Was the Battle on the Green Fork the first example of bolton treason

[Adam Yozza]

14 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

AGoT, Catelyn IX.

The larger part of the northern host, pikes and archers and great masses of men-at-arms on foot, remained upon the east bank under the command of Roose Bolton. Robb had commanded him to continue the march south, to confront the huge Lannister army coming north under Lord Tywin.

Merriam-Webster's definition of the word confront:

transitive verb

1 : to face especially in challenge : OPPOSE

2 a : to cause to meet : bring face-to-face

b : to meet face-to-face : ENCOUNTER

Learner's Dictionary:

1 a : to oppose or challenge (someone) especially in a direct and forceful way

2 a : to deal with (something, such as a problem or danger)

especially : to deal with (something) in an honest and direct way

c : to be a problem for (someone or something)

Dictionary.Com:

verb (used with object)

1 to face in hostility or defiance; oppose:

3 to stand or come in front of; stand or meet facing:

4 to be in one's way:

- - -

So, we know that i) Robb told Roose to march south and confront Tywin, who ii) in turn was coming north. How one interprets the word confront and whether it means an actual order from Robb for Roose to violently make a battle with Tywin is their choice.

Yeah, Robb's orders to Roose are to distract Tywin. That is achieved by giving battle, so there's nothing for the other characters to question. However someone as cunning as Roose should have absolutely considered that battle wasn't necessary to distract Tywin and he certainly should have been able to do a lot better than he did.

He fails to take advantage of the night march, waiting until the Lannisters were formed up before charging them.

He fails to utilise his archers until his infantry are in a position to be killed by friendly fire.

He orders infantry to charge downhill at a larger, mounted force, giving up the highground.

The fact that the Manderly's, Karstark's, Cerwyn's and Hornwood's are the houses that suffer the most in that battle and are conincidently all direct rivals to Roose certainly makes it seem like he was setting them up to be weakened.

Tbh, all Roose has to do is force the night march and then wait. Form up on the hills across the field from the Lannisters...and do nothing. His mere presence is a distraction and he'd have the advantage if Tywin went on the offensive. And Tywin wouldn't be able to reach Riverrun in time because to do so, he'd have to turn his back on a hostile army.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

It is arguable/debatable whether Roose Bolton committed treason at all.  Look at it from his pale eyes.  Eddard Stark was arrested on charges of treason.  Robb calls his banners to attack instead of obeying the royal summons.  Twice now within a few years the Starks got themselves in trouble in the south and are now calling for war again.  Doesn't that look bad to a bannerman?  Catelyn Stark kidnaps the son of Tywin and brought down the wrath of the lions in the riverlands.  Looks like a Stark error in judgment.  Wouldn't you resent the Starks?  I would.  I'm now expected to pull my people off the harvest fields, go south, risk my life and theirs, for bad decisions made by the Starks.  Worst of all we are now rebelling against the king for the second time in less than twenty years.  Surely the wolves can get their act together but they can't.  Rebellion is treason.  

[Ivan Tsarevich]

12 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Yeah, Robb's orders to Roose are to distract Tywin. That is achieved by giving battle, so there's nothing for the other characters to question. However someone as cunning as Roose should have absolutely considered that battle wasn't necessary to distract Tywin and he certainly should have been able to do a lot better than he did.

He fails to take advantage of the night march, waiting until the Lannisters were formed up before charging them.

He fails to utilise his archers until his infantry are in a position to be killed by friendly fire.

He orders infantry to charge downhill at a larger, mounted force, giving up the highground.

The fact that the Manderly's, Karstark's, Cerwyn's and Hornwood's are the houses that suffer the most in that battle and are conincidently all direct rivals to Roose certainly makes it seem like he was setting them up to be weakened.

Tbh, all Roose has to do is force the night march and then wait. Form up on the hills across the field from the Lannisters...and do nothing. His mere presence is a distraction and he'd have the advantage if Tywin went on the offensive. And Tywin wouldn't be able to reach Riverrun in time because to do so, he'd have to turn his back on a hostile army.

I'm not sure whether you're arguing me here. I do not see how your post actually conflicts with what I said.

