Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hammers1895

Justice, Lack Thereof, and Mixed Allegiances

Recommended Posts

I've always been confused about a couple recurring themes from the book series.

First- the whole situation after Renly is murdered in his tent by Melisandre's Stannis-shadow, and Brienne and Catelyn make their escape, Loras Tyrell kills Emmon Cuy and Robar Royce in a "red rage" for not successfully protecting his boyfriend Renly. For one, I cannot understand what Royce, a Valeman, was doing in the Reach as a Rainbow Guard for Renly Baratheon. That has never been explained anywhere that I have seen. But additionally, why was there never any action taken against Loras Tyrell for these killings? Maybe the Royce's couldn't do anything about it, seeing as they are all the way in the Vale and out of the loop on Westerosi politics at the moment. But House Cuy is one of the most prominent houses of the Reach. I would hope that the Tyrells offered some recompense for their loss of Emmon, granted them some boon. We don't hear anything about House Cuy pulling their support for the Tyrells at any point. 

Which sort of leads into the second thing I always wonder about. When the society fractures and civil war is occurring, many prominent families have historically kept a "foot in each camp", whether it be the Blackfyre Rebellions, Robert's Rebellion or now the War of the Five Kings. How does this work? How do leaders/rulers trust men or families that have a dog in each fight? We know of consequences in the past for houses that ended up on the losing side of a war (members get exiled or executed or take the black, houses are stripped of lands, lose their noble status, etc.). It just seems weird to me that families can so blatantly be on the fence during a dispute and try to reap the benefit no matter which side wins. If I was a ruler, any court retainer or counselor or guard near me that was a member of a house that was in open revolt against me, you can bet there would be consequences (hostages most likely). How can you be sure of a person's loyalty when members of their family are fighting against you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't think anyone is going to demand recompense for the death of someone who was serving a traitor to the crown. Or maybe they think his death was justified as he failed his duties as a Kingsguard. There's also the fact that Mace Tyrell is one of the most powerful lords in the realm so that grants him some political levity. 

Or who knows... This might just come to bite Loras and the Tyrells in the ass in the next book. 

Royce was a second son looking for glory, so he joined Renly and his knights of summer. He mentions it to Catelyn in one of her chapters. 

Also slight nitpick-but Loras didn't just kill them because they failed in protecting Renly. He thought they were in on the assassination. 

Edited by Peach King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Hammers1895 said:
  1. For one, I cannot understand what Royce, a Valeman, was doing in the Reach as a Rainbow Guard for Renly Baratheon.

Robar Royce being born in the Vale doesn't obligate him to stay there. He has no lands of his own, so he embarks in a search of new opportunities. A gig as Renly's Kingsguard is hardly a bad place to be, especially since it looks like Renly is winning. It's feudalism. The connection that binds a knight to a Lord, a Lord to his Lord, an upper Lord to the King - it's all very loose at best and non-existent at worst.

22 hours ago, Hammers1895 said:

But additionally, why was there never any action taken against Loras Tyrell for these killings?

Who knows of Loras'... misstep inside the tent? If its only Loras himself...

There is also the matter of Cuy potentially murdering Renly and nearly fucking it all up for the Tyrells as well as other Reacher Houses. Not the best position to make the demands from.

22 hours ago, Hammers1895 said:

If I was a ruler, any court retainer or counselor or guard near me that was a member of a house that was in open revolt against me, you can bet there would be consequences

That presumes you have enough people and resources to get by without fence-sitters and risk pushing them away completely.

Lannisters and most of the medieval rulers didn't.

Edited by Myrish Lace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

22 hours ago, Hammers1895 said:

IFor one, I cannot understand what Royce, a Valeman, was doing in the Reach as a Rainbow Guard for Renly Baratheon. That has never been explained anywhere that I have seen.

Robar explains himself to Catelyn when they meet: “My lord father owes Lady Lysa fealty, as does his heir. A second son must find glory where he can.” Ser Robar shrugged. “A man grows weary of tourneys.”

Robar was a young tourney knight of age with Renly. He probably admired him and was his friend, so he'd jump at the opportunity of joining his cause.

