Jump to content
thi4f

Robb council in Riverrun - who had the best ideas

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Legitimate_Bastard said:

I never really considered this a viable option simply because it involves Robb bending the knee to another King - his northern lords would not take that quietly.

Well this idea was brought up before the King In The North ball got Fred Durst-ing and it was still rejected. Out of everyone Renly is the most usurp-iest. He is passing by Stannis, Joff and Tommen without any justification. To people that care about that sort of thing it looks shade A-F, seems like plenty of people like that surround Robb.

Even with the King in The North stuff maybe some deal could be cut were The North got a deal similar to Dorne got when joining the Seven Kingdoms. Seems like a stretch though.

17 minutes ago, Legitimate_Bastard said:

Although if somehow he did find an arrangement with Renly that avoided his death via Stannis as has been mentioned, the combined forces of Robb and Renly would have been truly formidable even for the Lannisters.

Yeah, not to mention lords bailing on Joff and Stannis to get with the leading team.

The one problem I could see with Renly and Robb teaming up is that Renly seems a bit... flippant about the whole war spending time with melees and tournaments instead of, ya know, going full Scar on the closes lion. Clashing personalities like that could really ruin a team-up that looks like a great fit on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ylath's Snout said:

The one problem I could see with Renly and Robb teaming up is that Renly seems a bit... flippant about the whole war spending time with melees and tournaments instead of, ya know, going full Scar on the closes lion. Clashing personalities like that could really ruin a team-up that looks like a great fit on paper.

Renly does indeed seem flippant as you say - although if Robb swore fealty I think the prospect of a massive north/south hammer/anvil type deal that would utterly crush the Westerlands/Crownlands camp would be enough to straighten up and properly conduct a war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Legitimate_Bastard said:

I never really considered this a viable option simply because it involves Robb bending the knee to another King - his northern lords would not take that quietly. Although if somehow he did find an arrangement with Renly that avoided his death via Stannis as has been mentioned, the combined forces of Robb and Renly would have been truly formidable even for the Lannisters.

I need to reread ACOK to get the details, but I think Renly was "okayish" with Robb being titled a "King in the North" as long as it's not a real secession. Perhaps Robb doesn't have to bend the knee in a iteral way, just agree with his War Council that "we support Renly's claim instead of Joffrey's" and start a fight. Could be my imagination, though.

I'd say even without additional tens of thousands of Reach/Stormlands troops, Robb's forces at the time were formidable enemy for House Lannister! :)

2 minutes ago, Ylath's Snout said:

The one problem I could see with Renly and Robb teaming up is that Renly seems a bit... flippant about the whole war spending time with melees and tournaments instead of, ya know, going full Scar on the closes lion. Clashing personalities like that could really ruin a team-up that looks like a great fit on paper.

Renly impressed me as a young politician capable of immediate action once he approached Eddard at Robert's deathbed. I think they could work together seamlessly as long as there is a Lannister threat. Who knows what happens next - definitely not Red Wedding though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Legitimate_Bastard said:

Renly does indeed seem flippant as you say - although if Robb swore fealty I think the prospect of a massive north/south hammer/anvil type deal that would utterly crush the Westerlands/Crownlands camp would be enough to straighten up and properly conduct a war.

Maybe but I really think that Robb might be furious with Renly if he made a mistake at any point, be it real or imagined.

9 minutes ago, thi4f said:

Renly impressed me as a young politician capable of immediate action once he approached Eddard at Robert's deathbed.

Ehhh, I don't think Renly did a good job with Ned. He did a poor job of actually convincing Ned that his plan was justified. It came off as far too realpolitik for a honorable man like Eddard. You have to adapt what you are saying to your audience and Renly really failed to do that.

It isn't like Ned is predisposed to liking the Lannisters or anything so it shouldn't have been such a hard sell.

29 minutes ago, thi4f said:

definitely not Red Wedding though.

Well for one thing maybe Robb could ask Renly to "force" a better match on him as a part of some peace deal or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ylath's Snout said:

Maybe but I really think that Robb might be furious with Renly if he made a mistake at any point, be it real or imagined.

Ehhh, I don't think Renly did a good job with Ned. He did a poor job of actually convincing Ned that his plan was justified. It came off as far too realpolitik for a honorable man like Eddard. You have to adapt what you are saying to your audience and Renly really failed to do that.

