Catelyn was right about everything.

[Lord Varys]

This is a completely childish discussion. This is a feudal world where people are entitled to preemptive attacks and feuds if that's the only way they can protect their family and their interests. Especially if they have to deal with a lazy and corrupt king like Robert who is prone to side with his shitty in-laws even when they are clearly guilty of heinous crimes.

If the king is no (longer a) source of justice - which Robert never truly was - then the lords of the Realm have (and do) take justice in their own hands.

In context of Tyrion's abduction it is very clear that Cat tries to kill three birds with one stone. (1) She wants to ensure that Tyrion Lannister cannot warn the other members of his family that the Starks are out to get him. (2) She wants to pump him for information about the depths and details of the Lannister plot(s) against the Starks and the king himself. (3) She wants to bring Tyrion to punish Tyrion for the attempt on Bran if it turned out that he was the guy behind that.

This whole thing was far too great an opportunity to let it go. Doing that would have ensured that her husband and her daughters would be in grave danger. After all, even our innocent Tyrion would have told Cersei and Jaime that he chanced on Catelyn Stark on the Kingsroad ... and then they would have concluded that Cat may have figured out the details of the attempt(s) on Bran and told Ned about all that, meaning they may have taken steps to murder Ned.

Cat pumping Tyrion for information about the Lannister schemes and crimes also could have resulted in Tyrion's eventual conviction. Cersei herself later thinks she can ruin Margaery via the Faith ... to the point that even Mace Tyrell himself has to accept that if it comes from the High Septon. If that's a viable scenario - and it is - then Cat could just as well get Tyrion to talk about the details of Lannister crimes which Robert would then later have to accept when Ned confronts him with those facts.

Finally, even within the civil war setting - having Tyrion as a hostage was a great advantage. The problem is that Cat cannot prevent Lysa from freeing Tyrion. If she had delivered a captured Tyrion to Robb they would eventually have had both Jaime and Tyrion as hostages, meaning the Starks could have very well forced Tywin to the negotiating table.

And, of course, the moron of the Starks is Robb. He makes mistake after mistake in the political arena, mostly against the better advice of his mother. It is Robb's mistakes which lead to the Red Wedding, not Cat's. If Robb hadn't made himself king or trusted Theon or betrayed the Freys then Roose Bolton would have never turned against him in the way he did.

Cat would have never been forced to free Jaime if Robb hadn't lost Winterfell and the North.

[Mourning Star]

41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This is a completely childish discussion. This is a feudal world where people are entitled to preemptive attacks and feuds if that's the only way they can protect their family and their interests. Especially if they have to deal with a lazy and corrupt king like Robert who is prone to side with his shitty in-laws even when they are clearly guilty of heinous crimes.

This is an extremely childish opinion.

It is tantamount to saying that just because a modern judicial system exhibits extreme miscarriages of justice this means people are entitled to take matters into their own hands. 

Some absolute baby anarchist nonsense. 

Other people being bad doesn't make it ok for you to be bad... kindergarten 101.

41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Finally, even within the civil war setting - having Tyrion as a hostage was a great advantage. The problem is that Cat cannot prevent Lysa from freeing Tyrion. If she had delivered a captured Tyrion to Robb they would eventually have had both Jaime and Tyrion as hostages, meaning the Starks could have very well forced Tywin to the negotiating table.

And, of course, the moron of the Starks is Robb. He makes mistake after mistake in the political arena, mostly against the better advice of his mother. It is Robb's mistakes which lead to the Red Wedding, not Cat's. If Robb hadn't made himself king or trusted Theon or betrayed the Freys then Roose Bolton would have never turned against him in the way he did.

Cat would have never been forced to free Jaime if Robb hadn't lost Winterfell and the North.

And then on top of it you dive right back in?

You are a proponent of taking innocent travelers as hostages for wars that haven't begun?

You think Cat was "forced" to free Jaime?

Obviously this is not worth a real discussion. I guess we just have wildly different worldviews.

Have a nice weekend.

[Lord Varys]

18 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

This is an extremely childish opinion.

It is tantamount to saying that just because a modern judicial system exhibits extreme miscarriages of justice this means people are entitled to take matters into their own hands. 

Some absolute baby anarchist nonsense. 

Other people being bad doesn't make it ok for you to be bad... kindergarten 101.

LOL, I don't think you understand how a feudal society works how how nobility think of themselves and their roles in society. They do view themselves as entitled to take matters in their own hands.

There is no difference between Cat arresting Tyrion and Tywin starting a war with the Reynes and Tarbecks. The guy was no lord back then, just a knight who expected to be Lord of Casterly Rock one day, and he murdered thousands of innocents without first asking his father's or the king's persmission. And he was even rewarded for this thing afterwards.

This isn't a world where the society only rewards people who go by the book.

And that entire society and the actions of all powerful people are based on their own entitled opinions about what's theirs, what's their due, etc. The Martells thinks they are entitled to revenge, Viserys and Daenerys think they have a right to take back what rightfully belongs to their family, the Starks think they are still entitled to the North, Tyrion thinks he still has a claim to Casterly Rock (and the right to avenge himself on his family), Stannis thinks he has a claim to the Iron Throne, Balon Greyjoy thought he had a right to his revenge, etc.

18 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

And then on top of it you dive right back in?

You are a proponent of taking innocent travelers as hostages for wars that haven't begun?

You think Cat was "forced" to free Jaime?

Obviously this is not worth a real discussion. I guess we just have wildly different worldviews.

Have a nice weekend.

Tyrion was part of a family who broke guest right in Winterfell twice by trying to murder Brandon Stark - and later both Brandon and Catelyn Stark. Cat would have been well within the legal framework of her society if she had taken Tyrion's life to avenge herself and her son - even if she had known he was innocent of the crime. He was a Lannister and his death would hurt his family and send a message to them. This is well within established practices of the society we talk about here - Daemon Targaryen arranged the murder of Jaehaerys Targaryen to avenge the murder of Lucerys Velaryon, for instance; Criston Cole plotted the murder of Rhaenyra and/or her sons by means of a KG to get vengeance for that, and so on.

There are other examples - the way the Dornish and the Targaryens put bounties on each other's heads during the First Dornish War, the suggestions of various Sand Snakes how to deal with the Lannisters after the death of Oberyn Martell, the way Lady Stoneheart, Wyman Manderly and other people do away with various Freys down to the murder of Little Walder at Winterfell.

All that shows how nobody has any issue with such blood feuds. They are an integral part of Westerosi society. Robert himself got the throne because he started a war to avenge his honor as well as his own life and the life of his best friend. The king's job would be to be an impartial judge when dealing with such matters. But Robert was never an impartial judge. He married a Lannister, so the Starks cannot really expect him to be neutral in a case where the Lannisters are the guilty party.

Catelyn was forced to free Jaime because she wanted her daughters back. Her moronic son put his own sisters' well-being behind the feelings of his own bannermen. The Tully words are 'Family, Duty, Honor'. Family comes first, always, and Catelyn remembered that.

[draft0]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

In context of Tyrion's abduction it is very clear that Cat tries to kill three birds with one stone. (1) She wants to ensure that Tyrion Lannister cannot warn the other members of his family that the Starks are out to get him. (2) She wants to pump him for information about the depths and details of the Lannister plot(s) against the Starks and the king himself. (3) She wants to bring Tyrion to punish Tyrion for the attempt on Bran if it turned out that he was the guy behind that.

#1 and #2 don't make much sense to me.

The Lannisters find out very quickly that the Starks are out to get them--because Cat kidnapped Tyrion in public. Right after this Jamie ambushes Ned and almost kills him. Hard to imagine a worse scenario short of Ned's actual death.

And how and why would Tyrion talk?

#3 is obviously the main motivation. In the context of a mother seeking justice for her favorite child, it's understandable. But politically it's a massive mistake and backfires tremendously. Catelyn neither gets revenge on Tyrion nor in fact did Tyrion actually do it. By a chilling twist of fate, when Cat does find the actual culprit (Jaime) later on, she actually saves his life...

Quote

Doing that would have ensured that her husband and her daughters would be in grave danger. After all, even our innocent Tyrion would have told Cersei and Jaime that he chanced on Catelyn Stark on the Kingsroad ... and then they would have concluded that Cat may have figured out the details of the attempt(s) on Bran and told Ned about all that, meaning they may have taken steps to murder Ned.

I agree, but that just goes back to Cat's original sin, which is traveling to KL herself incognito. She could and should have just sent Ser Rodrik. She wasn't particularly in her right mind at the time.

Quote

Cat pumping Tyrion for information about the Lannister schemes and crimes also could have resulted in Tyrion's eventual conviction.

How would this be accomplished? Don't see it.

Quote

Finally, even within the civil war setting - having Tyrion as a hostage was a great advantage. The problem is that Cat cannot prevent Lysa from freeing Tyrion. If she had delivered a captured Tyrion to Robb they would eventually have had both Jaime and Tyrion as hostages, meaning the Starks could have very well forced Tywin to the negotiating table.