[Bernie Mac]

On 1/5/2020 at 3:38 PM, Adam Yozza said:

Yeah, Robb's orders to Roose are to distract Tywin.

No. Where is that said?

We don't know what his direct orders were, it may have been to 'distract' it may have been to give battle. We are not privy to what Robb's actual orders to Roose were. We do know that the original intention was battle.

On 1/5/2020 at 3:38 PM, Adam Yozza said:

 

That is achieved by giving battle, so there's nothing for the other characters to question.

Sure there is. If the guy giving the orders seems like he deliberately sabotaged the battle then others are going to question what happened. If Roose has lost more men than he should have then nobles, both with Roose, captured by Tywin and with Robb will ask questions of what happened if it looks like treachery.

On 1/5/2020 at 3:38 PM, Adam Yozza said:

 

However someone as cunning as Roose should have absolutely considered that battle wasn't necessary to distract Tywin

When would he have had time to do this? Robb gave him an order, the order seems to imply battle and to get to Tywin as quickly as possible.

On 1/5/2020 at 3:38 PM, Adam Yozza said:

 

and he certainly should have been able to do a lot better than he did.

According to who?

You say 'certainly'. If this is such a certainty why does no character think that?

Why does Robb, furious with the men lost by Edmure and Glover, not show any sign of anger towards Roose?

On 1/5/2020 at 3:38 PM, Adam Yozza said:

He fails to take advantage of the night march, waiting until the Lannisters were formed up before charging them.

What?

Does anyone on your side of the argument understand medieval warfare? Roose can't just charge from the Twins to wherever the moving Tywin army is. The vast majority of medieval battles had both sides forming up.

On 1/5/2020 at 3:38 PM, Adam Yozza said:

He fails to utilise his archers until his infantry are in a position to be killed by friendly fire.

Friendly fire? You do realize this is baseless speculation, right?

On 1/5/2020 at 3:38 PM, Adam Yozza said:

He orders infantry to charge downhill at a larger, mounted force, giving up the highground.

Again, without knowing much of the geography we don't know how secure or valuable that position was. We also don't know how manoeuvrable Tywin was. Roose may have been trapped in that highground if Tywin could surround it.

There are so many unknown variables that it is ridiclous people speaking matter of factly on this battle.

On 1/5/2020 at 3:38 PM, Adam Yozza said:

The fact that the Manderly's, Karstark's, Cerwyn's and Hornwood's are the houses that suffer the most in that battle

We don't know that at all.

Their captains led them on armored warhorses, standard-bearers riding alongside with their banners. He glimpsed the bull moose of the Hornwoods, the Karstark sunburst, Lord Cerwyn's battle-axe, and the mailed fist of the Glovers … and the twin towers of Frey, blue on grey.

When Tyrion talks about the banners he sees the Manderlys are not mentioned. Nor the Umbers. These, along with the Hornwoods, are Rooses two nearest rivals.

The Freys are not even a Northern house, the Glovers on the other side of the North, the Cerwyn's south of the Starks. There is nothing in that description that suggests that Roose picking off his neighbours.

Yes, Lord Hornwood dies in battle, but it is not on Roose that his son and heir died protecting Robb at the same time. That is just random unfortunate.

More known Northern nobles died in Robb's army than with Roose at the Green Fork. Men die in battle.

On 1/5/2020 at 3:38 PM, Adam Yozza said:

 

and are conincidently all direct rivals to Roose certainly makes it seem like he was setting them up to be weakened.

Not if people actually read what happened.

All the Frey sons were captured. How does that help Roose's 'plan'?

 

 

[Bernie Mac]

On 1/4/2020 at 10:54 PM, Arthur Peres said:

@Bernie Mac

Let's start from the begining

Sure. But at some point I'm going  to need a quote from you where Tywin

 

On 1/4/2020 at 10:54 PM, Arthur Peres said:

Tyrion even points out that the line didn't break, and mocks Tywin for his plan failing  "A pity my savages ruined your dance.".

