Jump to content

Riverlands 2.0


Matter-of-fact

Recommended Posts

Harrenhall under command of competent lord who would also be loyal to Tullys. After all HH has huge fertile lands and has at least 1 major town (Harrentown). 

Secondly Twins ruled by loyal bannerman.

Third Hoster would have died at least 3 years earlier so that Edmure would have had time to secure his authority as leader of RL.  

4th heavily fortified and controlled western border.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Matter-of-fact said:

How could the riverlands be in a better position economically and military by beginning /start of war of five kings and starting after greyjoy renbellion?maybe by hoster tully being louis xiv?

mostly by being written differently. That is literally the only way they would fare better 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

Harrenhall under command of competent lord who would also be loyal to Tullys. After all HH has huge fertile lands and has at least 1 major town (Harrentown). 

Secondly Twins ruled by loyal bannerman.

Third Hoster would have died at least 3 years earlier so that Edmure would have had time to secure his authority as leader of RL.  

4th heavily fortified and controlled western border.

 

Just a brief question on Harrenhal, I get that Harrenhal is still standing just as a monument, but why does the castle and whoever resides in it still have that much land? The castle is a huge ruin and a white elephant and no one really wants it, so why has no Targaryen king decided to render the castle a useless ruin, or at least a monument to the Targaryens, and taken the lands and split them to loyal vassals? Seems a lot more practical use of land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Vaedys Targaryen said:

Just a brief question on Harrenhal, I get that Harrenhal is still standing just as a monument, but why does the castle and whoever resides in it still have that much land?

They don't. On more than one occasion when Harrenhal has passed owners the lands have been reduced. 

After destroying House Harroway, King Maegor decreed that the strongest of his knights would have the castle, though not all of its lands.

But someone still needs to collect the taxes of the lands directly surrounding Harrenhal so it makes sense that there is a Lord there. 

Quote

The castle is a huge ruin and a white elephant and no one really wants it,

Except people do want it, this has been very much evident in both the current series and the history of Harrenhal. Nobles have always converted it, even nobles who already had their own seats such as Harrowway and likely Strong.  It is a potential powerhouse.

Quote

 

so why has no Targaryen king decided to render the castle a useless ruin, or at least a monument to the Targaryens, and taken the lands and split them to loyal vassals? Seems a lot more practical use of land.

They have been giving the castle to loyal vassals to rule those lands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

Harrenhall under command of competent lord who would also be loyal to Tullys. After all HH has huge fertile lands and has at least 1 major town (Harrentown). 

To be fair, we are given no indication that Lady Whent is incompetent, and it is heavily implied that she is honourable and loyal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By a process of consolidation that will require a Tywin type leader and a period of 20 years or so. Start by marrying your children into key Riverland houses. Politically isolate disloyal Houses such as the Freys, perhaps wipe them out and replace them with loyal vassals, or else gradually weaken them over time. You might even need Littlefinger level political machinations to achieve it, but by the end of 20 years, have a loyal, more united Riverlands vassal system in place.

Use that to gradually strengthen your borders and become a more forceful presence in Westerosi politics. The Riverlands have the population and economic potential to be a powerhouse in Westeros. They just need to reduce their vulnerabilities.

Build a river fleet that can transport masses of troops quickly to almost any part of your realm, and use the river network to dramatically boost your trade potential.

They will never have the geographic security of the North, but they can do a heck of a lot to be much, much stronger than they currently are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Use that to gradually strengthen your borders

The borders are the key problem for the Riverlands of course. All the natural borders seem to be controlled by those around them - the Neck by the North, the Mountains of the Moon by the Vale, the Golden Tooth by the Westerlands. I don't see any reason why they have to be controlled by the others though. It's puzzling that they don't have a fortress similar to Moat Callin south of the Neck, or one similar to the Bloody Gate at their side of the Eastern Road, for example.

The Southern border seems too long and has no natural boundaries that I'm aware of, so that even the Lannisters can hook around and use it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

The borders are the key problem for the Riverlands of course. All the natural borders seem to be controlled by those around them - the Neck by the North, the Mountains of the Moon by the Vale, the Golden Tooth by the Westerlands. I don't see any reason why they have to be controlled by the others though. It's puzzling that they don't have a fortress similar to Moat Callin south of the Neck, or one similar to the Bloody Gate at their side of the Eastern Road, for example.

The Southern border seems too long and has no natural boundaries that I'm aware of, so that even the Lannisters can hook around and use it. 

Agreed. But the Reach has a similar problem. Perhaps even worse. They can be invaded with ease from Dorne (who hates them), from the Stormlands (who have done so repeatedly over the centuries), from the West (who have also done so many times) and from the Riverlands. Not to mention the Ironborn who has raided them at will over the ages.

The Reach compensates for this by having enough men to reasonably fortify most of their borders, and by being able to mobilize their large armies to respond to any threat in a reasonable amount of time.

