Jump to content

Robb’s Strategy


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

Tywin would seat Myrcella on the Iron Throne. That was my point. 

No, he wouldn't.  First off, he doesn't have access to Myrcella.  She's effectively a hostage in Dorne, a prisoner of the man who hates him more than anyone else in Westeros.  Secondly, Tywin is a giant misogynist, who may not even believe that the Seven Kingdoms should have a ruling Queen.  So both by preference and necessity, Myrcella is not a candidate for Queen anymore.  Doran will never ally with Tywin for a variety of reasons, Tywin has no ability to "rescue" Myrcella, and even if he did, as we see in the various Great Councils, it's very much in doubt whether his vassals and allies will support a female candidate for ruler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

Myrcella would not have enough support to keep that throne. Westerlands without support from at least couple another kingdoms would not be strong enough to fight against possible rebels.

Naturally Myrcella could marry a Tyrell, but then ruling dynasty would be Tyrell instead of Lannister.

When Joffery was sitting on the Irone throne, there was a moment when his only support came from the Westerlands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

No, he wouldn't.  First off, he doesn't have access to Myrcella.  She's effectively a hostage in Dorne, a prisoner of the man who hates him more than anyone else in Westeros.  Secondly, Tywin is a giant misogynist, who may not even believe that the Seven Kingdoms should have a ruling Queen.  So both by preference and necessity, Myrcella is not a candidate for Queen anymore.  Doran will never ally with Tywin for a variety of reasons, Tywin has no ability to "rescue" Myrcella, and even if he did, as we see in the various Great Councils, it's very much in doubt whether his vassals and allies will support a female candidate for ruler.

You have a right to your opinion, I simply disagree and have already explained my reasoning multiple times in this thread. we are debating in circles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2019 at 10:25 AM, The hairy bear said:

He trusted Theon too much, and failed to understand that Balon had every reason to hate the Starks after they killed his two sons and kidnapped the third. Also, using the phrase "I will give you a crown" is a huge diplomatic blunder. I think that Robb may have had some chances to convince Balon to join him if he had addressed as an equal, had appealed his basic instincts (finish what he started in the first rebellion, sack the wealth of the west, and pay the iron price), and made the point that the Ironmen couldn't stand alone against all of Westeros and that an independent kingdom of the North and the Riverlands was their best chance to be independent.

I don't see how Robb could know this.

Robb never meet Balon, he does not know him, all he knew was that Balon tried a revolt against the throne before and if his interests remained the same they would be natural allies.

The Starks didn't killed any of Balon sons, one died at seagard and the other at Pyke.

“I forget nothing.” Ned Stark had killed neither of his brothers, in truth. Rodrik had been slain by Lord Jason Mallister at Seagard, Maron crushed in the collapse of the old south tower" 

Freeing Theon at the eyes of any other lord would be seing as a sign of goodwill and good faith. The Lannisters when starting to negotiate with the Tyrells also released one of the Redwyne twins, and the original idea was to release both. 

“I’ll include Horror and Slobber in my party, and send them on to their lord father afterward. A gesture of goodwill. We need Paxter Redwyne, he’s Mace Tyrell’s oldest friend, and a great power in his own right.”

The poor use of worlds would not soft the blow. Balon was dead set on invading the north, and he wasn't rational about it, in truth he never cared about Theon and prayed for his death, keeping Theon would not stop Balon's invasion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

No, he wouldn't.  First off, he doesn't have access to Myrcella.  She's effectively a hostage in Dorne, a prisoner of the man who hates him more than anyone else in Westeros.  Secondly, Tywin is a giant misogynist, who may not even believe that the Seven Kingdoms should have a ruling Queen.  So both by preference and necessity, Myrcella is not a candidate for Queen anymore.  Doran will never ally with Tywin for a variety of reasons, Tywin has no ability to "rescue" Myrcella, and even if he did, as we see in the various Great Councils, it's very much in doubt whether his vassals and allies will support a female candidate for ruler.

I agree with you here on Doran, making impossible for Tywin to seat Myrcella on the IT, but I don't think any of the Westerlands lords would care about her gender, even with a shaking claim, it would be better for them than Stannis, that saw them as traitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

When Joffery was sitting on the Irone throne, there was a moment when his only support came from the Westerlands. 

