ASoIAF/Game of Thrones general Discussion Thread

[The Huskar Social Union]

Just another friendly reminder to SPOILER ANYTHING THAT WOULD GIVE HINTS TO EVENTS IN THE FUCKING STORY.

Mormak, go back and spoiler that post i told you to earlier, as well as the one above this post.

Maybe for the one mentioned prior, For the one just now? No.

By your own rules, mentioning of the Red Wedding is not "spoiling" anything

Its a storm of swords event after all.

The book came out fourteen years ago, i really don't think it or its events should be considered spoiling anything.

I stated in the op that in order to avoid ruining anything for people that all events, speculation of events and characters from the end of season 2/ book 2 onwards should be spoilered with a statement saying what book/season it is in relation to so people know. The red wedding is in Book 3, so it applies so yes it would be spoiling things as not every one is caught up on the story. All you have to do is click one more button when making a post, that is all. What you mentioned about a certain cause dieing with a certain person that is a spoiler, which you will spoiler. The statement you made in the last post hints at events in the story in Book 5, so spoiler them. This applies to everyone.

[The Huskar Social Union]

seriously, we gonna start arguing whats a spoiler? It´s Season 3, enough to me to consider it a Spoiler. Already edited my post.

Not much of an argument when the source material is nearing twenty years of age, just going to put that out there.

And i don't judge things by the Mediocre television show, which i actually ceased watching in "season two".

Good for you, but that and saying "Oh well the books have been out for so and so many years" is not an excuse to post stuff that would ruin the story for others, because not everyone wants to read the books, or has finished them.

[Mormak]

Maybe for the one mentioned prior, For the one just now? No.

By your own rules, mentioning of the Red Wedding is not "spoiling" anything

Its a storm of swords event after all.

The book came out fourteen years ago, i really don't think it or its events should be considered spoiling anything.

I stated in the op that in order to avoid ruining anything for people that all events, speculation of events and characters from the end of season 2/ book 2 onwards should be spoilered with a statement saying what book/season it is in relation to so people know.

Well its good to know that novels from 1998 aren't considered "spoiling" anything

Maybe for the one mentioned prior, For the one just now? No.

By your own rules, mentioning of the Red Wedding is not "spoiling" anything

Its a storm of swords event after all.

The book came out fourteen years ago, i really don't think it or its events should be considered spoiling anything.

The red wedding is in Book 3, so it applies so yes it would be spoiling things as not every one is caught up on the story.

From fourteen years ago eh? Do we also need to spoiler tag the Matrix script? Or the I, Robot short stories from the 50s? Ya know cause, not every one has read those.

Not much of an argument when the source material is nearing twenty years of age, just going to put that out there.

And i don't judge things by the Mediocre television show, which i actually ceased watching in "season two".

Good for you, but that and saying "Oh well the books have been out for so and so many years" is not an excuse to post stuff that would ruin the story for others, because not everyone wants to read the books, or has finished them.

They have been for quite a few years, so i really don't feel horrible for folks who just became aware of the universe in the TV series, being shocked about events i knew ten years before happened, assuming they actually made it into the tv series anyway.

Maybe for the one mentioned prior, For the one just now? No.

By your own rules, mentioning of the Red Wedding is not "spoiling" anything

Its a storm of swords event after all.

The book came out fourteen years ago, i really don't think it or its events should be considered spoiling anything.

that is a spoiler, which you will spoiler.

Oh? Do you give commands to me now?

I will tell you quite frankly, that it is not a proper way to ask some one to go out of their way to heed a request.

Maybe for the one mentioned prior, For the one just now? No.

By your own rules, mentioning of the Red Wedding is not "spoiling" anything

Its a storm of swords event after all.

The book came out fourteen years ago, i really don't think it or its events should be considered spoiling anything.

The statement you made in the last post hints at events in the story in Book 5

In the vaguest terms possible sure.

Maybe for the one mentioned prior, For the one just now? No.

By your own rules, mentioning of the Red Wedding is not "spoiling" anything

Its a storm of swords event after all.

The book came out fourteen years ago, i really don't think it or its events should be considered spoiling anything.

This applies to everyone.

That's such a heart warming notion!

[The Huskar Social Union]

Alright i needed to go off for a few moments there as i went way overboard with that spoiler talk.

Mormak, i was pissed at something irl that just happened not that long ago and i took it out on you with my attitude and tone of my posts which i did not mean to do So for that i apologize and i hope you will accept that apology.

Now, The first two books and their seasons i have no problem with non spoiler-ed posts because near everyone will be aware of the events that happened in those books/seasons. I am asking (as i did in the op) that all content pertaining to Book 3 and onwards, including their TV equivalent seasons to be spoiler-ed in order to avoid ruining the story for any show watchers who have not caught up on the most recent ones as well as book readers who have only started or have not finished them, and that most threads i go on to about this series have massive amounts of spoilers that ruin it for people and i do not want that happening here. I understand that this can be annoying at times but i am a book reader too as are most people here but we all do it. And to be frank just posting spoilers left right and centre because you read the books and using that as an excuse is quite honestly a dick move.
So i will ask that you just put a spoiler tag on your posts in the future if you are talking about anything that would be spoilerish.

[Zentrut]

I stated in the op that in order to avoid ruining anything for people that all events, speculation of events and characters from the end of season 2/ book 2 onwards should be spoilered with a statement saying what book/season it is in relation to so people know.

1. Well its good to know that novels from 1998 aren't considered "spoiling" anything

The red wedding is in Book 3, so it applies so yes it would be spoiling things as not every one is caught up on the story.

2. From fourteen years ago eh? Do we also need to spoiler tag the Matrix script? Or the I, Robot short stories from the 50s? Ya know cause, not every one has read those.

Good for you, but that and saying "Oh well the books have been out for so and so many years" is not an excuse to post stuff that would ruin the story for others, because not everyone wants to read the books, or has finished them.

3. They have been for quite a few years, so i really don't feel horrible for folks who just became aware of the universe in the TV series, being shocked about events i knew ten years before happened, assuming they actually made it into the tv series anyway.

that is a spoiler, which you will spoiler.

3. Oh? Do you give commands to me now?

I will tell you quite frankly, that it is not a proper way to ask some one to go out of their way to heed a request.

The statement you made in the last post hints at events in the story in Book 5

4. In the vaguest terms possible sure.

This applies to everyone.

5. That's such a heart warming notion!

1. The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

2. They hopped on the bandwagon, deal with it, and don't be a dick by spoiling stuff.

3. Ok, this one I agree with, but you didn't act on when you were asked to spoiler.

4. Still hints at stuff, should be spoilered.

5. Don't be a dick about it, it's OP's word. Don't like it? Tough, he's OP you're not.

[Mormak]

1. Well its good to know that novels from 1998 aren't considered "spoiling" anything



2. From fourteen years ago eh? Do we also need to spoiler tag the Matrix script? Or the I, Robot short stories from the 50s? Ya know cause, not every one has read those.



3. They have been for quite a few years, so i really don't feel horrible for folks who just became aware of the universe in the TV series, being shocked about events i knew ten years before happened, assuming they actually made it into the tv series anyway.



3. Oh? Do you give commands to me now?

I will tell you quite frankly, that it is not a proper way to ask some one to go out of their way to heed a request.



4. In the vaguest terms possible sure.



5. That's such a heart warming notion!

1. The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

2. They hopped on the bandwagon, deal with it, and don't be a dick by spoiling stuff.

3. Ok, this one I agree with, but you didn't act on when you were asked to spoiler.

4. Still hints at stuff, should be spoilered.

5. Don't be a dick about it, it's OP's word. Don't like it? Tough, he's OP you're not.

1. Every one has a bit of Bias, only self important delusion insists otherwise, but that said i don't get where you got that from what was stated here.
2. By talking about in terms that only people who are aware of the events anyways would understand? it's not as if i said lord such and such at such such, had King such and such, murdered because of such and such slight.
3. I don't recall even getting a "please" it was a direct, if not unpleasant request but it wasn't polite.
4. I disagree obviously.
5. Last i checked, the OP's word doesn't override site rules, i have violated no policy here. Furthermore its a ridiculous notion to begin with.

[The Jonathanian States]

Yes, cause having adorable kids is the way to get the Throne in Westeros... Right Stark Family?... Stark? Where the hell did you?... Oh! Right!

None of them were cute, They were all whiny, brooding and overly emotional.

Really its a good thing that, well. There isn't like to be anymore of them.

Its ironic because if the Starks hadn't been the imbeciles they were, Stannis would likely have met his death at the Wall. Thank goodness for Teenagers though eh?

Have you sometime actually read the books instead of just inventing bullshit.

Imbecile's
im·be·cile
[im-buh-sil, -suhl or, esp. British, -seel] Show IPA
noun
1.
Informal. a dunce; blockhead; dolt: Don't stand there like an imbecile. Open the door!.
2.
Psychology . (no longer in technical use; now considered offensive) a person of the second order in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, above the level of idiocy, having a mental age of seven or eight years and an intelligence quotient of 25 to 50.
adjective
3.
Informal. stupid; silly; absurd.
4.
Usually Offensive. showing mental feebleness or incapacity.
5.
Archaic. weak or feeble.

