Counterpoint: It was smart of Balon to attack Robb

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, fenr1s said:

His goal was not to crown himself but to return the Ironborn to past greatness and get back to the old way of reaving and praying on the weak.

To achieve that a long war that weakens all regions and with some chance might lead to the dissolution of the Ironthrone is of great benefit.

Aiding Robb gets him nothing in the long term but would cost the lives of thousands of Ironborn. Balon could never hope to hold the Wersterlands which would be very difficult to conquer in the first place, even with Robbs support.

Robb who is without a fleet of his own can not aid him in defending the Ironislands against retaliation either.

The ONLY way to get a dissolved Westeros was to aid Robb. But we have hashed over this before. Some seem to feel that weakening Robb would lengthen the war somehow. That is simply a fantasy, in my view. Without Robb, a united Westeros was inevitable again. Crushing Balon's long term goals.

But I guess we simply won't agree on that.

[fenr1s]

51 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The ONLY way to get a dissolved Westeros was to aid Robb. But we have hashed over this before. Some seem to feel that weakening Robb would lengthen the war somehow. That is simply a fantasy, in my view. Without Robb, a united Westeros was inevitable again. Crushing Balon's long term goals.

But I guess we simply won't agree on that.

He doesnt massively weaken Robb though, taking Deepwood Mott and harrying the Stoney Shore does not effect Robbs war in the south at all, while taking Moat Caillin forces Robb to either remain south or loose a huge number of troops taking it back.

While Renly and Robb could come to terms, a peace between Lannisters and Starks is unlikely therefore it is in Balon's interest not to weaken Tywin to prolong the war.

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 minutes ago, fenr1s said:

He doesnt massively weaken Robb though, taking Deepwood Mott and harrying the Stoney Shore does not effect Robbs war in the south at all, while taking Moat Caillin forces Robb to either remain south or loose a huge number of troops taking it back.

While Renly and Robb could come to terms, a peace between Lannisters and Starks is unlikely therefore it is in Balon's interest not to weaken Tywin to prolong the war.

How does that make any sense?

So Balon wants to end up with a divided Westeros. By stranding Robb in the South, he cuts him off from his homeland, and from any reinforcements from the North. Since he would want Robb to win in the South, to have any hope of stopping a reunification of Westeros, how does weakening Robb help him achieve that?

As for Tywin, you say a peace between Robb and Tywin is unlikely. So, if Balon needs Robb to win in order to keep Westeros divided, why would he not want to weaken Tywin then?

The whole thing makes no sense.

[fenr1s]

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

So Balon wants to end up with a divided Westeros. By stranding Robb in the South, he cuts him off from his homeland, and from any reinforcements from the North. Since he would want Robb to win in the South, to have any hope of stopping a reunification of Westeros, how does weakening Robb help him achieve that?

There is never talk of any reinforcement and Robb had around 30000 men at that point.

He doesnt want Robb to win either, he wants all sides to keep fighting, weakening each other in a long war.

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for Tywin, you say a peace between Robb and Tywin is unlikely. So, if Balon needs Robb to win in order to keep Westeros divided, why would he not want to weaken Tywin then?

The whole thing makes no sense.

He needs all sides to continue the war mainly the Starks and Lannisters.

If Tywin is defeated Balon can expect Renly to take the throne and peace agreement with Robb will likely be made.

Even if the Kingdoms are divided between a Northern/Riverlands part and the rest, both parts would be much to strong for the Ironborn to threaten.

[Chaircat Meow]

Good post OP. I agree.

Balon's overall plan is likely futile but it is pure conjecture what the consequences would have been had he attacked Tywin instead of Robb. No one can guarantee allying with the Starks would have made a divided westeros more likely. Had Balon attacked Tywin he would have enhanced the power of Highgarden, by removing their rivals in the south, and because of its wealth and proximity the Reach is much more dangerous to the Iron Islands, and to any holdings the ironmen gain in the west, than the Starks.

[Free Northman Reborn]

12 minutes ago, fenr1s said:

There is never talk of any reinforcement and Robb had around 30000 men at that point.

He doesnt want Robb to win either, he wants all sides to keep fighting, weakening each other in a long war.

