I’ve discussed this scenario in exhaustive detail in my ACOK recaps (Catelyn II through IV are a good bet, plus Tyrion VIII on) and in my archives here.
Author: stevenattewell
Politics of the Seven Kingdoms: The Reach (Part I)
Politics of the Seven Kingdoms: The Reach (Part I)
credit to ser-other-in-law Hey folks, so this essay is looking like it’s going to be as long as the Westerlands essay if not longer, so I decided to pre-emptively break it up into pieces so it’s easier to read (and write, to be honest). Part I covers the geography and prehistory of the Reach, Part II will cover the rise of House Gardener and the construction of the Reach as a polity, Part III…
Who calls his child “Unwin”? Seriously? No Doylist crap, just is there some way? Even if you’re someone who wants to be discreet or unambitious, Un-win seems to exceed way too much that thing? Happy day “Unwinning” if you get what I mean xD
It’s a real name, and I have to say, it’s pretty badass in its origin:
“This interesting and unusual name, with variant spelling “Hunwin”, derives from the Olde English pre 7th Century personal name “Hunwine”, a compound of the elements “hun” bearcub, plus “wine”, friend, hence “bear-friend”. Later in the Olde English or early Middle English period, this name, due to the loss of the “h”, came to be confused with the word “unwine” meaning “unfriend” or “enemy”
Bear-Friend is kind of awesome, you have to admit. And even the later version, well…”Apache” means enemy in the language of their neighbors, so there’s a certain cachet in adopting it right off the bat.
So Maester Steven do you mind clarifying some of what you said about he battle of the blackwater and the battle fo the Fords? Someone on Reddit is making the case that ultimately Tywins presence at the Blackwater didn’t really matter, Stannis was too outnumbered for Tywins presence to matter, and ultimately Robb was always doomed by the alliance with the Tyrells. I was wondering how you respond to this claim.
Yup. I love Edmure as much as anybody, but he fucked up badly at the Fords, let’s not try and retcon the Blackwater to make it seem otherwise.
I’m not sure I’m comfortable calling what Edmure did at the Fords a fuckup. If Robb wanted him to hold Riverrun and let Tywin’s army pass west peacefully, he should have actually ordered Edmure to do that.
He did not. He only ordered Edmure to hold Riverrun. Edmure did that in the most intelligent way possible; by conducting a defense in depth using a nearby natural barrier. It can be argued that he exceeded his orders, but if Robb wants to conduct a finely tuned campaign over hundreds of miles with uncertain communications (at best) with his far-flung army, especially when that army is a feudal construct where individual commanders are used, by habit, to a large amount of independence and leeway, his orders actually have to be specific.
Edmure’s greatest crime at the Fords is failing to read Robb’s mind.
Strongly disagree. Tywin wasn’t attacking Riverrun, he was leaving the Riverlands behind in response to Robb’s attack on the west. All Edmure needed to do was hold the castle itself, not a huge expanse of the river. Moreover, there’s no way to spin what Edmure did as following Robb’s orders. Did Robb order Edmure to have Roose Bolton take Harrenhal, leaving the Twins unoccupied? Hell, did Robb give Edmure the authority to do that? Nope. Look at how GRRM writes Edmure in the relevant chapters: desperate to win his father’s approval via glory on the battlefield. This isn’t about the broader picture of the war, it’s about proving himself. Which is sympathetic, sure, but it’s a very bad motivation for a commanding officer. Edmure is a subordinate commander. He was given specific orders. He did not follow them, because he wanted to make Dad proud. I love him, but he fucked up, full stop.
Tywin wasn’t attacking Riverrun, he was leaving the Riverlands behind in response to Robb’s attack on the west.
Edmure doesn’t know that. He can make an educated guess as to that being Tywin’s goal but he can’t be sure. Even Catelyn, who is the most skeptical of Edmure’s plan, is worried that Riverrun is going to come under siege very soon as Tywin moves west.
All Edmure needed to do was hold the castle itself, not a huge expanse of the river.
Then why didn’t Robb order him to do so?
Seriously. Why weren’t Robb’s orders to Edmure “Hold Riverrun and do not meet Lord Tywin in the field; you are not to offer battle under any circumstances.” If Edmure not engaging Tywin is so important, so vital, to Robb’s plans, why has Robb not given him explicit orders?
Especially considering that, again, this is a feudal army in which individual commanders expect, and are expected, to exercise initiative and independence in their commands, owing to the fact that it can take weeks to get fresh orders. Example: neither Robb Stark nor Edmure ordered Roose Bolton to occupy the Ruby Ford after Twin withdrew from it. But he did it anyway, and he had every right to do so.