J was lucky that most of his potential enemies were either fighting against each others, like Baratheon brothers and IB who rather invaded huge swamp than rich Westerlands, or just doing nothing like Valemen and Dornish.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Loose Bolt said:

J was lucky that most of his potential enemies were either fighting against each others, like Baratheon brothers and IB who rather invaded huge swamp than rich Westerlands, or just doing nothing like Valemen and Dornish.

 

When Renly declares himself as King, it takes a while for Stannis to do the same, so at that point, no one is fighting each other. 

 

The North, Riverlands, Reach, and Stormlands are united in wanting Joffery gone/dead, Its speculated Dorne will side with Renly, the Vale with Robb, and no one with the West. 

So again, the Westerlands stood alone, and his enemies, at least in book one, werent fighting each other yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

When Renly declares himself as King, it takes a while for Stannis to do the same, so at that point, no one is fighting each other. 

 

The North, Riverlands, Reach, and Stormlands are united in wanting Joffery gone/dead, Its speculated Dorne will side with Renly, the Vale with Robb, and no one with the West. 

So again, the Westerlands stood alone, and his enemies, at least in book one, werent fighting each other yet. 

And had not been because another Kingdom supported the Lannisters, Joffrey and  the Lannisters would already be dead, Myrcella can crown herself but be it Dorne or Westerlands, she is going to die if she doesn't have more support. 

Joffrey being the default heir and  the confusion  that both Ned and  Robert deaths causes won him the day  at the beginning but it was crystal clear Joffrey couldn't keep his crown much longer without any support and  at the end he kept it because the Tyrells saved  the day. 

I don't know however  how Tywin is going to crown her when she is an effective hostage of the Martells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2019 at 8:14 PM, dsjj251 said:

You have a right to your opinion, I simply disagree and have already explained my reasoning multiple times in this thread. we are debating in circles. 

Right, and I've been responding to show that your reasoning is unsound.  I may not convince you, but even within the context of a discussion of fictional characters taking hypothetical actions, I think it important to show anyone reading along that you are badly mistaken and why.  Your logic is... well, there isn't any.  It completely ignores any semblance of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2019 at 9:31 PM, Arthur Peres said:

I agree with you here on Doran, making impossible for Tywin to seat Myrcella on the IT, but I don't think any of the Westerlands lords would care about her gender, even with a shaking claim, it would be better for them than Stannis, that saw them as traitor.

The text disagrees.  Stannis himself says that those following Joffrey, while in the wrong, may have sound reasoning for why they do so (ditto Robb).  It's nearly inconceivable that he would severely punish a vassal of Tywin's for answering their lords call to arms.  Which isn't to say that the Crakehalls are suddenly going to become a major power in the realm or anything, but Stannis himself goes through the same "hard choosing" between Aerys and Robert - he very explicitly understands the difficulties of choosing sides in a civil war in a feudal system.

The only people that Stannis seems as irredeemable traitors are those who follow Renly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2019 at 5:58 AM, frenin said:

And had not been because another Kingdom supported the Lannisters, Joffrey and  the Lannisters would already be dead, Myrcella can crown herself but be it Dorne or Westerlands, she is going to die if she doesn't have more support. 

Joffrey being the default heir and  the confusion  that both Ned and  Robert deaths causes won him the day  at the beginning but it was crystal clear Joffrey couldn't keep his crown much longer without any support and  at the end he kept it because the Tyrells saved  the day. 

I don't know however  how Tywin is going to crown her when she is an effective hostage of the Martells.

Not sure what your point is here considering the original context. Either Tywin is willing to stand alone, or he isnt. And Clearly he was and did. He would have kept fighting regardless of the Tyrells joining. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Right, and I've been responding to show that your reasoning is unsound.  I may not convince you, but even within the context of a discussion of fictional characters taking hypothetical actions, I think it important to show anyone reading along that you are badly mistaken and why.  Your logic is... well, there isn't any.  It completely ignores any semblance of reality.

You have not once shown my reasoning to be mistaken or unsound. You have put forth your own opinion and that is it. 

