Nathan Stark

"Most Dangerous Man in Dorne; What will he do next?" Get killed by Areo Hotah, for exactly the reasons you describe.

Your optimism is inspiring. I hope you are correct.

Quaith just needs a hug. That's probably why she's crying though, because she disappears whenever anyone tries to touch her. Living in some tower with nothing but a glass candle for company must be pretty lonely.

Like who?

The sequel is never as good as the original.

Silent Arya Sorry. What does any of this have to do with Arya being silent?

No, it's not delusional or selfish to want to see an end to the fighting. Ellaria Sand makes a very similar argument in AFfC. Ultimately, Catelyn is right that defeating the Lannisters won't bring Ned or Rickard Karstark's sons or anybody else back. The problem with Cat's argument for peace is not that she is selfish or delusional, but that there are multiple claimants to the Iron Throne, so who do you make peace with? Joffrey can be ruled out for obvious reasons, but first Renly, then Stannis, declare their intent to take the Iron Throne. To make peace with one of them is to make an enemy of the other. There were reasons why suing for peace was impractical at the end of A Game of Thromes, but it is not because Catelyn was selfish or delusional.

Robb doesn't need to take Lannisport, though he might have been able to if that was really his focus. The one and only objective here is to isolate Kings Landing by keeping Tywin hold up in the West. The only reason the Lannisters won the Battle of the Blackwater was because Tywin reinforced them. Without his help and the Tyrell army with him, Joffrey, Cersie and Tyrion would be rotting on spikes, and Robb would have Stannis to deal with, which he preffered to begin with. As to the Tyrells, if they had happened upon Robb before Tywin, I suspect they would have joined up with him. After all, Robb was winning at the time, and the Tyrells want to be on the winning side. But unfortunately, they ran into Tywin's forces who were headed to Kings Landing first.

Robb was doing a pretty bang up job bringing Tywin to his knees. The Battle of Oxcross was the only time in the war up to that point where an entire army completely ceased to exist. The entire campaign in the West was about forcing Tywin to move further away from Kings Landing so he'd be unable to defend it. The reason it didn't work was because the Battle of the Fords forced by Edmure delayed Tywin long enough to get word of the impending assault on Kings Landing. Robb's plan to bring the Lannisters to their knees and force a surrender was sound. It was undone by events largely unforseen by anybody and through poor communication with Edmure. Robb defeating the Lannisters outright was always a strong possibility until the Lannister victory in Kings Landing. And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

Yes, everyone knows the Lannisters are disreputable scumbags, but again, that's not something Robb has any ability to change. The best way to save Sansa is to defeat the Lannisters in the field and force a surrender, while keeping Jaime as a hostage to ensure Tywin's good behavior. That is all Robb could do in this situation to save Sansa. That is what he was doing. And even if Robb had the ability to "keep tabs" on Sansa in Kings Landing, which he does not, nothing he learned there would have changed anything. He cannot help her from Riverrun. He can beat Tywin in battle. And that was his focus, as it should have been.

So Robb should try to win the war by not winning any battles? Lol. He did try. That's why he was fighting a war, to avenge Ned and get his sisters back. But the reality is that Robb cannot effect or change how the Lannisters treat Sansa. He had Jaime as a hostage, who was much too valuable to trade to anybody. I think Jaime would have been promptly executed and his head sent to Cersei and Tyrion. That's supposing the Lannisters saw fit to let it be known Sansa had died. Either way, Robb cannot effect what Joffrey or Ser Boros Blount does or does not do to his sister. It is unreasonable to expect him to. The argument you are making, that Robb should let fear of Sansa's mistreatment at the hands of the Lannisters effect his military decisions and diplomacy is ridiculous.

Well, that's why Robb was fighting a war. You act like it's Robb's fault that Sansa is a prisoner of Lannisters and he's just not taking her plight seriously. But Robb is hundreds of miles away from Kings Landing, fighting a war with the people holding her hostage. He did what he could for his family, which givin the circumstances was not much at all.

Eh. Stannis goes back and forth. Sometimes he's upstanding, honorable and willing to learn from defeat, and sometimes he's childish, petty and spiteful. Of course he is the sorest loser. That's why I like him.

I wouldn't count any of these options as "minor" houses. In Westeros, there are the Lords Paramount, and their bannermen. We are then shown how important these houses are relative to each other. Without having been propped up by the Targaryens for a couple of centuries, Houses Tully and Tyrell would probably be afterthoughts. House Martell was largely overlooked until they joined forces with Nymeria and her Rhoynish followers. A House can quickly become quite powerful under the right circumstances. The Houses on the op's list, and many of the honorable mentions, are of prestigious noble bloodlines, are quite old, and they each have considerable resources at their disposal in terms of manpower, wealth, or both. In addition, these houses tend to occupy lands that are of great strategic importance. These things being true, none of the entries on this list can be considered "minor." They might answer to their Lord Paramount, but if these Houses could step in and run their respective kingdoms in place of their liegelords, they cannot be considered "minor." A minor House would be something like House Westerling, prestigious maybe, but poor and unable to throw their weight around. But just because a House isn't in charge of everything in their kingdom, that doesn't make them minor.

