The North is finally independent

[RYShh]

1 minute ago, WeDoNotKneel_HailMance said:

 

I thought we were having a discussion about whether or not Sansa committed the crime of treason. You had asked the initial question of why Sansa telling Tyrion about Jon's parentage is a crime. Looking at this definition of treason, it appears to me that when Sansa says "what if there is someone else, someone better" she is attempting to spread information in order to overthrow Dany.  

But anyways, if we're discussing whether or not Sansa committed the crime of treason, I thought it would be useful to be aware of your definition of treason because you may be viewing this in a different way. But we've probably taken this too far already, so I will stop now. 

Why do I have to repeat myself? It doesn't matter what Sansa wants or what she believes. It matters only what she does. And she did nothing wrong. Which is why Tyrion said only Varys committed treason and not Sansa. Which is why Daenerys only burned Varys alive but not Sansa and Tyrion. It's quite understandable if you want.

[Haskelltier]

19 hours ago, RYShh said:

f Robb stayed as Lord of Winterfell, he would never be a target of the Lannisters in the first place. He would declare for Stannis and Lannisters would aim for Stannis's head first after Blackwater not for Robb, Robb couldn't do anything to them without his crown so they wouldn't go far enough to kill him in a wedding and Lannisters wouldn't give those privileges to the Freys and the Boltons.

I talked about the direct reasons who lead to his downfall. You can question all decisions Robb ever made, but that would be quiet exhausting and leading to nothing. So I leave these intellectual games to you.

19 hours ago, RYShh said:

As Jon said, Sansa doesn't get to choose, she needed to shut up and obey.

I don't want to live in a world, in which a few rulers decide everything and everybody else has to do what they decided without protest.

19 hours ago, RYShh said:

Also if her last Dragon is the only problem then Jon could plot an ambush with scorpions and kill her last Dragon and went back to North and declare it's independency.

That is easier said then done. The show made dragonslaying look increadibly easy, but thats not the case when you tell the story in a plausible way. Aming with a huge scorpion on a fast moving target far away is difficult (more so on a ship, because even a calm sea would shift the direction of the scorpion slightly, so that your shot may miss). In addition to that, you cannot make an ambush on Drogon in foreign territory (everywhere but the North), because you cannot move a lot of huge scorpions unseen through foreign territory. And an ambush only works when the target is unaware of it. And waiting for Dany to come to Winterfell is risky too, because you have to know the exact route she would take to get there, so that you can place your scorpions well hidden in a position to fire at her. And keep in mind, one failed ambush would be enough to draw Daenery's wrath onto Winterfell and the North. So that would be incredible risky.

19 hours ago, RYShh said:

People always fought for the Iron Throne since Aegon the Conqueror, always civil wars since then, it's not even comparable to those little border battles between the kingdoms, show me a great conflict like Robert's Rebellion, several Blackfyre rebellions, Dance of the Dragons or War of the Five Kings before the Targaryens? Only Andal Invasion, and after that there wasn't any big wars in the Westeros, and there is no need for it anyway because every kingdom would stay in their own kingdom and not try to seize the power in the capital.

We don't get a detailed explanation of Westeros' eight thousand years of history. But it is mentioned in A World of Westeros that there were constant wars between the smaller Kingdoms before Aegon's Conquest. Some were smaller, others were larger. And there were changes in the territories of the kingdoms. The Iron Islands under Harren Hoare (Harren the Black) ruled over the Riverlands right before Aegon's Conquest.

19 hours ago, RYShh said:

That's Daenerys's problem not Sansa's. Tyrion is Daenerys's hand, why telling Daenerys's hand is a crime suddenly?

She began her talk to Tyrion with the words „What if there is a better one?“ That implies that she spoke to Tyrion with the intention to undermine Daenery's position as queen by presenting Jon as the better king. Its called treason when you want to incite others (in this case her Hand) to revolt against your rule.

[Mystical]

I don't understand why either Sam or Sansa simply stating the factual truth is somehow treason. I guess Ned wanting to tell everyone the truth about Cersei's children was also treason, so the Lannisters did nothing wrong executing him for exactly that.