Agree... IF Cat wanted to start a war. Which was not her intention at the time. Catelyn is a very smart woman, but impulsive where her family is concerned. I believe, if she had time to reflect, she would have realized what her actions would actually precipitate and would have chosen not to force the issue with Tyrion in the inn.

The wiser course of action would have been to go back to KL as quickly as possible and get Ned on her side (you know, the Hand of the King and Robert's BFF). She could also have taken Tyrion back to KL to face the King's Justice.

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

This is a feudal world where people are entitled to preemptive attacks and feuds if that's the only way they can protect their family and their interests.

No, they are not. There are literal laws ruling especifically against it.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Especially if they have to deal with a lazy and corrupt king like Robert who is prone to side with his shitty in-laws even when they are clearly guilty of heinous crimes.

Then it's up to Robert to change.  It's like arguing that we're entitled to seek retribution when we don't like an unfair ruling. There are laws going against those customs today as much as they are in Westeros.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If the king is no (longer a) source of justice - which Robert never truly was - then the lords of the Realm have (and do) take justice in their own hands.

No, they don't have to. Can you tell me where this is stated?? This sounds like the nightmarish Riverlands scenario 

This is especially stupid if the king is still able to impose his law, Tywin was almost able to bait the Edmure and the rest of the dumb riverlords to openly commit treason for that thinking. Why do you think Hoster forced them to seek the Throne's blessing first and why Ned was thankful he had done so??

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And, of course, the moron of the Starks is Robb. He makes mistake after mistake in the political arena, mostly against the better advice of his mother. It is Robb's mistakes which lead to the Red Wedding, not Cat's. If Robb hadn't made himself king or trusted Theon or betrayed the Freys then Roose Bolton would have never turned against him in the way he did.

Even if that is true, it was Cat's decision to free Jaime that sealed Robb's fate. Making himself king was not a mistake he could not come back from.

Acting as if Jaime was not a deterrent is pretty wild to me. 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no difference between Cat arresting Tyrion and Tywin starting a war with the Reynes and Tarbecks. The guy was no lord back then, just a knight who expected to be Lord of Casterly Rock one day, and he murdered thousands of innocents without first asking his father's or the king's persmission. And he was even rewarded for this thing afterwards.

Well there's the key difference that Tywin did not start any war with the Tarbecks or Reynes, they were the ones who responded a summoning with treason, at that point Tywin  was simply putting down traitorous rebel lords.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no difference between Cat arresting Tyrion and Tywin starting a war with the Reynes and Tarbecks. The guy was no lord back then, just a knight who expected to be Lord of Casterly Rock one day, and he murdered thousands of innocents without first asking his father's or the king's persmission. And he was even rewarded for this thing afterwards.

So do ours, that doesn't mean that what they are doing is either legal, morally correct or goes without consequences. Just as our world. Powerful people ruining hundreds of thousands of people due to sheer entitlement is and always will be a thing. I don't think how we should pretend that what they are doing is legal or good, rather than simply them getting away with murder.

Cat's actions were dumb, rather illegal and helped kickstart a war.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Cat would have been well within the legal framework of her society if she had taken Tyrion's life to avenge herself and her son

That's just false. But, let's see where's that legal framework.

The King's Peace however, first law of the land and that, dictates that Cat is bound by law to take her grievances to the king.

There's no legal framework that sanctions the death of the innocents, not even the ironborn are that barbaric.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He was a Lannister and his death would hurt his family and send a message to them. This is well within established practices of the society we talk about here - Daemon Targaryen arranged the murder of Jaehaerys Targaryen to avenge the murder of Lucerys Velaryon, for instance; Criston Cole plotted the murder of Rhaenyra and/or her sons by means of a KG to get vengeance for that, and so on.

All of that are actions of war. And none of that are sanctioned by law or even custom. This is simply angry people taking revenge.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There are other examples - the way the Dornish and the Targaryens put bounties on each other's heads during the First Dornish War, the suggestions of various Sand Snakes how to deal with the Lannisters after the death of Oberyn Martell, the way Lady Stoneheart, Wyman Manderly and other people do away with various Freys down to the murder of Little Walder at Winterfell.

It doesn't really. It shows that blood feuds are a thing in war, it's like arguing that nobody has a thing with the feud between the Btackens and Blackwoods because they are old as time.  Btw, acting as if actions during war are okay in peace is pretty crazy to me. The Targs and Martells carrying out total war doesn't mean it's an acceptable behaviour.

That's not the problem of Robert however, that's simply society, if they want a better justice, they would start dividing the powers of the state and not concentrating them in one person, the Starks have to bring the evidence in front of him, that's exactly what Ned was trying to do, putting the band aid before the wound hardly ever works.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, draft0 said:

#1 and #2 don't make much sense to me.

The Lannisters find out very quickly that the Starks are out to get them--because Cat kidnapped Tyrion in public. Right after this Jamie ambushes Ned and almost kills him. Hard to imagine a worse scenario short of Ned's actual death.

Of course, but Cat does have Tyrion as a hostage and possible source of information in this scenario. Think about it - if Tyrion had actually known stuff Catelyn could have unraveled the entire plot. She could have destroyed House Lannister, in fact. Just think about it if Tyrion had told Cat about the twincest while Robert was still alive.

Quote

And how and why would Tyrion talk?

By coercion or torture. Both are used and accepted means in the Westerosi judicial system (if you can call it that). And Lysa is already using white torture by putting Tyrion into the sky cells.

Quote

#3 is obviously the main motivation. In the context of a mother seeking justice for her favorite child, it's understandable. But politically it's a massive mistake and backfires tremendously. Catelyn neither gets revenge on Tyrion nor in fact did Tyrion actually do it. By a chilling twist of fate, when Cat does find the actual culprit (Jaime) later on, she actually saves his life...

Of course, but that's something that happens much later, after she learns that she has been played and Tyrion was not, in fact, the guilty party there. Something she wouldn't have learned if she had not taken Tyrion in the first place.

Quote

I agree, but that just goes back to Cat's original sin, which is traveling to KL herself incognito. She could and should have just sent Ser Rodrik. She wasn't particularly in her right mind at the time.

Rodrik could have been recognized by Tyrion, too. The problem there is that Littlefinger incriminated Tyrion. If Cat had never learned that he was the alleged owner of the dagger things may have also gone differently. But Littlefinger's testimony is confirmation enough for her to believe that Tyrion is a mortal enemy of her family.

Quote

How would this be accomplished? Don't see it.

By the Stark-Tully-Arryn power bloc telling Robert that he either convicts Tyrion on the basis of testimony and evidence provided by Catelyn and Eddard Stark ... or face the wrath of said power bloc. We are talking about two great houses here who effectively control three crucial regions of the Seven Kingdoms. And Robert thinks he is dependent on them - which is why he made Ned his Hand in the first place.

If push came to shove they could tell him that they would be supporting Viserys III and his Dothraki army when they show up.

Quote

Agree... IF Cat wanted to start a war. Which was not her intention at the time. Catelyn is a very smart woman, but impulsive where her family is concerned. I believe, if she had time to reflect, she would have realized what her actions would actually precipitate and would have chosen not to force the issue with Tyrion in the inn.

The war only escalates after Robert's death. Prior to that Tywin prepared for a war and, most likely, intended to defy even the king if he had to, but that wasn't something he wanted to do. The idea that a straight line leads from Tyrion's abduction to an all-out war in the Riverlands is just wrong.

In general, the war is pretty much inevitable throughout AGoT because of the twincest and Cersei and Jaime's desire to prevent it from ever coming out. They view Ned's presence at court as a big problem and they prepare to murder anyone standing in their way, including Robert himself. Cersei intended to murder Robert at the tourney, after all. Once Robert is gone a war would be inevitable, and in the wake of the two attempts on Bran it is quite clear that it would involve the Starks in an anti-Lannister capacity. Ned would never suffer a false king on the throne, he would also do all in his power to avenge Robert's murder and the attacks on his own family, etc.

Quote

The wiser course of action would have been to go back to KL as quickly as possible and get Ned on her side (you know, the Hand of the King and Robert's BFF). She could also have taken Tyrion back to KL to face the King's Justice.

That could have been an option. But the crucial reason why Cat went to the Vale is that she also believed Lysa had crucial information which would compliment Tyrion's testimony. Remember, Lysa wrote the letter, and Cat had every reason to believe Lysa knew more about what was going on than she entrusted to the letter.

Cat had no way of knowing that she had been played by both Lysa and Littlefinger. And in addition there were the two attempts on Bran ... and the fact that the Kingslayer didn't accompany Robert on the hunt. She does have enough circumstantial evidence to be justified in her assumption that the Lannisters as a house are her enemies.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

No, they are not. There are literal laws ruling especifically against it.

Those laws are pretty much irrelevant. Rebellions and blood feuds are a common thing in Westeros, the ways the nobility deal with their enemies. And the kings never had the power to put an end to them, or change the society so that people viewed this kind of thing as anathema or barbarism.

Robert himself is just a successful rebel and usurper, after all.

