Jump to content

Riverlands 2.0


Matter-of-fact

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Lord Wraith said:

Baelish gets blackout drunk, Blackfish takes him up to his room and Lysa goes up to "comfort him" aka rape him.

Baelish misremembers this as him sleeping with Cat leading to to the duel with Brandon and everything after that.

All three of the teenagers were drinking, Lysa would have been drunk as well. Baelish mentions that he mentions Cat's name after they had sex, not before, meaning it was not rape (or mutual rape considering they were both drunk). 

I get that Lysa is not a great character but trying to label her as a rapist seems to be missing the point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

He was up against a larger army, the King was still alive so could not have expected that Robert would sit back and do nothing. 

 

If the Lannister's outnumbered him then Edmure should have fought a defensive war and kept the Lannister's at bay until he could get help from the Vale or the North , instead he sent a outnumbered army to the Golden Tooth and it got crushed and things went downhill from there . The Riverlands were on the edge of complete defeat in a very short time , Edmure was in charge so he has to take some responsibility .

 

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I'm sorry, you may not have read up until AFFC but Robb saved no one, he just prolonged the eventual defeat. 

doesn't change the fact that Robb crushed the Lannister's in the Whispering Woods and the Battle of the Camps , freeing Edmure and forcing the Lannister's on the defensive in the Riverlands and enabling the Riverlords to retake their castles .

 

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Because it was in the Tully's possession and they lost it, thus a blow. It was never in Robb's possession and the very reason why he has gained some of the Riverlands as a kingdom is because Tywin attacked and took some lands from the Riverlands. Tywin not attacking means Robb would never have been the King of the Riverlands in the first place.

I meant that Lady Whent giving Harrenhall to the Lannister's was a major blow to Robb's war against Tywin so i don't care who possessed it when , that does not matter , what matters is that Tywin had control of a major castle in the Riverlands that was in a very strategic position that would have been a major benefit to Robb if Lady Whent had been able to hold it against the Lannister's .  .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

If the Lannister's outnumbered him then Edmure should have fought a defensive war

You are describing exactly what he did. The Golden Tooth is a tight causeway that leads from Lannisport and Casterly Rock, Edmure's plan was to send an army to stop the Westerland army going through the pass as the other side of the Tooth was open, impossible to defend against, land. 

3 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

 

and kept the Lannister's at bay until he could get help from the Vale or the North ,

Which is what he was hoping, he sent men to Kings Landing, where the Lord of the North was, requesting help and we know that he sent word to the Vale as the Blackfish quits his position as Knight of the Gate at his nieces refusal to send military help. 

So far you have not suggested anything that Edmure had not done. 

3 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

 

instead he sent a outnumbered army to the Golden Tooth and it got crushed and things went downhill from there .

Then explain what you would have had him do? Once an army is through the Golden Tooth there is hundreds of miles of Riverlands border they can choose to attack. 

3 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

The Riverlands were on the edge of complete defeat in a very short time , Edmure was in charge so he has to take some responsibility .

No one claimed that he was not responsible. What I pointed out is that Edmure and Robb did the exact same thing, they defended their lands poorly and paid for it when attacked. The comment I replied to was on their differing talents but in terms of defensive strategy they are both pretty much on the same page. 

3 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

doesn't change the fact that Robb crushed the Lannister's in the Whispering Woods and the Battle of the Camps , freeing Edmure

Never once disputed that. Robb, and Edmure, both had some excellent victories. But your claim that he 'saved' the Riverlands is demonstrably false. 

3 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

and forcing the Lannister's on the defensive in the Riverlands and enabling the Riverlords to retake their castles .

Well yes and no. When the Riverlords pleaded with Robb to help them retake Harrenhall and drive the Lannisters from their lands he refused, he had other plans than the protection of his new subjects. Subsequently Harrnehal remained under Lannister control and the young Darry was murdered trying to regain his families lands and not having the support to do so while other settlements under Robb's new kingdom such as Maidenpool and Saltpans were not facing attacks from both Northern and Westerland armies and other places such as the Stoney Sept saw the peasants have to take matters into their own hands as they complained the nobles who were supposed to protect them were off riding in the West with the Young Wolf. 

The Riverlands was in chaos during Robb's 'reign'. He did nothing but prolong a war which they still lost causing many more Riverland casualties than there would have been had he never showed up in the first place.  

3 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

 

I meant that Lady Whent giving Harrenhall to the Lannister's was a major blow to Robb's war against Tywin so i don't care who possessed it when , that does not matter , what matters is that Tywin had control of a major castle in the Riverlands that was in a very strategic position that would have been a major benefit to Robb if Lady Whent had been able to hold it against the Lannister's .  .