Jon had a right to know his true parentage, first and foremost. Everyone deserves to know the truth about who their parents really were. So Sam telling him is not treason. Sam telling him he'd make a better King than Dany and that he should go for it...is it really treason when that is how succession works? Again, the Lannisters did the same thing. Hiding the truth about their children being born of incest which would remove any claim they had on the throne. The throne that was rightfully Stannis'. And no reader/viewer saw that as the right thing to do by the Lannisters. Jon had a better claim than Dany, something Dany wanted to keep a secret just like Cersei wanted the incest to be kept secret. The reason, they wanted the throne. It's not treason to state the truth. Sansa committed no treason by telling Tyrion that Dany is actually not the rightful heir to the throne. It's a fact. Varys sending out messages to inform the realm, also not treason. It's the rules of Westeros, the line of succession. Varys trying to kill Dany is treason because he was one of her advisors. But anyone stating the truth about Dany not being the rightful heir, that's not treason.

[Jaghen]

That is treason as Jon himself is following Daenerys, and all of them are. She is their leader, already. She did not wait for Bran to conveniently find out the "truth". That's one of my favorite surprises btw, evil Bran planning Dany's downfall so he would end up king. He has seen it you know, so he knows what will happen once he starts pushing, the paranoia, the massacre, the assassination... all leading to his rule.

 

Stating the truth as in "We need to be ready in case someone tries to use it against Jon's will" would have been fine.

Stating it as "There is a better ruler, which also happens to have a better claim" is treason. Against both Daenerys (their Queen at this point) and Jon (who specifically said he would have none of that).

Eddard trying to disclose the truth about Jaime's kids would have been treason if he had sworn fealty to the King in question (which he did not) and could still be interpreted as treason by said King, especially considering the "evidence" which is circumstantial at best (which he did).

 

As for the North being independent, that is nonsensical. The heir to the North is Bran the Broken which currently rules the Six Kingdoms. Why the very one that he should have inherited is independent doesn't make sense. Plus that means the actual King has no power base, and even no family (=allies) within the realms.

Sure Bran will likely let his sister have her fun up there. But a few years down the line a new King of the Six Kingdoms will likely start a war to bring them back into the fold. Which may end the Stark line in Winterfell while remaining a part of the Seven Kingdoms would have been pretty stable.

[RYShh]

2 hours ago, Haskelltier said:

I talked about the direct reasons who lead to his downfall. You can question all decisions Robb ever made, but that would be quiet exhausting and leading to nothing. So I leave these intellectual games to you.

I don't want to live in a world, in which a few rulers decide everything and everybody else has to do what they decided without protest.

That is easier said then done. The show made dragonslaying look increadibly easy, but thats not the case when you tell the story in a plausible way. Aming with a huge scorpion on a fast moving target far away is difficult (more so on a ship, because even a calm sea would shift the direction of the scorpion slightly, so that your shot may miss). In addition to that, you cannot make an ambush on Drogon in foreign territory (everywhere but the North), because you cannot move a lot of huge scorpions unseen through foreign territory. And an ambush only works when the target is unaware of it. And waiting for Dany to come to Winterfell is risky too, because you have to know the exact route she would take to get there, so that you can place your scorpions well hidden in a position to fire at her. And keep in mind, one failed ambush would be enough to draw Daenery's wrath onto Winterfell and the North. So that would be incredible risky.

We don't get a detailed explanation of Westeros' eight thousand years of history. But it is mentioned in A World of Westeros that there were constant wars between the smaller Kingdoms before Aegon's Conquest. Some were smaller, others were larger. And there were changes in the territories of the kingdoms. The Iron Islands under Harren Hoare (Harren the Black) ruled over the Riverlands right before Aegon's Conquest.

She began her talk to Tyrion with the words „What if there is a better one?“ That implies that she spoke to Tyrion with the intention to undermine Daenery's position as queen by presenting Jon as the better king. Its called treason when you want to incite others (in this case her Hand) to revolt against your rule.

Why are you cutting my post into pieces? 

If Robb never accepted the Northern crown, and if he didn't want to independence of the North, the things would've been different for them. Robb has become a much bigger threat when he accepted the Northern crown and fought for the independence of the North, so I don't see the problem. Of course every character makes mistakes, that's not the point. The point Robb fought for the independence of the North, and he died for it. He didn't fight for Stannis's kingship or any southern King, he fought for the North. 