Well reasoned and well argued. I think this puts to rest any notion that Stannis is politically inept. He can and does manage good political intrigue when it suits his purposes.

That's a problem for the publishers, but George is already writing this thing as an intended single volume. Figuring out how to split the completed book up into two volumes is not the same as writing it in the first place.

Maybe just a semi-enthusiastic confused shrug will do?

It was Joffrey. The little shit didn't need a motivation to have Bran murdered. Being a little sadist was enough.

On my first comment on this this thread, I allowed that Sansa was likely poisoning Sweetrobin. Not intentionally out of malice, but out of a practical political desire to protect his image as a healthy, strong Lord, which itself goes a long way towards assuring the child's longevity. After reading your comments, and taking a few days to reflect on the matters discussed, I think you have the right of it. It's odd that I didn't look askance at Maester Coleman before now, but the evidence you provide for Coleman's own treachery is pretty hard to dismiss. I think the larger discussion over whether Sansa has "authority" or "influence" over Coleman misses the point, which is that Coleman knew about sweetsleep's effects on Robin and carried on dosing him anyway. No matter how one slices it, Coleman knows more about the drug than Sansa does, and she is simply trusting his good intentions regarding Robin's health. Sansa's "authority" or lack thereof does not change the fact that Coleman was giving unhealthy doses of sweetsleep to Robin that Sansa had no reason to know about. All in all, your position is well argued and convincing.

Sure, the kid is a little shit. Honestly, so was Sansa when we first met her. They are/were both little shits for different, but still unsurprising reasons. Sweetrobin was sickly, and overly sheltered by his mother, who had her own mental health issues that exacerbated Sweetrobin's problems. Kid's like, six? Seven? And Sansa is honestly a much better influence on the child precisely because she isn't overprotective. If Sansa murdered Sweetrobin, I wouldn't be cheering and whooping. I would feel sickened, angry and betrayed.

I completely disagree. The thematic reason for Lady's death is the forshadowing of House Stark's fall at Cersei's hands, and the death of Sansa's childhood dreams. Lady did not die because Sansa lied to the King. She died because Nymeria wasn't there for Cersei to vent her rage upon.

First you said Sansa lied to Ned "for days." Now, having demonstrated otherwise through a quote from the actual book, you move on to saying "it's not clear she defended her sister in the slightest." She didn't, but that's not the discussion here. Did Sansa lie to Ned "for days?" No, she didn't. I just proved that from the quote, and you didn't even try to engage. You moved goalposts. I've noticed this is a tactic you engage in quite often. Again, you make the error of holding the same standards to Sansa, a 12 year old, as you would to an adult. No. She's a child behaving childishly, not a grown woman betraying her family out of spite. And yes, Sansa calling her wolf Lady is clearly a reflection of Sansa's own dreams and desires to become a respected noble Lady. That's why Cersei's order to kill Lady forshadows how she will treat Sansa later on; Cersei literally killed Sansa's dreams. Lady's death is NOT a punishment for Sansa's actions, which, though childish, do not merit having a faithful pet killed. In fact, the only reason Lady died at all was because Arya forced Nymeria to run into the wild. The point is that Lady, an innocent, is wrongfully executed. It was an act of sadism on Cersei's part, not a moral act in response to some imaginary crime Sansa committed. You could just as easily argue that Micah's death was punishment for Arya's actions. It would be just as bad as the argument you're making.

I read the books.

Umm, yeah, it does. The game of thrones is just a fancy expression meaning "politics." If one is in any position of power and authority over multiple people, they are doing politics whether they realize it or not. Ned was responsible for the lives of millions of people in the North, and worked with his bannerman to maintain order and stability. That's what being a high lord means in a feudal system. That's how politics works in this story. King Robert didn't want to accept that the price of being King of Westeros was that he had to actually do politics. Robert tried to never play the game at all, so instead the game played him. Ned, Robb and Jon each played the game more effectively than Robert did, but each made crucial errors in judgement that lead to their downfall. Sansa is learning to play the game the way Littlefinger does, devoid of scruples and completely cynical, but she doesn't yet fully see the costs of that approach yet, which is why her future interactions with SweetRobin are so important. But Sansa can never escape the game. No one can escape the game. If you do, you end up like King Robert.

Yes, you are. Ned did not go against his instincts to play the game of thrones. He went against his instincts to go to Kings Landing to serve as Robert's Hand. Ned was playing the game the whole time, because that's what you do as Lord Paramount. The North didn't just rule itself.