Quote

Then it's up to Robert to change.  It's like arguing that we're entitled to seek retribution when we don't like an unfair ruling. There are laws going against those customs today as much as they are in Westeros.

LOL, no. In our day and age you do not start private wars because somebody killed or tried to kill a member of your family. Not even noble people do that anymore. They go and call the police.

Quote

Even if that is true, it was Cat's decision to free Jaime that sealed Robb's fate. Making himself king was not a mistake he could not come back from.

Nonsense, if Edmure hadn't told the world the Kingslayer 'escaped' they might have been able to prevent the Red Wedding and actually exchange prisoners if Jaime had gotten to KL without incident. After all, he, Jaime Lannister, wanted to honor the promise he gave Catelyn Stark.

Quote

Well there's the key difference that Tywin did not start any war with the Tarbecks or Reynes, they were the ones who responded a summoning with treason, at that point Tywin  was simply putting down traitorous rebel lords.

Tywin had neither the right to summon people to Casterly Rock nor the right to attack people who no longer recognized the Lord of Casterly Rock as their liege lord because he, Tywin Lannister, wasn't the Lord of Casterly Rock.

He took things into his own hands because his lordly father was a weak and craven man, unable to do what needed to be done. Which means he acted without proper authority and very much outside of the law. But that's what people in this society expected of him. It is what made him a great man and leader.

Quote

So do ours, that doesn't mean that what they are doing is either legal, morally correct or goes without consequences. Just as our world. Powerful people ruining hundreds of thousands of people due to sheer entitlement is and always will be a thing. I don't think how we should pretend that what they are doing is legal or good, rather than simply them getting away with murder.

Cat's actions were dumb, rather illegal and helped kickstart a war.

That is just nonsense, because in this world folks don't give a damn about law books and other such nonsense. They do as they please, mainly, and they know that that's what they are doing. They live in a world fundamentally different from ours. If you compare that you compare apples and oranges.

Nobody faults lords for trying to kill each other over an issue which entitles them to revenge. The King's Peace is something that comes into play if you start a massive conflict which also hurts a lot of innocent bystanders. But the idea that you as a nobleman or noblewoman cannot avenge your family on the guilty parties is just wrong.

If this wasn't so, then Tywin Lannister would have turned to his royal son-in-law demanding that he arrange the release and subsequent trial of Catelyn Tully Stark. But he did no such thing, did he? He just started a clandestine war.

And Cat is actually well within her rights to demand that a man who stands accused of a crime committed at Winterfell be tried there. And Tyrion was accused of that crime by none other than King Robert's own Master of Coin.

The laws about the King's Peace only demand that feuding great lords put their grievances before the king, not that a great lord cannot try some highborn dwarf who committed a crime under his roof in his own castle. The men breaking the King's Peace are Jaime and later Tywin Lannister, not Catelyn Stark.

And the Rivermen who arrest Tyrion on Cat's behalf obviously think they act well within the rights of the society they live in. Cat calls on their help as a Tully and, as the daughter of Lord Hoster Tully, she obviously can exert some authority in the Riverlands. Else nobody in the inn would have answered her plea for help.

[draft0]

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Cat had no way of knowing that she had been played by both Lysa and Littlefinger. And in addition there were the two attempts on Bran ... and the fact that the Kingslayer didn't accompany Robert on the hunt. She does have enough circumstantial evidence to be justified in her assumption that the Lannisters as a house are her enemies.

I'll certainly agree with this, Cat was completely fucked by Lysa and LF. Lysa got what was coming to her, still waiting on the other guy .

[Lord Varys]

42 minutes ago, draft0 said:

I'll certainly agree with this, Cat was completely fucked by Lysa and LF. Lysa got what was coming to her, still waiting on the other guy .

The effect Littlefinger's lie had can also be drawn from the two different reactions of Robb and Cat. Robb knew what Cat had known when she left Winterfell - meaning he believed the Lannisters may have murdered Jon Arryn and that the Lannisters may have tried to murder Bran two times - but he didn't decide to arrest Tyrion Lannister for this crime because he had no evidence that Tyrion, personally, was involved.

But after the dagger story Tyrion was no longer just a weirdo member of the queen's family but a vile and evil plotter and would-be murderer in his own right. If Robb had already known about that when Tyrion showed up at Winterfell the dwarf may have very well lost his head then and there.

And if you think about it for a moment ... then a guy going to great lengths to try to murder a boy and his mother (two times) is very much a loose cannon. You cannot really allow such a person to continue their schemes against your family if you can help it.

If Tyrion had been guilty he would have very much been another Littlefinger - he is as smart as Littlefinger, after all. If Cat had such a person allowed to return to court he could have hurt Ned and the girls and Robert and whoever else he was plotting against much worse than the news about Tyrion's abduction hurt Ned. Ned and his men were only openly attacked by Jaime because Ned the moron defied the king to his face over the Daenerys issue leading to his resignation after he had already learned from Yoren that Cat had arrested Tyrion.

I mean, that's just utter stupidity. Ned knows that Robert will soon also learn about Tyrion which is going to put him in a very bad position. Instead of actually going to Robert so he be the first to tell him - giving him the advantage over Cersei and Jaime - he does nothing of the sort and just waits. And when he meets Robert at council he outright defies him rather than trying to sweeten him so that the Tyrion thing is not going to increase the rift between them. It is almost as if he wants to destroy his relationship with Robert. And that they are friends again is only due to Jaime's attack and Ned's serious injury. If that hadn't happened a reconcilation may have never happened ... or it may have been much more difficult to accomplish.

If Ned had still been Robert's best buddy and the Hand of the King at the time Jaime learned about Tyrion's fate he would have most likely not dared to attack him. It would have been the same as an attack on the king's own person. And if Ned hadn't been crippled by his injury we would have most likely gotten a completely different scenario. Ned would have been fit enough to travel, he may have left KL to talk to Cat and sort things out before Tywin started his business in the Riverlands. Robert may never have gone on his fateful last hunt. Or Ned may have accompanied Robert on said hunt, telling him more about why he and Cat had been doing what they did. Yes, Ned only figures out the twincest while Robert is away, but if he had been with Robert, he could have told Robert something about his suspicions, etc.

Cat tries to give House Stark the weapons they need to survive a feud with House Lannister by arresting Tyrion. Ned constantly weakens House Stark at court by sending away his guards, by antagonizing the king, by make pragmatical decisions, and by failing to get his daughters out of harm's way.

[frenin]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Those laws are pretty much irrelevant. Rebellions and blood feuds are a common thing in Westeros, the ways the nobility deal with their enemies. And the kings never had the power to put an end to them, or change the society so that people viewed this kind of thing as anathema or barbarism.

Robert himself is just a successful rebel and usurper, after all.

This is rather baffling, rebellions and blood feuds are common thing in today's world!! Rebellions happened, are happening and will happen. Stability isn't a forever lasting thing. 

What have changed is the justification for it, yet rebelling against tyranny (Robert's case) is still morally sanctioned by people and or governments seeking to overthrow regimes.  But yes, no one has the power to put an end to wars.

People are not entitled to start wars in Westeros, just as people are not entitled to start wars now.

The King's Peace pretty much put an end to that.

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. In our day and age you do not start private wars because somebody killed or tried to kill a member of your family. Not even noble people do that anymore. They go and call the police.

No, you start private wars for greed, ideologies and resources. You still get to see powerful people starting illegal and inmoral wars.

 

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nonsense, if Edmure hadn't told the world the Kingslayer 'escaped' they might have been able to prevent the Red Wedding and actually exchange prisoners if Jaime had gotten to KL without incident. After all, he, Jaime Lannister, wanted to honor the promise he gave Catelyn Stark.

So... It's Edmure's fault for telling his vassals that Jaime had escaped and that they should check for him... but it's not Cat's fault for actually freeing him?? 

They would have never had prevented the Red Wedding, Tywin was determined to kill off Robb now before he again gained momentum and the Freys were determined to avenge themselves, Jaime was the only thing potentially stopping that for brcoming true. As soon as he  escaped, Robb's days were numbered.

And Tywin is in charge of Sansa and he's not letting the heiress of Winterfell escape his clutches, he was pretty clear about how he would deal with that.

 

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Tywin had neither the right to summon people to Casterly Rock nor the right to attack people who no longer recognized the Lord of Casterly Rock as their liege lord because he, Tywin Lannister, wasn't the Lord of Casterly Rock.

He took things into his own hands because his lordly father was a weak and craven man, unable to do what needed to be done. Which means he acted without proper authority and very much outside of the law. But that's what people in this society expected of him. It is what made him a great man and leader.

Tywin didn't have the right to summon people to Casterly Rock. he very much the right to defend his lands from rebels. 

He didn't act outside the law. the Reynes and Tarbecks empowered him  to do so. He didn't summon vassals to face them, he didn't use any power that wasn't his.

 

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is just nonsense, because in this world folks don't give a damn about law books and other such nonsense. They do as they please, mainly, and they know that that's what they are doing. They live in a world fundamentally different from ours. If you compare that you compare apples and oranges.

