Why are the Rivermen so weak??

[Adam Yozza]

7 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

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). 

I don't hate Edmure; really like him actually; but I do have to defend Robb here. As I've mentioned, we've got no evidence of the plan to lure Tywin in being formed until after Oxcross. So how could Robb tell Edmure? By raven? By rider? Both run the risk of being intercepted and if they're intercepted then Tywin learns of his plans. So instead Robb tells Edmure to hold Riverrun, meaning for him to hold the castle. Edmure interprets it differently. That's all. A misunderstanding. Person A tells Person B something they want done but Person B takes those orders differently to how they're meant.

[direpupy]

3 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

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?

Yes it was made before they went into the west, but even if it was not why not send a raven or a rider informing Edmure 

The mistake was solely that of Robb and the Blackfish and they blamed someone else for it not able to own up to there own mess.

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

3 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

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.

We don't know that for certain (I don't think). It could have been planned beforehand, and he didn't tell Edmure, or it was a plan that formed after Oxcross. I think if the plan is so very important, even if it was formed after they headed west, they should have found a way to get the plan to Edmure. 

To be fair, I think it's clear that Edmure did kind of exceed his brief. Cat suggests they should simply hold Riverrun, and Edmure is obviously drawn into battle with Tywin by the idea of glory, and not looking weak in front of his bannermen.

The point is though, that if he had been told the full plan, he would never have done what he did. It was only his being kept in the dark that meant he was able to liberally interpret his orders the way he did. 

[direpupy]

8 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

I don't hate Edmure; really like him actually; but I do have to defend Robb here. As I've mentioned, we've got no evidence of the plan to lure Tywin in being formed until after Oxcross. So how could Robb tell Edmure? By raven? By rider? Both run the risk of being intercepted and if they're intercepted then Tywin learns of his plans. So instead Robb tells Edmure to hold Riverrun, meaning for him to hold the castle. Edmure interprets it differently. That's all. A misunderstanding. Person A tells Person B something they want done but Person B takes those orders differently to how they're meant.

Intercepted by who? 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

5 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

So how could Robb tell Edmure? By raven? By rider?

Difficult but not impossible. If he sent a rider saying "Don't intercept Tywin" without going into details, that would probably be enough, without revealing too much.

Even if Tywin had intercepted the rider (and it's hard to see how he could, he had no men between Robb and Riverrun), I doubt it would have changed his plans.   

[direpupy]

11 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

By the way you do know that to get to Oxcross they actually had to go into the Westerlands to begin with why risk that if you did not have a plan?

Why leave the Riverlands open to Tywin with the bigger army to go after a smaller army that is still being trained and not really a treat at that point?

The plan was made before they went into the Westerlands there is no other reason for them to go into the Westerlands at that point.

[Adam Yozza]

6 minutes ago, direpupy said:

By the way you do know that to get to Oxcross they actually had to go into the Westerlands to begin with why risk that if you did not have a plan?

Why leave the Riverlands open to Tywin with the bigger army to go after a smaller army that is still being trained and not really a treat at that point?

The plan was made before they went into the Westerlands there is no other reason for them to go into the Westerlands at that point.

They went into the west to defeat an army that was still being trained so that they didn't end up caught between two armies.

13 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Difficult but not impossible. If he sent a rider saying "Don't intercept Tywin" without going into details, that would probably be enough, without revealing too much.

Even if Tywin had intercepted the rider (and it's hard to see how he could, he had no men between Robb and Riverrun), I doubt it would have changed his plans.   

Tywin had the Golden Tooth and four thousand men between Robb and Riverrun. Some of that number may have been at Oxcross but certainly not all.

But yeah, difficult but not impossible. But the risk was there. What do you think a smart man like Tywin would have thought he discovered Robb was telling Edmure not to stop him from crossing the Fords?

18 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Intercepted by who? 