He needs all sides to continue the war mainly the Starks and Lannisters.

If Tywin is defeated Balon can expect Renly to take the throne and peace agreement with Robb will likely be made.

Even if the Kingdoms are divided between a Northern/Riverlands part and the rest, both parts would be much to strong for the Ironborn to threaten.

The prolonged war is not an end game. Whoever wins will rule all of Westeros again, including the Iron Isles. The only exception would be Robb, who agreed to leave Balon as King of the Iron Isles.

Robb is Balon's only hope.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Good post OP. I agree.

Balon's overall plan is likely futile but it is pure conjecture what the consequences would have been had he attacked Tywin instead of Robb. No one can guarantee allying with the Starks would have made a divided westeros more likely. Had Balon attacked Tywin he would have enhanced the power of Highgarden, by removing their rivals in the south, and because of its wealth and proximity the Reach is much more dangerous to the Iron Islands, and to any holdings the ironmen gain in the west, than the Starks.

The Reach has never threatened the Iron Isles in 8000 years of history. Balon needed the Realm broken up. And Robb was the only other one of the Five Kings fighting for that.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The Reach has never threatened the Iron Isles in 8000 years of history. Balon needed the Realm broken up. And Robb was the only other one of the Five Kings fighting for that.

I hate it when people bring in westerosi history in this way. Westeros is the size of S. America (right) and 8,000 years is a hell of a long time, in historical terms. It encompasses more time than between the First Dynasty in Egypt and the present day. GrrM can't even begin to describe anything more than a fraction of what happened in that time.

Is it not common sense to suppose that the biggest naval power might resent being raided enough that they use thir ships to attack the Ironborn and send their knights to help the westermen retake their lands from Balon, regardless of whether we hear about the Reach and Iron Islands coming to blows before. From a strategic perspective, as I said, Highgarden is much more threatening to the Ironborn than the Starks as: the centre of Tyrell power is so much closer, is not separated by as many natural barriers and the Reachman are wealthier and more numerous.

Although there are no indications Balon thought about any of this.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I hate it when people bring in westerosi history in this way. Westeros is the size of S. America (right) and 8,000 years is a hell of a long time, in historical terms. It encompasses more time than between the First Dynasty in Egypt and the present day. GrrM can't even begin to describe anything more than a fraction of what happened in that time.

Is it not common sense to suppose that the biggest naval power might resent being raided enough that they use thir ships to attack the Ironborn and send their knights to help the westermen retake their lands from Balon, regardless of whether we hear about the Reach and Iron Islands coming to blows before. From a strategic perspective, as I said, Highgarden is much more threatening to the Ironborn than the Starks as: the centre of Tyrell power is so much closer, is not separated by as many natural barriers and the Reachman are wealthier and more numerous.

Although there are no indications Balon thought about any of this.

A divided Westeros makes the Reach incapable of conquering the Iron Isles. Just like it made them incapable of conquering their much weaker Dornish or Stormlands neighbours in the past. 

Thus, the key is to ensure a divided Westeros. It is the Iron Throne that ended the Old Way, not the Redwynne navy. Destroy the Iron Throne, and the Old Way can return.

And for that you need the North, Riverlands and Iron Isles in a rebel alliance, with the Vale as a potential ally and the Dornish looking on as interested opportunists.

 

[Chaircat Meow]

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

A divided Westeros makes the Reach incapable of conquering the Iron Isles. Just like it made them incapable of conquering their much weaker Dornish or Stormlands neighbours in the past. 

Thus, the key is to ensure a divided Westeros. It is the Iron Throne that ended the Old Way, not the Redwynne navy. Destroy the Iron Throne, and the Old Way can return.

And for that you need the North, Riverlands and Iron Isles in a rebel alliance, with the Vale as a potential ally and the Dornish looking on as interested opportunists.

 

On the bold: Assertion.

But, supposing I believed the above for some reason: divided doesn't mean the whole place breaks down into the seven/eight constituent kingdoms. The north and the riverlands could try and go their own way but this does not mean the Reach/Storm/Crown and Westerlands (or even the Vale) would split. Robb had no means to achieve that.