They very much do. You only need to go to AGOT to see how it is. If you're arguing that powerful people bend the rules and they sometimes get away with it... guess what, it 's  happening in our times too. Law still exists but the  axiom "some are equal than others" will never be out of fashion.

 

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody faults lords for trying to kill each other over an issue which entitles them to revenge. The King's Peace is something that comes into play if you start a massive conflict which also hurts a lot of innocent bystanders. But the idea that you as a nobleman or noblewoman cannot avenge your family on the guilty parties is just wrong.

Yes they do a lot of times, the book is full of resented people faulting entitled lords for making them suffer.

As person with an army, nobleman, kingor warlord, you can do as much as your army allows you to do and if you succeed you will not have to answer to anybody.

The King's Peace comes into play if you go to war without the king's blessing, it doesn't matter whether if it's a small or huge conflict, the only difference is that small conflicts are likelier to get noticed much sooner. If the King, or a proxy, finds out the punishment is the same.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If this wasn't so, then Tywin Lannister would have turned to his royal son-in-law demanding that he arrange the release and subsequent trial of Catelyn Tully Stark. But he did no such thing, did he? He just started a clandestine war.

Are you arguing that someone breaking a law is a prove that said law is inmaterial?? Is robbery and first night allowed because there are people still doing it??

Yes, Tywin was incredibly stupid, and Tyrion points it out anyway. Yet Tywin atill was trying to get the Riverlords to start a war so he had his hands officially clean, instead of you know... starting the war he did the minute he found out his daughter was his grandson's regent.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And Cat is actually well within her rights to demand that a man who stands accused of a crime committed at Winterfell be tried there. And Tyrion was accused of that crime by none other than King Robert's own Master of Coin.

She's within her rights to demand that at Winterfell. And she is to let Robert heear the case. This is a matter between two great houses and the kin of the king.

 

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The laws about the King's Peace only demand that feuding great lords put their grievances before the king, not that a great lord cannot try some highborn dwarf who committed a crime under his roof in his own castle. The men breaking the King's Peace are Jaime and later Tywin Lannister, not Catelyn Stark.

Tyrion here being a dwarf is inmateria.

If the grievances are to be put to the king, that means that great lords cannot unilaterally try great nobles. Even Dunk's trial had more guarantees than that and he was a peasant.

 

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And the Rivermen who arrest Tyrion on Cat's behalf obviously think they act well within the rights of the society they live in. Cat calls on their help as a Tully and, as the daughter of Lord Hoster Tully, she obviously can exert some authority in the Riverlands. Else nobody in the inn would have answered her plea for help.

Sure, what they thought and what they actually did i¡are two different things. There's a reason Ned has to give Cat the officiality of the Hand (acting with the king's voice), because the act was a farce.

She's the daughter of the owner, that means people will listen to her, that doesn't mean her words carry any legal power. She has absolutely zero legal in the Riverlands, which she knows that's why she rushes to take him to Winterfell.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

This is rather baffling, rebellions and blood feuds are common thing in today's world!! Rebellions happened, are happening and will happen. Stability isn't a forever lasting thing. 

What have changed is the justification for it, yet rebelling against tyranny (Robert's case) is still morally sanctioned by people and or governments seeking to overthrow regimes.  But yes, no one has the power to put an end to wars.

People are not entitled to start wars in Westeros, just as people are not entitled to start wars now.

The King's Peace pretty much put an end to that.

You are missing the point. Any country having the kind of 'laws' and 'legal framework' Westeros has in our world would be savagery and anarchy. Westeros is a world where the Earl of This can start a private war with the Duke of That over a trivial issue. It is a world where the central authority lacks the means the marshal troops and keep the order in the land without the support of private land owners aka 'lords' who are judge, jury, and executioner on their own lands.

Of course there are people who go to war over trivial issues in the real world, but the kind of silly civil and private wars we get in Westeros - wars over who is the rightful king or who is that head of this or that family - don't really happen in civilized countries. Nor are such countries organized in a manner where hundreds of people maintain and marshal their own private armies if they have to.

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

So... It's Edmure's fault for telling his vassals that Jaime had escaped and that they should check for him... but it's not Cat's fault for actually freeing him??

 

They would have never had prevented the Red Wedding, Tywin was determined to kill off Robb now before he again gained momentum and the Freys were determined to avenge themselves, Jaime was the only thing potentially stopping that for brcoming true. As soon as he  escaped, Robb's days were numbered.

And Tywin is in charge of Sansa and he's not letting the heiress of Winterfell escape his clutches, he was pretty clear about how he would deal with that.

Of course it is Edmure's fault. Cat made a deal with Jaime, and Edmure ruined that, putting Cat's daughters and Robb's sisters in mortal danger. If Jaime was killed during his 'flight' the Lannisters might, in turn, murder Arya and/or Sansa.

I know what Tywin planned, but if Jaime had returned unharmed to KL before the Red Wedding happened Jaime may have forced the old man to cancel the entire thing. The thing Tywin wants more than everything else is Jaime Lannister succeeding him as Lord of Casterly Rock. If Jaime had agreed to leave the KG and be his father's heir again he may have stopped the Red Wedding.

And after Joff's unfortunate death ... well, one of the biggest obstacles in making an honorable peace with the Starks would have been removed.

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

Tywin didn't have the right to summon people to Casterly Rock. he very much the right to defend his lands from rebels. 

He didn't act outside the law. the Reynes and Tarbecks empowered him  to do so. He didn't summon vassals to face them, he didn't use any power that wasn't his.

Tywin also had no right 'to defend his lands from rebels' because he didn't hold any lands. Not yet, not until Lord Tytos died. And the Reynes and Tarbecks didn't really rebel. They just decided that Lord Tytos was no longer their liege lord. That's a thing between Lord Lannister, Lord Reyne, and Lord Tarbeck ... not Ser Tywin. Ser Tywin has nothing to do with any of that.

It would fall to Lord Tytos and King Jaehaerys II to decide whether the Reynes and Tarbecks can offer fealty to a different overlord or the king directly.

Tywin also had no right to command the bannermen and vassals of House Lannister, to demand the repayment of overdue loans, to marshal private armies in the name of Lord Tytos, etc.

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

They very much do. You only need to go to AGOT to see how it is. If you're arguing that powerful people bend the rules and they sometimes get away with it... guess what, it 's  happening in our times too. Law still exists but the  axiom "some are equal than others" will never be out of fashion.

The point is that blood feuds and private are something the lords obviously feel entitled to do. Tywin feels he has to go to war in the Tyrion affair. The Martells think they have to get their revenge, the Targaryens and Starks want back what's allegedly theirs, and so on.

This isn't a world of the law, a world of states and courts and justice ... it is a world of war lords, basically.

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

Yes they do a lot of times, the book is full of resented people faulting entitled lords for making them suffer.

As person with an army, nobleman, kingor warlord, you can do as much as your army allows you to do and if you succeed you will not have to answer to anybody.

That is also not quite correct. There are crimes that are anathema even to the people of Westeros - the breaking of guest right, kinslaying, things like that. If you do that folks do not cheer you even if you are as great as Tywin Lannister.

But nobody cares if you abduct your enemy on the streets in an attempt to bring them to justice.

And to be perfectly clear - legally, Tyrion was abducted by the wife of the Hand on the Hand's own orders, because that is what Ned himself tells Robert. Thus Tyrion was, effectively, arrested by King Robert himself.

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

The King's Peace comes into play if you go to war without the king's blessing, it doesn't matter whether if it's a small or huge conflict, the only difference is that small conflicts are likelier to get noticed much sooner. If the King, or a proxy, finds out the punishment is the same.

Arresting somebody on the streets doesn't fit the bill of 'breaking the King's Peace'. One man alone isn't all that much, and nobody was killed by Cat and her men.

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

Yes, Tywin was incredibly stupid, and Tyrion points it out anyway. Yet Tywin atill was trying to get the Riverlords to start a war so he had his hands officially clean, instead of you know... starting the war he did the minute he found out his daughter was his grandson's regent.

Tywin still started the war, and it could have bitten him in the ass, and he apparently had no problem with that. Nobody accuses Catelyn Stark of 'breaking the King's Peace' at the inn, whereas the actions in the Riverlands clearly constitute a breaking of the King's Peace.

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

She's within her rights to demand that at Winterfell. And she is to let Robert heear the case. This is a matter between two great houses and the kin of the king.

There is no indication in the books that Cat could have arrested Tyrion only under the condition that she bring him to court. Nobody tells her that she isn't entitled to do what she did, so I go with it that she doesn't do anything that's legally forbidden for a person of her rank - daughter of the lord paramount of the Riverlands, wife of the Lord of Winterfell, wife of the Hand of the King.

If it were legally forbidden/problematic what Cat did, then we would expect that the Freys, say, would have actively turned against Cat to stop her from what she was trying to do because she was breaking the King's Peace. But they didn't do that, no? They stayed out of the affair because they thought this would be more profitable for them.