22 hours ago, Hammers1895 said:

But additionally, why was there never any action taken against Loras Tyrell for these killings? Maybe the Royce's couldn't do anything about it, seeing as they are all the way in the Vale and out of the loop on Westerosi politics at the moment. But House Cuy is one of the most prominent houses of the Reach. I would hope that the Tyrells offered some recompense for their loss of Emmon, granted them some boon. We don't hear anything about House Cuy pulling their support for the Tyrells at any point.

Who would take action against Loras? In Westeros, as in our Middle Ages, there were no independent courts of law. If Lord Cuy had any grievance, he should bring it to Lord Mace Tyrell. If he found that no justice was being served with Mace, his only other option would be to bring it to the attention of the king. And as Peach King says, no king would antagonize the Tyrells to defend a knight murdered on the service of a rival king.

22 hours ago, Hammers1895 said:

Which sort of leads into the second thing I always wonder about. When the society fractures and civil war is occurring, many prominent families have historically kept a "foot in each camp", whether it be the Blackfyre Rebellions, Robert's Rebellion or now the War of the Five Kings. How does this work? How do leaders/rulers trust men or families that have a dog in each fight? We know of consequences in the past for houses that ended up on the losing side of a war (members get exiled or executed or take the black, houses are stripped of lands, lose their noble status, etc.). It just seems weird to me that families can so blatantly be on the fence during a dispute and try to reap the benefit no matter which side wins. If I was a ruler, any court retainer or counselor or guard near me that was a member of a house that was in open revolt against me, you can bet there would be consequences (hostages most likely). How can you be sure of a person's loyalty when members of their family are fighting against you? 

You probably can't. But then again, can you be sure of anyone's person's loyalty at all?

Medieval wars, and particularly the War of Roses (which is the primary inspiration for ASOIAF) had multiple families changing allegiances back and forth depending on who offered them the most or on who seemed to be on top at a particular moment. A wannabe king just has to deal with that. So he would try to ensure that it was in his main bannermen best self-interest to support him.

If a family decides to send men at each camp, they do so because they ensure that they will be in good terms with the eventual winner. Therefore, they are very unlikely to betray any of the sides. The best you can do is convince them that if you win you'll keep their privileges and pardon the losing part of their family, and then, use them as much as you can to further your cause.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2018 at 8:29 AM, Myrish Lace said:

 It's feudalism. The connection that binds a knight to a Lord, a Lord to his Lord, an upper Lord to the King - it's all very loose at best and non-existent at worst.

 

OK lets get this out of the way, since people here have weird views on feudal contracts.  Feudalism is incredibly specific and contractual.  The connection that binds knights to lords, and lord to kings?  Those connections are very precisely defined.  So get your ahistorical nonsense off these forums.

What matters here is that Robar Royce, and many others in the Rainbow Guard, have no feudal connection to anyone.  The ruling lord swears an oath (Bronze Yohn), not his kids.  The heir might be presumed to hold to the same loyalties, because they want to inherit the seat, along with the privileges and responsibilities that come with it.  But Robar, a third son?  It's probably been made perfectly clear to him that he won't be inheriting anything.  He's a free agent, so to speak, free to go do what he wants.

On 6/13/2018 at 8:29 AM, Myrish Lace said:

That presumes you have enough people and resources to get by without fence-sitters and risk pushing them away completely.

Lannisters and most of the medieval rulers didn't.

More importantly, the feudal relationship is also based on tradition and precedent.  If you're Joffrey or Tommen and you start murdering relatives of rebelling lords, you'll find that people will abandon you very quickly and denounce you as a tyrant.  Look at the Redwyne twins; House Redwyne is in open revolt but killing Hobber and Horas just isn't an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

But Robar, a third son? 

Robar Royce was a second son, not a third. 

58 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

More importantly, the feudal relationship is also based on tradition and precedent.  If you're Joffrey or Tommen and you start murdering relatives of rebelling lords, you'll find that people will abandon you very quickly and denounce you as a tyrant.  Look at the Redwyne twins; House Redwyne is in open revolt but killing Hobber and Horas just isn't an option.

The Redwynes were neither in open nor in secret rebellion. Paxter and the Redwyne fleet stayed on the Arbor. They did not join Renly, nor did they join Stannis. Cersei sent one of the twins to Bitterbridge with Littlefinger, and the other was freed after they all did homage to Joffrey after the Blackwater.

