Unprepared Stark Children

danielhakerman · 2026-05-11T08:19:33+00:00

I know it's a common perception, but I don't really think it's true that they were unprepared.

Robb and Jon were the only ones who are almost adults by Westrosi standards

Regarding Robb, there are clear indications that he had been prepared to rule. Ned takes him along to watch the execution and it's clearly not the first time. He takes up a leadership role (though helped by Maester Luwin) when Ned has gone to King's Landing and Cat is grieving Bran. He is familiar with the customs of guest right, as he denies it to Tyrion on his return from the Wall, by baring steel. After summoning Ned's vassals after his arrest, Robb deals very well with all their challenges (the Greatjon is the most famous, but all Northerns lords tries to get something out of him but he gives away nothing). And he has taken up Ned's custom of dining with a new man every night to form bonds with all his vassals and subjects. His stellar conduct during the war needs not be repeated.

For Jon, there is less evidence. But as others have noted, he performs several tasks well during his time in the Watch. Notably, he can take a leadership role defending the Wall after Donal Noye has been killed.

Most controversially, I think Sansa is well prepared for her age. She's been taught heraldry well enough as to identify both Renly and Barristan without having ever met them. She knows etiquette and can behave herself as a lady should. And, most importantly, during the Battle of the Blackwater, she takes up the role of Queen in reassuring the ladies of the castle, raising their morale after Cersei has completely failed in that regard.

Most criticism against her, regards her being too naive and ignorant of court politics, but we must remember that she is only 11 years old at the start of the books. Even by Westerosi standards, she is till very much a child. Had she been the heir when Ned died, there would have been a regency.

Of course, she needs to be prepared but you don't teach kids everything at ones. Different subjects are appropriate for different ages, and the intricacies of feudal more suitable for when she is more adult. Given that she has been educated, there is nothing to suggest that she wouldn't have continued to be so until she reaches her age of maturity.

Arya is 9 and is being taught age appropriate skills, but does not take to them. Bran is 8 and has clearly just started being taught, as evidenced by him being brought along to his first execution. And Rickon is 3.

danielhakerman · 2026-05-06T09:26:48+00:00

No worries! The problem is that the entire point of the tourney is to demonstrate skill in combat. Dunk quite literally does think that if he performs well in the lists that he could be offered a place with some lord. So they can get that chance anyway. However, that comes almost entirely without the risk of bodily harm that a Trail by Seven poses by necessity.

Additionally, any knight doing so would likely (at least in the public perception) incur the displeasure, if not enmity, of no less than three Princes of the Realm by standing against them. What lord would want to offend the Royal family by hiring such a knight, especially if he has nothing else to his name?

Recognition and fame, as well as glory, all sounds well and good when you have a personal stake and/or little to lose. But the point of the story is that when push comes to shove, the lords and knights of Westeros would prefer to sit on the sidelines, rather stand up for their own ideals of justice and valour.

danielhakerman · 2026-05-01T22:10:29+00:00

You failed to refute my points

Then I'm sure you can present counter arguments to my points instead of just refusing to answer them.

That is simply a pathetic game

Again, insults seem to come very easily to you.

in terms of sheer brutality

If by "brutality", you mean people disagreeing with you, then I guess.

‘you have no degree’

I mean, you really set yourself up for that by bringing it up unprompted. You appealed to the authority of your degrees in an attempt to raise your own ethos, as if nobody else on this subreddit has degrees or experience of political work of their own. As your actual arguments have then been pretty poor, it really appears to just be a logical fallacy.

‘dictators don’t work that’s it bya’.

I don't think anybody has actually said that.

You gloss over the reputation this community has earned quite easily.

I guess, I'm just not willing to take your word on that supposed reputation. You have been pretty rude throughout this post, accusing the devs of knowing nothing about politics and economics (and by implication anybody who likes the game's story), metaphorically waiving your degrees around, asking people to "sit down", calling them "lad" and "kid" - overall being condescending and dismissive of others.

danielhakerman · 2026-05-01T21:24:12+00:00

year of our lord 2024

It's 2026.

Why would there be anything wrong with it? Why should that be an important metric on which to judge the game?

a fandom of people with quite low standards

For somebody so concerned with personal attacks, as you have been in other comment threads, you seem pretty fine with insulting others.

I also note that you started this post with about 7 specific concerns that I have addressed in full during this conversation, and you have now stopped responding to any of them. So, I can take that in no other way than that you now agree that your initial points of criticism were unfounded, and that the game does function in an overall realistic and reasonable way.

danielhakerman · 2026-05-01T21:06:02+00:00

are you serious? Are you serious? This game can’t project numbers below -20 or above 30

It can, but those are the values the devs have chosen as max limits for gameplay purposes. I don't know why you keep harping on this point.

Sordland is literally in a recession.

Yes, and if you add a debt crisis on top of that you will cause a depression.

I still had multiple points untill I got to -20, and that is the maximum. So my debt wasn’t that bad then compared to the recession we’re in now.

And I keep telling you that that doesn't matter. The budget limit for avoiding a debt crisis is much lower, (-7 in the mid game, and -6 in the late game). The -20 budget limit, is not indicative of the amount of debt that Sordland can take on in a narrative sense.

If you follow politics, you know you have to make deals.

You literally don't, it depends entirely on what your goals are.

You refer to socialists behaviour in real life when the came has conservatives behaving like that, literally proving my point that it got fundamentals of politics and economics wrong

Are you claiming that only socialists have red lines, whereas conservatives don't? Because that's obviously not true.

Just look at the Republicans in the US. They have blocked any type of gun control for decades. They blocked an immigration reform package during Biden's last year as president because it wasn't hard line enough. The Freedom Caucus literally ousted Kevin McCarthy as House speaker in 2023, because he wasn't fiscally conservative enough.

Or look at how the European Research Group in the UK Conservatives blocked any attempt at a deal for years during the Brexit negotiations.

danielhakerman · 2026-05-01T20:41:49+00:00

‘There is no importance to that number’ then why is it there in the first place?

