"The Northerners will never forget this" - The long term strategic folly of the RW?

[Axrendale]

Question: "Was the Red Wedding a long-term strategic folly?"

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: It's a bit more complicated.

Most of the responses to the OP thus far are either forgetting or passing over a number of the most important factors both in Tywin's (the primary mastermind behind the RW) calculations and plans, and the reasons that these are not going to pan out with regard to keeping the North subservient to the Iron Throne in the long run.

There are two elements in any debate about the political aspects of the Red Wedding that require no discussion: first, that it was an instance of utter moral depravity (unless you subscribe to a really extreme brand of utilitarianism); and second, that the conventions of narrative esnure that pretty much all of the perpetrators (those who are still alive that is) are doomed to be eventually defeated at some point over the course of the remaining books in the series. However, accepting these two things as a given doesn't invalidate the merits of Tywin's original plan for the Red Wedding and its aftermath, from the realpolitik perspective.

There were two immediate primary benefits that the Red Wedding brought for the Lannisters, that could not have been achieved through any other viable means. The first one is obvious, but has implications that aren't always given as much examination as they merit, in my opinion. Simply put, it made them the victors in the war against the Starks, quickly and at very small cost. A lot of fans (not unnaturally, it must be said) are fond of expressing outrage at Tywin's ex post facto justification for his involvement in the conspiracy with the Freys and Boltons: to wit, "Why is it more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner?" Many fans have correctly skewered Tywin for being almost obscenely glib in this portrayal of the massacre - a "dozen men dying at dinner" hardly even begins to do justice to the extent of the atrocity carried out by the Freys at his behest. That being said, in the midst of this righteous indignation it is easy to overlook that Tywin's words carry a broader implication that is less easy to dismiss, which can be amply illustrated by considering a simple hypothetical: what if the Red Wedding didn't take place?

In an alternate scenario where Robb Stark and his men survived the hospitality of the Freys, and returned to the North, as he had originally planned, then the Lannisters would have been staring down the barrel of a situation likely to result in far greater losses than Tywin's "ten thousand men". If the Young Wolf had been left free to return to his homeland to expel the Ironborn invaders and rally the Northmen anew to his cause, then it is very difficult to imagine any sort of scenario in which the Lannisters could have achieved any sort of clean-cut victory in the war against the North. Robb Stark, apart from being a brilliant general, was also an utterly irreconcilable foe for the Lannisters by that point, and as long as he remained alive and was able to continue fielding armies, the war would have continued, potentially for years, unless the Lannisters had staged an invasion of the North itself - something that would be the virtual definition of 'strategic nightmare' to accomplish. Faced with the alternatives of either subduing the Starks through conventional military means or accepting a negotiated settlement to the conflict (both of which would have necessitated losses unacceptable to the Lannisters' pride and/or interests), it is no wonder at all that Tywin resorted to intrigue and murder as his weapons of choice to defeat the Young Wolf. The reaction against the Red Wedding ensured that the challenge of bringing about a lasting subjagation of the North to the Iron Throne would be an imposing, possibly even an insurmountable one - but if it weren't for the Red Wedding, then the Lannisters might never have been able to defeat the Starks in the first place, and so the question of how to rule their lands would have been a moot question.

That brings us to the second primary benefit of the Red Wedding for the Lannisters in comparison to other viable strategic options, and to the aspect of Tywin's calculations that has been most overlooked in the comments in this thread thus far: the hostage factor. Although the Red Wedding is popularly depicted as an indiscriminate massacre, it is worth remembering that it was anything but. Robb Stark, his mother, most of his bodyguards, and all of the lowborn northern soldiers were mercilessly slaughtered, but many of the highborn Stark loyalists were not: arguably the most direct political consequence of the RW was that the Lannisters and their allies gained a veritable cornucopia of hostages, from many important Houses in the Riverlands and the North, that ought to have been of invaluable utility for enforcing the submission of the former supporters of the Starks and Tullys (something that we see in action in both AFFC and ADWD). It is also worth noting that under Tywin's original plans for the RW, the hostage situation might have been even more beneficial for the Lannisters, as he had hoped that the Freys would keep Catelyn Stark alive as a prisoner (which would have had the added benefit, though no one could have realised it, of ensuring that she never became the leader of the BWB) - although in 'fairness' to the Freys' decision to kill her instead, it is difficult to say what utility she would have had as a hostage after she went insane.