Is a warg. Had visions of future and past.
5 - Considering he can make other people do what he wants, 5 does not fit.
4 - Has the mental ability to see future and past, as well as being able to control a wolf, invalid.
3 - A) He's a kid. Neither of those would be a sign of being an imbecile in childhood. B) He isn't.
2 - Definitely not. See 4 or 5.
1 - Being that would, as said, conflict with being a warg.

1 - He led an army. Leading an army requires at least a bit of intelligence, therefore false.
2 - He managed to let his army win. Again, requires a certain level of mental stability, and would not work in the mental age of seven or eight years.
3 - From how we saw him behave.... not really.
4 - Leads an Army. Leads an army to victory. Negotiates, fights, has normalish social contacts. false.
5 - Weak? He fights. Feeble? Same. Therefore, also false.

So, onwards we go.

I'll be going by information of the last time we saw him.
1 - Not really, no. Also, he seems to be a limited greenseer and/or warg.
2 - His actual age should be around that(or younger?), therefore his mental age being that is completely normal.
3 - He's a kid. Even so, I'm not sure he is.
4 - No sign of that, as of yet.
5 - He's a kid, and on the run. Weakness or feebleness might stem from malnutrition which may or may not be caused by being on the run. Invalid.

Bran, Check, Rickon, Check, Robb, Check. That leaves us Sansa and Arya, as well as Jon if you want.

1 - Don't see any signs for that being true.
2 - That neither
3 - Informal or silly? After Joffrey I doubt she still has any humor.
4 - Nope
5 - Not unusually so.

1 - Speaks two languages, and has learned many valuable skills.
2 - A)That shouldn't be too far from her actual age. B)She killed people, she definitely is more mature than that.
3 - Silly? Maybe. Absurd, no, though the things she sees might actually be.
4 - No. Definitely not. She killed people. She knows that, she thinks of that. She stole and saw death.
5 - Considering she killed a handful of people, I'll go with no.

Now,Jon. This part you may dismiss if you want, as he isn't a Stark per se.

1 - Nope.
2 - He lived in societies, saw their differences, tries to let one live by the other, all that while preparing for war and having to prevent the societies from warring each other. So no.
3 - Maybe sometimes before being LC of the Night's Watch. After that, no.
4 - No?
5 - He fought wights, fought people, and won. So no.

I'll add that the spoilers may be of everything.

[Mormak]

By the Starks you realize, i meant the heads of the House, Eddard, Robb etc right? When i actually start to care about what every other Stark is doing, i might actually bother speaking about them.

So your little whining tangent that mostly consisted of "No", "My opinion" And here is my favorite bit! More usage of the word no! Why you ask? Because i said it was so, even though i claimed the person i was responding to invented the claims, despite me inflating belief in such and such characters, that is based upon my own view of them!

So just to point that i will merely roll my eyes and do a slight chuckle at that fairly biased interpretation of what makes the Stark's "brilliant".

Anywho here is Robb in a nutshell.

1. He abandons a marriage alliance that gave him more then four thousand swords for fifty and a pretty face, one that ultimately did him in as well considering House Westerling was part of the plotting behind the Red Wedding. So not only does he not demonstrate any sort of moral decency or honor, in not holding to his end of the deal with the Freys of the Crossing, But he also fails on a strategic level given that he abandons a good portion of his forces, and thus weakens his war effort all for the sake of a woman. Some find that sort of stupidity endearing i guess, i find it moronic.

2. He was surrounded by experienced Lords and Men at Arms, including Umbers, Karstarks, Freys. many more, Him being with the Van also isn't an overly effective position given that he is supposed to be a overall commander, you cannot do that in the Van. Stannis directed his forces not from the front, but from the rear. Also considering the events of the Crag? His position in the van is hardly a smart move, despite you apparently insisting otherwise, so i am not seeing much intelligence in defending him, continuing on.

3. He leads his army to overexertion and defeat, He is bogged down in the Riverlands, The North is taken from him, Because he refused to share battle plans with his uncle, the trap he laid for the Lannisters fell, And placed him in the position that led to the death of his war effort, so him winning a handful of battles, most of which were not by any overt skill but base trickery does not impress me. He didn't assign his in field commanders effectively and it killed him, literally, well that and his libido.

4. As stated before, the amount of leading he did is debatable, considering he held war council with seemingly every great house of the north, all who proposed tactics, and movements to their "King". Given, we are not presented with just how many "ideas" actually ever come from Robb.

5. He allowed his Mother to fest division in his forces, this combined with his betrayal the Freys and ultimately his own inaction and laxness cost him dearly. Because of her, and his inaction the Karstarks are removed, One of the largest portions of his forces, just gone.

6. I noted you labeled the notion that he fought was apparently mentionable enough to cover as some form of intellect. Again look at the crag, that doesn't prove much to me other then that he thought he was immortal like all teenagers.

So...I see little defense for a child who let the thing in his pants cost him a war, His Mother's crimes to weaken his war effort and his own delusions of immortality lead him to near his death bed.

[The Jonathanian States]

By the Starks you realize, i meant the heads of the House, Eddard, Robb etc right? When i actually start to care about what every other Stark is doing, i might actually bother speaking about them.

So your little whining tangent that mostly consisted of "No", "My opinion" And here is my favorite bit! More usage of the word no! Why you ask? Because i said it was so, even though i claimed the person i was responding to invented the claims, despite me inflating belief in such and such characters, that is based upon my own view of them!

So just to point that i will merely roll my eyes and do a slight chuckle at that fairly biased interpretation of what makes the Stark's "brilliant".

Anywho here is Robb in a nutshell.

1. He abandons a marriage alliance that gave him more then four thousand swords for fifty and a pretty face, one that ultimately did him in as well considering House Westerling was part of the plotting behind the Red Wedding. So not only does he not demonstrate any sort of moral decency or honor, in not holding to his end of the deal with the Freys of the Crossing, But he also fails on a strategic level given that he abandons a good portion of his forces, and thus weakens his war effort all for the sake of a woman. Some find that sort of stupidity endearing i guess, i find it moronic.

2. He was surrounded by experienced Lords and Men at Arms, including Umbers, Karstarks, Freys. many more, Him being with the Van also isn't an overly effective position given that he is supposed to be a overall commander, you cannot do that in the Van. Stannis directed his forces not from the front, but from the rear. Also considering the events of the Crag? His position in the van is hardly a smart move, despite you apparently insisting otherwise, so i am not seeing much intelligence in defending him, continuing on.

3. He leads his army to overexertion and defeat, He is bogged down in the Riverlands, The North is taken from him, Because he refused to share battle plans with his uncle, the trap he laid for the Lannisters fell, And placed him in the position that led to the death of his war effort, so him winning a handful of battles, most of which were not by any overt skill but base trickery does not impress me. He didn't assign his in field commanders effectively and it killed him, literally, well that and his libido.

4. As stated before, the amount of leading he did is debatable, considering he held war council with seemingly every great house of the north, all who proposed tactics, and movements to their "King". Given, we are not presented with just how many "ideas" actually ever come from Robb.

5. He allowed his Mother to fest division in his forces, this combined with his betrayal the Freys and ultimately his own inaction and laxness cost him dearly. Because of her, and his inaction the Karstarks are removed, One of the largest portions of his forces, just gone.

6. I noted you labeled the notion that he fought was apparently mentionable enough to cover as some form of intellect. Again look at the crag, that doesn't prove much to me other then that he thought he was immortal like all teenagers.

So...I see little defense for a child who let the thing in his pants cost him a war, His Mother's crimes to weaken his war effort and his own delusions of immortality lead him to near his death bed.

No, I did not. Considering "Stark" is a family name, and "the Starks", are a family, unless you mention otherwise, it will refer to the family as a whole, because that's the f*cking word.

The amount of times I used "No" or "Nope" as the main part of an answer was exactly 5 times. That's a fifth of everything. "My opinion"..... now, where did I use that? I additionally used the word "No" many times, often using it to finish that line after having shown why. Consider it just another space if it seems to disturb you.

Because i said it was so

Where did I base it on my having said so?

i claimed the person i was responding to invented the claims

I don't think I ever implied you having invented the claims, but considering you posted them, it was you I responded to.

me inflating belief in such and such characters

Ah, magnificent. Now, where did I do that.

that is based upon my own view of them

Completely different from your view on Stannis, is it not?

So just to point that i will merely roll my eyes and do a slight chuckle

Do that.

fairly biased interpretation

Yes, I am actually and honestly biased towards the Starks. Well done, you have read my sig.
I am completely biased, not like you, who is completely fair and neutral to all characters and the glorious Mannis.

of what makes the Stark's "brilliant"

Again you seem to put words in my mouth. How funny, I didn't say that. If you'd reread you'd see that I'm arguing that they aren't the imbeciles you wrote them to be.
(Probably hinted by the fact that I underlined your line of saying so, and added a quote of the definition of Imbecile.)