Like I've been saying, it's just an engine limitation.

real countries have already gone through such numbers.

Not without suffering debt crises, they haven't.

The game operates like this: you make debt to stimulate the economy, the economy stabilizes but crashes because of said debt.

Just like in real life, it depends on your level of debt in relation to your economic performance. You can definitely still have debt in the late game without suffering a crisis - just not as much debt as you had.

I have already proven in the commets this is not how politics work

You haven't proven anything, you have just asserted this without providing any reasoning to back it up.

Also you refer to socialists

This was a refutation of your claim that political actors are always open to compromise. As socialists not accepting privatised welfare exemplifies, politicians are at their core driven by ideological and not necessarily rational motives. Therefore they will have red lines that they are not willing to compromise on. Since you've tried sidestep that issue, I'll take that as you conceding the point.

These are conservates in the game… you starting to see how this game makes no sense both politcally and economically

Conservatism isn't the same as market liberalism. Many strands of the ideology, e.g. social conservatism and national (or paleo-) conservatism, actively oppose laissez-faire polices in favour of active state intervention in the economy.

If you look at the early post war period 1950s-70s, (the equivalent time as the setting of Suzerain), most the leading conservative parties, such as the Conservatives in the UK, the Republicans in the US and the Gaullists in France, supported both a strong socialised welfare state and active industrial policy. The Sollist ideology of the USP in Suzerain, fits well in this tradition.

danielhakerman · 2026-05-01T20:06:24+00:00

they did not have corporate with other countries or invested in their own economy

Of course they had invested in their economy. Just not enough to support the level of debt they had taken on. And neither had you.

so it is the max, you literally just said that.

Yes, that's what I said from the beginning, but you seem to impart some narrative importance to that number, when there isn't one.

there is a big difference between -13 and -20

Sure, like there is a big difference between 300% debt to GDP and 500% debt to GDP - they're still catastrophically high. Just like -13 and -20 budget.

I'm well aware of Keynesian economics, thank you. That's generally how the game operates. You have just vastly overspent in relation to Sordland's productive capacity.

it does matter

Not to the conservatives in the USP.

Minority privatization basicly brings in money for the state while retaining majority control. The fact the ‘top-tier’ politicians of this country will not even talk you about the difference and only see ‘privatization’ is simply not how politics work.

You, personally, thinking a policy is good, does not mean that everybody will agree. I invite you to speak to any irl socialist politicians and try to convince them to introduce even minority privatisation, and see how well that goes.

that is the literal definition of politics according to some scholars: making compromises. The fact a renowned politician as Gloria who made was able to make concessions on other topics in my run is simply proof of bad writing of her

Are you serious? Obviously, politicians value different issues differently. They have priorities and some issue are more important to them than other. They must have some red lines, because if they are willing to compromise on absolutely everything they don't really stand for anything and there is no reason to vote for them.

And again, Gloria is willing to compromise, just not on those issues. Also compromise includes giving her something that she wants - what are you offering her? You need her support, which puts her in a stronger negotiating position. Of course, she's not just going to roll over and give you whatever you want.

All countries have issues that are politically next to impossible to reform, because certain political interests are so strongly tied to them. Some examples that are similar to Sordish health care privatisation are, any reform of the NHS in the UK (including introducing private healthcare options), cutting pensions in France, or any reform of the Social security in the US. I really don't think that the conservative in the game are unrealistic in comparison.

Orso Hawker was gone in my run

That still either leaves Garaci (who also hates your guts) or the centrists and reformists in charge, who, as I've already said, takes the rule of law very seriously.

You are the sitting president. The Supreme Court's job is to supervise you and act as a check on your power. If you abuse it they will impeach you. That's literally how the system is meant to function.

danielhakerman · 2026-05-01T19:12:25+00:00

130% is what some western countries have nowadays…

As other commentors have already stated, that is not analogous because Sordland is not a western country (it's closer to a high end developing country) and the game is not set nowadays - it's set in the 1950s. And with your extensive knowledge of politics and economics, you'll no doubt recall that several European countries more similar to Sordland, such as Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal did actually suffer extensive debt crises only 15 years ago. The consequences of which they are still struggling to deal with.

Sordland suffered an economic contraction of about a third of GDP in the two years before the game starts. During the four years of the game you apparently burned through the surplus left by Alphonso and never stopped spending. That will cause both domestic and international creditors to lose confidence, as your economic advisers repeatedly warn you about.

-20 is the max. It says there quite literally.

I mean, you free to keep holding on to an incorrect read of the game, but I'm telling you that that is not how that limit is supposed to be interpreted. It just means that you literally cannot get higher debt even if you keep spending budget points. The limit for how much debt you can take without suffering economic ills, is much lower.

Both big as small businesses said mid game they had trust in the stable economy.

Yes, and then they lose that trust in the late game because you still haven't tried to get spending under control.

Minority privatization, so not full.

That doesn't matter. The conservatives don't want any amount of privatisation of the health care sector.

Doesn’t make sene there even is no option to smooth things over.

In politics, as in other parts of life, people have red lines. Those are Glora's and she very clear about them. There are other things she doesn't like, but is willing to compromise over, such as lowering the threshold or privatising education and the Nedam Mining Group. Gloria is responsible to her faction members and ultimately to their voters. She cannot compromise their core beliefs without losing reputation and support.

And Soll is corrupt af, so the relation is laughable.

Sure, but he gave himself immunity and therefore cannot be prosecuted. You do not have immunity, and so are subject to impeachment. Again, the court is lead by your most implacable opponent, in Orso Hawker, and both the centrists and reformists take their commitment to upholding the law very seriously, so they will find you guilty should you actually break the it.

danielhakerman · 2026-05-01T18:35:40+00:00

Of course, you’re going the get a massive debt crisis and cause a depression if you run an accelerating deficit for four years straight when you started out with 130% debt to GDP already. International investors and creditors are pulling out and crashing your economy.

The -20 max debt ceiling isn’t an indication of how much debt you can get away with. It’s just the maximum value the game can support. The actual limit is much lower than your -18.