If Tywin did not invade there would be no war. I'm not sure your point here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Well yes and no. When the Riverlords pleaded with Robb to help them retake Harrenhall and drive the Lannisters from their lands he refused, he had other plans than the protection of his new subjects.

should Robb have sacrificed his advantages in the war to try and retake Harrenhall ? Robb plundered the Westerlands and took a couple of castles there and Tywin only moved on him when Stannis laid siege to Storms End because he knew that winning the war was more important then retaking the castles . Robb's attack in the Westerlands was the right move and put Tywin in a terrible place until the shadowbaby saved him .

Ser Kevan did as he was bid. Lord Tywin unrolled the leather, smoothing it flat. "Jaime has left us in a bad way. Roose Bolton and the remnants of his host are north of us. Our enemies hold the Twins and Moat Cailin. Robb Stark sits to the west, so we cannot retreat to Lannisport and the Rock unless we choose to give battle. Jaime is taken, and his army for all purposes has ceased to exist. Thoros of Myr and Beric Dondarrion continue to plague our foraging parties. To our east we have the Arryns, Stannis Baratheon sits on Dragonstone, and in the south Highgarden and Storm's End are calling their banners."
Tyrion smiled crookedly. "Take heart, Father. At least Rhaegar Targaryen is still dead."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Riverlands was in chaos during Robb's 'reign'. He did nothing but prolong a war which they still lost causing many more Riverland casualties than there would have been had he never showed up in the first place.  

 

The Riverlands were in chaos long before Robb came there , Tywin had started the war there not Robb , The Mountain and the Brave Companions were raping and pillaging all over it and Tywin had two armies attacking anything and everything in the Riverlands, so you think that Robb should have just ignored their plight just like the Vale and the Iron Throne did ? At least because of Robb the Riverlords were able retake their castles and then they defeated the Lannister's at the Battle of the Fords and give themselves some pride and confidence back , When they eventually  rise against the Freys and Lannister's they will know that they can actually beat them in battle  .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blackfish Tully said:

should Robb have sacrificed his advantages in the war to try and retake Harrenhall ?

He sacrificed all the advantages he had when he spent too long in the West and got hitched to a vassal of his enemy. Sacrificing his advantages to try to bring peace to the Riverlands seems a better idea than sacrificing your advantages because you want to pop your cherry. 

1 hour ago, Blackfish Tully said:

The Riverlands were in chaos long before Robb came there ,

 

eh? No one disputed that, what I pointed out is that Robb did nothing for them, he did not save them liked you claimed and the Riverlands chaos was only extended because of Robb entering the war. The Riverland people would have been better off if he had never came south. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

All three of the teenagers were drinking, Lysa would have been drunk as well. Baelish mentions that he mentions Cat's name after they had sex, not before, meaning it was not rape (or mutual rape considering they were both drunk). 

I get that Lysa is not a great character but trying to label her as a rapist seems to be missing the point. 

Baelish had to be carried up by Blackfish which I read as blackout drunk as he had already passed out in the hall. So he was unable to give consent or gave consent under the drunken delusion that is was Cat. I would certainly call that rape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord Wraith said:

Baelish had to be carried up by Blackfish which I read as blackout drunk as he had already passed out in the hall. So he was unable to give consent or gave consent under the drunken delusion that is was Cat. I would certainly call that rape.

Yes yes girl... what is it with this community and a rape fetish, try to see things in perspective, in it's (imagined) time and try to remember when you were young. Not everything, and especially these kind of scenario's are as clear cut as you want to bring them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Deepbollywood Motte said:

Yes yes girl... what is it with this community and a rape fetish, try to see things in perspective, in it's (imagined) time and try to remember when you were young. Not everything, and especially these kind of scenario's are as clear cut as you want to bring them.

First off I'm a guy and what would you call it then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Wraith said:

Baelish had to be carried up by Blackfish which I read as blackout drunk as he had already passed out in the hall. So he was unable to give consent

Of course he was able to give consent, he gave consent, we know that he thought he was giving consent to Cat rather than a drunk Lysa, but consent was given and it was not till afterwards that  he called her Cat. 

This is not rape, two drunk teenagers consenting to have sex with each other is not rape. Not in Western culture, however in many medieval cultures this would be classified as rape as having sex with virgins without their father's consent was labelled as as such. 

Now had Petyr told Lysa that he thought she was Cat before they had sex you would have a case, but she did not and there is no mention from either person that Lysa forced Petyr to have sex or she tricked him into thinking she was someone else. 

Quote

 

or gave consent under the drunken delusion that is was Cat. I would certainly call that rape.

That is only rape if Lysa is psychic,but as poor idiotic Lysa genuinely thought he was saying he loved her until he mentioned Cat's name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...