Catnapping: a PSA

[juanml82]

Yes, tywins chances of success were very low. Whats your point here? The fact that he had low chance of success doesn't help your argument out at all, it does nothing to disprove what bumps is saying.

ETA: He was going to strike at SOMEONE once robert was dead, the riverlands are the best choice. that happens with or without the abduction of tyrion.

It means Tywin was an idiot instead of the accomplished hand and general the books lead to believe. Which might very well be true and if someone hacked into GRRM's computer and read his file on Tywin Lannister it would say something like this: "Stupid childkiller overrated by his peers. We would have failed spectaculary had Aerys faced rebellion when he was his Hand".

But we don't really know. What can not happen is Tywin being a competent ruler and, at the same time, preparaing to wage war on the entire realm without trying to secure a single ally.

If you want to state that that was said to show causality, then why, oh why, are you singling out the Catnap specifically?

For the same reason people say Franz Ferdinand assasination caused WWI, the sinking of the Maine the Spanish-American war, the 11-S attacks the War on Terror, etc., etc. The Catnapping was the trigger, I think that much is clear.

What do you think Tywin has been planning to do since Stannis left KL? And how about the fact that Ned wanted Cat to prepare for war prior to the Catnap? This didn't cause bloodshed in the way it is so often claimed, is the point I think you keep missing. It is one of many chainS of events. My problem is that you are attributing too much causality to this one event given the entire situation in which both Lannisters and Starks think the other is conspiring against the other, and oh, wait, Stannis is planning to attack Lannisters too and they could ally, and so forth.

We do not know what Tywin was planning - for all we know, he was hoarding money to pay the FM to kill Stannis - as it's not stated in the text. We can speculate, but we shouldn't confuse the novels with our speculation about them.

Tywin called his banners in response of the Catnapping. Jaime injured Ned and killed his men in response of the Catnapping. The Mountain sacked the Riverlands because of the Catnapping. What's ambigous about this?

What exactly do you think I'm presuming as a fundamental precept to the thesis put forth in the OP? That Tywin was already planning to be ready for war? We don't have to assume this; we know from the books that he was wary of Stannis' quick departure from KL and raising troops on Dragonstone. We know that the Lannisters knew Renly tried that move to oust Cersei with Marg. Given what we know of Tywin and Cersei, I would posit the assumption that they put this together (along with Ned, a staunch friend to Robert and enemy of the Lannisters) to believe that there was a very good chance the Starks were conspiring against them as well, and would have started preparing for that conflict as well?

You take for granted that Cat feared Tyrion would kill her in the road because she didn't travel with a large retinue which is, and will remain, speculation until a SSM or lines in the coming books claim it. And you refuse to accept that this is anything other than the pure and hole True.

You also take for a fact your speculation that Catelyn believed her husband guards weren't enough to protect her daughters and, despite that, she doesn't take them from King's Landing.

You take for a fact that it was Ned's warning to Cersei what caused Cersei to order Lancel to get Robert drunk, when we only have Varys' interested take on the subject.

You take for a fact that a Lord calling his banners without the support of the king isn't the big deal.

You take for a fact that Tywin planned to attack the Riverlands all along.

There is plenty to discuss about these books because they are huge and only part of the story is presented to the readers. But we shouldn't confuse "Here Martin wrote this" with "I think this means this". Your thesis is right if we confuse the books with the speculation that fits the thesis, but that doesn't mean your speculations are written in the books, nor the hidden story GRRM isn't telling us.

[Fauch]

Uh oh. Rant imminent.

Yes, Tywin wanted to knock out the northern powers that would be opposed to him to secure his rear, so he could defend king’s landing from Stannis. He had to cede the initiative to Stannis as he had too few ships to actually attack him on Dragonstone: he had to await his moves. Doing that while giving the Starks-Tullys-Arryns time to muster and combine their armies would have been suicide. So he decided to pounce on them piecemeal. This worked in the riverlands, and, saving an unlikely series of events, would have probably worked against the Starks too (he hoped the Arryns would be cowed after this display). He could then position himself near the capital ready to deal with Stannis, who he likely assumed would command the Dragonstone banners, lots of sellswords, the stormlands and maybe some Reachmen. The way all of the Reach rallied behind Renly seemed to come as a surprise, at least to Ser Kevan. Stannis was the one they were worrying about. There is nothing farfetched or incomprehensible about this plan.

On your version Tywin wanted a limited war with the Tullys protected by Robert. Robert’s death threw these calculations to hell and he accidentally ended up in a vast war to save Joff’s throne. Yet he never chewed out Cersei or seemed alarmed at how badly things had gone wrong in the capital. That’s totally implausible. He even says, as has been pointed out, that he felt Stannis was the biggest threat ‘from the beginning.’ Attacking the riverlands makes no sense if he was worried about Stannis and didn’t see his invasion of the riverlands as part of the same war.

I agree, it would help if the author had been clearer about lannister calculations. Sadly he was not. I hoped Kevan might reveal some information about this when he had a POV but alas. This has happened before. In CoK the author left Tywin’s decision to leave Harrenhal and go west rather murky and had to specify exactly what happened in an SSM. The lesson from that incident was to err on the side of assuming Tywin knows most of the relevant information the reader does.

What I was saying is (just to clarify, though it feels redundant at this point) is that Tywin/Jaime were attacking the Riverlands over the abduction of Tyrion. Meanwhile though, Robert dies, Joffrey decides to behead Ned Stark, and thus the War of the 5 Kings is set in motion. This is what I personally feel makes most sense in the timeline and given the original text, without making too many wild assumptions/could-have-beens.

If this big all-against-the-Lannisters Alliance was really in place shouldn't Tywin have been glad that Renly crowns himself in the South, thus showing he is not in the Stark-Tully camp and he actually has separate enemies to deal with?

As for what you say about Tywins strategy...unless he delivers one crushing victory after another, there is no way he can win against 4-5 other major houses. No. Way.

We have strayed so far from the original post though, it's hard to justify speculating about all of this in this thread.