Killing hostages is perfectly fine in this world. If Paxter had rebelled, Joffrey/Cersei would have been expected to put down the Redwyne twins to teach the rebels the price of treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2018 at 5:34 PM, Lord Varys said:

Robar Royce was a second son, not a third. 

The Redwynes were neither in open nor in secret rebellion. Paxter and the Redwyne fleet stayed on the Arbor. They did not join Renly, nor did they join Stannis. Cersei sent one of the twins to Bitterbridge with Littlefinger, and the other was freed after they all did homage to Joffrey after the Blackwater.

Killing hostages is perfectly fine in this world. If Paxter had rebelled, Joffrey/Cersei would have been expected to put down the Redwyne twins to teach the rebels the price of treason.

Nor did they fight for the Throne.  What is your definition of revolt? 

Moreover, the sequence of events makes it extremely clear that killing them would not have been an option.  The very fact that Tyrion returns one as a sign of good faith means that their lives have more meaning than their deaths (not incidentally, that is the overarching theme of the novels themselves).  Killing them does nothing for the Lannisters, earns them nothing, and leaves them substantially weakened, as we see with the execution of Ned Stark.  

A hostage like Theon, one taken to ensure the good faith of a bad actor, is probably fair game.  Horas and Hobber are in an entirely different scenario in that they were imprisoned to prevent the Redwynes from doing anything; I understand the nuance may be a bit much, but it's an important distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Nor did they fight for the Throne.  What is your definition of revolt? 

Easy: When you actually revolt. When you do nothing you are not revolting.

8 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Moreover, the sequence of events makes it extremely clear that killing them would not have been an option.  The very fact that Tyrion returns one as a sign of good faith means that their lives have more meaning than their deaths (not incidentally, that is the overarching theme of the novels themselves).  Killing them does nothing for the Lannisters, earns them nothing, and leaves them substantially weakened, as we see with the execution of Ned Stark.  

The return takes place when the Lannisters want something from the Tyrells and their Redwyne cousins, not the other way around.

Killing Ned was stupid because they were still at a point where they could have made peace with the Starks, to turn against their real enemies (Renly and Stannis). And after Jaime was taken an exchange of hostages could have been the ideal way to make a peace.

But as soon as it became clear that Cat and Robb had no intention of ending the war killing Ned (and later Sansa) would have been fair game - again, that's what hostages are for.

8 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

A hostage like Theon, one taken to ensure the good faith of a bad actor, is probably fair game.  Horas and Hobber are in an entirely different scenario in that they were imprisoned to prevent the Redwynes from doing anything; I understand the nuance may be a bit much, but it's an important distinction.

Oh, I understand why they are taken, but you forgot/didn't realize that the Redwynes weren't actually rebelling. Had Paxter rebelled after Cersei took his twins it would have been fair game to kill them - or at least torture, main, or mutilate them. If you do not treat hostages the way you should treat hostages when their kin rebel or commit treason you could just as well take no hostages at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Easy: When you actually revolt. When you do nothing you are not revolting.

What if you are asked to fight and you refuse to?  How is that not revolt.  The Iron Throne clearly expects that the subenfeudated obligations of its vassals flow upwards; fighting for a rebel is rebellion, despite the fact that the Redwynes are sworn to the Tyrells and not the Iron Throne.  I don't see why that doesn't continue onwards; House Redwyne is powerful, and crucially has the only real fleet even possibly available to the Lannisters, and thus its rebellion can be forgiven or at least overlooked.  Nonetheless, deliberate failure to fulfill a feudal obligation is still revolt.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The return takes place when the Lannisters want something from the Tyrells and their Redwyne cousins, not the other way around.

Right, but order of events?  Return, negotiate, alliance.  The entire situation is predicated on the return of one of the twins.  As in, the Lannisters have no actual ability to negotiate without that.  That speaks volumes as to the perceived justice in essentially abducting the Redwyne twins.

And mind you, the return is a freebie.  The Tyrells and the Redwynes get exactly what they want in their negotiation with the Lannisters quite outside of the return of Horas and Hobber (or at least, get significant other gains); it's quite obvious that the entire reason the Lannisters need to show a sign of good faith is because they are seen by Westeros as fundamentally dishonest people.  Which is true.

