Jump to content

Robb’s War Was The Most Just Of Them All.


The Wolves

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Nittanian said:

Out of curiosity, I found some possibly relevant interviews. 

NME

Rolling Stone

Al Jazeera

Those really are the central points. Years and years we had people who actually were obsessed that the whole 'Nothern independence' stuff was worth it and could be maintained even in light of the threat the Others pose. Which simply doesn't fly in this scenario but also not the in the overall mundane setting - an independent North (or even an independent Dorne or Iron Islands or Vale, etc.) would inevitably mean the return to the constant warfare that ravaged Westeros before the Conquest.

But if we look at the threat of the Others then Robb comes again out as the worst of the pretenders because he was the one uniquely positioned to prepare the Seven Kingdoms for the Others, to build up the defenses of the North and the Wall, to gain knowledge about the true enemy (via Osha and Jon Snow) and then act as the negotiator/diplomat who convinced all the other lords and pretenders that they had to work together.

All that would have been possible, especially if Robb had decided to ignore the Riverlands and the Lannisters, trying to get his father pardoned by less martial means. Instead he fucked everything up. The North is in a very bad state right now, ill-prepared for winter and not prepared at all for the Others. The current fighting between Stannis and the Boltons/Freys is another legacy of Robb's war, and is going to be another pointless bloodletting, weakening the North and the Seven Kingdoms even further.

In fact, if you look at things and if one imagines that the Others really are going to breach the Wall and march their hordes of zombies down south then chances are not that bad that Robb's war was the beginning of the end of the North as the people knew it. Even if the War for the Dawn is won and the Others are defeated then 90-99% of the Northmen might only see the end of that war with the blue eyes of the wights. The Westeros that is going to be rebuild after the war might be a world with only a handful of wildlings and a couple of hundred or so Northmen left (crannogmen and Skagosi and Bear Islanders not included, who might be safer on their islands/in their swamps). And depending how far down south the wight army advances it might not be much different in the Riverlands.

No sane mind is going to care about 'independence' after a crisis like this. This would be akin to people immediately returning to petty squabbles after a massive meteor impact or some other great natural catastrophe that nearly destroyed global civilization. Eventually, decades or centuries in the future people might return to such squabbles. But in Westeros we do know that the NW as an institution to protect the realms of men from supernatural extinction survived for thousands of years - as did the willingness of the people to support and join this institution despite its more recent decline.

The survivors of the new War of the Dawn will realize what their petty ambitions and squabbles nearly did - that their ambitions and petty desire for vengeance nearly destroyed them all. They will not look back on Balon and Robb and Renly and whoever else had some shiny agenda during the destructive and pointless War of the Five Kings. If they do anything, they will condemn and spit on their graves, rightfully blaming them for the loved ones they lost due their irresponsible actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Those really are the central points. Years and years we had people who actually were obsessed that the whole 'Nothern independence' stuff was worth it and could be maintained even in light of the threat the Others pose. Which simply doesn't fly in this scenario but also not the in the overall mundane setting - an independent North (or even an independent Dorne or Iron Islands or Vale, etc.) would inevitably mean the return to the constant warfare that ravaged Westeros before the Conquest.

But if we look at the threat of the Others then Robb comes again out as the worst of the pretenders because he was the one uniquely positioned to prepare the Seven Kingdoms for the Others, to build up the defenses of the North and the Wall, to gain knowledge about the true enemy (via Osha and Jon Snow) and then act as the negotiator/diplomat who convinced all the other lords and pretenders that they had to work together.

All that would have been possible, especially if Robb had decided to ignore the Riverlands and the Lannisters, trying to get his father pardoned by less martial means. Instead he fucked everything up. The North is in a very bad state right now, ill-prepared for winter and not prepared at all for the Others. The current fighting between Stannis and the Boltons/Freys is another legacy of Robb's war, and is going to be another pointless bloodletting, weakening the North and the Seven Kingdoms even further.

In fact, if you look at things and if one imagines that the Others really are going to breach the Wall and march their hordes of zombies down south then chances are not that bad that Robb's war was the beginning of the end of the North as the people knew it. Even if the War for the Dawn is won and the Others are defeated then 90-99% of the Northmen might only see the end of that war with the blue eyes of the wights. The Westeros that is going to be rebuild after the war might be a world with only a handful of wildlings and a couple of hundred or so Northmen left (crannogmen and Skagosi and Bear Islanders not included, who might be safer on their islands/in their swamps). And depending how far down south the wight army advances it might not be much different in the Riverlands.

No sane mind is going to care about 'independence' after a crisis like this. This would be akin to people immediately returning to petty squabbles after a massive meteor impact or some other great natural catastrophe that nearly destroyed global civilization. Eventually, decades or centuries in the future people might return to such squabbles. But in Westeros we do know that the NW as an institution to protect the realms of men from supernatural extinction survived for thousands of years - as did the willingness of the people to support and join this institution despite its more recent decline.

The survivors of the new War of the Dawn will realize what their petty ambitions and squabbles nearly did - that their ambitions and petty desire for vengeance nearly destroyed them all. They will not look back on Balon and Robb and Renly and whoever else had some shiny agenda during the destructive and pointless War of the Five Kings. If they do anything, they will condemn and spit on their graves, rightfully blaming them for the loved ones they lost due their irresponsible actions.

What exactly was Robb supposed to do in that situation? Correct me if I’m wrong because I haven’t read the books in a while, but Robb never knew the situation of the Others. The only time I remember him hearing about them is by Old Nan and everyone thought they were just that, stories. I know the Night Watch man Ned beheaded at the beginning was talking gibberish and couldn’t be understood. And when Mormont sent out the letters to the Kings I don’t think it was said that Robb ever got his. I know the Night Watch men went before the Throne and Lannisters and told them what was happening and he was laughed out of Kings Landing. Stannis’ letter was like lost among a bunch and I’m sure Greyjoy threw his out. 
 

Why was it on a 16yr old boy to give up and go home while his family, and people were unfairly raped, murdered and kidnapped? What was wrong with him trying to help the Riverlands from the likes of Tywin, Gregor, Keven, etc... ? Why didn’t Tywin sit down with Robb and offer his condolences and try to end the war? Why don’t Stannis try to talk with Robb instead of threatening his life? This is a 16yr old boy who was under strain and stress from all sides who could have easily been led to put aside his crown before the point of no return. But instead of talking with him he is threatened, attacked, and unjustly killed because a bunch of grown men couldn’t sit with a boy and end a war but Robb is the biggest pretender who had no cause for his fight? If Robb had asked for justice for his father in exchange for his knee than what would the Lannisters give him? Would they have given him Sansa or Arya? What about Ice? Would they have reigned in their rapping, burning, and murdering of the Riverlands? Would they have given him justice for the murder of the Northern men? Would Stannis have let Robb just go home and prepare for winter if Robb bent the knee to him or had him continue a war in his name? 