I'd also like to mention people should be more careful with things like "This was proven in my post bla bla bla". Nothing we say here is actual proof, unless Martin himself speaks up. Just because something "makes sense and is the only possible way things could have been in my opinion" doesn't make it proof. What we see here is how different people read the books and that you can draw different conclusions from what you read.

[juanml82]

:agree:

[butterbumps!]

For the same reason people say Franz Ferdinand assasination caused WWI, the sinking of the Maine the Spanish-American war, the 11-S attacks the War on Terror, etc., etc. The Catnapping was the trigger, I think that much is clear.

First, please do not ever compare the Catnap to 9-11, which was an actual, physical attack killing thousands in one fell swoop. Please drop that comparison. I would also like to point out that the attack on the Maine is another example of specific violence against a nation, and not an arrest like the Catnap.

Secondly, I fail to understand why it is Tyrion, not Ned's arrest you see as the "big trigger." I do not care one iota about paralleling our own history, as the world of ASOIAF gives us precedent to go by, and it does not suggest that an abduction/ arrest is a Franz Ferdinand type trigger. Aerys had several noblemen brought to KL and slain, and still this was not the big "trigger." Rhaegar eloped with/ abducted/ raped Lyanna, and still this was not the big "trigger." So given past examples of ASOIAF history, an arrest of a nobleman is not this "big trigger" as some abstract concept you are making it out to be.

We do not know what Tywin was planning - for all we know, he was hoarding money to pay the FM to kill Stannis - as it's not stated in the text. We can speculate, but we shouldn't confuse the novels with our speculation about them.

How can you keep insisting that Tywin was not preparing for war? Doesn't this go against everything we know about Tywin as a character?

Tywin called his banners in response of the Catnapping. Jaime injured Ned and killed his men in response of the Catnapping. The Mountain sacked the Riverlands because of the Catnapping. What's ambigous about this?

Where have I ever denied that Jaime injured Ned because of the Catnap? I said that Tywin responded by calling banners to the Catnap, but that the Catnap was not the only reason for his calling said banners. I have discussed Tywin's terrorist campaign at great length and, once again, the Catnap was not the only reason Tywin felt inspired to rape the Riverlands.

So, again, to pin everything on the Catnap doesn't work. Again, did the Catnap have consequences? Yes. Is what followed the inevitable conclusion and solely based on the Catnap? NO.

You take for granted that Cat feared Tyrion would kill her in the road because she didn't travel with a large retinue which is, and will remain, speculation until a SSM or lines in the coming books claim it. And you refuse to accept that this is anything other than the pure and hole True.

Do you have another explanation for why Cat believes that she has a split second to act when Tyrion recognizes her? Why do you think she's afraid and has to act immediately?

You also take for a fact your speculation that Catelyn believed her husband guards weren't enough to protect her daughters and, despite that, she doesn't take them from King's Landing.

No, that's not what I was arguing. Cat knew war was coming. As we know, Ned's household guards were not enough to save him or their girls from becoming Lannister hostages. Having Tyrion would have been a form of insurance.

You take for a fact that it was Ned's warning to Cersei what caused Cersei to order Lancel to get Robert drunk, when we only have Varys' interested take on the subject.

Ironically, you accuse me of speculation, yet you refuse to accept a passage that is actually written in the text as proof of something because it goes against what you want to argue. To be honest, I think there is a chance that Varys might have connected that only to make Ned feel guilty, but that is speculation, and not how I'd ever interpreted the conversation. But, importantly, whether Cersei gave the order before or after Ned's mercy has no bearing on the position of the OP whatsoever.

You take for a fact that a Lord calling his banners without the support of the king isn't the big deal.

Does the king usually sanction calling banners? Something tells me that Aerys didn't give his bannermen permission to call banners. And I think the big issue you're missing is that it's not calling the banners that's the huge problem. The issue is breaking the king's peace, which is what Tywin is trying to goad the Riverlords into doing.

And you seriously don't think that Tywin was sitting at Casterly playing with kittens while Stannis was out raising troops, do you?

You take for a fact that Tywin planned to attack the Riverlands all along.

No, I did not take that as a fact anywhere. I said that he "MAY" have been planning something like that as soon as Ned becomes Hand and Stannis leaves, but no where did I take this as a given. Nor does this point pertain to what's presented in the OP.

There is plenty to discuss about these books because they are huge and only part of the story is presented to the readers. But we shouldn't confuse "Here Martin wrote this" with "I think this means this".

I've provided quotes, I've said where I've speculated, and I've pointed out what's logical deduction. Put simply, without logically deducing Tywin's motives outside of the Catnap into what myself, E Ro and BtC have stated, Tywin's moves make absolutely no sense in terms of what we know of his character. This reading is actually textually consistent, but when you look at your version of events, it makes no sense.

[A Crow Come Over]

I won't snark, but it is somewhat frustrating that the points you're raising are very unspecific and said in a way it seems you're opposing the OP without having actually read it. I know it's long, but I did put a lot of work into including citations and full explanations of the pre-conceptions you're raising. If you're going to come in to say that this decision is illogical, it seems rather disrespectful to do so without pointing to exactly where you disagree with things, and why you consider those things illogical. There's been a number of posters who have disagreed with aspects of the OP, but they have all pointed to some very specific criticisms without leveling categorical judgment on the Catnap as "illogical."

I have read it and it was well written, what I quoted from your OP was what I was addressing, sorry if i was too broad, I'll try to drill down.

Cat's decision to arrest Tyrion was wrong, I was contending your statement that she was doing it for the "right" reasons, unfortunately her reasons were not "right" either in my assumption because all the information she had was either a lie or rumor. Most of your analysis is spot on, I just didnt agree with the "doing it for the right reasons" part.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

You take for a fact that it was Ned's warning to Cersei what caused Cersei to order Lancel to get Robert drunk, when we only have Varys' interested take on the subject.

You've made a lot of points which are very complex, but I can show text support for this one.

From AFFC, Cersei I:

When had a Hand ever brought her anything but grief? Jon Arryn had put Robert Baratheon in her bed, and before he died he'd begun sniffing about her and Jaime as well. Eddard Stark took up right where Arryn had left off; his meddling had forced her to rid herself of Robert sooner than she would have liked, before she could deal with his pestilential brothers.