Yes, the show made Dragonslaying is an easy job. That's the point. All they needed to is carrying 3 or even 2 scorpion in the right time and the right place by using vagoons, and after killing it Daenerys loses her main power, then it's only a matter of time until the Lords of Westeros join forces with the North, the Vale, the Riverlands alliance against the foreign invader Daenerys and her Unsullied army and her Dothraki.

So you've no other example in the history that longer than 1.000 years? While I gave you at least 4 great conflict in a 200 years timeline where hundreds of thousands died because of Targaryens' ambition to rule Westeros. The old system was much better, unless you give me examples more than 4 great conflict before Targaryens came to Westeros.

Once again I've to repeat myself, it doesn't matter what Sansa believes who is better or she thinks about who is better, it matters what she do. And she committed no treason, Varys did but not Tyrion and Sansa. Not even Tyrion was a traitor, so she didn't execute Tyrion alongside with Varys, let alone Sansa. This is getting out of hand, so this post explains the situation very well;

2 hours ago, Mystical said:

I don't understand why either Sam or Sansa simply stating the factual truth is somehow treason. I guess Ned wanting to tell everyone the truth about Cersei's children was also treason, so the Lannisters did nothing wrong executing him for exactly that.

Jon had a right to know his true parentage, first and foremost. Everyone deserves to know the truth about who their parents really were. So Sam telling him is not treason. Sam telling him he'd make a better King than Dany and that he should go for it...is it really treason when that is how succession works? Again, the Lannisters did the same thing. Hiding the truth about their children being born of incest which would remove any claim they had on the throne. The throne that was rightfully Stannis'. And no reader/viewer saw that as the right thing to do by the Lannisters. Jon had a better claim than Dany, something Dany wanted to keep a secret just like Cersei wanted the incest to be kept secret. The reason, they wanted the throne. It's not treason to state the truth. Sansa committed no treason by telling Tyrion that Dany is actually not the rightful heir to the throne. It's a fact. Varys sending out messages to inform the realm, also not treason. It's the rules of Westeros, the line of succession. Varys trying to kill Dany is treason because he was one of her advisors. But anyone stating the truth about Dany not being the rightful heir, that's not treason.

[Jaghen]

On Robb that is vastly wrong. Lannisters never cared about the North being independant. They cared about a Stark wanting to avenge his father after their offspring offed his head. He did not go South to fight for independence, that would have been neatly done by blocking intruders at Moat Cailin.

 

Sansa commited treason. She plotted against her Queen. That the Queen discovered said plot and offed Varys before they could DO anything is irrelevant. Do you honestly think that Sansa would not have been the first one to join any plot Varys started ?

[Jaghen]

2 hours ago, Mystical said:

But anyone stating the truth about Dany not being the rightful heir, that's not treason.

One more thing on specifically that.

Any talk of rightful heir is silly, as that would be a Baratheon. Dany is Queen by right of conquest, like Robert and Aegon before her.

[RYShh]

7 minutes ago, Jaghen said:

On Robb that is vastly wrong. Lannisters never cared about the North being independant. They cared about a Stark wanting to avenge his father after their offspring offed his head. He did not go South to fight for independence, that would have been neatly done by blocking intruders at Moat Cailin.

 

Sansa commited treason. She plotted against her Queen. That the Queen discovered said plot and offed Varys before they could DO anything is irrelevant. Do you honestly think that Sansa would not have been the first one to join any plot Varys started ?

He fought in the South because he wanted to remove Lannisters from the Iron Throne yes, why is that mean he didn't fight for the North? He had two goals. He would fight with Stannis too if he didn't accept North's independence. Blocking moat cailin is a temporary solution, not a permanent one. Once Lannisters secured the Iron Throne, they would march to North by taking all the help from the Iron Throne's central power. Since who said ''Lannister never cared about the North being independent''  That's absurd.

Lannisters declined this peace offer from Robb;

Robb: ''You're Ser Alton Lannister?''

Alton: ''I am, Your Grace.''

Robb: ''I offer your cousins peace if they meet my terms. First, your family must release my sisters. Second, my father's bones must be returned to us so he may rest beside his brother and sister in the crypts beneath Winterfell. And the remains of all those who died in his service must also be returned. Their families can honor them with proper funerals.