Also remember Robb was going home. He was going North where he would have heard of the Wildlings, Others, the murder of Mormont. He would have been able to contact Jon(because Jon had just go back around the time Robb would have gotten North)and been told what he saw beyond the Wall. He could have that moment where he said I have to protect the North and prepared them. He could have focused on winter and had defenses but he didn’t because before he could go home and possibly do all this because he was murdered. 

It’s not Robb’s fault that he didn’t get to prepare and fight the Others for the North. He WAS going home. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Wolves said:


Why was it on a 16yr old boy to give up and go home while his family, and people were unfairly raped, murdered and kidnapped?

Robb did not care about people being raped, murdered and kidnapped. His army made it worse for the people of the Riverlands, not better.

The cook was spared (some said because he'd made the weasel soup), but stocks were hammered together for pretty Pia and the other women who'd shared their favors with Lannister soldiers. Stripped and shaved, they were left in the middle ward beside the bear pit, free for the use of any man who wanted them.

The Northern army were raping just as much as the Westerland army was.

The harvest wasn't burned south o' the river. Course, there's plenty want to take what we got. Wolves one day, Mummers the next. Them that's not looking for food are looking for plunder, or women to rape, and them that's not out for gold or wenches are looking for the bloody Kingslayer.

And they pillage and plunder just like the Westerland army does.

He sent men off to Riverrun to fight but never went himself. Lions sacked his town, then wolves, then sellswords, and his lordship just sat safe behind his walls.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lem glowered. "Your lion friends ride into some village, take all the food and every coin they find, and call it foraging. The wolves as well, so why not us? No one robbed you, dog. You just been good and foraged."

Robb, just like the majority of the nobility, does not really care about the smallfolk. They are collateral damage to his own ambitions and needs. Framing the argument that Robb went to war because of the injustice that was happening to the people of the Riverlands is factually incorrect.

6 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

 

What was wrong with him trying to help the Riverlands from the likes of Tywin, Gregor, Keven, etc... ?

He wasn't. He was trying to get revenge for his dad. Tywin, Gregor and Kevan were in Harrenhal, with free reign in the Riverlands. The Lords of the Riverlands begged him to attack, he chose to go West to do onto the Westerland smallfolk what Tywin (and his own Northmen) were doing to the Riverland smallfolk.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

He wasn't. He was trying to get revenge for his dad. Tywin, Gregor and Kevan were in Harrenhal, with free reign in the Riverlands. The Lords of the Riverlands begged him to attack, he chose to go West to do onto the Westerland smallfolk what Tywin (and his own Northmen) were doing to the Riverland smallfolk.

I'll just quibble the details here.

This is not a decision anyone can criticize. It would be extremely unwise if not outright suicidal for Robb to make some desperate attempt to storm the walls of Harrenhal and defeat Tywin. His army would have been utterly obliterated and he would have lost the war effort, and even if by some miracle he escaped to fight another day the new Lannister host being mustered in the West would be come up from behind and smashed him to pieces.

Attacking the West as he did was the only choice Robb could have realistically made.

If he'd disbanded the army to garrison all across the Riverlands he'd have lost the war because the Riverlords wouldn't be willing to march away from their homes so soon, and at that point Tywin could just laugh all the way to the bank taking holdfasts one at a time and defeating the rebels through divide and conquer.

And if he'd just sat there waiting for Tywin to do something he would have had to feed his army on the dwindling resources of the Riverlands while the Lannisters got ready to pin him between two armies at once.

Going west enables the Northern army to supply itself on the backs of Tywin's smallfolk rather than Edmure's. It gives Robb a chance to smash up Stafford Lannister's army before it can be trained and used to defeat him. It gives Robb the opportunity to sack western castles and take hostages, giving him leverage to negotiate and increasing the pressure on Tywin to offer terms or march west to confront him and risk an ambush.

Literally the only reason he didn't win the war by doing this is that he didn't outright explain the plan to Edmure, who threw Tywin back at the Battle of the Fords and thus enabled Tywin to be in the area to defeat Stannis at the Battle of the Blackwater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope,  neither he was fighting for any more reasons than pride and vengeance, nor is independence a objectivable good reason to figh for, only Dany's campaign is worth of that "praise" and we see the cost of it.

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

All that would have been possible, especially if Robb had decided to ignore the Riverlands and the Lannisters, trying to get his father pardoned by less martial means. Instead he fucked everything up. The North is in a very bad state right now, ill-prepared for winter and not prepared at all for the Others. The current fighting between Stannis and the Boltons/Freys is another legacy of Robb's war, and is going to be another pointless bloodletting, weakening the North and the Seven Kingdoms even further.

 

He could not ignore the Riverlands, he was tied with them by blood, neither ignore Tywin's war crimes is a moral reason, yes he made things  worst at the end but he went there to help. I doubt that any of his bannermen would've ever respected Robb if he didn't march either way. And before Robb gets to do anything, Joffrey fucks everything up by killing Ned, by that point, there peace is possible.

The North is ill prepared for the others, just as Westeros was after every war, how can he deal with a threat he does not nothing about??

 

Quote

Framing this whole thing as 'independence' is nonsense. None of the Seven Kingdoms was ever a nation-state. They were feudal kingdoms with borders that were never properly fixed, and the only real borders between particular regions are geographical barriers - things like the Red Mountains, the Mountains of the Moon, the swamps of the Neck, etc.

Most not,  others definetely, Dorne, the North and the Iron Islands, and i bet my ass as the Vale too, were the most cohesive countries in Westeros, geographical barriers are point to nationalism, because they isolate them and allow them to develop their own identity. And yes, feudal kingdoms under the proper circumstances can be considered nations. Before even the Starks beat to submission the North and even before of the arrival of the andals, every northmen from different kingdoms fought as one man to repel any invader from the south.

Saying that the north is not a nation makes little sense, other thing is saying that for that they deserve independence, that's absurd.

 

Quote

It is rather obvious that the Starks could have defied the Targaryens for years and decades - it would have been costly for them, of course, thousands and tens of thousands of Northmen would have died, but Aegon's dragons wouldn't have helped him to hold or rule the North if the people had been against him (just as the dragons failed Aegon in the much smaller Dorne).

Don't really know how, if Aegon burned them all as he did in Dorne, how could the Northmen ever survive winter??

