Question: Catelyn taking Tyrion hostage and other decisions

[lilenadheas]

According to the maps, it is only marginally further to the Eyrie than to KL, and far closer to KL than to Casterly Rock. The journey to KL would have been far safer as well. She took him to Lysa because she knew Lysa hater the Lannisters and believed that Cersei would prevent Tyrion from being found guilty in KL. That, and she didn't want people to know she'd been to KL.

Or, because her husband had warned her that KL was a nest of adders, that the King was surrounded by Lannisters which might infringe on the justice meted out. I'm not saying she brought him to a politically neutral place, but she hedged her bets and went where the bias would most likely be in favour of her. She had no way of knowing that Lysa would put Tyrion on trial the way she did

[ab aeterno]

That would fall on Lysa then, would't it?

I never said otherwise, though I would argue that if Tywin was wrong in what he did, then so was Cat in abandoning Tyrion.

That's a side issue - her intention was never to take him to the Eyrie for trial - once she had him in custody she ultimately planned on taking him back to Winterfell: She sidestepped whatever pursuers they had by saying out loud "We go to Kings Landing!" and then going to the Eyrie thinking ,"heym it's close, hey my sister - who as far as I know right now isn't at all crazy - reigns there and there I'll have access to ravens and men and resources."

She didn't think "aha! now that I have the foul imp in my clutches, let's go to the Eyrie and have a silly trial! I hope he dies on the way!"

Once she got to the Eyrie she was agast at her sister and her decisions but she was not in a position to countermand her..

My recollection is that she always planned on taking him to the Eyrie but she said, loudly and often, that she was taking him to WF to throw them off. She never even said she was taking him to KL. And why did she take him to the Eyrie? Because she knew her sister hated the Lannisters and would be sympathetic to her cause.

[ab aeterno]

Or, because her husband had warned her that KL was a nest of adders, that the King was surrounded by Lannisters which might infringe on the justice meted out. I'm not saying she brought him to a politically neutral place, but she hedged her bets and went where the bias would most likely be in favour of her. She had no way of knowing that Lysa would put Tyrion on trial the way she did

Is that any better than if it had been in favor of Tyrion? IMO if she does exactly what she is afraid of the Lannisters doing then she is no better than they are.

[ab aeterno]

That's like saying that the family of arrested defendant is justified in burning down a school because the cops took the defendant to a different police station.

Because Westeros is modern America/Europe...

In Westeros, the Westerlands, the North, are basically small kingdoms in themselves, small countries. What she did was kidnap an important member of another country's government. That is an act of war.

[Jolene Brown]

That's like saying that the family of arrested defendant is justified in burning down a school because the cops took the defendant to a different police station.

She is not a cop. She has no right to arrest anybody. She has no evidence. She has no warrant. We know that she is completely wrong and that Tyrion had nothing whatsoever to do with the dagger attempt on Bran's life. And this is a feudal system in a pseudo-medieval fantasy world, in which Tywin's actions make total sense according to the way the system works. As I said earlier, it is exactly the same thing as what Robb does later in the same book, as I remember the timeline.

[David Selig]

If she had no intention of letting Robert have anything to do with the situation, because she doesn't trust him to be fair, then how can we say that she was truly arresting him in the name of the king? I get that those are her words, but they are completely inconsistent with her actions.

All arrests, executions and stuff like this, all around Westeros, are made in the name of the King. It doesn't mean the King has to get personally involved with the matter.

The whole situation is contrived quite a bit, certainly, but the whole "she started the war" claim is pure BS as far as I am concerned. First, there wasn't really an open war until Robert died. Second, if we are talking about casus belli, the Lannisters struck first when they pushed Bran and then tried to kill him again.

Yeah, to be very clear, not saying that Tywin isn't a douche, and isn't guilty of a huge number of crimes, including targeting civilians, but Robb Stark does the same while Cat is with him, and his response to Cat taking Tyrion is the same as Robb's when Ned is taken.

Not really the same. Sure, Robb gathered his banners in response to Ned's arrest. But he didn't invade anyone and he didn't send "mad dogs" to slaughter innocents. His military actions started as a way to help his allies repel an invasion.

[ab aeterno]

Not really the same. Sure, Robb gathered his banners in response to Ned's arrest. But he didn't invade anyone and he didn't send "mad dogs" to slaughter innocents. His military actions started as a way to help his allies repel an invasion.

