This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Clash of Kings III / The attempted assassination of Bran V

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages
Ants
User ID: 2240694 		Jun 8th 9:34 AM
There seems to be a general view in the last section on this topic that Robert arranged to have Bran killed. However there seems to be some major problems with this idea which should be mentioned.
The first is opportunity. When did Robert meet the assassin and do the transaction? This is the King we are talking about, who seems totally useless at intrigue, who has Lanister squires to watch him, has the Kingsguard (and don't pretend Robert would be willing to have them or anyone else see his shameful transaction) and is the center of attention wherever he goes in the camp. In fact, how would he even find someone he could trust to do it and not reveal it?
Secondly, in the talk with Stannis and his hawk, Robert merely calls it the weakwing. He doesn't try to kill it, he seems to simply mock Stannis. And mocking someone as stern faced as Stannis is definetly in Robert's character. I can't see any ulterior motives here.
Thirdly, it seems an awful risk to try and kill Bran for mercy. If Eddard had discovered it was Robert it would mean war. Would Robert risk his greatest friendship and peace to kill a boy he has been crying over? After travelling all the way north just to collect Eddard so he doesn't have to bother running the kingdom? I think not.

So I don't think Robert is the killer. Insufficient motive, too much risk and a great deal of difficulty and effort (which he loathes) to arrange it in the first place.

I also think Jaime/Cersei can be ruled out. Why would Littlefinger name Tyrion when he could name another Lannister, and be telling the truth? You might argue that he names Tyrion because naming Cersei or Jaime will turn their veangenace on him. However fingering Tyrion would not be forgotten. True, Cersei wouldn't take it to heart but Jaime would, and Lord Tywin would be pissed off at the infringement on his houses' honour. This argument also works against Joffrey being the killer.

However Littlefinger makes a good suspect. By killing Bran he gets some revenge on Catelyn. Also arranging for the assassin to leave the dagger in Bran's body would let him point the finger, starting a war which improves his position considerably. (He ended up with Harenhall and control over Riverrun). As to how he got the dagger, its possible that Robert gave it to Lysa Arryn or her son after her husbands death. She could then give it to Peytr. She could also give him the message for her sister. Then the man who delivered the message could also be the assassin, who might always be planning on killing a Stark. The combination of secret letter from Lysa, plus the killing would be seen as a good chance of starting a war between Stark and Lannister. And littlefinger would gain from it.

NB. The reason I believe Lysa would help Littlefinger is I think her son is his son, and thats also why she doesn't get married.

Lodengarl
User ID: 1822634 		Jun 8th 9:43 AM
Interesting theories, and well thought-out ones. There is 0% chance Robert is the culprit behind Bran's assassination...it is utterly ridiculous to think so. Littlefinger is a good choice and good analysis - interesting about him bedding Lysa and having the boy..if not Catelyn he might as well get on the other Tully.
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Jun 8th 10:32 AM
Ants, while I'm a big proponent of the Robert theory, I think its a stretch to call that a "general" belief. IIRC, only labor and, to a lesser extent, Markus, support that theory.

Not to completely abuse the corpse of a long-dead horse, but Robert's opportunity isn't the problem. He was in Winterfell the entire time and surely had men personally loyal to him. He found plenty of time to be alone with Ned and surely could have ordered one of his lackeys to report to him in private. Risky? Sure it is. But the risk is just as big for whomever else is the culprit. I do think its greater for Littlefinger, though.

I don't think Littlefinger's statement is enough to exonerate Cersei and Jaime. How would Littlefinger have known that Cersei or Jaime did it rather than Tyrion? He accused Tyrion because Tyrion is the Imp, the least popular Lannister and viewed by some as a "monster". An accusation against Tyrion was more likely to be believed.

I've always conceded that Littlefinger is a good suspect. But, as has been pointed out before, his motive cannot have been to start a Lannister/Stark conflict because that was inevitable anyway. It was the incest that was the trigger -- no murder of a Stark child was necessary. And Tyrion's capture by Catelyn was a bizarre twist of fate that could not have been predicted. For all Littlefinger knew, Tyrion was simply going to return with his family to KL.

For me, there are two issues pointing me away from Littlefinger. The first is that he was not at Winterfell. I'm skeptical of anybody willing to plan an assassination from a thousand miles away and leave it in the hands of a lackey, particularly when the risks are so huge.