 

 

Quote

We even see bits of this in FaB - in TWoIaF there is talk about some Northmen (and even some of Torrhen's son) opposing the submission to the Targaryens, but Torrhen forces the founders of the Company of the Rose into exile, and the Brandon Stark from FaB (who might be one of Torrhen's sons and his successor) compares young Jaehaerys I with Aegon I in a positive sense - meaning that this Stark lord at least came respect Aegon the Conqueror. Alaric Stark's issues with Jaehaerys I are all personal and go back to his weird reinterpretation of mercy and him ridiculously ignoring his brother's own role in his death - nobody forced Lord Walton to pursue the turncloak Kingsguard beyond the Wall. That was his decision.

Not so much, the company of the rose seems to have been auto exiled to not suffer the Targ rule and Brandon compares Jaeharys to Aegon insofar as he is better than Aenys, we're told that the Starks only started to mind the Targs after Cregan reaped juices rewards from Aegon.

 

 

Quote

And the whores of White Harbor see the Targaryens as their rightful royal dynasty, not the Starks.

 Do they now?? They certainly don't say it. They just talk about the Targs just as they were talking about other things and in that conversation, the words "our kings" or "rightful" weren't mentioned.

 

@Bernie Mac

 

Quote

No, it does not. He was able to convince half of the Northern army to follow him before that, he was able to get the Dustins, Ryswells and half the Umbers on side to do that.

Part of his power is on that, but not all of it. He was able to remove Robb and most of his Lordly rivals without that 11 year old girl.

When you quote this, please read it three times before you try to strawman what I have actually just said.

Didn't he share blood ties with both the Ryswells and the Dustins and weren't those houses already pissed with Ned?? He gets half the Umbers too because he has  Greatjon as hostage in the Twins.

I'm not so sure about the Ryswells, but iirc among the most important northern houses he has either those who the Starks idiotically pissed off (Karstark, Dustin) and those who are with him by forcebly (Umber, Manderly). Before you get afire here, i'll say that my memory over the north affairs are not particulary good in this times.

 

Quote

More importantly, why did Ned and the other Lords of the realm not try for independence after Aerys had died? Ned, along with Jon Arryn, had to convince Robert to take the Throne. Ned is one of the principle architects of why the Iron Throne still exists. I have more faith in the judgement of 21 year old Ned and Jon than I do 15 year old Robb and the Greatjon.

You and everyone, truly speaking what's the good about their independence?? Taxes may be a decent reason fir them, but we don't even know something about that.

The only good reason i see is start yelling King in the North every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

@Bernie Mac

Didn't he share blood ties with both the Ryswells and the Dustins

The Ryswells, not Dustins. But I'm not sure how that changes my point. The Mountain Clans are the closest blood relations to the Starks, should we ignore their loyalty as well in the series?

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

and weren't those houses already pissed with Ned??

Yes. Where are you going with this? Everyone has reasons for picking a side.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

He gets half the Umbers too because he has  Greatjon as hostage in the Twins.

Not so sure of that. The Umbers ignored Winterfell when it was captured, didn't bother to send any men to Theon's surprise.

It seems part of the Umbers may have had their own agenda (similar to the Karstarks in the North) regardless of what the Greatjon wanted.

 

12 minutes ago, frenin said:

He could not ignore the Riverlands, he was tied with them by blood, neither ignore Tywin's war crimes is a moral reason, yes he made things  worst at the end but he went there to help.

No, he mostly went there to free his father and gain an army to help him do so.

12 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

I doubt that any of his bannermen would've ever respected Robb if he didn't march either way.

The Northmen, like most medieval people, would not care what happened to people in another realm. Based on our own medieval times the Nobles of England, Germany, Spain and France did not care one iota when their in-laws realms were under threat.

They'd lose respect for him if he called his banners and then marched home without doing anything, but him not doing anything would not have had the same effect.

12 minutes ago, frenin said:

And before Robb gets to do anything, Joffrey fucks everything up by killing Ned, by that point, there peace is possible.

Robb has already marched to war by this point. He'd already done something.

12 minutes ago, frenin said:

Before even the Starks beat to submission the North and even before of the arrival of the andals, every northmen from different kingdoms fought as one man to repel any invader from the south.

 

That is a bold statement. Can you back it up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

I'll just quibble the details here.

This is not a decision anyone can criticize. It would be extremely unwise if not outright suicidal for Robb to make some desperate attempt to storm the walls of Harrenhal and defeat Tywin.

I agree. But he could have kept his army in the Riverlands, policed the areas that were under threat. Tywin might be safe inside Harrenhal but he and his men would not be free to do as they pleased outside of its walls.

He chose to go West. The protection of the Riverlands and its people was not a primary concern for him.

25 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

 

 

If he'd disbanded the army to garrison all across the Riverlands he'd have lost the war because the Riverlords wouldn't be willing to march away from their homes so soon, and at that point Tywin could just laugh all the way to the bank taking holdfasts one at a time and defeating the rebels through divide and conquer.

Disagree with that. He'd have won it. At some point Kings Landing would be attacked, he, still in the Riverlands, would be able to take Tywin from behind once he responds to the capital being attacked.

25 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

Literally the only reason he didn't win the war by doing this is that he didn't outright explain the plan to Edmure, who threw Tywin back at the Battle of the Fords and thus enabled Tywin to be in the area to defeat Stannis at the Battle of the Blackwater.

I'm not sure how Robb's 'plan' makes any sense. He did not know that Stannis had a magical shadow baby that would mean Stannis conquered Storm's End in weeks rather than the months it should have taken.

He also has no idea what the Tyrells would have done or even if message would still have reached Tywin in time and he simply turned around.

The narrative that Robb had planned 'victory' and was thwarted by Edmure makes zero sense when all the variables come into consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Ryswells, not Dustins. But I'm not sure how that changes my point. The Mountain Clans are the closest blood relations to the Starks, should we ignore their loyalty as well in the series?

The Dustins (if any are even left) are ruled by Barbrey Dustin nee Ryswell, which gives Roose a blood tie since he married her sister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

The Dustins (if any are even left) are ruled by Barbrey Dustin nee Ryswell, which gives Roose a blood tie since he married her sister.

Thanks for the quibble, but blood relation means a relative by birth, not by marriage. He's actually not blood related to either House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Wolves said:

What exactly was Robb supposed to do in that situation? Correct me if I’m wrong because I haven’t read the books in a while, but Robb never knew the situation of the Others. The only time I remember him hearing about them is by Old Nan and everyone thought they were just that, stories. I know the Night Watch man Ned beheaded at the beginning was talking gibberish and couldn’t be understood. And when Mormont sent out the letters to the Kings I don’t think it was said that Robb ever got his. I know the Night Watch men went before the Throne and Lannisters and told them what was happening and he was laughed out of Kings Landing. Stannis’ letter was like lost among a bunch and I’m sure Greyjoy threw his out.

