Why didn't Robb Stark just capture the Twins from the Freys? Why did he agree to attend the Red Wedding?
Even with 5,000 men it doesn't seem like a big deal.
>>63227134
Because muh honor. Honestly it would be the backstabby thing to do.
>that fortress
>guarded by 5000 men
>"doesn't seem like a big deal"
go ask /his/ and they'll fill you in on how hard that castle looks to take. I mean you have to force your way through a narrow passing against a tower. it could probably be properly defended with just 300 men against a force 5 times their size.
>>63227134
Why don't they just build shitload of ferries/boats and cross the river from there?
>>63227134
He had no reason to distrust them at the moment.
He thought the Boltons were his (as they had been since kneeling to the Starks generations ago). He needed his uncle to secure the pact so that those 5000 men became his own in the war.
No one expected the Freys to fuck guest rights like that.
>>63227134
Pretty shitty depiction of the twins desu
>>63227200
One word. Siege.
>>63227134
>>63227190
>>63227200
>>63227282
>>63227313
Because George is a hack and a mediocre author at best.
>>63227200
can't they just pummel it with catapults from afar?
why not just starve them out? I doubt they have a farm in there
Cause he killed karstark and lost half his army
Also he didn't wanna marry Frey bitches cause they were ugly af but he didn't even inspect the goods.
Someone post radmure
>>63227282
they have probably a few hundred thousands of pounds worth of equipment, horseflesh, men, armor, baggage, supplies, food, camp followers and other shit to get across a huge river. Think of how many boats that would take, how many random northmen (who have probably never sailed a day in their lives) would have to train in fording a wide river, how much wood and trees for lumber you'll need to chop down, and even more time spent on making sure your shipwrights make a boat that can ford the river safely (if northmen even have shipwrights outside of White Harbor) . It is not that easy.
>>63227355
>>63227367
desu the boltons may have just betrayed them there instead
Why didn't Jon just ride an eagle to Hardhome?
>>63227355
Without ships he couldnt have sieged the twins.
>>63227355
what dude? a siege is exactly what that castle is made to withstand.
>>63227367
that would reqire making catapults, and then getting into a prolonged engagement with a potential ally, cementing them against you. Also you can't exactly starve them out unless you surround them from all sides, which you can't because oyu can't get across the river to block off the other tower. They can resupply as often as they want. They could even get Southern Reinforcements if they sent a bird out.
>Hard to take
>During a war doesn't seems a clever move to add +1 to your enemies, especially someone with lots of lands in a strategic position
>If you simply backstab one of your lords because you feel to the other ones might start thinking they will be the next, especially if they are under you because you act so honorably like your father.
>>63227345
That design makes very little sense. you've got long battlements and multiple turrets that would never have anything to shoot at.
Why can't they just make a temporary log bridge downstream and cross that?
>>63227546
The river's 200m or so across. A bridge strong enough to march an army across could take months to build and be easily sabotaged.
>>63227546
>Temporary log bridge on a river wide at least 100 mt
>An entire army will cross a temporary bridge sustained by nothing on a river with the power of Mississipi
>The entire North Army dies
>From the water Tywin emerges in his golden submarine rubbing his hands
>>63227367
Apart from what >>63227482 said. There is also the simple fact that a siege takes a long time. Especially with a castle like this. That means the enemy, in this case the Lannisters, have time to reorganize in their homelands and put together a counterattack. Further more, to me, it looks like two catapults could easily be installed on top of the towers. They will have a much further range thanks to the height advantage. So the besiegers would have to use trebuchets or something with longer range than a catapult.
>>63227492
Oh but having keeps without any walls makes lots more sense. Stop being such a pathetic apologist, showfag.
>>63227627
it was done though history a couple of times.
At leats Hannibal and the persians ( when invading Greece) did that, and their host were far bigger and had elephants.
>>63227546
>downstream
Not even once, you want to go where there is less water.
Preferably you spend a few months damming up feeding streams/rivers to fuck the fort long term. Maybe ruse some fucker you hate into attacking you in this smelly, muddy field, then kill his army with an unleashed river.
>>63227492
Can't say I agree there. No matter what wall you breach or take first the defenders have another one to fall back to, trouble really becomes obvious when you are facing wall number two, but all your siege equipment is still on the other side of the first wall. The defenders can rain fire on you from at least two different angles at any time once your inside and there are several choke-points. It's a fucking death trap if you ask me. Best bet is to burn it down.
>>63227906
Calm down, Moses.
>>63227873
Carthage also was a maritime coastal nation full of the most talented shipwrights and sailors of their time and one of the most powerful, resourceful factions. Its a very different scale and situation.
>>63228038
Shit isn't just a fairy tale, it's a tactic that has been utilized a quite a number of times throughout history.
>>63227915
You station archers on the bridge to destroy the boats. If that fails, you fall back to the gate.
The gate falls, you fall back to the keep (although you're probably fucked by that point).. Most of that wall and the non-corner turrets on there would not be capable of hitting anything on the river better than the bridge could and they're not capable of hitting things on the bridge.
An assault via the bridge would be suicidal anyway.
>>63227355
Nigger, a siege works because you surround your enemy and make it starve, the twin towers are anti-siege, you can't siege both towers, so they will never starve, they will just fart in your general direction from the top of the tower.
(well you can but why would you siege both towers when the goal of the twin towers is to stop anyone from going to the other side, and if you're already on both sides there is not much of a point)
>>63228397
>Can't siege twin towers
Why don't you ask Al Qaeda about that?
>>63228377
So we are in agreement that a siege is futile and stupid, unless you got more men than you could ever need?
>>63228121
The north had lots of ships because of whiteharbor. They could pull that off.
>>63228463
of course! all robb had to do was hijack a plane
>>63228674
White Harbor is long distant dude, and it's face the sea, those ships supposedly have to circumnavigate the Vale and Dragonstone just to enter into the river where the Towers are. I doubt such maneuver will go unnoticed especially in a land close to Harrenhall where Lannisters rule.
>>63228674
>sea-faring hulls
>innariver
>>63228870
>>63228989
They had the engineers to build a bridge using their naval skills.
>>63228703
crashing the plane is always a good plan
>>63227489
he already beheaded the bannerman who had the largest force in his army
couldn't get much worse than that