Alton ''- An honorable request, Your Grace. -'' 

Robb: ''Third Joffrey and the Queen Regent must renounce all claim to dominion of the North. From this time till the end of time, we are a free and independent kingdom. Neither Joffrey nor any of his men shall set foot in our lands again. If he disregards this command, he shall suffer the same fate as my father, only I don't need a servant to do my beheading for me.'' 

Alton: ''These are Your Grace, these are...'' 

Robb: ''These are my terms. If the Queen Regent and her son meet them, I'll give them peace. If not, I will litter the South with Lannister dead.'' (S02E01)

If Lannisters gave Sansa back, and accept the independence of the North, Robb would return to the North. But Lannisters didn't accept so they continue to fight in the South.

Sansa only committed treason in your mind because no one in the show called her a traitor, not even Daenerys herself. If Sansa did, Daenerys wouldn't burn Varys only, she would burn Tyrion and Sansa as well, because she learned everything about Sansa and Tyrion, yet she never called them traitors, because that's not treason.

[Jaghen]

Rob did not ask for Sansa. He asked for his sisterS, which the Lannister could not give as we know.

I'd guess same goes for the remains of every Northman in KL.

The Lannister never went North, even when they all but controlled the country (save the North, and besieged Riverrun).

 

Moat Cailin appears an easy position to defend. It does not require you to enter deals with the likes of the Freys. It does not require you to abandon your land to be captured by Greyjoys. It's in the North, with the climate that goes with it, which means a siege would be a very funny thing to try...

 

When it comes to Sansa, she may have been spared simply on the ground of being Jon's sister, as has been mentionned already. She did not go too far yet, barely, that Daenerys would risk her relationship (or what's left of it) with Jon over it.

Daenerys never said Sansa betrayed her, but she said Jon betrayed her by telling Sansa. Says a lot I believe of what she thinks of her "in law".

As for Tyrion I do not believe he betrayed. He did not go to Varys to plot against Daenerys but quite the contrary, knowing the truth, he wanted help with doing some damage control. He argued with Varys about what to do withh the info constantly. It's possible Dany shared my view.

In any case, any more talk of an independent North (post victory speech - liberation of the whole world) or another claimant would likely have her in deep trouble.

[RYShh]

50 minutes ago, Jaghen said:

Rob did not ask for Sansa. He asked for his sisterS, which the Lannister could not give as we know.

I'd guess same goes for the remains of every Northman in KL.

The Lannister never went North, even when they all but controlled the country (save the North, and besieged Riverrun).

 

Moat Cailin appears an easy position to defend. It does not require you to enter deals with the likes of the Freys. It does not require you to abandon your land to be captured by Greyjoys. It's in the North, with the climate that goes with it, which means a siege would be a very funny thing to try...

 

When it comes to Sansa, she may have been spared simply on the ground of being Jon's sister, as has been mentionned already. She did not go too far yet, barely, that Daenerys would risk her relationship (or what's left of it) with Jon over it.

Daenerys never said Sansa betrayed her, but she said Jon betrayed her by telling Sansa. Says a lot I believe of what she thinks of her "in law".

As for Tyrion I do not believe he betrayed. He did not go to Varys to plot against Daenerys but quite the contrary, knowing the truth, he wanted help with doing some damage control. He argued with Varys about what to do withh the info constantly. It's possible Dany shared my view.

In any case, any more talk of an independent North (post victory speech - liberation of the whole world) or another claimant would likely have her in deep trouble.

They can't give something that they don't have, which is why I said Sansa only. What's your point bringing this up now?  The point is if they could accept the independence of the North, they would tell the truth about Arya (it's not unbelievable that Arya escaped) and accept Robb's other conditions, but they didn't.

You don't seem to understand the situation, without defeating them or agreeing on terms, they would always be in danger, blocking moat cailin is only a temporary solution. They defended it before, but if all other 6 kingdoms join forces against them they couldn't hold it for a long. The point is Robb fought for the North, (which you denied) and he offered his peace term based on independence of the North, but they didn't accept. The military tactics or what Lannisters never did isn't our subject.

Daenerys said Sansa betrayed Jon's trust (not her trust), she didn't say Sansa betrayed her, because she did not. Those are only excuses for your part, no one accussed Sansa for treason, or do anything about it. Oh, now Tyrion didn't betray her, but Sansa did huh? If anything, Tyrion did the worse by not telling it to Daenerys first, but telling it to Varys first. He was the hand of Daenerys, not Sansa.