As I said, Robb was in the ideal position to learn about them had he cared. He had the personal connections to the Wall, he had an actual wildling in his own castle when he went to war.

As for the later letters - we never get information on whether Robb received any of them, but it is actually inconceivable that he did not. Mormont would have wanted him to inform him about his great ranging, and Aemon later desperately tried convince the Lords of the North to help fight against Mance. Some of those people must have passed word to Robb. But the Watch and the wildlings never were a priority for him.

1 hour ago, The Wolves said:

Why was it on a 16yr old boy to give up and go home while his family, and people were unfairly raped, murdered and kidnapped? What was wrong with him trying to help the Riverlands from the likes of Tywin, Gregor, Keven, etc... ?

As @Bernie Mac already pointed out, Robb never marched down south to help the Riverlanders ... he went down to help his Tully grandfather and uncle. He fought for his noble kin, not for innocent people caught in the crossfire.

1 hour ago, The Wolves said:

Why didn’t Tywin sit down with Robb and offer his condolences and try to end the war? Why don’t Stannis try to talk with Robb instead of threatening his life? This is a 16yr old boy who was under strain and stress from all sides who could have easily been led to put aside his crown before the point of no return. But instead of talking with him he is threatened, attacked, and unjustly killed because a bunch of grown men couldn’t sit with a boy and end a war but Robb is the biggest pretender who had no cause for his fight? If Robb had asked for justice for his father in exchange for his knee than what would the Lannisters give him? Would they have given him Sansa or Arya? What about Ice? Would they have reigned in their rapping, burning, and murdering of the Riverlands? Would they have given him justice for the murder of the Northern men? Would Stannis have let Robb just go home and prepare for winter if Robb bent the knee to him or had him continue a war in his name?

Stannis would have welcomed it if the boy had not crowned himself and had instead written to Dragonstone that he would continue the war in his name. Tywin would have welcomed it if Robb had decided to exchange Jaime for Robb's sister(s). And at any point up until the Blackwater (and perhaps even thereafter, before the Red Wedding) Tywin would have allowed Robb to live and keep Winterfell and the North in exchange for him bending the knee and doing homage to King Joffrey.

But my overall point is that those other pretenders have much better excuses - they do not live pretty close to the Wall, they don't have kin there, the Lord Commander isn't one of their former bannermen.

Robb failed his people twofold - one with a war he did not win and which brought them grief and chaos in two ways (Ironborn invasion and Red Wedding), and two with bleeding out the North so they are ill-prepared for winter and in no shape to even offer the Others proper resistance when they finally make their move.

1 hour ago, The Wolves said:

Also remember Robb was going home. He was going North where he would have heard of the Wildlings, Others, the murder of Mormont. He would have been able to contact Jon(because Jon had just go back around the time Robb would have gotten North)and been told what he saw beyond the Wall. He could have that moment where he said I have to protect the North and prepared them. He could have focused on winter and had defenses but he didn’t because before he could go home and possibly do all this because he was murdered. 

It’s not Robb’s fault that he didn’t get to prepare and fight the Others for the North. He WAS going home. 

Robb tried to reconquer the half of his kingdom he had lost to the Ironborn while abandoning the Riverlands - the other half of his kingdom - to the Lannisters and Tyrells.

Once Robb had returned back home harvest season would have been over (as it is in AFfC/ADwD) and people there would starve some more in winter due to the fact that thanks to Robb's war and the Ironborn invasions there are far too little winter provisions.

The continued secession should make it very hard/impossible for Robb to buy his people food in the Vale or the Reach or the West (which would have been much easier back when the Realm was united) not to mention that the Iron Throne wouldn't be obligated to raise a finger to help the Northmen when the Wall finally fell. After all, these people were independent now, did not want have anything to do with the Iron Throne. Why should they help them fight against the Others?

Thanks to Robb the situation between the North and the Iron Throne is the same way as the situation between the wildlings and the Northmen/NW - Bowen Marsh rightfully asks 'Why the hell should we help the people who constantly try to attack us, who don't want our help, who try to kill us, who cannot be trusted?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I agree. But he could have kept his army in the Riverlands, policed the areas that were under threat. Tywin might be safe inside Harrenhal but he and his men would not be free to do as they pleased outside of its walls.

I already explained that this can't be done in the long term since the Riverlands have already been sacked and burned. It would be difficult to resupply in general unless he dispersed his forces, and cause undue burden on the smallfolk when winter is coming.

And if Robb does disperse his army into small groups to patrol the Riverlands and restore order, he would never be able to reform it in time into a decently sizeable host if Tywin suddenly moved west from Harrenhal.

Additionally, you are forgetting the host of Stafford Lannister at Oxcross. In the long run all remaining in the Riverlands does is drain his supplies while giving Stafford time to train his troops and eventually march east into the Riverlands.

It would be strategic suicide. Robb would already find it difficult to defeat Tywin in battle. Giving the Lannisters time to make it two or three to one odds in their favour while trapping his army between two of theirs' makes something difficult almost impossible.

Quote

He chose to go West. The protection of the Riverlands and its people was not a primary concern for him.

Robb's motives as such are not explicitly stated in this regards, but there is a reason that it is sometimes said the best defense is a good offense. Robb can only give the Riverlands breathing room by going west and defeating Stafford at Oxcross, which removes a threat to the west.

Quote

Disagree with that. He'd have won it. At some point Kings Landing would be attacked, he, still in the Riverlands, would be able to take Tywin from behind once he responds to the capital being attacked.

No, he would have been obliterated by a joint Lannister-Tyrell army of 70,000-90,000 men. And I suppose Stannis would have won the Blackwater since Robb delayed the relief force, but the North would have been bled white.

And Stafford would still be in the West ready to burn the Riverlands once more.

Quote

I'm not sure how Robb's 'plan' makes any sense. He did not know that Stannis had a magical shadow baby that would mean Stannis conquered Storm's End in weeks rather than the months it should have taken.

Robb's goal was to:

1) Defeat Stafford to prevent him from reinforcing Tywin/trapping the numerically inferior Northern army between two Westerlands armies.

2) Sack Westerlands castles to reduce support for Tywin's war effort and gain hostages to negotiate with.

3) Draw Tywin west, where Robb could lay a trap and defeat him.

4) Negotiate.

Stannis and the Blackwater wasn't part of Robb's plan, that was Robb being angry that things nearly went perfectly right even if it was unintentional. 

If Edmure hadn't foiled Robb's plans of drawing Tywin west for a battle on ground Robb chose, Robb wouldn't have even had to fight Tywin since all the Lannister children would be dead at Stannis' hand.

