what else/more could the Blackfish have done?

[Lummel]

I don't see how keeping Jeyne in Riverrun is the best way to keep her and any child she may be carried safe beyond the duration of a siege. If the Blackfish really wanted to keep her safe he should have done his utmost to remove her from the war zone. Once she is captured as a rebel she and any child she may have are entirely at the Lannisters mercy.

[Tini]

I don't see how keeping Jeyne in Riverrun is the best way to keep her and any child she may be carried safe beyond the duration of a siege. If the Blackfish really wanted to keep her safe he should have done his utmost to remove her from the war zone. Once she is captured as a rebel she and any child she may have are entirely at the Lannisters mercy.

Did he have the means to send her to safety once they were under siege? What place could he have send her to that was safer than the place where they currently were? Just smuggling her out would not have been enough. He would have to send soldiers with her to keep her safe. One knight, or two knights would not have been enough. It might have been difficult to get her and her escort out of her castle, let alone to a safe destination. The way he escaped from Riverrun, swimming, might not have been open to her, and would not have served well to smuggle out a large group. And he would have to find a way to provide for her. Jeyne wouldn't have been able to earn money, isn't used to hardships of any kind, and I don't think Jeyne would have been happy to live in hiding like a peasant - especially since real peasants would have recognized her noble upbringing immediately.

In addition, there is the matter of her mother to consider. I think her mother would have objected forcefully if he had tried to send her daughter into danger, poverty, or just plain away. She would not have agreed to a separation. She would not have agreed to leave with her daughter. Why should she, after all? They were safest where they were. She had Tywin Lannister's promise that no harm would come to them. All she had to do was wait how things would turn out, in as much comfort as could be managed.

[Lummel]

There is a period of time between the red wedding and the beginning of the siege, and it really wouldn't have needed a great deal of foresight to see that the Lannisters and the allies would try to end the war by securing riverrun.

If Riverrun really was the safest possible place then Jeyne had might as well have surrendered straight away - what is to be gained by offering the Lannister defiance for half a year or so?

[Tini]

There is a period of time between the red wedding and the beginning of the siege, and it really wouldn't have needed a great deal of foresight to see that the Lannisters and the allies would try to end the war by securing riverrun.

But the way north was blocked by Ironborn, wasn't safe. Then there was the question who in the North could be trusted with the girl's safety. The Free Cities wouldn't have been safer, just more expensive.

And who could be trusted to take her there? Only the Blackfish, as Jeyne had been specifically entrusted to him. As Riverrum had been entrusted to him. If he had left with Jeyne, he would have failed in at least one duty.

If Riverrun really was the safest possible place then Jeyne had might as well have surrendered straight away - what is to be gained by offering the Lannister defiance for half a year or so?

Jeyne might have surrendered straight away, yes. But she was not the one in charge of Riverrun, she was just an honored guest. Or a valuable hostage, depending on the point of view. The Blackfish was in charge of Riverrun, and he did not yield. He was given his command because it was a certainty that he would carry it out.

He held Riverrun until Edmure Tully relieved him of it. Edmure, who held a better claim to Riverrun than his uncle. But by then it must have been quite clear that Jeyne wasn't pregnant, and that the Westerlings were not put in danger by a surrender. So there was really no reason to carry on the war at Riverrun, or defend Queen Jeyne. Or take her to safety someplace else.

[King Bread]

Ah, the Blackfish.

Not sure about the Riverrun siege, we don't really know what's up with Jeyne so it's hard to judge the Blackfish here. I think a signifivant role in this were the Freys, which couldn't be trusted in terms of Edmure after the red wedding. Seeing how honorable the Blackfish is I can also imagine that the thought of giving Riverrun, the seat of his family, to a Frey up after what they have done was seriously pissing him off.

I agree that Edmure can't be blamed for stopping Tywin. No matter when Robb got his plan to meet Tywin in the Westerlands, he has to communicate here. Hold the castle can easily interpreted as holding Riverrun, Robb's base of operations in the Riverlands, as long as Robb is in the west. But Tywin was heading for Robb, not Riverrun, meaning that he was trying to meet Robb in battle at his home grounds. A little bit communication and Edmire would have let Tywin passed and could have attacked with the Riverlands forces from the back involving Tywin in a 2-fronted battle. It really hurts thinking about the possibilities.

Have all been discussed though. My personal main question regarding the Blackfish is, what was he doing when Robb married Jeyne and broke his promise with the Freys? He was with Robb, wasn't he? I can understand some Northern lords not really caring for it like Umber, but I thought at least the Blackfish would care about these things.