The second is that I just don't see much gain for Littlefinger. As it was, Littlefinger triggered the war by pointing Ned in the direction of clues suggesting incest.

And for anyone to predict that Littlefinger would end up with Harrenhal is impossible. The Lannisters would have lost the war handily if the Renly/Stannis conflict had ended differently. The only reason it came out the way it did was Melisandre, and that was complete wildcard. Renly should have won, and the force he led was more than enough to wipe out the Lannisters. I hardly think a victorious Renly would have given Harrenhal to Littlefinger.

Frankly, Lodengarl, I think its utterly ridiculous to say there is a 0% chance that Robert is behind it. I see three suspects who are "reasonable" -- Robert, Littlefinger, and Cersei. Some more likely that others. Maybe Littlefinger 80%, and Robert and Cersei each at 10%. But 0%?
Ran
User ID: 0867924 		Jun 8th 11:10 AM
I don't think anyone could have predicted Harrenhal coming into Littlefinger's hands. I don't think Littlefinger predicted Harrenhal coming into his hands.

On the other hand, I think there's enough hints there to suggest that Renly and Littlefinger were at least in partial cahoots. I don't suspect that Littlefinger's head would be gracing any spikes -- Renly would need coin as badly as Robert, if not more so, and Littlefinger and he clearly seemed to have a reasonably amiable relationship.

The only way for Littlefinger to go is up. As I said, Littlefinger wasn't just sparking Stark-Lannister tensions if GUCT is right -- he's moving himself into a strong position to be able to manipulate events to suit his ambition. Yes, I know folk argue that it's too risky, that he had other options, but I certainly haven't seen anything satisfying that would suggest that Littlefinger could have won Ned's trust in any other way.

But I agree as to the assessment, re: Robert. I certainly don't think he's a 0%, and the arguments for him have been reasonable. I don't buy it, but it's certainly well within the realm of possibility. Same with Cersei.
Lodengarl
User ID: 1822634 		Jun 8th 11:49 AM
I am just being argumentative, that is all, but what the hell prompts you to believe for 1 second that Robert was behind the attempted assassination on Bran???

The person behind it would want him dead for only 2 possible reasons, what he saw between Jaime and Cersei or possibly his future ability as a shapeshifter (or whatever), which wouldn't really make sense either because those abilities are developed or rather peak after the assassination attempt.

Why would Robert want Bran dead?? Why would Robert, the King of the 7 Kingdoms, send some half-wit assassain to stab a boy who was "over the worst of it" or "if he was to die, he would die already"(not exact quotes), to kill the Son of his best friend, burn down the Winterfell library, and obviously kill Catelyn as well (Robert would have had to instruct the assassain to kill Bran at all costs, no matter who else might be there, otherwise, the assassain, with instruction to kill Bran from Robert, would have seen Catelyn there in the room and would have not tried to kill them - he would have said, "there is no way Robert wants Catelyn dead as well."

The only reasoning you have is that Robert had the dagger, or it was his from winning (I don't remember excactly)which is all hersay from Tyrion and Littlefinger.

Wouldn't Martin want to pin the murder on someone else as well so he can resolve it lively? Saying Robert tried to do it would mean we had to believe someone instead of a dead man - there is no resolution.

Someone refresh for me the Robert wants to kill Bran besides he has contact with the dagger....and don't say mercy killing, because that is ridiculous (I am going to burn down the castle library of my Hand, murder his child who I know is over his chance of dying, and if his own mother gets in the way, well murder her as well to mercy kill the boy, oh and here are 80 silver for your half-wit attempt) Remember...Robert spends, spends, spends - so why not get someone who could kill him much easier and more efficiently and not get caught?? Why not poison Bran??? We need to look somewhere else.....

Let's think smartly...how does a grubby nobody get a hold of a royal dagger to try to kill a crippled, half-dead boy?

If Bran was found assassinated in his bed, with a knife - wouldn't Ned have to return to Winterfell to seek justice for his son?? So it is possible that someone tried to kill Bran to keep attention and Ned in the north possibly? It was a Lannister royal dagger correct...but...when the assassination was to take place, the boy was to die, the dagger never known anyways...

Hmmmmm....who could it be? Theon? this is very interesting.