[Fauch]

Why do you think she's afraid and has to act immediately?

I just read the passage again. Where exactly did you read that she was afraid? In my opinion there was no time to think things through, because thinking through such a complex decision with so many pro's and contra's might have taken the better part of a day. Obviously Tyrion would have objected to "Please stay here until I have made up my mind whether I should take you hostage or not."

That she was afraid is not there in the text, that is your interpretation.

[butterbumps!]

I have read it and it was well written, what I quoted from your OP was what I was addressing, sorry if i was too broad, I'll try to drill down.

Cat's decision to arrest Tyrion was wrong, I was contending your statement that she was doing it for the "right" reasons, unfortunately her reasons were not "right" either in my assumption because all the information she had was either a lie or rumor. Most of your analysis is spot on, I just didnt agree with the "doing it for the right reasons" part.

No problem, Crow. I think I understand and agree with that assessment: that it can't be considered the "right" reasons, because they reasons themselves were faulty. I agree with the idea that the reasons themselves were "wrong", because they were, objectively speaking. I definitely hold the opinion that the Catnap is a mistake in the sense that it was based on such wrong information, but I was trying to point out that Cat comes to make this mistake in a way that's (I suppose, ironically) intelligent, logical and admirable given the way she works with the information she has and believes to be valid. So maybe we do agree about this a bit more than it seemed.

I just read the passage again. Where exactly did you read that she was afraid? In my opinion there was no time to think things through, because thinking through such a complex decision with so many pro's and contra's might have taken the better part of a day. Obviously Tyrion would have objected to "Please stay here until I have made up my mind whether I should take you hostage or not."

That she was afraid is not there in the text, that is your interpretation.

“I was still Catelyn Tully the last time I bedded here,” she told the innkeep. She could hear the muttering, feel the eyes upon her. Catelyn glanced around the room, at the faces of the knights and sworn swords, and took a deep breath to slow the frantic beating of her heart. Did she dare take the risk? There was no time to think it through, only the moment and the sound of her own voice ringing in her ears. “You in the corner,” she said to an older man she had not noticed until now. “Is that the black bat of Harrenhal I see embroidered on your surcoat, ser?”

I don't think her heart was racing there because of Ned's "urgent lovemaking" ;)

Seriously though, her heart is racing and she believes being discovered like this has created an urgent decision to be made. This decision had to be made immediately like this if, and only if, she believed not doing so would cause an immediate consequence. Cat is honestly not a very impulsive person, nor would she just choose to go against Ned's order to head to Winterfell and call his bannermen, and thus, would not have taken Tyrion merely to secure some undefined advantage or charge him with murder as an aside. That she responds by arresting him and thinks that it must be immediate shows us she thought the repercussion of not doing this would have been an immediate disaster.

[Fauch]

Her heart racing doesn't necessarily mean she is afraid of being taken prisoner, which is exactly my point. I interpret it as she's about to take the gamble of taking Tyrion prisoner, not knowing how the people present at the inn will react. This is something very different from being afraid of her own safety.

Your interpretation is okay, nothing wrong with it, I just called you out over it, because it's a prime example of something which is most certainly not actual fact, but it's something which is more how you see what's happening, yet people (not referring to you specifically) always try to sell exactly those interpretations as facts, usually starting with sentences like "As everyone can see..." or "It's only logical that..." :cool4:

[butterbumps!]

Her heart racing doesn't necessarily mean she is afraid of being taken prisoner, which is exactly my point. I interpret it as she's about to take the gamble of taking Tyrion prisoner, not knowing how the people present at the inn will react. This is something very different from being afraid of her own safety.

What is your logical explanation for why she thinks this must be an immediate choice?

Look, if Cat's only incentive at that point was to arrest Tyrion, don't you think that she could have chased him down away from the inn with some of those bannermen? She doesn't see it merely as an opportunity for arrest. She thinks there is a danger to both herself and her family in Tyrion's recognizing her. I've only ever understood the immediacy she feels as a case where she felt the stakes were high because there was a small window of opportunity for her to walk away from this (from her POV).

The part that I'm emphasizing is her perceived need for immediacy. That is the important part of that passage, the part that is emphasized within the passage itself. Even within your interpretation-- that her heart is racing because she's unsure of how her bannermen will react-- points to the fact that she thought there was a chance she could be left high and dry by them, which implicitly means that she'd be vulnerable and unprotected against some repercussion that would follow. It's the combination of immediacy and adrenaline that shows us she believed she was compromised at that moment and was seizing a chance to remove that.

Your interpretation is okay, nothing wrong with it, I just called you out over it, because it's a prime example of something which is most certainly not actual fact, but it's something which is more how you see what's happening, yet people (not referring to you specifically) always try to sell exactly those interpretations as facts, usually starting with sentences like "As everyone can see..." or "It's only logical that..." :cool4:

I know you keep trying to "call me out" over it, but, truly, based on how that passage emphasizes the immediacy and heart pounding, combined with our having read 4 previous Cat chapters and can see that such a dramatic action is not something she would do on a whim, it is decidedly consistent to read it this way. Even your attempt to offer an "alternative" comes back to interpretation I posited, as shown above.

[corbon]

Back this up, please. And please, no more "it isn't in the books, but it would make sense" stuff.

With all due respect, the style Martin writes, anyone who can't read between the lines and make reasonable, supported assumptions and deductions is going to completely miss most of what goes on in these books and not have a clue.

As for what you say about Tywins strategy...unless he delivers one crushing victory after another, there is no way he can win against 4-5 other major houses. No. Way.

He's not supposed to be up against 4-5 other houses though.

He has the Westlands, thats a given. He has the crown and crownlands, so long as Robert doesn't get properly roused. That gives him a sizeable portion of the Stormlands, and by default the Reach and Dorne. The Vale is semi-neutralised - Jon Arryn is dead, his heir is a sickly child and his wife a paranoid loon - which he knows, even if the Starks don't. Its really just the Riverlands, historically indefensible, and teh North - far away and behind a bottleneck.