[David Selig]

Have all been discussed though. My personal main question regarding the Blackfish is, what was he doing when Robb married Jeyne and broke his promise with the Freys? He was with Robb, wasn't he? I can understand some Northern lords not really caring for it like Umber, but I thought at least the Blackfish would care about these things.

Robb was in charge, there was little the Blackfish could do in this case. He probably told Robb it was a bad idea, but Robb didn't listen.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

I don't see how keeping Jeyne in Riverrun is the best way to keep her and any child she may be carried safe beyond the duration of a siege. If the Blackfish really wanted to keep her safe he should have done his utmost to remove her from the war zone. Once she is captured as a rebel she and any child she may have are entirely at the Lannisters mercy.

The problem with this is that BF really could not be sure what he had in the Westerlings; either 1. His dead king's family to protect, or 2. Traitorous hostages bound to the Lannisters. It seems that he had both, but not being clairvoyant, he could not know which. In his position, I would have been inclined to see the Westerling's appearance on the scene, the marriage to Robb, and their survival of the RW as entirely too convenient, and seen them as valuable hostages with info that could implicate the Lannisters in the RW. So no way would I have let them go.

Roslin is a little more complex. Edmure obviously cares for her, it is mutual, and moreover she absolutely carries the Tully's only hope for survival as a family.

It is interesting to me that so many brave last stands through history are lauded as heroic and self sacrificing (the Alamo comes to mind) while BF's actions are seen as selfish and foolish. If he had managed to force a long siege, several positive things could have come if it. The Lannister forces would have been, at minimum, decimated in the process. Help could have come from those still opposing the Lannisters. And even if they died to the last man, it would have been seen as one more black mark against those evil Lannisters, to have destroyed RR, killed off the very popular remaining Tullys, and possibly word of their involvement in the RW leaking out. Jaime could have ended up the Westeros version of Santa Anna which could have become an evil rallying point for all those left who oppose Lannister rule, as Santa Anna was for the Texians.

[Alexia]

It is interesting to me that so many brave last stands through history are lauded as heroic and self sacrificing (the Alamo comes to mind)*** Jaime could have ended up the Westeros version of Santa Anna which could have become an evil rallying point for all those left who oppose Lannister rule, as Santa Anna was for the Texians.

*clears throat*

The Alamo was not heroic OR self sacrificing.

[GreenAppleFossoway]

From what I've read from the books, no underlying assumptions whatsoever, the Blackfish is a badass and Edmure is a wet blanket.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

*clears throat*

The Alamo was not heroic OR self sacrificing.

LOL ... Boy, are you ever not from Texas! Down here we are raised to believe the Holy Trinity consisted of Travis, Houston and Bowie.

NOT directed at Alexia: Incidentally, I find the whole "HOMO" thing kind of offensive. If we want to discuss whether the BF was a homosexual or not, could we do it with a little less mocking tone? I try not to be hypersensitive on the forums (the word "bastard" gets to me at times because my first two kids were born out of wedlock, and I dislike aspersions on little people/dwarfs, because I knew a family of them that I adored; but I realize it is hard to discuss subjects from these books without using these terms). But I also think they can be discussed/used with some level of respect, and keeping in mind the possible feelings and sensibilities of of other posters

[SeanF]

Key point here, it was visible that all the riverlords had surrendered and were offered generous terms. Paege, Vance, bracken, piper were all confirmed in all their lands and titles by tywin after the red wedding. This idea that surrendering would be foolish (and edmure was weak for doing so) is wrong. In fact edwyn frey specifically mentions that bryden is the only thing blocking a surrender, that once he's dead the other men will surrender rather than fight to death. Brynden is the exception, every other lord surrenders rather than lose their family and people in a hopeless cause. Brynden refuses because unlike the other riverlords he doesn't care about the fate of his people or his remaining family (edmure) he solely cares about his honor and reputation as a warrior.

Every other riverlord surrendered to the lannisters after the red wedding, and they were not subsequently harmed. The blackfish was well aware of this, as most of these lords were right outside his walls with the freys and lannisters.

That, I think, is fair. There was nothing left to fight for, once Robb had been killed. The cause was lost. In those circumstances, it's better to bargain for the lives of one's soldiers and retainers, than to fight on with nothing to gain.

Fighting to the last man is a good thing to do when trying to protect others, (eg Thermopylae) but not for the sake of pride.