By Lannister men. I guess you're forgetting the fact that the Golden Tooth still sat between Robb and Riverrun with Forley Prester's army there.

20 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

We don't know that for certain (I don't think). It could have been planned beforehand, and he didn't tell Edmure, or it was a plan that formed after Oxcross. I think if the plan is so very important, even if it was formed after they headed west, they should have found a way to get the plan to Edmure. 

To be fair, I think it's clear that Edmure did kind of exceed his brief. Cat suggests they should simply hold Riverrun, and Edmure is obviously drawn into battle with Tywin by the idea of glory, and not looking weak in front of his bannermen.

The point is though, that if he had been told the full plan, he would never have done what he did. It was only his being kept in the dark that meant he was able to liberally interpret his orders the way he did. 

We've never been told definitively when the plan was made, no, but Blackfish mentions his scouts finding the location they eventually planned to use against Tywin while scouting in the west. So even if Robb had drawn up the concept of the plan before leaving for Oxcross, he wouldn't have been able to put it in motion until after he was already in the west and had decided if it was feesible or not.

Anyway, I'm not saying Robb was right. He messed up. My only argument is that Edmure is not entirely guilt free; even if he is far less at fault than Robb believes him to be; and that Robb wasn't being 'childish' when he blamed Edmure because from his perspective it was Edmure's fault.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

2 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Anyway, I'm not saying Robb was right. He messed up. My only argument is that Edmure is not entirely guilt free; even if he is far less at fault than Robb believes him to be; and that Robb wasn't being 'childish' when he blamed Edmure because from his perspective it was Edmure's fault.

I'd pretty much agree with that, the rest is largely a quibble over details, for sure. 

[direpupy]

27 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

They went into the west to defeat an army that was still being trained so that they didn't end up caught between two armies.

Nonsense, Robb could have raised the troops that Edmure later raised to fight Tywin to supplement his forces and then catch Tywin between his army and the one under Roose long before this could happen. They decided to go a different route and trap Tywin in the Westerlands, but turning there back on Tywin is stupidity if you do not have a plan to deal with him. So the plan to trap him is from before going into the Westerlands. That or there idiots, but i do not believe that. The Blackfish is an experienced commander who i do not think would have turned his back on Tywin without a good plan to deal with him. Even if i think he is being petty against Edmure latter after the plan fails i do believe the man to be a competent commander.

27 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Tywin had the Golden Tooth and four thousand men between Robb and Riverrun. Some of that number may have been at Oxcross but certainly not all.

Actually most of those men where with they army at Oxcross see this ssm: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1064

27 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

By Lannister men. I guess you're forgetting the fact that the Golden Tooth still sat between Robb and Riverrun with Forley Prester's army there.

Which is why they would have sent them the way they came into Westerlands, you know the path true the mountains that Grey Wind discovered and the Lannisters know nothing about, which is why they could surprise the army at Oxcross to begin with because they could avoid the Golden Tooth entirely. And this is assuming the plan was made after going into the Westerlands which is highly unlikely.

27 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Anyway, I'm not saying Robb was right. He messed up. My only argument is that Edmure is not entirely guilt free; even if he is far less at fault than Robb believes him to be; and that Robb wasn't being 'childish' when he blamed Edmure because from his perspective it was Edmure's fault.

Not being able to see it from any other perspective then his own is childish, although immature is maybe a better word.

But i do agree that even do the instructions where vague enough that Edmure could interpret them the way he did, his ignoring of Cat's opinion was a mistake she knows her son and was therefore in a better position to interpret the instructions.

[Adam Yozza]

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

Nonsense, Robb could have raised the troops that Edmure later raised to fight Tywin to supplement his forces and then catch Tywin between his army and the one under Roose long before this could happen. They decided to go a different route and trap Tywin in the Westerlands, but turning there back on Tywin is stupidity if you do not have a plan to deal with him. So the plan to trap him is from before going into the Westerlands. That or there idiots, but i do not believe that. The Blackfish is an experienced commander who i do not think would have turned his back on Tywin without a good plan to deal with him. Even if i think he is being petty against Edmure latter after the plan fails i do believe the man to be a competent commander.