Tywin would have no king candidate to back and Robb could sign peace with him while demanding some concessions in exchange for the hostages, leaving Tywin to probably crown himself King of the Rock and provide yet another rebel king from Stannis to contend with if there is going to be an attempt to reconquer Westeros.

Quote

He also has no idea what the Tyrells would have done or even if message would still have reached Tywin in time and he simply turned around.

Even if Tywin turned around, he wouldn't have been quick enough to win at the Blackwater. Stannis was delayed by only a single day, which was enough to make the difference. If Tywin had marched west only to turn around after a couple of days, he would have been too late to unite with the Tyrells and save the city, and the war would have been lost.

But the Tyrells weren't relevant to Robb's initial calculations because he wasn't planning to fight them, he knew he needed to defeat and capture Tywin to defeat the Lannister king. The Tyrells hadn't publicly chosen a side and so Robb wasn't looking to start a conflict with them unless they did it first.

Quote

The narrative that Robb had planned 'victory' and was thwarted by Edmure makes zero sense when all the variables come into consideration.

Robb did plan a victory. His plan for victory was to burn the west to prevent any reinforcements for Tywin, bait Tywin into the west to fight, and then lay traps so when he did fight Tywin he won handily enough to win the war.

Edmure scuppered two things. He ruined Robb's actual plan, which was a solid method of defeating the Lannisters. He also ruined what could have been a moment of supreme god-given luck wherein Stannis killed Cersei and her children and defeated the Lannisters for Robb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Wolves said:

It’s not Robb’s fault that he didn’t get to prepare and fight the Others for the North. He WAS going home.

Exactly. All wars lead to broken men, that much is clear but he had to defend his own kingdom:

Quote

I must get back to the north. My brothers dead, Winterfell burned, my smallfolk put to the sword . . . the gods only know what this bastard of Bolton’s is about, or whether Theon is still alive and on the loose. I can’t sit here waiting for a wedding that might or might not happen.”

 

 If Robb had been able to go home, he likely would have listened to Jon about the Others and supported the Watch. 

10 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

I don't think that Rose of Red Lake has ever suggested that it's a one to one equivalence. She also brought up the comparison of the Empire vs. the Rebels.

It's not in my place to put words in someone else's mouth, but I think that she was just claiming that it's more usual to empathize with the small underdog who strives for some freedom or a higher degree of local rule, than with the huge imperial power. And I'd certainly agree with that.

Thank you, that was my point. It's about basic story telling. Who is framed as the underdog, who is framed as the powerful overlord. 

Oppressors speak the language of kneel or die, and I sacrificed my _____ for you, now you owe me. 

No land is owed to anyone. This short attention span and inability to do the difficult, lengthy work to earn loyalty is what creates conquerors. 

Northern independence exists to basically make Lannisters and Targaryens lose their shit when both Houses expect to waltz in and take what they want. I think the author favors Dorne and the North for their fuck you attitude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2020 at 7:17 PM, The Wolves said:

They all had their reasons for the wars that they fought but I think Robb out of them all had the most just reason. He out of all of them cared about his people more than Stannis, Greyjoy, and certainly the Lannisters. 
 

He didn’t always make the best decisions on what’s best for his people or Kingdom(who does all the time?)but I honestly think he really cared. He didn’t do it for the ugly chair, or more power or because of his greed or his right. He did start off trying to help his father and uncle and countrymen. But I think he really wanted to help his people in the end. 

The Starks could have easily avoided this war.  Catelyn could choose to let Robert handle the investigation of Bran's injury.  She instead took the matter in her own hands and did this knowing the consequences to the small folks.  Selfish.  Robb chose to go to war instead of obeying the court summons.  Ned chose to escalate the conflict with the Lannisters instead of diplomacy.  Robb's war is one of the least reasonable.  It was irresponsible.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The only justified war in the story is Daenerys Targaryen's war against the slave masters.  

Agreed.  The Ghiscari slave masters are without doubt in the wrong.  They needed to be stopped.  The fact that there is a war is their choice.  They can choose to do what's right and give up slavery.  The war is their fault because they want to hang onto a system which enslave other people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Jingo said:

I already explained that this can't be done in the long term since the Riverlands have already been sacked and burned.

No, it has not. The Riverlands is a country, most of it was not sacked and burned by the time the Riverlords asked Robb to march on Harrenhal. Much of the sacking and burning happens after this, Robb could have helped prevent much of this. He did not because his priority was not helping the Riverland smallfolk, it was winning the war.

Even a year later there is still plenty of food in the surrounding Riverrun lands before the Blackfish has them raised before Jaime's army can arrive.

Just now, The Jingo said:

It would be difficult to resupply in general unless he dispersed his forces, and cause undue burden on the smallfolk when winter is coming.

He already did that. How do you think the Northern foot was feeding itself? They were pillaging from the local Riverland populace.

Lem glowered. "Your lion friends ride into some village, take all the food and every coin they find, and call it foraging. The wolves as well, so why not us? No one robbed you, dog. You just been good and foraged."

Robb, by marching to war in the Riverlands, increased the suffering of the Riverland smallfolk. They now had two armies raping and pillaging from them.

Robb prolonging the war in the Riverlands was good for him, good for the Tullys and some of the other Riverland nobles. It was not for the benefit of the Riverland people. Had he not shown up the war in their region would have finished long ago.

Just now, The Jingo said:

And if Robb does disperse his army into small groups to patrol the Riverlands and restore order, he would never be able to reform it in time into a decently sizeable host if Tywin suddenly moved west from Harrenhal.

He could. Tywin is based at Harrenhal with around 20k men. Robb is around 30k available to him, a conservative estimate. He does not need to attack Harrnehal to stop them from coming and going as they please and hurting the smallfolk in raiding parties.

 

Just now, The Jingo said:

Additionally, you are forgetting the host of Stafford Lannister at Oxcross. In the long run all remaining in the Riverlands does is drain his supplies while giving Stafford time to train his troops and eventually march east into the Riverlands.

I'm not. Robb defeated that host and still did not return. He stayed West, doing onto the West what Tywin did onto the Riverlands. Robb is not thinking what is best for the Riverland smallfolk, he is playing tit for tat.

Even when the North is attacked he still takes his time. The suffering of the smallfolk was never a great concern for Robb (or most nobles).

There seems to be two sides to the discussion, there are people arguing that Robb was no different from the average noble ruler and there are those trying to paint him as someone who was primarily motivated by their suffering.

Just now, The Jingo said:

It would be strategic suicide. Robb would already find it difficult to defeat Tywin in battle. Giving the Lannisters time to make it two or three to one odds in their favour while trapping his army between two of theirs' makes something difficult almost impossible.