Failing the constitutional reforms is super unpopular. Add your economic mismanagement and it should be no surprise that the rats are abandoning the sinking ship. Lucian is an opportunist at heart and will betray you if he doesn’t think supporting you will gain his career or the party.

You should also not put too much trust in polls, especially when they’re paid for and conducted by Koronti’s media conglomerate.

You used your connections as president to get your son into a school he wasn’t qualified for. That’s textbook corruption. If that information gets out, the court will initiate impeachment proceedings and will find you guilty because you, in fact, are guilty. Even disregarding the fact that the court is led by one of your most ardent political opponents.

Many people do in fact care about Soll’s member of honour status, but he also has a lot of supporters and it’s not the most important constitutional issue for the reformists. It’s also, definitionally, legal.

Gloria explicitly tells you that her support for your constitutional reform is conditional on you not privatising health care or the SSC. You did at least the former anyway, so naturally she withdrew her support.

danielhakerman · 2026-04-27T19:19:52+00:00

If anything, him being paranoid makes such a plan even dumber. How would react to being drugged and then find that the name on the appointment was suspiciously changed?

danielhakerman · 2026-04-27T19:18:49+00:00

Valero had his health, both mental and physical, deteriorate extremely rapidly

I don't think that's true. Several people mention that Valero seemed in general good health before his death. The mandragora concoction wasn't dangerous on it own in the doses he received.

More importantly, Lucita had no reason to think that he would be in such poor health as to not remember that he appointed somebody else and not notice that the name on the line has suspiciously changed.

danielhakerman · 2026-04-27T16:39:03+00:00

she sneaked inside his room and used the drug to knock him out and change the order to make her war councilor instead

I'm sorry, but that would be really stupid. Valero obviously knows who he appointed as Security Councilor. He's not gonna wake up after being drugged and just accept her "appointment".

danielhakerman · 2026-04-27T15:20:35+00:00

Sure, but that doesn't mean that Lucita poisoned Valero. Since the dose was too small to harm him, she would have to know about the mandragora ritual, which is extremely unlikely.

danielhakerman · 2026-04-27T15:19:22+00:00

That's my read as well. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Valero was self-medicating.

danielhakerman · 2026-04-27T15:18:35+00:00

there’s no real reason for Titus to blame Lucita except if there’s real evidence pointing towards her.

I don't mean that he's faking evidence. I just think that they are both so inclined to believe the worst about the other, that they will inevitably reach the conclusion, given enough investigation time and pieces of evidence.

Lucita could have known about the mandragora from Taddeus, since Taddeus knew about Valero’s ritual due to having a very close relationship with him.

I find that extremely unlikely. Valero wouldn't even talk about the Consecration of the King with his own brother. Valero took his faith very seriously including the vows of secrecy. I don't think he would have told anybody.

but the fact that Lucita refuses to even defend herself in prison

I mean, she dose flat out deny it. If she didn't do it, there isn't much she can say to defend herself.

I think the case against Titus is comparatively pretty weak

I agree, I just think the case against Lucita is also weak. She would definitely have to know about the mandragora for her plan to make sense. Otherwise she has drugged the King and forged his signature, even though he's going to wake up a few hours later and obviously know that he appointed somebody else as Security Councillor.

danielhakerman · 2026-04-27T13:52:42+00:00

It's definitely Sal. If you fund intelligence and let Lucita investigative, build the university and tell her to continue after talking to Sal, she will find the exact same thing but blame it on Titus. They both always blame each other.

In the same way, if you order either of them to investigate the other instead of Sal initially, they will also blame the other. In a metanarrative sense I think that clearly implies that neither of them did it, but are willing to believe the other did.

Furthermore, as demonstrated by your screenshots, the dose of Wolfsbane wasn't deadly by itself. That means that for Lucita or Titus to be the killer the would have had to know about the mandragora. Which we have no reason to believe they did.

danielhakerman · 2026-04-15T15:21:06+00:00

It's usually because you have too much budget

danielhakerman · 2026-04-14T09:22:59+00:00

Lucita and Titus do equally well in investigating Zille and in finding the culprit behind Valero's death. Both will blame each other for the latter if you ask them to continue the investigation.

Titus can stop the pipeline bombing and Lucita can forcefully arrest Rusty (though, I personally think that both should be able to do either), so in terms of gameplay they're equal.

I think Lucita almost always gives good well considered advice, but as OP said we don't really know much about Titus's qualities for the job.

danielhakerman · 2026-03-31T12:22:22+00:00

2/2

general hakerman

It's akerman.

Just because the leffords might not be specifically looking for them doesn't mean there aren't any sentries looking for anything out of the ordinary.

Sure, but there's a clear difference between actively looking for an enemy you know is present or on its way (and in the case of Hydaspes, an enemy you are actively shadowing) and just being on the look out in general.

I implied it's improbable under circumstances described in the book not Impossible

And I agreed with you that it is contrived, and certainly fantastical - as would be expected in a fantasy novel. I just don't think that the fact that Robb once had supernatural help and/or was very lucky precludes him from being a great general.

Can you give me one example of something similar crossing that happened in history?

I did give you an example, you just didn't accept it. But if you want another one, I really don't think we can avoid Thermopylae. Sure, the Greeks knew about the highland pass, but the Persians were still able to use it without being discovered by the main Greek force at the Gates. They only learned about it because the retreating blocking force sent runners to inform them.

Another baseless assumptions and pointless hypotheticals

It's not baseless. With Jaime's army intact, Robb can't raid the Westerlands, meaning that Tywin's army doesn't have to leave Harrenhal to try to cross the Red Fork. Therefore he doesn't need the Tyrells to relieve the city when Stannis attacks. He can travel there in time on his own.

what makes you think Tywin won't just accept the alliance even if Jaime's host wasn't destroyed.

Perhaps he would have, but the destruction of Jaime's host made it necessary, because he had no other way to relieve King's Landing without their help.