Actually most of those men where with they army at Oxcross see this ssm: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1064

Which is why they would have sent them the way they came into Westerlands, you know the path true the mountains that Grey Wind discovered and the Lannisters know nothing about, which is why they could surprise the army at Oxcross to begin with because they could avoid the Golden Tooth entirely. And this is assuming the plan was made after going into the Westerlands which is highly unlikely.

Not being able to see it from any other perspective then his own is childish, although immature is maybe a better word.

But i do agree that even do the instructions where vague enough that Edmure could interpret them the way he did, his ignoring of Cat's opinion was a mistake she knows her son and was therefore in a better position to interpret the instructions.

Tywin was on the other side of the Riverlands and staying put because he had to be in a position to move quickly in case either Stannis or Renly attacked. Robb didn't really need to worry about 'turning his back on Tywin' because they'd hear of him coming way before he got there. They went west to deal with Stafford's host and then while in the West came up with a plan to trap Tywin. Robb may have wanted to try something to that effect prior to Oxcross; there is no way to prove this one way or another; but the actual plan was not formed until after Oxcross.

So Forley sent some of his army south to Oxcross, cool. He didn't send them all though. Three quarters at most considering the Tooth is considered to be too heavily fortified for them to take, even when they have a way to get men on both sides. The point still stands that a raven could be shot down and a rider could still be captured; not even just by Lannisters, there's also outlaws to deal with as well. Robb chose not to take the risk and trusted Edmure to follow instructions exactly as they were written. He did not and went beyond his brief. Partly for glory, partly to protect his lands.

Don't forgot that they now know there's a way to get passed the tooth, so they'll be on the lookout now.

Not really. Its not really either childish or immature to be unable to see things from another perspective; more stubborn or ignorant. But given the situation that's not what Robb is acting like. I asked you to look at it from Robb's pov a few posts back. It definitely looks like Edmure's fault from where he's standing (Blackfish too).

[cpg2016]

On 12/15/2017 at 6:33 AM, 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.

You are aware that this in no way resembles the opening of WWII, right?  The exact opposite is the truth - the French were far too concentrated, thinking their defenses along the Maginot Line would be sufficient to protect against an armored attack from Germany, and it was a tactical decision to plow through neutral Belgium & the Ardennes which allowed them to so effectively surprise the French armed forces.

[cpg2016]

9 hours ago, direpupy said:

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 do you make it more specific than "defend Riverrun"?  Should they have listed every single crofter's village that was not to be defended?  Edmure was given one task; it wasn't "defend the Riverlands" or "defend the lands sworn to House Tully".  It was "defend this one, very specifically and unambiguously named castle".

If you want to make the case that those instructions are too vague, and that Edmure's actions can be interpreted as following those instructions, then you can excuse literally anything.  Maybe he should have abandoned the castle entirely to attack Dorne... after all, Dorne might intervene on the side of the Lannisters, just as allowing Tywin to cross the fords might have endangered Riverrun (the only justification for Edmure's actions).

He's a 20-something year old man in a martial aristocracy.  He wants military glory, because that is the most important thing a noble in this society can achieve.

[direpupy]

15 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Tywin was on the other side of the Riverlands and staying put because he had to be in a position to move quickly in case either Stannis or Renly attacked. Robb didn't really need to worry about 'turning his back on Tywin' because they'd hear of him coming way before he got there. They went west to deal with Stafford's host and then while in the West came up with a plan to trap Tywin. Robb may have wanted to try something to that effect prior to Oxcross; there is no way to prove this one way or another; but the actual plan was not formed until after Oxcross.