That more or less covers the political merits inherent for the Lannisters in the Red Wedding. On the flip side of the coin is the blow-back that the atrocity generates, both throughout Westeros generally and in the North and Riverlands particularly, and the complications that these create for the efforts of the Lannisters to consolidate their dynastic control over the Seven Kingdoms. Here I would contend that most of the comments made in this thread thus far (including in the OP) show insufficient regard for the degree to which Tywin at least was cognizant of the challenge involved in bringing a post-RW Kingdom of the North back under the rule of the Iron Throne, and that his designs to bring this goal to fruition were ultimately rendered inadequate far more by plot developments that would have been difficult or impossible to predict in advance, than by the inadequacy of his political strategy.

Most of the comments in the thread thus far - including the OP - have noted that the central obstacle to binding the post-RW North to the Iron Throne lies in the overwhelmingly pro-Stark sentiment that abounds throughout the region. What most of them pass over is that Tywin not only plainly recognized this, but actively tried to turn it to his advantage by endeavouring to make sure that the only surviving (legitimate) Starks would be half-Lannisters, thanks to the marriage between Tyrion and Sansa. This is another area in which consideration of a hypothetical illustrates how events could easily have turned out positively for the Lannisters: in an alternative scenario where Bran and Rickon didn't survive the fall of Winterfell, and where Sansa didn't escape from King's Landing in the aftermath of Joffrey's wedding, then Tywin could have had the ultimate playing card to utilize in bringing the North under control: a grandchild who would have been the legitimate heir of House Stark, and which would have been a game-changer in terms of winning over the northmen in the long term. Obviously this hope was rendered null by events in the latter part of ASOS, but it does illuminate the main pathway by which the North could have been reconciled, in the long term, to rule by a Lannister monarchy.

Basically, although the Lannister victory in the war against the North, achieved as it was through the device of the Red Wedding, is almost certainly going to turn out to have been a poisoned chalice, that eventuation is contingent on a variety of factors that Tywin could not have realistically been expected to anticipate when he signed off on Roose Bolton and Walder Frey's plot to murder Robb at the Twins: Sansa Stark escaping from the Red Keep without Tyrion having ever consumated their marriage, Catelyn Stark being resurrected by Beric Dondarrion and turning the BWB into an instrument of vendetta, Stannis Baratheon arriving in the North and eluding all of Roose Bolton's efforts to destroy him, Bran and Rickon Stark surviving the fall of Winterfell, a witness reporting their survival to Wyman Manderly, etc, etc. Most importantly, he didn't anticipate that he himself would be dead mere weeks after the culmination of his political masterstroke, or that his death would precipitate the near-total collapse of House Lannister's power, thanks largely to the blundering of his daughter.

[Axrendale]

IMO, the Northern lords would probably declare one of their own families, who has Stark blood (probably the Karstarks) as rightful lords of Winterfell and the Iron Throne could have either accepted it or faced some bloody secession war, that they probably would have lost.

Trouble is, the Karstarks are working for Roose Bolton. And who is Roose working with?

[Axrendale]

Additionally, comments to the effect that the northmen would not have accepted a child of Sansa's by Tyrion after the RW, seem to me to be rooted more in wishful thinking than anything else. We see in ASOS that even Robb and Catelyn acknowledge that a child of Sansa's, fathered by a Lannister, would pose a dangerous threat precisely because it would be legitimate by the traditional laws of Westeros. Robb tried to circumvent this with his will naming Jon as his heir - but as Catelyn pointed out, that would have created a whole host of seperate issues relating to Jon's status as a bastard, even setting aside the problems inherent in freeing him from his oaths to the Night's Watch.

No doubt about it, if Tyrion had impreganated Sansa, then it would have been a political game-changer for control of the North.

[Erkan12]

It is natural. Tywin is southerner. He can't know the northeners. Like Blackfish, even he has no idea about northeners behaviours. (The north remembers) If he know this, he could prepare his Tyrell army, or maybe he just care about the riverlands. As he thought, river lords yield easily after the RW.