To which his father replies "The Stark boy proved more cautious than I expected for one of his years," Lord Tywin admitted, "but a victory is a victory. You appear to be wounded."

 

This is Tywin impressed with what Robb has done, he expected more Northern casualties. He did not get what he expected.

 

Dude, you are such a bad faith actor when it comes to these conversations. You made a claim and when asked to back it up refuse to do so. Where in the books does Tywin say he was surprised with how poorly Roose did?  That was you claim and nothing you have posted suggests that this was true.

[Arthur Peres]

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Dude, you are such a bad faith actor when it comes to these conversations. You made a claim and when asked to back it up refuse to do so. Where in the books does Tywin say he was surprised with how poorly Roose did?  That was you claim and nothing you have posted suggests that this was true.

You're must be talking about yourself. I refered the point that Tywin expected the "savages" to break and they didn't and Tyrion exposed and mocked him for it. and this is a example of how Roose performed poorly. My words were a hyperbole, but it bust be hard to get when you don't want to understand.

[John Suburbs]

On 1/2/2020 at 2:42 PM, Mrstrategy said:

Was the Battle on the Green Fork the first example of Bolton treason because looking at the casualties it seems that Bolton wasted a large of his army on the battle specially troops that were from other lords as well as allowing a number of important lords to be captured or killed.

 

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Battle_on_the_Green_Fork

My take is that Roose has betrayed Robb here, intentionally, but that he has not necessarily sided with the Lannisters yet.

Roose's only objective is to convince Tywin that Robb is marching south rather than making for Riverrun, so as long as he accomplishes that he can say he obeyed his orders. Robb may question his decisions and the loss of men after the fact, but he cannot accuse Roose of outright disloyalty.

Meanwhile, Roose takes the opportunity to weaken other northern houses, which can only help him when the war is over, regardless of who is King in the North or who occupies Winterfell or the Iron Throne.

Roose is a crafty guy. At this point, the Frey alliance is still intact, but for all he knows Robb could get wiped out at Riverrun. In that case, Roose can quickly bend the knee and return to the Dreadfort with the largest army among all the neighbor lords. If Robb wins at Riverrun, however, then the fighting goes on and Roose looks for other ways to continue fighting without diminishing his own forces. He's not interested in winning the war; he's interested in winning the peace.

[Lord Varys]

10 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

My take is that Roose has betrayed Robb here, intentionally, but that he has not necessarily sided with the Lannisters yet.

While that's technically possible, we have simply no idea how it turned out that non-Bolton men were fighting at the front in this battle. Could be Roose commanded them to do that ... but considering the stupidity/eagerness of many a Northman to fight and die gloriously in battle chances are not that bad that many a nobleman demanded the honor of being the first to butcher some lions, etc. Young heirs were falling over themselves to become Robb's bodyguard (causing problems later when they died like flies), Northmen were bickering over whose banner was first in the marching order, making it clear that those men wanted to seen as willing to kill and get themselves killed sooner rather than later. All that makes it very unlikely that Roose had to command the lords and noblemen he commanded to be the first to fight.

Roose himself, being the reluctant and cautious guy that he is, would not have insisted that his men fight and die first. And that could have been all it took for his people to suffer no/the least losses. It also makes sense for the general of the army to command from the rear and thus be able to organize an ordered retreat should the need arise (which wasn't exactly unlikely considering they were fighting Tywin Lannister).

Claiming he deliberately weakened other houses as early as this is a theory we don't have any conclusive evidence for. That only starts after he takes Harrenhal and sends the a huge chunk of his men to Duskendale to get them killed.

[John Suburbs]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

While that's technically possible, we have simply no idea how it turned out that non-Bolton men were fighting at the front in this battle. Could be Roose commanded them to do that ... but considering the stupidity/eagerness of many a Northman to fight and die gloriously in battle chances are not that bad that many a nobleman demanded the honor of being the first to butcher some lions, etc. Young heirs were falling over themselves to become Robb's bodyguard (causing problems later when they died like flies), Northmen were bickering over whose banner was first in the marching order, making it clear that those men wanted to seen as willing to kill and get themselves killed sooner rather than later. All that makes it very unlikely that Roose had to command the lords and noblemen he commanded to be the first to fight.