It isn't like Ned is predisposed to liking the Lannisters or anything so it shouldn't have been such a hard sell.

Well for one thing maybe Robb could ask Renly to "force" a better match on him as a part of some peace deal or something.

Oh, maybe that was a poor wording on my part. I think Renly could've handled the talk with Eddard slightly better, but that scene convinces me he is "quick to act" when it's needed. In the context of Renly biding his time in Reach, I really need that ACOK reread. To my best knowledge he had enough time to stay at Bitterbridge for a while, plus he was gathering an army of 80-100k troops.

When it comes to Renly "forcing" Robb to marry someone other than Frey - I LOVE this idea. What a shame...

6 minutes ago, The Lasr Storm said:

Blackfish was the most important person Robb had. Robb was a very good battle commander, but I think BF would have been the most vital to Robbs cause.

My impression is that Blackfish was more important to Robb's victories than Robb himself, at least at this point in the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thi4f said:

I think Renly could've handled the talk with Eddard slightly better, but that scene convinces me he is "quick to act" when it's needed.

Alright, well it is hard to say how Renly would handle a propper war instead of his full plate PR tour.

But yeah Renly deffenetly acted with the quickness regarding Ned just fumbled the completion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, The Lasr Storm said:

Blackfish was the most important person Robb had. Robb was a very good battle commander, but I think BF would have been the most vital to Robbs cause.

I can't help but wonder if another attempt by the Blackfish at getting the Vale to send forces wouldn't have been worthwhile. I guess Lysa was just too far under Littlefingers' spell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Legitimate_Bastard said:

I can't help but wonder if another attempt by the Blackfish at getting the Vale to send forces wouldn't have been worthwhile. I guess Lysa was just too far under Littlefingers' spell.

Yes, Lysa, at this point, was heart and soul for LF. I think its under estimated the hate Lysa had for Cat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Lasr Storm said:

Yes, Lysa, at this point, was heart and soul for LF. I think its under estimated the hate Lysa had for Cat.

Yeah I hadn't so much considered that - 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

That said if Stannis had sent his letter things would have clicked for both Robb and Catelyn and the former would have declared for him which would in turn have given momentum to his claim. 

This is what I said earlier. A huge “what if” situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Stormking902 said:

Whar are you smoking?

eh?

Quote

House Tully are house Freys LIEGE lord, they owe them loyalty because it is there duty they SWORE an OATH to house Tully to send troops when ever the Tullys call, the fact the Tullys are fighting against the Crown is grounds to perhaps stay neutral fine

well done. 

Quote

 

BUT to not allow Robb and his army through the Twins to relieve the siege of RR is Treason to the fullest and they deserve the sword.

lol no it is not. Making up rules that don't exist is not the best way to win an argument. 

And allowing an army raised against the King to use the bridge is hardly remaining neutral. 

Quote

 

The laughing Storm revolted against the Crown by himself no help and his bannerman still followed him why?

All of them? Have you a quote for that, or are you making up shit to try and win an argument?

On the subject of the Stormlands

  • Did all the Stormlords follow Argilac Durrandon against Aegon?
  • Did all the Stormlords follow Robert Baratheon against Aerys?
  • Did all the Stormlords follow Renly when he tried to usurp the throne?

 

Quote

 

Because he is there LIEGE lord and there first duty is to him. Thats how fuedal society works ...

No, it does not. The rules and oaths of feudal society were often vague and open to interpretation, it is something the author is pretty clear about.

"You swore an oath to my father," Catelyn reminded him.
He bobbed his head side to side, smiling. "Oh, yes, I said some words, but I swore oaths to the crown too, it seems to me. Joffrey's the king now, and that makes you and your boy and all those fools out there no better than rebels."
 
nowhere is it implied that the oath to the Lord Paramount is worth more than an oath to the crown. it would be a pretty idiotic oath for the Targs to insist on. 
Quote

 

Robb was the Karstarks King yet when there lord was killed they left Robb because lord Karstark is who there first alegiance lies then Robb.

No, the Karstark foot remained, the cavalry left before Rickard was dead. 