2. My belief is simple. The last time the King in the North (and by extension, the northern lords)bent the knee, it was to Aegon the Conqueror and his 3 dragons. I don't see why it should be different this time around.

Really ?

Firstly ;

Catelyn: You would not be the first king to bend the knee, nor even the first Stark.
Robb: No. Never.
Catelyn: There is no shame in it. Balon Greyjoy bent the knee to Robert when his rebellion failed. Torrhen Stark bent the knee to Aegon the Conqueror rather than see his army face the fires.
Robb: Did Aegon kill King Torrhen’s father?

Secondly ; Red Wedding was one of the ugliest event in history of westeros, of course northeners won't accept to bent knee.

[shearstone]

Question: "Was the Red Wedding a long-term strategic folly?"

That brings us to the second primary benefit of the Red Wedding for the Lannisters in comparison to other viable strategic options, and to the aspect of Tywin's calculations that has been most overlooked in the comments in this thread thus far: the hostage factor. Although the Red Wedding is popularly depicted as an indiscriminate massacre, it is worth remembering that it was anything but. Robb Stark, his mother, most of his bodyguards, and all of the lowborn northern soldiers were mercilessly slaughtered, but most of the highborn Stark loyalists were not: arguably the most direct political consequence of the RW was that the Lannisters and their allies gained a veritable cornucopia of hostages, from almost every family in the Riverlands and the North, that ought to have been of invaluable utility for enforcing the submission of the former supporters of the Starks and Tullys (something that we see in action in both AFFC and ADWD). It is also worth noting that under Tywin's original plans for the RW, the hostage situation might have been even more beneficial for the Lannisters, as he had hoped that the Freys would keep Catelyn Stark alive as a prisoner (which would have had the added benefit, though no one could have realised it, of ensuring that she never became the leader of the BWB) - although in 'fairness' to the Freys' decision to kill her instead, it is difficult to say what utility she would have had as a hostage after she went insane.

That more or less covers the political merits inherent for the Lannisters in the Red Wedding. On the flip side of the coin is the blow-back that the atrocity generates, both throughout Westeros generally and in the North and Riverlands particularly, and the complications that these create for the efforts of the Lannisters to consolidate their dynastic control over the Seven Kingdoms. Here I would contend that most of the comments made in this thread thus far (including in the OP) show insufficient regard for the degree to which Tywin at least was cognizant of the challenge involved in bringing a post-RW Kingdom of the North back under the rule of the Iron Throne, and that his designs to bring this goal to fruition were ultimately rendered inadequate far more by plot developments that would have been difficult or impossible to predict in advance, than by the inadequacy of his political strategy.

They gained all of four hostages, Greatjon Umber, Marq Piper, Patrek Mallister and Edmure Tully. That's not exactly many They currently hold Harrion Karstark and Jason Mallister in addition but that's hardly alot of hostages especially when they killed most of the other potential hostages like Norrey, Flint and Dacey Mormont. Seeing as though the half the Umbers are still openly fighting the Iron Throne, having hostages has given them no power whatsoever north of the neck.

[Chaircat Meow]

Question: "Was the Red Wedding a long-term strategic folly?"

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: It's a bit more complicated.

SNIP

Ah, a brilliant explication and analysis of the problem under discussion, as usual. Thanks for this.

[Axrendale]

They gained all of four hostages, Greatjon Umber, Marq Piper, Patrek Mallister and Edmure Tully. That's not exactly many They currently hold Harrion Karstark and Jason Mallister in addition but that's hardly alot of hostages especially when they killed most of the other potential hostages like Norrey, Flint and Dacey Mormont. Seeing as though the half the Umbers are still openly fighting the Iron Throne, having hostages has given them no power whatsoever north of the neck.

Incorrect. Those four are the hostages taken during the Red Wedding that are known, thus far. It can safely be said that there are many others - Robb's army included members of most of the noble families in the North, who subsequently bent the knee to Roose Bolton in large part because the Freys were still holding their relatives captive.

The potential hostages who were killed were mostly Robb's personal guards - this accounts for Wendel Manderly, Smalljon Umber, Dacey Mormont, Owen Norrey, and Robin Flint - or were caught up in the crossfire in the main hall. The fact that the Freys went out of their way to render certain figures like the Greatjon ripe for capture demonstrates clearly that taking hostages was a part of the design in the Red Wedding - and there is no reason to doubt Tywin's assertion that he had hoped for Catelyn Stark to be included amongst the captives.