Did Robb order Edmure to have Roose Bolton take Harrenhal, leaving the Twins unoccupied? Hell, did Robb give Edmure the authority to do that? Nope.
I would say that this is unclear. Robb is rip-roaringly angry at Edmure, but he never claims that Edmure was issuing orders he didn’t have a right to issue. I don’t think Edmure was issuing orders under Robb’s seal or anything; he was issuing them on his own recognizance, and even the northmen obeyed them. Helman Tallhart didn’t write back to Riverrun saying “sure, I’ll march as soon as I get something with Robb’s seal on it; I’m not one of your bannermen, I only take orders from the King in the North” so one can infer that Edmure has authority over the command and disposition of the forces in the Riverlands while Robb is in the west. Indeed, I would say if Robb didn’t appoint someone to overall command in the Riverlands when he was in the west, Robb committed a major fuckup, because he cannot be expected to exercise effective command over that theater while conducting a lightning campaign in the Westerlands.
I suppose there’s a chance Edmure was claiming the orders came from Robb, but if that were the case I think Robb would have been much, much more angry at the lie than Edmure was.
Edmure is a subordinate commander. He was given specific orders.
He did not follow them,No, he wasn’t. He absolutely was not. He was only ordered to hold Riverrun. He was given no specifics as to anything else. By your logic, doing literally anything but hunkering down inside of Riverrun’s walls counts as “not following orders.” And that’s just insane.
If Edmure had actually abandoned Riverrun to, say, meet Tywin under the walls of Harrenhal, he can be said to have not followed his orders. Meeting Tywin at the fords and bleeding him there cannot be said to be. Again: if it is so very, vitally, impossibly important that Tywin be allowed to march west for Robbs plans, then Robb needs to issue clear, precise orders to that effect.
I’m sorry, but I’m with PoorQuentyn here: Edmure is told to hold Riverrun. Riverrun is a castle. Edmure does not do this, he decides to hold a front that stretches hundreds of miles all the way up and down the Red Fork and the Tumblestone, he orders Roose Bolton to seize Harrenhal, he moves Robb’s troops out of the Twins, all as part of a larger scheme to trap Tywin “caught between Riverrun and Harrenhal” and “finish him for good and all.“ This isn’t a defense of Riverrun, this is an attempt to win the War of Five Kings by his lonesome.
And as @poorquentyn points out, we’re given tons of hints about why Edmure does these things: he’s embarrassed about having been beaten so badly by the Lannisters and having to be rescued by Robb Stark, he knows he’s about to inherit Riverrun with a bad reputation and wants to redeem himself in the eyes of his bannermen, he wants to make his father proud before he dies after so many failed attempts to do the same, etc. If Edmure didn’t screw up, why would GRRM go to the effort of writing motives for screwing up?
Hell, I’ll go one step further and point out there’s a narrative imperative for Edmure screwing up: in order for the Red Wedding to happen, there needs to be a bridegroom and Robb is already married. Edmure is the only plausible candidate, but he needs a reason to agree – penance for his error at the Battle of the Fords.
Without Tywin showing up, Mace Tyrell doesn’t leave Tumbler’s Falls and the Tyrells never show up to the Battle of Blackwater – there’s a political deal on the table, but Mace needs Tywin to sign on the dotted line or he’s not going to move. (If you doubt me on this, see the first siege of Storm’s End)
And what people forget about the Blackwater is how important, and how fine-grained, timing was in that battle: Tyrion had fallen, the Gold Cloaks had broken, and Stannis’ men were prepping to get on boats and rafts and trans-ship to the northern bank when Tywin and the Tyrells arrived in the nick of time. Delay their arrival by even an hour or two, and Stannis takes the city.
Edmure is told to hold Riverrun. Riverrun is a castle. Edmure does not
do this, he decides to hold a front that stretches hundreds of miles all
the way up and down the Red Fork and the Tumblestone, he orders Roose
Bolton to seize Harrenhal, he moves Robb’s troops out of the Twins, all
as part of a larger scheme to trap Tywin “caught between Riverrun and Harrenhal” and “finish him for good and all.” This isn’t a defense of Riverrun, this is an attempt to win the War of Five Kings by his lonesome.But none of this actually impairs the defense of Riverrun.