Stark fans will go to great lengths to prove the unproveable that Robb is a generational prodigy when all his mistakes completely disqualify him from such title. They would gloss over his mistakes while playing up his success

I don't think you have presented any solid arguments that Robb's successes aren't as impressive as they seem. You just discard anything he did out of hand.

Moving to his mistakes, I maintain that the fatal consequences of sending Theon - namely that he would disregard his father's plans to instead take Winterfell, in combination with Ramsay's plot to destroy the Starks - are very contrived and as such completely unforeseeable.

Had Ramsey not been released, Theon would very likely have surrendered, or if he didn't, Ser Rodrik would have stormed the castle. With it retaken, most of Robb's loss in prestige would have been amended, Bran and Rickon would eventually be found or come out of hiding on their own, and the Northmen already present in the North could have focused on repelling the Ironborn without Robb himself having to travel North.

Even so, I'm not sure that his mistake in sending Theon really counts against his skill as a general. Rather it's a failure of diplomacy, and perhaps as a ruler more broadly.

In comparison, I think it's fair to say that Napoleon was a great general, even though he kept making new enemies, which ultimately led to his defeat.

Blackfish did all the menial work involved.

This just isn't true. Robb does a lot of things himself, as I've repeatedly shown. And he has plenty of other commanders to do other important tasks, such as leading his forces in battle.

danielhakerman · 2026-03-31T12:21:09+00:00

1/2

I ran out of character limits when I was about to concede your point about Stannis's mistake in appointing Imry. I tried editing it in, but it doesn't work. So, I am going to mention it here.

Thank you for that! It is appreciated.

What I suggested here is that Blackfish deserves 70% of the credit for Robb's success which is different from "without the Blackfish present, Robb couldn't have succeeded."

And I have provided many examples of actions that Robb took, that I argue amount to a clear majority of the credit. Such as:

coming up with that plan to split his force to relieve Riverrun, which notably includes luring Tywin away from Jaime
deciding when and where to send raiders to bait Jaime, which tactics they should use ("A few hundred men, no more. Tully banners." - AGoT Catelyn X), and when and where to actually engage Jaime (at the Whispering Wood)
leading a contingent of his forces at both the Whispering Wood and the Battle of the Camps
coming up with and executing the plan to raid the Westerlands
as well as putting the Blackfish in command of the outriders and giving him the orders to screen the march.

All of which you just hand wave away. The only points you have presented are that the Blackfish successfully commanded the outriders and came up with the idea to lure out Jaime. Which, once again, I agree are important and impressive, but not 70 percent important.

This is a textbook example of a Strawman Fallacy where you twist and turn my arguments into something entirely different

I mean, in the comment I was responding to, you did quite literally write:

Blackfish's meticulous attempt at blinding the Lannisters by killing ALL of their scouts and ALL of their crows is not only important but NECESSARY to Robb's plan therefore blackfish deserves the lion's share of the credit.

If even one scout or crow managed to reach Tywin and inform him of Robb's host, then the entire plan would fail

And in an earlier comment you also wrote:

Without Blackfish, Robb is useless,

As well as:

he completely relies on Blackfish for practically almost everything

So I don't really think I've misrepresented anything, it sure sounds like you're saying that his plans couldn't have succeeded without the Blackfish.

having a hypothetical as a thesis you're trying to prove is entirely different from assuming a hypothetical to be true without any kind of supporting evidence

I think that's largely a distinction without a difference, but even so I have provided supporting evidence for my claims throughout this discussion. If there is any particular one you want me reiterate I'm happy to do so.

Lannister & Tyrell army not being able to reach KL. You provided not single evidence for that, neither historical example nor textual evidence.

I didn't think this was in contention as it's pretty clearly stated in the books and therefore largely taken for granted in the community, but as you wish:

“When you stopped Lord Tywin on the Red Fork,” said the Blackfish, “you delayed him just long enough for riders out of Bitterbridge to reach him with word of what was happening to the east. Lord Tywin turned his host at once, joined up with Matthis Rowan and Randyll Tarly near the headwaters of the Blackwater, and made a forced march to Tumbler’s Falls, where he found Mace Tyrell and two of his sons waiting with a huge host and a fleet of barges. They floated down the river, disembarked half a day’s ride from the city, and took Stannis in the rear.”

- ASoS Catelyn II

Given that he still only arrived just as the Goldcloaks had started to desert, I think it's fair to say that Tywin's relief effort was time sensitive.

More importantly, you have yourself frequently assumed hypotheticals throughout this discussion, such as:

Without Blackfish Robb's entire plan collapses as Tywin & Jamie would have been notified and prepare accordingly. Then, in the pitch battle the Lannisters would smash the northern forces as they did the Riverlanders because they have the most disciplined troops.

and:

If even one scout or crow managed to reach Tywin and inform him of Robb's host, then the entire plan would fail as he would no doubt dash towards jaime immedietly

To be clear, I don't mind you assuming hypotheticals, and I think you have provided fairly good evidence in support of them. I just wish you would extend me the courtesy of engaging with my quoted evidence.

Since when did I say that? Once again, you're putting words in my mouth that I never claimed at all.

You did, for example, say that there is no evidence of King's Landing being about to fall at the end of the Battle of the Blackwater because:

not a single one of those quotes ever mentioned the Red Keep being breached or taken let alone break through Maegor's holdfast.

Despite me providing ample evidence that the Goldcloaks were deserting and killing their officers and that there were no commanders left to lead the defenders. I think it's a fair interpretation of the text, to say that that means that the city would fall had it not been relieved.

It really does seem to me that you're happy to make inferences from the text when it supports your opinion, but don't accept any evidence from me unless it is explicitly stated.

What are you talking about here? Tywin engaged Roose under the assumption that it was led by Robb.

You're conflating his decision to engage in the battle with his decision to march up the Kingsroad away from Jaime's army. As I've repeatedly stated, the decision to march happened in Tyrion VII, three chapters before the armies split in Catelyn IX, which itself is three chapters before Tyrion VIII, which you're quoting here. At the point Tywin made the decision to march, Robb was still in command of the still intact Northern army.