To address the specific example of the Umbers, it is pointed out by Jon Snow in ADWD that although half of them (under Mors) declare for Stannis, the other half fight for the Boltons due to the captivity of the Greatjon - and even Mors and his follows only go to Stannis under conditions.

[Axrendale]

Ah, a brilliant explication and analysis of the problem under discussion, as usual. Thanks for this.

Thanks!

[Erkan12]

Also you can say that, for defeating Robb it was the only way. Since Tywin well learned about Robb's military talent.

The boy was too wary in the field. He kept his men in good order, and surrounded himself with outriders and bodyguards.

aSoS|53 - Tywin Lannister

I think he could thinking the assasinate him some way, after the Theon's betrayel and loss of Stark heirs, killing Robb would be the absolute victory. He didn't want to take risk in battle. Walder Frey's filthiness was the golden oppurtunity for him. As Tywin said,

Tyrion: So much for guest right.

Tywin: The blood is on Walder Frey's hands, not mine.

In westeros everyone blaming first Walder Frey, they are not reading the book like we do so they can't learn easily that Tywin planned all this.

[Lord Egeman]

In westeros everyone blaming first Walder Frey, they are not reading the book like we do so they can't learn easily that Tywin planned all this.

I disagree. First you have the Red Wedding. Then you have the Frey excuse: "Robb and his bannermen turned into werewolves and attacked us." Then we have Roose Bolton miraculously emerge from the Twins with his army intact and appointed Warden of the North trying to unite the North for the Lannisters and receiving fArya from them and we have House Frey gain Riverrun as a reward from the Iron Throne. It is obvious even to the smallfolk in my opinion.

[Batman]

Machiavelli says that while it's ideal to be both feared and loved being feared is safer, but the prince should inspire fear in a way that doesn't lead to him being hated. What is Tywin if not hated? His own son killed him because Tywin chose not just to end Tyrion's marriage but to do so by means of a traumatising gang-rape. The Martells plotted against him in his lifetime and hate him enough to want his innocent grandchildren dead. Manderly is eating Tywin's allies the Freys and merrily feeding them to the Boltons because the Red Wedding made Frey/Bolton/Lannister rule an unacceptable proposition. Tywin ruined things for himself by being short-sighted and inspiring hate because his ego and fear of laughter meant that he "had to" commit atrocities like Tysha's rape, the brutal murder of Elia and her children, the unleashing of Gregor on the Riverlands, and the Red Wedding. He was begging for the northmen to turn on the hypothetical child of Sansa/Tyrion by associating it not with marriage alliance and peace negotiations but the absolute humiliation and blasphemous slaughter of not only the Starks but just about every single northern house.

Being hated may work as long as you hold on to absolute power. But it's foolish to assume that such a state of things can last forever. If you slip, especially when the memories of your crimes are still fresh, people will be lining up at McManderly's for their slice of no-holds-barred revenge.

Certainly hated/feared, but I was referring only to his plan for the North. That fit with the idea that a conquered Kingdom is easier to rule if the Kingdom is based around that kingdoms ruling house, the example being Alexander and Darius. The North is certainly centred around the Starks since they have ruled for 8,000 years. Tywins idea was to have the Boltons and Greyjoys kill each other until spring roles around and then place a Stark back in the North.

Is it flawless? Of course not, but the alternatives are pretty terrible. Swear fealty to Roose and Ramsay? Roose perhaps, but not Ramsay. Greyjoys? Nope. The last option is to try and cede completely without a Stark. There are a lot of questionable aspects of this idea. Aside from the obvious leadership and structural problems you have to imagine that at least part of the North will want Ned Starks grandson. He would also have the support of the Lannisters/Iron Throne for a Spring-Autumn campaign. The North is a tough nut to crack but I think as far as plans go its pretty solid.

It goes without saying I am talking about a scenario where Bran/Rickon are non issues.

If Tyrion really had raped Sansa and gotten a boy on her, the Northerners would probably regard this child more as a grandchild of Tywin Lannister than a grandchild of Eddard Stark. I do not think, that the Northerners would have followed this child, especially if Robb's fear had come true and the Lannisters had killed Sansa Stark after the birth. Remember, that this child would only have one Northern grandfather, while having two Lannister grandparents and one Tully grandmother and would probably have spent a lot of his early years in the South.