Roose himself, being the reluctant and cautious guy that he is, would not have insisted that his men fight and die first. And that could have been all it took for his people to suffer no/the least losses. It also makes sense for the general of the army to command from the rear and thus be able to organize an ordered retreat should the need arise (which wasn't exactly unlikely considering they were fighting Tywin Lannister).

Claiming he deliberately weakened other houses as early as this is a theory we don't have any conclusive evidence for. That only starts after he takes Harrenhal and sends the a huge chunk of his men to Duskendale to get them killed.

Sure, but whether he ordered them to take the van or they begged him for the honor, it still left Roose with the largest number of fighting men. I don't think that was an accident.

And yes, of course it's a theory, because we have no direct insight into Roose's mind at the time. 

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Sure, but whether he ordered them to take the van or they begged him for the honor, it still left Roose with the largest number of fighting men. I don't think that was an accident.

And yes, of course it's a theory, because we have no direct insight into Roose's mind at the time. 

It was definitely not an accident, but I'd say it is definitely a difference Roose allowing something to happen (and perhaps quietly being pleased how things turned out) or him actually setting up things so people would get killed (as he definitely did later at Harrenhal). Roose is too cautious a man, in my opinion, to consider open treason at a time when he has no way of figuring out how the war is going to go.

And there were so many factors outside of his control that made him betray the Starks that his own deviousness likely is the least important factor there - there was Ned's execution, Robb's proclamation to king and the trouble that came with that, Renly's death, Stannis' defeat at the Blackwater, the Westerling marriage, and Cat's decision to let Jaime go. Even as late as Jaime's visit at Harrenhal Roose Bolton was still considering whether he should go through with a betrayal or not. The man is not making important decisions lightly.

In that sense - all I can see him doing at the Green Fork is deciding not to risk the lives of his own troops. Which was his prerogative as general of the army. But considering the quarrelsome and belligerent nature of many Northmen I cannot see Roose pushing or forcing anyone to take the van against their will - that could have caused trouble in the army as such, crippling his authority as a general (after all, he had just been named by the heir of Lord Eddard who wasn't even a man grown yet), not to mention made him look like a weakling or coward (which could have encouraged the ambitions of his many direct neighbors).

Thus my gut feeling would be that all he did was to encourage others to volunteer to lead the men in the battle, and exploiting their willingness to die. But we don't really know.

[John Suburbs]

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It was definitely not an accident, but I'd say it is definitely a difference Roose allowing something to happen (and perhaps quietly being pleased how things turned out) or him actually setting up things so people would get killed (as he definitely did later at Harrenhal). Roose is too cautious a man, in my opinion, to consider open treason at a time when he has no way of figuring out how the war is going to go.

And there were so many factors outside of his control that made him betray the Starks that his own deviousness likely is the least important factor there - there was Ned's execution, Robb's proclamation to king and the trouble that came with that, Renly's death, Stannis' defeat at the Blackwater, the Westerling marriage, and Cat's decision to let Jaime go. Even as late as Jaime's visit at Harrenhal Roose Bolton was still considering whether he should go through with a betrayal or not. The man is not making important decisions lightly.

In that sense - all I can see him doing at the Green Fork is deciding not to risk the lives of his own troops. Which was his prerogative as general of the army. But considering the quarrelsome and belligerent nature of many Northmen I cannot see Roose pushing or forcing anyone to take the van against their will - that could have caused trouble in the army as such, crippling his authority as a general (after all, he had just been named by the heir of Lord Eddard who wasn't even a man grown yet), not to mention made him look like a weakling or coward (which could have encouraged the ambitions of his many direct neighbors).

Thus my gut feeling would be that all he did was to encourage others to volunteer to lead the men in the battle, and exploiting their willingness to die. But we don't really know.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page here. He's not risking his own troops, and even if no one did clamor to be put in the van, pride and honor will not allow anyone to refuse it. Whether this rises to the level of betrayal is debatable, but he is clearly putting his own interests first and foremost here.

