75 replies to this topic

[The Last Direwolf]

So, he harrassed the Westerlands a lot and seized many of the Lannister's bannermens homes, making their army unstable. This may have been enough for the Lannisters to give the Starks freedom to appease the Northmen whilst they dealt with Stannis and Renly.

But when Tywin allied with the Tyrells it was pretty obvious that this would not be enough to force the crown to grant the North independence and make a peace. He must have planned something drastic to force them to free his people before heading back North to deal with the ironborn. So what was it? Take Casterly Rock? Take King's Landing? Both would be very difficult to achieve with the full force of the Tyrells and the Lannisters returning from defeating Stannis.

Simply retreating to the Neck and defending against any attacks that might come from the Iron Throne might have been the best idea, but without a mighty navy Joffrey would have inevitably landed troops in the North. This would have started a great deal of fighting, and possibly could have prompted the Boltons into betraying them for a certain Lord Paramountship. So what exactly did Robb intend to do if he hadn't have been attacked by the ironborn? Was it ever mentioned? If not, what do you think he would have done?

[Mini-mitch]

Judging by the way he was heading - Oxcross, Golden Tooth etc - He was aiming to take/siege/destroy Casterly Rock. I think with both the Rock and Jaime in hand, he could have gone 'Give me my sisters and independence and you can have your Rock and Jaime back.'

If he had captured the Rock, it would have given both sides something of value to the other, and something worthy of trade. I think Tywin and Tyrion would be more than happy to have the Rock, Jaime and Robb out of the picture and the cost of the Sansa and the North - which, I think actually means nothing to them.

[Daena the Defiant]

Robb didn't just secede with the North, he also took the Riverlands as well; I am guessing that he thought the Lannisters weren't going to be able to win a war of attrition to make them return to the fold. The Lannisters only really won once the Tyrells flipped allegiance to their side.

[Ser Hippie]

After the Tyrell-Lannister alliance was made...beyond hoping that Riverrun and the other castles in the Riverlands could hold the Lannister-Tyrell armies off while he retook the North, I'm not sure Robb had a concrete plan in mind for continuing the war. Maybe he thought it would be a bloody business and allow for peace on better terms but I can't imagine the Lannisters/Tyrells would accept Northern sovereignty at that point.

[Dr. Pepper]

Robb had already declared independence from the Crown.  He wasn't expecting it to be granted in the way that lands are granted to loyal subjects.

I think the way Robb would have maintained the North's independence (should he have lived and his plans succeeded, obvi) would have been in much the same way the North maintained independence for thousands of years.  Land and geographical and weather advantage, their own ships that Manderly was building, guerrilla style warfare, hardcore Stark loyalty amongst most northern houses, etc.  These are all reasons why the North has never been conquered.  The Tyrells and Lannisters might have had a larger force of fighting men and ships, but that doesn't matter when the population is spread out over an area larger than the southern half of Westeros, winter is deadly, there's no food to be foraged or harvested and the people know the landscape better than any Tyrell or Lannister could ever hope.

I think the North would have been just fine at maintaining their independence.  The Riverlands...totally different story.  They would have been fucked and I think Robb would have had to give up those lands if he hoped to be successful maintaining northern independence.

[gespenster7th]

Robb couldn't retreat to the Neck because he had included the Riverlands in his new Kingdom, and he had to protect them. The North is easy to defend, but the Riverlands are incredibly easy to invade, so he was taking a proactive defense by going on the offensive. He tried negotiating with the Iron Throne but it was obvious the Crown wasn't going to agree to his terms - the Lannisters made it clear they would accept nothing less than surrender and fealty. But the only way they could force Robb to bend the knee would be to do so militarily, which means Robb's only hope for achieving independence is to defeat the Lannisters militarily. If he could annihilate the Lannister armies, then they couldn't possibly stop him from declaring independence.

I don't think Robb really had an overall game plan. He was just sort of going after whatever objective seemed best at the moment, but he didn't have any kind of endgame plan. Also, by the time the Lannisters entered into alliance with the Tyrells, the Ironborn had already invaded the North and it was obvious Robb was going to have to return north and expel them. The invasion of the Ironborn was really the best thing that happened for the Lannisters, until that point Robb was winning but as soon as Balon invaded, Robb suddenly got caught between two enemies. From that point forward, he had to give up the Riverlands, even if he never fully accepted that before his death. The River Lords could never have held off an invasion by the Lannisters and the Tyrells while Robb was up north fighting the Ironborn.

[David Selig]

Robb and long term planning...good joke.

He was a boy obsessed with vengeance, if he had an ounce of sense he'd have bend the knee after it was clear the war was lost at Blackwater.

[Sarnius1]

This is obvious.