So he's really expecting it to be effectively Westlands with inactive support from the rest of the south vs the Riverlands and the North, whom he can smash piecemeal, each in turn.

Stannis is a political threat, but not much of a military one. His support base is actually owned by Robert, then Joffrey, and no one likes him. Renly and the Reach is unexpected I believe. I mean, what the hell is Renly doing getting involved? He's a little brother, not supposed to be a player at all!

Supposedly brilliant Tywin screwed the pooch in spades as far as running the war goes. Luckily for him, Robb pissed off his most important allies, and Littelfinger (who is not a Lannister ally in truth) delivered the Stormlands and Reach into his hands all unexpectedly... Oh, and Balon Greyjoy turned out to be yellow rather than Iron.

[juanml82]

Just a quick thought. Why is Tywin counting the honorable Ned Stark as the enemy of the lawful heir to the throne, who also happens to be his best friend's son and his daughter's fiancé -in a marriage that will make Sansa queen , unless Stannis usurps the throne?

[Father of Hosts]

Just a quick thought. Why is Tywin counting the honorable Ned Stark as the enemy of the lawful heir to the throne, who also happens to be his best friend's son and his daughter's fiancé -in a marriage that will make Sansa queen , unless Stannis usurps the throne?

If you assume Tywin does not know about the incest, then Ned is an enemy to the Lannister power base.

He would remove Joffrey from Lannister care and foster him, while assuming the regency, and booting the good queen out of KL. All while Tywin can only sit at Casterly Rock.

[Fauch]

Nope but I reall

With all due respect, the style Martin writes, anyone who can't read between the lines and make reasonable, supported assumptions and deductions is going to completely miss most of what goes on in these books and not have a clue.

He's not supposed to be up against 4-5 other houses though.

He has the Westlands, thats a given. He has the crown and crownlands, so long as Robert doesn't get properly roused. That gives him a sizeable portion of the Stormlands, and by default the Reach and Dorne. The Vale is semi-neutralised - Jon Arryn is dead, his heir is a sickly child and his wife a paranoid loon - which he knows, even if the Starks don't. Its really just the Riverlands, historically indefensible, and teh North - far away and behind a bottleneck.

So he's really expecting it to be effectively Westlands with inactive support from the rest of the south vs the Riverlands and the North, whom he can smash piecemeal, each in turn.

Stannis is a political threat, but not much of a military one. His support base is actually owned by Robert, then Joffrey, and no one likes him. Renly and the Reach is unexpected I believe. I mean, what the hell is Renly doing getting involved? He's a little brother, not supposed to be a player at all!

Supposedly brilliant Tywin screwed the pooch in spades as far as running the war goes. Luckily for him, Robb pissed off his most important allies, and Littelfinger (who is not a Lannister ally in truth) delivered the Stormlands and Reach into his hands all unexpectedly... Oh, and Balon Greyjoy turned out to be yellow rather than Iron.

Ugh. This makes little and less sense. Apparently Tywin thinks Stannis is the biggest threat, yet he doesn't consider him a military one? No, just no. In fact Stannis himself at least tries to rouse the Stormlords for himself, so them declaring for him isn't out of the question at all, else he probably wouldn't even have tried.

There's also a large difference between the war going badly for Tywin (even though he himself doesn't lose battles) and waging a war he has no chance of winning.

There are just too many assumptions in your post that have no basis in the book. Weren't you the guy who said naive readers never know better than the characters in Martin's book?

Everyone can read between the lines but people are going to reach different conclusions. That you apparently think everyone who doesn't come to your conclusion (the obvious one) shouldn't even talk is telling enough.

Just a quick thought. Why is Tywin counting the honorable Ned Stark as the enemy of the lawful heir to the throne, who also happens to be his best friend's son and his daughter's fiancé -in a marriage that will make Sansa queen , unless Stannis usurps the throne?

I raised that question before, "apparently" it is obvious to every reader that Ned, disliking the Lannisters, would declare for Stannis.

The part that I'm emphasizing is her perceived need for immediacy. That is the important part of that passage, the part that is emphasized within the passage itself. Even within your interpretation-- that her heart is racing because she's unsure of how her bannermen will react-- points to the fact that she thought there was a chance she could be left high and dry by them, which implicitly means that she'd be vulnerable and unprotected against some repercussion that would follow

Pure speculation on your part. How is it emphasized within the passage itself? If the men-at-arms flat out refuse her, what would the repercussion be? Honestly I don't see how you are trying to sell that this is a fact. Also even if repercussion - doesn't mean that Tyrion+his cook will kill her.

[butterbumps!]

Pure speculation on your part. How is it emphasized within the passage itself? If the men-at-arms flat out refuse her, what would the repercussion be? Honestly I don't see how you are trying to sell that this is a fact. Also even if repercussion - doesn't mean that Tyrion+his cook will kill her.

It's not speculation; it's an interpretation, and you haven't offered a counter interpretation that satisfies her adrenaline and her belief that action must be immediate, which is, unquestionably, present in that passage.

And the hyperbole isn't necessary; this isn't about Cat fearing "Tyrion and his cook." Tyrion + his cook + his actual bodyguard and any of the many sellswords from the inn that Cat notes when she comes that Tyrion could hire.

[Fauch]

Yes, exactly. An interpretation which doesn't mean it's a fact. I even admitted that the interpretation is a valid one, yet it is not the only one plausible. Really If I was in her shoes and taking someone prisoner (which Martin says is "dicey") my heart would probably pound as well. In fact it nearly comes to a fight when Tyrions bodyguard draws his sword - Even after the men-at-arms have declared for her, the situation is critical.

Her heart pounding can very well be interpreted that she knew she was doing something which wasn't a 100% "legal". Even if she is afraid that Tyrion might take her prisoner, the immediate threat is low, very low in fact. She is on her home turf and even though Tyrion might have found enough sellswords to carry this out, they would have most likely taken Cat+Rodrik on the road, and not in the Inn itself.

Even the immediacy is debatable - She says there is no time to think this through, yes. But if we are honest, if she thinks this through, she might sit there two days. What will Neds Reaction be? Roberts? How will the Lannisters react? Lysa Arryn? Will Tyrion reach for his sword? Will the men-at-arms take her side?