I don't have a problem, btw with people thinking backing Robb was a good idea. But my own view it is almost impossible to say how things would have turned out, so Balon was not massively stupid for turning down Robb's offer.

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

On the bold: Assertion.

But, supposing I believed the above for some reason: divided doesn't mean the whole place breaks down into the seven/eight constituent kingdoms. The north and the riverlands could try and go their own way but this does not mean the Reach/Storm/Crown and Westerlands (or even the Vale) would split. Robb had no means to achieve that.

I don't have a problem, btw with people thinking backing Robb was a good idea. But my own view it is almost impossible to say how things would have turned out, so Balon was not massively stupid for turning down Robb's offer.

Just to be clear. No one, I would think, is suggesting that Balon was guaranteed to achieve success if he joined Robb. The outcome was uncertain. But it was a hell of a lot more probable than after he weakened Robb - the only other King fighting for independence from the Iron Throne. And a King who already represented two of the Seven (eight) Kingdoms, and whose Aunt ruled a third.

As for the situation if Robb won independence for the North and Riverlands. Why would Dorne then want to remain bound to an Iron Throne that usurped Elia's kid's rights, and murdered her? They would go their own way the moment the threat of force could no longer keep them in. In other words, the moment Robb succeeded in breaking away, Dorne would follow. As for the Vale, what would this reduced Iron Throne offer them (other than the obligation to pay taxes) that a simple treaty between two independent kingdoms could not offer equally well, but far more cheaply?

The Renly/Margaery marriage might solidify the Stormland/Tyrell alliance into some kind of united central kingdom. But that would only represent two of the eight Kingdoms, and would not have the strength to force itself on the other 6.

Anyway, this very uncertainty would aid Balon's quest for independence. Something which a united Iron Throne would destroy in a hearbeat.

[Duranaparthur]

9 minutes ago, fenr1s said:

There is never talk of any reinforcement and Robb had around 30000 men at that point.

He doesnt want Robb to win either, he wants all sides to keep fighting, weakening each other in a long war.

He needs all sides to continue the war mainly the Starks and Lannisters.

If Tywin is defeated Balon can expect Renly to take the throne and peace agreement with Robb will likely be made.

Even if the Kingdoms are divided between a Northern/Riverlands part and the rest, both parts would be much to strong for the Ironborn to threaten.

Depending on an everlasting war between the two power blocs is a folly; these feudal societies inevitably run out of fuel for continuous campaigns, so even a "long" war is going to cease comparatively soon. They don't even have the mercenary professional armies that managed to keep fighting going in the late Renaissance. Eventually, the feudal bonds of loyalty break down, and overlords lose their power. And depending on war to last just puts him in the same place as Dalton Greyjoy, who had two years of free reign thanks to a war involving literally every section of Westeros and dragons, a scenario far more likely to drag on, and seemed to gain more plunder and prestige for that moment than Balon did in attacking a  weakened North. And even then, the best long term conflict Balon could hope for would be to see someone as stubborn as Stannis take the IT.

It may very well be that Balon's dream of reaving unabated up and down Westeros is totally impossible during his (expected) lifetime; even House Hoare had to focus largely on attacking one area, as other powers that got involved always managed to bloody Iron noses. A prolonged war is going to end, and attacking everyone just excuses them to ally against them again.

A split kingdom with the Iron Islands on the winning side is still better for an independent Iron Islands than having one of the IT supporters win, and a split kingdom gives the Iron Born a greater chance to exploit the potential for future chaos. There's some evidence that the Iron Islands can only be subdued by a fully United Westeros; Dagon Greyjoy manages to take on an alliance of the Westerlands and North, and only goes down when the Targrayens get involved with presumably even more kingdoms. Plus, it's not like the North and Riverlands are so powerful that they'll walk over the Iron Islands; neither has a fleet comparable to the Redwynes or Lannisters, which is why Robb courts Balon for an alliance in the first place, and even getting their full theoretical 90,000 men will take an immense time and leave them vulnerable to Southron powers. A 2 bloc scenario would see the Iron Born needed by the North and the Riverlands, not merely equal to them. 