Robb got the letter of the wilding attack on the wall(he obviously wasn't going to do nothing about it).
He planned to hold the North with the strategy he made with his lords.
Then he would march to The Wall(While also reclaiming Winterfell). Go to the Wildings nd promise them freedoms and lands as long as they fought with him in this battle(Like Stannis plans to do).
Then he would march to Kings landing with 60,000+ men and mammoths and giants and siege Kings Landing, take Joffs head off and will live happily ever after

[Adelstein]

Well, obviously Robb had to change his strategy fairly regularly to take account of overall developments. He had no real way of knowing when he first came south that there would be so many opponents in the war and that he'd be fighting for a crown; initially it was just a rescue mission for the Stark hostages.

I suspect that by the time of the Red Wedding his strategy is principally damage limitation. With the Riverlands largely clear, he has to retake the North from the ironmen. From that point I suspect his plan was essentially to harass Lannister troops and generally make enough of a nuisance of himself that eventually they'd just agree to his terms, tacitly if nothing else. Ultimately he probably still planned to come to an arrangement with Stannis.

If his bannermen hadn't declared him KitN, it would have all been an awful lot easier. It's difficult to see how he could have won from that point onwards, really.

[The Last Direwolf]

Sarnius1, on 09 June 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

This is obvious.

Robb got the letter of the wilding attack on the wall(he obviously wasn't going to do nothing about it).
He planned to hold the North with the strategy he made with his lords.
Then he would march to The Wall(While also reclaiming Winterfell). Go to the Wildings nd promise them freedoms and lands as long as they fought with him in this battle(Like Stannis plans to do).
Then he would march to Kings landing with 60,000+ men and mammoths and giants and siege Kings Landing, take Joffs head off and will live happily ever after

But Robb never knew this.

Does anyone think that Edmure should have done the right thing for his people and Robb by declaring for the Iron Throne again, swearing fealty to Joffrey so that Robb could have a more defendable kingdom? I mean, it's not like the Tullys would have been executed for their part in the war, that isn't Tywin's style. The worst that would have happened is that their Lord Paramountship would have been taken away and another house would have been raised up to the position.

[DurararaFTW]

Quote

Does anyone think that Edmure should have done the right thing for his people and Robb by declaring for the Iron Throne again, swearing fealty to Joffrey so that Robb could have a more defendable kingdom? I mean, it's not like the Tullys would have been executed for their part in the war, that isn't Tywin's style. The worst that would have happened is that their Lord Paramountship would have been taken away and another house would have been raised up to the position.

Dunno if that would have been the right thing to do.  Catelyn, Blackfish and her son would still be at war with the Lannisters and Lysa and her son were to do something stupid down the line and whose village would get burned in retalation to anything harmful done to the Lannisters? The Riverlands

[Adelstein]

I don't think it works like that. A lot of Robb's problems were caused by being strong enough (and being seen to be strong enough) to get his lords to follow him. This is basically how he ended up KitN in the first place. To allow your principal subject and half your kingdom to just walk away, even if it's for very good practical reasons, really wouldn't help his cause there.

In any case, though, I don't think the Tullys really considered that an option. The Riverlands were attacked by Lannister troops with no provocation on their part even while Robert was still king. They weren't under attack because they declared for Robb, they declared for Robb because they were under attack.

[Olde_and_Tired]

The Last Direwolf, on 09 June 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

But Robb never knew this.

Does anyone think that Edmure should have done the right thing for his people and Robb by declaring for the Iron Throne again, swearing fealty to Joffrey so that Robb could have a more defendable kingdom? I mean, it's not like the Tullys would have been executed for their part in the war, that isn't Tywin's style. The worst that would have happened is that their Lord Paramountship would have been taken away and another house would have been raised up to the position.

He made that decision once when he attacked Tywin at the fords even though Robb told him to stay put in Riverrun.  I think Robb should have given Edmure that option.  Would he have done it himself?  Probably not.  I mean the first force that is put together to attack the North by Tywin will be composed of all of Edmure's men to prove to the Lannister's they are now loyal.

[Ser Hippie]

Robb told him to hold Riverrun, not "stay put in it".

Edmure wouldn't have sued for peace on his own (he's not the greatest of battle commanders but he's clearly very loyal to Robb), and the Riverlands would have been plundered again.

Either way, David Selig earlier in this thread was pretty much spot on - by that point in ASOS, he's clearly lost the war barring a miracle.

Edited by Ser Hippie, 09 June 2012 - 08:39 PM.

[houseHB]

Robb should have bent the knee to Stannis, retreat to Dragonstone. If only Robb knew what Stannis was up to, Robb could be marching back North with Stannis, to reclaim his kingdom.

[Sarnius1]

The Last Direwolf, on 09 June 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

But Robb never knew this.