[Jaghen]

So regarding Lannisters, what they do do not matter. Regarding Sansa what she does is all that matter. Get your points, respectfully disagree wholeheartedly.

Independence was a side quest, one that truly was not even his choice but that of his vassals. The war was for Ned, just as the previous one was for Lyanna (and ended up with the throne switching hands). Rob wanted to do the right thing, which meant following Stannis, rightful heir, and warring the Lannisters over his father's death.

It's funny you mention that the Lannisters would have been a problem later on, if they managed to get the rest of the Kingdoms willing to join on a war to retake it, because that's exactly the situation the independent North is in at the end of the series. That's a thing with independence. You are fair game. A 'deal with the Lannisters at this point would not have helped in any way in the long run. Knowing said Lannisters, they would likely have accepted if they could, only to forget it ever happened once their powerbase was secure.

 

Tyrion went to find Daenerys' Master of Whisperers to help with damage control, and went to Dany when it appeared said Master of Whisperer was planning treason. He ends up looking stupid definitely, untrustworthy yes, but not a betrayer. 

[Mystical]

1 hour ago, Jaghen said:

One more thing on specifically that.

Any talk of rightful heir is silly, as that would be a Baratheon. Dany is Queen by right of conquest, like Robert and Aegon before her.

Well I know that. And a lot of others know that. But D&D don't understand succession. Within D&D's Westeros, they made the point of Jon being the rightful heir over and over again so that's how one has to view their story.

I mean I'm sure I wasn't the only one who facepalmed when Dany legitimized Gendry and thought to themselves 'girl you just gave Gendry the biggest claim to the throne'. The problem is that no one else in-verse brought up that fact. Dany you can excuse because she never saw the Baratheons as legitimate. But all of Westeros did yet no one present in WF or later at the pit meeting brought up that fact. And that's because D&D don't understand the rules of the verse the story is set in. They never have.

[Jaghen]

To be honest I didn't pay attention to Gendry being legitimized as once swords are drown, legitimacy is inferior to might, always.

Would have been an easier sell than Bran when it was time to chose a King though. But when you have randoms having a say in that process (Sam ?! Davos ?! Brienne ?!) it kinda loses its standing anyway. The fact that they were then somehow granted a place in the new Small Council (or as Lord Commander for Brienne), maybe to justify their presence, could also be a clue to a collusion of sorts.

[Haskelltier]

1 hour ago, RYShh said:

Why are you cutting my post into pieces?

Its called quotation and a common thing when you write about other peoples thoughts and explanation.

1 hour ago, RYShh said:

If Robb never accepted the Northern crown, and if he didn't want to independence of the North, the things would've been different for them. Robb has become a much bigger threat when he accepted the Northern crown and fought for the independence of the North, so I don't see the problem.

That was risky, but it wasn't the reason why he was murdered. Walder Frey supported him first and went after him, when Robb broke the oath he gave him. Roose Bolton didn't turn on Robb because he thought Joffrey was the legitimat king of the seven kingdoms, no, he had ambitions and took the chances Robb gave him (first, Robb named him commander of a large part of his army, so he used that position to silently kill of Robb's supporters. Then Robb lost the Karkstark men, which weakened Robbs position further. And the final nail in the coffin was Walder Frey).

1 hour ago, RYShh said:

Yes, the show made Dragonslaying is an easy job. That's the point.

No, the point is, it is no easy task (and the show did a bad job in that regard) with a very high risk. Yes, you can try it, but it is very likely to backfire.

1 hour ago, RYShh said:

All they needed to is carrying 3 or even 2 scorpion in the right time and the right place by using vagoons,

The problem is, you cannot set up traps wherever you want. Three wagons with scorpions can only be moved on bigger roads, which are normaly guarded or at least watched. And all lords, who want to collect duty for passage of a bridge, will check the contents and could easily report these scorpions to his liege lord (and in consequence to Daenerys). But okay, lets assume they could have set up scorpions without letting Daenerys know. Then you need a lot of luck that Drogon flies by that point (Westeros is huge and scorpions only have a range of a few hundred metres). And then you have to hit Drogon hard and fast, so that he his dead before he can counter-attack or fly away.