Robb could not trust that Tywin would stay put, there was no way to know wen or if Stannis or Renly would attack, turning his back on Tywin had the danger that Tywin would act against him to deal with him before turning back to defend Kings Landing. Not having a preset plan while leaving yourself open like that is not something an experienced commander like the Blackfish would do. So i disagree that the plan was after Oxcross it just does not make any sense.

15 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

So Forley sent some of his army south to Oxcross, cool. He didn't send them all though. Three quarters at most considering the Tooth is considered to be too heavily fortified for them to take, even when they have a way to get men on both sides. The point still stands that a raven could be shot down and a rider could still be captured; not even just by Lannisters, there's also outlaws to deal with as well. Robb chose not to take the risk and trusted Edmure to follow instructions exactly as they were written. He did not and went beyond his brief. Partly for glory, partly to protect his lands.

Don't forgot that they now know there's a way to get passed the tooth, so they'll be on the lookout now.

 That they could not take the Tooth i never disputed, what i do dispute is that no message could be sent. Even if they are on the lookout they never found how Robb got in, because if they did they would have sent troops to block the goat path and trap Robb in the Westerlands, that this did not occur means Robb kept they way he came in open and could have easily sent a message.

Outlaws do not change that you just sent a group of riders if you fear outlaws stopping your message, and this was certainly a message worth sending multiple men for.

15 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Not really. Its not really either childish or immature to be unable to see things from another perspective; more stubborn or ignorant. But given the situation that's not what Robb is acting like. I asked you to look at it from Robb's pov a few posts back. It definitely looks like Edmure's fault from where he's standing (Blackfish too).

I disagree Robb's inability to see things from more then one perspective clearly shows his youthful inexperience, which in my opinion shows how immature he still is. But remember he is what 15/16 at this point, yes i think he is immature and childish but under the circumstances and taking his youth in to account it is understandable. As to the Blackfish, him putting blame on Edmure is my real disappointment and if you look at the rest of what he does actually seems out of character for him.

9 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

How do you make it more specific than "defend Riverrun"?  Should they have listed every single crofter's village that was not to be defended?  Edmure was given one task; it wasn't "defend the Riverlands" or "defend the lands sworn to House Tully".  It was "defend this one, very specifically and unambiguously named castle".

If you want to make the case that those instructions are too vague, and that Edmure's actions can be interpreted as following those instructions, then you can excuse literally anything.  Maybe he should have abandoned the castle entirely to attack Dorne... after all, Dorne might intervene on the side of the Lannisters, just as allowing Tywin to cross the fords might have endangered Riverrun (the only justification for Edmure's actions).

He's a 20-something year old man in a martial aristocracy.  He wants military glory, because that is the most important thing a noble in this society can achieve.

I will repeat my question earlier in the tread, why would defend Riverrun not include defending the lands sworn to it? Your example of Dorne is way off point, you are talking about Edmure attacking something while his actions against Tywin where defensive in nature.

At most you can blame him for not listening to Cat who knowing her son interpreted his instructions the way he meant them, and told him to just defend the castle.

[Traverys]

On 12/15/2017 at 0:59 PM, Pukisbaisals said:

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.

 

To add on to your point, The Reach has had a long history of choosing diplomacy and trade over war. Furthermore, as you imply the Riverlands have a central location and have often been used as a battleground and so they usually haven't had much choice in avoiding wars or skirmishes that occur. They end up in the crossfires and are forced to pick sides.

 

On 12/18/2017 at 5:49 AM, 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.

Eh... "Hold Riverrun" is fairly straight forward. Tywin never told more people than those who needed to know about his strategies, why should Robb do any differently? So why is it that Tywin's men would follow his instruction's "to a T" (pun?)? I don't have an answer but I imagine it falls into the realm of Edmure not respecting Robb the way he should his king.