At this point, final victory for Robb is far from certain. So as I said, he is not thinking in terms of winning the war for his liege, but making sure he comes out ahead no matter what happens.

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

On 1/6/2020 at 7:15 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Sure. But at some point I'm going  to need a quote from you where Tywin

 

To which his father replies "The Stark boy proved more cautious than I expected for one of his years," Lord Tywin admitted, "but a victory is a victory. You appear to be wounded."

 

This is Tywin impressed with what Robb has done, he expected more Northern casualties. He did not get what he expected.

 

Dude, you are such a bad faith actor when it comes to these conversations. You made a claim and when asked to back it up refuse to do so. Where in the books does Tywin say he was surprised with how poorly Roose did?  That was you claim and nothing you have posted suggests that this was true.

I don't have much to add other than I agree. 

First time for everything right? 

I'm no military strategist, nor do I know much of the art of war but I think on this forum we have a tendency to overlook the simplest answer in search of something hidden. Probably in part because GRRM takes so long to write the next book & the previous ones get analyzed to death. 

To me it boils down to this: If Roose wanted to "throw" the battle he had ample opportunity to do so simply by falling into Tywin's trap. No one would have ever known or suspected. The fact that he played it so cautious is proof enough to me that he wasn't trying to sabotage the battle. 

[Lord Varys]

On 1/8/2020 at 8:30 PM, John Suburbs said:

Yeah, I think we're on the same page here. He's not risking his own troops, and even if no one did clamor to be put in the van, pride and honor will not allow anyone to refuse it. Whether this rises to the level of betrayal is debatable, but he is clearly putting his own interests first and foremost here.

Perhaps, but even that I think might be debatable. Him leading from the rear with his own men sounds as the kind of thing most generals would do. Would we say Stannis deliberately sacrificed other lords' men at the Blackwater? Or Tywin at the Green Fork? I don't think. It is of paramount importance to have the general (or a strong lieutenant) command the rear so a retreat, if necessary, does not turn into a rout.

And we can be rather sure that Roose and the other Northmen never deluded themselves into being able to defeat Tywin Lannister with only a tiny fraction of cavalry. They did their best to make the battle appear to be genuine, and then quickly retreated.

On 1/8/2020 at 8:30 PM, John Suburbs said:

At this point, final victory for Robb is far from certain. So as I said, he is not thinking in terms of winning the war for his liege, but making sure he comes out ahead no matter what happens.

We are not talking about Robb here. Eddard Stark is still alive and technically Roose's liege lord. Perhaps Roose expects him to die, but as he himself suggested to Cat - they could have exchanged Tyrion for Lord Eddard, possibly ending the war right then and there.

And Roose would have certainly expected them to reach some sort of truce/peace if Robb's bold plan at Riverrun worked. They could have gotten Ned and the girls back somehow, possibly in exchange for some Lannister hostages or for doing Joffrey homage as the rightful king.

That Roose had particular good standing with Robb at the eve of the Red Wedding seems to have been because of his Harrenhal operation - he did win a victory there. But if all he had to show was the defeat at the Green Fork he may have been in pretty bad standing at that time.

[John Suburbs]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Perhaps, but even that I think might be debatable. Him leading from the rear with his own men sounds as the kind of thing most generals would do. Would we say Stannis deliberately sacrificed other lords' men at the Blackwater? Or Tywin at the Green Fork? I don't think. It is of paramount importance to have the general (or a strong lieutenant) command the rear so a retreat, if necessary, does not turn into a rout.

And we can be rather sure that Roose and the other Northmen never deluded themselves into being able to defeat Tywin Lannister with only a tiny fraction of cavalry. They did their best to make the battle appear to be genuine, and then quickly retreated.

We are not talking about Robb here. Eddard Stark is still alive and technically Roose's liege lord. Perhaps Roose expects him to die, but as he himself suggested to Cat - they could have exchanged Tyrion for Lord Eddard, possibly ending the war right then and there.

And Roose would have certainly expected them to reach some sort of truce/peace if Robb's bold plan at Riverrun worked. They could have gotten Ned and the girls back somehow, possibly in exchange for some Lannister hostages or for doing Joffrey homage as the rightful king.