Cat also doesn't fear Robert's wrath or anything over this issue - she fears that the Lannisters might hear what she did and cause problems for her.

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

Sure, what they thought and what they actually did i¡are two different things. There's a reason Ned has to give Cat the officiality of the Hand (acting with the king's voice), because the act was a farce.

No, he did that to make it more difficult for the Lannisters to strike back at him because now Robert would have to take on Ned, too, if he wanted to persecute Catelyn. He stopped them from trying to hurt the Starks by targeting only Catelyn. A less honorable man could have cut his ties with his wife, declaring her mad or evil, and telling Robert that it was fine with him if he put her to death.

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

She's the daughter of the owner, that means people will listen to her, that doesn't mean her words carry any legal power. She has absolutely zero legal in the Riverlands, which she knows that's why she rushes to take him to Winterfell.

They clearly carried as much weight with the men in the inn siding with her than whatever speeches young Tywin gave the men-at-arms and vassals of Casterly Rock to convine them to follow and obey him rather than their rightful lord, Tytos.

This is a world where personal loyalty and allegiance trumps written laws. And any such world isn't really ruled by law. It is ruled by a feudal framework of personal and inherited loyalty and allegiance.

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is a completely childish discussion. This is a feudal world where people are entitled to preemptive attacks and feuds if that's the only way they can protect their family and their interests. Especially if they have to deal with a lazy and corrupt king like Robert who is prone to side with his shitty in-laws even when they are clearly guilty of heinous crimes.

If the king is no (longer a) source of justice - which Robert never truly was - then the lords of the Realm have (and do) take justice in their own hands.

In context of Tyrion's abduction it is very clear that Cat tries to kill three birds with one stone. (1) She wants to ensure that Tyrion Lannister cannot warn the other members of his family that the Starks are out to get him. (2) She wants to pump him for information about the depths and details of the Lannister plot(s) against the Starks and the king himself. (3) She wants to bring Tyrion to punish Tyrion for the attempt on Bran if it turned out that he was the guy behind that.

This whole thing was far too great an opportunity to let it go. Doing that would have ensured that her husband and her daughters would be in grave danger. After all, even our innocent Tyrion would have told Cersei and Jaime that he chanced on Catelyn Stark on the Kingsroad ... and then they would have concluded that Cat may have figured out the details of the attempt(s) on Bran and told Ned about all that, meaning they may have taken steps to murder Ned.

Cat pumping Tyrion for information about the Lannister schemes and crimes also could have resulted in Tyrion's eventual conviction. Cersei herself later thinks she can ruin Margaery via the Faith ... to the point that even Mace Tyrell himself has to accept that if it comes from the High Septon. If that's a viable scenario - and it is - then Cat could just as well get Tyrion to talk about the details of Lannister crimes which Robert would then later have to accept when Ned confronts him with those facts.

Finally, even within the civil war setting - having Tyrion as a hostage was a great advantage. The problem is that Cat cannot prevent Lysa from freeing Tyrion. If she had delivered a captured Tyrion to Robb they would eventually have had both Jaime and Tyrion as hostages, meaning the Starks could have very well forced Tywin to the negotiating table.

And, of course, the moron of the Starks is Robb. He makes mistake after mistake in the political arena, mostly against the better advice of his mother. It is Robb's mistakes which lead to the Red Wedding, not Cat's. If Robb hadn't made himself king or trusted Theon or betrayed the Freys then Roose Bolton would have never turned against him in the way he did.

Cat would have never been forced to free Jaime if Robb hadn't lost Winterfell and the North.

None of that should need saying. Almost no aspect of the modern bureaucratic state exists in this world.  There is no police force, no law courts, no impartial judges, no sheriffs.  The Seven Kingdoms lack a judicial system even as rudimentary as that of medieval England.  And, even where law courts existed in pre-modern states, quite often justice depended a great deal upon self-help, ie once you got a judgement against someone, it was still up to you to enforce it.

There seems to be a set of laws, promulgated by Jaehaerys I, but it is up the lords to enforce them.  Those lords are entirely free to act as judge, jury, and executioner in their own cause, and the only constraint on their power is lords who possess greater power.  The law is whatever the most powerful man (or occasionally, woman) in a district says it is, in effect.  We see for example that Randyll Tarly can arbitrarily remove seven fingers, instead of the usual one, or Lady Webber can drown a poacher in a sack. Jaime can hang outlaws on the spot, without the need for a trial. No one apart from Ned and Arya gave a shit about the summary killing of Mycah.  The only trials we see in this country are farcical.

 Ned Stark intended to punish Ser Jorah for selling slaves, but if instead, he was willing to take a cut of the profits in return for pardoning Ser Jorah, no one could gainsay him.  That would be entirely a matter for Ned.

Within the context of such a world, and given the information which she possessed, Catelyn's decision to arrest Tyrion, with a view to interrogating him later, was a reasonable one.

[Springwatch]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But the crucial reason why Cat went to the Vale is that she also believed Lysa had crucial information which would compliment Tyrion's testimony. Remember, Lysa wrote the letter, and Cat had every reason to believe Lysa knew more about what was going on than she entrusted to the letter.

A good point.

There was also a reasonable chance of getting Tyrion to talk - like he says himself he just cannot keep his mouth shut, and as it happens, he was not guilty of Jon Arryn's murder or the catspaw attack - so probably resentful and willing to talk. Cat left it too late, and Lysa took it out of her hands.

[Springwatch]

On 7/8/2021 at 10:50 PM, frenin said:

Cersei needs the Gold Cloaks for her coup. Had the Gold Cloaks gone to Ned, both the Red Cloaks and the Hound would have been inmaterial to the outcome. The Red Cloaks obey the senior Lannister around and that's Cersei.

The Gold Cloaks are famously unreliable, and also open to bribery, which Cersei may need to counter with the gold of Casterly Rock. Courtesy of Tywin, of course. But the main problem would be if Ned is proclaimed Hand and regent - in which case the default position for the Golds is to obey him.

The Reds are different; their loyalty is to House Lannister, but the chain of command does not stop with Cersei. That is unbelievable. Tywin is a good old-fashioned sexist patriarch, and he kept Cersei well away from anything to do with swords. Because of that, she lacks the competence to run the military side of things. She can give orders, but commanders know that ultimately they are serving Tywin and answer to him.

Quote

I don't see how none of that applies, the Red Cloaks were ordered to stand by Cersei and help the Red Cloaks to arrest Ned for treason, which was by all means apparently true, Cersei really didn't have more to tell them. 

I don't know how Tywin knows about the coup in advance, unless Cersei tells Pycelle.

We know how Tywin operates, because of his plotting with Sybelle, and Roose, and the Freys, to pull off the Red Wedding. He's deeply interested in strategy. He's one of the major players of the game of thrones. So it's not credible that he took his eye of the ball so completely that he doesn't even want reports from his commanders. And from Cersei. She's not going to hide her coup from Tywin; and she doesn't need to confess the twincest as her motive:

Quote

What happens when Robert dies and Joff takes the throne? And the sooner that comes to pass the safer we'll all be. My husband grows more restless every day. Having Stark beside him will only make him worse. He's still in love with the sister, the insipid little dead sixteen-year-old. How long till he puts me aside for some new Lyanna?

Renly is trying to achieve exactly that, of course.

Quote

There was no war in the Riverlands until Robert dies and Ned is seized.

Your splitting hairs here. It was Gregor's campaign that closely followed the catnapping, the rest is even more obviously to secure Joffrey's thone.

Quote

I still mantain is a terrible argument, especially given Ned being likely to be gone to his domains.

Still, there was an ambush, and it is a trap that would attract Ned, because his principles demand the death penalty and that he personally swing the sword.

Tywin set this trap, and being a deep planner, he had an objective in mind. Not a hostage swap, imho. We also know Tywin prefers to win victories cheaply, preferably with a letter instead of an army. In that case, he already has a preferred solution to retrieve Tyrion - Cersei puts pressure on Robert; Robert orders Ned to get Tyrion released. And it works, that's what happened. (The fact that Tyrion can't be found is equally an issue whether the Lannisters use persuasion or threats of violence). Gregor's campaign puts the 'cheap solution' at risk, because if/when Robert finds out, his sympathy will turn to rage.

ETA: I don't think Tywin puts much value on Tyrion - as soon as he gets him back, he puts him in a disaster zone on the battlefield.

Quote

It's not helpful to the coup tho, like at all, it gives the Riverlands a reason to hate the Lannisters in a situation where they would have been split between the Starks, the Baratheons and the Lannisters. The Riverlords are a  famously divided bunch, Tywin's war crimes only made it sure that all of them followed Robb.

Likely, his seizure simply accelerated that part. Both Robert being in that fateful hunt and Ned sending his retinue to the Riverlands are due to that. 

The Riverlands have a paramount lord - when he calls his banners, they are bound to follow. Not doing so is very, very risky.

[sifth]

I honestly don't know how I feel about Cat, the lady just comes off as a little gullible to me. Her chapters do move the plot along though and are always interesting to read.