1 - Stupid yes, strategical mistake and immoral?,yes. Imbecile, no. Imbecile, at least from the words given in that definition, seems to be a certain level beyond simple stupid.
2 - I never insisted leading from the Van is positive, you seem to be reading something which I never wrote. Leading from the Van isn't necessarily the highest level of intelligence but it does not imply actual imbecility.
3 - He led his army to defeat? Yes, that is definitely the fitting word when Tywin was losing battle after battle and had to resent to common murder. His assigning of field commanders is in no way related to his death by stabbing at a wedding. Or was he supposed to deploy his commanders inside the wedding?
4 - By that logic: Stannis has had talks with Melisandre and Davos before deciding > He doesn't lead because he doesn't decide alone. I mean, was marching on the wall Stannis idea? No. Was sending Melisandre to release the demon-ish thing on Renly his idea? No.
5 - You repeat yourself here, it seems. Also, he had no control of his mothers actions, and when he could stop her, he did.
6 - I didn't use it as a form of intellect, but as the opposite of imbecility. If you'd actually look at that first quote, imbecility, beyond mere lack of intellect, is also mental incapacity or something very close to that. If you can think enough to lead and join a battle, you are not at that level.

The first, sure was a mistake, but is not imbecility, merely the inexperienced behavior of youth. The second is hardly to blame on him, and the third never actually cost him his life, he even seemed to be quite successful with that delusion, as long as in the field.

[New Frenco Empire]

1.So Speculative musing coming from a man who has only commanded one battle his entire life and even then it was only one aspect of it, The hope that their hired mercenaries will defect and the belief that the Mercs won't turn and run the moment that their backs against the walls?
2. I highly doubt it is there to aid them in any timeframe, it is there because their commander wants it to be there, and his prize isn't even there. I see no reason for it actually engage.
3. I admit the greatness of the man i desire to win, You seem to do it for another contender, but don't claim "cult of personality" to be limited to Stannis what with that whole "mother" garbage, and the chain breaker and that whole mythos she built up.
4. Because Robb's rebellion died with robb and having a united North under Stannis beats having a united North under the Boltons, or having the Ironmen continue to linger there? Stannis actually is about the only person around there who would actually move to secure his Kingdom, much like he said to Jon Snow. He came to protect his realm, to gain his throne, not the opposite like every one else.
5. Like your own! i will point out though, you seem to "forget" bits of what is going on, when it doesn't suit you.

Spoiler that shit.

1.) As far as we can tell, the Meereenese force is ready and willing. No implications to the contrary. Barristan promises to give the Tattered Prince what he wants in exchange for his allegiance, and Tyrion's already pledged large sums of gold and other goodies to the Second Sons.

2.) They're in the Bay of Meereen, coming under attack from the Yunkish. It's only logical to fight for your prize.

3.) Daenerys is a much more important character to the story and has a lot more support for the theories than the latter. Hard evidence can be brought up in her favor as opposed to "THE RED GOD'S CHAMPION! MELISANDRE SAID SO!"...Despite the fact that she actually seems to favor Jon nowadays.

4.) Wyman and his host are serving Bolton at Winterfell. Best case scenario, Wyman learns that Davos has succeeded, and unleashes havoc inside the walls giving Stannis the window he needs. He has the north. Pair that with the remnants of his Southron force and he has...a slightly weaker force than Robb had. Considering the Stormlands are currently being attacked by Aegon and the finest mercenary company around, all his holds in the South will probably be lost. Sure, Stannis will hold the North, but the Lannister-Baratheons and even Aegon will still hold greater lands and forces.

5.) Examples?

[Mormak]

Yeah, i am not going to bother with that because, again Miniquotes and i don't care enough to bother with them. Seriously this forum needs to be updated a bit with its Quoting features. Never have this much issue on the Bioware Threads.

Because the Actions of Sansa really had an effect on the War of Five Kings! Oh yes, she was leading Stark Bannermen in Whispering wood! There was only a singular stark of Note that entire rebellion. And that was Robb, You not grasping that, is something i do apologize for not clarifying, but its hardly my fault given i established context in the prior post.

You know, what with crediting the action of the Starks with granting Stannis the strength of the North.

1.Tywin gave his reasoning quite simply at the small council meeting right at the red wedding, Stark was done but it would have taken more time and more lives and fighting before the rebellion was invetiably crushed before it was ended. Stark was acommpied by guards and bannermen, he wouldn't have made an easy foe to engage on the battle field, Tywin admitted as much, but the situation was "Robb was winning the war" It was that he was usually too protected in battle be assaulted directly. His rebellion by that point was dead, or do you disagree on that point? forced to linger in the Riverlands, losing more men and strength every day, His one chance to get Tywin to overextend himself failed, He didn't have the strength to march north and reclaim it, nor did he have the strength to continue to the Westerlands or Crownlands. He was forced into a corner, and that was where he was going to die, either slowly or in battle, there was no escape coming.
2. No, but you did repeatedly state the notion that leading an Army required intelligence, Surely it does, but he didn't "LEAD" he acted as a Commander, not a General.
3. Him not bothering to inform his Uncle of his plot for Tywin to overcommit before the battle of blackwater was what led to his Forces being bogged down in the Riverlands, incapable of movement. Edmure won the battle for Riverun, but lost robb his war. I said as much plainly.
4. He acts as overall Threater Command, which is a position a general is supposed to take, He had Admirals to direct fighting in person, he laid the overall plan of battle and made adjustments to it, He listened to council but the overall strategic objective was granted by him. Robb? mmm, I'd would grant him the same, but from what occurred at Riverrun, that obviously wasn't the case, else Edmure would have never gone to engage the feints of Tywin.
5. He could have seen her punished though, he could have forgiven the Karstarks, Had he not acted as rashly and foolishly as he had, he could have salvaged something from her blunder, instead? He lost damn near a quarter of his forces.
6. If you actually give Robb a serious glance over it becomes clear, his actions were not the result of any notion of preplanned thought or outcome. He was given the responsibilities of a Lord, of King and that weight crushed his weak shoulders, his mind wasn't capable of acting with rational planned intent or thought, so i wouldn't be over surprised if he did have mental incapacity to act as a Lord. And also, Being trained to fight has little do with intellect, its training and the improving of the reflex and response time, its more to do with conditioning the body then anything else, swinging a club doesn't make you a scholar.

[The Jonathanian States]

Yeah, i am not going to bother with that because, again Miniquotes and i don't care enough to bother with them. Seriously this forum needs to be updated a bit with its Quoting features. Never have this much issue on the Bioware Threads.

Because the Actions of Sansa really had an effect on the War of Five Kings! Oh yes, she was leading Stark Bannermen in Whispering wood! There was only a singular stark of Note that entire rebellion. And that was Robb, You not grasping that, is something i do apologize for not clarifying, but its hardly my fault given i established context in the prior post.

You know, what with crediting the action of the Starks with granting Stannis the strength of the North.

1.Tywin gave his reasoning quite simply at the small council meeting right at the red wedding, Stark was done but it would have taken more time and more lives and fighting before the rebellion was invetiably crushed before it was ended. Stark was acommpied by guards and bannermen, he wouldn't have made an easy foe to engage on the battle field, Tywin admitted as much, but the situation was "Robb was winning the war" It was that he was usually too protected in battle be assaulted directly. His rebellion by that point was dead, or do you disagree on that point? forced to linger in the Riverlands, losing more men and strength every day, His one chance to get Tywin to overextend himself failed, He didn't have the strength to march north and reclaim it, nor did he have the strength to continue to the Westerlands or Crownlands. He was forced into a corner, and that was where he was going to die, either slowly or in battle, there was no escape coming.
2. No, but you did repeatedly state the notion that leading an Army required intelligence, Surely it does, but he didn't "LEAD" he acted as a Commander, not a General.
3. Him not bothering to inform his Uncle of his plot for Tywin to overcommit before the battle of blackwater was what led to his Forces being bogged down in the Riverlands, incapable of movement. Edmure won the battle for Riverun, but lost robb his war. I said as much plainly.
4. He acts as overall Threater Command, which is a position a general is supposed to take, He had Admirals to direct fighting in person, he laid the overall plan of battle and made adjustments to it, He listened to council but the overall strategic objective was granted by him. Robb? mmm, I'd would grant him the same, but from what occurred at Riverrun, that obviously wasn't the case, else Edmure would have never gone to engage the feints of Tywin.
5. He could have seen her punished though, he could have forgiven the Karstarks, Had he not acted as rashly and foolishly as he had, he could have salvaged something from her blunder, instead? He lost damn near a quarter of his forces.
6. If you actually give Robb a serious glance over it becomes clear, his actions were not the result of any notion of preplanned thought or outcome. He was given the responsibilities of a Lord, of King and that weight crushed his weak shoulders, his mind wasn't capable of acting with rational planned intent or thought, so i wouldn't be over surprised if he did have mental incapacity to act as a Lord. And also, Being trained to fight has little do with intellect, its training and the improving of the reflex and response time, its more to do with conditioning the body then anything else, swinging a club doesn't make you a scholar.