Of course if she wants to take Tyrion prisoner it must be there and now. Tyrion was probably going to leave the Inn early in the morning. Sure she could have tracked him down, but first of all this is impracticable and second of all the Kingsroad is a busy place - Tyrion might have well found company which would remove him out of Catelyns reach.

Now of course you can say you don't find my interpretation satisfactory and that is fine by me - no one said readers have to agree on everything.

[corbon]

Ugh. This makes little and less sense. Apparently Tywin thinks Stannis is the biggest threat, yet he doesn't consider him a military one? No, just no.

Yes. Stannis' threat isn't his personal military support, its the possibility that he might take control of the crown (and be supported by others in doing so). He is after all the adult male nearest in line to the crown, and actually the most appropriate regent for Joffrey Baratheon, who is still a child. Once (if) he does that, the Lannister's are on their own. They no longer can count on even the passive support of the Crownlands, the Stormlands, the Reach or Dorne.

Tywin's ability to be arrogant is based on his self-perceived control of the crown - through a passive Robert, easily pushed around by his wife, or the child Joffrey, who is 'controlled' by Cersei, not anyone else.

In fact Stannis himself at least tries to rouse the Stormlords for himself, so them declaring for him isn't out of the question at all, else he probably wouldn't even have tried.

You are talking about Stannis right? :stunned:

There's also a large difference between the war going badly for Tywin (even though he himself doesn't lose battles) and waging a war he has no chance of winning.

Huh?

When he initiates hostilities he only has to beat the Riverlands, which he does, then defeat the North when they come, which he thinks he will do with ease. Thats it. Everyone else is uninvolved or passively supporting the Lannisters through their control of the Crown. What is this 'no chance of winning'?

Everyone can read between the lines but people are going to reach different conclusions. That you apparently think everyone who doesn't come to your conclusion (the obvious one) shouldn't even talk is telling enough.

No, just that they should be able to back their interpretation up with textual support and reasonable arguments. Butterbumps is doing that better than me, but I'm feeding of her work for the most part. I don't have access to good searchables, for example.

[Fauch]

Yes. Stannis' threat isn't his personal military support, its the possibility that he might take control of the crown...

I don't know whether I should reply to this. In the Tyrion chapter after the battle at the green fork, where Tywin says he considers Stannis the biggest threat we can fin the following lines:

- "Stannis is building ships, Stannis is hiring sellswords, Stannis has brought a shadowbinder from Asshai"

-"She fears he (Joff) might insist on marching against Renly himself..... If he takes the watch he'll leave the city undefended. And with Lord Stannis on Dragonstone.."

Stannis military threat was real, very real.

No, just that they should be able to back their interpretation up with textual support and reasonable arguments. Butterbumps is doing that better than me, but I'm feeding of her work for the most part. I don't have access to good searchables, for example.

Yes, and what people like you do is simply call everything they disagree with unreasonable. Case closed.

[juanml82]

First, please do not ever compare the Catnap to 9-11, which was an actual, physical attack killing thousands in one fell swoop. Please drop that comparison. I would also like to point out that the attack on the Maine is another example of specific violence against a nation, and not an arrest like the Catnap.

Secondly, I fail to understand why it is Tyrion, not Ned's arrest you see as the "big trigger." I do not care one iota about paralleling our own history, as the world of ASOIAF gives us precedent to go by, and it does not suggest that an abduction/ arrest is a Franz Ferdinand type trigger. Aerys had several noblemen brought to KL and slain, and still this was not the big "trigger." Rhaegar eloped with/ abducted/ raped Lyanna, and still this was not the big "trigger." So given past examples of ASOIAF history, an arrest of a nobleman is not this "big trigger" as some abstract concept you are making it out to be.

Let's be honest. Most high Lords in the 7K don't give a damn about their smallfolk. 9-11 killed thousands, but for most Westerosi Lords, they would matter only because it's an afront to them. As for Lyanna's abduction and Aerys killing Starks, that's because Brandon and Rickard were were imbeciles. When the order comes to Jon Arryn, then it means war. And what do you think the Northern Lords were thinking? Oh, the King killed Brandon and Rickard Stark without a proper trial, but it's all good and dandy?

How can you keep insisting that Tywin was not preparing for war? Doesn't this go against everything we know about Tywin as a character?

As I said, if he was preparing for war against everyone else, then everything we know about Tywin as a character includes the fact that he is an idiot. He has to, as he can't win.

Where have I ever denied that Jaime injured Ned because of the Catnap? I said that Tywin responded by calling banners to the Catnap, but that the Catnap was not the only reason for his calling said banners. I have discussed Tywin's terrorist campaign at great length and, once again, the Catnap was not the only reason Tywin felt inspired to rape the Riverlands.

So, again, to pin everything on the Catnap doesn't work. Again, did the Catnap have consequences? Yes. Is what followed the inevitable conclusion and solely based on the Catnap? NO.

You see, you believe Tywin felt inspired to rape the Riverlands for other reasons (mainly, that the honorable Ned Stark was going to join Stannis to deny his king and friend' son and his own daughter the Iron Throne). But the bolded part isn't an SSM and isn't a fact stated in the books.

Do you have another explanation for why Cat believes that she has a split second to act when Tyrion recognizes her? Why do you think she's afraid and has to act immediately?

As Faust said, another plausible explanation is that she needed to seize the moment to make sure her father bannermen obey her in something that isn't exactly legal. In GRRM own words 'dicey'. What would happen if one of the most important nobles present in the Inn claim she has no right no make arrests in the Riverlands, nor to endanger them and invites Tirion to his holdfast, or to Riverrun, to clarify the situation? They may very well have every right to do so, because Catelyn's intent wasn't a clear cut legal arrest.

And she feels she has to arrest Tyrion right there because she feels she has the chance to arrest him and interrogate him before he arrives to KG and is surrounded by Lannister guards.

Now, is that, or any other, the motivation we can speculate upon the one and holy truth of what Martin had in his head but didn't put in writing? Well, we don't know. It is speculation. And, therefore, your post won't prevent the issue of the Catnapping to continue to be debated over and over again.