Does anyone think that Edmure should have done the right thing for his people and Robb by declaring for the Iron Throne again, swearing fealty to Joffrey so that Robb could have a more defendable kingdom? I mean, it's not like the Tullys would have been executed for their part in the war, that isn't Tywin's style. The worst that would have happened is that their Lord Paramountship would have been taken away and another house would have been raised up to the position.

How d you know Robb never knew about the Wilding attack?

[Sarnius1]

The Last Direwolf, on 09 June 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

But Robb never knew this.

Does anyone think that Edmure should have done the right thing for his people and Robb by declaring for the Iron Throne again, swearing fealty to Joffrey so that Robb could have a more defendable kingdom? I mean, it's not like the Tullys would have been executed for their part in the war, that isn't Tywin's style. The worst that would have happened is that their Lord Paramountship would have been taken away and another house would have been raised up to the position.

How do you know Robb never knew about the Wilding attack?

[Istakhr]

Robb had a somewhat correct idea with Theon and independence for Iron Islands, but he never actually took it to its logical conclusion.
As long as there is an Iron Throne, north can never remain independent for long. Seven Kingdoms should disintegrate for north to regain permanent independence.

[Stanmore]

Dr. Pepper, on 09 June 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

Robb had already declared independence from the Crown.  He wasn't expecting it to be granted in the way that lands are granted to loyal subjects.

I think the way Robb would have maintained the North's independence (should he have lived and his plans succeeded, obvi) would have been in much the same way the North maintained independence for thousands of years.  Land and geographical and weather advantage, their own ships that Manderly was building, guerrilla style warfare, hardcore Stark loyalty amongst most northern houses, etc.  These are all reasons why the North has never been conquered.  The Tyrells and Lannisters might have had a larger force of fighting men and ships, but that doesn't matter when the population is spread out over an area larger than the southern half of Westeros, winter is deadly, there's no food to be foraged or harvested and the people know the landscape better than any Tyrell or Lannister could ever hope.

I think the North would have been just fine at maintaining their independence.  The Riverlands...totally different story.  They would have been fucked and I think Robb would have had to give up those lands if he hoped to be successful maintaining northern independence.

While it's True to say The North has never been conqured, Torrhen Stark gave up his sovereignty for a reason. If he hadn't bent the Knee, Aegon would have invaded, and there's a good chance the  starks would  have been wiped out like house gardener and House Hoare before them.

The North does have substantial defences in Moat Cailin and the Neck, but even if  Robb were to withdraw from the Riverlands and fall back North, he'd still be vulnerable to attack from the sea as the Ironborn were only too happy to prove. Even if Manderly finally managed to get his fleet together, he'd have a hard time covering 1000s of miles of coastline. The North may have stood unconquered for millennia, but that was as 1 kingdom among seven. With a strong monarch sat on the Iron throne, I doubt the Northmen would have been able to repel all of the combined armies of Westeros for long.

Luckily for Northern independence , the civil war continues, and the Kingdom is probably more fractured than ever. There's a good chance a Unified Westeros might be a thing of the past and the Dream of a King in the North might live on.

Well I say luckily. With the Others marching south, the North could be in for some serious trouble. Better hope the wall holds.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Istakhr, on 09 June 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Robb had a somewhat correct idea with Theon and independence for Iron Islands, but he never actually took it to its logical conclusion.
As long as there is an Iron Throne, north can never remain independent for long. Seven Kingdoms should disintegrate for north to regain permanent independence.

Well, he tried to get Lysa's support too, so if they did (and without LF interference, she would), then you'd have 4 of the 8 Kingdoms, including the 3 that did won the throne for Robert (since he got most of his army smashed at Ashford) fighting for independence. Even in a Lannister/Tyrell alliance happened in this scenario, victory wouldn't be such a far-fetched objective. Of course, there's a lot of ifs there.

Stanmore, on 09 June 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

While it's True to say The North has never been conqured, Torrhen Stark gave up his sovereignty for a reason. If he hadn't bent the Knee, Aegon would have invaded, and there's a good chance the  starks would  have been wiped out like house gardener and House Hoare before them.

The North does have substantial defences in Moat Cailin and the Neck, but even if  Robb were to withdraw from the Riverlands and fall back North, he'd still be vulnerable to attack from the sea as the Ironborn were only too happy to prove. Even if Manderly finally managed to get his fleet together, he'd have a hard time covering 1000s of miles of coastline. The North may have stood unconquered for millennia, but that was as 1 kingdom among seven. With a strong monarch sat on the Iron throne, I doubt the Northmen would have been able to repel all of the combined armies of Westeros for long.

Well, Dorne did successfully resisted Aegon's conquest, even though they had been successfully invaded before by Andals and the Rhyonar.  The North is bigger, more populous, and has equally harsh conditions to foreigners, not to mention even more loyalty for House Stark.