The child would probably be the rightful ruler, but what use are laws if you cannot enforce them.

This situation reminds me of Emmon Frey, who waved his sheep of paper proclaiming him the rightful lord of Riverrun and noone cared.

There is a reason, that the North was the only region, that the Andals were not able to conquer. Look at Stannis' knight, who by all acounts die in large numbers, because they are not able to deal with the cold.

IMO, the Northern lords would probably declare one of their own families, who has Stark blood (probably the Karstarks) as rightful lords of Winterfell and the Iron Throne could have either accepted it or faced some bloody secession war, that they probably would have lost.

I don't know why Robb thought they would kill Sansa because that serves no purpose. Much better to have her stand next to her husband and son and show support for them (falsely, but we already know she bows to her husbands will). The Northerners may not believe it, but Sansa would never outwardly say otherwise. I imagine she would want to go back to Winterfell and for her son to have his grandfathers seat. Supporting this cause seems to be the best course of action in this hypothetical scenario.

After the Boltons, Stannis and Greyjoys have exhausted themselves and Spring hits, Tyrion, Sansa and little Eddard (what better name?) come North with the south forces provided. Part of the North may support the Boltons or the Karstarks, but there will be a contingent of support for little Eddard, if for no other reason his name is Stark. With that Northern support, the name Stark, the fact the Boltons/Greyjoys/Stannis have exhausted their forces and the support of Iron throne money and swords I think Tywin stood a much better chance of subduing the North than the Andals. In this hypothetical scenario, that is.

[Rheagar Prime]

Yes, but that whole issue is completely averted in the event of a northern rebellion though. If Robb Stark was King in the North, he would have probably survived since he would have no reason to go near the Twins or approach the Westerlands. But he was also King of the Trident, and that's how Tywin got to him.

A future Northern rebellion can take place in the winter time. The northmen don't have to attack the South at all, they can just wait for any morons who are foolish enough to invade the frozen wasteland and pick them off any survivors crannogman style. There's no reason to go 'south to mess with the throne' in this situation, it's more like, 'F the throne, we're doing our own thing; if you want to come get us, the door is wide open'.

Exactly. The Lannisters' entire government strategy is to kick people until they are down... and then keep on kicking them. Tywin can pull this off because he knows how to mix carrots and sticks, but I don't think anyone else can. Eventually the heavy-handed brutality and over-the-top ultraviolence is going to start pissing people off and people (not just the North) are going to ask themselves, "What am I getting out of this? Am I really better off being ruled over by inbred power-hungry psychopaths? How is this any different than being ruled by Mad King Aerys??"

i don't why they would rebel in the winter seems retarded. Unless they stop paying taxes for winter and all a competent ruler has to do is wait until winter is over and i don't see the north beating a united south.

I do agree with what you said about what tywin does. Hell if the north was still complaining about the RW and wanted to rebel he could also just turn over the freys to them and say "here is your revenge now give me fealty" lol well unless the north are back stabbers too.

[Arthur Dayne's Honor]

i don't why they would rebel in the winter seems retarded. Unless they stop paying taxes for winter and all a competent ruler has to do is wait until winter is over and i don't see the north beating a united south.

I do agree with what you said about what tywin does. Hell if the north was still complaining about the RW and wanted to rebel he could also just turn over the freys to them and say "here is your revenge now give me fealty" lol well unless the north are back stabbers too.

all the north would have todo is cut themselves off from the south and any army marching north to reclaim it will get slaughtered at Moat Cailen.

[DavosSeaworthy]

I think, that it was for both Roose Bolton and Tywin Lannister impossible to distance himself from the Red Wedding after certain events had taken place.

-Roose Bolton like a miracle survives the Red Wedding with his whole host intact. Then he gets named Warden of the North by the Lannisters and they give him (a fake) Arya as a bride in order for him to claim Winterfell.

-After the Red Wedding the Freys get Riverrun and Darry, two important seats in the Riverlands and two important Lannisters (Devan and Lancel) marry or are engaged to Frey brides.