No, not after Oxcross it would not be.

Just now, The Jingo said:

 

No, he would have been obliterated by a joint Lannister-Tyrell army of 70,000-90,000 men.

Yeah, he pretty much would. The Freys were pretty much out after they heard of the Blackwater. Robb was hugely outnumbered, he would have soon lost the Riverlands. He may have lasted a little longer in the North, but his 'rule' over the Riverlands was done.

Just now, The Jingo said:

And I suppose Stannis would have won the Blackwater since Robb delayed the relief force, but the North would have been bled white.

Sorry, you have lost me here.

Just now, The Jingo said:

 

Robb's goal was to:

1) Defeat Stafford to prevent him from reinforcing Tywin/trapping the numerically inferior Northern army between two Westerlands armies.

Yup.

Just now, The Jingo said:

2) Sack Westerlands castles to reduce support for Tywin's war effort and gain hostages to negotiate with.

No. He only sacks two castles, one of them by the poor Westerlings whose home is described as more ruin than castle.

Robb's effort was focused primarily on the smallfolk. Apart from his wife, the only substantial thing he returns with is livestock.

Just now, The Jingo said:

3) Draw Tywin west, where Robb could lay a trap and defeat him.

Debatable. That seems to be a concoction made up to coerce Edmure into quickly marrying a Frey.

There Westerlands is not the North, it has multiple access points. Robb had the much smaller army, less cavalry and no actual control over the Golden Tooth. Trapping Tywin West, in his own homeland, is either a hugely flawed plan or a complete fabrication.

Just now, The Jingo said:

 

Stannis and the Blackwater wasn't part of Robb's plan, that was Robb being angry that things nearly went perfectly right even if it was unintentional. 

No, that was Robb needing Edmure to feel a patsy so he would marry a Frey. It is notable that he isolates Edmure from the other Riverlords, who all agreed he was in the right, befoe he and he Blackfish tagteamed him.

Cat notes that her son has manipulated her in the very same chapter.

  He has bagged me neat as a hare in a snare. I seem to have already forgiven him. Mixed with her annoyance was a rueful admiration; the scene had been staged with the cunning worthy of a master mummer . . . or a king.

I don't think this was a literary coincidence, the author is showing us that Robb has also ambushed Edmure, like he did his own mother and like he frequently does on the battlefield.

Just now, The Jingo said:

If Edmure hadn't foiled Robb's plans of drawing Tywin west for a battle on ground Robb chose, Robb wouldn't have even had to fight Tywin since all the Lannister children would be dead at Stannis' hand.

Except there was an 70k Tyrell army that Littlefinger negotiated.

As well as the fact that if Edmure was told to do nothing then there is nothing stopping Tywin from turning around.

Just now, The Jingo said:

 

Even if Tywin turned around, he wouldn't have been quick enough to win at the Blackwater.

How do you know that? And how exactly does Robb plan for this?

Just now, The Jingo said:

 

Stannis was delayed by only a single day, which was enough to make the difference. If Tywin had marched west only to turn around after a couple of days, he would have been too late to unite with the Tyrells and save the city, and the war would have been lost.

Tywin spent three days fighting with Edmure. Had Edmure let him pass and messenger received him either from horse or the Golden Tooth he still may have made it in time.

Robb could not possibly have known or planned for this.

Just now, The Jingo said:

But the Tyrells weren't relevant to Robb's initial calculations because he wasn't planning to fight them, he knew he needed to defeat and capture Tywin to defeat the Lannister king. The Tyrells hadn't publicly chosen a side and so Robb wasn't looking to start a conflict with them unless they did it first.

Yes, but he does know that they did ally with the Crown and yet he still blames Edmure when he can not have any idea of what they would and would not have done with or without Tywin.

Just now, The Jingo said:

Robb did plan a victory. His plan for victory was to burn the west to prevent any reinforcements for Tywin, bait Tywin into the west to fight, and then lay traps so when he did fight Tywin he won handily enough to win the war.

Where are you getting this lay traps part?

Tell me, do you think a 4 thousand army of Westerland men could beat Robb in the North, with a 20k army, 7k of which was horsed, access to every castle and its supplies, and some reinforcements at each of these castles?

Robb, even with the huge military disadvantage, was a stranger in Tywin's lands. Tywin and his men are going to know the land better than he, or at least Robb is not going to know which parts of the land were unfamiliar to Tywin in his own home.

When you break down Robb's 'plan' it becomes obvious how flawed it was.

Just now, The Jingo said:

Edmure scuppered two things. He ruined Robb's actual plan,

Debatable. We know that the Riverlands was convinced they were supposed to be guarding Robb's rear, not allowing Tywin access.

"Would that it were. My brother commands in Riverrun?"
"Yes, my lady. His Grace left Ser Edmure to hold Riverrun and guard his rear."
 
Just now, The Jingo said:

 

which was a solid method of defeating the Lannisters.

No, I have to hugely disagree with that. It was not solid in the slightest, it was a house of cards dependent on information Robb had no idea about.

Just now, The Jingo said:

 

He also ruined what could have been a moment of supreme god-given luck wherein Stannis killed Cersei and her children and defeated the Lannisters for Robb.

No, Edmure did not ruin that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

The Starks could have easily avoided this war.  Catelyn could choose to let Robert handle the investigation of Bran's injury.  She instead took the matter in her own hands and did this knowing the consequences to the small folks.  Selfish.  Robb chose to go to war instead of obeying the court summons.  Ned chose to escalate the conflict with the Lannisters instead of diplomacy.  Robb's war is one of the least reasonable.  It was irresponsible

Sorry, but seeing as it was the Baratheon host in WF when Bran "fell", also that Cat believed the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn, why in the world would she let Robert handle the investigation into Bran's attempted murder? (That's what she was investigating, not his fall)

Robb chose to go to war because they wrongfully imprisoned his father & then murdered him. I'm not saying the war was great for the smallfolk, it clearly wasn't but surely you don't expect him to go treat with his father's killers?

How did Ned choose to escalate the issue with the Lannisters? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sorry, but seeing as it was the Baratheon host in WF when Bran "fell", also that Cat believed the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn, why in the world would she let Robert handle the investigation into Bran's attempted murder? (That's what she was investigating, not his fall)

Robb chose to go to war because they wrongfully imprisoned his father & then murdered him. I'm not saying the war was great for the smallfolk, it clearly wasn't but surely you don't expect him to go treat with his father's killers?

How did Ned choose to escalate the issue with the Lannisters? 