I’m finding this logic baffling, both on your parts and on PoorQuentyn’s. Apparently commanders aren’t supposed to demonstrate any kind of initiative. At all. Ever. If they’re given an order they’re supposed to hew to it in the most literal way possible, and never consider context or developing opportunities or anything else. This doesn’t at all fit the context of Westerosi warmaking we see anywhere else in the novels or in the histories, where you are expected to obey your orders but you are also considered to have a hell of a lot of leeway as to how you do it.
Edmure is exceeding his orders but he isn’t violating them. And this, frankly, is some small-ball exceeding; “I’m going to not let Tywin get anywhere near me, while also never putting the castle in any kind of danger” is about as banal as you can get.
Also, the assumption is apparently that Edmure didn’t have any authority over the Riverlands? Like, at all? When Robb went into the west he didn’t give anyone theater command?
As for his motivations, I really don’t care in this context. His actions are clearly being driven by other considerations than cold-blooded tactics and strategy, but that doesn’t mean he’s ignoring tactics and strategy entirely, nor that his actions are transparently and egregiously wrong.
I didn’t say that he was violating his orders. No one’s said that.
But the argument that Edmure wasn’t exceeding his orders runs aground on the fact that Robb Stark and Brynden Tully both say he did, and they’re definitely educated in the history and culture of Westerosi warmaking more than any of us are. (I would also point to Robb’s utter bafflement and fury when he hears about Duskendale to be evidence that no, a subordinate commander cannot just do whatever they want.)
It also runs aground on the fact that several of Edmure’s orders don’t involve the defense of Riverrun at all – namely the taking of Harrenhal by Roose Bolton. After all, Tywin’s marched more than 250 miles west from Harrenhal and has fully committed his army to the fight at the Fords, so it’s not like the fall of Harrenhal is going to make him turn around or split his army or any other military outcome germane to the defense of Riverrun. Moreover, the taking of Harrenhal is not a small-ball operation, either. Edmure is moving 10,000 men, all of Robb’s Northern infantry, to attack one of the most formidable castles in all of Westeros.
If a subordinate officer giving orders to the vast bulk of Robb’s forces in order to enact a brand-new strategy aimed at nothing less than the complete defeat of the enemy doesn’t count as exceeding one’s orders, then nothing does.
“(If you doubt me on this, see the first siege of Storm’s End)” What did you meant by that?
During Robert’s Rebellion, Mace Tyrell put Storm’s End under siege and maintained the siege until the end of the war. While most fandom focus on the Siege has been on Stannis and the people inside the walls, it’s important to think about Mace and the people outside the walls:
- Mace put Storm’s End under siege rather than pursue Robert Baratheon into the Riverlands, forcing Jon Connington to personally take the field to try to run down the Stormlander army.
- He kept Storm’s End under siege even when Connington was beaten at the Battle of the Bells and the rebel hosts of the Starks, Tullys, Arryns, and Baratheons united.
- He kept Storm’s End under siege even after Rhaegar returned and marched to the Trident.
- He kept Storm’s End under siege even after Rhaegar was defeated at the Trident, and nothing stood between the rebels and King’s Landing.
Does anyone think that Lord Merryweather, Lord Connington, Lord Chelsted, or the King didn’t send letters in all that time, asking the largest contingent of loyalists in all of Westeros to come to the defense of the king? Pointing out that Mace could easily divide his enormous host and still keep Storm’s End under siege while making a decisive turn in the war by giving the loyalists a numerical advantage over the rebel host?
Mace stayed at Storm’s End because it was safe, because he is by nature a cautious and conservative man. It’s the same reason that, when Renly was marching on King’s Landing with a massive, seemingly unbeatable host, Mace stayed behind at Highgarden with 10,000 men to keep him safe and stayed there while Randyll Tarly sorted things out at Bitterbridge, and then went to Bitterbridge once things were safe.
So in a moment of profound uncertainty, with his daughter having been wed to a dead rebel and the Reach politically divided, is Mace Tyrell going to attack Stannis Baratheon on his lonesome, with only the word of Petyr Baelish as surety that he’ll get what he wants after?
No. Because that’s not what happens. Mace stays at Bitterbridge while Baelish sends riders to get Tywin to force-march down to the Reach and sign onto the deal while there’s still time. And as a result of those riders and Tywin’s speedy arrival, they arrive just in the nick of time.
But any delay, even by an hour or two, means the Battle of Blackwater would have been lost.
So Maester Steven do you mind clarifying some of what you said about he battle of the blackwater and the battle fo the Fords? Someone on Reddit is making the case that ultimately Tywins presence at the Blackwater didn’t really matter, Stannis was too outnumbered for Tywins presence to matter, and ultimately Robb was always doomed by the alliance with the Tyrells. I was wondering how you respond to this claim.