Regardless, to use analogy, if I tell students to write a paper (or something similar), I expect them to know not to copy and paste it off the internet, not to use pencil if they are handwriting it, to use black ink on white paper, to use a legible font, etc., etc.  Just because Robb didn't sit down and baby/hand feed Edmure (a grown man) doesn't mean Robb is liable for all the instructions he didn't give him. The fact that Edmure needs this kind of specificity in times of war (when people's entire family trees are at stake) speaks more about Edmure than it does about Robb of the Blackfish. He chose to take a liberal interpretation because he sought to cloak himself in glory and make himself known as a soldier to the realm at large.

You see this distinguishing feature between nobles who have actually fought in war and those who have not. The "knights of summer." Edmure is still drunk on the same tales of honor and glory that a young Sansa Stark was, and he never felt the brunt of it until his family was slain while he was bedding his wife. Now, I'm sure he has a much different opinion about war and the empty brand of glory it has to offer. Not everyone is a Robert Baratheon. We know Edmure has a big heart, so I imagine he's tasted the wine of war and is left with a bitter taste at his own naivete.

I'm not dumping the blame on Edmure. That's childish. I'm just holding him accountable for his share of it. It's an interaction of bad decisions and betrayals by multiple people that led to the North's defeat.

[direpupy]

25 minutes ago, Traverys said:

Eh... "Hold Riverrun" is fairly straight forward. Tywin never told more people than who needed to know about his strategies, why should Robb do any differently?

Regardless, to use analogy, if I tell students to write a paper (or something similar), I expect them to know not to copy and paste it off the internet, not to use pencil if they are handwriting it, to use black ink on white paper, to use a legible font, etc., etc.  Just because Robb didn't sit down and baby/hand feed Edmure (a grown man) doesn't mean Robb is liable for all the instructions he didn't give him. The fact that Edmure needs this kind of specificity in times of war (when people's entire family trees are at stake) speaks more about Edmure than it does about Robb of the Blackfish. He chose to take a liberal interpretation because he sought to cloak himself in glory and make himself known as a soldier to the realm at large.

You see this distinguishing feature between nobles who have actually fought in war and those who have not. The "knights of summer." Edmure is still drunk on the same tales of honor and glory that a young Sansa Stark was, and he never felt the brunt of it until his family was slain while he was bedding his wife. Now, I'm sure he has a much different opinion about war and the empty brand of glory it has to offer. Not everyone is a Robert Baratheon. We know Edmure has a big heart, so I imagine he's tasted the wine of war and is left with a bitter taste at his own naivete.

I'm not dumping the blame on Edmure. That's childish. I'm just holding him accountable for his share of it. It's an interaction of bad decisions and betrayals by multiple people that led to the North's defeat.

If you read my subsequent post after the one you quoted you will see that i do not absolve Edmure of all the blame, but i stand by they instructions being vague. Like i asked others why would hold Riverrun not include the lands sworn to it?

As to your Tywin argument it actually works against you, Edmure would most certainly be a person that needed to know. He is Robb's most principal bannerman and has by right of birth command of the Riverlands. Not the kind of man you leave out when it comes to your strategies, as the mistake of not telling him so eloquently showed, because without that authority over the Riverlands Edmure could not have stopped Tywin to begin with.

it shows Robb's great inexperience that he did not include Edmure and then not being able to admit that he himself had blame to be had is where i find him to be immature/childish.

My main disappointment is with the Blackfish an experienced man by all accounts who should have known better. I have often wondered why GRRM had him do something that seems out of character based on everything else we see of the man.

[Livesundersink]

45 minutes ago, Traverys said:

So why is it that Tywin's men would follow his instruction's "to a T" (pun?)?

Maybe because Tywin has proved himself in battle, but also most houses amongst the Westerlands would know what happens when his orders are not followed, ie the Reynes and the Tarbecks, when Tywin tells you to do something you do it.

[cpg2016]

8 hours ago, direpupy said:

I will repeat my question earlier in the tread, why would defend Riverrun not include defending the lands sworn to it? Your example of Dorne is way off point, you are talking about Edmure attacking something while his actions against Tywin where defensive in nature.