1 - Because Tywin totally is unbiased has no reason to ensure the continued loyalty of the council by convincing them of his already assured victory. Yes, I disagree with the point that at that point his rebellion was dead.
His chance did not fail. Tywin would have had overextended himself if he would have had to continue fighting him and Stannis would have launched his attack on the Blackwater. That is to say, Tywin would have had to choose between fighting Stannis or the Starks. I assume he'd choose Stannis, if you disagree with that assumption, I'll be glad to detail.
2 - I said, and stand by my ward, that the level of intelligence required to lead an army is not one that can be combined with imbecility.
But, unlike what you said, he did lead:

lead
  Use Lead in a sentence
lead
1 [leed] Show IPA
verb (used with object), led, lead·ing.
1.to go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort: to lead a group on a cross-country hike.
2.to conduct by holding and guiding: to lead a horse by a rope.
3.to influence or induce; cause: Subsequent events led him to reconsider his position.
4.to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, etc.; bring: You can lead her around to your point of view if you are persistent.
5.to conduct or bring (water, wire, etc.) in a particular course.

As you said, we was in the Van. Therefore, one can definitely apply. 2 probably does not. 3 would be his advisers, 4 would be himself (or vice-versa?) 5 of course does not apply.
3 - That still would not be him leading his army into defeat. It would be him committing a mistake in logistics/communications, or planning, depending on how you define those. But his army was not defeated. Contrary to what you are saying now, that was exactly what you said before, and I quote:

3. He leads his army to overexertion and defeat.....

4 - Not really. Robb gave the overall plan of war. To defeat the Lannisters until secession is granted. Robb listens to council, and does decide the general wargoals. Considering Robb was not with Edmure during the latters war, one cannot give Robb blame for not having organized that. One can give him commentary for not having ordered such actions to be prevented, true. But one cannot give him commentary about not having expected or known the reaction of a commander. Also, Robb does fit your criteria exactly:

He had Admirals to direct fighting in person

Yep. Edmure is one of them. He also fights in person himself, but he also has commanders.

he laid the overall plan of battle and made adjustments to it

Considering his forces are split into many a battle, no. But he lays the overall plan of war, and gives adjustements, the difference is merely the scale.

He listened to council but the overall strategic objective was granted by him

As you yourself said, he convenes with his lords to hear their council, but makes the final decision.
Riverrun in no way conflicts with any of these.
5- That is something else, which you did not say earlier. Having her punished.... he placed her under house arrest in Riverrun. She still is a noble, and the key to the alliance with the riverlands, which is why more than that would probably have lost him more than it had gained. Forgiving the Karstarks..... Tell me, would Stannis forgive injustice? Stannis seems a just man, I don't think so. Robb is a just man as well, then. Before you talk about Stannis not having had a risk of loosing men in his action, lets jump to his conversion. He lost supporters at his conversion, if not immediately then it will have had its effect on his attempts to make the northern lords join him.
6 - You mean winning battles does not involve planning or thinking? Great, let me just assemble my post and just throw them into battle. That'll surely work out. He was given responsibility, yes. You know what, possibly even too much responsibility too fast. His mind's ability of too long-term planning was indeed surprised by the emotional part of his mind, yes. Still doesn't make you incapable or an imbecile. Being trained to fight is no sign of intellect, but is a sign of not being a simple imbecile, as he does actually grasp how to fight. All that training actually requires knowing/understanding what/how to drain for you to do it, even if the actual action is physical. Swinging a club does not make you a scholar. But learning how to swing a club in a more effective way, in a way in which you can disable your enemy faster, and defend yourself better, makes you an not-imbecile, if I may combine that word.

[Mormak]

Yeah, i am not going to bother with that because, again Miniquotes and i don't care enough to bother with them. Seriously this forum needs to be updated a bit with its Quoting features. Never have this much issue on the Bioware Threads.

Because the Actions of Sansa really had an effect on the War of Five Kings! Oh yes, she was leading Stark Bannermen in Whispering wood! There was only a singular stark of Note that entire rebellion. And that was Robb, You not grasping that, is something i do apologize for not clarifying, but its hardly my fault given i established context in the prior post.

You know, what with crediting the action of the Starks with granting Stannis the strength of the North.

1.Tywin gave his reasoning quite simply at the small council meeting right at the red wedding, Stark was done but it would have taken more time and more lives and fighting before the rebellion was invetiably crushed before it was ended. Stark was acommpied by guards and bannermen, he wouldn't have made an easy foe to engage on the battle field, Tywin admitted as much, but the situation was "Robb was winning the war" It was that he was usually too protected in battle be assaulted directly. His rebellion by that point was dead, or do you disagree on that point? forced to linger in the Riverlands, losing more men and strength every day, His one chance to get Tywin to overextend himself failed, He didn't have the strength to march north and reclaim it, nor did he have the strength to continue to the Westerlands or Crownlands. He was forced into a corner, and that was where he was going to die, either slowly or in battle, there was no escape coming.
2. No, but you did repeatedly state the notion that leading an Army required intelligence, Surely it does, but he didn't "LEAD" he acted as a Commander, not a General.
3. Him not bothering to inform his Uncle of his plot for Tywin to overcommit before the battle of blackwater was what led to his Forces being bogged down in the Riverlands, incapable of movement. Edmure won the battle for Riverun, but lost robb his war. I said as much plainly.
4. He acts as overall Threater Command, which is a position a general is supposed to take, He had Admirals to direct fighting in person, he laid the overall plan of battle and made adjustments to it, He listened to council but the overall strategic objective was granted by him. Robb? mmm, I'd would grant him the same, but from what occurred at Riverrun, that obviously wasn't the case, else Edmure would have never gone to engage the feints of Tywin.
5. He could have seen her punished though, he could have forgiven the Karstarks, Had he not acted as rashly and foolishly as he had, he could have salvaged something from her blunder, instead? He lost damn near a quarter of his forces.
6. If you actually give Robb a serious glance over it becomes clear, his actions were not the result of any notion of preplanned thought or outcome. He was given the responsibilities of a Lord, of King and that weight crushed his weak shoulders, his mind wasn't capable of acting with rational planned intent or thought, so i wouldn't be over surprised if he did have mental incapacity to act as a Lord. And also, Being trained to fight has little do with intellect, its training and the improving of the reflex and response time, its more to do with conditioning the body then anything else, swinging a club doesn't make you a scholar.

1 - Because Tywin totally is unbiased has no reason to ensure the continued loyalty of the council by convincing them of his already assured victory. Yes, I disagree with the point that at that point his rebellion was dead.
His chance did not fail. Tywin would have had overextended himself if he would have had to continue fighting him and Stannis would have launched his attack on the Blackwater. That is to say, Tywin would have had to choose between fighting Stannis or the Starks. I assume he'd choose Stannis, if you disagree with that assumption, I'll be glad to detail.
2 - I said, and stand by my ward, that the level of intelligence required to lead an army is not one that can be combined with imbecility.
But, unlike what you said, he did lead:

lead
  Use Lead in a sentence
lead
1 [leed] Show IPA
verb (used with object), led, lead·ing.
1.to go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort: to lead a group on a cross-country hike.
2.to conduct by holding and guiding: to lead a horse by a rope.
3.to influence or induce; cause: Subsequent events led him to reconsider his position.
4.to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, etc.; bring: You can lead her around to your point of view if you are persistent.
5.to conduct or bring (water, wire, etc.) in a particular course.

As you said, we was in the Van. Therefore, one can definitely apply. 2 probably does not. 3 would be his advisers, 4 would be himself (or vice-versa?) 5 of course does not apply.
3 - That still would not be him leading his army into defeat. It would be him committing a mistake in logistics/communications, or planning, depending on how you define those. But his army was not defeated. Contrary to what you are saying now, that was exactly what you said before, and I quote:

3. He leads his army to overexertion and defeat.....

4 - Not really. Robb gave the overall plan of war. To defeat the Lannisters until secession is granted. Robb listens to council, and does decide the general wargoals. Considering Robb was not with Edmure during the latters war, one cannot give Robb blame for not having organized that. One can give him commentary for not having ordered such actions to be prevented, true. But one cannot give him commentary about not having expected or known the reaction of a commander. Also, Robb does fit your criteria exactly:

He had Admirals to direct fighting in person

Yep. Edmure is one of them. He also fights in person himself, but he also has commanders.

he laid the overall plan of battle and made adjustments to it

Considering his forces are split into many a battle, no. But he lays the overall plan of war, and gives adjustements, the difference is merely the scale.