[frenin]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You are missing the point. Any country having the kind of 'laws' and 'legal framework' Westeros has in our world would be savagery and anarchy. Westeros is a world where the Earl of This can start a private war with the Duke of That over a trivial issue. It is a world where the central authority lacks the means the marshal troops and keep the order in the land without the support of private land owners aka 'lords' who are judge, jury, and executioner on their own lands.

Of course there are people who go to war over trivial issues in the real world, but the kind of silly civil and private wars we get in Westeros - wars over who is the rightful king or who is that head of this or that family - don't really happen in civilized countries. Nor are such countries organized in a manner where hundreds of people maintain and marshal their own private armies if they have to.

Not agreeing with you doesn't mean i'm missing your point. Westeros is a absolutist society that still works under feudalism. Ofc that if any country that may have had its laws would be consider as barbaric, thank god.

That doesn't mean however that Westeros is a free for all country and if your only rebuttal is that we see powerful people getting away with clearly illegal actions, then ofc our real world is going to be brought up.

 

 

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course it is Edmure's fault. Cat made a deal with Jaime, and Edmure ruined that, putting Cat's daughters and Robb's sisters in mortal danger. If Jaime was killed during his 'flight' the Lannisters might, in turn, murder Arya and/or Sansa.

I know what Tywin planned, but if Jaime had returned unharmed to KL before the Red Wedding happened Jaime may have forced the old man to cancel the entire thing. The thing Tywin wants more than everything else is Jaime Lannister succeeding him as Lord of Casterly Rock. If Jaime had agreed to leave the KG and be his father's heir again he may have stopped the Red Wedding.

And after Joff's unfortunate death ... well, one of the biggest obstacles in making an honorable peace with the Starks would have been removed.

Cat made a deal that would have never been fullfilled by betraying Robb and his cause... Yet it's Edmure's fault... I mean, i'm as big of a fan of Cat's as any of her defendants here but this is simply too absurd to consider.

Jaime can't force Tywin to do anything, and Tywin's "why should i pay for something i've been given for free" attitude. He may have stopped the Red Wedding and allowed Robb to escape and gained momentum and perhaps having heirs of his blood?? Huh. 

The other biggest obstacle were the rest of the Lannisters Robb didn't feel like bowing to.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Tywin also had no right 'to defend his lands from rebels' because he didn't hold any lands. Not yet, not until Lord Tytos died. And the Reynes and Tarbecks didn't really rebel. They just decided that Lord Tytos was no longer their liege lord. That's a thing between Lord Lannister, Lord Reyne, and Lord Tarbeck ... not Ser Tywin. Ser Tywin has nothing to do with any of that.

It would fall to Lord Tytos and King Jaehaerys II to decide whether the Reynes and Tarbecks can offer fealty to a different overlord or the king directly.

Tywin also had no right to command the bannermen and vassals of House Lannister, to demand the repayment of overdue loans, to marshal private armies in the name of Lord Tytos, etc.

Yes he did, we see this actually under Aenys reign, it was the Vale lords who stopped the Arryn kin killer, during the Robellion, long before the Crown took Robert seriously, it was their own great lord's vassals trying to bring them down. Nowhere it is said that nobles can't put down traitors in the name of their sovereign. It's stated that nobles can't start wars willy nilly however.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is also not quite correct. There are crimes that are anathema even to the people of Westeros - the breaking of guest right, kinslaying, things like that. If you do that folks do not cheer you even if you are as great as Tywin Lannister.

But nobody cares if you abduct your enemy on the streets in an attempt to bring them to justice.

And to be perfectly clear - legally, Tyrion was abducted by the wife of the Hand on the Hand's own orders, because that is what Ned himself tells Robert. Thus Tyrion was, effectively, arrested by King Robert himself.

AGOT would tell you otherwise, because people started to freak out real soon.

And as Cersei points out, Ned was not the Hand of the King when the event happened, both Ned and Robert know that, Ned says that because what Cat had done was highly illegal and highly stupid and better have as much layers of protection as possible for the obvious backlash.

Given than the rest is more of this, this is enough.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

The Gold Cloaks are famously unreliable, and also open to bribery, which Cersei may need to counter with the gold of Casterly Rock. Courtesy of Tywin, of course. But the main problem would be if Ned is proclaimed Hand and regent - in which case the default position for the Golds is to obey him.

The Reds are different; their loyalty is to House Lannister, but the chain of command does not stop with Cersei. That is unbelievable. Tywin is a good old-fashioned sexist patriarch, and he kept Cersei well away from anything to do with swords. Because of that, she lacks the competence to run the military side of things. She can give orders, but commanders know that ultimately they are serving Tywin and answer to him.

And still the biggest standing army in the city by a wide margin, which means that whoever wants to succeed in a coup must count with its support, else you end like Ned. Once Cersei is installed and Joffrey is crowned, the Gold Cloaks are hers. Cersei herself states that they were the key factor to bring Ned down, not that we needed that but still.

The Red Cloaks are there to serve Cersei in the capital, Cersei is the senior there and as Tywin told his nephews, they should do whatever Cersei commands. And Cersei doesn't even need to inform them that she's making a coup, why would she do that. she has just to give orders and they would obey.

 

 

29 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

We know how Tywin operates, because of his plotting with Sybelle, and Roose, and the Freys, to pull off the Red Wedding. He's deeply interested in strategy. He's one of the major players of the game of thrones. So it's not credible that he took his eye of the ball so completely that he doesn't even want reports from his commanders. And from Cersei. She's not going to hide her coup from Tywin; and she doesn't need to confess the twincest as her motive:

And we know that Tywin was quite removed of KL and usually let Cersei do her thing, it wasn't until the Ned's fiasco that hhe starts  distrusting his daughter and gradually keeping her in check.  

What reports from his commanders?? That is a fait accompli?? Unless Tywin is coming with force, which he didn't and that's why the Gold Cloaks were vital. he doesn't really need to know anything, nor is he going to go against it. He may or he may not know, it's irrelevant anyway.

 

 

 

35 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Your splitting hairs here. It was Gregor's campaign that closely followed the catnapping, the rest is even more obviously to secure Joffrey's thone.

No, I'm not. At the time Robert was not dead, nor was he expected to die.

And Tywin doesn't go to war until he is sure he has the full back of KL. The rest as Tywin himself states it was to put it.

Quote

"That's one way we differ, Jaime and I. He's taller as well, you may have noticed."
His father ignored the sally. "The honor of our House was at stake. I had no choice but to ride. No man sheds Lannister blood with impunity."
"Hear Me Roar," Tyrion said, grinning. The Lannister words. "Truth be told, none of my blood was actually shed, although it was a close thing once or twice. Morrec and Jyck were killed."

And for all his talk, he did wait to ride. Btw, why would Tywin lie to Tyrion in his own camp??

 

 

41 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

"That's one way we differ, Jaime and I. He's taller as well, you may have noticed."
His father ignored the sally. "The honor of our House was at stake. I had no choice but to ride. No man sheds Lannister blood with impunity."
"Hear Me Roar," Tyrion said, grinning. The Lannister words. "Truth be told, none of my blood was actually shed, although it was a close thing once or twice. Morrec and Jyck were killed."

Indeed there was an ambush to Ned's men, after Robert had died and Ned was arrested for treason. That doesn't  mean that the ambush was set for Ned, it means that things changed and it was okay for Ned's men to disappear.

We know for a fact that Ned would be heading to Winterfell had he not been hurt. Even then, it would be Robert , not Ned, the one hearing the Riverlords under normal circumstances. And i don't see a really good reason for Robert to allow Ned to personally go hunting down his father's in law vassal. Unless ofc you're telling me that Tywin knew Robert was going hunt, in which case, this man sees the fuuture.

 

 

54 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

The Riverlands have a paramount lord - when he calls his banners, they are bound to follow. Not doing so is very, very risky.

And how many times does that work?? Because we know from history that when the paramount lord calls, it's likelier that a good bunch of them tell him to go to hell. 

Why do you think Cat was fearing the loyalty of her father's vassals?? Because it was not a guarantee until Tywin made himsekf sure that the riverlords would only support Robb.

[Springwatch]

5 hours ago, frenin said:

And still the biggest standing army in the city by a wide margin, which means that whoever wants to succeed in a coup must count with its support, else you end like Ned. Once Cersei is installed and Joffrey is crowned, the Gold Cloaks are hers. Cersei herself states that they were the key factor to bring Ned down, not that we needed that but still.

We agree. But I don't recall all these things Cersei (and Tywin) say - is this show or are there quotes?

Quote

The Red Cloaks are there to serve Cersei in the capital, Cersei is the senior there and as Tywin told his nephews, they should do whatever Cersei commands. And Cersei doesn't even need to inform them that she's making a coup, why would she do that. she has just to give orders and they would obey.

We don't agree. Sounds unrealistic, and a recipe for disaster besides.

Quote

And we know that Tywin was quite removed of KL and usually let Cersei do her thing, it wasn't until the Ned's fiasco that hhe starts  distrusting his daughter and gradually keeping her in check.  