At most you can blame him for not listening to Cat who knowing her son interpreted his instructions the way he meant them, and told him to just defend the castle.

Actually, his actions against Tywin were not defensive in nature.  He actively marched out to face Tywin.  He marshalled an army and fortifies the fords of the Red Fork - this is so far from "defending Riverrun" that it's not even debatable.  He is ordered to defend a single castle, and instead sets up new fortifications many leagues away.  If Edmure's purpose was to defend the Riverlands, why didn't he intervene before Tywin made it to the Red Fork?  The answer is because Edmure is looking for glory, for a victory over Tywin Lannister, and this is the best way to get it.  Sitting in Riverrun means not being able to face him in combat, but Edmure isn't a total moron, so he knows to fight where his advantage is greatest.

But once more, it is literally impossible to reconcile "defend Riverrun" with "fortify the Red Fork".  Why not outright attack Tywin's army before the Red Fork?  If, as you say, "defend Riverrun" (and not "House Tully's lands") means a broad mandate to defend the Riverlands in general, then Edmure should have attacked Tywin long before the Red Fork. 

[cpg2016]

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

 

it shows Robb's great inexperience that he did not include Edmure and then not being able to admit that he himself had blame to be had is where i find him to be immature/childish.

My main disappointment is with the Blackfish an experienced man by all accounts who should have known better. I have often wondered why GRRM had him do something that seems out of character based on everything else we see of the man.

So... you're argument is that the most brilliant commander of the war is immature and childish for not explaining his strategy to a subordinate.  And also that one of the most experienced and mature commanders in the war is ALSO an idiot.  Maybe the problem here is that you're wrong.  The highly experienced Blackfish thinks Edmure is at fault.  The intelligent Catelyn thinks Edmure is at fault.  Literally everyone but you thinks Edmure is at fault - even Edmure implicitly admits that he exceeded his mandate.

In no universe does "hold Riverrun" mean "defend the lands sworn to Riverrun".   For example, Tyrion's job was to hold Kings Landing.  Which he does, in large part by allowing Stannis to burn the Kingswood.... land sworn to Kings Landing.

If you insist that your incorrect assumption must be right, then you stil have a ways to go, because Edmure very prominently does NOT defend all the lands sworn to Riverrun, and in fact waits a fair amount of time before confronting Tywin.  Why doesn't he attack before Tywin hears about Oxcross, if his mandate is to defend the Riverlands?  Because he knows he isn't supposed to leave Riverrun!  He wants glory, and he sees the chance at an easy victory by using the defensive multiplier of the river to repel Tywin.  Traverys' analysis was perfectly correct.

[Traverys]

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

So... you're argument is that the most brilliant commander of the war is immature and childish for not explaining his strategy to a subordinate.  And also that one of the most experienced and mature commanders in the war is ALSO an idiot.  Maybe the problem here is that you're wrong.  The highly experienced Blackfish thinks Edmure is at fault.  The intelligent Catelyn thinks Edmure is at fault.  Literally everyone but you thinks Edmure is at fault - even Edmure implicitly admits that he exceeded his mandate.

In no universe does "hold Riverrun" mean "defend the lands sworn to Riverrun".   For example, Tyrion's job was to hold Kings Landing.  Which he does, in large part by allowing Stannis to burn the Kingswood.... land sworn to Kings Landing.

If you insist that your incorrect assumption must be right, then you stil have a ways to go, because Edmure very prominently does NOT defend all the lands sworn to Riverrun, and in fact waits a fair amount of time before confronting Tywin.  Why doesn't he attack before Tywin hears about Oxcross, if his mandate is to defend the Riverlands?  Because he knows he isn't supposed to leave Riverrun!  He wants glory, and he sees the chance at an easy victory by using the defensive multiplier of the river to repel Tywin.  Traverys' analysis was perfectly correct.

That's something I don't get to read often.