Then three Freys travel to White Harbour on board of the "Lion Star" (a ship clearly in posession of House Lannister) in order to accept fealty from White Harbour for the Iron Throne.

The only one, who actually thinks, that some Freys should be punished for their role in the Red Wedding is Cersei Lannister (one of her brighter notions). Besides, all of the Riverlords know, that Walder Frey is too cautious, to do something massive like the Red Wedding without protection from some highter authority and the Blackfish even remarks that the Red Wedding "smells like Tywin Lannister".

Yes, but her plan is to let the other Freys who end up taking power decide who takes the blame, it is simply a propaganda tactic, and after so many Freys have been going around saying it was the Starks who started the fight (no one believes them) and now you're going to punish some Freys for the RW as a way to eliminate enimies within the family and supposedly get some form of justice to show the rest of the kingsdoms that people were punished. It's a very convoluted plan that wouldn't work at all, it would just end up with more questions than answers.

[mambru]

I'd guess Tywin's long term plan was to have the Boltons keep the peace in the North through winter, counting on the idea that between Bolton's brutality and the anticipated heavy winter on the depleted and decimated North, they would be so beaten down that while they might not welcome Tyrion's and Sansa's springtime arrival at Winterfell, they might at least be grudgingly resigned to it and hopeful that at least their presence might put a halter on the Boltons.

It's still very dicey, though. It could be that a lot of Ned's old allies and friends would try to befriend and support Sansa as Ned's last child. However, if she tried to sell them on the idea that they should kneel uncritically to the murderers of her father, mother and brother for the sake of her Lannister child, they could easily perceive her as a traitor to Ned as well. To gain their trust and support for her son by Tyrion, she'd have to reassure them she's teaching her children the true story of the Starks, not the Lannisters' calumny - and THAT would be treason against Joffrey and his house. That would be a possiblity Tywin would be very wary of. I would imagine he'd have Sansa's son taken away very young to be fostered by trustworthy Lannisters as a hostage for Sansa's good behavior. But that would mean that the Northerners would never be able to form an emotional connection to Tyrion's son as their "Stark in Winterfell." Sansa would fulfil that role in her lifetime, so there would be the danger as long as she was a fertile woman that some ambitious, rebellious Northern lord would rise up against Tyrion, grant Sansa a quickie sword-blade divorce, and marry her himself (with or without her willing collaboration) for her claim. Even if the rebellious lord was a true friend of Ned and willing to grant true loyalty to her son by Tyrion if he were there in Winterfell, he'd probably put Sansa to death himself along with Tyrion if she tried to preach bending the knee to Joffrey, and he'd take Ned's grandson to raise with TRUE Northern values.

On the whole, I think the chances of Tyrion managing to keep the peace in the long term at Winterfell are pretty slim, and the most likely outcome is that Tyrion's head would eventually end up on a spike at Winterfell's gate in an uprising in five or ten years' time. I think Tywin knows this too, which is why he gave the job to his most intelligent, least favorite son. If Tyrion's genius is enough to pacify and reconcile the North to Lannister rule, well and good. If he fails and ends up beheaded - oh, well, it's only Tyrion.

[Howling Mad]

Tywin Lannister was a competent tactician (at the very least), and managed to win a war without ever winning a battle.

Point of clarification - Tywin won the Battle of the Green Fork as well as the Battle of the Blackwater.

[PrimeRhaegar]

all the north would have todo is cut themselves off from the south and any army marching north to reclaim it will get slaughtered at Moat Cailen.

can't do that without a navy so the south just land somewhere else instead of just focusing on moat coalin

[AegonTargaryen]

Just to address the point of Tywin's long-term plan to have Sansa's son rule the North. My whole premise is that the RW transformed a war of succession into an inter-generational struggle of nations, transcending any political marriages engineered by the Iron Throne. The Red Wedding transformed Robb Stark into a mythical figure in the North, The Young Wolf, The King who Rose, The first Stark King in 300 years who laid waste to the South, defeated only by treachery. The Red Wedding made King Robb Stark a legendary martyr, and a folk hero, and his cause would not be forgotten because his sister was raped by a Lannister dwarf.