No, that's not what I was arguing. Cat knew war was coming. As we know, Ned's household guards were not enough to save him or their girls from becoming Lannister hostages. Having Tyrion would have been a form of insurance.

We know Ned household guards were not enough. I think it's safe to speculate both Ned and Cat felt otherwise, or they would have sent more guards, maybe asking Northern lords to contribute if 50 guards is everything Winterfell can provide.

Otherwise they have to be even more stupid than what we think they are.

Ironically, you accuse me of speculation, yet you refuse to accept a passage that is actually written in the text as proof of something because it goes against what you want to argue. To be honest, I think there is a chance that Varys might have connected that only to make Ned feel guilty, but that is speculation, and not how I'd ever interpreted the conversation. But, importantly, whether Cersei gave the order before or after Ned's mercy has no bearing on the position of the OP whatsoever.

Lysa claimed the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn and we later find out she was lying. We need to take everything Varys says with quite a few grains of salts. See the (f)Aegon debate.

Does the king usually sanction calling banners? Something tells me that Aerys didn't give his bannermen permission to call banners. And I think the big issue you're missing is that it's not calling the banners that's the huge problem. The issue is breaking the king's peace, which is what Tywin is trying to goad the Riverlords into doing.

And when Jon Arryn called his banners, it meant war. You don't call the banners for anything else than breaking the king's peace. Calling the banners isn't a parade, or a party. It's a major decission with major economic repercusions.

And you seriously don't think that Tywin was sitting at Casterly playing with kittens while Stannis was out raising troops, do you?

See below.

You've made a lot of points which are very complex, but I can show text support for this one.

From AFFC, Cersei I:

However, that still doesn't clarify the issue, as 'Ned's meddling' can be refer to every single time Robert had to choose between Cersei and Ned and chose Ned. Even more, Robert goes hunting after Ned awakes from his injuries. Since Ned claims Catelyn arrested the imp on his orders, 'Ned's meddling' can refer to the Catnapp instead of the incest chat.

We also have Cersei's discussion with Robert prior to the melee. If Varys is telling the truth, then Cersei decided to kill Robert before the incest chat. If he's lying, she was actually trying to keep Robert safe for the time being during the tournament.

With all due respect, the style Martin writes, anyone who can't read between the lines and make reasonable, supported assumptions and deductions is going to completely miss most of what goes on in these books and not have a clue.

He's not supposed to be up against 4-5 other houses though.

He has the Westlands, thats a given. He has the crown and crownlands, so long as Robert doesn't get properly roused. That gives him a sizeable portion of the Stormlands, and by default the Reach and Dorne. The Vale is semi-neutralised - Jon Arryn is dead, his heir is a sickly child and his wife a paranoid loon - which he knows, even if the Starks don't. Its really just the Riverlands, historically indefensible, and teh North - far away and behind a bottleneck.

So he's really expecting it to be effectively Westlands with inactive support from the rest of the south vs the Riverlands and the North, whom he can smash piecemeal, each in turn.

Stannis is a political threat, but not much of a military one. His support base is actually owned by Robert, then Joffrey, and no one likes him. Renly and the Reach is unexpected I believe. I mean, what the hell is Renly doing getting involved? He's a little brother, not supposed to be a player at all!

Supposedly brilliant Tywin screwed the pooch in spades as far as running the war goes. Luckily for him, Robb pissed off his most important allies, and Littelfinger (who is not a Lannister ally in truth) delivered the Stormlands and Reach into his hands all unexpectedly... Oh, and Balon Greyjoy turned out to be yellow rather than Iron.

Tywin probably knew Renly was plotting with the Tyrells - Cersei was afraid of this and probably told him as much. He knows Lysa is a paranoid loon, but that doesn't mean her paranoia doesn't cause her to send most of the streght of the Vale to the war. It's actually LF who makes her remain neutral, and Tywin can't know about this.

So, assuming Robert dies, Tywin ought to count the Stormlands and the Reach as their enemies. Supposedly, he also needs to count the North and maybe the Riverlands and the Vale as enemies as well (I don't think so, see below). Dorne and the Iron Islands can join against him as well. They aren't exactly good odds.

But if Stannis was to attack while Robert lived, then it's the Greyjoy Rebellion all over again. Stannis would be attacking the King, so he has to at least have the Westerlands, the North, the Crownlands, portions of the Stormlands, the Riverlands and maybe the Vale. The Reach, Dorne and the Iron Islands are wild cards, as far as Tywin knows, in the event Stannis is getting ready to attack his brother.

The thing is: Stannis believes the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn and would kill Robert in due time. Tywin probably believes the Lannisters didn't kill Jon Arryn, doesn't know about the incest, might know Cersei plans to kill Robert, can't tell for sure if Stannis belives the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn and can not possibly be sure Stannis belives the Lannisters would kill Robert.

So, regarding Tywin plans, how does he think Stannis is planning to attack King's Landing the moment Robert dies? Why wouldn't he believe there is the chance Stannis will rebel against his brother, in which case Stannis would face a very large oposition?

If you assume Tywin does not know about the incest, then Ned is an enemy to the Lannister power base.

He would remove Joffrey from Lannister care and foster him, while assuming the regency, and booting the good queen out of KL. All while Tywin can only sit at Casterly Rock.

Winter is coming. With it, the Realm's productivity will go down, causing the Crown's income to go down as well, while the debt interest isn't going down. At the same time, either the Crown or the Lords might need to borrow money to buy food from the Free Cities. Enter Tywin Lannister, who would be very happy to provide a competitive interest rate to finance the Crown, as long as Cersei remains in KL and Lannister influence doesn't wane.

Ned can't remove Joffrey from KL, since he's the king, if underage. Even more, Joffrey is Cersei's creature and Ned's tenure as regent would only last four years. Once Joffrey is of age, Ned has to retreat so his son in law begins to exert his power. In other words, Ned's regency is a transition period. And during that transition period, Northern lances are helping to hold Joffrey in the throne - as well as later on, thanks to Sansa.

