Lady Ella

My understanding of the books has evolved considerably over the years. There's just so much detail in there that's easy to miss on a first read. The biggest shift was when I found out how the show ended (I didn't watch it) because it completely threw me. It made me rethink everything as I looked for clues as to how that ending could come about. Reading Fire and Blood deepened my understanding of the series as well because it made me notice larger patterns. So on rereads I focus more on the bigger picture. I still hope TWoW will come out but I'm now starting to accept that it likely never will. Part of me is worried I wouldn't like the book anyway if it turns out I was wrong about a lot of things. I didn't even know that there were YouTubers talking about ASOIAF. There are some great podcasts, though; even if I don't agree with everything they say, they make me think. The Not A Podcast is the best one, in my view.

GRRM probably didn't have all the details worked out at the beginning, but he must have had some idea what he was planning to do with Dorne. It works for me anyway. Doran's first priority was to protect Dorne by making sure they didn't end up fighting the rest of Westeros together. Again. So secrecy was paramount. Viserys was just a tool to him, one he wanted to use to get vengeance and to restore Dornish influence in KL. Besides, we know Doran has spies in KL, so he would have known that Robert wasn't trying to assasinate the Targ kids. Doran made the same mistake a lot of players in Westeros make: assuming that they're the only one making moves. I don't think it occured to Doran that Viserys or Dany would come up with their own plans or gain their own power. He expected them to just stay safely out of the way until he needed them, at which point they would be desperate enough to do whatever he told them to do. One thing I don't understand, though, is precisely what Doran was waiting for. Did he simply expect Robert's coalition to fall apart eventually or did he have good reason to think another war was coming? If it's the former, either he's very good at reading the game board or he relied entirely on chance. If it's the latter, he must have been in contact with Varys who, without giving him details, assured him that he would start a war and bring the Arryn/Baratheon/Lannister alliance down. Given that Arianne was unmarried and not getting any younger, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

You make a good point here. After he learns of Jaime's capture, Tywin calls Tyrion his son and makes him Hand of the King. After he learns of Jaime's release he starts treating Tyrion the same way he did before. While not made explicit, it very much suggests that he considers Jaime his heir before his capture and again after his release, with Tyrion being treated as the heir in between. Tywin sends Tyrion to King's Landing precisely because he doesn't trust Cersei to rule, and Tyrion does indeed undermine his sister at every opportunity. So it seems to me that, at least in Tywin's mind, the order of succession is Jaime, Tyrion, Cersei, though I don't believe he ever puts any of this in writing.

Surrender is definitely a thing in Westeros. Otherwise, there wouldn't be noble houses that are thousands of years old. However, there are also many examples where terms are not even offered. The more high-profile these examples, the more likely they are to be repeated, especially if it happens a lot within a short period of time. I also think that Aegon's Conquest made this phenomenon worse because it made the game of thrones a win or lose game, with no middle ground. This is why the Starks and the Lannisters are unable to negotiate a peace. The Lannisters believe they can gain total victory over the Starks, even though this is completely unrealistic, so they will accept only total surrender from them, which is absolutely impossible for the Starks to agree to (the Starks control more territory, and the Lannisters don't have dragons). The Starks are trying to reintroduce the middle ground, but the Lannisters are clinging to the win or lose game because there's no precedent for a Kingdom of the South, so agreeing to a border treaty with the Starks would look like weakness and possibly lead to the complete collapse of the south.

I think you're missing the actual point of the war. Nobody's denying that Viserys ignored the laws of succession. The argument was about whether or not he had the right to. You say he very clearly didn't have the right to, but the Blacks believed that, as king, he did. That argument was never really settled. The Lannisters were Greens, the Starks Blacks. After Robert's death, Ned expected the king's will to be honoured; Cersei tore it to pieces. And there is an example of a king picking his own heir, in defiance of the laws of succession: Robb. This is further proof of the Starks' belief in absolute royal authority. Sure, we don't know yet whether his will will actually be honoured, but his confidence and Ned's confidence in Robert's will lead me to believe that that's how things work in the North. I'm not saying Viserys was wise to name Rhaenyra. I suspect he did it mostly for sentimental reasons. However, his biggest mistake was giving the Hightowers so much power on the Small Council when they clearly had a vested interest in subverting his will. Rhaenyra should have been Hand and should have been ruling in KL during her father's illness. The Dance broke out because the Hightowers controlled the Small Council, which made them an alternative source of authority to Rhaenyra upon Viserys' death, forcing the lords to choose.