Werther
User ID: 1731514 		Jun 8th 12:06 PM
Lodengarl, I always thought the Robert did it theory was ridiculous to. Theon? Are you trying to start another one? My first feelings were it was Cersei. The case against Littlefinger will do nothing but grow though.
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Jun 8th 12:36 PM
Lodengarl, you add things that aren't necessary to Robert's guilt. No instruction to kill Catelyn -- the assassin was shocked to see her in the room and clearly thought the fire would draw attention away from Bran. Burn down one wooden structure, no big deal.

Robert would have done it sooner rather than later because he was close to Winterfell. Otherwise, he would have to wait until the long journey to KL, hire an assassin, etc. It's just the kind of half-baked attempt Robert would commit. And use a noble knife because he rationalizes that Bran's life should only be taken by a noble blade.

As for the motive, I'll just go back to what the killer said "it would be a mercy". That doesn't mean that mercy killing was the true motive, but it does mean that mercy killing shouldn't be considered a ridiculous motive.

As for Bran being over the "worst of it", that simply meant that Bran was out of immediate danger from dying from wounds. It doesn't mean that he might not linger on and die from lack of nutrition, sickness, be crippled, whatever. No-one, including Luwin, ever uttered anything to the effect that Bran was ever expected make a full recovery. IIRC, there may even have been expressions to the contrary.

Finally, if the "reasonable" expectation was that Ned would return to Winterfell, then that cuts directly against Littlefinger being the culprit because it negates his motive. Littlefinger _wanted_ Ned to come to KL.

In any case, I think that Ned and Catelyn's reactions to the assassination attempt could not have been predicted with a great deal of confidence. And I also think the use of a recognizable dagger with a known history -- at least to some -- argues against the GUCT. Since the GUCT requires Littlefinger to lie about the origins of the dagger, why use a dagger that actually can be traced? Far better to use a recognizable dagger with an unknown history because there is less chance for the lie to be discovered.

All these points have been made before. Each of the theories has some weaknesses and some strengths. We can poke holes in all of them because none are perfect.
Lodengarl
User ID: 1822634 		Jun 8th 1:26 PM
This makes no sense..."Lodengarl, you add things that aren't necessary to Robert's guilt. No instruction to kill Catelyn -- the assassin was shocked to see her in the room and clearly thought the fire would draw attention away from Bran. Burn down one wooden structure, no big deal." I don't see Robert saying "Kill Bran at all costs, no matter who gets in the way." In fact, Robert would say, "Make a diversion and make sure he is alone and kill him - do not harm anyone else." The very fact that the assassain tries to kill Catelyn tells me that it is in fact, not Robert...the assassain's employer must have said, "kill Bran at all costs, no matter who is there or not." Robert would not say that...in fact, this is ridiculous speculation...Like Robert does not have enough to worry about in the world, he is going to "decide" to murder his best friend's son because so deep down he feels the boy needs a merciful killing...that is stupid..plain stupid...hmmm, burn the library, and maybe all of Wintefell if it is not under control, then murder the boy and hell, if anyone else is there, just stab them to death too - yeah that's the ticket.

It does not matter if the dagger was recognized or not because the assassination was supposed to succeed, therefore all the people see is a cut, not what dagger made it...so being killed and then Catelyn having the dagger, that is good evidence, or planted evidence as we are speculating.

Cersei is the obvious culprit..she takes the dagger from robert when he is drunk, she knows Bran saw them, she knows he is at least going to live, so she hires someone to kill him.





At the same time - if Roberet told an assassain to kill Bran, he would have given explicit instructions that no one else was to be harmed...do you think for 1 second that an assassain would try to kill Catelyn, regardless if she wasn't supposed to be there or not...the assassain would have known that Robert would never want that...
labor
User ID: 0798784 		Jun 8th 1:52 PM
Lodenagl, assassin was not a drone. It was too late for him when he entered the room and Catelyn was there and saw him. From that moment on his life was in acute danger and unsuprisingly he panicked and decided to save himself even if it meant killing Cat.

If it is Cersei you suspect, please explain why she would arm the assassin with a very conspicious dagger stolen from Robert, when an unremarkable kitchen knife would have worked just as well? Tyrion thought somewhere that it is too stupid and clumsy for his siblings.
Besides, I suspect that she could have found a more proficient assassin. She had full two weeks after Bran's fall to plot, after all. Anyway, Robert's murder was certainly done quite cleverly, very unlike the clumsy attempt on Bran's life.