1 hour ago, RYShh said:

So you've no other example in the history that longer than 1.000 years? While I gave you at least 4 great conflict in a 200 years timeline where hundreds of thousands died because of Targaryens' ambition to rule Westeros. The old system was much better, unless you give me examples more than 4 great conflict before Targaryens came to Westeros.

You have these problems with succession in smaller kingdoms too and nobody says that one big monarchy solves every problem. Harren the Black by the way was 300 years before the War of the Five Kings (directly before Aegon's Conquest, that's the one who build Harrenhal and got roasted in it by the Targaryens). And yes, with several smaller kingdoms you would have 200 years of constant war somewhere in Westeros instead of your four bigger conflicts.

1 hour ago, RYShh said:

Once again I've to repeat myself, it doesn't matter what Sansa believes who is better or she thinks about who is better, it matters what she do. And she committed no treason, Varys did but not Tyrion and Sansa. Not even Tyrion was a traitor, so she didn't execute Tyrion alongside with Varys, let alone Sansa. This is getting out of hand, so this post explains the situation very well;

The problem is, Jon and Sansa swore fealty to Daenerys (Jon bent the knee and Sansa proclaimed that Winterfell was Danys) and they didn't even have hard evidence for Jon's claim (Yes, we have a book, which said that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, but who says, that Jon is their child (and that the contents of that book were true)? Oh Bran does, but he is a crazy person, who dreams these things (at least thats what everybody else will think)). So what will happen if this rumour will spread? Yes, we would get another rebellion and another war of succession with a lot of blood and unnecessary deaths. And there are better alternatives. For example they could have talked about this problem with Daenerys. They could have agreed to call for a Great Council (after Cersei's death), where Jon would have officially reject kingship. Or they (Jon and Daenerys) could have married. Or a great council could have decided what to do.

But Sansa went to Tyrion with the words "What if there is a better alternative to Dany". Thats outright treason.

[Haskelltier]

3 minutes ago, Jaghen said:

Would have been an easier sell than Bran when it was time to chose a King though. But when you have randoms having a say in that process (Sam ?! Davos ?! Brienne ?!) it kinda loses its standing anyway. The fact that they were then somehow granted a place in the new Small Council (or as Lord Commander for Brienne), maybe to justify their presence, could also be a clue to a collusion of sorts.

Well, this "small Great Council" was completely ridiculous. Only 10 random dudes (half of them minor lords or less with little to no power: Brienne (Selwyn Tarth is lord of Tarth), Davos (his lordship came from dead Stannis and was more or less only formal), Arya (yes she is a Stark, but she is no lord of Winterfell), Bran (same reason), Sam (an ex-brother of the Nights Watch)) and then we got Tyrions unbelieveable stupid reasons why Bran should be king. And everybody is okay with that!

[RYShh]

28 minutes ago, Jaghen said:

So regarding Lannisters, what they do do not matter. Regarding Sansa what she does is all that matter. Get your points, respectfully disagree wholeheartedly.

Independence was a side quest, one that truly was not even his choice but that of his vassals. The war was for Ned, just as the previous one was for Lyanna (and ended up with the throne switching hands). Rob wanted to do the right thing, which meant following Stannis, rightful heir, and warring the Lannisters over his father's death.

It's funny you mention that the Lannisters would have been a problem later on, if they managed to get the rest of the Kingdoms willing to join on a war to retake it, because that's exactly the situation the independent North is in at the end of the series. That's a thing with independence. You are fair game. A 'deal with the Lannisters at this point would not have helped in any way in the long run. Knowing said Lannisters, they would likely have accepted if they could, only to forget it ever happened once their powerbase was secure.

 

Tyrion went to find Daenerys' Master of Whisperers to help with damage control, and went to Dany when it appeared said Master of Whisperer was planning treason. He ends up looking stupid definitely, untrustworthy yes, but not a betrayer. 

Disagreeing on something is nice, but you can't disagree on something has been already proven. I showed you how Robb send his peace term on independence of the North, and they declined. So your first statement which was ; ''Lannisters never cared about the North being independant.'' isn't true.