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But as soon as it became clear that Cat and Robb had no intention of ending the war killing Ned (and later Sansa) would have been fair game - again, that's what hostages are for.

But... it isn't.  This is the whole thing with Balon.  I mean, GRRM even later lampshades it for us in neon lights, to the point at which the chapter might be called "Here's Why Lord Varys is Wrong".  The Freys keep threatening to kill Edmure, but never do, so the threat loses all force, and the only resolution is actually letting the hostage go free.

Lets say Ned doesn't get murdered.  Now Cersei and Joffrey say "end the war or we'll kill Ned and Sansa".  Robb refuses to do so, obviously.  Since, you know... he raised armies and called banners while his father and sister were prisoners.  So then what?  Either Cersei kills them as in OTL, and the war progresses, or.... she doesn't.  At which point, the war progresses, but no one takes that threat seriously ever again.  This is the problem with the kind of random imprisonment that you call "hostage" taking; if someone calls your bluff, it's all over.  If Ned had rebelled and as part of putting that rebellion down, the Lannisters had taken Sansa hostage, that might work, because your imposing on Ned the choice of life and death.  We see Balon choose Theon's death and rebellion (unsurprisingly, he's the dumbest character in the books).  But for what the Lannisters are doing?  Of course it doesn't work.  It doesn't compel obedience in the case of the Redwynes, just neutrality, and it doesn't work with the Starks.

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I understand why they are taken, but you forgot/didn't realize that the Redwynes weren't actually rebelling. Had Paxter rebelled after Cersei took his twins it would have been fair game to kill them - or at least torture, main, or mutilate them. If you do not treat hostages the way you should treat hostages when their kin rebel or commit treason you could just as well take no hostages at all.

Again, this was the part about nuance, not timeline.  Failure to fulfill a feudal oath is rebellion.  Part of being allowed to be a lord, to collect rents, have the right of pit and gallows, all of that is predicated on a defined term of military service.  Which the Redwynes do not provide.  In any other situation, if the Iron Throne calls its banners, say in the War of the Ninepenny Kings, and the Redwynes say "nah, we're good".... that's open rebellion. The fact that other vassals are more vigorously prosecuting their revolt (though that isn't revolt either, but from the perspective of the Lannisters it is) doesn't invalidate that.

Besides which, you completely ignore the politics of the situation.  The Lannisters are already regarded as untrustworthy by the broader political community of Westeros, which again, is why they have to return as a hostage just to begin negotiating.  They don't actually get anything for it, it's not part of their "deal".  You have and continue to fundamentally misunderstand the world in which ASOIAF takes place, and the reasons for it (that its based on real history).  Taking prisoners and mutilating and/or killing them for no reason at all isn't something people do often, it's outside the pale of normal political actions.  It's why GRRM is taking pains to show that while Tywin's policy of extralegal and disproportionate violence may have worked at instilling fear, in the long run it's going to doom his family and his name because Westeros hates the Lannisters and the way they act.  Killing hostages, especially hostages which have been preemptively imprisoned, is wrong.  There is a sense of justice.  The Faith is pissed at the Crown for killing Ned Stark on holy ground, and the people support this.  Roose and Barbrey are worried the North will throw them out because of the way Ramsay is treating Arya/Jeyne.  The idea that there is no nuance in the Westerosi conception of just or unjust is crazy.  And it's quite obvious that a hostage like Theon is treated and viewed differently than ones such as the Redwyne twins.  It is a matter of causation

Oh, and by the way, it's almost physically impossible that Paxter isn't physically with Mace Tyrell at Bitterbridge prior to Littlefinger's arrival, which is more than just "staying out of it".  It's not possible for him to rejoin the Tyrell/Lannister forces in time to participate in the Battle of the Blackwater, otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

What if you are asked to fight and you refuse to?  How is that not revolt.  The Iron Throne clearly expects that the subenfeudated obligations of its vassals flow upwards; fighting for a rebel is rebellion, despite the fact that the Redwynes are sworn to the Tyrells and not the Iron Throne.  I don't see why that doesn't continue onwards; House Redwyne is powerful, and crucially has the only real fleet even possibly available to the Lannisters, and thus its rebellion can be forgiven or at least overlooked.  Nonetheless, deliberate failure to fulfill a feudal obligation is still revolt.