Cersei is the one who would reject Ned's position, because she's unwilling to ally herself to anyone else than Tywin and Jaime. But to any reasonable man who ignores the incest (or that Ned can find out about it), the Starks are perfect allies of convenience. Not only Ned's honour forces him to stand by Joffrey, but the marriage with Sansa brings icing on the cake. Even if Tywin knew about the incest during AGOT (and it seems he didn't), most people would have sided with Joffrey in Ned's position.

Also keep in mind Tywin doesn't know Ned and Cat blame the Lannisters for Bran's fall, which seems to be an accident to everyone who wasn't involved. He doesn't know there was an attempt on Bran's life and much less than LF implicated Tyrion on it, unless Varys chose to tell him. He doesn't know who, if anyone at all, killed Jon Arryn, even if he knows Pycelle chose to let him die. Even if Cat doesn't arrest Tyrion and he learns that Catelyn is travelling through the Kingsroad in disguise, he can not possible know why. He knows Ned doesn't like him but that didn't stop Ned calling his banners to help him during the Greyjoy Rebellion. And Tywin isn't the sort of leader who cares if other people like him.

As far as Tywin (and not the readers) know, it's safe to think Tywin counts Ned, and by extension the Riverlands, as potential allies against Stannis instead of enemies.

It's not speculation; it's an interpretation, and you haven't offered a counter interpretation that satisfies her adrenaline and her belief that action must be immediate, which is, unquestionably, present in that passage.

And the hyperbole isn't necessary; this isn't about Cat fearing "Tyrion and his cook." Tyrion + his cook + his actual bodyguard and any of the many sellswords from the inn that Cat notes when she comes that Tyrion could hire.

And, as you disregarded, if the issue are the sellswords, Cat can hire all of them for a few days. That is also speculation, but you don't like it, so you ignore it.

Yes. Stannis' threat isn't his personal military support, its the possibility that he might take control of the crown (and be supported by others in doing so). He is after all the adult male nearest in line to the crown, and actually the most appropriate regent for Joffrey Baratheon, who is still a child. Once (if) he does that, the Lannister's are on their own. They no longer can count on even the passive support of the Crownlands, the Stormlands, the Reach or Dorne.

Tywin's ability to be arrogant is based on his self-perceived control of the crown - through a passive Robert, easily pushed around by his wife, or the child Joffrey, who is 'controlled' by Cersei, not anyone else.

You are talking about Stannis right? :stunned:

Huh?

When he initiates hostilities he only has to beat the Riverlands, which he does, then defeat the North when they come, which he thinks he will do with ease. Thats it. Everyone else is uninvolved or passively supporting the Lannisters through their control of the Crown. What is this 'no chance of winning'?

No, just that they should be able to back their interpretation up with textual support and reasonable arguments. Butterbumps is doing that better than me, but I'm feeding of her work for the most part. I don't have access to good searchables, for example.

He can not count on the Vale remaining neutral. He can not count on Stannis killing Renly with a shadowbaby and Tyrion and LF forging an alliance with the Tyrells. He can not count on the Greyjoys invading the North. He can not count on Robb alienating the Freys. He shouldn't count on Dorne remaining outside the war. He can not count of the Redwyne twins turning into hostages, keeping the Redwynes out of the war.

Lord Redwyne alone could have wrecked his war effort by sacking the Westerlands by sea when he was engaged in the Riverlands.

[butterbumps!]

Let's be honest. Most high Lords in the 7K don't give a damn about their smallfolk. 9-11 killed thousands, but for most Westerosi Lords, they would matter only because it's an afront to them. As for Lyanna's abduction and Aerys killing Starks, that's because Brandon and Rickard were were imbeciles. When the order comes to Jon Arryn, then it means war. And what do you think the Northern Lords were thinking? Oh, the King killed Brandon and Rickard Stark without a proper trial, but it's all good and dandy?

I get that you are trying to show incendiary events that clearly trigger conflict, but your appeal to 911 as a similar event is both incorrect as a parallel and in very poor taste, which is why I asked you to drop it. You're trying to justify it by saying the lords wouldn't care about smallfolk is even less to the point. To make that example work, Cat would have had to hijack Lannister dragons, then run them into Casterly Rock and Lannisport, leveling both. Do you understand why bringing 911 as a "trigger" for war into this is absurd hyperbole? You should stick only to Franz in terms of externally valid comparisons, because that's the only one that can be reasonably argued.

The Franz parallel still doesn't explain why it is necessary that the Catnap is seen by readers as the event that triggered the war in the same way. I think both the defenestration of Bran and Ned's arrest were both more devastating in the course of events. Specifically, Ned's arrest is what sets off the powder keg. There is no reason-- conceptually or based on the text-- that says we must view the Catnap as the "trigger" for everything. If you insist this is the case, then that is your interpretation, not merely "the way it is," and I believe myself and a few others have shown more convincingly why Ned's arrest is more of this sort of "trigger" than you have wrt Catnap.

As I said, if he was preparing for war against everyone else, then everything we know about Tywin as a character includes the fact that he is an idiot. He has to, as he can't win.

So, now this is the second time in this post that you've explained your position by just calling a character in question an 'idiot." As it happens, I do not believe that Tywin is any sort of a mastermind, but we do know enough about him to understand he's not an "idiot." Certaintly not in terms of scheming against enemies (I think he's less capable at winning and keeping friends than he is at destroying his enemies).

Let's say that you are in Tywin's shoes. He has the Westerlands, but he knows that Stannis is raising forces at Dragonstone just outside of KL. He knows that Renly is trying to replace Cersei with the Tyrells. He knows that Ned harbors severe anti-Lannister sentiment and has a fierce loyalty to Robert. Ned is married to the Tullys, and there is also a Tully-Vale alliance through marriage.

Now, given what we know of Tywin-- that he uses brutal force to eliminate enemies swiftly, and uses these swift beat-downs to intimidate others into compliance-- it is absolutely in Tywin's MO that he would not wait for all of these potential allies to come together and rise against him. Stannis is dormant, and as the text points out, the "real" threat from the "beginning." It is, in fact, in Tywin's best interest to swiftly neutralize the Riverlands, intimidate the Vale into staying neutral, and eliminate Ned (through capture) to prevent the North from rising against him. That way he can concentrate his forces at KL against Stannis.