Yup. I love Edmure as much as anybody, but he fucked up badly at the Fords, let’s not try and retcon the Blackwater to make it seem otherwise.
I’m not sure I’m comfortable calling what Edmure did at the Fords a fuckup. If Robb wanted him to hold Riverrun and let Tywin’s army pass west peacefully, he should have actually ordered Edmure to do that.
He did not. He only ordered Edmure to hold Riverrun. Edmure did that in the most intelligent way possible; by conducting a defense in depth using a nearby natural barrier. It can be argued that he exceeded his orders, but if Robb wants to conduct a finely tuned campaign over hundreds of miles with uncertain communications (at best) with his far-flung army, especially when that army is a feudal construct where individual commanders are used, by habit, to a large amount of independence and leeway, his orders actually have to be specific.
Edmure’s greatest crime at the Fords is failing to read Robb’s mind.
Strongly disagree. Tywin wasn’t attacking Riverrun, he was leaving the Riverlands behind in response to Robb’s attack on the west. All Edmure needed to do was hold the castle itself, not a huge expanse of the river. Moreover, there’s no way to spin what Edmure did as following Robb’s orders. Did Robb order Edmure to have Roose Bolton take Harrenhal, leaving the Twins unoccupied? Hell, did Robb give Edmure the authority to do that? Nope. Look at how GRRM writes Edmure in the relevant chapters: desperate to win his father’s approval via glory on the battlefield. This isn’t about the broader picture of the war, it’s about proving himself. Which is sympathetic, sure, but it’s a very bad motivation for a commanding officer. Edmure is a subordinate commander. He was given specific orders. He did not follow them, because he wanted to make Dad proud. I love him, but he fucked up, full stop.
Tywin wasn’t attacking Riverrun, he was leaving the Riverlands behind in response to Robb’s attack on the west.
Edmure doesn’t know that. He can make an educated guess as to that being Tywin’s goal but he can’t be sure. Even Catelyn, who is the most skeptical of Edmure’s plan, is worried that Riverrun is going to come under siege very soon as Tywin moves west.
All Edmure needed to do was hold the castle itself, not a huge expanse of the river.
Then why didn’t Robb order him to do so?
Seriously. Why weren’t Robb’s orders to Edmure “Hold Riverrun and do not meet Lord Tywin in the field; you are not to offer battle under any circumstances.” If Edmure not engaging Tywin is so important, so vital, to Robb’s plans, why has Robb not given him explicit orders?
Especially considering that, again, this is a feudal army in which individual commanders expect, and are expected, to exercise initiative and independence in their commands, owing to the fact that it can take weeks to get fresh orders. Example: neither Robb Stark nor Edmure ordered Roose Bolton to occupy the Ruby Ford after Twin withdrew from it. But he did it anyway, and he had every right to do so.
Did Robb order Edmure to have Roose Bolton take Harrenhal, leaving the Twins unoccupied? Hell, did Robb give Edmure the authority to do that? Nope.
I would say that this is unclear. Robb is rip-roaringly angry at Edmure, but he never claims that Edmure was issuing orders he didn’t have a right to issue. I don’t think Edmure was issuing orders under Robb’s seal or anything; he was issuing them on his own recognizance, and even the northmen obeyed them. Helman Tallhart didn’t write back to Riverrun saying “sure, I’ll march as soon as I get something with Robb’s seal on it; I’m not one of your bannermen, I only take orders from the King in the North” so one can infer that Edmure has authority over the command and disposition of the forces in the Riverlands while Robb is in the west. Indeed, I would say if Robb didn’t appoint someone to overall command in the Riverlands when he was in the west, Robb committed a major fuckup, because he cannot be expected to exercise effective command over that theater while conducting a lightning campaign in the Westerlands.
I suppose there’s a chance Edmure was claiming the orders came from Robb, but if that were the case I think Robb would have been much, much more angry at the lie than Edmure was.
Without Tywin showing up, Mace Tyrell doesn’t leave Tumbler’s Falls and the Tyrells never show up to the Battle of Blackwater – there’s a political deal on the table, but Mace needs Tywin to sign on the dotted line or he’s not going to move. (If you doubt me on this, see the first siege of Storm’s End)
And what people forget about the Blackwater is how important, and how fine-grained, timing was in that battle: Tyrion had fallen, the Gold Cloaks had broken, and Stannis’ men were prepping to get on boats and rafts and trans-ship to the northern bank when Tywin and the Tyrells arrived in the nick of time. Delay their arrival by even an hour or two, and Stannis takes the city.