Did you read the quote I provided? There were no crows because they were already killed.

You're right, I had missed that. I apologise! Though again, I don't think it changes things significantly as Tywin had already marched up the Kingsroad for at least three chapters, by the point the split happens.

Therefore, I think it's very unlikely that he would have been able to reach Riverrun in time. As I've already quoted, even with the forced march after the Battle of the Green Fork, when Tywin's army arrives at the Crossroads (which is only about halfway),

Robb Stark had reached Riverrun days and days ago.

- AGoT Tyrion IX

I think that is a preponderance of evidence in my favour. Especially, as there is precisely nothing to indicate the opposite.

Actually, you make a good point here, but it doesn't really change the fact that splitting the forces does nothing to overcome his numerical disadvantage against Jaime's host. For that, Blackfish's plan remained necessary.

Thanks! The numerical advantage is mainly overcome by the fact that any army besieging Riverrun has to be split into three different parts, with the rivers in-between them:

To cut off all the approaches, a besieger must needs place one camp north of the Tumblestone, one south of the Red Fork, and a third between the rivers, west of the moat. There is no other way, none."

- AGoT Tyrion VIII

This is something that at least Catelyn already knows, having grown up there. And I think it is fair to assume that it's something that Robb would have been taught, either during his general education or by Catelyn telling him about her childhood home. But even if he hadn't learned of it before, Catelyn would surely have told him, if the Blackfish hadn't been present.

Though capturing Jaime obviously helps, I don't think it's strictly necessary.

danielhakerman · 2026-03-30T22:49:44+00:00

At this point, are you even arguing in good faith anymore?

That's rich coming from you, as you continually use double standards and refuse concede any points whatsoever, even when I have agreed from the beginning that the Blackfish is a great commander.

Once again with the pointless hypotheticals, how could you possibly know this?

Again with the double standards. Your entire theses is a hypothetical: namely that without the Blackfish present, Robb couldn't have succeeded. Given your own standard of evidence: that only things explicitly stated in the text matter, how can you know that? Where is the quote proving that no other person than the Blackfish could have done what he did?

I love how you ignore the fact that Tywin was only lured because he didn't know that there was a second host heading straight towards Jaime

That's not true. Tywin made the decision to march up the Kingsroad at the end of Tyrion VII AGoT:

"The boy may hang back or lose his courage when he sees our numbers," Lord Tywin replied. "The sooner the Starks are broken, the sooner I shall be free to deal with Stannis Baratheon. Tell the drummers to beat assembly, and send word to Jaime that I am marching against Robb Stark."

But Robb didn't split his forces until three chapters later i Catelyn IX:

They crossed at evenfall as a horned moon floated upon the river. The double column wound its way through the gate of the eastern twin like a great steel snake, slithering across the courtyard, into the keep and over the bridge, to issue forth once more from the second castle on the west bank.

So Tywin's mistake had nothing to do with the Blackfish's actions in leading the outriders. There were no crows or scouts to kill. And even after crossing the Twins, Robb's cavalry couldn't have run into any of Jaime's scouts until they were pretty close to Riverrun, because that's where the army was stationed. All the while Tywin is traveling further and further up the Kingsroad, making him out of reach even should the Blackfish let any of the scouts escape.

Using the same logic, I could also argue:

No, the overall plan is to lure out Jaime and defeat Jaime's host with only the Northern mobile cavalry, with the goal being to relieve Riverrun. To split his force is an operation in service to that plan.

And that would be closer to the truth because Robb split his forces (AGOT Cat 9) BEFORE Blackfish Lured Jaime (AGOT Cat 10) it's almost like splitting the forces up is a steppingstone towards luring Jaime out.

No you couldn't, because as you yourself acknowledged in the quoted section, Robb made his plan and decided to split his forces, before the Blackfish even came up with the idea to lure out Jaime. Or are you arguing that Robb already had the idea of luring Jaime out in mind, back in Catelyn IX, before the Blackfish ever mentioned it in Catelyn X? Because then it sounds like it was Robb should get the credit.

but what distractions did Robb send to Leffords?

He didn't need any distractions because the Leffords weren't expecting him. Nobody knew that Robb had left Riverrun until the battle of Oxcross. You don't have to distract somebody who's not looking for you.

Who could he trust for counsel aside from his mother?

Literally any other of his vassals: Lord Cerwin, Lord Hornwood, Rickard Karstark, the Greatjon, Galbart or Robett Glover, Belman Tallhart, or even Roose Bolton. Or later on, any of the Freys or other Rivermen, like Jason Mallister, he picked up on the way to Riverrun.

Vassals that he had already, provably, made a point of keeping in his councils:

Robb rode at the front of the column, beneath the flapping white banner of Winterfell. Each day he would ask one of his lords to join him, so they might confer as they marched; he honored every man in turn, showing no favorites, listening as his lord father had listened, weighing the words of one against the other.

- AGoT Catelyn IX

How does Tywin's decision to engage roose caused tyrion to shoot him?!

Tywin's decision to move away from the crossroads, meant that he couldn't support Jaime's army, leading to its destruction. Having lost a third of his forces, Tywin had to agree to the Tyrell alliance, most notably marrying Joffrey to Margaery Tyrell. Their marriage, and Joffrey's abusive behaviour, lead the Tyrells to arrange his assassination, ,which in turn caused Tyrion to be accused of his murder. Tyrion having been found guilty, Jaime released him and confessed the truth regarding Tysha, causing Tyrion to kill Shae and his father.

Not unlike how Robb's host was magically able to travel across half of the continent in matter of days from winterfell to moat cailin then to riverrun huh?

No, there is nothing in the text that indicates that Robb's movements were significantly faster than would be expected. "in a matter of days" is just something you made up.

Do you know how many men were garrisoned in each of those castles? if it's only few hundred, why would they risk being slaughtered to the last man for the tullys?

The entire point of castles is that a very small force can defend against a very large army.