You see, you believe Tywin felt inspired to rape the Riverlands for other reasons (mainly, that the honorable Ned Stark was going to join Stannis to deny his king and friend' son and his own daughter the Iron Throne). But the bolded part isn't an SSM and isn't a fact stated in the books.

I suspect that Tywin might have been planning something like what we see prior to the Catnap, but I did say this was merely a suspicion, and I did not use that suspicion to support anything I wrote in the OP.

You are also missing the point of this. You reject the idea that Tywin was plotting from the moment he knew Stannis had left. You seem to also reject the idea that Tywin would be made uncomfortable by Ned's being made Hand in light of this. You are also grossly misreading what I've been saying about Tywin's suspicions about Ned in this. I'm going to bold it this time.

When Stannis leaves KL, no one knows what he plans to do. No one knew that he was planning to take the throne for himself. No one knew he was going to crown himself and depose Joffrey. For all Tywin knew, Stannis was raising forces to oust Cersei from power, and try to rule as Joffrey's Regent. Again, Tywin did NOT know that Stannis knew about the incest and would challenge Joffrey's claim. It seems the most likely that Tywin assumed Stannis wanted to get the Lannisters (Cersei) out of KL in order to rule through Joffrey. This idea would be corroborated by Renly's scheme to replace Cersei with Marg, which has nothing to do with usurping the throne, and everything to do with getting rid of Cersei specifically. Ned, who has always hated the Lannisters, and Tywin in particular, would likely ally with Stannis and Renly to oust Cersei from Tywin's POV. This has nothing to do with denying Robert's "son" as king, or usurpation of any sort. It is entirely reasonable for Tywin to believe that Ned would ally to flush Lannister influence from KL.

As Faust said, another plausible explanation is that she needed to seize the moment to make sure her father bannermen obey her in something that isn't exactly legal. In GRRM own words 'dicey'. What would happen if one of the most important nobles present in the Inn claim she has no right no make arrests in the Riverlands, nor to endanger them and invites Tirion to his holdfast, or to Riverrun, to clarify the situation? They may very well have every right to do so, because Catelyn's intent wasn't a clear cut legal arrest.

And she feels she has to arrest Tyrion right there because she feels she has the chance to arrest him and interrogate him before he arrives to KG and is surrounded by Lannister guards.

This is an extremely weak interpretation. Why does it follow that her perceived need for immediacy is an issue of legality? Why would a bannerman to the Tullys "invite" Tyrion to Riverrun for sanctuary? Even embedded within your interpretation is the underlying current that Cat believes she will be compromised if she doesn't seize Tyrion immediately. Even if we go with your second interpretation-- that "she has the chance to arrest him and interrogate him before he arrives to KG and is surrounded by Lannister guards"-- where is the immediacy in this? Could she not just chase after him as he runs toward KL if she felt he posed no danger?

There might be an alternate interpretation to the one I presented and always understood, but the alternative you present isn't actually an alternative in the sense that your first one actually supports mine in terms of the underlying feeling of immediate compromise, and the second you present is sloppy. I'll reconsider this if someone offers a truly reasonable interpretation of that passage.

Now, is that, or any other, the motivation we can speculate upon the one and holy truth of what Martin had in his head but didn't put in writing? Well, we don't know. It is speculation. And, therefore, your post won't prevent the issue of the Catnapping to continue to be debated over and over again.

You're confusing "speculation" with "interpretation." I don't think this is a case where we must make an educated guess. I'm saying that the passage in question is sufficient to make a call on this, and that it comes down to an interpretation of the the chapter.

We know Ned household guards were not enough. I think it's safe to speculate both Ned and Cat felt otherwise, or they would have sent more guards, maybe asking Northern lords to contribute if 50 guards is everything Winterfell can provide.

Otherwise they have to be even more stupid than what we think they are.

Look, the issue of households guards was originally brought up as a tangent, and this has nothing to do with the actual Catnap. Household guards are beside the point. The important issue is that if Ned and the girls became hostages in KL, their lives would be insured by Cat's holding Tyrion. That's how noble hostages work. Having Tyrion meant she could make a trade. This is assuming that the situation becomes more critical than anything any number of household guards could mitigate.

Lysa claimed the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn and we later find out she was lying. We need to take everything Varys says with quite a few grains of salts. See the (f)Aegon debate.

So, in order to prove that Varys is lying in this instance, you give an example of Lysa lying? Surely you can do better than this. Moving on, as it happens, I am more than aware that everything Varys says should be taken 2 ways: Varys doesn't lie, but rather speaks in "technical truths." For example, when he talks to Ned about Arryn's poisoner, he says “There was one boy. All he was, he owed Jon Arryn, but when the widow fled to the Eyrie with her household, he stayed in King’s Landing and prospered. It always gladdens my heart to see the young rise in the world.” Ned thinks Varys is referring to Hugh, Arryn's squire, but Varys is actually telling the truth and is talking about Littlefinger. We see this sort of "technical truth" and half-truth repeatedly in Varys' character; he doesn't tell outright lies. For this reason, I actually do believe Varys when he reveals that Ned's confrontation sped things along.

This really has nothing to do with the Catnap, though.

And when Jon Arryn called his banners, it meant war. You don't call the banners for anything else than breaking the king's peace. Calling the banners isn't a parade, or a party. It's a major decission with major economic repercusions.

So what? As others and I have explained, the banners were going to be called anyway. My point is that there were reasons for calling the banners that had nothing to do with the Catnap. You are positing that the Catnap is the SOLE reason for calling the banners, without which, the banners would not have been called. This is patently incorrect. We are trying to show that the Catnap is one of multiple reasons the banners were called, not this single event that changed everything you keep trying to insist it is.

See below.

And see BtC's posts, which admirably demolished what you're trying to argue about that.

And, as you disregarded, if the issue are the sellswords, Cat can hire all of them for a few days. That is also speculation, but you don't like it, so you ignore it.

What? When have I ignored this? ffs, Cat does hire some sellswords. Bronn is first employed by Cat not Tyrion.