Sansa's hypothetical son would only be accepted by the North if he catered to his heritage, and that means presenting himself as the heir of the Young Wolf, and to do so, he would have to carry on the cause. A product of a forced marriage and rape, raised in the south, and by Lannisters, would NOT compel the Northern lords to forget King Robb.

The Northerners had Brandon Stark, Rickon Stark, and Jon Snow to rally around, and if all three were to fail, I believe a Northern noble would have ascended to champion Robb's cause.

And if by some twist fate the North was kept in the seven kingdoms, then I have complete faith that once liberal democracy swept up Planetos, and 21st century modernity spread throughout, the North would eventually secede through a referendum, and a romanticised image of Robb Stark would be the rallying symbol for the election. Sound familiar? *cough Scotland cough*

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

Axrendale's points make a lot of sense, and I have to agree that Tywin's plans seem much less flawed now. Of course, they are still not without problems, but given his other options and other wars, it was probably the best way for Tywin to deal with the north.

But...

I think he shot himself in the foot in the way the plan was executed: could the Freys not have taken the wedding guests hostage and holed up in the Twins while the northerners lay siege to them? Execute Robb for treason, and pardon the rest once they bend the knee. Roose Bolton could have even kept his cover as a Lannister mole; having engineered to leave himself in charge of the northern armies, he could have kept them out of Tywin's way. (Although I suppose, what's in it for Roose?)

Well, whatever, there's holes in that scheme too and I don't want to get bogged down in the particulars of a double-hypothetical. The point is there must have been ways for Tywin to achieve his goals differently. As I see it, there are two problems with the Red Wedding:

1. The scale of the carnage makes it difficult to forgive

2. It violated laws and customs

In both cases the Red Wedding transgressed the normal bounds of acceptable behaviour in Westeros. This both removes legitimacy as a justification for Lannister rule and frees their enemies from any restrictions. Who's to say the northerners will take to Sansa Stark's child? By all the laws of Westeros, he/she would be heir to Winterfell... but the laws of Westeros don't matter to the Lannisters, so why should it matter to the north? Might they find some distant relative of the Starks to claim the kingship instead? (Similar to how Robert Baratheon justified his rebellion.)

Axrendale's point still stands, that this was Tywin's best option. But I think there's a fatal flaw in Tywin's character, namely his cruelty, that prevents his plans from working as he intends, or at least complicates them. His way of endearing himself to Robert Baratheon was to ravage King's Landing and have Elia and her children brutally murdered. And it worked, but it also gave him long-term enemies in Dorne and a city who will abandon his dynasty at the first chance. I think a similar thing would have played out after the Red Wedding even absent other plot developments.

He's very politically astute, but his violent nature threatens to undo all his victories. He simultaneously strengthens and weakens his house: a thick-walled castle built on sand.

[shearstone]

Incorrect. Those four are the hostages taken during the Red Wedding that are known, thus far. It can safely be said that there are many others - Robb's army included members of most of the noble families in the North, who subsequently bent the knee to Roose Bolton in large part because the Freys were still holding their relatives captive.

The potential hostages who were killed were mostly Robb's personal guards - this accounts for Wendel Manderly, Smalljon Umber, Dacey Mormont, Owen Norrey, and Robin Flint - or were caught up in the crossfire in the main hall. The fact that the Freys went out of their way to render certain figures like the Greatjon ripe for capture demonstrates clearly that taking hostages was a part of the design in the Red Wedding - and there is no reason to doubt Tywin's assertion that he had hoped for Catelyn Stark to be included amongst the captives.

To address the specific example of the Umbers, it is pointed out by Jon Snow in ADWD that although half of them (under Mors) declare for Stannis, the other half fight for the Boltons due to the captivity of the Greatjon - and even Mors and his follows only go to Stannis under conditions.

In regard to the Umber's I mentioned only half had risen up but It's still a large amount proving that hostages don't have as much power as you suggest, Jaime being taken captive, Wylis Manderly after the Green Fork etc didn't stop their respective houses from fighting.

Secondly you say incorrect that these where the only hostages, then you only mention potential hostages and offer conjecture that the Frey's must have taken more. If you can offer evidence from the text demonstrating that The Frey's have more hostages than mentioned in this thread I'll be glad to accept I'm wrong but from what I read most Northern Lords mention the men they lost at the Red Wedding not the ones currently being held hostage.