Even if you believed people wouldnt follow a women, Fire and Blood long gave a remedy to that with Rheana Targaryen,  Allowing her to wed a man of her choosing with good character and standing from a noble house, allowing her to be Queen, and him consort upon the untimely death of King Aegon III, and her child being her own heir and not just skipping her all together.  

For some reason you dont think Tywin would do the same. We simply disagree. Tywin has shown nothing in the books that leads me to believe he would not defend the rights of his grand daughter. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

Not sure what your point is here considering the original context. Either Tywin is willing to stand alone, or he isnt. And Clearly he was and did. He would have kept fighting regardless of the Tyrells joining. 

He would've been defeated if the Tyrells didn't join him, I do think he'd crown Myrcella, even if he didn't have her in his poder, but he have zero chance of winning without other Kingdoms joining him, Robb makes clear that he's standing alone if needed be, that doesn't mean he has much chsnces either.

What the other user said is that without another Kingdom, Myrcella is not keeping a Throne she couldn't even sit anyway and that's true, Joffrey would've lost  the Blackwater without Renly's ghost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

He would've been defeated if the Tyrells didn't join him, I do think he'd crown Myrcella, even if he didn't have her in his poder, but he have zero chance of winning without other Kingdoms joining him, Robb makes clear that he's standing alone if needed be, that doesn't mean he has much chsnces either.

What the other user said is that without another Kingdom, Myrcella is not keeping a Throne she couldn't even sit anyway and that's true, Joffrey would've lost  the Blackwater without Renly's ghost.

I think you misunderstood my post, I never said Tywin would win. I only stated he would continue to fight. So I think you and I agree. 

 

As for the other poster, no, that person  isnt saying Myrcella wouldnt keep the throne, he is point blank saying Tywin would not fight to put her there at all. he is saying once Tommen is dead, Tywin would immediately bend the knee. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2019 at 6:38 PM, cpg2016 said:

Secondly, Tywin is a giant misogynist, who may not even believe that the Seven Kingdoms should have a ruling Queen.

There is no evidence for that particular claim. He is not particularly misogynistic, especially not towards women from his own family. If Tywin were, for some reason, in the position to choose between his granddaughter or Robert's brothers or their (hypothetical) children - or more distant Targaryen/Baratheon relations - then he certainly would go with Myrcella.

Westeros in general does not like a female ruler, but when you or your family can seize power through a female claimant or a female claimant happens to part of your family then you support them.

FaB shows that perfectly with Rogar Baratheon's hypocrisy - at first he dismisses the female claims and as soon as he has issues with the king he rediscovers those claims and declares they are stronger than those of the guy.

Myrcella's claim is actually pretty strong. Robert's brothers have been attainted, and Myrcella would be crowned queen if Tommen died (assuming Aegon doesn't steal the throne before that happens) simply because there is no other male (line) cousin around that we know of. The same goes for Shireen if Stannis died - they have no one else, so they will crown the girl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

I think you misunderstood my post, I never said Tywin would win. I only stated he would continue to fight. So I think you and I agree. 

 

As for the other poster, no, that person  isnt saying Myrcella wouldnt keep the throne, he is point blank saying Tywin would not fight to put her there at all. he is saying once Tommen is dead, Tywin would immediately bend the knee. 

 

The user did tho but i quite agree with you however.

 

Quote

Myrcella would not have enough support to keep that throne. Westerlands without support from at least couple another kingdoms would not be strong enough to fight against possible rebels.

Naturally Myrcella could marry a Tyrell, but then ruling dynasty would be Tyrell instead of Lannister.

Whether Tywin keeps fighting or not, and  better question  is, who he fights?? Because there is no point in crowning Myrcella, even if he would do it regardless, if Myrcella is the Martells hostage, if Myrcella dies the only thing Tywin can fight for is for placing him as King, which would a pretty fun  to read mad quest. So, would he go South and  try to invade the Stormlands, because he's not taking  the Reach if he tries to invade Dorne, to pull a Lord Tyrell and  dying in the sands?? Would he try to pull a show Cersei and  only ruling KL, the Westerlands and  the Crownlands??