All Lannisters needed to do is accepting Robb's peace terms; which is giving Sansa and Arya back, and legitimize the independent kingdom of the North, but they didn't accept that, even when they were in a disadvantage in the war. So if Lannisters never cared about the North, then lying about it also would help their cause, they could lie to Robb and they could stop him for a while until they deal with Stannis and Renly, but they didn't even do that somehow, because they would never give up on any kingdom in Westeros. Because they do care about the North.

Daenerys blamed Tyrion first, she said you didn't come to me but instead you went to Varys first, but even then she didn't say Tyrion is a traitor, if Tyrion isn't a traitor then Sansa is obviously not a traitor as well, that's the point that you don't want to understand.

 

[Jaghen]

The Lannisters could not agree to his terms as he was demanding things and people they did not have. They also probably thought this was all talk, a gambit to get the hostages back (and it likely was). As you yourself point out, in the long run the North would not have been secure as an independent kingdom, unless the ruler on the IT was a friendly. Lannisters are not friendlies. Rob knew that, the Lannisters knew that, we know that.

Oh I understand what you are saying regarding Sansa, I disagree, that's different. It's called judging intent, not action. Tyrion went to Varys, which was stupid. Daenerys acknowledges that and blames him for it, rightfully. She doesn't dub him a traitor simply because he is not one, he did not go to Varys to spark rebellion, and when he realized his misstep, he went to her.

Unlike Tyrion, Sansa meant treason. She was given a get out of jail freecard this time, likely in part because "Jon", and in part because Daenerys never truly knew the exact words she used. We know she commited treason.

[RYShh]

12 minutes ago, Haskelltier said:

Its called quotation and a common thing when you write about other peoples thoughts and explanation.

That was risky, but it wasn't the reason why he was murdered. Walder Frey supported him first and went after him, when Robb broke the oath he gave him. Roose Bolton didn't turn on Robb because he thought Joffrey was the legitimat king of the seven kingdoms, no, he had ambitions and took the chances Robb gave him (first, Robb named him commander of a large part of his army, so he used that position to silently kill of Robb's supporters. Then Robb lost the Karkstark men, which weakened Robbs position further. And the final nail in the coffin was Walder Frey).

No, the point is, it is no easy task (and the show did a bad job in that regard) with a very high risk. Yes, you can try it, but it is very likely to backfire.

The problem is, you cannot set up traps wherever you want. Three wagons with scorpions can only be moved on bigger roads, which are normaly guarded or at least watched. And all lords, who want to collect duty for passage of a bridge, will check the contents and could easily report these scorpions to his liege lord (and in consequence to Daenerys). But okay, lets assume they could have set up scorpions without letting Daenerys know. Then you need a lot of luck that Drogon flies by that point (Westeros is huge and scorpions only have a range of a few hundred metres). And then you have to hit Drogon hard and fast, so that he his dead before he can counter-attack or fly away.

You have these problems with succession in smaller kingdoms too and nobody says that one big monarchy solves every problem. Harren the Black by the way was 300 years before the War of the Five Kings (directly before Aegon's Conquest, that's the one who build Harrenhal and got roasted in it by the Targaryens). And yes, with several smaller kingdoms you would have 200 years of constant war somewhere in Westeros instead of your four bigger conflicts.

The problem is, Jon and Sansa swore fealty to Daenerys (Jon bent the knee and Sansa proclaimed that Winterfell was Danys) and they didn't even have hard evidence for Jon's claim (Yes, we have a book, which said that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, but who says, that Jon is their child (and that the contents of that book were true)? Oh Bran does, but he is a crazy person, who dreams these things (at least thats what everybody else will think)). So what will happen if this rumour will spread? Yes, we would get another rebellion and another war of succession with a lot of blood and unnecessary deaths. And there are better alternatives. For example they could have talked about this problem with Daenerys. They could have agreed to call for a Great Council (after Cersei's death), where Jon would have officially reject kingship. Or they (Jon and Daenerys) could have married. Or a great council could have decided what to do.

But Sansa went to Tyrion with the words "What if there is a better alternative to Dany". Thats outright treason.

That's called answering the parts you like, and cutting the pieces you don't like.