Now, we know for a fact that in the past the Reach has been invaded from multiple directions at the same time. And they managed to deal with that.

In the case of the Riverlands this is seldom the case. I don't know of an example where the Vale, and the Westerlands have invaded at the same time, or the North and the Reach combined to try and carve off portions of the Riverlands. Mostly, the Vale seems to keep to itself, as does the North and even the West. It was mostly the Ironborn and Storm Kings who repeatedly tried to carve off portions of the Riverlands for themselves.

Now, given that the Riverlands are very populated, fertile and have easy means of transporting large troop numbers by river, they should be able to respond to such threats as easily as the Reach does. If only they had strong, unified leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Agreed. But the Reach has a similar problem. Perhaps even worse. They can be invaded with ease from Dorne (who hates them), from the Stormlands (who have done so repeatedly over the centuries), from the West (who have also done so many times) and from the Riverlands. Not to mention the Ironborn who has raided them at will over the ages.

The Reach compensates for this by having enough men to reasonably fortify most of their borders, and by being able to mobilize their large armies to respond to any threat in a reasonable amount of time.

Now, we know for a fact that in the past the Reach has been invaded from multiple directions at the same time. And they managed to deal with that.

In the case of the Riverlands this is seldom the case. I don't know of an example where the Vale, and the Westerlands have invaded at the same time, or the North and the Reach combined to try and carve off portions of the Riverlands. Mostly, the Vale seems to keep to itself, as does the North and even the West. It was mostly the Ironborn and Storm Kings who repeatedly tried to carve off portions of the Riverlands for themselves.

Now, given that the Riverlands are very populated, fertile and have easy means of transporting large troop numbers by river, they should be able to respond to such threats as easily as the Reach does. If only they had strong, unified leadership.

Excellent points about the Reach. One of its key strengths is the Redwyne fleet, and the Shields. They appear to be less vulnerable to naval attack at least, although arguably Seaguard plays an important role here for the Riverlands. True, they are threatened by the Dornish, but the role of their Marcher Lords seems to be to guard passes, etc. The Riverlands don't appear to have similar such lords on their borders. 

Another problem for the River Lords seems to be that they are querulous. The Bracken/Blackwood rivalry is the most famous, but it seems one of the reasons that the Riverlands is weaker is that they are internally quite divided. They don't appear to have had a long period of time with one royal house pre-Conquest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Another problem for the River Lords seems to be that they are querulous. The Bracken/Blackwood rivalry is the most famous, but it seems one of the reasons that the Riverlands is weaker is that they are internally quite divided. They don't appear to have had a long period of time with one royal house pre-Conquest. 

I think this is the biggest single element - nearly every family in the Riverlands can trace back to a petty kingship before the Andals came. This has helped invaders mostly, as too many have been willing to go over to the other side just as long as they can get an edge over their local rivals. A bit more solidarity between Riverland Houses would have reduced the strategic vulnerability caused by the lack of natural defences on the borders.

It might have helped if Hoster was healthier; personally I don't think the Riverlands were ever going to prosper under Edmure, he's too weak a character to keep a tight rein on his bannermen, and he has lousy judgment. Brynden would have been better, but he seems to have turned himself into a one-man Night's Watch for the Vale (no lands, no marriage, 'black' fish, holds the Bloody Gate against the wildlings etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

I think this is the biggest single element - nearly every family in the Riverlands can trace back to a petty kingship before the Andals came.

That is a factor, though isn't that the case for many of the kingdoms? An added issue is that they were under occupation, rather than one house in the region becoming dominant, before the Conquest. 

6 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

It might have helped if Hoster was healthier; personally I don't think the Riverlands were ever going to prosper under Edmure, he's too weak a character to keep a tight rein on his bannermen, and he has lousy judgment

In my opinion people are way too harsh on Edmure. He made a few mistakes, but would have been a capable lord if he had the chance to grow into the role. Most of his "mistakes" - allowing his bannermen to leave to protect their lands, filling Riverrun full of hungry mouths, were done out of a sense of humanity and justice rather than pure stupidity. His biggest mistake, or rather the one with the greatest consequences, was Stone Mill, and I think Robb and Blackfish were far too harsh on him for that one. Their lack communication with him was a big part of it.

His decision surrender to Jaime in AFFC I 100% support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

That is a factor, though isn't that the case for many of the kingdoms? An added issue is that they were under occupation, rather than one house in the region becoming dominant, before the Conquest. 

In my opinion people are way too harsh on Edmure. He made a few mistakes, but would have been a capable lord if he had the chance to grow into the role. Most of his "mistakes" - allowing his bannermen to leave to protect their lands, filling Riverrun full of hungry mouths, were done out of a sense of humanity and justice rather than pure stupidity. His biggest mistake, or rather the one with the greatest consequences, was Stone Mill, and I think Robb and Blackfish were far too harsh on him for that one. Their lack communication with him was a big part of it.