 

Quote

When Alexander the great killed some of his lords for treason he had to march on his own army to insure there loyalty and take hostages.  

Which has what to do with feudal laws?

Quote

 

Hoster has been making fun of Walder for decades for good reason, Walder is a coward and an Oath breaker and doesnt deserve to be a lord as far as Hoster is concerned. 

Well a huge part of the feudal system is fostering good relations with your vassals, can't treat them like shit and then expect them to save your ass

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

But with hindsight once Renly get's killed Robb will probably be butchered by Tarly once he would probably want's to join Stannis. 

How would Tarly butcher Robb? Do you imagine he would have chilled with the Reach infantry while all the other men of importance went with with Renly to confront Stannis?

If anything hindsight would make this the best option, he'd be in a stronger position to make an alliance with the Reach lords after Renly's death if he was with them rather than in the Westerlands oblivious to the possible alliances to be made. 

20 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Balon and Theon also never considered the Golden Tooth as a big barrier that would stop Robb,

When does Balon say that?

20 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

they even took for granted that the castle would fall.

Theon did, but then Theon thought he could take the Twins when every other commander, including the Blackfish,  thought it impossible, he thought he could take the Rock despite his better informed father knowing the truth and thought he could hold onto Winterfell with a handful of men. 

 

20 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

GRRM himself says that the castle is small.

and? Harrenhall is huge and has been frequently taken. Size has little to do with this conversation. 

20 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

 

And the Lannister camp let's cleat that they can march on Casterly Rock.

lol what are you even arguing here? I pointed out that the Tooth was formidable, which is canon, I never pointed out that it was impossible, which you seem to think I have. 

Please reread what I actually wrote rather than some conversation you have imagined. 

20 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

 

And as I mentioned Robb does not need to stay put on CR.

That is the option you chose, Piper's idiotic idea to attack Casterly Rock. Are you now backtracking, no longer agreeing with his idea?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

(...)

No, it does not. The rules and oaths of feudal society were often vague and open to interpretation, it is something the author is pretty clear about.

Which has what to do with feudal laws?

Well a huge part of the feudal system is fostering good relations with your vassals, can't treat them like shit and then expect them to save your ass

You see, I don't think that "rules and oaths" are open to interpretation. Even if we're not sure how it exactly works in Westeros, I'm 100% sure such things are governed by laws.

You are citing "feudal" laws and "feudal society traditions" a lot, but what do these terms exactly mean in Seven Kingdoms? It seems GRRM doesn't really care about letting us know, or maybe he doesn't care at all.

Some considerations about laws and government:

  • there is a saying, "a vassal of my vassal is not my vassal", and also the contradictory statement: "a vassal of my vassal IS my vassal". Both rules held true in different parts of Europe; does Westeros follow one of them?
  • is the King of Seven Kingdoms the legal owner of all lands?
  • if he is, does it mean we have a patrimonial monarchy in Westeros? Why some nobles are granted a title of Lord Paramount - which meant the overlord, the principal owner of all lands in a realm, sitting on top of the ladder?
  • if he is the owner, what is the relationship between so called Lords Paramount and their "bannermen", i.e. Tully-Frey relationship? Tully doesn't have their own lands, so they can't have a vassal - they have no fiefs to grant;
  • if the King is NOT the owner of all lands, then what is the structure of manors (lands) in Westeros? What is the relation between demesne, serf and free peasant land?

One day I'll make a thread about it here. I believe that Westeros doesn't resemble any particular medieval government closely, which leads to discrepancies, imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

is not. Making up rules that don't exist is not the best way to win an argument

And allowing an army raised against the King to use the bridge is hardly remaining neutral. 

True. The utterly neutral thing would've been to give no form aid to either side...which Walder was willing to do. If Robb and his rebels can't continue their plans as a result of not being granted Frey specific service(the use of their bridge), that doesn't make his house acting not neutral.

9 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Well a huge part of the feudal system is fostering good relations with your vassals, can't treat them like shit and then expect them to save your ass

To add on to this Hoster is the crow calling the Raven black-seriously he didn't join the rebellion and commit treason until after he had Jon Aryn and Ned marry his daughters-his entire reason for breaking his oaths to Aerys was want for his family advancement like lord Walder.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

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

×