He listened to council but the overall strategic objective was granted by him

As you yourself said, he convenes with his lords to hear their council, but makes the final decision.
Riverrun in no way conflicts with any of these.
5- That is something else, which you did not say earlier. Having her punished.... he placed her under house arrest in Riverrun. She still is a noble, and the key to the alliance with the riverlands, which is why more than that would probably have lost him more than it had gained. Forgiving the Karstarks..... Tell me, would Stannis forgive injustice? Stannis seems a just man, I don't think so. Robb is a just man as well, then. Before you talk about Stannis not having had a risk of loosing men in his action, lets jump to his conversion. He lost supporters at his conversion, if not immediately then it will have had its effect on his attempts to make the northern lords join him.
6 - You mean winning battles does not involve planning or thinking? Great, let me just assemble my post and just throw them into battle. That'll surely work out. He was given responsibility, yes. You know what, possibly even too much responsibility too fast. His mind's ability of too long-term planning was indeed surprised by the emotional part of his mind, yes. Still doesn't make you incapable or an imbecile. Being trained to fight is no sign of intellect, but is a sign of not being a simple imbecile, as he does actually grasp how to fight. All that training actually requires knowing/understanding what/how to drain for you to do it, even if the actual action is physical. Swinging a club does not make you a scholar. But learning how to swing a club in a more effective way, in a way in which you can disable your enemy faster, and defend yourself better, makes you an not-imbecile, if I may combine that word.

1.Indeed, but Tywin had no cause to lie because it was the truth, The Stark bannermen numbered less then ten thousand strong, The Riverland forces were stuck fighting in their own lands, so they couldn't be commited, and the Westerland campaign was completely abandoned due to lack of Manpower, Tywin was winning. Robb won a few battles, got Tywin to commit to war, but he lost the war because he didn't think, because he didn't stop to think.

Right, his forces were bogged down in the Riverlands, shrinking day by day, He had lost his route back to the North and any possible reinforcements, his greatest allies were abandoning him and Tywin merely had to wait before it crumbled in on it self, after the Blackwater that became apparent. Because of Robb's and Edmures folly, Tywin was capable of bringing his forces to King's Landing, you over estimate how he can recover apparently considering a good part of his forces came with him to the Twins, and that was only 3,500. Not the thirty thousand being roused in the Westerland, and certainly not the Twenty Tywin brought with him and the Tyrells forty.

His cause died the moment Edmure let Tywin concentrate on his logistical predicment, Had he successfully crossed, he would have put himself into the Wolf's trap when he actually had the strength to do something to the Lannister host, but after blackwater, the abandonment of the Freys and Karstarks? Your dreaming. Even if the Lannister Host, took four losses for every Northmen, They would still win the day.

2. Yeah...Robb didn't do that, he caused influence and change in the mindset of folk sure, just never the way he wanted. He wanted to keep the Freys? He lost them, He wanted to successfully lead a war? He lost, He Wanted to keep the Karstarks? He had the brilliant notion to execute their Lord. I'd imbecility fits to a T. If not by intent then action.

3. His army was shattered, withdrawn, and stuck on the defensive, awaiting destruction, ALL because of his actions. He led them to defeat.

4. Robb gave broad instructions, that Edmure used as basis to attack, Robb didn't give his plan in full to his Uncle, that was his bad, Edmure stated as much when Robb got pissed at him for it. See, that's what i thought as well. But robbs reaction to Edmures actions, clearly indicate he didn't give him leave to act in an operational capacity to the war, merely to hold riverun. So no Robb, was dictating as i said before and it is unclear if that idea at all even came from him, To bring Tywin in a trap, given he never mentioned it period, until it was hindsight, so if it came from Umber, Or Karstark, or even Bolton, we have no clue.

5. Her releasing their most valuable bit of leverage not only cost them the Karstarks it also cost them the only thing that gave Tywin pause at all, It severely weakened their position, forget her betrayal for a moment and the message it sent. Stannis dealt with matters of justice personally, but Robb cannot claim Justice when he is beheading his own Bannermen for "smearing" his honor, when he did the exact same to Lord Karstark, by forgiving his lady mother for stealing their Vengeance, it doesn't forgive Murder, But Stannis would have actually seen Justice done, Punishing both parties, and not playing favorites like Robb.

6. Really we are going argument the mental cognition required for battle? Given Robb, rode in the van as previously stated, he likely had no part of commanding forces once they were actually on the field, that fell to whomever he had placed in command, so credit their victories to him, but in all likelyhood? They went to Umber, Bolton or Karstark. Not Stark, because Stark fought actually! Yay! Also, Being instructed in how to wield a weapon is not any indicator of intelligence grasping movement, and basic concept is so simple a child can do it.

Need i remind you for child soldiers? who can work a rifle as well as a grown man if given a few weeks of instruction?

Robb will always be an imbecile to me.

And pretty stupid and childish as well, but always an Imbecile, and the sad bit is? He could have won, He could actually pulled it off, despite his ridiculous handicap in mentality, combat tactics, and strategic grasp of command, He could have had a solid chance of winning, but he threw it away.

[New Frenco Empire]

1.So Speculative musing coming from a man who has only commanded one battle his entire life and even then it was only one aspect of it, The hope that their hired mercenaries will defect and the belief that the Mercs won't turn and run the moment that their backs against the walls?
2. I highly doubt it is there to aid them in any timeframe, it is there because their commander wants it to be there, and his prize isn't even there. I see no reason for it actually engage.
3. I admit the greatness of the man i desire to win, You seem to do it for another contender, but don't claim "cult of personality" to be limited to Stannis what with that whole "mother" garbage, and the chain breaker and that whole mythos she built up.
4. Because Robb's rebellion died with robb and having a united North under Stannis beats having a united North under the Boltons, or having the Ironmen continue to linger there? Stannis actually is about the only person around there who would actually move to secure his Kingdom, much like he said to Jon Snow. He came to protect his realm, to gain his throne, not the opposite like every one else.
5. Like your own! i will point out though, you seem to "forget" bits of what is going on, when it doesn't suit you.

Spoiler that shit.

1.) As far as we can tell, the Meereenese force is ready and willing. No implications to the contrary. Barristan promises to give the Tattered Prince what he wants in exchange for his allegiance, and Tyrion's already pledged large sums of gold and other goodies to the Second Sons.

2.) They're in the Bay of Meereen, coming under attack from the Yunkish. It's only logical to fight for your prize.

3.) Daenerys is a much more important character to the story and has a lot more support for the theories than the latter. Hard evidence can be brought up in her favor as opposed to "THE RED GOD'S CHAMPION! MELISANDRE SAID SO!"...Despite the fact that she actually seems to favor Jon nowadays.

4.) Wyman and his host are serving Bolton at Winterfell. Best case scenario, Wyman learns that Davos has succeeded, and unleashes havoc inside the walls giving Stannis the window he needs. He has the north. Pair that with the remnants of his Southron force and he has...a slightly weaker force than Robb had. Considering the Stormlands are currently being attacked by Aegon and the finest mercenary company around, all his holds in the South will probably be lost. Sure, Stannis will hold the North, but the Lannister-Baratheons and even Aegon will still hold greater lands and forces.

5.) Examples?

...

[The Jonathanian States]

1 - Because Tywin totally is unbiased has no reason to ensure the continued loyalty of the council by convincing them of his already assured victory. Yes, I disagree with the point that at that point his rebellion was dead.
His chance did not fail. Tywin would have had overextended himself if he would have had to continue fighting him and Stannis would have launched his attack on the Blackwater. That is to say, Tywin would have had to choose between fighting Stannis or the Starks. I assume he'd choose Stannis, if you disagree with that assumption, I'll be glad to detail.
2 - I said, and stand by my ward, that the level of intelligence required to lead an army is not one that can be combined with imbecility.
But, unlike what you said, he did lead:

As you said, we was in the Van. Therefore, one can definitely apply. 2 probably does not. 3 would be his advisers, 4 would be himself (or vice-versa?) 5 of course does not apply.
3 - That still would not be him leading his army into defeat. It would be him committing a mistake in logistics/communications, or planning, depending on how you define those. But his army was not defeated. Contrary to what you are saying now, that was exactly what you said before, and I quote:

4 - Not really. Robb gave the overall plan of war. To defeat the Lannisters until secession is granted. Robb listens to council, and does decide the general wargoals. Considering Robb was not with Edmure during the latters war, one cannot give Robb blame for not having organized that. One can give him commentary for not having ordered such actions to be prevented, true. But one cannot give him commentary about not having expected or known the reaction of a commander. Also, Robb does fit your criteria exactly:
Yep. Edmure is one of them. He also fights in person himself, but he also has commanders.
Considering his forces are split into many a battle, no. But he lays the overall plan of war, and gives adjustements, the difference is merely the scale.
As you yourself said, he convenes with his lords to hear their council, but makes the final decision.
Riverrun in no way conflicts with any of these.
5- That is something else, which you did not say earlier. Having her punished.... he placed her under house arrest in Riverrun. She still is a noble, and the key to the alliance with the riverlands, which is why more than that would probably have lost him more than it had gained. Forgiving the Karstarks..... Tell me, would Stannis forgive injustice? Stannis seems a just man, I don't think so. Robb is a just man as well, then. Before you talk about Stannis not having had a risk of loosing men in his action, lets jump to his conversion. He lost supporters at his conversion, if not immediately then it will have had its effect on his attempts to make the northern lords join him.
6 - You mean winning battles does not involve planning or thinking? Great, let me just assemble my post and just throw them into battle. That'll surely work out. He was given responsibility, yes. You know what, possibly even too much responsibility too fast. His mind's ability of too long-term planning was indeed surprised by the emotional part of his mind, yes. Still doesn't make you incapable or an imbecile. Being trained to fight is no sign of intellect, but is a sign of not being a simple imbecile, as he does actually grasp how to fight. All that training actually requires knowing/understanding what/how to drain for you to do it, even if the actual action is physical. Swinging a club does not make you a scholar. But learning how to swing a club in a more effective way, in a way in which you can disable your enemy faster, and defend yourself better, makes you an not-imbecile, if I may combine that word.