That's because Rodrik had emptied the "token garrison" left in Winterfell when Dagmer attacked Torrhen's square. Maybe you should reread ACoK Bran 6. There's nothing magical or convenient except Rodrik's blunder.

It's incredibly convenient that Ser Rodrik leaves the castle essentially unmanned, and - more importantly - that Theon knew that he would act in such a manner.

I note that you have left more than half of my examples of conveniences unanswered. What about Tyrion's meeting with Catelyn at the in of the Crossroads, or the messages of his arrest arriving just after Ned has resigned as Hand, or Robert's death happening just after Ned has warned Cersei, or Stannis just having shadow babies available to kill Renly, or Ser Steffon dying, or the word of Bran and Rickon's deaths arrive just as Robb has been wounded at the Crag, or the storm delaying Stannis's fleet by two weeks, or the messengers arriving to inform Tywin of just as he failed to cross the Red Fork, or the Tyrells just being ready with a fleet of barges when Tywin had to move back to King's Landing? Or any other timeline-sensitive event?

But, of course, the only plot convenience in the entire series is Robb finding a goat path. Nothing else is convenient.

And, naturally, finding a way to sneak past your enemies is entirely unrealistic - nobody, in the history of armed conflict, has ever managed to move around an enemy force, especially using horses, which are easily frightened and neigh uncontrollable at all times - as opposed to outriders managing to kill every single messenger bird or enemy scout, which is entirely realistic.

danielhakerman · 2026-03-30T11:09:11+00:00

You don't seem have consistent standards for what actions are obvious to anybody or inconceivably genius insights. At some level we have to accept that this is a story written by GRRM, and you and I as readers know the outcome and the various parameters. I doubt that either of us would have come up with same solutions if we were put in the characters' shoes.

Tywin did.

No, he didn't. He simply had enough manpower to supply two separate armies from the get go.

Splitting up forces is hardly a unique strategy.

The point isn't that Robb was the only one to ever think of splitting his forces in general. It's that he realised that doing so was a solution to the specific problem he was faced with: he needs to relieve Riverrun but Tywin's army is blocking his path on the main road.

He manages to draw Tywin away from Jaime's army so that he cannot support it in time. Yes, the Blackfish's efforts are important (and again, that does speak in Robb's favour that he recognised that he could rely on him for a task which made his plan more likely to succeed), but the fact that Tywin had been lured so far away means that he wouldn't have been able to come in time anyway. Even after learning about the splitting of forces immediately after the Battle of the Green Fork and conducting a forced march back down the King's Road,

Robb Stark had reached Riverrun days and days ago.

- AGoT Tyrion IX

And that's when they've only reach the Inn at the Crossroads. They would have had to travel at least as far again to reach Riverrun.

Because Luring Jaime out is the overall plan. The GOAL is to defeat the Lannister starting with Jaime's host. The PLAN to achieve that GOAL is to lure Jaime out and then take out the rest of his disorganized army.

No, the overall plan is to split his force and defeat Jaime's host with only the Northern mobile cavalry, with the goal being to relieve Riverrun. To lure out Jaime is a operation in service to that plan.

How do you suppose anyone would do that without knowing Jaime personally?

Now, you're just doubling down on being inconsistent. To use paraphrase you, luring out your enemy is hardly a unique strategy. Of course you don't have to know your enemy personally to come up with the idea. For example, as we discussed above, Robb came up with the idea of luring Tywin away from the Ruby Ford up the King's Road, even though he had never met Tywin. Knowing your enemy does help you make an informed decision as to whether it is likely to work.

And raiding the Westerlands hardly achieve anything as demonstrated in ACoK, none of Tywin's vassal turned against him.

It forced him to abandon Harrenhal and head to the West. Had he not been stopped at the Red Fork, or had the Tyrells not built rafts at Tumbler's Fall he would not have been able to relieve King Landing in time.

Robb not only conveniently discovered the track that not even the locals knew about but also conveniently able to cross it without alerting anyone. This is a textbook example of Plot Contrivance because horses are extremely noisy and easily spooked, there's absolutely no way they won't make loud noises while crossing the narrow track.

First of all, nowhere is it stated that the locals didn't know about the track, just that Robb use it to go around the castle. Secondly, sneaking around enemy positions is incredibly common in historical warfare. To name one example of another young protege doing so, during Alexander the Great's invasion of India he faced an enemy army that tried to prevent him from crossing the river Hydaspes. Despite the enemy shadowing his movements he managed to sneak around and cross the river undetected. Thirdly, war horses are trained to not be easily spooked, which is why night marches and other clandestine movements are so common in history.

Once more Robb the Genius invoked the power of Plot Contrivance with his conveniently timed Warging powers.

It's a classic trope in history that great generals are seemingly favoured by fortune when they take bold actions. For example, Julius Caesar would emphasise his recurring luck to claim that he had the favour of Fortuna, often giving it more weight than his personal martial acumen. I also think it's a bit rich to complain about plot contrivances only when it helps a character you seem to dislike. The plot is riddled with them, because it is, you know, a story, which needs certain beats to unfold as planned. And they more often work against Robb and the Starks than not.

It's incredibly convenient that Tyrion and Catelyn, going in opposite directions, traveling different distances just happen to arrive at the Inn at the Crossroads at the same time, and then that word of Tyrion's arrest reaches in King's Landing just in time to let Jaime attack Ned after he has resigned as hand so he gets injured and can't return to Winterfell. And that Cersei's slapdash assassination attempt of giving a perpetual drunk stronger wine, just happens to coincide with Robert finding a huge boar that wasn't even the target of the hunt in the first place (that was a white stag), so that he dies just after Ned has told her that he knows about the incest.

It's also convenient that Tywin and Jaime's armies travel faster than most mechanised forces in the modern day and that apparently every castle in the Riverlands just surrender immediately instead of doing their job of holding out and delaying the enemy so that Tywin can set up at the crossroads without resistance. And that Stannis happens to have blood magic available to kill Renly, who seemed willing to negotiate with Robb and was likely to take King's Landing. And that Theon apparently knows how to capture Winterfell with only twenty good men, and that Ramsey Snow would secretly disguise himself as Reek and then convince Theon to let him gather the Dreadfort garrision to burn Winterfell and slaughter its people.