Because she was duty-bound to let Robert handle the matter rather than taking the law in her own hands.  It doesn't matter what she thought of Robert.  Duty comes before family.  She needed to discuss the matter with Robert even if that meant the assassin might get off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Because she was duty-bound to let Robert handle the matter rather than taking the law in her own hands.  It doesn't matter what she thought of Robert.  Duty comes before family.  She needed to discuss the matter with Robert even if that meant the assassin might get off.

Her very house words are Family, Duty, Honor. Family first, as it should be. She is not duty bound to a King that potentially played a part in two attempts on her sons life & she would have to be a fool to bring this to him, given the information she has. 

It isn't a matter of the assassin getting off, the assassin is dead. It is a matter of endangering the rest of her family, if she brings this to the very people she believes have committed the crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, it has not. The Riverlands is a country, most of it was not sacked and burned by the time the Riverlords asked Robb to march on Harrenhal. Much of the sacking and burning happens after this, Robb could have helped prevent much of this. He did not because his priority was not helping the Riverland smallfolk, it was winning the war.

Even a year later there is still plenty of food in the surrounding Riverrun lands before the Blackfish has them raised before Jaime's army can arrive.

He already did that. How do you think the Northern foot was feeding itself? They were pillaging from the local Riverland populace.

Lem glowered. "Your lion friends ride into some village, take all the food and every coin they find, and call it foraging. The wolves as well, so why not us? No one robbed you, dog. You just been good and foraged."

Robb, by marching to war in the Riverlands, increased the suffering of the Riverland smallfolk. They now had two armies raping and pillaging from them.

Robb prolonging the war in the Riverlands was good for him, good for the Tullys and some of the other Riverland nobles. It was not for the benefit of the Riverland people. Had he not shown up the war in their region would have finished long ago.

I have included this portion together since it mostly deals with the same ideas.

- The sacking and burning of the Riverlands was reduced but not eliminated after the arrival of the Northern host, because the Northern host defeated Jaime in the West and then had Tywin bottled up defending Harrenhal. Did this totally end the rape of the Riverlands? No. But the difference is that Robb's armies were taking food only as needed, whereas Tywin was deliberately burning as much as possible in reprisal for Cat Tully taking Tyrion prisoner.

- They already had two armies raping and pillaging. The Lannisters and the Tully loyalists. Robb defeated/contained the first and took control of the second.

- Robb can only help the Riverland smallfolk by winning the war. That's the only war to end the conflict. Either that or having all the lords of the North and Riverlands put their heads on the chopping block. So yeah, his priority was to win the war.

- It's disingenuous to pretend as if Robb brought conflict to the Riverlands. It was Tywin Lannister who deliberately instigated a campaign of terrorism against the Riverlands due to the personal conflict of Tyrion and Catelyn, releasing Gregor Clegane and his cronies to rape and murder as much as possible. And he did this under the reign of King Robert, before Ned could be accused of trying to usurp Joffrey.

So given Tywin's willingness to just massacres thousands of people for a minor slight, no one has any real guarantee that if the North surrendered the tyranny would stop.

Quote

He could. Tywin is based at Harrenhal with around 20k men. Robb is around 30k available to him, a conservative estimate. He does not need to attack Harrnehal to stop them from coming and going as they please and hurting the smallfolk in raiding parties.

30k assaulting 20k in a defended position is asking for mass casualties and a probable defeat.

And again, Robb doesn't actually gain anything from besieging Harrenhal without assault. Tywin could last months in Harrenhal if he had to, but he wouldn't since Stafford would have trained his host by that point and marched west to assault Robb, at which point Tywin could sally from Harrenhal and win.

But I'm not really sure this argument matters to begin with. You say Robb should have defended the smallfolk from Tywin. Okay, so he does that, and then what? He protects them from Tywin only to have to send his own men out to steal and raid to keep his host supplied? So he protects them from the Lannisters by victimizing them himself?

Quote

I'm not. Robb defeated that host and still did not return. He stayed West, doing onto the West what Tywin did onto the Riverlands. Robb is not thinking what is best for the Riverland smallfolk, he is playing tit for tat.

Even when the North is attacked he still takes his time. The suffering of the smallfolk was never a great concern for Robb (or most nobles).

There seems to be two sides to the discussion, there are people arguing that Robb was no different from the average noble ruler and there are those trying to paint him as someone who was primarily motivated by their suffering.

- Well of course he stayed in the west. He had literally no reason to march back east. By staying in the west his men feed off the supplies of the west rather than Riverlands, he can burn the West and make it less able to support a war effort, he can bait Tywin to come west and seek a battle of annihilation on Robb's terms. Going east would get him what? "Oh well let's just pillage the Riverlands for supplies again while we sit around twiddling our thumbs and waiting for Tywin to get bored in Harrenhal."

- Robb can't do anything about the North. He acknowledges outright that if he marches back North he won't be able to convince people to march back south, and so he'd have to give up on the Riverlands entirely and probably give up Arya and Sansa for dead. Retreat to the North is a last ditch strategy that should only be done when facing overwhelming and unbeatable odds in the South.

- You don't think it could have been a bit of both? Ned was the one that taught his children to see his subjects as 'children' and to go to bed every night afraid for their welfare. Robb Stark can simultaneously care about the smallfolk while also exhibiting a noble's sensibilities and simply valuing his sisters more. In the feudal mind the men that are fighting for him have no right to refuse, because they're sworn to defend House Stark.

Quote

No, not after Oxcross it would not be.

No, after Oxcross Tywin's is the last Westerland army and the reserves are running dry. But Robb still doesn't have a strategic or tactical reason to move back east.

Quote

Yeah, he pretty much would. The Freys were pretty much out after they heard of the Blackwater. Robb was hugely outnumbered, he would have soon lost the Riverlands. He may have lasted a little longer in the North, but his 'rule' over the Riverlands was done.

Sorry, you have lost me here.

I included these because they are related, even if you're a wee confused.

Okay, so the canon sequence of events is basically:

1) Littlefinger offers a Lannister-Tyrell alliance to Mace by promising Joffrey to Margaery.

2) Stannis moves to attack King's Landing.

3) Tywin hears of this and retreats from the Battle of the Fords to march to the city.

4) Stannis attacks the city, Tywin and the Tyrells link up at the Blackwater Rush.

5) Tywin reinforces the city, drives out Stannis. Wins the Blackwater and saves the Lannister war effort.

The Freys and the Boltons don't actually turn traitor until after the Blackwater.

So what I'm saying is if Robb had done what you suggested by besieging Harrenhal and attacking Tywin when he tried to go reinforce King's Landing the Northern host would have been destroyed by the Lannister-Tyrell army (30k vs 70-90k), but Stannis would have had enough time to win the Blackwater and kill Joffrey/Tommen/ect.