Queen brood mare stuff, yeah. Babies and pretty dresses. But nothing serious - that's why she's so keen to break loose in Feast.

Quote

What reports from his commanders?? That is a fait accompli?? Unless Tywin is coming with force, which he didn't and that's why the Gold Cloaks were vital. he doesn't really need to know anything, nor is he going to go against it. He may or he may not know, it's irrelevant anyway.

He's head of family - like a mafia boss. Believe me he's interested. He has things he wants - like his grandson on the throne and the government controlled by Lannisters, not Starks. The way you describe it sounds like Tywin put his head in a bag and went to sleep until the catnapping.

Quote

No, I'm not. At the time Robert was not dead, nor was he expected to die.

This is getting confusing - I thought we were talking about whether Cat's actions triggered the war. If the war doesn't start with Gregor's campaign, I would say absolutely not.

Anyway - things make a lot more sense if Robert was expected to die (even if none of the arranged accidents work out, Pycelle can always arrange a fatal illness). Robert is sick/dying, Ned goes after the Mountain and is killed/captured, Joffrey is enthroned and Tywin takes power unopposed.

Of course this is a very long range plan, set in motion weeks in advance of the expected outcome. Communications aren't great - raven and messenger. I guess the plan didn't work out as Tywin expected - Jaime hurt Ned, and Robert went after the white hart. Ned resigned and got reinstated. I don't think Tywin has the agility to react to all of this in real time.

Quote

And Tywin doesn't go to war until he is sure he has the full back of KL. The rest as Tywin himself states it was to put it.

And for all his talk, he did wait to ride. Btw, why would Tywin lie to Tyrion in his own camp??

No doubt that's how Twyin feels, and it has the benefit of stoking up Tyrion's loyalty. But it's all bogus. Tywin anticipates a power struggle with Starks and their allies, that's all.

Quote

Indeed there was an ambush to Ned's men, after Robert had died and Ned was arrested for treason. That doesn't  mean that the ambush was set for Ned, it means that things changed and it was okay for Ned's men to disappear.

It was set for Ned. Robert would have KG and more soldiers than even Gregor could handle. Beric and Thoros are too small to bother with.

(ETA and we can't be sure of the timing I guess?)

Quote

We know for a fact that Ned would be heading to Winterfell had he not been hurt. Even then, it would be Robert , not Ned, the one hearing the Riverlords under normal circumstances. And i don't see a really good reason for Robert to allow Ned to personally go hunting down his father's in law vassal. Unless ofc you're telling me that Tywin knew Robert was going hunt, in which case, this man sees the fuuture.

Agree, yeah! Tywin didn't foresee the hunt, so he'd need something else to keep Robert away - accident or poison, this is Cersei's field.

Quote

And how many times does that work?? Because we know from history that when the paramount lord calls, it's likelier that a good bunch of them tell him to go to hell. 

I said it was risky. Even Hoster was brutal with rebels, iirc.

Quote

Why do you think Cat was fearing the loyalty of her father's vassals?? Because it was not a guarantee until Tywin made himsekf sure that the riverlords would only support Robb.

Cat changed her cloak when she married Lord Stark. She can't gives orders exactly - only get them thinking who her father is, and what would please him.

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

We agree. But I don't recall all these things Cersei (and Tywin) say - is this show or are there quotes?

Besides common sense?? There are quotes.

 

Quote

"It would seem he has a point," said Tyrion. "So this Lord Slynt, he was part of it, was he? Tell me, whose fine notion was it to grant him Harrenhal and name him to the council?"
"Littlefinger made the arrangements. We needed Slynt's gold cloaks. Eddard Stark was plotting with Renly and he'd written to Lord Stannis, offering him the throne. We might have lost all. Even so, it was a close thing. If Sansa hadn't come to me and told me all her father's plans . . ."
Tyrion was surprised. "Truly? His own daughter?" Sansa had always seemed such a sweet child, tender and courteous.

 

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

We don't agree. Sounds unrealistic, and a recipe for disaster besides.

I don't know how it sounds unrealistic, Tywin himself is in the blind of most of Joffrey and Cersei's actions and he only reacts to them, that's exactly why he gets fed up and sends Tyrion there.

And it was a recipe for disaster, it got Ned killed and with that ended any diplomatic solution with Robb.

 

 

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Queen brood mare stuff, yeah. Babies and pretty dresses. But nothing serious - that's why she's so keen to break loose in Feast.

And yet she had a great deal of influence there.

 

 

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

He's head of family - like a mafia boss. Believe me he's interested. He has things he wants - like his grandson on the throne and the government controlled by Lannisters, not Starks. The way you describe it sounds like Tywin put his head in a bag and went to sleep until the catnapping.

All are mafia bosses, yet all of them allow their underlings some leeway, Tywin does to Tyrion and he certainly does to Cersei, he only starts distrusting her after Ned's execution.

It's not putting his head in a bag, it's simply trusting those under him.

 

 

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

This is getting confusing - I thought we were talking about whether Cat's actions triggered the war. If the war doesn't start with Gregor's campaign, I would say absolutely not.

Anyway - things make a lot more sense if Robert was expected to die (even if none of the arranged accidents work out, Pycelle can always arrange a fatal illness). Robert is sick/dying, Ned goes after the Mountain and is killed/captured, Joffrey is enthroned and Tywin takes power unopposed.

Of course this is a very long range plan, set in motion weeks in advance of the expected outcome. Communications aren't great - raven and messenger. I guess the plan didn't work out as Tywin expected - Jaime hurt Ned, and Robert went after the white hart. Ned resigned and got reinstated. I don't think Tywin has the agility to react to all of this in real time.

Ofc Cat's actions triggered the war, the war only started with Robert's death however.

Robert was not expected to die, hell they didn't even kill Jon Arryn, if it was as easy as Rycelle killing Robert, he would have done so from the get go. Cersei has to speed things up the moment Ned tells her he knows about the twincest and she goes with the hail mary. If Robert dies, that makes Ned regent, which not only makes going against him thrice as dangerous and stupid, since they don't know what kind of force he would going with,  but reduces considerably Lannister power in court, both Baratheon brothers are likelier to fill that void, Ned would rely on them instead of well, Pycelle, LF or Varys.

Tywin certainly would not take power unopposed as long as either Baratheon brother or the Starks  had something to say about it. I still don't see how killing Ned benefits him.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

No doubt that's how Twyin feels, and it has the benefit of stoking up Tyrion's loyalty. But it's all bogus. Tywin anticipates a power struggle with Starks and their allies, that's all.

It doesn't stoke Tyrion's loyalty at all.  And it's contradictory that you noth affirm that htat's how Tywin feels and that it is bogus.

We have Tywin giving his reasons to march to war and they have nothing to do with what you're saying.

 

 

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

It was set for Ned. Robert would have KG and more soldiers than even Gregor could handle. Beric and Thoros are too small to bother with.

(ETA and we can't be sure of the timing I guess?)

Beric and Thoros had still been sent to kill Gregor Clegane and his band, oddly enough, Gregor Clegane and his band actually fight back.

And who tells you that Ned would not have had the Kingsguard with him and more soldiers??

 

 

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Agree, yeah! Tywin didn't foresee the hunt, so he'd need something else to keep Robert away - accident or poison, this is Cersei's field.

How it's Cersei's field?? When she was failing to do so for a whole year?? And the one time she actually succeed was because Robert got himself killed??

 

 

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

I said it was risky. Even Hoster was brutal with rebels, iirc.

Yeah, when he had three great lords backing him. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Cat changed her cloak when she married Lord Stark. She can't gives orders exactly - only get them thinking who her father is, and what would please him.

She isn't thinking about giving orders. She's wondering that if push came to shove, how many vassals would answer the call.

 

Quote

Catelyn knew them all: the Blackwoods and the Brackens, ever enemies, whose quarrels her father was obliged to settle; Lady Whent, last of her line, who dwelt with her ghosts in the cavernous vaults of Harrenhal; irascible Lord Frey, who had outlived seven wives and filled his twin castles with children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, and bastards and grandbastards as well. All of them were bannermen to the Tullys, their swords sworn to the service of Riverrun. Catelyn wondered if that would be enough, if it came to war. Her father was the staunchest man who'd ever lived, and she had no doubt that he would call his banners … but would the banners come? The Darrys and Rygers and Mootons had sworn oaths to Riverrun as well, yet they had fought with Rhaegar Targaryen on the Trident, while Lord Frey had arrived with his levies well after the battle was over, leaving some doubt as to which army he had planned to join (theirs, he had assured the victors solemnly in the aftermath, but ever after her father had called him the Late Lord Frey). It must not come to war, Catelyn thought fervently. They must not let it.

Tywin made sure of no finding a single ally in the Riverlands when he randomly chose to slaughter.

[Ran]

On 7/9/2021 at 11:40 PM, draft0 said:

The Lannisters find out very quickly that the Starks are out to get them--because Cat kidnapped Tyrion in public. Right after this Jamie ambushes Ned and almost kills him. Hard to imagine a worse scenario short of Ned's actual death.