[direpupy]

16 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Actually, his actions against Tywin were not defensive in nature.  He actively marched out to face Tywin.  He marshalled an army and fortifies the fords of the Red Fork - this is so far from "defending Riverrun" that it's not even debatable.  He is ordered to defend a single castle, and instead sets up new fortifications many leagues away.  If Edmure's purpose was to defend the Riverlands, why didn't he intervene before Tywin made it to the Red Fork?  The answer is because Edmure is looking for glory, for a victory over Tywin Lannister, and this is the best way to get it.  Sitting in Riverrun means not being able to face him in combat, but Edmure isn't a total moron, so he knows to fight where his advantage is greatest.

But once more, it is literally impossible to reconcile "defend Riverrun" with "fortify the Red Fork".  Why not outright attack Tywin's army before the Red Fork?  If, as you say, "defend Riverrun" (and not "House Tully's lands") means a broad mandate to defend the Riverlands in general, then Edmure should have attacked Tywin long before the Red Fork. 

On this we disagree then, he did not make fortifications for one he just sent troops to hold and defend the fords not fortifie them, defending a place is by definition a defensive action, so it is not debatable that Edmures actions are defensive in nature.

We also seem to have a fundamental disagreement on they instructions which first of all are not defend Riverrun but hold Riverrun and i stand by my question why would that not include the lands sworn to it.

15 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

So... you're argument is that the most brilliant commander of the war is immature and childish for not explaining his strategy to a subordinate.  And also that one of the most experienced and mature commanders in the war is ALSO an idiot.  Maybe the problem here is that you're wrong.  The highly experienced Blackfish thinks Edmure is at fault.  The intelligent Catelyn thinks Edmure is at fault.  Literally everyone but you thinks Edmure is at fault - even Edmure implicitly admits that he exceeded his mandate.

In no universe does "hold Riverrun" mean "defend the lands sworn to Riverrun".   For example, Tyrion's job was to hold Kings Landing.  Which he does, in large part by allowing Stannis to burn the Kingswood.... land sworn to Kings Landing.

If you insist that your incorrect assumption must be right, then you stil have a ways to go, because Edmure very prominently does NOT defend all the lands sworn to Riverrun, and in fact waits a fair amount of time before confronting Tywin.  Why doesn't he attack before Tywin hears about Oxcross, if his mandate is to defend the Riverlands?  Because he knows he isn't supposed to leave Riverrun!  He wants glory, and he sees the chance at an easy victory by using the defensive multiplier of the river to repel Tywin.  Traverys' analysis was perfectly correct.

You really show your hand here you are a Robb fan, sorry but as brilliant as he was he was not perfect, he is admirable for the many victory's he won but he is also a 15 year old kid so him acting like one really is not that strange. And i never called the Blackfish an idiot, as a matter of fact i said multiple times that his accusations against Edmure seem out of character for him.

Traverys analysis is far from correct.

Lets really analyse the situation here.

The Riverlords are in control of the lands west of the Red Fork something they faugth hard to regain with several lords like Bracken, Darry and Blackwood having to take back there castle. Now Robb's plan is to let Tywin march over these recently liberated lands, which he will in the process undoubtedly burn and pillage. Why would the Riverlords be okay with this? Well the promise that Tywin would be destroyed would go a long way, but they would have to know that this is going to happen in order for them to be okay whit once again seeing there lands burn.

Now as many have pointed out you don't want to tell everyone because then the plan might leak, so who do you tell in order to prevent the angry Riverlords from taking matters into there own hands to defend there lands and mess up your plans (which actually happened). That would be someone with the authority to stop them, and with Hoster dying slowly in bed and Robb and the Blackfish in the Westerlands they only person left with authority like that is Edmure. 

This is why not telling Edmure is a mistake and it is Robb's and the Blackfish there mistake, sure Edmure has blame to but that does not change the fact that they made a mistake and failed to own up to it, putting ALL of the blame on Edmure.