Edmure is a subordinate commander. He was given specific orders.
He did not follow them,No, he wasn’t. He absolutely was not. He was only ordered to hold Riverrun. He was given no specifics as to anything else. By your logic, doing literally anything but hunkering down inside of Riverrun’s walls counts as “not following orders.” And that’s just insane.
If Edmure had actually abandoned Riverrun to, say, meet Tywin under the walls of Harrenhal, he can be said to have not followed his orders. Meeting Tywin at the fords and bleeding him there cannot be said to be. Again: if it is so very, vitally, impossibly important that Tywin be allowed to march west for Robbs plans, then Robb needs to issue clear, precise orders to that effect.
I’m sorry, but I’m with PoorQuentyn here: Edmure is told to hold Riverrun. Riverrun is a castle. Edmure does not do this, he decides to hold a front that stretches hundreds of miles all the way up and down the Red Fork and the Tumblestone, he orders Roose Bolton to seize Harrenhal, he moves Robb’s troops out of the Twins, all as part of a larger scheme to trap Tywin “caught between Riverrun and Harrenhal” and “finish him for good and all." This isn’t a defense of Riverrun, this is an attempt to win the War of Five Kings by his lonesome.
And as @poorquentyn points out, we’re given tons of hints about why Edmure does these things: he’s embarrassed about having been beaten so badly by the Lannisters and having to be rescued by Robb Stark, he knows he’s about to inherit Riverrun with a bad reputation and wants to redeem himself in the eyes of his bannermen, he wants to make his father proud before he dies after so many failed attempts to do the same, etc. If Edmure didn’t screw up, why would GRRM go to the effort of writing motives for screwing up?
Hell, I’ll go one step further and point out there’s a narrative imperative for Edmure screwing up: in order for the Red Wedding to happen, there needs to be a bridegroom and Robb is already married. Edmure is the only plausible candidate, but he needs a reason to agree – penance for his error at the Battle of the Fords.
So Maester Steven do you mind clarifying some of what you said about he battle of the blackwater and the battle fo the Fords? Someone on Reddit is making the case that ultimately Tywins presence at the Blackwater didn’t really matter, Stannis was too outnumbered for Tywins presence to matter, and ultimately Robb was always doomed by the alliance with the Tyrells. I was wondering how you respond to this claim.
Without Tywin showing up, Mace Tyrell doesn’t leave Tumbler’s Falls and the Tyrells never show up to the Battle of Blackwater – there’s a political deal on the table, but Mace needs Tywin to sign on the dotted line or he’s not going to move. (If you doubt me on this, see the first siege of Storm’s End)
And what people forget about the Blackwater is how important, and how fine-grained, timing was in that battle: Tyrion had fallen, the Gold Cloaks had broken, and Stannis’ men were prepping to get on boats and rafts and trans-ship to the northern bank when Tywin and the Tyrells arrived in the nick of time. Delay their arrival by even an hour or two, and Stannis takes the city.
How many Great Councils would be necessary to make them an institution in their own right?
Well, Edward I called 46 parliaments in 31 years, and that did the trick…
When Cersei asks Kevin to serve as Hand, he says he’s willing to do so only if she also gives him the regency. Beyond the desire to completely displace Cersei, does it make any sense for the regent and the Hand to be the same person?
I think the intent is to ensure clear lines of authority and to avoid political conflict (i.e, what happens when the Regent and the Hand disagree?). And we’ve seen Cersei conflict with Hands before, as she did with Tyrion.
But we don’t have to stop there…look at the running conflict between Aegon III’s Council of Regents and the Hand of the King Unwin Peake. There were lots of reasons for political instability during the False Dawn, but the conflict between Council and Hand was a major one.
How useful would an iron currency like Braavos’ actually be? If a major use of currency is to be a constant store of value (i.e. gold doesn’t decay), wouldn’t iron’s high oxidation rate make it a really bad medium through which a financial powerhouse does business?
Well, I wouldn’t look to the metallic content of a coin as a guarantee of the store of value – gold can be clipped, sweated, plated, etc. etc. Iron’s historic disutility as a currency has as much to do with the fact that iron coins are heavy as the fact that they rust. (For example, copper and bronze also rust, but have been used as currency for a long time.)
As for Braavos, I think people over-generalize from that one quote from ADWD. That Braavos has one denomination of coin made out of iron does not mean that they only use iron currency – for example, WOIAF states that “In Braavos, as many an outsider has observed, golden coins count for more than iron keys.”
RFTIT Tumblr Backup 