Actually, we hear about Robb's men pillaging the Westerlands, killing the prostitues who "lay with Lions," etc. The only difference is that Robb was in personal command of his forces. He didn't go to war to protect Riverrun, they had been under attack long before then. He went to war when Ned was arrested.

[Jolene Brown]

All arrests, executions and stuff like this, all around Westeros, are made in the name of the King. It doesn't mean the King has to get personally involved with the matter.

The whole situation is contrived quite a bit, certainly, but the whole "she started the war" claim is pure BS as far as I am concerned.

I'm not saying she started the war; I'm just addressing the side point of Cat's own actions and their justifiability or lack thereof.

[lilenadheas]

Is that any better than if it had been in favor of Tyrion? IMO if she does exactly what she is afraid of the Lannisters doing then she is no better than they are.

In what way shape or form is Cat anything like the Lannisters? She arrested someone, she was afraid of her family being killed in KL. It was Lysa who posed a threat to Tyrion, not Cat.

[Daena the Defiant]

I never said otherwise, though I would argue that if Tywin was wrong in what he did, then so was Cat in abandoning Tyrion.

That doesn't follow.

Tywin started a terroristic war on purpose and did so in a manner designed to conceal his identity as the perpetrator as to lure Ned into the field.

Catelyn didn't do enough to secure the safe release (I guess is your point?) of a man found innocent after trial by combat.

Care to make the equivalencies clear for me? I can't see them,

My recollection is that she always planned on taking him to the Eyrie but she said, loudly and often, that she was taking him to WF to throw them off. She never even said she was taking him to KL. And why did she take him to the Eyrie? Because she knew her sister hated the Lannisters and would be sympathetic to her cause.

Yes, obviously she went to her sister who is a) her sister and b] also (as far as Catelyn knows) also the victim of Lannister murder efforts - this is a bad thing?

Before she got there (and realizing that Lysa was nuts), going to a safe haven with a prisoner and a handful of knights was obviously the more prudent choice than to walk through the Vale and deal with the dangers she noted in that large bloc quotation I have upthread.

[Arkantos]

Actually, we hear about Robb's men pillaging the Westerlands, killing the prostitues who "lay with Lions," etc. The only difference is that Robb was in personal command of his forces. He didn't go to war to protect Riverrun, they had been under attack long before then. He went to war when Ned was arrested.

I was under the impression that the Karstark men did the prostitute killing and such after leaving, following Rickard's death.

[ab aeterno]

In what way shape or form is Cat anything like the Lannisters? She arrested someone, she was afraid of her family being killed in KL. It was Lysa who posed a threat to Tyrion, not Cat.

She took Tyrion to the Eyrie, knowing full well that Lysa was prejudiced against the Lannisters, just like Cat herself is. She didn't take him somewhere relatively neutral and nearby. She took him to someone who was anti-Lannister and who she felt she could coulnt on to support her. If she avoided KL because it would be biased in favor of Tyrion, taking him somewhere biased against him is just as bad.

[ab aeterno]

I was under the impression that the Karstark men did the prostitute killing and such after leaving, following Rickard's death.

I don't remember it being explained which men did it, other than that it was Stark men. It's from the Arya POVs with the BwB I believe.

[Daena the Defiant]

She is not a cop. She has no right to arrest anybody. She has no evidence. She has no warrant.

You sure about that?

She is the Lady Regent of the North, governing the North for her absent husband. Ned specifically appointed her to rule for him. She callled upon allied knights (those sworn to House Tully) to make an arrest because she didn't have any of her own at hand.

She evidence - she had direct testimony that the knife used to maim her and to try to kill her son belonged to Tyrion Lannister. Two attempts were made on Bran's life while Tyrion was in the area. It's a circumstantial case (and based upon a lie from Petyr) but that's evidence. It just later turned out to be wrong.

[Daena the Defiant]

She took Tyrion to the Eyrie, knowing full well that Lysa was prejudiced against the Lannisters, just like Cat herself is. She didn't take him somewhere relatively neutral and nearby. She took him to someone who was anti-Lannister and who she felt she could coulnt on to support her. If she avoided KL because it would be biased in favor of Tyrion, taking him somewhere biased against him is just as bad.

This is non-responsive.

[ab aeterno]

That doesn't follow.

Tywin started a terroristic war on purpose and did so in a manner designed to conceal his identity as the perpetrator as to lure Ned into the field.