OTOH, Robert, wasn't a thinker and lacked even Cersei's "low cunning"...
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Jun 8th 2:22 PM
Lodengarl, if the dagger wasn't meant to be discovered, as you claim, then that knocks out Littlefinger. Why the would he bother to go to the trouble of stealing that dagger and giving it to the assassin before the assassin goes to Winterfell if the dagger is not meant to be discovered?

That leaves Cersei, who I agree is a good suspect, but labor properly pokes a pretty good hole in that theory because it doesn't explain why Cersei would bother stealing that specific, recognizable dagger. Plus, all of the hints we get near the end of ACOK, from both Jaime and Tyrion, point away from Cersei. Tyrion realizes the attempt was very amateurish -- not like his sister. Jaime then denies it was Cersei, and says it was Robert's dagger, and that Littlefinger lied about its origins. This points either to Littlefinger or Robert. So I don't see how its "obvious" that Cersei was behind the plot.

Just as a disclaimer, I first thought it was Littlefinger, changed to Cersei, changed back to Littlefinger, and then finally settled on Robert. And that only recently. The thing that finally pushed me away from Littlefinger was that the use of that particular dagger didn't make sense to me. But, I think a case can be made for all of them.

What is kind of funny about all of our analysis is that we may be seeing valid arguments that GRRM himself might not have thought of. The Man himself has said the he wonders if sometimes we come up with better theories than he does. So, valid arguments that we raise against a certain character's guilt might be ones to which he would respond "gee, I hadn't thought of that".
Blackstone
User ID: 9858163 		Jun 8th 4:13 PM
I am also a proponent of the Robert theory (although I have a deep abiding respect for GUCT).

The Knife is IMHO the whole in this part of the GUCT.

It just doesn't make sense for Littlefinger to place himself in harms way -- which is exactly what the dragonbone knife does.

The knife is too unique, too out of place. Even someone with Cat's limited capacities was able to trace the knife to Kings Landing, then to Ser Aron and then to Littlefinger. When confronted, Littlefinger had to further risk himself by putting the blame on Tyrion. (Note: This is really gonna come back to bite him).

Would it not have been far far better to equip your flunkie with a regular knife? Then Littlefinger could stand back from the search, carefully interjecting himself only when he chose.
Ran
User ID: 0867924 		Jun 8th 4:48 PM
Of course, one must wonder why Catelyn would go to King's Landing to try to get an entirely normal, regular knife . . .

There's the roach in your pudding, as Littlefinger would say. ;)

As has been argued before, the point of using that knife is so that Littlefinger can say, 'Oh, that was mine, _until_ . . .'

Risky, no? Well, it's remarkable how much trust he won because he admitted it was his -- and Ser Aron Santagar confirmed it. So why would Littlefinger admit it's his and then say it ended up in Tyrion's hands unless . . . it's absolutely true?

Never crossed Ned's or Cat's mind otherwise, and I don't think it would have crossed mine either, if I were so naively unpolitical as they were, and so convinced of Littlefinger's friendship as Cat was.

A plain old knife doesn't cut it. A knife with a forgemark from Casterly Rock or Lannisport is way, way too obvious, and even Catelyn would smell setup. But an otherwise plain dragonbone-hilted, Valyrian-steel knife requires that someone come down to KL. Catelyn is preferabble but not strictly necessary.

Hrm . . . I know things are gonna go back into the round again. ;) In any case, I acknowledge the arguments that say that Littlefinger could have won Ned's trust any number of ways, and that using that knife meant a certain (potentially high) risk for Littlefinger.

On the other hand, given who he named -- Tyrion, who was far away and would have been never the wiser if Cat hadn't accidentally bumped into him -- and given how he manipulated events to protect himself and improve his take, I think our unctuous gambler of a sneak played his cards right.
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Jun 9th 8:55 AM
Ran, the knife could have been _any_ unusual, distinctive knife. I agree that is necessary to the GUCT. But it did not have to be a knife that was recognized by so many people. Jaime knew it just from the description, and knew its history. That's means Littlefinger's lie could be exposed by anyone who knew that history. Why Littlefinger would specifically select a knife whose known history contradicts his lie makes no sense to me. With his overseas trading contacts, he could have found some other distinctive knife that would have served the same purpose without having the liability of a known history.

I think the state of Bran's health after his fall should be cleared up. In Tyrion's first chapter, he relates to his family what has been said about Bran's health by Luwin:

"He [Luwin] thinks that if the boy were going to die, he would have done it already. It has been four days with no change"

"Will Bran get better, Uncle?" little Myrcella asked.