There is no indication that this kind of thing is seen as revolt or rebellion, though. The West stays out of the rebellion and does not answer King Aerys' summons (or the bidding of the rebels), the Tyrells stayed out of the Dance, most of the Marcher Lords refused to fight for Renly, Stannis, Joffrey, and Tommen, the Vale stayed out of the War of the Five Kings, the Freys came too late, etc.

Nobody ever calls those people traitors or rebels, or do they?

It makes no sense to construe something as 'revolt' when there is no indication that it is.

Mind you, I don't say that some inflexible king might not be capable of construing it as such, but there is no indication that anyone did that.

Where are the hostages Robert Arryn has to send to the Iron Throne to ensure his good behavior? Where is the punishment Aegon II and Aegon III dealt the Tyrells for their 'revolt' during the Dance?

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Right, but order of events?  Return, negotiate, alliance.  The entire situation is predicated on the return of one of the twins.  As in, the Lannisters have no actual ability to negotiate without that.  That speaks volumes as to the perceived justice in essentially abducting the Redwyne twins.

Nay, that's just a sign on good faith on their part. The Iron Throne wants to treat with House Tyrell, not House Redwyne.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

And mind you, the return is a freebie.  The Tyrells and the Redwynes get exactly what they want in their negotiation with the Lannisters quite outside of the return of Horas and Hobber (or at least, get significant other gains); it's quite obvious that the entire reason the Lannisters need to show a sign of good faith is because they are seen by Westeros as fundamentally dishonest people.  Which is true.

They offer the king's hand in marriage to Margaery Tyrell. Take it or leave it. It is a fine deal, and the Lannisters don't suck up to Mace and his ilk. They give him what he wants, and they do not beg for him to take it.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

But... it isn't.  This is the whole thing with Balon.  I mean, GRRM even later lampshades it for us in neon lights, to the point at which the chapter might be called "Here's Why Lord Varys is Wrong".  The Freys keep threatening to kill Edmure, but never do, so the threat loses all force, and the only resolution is actually letting the hostage go free.

No, the other solution would have been to finally kill him - which they should have done at day one, and then storm the castle. Alternatively they could have come up with Jaime's plan. But they were too stupid for that, apparently.

The Freys make a mockery out of the hostage thing. You either kill a hostage or you don't care about him or her at all. But you don't threaten to do anything with them and then don't do it. That's stupidity and weakness.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Lets say Ned doesn't get murdered.  Now Cersei and Joffrey say "end the war or we'll kill Ned and Sansa".  Robb refuses to do so, obviously.  Since, you know... he raised armies and called banners while his father and sister were prisoners.  So then what?  Either Cersei kills them as in OTL, and the war progresses, or.... she doesn't.  At which point, the war progresses, but no one takes that threat seriously ever again.  This is the problem with the kind of random imprisonment that you call "hostage" taking; if someone calls your bluff, it's all over.  If Ned had rebelled and as part of putting that rebellion down, the Lannisters had taken Sansa hostage, that might work, because your imposing on Ned the choice of life and death.  We see Balon choose Theon's death and rebellion (unsurprisingly, he's the dumbest character in the books).  But for what the Lannisters are doing?  Of course it doesn't work.  It doesn't compel obedience in the case of the Redwynes, just neutrality, and it doesn't work with the Starks.

It didn't work with the Starks because Cat and Robb quietly accepted that Ned and the girls might be killed in repercussions for their actions. Cersei has Ned and the girls, Robb has an army. Robb says 'Free my family and I march my army back home'. Cersei says 'March your army back home and do homage to my son or I'll kill your father and sisters.'

Sure, there will come a point where the bluff, as you call it, will be called, but this hasn't to be done at once. It looks silly if you threaten to do X and then don't go through with it, but they weren't there yet. Although Cersei started the game with Sansa's letter. Pieces of Ned and Sansa may have followed after Robb's victory in the Riverlands - if she had still thought there was a chance for a peace.

The reason why Sansa isn't killed is because there was no way that this would end the war at this point - and because she was, originally, no hostage as such. But we also know she would never have survived the fall of KL nor would she have ever been freed by a victorious enemy of Cersei's. She had seen to that.

And Ned didn't start as a hostage, either. He became effectively a hostage after Robb called his banners, but originally he was a traitor who was imprisoned for his crimes - and as such he is executed, not as a hostage.