You're looking at this all wrong. Ramsay isn't the cause of the Starks' downfall. He simply takes advantage of the power vacuum left by their absence, same as the Greyjoys. That power vacuum was created when Robb marched south but was made worse by Ned's death, followed in quick succession by 'Bran and Rickon's deaths', Ser Rodrik's death and Robb's death. This is what happens when there's no king. If it wasn't Ramsay it would have been someone else, but he had the backing and protection of House Bolton. Ramsay is a way for Roose to cause chaos in the North while avoiding responsibility. The speed at which everything falls apart in Robb's absence shows how crucial the Starks are and how hard their job really is. Their absence has an immediate and devastating impact. Can you say the same of any other house in Westeros? Only the Targaryens maybe. This is why I think it will have to be Jon, King in the North, who finally deals with Ramsay. Only Jon will be able to fill that power vacuum and thus restore peace and justice.

People must suffer consequences for their actions, and the law must be upheld, otherwise there's no point having laws. Allowing people to get away with crimes because you feel sorry for them invites anarchy. The problem lies with the death penalty. Death is so final. The punishment must be proportionate to the crime. Executing someone denies them the possibility of changing and becoming a better person. With Theon, you could argue that he has been punished enough. And I think Jorah's exile is sufficient punishment.

I don't think there was a good choice. What Robb really needed was an uncle, brother or cousin, and he didn't have one. I don't think any of the northern lords would have been very competent because the Starks usually lead armies themselves and so don't give their lords the chance to test their skills. Having said that, there are a couple of examples in Fire and Blood of the Starks giving command to the Dustins, so they might have been the Starks' go-to, but that obviously wasn't an option this time. The Starks are very classist, so I think Robb was always going to choose a lord (which rules out the Glovers and Wylis Manderly). Roose Bolton may well have been the most competent. His caution was exactly what was needed. Another lord, seeking glory, may have lost many more men. Roose retreated with still a sizeable army, enough to defend the road north. Lord Hornwood or Lord Cerwyn may have been the best options because they were both loyal but they would still have been looking to get an advantage over their fellow lords because that's just the way the game is played. Moreoever, because their lands lie closer to Winterfell, Robb may have been accused of favouritism, which is a big no-no in the North. I don't think it really matters anyway. Individual events and decisions don't change the broader power dynamics. Robb still had too much land to defend, too many enemies and no King in the South to make a peace with. The one good thing to come out of putting Bolton in command is that he'll get the blame for everything, not the Starks.

The details would change, but the major strokes would still be the same. The Lannisters and Starks were headed for war either way. Ned was still going to discover the truth about Joffrey, so nothing changes there. Cersei would still have Robert killed. I also think Tywin would still attack the riverlands because it just makes sense as a defensive manoeuvre. The Tullys are a weak house who are allied to the Starks. Tywin would want to subdue the riverlands before the Starks could seize control of it and use it as a base from which to attack the westerlands. The invasion might have looked different, though, since no member of House Lannister had been kidnapped, so it may not have been as brutal. Tywin may even have tried to win some river lords over to his side. Or, you know, maybe not. This is Tywin after all. There may have been a change in who was in charge in Winterfell. If Cat makes it back before it all kicks off then it would be her calling the banners, and she would not allow her 15-year-old son to lead the army. However, it may never have been in her power to stop him. At the very least I don't think the northern lords would tolerate having Catelyn in charge for very long.

It would not have been nearly as easy as you make out. Robb was outnumbered right from the beginning but kept finding ways around it. He also held a huge amount of territory in both the riverlands and the north, which nobody ever talks about - it's not just about army size. Taking and holding territory is not easy when facing a determined and organised defensive force. Of course, the numbers would tell in the end in theory, but it would come at a price that I doubt the Lannister/Tyrell/Frey/Bolton alliance could pay. If the Lannisters lose many more men they're basically finished as a military threat for a generation. And I doubt the Tyrells' hold over their vassals is strong enough to withstand a prolonged war. That was the problem. Regarding the OP's initial question, the time to move against Walder Frey was after Robert's Rebellion, as others have pointed out. The Freys can summon a larger army than the Tullys, so they were always going to be a threat, and that bridge gives them too much power. Hoster Tully should have taken the opportunity to weaken the Freys while he had the power to do so and a good excuse. The only reason the Freys were allowed to have so much power for so long is because the riverlands is a power vacuum. A strong ruler would never allow a vassal to have so much power, which is why some sort of conflict was inevitable between the Starks and the Freys. Even Bran fights with the two Walders, and he's the nice Stark.