Catelyn didn't do enough to secure the safe release (I guess is your point?) of a man found innocent after trial by combat.

Care to make the equivalencies clear for me? I can't see them,

Yes, obviously she went to her sister who is a) her sister and b] also (as far as Catelyn knows) also the victim of Lannister murder efforts - this is a bad thing?

Before she got there going to a safe haven with a prisoner and a handful of knights was obviously the more prudent choice than to walk through the Vale and deal with the dangers she noted in that large bloc quotation I have upthread.

You're thinking about all this like a 21st century westerner, not a medieval ish lord.

As to b ) If she wants Tyrion to have a fair trial then of course it is.

As to Tywin. As far as we know he didn't order Gregor to do what he did, he just set him loose, knowing that chaos would ensue, and not caring. Similarly, Cat didn't care what happened to Tyrion.

[lilenadheas]

She took Tyrion to the Eyrie, knowing full well that Lysa was prejudiced against the Lannisters, just like Cat herself is. She didn't take him somewhere relatively neutral and nearby. She took him to someone who was anti-Lannister and who she felt she could coulnt on to support her. If she avoided KL because it would be biased in favor of Tyrion, taking him somewhere biased against him is just as bad.

She avoided KL because it was a political mess she had just been told by her husband, hand of the king and second most powerful man in the seven kingdoms, that he was afraid that her family was in quite significant danger and to "prepare for war". Why not take Tyrion as a bargaining chip as well as a prisoner answering for his "crimes"?

Again, Cat had no way of knowing that Lysa would act the way she did. Lysa doesn't put Tyrion on trial because she hates him, she does it because she is mentally unstable and extremely paranoid.

[ab aeterno]

This is non-responsive.

It's basic reasoning, so I'm sorry if you can't follow.

You sure about that?

She is the Lady Regent of the North, governing the North for her absent husband. Ned specifically appointed her to rule for him. She callled upon allied knights (those sworn to House Tully) to make an arrest because she didn't have any of her own at hand.

She evidence - she had direct testimony that the knife used to maim her and to try to kill her son belonged to Tyrion Lannister. Two attempts were made on Bran's life while Tyrion was in the area. It's a circumstantial case (and based upon a lie from Petyr) but that's evidence.

She is not Lady Regent, she left Robb as Lord of Winterfell, at the moment she's just the Hand's wife.

She also has direct testimony that Tyrion didn't do it. Tyrion tells her he didn't do it. That's evidence just as much. Cat's entire case is based upon: LF said so.

She avoided KL because it was a political mess she had just been told by her husband, hand of the king and second most powerful man in the seven kingdoms, that he was afraid that her family was in quite significant danger and to "prepare for war". Why not take Tyrion as a bargaining chip as well as a prisoner answering for his "crimes"?

Again, Cat had no way of knowing that Lysa would act the way she did. Lysa doesn't put Tyrion on trial because she hates him, she does it because she is mentally unstable and extremely paranoid.

But, quite simply, she knows that Lysa is biased.

[Jolene Brown]

You sure about that?

She is the Lady Regent of the North, governing the North for her absent husband. Ned specifically appointed her to rule for him. She callled upon allied knights (those sworn to House Tully) to make an arrest because she didn't have any of her own at hand.

She evidence - she had direct testimony that the knife used to maim her and to try to kill her son belonged to Tyrion Lannister. Two attempts were made on Bran's life while Tyrion was in the area. It's a circumstantial case (and based upon a lie from Petyr) but that's evidence. It just later turned out to be wrong.

So she is arresting him in the name of the King but based on her authority as lady Regent of the North while she is physically in the Riverlands, not the North, and she then brings Tyrion to the completely unrelated region of the Vale where she then has no power to control anything that happens and therefore no responsibility for anything? If that is justice, then I am not for it. And if I am Tywin, I am far from convinced that it is anything but kidnapping.

[Daena the Defiant]

As to B) If she wants Tyrion to have a fair trial then of course it is.

That's a purposeful misdirection on your part.

She didn't think that Lysa would go off the rails and try Tyrion hersellf for the murder of Jon arryn. She didn't think she was taking him to a fair venue for his trial - she was trying to get out of danger to an allied stronghold.

As to Tywin. As far as we know he didn't order Gregor to do what he did, he just set him loose, knowing that chaos would ensue, and not caring. Similarly, Cat didn't care what happened to Tyrion.

That's..... an interesting analogy. It holds oodlles and oodles of water.