With the Lannister claimants dead, the Lannister-Tyrell alliance is dead since they don't have a prince to marry to Margaery. The Lannister cause is also dead, since Tywin can't wage war to win a throne for a dead boy. The North/Riverlands loses since the army is destroyed and has to kneel to Stannis, but it's not a total loss.

Quote

No. He only sacks two castles, one of them by the poor Westerlings whose home is described as more ruin than castle.

Robb's effort was focused primarily on the smallfolk. Apart from his wife, the only substantial thing he returns with is livestock.

The North attacks Ashemark and the Crag, takes the mines at Castamere, Nunn's Deep, and the Pendric Hills, and do further 'raiding'. It's probably that some or all of these mines were defended by holdfasts, since we know outright that the Reynes of Castamere built a castle to do so.

But regardless, we're not talking about the short campaign Robb actually got to lead. We're talking about his strategic plans that were cut short by the Battle of the Fords.

Quote

Debatable. That seems to be a concoction made up to coerce Edmure into quickly marrying a Frey.

There Westerlands is not the North, it has multiple access points. Robb had the much smaller army, less cavalry and no actual control over the Golden Tooth. Trapping Tywin West, in his own homeland, is either a hugely flawed plan or a complete fabrication. 

You assertion now is predicated on the assumption that Robb was outright lying about a strategically viable plan.

Unless you intend to march through hills and mountains, it is accepted that there are only three ways to get into the Westerlands. You march along the River Road past the Golden Tooth, or you march along the Goldroad past Deep Den, or else you detour way out of the way to take the Ocean Road past Crakehall. Any movement outside this requires that you essentially offroad it.

Robb's army only made it past the Tooth because Grey Wind found a narrow goat track through the mountains.

And Tywin's knowledge of his homeland doesn't make the strategy less valid. Geography is geography. Robb claims he planned to take a good defensive position on the Goldroad, and if Tywin didn't take that bait then Robb would just retreat and circle around pillaging while he did. The idea was basically "fight him here or else just lead him on a chase". That's not a bad plan when you outright know at the time of making this plan that Tywin must also contend with Robert's brothers who might take the chance to storm King's Landing.

Quote

I don't think this was a literary coincidence, the author is showing us that Robb has also ambushed Edmure, like he did his own mother and like he frequently does on the battlefield.

You are both right and wrong. Given Robb has had weeks to get over the disappointment, he's not likely to be all that angry at Edmure once he arrives. He probably plays it up to convince Edmure to marry a Frey to improve the war situation, as well as deflecting attention from the amateur mistake Robb made in not telling Edmure about the long term strategic plan.

This is not proof that there was no plan at all to begin with, which would be odd given that we already have a couple of examples of Robb displaying relative battlefield cunning.

Quote

Except there was an 70k Tyrell army that Littlefinger negotiated.

As well as the fact that if Edmure was told to do nothing then there is nothing stopping Tywin from turning around.

How do you know that? And how exactly does Robb plan for this?

Tywin spent three days fighting with Edmure. Had Edmure let him pass and messenger received him either from horse or the Golden Tooth he still may have made it in time.

Robb could not possibly have known or planned for this.

Yes, but he does know that they did ally with the Crown and yet he still blames Edmure when he can not have any idea of what they would and would not have done with or without Tywin.

Neither of them would have known about the Tyrell army at this time, but Edmure's mistake still cost them the war.

There is a difference between Tywin being stalled in one spot for several days, and Tywin marching several days without opposition. In the first he can immediately leave once he gets the raven, in the second he must march several days back to where he started (thus ensuring his army is not only late but completely absent from the Battle of the Blackwater). Additionally, there's the possibility that since Tywin's army is on the move that he might not get the message at all until well after the city has fallen.

And I'm not saying Robb planned for the Blackwater to happen when it did. I'm saying that Robb had a plan, and that if Edmure had been less brave it would have succeeded in general to draw Tywin to the west. However, because of factors that Robb and Edmure and even Tywin couldn't have known about, Stannis chose that moment to attack the city - which means Edmure's courage not foiled Robb's plan but prevented what could have been a lucky outcome of Stannis killing Joffrey et. all.

Quote

Where are you getting this lay traps part?

Tell me, do you think a 4 thousand army of Westerland men could beat Robb in the North, with a 20k army, 7k of which was horsed, access to every castle and its supplies, and some reinforcements at each of these castles?

Robb, even with the huge military disadvantage, was a stranger in Tywin's lands. Tywin and his men are going to know the land better than he, or at least Robb is not going to know which parts of the land were unfamiliar to Tywin in his own home.

When you break down Robb's 'plan' it becomes obvious how flawed it was.

Robb outright tells Edmure that he had a spot along the Goldroad where he had hoped to ambush Tywin and defeat him.

Where are you getting this 4000 number from? That was the size of Robb's cavalry at the Whispering Wood, not what he took west.

There is no guarantee that Tywin actually knows the Westerlands. He rules it, but how often has he actually governed it? How often did he take the time to go out and explore it and live among it? Because you can't assume simply because he's Lord of Casterly Rock that he knows the land, whereas we at least know Robb knows it since he's been marching through it inspecting it for places to ambush Tywin from.

Quote

Debatable. We know that the Riverlands was convinced they were supposed to be guarding Robb's rear, not allowing Tywin access.

Considering that Riverrun is at the western edge of the Riverlands, "hold Riverrun and guard the rear" probably means more along the lines of hold the actual castle and delay Tywin if he tries to move into the actual Westerlands. Harrenhal is to the east of the Riverlands, so Edmure had to outright abandon Riverrun and march to the other end of the kingdom to engage Tywin at the fords.

Quote

No, I have to hugely disagree with that. It was not solid in the slightest, it was a house of cards dependent on information Robb had no idea about. 

OF course it was solid!

In isolation, Tywin is holed up at Harrenhal. Robb can assault it while living off the Riverlands, or he can move west and live off of Tywin's lands. Doing the second means they can sack and pillage (possibly even enough gold to hire sellswords). Doing the second also means that Tywin must either abandon Harrenhal (a well fortified position) to pursue Robb (leaving King's Landing open to attack from Renly/Stannis) or sit and guard the way to King's Landing (leaving his army to melt away like snow as his lords abandon him and take their armies home to defend their own lands).

Quote

No, Edmure did not ruin that.

He did. It wasn't entirely his fault, but we know Edmure was more aggressive than he should have been - he was more aggressive than he usually would have been - in military matters because he was ashamed of being defeated so easily by Jaime. If Edmure had been less proud he would have been more cautious about how and when he deployed his armies, he would have considered the entire military situation of Westeros, and very possibly would have realized what Robb was trying to do on his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...