[Glyn Tarvoke]

As to Edmure stopping the Lannister's from crossing the Tully lands, I thought from Robb's comments that he thought he had made it clear to Edmure that Edmure should hold Riverrun and not do more than that. Maybe he should have been more explicit, but....

By surrendering Riverrun, the Tully's have likely lost the castle they've held for what, 500 years or so?

People love heroic characters and Blackfish is one of them. Of course, as some folk point out, being heroic tends to get a lot of people killed. So there are good points and bad points.

(My Grandfather, who was a sergeant in WWII, had little good to say about Patton, who is seen as a great hero and general by many. At least some of Patton's troops derided him as "Old blood and glory. Our blood and his glory." Or something like that)

I thought Doran Martel's lines in ADWD about this theme was great. Dorne only lost one man in the war of the five kings. Still, Doran is strongly criticized by his own and has some of his own doubts about whether he should have sent Dorne to war or not.

Food for thought.

[Alexia]

LOL ... Boy, are you ever not from Texas! Down here we are raised to believe the Holy Trinity consisted of Travis, Houston and Bowie.

Nope, I'm sure not. The Alamo was a battle fought for the right to own slaves and hold other human beings in bondage. Nope, not one bit heroic, not one bit self sacrificing. ;)

NOT directed at Alexia: Incidentally, I find the whole "HOMO" thing kind of offensive.

And I happen to agree with this. I personally think that the Blackfish is gay, but the tone of that post was really unpleasant.

That, I think, is fair. There was nothing left to fight for, once Robb had been killed. The cause was lost. In those circumstances, it's better to bargain for the lives of one's soldiers and retainers, than to fight on with nothing to gain.

Fighting to the last man is a good thing to do when trying to protect others, (eg Thermopylae) but not for the sake of pride.

:agree:

[SeanF]

In fairness, though, in my Thermopylae example, the men who died were (in many cases) slave owners, and slavery was the norm across Greece, but that doesn't detract from the heroism, IMHO.

[headtrip_honey]

In fairness, though, in my Thermopylae example, the men who died were (in many cases) slave owners, and slavery was the norm across Greece, but that doesn't detract from the heroism, IMHO.

But was slavery the issue de jour at the gates of Thermopylae?

No, an invasion by the Persians was.

The build up to the Alamo involved a new constitution that the Texan settlers didn't agree with - including a ban on slavery. There were about 5,000 slaves in the Texas territory at the time.

I would say that slavery wasn't the only reason - there was also freedom of religion and increased taxes...but it was definitely a factor.

[Alexia]

In fairness, though, in my Thermopylae example, the men who died were (in many cases) slave owners, and slavery was the norm across Greece, but that doesn't detract from the heroism, IMHO.

My Greek history is rusty (actually rather poor). Did the men who died at Thermopylae emigrate to another country with the sole condition that they are not allowed to own slaves in said country and bring their slaves with anyway, and then, when the president/dictator/supreme ruler of said country insisted on their meeting that condition, decide to go to war with him to keep their right to hold their fellow man in bondage?

No comparison to the Alamo, otherwise.

[SeanF]

I' m afraid my knowledge of the history of the Alamo is pretty poor. If that's what it was about, then I'd agree that there's no comparison with Thermopylae.

[mediocre cheese]

I think thermopylae actually is a very overrated battle. The spartans didn't achieve anything, the persian army took heavy casualties, but the numerical advantage was so significant that it really had little effect. Leonidas did not win the persian war at any level, Themistocles did at the battle of salamis, where despite being heavily outnumbered he actually won. But Themistocles actually had to govern after the war and was later exiled by political opponents. Thus Leonidas gets gloried and portrayed in films (by gerard bulter) wheras Themistocles gets ignored.

Its the same throughout history, the "glorious" losers are always idolized in a way in which the winners aren't. william wallace, for example

[The GRRumbler]

Leonidas's was only trying to buy the greeks time to build their host and that he actually achieved, that's why he send the rest of the army back and stayed only with his personal guard. And actually they are going to make a movie about Themistocles's battle too, and i believe the same director - not sure.

I think this has gone a little off-topic so, back on topic, i believe the Blackfish couldnt do much more than what he did, what i hope from now on is that he reaches the Valle and try to convince the Lords there to attack the Riverlands.

[Talleyrand]

Its the same throughout history, the "glorious" losers are always idolized in a way in which the winners aren't. william wallace, for example

Not sure about that last part, where I come from in Scotland the guy who actually won, Robert the Bruce gets a lot more attention and glory than Wallace. And as to why Edward I doesn't get glorified, because he was a massive dick