to hold Riverrun, expecting that he would literally hold the castle. Instead, Edmure chose to defend all of Riverrun's lands too.

Also what part of 'Hold Riverrun' was vague?

It was a misunderstanding. Neither side was without blame and while Robb and the Blackfish probably shouldn't have been that harsh towards Edmure, that's most likely down to the stress of the entire situation rather than childishness or weakness of character.

[Adam Yozza]

9 minutes ago, Bullrout said:

The Freys are not weak.  They fought bravely for Robb.

So did the Blackwood's, Bracken's, Mallister's, Vance's, Piper's and Darry's. Only those houses didn't then turn around and betray the man they'd declared King.

My personal hatred of the Frey's aside, no they are not 'weak' nor are the other Riverlords. With the exception of Frey, they got dealt a really bad hand at the start of Wo5K's

[direpupy]

1 minute ago, Adam Yozza said:

Except that the trap wasn't planned until they were already in the west. They didn't have come up with that plan until after Oxcross. So how exactly could they inform Edmure of the plan? A raven or rider carried the risk of being intercepted and the plan exposed so they couldn't risk it, not when the plan was already risky as hell anyway. So Robb told Edmure to hold Riverrun, expecting that he would literally hold the castle. Instead, Edmure chose to defend all of Riverrun's lands too.

Also what part of 'Hold Riverrun' was vague?

It was a misunderstanding. Neither side was without blame and while Robb and the Blackfish probably shouldn't have been that harsh towards Edmure, that's most likely down to the stress of the entire situation rather than childishness or weakness of character.

No they planned it before they went west, actually the whole reason to go into the west in the first place was because of this plan.

And defend Riverrun why would that not include defending the lands sworn to it? The instructions where vague so Edmure had to interpret them.

How you deal with stress say's a lot about you, Robb responded childish not wanting to admit that it was his own fault, and in the case of the Blackfish an experienced man to blame someone else instead of owning up to his mistake is weakness.

[Stormking902]

On 14/12/2017 at 2:12 PM, Freys Injustice said:

Everything   seems to happen in their backyards every. single. time. Also weak leadership by the Tullys.

If they wanted to, they could easily be the dominant force in the 7k due to their location and proximity to king’s landing.

Instead they rely on strategic marriages to hold their heads above water.

I think Aegon rose up the wrong house to rule the river lands.

Why? the Tully's historically have been great leaders and respected by ALL there bannerman save the Freys but only because Hoster openly mocked him every chance he had to do so. Edmure is weak at strategy but loves his people which isn't a flaw IMO just not a great leader for war time since sometimes hard decisions are needed to be made where smallfolk die by the thousands and Edmure aint that guy but his uncle who is a Tully is that kind of man.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

Robb's instructions where vague and in truth the mistake was made by Robb and the Blackfish by not informing Edmure of there planned trap.

It actually led to me viewing both Robb and the Blackfish in a negative light because they blamed Edmure for there own mistake, a sign of petty childishness on Robb's part and weakness of character on the part of the Blackfish.

I'm glad someone else thinks this way, when I read that I was really annoyed on Edmure's behalf. Granted, he didn't follow the exact letter of what Robb told him, but Robb owes his most powerful bannerman an explanation of what his plans are. There's no logical reason for not telling Edmure exactly what's expected of him and why. 

I've always thought that Edmure's far too done down by other characters (although, tbf, I myself am a well-meaning but incompetent younger brother, so I'm biased). 

[Adam Yozza]

15 minutes ago, direpupy said:

No they planned it before they went west, actually the whole reason to go into the west in the first place was because of this plan.

And defend Riverrun why would that not include defending the lands sworn to it? The instructions where vague so Edmure had to interpret them.

How you deal with stress say's a lot about you, Robb responded childish not wanting to admit that it was his own fault, and in the case of the Blackfish an experienced man to blame someone else instead of owning up to his mistake is weakness.

The plan was not made before they went West. The point of going west was to defeat the host at Oxcross before it had a chance to march against them. The idea of drawing Tywin back into the west and trapping him there came up later.

That's why I said it was a misunderstanding. Robb's instuctions weren't vague, Edmure just took them to mean something different than what Robb intended him to take them as. "Hold Riverrun" were Robb's instructions and he meant literally that, 'hold Riverrun' as in the castle. Edmure interpreted it to mean defend everything against Tywin.

Except they didn't see it as their mistake, mostly because it wasn't just their mistake. Edmure was at fault too. That's the point. If they knew they had made a mistake and refused to take the blame for it is one thing. Look at it from Robb's point of view. You go and destroy this new host that's being raised, then come up with a clever plan to trap Tywin in the West. So you tell your uncle to hold his castle and start raiding the westerlands, drawing your enemy in and then...nothing. He never arrives. So you go back to Riverrun and find out that your uncle has prevented Tywin from crossing and that Tywin was then able to go and save King's Landing. Who's fault does that look like to you?