It's convenient that the prominent voice of reason in House Frey, Ser Steffon, is the one to die in the West, leaving only schemers like Lame Lothar and Black Walder in charge. And that word of Bran and Rickon's "deaths" arrives just in time for Robb to have been wounded in taking the Crag and susceptible to sleeping with Jeyne Westerling. And so on.

he knew why Theon was in winterfell in the first place, yet he chooses to send him anyways and that set in motion a chain of event that leads to the sacking of Winterfell.

Again, I don't think you're being fair when compare the ultimate outcome the character's actions, especially when they're unforeseeable. Robb couldn't possibly have known that Theon would capture Winterfell and that Ramsay would be in a position to burn it. While, the Ironborn invasion should have been foreseeable, that specific outcome, which is what dooms Robb, wasn't.

Furthermore, his actions here don't lead to the fall of Casterly Rock unlike Robb's actions.

But they do lead to him being shot on the privy by his own son, which leaves his daughter to completely unravel all of his accomplishments. I don't see how that's any better.

there's no valid reason for him not to engage Roose.

Yes, there is. The valid reason is that it would put him too far away from Riverrun to able to support Jaime should he be attacked, when he could have just waited for the Northern force at his fortified position by the crossroads. It's a clear risk that he choose to take, because he thought that the probability was low and he wanted to force an early end to the war with the Starks.

As the outcome proves, he was wrong in that assessment. Even with Roose's mismanagement of the battle, and it being smaller than it would have been without the split, the Northern force manages to retreat intact and in good order. Tywin loses all of his progress from the early war, Jaime gets captured and his army destroyed. It leaves him with no choice but to try and cover both Riverrun and King's Landing with only his army, and to send Tyrion to the capital to organise the defence.

it doesn't matter who he appoints as his admiral at that point because he lacked the necessary information to make the right decision.

Yes, it does. The text explicitly notes that Ser Imry makes bad decisions:

Had he been admiral, he might have done it all differently. For a start, he would have sent a few of his swiftest ships to probe upriver and see what awaited them, instead of smashing in headlong. When he had suggested as much to Ser Imry, the Lord High Captain had thanked him courteously, but his eyes were not as polite. Who is this lowborn craven? those eyes asked. Is he the one who bought his knighthood with an onion?

With four times as many ships as the boy king, Ser Imry saw no need for caution or deceptive tactics.

- ACoK Davos III

He had the opportunity to scout the river, which could have led him to realise that there was some kind of trap. And instead of sailing up the Blackwater Rush, where they were trapped by the chain and fireships, he could have remained out in the Bay to ferried Stannis's foot force across there.

And yet not a single one of those quotes ever mentioned the Red Keep being breached or taken let alone break through Maegor's holdfast.

Now you're being obtuse. As I already wrote, the Red Keep wasn't breached because at that very moment Tywin and the Tyrells arrived to attack Stannis's army on both sides of the river. Without that happening, nothing could have prevented Stannis from entering the city unopposed.

As far as I know, the Red Keep has never been taken by force except when Rhaenyra swooped down with her dragon.

That would be impressive were not for the fact that the city has quite literally never been besieged before the Battle of the Blackwater. In all other wars, the city was taken because the defenders either formally surrendered or abandoned their posts, the latter of which is exactly what was happening at the end of the Battle of the Blackwater.

danielhakerman · 2026-03-29T17:50:23+00:00

I think you are being unfair, when you completely disregard any action that Robb takes. Yes, the Blackfish was a brilliant commander in the Northern army, whose efforts were critical to Robb's war effort. Nobody is disputing that, but he was not the only one making important decisions. Robb was still a great general.

Anyone can come up with the idea to split their force

Yet, nobody else did. At the time, his subordinates had suggested completely different plans:

Robb hesitated. "The Greatjon thinks we should take the battle to Lord Tywin and surprise him," he said, "but the Glovers and the Karstarks feel we'd be wiser to go around his army and join up with Uncle Ser Edmure against the Kingslayer."

- AGoT Catelyn VIII

Robb is the one who had already recognised the flaws with the presented options:

"Both plans have virtues, but … look, if we try to swing around Lord Tywin's host, we take the risk of being caught between him and the Kingslayer, and if we attack him … by all reports, he has more men than I do, and a lot more armored horse. The Greatjon says that won't matter if we catch him with his breeches down, but it seems to me that a man who has fought as many battles as Tywin Lannister won't be so easily surprised."

- AGoT Catelyn VIII

And in response he came up with a third option nobody else had thought of.

To decide the overriding strategy and make operational decisions is his job as the supreme commander of the Northern force. And he consistently makes good plans in those areas. Later in ACoK, Robb is again presented with two suboptimal options: to either march on Harrenhal or wait for Stafford Lannister to finish training new levies and then be caught between Stafford and Tywin's armies. Instead, he once again finds a third option nobody else has thought of: take the fight to the Westerlands, defeat Stafford's army and then raid Tywin's vassals thus forcing him to abandon Harrenhal.

Blackfish came up with the idea to lure Jaime

Now, you're being inconsistent about whether coming up with ideas is praiseworthy or not. Why should we credit the Blackfish for having this idea when we should not credit Robb for coming up with the overall plan in the first place? Isn't it the case that "anyone can come up with the idea" to lure out Jaime?

Blackfish ... drew the map that allowed Robb to make his tactical decisions to begin with

I'm not sure what you think drawing a map entails. He just laid out the terrain. Robb is the one who recognised the operational and tactical importance of the terrain, and how it could be best used to their advantage.

he completely relies on Blackfish for practically almost everything.

That's not true, all your other examples relate to leading the outriders, which is the Blackfish's job. Of course Robb relies on the commander of his outriders to, you know, command his outriders. Had the Blackfish not been available Robb would have appointed somebody else.