Again, that not to say that the wisest course is to attack the Lannisters in an alliance with Robb; it's merely to say that Balon's actions cannot be reconciled with an intelligent pursuit of long term Iron Born autonomy and lasting reaving capabilities. As others have pointed out, if his goal is actually to have some quick glory in an short orgy of looting and rapine in the North, with his crown being a glorified publicity stunt, it might work. But even then, you're hoping that Tywin or Renly won't decide you make a tempting target, and praying that Stannis doesn't win at all.

[Chaircat Meow]

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Just to be clear. No one, I would think, is suggesting that Balon was guaranteed to achieve success if he joined Robb. The outcome was uncertain. But it was a hell of a lot higher than after he weakened Robb - the only other King fighting for independence from the Iron Throne. And a King who already represented two of the Seven (eight) Kingdoms, and whose Aunt ruled a third.

As for the situation if Robb won independence for the North and Riverlands. Why would Dorne then want to remain bound to an Iron Throne that usurped Elia's kid's rights, and murdered her? They would go their own way the moment the threat of force could no longer keep them in. In other words, the moment Robb succeeded in breaking away, Dorne would follow. As for the Vale, what would this reduced Iron Throne offer them (other than the obligation to pay taxes) that a simple treaty between two independent kingdoms could not offer equally well, but far more cheaply?

The Renly/Margaery marriage might solidify the Stormland/Tyrell alliance into some kind of united central kingdom. But that would only represent two of the eight Kingdoms, and would not have the strength to force itself on the other 6.

Anyway, this very uncertainty would aid Balon's quest for independence. Something which a united Iron Throne would destroy in a hearbeat.

Sorry for the confusion: I was disagreeing with the bolded in the previous posts. Obviously it is true that success was not guaranteed whatever plan was adopted.

If Renly won you would have the Reach, the Stormlands and the Crownlands in one powerful bloc, likely united with the west (because what are the westermen to do, surely they would rather serve Renly than Balon). That's a much stronger power than Robb's kingdom (and it has all the naval strength). Dorne and the Vale might stay on board or might not.

I do not believe Robb was offering Balon a permanent alliance either.

edit: Dorne fell under IT control later than everyone else too, so its contribution is hardly required to end the old way.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Sorry for the confusion: I was disagreeing with the bolded in the previous posts. Obviously it is true that success was not guaranteed whatever plan was adopted.

If Renly won you would have the Reach, the Stormlands and the Crownlands in one powerful bloc, likely united with the west (because what are the westermen to do, surely they would rather serve Renly than Balon). That's a much stronger power than Robb's kingdom (and it has all the naval strength). Dorne and the Vale might stay on board or might not.

I do not believe Robb was offering Balon a permanent alliance either.

edit: Dorne fell under IT control later than everyone else too, so its contribution is hardly required to end the old way.

One major correction. The idea was not to permanently occupy the West. Just to neutralize them during this war. 

[Chaircat Meow]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

One major correction. The idea was not to permanently occupy the West. Just to neutralize them during this war. 

I did forget that occupying the west was Theon's gloss on the letter, not what Robb wrote. Although that only goes to show how badly Robb and Theon handled the offer. But Balon did make it clear that he wished to expand his territory and not just raid.

I also think you haven't considered that Robb would abandon Balon in favour of peace with Renly so Balon would have no allies if/when the West and the Reach decided to punish him.

[fenr1s]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The prolonged war is not an end game. Whoever wins will rule all of Westeros again, including the Iron Isles. The only exception would be Robb, who agreed to leave Balon as King of the Iron Isles.

Robb is Balon's only hope.

In 8000 years of history Westeros has only been under unified rule for less than 200 years and that took Dragons to accomplish.

The only side in the war who at that point in time can possible hope to unify Westeros is Renly, whose main opponent again is Tywin and therefore it is not in Balons interest to weaken Tywin.

Robb has no power to grant Balon the Ironislands or help him defend them without a fleet, which is only half of Balons objective anyway. The other being the return to the Old Way of reaving.

 

[fenr1s]

39 minutes ago, Duranaparthur said:

Depending on an everlasting war between the two power blocs is a folly; these feudal societies inevitably run out of fuel for continuous campaigns, so even a "long" war is going to cease comparatively soon.