"His back is broken, little one." Tyrion told [Myrcella] The fall shattered his legs as well. They keep him alive with honey and water, or he would starve to death. Perhaps, if he wakes, he will be able to eat real food, but he will never walk again."

Jaime later says "even if the boy does live, he will be a cripple. Worse than a cripple. A grotesque. Give me a good clean death."

Okay, now I know that's Jaime speaking, not Robert. But Jaime's view may well be the more prevalant one in a warrior culture. No wheelchairs back then. Nothing. Can't even go to the bathroom by himself for the rest of his life. Maybe never eat solid food. No wife, no children. Now, Robert is the paragon of a guy who leads a very active, physical life. I don't think its a huge stretch to say that a mercy killing is a plausible motive given the warrior culture in which they all live. Only a possibility, to be sure, but plausible.
Lodengarl
User ID: 1822634 		Jun 9th 9:31 AM
Yes, but you are replacing one set of values with another...it is one thing to say Robert might think a mercy killing is best for Bran, it is quite another to have the King of the Seven Kingdoms hiring a crappy assassain to slay the boy of his best friend behind his back. The logic is like this...

I really believe that people should not speed...hey my best friend's son speeds, i am going to hire a guy to run him off the road to stop him from speeding.

Robert may believe a mercy killing is best for people. Robert probably also believes you do not hire an assassain to kill your best friend's son, no matter what the circumstances...
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Jun 9th 9:36 AM
This has been argued a bunch before so I won't repeat it again. I understand your and Ran's point, Lodengarl. I just disagree, if only because Robert is enough of an impulsive blockhead to act on a dumb idea like that. I made the last post simply because I wanted to add the specific language from the text so that Bran's true condition was understood.
Lodengarl
User ID: 1822634 		Jun 9th 9:50 AM
Ok, here is what we know...a special, recognizeable dagger was used to try to slay Bran...Now, if the assassination was successful, no one would see the dagger, thus, the assassination was supposed to fail. Someone wanted Catelyn dead...someone who sent the assassain must have known that she would be and stay with Bran...but then that re-begs the question, if Catelyn was to die, again, why does it matter that a recognizeable dagger was chosen to be used. GRRRR this is a nightmare!
Lodengarl
User ID: 1822634 		Jun 9th 9:54 AM
Jeff - Robert may be a blockhead, but think about it...murder his best friend's son by hiring a crappy assassain who could have possibly injured someone else in the name of mercy?? bah! If Robert did have this undying urge to murder a cripple (like he had nothing else in his life to worry or think about at the time) wouldn't he at least talk with Ned first..."Hey, Ned, your son is broken, he is useless, I know you love him, but it is in his best interest to die a quick, painless death."

That would be like your best friend had someone come in and maim his computer and it doesn't look too good, it might still work, but maybe not well, so you go and pay another friend to sneak in and destroy the computer without your friend knowing...the logic is not there at all..

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Jun 9th 10:15 AM
I understand your point. But I think if Robert did think a mercy killing was a good idea, the last thing he'd do is discuss it with Ned. Of _course_ the father isn't going to endorse it. When Jaime made the comment about Bran's death being a mercy, Tyrion said that he'd better not repeat it around Ned Stark. That's just common sense.

But whether the family believes death is beter than being crippled for life is different from what an outsider might believe. You're really arguing against the whole idea of a mercy killing. I think Robert might believe that Bran, Ned, and Ned's family all would be better off if Bran just died rather than remaining a cripple for life. And I think he's the type of guy who might act impulsively on that belief. You disagree, so I really don't think there's much more we can say. It's just an honest difference in opinion.

Lodengarl
User ID: 1822634 		Jun 9th 10:18 AM
I think we can agree to disagree, I do understand your point. What my final point is...that may be the belief system of the stag and the lion, but believing one thing and acting on those beliefs against another, especially your best friend, is quite different. I might start going along with your idea if we start talking about how Cersei put him up to it, telling him that it was a shame that the boy should go on, etc. filling his head with purpose, and that he did a bad job of hiring someone to take care of it.
Ran
User ID: 0867924 		Jun 9th 11:11 AM
Jeff,

It's plausible, I agree, that Robert could consider mercy killing. On the other hand, I disagree that Robert would not at least mention the possibility to Ned first.

We'll see. _A Storm of Swords_ promises to reveal the truth. I'm counting the days, at least. :)
Next 20 Messages Newest Messages