1.Indeed, but Tywin had no cause to lie because it was the truth, The Stark bannermen numbered less then ten thousand strong, The Riverland forces were stuck fighting in their own lands, so they couldn't be commited, and the Westerland campaign was completely abandoned due to lack of Manpower, Tywin was winning. Robb won a few battles, got Tywin to commit to war, but he lost the war because he didn't think, because he didn't stop to think.

Right, his forces were bogged down in the Riverlands, shrinking day by day, He had lost his route back to the North and any possible reinforcements, his greatest allies were abandoning him and Tywin merely had to wait before it crumbled in on it self, after the Blackwater that became apparent. Because of Robb's and Edmures folly, Tywin was capable of bringing his forces to King's Landing, you over estimate how he can recover apparently considering a good part of his forces came with him to the Twins, and that was only 3,500. Not the thirty thousand being roused in the Westerland, and certainly not the Twenty Tywin brought with him and the Tyrells forty.

His cause died the moment Edmure let Tywin concentrate on his logistical predicment, Had he successfully crossed, he would have put himself into the Wolf's trap when he actually had the strength to do something to the Lannister host, but after blackwater, the abandonment of the Freys and Karstarks? Your dreaming. Even if the Lannister Host, took four losses for every Northmen, They would still win the day.

2. Yeah...Robb didn't do that, he caused influence and change in the mindset of folk sure, just never the way he wanted. He wanted to keep the Freys? He lost them, He wanted to successfully lead a war? He lost, He Wanted to keep the Karstarks? He had the brilliant notion to execute their Lord. I'd imbecility fits to a T. If not by intent then action.

3. His army was shattered, withdrawn, and stuck on the defensive, awaiting destruction, ALL because of his actions. He led them to defeat.

4. Robb gave broad instructions, that Edmure used as basis to attack, Robb didn't give his plan in full to his Uncle, that was his bad, Edmure stated as much when Robb got pissed at him for it. See, that's what i thought as well. But robbs reaction to Edmures actions, clearly indicate he didn't give him leave to act in an operational capacity to the war, merely to hold riverun. So no Robb, was dictating as i said before and it is unclear if that idea at all even came from him, To bring Tywin in a trap, given he never mentioned it period, until it was hindsight, so if it came from Umber, Or Karstark, or even Bolton, we have no clue.

5. Her releasing their most valuable bit of leverage not only cost them the Karstarks it also cost them the only thing that gave Tywin pause at all, It severely weakened their position, forget her betrayal for a moment and the message it sent. Stannis dealt with matters of justice personally, but Robb cannot claim Justice when he is beheading his own Bannermen for "smearing" his honor, when he did the exact same to Lord Karstark, by forgiving his lady mother for stealing their Vengeance, it doesn't forgive Murder, But Stannis would have actually seen Justice done, Punishing both parties, and not playing favorites like Robb.

6. Really we are going argument the mental cognition required for battle? Given Robb, rode in the van as previously stated, he likely had no part of commanding forces once they were actually on the field, that fell to whomever he had placed in command, so credit their victories to him, but in all likelyhood? They went to Umber, Bolton or Karstark. Not Stark, because Stark fought actually! Yay! Also, Being instructed in how to wield a weapon is not any indicator of intelligence grasping movement, and basic concept is so simple a child can do it.

Need i remind you for child soldiers? who can work a rifle as well as a grown man if given a few weeks of instruction?

Robb will always be an imbecile to me.

And pretty stupid and childish as well, but always an Imbecile, and the sad bit is? He could have won, He could actually pulled it off, despite his ridiculous handicap in mentality, combat tactics, and strategic grasp of command, He could have had a solid chance of winning, but he threw it away.

1 - A) Sources for those numbers. After that, I'll actually continue responding. B) Even if Robb has taken those 3,500 to the Red Wedding, the whole assumption of him succeeding were he not killed is based on the RW not happening, therefore these 3,500 of course still being living and combat-ready troops.
2 - Goalpost moving. I'll stop this discussion here.

[Mormak]

Do you want me to reply to that? I am guessing that is the reason you keep reposting it.

[New Frenco Empire]

Do you want me to reply to that? I am guessing that is the reason you keep reposting it.

You just never responded to it. It makes no difference to me.

[Charellia]

I forgot that Robb did that. If you're right that would eliminate a major obstacle to him.
I think you are overestimating the hatred for the Starks in the south. The Lannisters hate them and did before the treason, but I'm not sure the other houses will really care. The Tyrells have shown a tendency to run to the winning side, regardless of past differences. They laid siege to Renly's own castle within his lifetime, but still allied with him, only to go over to the Lannister side when he was killed. While their marriage alliance with the Lannisters lasts they will oppose all claimants, but if something were to happen to Tommen or Margeary (as it almost certainly will) they will once again be free to change sides.
The Martells will likely support him if the other two Targaeryan claimants are somehow eliminated. This I think is likely. Aegon is too late an addition and Danaerys is too obvious a choice for the Iron Throne.
Jon also has an established friendship with Tyrion, the rightful lord of Casterly Rock, making a truce with the Lannisters possible if Tyrion comes into his birthright.
The smallfolk don't care one way or another about the politics of the high lords so he will have no resistance from them, possibly even support if he is seen as protecting them from the Others.

I realize that is a lot of "if"s, but this is fiction and any number of improbable circumstances can occur if the author wishes it

Additionally, assuming Sansa does actually marry Robert Arryn, the Vale would probably support his claim.
Also, considering the Riverlands did bend for Robb, some of the River-lords might also support Jon, as Robbs heir, too.

Problem is if he is Rheagar's son, Jon would not be Robb's heir. More likely another Stark would have to convince them to bend the knee.

I'm pretty sure Robb declared him[Jon] his heir and left an order to legitimize him...... Bran and Rickon are assumed both alive and dead, as we see in the fact that Lord Manderly has sent Davos to find a Stark. What is dead cannot be found, so he does not believe them dead. And if Manderly can believe that, it isn't too farfetched to assume other northern lords do so too.

It really doesn't matter much if Robb legitimized him. Robb was a traitor with no claim to the Iron Throne nor kingship at all, and more importantly, as a member of the Watch, any attempts to press this legitimization would lead to him being branded a worse traitor than he already has been as of ADWD. Obviously some people still cling to the hope that Bran and Rickon are alive, and they're right, but I don't think they have enough support considering the bodies were clearly displayed. Sure, if they produce a Stark boy, he'll have the claim, but until then, Sansa is the clearest heir to the Stark claim on the North.

The North might still acknowledge that Robb legitimized him.
Night's Watch membership lasts until death. The law says nothing about the status of previously deceased and resurrected Brothers.

[Mormak]

1.Indeed, but Tywin had no cause to lie because it was the truth, The Stark bannermen numbered less then ten thousand strong, The Riverland forces were stuck fighting in their own lands, so they couldn't be commited, and the Westerland campaign was completely abandoned due to lack of Manpower, Tywin was winning. Robb won a few battles, got Tywin to commit to war, but he lost the war because he didn't think, because he didn't stop to think.

Right, his forces were bogged down in the Riverlands, shrinking day by day, He had lost his route back to the North and any possible reinforcements, his greatest allies were abandoning him and Tywin merely had to wait before it crumbled in on it self, after the Blackwater that became apparent. Because of Robb's and Edmures folly, Tywin was capable of bringing his forces to King's Landing, you over estimate how he can recover apparently considering a good part of his forces came with him to the Twins, and that was only 3,500. Not the thirty thousand being roused in the Westerland, and certainly not the Twenty Tywin brought with him and the Tyrells forty.

His cause died the moment Edmure let Tywin concentrate on his logistical predicment, Had he successfully crossed, he would have put himself into the Wolf's trap when he actually had the strength to do something to the Lannister host, but after blackwater, the abandonment of the Freys and Karstarks? Your dreaming. Even if the Lannister Host, took four losses for every Northmen, They would still win the day.

2. Yeah...Robb didn't do that, he caused influence and change in the mindset of folk sure, just never the way he wanted. He wanted to keep the Freys? He lost them, He wanted to successfully lead a war? He lost, He Wanted to keep the Karstarks? He had the brilliant notion to execute their Lord. I'd imbecility fits to a T. If not by intent then action.