That Roose had particular good standing with Robb at the eve of the Red Wedding seems to have been because of his Harrenhal operation - he did win a victory there. But if all he had to show was the defeat at the Green Fork he may have been in pretty bad standing at that time.

Yeah, I can't argue with any of this. It's just that we're talking about Roose Bolton here, so my tendency is to think he's in it for himself, always. I'll also note that Stannis and Tywin were overlords to their banners, so all the losses were theirs. Roose was first among numerous banners under Winterfell, so their losses were his gains.

But Lady Barbrey has the right of it:

"Roose has no feelings, you see. Those leeches that he loves so well sucked all the passions out of him years ago. He does not love, he does not hate, he does not grieve. This is a game to him, mildly diverting. Some men hunt, some hawk, some tumble dice. Roose plays with men. You and me, these Freys, Lord Maderly, his plump new wife, even his bastard, we are but his playthings."

[Lord Varys]

26 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Yeah, I can't argue with any of this. It's just that we're talking about Roose Bolton here, so my tendency is to think he's in it for himself, always. I'll also note that Stannis and Tywin were overlords to their banners, so all the losses were theirs. Roose was first among numerous banners under Winterfell, so their losses were his gains.

But overlords have potential rivals problematic vassals, too. There is not much difference there. And one cannot really say that all losses of the Northmen are Roose's gain - that would be the case for only specific Northmen he has issues with.

And Stannis certainly could have profited from having the battle weaken the opportunists in his ranks and strengthening those who are his devoted followers.

26 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

But Lady Barbrey has the right of it:

"Roose has no feelings, you see. Those leeches that he loves so well sucked all the passions out of him years ago. He does not love, he does not hate, he does not grieve. This is a game to him, mildly diverting. Some men hunt, some hawk, some tumble dice. Roose plays with men. You and me, these Freys, Lord Maderly, his plump new wife, even his bastard, we are but his playthings."

Especially this thing, this lack of passion, is a sign to me that Roose is not driven much by personal ambition. Roose has his perversions he follows, but he prefers a quiet life and a quiet people. He has grown pretty old and served two Stark lords of Winterfell before Robb without causing a scandal or give his overlords reason to doubt his allegiance. If he were the kind of guy who would always plot to strengthen his own position he would have likely done something of note before the Red Wedding.

He doesn't betray Robb out of some sort of foolish Bolton desire for vengeance for things in the very distant past - he betrays him because he concludes that Robb Stark will fail and draw them all down with him. If he had seen a chance that 'King Robb' would bend the knee to Joffrey after the Blackwater we can be reasonably sure he would have never contemplated betrayal. To a different kind of lord - a more seasoned man, say - he could have been a stalwart follower.

[John Suburbs]

On 1/10/2020 at 4:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

But overlords have potential rivals problematic vassals, too. There is not much difference there. And one cannot really say that all losses of the Northmen are Roose's gain - that would be the case for only specific Northmen he has issues with.

And Stannis certainly could have profited from having the battle weaken the opportunists in his ranks and strengthening those who are his devoted followers.

Especially this thing, this lack of passion, is a sign to me that Roose is not driven much by personal ambition. Roose has his perversions he follows, but he prefers a quiet life and a quiet people. He has grown pretty old and served two Stark lords of Winterfell before Robb without causing a scandal or give his overlords reason to doubt his allegiance. If he were the kind of guy who would always plot to strengthen his own position he would have likely done something of note before the Red Wedding.

He doesn't betray Robb out of some sort of foolish Bolton desire for vengeance for things in the very distant past - he betrays him because he concludes that Robb Stark will fail and draw them all down with him. If he had seen a chance that 'King Robb' would bend the knee to Joffrey after the Blackwater we can be reasonably sure he would have never contemplated betrayal. To a different kind of lord - a more seasoned man, say - he could have been a stalwart follower.

It's not the same with Tywin and Stannis. They want to win the war for themselves, so any losses among their banners interferes with that primary goal. Roose is planning to maintain his lands and titles no matter who wins the war, so diminishing other northern lords' power without diminishing his own leaves him in a stronger position than before, regardless of where those houses are located or whether he has an specific issues with them.