Specifically, Tyrion reporting that Catelyn had secretly been in King's Landing and was on her way to the North/Riverrun/the Eyrie would suggest the Starks had discovered their perfidy at Winterfell and were preparing to make the first move. It's the secret part of Catelyn's movements, and the return from KL part, that would be the real trigger. This is a lot more dangerous to Ned and his daughters then the random WTFery of Catelyn, presumably on her way from Winterfell (maybe to visit the husband and children she pined for) or wherever, happening upon Tyrion and capturing him. The Lannisters have no clue what's going with it, they just see it as some act of aggression with no obvious cause. At no point do we get the sense that Cersei and Jaime believe that their role in Bran's near-death had been discovered, the way things played out.

So, yeah, what happened with Ned was bad... but imagine (as Catelyn imagined) Tyrion arriving, telling his siblings that they had been found out because Lady Stark had been in the city without their knowing it and was already on her way back, and could easily have been planning to go to Riverrun to get the Tullys on board with a first strike. They could even imagine that she had come to King's Landing and away again because Bran had spoken of what happened and they had already figured out that the twins were lovers and that the children were their bastards rather than Robert's natural children. Ned would have been killed, not just toyed with. Robert would likely have been assassinated. And all long before the Starks were able to make any preparations at all.

This sort of thread tends to draw me, but I've not much more time than to point that out. But the basic gist of @Impbread's initial post is indubitably correct, for my part!

[Springwatch]

@frenin - well, I think we've worked out we're just going to disagree on this one. One last reply though...

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Besides common sense?? There are quotes.

Common sense and quotes are different. I'm not sure when you're quoting things.

Quote

I don't know how it sounds unrealistic, Tywin himself is in the blind of most of Joffrey and Cersei's actions and he only reacts to them, that's exactly why he gets fed up and sends Tyrion there.

And it was a recipe for disaster, it got Ned killed and with that ended any diplomatic solution with Robb.

And yet she had a great deal of influence there.

All are mafia bosses, yet all of them allow their underlings some leeway, Tywin does to Tyrion and he certainly does to Cersei, he only starts distrusting her after Ned's execution.

It's not putting his head in a bag, it's simply trusting those under him.

Ok, you've got your view, I've got mine.

Quote

Ofc Cat's actions triggered the war, the war only started with Robert's death however.

Then Robert's death triggered the war. The war was a war of sucession. Tyrion was free and participating in that war.

Quote

Robert was not expected to die, hell they didn't even kill Jon Arryn, if it was as easy as Rycelle killing Robert, he would have done so from the get go. Cersei has to speed things up the moment Ned tells her he knows about the twincest and she goes with the hail mary.

Pycelle is better qualified to be a poisoner than LF.

Quote

If Robert dies, that makes Ned regent, which not only makes going against him thrice as dangerous and stupid, since they don't know what kind of force he would going with,  but reduces considerably Lannister power in court, both Baratheon brothers are likelier to fill that void, Ned would rely on them instead of well, Pycelle, LF or Varys.

Tywin certainly would not take power unopposed as long as either Baratheon brother or the Starks  had something to say about it. I still don't see how killing Ned benefits him.

Yep. So Ned's got to be neutralised too, for example by the 'trap' described by Harwin and executed by Gregor.

ETA Tywin will benefit from Ned not being regent, with all the power that comes with that.

Quote

It doesn't stoke Tyrion's loyalty at all. 

I think it does. It says Tyrion is part of House Lannister, and special because of it.

Quote

And it's contradictory that you noth affirm that htat's how Tywin feels and that it is bogus.

But Tywin is very touchy about the respect due to House Lannister. Because of that business with his father being taken advantage of, and laughed at. That doesn't mean he'd brought out his armies for Tyrion - that would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I suggest Tywin was readying his armies to deal with any pushback from the Stark/Arryn/Tully aliance after both Robert and Ned were overthrown. That makes sense.

Quote

We have Tywin giving his reasons to march to war and they have nothing to do with what you're saying.

Sometimes characters say stuff that's not true. Or not wholly true.

Quote

Beric and Thoros had still been sent to kill Gregor Clegane and his band, oddly enough, Gregor Clegane and his band actually fight back.

What I'm trying to say is - the trap (war crimes followed by ambush) was designed for Ned. Gregor was given his instructions and left to get on with it. There wasn't much point in trying to recall him anyway.

Quote

And who tells you that Ned would not have had the Kingsguard with him and more soldiers??

Because we know exactly how many troops Ned judged right for the job. A king's different. A king always has a large retinue - it's a prestige thing. Ned doesn't care about prestige.

Quote

How it's Cersei's field?? When she was failing to do so for a whole year?? And the one time she actually succeed was because Robert got himself killed??

Has she been trying for a year? Not very hard anyway. But we know it's Cersei's role, because that's what's she's doing. And if it looked like she was going to run out of time, she'd have to reach for quicker, surer methods. Poison seems to work really well.

Quote

Yeah, when he had three great lords backing him. 

She isn't thinking about giving orders. She's wondering that if push came to shove, how many vassals would answer the call.

Cat is notably pessimistic about warfare.

Quote

Tywin made sure of no finding a single ally in the Riverlands when he randomly chose to slaughter

Ok, problem for you then. Why is Tywin, the great strategist, marking random, counter-productive warfare in the Riverlands? And why does Harwin think there was a trap?

[frenin]

8 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Common sense and quotes are different. I'm not sure when you're quoting things.

You're very much right in this matter,  ¡ i have given you the quotes anyway.

 

8 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Then Robert's death triggered the war. The war was a war of sucession. Tyrion was free and participating in that war.

No, Cat's actions triggered the war, Robert's and Ned's falls made the war certain however, Tywin didn't attack the Baratheons, nor he went to secure King's Landing,  he ravaged the Riverlands and then events molded that war into a war s¡of succcession after Rely's and Stannis's crownings.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Pycelle is better qualified to be a poisoner than LF.

Dunno, it doesn't take much to become a poisoner, yet they never did.

 

 

8 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Yep. So Ned's got to be neutralised too, for example by the 'trap' described by Harwin and executed by Gregor.

ETA Tywin will benefit from Ned not being regent, with all the power that comes with that.

Not really, then Robb and the Baratheon brothers as well as Edmure and Hoster gotta be neutralized too. The trap described by Harwin is revisionist crap that oddly enough isn't brought up anymore by any Lannister. And it entirely clashes with Tywin's calculated moves prior Robert's death.

 

Ned certainly dislike Tywin a lot but he's not going to act against him unless the latter's give him a reason.

 

 

8 hours ago, Springwatch said:

But Tywin is very touchy about the respect due to House Lannister. Because of that business with his father being taken advantage of, and laughed at. That doesn't mean he'd brought out his armies for Tyrion - that would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I suggest Tywin was readying his armies to deal with any pushback from the Stark/Arryn/Tully aliance after both Robert and Ned were overthrown. That makes sense.

Sometimes characters say stuff that's not true. Or not wholly true.

He didn't bring his armies for Tyrion, he brought his armies to teach a lession to  those who defied the Lannisters. It doesn't make sense and it directly contradicts the character's own version of the events.

Hell. Tywin himself didn't really believe either the Starks or the Arryns would get involved in the Riverlands at all. So much for the pushback.

 

8 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Because we know exactly how many troops Ned judged right for the job. A king's different. A king always has a large retinue - it's a prestige thing. Ned doesn't care about prestige.

When he wasn't leading it and it's not about prestige is about security.

 

 

8 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Has she been trying for a year? Not very hard anyway. But we know it's Cersei's role, because that's what's she's doing. And if it looked like she was going to run out of time, she'd have to reach for quicker, surer methods. Poison seems to work really well.

Yeah, she has been trying for a year. That's why the idea that Tywin wanted Robert gone asap is quite baffling,  either Robert's is the luckiest man alive, able to dodge poison after poison, or neither Pycelle nor Tywin really wanted him gone.

And in the end it was a not poisoned wine that made Robert killed himself...

 

 

8 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Cat is notably pessimistic about warfare.

And she's right about this.

I don't know how this is an argument. The Riverlords are a historically divided bunch, this is a fact. Sans the War of the 5 Kings and the overthrowing of Harren Hoare, the Riverlords have not fought as a united front in thousands of years.

 

 

8 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Ok, problem for you then. Why is Tywin, the great strategist, marking random, counter-productive warfare in the Riverlands? And why does Harwin think there was a trap?

 

• Because Tywin is human and make blunders and he also has luck, he makes several blunders during the war and underestimated his foes time after time, he simply got bailed out by Renly's death.
• Tywin didn't expect a war of succesion, he didn't even expect the Arryns or the Starks helping the Riverlands. His aim was simply crush the Riverlands and call it a day.
• Harwin doesn't know the events that transpired in King's Landing until much much later, so the only thing he knows is that Ned was supposed to lead them and now Gregor attack them, he doesn't know that by that time Ned was already a prisoner and Gregor could fight back. All Tywin did prior that was sending angry letters to Cersei for Ned and Robert