3. His army was shattered, withdrawn, and stuck on the defensive, awaiting destruction, ALL because of his actions. He led them to defeat.

4. Robb gave broad instructions, that Edmure used as basis to attack, Robb didn't give his plan in full to his Uncle, that was his bad, Edmure stated as much when Robb got pissed at him for it. See, that's what i thought as well. But robbs reaction to Edmures actions, clearly indicate he didn't give him leave to act in an operational capacity to the war, merely to hold riverun. So no Robb, was dictating as i said before and it is unclear if that idea at all even came from him, To bring Tywin in a trap, given he never mentioned it period, until it was hindsight, so if it came from Umber, Or Karstark, or even Bolton, we have no clue.

5. Her releasing their most valuable bit of leverage not only cost them the Karstarks it also cost them the only thing that gave Tywin pause at all, It severely weakened their position, forget her betrayal for a moment and the message it sent. Stannis dealt with matters of justice personally, but Robb cannot claim Justice when he is beheading his own Bannermen for "smearing" his honor, when he did the exact same to Lord Karstark, by forgiving his lady mother for stealing their Vengeance, it doesn't forgive Murder, But Stannis would have actually seen Justice done, Punishing both parties, and not playing favorites like Robb.

6. Really we are going argument the mental cognition required for battle? Given Robb, rode in the van as previously stated, he likely had no part of commanding forces once they were actually on the field, that fell to whomever he had placed in command, so credit their victories to him, but in all likelyhood? They went to Umber, Bolton or Karstark. Not Stark, because Stark fought actually! Yay! Also, Being instructed in how to wield a weapon is not any indicator of intelligence grasping movement, and basic concept is so simple a child can do it.

Need i remind you for child soldiers? who can work a rifle as well as a grown man if given a few weeks of instruction?

Robb will always be an imbecile to me.

And pretty stupid and childish as well, but always an Imbecile, and the sad bit is? He could have won, He could actually pulled it off, despite his ridiculous handicap in mentality, combat tactics, and strategic grasp of command, He could have had a solid chance of winning, but he threw it away.

1 - A) Sources for those numbers. After that, I'll actually continue responding. B) Even if Robb has taken those 3,500 to the Red Wedding, the whole assumption of him succeeding were he not killed is based on the RW not happening, therefore these 3,500 of course still being living and combat-ready troops.
2 - Goalpost moving. I'll stop this discussion here.

1. The Red Wedding is a massacre that takes place at the Twins in 299AC during the War of the Five Kings, in which the King in the North, Robb Stark, his mother Catelyn Stark, and most of his 3,500 bannermen are slaughtered. The event is orchestrated by Lord Walder Frey as revenge for Robb Stark's breaking of a marriage pact he made with House Frey. However, Lord Walder would never have gone along with the massacre which violated all the sacred laws of hospitality without the promise of protection from Tywin Lannister.


3500 confirmed at the wedding, House Lannister's invasion of the riverlands consisted of One host of 20,000 men is to be commanded by Lord Tywin himself, while the other 15,000 men are to be commanded by his son Ser Jaime Lannister.This was broken up under Jamie and Tywin/Kevan, And Stefford Lannister. A good portion of it was lost at the siege of riverun, And later Whispering wood. It was replaced by the onset of the Red Wedding however given, Edmure mentioning a new Host being gathered in Casterly Rock.

Now time for citations!

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Wa ... _the_Kings


2. Your adorable, do you even know how that fallacy works? I have changed nothing of my argument, its not my bad if you actually didn't give the war its due attention. In fact, it hasn't evolved much since this began, its been clarified and expanded a bit, but the goal of disproving, the onus so to speak, is still feasible if you can actually shift and show me intelligence on his part, and merely assumption of intelligence.

Yay!

[The Jonathanian States]

Additionally, assuming Sansa does actually marry Robert Arryn, the Vale would probably support his claim.
Also, considering the Riverlands did bend for Robb, some of the River-lords might also support Jon, as Robbs heir, too.

Problem is if he is Rheagar's son, Jon would not be Robb's heir. More likely another Stark would have to convince them to bend the knee.

It really doesn't matter much if Robb legitimized him. Robb was a traitor with no claim to the Iron Throne nor kingship at all, and more importantly, as a member of the Watch, any attempts to press this legitimization would lead to him being branded a worse traitor than he already has been as of ADWD. Obviously some people still cling to the hope that Bran and Rickon are alive, and they're right, but I don't think they have enough support considering the bodies were clearly displayed. Sure, if they produce a Stark boy, he'll have the claim, but until then, Sansa is the clearest heir to the Stark claim on the North.

The North might still acknowledge that Robb legitimized him.
Night's Watch membership lasts until death. The law says nothing about the status of previously deceased and resurrected Brothers.

I disagree. Robb stark legitimized him and made him his heir, that was the decision of the king, that's the decision that I trust most of the northern houses would follow.
Also, Jon Snow, as much Targaryen blood as he may posses, is by behavior and belief still a northerner, surely more likely to be viewed as king than any Targaryen, Baratheon, or Lannister.
Additionally, even though Rhaegar would be his father, Jon's mother would then be Lyanna, which still means that he would be a Stark by blood, only from a different stark.

[Ceannairceach]

1 - Because Tywin totally is unbiased has no reason to ensure the continued loyalty of the council by convincing them of his already assured victory. Yes, I disagree with the point that at that point his rebellion was dead.
His chance did not fail. Tywin would have had overextended himself if he would have had to continue fighting him and Stannis would have launched his attack on the Blackwater. That is to say, Tywin would have had to choose between fighting Stannis or the Starks. I assume he'd choose Stannis, if you disagree with that assumption, I'll be glad to detail.
2 - I said, and stand by my ward, that the level of intelligence required to lead an army is not one that can be combined with imbecility.
But, unlike what you said, he did lead:

As you said, we was in the Van. Therefore, one can definitely apply. 2 probably does not. 3 would be his advisers, 4 would be himself (or vice-versa?) 5 of course does not apply.
3 - That still would not be him leading his army into defeat. It would be him committing a mistake in logistics/communications, or planning, depending on how you define those. But his army was not defeated. Contrary to what you are saying now, that was exactly what you said before, and I quote:

4 - Not really. Robb gave the overall plan of war. To defeat the Lannisters until secession is granted. Robb listens to council, and does decide the general wargoals. Considering Robb was not with Edmure during the latters war, one cannot give Robb blame for not having organized that. One can give him commentary for not having ordered such actions to be prevented, true. But one cannot give him commentary about not having expected or known the reaction of a commander. Also, Robb does fit your criteria exactly:
Yep. Edmure is one of them. He also fights in person himself, but he also has commanders.
Considering his forces are split into many a battle, no. But he lays the overall plan of war, and gives adjustements, the difference is merely the scale.
As you yourself said, he convenes with his lords to hear their council, but makes the final decision.
Riverrun in no way conflicts with any of these.
5- That is something else, which you did not say earlier. Having her punished.... he placed her under house arrest in Riverrun. She still is a noble, and the key to the alliance with the riverlands, which is why more than that would probably have lost him more than it had gained. Forgiving the Karstarks..... Tell me, would Stannis forgive injustice? Stannis seems a just man, I don't think so. Robb is a just man as well, then. Before you talk about Stannis not having had a risk of loosing men in his action, lets jump to his conversion. He lost supporters at his conversion, if not immediately then it will have had its effect on his attempts to make the northern lords join him.
6 - You mean winning battles does not involve planning or thinking? Great, let me just assemble my post and just throw them into battle. That'll surely work out. He was given responsibility, yes. You know what, possibly even too much responsibility too fast. His mind's ability of too long-term planning was indeed surprised by the emotional part of his mind, yes. Still doesn't make you incapable or an imbecile. Being trained to fight is no sign of intellect, but is a sign of not being a simple imbecile, as he does actually grasp how to fight. All that training actually requires knowing/understanding what/how to drain for you to do it, even if the actual action is physical. Swinging a club does not make you a scholar. But learning how to swing a club in a more effective way, in a way in which you can disable your enemy faster, and defend yourself better, makes you an not-imbecile, if I may combine that word.

1.Indeed, but Tywin had no cause to lie because it was the truth, The Stark bannermen numbered less then ten thousand strong, The Riverland forces were stuck fighting in their own lands, so they couldn't be commited, and the Westerland campaign was completely abandoned due to lack of Manpower, Tywin was winning. Robb won a few battles, got Tywin to commit to war, but he lost the war because he didn't think, because he didn't stop to think.

Right, his forces were bogged down in the Riverlands, shrinking day by day, He had lost his route back to the North and any possible reinforcements, his greatest allies were abandoning him and Tywin merely had to wait before it crumbled in on it self, after the Blackwater that became apparent. Because of Robb's and Edmures folly, Tywin was capable of bringing his forces to King's Landing, you over estimate how he can recover apparently considering a good part of his forces came with him to the Twins, and that was only 3,500. Not the thirty thousand being roused in the Westerland, and certainly not the Twenty Tywin brought with him and the Tyrells forty.