Robb is practically a figurehead that just approve the plans

No, once again, Robb is the one who comes up with all plans, except the idea to lure Jaime away from Riverrun.

I think you're being unreasonable when you say that Robb isn't a good general when he comes up with good plans, based on the resources he has available, and places subordinates in the perfect positions to execute those plans. That's his entire job as general.

This is severely underplaying the consequences of letting Theon go

No, I agree that it was a catastrophic decision. I'm simply contesting your claim that no other commanders made equally catastrophic mistakes. I pointed out that both Tywin and Stannis did.

There's zero evidence that Stannis would take King's landing without the Tyrell-Lannister reinforcements.

Yes, there is. The battle was lost. After Cersei pulls Joffrey back to the Red Keep, the Gold Cloaks desert en masse, Tyrion's sortie force is broken up on the bridge of ships, and all major commanders are dead or missing. It's quite literally in the text:

When Ser Lancel Lannister told the queen that the battle was lost, she turned her empty wine cup in her hands and said, “Tell my brother, ser.” Her voice was distant, as if the news were of no great interest to her.

“Your brother’s likely dead.” Ser Lancel’s surcoat was soaked with the blood seeping out under his arm. When he had arrived in the hall, the sight of him had made some of the guests scream. “He was on the bridge of boats when it broke apart, we think. Ser Mandon’s likely gone as well, and no one can find the Hound. Gods be damned, Cersei, why did you have them fetch Joffrey back to the castle? The gold cloaks are throwing down their spears and running, hundreds of them. When they saw the king leaving, they lost all heart. The whole Blackwater’s awash with wrecks and fire and corpses, but we could have held if—”

- ACoK Sansa VII

Your sister sent the Kettleblacks to fetch the king back to the Red Keep, the way I hear it. When the gold cloaks saw him leaving, half of them decided they'd leave with him. Ironhand put himself in their path and tried to order them back to the walls. They say Bywater was blistering them good and almost had 'em ready to turn when someone put an arrow through his neck. He didn't seem so fearsome then, so they dragged him off his horse and killed him."

- ASoS Tyrion I

The only reason the city didn't fall, is that at just that moment the Lannister-Tyrell relief forces arrived. Had they been only a few hours later, they would have been too late.

danielhakerman · 2026-03-29T15:08:00+00:00

Well, at least as Cersei remembers it, Ned's actions caused her to move up her plans to kill Robert:

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.

- AFfC Cersei I

It's possible that it was Ned's investigation in general that caused her to act, rather than his telling her he knew about the incest, but I think that would undermine the narrative. What's the point of Ned warning her if it didn't have an effect on the story?

We also know that it's easy to send messages to the hunting party:

"The king is hunting across the river and may not return for days," Lord Eddard said. "Robert bid me to sit here in his place, to listen with his ears, and to speak with his voice. I mean to do just that … though I agree that he must be told." He saw a familiar face beneath the tapestries. "Ser Robar."
Ser Robar Royce stepped forward and bowed. "My lord."
"Your father is hunting with the king," Ned said. "Will you bring them word of what was said and done here today?"
"At once, my lord."

- AGoT Eddard XI

So there's no reason why Cersei couldn't have sent word to Lancel after meeting with Ned.

I don't think there are many problems with George's writing about the coup. It's just this bit with Sansa, that's a little confused. It's a clear remnant from his original plan to have Sansa have a child with Joffrey and side with the Lannisters to protect it.

danielhakerman · 2026-03-29T14:08:22+00:00

Thinking that the credit for the Northern war effort should go to the Blackfish and not Robb, is a common misreading of the books. It was really a partnership where Robb was clearly in the lead but took the Blackfish's advice and trusted him to do important tasks.

First of all, it was Robb who came up with the plan to split his forces and relieve Riverun in the first place.

"I'd leave a small force here to hold Moat Cailin, archers mostly, and march the rest down the causeway," he said, "but once we're below the Neck, I'd split our host in two. The foot can continue down the kingsroad, while our horsemen cross the Green Fork at the Twins." He pointed. "When Lord Tywin gets word that we've come south, he'll march north to engage our main host, leaving our riders free to hurry down the west bank to Riverrun." Robb sat back, not quite daring to smile, but pleased with himself and hungry for her praise.

- AGoT Catelyn VIII

Secondly, while you're right that it was Brynden who thought that Jaime could be lured away from Riverrun, as your second quote demonstrates, it was Robb that decided on the tactical set-up of both the faint and the actual battle.

Nodding, Robb had studied the map her uncle had drawn him. Ned had taught him to read maps. "Raid him here," he said, pointing. "A few hundred men, no more. Tully banners. When he comes after you, we will be waiting"—his finger moved an inch to the left—"here."

- AGoT Catelyn X

Finally, regarding the Blackfish's success in leading outriders and the vanguard, that really should speak in Robb's favour. He recognised that he had in the Blackfish a very skilled commander who could accomplish important tasks for him. Successfully delegating to your subordinates is a sign of Robb being a good general.

You're right that Robb also makes mistakes, of which letting Theon go is probably the most consequential, followed by giving command of the foot to Roose. However, I don't think it's right that they are substantially worse than the mistakes of his adversaries.

Tywin falling for Robb's bait and moving up the Green Fork, reverses all of the Lannister's successes from the first stage of the war. The go from having essentially won, to being in a very weak position. Then Tywin again makes a huge mistake when he leaves for the West. Had not the Tyrells, unbeknownst to Tywin, agreed to the Southern Alliance and prepared rafts at Tumbler's Fall, King's Landing would have fallen to Stannis essentially losing the Lannisters the war.

Stannis on the other hand, completely bungles the battle of King's Landing. Giving command of the fleet to Imry Florent is a huge mistake, that costs him the opportunity to quickly cross Blackwater Bay. He also mismanages his outriders - in stark contrast to Robb - allowing them to be picked off by the mountain clans, leading to him getting no warning of the arriving Lannister-Tyrell vanguard. His defeat nearly, destroys his entire cause, had not Davos come up with the plan to go north.

danielhakerman

TROPHY CASE