His decision surrender to Jaime in AFFC I 100% support. 

A problem is that many of their vassals have nobler histories than the Tullys themselves. They were vassals to the Vances or Pipers or some such House back in the day. Aegon installed them as overlords. So they are barely of better blood than the Freys.

Compare that to the North, where the Starks built the very Wall that protects the realms of men from Eternal Doom, are part of the founding myth of the North and have been the most powerful House in the North since shortly after the Long Night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

A problem is that many of their vassals have nobler histories than the Tullys themselves. They were vassals to the Vances or Pipers or some such House back in the day. Aegon installed them as overlords. So they are barely of better blood than the Freys.

Also true of the Tyrells, though that causes them problems as well.

I think it's fair to say it's a variety of compounding factors that lead to this state of affairs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

That is a factor, though isn't that the case for many of the kingdoms? An added issue is that they were under occupation, rather than one house in the region becoming dominant, before the Conquest. 

Yes, it is true of the other kingdoms, but their more defensible borders makes it more foolhardy and less enticing to side with the invaders - it's the combination of those factors together that really undermines the RL, imho.

7 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

In my opinion people are way too harsh on Edmure. He made a few mistakes, but would have been a capable lord if he had the chance to grow into the role. Most of his "mistakes" - allowing his bannermen to leave to protect their lands, filling Riverrun full of hungry mouths, were done out of a sense of humanity and justice rather than pure stupidity. His biggest mistake, or rather the one with the greatest consequences, was Stone Mill, and I think Robb and Blackfish were far too harsh on him for that one. Their lack communication with him was a big part of it.

Maybe harsh, but I see Edmure as being an overgrown boy and he was growing up a lot more slowly than Robb (no doubt because he didn't have such a great burden thrust on him so precipitously). I can't fault him for his humanity, but his impulsiveness meant he never considered both sides of the situation. I read Hoster's funeral scene as a big flag saying that Edmure isn't ready for Lordship.

Yes, the plan to draw out Tywin's army could have been better explained (and in hindsight it should have been) but I think their fault lay in trusting him, when they should have treated him as a boy and told him exactly what to do. Giving him autonomy was as much a cause for losing the war as Robb bedding Jeyne. They trusted to his judgment; that was a big mistake.

7 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

His decision surrender to Jaime in AFFC I 100% support. 

Was that really a decision? He was already checkmated at that point, there was nothing left in his power to do but surrender - unlike Ryman, I don't believe Jaime was bluffing..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

Maybe harsh, but I see Edmure as being an overgrown boy and he was growing up a lot more slowly than Robb (no doubt because he didn't have such a great burden thrust on him so precipitously).

He was clearly less talented than Robb, but the same goes for most people. It is a bit harsh to call him an overgrown boy in my opinion. His decisions, some of which were questionable, were not vastly different from the ones most people would make. Remember, we see him through Catelyn's eyes, and she's his elder sister, and she admits to herself she's too harsh on him. 

43 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

Yes, the plan to draw out Tywin's army could have been better explained (and in hindsight it should have been) but I think their fault lay in trusting him, when they should have treated him as a boy and told him exactly what to do.

If the matter was so fundamentally important, simply assuming Edmure would work it out for himself is straight up bonkers. I don't care how clever or talented your subordinate is, if you want him to do exactly as you hope, or your whole strategy falls apart, I would suggest giving them a heads up. Also, Edmure sought and gained the support of his own bannermen for his plan. He wasn't the only one who clearly hadn't figured out what was going on. Clever, serious men like Tytos Blackwood and Jonos Bracken (no fools) supported his decision.

46 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

Was that really a decision? He was already checkmated at that point, there was nothing left in his power to do but surrender - unlike Ryman, I don't believe Jaime was bluffing..

That's why I support his decision, in that it was the only thing you could do in those circumstances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

If the matter was so fundamentally important, simply assuming Edmure would work it out for himself is straight up bonkers. I don't care how clever or talented your subordinate is, if you want him to do exactly as you hope, or your whole strategy falls apart, I would suggest giving them a heads up. Also, Edmure sought and gained the support of his own bannermen for his plan. He wasn't the only one who clearly hadn't figured out what was going on. Clever, serious men like Tytos Blackwood and Jonos Bracken (no fools) supported his decision.

I think they assumed he would do as he was ordered - hold Riverrun. Period.

It's not uncommon for commanders to give subordinates orders without explaining the full strategy - 'need to know', and all that. They may well have assumed that Riverrun may be 'leaky' and the plan might get out if it was more widely known.... anyway, it's all done and dusted now. I think we can agree it was handled poorly all round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Matter-of-fact said:

How could the riverlands be in a better position economically and military by beginning /start of war of five kings and starting after greyjoy renbellion?maybe by hoster tully being louis xiv?

Economically?  By ousting the Tullys and replacing them with the Freys.  The Freys know how to make money.  

Militarily?  They lack natural barriers and they are vulnerable to invasion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...