His cause died the moment Edmure let Tywin concentrate on his logistical predicment, Had he successfully crossed, he would have put himself into the Wolf's trap when he actually had the strength to do something to the Lannister host, but after blackwater, the abandonment of the Freys and Karstarks? Your dreaming. Even if the Lannister Host, took four losses for every Northmen, They would still win the day.

2. Yeah...Robb didn't do that, he caused influence and change in the mindset of folk sure, just never the way he wanted. He wanted to keep the Freys? He lost them, He wanted to successfully lead a war? He lost, He Wanted to keep the Karstarks? He had the brilliant notion to execute their Lord. I'd imbecility fits to a T. If not by intent then action.

3. His army was shattered, withdrawn, and stuck on the defensive, awaiting destruction, ALL because of his actions. He led them to defeat.

4. Robb gave broad instructions, that Edmure used as basis to attack, Robb didn't give his plan in full to his Uncle, that was his bad, Edmure stated as much when Robb got pissed at him for it. See, that's what i thought as well. But robbs reaction to Edmures actions, clearly indicate he didn't give him leave to act in an operational capacity to the war, merely to hold riverun. So no Robb, was dictating as i said before and it is unclear if that idea at all even came from him, To bring Tywin in a trap, given he never mentioned it period, until it was hindsight, so if it came from Umber, Or Karstark, or even Bolton, we have no clue.

5. Her releasing their most valuable bit of leverage not only cost them the Karstarks it also cost them the only thing that gave Tywin pause at all, It severely weakened their position, forget her betrayal for a moment and the message it sent. Stannis dealt with matters of justice personally, but Robb cannot claim Justice when he is beheading his own Bannermen for "smearing" his honor, when he did the exact same to Lord Karstark, by forgiving his lady mother for stealing their Vengeance, it doesn't forgive Murder, But Stannis would have actually seen Justice done, Punishing both parties, and not playing favorites like Robb.

6. Really we are going argument the mental cognition required for battle? Given Robb, rode in the van as previously stated, he likely had no part of commanding forces once they were actually on the field, that fell to whomever he had placed in command, so credit their victories to him, but in all likelyhood? They went to Umber, Bolton or Karstark. Not Stark, because Stark fought actually! Yay! Also, Being instructed in how to wield a weapon is not any indicator of intelligence grasping movement, and basic concept is so simple a child can do it.

Need i remind you for child soldiers? who can work a rifle as well as a grown man if given a few weeks of instruction?

Robb will always be an imbecile to me.

And pretty stupid and childish as well, but always an Imbecile, and the sad bit is? He could have won, He could actually pulled it off, despite his ridiculous handicap in mentality, combat tactics, and strategic grasp of command, He could have had a solid chance of winning, but he threw it away.

I think you're confusing inexperience with ineptness. Robb was a fine enough king for a boy barely of age who had the role thrust upon him. Given time to learn how to rule and lead effectively, he probably would be hailed as one of the good ones. But as with anything in ASOIAF, experience means more than natural skill.

[Zaereas]

1.Indeed, but Tywin had no cause to lie because it was the truth, The Stark bannermen numbered less then ten thousand strong, The Riverland forces were stuck fighting in their own lands, so they couldn't be commited, and the Westerland campaign was completely abandoned due to lack of Manpower, Tywin was winning. Robb won a few battles, got Tywin to commit to war, but he lost the war because he didn't think, because he didn't stop to think.

Right, his forces were bogged down in the Riverlands, shrinking day by day, He had lost his route back to the North and any possible reinforcements, his greatest allies were abandoning him and Tywin merely had to wait before it crumbled in on it self, after the Blackwater that became apparent. Because of Robb's and Edmures folly, Tywin was capable of bringing his forces to King's Landing, you over estimate how he can recover apparently considering a good part of his forces came with him to the Twins, and that was only 3,500. Not the thirty thousand being roused in the Westerland, and certainly not the Twenty Tywin brought with him and the Tyrells forty.

His cause died the moment Edmure let Tywin concentrate on his logistical predicment, Had he successfully crossed, he would have put himself into the Wolf's trap when he actually had the strength to do something to the Lannister host, but after blackwater, the abandonment of the Freys and Karstarks? Your dreaming. Even if the Lannister Host, took four losses for every Northmen, They would still win the day.

2. Yeah...Robb didn't do that, he caused influence and change in the mindset of folk sure, just never the way he wanted. He wanted to keep the Freys? He lost them, He wanted to successfully lead a war? He lost, He Wanted to keep the Karstarks? He had the brilliant notion to execute their Lord. I'd imbecility fits to a T. If not by intent then action.

3. His army was shattered, withdrawn, and stuck on the defensive, awaiting destruction, ALL because of his actions. He led them to defeat.

4. Robb gave broad instructions, that Edmure used as basis to attack, Robb didn't give his plan in full to his Uncle, that was his bad, Edmure stated as much when Robb got pissed at him for it. See, that's what i thought as well. But robbs reaction to Edmures actions, clearly indicate he didn't give him leave to act in an operational capacity to the war, merely to hold riverun. So no Robb, was dictating as i said before and it is unclear if that idea at all even came from him, To bring Tywin in a trap, given he never mentioned it period, until it was hindsight, so if it came from Umber, Or Karstark, or even Bolton, we have no clue.

5. Her releasing their most valuable bit of leverage not only cost them the Karstarks it also cost them the only thing that gave Tywin pause at all, It severely weakened their position, forget her betrayal for a moment and the message it sent. Stannis dealt with matters of justice personally, but Robb cannot claim Justice when he is beheading his own Bannermen for "smearing" his honor, when he did the exact same to Lord Karstark, by forgiving his lady mother for stealing their Vengeance, it doesn't forgive Murder, But Stannis would have actually seen Justice done, Punishing both parties, and not playing favorites like Robb.

6. Really we are going argument the mental cognition required for battle? Given Robb, rode in the van as previously stated, he likely had no part of commanding forces once they were actually on the field, that fell to whomever he had placed in command, so credit their victories to him, but in all likelyhood? They went to Umber, Bolton or Karstark. Not Stark, because Stark fought actually! Yay! Also, Being instructed in how to wield a weapon is not any indicator of intelligence grasping movement, and basic concept is so simple a child can do it.

Need i remind you for child soldiers? who can work a rifle as well as a grown man if given a few weeks of instruction?

Robb will always be an imbecile to me.

And pretty stupid and childish as well, but always an Imbecile, and the sad bit is? He could have won, He could actually pulled it off, despite his ridiculous handicap in mentality, combat tactics, and strategic grasp of command, He could have had a solid chance of winning, but he threw it away.

I think you're confusing inexperience with ineptness. Robb was a fine enough king for a boy barely of age who had the role thrust upon him. Given time to learn how to rule and lead effectively, he probably would be hailed as one of the good ones. But as with anything in ASOIAF, experience means more than natural skill.

Also, note that Robb was a talented battle commander, and he had never lost a single battle. Politics were lost on him, though

[Ceannairceach]

I think you're confusing inexperience with ineptness. Robb was a fine enough king for a boy barely of age who had the role thrust upon him. Given time to learn how to rule and lead effectively, he probably would be hailed as one of the good ones. But as with anything in ASOIAF, experience means more than natural skill.

Also, note that Robb was a talented battle commander, and he had never lost a single battle. Politics were lost on him, though

Not entirely. He had some natural talent there as well. He obviously knew marrying a Frey would do him wonders for politics in the Riverlands, even if he mucked it up by marrying a Westerling. And he had remarkably good relations with most of the Northern houses and the loyalty of the Riverlords, save the Stark's eternal nemeses, the Boltons, and the angered and traitorous Karstarks. Remember when he was dealing with the Greatjon? The man hated him, and when he showed his strength became a steady ally.

Given time, Robb probably could've learned to balance his honor with the practicality of ruling, seasoned by war and the betrayal of his father by his alleged allies. Unfortunately, his rise to power was in the middle of conflict, and it didn't end in his favor.

[Mormak]

I think you're confusing inexperience with ineptness. Robb was a fine enough king for a boy barely of age who had the role thrust upon him. Given time to learn how to rule and lead effectively, he probably would be hailed as one of the good ones. But as with anything in ASOIAF, experience means more than natural skill.

Also, note that Robb was a talented battle commander, and he had never lost a single battle. Politics were lost on him, though

He also had access to talented and skilled Bannermen who actually ran the battles, while he was busying fighting in them like a common soldier and not a General.

[The Treorai]

Also, note that Robb was a talented battle commander, and he had never lost a single battle. Politics were lost on him, though

He also had access to talented and skilled Bannermen who actually ran the battles, while he was busying fighting in them like a common soldier and not a General.

Did you miss the part where he not only planned the Battle of Whispering Wood, but carried out his plans perfectly?

I guess you are just so determined to paint the characters how you lazily read them that you are willing to forget important things like that.