Lol, I know we differ on Roose. Suffice it to say that I think you'll soon find out that he is not even close to what he appears to be.

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

It's not the same with Tywin and Stannis. They want to win the war for themselves, so any losses among their banners interferes with that primary goal. Roose is planning to maintain his lands and titles no matter who wins the war, so diminishing other northern lords' power without diminishing his own leaves him in a stronger position than before, regardless of where those houses are located or whether he has an specific issues with them.

I'd say that this Macchiavellian approach is something a shrewd lord or king might also use. You always lose men in battle, and you don't need all your men in battle to survive to win. Putting the most expendable men at the position where they are most likely to die is something Tywin deliberately does at the Green Fork.

What truly strengthened Bolton is the death of crucial Northern lords and heirs (the Hornwoods). The losses of levies only matters if truly many are lost, and if the lord who loses them also brought a significant portion of his strength with him - if all the Dustin levies had died in the campaign the Lady Dustin's strength wouldn't have been diminished to a high degree.

19 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Lol, I know we differ on Roose. Suffice it to say that I think you'll soon find out that he is not even close to what he appears to be.

Well, he might already be dead, you know? Perhaps Ramsay is going to kill him after all. We don't know. One gets the impression George gave us all the background we need to understand Roose in ADwD. There doesn't seem to be a necessity for many more revelations - unless his role is going to drastically change and he is going to end on top of the Stannis battle or gets at least away alive after that - the first is not particularly likely and the latter, while possible, would likely only unnecessarily prolong or complicate the story There has to be a time when some dangling plot lines end - and the Bolton story could reasonably end early on in TWoW.

[John Suburbs]

On 1/13/2020 at 10:48 AM, Lord Varys said:

I'd say that this Macchiavellian approach is something a shrewd lord or king might also use. You always lose men in battle, and you don't need all your men in battle to survive to win. Putting the most expendable men at the position where they are most likely to die is something Tywin deliberately does at the Green Fork.

What truly strengthened Bolton is the death of crucial Northern lords and heirs (the Hornwoods). The losses of levies only matters if truly many are lost, and if the lord who loses them also brought a significant portion of his strength with him - if all the Dustin levies had died in the campaign the Lady Dustin's strength wouldn't have been diminished to a high degree.

Well, he might already be dead, you know? Perhaps Ramsay is going to kill him after all. We don't know. One gets the impression George gave us all the background we need to understand Roose in ADwD. There doesn't seem to be a necessity for many more revelations - unless his role is going to drastically change and he is going to end on top of the Stannis battle or gets at least away alive after that - the first is not particularly likely and the latter, while possible, would likely only unnecessarily prolong or complicate the story There has to be a time when some dangling plot lines end - and the Bolton story could reasonably end early on in TWoW.

As usual, nice chatting with you LV. I think you and a lot of other readers will be truly gobsmacked when the truth about Roose finally comes out. 

[Lord Varys]

52 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

As usual, nice chatting with you LV. I think you and a lot of other readers will be truly gobsmacked when the truth about Roose finally comes out. 

Not holding my breath. Despite not being overly concerned for his safety and well-being (after all, he had Ramsay write other intimidation letters before) it is striking that Ramsay wrote the Pink Letter and not Roose.

And then, when we last saw him, he was afraid, according to Theon. His time is running out.

But what exactly is the truth about Roose in your opinion, anyway? That he is a secretly a giant leech in human form, the Man-Leech, perhaps?

[John Suburbs]

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not holding my breath. Despite not being overly concerned for his safety and well-being (after all, he had Ramsay write other intimidation letters before) it is striking that Ramsay wrote the Pink Letter and not Roose.

And then, when we last saw him, he was afraid, according to Theon. His time is running out.

But what exactly is the truth about Roose in your opinion, anyway? That he is a secretly a giant leech in human form, the Man-Leech, perhaps?

Son of the Night King, flaying his sons and wearing their skins for thousands of years. "Roose plays with men." because men are like mice to him.