There is a multitude of medieval wars that spanned decades like the 100 Years War, the Hussite Wars or the Wars of the Roses, which directly inspired the books.

It is not unreasonable for Balon to expect the conflict to last several years and not to have a decisive outcome.

.

[Duranaparthur]

1 hour ago, fenr1s said:

There is a multitude of medieval wars that spanned decades like the 100 Years War, the Hussite Wars or the Wars of the Roses, which directly inspired the books.

It is not unreasonable for Balon to expect the conflict to last several years and not to have a decisive outcome.

.

Both the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses qualify more as successive wars than a single sustained campaign; there was always a period between the major actions where the opposing sides consolidated their power, and especially in England the previous campaign's victor generally and undisputed rule until the next stage of the conflict, while France actually saw several periods of static territory. To us, they're more like a series of wars as opposed to a single conflict. We call them wars largely because they had the same strategic objective throughout. We can't actually expect Robb's army of feudal lords (dependent on their landholdings back home for income and stability) to actually continue the same campaign for decades, just like how the French didn't spend every waking moment during the Hundred Years War trying to kill the English. The Hussite wars seem to fit your description to a t, though.

But I feel that both War of the Roses and the Hundred Years War reinforce my point: Balon would be better served by a Westeros that remains in a politically unstable position where in the competing opponents periodically challenge each other like clock work. Balon would be looking to have a stance similar to the Duchy of Burgundy, allying with one power to increase his own, but never totally tied to that other power as a vassal. But for that to happen, at least two power blocs have to be in near equality in terms of power, and that's not going to happen if an opponent is wiped from the board. And the likelihood of that increases if Robb, the epicenter of major secessionist objectives, has him homeland destroyed.

Robb's objective is at least one independent Kingdom in Westeros, with a foothold on the borders of several others. If he accomplishes his objective, than we have warring blocs that may have continuous start-stop-wars between themeselves, allowing Balon and the Iron Born to reap the benefits of being the classic threat-that's-dangerous-but-not-dangerous-as-the-other-threat element. But once he's gone, you've got a scenario where the most instability you can hope for is dynastic disputes; the rest of Westeros will inevitably rejoin once secession is disproven as a viable option. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

What a lot of people fail to take into account is that Balon's strategy largely paid off. Yes, he loses the North (or at least his competing heirs do), but the Ironborn under Euron do manage to start raiding other parts of the 7K and seem to be doing quite well. Robb did lose to Tywin, just as Balon thought he would (although Balon and Theon helped with that, certainly).  

[Duranaparthur]

14 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

What a lot of people fail to take into account is that Balon's strategy largely paid off. Yes, he loses the North (or at least his competing heirs do), but the Ironborn under Euron do manage to start raiding other parts of the 7K and seem to be doing quite well. Robb did lose to Tywin, just as Balon thought he would (although Balon and Theon helped with that, certainly).  

Except the Ironborn now have three active enemies, two of whom were antagonized directly by Balon (Roose in that it's his homeland under attack, Stannis in that Balon is a traitor to the Iron Throne) and are smashing his Northern gains, and one that seems poised to defeat defeat them (the Reach, with Redwyne fleets being built and a chance for them to consolidate Westeros behind the Rose and invade the Iron Islands) in part because of the political isolation Balon achieved. The only long term hope they have is that Euron gets a dragon. Because right now the numbers game favors a Westeros under Tyrell and Lannister control with Bolton control of the North, all three of whom have a reason to destroy the Iron Islands monarchy, with an outside chance that Stannis or a Stark might win and come kraken hunting. Then you've got Dany pulling an Aegon...

He wouldn't have Stannis or the Reach as immediate enemies if he didn't declare himself king, and his kingship might have stood the test of time if he didn't attack the North. He thought like a pirate but styles himself a king; he set-up his own realms ruin in only  a matter of time. Because its only time before he gets crushed. The short term success may feel good, but long term they're screwed. He could have ravaged the North and be looking at a fat pay check form Stannis, Mace, or Tywin, or he could have gotten his crown and back up while reaving the whole of Westeros south of the Trident, but instead he's going to get five minutes of infamy and get destroyed.