Hostages who are taken as hostages are killed by the people taking them if their families break their trust. That much is clear.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Again, this was the part about nuance, not timeline.  Failure to fulfill a feudal oath is rebellion.  Part of being allowed to be a lord, to collect rents, have the right of pit and gallows, all of that is predicated on a defined term of military service.  Which the Redwynes do not provide.  In any other situation, if the Iron Throne calls its banners, say in the War of the Ninepenny Kings, and the Redwynes say "nah, we're good".... that's open rebellion. The fact that other vassals are more vigorously prosecuting their revolt (though that isn't revolt either, but from the perspective of the Lannisters it is) doesn't invalidate that.

See above.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Besides which, you completely ignore the politics of the situation.  The Lannisters are already regarded as untrustworthy by the broader political community of Westeros, which again, is why they have to return as a hostage just to begin negotiating.  They don't actually get anything for it, it's not part of their "deal". 

I suggest you go back and reread the sections in question. There is no indication that a Redwyne twin has to be freed for the Tyrells to join Littlefinger at the negotiating table. It is a nice sweetener and all and a sign of the generous nature of King Joffrey that they do this. But they don't have to.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

You have and continue to fundamentally misunderstand the world in which ASOIAF takes place, and the reasons for it (that its based on real history).  Taking prisoners and mutilating and/or killing them for no reason at all isn't something people do often, it's outside the pale of normal political actions.  It's why GRRM is taking pains to show that while Tywin's policy of extralegal and disproportionate violence may have worked at instilling fear, in the long run it's going to doom his family and his name because Westeros hates the Lannisters and the way they act.  Killing hostages, especially hostages which have been preemptively imprisoned, is wrong.  There is a sense of justice. 

If you read TWoIaF you see that hostages are indeed routinely executed if their kin misbehave. Recall the Justman hostages who were killed by the Ironborn king, or the Ironborn hostages who were routinely hanged by the Lannisters whenever some Ironborn presumed to raid their coasts?

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

The Faith is pissed at the Crown for killing Ned Stark on holy ground, and the people support this.

Because King Joffrey's government promised to not kill Ned Stark there.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Roose and Barbrey are worried the North will throw them out because of the way Ramsay is treating Arya/Jeyne. 

Jeyne isn't a hostage. She is the Lady Arya Stark of Winterfell, the lady wife of the Lord of the Hornwood in whose name Lord Ramsay also rules Winterfell. She isn't a hostage. The Boltons cannot possibly kill her until she has given Ramsay an heir.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

The idea that there is no nuance in the Westerosi conception of just or unjust is crazy.  And it's quite obvious that a hostage like Theon is treated and viewed differently than ones such as the Redwyne twins.  It is a matter of causation.

I don't see a deep difference there. Cersei seized the twins, and Robert commanded Balon to give up his only son. What is the difference? Paxter was definitely informed about the fate of his sons and behaved accordingly.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Oh, and by the way, it's almost physically impossible that Paxter isn't physically with Mace Tyrell at Bitterbridge prior to Littlefinger's arrival, which is more than just "staying out of it".  It's not possible for him to rejoin the Tyrell/Lannister forces in time to participate in the Battle of the Blackwater, otherwise.

How do you know that? He isn't with Renly at Bitterbridge, or did you see him running around there? Perhaps he showed up in-between, or they sent a raven from Bitterbridge to the Arbor telling him to join him in KL?

But even if were there - the books tell us that House Redwyne stayed out of the war until after the Blackwater. That is simply a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 10, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Lord Varys said:

Robar Royce was a second son, not a third. 

The Redwynes were neither in open nor in secret rebellion. Paxter and the Redwyne fleet stayed on the Arbor. They did not join Renly, nor did they join Stannis. Cersei sent one of the twins to Bitterbridge with Littlefinger, and the other was freed after they all did homage to Joffrey after the Blackwater.

Killing hostages is perfectly fine in this world. If Paxter had rebelled, Joffrey/Cersei would have been expected to put down the Redwyne twins to teach the rebels the price of treason.

Didn't the Crown take the Redwyne twins as hostages to keep House Redwyne and their fleet out of the war?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

Didn't the Crown take the Redwyne twins as hostages to keep House Redwyne and their fleet out of the war?  

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×