Myrcella would be the Lannisters last ticket to the ugliest chair and  honestly, the last chance for Westeros to be unified under one rule, without any of Robert's "trueborn kids" and Satannis  being Satannis  and  not realizing that KL worths a mass and  in the middle of a civil war, Westeros would break apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no evidence for that particular claim. He is not particularly misogynistic, especially not towards women from his own family. If Tywin were, for some reason, in the position to choose between his granddaughter or Robert's brothers or their (hypothetical) children - or more distant Targaryen/Baratheon relations - then he certainly would go with Myrcella.

Westeros in general does not like a female ruler, but when you or your family can seize power through a female claimant or a female claimant happens to part of your family then you support them.

FaB shows that perfectly with Rogar Baratheon's hypocrisy - at first he dismisses the female claims and as soon as he has issues with the king he rediscovers those claims and declares they are stronger than those of the guy.

Myrcella's claim is actually pretty strong. Robert's brothers have been attainted, and Myrcella would be crowned queen if Tommen died (assuming Aegon doesn't steal the throne before that happens) simply because there is no other male (line) cousin around that we know of. The same goes for Shireen if Stannis died - they have no one else, so they will crown the girl.

This is absolutely true. 

to include more from Fire and Blood; Before Alyn Velaryon finds Viserys across the Narrow Sea, the Regents who are led by a Green(a Lannister no less), agreed to make Baela the heir to Aegon III as long as she marries a consort of their choosing( Lord Rowan in this case), they then do the same for Rheana( Sir Corbray) when Baela marries Alyn Velaryon instead. 

I have never understood why anyone thinks these men wouldnt support a women when even in they site for civil war, both sides were willing to seat a women if need be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, frenin said:

The user did tho 

The poster you are referring to in this quote is not the same poster as the one I was responding to in the previous comment that you responded to. 

They are both making different arguments. One arguing that Tywin can not win( I agree, and never argued against, I only argue that he wouldnt give up), the other arguing that Tywin would never support his grand daughters claim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

to include more from Fire and Blood; Before Alyn Velaryon finds Viserys across the Narrow Sea, the Regents who are led by a Green(a Lannister no less), agreed to make Baela the heir to Aegon III as long as she marries a consort of their choosing( Lord Rowan in this case), they then do the same for Rheana( Sir Corbray) when Baela marries Alyn Velaryon instead.

They discuss the claims but they never formally make a ruling on the succession of Aegon III or name a presumptive heir. It is clear that the twins are his his heirs, but strangely enough it is unclear which girl it is despite the fact that primogeniture clearly favors Baela. It is also clear that any male children they might have would have stronger claims than their mothers, but as it turns out neither Baela nor Rhaena have any sons during the Regency.

Once the deliberations are over, Munkun tries to push the 'males only agenda' which was ridiculed by Tyland Lannister on the basis that the male Targaryen (descendants) aside from King Aegon III are dead.

But it is quite clear that either Baela or Rhaena would have claimed the Iron Throne if Aegon III had died before Viserys came back - assuming Jaehaera had predeceased him/died alongside him. Jaehaera was Aegon II's only surviving child - if Aegon III had predeceased her the remaining Greens may have preferred her to Daemon's daughters.

2 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

I have never understood why anyone thinks these men wouldnt support a women when even in they site for civil war, both sides were willing to seat a women if need be. 

How strong the claims of women can be is seen in ASoS when Tywin himself insists that Tyrion marry Sansa to ensure the Lannisters can claim Winterfell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

They discuss the claims but they never formally make a ruling on the succession of Aegon III or name a presumptive heir. It is clear that the twins are his his heirs, but strangely enough it is unclear which girl it is despite the fact that primogeniture clearly favors Baela. It is also clear that any male children they might have would have stronger claims than their mothers, but as it turns out neither Baela nor Rhaena have any sons during the Regency.

Once the deliberations are over, Munkun tries to push the 'males only agenda' which was ridiculed by Tyland Lannister on the basis that the male Targaryen (descendants) aside from King Aegon III are dead.

.

The discussion you speak of happens entirely before they actually play match maker for Baela. This could be a simple trick of the author to throw us off, but it seems they indeed decided on Baela , because if you are discussing Thaddius Rowan as a prince consort, and their child together as the unquestioned heir, then you are calling her the heir to Aegon, whether it is official(formal) or not is only a technicality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...