You don't understand, you're talking about Robb's political mistakes, while I am talking about Robb's main goal. Robb fought for the North, if not for the Northern crown, he would fight for Stannis probably, and until Stannis dies he would be safe and even after Stannis, he would've no choice but to submit to the crown. Robb specifically asked the independence of the North, and again he said ''We're fighting for the North'' , so he was fighting for the North, and he died for the North. What was his mistakes and his successes are not important, I am not talking about that, yet you are insisting on talking about Robb's political mistakes, that's not the point.

Killing Daenerys is a risky job too. And I would say even more risky. What if Drogon went lose and started to burn other cities and kill everyone? What Jon was going to do? The only logical thing was killing Drogon first, then they could easily deal with foreign invaders. But of course, D&D thought that would extend the series for another season, so they were in a rush so kill Daenerys and make Drogon fly away without attacking anyone.

Drogon is not always flying, it's really easy for Jon to set a trap like that when they don't suspect of his betrayal. He could learn where Drogon is sleeping and attack him when it's sleeping, and it's done, like it or not, people like Bronn and Euron managed to hit that Dragon, even in meereen sons of harpy managed to hurt the dragon by using spears, it's not impossible as you believe.

You just made that up, I asked you to give me examples on great conflicts like it happened during the Targaryen dynasty but you didn't show me anything.

If it was treason then Tyrion would say Sansa betrayed Daenerys not Varys. Because what Sansa did isn't a treason. It's the truth. Acting against Daenerys however, and trying to overthrow her is a treason, which Varys did. This is quite understandable, the difference between Varys and Tyrion/Sansa.

[RYShh]

22 minutes ago, Jaghen said:

The Lannisters could not agree to his terms as he was demanding things and people they did not have. They also probably thought this was all talk, a gambit to get the hostages back (and it likely was). As you yourself point out, in the long run the North would not have been secure as an independent kingdom, unless the ruler on the IT was a friendly. Lannisters are not friendlies. Rob knew that, the Lannisters knew that, we know that.

Oh I understand what you are saying regarding Sansa, I disagree, that's different. It's called judging intent, not action. Tyrion went to Varys, which was stupid. Daenerys acknowledges that and blames him for it, rightfully. She doesn't dub him a traitor simply because he is not one, he did not go to Varys to spark rebellion, and when he realized his misstep, he went to her.

Unlike Tyrion, Sansa meant treason. She was given a get out of jail freecard this time, likely in part because "Jon", and in part because Daenerys never truly knew the exact words she used. We know she commited treason.

I don't want to believe you're serious. So in your mind Lannisters would give up on the North, and Sansa, but they didn't accept Robb's peace offer just because they don't have Arya?  Please stop. 

Daenerys didn't blame Tyrion and Sansa as traitors, because? Why? If Sansa was a traitor then first Jon would agree with that, or Daenerys would say that at least. Somehow Daenerys never says Sansa is a traitor, Tyrion never says Sansa is a traitor, but you guys believe Sansa is a traitor for some reason we don't know. It's completely illogical.

[Jaghen]

Because when presented with an information (True or False is both irrelevant and not firmly established) that could prove detrimental to her Queen, she decided to use that intel against her Queen. She thought that Tyrion, her ex, would share her idea that Daenerys needs to be removed (with good and bad reasons which again are irrelevant). That is treason. Just like Eddard committed treason against Joffrey.

Jon would never say, especially to Dany, that Sansa is a traitor, as he doesn't want her burnt. Dany still try to hold to the affection of Jon, and it would take a lot more than that for her to go after Sansa.

 

To be fair I've always believed R+L=J like most readers. If anything, that ending makes me doubt it. It's just too convenient, a perfect plot for Bran to push so that Dany gets her due and he gets the throne. Sure he says he doesn't want it, but then as he has seen everything not speaking would have been better off for him, for Dany, for Jon, for the whole city of KL... Let her go conquer the rest of the world while her consort rules here. And while he himself rules the North, still part of the Seven Kingdoms, as the last surviving son of Eddard Stark (legitimate at the least).

 

What's your opinion on Sansa if R+L=J is false, still not a traitor ? Sowing dissent over false information ? 

In my opinion True or False does not matter in case of treason, maybe it does for you ?

 

 

As for the North, I already went into why they likely did not even consider the offer seriously. Add in the fact that while he offered this "peace" Rob was rampaging through the Realm. Not fortifying the North as he should have. and making dumb mistaked along the way, giving them a lot of opportunities to end his threat once and for all.